Raff's Sixth

[Mark Thomas]

I've always regarded Raff's Sixth as one of his weaker creations and can well understand the puzzlement and disappointment of the critics at its premiere, expecting as they no doubt were something which carried on in the epic scale of the Fifth, Lenore, which had preceded it by only a year. No doubt the portentous motto only fuelled their expectations: Gelebt: Getsrebt, Gelitten, Gestritten - Gestorben - Umworben (Lived: Struggled, Suffered, Fought - Died - Glorified). What they got, judging initially by the Schneider performance on Marco Polo, was a much smaller, much less grand, creation than they no doubt anticipated, which had an enjoyably lively Sherzo and a nicely lugubrious slow movement but with outer movements characterised by hectic note-spinning noodling.

Stadlmair's interpretation when it came changed my view somewhat; the first movement was given more urgency and gained in stature tremendously, but he was disastrously fast in the slow movement and still couldn't rescue the tail-chasing finale. To be honest, I haven't listened much to the Sixth in the last couple of years, preferring not to dwell on one of Raff's duds.

In the last few days, though, I have published at raff.org the late Alan Krueck's withering deconstruction of the Symphony and, whilst I greatly respect Alan's stature as the doyen of Raff academics, I found myself thinking "Surely it's not that bad?"

And it isn't. Using the opportunity of a recent long flight, I've listened several times to each of the recorded interpretations and the work has grown on me with each listen. To be sure, Stadlmair's is much the more persuasive reading of all bar the slow movement, where for me Schneider gets the funeral march spot on, but even there the work's characteristic busyness is carried over in Stadlmair's reading and its speed doesn't seem as out of place as it once did. Although I don't like saying it, it seems to me that Alan's disparagement is quite misplaced. He contends that in this Symphony Raff was trying to match both Beethoven's Fifth and the Ninth, but there is no evidence either historically or musically for that assertion and Alan presents none. He places much significance on the work's admittedly rather ridiculous alliterative "title", but in fact it was only ever a motto, was withdrawn by Raff before publication and doesn't appear in the score. The motto doesn't even fit the programme that well: the jolly Scherzo hardly illustrates struggle, suffering or fighting and the finale is celebratory rather than glorifying, even though the slow movement is obviously funereal. Yet Raff shows in all his other overtly programmatic symphonies that he is perfectly capable of giving powerfully appropriate musical expression to a non-musical concept. The Symphony is certainly a busy piece and is even busier-looking on paper but Alan, who felt that the busyness and cleverness of Raff's construction had blinded him in particular to his poorly chosen motifs, hadn't heard the work when he wrote his critique and repeated listening has certainly given me a much more favourable impression of it. Heck, the finale even works for me now!

I now think that the Sixth essentially follows the pattern which Raff established with his Second Symphony: it's a deliberately smaller scale, ultimately programme-less, classically proportioned work intended as a conscious contrast to its predecessor, just as the Second contrasted with the vast An das Vaterland and the Fourth with Im Walde. That's not to say that Raff, as a true romantic, didn't have some non-musical inspiration kick-starting his composition of the Sixth's untitled predecessors. Indeed, his daughter in her biography of him makes it clear that the Fourth's Scherzo was inspired by her running around the Raff apartment as a child. I suspect that, whilst the work might have begun with the notorious motto as an inspiration, it took another path as he wrote it and, had he kept as quiet about it as he did about the triggers for writing the Second and the Fourth, the Sixth would have had at least as good a reception as his Fourth had, even though it would still have disappointed critics hoping for another Im Walde or Lenore.

I may be way off beam here and, sparked by a contrary reaction reaction to Alan's criticism, just been persuaded by too many listens to a work in too short a time, so I'd be very interested in seeing what others, not as immersed in Raff as I am, think.

