As I consider further the issue of the so-called 'Dahlhaus gap' - the 25-year period between Schumann 4 (revised version 1851) and Brahms 1 (1876) during which (according to German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus) no symphony of lasting significance was written - I have been listening again to Max Bruch's Symphony No.2, published in 1870. Jerry Dubins, writing in Fanfare magazine (September 2010), makes an interesting argument:
...Formally, the Second Symphony is even more unusual for its time. In only three movements (fast-slow-fast) instead of four, it more closely resembles a concerto than it does a symphony. Yet its three movements combined exceed the First Symphony's four by six minutes. Content-wise, the minor key makes for a darker-hued, more somber-sounding work. But there's more to it than that. Mendelssohn and Schumann seem to have faded into the background. The thematic material is not as immediately melodic in a hummable way. Lines are more chromatic, statements more stentorian, almost hectoring at times, and the orchestral fabric granitic. It's hard to say if at this early date Bruch might have heard something by Bruckner or, if he had, what it might have been, for as of 1870, when Bruch's Second Symphony was completed, Bruckner had only gotten as far as an early student symphony (1863), the Symphony No. 1 in C Minor (1866), and the Symphony No. 0 in D Minor (1869). But Bruch's work does sound closer to early Bruckner than it does to Mendelssohn, Schumann, or to anyone in the Brahms orbit...
Does anyone have any thoughts on this marvellous symphony?
Took a quick look in the Google Preview of Mr. Fifield's book for any clues; he's not at all impressed with the work, parts of one of the 3 movements aside, it seems, and provides general details mostly- completed in Summer 1870, premiered 4 September 1870, etc. (2005 revision, "Max Bruch: His Life and Works", pp.110-11.) Ah well...
It's interesting, though, to consider the progress of symphonic writing in this period. I think Bruch 2 does represent an advance over Schumann, for example. Also of interest is the fact that the finale contains the sort of reminiscence of the great tune in the last movement of Beethoven 9 that one thought was Brahms' invention in his own 1st Symphony. Seems that Bruch got there first!
I must say that I find Bruch's Second has a nobility about it which is, I think, unique for its era. It's partly the sombre colouring which Dubins mentions, but also the melodic contours, the clear seriousness of purpose of the piece, and its monumentality (it is only three movements after all). It is in no way a happy work, but it isn't a visceral cry of pain either. To me the mood is of quiet suffering, patiently borne and with the hope of deliverance at the end. I find it a very moving listen.
Apologies for that gush of emotion, but that's the way I respond to the piece which IMHO is Bruch's finest creation and unaccountably discounted.
I find it an affecting piece too - as you say, noble and sombre. I think it is greatly underrated.
Thirded on the 2nd!
Bruch wears well. The second symphony is by no means the work of an epigone. Perhaps what binds it to the past instead of the future is its length.
Re the dates of the Dahlhaus gap: Thanks to our good friends at IMSLP, the manuscript of Schumann's final revision of symphony 4 is widely available for study. It is from 1853 (substantially the same as the 1851 score, but with some interesting revisions).
a discussion on the Schumann Symphony 4 discussion page suggests that 1853 is just a date on the title page of the manuscript, and that Schumann symphony 4 was not changed in any real way after 1851. However, I may be mistaken. The almost-never-seen thing claiming to be an "1853" manuscript from SBB is @ IMSLP to be looked at, anycase; it may or may not differ from the 1851 score- I haven't really checked, alas, and should for myself!
The changes between the 1841 and 1851 versions, mind, are fascinating, but that's not news to us, I expect. Both score and parts of both versions are now available @IMSLP. Still, that's not "unsung" business except to the extent that the 1841 version is still something of a relative stranger to - well, most places (I prefer it by a lot and think Schumann's 2nd thoughts weren't better thoughts, here.)
...and 25 years was such a convenient time-span.
Re-listened to Conlon's superlative recording of Bruch 2 (EMI) today. It's a very fine work - far finer than the 'well, it's not Brahms' critics maintain. I think Mark characterises it very well; it's extremely beautiful to listen to and the restrained sadness evident in the slow movement is most moving. Love the way that movement morphs into the great tune of the finale, by the way. Bruch may not have been Brahms; but Brahms wasn't Bruch either...
it was wonderful to read Mark Thomas' assessment fo the Bruch 2nd! What a strange feeling , when somebody expresses exactly what you feel about something..but elaborated with a clarity you never reached.
