Didrik Schiele responded to Ed Zubrow:

>>Just for the heck of it I looked up the From the Southland, a piano medley
>>by Harry T.  Burleigh that I was listening to the other day and the store
>>had it.
>>
>>Burleigh, by the way is an interesting case.  An African American, he was
>>a protege of Dvorak when the latter was in America.  The piano sketches
>>are evocative and idiomatic.
>
>I don't understand the point in listening to a composer who nobody
>else takes interest in.

Oddly, I don't see the point of basing what I want to listen to solely on
what others take interest in.  In my experience many people, even the most
brilliant, and very limited interests.  I have my own tastes, and like to
make up my own mind.  There are actually quite a few reasons someone might
want to listen to a little-known composer.

A musicologist or music historian may want to study Burleigh's music to
get insight into Dvorak's teaching techniques and their synthesis with
New World influences.  The reverse is also true.  Listening to music that
Dvorak may have known or inspired can provide insight into what New World
music elements may have influenced Dvorak's style.

There's value to scholar and enthusiast alike in understanding the creative
environment that helped shape an artist.  This means getting to know the
music of the times.  There's simply no other way to do it.

Also, I believe there can be tremendous value to both the casual listener
and the cognoscenti in being able to place the accomplishment of a favorite
composer in a context.  The musical context of a piece is important, not
just as a means to analyze it, but also the ability to evaluate it
subjectively.

>I mean, composers whose skill can be argued to actually be higher quality,
>so called "underrated" composers, say Hummel for example, at least has won
>little recognition.  But of course, if there are idiots, geeks, bitches,
>moroons and sluts and all kinds of stupid people in the world, no way there
>are not musical idiots, geeks, bitches, moroons and sluts in the world
>also.

Not sure what this has to do with your point on this, but yes, I think
anyone who assumes a great or minor composer is a nice person owning to
their achievements, is deluded.  In general, I don't let my opinions of
composers as people impact my enjoyment of their music.  For instance, I
pretty much assume, unless we evidence to the contrary, that all Gentile
composers born before this century, and probably many born this century,
were anti-Semite.  From what I know of European history, it would have been
quite unusual to be otherwise.  But all that is irrelevant when it comes
to evaluating the music.

>I don't understand why another spends time to even think of Harry Burleigh
>when there are Mozarts, Bachs, Beethovens and Mahlers around. I would never
>listen to Harry Burleigh. And I could go on for ever here!

Steve had a good response for this.  I'd also point out that the music
of these composers (or any such list) is finite, especially if one limits
oneself only to the masterpieces.  I suspect your philosophy doesn't allow
much room for interest in Mozart's juvenilia, for example.  Given that,
what is one to do when you've been through the list of greats several
times? Just do it again? In my experience, interest in classical music is
often lifelong.  I've been at it in earnest for only about 20 years now,
and I consider myself a relative newcomer in many ways.  Life is long, and
the vast banquet of music (not just classical music) is out there waiting
to be sampled.  Why confine yourself to one corner of the buffet?

Don't get me wrong.  I think the "greats" (however you might define them
for yourself, I'll make my own list if you please) should be wallowed in,
enjoyed thoroughly, deeply, lovelingly.  But anyone would tire of lobster
or Beef Wellington for every meal.  Variety is the spice (and sometimes
the depth and breadth) of life.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/