# Is F. Schubert underrated?



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

That is all. Respond as you see fit.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Last time I checked, his rating was 7.34726, which is almost exactly right.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

How can Schubert be underrated?


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

Definitely not.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

How can Schubert be underrated when he is considered one of the best composers of his time. His symphonies have never left the standard repertoire and his songs are considered to be some of the finest ever written. Not to mention his chamber music is some of the most moving pieces in the genre. He was a genius and if he had only left us his symphonies he would still have left his mark, but thankfully he left us much more.

Kevin


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

No, not underrated. I think he has some great works, but after repeated listens many of them I find don't hold up too well - too repetitive. 

I think he was a genius and a great composer, but if anything slightly over-rated.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Not at all. He's rated very highly, and rightfully so: he wrote great symphonies, piano works, string quartets, and [how can anyone forget] amazing lieder.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

The notion that Schubert is underrated stems from comparison between him and the great trinity of classical music, that is "Bach, Beethoven and Mozart". In that case, there are opinions that he should be lumped into the three and be proclaimed at their own level and popularity. But that thinking could be jeopardized in many cases, with the idea that those three achieved the summit of classical music composition. In my olden days, I proclaimed to myself that Franz is greater than Mozart, LvB or Bach. But I came to the conclusion, that there is no point of comparison. If you like composer A, and you think he is greater than composer B, then another person would think that composer B is greater than composer A.

But facts are facts, and I think that the general classical music consensus that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the greatest is sound.. Compared those three to dear Franz, Franz is not that bad.. In fact he was good.

** In the ranking of the most performed composers in 2013, it follows: Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Britten (his 100th anniversary) and Schubert. Franz is always on the top 5 most performed composers worldwide ahead of Brahms, Schumann, Haydn, Wagner and Tchaikovsky etc..

* In TC list of top classical composers. Schubert always places on the fourth or fifth position, edging either Wagner or Brahms.

* In NYT's list of greatest classical composers, Schubert placed fourth.*

Considering that he only lived at the age of 31, having his name on the same breath of the great 3 is amazing, indeed. We must remember that Schubert did not aspire to be the "great" composer himself, (he was just satisfied admiring LvB (and Mozart) in distance)rather to make music for himself and his friends.

So it does not bother me if Schubert is relegated in any list or ranking, in my part, for me , he is the *greatest in my heart.*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Schubert is of course underrated. This is due to the efforts of an international cabal of Schubert-haters who have tried, in every way possible, to damage his reputation and reception. They have set up a rogue editor network at Wiki, bribed musicologists and reviewers, and spread foul rumors about his personal life. They have even infiltrated the leading music schools, ensuring that Schubert's works are denigrated by the faculty (who can always use some extra income).

Fortunately their activities are now being investigated by the government. Federal indictments are expected. Names will be named.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

tdc said:


> No, not underrated. I think he has some great works, but after repeated listens many of them I find don't hold up too well - too repetitive.


That says more about you than it does Schubert.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I don't think Schubert is underrated at all. I personally prefer Schumann over Schubert, but that's neither here nor there. Both have a place in music history.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

No. Or, to put it another way to satisfy the minimum posting length requirement: No.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

GGluek said:


> No. Or, to put it another way to satisfy the minimum posting length requirement: No.


Couldn't have put it any better myself


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> That says more about you than it does Schubert.


Well maybe that I get bored by fairly repetitive music over time says something about my listening tastes, but I don't think that is really an uncommon thing among classical music listeners. It is however an objective fact that Schubert's music is fairly repetitive. A quick search will show you this is true (in terms of his music being noticeably repetitive) and that there is controversy surrounding some of the exposition repeats as well.

He is a great composer no doubt, but I don't think his music is beyond any criticism. I think your comment could really be slapped onto any criticism made of any composer, so it doesn't really say much in of itself.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

tdc said:


> Well maybe that I get bored by fairly repetitive music over time says something about my listening tastes, but I don't think that is really an uncommon thing among classical music listeners. It is however an objective fact that Schubert's music is fairly repetitive. A quick search will show you this is true (in terms of his music being noticeably repetitive) and that there is controversy surrounding some of the exposition repeats as well.
> 
> He is a great composer no doubt, but I don't think his music is beyond any criticism. I think your comment could really be slapped onto any criticism made of any composer, so it doesn't really say much in of itself.


What music of Schubert's are you referring to ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Schubert's greatness lies in the realms of romantic lieder and chamber music. Unfortunately it would seem that there are not many fans of particularly lieder here. If you are comparing him as a symphonist that is ridiculous not to mention pointless.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

he was the third most popular composer on Bulldog's top 100 composers game for this forum so... he can't be that underrated.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Is Shubert underrated? On the whole, probably not.

Are many of his finest compositions underrated, e.g. the 600+ songs (and not just the cycles)? I think so, yes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

The OP simply asks if Schubert is "underrated" but no information is given about the precise meaning of this term or whether the OP believes that any meaning can be attached to it.

