Symphonies with solo voice

[Ilja]

In a different thread, Maury and I were discussing Mahler's contemporary influence, which he rated higher than I did. After some further digging I think I was in the wrong in at least one aspect: the symphony for solo voice (usually soprano) and orchestra - i.e., a symphony with an orchestral song inserted for just one voice in the finale. I know of no examples before Mahler's Fourth in G major (1901), but have counted no fewer than five in the years afterwards: by Hans Huber (4th, "Heroische" in C minor, 1902), Mathilde Kralik von Meyerswalden ("Hymnische" in F minor, 1904*), Jan van Gilse (3rd, "Erhebung" in D major, 1903) and Rued Langgaard (2nd, "Vaarbrud" in A minor, 1914). That can't be a coincidence. Peter Gram's 2nd symphony of 1927 could also be mentioned, but it's quite a bit later, and the song is used in the penultimate movement, not the finale.

Interestingly, of these really only Van Gilse's sounds somewhat Mahler-esque at some points, and it is also the only one to share a major key. The rest appear to have used the form (orchestral song by soprano as movement or part of movement(s)) but not so much its musical content. I am not entirely certain what that means for my hypothesis about Mahler's rather limited influence, but I am reminded of a possible parallel in popular music: David Bowie. A hugely successful artist, but arguably more influential in issues of form and presentation than in the music itself.

All this to lead up to my question: can you think of other examples of this setup, possible even ones predating Mahler? I have been looking, but came up short. There are several for voice and chorus

*From Kralik's great-grandson I understood that the symphony's fourth movement was probably not completed before 1943, but it was conceived as containing an orchestral song from the beginning in 1904).

[Alan Howe]

I think that Mahler's influence needs to be considered rather more widely than the mere introduction of a soloist in a particular movement. Famously, he told Sibelius in 1907: "A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything." Thus we see various different outworkings of this principle, e.g. an increased number of movements, the use of a chorus throughout a movement, the use of novel instruments such as cow bells, hammer, etc. So, as well as stylistic influences (e.g. on Suk, Shostakovich, etc.), one might adduce composers as diverse as Messiaen (Turangalîla), Havergal Brian, Joseph Marx, etc, etc. Having said which....

...I'd say that Sibelius' legacy was actually more influential in general than Mahler's. On the symphony Sibelius said: "I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives." From Walton to Vaughan Williams, Bax, Moeran and, say, (Arthur) Butterworth the later British symphonic tradition is far more in thrall to Sibelius than to Mahler; and the widespread return to classical forms in the early-to-mid-20th century is definitely a reaction against Mahler.

Interestingly, solo voices appear in symphonies well outside the Mahlerian tradition in composers such as Nielsen (No.3) and Vaughan Williams (No.3), as well as in Shostakovich where his influence is more obvious (Nos.13 &14).
There is, of course, a profound difference between poetic texts being introduced into symphonies (thus requiring voices to sing them) and the mere use of voices as extra 'colours' in a quasi-instrumental sense.

I'd say this is all part of a debate which can be traced back to possibly the greatest revolutionary of them all - namely, Beethoven in his 9th Symphony. That debate was framed in the 19th century as classicism vs progressivism (Conservatives vs 'New Germans'): following Beethoven, Berlioz introduced solo voices in his 7-movement 'Symphonie dramatique' 'Roméo et Juliette', Liszt had soloists (with chorus) in both his Faust and Dante Symphonies - so Mahler was by no means the innovator in these respects. It just so happened that he wrote more symphonies than Berlioz or Liszt.

Some commentators have even claimed that the four operas of Wagner's Ring cycle might be considered to be a symphony. Perhaps that's the most revolutionary thought of all...

[Ilja]

All good points. I was mostly considering Mahler's influence on his direct contemporaries, to be honest; a few decades later it was obviously greater. 

Not sure about Sibelius, either. His introduction into the Germanic performance canon is a fairly recent one, if memory serves – his music was certainly more popular in the UK for a long time.

[Alan Howe]

FWIW I think there's only so much further you can take the Berlioz-Liszt-Mahler conception of the symphony. There's probably a lot more life left in something rather more modest, but just as effective. I know which I favour...

