Finally it's here, or at least it's scheduled for release 27.03 2012! This disc was part of the 2010 cpo catalogue, so it took some time. Nevertheless it's good too see thing materializing. David Porcelijn is conducting the Netherlands SO with Aile Asszonyi as soloist.
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/Jan-van-Gilse-1881-1944-Symphonie-Nr-3/hnum/7550354 (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/Jan-van-Gilse-1881-1944-Symphonie-Nr-3/hnum/7550354)
Morten
Hurrah :)
Hurrah indeed! I must say that I have big expectations to this work, but as with the first van Gilse disc from cpo I think this is music that requires more than one listen before it starts to open up. We'll see!
Morten
Well, I ordered this disc today tempted by the excerpts that now are available at jpc.
Morten
What a wonderful, great and majestic symphony! Strong and sensitive, very well developed music, with a soprano in the 3rd and 5th movements of this 63:02 minutes lasting symphony, called Erhebung (=Elevation). IMO this is one of the best Dutch 20th century symphonies, if not the best, ever written (sorry, Röntgen).
Very strongly recommended!
My copy's somewhere between Germany and the UK.... >:(
But it's worth waiting for, Alan.
I see what you mean, Peter! I'm hooked virtually from the word go! More when I've got my head round the piece...
By the way: I'm sure that "Erhebung" should be translated as "Exaltation" rather than "Elevation"! Another case of cpo mis-translation?
To start with very Wagnerian (think Parsifal). Then, as soon as the soprano enters, we're in (scorching hot) Strauss/Rosenkavalier territory (oops, that hadn't been written yet!) Anyone else agree?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 10 April 2012, 23:51
IBy the way: I'm sure that "Erhebung" should be translated as "Exaltation" rather than "Elevation"!
Looks correct to me.
Which looks correct, Christo? And what does "Erhebung" suggest anyway in connection with van Gilse's 3rd??
Sorry, was too quick. :-\ Van Gilse was an early admirer of Nietzsche and 'Erhebung' will be a Nietzschean term for him. I don't know the symphony yet, and perhaps the booklet explains it all, but my guess would be, that it translates as elevation, revival, revolt even.
Judging by the verses used in the symphony for the soprano solo, the correct translation would be "Exaltation".
The verses, if I recall correctly, are taken from the Song of Songs. Are you sure that they contain Van Gilse's "message"? In other words: isn't here a wordplay at hand?
At the one hand, one would expect 'exaltation', because of the Song of Songs. At the other hand: I cannot believe that Van Gilse hadn't first and for all Nietzsche in mind when he called his Third 'Erhebung' - Erhebung being far more a Nietzschean term than one that one would use (in German) in connection with the Song of Songs. To read it as 'exaltation' only will not do, as far as I understand the meaning of the German word c. 1900 and especially as it was used by Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one of our German friends can help us out, here. ::)
Until we can establish that there is indeed a Nietzsche connection in respect of the symphony - and the cpo notes are completely silent on the matter - then all speculation as to the relevance of a Nietzschean understanding of the term "Erhebung" is just that - speculation...
However, it is true that the term "Erhebung" is found across the whole of the 19th-century German philosophical tradition; my problem with cpo's translation is that "Elevation" has other, unwelcome associations, such as "geographical height", "façade of a building", "raising of the host in the Roman Catholic mass", etc. Of course, "Exaltation" also has theological connotations, but the use by van Gilse of verses from the Song of Songs might actually render this translation more appropriate.
We clearly need more info. Help!!
I was thinking of elevators when I saw the translated title of the symphony. But I'm sure we can rule out the possibility that van Gilse was thinking the same... The cpo booklet contains surprisingly little analysis of this work compared to other exhaustive booklets I've read from that company.
I agree with Alan and Peter's praise for this work. There's a lot of influences from Wagner and Richard Strauss, and a good portion of Mahler too. I'm particularly impressed with the final movement and the fact that van Gilse was relatively young (26) when he completed this massive work makes his achievement even more impressive.
