Scrolling through various discussions, I came across the claim that Joachim Raff was not merely a better composer than Brahms, but made him look like "a lumbering dolt". Clearly this is not a majority opinion, but forget for a moment whether or not you agree with it and think about the further question it raises if you assume that it's correct, the question which is the thread title.
There are composers who are considered to be among the greats, whose body of work provides touchstones against which to measure the work of other composers. These composers are, by and large, the "sung" composers. Brahms is generally accepted as belonging to this category. So if we assume that Raff is a greater composer than Brahms, this raises the question as to why Raff is pretty much unsung and Brahms is not (for comparison: there are currently more recordings of any one of Brahms's symphonies than all of Raff's music put together). It can't simply be that Brahms had the press on his side and Raff did not; even a quick glance at reviews from the 19th c. shows that Brahms faced much opposition and Raff was, if anything, more popular. Nor can it be pure obstinacy on the part of conductors; many are the composers who have fallen from favor despite the best efforts of partisans on the podium. If it's record sales, then why is Raff so much less sellable than Brahms? What, then, are the reasons?
Then extend the question (after all, not everyone takes Raff to be better than Brahms). Why do certain composers (whose worth you would be willing to defend) fall out of the repertoire while others go on and on? Is it purely random? On the face of it, this seems improbable, but maybe there's some evidence to support it. If you met a person who knew nothing of serious Western music who asked who was worth hearing and why, and who was not and why not, how would you answer?
Quote from: saxtromba on Sunday 12 January 2014, 17:55
Scrolling through various discussions, I came across the claim that Joachim Raff was not merely a better composer than Brahms, but made him look like "a lumbering dolt".
Before proceeding with the discussion, which is a very important one, I want to address the question of misquotation (or quotation out of context, etc.), since I am the source of the comment cited above. What I actually said was:
<<But Raff's a different matter: I've come to believe that Symphonies 2, 3, 4 and 5 are masterpieces, and that his chamber music is stuffed full of them. The two Piano Quartets and the 1st String Quartet are just three examples. Why? It's that ability to write utterly memorable music, perfectly attuned to the genre involved, and characterised by a
Schwung (for want of a better word) that makes, say, Brahms seem a lumbering dolt by comparison.>>
In other words, it was the sheer dynamism of Raff's music - in particular of the three chamber works mentioned - that in my view can make Brahms seem pretty dull by comparison. Emphasize 'seem'. It's just an impression one has from Raff's music. But I don't recall saying that Raff was a better composer than Brahms. In fact I believe that Brahms was the greater composer - Raff's output was certainly far more variable - but that, at his best, Raff's music is fully equal in quality to that of Brahms.
So, let's avoid misquoting each other, please. Now on with the debate...
I used to wrestle with this question all the time, especially after having read Einstein's "Greatness in Music" and Pleasant's "The Agony of Modern Music". And the winnowing out of music in the repertoire is continuing: Franck's d-minor for example is definitely losing ground. Scheherazade, too, I fear. So why do some things keep going, such as Brahms symphonies? I don't think it can be quantified. BUt as a player (Brahms First today, contrabassoon) when you play a "great" work, you just know it. You feel it in every cell of your body. When I play the great scores of Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky (yes!), Dvorak, Elgar and the rest, you just know in your gut that it is a masterwork. When you play lesser music (Grand Canyon Suite for example) no matter how much the audience may like it, you just don't get that same feeling. You know instinctively that however clever the score is, it's no masterpiece. And here's something to consider: any musician you talk to will agree on this (well, most of them). It effects conductors even more I suspect. For years I couldn't take a liking to Mozart. But when I played the 40th (even the 2nd bassoon part) it all made sense - it's a titanic work.
I don't mean to say that I disapprove of, or ignore, the lesser composers. At home, I rarely listen to Beethoven, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky. I listen to lots of other stuff that you don't hear in the concert hall, and I know lots of music that is enjoyable, moving, thrilling, and worth a person's time. But concert promoters and recording companies (the large ones) have to sell tickets/CDs to stay in business, and they know they can sell a new set of Mahler symphonies much easier than the complete works of Pancho Vladigerov. And related, a conductor has to sell a concert - and the low-information concert goers is more likely to want to hear the Beethoven 5th rather than the Raff 5th.
I agree - sort of. And yet, and yet...so often we accept as great only the music which we are told is great. What we frequently lack is the opportunity to make up our minds for ourselves. After years of listening to a wide range of music I am convinced (a) that there is a very large amount of fine unsung music out there and that (b) some of that music is fully equal in quality to that of the recognised great composers. Unfortunately, there isn't (yet) a consensus concerning this music - and that's where the fight to get them recognised begins...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 12 January 2014, 19:50
so often we accept as great only the music which we are told is great. What we frequently lack is the opportunity to make up our minds for ourselves.
This is certainly true in my case. When I was reasonably serious about my piano studies back in the 70's, it was a diet of Beethoven, Bach & Brahms and maybe a couple of others. The local record shops had not a great deal more to offer by way of recordings and even less so with sheet music.
It was not until the internet age that I really began to experiment for myself and I started to present my piano teacher with works by Woelfl, Thalberg, Friedman, Eberl and a myriad of others. I was also stunned to find out that Czerny wrote more than just exercises. Now, when libraries around the World are freely digitalizing their archives and one only has to press a button on a PC to have a choice of thousands of different recordings, the opportunities are endless.
There must be a host of reasons why some composers are neglected and others seem to have their place cemented in the regular repertoire, but I don't think that the quality of the music plays a major part.
Thal
I will second Alan's post. I find the same 'gut' reaction to masterpieces that was mentioned before, however I find this response for sungs AND unsungs. The most recent one was my response to Goldenweiser's Piano Trio in e minor. I find I have to return to listen to it again and again - and the feeling doesn't change. It just seems 'right' - every note placed where it has to be.
I do believe if the concert-going public had more information, we would have more variety in concerts. I think just tossing a lot of the serial, atonal 'hey look, I can make all the notes inverted and forming the first 3 stanzas of paradise lost...' junk to make room for new discoveries...
Of course, that's not going to happen. Oh well.
There are really two main issues here. Firstly, how does a composer, starting out unknown, become elevated to the canon? Secondly, how does a composer who is part of the canon fall from grace and become obscure to later generations? There is perhaps also a third question as to how a fallen composer regains his rightful place.
Really, it has to be examined in the context of musical history as a whole, and not just the chunk from 1818-1918. Many interesting cases fall outside the romantic category. But Raff is a particularly interesting example (Spohr is another) of a composer whose star in his lifetime was extremely high, and whose place in the canon seemed secure, yet collapsed to the extent that his name is virtually unknown today except to specialists.
