Originality

[John_Boyer]

Earlier we discussed how some critics deny that the unsungs write memorable material, even though:

1. the material is often very memorable indeed, and, even when not, we must remember that
2. many established works by name-brand composers have quite unmemorable material, too.

Now, the next thing critics like to deny unsungs is originality.  I recall one critic dismissing the Reinecke 1st Piano Concerto because it contained so many cliched elements from the Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and other romantic concertos.  Of course, that the Reinecke was written before these works did not seem to faze our critic.  From her point of view, Reinecke was guilty of copying in advance. 

More recently, I was reading a review of Leslie Howard's recording of the Rubinstein Piano Quartet in C.  Those of you who have heard it will recall the second subject of the finale, which Howard rightly calls "startlingly Brahmsian".  I remember almost falling out of my chair when I heard it, that's how much it sounded like Brahms had sneaked into the proceedings.  Yet  the critic reviewing the CD called that very theme "a patented Schumann hymn-tune".   His point, in other words, was to deny Rubinstein any originality and instead suggest he was copying Schumann, though it sounds nothing like Schumann. 

I've seen similar things said of Raff.   Recall how the slow movement of his 10th Symphony anticipates Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony by a decade, yet critics don't hear that.  Instead, they accuse him of copying Mendelssohn and Schumann, which the 10th Symphony certainly does not resemble. 

Is this some kind of collective, automated response, designed to reinforce what they were taught in school?

[matesic]

No, these are honestly held opinions with which we all have the right to disagree.

[Alan Howe]

Honestly held, but too often in ignorance, I'm afraid.

[matesic]

I find it possible to sympathize with both sides of this issue. Music critics and commentators are (usually) individuals with highly trained musical faculties. In some cases this may be seen as amounting to indoctrination, but most of them have a far greater knowledge of their field in depth than those of us whose interests are wider and (inevitably) shallower. John doesn't quote any of his examples verbatim so I'm unable to comment on the justice of his accusations. However, I don't see any harm in pointing resemblances of a particular work with other pieces both preceding and following. Concerning Raff (pace Mark!) it would be most surprising if his works didn't recall Mendelssohn and Schumann in many respects, some of which our ears may not be so acutely attuned to.

[FBerwald]

Has anyone noted the startling similarity between the 2nd movement of Kabalevsky's Piano Concerto No. 3 [main theme] and the (pococ piu mosso) middle section of Dvorak's famous Humerosque in G-flat?

[Martin Eastick]

Going back to John's original post, and in particular, to the mention of the criticism of Reinecke's Op72 (a review that I have not come across, incidentally); this appears to be a definitive statement of fact that, if true, is downright false. It is not therefore merely a question of opinion, but use of incorrect information being used to bolster one's (apparently) biased thinking. Is is precisely this kind of prejudice which needs to be forcefully refuted at every opportunity, wherever and whenever encountered!

However, if a criticism against any unsung composer is raised legitimately, based purely on the OPINION of the reviewer etc., I can accept that, but may strongly disagree!!!

[matesic]

Martin - I think I understand your oxymoron ( but we need to know exactly what the critic said and its context.

[eschiss1]

I recall parts of Schubert's earlier symphonies being referred to as Rossinian- which on consideration is hard to deny. I won't say it's a "so what"- it leads me to maybe want to read a Schubert biography for the first time in years - but
(1) Rubinstein never denied writing music that was "derivative"
(2) originality is important but overrated
(and some of our favorite "original" Classical and Romantic music seems so because of historical ignorance; the composers knew who and what they were influenced by and borrowing from, even if we don't.)

[matesic]

John - that's such an enthusiastic review it makes me want to buy the CD! I've no idea what he means by "like one of Schumann's patented chorale-like melodies" (the "Cologne cathedral" movement of the Rhenish symphony perhaps? Anyone think of another example?) but it hardly seems like cause for litigation.

[Double-A]

Moreover one finds formulations like "entirely original" or "wholly Rubinstein's own" which appear to assign at least a degree of originality.

Odd though the formulation about Schumann's "patented chorale like melodies":  As if there were oodles of them in Schumann's work.

[adriano]

Musicologists and critics, but also music-lovers, feel only happy when they can find - in unheard or forgotten pieces - similarities with the known Big Ones they have listened over and over again, studied them or personally like - it's those who have found a fixed place in their ears, brains or hearts. To critics and musicologists of course it's easier to write about the Big Ones basing on prevouisly written (and jugded) literature. When they have to write about unsung composers, they start comparing. When they cannot do this, they are often irritated, and tend to judge the unknow ones as "minor". That's because human nature tends to place everything into "files", which are narrow, sometimes ridiculous, and mostly unfair. It's good to always hear and to enjoy things we appreciate, especially if we have decided upon what we personally like (and unfairly decided that only those are "good" or "great"), but this narrows our horizons. Human nature must always judge and classifies everything, in order to find its inner pace; it's a sort of self-confirmation. Appreciating "influences" without increasing or diminushing a composer's value would be more fair (like the classic examples of Beethoven coming from Haydn, Schubert from Italian music or Wagner from Meyerbeer). Using the term of "originality" is subjective, dangerous and severe. Let's speak about the Romantics and not about composers from times in which "imitation" or "schools" were trends: many Romantic composers have been inspired by others (earlier or contemporaries, some of them were their teachers), but used these "influences" to create new and "original" pieces, which are still great. Look at Brahms's Baroque hommages (and this not only in his Haydn-Variations!). I think we should discuss some of these interesting cases, and not use the measure of "originality" to make this or that composer good, less good or bad. An example would be Mendelssohn-Raff-Templeton Strong - but, finally, to whom does it help? Enjoying music without prejudices and scepticism could make one much happier. Spend more time to play and to listen than to discuss! Just imagine my own panic that my life will end soon and that will I lose the occasions to re-listen or to discover all beautiful, interesting and inspiring music which has been written! Often I stand desperatly lost in front of my huge CD collection shelwes, knowing exactly that this or that piece will be taken away from my heart. On my iPod I have stroed hundreds of music pieces, hoping that at least this small wonderful device could be taken over to my desert island!
Incidentally, I know many obsessively negative-thinking musicologists and critics with bitter-looking faces visiting concerts - some of them consulting pocket scores of the works they are going hear and taking notes while listening! I bet they are frustrated or unhappy beings - with strange obsessions and a constipation problem.

