With the LSO no less!>>
http://www.mdt.co.uk/bloch-ernest-symphony-in-c-symphony-orchestra-dalia-atlas-naxos.html (http://www.mdt.co.uk/bloch-ernest-symphony-in-c-symphony-orchestra-dalia-atlas-naxos.html)
Excellent news! Bloch's is one heck of a late-romantic symphony; reminding me in sheer scale and over-the-top Straussian drama of Respighi's (also early) Sinfonia drammatica, but I find the Bloch a better piece that is more gripping than Respighi's sprawling affair. It is hardly ground-breakingly original or indicative of his later style, but who cares! The LSO will work wonders with this piece, no doubt :)
This is a fine symphony which deserves to be better known. Very good news.
Tom writes:
Another new Naxos release that fits the mold of the unsung even though it was written at the turn of the century is this symphony which I took an instant liking to. It certainly has the roots of Bruckner and Strauss. Another fine work to be explored.
http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1913418 (http://www.classicsonline.com/catalogue/product.aspx?pid=1913418)
Tom
It's pre-ordered. (pant pant) Meanwhile, anyone who likes opulent and dramatic early 20th-century music in the Straussian vein (yet quite original) is likely to enjoy the Trois Poèmes Juifs from 1912-13, a work I value as much as Ravel's much better known Daphnis et Chloë.
Seconding those 3 Poems - I have a really good older (remastered) Vanguard recording (coupled with the violin concerto and some Bartók on CD) - one of them was written in memory of Bloch's father, yes?
I have once again changed my opinion of a particular work, thanks to UC. Quite some time ago, I purchased the Bloch Symphony in C sharp minor - The Stephen Gunzenhauser Slovak Philharmonic version on the Marco Polo label. Like some other CDs I have bought, I listened to this work once ot twice and decided I was not very keen on the music. Because of the comments on UC, I got out the Marco Polo disc and listened to the symphony again and then again ( I listened to it again this morning!). Surprise, surprise - I was quite taken with the music! Clearly, there are times when I don't give a piece of music my undivided attention. This was even more of a surprise, considering that Bloch's symphony at times shows the influence of Strauss, Mahler and Bruckner, all composers I very much like! I have since listened to sound bites of the new Naxos disc and was impressed by the quality of the recording. I don't often buy another copy of a work when I have a good recording already, but do so occasionally when something new about the work is offered : i.e. different tempi, better sound recording, better orchestra etc. In this instance, I am buying the new Naxos CD because I want to hear the LSO version. I am particularly intrigued by the timings of the movements, especially in the first movement : the timing for this movement is 16:15 by the Slovak Philharmonic and 22:03 by the LSO, i.e. almost a full 6 minutes longer!!! I am wondering whether the Slovaks cut the movement? In any case, it will be fascinating to hear the LSO version. I am looking forward to receiving my copy of the Naxos CD shortly.
let's not leave out the BIS recording, where the first movement is 19:46. 22:03 sounds a bit long- or maybe a first movement repeat is taken, or a cut expanded out... ... ? The overall timings of the BIS and Naxos recordings of the symphony are pretty similar though.
I've not heard the BIS recording but I've heard the Slovak offering and I much prefer the reading from the London Symphony. When you listen you can definitely hear the influence that Strauss, Bruckner, and Mahler had on him.
Tom
I'm working on a review of the material for Naxos.
Tom
Good for you, Tom.
Dalia Atlas (Sternberg) has already proven herself, in my book, as an inspired interpreter of Bloch with her recordings of the Israel Symphony and the Symphony in E-flat, among other things. I have no advance reservations about 22:03 as I believe it will likely prove to be an organic outgrowth of the music that lies behind the notes in the score.
This is a really self-indulgent score in many ways. It's thoroughly enjoyable as a hyper-Straussian, almost Scriabinesque symphonic wallow, but, my goodness, there are longueurs in it. So, for me not a masterpiece, but nevertheless a must-buy. And don't the LSO appear to enjoy themselves! I hope the brass section had a rest afterwards...
In many ways it's a typical youthful symphony with it's self-importance and passion, Yes it's certainly self indulgent, but there's nothing wrong with whipped cream on top of your ice cream from time to time. I love it.
