# Underrated Composers



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Just wondering if any of you have a favorite or two.

I ran across Johann Ludwig Krebs (baptized 12 October 1713 - 1 January 1780) a German Baroque composer, the other day, and his story is rather sorrowful.

He was a pupil of Bach, as was his father, and was considered unrivaled next to Bach in his organ proficiency. He did not ever obtain a patron or a post as his Baroque style was getting supplanted by the emerging galant and classical styles. It did not help either that he had seven kids to feed.

Never commissioned for a work, yet he composed a significant amount, which few were published until the 1900s.

7 Preludes and Fugues
2 Toccatas and Fugues
3 Preludes
4 Preludes (small)
2 Fantasias and Fugues (one fugue is a fragment)
3 Fantasias
11 Fugues
17 Trios
35 Chorale Settings (with 5 Variants and 6 other Chorale Settings of dubious authenticity)
13 Chorales with 3 Settings of each - "Clavierübung" (Nuremberg, 1752-1753)
5 Fantasias for wind instrument (trumpet, flute, oboe) and organ; 1 Variant
15 Chorale Settings for wind instrument and organ; 1 Fragment

The Baroque era is rife with these composers, and I have many underrated favorites, but Krebs is quite most unfortunate seeing as he arrived at the end of an era.









Johann Ludwig Krebs Toccata e Fuga in E dur


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I have a honey of a disc of his organ works performed by William Porter on Loft Recordings. An extra bonus is the beautiful cover photograph.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> I have a honey of a disc of his organ works performed by William Porter on Loft Recordings. An extra bonus is the beautiful cover photograph.


I wonder if Krebs survived by performing here there and around. I much admire the pipe organs of the era. Especially those built by Silbermann. Bucket list would entail traveling to listen to all Silbermann's played. And there are several still about.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

My review of the Krebs/Porter disc:

Johann Ludwig Krebs(1713-1780)
Clavier-Ubung & Two Chorales

Clavier-Ubung:

1-3. Allein Gott in der Hoh sei Ehr
4-6. Wer nur den lieben Gott labt walten
7-9. Jesu, meine Freude
10-12. Christ lag in Todesbanden
13-15. Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein
16-18. Auf meinen lieben Gott
19-21. Vater unser im Himmelreich
22-24. Sei Lob und Ehr dem hochsten Gut
25-27. Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan
28-30. Erbarm dich mein, o Herre Gott
31-33. Von Gott, will ich nicht lassen
34-36. Warum betrubst du dich, mein Herz
37-39. Jesus, meine Zuversicht

Two Chorales:

40. Herzlich lieb hab ich dich, o Herr
41. Von Gott will ich nicht lassen

Loft Recordings 1026
Recorded 2001
Pehr Schiorlin Organ(1806), Gammalkil, Sweden
William Porter, Organ
TT 76:54

The prevalent thinking is that Johann Ludwig Krebs was the favorite pupil
of Johann Sebastian Bach. Although that's quite a testimony, there are two
basic differences between the music of Krebs and Bach. The first involves
mood-painting. Krebs is naturally a composer of good cheer; he has little
penchant for darkness and deep emotional angst. As a result, the music of
Krebs possesses fewer contrasting emotional elements than found in Bach's
music.

The second difference has to do with musical inspiration. Krebs is quite a
long way from being one of the masters of the classical repertoire.
However, he was an expert musical craftsman with a knack for beautifully
turning a phrase and holding the listener's interest with a high level of
compositional diversity. At first listening, his music can sound rather
simple, but further investigation reveals a subtle level of nuances which
is quite attractive.

Krebs' Clavier-Ubung consists of thirty-nine pieces founded on thirteen
popular chorales of the 18th century. The arrangement of each chorale has
three sections: Preambulum - Choral - Choral alio modo. The similarities
do not end there either. With little exception, the preambulum sections
have a nice spring and bounce to them, the chorals tend to be melancholy
and rather stark with a filling out of the texture at the conclusion, and
the final sections are all strong and ceremonial. The most pronounced
exception, at least the way Porter approaches it, is the middle section
of "Sei Lob und Ehr dem hochsten Gut" which takes on the strong qualities
of the final sections.

William Porter is a professor of organ at the New England Consevatory of
Music and also teaches Music Theory and Music History at this institution.
He has degrees from Oberlin College and Yale University. Mr. Porter is
considered one of the leading advocates of an historical approach to Bach's
organ music, and he has searched near and far to find historical organs
which suit his tastes.

Porter evidently considers Sweden ripe territory for appropriate historical
organs. On another Loft organ disc, Porter uses a Swedish historical
organ for music devoted to Bruhns and Hanff. On this disc, he plays a Pehr
Schiorlin organ built in 1806. Schiorlin built about seventy organs in his
lifetime, and the one in Gammalkil is the largest of them. It has a sweet
and reedy nature with abundant strength when Porter calls for it. From my
perspective, it's certainly a fine organ for the music of Krebs.

Whole discs devoted to the organ music of Krebs are rare events. However,
Naxos recently issued such a disc peformed by Gerhard Gnann on the Gabler
Organ at Weingarten. This disc contains three of the chorales on the
Porter offering. Comparison shows that Gnann is consistently faster
than Porter who I know plays every composer slowly.

The differences in tempo don't really make much of a difference in the
performances. The most pronounced difference is that Porter is much
stronger and ceremonial than Gnann in the final sections of the chorales.
Also, Porter gives that middle section of "Sei Lob und Ehr dem hochsten
Gut" a ceremonial muscle than Gnann totally eschews.

Although Gnann is fully equal to Porter in the first and second sections,
excepting for the middle section noted above, Porter's greater strength and
public performance style in the final sections is much preferred by this
listener.

Porter concludes his disc with two unattched chorales which contrast nicely
with one another. The first is introspective, the second is heroic.
Porter plays these pieces with the same insight and command he displays
in the Clavier-Ubung.

Don's Conclusion: The William Porter recording is eminently recommendable.
The music is excellent, the organ sounds wonderful, and Porter does them
both proud. I would suggest that the disc not be listened to at one
sitting. A few chorales at a time, considering the similarity of
construction of each chorale, is more advantageous for one's listening
pleasure.

Any enthusiasts of baroque solo organ music will likely enjoy this disc
very much as long as they are not expecting the reincarnation of Bach. The
liner notes are presented very well in an organized fashion, and the cover
photograph of the room housing the Schiorlin Organ is highly pleasing to
the eyes; in fact, it's now one of my favorite covers.

For those not familiar with Loft Recordings, the company is based in
Seattle, Washington and offers mainly organ and choral discs. It has
a host of Bach organ recordings for sale at its website as well as other
organ recordings of baroque music. The screens are user friendly, ordering
is simple, and delivery to the home is quick.

In summary, I do recommend purchase of the Krebs disc. While you're at the
Loft Recordings website, do yourself a favor and order other discs as well.
You won't be sorry. I have no personal connection to this company; I just
like their discs and mode of operation.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Anna Strobl said:


> Just wondering if any of you have a favorite or two.
> 
> I ran across Johann Ludwig Krebs (baptized 12 October 1713 - 1 January 1780) a German Baroque composer, the other day, and his story is rather sorrowful.
> 
> ...


In the 1961 film "Mysterious Island", Benard Herrmann transcribed a Krebs' fugue for orchestra for a giant bird attack scene!


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

"Although that's quite a testimony, there are two
basic differences between the music of Krebs and Bach. The first involves
mood-painting. Krebs is naturally a composer of good cheer; he has little
penchant for darkness and deep emotional angst. As a result, the music of
Krebs possesses fewer contrasting emotional elements than found in Bach's
music." 

Bulldog : That's quite the review! Incredibly informative. And truly, as I listened further to Krebs, I was impressed similarly. 

Also :: I don't know anything about Loft Recordings. Are they affiliated with Naxos? 

And -- can anyone tell me know to upload the Youtube links with photos?


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

"In the 1961 film "Mysterious Island", Benard Herrmann transcribed a Krebs' fugue for orchestra for a giant bird attack scene!"

Alfacharger : Bernard Herrmann was quite the score writer. To say the least.


----------



## newyorkconversation (Dec 6, 2017)

I like the quartets of Ignaz Pleyel, better known as a publisher and pianoforte maker, and after whom Paris' "Salle Pleyel" is named.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Anna Strobl said:


> Also :: I don't know anything about Loft Recordings. Are they affiliated with Naxos?


The Naxos Music Library (a classical music streaming service) includes Loft CD's; I think that's it for any connection. If you go to the Gothic Recordings website, the Loft discs are all there.


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus (Mar 8, 2019)

Varese Varese Varese Varese followed by Varese


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2019)

It seems surprising to me that there are American composers like Cassidy and Eckardt whose music is more commonly performed/is a bigger deal outside of their own country than within it. Underrated for sure.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I like Prokofiev, if that counts...


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> I like Prokofiev, if that counts...


I believe Prokofiev is underrated. We do hear the March from The Love for Three Oranges, the Lieutenant Kijé suite, Romeo and Juliet and Peter and the Wolf. Sometimes. But there is so much more.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Anna Strobl said:


> I believe Prokofiev is underrated. We do hear the March from The Love for Three Oranges, the Lieutenant Kijé suite, Romeo and Juliet and Peter and the Wolf. Sometimes. But there is so much more.


Cinderella is a great ballet!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> I like Prokofiev, if that counts...


