Here's a little quiz:
I have in front of me a German book, published in 1909: Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur [encyclopaedia of German concert repertoire] – a guide for conductors, concert organisers, music writers and music lovers. The works of twelve Romantic composers are described in detail in this tome of 600-odd pages.
Here are the names of the seven sung composers in the guide:
Schubert – Mendelssohn – Schumann – Berlioz – Liszt – Wagner – Richard Strauss
Which five do you think are also in that book, composers who would be considered less sung or unsung today?
Raff, Lachner, Spohr.Volkmann,and (a young) Hans Franke.
Quote from: terry martyn on Friday 03 July 2026, 10:05Raff, Lachner, Spohr.Volkmann,and (a young) Hans Franke.
The last in one way or another, no doubt...
My guess: Rubinstein, Raff, Gade, Spohr, Klughardt.
I have a copy, so I'm keeping quiet!
Louis Spohr is my top guess.
Max Reger seems like a good guess too though he was alive and not too old at the time (and died not much later).
Also Carl Czerny seems like a possibility.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Friday 03 July 2026, 12:40I have a copy, so I'm keeping quiet!
I expected nothing less of anybody who might have a copy or know the book.
I'll reveal the names by Sunday at the latest.
I think performances of Spohr seem to have fallen off in that decade (only three in the Gewandhaus between 1902 and 1907, and one @ the Vienna Philharmonic (admittedly Austria, nicht Deutschland) during those same years. 14 times at the Concertgebouw, though many of them were just movements- ok, not that unusual.) So maybe he's not on that list?... (Brüll- his Andante & Allegro, in January 1903- was performed as often by the Vienna Philharmonic during those years, and Draeseke as often at the Gewandhaus- 3 times- in Leipzig (3rd symphony in 1903 & 1907, Serenade in 1905). From frequency of performances alone Reinecke might have a shot, mind (of course he was still alive at the time. But so was Robert Fuchs and in these two places his works were played less frequently. Also, CR had the advantage of being the Gewandhaus' conductor, there is that. I should check the other German/nearby orchestra archives we have links to, of course. Hrm. Reinecke: 7 times at the Gewandhaus, 21 at the Concertgebouw in that same period. Erm.)
(Does the book define its topic as music by German composers, music composed in Germany, or music performed in Germany with regularity, btw? The former would leave some composers out- not Liszt, since he was regarded as German by others then (though as Hungarian by himself) - but some others may have been regarded as too primarily foreign (and Gade would be right out in that case - then again, Berlioz is included, so presumably not, come to think of....- and my including the Concertgebouw for comparison would likewise.)
Rubinstein
Raff
Reinecke
Spohr
Gade
I have serious doubts about this list. By 1909, the stars for all these composers had waned considerably, if not actually set. It was in that year, I believe, that Philip Hale cited Raff as an example of evanescent fame, a composer whose works all lay "buried in the vast graveyard of forgotten compositions".
The inclusion of Richard Strauss indicates that there may be other younger composers who are part of the list, but they would have to be younger composers who nonetheless never hit the big time. Reger would be one of them, but I can't really think of who else would be popular enough to be on the list yet also have his popularity fade in the decades to follow.
I wondered if Meyerbeer might be one of the missing names??
Quote from: John Boyer on Saturday 04 July 2026, 01:30Rubinstein
Raff
Reinecke
Spohr
Gade
I have serious doubts about this list. By 1909, the stars for all these composers had waned considerably, if not actually set. It was in that year, I believe, that Philip Hale cited Raff as an example of evanescent fame, a composer whose works all lay "buried in the vast graveyard of forgotten compositions".
You may well be right, but here's the thing. To begin with, such volumes would rely on received opinion among established figures in the industry rather than "trendwatchers". In addition, compiling such a volume would be a project of several years. So while it might be published in 1909, it is always likely to be conservative for the age.
Here is the answer.
The book is by Theodor Müller-Reuter, published by C. F. Kahnt Nachfolger, Leipzig.
The five composers are:
Raff
Draeseke
Reinecke
Bruch
Gernsheim
A second volume was planned, apparently, but it doesn't look as if this was ever published.
Volume I was five years in the making as can be gleaned from the introduction, which is dated November 1909. I have scanned the first pages – here's a translation:
QuoteIntroduction.
