My answer to this would be Louis Spohr. My reasons:-
(1) His various experiments with the symphonic form. e.g in symphonies Nos 4, 6 & 7. No 5 appears more conventional, but it has a motto theme running through 3 of the 4 movements. He was also one of the first to include a bass tuba in the symphonic orchestra.
(2) His series of double string quartets.
(3) His pioneering use of the baton in conducting. Up to his time, most conducting was done from a keyboard, but Spohr wasn't
a pianist.
(4) His introduction of the violinist's chin rest.
Maybe someone will now tell me that another unsunsung was even more innovative. :)
Raff or Draeseke: both were in the forefront of attempts to synthesise the innovations of the New German school with the Classical Tradition, especially in the field of the symphony.
Actually, I think that all three composers have a claim on the title. My only caveat against the inclusion of Spohr would be that most of his compositional innovations lead nowhere and in that sense they were experiments rather than game-changing ideas.
Re Spohr- how do you mean?
According to Mahler it was Hans Rott "the founder of the new symphony"
Rott's output is too slight to qualify, in my view. But his Symphony is certainly an extraordinary piece - even if Draeseke had been doing similar things a decade before.
Reicha moreso than Spohr, I'd say.
Quote from: TerraEpon on Thursday 19 April 2012, 18:45
Reicha moreso than Spohr, I'd say.
Why do you choose Reicha?
Hmm, Alan, not sure on your Rott comments. I think only Draeseke 1 & 2 pre-date Rott and neither seem to be the 'new symphony' either in their sound world (which looks back more than forward) or indeed their architecture. True, we have only 7 recorded works of Rott amounting to about 2 hours and of this Rott's symphony is certainly the most substantial and creative, building on Bruckner and anticipating Mahlerian themes and ideas right across his symphonic cycle. I feel Mahler had a good grasp of what music had been composed and so my mind and ears do not readily bin his opinions.
Draeseke 2 is the key work here - although the slow movement of the 1st Symphony is unlike anything in the literature up till then. It is the second movement Allegretto marciale of Draeseke 2 that is proleptic of Mahler to a quite extraordinary degree, and we have to remember that he was of Brahms' generation, born over 20 years before Rott. Still, as I said, Rott's Symphony is a marvellous (and important) piece.
Of course, Rott's music had a considerable bearing upon that of Mahler; in Draeseke, though, we have music which seems to anticipate other composers also, e.g. Richard Strauss. And in the Tragica we have one of the most original and brilliant symphonic conceptions of the 19th century - a mature masterpiece to rank with the greatest symphonies of that and any other period...
http://www.draeseke.org/essays/zeitgeist_1.htm (http://www.draeseke.org/essays/zeitgeist_1.htm)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 19 April 2012, 20:59
Why do you choose Reicha?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Reicha#Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Reicha#Works) gives a decent summary of some of what he did.
Quote from: TerraEpon on Friday 20 April 2012, 06:42
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 19 April 2012, 20:59
Why do you choose Reicha?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Reicha#Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Reicha#Works) gives a decent summary of some of what he did.
Yes - I've read this before.
Which works of Reicha's in particular demonstrate his innovative qualities in your experience - and why?
eschiss1 wrote:
QuoteRe Spohr- how do you mean?
I was thinking in particular of his love of novel "outside the box" combinations such as the double quartets and the small/large orchestras in Symphony No.7 and, in the symphonies in particular, his penchant in some of them for melding the four traditional movements into two or three sections. True, Raff also did the latter in several of his symphonies but it never really caught on.
I must admit that most of Spohr's compositional innovations were not followed up by other composers, but the use of the baton and the chin rest soon spread after Spohr had lead the way. It might also be mentioned that his first clarinet concerto of 1809 led to developments in the design of that instrument. Hermstedt, the soloist for whom it was written, instead of telling the composer it was unplayable, made no fewer than 8 modifications to his instrument, including extra keys and holes, to enable him to perform the work. These changes eventually found their way into the design of clarinets in general.
I would certainly agree with Mahler and other members of this forum on the importance of Rott in the development of the symphony.
