...according to many critics there doesn't seem to be much of one. However, I'm fast coming to the conclusion that preoccupation with the concerns of the Second Viennese School have blinded them to reality. Perhaps friends can help me, but I have discovered over recent years the symphonies of composers such as Weingartner, Schmidt, Wellesz, Gal, Erdmann, Rathaus, Weigl, Hessenberg, Furtwängler, Korngold, Bohnke, Büttner, Graener, Weismann, Krenek, Pfitzner, Scherber, Schmidt-Kowalski, Tiessen, Tyberg, S. Wagner, Wetz, etc. and have yet to explore K. A. Hartmann and sundry others. So who have I forgotten?
BTW, if you don't think that a great symphonic adagio has been written in that tradition since Mahler, try the finale of Wellesz 1! (Or the slow movement of Schmidt 4, of course...)
As one who has tired of Mahler, I find many of the composers you list interesting and some of them very good.
BTW, I like the early symphonies of Wellesz, but find the late ones rather tough gristle. Maybe I need to revisit them. After all, if I can enjoy Lyatoshinsky and Diamond ....
While I like all of Wellesz' symphonies, my favorite among them is no.2 (whose slow movement isn't half-bad either.) Have heard this in both a rather poorly-recorded performer-uncredited radio tape (possibly from December 4? April 12? 1951?) and from the more recent commercial cpo release; fine Bruckner-influenced 1948 symphony.
I remember the point being made that Bruckner's influence can be found in many a 20th-century symphony, but Mahler's influence, less often (Shostakovich and Weinberg, though... there, yes!) - and I tend to agree. (Though actually the slow movement of Wellesz 2 keeps making me think of Shostakovich's 8th, I think - could he have heard it?)
There is the Brucknerian symphonist Johann Nepomuk David. I read about him a long time ago, but have never heard a note of his music...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Nepomuk_David (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Nepomuk_David)
I've skimmed some of JN David's work and heard a few of his symphonies- I think his style changed over time though not as much so as Wellesz's; the works I heard were later and seemed harmonically somewhat more astringent (but not nontonal) than the more tonal first few symphonies I scanned in score. One of them (the 5th symphony) was on LP, I think, along with other works. Good stuff, anyway...
There's by the way a longstanding website (http://www.johann-nepomuk-david.org/index_e.html) for his music.
Suder we have already written about.
If Krenek is in the list, we could add Gottfried von Einem.
Still different appears to me the case of Kurt Weill (author of two completely different symphonies: modernist (for its time) the early one, popular, "for the masses" the second).They received several recordings (very fine, according to me, the one by Gary Bertini).
Akin to the "second" Weill could be Paul Dessau and Hans Eisler.
A further case still: Hans Werner Henze, not completely far from (also) Mahler heritage since the Seventh Symphony onwards.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Wednesday 27 July 2011, 11:13
I've skimmed some of JN David's work and heard a few of his symphonies- I think his style changed over time though not as much so as Wellesz's; the works I heard were later and seemed harmonically somewhat more astringent (but not nontonal) than the more tonal first few symphonies I scanned in score. One of them (the 5th symphony) was on LP, I think, along with other works. Good stuff, anyway...
There's by the way a longstanding website (http://www.johann-nepomuk-david.org/index_e.html) for his music.
I remember seeing that LP with the 5th at a music library in Amsterdam during the '80s, but didn't borrow it... I am aware of that
Gesellschaft. The man responsible for the article I mentioned was my fellow Dutchman Cornelis van Zwol, who had made a name for himself as a Bruckner scholar, giving lectures at symposia of the Bruckner Society, in Austria.
to add to the original list, too, ... hrm!
I'd like to hear Kaun's 3rd symphony which seems to have received, to judge from contemporary issues of the NZM, a dozen or so performances in as many cities in the year after its first performance alone... though I have no idea how common that was.
I'd forgotten about Weill and Henze. Their 2nd and 7th symphonies respectively certainly have a lot to say about the tradition...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 26 July 2011, 22:24
So who have I forgotten?
Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer both wrote a couple of symphonies each.
True. Not sure how much of a contribution to the tradition they are, though...
Klemperer's is one of the dullest things I've ever heard.
Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Wednesday 27 July 2011, 19:28
Klemperer's is one of the dullest things I've ever heard.
Glad to find someone agreeing with me! ;)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 26 July 2011, 22:24
So who have I forgotten?
Strauss
Hindemith
Marx
Dohnányi
I would suggest, however, that the
tradition was continued in Finland (Sibelius) and Sweden (Atterberg).
I would have excluded Dohnanyi (Hungarian) and had left out Strauss (sung). I had forgotten about Marx, though - and Hindemith (although there's the perennial debate about whether his 'symphonies' are symphonies...)
Anyone know Pepping?
Maybe Siegmund von Hausegger fits in here?
Morten
Oh yes! I like the Pepping symphonies very much, esp #1 and #2. And the Serenade from 1945. A very original musical personality I think.
His main output consists of choral music which is very popular among church choirs.
Any chamber music? I have a very old recording of an engaging piano suite 'Tanzweisen und Rundgesang' (1938)
Hausegger is a bore, isn't he? ;)
Hausegger a bore? Not for me: there's too much to enjoy in his Natursymphonie to call him a bore. Depends whether you like this highly-coloured, hyper-Romantic stuff, I suppose. Of course, I can't really judge the rest of his output...
Here's a sympathetic review:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/May08/Hausegger_7772372.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2008/May08/Hausegger_7772372.htm)
That is my problem, I think: ONE Strauss is more than I can bear. ;)
More craggy Weismann for me, please! ::)
I see the symphonic poems 'Barbarossa' and 'Wieland der Schmied' have not yet been released?! I thought cpo had brought them out, too...
And more hyper-Romantic Weismann (à la VC1) for me... ;)
I happen to have listened to Joseph Marx's Herbstsymphonie tonight - it pushes the boundaries of hedonism, out-Korngolds Korngold, out-ecstasies Delius and has more 'ivresse' than Scriabin. Still, I liked this wash of sound. It'll be one of my guilty pleasures, I think. ..
The Herbstsymphonie is definitely a guilty pleasure. I love it - but will deny ever having written that!
I think Marx was surely enjoying herb when he wrote his Herb Symphony.
Quote from: Amphissa on Tuesday 26 July 2011, 22:55
As one who has tired of Mahler...
i can not ever imagine getting tired of mahler... inconceivable to me. but i guess it would be boring if we all felt the same way.
anyway, here are two more to add to the list:
alfredo casella - his 2nd and 3rd symphonies in particular. in the 2nd there is a wonderful mahlerian funeral march and in the third symphony the slow movement reminds of some of mahler's last works. brilliant music, at least to my ears.
another one i would mention is the second symphony by franco alfano.
as many other comments already pointed out, the earlier symphonies by wellesz have some fascinating qualities especially in the slow movements. i also would love to learn about more music in that vein. i guess the challenge is that the more the tonal envelope is being stretched, the stronger the temptation there is to sacrifice emotion for an imbalance in favor of the left brain.
Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Wednesday 27 July 2011, 23:06
The Herbstsymphonie is definitely a guilty pleasure. I love it - but will deny ever having written that!
i love this one. if we were not to enjoy music by fully indulging with heart and soul, we would get only a portion of what it has to offer to us. i encourage to remove the "guilty" part of the pleasure and turn up the volume. it is just such a rewarding ride and balm to the soul.
Quote from: britishcomposer on Wednesday 27 July 2011, 22:15
I see the symphonic poems 'Barbarossa' and 'Wieland der Schmied' have not yet been released?! I thought cpo had brought them out, too...
