Living Symphonists

[JollyRoger]

I did not intend to generate a firestorm about Leiberman's symphony, I simply felt it was an inspired work and wanted to share that opinion.
My musical tastes vary widely, all the way from Veremeulen to Copland.
I will not condemn any music for fear that others may find pleasure in it, but I will not waste my time with esoteric drivel and with witless comments of my opinions. Leiberman's Symphony is a full-throated and epic tonal work based on Wordworth's quotations.
Perhaps it is too high minded for some mentalities. but it really spoke to me.  End of story

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I'm all for music providing the highest pleasure. No disagreement there. But by 'Wordworth' might you possibly mean 'Whitman'? Important to clarify such things.

[semloh]

These have been fascinating exchanges! It's great to see the passion that the love of music can arouse. 

As this is about "Living Symphonists"  .......... is a "symphonist" anyone who purports to have written a symphony? or maybe has published a symphony? or had one performed?  It's an odd term really - after all, Bizet isn't commonly called a symphonist, nor Bernard Herrmann, but both have a symphony to their name. How about Vierne and Dupre - are they symphonists?

I'm not trying to start a debate about the definition of a symphony, of course ( ), but just asking what the parameters are for this thread.

[Jimfin]

I guess a 'living symphonist' would be someone who (on past performance) seems likely to write another symphony. Obviously an extremely subjective judgement, but I can't think of another.

[Dundonnell]

Symphonists have to have written at least three symphonies but preferably at least four If a composer has only written two symphonies then he is 'a composer of two symphonies' rather than a 'symphonist'

That is my definition but it is totally personal, subjective and I would not for one second expect anyone else to agree with it

[Jimfin]

It's a reasonable working definition, but it may be a bit case-by-case. I would be more likely to think of Elgar, who only completed two symphonies as a symphonist, than Britten, who wrote four, since Britten didn't number his, they have no common characteristics (and thus the sense of a 'cycle'), and only one of them (the 'Spring Symphony') is really popular. Sorry, I do basically agree with your definition, but just wanted to say it doesn't always hold true for me. I don't think I'd call Bantock a symphonist either, despite the seven to his name. Anyway, none of these are living, so I suppose it's irrelevant.

[Dundonnell]

I entirely agree

I was not being really serious. Elgar wrote two very big, major symphonies. It would be silly to deny him the status of a symphonist. Equally, Britten's use of the word 'symphony' is open to considerable debate. Having just attended a BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra concert in Glasgow at which the Britten Cello Symphony-a work which, frankly, I have never warmed to- was followed by RVW's Sixth Symphony (a work of genius ) the Britten case is fresh in my mind

[JollyRoger]

I'm all for music providing the highest pleasure. No disagreement there. But by 'Wordworth' might you possibly mean 'Whitman'? Important to clarify such things.

Glad to see this has generated so much interest in Leiberman's wonderful 2nd symphony.
Horror of Horrors..it is Walt Whitman..sorry for the misqueue and thanks for the correction..
this article describes it much better than I..I guess I'm a foolish old romantic..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._2_(Liebermann)

[semloh]

..........I guess I'm a foolish old romantic..

..... that's OK, as long as you aren't implying that the second two terms entail the first! 

[JollyRoger]

Anyway, back to living symphonists...

Now, should I order Liebermann 2? Is the music pale neo-Romanticism or a musical statement worth hearing?

Based upon what I have seen of your musical tastes, I think you will find it a worthy investment...As far as pale neo-romanticism, pale schmaltz it is not certainly not that.. If Samuel Barber, Stephen Albert or Steven Paulus (and oh yes, heavens..Bernard Herrmann!!!) do not appeal to you, this music is not for you.  It may not be musically innovative for some ..and  perhaps there's the rub. I hope raised expectations do not jeopardize a good listening experience.

[Christo]

And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? 

[semloh]

And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? 

...and maybe those who listen to them symphomaniacs? (careful with the typing there!!  )

[Alan Howe]

OK, to Liebermann 2 (which I've now had a chance to hear thanks to the kindness of a member of this forum):

1. My first impressions are very positive - but I am a sucker for this sort of robust, tonal writing, so I must declare my prejudice straight away.
2. I think that Liebermann's Symphony may point to the hazards of writing in a neo-Romantic idiom in the modern era (it was premiered in 2000). So much music has flowed under the bridge, so to speak, in the past decades that such a straightforwardly communicative work is almost bound to remind us of all sorts of things, including film music (not necessarily bad) and similar works back in musical history. Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski faces the same set of challenges...
3. Liebermann 2 seems to be music that 'has legs'. There's plenty to get one's teeth into, plenty of melody and some passages of breathtaking majesty. Equally, I suppose, it could be dismissed as backward-looking and derivative. However, that doesn't bother me at all - but then, the romanticism of Schmidt-Kowalski doesn't bother me either. So, for me, it's a definite thumbs-up. Just don't expect cutting-edge stuff, that's all!

[Dundonnell]

Now I am intrigued by the Lieberman symphony   (which I have never heard )

[TerraEpon]

People should try Liebermann's Piccolo Concerto if they REALLY want an interesting romp.