Bax Symphony in F from Dutton

[musiclover]

Well, I just hope that both Dutton and Yates take your criticism for what it is then.

[Alan Howe]

They have no option. It's out there! In any case, I don't suppose they'll take any notice of what a rank amateur says. As far as they're concerned I'm a nobody...

[Alan Howe]

This review on Amazon.co.uk sums up what I think about the piece:

<<By Tintagel

The playing and conducting warrant credit, and the sound is fine (a little dry, but nothing seriously wrong with it). But I just lost it there......the sentimentalists (and tho see desperate to spread the Bax word - understandably) will doubtless mark this review as 'unhelpful', but I really don't care.

I am a Bax lover for sure. Really I am. With several Bax recordings in my collection - basically every Orchestral recording that I have been able to find, including a number of versions of each symphony - I have spent a fair amount of time listening to the man's music.

Only a small selection of pieces have disappointed in any way - the tone poem Christmas Eve and the Cello Concerto don't do it for me, for example - but almost everything else leaves me enraptured every time.

This new recording obviously generated some excitement, but I can't honestly say that I enjoyed it greatly. In fact, by the end, I was pretty bored by all three attempts to listen through. The first movement is fairly attractive, reminding me a little of Atterberg's First, but my hopes faded from then on. Both the second and third movements have some interesting episodes - the third is even quite quirky in places - but ultimately fall into distinct elements. This just leaves an impression of music that lacks direction. The finale didn't even seem to have particularly attractive episodes, so there was little hope of it providing any kind of worthy conclusion.

Throughout there are hollow gestures galore, all orchestrated with admirable transparency by Martin Yates. After a while I founds myself wondering at how such confident playing could deliver so much....well....nothing.

When I first started to play the disc I didn't look at the back of the box, so I didn't know how long it would be. Around 10 minutes in I started to look forward to the possibility of a Tone Poem or other work to act as a fill up. When it became clear that this windbag of a Symphony was 70+ minutes I wondered if I would ever listen again.

I have tried 3 times now. This is. Surely one of the biggest musical disappointments that I have had in years.>>
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arnold-Symphony-realised-Martin-Yates/dp/B00GY40CXG/ref=pd_sim_m_h__8

Frankly, it does the cause of unsung music - especially really fine unsung music - no good at all if we pull our critical punches over music of lesser quality.

[Mark Thomas]

If our "reviews" effect the sales of a particular recording in a negative way that is clearly not right.

Sorry, it's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of objectivity. There is absolutely no value in any of us here who air our opinions on unsung pieces, doing so other than honestly. As Alan rightly says, if we refrain from criticising a piece of music like this Bax symphony because we don't want to dent someone's enthusiasm or affect some company's receipts, what trust can be put in any critique, positive or negative? In any event, I doubt whether Dutton's takings will suffer one whit from what is written at UC. There are a legion of Bax lovers who will pounce on this recording and then I suspect be secretly (but only secretly, mind) disappointed by what they hear. From which you will gather that I side with Alan and the Amazon reviewer Tintagel on this one. I won't repeat what they say, but I did find myself understanding why Bax never revisited this score on which he expended so much time and effort.

[minacciosa]

Doesn't a work like this cause wonderment and joy when it concretely shows how far its composer grew? From ambitious yet humble beginnings sprang a composer of great originality and power with an instantly recognizable style. That's the wonder created by his early Symphony in F.

Dohnanyi wrote and early symphony (I believe also in F), and it cannot bear comparison to his first numbered symphony, much less to the masterpiece that is his Symphony No.2. We are still glad to have heard his early effort.

[BFerrell]

I found the work fascinating. To begin, the finale is way too verbose by about 20 minutes. Too many weak themes, built into a fury and going nowhere. I sense young Bax had grown tired of the work by this point.
That said, I find the first two movements quite memorable and Baxian, especially the 2nd. The scherzo is passable...but still too long.
My solution, try listening to ONLY the first three movements and experience a quite marvelous very early Bax three movement symphony (as are all the others). The scherzo comes off better as a finale.
I have enjoyed it immensely that way. I thus avoid the colossal disappointment with the original finale.
Yates' orchestration is a marvel and sounds just as if done by Bax.

