Vulgano Brother

Try "neo-classical' and have fun sorting out the rest of your stuff!

__________________
www.letsbuildhope.org

Alex Yates

I would say that they are not as popular to the average listener because the language is indeed unfamiliar to those who appreciate his "greatest hits" or mainstream works. As a trained/educated listener, I find all works by a composer interesting because I want to know every nook and cranny of their art, where it resides in their progression, as well as how it relates to what was happening historically around the composer at the time of the composition. In the case of an educated, trained listener, the interest of listening is for far more complex reasons than the purely aesthetic. That is perhaps the most glaring reason why some works are considered more interesting or popular than others.

jcopella

Johann Sebastian Bach.

Never a dull moment.

Vulgano Brother

Is there anybody out there who speaks truth all the time? Bach has his "Sleep Arias" in the Christmas Oratiorio as well as a 16 bar Chorale that truly makes the full circle from Christmas to Easter: some of Hindemith's stuff brings tears of joy while other things of his are pedantic soudning . How 'bout "Boston's" first record? Zappa'a "Tinseltown Rebelion"? Great cuts, but nobody is perefect!

__________________
www.letsbuildhope.org

Jimi Michiel

I think the question here is what composers manage to maintain a consistent compositional vocabulary throughout their career while managing to keep their listeners interested.

The composers that come immediately to mind are Bach and Stravinsky. Bach's music is immediately recognizable, if only for the pure genius. Sure, he developed as a composer, learning and incorporating into his works diverse styles throughout his career. But if you ask me, Bach is the only composer to reach a level of genius that the proportion and balance become an aesthetic. When you listen to Bach, you can hear the genius.

Stravinsky is a little more complex. His aesthetics changed dramatically in his lifetime. Compare his early Symphony in E-flat, Firebird, Rite of Spring, Le Noces and Symphony of Psalms. All VERY different works with very different sounds. You have to listen a little bit harder to hear the cohesion within Stravinsky's catalogue, but its there. When a conductor asks for "Stravinsky-short," you don't have to wonder whether he means circa 1911 or 1950. Similarly, Stravinsky's rhythmic invention permeates his entire catalogue. What is presented not-so-subtly in the Rite can be found to varying degrees in a number of his other works (The Octet, Petrouchka, Symphony of Psalms, even our own Fanfare for a New Theatre).

So back to the original topic, I'm not incredibly familiar with Coplands lesser known works. Maybe he was inconsistent in his vocabulary and his lesser known works aren't as good. Or maybe the aesthetics of his lesser known works are less accessible to the general public and therefore don't get programmed as often (but then how would you explain Elliot Carter?). I can say that in the early 18th century, St. Matthew's Passion was one of Bach's "lesser known works." If it weren't for a mid-century revival by Mendelssohn, it would still be in a subsidiary place in the repertoire. I can't remember what the original question was, but next chance I get I'm going to check out some of Copland's lesser known works (although the clarinet concerto will still be in my top 10 favorite pieces).

-Jimi

__________________

ebtromba

Just thought I'd complete the dialogue from that gem of pop culture that is Office Space.

__________________
www.Ebtpt.com

Johntpt

Very few composers are interesting 100% of the time. We don't play that much unknown Copland, but a few years ago we played the Dance Symphony, a piece that certainly would never get played except that "Aaron Copland" is printed on the top.

Like you Manny, I really enjoy playing Tchaikovsky, unlike many other colleagues, and in fact Tchaik 2 and Francesca are favorites of mine. But I have to say that I don't really enjoy the Manfred Symphony or the Third Symphony.

My own opinion, certainly relating to our own programming here, is that instead of examining every little nook and cranny of some composers' output, there are many underperformed masterpieces that need to get played more often. Nielsen 4, Vaughan Williams 5, etc, etc, etc.

JU

Manny Laureano

We play the 4th of Neilsen all the time here! I love that piece. It has some of the most sumptuous writing for trumpet in all his literature. I have played Manfred once in all my time here. I don't miss it. Opera-wise, did you ever get to play "Pique Dame (The Queen of Spades)". It's fun and has that nifty little trumpet call to play from off stage.

ML

tpter1

I like to think that if a composer like Copland puts something down on paper and releases it to the public that he is doing so because he feels it is worthy of release. I think some of his earlier works actually are a bit more interesting because they are so different. But it's that difference that creates discomfort, I think, in the average listener/concertgoer. When most people hear that Copland is going to be performed, they think Rodeo, Appalachian Spring, you all know the pieces...they think or have that sound in their head before the concert even begins. I think it has alot to do with audience expectations.

Uninteresting...maybe unexpected. Discomforting because of that expectation. So, I guess I'll take door number one.

__________________
-Glenn
"Roses have thorns; shining waters mud. Clouds and eclipses stain the moon and the sun; and history reeks of the wrongs we have done. After today, after today, consider me gone."- Sting