Unsung Monumental Symphonies

[Gareth Vaughan]

I understand what you mean by monumental, Peter - and it's not what most of the respondents seem to think you mean. You've clarified it very well in your last post.
The strength of melodic interest and the ability of those melodies which the composer employs to produce strong emotions in the listener is crucial to making the work monumental. Of course, the way the composer employs the melodies - their development, juxtaposition, orchestral colouring, etc. - is a fundamental part of this.  Now there is bound to be a high degree of "subjectivity" in one's response to a piece of music and a good illustration, it seems to me is the following: you say, "I'm convinced that what makes a symphony (or any other musical genre) 'monumental' is the melody, or better, the concatenation of striking themes that cause deep felt emotions." - and then cite Tchailkovsky 5 as an example (a rather good one). But I get a similar thrill out of the melodic themes and their development in Raff's Symphony No. 5 - yet you find that no symphony of Raff merits for you the term "monumental".  That's fair enough, and as it should be - but it's very difficult to get people to agree on strictly objective criteria of excellence in any art form, because the definition of so many terms employed (very properly) in discussing and describing art contains a substantial element of emotion: beauty, grandeur, despair, exuberance, etc. So to say something is monumental presupposes an agreed set of attributes or qualities which define "monumental" against which a work of art can be judged in order to determine whether or not it qualifies for this description.  But since a large percentage of these attributes is emotional (and different things evoke different emotions in different people in different places at different times under different circumstances) a large part of what we may decide contributes to the monumental nature of a work amounts to little more than "I like it" or "It moves me".  To say "I like a piece of music because it produces this or that emotion in me" is tantamount to saying I like it because I like it.  You see, I'm sure, the dilemma - it is a basic one of aesthetics. That is not to say we should give up, but we must be aware of the problem.

[JimL]

With more than a little tongue in cheek, I've been trying to elucidate just that point to all our colleagues, Gareth.  If I want to pick nits, I can make distinctions on purely subjective terms, saying that this work is epic, that one is monumental, etc.  I  like my subjective definitions.  A work is epic in terms of its materials, their handling, orchestration and other such elements.  If it is both epic and long, then, and only then, is it monumental.  To me.

[Mark Thomas]

Thanks Peter and Gareth for bringing the discussion in this thread back to what Peter originally intended it to be. Obviously my earlier attempts were insufficient to stem the flow of lists!

As I wrote earlier, I have a real problem with defining just what it is about a work which time and again moves me so much that it enters my own pantheon of monumentality. Gareth and Peter's last two posts have, I think, illustrated the contradictions and there comes a point where one gives up trying to identify the cause and just accepts the effect. That's where I am. I suppose a work becomes a universally accepted "monumental" repertoire work (in Peter's use of the word) if enough music lovers feel the same about it.

There's also the phenomenon of genius to consider. If it takes a musical genius to produce such a piece of music, maybe one can argue that, whilst its individual building blocks are capable of replication by any craftsman musician, the way they are put together to achieve "monumentality" shows a genius which isn't capable of replication? Or analysis?

[Alan Howe]

I think Gareth has it absolutely right. And I'm not ready yet to give up the attempt to explore in objective terms the reasons for subjective responses. I still like the because... (although not 'I like it because I like it')

[Hofrat]

The problem is that we can not agree to the criterion for monumental, and once we agree we can not agree to the methods to measure each criterion.  Several forum members considered the "tunefulness" of the work as a criterion.  Is the montonic opening theme of the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony tuneful?  No, it is not, yet it is a great symphony if not monumental.  If orchestration is a criterion, how can we grade Haydn against Mahler on the same scale? 

I have a book that gives a listing of the top 60 operas.  The authors also gave the criterion which they used to reach their findings.  In this case, it was the number of productions at the Met and Covet Gardens weighed against number of recordings over a certain period.  One might not agree to these criterions of the listing, but the point is that the criterions choosed were concrete and measurable.  We do not have that for monumental.         

