# the 2nd tier Composers or compositions that are your secret bon bons



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

2nd tier or worse... I write secretly because I had an experience while studying composition at the Cincinnati Conservatory of music where I, naïvely one day, said there was some music by JC Bach that I loved. I remember the looks of the faculty, staff, and janitor, all of whom, as a way to relax at the end of a hard day, probably kicked back with Finnegan's Wake whilst listening to Edgard Varèse and Angon Webern (at the same time). After that, I might as well have been a Spanish Flu carrier. I never brought it up again. There was none of that "It's what you love that matters..." attitude with them. No, Sir. I might as well have confessed to liking Muzak. So what is it? Pachelbel's Canon maybe? All 463 versions of it?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Depends a bit where you draw the line between first and second tier.....

Anyway, most people would not put EJ Moeran in the first tier. I would. His cello concerto is for me the best in that genre, and his violin concerto, symphony, and everything else I've heard is awesome. He would definitely make my top 20 composers.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> Anyway, most people would not put EJ Moeran in the first tier. I would. His cello concerto is for me the best in that genre, and his violin concerto, symphony, and everything else I've heard is awesome. He would definitely make my top 20 composers.


I'm listening to his concerto right now. Was curious to hear it. =) If you like this, makes me wonder if you'd like some of Frank Bridge's music.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have to admit that the vast majority of what I listen to at home, on the road, or anywhere is what most people consider 2nd-tier music. I got to the know the hallowed masterwork warhorses a long, long time ago and as a performer they show up all to frequently. There's a lot of great music that hardly anyone knows - and I love it! But some of my favorite bon bons:

Kalinnikov: Symphony no. 1
Balakirev: Symphony no. 1
Raff: Symphonies 3 & 5
Vladigerov: Traumspielesuite
Schmitt: The Tragedy of Salome
Ketelby: Cockney Suite


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> 2nd tier or worse... I write secretly because I had an experience while studying composition at the Cincinnati Conservatory of music where I, naïvely one day, said there was some music by JC Bach that I loved. I remember the looks of the faculty, staff, and janitor, all of whom, as a way to relax at the end of a hard day, probably kicked back with Finnegan's Wake whilst listening to Edgard Varèse and Angon Webern (at the same time). After that, I might as well have been a Spanish Flu carrier. I never brought it up again. There was none of that "It's what you love that matters..." attitude with them. No, Sir. I might as well have confessed to liking Muzak. So what is it? Pachelbel's Canon maybe? All 463 versions of it?


The ramparts of some academias insistence on atonality and the New have yet to be breached by a more congenial spirit. I had similar experiences at my Alma Mater. One revelatory moment involved Oldroyd's text 'The technique and Spirit of fugue', me (who was reading it even though it was nowhere near the curriculum) and an prize winning composer a year above me who hadn't, nor intended to, study anything remotely like counterpoint. Needless to say, only a genius could probably pull of writing concert art music without any foundational technique and he was as it transpired (and despite the prizes showered on him), no genius. More importantly, what criteria allowed him into the institute in the first place?

I have a fondness for Finzi, but have trouble placing him or any composer for that matter in a second tier. It just sounds wrong and rude. How about at the bottom end of a very large league...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

vtpoet said:


> I'm listening to his concerto right now. Was curious to hear it. =) If you like this, makes me wonder if you'd like some of Frank Bridge's music.


He's OK, but not a huge favourite. I would rate the likes of Bax, Bantock, Finzi, Alwyn and Arnold higher.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

A favourite CD in this house, well worth listening to. Definitely not "second tier" whatever that means (not much in my opinion).


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> I had similar experiences at my Alma Mater. One revelatory moment involved Oldroyd's text 'The technique and Spirit of fugue', me (who was reading it even though it was nowhere near the curriculum)


Me too! I learned to write fugues by reading that book! One of my favorites, and The Classical Style by Rosen. In fact, I was probably admitted to the conservatory because of what those books taught me.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> Me too! I learned to write fugues by reading that book! One of my favorites, and The Classical Style by Rosen. In fact, I was probably admitted to the conservatory because of what those books taught me.


