# Do you like second rate music?



## Mr Dull (Mar 14, 2009)

My apologies if this has been discussed before but I couldn't think of a way to search for a similar thread.

The reason for the title is a couple of things that happened recently.
First my daughter got me two CD's which my ex-wife described as by second rate composers. The composers are Cavalli and Roussel and the CD's are very good.

The second thing was listening to Bach's motets and B minor mass and once again having them fail to get my attention much less be enjoyable. I know some people think Bach's choral music is the greatest music ever written but it does nothing for me. What makes this stranger is that I love Bach's instrumental music. I did hear some choral music I liked recently by a contemporary of Bach, Zelenka. The Missa Dei Filli and Litaniae Lauretannae are wonderful pieces of music. 
In a similar vein I am not interested in the classical period and have virtually nothing by Mozart or Haydn but a favourite CD of mine is Paisiello the complete piano concertos.

This made me wonder how many other people prefer less well known works to the famous ones?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Mr Dull said:


> This made me wonder how many other people prefer less well known works to the famous ones?


Why not like both? And just because you didn't like those pieces by Bach doesn't mean you might not like something else by him. I haven't been a big fan of the B minor mass myself in the past (though I haven't given up on it, yet).


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I absolutely _love _second rate music! 

I prefer calling it "less well-known", though, because I see nothing second rate about composers like Roussel. I really like Bacchus & Ariadne and his third symphony, for example.

One's view of the world must be pretty naive (or, rather, naiive) if one believes that lesser known music is lesser known because it is second rate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*A little ambiguity, there...*



Mr Dull said:


> Do you like second-rate music?





Mr Dull said:


> ... described as second-rate composers...


Possibility exists, of course, that predominantly second-rate composers occasionally break from form and produce some amazingly memorable first-rate music.

So, in the case where 'second-rate composers' write the occasional piece of first-rate music, 
that's _not_ me liking second-rate music.

And in the case where I like broad sections of music from 'second-rate composers,' 
then that's the composer being under-appreciated.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Me finds great pleasure in discovering forgotten composers. It rises my ego. HO, HO, HO ME SO SOPHISCIATED ME KNOWS COMPOSER THAT NOBODY ELSE KNOWS. 

I walk the street and look at people thinking HO, HO, HO they don't even know who Mahler is and I've just listened to a guy that makes Mahler seem famous like Paris Hilton. How low they are, humans! Dwarfs! Where you the way, clouds of Allah ye me. Because I am a dark, mysterious mist, the world itself. How the spirit of the coffin, sadness, pride, Above the murmur of houses, temples, I hold there - in the crown of Clouds and thunder. Here you, the people on earth mud graves perch, Where clouds of God's way with the wind, me that way!


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Is szymanowski second rate? cause I really like some of his music.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

*"I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer."*

*(Richard Strauss)*

Strauss, if he's right about that, is my favourite second-rate composer. Something like that was also said about Carl Nielsen. I'll see if I can find the quote.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

i prefer to say "lesser known" or "obscure" but yes i do like them. if i have a choice between getting a cd by an obscure composer ive never heard of or 1 of the greats ill often choose the 1 i dont know although i wouldnt necessarily say i prefer obscure composers on the whole over the well known 1s.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

TresPicos said:


> I absolutely _love _second rate music!
> 
> I prefer calling it "less well-known", though, because I see nothing second rate about composers like Roussel. I really like Bacchus & Ariadne and his third symphony, for example.
> 
> One's view of the world must be pretty naive (or, rather, naiive) if one believes that lesser known music is lesser known because it is second rate.


Amen to all this, Roussel is da bomb


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

this second rate thing is nonsense though really.. considering richard strauss (he said it, but what was the context? could just have been modesty or tongue in cheek) consider his ability with orchestration, his operas and tone poems, not to mention the late songs. so a second rate composer can compose masterpieces can they? cos he does. It undermines how extremely gifted these men were, strauss and nielsen. I would not say nielsen is second rate and sibelius first rate for example. I think they are on par but history can be ruthless and it can also be a lot of luck one composer gets remembered through promotion by conductors, nationality etc. 

who is first rate? those belong to the germanic canon that we still can't shake even in 2010??? so bach, beethoven and brahms are great but not Faure? 

:-s


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I like second rate music... if it's done well...

What the heck?


----------



## JSK (Dec 31, 2008)

There is a lot of great music by "second rate" composers nobody has heard of. Not everything good is in the repertoire of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Schubert, Etc...

