There is a recording of this by the St. Olaf College Orchestra, with an unknown conductor. However, sadly, it really is very, very poor quality and does the great work little justice.
So here is my squeaky clean rendition. It has taken a long time but I have enjoyed every minute of exploring Herr Stöhr's wonderful thematic and harmonic inovation and his orchestral brilliance in scoring for a large orchestra.
Four movements: (40 mins)
Andante maestoso - Allegro
Scherzo - 10' 27''
Andante Religioso - 23' 00''
Finale - allegro - 29' 45''
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJg8FWKNnTs
Oh, terrific! Thanks once again Martin.
I'm listening as I type and this is certainly stirring stuff - thanks so much, Martin. It doesn't seem to sound like anyone else, does it? (Certainly not Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss or Mahler.)
For further info on Stöhr, try this dedicated website: http://www.richardstoehr.com/
Toccata's pipeline lists the first volume in a projected set of the man's orchestral music, so this might yet be?...
Sounds interesting. Hopefully it won't be too long?
To clarify, volume 1 does not contain any symphonies, but two works for string orchestra.
A powerful and memorable symphony. Exciting, melodic writing all around. I'd buy a new recording in a heartbeat should Toccata and Mr. Hobson choose to tackle this work eventually.
Seconded - heartily!
I've been in touch with Stöhr's great-grandson, Connor Ballantyne, a year ago, and was planning on dropping by in Northfield before Covid #umpteen hit. Most of Stöhr's work still resides in the St. Olaf archives, including the ms for all the symphonies apart from the first. In the past, Connor, who lives near the college, has indicated that if people are interested in certain works for purposes of digitization, he'd be willing to visit the archives to try and copy those manuscripts. Unfortunately, my own attempts to get in touch remotely last year were unsuccessful, so an on-site presence may indeed be necessary.
Apparently, Toccata have the Symphony 'in their sights'.
Martin, after having listened a couple of times to the symphony, I want to profess my profound gratitude for your work. While I didn't think the St. Olaf recording was awful (I would rate it a 'valiant effort', hampered by execrable sound), your version makes the work shine in a way that the old recording couldn't. The dances in the scherzo attain a liveliness that I find truly revelatory. I don't think I enjoyed a synthetic recording so much since the Moszkowski symphony.
Thank you for your kind words. Without the St Olaf recording I might not have been inspired to start it.
It was a long project which I dipped in and out of over a year or so.
I must say choosing to work on many different scores there is a often a sense of predictability as you plough along. However, with this symphony it was a joy. You just didn't know what to expect next - everything just seems to work without any unecessary padding.
It's great to see there has been a recent release of some of Stohr's later orchestral music. Now if someone could do this symphony I'd be champing at the bit.
Yes, let's hope so, Martin. It is certainly a most enjoyable symphony.
Belatedly, Toccata has announced what will be on volume 2: a suite and this symphony.
From the Toccata website:
Richard STÖHR: Orchestral Music, Volume Two
Suite No. 1 in C major for string orchestra, Op. 8
Symphony No. 1 in A minor, Op. 18
Sinfonia Varsovia
Ian Hobson, conductor
First recordings
TOCC0472
https://toccataclassics.com/pipeline/
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71SX1gzoZgL._AC_SL1450_.jpg)
It's listed at Presto (https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/9498481--richard-stohr-orchestral-music-volume-two) now, too, with a release date of 7 July.
Interestingly, it appears that Hobson et al. are taking the work at a substantially more relaxed pace than either the old St. Olaf recording or Martin Walsh's synthetic version. In the case of the first movement, 15:31 vs. St. Olaf's 10:51 and Martin's 10:26.
Is it a question of a repeat being observed?
Wouldn't rule it out, but listening to the samples on the Presto website I also get the impression that it's played quite a bit slower.
Just found it on Presto - regardless of comments on tempo, phrasings, etc. sounds gorgeous to me.
Oh yes, and I'm at least as interested in the 1st Suite for String Orchestra, considering how gorgeous its successor turned out to be.
