Whether or not to put lemon on a cutlet - who decides how to evaluate music?

In the world of classical music, there are figures who are considered "leading composers" but whose reputations vary remarkably from period to period and region to region. Composers such as Edvard Grieg, Camille Saint-Saens, and Alexandre Glazunov, despite being important figures in music history, are deified in some countries and almost forgotten in others. Let's have fun and delve into this phenomenon.

1. grieg - Norwegian pride, otherwise background music?

Edvard Grieg (1843-1907) is a national hero in Norway. His "Peer Gynt" suite is a source of national pride and part of the school curriculum. In France, however, he is described as "just another Norwegian folk song arranger," in the United States as "music to go with your morning coffee," and by some German musicologists as "the man who never wrote a real symphony.

Especially in 19th century German and Austrian music circles, "Grieg? Oh, he's not even close to Mendelssohn. On the other hand, since the latter half of the 20th century, Grieg's music has been reevaluated as "healing classical music" due to the influence of movies and commercials, and has spread throughout the world in a way that Grieg himself did not anticipate.

2. saint-saëns - the french mozart or just an elegant craftsman?

Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) is sometimes referred to in France as the "French Mozart. However, German critics at the end of the 19th century regarded his music as "too technical" and "lacking in emotional depth. In particular, Wagner's followers often spoke of him with the prejudice that "the music of the French is frivolous.

In England, on the other hand, his fame as an organist is high, and his Symphony No. 3 "With Organ" remains popular. In the U.S., however, he is more widely recognized as "the man of the Carnival of the Animals," and his symphonic poems and piano concertos are not widely performed.

3. glazunov - pride of imperial russia or outdated academism?

Alexander Glazunov (1865-1936) is counted as one of the masters of Russian music, but his reputation has varied widely. In Russia, he is praised as "the last great composer of Imperial Russia," and his ballet music "Raimonda" and Symphony No. 5 in particular are considered masterpieces. However, during the Soviet era, he was regarded as "a man of the old era who was too caught up in romanticism," and was overshadowed by new trends such as Shostakovich.

In France, he was seen as a "Russian scholarly composer," in contrast to the innovative music of Debussy. In the United States, he is even less well known, and opportunities for his music to be performed are limited. In modern times, however, ballet music enthusiasts have rediscovered his works, and there is a movement to re-evaluate his music.

4. what is evaluation, after all?

What these composers have in common is that, despite their high musical quality, their reputations vary widely from period to period and region to region. Historical trends, critical opinion, national identity, and even commercial marketing strategies have caused the value of their music to fluctuate.

In other words, the evaluation of music is not a "universal value" but something that depends on the time and place. Works we consider "masterpieces" may have a completely different reputation 100 years from now.

Now, would you dismiss Grieg as "just background music"? Would you dismiss Saint-Saens as "light"? Would you regard Glazunov as "old-fashioned"?

In the end, it is neither critics nor scholars who decide how to evaluate music. It is you, the listener, who will decide.