Beethoven's symphonic contemporaries.

[khorovod]

It would seem that Witt must have been a pretty capable composer, for his "Jena" Symphony to have been attributed to the young Beethoven for many years.

I think the Jena symphony was discovered in the twentieth century, no? Quite early in the century though. It is written in that late Haydn style that Beethovens first two also partly share but I don't think it is a very interesting work per se, more interesting perhaps as a rediscovery of lost Beethoven (as it was supposed to be) than for its own qualities. Quite an attractive piece of music though but I doubt if I heard it blind I would think it very like Beethoven or judge it was written by one of his greatest contemporaries.

I have two recordings of the Vorizek symphony, Hyperion (with Arriaga, also very enjoyable) and on another label I cannot recall (a budget label from the 1990's I think, maybe IMP?). It always impresses me, sad he died so young and left so little behind.

[Alan Howe]

Spohr is an interesting case. His and Beethoven's first symphonies seem to be firmly rooted in the Haydn/Mozart classical tradition. However, comparing their second and subsequent symphonies is like comparing chalk and cheese. I would say that Spohr was more innovative but that Beethoven's innovations were the more successful.

It's very hard to make this sort of comparison, John. By the time of the premiere of Spohr 1 (April 1811) Beethoven had already written six symphonies. There is not really much that is truly innovative in Spohr's symphonies until No.4 of 1832 - i.e. long after Beethoven was dead.

In reality there were no truly great innovators contemporary with Beethoven, except Schubert. They were mostly imitators of the great master (e.g. Ries, Vorisek) or perfectors of the late/high classical symphony (e.g. Cherubini, Clementi). Not that this prevents their music from being of very high quality indeed, but Beethoven dominated not only his own period, but also that which followed in a way unmatched by any later composer in the symphonic field.

[JimL]

None of Schubert's early symphonies (at least 1-6) would qualify as anything I consider innovative.  We can only speculate how innovative the 7th would have been, since the only versions we have that are in any way performable were realizations of his incomplete sketches.  This leaves only the Unfinished and Great C Major symphonies.  Of the two, the more truly innovative is the B minor.  The latter was composed as a direct response to B9.

[Alan Howe]

Nevertheless, IMHO, S8 and S9 (1822 and 1826 respectively) are the greatest symphonic works written during the period under consideration. There are plenty of near-misses, but I'm struggling to come up with anything that truly measures up.

[thalbergmad]

How about Bomtempo?

I have always valued his piano works and there are a couple of symphony clips on the tube.

Other than that, I am out of ideas. Symphonies are not my strong point.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

Mind you, Méhul 4 is a very fine piece, with an original slow movement.

[Josh]

I've always thought Méhul's #2 was one of the greatest symphonies ever written.  Actually, for a couple of years it was my overall favourite symphony by any composer, and has never fallen far from that spot.  I don't know what it is, but from its very slide out of the starting gate to its relatively unusual finale, this one doesn't have any part where I think "hey, maybe some of that could be cut out or reduced".  Most symphonies, even my all-time favourites, have at least a moment here and there that I find repetitive, unnecessary, dull, or what have you.  Not this one, though.

I'm glad Voříšek's symphony got a mention, but I'm not sure a single finished work in the genre qualifies someone as a "symphonic contemporary".  If it does, then Voříšek belongs there!

Has anyone given consideration to Krommer?  Try his #2 and #4, which most fortunately can be found on a single amazing disc from Chandos.  His #4 is one I personally regard as a masterpiece, and I don't put #2 much below.  Krommer was really my reason for responding, as I didn't notice his name mentioned, and I thought maybe he deserved at least a glance.

EDIT: Oops, someone did mention Krommer.  Sorry.  I did a find to see, but I mistakenly thought I was displaying the entire thread.  I was skimming the thread just now and noticed his name right off.  Sorry about that.

[John H White]

A recent contributer to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, whose name eludes me, talking about Mehul's 4th symphony, mentioned how he noticed its cyclic nature some years back, a theme from the opening movement reappearing in the finale.

[Alan Howe]

I had forgotten about Krommer's No.4 in C minor which apparently dates from ca. 1820. It is indeed a very fine piece - but somewhat backward-looking for its date. I would characterise it as 'late-classical plus', in other words in roughly the same vein as Cherubini and Clementi.

[eschiss1]

If I'm not mistaken, Mendelssohn S1 was composed when he was 15, which would be 1824.  If not, it was within a year or two.  I think it was composed in, or for a trip to London.

The earliest of his string symphonies are from before 1821 I think (by the way) but are literally student pieces written for Zelter if I understand, even though some (may have? are definitely known to have been?...) figured in family and friends concert gatherings.

[JimL]

The string symphonies date from when he was about 9 or 10 until he was 13 or 14.  Around the same time he was composing them he also produced the concertos for violin, piano and violin and piano with strings.  About the age of 14 he produced the first of his two-piano concertos with full orchestral accompaniment.  I believe the 1st Symphony also came a year or two afterwards.

[eschiss1]

I had forgotten about Krommer's No.4 in C minor which apparently dates from ca. 1820. It is indeed a very fine piece - but somewhat backward-looking for its date. I would characterise it as 'late-classical plus', in other words in roughly the same vein as Cherubini and Clementi.

Of his eight or nine? surviving symphonies (counting one or two unnumbered ones?) only three (1, 2 and 4) have been recorded commercially to date, I believe; one of the late ones is completely missing; one of the other late ones receives a scathing review in the book I mentioned above but some of the others come off rather well and it might be interesting to hear them- fortunately nowadays one needn't hire an entire orchestra, with the cost-benefit analysis that entails, to do such a thing. (Computer simulation is still a poor substitute, but I value its real uses...)

[John H White]

As I know from experience of a number of years, copying out scores into score writing and playing software can be very time consuming. For instance, a fairly large symphony like Raff's No3 can take me around 200 hours to put into Noteworthy. Yes, I know there are scanning programs like SharpEye and PhotoScore, but I have have as yet been unable to get my tiny brain around them and, in any case, they never produce a perfectly accurate result, requiring loads of editing before one can obtain a usable score.

[eschiss1]

Lindblad's first symphony (1831-2) is just a few years out of fitting in here... (actually, I was looking at HMB - Hofmeisters Monatsbericht - last night and came up with a list of several symphonies published 1831-2 -
Auguste de la Croix Chevriere Sayve (guessing at full name using MusicSack) (1791-1851) - symphony op.16 in C minor pub. 1831 by Falter
Wenzel Gaehrich (1794 sep 16 - 1864 sep 15) - 2nd symphony in D, op.3 pub. 1831
Carl Gottlob? Muller (listed in HMB only as C.G. Müller; I'm guessing here using MusicSack) (1774-1844?) - symphony 1 in Bflat, op.6 (ded. to Ferdinand Schneider.) (pub. 1832.)

The online HMB database at http://hofmeister.rhul.ac.uk/2008/index.html goes back to 1829 so really I could check back there even. (Dates from MusicSack too.) (this isn't really connected and maybe could use its own thread- or not; perhaps it lacks interest... hrm. apologies. the next name I came up with was Täglichsbeck, who is more promising and interesting and marginally better-known - sym 1 in Eflat  op10.)

[Alan Howe]

I think you are right, Eric: best not turn the thread into a list of symphonies of the period in question. Let's restrict ourselves to comments on the quality of works that we know.