# Decadence of Russian Composers Nowadays



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. This is a paradoxically random phenomenon, since it is a bit like the butterfly effect, there is no clear reason for this change. Examples of these composers include Borodin, Szymanowsky, Lyapunov and, most importantly, Myaskovsky. The fame that Myaskovsky gathered during his lifetime was enormous. His music is absolutely brilliant. In fact, I love most of his symphonies (especially the sixth one). However, these symphonies are rarely performed anymore, or at least they are not performed as much as before.
Apart from musicologists and good musicians, only a handful of people know who Myaskovsky, Lyapunov, Szymanowsky, Balakirev, etc. are. This is absolutely surprising, because I would place these composers' music at the same level as Shostakovich, but they have strangely enough disappeared for no apparent reason. This is very sad.
By this I don't mean that they are not performed. In 2013, the BBC Prom 41 included Borodin's Symphony No. 2, but in general, this type of music is not as common as Mendelssohn or Prokofiev. I am particularly fond of Russian music so I find this rather unexpected and amusing on the verge of being dramatic.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Not sure why you include Szymanowsky in your list, I believe he was a Polish national - and hardly forgotten anyway.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Ukko said:


> Not sure why you include Szymanowsky in your list, I believe he was a Polish national - and hardly forgotten anyway.


I think you mistake Szymanowsky with Szymanowski.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I think you mistake Szymanowsky with Szymanowski.


Hah! I _thought_ that ending looked questionable. I knew Szymanowski's family had property in Russia... .


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

There are many great composers who garnered lots of fame in their lifetimes but are rarely performed today. History only chooses to remember a few people (some even less deserving to be recognized than others), unfortunately, but I agree that all of the names you mentioned deserve significantly more recognition.

Why are they neglected? I don't believe it has to do with the quality of their music, considering they were just as celebrated as, say, Shostakovich or Prokofiev in their time; it may have more to do with their descendants, and the next generations who fail to keep their music alive. There are quite a few composers throughout history (and artists) who simply never gave their oeuvre to people that would spread it after their death. There may also be political reasons, e.g. racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, which could have inflicted lots of damage on the legacy of said composers. Any of these are possible, even if they are not the real reason why the music has failed to gain attention.

Off the top of my head I can name a whole bunch of once famous composers from the Romantic era - Anton Rubinstein, Thalberg, Reinecke, Raff, Alkan, Franck, Balakirev, Nielsen, Bax, Reger, among many others - who undoubtedly deserve massive efforts of re-exploration in the concert hall.

Something I've never understood is why every season, most major orchestras regurgitate the same damn material that's been played in the past few hundred years, instead of venturing into new territory and performing the so many other works that are no longer popular but are of the same musical value. The standard classical, romantic, 20th century composers are all very nice for the most part but there comes a point when I almost feel like the concert hall repertoire is bland.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Forte said:


> Something I've never understood is why every season, most major orchestras regurgitate the same damn material


Possibly, for the same reasons opera houses still crank out Verdi, or why a list of the top 30 grossing films contains 24 sequels.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Hah! I _thought_ that ending looked questionable. I knew Szymanowski's family had property in Russia... .


There is no difference...or am I missing something ?
He was born in what is now the Ukraine. But he was Polish.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. [etc]


I don't understand what this has to do with decadence?


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2013)

Not everyone who posts here is a native speaker of English.

But I'll bet that their command of English is far greater than your command of their language.

(If Rhombic IS a native speaker of English, then I'm with ya!)


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

some guy said:


> Not everyone who posts here is a native speaker of English.
> 
> But I'll bet that their command of English is far greater than your command of their language.
> 
> (If Rhombic IS a native speaker of English, then I'm with ya!)


Not many people know that,we are lucky you were there to put us right.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2013)

There is not enough snark online.

We are lucky to have you to provide that for us.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. This is a paradoxically random phenomenon, since it is a bit like the butterfly effect, there is no clear reason for this change. Examples of these composers include Borodin


i'm not sure as to Borodin -






- Simon Rattle participation is a token sign of what is popular in music.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

but of course such masterpieces as the 7th Symphony by Shostakovitch are (deliberately) overlooked today for mere political reasons.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2013)

some guy said:


> But I'll bet that their command of English is far greater than your command of their language.


Да !


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> Decadence of Russian Composers Nowadays


and hey there's a renaissance of British composers these days it's hard to run and hide from them Brittens and Elgars and so on.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame.


The trouble is that it might be the other way round, that due to a decline in their fame they are being performed less.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

some guy said:


> There is not enough snark online.
> 
> We are lucky to have you to provide that for us.


Always my pleasure I assure you.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Forte said:


> There are many great composers who garnered lots of fame in their lifetimes but are rarely performed today. History only chooses to remember a few people (some even less deserving to be recognized than others), unfortunately, but I agree that all of the names you mentioned deserve significantly more recognition.
> 
> Why are they neglected? I don't believe it has to do with the quality of their music, considering they were just as celebrated as, say, Shostakovich or Prokofiev in their time; it may have more to do with their descendants, and the next generations who fail to keep their music alive. There are quite a few composers throughout history (and artists) who simply never gave their oeuvre to people that would spread it after their death. There may also be political reasons, e.g. racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, which could have inflicted lots of damage on the legacy of said composers. Any of these are possible, even if they are not the real reason why the music has failed to gain attention.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with your inclusion of Bax ,Nielsen or Franck. But the rest, altho' I have their music in my collection ,would not bring in the audiences and are second tier composers which is why you don't see them.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

moody said:


> There is no difference...or am I missing something ?


The difference is that composer named Szymanowsky doesn't exist, the other one does

Quite a difference, if you ask me


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. This is a paradoxically random phenomenon, since it is a bit like the butterfly effect, there is no clear reason for this change. Examples of these composers include Borodin, Szymanowsky, Lyapunov and, most importantly, Myaskovsky. The fame that Myaskovsky gathered during his lifetime was enormous. His music is absolutely brilliant. In fact, I love most of his symphonies (especially the sixth one). However, these symphonies are rarely performed anymore, or at least they are not performed as much as before.
> Apart from musicologists and good musicians, only a handful of people know who Myaskovsky, Lyapunov, Szymanowsky, Balakirev, etc. are. This is absolutely surprising, because I would place these composers' music at the same level as Shostakovich, but they have strangely enough disappeared for no apparent reason. This is very sad.
> By this I don't mean that they are not performed. In 2013, the BBC Prom 41 included Borodin's Symphony No. 2, but in general, this type of music is not as common as Mendelssohn or Prokofiev. I am particularly fond of Russian music so I find this rather unexpected and amusing on the verge of being dramatic.


