Discovering "lesser-known" composers
MIFrost
have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
Might I ask how? My shelves are filled strictly with the basic "giants" of
classical music.
MIFrost
Floyd Patterson
"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uwP8b.89278$7G2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
to is music that speaks to me about something. I go explore. I read reviews,
I listen to music on the radio, I am fortunate to have a good friend who
knows a great deal about music....really. But most of all I listen. I am not
concerned whether it is or is not great music, the question is does it speak
to me. I have found I enjoy music of Scandinavian composers, Rautavaara,
Atterberg, Rangstrom, and Raitio come to mind. With the possible exception
of the first I have no idea if any of them write great music but they speak
to me. I would make two suggestions; go explore and go
listen...listen...listen. That is what it is all about, or should be...in
spite of what some of the "experts" in here say.
Jeremy Dimmick
my detecting them! That's certainly responsibly for my first
acquaintance with Nielsen, Bax, Poulenc, Spohr, for a start. A lot
of the rest is word of mouth, the enthusiasm of friends; also,
though it may be terribly infra dig to admit it, magazine cover
disks have sent me searching for more from composers who provided
enticing snippets - Rameau, Mondonville, Hummel are examples.
Jeremy
Simon Smith
"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Well, I'd say Ligeti was pretty "famous" to the general public, at least as
far as a contemporary composer can go.
As for how we discover these people, well, it happens in so many ways. For
example, I discovered people like Sorabji and Nono simply from reading
descriptions of the music, or people's reactions to and thoughts on it, and
thinking that it sounded intriguing enough to give it a go. Kancheli I
discovered because he happened to be coupled with some Schnittke... and in
turn, Schnittke I discovered because I was asked to play in a piece (in an
orchestra) of his, so I went out and bought a recording - and the moment I
listened to it I knew I'd discovered something which was to become
extremely important to me (as indeed it has). My first encounter with
Szymanowski happened the same way.
It was random listening in my earliest days of discovering classical music
(going through a pile of old LPs I'd acquired) that got me onto
Rachmaninov, for instance, who is now my favourite composer of all. I found
Varese (another god) in a similar way many years later, listening
indiscrimately to anything in my school's CD cupboard that looked
interesting one weekend.
Some recordings I've bought entirely on a whim, either because it seemed a
good idea at the time, perhaps because I had some voucher to spend or there
was some special offer or something going on, and I thought, what the
hell... I had my first experiences of Maxwell Davies, Gorecki, Kilar,
Schoenberg (yes!) this way (Naxos are often rather helpful in this regard!)
And Penderecki, who might be no.2 on my worship list, is strangest of all -
in a practise music aural paper we were doing at school some time, there
was an excerpt from the St Luke Passion, and I thought, I just *have* to
get hold of this. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Some things are bought as gifts: in my case this accounts for Xenakis and
Takemitsu, among others. Arguably I've spent too much time exploring the
dark alleys and back streets instead of paying attention to the "giants" as
you refer to them. But the more you get to know, the more you realise there
is so much out there that is yet to be explored, and never enough time or
money to do it. But the point is, these things can come from anywhere,
and more often than not it takes you completely by surprise.
--
Simon Smith | http://www.ingemisco.com/
"I am myself only in music. Music is enough for a whole lifetime - but a
lifetime is not enough for music." - Sergei Rachmaninov
Raymond Hall
posters
| have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know
by
| name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
| some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
| public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and
others).
| classical music.
Paper "giants" ?
| Might I ask how?
Simply the need to get away from what the basic books (mostly outdated) in
classical music say are the *Great* composers. Anyone with more than an
ounce of noddle, should be well aware that there was great music before
Bach, and that the 20th century has possibly been the century of the
greatest diversity, experiment, and chock full of composers who have more
interesting things to say, intellectually, texturally, harmonically, and
what is more, because it is music of our time.
Nothing against people having 50 sets of Brahm's symphonies (I have one),
but in my imagination, I cannot see how these people get much pleasure from
music at all.
But that is their problem. All that is required is the need to explore, and
be a bit adventurous.
The Scandinavians are a great place to start imo, and especially Sibelius,
Nielsen, and switching countries, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Also RVW.
Knowledge of what these composers are capable of, just leads one
automatically to the next discovery.
But each to their own. As for me, I am presently in a choral phase, and
can't get enough of Bach's cantatas. When one goes forward, there becomes
available the added thrill of discovery of going back as well. For instance,
I knew Stravinsky before I knew Haydn. I think I appreciate Haydn all the
more for knowing Stravinsky first.
Just my 5c worth.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
David M. Cook
Mostly by reading reviews in Fanfare and ARG, and from recommendations here.
Browsing the BRO catalog is a good way to pick up music of some more obscure
composers cheaply.
Naxos is also a good source, particularly now that they are releasing many
Delos recordings of American composers, and they are very good for British
and Classical era composers.
There's also an "unknown composers" page:
http://www.kith.org/jimmosk/TOC.html
Dave Cook
Your Pal Brian
> Some recordings I've bought entirely on a whim, either because it seemed a
> good idea at the time, perhaps because I had some voucher to spend or there
> was some special offer or something going on, and I thought, what the
> hell... I had my first experiences of Maxwell Davies, Gorecki, Kilar,
> Schoenberg (yes!) this way (Naxos are often rather helpful in this regard!)
