My question is: who was Beethoven's greatest symphonic contemporary? I refer to composers actively writing symphonies between the years 1790 and 1827. possible candidates, of course, include Schubert, Spohr, Eggert( who famously "scooped" Beethoven with 3 trombones in one of his symphonies before the latter could get his own 5th symphony out ;D),Wilms and Beethoven's pupil, Ferdinand Reas. I'd be interested to hear members' views on these and others that I must have left of of this short list. Furthermore, starting as far back as 1790 would include also the Haydn of the London symphonies.
Schubert. Period.
However, if one excludes Schubert, then it's a difficult choice. Hmmmm....
Oh, there are plenty. How about Friedrich Witt, for starters?
Other other-than-Schubert ones worth a lookhear may include Franz Johannes Gleißner (1761-1818 so more Mozart's generation actually), Friedrich Witt (1770-1836) (who I see JimL has mentioned), also Krommer, Czerny, Reicha, the Vranicky brothers of a recent thread, ... and some of those other usual suspects of music that we know in other spheres (Reicha and Danzi and Krommer from their wind, not their symphonic, music, e.g.) - and Vorisek e.g.?
Google Books (here for example (http://books.google.com/books?id=8MhXnGxfYkEC&pg=PA25) is a list of interest to be found in that book) provides some preview pages of "The Symphony in Beethoven's Vienna" that provide some interesting context, some of these names and some information on their works. Including a symphony by Czerny that isn't one of the 6 that I think appear in Groves?- (in D major but not no.2 - Scherzo in the wrong place and mode (D minor), indeed none of the movement descriptions are right. Written, I think, around 1818 and earlier than his op.780 symphony no.1 in fact.) Greatest, though? For that question? (And for that question I'm not quite convinced it's Schubert... - I don't dislike his music but that doesn't mean my answer to that question becomes yes) - you've got me, though I'll give it some thinking. (In quartets, in the last few, with Schubert- there I can see it. Not last-few-Beethoven-quartet level- practically nothing is, in my book - but very, very high.)
Beethoven himself had a very high opinion of both Cherubini and Rejcha (Reicha), both of whom wrote marvellous stuff - especially Rejcha, whose symphonies show a melodic and harmonic daring that were almost the equal of Beethoven.
Does anyone know of an accessible census of public orchestral concerts in Europe during those years? In terms of symphonies, who besides Haydn and Mozart was being played?
Schubert wasn't. Weber must have been. What do forum members think of the Weber symphonies?
Then there is Clementi. Following posts by members of this forum, I've become acquainted with that composer's later symphonies and find them to be exceptional works, as worthy as the one by Cherubini of which Toscanini was so fond.
We shouldn't overlook the overtures of Rossini, either, as they were repeatedly imitated by the young Schubert in his symphonies.
Quote from: chill319 on Monday 15 November 2010, 05:42
Does anyone know of an accessible census of public orchestral concerts in Europe during those years? In terms of symphonies, who besides Haydn and Mozart was being played?
For starters, one can skim, online (if one has access to it over Google Books) or in a library, the contemporaneous issues of the
Allegemeine Musikalische Zeitung which have concert reports...
I would put forward Mehul as worthy of mention at the least. I don't know if Weber's symphonies would have been that widely played, weren't they written for a patron's private orchestra and early works? I know Weber was pretty dismissive of them himself although I think they are both delightful. Not very symphonic and not even close to approaching Beethoven I think though, and the same for Reicha (IMHO) even though he is innovative sometimes (oftentimes?) the symphonies I have heard are more Classical than Beethoven's are.
I think at least two of Reicha's symphonies- in C minor and F major- may not have been published until 1983. Recordings of the opus 41 in E-flat (is opus 42 also in E-flat a different symphony? I have seen conflicting claims on this point I believe...) have been several, those of the symphonies in C minor, F minor and F major, one each I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if it's some of these last three that show the greater tendencies toward musical innovation (if not strictly speaking Romanticism).
Eric
Many thanks, gentlemen, for all your interesting replies. It would seem that Witt must have been a pretty capable composer, for his "Jena" Symphony to have been attributed to the young Beethoven for many years. I'm also intrigued by the discovery of an early symphony by Czerny. However, nobody seems to have mentioned Arriaga, Fesca or Schneider yet. Spohr is an interesting case. His and Beethoven's first symphonies seem to be firmly rooted in the Haydn/Mozart classical tradition. However, comparing their second and subsequent symphonies is like comparing chalk and cheese. I would say that Spohr was more innovative but that Beethoven's innovations were the more successful. I suspect that Rossini, whom Beethoven appears to have admired nearly as much as he did Cherubini, would also have been a contender here, had he entered the symphonic field.
Another question that interests me is: did anyone else first substitute the minuet for a scherzo in a symphony before Beethoven? If not, then who was the first to follow Beethoven's example?