I'm looking forward to this release, but I'm not convinced about the hype involved in the statement that Stöhr's is 'a voice increasingly recognised as his own'. From what I've heard so far, Stöhr's voice is certainly not as easily recognisable as, say, his contemporary, Franz Schmidt. Rather, I'd place him with composers such as Georg Schumann or Fritz Volbach, i.e. considerable talents well worthy of our attention, but not quite in the front rank.
I'm sorry to say that Toccata has 'form' in this respect. Think, for example of the label's description of Donald Tovey's stubbornly unmemorable Symphony as 'a mighty cousin to Elgar's two symphonies', which it most certainly is not and which has sunk without trace since its release.
Still, I'll be delighted to be proved wrong about Stöhr - and I'm sure I'll enjoy it a lot more than the Tovey. But beware the hype!
Let's not forget that we're only just beginning to discover Stöhr's music, whereas we have quite a bit of Schmidt's output on disc. I'm really interested in the later symphonies, all of which were written later in his life, when his style became much more individual than it was in those early years.
That's true, of course, but nobody knows what the later music is like, so it's a bit early to be making such big claims, I think. The chamber music hasn't exactly set anyone on fire, so I'm simply saying that we need to be careful of Toccata's 'hype' with regard to allegedly significant symphonic discoveries. I'd like to think that this will be as successful a release as, say, the superb recording of Bargiel's Symphony, but the lesson of Tovey's lumbering behemoth of a piece is that hype isn't always borne out in reality.
Remember also that Toccata Classics is Martin Anderson's personal project and that the choice of repertoire is likely to reflect his own preferences - and prejudices. Nothing wrong with that, but it behoves us to tread carefully in response.
The Second Suite is from 1947, so that should give us some idea. I think it's gorgeous.
But as a general rule, I fully agree with you. The issue is often that discovering new music is almost by definition a game of diminishing returns. The better you get to know the scope of Western "art" music, the less likely you are to have overlooked a truly important voice, so the "hype" will inevitably lead to disappointment more often.
Still, I have some confidence in Stöhr's legacy. The issue with the later symphonies is that they only exist in ms and will require some effort to prepare for recording.
Extreme it may be, but the example of the recent Veit CD is an excellent example of the dangers of believing publishers' hype. For myself, on the evidence of what we've heard so far, I too have some hope that Stohr will prove to be a worthwhile "discovery".
Personally, I'd prefer less promotional hype from the label. There's nothing wrong with 'positioning' the music, so to speak, but beyond that it should be allowed to speak for itself.
I am reminded of a novel- was it "The Merchants' War"? - where some of the characters refused hype and used truth in advertising because. That was memorable years after I've last read it.
Trouble is, the hype is on the back of the CD!
Perhaps it's best to wait until we have had a chance to listen to the works in full before we try to assess how much hype is involved and how great or otherwise the music is...
No doubt we'll do that when the recording is released.
My concern, though, is that the hype is already up and running and that it feels like an attempt not merely to position the music but also to 'fix' its stature in advance of anyone listening to it. As I said before, Toccata have 'form' in this regard, as the completely unjustified hype surrounding the release of Tovey's unwiedy Symphony back in 2006 has demonstrated.
If I may suggest it, I believe there is a link here with the 'Dave Hurwitz problem'. The issue, I think, is the danger of the unchallenged opinion of a particular influential person. What's great about UC by contrast is the range of views on all the matters we debate here - and I've certainly had my opinions changed through participation in the discussions that have taken place.
Anyway, all I'm saying about the recording at issue here is that we should be wary of the advertising hype and prepare ourselves for the likelihood that this will be good music comparable with other worthwhile but unhyped compositions released by rival labels.
There is, I think, a difference between the type of hype that Toccata seem to indulge in, and the downright falseholds perpetuated by the issuers of the Veit CD, which seem to have resulted in a massive "own goal",to the detriment of Veit's own perfectly decent symphony.