Sometimes when I go to the bookstore and can't find what I'm looking for I walk
over to the Naxos bin, close my eyes, and pick something at random. If it's
something I've heard of I put it back. They're cheap. (And the library's even
cheaper!)
Also performer-based compilations: I first heard Sweelinck in an E. Power Biggs
collection, Oginski on a Landowska disk, and De Falla on a collection of
Rubinstein encores.
Brian
Bill McCutcheon
Mozart Players, is a good way to hear some of the lesser known composers of
that era.
-- Bill McC.
Joshua Kaufman
There's of course radio, for starters. Couplings or even single pieces
on recital CDs do it too (I discovered Medtner by Horowitz's single
recording of a piece by him). Usually if I hear a piece of a composer
that seems intersting, I'll try to explore more from the library, and
there's also newsgroup downloads as well. And of course, there's
recomenndations here.
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
Samir Golescu
<<In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many
> posters have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or
> simply know by name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski,
> Sweelinck and others ar some posters' favorites. They are certainly not
> "famous" to the general public and yet many posters here have somehow
> discovered them (and others). My shelves are filled strictly with the
> basic "giants" of classical music.
Well, having the shelves filled with them is the best thing to begin with!
Then you can of course explore lesser-known names. Even if the "cannon of
'giants'" doesn't remain unchanged (e.g., Haydn was considered pretty much
a "lesser Mozart" for a long time while now he has more of the high status
he imho deserves).
However, beware of being, if one may say so, *too* enthusiastic
for the unknown. Seldom that obscure composer from the 16th or 20th
century was obscure because he was too much of a genius but more often
than not he was obscure for the very good reason that he didn't say a
great deal to his contemporaries and even less to his posterity. While
tasting varied things and making up your own mind is the best thing to
do, I would generally beware of the collector who thinks he "knows it all"
about, say, Mozart, treated condescendingly, while finding, say,
Dittersdorf, oh, a so much Grrreater composer. In extremis (not always!)
one deals with sheer lack of musical culture -- incapability of
hierarchizing elements of stylistic originality and substance. In other
instances it may be simply a matter of pure-grade snobism -- "I am not
listening what the masses are listening, I have my own composer, whom I
discovered almost on my own". Let me hasten to add that I am talking about
the misguided & aurally challenged soul who derides *you* for listening to
Tchaikovsky instead of, say, Cui or Arensky, I am not talking here about
the genuine and respected by me collector who sincerely wants to enrich
his understanding of a musical era with sampling, collecting and enjoying
some of "the minors", many of whom offered at the very least good and
often pleasurable music.
regards,
SG
Rob Barnett
In my teens and early twenties through two parallel influences: 1. a friend
whose record collection centred on Janacek, Stravinsky, RVW, Bax, Martinu
and 2. Radio 3 - especially the very miscellaneous morning programmes (I
vividly recall that was how I discovered the gaudy glories of Respighi's
Church Windows).
Then attending Polytechnic in Bristol, attending concerts at the Colston
Hall
In the 1980s exchanging tapes with friends in UK and USA and reading reviews
in Fanfare and Gramophone. Often ignoring the reviews of others when an LP
came up at bargain sale price - e.g. I would never have discovered Gosta
Nystroem's superb Sinfonia Del Mare if I had cleaved to Robert Layton's
views on the work.
1990s Radio listening
More recently by attempting to reviewing CDs and give my reactions.
Rob
-
Rob Barnett
Editor, Classical Music on the Web
www.musicweb.uk.net
Editor, British Music Society Newsletter
"MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uwP8b.89278$7G2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
David7Gable
>listen...listen...listen. That is what it is all about, or should be...in
>spite of what some of the "experts" in here say.
Please cite one post at rmcr by a poster expert or otherwise who says music is
not all about listening. While you're at it, show me a unicorn.
-david gable
David7Gable
I first heard of Ligeti (born in the 1920's?) because his music was used on the
soundtrack of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the film that has made a plague of the
opening sunrise section from Also Sprach Zarathustra.)
I bought my first Ockeghem LP after a rehearsal of an Ockeghem motet in
University chorus my freshman year of college. I hadn't heard of Ockeghem
(1420?-1495?), and I thought of myself as a very good sight reader, yet here
was a music that on paper seemed quite straightforward as to pitch, the rhythms
of which were far from Stravinskyan in difficulty, and which I nevertheless had
trouble "feeling" while reading it, even as we repeated the phrases in
rehearsal, because the shapes were in an idiom so remote from my experience.
(I still find Ockeghem a tougher nut to crack than Dufay before him or
especially Josquin after him.)
I bought a recording of Mayr's Medea in Corinto because I knew he was
Donizetti's teacher, and I was curious what his music sounded like. I was
fairly certain that it would be of negligible interest, limited in harmonic
range, simple in texture, and probably sound like such post-Gluck composers as
Cherubini and Spontini, his contemporaries. I was absolutely wrong on all
counts. And please don't ask me to describe what it does sound like. (Mayr's
dates: 1763-1845)
I bought the Turnabout LP of Boulez's Le marteau sans maītre because there was
one of those sales common in the 70's when you could pick up three budget LP's
for five bucks, or was it five for ten bucks? I had never heard of Boulez (b.
1925), but Marteau was in the bin of sale items, and Stravinsky was quoted on
the jacket as saying "I like to listen to Boulez." When I took the record home
and played it, it made literally zero sense to me and I didn't listen again.
