This older message thread in the Raff Forum has been archived. Just click on the icon to email the writer direct. To see all the archived messages return to the Message archive.

Unfortunately it is not possible to add further messages to this archived threads. Instead, just start a new thread in the current Raff Forums.

Posted by	Message
Jack Kelso   08/3/2004	Subject: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" Message: Yes, may I also take this moment to welcome Peter aboard! I'm not so sure I agree with Peter about Raff's position in the next tens years being anywhere near Beethoven, Schumann, Wagner, Bruckner or Brahms. The works and style of these main Romantic Era masters express great passion and spirituality. Those qualities are not exactly rampant in Raff's music. I can, however, see Raff's popularity and standing coming up closer to "lighter", lyrical composers such as Mendelssohn, Grieg or Dvorak. In my humble estimation, he surpasses Liszt in ingenuity, creating more varied melodic lines and rhythms---and without the bombast (well, sometimes I LIKE a little bombast!). Unless I'm missing something terribly obvious, Raff's symphonies, overtures and chamber works display fine instrumentation, facile melodic lines, a keen sense of rhythm and attractive harmonies, fairly typical of late 19th century German Romanticism. But he's often very prolix and not self-critical enough. I enjoy listening to him....but I haven't heard anything from him yet to touch the expressive power of a Beethoven or a Schumann. However, I'd LOVE to hear one of his symphonies played by the Berlin, Vienna or New York Philharmonic---or the Chicago Symphony. Almost all recordings of Raff I know are done by Eastern European orchestras (tho' they play quite well). It's likely, though, that our man will come to be considered more brilliant than Spohr, Volkmann, Gade, Bruch, Gernsheim, Goetz and Rubinstein....all of whom have some fine symphonic works. Oh, yes. He'll remain far ahead of his more patriotic countryman, Hans Huber---who hasn't shown me anything really consistently inspired yet (8 symphonies). Raff was at a strong disadvantage during his lifetime---he was neither accepted by the Wagnerites, nor the Brahmsians. Yet it was his mission to carry on the classical traditions of form and orchestration plus programmatic titles, a fine-lined middle path. In that sense, he carried on the Mendelssohn tradition honorably. Jack
peter conole   08/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Hi, Jack and thanks for such a thought provoking posting. Am pretty sure it will start a lively discussion! The wildly optimistic comment about Raff rising through the ranks to rival Beethoven actually comes from a mate of mine - he used to work in a CD store and plays a couple of musical instruments, which is more than I can do. He discovered Raff in a big way a few years ago. I am too cautious to believe Raff will be able to knock Beethoven of his pedestal in a hurry. Or Brahms, for that matter. It would take a huge change in the behavior of the 'musical establishment' in several countries for that to happen. I think you hit upon one very important point that makes things hard for Raff and a stack of other neglected masters. Their work seldom, if ever, gets the royal treatment from major orchestras and conductors. All of the really big names have had the luxury of several generations of interpreters, study, in depth analyis, a tradition of continual performance, etc.etc. I suspect that makes a very big difference on several fronts. If there were 15-20 rival versions of some Raff symphonies or concertos, with all of the criticism, re-interpretation and general fuss that would involve, the Swiss master might rise higher in the pecking order. I still think Raff is a great composer. And at the risk of starting up another mini-storm, I think Saint Saens was also a great composer. I better not mention any more. That being said, I have to agree with you on a couple of key points. Raff's music was not all consistently high in quality. Also, as you said, he seldom reaches the emotional heights of the most esteemed 'greats'. In both these last two respects, he and Saint Saens make a good pair. The same applies to a third home truth you noted - the two of them should perhaps have given more attention to 'quality control' via revision. Perhaps that is being a tad unfair, though. Beethoven also produced sub-standard music and so did Schumann. No point in me saying anything about a couple of composers you know I simply dislike (Wagner and Bruckner). But here comes the mitigation. Firstly, the craftsmanship. That counts for a lot and Raff and many other 19th century 'neglected list' composers were superb technicians. Secondly, there is the masterpiece factor. Raff wrote a few. The 2nd violin concerto is almost as good as the Bruch no.1, some would say on a par with it. Now this is sheer heresy and I will cop some flack for saying it, but I think both works are better than Beethoven's violin concerto. Then there is the piano concerto and some of the symphonies. Heaven knows what Tudor will deliver when the cello concertos come out. I guess this all amounts to saying that Raff was a great craftsman and melodist and certainly no 'one hit wonder'. But you are right - for the most part a superb lyricist rather than an expressive tragedian. May not that be accepted as another aspect of true genius?
Jack Kelso 09/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Hi, Peter...and thanks for your views. Yes, of course, "technique" is important for imparting expression to the listener. The truly great masters, IMHO wrote such inspired works that the technical aspects involved in creating them are blended together in such a subtle way that the "seams" cannot be heard. I can think of few works of Handel, J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann where this is not the case. There are some mixed bags: Dvorak had a superior technique as well as greater melodic/rhythmic talent than his countryman, Smetana. But I feel a deeper expression of spirit from Smetana....hmm, or "intelligence". Am I alone here? Yes...Saint-Saens, a very facile composer---I like his Third ("Organ") Symphony and opera "Samson et Delilah". Remember Hans von Buelow's letter to Tschaikowsky?---in which he included the Russian into the group of FIVE great contemporary composers who will be remembered after their deaths (in his opinion): Brahms, Raff, Saint-Saens and Josef Rheinberger were the other four. Tschaikowsky's response: "This is a great honor to be included in that...group. But---Rheinberger..?!?" So the great Russian liked both Raff AND Saint-Saens (and disliked but respected Brahms). Raff was quite eclectic---which isn't bad, Brahms and Tschaikowsky were, too. Listen to Schumann's First Symphony (1st mvt)--then immediately thereafter to Raff's Eighth (1st mvt). The materials are different, Raff's symphony is "cleaner", both are dedicated to "Spring"---but the Schumann is compact, doesn't slack off anywhere, hits a deeper emotional note, despite his infamous "thick" instrumentation (or...maybe in part BECAUSE of it!). Raff's is carefree, pure joy, flower-petals and warm breezes. It could put anyone in a good mood. It's hard NOT to enjoy! Do we hear the "Freischuetz" chord in the 4th mvt of Raff's Fifth? I'm not being nit-picky, but some things cannot be overheard. Still...the bottom line for me is: Yes, Raff is a "great" composer in many ways, certainly grossly underplayed and underrated. But then---for me---Schubert and Brahms are overrated, Handel and Schumann underrated (AND many, many of their masterpieces underplayed). (Schumann: "Not everyone will understand my music.") Well, we all have a different set of ears/brain-waves....and only when most or all of any given composer's works are aired and recorded and performed can we be relatively certain what position he can rightfully take in music history. Jack