Wow, likewise. In fact I'd learnt soo much theory before I went (thinking I'd need it), I didn't need to study much at all to pass any exams...mainly because there where none on CP as I recall, such was their intention to find the next genius who would break from all that. I ended up creating a curriculum of my own alongside whatever I needed to do to get my degree. It worked out because the diversity I taught myself (from 16thC vocal writing to rock) kept me in compositional work professionally for a long time.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Wow, likewise. In fact I'd learnt soo much theory before I went (thinking I'd need it), I didn't need to study much at all to pass any exams...mainly because there where none on CP as I recall, such was their intention to find the next genius who would break from all that. I ended up creating a curriculum of my own alongside whatever I needed to do to get my degree. It worked out because the diversity I taught myself (from 16thC vocal writing to rock) kept me in compositional work professionally for a long time.


And I had that experience with music history. I was always an avid and devout reader of Record Jackets and CD books, and I'd say that a shocking amount of my knowledge in music history comes from those sources. I was able to place out of all the music history courses when I started at the conservatory. Alas that my love for music didn't translate into musicianship.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> ......... Alas that my love for music didn't translate into musicianship.


Never mind, but at least you got through Oldroyd's textbook and could write a fugue, your are already way ahead of some "composers" I know....


----------



## robin4 (Jun 9, 2019)

*Morton Gould* (December 10, 1913 - February 21, 1996) was an American composer, conductor, arranger, and pianist

Dance Variations for Two Pianos & Orchestra (1953)

Symphonette No. 3 (Third American Symphonette)

Symphonette No. 4 (Latin-American Symphonette) (1933)

Latin-American Symphonette (Symphonette No. 4) (1940)

Symphony No. 4 "West Point" (1952)

Carmen for Orchestra (1960)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

These are some of my favorite composers who wouldn't make many top-tier lists:

Gade
Juon
Myaskovsky
Taneyev
Weckmann
Weinberg


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I find the entire idea of rating/ranking etc., to be mostly meaningless as it is generally more a matter of opinion and taste. It reminds me of what Richard Strauss said "I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer."

That having been said, some composers who come to mind and that would probably not appear on many top X hundred lists and that I value would be the likes of George Lloyd, Herbert Howells, Douglas Lilburn and Knudage Riisager.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> I find the entire idea of rating/ranking etc., to be mostly meaningless as it is generally more a matter of opinion and taste. It reminds me of what Richard Strauss said "I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer."
> 
> That having been said, some composers who come to mind and that would probably not appear on many top X hundred lists and that I value would be the likes of George Lloyd, Herbert Howells, Douglas Lilburn and Knudage Riisager.


No, But it does, Exist, The idea ofb 
1st Ranking. 
How 's this
Bach/Beethoven/Mozart. 
2nd ~Rate~~ OR 1st Class?

You will not find a living soul that will rate either as 
2nd rate.

Brahms 1st
Tchaikovsky 1st,,that list could go on for pages. 
Now we come to the OP Q
2nd tier,,or as I tag it ~~2nd Rate~~. 
Minor leagues pitchers can still strike out major league hitters you know,...thats 2nd rate pitchers dropping 1st rate hitters.

Most of my collection, about 80%++ is composed of
~~2nd rate composers~~
I'm not much into 
1st rate composers.
Nope, I much prefer the 2nd class. Most of the 1st class composers lived hundreds of yrs ago,,well exaggeration there of course,,,but I;'d say 80% of the 
~~1st class composers, lived , composed, pre 1900.
,,,well 70%. That's 30% in the post 1900 era. which is 80% of my collection,, making it mostly 2nd rate composers,,such as 
Pettersson/2nd rate
Carter/1st rate

Schnittke/1st rate
Henze/2nd rate.

So my choices are
Pettersson and Henze, as the two 2nd tier I would like to mention. 
Talk about get looks at the conservatoire mention either. 
~~Who??~~,,,hey you better leave that stuff ,,alone~~

EDIT,,the composers you mention,,2nd tier,,or are they 3rd/4th tier?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2019)

Hard to say where the second tier starts. Off the top of my head I'd say Finzi, Tansman, Bacewicz, Roussel, d'Indy, Frankel, Weinberg, Milhaud. Is Vaughan Williams second tier?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Becca said:


> That having been said, some composers who come to mind and that would probably not appear on many top X hundred lists and that I value would be the likes of George Lloyd, Herbert Howells, Douglas Lilburn and Knudage Riisager.