So disconcerting was the experience that when I decided to have another go at
Boulez I couldn't bring myself to try Marteau again. I bought an LP of Pli
selon pli and gave it a whirl instead.
-david gable
Rodger Whitlock
I'm quite partial to a number of the lesser lights: Myslivecek,
Vanhal, Tormis, Antheil, Cowell, Busoni, Leroy Anderson, among
others.
The seeds that started these vary. Myslivecek's place in my heart
was won by a recording on the long-defunct Monitor label of a
couple of his wind octets (or was it sextets?) back in the
1960's, coupled with Mozart iirc. I listened, I liked, I kept the
eyes open. Vanhal (and others of that ilk) rode in the
Myslivecek's coattails.
Tormis was triggered by reviews of "Forgotten Peoples", music
which absolutely blew me away.
Antheil, Cowell, Busoni I tried because I'd read about them as
having some importance; my feelings toward the latter two are
not, admittedly, *warm*, but I persist out of some kind of
misguided sense of moral responsibility.
Leroy Anderson -- well, he was all over the place when I was a
child, and amounts to musical comfort food.
All in all, however, a lot of my interest in the lesser lights
(Nielsen is another one) was triggered by reading reviews in High
Fidelity, ARG, Gramophone, or Stereo Review back in the
antediluvian days of my early adulthood. But in almost all cases,
once I'd sampled a composer, he had to do his own hard work to
win a position in my gallery of favorites. Atterberg, for
example, did not make the cut.
Hypothesis: the one thing that would cause a rise in interest in
classical music would be the publication of regular, decent
reviews in the every-day press. Too bad few newspapers bother
with our elitist crap anymore.
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Allen & Linda Tyler
MIFrost wrote:
1. Subscribe to a good review magazine. My favorite is Fanfare, but others
might pick American Record Guide or Gramophone.
2. Find a public library with a good selection of recordings and try as many as
you can.
3. Search your radio dial in hope of finding a good station (slim chance in
many parts of the country.)
4. I gather you like in Albany NY from your "nycap.rr" address. Surely you can
find some used CD shops not too far away, even if you have to follow the Hudson
all the way down. I would love to have easy access to a music center like NYC
to visit.
5. Don't be scared to gamble a little money on recordings by composers you
don't know.
6. If you have a turntable, you're in luck. If you don't, you can probably
find a cheap one in a thrift shop or at a gargae sale (whataever you call those
sales in your part of the world. There are stll vast numbers of LPs on the used
market for a buck or two each.
7. Strike up conversations with people who seem to kmow about classical music.
I have learned a great deal in the past thirty years because I wandered into the
LP department of a local library and heard a record of the Ives First Piano
Sonata being played by an attendant (at the time he was an undergraduate music
student.) A simple question, "Who's playing Ives?" has provided me with a
lifetime of information, both from him and from many of his friends over the
years. People who like classical music all seem to love to talk about it.
8. Of course, there are always books, but they don't play the music for you.
They require imagination, but isn't what it's all about?
9. Don't expect to learn everything you want to know in a week. The world of
music keeps changing, and in some cases improving.
10.. ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Allen Tyler
David Hurwitz
>listen...listen...listen. That is what it is all about, or should be...in
>spite of what some of the "experts" in here say.
>
That's the best advice this "expert" could possibly give. Indeed, there is no
other way!
I should add one point: one of the reasons that the classical recording industry
is in the state that it is in, stems from the fact that it has grown away from
being a mere appendage of the "live music" industry (that is, an industry who
primary mission was to documents interpretation by the most famous artists of
the extremely limited basic concert repetoire), and has become an independent
source of new music much of which will never be performed live on an
international scale by "name" artists.
In doing this, the recording industry is effectively rewriting musical history:
there is no longer any reason to believe that the history of music consists of
an artificially constructed line of "great composers" (selected in hinddight
according to largely contemporary criteria of "value" and
"greatness")influencing the next generation of "great composers." In fact, for
the first time in history, we can now hear what was actually being played and
composed, country by country, just about everywhere, and what we are finding
(not suprisingly) is not so much that the truly great composers were NOT great
(surely they were and are), but rather that some lesser known composers may be
great too, and that in any event a ton of really GOOD music was being written at
virtually any period you care to name (including today).
The result of this may be, if the guys who write music history textbooks ever
catch up or start actually listening to what's available, a quite radical
reclassification of the "standard line" about classical music and particular the
generally accepted periodicity that holds that ever piece should be assigned to
a certain stylistic "practice" and those works that don't fit these parameters
aren't worthy paying attention to. Given what we now know, it makes much more
sense (and would be far more useful for listeners) to categorize music by
"style" and "formal type" rather than by period.
For example, it should be quite clear to anyone with even the slightest musical
interest that the "golden age of the symphony" was not the classical period of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, that Wagner couldn't have been more wrong to call
the symphony "dead," and that Mahler was not the "end" of a tradition but the
beginning of the period that really IS the "golden age". Why? Because the modern
symphony orchestra as we know it is only a bit more than a century old, and it
stands to reason that most of the music written for it would thus stem from the
period in which literally thousands of orchestras in communities all over the
world exist to commission it and perform it. At what other period can we point
to symphonists of the stature of Mahler, Elgar, Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich,
Vaughan Williams, Roussel--the list would run into the hundreds of names, all of
them capable of writing masterpieces, and all of them available on recordings.
