...of established composers of the romantic era, that is.
I guess my question is this: we now know a lot more unsung music than we did, say, ten or fifteen years ago. So, who among the hitherto unsung do we know sufficient about in terms of their overall oeuvre (rather than merely one or two works) to suggest that they might be worthy of admission to the pantheon of established composers?
My suggestions would be: Raff, Draeseke, Rufinatscha, Gernsheim, Reinecke, Taneyev, Wilhelm Berger.
Who else fits these criteria?
Oh, I forgot: Stanford, Parry, Glazunov.
A good start, Alan. Without thinking about it too deeply, I'd add Dietrich and Klughardt to the list. We don't know as much of their oeuvres as we do of Draeseke, Glazunov or Raff's, but we do have a good sample across most genres, demonstrating that both wrote music of high quality and with a distinctive voice. On that latter ground I'm tempted to argue against Reinecke, but I know that others will disagree.
P.s. a good case can be made for Stenhammar, too.
What about Berwald and Stenhammar? Both virtually unknown outside Sweden (or within, some might argue) and very much their own voices (Stenhammar would probably be one of those composers you could recognize within ten seconds, to reiterate a recent thread). Both also wrote in many different forms and for a variety of ensembles. Good tunes, too.
Gade? Svendsen? Norman?
What does it mean to admit an unsung composer to the pantheon of established composers? Are you suggesting that one or more of the unsung composers be accepted as the equal of the composers who currently dominate the elite of Romantic style music? However you want to define that?
I suppose I would add Myaskovsky to the list of candidates already proposed.
HOWEVER, as much as I personally enjoy listening to the music of unsung composers, I think, other than maybe Glazunov or Myaskovsky, it would be very difficult to make a case for any of them.
Heck, we'd probably have a hard time agreeing on the composers who are already members of the pantheon!
I will be a disappointed man if within 5 years the works of York Bowen are not to be regularly heard in our concert halls.
Thal
The pantheon here simply means the composers who are already established and known about, regardless of status - of which I have deliberately omitted all mention.
I'm just trying to get some idea of the range of composers about whom we now know much more than a few years back and whose music could just as easily be regularly programmed as that of many established composers.
Well, I think it would be very easy to make a case for Raff; less so, perhaps, for Klughardt - but that is just a matter of opinion.
I would certainly want to see Litolff in the Pantheon - I think he's very accomplished (and Berlioz thought so too). And, of course, Josef Holbrooke.
Well, everyone knows Gade - even if it's only from Schumann & Mendelssohn biographies...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 30 May 2013, 20:41
The pantheon here simply means the composers who are already established and known about, regardless of status - of which I have deliberately omitted all mention.
So you are just wanting names of unsungs who we know a lot about? This is not about the quality of their compositions compared to the Romantic pantheon?
Maybe I'm just having a slow brain day -- which seems to be more common in recent years. But it seems to me that knowing a lot about a composer does not mean the same thing as affirming the quality of their music. If we are talking about the quality of their music in comparison with the established greats, I think it's gonna be a hard sell.
The point I am trying to make here is that we are now in a much better position to judge the overall merits of certain unsung composers because so much has been recorded and released in recent years. I deliberately framed my question in the way that I did so as to avoid a mere exchange of 'favourite unsung pieces of music' which takes little account of a composer's overall oeuvre.
For example, ten years ago, I would have dismissed Raff entirely out of sheer ignorance. I simply didn't know enough of his music. Now I believe we have a much clearer idea of his stature because of the relatively large amount that has been recorded. Of course the music has to be good for us even to be having this conversation, but I simply wanted to know - in the opinion of forum members (hopefully as objective as possible) - who seems to have emerged overall as likely contenders for admission to the pantheon of established composers.
Quote from: kolaboy on Thursday 30 May 2013, 22:49
Well, everyone knows Gade - even if it's only from Schumann & Mendelssohn biographies...
No they don't. We do. But the vast majority of people wouldn't know him at all.
QuoteThe point I am trying to make here is that we are now in a much better position to judge the overall merits of certain unsung composers because so much has been recorded and released in recent years.
Precisely. And on that basis I am happy to withdraw Litolff for the moment since only 4 concertos and a Piano Trio are commercially available.
