This may seem a pretty obvious thing to say, but the problem with unsung music is its very unfamiliarity. And this brings with it another problem, especially for music commentators and reviewers - but also for all listeners - i.e. that of the demand for instant critical assessment of the music concerned. With familiar repertoire the point at issue is not assessment of the music, but of the interpretation enshrined in the recording; however, with unsung repertoire its very unfamiliarity requires a much longer process of assimilation and assessment - which makes life very difficult for reviewers who simply don't have the time to undergo this process, The result, of course, is the sort of dismissive nonsense we often read in magazines, online, etc.
All of this seems pretty obvious, as I said. But it clearly applies to all of us - myself included, of course. And so what I have taken to doing is making copies of recordings for car use only and playing them there every day on my regular, routine journeys (but only when I'm alone!). This, I have found, is an ideal way not of doing any form of detailed assessment of a piece of music (I do need to drive from a to b safely!), but of getting the music into my subconscious and absorbing it at that level. In other words, repeated listening is of immense value when you don't know a piece of music - and if it can bear repetition in this manner it's probably a good piece!
My current companion in the car is Emilie Mayer's 4th Symphony, but this isn't the place to go into that wonderful music. Suffice it to say that, for me at least, regular listening and re-listening has been an important and opinion-forming (even opinion-changing) experience.
Alan,
You raise a very interesting pint in your note about the possibility of one's opinion (on an unsung - or rather to the individual I's suggest a previously unknown) piece of music changing (after a few listenings, maybe).
I'd be interested in how many members genuinely change their initial opinion from liking to not (or vice versa). I usually find that if I don't like a piece, then even a further one or two attempts to listen don't really change that initial feeling. Conversely, if I choose to listen more than that, it's because the music pleases me when I listen to it. It's not a conscious choice, merely (I guess) a subliminal response to pleasure or lack of it.
Even though I'm not well-informed about content, keys, structure or similarities to other works like yourself and other senior members, I'm sure they are not key factors in the basic emotion of liking a piece (but clearly help, I'm sure, in understanding the piece - not the same thing as liking, methinks??)
Do other members find they might actually change their basic liking or otherwise of a newly heard piece??
Best wishes
Richard
Repeated listening has greatly increased my regard for the unsung symphonic repertoire of the nineteenth century in particular. In almost all cases I can think of, the process has made much clearer a composer's own distinctive sound world and personality. It has also stopped me thinking of unsung composers in terms of other, sung composers - in other words I have found myself thinking in terms of a much broader development of the symphony than that which is generally put forward in text books, magazines, etc.
I'm with you all the way on these points, Alan.
However I'd slightly modify your position. In my view, it is necessary to submit oneself to a couple of 'casual listenings' before sitting down to some 'serious hearing' with ANY piece of music. The reason why we don't appear to have to undertake this two-stage process with 'sung' music is that we already have a basic familiarity with it (from our early years, at school, encountering it either in part or whole from a radio broadcast, or even 'background' music in a play, film, or even TV advertisement). It is that initial acquaintance which enables us to get a grasp of the overall 'geography' of a piece, and which in turn makes possible a concentrated 'listen' and in turn to be able to make a reasonable critical judgment on whether a particular performance is any good (i.e. whether it does justice to the piece).
With an 'unsung' work we don't possess that background and therefore have to acquire a grasp of its 'geography' or 'sound-world' before a more concentrated listen. For example, if I go to a concert and hear a new piece by a contemporary composer (and I don't mean an outlandish one!) then although I might be struck by, say, the texture of the sounds, I'm probably not going to make much headway with the piece for I don't yet really know what to 'do' with the sounds impacting on my ears.
Maybe I'm in unduly convoluted mode! A simpler case might make the point clear. When I was at school and encountering Shakespeare's plays, I couldn't make much sense of a performance unless I'd previously read the play (or seen it adapted for a film). My very first encounter with Hamlet was being taken to Stratford when I was about 14. I confess I just couldn't readily follow what was going on: I didn't know who the characters were, the outlines of the plot, why a ghost appeared, or just why Ophelia started acting peculiar!