This dark, stormy, noble symphony is in the Olympus of my favorite not-so-minor masterpieces...and poor Bruch spent his last years knowing that he was going to be remembered just for ONE piece (not at all the best IMHO)
BTW I wholeheartedly suggest reading Christopher Fifield's Bruch biography, wonderful book.
I'm humbled, hyperdanny. Thanks very much. Bruch's Second remains one of the true unsung masterpieces in my book.
I'm pretty enamoured of Bruch's 3rd too. He was, after all, a very fine composer. His music has such nobility, I find, and such a wonderful richness of sonority that Elgar often seems just a step or two away, or indeed, Parry.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Saturday 13 September 2014, 17:17
Apologies for that gush of emotion, but that's the way I respond to the piece which IMHO is Bruch's finest creation and unaccountably discounted.
I think Bruch's Second is one of the handful of pieces that moves me irrespective of my mood of the moment or the circumstances. It's one of those pieces where you feel every note
needs to be there.
p.s. favorite recording: Leipzig / Masur. Not my favorite conductor by any means, but this one he just nails.
Right, Iljia, I am of the very same opinion. Both sets with Bruch's Violin Concertos and Symphonies under Masur are really (and exceptionally) beautiful.
Do you know Conlon's set of the symphonies, Adriano?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 23 October 2018, 08:11
Do you know Conlon's set of the symphonies, Adriano?
That set also includes his Adagio Appassionato (Op.57) with Salvatore Accardo on the violin (yes I know I also just mentioned this in the Elgar thread running at the moment ;D) - but it's such a beautiful and under-rated work that it deserves promotion wherever the opportunity arises!
No, Alan, I don't. But one day I may be interested. You are not the only one recommending me this - and I like Conlon very much. Thanks for reminding me!
Conlon's set is available extremely cheaply from Amazon.de:
https://www.amazon.de/Bruch-Symphonies-Concerto-2-pianos/dp/B001TYDTNG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1540313732&sr=8-2&keywords=bruch+conlon (https://www.amazon.de/Bruch-Symphonies-Concerto-2-pianos/dp/B001TYDTNG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1540313732&sr=8-2&keywords=bruch+conlon)
Happy listening - if you feel tempted!
I've just ordered this EMI set :-)
And I am happy to have also the Concerto for two Pianos again, as re-issued from an LP which was given to me by Dorati at the occasion of the opening of a (short-lived) new Zurich record shop. It was issued as a special pressing for that occasion, but I don't remember with what piece it was coupled...
Two sets of solo piano pieces by Bruch IIRC.
I'll be fascinated to hear what you think of Conlon; he's a greatly underrated conductor.
But he made a splendid Zemlinski series - and an excellent Schreker CD on EMI. I have all this. He also recorded Herrmann's complete "Vertigo", on a strange CD without tracks, included to a totally unneccsary book. It was used for a Video in which you only see (during the whole score) Conlon's conducting hands!
In my experience of modest listener, Bruch Second Symphony is example of how much a work can sound different in a decent rather than in an outstanding performance.
In the Lp period first I heard (several times) the Symphony from a Rca (formerly Louisville) record performed by the Louisville Orchestra conducted by Jorge Mester: the piece sounded good. BUT it sounded magnificent when I heard the Masur - Gewandhaus performance.In the Cd era I bought the Conlon (and again the Masur).
(BTW I am glad that Conlon is for the third year principal conductor of the Italian Radio Orchestra in Torino, my city. This year he will conduct also Martucci Second Piano concerto, two Pieces by Sinigaglia (Hora Mystica for strings, Romanza for horn and orch.), and Zemlinsky Die Seejungfrau).
Benissimo, Alberto, buone notizie :P
As a Milan music lover, I totally second Alberto: the RAI orchestra is really very fine ( I fondly remember, a few years ago, a devastating Shostakovich 4 here in Milan under Vladimir Jurowski) and I believe they stroke gold with Conlon, an American maestro so wonderfully attuned to European culture.
