...forthcoming from cpo:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/franz-lachner-symphonie-nr-3/hnum/6096032 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/franz-lachner-symphonie-nr-3/hnum/6096032)
Good news!!
Indeed. Maybe cpo are getting their teeth into Lachner, what with them finally releasing Catarina Cornaro as well. That would be no bad thing.
also a festival overture.
a complete recording of the symphonies could be good, I hope there are signs this is not a 1 off. maybe Schmalfuss' website has something.
He doesn't appear to have one and the Evergreen Symphony Orchestra site makes no mention of Lachner recordings.
Excerpts are now available at jpc.
Judging by the very short sound bites, the Symphony sounds to be a vigorous work, Definitely a must buy for me.
That was very much my thought too, Mark. More immediately appealing, as far as one can tell from these very short excerpts, than the almost equally long 5th symphony. We shall see.
My order is in. Since seeing the blazing concert performance of Catarina Cornaro in Munich (now available on cpo), my opinion of Franz Lachner is much more positive. One always wonders whether those early Marco Polo CDs of some of the symphonies and suites did him something of a disservice.
Very possibly. A lacklustre performance can be very damaging if it is one's first (and possibly only) encounter with a work. I wonder if this CPO recording is the first of a Lachner series. That would be nice.
I'm not sure that those MP performances were all that lacklustre, actually. No.1 is given a very vigorous rendition, for example. And according to the blurb, No.3 still lasts about 50 mins!
Maybe not. I never heard the MP disk of No. 1, but to my ears at least the "Preis Symphonie" was not without its longeurs. Whether that was due to a lacklustre performance or not I couldn't say, as there is no other recording with which to compare it. But, in general terms, what I wrote is largely true, I think. I am sure we can all think of performances which have opened our ears to the merits of a piece we previously thought was mediocre, or no more than pleasant.
I think No.5 is too long for its material - I don't think the fault lies with the MP performance. However, it'd be good to hear an alternative recording.
In truth it's some time since I listened to any of the Marco Polo performances and it was probably the 5th Symphony when I did, so perhaps that's where I got the impression. Either way, JPC have just emailed to tell me that the new recording is in the post, and I'm looking forward to hearing it.
It'll probably be some time before I listen to No.5 again: a real feat of stamina is required.
oh what a gift!!! For all the flaws Lachner's music has (long-windedness especially) I love love love those symphonies, even on those so-so Marco Polo cds..especially the 8th is an absolute favorite..SO impatient for this 3rd and cross fingers for a series......I just hope , with CPO's usual pace, it happens in my lifetime..
There's no indication that this is vol.1 in a planned series, so my guess is that it's a one-off. The performance of No.3 is certainly magnificent: there's not a trace of routine, the playing is alert and well-finished, and the recording is nicely resonant, allowing the music all the room it needs to expand.
The music itself fits right in with what we already know of Lachner. There's nothing new here, no great revelation. If I have a problem with it, it's that the material just doesn't carry the sort of interest required of a 48-minute symphony. There's also a lot of repetition, which one gathers is part and parcel of his style. But it's not a patch IMHO on, say, Rufinatscha - or on Schubert 9 with which it shares a certain obvious kinship without rising to its level of achievement.
Nevertheless, I'm glad to have heard Lachner's 3rd. It's a fine work and will give much pleasure. Just don't expect some sort of epiphany.
OK, let me be more specific about one of my reservations: Lachner will often begin with a scampering theme which sounds as though it's been lifted straight out of Italian opera (e.g. in the finale here). He'll then subject it to all manner of interesting repetitions, elaborations, etc., but then we return with a bump to his trivial-sounding theme. All very entertaining, but somehow I can't take it (completely) seriously. And, oh those constant repetitions...
it's correct, it's not written anywhere that this is a "vol. 1" or something like that, but the introductory blurb is somewhat ambiguous and leaves me somewhat hopeful..they say:
Lachner-Symphonien – endlich auf CD
correctly translated as
Lachner's Symphonies – Now at Last on CD
so...
...we can hope!
The first movement, as so often with unsung symphonies, is an excellent opening - much more impressive than the garrulous finale, in my view. And, my goodness, don't the Taiwanese orchestra play superbly.
