Wilhelm Berger - Symphony No.1 Op.71

[Reverie]

Enough of short extracts for now.

Here is the first movement of Berger's Symphony in Bb, his first symphony written a year before the turn of the century. His second symphony appeared 13 years later and is considered his masterpiece by many.

However, this movement from the earlier symphony is worth a listen. The orchestral writing is clean and uncluttered and his style although a little quirky at times is refreshingly personal.

See what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf3uqrFFc-s&t=21s

[Mark Thomas]

What a refreshing way to start the day, thanks so much Reverie, what a great job. It's a tad overlong and a little laboured at times, I suppose, but that's a charge that can be laid at many a late romantic composer's door. However the themes are fresh, and immediately memorable and Berger's orchestration is already admirably transparent, varied and unfailingly interesting. This really whets the appetite not only to hear more of this Symphony (please!), but also to hear a good performance of Berger's masterful Second Symphony, of which we still only have a barely adequate radio recording.

[Alan Howe]

His second symphony appeared 13 years later

Just a correction, if I may: Symphony No.2 was indeed published in 1912 (i.e.posthumously), but was first performed in May 1900.

Thanks for your work on this - marvellous!

[Alan Howe]

Marvellous indeed. This is as memorable new symphonic acquaintance as I have made in years. Friends will know that Berger is one of my favourite composers, sung or unsung, and this first movement just confirms my impression that his is a major voice awaiting re-discovery.

The 1st Symphony exhibits a quite different character when compared with No.2; it has humour in its sometimes quirky rhythms and also some gloriously life-affirming lyrical episodes. Although the idiom is more advanced than Brahms, one might say that it stands in relation to Berger 2 in the same way that Brahms 2 stands in relation to Brahms 4.

What is evident is that Berger has forged a style that is neither strictly conservative nor progressive. This may be one reason why, in an era dominated by his progressive contemporaries Strauss and Mahler, his music fell through the cracks of history. Berger was a conservative in that he favoured 'absolute music', but as a young man he had told his parents that he thought Wagner was the greatest genius then alive.

Let's also recall for a moment the discussion between Sibelius and Mahler in 1907 on the nature of the symphony. The great Finn said that he admired the strictness, style and deep logic of the symphony which requires that all its motifs must be linked to each other, whereas Mahler argued that symphony must be like the world - it must encompass everything. Here Berger would undoubtedly have stood with Sibelius against Mahler - and, of course, against the extra-musical preoccupations of Strauss in his tone poems. But in the world of Mahler and Strauss he was fighting a losing battle.

As a postscript, I have been on a 'Bruckner binge' of late, so Berger 1 doesn't come across as at all overlong to me - but then Mark and I have often disagreed over the issue of 'heavenly length'!

[Mark Thomas]

  and I did write "a tad", not "way, way too long  ".... I do agree, this promises to be a major discovery.

[eschiss1]

In 1907 Mahler's current symphonies were not programmatic, and hadn't been at least since the 7th of 1904-5 if not the 5th, so I'm fairly sure that's not what he meant...

[Alan Howe]

The point, I think, was that Mahler (e.g. in Symphonies 2 & 3) had expanded the concept to include extra-musical content, specifically poetry set to music. It was this that Sibelius rejected (although, interestingly, not in Kullervo).

You are correct in suggesting that Mahler in fact produced symphonies in both the more traditional 4-movement, purely orchestral form and the expanded, multi-movement format. However, by 1907 we have to remember that he had just written his 8th Symphony (composed in the summer of 1906), which marks a return to the expanded concept which characterises Nos.2 and 3. 

[eschiss1]

Mahler was familiar with Beethoven Berlioz* and Liszt and perhaps with Félicien David as well. He would not have considered this his innovation.

*"Mahler programmed his own first performance of the three orchestral episodes from Berlioz's Romeo et Juliette"...

[Alan Howe]

With respect, I think you're missing the point, Eric. The exchange between Mahler and Sibelius was about their differing concepts of the symphony, not merely about innovation. To repeat: the great Finn said that he admired the strictness, style and deep logic of the symphony which requires that all its motifs must be linked to each other, whereas Mahler argued that the symphony must be like the world - it must encompass everything. And the latter had just written his Symphony No.8 - a symphonic concept which Sibelius (and Berger) would never have embraced.

All I was arguing was that, in the context of the debate, Berger would have stood with Sibelius, rather than Mahler.

[Reverie]

I'm working on the 2nd movement, a scherzo. It's a very thin, light texture but extremely lively. As for the discussion re: Sibelius/Mahler I think Wilhelm was attempting to create his own world despite the obvious influences. It's a  world I have recently come to love. A pity not many more have come to love it too. However, it's their loss I guess.

[Alan Howe]

Agreed. Thanks for doing this important work.

[dhibbard]

thanks!!

[Reverie]

The second movement, a scherzo - sehr lebhaft (although I feel it shouldn't be too rushed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAnfKBdemSM

[Mark Thomas]

Sorry not to have acknowledged this before: great work. A delightful, puckish scherzo. Berger not taking himself at all seriously.

[Alan Howe]

Yes, it's rather spooky, isn't it? It's great to have this rendition - tells us so much more about Berger. Thanks!