I have read somewhere recently (and it seems to me to be true) that César Franck's Symphony in D minor, while not exactly unsung, has suffered a major eclipse over the past 30 years or so (and maybe longer). A work that was once a staple among the great conductors of, say, the first 50-60 years of the last century appears now to have dropped off the radar of the conductors working today. For example, standard recommendations include recordings by Pierre Monteux (1961) and Charles Munch (1957, I think), i.e. ones made well over half a century ago. The Symphony has certainly disappeared from the concert halls and hardly ever gets any air time on the radio - in contrast to Saint-Saëns' virtually contemporaneous Organ Symphony which is almost on repeat play, it seems to me.
I'm sure that Franck's Symphony (which I grew up with and am inordinately fond of) divides opinion, although its emotional excesses (critiqued in the past) must surely now be viewed as minor when compared with those of, say, Mahler. I do occasionally wonder what the music industry's obsession with Bruckner and Mahler has done to the repertoire...
I almost think that, if it weren't for the violin sonata, Franck could count as unsung. Hardly any of his other works seem to get much attention (or indeed any at all).
The popularity of the "organ symphony" is easy to explain: It has firstly a name ("symphony in d-minor" is not a name) and secondly an organ which makes it unique.
The point, though, is that Franck's Symphony was a standard repertoire piece a generation (and more) ago. It seems to have gone out of fashion for some reason - at one time all the great conductors programmed it...
I can go back to my earliest memories of the great Franck Symphony with Beecham's wonderful recording. As much as I love Monteux and Munch's recordings, it is the Beecham that made me love this great Symphony first.
Mentioning Beecham is important. I wonder how many young listeners are aware of this outstanding conductor's amazing recordings.
In the 1970s Franck's Symphony was so frequently programmed and broadcast that, to be honest, I got bored with it and even now don't play it that frequently, although I do acknowledge its quality. The same thing could be said about Weber overtures which were once staple concert openers but have all but vanished from the repertoire now. On the face of it these disappearances are inexplicable unless, of course, it's the reaction of generations of audiences, performers and promoters to that over-exposure 50-60 years ago.
Just checked, and Bachtrack reveals only two performances of the symphony this season.
David Hurwitz has been complaining for a while about the lack of sensitivity for the unconcealed romanticism of Tchaikovsky among younger present-day conductors, and that may partly explain the demise of Franck's symphony as well. One might counter that Mahler is hardly less overtly sentimental, but there's the bonus of the prestige that a Mahler performance delivers for the conductor. Like it or not, snobbery has always been a big part of the classical music world.
Finally, I think you shouldn't discount independent cultural developments which cause tastes to evolve. There is a reason that Raff and Rubinstein aren't played as much as they were in the 19th century. When I visited concerts nearly every week as a student in the 1990s, about half the programmes seemed to contain works by Bartók - not so much any longer, I'd say (at least in orchestral concerts).
The only comfort is that the Symphony exists in a number of fine recordings and that the work is strong enough to support different interpretative approaches, from lithe and athletic (Monteux) to grand and unhurried (Karajan). How I wish, though, that one of today's top conductors would take it on...
I certainly agree with Alan. The Franck symphony, which was as popular as anything by Tchaikovsky when I was young, is now a rarity. And I agree that this is quite unfair, because it is a remarkable work. I would invite Mark, who said that he got so bored with it that that he hardly ever bothers with it now, to revisit it because the other day I listened to the Schumann Fourth (in Bernstein's first recording for Columbia) for the first time in years and I was amazed at what sheer genius the music is. When you revisit an old warhorse after years of not listening to it, you are reminded why it was a war horse in the first place. (And when, like me, you no longer attend concerts or listen to broadcasts, you don't encounter the warhorses unless you want to.)
The Franck is one of the great works of its time, and I do recall listening to it within the past year and being reminded of how truly remarkable it is. But when you get to be a certain age -- and I think Mark, Alan, and I are of a certain age -- you have been around long enough to see changes in the repertory. I've read articles about how Sibelius has come and gone, how he was at the height of his game in the 1930s and disappeared by the 1950s, but then came back. Now he seems to have disappeared again.
I was introduced to Raff in my teens when reading a comment by a turn of the century Boston music critic, who said that the then current warm reception for Rachmaninoff was no guarantee of future success, pointing to Raff's celebrity only 50 years before.
The year 1973 was 50 years ago. Franck was a staple then. Now he seems to have suffered the same fate that Phillip Hale attributed to Raff. It's a pity, because the Franck D Minor Symphony is a masterpiece. And then there's the remarkable quintet and so many other fine things. But I digress...
