Peter Varley replies to me:

>>Actually, I'm of the opinion that no composer is overrated.
>
>OK.  I'll agree with that.  However, since some composers are more
>underrated than others, there's still a "least underrated composer".
>Different words, same concept.

But, again, by whom? I tend to ignore, say, Raff, because I haven't heard
most of his work and have no desire to do so.  On the other hand, at least
historically, a lot of people enthused over Raff.  It's not an interesting
concept - overrated/underrated/whatever.  The only thing you're going to
get is either pats on the back or outrage.  The reputation of a composer
and the music are two different things.

>>Furthermore, the fellow isn't in the dock.  He doesn't have to be
>>justified.
>
>What does have to be justified is the decision to allocate time in concerts
>and on the radio, and space in reference books, to one composer rather than
>another.

Why in the everlovin' blue-eyed world does this have to be justified?
Either you agree with it or you don't, for whatever your reasons are.  I
see the point that space has much to do with the stature of a composer in
the eyes of the writer, although the amount of insight or the justness of
observation is probably a better measure.  If enough writers write about a
composer with the same level of insight, we probably have something like a
critical consensus.  But who's the tribunal this goes before and why does
anyone attach major importance to what a bunch of individual writers think
about this or that composer? Surely what matters to you is what you
yourself think.  So write your own book.

>>Well, "numerous" is by me an invalid concept.  If the only thing that
>>survived to us by Bach was the Magnificat, I'd still call him one of the
>>finest ever.
>
>I disagree. Potter's 10th Symphony is IMO a masterpiece, but calling Potter
>"one of the finest ever" on that basis would be silly.

Haven't heard it, so I can't say, but I don't discount the possibility.  A
great piece is a great piece and it argues for a great composer (nb.  - for
"great," read "I like it/him/her a lot").

>>Rubbra is barely known outside of Britain.
>
>Sad, but quite possibly true.
>
>By the same token, it's perfectly possible that, although Messiaen's
>reputation is known in Britain, the music on which that reputation is based
>is not.

As we say in the States, them's the breaks.  Or are you suggesting that by
you Rubbra's music is better than Messiaen's? I've no problem with that.
I'd also have no problem with the reverse.

>>If enough people like a work with enough intensity, that's pretty much
>>sufficient, according to me.
>
>Exactly so.  That's why I picked Messiaen as "least underrated composer".
>Nothing I had heard led me to believe that he was a composer people could
>get intense about.

But you have lots of evidence to the contrary - for one, those very books
that got you started on this.  Someone, at any rate, is damned intense,
as you also know from the responses (both ways) you got.  I don't care for
Italian bel canto opera.  The appeal of that music remains hidden from me.
But I know that it appeals to people other than me.  I don't question their
taste, because taste is personal.  Some people like liverwurst.  My cousin
Carol eats mustard straight out of the jar.  That's the point of taste.

>Add to this the poster who actively hated Messiaen's music, and it
>becomes obvious that I've missed something - Messiaen was a composer people
>do get intense about, one way or the other.  I'll investigate some of the
>recommendations made on the list or privately (for which, many thanks).  It
>may still turn out that Messiaen isn't a composer who appeals to me, but at
>least I now know where the reputation comes from.

As you say, it's an opportunity.  Either you'll find something that grabs
you or familiarity will breed contempt.  Let me also say that it took me
decades of intense listening to enjoy Brahms.

Steve Schwartz