# What does "neglected" mean?



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I see this term a lot here. "Piece X is neglected." I'm relatively new to the forum still, and I'm not quite sure what people mean by "neglected". So I'm asking you to define it!


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

I can't say for certain, but to me, it means that, not enough attention is being paid to that certain piece. It doesn't necessarily mean that people aren't aware of it or have completely forgotten it, it basically translates to, other pieces in the repertoire are sufficient enough to compensate for the lack of said piece. 

I don't know, that's just my take on it. 

TPS


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

All of the above. It's not a precise term and that's what makes language so interesting.

For me "neglected" might mean I've only just discovered this nice piece or composer. Why hadn't I been exposed before?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

When I use the term (and I use it more when referring to a composer than a specific piece of music), I generally mean something or someone who I consider worthy of much more attention from classical music fans than it or he gets. This is always within the context of other composers or pieces that I think get more attention than they deserve from listeners.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Relatively few people listen to this (piece|composer), but if more people gave (it|him|her) a chance, I bet they would like it.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Andolink said:


> When I use the term (and I use it more when referring to a composer than a specific piece of music), I generally mean something or someone who I consider worthy of much more attention from classical music fans than it or he gets. This is always within the context of other composers or pieces that I think get more attention than they deserve from listeners.





TheProudSquire said:


> I can't say for certain, but to me, it means that, not enough attention is being paid to that certain piece. It doesn't necessarily mean that people aren't aware of it or have completely forgotten it, it basically translates to, other pieces in the repertoire are sufficient enough to compensate for the lack of said piece.
> 
> I don't know, that's just my take on it.
> 
> TPS





ahammel said:


> Relatively few people listen to this (piece|composer), but if more people gave (it|him|her) a chance, I bet they would like it.


Hmm. Several responses having to do with the amount of listener attention given to a piece.
How do we gauge the amount of listener attention a piece receives?
Concert attendance? Youtube views? Quantity of critical reviews/essays? Mentions in casual conversation? CD sales?
(Obviously precise measurement is impossible; I'm just wondering how we determine that other listeners don't pay enough attention to something.)

Weston's measurement, now, that one is easy! If I haven't heard of something before then *I've* been neglecting it...
(I have that feeling at least every couple of weeks, btw. So much new-to-me music makes me sit up and say "where has this been all my life")


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

One often hears this term "neglected" with "forgotten". JS Bach was once "forgotten" by and large and had to be "rediscovered" in the sense that the broader music world of the time had been more preoccupied with music of its day. Within oeuvres of composers who have never been "forgotten", one can find "neglected" works amongst say pieces by Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven. It is often a matter of history. But today, thanks to the increasing interest we have of older music; pre-Baroque, Baroque and Classical pieces that used to be "forgotten" and "neglected" are once again listened to and performed. That is what we truely mean by "classical" without a doubt as far as these pieces are concerned.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm with those that say it can potentially be any of the alternatives given and probably an additional seven and combinations of the reasons given. 
Basically I will vary from subject to subject discussed!

/ptr


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I agree that "neglected" is a vague term, and one whose meaning changes with the context. It's not a word I use myself, because I lack sufficient knowledge of current or past performance trends or of what people are listening to in their own homes.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> Hmm. Several responses having to do with the amount of listener attention given to a piece.
> How do we gauge the amount of listener attention a piece receives?


Poll of the talkclassical fora, of course.

Incidentally: nobody here seems to have even _heard_ of Dr. Heinrich Siegfried von Rosenkavalier-Schmidt. Dude is totally neglected.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ahammel said:


> Incidentally: nobody here seems to have even _heard_ of Dr. Heinrich Siegfried von Rosenkavalier-Schmidt. Dude is totally neglected.


Is that the composer (1785-1823) or his grandson of the same name, the pianist (1840-1913)?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ne·glect (n-glkt)
tr.v. ne·glect·ed, ne·glect·ing, ne·glects
1. To *pay little or no attention to*; fail to heed; *disregard*.
2. To *fail to care for* or attend to properly.

The 'index' of what is being consumed in the way of classical has several criteria of measures:
Recordings, how many recordings made of a particular work / composer, how many sold, in circulation. 
Sales of the printed music
How often (if at all) a work is programmed, collectively, in concert venues.
[Classical FM radio play -- so many stations playing only the 'pops' classical, and then only a movement of, this is barely an indicator.]

'Neglected' is relative... Beethoven's fourth piano concerto fails to appear in popularity polls. his third and fifth getting the most frequent attention. The fourth is programmed, performed, and recorded often enough, but....

Bartok's "Cantata Profana' is not nearly as well known as some of his other works (and it is, not in question, a fine masterwork), is recorded, but far less than the number of recordings if his Concerto for Orchestra; one reason being the work is for large orchestra, double chorus and soloists, i.e. it is expensive to program / perform / record due to the number of performers it requires.

On Yahoo answers of late, there was a question asking for recommendations of 20th centry modern and contemporary classical, the writer mentioning a fair list of composers and their 'important' works, citing all as somewhat 'obscure,' and 'outside the canon of institutions.' (suppose they meant symphony programming and University / Conservatory repertoire lists. The fact was, there was not a composer named I did not only recognize, but with whose music I was at least somewhat familiar, and very few of them were 'added' from what I knew when younger, or had learned of in school.

In a more generally in-circulation usage by non-professional musicians, I've seen 'neglected' more often in the context of a composer or work who is simply not in 'the top ten' and whose work or existence has 'just been discovered' by the person calling that 'neglected.'

If someone who really knows their music and repertoire uses 'neglected' or 'obscure.' then what is named as such probably is, relatively, obscure, and _maybe_ 'neglected'....


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think of as being 'neglected' a toon that Andrea Bocelli hasn't sanctified with his radio-fit tones...


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

First thought: There is a thread called "Words I hate". Maybe you should add _neglected _to it.

Second thought: If it's neglected maybe it's just not good enough to warrant constant attention anyway.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There is a mindset in the progressive rock world that if an album sells more than ten thousand copies, for example, its pop garbage. I think a little of that esoteric elitism can translate into the classical realm too. I'm guilty of it to an extent. We cherish our neglected masterpieces. They make us so feel so unique, misunderstood and martyred. I'm not poking fun at this entirely. There is a certain richness in digging much deeper than the obvious surface hits of the genre. It stands to reason we would use words like "neglected," "underrated," etc.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

"I like this piece a lot more than other people seem to."


----------

