Unsung Composers

Listening to the stupendous recent release of Dvorak's 8th Symphony (Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra/Manfred Honeck on Reference Recordings) has set me off on a train of thought about performances of unfamiliar repertoire. You see, Honeck has obviously taken the time to think through his interpretation (which is very individual, but also very fresh-sounding) of such a familiar piece as Dvorak 8 - and he has the orchestra to carry out his wishes. But how often do we actually get a comparably thought-through and brilliantly played performance on CD of an unsung work? One recent excellent example is Dmitry Vasilyev's wonderfully incisive conducting of Bargiel's Symphony in C (on Toccata) and the powerful playing of his Siberian Symphony Orchestra - but how often do we get such a response, and how often do we actually get something rather more dutiful than inspiring in the way of performance? And so then the question which this raises is how often we hear unsung music in performances of sufficient quality do it justice?

Please excuse the ramble...

I'd cite the two discs we've had so far from Chandos with Järvi's readings of Raff's Second and Fifth, plus the smaller works, as prime examples of this approach.

How often do we hear recordings/performances that truly do justice to an unsung work? To state the *obvious*

More performances and more recordings increase the possibility of better quality. If a conductor decides to champion a work, performing it with different orchestras, he will discover nuances to the music that may not be evident upon first reading. But also, if more conductors perform the work with different orchestras, there will be varied interpretations.

Just off the top of my head, here are some unsung composers with selected works that have been performed and/or recorded multiple times with different conductors and different musicians/orchestras:

Martucci piano concerto
Paderewski piano concerto
Suk Asrael Symphony
Gliere 3rd symphony

Myaskovsky -- most symphonies have been recorded more than once, but symphonies 2, 5, 6, 21, and 27 have received the most attention, which has resulted in some varied and very good readings. His cello concerto and cello sonata have been pergformed and recorded many times.

These are just examples. But it raises further questions.

Are there "sung" works by "unsung" composers? I think the answer to that question is yes, just based on the examples above.

At what point does an "unsung" composer become a "sung" composer? This is a more difficult question that we grapple with on this site constantly. Are composers like Saint-Saëns, Korngold, Kabalevsky, Hanson, Rubinstein, and Bruch really unsung? The concert hall repertoire has shrunk to a small set of warhorses, so most of these composers are rarely heard in performance. But they have enjoyed many recordings.

It can safely be said that Korngold, Saint-Saens, Bruch and Hanson are not in the least unsung. To prove that I refer you to the rental catalogues of their respective publishers. Like all composers some of their works are performed more often than others, but nonetheless their names can be termed virtually "household". One might also argue that if a work has received five or more recordings, its composer may not be precisely termed unsung. Then there is the matter of audience, as in unsung to who? The very large body of professional musicians maybe familiar or even intimate with certain works and composers, and their being the first line of critical reception (because it determines the likelihood of a work's repetition) means that although they are the most important audience, the music they respect may not have reached a critical mass of the layman audience. (Think of the Boston Symphony with Martinu and Bartok in the 30's and 40's, when Koussy kept shoving their works in front of Symphony Hall audiences.) So perhaps there are differing degrees of the unsung, one being rather dependent upon the other.

Myaskovsky is an interesting case; he's a composer who was championed by many conductors and who had plentiful performances that began to fall off in 60's. Because of the quality of his music and the general love of Russian/Soviet composers, his name came very close to being household. In his case politics interfered with his complete triumph; Myaskovsky became a cold war casualty. Yet his repetitional fire continued to burn quietly, with performances and recordings here and there being aided by his scores being pretty easy to find. He's had major recordings in the 90's and early 21st century, yet he has still to catch on again as he once did. I can attest that it is not due to quality; coincidentally yesterday I listened to his 21st and 25th symphonies which confirmed to me the searing emotion and penetrating psychology of his music. He is a master, one of rhetoric without bombast.

