The Greatest Under-rated Composers

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]
Although I prefer Bach's instrumental works in general, I agree that Handel's concerti can be compared to Bach's---- why not? Neither master has anything to fear.
Jack[/quote]

My point is, that I don´t find Händel underrated. On the contrary he is rated exactly as he deserves. Händel speaks almost exclusively to our emotions, not to our intellect, whereas Bach speaks in a well balanced unity to our intellectual part as well as to our emotional part, allowing us to experience some sort of "ideal" synthesis of these two parts of our human nature (the right and the left part of our brain to say it in a popular way) when listening to his music. This is true of very few other composers, and to a much lesser degree, and is one of the reasons, why Bach is so unique among composers. I must repeat, that I find much of Händels music very appealing, but he fades considerably in comparation with Bach IMHO. I have had much pleasure playing different pieces by Händel, and I should never go so far as Gustav Leonhardt, who, when asked why he never played Händel, answered: "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best".

I hope this is understandable, english is not my native language.

[karlhenning]

I would say Dmitri Shostakovich

There was a time when that was certainly true (under-rated in the West, at any rate). It's gotten a bit complicated since then. At this point, I'd say that if Shostakovich is 'under-rated', it is a function of focusing on the politics of the biography, at the expense of The Music Itself, which i believe is great music on its own merits.

[Jack Kelso]

Your English is excellent and you express yourself very well.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your theory that Handel only appeals to our emotions. I seem to be reading between the lines that you feel the two somehow are competing with each other for top honors in the Baroque Era (something like a Schumann or Brahms vs. Wagner thing!).

To my mind, Handel is more varied and expressive than Bach in choral composition, and he is always tasteful in the power, tenderness and majesty in the application of his technique (the double choruses of "Solomon and "Theodore" are very complex! Bach's cantata choruses are generally simpler).

Sure, Handel isn't as pius as Bach, but then Brahms isn't as pius as Bruckner either. Handel is as "spiritual" as Bach, but his is more secular (as Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, etc.), despite the biblical stories of the oratorios.

Handel and Bach composed in two different worlds, and a comparison is possible only in very few areas. Listen into Handel's harmonic language and you will note the deep intellect within it. With Handel (as with Beethoven) great moments may be intoned without consciously "hearing" the technical aspects involved.

Great genius often uses the simplest means. We should all be happy to have both of them!

Regards,
Jack

[Jack Kelso]

I have had much pleasure playing different pieces by Händel, and I should never go so far as Gustav Leonhardt, who, when asked why he never played Händel, answered: "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best".

Herr Leonhardt's comment smack very much of musical snobbism. Besides, Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard.

Good listening!!

Jack

[karlhenning]

To my mind, Handel is more varied and expressive than Bach in choral composition ....

Well, I've sung a good deal of both composers' work, and to my mind, giving Handel the "more varied and expressive" laurel, is suspect.

But I respect your having an alternative opinion.

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

I have had much pleasure playing different pieces by Händel, and I should never go so far as Gustav Leonhardt, who, when asked why he never played Händel, answered: "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best".

Herr Leonhardt's comment smack very much of musical snobbism. Besides, Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard.

Now, wait a second, Jack!

Your statement that "Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard" is essentially agreement with Leonhardt's "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best," yes?

So why is that "snobbism" on Leonhardt's part, but cool judgment on yours? :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

To my mind, Handel is more varied and expressive than Bach in choral composition ....

Well, I've sung a good deal of both composers' work, and to my mind, giving Handel the "more varied and expressive" laurel, is suspect.

But I respect your having an alternative opinion.

Cheers,
~Karl

Did I express myself a bit too strongly? Perhaps. Handel wrote for instruments as though they could sing---for the chorus(es) very often as if they were playing (instruments).

Prost!
Jack

[karlhenning]

Did I express myself a bit too strongly? Perhaps.

Too strongly? Nay, if that's what you think, that's what you think.

As often emerges in such discussions, though, finding a firm foundation for weighing "comparative expressiveness" is a dicey endeavor.