Perhaps against my better judgement, I'd just like to throw the following information into the discussion: while it's true to say that Toccata Classics is owned and run by Martin Anderson it is not necessarily true to say that he only publishes music that matches his personal preferences. Indeed, this is one of the label's strengths. However, as a long-time member of the Toccata family, I'd say that Martin continually shows himself to be quite the most musical non-musician imaginable, and he redefines the boundaries of what most people would regard as an eclectic taste. Whenever he sends me something he thinks I should take an interest in, he's invariably right. So the blurbs on the CDs aren't "hype", but genuinely what he thinks of the music. Of course he wants you to buy it, but he doesn't say things he doesn't mean. Incidentally, I produced the new editions from which these Stöhr recordings were made and I can vouch for the music. And there's more to come.
Besides, true "hype" is not something you can just create out of thin air; you may attempt to create it, but the actual "consumers" are the ones who can elevate a hyperbolic statement to a true hype. If the product does not resonate, it's still dead in the water. The Florence Price phenomenon is perhaps a better example of a hype in classical music, since it is being embraced by both programmers and at least part of the audience.
Thanks for your input, Paul, it's greatly appreciated. Good to know that there's more Stöhr in store!
QuoteSo the blurbs on the CDs aren't "hype", but genuinely what he thinks of the music.
Well, opinion can easily become hype if one isn't careful. So, as I've mentioned a couple of times, the typical assessment of Toccata's release of Tovey's Symphony was that it just didn't match the opinion printed on the back of the CD - 'a mighty cousin to Elgar's two symphonies'. The comparison was frankly absurd. Here, for example, is a fairly typical summary:
<<Time and other commentators have treated his reputation as a composer less kindly, in spite of Pablo Casals's advocacy. Eric Blom, writing in the late 1940s, thought that "he had unlimited skill and ease, but was too much under the spell of the great masters to pursue an original line", a view echoed by Michael Tilmouth in "New Grove". For Constant Lambert, the first movement of his Cello Concerto "seemed to last nearly as long as my first term at school, though it may have been a little shorter in point of fact.">>
https://www.classicalsource.com/cd/donald-francis-toveys-symphony/
I would much prefer that this sort of hype - for that is precisely what it is - were confined to media other than the CD itself lest it should become, as here, a hostage to fortune and lead inevitably to disappointment and cynicism. I bought the Tovey CD and, well, it wasn't Toccata's finest hour. I might even adduce a certain favourite neologism to describe it...
So, my position is simply that the CD should confine itself to describing the music and leave out the opinion/hype entirely. Oh, and I'm greatly looking forward to the upcoming Stöhr release, but I just have the feeling that the Symphony belongs with the likes of contemporaries such as Volbach, Strässer and Georg Schumann (nothing wrong with that) rather than anyone more exalted; after all we already have Reverie's excellent rendition to help us assess the music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJg8FWKNnTs
And while we're here, Paul, what about Thierot's symphonies? I know that Martin rates the composer....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSuKduRk_Ic
Elgar's 2 symphonies are more contemporary with the 1909 Stöhr than most of Strässer's 6 symphonies or, especially, Schumann's B minor of 2 decades before, fwiw ;) (ah, I see Rêverie did post the whole symphony)
Georg Schumann in F minor: 1905; Ewald Straesser No.1 in G major: 1909; Fritz Volbach in B minor: 1909. That's the context, surely - not Bruckner, Mahler and Schmidt.
Having done some direct, if very sporadic, work for Martin on various Toccata releases over the last 10-15 years - without knowing him nearly as well - I can easily second Paul's comments about Martin and his approach to the music he embraces for his label.
I don't believe Martin's personal preferences and 'prejudices' really figure, even if he is the label's owner. My impression is that, if music is worth recording and circumstances are favourable (eg quality of artistry and recorded sound, and funding for recordings taken care of), then Martin will try to make a recording happen.
The very wide range of classical music styles and eras offered by his labels is testament to his openness. A very high percentage of the recordings he produces are first recordings, as you know, which are therefore being released to the uninitiated. My take is that, as a non-musician, Martin is simply attempting to give those uninitiated an impression, in very few words, of the music they might choose to listen to in a given recording.