The question that perhaps has to be asked, is what would it take to reintroduce Raff into the standard repertoire? Does it just take a champion, as Mendelssohn was to Bach? Or are there other issues?
In many cases, of course, composers are obscure today because they never made it into the big time to start off with, and again there may be a multiplicity of reasons for this.
I'd keep all the "serial, atonal junk" you refer to and get rid of everything Andrew Lloyd Webber's written, but you're right, Balapoel, you can't have everything and certainly neither can I...
Well, I do fail to see that I've misquoted anyone.
QuoteBut Raff's a different matter: I've come to believe that Symphonies 2, 3, 4 and 5 are masterpieces, and that his chamber music is stuffed full of them. The two Piano Quartets and the 1st String Quartet are just three examples. Why? It's that ability to write utterly memorable music, perfectly attuned to the genre involved, and characterised by a Schwung (for want of a better word) that makes, say, Brahms seem a lumbering dolt by comparison.
Raff wrote at least four symphonies which are "masterpieces"; Brahms, by definition, could not have written more. Raff's music is "utterly memorable," and "perfectly attuned to the genre involved"; it is difficult to see how anyone else's music could be better than "utterly memorable" or "perfectly attuned" to its context. If this doesn't make Raff at least comparable to Brahms, what would?
And in fact the point is precisely that: either there are composers who produced a significant number of works which deserve entry into the canon who are less well regarded (unsung) than they deserve to be, or there are not. No composer produced nothing but unalloyed masterpieces, so the fact that a prolific composer's catalog is more variable than that of a less prolific composer doesn't strike me as especially relevant. But that's really not the focus here. The question is why certain composers are consistently canonical and others are not, regardless of their initial popularity. Bach was canonical very soon after his death (Mendelssohn's famous "resurrection" of Bach really refers more to his popularity among the concert-going public than anything else; all the major composers after Bach and before Mendelssohn's 1830 concerts (Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc.) knew, respected, and learned from his work. The same is not true of, say (so as to avoid this whole Raff thing, which was merely a starting point), Meyerbeer (whose mother was "the second woman in history to see her son accepted as divine," according to Heine) or Hummel, both of whom were popular and respected in their lifetimes.
So it isn't simply that people were told that Brahms is great and Hummel is not; there was a time when people were told something quite different (e.g.. Philip Hale's notorious suggestion that concert halls have signs saying "Exit in case of Brahms"). Despite this, some composers last and others do not. If it's just a matter of personal taste, as some have suggested, then the whole idea of giving reasons for inviting non-canonical composers into, or least near to, the canon falls apart. Since the vigor of various opinions here implies that people quite believe that certain composers are
unjustly neglected, this further implies that there must be some set of criteria by which the justice of this or that composer's historical assessment can be measured. It seems to be that memorability of tunes and appropriateness of scoring, for example, are quite plausible contenders for elements in that list. Once we start providing these elements, we can then apply them to discussion of specific works, and on a larger scale, composers in order to make arguments for a critical and historical reassessment.
Quote from: saxtromba on Monday 13 January 2014, 00:04
... it is difficult to see how anyone else's music could be better than "utterly memorable" or "perfectly attuned" to its context. If this doesn't make Raff at least comparable to Brahms, what would?
Well, to be honest, Khachaturian's ballet scores are both utterly memorable and perfectly attuned to their context. What they lack is profundity.
The very few composers I count as first tier had a good deal more relative consistency of quality in their output, for what it's worth; the occasional dud, no doubt- there's a limited number of times I really want to listen to that long aria in Bach's BWV No.3 (though most of the cantatas I've heard are wonderful) and I won't go to great lengths to defend certain Beethoven works (though even there, I very much enjoyed a cantata he wrote around the time of sym.8 whose publication he himself delayed, I think, to the point that it shows up as his Op.136... (The Glorious Moment (Eyeblink)). But both composers, and Haydn, Mozart and Brahms (about whom I can't help thinking that the lumbering dolt was probably the conductors/tradition more than the composer, but...) - have entire rafts of works one rarely hears that seem to make them several unsung composers in their own selves* (Haydn's operas, the Bach cantatas, lesser organ works, whathave, Brahms' whole vocal and choral output (save his once very well-known German Requiem which no one would describe as unsung :) ), etc., ...) with, again a relative consistency I don't yet feel I can come to expect from Raff (e.g.) and the larger part of his output (mostly brief piano works, numerically speaking, in his case) for all that I think very well indeed of the -best- of the works of these composers, am (I think) no hypocrite in wishing to hear more of them and in having made some efforts to promote some works by some of them.
(In re Brahms, actually, hearing his Zigeunerlieder back in a concert in my pre-freshman orientation days of college ('87) was a revelation and change... I admit I had no idea he could write music like that either, then...)
*I figured that a Paradise Lost reference deserved another tangential Milton one (The mind is its own place, and...)
Fluctuations in reputation have as much to do with extra-musical issues, social, cultural, and political, as they do with the intrinsic quality of a composer's work. Likewise critical opinion is heavily influenced by the economics of performance such that one composer's victory becomes another's defeat, particularly as classical music becomes more culturally marginalized.
Quote from: saxtromba on Monday 13 January 2014, 00:04
If this doesn't make Raff at least comparable to Brahms, what would?
That
was my point, but only in respect of certain works by Raff who was a much more inconsistent composer than Brahms. The misquote - or shall we say, false conclusion drawn - was that I thought that Raff was the better composer. Mind you, I personally believe that the first movement of Raff 4 is as exciting as anything written by Brahms (if not more so) - and again, it's to do with the sheer dynamism of the music. In the case of Raff, then, I am simply baffled by his disappearance from the repertoire (from the point of view of its quality). Plainly, Toscanini agreed...
Well, Toscanini, and several of his well-known contemporaries (Stokowski, others), seem to have been willing to include people who even then were no longer (or had ever really been?) repertoire material - though "people say" that Toscanini's reasons for including so much Martucci, e.g., in his concerts had more to do with nationalism (I'd like to think that the quality of Martucci's music, inconsistent though I admit that is, too, had a look-in also...)
"you just know in your gut that it is a masterwork" - mbhaub
But I listen to pieces that seem virtually universally deemed masterworks and don't know it in my gut at all; often, quite the opposite impression. With some universally-acclaimed masterpieces which I could name, I experience outright revulsion. Then I might listen to a piece that is generally considered "lesser music ... [which] no matter how much the audience may like it, you just don't get that same feeling", but I do get that feeling on some of those very pieces that you probably mean. I feel that sensation - and I think I do know what you mean by it.
