Over and Under referred composers in this forum

[stormx]

Hi !!

let us suppose we make an imaginary ratio A/B, both A and B between 1 and 10, with the following meaning:

A- how much a composer is referred in this forum (positively, or negatively, doesnt matter). 1 indicates a composer very very rarely referred, and 10 a composer extremely referred (example, Chopin or Beethoven would be 10).

B- how important the composer is in music history. The higher this number, more important the composer is (for example, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart should be 10).

For Beethoven, this ratio will be 1. We are making justice for Ludwig 

The  the ratio, more the composer is OVER-REFERRED.
A ratio close to 0, on the other hand, indicates an UNDER-REFERRED composer.

Taking this method into account (just the idea, without actually making the numbers), who do you consider are the most OVER-REFERRED and UNDER-REFERRED composers in this forum?

For the OVER-REFERRED category, i have 2 top contenders:
SORABJI and ALKAN

PD: i like ALKAN indeed 

[ahinton]

who do you consider are the most OVER-REFERRED and UNDER-REFERRED composers in this forum?

For the OVER-REFERRED category, i have 2 top contenders:
SORABJI and ALKAN

PD: i like ALKAN indeed 

This seems something of a non sequitur of a question, does it not? One would reasonably conclude that the number of references to any composer in this forum is indicative of the number of occasions on which forum contributors wish to make such reference; on that basis, there can be no over- or under-reference as such. What I think is being considered here is merely opinions on the subject from people who may consider certain composers to get too much exposure on this forum from certain of its contributors; this surely by implication represents an invitation to consider whether certain such contributors write about certain composers too often for the liking of other contributors; a self-defeating exercise before it has begun, I humbly suggest...

Best,

Alistair

[stormx]

This seems something of a non sequitur of a question, does it not? One would reasonably conclude that the number of references to any composer in this forum is indicative of the number of occasions on which forum contributors wish to make such reference; on that basis, there can be no over- or under-reference as such. What I think is being considered here is merely opinions on the subject from people who may consider certain composers to get too much exposure on this forum from certain of its contributors; this surely by implication represents an invitation to consider whether certain such contributors write about certain composers too often for the liking of other contributors; a self-defeating exercise before it has begun, I humbly suggest...

Best,

Alistair

Alistair:

Dont take it too seriously 
I know you work on a Sorabji Association, and you probably felt that my Sorabji mention was offensive. But that wasnt my intention at all. As a matter of fact, i did not listen to any Sorabji work, so i have no opinion about his music.

But facts are facts, and those are:

1- Sorabji is a pretty obscure composer.
2- There are tons of lines in this forum discussing him (specially his OC).

In this sense, i consider him as OVER-REFERRED. Does this make him a worse composer, of course not !!   

Greetings

[leahcim]

Does mentioning the composer in here, part of the forum, change the ratio?

If you keep adjusting the figure to account for the referral here that wasn't accounted for when the message was posted, every composer, except those with a B of 10, will be over-referred eventually

So. all composers are over-referred here, except the most important ones, but, for some, only if you name which ones they are here

[ahinton]

Alistair:

Dont take it too seriously 
I know you work on a Sorabji Association, and you probably felt that my Sorabji mention was offensive.

Not at all! I was not and am not offended - just curious as to how this could possibly be meaningful, as the next contributor (who, like me, has not mentioned any specific composer by name) likewise appears to be.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

So because Sorabji is obscure he is overmentioned? What a nice paradox we have there.

Surely Bach, Mozart and Beethoven can never be overrated because they are just very famous!

Or did you mean you think he is talked about more often than listened to?

[da jake]

Well, Alkan is over-referred here because his fame among mainstream classical music peeps is nowhere commensurate with his actual quality as a composer. Scriabin too. Sorabji too (although I haven't heard enough of his stuff to judge his sk4llZ as a composer).

I think Chopin is under-referred compared to Liszt, or alternatively, Liszt is over-referred next to Freddy C.

F-Schubes is HORRIFICALLY under-referred. Bach too.

[prometheus]

Scriabin? Whoa! I though everyone by now knows he is twice the composer Rachmaninoff is. I don't see people talk about him as much as Rachmaninoff.

Little people are aware of the quality of Sorabji's music. So how does this make Sorabji overrated? Are you going to tell me you can make a fair judgement on his quality as a composer?

Are you aware that Liszt was actual a 'real' composer and not only a piano composer? Chopin is not in his league.