Take just one country: France. For years we were told that French composers
didn't write symphonies, aside from certain "Germanic" ones like Franck and his
student Chausson, or Liszt's buddy Saint-Saens, and then we are talking about
only one famous work each. So that's three famous French symphonies in all. And
of course, Debussy and Ravel didn't write any either, and they are considered
the two most "important" French composers of the 20th century and are certainly
the most popular and frequently played. So the symphony is irrelevant in
considering the history of French music in the 20th century.
But now we can also enjoy (aside from Roussel) symphonic composers such as
Magnard, Tournemire, Emmanuel, Honegger, Widor, Milhaud, Sauget, Koechlin,
Schmitt, Paray, Dutilleux, and many others. There are plenty of French
symphonies and symphonists, as good as you will find anywhere (not to mention a
host of fine composers in the same general tradition active in Belgium and
Switzerland). About two seconds' listening to Magnard's Fourth or Tournemire's
Third "The Bells of Moscow" should convince even the most conservative music
historian that the textbooks got it wrong.
For this reason, as Floyd correctly observers, it's pointless to worry about who
the "giants" of classical music are. This is a useful way to break into the
field, for sure, and because there are so many versions of the basic repertoire
it is also easier and more certain to find "great" performances at reasonable
prices. But once past that point, if you find yourself attracted to certain
"kinds" of music, you will find that there is probably a lot more where that
came from, written by composers you may hardly be aware of or whose names will
be completely new to you.
The only way to move on, then, assuming you actually want to experience
something new now and then and are more concerned with what moves you, as
opposed to how "great" others think something is, is to take Floyd's advice and
LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN. The wonderful thing about this admonition is that thanks
to the record industry, it is indeed POSSIBLE to do just that. No only will you
probably find lots of music that strikes your fancy, you will also come away
with a very different understanding of our musical history and tradition than
you might have been led to believe up to this point.
Dave Hurwitz
Dave Hurwitz
Floyd Patterson
Floyd Patterson
Jon Bell
Rodger Whitlock <toto...@mail.pacificcoast.net> wrote:
>
>All in all, however, a lot of my interest in the lesser lights
>(Nielsen is another one) was triggered by reading reviews in High
>Fidelity, ARG, Gramophone, or Stereo Review back in the
>antediluvian days of my early adulthood.
In my case (during high school and college in the late '60s and early
'70s) it was High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and (surprise) Consumer
Reports. Yes, Consumer Reports had record reviews once upon a time, and
even published a book collecting them together! Those reviews also
encouraged me to try Nielsen. I still remember the Horenstein recording
of Nielsen's Fifth (on Nonesuch) getting a rave review in Consumer
Reports. When the first integral cycle of Nielsen symphonies appeared
(conducted by Ole Schmidt), High Fidelity treated it as a Major Event,
with a two- or three-page feature review.
I don't think I saw Gramophone regularly until I went to graduate school.
Fanfare started up while I was in grad school.
Another factor was that I started out listening to a lot of Sibelius
(because of my mother's Finnish roots), and the LP jacket notes on my
Sibelius albums sometimes mentioned Nielsen. In general, those jacket
notes were also a good source of "new" composers.
>Hypothesis: the one thing that would cause a rise in interest in
>classical music would be the publication of regular, decent
>reviews in the every-day press. Too bad few newspapers bother
>with our elitist crap anymore.
Most cities of any size have "alternative" newspapers that are distributed
free and often have record reviews. They usually focus on pop. rock, folk
and sometimes jazz; but I wonder what would happen if someone approached
one and offered to write some reviews of classical recordings?
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Matthew燘. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:73548497.0...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Take just one country: France. For years we were told that French
> composers didn't write symphonies, aside from certain "Germanic" ones
> like Franck and his student Chausson, or Liszt's buddy Saint-Saens, and
> then we are talking about only one famous work each. So that's three
> famous French symphonies in all. And of course, Debussy and Ravel didn't
> write any either, and they are considered the two most "important"
> French composers of the 20th century and are certainly the most popular
> and frequently played. So the symphony is irrelevant in considering the
> history of French music in the 20th century.
Another French symphony comes to mind, which has been performed from time
to time over the years. Composer had reddish hair and a big nose, name
something like Bear.... Hm. Well, it'll come to me eventually.
Actually one of my more ear-opening experiences in grad school was when one
of my professors, Robert Laudon, distributed to members of his History
seminar a list of symphonies by Romantic-era composers of whom I had
(mostly) never heard. (The only Spohr work I had ever heard at the time
was one of the violin concerti, and I was aware of a couple of chamber
works.) I hope he's still alive, and has had the benefit of the various
CDs of symphonies by Spohr, Lachner, Gade, Onslow and others, which I
imagine he previously mostly knew from reading the scores.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:bk21kh$bch$1...@jtbell.presby.edu:
> In article <3f63d13f...@news.newsguy.com>,
> Rodger Whitlock <toto...@mail.pacificcoast.net> wrote:
>>
>> All in all, however, a lot of my interest in the lesser lights (Nielsen
>> is another one) was triggered by reading reviews in High Fidelity, ARG,
>> Gramophone, or Stereo Review back in the antediluvian days of my early
>> adulthood.
>
> In my case (during high school and college in the late '60s and early
> '70s) it was High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and (surprise) Consumer
> Reports. Yes, Consumer Reports had record reviews once upon a time, and
> even published a book collecting them together! Those reviews also
> encouraged me to try Nielsen. I still remember the Horenstein recording
> of Nielsen's Fifth (on Nonesuch) getting a rave review in Consumer
> Reports. When the first integral cycle of Nielsen symphonies appeared
> (conducted by Ole Schmidt), High Fidelity treated it as a Major Event,
> with a two- or three-page feature review.