I still enjoy singing Messiah each year, but I find the Magnificat in D BWV 243 more expressive in many ways.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

I have had much pleasure playing different pieces by Händel, and I should never go so far as Gustav Leonhardt, who, when asked why he never played Händel, answered: "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best".

Herr Leonhardt's comment smack very much of musical snobbism. Besides, Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard.

Now, wait a second, Jack!

Your statement that "Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard" is essentially agreement with Leonhardt's "Why should I play the second best, when I can play the best," yes?

So why is that "snobbism" on Leonhardt's part, but cool judgment on yours?

Cheers,
~Karl

Hey, Karl! Give me a break....pianists and other musicians often pick lesser-known works that are not "top-drawer" masterpieces to give themselves a many-faceted interpretative repertoire. To only "play the best" sounds like he might only dine out and eat at only one five-star restaurant.

Prost!
Jack

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]
Handel and Bach composed in two different worlds, and a comparison is possible only in very few areas. Listen into Handel's harmonic language and you will note the deep intellect within it. With Handel (as with Beethoven) great moments may be intoned without consciously "hearing" the technical aspects involved.
Jack[/quote]

Your point of departure was the Concerti Grossi opus.6. And you compared these to the Brandenburg Concertos. A fine example to demonstrate the abundant invention and originality of Bach and the
more ordinary writing of Händel.
As to the harpsichord music and chamber music of Händel I am fully aware, that Händel wrote for amateurs and Bach for professional musicians. This may perhaps explain, why Händels music is more simple (and easier to perform).
As to their skill in counterpoint: You just need to play a few fugues from Das Wohltemperierte Clavier to see and hear the difference, and it is perfectly possible to compare Bachs fugal writing here with Händels fugal writing elsewhere. And I don´t at all agree with you,in that Bachs choral writing isn´t as expressive as Händels. I am for the time being (incidentally) traversing all Bach-cantatas (The Haenssler "complete" edition with Helmut Rilling) and I find Bachs variety and spirituality in every respect, choral writing included, completely overwhelming.

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]Herr Leonhardt's comment smack very much of musical snobbism. Besides, Handel's best work is not intended for the keyboard.
Jack[/quote]

Herr Leonhardt is nevertheless the most important, original and influential
interpretor of baroque music of our age.
Regards,

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"] Perhaps. Handel wrote for instruments as though they could sing---for the chorus(es) very often as if they were playing (instruments).
Jack[/quote]

So did Bach.

[Jack Kelso]

You just need to play a few fugues from Das Wohltemperierte Clavier to see and hear the difference, and it is perfectly possible to compare Bachs fugal writing here with Händels fugal writing elsewhere.....(The Haenssler "complete" edition with Helmut Rilling) and I find Bachs variety and spirituality in every respect, choral writing included, completely overwhelming.

So do I. Yes, Helmut Rilling is our Bach-man in Stuttgart---and he did a wonderful job with Handel, too ("Belshazzar").

Compare then, if you will, Mozart's most mature piano works with Chopin's etudes and you find a far more comprehensive technique involved in the latter. But this does not make the music better---just different. (What are we trying to win here..?!)

Tschuess,
Jack

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]Compare then, if you will, Mozart's most mature piano works with Chopin's etudes and you find a far more comprehensive technique involved in the latter. But this does not make the music better---just different. (What are we trying to win here..?!)
Jack[/quote]

It makes no sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, their styles are too different - different periods, different pianos.
Nor it is a matter of pianotechnic, but a matter of the depth of contrapunctal writing. Scarlattis sonatas fx are often technically more difficult to play than most of Bachs music, but this doesn´t make them better than Bachs music. On the other hand, Bachs music is from a musical standpoint often more difficult to perform than Scarlattis often somewhat superficial, brilliant sonatas.

[Jack Kelso]

Lots of concert pianists hold to this quote:

"If you can play Bach and Schumann---you can play anything!"