Reger is hugely underreferred. So are all non-piano composers. Bach non-piano works are largely ignored. But his piano works?

[da jake]

Scriabin? Whoa! I though everyone by now knows he is twice the composer Rachmaninoff is. I don't see people talk about him as much as Rachmaninoff.

what?

Little people are aware of the quality of Sorabji's music. So how does this make Sorabji overrated? Are you going to tell me you can make a fair judgement on his quality as a composer?

I said right here that I wasn't qualified to judge Sorabji as a composer:

Sorabji too (although I haven't heard enough of his stuff to judge his sk4llZ as a composer).

I said that he was over-mentioned on the forums, not overrated (because I am not qualified to make that judgement...LOL).

Are you aware that Liszt was actual a 'real' composer and not only a piano composer? Chopin is not in his league.

This is a tad ridiculous. Assides from the last movement of the Faust Symphony, Les Preludes, and maybe a couple of symphonic works, what of lasting value has Liszt left us assides from his piano works? (Some people love the Liszt and Chopin concerti, but I don' care for them, so I left 'em out). Chopin's Cello Sonata is pretty darn good. The fact is, neither Liszt or Chopin are really well-rounded composers.

Schubert? Yes. Mendelssohn? Yes. Beethoven? Yes. Liszt? Not really. Chopin? No.

Reger is hugely underreferred. So are all non-piano composers. Bach non-piano works are largely ignored. But his piano works?

WTC preludes and fugues are mentioned ad nauseum.

Goldberg Variations are sometimes mentioned.

The English and French Suites are rarely mentioned. Art of Fugue is rarely mentioned.

The Partitas are almost never mentioned.  The Keyboard Concerti are almost never mentioned.

A Musical Offering is never mentioned.

[prometheus]

what?

Go buy a book about the history of european classical music. Most will have Scriabin, little will have Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff did nothing for the development of music. And if you asked him he rather would have been even more conservative. I am not saying that people shouldn't like his music or that the music doesn't have quality. But as a composer he must be the No.1 for ranking as overrated, just before Chopin. But instead you mention his little mentioned 'little brother', who is just poorly understood. Rachaminoff gained his fame as a performer, not a composer. If he didn't such a good job promoting his works he would be quite less known.
Funny thing is, Scriabin was denied the golden medal as a composer because of trouble with his teacher, Rachmaninoff was awarded both. Rachmaninoff Symphonies are failures while Scriabin's ones are interesting oddities well liked by some great conductors and because of that sometimes performed.

I said right here that I wasn't qualified to judge Sorabji as a composer:

I said that he was over-mentioned on the forums, not overrated (because I am not qualified to make that judgement...LOL).

So on what is this judgement based if it is not his music? Surely this makes no sense at all. Maybe you think he is overmentioned because you aren't interested in the posts about him? I can agree with you they aren't as interesting as they could be. But neither are most other posts.

This is a tad ridiculous. Assides from the last movement of the Faust Symphony, Les Preludes, and maybe a couple of symphonic works, what of lasting value has Liszt left us assides from his piano works? (Some people love the Liszt and Chopin concerti, but I don' care for them, so I left 'em out). Chopin's Cello Sonata is pretty darn good. The fact is, neither Liszt or Chopin are really well-rounded composers.

Here you are just very badly informed. He wrote 15 religios choral works, 4 secular choral works, two symphonies, an opera, quite a few orchestra works, 3 chamber music works, 11 songs and important organ music. Maybe you don't think they have value. But that isn't the point. Plus, since you don't know about them you can't even know anyway.

Schubert? Yes. Mendelssohn? Yes. Beethoven? Yes. Liszt? Not really. Chopin? No.

Better try: "Liszt? Maybe. Chopin? No way!" I never said Liszt was the as big a composer as Mendelsshohn, Schubert or Beethoven. But surely comparing Liszt to Chopin is unfair for Chopin.

WTC preludes and fugues are mentioned ad nauseum.

Goldberg Variations are sometimes mentioned.

The English and French Suites are rarely mentioned. Art of Fugue is rarely mentioned.

The Partitas are almost never mentioned.  The Keyboard Concerti are almost never mentioned.

A Musical Offering is never mentioned.

Did you even read what I said? I said that only his piano works are mentioned. The first three are very often mentioned. The others way less. Because they aren't piano works people here don't care. Thats why they like Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Liszt. They don't care.

[thalbergmad]

I had a feeling this thread was gonna cause trouble.

[stormx]

I had a feeling this thread was gonna cause trouble.

