Oh dear, how stupid of me that I recently bought Walter's symphony. I don't mind the few euros it cost me, but I think I'll never listen to this CD again. So boring...
Any positive opinions of Walter's symphony?
I really don't recall having quite so negative a reaction ;D
I don't think that I had as high an opinion of it as of the conductor/composer's Siegfried von Hausegger's majestic Natursymphonie-now there is a magnificent work :) :) :)
I am sure that I wrote about the work on another website but have wasted too much time looking for that post when I could be listening to it again.
Will report back ;D
Peter, your first reaction mirrors mine: D-U-double L, dull. My feelings about the work only deepened the next time I plucked courage to listen to it - it really is amongst the most turgid and pointless symphonies I've heard. Learn from my experience. Don't bother giving it a second spin.
Arrrgggghhh, Peter, we shall have to agree to disagree. I'd have no difficulty in naming boring pieces of music....but this is certainly not one of them!
I thought it magnificently constructed (just listen again to the structure of that stunning 1st movement), at times wonderfully majestic, and often quite shatteringly intense. I recall last year you started a thread on 'monumental' symphonies ..... and from my perspective the Walter symphony is almost a candidate for that category.
Do please....for the sake of the music....give it another try. For myself I heartily assert three grand cheers for Botstein in giving us this work which otherwise would have slumbered in the realms of the quietly forgotten and ignored. I approached the disc with some misgivings thinking that it would be likely to consist of diluted Bruckner, Pfitzner and dull German heavy plodding romanticism at its worst. Not so at all. I was impressed by the distinctiveness and the integrity of the piece.
And a very short comment on the performance here and the recording itself: both wonderful. In short the whole thing made me bristle with excitement and feel so glad that I've got ears!
For me it's Mahler, but with perspiration instead of inspiration. However, Botstein makes the best possible case for it and I'm glad I've heard it. But there's lots of better music out there waiting to be recorded. The two symphonies of Wilhelm Berger would be highest on my list - and Botstein would do them superbly: e.g. his Dohnanyi 1 is superb (and what a gorgeous piece!)
Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Thursday 26 January 2012, 21:41
Arrrgggghhh, Peter, we shall have to agree to disagree. I'd have no difficulty in naming boring pieces of music....but this is certainly not one of them!
I thought it magnificently constructed (just listen again to the structure of that stunning 1st movement), at times wonderfully majestic, and often quite shatteringly intense. I recall last year you started a thread on 'monumental' symphonies ..... and from my perspective the Walter symphony is almost a candidate for that category.
Do please....for the sake of the music....give it another try. For myself I heartily assert three grand cheers for Botstein in giving us this work which otherwise would have slumbered in the realms of the quietly forgotten and ignored. I approached the disc with some misgivings thinking that it would be likely to consist of diluted Bruckner, Pfitzner and dull German heavy plodding romanticism at its worst. Not so at all. I was impressed by the distinctiveness and the integrity of the piece.
And a very short comment on the performance here and the recording itself: both wonderful. In short the whole thing made me bristle with excitement and feel so glad that I've got ears!
What was that you were saying in your recent post on "Two Standout Unsung Composers", Peter ??? ;D
Not guilty of any inconsistency, Dundonnel!!! Nothing wrong with a fellow shouting with enthusiasm. Regarding that recent post, what does upset me is someone condemning a piece that they don't happen to like. They're not actually benefitting the rest of humanity by grumbling 'X is rubbish', and besides they might well be wrong.
But enough of that for clearly with my enthusiasm for Walter maybe I'm in a minority (but proud of it!).
Alan's mention of Berger enables me to craftily shift topic. I just happened to listen earlier tonight to Berger's String Trio of 1898. Gorgeous, exhilarating, immensely lyrical piece. Absolutely and categorically not boring at all. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we heard more Berger? (As it is, the only other Berger piece I know is the slightly later Piano Quintet.) Both pieces are truly wonderful, and if anyone called them boring...well, I'd wonder not at their dismal taste but rather at their very sanity.
The Berger String Trio, incidentally, is on a fairly recent Querstand CD and performed by the Dresden String Trio. C/w the Ernst Naumann String Trio (yet another unsung).
Ha, now that's neatly got us away from the subject of Walter, eh?