Part of me thinks that the "canon" is often imposed from on high by respected authorities. I've experienced many direct, personal insults just by questioning in the politest possible way the rigidity of this "canon" (and on at least one occasion received something flat-out shocking). A great many people will know in advance that they won't feel a work is great simply because it's not established as such. I'd probably say this is a majority of music-listeners, at some level they absolutely will pre-judge to some extent. Professional reviewers simply can't even review a CD lesser-known music without including at least some kind of negative statement, some kind of qualifier to let the reader know that the reviewer is well aware that this isn't "great" music. And the sad part is, those particular elements of the reviews could very well have been written in advance by most of these reviewers, they were going to say it no matter, and they don't listen in a "pure" state.
Another part of me thinks that certain components of taste in many areas just happen to be more widely shared among Humans, especially those within the same upbringing. Speaking of taste, there are certain foods, for example, that you could test out on all the population of western Europe, and probably come up with fairly consistent results in which people thought was better or worse. Leaving nutrition out of it, speaking purely about flavour, most would agree that a fine-dining restaurant's version of, say, a burger tastes better than a fast food chain's rendition. There's no objective reason that it tastes better, it's just that probably most people in a given group are very innately similar to each other when it comes to taste.
This might hold true for music, also. The composers widely considered Great might just have been those who happened to be most capable of manipulating the most widely common, widely shared similar innate taste in the widest number of Humans. Those who feel very strongly that certain masterpieces are not masterful at all, or that certain "second-rate" works are indeed Great with a capital G, might be a bit "off", maybe even something genetic.
I can only say that if I ever say that I find a piece to be truly great, I honestly, deep down, and with 100% conviction feel that that is the case, the exact same that someone else does when talking about how Beethoven's Symphony #5 is Great (I agree with that one, by the way). But it's - and this is very important - not objective. There's nothing objective whatsoever in saying one thing is better than another. Any measure of quality is subjective, simply because it's impossible to prove mathematically or scientifically that one thing is superior to another. You can't prove concepts like good&bad, better&worse, because by their very nature they are absolutely not objective by any means.
And by the way, with complete sincerity I will state here, flat out, that I feel and find Raff to be Great, and Brahms to not be. I can't help it. I don't wish to think it (or not to), I don't plan it, and am not saying it to try to make some point or to try to be different: it just is. I don't know why, or how this happened. I didn't study on it, plan for it, wish for it, or want it to happen, it's just how their musics play out in my brain and how my emotions and intellect react in general to each. Although try to take away my Brahms Op.25 Piano Quartet from my collection and we'll have a huge problem. ;D
Quote from: Josh on Monday 13 January 2014, 15:57
There's nothing objective whatsoever in saying one thing is better than another. Any measure of quality is subjective...
If that were true, all debate would be impossible. There have to be shared objective criteria otherwise I'm as good a composer as Beethoven.
Saying 2+2=4 is an objective statement.
Saying 4 is better than two is subjective.
Good and bad can't ever be objective, by their very nature. The only objective criteria that could be used with regards to Beethoven would be statements of chronology or mathematical realities, and other absolute statements of fact (such as naming specific notes in a specific work).
I'm not sure why this truth would make debate impossible!
If someone listens to your music and honestly finds you are as good a composer as Beethoven, then so what? I know someone who used to be an announcer for decades for a local radio station, and we talked about music a lot, and he liked practically nothing written before 1900 - really odd how much I loved talking music with him, though, considering his taste was very, very different from mine. He strongly disliked and/or hated practically every work by Beethoven. I was visiting with him at the radio station once and he made a statement regarding Wolfgang Mozart along the lines of "I have to say he's great because they say he was, but I don't like his music". The point of all this is... unless your music is written in emulation of pre-1900s styles, then this guy probably would have honestly thought you were as good a composer as Beethoven! Well, I don't know that for sure, and he passed away a couple of years ago so can't be asked. And he wasn't a kook or a nut, by the way, and was extremely knowledgeable about music of all eras; he wasn't a brash kid just saying stuff for shock value, either (he was in his 60s). He just thought the 20th century was where it was at, and that older music tended to be - even at its best - boring in comparison.
(I won't post his name publicly here, but if someone wants it I will send it via private message and you can look him up quite quickly; he was regionally very well-known.)
BTW my Symphony No.1 for Silent Orchestra and Chorus is still awaiting its premiere. It's a highly romantic piece as the men's chorus members hold hands with the female chorus members throughout. Trouble is, I can't find a quiet enough orchestra or chorus to get it performed, which is a pity as it's clearly on a par with Beethoven's 9th.
Quote from: Josh on Monday 13 January 2014, 17:10
If someone listens to your music and honestly finds you are as good a composer as Beethoven, then so what?
So what? Well, he'd be certifiably insane. Emperor's New Clothes, and all that...
Quote from: Josh on Monday 13 January 2014, 17:10
Good and bad can't ever be objective, by their very nature.
Is murder bad? Or can't you say?
BTW, in saying 'good and bad can't ever be objective...', you are making an objective statement. In other words, you are saying that it is objectively true that good and bad can't ever be objective. Your 'truth', in other words, is that there is no truth with regard to concepts like 'good' and 'bad'. I totally disagree.
I am making an objective statement which seems true: value judgments are never objective by definition. My statement does not state whether this is good or bad, or better or worse than anything else, simply that it is so.
I can say murder is bad, and will. It's just not objectively provable. It can't be proven one way or another that something is good or bad. Only mathematics and other pure factual things are objective. They are true regardless of any feelings or opinions, they are just facts.
Saying Beethoven was born in 1770 is an objective statement.
Saying Beethoven was a good composer is a subjective opinion.
Even if there were a statement declaring something as good and this view was shared by every Human being who ever lived, lives now, and ever will live, even then it is not objective. It's still subjective. Any statement of something being good, bad, better or worse is automatically subjective. You can break down music as it's playing and identify all the various soundwaves, &c., but you can't look at a chart of two of these broken down side by side and prove that one set of vibrations is "better" than another. There is no mathematical formula to prove good or bad. Wikipedia puts it well: "sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through some medium (such as air or water), composed of frequencies that are within the range of hearing." Now you are in the position of having to prove that one set of oscillations is somehow objectively superior to another set of oscillations. If it's objective, it's provable, or at the very least a method by which pure, irrefutable proof COULD theoretically be obtained should be available.