There is only one answer: keep programming the unsung without apology if you believe the music is great and lasting. That is the only way for the unsung to make a transition from that status to something close to being established.

First off, I'd rather we didn't get into a debate about what's unsung and what isn't - that's a different question altogether. What I wanted to know was what friends here think of the general level of performance of unsung music which we encounter on CD. For example, I often wonder what a really first-rate conductor and orchestra and conductor would make of, say, the Klughardt symphonies? If Manfred Honeck were to conduct them with his PSO, would we think more highly of them? Would they reveal themselves as better pieces?

Mark's citing of the Raff/Järvi recordings and Amphissa's mention of works by Martucci, Paderewski, Suk and Glière suggest that multiple performances and recordings really do raise the bar - and change opinions. And minacciosa's encouragement to keep on programming unsung music without apology is surely the way to go. Perhaps we should be lobbying the conductors a bit more?

This kind of discussion will be always be interesting to me, although I may not be able to contribute much. As far as Hanson is concerned, I'd very much doubt that he is "not in the least unsung" here in continental Europe – more's the pity. It is probably a question of different linguistic as well as musical backgrounds where a composer is (fairly) well known. By was of example, there will be a performance of the Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams in Freiburg next June and this is the first time as far as I know that it will be performed near enough for me to want to attend (since I became acquainted with the work about 25 years ago). So here in Switzerland at least, even RVW is not a household name even among those interested in music.
Quite often, though certainly not always, even musicians do not seem to know a lot of unsung composers, let alone the concert going public. It is very often a question of trying to 'educate' the public to accept works by composers whose are not familiar. Bruno De Greeve with his concerts in Hamburg is just one example that springs to (my) mind. I have attended two concerts in the rather large Laeiszhalle (over 2000 seats) with programmes devoted to Hans Gál and both times the place was packed.
To win over more of the general public and representatives of the somewhat endangered species of CD buyers, I think it would definitely help if more really first-rate conductors and orchestras embraced unsung repertoire so that there were more recordings to compare such as in the recordings of the symphonies by Rott or Mielck for example.

I've yet to hear a recording of Dvorak's 3rd that truly did it justice.

Re Myaskovsky, his only symphonies never recorded before Svetlanov's complete series - recorded in any form, radio broadcasts included, I mean... - were 4, 14, and 20 (and I guess the early sinfonietta for orchestra in A, Op.10...)- there were also some, like no.2 and I think 26, which saw their commercial recording premieres with that series or perhaps soon before...

Indeed I was surprised to see Myaskovsky's sym.2- not recorded at all (save for broadcast tape) until a few years back- listed- I only know of three recordings, in fact (Rozhdestvenskii (not a commercial recording exactly- indeed, that was a CD release (Revelation CD) of the broadcast tape in question, I believe!), Svetlanov (part of a complete set), Rabl on Orfeo- so only one recording deliberately made "commercially", not for a radio broadcast, not for a complete set of all 27. (By comparison? I think recordings of his band symphony no.19, which you omit, have been somewhat more common than, I think, almost any of the Myaskovsky symphonies you _do_ list, checking Worldcat somewhat carefully... also, which of the 2 cello sonatas by him do you mean? ... also I assume the Martucci concerto you mean is his 2nd?)

And I still remember when Suk's Asrael was so unknown outside of Czechoslovakia (still a word) that Gramophone devoted a long article to the virtues of the work and praise for Pesek's new recording (if memory serves) (1991, yes, but... still, I guess if it's to be considered relatively sung now :), that's only 23 years!)

QuoteI've yet to hear a recording of Dvorak's 3rd that truly did it justice.

Really? Not even Kertesz or Kubelik? Or Suitner or Macal? Or Neumann?

At least there's a fair choice of recordings...

Please could we restrict ourselves to the issue of performance standards in neglected repertoire and the difference that really fine conducting and playing might make - preferably with examples?

