Messages

It was Karl Höller's 1st I thought of. And you are right about Rubbra's Finale. The difference to Bruckner is, that Rubbra planed the Lento of his 1st as a last movement, Bruckner didn't that with his Adagio. The more I listen to Bruckner's 9th, I find the thesis of the "finished unfinished" symphony less convincing. For my ears this adagio is more or less a great prelude to the finale. Rubbra and Enescu make sure that their slow movements are the Finali of their works, when they gave them indications of finality, Enescu with the choir, Rubbra with the sublime crescendo-accelerando-fugue. And even Höller, whose 1st isn't realy a "Finalsymphonie" like Rubbra's or Enescu's, goes in that direction. His Adagio-coda is much longer than Bruckner's and the climax is in the center of the movement.

Yes, that's interesting! Bruckner's 9th seems to be a non intended predecessor of this Moderato-Scherzo-Slow-structure, some composers developed in the 20th century. E.g. Enescu's 3rd, Rubbra's 1st and 8th, Höller's 1st, and even Simpson's 9th.

I think that it is somewhat hard to find truely Brucknerian composers. There is maybee nobody, who sounds Brucknerian as Rietz sounds Mendelssohnian, or as Herzogenberg sounds Brahmsian.
Bruckner was in many ways a solitary figure, who couldn't be added clearly to one of the musical directions of his time. A Wagnerian, who wrote (characteristic but) not programmatic symphonies in classical structure. But there are, as I think, elements of his style, that make him equaly differing from Brahms as he does from Wagner. The latter two composers, as different there views were in generaly, shared an aesthetic of organical developments in music. Bruckner had another concept of building great musical architectures, which seems to be more based on mechanical progressions, as it is shown by his strict use of four bar phrases. Wagner and Brahms on the contrary  were more interested in the cultivation of odd phrases, which Schönberg called ,,musical prose". The views of Wagner and Brahms dominated the most musicians of the late 19th century, so Bruckner, I think, was mostly misunderstood by his contemporaries.
And the few composers who wanted to follow Bruckner seem to me to be led by a kind of ,,productive misunderstanding". You must consider in Bruckner's case, that some of his works were played in arrangements by his pupils even 40 years after his death. The composers of the early 20th century only knew Bruckner's symphonies in this versions. Imagine: Richard Wetz died in the same the year, when Bruckner's 5th symphony was played for the first time in its original version!
The Brucknerian influences on other composers seem largely superficial to me. I have named Wetz, and would add Rott, Sibelius (surely Bruckner's most productive heir), Robert Hermann (I don't know if he knew Bruckner's music, but he uses square phrases in a striking similar way), Hausegger, Franz Schmidt, Braunfels, Furtwängler, Wilhelm Petersen. Everybody a genius in his own way. They may have seen Bruckner as their idol, but nobody of them sounds truely Brucknerian to my ears, even if it is audible, that they recieved some inspiration from his works.

Novak's Autumn Symphony is a great and astonishing composition! It sounds for me like the Czech answer to Hausegger's Nature Symphony. Does someone know if there's a recording of Novak's May Symphony?

Wetz wrote his concerto in 1932.

There is a book about Volbach ("Fritz Volbach (1861-1940). Komponist, Dirigent und Musikwissenschaftler", edited by Klaus Hortschansky, Hagen 1987), where it is mentioned, that many of his works remained in manuscript and where lost or destroyed in the Second World War. That maybee would explain many gaps in the list, Balapoel mentions.

I have listened to the symphony. This is a real work of quality, and its slow movement a piece of true greatness! Axel Beer, who is the author of the commentary about Volbachs compositions in the book, I mentioned above, has written, that Volbach used the Adagio as an orchestral interlude in a late oratorio, called "Auferstehung" (1930), about the passion and resurrection of Christ. According to this fact, Beer supposes, that even Volbach's symphony has a hidden program, in which the Adagio would describe the passion, and the Finale the resurrection. Volbach himself gave the text "Haleluja" to the first six notes of the main theme of the finale.

Volbach had even written some chamber music, which mostly seems to be lost. Two piano quintets have survived. One with strings, the other with winds. Beer's description of the piano and strings work makes me very curious about it.

Maybee this thread is the best place for my first posting in this forum.

My favourite unsung symphonies are: Draeseke's "Tragica", Taneyev's Fourth, Pfitzner's op. 36a, Hausegger's "Nature Symphony", Furtwängler's Second, Rubbra's First, Mennin's Seventh and the symphonies of Robert Simpson (especially No. 7 and 9)

Of sung symphonies there are the works of Beethoven (especially No. 2 and 3, and the first two movements of the Ninth) and Bruckner (especially No. 1 and 9, the latter my all time favourite piece of music), which I like most.