Jack

[pizza]

I don't like to speculate concerning what may be "the greatest" of anything in music. Assuming we're discussing composers whose works are to varying degrees neglected and ought to be played more often, then there are some such as Albeniz and Alkan who seem to have enjoyed a revival of late but not to the extent that their music deserves. The technical difficulties of Alkan's piano music have historically placed it out of reach of all but the most proficient technicians, but there are enough fine pianists around these days, such as M-A Hamelin and Steven Osborne who can do full justice to it. Alkan's Op. 39 is one of the true wonders of the piano literature, and his "Esquisses" and other lesser-known works have finally been played and recorded in first-rate performances. There is still much more to be discovered.

[MartinPh]

Georges Enescu. The opening bars of his third orchestral suite (Villageoise) alone show him to be a genius. And then there's three mindblowing symphonies, Edipe, probably one of the ten greatest opera's written in the 20th century, "Vox maris", and the octet (which he wrote when he was only 19!). And for those who like more easily digestible fare he threw in the two Rumanian rhapsodies as well. Such a pity that these two pieces are the only of his works to get a regular airing.

[karlhenning]

It makes no sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, their styles are too different - different periods, different pianos.

Actually, I think it makes a great deal of sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, in a number of respects, anyway.

For one thing, as I revisited the Chopin piano concerti this weekend past, I was sruck by how Mozartean the chaste treatment of the orchestra is. Some people are apt to poo-poo the Chopin piano concerti because (I suppose) they ain't Brahms; but if Chopin's orchestration in these two charming works is "weak", then it is a "weakness" that afflicts Mozart, too.

[Jack Kelso]

It makes no sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, their styles are too different - different periods, different pianos.

Actually, I think it makes a great deal of sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, in a number of respects, anyway.

...Some people are apt to poo-poo the Chopin piano concerti because (I suppose) they ain't Brahms; but if Chopin's orchestration in these two charming works is "weak", then it is a "weakness" that afflicts Mozart, too.

While I agree with certain comparisons of Chopin and Mozart, who was Chopin's model, I certainly cannot consider the orchestration of the former as masterly. It varies from fumbling and amateurish to translucent and muddy; but the 2nd mvt of the F Minor is VERY beautifully done---in every respect, top-drawer Chopin---technically as well as spiritually. These works are masterpieces despite the orchestration. But Mozart's orchestration fits his material superbly---in my estimation beyond criticism. His opera-orchestra was the best up to that time.

Generally, I don't compare composers of different eras, only rough contemoraries---and even then some don't "fit" for a comparison. My point in Mozart/Chopin was to indicate that fugal/technical "depth" does not guarantee a great work of emotion/spiritual wealth. Sometimes it can even hinder it. Busoni, Reger and others have occasionally fallen into this trap.

Jack

[karlhenning]

It varies from fumbling and amateurish to translucent and muddy ....

Well, I haven't re-shelved the score, so where are the "fumbling" and "amateurish" parts? I didn't see anything amateurish in Chopin's orchestration, which would not be equally amateurish in Mozart, so perhaps I missed something. Please enlighten.

As to "translucent and muddy" ... that seems a contradiction (which, for Chopin-bashing purposes, is excellent ... you can catch him with either opposite!) ... well, they aren't entirely opposite, but they seem to me to have opposing tendencies. Something translucent allows light through, and muddy is clearly meant for not clear.

If we call Chopin's orchestration muddy, where will that leave Brahms? :-)

If Chopin's orchestration is amateurish, what shall we say of the Schumann piano concerto?

[Jack Kelso]

"Translucent" lets light through, "but diffusing it so that objects are not clearly visible". (Webster's - Random House, 2nd ed.).

Sure--I agree that Schumann and Brahms also have their characteristic "thickness", but Chopin's has been traditionally taken to task for its perfunctory qualities....this doesn't originate with me! In fact, I think it has it's own charm....but it doesn't sound like Mozart (I don't have the scores--sorry!).

