Topics

I just have to share this.
Last evening one orchestra I play in (on first bassoon) played Glazunov's Fourth Symphony. I've been bugging the conductor for several years to give it a go and this year he finally gave in. I loaned him a CD and a score and he realized there's some terrific, beautiful music there.

Needless to say, no one in the orchestra had ever played it, most had never heard of it. During rehearsals people were coming around and really got enthusiastic about it. "We should play more of his music -- this is great!" was typical.

But after the concert it was the audience that startled me. They couldn't have known it either, and right as the thrilling, ecstatic conclusion of the symphony the audience immediately rose to its feet, Applause was thunderous and the "bravos" very prominent. They really, really liked it. Afterwards, I got comments from several attendees as why no one plays this, why hadn't they ever heard of it?

It's not easy music at all. The six flats are kind of intimidating to strings, but our amateur group did an excellent job with only a couple of mishaps, mostly from a timpanist who got lost a couple of times. We did have eight rehearsals for the concert and that helped.

But Glazunov sure made an impression. The conductor has been pretty good about programming more obscure music, but when it comes to big symphonies not so much. This Fourth Symphony really opened his eyes as to what other glories he might have missed. I've already suggested Raff's 3rd or 5th, Bloch's C sharp minor, Atterberg's 3rd or 6th.  I can only hope.

Francesco d'Avalos has died, may he rest in peace. He made the world better for music lovers who cherish lesser known works: Martucci and Raff among them.

Has anyone else seen this ridiculous Top 10 list from Gramophone?

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/top-10-symphonies?utm_content=Top%2010%20Symphonies&utm_campaign=Gramophone%20newsletter%2014.04.14&utm_source=Gramophone&utm_medium=adestra_email&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gramophone.co.uk%2Ffeature%2Ftop-10-symphonies


2. Beethoven 5 - seriously? Over 3? Or 9?
5. Bruckner 5 - over 4? 7? 8?
6. Mahler 5 - rather than 2 or 9? And the Rattle recording? 
8. Copland 3 - this one just baffles me. So they had to get one American symphony? I hate this work.
10. Shostakovich 10 - I'd put 5 there before the 10th.

All these lists are silly, but I really can't understand how a "leading" classical mag could make a list of the top 10 symphonies and omit the likes of Schubert, Schumann, Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Berlioz over Copland or even Bruckner. Maybe a list of the top 10 really isn't possible. Copland? Jeez...

I ran across this today:

http://aeon.co/magazine/altered-states/why-we-love-repetition-in-music/

It's quite interesting and goes a long ways to explaining why we understand and like the music we do - repetition is the key. There is an extremely weird sound experiment that is very illuminating. For me, the experiment worked perfectly and the effect was clearly audible. My tone-deaf wife, who doesn't appreciate music too much heard nothing. Try it out.

Recently I discovered some previously unknown recordings from Japan from King Records. Among them, a 2-disk set with a fine performance of the op 16 piano concerto of Adolf von Henselt. The set also has a recording of the Miaskovsky 24th and Schmidt's 4th! Quite unexpected. The catalog includes things we all love on this site: Glazunov, Atterberg, Taneyev for example. The site is in Taiwan: www.cdbanq.com and is English-friendly. Worth a look.

I play with a decent quality woodwind quintet (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon (me), and horn). We're always looking for something new and unusual that hasn't been done before. I've been doing more and more arranging and am looking for suggestions. What I want is something tuneful, romantic that could be suited to wind quintet arranging. What I really want is something worthy that is unfamiliar to 99.999% of the listeners. Any ideas from Raff (either brother), Reinecke, Rubinstein, or any one? String quartets, piano solos, even opera arias can be viable candidates. I started thinking about a really comprehensive arrangement from Carmen until I looked it up and realized that there are a dozen of those already done! The other thing is that a score needs to be readily available, preferably at IMSLP.

Thanks!