I also confess that, 50 years later, I had a very similar experience when listening to Rufinatscha for the very first time. The issue of the Chandos CD had been preceded by a whole trail of excited comments in this forum and elsewhere, and the result was that I was itching to hear the thing. So I peeled off the cellophane from the new CD, sat down, wiggled about in the chair to make sure there weren't going to be any uncomfortable pressure points on the nether regions, cleared the throat, disconnected the phone, emptied the mind of all previous thoughts, and, with full concentration at the ready, finally pressed the 'play' button. And what happened? I became almost bewildered by what seemed a long, meandering ramble lasting about 50 minutes with a few 'good bits' along the way. I got quite lost in it.
And the reason for that is quite simple - I hadn't prepared myself for listening to the symphony 'properly' by, for example, hearing it in the background whilst I ironed the shirts, painted the ceiling, washed the dishes, or engaged in some other mundane activity. Unlike you, Alan, I couldn't listen to a new unsung piece whilst driving the car. I seem to have a pair of ears that, whenever any piece of music is encountered, immediately surrender to it. The ears, so to speak, 'lock onto' the sound. For good or ill, my mind is such that there is simply no alternative but to listen to it intently and to block out everything else. If I drove and listened, I know I'd jolly well quite forget to steer and promptly go straight through a brick wall, or be found racing up the motorway in 1st gear! That's why 'pop' music really irritates me deeply - I can't ignore it or choose not to listen to it. Instead that inane noise drives into my skull and makes me thoroughly uncomfortable. I've been known to storm out of public places in a proper stink because the noise causes real anguish.
Apologies - I've rambled far away from your points!
Now, think how listeners before our modern era felt: they would have one - and usually only one - chance to assimilate and understand a work. There were no recordings and if you wanted to hear a symphony more than once, it may have entailed getting the piano reduction and playing from that. In our time we have the luxury to hear and re-hear music - known and unknown - over and over, and most of the time in different performances. For a 19th c listener, getting to know the Raff 3rd while driving or ironing wasn't an option. And composers knew it: they had to make a good impression from the get go. If you missed your chance, your music may go to the dust bin. If you were a conductor who could get your music performed more often it helped. But the listener didn't have too much time to decide if he likes or dislikes a music. I would like to think that audience members of yesteryear were smarter than those today. Was there a time when they really bought pocket scores to study? When I read books like Goepp I'm awed by the harmonic analysis and everything else. How many people today can understand any of it? Goepp even addresses the issue of music worthy of being in the repertoire and the junk.
So yes, it takes time and repeated listening sometime to "get it". Even among the greats there are more than a few who I didn't "get" for a long time: Elgar, Sibelius, even Brahms. I struggled with Mahler for a long time, too. But others, Tchaikovsky, most of the Russians, Raff, Dvorak, Liszt, even Franck, came easy.
Yes, I agree. The unfamiliarity of UCs can be awkward in terms of assessing their work, and there's no substitute for repeated listening in order to develop an appreciation of their, or any composer's, music. Alongside that, some compositions can have an immediate impact (good or bad!), and often no amount of repeated listening will alter that initial impression. The appeal of the Kallinikov symphonies, for example, or Borodin's string quartets, is pretty obvious at first hearing.
I don't get too worried about identifying a 'distinctive voice' among our UCs. For me, it's not a guarantee of quality, nor its absence a sign of inferiority. Most composers sound like someone else at some stage anyway, and that is to be expected - it's hard for a composer to develop totally insulated from, or unaffected by, the work of others, and initially at least there will be some degree of shared musical language.
As for changes in one's appreciation of certain compositions... I can give a couple of personal examples which don't involve UCs, but may be worth citing here just to illustrate the point. As some forum members know, I loathe most orchestral Tchaikovsky (yes, honestly and truly I do); as a teenager I delighted in the ballet music, but as the years have gone by I have found it all increasingly annoying, and now I can not bear to listen to it. In the reverse direction - Brahms! In my 20s and 30s, I had an allergic reaction to his orchestral and chamber music - I could pick it out simply because of the physical nausea it invoked. But by my 40s I came to love his music unreservedly. So, yes, I think we can change our estimation/appreciation of music quite dramatically over time.
It has been very interesting to read the posts of this thread. It is also my experience that repeated listenings are important to fully appreciate UC music, in fact all classical music.