He certainly counts as one of the giants of the first half of the 20th Century. Given his reputation, I don't think many folks would consider his music underrated. Then again, I know some members here who find Beethoven underrated.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Purcell, Rameau, Charpentier, Schutz, Martinů, Suk, Holst, Gade, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Medtner, Raff, Hindemith, Villa-Lobos, Enescu, Salieri, Tanyev, Eben, Alkan, Ornstein, Busoni, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Bloch

most overrated are Beethoven and Mozart


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Cinderella is a great ballet!


Yes! True.. Very!


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Jacck said:


> Purcell, Rameau, Charpentier, Schutz, Martinů, Suk, Holst, Gade, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Medtner, Raff, Hindemith, Villa-Lobos, Enescu, Salieri, Tanyev, Eben, Alkan, Ornstein, Busoni, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Bloch


Martinů has so much to offer melodically. Takes time to warm up to him perhaps, though.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Recently discovered the music of Rued Langgaard. In particular the 2 symphonies gorgeously recorded by the Vienna Philharmonic are fascinating but also his opera Antikrist.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

*Milton Babbitt
Michael Hersch*


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Recently discovered the music of Rued Langgaard. In particular the 2 symphonies gorgeously recorded by the Vienna Philharmonic are fascinating but also his opera Antikrist.


You must get that Da Capo set of the complete symphonies. I'd never heard a note of his music until I bought that years ago - incredible music! So colorful, evocative and exciting. Weird at times, but why we don't hear him in concert is astonishing. Terrific, underrated composer for sure.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Mbhaub, I visited Ribe Cathedral in Southwestern Denmark some years ago, the place that Langgaard had been banished to. A beautiful old town but definitely an outpost. And there he was, in pictures and on posters sitting by the organ, CDs of his music on sale, weird to think of a man of such stature in that place. His music is so tuneful and approachable. I must get all those symphonies.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

*Hector Berlioz* is a very underrated composer in my opinion. I know people who think that the _Symphonie Fantastique_, his first symphony and one of his earliest works, is his major and only masterpiece, but for me other opuses by him such as the _Te Deum_, the _Requiem_, the _Symphonie Funèbre et Triomphale_ (his fourth and last symphony), _Roméo et Juliette_ (particularly the love scene), _L'enfance du Christ_, _Les nuits d'été_ and _Les Troyens_ are also very daring and expressive works of genius.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Yes, Berlioz would merit an upgrade in his reputation.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Purcell, Rameau, Charpentier, Schutz, Martinů, Suk, Holst, Gade, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Medtner, Raff, Hindemith, Villa-Lobos, Enescu, Salieri, Tanyev, Eben, Alkan, Ornstein, Busoni, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Bloch
> 
> *most overrated are Beethoven and Mozart*


I don't think they're overrated at all. Both were very influential and daring composers who have left us a startling torrent of great pieces, and whose non-existance would have meant a severe gap in the world of music. Overplayed perhaps, but not overrated in my humble opinion.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Oh, my. Berlioz. Quite possibly the most diversely compelling of composers. And the conclusion of _Roméo et Juliette _with David Ward as Friar Laurence, under Monteux!


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> *Milton Babbitt
> Michael Hersch*


Yes to these. I think Babbitt at least has a pretty good reputation as is, but Hersch is really deserving of some more widespread attention.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Alkan comes most to mind. I really enjoy his solo piano works.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Volkmar Andreae, Jindrich Feld, Jean-Michel Damase.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Juon, Myaskovsky, Taneyev, and Weinberg.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I must confess to feeling a strong reaction against the term "underrated composer"! Too often it seems to amount to special pleading on the basis of personal taste. The wider context seems to be missing. 

The history of all arts is filled with artists who created very fine art but are not household names. Their works can be enormously rewarding but remain the province of connoiseurs or experts of their period or genre. The big names - in music this means the ones that get regularly programmed for concerts - are considered greater and have much wider appeal. I suppose to suggest that someone is truly an underrated composer must mean (a) accepting that the mainstream is a correct ordering of merit and (b) that this particular composer deserves the same acolade but for some reason is being denied that. It does happen but not nearly as often as is claimed.

I do have my own personal loves for music that is not mainstream repertoire - who doesn't? - but I can usually eventually understand why my taste is not so widely shared for it. I used to follow up all sorts of recommendations for the alegedly underrated but almost always found myself in specialist territory and feeling that I have been encouraged there by a claim of something greater. The cost is that I may be missing out on something from a different period or genre that is already acknowledged as great.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I must confess to feeling a strong reaction against the term "underrated composer"! Too often it seems to amount to special pleading on the basis of personal taste. The wider context seems to be missing.
> 
> The history of all arts is filled with artists who created very fine art but are not household names. Their works can be enormously rewarding but remain the province of connoiseurs or experts of their period or genre. The big names - in music this means the ones that get regularly programmed for concerts - are considered greater and have much wider appeal. I suppose to suggest that someone is truly an underrated composer must mean (a) accepting that the mainstream is a correct ordering of merit and (b) that this particular composer deserves the same acolade but for some reason is being denied that. It does happen but not nearly as often as is claimed.
> 
> I do have my own personal loves for music that is not mainstream repertoire - who doesn't? - but I can usually eventually understand why my taste is not so widely shared for it. I used to follow up all sorts of recommendations for the alegedly underrated but almost always found myself in specialist territory and feeling that I have been encouraged there by a claim of something greater. The cost is that I may be missing out on something from a different period or genre that is already acknowledged as great.


Underrated, to me, means under-appreciated, underplayed, not well known, just being discovered, unpublished in his/her era, not well-employed in his/her specialty, you can name it any way you wish. It in no way does "underrated" imply the composer is not worthy of exploration.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I used to follow up all sorts of recommendations for the alegedly underrated but almost always found myself in specialist territory and feeling that I have been encouraged there by a claim of something greater. The cost is that I may be missing out on something from a different period or genre that is already acknowledged as great.


But if you want to find great new stuff, and that includes theater, literature, and visual art as well as music, you have to be willing to get out there and and check out new things, even if that means suffering through some less than great stuff. I think it's worth it, ymmv.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

fluteman said:


> But if you want to find great new stuff, and that includes theater, literature, and visual art as well as music, you have to be willing to get out there and and check out new things, even if that means suffering through some less than great stuff. I think it's worth it, ymmv.


Probably I am expressing myself badly. I acknowledge that there is a lot of great and rewarding music (from any period) that somehow doesn't quite raise itself to the level of the acknowledged greats from the same period. And I can see the attraction of exploring it if it is a period you like particularly. But I take issue with the easy use of the term "underrated". As someone who loves music but with very broad tastes I see a cost in exploring the very fine but lesser works of a period, a cost in terms of not having time to explore the more major works of a different period or a different genre. There was a time when I mostly listened to orchestral music and as I started to explore some lesser Classical and Romantic symphonies and concertos with diminishing returns compared to what Haydn and Schumann were doing for me .... and opening my ears to the chamber music of the greats was a better way to spend my time. I appreciate that others have different "listening strategies" and that they get to hear so many fine gems that don't reach all of us but they must also miss so many towering masterpieces from different periods? And are the works they discover underrated or merely fine works that remain the province of slightly more speicalised listeners? For me the word gets used too often.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Anna Strobl said:


> Underrated, to me, means under-appreciated, underplayed, not well known, just being discovered, unpublished in his/her era, not well-employed in his/her specialty, you can name it any way you wish. It in no way does "underrated" imply the composer is not worthy of exploration.


No, I'm not reading you are saying that they are not worthy. Quite the opposite. But I am comparing with fine art - there are from any period a few artists who are widely known as great geniuses and many others who are known as fine. The latter are mostly enjoyed by people whose taste has led them to explore a period more widely - the specialist collector or viewer ... or listener. I respect that and get that they receive a lot of please from what they do. But, for me, they must also miss out so much from other periods to make time for their "specialised" interest. There is nothing wrong with that, even if it is not for me. But the use of the word underrated suggests that the composer mentioned is every bit as great as, say, CPE Bach ... and even the Classical greats (Haydn and Mozart). Maybe that is what you intend?

Anyway, please rest assured that I fully respect your exploring in depth the music of a period you clearly love!


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> No, I'm not reading you are saying that they are not worthy. Quite the opposite. But I am comparing with fine art - there are from any period a few artists who are widely known as great geniuses and many others who are known as fine. The latter are mostly enjoyed by people whose taste has led them to explore a period more widely - the specialist collector or viewer ... or listener. I respect that and get that they receive a lot of please from what they do. But, for me, they must also miss out so much from other periods to make time for their "specialised" interest. There is nothing wrong with that, even if it is not for me. But the use of the word underrated suggests that the composer mentioned is every bit as great as, say, CPE Bach ... and even the Classical greats (Haydn and Mozart). Maybe that is what you intend?
> 
> Anyway, please rest assured that I fully respect your exploring in depth the music of a period you clearly love!


I think I may have expressed myself badly. Perhaps, um, obscure would be a better term? Or similar? I just went with immediately popped into my mind and that was the term "underrated"


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Anna Strobl said:


> I think I may have expressed myself badly. Perhaps, um, obscure would be a better term? Or similar? I just went with immediately popped into my mind and that was the term "underrated"


it is a fine word. Everyone understands that it is a subjective word, meaning composers who are inappropriately rated by the mainstream according to you - either underrated or overrated. There is no correct "objective" rating. Bach in 1800 was severely underrated, Raff in 19th century was probably overrated. How many other composers are so severely underrated/overrated?


----------



## muzik (May 16, 2013)

Anyone mentioned Charles-Valentin Alkan yet? ...massively underrated


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jacck said:


> it is a fine word. Everyone understands that it is a subjective word, meaning composers who are inappropriately rated by the mainstream according to you - either underrated or overrated. There is no correct "objective" rating. Bach in 1800 was severely underrated, Raff in 19th century was probably overrated. How many other composers are so severely underrated/overrated?


