First reaction - a great, big (78-minute), often glorious - mess. Bax isn't the tightest of symphonists in the first place - and this monster is miles too long. But some of the music is just gorgeous, as one might expect, especially the slow movement. Further reactions when I've listened to it properly. A labour of love for Martin Yates, no doubt.
I look forward to your second reactions. Mine will have to wait until after Father Christmas has visited.
The problem as I listen is that I just don't know where I am in the piece. The musical landscape's gorgeous, but the road winds all over the place. If you're just along for the ride, fair enough; but if you need some idea of where you're going, oh dear. Of course, it's hard to discern the overall structure this early in one's experience of the work, but it's going to take a lot of work to do so, I feel.
Nevertheless, what a cornucopia of ideas there is in this piece. Can't help feeling that Bowen was ahead of him in the symphony stakes, though...
Nope, sorry. This is just too loooooooooooooong. Great moments and some purple passages, but too much doodling in between. A curiosity only.
We'll, I'd always favour concision over "heavenly length", so I suspect that Bax's Nullte, despite its purple passages, will be filed in my catalogue under "interesting" rather than "favourite". Heigh ho. Still, best to wait and see I suppose.
Trouble is, the length is far from heavenly. Frankly, I don't think Martin Yates' efforts have really been worth it. But others may disagree...
I think I'll trust the moderator on this one and just pass.
Tom
I posted my letter to Santa today, so I think I will have to buy this myself.
Normally, Bax is a must for me, but it would have to be a masterpiece to hold my attention for 78 minutes and i guess listening to it in shifts would be even worse.
Thal
Bax is generally a must for me too. And don't let me put anyone off buying this new CD - after all, I bought it, and it's worth the money just to hear this early symphony.
Looking at the Bowen/Bax comparison, I'd agree that Bowen was probably ahead of Bax at this time, in terms of being able to write a concise, working structure, but Bax probably already had more interesting musical ideas, which meant he was later able to grow into undoubtedly a greater figure. Bowen no longer holds a lot of interest for me: I just don't find a lot of depth there, whereas Bax has depths beneath depths. I'm still finding new things in his music after 25 years of listening to it.
I've listened to it three times now and although it is without doubt long I totally disagree with Alan. I think Bax must have been paying attention to Mahler, especially Symphony 6 and although he isn't experienced enough to entirely pull it off, there are an amazing number of ideas. Terribly easy to dismiss a work and much harder to start with the blank page like Bax did. Ultimately it is of course a pity that Bax didn't orchestrate the piece because he may have cut it and tightened it up, however I think Martin Yates has done an amazing job! the slow movement alone is worth the price of the CD. We should be mindful that although we have every right to comment and air our views it is Dutton who put their money whee their mouth is, Yates who must have worked his heart out and the RSNO who play like an orchestra possessed. I am hugely grateful to finally hear this piece and I think in times ahead many more people will agree with me. As for the Bowen comparison, sorry but Bowen is not in Bax's league in my opinion. Very nice music but nothing daring or bold or as accomplished as anything Bax wrote.
Three comments:
1. Just because a lot of effort has been put into reconstructing and recording a piece of music it doesn't mean one should turn off one's critical faculties. I am grateful to Martin Yates and Dutton for what they have done, but this is no Elgar 3!
2. I can't hear any Mahler in Bax's symphony at all - even though we know Bax heard some of Mahler 6 while in Germany.
3. As far as the Bax-Bowen comparison is concerned, I was arguing (obviously very incoherently) that Bowen was ahead of Bax in the early years of the 20th century. Bowen's 2nd symphony is a far more mature and shapely work than this early ramble of a piece by Bax - glad though I am to have heard it. Of course, Bax went on to much greater things, symphonically speaking - but not until the 1920s.
Completed around 1907, Mahler 6 premiere May 27 1906- (in a festival with works by Bischoff (premiere of his 1st symphony), others...) - interesting that Bax was there. I -really- need to read his autobiography (assuming it is as good as I gather it is. Maybe even if it isn't, given that his experience was wide and varied. Certainly traveled to a number of different countries, met quite a few composers (Debussy briefly, of course, e.g.), ...)
Hopefully one of the local libraries will get a copy of this CD, anyhow; not yet convinced to buy it but now interested to hear it at least once or twice. Thanks for the descriptions. (Cornell doesn't have more than one CD conducted by Yates (yet), and it's not this or "Moeran 2", alas... (I try to keep a list for my occasional visits there, after all.)) (... that said, they do have copies of both the 1943 and 1992 .. .editions? ... of Farewell My Youth. Hrm! *perks*)
I have now spent some time listening over and over to the Symphony and although I do agree that it is long and not as well worked out as it could have been, had Bax spent some time on it in later life, it still contains many of his musical finger prints and has some really beautiful music in it.