[Gareth Vaughan]

I would have to take issue with your view, Hofrat, that the opening subject of the 2nd movt. of Beethoven's 7th symphony is not tuneful because it is monotonic. It's a great tune and instantly memorable. But perhaps your criteria for what constitutes a tune are different from mine.  And here we are, back to subjectivity. Once we agree, however, on what constitutes a tune, we can progress.
And, yes, Alan, I think it is essential that when we like (or dislike) something we try to say why we do so - even if our attempt ends up in being circular, at least we've endeavoured to explain and objectify our response.

[gentile]

The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed. ... I'm looking for unsung symphonies which cause the same effect.

Hi, Peter1953,
Letting aside the discussion of what makes a musical piece great and the "objective" criteria to assess it, I think that your expression "that grabs you by the throat" is much more descriptive (and so much better than "monumental") of what you meant. I also can feel that some music pieces (as the symphonies you mention) "grab my throat" from the very first bar and force me to follow the stream of the music without letting any opportunity for my attention to wander. And I also believe that this capacity of the music is a feature of "greatness". I am sure, however, that the pieces that "grab by the throat" may be different from listener to listener since each one is looking for different things in music. In my case, it is not so much the melody but the eloquence of the thematic material (be it melodic or not), the logical continuity of the music (that is, you cannot anticipate the music flow but you are constantly feeling that the composer has chosen just the "right" way to keep flowing) and its relentless drive what carries me away. The first movements of Dvorak 8 and Nielsen 1 come to my mind as further examples.
So, since you are looking for unsung symphonies that cause this effect, let me suggest you some that "grab my throat" (even if my choice will surely be different of yours). One piece that always carries me away is the first movement of Taneyev's 2nd (to be heard, if possible, in Fedoseyev's version). I find it as good as anything by Tchaikovsky. One of the multiple reasons for liking it is that it uses a favourite device in common with Schumann 2nd (one that you mentioned). Namely, to begin with a slow motto theme that doesn't sound very promising but that keeps gaining relevance and has an apotheosic reprise, now full of sense, at the very end of the movement (or of the symphony, as in Schumann). Lemba's C sharp minor symphony first movement is another piece that uses the same scheme. In this case, the reappearance of the motto at the coda of the first movement is by far the best moment of a good symphony.
You may already know these works, so let me finish with a lesser known and more modern symphony. You may give a try to the 2nd Symphony of the (East) German composer Leo Spies (1899-1965). The symphony begins with a strong and catchy theme that immediately "hooks me up" and carries me along with its ruthless drive through the whole movement. The rest of the symphony is equally memorable, as is anything I have heard from this composer. A relatively recent (2005) article dedicated to him in Neue Zeitschrift der Musik was entitled "Authentisches Komponieren, jenseits avangardistischer Moden" (Authentic composing, at the other side of avant-garde fashions), which I think fits him very well. The symphony is as good as you can find among modern symphonies and it has been edited in CD by the label Hastedt:

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Leo-Spies-Symphonie-Nr-2-1961/hnum/5349588

You can hear soundbites at this link although, uncommonly,  jpc has selected a fragment of the first movement which is not the start of the symphony and, hence, the main theme cannot be heard. The only drawback of this CD (which includes also Spies Violin concerto) is that it is a reissue of old recordings (from 1963 the symphony and from 1955 the concerto) and the sound is correspondingly poor. I would wish some modern recordings of the major Leo Spies works (specially of his first symphony which looks impressive from the score). CPO, are you listening??

[Steve B]

