Underappreciated Composers/Works?

...I think that a lot of jazz composers are underappreciated by some "classically minded" musicians, and vice versa - a lot of classical compsosers are underappreciated by "jazz minded' musicians. That, of course, is a generalization...

I think you're right - but the divide is definitely greater on the classical side. You'll find that a great many of 'legit' players/writers are ignorant of anything outside the scope of "classical art music" ; on the other hand, in my experience, most jazz musicians are extremely open and appreciative of a very wide range of musics...

That is not to say there's not exceptions, but if we're generalizing then I think only half of your theory works ;)

...

Also, a group by the name of The Residents.

See, where I'd put them in the "overrated" category. Their first few albums were genius, but they quickly went down a path of mediocrity. And anyone worth their salt in "weird" music name-checks them.

Then again, I feel a lot of slightly avant music is overrated by people in rock -- just it's in an uncomfortable place balancing consistently forward-thinking music with marketability.

Jean Barraque

I think you're right - but the divide is definitely greater on the classical side. You'll find that a great many of 'legit' players/writers are ignorant of anything outside the scope of "classical art music" ; on the other hand, in my experience, most jazz musicians are extremely open and appreciative of a very wide range of musics...

...

I agree. From my own experiences as well, the divide is greater on the classical side.:thumbsup:

This might be biased, but I think that John Zorn is an underappreciated composer. I think that a lot of poelpe pass his music off as weird, or just as annoying noise that anyone could make. He is one of the strongest forces that is moving music in a new direction. I usually dont have an opinion very often, but that is my opinion.

YES

Orff:

He has both, super-appreciation in 1 work and none in the others....

"Trionfo di Afrodita" is such a magnificent work, I thing is performed 1 time for each 50 times of "Carmina burana"....

I think I'll post "Trinfo di Afrodita" in "suggest a work" ...

same with Holst,

Also; his musical settings of Ancient Greek tragedies (especially Prometheus) and De Temporum Fine Comoedia are underappreciated too.

And, Lalo's concertos. His cello concerto is more beautiful than Elgar's, but Elgar's is more famous than Lalo's. And his piano concerto is almost forgotten.

I think you're right - but the divide is definitely greater on the classical side. You'll find that a great many of 'legit' players/writers are ignorant of anything outside the scope of "classical art music" ; on the other hand, in my experience, most jazz musicians are extremely open and appreciative of a very wide range of musics...

That is not to say there's not exceptions, but if we're generalizing then I think only half of your theory works ;)

...

I agree. From my own experiences as well, the divide is greater on the classical side.:thumbsup:

Hm, I've seen both really. It's probably true that a lot of the great Jazz artists are aware of things that are and have been done in classical music, while many professional classically oriented musicians are entirely focused on their own thing. But I think this applies much less to a younger generation of classically trained musicians who seem much more eager to actually go out and do some things differently.

For example, for our Bachelor's degree all music students had to finish with a Bachelor's project, either alone or in a team, which could be any sort of public presentation related to your course of study. I.e. it could range from a more or less ordinary concert, to projects with school classes or interdisciplinary performances with dance, theatre etc. The interesting thing, at least in my year, was that more than half of the classical students went distinctly away from what you'd normally see in a classical concert. There was much inclusion of interdisciplinary elements, different styles (including popular ones) and unusual settings. The Jazz students on the other hand all presented a Jazz concert in some form or other. Sure, often in very original ways too, but it was always music written by Jazz composers played by Jazz musicians. This struck me as a bit odd then, but I guess there may be several reasons. Maybe their department simply had failed to mention that it was even desired to venture outside your normal area? Or maybe, since Jazz concerts are less "strict" and formal than classical concerts often are, the Jazz musicians weren't already so fed up with "traditional" concerts in their field as the classical musicians were - and they felt less of a need to be "rebellious". Or maybe it was just chance that it turned out like this in this year at this school.

I recently read that Ignaz Pleyel--a student of Haydn at one point--was considered one of the greatest European instrumental composers from 1780-1800. Mozart spoke highly of his quartets.

I'm going to give a listen to some of his quartets--but I am unfamiliar with his work to date.

When you get into these forgotten composers, you begin to form a more complete picture of the muscal landscape of the time period--composers such as Pleyel, Hummel, and Spohr were well known and admired, but are now largely forgotten or sideshows. I've listened to a few of Spohr's quartets, and they are solid compositions...

Sorry for not including Griffes!

Completely agree.

Griffes' music is PHENOMENAL.

omfg George Antheil.

Not just for Ballet Mecanique, but his other works are amazing too.

I really like his Lithuanian Night string quartet

Yes, Bruckner Masses are forgotten .... but Symphonies not so much...

bruckner didn't write his symphonies for teenagers. It takes years and years of learning and experience to understand the power and beauty of his works.

bruckner didn't write his symphonies for teenagers. It takes years and years of learning and experience to understand the power and beauty of his works.