I agree in seeing no problem with thinking that something is underrated, i.e., deserving of more notice and respect than it gets. It might be a matter of being insufficiently known (many composers have fallen into this category), or of being overshadowed by the recognized "greats" (Telemann, for example, overshadowed by Bach, or Hummel by Beethoven). Certainly any fine composer who's rarely recorded or spoken of is underrated.

The idea that a composer is "overrated" is more problematic and tends to generate weird and cranky opinions.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I agree in seeing no problem with thinking that something is underrated, i.e., deserving of more notice and respect than it gets. It might be a matter of being insufficiently known (many composers have fallen into this category), or of being overshadowed by the recognized "greats" (Telemann, for example, overshadowed by Bach, or Hummel by Beethoven). Certainly any fine composer who's rarely recorded or spoken of is underrated.
> 
> The idea that a composer is "overrated" is more problematic and tends to generate weird and cranky opinions.


How many composers suffered because of Haydn & Mozart? Vivaldi & Bach? Perhaps not so much in their day as posts required filling, court music needed to be written, and patrons commissioned - but in retrospect, and in the opinion of posterity. Many, many composers hold their own. I, for one, am very glad for YouTube providing us a chance to discover at our leisure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Anna Strobl said:


> How many composers suffered because of Haydn & Mozart?


"It's too bad that such a genius had to die so young, but it's good for us. Had he lived, nobody would have given a piece of bread for our works." -Leopold Kozeluch to an associate, on Mozart's death (from memory)


----------



## kyjo (Jan 1, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Volkmar Andreae, Jindrich Feld, Jean-Michel Damase.


I heartily second these!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

muzik said:


> Anyone mentioned Charles-Valentin Alkan yet? ...massively underrated


I did. :cheers:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Walton is another name that comes to mind. Every time I come across his music I find myself riveted and extremely impressed, yet I almost never hear his name mentioned. I remember being quite blown away by this piece a while ago:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I agree in seeing no problem with thinking that something is underrated, i.e., deserving of more notice and respect than it gets. It might be a matter of being insufficiently known (many composers have fallen into this category), or of being overshadowed by the recognized "greats" (Telemann, for example, overshadowed by Bach, or Hummel by Beethoven). Certainly any fine composer who's rarely recorded or spoken of is underrated.
> 
> The idea that a composer is "overrated" is more problematic and tends to generate weird and cranky opinions.


Yes. The question is, is a composer's music worth hearing, but seldom performed or recorded, for whatever reason. I still reserve the right to listen to Bach and Beethoven as well. Music isn't a tennis tournament where there can only be one winner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Yes. The question is, is a composer's music worth hearing, but seldom performed or recorded, for whatever reason. I still reserve the right to listen to Bach and Beethoven as well. Music isn't a tennis tournament where there can only be one winner.


That's why there's no such ailment as composer's elbow. There can be staff infections, though.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

My personal list...

Eduard Tubin, Edmund Rubbra, George Lloyd, Granville Bantock, Carlos Chavez, Douglas Lilburn, Knudage Riisager, Josef Suk


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> That's why there's no such ailment as composer's elbow. *There can be staff infections*, though.


Only for movie score composers when their orchestrator has the flu.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That's why there's no such ailment as composer's elbow. There can be staff infections, though.


Lully found out about that.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Add Joly Braga Santos to my list!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Purcell, Rameau, Charpentier, Schutz, Martinů, Suk, Holst, Gade, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Medtner, Raff, Hindemith, Villa-Lobos, Enescu, Salieri, Tanyev, Eben, Alkan, Ornstein, Busoni, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Bloch
> 
> most overrated are Beethoven and Mozart


How much more popularity do Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Holst (The Planets) deserve? I find it hilarious again you just choose not to mention the name "Schubert" even though there's practically nothing he did better than Mozart, Beethoven (other than some song-writing). Just listen to his 4th symphony which is essentially a worse version of Beethoven, and 5th symphony which is essentially a second rate version of Mozart's 40th. For instance, Schubert's minuet basically Mozart's without the contrapuntal structure. You can even replace that movement in the symphony with Mozart's in a typical performance and get by fine. 
Death and the Maiden - the silliest tune written for a string quartet ever. Such a tempest in a teapot. No wonder why Schoenberg did not learn from Schubert's quartet writing but his earlier Viennese school predecessors'. 



According to Bachtrack.com, the 6 most widely performed classical composers in the world are Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky. You can see who is the most under-talented and unskilled of these six.

My favourite thing said in an article on classical music ever: 
_"It has been said, and with truth, Schubert holds the record for writing the most flops and he is top of this leader board by miles."_
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf



hammeredklavier said:


> eugeneonagain actually has some valid points. I have to say my faith is restored upon seeing there's actually someone with courage to speak against TC's overhype for Schubert.
> For example, TC actually believes Schubert wrote the greatest piano sonata (D960)
> and the greatest string quintet ever (D956) so overwhelmingly great that it puts all others to shame.. What is the greatest string quintet?
> I was like w t f





hammeredklavier said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit Look. Schubert even wrote the best string quartet, according to TC. Death and Maiden, (frankly I laugh whenever I listen to this piece, I can't tell whether he's being serious or funny) far surpassing Beethoven's C sharp minor. He even has a symphony rated right below that tier. (Are all his symphonies truly that superior to Haydn's 83th?) What's more. He wrote the best piano sonata, far surpassing Liszt's B minor. Thank god he didn't compose a piano concerto, had he done so he have surpassed Brahms. His C major quintet literally destroys all others'. Others get frequently bashed for writing banal, simple music and their enthusiasts ridiculed for building cults around them when there is this guy who never had good grasp in counterpoint or structural balance but instead resorted to mass-producing proto-minimalist texture throughout his output. I mean come on.. Let's face it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Walton is another name that comes to mind. Every time I come across his music I find myself riveted and extremely impressed, yet I almost never hear his name mentioned. I remember being quite blown away by this piece a while ago:


It _is_ strange about Walton. Ten years ago he was very highly thought of and often mentioned in Britain at least. But he does seem to have dropped off the radar at the moment. He didn't write that much but a lot of it was top class. I would have thought that the recent series of discs by Edward Gardner would have done something to keep him on our radar. Maybe it is just this forum that neglects him? The first symphony and the violin concerto are among the finest works of the 20th Century, I think.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Becca said:


> My personal list...
> 
> Eduard Tubin, Edmund Rubbra, George Lloyd, Granville Bantock, Carlos Chavez, Douglas Lilburn, Knudage Riisager, Josef Suk


You might like this:


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> How much more popularity do Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Holst (The Planets) deserve? I find it hilarious again you just choose not to mention the name "Schubert" even though there's practically nothing he did better than Mozart, Beethoven (other than some song-writing). Just listen to his 4th symphony which is essentially a worse version of Beethoven, and 5th symphony which is essentially a second rate version of Mozart's 40th. For instance, Schubert's minuet basically Mozart's without the contrapuntal structure. You can even replace that movement in the symphony with Mozart's in a typical performance and get by fine.
> Death and the Maiden - the silliest tune written for a string quartet ever. Such a tempest in a teapot. No wonder why Schoenberg did not learn from Schubert's quartet writing but his earlier Viennese school predecessors'.
> 
> 
> ...


This eternal crusade of yours against Schubert is so tiresome. Many love his music. Get over it. The symphonies and the string quartets are great works.

It is quite telling that even when he's not in the discussion you feel compelled to announce your distaste for Schubert's music.


----------



## newyorkconversation (Dec 6, 2017)

Somewhat inspired by this thread I listened to the Quatour Mosaïques recording of Joseph Wölfl's quartets today. Quite enjoyable. Now listening to Haydn's symphonies, which are themselves under-rated in my book!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

newyorkconversation said:


> Somewhat inspired by this thread I listened to the Quatour Mosaïques recording of Joseph Wölfl's quartets today. Quite enjoyable. Now listening to Haydn's symphonies, which are themselves under-rated in my book!


Haydn under-rated? Who else wrote over 100 symphonies and has three complete recorded cycles (last time I checked)? Not many, sez I!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This eternal crusade of yours against Schubert is so tiresome. Many love his music. Get over it. The symphonies and the string quartets are great works.
> 
> It is quite telling that even when he's not in the discussion you feel compelled to announce your distaste for Schubert's music.


I apologize if you found it tiresome. But everyone has fervent desire to say what they feel about certain composers, right? I'm no exception, sometimes I hold them back and stay civil, but the way some members act triggers me into saying it like how a burning match would do to a pile of gunpowder. I feel appropriate to say these things in the context of the thread where we discuss overratedness/underratedness in music. 
By the way I think Stravinsky did us a great favor by saying _"I doze off occasionally when listening to Schubert."_ Unrelated to other composers, I do find TC's hype for Schubert abnormal on many occasions.

