# The 'falling between two stools' phenomenon & music...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Recently listening to some of Rachmaninov's late works, I encountered this phrase. The phrase is used when a composer fails to please two segments of the classical listening audience at the same time. Usually, its two segments at either end of the wide audience spectrum, the ultra conservatives and ultra radicals. So even if most of the audience is okay with their music, these two groups more inclined to polarising opinions, give the composer a big thumbs down. & its usually for making a rapid stylistic change.

In Rachmaninov's case, his _Symphony #3 _and_ Piano Concerto #4 _in particular are sometimes said to have fallen between two stools. In other words, they're not what Rach's diehard fans had come to expect but neither where they good enough for the segment of his audience who wanted to him to do other, markedly different and wider ranging things.

In other words, Rachmaninov's late works where not conservative enough for conservatives, and not modern enough - or experimental enough - for modernists or avant gardists or whatever. I don't know if Rachmaninov wanted to please everybody and ended up pleasing nobody - or just not pleasing certain segments of the audience - but these works where poorly received upon their premieres.

In particular, the leaner and less rich or lush orchestration of the symphony, and its fragmented melody (compared to his previous symphony, #2), drew criticism and as regards the piano concerto, its middle movement that sounds like 'three blind mice' was seen by some as a bit of a joke, not in keeping Rachmaninov's usually more serious attitude (even though its not known if the composer had that in mind when he wrote it, it comes across to me as no different to his classic 'bell chords,' I think the resemblance may have been coincidental).
*
So I'm just aiming to open up discussion on this issue. Do you know of any composers who fit this category? Or more accurately, some works by certain composers? Do you personally think some composers fall between two stools and fail with you in certain ways? Do you think maybe that things like which happened to Rachmaninov was a bit unfair? *(I do, since I love Rach's music, and feel that his innovations in piano technique in the early 20th century are easily forgotten and he's not always given credit for that, whereas - talking of Russians - his contemporary Scriabin's are. Why is this?)

One that I can definitely think of is* Sibelius*, who was pulled down by some (eg. Theodore Adorno) as conservative and irrelevant. Since then, Adorno's and other similar assessments of Sibelius have largely lost their credibility. But in Adorno's eyes and those like him, it could be said that Sibelius was not as conservative as some composers of the time (think Max Bruch, who was still doing things like Mendelssohn or Brahms in the early 20th century) but not modern enough compared to others (eg. the atonalists, serialists, avant garde). For one thing, people on the conservative side where baffled when Sibelius came out with his _Symphony #4_, similar to Rachmaninov's 3rd symphony, it was seen as much more severe and forbidding compared to his things before. People in the conservative camp found it too hard to take (and it is quite depressing for one thing), believe it or not.
*
Anyway this is long winded enough - over to you! Please contribute...*


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

This isn't quite what you are talking about, but *Tchaikovsky* was a composer who fell between two different stools for most of his life. He was too European for the Russian nationalists and too Russian for the cosmopolitans - he fell in between the Slavophile and Germanophile sections that were very opposed in 19th century Russian society.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Both Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev composed brilliantly for the piano, and the orchestra. Their piano concerti, other than the extreme and fallacious 'urban myth' about that Rachmaninov 3rd, are equally daunting to the most accomplished of piano virtuosi.

It just happens that Scriabin was there first: Scriabin, clinically, without an attachment to what I think is 'better' music by either Sergei, was first, so gets that 'credit.' That also means, really, there was not so much 'innovative' about either Rachmaninov or the more 'modern' Prokofiev in the technical department of playing the piano -- which in no way diminishes the quality or 'caliber' of their works.

For the rest, I am so completely not 'on' the 'what Joe likes' needing either an excuse, apology, a rationale, or a social standing upgrade, that I really wonder if there is a real question there at all.

