Jan van Gilse's 3rd Symphony from cpo

[Elroel]

If I translate it from German to Dutch, Erhebung becomes Verheffing, in English this means more like uplifting.
Your mind reaches, or floats to, a higher level. Exaltation is more the moment that you are exited you have reached that point and are overwhelmed by it. More in the religious field.
So I would follow CPO's translation in English as Elevation. However, when I listen to the songs in the symphony, I did it  two times now, both terms could match.
May be CPO shouldn't have it translated.

When Röntgen should have created this symphony Exaltation would fit. Van Gilse is more 20th Century, is more observant, has more distance from Nietzsche, I think

[Mark Thomas]

I've at long last given Van Gilse's Third a couple of airings and I'm afraid that I side with the unimpressed in this debate about its stature. For someone like me who's musical home is the romantic era then it's a lovely wallow, of course, and at that level I enjoyed it very much but it doesn't strike me as in any way ground breaking or innovative. Far from it, one is constantly playing the "sounds like" game (the answer is mostly Strauss or Gustav Mahler, but Franck, Wagner and Bruckner pop up from time to time too). Rousing myself from wallowing in the enjoyment of the sound of this hour-long leviathan and trying to be objective, I do find it a very self indulgent piece, too. It would have been much more effective at half the length and I don't believe that much would have been lost in the process of concision.

So no, for me not a great symphony. Not even a great Dutch symphony. Surely Dopper and Zweers  at their best wrote more impressive works than this, to say nothing of that honorary Dutchman Röntgen? That said, as musical comfort food this mixed bag of late romantic gestures is very enjoyable and I will certainly return to it with pleasure.

[Greg K]

A marvelous not very impressive Symphony then, in your judgement?

[Alan Howe]

A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.

[Greg K]

A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.

Honestly, not in my experience.

[jerfilm]

An enjoyable listen but it does seem to wander a bit.  Will have to give it several chances.

Jerry

[Josh]

I had the opportunity to hear van Gilse's third symphony, and I have to admit that I just couldn't handle it. It contained a lot of what I hate about much of 20th century orchestral music (though much, much milder in van Gilse's case).  I actually physically cringed a few times early on... and no, I wasn't faking it for anyone's benefit, as nobody else was anywhere in sight or earshot!  I was alone in my house, and I was flinching from the sounds that just hit my ears totally wrong.  I really wanted to give it a shot, since it didn't sound as "bad" (to my 18th century ears) as most contemporary, similar works, but it was just too much for me.  Don't let my taste dissuade you, since even though I'm a big fan of Dvořák, even I find his harmonies a bitter pill to swallow; I just find his melodies outweigh the unpleasant, harsh sounds in most cases. As far as van Gilse's 3rd goes, I did not avail myself of the afore-mentioned opportunity to listen to the whole work.  But from what I absorbed, I just couldn't pick anything really positively remarkable about it.


SOMEWHAT OFF-TOPIC: Van Gilse's Symphony #2 ramblings follow

Very different experience, I have to say. I know this thread is specifically dedicated to his 3rd, so I apologise for this, but I wanted to say something to anybody who'd never heard his 2nd and was skimming this thread. Seriously, please don't let the 3rd turn you off from giving his 2nd a shot, if you haven't heard it!  I wouldn't go so far as to say I strongly like it, but I do find it at the least tolerable.  It's fairly tuneful, though admittedly with nothing really memorable. This work was a real surprise to me, in a mildly positive way.  It did look backward in a lot of ways, and to me, when talking about post-1900 symphonies, that's always a plus.

The first movement starts out by setting the mood. I have no idea what van Gilse was going for, but I'll tell you how I feel about the mood of this work: inoffensive!  But honestly, what's wrong with that?  You're brought in with only horns and winds, for quite a while, more than 90 seconds.  And this makes me want to point out that van Gilse, if nothing else in this work, made a very big point of giving non-strings a lot of lead time.  It's all nice, but fairly somber, an abbreviated slow introduction that I found pretty interesting and even engaging.  And it's short, you don't have to wait long for a sudden (but not harsh!) burst of bright colour!  Without any wasting of time, you get an immediate bright tune to perk things up, and for the rest of the movement, you have van Gilse trying to serenade the listener with tunes.  I don't feel like he had huge natural talent in this department (at least, from my extremely limited exposure), but I like what I hear.  And any 20th century composer trying to do this gets an automatic sympathetic ear from me.

