Jan van Gilse's 3rd Symphony from cpo

[M. Henriksen]

I was thinking of elevators when I saw the translated title of the symphony. But I'm sure we can rule out the possibility that van Gilse was thinking the same... The cpo booklet contains surprisingly little analysis of this work compared to other exhaustive booklets I've read from that company.
I agree with Alan and Peter's praise for this work. There's a lot of influences from Wagner and Richard Strauss, and a good portion of Mahler too. I'm particularly impressed with the final movement and the fact that van Gilse was relatively young (26) when he completed this massive work makes his achievement even more impressive.
A great discovery, all credits to cpo for this!


Morten

[Greg K]

What a wonderful, great and majestic symphony! Strong and sensitive, very well developed music, with a soprano in the 3rd and 5th movements of this 63:02 minutes lasting symphony, called Erhebung (=Elevation). IMO this is one of the best Dutch 20th century symphonies, if not the best, ever written (sorry, Röntgen).
Very strongly recommended!

Shocking.  I am very wary (especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony").  I have listened to van Gilse's 1rst, 2nd, & 4rth Symphonies and found them all interminable and lacklustre, without originality or distinction.  For van Gilse enthusiasts, does No.3 stand out as clearly superior to the others and a work that might attract someone so dismissive?  Is there a rabbit in the hat here?

[Alan Howe]

Is there a rabbit in the hat here?

IMHO no. It's far too derivative a work to be in the premier division (one is constantly thinking of passages in Wagner or Strauss), and therefore I'd certainly be looking elsewhere for the 'best Dutch symphony'. I wouldn't look to Röntgen either - much as I admire, for example, his bracing Symphony No.3. I've a feeling that one would have to look to the modernists to find something that was worthy of the name. Which is not to say that I don't think highly of van Gilse's 3rd, because I do: it's a highly accomplished piece.

[erato]

I feel I do have to agree with Greg K here. I have the first van Gilse disc and the best I can say about it is accomplished. Originality, substance, interest and distinction however I found sorely lacking. If i feel convinced that the 3rd is substantially better - and different from these - I might still buy it, but I willl take something to convince me.

[M. Henriksen]

No doubt about it; van Gilse was no pioneer as a composer, and he has also been described as a late developer of his own personal style. In the 1920's, well after completing his first 4 symphonies, he was more influenced by French music. Towards the end of his life he combined these French influences with his earlier Austro/German style, and it was in his later works, highlighted by the opera Thijl, that his music has been described as really distinctive.
So the third clearly belongs to van Gilse's early works.
The work is described earlier here as a mix of Mahler, Richard Strauss and Wagner. And that's a quite fitting description but not analytical of course. Personally I think van Gilse's string writing leans most towards Strauss.
The 3rd symphony is clearly influenced by Mahler regarding the structure of the work, the whole idea with solo soprano and even the convertion to German descriptions of tempo. In the booklet for cpo's first van Gilse disc, we learn that he was present during rehearsals of Mahler's own 3rd symphony in Germany, and I can imagine he got some ideas here. The mood of the first three movements is quite dark, the ending of the first movement reminds me of sections of Tchaikovsky's darkest moments in the Pathetique. The first movement is almost an extended introduction, the music catches fire in the start of the second movement but returns rather quickly back to slower and darker music again. The 4th "Waltz"- movement contains Rosenkavalier-music with a Mahlerian twist. Horn calls and clarinets high up in the air! Towards the end van Gilse presents a little delicate ballet scene with pizzicato strings and harp glissandos before a the movement ends with a powerful conclusion.
The finale is the longest and and in my opinion the strongest part of the symphony with a beautiful theme introduced by the strings from the very beginning.
When I first heard the first two symphonies they didn't make a great impression. But I gave them another chance after a while and now I find them enjoyable to listen to. The 3rd symphony is a big, ambitious work from a composer that has developed further from his earlier works. Originality? Not much, but is that really necessary?
It's difficult to decide wether to buy this record based on short excerpts or discussions on this forum. I guess you'll just have to take a chance and buy it if you're curious. It's my opinion that Erhebung it's a much stronger work than it's predecessors, but it demands effort from the listener.


Morten

[Alan Howe]

Morten is certainly right. This is a work well worth buying - it will give much pleasure. But we should remember above all that it is a work by a young composer flexing his compositional muscles...

[Christo]

(especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony").

Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far. It's honest to say their symphonies remained largely unplayed for almost a century, and it's great CPO is offering them a second life. The same applies to Cornelis Dopper, given a second chance by Chandos.

Though I came to appreciate the originality of the later Röngen, one would rather think of symphonists like Vermeulen, Pijper, Badings, Orthel, Andriessen, perhaps Hans Kox.

[Alan Howe]

My money would be on Badings. Meanwhile back to van Gilse...

[Greg K]

(especially so when I see Rontgen indicated as primary competition for "best Dutch 20th century symphony").

Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far.

By Peter, yes (see his post above) - though maybe only hyperbolically in the grips of an immediate enthusiasm.  In any case (with apologies to Peter if he was being reflectively serious) I think you've identified the legitimate "best symphonists" of the last century quite precisely (perhaps add van Delden).

[Christo]

Agreed. Yes, I wanted to mention Van Delden as well, realizing one second too late I hadn't. :-)

[Dundonnell]

My money would be on Badings. Meanwhile back to van Gilse...

....and so would mine (but with Orthel very close behind )....but, as you say, back to van Gilse........

[Peter1953]

Nor Röntgen, nor Van Gilse was ever a name entered for this competition, so far.

According to Dr Jurjen Vis in Gaudeamus, Röntgen's biography (p.410, 526), it's very likely that Röntgen has competed in a contest with his symphonies  5 & 6.

BTW, I've just spent a very pleasant hour listening to the delightful symphonies 1&2 by Van Gilse. I just love them, almost as much as the 3rd.

[Greg K]

BTW, I've just spent a very pleasant hour listening to the delightful symphonies 1&2 by Van Gilse. I just love them, almost as much as the 3rd.

Which judgement clinches my decision to pass on it .

Honestly, if Nos. 1&2 are only slightly less superlative than No.3 (and I will honor at least your relative valuations of van Gilse's work), that leaves not enough margin to likely raise 3 beyond the level of mediocre for me (at best).  I'm confident now I can do without.  In a roundabout way, - thanks .

[Peter1953]

That is a very wise decision, Greg.

IMO it is nearly impossible to "sell" one person's personal musical taste, which has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Tastes can be so different. Another thing is that I'm totally uninterested in the fact a work shows more or less strong influences of other composers. Of course I agree with the statement that Van Gilse's 3rd reminds us of Strauss, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler and even Tchaikovsky. That doesn't make the work less appealing to me. We all know that a lot of unsung romantic composers are influenced by others. So what? As long as they didn't simply copy tunes from others, because that would have been plagiarism.

[Greg K]

You know, I agree with you.  That a work is "derivative" or "unoriginal" (as the critics often like to sniff) matters not at all to me if I enjoy or find meaning in it.  Good music is good music, and we can leave it for the snobs and academics to ground quality in how innovative and trailblazing something might be.  All most of us care about here is whether it speaks to us or not, and more often than not the adventurous and/or trendy succeeds only in being sterile, ugly, and impenetrable.

It just happened to raise my eyebrows (with good humour) when I read you describing van Gilse's 3rd Symphony as quite possibly the very best you had heard by a 20th century Dutchman, - not because his music shows so many influences, but rather because it's just not very good (IMO).

Wonder-full our evaluations can be so different.