I am not musically educated enough to speak to "musical innovation" so I will say no more than that I was startled when I first heard Berwald and Cipriani Potter at how their music sounded so much ahead of its time. And I became a devoted collector of each--thanks to this forum I now have so much more Cipriani Potter to enjoy! Is their some hidden Berwald somewhere?
Clearly not possible to offer a single, unambiguous answer let alone a demonstration that it is the correct answer. With all respect, 'who is the most innovative....?' is rather a potty question!
However Draeseke should certainly rank high on anyone's list - along with Raff and Spohr and a good few others (though not perhaps Rott, for much as I am knocked out by that Symphony it does strike me as an often brilliant but sometimes clumsy and wayward effort by a composer so obviously bristling with potential and who tragically do not live to manifest that potential).
With Draeseke it is yes, yes, and yes. (And even including the notorious Christus, which seems to induce sleep in some but which I have come to very much admire). There's no disagreement with Alan's comment on the symphonies above - in fact every agreement. But the works I hope to hear again and again if and when I get to heaven (a pretty long shot) would be the three String Quartets.
One question which utterly baffles me is why these quartets remain so 'hidden'. As far as I know there has only been one recording of them - the Holderlin Quartet on the admirable and indispensable AK/Coburg label (moral for anyone of sound mind: if you ever come across one of those discs then grab it without hesitating a moment). And in the 40 or so years I've spent in going to chamber music concerts (starting with forking out the grand sum of 1s 6p five or six times a term in my student days to sit in the front row and listen to the Amadeus) I've never, ever, come across a quartet in the UK playing one of the Draeseke quartets. There was another very great German composer born just two years before Draeseke and who also wrote just three quartets. Wonderful as those works are, they must be in the repertory of every string quartet around, and ever since record labels became part of the furniture of the universe we've had a multiplicity of recordings of the Brahms quartets from just about every record label. Thank the deity (if he exists) one might think to that. But why, oh why, no performances of the Draeseke quartets and just one (rather difficult to obtain) set of recordings of them? That is surely baffling!
I'm not sure what makes one innovation quirky and another not, but for my money, Reicha's innovations were quirky -- often delightfully so and often very forward-looking. However, when Reicha is not being quirky, his music sounds bland to my ears.
Peter has it absolutely right about Draeseke's String Quartets: simply put, they are among his greatest works and contain extraordinary riches - and depths. Of course, they are also among his most characteristic works, with No.2 having a wonderful fund of lyricism and No.3 being a much tougher nut to crack. For me, Brahms' best music is not to be found in his string quartets; the opposite is true with Draeseke.
I agree with the posters above who suggest that a single 'most innovative' composer, unsung or otherwise, cannot really be decided upon. But as long as we're considering people whose innovations have gone unrecognized, I'd like to nominate Anton Rubinstein for consideration.
1) He was the first composer to have a cyclical piano concerto performed (#3, in 1854; though a case can be made that his concerto #1 (1850) uses material in mvt. 3 which is developed from material in mvt. 1).
2) He appears to have invented, or at least first notated, the full chord tremolo (in the concerto #1).
3) He wrote the first seven movement symphony.
4) He appears to have been the first composer to use a solo double bass in a symphony (in the section for solo string quintet at the end of the scherzo of his 4th symphony).
5) He wrote the first symphonies,concertos, and string quartets of any significance in Russian music history (locally innovative, so to speak).
6) He was the only composer (unless you count his brother Nicholas, who did write a small number of piano pieces) in the 19th century to found a full-scale conservatory which remains functional to this day (that is, not a piano school, but s music school with a full range of instrumental classes, composition and theory classes, and music history classes).
Except that Dittersdorf wrote a symphony with 7 movements in 1771. That's just off the top of my head (well, I had to look up the year it was written, but I remembered it being in my collection). Actually, while typing this message, I went ahead and started it up! It's his symphony D.16 Il combattimento delle passioni umani ("Battle of the Human Passions"). Here are the movements:
1 Il Superbo (Andante con maesta)
2 Il Humile (Andante)
3 Il Matto (Minuetto poco allegro); Il Amante (Trio)
4 Il Contento (Andante)
5 Il Constante (Minuetto e trio)
6 Il Malinconico (Adagio)
7 Il Vivace (Allegro assai)
As for a cyclical piano concerto, what about Moscheles #6? Wasn't that from the early 1830s?