In an earlier post I was not trying to say that one should turn off one's critical faculties, but I do think if we are all hoping that independent record companies such as Dutton are to keep going and delivering to us music that we want to hear, we should be more careful about the manner in which we write our comments. If our "reviews" effect the sales of a particular recording in a negative way that is clearly not right. It doesn't feel right to me anyway.
I don't think one should hesitate to criticise a particular piece even if that might affect future recording plans. Once reviewers, whether professional or amateur, start to mitigate their views for fear of offending recording labels it will be impossible to trust what they say. Labels must be prepared to take flak as well as plaudits. So, I repeat: I'm grateful to Dutton/Martin Yates for their boldness in recording this reconstructed Bax Symphony, but I'm not convinced that it's anything more than an interesting curiosity.
Well, I just hope that both Dutton and Yates take your criticism for what it is then.
They have no option. It's out there! In any case, I don't suppose they'll take any notice of what a rank amateur says. As far as they're concerned I'm a nobody...
This review on Amazon.co.uk sums up what I think about the piece:
<<By Tintagel
The playing and conducting warrant credit, and the sound is fine (a little dry, but nothing seriously wrong with it). But I just lost it there......the sentimentalists (and tho see desperate to spread the Bax word - understandably) will doubtless mark this review as 'unhelpful', but I really don't care.
I am a Bax lover for sure. Really I am. With several Bax recordings in my collection - basically every Orchestral recording that I have been able to find, including a number of versions of each symphony - I have spent a fair amount of time listening to the man's music.
Only a small selection of pieces have disappointed in any way - the tone poem Christmas Eve and the Cello Concerto don't do it for me, for example - but almost everything else leaves me enraptured every time.
This new recording obviously generated some excitement, but I can't honestly say that I enjoyed it greatly. In fact, by the end, I was pretty bored by all three attempts to listen through. The first movement is fairly attractive, reminding me a little of Atterberg's First, but my hopes faded from then on. Both the second and third movements have some interesting episodes - the third is even quite quirky in places - but ultimately fall into distinct elements. This just leaves an impression of music that lacks direction. The finale didn't even seem to have particularly attractive episodes, so there was little hope of it providing any kind of worthy conclusion.
Throughout there are hollow gestures galore, all orchestrated with admirable transparency by Martin Yates. After a while I founds myself wondering at how such confident playing could deliver so much....well....nothing.
When I first started to play the disc I didn't look at the back of the box, so I didn't know how long it would be. Around 10 minutes in I started to look forward to the possibility of a Tone Poem or other work to act as a fill up. When it became clear that this windbag of a Symphony was 70+ minutes I wondered if I would ever listen again.
I have tried 3 times now. This is. Surely one of the biggest musical disappointments that I have had in years.>>
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arnold-Symphony-realised-Martin-Yates/dp/B00GY40CXG/ref=pd_sim_m_h__8 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arnold-Symphony-realised-Martin-Yates/dp/B00GY40CXG/ref=pd_sim_m_h__8)
Frankly, it does the cause of unsung music - especially really fine unsung music - no good at all if we pull our critical punches over music of lesser quality.
QuoteIf our "reviews" effect the sales of a particular recording in a negative way that is clearly not right.
Sorry, it's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of objectivity. There is absolutely no value in any of us here who air our opinions on unsung pieces, doing so other than honestly. As Alan rightly says, if we refrain from criticising a piece of music like this Bax symphony because we don't want to dent someone's enthusiasm or affect some company's receipts, what trust can be put in any critique, positive or negative? In any event, I doubt whether Dutton's takings will suffer one whit from what is written at UC. There are a legion of Bax lovers who will pounce on this recording and then I suspect be secretly (but only secretly, mind) disappointed by what they hear. From which you will gather that I side with Alan and the Amazon reviewer Tintagel on this one. I won't repeat what they say, but I did find myself understanding why Bax never revisited this score on which he expended so much time and effort.
Doesn't a work like this cause wonderment and joy when it concretely shows how far its composer grew? From ambitious yet humble beginnings sprang a composer of great originality and power with an instantly recognizable style. That's the wonder created by his early Symphony in F.
Dohnanyi wrote and early symphony (I believe also in F), and it cannot bear comparison to his first numbered symphony, much less to the masterpiece that is his Symphony No.2. We are still glad to have heard his early effort.
I found the work fascinating. To begin, the finale is way too verbose by about 20 minutes. Too many weak themes, built into a fury and going nowhere. I sense young Bax had grown tired of the work by this point.