I need to listen concentrated in order to judge a certain piece of music, so it is not possible to do that while driving in my car. It is too busy on the roads of my little overpopulated country. I always listen to (background) music in my car, but most of the times I don't even know what I was listening to. Classical music is something for me at home. Difficult, more complex classical music asks concentrated listening. As soon as it becomes noisy my wife leaves the room. And not rarely I force myself to keep on listening. But I am happy to do so, because I think the composer deserves it and I will at least give it a try to understand and appreciate the piece.
It happens that the first time I listen to an unknown work by an UC I feel immediately attracted to the music. Also after repeated listenings. Then I usually like to explore all his/her music (Rufinatscha for example). Some music needs more repeated listenings before I fully appreciate it (Draeseke is an example). But the reverse also happens. I have quite some music that I began to dislike after repeated listenings (Wetz is one of them).
I take the time and 'trouble' to listen to UC. I buy the CD's, not seldom because of what I've read on the forum. And then an UC becomes sung to me personally. But how is that for classical music lovers who are not aware of the existence of so many UCs? Those who like to visit a concert but are rarely surprised by a piece from an UC? Or only go to a concert if very sung music is on the program? How about those who only listen to the radio? Or buy CD's from famous composers because their music is full of memorable tunes? Or because music by the sungs can be found on broadcasted Top Hundred lists? And what is the influence of money? Is there a difference if a radio station plays Beethoven's Third instead of Röntgen's Third? If so, what and why? Money again?
I still think (in fact, understand) that music by UCs is something for a minority of classical music lovers (and we are the happy few!). But there are UCs who absolutely deserve to be placed next to the great and famous composers. Raff is definitely one of them.
I always think a wise man is one without unchanging dogmatic views, tastes and preferences, and who has no difficulty in changing their mind. Nonetheless I'd love to draw you out a little, Semloh, and ask whether you can account for your changed view of Brahms. No problem with Tchaikovsky: others may howl but I find his music (chamber as well as orchestral) appeals largely to the senses, and once we've got over the physical exhilaration it can bring, there's not much of enduring subtlety to satisfy the mind.
But Brahms? Maybe I'm dogmatic here, but to me he's just about the most satisfying composer I've ever encountered - the chamber and piano music especially. I simply can't understand anyone not responding to the music! I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception, and would be incapable of any other response.
Thus I'm intrigued: by what sort of process have you moved from physical nausea (wow!) to an unreserved love? Maybe that's a personal question which you'd prefer not to answer in public, but, struth, that is some change!
And "I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception" - eh? Have I finally gone quite gaga? Maybe not! My parents possessed a very grand Steinway from the first day of their marriage, and my father played it most evenings. According to family legend when my mother heard Beethoven then without fail I'd be be kicking, sometimes quite violently, in the womb. Schubert, Schumann and Chopin brought about absolute stillness (was this contentment or boredom?). But Brahms? Apparently, and utterly invariably, I'd be jumping about in sheer joy. How about that?!
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Saturday 08 December 2012, 09:25
But Brahms? ..... by what sort of process have you moved from physical nausea (wow!) to an unreserved love? Maybe that's a personal question which you'd prefer not to answer in public, but, struth, that is some change!
And "I've loved the stuff from a few months after my conception" - eh? Have I finally gone quite gaga? Maybe not! ...............
I don't want to stray from the topic, Peter, but my change re Brahms began with a specific occasion when I inadvertently found myself listening to the 3rd symphony on BBC Radio 3 - I just suddenly found myself utterly seduced (or I "got it" as Judge Judy says!). As to early exposure to music, my father used to play 78s of Beethoven symphonies to me when I was a baby, but of course that simply means we were growing up in a home where classical music was available and acceptable (which it wasn't in most homes at that time).
As an example of an unfamiliar work with immediate appeal, I've just been listening to the Piano Concerto by Pabst - a very odd, eclectic work, which calls for some more careful listening. Forum members are probably familiar with it.
I think expectations, or lack thereof, play a part here. I have a clear expectation of the type of listening experience I am embarking upon when I about to listen to a Mozart piano concerto, but when the concerto is by an UC the only guide I might have is the date. I recall those all too rare occasions when such expectations have been confounded - notably, my first encounter with Gottschalk!