I think that my assessment of the Walter Symphony would lie somewhere between Peterschott's enthusiasm and Mark's cruel dismissal. Surely to call the work dull and turgid is one thing but "pointless" :o :o That is really vicious criticism, is it not ???
Obviously it meant a lot to Walter. He poured his heart and soul into the work and had suffered the agony of his beloved Mahler telling him that the work had not meant anything to him. I think that, especially perhaps for a first symphony, it is too long and the textures are probably too thick. Whether Walter would have developed as a composer and in what way we shall never know since he gave up composition soon afterwards. Maybe he was a less talented composer than Weingartner but consider the symphonic efforts of Furtwangler or Klemperer ;D They have not exactly become repertoire pieces either.
No..I don't think it is a great symphony by any means but I am glad to have heard it and even taking it as an example of a young man working in the shadow of Mahler in the Vienna of the early 1900s I think it has a value. Frankly, I would rather listen to the Walter than the chocolate-box schmaltz of Joseph Marx.....but that's just me, of course ;D ;D
Quote from: Peter1953 on Thursday 26 January 2012, 20:40
Oh dear, how stupid of me that I recently bought Walter's symphony. I don't mind the few euros it cost me, but I think I'll never listen to this CD again. .......
In that case, Peter, pop it in the post to me! I always appreciate a freebie!! ;D ;D
I think this thread illustrates once again the diversity of musical tastes.
And, I actually like to hear when people don't enjoy a piece of music, either because of the performance or the composition itself. I am fascinated to know what it is that they hear- for good or ill - that I don't, or vice-versa! ;D (Hence my Havergal Brain 'confessional'! ;D)
No, No...you misunderstand :(
I was not accusing you of inconsistency at all :) I was trying-too obliquely obviously-to refer back to your comments about negative reactions ;D
For an alternative view.....
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/May10/Walter_7771632.html (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/May10/Walter_7771632.html)
Well, it's long. Quite long. I always get tired before finishing it.
QuoteMark's cruel dismissal. Surely to call the work dull and turgid is one thing but "pointless". That is really vicious criticism, is it not ???
Yes, calling it "pointless" was a bit unfair, I agree. However, I stand by the rest of what I wrote as a perfectly valid point of view. It wasn't an analysis, it wasn't a musicological dissection of the Symphony. I just found it mind numbingly dull. I'm delighted that that Peter (Schott) enjoyed the work but I'm afraid that I can't agree at all with his view that:
QuoteThey're not actually benefiting the rest of humanity by grumbling 'X is rubbish', and besides they might well be wrong.
Surely a negative view is just as valid as a positive one, which is equally likely to be "wrong"? Because, although one can attempt to make a value judgement, there are no rights or wrongs about music, ultimately, no real absolutes; most criticism, positive or negative, boils down to point of view in the end. I'm afraid that I despair of this modern attitude that we must always be positive, must fight shy of expressing censure. I'd never criticise someone for holding a particular view about a piece of music, but that's not the same as avoiding expressing an opposing view.
Anyway, I'm clearly well in touch with my inner curmudgeon today and apologise to all concerned for the harrumph, enjoyable though I found it!
I'm 100% with Mark here. Relentless positivity about everything is the byword of our age - 30-odd years of teaching taught me that much. The point here is not whether a particular opinion is negative or not, but whether it is carefully and courteously expressed. And we simply need to face the possibility that some unsung music is justifiably unsung because it isn't all that good...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Friday 27 January 2012, 10:18
I'm 100% with Mark here. Relentless positivity about everything is the byword of our age - 30-odd years of teaching taught me that much. The point here is not whether a particular opinion is negative or not, but whether it is carefully and courteously expressed. And we simply need to face the possibility that some unsung music is justifiably unsung because it isn't all that good...
I am in total agreement with you here :)
The only difficulty I have is that there have been a number-only a few, I hasten to add-of the unsung composers whose music I have downloaded from UC to which my reaction has been along the lines of "this is quite dreadful music, banal in the extreme, empty, loud, raucous and best avoided at all costs". It would be very difficult, no, it would be impossible for me to say anything positive about it. However...I am also aware that others will possibly find it 'colourful' or 'exciting' :) Above all, I am conscious that the member who has uploaded the file or files presumably sees merit in the piece and took the time/made the effort to digitise the work and then upload it.