Jacck's claim that our criteria for deeming composers overrated/underrated should be based on our predictions how much they will become more/less relevant in the future -- I find it absurd cause predicting trend changes in classical music is just as difficult as predicting whether classical music will eventually become extinct in the future (What are you, Jacck? A prophet? :lol and Bach wasn't necessarily 'underrated' in the modern sense, it's just that in the age before industrial revolution there was no way for a composer to get popularity on the national, global scale back then, as it was the case with many others. Again, I think it's just another excuse of his to justify/elevate his personal opinions as some sort of acceptable truths and be nitpicky all he wants.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize if you found it tiresome. But everyone has fervent desire to say what they feel about certain composers, right? I'm no exception, sometimes I hold them back and stay civil, but the way some members act triggers me into saying it like how a burning match would do to a pile of gunpowder. I feel appropriate to say these things in the context of the thread where we discuss overratedness/underratedness in music.
> By the way I think Stravinsky did us a great favor by saying _"I doze off occasionally when listening to Schubert."_ Unrelated to other composers, I do find TC's hype for Schubert abnormal on many occasions.
> 
> Jacck's claim that our criteria for deeming composers overrated/underrated should be based on our predictions how much they will become more/less relevant in the future -- I find it absurd cause predicting trend changes in classical music is just as difficult as predicting whether classical music will eventually become extinct in the future (What are you, Jacck? A prophet? :lol and Bach wasn't necessarily 'underrated' in the modern sense, it's just that in the age before industrial revolution there was no way for a composer to get popularity on the national, global scale back then, as it was the case with many others. Again, I think it's just another excuse of his to justify/elevate his personal opinions as some sort of acceptable truths and be nitpicky all he wants.


The thing is, it's interesting to find out about little-known but potentially worthwhile music. I'm sure that's what inspired the OP to start the thread. I certainly responded in that spirit and hope that at least some are motivated to investigate the composers I mentioned, i.e., Andreae, Feld and Damase, who are undeniably littke-known, especially outside their native countries of Switzerland, the Czech Republic and France, respectively. If you want to discuss why you feel Schubert's music is overrated, that's fine as well, but it's an entirely different topic and you should raise it in a separate thread, where those that wish to discuss that topic can participate. It is not appropriate to force people who may not be interested in that topic, or feel they have discussed it enough, to read your comments about it by posting them where they don't belong. That is one of the most irritating forms of trolling that I find here. That someone else may have posted inappropriately is no excuse.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> The thing is, it's interesting to find out about little-known but potentially worthwhile music. I'm sure that's what inspired the OP to start the thread. I certainly responded in that spirit and hope that at least some are motivated to investigate the composers I mentioned, i.e., Andreae, Feld and Damase, who are undeniably littke-known, especially outside their native countries of Switzerland, the Czech Republic and France, respectively. If you want to discuss why you feel Schubert's music is overrated, that's fine as well, but it's an entirely different topic and you should raise it in a separate thread, where those that wish to discuss that topic can participate. It is not appropriate to force people who may not be interested in that topic, or feel they have discussed it enough, to read your comments about it by posting them where they don't belong. That is one of the most irritating forms of trolling that I find here. That someone else may have posted inappropriately is no excuse.


Yes, I'm implying that the other greats are underrated (or should I say there are tons of works by them that are still underrated and largely neglected by the public, which some members here ignore them no matter how many times I explain) compared to Schubert, using him as a frame of reference. And I explained with the example I'm not just relying on personal preference or mere favoritism to decide who is underrated. I think it's important to explain yourself as much as possible, even regarding this issue here, I think there's no point to just list the names of composers that you think are underrated without elaborating on why you think they are underrated, (which some members are doing here) I don't think that will give other people urge to spend time to find out about their lives and work. Cause if you just list random-sounding, obscure names that other people harbor no feelings of sympathy or appeal for, chances are they'll just be random names that people have no relation to them whatsoever and people will simply ignore them as there is steady supply of other music for them to listen to.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, I'm implying that the other greats are underrated (or should I say there are tons of works by them that are still underrated and largely neglected by the public, which some members here ignore them no matter how many times I explain) compared to Schubert, using him as a frame of reference. And I explained with the example I'm not just relying on personal preference or mere favoritism to decide who is underrated. I think it's important to explain yourself as much as possible, even regarding this issue here, I think there's no point to just list the names of composers that you think are underrated without elaborating on why you think they are underrated, (which some members are doing here) I don't think that will give other people urge to spend time to find out about their lives and work. Cause if you just list random-sounding, obscure names that other people harbor no feelings of sympathy or appeal for, chances are they'll just be random names that people have no relation to them whatsoever and people will simply ignore them as there is steady supply of other music for them to listen to.


Whoosh.........


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, I'm implying that the other greats are underrated (or should I say there are tons of works by them that are still underrated and largely neglected by the public, which some members here ignore them no matter how many times I explain) compared to Schubert, using him as a frame of reference. And I explained with the example I'm not just relying on personal preference or mere favoritism to decide who is underrated. I think it's important to explain yourself as much as possible, even regarding this issue here, I think there's no point to just list the names of composers that you think are underrated without elaborating on why you think they are underrated, (which some members are doing here) I don't think that will give other people urge to spend time to find out about their lives and work. Cause if you just list random-sounding, obscure names that other people harbor no feelings of sympathy or appeal for, chances are they'll just be random names that people have no relation to them whatsoever and people will simply ignore them as there is steady supply of other music for them to listen to.


I'm confused as to how this explains the constant fixation on Schubert's supposed inferiority. After all, there are many works of Schubert which are neglected/underrated which deserve greater recognition. Or shall we continue the narrative that Schubert was a mere amateur who wrote nothing of true mastery or depth?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> I'm confused as to how this explains the constant fixation on Schubert's supposed inferiority. After all, there are many works of Schubert which are neglected/underrated which deserve greater recognition. Or shall we continue the narrative that Schubert was a mere amateur who wrote nothing of true mastery or depth?


I never understood this narrative. Schuber (and Mendelssohn) are both in my top 10. His Impromptus, Sonatas, Sonatinas for Violin, his most amazing String Quartet in G, his Wanderer-Fantasie, the Great Symphony, I could go on. How anyone could call any of this amateurish is far, far beyond me.

Funny, I only see it in certain circles online these days, as if they read it in some early 20th century book and latched onto a bad idea. I guess composers are only great if they aren't also great melodists.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> I'm confused as to how this explains the constant fixation on Schubert's supposed inferiority. After all, there are many works of Schubert which are neglected/underrated which deserve greater recognition. Or shall we continue the narrative that Schubert was a mere amateur who wrote nothing of true mastery or depth?


Jacck: Mozart and Beethoven are the most overrated.

Me: No. They're underrated compared to Schubert

The only difference between me and Jacck is I wrote a few more lines than him, which I even apologized for having done so. And Jacck has been expressing this unpopular opinion of his many times in the past. I don't see what's particularly wrong with my posts compared to his.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Schubert is also in my top 10, but I can also kind of get the "amateur" accusation. Much of Schubert's music does have a very "home-made" quality to it, which I think is much of what makes him endearing. He managed to make more music of real simplicity, yet utter beauty, than any great composer I know of. I think it's why he was so home in the genre of lieder. I wouldn't say there's no sophistication in Schubert, but it's never ostentatious and I don't think you hear it as frequently compared to many of the greats whose feats of genius are easier to point to. With Schubert I often just sit back and marvel at the brilliance he achieved through the simplest of means.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

------------------


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Look into the Schubert lieder and you will often find a discriminating or sophisticated choice of poems. But people usually don't consider that if they don't speak the language or see a translation that can make all the difference in the world in appreciating his melodic genius and the inspired and pure spirit behind it … and no, the accompaniment in all his songs do not sound the same but fit the mood of the poems he's writing about: http://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=75272

Mozart lived 4 years longer and Beethoven 26. And yet Schubert had his own distinct voice but didn't aspire to be either of them though he was undoubtedly influenced by them. He's one of the immortals, and at his best he was not overrated... He could be just as moving and satisfying as anyone with his imagination, melodic inspiration, and purity of spirit. Sometimes he would hear songs in his head faster than he could write them down. He could be completely inspired. Even dying at the age of 31, he was tremendously prolific and that's why his music needs to be sorted through and not everything has equal quality of value. Now watch the critics search for the worst in Schubert so they can say he was overrated compared to Mozart or Beethoven as the supreme gods of music. But as great as they were, even _they_ had their shortcomings.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart lived 4 years longer and Beethoven 26. And yet Schubert had his own distinct voice but didn't aspire to be either of them though he was undoubtedly influenced by them. He's one of the immortals, and at his best he was not overrated...


Sure, you could argue he was a genius on his own right. I will not argue against that. But look at this What is the greatest string quintet? this poll on "the greatest string quintet", Schubert's C major alone accounts for 60% of the votes while all the others stay below 9% and I do find this extreme cult of Schubert bizarre. See in that thread, I did not protest against people's decision. Whatever I wanted to say about Schubert's overratedness, I kept to myself. But when a Schubert fan decides to act immature, I reminded of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black". And let's not get started on the (allegedly) greatest piano work and string quartet  https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, you could argue he was a genius on his own right. I will not argue against that. But look at this What is the greatest string quintet? this poll on "the greatest string quintet", Schubert's C major alone accounts for 60% of the votes while all the others stay below 9% and I do find this extreme cult of Schubert bizarre.


The string quintet isn't the most fertile of genres, and I'd say, not with much controversy I imagine, that Schubert and Mozart dominate the top three spots. Between them, I have difficulty choosing between the Mozart's, while the Schubert is probably more emotionally affecting anyway, so it would indeed get my vote.

I don't see any "cult of Schubert" around here. Unlike some composers, he doesn't seem to have fans who stalk every every negative post about him waiting to pounce, while making sure to denigrate other composers they deem inferior. The "big 3" all seem to have their share of obsessive Heavens Gate types.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't see any "cult of Schubert" around here. Unlike some composers, he doesn't seem to have fans who stalk every every negative post about him waiting to pounce, while making sure to denigrate other composers they deem inferior. The "big 3" all seem to have their share of obsessive Heavens Gate types.