[eschiss1]

There are certainly examples before Mahler 4 without calling works symphony that don't have that title or subtitle (and the Ring is not for -solo voice- and orchestra at any rate.
Bantock's Christus symphony, published in 1900 (the year Mahler began his 4th), also qualifies. (Sibelius' Kullervo (1891-2) has chorus, so not so much...)

[eschiss1]

another, this time post-Mahler 4 unlike my other examples, example is Melartin 4 (1912) (well-ok, 3 solo voices, but you mentioned Nielsen 3 which has 2.)

[Ilja]

FWIW I think there's only so much further you can take the Berlioz-Liszt-Mahler conception of the symphony. There's probably a lot more life left in something rather more modest, but just as effective. I know which I favour...

That is why I think the efforts of composers such as Woyrsch, Larsson, Gram and others to get out of the corner Mahler c.s. painted themselves into by moving to smaller forms are so fascinating. The post-Mahlerian popularity of forms like the Sinfonia Brevis and Kammersinfonie might express the same desire.

[Rainolf]

Hermann Zilcher's 5th Symphony ends with a variation movement, the last part of which includes a soprano solo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKPf05CV8fM

Werner Trenkner's 1st Symphony has a middle movement with soprano solo on verses by Mörike. The outer movements are purely instrumental.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe6i3GIuDgQ

[Alan Howe]

Post-Mahler, although there has been a flowering of interest in purely instrumental symphonic writing, I think it's also fair to say that the concept of a 'symphony' has been stretched and stretched beyond the bounds of any strict definition. In other words, if a composer calls a piece a 'symphony', then it's a symphony - end of story. Personally, I don't find this very helpful, but who am I to object?

[Gareth Vaughan]

Rutland Boughton's Symphony No. 1 "Oliver Cromwell" contains a part for baritone solo in the last movt.

[Maury]

Scriabin's Symphony 1 written around the same time as the Mahler 4 has a Finale with two soloists: soprano and tenor but the chorus puts it more on the Beethoven 9 side. 

The specific point I was making before was that Mahler was not in any way a fringe figure like the Unsungs. He was a famous conductor who conducted his own symphonies. He had disciples in Zemlinsky, Walter and Klemperer who also performed his symphonies. It's just that they were not highly regarded by the audiences of the day which is different than being unplayed or unknown. But it was not difficult for younger composers to hear his music and obtain scores and thus be influenced by him. As I mentioned with the Sym 10 and Mr Howe pointed out here, in the WW1 aftermath this type of grandiosity seemed suspect and dated. But this was also true of Stravinsky's pre WW1 music, although he was young enough to radically shift gears.    The younger composers who in the absence of WW1 might have carried on some Mahlerian tradition were swept away.

As for the symphonic form I'm rather more pessimistic about its viability. As Mr Howe noted the symphony was a name being used very arbitrarily in the 20th C. and no longer implied a stable form of music with a given fiat structure and sonata development. On the evidence, modern concert audiences are prepared to listen to new concertos but not so much new symphonies. Even attempting to introduce non repertoire symphonies of the past of high quality is proving difficult.

[Ilja]

The thing with Mahler is that no (or hardly any)one else conducted his symphonies for a fairly long time. He was no fringe figure as a conductor, but certainly not (yet) particularly broadly known as a composer outside of a few musical centres where people were able to see his performances for themselves. The three composers that you mention all existed in the direct personal orbit of Gustav Mahler himself, and as important as that circle and Vienna as a musical capital were, it wasn't the entire musical world. Mahler's present eminence in the concert hall has exaggerated his contemporary significance.

To be honest, I'm not pessimistic about symphonies at all. About he concert hall repertory perhaps, yes, but the issue isn't so much the audiences as the moving parts necessary to get music performed. From arrogant impresarios, via soloists unwilling or unable to study new music, to marketing people that remain desperately afraid to lose their dwindling subscription audiences - but refusing to engage with a new, more opportunistically concert-going public. I've met them all and have been part of one of these groups. It is the gigantic infrastructure of classical music that is threatening to bring it all down.

[Alan Howe]

Chandos have just brought out Adam Pounds' 3rd Symphony from 2021 - recordings are in rude health, concert performances are (mostly) stalled.