peter conole   09/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Hi again Jack,and thanks for the usual stimulating reply. It must be fun backtracking some of your past discussions. It is hard to disagree with any of your views AND finally someone writes of Schumann with unqualified respect. Love piles of his music, including the two late concertos (violin, cello) which used to get rubbished by a lot of critics. His symphonies require effort, but they are a nice place to be and a couple leave me feeling suitably pensive afterwards. Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head - it is at the centre of a lot of what I am trying to say. As I understand it, everyone who gets into this site has one thing in common - a desire to see the works of lots of forgotten/shunned/neglected 19th century composers "aired and recorded and performed" (your words) so they can be re-intergrated into musical life. For me, Raff is a kind of stately 'flagship' for a huge armada. Apart from being a 'great' composer, of course. Will be giving his 5th and 8th symphonies a work-out over the next week to see if I can pick up what you are driving at. Re the fourth movement of the 5th symphony, in one of my versions the sleeve notes refer to the works 'gothic excesses'. Hilarious comment, don't you think? Did not quite understand your remark about the 'Frieschuetz chord'. A Raff musical allusion extracted from Weber's opera? The comment on eclecticism was a relief to read. Some critics still use it as a term of abuse, along with 'derirative', 'conservative' etc, etc. Yep, most blokes writing in the classical-romantic tradition were eclectic and that is fine. Many of them them wrote brilliant, haunting and highly original music within that tradition. Saints Saens was one and I have often thought he and Raff make a good pair. The Bulow letter you mentioned was a real surprise to me, as were the implications. So he got Brahms and Tchaikovsky right -after the dust settled, they were accepted among the immortals. So was Saint Saens, to a lesser degree. The gentleman does not need me to wax indignant over him -there is a large amount of his music on CD and I think concert halls are still friendly. Even Rheinberger has been given a better deal than Raff - over the years a couple of companies have done him proud. That reminds me (side issue), I liked the comment you made in another posting about enjoying a bit of 'bombast'. The third movements of Rheinberger's piano concerto and Max Bruch's concerto for two pianos are big winners in that department - unaffected, slightly wry teutonic grandeur at its best. Wonderful pieces, both of them. Will need to think hard about the Dvorak/Smetana issue. I will be disappointed if your question does not stumulate some discussion. Dvorak, by the way, is another composer I would describe as a lyric genius. More good company for Raff in elysium. regards Peter
John Boyer   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Raff probably doesn't have a future as one of the greats...and I wouldn't have it in any other way. I think Jack Kelso has it right in his view of Raff's deficiencies compared to truly great composers, but even then I don't think he goes far enough. Lately the forum has been flooded with all sorts of outrageously exaggerated claims on behalf of our guy. Not only are they untrue, they are harmful to Raff's reputation. If Raff's neglect is an injustice, his being elevated to the same plane as Beethoven would be an even greater one. At his best, Raff is the Swiss Saint-Saens or Smetana, a decent composer who could turn out a fine work now and then, but most of whose output is merely adequate: polished, professional, but for the most part unremarkable. In recommending Raff to others, we only set those others up for disappointment if we argue that his every symphony or concerto is a masterpiece. Raff did not write 11 symphonic masterpieces. In fact, he wrote none at all. What he did write was perhaps three or four good symphonies, worthy of complementing, but certainly not supplanting, the standards. In this regard he has a better record than Saint-Saens. Of the French composer's five symphonies, only the last, the C minor, Op. 78 (published as #3), is remembered...and deservedly so. It is just as important, once the wheat has been separated from the chaff of Raff's output, to remember that the wheat is not of the highest quality to begin with. There is in Raff, even in his best works, a pervading vulgarity, the same vulgarity that makes Liszt's tone-poems more talked about than actually played. The immediately identifiable Raffian quality that we hear in the opening of the 1st Cello Concerto or the Piano Concerto is also that very tendency toward vulgarity that composers like Tchaikovsky manage to avoid, save for their weaker compositions. Raff's idea of drama has a stilted corniness to it, an air of silent movie mock drama that borders on the childish. This is drama for the immature, written for an age when people flocked to the theatre to see on-stage spectacles that included forest fires, battles, and floods...but very little real drama. Those plays and their authors are long forgotten. We shouldn't be surprised when the same as happened to their musical equivalent. Does the finale of the 5th Symphony suffer from "gothic excess"? You bet it does, embarrassingly so. And just as Raff's drama is marred by period trashiness, so his sentimental moments can be damaged by a maudlin, saccharin excess. Let their be praise for the best of Raff as being just as good as Saint-Saens or Smetana, or even off-day Dvorak, but let the praise end there. To rank him with Beethoven or Brahms is merely to call one's own judgment and taste into serious question. To praise Raff while dismissing most of the 20th Century is to be equally foolish. The other night, I listened to Shostakovich's last two sonatas: the Violin Sonata, Op. 134, and the Viola Sonata, Op. 147. If anything by Raff approached the seriousness of this music, his reputation would be assured. Alas, there is nothing by Raff that can compare. Raff, as great as Beethoven? Raff, greater than Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Bartok, Hindemith, or Berg? Good Lord, what nonsense. It doesn't help his rehabilitation a bit if his advocates are so indiscriminate and immature.
John Boyer   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: OK, that was a bit harsh and personal, so change the final line to read, "It doesn't help his rehabilitation a bit if his advocates are so indiscriminate in their praise." I come to attack Raff, not his friends.
peter conole   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: No problems with any of the remarks, Jack. One of the best things about the Joachim Raff Society forum is that people tend to be frank and straight forward re what they say. I agree with some of your remarks, disagree with others. As is usually the case, I get more out of the forum than I contribute. Your posting was so thoughtful that it was necessary to do some hard thinking before venturing a tentative response. Am still trying to come to grips with a remark of Jack Kelso's re the depth of Smetana's music as opposed to that of Dvorak. And Jack's comments about certain aspects of a couple of Raff's symphonies... That being said, I have to say that the key issues still depend on purely personal taste. Ok, as stated in much earlier postings I have a passionate interest in the music of Raff and that of other forgotten or neglected or 19th century composers. I want mountains more of it on public display. There is no doubt in my mind that all readers of the forum would like that - as you more or less stated, injustices have been done. But underneath the indignation, there is still a sincere personal fondness for Raff's music and that of other 'second rank' composers. Questions of bad taste or lack of judgement do not enter into it. Did drop one obvious clanger, though - Raff's piano concerto of the 1870's was up against some huge competition in that decade. There is another matter which sometimes enters my mind when listening to Raff and his contemporaries. We live in the early 21st century and well into an age of electronic communication, with the invention of the CD as a pretty liberating discovery. We can afford the luxury of being critical and even hyper-critical. 19th century music lovers lacked such luxuries - one of those gargantuan concerts in a small provincial town will have had the place agog for quite some time. Raff, Saint Saens, Beethoven, Reinecke et al on the programme, not to be heard again for years, except through the medium of piano transcriptions banging away in some middle class homes. Re 20th century classical music - can't help it, so much of it leaves me cold. But not all. Am a tad keen on some works of Samuel Barber, to name just one. As for Shostakovich, well his piano concertos and the piano quintet in g minor got to me , plus a couple of symphonies. The violin concertos? No comment. Personal likes and dislikes (even biases) tend to win the day, plus a considerable interest in the whole 19th century musical scene and its historical and cultural background. Historical context explains a lot - I am told that the best selling English-language novelist of the 19th century was Baron Edward Bulwer-Lytton, whose works are described thus by one critic " though they abound in examples of strained sentiment and false taste, they have nevertheless a certain theatrical flair". Ok, will take his word for it. But I would prefer to take 19th century composers on their own terms (with very few exceptions), 'gothic excesses' and all. regards Peter
peter conole   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Sorry about name 'jack' instead of John in that past posting. Got confused in checking some discussions. One thing I forgot to add. The discussion in another posting about the discovery of a manuscript of Raff's violin concerto no.1 (Mark Thomas and John Boyer) was very interesting. Have a couple of questions, but before sending them to that thread, any other news on the subject? regards Peter
Mark   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" - Violin Concerto IP: Logged Message: Any more news on the Vilin Concerto No.1 front? No, my post of amplification just about covered everything, I think.
