I'm not the right person either. But it seems to me the discussion might benefit from some way of establishing what exactly this word "melody" actually means. One person's melody might be another person's sequence of disjointed noises, as has often been evidenced here. Equally, one person's Unendlichkeit might be another's blink of an eye.

On another tack, there aren't many pieces for string quartet and orchestra, are there? On the evidence of the few I know (Martinu, Lachenmann, Feldman) it would seem to be something with a lot of mileage in it, and in many different directions.

In answer to the Member's original question, though, I'm not sure whether there in fact are any "undisputed masterpieces".

Like so many Englishmen, the Member opts for the easy "way out." But it really will not do. Simple nous is needed not awkwardness, and no amount of jolly cultural relativism can save him here!

Yes - not content, it would seem, with giving us stuff about "undisputed masterpieces", the Member goes one step farther in his gaffe-making by suggesting that you are an "Englishman". This is surely just too much! Your patience and fortitude in dealing with this with such discretion are wholly admirable!

As to your being "saved", I cannot quite imagine how anyone could invest you into a savings plan each month, but then that's probably down to my lack of imagination.

As to the "undisputed masterpieces" nonsense, the Member's very mention in his opening salvo of pieces that were once grossly underappreciated surely undermines this concept right from the start. Even if there were such a thing as an "undisputed masterpiece", a balanced view of one would have also to consider whether its alleged "undisputed" status arose on or soon after its emergence or only much later (consider, for example, the arid desert that was once Mahler appreciation in UK). Of course it is true that, unless it can be proved that everyone without exception has agreed not to dispute something, it cannot be described as "undisputed", whatever that somethng may be (as has already been observed here). But then what IS a "masterpiece" in the first place? The term is now usually used to denote a work of immeasurable greatness, yet its literal meaning is (or at least was) that of a work marking the end of an apprenticeship. Perhaps the true definition of a "masterpiece" is a successfully entry for "Masterprize" (God forbid - if He, like "Masterprize", exists - not that God has yet forbidden "Masterprize", sadly...)

By the way, the Member who places such blind faith in the notion of "undisputed masterpieces" may like to know that I'm not an Englishman either...

Best,

Alistair

I certainly don't know any of those... many of the candidates seem not to be undisputedly music, let alone masterpieces.

Fiddlesticks! The business of the determination of masterpieces may be carried out only by those equipped to do so. That stands to reason. Members will at once see what we mean by "nous" and "awkwardness." Imagine if you will our great-aunt's attempting to run a mile!


Who here would ever have thought to assert that the Member was?

No, the thrust of the thread concerns great works late discovered. The lateness, the long drawn-out hiddenness, their reasons and circumstances, are its subject.

Does that delineate today as another undisputed heavenly masterpiece day?

Best,

Alistair

I have had in the last little while a couple of instances of pieces grabbing hold of me and not letting go for what seemed even to me like an awfully long time. One of those was some months ago now and concerned Xostakóvitx's The Execution of Stepan Razin, for bass, choir and orchestra, which came to me as part of a reviewing assignment. The first third is of course a bit of a rant but it's an extraordinarily fine one (there are plenty of blue fifths in the harmony) and one can't help wondering whether in setting the story of Razin railing against his captors Sjostakovitsj might have had something else in mind.


Quite so - a useful reminder it was that the work of a composer's life may well be so copious that even when one thought to have understood it a little there may still be magnificent things even on a relatively large scale lurking in its many dark corners. I had of course long known that the piece existed and had even heard it, I can only assume not with full attention or receptivity. But I have unwittingly filed it away under 'Soviet pièces d'occasion'. How wrong I was.

Another two of those have been the third of the three 'Airs' in Christoph Graupner's Overture in B flat for chalumeau and strings, and Frank Zappa's Echidna's Arf (Of You) from the Roxy and Elsewhere album. Don't know why. Any guesses?

Just as an aside Richard, there is also a rather fine work for string quartet and orchestra by Lyell Cresswell. Well, I enjoyed it at least...