However, I stand by Josef Holbrooke - and we have ample evidence of Raff's stature.
If we all agree (and happily so) that Raff goes straight into the pantheon of established composers without further ado, I do hope it doesn't follow from that agreement that he's no longer an unsung and therefore outside the scope of the Forum and that we can't write about him!
No: Raff may be eligible to us, but he isn't yet in the minds of the wider public...
I would suggest Atterberg.
OK, Alan, I was only teasing about Raff.
But how about the admittance of Paul Juon to the pantheon? I don't think I'd heard a note of Juon 10 years ago - and might not even have known the name. Since then we've seen the emergence of much chamber music of high quality (in my view). Although - to echo a recent post of mine - very little of the orchestral music.
I suppose Dohnanyi wouldn't be a candidate since a small number of his works have always been well known and well regarded? But I mention him since in recent years a number of recordings have provided us with a far more rounded and comprehensive view of his compositions. For example the Martin Roscoe recordings of the piano music. I didn't really appreciate how good the piano works are before I heard Roscoe.
If we are proposing unsung composers we would like to hear played more and recorded more, I think we can all put together a personal list.
If the idea is to suggest who among the unsung composers is most worthy of inclusion among the pantheon of the sungs, well, my list would be quite different from many here, I suspect.
Realistically, if a composer does not have at least one piece that gets performed in concert and recorded multiple times by notable musicians, or if a composer does not have a champion in the concert hall who can perform him regularly, the chance of actually achieving that level of acceptance is just about zero.
Dave, you still misunderstand the essence of this thread. It's not about who we'd like to see recorded/played more, it's simply about those composers about whom we now know far more than we did even a few years ago. It's not even about those whom we might consider worthy ourselves: instead it's about those whose overall worth has emerged through the release of a representative number of recordings. It's not even about who might actually get performed regularly by virtue of having composed one star piece. As I said, this is an attempt to discern which composers - objectively speaking - are now known to us sufficiently well in terms of overall achievement for them possibly to be admitted to the notional pantheon of established composers - regardless of all other considerations.
Seems to me a pretty straightforward and valid, if theoretical, question. The orchestral concert repertoire is unfortunately so constrained by economics and performer and audience conservatism as to be almost irrelevant as a yardstick of musical worth. Luckily the chamber and instrumental music field and, curiously, the operatic stage are a little more adventurous.
All that said, despite spending fifteen years or so with colleagues in Germany, Switzerland and the USA beating the Raff drum as loudly as we can, we have still only achieved a little of the recognition I think he deserves, and that only amongst the modern generation of musicologists and, to some degree, amongst the recording-buying public. There are an increasing number of concerts, but mostly at (they'll forgive me for saying this) second-tier venues with non-star name performers. Whilst I do regard this as success, judged by where we have come from, the musical world is just so conservative that it's a huge uphill struggle. I'm biased I know, but I suspect that Raff is the most likely of our unsung heroes to make a breakthrough and yet I very much doubt that I'll live to see even a couple of his symphonies or some of his best chamber music return as staple concert repertoire.
None of which invalidates the idea that we should attempt to draw up our own list of worthwhile candidates for stardom.
You're right, Mark, the question is theoretical - at least at this stage. But then, a generation ago it was with regard to, say, Szymanowski, and before that, Berlioz. It may take time, but one can hope that what today is theoretical may one day become a living reality.
I would add Reger, Magnard and d'Indy ( at the borders of "unsungness"), but their overall oeuvre was more or less known already ten-fifteen years ago (if less than today). That seems a little less true for the candidates Pfitzner, Martucci, Sgambati, Pizzetti.
A little digression, merely personal, maybe off-topic. Between the (many) unsung the forum prompted me to appreciate: Rufinatscha, Pejacevic, d'Erlanger, Bowen, Klughardt (I would say, maybe mistaking, completely unsung ten years ago).
Yes, I am a moron. Either that, or I'm an academic -- which could be construed as the same thing.
"... which composers - objectively speaking - are now known to us sufficiently well in terms of overall achievement for them possibly to be admitted to the notional pantheon of established composers ...."