Copland is completely 'middle of the road,' and that includes his more acerbic 'modern' idiom. That does not stop his works from having a continued popularity, regardless of what the more 'academic' circles may think or say. Ditto for John Adams and hosts of others throughout history (C.P.E. Bach -- whose symphonies foreshadow some aspects of Beethoven.) Parsed out on a certain standard, Ravel is a 'second tier' composer; yes, that superb craftsman with at least four undeniable larger masterpieces, is nonetheless, by that very high standard, excluded from 'the winner's circle.' Silver or Bronze, not the Gold.

I'd put Grieg in your 'between the stools' category. I'm sure for a good number of 'the cognoscenti' my beloved (uneven output) Milhaud is another. I think of Hindemith as yet another in a similar position.

and....
So what?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> It just happens that Scriabin was there first: Scriabin, clinically, without an attachment to what I think is 'better' music by either Sergei, was first, so gets that 'credit.' That also means, really, there was not so much 'innovative' about either Rachmaninov of the more 'modern' Prokofiev in the technical department of playing the piano -- which in no way diminishes the quality or 'caliber' of their works.


I assume you mean that Scriabin was more innovative from the start, because Rachmaninoff was only one year younger than Scriabin and they started composing for the piano around the same time, Scriabin maybe a little earlier. Rachmaninoff wrote both his first piano concerto and first symphony before Scriabin did.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

Since I was a big fan of Rachmaninov in my teenage years, maybe I could say something on this topic. The year 1917 was an important turning point in Rachmaninov's life, that's when russian revolution broke out and he had to flee the country. The majority of his outpout was composed before that date, after it he composed just a few piceces. These do differ from earlier ones, but they are still typical of Rachmaninov, so I wouldn't say, he failed me. Probably his contemporaries felt the diference in style much more strongly than we do. As of other composers, that fall into this group, Stravinsky comes to my mind. He was shifting his shape so often, that he just doesn't sound authehtic. So to summon things up, it doesn't bother me, if composer changes his characteristic style as long as he stays true to himself.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It's hard for me to come up with any examples. For me, not too cutting edge and not too conservative sounds more like the Goldilocks zone - just right. So probably most of my collection fits.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The title of your thread threw me off completely. "Falling between two stools" is something that occurs late in the evening in bars and pubs the world over (the result of bad aim). Probably happened to Chabrier, for one. Maybe not Rachmaninoff.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Perotin said:


> Stravinsky comes to my mind. He was shifting his shape so often, that he just doesn't sound authehtic. So to summon things up, it doesn't bother me, if composer changes his characteristic style as long as he stays true to himself.


Everything Stravinsky wrote (from the Firebird on) sounds like Stravinsky to me and no one else. I'm always surprised to hear him referred to as a chameleon, because he seems to take so little effort to hide his hand behind the strings, as it were.

As for the thread topic, a composer like *Messiaen* is sometimes criticized on the one hand for hewing too closely to tonality (or "trashy harmony" and so forth), and on the other for his interest in pseudo-serial procedures. On a different scale, *Gershwin* is not considered by some too pop to be classical, and by most too staid to be real jazz.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Creativity doesn't know boundaries, but the audience tend to be full of boundaries. I wonder if this relates to much modern music (including in the more popular realm) where music that fuses different styles rarely gets the publicity that music which is more limited in style and is easier to categorise and sell to the audience does.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I assume you mean that Scriabin was more innovative from the start, because Rachmaninoff was only one year younger than Scriabin and they started composing for the piano around the same time, Scriabin maybe a little earlier. Rachmaninoff wrote both his first piano concerto and first symphony before Scriabin did.


Right....
Scriabin, with his 'synthetic' mystic chord as the basis of harmony and scale, and by configuration in, for example, "Prometheus" sounds more like Messiaen than Rachmaninov or Prokofiev -- that use of piano, and that pianism, is the 'innovative first.'

It is matter of fact that Rachmaninov, though in many ways truly 'modern' is a direct extension of the romantic and late romantic pianistic literature, and not 'innovative.' That is similarly true for Prokofiev, though his vocabulary is more 'modern' than that of Rachmaninov. There is nothing really 'innovative' about the output of either composer, though both composers are 'high ranked.'

