Unsung Composers

Dear friends, this might be a tricky topic, but I'll give it a try.

We all love various kinds of music by unsung and very unsung composers. Over the past one and a half year I rarely listened to famous composers and their works, except for Chopin. Thanks to this Forum I've discovered a lot of music by composers I've seldom or never heard of before. And now I cannot do anymore without most of the music by composers like Bortkiewicz, Gernsheim, von Henselt, von Herzogenberg, Kirchner, Raff, Reinecke, Rubinstein, Rufinatscha, Xaver Scharwenka and Thalberg, just to name some of my hero's. And I know, there are many, many more.

Last Sunday afternoon I listened to a radio broadcast of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony. Wow... A very famous, monumental work which I haven't heard for quite a few years. And I realized that this is the ultimate level of music for me (BTW, I only discuss here and now the symphony). After that I've listened to Schumann's 2nd (on CD).
Both are IMHO monumental symphonies of the highest calibre. Very sung works, but I think not without reason.
It is what Rossini said: the essence of music is the melody. And I agree. A melody can make you happy, can move you to tears, make you smile, or whatever. It's all about emotion.

And then I asked myself the question: I have a lot of so-called unsung music, and quite a number of masterpieces, but are there also monumental works like the Schumann and Tchaikovsky symphonies? 
I know, it's arbitrary, because what is "monumental"? Is a symphony monumental if it is the communis opinio? Well, just as an example, for me the symphonies by Schumann (1-4) and Tchaikovsky (4-6) are monumental.

Then I went through my collection. Which symphonies can measure with those "monumental" symphonies? Not so many, I discovered. Not even one by Raff (although...1, 3 and 5...) and Rubinstein, despite the fact that I'm very fond of Raff's 1-7 and all Rubinstein's. Very close to monumental are in my opinion the Burgmüller 2, Cliffe 1, Noskowski 1 and Rufinatscha 5.

What is your opinion? Is this topic bare nonsense? Or do you agree to a certain extent? If so, which unsung symphonies do you think are monumental?

Peter

The topic is certainly not nonsense, Peter. Are you able to define in any way why you feel what you feel about Tchaikovsky's Fifth and Schumann's Second that you don't fell about, say, Raff's Third?

I'm asking you the question because, whilst I recognise the emotion, I'm not sure that I can analyse it without some deeper thought than I've given it so far! It's difficult isn't it?

Most of us, I'm sure, recognise a great work when we hear it: that experience of total immersion, that feeling of joy at someone else's marvellous creation, that lifting of the spirit. As someone whose approach to music is instinctively emotional and only secondarily intellectual I have a strong inclination not to analyse it too much. To pick up on Alan's entirely correct assertion in the objectivity/subjectivity topic (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,397.0.html) that "'X is beautiful because....' is very interesting", that no doubt means that I'd make a very poor critic!

I'm interested in your new topic too, Peter. If you are categorising symphonies as 'monumental' on account of their range, scope, size, etc., then I guess that all of Bruckner would count, together with, say, Beethoven 3 & 9, Schubert 9, Rufinatscha 6, Dietrich, Raff 1,3,5 & 7, Draeseke 3, Berger 2...

All of Mahler.  Ditto on Rufi 6.  Not so sure I'd characterize the Dietrich as monumental.  Ambitious, certainly, but so is Brahms, without truly being what I'd consider monumental (except for the 1st).  How about the Urspruch?

 
Peter, I know what you are talking about -- I think. I'm not sure I can define it any better than you, but I understand what you mean -- I think.

The fact is, a lot of the "Monumental Symphonies" by "Great Composers" are achievements in music that only a few achieve. They are considered "Great Composers" for reasons. It is not just experts who say they are "Great." They are considered "Great" by almost everyone who hears them. And by "Monumental" I would personally not mean "monumental" in terms of length or size of orchestra, but "monumental" in the sense of "Here is a great symphony that becomes a standard that other composers must reach to be considered great composers themselves."

I could make a long list of monumental symphonies in that sense -- by composers who are accepted as the great composers. Brahms 1st for example (although many would choose Brahms 2nd or 3rd -- which is why he remains on the list of "great" composers) or Beethoven 5 (although some might prefer his 7th or 9th) or Bruckner 9 (although some might prefer 8 or 7) or ........

I love music by the unsungs, and I listen to it a lot. But I do listen to the "Great" composers as well. And when I listen to Rachmaninoff's 2nd or Mahler's 9th, I am reminded of the glorious achievements of our greatest composers.

I do not discover many "monumental" symphonies by unsungs, if we mean "monumental" as a symphony that stands as a monument to the achievements of a great composer, or even as a "monument" that stands as a single symphony the *equal* of the best of Brahms or Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, or Mahler.

The closest I come are these few:

Taneyev 4
Gliere 3
Myaskovsky 6

I notice that I list only Russian composers. Maybe that is because Russian composers are the ones I know best and love most. And perhaps the only reason they appear on my list is because I am "attuned" to Russian music. Those who are "attuned" to German music often do not seem to like Russian music as much as I do, and like German composers better than I do.

Okay, maybe I have embarrassed myself now with another off-target post.

Hi Amphissa

Just a quick post to say that I echo your take on what constitutes a monumental symphony. I think you have put it very aptly. What caught my eye even more though, was your comment on Russian composers. I love a huge number of composers, including the great German/Austrian ones, but I have a particular empathy with all things Russian! I have a substantial collection of works by both sung and unsung Russian composers and would not be without them! You might have noticed that I have opened a number of threads on this forum re-Russian composers such as Khrennikov and Popov for example.

Reverting to the theme of this particular thread however, I would like to suggest a non-Russian monumental symphony and that is Bruckner's 8th symphony. At the last count, I had 8 different versions of the symphony and the Adagio in particular moves me deeply every time I listen to it!

cheers
Dennis

Hang on! I sense all you fellows are about to start compiling lists - in fact, its already started. But I find Peter's question interesting, and yet we lack clear criteria for the application of 'monumental' to a symphony.

Strictly 'monumental' means 'pertaining to a monument'. And a monument in turn is a structure, edifice, construction (and no reason why a symphony could not be such a structure), designed or created with the intention that something (a person, an event, a happening or whatever) is remembered in perpetuity. In that sense Nelson's Column is a paradigm case of a monument.

Thus far the examples given are those of splendid symphonies - but they're not in the above sense 'monumental symphonies'. (Unless of course one wants to make maybe a little too much of Bruckner's naive mutterings about God).

I think answers to Peter's question could be really interesting if this sense of 'monument' was taken up. And why restrict it to symphonies? There are many, for example, symphonic poems or overtures composed with the express intention of causing someone or something to be remembered in perpetuity (including some rather naff 20th century Russian ones in celebration of dictators whom we might not now choose to celebrate!)

So how about some answers to Peter's question with the above sense in mind? And just to tease others some more, there's absolutely no reason why a monumental piece of music needs to be (crudely speaking) 'big', 'massive', 'long', 'scored for 120 plus' or whatever. So there's a challenge for people! I was about to dig into the memory and identify, for example, a piece of music for keyboard (and a short one) that could be said to be genuinely 'monumental'. But the eyelids droop, and I shall think about that with the head on the pillow!

Peter

Naw, you guys, it's gotta be LONG.  Schubert 9, Beethoven 3 & 9, Tchaikovsky 5, those are long.  If you take the Schubert 9th with all the repeats and get the tempo just right, you can get an hour out of it.  Same with Rufinatscha 6.  Beethoven 5 is great, but not 'monumental' in the way I define it.  And "all of Bruckner" doesn't qualify.  Bruckner 5, yes, Bruckner 6, no. 

Peter, when you use "monumental" to describe Tchaikovsky 5 and Schumann 2, is there some overlap with phrases like "larger than life" or "awe inspiring"? There is for me, anyway.

"Monumental haiku" may be a clear oxymoron, but I'm not sure stopwatches have much to do with my experience of monumental either. Beethoven's Pastorale is longer than his Fifth, but IMHO less monumental.

When I think of a monumental symphony it has to be awe inspiring, thrilling, epic. Long, yes to an extent. I think the Gliere 3rd is monumental, but the Taneyev 4th isn't -- it's kind of light weight by comparison. Monumental must have a certain gravitas and sense of the heroic. A battle fought and won. There are many well-known symphonies in that category. My favorite "monumental" symphony remains the Bloch Symphony in C# minor.

Now, epic is one thing, monumental another.  There are lots of epic symphonies.  The Beethoven 5 is certainly one.  Neither the 5th nor his 6th are monumental to me, however.  To qualify as monumental, to me, in any event, it's gotta be both epic and long.  Loooooooooooooooong.