I guess that *all* nowadays performances are being diluted in the big sea of high quality performances that are just as readily 'nowadays' & presently available on CD, DVD, internet etc. etc. Because of this expansion of our present (We have a satellite at home that enables me to watch/listen to a wealth of _live_ performances on BBC, German, Dutch, Austrian, French, 'Bravo' channels all at the same time) I find it rather eclectic to assert that say 'Beethoven is very hot _nowadays_', or that say 'Bach is being neglected _nowadays_'. Personally I have a special liking for Valery Gergiev, but I notice he is facing fierce competition from... Valery Gergiev on CD, Blu-ray, etc. etc. The same is true for lots of other performers under the Classical Music sun. Many of their recordings outshine their present activities. Until very recently I never heard from the Soviet composer Mieczysław Weinberg and it took a long time before Chandos released a series of recordings from the Ukrainian/Russian composer Reinhold Glière. For me these composers are :tiphat: , for others they will remain just unknown. Let's face it: Our present has become eclectic.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

For those picky members whose posts are abundant in this thread, I will admit that I confused Szymanowsk*i* with Boris Lyatoshinsky or Lyatoshynsky (Лятоши́нський), Ukrainian composer. I particularly like Borodin, but for each performance of Prince Igor (opera), there might be thousands of Verdi ones or Mozart.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Don't let them worry you, typography can defeat the best of us:

















Just ask Tschaijkowskij


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Szymanowski was a head figure in Polish artistic nationalism, both around 1900 and especially after 1918.
cf. for instance http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/CPCES/events/fall12/event1_szymanowski.html

Needless to say, he is today the main composer icon of Poland together with Chopin, whereas he isn´t celebrated in the same way in Ukraine.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

moody said:


> I don't agree with your inclusion of Bax ,Nielsen or Franck. But the rest, altho' I have their music in my collection ,would not bring in the audiences and are second tier composers which is why you don't see them.


Except why are they second tier composers? They were extremely popular in their lifetimes (a few of them were recluses, but were well known when they were active) and regarded in the same light as contemporaries like Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, et al., even half a century after some of their deaths. One needs only to explore these composers more to find that they were all capable of writing all sorts of masterpieces. It does not have to do with the quality of their music.

Your other claim being that they would not bring in audiences is not true either. Major orchestras draw in audiences all the time for performances of less heard music, as well as contemporary works and recent discoveries. They just need to do it more often; after all, if it is never performed it will never be accepted by the public and it will continue to be under-appreciated. It is completely illogical, at least to me, that repeating the same old canon of repertoire will attract more audiences than if they mixed it up more often and decided to shine a spotlight on less known but clearly first-rate art.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This is just the way it goes. Many an excellent composer's work was of the moment, completely in line with the more / most conservative of tastes or that time, some even retro-conservative. I don't think anyone is faulting the craft, but the "relevance" of what was then said just isn't speaking to so many, other than those who are fans of the older late romantic, and want more and more of it other than the handful of the "greater" late romantic composers -- the latter usually more distinct in that their music was still somehow "innovative" or that for some reason, talent, the luck of a gift, seems to have a more distinctive stamp of personality on it.

A lot of the music you mention, to me, is mostly, as one 20th century composer put it, "all that old Brahms stuff," and no matter how well done, seems like a somewhat vacant filler of that which has already been said, and often much better said.

And people who are hungry for late romantic music, slightly modern but late romantic, having worn out the handful of better composer's music of that era and being hungry for more, have created this demand, the likes of which I am certain was behind the not long ago fad of resurrection and consumption of Medtner.

None of whom you mention are at all "bad composers." They are often the good composers, less innovative, not as strong a musical personality, ergo, "second tier," having written music fine enough, but even at the time rather out of touch and behind the times.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

PetrB said:


> This is just the way it goes. Many an excellent composer's work was of the moment, completely in line with the more / most conservative of tastes or that time, some even retro-conservative. I don't think anyone is faulting the craft, but the "relevance" of what was then said just isn't speaking to so many, other than those who are fans of the older late romantic, and want more and more of it other than the handful of the "greater" late romantic composers -- the latter usually more distinct in that their music was still somehow "innovative" or that for some reason, talent, the luck of a gift, seems to have a more distinctive stamp of personality on it.
> 
> A lot of the music you mention, to me, is mostly, as one 20th century composer put it, "all that old Brahms stuff," and no matter how well done, seems like a somewhat vacant filler of that which has already been said, and often much better said.
> 
> ...


But then you have Arvo Pärt and Iannis Xenakis, for example, who do not match your description. You could even include composers like Scriabin or Prokofiev, who were particularly innovative in their composition, as opposed to Glazunov who wanted to continue composing like the late Romantics. Why are their compositions less known that Mendelssohn's or Schumann's?


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

PetrB said:


> This is just the way it goes. Many an excellent composer's work was of the moment, completely in line with the more / most conservative of tastes or that time, some even retro-conservative. I don't think anyone is faulting the craft, but the "relevance" of what was then said just isn't speaking to so many, other than those who are fans of the older late romantic, and want more and more of it other than the handful of the "greater" late romantic composers -- the latter usually more distinct in that their music was still somehow "innovative" or that for some reason, talent, the luck of a gift, seems to have a more distinctive stamp of personality on it.
> 
> None of whom you mention are at all "bad composers." They are often the good composers, less innovative, not as strong a musical personality, ergo, "second tier," having written music fine enough, but even at the time rather out of touch and behind the times.


What do you make of J.S. Bach? He was making music in the Baroque style up until his death, six years before Mozart was born, and his music fell out of fashion as it was considered old and not with the times. Of course, then it was "rediscovered" with a frenzy and slowly more and more of the public began realizing what a master he was. I think the way you see things here is not at all fair, as there are great composers which fit different roles in different time periods. Some are the revolutionary type, like Beethoven, who push ideas which are avant-garde for their time, and others master the idiom of time period. Bach was one such person, and although he certainly made innovations, he did not follow the classical trend and later on stayed with the premises of older music.

Many composers among greatest of all time did not necessarily innovate the most.



PetrB said:


> A lot of the music you mention, to me, is mostly, as one 20th century composer put it, "all that old Brahms stuff," and no matter how well done, seems like a somewhat vacant filler of that which has already been said, and often much better said.
> 
> And people who are hungry for late romantic music, slightly modern but late romantic, having worn out the handful of better composer's music of that era and being hungry for more, have created this demand, the likes of which I am certain was behind the not long ago fad of resurrection and consumption of Medtner.


I would completely disagree with the first statement here, given that there are clear idiosyncrasies and each of the composers that the OP has mentioned have proven themselves capable of having an individual voice within the late Romantic period to which they are not bound and do not deserve to merely be "thrown into a pile" with. It is simply untrue to say that they did not have strong musical personalities, or that they defaulted to ordinary Romantic conventions.

Balakirev and his group, including Borodin, invented and developed a musical language that was pretty unique. They expanded on what Tchaikovsky did and managed to incorporate Russian folk music, worked on the whole tone scale, the octatonic scale, the pentatonic scale, modulations in thirds to break from sonata-form, and featured oriental styles in their music, which is why Balakirev and Borodin both use exotic harmonies that seem to be quite different from traditional practice (see Islamey, Borodin's string quartets). Debussy and Ravel were very influenced by the latter.

Szymanowski was full of innovation and developed a style that was a mix of impressionism and atonality, but it seems to already have been mentioned that he was not Russian, nor has he really forgotten.