I remember attending a student performance of Suk's Asrael Symphony in Cambridge in the mid-seventies. The only recording I knew was a great one - Talich's - and it was arguably the existence of his recording that kept the work alive, inspiring later performances...

One of the best examples of great performers taking time to do unsung music right was the Barenboim/Chicago Symphony recording of the Furtwangler 2nd symphony. And what a difference it made! Too bad Barenboim spends most of his time replaying the warhorse over and over - and then recording them. Honeck is a seriously dedicated and exciting conductor, his Mahler is great, just as the Dvorak is. I wish he would spend some effort on fellow Austrians Franz Schmidt, Schrecker, Korngold.

I'd almost forgotten, but I played in a scratch Cambridge student performance of Asrael c.1973, possibly with Stephen Barlow finely conducting although he'd have had to have been very young. I don't believe the playing was very fine.

That would have been the performance I attended. From memory it was at King's College. And no, the playing may not have been great - but it was evident that the music was...

I just played for some friends and family here at home the Trio for Clarinet, Viola and Piano by Reinecke, one composer I think is always in the line between sung and unsung. We hadn't heard it before, I think the clarinetist had only heard of Reinecke, but not something from him. It is a very inspiring work, and during rehearsals we had a tough time containing ourselves, from how much it propels us to be "all in" at all times. Our public was also most touched by it (we also played Mozart and Schumann) and thought it was the star of the programme, some noting the second movement specially.

I think we did as well as we could and as well as we would any other 'sung' composer, as testified by the comparison to the other pieces. Maybe "second rate" music gets more played by "second rate" musicians? I know I'm one of those, as I'm trying to ready concertos by Hiller, Ries (I know, I know, shocking!), Berwald and others, knowing that I can't compete with the more estabilshed pianists here on repertoire like Chopin, Liszt and Schumann. I'm, however, giving it my all, as I would those famous composers.

I'd say congratulations were in order - and I'm glad to hear how well the Reinecke was received.

Quote from: Alan Howe on Wednesday 31 December 2014, 20:39
I'd say congratulations were in order - and I'm glad to hear how well the Reinecke was received.

Very well received indeed. We got the most compliments for it, some others also complimented either the Schumann and (less) the Mozart (maybe because we played it first). Of all the programme, people would choose a movement of Reinecke as their favourite. It is a chamber music masterpiece, imho. In this case I think not only Reinecke not being famous prevents it from being played more often, but also there are few performances of "unorthodox" ensembles, even the Mozart doesn't get much air.

In my humble opinion, I think too often we are critical of orchestras that don't sound like the New York or Berlin Philharmonics.  Like to characterize them as second or even third rate.  Yet, in general, the big 10 (and more) do not take chances and do not often venture into unsung territory.  That accomplishes at least two things.   Folks get to hear, over and over again, the warhorses that they all love.  Which keeps them coming back.  But (and I say this at the risk of being whipped with a wet noodle) my mom used to say "practice makes perfect" and of course she was right.  Which leads me to suspect that one of the reasons the "top" guns sound so good is, hell, they keep playing he same stuff over and over.  Why wouldn't they sound better?  They've played Beethoven 5 so many times they almost have it all memorized.   Id like to hear some of these folks tackle some of the adventuresome repertoire that we are getting from others. 

I ramble

Jerry

I think you have a valid point, Jerry. My starting-point, though, was not the lazy flogging of warhorses (which obviously happens), but the enlivening of said standard-repertoire pieces by creative conductors such as Manfred Honeck - which then led me to wonder how often we hear non-repertoire works done with comparable creativity. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the two modern recorded performances of Draeseke's 3rd are actually pretty routine stuff compared with the one non-studio performance I've heard which was much more exciting. And a really exciting performance might just bring repertoire status that little bit closer. Anyway, who knows?

