Franz Lachner: Symphony No. 4

[eschiss1]

Also, Schubert 9 had yet to be published, but it was published in 1840 (in instrumental parts.)

[Alan Howe]

Doesn't mean Lachner didn't know Schubert 9

Of course not. However, Lachner doesn't really ape Schubert's processes. The scale's the same, but Schubert is more goal-oriented where Lachner thinks sectionally (please excuse the crudely worded distinction).

[eschiss1]

Agreed. Though it's Lachner's symphony 6, actually, makes me think of Schubert 9- not syntactically/formally but in other ways- so it did lead to this line of thought for me.

[Alan Howe]

I need to listen harder - and to more Lachner. I do find that familiarity with his idiom helps to understand him better, but I'm still not sure of his stature.

[tpaloj]

Though, upon reflection, many of the tempi in my rendition were on the slower side: I do wish I had done a few things differently.

You are too modest, Tuomas. Your excellent realisation has stood us in very good stead until this commercial recording came along. Many thanks for your great work.

Thank you and once again too kind of you, Mark 

Well, it was great to finally hear a recorded performance of Lachner's 4th. From one "Lachner-ite" to another: my thanks to Mr. Schmalfuss and the Evergreen SO, excellent work!

After a few listens, I'm enthusiastic in general about the recording (with a few hesitations here and there). In the first movement the development section is played most excellently, but for some reason there are places in the other sections the playing felt somehow lifeless and off to me. It could have been the choice of tempi, or just the rendering of certain phrases I remembered being written differently in the manuscript that happened to irk me, but it's minor stuff in any case.

The fast sections of the scherzo were very fine and full of energy and contrasts, perfect!

Now, the only real interesting divergence to me in this recording is the choice of the Scherzo's trio. Lachner's manuscript actually contains two completely different versions of it: it's unfortunate that the sleeve notes fail to discuss this fact at all.

The version heard in the recording is the one which in Lachner's manuscript has the words "gilt nicht" written on the first page of the section. In my Noteperformer transcription, I naturally assumed Lachner did not want this version played and instead there you can hear the second version. There might of course be other facts that I had failed to consider but as I see it, I think the conductor (or perhaps rather the editor of the sheet music) has made a mistake here in using this version.

Also slightly puzzling is the sleeve notes' mentioning the Scherzo trio's tempo indication as "meno mosso": no matter which version, I fail to find it in Lachner's manuscript.

The third movement is very heartfelt and true to the composer's intentions, I felt. The same applies to the finale which with its varying moods mustn't have been easy to pull off. The orchestra handled the movement brilliantly, while only in a few places I thought a broaded sound would have helped it.

Hats off to Schmalfuss and the Evergreen Symphony Orchestra!

[Alan Howe]

That's a great review - very detailed and knowledgeable. Thanks!

With nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 now commercially recorded, I was wondering whether you had any opinion as to the relative merits of Lachner's symphonies...

[tpaloj]

I find the even-numbered symphonies his best, though Lachner curiously appears to have chosen to promote the odd-numbered ones the most in expense of the others. In all honesty musically I find #1 and #5 by miles the least important of the cycle (but the importance of #5 also lies in part in its controversy as pointed out earlier in this thread). The transformation of #7 into a suite is a great lesson in itself of the public's tastes changing over time throughout the romantic period. I'm supposing if #2 would have been published in Lachner's time, it'd have been among his most fondly remembered today.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks - that's very interesting. I'm also of the opinion that No.5 is something of a bore, but I'm slowly coming to appreciate Nos.3, 4 and 6 more than previously. So, here's the question: how much of this is due to the distinctly superior cpo performances conducted by the vastly underrated Gernot Schmalfuss? Wouldn't Schmalfuss make a more convincing job of Lachner's 5th, for example?

[tpaloj]

Wouldn't Schmalfuss make a more convincing job of Lachner's 5th, for example?

I'm sure he would, but I want to hear #2 from him first! 

[Alan Howe]

Yes, agreed!

[Alan Howe]

Comparing Lachner's symphonic slow movements (in the three cpo recordings), it's No.4 that really stands out for its lyrical beauty. What do members think?

[Alan Howe]

Here's the slow movement - sounds absolutely sublime to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME03UaEXaTE
I hear links with Beethoven 9 and Bruckner 7 - does anyone hear a similar process of elaboration at work here?