Hello Peter1953,
This is a topic with many qualifiers, and the depth of debate will confirm that.
But for me, if monumental = previously unknown masterpiece, I will nominate Mahler's symphony no10 in F sharp.
Although it probably doesn't qualify for "unsung" staus these days, it most certainly was a revelation when Deryck Cooke completed the first performing  version. I remember waiting months to recieve the LP from overseas,  in the early 70's, havibg read about the problems encountered by Cooke during the preceeding years. I have the Cooke,Barshai , Matthews & Wheeler versions, but the Wyn Morris recording of Deryck Cooke's version is the best.
If monumental = duration, this work at 74'05" (Cooke),78'59 (Wheeler), 77'26"(Matthews), & 74'06"" Barshai, certainly qualifies.
The second work which I nominate is the Elgar 3rd completed by Anthony Paine. A disc released by Naxos of Payne's sketches, is an enlightening insight into his skills at re-assembling this work. However the music is pure Elgar, and a worthy addition to the catalogue.
The fact that both of these works have numerous recording versions in the catalogue, is proof of their importance as "Unsung monumental symphonies" of the 20th century at least. The fact that both works are not the complete original work of the composers, is irrelevant, as both were acclaimed as important "discoveries"by critics  at the time, although their qualification as "unsung", must have decreased as  the sales increased. But whether they qualify for the topic of this debate, I will let others decide. Maybe I am thinking "outside the square"?
Marcus.

Peter can speak for himself, I'm sure, but it's clear from his post that he wasn't using "monumental" as a measure of length! Neither Tchaikovsky's Fifth nor Schumann's Second are particularly long. No, I took it to mean "awe-inspiring" or "a work of undeniable genius", a "monument" to art. That's why I find it difficult to answer his question: why do a very few works fall into this category and other admirable and greatly admired works from fine composers not?

I might nominate Brahms' First and Mahler's Second, but what on earth do those pieces have in common? The only thing which comes to mind immediately is that they are both "journey" symphonies, charting a course from negative to positive, concluding in a radiant, joy-filled finale. Is that it, for me at least? Is it just because of the finale, because of the huge rush of positive feelings with which I am left whenever I have listened to them?  There are lots of other works out there which use the same device yet, in my own pantheon, few reach the heights of these two.

Sorabji Organ Symphony No.2.

Premier this year in Glasgow and Amsterdam (which i am going to attend).

Could be momumental, but a shortish 6.5 hours.

Thal

Dear Chaps - Nope, I continue to insist something doesn't have to be huge, massive, long, colossal, immense, epic or whatever in order to count as 'monumental'.

Just been re-reading the bard's 'Othello'. In Act V Sc ii, when Othello enters Desdemona's bedchamber he at first hesitates in his purpose of murdering her and says:

"......Yet I'll not shed her blood / Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow / And smooth as monumental alabaster......"

Now in every production I've seen, of both Shakespeare's play and Verdi's opera, Desdemona has never been acted or sung by a Big Lady. If indeed the actress / singer were massive, huge, colossal, immense or whatever then I rather think the production might be somewhat risible.

Naw, this all too ready identification of the monumental with a thing of near unimaginable magnitude undoubtedly betrays a simplistic male way of thinking. Ahem. No reason at all why a very short piece of music could not be 'monumental'. Any candidates?

And to be quite off-thread twice in a single posting, Thal's reference to Sorabji is an interesting one. There are, of course, three organ symphonies. The first is a very short one by Sorabji standards: Kevin Bowyer's magisterial performance on Continuum occupies a mere two CD's! The second, which as Thal indicates, is scheduled for performance at Glasgow University starting at 1.00 on Sunday 6 June, is estimated to have a duration of over 6 hours. (On a previous occasion I believe Bowyer played just the last movement containing a 90+ minute fugue). The Sorabji Organ Project, generously funded by the university, continues to work on the Third symphony and this work is likely to be completed by 2013. All three symphonies taken together would amount to 16 hours of music. Bah, less than a brisk performance of The Ring!

Just for the sheer hell of it, I'm tempted to get myself to Glasgow. Two things mitigate against doing so. First, the university has unwisely declared that entry is free and without ticket. So what will they do if a monumental (sic) crowd turns up? Second, the last time I sat through the short First Symphony I ended up with monumental headache. The Second Symphony at three times the length would doubtless produce a kind of tripartite monumental headache. There is surely a kind of monumental daftness in such music? No-one can possibly hold a such a colossal structure in their heads, even a head with a monumental memory, such that one can emerge from it with anymore than confused impressions...and a monumentally sore behind?

Peter

I would nominate the Fourth Symphony of Joly Braga Santos.  The final movement, alone, qualifies the work as "monumental."  It's one of the truly unsung symphonies of the 20th century.

This topic is in danger of descending into a list of candidates for the description 'monumental symphony' without there being any real definition of what is meant by 'monumental'. A quick look in my well-thumbed dictionary suggests 'massive', 'vast', 'impressive ' - all very general words applicable to a larger number of symphonies. However, if we restrict ourselves to unsung works, there are far fewer general candidates...

Draeseke 3
Raff 1
Berger 2
Bloch C# minor
Glière 3
Rufinatscha 6
Lachner 5

So, perhaps if we stick to the unsung... 

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned Harvergal Brian's Sym #1 'Gothic'. If that doesn't count as monumental, I'm not sure what does. As a reminder of the forces involved, from the Havergal Brian Society (http://www.havergalbrian.org/):

Part one [1]:
2 piccolos (1 also flute), 3 flutes (1 also alto flute), 2 oboes,  oboe d'amore, cor anglais,  bass oboe, Eb clarinet, 2  Bb clarinets, basset horn, bass clarinet, 3 bassoons, contrabassoon, 6 horns, Eb cornet, 4 trumpets in F, bass trumpet, 3 tenor trombones, 2 tubas, 2 sets (min 3 drums) timpani, 2 harps, organ, celesta, min 8 percussion:  glockenspiel, xylophone, 2 bass drums, 3 side drums, tambourine, pair cymbals, gong, triangle;  strings [say 16.16.12.10.8]

Part two [1]:
Soprano, alto, tenor, bass soloists, large children's choir, 2 large mixed double choruses [in practice 4 large SATB choirs]
orchestra: 2 piccolos (1 also flute), 6 flutes (1 also alto flute), 6 oboes (1 also oboe d'amore, 1 also bass oboe), 2 cors anglais, 2 Eb clarinets (1 also Bb clarinet), 4  Bb clarinets, 2 basset horns, 2 bass clarinets, contrabass clarinet, 3 bassoons, 2 contrabassoons, 8 horns, 2 Eb cornets, 4 trumpets in F, bass trumpet, 3 tenor trombones, bass trombone, contrabass trombone, 2 euphoniums, 2 tubas, 2 sets (min 3 [in practice 4] drums) timpani, 2 harps, organ, celesta, min 18 percussion:  glockenspiel, xylophone, 2 bass drums, 3 side drums, long drum, 2 tambourines, 6 pairs cymbals, gong, thunder machine [not thunder sheet], tubular bells, chimes, chains, 2 triangles, birdscare;   strings (20.20.16.14.12)
4 off stage groups: each containing 2 horns, 2 trumpets, 2 tenor trombones, set (min 3 drums) of timpani
(in summary: 32 wind, 24 on stage brass, 24 off stage brass, 6 timpanists, 18 percussion, 4 keyboards and harps, 82 strings - total orchestra c190 players, plus adult choir of min 500 [assumes largely professionals], children's choir of 100, 4 soloists = c800)

It takes from 95-110 minutes to perform.

Yes, the Gothic surely qualifies - although it's hardly unsung. Its monumental size is widely known. Underperformed, perhaps?

QuoteYes, the Gothic surely qualifies - although it's hardly unsung. Its monumental size is widely known. Underperformed, perhaps?

It's underperformed because it's hard to get enough liquor to get that many musicians together in one place.  ;D

Well, obviously, yes. The point I was making was that its reputation is well established - its monumentality is hardly unkown. By comparison, great symphonies such as Draeseke 3 or Rufinatscha 6 are almost completely unsung.

"This topic is in danger of descending into a list of candidates for the description 'monumental symphony' without there being any real definition of what is meant by 'monumental'." - Alan.

Yes, absolutely. See my previous postings for a reminder of what 'monumental' means!

Everyone seems to have hurtled off into producing lists of symphonies that are long in duration or scored for the great number of instrumentalists. That isn't the name of the game, as Alan recognises. But then I humbly suggest that even Alan isn't wholly focussed. He produces examples of symphonies that are "massive, vast, impressive" - but it doesn't follow from this that they should be called 'monumental'. There is more to 'monumentality' than just those three characteristics.

Peter

QuoteWell, obviously, yes. The point I was making was that its reputation is well established - its monumentality is hardly unkown. By comparison, great symphonies such as Draeseke 3 or Rufinatscha 6 are almost completely unsung.

I'm not so sure I agree it's not unsung. It may be well known by the members of this group, but none of the Brian symphonies gets much play. Until the Marco Polo/Naxos series there were not lots of recordings of Brian's symphonies. (and except for some additions by EMI and Lyrita there still aren't)  A pretty sophisticated friend (who mostly listens to jazz, but goes to a fair number of classical concerts in NY every year) was telling me about attending a recent performance of Mahler's 8th and I mentioned Brian's Gothic and he had never heard of the work or the composer.

