# Second tier tastes.



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Talkclassical and the rest of the classical world would be a boring place if people only ever talked about Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and other 1st tier composers. 

I concede that Medtner probably wasn't quite the composer Rachmaninoff was. Doesn't mean there is nothing to enjoy in his music. Telemann probably wasn't quite the composer Bach was. CPE Bach, Clementi, and Hummel probably aren't of the caliber of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Tcherepnin probably falls short of Prokofiev and Shostakovich. 

I for some reason have a greater passion for these composers than I do for the main streamers. I've been accused of "extra-musical" motivations, and "composer idolizing," and being a "classical hipster." And true, it wasn't always this way for me. There was a time when I thought CPE Bach, and Telemann weren't much. There was a time when I thought Medtner was strange(although I didn't think much of Rachmaninoff either then). Curiously, my romantic era appreciation is not so "backwoods." I like Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Schumann. For some reason no I don't care much about Chopin or Liszt. Their music is beautiful, sure, but I've never gone nuts over their outputs. 

Despite these accusations, I genuinely love the music of these composers. And I think it is valuable that someone does. But I don't even want to bring it to that level. There is much good music to be had in their outputs.

Your thoughts?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I don't even think along the lines of big three. For me it's more about 'Big 10' or so and so the composers I feel like I'm enjoying alone out there (even though I know I'm not) are Dukas, Barber, Copland, Holst...because I constantly find myself going back to these and listening to many of their works that have nothing to do with a Sorcerer's Adagio Appalachian Planet. And they're good! So many composers like this...most of what I've kept from Naxos simply because they're some of the only folks that have some of these great works!


----------



## PianoMan (Mar 13, 2005)

Alright, apparently I made an account on here 7 years ago and barely used it, but thanks to the folks at turntable.fm for bringing me back!

As to your point clav, I am very much with you. I like that you used the phrase "classical hipster", as I'm a little surprised that no one has called me that yet. I'm just starting my DMA, and most of my attention these days goes straight to either composers who are very under-appreciated, or works of well known composers that are relatively obscure. Specifically, I've been on a big Hummel and Antheil kick recently, and am currently working on Hummel's F-sharp Minor Piano Sonata and a couple of Antheil toccatas. 

I think they are great works, but I can also see why these composers don't get the same spotlight as the ones everyone knows. In Hummel's case, I don't feel that he has anywhere near the number of masterpieces that Beethoven does (I'll use that comparison since they were contemporaries), and that could be one of the reasons for his obscurity. There are other reasons that I won't delve into here, but none of them add up to our near ignorance of his music.

Don't get me wrong though; I LOVE the music of the greats, and listen to it all the time. But I really do enjoy the adventure of discovering the lesser known things, and will probably continue to search them out for the rest of my life.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

That's my life. As many know here. :lol:

I mean, there are a lot of big composers out there that I love, Wagner, Chopin, Schubert, and the like. But I have an aversion to being fanatical about really major composers. It might be my stubborn, anti-conformist personality. But it's also my taste. If I'm the only person on this forum that prefers Russians to Germans, then so be it! I'm not German anyway, so no treason committed. :tiphat:

The main way it all came about was blind, unbiased listening to small composers even before I was well familiar with the big ones. Believe me, it makes a world of difference when your mind is open to appreciate a small composer just as much as a major one. Thus, some major composers were affected in my mind, like Bartok and Mahler, where I hadn't heard of them until too late, and by then, I already had composers of "smaller significance" that I held to greater esteem than them. I haven't quite recovered from it.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

One of these days I mean to get back to the symphonies of Spohr. He wrote nine, but I've only heard #1, #2, #4 & #5 - all of which really impressed me. I was equally impressed with the symphonies of Berwald.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The main way it all came about was blind, unbiased listening to small composers even before I was well familiar with the big ones. ............... Thus, some major composers were affected in my mind, like Bartok and Mahler, where I hadn't heard of them until too late, and by then, I already had composers of "smaller significance" that I held to greater esteem than them.


This is a terrific point. Also, I think I have that non-conformist personality as well. I have an aversion to fanaticism over many big names. Though, Haydn and Schumann are cool.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> This is a terrific point. Also, I think I have that non-conformist personality as well. I have an aversion to fanaticism over many big names. Though, Haydn and Schumann are cool.