[I don't just like, or cerebrally appreciate Prokofiev: I love a good number of his works, the piano concerti (all), etc. Both Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev wrote a large body of works for piano and concertante piano works which are known to be at the zenith of difficulty for even the best of virtuosi. Fresh, inventive, yes: Not fully "innovative," though.]

In that rating game, which I suppose is somewhat 'necessary' but still not quite as meaningful as some seem to think, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Honegger, Milhaud, Ravel, Hindemith, Copland, John Adams and a host of other Very Fine Composers are 'second tier' as lined up against Ives, Debussy, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Berio, etc.

The ratings should not diminish (or augment) anyone's appreciation or love for the works of any of those 'second tier' composers (or those 'first tier' composers.) Some of that rating system is quite like the two Olympic champions, Gold and Silver medalists, whose scores were 9.003, and 9.004 respectively. Make the ranking about art, and, well, good luck not 'insulting' anyone


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Everything Stravinsky wrote (from the Firebird on) sounds like Stravinsky to me and no one else. I'm always surprised to hear him referred to as a chameleon, because he seems to take so little effort to hide his hand behind the strings, as it were.
> 
> As for the thread topic, a composer like *Messiaen* is sometimes criticized on the one hand for hewing too closely to tonality (or "trashy harmony" and so forth), and on the other for his interest in pseudo-serial procedures. On a different scale, *Gershwin* is not considered by some too pop to be classical, and by most too staid to be real jazz.


As for that hysterically funny criticism of Messiaen and serial procedures, his _Mode de valeurs et d'intensités_ is often cited as the first globally serial piece: it was the second, Milton Babbitt having published a globally serial piece the year prior -- which goes to show that some notions not yet realized are 'in the general ether.' Nonetheless, to say 'pseudo-serial procedure' about _Mode de valeurs et d'intensités_ or Messiaen's idiosyncratic use of some of those techniques is a clue that one ought to look very closely at the source of such a criticism, and perhaps give it even less than a grain of salt 

I strongly second your comment on Stravinsky, whose music, from the Firebird to the last work, are clearly stamped all over -- and very plainly evident those stamps are -- with both his DNA and Fingerprints.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Creativity doesn't know boundaries, but the audience tend to be full of boundaries. I wonder if this relates to much modern music (including in the more popular realm) where music that fuses different styles rarely gets the publicity that music which is more limited in style and is easier to categorise and sell to the audience does.


There are fusions which are sound-analogous to what a skin graft which did not take looks like, and others where you cannot detect there was any sort of graft or mingling at all. part of what accounts for the 'seams showing' kind of works is that initially, 'fusion' is new. It often takes a while for the elements, in the hands of improvising musicians or composers, to 'gel' into a more cohesive whole.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

rating game, tiers...

The only rating I really have is music I like and music I don't like. Some music I like may be difficult, in the sense of being off the mainstream. But some I enjoy just as much may be considered a much more explored and appreciated path. Doesn't matter to me. As long as they succeed in what I see them aiming for and having creativity. Of course music historians will have their own agendas, but that doesn't mean I have to make their agendas mine.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> There are fusions which are sound-analogous to what a skin graft which did not take looks like, and others where you cannot detect there was any sort of graft or mingling at all. part of what accounts for the 'seams showing' kind of works is that initially, 'fusion' is new. It often takes a while for the elements, in the hands of improvising musicians or composers, to 'gel' into a more cohesive whole.


Of course. But then musicians who just keep within a narrow style can be safer but also very uncreative too. So you just have to judge it on a case by case basis as with anything. Maybe some high profile classical or jazz or world fusion things have given this kind of creativity a bad name, wouldn't be unusual for that to happen. But that doesn't mean that lesser known things might actually have been better but without having the kind of marketing that you need now.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Everything Stravinsky wrote (from the Firebird on) sounds like Stravinsky to me and no one else. I'm always surprised to hear him referred to as a chameleon, because he seems to take so little effort to hide his hand behind the strings, as it were.


