Satoshi Akima wrote:

>I personally love the music of Heinrich Schuetz (1585-1672), William
>Lawes (1602-45), Michael Praetorius (1571-1621), Orlando Gibbons (1583
>- 1625) and Archangelo Corelli (1653-1713) to name just a few.

I'll add Biagio Marini (1597-1665) and Francesco Cavalli (1602-1676).
Not to mention the German/Austrian/Bohemian school:  Johann Rosenmueller
(1619-1684), Johann Schmelzer (1620-1680), and H.I.F. Biber (1644-1704).
Then there's the whole gaggle of people from France--Lully, Charpentier,
Marais, etc.

>I can also remember a time a when I listened for several months
>exclusively to music from the 1400s up to around 1650.  Coming back to
>a modernist upstart such as J.S.  Bach was something of a nasty shock.
>His church music sounded so dramatized by comparison as to sound brazen
>and almost garish.  The Matthaeus-Passion sounded like opera verismo.
>Beethoven and Mahler were both utterly unlistenable to.  Only some Anton
>Webern shook me out of the feeling that after the 1500's it was just a
>downward spiral.

Funny how some of those younger "upstarts" can even sound a bit old-
fashioned compared to their colleagues of a couple of centuries earlier;-)

>I think there is a sorry lack of discussion on this list of music before
>the time of J.S.  Bach.  In comparison composers such as Mahler tend to get
>discussed to death.  The composers of the 17th century certainly do get
>short shrift.  The situations with respect to the 15th and 16th century are
>unfortunately even worse.  In fact the 15th century is a particular love of
>mine.  I do not think that the music of the finest Flemish composers of
>this period has ever been surpassed.

Perhaps some of the reasons are that the composers Dr.  Akima mentions
below (to which I might add di Lasso, and Spanish composers such as Morales
and Victoria, or Englishmen such as Tallis) wrote virtually all of their
output for the voice, and in liturgical contexts.  These are two strikes
against these guys in this age of Instrumental, Secular Classical Muzak
on the radio.  This medium would be most helpful in getting more of this
gorgeous music better known.  But in this day that's getting even less
likely, so it seems.

>Whereas in the visual arts Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Raphael are
>universally renown even to the person on the street, the reputations of
>their musical contemporaries such as Josquin, Isaac, Ockeghem, Brumel,
>Pipelare, de la Rue, and Obrecht still languish in relative obscurity.
>These are composers known only to a small core of enthusiasts.  In stark
>comparison to their neglect in our age the mighty Josquin was once
>universally revered for centuries after his death as the musical
>Michelangelo.

I would tend to agree with this, quoting the recurring, (half) facetious
contention that if one were to REALLY take into account the vast sweep of
European Classical Music over the last thousand years and not just the
narrow Common Practice era, the Three Greatest Composers would include
Josquin and Monteverdi, with "also-rans" such as Bach/Beethoven/ Mozart
having to fight it out for the last position...

>'Neglected music' meant not only 20th century music but also of the
>so-called "Baroque" (a confused term every bit as crude as the "Dark
>Ages")...It is hard for us today to believe that so-called Baroque music
>was once neglected by the recording companies.  In this respect things
>have changed so that I can only hope that the current strong interest in
>18th century music will eventually spill over into the 17th century and
>beyond.

I do feel that the trend is working this way, as further discoveries
of 17th century music continues.  Whether sourced from Eastern European
monasteries and libraries, or Latin American mission collections, there's
still gems to be found.

Bill H.