# Good today=Bad then?



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

So when I'm listening to or looking for new pieces of classical music, I often check out wikipedia or a related site for some information about the composer and work. But in doing so, I've noticed kind of a funny trend. I notice that many of the pieces that are considered today to be great/revolutionary, or that are still really popular, got terrible reviews when they premiered! I think that just about anything by Mahler is a good example, the critics weren't big fans of a lot of his stuff lol, but I notice it with a ton of other composers too. All of the articles say it in about the same way too..."Despite poor initial success and recognition, it has gone on to be one of ______'s most popular and creative works". Has anyone else noticed this? What do you think the reasoning is?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I think the reasoning is similar for a lot of the arts - ie artists of note are often only recognised long after their passing. I think this is due to society at the time of the artist (composer), either not knowing of the work or the work being lost amongst other contemporaries or being too different to be taken seriously at the time.......


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think its a fairly common thing especially as music has progressed and become more complex. People can be a little uneasy of the unfamiliar. However, there are obviously a lot of exceptions to this rule and many great works that were more or less successful right away. When Giovanni Gabrieli worked at St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice in the late 16th century, here is a report that has survived by a visiting Englishman at the time:

"_Upon St. Roche's Day, I heard the best music that ever I did in all my life both in the morning and the afternoon, so good that I would willingly go 100 miles on foot at any time to hear the like. This feast consisted principally of music which was both vocal and instrumental, so good, so delectable, so rare, so admirable, so super excellent, that it did even ravish and stupefy all those strangers that never heard the like."_

-from the booklet of the Naxos recording - _Discover Music of the Baroque Era _

So here is a clear example of music of it's time going over very well with people of it's time. I think it is very possible to create great art that still resonates with a lot of people and is successful in its time. Of course there are plenty of cases where works were not initially well received and went on to become loved, it can go either way really, but I definitely don't think for a work to be great it has to be initially misunderstood, or poorly received.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My take is that there have not been all that many composers famous today that weren't recognized in their own times. Even Bach, who was mainly a local musician, gained quite a bit of fame both as organist and composer. Beethoven was a major heavyweight almost from the time he arrived in Vienna. Through the 19th century and into the 20th, though some composers were controversial, it's hard to think of many who weren't recognized.

Maybe the later 20th century has been a different story. There are some composers, well-liked by many on this forum, that have been waiting the better part of a century for broad public acceptance.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Not everything was received well, but a large number of warhorses (a majority of them, even?) where received well initially or didn't take long to enter the repertoire:

I made a thread on it here, my opening post is pretty long and I hope comprehensive, giving examples. I don't want to repeat myself so people can read it if they wish to get what I think on this topic.

http://www.talkclassical.com/22117-warhorses-their-popularity-past.html


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The general public is not ready for / comfortable with / desirous of the newer - newest in thought... period.

Beethoven's seventh symphony -- mixed reviews. Carl Maria von Weber (I believe) writing that Beethoven was now certifiably ready for the madhouse, had written complete cacophony, etc.

This is Nothing New about contemporary society Not Getting Or Wanting the contemporary art of their times, then as is now.

In fact, 'now' might see the situation a bit better -- as bleak as it can seem to be -- than 'then' for an openness to newer works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven's seventh symphony -- mixed reviews. Carl Maria von Weber (I believe) writing that Beethoven was now certifiably ready for the madhouse, had written complete cacophony, etc.


Regardless of Weber's comments, the 7th was an immediate public and critical success. I've seen only good contemporary reviews. You should read what Weber wrote about the 4th! But then, as now, nobody really cared what Weber thought.

You can read the AMZ review of the 7th at this site. Weber's satire on the 4th is on another page at the same site.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Some of the views here that seem to disagree actually agree - some of the things that got terrible reviews back then were famous even for being bad. 

And some of it us just us taking 19th century hype too seriously, as if they didn't have anything like promotion back then. 