Let me put it another way: if Beethoven is a better composer than you, then prove it. If it's an objective statement, it should be provable. Is there a mathematical formula which proves "good"?
a music professor whose courses I took back in college somewhat sidestepped the question, somewhat didn't, by having his students study things about music that could be objectively considered (and to his credit, considered ideas that couldn't just be found in any 19th century music textbook; I'd never thought about precomposition preparation (though composers do, in fact, write about it), local vs. global coherence, and certain other things, or that they might actually make sense, either.)
Quote from: Josh on Monday 13 January 2014, 17:54
Let me put it another way: if Beethoven is a better composer than you, then prove it. If it's an objective statement, it should be provable.
It's definitely provable: I can't write music. Except music which stretches the meaning of the term, e.g. my music-less Symphony No.1. If you can't say that Beethoven 9 is better than Howe 1, then the Emperor was wearing clothes after all...
Everything I was saying was under the assumption that you were a composer also!
But even in this case, it would only be objective to say:
"Beethoven was a composer. Alan Howe is not a composer."
It has nothing to do with anything being better or worse than anything else; even saying something existent is "better" than something non-existent is still subjective. It can't ever be proven by science or mathematics, and is still an opinion. Even if an opinion were, as I shared, truly 100% universal amongst all Humans, it's still subjective.
Quote from: Josh on Monday 13 January 2014, 18:10
But even in this case, it would only be objective to say:
"Beethoven was a composer. Alan Howe is not a composer."
How dare you say I'm not a composer! My Symphony No.1 lies downstream from Cage's 4'33" (except it's much more romantic). And the Emperor
was wearing clothes, as anyone can tell you...
BTW my Invisible Symphony No.2 should be worth hearing. Seem to have temporarily mislaid the manuscript, though...
Anyway, I suggest we move on as we're talking past one another. Back to 'Why Unsung?'
I think this exchange is indeed on topic, but I would like to contribute, as a scientist. Your notions of subjective and objective leads to a false dichotomy. Philosophical arguments have established quite convincingly that the situation is far more complex than exclusionary objectivity/subjectivity. In practice, we could consider subjective and objective qualities to phenomena and situations.
Such an argument of 'if an individual feels it, then it must be true,' strikes me of solipsism.
That's beyond me, I'm afraid.
What I think in practice can happen is that a sufficient amount of shared subjective opinion with regard to a piece of music can accrue such that it comes to be regarded as something approaching objective truth. So, for example, the weight of critical and public opinion is that Beethoven 9 is great music and it's hard to imagine that not being the case in the future. However, as has been remarked, this was once the case with, say, Raff in general and Franck's D minor Symphony in particular, so the question has to be asked 'why?' Is it because the music was once thought of as better than it actually is? Have fashions changed in ways that affect composers such as Raff and Franck more than Beethoven? Or is it in fact impossible to gauge quality unless one is operating from some point in the future when issues such as fashion are no longer relevant? In other words, is the real danger perhaps that the fixing of the musical canon takes place far too quickly and actually requires much more sober reflection? (An impossibility, no doubt.)
Quote from: Balapoel on Monday 13 January 2014, 18:56
Such an argument of 'if an individual feels it, then it must be true,' strikes me of solipsism.
I'm saying that saying something is good or bad can't
ever be "true". Regardless of the sheer number of individuals who share in it, an opinion never becomes an objective, mathematical reality. It's nothing to do with solipsism, it's just pointing out that giving out grades of what is better or worse than something else cannot ever, by definition, be objective. It's not provable by any science that Beethoven was "better" than Hummel, just as it's not objectively true to say that anything is "better" or "worse" than anything else. These concepts are the opposite of objectivity.
Everyone seems to be using the word "objective" to simply mean "mass opinion". I'm not saying mass, or established, opinion has no value to me; I think it has much less for me than it might for most others, but still has some. Otherwise, why would I love reading people's thoughts and feelings on composers and works on this board so much? Not only that, by using the "mass opinion" at times of this site I've spent quite a bit of money buying CDs and been delighted. I'm not claiming to be completely unplugged from the system. I only brought all this up in the hopes that people won't feel that they are obligated to feel that certain composers or works are good or bad, better or worse, based on what anyone else - or indeed
everyone else - says.
I've noted a disc or two in my time that I had considered buying when first learning of it, but opinions on this board dissuaded me. I chose to heed the opinions of people here I've come to trust quite strongly. But it was just that: a choice. Might I have bought these discs anyway, and possibly loved them tremendously? Yes. But I see there is value in
choosing to heed expert opinion. But I'm not
obligated to, nor am I required to agree with what they say is good or bad, better or worse. And when/if I do listen to those works, my eventual feelings about them will be completely unaffected by anything that anyone else says, purely by how my own nervous system and various chemicals in my body happen to react as I listen.
And I feel a lot of composers are unsung today because of a calcified composer/work hierarchy that depends largely on people never being willing to even accept the possibility that they might have a different reaction to those composers/works than that mandated from on high. It's partially never listening, but it's also listening with a pre-judgment already in their heads. They don't let their body react naturally, but instead set up a barrier in advance to block out what might be a purely positive experience, and artificially force it to become only lukewarm. I've loaned people music CDs of unsung composers before and seen the look on their face, the tone of their voice clearly conveying their low expectations. And there'd probably be a fair shaking up of this hierarchy if people would just listen with
no expectations.
I think I'll leave this discussion to others. I've got symphonies to write; I am a composer after all...
I'm not going to wade into this -- and I have a degree in Philosophy. There have been large treatises written on this issue, most of which conflict. So we are unlikely to resolve it here.
I'll simply offer my way out of this dilemma.
When I hear someone assert that X is a better composer than Y, or that this symphony is better than another, I immediately attach "in my opinion" or "in my judgment" as a preface to the assertion. Because in the end, people differ about the things they like or dislike, approve of or not, admire or disdain.
And simply compiling votes of those with marginal knowledge as to the relative standing of composers or ranking their works is meaningless. There is no comfort in accurate measurement of the irrelevant.
However .... that does not mean that all judgments are entirely subjective. Some people, due to their training, experience and unique talents, are more able to make knowledgeable judgments than those who are less expert.
As an example, I personally do not enjoy listening to the music of Draeseke. To me it is barren territory. However, my education, expertise and career has not been in the field of music. I am well aware that some others, who are much more knowledgeable about music than I, admire and enjoy his music.
If those people, whose judgments I respect, say he is a good composer, I accept that. But it doesn't change the fact that I do not enjoy listening to his music. And it does not mean that I would accept that he is a "better" composer than Brahms or Rachmaninoff -- only that he is a composer that some knowledgeable experts recognize as a good composer.