I am a great supporter of regional orchestras and orchestras that are not in the largest cities, having served on the board of several and helped with searches for conductors and principals. But I've also lived in large cities (NY, SF and Houston) and frequently attended concerts in other large cities (Atlanta, Chicago). There is, in fact, a substantial difference in performance, which is most commonly evident in strings and horn.

But also, there are other advantages that large, well-established orchestras have. First, although every orchestra seems strapped for funds, the large orchestras often have a much larger library of scores and have the resources to acquire scores much more easily than do small orchestras. Second, large orchestras usually provide a lot more programming each season, and so have the ability to schedule less familiar pieces. (Sadly, they don't do so as often as they could.) And finally, not only do they invite the big name conductors as guests, but they often invite the best and brightest up-and-coming conductors.

With all those advantages, you would think that we would hear more unsungs performed by these great orchestras. And I suspect the results would be remarkable. Unfortunately, here in the U.S., it just doesn't happen much. Unlike Europe, where orchestras often play music by composers from their country -- composers who are not so well known around the world. Luckily, they often broadcast the performances, and our UC archives are filled with those performances.

That's a fascinating insight - thanks for sharing it.

Certainly as far as recorded music is concerned, it seems to me that the major labels (EMI, HMV, DGG etc) have almost totally withdrawn from recording unknown works.  It was probably a decade or so ago when say EMI France would do a whole set of works (e.g. St. Saens' symphonies or his PCs) that, whilst not totally unknown were certainly not established 'warhorses' but now I can't remember the last time a release by any of the big labels made it to my (fairly extensive) 'wants' list.

On the other hand, as many members have observed before, previously unknown labels are now busy filing niches with unsung works (CPO, TOCCATA, Hyperion and many others).  I've also noticed a trend among some less '1st division' countries (if I can use that term musically), such as Latin america, Scandinavia that one or more labels almost see it as a national service to record the works of their own native composers (e.g. Tritos for 'mediteranean' works, BIS & Sterling for Scandinavian/North Europe  and of course the immense catalogue of former USSR works etc). 

Perhaps we all look at the demonstrable paucity of unsung works among concert repertoire but overlook the quite good selection now available on CD (even if we all, naturally, look to what we would like to have that is yet to be!)

Cheers

Richard

Do you have any sense of the quality of the performances we get in unsung repertoire, Richard?

I guess the implied, but not explicit, thought in my previous ramble is that the well-established orchestras often do have better musicians and other advantages, and are thus able to offer better performances compared to the orchestras in smaller cities. So, I would think that those orchestras could make better recordings.

However, there is often something more to excellent recordings than the talent and experience of musicians. Ideally, I'm sure Naxos would have preferred to have one of the more renowned American orchestras for its series of American Classics recordings. And Naxos was able to find a couple of decent American orchestras along the way. However, most of the recordings have been made by marginal ensembles from other countries, conducted by people who might never have even set foot on the continent.

And the results are exasperating in some cases. A lot of American music has an element that is peculiarly American, derived from jazz, blues, even Hispanic roots. There is no way to write that into a score. It comes naturally to American musicians because they grew up with it. I once had the agonizingly unpleasant experience of listening to one of the great German orchestras play Bernstein's West Side Story suite. On another occasion, I sat in dismay as a touring European orchestra and a soloist of international repute played Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. In both cases, they played all the notes. The tempi were fine. But there was no "swing" to the music. It was flat.

My point is, there is often an idiomatic aspect to music from any country that can be missing, no matter how accomplished the orchestra. Less famous orchestras often may not be able to achieve the same big, coherent sound and precision of major orchestras, but they may bring out idiomatic aspects of the music that outside orchestras cannot.

I am usually very interested to hear radio symphony orchestras of Eastern Europe play music by their national composers. Even if their ensemble is not as polished as one of the great orchestras, I usually feel as though, if there are regional roots to the music, the inflections will be there.