Oh, and another observation: the Symphony is rather 'relentless'. There's very little relaxation anywhere. The result is a certain 'sameness' of effect which makes for a tiring listen. Don't get me wrong: this is fine music. But I do feel somewhat 'assaulted' after 48 minutes! Can't help wondering whether judicious editing would improve the piece...
Now over to others who may have ordered the CD...
Mine is in the mail....
I'm sure you'll enjoy the Symphony, Mark. I did, despite my reservations.
Incidentally, Lachner begins the finale to his 8th Symphony with another scampering theme - it's as if Italian opera suddenly obtrudes again. I find it totally out of place.
The finale of No.5 is much more convincing to my way of thinking - but the whole thing lasts over an hour!
I do wish Chandos had not abandoned their Rufinatscha recordings. Now there was a composer who knew how to write a symphony.
Strangely enough, I have just finished playing Rufinatscha's 4th (old No.5) in B minor. What a work that is! There's absolutely nothing like it in the symphonic repertoire. If you don't know it, get hold of it forthwith, coupled here with No.1!>>>
http://shop.tiroler-landesmuseen.at/klingende-kostbarkeiten-aus-tirol-43.html (http://shop.tiroler-landesmuseen.at/klingende-kostbarkeiten-aus-tirol-43.html)
Oh, I have all those Tiroler Landesmuseum recordings of Rufinatscha and they give great pleasure. I just think it would be nice to hear the other symphonies played by a bigger orchestra (and, incidentally, the piano concerto - a lovely work - played on a modern concert grand).
Agreed!
By the way, the Festouvertüre is an enjoyable, but noisy pot-boiler. Not quite Lachner's 1812, but you'll see what I mean when you hear it...
Listening to the Symphony for the first time, I can only agree with everything which Alan has written about it in his several posts. It is a indeed a vigorous and likeable work, but each movement goes on way too long (especially the finale, the weakest of the four). I very much like Lachner's material (even the "scampering") and what he does with it, but the repetitions become tedious. Like many an over-long 50 minute symphony there's an excellent 35 minute one trapped inside. So, a definite welcome, but a qualified one. The overture, with it's closing rendition of the current German national anthem is a fairly forgettable piece. Full marks, though, to the Evergreen Symphony Orchestra whose playing is absolutely first class.
Based on this I would like to hear it once, though I wait most impatiently for a (wonderfully performed, obviously of course) recording debut of no.6. (Getting to hear nos. 2, 4 and 7 which even fewer of us have ever seen- ok, that's not quite true, a substantial part of no.7 was "rescued" into one of his published suites - would be nice...)
I like the symphony just as I expected, scampering themes, repetitions and all...especially the 2nd movement I find totally striking....BUT I am perplexed about the recording.
I hear, here and there, a couple extraneous noises...nothing out of the ordinary, for example what sounds like a creaky chair in the 3rd mov...except for one annoying case : at about 1:30 before the end of the first movement I hear this sort of scratching noise, kind of like ripping paper or something like that...since it is "real" (I hear it every time, 4 so far) I would like to ask if somebody else had a similar experience.
In other words, is my CD badly manufactured or the production is less polished than the norm?
(of course, there's the third opion, I'm going crazy, but I don't think so, not this time at least)
The paper noise at 12:12 into the first movement, I think, is the turning over of a page. Doesn't bother me. Haven't noticed anything else of any significance.
oh, thank you Alan.so it's not just my cd.I guess I'll have to live with it, then....I am lucky to have a high-end (i.e. "very" revealing) music rig, and that, together with a high personal sensitivity to extraneous noises, equals that I find these things more irksome than normal..oh well....
I quite understand.
Hello everyone,
Since I had my email address changed due to the abolition of Freeserve 18 months ago I haven't' been able to get through to this forum until I only recently found out how to change my email in my profile.
Anyway, there is good news for Lachner fans in that CPO are about to release a CD of his 3rd Symphony at the end of this month. Hitherto, the only recording available has been a synthetic one by myself using Sibelius software. I'm just wondering if they will have made cuts in the half hour long slow movement. Sadly, the only score of No.5 available from IMSLP is a cut down version produced in the composer's own lifetime.
So far, I've been unable to locate scores of his 2nd, 4th & 7th symphonies. I'm wondering if they may be gathering dust in some obscure university liibrary. Does anyone have any clues on their whereabouts please?
Cheers,
John.
Great to have you back, John! You'll see that I've merged your post with an existing thread on the same topic. I hope you'll enjoy catching up on the debate...