In such cases I have been reluctant to even attempt a careful and courteous response to the music in question. To be honest about it, I suppose my fear might have been that the member might respond by not posting any more music by that particular composer despite the possibility that there are actualy better works by him to be heard :)
I certainly agree that opinions, positive or negative, should be expressed in decent terms. That is, I think, one of the great things about this forum.
But relentless positivity a sign of our times? Is that really always the case? It seems to me that, at least here in Denmark, most people expressing opinions about classical music are generally wary of being too enthusiastic, for fear of not being taken seriously. At least that was my experience when, some years ago, I was asked by a local journalist to cover a couple of symphonic concerts for him. I did so, but when my reviews appeared in the paper, some of the most positively worded parts had been cut. When I asked the journalist why, he told me that nobody took too positive reviews seriously. And that was the end of my brief career as a music critic :).
Just as an aside, since we seem to be on the topic of 'positivity' and the 'courteous approach' so properly adhered to on this forum, I was recently accused-in somewhat vitriolic terms-on another forum (which shall remain nameless ;D) of using my 'positivity' towards a number of 'unsung' composers of tonal and 'accessible' composers as a deliberate campaign to "denigrate, marginalise and demonize" atonal and avant-garde music ::) ::) ;D
Surely your help isn't needed to achieve that?
Quite right, Colin. To put it another way, sometimes it's most prudent just to keep one's mouth shut......
Some of us have spent a lifetime trying to learn how to do that :-\
Jerry
And not always successfully.....
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Friday 27 January 2012, 14:21
Surely your help isn't needed to achieve that?
;D ;D ;D
It is, I think, a sign of the times that amongst the community of music-lovers-as opposed to the professional, critical fraternity-those who adhere to traditional musical form, tonality, melody etc etc should now be "fighting back", at least in the sense of making the case for composers who were ignored or ostracised in the 1960s onwards. If people like atonal music-and I like a little of such music- or avant-garde music-which leaves me cold-then so be it. Good luck to them ;D
But I am certainly not going to stop proclaiming the merits of the composers I love or be deterred from doing so by the paranoia of others :) :)
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 27 January 2012, 13:24
Just as an aside, since we seem to be on the topic of 'positivity' and the 'courteous approach' so properly adhered to on this forum, I was recently accused-in somewhat vitriolic terms-on another forum (which shall remain nameless ;D) of using my 'positivity' towards a number of 'unsung' composers of tonal and 'accessible' composers as a deliberate campaign to "denigrate, marginalise and demonize" atonal and avant-garde music ::) ::) ;D
I would have responded that atonal and avant-garde music certainly didn't need any help from me to do that! ;D
Re-listening to the Walter Symphony simply reinforces my overall opinion, I'm afraid - an awfully long and not very memorable piece. However....
...I enjoyed a lot of the orchestral scenery, even though I couldn't really discern where the piece was going most of the time. Of course, the mistake I might be making is to expect it to sound and go like Mahler when it is altogether more expressionistic in an early Krenek-like way. And there is a glorious climax from around 9 minutes into the slow movement which I certainly enjoyed. As I said, I'm glad I've got the symphony and it's interesting listening. Don't think it's a particularly high quality piece, though...
Have not heard the Symphony, But I would like to say that the Violin Sonata is actually a Good Piece, it's been a while since I heard it but I do remember that I liked it. it was on a CD that included Walter/Pfitzner: Violin Sonatas....
And since we're already off-topic, my reactions to certain comments that are explicitly negatively, generally and uninformatively about nontonal music or serial music are colored perhaps by the fact that in the US there hasn't exactly been an equivalent of a "Glock period" to react against, so it's rather like kicking something when it's down. (Not that I defend the music in that category that I like for that reason- I defend it because I like it.)
As I have not heard Walter's symphony or music yet (I have skimmed his violin sonata, @IMSLP) I hush now.
There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer. Perhaps, however, their familiarity with the repertoire (and their personal preferences for certain composers) actually makes it difficult for them to find a distinctive voice, and to tend instead toward a characterless mélange (or - perhaps more accurately blancmange ;D). Whilst quite enjoyable, I think even Furtwangler's efforts border on pastiche, drawing on Bruckner/Strauss/Mahler/Wagner ...... and although I haven't heard the Bruno Walter (I'm still waiting for the CD, Peter ;D), I suspect that it falls into that category. Maybe? ::)
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 28 January 2012, 00:14
There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer.