Sorry, it wasnt my intention 
I just wanted to know what composers do you beleive are over discussed here...

For instance, if we talk about pianists instead of composers, it is clear that Lang Lang is over discussed in this forum (negatively, tough).

[mikey6]

Are you aware that Liszt was actual a 'real' composer and not only a piano composer? Chopin is not in his league.

I'm confused - are you saying Liszt is a better composer than Chopin becuase he wrote for more than just solo piano? (yes I know Chopin wrote for a few other things but in general)

[pita bread]

Scriabin? Whoa! I though everyone by now knows he is twice the composer Rachmaninoff is. I don't see people talk about him as much as Rachmaninoff.

Concurred.

[da jake]

Go buy a book about the history of european classical music. Most will have Scriabin, little will have Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff did nothing for the development of music. And if you asked him he rather would have been even more conservative. I am not saying that people shouldn't like his music or that the music doesn't have quality. But as a composer he must be the No.1 for ranking as overrated, just before Chopin. But instead you mention his little mentioned 'little brother', who is just poorly understood. Rachaminoff gained his fame as a performer, not a composer. If he didn't such a good job promoting his works he would be quite less known.

Who cares. Innovation is but one facet of a composer's skills. Shoenberg is more innovative than Saint Saens or Mendelssohn, but I'd rather hear the latter two any day.  I happen to love both Scriabin and Rachmaninov. Just because Rachmaninov didn't push the boundaries of late romanticism as radically as Scriabin doesn't mean the former's music is somehow defective. Your reasoning is retarded.

Funny thing is, Scriabin was denied the golden medal as a composer because of trouble with his teacher, Rachmaninoff was awarded both. Rachmaninoff Symphonies are failures while Scriabin's ones are interesting oddities well liked by some great conductors and because of that sometimes performed.

Whatever. Scriabin's piano concerto sucks while Rachmaninov's are works of undeniable musical and compositional value. Rach's Elegiaque Trio is also quite nice. There are no parallel's in Scriabin.

So on what is this judgement based if it is not his music? Surely this makes no sense at all. Maybe you think he is overmentioned because you aren't interested in the posts about him? I can agree with you they aren't as interesting as they could be. But neither are most other posts.

True. I don't know Sorabji very well. I admitted that. But I can say with 100% certainty that Monsieur Khaikorasu is NOT a better composer than Mendelssohn, nor Schubert. Mendelssohn and Schubert are rarely discussed. Sorabji is discussed quite a bit. By this logic, SORABJI IS OVERMENTIONED.

Here you are just very badly informed. He wrote 15 religios choral works, 4 secular choral works, two symphonies, an opera, quite a few orchestra works, 3 chamber music works, 11 songs and important organ music. Maybe you don't think they have value. But that isn't the point. Plus, since you don't know about them you can't even know anyway.

Same logic as above. Schubert and Mendelssohn for example take Liszt to F*CKIN SCHOOL when it comes to being well-rounded. What's even the point of the comparisons?

Better try: "Liszt? Maybe. Chopin? No way!" I never said Liszt was the as big a composer as Mendelsshohn, Schubert or Beethoven. But surely comparing Liszt to Chopin is unfair for Chopin.

Yeah exactly. I was defending my buddy Freddy C. If we pit Franz Pimp vs. Freddy C on the subject of piano, it's a very tight match.

[ahinton]

True. I don't know Sorabji very well. I admitted that. But I can say with 100% certainty that Monsieur Khaikorasu is NOT a better composer than Mendelssohn, nor Schubert. Mendelssohn and Schubert are rarely discussed. Sorabji is discussed quite a bit. By this logic, SORABJI IS OVERMENTIONED...

What's even the point of the comparisons?

Now you are onto a different tack - that of suggesting that the extent to which certain composers are mentioned on this forum be directly proportional to how "good" they may be, yet the fact that these are, to a very large extent, matters of personal opinion only seems to be accepted by you when you then question "the point of these comparisons"! Sorabji is mentioned on this forum by people who presumably want to mention him; that this is largely down to the interest which contributors have in him and his work is not a personal opinion - it is a fact.

It would surely be more sensible to abandon this rather fruitless attempted topic and recognise that forum contributors will write about whomsoever they please when they please, regardless of the opinions of others as to whether the composers about whom they choose to write compare favourably or otherwise to other composers.

Sorabji's first name is spelt Kaikhosru, by the way...

