# Is Raff's music an Unsung Collection of Masterpieces?



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Joachim Raff certainly has his fans as a site dedicated to him can attest. And a YouTube channel which promotes him heavily among the slew of other lesser-known Romantic composers.

I have heard some of his music: Orchestral Suites, piano music.

It doesn't leave an _impression _like Sibelius did. Heck, Sgambati's Piano Quintet managed to and he's certainly more obscure than Raff. For the suites, I could say that it is pleasant music but that's not saying much.

What's your view of Raff? Am I misjudging him? Does he warrant repeated listening to truly understand his mastery?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I think he is ok but he is not one of my favourite composers.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

He is one of my (extended) favourite composers: symphonies, concertos, chamber music, all good to my ears.

I would suggest starting with symphony 5 (Lenore).


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

123456789012No.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I keep going back to Raff thinking I may enjoy it more than before. Starts out sounding pretty good. But in a few minutes I find my mind has wandered elsewhere. Whatever "it" is, Raff didn't have it, to my ears at least.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

I enjoy his symphonies, notably 1rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

There many relatively undiscovered gems in classical music of the 19th century and the Andante quasi Larghetto of the 1870 Raff Symphony #5 (Lenore) is one of them. It has an exquisitively beautiful opening melody that can stand with the works of many of Raff's more well-known contemporaries. And since the 'You call that music??' thread is on my mind, it doesn't require any silly 'comprehensive proficiency' to understand and enjoy it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I listened to single movements of the 3rd, 5th, and 11th symphonies. Didn't really grab me, although the craft and orchestration seem skillful. When I was done it occurred to me that I haven't listened to any Mendelssohn or early Tchaikovsky for a while. Not sure what put me on that train of thought …


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Here's what I thought of Symphony No. 2 in a recent current listening post:



Weston said:


> German he may be, but this symphony sounds quite a bit like Dvorak to my ears, perhaps more so than any other composer I've heard. As a plus there are few if any cymbal crashes and triangle ting-a-lings. The work is played here with restraint. There are gentle tasteful crescendos, but I feel it could benefit from a lot more passion and a wider frequency range in the recording. It's perfect though for a sunny lazy afternoon. (I believe the finale may echo previous themes, but I'd need more listens to be certain.)


So - pretty good, not life changing, a bit derivative but it delivers the goods. Masterpiece? No, but I do not limit myself to masterpieces, whatever that means. If I had to rate or rank composers I'd place Raff in about the same league as Suk.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Azol said:


> I enjoy his symphonies, notably 1rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th


Good choice, Chandos has; Joachim Raff: Orchestral Works Volume 1, very goo to start with.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I think I prefer Raffmaninoff... 

Raff's name has become a sort of byword for obscurity, and undeservedly so. I don't know his music very well, but based on the bits I have heard, I would think it is certainly worth a listen. It isn't very memorable though, perhaps mostly because it tends to be rather lacking in good tunes. Like it or not, the ability to write a good melody is pretty important, and composers who can't tend to fall into obscurity, or at least never achieve widespread popularity.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Pretty much a lazier Mendelsshon, and Mendelsshon is pretty lazy anyway.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Pretty much a lazier Mendelsshon, and Mendelsshon is pretty lazy anyway.


Mendelssohn did a WHOLE lot in his short 22-year career, and died hardly older then Mozart. If I had been that lazy, by now I'd have split the whole world with Ernst Stavro Blofeld, another industrious guy.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

For example, Mozart's got more counterpoint (and pretty much the same harmonies) than "Mr. Bach revival".


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

Raff was a pro and absolutely knew how to write orchestrally. A true "professional composer", if you catch my meaning. VERY prolific with over 200 opus numbers. That being said, I can definitely see why people would call him voiceless or generic and get bored by him.

However, while even his run-of-the-mill material is at least listenable, he would, on occasion, knock one out of the park; such as his symphonies 5, 3, and 2.

I don't adore Raff, but every now and then I discover a diamond.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Raff is very unique! Unlike other Germanic contemporaries, he made the woodwinds work hard. Raff is extremely virtuosic compared to, say, Schumann or Brahms. Perhaps he just knew what woodwinds could do better?

Probably better to compare him to is Mendelssohn, for his light sound. He's a fascinating composer.

Such a lovely symphony 11...


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Raff is very unique! Unlike other Germanic contemporaries, he made the woodwinds work hard. Raff is extremely virtuosic compared to, say, Schumann or Brahms. Perhaps he just knew what woodwinds could do better?
> 
> Probably better to compare him to is Mendelssohn, for his light sound. He's a fascinating composer.
> 
> Such a lovely symphony 11...


But Brahms and Schumann made more good tunes.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

I have been listening to a few of his symphonies lately. I haven't spent enough time with his work yet to know whether or not his music will stay with me for a long time, but his music has captured my interest.

There is a common (and often incorrect) stereotype regarding great artists that they are seldom appreciated during their lifetimes and only become famous after death. Raff has followed precisely the opposite trajectory; he was quite well known during his lifetime, but became obscure after his death. Is his music perhaps a bit too accessible, or does it not speak to people outside of his time period?

I find his music to be immediately accessible and comprehensible. For some people, these can be detrimental traits; I don't detect the complexity of a Brahms or a Mahler in Raff's music. For me, this relative lack of complexity isn't necessarily detrimental; I still find Raff's music to be well crafted and interesting. Furthermore, since he is one of the few major Romantic composers to leave behind a substantial cycle of symphonies, he provides a rare opportunity for the listener to experience the ways in which an artist interacted with the intellectual and artistic traditions of his time through listening to a large number of works of the same genre. In particular, I find his cycle of symphonies interesting in that he is repeatedly in conversation with the Romantic idea of the pastoral. It wasn't all that unusual at the time for a composer to write one pastoral symphony, but many of Raff's symphonies can be considered pastoral in nature, so through Raff, it is possible to deeply explore the interaction of music with the broader Romantic idea of the pastoral, and he provides material that is useful in exploring the Romantic pastoral tradition from its earlier expression in Beethoven's Sixth Symphony to its later expressions in Romantic nationalism and the anti-pastoral and post-pastoral connections that can be found in Mahler, particularly in the Third Symphony.

It seems unlikely that Raff's music will suddenly start showing up frequently on concert programs, but he is an important composer of the mid-to-late Romantic period, and listeners who want to stray off the beaten path might find his music worthwhile. Certainly anyone who enjoys lighter, more accessible music and anyone who likes pastoral symphonies should give his compositions a try.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Sloe said:


> But Brahms and Schumann made more good tunes.


The Raff 11 is quite tuneful, which is precisely why it is among the more popular ones. In general, your statement is sound though - I have long held that tunefulness is more important than classical music fans generally acknowledge.


----------