A great discovery, all credits to cpo for this!
Morten
Quote from: Peter1953 on Saturday 07 April 2012, 15:56
What a wonderful, great and majestic symphony! Strong and sensitive, very well developed music, with a soprano in the 3rd and 5th movements of this 63:02 minutes lasting symphony, called Erhebung (=Elevation). IMO this is one of the best Dutch 20th century symphonies, if not the best, ever written (sorry, Röntgen).
Very strongly recommended!
Shocking. I am very wary (especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony"). I have listened to van Gilse's 1rst, 2nd, & 4rth Symphonies and found them all interminable and lacklustre, without originality or distinction. For van Gilse enthusiasts, does No.3 stand out as clearly superior to the others and a work that might attract someone so dismissive? Is there a rabbit in the hat here?
Quote from: Greg K on Wednesday 11 April 2012, 19:08
Is there a rabbit in the hat here?
IMHO no. It's far too derivative a work to be in the premier division (one is constantly thinking of passages in Wagner or Strauss), and therefore I'd certainly be looking elsewhere for the 'best Dutch symphony'. I wouldn't look to Röntgen either - much as I admire, for example, his bracing Symphony No.3. I've a feeling that one would have to look to the modernists to find something that was worthy of the name. Which is not to say that I don't think highly of van Gilse's 3rd, because I do: it's a highly accomplished piece.
I feel I do have to agree with Greg K here. I have the first van Gilse disc and the best I can say about it is accomplished. Originality, substance, interest and distinction however I found sorely lacking. If i feel convinced that the 3rd is substantially better - and different from these - I might still buy it, but I willl take something to convince me.
No doubt about it; van Gilse was no pioneer as a composer, and he has also been described as a late developer of his own personal style. In the 1920's, well after completing his first 4 symphonies, he was more influenced by French music. Towards the end of his life he combined these French influences with his earlier Austro/German style, and it was in his later works, highlighted by the opera Thijl, that his music has been described as really distinctive.
So the third clearly belongs to van Gilse's early works.
The work is described earlier here as a mix of Mahler, Richard Strauss and Wagner. And that's a quite fitting description but not analytical of course. Personally I think van Gilse's string writing leans most towards Strauss.
The 3rd symphony is clearly influenced by Mahler regarding the structure of the work, the whole idea with solo soprano and even the convertion to German descriptions of tempo. In the booklet for cpo's first van Gilse disc, we learn that he was present during rehearsals of Mahler's own 3rd symphony in Germany, and I can imagine he got some ideas here. The mood of the first three movements is quite dark, the ending of the first movement reminds me of sections of Tchaikovsky's darkest moments in the Pathetique. The first movement is almost an extended introduction, the music catches fire in the start of the second movement but returns rather quickly back to slower and darker music again. The 4th "Waltz"- movement contains Rosenkavalier-music with a Mahlerian twist. Horn calls and clarinets high up in the air! Towards the end van Gilse presents a little delicate ballet scene with pizzicato strings and harp glissandos before a the movement ends with a powerful conclusion.
The finale is the longest and and in my opinion the strongest part of the symphony with a beautiful theme introduced by the strings from the very beginning.
When I first heard the first two symphonies they didn't make a great impression. But I gave them another chance after a while and now I find them enjoyable to listen to. The 3rd symphony is a big, ambitious work from a composer that has developed further from his earlier works. Originality? Not much, but is that really necessary?
It's difficult to decide wether to buy this record based on short excerpts or discussions on this forum. I guess you'll just have to take a chance and buy it if you're curious. It's my opinion that Erhebung it's a much stronger work than it's predecessors, but it demands effort from the listener.
Morten
Morten is certainly right. This is a work well worth buying - it will give much pleasure. But we should remember above all that it is a work by a young composer flexing his compositional muscles...
Quote from: Greg K on Wednesday 11 April 2012, 19:08
(especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony").
Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far. It's honest to say their symphonies remained largely unplayed for almost a century, and it's great CPO is offering them a second life. The same applies to Cornelis Dopper, given a second chance by Chandos.
Though I came to appreciate the originality of the later Röngen, one would rather think of symphonists like Vermeulen, Pijper, Badings, Orthel, Andriessen, perhaps Hans Kox.
My money would be on Badings. Meanwhile back to van Gilse...
Quote from: Christo on Thursday 12 April 2012, 18:43
Quote from: Greg K on Wednesday 11 April 2012, 19:08
(especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony").
Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far.
By Peter, yes (see his post above) - though maybe only hyperbolically in the grips of an immediate enthusiasm. In any case (with apologies to Peter if he was being reflectively serious) I think you've identified the legitimate "best symphonists" of the last century quite precisely (perhaps add van Delden).
Agreed. Yes, I wanted to mention Van Delden as well, realizing one second too late I hadn't. :-)
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 12 April 2012, 19:48
My money would be on Badings. Meanwhile back to van Gilse...
....and so would mine (but with Orthel very close behind ;D)....but, as you say, back to van Gilse........ ;D ;D
Quote from: Christo on Thursday 12 April 2012, 18:43
Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far.
According to Dr Jurjen Vis in
Gaudeamus, Röntgen's biography (p.410, 526), it's very likely that Röntgen has competed in a contest with his symphonies 5 & 6.
BTW, I've just spent a very pleasant hour listening to the delightful symphonies 1&2 by Van Gilse. I just love them, almost as much as the 3rd.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Thursday 12 April 2012, 22:09
BTW, I've just spent a very pleasant hour listening to the delightful symphonies 1&2 by Van Gilse. I just love them, almost as much as the 3rd.
Which judgement clinches my decision to pass on it ;D .
Honestly, if Nos. 1&2 are only slightly less superlative than No.3 (and I will honor at least your relative valuations of van Gilse's work), that leaves not enough margin to likely raise 3 beyond the level of mediocre for me (at best). I'm confident now I can do without. In a roundabout way, - thanks :D .
That is a very wise decision, Greg.
IMO it is nearly impossible to "sell" one person's personal musical taste, which has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Tastes can be so different. Another thing is that I'm totally uninterested in the fact a work shows more or less strong influences of other composers. Of course I agree with the statement that Van Gilse's 3rd reminds us of Strauss, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler and even Tchaikovsky. That doesn't make the work less appealing to me. We all know that a lot of unsung romantic composers are influenced by others. So what? As long as they didn't simply copy tunes from others, because that would have been plagiarism.
You know, I agree with you. That a work is "derivative" or "unoriginal" (as the critics often like to sniff) matters not at all to me if I enjoy or find meaning in it. Good music is good music, and we can leave it for the snobs and academics to ground quality in how innovative and trailblazing something might be. All most of us care about here is whether it speaks to us or not, and more often than not the adventurous and/or trendy succeeds only in being sterile, ugly, and impenetrable.
It just happened to raise my eyebrows (with good humour) when I read you describing van Gilse's 3rd Symphony as quite possibly the very best you had heard by a 20th century Dutchman, - not because his music shows so many influences, but rather because it's just not very good (IMO).
Wonder-full our evaluations can be so different.
If I translate it from German to Dutch, Erhebung becomes Verheffing, in English this means more like uplifting.
Your mind reaches, or floats to, a higher level. Exaltation is more the moment that you are exited you have reached that point and are overwhelmed by it. More in the religious field.
So I would follow CPO's translation in English as Elevation. However, when I listen to the songs in the symphony, I did it two times now, both terms could match.
May be CPO shouldn't have it translated.