Lyapunov and his Transcendental Etudes are hugely neglected pieces for the piano, and they were certainly novel too, as he incorporated the pictorial and programmatic ideals of the late Romantic period, except being also consistent with Russian dances and folk music.

Myaskovsky produced no shortage of masterpieces with 27 symphonies, winning him the Stalin Prize 6 times and allowing his music to be played regularly across the US and Europe, and CBS audiences put his greatness among the likes of Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Kreisler. He was notably a great craftsman and his output basically sold him as one of the original "founding" composers of Soviet symphonies.

Most of these guys, especially Myaskovsky were beyond popular when they were writing their music, and they were praised for their works the same way we appreciate the more famous Russian composers like Prokofiev and Shostakovich. But the biggest question I have is - why bother sorting composers and their works that fall into gray area into categories and periods like Romantic, 20th century, or conservative vs. revolutionary? Masters are masters because their compositions are extraordinary, and that does not require categorizing them into time periods and how new their works were _historically_. That seems to me to be a fair waste of time, and I think we ought to promote less known stuff for the sake of its quality, not when they were made and how they fall in line with other stuff. If we could and are able to appreciate Bach for what he was able to do with "traditional" styles, the same should apply for all great and unjustly forgotten composers.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I wonder what opportunities Russian composers have for performance these days? I am no expert but I got curious and poked around the schedules of several Russian orchestras for this season and found only 1 composition by a Russian more recent than Shostakovich... actually she is Georgian so never mind.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Rhombic- But then you have Arvo Pärt and Iannis Xenakis, for example, who do not match your description.

Arvo Pärt and Iannis Xenakis are not part of this discussion because they are near-contemporaries. There is no way of knowing whether they will or will not survive.

You could even include composers like Scriabin or Prokofiev, who were particularly innovative in their composition, as opposed to Glazunov who wanted to continue composing like the late Romantics. Why are their compositions less known that Mendelssohn's or Schumann's?

The obvious answer here that you have avoided is that Schumann and Mendelssohn are greater composers. Even were they not, you should recognize that Scriabin and Prokofiev are more recent composers than Schumann and Mendelssohn... meaning that Schumann and Mendelssohn... having survived longer, are woven within the tapestry of music history to a greater extent.

Honestly, I don't see Russian composers as being underrated or ignored. On many polls of favorite National tradition you will find the Russians second only to the Austro-Germans (although I would put them behind the French and Italians as well). Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev and Stravinsky are most certainly not unfamiliar names. Rimsky-Korsakov isn't far behind, while Borodin, Glazunov, Scriabin, Weinberg, and others of the "second tier" of Russian composers are no less familiar than many "second tier" composers from France, Germany, England, etc...

Forte- What do you make of J.S. Bach? He was making music in the Baroque style up until his death, six years before Mozart was born, and his music fell out of fashion as it was considered old and not with the times. Of course, then it was "rediscovered" with a frenzy and slowly more and more of the public began realizing what a master he was. I think the way you see things here is not at all fair, as there are great composers which fit different roles in different time periods. Some are the revolutionary type, like Beethoven, who push ideas which are avant-garde for their time, and others master the idiom of time period. Bach was one such person, and although he certainly made innovations, he did not follow the classical trend and later on stayed with the premises of older music.

Many composers among greatest of all time did not necessarily innovate the most.

The reality is that for a composer to enter the "canon"... to be considered among the greatest of the greats within that "canon" is a process that involves subsequent generations of composers of merit, academics and other "experts", and the audience... in other words, those who have invested the most in the understanding, the promotion, and preservation of that given art form. The fact that Bach is repeatedly ranked among the greatest of composers, while in comparison Borodin might be considered but an "also ran" simply means that more of those who have the most invested in classical music rate Bach more highly than Borodin.

I would completely disagree with the first statement here, given that there are clear idiosyncrasies and each of the composers that the OP has mentioned have proven themselves capable of having an individual voice within the late Romantic period to which they are not bound and do not deserve to merely be "thrown into a pile" with. It is simply untrue to say that they did not have strong musical personalities, or that they defaulted to ordinary Romantic conventions.

We can make similar arguments in any art form. Shakespeare was not alone among the writers of his era... and many of his peers were quite talented... but over the years, Shakespeare has continued to speak to more readers/critics/writers than Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Kyd, etc... There were other painters beyond Rembrandt, Rubens, Velazquez, Caravaggio, Van Dyck, Franz Hals, and Vermeer active during the Baroque... but none have continued to resonate across the centuries to the same extent as any of these named masters. This does not mean that studying their work is a waste of time... will not result in many marvelous discoveries and a great deal of personal pleasure.

Quite honestly, I suspect there has been less focus upon Russian music in recent times due to the fact that many composers/music lovers in our current era wish to move beyond Romanticism/Post-Romanticism. There is also the political reality in that Russia... or rather the Soviet Union is no longer the great rival and concern of the US.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. This is a paradoxically random phenomenon, since it is a bit like the butterfly effect, there is no clear reason for this change. Examples of these composers include Borodin, Szymanowsky, Lyapunov and, most importantly, Myaskovsky. The fame that Myaskovsky gathered during his lifetime was enormous. His music is absolutely brilliant. In fact, I love most of his symphonies (especially the sixth one). However, these symphonies are rarely performed anymore, or at least they are not performed as much as before.
> Apart from musicologists and good musicians, only a handful of people know who Myaskovsky, Lyapunov, Szymanowsky, Balakirev, etc. are. This is absolutely surprising, because I would place these composers' music at the same level as Shostakovich, but they have strangely enough disappeared for no apparent reason. This is very sad.
> By this I don't mean that they are not performed. In 2013, the BBC Prom 41 included Borodin's Symphony No. 2, but in general, this type of music is not as common as Mendelssohn or Prokofiev. I am particularly fond of Russian music so I find this rather unexpected and amusing on the verge of being dramatic.


I think its true, but there you've got the phenomenon of some composers being better known at home than abroad. It happens everywhere, to greater or lesser degree. The thing is though that there was a huge amount of composers from Russian Empire from the late 19th century onwards (what become USSR and is now Russian Federation). Added to your list is many others, which you and others would know better than I. There is also the tides of fashion, I know Myaskovsky's star fell a bit after his death.

But with these lesser known composers, if they've got a hit or kind of popular warhorse that's entered the repertoire, well they've got a bit of a foothold. One hit wonder type thing. Not in terms of it being the totality of their contribution to music, more like people know them at least for one work, even though it may misrepresent or obscure their whole contribution to music. This also applies to other composers, even the more popular ones like Mendelssohn and Prokofiev who you mention.

So this is what I'm saying, here are those "hits" of these less known guys:

Balakirev Islamey
Borodin Polovtsian Dances from "Prince Igor"
Arensky Piano Trio #1
Lyadov The Enchanted Lake
Ippolitov-Ivanov Caucasian Sketches
Gliere The Red Poppy ballet
Kabalevsky The Comedians Suite
Shchedrin Carmen Ballet (after Bizet)
Can Glinka, with his Russlan und Ludmilla Overture, be included in this group?

