Who are the Division 2 composers from Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, when you think about it, didn't manage a symphony, only got as far a sinfonietta. All we have of a piano sonata is two thirds of it. Only two string quartets ...

Yes - but I was talking about Janacek, not Webern or Berg.

O.k, so they and a few operas, Mladi and the Concertino are all masterpieces. Oh, and that mass of his is pretty special, but is that really enough to put him in the premier league?

Yes - if you're going to include Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Weinberg, Prokofiev and Shostakovich in that league as Suffy did.

[BBMmk2]

Yes - but I was talking about Janacek, not Webern or Berg.


Yes - if you're going to include Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Weinberg, Prokofiev and Shostakovich in that league as Suffy did.

Agreed Ferney! :)

[Conchis]

Janacek's main achievements was in the realm of opera and he was one of the most original and successful operatic composers of the 20th century. So, afaic, he belongs in the division one. The lack of large-scale symphonic works doesn't bother me; presumably, he felt more comfortable working with smaller forces.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Mebbe - but I don't think that that was why Suffy put him in "Division 2"!

Are we going to create a Champions' League too?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

All very reasonable points but they are essentially about what wouldn't make a composer upwardly mobile and what would make a composer upwardly mobile. They are not really about composers who have dropped down from A to B or started at B and flat lined or indeed started at B and dropped down either recently or any time up to 150-ish years ago.

No - and that's an interesting point. The only composer who readily springs to my mind as an example of someone whose work stayed in the repertory for some years after his death and then suddenly dropped from favour is Spohr - who regularly appeared in concerts many decades after his death, but whose reputation didn't seem to survive after the Nineteenth century. (Perhaps Hummel and Cherubini, too?)

Most (?all?) of the other composers discussed have been feted during their lifetimes, but not afterwards - they "spoke" to their audiences, but don't seem to have much to offer later listeners. But, of course, then there's the "catch 22" situation that, unless later audiences are actually given the chance to hear their work, there's no way of knowing if this is an accurate assessment of it, or just "wishful thinking"!

Thanks to book/record covers and greetings cards, we have a better idea of the work of lesser-known 19th and early 20th Century painters than we do of their contemporary composers (or novelists - anyone read any Marie Corelli or Edwin Lester Arnold recently?) - time is against us.

But, frenchie's mentioning of Vanhal and Vorisek does raise another point to be remembered - the activities and popularity of period bands actively interested in presenting lesser-known repertoire from the "18th" Century and earlier, which has completely changed critical attitudes to that repertoire and its composers. What might be needed with later 19th & early 20th Century composers is a similar resurgence of interest - from performers and audiences - in that repertory. But there are problems - very often, much larger ensembles are needed to perform the orchestral Music from this period than those required for Music from, say, 1790. And the Musicians' individual feeling of involvement is much less engaged when there are so many more of them on a platform, relying much more on a conductor - it's less attractive and engaging to perform than the orchestral Music of a century earlier.

[Conchis]

No - and that's an interesting point. The only composer who readily springs to my mind as an example of someone whose work stayed in the repertory for some years after his death and then suddenly dropped from favour is Spohr - who regularly appeared in concerts many decades after his death, but whose reputation didn't seem to survive after the Nineteenth century. (Perhaps Hummel and Cherubini, too?)

Most (?all?) of the other composers discussed have been feted during their lifetimes, but not afterwards - they "spoke" to their audiences, but don't seem to have much to offer later listeners. But, of course, then there's the "catch 22" situation that, unless later audiences are actually given the chance to hear their work, there's no way of knowing if this is an accurate assessment of it, or just "wishful thinking"!

Thanks to book/record covers and greetings cards, we have a better idea of the work of lesser-known 19th and early 20th Century painters than we do of their contemporary composers (or novelists - anyone read any Marie Corelli or Edwin Lester Arnold recently?) - time is against us.

But, frenchie's mentioning of Vanhal and Vorisek does raise another point to be remembered - the activities and popularity of period bands actively interested in presenting lesser-known repertoire from the "18th" Century and earlier, which has completely changed critical attitudes to that repertoire and its composers. What might be needed with later 19th & early 20th Century composers is a similar resurgence of interest - from performers and audiences - in that repertory. But there are problems - very often, much larger ensembles are needed to perform the orchestral Music from this period than those required for Music from, say, 1790. And the Musicians' individual feeling of involvement is much less engaged when there are so many more of them on a platform, relying much more on a conductor - it's less attractive and engaging to perform than the orchestral Music of a century earlier.

If you're in need of a good laugh, she should be one of your first ports of call.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If you're in need of a good laugh, she should be one of your first ports of call.

- I just knew that there'd be Forumistas who'd know her work: I should've gone with Emily Ponsonby!

[Dave2002]

And the Musicians' individual feeling of involvement is much less engaged when there are so many more of them on a platform, relying much more on a conductor - it's less attractive and engaging to perform than the orchestral Music of a century earlier.

I think that's a very personal view. For some people who want to stand out from others they may prefer playing in smaller groups, or even in chamber music, but there is also a thrill to be obtained by playing in larger groups. Also larger groups give more opportunities for employment and a possibly steadier income, so some people may have a vested interest in working/playing within them, though whether large scale bands will be around in any one period is going to be an issue of public taste and economics, and interest from those who put on the performances.