When Röntgen should have created this symphony Exaltation would fit. Van Gilse is more 20th Century, is more observant, has more distance from Nietzsche, I think
I've at long last given Van Gilse's Third a couple of airings and I'm afraid that I side with the unimpressed in this debate about its stature. For someone like me who's musical home is the romantic era then it's a lovely wallow, of course, and at that level I enjoyed it very much but it doesn't strike me as in any way ground breaking or innovative. Far from it, one is constantly playing the "sounds like" game (the answer is mostly Strauss or Gustav Mahler, but Franck, Wagner and Bruckner pop up from time to time too). Rousing myself from wallowing in the enjoyment of the sound of this hour-long leviathan and trying to be objective, I do find it a very self indulgent piece, too. It would have been much more effective at half the length and I don't believe that much would have been lost in the process of concision.
So no, for me not a great symphony. Not even a great Dutch symphony. Surely Dopper and Zweers at their best wrote more impressive works than this, to say nothing of that honorary Dutchman Röntgen? That said, as musical comfort food this mixed bag of late romantic gestures is very enjoyable and I will certainly return to it with pleasure.
A marvelous not very impressive Symphony then, in your judgement? :-X
A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 05 May 2012, 23:54
A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.
Honestly, not in my experience.
An enjoyable listen but it does seem to wander a bit. Will have to give it several chances.
Jerry
I had the opportunity to hear van Gilse's third symphony, and I have to admit that I just couldn't handle it. It contained a lot of what I hate about much of 20th century orchestral music (though much, much milder in van Gilse's case). I actually physically cringed a few times early on... and no, I wasn't faking it for anyone's benefit, as nobody else was anywhere in sight or earshot! I was alone in my house, and I was flinching from the sounds that just hit my ears totally wrong. I really wanted to give it a shot, since it didn't sound as "bad" (to my 18th century ears) as most contemporary, similar works, but it was just too much for me. Don't let my taste dissuade you, since even though I'm a big fan of Dvořák, even I find his harmonies a bitter pill to swallow; I just find his melodies outweigh the unpleasant, harsh sounds in most cases. As far as van Gilse's 3rd goes, I did not avail myself of the afore-mentioned opportunity to listen to the whole work. But from what I absorbed, I just couldn't pick anything really positively remarkable about it.
SOMEWHAT OFF-TOPIC: Van Gilse's Symphony #2 ramblings follow
Very different experience, I have to say. I know this thread is specifically dedicated to his 3rd, so I apologise for this, but I wanted to say something to anybody who'd never heard his 2nd and was skimming this thread. Seriously, please don't let the 3rd turn you off from giving his 2nd a shot, if you haven't heard it! I wouldn't go so far as to say I strongly like it, but I do find it at the least tolerable. It's fairly tuneful, though admittedly with nothing really memorable. This work was a real surprise to me, in a mildly positive way. It did look backward in a lot of ways, and to me, when talking about post-1900 symphonies, that's always a plus.
The first movement starts out by setting the mood. I have no idea what van Gilse was going for, but I'll tell you how I feel about the mood of this work: inoffensive! But honestly, what's wrong with that? You're brought in with only horns and winds, for quite a while, more than 90 seconds. And this makes me want to point out that van Gilse, if nothing else in this work, made a very big point of giving non-strings a lot of lead time. It's all nice, but fairly somber, an abbreviated slow introduction that I found pretty interesting and even engaging. And it's short, you don't have to wait long for a sudden (but not harsh!) burst of bright colour! Without any wasting of time, you get an immediate bright tune to perk things up, and for the rest of the movement, you have van Gilse trying to serenade the listener with tunes. I don't feel like he had huge natural talent in this department (at least, from my extremely limited exposure), but I like what I hear. And any 20th century composer trying to do this gets an automatic sympathetic ear from me.
It's pretty odd, but if I were catching this completely blind, there are passages in the 2nd movement that I'd swear were composed for quasi-naîve films from the 1950s or 1960s, even though this work was written from 1902-1903. And you know what? I like it! I don't love it, but I do think it's nice. This is totally dominated by tunes, and if you could only hear one movement, I'd probably pick this one. In some ways, it's the least interesting, but the most pleasant... I'm not sure if that makes sense.
