The eclipse of César Franck's Symphony

[Alan Howe]

Ilja hits upon a very important issue, namely the fact that the Austro-German symphonic tradition has arrived at a position of almost unrivalled hegemony in the classical world. Of course, this is hardly surprising when one considers the extraordinary achievements of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler.

However, there are two very serious downsides to this state of affairs, namely (i) the relative neglect of the wide range of symphonic works from beyond the confines of the strict Austro-German tradition and (ii) the undeniable fact that, in the 20th century, the symphonic mainstream was actually to be found elsewhere, among composers such as Sibelius, Nielsen, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich. And this is not even to mention the symphonies within the Austro-German tradition which have simply been forgotten, as if mown down by the juggernaut represented by the abovementioned list of nine composers.

And that's why we're talking here about César Franck...

[Ilja]

At the risk of becoming too anthropological here, the reason why we see Haydn, Mozart et al.'s achievements as "extraordinary" has much as much to do with the fact that we've been told they are for over two centuries by this point as by the intrinsic merit of their work. Moreover, the globalization of the classical music world has led to the establishment of a new music canon that has gone at the expense of various regional and local musical traditions at the expense of the dominant German one. 

In that sense, it's not unlike how the dominance of a national language through new, centralized media often marginalizes regional dialects and accents. And as in those cases I do regard it as an impoverishment. In the case of classical music, such globalization and the resultant nomadic existence of many professional musicians (with jet-set conductors at the front) has already led to the loss of local performance traditions. 

[Alan Howe]

From a UK point of view, though, our own musical renaissance from Parry/Stanford/Elgar onwards has managed to some extent to counter the dominant Austro-German narrative. I'd say that the figure of Vaughan Williams alone was of sufficient stature to offer the necessary corrective, but of course, he's nothing like so well-known on the Continent. We are islanders, after all...

[Ilja]

That may be true, but only in Britain - just like French composers are played in France and Russian ones in Russia, whereas the Germanic canon is played everywhere, and usually more than national music. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Dvorak and Rachmaninov, but even they are still regarded by the more pretentious members of the audience as "superficial" and "vulgar" in a way that you see rarely happen to Mahler (who, to be honest, deserves it).

[Alan Howe]

Quite so. I did say, though, that we are islanders, when all's said and done! So, while suffering from the same Austro-German symphonic hegemony, the 20th century renaissance of musical life in the UK does, for us, offer a different slant on the later history of the symphony. Thus, for example the venerable paperback book 'The Symphony 2: Elgar to the Present Day', edited by Robert Simpson (himself a symphonist of note) and published in 1967, contains chapters on Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Brian, Rubbra & Tippett, and Walton, while the only Austro-German included is Franz Schmidt.

To summarise, then: the reality - especially in respect of the later development of the Symphony - is not matched either by performances 'on the ground' or recordings. However, recordings have redressed the balance somewhat (for instance, there's a Rachmaninov craze going on at the moment), and we are probably extra-fortunate here in the UK to have had companies such as Chandos and Hyperion who have released performances of so many examples of the British symphonic renaissance over the past 30 years or so.

And so I remain frustrated by the eclipse of Franck and the utter neglect of his successors, Chausson, d'Indy, Dukas, et al. And I know what I think about musical history: most of the cream does rise to the top, as it were, but there's still some cream stuck half-way up the upturned jug!

[Alan Howe]

Another thought: the question of the Symphony as pure music (the classical conception) or as 'embracing the world' (the progressive conception) really starts with Beethoven, as the contrast between his final two symphonies, nos. 8 and 9, demonstrates. Speaking personally, I reject the notion that the composer has to 'throw in the kitchen sink', as it were, in order to achieve some sort of musical transcendence. When all is said and done, to try to 'top', say, Mahler's 8th becomes impossible; all that is left is to return to a more modest conception. No wonder there was nowhere to go post-Mahler within his tradition, except back (e.g. Franz Schmidt). Sibelius in his 7th Symphony makes, I think, the point very clearly.

And so too does Franck in his sublime masterpiece - combining concision (three movements and cyclical construction) with the new harmonic aesthetic (Wagner). Less is sometimes more...

[John Boyer]

I have been quite happy with my Dutoit/Montreal recording from 1989, but recently I picked up the Bernstein/NYPO from 1959.  The sound still holds up, although it would have been a little better had they recorded it at the Manhattan Center, which was used for many NYPO recordings even after Lincoln Center was finished, rather than the St. George Hotel as they did for this recording.  The St. George was good for 20th century fair, but 19th century music sounds better in the more resonant acoustic of the Manhattan Center.  Still, it's a vivid, exciting performance.   

His NYPO Franck symphony never made it to the Bernstein Century edition. I have it on the Royal Edition from a few years earlier, coupled with Francescatti playing the Chausson Poeme and Casadesus in the Faure Ballade.  It brought back fond memories of the old Columbia LP that the Faure was on, where it was coupled with the Franck Symphonic Variations and the Saint-Saens Fourth Concerto.

This got me to thinking how the Chausson, both Franck works, and even the Saint-Saens Fourth have all but disappeared.   As has been mentioned, it's not just Franck. 

[Alan Howe]

I think its time for a decent pause in the number of recordings of Bruckner and Mahler symphonies being made. However, it's the bicentenary of Bruckner's birth in 2024, so things are only going to get worse!

At least this Forum appreciates the wider repertoire...

[Alan Howe]

Just for context: the BBC Proms this summer featured 27 symphonies. 13 of these were from the Austro-German tradition, with the most recent being Mahler's 10th; 14 fell outside that tradition, with 8 being from the Romantic era and 6 being from the later 20thC, with the latest being Shostakovich's 10th. The sole unsung symphony was that by Dora Pejacevic.

The only British symphony was Walton 1; there wasn't a single representative from the Franco-Belgian tradition. Go figure...

[Alan Howe]

...and now the January issue of Gramophone magazine is taken up with the Bruckner bicentenary. I'm all Brucknered-out already. And there are some wrong-headed recommendations too, but that's not for this website...

[Ilja]

Because Alan liked it.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks. I think...

[Ilja]

Returning to Franck, one thing this thread has done is motivate a re-listen (after several years) of the Franckian symphonic tradition: Chausson, Dukas, Lazzari et al. Boy, there's a lot to enjoy there.

[Alan Howe]

...and d'Indy.

[Elgar4Ever]

..and Magnard and Ropartz.