Am I overrating a composer like Samuil Feinberg?

[mephisto]

I have a special kind of love for late 1900 century and early 20th century russian composers like Scriabin, Feinberg and Roslavets.

Scriabin is obviously the most famous of these. But after having listened to the sonatas of Samuil Feinberg I find him a terrific composer. He may be a bit uneven, and some of the sonatas aren't that good, but overal there are some masterpieces amongs them. Especially  nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Am I alone in thinking that pieces like the sonata no 3 and no 6 deserve to be in the standard repertoire? Can it be that I am overrating them just because the are underrated to begin with?

This thread is not exclusively about Feinberg, but also about other underappreciated composer as well.

[richard black]

Well, you're certainly not overrating him from your own point of view. It may be that his music doesn't really press the right buttons for some others (to my shame I don't know any of it so I can't comment personally), or it may just as well be that the world has overlooked him to its own detriment. Both situations exist. I include in my own little list of 'forgotten' composers whom I admire some whose music does indeed seem to appeal to most people if they are exposed to it, and some whose music I have to admit is a bit of a special taste. Fair enough!

[mephisto]

Interesting comment.

Can you name some composers you like a lot, but who doesn't appeal to many others?

[lontano]

I discovered Scriabin in the 1970's and spent quite a lot of time buying scores and records of his music. I may have overdone it, as today I'm not nearly as interested in his works as I once was.

I discovered Feinberg less than 2 years ago and quickly began searching out scores and recordings of his as well. That has proven a bit more difficult to do, but I found the scores and CDs of the sonatas and a few other works eventually. So I say "Yes!", I'd love to see more Feinberg in the repertoire. I find all the sonatas interesting in some way. All of them are quite virtuosic. I'm guessing they're on the level of Medtner or harder. But as far as the quality of his work, not everyone will like his music, at least on one listening, but just as the music is experimental to a degree, I imagine so too will the best audience be interested in it. I look forward to finding more.

[mephisto]

But as far as the quality of his work, not everyone will like his music, at least on one listening, but just as the music is experimental to a degree, I imagine so too will the best audience be interested in it. I look forward to finding more.

Yeah. the sonatas weren't that great when I first hear them. And it might just be a very important point. The first impression tends to be very important.

That being said, I didn't really like the Liszt sonata the first time I heard it either

[richard black]

Can you name some composers you like a lot, but who doesn't appeal to many others?

Someone has already mentioned Medtner in this thread, and I reckon Alan Bush and Max Reger are a couple of others. I love their music, so do many other people I know, but I don't think they're ever going to have true mass appeal and even among musically educated folk I know some who either actively dislike their music or find it lacking interest.

[mephisto]

Someone has already mentioned Medtner in this thread, and I reckon Alan Bush and Max Reger are a couple of others. I love their music, so do many other people I know, but I don't think they're ever going to have true mass appeal and even among musically educated folk I know some who either actively dislike their music or find it lacking interest.

Medtner is almost a strange composer in that his music almost sound bad at first listening, but amazing at the 2nd or 3rd time. Than after a while one starts to doubt that on didn't like it to begin with.

First time hearing the night wind sonata I literally found it insanely boring....Maybe I am just crazy....

[stevebob]

It seems that the continuum of fame, familiarity and obscurity is perceived differently by people according to their tastes and experiences.  Some people might enjoy comparing among dozens of recordings of very well-known works, while others are naturally drawn to underexposed pieces by the big-name composers or even toward composers who are outside mainstream recognition entirely.

I, too, was unaware of Feinberg until a few years ago.  In fact, I was startled to learn of the early-20th century “school” of avant garde Soviet composers for piano that includes Roslavets, Mosolov and others.  I’m pretty sure that I’d never heard of Bortkiewicz or Blumenfeld before the internet era either!

And courtesy of the internet, there are now channels on YouTube dedicated to just this sort of recondite (but increasingly familiar) music.  Some even supply video of the score scrolling dynamically as you listen, which I personally find greatly enhances my enjoyment.