I like just about everything by Woelfl and recall one of his symphonies that has been recorded as being in the Beethoven vein, but lacking the OOMPH.
Thal
Franz Berwald was born in 1796 (one year before Schubert), so he was a contemporary of Beethoven too. His mature symphonies are contemporary to the ones of Schumann and Mendelssohn, but his first symphony was written in 1820. Unfortunately, only the first movement survives (or most of it). It is available on Hyperion.
If I'm not mistaken, besides the 12 string symphonies, Mendelssohn's 1st for full orchestra also falls within the lifetime of Beethoven, albeit roughly contemporary with B9, with which it cannot compare.
That's most interesting that both Berwald and Mendelssohn were both symphonically active during Beethoven's lifetime. Unfortunately, Franz Lachner didn't get his 1st symphony out until 1828.
If I'm not mistaken, Mendelssohn S1 was composed when he was 15, which would be 1824. If not, it was within a year or two. I think it was composed in, or for a trip to London.
Quote from: John H White on Monday 15 November 2010, 11:25
It would seem that Witt must have been a pretty capable composer, for his "Jena" Symphony to have been attributed to the young Beethoven for many years.
I think the Jena symphony was discovered in the twentieth century, no? Quite early in the century though. It is written in that late Haydn style that Beethovens first two also partly share but I don't think it is a very interesting work per se, more interesting perhaps as a rediscovery of lost Beethoven (as it was supposed to be) than for its own qualities. Quite an attractive piece of music though but I doubt if I heard it blind I would think it very like Beethoven or judge it was written by one of his greatest contemporaries.
I have two recordings of the Vorizek symphony, Hyperion (with Arriaga, also very enjoyable) and on another label I cannot recall (a budget label from the 1990's I think, maybe IMP?). It always impresses me, sad he died so young and left so little behind.
Quote from: John H White on Monday 15 November 2010, 11:25
Spohr is an interesting case. His and Beethoven's first symphonies seem to be firmly rooted in the Haydn/Mozart classical tradition. However, comparing their second and subsequent symphonies is like comparing chalk and cheese. I would say that Spohr was more innovative but that Beethoven's innovations were the more successful.
It's very hard to make this sort of comparison, John. By the time of the premiere of Spohr 1 (April 1811) Beethoven had already written six symphonies. There is not really much that is truly innovative in Spohr's symphonies until No.4 of 1832 - i.e. long after Beethoven was dead.
In reality there were no truly great innovators contemporary with Beethoven, except Schubert. They were mostly imitators of the great master (e.g. Ries, Vorisek) or perfectors of the late/high classical symphony (e.g. Cherubini, Clementi). Not that this prevents their music from being of very high quality indeed, but Beethoven dominated not only his own period, but also that which followed in a way unmatched by any later composer in the symphonic field.
None of Schubert's early symphonies (at least 1-6) would qualify as anything I consider innovative. We can only speculate how innovative the 7th would have been, since the only versions we have that are in any way performable were realizations of his incomplete sketches. This leaves only the Unfinished and Great C Major symphonies. Of the two, the more truly innovative is the B minor. The latter was composed as a direct response to B9.
Nevertheless, IMHO, S8 and S9 (1822 and 1826 respectively) are the greatest symphonic works written during the period under consideration. There are plenty of near-misses, but I'm struggling to come up with anything that truly measures up.
How about Bomtempo?
I have always valued his piano works and there are a couple of symphony clips on the tube.
Other than that, I am out of ideas. Symphonies are not my strong point.
Thal
Mind you, Méhul 4 is a very fine piece, with an original slow movement.
I've always thought Méhul's #2 was one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Actually, for a couple of years it was my overall favourite symphony by any composer, and has never fallen far from that spot. I don't know what it is, but from its very slide out of the starting gate to its relatively unusual finale, this one doesn't have any part where I think "hey, maybe some of that could be cut out or reduced". Most symphonies, even my all-time favourites, have at least a moment here and there that I find repetitive, unnecessary, dull, or what have you. Not this one, though.
I'm glad Voříšek's symphony got a mention, but I'm not sure a single finished work in the genre qualifies someone as a "symphonic contemporary". If it does, then Voříšek belongs there!
Has anyone given consideration to Krommer? Try his #2 and #4, which most fortunately can be found on a single amazing disc from Chandos. His #4 is one I personally regard as a masterpiece, and I don't put #2 much below. Krommer was really my reason for responding, as I didn't notice his name mentioned, and I thought maybe he deserved at least a glance.
EDIT: Oops, someone did mention Krommer. Sorry. I did a find to see, but I mistakenly thought I was displaying the entire thread. I was skimming the thread just now and noticed his name right off. Sorry about that.
A recent contributer to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, whose name eludes me, talking about Mehul's 4th symphony, mentioned how he noticed its cyclic nature some years back, a theme from the opening movement reappearing in the finale.