Mark   21/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Now to respond to John's post... I'm loathe to nominate Raff a spot in a notional league table of compositional greats. Such judgments are subjective, based as they are upon personal likes and dislikes, in what proportion one's response to music is emotional and intellectual, the received wisdom of others and so on. His detractors had such a total victory after his death that, in trying to restore his reputation, it is tempting to go too far out of a very proper sense of the injustice done to the man and of the denial to music lovers of some fine music. That said, I agree in principle with the thrust, if not necessarily the detail, of a lot of what John has said. Despite my strong, indeed passionate, advocacy of Raff's music, I am always the first to admit that his genius - yes, I would use that word - was a limited one and flawed, too. Too much so to admit him into the stellar company of some of the people whose names have been banded around here. To compare him with Beethoven is a flight of fancy. Comparison with Tchaikovsky, Dvorák and Brahms, say, has historical precedent on its side, but there were nay-sayers even then, and they were right - up to point. I have written many times before that in my personal Pantheon, Raff stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Saint-Saëns, Rimsky-Korsakov, Donizetti, Franck, Massenet, Meyerbeer, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Stanford, say. Any such list invites criticism, but all of them were fine craftsmen, "professional" and productive composers who I suspect usually wrote with their intellect ruling their heart. Their music illustrates emotion, rather than immerses you in it. None of them were at the cutting edge of musical development in their day but their output somehow crystallised the best of what was mainstream in their time. That was their genius. There is little that is truly "personal" in their oeuvres, though, and that, it seems to me is what is needed to promote a consummate artisan into the first rank. All broad generalisations, I know. Raff, like all the rest on my putative list of fellow rankers, had flaws. I don't altogether agree with every one that John has identified, but I won't deny that his genius had cracks. Even the greatest of composers had "off days", but Raff majored in inconsistency. He could let technique take over, he wasn't good at finales, he could be unselfcritical about his melodic material, he could spin his material out beyond its ability to sustain interest. Yet, he could also write music to which, on whatever level, people in his day responded with enthusiasm and enjoyment and to which people do the same today, given the chance. Is that honestly true to anywhere near the same degree of Reinecke, Rheinberger or Rubinstein, of Herzogenberg, Hiller or Hummel? I suppose I have immersed myself in Raff the man as well as his music. It's difficult for me to be objective - indeed, I'm not sure that I want to be. I find him fascinating because of those musical flaws, his prickly personality, the gross injustice done to him by posterity, just as much as because of his unending supply of wonderful melodies, his superb handling of the orchestra, his epitomisation for me of all that I enjoy about middle-period romanticism in music. We are, I think, talking babies and bath water here, wheat and chaff. Many of Raff's works bear repeated hearing, deserve a place in the repertoire and on our CD shelves as music that we love. Many, in truth, do not. A difficulty with Raff is that sometimes the wheat and chaff are successive movements in the same work, but to my mind that makes him all the more interesting and the job of finding the wheat amongst the chaff all the more rewarding. Call it English diffidence if you like, but Raff's case is not helped by making exaggerated claims for him, which are easily discredited. Much better to be honest about his flaws and set them in the context of his many merits. That way I am confident that he will eventually be accorded his proper place as one of the more important composers of the mid-romantic era. Certainly not the most important, but far from being the incompetent nonentity which he was once regarded as. That would be achievement enough.
John Boyer   22/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: There are some of us out there who probably like Bulwer-Lytton, who's lasting claim to fame was to begin his novel "Paul Clifford" (1830) with the now infamous line, "It was a dark and stormy night." Peter's quote is indeed quite appropriate: there is strained sentiment and false taste, but our guy does have a certain theatrical flair. When I listen to Raff, I listen to him with the knowledge that the experience won't be like Brahms or even like Dvorak. What we need to get the performing establishment to realize is that there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes I'm not in the mood for a "masterpiece". Instead, I want rollicking fun, like the Piano Concerto. It's not a work of the greatest intellectual achievement, but it would be hard to deny that the piece is superbly crafted and wonderfully entertaining. In torpedoing the SS Raff, on which I am now attempting to perform some damage control, I wished to avoid the errors that other advocates for forgotten art have made. There is a web site called the "Art Renewal Center" (www.artrenewal.org) that seeks to rehabilitate the great academic painters of the 19th Century. These painters, Bouguereau, Gerome, Lefebrve, Bastien-Lepage, Alma-Tadema, and others are to painting what our guys (Raff, Rubinstein, Stanford, etc.) are to music. They were the painters who actually dominated the art scene of the late 19th Century. What we think of as late 19th Century art, impressionism, was really an avant-garde movement that was only later raised to an exalted rank by 20th Century critics. Alas, in recognizing the importance of the impressionists, the academics have been consigned to oblivion, most unjustly. But instead of just saying, "Look, these were fine painters who deserve to be known and deserve to recapture the fame they had while alive", ARC goes farther. Suddenly, everything the academics did is treated as a masterpiece, even though many of their works, especially those by Alma-Tadema, are cloyingly sentimental. Further, the impressionists and the entire history of modern art is assigned to the waste basket. This is what I saw happening here: Rubinstein's least successful works praised as masterpieces (like his painting counterpart, Alma-Tadema)...the great 20th Century masters Bartok, Prokofiev, and others denigrated (like Mondrian, Feininger, and other 20th Century artists). Early in the 20th Century, Philip Hale, the great Boston music critic, with regard to a performance of either Schumann or Tchaikovsky's "Manfred" asked, "Does anyone read 'Manfred' anymore?" He noted the irony of how the music has outlived its dated literary source. Yesterday, I started reading Byron's "Manfred" for myself. It's dated alright, but it also has a certain flair that can't be denied. Who knows, perhaps next I'll read "The Last Days of Pompeii" or even "Paul Clifford". Perhaps Raff is dated too, but I think when we listen to him, we begin to understand why he was popular, and it becomes possible to enjoy him again. It's a clear and dry night as I right this, but I'm going to pretend that it's dark and stormy. It's more fun that way...like Raff's music.