I'm not contradicting you bit maybe its not as bad as it seems. These works come up on concert programs with some regularity. In terms of Myaskovsky and Lyapunov, I got the former's music on cd but don't remember either of these being played live in concert. At least their music is on cd now though, which was harder to find the further way we go back (outside Russia, that is).

Of course other Russian composers have many staples in the repertoire, and I see Szymanowski as Polish, not Russian.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> but of course such masterpieces as the 7th Symphony by Shostakovitch are (deliberately) overlooked today for mere political reasons.


Nonsense.. or maybe _sense _if in the ex-Soviet countries where the history, and history of treatment of the composer and other artists is now a screaming embarrassment -- elsewhere, the music stands on its own, or does not.

Ultimately, a historic context and the story around it is not enough to perpetuate the play of any particular piece: the music itself must say something on its own to those who do not know all the history / story behind or with it.

A piece is inherently musically weak if it depends upon the story or the history to hold interest.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

If it wasn't late-night for me right now, I would write a long post of explanation here about why the Russians are unfavored in general in the concert hall (speaking of anywhere but Russia, where they champion their heroes). But this is an extremely interesting topic to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents of research on the subject.

So wait til tomorrow or soon after.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Aramis said:


> The difference is that composer named Szymanowsky doesn't exist, the other one does
> 
> Quite a difference, if you ask me


Thanks for your courteous reply,which of these exists Rachmaninov or Rachmaninoff?
I think it's a good thing that we have you around to help out.
Also I note that there is much confusion including among record companies it would seem--dash them off a note ,I would.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Forte said:


> Except why are they second tier composers? They were extremely popular in their lifetimes (a few of them were recluses, but were well known when they were active) and regarded in the same light as contemporaries like Liszt, Brahms, Schumann, et al., even half a century after some of their deaths. One needs only to explore these composers more to find that they were all capable of writing all sorts of masterpieces. It does not have to do with the quality of their music.
> 
> Your other claim being that they would not bring in audiences is not true either. Major orchestras draw in audiences all the time for performances of less heard music, as well as contemporary works and recent discoveries. They just need to do it more often; after all, if it is never performed it will never be accepted by the public and it will continue to be under-appreciated. It is completely illogical, at least to me, that repeating the same old canon of repertoire will attract more audiences than if they mixed it up more often and decided to shine a spotlight on less known but clearly first-rate art.


Have you actually listened to these composers and if so how can you mention them in company with Brahms,Liszt and Schumann
There are plenty of recordings available so why have they not caught on more ?.
The major orchestras have to strive to make a profit and cannot afford empty halls.You mention above that these orchestras draw audiences for less-heard music,then why not your favourites? What happened when you contacted your local orchestra and demanded performances ?
But as you disagree with me what are your suggestions to make things happen as clearly the orchestras' management are incapable of recognising a good thing when they see it.
There is a difference between dreaming and reality---and lastly we would all like wider repertoire but I don't wish to sit though an evening if rumpty-tumpty emptiness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rhombic said:


> But then you have Arvo Pärt and Iannis Xenakis, for example, who do not match your description. You could even include composers like Scriabin or Prokofiev, who were particularly innovative in their composition, as opposed to Glazunov who wanted to continue composing like the late Romantics. Why are their compositions less known that Mendelssohn's or Schumann's?


I'm not at all interested in later Arvo Part, find it completely empty, and not in that import it is supposed to have of "empty yourself to receive the spirit," but just [email protected]@ed naked, with nothing whatsoever to say... empty as a hollow drum, and not nearly as resonant.

Mendelssohn and Schumann are the perfect example of what I was referring to, i.e. the wave of composers whose music, all earlier by a fair chunk, was fresh and remains fresh, and has a more distinctive musical personality. That is why they are played, and played often, and Glazunov isn't -- apart from the fact that Glazunov, compositionally, is far weaker than either Mendelssohn or Schumann.

I seriously doubt in this community if the works of either Scriabin or Prokofiev are any lesser known or known of than the works of Mendelssohn and Schumann, though I think Scriabin an oddity who wrote maybe two symphonic works of real interest, and for the rest, more than uninteresting second tier music which the world could have gone on without, and without which music would have progressed exactly the same as if he did not exist.

If we're playing the ultra high tier game, Prokofiev -- whose music I love and admire -- is a great second tier composer compared to Stravinsky, or Schoenberg, and that puts Rachmaninov and Shostakovich on the edge of second tier tottering toward third tier at least, if not out of the contest entirely.

In this criteria game of tiers, the Glazunovs, Myaskovsky's, Medtners are no-class non-voting temporal guests, not even citizens. At any rate, they were passable enough only when they were new in their current time, and most find them smashingly boring now.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If it wasn't late-night for me right now, I would write a long post of explanation here about why the Russians are unfavored in general in the concert hall (speaking of anywhere but Russia, where they champion their heroes). But this is an extremely interesting topic to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents of research on the subject.
> 
> So wait til tomorrow or soon after.


Good, an overnight's worth of contemplating a highly personal, emotional and near obsessive attachment to a certain second or third-tier slavic composer may help you when it comes to perspective in your posit


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> Szymanowski was a head figure in Polish artistic nationalism, both around 1900 and especially after 1918.
> cf. for instance http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/CPCES/events/fall12/event1_szymanowski.html
> 
> Needless to say, he is today the main composer icon of Poland together with Chopin, whereas he isn´t celebrated in the same way in Ukraine.


I suppose there is competition from Penderecki,Gorecki,Panufnik and Wieniawski. But the whole set up is fairly shaky.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Thanks for your courteous reply,which of these exists Rachmaninov or Rachmaninoff?
> I think it's a good thing that we have you around to help out.
> Also I note that there is much confusion including among record companies it would seem--dash them off a note ,I would.


Well, the petty pedantry is turning from the comically lame to the absurd here, methinks.

What I need to know is: Is Le Sacre du Printemps by Igor Stravinsky the same piece as that other Le Sacre du Printemps by Igor Strawinsky? These things are greatly important.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

moody said:


> I suppose there is competition from Penderecki,Gorecki,Panufnik and Wieniawski. But the whole set up is fairly shaky.


Szymanowski is most revered in museums, exhibitions and the media, whereas the others form a second tier, together with Lutoslawski. He also has his own museum in Zakopane, any critique of his personal life notwithstanding.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Aramis said:


> The difference is that composer named Szymanowsky doesn't exist, the other one does
> 
> Quite a difference, if you ask me


The goalkeeper for the Polish national soccer team and also my team in the English league is Wojciech Szczesny do you have some advice on that fact ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Good, an overnight's worth of contemplating a highly personal, emotional and near obsessive attachment to a certain second or third-tier slavic composer may help you when it comes to perspective in your posit


Now you've done it,the young lady is going to be upset.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> What I need to know is: Is Le Sacre du Printemps by Igor Stravinsky the same piece as that other Le Sacre du Printemps by Igor Strawinsky? These things are greatly important.


No one's answered this yet? I want to know which one is Rite!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

moody said:


> Thanks for your courteous reply,which of these exists Rachmaninov or Rachmaninoff?