[rosflute]

I think you have chosen an interesting subject for debate. I entered the world of forgotten composer research and editing/publishing nearly 20 years ago. Back in those days, I was endlessly enthusiastic for every fresh discovery. However, as the years have rolled by, I have become ever more selective - I see a lot of work, and now only chooset to publish those pieces that have something special to offer.
I do not, as Hadrianus suggests, measure the works against those of 'great composers', but by their ability to sustain my interest as a listener, player and musicologist. As well as subjective issues, the objective five elements of music all play a part in this:
e.g.
structure: a song that has the same music for every stanza, cannot be said to be a great work [compare Johanna Kinkel's songs with Gretchen am Spinnrade by Schubert].
Melody & Harmony: A symphony that sounds like Beethoven but written in 1880, however good to hear, can only ever arouse slight interest and be regarded as pastiche, given the exciting innovations at that time by Wagner and Brahms. [compare Emilie Mayer symphonic works]
Colour: Some forgotten works suffer by being written unsuitably for the instrument - if it doesn't work for the player or draw out the best features of timbre, it is unlikely to get performed a great deal.
However, the music of Halfdan Kjerulf which first brought me into this field, continues to delight me every time I look at the scores, the originality and skill is first class. I look forward to completing a project later this year for the bicentenary.

[matesic]

Ros - I only count 4 objective elements there - is number 5 rhythm?

What makes a good composer is of course their skill in manipulating those elements to create an interesting, enthralling, exciting and/or beautiful work of art. To coin a phrase, their power of invention within convention. I do believe that when it comes to distinguishing the great composers from the good, posterity has got it just about right. Having examined and played a great many neglected string quartets over the last few years, I'm disappointed to have to say I found none that in my view deserve regular inclusion amongst the blessed canon of 100 or so.

And after Hadrianus's eloquent diatribe I feel it necessary to make another argument in defence of musicologists and critics, most of whom he seems to paint with the same black brush. Of course, all such generalizations are wrong, including this one. While we stand "desperately lost" in the face of the vast choice of music immediately at our fingertips, we need all the help we can get in choosing what to listen to in the limited time left to us! We may not necessarily agree with their advice, but the world needs experts more than ever before.

[adriano]

Thanks, matesic, for your posting and absolutely valuable counter-arguments - as rosflute's ones :-)
What else than such pessimism (or a tendency towards self-destruction?) can you expect from a grumpy old man as I am now? I fighted so many years for a more spontaneous approach towards music - and that made me a lonely outsider who, among other, was never allowed to perform in concerts as a conductor. Many of my postings is here have a rather bitter, too personal and limited value. But I think this forum also accepts some crazy guys like me :-) You can believe me, my experiences in the classical music business were more negative than positive. To make the recordings I had been "allowed to" costed me a large part of my health and money. But I still love music, of course :-)

[regriba]

It seems to me that part of the question is the status accorded to originality when it comes to evaulating a musical work. Many seem to think that lack of originality equals lack of quality/interest. When reading Michael Haas' otherwise very interesting and perceptive book "Forbidden Music", I noticed the statement that, because many 19th-century Jewish composers were eager to integrate into the Western mainstream, both personally and musically, their music was ultimately not very rewarding. In other words, music that challenges the established norms is supposed to be more rewarding/interesting than music that stays within them, regardless of other criteria. This seems to me the kind of generalizing attitude that lies behind many of the statements commented on here (I hasten to say that Haas' book isn't full of them but is generally very fair).

I think it is very difficult to establish objective norms regarding this. I think that, to be fair, one must also look at each work and the degree to which it fulfils its purpose. For example, in Carl Nielsen's song "Jens the Roadman", the composer deliberately sets out to write a tune that will convey the contents of the text in a way that will make more people appreciate it. To fulfil that purpose, he chooses the strophic form and not a through-composed one. The choice is also influenced by the fact that the poet has placed central phrases differently in each stanza so that, even though the tune remains the same, those phrases appear in different musical guises throughout the song. When asked about his greatest successes in an interview near the end of his life, Nielsen unhesitatingly mentioned this song, and I think he did that precisely because it so clearly fulfils its purpose, even though it is "only" a strophic song. For that reason, I consider it a greater artistic achievement than many of his through-composed songs. (By the way, Nielsen also used to say that composing strophic songs often caused him more trouble than composing symphonies).