Unsung Composers

Hi all,

I just found this on the Facebook page of the HR-Sinfonieorchester (Frankfurt Radio Symphony):
https://www.facebook.com/hrsinfonieorchester/photos/a.456174131103467.107019.436311013089779/1257171501003722/?type=3&theater

QuotePaavo Järvi hat es in der ,,alten Heimat" so gut gefallen, dass unser ,,Conductor laureate" gleich noch ein paar Tage länger in Frankfurt geblieben ist, um mit uns in dieser Woche die 1. Sinfonie Franz Schmidts für eine geplante CD mit allen vier Sinfonien dieses leider immer noch viel zu wenig bekannten österreichisch-ungarischen Spätromantikers aufzunehmen

Which translates more or less as follows:

QuotePaavo Järvi liked it so much in his "old home" that our "conductor laureate" has stayed some more days in Frankfurt in order to record the First Symphony by Franz Schmidt for a planned CD with all four Symphonies of this still far too unsung Austro-Hungarian composer.

(the post dates from today, 3 hours ago).

I did not find a discussion about this at this forum (neither an announcement of the CD somewhere else, at least with a quick google search) and thought that it might interest some of you...

I am really looking forward to hear Paavo Järvi's recording of these magnificient symphonies!

ewk

Quotethat our "conductor laureate" will stay some more days in Frankfurt

No, it should read: 'that our "conductor laureate" stayed in Frankfurt a few more days' - past tense. That's even better because it means that the recording's already been made!

Yippee! Like father like son. 40 years ago the only symphony you could easily listen to was the 4th. Who could've imagined that we'd have five complete cycles of all four? Not to mention almost a dozen recordings of Das Buch? This is great news.

...a September release from DG (no less), with Paavo Järvi conducting the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/franz-schmidt-symphonien-nr-1-4/hnum/9900063 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/franz-schmidt-symphonien-nr-1-4/hnum/9900063)

wow ..very prestigious release for Schmidt!
I'm not usually a great fan of Paavo, often I find him a little cold , but his tendentially "objective" way with music can probably benefit greatly some of the most florid symphonies , like 1&2..

You can sample his very fine performance of the 4th Symphony here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fjFPhrKjw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fjFPhrKjw)

This may not be good news for the Berman/BBCNOW project, although one hopes the latter will be equally good - and cover more ground.

A must have for me. All recordings of Schmidt are welcome - he needs attention.

How I wish some recordings of Schmidt playing the piano might surface one day. He was apparently incredible and he broadcast often over Austrian Radio in the 30s but never made any commercial recordings.

He seems to be duplicating a lot of his Daddy's repertory. Neeme's Schmidt cycle is split between the Chicago and Detroit Symphony Orchestras on Chandos - if you get them individually you get various Richard Strauss add-ons.  If you get the box - just the symphonies.  Maybe Paavo could finish out Neeme's attempt at the Maximilian Steinberg Symphonies - Nos 3 - 4 - 5.  Just like his père, Paavo seems to be pretty adventurous. I would not mind some Nikolai Tcherepnin (don't forget Tàti-Tàti), Jāzeps Vītols, or even the fake Nikolai Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky symphony.

Paavo isn't a clone of his father, so it's surely irrelevant that he too is recording these great symphonies a quarter of a century later.

Is this a Deutsche Grammophon release? How many CDs are in the set?

Yes, Mike, it's on Deutsche Grammophon. The jpc listing doesn't say how many CDs there will be, though.

Very welcome although I am surprised Petrenko with Berlin didn't do it. That 4th from a couple of seasons ago was terrific.

Most significant to me is that this is a DG release, rather than RCA for whom PJ has done most of his recent work (e.g. Bruckner, Nielsen, Sibelius).

(https://media1.jpc.de/image/w220/front/0/0028948383368.jpg)

The Fourth with Kirill Petrenko and the BPO was released in a limited edition of one thousand copies on the BPO label.

Quote from: alberto on Thursday 23 July 2020, 22:07
The Fourth with Kirill Petrenko and the BPO was released in a limited edition of one thousand copies on the BPO label.

Seriously: why? Does anyone still seriously think exclusivity is the way to go in classical music marketing?

It's daft. Just plain daft. They'll soon be selling for millions...

btw the Petrenko hooks up with this (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,6814.msg72217.html#msg72217) earlier thread and, as noted therein, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDPElQkEX1g) Cologne performance conducted by Petrenko on YouTube of the 4th symphony from 2015. (As noted in another thread, Paävo Jarvi's performance with the hr-sinfonieorchester Frankfurt of the 4th can also be heard on YouTube. Same orchestra as in this DG set- don't know if it's the same performance. Uploaded on the orchestra's Youtube channel ("hr-sinfonieorchester"
), though, so presumably legitimate.)