In view of this, I guessed that there might be more to the OP than meets the eye, so I did a bit of digging around and stumbled across the following post by the same member in the "Schumann versus Mendelssohn" thread on 8 January 2014:



Avey said:


> I don't know how we can say one composer is more talented than another. Or even a greater composer of genius for that matter. Odd way to phrase your answer. But to each his own. *And I don't want to start off another thread debating opinions -- that's frustrating.*


The last sentence, which I have bolded, seems somewhat at odds with the creation of this thread.

The fact is that Schubert seems regularly to clock in at positions 4, 5 or 6 in many composer polls on Forums like this one. Schubert did in fact appear to slip into 3rd spot, ahead of Mozart in 4th, in the most recent T-C composer poll in January 2014. That result caused some controversy (concerning the methodology), and anyone interested in finding out more can dig out for themselves the relevant thread.

If Schubert's rating was generally much lower, say down in the lower reaches of the 1-10 bracket, there might be something to talk about in terms of him being underrated. But since this is not the case, as he is normally just below the three Gods which for a 31 year old at death is no mean achievement, I would reckon that this thread raises a non-issue.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Is Schubert underrated? I am answering from the point of view of 'the general public', and I think he is. He was Queen Victoria's favourite composer* and when I was a child, that influence lingered on and he was much loved.
But now, when I listen to classic fm o sorry, moody!) he doesn't seem to be much played compared, say, with the more minor baroque composers. And he doesn't seem to figure largely on local concert programmes. I don't know much about him, of course, but then I don't know much about most composers of note. 
So - not very scientific - but my impression is, yes, he is at present underperformed and underrated. I hope he makes a comeback.

*Edit: 'favourite composer of songs when she & Prince Albert were young...' - amended to accommodate post #24, below. But at any rate, when it comes to the songs of Schubert, the Queen was amused! *


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Is Schubert underrated? I am answering from the point of view of 'the general public', and I think he is. He was Queen Victoria's favourite composer and when I was a child, that influence lingered on and he was much loved.
> But now, when I listen to classic fm o sorry, moody!) he doesn't seem to be much played compared, say, with the more minor baroque composers. And he doesn't seem to figure largely on local concert programmes. I don't know much about him, of course, but then I don't know much about most composers of note.
> So - not very scientific - but my impression is, yes, he is at present underperformed and underrated. I hope he makes a comeback.


He gets quite a lot of pieces in the Classic FM Hall of Fame but, if I recall, Winterreise and Die Schoene Muellerin don't even get a look in!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> Schubert's greatness lies in the realms of romantic lieder and chamber music. Unfortunately it would seem that there are not many fans of particularly lieder here. If you are comparing him as a symphonist that is ridiculous not to mention pointless.


The point is that Schubert died at 31. Most great symphonies don't get written until a composer is well past his 30th year. Even Mozart did not write his greatest until his mid- 30s. 
However, Schubert certainly showed what he was capable of with the 'Unfinished' - towering work. 
The other realm (other than Leider and chamber) is the piano sonatas. They are being now recognised for their true greatness.


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

He's not underrated here at Casa del Oreb, where he's considered the greatest song writer of all time. Closely followed (and I'm serious about this) by one Robert Allen Zimmerman.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Is Schubert underrated? I am answering from the point of view of 'the general public', and I think he is. He was Queen Victoria's favourite composer and when I was a child, that influence lingered on and he was much loved.
> But now, when I listen to classic fm o sorry, moody!) he doesn't seem to be much played compared, say, with the more minor baroque composers. And he doesn't seem to figure largely on local concert programmes. I don't know much about him, of course, but then I don't know much about most composers of note.
> So - not very scientific - but my impression is, yes, he is at present underperformed and underrated. I hope he makes a comeback.


Felix Mendelssohn is usually credited with being Queen Victoria's favourite composer.

Such is Schubert's importance among the very greatest of composers, that a couple of years ago the BBC's Radio 3 channel was devoted to Schubert 24/7 for a whole week. As far as I am aware, they have only done anything remotely similar for Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. They could only do this given the breadth, overall size and generally high quality of much of Schubert's work.

I don't know about Classic FM because I gave up listening to that ages ago. If you listen to the various "playlist" programmes or live concert performances on the BBC's Radio 3, you'll see that Schubert gets a very fair deal. He is obviously much loved by many of their presenters, and rightly so. The notion that he is any way underrated is plainly not correct on this basis.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Avey said:


> That is all. Respond as you see fit.


no, Schubert is not underrated. Pure and simple.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> He gets quite a lot of pieces in the Classic FM Hall of Fame but, if I recall, Winterreise and Die Schoene Muellerin don't even get a look in!!


If you'll forgive me for having this information readily to hand...
Schubert basically has 6 works that show up in the Classic FM Hall of Fame these days: The "Trout" quintet, the string quintet, "Ave Maria", and the symphonies nos.5, 8 and 9 (the Impromptu in G flat has been showing up lately, too). The Trout's been in the top 100 a few times recently, the others much lower down.
So if we take the voters in that poll as a proxy for the "general public" then I think Ingélou's right, he's underrated there. Of course the absence of those 2 song cycles is the clincher.