[Mark Thomas]

I do agree that Martin Yates deserves every plaudit possible for the authenticity of his orchestration, which is utterly convincing.

[giles.enders]

Surely one point about this is that we can hear  this symphony for ourselves and judge it as part of Bax's output.  I don't know the history of this work but I assume Bax was not happy with it.  It is still good to have it and like the curates egg, enjoy some parts.  There are lots of works by well known composers, who others have completed with varying success.  I'm pleased to have heard them and can often see why they were not completed. 

[Mark Thomas]

As one of those sad creatures, a completist, I agree with you, Giles, despite the inadequacies of the work.

[Jimfin]

I must agree with Giles' point: any work cannot be properly assessed until it is heard, and several times, which means a recording (or a broadcast or concert that someone records). Personally I am enjoying the Bax: it lasts about the time of my usual commute, which may help

[Alan Howe]

Nobody is suggesting that the recording shouldn't have been made or that it isn't enlightening with regard to the later Bax: plainly it is. However, that doesn't automatically mean that the music is of great intrinsic worth, because it equally plainly isn't. I wouldn't compare it, for example, to the Elgar/Payne Symphony 3. Nevertheless, I'm thoroughly grateful to Martin Yates and Dutton for the opportunity to hear the completed version of this early Bax piece.

[musiclover]

I agree with Tapiola. It is worth hearing and each movement, with the possible exception of the finale contains material that allows us to see what sort of composer Bax was at that time in his life. It shows us how he developed, but more importantly from where he developed. It has taken me some while to "get into" the last movement but I have found after repeated hearings that I begin to enjoy it more and more for what it is. He doesn't bring it off as it feels like he really intended to do with a big triumphant return of the opening of the first movement, but as a long section it does contain some gorgeous moments and some typical Baxian harmonies. It certainly isn't an Elgar Three, but then it couldn't possible be. Elgar's 3rd, although it contains some music from early in his life, was sketched by a man at the end of his life who knew how his music and more specifically his symphonies worked. This Bax Symphony is the work of a very young man, trying out his wings. Had he got around in later life to re-working it we would not have this window into his youthful efforts. And as a final thought, there are composers at the end of their lives that would have not been able to bring a work of this size into being, let alone a young composer, so it as some achievement at the very least at that level. In my opinion of course...

[Alan Howe]

I'd just say this:
1. Bax didn't actually bring the work fully into being at all - it had to be prepared by Martin Yates.
2. The mere size of a piece is no guide to its quality. In fact, Bax's mature symphonies turned out to be no more than half as long as this monster.
3. Bax wasn't really a disciplined symphonic thinker; his symphonies are often episodic, but gloriously so, of course. In his case, this militated against the creation of a coherent symphony nearly 80 minutes in length. I believe that Bax quickly realised this.

[eschiss1]

in my opinion his string quartets and violin sonatas (the 2 of the 4 of the latter that I know...) are better (as well as briefer) works than his symphonies, though not by a huge leap...

[musiclover]

I'm sorry Alan, but I am not saying the size of the piece is a measure of it's quality. I am saying that it deserves a fair hearing and to keep comparing it to not being Elgar Three and it not being as good as a symphony or two by York Bowen is not objective enough. Well, not for me anyway. I know that it took Martin Yates to bring the piece to any kind of fruition, however, the material and the structure is Bax's own work, so we are told and that is what I am trying to put across. When put in the perspective of his age and lack of experience, it is quite something.....and I am NOT saying because it is long it must be good. I suppose I simply do not accept or agree with what appears to me to be your calm and somewhat implicit authoritative dismissal of the piece.