So, the original question is a difficult one for me. Yes, in many cases, I think we could have much better recordings of unsung composers, which would show the music to better advantage. But I'm not sure a polished, homogenized take on a composer always would tell us all there is about the music.

All that said, a recording of an unsung piece by an orchestra from  a distant country (culturally or geographically), led by a conductor equally divorced from the roots of the music, is unlikely to offer the best possible performance of a work.

Just my off-the-top thoughts.

QuoteSo, the original question is a difficult one for me. Yes, in many cases, I think we could have much better recordings of unsung composers, which would show the music to better advantage. But I'm not sure a polished, homogenized take on a composer always would tell us all there is about the music

I agree. But my original point was that a Honeck-type approach to the standard classics (i.e. one freshly thought-through and stunningly played), if applied to the unsung repertoire, might yield results that would make an enormous difference to the reputation of that repertoire. Järvi with the SRO in Raff, Noseda with the BBCPO in Rufinatscha and Barenboim with the CSO in Furtwängler are clear examples - although, sadly, rare ones.

Alan,

For me that's a tough question as I know I am not a skilled listener - I simply listen and enjoy it (or not)!". 

My impression is that most 'unsungs' are pleasant to listen to but rarely scale the performance heights achieved for some of the warhorses done by 'elite' performers.  For me, it is very difficult to separate the quality of a score from that of its performance unless you have had the chance to listen to several versions of the same piece! (v. unlikely for an unsung) or are a skilled reader of scores and can imagine what it should/could sound like).

However, rarely do the elite performers undertake unsungs (Howard Shelley and colleagues on Hyperion is one classic exception to that rule) so I appreciate most unsungs are not performed by top division artists and usually I'm just glad to have the chance to listen at all (Cameo Classics is a 'classic' example of this latter, if you'll pardon the pun).  Sometimes, if we're lucky, an unsung work, usually by a 'sung' composer, creeps onto an album of a warhorse as a filler.

Where I have really enjoyed an unsung, it has left me wondering how much more might I have enjoyed it if performed by 'elite' artist - a question I don't expect an answer to anytime soon.

To finish, I hope, on a bright note, I have found, even with repeat listenings, that the Michael Samis Reinecke Cello concerto is a lovely work lovingly performed, even though all involved are, for most practical purposes here, 'unknown artists to match unknown repertoire.  So we can all live in hope of quality unsung performances but only rarely will we get them.

As the ancient Chinese proverb I've just invented says "in a shallow stream you rarely catch fat fish!

Cheers

Richard

Quotethe Michael Samis Reinecke Cello concerto is a lovely work lovingly performed, even though all involved are, for most practical purposes here, 'unknown artists to match unknown repertoire

Michael, although previously unknown to us, is clearly a very eminent cellist...
http://www.michaelsamis.com/site/index.php/2013-04-13-21-38-01/biography (http://www.michaelsamis.com/site/index.php/2013-04-13-21-38-01/biography)
...which explains the exceptionally high standard of his playing in the Reinecke CC. However, if I were being picky, I'd say that the Gateway Chamber Orchestra was a size too small, well though they play on the recording. I'd have preferred a larger string section and the soloist placed further back. In other words, I can imagine a better recording - with Samis remaining as soloist, of course. I imagine that the root of the problem (minor though it is) was funding.

I hadn't intended to cast any aspersions on Michael's ability (quite the opposite) but merely to say he didn't have the international reputation of say a Yoyo Ma or other 'elite' performer.  You perfectly valid point about the orchestra is where my limitations in envisaging a 'better' performance let me down.

As to Amphissa's points above about the larger orchestras naturally having a better selection of unsung (and other) scores, I appreciate they may have more financial muscle to buy them in the first place but, as someone who has had administrative associations with the workings of orchestras, I would love to hear his view on whether they would be prepared to let other orchestras use them for a modest payment?  (and if not, why not - or do they suffer 'museum blight' whereby every artifact often seems to be jealously guarded from any rival, no matter how minor).