Jack Kelso   22/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Thanks to John and Mark for the sobering evaluation of Raff. I thought MINE was quite critical, but still defensible. In large, I agree with both these gentlemen...but I wouldn't put Cesar Franck in the technical or inspirational category of the more superficial Massenet or Meyerbeer. Franck is a true master of expression, ranking in quality with Brahms. He wrote a lot less, but what he left us is at least one supreme masterpiece in every musical genre! Even the Brahmsians of the 1960's included the Franck D Minor Stmphony in the quality sector of the symphonies of their favorite. Yes, I would rank Raff at about the Smetana-Borodin-Svendsen-Bizet level. Raff's reluctance to revise heavily keeps him out of the company of a Schubert, Mendelssohn or (late-) Dvorak. He does, however, approach Brahms in the first movement of his 10th Symphony---which impresses with its fine unterstatement. But the sublime heaven-storming "letting-go" of Beethoven, Schumann or Wagner is beyond Raff's temperate, Biedermeier genius. (1st mvt, Fifth Sym. - he reaches great pinnacles, then lets the idea sag....something one hears in Mahler's 1st Sym., too). I would say that if a Raff symphony achieves "great" status, it's the Third, "Im Walde". Technically and idea-wise there's nothing to bring it down....and the pre-Richard Straussian coda of the work has a nobility all its own. There's not the feeling that he's "overstating the case". My own personal favorite "great" symphony by a lesser-known is STILL the Symphony No. 1 in d Minor by Robert Volkmann. It is considered by Grove's (I think) to be the best German symphony between Schumann and Brahms (Goetz and Raff?!). Jack I definitely agree about the Finale of the Fifth....and it gets too gaudy, too. But I don't think Raff's symphonies in general are any less tasteful or "ugly" than Berlioz or Liszt (maybe even more charming!). Otherwise, Richard Strauss woundn't have found so much in his music to admire! All composers---regardless of rank---have flaws. Whether they be technical or inspirational, they do exist. The difference, however, is in the quality of revision. There is no "dead-wood" in the symphonic output (or most other works) of Beethoven, Schumann, Wagner or Brahms. They were the giants of the 19th century...and other composers, such as Raff, recognized that fact. (I would include Bruckner, too---but (alas!) he DOES have some dead wood laying about here and there...sublime as it is!)
peter conole   22/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: See what I mean? I always get more out of Joachim Raff Society forum postings than I could ever hope to contribute. The whole Raff Society set-up is as the balm of Gilead. Mark and John, it is back to the head-scratching before I put together a considered as opposed to a tentative response. As with John's first posting on the Great Raff (sic), contributor's write some things I agree with, others I disagree with. However, I cannot resist making one playful comment. John wrote that many plays " were written for an age when many people flocked to the theatre to see on- stage spectacles that included forest fires, battles and floods...but very little real drama." Well, we are not in a position to point the finger at our Victorian ancestors. Only the technology has changed. It is called cinema. I go there sometimes to oggle at forest fires, battles and floods, plus space ships, orcs, trolls, muscular heroes, pirates, wicked drug barons, torrid melodramas, maidens in distress and sentimental slop involving children and furry animals with possum-cute faces. I'll wager that every reader of the forum does the same, including two erudite musicologists named Mark and John. Excuse me for that - my sense of humour is pretty bad. Had to get it out of my system. I liked the comments about the revival of interest in the 19th century academic artists and trust that Ingres is also getting some respect. There is a fine book called 'Beyond impression: the naturalist impulse in European Art, 1860- 1905'(author G.P.Weisberg) that adds yet another dimension to the culture of an astoundingly creative century. Am not being irrelevant - just trying to explain, for me, how love and appreciation of composers of the era can be enhanced by looking at what was going on underneath their noses. The composer of the era I get really defensive and anxious about when he is under severe attack is Brahms. Whatever, I still think Raff belongs among the immortals and he is a great flagship for that armada of disgracefully and inexcusably neglected 19th century composers. Considered response later - need to visit another thread. The heat here reached 41 today - still cold up there? regards Peter
Jack Kelso   22/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: By now I'm beginning to see the only way to "irritate" anyone on this forum is not to attack Raff---but Brahms. I know some Brahmsians here in Germany, too. They are very sensitive about comments/comparisons relating to Beethoven, Schumann and Bruckner. Wagner is no problem---they consider themselves are above that. What is it about Brahms (or, better stated, about his "fans"?). Perhaps it's related to the 150-year-old Berlioz-Liszt-Wagner battle against the Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms neo-classical Romantics (later to include Bruch, Bruell, Gernsheim and Goetz). To combat the former group, Robert and Clara (she more so!) Schumann needed a successor, which they felt they found in Brahms, to whom they handed in a famous article the "mantel of Beethoven" and other foolishness. Rightly, Brahms felt overloaded and ill-at-ease. The Wagnerian camp, feeling they needed a symphonist chose the hapless Bruckner, who harbored no ill-feelings for anyone. Even well into the latter half of the 20th century, music critics accepted this as meaning "Brahms is the successor to Beethoven" (as though Beethoven were looking for one/needed one, etc.). Now---upon looking deeper into the music of Brahms---one notices/hears more the "tramp of Schumann behind him" than Beethoven. All his life, Brahms regarded it his mission to uphold the ideals of Schumann, whom he regarded as greater than himself. But many Brahmsians took von Buelow's comments "Brahms' 10th" (1st Sym.) and "Bach, Beethoven and Brahms" (the "3 B's") as indicative of Brahms' stature over Handel, Mozart, Schumann and Wagner! In reality, Buelow was just striking back at Wagner for taking away his wife---and at Liszt for playing the top supporting role. Thus, human foibles and pettinesses are at the base of some musical tenets which many music-lovers still believe! Into this fray came Raff, who eventually made enemies on both sides. Being very religious and volatile about certain issues, Raff was not a "brown-noser" like poor Bruckner, who was known to literally beg for performances of his titanic works. And, unlike what both Wagner and Brahms camps wanted others to believe, Raff had his principles. He also aggrivated a "masculine society" by hiring Clara Schumann as Piano Professor at his Frankfurt Hoch Conservatory. Perhaps because Raff never took sides in that musical war that nobody won, he lost supporters from both sides. Hardly anyone else (except Goldmark) took a middle road. What about that topic "Successors"? I wouldn't consider Richard Strauss to be "Raff's successor"---any more than I'd see Mozart as Handel's successor (or Beethoven as Mozart's successor). How about Brahms, then, as Schumann's successor? Preferably not; Brahms has enough individuality not to have to be seen as ANYBODY'S successor. Jack
peter conole   22/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: I did not notice any attack on Brahms or his musical stature in those remarks, Jack. As stated in an earlier posting, I suspect at times he tried almost too hard because of the pressure on him and that this sometimes can be detected in his music. Still, that does not affect the quality of his music much. Admire all of it - in the musical forms that interest me. Your comments about the feuding between the 'contending musical sects' seem to be a good summing up of some of the things I've read. Quite a melodrama, with the unfortunate Raff suffering 'collateral damage'. Have still not addressed the key issue - the complicated one about Raff's standing as a composer. Read quite a lot before finding the Joachim Raff Society, then many forum threads and even back-tracked into the 'archives'. Opinion seems to be sharply divided over the relative merits of his symphonies and such concertante and chamber music works that have/are being given a little hearing room. Mark referred to an element of 'genius' in Raff and I agree with him. In addition (despite John's torpedo into the SS Raff), there is no way I relegate him to the minor league. But yes, I do agree on a couple of fair criticisms that keep appearing. His work is not uniformly brilliant (mitigation-was that of any major composer?) and sometimes he drags things out a bit. Am not sure the latter issue was all Raff's fault. Wonder if he was ever under pressure to 'stretch out' works to give the concert-goers their pfennigs worth? Another point is the performance problem. Has Raff been given a fair chance in the concert hall? Not yet. And I suspect a lot of his music would sound better than it reads if given full-blooded treatment by the best available conductors and orchestras. Much learned opinion to digest and more thinking to do. John hit upon one point (apropos the piano concerto) that means a lot. If accepted at face value, a lot of Raff's work is pure enjoyment from the start - real fun. That is important from another angle, as I know from personal experience Raff's music can be a good tool for easing wary people into the 19th century musical ocean. regards Peter