I guess it depends on where you cutoff sung vs unsung, but Raff seems to be pretty much considered unsung from the posts on the forum but he is far better represented in the catalog than Brian (A quick Amazon search reveals 40 CDs for Brian, mostly the MP symphones and 167 for Raff. I grant that he's a better composer as well, but my point is that he is certainly not less well known to most of the public than Brian).

Quote from: petershott@btinternet.com on Thursday 18 March 2010, 11:32

Just for the sheer hell of it, I'm tempted to get myself to Glasgow. Two things mitigate against doing so. First, the university has unwisely declared that entry is free and without ticket. So what will they do if a monumental (sic) crowd turns up? Second, the last time I sat through the short First Symphony I ended up with monumental headache. The Second Symphony at three times the length would doubtless produce a kind of tripartite monumental headache. There is surely a kind of monumental daftness in such music? No-one can possibly hold a such a colossal structure in their heads, even a head with a monumental memory, such that one can emerge from it with anymore than confused impressions...and a monumentally sore behind?

Peter

I have never attended a concert of this magnitude, so it is going to be an experience for me. Whether or not it is going to be a pleasant one, I do not know, but an experience none the less.

I will definately be taking my own cushion, which i purchased after suffering from numbum syndrone after the Messiah at Rochester Cathedral.

Almost everything from Sorabji's pen is in the monumental bracket.

Thal

If 'monumental' means 'massive, vast, impressive' perhaps we ought to be asking: how big is 'monumental'?

Actually, we did this thread before - under the much more suggestive title of 'big beasts'...

This discussion reminds me of the movie "Dead Poets' Society."  Literary works were measured or graded by a "Pritchard Scale" (IIRC) where some characteristic was put on the x-axis and another another characteristic on the y-axis.  The area created by the extention of the x and y values shows the "greatness" of the literary work.  In the movie the teacher said that this scale was excrement.

Are we not making a "Pritchard" graph to measure the "monumentalness" of a music work?  What parameters do we put on the x-axis and y-axis? 

I do not think there is way to measure monumentalness. 

This is a very interesting topic to which I hope to contribute, but I trust you will not be offended, Peter, if I correct your misuse of one word. It is an error frequently made and, to my sorrow, I have heard it perpetrated twice in the last 10 days on the BBC, of all places;
You wrote: "Two things mitigate against doing so."  This is an incorrect use of "mitigate". What you mean is: "Two things militate against doing so." To mitigate is to appease, moderate, reduce the severity of - as in "mitigating circumstances" when referring to a crime. To militate is to take part in warfare (against) something, generally used figuratively.
Sorry for the English lesson, but it's a mistake which is becoming all too frequent. Please forgive an old pedant!

Thank you, Gareth! Of course you're right, and in my desire to check the exuberance of all those who think 'monumental' is simply synonymous with 'big' I was careless and sloppy. And, of course, no offence taken at all: criticism, especially when delivered in a courteous fashion, always makes one a better man. (Actually I'm rather grateful to you for....oops....I rather suspect I have been prone to using 'mitigate' incorrectly, and, what is more, in a legal context!!!!)

Tee hee, I suppose we're now both quite off-thread!

Peter

As this thread has come down to a debate on the meaning of the word 'monumental', perhaps we'd better move on to something else...?

Many thanks for all your interesting, thoughtful posts. I will try to respond more properly over the weekend, but for now I only want to say that I'm convinced that what makes a symphony (or any other musical genre) 'monumental' is the melody, or better, the concatenation of striking themes that cause deep felt emotions. I don't think it has anything to do with the length of a work.
The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed. Listen to the opening theme of the 5th, how powerful, how captivating and touching. And then the main theme of the 2nd movement... almost an explosion of sadness. The development of the theme in the final movement is breathtaking. I have no words for what this music does to me, and I think to many others. Like Mark writes, it's difficult. Does this make the symphony monumental? I'll guess so. I'm looking for unsung symphonies which cause the same effect.

I understand what you mean by monumental, Peter - and it's not what most of the respondents seem to think you mean. You've clarified it very well in your last post.
The strength of melodic interest and the ability of those melodies which the composer employs to produce strong emotions in the listener is crucial to making the work monumental. Of course, the way the composer employs the melodies - their development, juxtaposition, orchestral colouring, etc. - is a fundamental part of this.  Now there is bound to be a high degree of "subjectivity" in one's response to a piece of music and a good illustration, it seems to me is the following: you say, "I'm convinced that what makes a symphony (or any other musical genre) 'monumental' is the melody, or better, the concatenation of striking themes that cause deep felt emotions." - and then cite Tchailkovsky 5 as an example (a rather good one). But I get a similar thrill out of the melodic themes and their development in Raff's Symphony No. 5 - yet you find that no symphony of Raff merits for you the term "monumental".  That's fair enough, and as it should be - but it's very difficult to get people to agree on strictly objective criteria of excellence in any art form, because the definition of so many terms employed (very properly) in discussing and describing art contains a substantial element of emotion: beauty, grandeur, despair, exuberance, etc. So to say something is monumental presupposes an agreed set of attributes or qualities which define "monumental" against which a work of art can be judged in order to determine whether or not it qualifies for this description.  But since a large percentage of these attributes is emotional (and different things evoke different emotions in different people in different places at different times under different circumstances) a large part of what we may decide contributes to the monumental nature of a work amounts to little more than "I like it" or "It moves me".  To say "I like a piece of music because it produces this or that emotion in me" is tantamount to saying I like it because I like it.  You see, I'm sure, the dilemma - it is a basic one of aesthetics. That is not to say we should give up, but we must be aware of the problem.

With more than a little tongue in cheek, I've been trying to elucidate just that point to all our colleagues, Gareth.  If I want to pick nits, I can make distinctions on purely subjective terms, saying that this work is epic, that one is monumental, etc.  I  like my subjective definitions.  A work is epic in terms of its materials, their handling, orchestration and other such elements.  If it is both epic and long, then, and only then, is it monumental.  To me.

Thanks Peter and Gareth for bringing the discussion in this thread back to what Peter originally intended it to be. Obviously my earlier attempts were insufficient to stem the flow of lists!

As I wrote earlier, I have a real problem with defining just what it is about a work which time and again moves me so much that it enters my own pantheon of monumentality. Gareth and Peter's last two posts have, I think, illustrated the contradictions and there comes a point where one gives up trying to identify the cause and just accepts the effect. That's where I am. I suppose a work becomes a universally accepted "monumental" repertoire work (in Peter's use of the word) if enough music lovers feel the same about it.

There's also the phenomenon of genius to consider. If it takes a musical genius to produce such a piece of music, maybe one can argue that, whilst its individual building blocks are capable of replication by any craftsman musician, the way they are put together to achieve "monumentality" shows a genius which isn't capable of replication? Or analysis?

I think Gareth has it absolutely right. And I'm not ready yet to give up the attempt to explore in objective terms the reasons for subjective responses. I still like the because... (although not 'I like it because I like it')

The problem is that we can not agree to the criterion for monumental, and once we agree we can not agree to the methods to measure each criterion.  Several forum members considered the "tunefulness" of the work as a criterion.  Is the montonic opening theme of the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony tuneful?  No, it is not, yet it is a great symphony if not monumental.  If orchestration is a criterion, how can we grade Haydn against Mahler on the same scale? 

I have a book that gives a listing of the top 60 operas.  The authors also gave the criterion which they used to reach their findings.  In this case, it was the number of productions at the Met and Covet Gardens weighed against number of recordings over a certain period.  One might not agree to these criterions of the listing, but the point is that the criterions choosed were concrete and measurable.  We do not have that for monumental.         

I would have to take issue with your view, Hofrat, that the opening subject of the 2nd movt. of Beethoven's 7th symphony is not tuneful because it is monotonic. It's a great tune and instantly memorable. But perhaps your criteria for what constitutes a tune are different from mine.  And here we are, back to subjectivity. Once we agree, however, on what constitutes a tune, we can progress.
And, yes, Alan, I think it is essential that when we like (or dislike) something we try to say why we do so - even if our attempt ends up in being circular, at least we've endeavoured to explain and objectify our response.

Quote from: Peter1953 on Thursday 18 March 2010, 22:40
The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed. ... I'm looking for unsung symphonies which cause the same effect.