As I've been saying, that's because there isn't that much bashing of Schubert as there are of other composers in the first place. See how much hate I'm getting just for saying a few lines? How much hate eugeneonagain got just for truthfully saying "it's honestly not that great a work". 
Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960
Schubert quintet alone gets more than half the votes, putting all the others to shame. 
You're calling that perfectly normal, I think that just means you're part of the cult (I'm sorry to say). And what about his piano sonata, and string quartet? I hate to say it, I think the worst cults are the ones who don't know how cult-like they themselves are, at the same time accuse others for being cults.

I see the convenient logic "there's no such thing as incorrect way to create music." used to defend Schubert more than any other greats. It's interesting cause the same people who used the logic to conveniently defend him just choose not to apply the same logic for the other greats. I felt there was something seriously wrong there and complained about it, and I'm blamed for stalking. Maybe that's just the way people's minds work here. I'll just have to get used to it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Cults are small; Schubert's Quintet was a huge victory.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> *Cults are small*; Schubert's Quintet was a huge victory.


Unless they're large, and then they're a religion.  So maybe there's a religion of Schubert's quintet... in which case, be so kind as to direct me to the altar. :tiphat:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> As I've been saying, that's because there isn't that much bashing of Schubert as there are of other composers in the first place. See how much hate I'm getting just for saying a few lines? How much hate eugeneonagain got just for truthfully saying "it's honestly not that great a work".
> Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960
> Schubert quintet alone gets more than half the votes, putting all the others to shame.
> You're calling that perfectly normal, I think that just means you're part of the cult (I'm sorry to say). And what about his piano sonata, and string quartet? I hate to say it, I think the worst cults are the ones who don't know how cult-like they themselves are, at the same time accuse others for being cults.
> ...


Not everyone has the logic and ability to describe exactly why they like what they hear, and yet they are sometimes expected of that as if everyone is a musician who can describe what they hear in exact terms. Some music creates an overwhelming feeling of goodness that cannot be described. It's ineffable in its purity and sincerity and beauty. It's a shame that not everyone can appreciate music on that level and continue to complain because every composer is not like Mozart... Franz Schubert is an immortal who will forever be eternally loved because of his spirituality, melodic beauty, Winterreise, and too many other works to mention. He's a beloved immortal played by many of the greatest musicians in the world, and the likelihood of his never being in the repertoire for a good reason is about 1,000,000,000 to 1.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Anna Strobl said:


> Just wondering if any of you have a favorite or two.
> 
> I ran across Johann Ludwig Krebs (baptized 12 October 1713 - 1 January 1780) a German Baroque composer, the other day, and his story is rather sorrowful.
> 
> ...


The complete organ works of Krebs, released 6 months ago and available at a very low price:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, you could argue he was a genius on his own right. I will not argue against that. But look at this What is the greatest string quintet? this poll on "the greatest string quintet", Schubert's C major alone accounts for 60% of the votes while all the others stay below 9% and I do find this extreme cult of Schubert bizarre.


Yes on this point I must agree with you, that poll is bizarre. The Mozart String Quintet in G minor is a much better work in my opinion! (Brahms String Quintets are better too).

I really like some Schubert, but I think he is outclassed in those String Quintets. That poll result is a travesty.

End rant.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

Buxtehude and Fischer, both revered by Bach, yet still mostly unknown to the general music audience.
I have recently started playing Fischer's Ariadne Musica. While it is not Bach, it is still great music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, you could argue he was a genius on his own right. I will not argue against that. But look at this *What is the greatest string quintet?* this poll on "the greatest string quintet", *Schubert's C major alone accounts for 60% of the votes while all the others stay below 9% and I do find this extreme cult of Schubert bizarre.
> *
> Schubert quintet alone gets more than half the votes, putting all the others to shame.
> *You're calling that perfectly normal, I think that just means you're part of the cult* (I'm sorry to say). I hate to say it, *I think the worst cults are the ones who don't know how cult-like they themselves are, at the same time accuse others for being cults.
> *


My dear hammeredklavier! Has it ever occurred to you that there is, quite simply, something about Schubert that great numbers of people love dearly, despite the well-known fact that he was a musical moron?

I can tell you why that awful quintet wins so many blue ribbons when it's entered into juried shows. It has a slow movement to die for! In fact, I believe it was the distinguished violinist Joseph Silverstein who (if I remember correctly what I was told by a mutual friend) said that that movement was the music he wanted played at his funeral. I can't think of a better choice, although I can think of occasions on which the person who requests it is more likely to enjoy it.

If there is a Cult of Schubert, I have never been an adherent. As a youngster there was virtually nothing of his music that I cared for, while Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and even Johann Strauss could sweep me off my feet. I thought his "Unfinished" Symphony was a yawn, and his "Great" C-Major couldn't finish soon enough. I think it was an old recording of Elisabeth Schumann singing "Nacht und Traume" that began to clue me in to the quiet, lonely, lovely rapture of Schubert, and when, in college, I heard in concert one of the piano sonatas in a minor key (I forget which one), I was astonished at the dark fissures that kept opening up in the placid surfaces of the music. In my early 20s I took it upon myself to sing the whole of _Winterreise_ with a pianist friend, and that was a great lesson in the deceptive simplicity of genius.

I don't know how I "rate" Schubert in the pantheon of composers. I dislike rating things generally. But I do know that the qualities that gain him so much admiration are not of the ostentatious sort, and he may not speak to some right away, as he didn't to me. But it appears that he speaks quite strongly to the 60% of respondents who prefer his quintet to all others. There is nothing in that fact suggestive of any "cult"; I myself consider that slow movement one of the most original, poignant and sublime inspirations in the whole history of music, and can well understand it being the factor that determines an individual's preference for Schubert's quintet over works which might otherwise earn their vote. Mozart's G-minor would very likely be the second choice of many among that 60%, and since the repertoire of string quintets is not particularly large, I suspect that you're just miffed that Mozart got beat in the match.

Poor Mozart. So underrated.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It is dearly hoped that one day Mozart will be rescued from his obscurity as one of the greatest composers of all time and be elevated to his rightful place as being the best Mozart who ever lived as the composer Mozart.  The easiest way to ruin music in every possible way is to live by comparisons where composers of genius are pitted against each other like at Santa Anita racetrack.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> even though there's practically _*nothing he did better than*_ Mozart, *Beethoven (other than some song-writing).*
> 
> Bold, italics and underline are mine. "some song-writing"?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Mozart and modern music fans are the least capable of toleraring any critique. ... Why do you constanty feel offended when anyone writes something negative about your music or composer? That is something I do not understand.


Like in the thread about contemporary music for example, I'm not even tracking down Jacck or anyone for that matter and I still see him provoking certain people every now and then. I was reading the thread on contemporary music and I suddenly encountered this comment of his and I was like "why is he bringing Mozart into this? wtf?" This wasn't the only time. What frustrates me even more is whenever I argue against it I'm the only one who gets all the blame for trolling even though Jacck is the one who provoked/started it in the first place.

It's funny also because on the thread about Schubert piano sonata I still clearly remember Jacck protesting against eugeneonagain's critique on Schubert, "are you fond of trampling other people's sandcastles", which the mods deleted along with a host of other comments by various people. I find this attitude of his troubling. I get the impression Jacck thinks of himself as a leader of justice or something who goes after cults when in reality he's nothing of the sort. 
Maybe I'm overreacting on stuff like this but I have a reason to be sensitive. I found too much stuff in old threads on this forum that I find 'history-revisionist'. Telling them 'enough' is one of the reasons why I'm here, albeit I know I can be annoying.

As for Schubert's achievements as a composer, even though he's considered the greatest melodist, I don't find his melodies really that appealing, even compared with Beethoven. Beethoven's best melodies (such as his more famous piano sonatas) may be fewer in number, less elaborate, less flashy in the technical sense, they move me much more strongly than Schubert. Wanderer Fantasy is one of such works that I find rather inane, I hate to say. 
Mozart (or Beethoven) don't appeal to certain people. That's fine. There isn't that much in Schubert that I find particularly outstanding either. Even his C major Quintet, which I find long-winded, (again I hate to say). Let's admit that Mozart and Beethoven's influence in music history was greater and I in turn will admit that Schubert was a respectably great composer himself. No one gets called overrated and we'll all be happy.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ Goerne sings that at a death-defyingly slow tempo! His breath control is certainly admirable. It's really better a tad faster, though.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ Goerne sings that at a death-defyingly slow tempo! His breath control is certainly admirable. It's really better a tad faster, though.


I think he sings it absolutely perfectly.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's funny also because on the thread about Schubert piano sonata I still clearly remember Jacck protesting against eugeneonagain's critique on Schubert, "are you fond of trampling other people's sandcastles", which the mods deleted along with a host of other comments by various people. I find this attitude of his troubling. I get the impression Jacck thinks of himself as a leader of justice or something who goes after cults when in reality he's nothing of the sort.