(Also, in terms of impact on the general public, Schubert's at a disadvantage in the absence of a popular concerto or some piano or orchestral compositions with distinctive names!)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

moody said:


> What music of Schubert's are you referring to ?


Well you say that Schubert was strongest in lieder and chamber music so I'll take his late String Quartets for example, they used to be among my favorite in the repertoire, but I just find over time I have worn them out and they seem quite repetitive - less enjoyable. By contrast Bartok's String Quartets I've listened to for just as long yet I still feel like I am finding new things about them all the time I admire, and they still strike me as quite fresh and with secrets yet to be revealed.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to trash Schubert - all I suggested was perhaps he was _slightly_ over rated, and that is just my opinion. I think he was a very strong composer especially in harmony, melody and modulation. He was also innovative, unique and original in his works. His 9th symphony is among my favorite symphonies by any composer and I greatly enjoy a lot of his piano pieces.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The point is that Schubert died at 31. Most great symphonies don't get written until a composer is well past his 30th year. Even Mozart did not write his greatest until his mid- 30s.
> However, Schubert certainly showed what he was capable of with the 'Unfinished' - towering work.
> The other realm (other than Leider and chamber) is the piano sonatas. They are being now recognised for their true greatness.


I would take Schubert's Symphonies Nos 5, 8, 9 any day over the best three from any other composer, with the possible exception of Beethoven. I like all of Schubert's other (finished) symphonies as well, especially No 3.

Schubert's orchestral achievements were not confined to his symphonies alone. He wrote several other good orchestral good pieces, e.g. D 345 Konzertstuck in D major, D 438 Rondo for violin and string orchestra, D 580 Polonaise in B flat major. In addition, we have some very good quality overtures and other incidental music from his several operas and theatre works, e.g. Rosamunde.

For me, Schubert was an outstanding composer of lieder, other types of choral work, piano solo, chamber music, orchestral work. The only area where he missed out was in opera but that was mainly due to his inability to find decent librettos.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Partita said:


> Felix Mendelssohn is usually credited with being Queen Victoria's favourite composer.
> 
> Such is Schubert's importance among the very greatest of composers, that a couple of years ago the BBC's Radio 3 channel was devoted to Schubert 24/7 for a whole week. As far as I am aware, they have only done anything remotely similar for Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. They could only do this given the breadth, overall size and generally high quality of much of Schubert's work.
> 
> I don't know about Classic FM because I gave up listening to that ages ago. If you listen to the various "playlist" programmes or live concert performances on the BBC's Radio 3, you'll see that Schubert gets a very fair deal. He is obviously much loved by many of their presenters, and rightly so. The notion that he is any way underrated is plainly not correct on this basis.


Radio 3 did a Beethoven week (or period) and I think they did something similar for Bach.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Compared to the very many hundreds of composers who have done some good works but are hardly known at all Schubert is definitely not underrated.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidA said:


> The point is that Schubert died at 31. Most great symphonies don't get written until a composer is well past his 30th year. Even Mozart did not write his greatest until his mid- 30s.
> However, Schubert certainly showed what he was capable of with the 'Unfinished' - towering work.
> The other realm (other than Leider and chamber) is the piano sonatas. They are being now recognised for their true greatness.


I agree ,but his greatness lies not in even the "Unfinished". Can you imagine where he would rank with no lieder and no chamber works and some of his piano compositions ?
The thing is that there is no point in comparing him against Beethoven's symphonies ,I think his ninth symphony is tremendous but I am aware that many sensible criticisms of it can be made--didn't stop me acquiring thirteen versions though !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Of course it all depends on your particular tastes,I suppose I listen to Schubert more than any other composer BECAUSE of his lieder. I have shelves of it by every singer that you could possibly imagine,but some people don't care for vocal music--strange but true !!


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> > Felix Mendelssohn is usually credited with being Queen Victoria's favourite composer.
> ...


I know that. It's exactly what I said if you look at the bold text.

Plus they did one for Mozart too. In fact I believe they also did one for Tchaikovsky.

These various Radio 3 marathons were completely devoted to these composers, 24/7, with no other composers' works performed for the duration. They included assessments and tributes from various authorities on these composers, phone-in requests, special concerts, plus loads of recorded material, covering their entire outputs or nearly all.

I much enjoyed the Mozart and Schubert ones, and learned a good deal from them, plus allowing me to fill out some gaps in my collection of the more obscure items.

As far as I recall, the years were:

•	Beethoven, 2005, a 6 day event
•	Bach, 2005, a 10 day event
•	Tchaikovsky, 2007, a 7 day event
•	Mozart, 2010, 12 day event
•	Schubert, 2012, 8 day event


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Partita said:


> I know that. It's exactly what I said if you look at the bold text.
> 
> Plus they did one for Mozart too. In fact I believe they also did one for Tchaikovsky.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I misread what you had said. Too early in the morning!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Avey said:


> That is all. Respond as you see fit.