This all said, I feel 'hype' and 'opinion' are simply inaccurate terms being used to describe the wording Martin uses on the back of his recordings. Perhaps the Tovey situation is somewhat of a one-off in this regard.
It's important we all have our own views, and healthy debate is a good thing. Let's just hope it doesn't detract from the great work our independent labels are doing in bringing unsung and unknown music to wider consciousness.
Just leave the opinions off the CDs! That's all I'm saying. Position the music by all means. But leave it at that. Otherwise there's the danger of doing another Tovey!
And with regard to the forthcoming CD, apparently we're supposed to check whether we're tapping our feet - honestly, that's as patronising as Tomasz Schafernaker telling me to remember my umbrella tomorrow because it's going to rain!
Bottom line: nobody else does this. Stop it!
I'm still greatly looking forward to this release. But I'll make my own mind up about the music - as indeed we all should.
This has been the most brilliant exchange since Plato's Dialogues. Never has hype been dissected with such perfection, such stunning rhetoric. Olympus has been attained, Parnassus reached. It will never be equalled. Who, after this, would dare resort to unfounded hyperbole? Who indeed?
QuoteWho, after this, would dare resort to unfounded hyperbole? Who indeed?
Probably me, following my next enthusiasm. Guilty as charged in advance! After all, I think Draeseke's as great as Brahms and that Rufinatscha's B minor and D major symphonies are supreme masterpieces...
Returning to Stohr's music, the extracts depict to my ears a warm autumnal evening in the eaves of the Vienna Woods, perhaps in the company of Reznicek.
Personally, my conservative tastes prefer the Resnicek of Donna Diana to his later compositions, and I suspect that ,if Stohr was already composing in the mid-90s, I might enjoy his earlier works immensely. Paul Mann, in his alluring post, tempts us with more Stohr to come. I would welcome hearing compositions of his youth.
I don't think he wrote much music in the 1890s, Terry, but I can't find a chronological list of compositions so I can't be certain.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 03 June 2023, 10:30Guilty as charged in advance!
No charge intended! Like you, hyperbole praising the composer you are listening to puts me into a sour mood, too. Just present the music in the best light, point out its strong points, and let it go at that. Just now I am listening to the works of a 20th century Turkish composer on a CPO disc whose notes subject us to effusive praise not only for the composer
and performers, but even a full page of the same for the glorious leadership of Kemal Atatürk. I like the music, but really...
Returning to the composer at hand, I think the quality of Stöhr's music speaks for itself.
(Now, while waiting for my Stöhr disc to arrive, back I go to a composer who was on speaking terms with "the victorious hero of the Battle of Gallipoli and the architect of a new nation" who created "the foundations for the mighty state of present-day Turkey.")
He's a fine composer, no doubt. Not sure whether he's anything more than that. Personally, I'd be very careful about any comparison with Schmidt. As I said, I'd be looking at Schumann (G.), Volbach or Straesser.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 03 June 2023, 16:03He's a fine composer, no doubt. Not sure whether he's anything more than that. Personally, I'd be very careful about any comparison with Schmidt. As I said, I'd be looking at Schumann (G.), Volbach or Straesser.
Oof! "Perhaps on the level of Georg Schumann, but he's no Schmidt"? Talk about a back-handed compliment! For me, his early work suggests and is on the level of Robert Fuchs. The later work, based on the volume of orchestral music from the late 30s/early 40s, moves more in Schmidt's world, both in style and quality. Yes, Schmidt has the edge on him, but that volume of late orchestral work took me by surprise.
Apologies, John, for my lack of clarity: I was speaking only of possible comparisons (by contemporaries) with Stöhr's 1st Symphony, not with his oeuvre as a whole (because that's what this thread is about). Therefore Volbach, Schumann (G.) or Straesser seem perfectly reasonable candidates, as I suggested in an earlier post. - as follows:
G. Schumann Symphony in F minor: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k28Y3hBMox2QStwahaE760TUsFjHFrD78
Volbach Symphony in B minor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aFZQgGzQbE&list=OLAK5uy_mO7cEA9LzOJWK1ythEi1oO6lzKSMmSe-0&index=5
Straesser Symphony No.1 in G major: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmh3ubvJTaY&t=76s
Stöhr Symphony No.1 (computer realisation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJg8FWKNnTs
I wouldn't compare Stöhr with Fuchs as their respective symphonies are from different eras and in different styles.