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]
Compare then, if you will, Mozart's most mature piano works with Chopin's etudes and you find a far more comprehensive technique involved in the latter. But this does not make the music better---just different. (What are we trying to win here..?!)
Tschuess,
Jack[/quote]

Am I mistaken, when I think, that you compare Mozarts most mature piano works (his later piano sonatas?) with Chopins Etudes? A question of solo piano music and not a question of orchestration? If I am right, your comparation doesn´t work, because the texture of Mozarts sonatas most often consist of two part writing or melody with discrete chordal accompagnement. In contrast Chopins Etudes are romantic music, full, sonorous, often with slow broad harmonic progressions. This would sound rather ridiculous when played on harpsichord (according to Siegbert Rampe Mozarts preferred instrument most of his life) or early Hammerclavier. So: Two different styles, and two different instruments.

Regards,

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"] that fugal/technical "depth" does not guarantee a great work of emotion/spiritual wealth.
Jack[/quote]

Certainly not, but in the case of Bach it does, in a way that probably will stay unsurpassed forever.
I don´t want to detract from Händels skills, but when you compare him to Bach, I must say, that I find Bach to be tremendously superior in every
respect. And your own comparation (Concerti Grossi op.6 compared to Brandenburg concertos) illustrates this to the full.
Remember that you starting point was, that Händel is underrated compared to Bach. I don´t think so, and this was the cause of my reaction.

Regards,

[karlhenning]

....this doesn't originate with me!

Craven! :-)

So you disown it? :-)

In fact, I think it has it's own charm....but it doesn't sound like Mozart (I don't have the scores--sorry!).

It doesn't sound like Mozart, of course. But the conception of the orchestra is similar ... and (again) I don't find anything "amateurish" in Chopin's scoring, which would not equally call down that opprobrious adjective (and worse) upon Mozart's head.

[Jack Kelso]

I find Bach to be tremendously superior in every
respect. And your own comparation (Concerti Grossi op.6 compared to Brandenburg concertos) illustrates this to the full.
Remember that you starting point was, that Händel is underrated compared to Bach. I don´t think so, and this was the cause of my reaction.

Regards,

"Every respect"? This seems to me to be more of an emotional response than an analytical one.

Remember that I said Bach's instrumental music was, IMHO, generally superior to Handel's. Most of Handel's works in this respect were "occasional pieces". However, I still maintain that Handel's large oratorios often go beyond Bach's cantatas in harmonic expression, orchestral and choral dynamics as well as emotional range. There exist no finer or more beautiful works in the Baroque Era than "Semele", "Acis and Galatea", "Messiah", "Saul", "Samson" and "Balshazzar" (among many others).

Handel was incapable of composing like Bach and vice-versa. They complement each other perfectly.

Best regards,
Jack

[Jack Kelso]

....this doesn't originate with me!

Craven!

So you disown it?

In fact, I think it has it's own charm....but it doesn't sound like Mozart (I don't have the scores--sorry!).

It doesn't sound like Mozart, of course. But the conception of the orchestra is similar ... and (again) I don't find anything "amateurish" in Chopin's scoring, which would not equally call down that opprobrious adjective (and worse) upon Mozart's head.

No, I'm not a coward. I don't disown the opinion. Chopin didn't always find the appropriate instrument for his themes. Mozart did. Chopin wasn't as versed in orchestral dynamics, texture or balance as was Mozart. Chopin wasn't as aware as Mozart regarding the range and possibilities of writing for certain orchestral instruments. Still, owing to Chopin's genius, these somewhat minor technicalities don't really matter. Better to have a flawed diamond than a perfect stone, right?

As regards Schumann's A Minor Concerto, piano and orchestra are treated as equals---the first concerto written in this "democratic" way. And the instrumentation is wonderfully subtle, allowing fine solos from clarinet and oboe. The orchestra never obliterates the piano, never thunders down around it (Liszt and Brahms), but supports it in brilliantly timed tutti without distracting from the flow of the musical ideas. Only Grieg and Rachmaninoff were able to approach this pinnacle.

Isn't it fantastic that we all hear different things---as well as things differently...?!

Best regards,
Jack

[Corlyss_D]

It makes no sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, their styles are too different - different periods, different pianos.

Actually, I think it makes a great deal of sense to compare Mozart and Chopin, in a number of respects, anyway.