And yet, there are so few who did both successfully. Bernstein certainly. But really, who else? I've heard music by Salonen, Segerstam, Maazel, Serebrier and Lindberg, just to name 5 living composers. Nothing they have written is going to make anyone's top-100 list. Ever. For dead conductors: Szell, Walter, Furtwangler, Dorati, Kletzki, and many others have written serious music for orchestra, but not one of them has written a gem. Klemperer - egads! So while there is no
obvious reason, there is some reason why it isn't done. Somewhere on this board was a long discussion of works my conductor/composers that might be worth looking at. Personally, I didn't find the Walter as bad as others, but it is no masterwork. Enjoyable (if that's the word) at least as much as I find the Wetz symphonies.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Friday 27 January 2012, 23:57
And since we're already off-topic, my reactions to certain comments that are explicitly negatively, generally and uninformatively about nontonal music or serial music are colored perhaps by the fact that in the US there hasn't exactly been an equivalent of a "Glock period" to react against, so it's rather like kicking something when it's down. (Not that I defend the music in that category that I like for that reason- I defend it because I like it.)
As I have not heard Walter's symphony or music yet (I have skimmed his violin sonata, @IMSLP) I hush now.
Interesting that you should use the word "defend", Eric ;D
There really should be no cause to "defend" the music one likes. I am happy to promote the merits of the music I like, to express my enthusiasm for it and to encourage others-people who have given me reason to believe share, to a greater or lesser extent, my particular tastes-to listen to it. I don't really feel terribly inclined to, frankly, waste my time "defending" it against the attacks of those who don't like it.
Quote from: mbhaub on Saturday 28 January 2012, 00:24
Quote from: semloh on Saturday 28 January 2012, 00:14
There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer.
And yet, there are so few who did both successfully. Bernstein certainly. But really, who else? I've heard music by Salonen, Segerstam, Maazel, Serebrier and Lindberg, just to name 5 living composers. Nothing they have written is going to make anyone's top-100 list. Ever. For dead conductors: Szell, Walter, Furtwangler, Dorati, Kletzki, and many others have written serious music for orchestra, but not one of them has written a gem. Klemperer - egads! So while there is no obvious reason, there is some reason why it isn't done. Somewhere on this board was a long discussion of works my conductor/composers that might be worth looking at. Personally, I didn't find the Walter as bad as others, but it is no masterwork. Enjoyable (if that's the word) at least as much as I find the Wetz symphonies.
I remember when I tried to construct a list of conductor/composers a few years ago I got a bit stuck with people like Mahler, Strauss, Weingartner and Howard Hanson and the issue of are these composer/conductors or conductors/composers ::)
We can base our answer to that question from an historical perspective but during the lifetimes of the individuals themselves the answer is not always quite so clear-cut.
Furtwangler certainly seems to have believed that his compositions were every bit as significant to his role as an artist as his conducting. History disagrees ;D
Funny you should mention Howard Hanson. At least among the others named, I think he's decidedly 2nd rate, and it's safe to say that that's the verdict of history. When was the last time any major orchestra played anything of his other than for recording purposes? The 2nd Symphony is the only one anyone plays nowadays, and then it's always amateur and semi-pro orchestras. Maybe high school bands play some his music, I don't know. By coincidence, I'm in rehearsals now for the 2nd and every time I play I remember what a truly stirring and beautiful work it is. Maybe it is the long sought after "Great American Symphony".
But what about his conducting? Collectors of American music will forever be grateful to him for his pioneering work, no doubt. But his small string section (4 basses is all they could muster in Eastman?) and the deadly accurate Mercury recordings make those recordings distinctly inferior to the superb work from Jarvi in Detroit, Schwartz in Seattle, and then the Naxos series. I've talked to a lot of people who knew and played under Hanson and every one of them said he had a weird conducting technique, but somehow he got you to play better than you ever thought you could. Sadly, there aren't recordings of him doing standard repertoire to judge him by.
But back to Walter. I've been on a Beethoven kick lately. Listening to a lot of new recordings -- historically correct and all that. Very good. Then this week, just for old times sake I listened to an old set: Walter, the stereo remakes. When I was younger I found them dull and not so interesting. But now, older, I found them really moving, beautifully paced and not nearly as bad as I remembered. They may not have the granite like quality of Klemperer, but Walter's Beethoven isn't bad at all. His Dvorak is superb, too. Just to bad he didn't pick up composing tips fromt them.