I remember that High Fidelity review of Schmidt's Nielsen very well. But
the most remarkable thing about the set itself was the photos of Nielsen at
various ages reproduced on the LP labels.
As for Consumer Reports, it was Edward Tatnall Canby's rave of the Brahms
Double Concerto with David Oistrakh, Mstislav Rostropovich, and George
Szell/Cleveland Orchestra which got me to buy the disc and hear that work
for the very first time. I was rather disillusioned a few years later when
I encountered Canby's notes on some LPs (Nonesuch?) and read them through,
only to find them incredibly indulgent rubbish.
> I don't think I saw Gramophone regularly until I went to graduate school.
> Fanfare started up while I was in grad school.
>
> Another factor was that I started out listening to a lot of Sibelius
> (because of my mother's Finnish roots), and the LP jacket notes on my
> Sibelius albums sometimes mentioned Nielsen. In general, those jacket
> notes were also a good source of "new" composers.
>
>> Hypothesis: the one thing that would cause a rise in interest in
>> classical music would be the publication of regular, decent reviews in
>> the every-day press. Too bad few newspapers bother with our elitist crap
>> anymore.
>
> Most cities of any size have "alternative" newspapers that are
> distributed free and often have record reviews. They usually focus on
> pop. rock, folk and sometimes jazz; but I wonder what would happen if
> someone approached one and offered to write some reviews of classical
> recordings?
Done that. "We're not interested."
John Gavin
For me it happens frequently as a kind of chain reaction. I'm a bit
of a Godowsky fanatic now - it started when I was around 12. I read
Harold C. Shoenberg's book "The Great Pianists". In it his
description of Godowsky and his compositions enticed me - I got the
impression of a very exotic and colorful way of writing for the piano.
From there I tracked down all the recordings (very few at the time)
and scores (highly unavailable at the time). The rarity and
difficulty of both acquiring and playing the scores increased my
desire to persue his music - and I eventually found it to be
everything I had hoped for.
In many cases, I would acquire a recording of something I wanted to
hear, and a lesser-known work would be coupled with it. This is how I
was introduced to the music of Medtner. In other cases, you acquire
as many recordings as possible of a certain performer that you like,
and you instantly have samples of many lesser-known works. Other
times, a musical friend introduces you to something new.
In the good old days there used to be much more classical music
programming on television. I remember seeing a show called "The Music
of Spain" with Segovia as host and with Alicia DeLarrocha and Victoria
de los Angeles performing. After seeing Alicia play "Danza de la
Pastora" by Hafftler I fell in love with her playing. Then I was
lucky to be able to attend a series of 4 or 5 recitals of Spanish
works by her at Hunter College in NY. From that I fell in love with
the entire Spanish repertoire.
David7Gable
>Beethoven but always returned to these 3 giants as none of the
>"competitors" come anywhere near them in terms of quality.
Gluck and perhaps especially Jomelli come close at their best.
-david gable
David7Gable
>In doing this, the recording industry is effectively rewriting musical
>history:
Actually, the rewriting is largely a function of the much despised discipline
of musicology and curious performers. The existence of a recording industry
has enabled a wider audience to hear the fruits of their labors. Scholars tend
to specialize in a given historical period, and it is the scholars working in
various historical fields who have ploughed through old scores in churches,
castles, libraries, and archives, created new editions, restored so much of the
music of the past to the light of day. The existence of the discipline and its
tools has also (for better and worse) made performers conscious of previously
un-thought-of possibilities.
>there is no longer any reason to believe that the history of music consists
>of
>an artificially constructed line of "great composers" (selected in hindsight
>according to largely contemporary criteria of "value" and
>"greatness"
There was nothing artificial about the construction of this history. The music
that performers continued to want to play, sometimes against all odds, is the
music that survived. Professional opinion, that is, the opinion of
professional composers and professional performers, not journalistic opinion or
audience preference, made Beethoven a giant name. There was no selection
committee dictating performer choices. The survival of Beethoven's music is no
accident, and it survives for musical reasons. Nor is his prestige an
accident. It, too, is a function of his musical gifts.
The construction of the exact same kind of history, a history of the great
masters and big names, existed and still exists in the visual arts, where the
lesser master never disappeared and has always shared the walls of churches,
castles, libraries, and museums with the great masters. (The first "lesser
masters" in painting to be popular in their day and then to disappear were the
French academic painters of the 19th century, and now their paintings, too,
have been hauled up from the vaults, just as Naxos records Raff or Bax.) The
difference in the case of music is that each reproduction through performance
of a piece costs money, and music occupies time. You can't program forty
Renaissance motets by different composers in one concert, and if half of the
program is a Josquin Mass . . . The "performance" of a painting doesn't have
to be done all over again and one oil painting doesn't take up much space.
Recordings are the solution to this problem. (There is also the question of
whether a concert should be a history lecture or an aesthetic experience.)
>In fact, for the first time in history, we can now hear what was actually
being played and composed, country by country, just about everywhere,
This is true, remarkable, and a good thing. Unlike throughout the centuries
when the only music played was contemporary music. Canon formation started in
the late 18th century, when C.P. E. Bach and Baron van Swieten kept Bach's
music alive. Bach is the oldest composer who never had to be revived.