That said, my favorite Bruch 2nd remains an echt-Deutsch one, Gernot Schmalfuss on MDG, so imposing!, and boosted by signature MDG sound (where EMI's for Conlon is IMHO mediocre and fuzzy)
I agree: Schmalfuss' Bruch 2 is a seriously imposing performance in absolutely resplendent sound. What a symphony!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruch-Symphony-No-2-Violin-Concerto/dp/B00000IM7W (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bruch-Symphony-No-2-Violin-Concerto/dp/B00000IM7W)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51108GFfhIL.jpg)
Actually, this discussion reminded me that I haven't listened to the gorgeous piece in some time.
Tonight after work I have time for a 1-hour listening session......it's a no brainer, then.
Agree on Conlon. Years ago he was chief of the Rotterdam PO over here. Especially his Liszt symphonic undertakings (Faust, Dante etc.) were exemplary. Sadly the only Bruch he did all those years was.......... the first Violin concerto.
Has anyone tried the 3-CD set of symphonies on EBS, with the Neue Philharmonie Westfalen (Recklinghausen) conducted by Johannes Wildner (rec. between September 2004 and May 2005)?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51UKoP5czIL.jpg)
My copy arrived this afternoon and I can confirm that it's a real contender. The orchestra play with wonderful depth of sonority - you can really sense the bass line - and they are beautifully recorded. I ceased to be amazed long ago at the standard of these regional German orchestras - they are often superb.
(http://www.johanneswildner.com/cms/images/Johannes-Wildner_bio.jpg)
Johannes Wildner
Oh dear, I never knew about this recording, Alan! Wildner, in any case, is a thoughful, intelligent and honest conductor! I think, having already Masur and Conlon (on the way), that will do for my collection.
It's so good to hear these fine German orchestras in Bruch. Trouble is, I love the symphonies so much...
just like Alan, I really love these symphonies, so I have too the EBS set conducted by Wildner ...it's really really good, performance and recording wise, problem is there's always somebody a little better that snags my top recommendation: Marriner and the ASMF in augmented garb are flawless in the 1st on Hanssler, Schmalfuss is just that tad more imposing and cohesive in the 2nd (the other day, in my listening session I actually listened to Wildner and Schmalfuss in succession, I confirm) and Richard Hickox whips the LSO into a frenzy in the 3rd , and his 1st is also exceptional.
BTW the EBS set is often found at ridicolous prices on the market...when it came out I ordered it directly from the orchestra using their website for a totally normal price.
I hope the moderation will forgive this partial deviation from Bruch ..but since I mentioned him: next month is going to be 10 years since Richard Hickox was taken away from us so abruptly and prematurely. What a loss, not only for the unsung repertoire.
I had the pleasure to see him live only twice, once here in Milan with the Giuseppe Verdi Orchestra for a good Dvorak 7 , and above all once at the RFH with the Philharmonia for a life-changing all-Vaughan Williams evening.
Many of his interpretations on cd keeep their place in my collection, not displaced by something newer or better.
And, to the point of the thread, what a shame that he could not complete his Bruch cycle with the 2nd..can you imagine, the LSO in the 2nd?
Gracious me, ten years! A sad loss indeed. Bruch's beautiful, imposing and mysteriously neglected 2nd would have been spectacular in his hands. I began loving this work after a BBC Radio 3 broadcast of about 45 years ago, and then acquiring the RCA Louisville LP. This thread has reminded me how long it is since I last listened to it... I will turn to Mr. Conlon!
Quote from: hyperdanny on Sunday 28 October 2018, 09:38
Many of his interpretations on cd keeep their place in my collection, not displaced by something newer or better.
And, to the point of the thread, what a shame that he could not complete his Bruch cycle with the 2nd..can you imagine, the LSO in the 2nd?
No more than I could imagine Langgaard's 2nd with the Wiener Philharmoniker. Still, that happened, so let's hope that in the future, some other enterprising spirit at the LSO will be able to complete the cycle. I really like Hickox' version of Bruch's First, though.
@ Alan
Thanks, Alan, for recommending the Bruch/Conlon set. Just listened to Symphony No. 2 and I am enthusiastic! The first movement is so dramatic and gripping!
Oh, good! I found Conlon rather more gripping than Masur, but it's ages since I listened to the latter, so my memory may be deceiving me.