No.7 is listed, as "Elegie in form Einer Sinfonie" (1837-40?), in 3 entries at least @ RISM- some fragments (https://opac.rism.info/search?id=456081749), excerpts (https://opac.rism.info/search?id=456081750) and also a piano duet arrangement by Heinrich Esser (here (https://opac.rism.info/search?id=456081748).) A search also turns up its relationship to the Suite no.7 in D minor (with which it shares several movements, perhaps revised in the decades-later suite- in that sense anyway it is partially published.)
Symphonies 2 and 4 I think only exist in manuscript form. There is also his wind symphony in B-flat minor (note (https://opac.rism.info/search?id=45502202).)
here's some information, though no incipits, on the symphony in E of 1834 - RISM D-Mbs Mus. ms. 5753 (https://opac.rism.info/search?id=456081788). Maybe BSB might consider digitizing the score?
I've attempted to send an MP3 version of my Sibelius transcription as an attachment here but it seems even MP3s are too big for this forum. However, if anyone is curious to hear the whole of this symphony, as I suspect cuts will be made in the forthcoming CD, they can contact me via this forum with their email address and I can send them the 4 MP3s concerned. The same goes for Lachner's 6th symphony.
Cheers,
John
well, the CD recording is 48 minutes (at unknown metronome choices, etc.) according to an image of its back cover. How long does your recording take in all?... It may soon be possible to divide that 48 minutes up movement-wise - by the end of the month, anyway, or if it's available streaming somewhere, possibly sooner...
My transcription to the Metronome markings on the score takes 64 minutes including the 34 minute long slow movement which, unusually for lachner, comes 3rd in the batting order after the fast rather contrapuntal scherzo. No doubt the conductor on the forthcoming CD has made some cuts. Mind you, I've grown rather fond of that slow movement where the timpani has its own little tune coming in every now and again. the whole symphony is rounded off with a rollicking finale somewhat after the style of that of the 6th symphony. I'm also able supply CDs of my WAV version of this symphony and of No6, but don't all rush at once!
Cheers,
John.
Quotethe 34 minute long slow movement
I just don't see how this can be squared with the 11:55 duration of the slow movement in the cpo recording. There's got to be an error somewhere...
or, indeed, cuts.
This should be relatively easily solved yes, just not now?...; the full score and a reduction are available @ https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.3%2C_Op.41_%28Lachner%2C_Franz_Paul%29 (https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.3%2C_Op.41_%28Lachner%2C_Franz_Paul%29) - IMSLP - and such as can read the music may be able to compare the cpo recording with it once the latter is acquired (it comes out in the EU in a couple of weeks, I believe, as noted...)
Quoteor, indeed, cuts.
Or, indeed, omitted repeats. Either way, a lot would have to have been cut/omitted.
We are talking about Lachner's Third aren't we? Even omitting repeats and with some cuts I can't see how the slow movement could be cut form 34 minutes to 12 and survive the surgery. Admittedly, my score reading skills aren't up to comparing what I hear with the score, but it certainly doesn't seem like a lifeless corpse on the recording.
very interesting ....but, aside from Alan's strictly musical observations (that I agree with), there's one thing that perplexes me.
Don't you think that, if someone had written a 34-minute movement, we would have historical mention of it?
At that early time i am sure it would have been sort of a shock.
Not even Mahler or Bruckner, much later, got so far.
I don't know , it seems like the kind of thing that makes waves among commentators, and Lachner was a prominent personality...for much less the 5th got eternally branded as overlong.
I'm not disputing anything, I just find it fascinatingly strange...
...unless, as has been suggested, it was never performed without cuts/repeats. And then it was probably forgotten...
I think you already have a copy of my "authentic" rendition of this symphony Alan but, if you haven't, I'll pop one in the post for you.
By the way, with your knowledge of the German language, it might be a good thing to get in touch with Dr Harald Johannes Mann who appears to be the world authority on Franz Lachner and his siblings. It might be possible to contact him via the record producer Rudolf R Bayer at:
Pforzheimer Strasse 30
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany.
Tel, 07142 43763
Cheers,
John
Do you have the cpo recording, John? You're our resident Lachner expert! It can be ordered from MDT:
https://www.mdt.co.uk/lachner-franz-symphony-no3-evergreen-so-gernot-schmalfuss-cpo.html (https://www.mdt.co.uk/lachner-franz-symphony-no3-evergreen-so-gernot-schmalfuss-cpo.html)
In any case, the idea of a half-hour slow movement is pretty horrifying in a work that is already too long for its material. If cuts have been made, it's just as well.