Each of us knows what "monumental" means(or doesnt mean:)) to each one of us, as an individual, if indeed we should choose to use that particular adjective(though i quite like it:)!). I don't need  to define it; i FEEL it. To me, unlike Alan, it is enought to FEEL a piece of work, I dont have to say "I like it because of...."(tuneful, orchestration etc). Emotion, like a lot (though not all, eg very complex, music) speaks for itself.My SUBJECTIVE", i.e what I experience and FEEL and personally, as an INDIVIDUAL, take pleasure in, is enough to me; and I am, like Peter 1953, very interested in OTHER's people's tastes and emotional reactions to a piece of music, without them having to justify or explain WHY(in musical analysis terms) it moves them emotionally(even, dare I say it, regardless of quality or perceived "quality"). I suppose I would like to see four seperate, but related, debates:
1.individual musical enthusiasms(whether monumental/"monumental" or not:)), which are sometimes catching(including emotionally!). I value these, in and FOR themselves. sharing them is a great joy.
2. (To a lesser extent, personally, though it has SOME interest), a musical or quasi-musical analysis of structure, melody, harmony etc etc; and which pieces utilise these most effectively(though again there will be some personal response element to these allegedly"objective" criteria.)
3. A subject, which I am just now articulating to myself, concomitant with the (some degree of)difficulty we are experiencing in coming to enumerating a LARGE number of unsung "monuments"/monuments(HOWEVER defined) is, is it possible, (ie.are we READY?) to look at the issue of whether we love and "monumentalise" or hold up as dear or as "great" just SOME (I stress "JUST SOME";)of these unsung pieces BECAUSE I/we are aggrieved that they are un(der)performed/unjustly neglected? NOT THAT THAT IS A (VALUE) JUDGEMENT:) Something doesnt have to be great to enjoy it, and, more importantly, to be moved by it. Which brings in (again) the hierarchy of "movingness"- from e.g. Beethoven(great, refined ,"unsentimental") music v. Moszkowski("sentimental", STRIVING for emotional effect).
4. finally, Peter Shott refers to a "simplistic male way of thinking"(ie. in reference to Peter's "monumental" being taken to refer to the need to create a LIST(sic) of behemoths). Now, we are on interesting territory-EMOTIONAL  responses being integral to a definition of monumental versus. geeky(BUT NICE AND GOOD:)), so-called male list-making of great beasts in music. The eternal "feminine"(=emotional)v. the "masculine"(=logical, "rational"/rational,eg listmaking). These are all socially constructed categories. No behaviour is intrinsically "male"/"masculine" or "female"/"feminine"; so psychological angrogyny is the way forward, viz. adopting WHATEVER characteristics of the perceived psychological "male" or "female" you wish and becoming a WHOLE  person. Luckily, on this forum, the majority of people are open re their emotional responses(and, correct me if wrong, currently i think we are all male); so we are males acting in a socially constructed "female" way in this regard. But, IT DOESNT MATTER; we are all HUMAN, above all, so these responses are(obviously) fine. Music is one of the ways where society allows males to cry and feel emotion. Interesting.(to me, anyway).

I am sure we can continue to debate this is in a friendly spirit-of-debate way; and am, as ever, intrigued to hear more opinions, which have been very frank. And I back up other's points that EVERYONES viewpoint, emotional, musical-analysis, historical, psychological is EQUALLY valid, which i am sure everyone is agreeing with anyway. And PLEASE, as long as it stays friendly, which it usually does on this forum,lets not have the moccas put on it,(ironically) because it doesnt "achieve" anything, or isnt "objective" enough on musical content and analysis. People's musical loves are inspiring. I would hate this forum to become an information exchange(which is undoubtedly very useful) and an assessment of what is "good"/great music by an analysis of musical melody, harmony, structure etc. This would be limiting, in my opinion

Steve Benson

[Alan Howe]

Sorry, I don't want simply to read someone's unsubstantiated subjective ramblings. I love to hear about a new enthusiasm or a new discovery, but I desperately want to know WHY it is so, even if the attempt is somewhat exploratory, provisional, non-technical, rough-and-ready or whatever.

When I was in teaching, the biggest problem with many young people was teaching them to go beyond their knee-jerk likes and dislikes and explain what it was that attracted them about a piece of music, book, poem, etc. Otherwise, all you had was a group of people talking past each other with no attempt at intelligent analysis, engagement or discussion. And the winner then was always the person who could shout loudest - or, I'm tempted to add, write longest.

[TerraEpon]

The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed.

Gliere's 2nd maybe? (though the 3rd is unquestionably one of the most 'monumental' in the other definitions that many are using here).

Or here's one I doubt too many people know -- Rozsa's Symphony in Three Movements. It really seems to dig down into itself, or something.