Yesterday, I had the time to wallow in Bloch's symphony with the new Naxos. After three listenings, one with score in hand, I must say that of the three versions available, this one goes right to the top. It's obvious that the conductor spent a lot of time studying this complicated score. Yes, the first movement is longer than other recordings, and the main thrust of the movement is taken slow than her two rivals. But what a payoff! You hear orchestral details that are unheard in the Marco Polo or just whiz by in BIS because the faster tempos don't allow the scoring to be heard. Some might prefer the greater energy of the BIS, but great music can stand up to a lot of interpretive license, and Atlas brings out so many beautiful things that it works. But don't think she's really slow or anything, just not as propulsive as the others. Where she does take her time is the beautiful, even ominous close of the first movement. Tremendously effective here. I thing it's gripping.
The second movement is taking, surprisingly, a bit quicker than the others. The third movement about the same. The last movement is terrifically exciting.
The playing of the LSO is stunning (as I would expect), although the Malmo group plays like demons, too. But between conductor, LSO, and the recording engineers you hear things like never before, such as the harp and some great flute riffs.
Since that Marco Polo recording a couple of decades back, I've always believed this is a great score that deserves to be heard more. In a concert world obsessed with Mahler, this would fit right in. But I won't hold my breath. Great job, Naxos!
Quote from: mbhaub on Friday 27 September 2013, 16:26
I've always believed this is a great score that deserves to be heard more. In a concert world obsessed with Mahler, this would fit right in.
I agree that it deserves to be heard more often and that it would go down a treat with audiences. But I don't believe it's a 'great score'. It's too derivative for that; Bloch had yet to find his true voice.
My review of the Bloch symphony
http://sdtom.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/symphony-in-c-sharp-minorbloch/
(http://sdtom.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/symphony-in-c-sharp-minorbloch/)
Tom :)
Bloch also wrote a "Symphonie Orientale" in 1896.. Wouldn't it be nice to hear this as well one day.
I fear that our only hope will be Dahlia Atlas. Perhaps there is an agreement with Naxos in place to record with the London Symphony.
Tom
A few first impressions. The first movement is practically a diary of the profound impression Also sprach Zarathustra in particular made on a talented and ambitious young composer who had craft but not yet a personal voice.
The young Bloch was clearly attracted to the enormous power and assurance of Strauss's great tone poems, and in his early phase of assimilation Bloch was not able to separate this from the plump, plain-vanilla harmonic progressions in diatonic sixths and thirds into which Strauss so often retreats after his astonishing dissonant 'set pieces'. (Like many others I'm fond of these sweet patches in Strauss, but they don't fit Bloch at all.)
I'd be interested in hearing forum members' thoughts on (among other things) who might be the musical model/s for the slow second movement (on first hearing the weakest movement).
For me the most interesting thing about the symphony is how Bloch starts to find his personal voice in the third and fourth movements. And the catalyst for that discovery clearly seems to be the music of Mahler. The sumptuous Straussian textures and diatonic progressions are replaced by much more exposed orchestration and angular writing of a type that likewise revolutionized the musical thinking of other musicians such as Melartin. In Bloch's symphony the transition from the trio to the recapitulation of the scherzo is perhaps the high point of the work, blunt music of great freshness and daring for 1902.
The fugal opening of the last movement puts me in mind of the great, groaning animal world conjured up in the first movement of Mahler's Third. Whether Bloch's savage opening receives its full due when taken in jig time is, to my mind, questionable -- especially when following hot on the heels of a scherzo in compound meter. As one comfortable with Furtwängler's flexible tempos in such repertoire, I'd like to hear the finale start slower and then proceed gradually to the sensible pace Atlas takes for the remainder of its exposition.
To judge from this score, Macbeth must have been the crucible in which Bloch's characteristic expressionism was fully formed. It is a style already deployed with continuous mastery in the 1913 symphony known as Trois Poèmes Juifs.
Despite being a remarkable achievement for a 21-year-old, I don't think the C-sharp symphony holds together as well as the (IMHO) genuine masterpiece a similarly aged Enescu produced with his first symphony or even as well as the buoyant, bracing young man's first symphony written by similarly aged Cyril Scott. Perhaps later auditions will change my mind.
Finally: I'm used to hearing cramped recordings open up and come alive on my home system, but in this case the high brass was strident and congested, whereas when I listened later on Sony headphones the sound stage was much more balanced and flattering for the brass. You may want to experiment more than usual with tone controls.