That said, I find the first two movements quite memorable and Baxian, especially the 2nd. The scherzo is passable...but still too long.
My solution, try listening to ONLY the first three movements and experience a quite marvelous very early Bax three movement symphony (as are all the others). The scherzo comes off better as a finale.
I have enjoyed it immensely that way. I thus avoid the colossal disappointment with the original finale.
Yates' orchestration is a marvel and sounds just as if done by Bax.
I do agree that Martin Yates deserves every plaudit possible for the authenticity of his orchestration, which is utterly convincing.
Surely one point about this is that we can hear this symphony for ourselves and judge it as part of Bax's output. I don't know the history of this work but I assume Bax was not happy with it. It is still good to have it and like the curates egg, enjoy some parts. There are lots of works by well known composers, who others have completed with varying success. I'm pleased to have heard them and can often see why they were not completed.
As one of those sad creatures, a completist, I agree with you, Giles, despite the inadequacies of the work.
I must agree with Giles' point: any work cannot be properly assessed until it is heard, and several times, which means a recording (or a broadcast or concert that someone records). Personally I am enjoying the Bax: it lasts about the time of my usual commute, which may help
Nobody is suggesting that the recording shouldn't have been made or that it isn't enlightening with regard to the later Bax: plainly it is. However, that doesn't automatically mean that the music is of great intrinsic worth, because it equally plainly isn't. I wouldn't compare it, for example, to the Elgar/Payne Symphony 3. Nevertheless, I'm thoroughly grateful to Martin Yates and Dutton for the opportunity to hear the completed version of this early Bax piece.
I agree with Tapiola. It is worth hearing and each movement, with the possible exception of the finale contains material that allows us to see what sort of composer Bax was at that time in his life. It shows us how he developed, but more importantly from where he developed. It has taken me some while to "get into" the last movement but I have found after repeated hearings that I begin to enjoy it more and more for what it is. He doesn't bring it off as it feels like he really intended to do with a big triumphant return of the opening of the first movement, but as a long section it does contain some gorgeous moments and some typical Baxian harmonies. It certainly isn't an Elgar Three, but then it couldn't possible be. Elgar's 3rd, although it contains some music from early in his life, was sketched by a man at the end of his life who knew how his music and more specifically his symphonies worked. This Bax Symphony is the work of a very young man, trying out his wings. Had he got around in later life to re-working it we would not have this window into his youthful efforts. And as a final thought, there are composers at the end of their lives that would have not been able to bring a work of this size into being, let alone a young composer, so it as some achievement at the very least at that level. In my opinion of course...
I'd just say this:
1. Bax didn't actually bring the work fully into being at all - it had to be prepared by Martin Yates.
2. The mere size of a piece is no guide to its quality. In fact, Bax's mature symphonies turned out to be no more than half as long as this monster.
3. Bax wasn't really a disciplined symphonic thinker; his symphonies are often episodic, but gloriously so, of course. In his case, this militated against the creation of a coherent symphony nearly 80 minutes in length. I believe that Bax quickly realised this.
in my opinion his string quartets and violin sonatas (the 2 of the 4 of the latter that I know...) are better (as well as briefer) works than his symphonies, though not by a huge leap...
I'm sorry Alan, but I am not saying the size of the piece is a measure of it's quality. I am saying that it deserves a fair hearing and to keep comparing it to not being Elgar Three and it not being as good as a symphony or two by York Bowen is not objective enough. Well, not for me anyway. I know that it took Martin Yates to bring the piece to any kind of fruition, however, the material and the structure is Bax's own work, so we are told and that is what I am trying to put across. When put in the perspective of his age and lack of experience, it is quite something.....and I am NOT saying because it is long it must be good. I suppose I simply do not accept or agree with what appears to me to be your calm and somewhat implicit authoritative dismissal of the piece.
It's my opinion - and apparently not only mine. I just don't rate the piece - sorry. You're entitled to your view. I just don't happen to agree with it. Unsurprisingly, I find the 'pro' arguments unconvincing and bordering on special pleading for this ramshackle, but fascinating piece.
I'm inclined to call a halt to this debate, which is beginning to become just a restatement of established and irreconcilable positions. Perhaps we can call a truce and move on to something else?
Hopefully, this comment won't be seen as a continuation on how good this work might be, mainly since I've never heard it!