My question remains, admitted to the pantheon by whom? If it is simply a consensus among ourselves that we admit them to the pantheon of greats, fine. We could compile the list of names and vote up or down on each name. That's kind of like taking a vote and electing X as a new Romantic great.
If we are, instead, looking for names of composers whom we now think have achieved some threshold of recognition that actually gives them a chance at joining the pantheon through public acclaim (i.e., people beyond our Unsung circle who share our opinion), that is something else altogether.
I'll stick by my criteria. If a composer cannot get played in concert halls and doesn't get recorded by noted musicians, the chance of being admitted to the pantheon by people outside UC is pretty close to zero.
I still think of the unsungs Myaskovsky and Glazunov are the only two with a realistic chance of actually entering the pantheon.
Now, obviously, I'm just not "getting it" with your question and I don't really want to be argumentative. So I'm going to just bow out of this thread now. My apology for being so dense.
No need to apologise, I'm sure. I'm sorry that the thread hasn't struck much of a chord.
Let's look at this way: who was the latest unsung admitted to the pantheon? Mahler? And he had the advocacy of Walter, Mitropoulos, Bernstein, Kubelik, Solti and others. And it didn't take long; he went from unsung to over-sung in a scant 20 years. Is there any current unsung composer who is remotely Mahler's equal? I don't think so. There's plenty of unsung music that I dearly love and enjoy, but as Amphissa points out, it's really up to a large number of performing artists to see the light and that's just not likely. I always hoped Franz Schmidt would break into the mainstream, but with the death of Yakov Kreizberg, Schmidt's greatest living advocate is gone. As more orchestras around the world contract in size, go out of business there will be less opportunity for the unsungs. And young conductors are going to want to have their say on the standard classics -- they want their shot at Beethoven and Brahms, too! And Mahler.
Sorry, but I don't think you will ever see any more composers added to the pantheon who wrote the standard repertoire. Sadly, there will be some demoted and left by the wayside: Franck, Liszt, Saint-Saens, Glazunov are already pretty marginalized. In the US there are plenty of "sung" composers who qualify as unsung. Hearing an Elgar or Bruckner symphony here is a real rarity. Thank god for recorded music!
I'm not really interested in who may or may not actually 'make it'. It was a purely hypothetical exercise based on what we know now in comparison with what we knew in the past.
As for Mahler, well, he's certainly not the latest unsung to have made it. In any case, there was always a performing tradition with regard to his music. Szymanowski, on the other hand, was certainly well outside the mainstream at one time; but, thanks largely to Rattle and (lately) Gergiev, he is now equally certainly in the pantheon, so I don't believe that change is impossible. Unlikely, maybe, but not impossible. But then I'm a glass half-full man: I actually thought that Chandos might take up my suggestion to record Rufinatscha. And they did!
Of course, if we merely sit back and complain, nothing will ever happen - even on the margins. So who knows what some high-profile musician might decide to take on...?
If you take "pantheon of established composers" to mean "those who deserve a regular place on the concert platform because their works would appeal to a wide audience", then the list could be quite long, and in addition to names already mentioned, one could throw in Stanford and Fibich - to name but two.
If it means "composers of the first rank", then I'm afraid I think the answer is none. Those named are good composers of the second rank, but not of the stature of, say, Mahler.
Quote from: Gauk on Sunday 02 June 2013, 16:26
one could throw in Stanford and Fibich - to name but two.
I'd already thrown in Stanford.
Quote from: Gauk on Sunday 02 June 2013, 16:26
If it means "composers of the first rank", then I'm afraid I think the answer is none. Those named are good composers of the second rank, but not of the stature of, say, Mahler.
I don't agree. I believe there
are composers of the first rank among the unsung. And for all his marvellous music, Mahler - like Bruckner - is essentially a one-genre composer. He is much more limited in terms of all-round compositional achievement than, say, Dvorak or Brahms among established names. In another generation today's Mahler hype may have blown itself out and we may be able to assess him more objectively.
On a personal note, when I first started investigating forgotten music, I corresponded with the late Dr Alan Krueck whose knowledge of the unsung repertoire was - and probably remains - unmatched. Interestingly, he had come to the conclusion that there
are greats among the unsung.