I am interested and don't care. I want the recording set

Erm... ok. I realize that, but is there something of general interest in your comment? (To paraphrase someone, there is often nothing less interesting than our individual [not collective] fantasies/desires/preferences...)

Well....I've had the new Paavo Jarvi set a week now. Listened to it three times, with and without scores. Norman Lebrecht may have been right - did we need this particular set? No.

Up front, the playing is excellent (save for one irritating gaff in the horns shortly after the 5 minute mark of the third movement of the First.) The packaging is convenient - I do like these paper cartons more than big, crack-prone jewel boxes.

Now for the bad. The conducting: overall good, but I get the feeling that at the end of certain movements Jarvi needs a bigger statement. Part of the problem is Schmidt's; he liked abrupt endings. But some conductors make more the ends and it's more satisfying. Most annoying was the end of the first and last movements of the Third, the end of the first of the Second. Tempos in general are upbeat  - like his father's. But that ruins the second of the Third. Adagio this is not! At his tempos, the poco piu mossos (a bit more motion) are too fast. Other conductors go a real adagio and I like it so much better.

Then there's the sound. Now, DG has never been known as a high-fidelity showstopping sound company. And they're certainly not here. Woodwind details are buried in a wall of string sound. The nice interplay of the brass at the close of the Third is completely missing. The percussion makes no impact. The dynamic range isn't anything exceptional. It's too bad that the DG engineers haven't taken up SACD and give a listen to the extraordinary clarity that Chandos and Bis have achieved in that format.

When the set was announced with only three disks I was irritated because I assumed, dumb me, that they would split either the Second or Third over two disks. But no...the put nos. 3 and 4 on the same! That's an 85-minute disk! My high-end Marantz player had no problem fortunately. But playing it on a older Bose system...no such luck. Couldn't track it at all. Is using four disks that much more expensive? I imagine that there will be some people who won't be able to play that disk. I could be wrong.

So while I'm glad that Schmidt is getting more exposure, I was hoping for more. There's so much other music I want to have modern recordings of, and if this is the last Schmidt cycle, that's ok. We have the Naxos set with Sinaisky which is overall the best - great playing, conducting, sound. The Luisi is darn good, too and the Neeme Jarvi has superb playing and great sound. The Rajter we can ignore at this point. But I can dream: based on his performance of the Fourth in Dallas, I'd like Andrew Litton teamed with the London Symphony Orchestra on a wonderful Chandos SACD set - just don't record in the Barbican!

Friends will note that I have merged this thread with the earlier one on the same subject.

Thanks, MartinH for your generous review. I didn't have high hopes for this set. The Chandos/Jarvi and the Naxos series will do fine for me. DGG's website on this set speaks of 'The audio album will be released on 11 September along with a visual album of Symphony No. 4 & the Intermezzo'. Does that mean a DVD is included?  https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/en/artists/diverse-kuenstler/news/paavo-jaervi-rediscovers-franz-schmidt-the-complete-symphonies-259956

The Berliner Philharmoniker will release a recording and video from the perfomance of Schmidt's 4th BTW.

MusicWeb have published a much more positive review:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Oct/Schmidt-sys-4838336.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Oct/Schmidt-sys-4838336.htm)

So far only the 3-CD set seems to have been released.

Gramophone magazine features the new cycle as their Recording of the Month. They could be wrong, of course...

what is your opinion of the Naxos series of the same with Vassily Sinaisky conducting the Malmo Symphony?

Its a bit of a shame this cycle. Why on earth didn't they record Chaconne? Its an absolute masterpiece of just less than 30 minutes long.   Question: has Jarvi brought any thing new to the party?

QuoteQuestion: has Järvi brought any thing new to the party?

Dunno. I'm going to find out, though...

Not as far as I'm concerned. The Naxos set contains ALL of Schmidt's orchestral music. The playing is fine throughout - the Malmo group doesn't sound one bit inferior to the Frankfurt band. I still think the DG recorded sound isn't that great - maybe it's just my age, ears...But it reminds me of that early Supraphony recording of the 3rd - performance excellent, sound not excellent. The Fourth is always the capstone - it can and should be a gut wrenching affair. What you get here is very professional, but Mehta, Sieghart, Kreizberg all probe deeper. An off-air recording I have with Hans Swarowsky is quite powerful, too. But I could be wrong. Won't be the first time I disagree with the critics. After all, I still think Bernard Herrmann's recording of Raff's Lenore is the best!

QuoteNow, DG has never been known as a high-fidelity showstopping sound company.