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

can't read English? do I have to copy and paste what I wrote for you?

George Antheil isn't underrated, in fact a lot of the names on here aren't (Bruckner included -- who, actually, is highly overrated). But how about Roberto Gerhard? "The Plague" is one of the best pieces of music ever written, however no one knows it. His other works are pretty excellent as well.

bruckner didn't write his symphonies for teenagers. It takes years and years of learning and experience to understand the power and beauty of his works.

Anton Bruckner lives!!!!

And I agree that Bruckner may take a little time to get into, I hated him at first..I'm not sure about years though

can't read English? do I have to copy and paste what I wrote for you?

I think mostly Corbin (like myself) fails to understand what your reply had to do with SYS65's quote, since all SYS65 was saying is that Bruckner's symphonies are still popular.

To expand on Corbin's confusion:

bruckner didn't write his symphonies for teenagers. It takes years and years of learning and experience to understand the power and beauty of his works.

Are you also trying to say that the untrained but enthusiastic listener can't understand the power and beauty?

Or perhaps a highly educated listener might still find it boring and unremarkable?

C'mon...use yr noggin.

I've recently gotten into Schulhoff. Goodness, he really is underappreciated! He would've had a very illustrious career if only he hadn't died in a concentration camp.

To expand on Corbin's confusion:

Are you also trying to say that the untrained but enthusiastic listener can't understand the power and beauty?

Or perhaps a highly educated listener might still find it boring and unremarkable?

C'mon...use yr noggin.

a highly educated listener would say why he/she finds it uninteresting, instead of just saying "i dont' like his works".

a highly educated listener would say why he/she finds it uninteresting, instead of just saying "i dont' like his works".

And that makes their opinion more valid than the layman who finds them uninteresting, and can explain why?

Hopefully this won't seem too much like flame-bait or offend anyone :(...

I must say there is one composer that has never been mentioned at all in my GCSE and A-level music lessons, and to be honest I had never even heard of until I came onto this forum; and that is Gustav Mahler. When i first heard about him I wanted to find out as much about him as I could, and was disappointed to find my local and college libraries has no scores of any of his works, and also had little other than books which mentioned him in passing. I had real trouble finding any information on him until I searched the internet, where I was shocked to see pages and pages! I found a few recordings of his works (mostly the symphonies) and listened to them and enjoyed them and appreciated their brilliance; however I found the music extremely difficult to connect with.

Perhaps what I'm getting at is a purely English thing (after all, England had a wealth of composers around a similar time that may have been popularised in his stead out of simple national pride? That coupled with Mahler's single visit to England in 1892 to conduct some German opera seems to make some sense) but in short for him to be so popular as I have seen on this forum and the internet and to have found none of my fellow students had even heard of him and my teachers not really heard any of his works made no sense to me.

There isn't a single work by Mahler on the set-works list for my exam board or the board my college used to study for A-level, and definately nothing in the GCSE syllabus. Surely that alone is evidence for such an extremely popular composer being underappreciated at least by some areas...

Hope what I've said makes some sense

Oscar

It must be a local thing as you say. Over here (Switzerland) he's certainly a very well-known composer and we certainly also discussed some of his pieces in several classes (particularly instrumentation).

bruckner didn't write his symphonies for teenagers. It takes years and years of learning and experience to understand the power and beauty of his works.

That's probably because that's how long it takes to listen to one of his symphonies. Please drop the attitude.

Hopefully this won't seem too much like flame-bait or offend anyone :(...

I must say there is one composer that has never been mentioned at all in my GCSE and A-level music lessons, and to be honest I had never even heard of until I came onto this forum; and that is Gustav Mahler. When i first heard about him I wanted to find out as much about him as I could, and was disappointed to find my local and college libraries has no scores of any of his works, and also had little other than books which mentioned him in passing. I had real trouble finding any information on him until I searched the internet, where I was shocked to see pages and pages! I found a few recordings of his works (mostly the symphonies) and listened to them and enjoyed them and appreciated their brilliance; however I found the music extremely difficult to connect with.

Perhaps what I'm getting at is a purely English thing (after all, England had a wealth of composers around a similar time that may have been popularised in his stead out of simple national pride? That coupled with Mahler's single visit to England in 1892 to conduct some German opera seems to make some sense) but in short for him to be so popular as I have seen on this forum and the internet and to have found none of my fellow students had even heard of him and my teachers not really heard any of his works made no sense to me.

There isn't a single work by Mahler on the set-works list for my exam board or the board my college used to study for A-level, and definately nothing in the GCSE syllabus. Surely that alone is evidence for such an extremely popular composer being underappreciated at least by some areas...

Hope what I've said makes some sense

Oscar

Mahler is pretty well known in the USA. Apparently Benjamen Britten was a fan of Mahler, I guess it never caught on to the rest of the UK.