My considered opinion is that the big names are big names because they are big; even _Wagner_. It's tempting to say that most of the not-so-very-big name composers I like a lot were musician-composers, who were at at least of 'concert' skill on some instrument other than piano, and composed some really fine music for their instrument; in my case for violin, guitar or clarinet. The big guys were mostly composer-musicians, including Beethoven from shortly after 1800.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

To me, first tier composer means composer I like. Therefore, Barber, Medtner, Machaut, Byrd are all quite first tier.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I´ve all the works of the big names I want or need, and don't look for any more of them, except some very rare historical recording. Last 10 years more or less I look for works of unknown/forgotten composers. I refuse absolutely to call them "minor, second rate" or similar things. They are just what I said: unknown and or /forgotten. I'be found many gems and beautiful pieces of them, and I don't care what critics or purist can think.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

There are so many composers with all their distinct styles that it is quite thrilling to discover and listen to something 'different'. But I always find myself returning to the big names, who indubitably deserve their status., and imo just offer that extra bit of depth and perfection.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I've come to appreciate the many great composers who were not innovators but who took what was available and composed perfectly in what style was around them, or maybe they were ten years too late in the past or just brought up in a backwater which wasn't aware of current trends, or they just didn't want to write cacophony. After all the fuss about innovation or their relevance settles down, their music, as it is, is very well done. 

Many Americans fall in this category. I wouldn't want to give up David Diamond's music just because he wasn't following the crowd.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

First tier, second tier... whatever. I really don't care about such notions. At most it is interesting to know what the prevailing opinion on and status of a composer is, but ultimately the only thing that really matters is what YOU feel about their music. Don't let opinions of others influence your taste.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

And always remember; there aren't first, second or third class composers; there are only those that you like, and those you don't.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

There are many excellent "second tier" composers to discover when you start exploring solo instrument repertoires. Those who come from an academic musical background probably have a list of favourite composers, as well as a complementary list of favourite composers for their solo instrument.

Medtner is certainly not unknown to the classical pianist. Another example is Leo Brouwer, who is considered to be one of the most important composers for the guitar. Nonetheless, i'm sure most casual listeners would rate him as a second or third tier composer, in the broad scheme of things, that is, if they are at all aware of his existence.

Chopin and Liszt are examples of composers who don't really enjoy the highest popularity rating on TC. They are seen as approachable composers for beginning classical listeners. I can only explain this by the fact that most listeners are looking for depth, variety, complexity, and perhaps most importantly, abstraction, ie. music that bears a range of emotion unrestrained by factors such as instrumentation, style, period, etc. Which would correlate the acclaim of more grandiose composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner... However, i can assure you that piano composers like Chopin and Liszt are not dismissed by (most) classical pianists.

Conceivably, the top-tier composers seem to have a more universal musical outreach, while lightweight composers may have concentrated their efforts only on particular areas of classical music.

Concerto for guitar & orchestra, No 4 'Concerto de Toronto'


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Odnoposoff said:


> And always remember; there aren't first, second or third class composers; there are only those that you like, and those you don't.


I'll try to remember that. But you're at least one step ahead of me, as I can't work out what the OP is all about. I'd love to answer it as it sounds very profound but I haven't got past understanding the fact that the OP prefers several second tier composers to those in the first rank, even though he quite likes some of the latter but not all, at least not all of the time. Judging by many of the replies thus far I would hazard a guess that that hardly anyone else has fathomed the mystery of exactly what question we are asked to answer. In case my wild guess might be correct, I like composers more or less in the same order as that of majority opinion, with a gently sloping downward preference curve that hits an asymptote of virtual indifference once we get down to about No 40 et seq on the list.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I used to listen and enjoy a lot more of the "2nd tiers" prior to being hit by the Wagner train at 180 km/h. Now they are like old friends I never visit anymore.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Philip; you are very right about players-composers for a certain instrument. Pablo de Sarasate is considered by many as a "light" and second rate composer of facile pieces. But to violinists, his works are of great value and importance. Same with Popper or Piatti for the cello or Tarrega for the guitar. Nobody cares much for Jean Francaix, but to players of winds and woods, he is essential.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Could it be the old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt" applies to music? As much as I love many pieces by the first tier composers I do not find myself going back to that well very often anymore. It's not that I despise their works but I don't find them as captivating as I used to. Thus I have enjoyed exploring the works of the unsung or unknown composers. I don't take any special pride or elitist attitude about it but I guess I can be somewhat of an evangelist to "get the word" out that other composers exist besides the first tier ones whose music is just as wonderful and valid. I know that I will always have a place in my heart for the big guns but I would just as soon listen to Madetoja's three relatively unknown symphonies than Mozart's 41 or Beethoven's nine again. But that's just my personal preference and I certainly would not impose it on others.

