draft version of first movement Flute I part for now uploaded here (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?5cca32m4r4jjxd0) (if and when all done with the whole flute part, not to mention all the parts, will upload them to IMSLP, but for now, that's what the 442-bar - if I haven't miscounted- flute part looks like. Needs work, yes. Also needs some cues at the end of page 3, which I'll have to figure out how to put in using LilyPond - eh, I can figure it out. ... 25 bars of rest (spread over three pages in the score?...) :) (yes, I know that's not at all unusual.)
Edit: updated link, 2-13-13.
Edit: found an important mistake, made a change or two, updated file and link, 2-18-13.
2-28-13 Celli part first movement (first draftish) - is here at Mediafire (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?r1kml6z5c26z7mz). Flute 1 part uploaded to IMSLP.
(Comment: yes, I didn't add nearly enough rehearsal marks - only four compared to quite-a-few that are needed. I will have done so before long. I hope this whole thing is not entirely inappropriate to this forum and no, I do not intend to provide any sort of inappropriately long typesetting work-play-by-play, I just thought I'd upload that first draft :) )
Excellent work, Eric. At bar 123 you are, of course, correct to sharpen the C (an obvious omission of accidental on the part of the composer), but the clarinet part has E flat, not E, because it's written in G minor; Hiller specifies clarinets in B (hence B flat because he was German!) at the outset and correctly gives a key signature of two flats for them.
Nice work! IMHO, the "a 2" signs are unnecessary, they may clutter the part a bit...
Gareth- thanks, that does clarify.
Hilleries- ah good- just going by orchestral scores, I really need to look at actual parts more... thanks again :)
btw, I was wrong about the "symphony, _op.4_" bit (besides the fact that he already has an opus 4, for piano). "Opus 4" refers to the website, not the piece- and can be found on the webpages of the other symphonies too. I took it to refer to something found maybe on the manuscript that hadn't been scanned in (likewise an autograph that Worldcat claims is there- maybe on the manuscript book these might be from.)
"a 2" is normally confined to full scores, but you can sometimes see it in parts where a pair of instruments is printed as one part together on the same stave with note-tails going in different directions to distinguish between the parts, though this method of writing parts is rare. However, where separate parts are produced for each wind instrument (or where they are given separate staves one above the other) it would be unusual to see it.
ah, thanks, this is sincerely good to know. I realize I may end up having too many questions like this though I will try to answer them with reference to actual parts (if older - not too much older... - and PD ones - i.e., how-it's-actually-done-generally-speaking) before asking too very many questions (some of my employers know I can be like this :) ). (File updated a bit and reuploaded. :) )
It was so exciting to see this appear on ISMLP last week. Yes, it might be considered 'prentice work, but it is considerably stronger than one might expect for an opus 4 (though not as mature as a Magnard opus 4!). Conservatively scored, of course, especially when compared to the first symphony Berlioz was writing in the same city at about the same time. Of course, Hiller was still in his teens, so this work would be more fairly compared to, say, Mendelssohn's Symphony 1 or Schubert's Symphony 4.
The first movement is genuinely symphonic and pithy, the scherzo delightful. The Adagio seems to me sentimental and less inspired, at least on first reading. Haven't had a chance to read the finale yet. Hiller's was certainly no mean talent as he closed out his teen years, nor did his ambition falter when faced with the formidable task of creating a dramatic symphony. I hope we can hear it someday on real instruments.
Fairly sure I was wrong about the opus 4 bit, though the time would have been right (I don't think it was published anyway- or has been , except at Goethe-University and on IMSLP), and at least from my look-over of the first movement while typesetting the flute 1 part, I agree about the strength and sense of drama. Yet another of those works where if Beethoven was a major influence, all for the good. (I think I mentioned Onslow's symphony no.2 as a work whose first movement surprised me similarly very positively once, not that I am exactly contemptuous of his other works, or anything... or of Hiller's... etc. ... I hope it does sound even about as good, not to exaggerate. Will get back to it within a few days and apply myself seriously, though with my developing and limited skills it will take a bit. Well, that's what challenges are for.)