Dear friends, thank you all for your interesting posts. Not only Walter's symphony has been discussed, but also how to express negative and positive opinions.
I know how it feels if a member is (very) critical about a piece of music, or composer, you like very much. You ask yourself, how is it possible that he doesn't recognize the quality, the genius, or whatever, like I do? Even if the music doesn't appeal to someone else's personal taste, as a music lover, a critical listener, he can hear that the piece certainly has some quality? Well, it's all about personal taste, I suppose.
My reaction on Walter's symphony was a very simple "so boring". In fact, before I ordered this disc I've listened to all audio samples and thought that Walter's symphony was comparable with those of Weingartner. And I like Weingartner quite a lot, although he demonstrated that he could also write boring passages for his symphonies (BTW, I really love his VC). After a first and concentrated listen of the Walter I was really disappointed. I felt the music doesn't go anywhere, no rich and memorable themes, nothing interesting at all. Hence my opinion which is nothing more than a first impression. But indeed, Peter senior, I will give the symphony another listen in due course (sorry semloh, first that second listen...).
I don't have any negative comments on Botstein, the orchestra or the quality of the recording. On the contrary. That is fully up to cpo's standard which I think is excellent.
Talking about great and famous conductors who are also composers, I read in Röntgen's biography that Willem Mengelberg (a German, born in the Netherlands), brilliant pianist and perhaps the most famous and controversial conductor (a quirky pioneer, self-glorification, his attitude during the Second World War) the Dutch Concertgebouw Orchestra ever had, also composed music. Has anyone ever heard something of Mengelberg?
Quote from: mbhaub on Saturday 28 January 2012, 03:05
Funny you should mention Howard Hanson. At least among the others named, I think he's decidedly 2nd rate, and it's safe to say that that's the verdict of history. When was the last time any major orchestra played anything of his other than for recording purposes? The 2nd Symphony is the only one anyone plays nowadays, and then it's always amateur and semi-pro orchestras. Maybe high school bands play some his music, I don't know. By coincidence, I'm in rehearsals now for the 2nd and every time I play I remember what a truly stirring and beautiful work it is. Maybe it is the long sought after "Great American Symphony".
But what about his conducting? Collectors of American music will forever be grateful to him for his pioneering work, no doubt. But his small string section (4 basses is all they could muster in Eastman?) and the deadly accurate Mercury recordings make those recordings distinctly inferior to the superb work from Jarvi in Detroit, Schwartz in Seattle, and then the Naxos series. I've talked to a lot of people who knew and played under Hanson and every one of them said he had a weird conducting technique, but somehow he got you to play better than you ever thought you could. Sadly, there aren't recordings of him doing standard repertoire to judge him by.
But back to Walter. I've been on a Beethoven kick lately. Listening to a lot of new recordings -- historically correct and all that. Very good. Then this week, just for old times sake I listened to an old set: Walter, the stereo remakes. When I was younger I found them dull and not so interesting. But now, older, I found them really moving, beautifully paced and not nearly as bad as I remembered. They may not have the granite like quality of Klemperer, but Walter's Beethoven isn't bad at all. His Dvorak is superb, too. Just to bad he didn't pick up composing tips fromt them.
I am not quite sure that I understand your point about Hanson ???
You say that he is "decidedly 2nd rate" but then talk very enthusiastically about the Second Symphony. I certainly think that Hanson's symphonies are quite splendid pieces, romantic, rich, rousing, colourful and that Hanson was a very very fine conductor, not just of his own music but of that of other American composers :)
Amongst other, reasonably giften conductor/composers I don't think we should forget Sir Eugene Goossens, Rafael Kubelik, Jean Martinon, Igor Markevitch, Paul Paray, Andre Previn, Victor de Sabata or Evgeni Svetlanov ;D
Meanwhile, let's get back to Walter from whom we have strayed somewhat...
A most gracious reply, Peter the younger!
I do hope the Walter begins to 'work' for you on a second attempt. I'm still convinced that, though clearly not a masterwork, it is a terrific piece. And Botstein and cpo are to be thanked for it.
Warm best wishes to you,
Methuselah Peter