Best,

Alistair

[thracozaag]

Whatever. Scriabin's piano concerto sucks while Rachmaninov's are works of undeniable musical and compositional value. Rach's Elegiaque Trio is also quite nice. There are no parallel's in Scriabin.

 
  The Scriabin Piano concerto is an underrated masterpiece; the only thing that "sucks" is the paucity of great performances of it, both live and on record.
  The orchestral works of Scriabin, particularly the Divine Poem, Poem of Ecstasy, and Poem of Fire, are also "works of undeniable musical and compositional value."

koji

[da jake]

 
  The Scriabin Piano concerto is an underrated masterpiece; the only thing that "sucks" is the paucity of great performances of it, both live and on record.

I heard it once on the radio, and was not impressed at all. I made a mistake objectively stating it "sucks" because I also can't stand the Chopin Concerti or the Schumann...

Can you recommend a recording of the Scriabin?

  The orchestral works of Scriabin, particularly the Divine Poem, Poem of Ecstasy, and Poem of Fire, are also "works of undeniable musical and compositional value."

koji

Yes, I agree completely.  I still think that Rach is a better-rounded composer. EDIT: heh, now that I've re-read what I wrote about the Scib-concerto, your reaction is perfectly understandable. I pretty well, said the equivalent of "chocolate ice-cream sucks, and is nowhere near the value of vanilla". heh. EDIT x2: why am I the only person on this forum who calls his own bullsh*t? 

Anyway, my overall point is still valid I think. Chopin's Cello Sonata is magnificent, as is Alkan's Violin and Piano Sonata...still Brahms is a better rounded composer than any of them.

Now you are onto a different tack - that of suggesting that the extent to which certain composers are mentioned on this forum be directly proportional to how "good" they may be, yet the fact that these are, to a very large extent, matters of personal opinion only seems to be accepted by you when you then question "the point of these comparisons"! Sorabji is mentioned on this forum by people who presumably want to mention him; that this is largely down to the interest which contributors have in him and his work is not a personal opinion - it is a fact.

Well this topic pretty much set us up for that, now didn't it? How else could it have been answered asside from X is mentioned more than Y (who is really the greater composer), therefore X is over-mentioned? If this was Bartok would you really care, Mr. Hinton?

It would surely be more sensible to abandon this rather fruitless attempted topic and recognise that forum contributors will write about whomsoever they please when they please, regardless of the opinions of others as to whether the composers about whom they choose to write compare favourably or otherwise to other composers.

Agreed. Mere participation in the topic meant trouble.

Sorabji's first name is spelt Kaikhosru, by the way...

I'm impressed I got it so close without reference material. 

Also, I'm pretty sure "Track" has an "r" in it. Pedant. 

[prometheus]

How else could it have been answered asside from X is mentioned more than Y (who is really the greater composer), therefore X is over-mentioned? If this was Bartok would you really care, Mr. Hinton?

How can you know Y is the greater composer if you don't even know the music of composer X?

Otherwise you are saying: "Beethoven/Bach/Brahms/Ravel/Chopin/Mozart/Schumann/Haydn/Mendelssohn is mentioned more than Rautavaara(who is a really great composer), there for all of them are over-mentioned.

All piano composers are mentioned a lot more than symphony and opera composers on this piano forum. So taking this reasoning backwards. Either we are all incredibly incompetent about judging music and composers, which means we should stop this topic. Or non-piano composers are really just not as skilled as piano composers.

Does anyone have the answer?

[da jake]

"overmentioned" is normative. Forget this discussion.

If Sorabji is discussed so much, it's because many people are interested in him. Fine.

Still, Sorabji, Raaautaaavaaaraaa, and all these other esoteric geniuses don't even come close to offering to music what Schubert did.

If you honestly believe that any Sorabji work is a better piece of music than the Unfinished Symphony or the Wanderer Fantasy, then you are either deluded, ignorant, crazy, or any combination of the three.

[prometheus]

But you don't even know their music. You assume that because of the fact they are obscure they are less good. Why?

I don't even know every Sorabji or Rautavaara works. And I never said they are better than Schubert. I can agree when you say Schubert is undermentioned.

And what if I do think a work of either of them is better than a major Schubert work? Maybe I am insane, deluded, ignorant or crazy. But how would you know? Maybe those works are really better. You are clueless here.

So you don't like 'esoteric geniuses? Do you have a 'deluded' bias against them? BTW, what is esoteric about Rautavaara. (except his name? )

BTW, people are smarter nowadays, more educated. They have easier access to music and literature. Why would all the great composers have to be old and famous? There is nothing special about Schubert. He is 'just a man'.

