You both bring up good points, especially about the sticking in the ear. That has a lot to do with popularity to be sure. For many of us of my vintage, one of the ways we were introduced to orchestral music was in the Warner Bros. cartoons which made free use of a lot of 19th c music. Using Hungarian Rhapsody no 2 was no mistake: the tunes just stick in the head.
As for Raff, to my ear it's easy to see why symphonies 3 & 5 are the most popular: those tunes! The rest of the cycle, despite their numerous qualities, just don't have the same likeability. Sibelius is no different. There's no wonder why symphonies 2, 5, & 1 are the most popular. Despite the critics wailing about how superior #4 is, the tunes are not in the same league and the listeners know it.
Another thing often overlooked is how the music appears to the performers. I've been playing in orchestras forover 30 years and have played my share of masterworks, some really great music, some so-so stuff and plenty of junk. When you play a great masterwork you just know it. It's nearly impossible to explain to someone who hasn't been there. The first time I played in the Brahms' 4th, at the conclusion I realized that "gee, this really is great, great music", a feeling I never got when I was just a listener. On the other hand, I've enjoyed Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite for many years, but the first time I actually played it I was struck how tacky it really is (except for Sunrise). Having played Puccini's Tosca, I have gained an insight into that opera that listening to it 1000 times could never have given me. Now I know what makes it so popular.
Here's the point: I don't know how many of Raff's symphonies, or the works of many of our favorite unknowns could hold up to the scrutiny of performers. I have played the march from Lenore (triangle), and as much fun as it was for me, I'm certain my enthusiasm wasn't shared by many (most?) of the other players.
I also know that amateur players don't want to play easy music or lesser known works to avoid comparison to professionals. They, too, want to play the standard repertoire. I am fortunate that two orchestras I work with regularly schedule obscure, lesser-known music. Some of it is well worth the time, but often, in the end, I know that history's judgment was correct.
There's no doubt that many composers got short shrift and were never given the opportunity for exposure they deserved. Due to politcal upheavals in the early 20th c I think many composers fell between the cracks, especially those in eastern Europe and Russia.
As for Raff, to my ear it's easy to see why symphonies 3 & 5 are the most popular: those tunes! The rest of the cycle, despite their numerous qualities, just don't have the same likeability. Sibelius is no different. There's no wonder why symphonies 2, 5, & 1 are the most popular. Despite the critics wailing about how superior #4 is, the tunes are not in the same league and the listeners know it.
Another thing often overlooked is how the music appears to the performers. I've been playing in orchestras forover 30 years and have played my share of masterworks, some really great music, some so-so stuff and plenty of junk. When you play a great masterwork you just know it. It's nearly impossible to explain to someone who hasn't been there. The first time I played in the Brahms' 4th, at the conclusion I realized that "gee, this really is great, great music", a feeling I never got when I was just a listener. On the other hand, I've enjoyed Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite for many years, but the first time I actually played it I was struck how tacky it really is (except for Sunrise). Having played Puccini's Tosca, I have gained an insight into that opera that listening to it 1000 times could never have given me. Now I know what makes it so popular.
Here's the point: I don't know how many of Raff's symphonies, or the works of many of our favorite unknowns could hold up to the scrutiny of performers. I have played the march from Lenore (triangle), and as much fun as it was for me, I'm certain my enthusiasm wasn't shared by many (most?) of the other players.
I also know that amateur players don't want to play easy music or lesser known works to avoid comparison to professionals. They, too, want to play the standard repertoire. I am fortunate that two orchestras I work with regularly schedule obscure, lesser-known music. Some of it is well worth the time, but often, in the end, I know that history's judgment was correct.
There's no doubt that many composers got short shrift and were never given the opportunity for exposure they deserved. Due to politcal upheavals in the early 20th c I think many composers fell between the cracks, especially those in eastern Europe and Russia.