Sophomore efforts

[chill319]

Among novelists, there's the well-known phenomenon of "sophomore slump." I'm not sure if this happens with composers. Most second symphonies (in order of composition) seem to me to be as good as their creator's first symphonies. Is Brahms's second a lesser work than his first? Or are symphonies with life-affirming first movements less great than those that feature struggle and conflict? (What would Aristotle say?)

Here's my personal short list of best second symphonies (in order of composition), based on my (limited) listening history. I'm sharing this in hopes that some of you with much broader knowledge will share some of your own favorite second symphonies that I can get to know.

Best second symphony ever: Mahler
Short list of other favorite second symphonies:
Bax
Brahms
Draeseke
d'Indy
Mendelssohn ("No 5")
Rachmaninov
Schumann ("No. 4")
Sibelius
Stenhammar
Vaughan Williams

Bruckner's second (Symphony "0") sounds to me like a warm-up. If you count his F-minor as first and make "No. 1" his second, then that would go on my short list.
Does anyone have an opinion about Tubin's second (which I have yet to hear)?

[Pengelli]

Very Interesting post. Tubin is another 'unsung'. You listen to his
music and think,'Why don't we hear this in the concert halls?!!!'

[TerraEpon]

Is Brahms's second a lesser work than his first?

Hard to say, as they are both so boring

Gliere and Khachaturian certainly have fantastic seconds, though they both outdid themselves in their thirds in very different ways. Borodin and Rimsky-Korsokov also wrote great seconds, the former easily the best of the three.

As for a composer who DID hit the 'slump', I think most people would put Shostakovich.

[Mark Thomas]

A great and stimulating list, and I certainly endorse Mahler's Resurrection as the best-ever Second Symphony. I'm tempted to add Raff's Second to it, because it is such an improvement on the bloated First and really is a fine work, although often outshone by its flashier programmatic stable mates, but in the final analysis it's not Raff's best symphony. Draeseke's Second is a surprise - surely his Third, the Tragica, is a greater achievement? Bruch's magnificent Second certainly should be added, as should Elgar's.

[Peter1953]

Is Brahms's second a lesser work than his first?

Hard to say, as they are both so boring

Interesting opinion, TerraEpon. Is it because it's such a celebrated symphony? Broadcast too often? A music lover's favourite? Or do you really think Brahms's Second is very boring?

I agree with chill319 and Mark by saying that Mahler's Resurrection Symphony is the best-ever second symphony, but that's because I don't think Brahms's second is better than his first.

I wonder whether Rubinstein did everything to avoid his Ocean Symphony to become a sophomore jinx. The first version consisted of four movements (1851), but the final version has seven movements (1880). In the meantime he wrote his 3rd, 4th and was working on his 5th. I guess MP/Naxos booklet writer Keith Anderson makes a point by explaning that Rubinstein had something else in mind for his Second: he finally wanted seven movements, representing the Seven Seas.

[Amphissa]

Is Brahms's second a lesser work than his first?

Hard to say, as they are both so boring

You are certainly in a miniscule minority with that opinion, but I'll vote for your other choices.

More who wrote a creditable second:
Kalinnikov
Arensky
Borodin
Howard Hanson
John Knowles Paine
Martucci
Scriabin
Hovhanness (his 2nd was probably his best work ever - Mysterious Mountain)

Slumpers:
Elgar

[TerraEpon]

Interesting opinion, TerraEpon. Is it because it's such a celebrated symphony? Broadcast too often? A music lover's favourite? Or do you really think Brahms's Second is very boring?

I just don't find it interesting for whatever reason. I admit I haven't heard it THAT many times, but enough to know I don't want to bother again. I *could* change my mind (I did recently about Schubert's 9th for instance) but at the moment I have no reason to. But Brahms wrote so much that just leave me cold too -- the short list: First three symphonies, PC #2, Alto Rhapsody, German Requiem, Haydn Variations (THAT one I've heard way too many times), the two Serenades, and some piano music I can't remember.
As for what I *do* like, 4th Symphony, Academic Festival, Song of Destiny, most of the Hungarian Dances, Violin Concerto...and of course his 'Lullaby'


But that's off topic, I guess. As for Hovhaness, I'm a big fan and as great as 'correct' for the topic Mysterious Mountain is, he wrote a lot of great other pieces that certain are on the level IMO. It's also not REALLY his second, especially going by chill319's definition here.

[Hofrat]

TerraEpon;

Brahms did not write his Hungarian Dances.  Brahms ARRANGED 20-some popular Hungarian tunes for piano 4-hands and orchestrated 3 of them.  The others were orchestrated by other composers (Dvorak being one of them).  Please notice, Brahms did not attach an opus number (because he did not write them!!).

[Alan Howe]

Brahms 2 - especially the finale - is one of the all-time great symphonies. For an experience that will absolutely lift you off your feet, try the DVD of Karajan's performance from 1973 with the BPO.
Mahler 2 is a great, great symphony too, I agree, as is Elgar 2.
As for others: Raff 2 and Draeseke 2 are both great works too, the one bustling with activity and showing how a classically-oriented symphony could be written as music was going off in a much heavier direction, and the other showing how the more advanced music of Wagner and Liszt could be absorbed into symphonic form. Draeseke 2 also has some remarkable premonitions of the horn writing of Richard Strauss (coda to 1st movement) and Mahlerian sonorities (2nd movement).
A personal favourite is J. P. E. Hartmann's 2nd - wonderfully individual and fully up to the level of Berwald. Other marvellous 2nds include: Stenhammar 2, Wilhelm Berger 2 and Herzogenberg 2. 