Various experiences in the profession of conducting had led the author to perceive a gap in the literature on music. Has not even the most experienced conductor found himself in a situation where the approximate duration of a work planned for performance was something he needed to know but was not familiar with? Has it not often proved necessary to obtain information as quickly and reliably as possible about the time and history of a composition's creation, or about its first performances? Did it not occasionally seem useful to familiarise oneself with the instrumentation (soloists, choir, orchestra) of a work whose score was not immediately to hand, in order to assess the feasibility of a performance? Had it not often been the case that titles and movement or tempo headings on concert programmes were stated incorrectly, inadequately or misleadingly? The author has often had to answer these questions in the affirmative. At first, it seemed to him a minor undertaking to create a reference book that would contain the answers to all relevant questions and, at the same time, serve as a guide for the planning and drafting of concert programmes. The assumption that producing such a book would be a minor undertaking soon proved to be unfounded. Wherever the literature was consulted, there were glaring gaps; for scarcely a single work by deceased composers was the required material available in its entirety. Closer examination also revealed that almost every fact, every date, every name, and so on, had to be verified, traced back to its sources, and indeed, these sources themselves often had to be uncovered. The situation was not much better with the works of living composers. Unreliable memories, incomplete records and the like led far more often away from the objective than they helped to achieve it. The 'notes' , intended as a small supplement, grew into specialist articles due to the wealth of material to be covered and required specialised studies. In light of all this, it was soon decided that neither could the work be completed in a short time, nor would the originally proposed title 'Programme Guide' suffice. The original plan to proceed chronologically also proved impractical in view of the elderly composers who were still alive. Material could still be obtained from them whilst they were alive; securing it and ensuring it was not lost was one of the first tasks to be tackled. An alphabetical order, certainly the most practical, seemed hardly feasible if the work was to be published within the foreseeable future. The plan to follow d'Albert with Bach, Haydn with Herzogenberg, and Mozart with Neitzel; to temporarily return from the 20th century to the 18th, then linger briefly in the 19th, and so on, proved impracticable. The production of the first volume, including the preparatory work for the composers not included in it, required nearly five years of uninterrupted labour, and even that was only possible by grouping together several composers who lived in the same historical period. Taking into account the materials on Robert Schumann—which are still readily accessible to the author, his estate's treasures and manuscripts being safeguarded by his daughter, Miss Marie Schumann—intensive work began on this master's works. Mendelssohn followed quite naturally, and, looking back somewhat, the connection with the Classical era could be established through Schubert. (Preparatory work on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven has progressed to such an extent that the second volume can begin with these masters.) Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann thus form a first group. They are followed, as a second group, by the late Berlioz, Liszt, Raff and Wagner. There are, of course, various objections to this grouping, particularly to the inclusion of Raff. However, as Berlioz had to be included here due to his contemporaneity with Mendelssohn and Schumann—and his connection with them to the Weimar period and musical society—the working method necessitated that we dwell upon him. The inclusion of Raff, moreover, had the practical reason already alluded to: that his very elderly widow is still alive, from whom, as from Miss Schumann, rich and hitherto unknown material could be obtained. Draeseke, who was in spirit far more closely related to the Weimar circle — if that term is to be tolerated at all — than Raff, then opens the third group, establishing a connection both backwards and forwards as a living figure: Draeseke, Reinecke, Bruch, Gernsheim. A complete outsider, yet so central to concert life that the inclusion of his works in the first volume seems sufficiently justified on that basis alone, is Richard Strauss. The works of this most significant of all living composers bring the first volume to a close.
It was the author's heartfelt wish to include Brahms in the first volume; indeed, he has already gathered a wealth of material on his works. However, as the publication of important collections of his letters is still pending, it seemed advisable to postpone the preparation of this section for the time being. It would also be difficult to place Brahms within any of the three groups mentioned.
Are they suggesting that by 1909 Draeseke had dropped all his connections in spirit to the Weimar circle? (Such a statement makes me think of Schoenberg and Alan Walker's (in an essay and in a biography respectively) reminder that the differences that in the mid-19th century sparked a War of the Romantics are hard for our ears to notice in 2026 (or even as early as Schoenberg's (1933 revised 1947) essay) I wouldn't describe Draeseke's string quintet in F and viola alta sonatas as so wholly and 100% entirely works of the Mendelssohn/Brahms/... line of the "War" but perhaps their contemporaries would.).
With 57 pages, Raff makes a surprisingly strong showing in Müller-Reuter's book, but I suspect that this in part is because of the author's loyalty to his memory - Müller-Reuter was a pupil of Raff's at the Hoch Conservatory, Frankfurt, of which Raff was the director.
Of course it's Bruch, can't believe I forgot about him...
Quote from: TerraEpon on Sunday 05 July 2026, 13:10Of course it's Bruch, can't believe I forgot about him...
I don't really think of Bruch as unsung though, even if it is only with 1 1/2 violin concertos.
Bruch was the name that made me add less sung as a category in my question... and I briefly toyed with not sung enough.
He sort of isn't, now.
Between 1901 and 1908 the Gewandhausorchester performed his music only 7 times (Romanze Op.42, violin concerto no.1 three times (1901, 1905, 1907), Kol Nidrei twice (1902, 1908), Violin concerto no.2.)
(During that period, a now even less obscure composer, Antonio Vivaldi, shows up not at all in their archives, for several reasons I can think of. Actually, it seems the first Leipzig GO performance of his music in the 20th century was as early as 1910, to my surprise. Apologies for the digression.)