If you like Schubert's music, then he is going to seem underrated by those who don't.

If you don't like Schubert's music, he is going to seem overrated by those who do.

That is all.

No need to respond, even if you see fit.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

He is esteemed as one of the finest of the many fine classical composers over the ages. I don't see how that could be interpreted as wrongly rated / ranked.

You should have a peek at the poll, do you like ranking.... 

Other than some general sense of 'great' / very good, / blah, etc. any rating by "no.1" etc. is pretty useless, since different composers have not only different strengths and characteristics, but are from different eras entirely.

"Don't worry, be happy." Schubert is in good hands, without any other rating other than his name is amongst those few really great composers.


----------



## Sudonim (Feb 28, 2013)

I think it depends on who is doing the "underrating," as it were.

Among us classical fans, he is not underrated at all. His place in musical history is quite secure, and justifiably so. Has any composer been more prolific relative to the years of his life? And aside from this, of course - fecundity not being by itself a guarantee of greatness - there is the quality of his work: the symphonies, the chamber music, and perhaps above all the lieder. Schubert takes the baton, as it were, from Beethoven (and then passes it on to Mendelssohn and/or Schumann).

On the other hand, ask the proverbial man in the street to name three famous composers, and I doubt anyone (unless he is "one of us") will name Schubert - or will even have heard of him. You'll get the usual Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. I think this may be at least in part because he doesn't have (as far as I know) any "famous" tunes that have entered the popular consciousness, like the opening of Beethoven's Fifth, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Tchaikovsky's ballet music, and so on.

By this latter standard, of course, you could also say that Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler (not to mention many others) are also "underrated."


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Sudonim said:


> I think this may be at least in part because he doesn't have (as far as I know) any "famous" tunes that have entered the popular consciousness, like the opening of Beethoven's Fifth, Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Tchaikovsky's ballet music, and so on.
> 
> By this latter standard, of course, you could also say that Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler (not to mention many others) are also "underrated."


I would have said _Ave Maria_ and _Die Forelle_ are both reasonably well known by the wider public, whilst _Ständchen_ from _Schwanengesang_ seems to have taken on a life of its own in the form of "Schubert's Serenade" appearing on bland new age compilations along with Pachelbel's Canon (but what can I say; it's a great melody.)


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

Sudonim said:


> I think it depends on who is doing the "underrating," as it were.
> 
> Among us classical fans, he is not underrated at all. His place in musical history is quite secure, and justifiably so.


I agree with this. If anything, Schubert's "star" has been rising over recent decades, and hence there is little chance that he is underrated. I doubt that 50-100 years ago he would have regularly come out as high as 4th or 5th in opinion polls of the type carried out here amongst dedicated classical music fans of the time. I would have guessed that Brahms, Chopin, Tchaikovsky would have been placed above him. Another composer whose popularity has grown a good deal over recent decades is Handel, but despite the latter's vast output, breadth and high quality he does not seem to hit it off quite so well with modern audiences as Schubert.

There is something so utterly sublime about Schubert's melodic gifts. The fact that he sometimes had trouble knowing when to stop writing seldom bothers me. In any case, I find that his meandering style was probably deliberate, in order to let music breathe out the new romantic spirit of which he was so clearly fond. I also put some of this expansiveness down to the fact that he did not have the time or inclination to edit many of his works before moving to some other musical venture that seemed more important to him. Besides, a lot of his material was not the result of any specific commission so there was not the incentive there in the first place to carry out extensive edits. If he had been a fusspot like Beethoven and Brahms, the chances are that his output would be much lower than it is, so we cannot have it both ways. In cases where he might have gone for a bit too long, I normally leave it to the artist to sort out what to play, and there is enough choice generally available across all of his main works.

Schubert was relatively little known in much of the 19th C, outside his lieder and some chamber works. His orchestral masterpiece, Symphony No 9, was largely considered to be unplayable because its relentless pace put too much strain on orchestras' string section especially. Even in the early 20th C there were critics of his piano works, saying that he did not know what he was doing and it was all a mess. As we now know, these negative views are largely discredited these days, or at least considered to be far less important than they once were. Schubert knew exactly what he was doing, across the entire piece.

Some of his ascent up the popularity stakes over the post WW2 era is possibly because some eminent musicians have helped promote his cause. I am thinking especially of Artur Schnabel who famously recorded much of Schubert's piano solo work back in the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s. Whilst Schnabel is chiefly remembered as one of the best Beethoven interpreters, it is sometimes held that Schubert was his favourite composer, even though I am sometimes a little sceptical of claims of this nature. This provided a strong impetus for others to follow. Various other famous musicians, e.g. Artur Rubinstein, have also held Schubert in the highest regard.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Not the rating, but the "why" is what's important here. Schumann was not particularly innovative or adventurous harmonically, certainly not going into edgy, harmonically fringe territory flights of imagination as intensely as Chopin. 

Shumann was a poet; and felt emotion very intensely; and wanted very badly to convey this emotion to his listeners; therefore, we empathize with him very strongly.