For one thing, as I revisited the Chopin piano concerti this weekend past, I was sruck by how Mozartean the chaste treatment of the orchestra is. Some people are apt to poo-poo the Chopin piano concerti because (I suppose) they ain't Brahms; but if Chopin's orchestration in these two charming works is "weak", then it is a "weakness" that afflicts Mozart, too.

Karl, I think you've hit on something here. When I was deep into Clemenza di Tito, I was struck by how much like Bellini Mozart's orchestral music was becoming in opera. A lot of writers want to attribute it to the haste with which the opera was composed so late in his life, but the thought has always intrigued me that perhaps he was leaning into a more simple and more clarified orchestral style that would have been more apparent had he lived longer.

[premont]

[quote="Jack Kelso"]
"Every respect"? This seems to me to be more of an emotional response than an analytical one.
However, I still maintain that Handel's large oratorios often go beyond Bach's cantatas in harmonic expression, orchestral and choral dynamics as well as emotional range. There exist no finer or more beautiful works in the Baroque Era than "Semele", "Acis and Galatea", "Messiah", "Saul", "Samson" and "Balshazzar" (among many others).
Best regards,
Jack[/quote]

All right, almost every respect.

But I don´t know much of Händels oratories except Messiah, and what I have heard hasn´t tickled my appetite sufficiently. But I should very much want to change that situation. What would you recommend to me as being the most "advanced" Händel work concerning harmonic expression and emotional range? And which recording?

Regards,

[Jack Kelso]

What would you recommend to me as being the most "advanced" Händel work concerning harmonic expression and emotional range? And which recording?

Regards,

Some oratorios are more "operatic" than others, e.g. "Judas Maccabaeus" and "Solomon". Others are more sedate, e.g. "Saul" and "Samson". It depends largely on your taste. I don't have a favorite one---each has its own qualities. I don't know if I would recommend an entire oratorio----perhaps first some excerpts from various oratorios/operas---arias, choruses and overtures. The complete works are quite long (2-l/2 hours or so).

Concerning recordings, I'll have to get back to you. I won't be at home until Sunday, so I'll tell you next week who is doing my "Samson", "Belshazzar" and "Solomon".

If you can find it, Helmut Rilling's recording on VOX Records back in the 1960's of "Belshazzar" is superb. The title role is sung by Wilfried Jochum. Great sound, great performance, sung in English. If you DO find it somewhere, please let me know! I'd like to get it, too.

The two great English operas (or secular oratorios) "Acis and Galatea" and "Semele" possess tons of charm, melody and joy. Parts of them almost jump right into Haydn's "The Seasons"!

Tschuess!
Jack

[karlhenning]

... When I was deep into Clemenza di Tito, I was struck by how much like Bellini Mozart's orchestral music was becoming in opera. A lot of writers want to attribute it to the haste with which the opera was composed so late in his life, but the thought has always intrigued me that perhaps he was leaning into a more simple and more clarified orchestral style that would have been more apparent had he lived longer.

Good point.

When we're dealing with a mature artist at the peak of his powers, a critic who second-guesses the artist can be on shaky ground. The really great artist does not simply 'follow form' like a racehorse, but faces new challenges with each fresh work. The artist, even while he has established his own characteristic modes and methods, is not primarily concerned with any slavish consistency (though that would make the work of art historians much easier, of course).

Your comment on more simplicity and clarity (where many writers are already looking ahead to Beethoven, and apt to feel that any stone in the Mozart path which does not point towards Beethoven, is not really a stone on The True Path™) reminds me most immediately of the Sibelius Sixth (probably my favorite of his symphonies) which seems such a quiet, modest affair after the big-voiced Fifth.

And, of course, the Beethoven Fourth and Eighth Symphonies, which did not follow the Bigger, More Dramatic curve which writers might have plotted from the Third or Seventh.

Even within a given composer's oeuvre, each work should be taken on its own terms. And I am readier to give the great artist the benefit of the doubt, than a (*shudder*) critic :-)

[premont]

Concerning recordings, I'll have to get back to you. I won't be at home until Sunday, so I'll tell you next week who is doing my "Samson", "Belshazzar" and "Solomon".

Thank you very much, I hope to hear more soon.