In any event, the phrase "composers of the first rank" is not very meaningful, because it is such a subjective one unless one chooses to have it defined as those whose pieces are in the concert repertoire. In which case, as Martin rightly points out, the number will shrink rather than grow.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 02 June 2013, 18:55
In any event, the phrase "composers of the first rank" is not very meaningful, because it is such a subjective one unless one chooses to have it defined as those whose pieces are in the concert repertoire.
And yet we all operate as if we agree that they exist and know who they are. Would anyone disagree, for example, that Beethoven is such a composer?
Never in UC history has more effort been put into the question than the answer.
Thal
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 02 June 2013, 19:10
Would anyone disagree, for example, that Beethoven is such a composer?
John Field.
Sorry, couldn't resist it.
Thal
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 02 June 2013, 19:35
John Field.
Actually, although Field disliked Beethoven's piano music (it was like 'Germanic dishcloth'), he admired the older composer's chamber and orchestral music.
Sorry, couldn't resist giving the full picture. ;)
Unless we take global recognition to be one of the criteria we must employ, who we think unsung and sung - and who moving from one to the other - will depend in part on where we live. I think it fair to claim that here in Australia, for example, Peter Sculthorpe and Elena Kats-Chernin enjoy more recognition, air-time, concert-time, and acclaim than, say, Raff or Fibich.
It's quite a challenge to look beyond one's immediate context and assess the global picture. I'd have to rely on what I can find on the internet, and mostly on CD releases. On that basis, I'd go along with Atterberg and Stanford, maybe Fibish and Raff. So many seem to be knocking on the door - Gernsheim, Lyatoshinsky, Medtner, Braga-Santos, Lachner, Melartin, Langgaard - while others seem to have found a secure place on the doorstep, as it were - Parry, Brian, Halvorsen, Svendsen, Alfven, Stenhammar.
These are just my quick off-the-cuff assessments, and I know others will disgree... ;)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 02 June 2013, 20:12
Quote from: thalbergmad on Sunday 02 June 2013, 19:35
John Field.
Actually, although Field disliked Beethoven's piano music (it was like 'Germanic dishcloth'), he admired the older composer's chamber and orchestral music.
Sorry, couldn't resist giving the full picture. ;)
He was probably drunk (couldn't resist giving the fullest possible picture).
Roentgen was perhaps too prolific for us to have a focus on his masterworks?
try symphonies 3,8 and 15 at least..
Quote from: kolaboy on Sunday 02 June 2013, 23:21
He was probably drunk (couldn't resist giving the fullest possible picture).
Drunk? Probably a rather blurred picture, then. ;)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 02 June 2013, 18:05
Quote from: Gauk on Sunday 02 June 2013, 16:26
one could throw in Stanford and Fibich - to name but two.
I'd already thrown in Stanford.
Quote from: Gauk on Sunday 02 June 2013, 16:26
If it means "composers of the first rank", then I'm afraid I think the answer is none. Those named are good composers of the second rank, but not of the stature of, say, Mahler.
I don't agree. I believe there are composers of the first rank among the unsung. And for all his marvellous music, Mahler - like Bruckner - is essentially a one-genre composer. He is much more limited in terms of all-round compositional achievement than, say, Dvorak or Brahms among established names. In another generation today's Mahler hype may have blown itself out and we may be able to assess him more objectively.
On a personal note, when I first started investigating forgotten music, I corresponded with the late Dr Alan Krueck whose knowledge of the unsung repertoire was - and probably remains - unmatched. Interestingly, he had come to the conclusion that there are greats among the unsung.
OK, I'll see your Stanford and raise you a Weingartner and a Reznicek.
As to Mahler writing in only one genre, we have had this discussion in a previous thread re Chopin. Same with Wagner, but what elevates both Mahler and Wagner to the first rank is their originality, and the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music, something which, frankly, you won't find in Raff, Reinecke et al.
I do agree that there are truly great composers amongst those whose music is neglected, but those that I think fit the description are not romantics according to the definition used here. One of them, in fact, has steadily made progress into the pantheon just over the last twenty years, before which he was unheard of and unperformed outside his native land.