I have been trying to understand why this excellent symphony has been so neglected. The first two performances, in 1910 and 1915, were well received, but the timeline at the Ernest Bloch Legacy site (http://www.ernestbloch.org/ (http://www.ernestbloch.org/)) does not mention any further performances until Bloch conducted the U.S. premiere in 1918. Then there are further U.S. performances in 1918. 1919 and 1920, and several during 1927. The timeline notes that it appeared on the programme of the Bloch Festival concerts Mengelberg held in Holland in 1929, and was performed several times in Britain during 1952, with the BBC orchestra under Clarence Raybould. And that's it! Less than a dozen performances are mentioned over a roughly 50 year period.
It seems that European conductors were reluctant to champion a manifestly Jewish composer in the inter-war years, with requests from Bloch for them to play his music repeatedly turned down. In the U.S., the Symphony seems to have been rapidly overshadowed by Bloch's other early works. The "racial" (not my term!) aspect of Bloch's musical philosophy is discussed in a chapter of a book reviewed in the first of the four annual Newsletters of the International Ernest Bloch Society (http://www.ernestblochsociety.org/newsletter/newsletter.html (http://www.ernestblochsociety.org/newsletter/newsletter.html)). Although the symphony is not mentioned in any of the newsletters, they are well worth a read.
I can't find any evidence of a 78rpm recording - in contrast to Schelomo and the Israel Symphony - nor of a broadcast performance (e.g. by the NYPO or the Phil.). The Bloch discographical site (http://claude.torres1.perso.sfr.fr/Bloch/index.html (http://claude.torres1.perso.sfr.fr/Bloch/index.html)) lists only one LP recording - the St Louis under Robert Hart Baker (1984, Bloch Society) and three on CD - Gunzenhauser on Marco Polo, Markiz on BIS and Atlas on Naxos.
It seems that the first symphony just got forgotten, and whenever Bloch was included on the concert programme it was Schelomo, Baal Shem or similar that was chosen. I wonder if anyone on the forum can explain it? ???
actually, a Bloch work more - serious, maybe? - than either of those works that's proven fairly resilient on the concert schedules I think is his violin concerto (and inbetween, his first concerto grosso, too). (Putting aside the fortunes of his chamber works :) )
The C# minor symphony has been neglected partly because Bloch wrote, after MacBeth, so many better works, including the Three Jewish Poems, the Israel Symphony, the violin concerto, the E-flat symphony, the sinfonia breve, the concerto symphonique, and the first concerto grosso. That said, I'm open to arguments that the C-sharp minor symphony is a better work than America, An Epic Rhapsody, which has been recorded numerous times (I don't know its performance history in concert).
Here's my argument: the C# Symphony has better tunes than anything Bloch wrote after it. This symphony wasn't the first Bloch I heard. The Concerto Grossos, Schelomo, Symphony in Eb, America!, violin concerto and more passed through my turntable. None of it made a deep impression or made me want to listen to it again. It wasn't bad music, just not memorable or stirring or something. Then along came the C# which I bought only because of the Marco Polo label and the blurb on the back. Anything of a Mahler/Bruckner/Strauss lineage had to be worth a listen. And it was. I've collected a fair amount of Bloch on cd since then, but honestly, I find the tunes, the harmonies, the orchestration of the symphony to be a cut above average. The tunes (esp that second movement and the trio of the third) stick in the head and make an overwhelming listen. I'm not alone: in her notes in the new cd, conductor Atlas states that she believes the symphony is Bloch's masterpiece, nothing after it was its equal.
PS: in the concert hall, the only thing by Bloch I have ever encountered is Schelomo - and by coincidence in all four performances I was playing contrabassoon. Did you know that David Ogden Stiers (played Winchester on tv MASH) is a huge Bloch supporter - ran a festival in Oregon?
It would have been - upsetting if Winchester had disliked Classical music after all...
Here's my counter-argument. The C sharp minor Symphony is a glorious, but ultimately derivative piece - whereas his (equally glorious) Violin Concerto could not have been written by anyone else. Simple.
However, Bloch's later music is really beyond the bounds of UC...