peter conole   24/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Still not in a position to give a considered response to a lot of the major issues with Raff's music. But then, it would never be a final/finite position, because I keep returning to him. His admirers and/or detractors will never have the last word, thank god. I need to quote something from my posting of 8 March, "I am too cautious to believe Raff will be able to knock Beethoven off his pedestal in a hurry. Or Brahms for that matter." I did mean it. That being said, after a handful of reminders of what draws me to Raff via the CD player and careful reading of some postings, am still uneasy about the general thrust of discussions, including some remarks of my own. Everyone seems to more or less agree that he was facile melodist, a very fine musical craftsman, good with harmony and rhythm, eclectic and very enjoyable when you are in the mood. I liked John's comment about the 'rollicking' fun of his piano concerto and Mark's remark about 'limited but flawed genius'. Took some effort to work out what - for me - was missing and it gets back to personal taste again. Or, to be more frank, the impact some composers can have on our individual psyches. A lot of Raff's music moves me and does stir 'deeper emotions' one would usually associate with the three B's. To be more honest, and I am not being humorous or corny, I find it touching and very fulfilling. A couple of examples. Some time back, after listening to Raff's piano concerto, I experimented by playing the openings (sometimes more) of about 15 other piano concertos written in the 1870's. From what I recall, there were no real duds, but there was a hard-to define element that attracted me to Raff's work. The spectacular opening sounded striking, original, even surprising - and the whole work takes you on a pretty wild journey. His sound is unmistakable. Then there is the 2nd violin concerto. I sometimes get the impression he was toying with the audience in the opening, and at first hearing yours truly could not guess what was about to happen. Then comes that swaying, dance-like theme and you are off on another pretty unique adventure. Then his symphonies -so many of them. I think quite a few people would agree his 3rd is far from being ordinary and all of them have their moments, even a couple that get tarred with the 'chaff' brush. The 8th is really lovely and very satisfying. I have a real soft spot for the 5th. The way to approach 'Lenore' may be to accept what the composer was doing and that the audiences (after all, they were part of the 19th century cultural scene) knew what was going on and were thrilled and moved by it. I think my comment about one critic's stern remark about the work's 'gothic excesses' being hilarious was misconstrued a little. The critic either missed the point or could not accept the basic idea. Of course the work was 'gothic'. The subject matter (Burger's poem, later given the treatment by Sir Walter Scott) demanded it. And the subject matter was no better or worse than anything available in certain cinematic genres or the novels of Ms Rice. Food for thought - selections from Raff's music being recycled for cinematic use. Not a nice thought, but at least his name would get around. That was facetious and the truth is that I feel pretty warm about the symphony. For me, Raff is perhaps one of a kind and I feel honour-bound to accept him warts and all. Mark, I do not think you are too close to Raff to be objective. Neither am I, because there is so much other music from his era to match whatever he wrote. Despite that, his music continues to inspire very deep affection and respect for the gentleman and has another quality that marks him as a winner - it bears frequent listening. Personal taste again, and with luck Raff will help drag more shamefully neglected 19th century composers out of obscurity. Re one side issue - I was relieved to read John's comment about Liszt's tone poems being more talked about than played. Made me feel better about an unsuccessful attempt to 'develop an appreciation' for them by listening to all I could find in about 2001. I would not use the word vulgar, but on balance they did not work for me. Same goes for the Faust and Dante symphonies. regards peter
Jack Kelso   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: If one composer had possessed the melodic invention and technical expertise of a Raff plus the originality and dramatic passion of a Liszt we could have had this formula: L + R = FRC (front ranking composer). The "Given" is: self-critical! Jack
Luis de Orueta   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Hypotesis 1: How would you feel if you were the only person in the world who knew by heart Cesar Frank´s Symphony, Rimsky Korsakoff´s Sherezade, Rachmaninoff ´s 2 piano concerto and Bizet´s Carmen ? Not only knew these works by heart but had enough money to have them played with your choice of directors orchestras and singers all over the world until you got tired of doing it? As it is, they are played so often that many of us dont feel like hearing them again. Hipótesis 2: If I had lots of money to spend in sponsoring concerts I wouldn´t doubt it a minute: I would travel the world having Raff´s symphonies, concertos and chamber music played ( and how!). Of course I would invite the entire Raff Forum and families to join (in 5 star hotels + limousines) and let Mark, John, Fernando, Jack, Peter, Jamie and all others decide for themselves on the entire casting of players and venues. Glose: If asked about wether Raff was better or worse than other composers, all I would say is that my choice was due to no other reason than my own pleasure.
peter conole   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: I do not think anyone would be in a position to argue with the 'self-critical' issue. I suppose the obvious response is - "if only he had been as cautious as Brahms". In a different thread someone (John Boyer, I think) commented to the effect that Raff did not have the time or inclination to revise (and trim) his work and that it would be rotten if anyone tried to do it for the composer 120 years or so after his death. So admirers of Raff have to accept him as he was/is. That makes 'consensus' impossible (fortunately) and adds value to the Joachim Raff Society and this forum. On a related subject (composers of Raff's time) I agree with you that Volkmann's 1st symphony is a really great work. But competition was pretty fierce -would take a lot playing time re other symphonies for me to agree with Grove. I can't come to terms with the Dvorak/Smetana issues you raised. Have again listened to Smetana's string quartets. I think they are outstanding and as good or better than the 4 or 5 of Dvorak's in my collection. Smetana's orchestral music (have whatever could be obtained) did not strike me as anything special vis a vis Dvorak, except for a couple of favourites in 'Ma Vlast'. It would be pointless for me to pass any remarks about their operas; have only listened to a few extracts. Would like to be enlightened, though, if there is something I need to know in that area. regards, Peter
FERNANDO OLIVA   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: ¡Gracias Don Luis! Many thanks, dear sir! for your 5 stars hotel invitation... I am still dreaming that one day maybe some Raff Symphony will be performed in Teatro Real or Auditori. Today I am too busy at work, and listening to the Barber Symphonies 1 & 2. I´m looking forward the expert opinion of my friend Peter about the Rubinstein´s Drammatic. This Symphony is, perhaps, among my "furtive musical pleasures". All the best for all friends, Fernando.
Jamie   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Peter raises some interesting issues regarding Smetana and Dvorák. Dvorák happens to be my favorite composer (apologies to Raff, who ranks only slightly below Dvorák in my opinion). To me, with the exception of Ma Vlast (which is the greatest piece of patriotic music ever composed, and to which I listened just last night while following the score in a belated birthday tribute to Smetana), Dvorák is by far the superior composer. To focus on just one muscial form, opera, Dvorák's are far more lyrical. Rusalka is my very favorite piece of music, bar none. Its melodies, orchestration, characterization, and libretto are incredibly beautiful and poignant. The final scene never fails to bring tears to my eyes. The Jacobin and The Devil and Kate are also quite wonderful. It is incredible that these operas have been ignored while Janacek's are performed endlessly. Only in Czechoslovakia are they performed with any regularity. Rusalka was just staged at the Met in 1993 (it premiered on 3/31/1901) and I don't recall any of the others being performed anywhere else at all. I guess that puts Dvorák in the same boat as poor Raff. It seems that no one has the guts to program anything other than the same old hackneyed chestnuts like the ones Luis mentioned above. Who among us wouldn't give their right arm to hear a Raff symphony performed by a front rank orchestra?