I love Lilburn and Lloyd, and like Howells. Now I need to check out Riisager.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

The OP Q is SECOND TIER,,,not, sub tier, Lets keep it to composers who fall, Just below the main big dawgs in terms of actual scores quality/quanity of hits,,,,,,,,folks are mentioning composers which are like 800+ on WKI's A-Z list of modern composers. 
Composers who might havea few works,,,some of which are only 10/15 minutes long,,and sound *generic*. = permanent 3rd rate composers.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Hard to say where the second tier starts. Off the top of my head I'd say Tansman, Bacewicz, Roussel, d'Indy, Frankel, Weinberg, Milhaud. Is Vaughan Williams second tier?


I just explained below your post,,who is who as far as 1st,2nd,3rd, 4th,,rate,,its based on
# of compositions, 
Quality
Length of compositions,,and
Indiviuality/
also are there fillers,fluff, ,,too much meanderings going on? If yes, = 3rd or even 4th rate... Please mention only 2rd tier,,not 3rd ,


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Hard to say where the second tier starts. Off the top of my head I'd say Tansman, Bacewicz, Roussel, d'Indy, Frankel, Weinberg, Milhaud. Is Vaughan Williams second tier?


Vaughan Williams is a tough one. I'd put him toward the bottom of the top tier.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Becca said:


> I find the entire idea of rating/ranking etc., to be mostly meaningless as it is generally more a matter of opinion and taste....


Yes, but there are two ways of thinking about that. Simply as a matter of taste, ranking/rating composers isn't helpful. You like what you like. But as an objective matter, there's a big difference between what Bach could do as compared to a Scheibe. It always puts me a little on edge when something smacks too much of unqualified relativism. Some creative artists are flatly, objectively and demonstrably better than others and offer far more to the inquisitive listener and student. So, no, it is *not* mostly meaningless to some.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Vaughan Williams is a tough one. I'd put him toward the bottom of the top tier.


Yes, RVW is CLEARLY, top tier, No debating on that one...
,,The OPQ does not concern RVW, 
Maybe
Bax or
Britten, 
Elgar 
as excellent picks for 2nd tier composers.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Yes, but there are two ways of thinking about that. Simply as a matter of taste, ranking/rating composers isn't helpful. You like what you like. But as an objective matter, there's a big difference between what Bach could do as compared to a Scheibe. It always puts me a little on edge when something smacks too much of unqualified relativism. Some creative artists are flatly, objectively and demonstrably better than others and offer far more to the inquisitive listener and student. So, no, it is *not* mostly meaningless to some.


I'm less sure that compositional talent can be quantified. Perhaps Bach could write perfect 4 part counterpoint in his sleep, but his genius is in how he employed that skill. I think the best hope of defining first tier is by influence. The first tier composers are the ones that were recognized and were an influence on subsequent composers. If you unearthed the manuscripts of a composer toiling away in some backwater and his or her works were every bit as good as Bach's, it wouldn't make that person a first tier composer, would it?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> I just explained below your post,,who is who as far as 1st,2nd,3rd, 4th,,rate,


So yet again you are placing yourself as the arbiter of quality/value? I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but you aren't.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Yes, but there are two ways of thinking about that. Simply as a matter of taste, ranking/rating composers isn't helpful. You like what you like. But as an objective matter, there's a big difference between what Bach could do as compared to a Scheibe. It always puts me a little on edge when something smacks too much of unqualified relativism. Some creative artists are flatly, objectively and demonstrably better than others and offer far more to the inquisitive listener and student. So, no, it is *not* mostly meaningless to some.