In all things, if we aspire to truth, it is our responsibility to make our best judgments based on existing evidence -- but since no one can be expert in everything, we must at some point accept the judgment of those most knowledgable as having more weight than just our personal "best guess".
On the other hand, if someone asserts that a given piece of music is "more beautiful" than another, well, that is a different issue entirely, because as research has revealed, notions of beauty, attractiveness, and other qualities vary significantly from culture to culture, era to era, location to location. This is the aspect of music that I think is truly difficult to quantify or discern in any objective way. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.
Experts can quantify all the physiological, chemical, biological, structural, and performance measures of a woman and if they say "this woman is a superb example of woman," I will accept their analysis. However, if they assert "she's beautiful," well, I am likely to have my own opinion about that, and I will consider my own opinion just as valid as theirs..
Speaking as someone who's at least put some time into studying what people over the centuries have had to say and argued one way or the other about moral and aesthetic judgments (good, bad, ...) etc. etc. (back when I was considering philosophy as a concentration) -- to suggest that it is an obvious and settled fact that the whole matter is in one way or another subjective seems facile. It is also, however, especially when moral philosophy is dragged in tangentially, way out of the scope of this board, I'd be the first to agree.
I think the problem here is that people are making the old mistake of confusing "I like this" and "this is good". It is an objective truth that, in terms of taste, a fine burgundy is better than lemonade. That is provable - there is complexity and subtlety in the wine that is lacking in the soft drink. However, you may prefer lemonade, and that's fine. That is your taste, and on a hot day it may be that anyone will prefer the lemonade. But you cannot elevate the lemonade to the same status as the burgundy and say it's all subjective.
In music, of course some works are objectively better than others. Find a good musicologist's analysis of a Bruckner symphony, and see all the subtle twists that go to making up the overall experience (and they matter to your experience whether you specifically notice them in listening or not). Now, try to construct the same analysis for a salon waltz. You can't - it's entirely superficial. This is as close as may be to a proof that the one is better than the other.
You may not like Bruckner. You make like salon music. That's your subjective opinion to which you are 100% entitled. A good critic, however, should be able to disentangle value judgements from whether he likes the music or not, and it is quite possible to recognise a work as a work of genius while thoroughly disliking it.
Sadly, there are not many critics who can rise above assuming that anything not already famous can't be good.
I'm not really into all this philosophical stuff, which is why I have avoided posting in this thread so far, but I must say that the two posts today from Amphissa and Gauk express my own, sometimes contradictory, views much more eloquently and straightforwardly than I could ever hope to do. So I'll shut up now, but with thanks to the two of them.
Quote from: Gauk on Tuesday 14 January 2014, 09:01
I think the problem here is that people are making the old mistake of confusing "I like this" and "this is good". It is an objective truth that, in terms of taste, a fine burgundy is better than lemonade. That is provable - there is complexity and subtlety in the wine that is lacking in the soft drink. However, you may prefer lemonade, and that's fine. That is your taste, and on a hot day it may be that anyone will prefer the lemonade. But you cannot elevate the lemonade to the same status as the burgundy and say it's all subjective.
But everything you list just involves complexity. Complexity is not objectively BETTER than simplicity. Nothing that you said there proves anything is objectively better than anything else, you're just stating that a given Brucker symphony is better than some unidentified salon waltz because it has "subtle twists" (your opinion). Why isn't brevity in music "better"? Why isn't simplicity in music "better"?
And yes, yes I can say that a lemonade is better than a fine burgundy, since there's nothing whatsoever objective in the statement one way or another. If it's objectively better, then a computer with no feeling and no taste buds would be capable, using some kind of mathematical formula or something, to
prove beyond all argument that it is so, since objectivity doesn't require (or account for) taste: it deals purely with factual reality. I'd also like to see how a tribe of people which has never encountered alcohol or lemons would react to blindly sampling both. What if they have a discussion and decide that, clearly, it is an objective fact that the drink with alcohol in it is inferior, and seem to think it's just blatantly obvious that this is so? If it's objective, then surely a majority should not draw a factually incorrect conclusion based on tasting each? But I'd bet, based on initial reactions many have to alcohol, such a result would be very possible, no matter how fine the burgundy is.
But as you well know, Humans can't and will never be capable of
proving good or bad, better or worse (which means they are not objective concepts, by definition). Or, if it is objective, then I have to ask by which science or method this objectivity will be proven, and by what formula. Mathematics? Physics? What is the absolute, exact mathematical formula for "good"?
The answer, Josh, lies in this sort of thinking - which you evidently reject:
<<According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels...
Anyway, I think this particular part of the discussion is played out and all we're doing is re-stating our views.
Let's now return to the topic and consider the factors that might explain why certain composers have remained unsung. For example: Draeseke. His idiom is personal and therefore recognisable, his music intensely memorable, his craftsmanship second-to-none - and yet his name has made barely a ripple in musical history. Reasons? His music is undoubtedly 'difficult', often extremely serious. He founded no school and had no major benefactor, although he had many prominent pupils and his works were performed under famous conductors such as Nikisch, von Bülow, Reiner and Böhm. Of course, he was a professor at the Dresden Conservatory, so he may have been seen primarily as a teacher. These may be some of the reasons why he has remained unsung. Another may be the fact that the Nazis co-opted him as one of their national icons, but that was hardly Draeseke's fault...
Can anybody suggest another composer and the reasons why he/she has remained unsung?
Your description of Draeseke reminded me a bit of the later-generation Ewald Straesser (1867-1933) (taken up by several of the same conductors and also Furtwängler and others, professor at a different conservatory, composer of some 6 symphonies, a few concertos (some lost?), 5 string quartets (all of the quartets can be heard @ IMSLP), a piano quintet, trio, violin sonata, etc. - though all that seems to be commercially available, I believe (so far?), is his clarinet quintet, and that only on a new release - it may be a good sign that his first two symphonies have been reissued in score by Musikproduktion Höflich very recently...) - also usually very serious (though there are some funny, and I do think deliberately funny, moments, in e.g. the scherzo-ish movements of his string quartets...) - sometimes very serious and affecting and deeply felt, as with the finale of his 4th string quartet - but I admit I tend to remember moments like those (and that ending, especially the close of the aforementioned finale, is very strong stuff) more than his melodic invention, on the whole, as yet; but that may change with more exposure than I've had so far. But I'm not meaning to be disingenuous; it does occur to me that this would be a good time to return to his music, the moreso as I've now been reminded several times very recently...