Don't play stupid, Rachmaninoff is transcription from cyrillic and there are multiple options, many of which are correct. The name of Szymanowski is all spelled with letters that exist in English alphabet and therefore no transcription is required. That is why writing "Szymanowsky" is equally ignorant as writing "Leonardo Da Vinthsee". If you think that spelling a foreign name correctly is so difficult that it justifies this kind of thing, well, congratulations. And allow me to adress you from now on as "Mudi".


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> in the ex-Soviet countries where the history, and history of treatment of the composer and other artists is now a screaming embarrassment


you see you already speaking like an ideological cliche your local Ministry Of Truth has been teaching you day and night.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Yes, we know you're a historical revisionist/denialist, you're not going to win any converts here.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Don't play stupid, Rachmaninoff is transcription from cyrillic and there are multiple options, many of which are correct. The name of Szymanowski is all spelled with letters that exist in English alphabet and therefore no transcription is required. That is why writing "Szymanowsky" is equally ignorant as writing "Leonardo Da Vinthsee". If you think that spelling a foreign name correctly is so difficult that it justifies this kind of thing, well, congratulations. And allow me to adress you from now on as "Mudi".


But the reason there is more than one version of Szymanowsky is due to transcription as well. Polish has many of the same looking letters as English French or German but they function differently. The sound of the letter i in Polish is defined as /i/ in the international phonetic alphabet whereas i in English is usually /ɪ/. That's a difference between a Close front unrounded vowel and a Near-close near-front unrounded vowel. The ending _-ski_ is fairly familiar to English speakers but still it is sometimes pronounced like the word _sky_ and sometimes pronounced as the word _ski_ while if you pronounced it using the typical English /ɪ/ it would sound like the word _skit_ with the t missing.

Couldn't resist engaging in the pedant-fest. I wonder if I can get my name changed to /kwæk/ or if that would break the forum.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

quack said:


> But the reason there is more than one version of Szymanowsky is due to transcription as well. Polish has many of the same looking letters as English French or German but they function differently.


Like I said before, if we assume such ignorant man's practice to be acceptable, it will soon open door to other ridiculous changes. Last name is last name. You write it like it is, unless there is really good reason to do otherwise (as in case of Russian names which would require familiarity and technical possibility to write with diffrent scripture, which can't be demanded).


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Garlic said:


> you're a historical revisionist/denialist


how you know history? who brought it you?.. name the sources please.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

quack said:


> That's a difference between a Close front unrounded vowel and a Near-close near-front unrounded vowel. The ending _-ski_ is fairly familiar to English speakers but still it is sometimes pronounced like the word _sky_ and sometimes pronounced as the word _ski_ while if you pronounced it using the typical English /ɪ/ it would sound like the word _skit_ with the t missing.


Possibly the best and most informative post of the day! Thanks Quack!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Garlic said:


> Yes, we know you're a historical revisionist/denialist, you're not going to win any converts here.


Well, sometimes Sharik wins me, I guess I strongly disagree with many of his political views but I'm very glad that there is somebody who makes TC community less of a sheep flock with everybody sharing typical modern views of average western man. You could at least have some regard to the fact that he lived through something that you know only from books and movies.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Don't play stupid, Rachmaninoff is transcription from cyrillic and there are multiple options, many of which are correct. The name of Szymanowski is all spelled with letters that exist in English alphabet and therefore no transcription is required. That is why writing "Szymanowsky" is equally ignorant as writing "Leonardo Da Vinthsee". If you think that spelling a foreign name correctly is so difficult that it justifies this kind of thing, well, congratulations. And allow me to adress you from now on as "Mudi".


I'm not that interested in you addressing me at all really.
What about the goalkeeper or should I tell him that he doesn't know how his name should be spelled?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Well, sometimes Sharik wins me, I guess I strongly disagree with many of his political views but I'm very glad that there is somebody who makes TC community less of a sheep flock with everybody sharing typical modern views of average western man. You could at least have some regard to the fact that he lived through something that you know only from books and movies.


Point taken. But if a German who lived through WW2 were to deny the holocaust I'd want to call them out for it too. Some things are worth challenging no matter who says them.


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

moody said:


> Have you actually listened to these composers and if so how can you mention them in company with Brahms,Liszt and Schumann


Have you actually read the sentence in which I mentioned the names Brahms, Liszt, and Schumann, and if so how can you ask such a meaningless question that has no relevance to my point?



moody said:


> There are plenty of recordings available so why have they not caught on more ?.


The composers I referred to _did_ catch on when they were alive - and many of their works stayed well known and were appreciated for decades after their deaths. If you actually read and understood what I said, you might get that. It is only the fact that their popularity has declined since that now very few people actually listen to them. There are plenty of recordings available of many, many works that are not in the standard repertoire, but consider that:

a) In general there are _far more_ recordings of works within the standard repertoire, giving way to far many more interpretations, inspiring further performances and propagation within the repertoire;
b) The fact that a recording exists does not in any way guarantee that it will be recognized, found, and sold to the same extent that a much more popular composer is, *regardless of musical quality*;
c) Concert performances have almost always been more influential to the public in terms of rediscovering music - certainly recordings have played a role too, but when music outside what is conventionally know is featured on a program in a major concert, that sparks awareness that such a composer or work exists, which is important in order to get people to begin buying the recordings that exist.



moody said:


> The major orchestras have to strive to make a profit and cannot afford empty halls.You mention above that these orchestras draw audiences for less-heard music,then why not your favourites?


The major orchestras _don't even play_ the music I mentioned, and I did not say that the composers were my favorites either, and that was what I was getting at. My whole point was that major orchestras should look for opportunities to explore music outside what is standard which is also of great quality in order to bring more popularity to it. The reason why major orchestras can draw audiences is because of the quality of music they can make in general, being led by well-known conductors and highly experienced musicians. In the past, there have been composers like Mahler and Bruckner who, with many orchestras putting their music on the program alone, were revived and made standard repertoire with a vengeance.

Audiences don't have to go to a concert simply because they see a name they recognize. In fact, a different name has had the tendency to draw in curious listeners as evidenced by previous revivals throughout music history.



moody said:


> What happened when you contacted your local orchestra and demanded performances ?


I'm certainly not the rushy type you describe, "demanding performances", and in any case I don't believe that would be very polite! However, I have actually in fact convinced a large majority of the faculty of the music school at the university (who perform in the city orchestra) simply through talking with them and sharing recordings and ideas, as well as historical significance that many of the composers I named deserve to be performed more. Some of them have actually performed chamber music and solo music in public by a few of them (Rubinstein sonatas, Reger variations, songs, organ sonatas, Raff quartets, Bax quintet, etc.). New symphonies and concertos are more difficult to put together as they require the entire orchestra's effort and revision of previous plans, but my whole point is that their management ought to look for great music that is relatively unknown, because there's quite a lot of it.

If your point is that orchestras will flat out say "no" to such suggestions, it is simply wrong and that is the end of it.



moody said:


> But as you disagree with me what are your suggestions to make things happen as clearly the orchestras' management are incapable of recognising a good thing when they see it.