"Second rate" does not mean "bad" for composers, but there is a lot of junk out there which has hardly been played/recorded.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Yes, I have a growing number of CD recordings with music by lesser known composers from the Baroque to early Romantic period. Many HIP artisits have brought rediscoveries into the repertoire, and it's enjoyable to listen to works outside the well know works.

I assume "second rate" here means lesser know composers in the sense that their works are not as frequently performed/recorded, which does not necessarily imply their works are not of quality.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

I don't mind sharing the fact that I usually choose Telemann over Bach. Castelnuovo-Tedesco comes before any of the major Classical or Romantic composers for me. That's my level of appreciation right now, and it really doesn't matter who else is happy with that.
We take delight in our music; our focus may change, so we take delight in a different music, but it's still a pleasure to share it here.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Jaime77 said:


> Is szymanowski second rate? cause I really like some of his music.


It's a hard question, in part because of Szymanowski's own non-mainstream character, and the non-mainstream character of his music. His works however make many popular composers seem second rate.

Szymanowski's brilliance was eclipsed by his early death and after the swallowing of his family's estate by eastern European politics, then again by the second world war. These days, no fewer than 10 string quartets have recorded his two string quartets; there is a rich and almost uniformly high calibre of national orchestras playing his works; his solo interpreters; Mordkovitch; Biscoe; Zehetemair; and the choral works; all have mulitipled exponentially in the past 10 years alone.

His music is not easy listening, being rich and multi-layered; opulent and mystical without the fad of faux mysticism so popular with many modern minimalists, who render music, less-than-it-is.

Simply, Szymanowski is first-class


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Well before this thread descends into a war zone and divisiveness oh so known to classical music forums where the guns of Navarone will start pounding out the eulogies to Germano-Prussian music above everything else, let's go back to the OP's post:


> First my daughter got me two CD's which my ex-wife described as by second rate composers. The composers are Cavalli and Roussel and the CD's are very good.


I guess this is all the wife's fault then 

Actually, reading between the lines, I think the thread reveals more of its honest meaning, if it was clarified as follows:


> *
> First my daughter got me two CD's which my ex-wife described as by second rank composers. The composers are Cavalli and Roussel and the CD's are very good.*


In Russian musical literature for string quartet music, there is no shame in acknowledging that Shostakovich and Myaskovsky are first rank composers for the string quartet medium (15 and 13 string quartets respectively). Kabalevsky, Grechaninov; Shebalin - second rank. This divison of rank, refers to what they have brought to the medium of the string quartet. And this is not in terms of numbers, nor snide obscurantist references. Shebalin's string quartets were revered by Shostakovich; Weinberg's as well - yet both occupy second rank standing in public perception.

Roussel indeed, was marketed as a representative of the 'second rank' order of French composers, in the Olympia CD catalogue which brought new discoveries by relatively unknown composers of non-standard repertoire. I listened to a CD of his about 10 years ago and it was very attractive and well-written; if I was more into French music, then it would have certainly been as good as anything else the French had to offer. Yet the contempt for second rank composers, has done more to stifle classical music, and create an ivory tower, in which the first rank composers, locked inside, are more likely to end up being buried along with a whole generation of listeners.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It's difficult to define what "second rate" music is. I think it also brings up issues of what (& what is not) included in the canon of classical music as well.

For my part, I like lesser known composers, if the music has a certain quality (which I know is entirely subjective). Let us not forget that there are alot of those whom I consider to be first rate composers who wrote some duds as well as masterpieces. Look at Martinu's output, which includes some undoubted masterpieces (like the _Double Concerto for piano, timpani & strings_, or the symphonies) but also many forgettable, insignificant pieces. Being a music listener with wide interests and well-honed perceptive skills, one learns to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Of course, it all depends on one's tastes & interests as well.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

This very 'canon' of classical music in a post-modern era, however is being deconstructed...rather than being perpetuated as a reification of a canon of music, which amounts to saying, that biases in taste are handed down from generation to generation. 

I wonder if it is even possible to rate music in quantifiable terms, such as 'first' or 'second', without public perception being the determining factor. 

If it is, then I'd like to know. If it isn't, then I'd prefer to stick to lesser known music; or music-waiting-to-be-heard.

