The Austro-German Symphonic Tradition after Mahler

[minacciosa]

Don't forget Richard Wetz. And what's so guilty about liking Eine Herbstsymphonie? It's an amazing achievement. No apologies are necessary for that which is plainly romantic. I don't know where the idea that the romantic is somehow inferior or less mature came from.

[eschiss1]

I incline to apologize for a few of my favorite pieces not because they're Romantic or romantic (which mean different things, but that's a tangent), but because some of the means by which they seem to achieve their effects on me seem somehow - hrm. ... obvious? ... no, that's not exactly it either...

[Sydney Grew]

And there is Heimo Erbse (1924 to 2005) - "Mr. Pea" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimo_Erbse.

Two symphonies, by the look of things - no - the wikipedia is badly out of date - there are at least thirteen! - as well as a Triple Concerto. I recorded a broadcast of the second around 1971; the tape has deteriorated but it is still postable - just.

[Mark Thomas]

I don't know where the idea that the romantic is somehow inferior or less mature came from.

I hadn't realised that this was the case until Minacciosa articulated it but, yes, I do detect that undercurrent. I think it's a form on intellectual snobbery, growing out of the fact that over the last 100 years the Romantic style of composition (for want of a better way of describing it) has become so mainstream (in films, TV, musak etc.) that it has almost ceased to be viable as "serious" or "art" music in some circles. The musical establishment quite naturally espoused the various forms of post-romantic expression as they've come along, whilst still acknowledging the greatness of music of past eras. But now that I think about it, I've certainly come across lesser lights who go further and are condescending towards Brahms, say, simply because his music is now accessible to the masses because it's become the musical lingua franca, whilst singing the praises of some arid, uninspired Communist hack from the 1960s (for example).

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Communist? Come on, Mark, what on earth has that got to do with it?

[Mark Thomas]

Oh, I wasn't making any political point, Peter, just giving as an example one of the typical categories of composers who wrote, to my mind at least,  arid and uninspiring music which is sometimes praised at the expense of 19th century music by the people about whom I was complaining. It was just a rant. Ignore it.

[karelm]

I was listening to some Einojuhani Rautavaara yesterday and was thinking, is it likely the Austro-Germanic symphonic tradition is broader than it was in the 19th century?  What I mean is, in listening to Rautavaara, some of his early symphonies have a strong Bruckner tendency (with combinations of Shostakovitch and of course Sibelius) but during the 1930's alot of composers who would have been Austro-Germanic based left due to the rise of Nazism.  Perhaps if Korngold/Steiner/Waxman, etc., didn't leave that region resulting in a somewhat diluted epicenter for that tradition of Haydn, Mozart, Schumann, Schubert, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, etc, it would still have a border specific region but now, those tendencies have today been absorbed elsewhere.  I might be totally wrong about this though.  Sometimes, I can still hear the legacy of that tradition in Wolfgang Rihm and Hans Werner Henze in some works but I hear it more directly in non Austro/German composers today.

[Alan Howe]

I can still hear the legacy of that tradition in Wolfgang Rihm and Hans Werner Henze in some works but I hear it more directly in non Austro/German composers today.

Could you be more specific, please?

[karelm]

There are parts of Henze and Rihm's output where their connection to the tradition of Beethoven and Mahler is clear.   Are you asking for an excerpt?

[karelm]

Well, here is an example if that is what you are requesting.  To me, each of these excerpts represent the same artistic effort of expanding harmonic vocabulary within a vividly dramatic way... they seem to be saying the same thing in their time and in their own way which indicates a connection, an influence.

Please listen to the following links for about 45 seconds each:

Beethoven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cHUY5U5_mFM#t=1756s
Mahler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ikTni7DPROM#t=501s
Rihm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t_ClwNU1XyU#t=102s

I'm not just pointing to these excerpts as just having superficial similarities but notice the same dramatic instinct – the near total silence before the devastating harmonic crash; the thickness of the orchestration, the transitional purposes of these dramatic moments.  These composers are dramatists.   When I first heard the Rihm symphony, this combination of pathos and harmonic intensity sounded familiar but also new just as the Mahler did to his contemporaries and the same with Beethoven.  It sounds shocking but somewhat approachable because it has an established framework from which it drew from.

[Alan Howe]

Thank you. That is extremely helpful!

[Alan Howe]

I agree entirely regarding the connection of Rihm with past symphonists - thanks very much indeed  for introducing me to him. I will put a CD of his symphonies on my wants list!

[karelm]

I agree entirely regarding the connection of Rihm with past symphonists - thanks very much indeed  for introducing me to him. I will put a CD of his symphonies on my wants list!

Glad you like it.  Fortunately his output is so extensive, there is much to explore, though not all of it will be to your liking.  His vast output consists of 12 string quartets, 9 symphonies, and many works on the same scale as Mahler's Symphony No. 8 and Schoenberg's "Gurrelieder".  For example, Rihm's  "Dies" oratorio is scored for 4 soloists, narrators, chorus, and gigantic orchestra which includes 8 horns, 12 trumpets, 10 trombones, 2 tubas, 2 timpani, 8 percussionists, organ, etc. 

Some of his works are neo-romantic and demonstrate his German heritage.  For example, his concise early symphonies are neo-romantic and showcase an impressive early structural and dramatic sensitivity rooted in tradition.  "Drei Walzer", "Das Lesen der Schrift", and "Ernster Gesang" have strong influences of Brahms.  The "Deus Passus" is rooted in Bach's great passion tradition.   His orchestral cycle: "Verwandlungen" shows influences of Bruckner and Mahler, Wagner and Richard Strauss.  I also enjoy his concerto for two pianos, "La Musique Creuse Le Ciel" and his Violin Concerto, "Lichtes Spiel" finding them easy to get in to.

But some of his other works are more stream of consciousness abstract, violent, and challenging.  Think Nono, Berg, Webern, Kurtag, Lachenmann, middle Rautavaara (symphonies 4 and 5), Per Norgard, late Schnittke, etc.  If those names don't scare you, you are safe with Rihm.  Some people take the stylistic range of his output as off putting because though you might have liked something he wrote, you can't be sure you'll like something else by him.  This stylistic range is common with many great composers – it is difficult to tell early Stravinsky and late Stravinsky are the same composer though the fingerprints are there.  Unlike Pendericki who has become very neo-romantic, it seems Rihm keeps the listener guessing and within the same work that might end on a D minor triad but that could be the only instance of tonality in the piece.  Sudden silences and sudden dissonant violences also characterize his style.

The pieces I mentioned above, though, are good places to start and I'm sure others have more suggestions.  I believe not all Beethoven is great.  I'm not a fan of "Wellington's Victory", for example, but he is undoubtably a great composer.  Basically when great, it's really great and connects deeply with a listener.  To me, there is some works of Rihm that I can't stand but others that really lingers in my memory and I keep returning to.  The works I've mentioned might not be his most famous nor the ones to which his reputation lies, but are good as starting points to see how he has taken the Germanic tradition to heart and personalized this tradition and use that as a starting place for further exploration of his output.

What I like about him is that he doesn't shy away from the Austro/Germanic tradition but incorporates it in his personal way much as Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner did before him. 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Many thanks, karelm, for that great introduction to a composer of whose existence I have been aware for decades, but whom I have as yet to discover.

[Alan Howe]

My I echo the sentiments expressed in the previous post? That is precisely the sort of introduction that one needs if one is to make headway with an unfamiliar composer. Thanks again!