If I had to name a strictly romantic composer who was definitely knocking at the door of greatness, I would nominate Franz Schmidt, for his chamber music as well as his orchestral output. I find in his music an intellectual satisfaction I don't find in Raff, much as I like Raff's music.
Quote from Gauk Today at 19:20
<<but what elevates both Mahler and Wagner to the first rank is their originality, and the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music, something which, frankly, you won't find in Raff>>
Ah, but why should this be the sole criterion by which composers are admitted to the pantheon? The more classically-minded composers (more interested, perhaps, in form than pure self-expression) offer satisfaction of a less visceral, more intellectual kind. I derive as much pleasure from the terseness, elegance and form-consciousness of, for example, Raff 4 as I do from anything by Wagner or Mahler. So, I'm in fundamental disagreement with your premise, I'm afraid.
I see a couple of problems here, ones which need to be addressed before any plausible answer can be given to the initial question.
1) What counts as enough knowledge of a composer's music for a proper assessment? Alan Howe's first post suggests "overall oeuvre" as a fair basis. I'd agree, but then I note that Draeseke and Rufinatscha are listed and Rubinstein is not. Knowing Alan Howe's dislike of Rubinstein, I'm unsurprised that he would think him ineligible for admission to the pantheon, but then the question seems to drift toward purely personal taste, not actual judgment. After all, the amount of Rubinstein's music available for listening is both numerically and proportionally greater than that of either of these composers.
I'd suggest that a basic criterion would be that we can hear at least 50% of a composer's work in at least three-quarters of the major areas of composition in which they have worked (solo instrumental, chamber, orchestral, choral, opera, etc.). The fewer areas in which a composer has worked, the higher the proportion of music which ought to be known should be.
2) What counts toward pantheonic status? Surely it's not simply popularity or number of recordings; if it were, Rubinstein's 'Melody in F' would rank among the great pieces for piano solo. It does not. Therefore popularity is not enough. Along similar lines, Mark Thomas suggests that
Quotethe phrase "composers of the first rank" is not very meaningful, because it is such a subjective one unless one chooses to have it defined as those whose pieces are in the concert repertoire.
This, if true, is even more problematic, since it basically denies the very idea that there is good or bad music beyond personal taste, and therefore lands us back at popularity without even allowing the possibility of truth or error in judgment. The pantheon would be purely arbitrary, and there would be no
reason whatsoever for allowing anyone in or taking anyone out. All anyone could do is insist and hope that enough others agreed. This may be the way things often work, but it would seem to contradict the very idea that one needs to have heard
anything at all by a given composer. Why? Because if all opinions are of equal value, then an opinion based on hearsay is, by definition, equal to one based on careful consideration of scores and recordings.
I would support something akin to what Gauk has already suggested:
Quotethe profundity with which they explore the human soul through music.
This needs considerable fleshing out, since the nature of that profundity (instrumental and contrapuntal technique, structural complexity, melodic richness, etc.) needs to be made much clearer, but surely there is something important about the human expressivity of a composer's work. If there isn't, why listen to music at all? The mistake some people seem to make here is the double assumption that, a) there is only one actual criterion; and, b) that two composers could not both deserve pantheonic status if their style and content are vastly different (Mozart vs, Mahler, say). But aesthetic appreciation is not a matter of scientific analysis, at least not purely; there will always be room for dispute. The real question is whether or not one can adduce reasons for one's assessment, reasons grounded in the music itself. The more one can do so, the more plausible one's argument in favor of (or against) so-and-so deserving to be in the pantheon will be. The less one can do so, the less reason there is for anyone else to care what one's tastes are. And this brings us back to the initial question and the reason why it's important: if we don't have enough of a sample of someone's work, we haven't got the evidence we ourselves need to make our own case. After all, someone who knew
only Wellington's Victory and the 'Rondo a Capriccioso' would hardly be in a position to reach a plausible or fair assessment of Beethoven....
Possibly one of the requirements of the Pantheon should be the composing of more than just a handful of good works.
It was the mention of the highly prolilific Raff that gave me that thought, he must have dedicated his entire being to the creation of music. Rest assured that all prolifics do not necesssarily create great music, but it does show dedication to the cause. And even tho Kurt Atterburg had another full-time occupation, he would certainly be deserving of entry, he was also quite prolific and his music is grand. Although not a household name, he may no longer be considered unsung.