The forum and other people's attitudes towards us can be infuriating. But the thing is if we get personal about each other (and merely on a matter of taste!) then where does it end. If you don't like someone's posting and never see any value in it then put them on ignore. If they sometimes say interesting things then celebrate that instead and if necessary argue rationally about the things you don't like.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Like in the thread about contemporary music for example, I'm not even tracking down Jacck or anyone for that matter and I still see him provoking certain people every now and then. I was reading the thread on contemporary music and I suddenly encountered this comment of his and I was like "why is he bringing Mozart into this? wtf?" This wasn't the only time. What frustrates me even more is whenever I argue against it I'm the only one who gets all the blame for trolling even though Jacck is the one who provoked/started it in the first place.
> 
> It's funny also because on the thread about Schubert piano sonata I still clearly remember Jacck protesting against eugeneonagain's critique on Schubert, "are you fond of trampling other people's sandcastles", which the mods deleted along with a host of other comments by various people. I find this attitude of his troubling. I get the impression Jacck thinks of himself as a leader of justice or something who goes after cults when in reality he's nothing of the sort.
> Maybe I'm overreacting on stuff like this but I have a reason to be sensitive. I found too much stuff in old threads on this forum that I find 'history-revisionist'. Telling them 'enough' is one of the reasons why I'm here, albeit I know I can be annoying.
> ...


hammeredklavier,
I am not invested in any composer the way you seem to be invested in Mozart. If eugene declares Schubert to be a composer of garbage, I think he exaggerates, but I am not offended. If someone describes Schubert in an uncritical manner as the best composer who ever lived, I likewise disagree. I think Shubert was a great composer, especially of songs, who has also some flaws. I think the same can be said about Mozart and about Beethoven and also about Bach, whom I consider the greatest composer of all. You seem to be like a football fan, who gets offended whenever someone say something else than praise about you favorite football club. I am not a fan of any composer, because I like them all (though some more, some less), and I see no need to constatly compare Beethoven to Mozart to Schubert and argue who was the greatest. The are all different and unique.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Like in the thread about contemporary music for example, I'm not even tracking down Jacck or anyone for that matter and I still see him provoking certain people every now and then. I was reading the thread on contemporary music and I suddenly encountered this comment of his and I was like "why is he bringing Mozart into this? wtf?" This wasn't the only time. What frustrates me even more is whenever I argue against it I'm the only one who gets all the blame for trolling even though Jacck is the one who provoked/started it in the first place.
> 
> It's funny also because on the thread about Schubert piano sonata I still clearly remember Jacck protesting against eugeneonagain's critique on Schubert, "are you fond of trampling other people's sandcastles", which the mods deleted along with a host of other comments by various people. I find this attitude of his troubling. I get the impression Jacck thinks of himself as a leader of justice or something who goes after cults when in reality he's nothing of the sort.
> Maybe I'm overreacting on stuff like this but I have a reason to be sensitive. I found too much stuff in old threads on this forum that I find 'history-revisionist'. Telling them 'enough' is one of the reasons why I'm here, albeit I know I can be annoying.
> ...


@Hammeredklavier, no need to feel offended by other members. Just put agitators on your ignore list. I did the same and it helps a lot


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> The day that some composer other than Mozart is wholeheartedly praised will be like watching the sun coming up in the west. Listen very carefully: Schubert is one of the greatest most beloved composers of all time with his melodic genius and purity of spirit. More enemies have been made for Mozart by those who are unable to praisie anyone else and appreciate their worth.


Well, I am certainly not praising Mozart, nor Karajan, to speak of just two sacred cows for some fanatics on TC. And the sun still comes up in the east:tiphat:

I knew a guy with less knowledge of classical music than money in his wallet. He proudly stated to have bought the complete Mozart CD edition, in this Mozart year long ago when CD's still costed a fortune.

Mozart and Karajan have a failsafety in common. Nobody can question your taste and if you play it, the music you hear is never too confronting. No D.960, no Winterreise, no Grosse Fuge, no Hammerklavier would come from Mozart, too extreme or too desolate for him. Funny enough, I do have quite a Mozart collection, so I really tried. But I must admit I almost never listen to it, with very few exceptions. This of course does not in any way mean that anyone can't be completely carried away with either M or K or both. Each his own taste. It just becomes a bit annoying if people start to offend you, for not sharing or even questioning their heroes. Schubert and Beethoven to me are the only indispensable of the four people named in this post.

As a result of this, I have a small ignore list now.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> As I've been saying, that's because there isn't that much bashing of Schubert as there are of other composers in the first place. See how much hate I'm getting just for saying a few lines? How much hate eugeneonagain got just for truthfully saying "it's honestly not that great a work".
> Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960
> Schubert quintet alone gets more than half the votes, putting all the others to shame.
> You're calling that perfectly normal, I think that just means you're part of the cult (I'm sorry to say). And what about his piano sonata, and string quartet? I hate to say it, I think the worst cults are the ones who don't know how cult-like they themselves are, at the same time accuse others for being cults.
> ...


I wouldn't say there's a ton of bashing on any of the major composers. They all have their share of critics, but they're inevitably in the minority. Reading through that thread you linked, I dare say most posters were less harsh on eugenonagain than he was on Schubert!

Yes, I say Schubert's quintet getting most of the votes is normal because it's a great, great piece and there isn't a ton of competition. Post a poll about the best organ work and I bet Bach will garner far more than half of the votes! Sometimes a composer gets lucky and just happens to create a near-universally recognized masterpiece in an under-represented genre, or just happens to master that genre like few others have even attempted.

I can't speak for others, but I'd use that logic for Schubert and any other composer or artist I happen to like. Perhaps Schubert was deficient in counterpoint or other aspects of composition, but clearly people feel that he had other strengths that made up for this. That's generally the way tastes work; people who like something see the positive in certain qualities and feel those strenghts outweigh whatever negatives there are, and people who dislike something are the opposite. It's even possible for us to like/dislike the same quality, or value different qualities quite differently. Those who value melody highly--and I include myself in that--usually find much to love in Schubert. I also find a real melancholy in his music that I'm drawn to. I adore the chamber music of Brahms for a similar reason.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2019)

dear hammeredklavier, 
it is about time you start behaving like a responsible member of TC. you have been invading numerous threads (including mine about contemporary composers) with non related topics.
what you say is very often very interesting but you should make your comments in the appropriate threads.
your schubert bashing does not make sense. you are right that there are glaring weaknesses in his oeuvre, but you will find them likewise in the works of the greatest composers.
plse be so kind to confirm that you will use your talents to grace the appropriate threads. best marc


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> hammeredklavier,
> I am not invested in any composer the way you seem to be invested in Mozart. If eugene declares Schubert to be a composer of garbage, I think he exaggerates, but I am not offended. If someone describes Schubert in an uncritical manner as the best composer who ever lived, I likewise disagree. I think Shubert was a great composer, especially of songs, who has also some flaws. I think the same can be said about Mozart and about Beethoven and also about Bach, whom I consider the greatest composer of all. You seem to be like a football fan, who gets offended whenever someone say something else than praise about you favorite football club. I am not a fan of any composer, because I like them all (though some more, some less), and I see no need to constatly compare Beethoven to Mozart to Schubert and argue who was the greatest. The are all different and unique.


By the number of posts I've seen you claiming Mozart (or Beethoven) overrated, you seem to have some kind of vendetta against these composers. Again, we both know this is not the first time we discussed this - since there has been a number of posts you expressed your dissatisfaction with people praising Mozart (or Beethoven) with me arguing against it and I'm getting a little frustrated over this continued 'discussion'.
You got to understand, I too find it disturbing when people talk as if Schubert's piano sonata D960, or Death and the Maiden quartet are the greatest of their kind. They're actually ranked as the greatest of their kind on the list of "TC's greatest or best recommended works" (which you seem to have absolutely no problem with) or whatever it is. But I think Schubert's DM is just not at the same level as Mozart's string quartet in the same key K421, for example, (which is mentioned on the forum way less than Schubert's DM) in terms of level of drama and compositional technique involved.



hammeredklavier said:


> Especially the coda where Mozart emphasizes the ominous 4 note motif with 'painful' chromatic descending lines:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So as much as you're frustrated with Mozart (+Beethoven, contemporary music) worship in other people, I am also frustrated with Schubert worship in other people - people who talk as if Schubert wrote the greatest piano sonata, the greatest string quintet, the greatest string quartet ever when I firmly believe he never did any of these. I find it a little disturbing when you talk like Mozart (and sometimes Beethoven) enthusiasts are the only 'cults' who refuse to admit objective truths, even though you depend on your personal preference to decide what constitutes objectively good/bad music.



Jacck said:


> his weird melodies and use of clichés.


Next time you claim Mozart (and Beethoven) as the most overrated, you should be ready to answer my question "what about Schubert?", except I'll try refrain as much as possible from criticizing his music.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> You got to understand, I too find it *disturbing* when people talk as if Schubert's piano sonata D960, or Death and the Maiden quartet are the greatest of their kind.


I think we found the problem.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

NLAdriaan said:


> No D.960, no Winterreise, no Grosse Fuge, no Hammerklavier would come from Mozart, too extreme or too desolate for him.


One thing I find impressive in Mozart, in works like Adagio and Fugue K546, F minor Fantasy K608, is the natural flow and logic combined with (operatic) drama (like the double fugue ending of K608) which I think are not often found in works of other masters (aside from Bach). I'm also familiar with Beethoven Grosse Fuge, Hammerklavier. There are indeed lots people praising these as stunning works of art. Although I acknowledge the superb merit in these works, I think there's a certain sense of drama in Mozart, Beethoven doesn't really achieve with his. People discuss the "sense of struggle" in these works, while I do enjoy and admire them, I hear the agitation and appreciate the way Beethoven resolves it. But I probably don't hear "struggle" in these Beethoven works as much as his most fervent admirers do. I still wonder what it exactly is, perhaps Beethoven's own "struggle with composition" combine with his "emotional struggle"?

But you're absolutely right, everyone has their blindspot.
but also I feel when discussing overratedness/underratedness in classical music, there's a thing we cannot ignore - 'the way these masters influenced others over time'. Your top ten composers from each period of classical music.
Too often I see people talking like "I don't like Handel (for example), so he is worthless crap", which isn't really that much more substantial compared to a Justin Bieber fan saying "I don't like classical music, it sucks. I like modern pop way better. Classical music is overrated".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I wouldn't say there's a ton of bashing on any of the major composers. They all have their share of critics, but they're inevitably in the minority. Reading through that thread you linked, I dare say most posters were less harsh on eugenonagain than he was on Schubert!