Yes, I must admit that I love Bloch's C sharp minor Symphony not because it's by Bloch, but because it sounds like it's by a partnership of Strauss and Mahler (mostly). I honestly can't think of another work by him which I particularly enjoy, and certainly nothing which is, as Martin points out, as overflowing with fine melody as it does. Bloch has a firm place in that class of composers whose first serious essays into composition I really like, precisely because they don't sound like their mature selves! Szymanowski is another - I love his wonderfully Straussian Concert Overture, but not anything else.
As coincidence would have it, I was listening to the Bloch symphony again this morning, prior to reading this thread. I have come to love the LSO interpretation of this work ( far superior to the Gunzenhauser Slovak Philharmonic's effort: better playing, better sound and the LSO really bring out all of the subtle nuances of the symphony!). Apart from the Straussian and Mahlerian influences in the composition, I am also moved by the Brucknerian-like climaxes, especially in the opening movement - very impressive!). Next up for me is the VC. It's on my wish list - maybe for Cristmas, I have been buying so many CDs recently, I've had to call a halt for the present! In the meantime, I am listening to the VC on Youtube.
Just by pure coincidence, I listened to this symphony again this morning, prior to reading this thread. I have come to really love the LSO version of this symphony which is IMO far superior to the Gunzenhauser Slovak Philharmonic's interpretation: better playing, better sound, more stimulating tempi, especially in the opening movement where the LSO really bring out all the subtle nuances of the music! Apart from the Straussian and Mahlerian influences in the music, I was both impressed and moved by the Brucknerian-like climaxes, especially in the opening movement! I don't as yet have the VC (I have recently been buying many CDs and have put a stop to my purchases for the moment - on my Christmas list, if I can wait that long!) but, for the moment, I am making do with listening to the versions on Youtube!
I don't know what has just happened? I did my first post and posted it, only to find when I checked that the post was not there! Hence my second post. Now I see that both posts are there!!! Oops.....
Well, Szymanowski past the unrevised (and unperformed since its premiere??) version of his 2nd symphony (or, since that's unlikely to be a subject of our considerations, past e.g. his 2nd piano sonata Op.21 (1910/11) and some other relatively earlyish works where the influences seem to be more Reger - and - Strauss - etc.) -
is probably too much first too much influenced by Debussy and maybe Scriabin(?) (sort of) (1st vn. concerto (1916), 3rd symphony (1914-16), 3rd piano sonata (1917) ...) ... and then too much simply his own person (but in a Modern, though not "Modernist"- but also not Romantic (in this forum's minimal-dissonance (Hovhaness?) way, certainly not; but also not in common-practice, either) (Stabat Mater (1925/26), e.g.) to be really quite right for this forum, I'd agree. Much as I might have come to like more and more of his music, his early music at most is probably appropriate here I guess (though I'm not positive that his music up to 1917 or so is further outside the bounds of the forum than Bax's stuffs , which has been ruled allowable (not that I mind, I also enjoy Bax). Well, not for me to say!)
BTW there is an upload of one work by Bloch in our Downloads archive (his 1913 Jewish poems, from an LP.)
I have really enjoyed this discussion regarding the reasons for the symphony's neglect.
Since the response of audiences and critics when it was performed in the early years seems to rule out a perception that it was simply not that good, my own tentative explanation is that it arrived on the musical scene just as tastes changed, and the music world was pursuing new forms; and, it was overshadowed by Bloch's subsequent works because they were more in tune with the interwar zeitgeist, they were also shorter and more amenable to being added to a concert programme and put on a 78!
The third factor - Bloch's Jewishness and his explicit musical attachment to Jewish traditions - reportedly played a part in the unwillingness of authorities in France and Germany to perform the work during the inter-war years, but it doesn't seem to have been so strong as to affect the popularity of subsequent works during that period.
Anyhoo - all that aside, I love its shades of Bruckner, Mahler, and Strauss, as noted, and I reckon it's a very fine work! :)
QuoteThe C sharp minor Symphony is a glorious, but ultimately derivative piece - whereas his (equally glorious) Violin Concerto could not have been written by anyone else.
That sums it up neatly. It's the same come-hell-or-high-water spirit in both.
This is as good a place as any to mention that a friend of mine traveled with Bloch by ship from New York to San Francisco via the Panama Canal in 1946. Bloch spent hours every day of the voyage studying Bach's Art of the Fugue.