Or they simply don't spend enough time looking for it. As has already been stated, there are so many reasons why less known music is less known that have nothing to do with the quality of the music itself. People a century ago had every right to praise some of them to the same extent we praise the legends today, and because of a whole consortium of reasons, their music was featured less and less until it became relatively unknown.

In my experience, great musicians have almost always been open-minded about music that they don't know about or haven't heard, and many times they have managed to find the value in it, and the individuality of those certain composers. The ideas of the composers may always divide opinion, but it would be patently false if you stated that orchestras simply don't like masterpieces they've never heard of and therefore don't perform it. It takes a lot of work to reintroduce once popular composers in any particular place.



moody said:


> There is a difference between dreaming and reality---and lastly we would all like wider repertoire but I don't wish to sit though an evening if rumpty-tumpty emptiness.


What do you suppose is dreaming here? Revivals of music have happened all over the place throughout the 20th century and all the way up to now. But if you want me to give you all of the reasons why each and every composer listed is not "rumpty-tumpty emptiness", as you so descriptively put it , and what their contributions were and why their masterpieces are in fact masterpieces, I can - and will. It's just that I doubt it would be productive since you don't seem to care what is being argued enough to even read what is being argued.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Aramis said:


> Don't play stupid, Rachmaninoff is transcription from cyrillic and there are multiple options, many of which are correct. The name of Szymanowski is all spelled with letters that exist in English alphabet and therefore no transcription is required. That is why writing "Szymanowsky" is equally ignorant as writing "Leonardo Da Vinthsee". If you think that spelling a foreign name correctly is so difficult that it justifies this kind of thing, well, congratulations. And allow me to adress you from now on as "Mudi".


And yet Leonardo's actual name given and recorded at birth was Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Ignoring everything that's been spoken of before, and before I lose any more motivation to answer the ORIGINAL POST as I planned, I ought to begin with my main points.

The reasons for why the bulk of Russian music today is not performed outside of its own country.

1. Lack of relevance to other cultures: if you're American, what have you to do with Russian folk music? It's so specific to the Russian people that the music becomes literally only _exoticism_, and not something that is easy to _relate _to per se. The music becomes something to pull out now and then when in a fanciful, exotic mood, not when looking for "comfort, homely music." Russia is just too alien, and its music is viewed as only for the people of Russia to enjoy. It must be admitted, this was the original intention of the Mighty Handful, they could care less what Europe thought of them.

2. Lack of support from the Elite musical figures (this goes back 150 years, not just talking about the present): how many early 20th century conductors actually promoted extensive performances of Russian music of the "2nd-tier" type? Plenty of great violinists championed the Glazunov Violin Concerto, which allows it to stand alongside the greats, and also above obscure other Russian concertos that weren't championed in the same way (Did Heifetz ever promote the Arensky Violin Concerto? Nope, hence why you probably don't know it today) Only the big composers we know today were performed then, and that's the whole reason that their tradition is instilled in us today. It takes a brave pioneer to show people music they are not use to. 
An example of one such figure who was bold enough was Georges Barrere, French-American flutist at the turn of the 20th century. When he went on tour as Director of his chamber ensemble in the US, he premiered a great deal of new French music of all kinds, and also obscure things, for example, the Reverie for Horn and Piano by Glazunov. That had a lasting impact, because today, that Reverie is played by horn players all around the US as a collegiate staple (I heard it performed TWO times last year at my school of music, that's how popular it is).

3. Actual prejudice by seemingly antithetical musical views: Russian music is viewed as amateur, crazy, lacking depth and thoughtful development of ideas, etc. What is amateur in much Russian music (notably the Nationalists) is made up for in creativity and passion, although these aren't really the highest valued things today among critical analysis. The Germans (I mean the _critics_, the people really didn't know the music) always criticized Russian music, but the French composers/critics LOVED the Russian Nationalists for the sole reason that it was a creative inspiration that was something _other _than Germany (France had an identity crisis in the 19th century after Wagner's arrival). The Russians were the first proponents of Coloristic Harmony, which composers like Faure and Debussy pounced upon when trying to create a new national "French" style. Americans happened to land on the _French _taste of things (especially in the decades before and during WWI), and yet viewed the Russians in a Germanly way, oddly enough, never even imagining them as being predecessors of their favorite French composers.

4. Association of Russian music with other more unpleasant things about Russia... namely politics, being a "backwards society", oppression and wars for centuries, debauchery, superstition/religious mania, communism itself, etc. I imagine that if I was alive today in the US in the 1950s, I would have been at risk of being Black-Listed, especially if I was verbal about my passions on an academic level, trying to promote the playing of Russian music too passionately. I would have seemed to have been a Russian patriot, not to mention a communist :lol:

Ok, I think I said everything I wanted, I may add other posts later.

Here's an interesting anecdote:

This past summer at the BBC Proms, Glazunov's 2nd Piano Concerto had its Proms premiere. It was on a program alongside more standard Russian things, namely Borodin's 2nd Symphony, and Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. The key figure that was central to this premiere was Daniil Trifonov who was to champion the concerto that evening. I listened to the BBC broadcast during the day and listened to the majority of the concert. One of the first things I noticed instantaneously from the radio announcers was the completely lack of antagonism against Glazunov, it was rather shocking. They talked about him like he was Chopin! There was no "We have a rare experience this evening" kind of crap, but rather went straight to the point: _very _short bio about Glazunov, description of when the composition was written, for who, the context of the Russian Revolution, etc. There was use of some quotes of Shostakovich, notably one that went something like "Glazunov was great to us, but when will be be great for everyone else? The whole musical world will one day see his greatness" or something like that. Then, the station proceeded to broadcast an interview with Trifonov about why he liked the concerto. He was very candid about what he saw specifically was brilliant about it, not just "nice." THEN (this part struck me the most), the interviewer asked what he felt was different between the 1st and 2nd Glazunov piano concertos. None of that "How do you think this concerto measures up to the Rachmaninoff Piano concertos?" crap. The questions were asked with no condescension, and so Trifonov also gave a candid remark of the different mood pictures each represented to his mind, and why he thought the 2nd was actually better in terms of continuity, expression, etc. For the first time ever, I heard actual analysis of his music in comparison to his own oeuvre! With that, the broadcast proceeded, and as I listened, I was really impressed with how different he interpreted the concerto from all the other recordings I've heard. It felt fresh and simple, not soggy. In fact, this kept it from sounding like a Rachmaninoff piano concerto. There was a resounding applause of possibly thousands of people when it was over, and cheering!

I speak only of Glazunov now because I experienced this first-hand. But I feel that _all _the Russian composers, great and small, should be treated this way! This is what it will take for people to get a real first impression that doesn't spark condescension, doubt, confusion. None of that is necessary when hearing a piece of music for the first time. I've been fortunate to have heard some Russian rarities of late in my area, notably the Arensky Piano Trio no. 1 at my own university last year, and some performances of Glazunov (the horn Reverie). This has been a very Russian-oriented semester for me, taking so many classes and ensembles that are doing Russian things. I've really gotten to know the country on a deeper level, learn some things that were very tragic, and learn some incredible things I never would have imagined.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The composers I referred to did catch on when they were alive - and many of their works stayed well known and were appreciated for decades after their deaths.