Hi, Peter1953,
Letting aside the discussion of what makes a musical piece great and the "objective" criteria to assess it, I think that your expression "that grabs you by the throat" is much more descriptive (and so much better than "monumental") of what you meant. I also can feel that some music pieces (as the symphonies you mention) "grab my throat" from the very first bar and force me to follow the stream of the music without letting any opportunity for my attention to wander. And I also believe that this capacity of the music is a feature of "greatness". I am sure, however, that the pieces that "grab by the throat" may be different from listener to listener since each one is looking for different things in music. In my case, it is not so much the melody but the eloquence of the thematic material (be it melodic or not), the logical continuity of the music (that is, you cannot anticipate the music flow but you are constantly feeling that the composer has chosen just the "right" way to keep flowing) and its relentless drive what carries me away. The first movements of Dvorak 8 and Nielsen 1 come to my mind as further examples.
So, since you are looking for unsung symphonies that cause this effect, let me suggest you some that "grab my throat" (even if my choice will surely be different of yours). One piece that always carries me away is the first movement of Taneyev's 2nd (to be heard, if possible, in Fedoseyev's version). I find it as good as anything by Tchaikovsky. One of the multiple reasons for liking it is that it uses a favourite device in common with Schumann 2nd (one that you mentioned). Namely, to begin with a slow motto theme that doesn't sound very promising but that keeps gaining relevance and has an apotheosic reprise, now full of sense, at the very end of the movement (or of the symphony, as in Schumann). Lemba's C sharp minor symphony first movement is another piece that uses the same scheme. In this case, the reappearance of the motto at the coda of the first movement is by far the best moment of a good symphony.
You may already know these works, so let me finish with a lesser known and more modern symphony. You may give a try to the 2nd Symphony of the (East) German composer Leo Spies (1899-1965). The symphony begins with a strong and catchy theme that immediately "hooks me up" and carries me along with its ruthless drive through the whole movement. The rest of the symphony is equally memorable, as is anything I have heard from this composer. A relatively recent (2005) article dedicated to him in Neue Zeitschrift der Musik was entitled "Authentisches Komponieren, jenseits avangardistischer Moden" (Authentic composing, at the other side of avant-garde fashions), which I think fits him very well. The symphony is as good as you can find among modern symphonies and it has been edited in CD by the label Hastedt:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Leo-Spies-Symphonie-Nr-2-1961/hnum/5349588

You can hear soundbites at this link although, uncommonly,  jpc has selected a fragment of the first movement which is not the start of the symphony and, hence, the main theme cannot be heard. The only drawback of this CD (which includes also Spies Violin concerto) is that it is a reissue of old recordings (from 1963 the symphony and from 1955 the concerto) and the sound is correspondingly poor. I would wish some modern recordings of the major Leo Spies works (specially of his first symphony which looks impressive from the score). CPO, are you listening??

Each of us knows what "monumental" means(or doesnt mean:)) to each one of us, as an individual, if indeed we should choose to use that particular adjective(though i quite like it:)!). I don't need  to define it; i FEEL it. To me, unlike Alan, it is enought to FEEL a piece of work, I dont have to say "I like it because of...."(tuneful, orchestration etc). Emotion, like a lot (though not all, eg very complex, music) speaks for itself.My SUBJECTIVE", i.e what I experience and FEEL and personally, as an INDIVIDUAL, take pleasure in, is enough to me; and I am, like Peter 1953, very interested in OTHER's people's tastes and emotional reactions to a piece of music, without them having to justify or explain WHY(in musical analysis terms) it moves them emotionally(even, dare I say it, regardless of quality or perceived "quality"). I suppose I would like to see four seperate, but related, debates:
1.individual musical enthusiasms(whether monumental/"monumental" or not:)), which are sometimes catching(including emotionally!). I value these, in and FOR themselves. sharing them is a great joy.
2. (To a lesser extent, personally, though it has SOME interest), a musical or quasi-musical analysis of structure, melody, harmony etc etc; and which pieces utilise these most effectively(though again there will be some personal response element to these allegedly"objective" criteria.)
3. A subject, which I am just now articulating to myself, concomitant with the (some degree of)difficulty we are experiencing in coming to enumerating a LARGE number of unsung "monuments"/monuments(HOWEVER defined) is, is it possible, (ie.are we READY?) to look at the issue of whether we love and "monumentalise" or hold up as dear or as "great" just SOME (I stress "JUST SOME";)of these unsung pieces BECAUSE I/we are aggrieved that they are un(der)performed/unjustly neglected? NOT THAT THAT IS A (VALUE) JUDGEMENT:) Something doesnt have to be great to enjoy it, and, more importantly, to be moved by it. Which brings in (again) the hierarchy of "movingness"- from e.g. Beethoven(great, refined ,"unsentimental") music v. Moszkowski("sentimental", STRIVING for emotional effect).
4. finally, Peter Shott refers to a "simplistic male way of thinking"(ie. in reference to Peter's "monumental" being taken to refer to the need to create a LIST(sic) of behemoths). Now, we are on interesting territory-EMOTIONAL  responses being integral to a definition of monumental versus. geeky(BUT NICE AND GOOD:)), so-called male list-making of great beasts in music. The eternal "feminine"(=emotional)v. the "masculine"(=logical, "rational"/rational,eg listmaking). These are all socially constructed categories. No behaviour is intrinsically "male"/"masculine" or "female"/"feminine"; so psychological angrogyny is the way forward, viz. adopting WHATEVER characteristics of the perceived psychological "male" or "female" you wish and becoming a WHOLE  person. Luckily, on this forum, the majority of people are open re their emotional responses(and, correct me if wrong, currently i think we are all male); so we are males acting in a socially constructed "female" way in this regard. But, IT DOESNT MATTER; we are all HUMAN, above all, so these responses are(obviously) fine. Music is one of the ways where society allows males to cry and feel emotion. Interesting.(to me, anyway).

I am sure we can continue to debate this is in a friendly spirit-of-debate way; and am, as ever, intrigued to hear more opinions, which have been very frank. And I back up other's points that EVERYONES viewpoint, emotional, musical-analysis, historical, psychological is EQUALLY valid, which i am sure everyone is agreeing with anyway. And PLEASE, as long as it stays friendly, which it usually does on this forum,lets not have the moccas put on it,(ironically) because it doesnt "achieve" anything, or isnt "objective" enough on musical content and analysis. People's musical loves are inspiring. I would hate this forum to become an information exchange(which is undoubtedly very useful) and an assessment of what is "good"/great music by an analysis of musical melody, harmony, structure etc. This would be limiting, in my opinion

Steve Benson

Sorry, I don't want simply to read someone's unsubstantiated subjective ramblings. I love to hear about a new enthusiasm or a new discovery, but I desperately want to know WHY it is so, even if the attempt is somewhat exploratory, provisional, non-technical, rough-and-ready or whatever.

When I was in teaching, the biggest problem with many young people was teaching them to go beyond their knee-jerk likes and dislikes and explain what it was that attracted them about a piece of music, book, poem, etc. Otherwise, all you had was a group of people talking past each other with no attempt at intelligent analysis, engagement or discussion. And the winner then was always the person who could shout loudest - or, I'm tempted to add, write longest.

Quote from: Peter1953 on Thursday 18 March 2010, 22:40
The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed.

Gliere's 2nd maybe? (though the 3rd is unquestionably one of the most 'monumental' in the other definitions that many are using here).

Or here's one I doubt too many people know -- Rozsa's Symphony in Three Movements. It really seems to dig down into itself, or something.

 
Well, whatever we each separately interpret as "monumental", it looks like of the unsungs mentioned there are two examples here for Taneyev and a couple for Gliere as well, although different symphonies are selected. So maybe in our imperfect and roundabout way we converge on these composers from separate paths.

Of course my favourite still has to be Franz Lachner's prize winning 5th symphony which nobody else appears to have mentioned yet on this thread. For the 20th Century, I would say that Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony takes a lot of beating. I suspect he was trying to out-Mahler Mahler. :)

Amphissa - I think you would have a great future in the diplomatic service! We've all covered much ground in this thread, some incredibly bright nominations have been made, but alas maybe the point has been reached where further sore throats can be the only future outcome. Gentlemen can agree to disagree whilst respecting opposed viewpoints. Gliere and Taneyev, yes! Maybe an unexpected outcome to Peter's posing of the initial question, but I'm sure all would agree these two are monumentally good candidates for monumental status and that we can now all busy ourselves with interesting ourselves in an issue other than monumentality!

Peter

"Each of us knows what "monumental" means(or doesnt mean:)) to each one of us, as an individual, if indeed we should choose to use that particular adjective(though i quite like it:)!). I don't need  to define it;"
Well... yes. But you do need to define it if you are going to have a conversation about monumentality with one or more other persons - otherwise you'll simply end up talking at cross purposes. If A defines monumental as "large" and B defines monumental as "emotionally arresting" they can't have a meaningful conversation about what pieces of music illustrate monumentality. You have to agree on the criteria which define a word for the purposes of your discussion before you can have that discussion.
And it's a very good discipline to ask yourself why you like or dislike something; it helps one avoid sloppy thinking, sharpens one's wits and is an example of that critical self-awareness which distinguishes man from most animals. It is one of the essences of education, a cornerstone of academic probity and a major factor in the evolution of universities.

This topic turns out to be a very interesting discussion. I've read many helpful, remarkable and open-minded opinions which have sharpened my thoughts. Some posts, like Gareth's #30, are no less than short in depth articles on the subject of what is 'monumental'. I'm very grateful to all of you.

