Bruno Walter's Symphony no2 in E

[Marcus]

Does anyone know if CPO are intending to record Bruno Walter's Symphony no2 in E major ?
I have really enjoyed his Symphony no1 released by CPO recently, also his Violin Sonata realeased a few years ago, and I think it is a pity he gave up composing. In my opinion the 1st Symphony is better than Weingartner's symphonies. Does anyone agree ?

[Marcus]

Further to my last post. (I hit post instead of prieview) :

In the past "Kappelmeister" music was sneered at or politely ignored, although Mahler, Strauss, Pfitzner etc eventually proved the critics were wrong.(Strauss certainly didn't have to work too hard !)
One would think that an orchestral conductor should make an excellent composer considering the number of different scores which he studies. Of course just studying music does not make a composer - the spark of genius must be present. But the quality of the composition should be the main determinant of success. I think we are more enlightened these days.

[JimL]

Marcus, if you hit modify on any post accidentally entered, you can continue the same post without having to do another.

[sdtom]

I was not impressed with his first symphony.
Thomas

[Alan Howe]

Walter's 1st Symphony reminded me of Mahler without the inspiration. I'm glad it was recorded, but I didn't think it measured up to expectations.

As for comparisons, Weingartner 1,2 and 3 are all very different - from Walter 1 and from each other. No.1 inhabits the world of Mendelssohn and Dvorak - and very enjoyable it is too; No.2 moves between Brahms and Bruckner - again very enjoyably; while No.3 is a magnificent Straussian outpouring: much his most imaginative symphony and far better than the Walter IMHO. No.4 is rather Regerian and 'knotty' and from that point he goes downhill somewhat. He's not a great composer, but he is a very enjoyable one. Walter knew that he was not really a composer and - quite rightly - gave up!

But better than either in that generation is Wilhelm Berger. He is a true great. His Symphony No.2 is like no other from that period...

[Mark Thomas]

I'm afraid that I found Walter's First a huge disappointment. Turgid, self-indulgent and utterly boring. I certainly wouldn't be tempted by his Second unless most of you here raved about it.

[Marcus]

Hello Alan,
I agree that Weingartner was not a great composer. His continual references to other composers in his works, is probably proof of this. There is some very beautiful music in his symphonies. In the 1st ,that beautiful opening melody, courtesy of Anton Rubinstein, or the Brucknerian snatches in the 2nd (2mvt) & 5th (2mvt), the obvious Schubertian quotes in the 6th. Admittedly, he was honoring Schubert's centenary in the 6th. But there is alot of fine music, but it is not sustained . Nonetheless, and for me the 3rd is the pick of them, a long rambling work, that has Strauss looking over his shoulder. I haven't heard the 7th, but maybe CPO are saving the best until last ?
My comparison of Weingartner's symphonies with Bruno Walter's 1st, was probably an unfair comparison, considering what few works of Walter's are available on CD. However, what I should have said better was, that for me Walter has shown to me with his 1st , an excellence in late romantic style,which promised so much more. Walter's 1st symphony is no masterpiece, but I lament the fact that he didn't do as Weingartner did, and continued to compose.  Perhaps the inspirational flame had petered out ? Or maybe he thought Mahler had said it all.
All of us have different reactions to classical music, and it is great to hear other opinions. That's the magical power of music !
Marcus.

[Alan Howe]

Great to hear your views, Marcus. My guess is that Walter thought Mahler was saying it all rather better. And you're right about Weingartner - No.3 is a belter of a symphony.