Kevin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This topic also raises the point of regional or national composers. Eg. composers known to some degree in one country or region but not internationally. Some composer's music does not travel well, but it doesn't mean that it is not of value to listeners of their country or anywhere else. & often, foreigners to that country misunderstand the composer. Or even locals. On another website, one person was saying that one of Australia's best known post-1945 composers, Peter Sculthorpe, was _cultural cringe_. I think that's just ridiculous. Sculthorpe was innovating just as Penderecki was - exactly the same things at the same time - but they didn't know what each the other was doing. In any case, Sculthorpe and other Australian composers like Brett Dean are being commissioned by groups all around the world now, not only here. Dean actually lives half the year in Berlin and half in his native Queensland.

What I'm saying is if you don't understand the real contribution of these composers, you can call them second tier or as in that case,_ cultural cringe_, but it may well show that you are just ignorant and can't think beyond the three B's or whatever. It's the same old same old double standards, the same putting certain composers on pedestals as gods, the same immutable and I'd say inflexible, even calcified, views of music. It's not grounded in reality or experience but ideology.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't even think along the lines of big three. For me it's more about 'Big 10' or so...

Indeed... and while these compsers (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Handel, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Debussy, Verdi, etc...) may account for a large portion of my music collection, I would guess that I have as many... or more recordings by other composers that I greatly enjoy (Biber, Rameau, Vivaldi, Copland, Bellini, Donizetti, Sylvius Weiss, Monteverdi, Gesualdo, Gorecki, Philip Glass, etc... to name but a few.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Odnoposoff said:


> I´ve all the works of the big names I want or need, and don't look for any more of them, except some very rare historical recording. Last 10 years more or less I look for works of unknown/forgotten composers. I refuse absolutely to call them "minor, second rate" or similar things. They are just what I said: unknown and or /forgotten. I'be found many gems and beautiful pieces of them, and I don't care what critics or purist can think.


All very defensive this post of yours,there's no need to justify your choices.


----------



## pasido (Apr 2, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Talkclassical and the rest of the classical world would be a boring place if people only ever talked about Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and other 1st tier composers.
> 
> I concede that Medtner probably wasn't quite the composer Rachmaninoff was. Doesn't mean there is nothing to enjoy in his music. Telemann probably wasn't quite the composer Bach was. CPE Bach, Clementi, and Hummel probably aren't of the caliber of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Tcherepnin probably falls short of Prokofiev and Shostakovich.
> 
> ...


Someone on this thread mentioned Spohr; I like his Violin Concerto No. 8 a lot mostly because I listen to it with Paganini's violin concerto on the Hilary Hahn album.

Speaking of Paganini, he rocks. This album especially


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I enjoy listening to the work of second tier classical and romantic composers like Spohr, Hummel, Schumann, Grieg, Field, Weber, Berwald, CPE Bach, Boccherini, Krommer and Liszt because there is a lot of good stuff hidden among lesser work and because it helps put the achievements of Brahms, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Mozart etc. in perspective. An exclusive diet of the latter would be rather boring.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> I enjoy listening to the work of second tier classical and romantic composers like Spohr, Hummel, Schumann, Grieg, Field, Weber, Berwald, CPE Bach, Boccherini, Krommer and Liszt because there is a lot of good stuff hidden among lesser work and because it helps put the achievements of Brahms, Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Mozart etc. in perspective. An exclusive diet of the latter would be rather boring.


Schumann and Liszt second tier?


----------



## PianoMan (Mar 13, 2005)

Lisztian said:


> Schumann and Liszt second tier?