The unfamiliarity of Unsung music places the listener in a position of uncertainty, in which their predisposition to evaluate the music in a certain way no longer applies. BBC Radio 3 used to have a programme in which the music was unannounced - "The Unknowing Ear" or "The Innocent Ear" or some such - which I thought was fascinating because it freed one's response from all expectations. I recently had this happen here in Aus. whilst cooking breakfast! ;D I suddenly became aware of the music on the radio and muttered something about inane rubbish by some talentless composer, subsequently to discover that it was Mozart. Had I known in advance that I was about to hear something by my beloved Mozart, I suspect my reaction may have been different! ::)
That would have been "The Innocent Ear", hosted by a certain Robert Wilfred Levick Simpson, I believe. A late friend of mine enthused about it a lot. From what I've heard about it, he did so with reason. (Edit: about it. Haven't yet heard excerpts of the program itself.)
Yes, that's the one, Eric! It was a good way of getting people to listen without prejudice. :)
I hope no-one minds me resurrecting older threads, but this subject has been on my mind since reading the more recent thread on Rubinstein 4. It has always struck me that in any performance of unfamiliar music, if it sounds bad, the temptation is to blame the composer. This is just as true historically with premieres as it is with critics reviewing modern recordings of unfamiliar repertoire. Think of Rachmaninov's 1st symphony - if any of the critics present had had the perspicacity to record that the performance was terrible, musical history might have been different. And I have witnessed the same think first-hand with a premiere of a piece that was poorly performed through inadequate rehearsal, and the composer got the blame.
It takes real insight to see at one hearing that a piece's merits are obscured by a poor performance, if one has no other performance against which to compare it. Perhaps it is particularly difficult with orchestral music compared, say, to opera, where bad singing is clearly bad singing, usually.
I'm afraid, also, that a lot of professional critics don't have this skill. I suspect that many music critics subconsciously go through a process of reasoning something like this:
- Is this piece good?
- I don't know; is the composer famous at all?
- No.
- OK, if his music were good he would be famous, so this piece can't be good.
'Resurrecting old threads'.....well, yes. But endlessly repeating what has been said before? No - because I think you've given a new perspective to the issues discussed.
I think you're spot on right, and express the point in lucid terms. I'll be interested to read subsequent posts - and I'm sure they'll be forthcoming!
Quote from: Gauk on Wednesday 06 March 2013, 19:01
I hope no-one minds me resurrecting older threads, but this subject has been on my mind since reading the more recent thread on Rubinstein 4. It has always struck me that in any performance of unfamiliar music, if it sounds bad, the temptation is to blame the composer. This is just as true historically with premieres as it is with critics reviewing modern recordings of unfamiliar repertoire. Think of Rachmaninov's 1st symphony - if any of the critics present had had the perspicacity to record that the performance was terrible, musical history might have been different. And I have witnessed the same think first-hand with a premiere of a piece that was poorly performed through inadequate rehearsal, and the composer got the blame.
It takes real insight to see at one hearing that a piece's merits are obscured by a poor performance, if one has no other performance against which to compare it. Perhaps it is particularly difficult with orchestral music compared, say, to opera, where bad singing is clearly bad singing, usually.
I'm afraid, also, that a lot of professional critics don't have this skill. I suspect that many music critics subconsciously go through a process of reasoning something like this:
- Is this piece good?
- I don't know; is the composer famous at all?
- No.
- OK, if his music were good he would be famous, so this piece can't be good.
I want to borrow most of this last paragraph for a FB status. May I?
I was not exposed to classical music when young and never had any systematic introduction to classical music in my entire life. I had no formal training with an instrument. I never attended a concert of classical music until I was well into my 20s, and did not start listening to classical music as my primary musical interest until the mid-1990s.
The distinction between sung and unsung was really meaningless to me. Sure, I knew the names of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. But I really wasn't particularly familiar with their music, because I had never listened to it. Other than the 1812 Overture (gasp!), the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th, the Ode to Joy, the Nutcracker and Peter and the Wolf (haha), I was a novice. The only composer I actually had in my album collection as of the early 90s was Rachmaninoff. I had his 2nd and 3rd piano concertos and his first two symphonies. That was it.
As a result, as I staggered blindly into the world of classical music, every piece of music has received the same fair chance with me over the years, no matter the name of the composer. They were all unsung to me. And frankly, I discovered that a famous name was irrelevant to me. There were some sungs that I did not like from the beginning and have never developed a kinship with. Similarly, there are some unsungs I just don't enjoy, period. And of course, there are some composers I have been wowed by, sung and unsung.