"Wieland der Schmied" is available as MP3 on Amazon with Leon Botstein. It is not quite as strong as the "Natursymphonie" but still very enjoyable.
there's really a debate whether Hindemith's symphony in E-flat is a symphony? I'm surprised. If you mean the operatic-extract ones, they fit in another ongoing tradition, continued by Prokofiev too of course (sym.3) and many others. there was such a debate in the 19th century, it's true... though (not to compliment earlier times too much- in some musical things time has brought a great improvement; note e.g. Walker's account of the standard of orchestral playing in much of Europe at that time) Schoenberg's comparison of critical debate in the late 19th century and early 20th is still- interesting too (pointing out that the latter time could see only harmonic oddnesses when the best critics of an earlier time knew what form, rhythm, and other things were and when to compliment or criticize a composer for making good or poor use of out of the ordinary manner of any of those...)
It's the Robert Simpson argument that Hindemith's 'symphonies' don't really go anywhere, but are more akin to baroque structures in which the music is picked up and finally put down much as it was...
Don't forget Richard Wetz. And what's so guilty about liking Eine Herbstsymphonie? It's an amazing achievement. No apologies are necessary for that which is plainly romantic. I don't know where the idea that the romantic is somehow inferior or less mature came from.
I incline to apologize for a few of my favorite pieces not because they're Romantic or romantic (which mean different things, but that's a tangent), but because some of the means by which they seem to achieve their effects on me seem somehow - hrm. ... obvious? ... no, that's not exactly it either...
And there is Heimo Erbse (1924 to 2005) - "Mr. Pea" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimo_Erbse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimo_Erbse).
Two symphonies, by the look of things - no - the wikipedia is badly out of date - there are at least thirteen! - as well as a Triple Concerto. I recorded a broadcast of the second around 1971; the tape has deteriorated but it is still postable - just.
QuoteI don't know where the idea that the romantic is somehow inferior or less mature came from.
I hadn't realised that this was the case until Minacciosa articulated it but, yes, I do detect that undercurrent. I think it's a form on intellectual snobbery, growing out of the fact that over the last 100 years the Romantic style of composition (for want of a better way of describing it) has become so mainstream (in films, TV, musak etc.) that it has almost ceased to be viable as "serious" or "art" music in some circles. The musical establishment quite naturally espoused the various forms of post-romantic expression as they've come along, whilst still acknowledging the greatness of music of past eras. But now that I think about it, I've certainly come across lesser lights who go further and are condescending towards Brahms, say, simply because his music is now accessible to the masses because it's become the musical
lingua franca, whilst singing the praises of some arid, uninspired Communist hack from the 1960s (for example).
Communist? Come on, Mark, what on earth has that got to do with it?
Oh, I wasn't making any political point, Peter, just giving as an example one of the typical categories of composers who wrote, to my mind at least, arid and uninspiring music which is sometimes praised at the expense of 19th century music by the people about whom I was complaining. It was just a rant. Ignore it.
I was listening to some Einojuhani Rautavaara yesterday and was thinking, is it likely the Austro-Germanic symphonic tradition is broader than it was in the 19th century? What I mean is, in listening to Rautavaara, some of his early symphonies have a strong Bruckner tendency (with combinations of Shostakovitch and of course Sibelius) but during the 1930's alot of composers who would have been Austro-Germanic based left due to the rise of Nazism. Perhaps if Korngold/Steiner/Waxman, etc., didn't leave that region resulting in a somewhat diluted epicenter for that tradition of Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, etc, it would still have a border specific region but now, those tendencies have today been absorbed elsewhere. I might be totally wrong about this though. Sometimes, I can still hear the legacy of that tradition in Wolfgang Rihm and Hans Werner Henze in some works but I hear it more directly in non Austro/German composers today.
Quote from: karelm on Tuesday 19 June 2012, 16:25
I can still hear the legacy of that tradition in Wolfgang Rihm and Hans Werner Henze in some works but I hear it more directly in non Austro/German composers today.
Could you be more specific, please?
There are parts of Henze and Rihm's output where their connection to the tradition of Beethoven and Mahler is clear. Are you asking for an excerpt?
Well, here is an example if that is what you are requesting. To me, each of these excerpts represent the same artistic effort of expanding harmonic vocabulary within a vividly dramatic way... they seem to be saying the same thing in their time and in their own way which indicates a connection, an influence.