There are many artists in any genre whose work was quite popular during their life-time... and even for a while after... whose reputation waned with time.

There are plenty of recordings available of many, many works that are not in the standard repertoire, but consider that:

a) In general there are far more recordings of works within the standard repertoire, giving way to far many more interpretations, inspiring further performances and propagation within the repertoire.

And? You seem stuck on this notion that there is some inherent lack of fairness involved here when it seems obvious that the music which is most in demand... most admired by the listeners of classical music... most revered by subsequent generations of composers, musicians, and critics will likely be afforded more performances and more recordings. You have heard of "supply and demand"?

b) The fact that a recording exists does not in any way guarantee that it will be recognized, found, and sold to the same extent that a much more popular composer is, regardless of musical quality...

And? What exactly is your point here?

c) Concert performances have almost always been more influential to the public in terms of rediscovering music

I'd like to see some data to back up your claim here... otherwise your just making it up. My personal assumption is that most classical music buffs hear far more music in recorded form... and are far more likely to discover music that is new to them in recorded form than in live concerts.

...when music outside what is conventionally know is featured on a program in a major concert, that sparks awareness that such a composer or work exists, which is important in order to get people to begin buying the recordings that exist.

I can't say that has been true in my experience. I have discovered far more music that was "new" to me in recordings than in live performances.

My whole point was that major orchestras should look for opportunities to explore music outside what is standard which is also of great quality in order to bring more popularity to it.

There are few of us who would disagree with the desire for greater variety in the music performed/recorded by major orchestras. The debate begins as to just what music should be included. It would seem that not enough agree that the second tier Russians are in need of a great resurgence in popularity.

The reason why major orchestras can draw audiences is because of the quality of music they can make in general, being led by well-known conductors and highly experienced musicians. In the past, there have been composers like Mahler and Bruckner who, with many orchestras putting their music on the program alone, were revived and made standard repertoire with a vengeance.

Audiences don't have to go to a concert simply because they see a name they recognize.

That is one reason... but contrary to your belief, the repertoire played has a major impact upon the ticket sales.

In fact, a different name has had the tendency to draw in curious listeners as evidenced by previous revivals throughout music history.

There may be those with such a curiosity or passion for "new" music... but the market hasn't supported this.

I have actually in fact convinced a large majority of the faculty of the music school at the university simply through talking with them and sharing recordings and ideas, as well as historical significance that many of the composers I named deserve to be performed more.

Unfortunately it is not primarily the musicians... but the management... and ultimately the audience that needs to be convinced.

But as you disagree with me what are your suggestions to make things happen as clearly the orchestras' management are incapable of recognizing a good thing when they see it. Or they simply don't spend enough time looking for it. As has already been stated, there are so many reasons why less known music is less known that have nothing to do with the quality of the music itself. People a century ago had every right to praise some of them to the same extent we praise the legends today, and because of a whole consortium of reasons, their music was featured less and less until it became relatively unknown.

Again, there are any number of good... very good composers whose reputations have faded over the years... while the very best survive. How many Classical Era composers can you name beyond Mozart and Haydn?

In my experience, great musicians have almost always been open-minded about music that they don't know about or haven't heard, and many times they have managed to find the value in it, and the individuality of those certain composers. The ideas of the composers may always divide opinion, but it would be patently false if you stated that orchestras simply don't like masterpieces they've never heard of and therefore don't perform it. It takes a lot of work to reintroduce once popular composers in any particular place.

Revivals of music have happened all over the place throughout the 20th century and all the way up to now.

Revivals of certain composers have occurred any number of times over the course of history. Composers and Conductors like Mendelssohn or the more recent HIP conductors have done much to promote the rediscovery of music of the Baroque (beyond the obvious big names). One may even credit individual performers and singers for their efforts. However, ultimately it is the audience who decides. Their remains a demand for new recordings of forgotten Baroque repertoire... and thus we continue to be presented with new recordings of rather unknown works by Vivaldi, Rameau, Lully, etc...

You are suggesting that less-well-known Russian composers deserve to be known more. Some obviously agree with you as there are quality recordings of much of this repertoire... but more seem to feel that there are other composers more deserving of rediscovery... or that there is little need to delve beyond the core repertoire... which is quite huge as it is.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

FORTE----This is in reply to your post no.53.
You claimed that your list of composers were regarded in the same light as Liszt, Brahms and Schumann, et al (sic, and all who else ?)
The composers you mention have failed to catch on through the available recordings.
Their popularity has declined due to the fact that people no longer want to listen to them and that's why they were dropped from concert programmes. Is it really possible that you can't see this and that concert promoters are not interested in making a loss.
You have failed to address my points in any sensible or plausible way, You seem to have no understanding of the commercial world of music, don't you know that orchestras everywhere are in deep trouble ?
Most of the composers that were revived as you put it were supported by famous conductors such as Bruno Walter with Mahler and Sir Thomas Beecham with Delius ,you need artists with authoritative reputations to accomplish things.
Look at Hullunsoitttaja's excellent post no.55.
Also look at St.Lukes' post no.56 which covers it all.
I didn't really need to bother with this, but as I actually wrote it before them I thought I should post it anyway.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> The difference is that composer named Szymanowsky doesn't exist, the other one does
> 
> Quite a difference, if you ask me


To not be aware of all the variances of the spelling of Slavic names in Europe and the English speaking populations -- especially those whose alphabet is the Cyrillic -- is rather parochial, especially where you know you are on an international forum.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

It just struck me that the topic of the OP, and its arguments pro and con for the cited repertoire (supposedly neglected) is interchangeable with the same sort of post where the topic is contemporary classical music.

So to this OP I could give one of those rather typical responses as found in the pro / con contemporary music threads:

*Who wants that kind of noise?*


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

PetrB said:


> To not be aware of all the variances of the spelling of Slavic names in Europe and the English speaking populations -- especially those whose alphabet is the Cyrillic -- is rather parochial, especially where you know you are on an international forum.


Not as parochial as using variances from your backwater "where you know you are on an international forum", though.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> To not be aware of all the variances of the spelling of Slavic names in Europe and the English speaking populations -- especially those whose alphabet is the Cyrillic -- is rather parochial, especially where you know you are on an international forum.


Further adding to the essential inanity of this discussion: This particular Szymanowski was born in the Ukraine - of Polish parents. Does the Ukraine use the Cyrillic alphabet? Would a transliteration of the name from the Cyrillic alphabet possibly end in _'iy'_? Some hopelessly provincial Vermonters tend to treat that ending as a 'take you pick' option.