Surely, better to have someone else perform them (and get a 'by line' credit for sourcing the scores) than simply to stay in the archive unseen and unheard?

One last comment on unsung performances and how polished CDs maybe spoil us.  Some years ago I went to listen to (Sir) Simon Rattle conduct Schubert;'s tenth symphony (as realised by Brian Newbold) at the South Bank Festival Hall in London, having previously immensely enjoyed this 'unsung' on Hyperion's recording by Sir Charles Mackerras.  Unfortunately, by comparison, the  live performance sounded almost like a first or second rehearsal only.   Ah well, it was an 'unsung' live!

Cheers

Richard

If I may take a slight exception to what Alan said about the Gateway Chamber Orchestra vis-a-vis larger ensembles, I'm not entirely certain, but I do think that some large orchestras deliberately pare down the number of string players in concertos.  Maybe it's just my imagination, or maybe they only do it for Mozart or Haydn concertos, but I do think that the use of a chamber ensemble in the Reinecke produced just about the perfect blend of sound.  The solo wasn't drowned out at any point that I could tell, and that is my standard of excellence in performing a concerto from any period.

That's fine, Jim. I did say I was being picky!

Rather obviously, no matter how brilliant it might seem, we have no way of knowing whether a single recording of any work offers a good performance until we have another version against which it can be judged. This is a two-edged sword when it comes to unsung works because, on one hand, it means that listeners are generally not comparing the performance to those of the world's great orchestras and are willing to tolerate a lower level of technical skill in order to hear the music; but, on the other hand, it may do the unsung work a serious disservice and condemn it to obscurity! Some of the school orchestra recordings of neglected British music, for example, managed, I think, to (just) come out on the positive side of this relationship. ;)

Hard work, political astuteness, and no little courage are needed to be a champion of obscure and unsung music in performance, and I salute conductors such as Adriano who have taken on the task. When it comes to the recording companies, they too, take a huge risk when agreeing to record large scale unsung works, and yet the catalogue continues to grow at a rapid pace, with very fine orchestras playing vast quantities of once largely unheard music. So, I feel optimistic about the future of unsung composers/music.  8)

Thanks, Colin. Very insightful.

I miss being able to buy CDs by browsing through in shops, looking at the choice of recording. The high street market is now so reduced, HMV is a shambles, but a surprise may yet be found in say a charity shop. Yet most of that stock isn't even your Beethoven 5 or Schubert 8-9: it's compilation snippets from the most well-known works, outdoing even Classic FM. This is what music in our society has become.

The top works have been recorded over and over again, and whilst there's sometimes agreement on what's best, there's still considerable room for people liking rather different takes and disliking other people's preferences. Even so, within the array of top conductor/orchestra recordings, more often than not, any will be good. But an unsung work usually suffers a double marginalisation: lacking top performers and choice. I am well aware of my vulnerability to getting something which I turn out to really like ... and then getting something else by the same composer which I don't - without giving enough attention to whether I would have liked it had other musicians played it.

Have any unsung CDs been issued with two orchestras (or whatever) doing the same work with different interpretations, or is the idea too way out?

The complete symphonies by Niels W. Gade have been recorded three times, by Järvi, Schønwandt and Hogwood. The interpretations are quite different, so here comparisons are possible. I think the Hogwood set is another example of an unsung benefiting from very good music-making.

But it sometimes really is difficult to agree on what exactly is good music-making. I remember back in the 1980's, when only a couple of the Gade symphonies had been recorded. Danish radio then made a programme where different experts were asked to suggest what a complete recorded cycle would best be like. The general consensus was that it should use a full-size orchestra and, most importantly, a non-Danish conductor who could look at the works with fresh eyes and free them of the "tepid", undramatic, "Danish beech-wood" reputation they had got as a result of the few existing recordings.