And Hiller really was quite prolific at that age, it seems, from those other scans (at Berlin Library)- that incomplete overture in ms, several sonatas, other things- this could be the end of an early phase in which he'd had a bit of practice already. It seems to be about contemporary, from that Hyperion CD note and the contemporary published magazine that has a Paris concert report that it's sort of quoting that I tracked down (though that doesn't mention -which- symphony), with the first piano concerto op.5 (hence op.4 does seem especially appropriate even if not accurate.)
a 2s removed, link in first post fixed, hoping to get more work done tonight rather instead- thanks again :)
Hrm. Requesting advice... for much of the first movement, the cello in the manuscript has / written in. I am guessing this means "play with the bass part an octave higher" (since it does not mean, unless Hiller was a very, very proto-modern composer, any of the following-
(1) play in unison with the bass (basically impossible without scordatura, usually specified in advance for good reason :) )
(2) play the last bar heard before the slash line repeatedly (repeat-percent) - I don't even want to go into the harmonies and rhythms this would produce :)
Ok, I seem to be asking a rhetorical question- but there are actually two choices- the other ones
(3) \ is actually a misread full-bar rest
(4) playing an octave above the double-bass as noted.
Still, something happens on page 29 of the PDF (bar 231 of the movement) - "vcello tutti"? (or something, can't quite read the second word... with an ossia? bass part under it...) (violin I has d e fis e d e fis g a b cis d) - not sure what's happening on bars 231-4, and whether it influences how to interpret what happened before.
From the looks of things and the cross-out of the middle line what it looks like is that that's the cello line, the line under it is the bass line, the line over it (bars 231-on) was the cello staff, pages 29-30) but the composer changed his mind- eh, manuscripts :( But I am guessing.
Temporary, tentative distinction of editing from sheer transcription (a matter of degree and not a clear definite line) -with editing, the editor makes choices and might be wrong.
If and when I have more of the parts done, I am thinking of testing out my limited piano-scoring abilities with LilyPond- not something I'm good at- but anyhow, trying to typeset piano arrangements of some of the movements of the symphony too, as a good way of increasing its exposure. The Capriccioso movement, I think, looks like it might benefit from availability in arrangement, if I can and if time allows. (If this is not a bad idea, anyway.)
Re. the cellos "slash" you are correct. It means they play the same written notes as the basses but, of course, sounding an octave higher.
QuoteFrom the looks of things and the cross-out of the middle line what it looks like is that that's the cello line, the line under it is the bass line, the line over it (bars 231-on) was the cello staff, pages 29-30) but the composer changed his mind
Spot on, Eric. That's clearly what happened. I've done the same myself!
not sure why an entire apparently blank page gets crossed out this way too, but ... the rest makes sense :)
hrm. should I add credit to Mr. Vaughan (and possibly others) in the cello part at least? May be only fair...
(Also, while I don't see an autograph on the score, which Worldcat claims is an autograph ms., all the corrections strongly suggest this is no one's fair-copy... or a ms copy by a very very poor copyist (I can sympathize... arthritis maybe... er, hush, Eric. :) )
Quoteshould I add credit to Mr. Vaughan (and possibly others) in the cello part at least?
Absolutely not!
By the way, for what it's worth, this is almost certainly an autograph MS. No copyist would dare produce something so messy!
Yes, indeed had a similar thought and marked as much @ IMSLP (well, I did hedge a little half-humorously as above there too.. who (hypothetical thoughtless copyist), carrying on the hypothetical :), might have felt they could get away with such for such an early work, I didn't write. Still, Hiller had already published his first three or so, maybe more (the first two piano quartets, a cello and piano duo, maybe even the first piano concerto already...) - or more; there's some evidence of some lost works that may or may not have been published - or just announced... - by Steyl even ca.1828/1829 , as I recall, string quartets and a set of variations I think?... anyway, quite a few works by 1830, to-when this work's been approximately dated, so... for all that he was only 19 and I think still a pupil or recently a pupil of Hummel and possibly also Rochlitz? I need to reread biography there..., his composing was getting underway, it seems.)
The symphony was fwiw finished as late as 1833 possibly- there's an autograph ms thematic catalog of Hiller's works from 1832-37 at the same website (Frankfurt), with two entries I see (I'm not quite done looking) for the F minor symphony- October 1832, and New finale for the F minor symphony July 1833. (Thanks to Cypressdome for pointing that out...) (Since works appear in the thematic catalog that were composed and even published before 1832, early on in it anyway, it's possible that all one can say with certainty is composed-by-1832. Though I gather that there may have been an earlier catalog by him in which some of them went, as this is labeled (by the scanner, not the composer) "Band II", so they didn't all get stuck in here from his first work on- I am guessing...)
