Messages

Even though this is not about Mayer:  Even in the 1970s our music teacher, Armin Schibler for those familiar with Zurich, made us spell "Sinfonie" and scolded those hard who used the pompous quasi-Greek letters y and ph.

I admit: To this day I find the spelling "Symphonie" (in German) unduly pompous.

I think I remember this LP.  My then girl friend played the harp and took lessons from Emmi Hürlimann who is playing on it--if it is the one I remember.

Nägeli was at the time the musical establishment in Switzerland (at least in the German speaking part) all by himself.  He was composer, teacher, publisher and musicologist (music philosopher?).  There is an amusing passage in Schnyder von Wartensee's autobiography about his first meeting with Nägeli (who was well aware of his importance).  Schnyder studied with him for a while.

I rather think it originates from the self grading procedure of ACMP (Amateur Chamber Players).

I am confused.  Mayer's third is "entirely unworthy of neglect" AND "definitely tier 3".  I think "tier 3" as a general rule might be "worthy of neglect"--unless nothing is.

My impression is that the third symphony with its many evocations of Haydn is more "traditional" than the first two--and maybe a little less inspired.  I also think the last movement is too long, too repetitive and melodically under endowed.  On the whole maybe we SHOULD neglect the third in favor of Mayer's better work.

You can look at the parts here.  To me it does not look as if the title were added later:  "Sinfonie militair" on line 1, then underneath, centered: "no. 3".

Anyone would have had to work with handwritten parts for unpublished works around 1850 (in fact until very recently) but how many composers wrote whole sets of symphony parts themselves?  She was willing to do hard work to get her music performed.

For myself I don't doubt that Mayer planned and composed the work as an "hommage à Haydn" and structured it in analogy to Haydn's symphony with the same nickname.

I don't really think it is the hall.  I have the impression that it was laboriously figured out and rehearsed.  Too much focus on details or "fussing and futzing with details" as Hurwitz might put it  Some of the details are really convincing, e.g. the transition from the trio back to the main section of the scherzo (for which I haven't a better solution).  There is just much too much of it.

Interesting.  This seems to be contradicted though by the fact that the title "Sinfonie militair" appears on all the original parts--on IMSLP--which are in Mayer's handwriting if I am not seriously mistaken.  Given that the title is an obvious reference to Haydn and that the work resembles Haydn's (in both works it is only the last movement that is "militair") it seems more plausible anyway that the name was given by Mayer from the outset (i.e. at the conception stage) and not awarded later.

This was posted to youtube 3 moths ago.  I just found it by happenstance.  It is a live recording of a concert* by a quartet called Carpe Diem String Quartet.  The acoustic quality of the recording is quite good.

More about Mayer's e-minor quartet can be found on this (somewhat meandering) thread. 

I don't actually agree with many of their choices.  There is overall too much rubato**, the adagio is too slow and the melody is over-prioritized over the "accompaniment" which obscures for example the almost persistent triplets in the scherzo.  But they play well and the piece comes across as impressive nonetheless.

* unfortunately sparsely attended as far as visible in the video...

** in the adagio the reprise is led by the viola and for once the player played 16 bars at constant tempo.  What a relief!

As far as I am aware of none of her unpublished quartets are available on CD either, only the g-minor.  Some of her piano trios and quartets have been recorded and some cello sonatas.  There is a disk of violin sonatas but it isn't very good, in fact quite bad IMHO (Aleksandra Maslarovic).

I think that Mayer's parts are not very violin-friendly.  It is hard work to make them sound good (as opposed to Dvorak whose music has the opposite property).  Maybe the reason for the missing recordings has something to do with that.

As already announced I have now posted a transcript of Mayer's other string quintet. 

As already mentioned there are two autograph scores that differ significantly from each other, one in the Berlin Staatsbiblothek in Mayer's estate, the other in Liszt's estate, a gift from Mayer to Liszt.  (There is a third autograph, a set of parts in Mayer's handwriting which (almost) matches the Berlin manuscript).  I decided to transcribe both autographs to be better able to compare them.  To me it seemed that the Berlin score was the more mature and concise composition overall so the Berlin score is the one that the new transcribed version is based on.

