Another interesting composer being promoted by the Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck is the Tyrolean Josef Nezter (1808-64). He wrote four symphonies (1837, 1838, 1845, 1849), all clearly in a post-Beethovenian style, but all very enjoyable. I had written them off as being very much inferior to those of Rufinatscha, but some careful re-listening has shown them to have both real quality and stature. Has anyone else encountered them?
I have the disc Tiroler Klaviermusik for four-handed piano, with the very fine Rufinatscha piano sonata in D minor, filled up with 8 pieces by Josef Netzer. Pleasant but rather light-hearted music, by far not meeting Rufinatscha's level. Bleib bei mir, a song for four-handed piano, has a nice romantic melody, but it is so simple. The Hochzeitsmarsch is very childish.
These works proof Netzer wasn't a pianist of any stature, I think, and give me doubts about the quality of his other music. Does his string quartets and symphonies show more skilled craftsmanship? Maybe I should give his symphonies a try in due course. Alan, if I do, which one do you recommend, 1 coupled with 4, or 2 coupled with 3?
I'm sure you have encountered some very minor pieces by Netzer, Peter. The symphonies are definitely worth getting to know. My favourite is No.4, but all of them are attractive, lively and beautifully scored.
Just been listening to No.4 and I was struck by the similarities to Lachner (Franz). Of course Netzer, like Lachner and Rufinatscha - and Schubert (briefly) and Bruckner - was a pupil of Simon Sechter in Vienna. Curiouser and curiouser...
On the old forum I got into trouble for criticising the Netzer symphonies for being very old-fashioned works for the time in which they were written, so I should really have learnt to be more careful, but...
They are very pleasant pieces which are, as you say Alan, delightfully orchestrated but I'm afraid that I find their melodic material short winded and their harmonic language and structure predictable. I'll accept that you have probably listened to them more carefully and certainly more recently than I have but for me, whilst Netzer may have shared his teacher with Schubert, Lachner, Bruckner and Rufinatscha, I don't think that he was in the same league.
I think I'm going to have to disagree, Mark (for once!!) I actually find the melodic material of No.4 leads the ear on in a delightful manner. I'm also left wondering whether this post-Beethovenian style is actually something like a Tyrolean/Austrian national school with symphonic expansiveness as its hallmark.
Well it's a good job that we disagree about something otherwise the unanimity would be embarrassing. I listened again to the four Netzer symphonies on a long car journey yesterday and I'm afraid that my opinion wasn't changed...
I too had Netzer in the car yesterday - his 4th. I'm probably an uncritical sucker for this sort of music: lively, memorable (the first movement is still going round in my head this morning) and just plain attractive.
Just a thought: Netzer's 1st dates from 1837 - that's only a decade after Beethoven's death. Of Mendelssohn's mature symphonies, only 1 and 4 predate it, and all of Schumann's and Berwald's were written after 1837. Seen this way, the correct context in which to view the emergence of Netzer as a symphonist is that of Spohr and Lachner. Does this make sense?
I trust you two gentlemen were listening to Netzer in your cars on hands free sets. :)
Actually I felt like conducting, but I remembered where I was just in time! ;)
.. and I was stuck in a traffic jam on the M6 for most of the Second Symphony. In fairness, I do take your point, Alan, about the chronology and it may be that I just have a blind spot for Netzer, but I just don't hear anything to get excited about.
As far as the symphonic context is concerned, I should have added Moscheles in C (1829), Ries 7 (1835) and Burgmüller 1 & 2 (he died in 1836).
Berwald's first symphony received its first performance in 1820. The majority of the first movement survives, and the rest may still be out there somewhere. His once-believed-lost bassoon Konzertstück written not long after is around, though I don't think that it's been recorded.
The first movement of his first symphony already contains the bizarre uniqueness you'd expect. Sounds like it was written in 1830, or maybe even later. And that was the harsh criticism it received, that it was too experimental. He did write instructions to his sister that this symphony should not be performed, but that clearly indicates that he didn't destroy it. Let's hope for a full recovery, since the first movement is pleasant and, in a lot of ways, probably important from an "ahead of its time" historical standpoint.
I've been thinking off and on for months on end about whether or not to get any of the Netzer CDs from that museum. The recorded Rufinatscha symphonies - and I do mean all of them - are absolutely outstanding in my book. Yes, even my least favourite #1 is a fine piece of work as far as I'm concerned. But I hate everything Bruckner ever touched, including Beethoven's desecrated skull. If Netzer sounds anything like noise from that bloatedly-famous clunker, I'll pass.
Quote from: Josh on Saturday 27 June 2009, 02:54
But I hate everything Bruckner ever touched, including Beethoven's desecrated skull. If Netzer sounds anything like noise from that bloatedly-famous clunker, I'll pass.
Is there anything specific about Bruckner's works that you particularly dislike? This is not a challenge, just curious about your thoughts. I've always like Bruckner's music -- I have found myself feeling sorry for him at times (I envision this poor kid getting bullied by Wagner, while Mahler tries to make him feel better....).
I for one find Bruckner boring too. It just goes on and does nothing.
(Incidently, I'm not overly fond of Mahler either outside the First Symphony either, but it's not quite at Bruckner's level for me)
Netzer is nothing like Bruckner; his model is surely Beethoven. If you like the early Rufinatscha, you'll certainly like Netzer.
Quote from: TerraEpon on Saturday 27 June 2009, 06:10
I for one find Bruckner boring too. It just goes on and does nothing.
"the listener who is not properly prepared will find it hard to grasp the plan at first hearing, for the dimensions are greater than one would expect" (Robert Simpson: Bruckner and the symphony)
I grew up with Bruckner, so don't find him difficult at all. But you have to give him time...
I didn't realise you were that old Alan. ;D
Good, John, good!! :D
Quote from: Josh on Saturday 27 June 2009, 02:54noise from that bloatedly-famous clunker
Wow Josh, that's a hit..!
For me, all Bruckner's symphonies are truly great, and #9 is nothing less than a monument. And Mahler... one of the greatest symphonists of all times. His 3rd, and 9th. Hearing these masterpieces is a fascinating musical experience...IMHO.
That's all for here, because we're discussing the unsung Netzer.
Quote from: Josh on Saturday 27 June 2009, 02:54
Berwald's first symphony received its first performance in 1820. The majority of the first movement survives, and the rest may still be out there somewhere. His once-believed-lost bassoon Konzertstück written not long after is around, though I don't think that it's been recorded.
Hello Josh,
nice to hear that there are more people out there who appriciate Berwald's music.
The Concert piece for bassoon and orchestra has actually been recorded several times. It is available on Naxos, Chandos, BIS and on a small Swedish label called Intim Musik. It is a likeable work, but hardly one of Berwald's best.
I am old, John and Mark. I admit it.... ;)