Yeah, I'm not sure I'd even put Grieg and CPE Bach in the 2nd tier, let alone those two. CPE might just be my keyboard bias though


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Many composers of Baroque and Classical are first tier for me. Beethoven changed music and not exactly for the better. The music of times before that were not as popular compared to Beethoven after that. He basically cut short a very enjoyable classical era by himself imo. I do understand that Beethoven wrote many masterpieces. I just don't enjoy them as much as many others. So yeah Corelli, Vivaldi, Handel, Telemann, Bach, CPE Bach, Rameau, Haydn, Mozart, Debussy, Shostakovich, and Schnittke are first tier for me.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Schumann and Liszt second tier?


No, I wasn't saying that. Its confusing I know. I'm sorry to make you feel indignant. I was just saying the composers I liked. I was being lazy. No, Schumann and Liszt are commonly thought of as first tier and I would agree.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> No, I wasn't saying that. Its confusing I know. I'm sorry to make you feel indignant. I was just saying the composers I liked. I was being lazy. No, Schumann and Liszt are commonly thought of as first tier and I would agree.


He wasn't talking to you...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I agree with those who say anything you like and is in your collection, is 1st tier. But, for the sake of putting something down on this thread, fame is a wide ranging animal. Therefore...

In my collection, some of those that I consider less famous and in need of more promotion are, Goldmark, Chausson, Korngold, Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Sarasate, Severac, Mompou, Dusapin, Hovhaness, Krenek, Lourie, Norgard.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Klavierspieler said:


> He wasn't talking to you...


Ha! I must really be out of it...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Had to think about this one for a while:

'Second tier' really means 'lesser.' But I object to the coloring implied.

There are hosts of fine composers from all eras who were just Not The Absolutely Most Innovative (i.e. most remarkable,) but who were far from just dull 'journeymen' composers.

There are a good number of composers, I guess called 'second tier,' whose works I consider plebeian and dull, but who had strong enough skills in the craft. I will not name them because it causes argument against the gist of what I wish to get across.

Those who were not the major innovators (Beethoven), or the amazingly deft all-rounders (Mozart) do have a lower-rank position in 'estimating their worth' in the big picture of relatively great composers. Tchaikovsky, so popular, comes to mind -- it is 'just' Tchaikovsky, but he is not a Brahms, Mahler, etc.

So there are many others like: William Walton, Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Hindemith, Carl Nielsen, Walter Piston, and on and on and on and on. Slews of them, many of them truly are other 'big names'; they are just not "the giants."

What some composed was well beyond 'just serviceable:' it is very fine music, beautifully crafted with strength of content, saying something, making a unique and characteristic sound which contributes to the overall body of the art (the relatively small output of Irving Fine.) 

There is nothing wrong with that kind of artist at all -- they just aren't ranked as sitting atop Mt. Olympus: but they are on that mountain, nonetheless.

As to your particular proclivity - a natural preference / inclination to take in and care for the underdog may have something to do with it. I'm sick to death of the continual over-emphasis of the greats, many whose work I love. But constantly hearing - reading, "Beethoven / Mozart / Brahms / Tchaikovsky / Bach Bach Bach / Wagner Wagner Wagner," is enough to turn anyone in their right mind -- a little irrationally, perhaps -- off and away from those composers.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

^Yes PetrB again has some good points. There is something about the phrase 'second tier' that is kind of an injustice to all these _other big names_ I think. So many of which have filled such important little niches in the repertoire. I have no problem calling Bach/Beethoven etc the greatest composers, but I sure wouldn't want to be without my Joaquin Rodrigo's or William Walton's etc. Some of their pieces have touched my soul in ways that are indescribable and _unique_. Simply calling them second tier doesn't seem quite right to me either...I think I like _other big names_...


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Ha! I must really be out of it...


@ Clavi, As the *founding* member of that club, let me be the first to welcome you, and to assure you that we are both in very good company! :lol:


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Lisztian,
I admit I was being a bit of a provocateur--I apologize. But certainly, for me anyway, a step down from those I mention later in the paragraph, though. How many steps are on each tier?

I agree with the general consensus I (think I) see emerging that there was something flawed about the phrasing of the OP.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Talkclassical and the rest of the classical world would be a boring place if people only ever talked about Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and other 1st tier composers.
> 
> I concede that Medtner probably wasn't quite the composer Rachmaninoff was. Doesn't mean there is nothing to enjoy in his music. Telemann probably wasn't quite the composer Bach was. CPE Bach, Clementi, and Hummel probably aren't of the caliber of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Tcherepnin probably falls short of Prokofiev and Shostakovich.
> 
> ...