Picking up on Alan's point, I don't think that much is to be gained from any more contributions to the philosophical side of this debate, as we are in danger of just getting restatements of previous positions.
Can we instead concentrate, as he has in his example of Draeseke and Eric has with Ewald Sträßer, on exploring why individual composers have remained unsung, when arguably they deserve more recognition?
I'll pitch in with Raff: Hugely popular for twenty-odd years in the third quarter of the 19th century, he was at the same time during his lifetime dogged by accusations of inconsistent quality and lack of self-criticism. His large catalogue was cited as proof of this, although more than half of it comprises small piano works, and his oeuvre of larger pieces is no more extensive than Dvorak's for instance. His reputation collapsed with his death and he suffered not the indifference of being forgotten, but the indignity of being reviled as the epitome of a lazy composer, lacking in inspiration. Raff's major works are certainly variable in quality, there's no point in denying that, but that very variability means that, although some pieces don't deserve modern repertoire status, many others arguably do.
Many composers' reputations take a big dip when they die, but they subsequently revive. Why didn't Raff's? I think it was a combination of factors: 1. He had always been a controversial figure, accused from the outset of being too prolific. 2. Despite his being the director of a prestigious conservatory, he actively discouraged the establishment of a "school of Raff". So, although he was very influential on many of his contemporariness, that influence didn't further his own reputation. 3. He actively disparaged "nationalist" music, just at the time when it became popular with audiences. 4. He deliberately dissociated himself from both the Liszt/Wagner camp and the conservative/Brahms camp, with the result that he was disliked and distrusted by both. All of these "political" factors militated against Raff's posthumous reputation amongst critics and his fellow musicians. Add to this that he was most famous amongst concert goers for a series of programme symphonies, which was a seriously old-fashioned looking genre by the turn of the 20th century, and you have a "perfect storm" which sank his reputation to such a degree that he became a byword for incompetence. Once accorded this status, he continued to be unthinkingly reviled by several generations of critics who had never heard a note of his music. This inherited, deep-seated and uninformed bias is a huge obstacle to overcome for anyone hoping to restore Raff's reputation.
I am no scholar, so it may be that many of the explanations provided by Mark regarding Raff and by Alan regarding Draeseke, are true and sufficient.
However, I think there are examples of composers reviled and denigrated by critics, academe, and other composers, yet their work continued to be performed with great success and with great audience approval.
The most obvious example of a composer surviving the currents of antipathy is, of course, Rachmaninoff. With the rise of modernism, he was condemned by critics, scholars, academics and other composers. Yet his music continued to be played because audiences loved it.
So I think it is not enough to say that a composer's music was tossed aside primarily because of political and critical reasons.
I will make the bold assertion that great music and great composers survive the tides of fashion, the disparagement of critics and the political intrigues of academe.
I will make the further bold assertion that, if music cannot find its audience, it will falter. Perhaps not disappear, but be of marginal success.
Now, as to Draeseke -- I can accept that Draeseke was a fine craftsman, because knowledgeable people say that he was and I have no reason to doubt it. However, when I listen to a Draeseke symphony, my attention is not so much on experiencing the music. I find no joy, no passion, no aesthetic beauty in it. I am not transported into a magical musical world.
I am quite aware that others may experience the music of Draeseke much differently. Those for whom the technical aspects of composition are integral to the their listening experience probably appreciate his music in a very different way than I can possibly do. I am a mere amateur.
And yet, I am probably more like audience listeners in that way. And I would propose that Draeseke's music, however well crafted and admirable, lacked certain qualities that audiences want. Can the average classical music listener enjoy or become drawn into the music?
I've done no tests, but perhaps Draeseke's music just lacked (and still lacks) the right audience. But if the idea is that audiences must be educated as to the structure and workings of the music in order that they can better appreciate it -- well, that was the argument of the modernists trying to explain to us why we should listen to serial composers rather than Rachmaninoff.
I am surely not criticizing the music of Draeseke, and most certainly am not questioning those who enjoy his music. But I profess that, despite trying for years, I am unable to enjoy just sitting down and listening to music composed by him.
Is that the only reason his music is not played more? Maybe the reasons listed by Alan are the most important explanations.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Tuesday 14 January 2014, 17:51
Picking up on Alan's point, I don't think that much is to be gained from any more contributions to the philosophical side of this debate, as we are in danger of just getting restatements of previous positions. Can we instead concentrate, as he has in his example of Draeseke and Eric has with Ewald Sträßer, on exploring why individual composers have remained unsung, when arguably they deserve more recognition?
Oh, hear, hear! This is not the first time an interesting topic has been hijacked to serve as the soap box for one person's metaphysical sophistry, but let's work together to ensure it is the last.
Regarding the matter at hand, there are a number possible reasons why composers deserving of more recognition remain unsung. Among these are
1. Stubborness: Some art lovers adhere to abstract rules for judging art. I have a friend who used to judge all American art as bad. If he liked something that turned out to be by an American, he would say, "On second thought, this work shows typical weaknesses of American art that blah blah..." and proceed to recant his position. I have another friend who dislikes compositions that were withheld from publication. Thus, Rachmaninoff's First Symphony is unworthy of performance because it was withheld from publication. That Mendelssohn's First Symphony was published while the Fourth was withheld does not sway him.
It may be that some otherwise intelligent people reject unsung works because they are unsung. Period.
2. Babies and Bath Water: Unsung composers, on average, tend to have more chaff than wheat. It could be that people are too lazy to separate their deserving works from their undeserving ones. Of course, many noted composers are noted for only a handful of pieces. The unplayed balance is sometimes deservedly ignored and sometimes sadly neglected.
3. Repertory Inertia: The repertory may have its own life cycle, just as a civilization does. People seem to influence it, but this may be an illusion. We say that Mahler was revived by Bruno Walter and Leonard Bernstein, but the latter could do nothing to revive Goldmark and has done little to sustain Nielsen. Barenboim championed Furtwangler to no effect, while Jarvi has failed to revive anyone, despite years of advocacy through recordings and adventuresome programming at the helm of the Detroit Symphony. We who are older have watched Sibelius and Hindemith come and go, the Franck Symphony and Grieg Concerto slowly disappear, and the Schumann Violin Concerto become, against all odds, part of the repertory.
The repertory, then, has cycles that defy the influence of any one person or group of persons. If Draeseke's time every comes, it will happen of its own accord.