I've ordered the CPO recording from Amazon Alan, so I can expect to receive it early next month. I shall then be able to study it against my score and find out where the cuts have been made.
Cheers,
John.
That's great, John. Looking forward to your analysis.
Even from the perspective of what could be called "a Lachner fan" (I really like this music, notwithstanding its flaws&longueurs),,,i have to say that I concur with Alan: the idea of sitting through 34 minutes of adagio is "horrifying" indeed..and plus.... I find the third just wonderful as it is..I would even have cut something more, here and there!
Aside from all this, I too am looking forward to hearing mr.White's authoritative impressions and opinions.
I'm also waiting avidly for your analysis, John. It should make a fascinating read.
Meanwhile...
https://www.classicstoday.com/review/lachners-third-symphony-its-about-timing/ (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/lachners-third-symphony-its-about-timing/)
As always Hurwitz lays it on a bit thick, but basically I agree with him.
Me too.
One wonders what could be his reaction to Mr.White's uncut version..suicide, probably.....anyway: a bit thick yes, but I basically agree too, at least my rational mind does.
My "artistic" side instead has a (perverse?) fascination with this music..I don't know how many times I have listened to the second movement, I find it spellbinding.
I agree with Hurwitz, though, that the overture would be better consigned to oblivion.
cpo recording now available on Naxos Music Library.
So did we get anywhere with the question over the third movement? Have the Evergreens slashed and burned? I did E mail them to inquire but only got advertising back from them. I don't really want to go to the lengths of learning Taiwanese in order to get an answer.
Ps Is Mr Hurwitz ever enthusiastic about music?
QuotePs Is Mr Hurwitz ever enthusiastic about music?
Yes, but he has his opinions. I agree with him on the issue of HIP performances, but not with all his views on unsung composers. Hardly surprising.
For starters I do intend to compare the recording with the downloadable score, looking for specifically cut sections, for myself if no one else is interested in hearing about it :) - not today (busy!!) but soon...
I'm certainly interested, Eric.
Me too Eric!
Thank you.
I also, Eric. Thank you very much.
Go for it Eric, and we'll all be grateful.
The CD is (appreciatively) reviewed here:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2018/Aug/Lachner_sy3_5550812.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2018/Aug/Lachner_sy3_5550812.htm)
Just listened to the first 3 movements of the cpo with the score to hand and found nothing cut that I can tell. The 3rd movement is taken at a clip, but "Andante con moto quasi Allegretto" is what it says and that's what it sounds like the performers do (which may end up being faster than the written eighth=88, will check :) ). About what -- approximate -- average metronome is the other/MIDI performance at in the 3rd movement if I may ask?
There's a real puzzle here: the cpo 3rd movement takes 11:55, yet our friend John White says it should last over half an hour. There's something very wrong...
For what it's worth, I have done some 'sums' here based on the IMSLP score for the slow movement:
- it runs from page 133 to page 179
- there are no repeats marked
- there is only one metronome tempo indication at the beginning, quaver = 88
- I have counted 420 bars (I may not be spot on, I did this fairly quickly)
- that means effectively 1260 quaver beats
- divide this by 88 to get the time in minutes
- that works out to 14.3 minutes, i.e 14 mins 18 secs
- so the time taken of nearly 12 minutes on this CD is not so alarmingly brisk as we might have thought (more of a Jarvi-does-Raff approach)
If there is a flaw in my maths, please do shout out, I am as fallible as anyone else here, and my maths O Level was over 40 years ago!
Looks pretty conclusive to me, but not doubt John will put us right.
Scores and scans of scores from the 1830s are not optimally readable by modern standards, I've made some really silly mistakes in reading metronome marks and plate numbers in the past with more recent scores than these....
Listening to the opening of the third movement online, the tempo sounds fairly brisk, more like quaver = 100 than quaver = 88.
If you put that speed into my sums above, then it comes up with an estimated length of the movement at...... 12 minutes ::)
Problem solved, I think. Well done, chaps!
Well, not really, Alan. We still don't know how John came up with the unrealistic 34 minutes for the length of the slow movt.