But I did want to talk about something related. It seems that almost everyone who has listened to this completed symphony seem to find at least some passages to be worthwhile. Which is something I've often wondered about. I know of a few works where there is a passage or two that I consider incredible, surrounded by content I dislike (or, in some cases, loathe), but sometimes I'll bring out one of those pieces and skip around to just what I want to hear. Not something I normally do, but there are some cases, and indeed some composers in general (ie. Sibelius) that get such treatment from me. For example, I hate 98% of Sibelius' 7th Symphony, but in particular the very ending is one of the most incredible orchestral "scenes" I've ever run across... strange as it may sound, I've only listened to this entire work throughout one time, but of the last minute or so I've heard at least 5 different versions, some of them multiple times!!
Sorry if this shows me out as extremely bizarre; actually, it probably reveals me as the equivalent of a perpetual fastfood lover talking of my preferred eating habits while sitting among frequenters of Michelin Guide 3-star restaurants. I just regret that with music, there's not really a reasonable way to separate what might make for a few fine, smaller à la carte items out from only being obtainable by eating a large, dissatisfying meal. (Again, I mean in general, not about this Bax symphony in particular, I'm not saying it's dissatisfying!)
Even though I like, enjoy, even perhaps love, Sibelius 7 a good deal more than you do, I also(?) find the last page-or-so transcendent- breathtaking... (though I think that there's even more to it in its place than in isolation, as with similar passages by a Danish composer who died about 15 years ago) - and mutatis mutandis for many another work, whether the last page, or some other passage, or some other quality, or some other... this-that. Not a bizarre thing.
Thanks, Mark, for jolting us into moving on. Apologies for the rather bald statement of my views - but I have appreciated the debate. And renewed thanks to Martin Yates and Dutton for getting us thinking about the early work of this wonderful composer.
Yes, a monumental task and we owe him many thanks.
However, I have never been particularly fond of Bax's music and this piece does nothing to improve my opinion. Yes, there really are some lovely little moments from time to time but each time it seems to dissolve into bombast and loudness. Honestly, i'm not sure i could sit through a concert performance.
perhaps not appropo, but made me think of trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand your language. And so one repeats oneself louder and louder somehow hoping that the other person will suddenly understand....
Ah well, sorry Baxians.....
Jerry
Let me try and explain why I think it worthwhile for Martin Yates to have 'realised' this work. It is not just the final quality but seeing where the composer was at at the time of the abandoned work. Sometimes bits get recycled and I enjoy spotting that. I'm pleased that the Elgar 3rd was completed, the success of which as Alan states is partly due to Elgar. I am also pleased that all of the following works have been completed by others; Bruckner's 9th, Tchaikovsky's 3rd Piano concerto, Schubert's 7th, 8th and 10th Symphonies, Moscheles 8th piano concerto, Beethoven's early piano concerto. not to mention the completions of Mozart works. The list is endless but I would always wonder about what could have been with out these completions and as one of those unfortunates who cannot judge the quality of what might have been by looking at fragments of a score, I am grateful for any completion, though the damage done to a composers reputation can also happen. I have in mind the so called Elgar piano concerto and the awful realisation of Stavenhagen's piano concerto of 1912.
I'd like to second pretty much everything in Giles' post!
QuoteI have in mind the so called Elgar piano concerto and the awful realisation of Stavenhagen's piano concerto of 1912.
Hear, hear! The realisation of the 2nd Stavenhagen PC must be one of the most gruesome things ever committed to disk: completely unsympathetic and wholly hideous. Whatever people think of the substance of Bax's early symphony, Martin Yates has done a first class job - indeed, a model of its kind.
Well said Giles, I think you have put it perfectly, much more articulate than I was trying to do!
I still take issue with Alan as you say the music isn't of intrinsic worth - "it plainly isn't".....for you that may be the case but for others it is not, and just by writing it doesn't give your opinion any more credibility than mine or anyone else's.
You misquote me. Re-read what I actually said, please (see below). And then let's move on, as Mark suggested.
<<Nobody is suggesting that the recording shouldn't have been made or that it isn't enlightening with regard to the later Bax: plainly it is. However, that doesn't automatically mean that the music is of great intrinsic worth, because it equally plainly isn't.>>(emphasis added)
I think we broadly agree that it was worth making the recording to discover something about Bax' early career (not least the fact that he toyed with symphonic composition: I was previously under the impression that he was against the idea until he wrote a piano sonata that happened to turn out to be a symphony), but that the work is not an overwhelming masterpiece, as one would expect from a man in his early 20s attempting something this ambitious. Whether we each enjoy it is a different question. I certainly do.
Well, didn't he also call "Spring Fire" (1913) a symphony?
I have never held a torch for Bax, however he was starting his career at a time when what was considered a symphony had become far less prescriptive and during a period when what was considered acceptable by the 'establishment' was also being challenged. If the old guard in music had had it's way we may never have had ' Tone Poems' but perhaps like the curates egg they could have stifled the second Viennese school before it got going.
