Non-operatic Suppé world premiere recording

[Mark Thomas]

I wondered about irony, but I don't think so. He really means what he says and what he says makes sense, except that it's about such a poor piece.

[Alan Howe]

Hurwitz thinks Sullivan was the greatest British composer. The Savoy operas are fab, of course, but what else did he write that's great music? Answer: nothing. Hurwitz is welcome to his opinion, but the problem is that he does somewhat dominate the market in YouTube videos of classical recordings. And that's a bad thing for objectivity...

The Suppe is trash - I've just checked. IMHO, of course.

[tuatara442442]

Hurwitz thinks Sullivan was the greatest British composer.

I always take that as an over-correction on the low status of comedic music

[tuatara442442]

His aesthetics is peculiar from time to time. He thought Pfitzner's PC, and by extension, all of his compositions are extremely boring.

[eschiss1]

You are more willing than I to cut a critic slack.

[Alan Howe]

This is the problem with paying attention to one critic who (inevitably) will have his own enthusiasms and blind spots. I mean, I think Draeseke is as great as Brahms and can't stand Sullivan's Savoy operas, so it's hardly surprising to find that Hurwitz, even with all his vast experience, has his own oddities. Listen to him, by all means (I do too), but read other opinions if at all possible - and make up your own mind!

[Ilja]

I generally agree with what's being said here, but I do ask myself whether we - as a modern audience - are that well suited to judge this piece on its own merits. We simply lack experience with this subgenre of 19th-century theatrical music, which may sound very "trashy" to our ears. Hurwitz doesn't really help, because calling something "really a symphony" provokes comparison with what is a very different world of music; there was a very good reason why Suppé didn't want to do that and it goes well beyond the arguments mentioned by Hurwitz. Having said all that and liking Suppé's Fantasia more than (apparently) most of you do I still think it's hard to make the case that it's a major re-discovery. However, I do think it's an interesting piece.

His aesthetics is peculiar from time to time. He thought Pfitzner's PC, and by extension, all of his compositions are extremely boring.

Can't say I wholly disagree there, though.

[Mark Thomas]

The Suppe is trash - I've just checked. IMHO, of course.

I've just re-listened too and I think that's rather harsh. Hurwitz's verdict is ridiculous, of course, but this time around I could hear more clearly Suppé's attempts at symphonic writing - the first movement in particular, and the quasi-fugal passage in the last. The second, slow, movement also develops into something a little more serious towards the end. It is clearly an attempt at a symphony but it's let down by Suppé's choice of thematic material (often trite, if melodic) which doesn't lend itself to development, just repetition. This, in conjunction with his colourful and sometimes bombastic orchestration, cheapens the whole thing. It's not trash, I did enjoy it more the third time around, but it's definitely not "one of the great, mid-century, Austro-German symphonies".

[Alan Howe]

No, it isn't trash - you're right. However, in a way one is forced into deciding that it is when a critic as high-profile as Hurwitz tells us that it's a major find (my summary of his assessment) - because that's just nonsense.

As I said before, I listened to it again and, apart from some fetching orchestration and a few decent tunes, it just didn't do anything for me. You only have to listen to some of the composer's exciting overtures to notice the difference in quality. IMHO, of course.