To be broadcast the coming Wednesday evening, between 8 and 10 pm.
http://www.br.de/radio/br-klassik/programmkalender/ausstrahlung-334570.html (http://www.br.de/radio/br-klassik/programmkalender/ausstrahlung-334570.html)
Perhaps another Hausegger CD in the making?
I do hope that it has more in common with Wieland der Schmied and Barbarossa than it has with the Natursinfonie. Unfortunately, as it was written only a year before that behemoth, I suspect that it won't.
Anyone here, tired of the permanent Natursymphonie-bashing?
No bashing here, just realistic evaluation. Mind you, I take my hat off to cpo for recording the piece.
Sorry Rainulf, but I certainly wouldn't complain if you sang its praises.
Dear Mark, dear Alan!
Yes, in this case our opinions differ very strong, and you both have made clear, here and in other threads, that the Natursymphonie never may be one of your favourite pieces. Naturally we all react to Music in our own ways and differences in taste vivify the Musical life. So it's not my aim to convince you of this Piece I like very much and you don't.
But what is "realistic evaluation", Alan? In another discussion here, you wrote, that the Natursymphonie isn't "memorable". I must confess, that, thinking of the work now while writing this the many main motives of the three movements are sounding through my head: The horn call of the opening, the Scherzo and Trio themes of the first, the funeral march of the second, the entry of the Chorus and the contrapuntal pianissimo section of the final part, and some more. Belief it or not, this is all pretty memorable Music for me!
We agree about Wieland der Schmied, but please, tell me what are the Advantages of the Finale of Barbarossa?
May I just add that I personally enjoy the Natursymphonie, though I can readily understand that it would not be everyone's cup of tea.
It's not that I don't like it - it's that I don't rate it. I'll give it another listen, though.
Rainolf, I'm really not going to get into an argument about this, because it all comes down to a question of taste. For me, in comparison with Wieland and Barbarossa, the Natursinfonie's material is unmemorable, and von Hausegger's self-indulgent treatment of it further weakens the work's impact. But, like Gareth, I can quite see why you would think otherwise and I respect your opinion. I just don't share it.
Well, I'm listening to the Natursymphonie as I type and I'm afraid my opinion hasn't changed at all. So much huffing and puffing to no great purpose - gorgeously orchestrated, of course, but I just don't find much to hold my interest, apart from all the orchestral effects. Compare, for example, Strauss' Alpine Symphony and you find not only masterly orchestral writing and magnificent effects, but one memorable passage after another. In comparison Hausegger simply meanders from one climax to another. Several unsung composers do this sort of thing so much better too - Zemlinsky, Marx, Alfven - even Reger (4 Böcklin Tone Poems) - among them. So my hope is that Hausegger is more interesting in his less ambitious pieces.
Yes, Joseph Marx is the master at rambling around among climaxes - but he's still high on my list of desert island composers.... :) :)
I, too, like the Hausegger symphony. But then, I was a fan of the Three Little Pigs in another era and that's full of huffing and puffing as well..... 8)
J
Oh, but Marx's material is so much more attractive. Hausegger's just isn't. He just heaves - unmemorably. Might be fun to play - but it's utterly exhausting to listen to. Marx's Herbstsymphonie, on the other hand, has so much more sense of purpose - and exhilaration.
I agree with Alan. Marx is way more attractive.
Well, it's all a matter of taste in the end. After all, some people like Webern. I am not amongst them (though I did try hard at one time!).
I like a couple of pieces by Webern. One is the early (1904) Im Sommerwind - marvellous stuff. And not overblown...
Haven't myself heard the Natursymphonie, so am glad to see that the cpo recording of it is being programmed by Radio Stephansdom (http://radiostephansdom.at) at midnight CET (6 pm my local time) tonight/tomorrow; for the (I guess) few people here who also haven't heard it, thought I'd point that out. (Yes, the station live-streams- I wasn't planning on making an unexpected trip to Austria at 2 hours' notice just for that...)
(Works by Raff (sym.7) and others are also (https://radioklassik.at/programm/sendungsdetails/?sdk=radio_klassik_nacht&sdd=05.06.2015) scheduled during the overnight, which definitely has an overall nature/mountain/Rhine theme (Rhine appropriate after a CD-broadcast of the opera Siegfried, which is going on right now?) - Bendix's Berg-symphony, Daetwyler's Nature-dialogue, Ries' Gruß an den Rhein.) (Edit: Guessing that their (EMI) Siegfried recording went a tad over. With CD skips. Well, happens - ah. no, this definitely "sounds" rather less like Wagner now; I think me it may be the Hausegger (6:06 pip emma...))
The comments here show, that my nightingale sounds like an owl in some other's ears. May it be so, but, please allow me some words to explain my position in this case.
Well, "memorability" is a very personal thing, and a discussion about it may be not very successful. Mark and Alan, you mention Strauss's Alpensymphonie and Marx's Herbstsymphonie as better alternatives to Hausegger's Natursymphonie, and if you like them more because their melodic material sounds better for you, what can I say against it!