Unlike many here who are extremely knowledgeable about music, I cannot read music (and don't care to learn), and do not listen to music analytically. Music is, for me, an entirely experiential thing. So the idea of a couple of light exposures before serious listening makes no sense for me. The music either resonates with me or it doesn't. And that applies to sungs as well as unsungs.
BTW, I loved Brahms from the first notes of the first symphony. But I have gotten into discussion group tussles with knowledgeable people who detest Brahms. There are those who adore Mozart, whereas I personallyfind his music superficial and boring. Luckily, there is so much music out there, we can all find music we enjoy.
Quote from: JimL on Wednesday 06 March 2013, 21:16
I want to borrow most of this last paragraph for a FB status. May I?
Of course!
I have had conversations along these lines with living composers, and it seems that a composer's career has two stages.
Stage one: He is not famous, therefore he is no good.
Stage two: He is famous, therefore he is good.
The problem is, how do you get from stage one to stage two? It seems to be some completely chance circumstance. And it can happen at any stage in one's career. For the lucky, it happens in youth or prime. For some, it happens in old age. For others, it happens after death (think of Bizet).
Quote from: Gauk on Wednesday 06 March 2013, 22:33
I have had conversations along these lines with living composers, and it seems that a composer's career has two stages.
Stage one: He is not famous, therefore he is no good.
Stage two: He is famous, therefore he is good.
[.....or she.....]
Just to maintain that rather cynical generalizaton, I might add that here in Australia, the key determinants appear to be whether the composer is alive or dead. Being Antipodean, we turn everything upside down ;D, so - in direct contrast to Europe - our living composers are feted and much played (some might say regardless of the quality of their music), but this all stops abruptly the moment they die, when they are consigned to the ranks of the UCs.
That happens to some composers here as well; death prompts a re-assessment. You don't hear so much of Michael Tippett these days, for instance.
Quote from: Gauk on Friday 08 March 2013, 19:43
That happens to some composers here as well; death prompts a re-assessment. You don't hear so much of Michael Tippett these days, for instance.
Good point. I think we have noted elsewhere on the forum that this also happened in the past, and that composers who were quite the rage in their day fell into neglect after their death and joined the ranks of the unsung.
Quote from: semloh on Friday 08 March 2013, 22:09
Good point. I think we have noted elsewhere on the forum that this also happened in the past, and that composers who were quite the rage in their day fell into neglect after their death and joined the ranks of the unsung.
I think Raff would be a good example; I believe he was very highly esteemed in his day. There were probably a good number of people whose music was played as long as they were promoting it, but fell away without that motive force.
We don't?
Performances of works by Michael Tippett in the next couple months fill a page. See http://www.schott-music.com/shop/persons/featured/sir-michael-tippett/performances/ (http://www.schott-music.com/shop/persons/featured/sir-michael-tippett/performances/). Not Beethoven-level popularity, but not a, say, erm.. .I make no comparisons. (That took me 5 seconds to "Google", though...)
Unlike Mark, I'm not the Raff expert. But I've got the impression that his music became unsung, not primarily because the poor chap died, but because others either deliberately ignored it or even quietly conspired against its performance in order to advance their own musical reputations. Doubtless Mark will appear and tell me that despite there being a wee grain of truth in the suggestion, the issue is far more complicated.
Independent of that I always feel awfully sad when I think of what happened to Raff's reputation after his death at a relatively early age. Don't know why, but somehow far more sad than I do with other composers. There is something quite wretched about an undeserved fall into near oblivion. In the case of, for example Liszt, it is almost too painful to be aware of the circumstances of his quite horrendous death. But you don't experience sadness at the fact that he died because the music lived on. Maybe even the same with Schubert? Not so with Raff, for his music almost disappeared for good. When I was younger, the name was occasionally encountered in music history books but no-one listened to his music.
Changes in the popularity and the level of public exposure afforded a composer's music, sometimes do coincide with their demise, one way or the other, but I would agree that Tippett's case is more complicated. He was the darling of the BBC in the 70s, but faded after the 4th symphony and some controversial opera performances, but he continued composing and did not pass away until 1998.