John Boyer   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Frequently the appeal is made to "personal taste" as a defense for Raff's music. But art goes beyond personal taste. The personal taste argument denies that there are standards, that there exists a hierarchy of aesthetics and artistic merit. One's personal taste for Salieri does not in any way make him the equal of Mozart. Prefer him if you wish, put at least have the courage to admit you prefer the inferior. But what makes Mozart superior? Here is the difficulty. It is very difficult to define, to put into words. It is not popularity. Madonna is popular, Renee Fleming is not. To judge by popularity is to rank Madonna a greater singer than Fleming. Indeed, immense popularity is often the badge of vulgarity, even though it is possible from time to time for something of artisitic merit to be popular as well. This latter case is sometimes seen in novels and films, to which Peter has alluded. But the elements that make a popular film also a work of literary value (fine writing, imaginitive direction and lighting) are lost on the masses who made it popular. Perhaps they were attracted only by an entertaining story. The finer elements of film making, which attract the connoisseurs, pass by unnoticed. This illustrates the Chekhov vs. De Maupassant schools of story telling: should you tell an interesting story (De Maupassant), or do you tell a story interestingly (Chekhov)? Popular fiction of all genres takes the interesting story (De Maupassant) route. It's all in the tale, even if it's told childishly. Literary fiction has taken the other path. It's all in the telling, even if nothing really happens. In defending Raff, Peter has mentioned that today's special effects-laden movies have taken the place of 19th Century on-stage extravaganzas; he has said that Anne Rice's novels show the continued acceptance of Raff's Grand Guignol effects, like the neighing horses in the finale of the 5th Symphony. This is all true, but in so doing Raff is damned rather than defended. These eye-candy movies are the stuff of popular entertainment, not literary film making. Anne Rice's novels are equally devoid of literary merit, read as mass entertainment rather than as lasting works of intellectual value worthy of study at our universities. Just as such fluff has no hope of being studied as real literature, so Raff is handicapped by his own unfortunate attempts to play to the crowd, to be content with trying to be popular rather than trying to be truly great.
Jack Kelso   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Nicely written, John---with well-made points. With artistic equals who are quite different (e.g. Handel and Bach) aesthetic taste does play a large role....but, as you correctly argued, "standards" have to be recognized---just as Brahms did when he continued to carry on the high artistic standards set by Schumann. Jamie, I admit that I was the one to start that mini-thread about Smetana and Dvorak. It just seems to me (in all respect and love for the latter's music) Smetana's music strives toward an heroic goal, never completely reaching the pinnacle, yet driving us there with hope and dramatic intensity. Dvorak's best music, on the other hand, is glowingly sunbathing in the splendours of melodic richness, occasionally perhaps a bit smug and inherently too cheerful. He, like Tschaikowsky and Richard Strauss, allowed himself to be strongly influenced (positively!) by Raff. It's a bit unfair to compare Raff to Schumann or Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler, or other Romantic Era greats. Raff is in the front line of program-music composers of the period. It's not easy to compare his work with any other composers...because it's so different. He dared to take the classical symphony and---ignoring the symphonic poem---infuse the form with his own brand of nature-painting (among other things). To write such colorfully program music within such tight boundaries wasn't that easy! But to take one's own road in the face of adversity is never easy. Jack
peter conole   25/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: It has been a long hot day and will be a long hot night, as opposed to a dark and stormy night. Time to recline with Bulwer Lytton's gloomy, gothic romance 'Harold, the Last of the Saxon Kings' while my other half finishes off the latest offering of Ms Rice. My thanks to all of you for adding to my quality of life. The postings on this thread (as with others) are a real pleasure and I want to respond to each, as best I can. You will all be pleased to know that the Joachim Raff Society has become quite a talking point with my mates and a couple are listening to Raff CDS -borrowed or bought. Fernando, have not forgotten my promise about the Rubinstein symphony. Am adding another couple of items to the 'furtive pleasures' thread , but I would feel less sheepish if it became Restricted Reading. regards to all Peter
peter conole   28/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Luis Thanks for helping to bring us all down to earth with your wise words. Hypotesis One: I could not agree with you more. Some works by fine 19th century composers have been over exposed so much they are in danger of becoming hackneyed. In the meantime, huge numbers of works by shamefully neglected 'sleeping romantic masters' do not get played/recorded at all. Many people who contribute to the Joachim Raff Society have said as much. We could all supply long lists. Hypotesis Two: What a brilliant idea. I wish I was a multi-billionaire. Would gladly supply all of the necessary funds. Even if it meant buying symphony symphony orchestras and chamber music groups - and bribing music critics and musical academics to say only nice things. Not just about Raff, but about all of the other 'sleeping romantic masters'. Would also buy concert halls, television/radio stations and neswpapers if necessary. However, I would insist on personally supplying you with as much A-grade champagne, Dom Perignon, food, Rolls Royces, servants as you could deal with, plus your own private orchestra, just for thinking of such a great fantasy. You and other Joachim Raff Society contibutors would also have to be paid $one million (US) each per annum because of the stress involved in planning programmes and attending so many concerts. (3) Yes, pleasure. I nice reminder. The pleasure, enjoyment and joy (plus all of the 'spiritually uplifting' stuff) to be gained from listening to Raff and the other 'sleeping romantic masters'. regards and respect Peter
peter conole   28/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Fernando Rafcelona would be a nice place to hold the first kind of concert suggested by Luis. See you there. Will listen to the Rubinstein symphony today and post a response to the 'furtive musical pleasures' thread. Hope you liked the Barber symphonies. His violin concerto is a knock-out. regards Peter
peter conole   28/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Jamie Thanks for such an enlighening response. Will take your word for it. Have extracts from Dvorak and Smetana operas, but opera is largely foreign territory for me. In Nue Hicksburg it does not happen much. And opera is not among my favourite musical genres. Would rather see it performed than explore it via my limited CD and video opera collection. You know very well what aria from 'Russalka' gets me pacing the floor. I envy you and people like Mark, etc who can move around in the 'Raff heartlands' - and even go 'concert hopping' when you can find the time. I have a lot of Dvorak's music. He, Raff and Saint Saens are members of another of my 'holy trinities'. Dvorak was, for me, another great composer. On the emotional response level, only two composers have moved me to tears. One was Raff, the other Stenhammar - for different reasons and under very different circumstances. Agree with you about 'Ma Vlast'. Trouble is, Smetana did not contribute much to my preferred musical forms. I have his symphony in e major 9 (the Festive Symphony), written in the 1860's and revised in 1881. Will not criticise it, because it was fun and the composer may well have been a sincere supporter of the Habsburg Dynasty. Would not be fair to compare it to Dvorak's various symhonic/concerto masterpieces. regards Peter