Using chamber orchestras (and one of the a Danish conductor), the Järvi and Schønwandt sets don't live up to these demands, but the Hogwood set does. But what happened when it came out, about 25 years after the radio programme? Leading Danish critics berated Hogwood for overdoing the dramatic effects and making drama out of what is essentially lyrical works. Sometimes it is really impossible to please people.

That's a very insightful and interesting post - thanks. I agree, by the way: I bought Hogwood after Järvi and foud the former's greater sense of scale much more convincing.

I freely admit I know I am not a 'skilled' listener, unlike many UC members, but I've noticed that on those (infrequent) occasions when I have the chance to compare two different recordings of the same work,  it tends to be the first one I heard that I 'like' best.  Is this some form of imprinting (like young ducklings) that other members have also experienced or does it just go back to my first few words - i.e. it's me!

Cheers

Richard

Yes, musical imprinting is very much a thing.

Yes, indeed, Richard; that's exactly my point about the impact of familiarity. It is difficult to shake off one's attachment to a familiar recording and recognize the merits of another.

Just to illustrate that it can be done, however, I recently heard the VPO playing Poet and Peasant - stunning brass, absolute clarity and wonderful dynamics - and I instantly realized that I had been missing so much because of my 50 year old attachment to the versions I grew up with, and which I regarded as ideal. Such realizations are not possible, of course, when only one version is available, which is the case with so many unsung works, and judgements of quality must therefore be reserved.

A long, long time ago I first came across Tchaikovsky's Manfred in the Toscanini recording and loved the work and record so much that I had to buy a second copy to replace the badly worn first. Then around 1970 the Maazel recording came out - I could hear the beloved masterwork in stereo. But what's this? Maazel, the fraud re-arranged the score and added other music. Surely Toscanini played it correctly and young Maazel brazenly ruined Manfred. So strong was the imprinting that I couldn't shake the Toscanini for a long time, even though shortly after acquiring the Maazel I also picked up the Eulenberg edition of the score and lo and behold, it was Toscanini who corrupted the work. Same thing happened with the violin concerto finale, where I still have trouble with the uncut version compared to the Auer edition I think we all grew up listening to.

respect unsung composer's dignity, not prey on his defenselessness

Alan, you are a mine of information! I took note of your post in this thread (the very first post in fact) referring to the stupendous version of Dvořák's Symphony no 8/Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra/Manfred Honeck, so much so that I took the plunge and ordered it. I have been listening to the CD both yesterday and earlier today. I was hugely impressed by Honeck's new version of  this well-known work - so refreshing and exciting, full of vitalty and such a contrast to the more conservative/traditional takes on this symphony. It makes my versions of this work by Von Karajan/ VPO and Rowicki/LSO "almost" seem bland and insipid (even though the playing on both these versions is very fine it must be said!). The Honeck take is now my clear favourite! I was also very impressed by the liner notes written by Honeck himself, in which he points out where, exactly in the score, he applied his own thinking as to how the scoring/tempi should be interpreted! Many thanks Alan for alerting me to this recording.

Oh dear, my Gades are Järvi's but crucially, I did manage to find where they are.

I'm glad you liked the Dvorak/Honeck CD, Dennis. The conductor takes some risks - which is rather refreshing these days.

QuoteOh dear, my Gades are Järvi's

They're fine! But try to hear Hogwood, if you can...

Langgaard's symphonies are mostly, except for his first few, arguably too recent for us (though there's a reasonable amount of Romanticism in much of his music), but there've been at least two complete cycles and several other recordings of his 1st & 4th symphonies (e.g.) besides, allowing a fair amount of comparison/contrast of e.g. the 3 recordings of his ambitious first symphony. Haven't done that myself- yet- but if someone here has and thinks it worth commenting? Likewise perhaps the two or three recordings of Respighi's Drammatica (symphony) come to mind ... recordings rather than performances (though some performances of some works along these lines - e.g. Franz Schmidt's first string quartet, first movement only, can be heard on YouTube; or, hrm... Medtner's piano quintet can be compared in, I think, somewhere between 2 and 4? more than that?... different performances there also, not even counting uploads of commercial recordings (catching on!?!) --- anyhow,

some unsung music is fortunately (or unfortunately, depending) sufficiently un-unsung (ow ow ow) that one can hear some different performances somewhere with relative ease. (Different in principle, anyway. They may -sound- the same, interpretatively...)