By the way, when I listened to this symphony for the first time a few weeks ago only and actually after most of this discussion had already taken place (the pile of new CDs on my desk is large, so there is usually some delay), I thought that the relative sameness of the symphony's movements and music in general which was pointed out in one of the above contributions might also be related to the fact that the slow movement is taken rather briskly. Now reading about the metronome issues this seems to be confirmed up to some degree.
By the way, some members who are capable of reading German might also be interested in the following review:
http://www.klassik-heute.de/4daction/www_medien_einzeln?id=22625 (http://www.klassik-heute.de/4daction/www_medien_einzeln?id=22625)
my own first impression was that the first two movements were very impressive, the third movement- it would be good to hear it taken closer to the given metronome mark, now people mention, though still, inventive enough and the finale seemed in its -- balletic? - character - actually, more different than disappointing, to these ears. (Definitely not "the same" as the first three movements in its manner. Or style of accompaniment, at that :) )
I felt more impressed/pleased/looking forward to hearing-again-etc. etc. (by) the symphony than seems to be the takeaway overall here. Reminds me of another quite good D minor symphony with a very strong first movement, Onslow's 2nd (which to me seemed more "Germanic" than "French", though I understand Fifield not covering it in his recent book of course :) )
QuoteWe still don't know how John came up with the unrealistic 34 minutes for the length of the slow movt.
No, quite. But it would appear that the cpo recording of the slow movement is complete and uncut. It's hard to see how this can be gainsaid given the evidence that has been adduced.
Two possibilities come to mind:
John's recording has a much slower tempo, either because it seemed right to him, or he misread the quaver as a 16th-note
or:
he had access to a manuscript score/urtext/... substantially different... (and/or used Franz's brother's (Vinzenz's) reduced 1837-published score- published therefore before the 1840 full score and not wholly unauthorized I'd think...!- which may be different in important ways. I haven't compared the two. May be the slow movement has repeats in the V Lachner reduction. Or a different tempo. Hrm.!!... Will check that later...)
Interested to know too...
We badly need John to come back to us about this...
Well, I did reply but, somehow it didn't get through. Maybe I pressed a wrong button. Roughly what I said was that movements 1,2,&.4 were just about the same as my version but that the 3rd movement , although all the notes were the same, appeared to be played about two and a half times as fast as that from my version sticking to the published metronome mark of quaver = 38. I think both versions have their merits, but I still have a sneaking regard for my slower version, as it seems to bring out the occasional timpani solo
I trust that this reply will get through.
Cheers,
John.
Sorry, John, but I'm no wiser. How can your rendering of the 3rd movement be 2½ times slower than the cpo? I thought we had established that the latter is only about two minutes faster than the stated tempo marking? If so, then your rendering must be twice as long as it should be. Sounds like there's an error somewhere...
"published metronome mark of quaver = 38"
Erm, No!!
38 != 88... 88 is what the composer wrote, or at least what Diabelli engraved in the fs. (it could be dotted eighth=88 but I think that dot is a splotch.))
Aha, that would go a long way towards explaining it, although not quite 2½ times.
Aha indeed!
Moreover, as Savoir_Faire pointed out above, we should not forget that the CPO recording is somewhat faster than quaver = 88, more like quaver = 100 or so. This pretty well corresponds with a factor of approximately 2½.
Quite. So the equation is 2½ x 38 = 95 ≈ 100.
Problem solved, then?
Indeed!
FWIW I agree with Eric - looking at Page 133 of the score on IMSLP, and enlarging the screen, it seems clear (to me at least) that the metronome marking is quaver=88 not quaver=38, ignoring the egregious dots which Eric rightly dismisses as splodges.
Having looked myself, it's clear that quaver=88 is correct.
Should have gone to Specsavers! ;D
Sadly, this seems down to my failing eyesight. I suppose, at 87, I'm lucky to have any eyesight left at all.
Anyway, I'm glad the matter has been once and for all cleared up.
Cheers,
John.
At 87 you're remarkable, John. Think what a contribution you've made to this forum, especially on the Lachners and Spohr. I for one am greatly in your debt. Thank you!
We are all, I'm sure, very grateful for your many and excellent contributions to this forum. It is always a pleasure to hear from you here.
And at your age you're entitled to take things a little more slowly if you want to, even at a metronome mark of 38! Best wishes to you and Sheila.