So, my overall point is that the best way of positioning Stöhr 1 is to place him in the context of contemporary symphonies comparable in terms of idiom that we know about from recordings. Then we can decide how it stacks up.
Also: we simply don't know enough about Stöhr's later symphonies to make any sort of judgment.
that's a link to no.2 in D minor (no.1 in G is more contemporary, though both are within a few years. (I'm aware there's an earlier symphony but didn't think it had been included in the numbering.))
Thanks, Eric. Link duly corrected. The Schumann, by the way, is a terrific piece.
This symphony is a fine work and I never tire of listening to it. But yes, it's not a landmark composition.
Interestingly his later symphonies seem to be in just piano reductions. I don't know if orchestral scores were even made? If they were goodness knows where they are. I've played the piano scores and they seem in a very different idiom to this first symphony - like a world apart.
Plenty of other composers of this time to explore .... like Heinrich Zöllner for example who is very much an unsung of this period; hardly anything recorded. More to follow ..... :)
Thanks, Martin. Looking forward to your next contribution, as ever.
I've added an umlaut to Zöllner's surname - hope that's OK.
QuoteThis symphony is a fine work and I never tire of listening to it. But yes, it's not a landmark composition.
That's my sense too. Hence my chosen comparisons - and my reluctance to compare the work with, say, Schmidt's 2nd.
Please note: the discussion of Symphonies 2 to 7 is now to be found in this new separate thread:
https://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,9155.0.html
I just downloaded the Toccata recording this morning. This was one I had been eagerly waiting for, and I'm happy to say that it didn't disappoint. These are some impressions after the first two listens, and before reading the booklet.
The big difference in the length of the first movement between the recordings we knew (the old St. Olaf mono recording and Martin Walsh's synthetic version) is explained by a substantial, three-minute repeat that these omitted and Hobson includes (1:43 / 4:56). I was initially put on the wrong foot by the samples because Hobson does start out with a fairly relaxed tempo, but it picks up after that and I find that he maintains tension throughout this long and potentially rambling movement. I would not have complained had he also decided to take the cut, though.
The symphony is played well, I think, with exactly the right combination (if I'm allowed the cliché) of Viennese schmaltz and attention to Stöhr's little harmonic "jabs". You can clearly notice everyone having fun dancing through the scherzo, and the andante receives the gravitas it deserves. Here, Hobson allows the music more breathing time than the other "recordings" but I think that is a sound choice as it really brings the movement to life and grants it its proper significance. The finale, which starts out with a Witches' Sabbath-like section which reminded me of the one in Rimsky-Korsakov's Christmas Eve, offers an engaging and fitting end to a symphony that deserved a proper recording for a long time.
Which brings us to the Suite. This is an obviously more lightweight affair, but with some hidden dephts in its very beautiful middle movement. It presents Stöhr's "lighter" and perhaps more humorous side, which is also in show in pieces such as his chamber symphony or (predictably) the second suite. Also predictably, it is not quite as sophisticated or individual as that much later work.
If I were to level an overall point of criticism on this recording, it would be that the percussion section isn't particularly well served. Not only is it placed way to the back to the point of being barely audible at times, but a comparison to the other versions suggests that some percussion parts were cut as well.
Still, this will be a recording that I shall play many a time over the coming months.
Thanks Ilja for such an early review. I'm having trouble with logging into the Toccata site this morning but look forward to downloading the recording and giving it a hearing as soon as the digital gremlins relent.
Release of the physical CD has been delayed - grrrr!
Curious. JPC indicates they have shipped my order. Are they being over enthusiastic?
Depends where the supplies are supposed to be. Mine's coming from Amazon UK.