This is very interesting. My general guess is the the difference between a Michael Jordan and a Clyde Drexler isn't actually as great as the hype portrays it, and that the same usually applies in every other field.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I just listened to the Medtner Second Piano Concerto last night. Nothing to be ashamed of....although I made sure it was very late, curtains drawn, neighbors asleep.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I realize this is an old thread but I'm familiar with clav's taste and while mine is different from his, I also have a preference for many second-tier composers and would ~much~ sooner listen to their music than Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach - each of which, except when reaching a very high level of beauty, can be very understimulating to me as a 21st century listener who prioritizes Ravel and Wagner. (These 2nd-stringers being Chávez, Revueltas, and several others).

Let's be clear.....the first-tier composers are played so frequently for reasons besides that their music is exceptional. There's a dogma in the classical music universe that these assorted few possess a completely unsurpassable, god-like genius such that even their less-inspired moments will speak to a present-day audience in a way that inevitably eludes other artists, in spite of the fact that there are some of us who do not feel this way. If I were the director of an orchestra there would only very occasionally be music by the Austro-German masters who dominate the Western-classical music canon (wagner excepted), not out of a desire to propagate other music, but because I genuinely believe other art has actually achieved an equal or greater beauty since the efforts of the A-list demigods.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I don't classify composers as first tier or second tier. As a scholar, all music is important to me equally and provides spiritual worth.

For example, Vaughn Williams is just as valuable to society as Mozart was.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So does that hold true of Katy Perry or the Monkees?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If I were the director of an orchestra there would only very occasionally be music by the Austro-German masters who dominate the Western-classical music canon (wagner excepted), not out of a desire to propagate other music, but because I genuinely believe other art has actually achieved an equal or greater beauty since the efforts of the A-list demigods.

Well then I guess its a good thing that other (not to say clearer) thinking has prevailed.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> If I were the director of an orchestra there would only very occasionally be music by the Austro-German masters who dominate the Western-classical music canon (wagner excepted), not out of a desire to propagate other music, but because I genuinely believe other art has actually achieved an equal or greater beauty since the efforts of the A-list demigods.


Me too, but leaving off "or greater."

Also, I wouldn't want just an orchestra. I'd need an early music ensemble, a choir (with some great soloists) trained to perform recent or CPP music, and another choir (with great soloists) trained to perform medieval and renaissance music. There'd be a lot of Alizadeh and Ferneyhough in the house, and Literes and Casella, and Rubinstein and Sorabji, but there'd be Peri and Caccini, Rore and Handl-Gallus too.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So does that hold true of Katy Perry or the Monkees?


Yes if you study their pop iconography then both have the same cultural worth.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Every once in a while I listen to Franz Schmidt's Fourth Symphony, arguably the best second tier symphony ever written.


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

To me, the second tier composers aren't really second tier. I'm listening to the Clementi piano sonatas. Really liking them.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

albertfallickwang said:


> I don't classify composers as first tier or second tier. As a scholar, all music is important to me equally and provides spiritual worth.


Did you mean you were a music scholar or musicologist, or scholar in a different field? I just don't remember seeing 'spiritual worth' used very often by the academics in music criticism.



pianolearnerstride said:


> To me, the second tier composers aren't really second tier. I'm listening to the Clementi piano sonatas. Really liking them.


Outside his some of his sonatas, my hopeless philistine ears find Clementi's placement as second-tier about right. Also, you never replied your thread to asking which Beethoven sonata was like the last movement of Mozart's 20th piano concerto. Did you find the piece you were looking for? I was just curious to know what it was.


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

trazom said:


> Outside his some of his sonatas, my hopeless philistine ears find Clementi's placement as second-tier about right. Also, you never replied your thread to asking which Beethoven sonata was like the last movement of Mozart's 20th piano concerto. Did you find the piece you were looking for? I was just curious to know what it was.


I apologize for abandoning that thread. I did not find the piece I was looking for. I think maybe I was wrong in thinking it was a Beethoven piano sonata. I will listen through all the Beethoven sonatas at some point and see.


----------

