Bruch Symphony No.2

[Alan Howe]

As I consider further the issue of the so-called 'Dahlhaus gap' - the 25-year period between Schumann 4 (revised version 1851) and Brahms 1 (1876) during which (according to German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus) no symphony of lasting significance was written - I have been listening again to Max Bruch's Symphony No.2, published in 1870. Jerry Dubins, writing in Fanfare magazine (September 2010), makes an interesting argument:

...Formally, the Second Symphony is even more unusual for its time. In only three movements (fast-slow-fast) instead of four, it more closely resembles a concerto than it does a symphony. Yet its three movements combined exceed the First Symphony's four by six minutes. Content-wise, the minor key makes for a darker-hued, more somber-sounding work. But there's more to it than that. Mendelssohn and Schumann seem to have faded into the background. The thematic material is not as immediately melodic in a hummable way. Lines are more chromatic, statements more stentorian, almost hectoring at times, and the orchestral fabric granitic. It's hard to say if at this early date Bruch might have heard something by Bruckner or, if he had, what it might have been, for as of 1870, when Bruch's Second Symphony was completed, Bruckner had only gotten as far as an early student symphony (1863), the Symphony No. 1 in C Minor (1866), and the Symphony No. 0 in D Minor (1869). But Bruch's work does sound closer to early Bruckner than it does to Mendelssohn, Schumann, or to anyone in the Brahms orbit...

Does anyone have any thoughts on this marvellous symphony?

[eschiss1]

Took a quick look in the Google Preview of Mr. Fifield's book for any clues; he's not at all impressed with the work, parts of one of the 3 movements aside, it seems, and provides general details mostly- completed in Summer 1870, premiered 4 September 1870, etc. (2005 revision, "Max Bruch: His Life and Works", pp.110-11.) Ah well...

[Alan Howe]

It's interesting, though, to consider the progress of symphonic writing in this period. I think Bruch 2 does represent an advance over Schumann, for example. Also of interest is the fact that the finale contains the sort of reminiscence of the great tune in the last movement of Beethoven 9 that one thought was Brahms' invention in his own 1st Symphony. Seems that Bruch got there first!

[Mark Thomas]

I must say that I find Bruch's Second has a nobility about it which is, I think, unique for its era. It's partly the sombre colouring which Dubins mentions, but also the melodic contours, the clear seriousness of purpose of the piece, and its monumentality (it is only three movements after all). It is in no way a happy work, but it isn't a visceral cry of pain either. To me the mood is of quiet suffering, patiently borne and with the hope of deliverance at the end. I find it a very moving listen.

Apologies for that gush of emotion, but that's the way I respond to the piece which IMHO is Bruch's finest creation and unaccountably discounted.

[Alan Howe]

I find it an affecting piece too - as you say, noble and sombre. I think it is greatly underrated.

[JimL]

Thirded on the 2nd!

[chill319]

Bruch wears well. The second symphony is by no means the work of an epigone. Perhaps what binds it to the past instead of the future is its length.

Re the dates of the Dahlhaus gap: Thanks to our good friends at IMSLP, the manuscript of Schumann's final revision of symphony 4 is widely available for study. It is from 1853 (substantially the same as the 1851 score, but with some interesting revisions).

[eschiss1]

a discussion on the Schumann Symphony 4 discussion page suggests that 1853 is just a date on the title page of the manuscript, and that Schumann symphony 4 was not changed in any real way after 1851. However, I may be mistaken.  The almost-never-seen thing claiming to be an  "1853" manuscript from SBB is @ IMSLP to be looked at, anycase; it may or may not differ from the 1851 score- I haven't really checked, alas, and should for myself!

The changes between the 1841 and 1851 versions, mind, are fascinating, but that's not news to us, I expect. Both score and parts of both versions are now available @IMSLP. Still, that's not "unsung" business except to the extent that the 1841 version is still something of a relative stranger to - well, most places (I prefer it by a lot and think Schumann's 2nd thoughts weren't better thoughts, here.)

[Alan Howe]

...and 25 years was such a convenient time-span.

[Alan Howe]

Re-listened to Conlon's superlative recording of Bruch 2 (EMI) today. It's a very fine work - far finer than the 'well, it's not Brahms' critics maintain. I think Mark characterises it very well; it's extremely beautiful to listen to and the restrained sadness evident in the slow movement is most moving. Love the way that movement morphs into the great tune of the finale, by the way. Bruch may not have been Brahms; but Brahms wasn't Bruch either...

[hyperdanny]

it was wonderful to read Mark Thomas' assessment fo the Bruch 2nd! What a strange feeling , when somebody expresses exactly what you feel about something..but elaborated with a clarity you never reached.
This dark, stormy, noble symphony is in the Olympus of my favorite not-so-minor masterpieces...and poor Bruch spent his last years knowing that he was going to be remembered just for ONE piece (not at all the best IMHO)
BTW I wholeheartedly suggest reading Christopher Fifield's Bruch biography, wonderful book.

[Mark Thomas]

I'm humbled, hyperdanny. Thanks very much. Bruch's Second remains one of the true unsung masterpieces in my book.

[Alan Howe]

I'm pretty enamoured of Bruch's 3rd too. He was, after all, a very fine composer. His music has such nobility, I find, and such a wonderful richness of sonority that Elgar often seems just a step or two away, or indeed, Parry.

[Ilja]

Apologies for that gush of emotion, but that's the way I respond to the piece which IMHO is Bruch's finest creation and unaccountably discounted.

I think Bruch's Second is one of the handful of pieces that moves me irrespective of my mood of the moment or the circumstances. It's one of those pieces where you feel every note needs to be there.
p.s. favorite recording: Leipzig / Masur. Not my favorite conductor by any means, but this one he just nails.

[adriano]

Right, Iljia, I am of the very same opinion. Both sets with Bruch's Violin Concertos and Symphonies under Masur are really (and exceptionally) beautiful.