Of course, popularity waxes and wanes in any case. I recall there also being a sustained enthusiasm for Obrecht, Des Prez and De La Rue in the 70s. Radio 3 had the Missa Pange Lingua echoing around my bedroom for months on end (or so it seemed ;D). I suspect one would be hard pressed to find enthusiasm for their work on that scale now at the BBC.
I must apologise for colluding in straying from the original topic - but perhaps such observations should give us hope that some of our UCs may eventually have their day in the sun as others recede into unsungness! ::)
I'm not especially keen to discuss Tippett - besides way outside the central interests of the forum. But what utterly fascinated me was the list of Tippett performances cited by Eric above.
I don't think I would ever have guessed - just counting professional performances where folk part with money to get a seat, there are Tippett performances across the world at least every 2-3 days, and sometimes 2-3 different performances in widely different places on a single day. Who would have guessed there would be 8 performances of 'Child of our Time' worldwide between March 12 - April 27? Not me!
I find such statistics quite mind-boggling. I've got no idea about how these things work out, but how do the royalties stack up? Should one gawp at the probable income to the Tippett estate? And given that Tippett's fortunes must be dipping at present, what would be the current state of, say, Britten performances in this current year? Here in Suffolk we've got the local press very excited about the prospect of performances of 'Peter Grimes' on the beach at Aldeburgh, and Britten coming out of loudspeakers in the greengrocers as you make your purchase of organic carrots. I guess worldwide there is universal Britten. Quite amazing when you think of it.
And to appease moderators: I'm not trying to smuggle in discussions of Tippett, Britten (or even Birtwistle!). It is the 'statistics' of music performances that have led me to the post.
I only mentioned it because when an evidence-ignoring dig is taken, I sometimes have this rather strong compulsion to bring up the... eh, bother, said Pooh...
Gentlemen: let's remember the remit of this site. It certainly doesn't embrace Tippett or Britten.
My mention of Tippett was, I admit, based on a subjective impression of where is critical stock stands compared to before his death. He may not be Romantic, but to look at the process of how Romantic composers fell from grace after death, one needs to make comparisons with the experience of one's own time.
Perhaps - but only perhaps. And there are so many composers from the period which UC concentrates on, so let's deal with them, please.
Why was Raff so quickly forgotten? Easy: there was so much new music and 100+ years ago orchestras weren't musical mausoleums that they've become now. Look at the New York programs when Mahler was there. Once a year he could do a "classics" concert of maybe Haydn, Mozart, Schubert. But for the most part, the music he played was relatively new. Even the beloved Wagner concerts had music that was less than 50 years old. But he sure didn't play music 200 years old! In an era before recordings, musicians, conductors, and audiences were more interested in something new, kind of like movies today. But there were some works that rose above the chaff like the Beethoven symphonies, Brahms, some Tchaikovsky...the warhorses. They didn't to be popular for nothing. Raff held on with symphonies 3 & 5 until they finally were purged to make way for more new music.
Now how many unsung composers have ever had their day in the sun? To record collectors there are quite a few. But to my mind, in the past 100 years there has been only ONE unsung composer who vaulted to the top: Mahler. But honestly, he wasn't all that unsung thanks to the work of Walter, Klemperer, Scherchen, Mengelberg and some other lesser known conductors. 30 years ago there were some composers who I just knew were going to be the next Mahler-like discovery. Bax, Schmidt, Pfitzner, Reger, Glazunov...never happened. Despite many, many fine recordings of their music, none of them have become a real presence in the concert hall, and never will. Every now and then some adventurous conductor will take out something of a rarity, but the symphony orchestras, at least in the US, are musty museums of cob-web ridden dullness. I've been looking over schedules for the upcoming summer festivals (yeah, Festivals of Too Familiar Music) and the 2013-14 seasons and it's grim. Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Schubert...all the usual suspects. A few Korngold violin concertos, a little bit of Sibelius and Elgar. So far I have not seen one single concert worth traveling to because of the novelty of something new. Thank God for CDs!
Many thanks for that contribution. I've found it suggestive and potentially illuminating. Some of it I haven't fully appreciated before......will now go and mull.
Around 1949, the BBC broadcast a performance of Raff's Lenore Symphony and I was able to carry the tune of the march in my head for around 40 years before I managed to acquire an LP of the work, so that, when I did get to hear symphony again, at least some of it wasn't unfamiliar to me. having whistled and hummed it for so many years.
