Dimitrie Cuclin (1885-1978)

[Holger]

In fact, this is a misattribution. The symphony from these YouTube videos is not Cuclin's Symphony No. 7, but his Symphony No. 17 "In preclassical forms" from 1965. I once got a broadcast recording of this symphony (again, just three movements, by the way) plus announcement which definitely clarified things. The title partly explains the neoclassical formulas Cuclin uses in this work (which, to be honest, I am not too fond of).

[Alan Howe]

Oh dear - while I'm grateful to hear anything new, this symphony takes 'turgid' to a whole new level. I can't imagine wanting to listen to it ever again...

Today it is difficult to penetrate the labyrinth of his musical thought

https://www.icr.ro/pagini/dimitrie-cuclin/en

I agree.

[UnsungMasterpieces]

In fact, this is a misattribution. The symphony from these YouTube videos is not Cuclin's Symphony No. 7, but his Symphony No. 17 "In preclassical forms" from 1965. I once got a broadcast recording of this symphony (again, just three movements, by the way) plus announcement which definitely clarified things. The title partly explains the neoclassical formulas Cuclin uses in this work (which, to be honest, I am not too fond of).

So this is his 17th symphony? Wow, I wasn't aware of that, mainly because on Cuclin's symphonies there's a big lack of information.
It's strange though, because I found this recording on the Internet Archive (the upload to YouTube was actually made possible by me alerting the uploader of this recording).
The original files I have of it include a short radio announcement at the end of the 3rd movement, which states (and I'm absolutely 100% sure that I heard correctly) this was his 7th symphony.
Did the announcer make a mistake there? And if so, is this actually a full recording without any cuts? (as the recording of the 9th symphony has a large amount of cuts)

[Alan Howe]

Whichever symphony this is, it's really hard work to listen to - thickly orchestrated, featureless, much ado about nothing. Sorry...

[Holger]

Somebody must have an error at some point in case of this symphony, but I am sure that this one must be No. 17 indeed. Here are the arguments:

1) the announcement I cited,
2) the key: the MGG (German music encyclopedia) gives F Sharp Major as the key of the Seventh and G Major as the key of No. 17, and this one definitely ends in G Major,
3) the title: the symphony undoubtedly refers to 18th century music, and No. 17 is called "In preclassical forms", which fits perfectly,
4) the style: the other Cuclin works from around 1950 (No. 7 is from 1948) are more romantic in tone.

As for the work itself, I am afraid I agree with Alan. Cuclin is a kind of an oddity anyway in my view, and while I do collect his stuff it's more about curiosity than about the prospect of really discovering something substantial. However, his late works like Symphonies Nos. 17&20 are really a tough listen, and that's not because they would be complicated in any way...

[UnsungMasterpieces]

I would be interested to hear that announcement as well, because I'm getting curious here...
Is there a way for me to find it?
I've listened to the symphony a few times in the past two weeks. Even though I think that (for example) his 9th symphony is much stronger than this one, it still has its moments.
I find myself enjoying a few passages in the 1st and 3rd movements.

[Alan Howe]

I find myself enjoying a few passages in the 1st and 3rd movements

'Nuff said.

[UnsungMasterpieces]

It is now possible to listen to Cuclin's 9th symphony (well, the only recording with the large cuts) and read along with the score:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4FRJ8on2po

[Alan Howe]

I'm afraid I found this thoroughly tedious, even with cuts. The thought of listening to the whole thing fills me with utter dread. It'd be time spent that I'd never get back...

[eschiss1]

I used to return to my copies of the recordings of 9&11 more often than now. Haven't in awhile but parts still linger in the ear. My rating would have to be rather higher- I could also imagine better performances and, obviously, sound quality.

[eschiss1]

As to 17 being clearly in D major, I'd be cautious though, as I've tried to judge works' keys from broadcasts and failed to account for the sort of thing that can make a C-sharp minor work e.g. -sound- a half-tone off...

[Holger]

As to 17 being clearly in D major, I'd be cautious though, as I've tried to judge works' keys from broadcasts and failed to account for the sort of thing that can make a C-sharp minor work e.g. -sound- a half-tone off...

Eric, having listened to tons of broadcast recordings and LP transfers myself, you can be sure that I am well aware of problems of this sort, and I do take them into account. In the case of LPs, it is typically a question of an incorrectly adjusted turntable, while in the case of broadcasts, it's often about aging tapes / cassettes. Even then, you can still make a sort of educated guess without a score at hand, for instance if you are able to identify open strings.

Anyhow, the Cuclin broadcast is from internet radio, which doesn't mean of course everything is 100% waterproof but nevertheless such problems appear much less frequently. It's not the only reason for identifying the symphony as Cuclin 17 anyway – "with (very) high probability", if this helps...

As for the work itself, while still watching out for Cuclin updates, I am afraid I am mostly with Alan.

[eschiss1]

Apologies and thanks. I suppose I had mostly in mind my old tape of Wellesz no.2 (E-flat minor) which somehow ends up sounding like a C-sharp minor symphony, iirc

[Alan Howe]

I'll take Wellesz over Cuclin any day...

[eschiss1]

Well, given that Wellesz sym. 2 especially, even in that sound quality, was for me one of the major discoveries of [whenever I first heard it]*, I'm going to have to agree
(Unfortunately, the score seems to be anything but widely available.)
*And even better when the cpo recording eventually came out...