Were scores and recordings of the Soviet “futurists” and other late- or post-Romantic composers from the Soviet bloc even available in the rest of the world until relatively recently?  I’m in the U.S., and I can’t help but guess that our collective lack of awareness had much to do with Cold War politics.

Or maybe it’s just me, as my education was not in music.  So perhaps what seems like fertile and unexplored territory was actually studied and examined by those with niche interests and specialized expertise all along.  I have no idea, but the body of musical knowledge possessed variously by the general public, by the musically inclined, by performers of specific instruments, and by those who concentrate exclusively on a historic period or style is bound to differ hugely.

None of this addresses the aspect of being under- or overrated, but I don’t understand how value judgments are made about art.  We like what we like!  Some things will always have mass appeal, while others will never enjoy popularity even if they’re highly prized by some.  Some people surely like things because they’re obscure, and find that an artist or a product is cheapened by crossover to a broader market.  So even if we can quantitatively measure the level of exposure, it doesn’t seem to correlate with inherent quality.  How do you even define (much less measure) quality when it comes to art?

[mephisto]

How do you even define (much less measure) quality when it comes to art?

I have been thinking a lot about this question, and I still cannot find a satisfying answer!

Maybe my question is whether or not other forum-members appreciate let us say a sonata by Feinberg and Medtner as much as they like a sonata by Rachmaninov  or some other famous composer.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Maybe my question is whether or not other forum-members appreciate let us say a sonata by Feinberg and Medtner as much as they like a sonata by Rachmaninov  or some other famous composer.

The approximate parallel for me would be that I think Liapunov's transcendental etudes are the equal of Liszt's set (whilst being almost unknown outside of connoisseurs).

[mephisto]

The approximate parallel for me would be that I think Liapunov's transcendental etudes are the equal of Liszt's set (whilst being almost unknown outside of connoisseurs).

What is the reaction you get from playing these pieces to friends or other audiences?

May take on this is that Lyapunov just isn't a famous composer and that these etudes therefore aren't famous either. But I believe that etudes are very easy to appreciate for almost everyone who likes romantic music.

I have some live recordings of some pianist playing that and the audience always go wild

[john11inc]

It takes more than one person (unless we're talking about something that's just that bad. . .) to "overrate" something.  I don't think the word choice is appropriate.  What one enjoys is his own, personal business, and you're free to enjoy Feinberg however much you want.  One can overvalue a composer's work in a number of ways, due to ignorance on some level or another, but a sheer, acousmatic "enjoyment" is entirely personal.  The most common ways to overvalue a composer are overestimating a composer's historical importance, a composer's ingenuity, or the quality of a composer's music.  I don't believe we're speaking about the first two, so we get into a mucky situation about gauging "quality" of music.  Of course, some pieces of music we can simply state, as fact, as being better than others, but as is the case in that other thread regarding gauging difficulty of piano pieces, when the discrepancies in quality are smaller, it's nearly impossible for a person to be able to say definitively if one piece is better than the other, and when anyone does so, the rigors of their thought process should be immediately called into question.

Personally, I do think some of Feinberg's Sonatas are as equally deserving of performance as Scriabin's and Medtner's, Nos. 4-7 and 11 being the ones that seem to have the most depth and character.  But it's a simple fact that the way the industry works isn't intuitive to a purposeful selection of Feinberg's (or Roslavet's, Protopopov's, Mosolov's etc.) Sonatas over Scriabin's.  Pianists are brought up in conservatories where they learn standard repertoire, then go to competitions where they are expected to play standard repertoire.  Also, the current issue of the relative obscurity of Feinberg means that a lot of pianists won't even be aware that there's a choice in the matter.  All we can do is wait and hope that enough people fall in love with his music (as was the case with Scriabin himself, whose music became almost entirely obscure for several decades, or in the vein of what is now happening with Alkan).