On another track; I can remember a time in the 1940s when both Bruckner and Mahler were almost completely unheard of in the UK. Then someone from the recently instituted BBC 3rd Programme had the bright idea of putting on a complete series of the Mahler symphonies. Following on the success of that project, a lady wrote in to the Radio Times suggesting they did the same for the Bruckner symphonies and so the following year we were able to hear the the complete Bruckner cycle, minus the Study Symphony and No "0", which were probably still unknown even to the BBC. These broadcasts obviously stimulated interest in these 2 composers and within a few years LP records of their symphonic music were apearing in the record shops.' followed by occasional live performances by various British orchestras so that today neither of these two composers can be regarded in the UK as unsung.
Cheers,
John.
Last Sunday I heard Janine Jansen play the solo part of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto. And while listening I was thinking, suppose Raff or Rubinstein, or any other less sung romantic composer, had written this masterpiece. I guess he had become world famous for eternity. After the break Brahms's First was performed. I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?
The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?
Well... "memorable" and "unforgettable" are subjective terms. I find Arne's "Sweetest Bard" to be both... yet I'm the only one (that I know) who is aware of it.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Monday 11 March 2013, 20:24
I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?
Draeseke 3 without a doubt in terms of scale and ambition. Raff 4 in terms of utter perfection of instrumentation, form and memorability. Rufinatscha 4 or 5 (formerly 5 or 6) in terms of sheer grandeur. These, for me, are the three unsung nineteenth-century symphonists whose best works belong in the pantheon along with that great masterpiece, Brahms 1.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Monday 11 March 2013, 20:24
Last Sunday I heard Janine Jansen play the solo part of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto. And while listening I was thinking, suppose Raff or Rubinstein, or any other less sung romantic composer, had written this masterpiece. I guess he had become world famous for eternity. After the break Brahms's First was performed. I know, of course, it's all my very personal taste. But which unsung symphony can match with Brahms's First?
The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?
Yes, I think it is, and allow me to name two reasons - although there are more.
The first is that the 'judgment from history' ("if it's forgotten, it probably deserved to be") argument is easily countered with historical argument. Simply said: the chances of survival for pieces of music weren't the same everywhere. Remember that recorded music didn't show up until the latest years of the 19th century. Most of the time, your composition, if it reached a concert venue at all, would have one shot at getting remembered. If you weren't at least somewhat famous, its chances of survival diminised further. And if the venue happened to be outside Germany or Austria, it was worse still. If you were a brilliant composer but happened to live outside a major musical centre, it might happen that simply would not find an audience. Gernsheim is a good case in point: a great talent, but one who spent a major part of his career outside the musical centre, in Rotterdam (and much of the rest in a provincial backwater in Germany).
Secondly, don't underestimate the way in which the human mind 'canonizes' information. Brahms' symphonies a deeply ingrained part of our musical heritage for most of us from an early age, through a plethora of media. Therefore, much of that music begins to sound self-evident because it is so familiar to us. It does not *always* mean that the music has great intrinsic merit. And, more importantly, it means that we have to take much more effort to 'get' the patterns of something that is new and unfamiliar.
Is Gernsheim that good an example? The list of performances of his works outside of Rotterdam during his lifetime and soon after is actually pretty impressive. (Cello concerto premiered in Eisenach in 1907, and given its British premiere by Pablo Casals in 1909; Waldmeisters Brautfart op13 given in Cologne in 1868; piano concerto given (premiered?) in Basle in 1868 (composer, pianist); 4th symphony given Mainz, 1896; Divertimento op53 commissioned by a group in New York City and premiered by them winter of 1888-89; String Quintet no.1 op.9 given Cologne, 1867; first piano quartet op6 premiered(?) Leipzig 1865 (2nd in Köln 1870, 3rd in Bonn 1883) etc. ... (see Boston Symphony program notes p1022 et seq (http://books.google.com/books?id=TEQQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1022).) (Oh o k, Cologne is the "provincial backwater" of which you speak, where he taught from 1865-1874. Sorry, had never thought of Köln as a provincial backwater of any kind at all...)
