Franz Lachner Symphony No.3

[John H White]

Sadly, this seems down to my failing eyesight. I suppose, at 87, I'm lucky to have any eyesight left at all.
      Anyway, I'm glad the matter has been once and for all cleared up.
          Cheers,
              John.

[Alan Howe]

At 87 you're remarkable, John. Think what a contribution you've made to this forum, especially on the Lachners and Spohr. I for one am greatly in your debt. Thank you!

[Gareth Vaughan]

We are all, I'm sure, very grateful for your many and excellent contributions to this forum. It is always a pleasure to hear from you here.

[Mark Thomas]

And at your age you're entitled to take things a little more slowly if you want to, even at a metronome mark of 38! Best wishes to you and Sheila.

[Alan Howe]

I see from the sleevenotes accompanying the cpo recording of Lachner's 3rd that a clear distinction is made between the South German/Austrian style of symphonic writing and the North German. Here's the quote, which I have amended very slightly:

<<In a way the dispute surrounding Lachner is characteristic of the notorious dispute between North German and South German/Austrian music theorists in the second half of the 18th century. Northern Germans mostly accused the Southern Germans and Austrians of uncontrolled development without principles and a careless waste of resources - and the latter in turn accused the Northerners of being pedantic, dry and boringly dogmatic. And in a way this reflects the contrast between Brahms' and Bruckner's concepts of the symphony.>> 

I suppose the issue here is that critiquing Lachner from a more rigorous point of view is to miss what he is trying to achieve in his symphonies. Comments anyone?

[eschiss1]

Wait, which is supposed to be which? I have immense trouble imagining either mature Brahms or mature Bruckner as being uncontrolled, wasting resources or developing without principles.

[Alan Howe]

Well, it was once a matter of serious dispute - which means that it concerns nineteenth-century perspectives on symphonic writing which have been long forgotten. In this musicological 'clash of the titans', Brahms would be the Northern rigorist and Bruckner his indulgent Southern counterpart, with Lachner being in the Bruckner camp and Schumann/Mendelssohn in that of Brahms. Speaking personally, I can understand the distinction being made, but wouldn't want to write off either as being inferior to the other.

Basically, I've changed my mind about Lachner - thanks to Gernot Schmalfuss and cpo!

[Alan Howe]

Today I had a strange experience. My order of Dvorak's 7th under Haitink had arrived, so I thought I'd give it a listen (and it's smokin' hot, by the way - extremely powerful), but after the first movement I thought: I'm missing Lachner, and decided to switch to his 3rd Symphony which has been going round in my head for days. The reason? Not that I was bored with Dvorak, but there's just something about Lachner's constant energy that's addictive. I think I've caught the bug...

[hyperdanny]

Been there....I caught the "bug" since my first listen of the 8th.
After the final rush of the amazing final bars, I was left like "wow, WHAT was that?"
As discussed here many times, there are flaws in his music, mostly how it is often overstretched, but there is "something" about it.
I am not musically educated enough to elucidate it deeply, but I always felt it's just very original, fundamentally "different" from anything else.
I like "constant energy", though.

[Alan Howe]

Lachner's world is definitely all his own. I'm hooked. Or perhaps 'bitten'? Or smitten? Anyway...