Really? Never? Hmm...

QuoteIt's too bad that the DG engineers haven't taken up SACD and give a listen to the extraordinary clarity that Chandos and Bis have achieved in that format.

Well, the vast majority of listeners don't have SACD playback equipment. I certainly don't and there are plenty of perfectly fine-sounding recordings going back years before its advent. Mehta still sounds superb in No.4, after all.

That said, it could well be that the sound on the new set is no better than average. Speaking personally, as long as the sonics are decent, I'm probably more interested in the performances. We'll see...

And so, first, to what I can hear - and I certainly don't find that the woodwind are obscured by the strings at all, so I'm afraid I just don't agree with MartinH's assessment. And my venerable TEAC CD player (which hates CD-Rs) had no trouble with an 85+ minute disc...

Here's a review which I'd endorse:
https://theclassicreview.com/album-reviews/review-franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies-frankfurt-radio-symphony-orchestra-paavo-jarvi/ (https://theclassicreview.com/album-reviews/review-franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies-frankfurt-radio-symphony-orchestra-paavo-jarvi/)

That said, I'd still take Mehta's version of the 4th Symphony over any other recording of a Schmidt Symphony. He's grander, takes more risks - and he has the VPO!

Let me put a different perceptive on things. I could not find a thread on the Naxos cycle of Schmidt symphonies. So in that respect, this Jarvi Cycle is being broadcast as a new revelation. Anyone scrutinised the Malmo Symphony/ Vassily Sinaisky cycle in the same way? Oh, I'm not talking about so called musical critics but folk on this forum

I have Nos.1-4 with Sinaisky but don't remember much about them. I'll report back...

I'd just offer a word of caution, though. I'm no expert - I've just got a large collection of CDs. And I wouldn't write off all 'so-called musical critics' - many are well worth reading/listening to, provided one understands their prejudices, etc. For example, David Hurwitz is clearly a fan of Bernstein, Monteux, Munch, Ormandy, etc. and doesn't much care for Rattle, Abbado, Boult, Handley, etc. In other words, there's a certain pro-US and anti-UK bias in his reviews. He prefers obviously exciting performances, as opposed to those exhibiting a certain reserve. Now, that's fine, as long as one understands what interpretive approaches he's likely to favour. In fact, I've learned quite a lot from him - and caught up with interpretations/recordings that I had never considered worth buying. A classic case was Munch's Schubert 9 - so different from, say, Boult whose recording has long been regarded as a classic on this side of the Atlantic. So, don't write all critics off!

Sinaisky's recording of No.4 is different from Paavo Järvi's: it's more distantly recorded (which I prefer) and just a touch more spacious, by approx. two minutes overall (which I also prefer). It might also be decribed as laid-back in its approach - critics might even say it's rather bland. I like it, but ultimately I want more scruff-of-the-neck drama. I still believe this great work is best served by Mehta - at 49+ minutes his recording is certainly spacious and, although nearly fifty years old, was recorded by Decca in Vienna, and we all know how far ahead of their time those recordings were! So, it's still Mehta for me.

Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 13 October 2020, 23:35
A classic case was Munch's Schubert 9 - so different from, say, Boult whose recording has long been regarded as a classic on this side of the Atlantic. So, don't write all critics off!

Schubert's 9th? Hardly unsung. Alan, you should know better. But seeing you mentioned it, my view of Munch is that's its a freakish version, set at breakneck speeds. Simply does not impress me and neither do so call critics 

Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 18 October 2020, 18:36
Sinaisky's recording of No.4 is different from Paavo Järvi's: it's more distantly recorded (which I prefer) and just a touch more spacious, by approx. two minutes overall (which I also prefer). It might also be decribed as laid-back in its approach - critics might even say it's rather bland. I like it, but ultimately I want more scruff-of-the-neck drama.

Alan, thank you for your comments. So am I to believe that Paavo brings anything new to the 4th and other versions are preferred including Sinaisky?

QuoteSchubert's 9th? Hardly unsung. Alan, you should know better.

And you should know better than to quote me out of context - which was your ridiculous comment about writing off 'so-called music critics'. You are, of course, entitled to your view of the recording mentioned (and I might even agree with you if it came to a favourite version), but simply to write off critics in general in the way you do is beyond silly.

Paavo Järvi's view of No.4 is perfectly valid - it's well played and well recorded, but it's not weighty enough for me, probably because I've been brought up on Mehta's recording. Of course, someone coming new to the work might well prefer Paavo and find Mehta too studied. Arguments could be made both ways. In the end it's a matter of personal choice - and that's the reason I often buy more than one version of a work. Sometimes it's good to hear music done a different way - one that challenges me to re-think my prejudices. And that was the reason I bought Munch's Schubert 9.