Quote from: Ilja on Monday 11 March 2013, 23:28
Quote from: Peter1953 on Monday 11 March 2013, 20:24
The great, sung composers were capable of writing not only very memorable tunes, but simply unforgettable music. IMHO that's the main reason why they became and stayed so famous and beloved. Or is this statement far too simple?
Yes, I think it is, and allow me to name two reasons - although there are more.......
I agree totally with your observations, Ilja.
I am also reminded of a popular and influential paperback which appeared - in the late 60s I think - called
The Myth of the Meritocracy. I think we have discussed this quite often on UC, and not only is it clear that the claim that 'the cream always rises to the top' is false, but also that such a claim as it applies to music is almost impossible to state precisely. Concepts such as 'beloved' and 'famous' (and 'popular') can mean so many different things, and are no guarantee of 'quality' - which is itself difficult to define.
Regarding 'canonization', I would add that what we regard so positively today (part of the cultural canon) may in due course be cast aside, and vice-versa. This is an example of the social construction of musical taste, of course, a process which is perhaps more obvious in relation to 'popular' music, but does become apparent in light of the history of classical music and the periods of neglect, if not not outright rejection, of composers whom we take for granted today as being among the 'immortals' (and vice-versa of course!).
Hopefully, someone who knows more about it than me will reply to Eric's interesting rejoinder about Gernsheim. :)
I was probably not entirely on target, so I also await the reply reasonably impartially ;) in hopes perhaps of mutual clarification...
I think that a lot of composers who might have had their popularity, canonization, familiarity, etc. continued uninterrupted to this day were dealt severe setbacks by the Nazis because they were Jews. Gernsheim, Brüll, etc. can probably be numbered among them. Remember that before the war, there was a marked increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, including here in the States.
I would like to add to Alan's list of Unsung symphonies matching Brahms's No1, Franz Lachner's prize winning 5th Symphony. In my opinion, Lachner's symphonies form the link between Beethoven/Schubert on the one hand and Bruckner/Brahms on the other. Interestingly, Lachner was a great friend of Schubert in his younger days and later on offered to conduct a performance of Bruckner's "Study Symphony".
Cheers,
John.
Personally, I wouldn't put Lachner 5 in the same league, but it's an important work.
I will admit I was very impressed with Lachner 6 in the synthesized performance (I apologize, I know I've said this too often). I keep thinking it's a work that in a good "real" performance could indeed "hold its head high" without special pleading, but yes, that's subjective!
Quote from: John H White on Sunday 10 March 2013, 21:01
Around 1949, the BBC broadcast a performance of Raff's Lenore Symphony and I was able to carry the tune of the march in my head for around 40 years before I managed to acquire an LP of the work, so that, when I did get to hear symphony again, at least some of it wasn't unfamiliar to me. having whistled and hummed it for so many years.
You know, it is decades since I last heard Raff 5 (I don't have a recording), and all I had to do was read that paragraph and the tune popped into my head ...
Quote from: JimL on Tuesday 12 March 2013, 17:45
I think that a lot of composers who might have had their popularity, canonization, familiarity, etc. continued uninterrupted to this day were dealt severe setbacks by the Nazis because they were Jews. Gernsheim, Brüll, etc. can probably be numbered among them. Remember that before the war, there was a marked increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, including here in the States.
I'm not that convinced, actually. Gernsheim and Brüll's fame had eroded a fair deal by the 1930s anyway; and Mendelssohn's (probably the most significant composer excised from nazi Germany's concert halls) work has remained popular despite the best effort of the national socialists. That isn't to say that antisemitism didn't play a role, but I rather doubt the long-lasting effect of nazi culture policy was that significant. To me, the big tragedy is the lives and careers of working composers that were cut short - which ironically appears to have contributed to the dominance of dodecaphonism and serialism in 'art music' after the war.
I'm surprised, Eschiss, at your enthusiasm for my synthetic performance of Lachner's 6th Symphony. Personally, I was rather disappointed with it, especially the opening movement which I didn't consider a patch on the corresponding movements of Nos. 5 & 8. However, as I transcribed it into Sibelius software, it seemed to gradually improve from movement to movement, the rollicking finale being well up to scratch. I suspect that its unevenness was the main factor in one of our forum member's decision to drop it from the programme of the concert he was conducting 2 or 3 years ago.
Cheers,
John.