IMHO I still think that the key feature of what we might call a monumental work is the melody, or the flow of melodies, that gives the listener deep felt emotions. Obviously some characteristics, I cite Gareth, like the development of melodies, juxtaposition, orchestral colouring and emotional elements like beauty, grandeur, despair, exuberance, are fundamental for a work what we might call 'monumental'. Then the work stands like a rock. But these components are also found in great works that I don't call monumental. Take Raff's Fifth. Without doubt a majestic symphony that cause deep felt emotions. But to me the difference with Tchaikovsky's Fifth is that the Tchaikovsky causes deeper felt emotions. It's the ultimate music.
Monumental music makes me feel great and gives me a sort of mental power. And it's also what Steve pointed out, it can move me (under certain circumstances) to tears. A monumental work gives me a 'mental after taste'. It brings my heart and head together. The music takes some time to sink in, and I want to think it over. It has done something lasting to my feelings, it's more than just entertainment. The music is definitive.
My problem is that I cannot find words to describe this feeling, not even in Dutch, my native language.

This topic is deliberately limited to the symphony. But of course, in other musical genres we also find monumental works. Some examples, as I see it, are the 2nd Piano Concerto by Rachmaninov, Elgar's Cello Concerto (and certainly the performance by Jacqueline du Pré), and – here he comes – the Violin Concerto by Brahms. And how about Mendelssohn's The Hebrides? Chamber music? Schubert's last String Quintett D956. I think that we can find in the piano literature a lot of monumental works. Many of Beethoven's Sonata's come to mind. To end with Chopin: his Ballade's, Scherzo's, and much more.
For me it's not easy to find monumental works by unsung composers, but there are some.

Enough said. I believe the essence of monumental works are the melodies that cause deep felt emotions, probably shared by many other classical music lovers, but unfortunately I fail in finding the words to describe this.

You know what?  All this discussion has caused me to change my opinion.  From now on, epic works are long.  Everything else is now monumental, no matter how short. ;D

Jim, does that make John Cage's 4' 33'' monumental?

Depends on one's subjective feelings about the content. ;)

It certainly is in the sense of monumental meaning "concerning a memorial to the dead".

"Monumental" in orchestral music always brings to me memories of climaxes that involve the building and resolution of extreme tension.  To cite a famous example of what I might consider monumental would be the finale of F.J. Haydn's Drumroll Symphony.  A less famous example would be several passages in the first movement of Ries's 5th Symphony, where the tension reaches levels that I consider almost unbearably intense (in a good way); without ever knowing how other people viewed "monumental" in music, I always thought of this as one of the most monumental movements of any symphony I'd ever heard.  Like a truly epic monument, such as viewing Mt. Everest from a distance while it's surrounded by clouds or something.  You get all the incredible sights and beauty without having to experience the temperature, rain, or wind (or lack of air, though I remember Ries's 5th Symphony did almost take my breath away the first time I heard its first movement).

hello all, I love this website because of something that we all have in common, and that is to rediscover forgotten music, and thereby do justice to those great masters who even today are very poorly known,
I am writing from Costa Rica in the appearance of a monumental symphony, well it's hard to define, it could be monumental for its duration, its structure, its lyricism, or his orguestacion, I have always regarded the symphony as large korsakov 2 , As the No.8 of Glazunov.
disculopen my bad English, I hope to improve it later. :o

Enjoying everyone's thoughts. Here are a few more, unpolished to be sure.

Instrumental art music frequently echoes instrumental social music, either by virtue of its division of the pulse or its grouping of the pulse. I think for me 'monumental' has metrical and rhythmic biases. Few instrumental openings are more monumental than that of Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra. Yet when I was getting to know that work years ago, the musical discourse seemed utterly deflated by its Viennese waltz finale, as though the dark night of the soul could be "cured" by a chocolate bar. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar early reaction?

I'm not saying that a waltz, jig, or even boogie would automatically be out of place in monumental music. But something square or martial certainly has a better chance of convincing my imagination that larger than life feelings are to be summoned.  As in the opening of Brahms's PC 1. Am I confusing heroic with monumental? Would Siegfried *be* Siegfried without its monumental length? Perhaps there's a certain overlap.

To me, much of Henry Moore's work is monumental -- not too simple, not too complex.  So I wonder if textural complexity in music fights against the impression of monumentality. There may be a kind of direct diction that I associate with 'monumental'. To take two impressive early 20th-century works that both explore disjunction and unrest and are not too long, I would say that Sibelius's Voces intimae quartet, with its many unison passages and interrupted patterns, approaches monumental diction more surely than does Schoenberg's intricately "patternless" Erwartung.

Satie's short "Vexations" with its 840 repetitions may in complete performance require a monumental effort. Yet I think most would agree that the musical result is, quite likely intentionally, anything but monumental. And this is precisely because it is purely iterative and mechanical. From this I gather that, for me at least, monumental somehow involves not merely a large scale but higher levels of integration between different scales of perception, expression, and so on. In order to make audible the different patterns on different time scales that are being integrated, one tends to use a larger canvas, as it were. In contrast, Erwartung is full of subtle pattern relationships that flash by at a speed that almost defies direct perception -- at least without sufficient preparation and study.

A monumental work makes me want to jump up and join the orchestra or the chous.  Two works in which I must be restrained are by Beethoven:

9th symphony (that huge tutti with the chorus singing "vor Gott!").
Fidelio (the prison chorus "O Freiheit!").

Who is not moved by these monuments?!

How about the Symphony no. 1 in F major by Stenhammar. I heard an absolutely stunning version by Neeme Jarvi!!!

If the version you heard is the same one I have, it's a live performance (the first modern one, I think) and you can hear the audience roar at the end. I always roar with it. I love the way the Scandinavians responded to Bruckner.

Quote from: thalbergmad on Thursday 18 March 2010, 08:17
Sorabji Organ Symphony No.2.

Premier this year in Glasgow and Amsterdam (which i am going to attend).

Could be momumental, but a shortish 6.5 hours.

See you there (if you mean Glasgow - sadly, I can't get to the Amsterdam performance) - but bear in mind that the estimated duration is now first movement 1 hour 5 minutes, last movement 2 hours 55 minutes and middle movement 4 hours 10 minutes...

Monumental or what?...

Best,

Alistair

Quote from: ahinton on Saturday 22 May 2010, 22:51


Monumental or what?...

Arggghhh - perhaps just long?   :P

 
Oh hell .... first there was monumental, then there was epic, now there is epic monumental. Next it will be gigantinormepic humongomonumental.

:o

Er, quite.

Let's just stick to 'big' or 'long'.

Monumental .. Hmmmmmmmmmm......
Beethoven Symphony No.5
Mahler Symphony No. 5
Shostakovich Symphony No. 5
Glazunov Symphony No. 5
Raff Symphony No. 5.........
................etc
Any other Monumental No. 5's??????

Quote from: FBerwald on Sunday 23 May 2010, 12:21

Any other Monumental No. 5's??????

Tubin
Atterberg
Myaskovsky (except Svetlanov's, which is just ponderous sludge)

Im surprised No one has mentioned the symphonies of Leevi Madetoja here!!!!!!!

Quote from: FBerwald on Sunday 23 May 2010, 12:21
Any other Monumental No. 5's??????

Sibelius.   

Hard to top the breadth and power of this symphony - especially the final movement.

Quote from: wunderkind on Friday 28 May 2010, 22:05

Quote from: FBerwald on Sunday 23 May 2010, 12:21
Any other Monumental No. 5's??????

Sibelius.   

Hard to top the breadth and power of this symphony - especially the final movement.

Bruckner's 5th.

Aww heck, guys!  Why doesn't somebody just put Beethoven's 5th, fer cryin' out loud!  This has degenerated from monumental unsung symphonies to very much sung 5ths!  Are you all trying to say you've all run out of unsung monumental symphonies?  Well, run out and get some more or close the topic! >:( ;D

Quote from: Hovite on Saturday 29 May 2010, 21:35

Quote from: wunderkind on Friday 28 May 2010, 22:05

Quote from: FBerwald on Sunday 23 May 2010, 12:21
Any other Monumental No. 5's??????

Sibelius.   

Hard to top the breadth and power of this symphony - especially the final movement.

Bruckner's 5th.

A monumental masterpiece, without doubt - but surely not "unsung" (other than during its composer's lifetime)?...

Quote from: JimL on Saturday 29 May 2010, 21:39
Aww heck, guys!  Why doesn't somebody just put Beethoven's 5th, fer cryin' out loud!

I DID put it Jim [he's fallen in the waaaterrrrr!!!!!!(Sorry an old GOON slip)]

I thought somebody might have.  Thanks for volunteering. 

Meanwhile, back at the topic of unsung big/long/loud symphonies...

I was struck by a statement by Martinu (ca. 1943) in the booklet notes for the wonderful Thomson recordings:

"In contemporary hands, the symphony has returned to older, more reasonable proportions, ... [though] the form and the content are always thought of as the expression of something grandiose, tragic, or pathetic."

Evidently in Martinu's view it was possible to be grandiose without being monumental. I find this a useful distinction. From that standpoint Sibelius 5 may be called grandiose without insisting that it is thereby monumental.

The statue of Lincoln seated in the Lincoln Monument, Washington, D.C., is approximately 18 feet high, and if the statue could stand it would be about 28 feet high. That's monumental. Bruckner symphonies furnish excellent examples of the monumental because, like the Lincoln statue (and unlike Satie's "Vexations"), they are heroic, tragic, or pathetic and are large not merely in overall length but in their recognizable structural features, which are proportionally sized.

Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 30 May 2010, 09:59
Meanwhile, back at the topic of unsung big/long/loud symphonies...

Certainly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kchaturian - Symphony No. 2(I THINK)... It's supposed to be big and loud... calls for an additional 15 or so trumpets to the orchestra. I havent heard this. IS it any musical or just loud sounds?

I thought it was Khachaturian 3 that called for the extra trumpets (and organ). Anyhow, if it's the one I'm thinking of, it's fun, but musically a bit empty! Certainly not monumental.

Yes, it's the 3rd and it's utterly banal and tasteless, with a bizarre organ solo. Nonetheless, the Stokowski recording made with Chicago is something no music lover should be without!

"Banal" and "tasteless" - yes. Two good adjectives to describe this extraordinary extravaganza.

I'd Give it up for Mr. Shoastakovich's Monumental 5th Symphony for Large forces! beautiful  Romantic Begining.. and Surely not unsung..

Quote from: mbhaub on Monday 31 May 2010, 23:03
Yes, it's the 3rd and it's utterly banal and tasteless, with a bizarre organ solo.

One of my favorites. Banal, maybe. Tasteless, hardly. Fascinating indeed. It's like a musical trip while staying within the accessible Western classical tradition.

(Incidentally, the 2nd is monumental in the other way...)

As a result of members of the forum referring to Sorabji and momumental symphonies, I listened to audio samples of some of his works and subsequently bought the 3 cd set "legendary piano works", essentially for "Le jardin parfumé" et "Gulistan". Listening however to both pieces, I quickly came to the conclusion that "quantity" definitely does not equate with"quality"! I could not detect, to my relatively untried ear, neither shape, line or melody in either work. I was left with the overwhelming feeling that here was somebody "randomly tinkling the ivories"! I was incredibly bored, in spite of trying to give the music every chance. On this evidence, there is no way I could endure listening to his symphonies, lasting hours!!!

Cheers
Dennis

Quote from: DennisS on Wednesday 02 June 2010, 21:21
As a result of members of the forum referring to Sorabji and momumental symphonies, I listened to audio samples of some of his works and subsequently bought the 3 cd set "legendary piano works", essentially for "Le jardin parfumé" et "Gulistan". Listening however to both pieces, I quickly came to the conclusion that "quantity" definitely does not equate with"quality"! I could not detect, to my relatively untried ear, neither shape, line or melody in either work. I was left with the overwhelming feeling that here was somebody "randomly tinkling the ivories"! I was incredibly bored, in spite of trying to give the music every chance. On this evidence, there is no way I could endure listening to his symphonies, lasting hours!!!

Do bear in mind not only that this music may not be for you but also that you have formed your view on the basis of just one person's performances and that, had you instead sampled, for example, Marc-André Hamelin in Piano Sonata No. 1, Donna Amato in Fantaisie Espagnole, Charles Hopkins in Gulistan, Yonty Solomon in Le Jardin Parfumé, Fredrik Ullén in the first 43 of the 100 Transcendental Studies or Jonathan Powell in Un Nido di Scatole, St. Bertrand de Comminges or Passeggiata Veneziana (all works of a few minutes up to around 35 minutes duration), you might have felt differently - and the better recording quality on all of these would certainly have helped!

Best,

Alistair

Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Monday 31 May 2010, 22:31
I thought it was Khachaturian 3 that called for the extra trumpets (and organ). Anyhow, if it's the one I'm thinking of, it's fun, but musically a bit empty! Certainly not monumental.

Then there's Brian 2 with all the extra horns (all of them only used in the scherzo, if I remember).  Subjectively speaking I like that quite a lot. (But then I enjoy Khachaturian 3. And sort of want to hear Lokshin 2, which seems to bring in most everything, saxophones and all, maybe including the kitchen sink too. Looks fun if performed right, to the point, though...)
Eric

Hi Alistair

You clearly know and love your Sorabji. I can therefore fully appreciate your comments regarding best versions, best recordings etc. I know only too well that there can be a huge difference in the interpretation of a work and I have in my own collection of multiple versions of symphonies, concertos, string quartets etc. where I have a distinct preference for a particular version! That said, I felt that you did not seem to rate very highly Michael Habermann's efforts at interpreting Sorabji ??? On the liner notes accompanying the 3 cds, it states that Habermann, albeit on only one occasion, actually performed some of the Sorabji works in the presence of Sorabji himself. And Sorabji declared himself very well pleased with Habermann's efforts! If that is indeed the case, I can't imagine that Habermann's interpretation could be considered "poor", even allowing for subjectivity! That said, I myself was unable to get into Sorabji's music. I know not everyone would agree, but I found the journey long, I was not sure where I was going and was just relieved to get to the end! I guess Sorabji is simply not my cup of tea but I do appreciate that many people love his music. To be as openminded as I can, I will perhaps come back to his music later on and see if I still feel the same way.
Cheers
Dennis

Monumental symphonies?
(http://www.jpc.de/image/w600/front/0/0761203992522.jpg)
This is surely in the number.
A 74 minutes mammoth written in recognizable late-romantic and "decadent" style (Strauss + Shrecker + Korngold + Schoeck + a bit of Mahler): very large orchestra (with piano and harmonium) and luxurious themes and harmonics. It's the first symphony written as a soundtrack. The conductor Strobel had to review the original score, almost worn out. I suggest you to give it a try.

And, of course, the First of Rued Langgaard.
I am very surprised that he had never been mentioned in this forum: he is the prototype of the typical late-ultra-romantic composer "transferred" in 20th century.
DaCapo has published a box set with his Symphonies conducted by Thomas Dausgaard. A real discovery for me.

You should add that the rest of Langgaard's symhonic output is not remotely like the first, which he wrote when only 14 (an interesting parallel to Korngold, who wrote his massive 'Sinfonietta' around the same time and at a similar age). The 2nd and 3rd are roughly in the same idiom but with much shorter 'lines', and after that it becomes something which is hard to classify.

Rued Langgaard may not have a dedicated thread on this forum as of yet, but based on comments I've seen in other threads, I'm sure you will find quite a few knowledgeable Langgaard listeners here, Empfindsamer.

I'm not the right person to do it, but a thread devoted to the merits of, say, various late tonal composers' Symphony 13 could possibly shed light on the unusually strong individuality of such devoted symphonists -- Brian, Hovhaness, Miaskovsky, Langgaard, Shostakovitch, Harris, immediately come to mind -- and perhaps give us a little more perspective on a loner like Langgaard.

I said that because I tried to find Langgaard with the forum search engine, apparently with no results.

By Langaard, I love also his Nine, unquestionably romantic, dedicated to the beautiful Danish city of Ribe. It's not monumental (21 minutes long), but in my opinion it's a real gem.

Reinhold Gliere's Third Symphony "Ilya Muromets"!  Has all the criteria that many have pointed to above - epic, long, "narrates" a battle fought and won while at the same time pointing to inner struggle. I'm glad to see that quite a few contributors above agree. In my view the best recording is by the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Edward Downes.

Quote from: Empfindsamer on Thursday 24 June 2010, 13:33
I said that because I tried to find Langgaard with the forum search engine, apparently with no results.

By Langaard, I love also his Nine, unquestionably romantic, dedicated to the beautiful Danish city of Ribe. It's not monumental (21 minutes long), but in my opinion it's a real gem.

Re Langgaard, not monumental at all, but my favorite of the ones I've heard so far is his symphony "Ixion". Successfully obsessive :) (and one of the briefer symphonies- or "symphonies"? - of modern times that I know of... at about 6 minutes.)
Eric

The title Unsung Monumental Symphonies, makes me think of the one by Josef Marx.  It has never been recorded and I have never seen the score but the Marx website has been extolling its virtues for years. Any thoughts?
Giles Enders

The Marx has got to be the ultimate late-late Romantic, purely orchestral symphony. It packs an almighty wallop, but perhaps not often enough over its duration...

Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 27 June 2010, 10:06
The Marx has got to be the ultimate late-late Romantic, purely orchestral symphony. It packs an almighty wallop, but perhaps not often enough over its duration...

*looks into this belatedly*
Herbstsinfonie, given its US premiere in 2008 (possibly its first performance in some 80 years after a few in the late 1920s in Europe???) (Botstein/ASO, the same group which is giving Magnard's Bérénice a performance next year I think, but I digress already)... apparently one live recording is available of a 2005 performance - here (http://www.micmacmusic.com/product_info.php?products_id=659) (source of most of this information - this (http://www.epstudiossoftware.com/blog/?p=101) blogpost. Admittedly, blogposts are not exactly "the" place to go seeking information, so caveat, etc. ...)

Eric

I would add Saint Saens third symphony to this list.  I consider it the best symphony where an organ is used and neve tire from listening to it. 

Quote from: giles.enders on Wednesday 29 September 2010, 10:34
I would add Saint Saens third symphony to this list.  I consider it the best symphony where an organ is used and neve tire from listening to it.

Unfortunately, Giles, this topic is UNSUNG Monumental Symphonies.  Not only is Saint-Saens' Organ Symphony sung, it's one of the works which is keeping his name barely alive in the repertory.