Finally -- after only hearing the suite, and then various other movement on ASV of Korngold's Much Ado About Nothing incidental music, there is a recording of the complete score - on Toccata, with John Mauceri and the UNC orchestra. Marvelous! Such wonderfully alive, beautiful, tuneful music. If you know, and like, the suite, you must get this disk. Just more proof, as if it's needed, that Korngold was a great composer whose music was undeservedly neglected.

There's another recording on Ondine that recently came out, but I haven't been able to acquire it.

Bravo Toccata!

Did anyone catch this on Classicstoday.com? From the review of a Naxos disk of Ruperto Chapi:

"The Symphony in D minor, Chapí's only work in the form, is also typical in its somewhat formulaic approach to form and its conservative scoring. It's really a telling example of everything that went wrong with German symphonic music in the second half of the 19th century (Brahms and Bruckner excepted, of course). "

So can I assume that Raff, Reinecke, Draeseke, Spohr, Goetz, Bruch, Volkman, and quite a few other favorites on this site "went wrong"? It's not that the comment offended or anything, just that it seems to have instantly condemned so many interesting and worth composers to the dust bin, except the two mentioned. Kind of breathtaking, really. Come to think of it though, there aren't a lot of Germanic symphonies from that period that are heard in concert halls.

Ok - Brahms, esp the symphonies, are hardly unsung, and this post is not the intent of the Unsungcomposers, but hear me out...

We've had lots of comments about historical conductors and why we don't seem to have the same level of brilliance as in the past. Well, yesterday I finally got around to listening to a set of Brahms symphonies I've read about for years, but have never heard: the older mono NY Philharmonic versions with Bruno Walter. I've always been a fan of his stereo remakes with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra, but nothing prepared me for the mono versions.

They are brisk, virile, at time ferocious. This is conducting! I have never heard anything like it on records or live. Every thing just seems "right" - this is how Brahms should go. No micromanaging. No overinflating it into Mahler. No turning it into historical events. Just thrilling music making. Anyone who thinks Walter was a boring old man needs to hear this set. The mono sound is excellent and in fact, you can hear some details that are missing in some modern recordings.

One movement I've played repeatedly is the finale of the 2nd. You have to hear the coda to believe it. Walter accelerates it to a stunning pace - the virtuosic orchestra goes right along flawlessly  - and never lets. The brass playing is spectacular - no restrained trombones either - loud and proud! Just lifts you right out of your seat. I played the Bernstein/VPO for comparison - no contest. Maazel/Cleveland is even worse  as he puts on the brakes in the coda.

So let's say that 100 years ago Brahms was played this way. I can see why Brahms' music triumphed and became part of the repertoire while music by the unsungs didn't. Frankly, even with virtuoso conductors, there isn't a single movement in any symphony by the beloved forgotten composers which comes near the thrilling, electrifying, even hair-raising finale of the Brahms 2nd. Surely not every performance in the old days was on this level. Like he recent Schuricht Beethoven cycle re-release, this Brahms set has made it very clear how impoverished we are today in terms of great conducting.

If you've never heard this set you must if great music making is something you're interested in. I got it really, really cheap, brand new from the UK for under $8 USD. I have a lot (too many, really) sets of Brahms symphonies. Mono sound or not, this goes straight to the top of the pile.

I think followers of this sight will get a chuckle from this:

Last night I was at a concert. Before it started, the conductor came out to introduce the music. He gets to the last work on the concert: Schumann's 4th Symphony. Then he declares, "Schumann is an unjustly neglected composer." I couldn't help but laugh. I'm sure the maestro didn't hear me, but people around me did and probably think I'm a rude, stupid hick (Ok, I do wear cowboy boots to concerts). Unjustly neglected! With hundreds of cds made, countless symphony cycles, and numerous biographies I think M. Christie is a bit off base. In fairness, he has given us some truly neglected music like Zemlinsky, Korngold, Gal. Schumann neglected? Hardly.

Today I played in a concert which featured three works: one well-known - Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man, one over-known: Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony, and one really unknown: William Alwyn's Lyra Angelica for Harp and Strings. After the concert, the one thing that audience members, one after the another, kept saying was how wonderful the Alwyn was, how much they enjoyed it and why in the world had they never heard it before? Even orchestra members who didn't play on it commented on how beautiful it was and they wished we played more music like that, and explore the repertoire out there rather than slog through th Tchaik symphony - again. There's hope!