Just an addendum: please bare in mind that this is, of course, Russian music, and not the sort of "Russian music" that the USSR would exactly flaunt.  This is more the type of music that had composers being exiled to Siberia, or, more commonly, music that was burned.  No matter how hard we might try, we are at least somewhat at the whim of what people (in this case, the former USSR) tell us is acceptable, or make aware to us.

[mephisto]

I actually appreciated that comment

[ahinton]

It takes more than one person (unless we're talking about something that's just that bad. . .) to "overrate" something.  I don't think the word choice is appropriate.  What one enjoys is his own, personal business, and you're free to enjoy Feinberg however much you want.  One can overvalue a composer's work in a number of ways, due to ignorance on some level or another, but a sheer, acousmatic "enjoyment" is entirely personal.  The most common ways to overvalue a composer are overestimating a composer's historical importance, a composer's ingenuity, or the quality of a composer's music.  I don't believe we're speaking about the first two, so we get into a mucky situation about gauging "quality" of music.  Of course, some pieces of music we can simply state, as fact, as being better than others, but as is the case in that other thread regarding gauging difficulty of piano pieces, when the discrepancies in quality are smaller, it's nearly impossible for a person to be able to say definitively if one piece is better than the other, and when anyone does so, the rigors of their thought process should be immediately called into question.

Personally, I do think some of Feinberg's Sonatas are as equally deserving of performance as Scriabin's and Medtner's, Nos. 4-7 and 11 being the ones that seem to have the most depth and character.  But it's a simple fact that the way the industry works isn't intuitive to a purposeful selection of Feinberg's (or Roslavet's, Protopopov's, Mosolov's etc.) Sonatas over Scriabin's.  Pianists are brought up in conservatories where they learn standard repertoire, then go to competitions where they are expected to play standard repertoire.  Also, the current issue of the relative obscurity of Feinberg means that a lot of pianists won't even be aware that there's a choice in the matter.  All we can do is wait and hope that enough people fall in love with his music (as was the case with Scriabin himself, whose music became almost entirely obscure for several decades, or in the vein of what is now happening with Alkan).

Just an addendum: please bare in mind that this is, of course, Russian music, and not the sort of "Russian music" that the USSR would exactly flaunt.  This is more the type of music that had composers being exiled to Siberia, or, more commonly, music that was burned.  No matter how hard we might try, we are at least somewhat at the whim of what people (in this case, the former USSR) tell us is acceptable, or make aware to us.

John, this is a typical example of the kind of thing that we want to read when you write about something that you care about. ("Bare" should have read "bear", of course, but I feel churlish in even mentioning this in the present context - sorry!). What you write here makes a good deal of sense, so thanks for posting it. Let's hope that it helps to encourage people here to listen to the piano music of Feinberg and some of his equally lesser-known contemporaries and compatriots and make up their own minds about it!

Merci!

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

"Bare" should have read "bare"

Not bear?

[ahinton]

Not bear?

Oh, b**g*r"! Of course! (and now duly corrected in my post). Why even make the point if I can't even type correctly! Touché! Grrr!

For what it may or may not be worth, that reminds me of "ada"'s remark ages ago about Americans' constitutional right to arm bears...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

What is the reaction you get from playing these pieces to friends or other audiences?

May take on this is that Lyapunov just isn't a famous composer and that these etudes therefore aren't famous either. But I believe that etudes are very easy to appreciate for almost everyone who likes romantic music.

I have some live recordings of some pianist playing that and the audience always go wild

Yes, I would agree that they are pretty accessible. I remember playing one of the etudes in a class; out of about twelve, one person knew them vaguely, one person was intimately familiar with them, and the others had never encountered them before. The reaction to the piece was generally favourable, but for me the most memorable response was that of the teacher (who was aware of their existence, but that was about it.) He said (approximately) "I can't understand why these pieces are unknown; they are well-written, effective, and have all the traditional Romantic gestures" (he's been a lot less complimentary about some other obscurities I've brought to him, so he certainly wasn't just appeasing my taste.)