Bob Stumpf wrote:

>I have been wondering what makes some composers, such as Bruch, on a
>lower tier as compared to many of his contemporaries such as Mahler,

I generally find the attempt to rank musical creations pointless, but I
have to admit the distinction between Great and merely "good or average"
seems unavoidable, if hard to define.  I was reminded of this at a chamber
music concert a couple of weeks ago.  It began with a quintet by Reynaldo
Hahn (1875-1947, mostly remembered nowadays because he was a friend of
Proust).  Hahn's backward-looking piece, written in the 1930s, sounded
like Franck with a tinge of Debussy.  Nonetheless, it was was perfectly
agreeable, well-made music.

The next piece on the program was Brahms' marvelous horn trio.  Wow,
what a difference.  I'm not sure how to pin it down.  One way is this.
I'd never heard the Hahn piece before, but nothing in it surprised me.
I've heard the Brahms a million times before, and it ALWAYS surprises
me.

Then, after the Brahms, the program concluded with the Beethoven
quartet #15.  Poor Reynaldo.  Sometimes, it occurs to me that these
"good or average" composers display a lot of guts by just keeping at
work.  But sometimes their own limitations become painfully clear to
them.  I once read that Wilhelm Stenhammar, after hearing a new symphony
by a contemporary named Sibelius, decided to just hang it up and not
write any more symphonies himself.

Cheers///

Jon Gallant and Dr. Phage