I hadn't noticed Sibelius or Hindemith "go". Or Nielsen. Comparatively speaking (to 1944 when Sibelius could be mentioned in a movie (as a plot point even), and an "all-Sibelius" concert posited, and the moment be unruffled, well, compared to that,-- yes.) but nowhere near "go", even by all that much really. One of the first orchestral concerts I heard when I was really getting into classical music (... hrm, then again, ok, 1987 was awhile ago) had the Helios overture... but the next-to-last concert I attended (I unusually went to 2 in close succession late last year...) had Hindemith (and Strauss, and Rachmaninoff...) in it. (Ok, true, it was the 50th anniversary of his death last year.)
Quote from: eschiss1 on Wednesday 15 January 2014, 01:31
I hadn't noticed Sibelius or Hindemith "go". Or Nielsen.
Point taken. But I'll stand by the Franck Symphony and Grieg Concerto. Not vanish, just diminish. But all beside the point, which is: sometimes popular things start to disappear for no reason, while other things emerge, all absent a change in critical opinion.
No argument there from me, anyway.
I found this conversation to be very stimulating and thought provoking for me and also way out of the realm of the small amount of knowledge that I have. I believe that today a lot of it has to do with marketing. Hollywood composers which I do know a bit about are much the same way. People with little experience can rave on and on about Herrmann's "Psycho" and how it is the ultimate film score. It is good don't get me wrong. Hugo Friedhofer who wrote the greatest film score in my opinion "The Best Years Of Our Lives" is relatively unknown or an unsung while Herrmann is a sung. The same has been said about Brahms and Raff in this discussion.
Tom
I would like to nominate the sole known symphony of Ignaz Moscheles as an added candidate for discussion here. People on this very board know virtually infinitely more than I do about music, and I not only respect, but almost depend on their opinions for my Romantic-era musical purchases! Robert Schumann certainly couldn't be given less credit. So why am I filled with a similar feeling when listening to the symphony of Moscheles as to what I experience when listening to the Symphony #3 Eroica of Beethoven? Don't take this wrong: though the #3 and #8 are my "least favourite" of Beethoven's symphonies, they are still both probably at the least near my all-time favourite symphonies list, which is why to this day I feel Beethoven might be the greatest - by average- symphonist in my estimation. Did Schumann's fairly negative review damage this late-Classical/early-Romantic symphony? I'm not making a stand on this, just pointing out that the first time I listened to it, I had no idea Schumann even knew of its existence, and I feel in tremendous love with it. I was honestly stunned to read translations of Schumann's reviews. Did this have lasting impact on the reputation of Moscheles? Maybe? Schumann seemed in general favourable toward his other music. Did that have a positive impact? If so, that seems to have faded. But Schumann surely is considered by the general experts as "great" as a composer... and he seems to have had a high opinion of Moscheles' music in general... but now not even a single piece of Moscheles seems to be held in high regard! Was his opinion worth anything? And if so, how much? And if not, why not?
I think a factor in this is also that the perception of a "masterpiece" has changed. Up to the beginning of the 20th century, it was still quite common for a critic to criticize a new work mainly for "lack of melody". The composer's mastery of symphonic form could be seen as relatively less important. Fx. after the first performance of a Nielsen symphony (I forget which), a leading Copenhagen critic wrote that he considered "The MerryWidow" superior to the new work because at least it contained melody (which, by implication, Nielsen's work didn't)
An example of this change is also seen in the critical reaction to Swedish composers Wilhelm Peterson-Berger and Wilhelm Stehammar. When P-B's first symphony was premiered in 1903, the critics praised the work to the skies for its elevating, noble melodies. At the same time, Wilhelm Stenhammar was criticized for writing dry, academic music. However, when Peterson-Berger's fourth symphony came out in 1930, it was written off as a mere collection of pleasant tunes, and the composer's lack of formal mastery was emphasized. Admiration for Stenhammar had risen correspondingly and he was now regarded as Sweden's foremost late-romantic composer. All this is documented fascinatingly in Bo Wallner's massive 3-volume biography of Stenhammar. Wallner also quotes a leading Swedish critic, writing about the premiere of a Grieg violin sonata, as saying something on the lines of, "Who cares about form when a composer of genius lets his imagination flow freely?"
At the same time, I think the critics, or at least "arbiters of taste", got more influence on concert programmes as funding of orchestras, opera houses etc. was increasingly taken over by public finances. To justify this, concerts took on a more "educational" aspect, becoming part of a kind of "general public enlightenment", like libraries etc. This again meant that more attention was paid to whether the music played at concerts was "educational", "healty" etc. After all, who could justify spending tax-payers' money on mere collections of pleasant tunes?
And isn't this idea of pleasantness but no more one of the charges most often levelled at the kind of music often discussed here even today? Wasn't that the gist of critical reaction to Järvi's recording of Raff's second?
That's a fascinating insight, regriba, which I can see would be relevant in many cases including, as you point out, Raff. It doesn't explain the case of Draeseke, of course.
It's been ages since I listened to anything by Moscheles, though I recall it to be pleasant listening. Alas, I have never heard his symphony, but to the question as to how much Schumann influenced its reputation, I would hazard a guess that the fate of the that symphony is independent of Schumann's opinion.
Schumann had good taste is music, but he liked many things that are utterly utterly unknown today. If glowing reviews from Schumann did nothing for Burgmuller, I don't think his disapproval sank Moscheles's symphony. More likely it sank with Moscheles reputation, independent of Schumann's opinion or its actual quality.
Schumann's criteria for evaluating music, though, make his recommendations worth investigating. His judgements nicely balance technical criteria (analysis of structure, chord progression, counterpoint, etc.) and those less concrete criteria that are so central to the arts.
But don't let Schumann's negative review influence you too much. It's one piece of evidence, but it's hardly the final word. With the jury system that governs art evaluation -- the consensus of connoisseurs -- it may be worth seeing what other reliable judges thought. Mendelssohn, perhaps?
Here is another example.
No less than the titanic Toscanini championed the works of Martucci, playing his music in concert, on radio broadcasts, and recordings. He was included on the final concert program conducted by Mahler in NY. And Muti has taken up the gauntlet to champion his work, making recordings and playing his music in concert around the world. There are dozens of recordings, including coupling with sungs like Respighi, even Schumann and Wagner.
Yet he is stolidly entrenched in the ranks of the unsungs as far as the core repertoire and listening audience is concerned. Is it because he did not write enough music? Are his works unimaginative, unappealing, politically incorrect, overly derivative?
Is he simply forgotten because not everyone can be remembered?
And does that go hand in hand with the reality of concert programming -- to fill the seats, one must program familiar names?
