Questions about Langgaard's symphonies

[Amphissa]

 
I've been listening lately to some of Langgaard's symphonies and am puzzled. (Well, we can all feel puzzled by Langgaard in all ways, but this just pertains only to a couple of his symphonies.)

First, it is quite obvious that Symphony No. 3 "The flush of youth (La Melodia)" is really a piano concerto. So why didn't he call it a piano concerto? Why did jhe call it a symphony? And what particular melody is he referring to in the title.

As it turns out, this symphony/concerto is one of the works I enjoy most by Langgaard. I especially like the chorus at the end, which gives the piece an aetherial quality.

Second, the two versions of Symphony No. 5 are so different that I'm left wondering why they were not given separate numbers. Or was that a confusion by publishers? (I've not yet delved into the 7th symphony, but apparently there are two versions of it as well.)

Langgaard is surely one of the more curious composers, but it is hard to criticize the results. Some of his music is very good indeed.

[Alan Howe]

Which are the best of his symphonies - in order of quality - and why?

[Delicious Manager]

Langgaard was an oddball. That goes a long way to explaining some of the anomalies associated with him and his quite variable music. Some of it is pure genius (such his Music of the Spheres, which uses compositional techniques that foreshadow Ligeti), while some of it comes a cross as competent but imitation Strauss (such as the Second Symphony to my ears). I don't think Langgaard intended multiple versions of revised works to co-exist together (as in the 5th and 7th Symphonies) - our 'completionist' musical society has decided to do that (rather like having the multiple versions of Bruckner's symphonies - something he never intended to happen).

The Third Symphony did in fact start out under the title Koncert alla Fantasia, but it was changed when it became clear to Langgaard that this was not going to be a work in traditional concerto is form. However, neither is it particularly 'symphonic' in form; perhaps 'Rhapsody' would have been a more appropriate title. Ultimately, however, composers are entitled to call their pieces whatever they like. There are plenty of works out there bearing the title 'symphony', but which are anything but (in the traditional sense of the word, anyway). All of Langgaard's symphonies have fanciful titles and it's probably best to ignore them than to try to delve into the mind of a man as seemingly disturbed has he was.

The best of them? Hard to say in such a varied and odd canon of symphonies. But I would recommend the 9th, 10th and 14th to start, then Nos 16 and 1 (more similar than their poles at each end of his compositional spectrum might suggest). I also like the early Sinfonia interna which is the work of a genius teenager and which pre-dates the First Symphony. The oddest of them all is also the shortest - No 11 (at around 6 minutes' duration), It includes a section at the end where four bass tubas are instructed to come to the font of the stage and blast-out their meoldic line as loud as they can - a moment in music unequalled in my experience. The Da Capo series conducted by Thomas Dausgaard is wonderful and is to be preferred over the one on Danacord conducted by Ilya Stupel. Both sets are excellently played and conducted, but the Da Capo set is more complete (Stupel doesn't present all versions of all the symphonies) and has better, clear, more open sound.

[Amphissa]

 
One of the most fascinating of Langgaard's works is surely his "opera" Antikrist. It is, thematically, a hodgepodge of mysticism, religion and philosophical conjuring. The libretto is not really any existing language, with any typical grammar, but rather an assemblage of symbolic words, metaphors and atmospheric phrases. It is all quite insane and attempts to decipher any cogent meaning from the subtitles can be quite frustrating.

But the music is (to me) amazingly good, and if one accepts the singing as vocalise (which is very easy to do, given the nonsensical libretto), Antikrist becomes a unique, and uniquely satisfying, music experience. The audio of Dausgaard's recording is excellent.

This ain't your typical romantic opera, but it sure is good music.

Quoting --

The Swedish musicologist Bo Wallner wrote as early as 1968 that Antichrist is one of the most ingeniously elaborate scores in Nordic Late Romanticism. Langgaard has pulled out all the Late Romantic stops and combined the traditional tonal idiom with elements that belong stylistically to the inter-war years. Among the audible sources of musical inspiration are Wagner (perhaps especially Parsifal) and Richard Strauss (Salome), and in some places there may seem to be reminiscences of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder and Korngold's Die Tote Stadt. Yet Langgaard is unlikely to have heard the two last-mentioned works, although theoretically he could have made the acquaintance of the scores on his journeys to Germany and Austria in 1920-22.

[Pengelli]

I'm inclined to think it's,very possibly,the best thing he ever did.
By the way,I take back my assertion on an earlier thread that Langgaard's best work leaves Nielsen standing! A rush of blood to the old head,I think!
I think my favourites are,probably No 9,No 3,No 15 & No's 10-14. For me the worst one is No 16,which seems shapeless & uninspired. To be fair he was in failing health,at the time,apparently. Although he deserved better treatment than he got in his own lifetime,difficult as he was,there really is no comparison with the symphonies of Nielsen. But then again wackiness is what makes a Langgaard so intriguing,and I think that,in a way, 'The Music of the Spheres' and 'Antikrist' really are eccentric masterpieces,which migh even be accepted into the repertory one day.
Like Martinu's 'Julietta' or Havergal Brian's 'The Tigers',I don't think an opera always has to have a conventional plot or libretto to be a masterpiece,of some sort.
Not so sure about the symphonies,though,and I'm a fan! No 4 is probably the most consistent & could gain more acceptance. Who knows?

[eschiss1]

I enjoy several of his symphonies and come back often to no. 11 "Ixion", one of the briefer post-classical-era symphonies around (that I know of) at about 6 minutes. Dausgaard's performance of this on DaCapo is very good- a most obstinate ostinato (I also have a radio broadcast, conducted by Mario Venzago, that doesn't seem to hold the line as well but is still a fun listen.)
Eric

[Pengelli]

'Ixion'! No 11 is so compact. Short & maybe not exactly sweet. In approx 6min Langgaard manages to say more than allot of bad symphonists get to say in  forty minutes. One of his most successful statements in the symphonic form & not a note wasted. This is the kind of work that makes me think that even if Rued wasn't Denmark's greatest composer he was definately one of it's greatest originals.
The 'Ixiom' is also the ideal symphony for concerts. Throw in an encore & you've still only used up 12 minutes!

[eschiss1]

Less if it's a brief encore...

The first minute-and-a-half of the symphony can be heard (if you have a free account at naxos.com) here by the way (Dausgaard's recording - there's another on Danacord conducted by Ilya Stupel, which may no longer be available, I don't know.)
Eric

[giles.enders]

I find the urge to play No.11 'Ixion' has become a bit of a habit.  It is such an odd piece, both compact and memorable.  I can never quite get it out of my head. Some would describe it as banale but it is too clever for that.

[Pengelli]

And short. Unlike Brians'Gothic'! I remember,years ago,listening to the old cassettes of Adrian Boult & Ole Schmidt conducting it ,so many times I could practically hum the blinking thing from start to finish. All that without hundreds of expensive performers!
Interesting to compare Langgaard & Brian. Both mavericks,Brian more philosophical & allot easier to get on with. One a religious zealot,the other an atheist. Both with a penchance for odd juxtapositions & compression. Ultimately,I feel that Langgaards output was the more consistent of the two.