And by the way: my views are neither here nor there. It'd be far better to read someone who really knows what they're talking about.

Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 18 October 2020, 22:15
And by the way: my views are neither here nor there. It'd be far better to read someone who really knows what they're talking about.

I disagree, your views are equally valid as anyone else's. You usually find professional critics have a bias in their makeup. This can purely be a human factor or something more sinister like bribes or financial incentives. ;)

Well, I have no real expertise. Just a fair amount of listening experience. And I won't pretend that I don't read the critics, because I do. The important thing is to listen for yourself and try to be as fair as possible. I do have my own prejudices, though: I'm not fond of HIP, early pianos, vibrato-less string playing à la Norrington or poor vocal standards in opera.

And with that, back to Schmidt...

I would say that the problem with Schmidt is that so much weight is given to the fourth, often at the expense of the other symphonies. As tremendous a piece of music as it may be, I think the fourth isn't actually that problematic a work to play for any decent orchestra and conductor combo - not in the last place because contrary to the other symphonies, there is something of a performance tradition and consensus. For me, the yardstick for any Schmidt symphonies set is how it handles the much more ambivalent First, and I'm absolutely persuaded by Järvi fils.

Yes - Paavo Järvi is superb in No.1. His reading is dynamic and full-blooded. I'm tempted to say he's better here than in No.4, but then I'm biased in favour of Mehta...

Listening to the 1st Symphony tonight and its a cracker. Its a classical symphony with a Haydn type influence. The third movement is like a Viennese waltz,    there's  a beautiful flow to it.  I love it, and this suits P.Jarvi's meticulous style. It needs attention to detail and he gives it. Delightful stuff with plenty of ebb and flow. The progression of the composer's style will suit some conductors more than others but the first definitely suits Paavo.

do we mean the same thing by "classical" symphony?... it sounds more like Strauss than Haydn...

QuoteIts a classical symphony with a Haydn type influence

As Eric suggests, it has the stamp of Richard Strauss all over it, particularly Don Juan in the first movement, which is patently obvious. Can't hear any Haydn.

I would say there are similarities to an early Strauss but his 1st symphony is far more melodically complex. Pigeon holing this guy is difficult.

Well, the main theme of the first movement is virtually a steal from Don Juan - that's the real point, which you evidently continue to miss! This is, after all, what what one might expect from a composer writing his first symphony in his early twenties. Most critics/commentators have pointed this out - perhaps I could suggest that you read some of them instead of leaning solely on your own understanding...

The new reading of Symphony No. 1 is a highlight of the set. Sample the first minute: stentorian horns, powering over ascending arpeggios of strings, answered by a gorgeous, melancholic melody. The tempo then changes to Allegro, announcing a first theme that is very much a distant cousin of Strauss's "Don Juan."
https://theclassicreview.com/album-reviews/review-franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies-frankfurt-radio-symphony-orchestra-paavo-jarvi/

Schmidt's First Symphony is a mixture of styles by a talented youngster (he began it at the age of 22), clearly cut out to be a symphonist. The introduction to the first movement sounds like an 18th Century French overture, leading to an allegro theme plainly descended from Strauss's Don Juan.
https://www.naxos.com/reviews/reviewslist.asp?catalogueid=8.570828&languageid=EN

I think folk do themselves an injustice by letting outside voices influence what they might ultimately might like or dislike. Soon as i see the words critic, analyst, professor in musicality and so on..... I simply switch off. These people have no place in my psyche.       

It's not a question of 'like or dislike', but of illumination and education. If you don't want to read more widely, you'll never learn - instead you'll continue to write nonsense because you've switched off. I mean, what's the point of posting here if you're not going to listen to anyone outside your own echo-chamber?

QuoteSoon as i see the words critic, analyst, professor in musicality and so on..... I simply switch off. These people have no place in my psyche

What a staggeringly arrogant and ignorant statement. Why should anyone take any notice of what you write if you make it so clear that you place no value whatsoever in the opinions of the rest of us here? Go your own way, I shall certainly disregard your posts as being valueless. More fool you.

My views are totally my own. One could say they are purer because do not allow outside opinions to influence my inner self. Only way you will understand anything is actually listening to the music. After all its the only thing that matters. 

QuoteMy views are totally my own. One could say they are purer because do not allow outside opinions to influence my inner self.

This is the very definition of wilful ignorance. Evidently you already know - or will work out for yourself - everything there is to know, and you don't need anyone else's opinion. This is clearly not the place for you...

