As Mark has pointed out to me, the fact that Gramophone magazine has recently been including a monthly 'Specialist's Guide' featuring unsung repertoire seems to be a sign that they know that we exist. However, I was pretty disappointed at this month's article about forgotten 19th century VCs. Given the opportunity to mention VCs by Raff (1), Dietrich, Reinecke, Gade, Svendsen, Brüll, Klughardt et al., the writer could only come up with Paganini (4), Bériot (3), Ernst (Concerto pathétique - a truly terrible piece) and Vieuxtemps (3). His other choices - all fair enough - were Spohr ( 8 ), Joachim (2), Godard (Concerto romantique), Busoni, Goldmark and Wieniawski (2), although whether the last two are truly 'forgotten' works must be open to some doubt.
Any thoughts?
For all the shortcomings of the article, with which I totally agree, I do think that Gramophone is slowly catching up with the shift in the recorded music market. It's still a glossy and shallow magazine by comparison with IRR, but these articles and the gradual appearance of positive reviews of recordings of well-played quality unsung repertoire are straws in the wind, I believe.
I do agree that it seems odd to regard Wieniawski's Second Violin Concertos as "forgotten". Those of us of a certain age will remember when it was regularly recorded but, in recent years, it has been neglected. It seems to be one of those pieces (Lalo's "Symphonie Espagnole" is another) which is neither important and "great" enough that every new violinist feels he must record it nor neglected enough that he feels he can make his name by resurrecting it... and, after all, there are already so may recordings by violinists of a previous generation.
By the way, the difficulty of agreeing on what is worthwhile in music which is not of the front rank is another problem. Far from regarding Ernst's "Concerto Pathetique" as "truly terrible", I think it is one of the best virtuoso works of its time with some outstanding melodic writing (that indelible second subject!). I would certainly have included it in the Gramophone feature. May I respectfully suggest you listen again, Mark!
Sorry, I meant to say Alan. I tend to get you too heroes mixed up since I can only aspire to be one myself!
I'll choose to regard both remarks as a compliment!
I guess GRAMOPHONE should hire someone from UC they seem to need a broader perspective. But then who am I to criticize - I dropped my subscription YEARS ago when unsungs started being recorded more and they didn't review them....... :'( :'( :'(
Jerry
I just couldn't include the Ernst in any top ten of forgotten 19thC VCs. It's an empty showpiece far inferior to any of the concertos by worthwhile composers I listed. The fact that Gramophone can include Ernst when there's an opportunity to feature, say, the marvellous Dietrich concerto (recorded twice) shows that there's still a long way to go. I'll bet the writer's never even heard the piece...
You talk to any mainstream reviewer or critic and it very quickly becomes apparent that many of us here are much more expert in this area than they are. But then I can't quote chapter and verse on 50 different recorded interpretations of Brahms' First....
Quite, Mark. Well said.
But Mark, Who would WANT to??
Unfortunately, quite a number of them, apparently. Yawn.
QuoteBut Mark, Who would WANT to??
I know that you're not a Gramophone reader, Jerry, but the magazine still abounds with such comparisons and always has one long article each month which compares
all recordings of a major work and then gives two or three contrasting recommendations. Presumably there remains a market for this sort of thing.
To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield: "Ole Bull don't get no respect..."
Regarding Ernst's Concerto Pathétique (published in 1850) I agree with Revilod. To my ears certainly not awful. Yes, a showpiece, but with catching melodies. However, I think Ernst is a Paganini epigone, nothing more. The performance I have (the Naxos CD) is terrible. Both the famous Russian orchestra and the praised violinist play the Ernst without any passion.
But then, yes, the Dietrich (premiered in 1874). A totally different concerto. Not a showpiece but a truly romantic concerto with a very well balance between the orchestra and violinist. And in cpo-quality.
Sorry, off-topic. I don't even know the Gramophone article, so what am I talking about...? But did the reviewer missed both Raff concertos? Excluded the Reinecke? Forgot to mention Svendsen? Obviously don't know the Klughardt? Oh dear, what a missed opportunity.
There was no mention of the composers I listed. Scandalous.
Fanfare magazine reviewers used to write lengthy, comparative reviews as a matter of course; not everything was equally good reading but as a whole I was glad of my (admittedly, gift) subscription while it lasted. I gather it is not quite so now, though. Still, in that magazine I first learned of many unsung composers (Romantic, sort-of-Romantic, and otherwise) and their music (that, and William Newman's Sonata since Beethoven, and some other places, but definitely in Fanfare reviews...) With the exception of the products of a few of their reviewers (David Fanning, Guy Rickards, Robert Layton sometimes, some others, I think... but not that many), the reviews in Gramophone have always seemed somewhat more dismissive. (Fanfare reviewers, even ones I like, have been accused of special pleading on the -other- side of that line, though I've gained so much enjoyment in one way or another- purchased CDs, library CDs, radio listening - from the music I've been exposed to and risked trying that their best reviewers have described and argued for - that I for one have been inclined generally to be forgiving. Apologies, anyway, for an only tangentially related entry to the jousts, I mean, to this thread.)
Over the twenty or so years I've been visiting the USA regularly and have picked up copies of Fanfare and American Record Guide, I have always found them to be much more open minded and fair in their reviews of unsung music than Gramophone ever has been.
I agree.
I have had a subscription to Fanfare in the past. I just felt that IRR was doing everything I needed in a top-notch classical music magazine...
It is an unfortunate fact that many reviewers have a very limited knowledge of any repetory other than main stream and some of those that do will praise to the hilt, thoroughly bad performances. I would love to name names but---
This demonstrates the need for this forum.
The IRR magazine sadly has a very limited circulation,