I'll give you some examples, The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You
in this thread the members in the past have referenced ,not just once, but several times throughout the thread, "most overrated composer" polls from another site where Mozart tops #1. What other composer gets this kind of treatment? The first person to reference it even talked like Schubert is greater than Mozart. I know some people complain there's a cult with Mozart (sometimes Beethoven) that you don't find in other composers, which I think is a nonsense. Whatever worship they claim there is with Mozart, I think it's there because he deserves it, same with many other composers in classical music. I feel bad about being harsh on Brahmswasagreatmelodist and Dimace in the latest posts of that thread, but again, they were talking like as if all that (campaign to condemn Mozart as the most overrated) was still not enough. I had to tell them 'stop'.


----------



## Anna Strobl (Mar 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I know some people complain there's a cult with Mozart (sometimes Beethoven) that you don't find in other composers, which I think is a nonsense. Whatever worship they claim there is with Mozart, I think it's there because he deserves it, same with many other composers in classical music.


With familiarity comes contempt perhaps? (lol) Mozart is fabulously well-known and widely played. So more people may know of him than others lesser-played. Mozart has melodic tendencies that another UberGreat does not - Beethoven - so he is better "enjoyed" by more listeners. He is (shudder) accessible.

Yet -- there is something completely magical to Mozart's music that is addictive. He does deserve the accolades.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

NLAdriaan said:


> Mozart and Karajan have a failsafety in common. Nobody can question your taste and if you play it, the music you hear is never too confronting. No D.960, no Winterreise, no Grosse Fuge, no Hammerklavier would come from Mozart, too extreme or too desolate for him. Funny enough, I do have quite a Mozart collection, so I really tried. But I must admit I almost never listen to it, with very few exceptions.


I didn't really understand how Karajan came into this. Some of his recordings are truly great and some are horrible (including a lot of his Mozart)! But to say Mozart doesn't have a Romantic sensibility (for that is what your comparisons add up to) seems a strange criticism. Why not just say "I don't like the music of the Classical era so much"? The pieces you mention are truly great: I love them. But they are just one side of what music (very much a multi-sided phenomenon) can offer. You give the impression - without actually saying it - that you find Mozart bland or too sweet. But, if that is what you are saying, you couldn;t be further from the truth. There is so much that is just as intensely inspiring and just as strongly characterised in Mozart. It is different buy at least equally powerful. I don't know why but it always worries me when people fail to hear that.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Anna Strobl said:


> With familiarity comes contempt perhaps? (lol) Mozart is fabulously well-known and widely played. So more people may know of him than others lesser-played. Mozart has melodic tendencies that another UberGreat does not - Beethoven - so he is better "enjoyed" by more listeners. He is (shudder) accessible.
> 
> Yet -- there is something completely magical to Mozart's music that is addictive. He does deserve the accolades.


my contempt for Mozart was at least in part fuelled by the Mozart kitch, that you can see in Prag, Vienna, Salzburg. I lived in Prag for 7 years, and in Vienna for about 4 years. As a student, I was dressed in a Mozart constume, and was selling concert tickets for Mozart concerts in Prague. His music is played in elevators, on trains, in subways and shops in Vienna etc. All of this associated Mozart with kitch in my mind and I could not take his music seriously. I perceived it mostly as pleasant, but ultimately superficial and meaningless music. It took me over a year to get over this, but would still not call Mozart my favorite composer. I listened to the Magic Flute 2 days ago and it is not my favorite opera in a long shot.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll give you some examples, The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You
> in this thread the members in the past have referenced ,not just once, but several times throughout the thread, "most overrated composer" polls from another site where Mozart tops #1. What other composer gets this kind of treatment? The first person to reference it even talked like Schubert is greater than Mozart. I know some people complain there's a cult with Mozart (sometimes Beethoven) that you don't find in other composers, which I think is a nonsense. Whatever worship they claim there is with Mozart, I think it's there because he deserves it, same with many other composers in classical music. I feel bad about being harsh on Brahmswasagreatmelodist and Dimace in the latest posts of that thread, but again, they were talking like as if all that (campaign to condemn Mozart as the most overrated) was still not enough. I had to tell them 'stop'.


I really don't know what "examples" you're giving or what point you think you're making. Yes, there are people who think Mozart's overrated, just as, yes, there's people that think almost ANY highly praised composer (or artist or author or filmmaker) is overrated. They're called opinions; everyone has them. Mozart is, by a good distance, my favorite composer. I have no problem with people calling him overrated, saying Schubert is better, linking to polls where Mozart is declared the most overrated, etc. It doesn't affect my love and appreciation for him one iota, and it ultimately doesn't affect his place in the canon one iota. Now, if some of these people start making specific complaints or specific factual claims that I feel are false, then I might feel inclined to start discussing those claims and trying to argue why they're false. Perhaps the most common one is that Mozart was just a writer of pretty, even "kitschy," tunes and lacks musical or artistic substance and/or depth, and that's pretty easily and quickly disproven by anyone who's studied his artistry even a little bit. I'm also fond of pointing out that the facility for writing great, memorable melodies shouldn't be so easily dismissed or undervalued; but Mozart doesn't need constant defending from the statement of mere opinions about being overrated.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll give you some examples, The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You
> in this thread the members in the past have referenced ,not just once, but several times throughout the thread, "most overrated composer" polls from another site where Mozart tops #1. What other composer gets this kind of treatment? The first person to reference it even talked like Schubert is greater than Mozart. I know some people complain there's a cult with Mozart (sometimes Beethoven) that you don't find in other composers, which I think is a nonsense. Whatever worship they claim there is with Mozart, I think it's there because he deserves it, same with many other composers in classical music. I feel bad about being harsh on Brahmswasagreatmelodist and Dimace in the latest posts of that thread, but again, they were talking like as if all that (campaign to condemn Mozart as the most overrated) was still not enough. I had to tell them 'stop'.


Why on earth does it matter what people think? Some people love champagne, others find it an overrated fizzy drink. It's ridiculous to take these things as right or wrong or as a personal affront.
I think Philip Glass is wonderful, a lot of people find him laughably simplistic. Doesn't worry me!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marc bollansee said:


> dear hammeredklavier,
> it is about time you start behaving like a responsible member of TC. you have been invading numerous threads (including mine about contemporary composers) with non related topics.


dear marc bollansee, this is not your thread about contemporary composers. I haven't been invading threads with non related topics and I've been behaving as a responsible member. I have the right to ask Jacck why he thinks the composers listed in his post are 'underrated' compared to some others he condemned as the most overrated (the opposite of being underrated) and why he chose not to include certain composers in his list, in this thread about underrated composers. please be so kind to stop following me along and lecturing me about what to say or not say in each thread. best hk


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I really don't know what "examples" you're giving or what point you think you're making. Yes, there are people who think Mozart's overrated, just as, yes, there's people that think almost ANY highly praised composer (or artist or author or filmmaker) is overrated. They're called opinions; everyone has them. Mozart is, by a good distance, my favorite composer. I have no problem with people calling him overrated, saying Schubert is better, linking to polls where Mozart is declared the most overrated, etc. It doesn't affect my love and appreciation for him one iota, and it ultimately doesn't affect his place in the canon one iota. Now, if some of these people start making specific complaints or specific factual claims that I feel are false, then I might feel inclined to start discussing those claims and trying to argue why they're false. Perhaps the most common one is that Mozart was just a writer of pretty, even "kitschy," tunes and lacks musical or artistic substance and/or depth, and that's pretty easily and quickly disproven by anyone who's studied his artistry even a little bit. I'm also fond of pointing out that the facility for writing great, memorable melodies shouldn't be so easily dismissed or undervalued; but Mozart doesn't need constant defending from the statement of mere opinions about being overrated.


I know. You don't need to tell me the cliched saying, "everyone has their own opinions".
The problem isn't so much about them expressing their dislike for Mozart. - They go beyond that to argue 'facts'.
What I appreciate about people like ArtRock and norman bates is that they only discuss their preference and nothing more than that - 
whereas, some other members go beyond expressing mere opinions to argue facts, refuse to acknowledge the value of the canon, even attempt to rewrite history (Here's the most drastic example: https://www.talkclassical.com/31490-what-significance-mozart-overrated-8.html#post640658) and promote iconoclastic hatred, and brand whatever image they want in an unfair way.
I won't mention his name specifically but there was a member who kept writing things like "pleasant background music", "banal music lacking harmonic structure" to describe Mozart's music in all the related threads. He seemed to have some kind of an agenda to make progressive rock music appear as a superior form of music by degrading classical era music. In other threads he called himself "a devotee of Beethoven". So I was curious if he really knew what he was talking about, so I asked him.

"What do you think about Beethoven's Op.18, Op.59 string quartets and piano concertos, which are modelled on his predecessors'?" He replied, "I haven't listened to them yet". 
I said, "you call yourself a "devotee of Beethoven and you haven't listened to these important works of his?"