Sorry - but I've got no idea at all what "the profundity with they explore the human soul through music" means. And how is that notion applicable to a musical composition? Sounds to me a bit of mumbo-jumbo. I'm not aware of myself as having something called a 'soul'. Are you? I would have thought a composer's work gets elevated to the pantheon on account of its musical qualities, and anything else is metaphor.
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Monday 03 June 2013, 23:13
Sorry - but I've got no idea at all what "the profundity with they explore the human soul through music" means. And how is that notion applicable to a musical composition? Sounds to me a bit of mumbo-jumbo. I'm not aware of myself as having something called a 'soul'. Are you? I would have thought a composer's work gets elevated to the pantheon on account of its musical qualities, and anything else is metaphor.
Peter - was this abrasive response necessary? Someone who thinks they have a soul and perhaps an ultimate accountability for their behavior has every right to believe that. While you are quite knowledgable about music, your abrasive retorts are a chilling factor for any reasoned dialogue.
I'm sorry, but I'm giving up on this thread. It is clearly going to go nowhere, the debate is going around in circles and occasionally getting tetchy as people buttons get pressed. It's not for me.
Apologies, Mark. It's probably my fault for attempting the impossible in this thread, so I agree: time to draw a veil, maybe...
I would nominate Granville Bantock, with thanks to Hyperion and Dutton who have helped to make his music more widely known.
There has also been some more recent interest in Rued Langgard, with a symphony of his played at last years proms. All of his symphonies have now been recorded and also his piano concerto.
Cyril Scott has recently come to the fore with numerous recordings of his compositions.
Anton Arensky has had most of his compositions recorded except perhaps the operas and is occasionally performed live.
Sergei Taneyev is also emerging from obscurity with an increasing number of recordings and live performances of his chamber music
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 03 June 2013, 20:36
Quote from Gauk Today at 19:20
<<but what elevates both Mahler and Wagner to the first rank is their originality, and the profundity with which they explore the human soul through music, something which, frankly, you won't find in Raff>>
Ah, but why should this be the sole criterion by which composers are admitted to the pantheon? The more classically-minded composers (more interested, perhaps, in form than pure self-expression) offer satisfaction of a less visceral, more intellectual kind. I derive as much pleasure from the terseness, elegance and form-consciousness of, for example, Raff 4 as I do from anything by Wagner or Mahler. So, I'm in fundamental disagreement with your premise, I'm afraid.
I don't know if I've come to this too late but I just wanted to add I reckon there's two ideas of the pantheon running in parallel here, ie are there Unsung composers whose music is worthy to be added to the repertoire and are there Unsung composers who are "equal" to the "Greats"? For my two cents I don't think it matters if the composer limited himself to one or two types of music (Wagner, Mahler) , it is what they did in those fields, are they original, did they change the course of music, did they influence other composers in signifcant ways as well as their emotional value or aesthetic beauty, which are both very subjective? So I think Wagner and Mahler are great in all those ways and I hope noone is suggesting that there incredibly complex music lacks some sort of intellectual weight to balance against the expressive visceralness, as that strikes me as completely unfounded.
I love Raff's symphonies and have collected many recordinsg including the Tudor set and I agree with Alan about Raff 4 totally. I think it was through Raff that I ended up here. But I don't know that I think fastidious craftsmanship is enough to make Raff for instance qualified to join the "Greats" when maybe a work like Raff 4 doesn't have that groundbreaking originality and influence. But I think it could be enough to make him join the roster of composers who are performed regularly. I was trying to separate the two threads here but I'm not sure if I have really expressed myself as well as I could... :-\
I wondered too, just reading above, about Berger being one of the Unsungs that we now know a lot more of his music as I hadn't heard of him or don't remember hearing of him before but I can only find one recording of his quintet, is there more out there that joe public could find?
I fear, Khorovod, that you're entirely right (cf your footnote about Berger). There almost seems a conspiracy intent on not recording Berger. The Piano Quintet to which you refer is indeed a fine and lovely work.