peter conole   28/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: John and Jack Again, thanks for thoughtful and challenging comments. Have some hard thinking to do before forwarding yet another tentative response. And more thinking to do after that. John, there is no way I could ever agree to the central argument in your posting or the general thrust of your remarks. We are, though, on the same wave length re liking Raff and various other neglected 19th century composers. I know because I have read your previous postings. They told me a lot about the efforts you make and the one you sent about how 19th century critics and composers got stuck into one another was pure delight to read. Have read/heard about Madonna. Who is Renee Flemming? Not joking - have never heard of her and I am not going to ask any of my mates about the person. You would all be stunned by the depths of my ignorance about 'popular music' (jazz, rock and all the rest). Don't like any of it, but I won't sneer at anyone whose personal tastes lie in that direction because I know zero. Worry about the injustice done to teenagers a bit, despite the above remark. In many Neu Hicksburg schools classical music does not rate a mention. A music teacher neighbour tells me it is all rock, hip-hop etc. He has agreed to meet Raff next week. And another win - a couple more friends are about to become acquainted with Raff's 2nd violin concerto. One is an accomplished amateur violinist - his opinion will be interesting. regards Peter
peter conole   28/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: John and Jack Again, thanks for thoughtful and challenging comments. Have some hard thinking to do before forwarding yet another tentative response. And more thinking to do after that. John, there is no way I could ever agree to the central argument in your posting or the general thrust of your remarks. We are, though, on the same wave length re liking Raff and various other neglected 19th century composers. I know because I have read your previous postings. They told me a lot about the efforts you make and the one you sent about how 19th century critics and composers got stuck into one another was pure delight to read. Have read/heard about Madonna. Who is Renee Flemming? Not joking - have never heard of her and I am not going to ask any of my mates about the person. You would all be stunned by the depths of my ignorance about 'popular music' (jazz, rock and all the rest). Don't like any of it, but I won't sneer at anyone whose personal tastes lie in that direction because I know zero. Worry about the injustice done to teenagers a bit, despite the above remark. In many Neu Hicksburg schools classical music does not rate a mention. A music teacher neighbour tells me it is all rock, hip-hop etc. He has agreed to meet Raff next week. And another win - a couple more friends are about to become acquainted with Raff's 2nd violin concerto. One is an accomplished amateur violinist - his opinion will be interesting. regards Peter
peter conole   30/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: On the subject of personal taste, Raff's music and his general place in the scheme of things, there is no point in seeking for a 'consensus' view. The only issue that really matters is the one that brought us all here - a desire to see injustices rectified, a desire for the music of Raff and other undeservedly neglected 19th century composers given a fair deal. Any comments I offer are no more than personal views/opinions that are about as valid as anyone elses. John, I am not defending Raff. I am asserting that for me, he is a far better composer, a more original one, a more profound one than many others of his era. His work can be uneven, but I accept that without any problems. No composer of any age has ever produced a monumental succession of masterpieces. As for the personal taste issue, at its most basic, it has been a revelation to read the Joachim Raff Society forum threads. The diversity of views, personal likes and dislikes, preference for particular musical forms etc is astonishing. The world of music can be a pretty democratic one - there is nothing akin to the French Academy setting standards and determining what is in/out, or what is acceptable or unacceptable. It is apparent that personal taste led others to Raff and his contemporaries. Mind you, I would have to agree that for much of the last century our ability to listen to some composers was circumscribed by musical academia, influential critics and emerging technological change. The CD has probably made things a little easier for all of us - over the years, quite a few forgotten composers have emerged from the twilight. On the Salieri/Mozart issue, would it not be fairer to compare composers of more equal stature? For example, Mozart and Haydn. As for the popularity issue, well Raff was popular for quite a long time. But I am not sure it was because he sought popularity. I was astounded to read (data supplied by Mark) that he would not put his own music on display at Wiesbaden. I suppose it was an integrity issue for him, but what a wasted opportunity. The there is the point that that Jack made. It really is hard to compare Raff with other composers. Yes, he did write a lot of programmatic music while utilising more traditional forms. And for inspiration he drew on literature of the age, a lot of which was later consigned to the rubbish dump by changing fashions. He was in good company - a cursory glance at the works of other composers of his era shows the same literary influences. Personally, I find it easy to listen to and enjoy Raff and co without thinking of contemporary influences. That may or may not be the right thing to do, because I really like soaking up the historical context of favourite music. John's comments about artistic merit, standards and taste were interesting and to some extent I have to agree. However, there is a need for caution. Carried to extreme conclusions, elitism and exclusivity can make an appearance. Judging from what I have read in various threads(and in critical works, journals about music and so on) intellectual snobbery and a refusal to change has caused problems at times for people who try to bring about more changes in the concert or recording repertoire. Would I be right in saying that some who work earnestly for change - Mark, John, others - have been affected by it? My own petty endeavour to gain air time in this part of the world for a wider range of 19th century music fell on very deaf airs. I heartily agree with John's remarks about film extravaganzas and certain current literary trends ( while standing in awe of the Rice bank account), but it is not simply a matter of disliking vulgarity and awful taste. It all gets back to personal interests and tastes, to what gives pleasure and mind satisfaction in music, literature and art - and what does not. regards Peter
John Boyer   31/3/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: The Czech Philharmonic is on an American tour. I heard them in nearby Worcester. The have since gone on to New York, that most jaded of cities. The program there included Dvorak's lovely piano concerto. Here is what the New York Times had to say about this rarity: "The program's main draw, at least for listeners interested in out-of-the-way repertory, was the Piano Concerto in G minor (Op. 33), an 1876 work that turns up occasionally on disk but rarely in concert. For the occasion, the orchestra engaged a soloist whose star has been rising in recent seasons, the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard. Mr. Aimard's biggest successes have been in new music, although a recent set of Beethoven concerto recordings showed that he has some fresh ideas about the standard canon as well. Here, he did all the right things. He played up the score's lyricism, especially in the slow movement; he created a lively sense of dialogue with the orchestra; and in the finale he reveled in the sparkling bursts of pianism that Dvorak bequeathed. Yet for all that, the performance did not leave a listener clamoring to get this work more regularly performed. That's the way it is with oddities of this kind, though. It's important to hold them up to the light now and then, and see whether something that eluded past generations speaks to us today. It happens. But not this time." So there you have it. If a concerto as lovely as Dvorak's, by a composer as firmly established as Dvorak, gets this sort of bored dismissal, what hope does our guy have? I'll tell you boys, it's going to be an uphill battle. (Peter, feel free to substitute "mates" for "boys" in the preceding sentence.) It probably has nothing to do with concert having been played in New York, but must the musical citizens of this fine city always be this way? Look how they complain about the acoustics at Avery Fisher Hall. I live about 3 hours from New York (and 2 hours from Boston), so I've heard my share of concerts at Avery Fisher. The worst thing I can say about it is that it's not as nice as Carnegie. Not many halls are. But the NYC crowd seems to believe that every hall in the world sounds like Carnegie, so why can't Avery Fisher? If only they new what the rest of us put up with. Well, end of NYC gripes. But my original point stands. If Dvorak gets this kind of slap, Raff would be in for a real drubbing when he finally gets his day. But oh, to hear the Phil play one his symphonies! I'd be the first guy on the train down to the city...even if it is in Avery Fisher!