But the contrast to contemporary times is interesting... Classical music used to be the music of the cultural elite; today it might even sometimes still seem to be, but the elite is so small, and so few people want to join us, and it's so easy to get in..... We're not the real cultural elite. The problem is, who is? Whoever it is, they evidently are no longer using music to establish their status. And in such a culture, is anything really "art music?" The musicians that are famous among our elite are the same musicians that are famous among our lowest classes. Perhaps the closest things we have to the controversies of the past between, say, Brahms and Wagner, are when Eminem says that Moby sucks, or Lady Gaga divides public opinion, or Johnny Cash pretends to give the bird to the "country music establishment," or when Christian conspiracy theorists hear the voice of Satan in Led Zeppelin played backwards. At any rate, this might help us understand how it can be said that some famous work was badly received and well-received. There's always a "by whom."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> But the contrast to contemporary times is interesting... Classical music used to be the music of the cultural elite...


I wonder if that's totally accurate. My impression is that the "classical music" of the early 19th century, be it Beethoven or Rossini, generated enthusiasm right across the economic spectrum. There were of course "popular" musicians as well, dance bands like Muller and Kauer, but they seem to have been held in a separate class. In movies such as "Eroica" (who knows how accurate it was?) we see house servants talking quite knowledgably about "new music" at the same time that staid aristocrats disparage it. And it's said that variations on Mozart arias were played incessantly on the streets.

It's hard to see clearly what things were like in those days, but perhaps serious CM was much less the property of the "elite" than it is now. But the geographic extent was quite limited: Vienna, Prague, maybe Paris...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My impression, from memory of past reading, was the C.M. von Weber was okay with Beethoven's works except his late period. I thought his 'ripe for the mad house' comments about Ludwig where related to his 9th symphony.

In terms of Beethoven's 7th, it was famously premiered alongside the 8th symphony as well as _Wellington's Victory_. I think people liked the latter the most, even critics said it was a great work. Not exactly in line with what most people would say today. Apparently he was not happy how the 8th symphony did not garner a great reaction in comparison to the other two works on the bill, but the _Adagietto_ of the 7th was encored (& today that's still the most famous movement of that symphony). Again, going on my memory guys, go easy on me. & I'm sure if you want to check all this, its easy to look up yourself (wikipedia?)...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> My impression, from memory of past reading, was the C.M. von Weber was okay with Beethoven's works except his late period. I thought his 'ripe for the mad house' comments about Ludwig where related to his 9th symphony.
> 
> In terms of Beethoven's 7th, it was famously premiered alongside the 8th symphony as well as _Wellington's Victory_. I think people liked the latter the most, even critics said it was a great work.


Sid, Weber's comment was indeed about the 7th Symphony, specifically about the grinding ostinato near the end of the 1st movement. You are entirely correct that the symphony was premiered alongside Wellington's Victory. The AMZ review said, comparing the Wellington with the 7th: "We hardly need to add that laymen were completely amazed at this work and did not know what had happened to them, while on the other hand connoisseurs preferred the preceding symphony as a more noble work of art by far."

Oddly I have found no mention of the 8th (I think premiered at a later concert) except for Beethoven's.

BTW Weber was *not* OK with Beethoven's 4th, see reference given earlier.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

science said:


> We're not the real cultural elite. The problem is, who is? Whoever it is, they evidently are no longer using music to establish their status.


but if they don't use music (and other arts, presumably) to establish their status, are *they* the actual cultural elite? or is our definition of culture much wider and within that contemporary definition the arts are relegated to the fringe?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

It's a very Hegelian concept, this "good today=bad then", or rather, "good already back then, but people were unable to appreciate it". The Spirit becomes more self-aware and Art is where Spirit becomes visible, or, in other words, Art is really Thought, not so much Structure or Harmony or even Beauty. But I really have no problem with Hegel whatsoever, so it's a nice concept.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

It is also frankly a habit of biographers to make composers seem misunderstood and unappreciated, since it's become such a privileged trait to us (owing in large part to the Hegelian inheritance Xaltotun mentioned). Since the example of Beethoven films was mentioned, I can't help but think of _Immortal Beloved,_ which presents one Beethovenian failure after another without mentioning any of his successes (_Wellington's Victory_, the 1814 _Fidelio_, etc.)--and this despite the opening scene showing throngs of Viennese flooding his funeral procession.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

More demanding pieces were frequently poorly performed at the time - and performance is a crucial aspect of a piece we tend to forget about. We can hear the genius in a mediocre performance of Beethoven's 9th because we know the piece. New audiences would not. They would be much more impressed by a good performance of a mediocre piece.