Martinu is indeed patchy. His harpsichord concerto and flute works; some chorale stuff and his 7 string quartets really intrigue me. Especially the string quartets; I have 3 versions of his string quartet cycle and the intensity of emotion is enthusing as it is hop-skotch dilly-dallying in a playful manner. I'm afraid his symphonies and his concerto for piano; timpani and strings just sounds like a mess to me. But that is no different from other symphonies as far as I'm concerned. 

There is no objectivity when it comes to music taste. Maybe we're fortunate that some composers are inconsistent, otherwise we might appreciate absolutely nothing of theirs at all, if their works, are consistently horrible to our ears hmm?


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

martinu symphonies guarantee to me he is not a second rate composer - he could have composed millions more less successfu works and still remain 1st class because he had a chunk enough of excellence of masterworks on a very consistent level - he was just one of those creators who couldnt stop - and that leads to mediocrity sometimes

even sibelius had large doses of horid mediore music but nobody would call him second rate with their head screwed on - no _dont_ think about it...


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Boccherini isn't serious enough for lots of folks, but I enjoy his string quintets & 'cello works & they're good enough for me.


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

I always prefer to think of it as "Lesser-Known" composers and leave it at that. For instance, I like a lot of music by Erich Wolfgang Korngold (I mean, not just the movie scores, which I love) like his opera DIE TOTE STADT, and some of his orchestral and piano and vocal works. I get a lot of enjoyment out of them. He wrote a piano concerto for the pianist Paul Wittengstein who lost his right arm in the First World War several years before Ravel wrote his masterpiece--but the Korngold piano concerto is a pretty stunning work that can stand up to almost anything written for piano and orchestra in the 20th Century. And he wrote an incidental score for Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" that is some of the best 'Shakespearian' music since Mendelssohn's "Midsummer Night's Dream". 

And the early 20th Century Russian composer Liapunov decided to carry the idea of the Liszt "Transcendental Etudes" further by composing 12 of them in homage to List--only in 'sharp' keys as opposed to Liszt's 'flat' keys, and composed some very interesting, and technically daunting virtuoso piano music, among them a piece called "Lezghinka" which is somewhat akin to Balakirev's more well-known (at least to pianists) "Islamey" as a 'piece de resistance' of Russo/Oriental pianistic virtuosity. It works just as well, and actually 'lies' better for the hand. Musically (and pianistically) "Lezginkha" is extremely well laid out and once the techinical difficulties can be overcome, it's enormous fun to play, as well as being a spectacular pianistic showpiece. 

Second Class? It's all in the attitude of the listener, I suppose. I always think of that comment by Richard Strauss--which has been quoted on this thread already--But then, if Strauss is 'second-class', how come his "Salome," "Elektra" and "Der Rosenkavilier" have had such a strong artistic and popular stand on world operatic stages for the last hundred years? 

Nah, as far as I'm concerned, it's just Classical Music that hasn't hit the 'pop' charts, yet. It's all good in it's own way.

Tom


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

As far as I am concerned, Roussel is a genuinely great composer, but a sadly neglected one, except on recordings, of which a fair number exist. He was something of a loner, and a difficult composer to pidgeonhole stylistically. 
Although a contemporary of Debussy and Ravel, he was not really an impressionist composer. 
In fact, his music is so individual it's difficult to say that he ever followed any "ism" but individualism. 
I love his four symphonies, of which the 3rd is the best known, the ballet scores The Spider's Feast and Bacchus and Ariane, the Suite in F for orchestra, his remarkable and unique opera/ballet "Padmavati", which is set in medieval India and is one of the most unjustly neglected operas of all time IMHO, especially. 
Roussel's music is vigorous,earthy, harmonically pungent and spiky, and his orchestration 
is filled with Kaleidoscopic colors. If you're not familiar with his highly distinctive music, 
try the recordings of his orchestral music by such conductors as Jean Martinon(a Roussel pupil), 
Charles Dutoit, Marek Janowski, Stephane Deneve, Christoph Eschenbach , Yan-Pascal Tortelier and Michel Plasson. 
Do not miss the superb EMI recording of Padmavati with Marilyn Horne, Nicolai Gedd and Jose Van Dam, conducted by Michel Plasson. It's like no other opera you've heard.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Ah - I had lost this thread before I had a chance to respond. 