peter conole   02/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Another interesting and thought provoking posting. What hope has Raff got indeed, if Dvorak's piano concerto gets treated with something close to contempt. I was amazed to hear you had expressed appreciation to Michael Ponti as early as 1987. What a road you have travelled. You, Mark and others. The thread on the Raff violin concerto manuscript was a revelation. I can only guess at the extent of the hard, dedicated work over so many decades. The New York reviewers comments were revealing. I find it hard to believe that the audience greeted the performance with anything less than delight. Or that a Raff concerto or symphony would not be warmly received. Musical events of that sort are once-in-five years events in this village. From what I can remember, reviewers are not condescending. The music also sells - local CD shops tend to move romantic concertos quickly, as I have personally observed. What was the reviewer trying to do? He praises the performance and the qualities of the concerto, then says he is not keen for more. And the final condemnation - arrogance and snobbery of the worst sort. Was the reviewer saying he does not want audiences exposed to such music? That he wants to keep it out of the concert hall? Jaded and bored? But about what? Something fresh and out of his musical comfort zone? There is no point in pretending I have not been confronted very directly with such attitudes. I can understand some of the historical reasons for the problem, but it is still disconcerting to hear of it. It is nice to know there are people like yourself who are not easily defeated. regards Peter
Mark   02/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Most music critics, and here I'd better recognise honourable exceptions some of whom frequent this forum, don't write for the general readership of a paper or magazine at all. Like so many of his ilk, this reviewer was no doubt very conscious that his review would be read by fellow critics and colleagues in the musical establishment. These worthies generally have good words only for two categories of works. Firstly, those which are so embedded in the standard repertoire that they don't need to bother writing about the music at all and can concentrate on the performers and their performance. Secondly, music which they and their cronies fleetingly decide is "interesting", "challenging" or otherwise in some way flatters their intellectual pretensions. Non-repertoire romantic era music never falls into that category. Bitter? You bet. Some online reviewers and some in record review magazines are admirably open to "new" old music. The same can't be said about live classical music criticism in any UK national daily or Sunday newspaper which I've read recently.
peter conole   04/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: All is not lost. It can't ever be. A couple of recent events in this corner of Raffmark have lifted my morale. First, the light-hearted bit. The pretensions of elitists and modernist-at-any-cost people were viciously satirised on a nationally televised comedy sketch show last week. The scene was a chamber group (piano quintet) gearing up for a performance. A young lady observer calls out ' I want to hear some real classical music'. So the group starts with some dreadful 12-tone stuff. The maiden cries out 'No, I want German music'. The group then resumes with some horrible cacophony from the 1980's. She yells, 'No, real classical music - at least a century old'. The sketch then dissolves into chaos, with cries of 'No, that stuff is too hard to play', and 'No way, it has melodies', ' You musical redneck' etc, etc. Very funny, but to the point. An Australian expatriate pianist named Piers Lane gave a serious and very revealing interview on the national radio station yesterday. It was repeated last night. Lane's theme was virtuoso piano composers of the past, blokes once forgotten but now receiving some respectful attention. He explained how Moscheles, Henselt, D'Albert, Moszkowski and others were once household names and why their music disappeared for generations. He went on about the Moszkowski and Litolff concertos. Then to Moscheles and Henselt - respected and admired by Schumann, Liszt etc. Ok, Lane said, Chopin and others had a little more 'gravity', but it has been a terrible mistake to ignore the musical and historical context of genius. He likes to give concerts with context and perspective and bring forth unfairly forgotten masters to fill in gaps. Hyperion, Chandos and other labels are doing wonders in repairing the criminal neglect. Howard Shelley seems to be ploughing on with the Moscheles concertos in collaboration with the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. Good grief, why not the Neu Hicksburg village band, just for my sake? He structures his concerts in a fun way. Recently, a sonata and prelude by Field, then Chopin, Liszt and Balakirev - variations by the latter on a work of Field or Chopin, I think. Am jealous. Places like Alt-Albanberg (Sydney) and Brahmskirchen (Brisbane) receive all and Neu Hicksburg nothing. In general, Lane commented that being a virtuoso composer was a huge deal in the 19th century. Their reputations rested on an ability to woo audiences directly. The lack of recording technology was critical. A key difference between virtuoso composers and others was, of course, their ability to explore and push the boundaries of their various instruments in a knowing way. I laughed when he went on about the treatment of Rachmaninov in the 1954 edition of Grove. He was given only about 4 paragraphs and dismissed out of hand as a big-yawn failure, while atonalist composers received rapturous commentary. Nowadays Rachmaninov receives pages of discussion and commentary in Grove. So the Second Viennese school and their epigones may not win in the long run. To add to the pleasure, the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestar was interviewed. Benjamin Zander. Correct spelling? He is working with the Australian Youth Orchestra right now and was quite enthused. Sounded like a very fine person. He said at one point something to the effect that "every human being could love classical music - they just need the time and opportunity to find out about it. It is a question of access". I guess that sums up the situation with Raff and his peers. You know about my passion for those composers and how it is shared by contibutors to this forum. I really admire and appreciate the work that you, John and others have done over the years. regards and much respect Peter
John Boyer   05/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Funny thing, Peter, but I saw Piers Lane in concert about 6 years ago at the Newport Music Festival. He played Anton Rubinstein's "Six Pieces for Piano Four Hands, Op. 50" with Anne-Marie McDermott. The second half of the program was the Rubinstein 3rd Piano Trio (Op. 52). Funny, but the whole point of the Newport Music Festival was forgotten masters. One regularly heard Goetz, Rubinstein, the whole gang. A music festival meant just for us. Well, no sooner did I discover it then they changed their format. Now they do complete surveys of established composers, say all the chamber music of Brahms, etc. Piers Lane will be there this year playing the 24 Brilliant Etudes of Henselt, so they still occasionally do the unusual, but most of the festival will be devoted to the mainstream. I like Mr. Zander, but I have to dispute his comment about classical music being for everybody. It's not, really. It's for all sensitive, intelligent people. Too many sensitive, intelligent people are never exposed to it, which is tragic. But for the boors of the world (far too many!), it will never do.
John Boyer   05/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Well, even the Newport Music Festival admits the change of course (from their history page): "The early Festival utilized many members of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra and was the forerunner of the Romantic revival, so popular now worldwide. Approaching its 35rd season, the Newport Music Festival still offers music of the Romantic era-roughly 1825-1900-but in recent years it has expanded the dates and now presents a wide spectrum, from Bach to Berio." Ah, for the good old days...
peter conole   05/4/2004	RE: Raff's future as one of the "Greats" IP: Logged Message: Am surprised to hear of the Newport Festival. News to me. The good bit was the claim that the Festival helped kick-start the romantic revival - back in about 1970! Sad to hear the Festival is now becoming less adventurous. So the organisers are now toeing the line re the musical 'establishment. A crying shame. I guess the early decades will make an interesting read when someone tackles the 'revival' from a historical perspective. It is a definite phenomenom - music magazines openly use the term. Piers Lane, I fear will continue to spend 99% of his time in Europe or the USA. I agree with you about Mr Zander's comment. He did go a little too far, but I guess he was being 'committed' and wanted to make some positive points in a 30 minute interview. Classical music in its various manifestations is not for everyone. I do worry about many young people, though. In most public schools here classical music is a no-go zone. That means youngsters are being deprived of choice, alternatives and a vital element of their cultural inheritance. Has this sort of thing happened in the US or in British schools? I know there was a furore in Britain when Shakespeare was removed from school curricula. Barbarism and very boorish. Have been wondering if the decision was reversed. But what about the teaching of music? Has classical music survived in schools, or have the lowest common denominators won the day? regards Peter