So, in terms of sheer innovation and musical craft, he is somewhat overrated; but in terms of communicating with his audience, he is a "10" all the way.

There is an objective dimension to music, as well as an emotional/human dimension. You must decide which criteria will determine the answer you seek.


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

Sudonim said:


> I think it depends on who is doing the "underrating," as it were.
> 
> Among us classical fans, he is not underrated at all. His place in musical history is quite secure, and justifiably so. Has any composer been more prolific relative to the years of his life? And aside from this, of course - fecundity not being by itself a guarantee of greatness - there is the quality of his work: the symphonies, the chamber music, and perhaps above all the lieder. Schubert takes the baton, as it were, from Beethoven (and then passes it on to Mendelssohn and/or Schumann).
> 
> ...


I agree completely.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Partita said:


> The OP simply asks if Schubert is "underrated" but no information is given about the precise meaning of this term or whether the OP believes that any meaning can be attached to it.
> 
> In view of this, I guessed that there might be more to the OP than meets the eye, so I did a bit of digging around and stumbled across the following post by the same member in the "Schumann versus Mendelssohn" thread on 8 January 2014:
> 
> The last sentence, which I have bolded, seems somewhat at odds with the creation of this thread.


Man, KUDOS, on the research there. Love the effort to parse out some purpose behind my OP. If I could give you several LIKES, I would.

Nonetheless, I don't think my previous sentiments are at all at odds with this thread. I never intend to kick off trivial bickering, and from the variety of responses thus far, I have not seen argument or discord. In fact, all I have read is _exactly_ what I intended to get out of this thread: variegated views on *Schubert's* status as a over- or under-performed composer, appreciated or ignored, what pieces are overplayed or overlooked, etc.

And my purposeful vagueness has provided a breadth of opinions, some of which particularly sparked my interest in this topic:

I rarely ever see Schubert's orchestral works performed (and that may regional specific, happenstance, etc.), yet I get the opportunity to hear _Death and Maiden_ every other month. I think orchestras, performing groups, universities, etc. have severely limited Schubert's repertoire. This is not say true classical fans are unaware of Schubert's fantastic catalogue, but compared with Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky -- other huge names, especially in performance realms -- I do believe Schubert's _overall_ collection is underrated. I think peeyaj's first post was on-point, as well as Winter's and Sudonim's remarks.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

One area where Schubert used to be underrated was in his piano sonatas, which were invidiously compared to Beethoven's. Critics like D.F. Tovey and performers like Richter did a lot to make them seem respectable. At this point, it seems like everyone records the later sonatas.

I suspect that _performers_ of something like the great G major sonata are still a little underrated, even so. Sure it's long and repetitive--but that doesn't make it easy to play!


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

If a radio station does a "special" show on an extremely well-known and popular composer, there can be only one reason, to make money. Extremely well-known and popular composers certainly do not _need_ any boosts. They're already well-known and popular. Plus, they are already dead, too.

It'd be nice (yes, I can dream my dreamy little dreams) if a radio station could do its special shows on unknown and unpopular composers instead. Perhaps ones who are alive. That would make sense. But it would only make sense. What a radio station wants is cents not sense.

And so it goes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

some guy said:


> If a radio station does a "special" show on an extremely well-known and popular composer, there can be only one reason, to make money. Extremely well-known and popular composers certainly do not _need_ any boosts. They're already well-known and popular. Plus, they are already dead, too.
> 
> It'd be nice (yes, I can dream my dreamy little dreams) if a radio station could do its special shows on unknown and unpopular composers instead. Perhaps ones who are alive. That would make sense. But it would only make sense. What a radio station wants is cents not sense.
> 
> And so it goes.


The above is totally irrelevant in the context of the BBC. The BBC does not operate for a profit or "to make money". The BBC is governed by a "Royal Charter" and an "Agreement with the Secretary of State".

•	The "Royal Charter" is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board. The current Charter runs until 31 December 2016.

•	The "Agreement with the Secretary of State" sits alongside the Charter. It provides detail on many of the topics outlined in the Charter and also covers the BBC's funding and its regulatory duties. The Agreement is an important constitutional document because together with the Charter, it establishes the BBC's independence from the Government.

To give a broad flavour of the role of the BBC, here is an extract from the Royal Charter:

"_*3.The BBC's public nature and its objects*

(1)The BBC exists to serve the public interest.
(2)The BBC's main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.
(3)In addition, the BBC may maintain, establish or acquire subsidiaries through which commercial activities may be undertaken to any extent permitted by a FrameworkAgreement. (The BBC's general powers enable it to maintain, establish or acquire subsidiaries for purposes sufficiently connected with its Public Purposes - see article47(3) and (4)).

*4.The Public PurposesThe Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows-*

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)promoting education and learning;
(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

*5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes:the BBC's mission to inform,educateand entertain*

(1)The BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, suppliedby means of-(a)television, radio and online services;(b)similar or related services which make output generally available and which may bein forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used by the BBC or which have yet to be developed.