The whole symphony and suite can now be listened to on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAboHJltKyM&list=OLAK5uy_lZJL2EsWLd7-UcUzKcfcnKOPgdMJJryZk) (posted there on behalf of the Sinfonia Varsovia)
P.s. if you want to experience it (and the rest of YouTube) without the ads, this is the way to go (https://try.bravesoftware.com/ost765/).
These huge differences in release dates are perplexing, especially since Toccata is British.......I've received the cd more or less 3 weeks ago (musicexport Greece via my local amazon)
I'm disappointed that the whole CD is now on YouTube. Good publicity for the orchestra maybe, but surely bad business for Toccata.
right..I wonder if Toccata knows and/or agrees...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 10 July 2023, 15:47I'm disappointed that the whole CD is now on YouTube. Good publicity for the orchestra maybe, but surely bad business for Toccata.
Not necessarily. Bad for sales of physical media perhaps, but Toccata's financing model probably doesn't depend on those.
I've been working for two recording companies and have had discussions with a third, which operates on a somewhat different model. I can't look into Toccata's practices, and the following is based on my personal experience from a few years ago. I need to emphasize that this is the situation in Europe; it differs in some ways from how things are done in the USA.
The most important take-away: most recording projects need to break even well before the recording itself is even released. They're paid for by subsidies, donations (one of the labels I worked for was often paid by the composer's family or an organization supporting their work) and, indirectly, the orchestra and conductor. The recording itself often comes almost for free, as orchestras see a recording mostly as a PR effort. In some countries, orchestras are even obliged by labor agreements to spend part of their time on recording musical heritage. This explains why we sometimes see weird combinations of an unsung work (played to show versatility) with a warhorse (played for demonstration purposes). The venue is often paid for by the orchestra as well.
The main cost factors for one of these labels are therefore technicians, sometimes the incidental additional piccolo player, and everything tied to the production of the CD: a text writer, cover designer and production of the actual physical product. For any label, inventory of physical media is a risk: their production can be costly, but storing surplus inventory is also, and unpredictable to boot. If CDs run out, you can't do a second run unless you resort to print-on-demand with CD-Rs, which is frowned upon by at least a part of the customer base. But it's difficult to skip physical media altogether since that customer base is fairly conservative and going download-only will impact reach. However, in practice, physical media may in fact introduce additional costs, which are unpredictable to boot. And the margins that labels like Toccata (I assume) operate under are extremely narrow. Even such minimal income streams as YouTube or Spotify generate can be significant for them. This is why I subscribe to Presto's streaming service, which offers a much fairer model to the labels.
A certain well-known German label operates slightly differently because they have unique access to a great number of orchestras and soloists, and their large customer base guarantees adequate sales. This is why they have long continued to focus mostly on physical product - but even they are increasingly turning to downloads and streaming media.
One final point: every single person I've personally met in any of the eight or so recording projects that I've been involved in was driven firstly by a passion for the music itself. Sure, they were continually despairing about the fate of their industry, but no one was cynical when it came to their product. I've seen people make commercially questionable decisions purely because it would lead to a recording with greater integrity.
I still don't like to see the proliferation of commercial recordings on YouTube. I pays me hard-earned dough to listen while others get the music for free. That's what's unfair...
That's absolutely a legitimate complaint from a consumer viewpoint. But I'm afraid the industry is moving to a model where physical media are gaining a boutique status, i.e. you pay for the physical object rather than the music that's on it. A bit like the LP market, really.
It's not about a physical product - it's about the principle that, whatever the medium involved, recordings should be paid for by consumers, not simply uploaded somewhere for free. Effectively, those who pay are being cheated.
It's not for free, though. You still pay, but in a different way: by consuming advertisements. My point is that you are made to pay to consume the product in a specific way. The product is no longer the music, but the medium.
By the way, I'm not saying that's preferable in any way. I just acknowledge that we're dealing with a different commercial model than we did even a decade ago.
Later addendum: I do worry about CDs. Not so much because of the things themselves (I really only use downloaded or streaming media) but because of the documentation. One can easily see how this can fall victim to cost-cutting if there's no longer any physical booklet around needing to be filled. To get back to the recording under discussion, William Melton's excellent, scholarly notes accompanying the Stöhr recordings really offer an added value. An in some cases (not this one, mind) the notes have been far more useful to me than the recording itself ever was.