There are four movements, in (): differing data in the "Liszt version" (the links get you to the artificial sound on Musescore.com):
1. Allegro maestoso (Allegro con brio), d-minor, 4/4, 237 measures (234)
2. Adagio (Adagio ma non troppo), C, F-Major, 91 measures (100)
3. Scherzo. Vivace (Allegro vivace), 3/4, d-minor with trio in B flat Major, 274 measures (355)
4. Allegro, 2/4, D-Major, 339 measures (398)

Both versions are based on the same or very similar themes with the exception of the second theme of the first movement.  The Berlin version has generally shorter movements (it still clocks in at about 35 minutes for a full performance with the repeat played--there is only one repeat, the first part of the first movement; no repeats at all in the scherzo), especially in the scherzo there are some unnecessary repetitions in the Liszt manuscript.

The piece features more contrast than the D-Major work, also more dissonance and lots of chromaticism.  I particularly like the Adagio, somewhat Beethovenian with its slow tempo and sustained tension.  The scherzo is less aggressive than the one in the D-Major work.  It ends surprisingly in D-Major, four measures of stressing the minor third are followed immediately by the last three that feature an upward racing D-Major scale.  The finale is a rondo and concludes the whole piece in Major.  Both quintets begin with an introductory passage based on upward arpeggiated chords.  The two quintets seem to be planned as belonging together.

If anybody wants to second guess my decision to use the Berlin version or thinks both versions ought to have been published please feel free.  I am not awfully certain about this.  I may be convinced to correct it as far as possible.  For the version dedicated to Liszt Pdf files and mp3s for each movement are here.  Be warned:  They are not proof read which is audible occasionally in the mp3s.

Interestingly though the same 3rd quartet features a violation of this "principle" at the very beginning; at least to my ears the harmony there is quite "normal"; it is indeed the tuen that makes the passage memorable.

Great artists are hard to pigeonhole.

I was actually more bothered by the contempt for "less sophisticated" listeners that is woven into the passage without having any relevance to explaining this particular set of works.  If somebody gets enjoyment out of a lovely tune (I do!) who is he to look down on them?

I find this passage rather shocking in its elitism--in fact snobbery.  One wonders for example who these "older" composers were who were "wasting time on melody" and "coddled" the public with "tunes they can hum on the way out".  I suspect Dvorak tops the list.

I read the whole review before posting here and there are good things in it.  But this passage is just as arrogant if read in context as it appears on its own.

I do observe quite a bit of "overhyping of minor talents" on this forum though--generally this is not discussed much.  The question then becomes:  Why does it cause a big debate (in two threads) in this case?'

The score (autograph) is available on the web site of the Staatsbibliotheik Berlin.

2nd movement:  Marcia funebre.  Andante maestoso
3rd movement:   Scherzo.  Allegro
4th movement:   Finale.  Allegro

Some time ago the autographs of Mayer's two string quintets were posted on IMSLP.  They are written for 2 violins, 2 violas and violoncello and are in D-Major and d-minor respectively--maybe as companion pieces?  They are dated "ca. 1853 - 57", contemporaneous with Mayer's string quartets.

I have now posted a transcript for practical use on IMSLP.  I also posted electronic renditions on Musescore.com, trying to make sure the leading voices are favored--within the range of what is possible to do with Musescore:  Movement 1, movement 2, movement 3 & 4.

The work is attractive, rather upbeat in mood (as one would expect in D-Major) and ambitious:  A first allegro of twelve minutes with nicely contrasting themes, then a robust scherzo (g-minor), allegro vivace with a slow trio (E-flat Major), followed by variations on chorale-like theme (B-flat Major), somewhat reminiscent of the ones in Haydn's "Emperor" quartet, with a coda that leads attaca into the final allegro in sonata form.

I am now working on the d-minor quintet but this is more complicated: There are two autographs with some significant differences between them:  One in Mayer's estate in the Staatsbibliothek Berlin, the other in the estate of Franz Liszt, beautifully bound and dedicated by Mayer to Liszt, maybe in an effort to elicit some response.