'Chameleon' might actually be a good analogy there. Chameleons can change their external appearance easily, but I've never mistaken a chameleon for anything else.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> rating game, tiers...
> 
> The only rating I really have is music I like and music I don't like. Some music I like may be difficult, in the sense of being off the mainstream. But some I enjoy just as much may be considered a much more explored and appreciated path. Doesn't matter to me. As long as they succeed in what I see them aiming for and having creativity. Of course music historians will have their own agendas, but that doesn't mean I have to make their agendas mine.


_I'm all for knowing and exercising your own taste and not being 'intimidated' by academia, the cognoscenti, or critics. It seems to be a HUGE ISSUE with many, though. Since it is not 'an issue' for me, I really don't know where that 'issue' comes from in others, though I 'get' that for them it is real. To me, those with 'the issue' might as well come from another planet._

It might be more than interesting if someone would frame an OP about that very social / class issue re: 
'music' and try and get to the root of from whence it came, or how it came about being an issue for those who have it as one -- though that could get rather sloppily 'wet' as a near open meeting therapy session


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> 'Chameleon' might actually be a good analogy there. Chameleons can change their external appearance easily, but I've never mistaken a chameleon for anything else.


Poulenc, who had no real rancor for or about Stravinsky, said, "The trouble with Stravinsky is he is always changing hats!"

Stravinsky's comment on that was, "That is why I am Stravinsky and Poulenc is Poulenc."

LOL.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Why bother with ratings and tiers then? If I think I like something I'll play it, if I don't I won't. It doesn't matter to me how famous or fashionable something is, it clearly does to some others, mainly those starting out looking at a particular art who feel they need to rest on the opinions of others. That's the reality out there, more obvious and deepseated in popular music I believe but relevant generally.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks to all who have contributed, its been very interesting reading your responses.

I think Gershwin is probably a good example of this, Copland as well. Gershwin, as suggested, because of his kind of jazz-classical hybrid type style. As for Copland, I know that his post-1945 serial works where seen by some as him coming to the technique too late in the piece and pieces that did not come from the heard so to speak, it was seen by some as him jumping on the serial bandwagon (similar to my example of Rachmaninov's late works, some seeing him as just doing Modernism, and doing it in a half hearted kind of way). I know that Bernstein was critical of Copland for coming to serialism something like 30 years too late. But I have not heard Copland's serial pieces to give my own opinions on them. 

But as I said, I like Rachmaninov's works, including his late works. He did innovate a lot early on, I read in the liner notes of some piano music I have by him that in the 1890's he was anticipating techniques for piano that Stravinsky would use/develop about 20 years later, in Petrushka especially (those bell-sounding percussive bits played by the pianist in that are much like the Paques movement of Rach's Suite #1 for two pianos). However again I cannot compare him too deeply to Scriabin, whose music I have heard, but I have not heard as much by him as that of Rachmaninov. But I like both of what I've heard by them, I see them as being far ahead of their time in terms of piano writing, and in fact I think they played eachother's music during those early years. They definitely knew eachother personally as well as professionally. Maybe its like Liszt and Wagner - its so hard to untangle one's innovation from that of the other, the 'who got there first?' type of questions.

& I think the Messiaen and Tchaikovsky examples given are relevant to this thread as well. Hindemith as well, maybe K.A. Hartmann too. Before the war they where seen as composers with new things to say. After the war, with move towards more avant garde trends, guys like Boulez and Stockhausen saw them as dinosaurs. So there's that type of generational change bringing different attitudes to music, and inevitably some are left behind in the move towards 'progress' and so on...


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

I can see Kapustin falling between two stools for many. Too jazzy for classical people and too classical for jazz people. He seems to have a certain following, though.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Norse said:


> I can see Kapustin falling between two stools for many. Too jazzy for classical people and too classical for jazz people. He seems to have a certain following, though.


Kaoustin also falls into that 'a little goes a long way / one-trick pony category. Lively, good-humored, 'well-written,' and essentially pretty much the same thing, one after the next.


----------