Quote from: giles.enders on Saturday 11 January 2014, 10:39
... but perhaps like the curates egg they could have stifled the second Viennese school before it got going.
I'm not with you, Giles...
The latest issue of International Record Review features a very extensive review by the inestimable Calum Macdonald of this recording. His appreciation of Martin Yates' orchestration mirrors what we have written here. Indeed he suggests that it is probably a better job than Bax himself could have done at the age he was writing the Symphony. Although I don't want to reopen here the debate on the quality of the Symphony itself, it is worth recording that Macdonald's view is that the inner movements are the best of the piece, but that overall: "Unalloyed masterpiece, or indeed a masterpiece of any kind, this is not".
these constant skids and swipes and snipes at the 2nd Viennese School, made confidently in the expectation that everyone here will nod and agree with those who make them, get wearing, by the way...
My rather simple view is that I respect the skill in making a recording possible, but I don't care for the music.
I expect to see the padlock sign on this thread in the not too distant future.
Thal
This may be inappropriate, and if so, I apologise. But I almost beg the moderators to not lock this thread. I've never heard the piece, as I said before. And I grapple with a lot of music after 1830 or so, which makes me one of the least likely of people to fight for the survival of this discussion. But I speak merely as someone who thinks that the modern world's greatest advantage in all forms of art is that we can have close to everything. Some further people who happen upon this board may end up loving this work (for that matter, even I might!). But partly, that is immaterial. I really don't see hostility in this discussion, even in the debating portions about Bax's early symphony. Is disagreement, even in drastic pendulum swings, in and of itself worth halting and locking? I'm actually interested - in a very positive way - to read both the pros and cons on this work.
As one of those so-called completionists, I'm all for recording everything that Human beings can lay hands on; after all, what's the harm? Especially with modern digital storage, it just seems like a win-win, since at the very worst it does no damage to anyone. But I'm also interested in "patchy" works, those that have passages I find redeemable, as mentioned above. And what's more... I might end up loving this piece when I hear it! And in the end, all of these outcomes are fine, and there are probably others reading this who are in the same boat. And more discussion is perfectly fine to many of us in this boat.
I just hope that the widely differing opinions don't suggest for the moderators a necessity of locking this thread. I've never heard anything of Bax that I liked before, but I'm honestly fascinated by this project, and was a bit intrigued by the tiny sample snippets that have been made available. And one of the people* with whom I've enjoyed discussing music the most in person is someone that shared with me practically nothing in common as far as musical tastes. And not one bit of these discussions was acrimonious or unpleasant, but on the contrary, quite enlightening, enjoyable, and door-opening for both of us. Sorry about the long plea, and it may not matter at all if minds have been made up, but though there are no true votes here, I still vote to not lock this!
*This man sadly passed away in 2011, name of Seth Williamson. He was a local radio host and a very generous, knowledgeable, and kind person. The only flaw I ever found in him was that (in general) the only pre-20th music he liked was by J.S. Bach! He didn't even care much for W.A. Mozart... blasphemy! But the radio station for which he worked might interest many who read this board: wvtf.org is the website. It's well worth checking out! Tons of unsung music is played there, and I do mean tons. I'd explain more about how that station flat-out changed my life when I was younger, but that'd be a long and very boring story. Suffice it to say that both Raff and Bax get way, way more than the norm there in terms of playtime!
The thread won't be locked as long as debate remains civil and doesn't just repeat arguments already made and exhausted.
I can't believe there is even a suggestion of locking this thread.
I saw the IRR review and I think it is a very balance critique of the Symphony as a whole. I can see that there is an issue with the final movement, it's length and in the reviewers view, it's content, but I really admire the way he objectively dealt with the problems as he sees them without dismissing the work in its entirety. I think there can be an issue about completions, in so much as if there really are in existence just a bunch of themes and not much else whatever the resulting piece it can only ever be another composer's usage of the original composers themes. Of course the Bax doesn't come into that category, but if one looks at the more successful completions then of course the Elgar 3, Moeran 2 and even the Arnell 7 would fit into the category of all having had something more substantial left behind than just a set of themes. In the cases of these works I do think that they were well worth rescuing so that we could hear the ideas that the composers had.
I don't know how true it is, but I heard that in the case of the Moeran there was no sketch for a finale at all and just a couple of themes that Martin Yates then composed using his knowledge of Moeran's music into the last movement. If that is true then I suppose my earlier remark is redundant, as it is a very successful part of the Symphony! What do I know then? Perhaps the Symphony should have ended with the slow movement in that case, but then re-listening to it it feels right having the last movement.....is it really not Moeran sketches?