(2)The BBC may also carry out other activities which directly or indirectly promote the Public Purposes, but such activities should be peripheral, subordinate or ancillary to itsmain activities. Overall, such peripheral, subordinate or ancillary activities of the BBCshould bear a proper sense of proportion to the BBC's main activities, and each of them should be appropriate to be carried on by the BBC alongside its main activities.

(3)The means by which the BBC is, or is not, to promote its Public Purposes within thescope described in this Charter may be elaborated in a Framework Agreement (see article49.

*6.The independence of the BBC*

(1)The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.(2)Paragraph (1) is subject to any provision made by or under this Charter or any Framework Agreement or otherwise by law."_


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

*Is F. Schubert underrated?* No. At least not by me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2014)

Partita, that's just embarrassing. How dare you embarrass me?:lol:

Anyway, thank you for the correction. I will be slower to click "Reply" in future.

(And I had just chastised a fellow traveler on another board for being unremittingly glum in spite of facts to the contrary. That makes it even more embarrassing.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Whoops,* I was thinking *Schumann* instead of* Schubert*. Ignore earlier post, or apply as needed to Schumann.

*Schubert *was a consummate craftsman, but didn't have enough 'quirks' for me. Still, I enjoy his piano ramblings and symphonies.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I think he's appropriately appreciated within the world of classical music listeners and performers. 

For the general population, he is definitely underrated or underexposed. Every non-classical listener is at least familiar with the names Bach, Beethoven, Mozart as well as probably being vaguely familiar with their most popular music. Before I started exploring classical music, I had never heard the name Schubert in my life.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People bring up the general public but why be concerned over that? They don't have knowledge of classical music, and what they do hear tends to be from sources that aren't knowledgeable with the music either (like advertising or hold music on phonecalls).


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2014)

starry said:


> People bring up the general public but why be concerned over that? They don't have knowledge of classical music, and what they do hear tends to be from sources that aren't knowledgeable with the music either (like advertising or hold music on phonecalls).


Agreed. The general public is irrelevant in this context. 95% of the general public is not interested in classical music. It is therefore irrelevant whether or not they have heard of Schubert and whether or not they think he (or any other composer) is underrated. Among the 5% who are interested in classical music, I bet there can't be more than a tiny handful who haven't heard of Schubert after a short while. He is one the big names that spring up very quickly as soon as the classical music "pandora's box" is opened.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm gonna get specific: my fondness for Schubert lies solely in the Kempff recordings of the piano sonatas. Through these readings, I see Schubert as harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous. Beethove can surprise me; Schubert can't. Still, it is impeccably crafted







music. The way Kempff plays it, as a conductor would, it's like Beethoven with all the drama smoothed-out, until we are left with a Baroque-like uniformity, which, while more harmonically advanced, is rambling and decorative, wandering poetically. I like this about it; this is not criticism, but praise.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm gonna get specific: my fondness for Schubert lies solely in the Kempff recordings of the piano sonatas. Through these readings, I see Schubert as harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous. Beethove can surprise me; Schubert can't. Still, it is impeccably crafted music. The way Kempff plays it, as a conductor would, it's like Beethoven with all the drama smoothed-out, until we are left with a Baroque-like uniformity, which, while more harmonically advanced, is rambling and decorative, wandering poetically. I like this about it; this is not criticism, but praise.


I have Kempff's recordings of the sonatas, plus several others. Kempff's are very good but I don't consider that they stand out as being uniformly higher in quality than all the others. I prefer some by Brendel, some by Pires, Richter, etc.

I don't find Schubert's piano sonatas predictable in the least, but rather the opposite, a good example being the second movement of D 959 which is very much of a surprise. Each sonata is different. With the possible exception of D 960, none could hardly be predicted from the previous ones. They each embody quite incredible changes in mood/pace that are are a constant source of fascination to me.

Much as I like the sonatas, I wouldn't describe them as all being highly polished affairs in quite the same fashion of Beethoven or Brahms. Some of them have the odd jagged edge here and there, and some are unfinished. But I still find them to extremely good because they are unique to Schubert in that no one else could possibly have written anything quite them, and Schubert's piano style is one that I very much enjoy.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Schubert is of course underrated. This is due to the efforts of an international cabal of Schubert-haters who have tried, in every way possible, to damage his reputation and reception. They have set up a rogue editor network at Wiki, bribed musicologists and reviewers, and spread foul rumors about his personal life. They have even infiltrated the leading music schools, ensuring that Schubert's works are denigrated by the faculty (who can always use some extra income).
> 
> Fortunately their activities are now being investigated by the government. Federal indictments are expected. Names will be named.


that's funny. thank you for making my day.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

With regards to tdc's various comments about the repetitiveness of Schubert, I rather think this is something to do with period or personal listening history than it is to do with some particular characteristic of Schubert's music that is unique to him. It's a little strange to compare him with Bartok because these very different styles of music often reward repeated listening in very different ways. To take someone more comparable, I would argue that Mozart is much more repetitive than Schubert, at least in my own listening experience. Very often, I can listen to Mozart and think, "Ah yes, that old harmonic cliché again..." This is not to say that it is a bad thing, it's just that I'm familiar with Mozart's harmonic language and of course repetition is inevitable. Now, some composers may be more repetitive than others, but I don't think Schubert is one of them - you could listen to a couple hundred of his songs and still not anticipate some of the compositional techniques of _Winterreise_.