(Mendelssohn revived the choral music, but the WTC never disappeared and has
remained a force in the history of Western music to this day: there is no
twentieth century composer whose earliest education was not based on Bach.
Beethoven, of course, played the WTC from memory as a teenager. There is a
reason why Bach is a BIG NAME in music history, and it's not because there was
no Naxos to let us hear his contemporaries until recently.)
>and what we are finding (not suprisingly) is not so much that the truly great
composers were NOT great
>(surely they were and are), but rather that some lesser known composers may be
great too, and that in any event a ton of really GOOD music was being written
at virtually any period you care to name (including today).
Agreed.
-david gable (familiar with Jomelli and Giovanni Simone Mayr through
recordings)
Joshua Kaufman
I for one am particularly fond of Krommer...moreso than Haydn in fact.
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon
David Hurwitz
first, which as usual misrepresents what I said and derives from it a series of
thoughts that are not even vaguely implied by what I wrote. Nor is your
undertanding of history any more accurate.
Your comments read like something spit out by a machine that has many "on"
buttons, but which performs only one possible action because no matter what the
circumstances or the inputs or the source of power to set it working, its
programming admits of no other possibilities.
Maybe, someday, you will directly engage an issue in a way vaguely resembling
the terms that were proposed for your consideration. Until then, there's really
no point at all in talking to you.
Dave Hurwitz
Henry Krinkle
> In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many posters
> have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
> name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
> some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
> public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
> Might I ask how? My shelves are filled strictly with the basic "giants" of
> classical music.
>
> MIFrost
I'm glad you asked the question. As Ray Hall observed, there is a lot
of worthwhile music out there that might just touch you although it
didn't make the textbooks.
Here are some ways I've come upon these lesser-known composers
1)RMCR. It's how I learned the names Spohr, Gade, Raff and many
others. Threads pop up about the lesser-known composers. I have
asked some general questions in the past that elicited some names.
See the threads on favorite symphony endings and more composers like
Gade. If you have a particular composer you like, ask what composers
from his time are also worthwhile.
Also, find if there are any posters whose recommendations you like and
talk to them or follow their posts.
Ray Hall always has good listening ideas, IMHO.
2) Naxos bin. "Your Pal Brian" already mentioned this, but it's true
for me too. By risking $6, I discovered Paul Creston's wonderful
first three symphonies.
3) Other bargains such as Berkshire and used CD stores. If there is a
genre or era you like in particular, grab something in it that you
have never heard of! You might want to check google archives of RMCR
to make sure there isn't a consensus that the particular recording
isn't a bomb. On the other hand, you may disagree with the consensus
anyway.
Is there a particular era or style for which you would like some
names? Maybe if you say so, we can help?
Regards,
Henry
Henry Krinkle
The radio!
Regards,
Henry
David7Gable
role of professional performer and professional composer in the survival of the
big names in music history]
I cerrtainly hope so! Nevertheless, it bears spelling out. Indeed, many
sociologists with little knowledge of music or its history or of how performing
traditions are established have attempted to revise music history using
journalistic reviews as their only evidence.
Other sociologists attempt to explain music history as a function of class,
economics, and patronage. According to this view, any composer could have
filled the slot that Beethoven occupies in traditional views of the history of
Western music. According to this view, his prestige is not a function of his
musical contributions at all but of aristocratic patronage. (This shows how
little respect these sociologists have for music per se.) According to this
view, whatever composer the aristocracy had arbitrarily elected to support
would have earned Beethoven's place in history. This view neglects two facts:
all performers and composers depended on aristocratic or church patronage to
survive, and Beethoven's patrons belonged to that element in the aristocracy
that was passionately interested in music and much better informed than the
average member of that class.
By placing the words "value" and "greatness" you, too, seemed to suggest in
your original post that the election of big names was largely arbitrary. I
briefly countered this view, which in the end you agree with, since in the end
you do admit that there are musical reason why the Bachs and Beethoven's are
the big name.
>and basically contradicts the
>first, [which had discussed the expansion in availability of music thanks to
musicologists, curious performers, and the medium of recordings RATHER THAN
professional composers and professional performers]
Does nothing of the kind. The discipline of musicology has deliberately sought
out the forgotten in recent decades, sought to let us see all of the figures in
play in a given period and not just the big names. Especially now that so much
about the big names has been firmly established.
The situation in musicology precisely parallels what has happened with the
record companies when they ask, do we really need a sixtieth Beethoven symphony
cycle? Wouldn't it make more sense to unearth something by one of his
contemporaries that has never been recorded?
This does not contradict my account of how the big names were established in
the first place (or anybody else's account of how the big names were
established). The big names have to be there standing alone for the
musicologist or record company to say, now let's look and see what's standing
in their shadows.
> which as usual misrepresents what I said
Does nothing of the kind. I didn't paraphrase you. I quoted summary points
from your post and supplied glosses, filled in gaps. My whole post was
intended as a gloss and clarifying expansion of what you said, needless to say
with some areas of disagreement and different emphases.
>Maybe, someday, you will directly engage an issue in a way vaguely resembling
>the terms that were proposed for your consideration.
Anything is possible. In any case, I feel quite certain that those few readers
actually interested in the subject of our contributions to this thread will
find my gloss on your post both responsive and of some interest.