So, I'm paying, say, £15, for the CD - how much am I contributing by listening on YouTube? And, of course, I can download the recording for free via the multitude of file conversion programs available online. Still seems daft to me...
QuoteI can download the recording for free
You can, but the quality of the recording is substantially degraded from lossless to maybe 128kbps at best. I must say that I agree with Ilja that this is the way things are going but I just don't understand the economics of putting complete recordings, however degraded, on YouTube. My guess is that they don't act as just an advertisement or taster for the CD for many potential buyers who'll happily trade the poorer sound for getting the music free. My poor old ears can't detect much, if any, difference in recording quality anyway.
YouTube pays US$ 0.00164 per official artist stream (Sinfonia Varsovia's, in this case). That means that you need around 5,000 streams to generate the same revenue as a regular download. Spotify pays between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, so you roughly need around 1500 streams to equal the same amount of revenue as a download. I don't know what Presto pays, but I assume it's more than that.
In this case, I rather suspect (but have no way of confirming) that the orchestra has simply bought off the rights of the recording from Toccata, leaving the surplus revenue from downloads and CDs for the label.
Thanks Ilja, that goes some way towards explaining the economics. If someone uses one of the many YouTube download programs to rip the mp4 or convert it to mp3, as opposed to recording it manually as it streams, does YouTube still regard the download as a stream, and so pays the artist for it? These are rather murky waters, I know...
I mostly listen over headphones these days (not wanting to be antisocial), so as long as the sound isn't seriously degraded my nearly 70 year-old ears just won't notice the difference.
I still feel somewhat cheated - I mean, £15 for a plastic case and the notes? Grrrr......
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Tuesday 11 July 2023, 11:00Thanks Ilja, that goes some way towards explaining the economics. If someone uses one of the many YouTube download programs to rip the mp4 or convert it to mp3, as opposed to recording it manually as it streams, does YouTube still regard the download as a stream, and so pays the artist for it? These are rather murky waters, I know...
I don't think YouTube will see the difference, so it'll still be a one-time, single stream.
An important addendum: every individual track will count as a separate stream, so for this particular recording with seven tracks (three for the suite, four for the symphony) you may divide my numbers by seven for every listen to the entire thing.
This is not the whole story, however. Revenue can be significantly increased by monetizing a channel (i.e., allowing ads). Furthermore, from what I understand there is a threshold for the number of streams, below which YouTube will not pay out
anything. Overall, I'd advise people to listen elsewhere if they can, even on Spotify but preferably Qobuz or Presto.
not Amazon Music, though?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 11 July 2023, 12:55I mostly listen over headphones these days (not wanting to be antisocial), so as long as the sound isn't seriously degraded my nearly 70 year-old ears just won't notice the difference.
I still feel somewhat cheated - I mean, £15 for a plastic case and the notes? Grrrr......
Well, knowing how tight the margins are, I tend to purchase the download outright and then listen to it on Presto. That way I'm channeling as much money as I can justify to the label and, ideally, indirectly finance future projects. But perhaps that's a very naïve approach.
Note that a large majority of music from many labels (not sure about Toccata, but Naxos for instance is one) are available on YT uploaded by the label or its partner officially. Which they absolutely have the right to do of course.
And yeah, believe me the majority of people really don't consider listening on YT to be piracy any more than on Spotify or anywhere else.
Not paying at all is surely theft.
Not if something is offered to you for free. But, as I said earlier, it isn't. You pay in the form of watching ads, by providing personal data (or metadata) or just by consuming something that someone wishes to get noticed.
In the case of channels run by others than the rights holders, the situation is somewhat different, although even there those rights holders can request to monetize these videos. But the pirate in this case is YouTube itself, not so much the user who can't reasonably be expected to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate content.
And with that, let's return to the music - except that my copy's not even been dispatched yet. Still, I suppose I can try YouTube...
And it's listed as newly available for streaming on Amazon Music, which I subscribe to...