Partita said:


> The above is totally irrelevant in the context of the BBC. The BBC does not operate for a profit or "to make money". The BBC is governed by a "Royal Charter" and an "Agreement with the Secretary of State".


This is true, but while the BBC in its ideal state is not in it for the cents, they are sometimes constrained (often by no more than their own incompetent management) by cent-based motivations like rating figures. This is because while the BBC doesn't (yet) have to worry about getting money, it still has to be paid for publicly and it is therefore felt that it has to justify its existence with its output. Now, part of that comes from living up to its institutional objectives as a public broadcaster, but by definition, this often means broadcasting niche programmes with few viewers that often arouse antagonism in the larger sect of the viewing public that would rather see all of the BBC's funding spent on mainstream productions. Of course, the BBC is well-positioned and has every right to say that it is not their mission to cater endlessly to populist marketing pressures, but all the same, _some_ of that still goes on in the corporation because of the public and political pressure that often seeks any excuse to tarnish the BBC's reputation. As such, the BBC is certainly _financially_ independent, but it should not be construed as so truly independent that it has a unique position of impartiality and indifference in the broadcasting industry. It is subject to many of the same marketing pressures as its commercial relatives and it's not so difficult to find programmes that are obviously intended to pander to viewer numbers.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Is Schubert underrated?*

Is Schubert underrated? If he really is underrated the answer the answer is "Yes".


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

The Late Quartets, the Great C major, the String Quintet, Piano Quintet, Piano Sonatas etc etc. How could he be underrated. I think the problem lies in the question. Schubert's range is so great that a lot of people buy and play the works that appeal to them and have a tendency to ignore the rest of his output.
For my own part I have no interest in his Lieder or other large portions of his output. However the pieces mentioned above are regularly played by me.
So no I do not think Schubert is underrated, rather I think he is much loved by various audiences in the music sphere.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Freischutz said:


> With regards to tdc's various comments about the repetitiveness of Schubert, I rather think this is something to do with period or personal listening history than it is to do with some particular characteristic of Schubert's music that is unique to him. It's a little strange to compare him with Bartok because these very different styles of music often reward repeated listening in very different ways. To take someone more comparable, I would argue that Mozart is much more repetitive than Schubert, at least in my own listening experience. Very often, I can listen to Mozart and think, "Ah yes, that old harmonic cliché again..." This is not to say that it is a bad thing, it's just that I'm familiar with Mozart's harmonic language and of course repetition is inevitable. Now, some composers may be more repetitive than others, but I don't think Schubert is one of them - you could listen to a couple hundred of his songs and still not anticipate some of the compositional techniques of _Winterreise_.


The references that are made to Schubert's repetitiveness are in the context of his use of repeats within particular works, not repetitiveness in the sense that he followed a similar style from one work to the next, as you appear to assume. Some people seem to like the use by Schubert of such "repeats", others don't. There have been several recent discussions on this topic in other Schubert related threads, e.g. in the context of which chamber ensembles use all repeats in D 956, and which conductors use repeats as indicated in D 944.



> This is true, but while the BBC in its ideal state is not in it for the cents, they are sometimes constrained (often by no more than their own incompetent management) by cent-based motivations like rating figures. This is because while the BBC doesn't (yet) have to worry about getting money, it still has to be paid for publicly and it is therefore felt that it has to justify its existence with its output. Now, part of that comes from living up to its institutional objectives as a public broadcaster, but by definition, this often means broadcasting niche programmes with few viewers that often arouse antagonism in the larger sect of the viewing public that would rather see all of the BBC's funding spent on mainstream productions. Of course, the BBC is well-positioned and has every right to say that it is not their mission to cater endlessly to populist marketing pressures, but all the same, _some_ of that still goes on in the corporation because of the public and political pressure that often seeks any excuse to tarnish the BBC's reputation. As such, the BBC is certainly _financially_ independent, but it should not be construed as so truly independent that it has a unique position of impartiality and indifference in the broadcasting industry. It is subject to many of the same marketing pressures as its commercial relatives and it's not so difficult to find programmes that are obviously intended to pander to viewer numbers.


My comments about the BBC's Charter etc were made in the context of refuting a previous comment suggesting that their Radio 3 programming is geared purely towards making a profit, and that it was this factor that led the BBC to schedule the various marathon composer events to which I had referred. I very much doubt that "profit" was the motive. Nor was I attempting to portray the BBC is being the pinnacle of good management, or that it doesn't need to keep a look-out for what the competition is doing, as it clearly does have to try to retain or expand its customer base if possible within the means allowed for under its Charter.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

Partita said:


> The references that are made to Schubert's repetitiveness are in the context of his use of repeats within particular works, not repetitiveness in the sense that he followed a similar style from one work to the next, as you appear to assume.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps this is an issue of performance practice, then, because it is very common - e.g. in the piano sonatas - to ignore the repeat marks that Mozart has littered throughout his works which were placed there because of formal convention but which are felt to diminish the effect of the music. Schubert players should adopt the same approach wherever it works.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Underrated? No! Didn't Schubert come in as number three in the greatest composers poll?