Regards,

[Jack Kelso]

Concerning recordings, I'll have to get back to you. I won't be at home until Sunday, so I'll tell you next week who is doing my "Samson", "Belshazzar" and "Solomon".

Thank you very much, I hope to hear more soon.

Regards,

The following are some of my Handel recordings:

"Salomo" (Solomon) sung in German; Heinz Roegner/Rundfunk- Sinfonie-Orch. Berlin & Rundfunk-Chor on BERLIN CLASSICS.

"Samson" with Janet Baker, Helen Watts, Robert Tear, etc. Raymond Leppard/English Chamber Orch. & London Voices.

"Belsazar" (Belshazzar) sung in German. Kammerorchester Berlin - Knothe, cond. Berlin Singakademie. Peter Schreier sings the part of Belshazzar. BERLIN CLASSICS.

"Israel in Egypt"; Leeds Festival Chorus; English Chamber Orchestra; Sir Charles Mackerras. On ARCHIV (Galleria).

All these (and others) should still be available from jpc. Most conductors/soloists etc. take great care when performing these oratorios (they know about the limited audience!)---so poor performances are very rare. I find the recordings in German translation also excellent, and the booklets included have the texts in both languages (and, I believe, in French).

I hope this helps!

Best regards,
Jack

[Harvested Sorrow]

This will probably cause some controversy (in particular because I've been too impatient to read the whole thread, so this may have already been brought up) but I'd say Sergei Rachmaninoff. He was an excellent composer, yet it seems that everyone makes him out to be a second rate Romantic and/or only credits him for his 2nd piano concerto.

EDIT: I just read through the thread, and no one else has brought it up yet, so this should be interesting.

[premont]

"Salomo" (Solomon) sung in German; Heinz Roegner/Rundfunk- Sinfonie-Orch. Berlin & Rundfunk-Chor on BERLIN CLASSICS.

"Samson" with Janet Baker, Helen Watts, Robert Tear, etc. Raymond Leppard/English Chamber Orch. & London Voices.

"Belsazar" (Belshazzar) sung in German. Kammerorchester Berlin - Knothe, cond. Berlin Singakademie. Peter Schreier sings the part of Belshazzar. BERLIN CLASSICS.

"Israel in Egypt"; Leeds Festival Chorus; English Chamber Orchestra; Sir Charles Mackerras. On ARCHIV (Galleria).

Thank you , I shall try to find some of these. I think the German recordings might be preferable.

Kind regards,

[Jack Kelso]

I think the German recordings might be preferable.

Kind regards,

Well, I like all of them. Since I know English and German, it's also interesting comparing the English original and the German translations.

Good luck---and good listening!

Best regards,
Jack

[karlhenning]

This will probably cause some controversy (in particular because I've been too impatient to read the whole thread, so this may have already been brought up) but I'd say Sergei Rachmaninoff. He was an excellent composer, yet it seems that everyone makes him out to be a second rate Romantic and/or only credits him for his 2nd piano concerto.

EDIT: I just read through the thread, and no one else has brought it up yet, so this should be interesting.

I agree on Rakhmaninov's excellence!

[Harvested Sorrow]

Was that by chance a "subtle" hint that I should change the way I spell his name?

[karlhenning]

No, I almost always bold-face a composer's name ... and I sort of flip-flop in my romanization of Rakhmaninov ... I prefer kh for the Cyrillic letter Х (the first letter in the name Khrushchev) ... but of course the spelling Rachmaninov is pretty well standard in the English-speaking world by now, so I won't make much headway if I try to be militant in spelling reform there ....

[Harvested Sorrow]

Okay. I wasn't taking offence by the way, I was just curious.

[GK]

No, I almost always bold-face a composer's name ... and I sort of flip-flop in my romanization of Rakhmaninov ... I prefer kh for the Cyrillic letter Х (the first letter in the name Khrushchev) ... but of course the spelling Rachmaninov is pretty well standard in the English-speaking world by now, so I won't make much headway if I try to be militant in spelling reform there ....

I read somewhere that he prefers the spelling of Rachmaninoff. That's probably the only way you can access him on the Gramofile.