Václav Jindřich/Wenzel Heinrich Veit: Symphony in E minor, etc.

[Alan Howe]

The conductor has referred us to this part of an interview pubilished here...
https://www.casopisharmonie.cz/rozhovory/vice-je-vzdycky-vice-o-rakousko-uherske-hudbe-neznameho-pravnika.html
...and which I reproduce here in a modified Google translation:

Q. The violin composition will surprise everyone with its spirit and virtuosity, for violin lovers certainly a pleasant discovery. Music that seems to gently greet Dvořák, two generations younger. I can't believe that the solo part, reminiscent of Ernst or Slavík, was created by Veit without professional guidance. On the other hand, I perceive a dispute over authorship. So how is it that the signature under this work will not become a mystifying prank of the publisher?

Conductor: As for this composition, it is still largely unknown and a detective finish awaits us in the form of a comparison of the manuscript, allegedly a Veit score stored in the Czech Museum of Music, with which we have worked so far, and the manuscript of Violin Concerto No. 2 "Hungarian" by Joseph Joachim. The first movement of Joachim's Second Violin Concerto itself was premiered on April 9, 1859 in Weimar; the whole concerto was then premiered on May 2, 1859 in London, which is quite interesting. According to Grove, Joachim's autograph ought to be stored in Vienna. The second movement of this concerto is identical to Veit's Romance and the third movement to the Finale. The orchestral part coincides 1: 1, during a detailed examination of the solo violin part, Joachim's simplifications are evident, which are then much better played by the violin - whereas Veit's "original," as the interpreter of our recording, Milan Al-Ashhab, put it euphemistically, is playable only on the assumption of considerable fingering ingenuity, and even so is very uncomfortable, as if uncompromising. This is the most likely hypothesis: that Joachim ordered these two parts from Veit and then revised them so that they could be played well (let's understand: he was a technically exceptional violin virtuoso) and incorporated them into his second violin concerto. All this was most likely with Veit's knowledge and permission. The opposite alternative - that in Prague, where the music had no hope of being performed, Veit wrote the second and third movements (why only these and not the first?) of Joachim's Violin Concerto and, incomprehensibly, made it difficult to copy the solo part - is not very likely. In my opinion, it is almost out of the question. However, until a comparative analysis and further scientific study of these two sources of the same music has taken place, we can say nothing at all.

[Alan Howe]

Question: Does anyone here really believe that Veit wrote this music? It's not in his style at all!

[Mark Thomas]

It is also available to stream on Spotify, but for how long, I wonder?

[terry martyn]

I don´t buy this convoluted explanation at all.  One of the many problems I have with this explanation is that the second and third movements seem to me to follow on stylistically from the first movement. No-one has yet dared to suggest that Veit composed that first movement.

[Mark Thomas]

Joachim was a more than competent composer with quite a few substantial orchestral works behind him before he composed the 2nd Violin Concerto. He had absolutely no need of Veit to "ghost" two movements for him, but if Veit did then he is to be commended for so successfully imitating Joachim's style that for 170-odd years no-one suspected that Joachim wasn't the author! Whilst I respect what the conductor says, on the evidence we have I think that the idea that Veit is their composer is wishful thinking.

[Mark Thomas]

I've just streamed Veit's lively Overture on Spotify, and the stylistic gulf between its Mendelssohnian and Weberesque style and Joachim's mature music is profound. It's very difficult to believe that it and the concerted works could come from the same pen.

[terry martyn]

There are many meritorious CDs available at a price much lower than this one. I will not subscribe to something meretricious.

[Alan Howe]

I've ordered it for the Symphony and Overture. I'll ignore the rest, which is by JOACHIM!

I've told the conductor I don't believe his explanation.

[Alan Howe]

Here's the label's video at YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzpMAdjTWwU

And here's the whole first movement of the Symphony (with echoes of Beethoven's 7th - it doesn't half go on a bit!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJewcRKuBXs
Second movement here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykGRKZOYU0
Third movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWNFXVQsk6E
Finale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBIymEftAbE

I'll be frank: this isn't a great work. And it's rather timidly conducted here (the first movement's supposed to be Allegro molto!) Was Veit the Czech Mendelssohn? No.

[eschiss1]

The Veit was published around 1860, but it seems wholly possible that it may have been composed substantially earlier.

[eschiss1]

Apparently according to Rietz' correspondence, Rietz premiered it on October 20 1859.

[Ilja]

I'll be frank: this isn't a great work. And it's rather timidly conducted here (the first movement's supposed to be Allegro molto!) Was Veit the Czech Mendelssohn? No.

I found it a thoroughly enjoyable work in a Loewian or Czernian vein, which sounds as though it was written a few decades before its premiere (IMSLP suggests 1833, which seems more likely), but not particularly outstanding (either negatively or positively) in any way.

Not the "Czech Mendelssohn", no - not the same talent or dedication (he was a musical amateur for much of his life), but still quite influential in the musical life of Prague (a German city at that point). It may well be that that relative lack of talent caused him to stay in Prague, rather than find employ at some local German court - like what happened to his compatriot Kalliwoda: a much better composer, but one who worked in Germany for most of his life, and therefore could not really contribute to the development of such a thing like a Czech school. So, not the "Czech Mendelssohn", but perhaps the "Czech Glinka".

[Alan Howe]

What I find annoying about this release - quite apart from the obvious misattribution of Joachim's music to Veit - is the hype generated by the performers and label concerning the composer's standing in relation to Mendelssohn. This sort of thing may be good publicity at the outset, but in the end unjustified hype, as here, can only result in disappointment and cynicism.

[Mark Thomas]

I don't dispute that, but the losers will be the performers, the label and Veit's reputation, none of which I care about very much. No one with any knowledge who listens to the music will be taken in by the hype or the misattribution.

[Alan Howe]

I'd just mention here the opposite approach taken by Schweizer Phonogramm in relation to Joseph Lauber. No hype, no exaggeration - rather, a modest and honest presentation of his music which has grown his reputation and that of the label and performers.