Yes, I think "second rank" or "second tier" might be an appropriate term for this idea. Composers who are not household names. Of course these days even Mendelssohn would fit that description. (I mentioned him at work one day and no one knew who I was talking about.  )

I enjoy both well known and lesser known composers, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to why I enjoy one work over another. I do see a tendency in myself to be drawn toward the bigger names, the Austrians and Germans, but I think they may be bigger names for good reason. There is nothing wrong with enjoying or revisiting a workhorse as they are sometimes called. I think there is a push among academics to find and champion a lesser known composer, and that it's unfashionable, even less knowledgeable, to admire the three B's. You are to acknowledge them briefly and then you must study Stockhausen. There is nothing wrong with this approach I suppose -- I'm just glad I'm free to be unfashionable and get worked up over good old Beethoven's 9th! 

But that freedom also allows me to enjoy second tier or even more obscure composers too. Some of my obscure favorites are Giles Farnaby, Herbert Howells, Anton Rubinstein, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck, Ernest Bloch (his Concerti Gossi), Xaver Scharwenka, Gliere (for his 3rd Symphony), Tuano Pylkkänen, J. H. Schein, and the extremely prolific Anonymous.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

I can say quite definitely that I like second-rate music. In fact I prefer it to first-class music. 

In case you think I'm nuts, I should explain that I have listened so often to all the best known works that I'm bored with most of them. To illustrate randomly, reference was made recently in another thread to Faure's Requiem. Fine if it's new, but I've been listening to that work at intervals for at least a decade and a half, and if I hear the flippin Pie Jesu one more time I'll scream. What gives me so much more listening pleasure these days in that particular musical department are pieces like the lesser known sacred words by Michael Haydn, and Schumann's Requiem fur Mignon. 

More generally, I enjoy exploring the lesser known works of all the best composers. If I may dare to raise the subject of Mozart here, there are very many little played works that I have found worth exploring, and I wonder whether some of the critics of Mozart are perhaps basing their adverse opinions on only some of the better known works which have become overplayed and cliche-like. The same applies to my interest in exploring relatively little played works by several other big name composers. 

It's only in the sense above that I enjoy second-rate music. I can't say that I am in any way enthusiastic about hordes of little known composers. I'm certainly sceptical of the notion of "under-valued" when applied to composers. On the whole I believe that the most popular are the best, and there are enough of these (at least 60-80 of them) to keep me happy, without any strong incentive to go off looking for many others.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner (Mar 22, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Me finds great pleasure in discovering forgotten composers. It rises my ego. HO, HO, HO ME SO SOPHISCIATED ME KNOWS COMPOSER THAT NOBODY ELSE KNOWS.
> 
> I walk the street and look at people thinking HO, HO, HO they don't even know who Mahler is and I've just listened to a guy that makes Mahler seem famous like Paris Hilton. How low they are, humans! Dwarfs! Where you the way, clouds of Allah ye me. Because I am a dark, mysterious mist, the world itself. How the spirit of the coffin, sadness, pride, Above the murmur of houses, temples, I hold there - in the crown of Clouds and thunder. Here you, the people on earth mud graves perch, Where clouds of God's way with the wind, me that way!


You are a very, _very_ strange little man....


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Alot of composers have wrote good music, it's just that probably not that many have wrote *alot * of good music.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

If I like the music then I don't want to put down the composer with expressions like "second-rate." Besides, second-rates do not compose good music. But there is music that I like by composers who are not Bach/Beethoven/Wagner level geniuses: like Ludwig Spohr's Octet and Nonet for wind instruments, like Francis Poulenc's Sextet for piano and wind instruments, and like Krzysztof Penderecki's first two string quartets, his first symphony, his Capriccio for Oboe, his partita for Harpsichord, his first cello concerto.


----------



## Listener (Sep 20, 2010)

I listen primarily to baroque music, and of that mostly small scale instrumental works rather than operas and oratorios. A very large percentage of what I listen to is not part of the standard repertoire and somewhat rarely performed.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have been known on rare occasions to listen to something other than J.S. Bach... so I suppose I'll have to say yes... I do like second-rate music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

toucan said:


> If I like the music then I don't want to put down the composer with expressions like "second-rate." Besides, second-rates do not compose good music. But there is music that I like by composers who are not Bach/Beethoven/Wagner level geniuses... like Krzysztof Penderecki's first two string quartets, his first symphony, his Capriccio for Oboe, his partita for Harpsichord, his first cello concerto.