Untrue, Jim. Saint-Saens' name is fortunately a good deal more alive than you make out: Samson et Dalila is performed regularly all over the world, as is the Carnival of the Animals, not to mention VC3, the Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, etc. In addition, ArkivMusic lists him as among the top 25 composers in terms of works recorded, so you're way off, I'm afraid.

And let's remember who moderates this forum...

Interesting how our tastes differ.  I'm a little late getting to this thread, but I chuckled back aways when someone heralded the Bruckner 8th.  I love the Bruckner symphonies but #8 is my least favorite.  9, 3 and 6 top my list.  Esoecially the Bruno Walter 9th.

Here are a couple of my favorites, I suppose they wouldn't qualify as "monumental" but they move me.  One is the Symphony #2 in Eb of Alfred Hill - subtitles "The Joy of Life".  The closing choral finale grabs me every time.  About the same can be said for the Symphony #3 in E of Joseph Guy Ropartz.  This one's also for soli, chorus and orchestra.  I guess I'm a sucker for big choral works - Mahler 2 and 8 are among my "desert island" collection too...... :)

Quote from: Alan Howe on Wednesday 29 September 2010, 17:36
Untrue, Jim. Saint-Saens' name is fortunately a good deal more alive than you make out: Samson et Dalila is performed regularly all over the world, as is the Carnival of the Animals, not to mention VC3, the Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, etc. In addition, ArkivMusic lists him as among the top 25 composers in terms of works recorded, so you're way off, I'm afraid.

And let's remember who moderates this forum...

Unfortunately, I'm not quite as optimistic as you, Alan.  If you compare the output of Beethoven or Schumann with Saint-Saens (which isn't too far-fetched a comparison, since they all produced around the same number of works), you'll find a far greater percentage of Ludwig van's and Robert's works performed with some degree of regularity.  This isn't to say that there isn't a large number of works by Saint-Saens worthy of more frequent performance, but, if anything, the number of works in the repertory seems to be shrinking.  It used to be that 2 out of the 5 piano concertos were firmly in the repertoire of most pianists.  That has dwindled down to 1 (and that isn't even one of the 2 former regulars!)

Saint-Saens' Danse Macabre is what really keeps his name out there. As a performing musician, I play that every year it seems. The Organ Symphony is pretty popular, but not so frequently played because of the demanding orchestration. In addition to the organ, you also need two pianists and a large wind section. But his voluminous output is known to most listeners by a small fraction. And it is our loss because he was a first-rate craftsman, if not always inspired by genius.

Quote from: mbhaub on Thursday 30 September 2010, 00:11
Saint-Saens' Danse Macabre is what really keeps his name out there. As a performing musician, I play that every year it seems. The Organ Symphony is pretty popular, but not so frequently played because of the demanding orchestration. In addition to the organ, you also need two pianists and a large wind section. But his voluminous output is known to most listeners by a small fraction. And it is our loss because he was a first-rate craftsman, if not always inspired by genius.

As with too many (even Haydn, it occurs to me), a lot of his music remains in the figurative shadows still- with both, most of the operas are more or less unexplored territory for most fans of the composers, let alone most classical music fans in general. I was so pleased to see that ballet music from one of Saint-Saëns' operas (I think, appropriately, Henry VIII!) contained the same Jolly Miller folktune that Havergal Brian was later to vary in one of his (recorded) orchestral works... but I seriously digress, sorry.
Eric

Martin wrote:

QuoteBut his voluminous output is known to most listeners by a small fraction.

Isn't this true of even the greatest of composers who wrote more than a couple of dozen works? Most of Bruckner and Mahler is played comparatively frequently because their catalogues are relatively small. But how many of Tchaikovsky's ninety-odd opuses are known to the wider musical public, or Dvorák's or Beethoven's, never mind Mozart's or Haydn's? In concert and recital halls, the divide isn't just between the repertoire composers and the unsungs, but between the few works of the great masters which get played and the great majority which rarely get an airing.

It is simply untrue to say that Saint-Saens' name is 'barely alive in the repertory'. In terms of the recorded repertoire, as I said, he comes in the top 25 composers at ArkivMusic and the frequency of concert performances of a number of his works ensures that his name is well and truly alive.

However, I do agree with the point that only a tiny percentage of his output is performed. Mark, though, is surely right: most composers whose names are well known are famous for just a handful of works...

My strong hunch is that Saint-Saens' name will always been known, albeit for a very small number of frequently-performed pieces.

Even so, Mozart still has MANY pieces in the 'standard rep'. Just between operas and piano concertos he probably has more than Saint-Saens. Plus Saint-Saens may have a lot of recordings with his music, but the broadness isn't there. I only know of THREE recordings devoted to his piano music, this includes one for "double piano" of two piano music and the not-at-all-complete set on Vox, which has a lot to hate about it (1970s recordings in MONO. WTF). The last one is the etudes on Hyperion. And Saint-Saens was a piano prodigy!

The 3rd Symphony is the only one of his 3 acknowledged (and 5 total) symphonies to be familiar to concertgoers, and, as has been pointed out, requires monumental forces to perform.  Of the 5 PCs, only the 5th has a toehold in the repertory, where the 2nd and 4th used to be performed frequently.  Only the 1st Cello and 3rd Violin Concertos have any staying power in the concert hall, despite numerous excellences in the 2nd Cello and first two Violin Concertos.  His chamber music is infrequently performed, despite high overall quality.  Most of his piano music is ignored, except for trifles such as the Etude in the Form of a Waltz.  Occasionally one of the tone poems is dusted off.  Only Samson et Delilah holds the stage out of his 8 operas.  His Carnival of the Animals is popular, but was essentially a joke piece.  He's hardly unsung, but as far as the standard repertory is concerned, he's known by only a tiny percentage of his music compared to the aforementioned Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, et al, and I think his position precarious, as evidenced by the near disappearance of the 2nd and 4th PCs.

Your extended list simply proves the opposite, Jim, I'm afraid. Anyway, let's now return to the topic...

Here is a small contribution to the topic. I understand "monumental" as a synonym for epic, not necessarily in the sense whether it was a particularly important work in the evolution of music. I also did not read every post in detail in this thread, so there may be some overlap, some things may have been mentioned before - anyway, my recommendations for unsung monumental symphonies are:

Marx: Eine Herbstsymphonie - There are two live recordings available. the latest by Botstein is about 20 minutes shorter than the first which i found somewhat shocking (what happened...?). it is a giant, wonderful swoony impressionistic work that just takes you on a sea of endless waves of emotions.

Hausegger: Natursymphonie -  A very large work. The last movement features a choir. To me it sounds relatively close to Mahler's earlier works though melodies and themes are not quite as developed.

Casella: Symphonies 1 and 2 - Especially no.2 is a totally neglected masterpiece. the last movement starts with a mahlerian funeral march and ascends into a explosive finale. an ecstatic experience.

Langgaard: Symphony No. 1 - Grand and utterly astonishing work from a very young (at the time) composer.

Ropartz: Symphony No. 3 - Another Choral Symphony. To me there are some spots that show some resemblance to some parts in Marx' Symphony mentioned above.

Roussel: Maybe not the most epic in length but some movements - start with the beginning of the third symphony comes across with massive power. also very enjoyable and deserving of a bigger audience.

I know Havergal Brian's first was mentioned and for those who are into extreme gigantomania I'd like to recommend it as well.

Quote from: giles.enders on Wednesday 29 September 2010, 10:34
I would add Saint Saens third symphony to this list.  I consider it the best symphony where an organ is used and neve tire from listening to it.

UNSUNG???

Clearly not. Anyway, moving on...

Monumental brings to mind a work where there is a steady , even heady, series of climaxes of mood or melody. To that end I offer the following not unnoticed, but not often sung:

Kalinnikov Symphony No.1 in G minor
Rott Symphony in E

I could probably make the case for one or more symphonies of Tcherepnin, but would need to re-listen to them.

hrm. that sounds like a very good part of the definition, though I'd add if I might the very subjective (and why not??) -- idea? --- that a monumental symphony should select itself (to you, if not to every listener) as being about something important, having something important "to say", in some not purely musical sense (though not - necessarily anyway - in some programmatic, obvious, etc. way; Prokofiev's 5th may be more about the war than his 6th I suppose but the 6th isn't less monumental for it.)

Doesn't have to be _especially_ long to do that by any means and not loud or hugely orchestrated necessarily either- the how always depends on the what, I should think. :) Eric

If they are not beyond the stylistic purview of this site, I would nominate the second and third symphonies of Enescu as both unsung and monumental. Likewise the second and third symphonies of Furtwangler. Sound like a broken record, I know. But these works bring me deep pleasure.

This is all necessarily subjective, but also fun. For me monumental means content, not length.

Schmidt: 4th Symphony
Bax: Symphonies 2, 5, 6
Marx: Eine Herbstsinfonie
Korngold: Symphony in F#
Dohnanyi: Symphony No.2
Flagello: Symphony No.1
Enesco: Symphony No.3
Weigl: Symphonies 2, 5, 6
Myaskovsky: Symphonies 6, 10, 22, 25
Paul Creston: Symphony No.2
Tubin: Symphony No.2

No doubt there are more, but I've just not heard them yet. There are some I need to explore right away, such as Braga Santos. THe point is that the "sung" greats don't have a monopoly upon greatness. In most cases I believe they've had the golden combination of great ability realized along with good timing (exposure) and minimal political interference.