(Though the two recordings I've heard of Langgaard's "Ixion" (a Swedish radio broadcast, vs the Dausgaard DaCapo recording in the complete cycle) did -not-...)

Even though there's an obvious lack of choice with unsung recordings, let me declare my buying preference where there is one and other considerations don't prevail:

                                              it's for (genuinely) live recordings.

This is true for both sung & unsung. Why? Because I think, however misguided I may be, that studio renditions are more likely to be ubiquitous, synthetic, safe, unexciting. Live has a good chance of more risk in interpretation and tempo handling, and of commitment, spontaneity, creativity - of the performers being swept up and letting rip in the sheer thrill and delight of realising the music on the page within the authentic forum it was intended to be heard: communicating with a real live appreciative audience. Similarly, for me, there is nothing like personally hearing a live performance.

So I was wondering: is this is your experience too, for sung, unsung, or for both?

It varies tremendously. One good solution is a recording made following a concert.

A further thought on Manfred Honeck: he takes all sorts of risks - with dynamics, phrasing, tempo, balance. etc. In many ways he is a throwback to an earlier school of conductors. He's definitely his own man, he's never safe - which can lead him into some questionable decisions driven by excessive subjectivity. As fine conductors go he's the opposite of, say, Chailly, who is much more rational and objective in his approach.

What we want in the unsung repertoire is someone like Honeck to take up a worthwhile piece and give it a thorough going-over. And Chailly would be great in Raff too...

The post at the top of this thread is spot on.

I'm reminded that quite a few Americans became aware of then-unsung Carl Nielsen through Leonard Bernstein's explosive 1963 and 1965 recordings of Symphonies 5 and 3. It isn't as though there weren't worthy recordings before Bernstein's, but his interpretations were nothing if not full of juice, Nielsen's symphonies truly receiving a "thorough going-over," sometimes at the risk of distorting the composer's intentions (like colorizing Reed's The Third Man. Nonetheless, charisma tells -- or, better, shows. Today, of course, Nielsen is no longer unsung in the provinces, and Bernstein certainly has something to do with that.

Sounds as though Honeck is performing a similar service, though sadly (for the likes of us) culture has moved on and Honeck, for one, won't be airing any Young People's Concerts on a major network anytime soon, or amassing the fan base that goes with such major exposure.

On the other hand, Nielsen's ascendency occurred before the advantages of our internet age. Forums like this are less conspicuous than public performances, to be sure, yet they are quietly pervasive and are becoming foundational to the discerning preservation of our forefathers' culture.  Fifty years hence -- assuming the biosphere still supports human life and human life still supports culture -- the before and after of a composer like, say, Rufinatscha will resemble the before and after of Nielsen today.

Well, just having more (and both better- and lesser-known) conductors performing lesser-known music well and more often - as Muti has done with Martucci, Slatkin did with Ropartz (with the ORTF, awhile back), though possibly for specific/contingent reasons each time rather than as part of a general trend - would be a good thing (and restore a sort of status quo ante in which some, at least, of this music used to get performed by a fairly large cross-section of ensembles rather than by performers, groups, record labels, devoted specifically to underknown repertoire, as increasingly now...)

A plus point for me with performing unsung music  is that i got less grief in piano lessons.

It seemed i used to get stopped every 20 seconds when playing a Chopin nocturne, but very rarely when playing one by Henselt.

Thal

Would the Herz have been worth interrupting over some finer point of interpretation, though?  ;)