Messages

I thought it was a clever idea of Bowen's to accompany the viola with a harp in its solo passages, but I had to strain my ears to hear that instrument. By the way, the soloist, a pupil of the Yehudi Menuhin School, was using Yehudi Menuhin's own instrument.

I've now listened to Rufinatscha's first 2 symphonies a number of times and I now give them equal rating, so I must take back what I said earlier about No 2. However, I still think the jerkiness in the opening movement in No1 bears a resemblance to that which tends to characterise Berwald's symphonies.

The IWSO performed to their usual high standard but I didn't care very much for the Bowen concerto apart from the finale. However I enjoyed the Wasps overture and the Elgar No 2, particularly the finale

Thanks very much, gentlemen for all those enthusiastic replies. Tomorrow I shall endeavour  to book tickets.

Next Saturday 24th January the Isle of Wight Symphony Orchestra, under their conductor Jonathan Butcher, will be including a performance of the York Bowen Viola Concerto with the young Spanish Violist Loreno Canto Wolteche as soloist, in their all English programme. The other works in the concert are Vaughan Williams's Wasps Overture and Elgar's 2nd Symphony. This takes place at their usual venue, the Medina Theatre, Newport, Isle of Wight. Tickets, at £14, are obtainable from the Theatre box office whose phone number is 01983 823884
   I cannot say that I am familiar with any of York Bowen's music, but I might go along just to support our local band.

It looks as if we'll have to agree to disagree Alan. However, I'm sure we all owe you a great debt for introducing us to the music of Rufinatscha, particularly the last 2 symphonies.
     With regard to Spohr, like many others of his lesser known colleagues, his output is somewhat patchy, but when he is good he is very good., as in the 2nd & 5th symphonies, the Nonet and the 5th piano trio. One thing about him is that he was always ready to try something new, even when it didn't quite work out, as with his 4th and 7th symphonies.
    By the way, I'll take your tip and listen to Rufinatscha's 2nd symphony a few more times and then go back to No 1 to re-assess them both.

Alan, whilst I reckon that alongside Lachners 5th & 8th symphonies,Rufinatscha's last 2 symphonies are amongst the finest works in that genre produced between the Beethoven/Schubert era and those of Brahms & Bruckner, I wouldn't say that his earlier symphonies were up to that standard. No 1 sounds in its opening movement very much like Berwald in style. ( Just as Mahler 1 sounds very much like Hans Rot 1).
   Quite honestly, I think Rufinatscha's 2nd Symphony is inferior to his first one but, with the newly reconstructed and recorded No 3, we see quite a leap forward although, in my humble opinion, not quite up to the standard of Nos 5 & 6 ( or should I say, 4 & 5? ) Anyway, just what does greatness consist of in a symphony or a composer for that matter? Rufiatscha's last 2 symphonhies contain some beautiful melodies rarely met with in any works of this type but, if greatness consists of a really thorough mastery of counterpoint, I would say that Lachner wins hands down!
    Now I must have my parachute ready as I await being shot down min flames!

Alan, whilst I tend to agree with you on Rufinatscha's later symphonic works, I would say that the opening movement of his 1st symphony, sounds extraordinarily like Berwald in style.

Many thanks Alan, for those very comprehensive answers. As he has made such a good job of No 3, it would be nice to hear what Michael Huber can make of those 3 movements in search of an orchestrator. If he does manage to get them into orchestral shape, no doubt the last two symphonies can then revert to their old numbers.

Some years ago when, courtesy of Alan and the Tyroler Landesmuseen, we were introduced to the splendid orchestral music of Johann Rufinatscha, we were led to believe that he had written 6 symphonies. Recordings of Nos 1, 2. 5 & 6 were at that time issued by the Landesmuseen, together with an indication of two further works of the same genre known as Nos 3 & 4, either lost or incomplete. Now we are told that one of these never happened and that the last two symphonies need to be re-numbered 4 & 5 respectively. What I would like to know is (a) did the composer himself refer to his last two symphonies as No5 & 6  and (b) how did the rumour of this "phantom" symphony come about?

I feel very honoured to know that there are so many composers with the name of John White. I gather that there is even one just a couple of years younger than me still living in England. I'd love to become acquainted with the symphonies of the first mentioned composer: I'm sure they'd be a lot more worth listening to than any of my own symphonic offerings!  Sadly, I very much doubt if I could claim relationship to either of the two mentioned in this thread, as my "White" ancestors for most of that period were farmers in the Scottish Borders.

This is certainly a very impressive list, but why are Gade, Macfarren and Sullivan included in a survey of German symphonists?

Sorry Jim, I reckon it was past my bedtime when I made my last contribution, but what I meant to say was the key of the 2nd subject was reversed to the home key.
    Cheers,
          John.

The renowned music theorist, Ebenezer Prout in his book "Applied Forms" (1895), distinguishes between the older sonata form, with 2 contrasting subjects in different keys joined by a bridge passage which are then repeated with with reversed keys, as used extensively by such composers as Domenico Scarlatti and the modern sonata form as developed by C P E Bach and Haydn. However he goes on to mention that 2 of J S Bach's preludes are in this new form, giving him prior claim to its invention. Professor Prout also informs us that the older form was still occasionally employed by composers right up to Schubert's time, after which it appears to have died out.

Semloh, you seem to have hit the nail on the head with regard to romanticism, but I'd like to point out that most of the "Romantic" symphonists and chamber music writers still found it convenient to stick to the sonata form first developed by the Bach family as a framework on which to hang their more dramatic compositions. You are certainly right in indicating that any line drawn between the Classical and Romantic period has inevitable to be a very fuzzy one indeed. Many composers must have changed their styles gradually over the years in order to conform with or even to set the latest fashion. I would say it is equally difficult t draw a hard and fast line between the "Romantic" and "Modern" periods in music. I would certainly cass Sibelius and Mahler as of the Romantic tradition, in spite of being contemporanious with Arnold Shoenberg and his early followers.