The third movement contains a whole lot of non-string domination, and that's something of a refreshing change from a lot of symphonies. This movement actually makes a few stabs in the direction of being intense or serious, each time being swiftly allayed by something pastoral or even bright. I have to think this was done deliberately, since the effect is so striking. And, like the other two movements, it's definitely tuneful enough! And, also like the other two movements, nothing I can really remember afterwards.
If nothing else, it's better-than-harmless music to play while doing other things, if you're okay with that. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with "inoffensive" music, especially when the composer was really giving a good faith effort to put in good tunes. No, from my two experiences with van Gilse, I don't find him to be a melodic heavyweight, but not everyone can be, and I think the world has plenty of room for that. I don't feel like the 2nd Symphony was a waste of my time, and at least passages of it have been in my ears on at least 5 separate occasions. And, coming from someone who finds Dvořákª almost unbearably modern, that's saying something!
ª I'm a surprisingly big Dvořák fan, so don't think I'm knocking him! I just mean some of his harmonic sounds are very harsh to my ears, and it took his huge melodic gift to give enough awesome tunes to outweigh my difficulties with the overall soundscape of some of his (especially orchestral) music.
Lovably weird, Josh.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 05 May 2012, 23:54
A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.
Quote from: Greg KHonestly, not in my experience.
A life in which one only enjoys things of "consequence or stature" must be a very serious one, but each to his own. :)
Quote from: Greg K on Sunday 06 May 2012, 01:32
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 05 May 2012, 23:54
A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.
Honestly, not in my experience.
My collection's full of music like that! Example: von Glenck's
Carita Eterna Symphony.
...as well as music that is of real stature but unrecognised as such.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 05 May 2012, 23:54
A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.
I wonder how van Gilse himself might have received such an evaluation of his work, - as damning or complimentary?
I imagine that he'd be unhappy with it. He clearly wasn't setting out to be merely enjoyable, but to write something with some profundity.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 06 May 2012, 07:49
A life in which one only enjoys things of "consequence or stature" must be a very serious one, but each to his own. :)
Not quite my disclosure.
It's that the passing and incidental enjoyments I get plenty and enough of in the daily round, -
which diversion I typically retreat for relief from into the passion and seriousness of my musical and literary quests.
For you the relationship may be reversed.
With interest I've read Mark's review. Well, I cannot disagree more. But I have to admit that I hardly know anything about classical music. I only listen very carefully, compare music, and, probably the most important thing for me, I feel. So it's difficult for me to discuss on the same level.
How can I say that Van Gilse's Erhebung is not ground breaking or innovative? As I feel it, the great majority of unsung romantic music is neither ground breaking nor innovative. So what? Personally I don't care. What I really care about is how appealing the music is.
Having said this, I think that Van Gilse's 3rd has quite a lot of parts showing a very own character, so to speak. I admit that sometimes I hear fragments which remind me of Wagner, sometimes Brucker. But this long symphony gives me an interesting, varying emotional listening experience. A ominous opening of the sombre 1st movement, a powerful 2nd which becomes very impressive after some 8:30 minutes, followed by a surprising introduction of the soprano in the subtle and deeply-felt 3nd, a lively and optimistic 4rd, but it sounds dark and gloomy again in the last movement. I'm constantly captured by the flow of music, which is not one minute too long. A fascinating piece of music. Of course, to my ears.
Self indulgent? That's quite something to say. But maybe you're right. After all, Van Gilse had hard difficulties with his enemy, Willem Pijper. Pijper has written over a long period of some twenty years a lot of very negative and disparaging comments on Van Gilse. So maybe some of Van Gilse's music, in his wish for recognition, is self indulgent. But I don't recognize it and how should I?
Summa summarum, it's for me the best Dutch symphony, followed by Zweers's 3rd (a wonderful symphony full of memorable tunes, however, the last movement is not to the same high level as the other movements), despite how much I love Röntgen's and Dopper's symphonies.