Also, most pieces were less controversial with the elite at the time than with normal concert-goers, and are more controversial now than usually put forward. People are easily swayed by common consensus.

Nevertheless there is too much fact behind the idea for it to be, I feel, down to only social factors. Bach's resurrection is a good example. There was no particular social advantage in resurrecting him rather than anyone else (German nationalism, yes, but it could have been anyone, but it was Bach). On the other hand, I don't think it is convincing to say that he was 'ahead of his time' as could be argued for Beethoven, or even Mahler. If anything he was behind it. Quality is timeless, or at least largely so.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eschbeg said:


> It is also frankly a habit of biographers to make composers seem misunderstood and unappreciated, since it's become such a privileged trait to us (owing in large part to the Hegelian inheritance Xaltotun mentioned). Since the example of Beethoven films was mentioned, I can't help but think of _Immortal Beloved,_ which presents one Beethovenian failure after another without mentioning any of his successes (_Wellington's Victory_, the 1814 _Fidelio_, etc.)--and this despite the opening scene showing throngs of Viennese flooding his funeral procession.


Well, the film 'Immortal Beloved' did show how the whole hall was cheering at the premiere of Beethoven's 9th symphony, which reflects accounts I read of that.

I would say that there is no one rule of thumb to things being popular or unpopular during the time they where composed. It differs from composer to composer, from work to work. Some composers where better received in one country or city, and less well so in other places. Mozart's late operas where much better received in the more liberal climate of Prague than the conservative cultural climate of Vienna. Beethoven and Brahms where continuously asked to go to the UK - but they did not like to travel that far, so they declined. Brahms is said to be the first composer to be able to live off commissions not coming from aristocracy (so, among the first bourgeois composers). Haydn of course did go. Dvorak and Tchaikovsky had huge success in New York's Carnegie Hall, but they where also successful at home by the end of their careers. Even Bruckner had success with his 7th symphony and Wagner with Tannhauser. Beethoven's early period Septet was his most popular work during his life (a fact he was not happy with).

Admittedly, other like Ives and Mahler had to wait to get their full recognition - as composers of course, not as insurance brokers and conductors! But even Ives lived to hear Lenny premiering his works, and Mahler's widow Alma lived to see Lenny (again!) bring Mahler more firmly into the spotlight, even though others like Bruno Walter never let the light go out, so to speak.

But as I said, I discussed this on this thread I made.
http://www.talkclassical.com/22117-warhorses-their-popularity-past.html

& re Beethoven's seventh, the wikipedia page on that does include von Weber's negative remarks about it, but there is also this which I said earlier, the _Allegretto_ movement has been popular/in the repertoire since its premiere:



> At its debut, Beethoven was noted as remarking that it was one of his best works. The second movement, Allegretto, was the most popular movement and had to be encored. The instant popularity of the Allegretto resulted in its frequent performance separate from the complete symphony.


So one cannot make one statement about everything, it varies. However looking at things generally, many warhorses now where warhorses 100 or even 200 years ago. Doesn't make them better than everything else, its just that with these works composers struck some chord with the audience and maybe critics too. Most likely its often hard to predict what will go down well and what won't.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid, re the Allegretto of the 7th, Grove mentions that in later years it was often substituted for the slow movement of the 2nd in France, "to make it go down." I don't think this is done any more!


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

there's that quote from berlioz where he was like "now that i'm dead, people will finally listen to my music" or something (paraphrasing).

all of this just makes me want to bring the big J.S. back and hug the guy and let him know how much we love his music :')


----------

