Leopold Damrosch Symphony in A (1878)

[Alan Howe]

Perhaps we could keep Walter for another, separate thread...

[Alan Howe]

To any student of the 19th century symphony, Damrosch's in A major will be an exceptionally interesting find. It's not a great work - for a number of reasons, I think. But it is certainly worth recording.

First, the positives. Outside of Liszt, Bruckner and Draeseke, it's hard to think of any composer of symphonies (loosely defined) who produced an example quite clearly in the New German style so early (1878). The idiom is audibly influenced by Liszt and Wagner (particularly the latter - think the Ring) and also Bruckner (the opening of Damrosch's Symphony) and occasionally wanders into some extremely chromatic territory. The orchestration is sumptuous and the brass writing often thrilling. So, the idiom itself has one scratching one's head to think of anything so advanced.

Now the negatives: the work isn't very distinctive melodically and the writing sometimes seems rather fragmented. The work often has an exploratory feel to it - which may or may not have something to do with the (generally very good) university orchestra on the recording. The strings in particular have a tough time articulating some of the more jagged writing (e.g. in the second-movement scherzo) and their intonation isn't above reproach.

Nevertheless, this is a fascinating score and one can only congratulate the Azusa Pacific University SO and their conductor Christopher Russell on their sense of adventure. This is bound to be one of my finds of the year...

[sdtom]

You have whetted the appetite.
Tom

[Alan Howe]

Having listened to the symphony a few more times today, I continue to find it intriguing, although I'm not sure it really coheres. But that may be my fault; in any case it's a mandatory purchase.

[semloh]

Thanks for that marvellous review, Alan. 

[Mark Thomas]

We'll soon be able to hear this potentially ground-breaking work for ourselves - the recording will be released on 7 August, coupled with an Overture and Damrosch's orchestration of Schubert's Marche Militaire. Details here.

[Mark Thomas]

I've listened to both the Symphony and the Overture several times now. The Symphony itself is perhaps best described as a heroic failure.

"Heroic" because it is indeed as grand as Alan suggests in his preview. The great Wagnerian gestures are as thrilling as they are effective and and the sonorous Brucknerian writing for the strings and lower winds is tremendously atmospheric. It's not the mature symphony which Wagner never wrote, but it often sounds like it might be.

"Failure" because, although the first movement makes a terrific first impression, ultimately it is way too episodic for the structure to convince. Although so different in so many other ways, I was reminded of Rubinstein's tendency to write in repetitious chunks, and to substitute variation for development. As everywhere else in this chameleon of a work, the writing for the orchestra is superb (as one might expect from a conductor) and it's easy to be seduced by how the Symphony sounds but, if you can ignore the colour and textures and just listen to the notes, this movement is a ramshackle affair which doesn't satisfy because it doesn't really go anywhere or mean anything. The second movement feels rather amateur, I'm afraid. It's the weakest of the four by some way and, even more than the finale, smacks of being written for the sake of it rather than because Damrosch had something to say.

The slow movement by contrast is a real achievement, with passages of Nibelungen grandeur at its start and close. It is an impressive Wagnerian symphonic poem which towers above the other three movements in its impact and its material. There's clearly some sort of underlying narrative, and in a way it's the stronger and more intriguing for us not knowing what it is. I shall certainly return to it and, if that's all of Damrosch's that we had, I'd be standing on street corners singing his praises. For all that the finale holds together OK, and doesn't "chase its tail" as so many unsung symphonic finales do, it is a rather feeble appendage to what goes before and has an almost dutiful air to it. One imagines Damrosch thinking "oh well, I suppose I'll have to write a finale now"! There's no sense of inevitability, or closure, or triumph or even celebration about it - all of which would be appropriate atmospheres to invoke. It's just eight minutes of, admittedly grandly scored, unmemorable music. 

Had Damrosch a stronger melodic facility then I think that he might have got away with this Symphony because its underlying Wagnerisms, coupled with his grand orchestration, create such a terrific first impression. But Damrosch had nothing much to say. It's a work from the head, not the heart, going through the symphonic motions and aping the models of other more sincere symphonists. He has clothed his Symphony in magnificently decorated Wagnerian covers which, with the exception of the slow movement, conceal just blank pages. All that said, I am sure to return to it quite often because it does sound so magnificent and that slow movement is just so good.

The Overture is similarly Wagnerian in its mannerisms and also, unfortunately, in its lack of distinctive melody. But at only 12 minutes it's compact enough to get away with those shortcomings more successfully than does the Symphony.

All credit to Martin Anderson for releasing this issue. Damrosch's Symphony is an important work, for all that it's a significantly flawed one, and I'm very happy to have it in my collection.

[Alan Howe]

Compare the Damrosch with, say, Klughardt's 4th and you'll hear the difference in compositional ability.

[Alan Howe]

Here's a very fair review:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2015/Sep/Damrosch_sy_TOCC0261.htm

[eschiss1]

Interesting the question about Leopold Damrosch and Bruckner's symphonies. His son Frank (1859-1937) was a Bruckner pupil, I notice, but I don't know when, and I don't know if that could have brought his father into contact with his teacher's music... (a few years later - in the 1880s- it was a Damrosch (Walter) who gave the New York- or even US?- premiere of Bruckner's 3rd, I see...)

[Claude Torres]

1885 –  American premiere of Bruckner: Symphony No. 3 in d, at the Old Metropolitan Opera House in New York, during an afternoon public rehearsal by the New York Symphony Society, with the 23-year old Walter Damrosch. The "official" concert occurred the following evening. This was the first time any Bruckner Symphony was performed in America. In his Preface to a 1942 book by Werner Wolff entitled "Anton Bruckner: Rustic Genius," Damrosch incorrectly states it was Bruckner's Fourth Symphony (in E-flat Major, subtitled "Romantic") that he performed on Dec. 5, 1885.

from "http://www.yourclassical.org/programs/composers-datebook/episodes/2012/12/04"

[Alan Howe]

...none of which means that Damrosch didn't know Bruckner's music; however, my guess is that this is a case of parallel development. The root influence is surely Wagner...

[herrarte]

Already on emusic if you care to buy it digitally.
http://www.emusic.com/album/azusa-pacific-university-symphony-orchestra/damrosch-orchestral-music/16044200/