Well, I've now listened to the first movement on YouTube (!) and I must say I was impressed. Just two negatives, if I may: firstly, there's a lot of accompanying 'chugging' going on that I found annoying; secondly, I thought there was going to be a suitably cathartic climax from about 9 minutes in, but I didn't find it really 'went' anywhere. Not great music, I don't think, but there's always the danger of coming to a conclusion one later has to retract...
As I said before, I think comparisons with roughly contemporary symphonies such as those by Georg Schumann (in F minor - 1905), Ewald Straesser (No.1 in G major - 1909) and Fritz Volbach (in B minor 1909) are appropriate in respect of idiom and stature. But leave Mahler and Schmidt out of the discussion - they're on a completely different level.
I sadly (because I always want to like the pieces) concur with Alan: I find there is a lot of note-spinning here, and not a lot of symphonic resolution.
I listened to it three times without being able to "nail" the piece, and my attention invariably ebbed away at several points.
The Volbach, for example, is in my opionion a much stranger work.
Volbach's symphony is a somewhat different beast from Stöhr's, I think: more of a visceral piece vs. the latter's rather intellectual approach. Alan's comparison with Sträßer is more apt, Still, I have to disagree with both of you; I absolutely adore Stöhr's first symphony and I honestly think "note-spinning" is a rather too heavy charge.
I have also listened to the whole Symphony on YouTube (what annoying adverts,by the way!).
To my ears, the first movement is the strongest (and,yes,it does "chug"). My interest diminished as the Symphony progressed. I don't think it is a particularly coherent work, and much prefer the somewhat Elgarian Volbach.
On this occasion, I won't be buying the CD, and,in my opinion, it is self-defeating to put the whole caboodle on to YouTube.
Having given up on Amazon's ability to deliver said CD, I ordered a copy from Presto and it arrived within a couple of days.
Listening further one thing I can say is that the Symphony doesn't want for memorable melodies. In that respect it's a very enjoyable work. I also wonder whether we should be looking outside the Austro-German tradition for influences: the comprehensive booklet notes (excellent, as ever, from Toccata) quote one review of the premiere in Vienna which describes the goal of the work as 'an excursion into the exotic', 'particularly into Russian-oriental musical regions. The travel guide is Tchaikovsky'. Another review speaks of the composer trying 'in vain to build a suite into a symphony'. Whether the latter comment is fair or merely unjustly influenced by the unexpected melodiousness of the symphony is for others more expert than me to judge. Certainly, the idiom, while clothed in the orchestral garb of his Austro-German contemporaries, suggests an appreciation of composers outside that tradition. For anyone expecting a clone of, say, Strauss or Schmidt, there is much to ponder in this exceptionally beautiful score. And neither do I hear Mahler anywhere.
As an addendum, I'd say the least successful movement is the finale which seems to me to wander from section to section without a clear sight of the goal. Attractive, though the end's a rather strange affair - a fade-out followed by a scurry in the strings and one concluding loud chord.
The playing throughout seems very fine. Kudos to orchestra and conductor!
Thank you for that review, Alan. Very helpful. Also - your experience of Amazon is noted!
What of the suite? Any opinions? I have yet to listen to my copy, as I am still working through some other purchases first.
The Suite is, for want of a more precise description, lovely. Both suites, the Kammersymphonie, and the Piano Concerto show (to me, at least) that these pieces for a smaller ensemble were what Stöhr excelled at. They are somewhat reminiscent of Reznicek's later suites and his G major serenade.
Quote from: Ilja on Sunday 23 July 2023, 19:20The Suite is, for want of a more precise description, lovely. Both suites, the Kammersymphonie, and the Piano Concerto show (to me, at least) that these pieces for a smaller ensemble were what Stöhr excelled at. They are somewhat reminiscent of Reznicek's later suites and his G major serenade.
I could not resist, and so tore open the shrink-wrap and gave the disc a spin. My goodness, another winner! The suite just oozes charm and grace, while the symphony is a real find. I think it blows the doors off Georg Schumann. I even like the "Chasseur Maudit"-like ending.