I had forgotten about Krommer's No.4 in C minor which apparently dates from ca. 1820. It is indeed a very fine piece - but somewhat backward-looking for its date. I would characterise it as 'late-classical plus', in other words in roughly the same vein as Cherubini and Clementi.
Quote from: JimL on Monday 15 November 2010, 17:45
If I'm not mistaken, Mendelssohn S1 was composed when he was 15, which would be 1824. If not, it was within a year or two. I think it was composed in, or for a trip to London.
The earliest of his string symphonies are from before 1821 I think (by the way) but are literally student pieces written for Zelter if I understand, even though some (may have? are definitely known to have been?...) figured in family and friends concert gatherings.
The string symphonies date from when he was about 9 or 10 until he was 13 or 14. Around the same time he was composing them he also produced the concertos for violin, piano and violin and piano with strings. About the age of 14 he produced the first of his two-piano concertos with full orchestral accompaniment. I believe the 1st Symphony also came a year or two afterwards.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 15 November 2010, 22:17
I had forgotten about Krommer's No.4 in C minor which apparently dates from ca. 1820. It is indeed a very fine piece - but somewhat backward-looking for its date. I would characterise it as 'late-classical plus', in other words in roughly the same vein as Cherubini and Clementi.
Of his eight or nine? surviving symphonies (counting one or two unnumbered ones?) only three (1, 2 and 4) have been recorded commercially to date, I believe; one of the late ones is completely missing; one of the other late ones receives a scathing review in the book I mentioned above but some of the others come off rather well and it might be interesting to hear them- fortunately nowadays one needn't hire an entire orchestra, with the cost-benefit analysis that entails, to do such a thing. (Computer simulation is still a poor substitute, but I value its real uses...)
As I know from experience of a number of years, copying out scores into score writing and playing software can be very time consuming. For instance, a fairly large symphony like Raff's No3 can take me around 200 hours to put into Noteworthy. Yes, I know there are scanning programs like SharpEye and PhotoScore, but I have have as yet been unable to get my tiny brain around them and, in any case, they never produce a perfectly accurate result, requiring loads of editing before one can obtain a usable score.
Lindblad's first symphony (1831-2) is just a few years out of fitting in here... (actually, I was looking at HMB - Hofmeisters Monatsbericht - last night and came up with a list of several symphonies published 1831-2 -
Auguste de la Croix Chevriere Sayve (guessing at full name using MusicSack) (1791-1851) - symphony op.16 in C minor pub. 1831 by Falter
Wenzel Gaehrich (1794 sep 16 - 1864 sep 15) - 2nd symphony in D, op.3 pub. 1831
Carl Gottlob? Muller (listed in HMB only as C.G. Müller; I'm guessing here using MusicSack) (1774-1844?) - symphony 1 in Bflat, op.6 (ded. to Ferdinand Schneider.) (pub. 1832.)
The online HMB database at http://hofmeister.rhul.ac.uk/2008/index.html (http://hofmeister.rhul.ac.uk/2008/index.html) goes back to 1829 so really I could check back there even. (Dates from MusicSack too.) (this isn't really connected and maybe could use its own thread- or not; perhaps it lacks interest... hrm. apologies. the next name I came up with was Täglichsbeck, who is more promising and interesting and marginally better-known - sym 1 in Eflat op10.)
I think you are right, Eric: best not turn the thread into a list of symphonies of the period in question. Let's restrict ourselves to comments on the quality of works that we know.
Quote from: thalbergmad on Monday 15 November 2010, 19:34How about Bomtempo?
The symphonies are available on a Naxos disc. They are fine works, but sound more like Mozart than Beethoven (if my memory serves me correctly).
In response to John's question I have been reassessing Spohr. I think in fact that he is less successful the more innovative he tries to be; for me, his most powerful music is in his 'abstract' symphonies, e.g. 2,3 and 5. Unfortunately only No.2 falls within the time-frame we are considering here, although the very fine No.3 dates from only just after Beethoven's death.
BTW I do find that I enjoy the cpo recordings more than the Hyperion: Griffiths has a larger orchestra at his disposal than Shelley and is thus able to coax some splendid sonorities which really do show Spohr to advantage. No.3 is particularly fine in Griffith's hand - almost a masterpiece...
Oh there was another guy, whose name escapes me at the moment. He composed a symphony in E-flat around the same time as Beethoven composed his Eroica, IIRC It was recorded recently. His name is kind of weird...oh, crap. I'm drawing a blank. Leon...something? Help me, guys.
Anton Eberl?
I think we might include the English composer Potter amongst these candidates, since he started writing symphonies in 1819.
Quote from: John H White on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 10:37
As I know from experience of a number of years, copying out scores into score writing and playing software can be very time consuming. For instance, a fairly large symphony like Raff's No3 can take me around 200 hours to put into Noteworthy.