Ah, there is also, at the same site, Tagebuch für meine Compositionen : vom 30. August 1825 in Weimar - bis zum 6. November 1831 in Passy.
Also, have uploaded a preliminary, needs work (need to put in the dal segno sigils, anyway but that I think I can figure out) draft of the 2nd movement flute 1 part (302 bars if not miscounted? Lots of rests...) here (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?vr7j3ye16ut38dk). C minor Capriccioso, molto vivace with G major (I think...) trio; 78-bar coda (from bars 225 to 302.)
This is a superb early romantic Symphony. Owing to Hiller's relatively young status as a composer, the orchestration can sometimes be flawed, but it definitely is listenable and rightly deserves to be showcased.
Where the first movement is tense and dramatic from the start, the later movements take a more joyful tone and colors, culminating in one brilliant, no-holds-barred Finale. Indeed the Finale was the movement I reproduced first, and even with its brief length it's one of my all time favorite Hiller pieces for sure. What a rhythmic, lively masterpiece it is. The writing for wind players throughout, and especially in the Finale, is outstanding. Shades of Mendelssohn are evident owing to his and Hiller's friendship, they bounced a lot of musical ideas off each other during this period of time.
Enjoy! https://youtu.be/ouxZyTEvsHY (https://youtu.be/ouxZyTEvsHY)
It's a very exciting piece, rhythmically speaking. Otherwise, I find it somewhat anonymous, but it may grow on me. Great work, though, tpaloj!!
To be honest, I found that the first movement barred few holds as well. There must not be a great many symphonies that start con fuoco. It really sounds like a very youthful piece as well, with only a very brief and not particularly contemplative adagio to slow things down for a bit. I think the IMSLP list (which, if I'm not mistaken, is Eric's work) lists this as Hiller's third symphony, and if anything it sounds more boisterous than its supposed predecessor, the C major. A very nice addition to the collection!
I'm not positive at this point which of the two versions of the F minor symphony I uploaded. I think it was the slightly earlier one, without the newer finale.
Can you elaborate what you mean by two versions of this Symphony, Eric? There used to be an older black-and-white scan of Hiller's autograph on IMSLP, but I used the color scan of that you see in the video which was recently digitized by GUF. Also, GUF catalogues this Symphony – which has no title or date in the autograph – as "Partition" and dates it circa 1875, but this is incorrect information as we know this is the Symphony in F minor dating from 1832-33 thanks to Hiller's composition diary from this period.
The orchestration is much improved already from his Faust-Overture from 1831 even if this is still an early, youthful work as you point out Ilja.
Quote from: Ilja on Friday 29 April 2022, 21:29
I think the IMSLP list (which, if I'm not mistaken, is Eric's work) lists this as Hiller's third symphony, and if anything it sounds more boisterous than its supposed predecessor, the C major. A very nice addition to the collection!
...I'm positive that the C major symphony that I studied a few years ago was composed in the 1870s. I was already skeptical of its supposed 1830s dating when I first saw the score, and since then I've become certain. The latest piece of that dating puzzle comes via a recent digitization of a different Hiller work, "Drei Fantasiestücke", another orchestral piece from the 1870s, which uses the same manuscript paper than the C major symphony, is orchestrated in similar fashion and handwriting, instrumentation etc etc. If there was another C major symphony Hiller wrote in the 1830s, so be it, but it certainly cannot be the piece that I made that Noteperformer recreation video of.
Make no mistake, the case of Hiller's early symphonies is very confusing and complex thanks to confusion in sources, missing manuscripts, destroyed works and incomplete catalogues and composition diaries.
By the way, for some additional Hiller trivia, GUF recently digitized Hiller's earliest opera score "Caesario" (based on Shakespeare's What you will) which looks like it belongs in the Liszt Don Sanche category of operas... It was thoroughly condemned by his Weimar teachers, and there were no attempts to ever finish the score or stage it. Looking at the start of its Overture, it's very dire stuff indeed... take a look at your own peril, for true Hiller enthusiasts' eyes only ;D
https://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/musikhs/content/titleinfo/12280582 (https://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/musikhs/content/titleinfo/12280582)
Many thanks tpaloj
Thanks too for giving us the score to follow. Yes it does sound youthful but that is what is so delightful. I particularly like the rustic finale with it's twists and turns.
iirc Hiller lists the F minor symphony twice in the pair of uploaded ms catalogs he maintained of his early works (with a large gap). The second entry may have just been for a new finale (possibly only one of the two finales, I think the older one, is available digitized.)