Quote from: saxtromba on Sunday 22 April 2012, 03:56
I'd like to nominate Anton Rubinstein for consideration.
For me, though, his actual music is not really all that innovative. He's an important historical figure who wrote some extremely attractive compositions.
Quote from: saxtromba on Sunday 22 April 2012, 03:56
I agree with the posters above who suggest that a single 'most innovative' composer, unsung or otherwise, cannot really be decided upon. But as long as we're considering people whose innovations have gone unrecognized, I'd like to nominate Anton Rubinstein for consideration.
1) He was the first composer to have a cyclical piano concerto performed (#3, in 1854; though a case can be made that his concerto #1 (1850) uses material in mvt. 3 which is developed from material in mvt. 1).
2) He appears to have invented, or at least first notated, the full chord tremolo (in the concerto #1).
3) He wrote the first seven movement symphony.
4) He appears to have been the first composer to use a solo double bass in a symphony (in the section for solo string quintet at the end of the scherzo of his 4th symphony).
5) He wrote the first symphonies,concertos, and string quartets of any significance in Russian music history (locally innovative, so to speak).
6) He was the only composer (unless you count his brother Nicholas, who did write a small number of piano pieces) in the 19th century to found a full-scale conservatory which remains functional to this day (that is, not a piano school, but s music school with a full range of instrumental classes, composition and theory classes, and music history classes).
Beg pardon? First cyclical piano concerto? Mendelssohn's 1st PC (1835) recalls material from the first movement at the end of the finale. Schumann's concerto (1841-1846) uses the first movement motto theme as transitional material between the Intermezzo and finale, and actually quotes some material from the second movement in the coda of the finale, a reference that is little noted by analysts. I'm not sure what material from the first movement in Rubinstein's 1st PC gets recycled in the finale - none that I can recall. There are probably some other examples of the cyclic approach used prior to 1850 in PCs that escape me besides the Moscheles 6th and the examples I have already cited.
I'm not so sure about "innovative" but Alan is right, he's an important figure who wrote a lot of attractive music. Rubinestein has long been one of my favorites of the unsungs. His prodigious output, like that of another of our favorites, Carl Reinecke, is sprinkled with hidden gems which take some time and partience to ferret out......and worth doing......
Jerry
Reinecke is an apt comparison here - although I think that, as a composer, he was superior to Rubinstein. Hardly all that innovative, though; not that I mind - there's bags of room for well-crafted, memorable music of a conservative stamp.
Agreed, Carl definitely has the edge......also one of my favorites.
J
We should, I think, clearly distinguish between 'innovative' in the purely musical sense, and 'important' in other senses: culturally, organisational, didactically. While I think someone like Raff is very important as a conduit of musical ideas, I'm not quite sure I find his own music particularly innovative. But innovation does by no means imply quality: sometimes innovators are looking for new ways because they see themselves hampered by their poor mastery of the old. I'm always reminded of a comparison (I don't know by whom): "Saint-Saëns was a very good composer, but not a very important (read: innovative) one - you could claim just the opposite about Schoenberg".
Actually, I think Raff was innovative in number of ways - the most important of which was to synthesise the ideas of the New Germans with those of the conservatives/classicists. In this respect I'd have thought that, as symphonies, Im Walde and Lenore were pretty obvious trend-setters.
I'd put in a vote, loud voice and an attempt at a case for Berwald- and yes, he is still unsung, it is safe to say (not as unknown as Rufinatscha but a far sight less known than many another composer.) His symphonies and chamber music contained, not the first examples of their kind I suppose, but early examples, of certain formal experiments (see the septet, E-flat string quartet, violin concerto, C major symphony - and several interestingly eccentric slighter cases of thematic/cyclic reuse, e.g. the finale of the 1st symphony (by the way, an archive performance of this is downloadable as a free podcast from Swedish P2 Radio, if you're not familiar with the work). And the symphonies date only from the 1840s...