Please listen to the following links for about 45 seconds each:
Beethoven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cHUY5U5_mFM#t=1756s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cHUY5U5_mFM#t=1756s)
Mahler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ikTni7DPROM#t=501s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ikTni7DPROM#t=501s)
Rihm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t_ClwNU1XyU#t=102s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t_ClwNU1XyU#t=102s)
I'm not just pointing to these excerpts as just having superficial similarities but notice the same dramatic instinct – the near total silence before the devastating harmonic crash; the thickness of the orchestration, the transitional purposes of these dramatic moments. These composers are dramatists. When I first heard the Rihm symphony, this combination of pathos and harmonic intensity sounded familiar but also new just as the Mahler did to his contemporaries and the same with Beethoven. It sounds shocking but somewhat approachable because it has an established framework from which it drew from.
Thank you. That is extremely helpful!
I agree entirely regarding the connection of Rihm with past symphonists - thanks very much indeed for introducing me to him. I will put a CD of his symphonies on my wants list!
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 19 June 2012, 22:05
I agree entirely regarding the connection of Rihm with past symphonists - thanks very much indeed for introducing me to him. I will put a CD of his symphonies on my wants list!
Glad you like it. Fortunately his output is so extensive, there is much to explore, though not all of it will be to your liking. His vast output consists of 12 string quartets, 9 symphonies, and many works on the same scale as Mahler's Symphony No. 8 and Schoenberg's "Gurrelieder". For example, Rihm's "Dies" oratorio is scored for 4 soloists, narrators, chorus, and gigantic orchestra which includes 8 horns, 12 trumpets, 10 trombones, 2 tubas, 2 timpani, 8 percussionists, organ, etc.
Some of his works are neo-romantic and demonstrate his German heritage. For example, his concise early symphonies are neo-romantic and showcase an impressive early structural and dramatic sensitivity rooted in tradition. "Drei Walzer", "Das Lesen der Schrift", and "Ernster Gesang" have strong influences of Brahms. The "Deus Passus" is rooted in Bach's great passion tradition. His orchestral cycle: "Verwandlungen" shows influences of Bruckner and Mahler, Wagner and Richard Strauss. I also enjoy his concerto for two pianos, "La Musique Creuse Le Ciel" and his Violin Concerto, "Lichtes Spiel" finding them easy to get in to.
But some of his other works are more stream of consciousness abstract, violent, and challenging. Think Nono, Berg, Webern, Kurtag, Lachenmann, middle Rautavaara (symphonies 4 and 5), Per Norgard, late Schnittke, etc. If those names don't scare you, you are safe with Rihm. Some people take the stylistic range of his output as off putting because though you might have liked something he wrote, you can't be sure you'll like something else by him. This stylistic range is common with many great composers – it is difficult to tell early Stravinsky and late Stravinsky are the same composer though the fingerprints are there. Unlike Pendericki who has become very neo-romantic, it seems Rihm keeps the listener guessing and within the same work that might end on a D minor triad but that could be the only instance of tonality in the piece. Sudden silences and sudden dissonant violences also characterize his style.
The pieces I mentioned above, though, are good places to start and I'm sure others have more suggestions. I believe not all Beethoven is great. I'm not a fan of "Wellington's Victory", for example, but he is undoubtably a great composer. Basically when great, it's really great and connects deeply with a listener. To me, there is some works of Rihm that I can't stand but others that really lingers in my memory and I keep returning to. The works I've mentioned might not be his most famous nor the ones to which his reputation lies, but are good as starting points to see how he has taken the Germanic tradition to heart and personalized this tradition and use that as a starting place for further exploration of his output.
What I like about him is that he doesn't shy away from the Austro/Germanic tradition but incorporates it in his personal way much as Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner did before him.
Many thanks, karelm, for that great introduction to a composer of whose existence I have been aware for decades, but whom I have as yet to discover.
My I echo the sentiments expressed in the previous post? That is precisely the sort of introduction that one needs if one is to make headway with an unfamiliar composer. Thanks again!