-david gable
Samir Golescu
On 15 Sep 2003, David7Gable wrote:
> Other sociologists attempt to explain music history as a function of class,
> economics, and patronage. According to this view, any composer could have
> filled the slot that Beethoven occupies in traditional views of the history of
> Western music. According to this view, his prestige is not a function of his
> musical contributions at all but of aristocratic patronage. (This shows how
> little respect these sociologists have for music per se.) According to this
> view, whatever composer the aristocracy had arbitrarily elected to support
> would have earned Beethoven's place in history. This view neglects two facts:
> all performers and composers depended on aristocratic or church patronage to
> survive, and Beethoven's patrons belonged to that element in the aristocracy
> that was passionately interested in music and much better informed than the
> average member of that class.
I do agree with you on the concept of greatness being placed anything but
arbitrarily on certain composers. Of course, we are talking about a fluid
and continuous reassessment but that doesn't kill the point. I would
though slightly disagree with you on one point: you claim that what
professionals are stubborn enough in wanting to play again and again
survives. I think that's only a side of the coin. An audience willing to
hear again and again the music the professionals are playing again and
again is needed too.
We live in a time when people prefer "historical perspective" to the
Romantic notion of genius. In fact when I listen to a composer who was
dead for 300 years I expect to be addressed by a soul invested with
greatness and unicity as much as I do so when I listen to a 20th century
composer. The so-called "Baroque" notion doesn't interest me, insofar it
only offered the (unfilled) *forms*, the potential, the context. It is the
exceptional individual who gives sense to all this. Of course I like a
number of other Baroque composers, Bach contemporaries and even Bach
predecessors -- among whom I think only Heinrich Schutz, a genius in his
own right, could challenge Bach in the realm of the economy of
compositional means through which he was attaining spiritual depths -- but
now, really, how could one explain the abyss between the deepest music
(Bach's) and the shallowest (Pachelbel's -- I know more than the famous
C... in D), if the main aspect to be considered in the work of both
composers is the "Baroque" commonality? If "there's only one Bach" is a
form of fanaticism, there you go, "Ich bin ein fanatiker" (:.
A little exercise for the historically inclined: study in parallel Bach's
Prelude in E Flat Minor from WTCI, Chopin's opus 10 no 6, Chausson's Poeme
and Janacek's first movement from the Piano Sonata. There's plenty of
evidence in such a study to understand that the Ghost of music is too
elusive to be encapsulated in historical, instrumental and stylistic
categories -- it rather chooses to address us through the mouths it
chooses to and in ways which defy historicist logic of progress &
evolution even when it seems to conform to it.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>A little exercise for the historically inclined: study in parallel Bach's
>Prelude in E Flat Minor from WTCI, Chopin's opus 10 no 6, Chausson's Poeme
>and Janacek's first movement from the Piano Sonata. There's plenty of
>evidence in such a study to understand that the Ghost of music is too
>elusive to be encapsulated in historical, instrumental and stylistic
>categories -- it rather chooses to address us through the mouths it
>chooses to and in ways which defy historicist logic of progress &
>evolution even when it seems to conform to it.
>
>regards,
>SG
>
Exactly my point; unlike Mr. Gable's interpretation I never claimed that great
composers are not great and do not deserve the attention they have received, but
rather that the historical construct that EXPLAINS their greatness (as you
accurately describe it above) is not necessarily correct or as logical as some
would have us believe.
And the more we learn about music of each period, and about composers of quality
who we have overlooked for any number of reasons (many not musical at all), the
less correct it will appear. As for the rest, it lies in the deepest recesses of
Gable's ever fertile imagination.
Dave Hurwitz
MIFrost
MIFrost
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:73644298.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
David7Gable
>great
>composers are not great and do not deserve the attention they have received,
Not only did I NOT claim that you made this claim, you stated outright in your
original post that you acknowledged the greatness of the big names, all of whom
are still with us. So I would indeed me in fantasy land if I thought
otherwise.
.>but
>rather that the historical construct that EXPLAINS their greatness (as you
>accurately describe it above) is not necessarily correct or as logical as
>some
>would have us believe.
Yes, for God's sake, bring in some sociologists to explain Beethoven as a
function of economics rather than trust Berlioz, Wagner, and Mahler. Music
History is only to be explained on aesthetic grounds, and the presitige and
influence of Bach and Beethoven and the other truly giant names are
inextricably interwoven in that history. Unearthing every piece ever written
doesn't change that. It was most instructive to see a massive exhibition of
late Renaissance painting at the Art Institute the last time I was in Chicago.
One could immediately see from painting after painting that, as extraordinarily
gifted as the painters were, they were painting in a field created by the big
names; the big names were not present directly, but their presence was
palpable in every canvas by a minor master on display. Inescapably so.
>And the more we learn about music of each period, and about composers of
>quality
>who we have overlooked for any number of reasons
"We" overlooked the composers that professional performing musicians lost
interest in performing and who failed any longer to galvanize living composers.
Now, thanks to a century of musicology, a curiosity to know more about past
historical periods has lead to the revival of every composer of any profile
whatsoever active in every historical period. Or so it seems. And as far as I
can see--not one Bach or Beethoven has been unearthed in the process, and
certainly nobody who was a motor force in subsequent developments as they were,
although enormous quantities of good music are being heard again. And even
more enormous quantities of music that is not all that terrrific. Not by any
means an unhealthy situation, of course.
>As for the rest, it lies in the deepest recesses of
>Gable's ever fertile imagination.