Allison- re Berwald: there's quite a bit of unrecorded Berwald, I think- the operas, to start with- and some rarely-heard Berwald works on a Sterling CD, too, if memory serves. My own recommendations aside from the symphonies would be the piano trios... (esp. the memorable, lyrical F minor.)
Actually, I wouldn't call Berwald unsung, just unperformed. But I take your point, Eric: his music couldn't be by anyone else.
I too would put my vote on Berwald. I would absolutely call him an unsung. There have been a fairly good number of recordings of his symphonies during the years, but he only turns up from time to time on the big "prestige" labels like DG, he is hardly ever performed by the biggest "stars" (conductors like Karajan, Bernstein, Abbado etc have never cared for his music) and you will hardly ever find his name in summaries on the history of classical music. To sum up: you have to know quite a lot about classical music in order to realise that Berwald's music might be interesting - or that it actually exists! :(
Quote from: JimL on Sunday 22 April 2012, 15:16First cyclical piano concerto? Mendelssohn's 1st PC (1835) recalls material from the first movement at the end of the finale. Schumann's concerto (1841-1846) uses the first movement motto theme as transitional material between the Intermezzo and finale, and actually quotes some material from the second movement in the coda of the finale, a reference that is little noted by analysts. I'm not sure what material from the first movement in Rubinstein's 1st PC gets recycled in the finale - none that I can recall. There are probably some other examples of the cyclic approach used prior to 1850 in PCs that escape me besides the Moscheles 6th and the examples I have already cited.
Hmm, yes; I should perhaps have been more explicit in my claim. These examples (and others, such as the Kalkbrenner 1st PC) are pieces in which there are what might be called thematic reminiscences, so they are, in a sense, cyclical. But in most of them the previous material appears so briefly, and often so subtly, that it's hard to say what the composer was thinking structurally (were these simply half conscious usages of earlier material, or were audience members expected to take away specific emotional connotations?). The Rubinstein 3rd's third movement, on the other hand, makes a very dramatic point of recalling material from the first two movements and even reworking it slightly.
But the debate here is largely semantic, and simply points to the problem of even defining 'innovation.' I suspect that many composers who are seen as derivative were actually reaching their ideas on their own (which, at a personal level, means that they were being quite innovative), but had the misfortune to do so under the shadow of others whose innovations were both larger in scale and earlier in appearance.
A general question stemming from thoughts about Rubinstein: in his third violin sonata (about 1878) he starts the first movement with brief quotations from the first two sonatas. Pieces quoting from their own earlier movements wqere common by this time, but had anyone done this particular form of self quotation before?
The Mendelssohn has true reminiscences of both first movement themes, hardly a "half-conscious" usage of earlier material. There are very specific emotional contexts in the way in which these reminiscences are used, and they aren't verbatim repetitions but actual reworkings of the material. In the world premiere LP of Rubinstein's 3rd PC (Robert Preston, coupled with Kabalevsky 3 on Orion) the finale was heavily cut. Nearly all of the references to the previous two movements were eliminated. It actually showed how extraneous all of those cyclical quotations were to the structure of the movement and tightened things up considerably.
Another piece that employs cyclical themes is surely Moszkowski's Piano Concerto. The coda becomes a restatement of the very opening of the concerto.
Another of my favorites.
Jerry
Quote from: JimL on Wednesday 25 April 2012, 17:05In the world premiere LP of Rubinstein's 3rd PC (Robert Preston, coupled with Kabalevsky 3 on Orion) the finale was heavily cut. Nearly all of the references to the previous two movements were eliminated. It actually showed how extraneous all of those cyclical quotations were to the structure of the movement and tightened things up considerably.
I'll just politely disagree, a disagreement I first felt (though of course with Preston rather than you) when I first bought the recording 35 years ago.... ;) . In any case, though, I'll listen to the Mendelssohn 1 with a fresh take, so thanks for that.
Quote from: jerfilm on Wednesday 25 April 2012, 18:22
Another piece that employs cyclical themes is surely Moszkowski's Piano Concerto. The coda becomes a restatement of the very opening of the concerto.
Ditto the Rheinberger.