I've been in rehearsals this week for the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique. Hardly unsung. But what strikes me about this work is that no matter how many times I play it or listen to it, it just always seems so new and fresh. It never sounds tired and worn out. There are many great works that just seem to have aged: Franck's Symphony, the Mendelssohn symphonies, a lot Brahms and Schumann and Liszt. But then there are some works that just never seem to age: the Berlioz, Beethoven's 3rd, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, even Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade. Are there other works that just seem ever-fresh to you?

Well here's good news for those of us who can't get enough of Ilya Murometz.  May 3/4 in 2013 the Buffalo Philharmonic will be doing it in Carnegie Hall. A great orchestra, a great hall, and Joann Falletta at the podium. Doesn't get much better than that. Would it be asking too much for a new Naxos recording to be made?

http://www.bpo.org/2012-2013-season/2012-2013-classics.php

I've been looking at the Chandos music on a stick: Plug & Play. Have any of you tried them? Any comments, good or bad? Any trouble playing them back?

Well, here's something quite interesting...

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Is+this+the+sound+of+Sibeliuss+lost+Eighth+Symphony/1135269867060

Could this mean that the complete BIS edition needs a supplement?

When I saw that CPO was releasing a disk of music by Ludovit Rajter, I knew that I had to have it if for no other reason that Rajter was the conductor who first gave us a complete set of Schmidt symphonies, and anyone who likes Schmidt is ok in my book. I had no idea what to expect. Sometimes it sounds quite a bit like Kodaly in Hary Janos, sometimes like Brahms in the Hungarian Dances (esp no. 5), and sometimes like Bartok. I enjoyed the music quite a bit, the ballet especially so.

A while back there was a thread regarding composers "borrowing" ideas from others. Listen to track 16, the first movement of the Sinfonietta. At about 1:15 in you can plainly hear the main theme from Schmidt's 3rd symphony. The rest of the movement is permeated with Schmidt's theme. Since Rajter was a student of Schmidt, loved Schmidt's music, and was dedicated to bringing it to the public this is no accident.

Anyway, great release. I hope CPO will bring out some more of Rajter's work. And while I'm at it, can anyone tell be how to pronounce RAJTER correctly?

I saw today on Music Web International that conductor Yakov Kreizberg died of cancer a couple of weeks back. Maybe not the most well known maestro out there, but certainly a promising one. I had the pleasure of hearing him three times, two of those doing my favorite unsung: Franz Schmidt's 4th symphony. I didn't know he was Semyon Bychkov's brother, another fine conductor not well enough known. RIP

I've been having a lively discussion with some fellow orchestra players about which is the "best" Scheherazade out there. (I know, get a life.) But one player just insists that the Ormandy (Sony) is the one. Not for me, I informed him. He takes a big cut in the 3rd movement, and tampers with the endings of I and IV, and retouches the string bowings. Then there are those who loved the Spano (Telarc), but no, I insisted: he damages the score by taking the violin part up an octave right after the climax of III. He's not alone: lots of them do it. I patiently explain that for me, I want a conductor to respect the composer and the score, and to make changes like this is like putting grafitti on the Mona Lisa. With a lot of music there are common practices of making changes, like in Beethoven 5, Tchaikovsky 6, Schumann 1-4 and so on. How does anyone else feel about this? How sacred is the score? The conductor may have the right to make changes, but should he? There is some music that I've never heard altered, like Elgar I or II, Brahms 1-4 etc. By the way, I left the conversation adamant that the best Scheherazades remain Kondrashin, Reiner, Monteux, and Beecham, and that my no. 1 choice is still the Mackerras on Telarc with the LSO.

Here's a depressing, interesting, and all-too-familiar article that followers of this site should enjoy...


http://www.sound-scotland.co.uk/site/2010/diary/10_23@1400_transcript.htm

Here's a relevent and interesting article that visitors to this site should appreciate:

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_urb-classical-music.html