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Freischutz said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps this is an issue of performance practice, then, because it is very common - e.g. in the piano sonatas - to ignore the repeat marks that Mozart has littered throughout his works which were placed there because of formal convention but which are felt to diminish the effect of the music. Schubert players should adopt the same approach wherever it works.


There is indeed variety among performers of Schubert's works in respect of the use of repeats. This can affect the length of individual movements quite considerably as some of Schubert's markings involve stepping back quite a long way, not just a few bars or so. As an example, the first movement of D 956 String Quintet varies in length between 13-20 minutes among the main performances, depending on how many repeats are taken and the tempos taken. As I said, there has been discussion of this point recently in other threads.

There is a separate issue, which is the claim I spotted in post #52 suggesting that Schubert was "harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous". I replied briefly to that in my post #53. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Schubert but perhaps you have views on this matter. In my opinion, Schubert was not just extremely gifted in the melody department but in terms of harmonic originality he is among the most accomplished composers in the history of music (a comment I made once before).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, I still maintain that Schubert is "harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous," perhaps less so compared to earlier Baroque composers and Mozart, but more predictable than Beethoven. Schubert's ideas aren't as memorable as Beethoven's. Also, if Kempff's readings are any indication, Schubert seems unfocussed and wandering, in a kind of trance-like stasis...but this 'evenness' is precisely what I like about him. It's the same thing as a real Coca-Cola vs. a generic Cola. I like both, for each of their characteristics. The cheap Cola is less of an investment, though, so I can swill it down with no compunction, and I know it will always be there for me to consume.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Partita said:


> There is indeed variety among performers of Schubert's works in respect of the use of repeats. This can affect the length of individual movements quite considerably as some of Schubert's markings involve stepping back quite a long way, not just a few bars or so.


Isn't this the case generally with classical period composers now? You have some performers repeating the exposition/ development as they see it as historically correct. But listeners aren't that used to it now and I wonder how necessary it always really is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I prefer Schubert without repeats.
If I wanted to hear the exposition over again, I would simply replay the piece.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

starry said:


> Isn't this the case generally with classical period composers now? You have some performers repeating the exposition/ development as they see it as historically correct. But listeners aren't that used to it now and I wonder how necessary it always really is.


As far as the question of repeats is concerned I have only concerned myself with alternative recordings of works by Schubert. The issue is less noticeable with other composers in my experience. I take the view that when one can listen to the same recording time and time gain there is little to be gained from having all the repeats. I often find that those ensembles that do take the repeats don't take the opportunity to create anything very different second time round, so it becomes even more pointless if they are taken. Generally speaking the various works where repeats feature prominently are long enough without them. The question of repeats is only factor in deciding which recording of particular works I prefer.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I still maintain that Schubert is "harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous," perhaps less so compared to earlier Baroque composers and Mozart, but more predictable than Beethoven. Schubert's ideas aren't as memorable as Beethoven's. Also, if Kempff's readings are any indication, Schubert seems unfocussed and wandering, in a kind of trance-like stasis...but this 'evenness' is precisely what I like about him. It's the same thing as a real Coca-Cola vs. a generic Cola. I like both, for each of their characteristics. The cheap Cola is less of an investment, though, so I can swill it down with no compunction, and I know it will always be there for me to consume.


I think Beethoven was harmonically conservative. It was pointed out in another thread that Mozart used more dissonance than Beethoven. I think Beethoven was good at two things - drama and development, that is it. His use of orchestration and harmonic language is in my opinion not on par with Schubert's. Personally I find Schubert's use of harmony generally much more evocative of color, and more unique, though at times he admittedly does sound a lot like Beethoven in his harmonic language.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Harmonically conservative? Grosse Fuga and Hammerklavier Sonata? Practically atonal.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> I think Beethoven was harmonically conservative. It was pointed out in another thread that Mozart used more dissonance than Beethoven.


I think Beethoven was *generally* harmonically conservative, but he could come up with the other stuff when necessary, and not just in his late works. He trots out the scary stuff in the first and even the last movement of the Eroica, and in his Variations Op. 35 there is one point where he sounds like he's simply pounding the keyboard with his forearms, a la 20th century! Stuff like Mozart did in the slow movement of the 40th symphony, though, I don't think he ever could have done.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I still maintain that Schubert is "harmonically conservative, predictable, and unadventurous," perhaps less so compared to earlier Baroque composers and Mozart, but more predictable than Beethoven.


You and I will have to disagree then. I maintain that Schubert was anything but what you say.


----------