Yes exactly

I chose 2 *2nd rate* composers,,,although I am fully aware their woks qualify them as 
1st rate,,
yet due to their *lack of public notoriety*, they have fallen,,~~through the cracks~~ and so 
not 1st rate, 
they are 2nd,,
Many mentions here are 3rd,4th class composers, 
The OP idea is, which composers, fall, JUST UNDER being considered 1st class,,,which you love to listen to?*

many composers mentioned are not 2nd class.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> Yes, but there are two ways of thinking about that. Simply as a matter of taste, ranking/rating composers isn't helpful. You like what you like. But as an objective matter, there's a big difference between what Bach could do as compared to a Scheibe. It always puts me a little on edge when something smacks too much of unqualified relativism. Some creative artists are flatly, objectively and demonstrably better than others and offer far more to the inquisitive listener and student. So, no, it is *not* mostly meaningless *to some.*


Hence my not stating an absolute however I stand by "MOSTLY meaningless"


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> So yet again you are placing yourself as the arbiter of quality/value? I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but you aren't.


I' can substantiate my beliefs/opinions,,with cold hard facts. 
I'm not pulling these ideas out of thin air. 
I'm not a maker of cotton candy.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Ok, pick anyone of the multitude on composers mentioned above,,,lets examine if they qualify as 

2nd rate
go ahead name any you wish...lets ck out the composers ~~credentials~~ as qualifying as 
~~2nd tier~~
Pick 1.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Is Alkan 2nd tier?

He's the composer in the lowest tier I know I really appreciate.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I'm less sure that compositional talent can be quantified. Perhaps Bach could write perfect 4 part counterpoint in his sleep, but his genius is in how he employed that skill. I think the best hope of defining first tier is by influence. The first tier composers are the ones that were recognized and were an influence on subsequent composers. If you unearthed the manuscripts of a composer toiling away in some backwater and his or her works were every bit as good as Bach's, it wouldn't make that person a first tier composer, would it?


Not a person who places much stock on "influence", I'll have to disagree. If the hypothetical composer's works are as good as Bach's, he/she is definitely a top tier composer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> Is Alkan 2nd tier?


Yes, except for those who consider him on a different tier.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Well then, from now I declare Alkan my secret bon bon!


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I'm less sure that compositional talent can be quantified.


Well. Okay. This is really deserving of a different thread I suppose. I only meant this to be lighthearted, but there's always that aversion to "ranking" every time this comes up. I'll say this: I started out wanting to be a composer, studied music theory, then became a poet and writer. I learned in both arts how to recognize "genius" --- objectively --- because if you can't objectively understand what a great artist is doing then you're probably in the wrong field. Compositional talent can absolutely be quantified. That's the whole reason for music theory. It gives a language with which to objectively understand what a composer is doing. This doesn't explain _why_ great composers are great (though I have a theory for that that I can link to if you like), but it gives you a language with which to understand what they're doing that lesser composers couldn't. That's my experience. I can objectively see what great artists are doing that lesser artists don't.



Baron Scarpia said:


> I think the best hope of defining first tier is by influence. The first tier composers are the ones that were recognized and were an influence on subsequent composers.


Yes, and how were they recognized and _what_ was recognized? The language of music theory answers that. Throughout the classical era this was commonly described as a composer's comprehension or understanding of "Harmony". This wasn't some abstract, flighty, indescribable feeling. They meant something very specific. If you studied with Bach, then Bach had very rigorous exercises that taught just this art.



Baron Scarpia said:


> If you unearthed the manuscripts of a composer toiling away in some backwater and his or her works were every bit as good as Bach's, it wouldn't make that person a first tier composer, would it?


Absolutely.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Not a person who places much stock on "influence", I'll have to disagree. If the hypothetical composer's works are as good as Bach's, he/she is definitely a top tier composer.


No you missed his point,,,Obvioulsy and baron knows this,,,any composer who has written music in the quality/quantity as Bach/Mozart/Beethoven has already
Become well know = 1st tier/class/rating/terms of influence.
That's a settled matter,,, except it was for Bernstein to pull Mahler out of the swamp.
And Langaard also was discovered and brought back to life,. 
There have beena few composers, who are near top, tier,,who have been forgotten. 
Mahler obviously,,according to his fans,,is top tier.

But in MODERN days,,some ~~top tiers~~ are not known as 1st rate, due to the lack of awareness of their works. 
Although we live in nano second time spatial existence,,,yet things are just as slower/slower than back in the 1800's.

Some Schnittke recordings have been out for 15 yrs on CD,,and a few TC members are just now finding out about them. 
In the LP days, we looked for the latest, on a weekly basis at the LP shops.