No argument, used to take on the much less daunting task of converting chamber works into MIDI performances fairly often and still have some notion I think.
I must agree with you Alan on Spohr, especially about Howard Griffiths masterly interpretation of No3. However, the opening movement of No 4 is still a great favourite of mine. He seems in this case to have borrowed part of his main theme or 1st subject from the minuet from his hero Mozart's A major Symphony (No29), and I simply love those rather undisciplined birds! :) I'm also very fond of his No 2, written for the English market in 1820 when he first breaks loose from the classical style and strikes out on his own, as I've said before, in a completely different direction from Beethoven, of whom he himself was a great admirer.
As a Spohr expert, John, how would you rate his symphonies overall? For me his best is No.3 with No.10 the least interesting. Could you rate them on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being his best symphony and 10 his least good? My first three choices would be...
1. No.3
2. No.2
3. No.5
...but after that I'm somewhat unsure. All I know is that in general I rate his 'abstract' symphonies (1,2,3,5,8,10) more highly than his 'programmatic' or 'characteristic' ones (4,6,7,9).
Apologies in advance that we're somewhat off-topic here, but I'd like to read your opinion, John!
Alan, I'm no expert on Spohr but, as a member of the Spohr Society of Great Britain, I have access to the writings of various people who have made a study of his works. I certainly not be so presumptuous as to give him marks out of 10 for each symphony, but I might try to arrange them in some sort of order of importance. The whole thing, of course, will be purely my own opinion. Anyway, here goes for some of them anyway:
(1) No 5 in C minor, imho, his most successful symphony.
(2) No 4 in F. Most popular and most often played both in America and continental Europe during Spohr's life time.
(3) No 2 in D minor, probably my own personal favourite.
(4) No 3 in C minor, another well rounded symphony. Griffiths's performance of it has certainly upgraded my opinion of it!
(5) No 1 in E flat. Another great favourite of my, probably due to its classical style!
(6) No 10 in E flat. I very much like its retro style even though the composer withdrew it from performance.
(7) No 8 in G major. Written for the conservative English market, who had only really taken to his 1st two symphonies, I find it rather tame compared to some of his earlier symphonies.
(8] No 9 in B minor. A bright idea but, apart from the autumnal hunting finale, again a bit on the tame side.
(9) No 6 in G major. Another bright idea, but in each movement representing a particular period, one can easily tell that its really old Spohr himself pretending to be one of his predecessors. I would say the finale itself, representing the latest style of the 1840s, is pure Spohr!
(10) No 7 in C major. Probably the least convincing of all Spohr's bright ideas.
These are purely my own opinions and, as I said before, I'm certainly no expert on the subject!
Thanks, John. That is extremely helpful - and enlightening.
For more information on Spohr you could go to www.spohr-society.org.uk For an annual sub. less than the cost of a standard CD you can receive 4 quarterly newsletters detailing all the latest developments in the way of recordings and live performances together with a group of very informative articles in the annual Spohr Journal.
Thanks for the info, John.
I would also like to mention Johan Willem (or Johann Wlhelm) Wilms, a German immigrant to Holland who was active in the opening decades of the 19th century. Although more based on Mozart and Haydn than Beethoven, there are some pieces that clearly show a Beethovenian influence (for instance, the finale of Symphony No. 6). Wilms was also responsible for composing the new Dutch anthem after 1816.
Wilms sym. 5 had me thinking of Beethoven also - quite positively, not in a isn't-this-derivative fashion (please pardon mangled language).
Eric
Quote from: khorovod on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 23:42
Anton Eberl?
Eberl is another composer who I was thinking of, but it isn't him. Leonhardt? Or was it von Somethingorother? Help me, fellas! Of course, I may be off by a few years, too.
I'll see if I can find out. Hrm. Beethoven's 3rd was composed apparently around 1802-4, premiered in 1805 (and while it's not Anton Reicha you're looking for, his one or two published symphonies in E-flat major, opp. 41 and 42, were published in 1803, apparently. ... Hrm.)
Quote from: JimL on Sunday 21 November 2010, 00:17
Quote from: khorovod on Tuesday 16 November 2010, 23:42
Anton Eberl?
Eberl is another composer who I was thinking of, but it isn't him. Leonhardt? Or was it von Somethingorother? Help me, fellas! Of course, I may be off by a few years, too.
Hmmm. I am at a loss then. Eberl deserves mention though, I know his E-flat symphony was (first publicly?) performed at the same concert as the Eroica and got much better reviews and was held as an example to Beethoven of what could be achieved without "affectation" and bizarreness. It's not a serious rival to the Eroica, though I do rate it very highly and the one that followed in D minor, both were recorded (IIRC) by Concerto Koln. Apparently there were public outpourings of grief when he died and crowds turned up for his funeral.