Emilie Mayer - Symphony No. 3

[BerlinExpat]

The Symphony No. 3 received its title "Sinfonie militair" on the occasion of its second performance in the spring of 1851 (no date given) in appreciation of the conductor's support for her music, having given the première the previous year.

The conductor of the Orchester "Euterpe" was Wilhelm Wieprecht, the popular conductor and reformer of Prussian Military Music.
(Source p.110 of Barbara Beuys' "Emilie Mayer - Europas größte Komponistin -Eine Spurensuche")

[Double-A]

Interesting.  This seems to be contradicted though by the fact that the title "Sinfonie militair" appears on all the original parts--on IMSLP--which are in Mayer's handwriting if I am not seriously mistaken.  Given that the title is an obvious reference to Haydn and that the work resembles Haydn's (in both works it is only the last movement that is "militair") it seems more plausible anyway that the name was given by Mayer from the outset (i.e. at the conception stage) and not awarded later.

[BerlinExpat]

The title "Sinfonie militair" appears on all the original parts

Possibly so, but she worked with handwritten parts for practically all concerts before publishers were willing to take her on. Even then she was expected to pay the costs. The handwritten score and parts of the first performance were most likely reused for the second the following year and she could easily have addded the title then. As she was very reticent about her private life I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Double-A]

You can look at the parts here.  To me it does not look as if the title were added later:  "Sinfonie militair" on line 1, then underneath, centered: "no. 3".

Anyone would have had to work with handwritten parts for unpublished works around 1850 (in fact until very recently) but how many composers wrote whole sets of symphony parts themselves?  She was willing to do hard work to get her music performed.

For myself I don't doubt that Mayer planned and composed the work as an "hommage à Haydn" and structured it in analogy to Haydn's symphony with the same nickname.

[Alan Howe]

My copy of the new MDG recording arrived this morning - and Symphony No.3 turns out to be another finely crafted work entirely unworthy of neglect.

However, I think it's time for a realistic assessment of Mayer. To be frank, I don't think any of her symphonies are of the front rank; certainly there's nothing to compare with the originality and stature of, say, Kufferath's Symphony in C which is roughly contemporary. I'm not even sure whether Mayer's symphonies are superior to those of, for example, Louise Farrenc. More impressive, I find, is her late Faust Overture, although even this doesn't really 'grab' me.

Perhaps I'm having a bad day. Please feel free to disagree...

[Ilja]

While it is tempting to compare female composers to other female composers, it seems to me that we need to be careful to do so because there are so few (especially around this time) and you easily end up comparing apples to oranges on the basis of gender and little else. Instead, why don't we rate Mayer as a Germanic symphonist of the 1850s? Let me begin to say that I really like her melodic facility and the purpose that her works demonstrate. On the other hand, she seems to be quite content to remain within the confines of conventionality; it's rarely very daring music. Overall, I'd rate her as a solid second/third-tier composer - similar to colleagues like Kufferath, Ulrich or Czerny. Definitely a better craftsperson as a symphonist than someone like Spohr, but not on the same level as Gade, Gouvy, or even an original outlier like Bristow. She tends to be very consistent, if not always particularly interesting.


p.s. I do recognize that I'm contradicting my standard disclaimer line (below). No one is perfect.

[Alan Howe]

Kufferath's Symphony in C is way more bold, adventurous and forward-looking than anything by Mayer. If Kufferath is, say, tier 2, then Mayer is definitely tier 3. IMHO, of course!

[Mark Thomas]

why don't we rate Mayer as a Germanic symphonist of the 1850s?

Even then, of course, we don't have anything like a full knowledge of the field. That said, I don't disagree with either Alan's or Ilja's assessment. Mayer is generally an enjoyable listen, she certainly has a melodic facility, generally a good sense of proportion and sometimes shows imagination in developing her material, but both her harmony and orchestration are very conventional, even old-fashioned, for the times. One gets the impression that she was very aware of what she'd have seen as adhering to the respectable or seemly in contemporary art music - probably because she was a woman in a man's world, which was a radical enough thing in itself, without venturing into musically daring areas. I don't like rating composers as first/second/third rate, but we do tend to look back and prize the radicals, those who turned out to be trendsetters like Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Berlioz or Wagner, say, and it's rarer that posterity prizes someone who consolidates or sums up an era - Brahms being the obvious example. Mayer clearly falls into the latter category, and does so without enough real individuality or genius to merit special attention - except for her sex which, of course, in the historical context is very relevant and moves her significantly up the rankings as an important phenomenon, even if her music in itself doesn't merit it.

[Double-A]

I am confused.  Mayer's third is "entirely unworthy of neglect" AND "definitely tier 3".  I think "tier 3" as a general rule might be "worthy of neglect"--unless nothing is.

My impression is that the third symphony with its many evocations of Haydn is more "traditional" than the first two--and maybe a little less inspired.  I also think the last movement is too long, too repetitive and melodically under endowed.  On the whole maybe we SHOULD neglect the third in favor of Mayer's better work.

[Alan Howe]

Tier 5 would be worthy of neglect!

Tier 1 = masterpieces
Tier 2 = near misses
Tier 3 = run-of-the mill works, but of more than historical interest
Tier 4 = historical interest only
Tier 5 = once heard, best forgotten

That's my personal working range - but it's not official! Now back to Emilie...

[John Boyer]

I believe this is addressed by bulletin Mus2019.03.21bis from the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.

[Double-A]

I rather think it originates from the self grading procedure of ACMP (Amateur Chamber Players).

[Alan Howe]

I didn't get this from anywhere. It's genuinely my own personal and therefore entirely challengeable range.

[Mark Thomas]

Just briefly returning to the question discussed earlier of Mayer's objective quality as a composer, I was very agreeably surprised this morning listening to her A minor Piano Trio performed by the Klaviertrio Hannover (see our Downloads Board here). This struck me as a strong work and certainly more individual than most of the symphonies, albeit still with a noticeable Beethoven influence. Now that almost all her orchestral music is available commercially, perhaps labels will turn to her chamber music and we'll discover some gems?

[Mark Thomas]

Listening to Mayer's D minor Piano Trio for the first time today, I was struck by its individuality, freshness and abundance of invention which, like the A minor Trio, seem to place it on a higher plane than most of the symphonies, pleasant though they are. I wonder whether she might be yet another example of a composer categorised and found wanting as a "symphonist", whose true forté was another, less prominent, genre - in this case chamber music?