Re Ceescendo's post from 2 years back (how did I miss this?). Could anyone tell me about the other recording of Marx's Autumn Symphony and whether it is still available?

X. Trapnel, here is the URL leading to a website where you can download Swierczewski's performance of Marx's Autumn Symphony (wonderful piece):
http://www.micmacmusic.com/product_info.php?products_id=659&osCsid=d461f7ecbf12ed9b2998645690c5245a
I assume this the the "other recording" you are referring to, but just in case, there is another, more widely available, performance of the piece by Botstein that you can download. It's rather strange that there are two downloadable versions of the symphony but no CDs. BTW, the Botstein performance is 58 minutes and the Swierczewski is 73! I like the Swierczewski a little better because he takes time to wallow in the score's many overpoweringly voluptuous moments. I hope this answers your question :)!

Thank you, Kyjo! I heard Botstein perform the Autumn Symphony in NY and was overwhelmed by it, but since I've found so many Botstein performances to be rather dull (where comparisons are possible) I have been hoping for another version. Marx is my favorite unsung. Maybe someday the Nordland Rhapsody...

Just goes to show how different we all are.  I was praying for death during that ASO performance of the Autumn Symphony.  At the slower tempo and 73 minutes :o I'm not sure I would have made it...

Glad someone enjoyed it, though.

David

Glad I helped you, X. Trapnel ;D! I would have loved to have been at the Botstein performance, I'm sure I would have been overwhelmed by it. And yes, the Nordland Rhapsody is Marx's only unrecorded orchestral work- I'd love to hear it! And someone (Brilliant Classics?) seriously needs to reissue Sloanes three Marx CDs on ASV. You can't find a decently priced copy of any of these CDs anywhere >:(! Tangentically (sorry!), but has anyone heard the CD of Marx's huge, nearly hour-long violin sonata in a major? Is it the longest violin sonata ever written (well, there's a solo violin sonata by Allgen(?) that occupies 2CDs!)? Only Furtwangler's two sonatas come close to it ;D ;D!

Keeping to the topic in hand...

Sorry, Alan. I might open up another thread about Marx :).

Do check there's not already one running...

Kyjo, thanks for the info, and yes the Marx (MONUMENTAL, and therefore on topic) violin sonata is magnificent, inspired from first to last. I think the Pavane cd is still easily available. The same musicians recorded the second sonata, but alas it has never been released.

Quote from: X. Trapnel on Monday 06 August 2012, 19:56
...the Marx (MONUMENTAL, and therefore on topic) violin sonata...

It's OFF-TOPIC! It's not a symphony! If you want to discuss it - and you're welcome to, of course - then please start a new thread.

Sorry. Any opinions on the very monumental Shcherbachev Second Symphony? I've been having trouble with I-Tunes downloads, and so have not yet heard the Botstein performance without monumental gaps of silence. From what I've heard the style is very difficult to contextualize in terms of late romantic Russian symphonism.

I thought we had the Shcherbachev here, if I'm allowed to say that (will delete this if no). Still not sure what you mean, though. I did think that the work had an odd sort of double-exposition feel - four movements, then a ... well, maybe more a partial recapitulation with much different orchestration (including vocal orchestration) of the same and similar material) by way of a finale. Really good and strong stuff, though, and glad to be introduced to such things...

X. Trapnel, thanks for replying about the Marx violin sonata. I'll put that on my want list :). Re Shcherbachev, have you heard the Northern Flowers CD with his Symphony 5. It's non-vocal and less sprawling than the second. I'd really like to hear his other symphonies. I'll start a Marx thread so we can discuss there, X. Trapnel. That will keep Alan from pulling his hair out ;D ;D!

I was rather disappointed by the Shcherbachev 5th, and in general don't go for Soviet wartime stuff (I am only a Joseph Marxist). I was interested in the 2nd as a matter of course but also because it sets poems by the great Russian symbolist poet Aleksandr Blok (a great favorite of mine, analogous in significant ways to Yeats) and a large-scale musical expression of Blok's characteristic catastrophism (which would have been inadmissable during the Zhdanov/Khrennikov period) seemed to betoken a Russian equivalent of the Gothic Symphony (in which I am a true believer).

A Marx thread would be very welcome; I'm currently struggling to download the Swierczewski Autumn Symphony.

Sorry to hear that you didn't enjoy the Shcherbachev fifth, X. Trapnel. I wonder what's wrong with the Marx download, I wonder if you could ask about this in the Technical Problems board ???? I would love to help, but I'm no technology geek! Anyway, off to start that Marx thread...

Trapnel- but how about Karl Marx (the song composer) or Groucho Marx ... never mind.

QuoteKhachaturian - Symphony No. 2(I THINK)... It's supposed to be big and loud... calls for an additional 15 or so trumpets to the orchestra. I havent heard this. IS it any musical or just loud sounds?

Can a symphony stop being monumental simply by trying too hard to be monumental? Bartok seems to have thought so when he parodied the Shostakovich 7. Had the Prokofiev 5 or Khachaturian 2 been available to him, Bartok might have parodied them as well.

Several longish symphonies written during the period when Stalingrad was under siege are wide-screen, technicolor affairs, and among the composers who authored such symphonies none depended more on broad gesture than Khachaturian. He was something like the Henry Moore of Soviet art music.

For all that, when Khachaturian himself conducts his second symphony with the Vienna PO, the work expresses a clearly articulated and deeply felt inner world as well as an urgent, outward one (with marches and such), and I'm personally impressed and moved by the blend, though it isn't my usual cup of tea. When, on the other hand, Tjeknavorian speeds up the symphony and goes for a hell-bent adrenalin rush, most of Khachaturian's inner world goes down the drain, and the symphony sounds shallow to me. Haven't heard the Jarvi performance, but considering what a lost opportunity Jarvi's performance of Alfven's wartime symphony (5) is (Alfven's own recording is maybe a third longer than Jarvi's for a reason), I wouldn't be surprised if Jarvi in Khachaturian is similar to Tjeknavorian.

Subjective opinions, to be sure.

I have the Double Decca set with Khachaturian conducting his second symphony. Why this symphony isn't played as much as the Shostakovich symphonies, I have no clue >:(! It is a very moving piece, with a blazingly powerful first movement clearly reflecting the oppresion of the people under Communist rule. It has those snare drum-laden climaxes that can really knock you out of your seat! The second movement is a colorful scherzo in the best Russian tradition, looking back to Borodin and Rachmaninov in particular (moments of it remind me of the latter's scherzo from his second symphony). The third movement is a profound, elegaic Andante which, in its thick, intense, string sonorities, brings to mind the Largo from Shosty 5. In the final movement, though, the sun finally breaks through the clouds with a majestic horn theme. Some may criticize this symphony for sounding like good film music, but for me it is truly monumental, but in a much different way than his third ;D ;D! Thank you for mentioning it, chill319. A warning to anyone who has not heard this symphony: PREPARE TO GET BLOWN AWAY!!!!!

OK I admit I am biased, since I myself produced the first existing recording but nevertheless Draesekes symphonic poem "Frithiof" WoO7 (1865) has very much monumental in relation to:
- a for symphonic poems unusual Dimension (longer than Brahms Symphonies),
- Orchestration (Inspired by meetings of Draeseke with Wagner writing his Tristan), and
- counterpoint (nearly half of the last movement is an very dense long fugato).
Here you can listen Draesekes "Frithiof" (http://klassik.s-fahl.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=631%3Afelix-draeseke-frithjof-oo-7&catid=7%3Aorchestras&Itemid=4&lang=en)
best
fahl5

Thanks very much for the opportunity of hearing an otherwise totally unknown (to me) work of Draeseke's, and indeed all the other "resamplings" on your site, which I look forward to re-resampling! And welcome to UC, Steffen.

I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to hear Draeseke's early Frithjof - I had no idea that it was such a big piece! Wonderful!

A really nice realization.  Thanks so much.

Jerry

Wow, thanks very much, fahl5 ;D! I just hope I have the time to listen to it ;)! I was not aware of this monstrous piece. Another job for CPO!

Quote from: kyjo on Thursday 09 August 2012, 17:25
Another job for CPO!

They'd do a good job, but when would it come out?

Quite, Alan ;)! When are they ever going to release the massive backpile of recordings they have? And the thing that really irks me is that they release all these CDs that they didn't say they were going to record but CDs I and others have eagerly waited for quite a while (Kallstenius and JN David symphony CDs) show no signs of being released. But at least I know what happened with the Holbrooke CD (Howard Griffiths broke his conducting arm)! Speaking of CDs we have been waiting for quite a while, what's happened to those Eggert symphony CDs on Naxos :o?

Who knows? But getting back to the topic...

Bravo Steffen! Who knew? And it certainly puts his piano sonata in a different perspective.