I hope this clears things up.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Like I said before, if we assume such ignorant man's practice to be acceptable, it will soon open door to other ridiculous changes. Last name is last name. You write it like it is, unless there is really good reason to do otherwise (as in case of Russian names which would require familiarity and technical possibility to write with *diffrent* scripture, which can't be demanded).


different*

.
I admit that I misspelled Szymanowski, but don't get so mad at me. If you perfectly knew what I meant, just point it out once and continue with the thread, don't create 2 pages of God-Knows-What


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> This past summer at the BBC Proms, Glazunov's 2nd Piano Concerto had its Proms premiere. It was on a program alongside more standard Russian things, namely Borodin's 2nd Symphony, and Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. The key figure that was central to this premiere was Daniil Trifonov who was to champion the concerto that evening. I listened to the BBC broadcast during the day and listened to the majority of the concert. One of the first things I noticed instantaneously from the radio announcers was the completely lack of antagonism against Glazunov, it was rather shocking. They talked about him like he was Chopin! There was no "We have a rare experience this evening" kind of crap, but rather went straight to the point: _very _short bio about Glazunov, description of when the composition was written, for who, the context of the Russian Revolution, etc. There was use of some quotes of Shostakovich, notably one that went something like "Glazunov was great to us, but when will be be great for everyone else? The whole musical world will one day see his greatness" or something like that. Then, the station proceeded to broadcast an interview with Trifonov about why he liked the concerto. He was very candid about what he saw specifically was brilliant about it, not just "nice." THEN (this part struck me the most), the interviewer asked what he felt was different between the 1st and 2nd Glazunov piano concertos. None of that "How do you think this concerto measures up to the Rachmaninoff Piano concertos?" crap. The questions were asked with no condescension, and so Trifonov also gave a candid remark of the different mood pictures each represented to his mind, and why he thought the 2nd was actually better in terms of continuity, expression, etc. For the first time ever, I heard actual analysis of his music in comparison to his own oeuvre! With that, the broadcast proceeded, and as I listened, I was really impressed with how different he interpreted the concerto from all the other recordings I've heard. It felt fresh and simple, not soggy. In fact, this kept it from sounding like a Rachmaninoff piano concerto. There was a resounding applause of possibly thousands of people when it was over, and cheering!
> 
> I speak only of Glazunov now because I experienced this first-hand. But I feel that _all _the Russian composers, great and small, should be treated this way! This is what it will take for people to get a real first impression that doesn't spark condescension, doubt, confusion. None of that is necessary when hearing a piece of music for the first time. I've been fortunate to have heard some Russian rarities of late in my area, notably the Arensky Piano Trio no. 1 at my own university last year, and some performances of Glazunov (the horn Reverie). This has been a very Russian-oriented semester for me, taking so many classes and ensembles that are doing Russian things. I've really gotten to know the country on a deeper level, learn some things that were very tragic, and learn some incredible things I never would have imagined.


I have been to that Prom (41) myself!!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Rhombic said:


> different*
> 
> .
> I admit that I misspelled Szymanowski, but don't get so mad at me. If you perfectly knew what I meant, just point it out once and continue with the thread, don't create 2 pages of God-Knows-What


I'm not mad at you. I'm just defending my point when some members are claiming that it's alright do misspell names. Sorry if that spoils your thread.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Rhombic said:


> I have been to that Prom (41) myself!!


Holy cow you were there?! What were your impressions??


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Holy cow you were there?! What were your impressions??


The symphony was rather bland for my taste: it lacked rhythm in many parts and most importantly, energy, power. But of course, it's Gergiev we are talking about, so I cannot criticise him too much. The third movement was impressive though. It's a shame, because Gergiev rarely lets anyone down, but I really didn't like at all his performance of this symphony. The contrasts between strings and brass in the first and fourth movements were avoided on purpose, as the trumpets unnaturally played brassy parts in a soft, melodious way. I would have played wit the timbres instead.
Glazunov's Piano Concerto No. 2 was majestically performed by Trifonov, but once the concert ended, he performed a transcription of the Danse Infernale from Stravinsky's Firebird, which, according to the Guardian, "had more energy in one bar than Glazunov could muster in his entire concerto".
Sofia Gubaidulina's The Rider on the White Horse was the major turning point: I began to listen to the powerful Gergiev, not the one who couldn't be able to convey his energy to the orchestra in the symphony, but a brand new conductor who wouldn't get overwhelmed by the composition. I was rather shocked by the lack of any recognition to the organist, who played during the entire length of this piece playing an important role.
Pictures at an Exhibition was absolutely fabulous. It is the sort of music you expect to have in a recording, and if you have it live it's marvelous. It really was impressive. Certainly the best one that night.

OK, leaving that aside, Lyatoshinsky or Lyatoshynsky's 3rd symphony is rarely performed and it is really innovative. It is definitely different from Mendelssohn, Schubert, Rossini or whoever. It has an unique personality.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rhombic said:


> different*
> .
> I admit that I misspelled Szymanowski, but don't get so mad at me. If you perfectly knew what I meant, just point it out once and continue with the thread, don't create 2 pages of God-Knows-What


"God-Knows-What" = extreme petty pedantry, if you were looking for more specific words.

Every time there is such an entry -- and diversion in a thread, and there are too many of that nature on TC, imho, just lowers the quality of the forum, and probably repels guests looking into TC. Whenever there is a spate of them I start thinking, "Time to drop this forum."

Meanwhile, Back at the OP corral: 
There are just lesser caliber composers, fact of life, their works relevant or meaningful to the public for one generation or less, and then interest in the works fade. The fact they were. for one fellow, local boys who done good still seen as heroes, and that fellow is miffed because they have fallen out of favor is also a limited view, in that many composers from many nations have had the same sort of career, and ultimate later fate.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

half dupe, corrected, above.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> There are many great Russian composers that have stopped being performed, resulting in a decline of their fame. This is a paradoxically random phenomenon, since it is a bit like the butterfly effect, there is no clear reason for this change. Examples of these composers include Borodin, Szymanowsky, Lyapunov and, most importantly, Myaskovsky. The fame that Myaskovsky gathered during his lifetime was enormous. His music is absolutely brilliant. In fact, I love most of his symphonies (especially the sixth one). However, these symphonies are rarely performed anymore, or at least they are not performed as much as before.
> Apart from musicologists and good musicians, only a handful of people know who Myaskovsky, Lyapunov, Szymanowsky, Balakirev, etc. are. This is absolutely surprising, because I would place these composers' music at the same level as Shostakovich, but they have strangely enough disappeared for no apparent reason. This is very sad.
> By this I don't mean that they are not performed. In 2013, the BBC Prom 41 included Borodin's Symphony No. 2, but in general, this type of music is not as common as Mendelssohn or Prokofiev. I am particularly fond of Russian music so I find this rather unexpected and amusing on the verge of being dramatic.


Isn't that true about composers anyway today writing contemporary music?


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Isn't that true about composers anyway today writing contemporary music?


Yeahhh in some way, but however some of the contemporary music is very very experimental while Lyatoshynsky is, for example, "easier" to listen to for any generic audience.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Ignoring everything that's been spoken of before, and before I lose any more motivation to answer the ORIGINAL POST as I planned, I ought to begin with my main points.
> 
> The reasons for why the bulk of Russian music today is not performed outside of its own country.
> 
> ...


All I can say is, wow! That's a great post, and with perspective.


----------

