Franz Lachner's 2nd & 4th symphonies; an appeal.

[eschiss1]

Thank you, sir, it is not every day one gets even to try out part of a substantial work that hasn't probably been heard for 170-odd years. (Referring to Mr. Prengel's post which I have inadvertently hidden at the bottom of the preceding page, with an mp3 and a typeset of a movement from the 2nd symphony.)

[Alan Howe]

May I add my thanks and appreciation also?

One comment: at 4:58 the movement seems very short for this composer. Has the question of repeats been considered?

[gprengel]

One comment: at 4:58 the movement seems very short for this composer. Has the question of repeats been considered?

I had some technical problems with the repetition of the second main part. Now I included the repetition and have now a bit more than 6 minutes

[John H White]

Many thanks,Gerd, for letting us hear this splendid Scherzo. Lachner often seems to be at his best in his scherzos.
     Cheers,
         John

[tpaloj]

Wow, excellent work Gerd. Magnificent to hear it for the first time since ages past. Could I ask what scoring program are you using?

I felt inspired by your work and decided to add in the rest of the instruments - trombones, horns and the optional piccolo (fixed a few pesky errors too). Lachner felt the need to call it a "Grand" Symphony, anyway, let us make it so! 

If anyone uses Dorico, I created a template which might help with the rest of the movements. This audio was created with noteperformer soundfont..

Audio: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gkd9vq8mg9gdhqu/Franz%20Lachner%20-%20Symphony%20no%202%2C%20Scherzo%20audio.mp3?dl=0
Score: https://www.dropbox.com/s/htaxrhhwvwrpa2l/Franz%20Lachner%20-%20Symphony%20no%202%2C%20Scherzo%20typeset.pdf?dl=0
template: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6x11vz9gi318y9/Franz%20Lachner%20-%20Symphony%20no%202%2C%20dorico%20template.dorico?dl=0

[Alan Howe]

Kudos to all involved! Great work!

[John H White]

I've just thought. I wonder if there is anyone in our Forum that has the necessary advanced software and the necessary time who could help Gerd out by undertaking to decipher certain specific movements from these two symphonies. I don't think my poor eyesight would allow me to take on such a task. In the past, it has taken me many months to copy printed works of this size into Noteworthy and Sibelius. However, if such a shared project were to go ahead, I could probably print off A5 miniature scores and produce CDs from MP3 or Wav files to send off to various conductors and recording companies, such as CPO or Naxos, with a view to getting them recorded by live orchestras.
     Cheers,
         John.

[gprengel]

Dear tpaloj,

I am amazed how you created such a beautiful score on the basis of my pdf file. Can you import pdf files into your notation software or did you edit it altogether manually? I use Finale together with NotePerformer and I would import/export xml-files for exchange.

But I must admit that  I like the sound of my recorded version better. You seem to use less reverb which is better than my original mp3 (by now I  reduced my reverb...), but I would not use the piccolo flute at all, somewhow the piccolo seems very disturbing to me, and your tempo of the Trio , I feel, is much too slow (eventhough it says "Lento") . I feel it should be a slow waltz tempo. What do you all think?

Very important for me are the celli in the middle of the Trio - so beautiful (3:27...)!

Gerd

[gprengel]

I have begun now with the Adagio...

[tpaloj]

I agree that your mp3 does actually sound better overall, Gerd!

I chose to stick with the original tempos as indicated in the manuscript, but especially the trio sounds better played in a more brisk manner. I used pretty much the default noteperformer settings in Dorico. I'm not convinced by the audio quality. Sometimes I would like to use Dorico's default (Halion), which has a more distinct sound for each instrument but therein lies a problem - my computer is so old it's unable to play back thick orchestral textures with that soundfont - it results in skipped audio and dropped instruments. Noteperformer doesn't have that problem due to how it's programmed to render the music 1-2 seconds ahead, requiring less direct processing power.

Yes, I manually created the whole score for Dorico. Your score was helpful in double checking for second opinion in some places where the manuscript was vague. We're both indebted to the composer's repetition and it was pretty fast to write this movement 

Besides some mistakes that should need clearing up (Violin I divisi/a3 in the trio section; the placement of repeat barlines) you did a great job with your arrangement. I look forward to the Adagio.

[eschiss1]

Of course, to paraphrase Liszt, repetition is often a terrific thing, (depending)- I look forward to finding out...

[gprengel]

By now I have worked on about the first third of the slow movement and I can tell so far from the 2 middle movements that this symphony is better than any  other so far published symphony by Lachner. I love this slow movement in its simplicity and very melodious themes. I hope to finish it in about a week ...

Gerd

[Alan Howe]

That's very good news. Let's hope the remainder of the work measures up...

[John H White]

You are certainly a glutten for punishment Gerd! You appear to take just a few weeks over a task that would take me many months and I'd probably make lots of mistakes on the way.
I notice that, in Lchner's 2nd, 3rd & 4th symphonies the scherzo comes 2nd in the batting order, whereas in Nos 5, 6 & 8 the more usual order of the movements is adhered to. Maybe we might have another thread here on which is the better way of ordering a standard 4 movement symphony.

[eschiss1]

My own answer would be, there is none. There is often a better order for any given symphony as a matter of balance (and watch fans of Mahler 6 - I'm one - fight that over) but no one Procrustean solution for all "standard 4-movement symphonies" for which the question is relevant.