Some performers do manage to shine even in large orchestras. I have been to performances where there has been a flute or clarinet player who very positively stood out as an individual, though often players merely "blend in".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that's a very personal view.

Indeed - I should have written "the Musicians' individual feeling of involvement seems (from the comments from members of large Symphony orchestras, such as those concluding André Previn's Orchestra, contrasted with those who regularly work in smaller ensembles - although, of course, this isn't always the case) to be much less engaged ... " etc.

But I don't think that the "steadier income" from larger groups is the case in Britain, where, aside from a "pool" of permanent players, many of the instrumentalists (particularly string players, but also ancillary wind players and percussionists) are employed on an ad hoc, day-to-day basis (as is the case with smaller orchestras, too) - a second violinist in the LPO in one concert can be playing in the first violin section of the RPO at the next - and then unemployed by any orchestra for the next six weeks. Job security isn't something anyone puts on their list of "benefits of being a professional instrumentalist" list.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed - I should have written "the Musicians' individual feeling of involvement seems (from the comments from members of large Symphony orchestras, such as those concluding André Previn's Orchestra, contrasted with those who regularly work in smaller ensembles - although, of course, this isn't always the case) to be much less engaged ... " etc.

But I don't think that the "steadier income" from larger groups is the case in Britain, where, aside from a "pool" of permanent players, many of the instrumentalists (particularly string players, but also ancillary wind players and percussionists) are employed on an ad hoc, day-to-day basis (as is the case with smaller orchestras, too) - a second violinist in the LPO in one concert can be playing in the first violin section of the RPO at the next - and then unemployed by any orchestra for the next six weeks. Job security isn't something anyone puts on their list of "benefits of being a professional instrumentalist" list.

I guess freelance musicians must have been among the initiators in the trade of zero hours contracts!

[BBMmk2]

If it helps from a musician's point of view. I find that I do get more involved with the performance of a work, if I like the piece, than if I don't. I kind of go on auto-pilot when I don't like a work, rather than be able to get inside the piece.

[Serial_Apologist]

If it helps from a musician's point of view. I find that I do get more involved with the performance of a work, if I like the piece, than if I don't. I kind of go on auto-pilot when I don't like a work, rather than be able to get inside the piece.

I find that too.

[maestro267]

I see this thread has followed the traditional pattern of attempts to create lists like this. Set out with a noble-enough purpose, then have it bogged down in pages of arguments about the specifics of the operation. To the point where I'm not even sure if any suggestions I make would even be legitimate. Oh well:

Gliere, Glazunov, Khachaturian, Tishchenko, Weinberg. There's five. Make of them what you will, but I enjoy all the music of theirs that I've heard.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I see this thread has followed the traditional pattern of attempts to create lists like this. Set out with a noble-enough purpose, then have it bogged down in pages of arguments about the specifics of the operation.

But, on the principle that the unexamined life is not worth living, I don't see that what you describe as having happened has happened - and I don't think that the Forum would have survived these years if had simply been a repository of members' lists of composers/performers. Lats' request has occasioned several names being put into the mix - your own mighty handful included - and some of those names have occasioned debate/dispute about the nature of what we mean by "Second Division". As I understand it - and apologies to him if I have misunderstood - Lats was also interested in why composers with a reputation in their lifetimes have dropped from the "radar" in subsequent years. Forumistas (myself included) have offered a variety of suggestions as to why this might be. I don't think that this is an ignoble purpose - it adds to the richness of the Thread, and allows interested readers access to enjoyable Music.

For example - this First-Rate piece of Second-Rate Music; Balakirev's First Symphony from 1864-98, as recorded by Karajan and the Philharmonia in 1949. A work I find more delightful than Tchaikovsky's Third (or even his Second, and, on some days, even his Fourth).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC0fKZ9sIAk

FWiW, I think Lats' Thread has occasioned some very interesting comments and brought attention to many composers not previously mentioned on the Forum. I am very grateful to him for starting it, and I hope that the replies have not merely brought him closer to an answer to the questions he had in mind, but also given him as much unpredicted food for thought as it has given me.

[teamsaint]

at the risk of just adding another music recommendation, I have been listening again to this Rozhdestvensky disc.

Concerto-poem / Aman Agadzhikov (Alexander Souptel, violin ; USSR State TV and Radio Symphony Orchestra)
Immobile / Andrei Volkonsky (Alexey Lubimov, piano ; USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra)
concerning water, dead and alive / Sergei Belimov (Juozas Rimas, oboe ; USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra)
Telescope 2 / Leonid Polovinkin ; Iron foundry / Alexander Mosolov (State Academy Symphony Orchestra of the USSR).
Iron Foundry. Mosolov.

No idea what division one might put these guys in but what this IS , is a fantastic CD, and a great taster of some of the music that is out there to be discovered.
One thing that bothers me is the possibility of some excellent music being lost theough neglect. In terms of recordings, Chary Nurymov,Turkmenistans most renowned composer,has really just a few works available to hear, and not much sign of the situation improving.

Here is one of the works, from a different CD.