This is the kind of thing I'm annoyed by about people like him. It seems more like they're indulging in self-centered egotism ("It's all about what I like") rather than saying anything meaningful in terms of objective value. Also, I find the motive and logic behind the things they claim superficial and lacking in substance. Around the time I joined the forum, I clearly remember Jacck saying things like "Mozart is overrated because he contributed nothing significant to music", he even showed us the blog he wrote this nonsensical stuff. That was before I started debunking his claim: 
"Mozart is overrated; he did nothing to innovate music." Nowadays he still pretends like it's a mere 'opinion' of his. You're free to interpret it whatever way you like, but I don't see it as a mere 'opinion'.
And I don't really have a 'favorite composer', I only speak against what I perceive as injustice.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll give you some examples, The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History - According to You
> in this thread the members in the past have referenced ,not just once, but several times throughout the thread, "most overrated composer" polls from another site where Mozart tops #1. What other composer gets this kind of treatment? The first person to reference it even talked like Schubert is greater than Mozart. I know some people complain there's a cult with Mozart (sometimes Beethoven) that you don't find in other composers, which I think is a nonsense. Whatever worship they claim there is with Mozart, I think it's there because he deserves it, same with many other composers in classical music. I feel bad about being harsh on Brahmswasagreatmelodist and Dimace in the latest posts of that thread, but again, they were talking like as if all that (campaign to condemn Mozart as the most overrated) was still not enough. I had to tell them 'stop'.


Sorry to interject, but I wasn't campaigning to label Mozart as the most overrated composer. I was simply saying that, in my opinion, early and middle Mozart (not even containing the music for which he is most lauded!) are slightly overrated, though there are many great works in those periods.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Recently discovered the music of Rued Langgaard. In particular the 2 symphonies gorgeously recorded by the Vienna Philharmonic are fascinating but also his opera Antikrist.


Very true. I liked that recording, and I never thought the WP would perform any work of this composer. His set of symphonies on Dacapo is very nice. Perhaps all the symphonies are not that great, but there is always something for enjoying there. The disc on Chandos of the Symphonies 4, 5 and 6 is possibly the best, though I wouldn't be happy without the Danacord set of symphonies and other orchestral works.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> You must get that Da Capo set of the complete symphonies. I'd never heard a note of his music until I bought that years ago - incredible music! So colorful, evocative and exciting. Weird at times, but why we don't hear him in concert is astonishing. Terrific, underrated composer for sure.


Thoroughly agreed.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> I know. You don't need to tell me the cliched saying, "everyone has their own opinions".
> The problem isn't so much about them expressing their dislike for Mozart. - They go beyond that to argue 'facts'.


And it's fine if people are stating things as facts that are false to engage and correct them, but you are clearly doing more than this. THIS POST is you replying to Jacck when he did nothing more than offer the opinion that Mozart and Beethoven were overrated. You may argue that he did more than this in the past, but he most certainly didn't in that post.



hammeredklavier said:


> It seems more like they're indulging in self-centered egotism ("It's all about what I like") rather than saying anything meaningful in terms of objective value.


Things become much easier when you realize there is no such thing as "objective value." What there is are objective facts that we humans subjectively value or not according to taste, which in itself is shaped by a multitude of factors (evolution, society, culture, personality, etc.).



hammeredklavier said:


> Around the time I joined the forum, I clearly remember Jacck saying things like "Mozart is overrated because he contributed nothing significant to music", he even showed us the blog he wrote this nonsensical stuff. That was before I started debunking his claim:
> "Mozart is overrated; he did nothing to innovate music." Nowadays he still pretends like it's a mere 'opinion' of his. You're free to interpret it whatever way you like, but I don't see it as a mere 'opinion'.
> And I don't really have a 'favorite composer', I only speak against what I perceive as injustice.


Yes, and I joined in the chorus of people debating Jacck about such factual claims. I have no reason to think he's now "pretending" it's an opinion as opposed to genuinely thinking that, and no need to on a thread that is clearly about opinions to begin with.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Sorry to interject, but I wasn't campaigning to label Mozart as the most overrated composer. I was simply saying that, in my opinion, early and middle Mozart (not even containing the music for which he is most lauded!) are slightly overrated, though there are many great works in those periods.


Again, I remember it as you said it word for word. But as I said, I'm still not convinced how that makes early or lesser works Mozart more overrated compared to other composers' early or lesser works. 
It is my view something like Divertimento in D K334 is written almost at the level of quality of Sinfornia Concertante in E flat K364 and contains melodies that vaguely sound like later era stuff like Dvorak humoresque and so many 'darker sections' (such as the development section of the 1st movement and the D minor theme and variations of the 2nd movement) that contrast them.
The complex choral fugue, Misericordias Domini in D minor K222, the inspiration for Beethoven's ninth. How many other composers in history wrote works at teenage that inspired later ,major composers in writing their own major works?
In fact, I find people overusing the "overrated" without giving valid reasons a little pretentious, if I may say. I get the impression people like to use it when they could just say "I just don't like it" just to pretend their opinions matter so much they could alter objective values.
When you say something is overrated, you're implying that you're challenging people's conception about its inspirational value in history/society and that you're dissatisfied or disturbed by it.
How is this the synonymous as simply saying "I don't like it"? 
Something is 'subjectively overrated in my opinion' is sounds to me somewhat like an oxymoron. 
Again, something isn't 'crap' just because you don't have the urge or interest to dig deeper into it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Things become much easier when you realize there is no such thing as "objective value." What there is are objective facts that we humans subjectively value or not according to taste, which in itself is shaped by a multitude of factors (evolution, society, culture, personality, etc.).


I agree to some extent that art is subjective. But at the same time I think there also is something called "objective values" that are generally agreed upon by many practitioners of the art. That's what makes classical music 'classical' and survive hundreds of years through history. If not, why do some artists exert more influence than others in history? Why do some 'fail' to inspire other artists like others in the same scale? How come Telemann isn't as important as Bach in music history?

https://www.talkclassical.com/60180-your-top-ten-composers-2.html#post1606850


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Again, this whole thing becomes much easier if you realize that "overrated" can not, in any way, be an objective assessment. It literally means nothing more than "the general valuation of X is Y, but my valuation of X is <Y, so X is overrated." That's literally all it means 99% of the time. The other 1% might be someone suggesting that X's valuation is <Y based on their perception of what others' standards are; but that would be even more presumptuous as in that case they'd be claiming to know more about what others value more than they do. Much easier to just treat "overrated" in the first sense all of the time for practical purposes.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Underrated" simply means "I think more of this composer than other people do." Absolutely, positively, totally subjective. "Overrated" ditto, but the opposite.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree to some extent that art is subjective. But at the same time I think there also is something called "objective values" that are generally agreed upon by many practitioners of the art. That's what makes classical music 'classical' and survive hundreds of years through history. If not, why do some artists exert more influence than others in history? Why do some 'fail' to inspire other artists like others in the same scale? How come Telemann isn't as important as Bach in music history?


That a lot of people agree on something does not make it objective. In the philosophical sense, objective means "outside the mind," contrasted to subjective's "inside the mind." To answer whether something is objective, ask "would that thing exist if there were no people to observe or think about it?" In the case of the sun, most would agree its existence doesn't depend on us observing it. In the case of artistic values, they absolutely require minds for them to exist. Without minds, music is just arranged sounds. It requires a mind to say that some arrangements of sounds are good or bad, better or worse.

Humans have evolved to share a similar psychological makeup. Not identical, but similar. The similarity explains why there are common, even universal, standards for our artistic values. However, these standards are immensely malleable across time, cultures, and individuals. Some artists exert more influence than others become some artists seem better at creating art that speaks to those universal/common similarities that we all share, so that even gaps of time and culture do not erase their valuation in the minds of those that encounter them. In the case of influence, it's nothing more than an artist looking at a past artist and going "yes, I like that, I want to incorporate that into my own art." Why some artists fail is the opposite reason of why some succeed; essentially, not many people experience them and think "yes, I like that and want to create art like that" or (for audiences) "yes, I want to experience that/something like that again." More people have listened to Bach and said "yes, I like that" and "yes, I'd like to create music like that" than Telemann.

The problem happens, though, when people try to turn such subjective (no matter how universal or common) valuations into objective facts. That more people like/were influenced by Bach doesn't make Bach objectively better or more valuable than Telemann. Valuation must always be related to some standard, which will always be subjective. If the standard is "which was more influential?" Then, yes, you can say Bach is more valuable relative to the standard of influence; but there's no reason why anyone must accept that as a standard. There's no reason anyone must accept ANY common standard as a standard. The reason I love such an immensely wide range of artists from all genres--here I'm talking about my love of Mozart, over on the Non-Classical forum I've recently been discussing my love for Taylor Swift--is because different genres do and focus on different things, and I do not adopt ONE standard by which to judge all music by. Some people not only adopt (or try to) one standard by which to judge all music by, but then try to pretend as if their standard is somehow objectively better than other standards, which is asinine. It would be like saying the rules of one sport were objectively better than the rules of another sport.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Bulldog said:


> The Naxos Music Library (a classical music streaming service) includes Loft CD's; I think that's it for any connection. If you go to the Gothic Recordings website, the Loft discs are all there.


That Gothic Recording site is REALLY nice. I searched on Loft and didn't find anything but I'll find it. Thanks for pointing out that website though.


----------



## zelenka (Feb 8, 2018)

most top Renaissance composers (Josquin, Ockeghem, Henirich, Brumel, etc...) are extremely underrated


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ Goerne sings that at a death-defyingly slow tempo! His breath control is certainly admirable. It's really better a tad faster, though.


Why do you think it works better at a faster tempo? To better maintain the tension between the contrasting feelings expressed in the text? Do you have a favorite interpretation that you would share here? TY


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JosefinaHW said:


> Why do you think it works better at a faster tempo? To better maintain the tension between the contrasting feelings expressed in the text? Do you have a favorite interpretation that you would share here? TY


I just think it sags a bit, that it loses shape. It sounds sleepy. I don't suppose I have a favorite version.


----------