But some of your other statements are hard to follow for me. "Huffing and puffing to no great purpose" I would call the ideal description of Strauss's tone poems. But even as a Strauss scepticist, I think the Alpine Symphony contains some great moments - night and sunrise, the scene on the peak, the storm, sunset -, but they remain moments. The whole piece consists of short descriptive moments, which follow each other, but can convince me only a few times, that they grow out of each other. This is the case with night and sunrise. But the following many little tone pictures until the scene on the peak don't make me the impression of a well planned climax. Strauss's composing style is at first a descriptive one, focussed on orchestral colouring. There is much ado in the several orchestral groups, with which he decorates his short winded phrases - often sounding to my ears, as if he wants to hide, that he has no clear idea how to go on. Hausegger on the contrary uses orchestration to colour clear cut lines in a contrapuntal texture, as Mahler does (a good example is the Glockenspiel in the final part of Wieland, which isn't only decoration but plays its own line). Because of this concentration on linear part writing he has a much stronger feeling for forming progressions of periods and leading them into climaxes, than Strauss has, who concentrates on the (often mastefully worked out) isolated moment. Strauss is a colourist, Hausegger a symphonist. And Hausegger uses this ability in his Nature Symphony to build up long symphonic movements out of short motives, which permanently are formed into new melodic periods. The music develops momentum, and in the scherzo sections of the first movement the composer demonstrates, that he can write a steady flowing current of fast music. I can not hear a loss of tension in this movement, every section of it growing out of the former, reaching the main climax, when the fast music flows back into the slow.
Having listened again to Marx's Autumn Symphony after long abstinence, I must say, that it sounds for me rather like a very dense worked rhapsody than a symphony. Yes, there are few main motives, like in the Hausegger, which are used permanently throughout the work. But Marx does not use them to develop tensions and climaxes. He rhapsodizes over them, loud and low, fast and slow, as his inspiration leads him from moment to moment. The Autumn Symphony makes me a much more coherent impression than Strauss's Alpine Symphony, but it is an episodic work, too. I have great respect for Marx, but listening 70 minutes long to the smooth harmonies and sweet orchestral colours of this not very active work makes me a little tired, and I confess that I'm thinking, that he had could said, what he had to say here, in much shorter time whithout great loss. I can understand, that he made the final movement into a seperate tone poem. It was good to hear this big piece once again, but if I want to listen to Autumn Symphonies, I surely will more often return to the works of Raff or Novák.
Thanks for this very full response. Just the sort of thing to make one listen again to the Hausegger. Many thanks for taking the time to reply so articulately.
My assumption that a new Hausegger CD may be in the making is nurtured by another broadcast the coming Wednesday evening:
Siegmund von Hausegger: "Dionysische Phantasie" (Antony Hermus);
Roy Harris: Symphonie Nr. 3 (André Raphel);
Siegmund von Hausegger: "Wieland der Schmied" (Antony Hermus);
Franz Schubert: "Große C-Dur-Symphonie" (Jonathan Nott)
http://www.br.de/radio/br-klassik/programmkalender/ausstrahlung-348972.html (http://www.br.de/radio/br-klassik/programmkalender/ausstrahlung-348972.html)
Now having managed listening to Aufklänge I am quite amazed. I must confess: I have never been a Hausegger fan. I have listened to the few orchestral works and songs regularly for a couple of years but gave up this habit because there is so much that interests me more. Straussian orchestral canvasses are not quite my coup of tea. Aufklänge definitely IS another straussian canvas but it's brilliantly done! Gorgeous orchestration and - due to the old German folksong on which it is based - memorable material. The performance is just brilliant. I definitely will return to this piece.
One might not be able to provoke you to upload your radio recording to the downloads section, might one? I'll see whether I can share the upcoming broadcast of the Dionysian Phantasy. If I can get my recording app back into gear, that is.
Please upload your recording, British Composer. My recorder ran out of space half way through, but I have it fully operational for tomorrow night.
Having listened to Hermus' take on Wieland der Schmied, and to the Dionysische Phantasie, allow me to make a few observations. First of all, the Phantasie is a substantial work, and surprisingly enjoyable, particularly considering it's based on Nietzsche. It's more episodic than Wieland, and more varied musically, but still memorable. There is a good mix of lovely quieter passages and more exuberant (Nietzschean?) ones, and the piece really highlights Hausegger's orchestration skills.
As much as I love Wieland, though, I'm not impressed by Hermus's reading of the work. It's only two minutes shorter than Fritzsch's (17:35 vs. 19:34), but it sounds very rushed, particularly in the first half of the work, not allowing the piece to 'breathe'. To me, the Fritsch is still the version to go to despite its age and inferior sound quality. It also makes me wonder whether the Phantasie might not also benefit from a more expansive reading.
p.s. Although I Succeeded in recording the pieces, my internet was somewhat hiccuppy which resulted in some distracting gaps and stutters. I'm willing to upload, but if someone has a better recording that might be preferable.
Aufklänge is certainly gorgeous, but strangely anonymous-sounding. I enjoyed the ride, but it sounded to me rather generically late-romantic. It seems to me to be music that, generally speaking, impresses more by virtue of its technical accomplishment and surface beauty rather than its capacity to grab the heart or stir the soul. I liked it very much - but I didn't care about it.
Nevertheless, what times we live in! How marvellous to be able to hear this stuff in the first place. Never thought I'd see the day...
Wieland der Schmidt, to my ears, is a technically accomplished, but essentially second-hand piece of Straussiana. For a symphonic poem it has nothing like the memorability of material required: again, it's all very generic German late-romantic, often extremely loud to great sonic effect, but it frequently gives the impression of wanting to brow-beat you into submission. It felt as though Hausegger had thrown everything but the kitchen sink at his score. By the end I was mightily impressed, but felt no exhilaration; my ears were pinned back, but not seduced. Great stuff in one way; thoroughly empty in another.