So even thougha composer from the past 50 yrs may not be top tier, he is rated 2,even 3rd tier, due to a lack of interest in the public,,though if you look at his credentials,,he is 1st tier. 
Its all relative today.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

paulbest said:


> I'm not pulling these ideas out of thin air.


No, that's definitely not where you're pulling them from.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Well. Okay. This is really deserving of a different thread I suppose. I only meant this to be lighthearted, but there's always that aversion to "ranking" every time this comes up. I'll say this: I started out wanting to be a composer, studied music theory, then became a poet and writer. I learned in both arts how to recognize "genius" --- objectively --- because if you can't objectively understand what a great artist is doing then you're probably in the wrong field. Compositional talent can absolutely be quantified. That's the whole reason for music theory. It gives a language with which to objectively understand what a composer is doing. This doesn't explain _why_ great composers are great (though I have a theory for that that I can link to if you like), but it gives you a language with which to understand what they're doing that lesser composers couldn't. That's my experience. I can objectively see what great artists are doing that lesser artists don't.
> 
> Yes, and how were they recognized and _what_ was recognized? The language of music theory answers that. Throughout the classical era this was commonly described as a composer's comprehension or understanding of "Harmony". This wasn't some abstract, flighty, indescribable feeling. They meant something very specific. If you studied with Bach, then Bach had very rigorous exercises that taught just this art.
> 
> Absolutely.


Exactly
If you go to wiki and ck out say,,,
Stockhausen's list of works, length
timeings
how varied= chamber/orch/solo/concertos

and then
go to wiki

type in Henze
list of works

Its easy,,,well if you have at least 0 yrs experience and are a solid Modernist,,,
'its pretty clear
which composer 
is 1st tier
and which is 
~~2nd Rate~~
As you correctly point out
~~OBJECTIVELY~~~
Now further,,just listen to both, side by side,,,
now its even more clearer.
who is 1st rate

and who is
2nd rate. 
Subjectively proven as well, who is Top tier,, who is only
~~Second Rate composer~~~


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> No, that's definitely not where you're pulling them from.


I gather all my evidence based on research from wiki's page.

Stockhausen versus Henze. 
\One is going down as 2nd rate, The other as Top Tier


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> I gather all my evidence based on research from wiki's page.
> 
> Stockhausen versus Henze.
> \One is going down as 2nd rate, The other as Top Tier


Rate them any way you like. It's best to keep in mind that it's your individual preference.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> Rate them any way you like. It's best to keep in mind that it's your individual preference.


Yeah Ok, you are suggesting, not to push ~my~ agenda as fact. 
Got it


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

paulbest said:


> If you go to wiki.... (well if you have at least 0 yrs experience and are a solid Modernist) it's pretty clear which composer is 1st tier and which is 2nd Rate...


Oh boy.... no, Paul, Googling composers on Wiki is not the same as studying their scores with an understanding of music theory.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> Oh boy.... no, Paul, Googling composers on Wiki is not the same as studying their scores with an understanding of music theory.


Yeah,, well I am sure cking the scores,,is the only way,,,but that leaves me out. 
man I'd love to see someone discuss a Henze score. 
His music is ~unusual~ but in a good way. 
I bet it reads complex. 
I was only referring to 
length
styles = chamber/concertos/syms etc.

Comapre Henze to Stockhausen. Yet wiki has such glowing quips on Stockhausen,,,one walks away thinking Stockhausen is the far superior composer.

Henze wiki page,,i tried to edit to say **Germany's greatest late 20TH C modern composer*,,the wiki mods keep deleting my update.
Not sure why....


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2019)

My preference rankings among composers is very unclear as to the dividing line between first and second tier. If I took an arbitrary number of 10 as the limit on the number in the first category, there would be dozens in the second tier and I would not have the foggiest idea about how to rank them.

