Beethoven's symphonic contemporaries.

[Hovite]

How about Bomtempo?

The symphonies are available on a Naxos disc. They are fine works, but sound more like Mozart than Beethoven (if my memory serves me correctly).

[Alan Howe]

In response to John's question I have been reassessing Spohr. I think in fact that he is less successful the more innovative he tries to be; for me, his most powerful music is in his 'abstract' symphonies, e.g. 2,3 and 5. Unfortunately only No.2 falls within the time-frame we are considering here, although the very fine No.3 dates from only just after Beethoven's death.

BTW I do find that I enjoy the cpo recordings more than the Hyperion: Griffiths has a larger orchestra at his disposal than Shelley and is thus able to coax some splendid sonorities which really do show Spohr to advantage. No.3 is particularly fine in Griffith's hand - almost a masterpiece...

[JimL]

Oh there was another guy, whose name escapes me at the moment.  He composed a symphony in E-flat around the same time as Beethoven composed his Eroica, IIRC  It was recorded recently.  His name is kind of weird...oh, crap.  I'm drawing a blank.  Leon...something?  Help me, guys.

[khorovod]

Anton Eberl?

[John H White]

I think we might include the English composer Potter amongst these candidates, since he started writing symphonies in 1819.

[eschiss1]

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.

No argument, used to take on the much less daunting task of converting chamber works into MIDI performances fairly often and still have some notion I think.

[John H White]

I must agree with you Alan on Spohr, especially about Howard Griffiths masterly interpretation of No3. However, the opening movement of No 4 is still a great favourite of mine. He seems in this case to have borrowed part of his main theme or 1st subject from the minuet from his hero Mozart's A major Symphony (No29), and I simply love those rather undisciplined birds! I'm also very fond of his No 2, written for the English market in 1820 when he first breaks loose from the classical style and strikes out on his own, as I've said before, in a completely different direction from Beethoven, of whom he himself was a great admirer.

[Alan Howe]

As a Spohr expert, John, how would you rate his symphonies overall? For me his best is No.3 with No.10 the least interesting. Could you rate them on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being his best symphony and 10 his least good? My first three choices would be...
1. No.3
2. No.2
3. No.5
...but after that I'm somewhat unsure. All I know is that in general I rate his 'abstract' symphonies (1,2,3,5,8,10) more highly than his 'programmatic' or 'characteristic' ones (4,6,7,9).

Apologies in advance that we're somewhat off-topic here, but I'd like to read your opinion, John!

[John H White]

Alan, I'm no expert on Spohr but, as a member of the Spohr Society of Great Britain, I have access to the writings of various people who have made a study of his works. I certainly not be so presumptuous as to give him marks out of 10 for each symphony, but I might try  to arrange them in some sort of order of importance. The whole thing, of course, will be purely my own opinion. Anyway, here goes for some of them anyway:
(1) No 5 in C minor, imho, his most successful symphony.
(2) No 4 in F. Most popular and most often played both in America and continental Europe during Spohr's life time.
(3) No 2 in D minor, probably my own personal favourite.
(4) No 3 in C minor, another well rounded symphony. Griffiths's performance of it has certainly upgraded my opinion of it!
(5) No 1 in E flat. Another great favourite of my, probably due to its classical style!
(6) No 10 in E flat. I very much like its retro style even though the composer withdrew it from performance.
(7) No 8 in G major. Written for the conservative English market, who had only really taken to his 1st two symphonies, I find it rather tame compared to some of his earlier symphonies.
(8] No 9 in B minor. A bright idea but, apart from the autumnal hunting finale, again a bit on the tame side.
(9) No 6 in G major. Another bright idea, but in each movement representing a particular period, one can easily tell that its really old Spohr himself pretending to be one of his predecessors. I would say the finale itself, representing the latest style of the 1840s, is pure Spohr!
(10) No 7 in C major. Probably the least convincing of all Spohr's bright ideas.

These are purely my own opinions and, as I said before, I'm certainly no expert on the subject!

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, John. That is extremely helpful - and enlightening.

[John H White]

For more information on Spohr you could go to www.spohr-society.org.uk  For an annual sub. less than the cost of a standard CD you can receive 4 quarterly newsletters detailing all the latest developments in the way of recordings and live performances together with a group of very informative articles in the annual Spohr Journal.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks for the info, John.

[Ilja]

I would also like to mention Johan Willem (or Johann Wlhelm) Wilms, a German immigrant to Holland who was active in the opening decades of the 19th century. Although more based on Mozart and Haydn than Beethoven, there are some pieces that clearly show a Beethovenian influence (for instance, the finale of Symphony No. 6). Wilms was also responsible for composing the new Dutch anthem after 1816.

[eschiss1]

Wilms sym. 5 had me thinking of Beethoven also - quite positively, not in a isn't-this-derivative fashion (please pardon mangled language).
Eric

[JimL]

Anton Eberl?

Eberl is another composer who I was thinking of, but it isn't him.  Leonhardt?  Or was it von Somethingorother?  Help me, fellas!  Of course, I may be off by a few years, too.