But the only other Berger (Wilhelm Reinhard, that is, distinct from other Bergers) I've ever come across are:
Op. 69 String Trio in G minor (c/w a String Trio by Ernst Naumann on a Querstand CD), and
Op. 94 Trio for Clarinet, Cello & Piano (in a Tacet CD 'In the Shadow of Brahms' Vol. 2)
I'd certainly welcome more recordings of Berger!
Non-commercial recordings of Berger have also included his Symphony No.2, Violin Sonata No.3 and the String Quintet. Then there's a long-deleted recording on Koch of the Variations and Fugue and the Serenade, so it is possible to discern more of his stature.
I haven't tried looking at the Downloads sections here to see whether any of the works mentioned above are still available, but it's certainly worth trying to find them...
Wilhelm Berger's piano quintet was recorded on MDG 19 years ago. (Musikproduktion Hoflich republished the score 3 years ago, which I think may be at IMSLP also.) I still remember the Fanfare review being very positive but haven't heard the work. What I have heard by him I like very much indeed... (If the somewhat-Romantic Myaskovsky were to be still better known I of course wouldn't mind.)
(There was another(?) recording of that Op.94 Berger trio on a Fono LP- ca.1980?)
If I can make an analogy ...
For anyone who appreciates wine, to say that a lambrusco is just as good as a fine bordeaux because it's all a matter of personal taste, is simply absurd. A good bordeaux is objectively a better wine because it has qualities of complexity that a lambrusco does not have; and this is reflected in the price, which (leaving aside inflation due to snob value), is a reasonably objective measure.
On the other hand, there are occasions when a chilled lambrusco is just what you fancy. It still isn't better wine, but there is nothing wrong with enjoying something inferior when it happens to suit the occasion. A master at my school once advanced the opinion that someone who enjoyed great literature and football was happier than someone who enjoyed great literature but not football. Two sources of pleasure are better than one.
Quote from: Gauk on Wednesday 05 June 2013, 19:17
For anyone who appreciates wine, to say that a lambrusco is just as good as a fine bordeaux because it's all a matter of personal taste, is simply absurd.
Trouble is, if what you're saying is Wagner/Mahler = fine Bordeaux, whereas Raff = Lambrusco, then I demur. Raff, you see, may be an equally fine Chablis...
I'm not. I'm simply saying that assessment of quality is not simply the subjective "what I like = good".
No-one would dispute that. But if there's such a thing as fine wine (in all its many varieties), the implication is that there must also be such a thing as great music and that it must also take many different forms.
Dunno about all this wine business. The very opposite of 'complex' I suppose, but to my taste one of the most rewarding drinks is a nice cool glass of mineral water. And when I was at school I was at my happiest when it rained and we weren't shoved out on to a muddy field to pursue a cold, wet and sticky ball and where wretched fools shouted about the importance of supporting the house. Absurd business I thought.
Moral: analogies aren't terribly helpful things! But I do agree that great / good music isn't stuff that one merely 'likes'. On the contrary musical appreciation and exercising discrimination are things that one has to work hard at over a number of years, and yes, by making reasoned judgments it is possible to make statements having some objective validity on a composer's works. (But, heigh ho, someone will tell me the same is true of glug that gurgles out of bottles.)
I think you have a point, Peter. Experience of a wide range of music pursued over a long period of time certainly aids in the development of musical judgment that is more than the mere expression of personal preference.
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Wednesday 05 June 2013, 21:07
Dunno about all this wine business. The very opposite of 'complex' I suppose, but to my taste one of the most rewarding drinks is a nice cool glass of mineral water.
What I said. It is refreshing, but simple, and not to be compared to something with depth, complexity and subtlety. And no-one in their right mind is going to fork out collector's prices for a bottle of mineral water.
The analogy is more meaningful for those with experience of wine appreciation, as I did say.
I suspect, Gauk, respected fellow scribbler, we are in agreement over the substance of the issue but not over your particular analogy. I certainly wouldn't devote precious pennies amounting to 'collector's prices' for a bottle of plonk whatever its depth, complexity and subtlety when those funds could be devoted to concert going. The former - and a purely personal view - is a real mug's game. But maybe we should agree to disagree before moderators come to duff up both of us for wasting people's time!
I suspect this thread has run its course anyway...