You seem to think that anything other than absolute assent to your Diktats,
which you come here periodically to issue from high to low, emanate from the
world of fantasy. I am by no means obliged, even in responding to you, to
stick to the topics you want me to address. In any case, it will be clear to
other readers that I am addressing issues in the same ballpark.
-david gable
David Hurwitz
>
>I don't think he ever said that or implied it in this thread.
>
>MIFrost
>
And just whom were you reading? Gable said (among other things):
"By placing the words "value" and "greatness" you, too, seemed to suggest in
your original post that the election of big names was largely arbitrary. I
briefly countered this view...etc."
I suggested nothing of the kind. Gable was arguing with himself. As I said, what
Gable finds it necessary to believe about what people say and what they actually
say are quite often worlds apart. Probably comes from spending too much time
trying to make sense of Mr. Boulez. Work hard enough, and you can convince
yourself that you hear ANYTHING.
Dave Hurwitz
David7Gable
>trying to make sense of Mr. Boulez. Work hard enough, and you can convince
>yourself that you hear ANYTHING.
You must REALLY be steamed. You're trying to hit me where it hurts. Better go
make yourself a nice hot cup of herb tea.
-david gable
Samir Golescu
On 15 Sep 2003, David Hurwitz wrote [about Mr (indefati)Gable] :
> [...] Probably comes from spending too much time
> trying to make sense of Mr. Boulez. Work hard enough, and you can convince
> yourself that you hear ANYTHING.
May one safely infer from the above that you are an indefatiGable
Boulez fan?
regards,
SG (:
David Hurwitz
Golescu says...
Actually, I enjoy a lot of Boulez; it just isn't a fetish and there's good stuff
and junk, just like everyone else!
Dave Hurwitz
Lena
> In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many posters
> have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
> name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
> some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
> public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
> Might I ask how?
Library. (You may be able to use a university music dept. library - if
not to borrow CDs, at least for listening sessions. They're far
better for this kind of thing than public libraries.)
Concerts; I don't know if this works in your area.
Newspapers. Griffiths in NY Times used to be pretty good for more up
to the minute CD recommendations. (Although he has left, I'd try to
find something like this. The Guardian (UK) has decent music
coverage.)
Finally, this newsgroup works pretty well, too... you just have to
ask. And if you follow David's (Gable) posts, you don't even have to
ask. :)
Lena
Nicolai P. Zwar
> In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many posters
> have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
> name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
> some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
> public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
> Might I ask how? My shelves are filled strictly with the basic "giants" of
> classical music.
Sometimes I read about a composer or a composition somewhere and it
makes me curious. Maybe I read about it in a music magazine, on a
website, or in this very newsgroup.
Sometimes I just pick something up on a whim. One day I stumbled upon a
BIS CD by composer Joonas Kokkonen, which was cheap, so I couldn't pass
it up. I liked it so much that I went to seek out other stuff by the
composer.
Sometimes even advertising manages to snare me in. I first heard of
Robert Simpson when Hyperion hyped him in their catalogs. So I thought,
okay, what the heck, let's give Simpson a shot, and wow, I was not
disappointed.
Ligeti I got to know originally through Stanley Kubrick's "2001 - A
Space Odyssey" (like quite a few people, I guess), so I would say he's
probably the most famous composer of your list up there, and his music
is known to plenty of moviegoers because of that film.
--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com
Henry Krinkle
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/classrev.htm
Rob Barnett and Len of this site post on RMCR.
www.classicstoday.com/
David Hurwitz of this site posts on RMCR.
Both these sites have very well-written reviews that are sure to give
you some new ideas.
Regards,
Henry
Jim Moskowitz
MIFrost wrote:
> In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many posters
> have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
> name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
> some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
> public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
> Might I ask how? My shelves are filled strictly with the basic "giants" of
> classical music.
At the risk of being too commercial, I should also point out another
potential way to learn about and discover little-known composers: eBay.
While there are a high percentage of sellers dumping junk and/or not
describing what they're selling, a few such as hanskokkonen:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=hanskokkonen
and myself:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=jimmosk
describe the little-known composers we traffic in, so that more people
will be interested in bidding on them!
-Jim
--
Jim Moskowitz
The Unknown Composers Page: http://kith.org/jimmosk/TOC.html
Kai Czepiczka
as much as you can.
Here's some stuff to start with...
Kai
MIFrost wrote:
>
> In the recent threads about blind spots and favorites I notice many posters
> have an affection for composers I've either never heard of or simply know by
> name. Such composers as as Bax, Ligeti, Godowski, Sweelinck and others are
> some posters' favorites. They are certainly not "famous" to the general
> public and yet many posters here have somehow discovered them (and others).
> Might I ask how? My shelves are filled strictly with the basic "giants" of
> classical music.
>
> MIFrost
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:3F7644CA...@hananet.net:
> Yes, listen and read (about composers, but other arts and even history)
> as much as you can.
>
> Here's some stuff to start with...
>
> http://cpa.feynsinn.de/eng/
Hooray for Georges Onslow!
Kai Czepiczka
attention. This fall two books on Onslow are published (one in Eng., one
in French) and more and more CDs are recorded (I really can recommend
Onslow's "Sonatas for cello and piano, op.16 nos 2 and 3" on the new
Integral CD, with Laurent Martin and J.M. Trotereau - coupled w/ a
Nocturne by J.L.Duport).
Kai