There is probably something romantic about old composers, something romantic, traditional, nostalgic, etc.

Surely, if you are going to rate this objectively then all famous composers are overmentioned. People like famous composers because they are famous. Not because they wrote better music.

So yeah, maybe Schubert is undermentioned in compasion to Beethoven. Maybe people talk more about Sorabji then they listen and surely he is talked about more than his fame would 'demand', gladly. Because I think he deserves even more attention. Surely people like Mahler, Shostakovich, Bruckner, Wagner, Berlioz, Puccini, Verdi and Strauss are all much more underreferred than Schubert if you are going to judge works on quality only. And I don't even know some of the obscure high quality composers in those genres.

[stormx]

Unfortunately, this topic has deviated from my original intention 
It is NOT about what composer do you like the most !!! 

It just assumes that there are 2 imaginary numbers that can be somewhat calculated:

-One based on how much a composer is discussed in the forum. This should be pretty straightforward. For instance, counting the number of lines dedicated to him.

-The other is much more difficult to estimate, because it should reflect the importance of the composer in music history. I know, this can be subjective, of course. But there are some almost universal agreements, tough...
For instance, if you ask for the 3 most important composers of history, a very large number (i know, not 100%) will agree on (in no particular order)
BACH
MOZART
BEETHOVEN

So, you get the idea....
and, after all, we are here to have fun and not to argue !!! 

[prometheus]

So this topic was meant to straighten out derivations from the authoritative accepted norm?

[ahinton]

Anyway, my overall point is still valid I think. Chopin's Cello Sonata is magnificent, as is Alkan's Violin and Piano Sonata

Agreed absolutely!

Well this topic pretty much set us up for that, now didn't it? How else could it have been answered asside from X is mentioned more than Y (who is really the greater composer), therefore X is over-mentioned? If this was Bartok would you really care, Mr. Hinton?

No, of course not - for the very reasons that you have implied (i.e. that this entire thread is a self-defeating exercise, if I do no misinterpret you).

Also, I'm pretty sure "Track" has an "r" in it. Pedant. 

Indeed it does - but "track" was not the word I wrote or intended to write. I wrote "tack". English expression, that. And correct in the context, too. Double pedant, me. In fact (since this is a piano dedicated forum), perhaps even a middle (i.e. third) pedant...

Best,

Alistair

[dmk]

Whatever. Scriabin's piano concerto sucks while Rachmaninov's are works of undeniable musical and compositional value. Rach's Elegiaque Trio is also quite nice. There are no parallel's in Scriabin.

People are entitled to have there own opinion thats fine....but there is a difference between having a different opinion and being an clown.

You can say you don't like Scriabin's PC and thats fine, but saying it sucks is just plain ignorance.   I have been fortunate to hear it performed live twice last year and both times it was marvellous, and it certainly doesn't suck.....take a look at the score and listen and I am sure you will change your opinion, you don't have to like it, but it doesn't suck.

For instance, I don't particular like the Prokofiev 3 in C major (probably because I am not to fond of C major as a key) but I certainly wouldn't say it sucks, it is clearly a masterwork.

BTW on another topic....does anyone have any recommendations for a good recording of the Scriabin PC...I have a Woodward which is OK, but I would certainly like another??

Cheers

dmk

[da jake]

It's clear you didn't read my response to Mr. Attwood.

[dmk]

It's clear you didn't read my response to Mr. Attwood.

On the contrary I had....but from reading your POSEUR or COMPOSER post it is clear that your response to Mr Attwood was mere lipservice

[da jake]

I always speak my mind here. What have I got to lose or gain by being false or sucking up? This is the internet - it's entertainment for me. When I shut off the monitor, nothing has changed in my life.

Besides, I argued Thrac just the other day in the chat about the value of Schumann's improv like pieces.

[dmk]

I always speak my mind here. What have I got to lose or gain by being false or sucking up? This is the internet - it's entertainment for me. When I shut off the monitor, nothing has changed in my life.

Besides, I argued Thrac just the other day in the chat about the value of Schumann's improv like pieces.

At one point did I talk about this...think you may have misread this mate

All I said is that you were paying lipservice to the concept of "sucks" not paying lipservice to an individual...

Never in the world did I think that you wouldn't speak your mind

[da jake]

Cheers. We're not illiterate or anything, misunderstandings are bound to occur on the internetz.