[TerraEpon]

Brahms did not write his Hungarian Dances.  Brahms ARRANGED 20-some popular Hungarian tunes for piano 4-hands and orchestrated 3 of them.  The others were orchestrated by other composers (Dvorak being one of them).  Please notice, Brahms did not attach an opus number (because he did not write them!!).

I know all this. But so?

[chill319]

Great fun, this.

TerraEpon, you remind me that I was thrilled by Borodin 2 as a teenager. Have to listen to it again. I'm intrigued that Hovhaness 2 is not Hovhaness's second.

Pengeli, my response to the Tubin I've heard is similar to yours. At the same early age I sneered at Hanson 2 for all the wrong reasons. Shame on me. And Amphissa, thanks for the generous list.
-- Paine 2 exceeded my ignorant low expectations so greatly that I'm not sure what to think. But if I add Paine 2 I guess I'd have to add Chadwick 2, and I'm *guessing* that Converse 2 would outshine them both.
-- Have to make a point to listen again to Scriabin 2 enough times to let it sink in. I mainly hear it as a serious attempt to move past the dichotomy between sensuality and emotional turmoil essayed in 1, but so far (to my ears) Scriabin (like Beethoven in *his* second) didn't quite arrive here at a point of unmistakable authenticity.
-- Hovhanness -- you're quite right: there's nothing else like it, and it's powerful (at least in Reiner's old rendition). How could I forget?
-- The others in your list will be new discoveries for me.

Mark Thomas, I quite agree with you about Draeseke 3. (Could the piano concerto -- written in the same general time frame -- *really* be as much of a dud as it sounds like in current recordings?) There are SO many great thirds. But I still think the greatest ever is Beethoven 3.

Alan Howe, the more I study Draeseke in score, the more he impresses. I will definitely give Raff 2, Berger 2, and Herzogenberg 2 some listens.

The same goes for Rubinstein 2 (seven movement version), too. Thanks for that, Peter1953. As a keyboard player I've had a hard time warming up to the Rubinstein sonatas. Hearing a performance of Rubinstein's symphony 2 might help me tune in.

I'll confess, all, to two other seconds that I'm particularly fond of: Wetz 2 and Furtwangler 2 -- the former one of the most lyrical symphonies ever, the second a personal favorite only after some years of mixed listening.

[TerraEpon]

I'm intrigued that Hovhaness 2 is not Hovhaness's second.

Well, if I remember right, one of his earlier works he later called a Symphony, and put a later number on. There's also the fact he destroyed a large chunk of music from his early years (though I imagine the actual amount is exaggerated). No idea if any 'symphonies' are in there, though.

Of course, Hovhaness just like to call things symphonies. I think he used the term in the old way, in a sense.....


Incidently, I don't like the Rubinstein 2 much, but I've only heard the Marco Polo recording.


One noone's mentioned is Stravinsky, who has three possibilities for his 'second' -- the Symphony of Pslams, the Symphonies of Wind Instruments (note the plural -- it's not 'a symphony'), or Symphony in C. Personally I only really like the last one.

[John H White]

I certainly agree with Mark that Raff's 2nd Symphony is a great improvement on his overlong and over pompous No1. I particularly admire the scherzo, which I regard as one of the finest ever written. I also suspect that Franz Lachner's No 2 was a great improvement on his No 1, judging by the reports of how well it was received at its first performance but, since I'm unlikely ever to hear it, I shall never know for certain. Two symphonies I reckon to be inferior to there predecessors are Beethoven No 2 (apart from the splendid Larghetto, which may well have been an after thought) and, as already suggested, Brahmns No 2.
Cheers,
    John.

[Mark Thomas]

A word in defence of Brahms' Second. I have known and loved his First for 35-odd years and have heard it many times in concert. Somehow, although they aren't unfamiliar, I have never really got to grips with the other three, ashamed though I am to admit it.

About three weeks ago I heard the Second at a City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra concert in Symphony Hall, Birmingham and, for the first time, absolutely loved it. Of course, it doesn't have the drama and resolution of the First, but it isn't just a relaxed pastoral piece either. It suffers from comparison with its predecessor's epic scale and clearly defined "programme", as revealed in that wonderful life affirming finale. But the First's finale is, in my book, one of the most successful symphonic conclusions there is and it seems very unfair on the Second to mark it down because it doesn't follow suit. It doesn't because, given the tenor of the first three movements and the whole work's unprogrammatic nature, it doesn't need to.

[chill319]

Please forgive a bit of biography... in my 13th year the opening of Brahms 1, played to the hilt, reached my angst-ridden ears for the first time at about 112 db in a cramped rehearsal hall. I shall never have another Brahms experience like that. Nonetheless, I still believe Brahms 2 is, in some ways, the greater creative achievement.

But I like the fork that John White is taking. And the difference of opinion. Is Berlioz's "Harold en Italie" a symphony? If so, is it an example of sophomore slump? If not, what of "Symphonie Funèbre et Triomphale"?