Some names in the second tier that occur fairly quickly because I've been recently absobed by these composers include:


E J Moeran (I've been discussing this composer in another recent thread) 
Edmund Rubbra (lots of good work across several genres) 
John Dowland (the Renaissance lute and song writer) 
John Ireland (several wide-ranging genres) 
G Bacewitz (string quartets and several concertos) 
N Skalkottas (2nd Viennese, fairly easily accessible)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I love Dowland. But setting aside my own preferences, I think the general consensus is that Dowland was among England's very greatest composers. You can't go by what Amazon says, but I think it's representative:

"Dowland did for lute music what Haydn did for the string quartet and Beethoven the piano sonata. The finest lutenist and songwriter of his age--he composed several of the greatest hits of the late 16th and early 17th centuries--the surviving lute works constitute a sort of encyclopedia of the possibilities of the instrument (....) --David Hurwitz"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The first tier is Beethoven. Now, moving right along to the second tier...


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, I _love _Hansel und Gretel.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Yes, RVW is CLEARLY, top tier, No debating on that one...
> ,,The OPQ does not concern RVW,
> Maybe
> Bax or
> ...


RVW, Elgar, Britten, Walton top tier surely

Bax not so - Moeran and dozens of english composers recorded by lyrita G Lloyd etc all 2nd tier

of course top tier has to have its premier league


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

My problem with second tier composers is that I'm unfamiliar with many of their works. I know a lot about the top tier composers, I don't know a lot about second tier composers, so I can't make informed decisions and opinions. 

Already mentioned are Moeran, Bacewicz, Kallinnikov and Tanayev. I really like their music, of what I've heard. Not mentioned yet are Rebecca Clarke who wrote an outstanding viola sonata and piano trio. And Rubbra who wrote some terrific symphonies, but alas I've only listened to some of them once or twice, but upon my first listen I thought highly of them.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I usually tend to ~~avoid~~ The Popular = Top Tier composers,,,I prefer the ~~Underground Sounds~~
so most of my favs are 2nd Tier.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> I usually tend to ~~avoid~~ The Popular = Top Tier composers,,,I prefer the ~~Underground Sounds~~
> so most of my favs are 2nd Tier.


Ah, a champion of the underdog. I do consider that admirable.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Lennie Moore. In my opinion, _Outcast_ is a work of art. I haven't explored yet many of his other compositions though.






Other not so popular composers who have at least one composition that I really enjoy include: Hildegard, Sweelinck, Fux, Arne, Fibich, Ketèlbey, Milhaud and Tavares. I admit though that I don't know their work so well as I would like, and some of them I have discovered very recently.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

I'm even happy with a third tier composer.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

vtpoet said:


> 2nd tier or worse... I write secretly because I had an experience while studying composition at the Cincinnati Conservatory of music where I, naïvely one day, said there was some music by JC Bach that I loved. I remember the looks of the faculty, staff, and janitor, all of whom, as a way to relax at the end of a hard day, probably kicked back with Finnegan's Wake whilst listening to Edgard Varèse and Angon Webern (at the same time). After that, I might as well have been a Spanish Flu carrier. I never brought it up again. There was none of that "It's what you love that matters..." attitude with them. No, Sir. I might as well have confessed to liking Muzak. So what is it? Pachelbel's Canon maybe? All 463 versions of it?


great topic, and most welcoming, as we all get a opportunity to express our excitments over new *undiscovered* 2nd tier composers,,,which ONLY we know about..

Tubin
Kalabis

Now I know neither offer chamber, at least nothing memorable,,,both offers a few orchestral/concerto works, which places both out of 2nd/3rd tier and almost to 1st tier level...at least near 1st tier until the newness wears thin,,,then back to 2nd tier status. 
For my preference to make tio tier, some significant chamber has to be in the works. 
Which neither offers. 
But considering Kalabis' bio, it is a miracle we have anything major at all from his life. A real heroic journey.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

geralmar said:


> I'm even happy with a third tier composer.


Hovhaness is 3rd tier, 
I tried some snippets , I prefer Tubin/Kalabis as solid 2nd tier gems.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Ah, a champion of the underdog. I do consider that admirable.


Usually it is indeed admirable. But not when it involves pouring uninformed scorn on the "superior" composer/work, against which the underdog is (meaninglessly) pitted.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> Oh boy.... no, Paul, Googling composers on Wiki is not the same as studying their scores with an understanding of music theory.


I think this is the best we can expect these days.......


----------