It's pretty odd, but if I were catching this completely blind,  there are passages in the 2nd movement that I'd swear were composed for quasi-naîve films from the 1950s or 1960s, even though this work was written from 1902-1903. And you know what? I like it! I don't love it, but I do think it's nice.  This is totally dominated by tunes, and if you could only hear one movement, I'd probably pick this one.  In some ways, it's the least interesting, but the most pleasant... I'm not sure if that makes sense.

The third movement contains a whole lot of non-string domination, and that's something of a refreshing change from a lot of symphonies. This movement actually makes a few stabs in the direction of being intense or serious, each time being swiftly allayed by something pastoral or even bright.  I have to think this was done deliberately, since the effect is so striking.  And, like the other two movements, it's definitely tuneful enough!  And, also like the other two movements, nothing I can really remember afterwards.

If nothing else, it's better-than-harmless music to play while doing other things, if you're okay with that. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with "inoffensive" music, especially when the composer was really giving a good faith effort to put in good tunes. No, from my two experiences with van Gilse, I don't find him to be a melodic heavyweight, but not everyone can be, and I think the world has plenty of room for that.  I don't feel like the 2nd Symphony was a waste of my time, and at least passages of it have been in my ears on at least 5 separate occasions.  And, coming from someone who finds Dvořákª almost unbearably modern, that's saying something!


ª I'm a surprisingly big Dvořák fan, so don't think I'm knocking him! I just mean some of his harmonic sounds are very harsh to my ears, and it took his huge melodic gift to give enough awesome tunes to outweigh my difficulties with the overall soundscape of some of his (especially orchestral) music.

[Greg K]

Lovably weird, Josh.

[Mark Thomas]

A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.

Honestly, not in my experience.

A life in which one only enjoys things of "consequence or stature" must be a very serious one, but each to his own. 

[Alan Howe]

A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.

Honestly, not in my experience.

My collection's full of music like that! Example: von Glenck's Carita Eterna Symphony.

...as well as music that is of real stature but unrecognised as such.

[Greg K]

A work can be thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, as van Gilse 3 is, without it being of any real consequence or stature.

I wonder how van Gilse himself might have received such an evaluation of his work, - as damning or complimentary?

[Mark Thomas]

I imagine that he'd be unhappy with it. He clearly wasn't setting out to be merely enjoyable, but to write something with some profundity.

[Greg K]

A life in which one only enjoys things of "consequence or stature" must be a very serious one, but each to his own. 

Not quite my disclosure.

It's that the passing and incidental enjoyments I get plenty and enough of in the daily round, -
which diversion I typically retreat for relief from into the passion and seriousness of my musical and literary quests.

For you the relationship may be reversed.

[Peter1953]

With interest I've read Mark's review. Well, I cannot disagree more. But I have to admit that I hardly know anything about classical music. I only listen very carefully, compare music, and, probably the most important thing for me, I feel. So it's difficult for me to discuss on the same level.

How can I say that Van Gilse's Erhebung is not ground breaking or innovative? As I feel it, the great majority of unsung romantic music is neither ground breaking nor innovative. So what? Personally I don't care. What I really care about is how appealing the music is.
Having said this, I think that Van Gilse's 3rd has quite a lot of parts showing a very own character, so to speak. I admit that sometimes I hear fragments which remind me of Wagner, sometimes Brucker. But this long symphony gives me an interesting, varying emotional listening experience. A ominous opening of the sombre 1st movement, a powerful 2nd which becomes very impressive after some 8:30 minutes, followed by a surprising introduction of the soprano in the subtle and deeply-felt 3nd, a lively and optimistic 4rd, but it sounds dark and gloomy again in the last movement. I'm constantly captured by the flow of music, which is not one minute too long. A fascinating piece of music. Of course, to my ears.

Self indulgent? That's quite something to say. But maybe you're right.  After all, Van Gilse had hard difficulties with his enemy, Willem Pijper. Pijper has written over a long period of some twenty years a lot of very negative and disparaging comments on Van Gilse. So maybe some of Van Gilse's music, in his wish for recognition, is self indulgent. But I don't recognize it and how should I?

Summa summarum, it's for me the best Dutch symphony, followed by Zweers's 3rd (a wonderful symphony full of memorable tunes, however, the last movement is not to the same high level as the other movements), despite how much I love Röntgen's and Dopper's symphonies.

[Greg K]

Summa summarum, it's for me the best Dutch symphony, followed by Zweers's 3rd (a wonderful symphony full of memorable tunes, however, the last movement is not to the same high level as the other movements), despite how much I love Röntgen's and Dopper's symphonies.

Josh might call you a frightening radical .