Stöhr, Richard (1874 - 1967) Symphony No.1, Op.18 (1909)

[Ilja]

I mostly listen over headphones these days (not wanting to be antisocial), so as long as the sound isn't seriously degraded my nearly 70 year-old ears just won't notice the difference.

I still feel somewhat cheated - I mean, £15 for a plastic case and the notes? Grrrr......

Well, knowing how tight the margins are, I tend to purchase the download outright and then listen to it on Presto. That way I'm channeling as much money as I can justify to the label and, ideally, indirectly finance future projects. But perhaps that's a very naïve approach.

[TerraEpon]

Note that a large majority of music from many labels (not sure about Toccata, but Naxos for instance is one) are available on YT uploaded by the label or its partner officially. Which they absolutely have the right to do of course.

And yeah, believe me the majority of people really don't consider listening on YT to be piracy any more than on Spotify or anywhere else.

[Alan Howe]

Not paying at all is surely theft.

[Ilja]

Not if something is offered to you for free. But, as I said earlier, it isn't. You pay in the form of watching ads, by providing personal data (or metadata) or just by consuming something that someone wishes to get noticed.

In the case of channels run by others than the rights holders, the situation is somewhat different, although even there those rights holders can request to monetize these videos. But the pirate in this case is YouTube itself, not so much the user who can't reasonably be expected to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate content.

[Alan Howe]

And with that, let's return to the music - except that my copy's not even been dispatched yet. Still, I suppose I can try YouTube...

[eschiss1]

And it's listed as newly available for streaming on Amazon Music, which I subscribe to...

[Alan Howe]

Well, I've now listened to the first movement on YouTube (!) and I must say I was impressed. Just two negatives, if I may: firstly, there's a lot of accompanying 'chugging' going on that I found annoying; secondly, I thought there was going to be a suitably cathartic climax from about 9 minutes in, but I didn't find it really 'went' anywhere. Not great music, I don't think, but there's always the danger of coming to a conclusion one later has to retract...

As I said before, I think comparisons with roughly contemporary symphonies such as those by Georg Schumann (in F minor - 1905), Ewald Straesser (No.1 in G major - 1909) and Fritz Volbach (in B minor 1909) are appropriate in respect of idiom and stature. But leave Mahler and Schmidt out of the discussion - they're on a completely different level.

[hyperdanny]

I sadly (because I always want to like the pieces) concur with Alan: I find there is a lot of note-spinning here, and not a lot of symphonic resolution.
I listened to it three times without being able to "nail" the piece, and my attention invariably ebbed away at several points.
The Volbach, for example, is in my opionion a much stranger work.

[Ilja]

Volbach's symphony is a somewhat different beast from Stöhr's, I think: more of a visceral piece vs. the latter's rather intellectual approach. Alan's comparison with Sträßer is more apt, Still, I have to disagree with both of you; I absolutely adore Stöhr's first symphony and I honestly think "note-spinning" is a rather too heavy charge.

[terry martyn]

I have also listened to the whole Symphony on YouTube (what annoying adverts,by the way!).

To my ears, the first movement is the strongest (and,yes,it does "chug"). My interest diminished as the Symphony progressed.  I don't think it is a particularly coherent work, and much prefer the somewhat Elgarian Volbach.

On this occasion, I won't be buying the CD, and,in my opinion, it is self-defeating to put the whole caboodle on to YouTube.

[Alan Howe]

Having given up on Amazon's ability to deliver said CD, I ordered a copy from Presto and it arrived within a couple of days.

[Alan Howe]

Listening further one thing I can say is that the Symphony doesn't want for memorable melodies. In that respect it's a very enjoyable work. I also wonder whether we should be looking outside the Austro-German tradition for influences: the comprehensive booklet notes (excellent, as ever, from Toccata) quote one review of the premiere in Vienna which describes the goal of the work as 'an excursion into the exotic', 'particularly into Russian-oriental musical regions. The travel guide is Tchaikovsky'. Another review speaks of the composer trying 'in vain to build a suite into a symphony'. Whether the latter comment is fair or merely unjustly influenced by the unexpected melodiousness of the symphony is for others more expert than me to judge. Certainly, the idiom, while clothed in the orchestral garb of his Austro-German contemporaries, suggests an appreciation of composers outside that tradition. For anyone expecting a clone of, say, Strauss or Schmidt, there is much to ponder in this exceptionally beautiful score. And neither do I hear Mahler anywhere.

As an addendum, I'd say the least successful movement is the finale which seems to me to wander from section to section without a clear sight of the goal. Attractive, though the end's a rather strange affair - a fade-out followed by a scurry in the strings and one concluding loud chord.

The playing throughout seems very fine. Kudos to orchestra and conductor!

[semloh]

Thank you for that review, Alan. Very helpful. Also - your experience of Amazon is noted!

[John Boyer]

What of the suite?  Any opinions?  I have yet to listen to my copy, as I am still working through some other purchases first. 

[Ilja]

The Suite is, for want of a more precise description, lovely. Both suites, the Kammersymphonie, and the Piano Concerto show (to me, at least) that these pieces for a smaller ensemble were what Stöhr excelled at. They are somewhat reminiscent of Reznicek's later suites and his G major serenade.