[Amphissa]

 
Well, whatever we each separately interpret as "monumental", it looks like of the unsungs mentioned there are two examples here for Taneyev and a couple for Gliere as well, although different symphonies are selected. So maybe in our imperfect and roundabout way we converge on these composers from separate paths.

[John H White]

Of course my favourite still has to be Franz Lachner's prize winning 5th symphony which nobody else appears to have mentioned yet on this thread. For the 20th Century, I would say that Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony takes a lot of beating. I suspect he was trying to out-Mahler Mahler.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Amphissa - I think you would have a great future in the diplomatic service! We've all covered much ground in this thread, some incredibly bright nominations have been made, but alas maybe the point has been reached where further sore throats can be the only future outcome. Gentlemen can agree to disagree whilst respecting opposed viewpoints. Gliere and Taneyev, yes! Maybe an unexpected outcome to Peter's posing of the initial question, but I'm sure all would agree these two are monumentally good candidates for monumental status and that we can now all busy ourselves with interesting ourselves in an issue other than monumentality!

Peter

[Gareth Vaughan]

"Each of us knows what "monumental" means(or doesnt mean:)) to each one of us, as an individual, if indeed we should choose to use that particular adjective(though i quite like it:)!). I don't need  to define it;"
Well... yes. But you do need to define it if you are going to have a conversation about monumentality with one or more other persons - otherwise you'll simply end up talking at cross purposes. If A defines monumental as "large" and B defines monumental as "emotionally arresting" they can't have a meaningful conversation about what pieces of music illustrate monumentality. You have to agree on the criteria which define a word for the purposes of your discussion before you can have that discussion.
And it's a very good discipline to ask yourself why you like or dislike something; it helps one avoid sloppy thinking, sharpens one's wits and is an example of that critical self-awareness which distinguishes man from most animals. It is one of the essences of education, a cornerstone of academic probity and a major factor in the evolution of universities.

[Peter1953]

This topic turns out to be a very interesting discussion. I've read many helpful, remarkable and open-minded opinions which have sharpened my thoughts. Some posts, like Gareth's #30, are no less than short in depth articles on the subject of what is 'monumental'. I'm very grateful to all of you.

IMHO I still think that the key feature of what we might call a monumental work is the melody, or the flow of melodies, that gives the listener deep felt emotions. Obviously some characteristics, I cite Gareth, like the development of melodies, juxtaposition, orchestral colouring and emotional elements like beauty, grandeur, despair, exuberance, are fundamental for a work what we might call 'monumental'. Then the work stands like a rock. But these components are also found in great works that I don't call monumental. Take Raff's Fifth. Without doubt a majestic symphony that cause deep felt emotions. But to me the difference with Tchaikovsky's Fifth is that the Tchaikovsky causes deeper felt emotions. It's the ultimate music.
Monumental music makes me feel great and gives me a sort of mental power. And it's also what Steve pointed out, it can move me (under certain circumstances) to tears. A monumental work gives me a 'mental after taste'. It brings my heart and head together. The music takes some time to sink in, and I want to think it over. It has done something lasting to my feelings, it's more than just entertainment. The music is definitive.
My problem is that I cannot find words to describe this feeling, not even in Dutch, my native language.

This topic is deliberately limited to the symphony. But of course, in other musical genres we also find monumental works. Some examples, as I see it, are the 2nd Piano Concerto by Rachmaninov, Elgar's Cello Concerto (and certainly the performance by Jacqueline du Pré), and – here he comes – the Violin Concerto by Brahms. And how about Mendelssohn's The Hebrides? Chamber music? Schubert's last String Quintett D956. I think that we can find in the piano literature a lot of monumental works. Many of Beethoven's Sonata's come to mind. To end with Chopin: his Ballade's, Scherzo's, and much more.
For me it's not easy to find monumental works by unsung composers, but there are some.

Enough said. I believe the essence of monumental works are the melodies that cause deep felt emotions, probably shared by many other classical music lovers, but unfortunately I fail in finding the words to describe this.