Messages

An unevenly proportioned concerto. The combination of a very long first, intermezzo second, and fast third movement has been done before (Czerny, Urspruch, Sgambati and Gablenz, and doubtless others). In almost all cases, retaining tension in that 20+ minute-long first movement is an issue, and I think only Gablenz pulls it off by basically subdividing it into a mini-sub-concerto. It's no different with Vogrich, where the middle third of the first movement feels like a set of pasted improvisations pasted, and totally lose me. That's a pity, because there are a lot of good ideas elsewhere. 

The intermezzo is just that, very brief and rather inconsequential. However, the finale it leads up to is a real cracker. A very enjoyable and diverse piece of music that honestly deserves to be the finish of a more coherent concerto. However, despite all the caveats above I'll be returning to this piece (although perhaps secretly skipping the first movement) and I thank Promusician and Darrell for their work.

Something of a confession: I do prefer symphonies 1 & 2 to 3 & 4, and more generally early Draeseke to late Draeseke. It seems to me that his earlier works were imbued with a contagious energy that often went missing later in his career. I can see why people would consider No. 3 the objectively better work, but I honestly don't enjoy it quite as much as its predecessors. Although I also think the work would benefit more than most from a really top-notch recording; the ones that we have are okay, but certainly not stellar.

I'll have to give this a whirl; my negative opinion was based primarily on the rather discombobulated archival version on YouTube.

I'm really something of a Koechlin fan, but the symphonies leave me entirely cold with the exception of the Seven Stars' Symphony (which describes movie stars rather than the astronomical kind). The atmospheric (rather than programmatic) symphonic poem is really his strong suit, and even there he's like no one else. A true "marmite" composer, and I can understand why many would avoid him. Repeated listenings can reveal a lot, though, but I'd start at the Livre de la Jungle, which I find much better.

Somewhat speculative, but large oratorios such as Christus were very much in demand during the last decades of the 19th century. That changed during the 20th century. From their size and length to the relentless seriousness of their subject matter, they seem to have become regarded as the symbol of all that was wrong with (bourgeois) musical culture. The wake of that rejection took composers with it that were preliminary known for such oratorios: that might explain not only Draeseke's longtime neglect, but also that of someone like Benoit or even Bruch. Even Mendelssohn's large choral works almost disappeared from concert halls.

I always think of the Grin recordings in the same vein as the Shestakov recordings of the Bendix symphonies. To be honest, that doesn't do justice to them; they aren't that awful. However, they do suffer from lackluster playing, muddy sound and balance issues (the brass section all but disappears at times) and what appears to be a general lack of vision on the part of the conductor. Listen to the Grin and the Oramo recordings of the 3rd symphony in sequence, and it's as if a veil is lifted: structures become clearer, the sonics are suddenly transparent and full, and there's a real sense of direction. I have high expectations for these new recordings, and hopefully we can expect new recordings of nos. 1, 2 and 4 in due time.

Oh, so do I, the more so because you can see a very clear development in his style, and the music grows from crypto-Sibelius (The Wedding in Pohjola, 1902) to ever more individual forms of expression. It is rarely what I'd call confident, though, and always seems to be searching. A good example, and possibly my favorite of his works, is the Third Symphony (F major, 1907). There is a terrific performance of it by the Finnish RSO under Sakari Oramo.

Great news! There is a decent recording of the sixth by Jussi Jalas with the Finnish RSO, but it's ancient at this point (sound's not bad, however), and the Grin is little more than adequate. But it's quite different from his earlier symphonies and might not entirely be suitable for this forum – a bit in the same way that Braga Santos' last two symphonies stylistically depart from the style of his first four. 

The 5th is closer to being conventionally "romantic" (but certainly not in the eyes of everyone), and here Grin's more in his element. I also have a performance with Klaus Mäkelä and the Turku Phil, but for the life of me don't remember where I got it.

Great stuff, thank you!

It's quite common for labels to market unsung pieces this way, though, hoping to win people over for the scary unknown bit of music by offering something familiar. But generally it just means that you duplicate the better-known work in your collection. One of the reasons I'm so happy with the possibility to purchase individual tracks.

It's not just a matter of length, though, but also of two movements that share a similar tempo and a (almost) consistent forward drive. Brahms' 2nd has a much more pastoral scherzo which is very different from the finale; same for Bruckner 7, where the variation within the movements is greater too (and which is altogether a very different beast).

Glad that it does, even if the direction (e.g., extreme HIPness) sometimes seems self-defeating.

Y'all can still listen to it on Youtube, and the proceeds of that will flow to cpo as well, of course.

Anyhow, I must confess myself rather impressed by this work – yet another confirmation (as if we needed it) of the finalist ridiculousness of the "Dahlhaus Gap".* It is a weighty work in the good sense, with some real depth and an impressive diversity of moods, going from Brahmsian lyricism to a more stringent tone that is somewhat reminiscent of Bruch. That may be its greatest weakness where it comes to public perception, but it's hardly Grimm's fault: almost every passage reminded me of a different (usually later) work. It may have well worked against the symphony being appreciated on its own merits, however.

Still a hugely entertaining work, however. I thought that in practice it consists of three parts: a brooding, quite diverse first movement, a rather non-funereal Trauermarsch second movement, and a final section consisting of two almost continually forward-driving fast movements. I took my time listening to it yesterday evening and it didn't feel like an almost 45-minute symphony at all. If I were to voice a niggle, it might be that its emotional center is perhaps too much concentrated within that first half-hour (and particularly the first movement), making the rest feel not as substantial as it could have been.

* I'm feeling a bit bad for poor Carl if this what he'll be remembered by, because even he doesn't seem to have been entirely convinced by his own thesis.

Ah thanks, I had missed that. It's a substantial piece (around 40 minutes, I believe), so I'm curious what they'll combine it with.

Also, when I asked the venue at the time whether it'd be broadcast or recorded they denied that, so this is a pleasant surprise.

Perger's String Trio in D minor, Op. 17 is a rather fine piece,and has been recorded.