Please do not take this personally. That was never my intention. I do value your and other folk's opinions in this forum. You misunderstand me. My mindset was directed towards others.

What weasel words. I'm going to waste no more of my time responding to you.

Please, do not overreact to what was some disagreement on opinions. One has to rise above and learn that folk have different views. We need to be more understanding and debate things with more decorum.   

Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 20 October 2020, 17:34

QuoteMy views are totally my own. One could say they are purer because do not allow outside opinions to influence my inner self.

This is the very definition of wilful ignorance. Evidently you already know - or will work out for yourself - everything there is to know, and you don't need anyone else's opinion. This is clearly not the place for you...

Worse, it's delusion to think that your any opinions could ever be entirely your own, that they're not in any way influenced by anyone before them. A wise person analyses the provenance of their opinions to assess their value; only a fool thinks he can be totally original. Like it or not, those professors, musicologists and critics have shaped your view of music. Usually, there's a good reason for that: education coupled with experience. A musicologist has read that monograph on Kalliwoda that I will never read; a critic hears more music than I ever can because it's his profession. Whether their judgment squares with my own is an entirely other matter, and it is my personal prerogative to agree or disagree but I have to respect their investment. And yes, I am honestly interested in what anyone has to say about music that is close to my heart.

This spat is a little disturbing.  It smacks a bit of the classroom.  I suggest that everyone remembers Michael Winner´s words in that car insurance ad..............
Turning to the music, my copy of Sinaisky´s recording of the First Symphony has just arrived.  My impression is of freshness, of youthful exuberance., and it has an instant appeal. 

QuoteThis spat is a little disturbing.  It smacks a bit of the classroom

Indeed. A classroom that our friend refuses to attend because he knows it all aready.

Always attend, but i tend to be sent to the corner

And with that, back to Schmidt...

I think you misunderstood my intention, especially given the haste in which I wrote my post :), but...

It's a very fine set indeed, for the reasons you state. I'd certainly recommend it to newcomers to Schmidt's music.

a considerably less enthusiastic, to say the least,  further review of the cycle on Musicweb, by Dan Morgan.

I'm told by someone associated with the site that MusicWeb's policy is to hand out review samples almost on a random basis to their large bank of reviewers. The result is that quite often people with an antipathy to a musical era, or with no real interest in the music end up reviewing CDs, and the CD doesn't get reviewed by the site's "expert" in that area. Might as well give me a jazz or Hip Hop CD to review! Consequently, I never rely wholly on a MW review, and especially the largely negative or wildly positive ones. It may be that Dan Morgan knows his Schmidt, in fact it reads as if he very much does, but there's no guarantee at MW.

I agree,Mark.   Occasionaly in the past, I have been caught out by a particularly positive review (Rob Barnett´s review of the Huber comes to mind)

I'm not sure that the set is anything more than 'good'. In other words, I think it's likely that one can put together a better cycle from individual recordings.

I can't say I agree or disagree with Dan Morgan, because I don't have the set , but his review stroke me as very well documented and argued, especially as far as comparisons are involved.
Of course it's all opinions, what i found very troubling were his remarks about the less than state of the art sound...and I believe that this music can easily become cloying..just like mr.Morgan I had a very hard time getting to "really" like Schmidt, until the Naxos set , very transparently recorded, came along.

The new set is somewhat airlessly recorded, but it's not really a decisive factor - for me at any rate.

Weirdly, there is another, much more positive review (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Oct/Schmidt-sys-4838336.htm) by Stephen Greenbank on the same site. Not the first time I see two wildly contrasting reviews of the same recording on Musicweb.

That's quite often the case and it rather proves my earlier point...

I agree with you Alan - and tend to prefer Järvi's senior "stronger" interpretations, but I still like the old Rajter recordings - a set which was given to me by the Slowak Radio Symphony as a sympathy gift after my two first recordings :-) But that Decca LP by Zubin Mehta still remains a pristine recording.

I tend to agree. Järvi père is also better recorded.

hr-sendesaal - I'm guessing the recording of no.4 might be, then, the same recording that's available on the hr-radio youtube channel?

The transmission of Symphony nr.4 on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fjFPhrKjw is from the Alte Oper, Frankfurt, not from the hr-sendessaal.

You're quite right, so it is. Of course, orchestras will take the same work and perform it in different venues on tour all the time as a regular thing too... and according to https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8798768--franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies (https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8798768--franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies) the recording of no.4 -is- actually an April 27 2018 concert (same date, same place) from the Alte Oper, though that info could be wrong? (44:32 (DG) vs 47:50 (YouTube), but that could maybe be accounted for by removing applause etc. from the YouTube video...)