Not all Classical Music is equally Classical

Barry S. Brook (1903-1997) published between 1986 and 1995, in multiple volumes (with Pendragon Press), a monumental work titled: The Symphony: 1720–1840. It is a comprehensive thematic catalogue of symphonies composed during the period indicated. The catalogue includes approximately 16.500 symphonies, categorised by composer, thematic incipits, dates, and other relevant details. This multi-volume work,  Brook co-edited with Richard J. Viano remains a foundational resource for scholars of 18th- and early 19th-century symphonic music. 

What comes to mind concerning those 16.500 symphonies is that they were largely unknown at the time the catalogue came out, and they remain unknown and unperformed to this day! And yet they all are “Classical Music”. But apparently, a musical composition may be “Classical” and, at the same time, be unworthy of attention and completely ignored. Quite remarkable, I would say.

In fact, if we consider what composers – even major composers – produced during the Common Practice Period of music history (1600-1900), it is easily realized how most Classical Music is never performed and does not even draw scholarly or critical attention. By way of example, how many of the about 1.000 individual compositions produced by Franz Liszt have ever been performed live or recorded?

The paradox is that when we speak of Classical Music, this diction expresses the idea that a musical genre exists that is sacred heritage, that in terms of quality and significance (so the denizens of music conservatories seem to believe) is superior to other genres. And yet, most of what belongs to the genre does not get the slightest attention by the very people who genuflect when the word Classical music is uttered. It just does not make any sense. Why do we keep using a conceptual container that commands respect, while much of its content does not get any respect at all?