[Josh]

You know, this came out the same year as Bruckner's and Tchaikovsky's 2nd (numbered) symphonies, and I prefer Raff's 6th to either of those more famous works.  I'm not kidding.  Or, maybe I should say I enjoy passages of Raff 6 more than any passages found in either of those other two contemporary symphonies (well, I don't like Bruckner's at all, so maybe that's not fair).  The first time I heard the first movement, the main theme was imprinted into my memory.  While I agree that this symphony rambles a bit much - in all four movements, in my opinion - I've found myself repeatedly listening to segments of each movement and avoiding the whole work.  For example, I'll listen to the first half of the first movement, and stop.  I realise this is blasphemous as far as legitimate music listening goes, but it's a way of "trimming the fat", I guess.  Especially with the main tune of the first movement, I just think it's too good to toss away, even for those who dislike the symphony as a whole.

I'm only a music-listener; I have no training or education to know what I'm talking about.  I can barely name what note is which on paper.  Not only that, I usually don't come out of my Classical Era panic-room to listen to late 19th century music, so my ears are far from natural-born natives.  Much of the music from that time hurts my poor late-18th century ears, but Raff never has.  Maybe that's why the 6th symphony made a positive impression on me with first listen; at the time, I had no idea what anyone else thought of it, how it was perceived, how popular it was, or anything else... I was listening to it "blind", so to speak.  I certainly liked it.  I think the first movement is really nice, but I think it would be drastically improved by being shortened by 3 and a half minutes or so.  Some of that "note-spinning noodling", as you call it, stood out to me even without being prompted by anyone else's comments or thoughts.

[Alan Howe]

I've always thought that No.6 belongs with the classical Nos. 2 and 4, as opposed to the characteristic/programmatic Nos. 3, 5, and 7. For me it doesn't rank far behind those two masterpieces (i.e. 2 and 4); moreover it is intensely memorable and exciting, although I agree that it does have some note-spinning passages in, for example, the first movement - rather as VC2 does (an inferior work to VC1, IMHO).
I rate Schneider's performance more highly than Mark: it is at least Stadlmair's equal in I and IV and greatly superior in III. However, Stadlmair is better in II. So, it's swings and roundabouts.
All this tells me that we need Järvi. Perhaps he will have the understanding to give Raff his head when necessary, and yet not to rush the slow movements. And maybe many sets of unprejudiced ears will be able to judge No.6 for themselves...

[Peter1953]

I cannot add any appropriate comments on what has been said. Yesterday evening I've listened again to this symphony (Stadlmaier) and I simply love it. I can understand that there are people who are somewhat disappointed in the 6th because the 5th is such a wonderful masterpiece. But I wonder how the comments would be if this symphony was written somewhere between his last four symphonies.

[DennisS]

It has been very interesting reading this thread.  I am rather like Josh and am likewise just a "music-listener", with no formal training or education as such in music. And just like Josh, I have always enjoyed listening to Raff's symphony number 6 but did immediately recognize that the sixth was not in the same league as either No 3 or no 5. It always made a pleasant change though to listen to number 6. Reading Mark's thread made me get number 6 again and this time listen to it more as an academic exercise. I tend to agree with most of the comments mentioned in this thread but would add, that from my perspective, I rather like the fourth movement best of all. I like the way it begins, dance-like and written quite elegantly to start with. The movement then takes on on more boisterous character as the movement gains momentum and finishes on a joyous high. The movement always leaves feeling quite content with the symphony as a whole. Symphony no 6 though is not in my top 5, as far as symphonies go as I feel it is not as striking, from an inspirational point of view, especially compared with the most famous of his symphonies. I myself, am particularly fond of the 4 symphonies making up his "Seasons" cycle. I was though intrigued by the comments re- the tempo of the Larghetto. Mark rightly points out that the tempo is far too quick. I have only today, come to that conclusion, having just listened again to the symphony as a whole  and then listening to sound bites of the Schneider interpretation. I have only the Stadlmair version and it does not convey the same gravity this movements calls for, when compared to the Schneider version. That said, I still like symphony no 6, even the Stadlmair interpretation!

Cheers
Dennis

[TerraEpon]

The 6th is one of only three that I ripped three movements from (others are 4 and 9), though I tend to stay away from longer tracks and don't go above 15 minutes, so there may be some systemic bias there...

I can't say anything beyond that, really, as I haven't listened to them as a whole enough to really 'know' the pieces.