John Wiser responds to Steve Schwartz:

>>One-Hit Wonder implies a composer who wrote one good piece or a piece
>>that is SO much better than the rest of his output.
>
>>Pardon me, but it implies nothing of the kind. It is ordinarily
>>intended to described a composer with one conspicuously POPULAR
>>work ("one-hit," get it?) and doesn't call the quality of all other
>>works into question. So despite the CD availability of most of his
>>output, Holst remains a one-hit wonder for "The Planets." The rest
>>is esoterica, comparatively speaking. And the rest, I'm inclined
>>to think, is better music than "The Planets," which has aspects of
>>freakishness and monstrosity not typical of Holst. For the sake of
>>argument, I'd call the following figures one-hit wonders: Berlioz,
>>Gounod, Bizet, Glazunov, Bruch. I'm sure you will all have your own
>>candidates.

Do I really want to jump in here...why not.

I guess, for me, the notion of a "hit" equates to popularity and that
within the context of popularity, the more popular a piece is, the better
it is.  Does that make sense?

My guide to the "Greatest Hits" is the repertoire lists of the American
Symphony Orchestra League.  Which is not to say that it is the arbiter
of what is great and what is not...according to that list, the Planets
is Holst's hit=most popular=best at being popular.

My God, I just noticed, Billy Joel wrote a piano concerto...how did I
miss it!  God I would love to get a tape of that one!

Karl

             ***********************************************
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery.  For more information,
go to:  http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html