"stolidly entrenched"? ow. Not actually an adverb I associate with his music, myself. (Did you mean solidly?)
I think in Toscanini's case, his carrying the torch for Martucci was more for personal and national pride more than anything else. He eventually dropped Martucci (and Raff, too) and alas, never recorded any. I've tried, and tried, to get a handle on Martucci - all of the ASV recordings, but it never really captivated me. In comparison, it was easy to hear why compatriot Respighi was so much more popular.
I want to also address something that came up earlier regarding Sibelius, but this also applies to Bruckner and some others. Acceptance of some composers is also a geographical issue. Bruckner has never taken off in most of the US. In some pockets, Cincinnati & Minneapolis come to mind, they were played often, but only when the conductor running the show was attuned to those composers. In Phoenix we had a wonderful German conductor who unfortunately passed away too early, but while he was here, he brought several Bruckner symphonies. Since he died - none. Sibelius is in the same boat. While Salonon was in LA they got a lot of great Sibelius, but now that Dudamel is running the show, not so much, and I don't thinks it's going to get any better any time soon. In the rest of the US, when you get Sibelius at all, it's usually symphonies 2, 5 maybe 7, Finlandia, the violin concerto and not much else. Elgar faces the same problem. WE're getting the first symphony shortly, but it's been 20 years since it's last outing. In the meanwhile, we've had Enigma a zillion times.
I may have run out of nomination pebbles, but I'm thinking too/now/..., not whether Albéric Magnard will find his way back near the repertoire (... right.), but whether he'll find his way to it. (I hope so, it's true. Unfortunately, I've missed some opportunities to hear live performances of his symphonies etc. in New York City. Busoni wasn't just helping out a friend, I'm quite sure, when he programmed Magnard's 3rd symphony in 1905- while orchestrally not the most sparkly work - there are places, as my late friend Colin pointed out to me, where the instrumentation is just plain austere - but from the mysterious chorale of the opening through the capricious Danses - I'm giving any advocacy for the 3rd movement a pass, though (ok, ok... :( ) ( :) ) (well, it's not bad. But I am disappointed by it.) - to the finale which at first promises to sparkle before (convincingly - not, I think, like all that motivic work in Franck's symphony...) finding its way back to the opening chorale - it's really quite a good listen, I think, and his 4th symphony better still. (Most people here are fairly familiar with his music anyway, I know...)
(There's also a few performances of his piano and wind quintet on YouTube, btw.)
(I always figure though, when it comes to a piece of music's hopes, that when it gains an unsolicited "oh, who's that?" from the people I'm playing it for or someone just in the house - that's a good sign in itself (Magnard's 3rd, in this case, awhile back; the reaction was from my musically very literate father who, however, is used to my bringing all sorts of music of very variable quality with me on my visits... (image of cat dragging in score sheets and CDs))
This has been a challenging thread to follow - my thanks to all for some stimulating ideas.
There has been discussion previously on the forum as to the diverse reasons for the neglect of some composers and some compositions. In an age with an insatiable appetite for the new, I find it difficult to offer any plausible explanation for music lovers' obsession with the familiar, but I am sure it has something to do with the postmodern nature of western societies and the need for familiar 'anchor points' that reassure us that the world is still the one we know and in which we feel comfortable. Mozart's piano concertos, Brahms' symphonies and the Trout Quintet are the safety nets that stop us from falling into psychological confusion in the face of the chaos and infinite possibilities of 21st Century life.... or something like that!! ;D
Perhaps asking why Draseske remains a marginal figure is asking the wrong question. Consider instead, how was it that, say, Brahms found an entrenched place in the repertoire? One can posit that there is some breakthrough that propels a composer from their initial obscurity into a position of lasting fame. In that case, the answer to the question of Draeske is that the breakthrough never happened. And in Martucci's case, the advocacy of Toscanini was not breakthrough enough.
All composers start out "unsung". Most stay that way. And what propels a change in status may be something as simple as good luck.
QuoteSaying 2+2=4 is an objective statement.
Saying 4 is better than two is subjective.
This is a philosophically important discussion. Therefore, forgive the directness, but it's important not to confuse the amazing and elegant world of tautology that is mathematics with the worlds of aesthetics and ethics, which are in no way tautological because they include the element of choice.
One might respond that that was exactly the point. To which another can respond, read Kant. "The starry sky above and the moral law within..."
QuotePerhaps asking why Draseske remains a marginal figure is asking the wrong question.
After puzzling over this for years, I still can't understand why Draeseke remains a marginal figure, regardless of who is currently less marginal (be that composer Sousa, for example, or Rubinstein, or Brahms, or whoever). In other words, it hasn't been hard to explain why various other composers are themselves not marginal (or
as marginal), but the persistent "glass ceiling" that Draeseke hits makes no sense to me. He's not the greatest composer, but he's an A-list composer, unlike any other, with a rich musical vocabulary, a superb technique, emotional impact, and a lot to say.
I think composers like Draeseke simply don't offer enough that the public regard as new or different. The general appetite for the familiar on one hand, and the dramatically different on the other, accords no place for most of our UCs because they fall between the two. Why bother with an Unsung Composer when there are so many comfortable, familiar, reassuring, great and established composers? Unless they are offering a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience they stand little chance. Modern audiences, I believe, generally seek out the familiar, while a minority seek out the dramatically different. On both counts, composers such as Draeseke lose out.
In Australia, we are hearing a lot of the music that accompanies video games (notably the music for the Final Fantasy series), and it is becoming very popular on the classical radio station. It's rather like film music - sweeping Rachmaninovian symphonic themes, Mahlerian spikiness, and sweet melodies, juxtaposed with contemporary electronics. It seems to be offering the best of both worlds - the familiar and the new - without being too 'challenging'.
QuoteWhy bother with an Unsung Composer when there are so many comfortable, familiar, reassuring, great and established composers? Unless they are offering a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience they stand little chance.
I disagree - there are plenty of composers absent from the concert hall who DO offer "a totally new or instantly attractive listening experience", and I'm sure many here will be quick with examples. Lack of originality is not the issue.
The ears of many of us here are "fine tuned" to be aware of the differences in style between individual composers and to us many UCs are of course instantly recognisable. But I think that Semloh's point, with which I agree, is that to many less immersed in this world than we are, there isn't much to distinguish, say, the experience of listening to Dvorak from listening to Tchaikovsky, or to separate Beethoven from Brahms, or Strauss from Mahler. In that broad context, many prominent UCs (if that isn't an oxymoron) lose their individuality.