I'd say that Penderecki's earlier pre 1980 stuff (especially the 1st symphony, partita, 1st cello concerto - which you mention) are works of the first rank & better than some of the stuff that followed, where he began to sink back into the comfortable womb of tonality and endlessly repeat himself...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'd say that Penderecki's earlier pre 1980 stuff (especially the 1st symphony, partita, 1st cello concerto - which you mention) are works of the first rank & better than some of the stuff that followed, where he began to sink back into the comfortable womb of tonality and endlessly repeat himself...

Andre, it's not 1930 any more. The tonal/atonal dichotomy is a non-issue. More than a few composers have come to the recognition that writing in a atonal manner does not make you progressive nor does writing music in a tonal manner make the work inherently reactionary or complacent. If novelty were the measure of art Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart would have no worth to us outside of their historical importance. Penderecki has stated that initially the avant garde music of the West represented a form of liberation from social realism, but with time and his experience teaching in the US where the avant garde was the dominant voice, he began to feel that it was more destructive than constructive. His move away from the extremes of his early work was prompted by a belief that the extremes of avant garde formalist experimentation were just as much of a snare as the conservatism pushed by the dominant social realists of his native Poland. Personally I quite like some of Penderecki's early pieces... especially _Utrenja_ (1970)... but I also appreciate his later _Credo, Polish Requiem, 7th Symphony_, and violin concerto.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, yes, I put it somewhat wrongly (& was judging?). I know Penderecki said that he felt that he had exhausted all of the earlier avenues by about 1980. What I should have said is that I prefer his earlier avant-garde phase to the works I have heard from later. But I was at my mother's sometime last year & put on the Naxos cd of _Symphony No. 8 'Songs of Transience'_ & even my mother said that it sounded conservative, something like Mahler (old wine in new bottles?). I think that when a 60 year old woman says that, there has to be some truth to that...


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

After his talent exhausted itself, Penderecki returned to the pompous academism advocated by the authorities...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Anyone here care to comment about Penderecki's sextet for clarinet, horn, violin, viola, cello and piano? And quartet for clarinet and strings? Might buy the CD (Naxos). I quite like the clarinet.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Anyone here care to comment about Penderecki's sextet for clarinet, horn, violin, viola, cello and piano? And quartet for clarinet and strings? Might buy the CD (Naxos). I quite like the clarinet.


I've got that Naxos disc. Those two works are from his recent neo-whatever phase. Nothing new in these works, but they're ok to listen to. There's a nocturnal feel to the _Clarinet Quartet_, a bit like the night music in Bartok's piano concertos. The _Sextet_ has a bit of the sardonic quality of Shostakovich, but perhaps without the overt bitterness, and the world of Britten is not to far away either. If you like chamber music that sounds like it was composed before the second world war (but was actually composed in the last 10-15 years), then this might be your cup of tea...


----------



## Ian Elliott (Nov 15, 2010)

The difficulty in answering this is that if I really enjoy a composer, I will not consider him second-rate. For instance, I do not consider Roussel second-rate, and I think anyone who has heard the choruses in 'Padmavati' will have to admit he breaks new ground there. Furthermore, his last two symphonies are certainly major contributions to the French symphonic art.

But I will also admit to liking a composer whom I agree is second rate: Zoltan Kodaly. Much of his music has a little too much academic polish. The solo cello sonata is technically interesting to a cellist, but a little dull at first. But that is just the point about his music: it is dull at first, but after it is over, you feel (if you are like me) unusually satisfied, nourished, connected to the earth. In this regard he is the opposite of Scriabin, who is quite exciting initially but who leaves you (if you are like me) feeling rather lost and alienated. So a second-rate composer is one who occasionally has something ingenious to say, and who has certain secondary qualities that make you like his or her music in spite of its shortcomings.


----------



## Ian Elliott (Nov 15, 2010)

*Rather Cold*

Szymanowski's music is perhaps first-rate, but seems rather cold to me. Compared to him, Hindemith is a tepid shower-bath.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

From time to time I listen to the opening minutes of the Rachmaninoff Second Concerto, played by the Hercules of the piano, Sviatoslav Richter. The way he hits those bass notes is unmatched (sometimes I think he must be stamping on the keys). All the same, it needs quite a high volume because of the quality of the recording:






Eventually, though, it gets boring and I go back to the profound intensity of Schoenberg and Bach, able to appreciate them a little more.


----------



## teccomin (Mar 21, 2008)

Theres a difference between 2nd rate composer and 2nd rate music. I usually don't listen to 1st rate composers played by 2nd rate artists, but I would totally listen to 2nd rate composers played by 1st rate artists.


----------