Quote from: Peter1953 on Sunday 06 May 2012, 16:28
Summa summarum, it's for me the best Dutch symphony, followed by Zweers's 3rd (a wonderful symphony full of memorable tunes, however, the last movement is not to the same high level as the other movements), despite how much I love Röntgen's and Dopper's symphonies.
Josh might call you a frightening radical ;D .
That wouldn't be so civilized, would it Greg?
Quote from: Peter1953 on Sunday 06 May 2012, 16:28
Summa summarum, it's for me the best Dutch symphony
Oh dear - real disagreement here. Van Gilse's 3rd is a nice piece, certainly, but hardly qualifies for the accolade 'best Dutch symphony'. For that, I think it is necessary to turn to the generation that emerged from under the shadow of the European Romantic greats - to a composer such as Badings. For what it's worth, I'd look to something like his 2nd or 3rd Symphony...
It seems to me that van Gilse's Third must have something to divide opinion so.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 06 May 2012, 18:45
It seems to me that van Gilse's Third must have something to divide opinion so.
What's dividing opinion is the quest for the Great Dutch Symphony...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 06 May 2012, 18:53
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 06 May 2012, 18:45
It seems to me that van Gilse's Third must have something to divide opinion so.
What's dividing opinion is the quest for the Great Dutch Symphony...
I don't think there is one. But in terms of `national style', Zweers 3 and Dopper 7 would qualify. In terms of quality I would nominate Vermeulen 2, Pijper 2, Orthel 2, Fodor 3 perhaps. And special prizes for the (large) cycles by Badings and Röntgen.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 06 May 2012, 18:45
It seems to me that van Gilse's Third must have something to divide opinion so.
Really, it's Peter against the world here, - with finger in the dyke (heroically) holding off an
on-rushing sea :) .
True, Josh's critique is a little different (i.e. van Gilse's 3rd as dangerously progressive vs. the anachronistic relic that others hear).
Still, I would defend the strength of Peter's convictions (little as I share them) as opposed to Mark's seeming reduction of the music to occasional therapeutic wallow device.
I fear that's manipulative and condescending, and feel one should acknowledge its intentions, integrity, and relevance (or mere retrospective historical interest), - and hear it with that mindset,
or (alternatively) set it aside.
OT however.
Quote from: Greg K on Sunday 06 May 2012, 20:19
... as opposed to Mark's seeming reduction of the music to occasional therapeutic wallow device. I fear that's manipulative and condescending...
It's just an opinion. Which I happen to share. Let's not descend into adjectives such as "manipulative" and "condescending" when we happen to disagree with someone else's opinion. So, if there's to be any further debate on this topic, let it be conducted in a properly respectful manner, avoiding
ad hominem remarks...
QuoteMark's seeming reduction of the music to occasional therapeutic wallow device ... I fear that's manipulative and condescending
Well, I feel well and truly put in my place. I shall crawl away into a corner and take refuge in a therapeutic wallow device...
The work is indeed an enjoyable listen. I think my verdict on it, though, would be that its ambition outweighs its achievement.
Gosh, I too heard lots of beautiful sounds strung together in an orderly and highly enjoyable way, guess I forgot to listen for the parts I should want to criticize. Must be the way I listen to most anything.
Hey Mark, I'd be interested in knowing what your favorite therapeutic wallow device might be??? Or is that a topic for a new thread?? :-* :-* :-*
Jerry
van Gilse- "the scary modernist" ??? ??? ::)
Willem Pijper must be spinning in his grave ;D ;D
Quote from: jerfilm on Monday 07 May 2012, 00:55
Hey Mark, I'd be interested in knowing what your favorite therapeutic wallow device might be??? Or is that a topic for a new thread?? :-* :-* :-*
The world is not yet ready....
Quote from: allison on Sunday 06 May 2012, 23:01
...guess I forgot to listen for the parts I should want to criticize.
Well, the parts are beautiful, but somewhat derivative. The whole is thoroughly enjoyable, but doesn't have the means to be what it aspires to be. It's a division 2 piece, but a worthwhile discovery.