I resonate very strongly with John's post, particularly with his account of the changing fashions in music that our (older) generation has experienced. I think back to times when, as an impecunious student over 50 years ago, a friend and I would consult various record guides in the local library, thereby discovering not only what recordings were available but also what music actually existed of which we were totally unaware. I'm pretty sure that in those days there were more versions of Franck's Symphony than virtually anything by Bruckner...
There's a very fine live performance of the 'grand and unhurried' variety with Eugen Jochum conducting the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra back in 1973 - on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXRAkBy7RVM
It's actually available as a commercial dowload - which I hadn't realised until today!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CLPFQTMH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3V9UB17GHBZ3F&keywords=eugen+jochum+franck+Symphony&qid=1701634149&s=music&sprefix=eugen+jochum+franck+symphony%2Cpopular%2C103&sr=1-1-catcorr
That's 50 years ago, though! Go figure...
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 03 December 2023, 08:39In the 1970s Franck's Symphony was so frequently programmed and broadcast that, to be honest, I got bored with it and even now don't play it that frequently, although I do acknowledge its quality. The same thing could be said about Weber overtures which were once staple concert openers but have all but vanished from the repertoire now. On the face of it these disappearances are inexplicable unless, of course, it's the reaction of generations of audiences, performers and promoters to that over-exposure 50-60 years ago.
I wonder what that means for the music that is now overplayed to death (Rachmaninov various, Rimsky Sheherezade, Bruch VC1 etc etc. Subject for another thread, I know, I know!)
It's news to me that the Franck Symphony used to be such a staple, I will listen to it some more. On previous listenings I've thought it very pleasant but for whatever reason haven't rushed back to it.
I think Classic FM and other similar radio stations have a lot to answer for: you don't have to listen for long to realise that certain pieces of music are played to death while others are completely neglected.
It was the 200th anniversary of Franck's birth last year so the symphony did get a performance at the Proms. Previous to that it had been performed six times since 1980 but it was not performed in the 1960s and 70s. Perhaps there is a suggestion of a trend in the right direction then.
There has been a certain amount of snobbery over this symphony, perhaps because it's too tuneful for a "serious" symphony. I used to have an old book of record reviews which ignored it because the author did not wish to promote music he "personally disliked". R-K's Scheherazade suffered the same fate.
I live near Exeter and the Exeter Symphony Orchestra ( amateurs, of course ) performed it a couple of days ago.
Quotethe symphony did get a performance at the Proms
Thanks - I'd forgotten it had been programmed in 2022. The BBCSO were conducted by on that occasion by Fabien Gabel.
I grew up with this recording and remember Willem van Otterloo as an advocate for Franck's symphony.
https://www.discogs.com/release/7329310-Willem-Van-Otterloo-Residentie-Orkest-Nederlands-Kamerkoor-Franck-Symfonie-In-D-Psyche
...and very fine it is too! Thanks.
A bit of digging reveals that van Otterloo's recording was originally released in 1964. It is actually quite a flexible performance, with athleticism followed by passages at a much more relaxed tempo. Willem van Otterloo (1907-1978) is probably now a rather forgotten figure here in the UK, but in the Netherlands and later in Australia he had a distinguished career as a conductor until, sadly, a car accident took him from us.
Once more, however, we are going back a couple of generations to find a top-flight recording of Franck's masterpiece.
Some recordings of Otterloo's music are on Donemus' modern Dutch composer series, tangentially- a friend sent me a set of those lps by sea mail awhile ago.
If a copy can be found (or downloaded), I'd say that Riccardo Muti's recording with the Philadelphia Orchestra released in 1983 would make a fine recommendation (fabulous brass playing!) Even that, though, is forty years ago! I remember when a young and thrusting Muti came on the scene in the early 1970s - at 82 he's now an elder statesman!
"There is a lot of music that at one time was very popular and then disappeared," the conductor Riccardo Muti said in an interview. Muti recorded the Franck with the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1981 and was the last person to lead it at Carnegie Hall, with his Chicago Symphony Orchestra, in 2012. "But in the case of this symphony," Muti went on, "I don't understand." I agree with him.
Ilja: I assume you're counting the 7 Yamada-conducted performances in Madrid and Chicago as the same performance, with one performance by Mildenberger in Osaka being the other?
(Not counted by Bachtrack this season were performances on October 27 2023 at Baldwin Wallace Conservatory Symphony Orchestra, the Corvallis-OSU Symphony on November 19, 2023 (with works by Mel Bonis and Ravel), the West Australian Symphony Orchestra on 23 and 24 August 2024... among others. It seems from this that the Franck may be alive and well, but being performed by more local orchestras.
"One's reaction to new information often reveals."
I would add, in Aachen, 1 and 2 March 2024- conducted by Roberto Paternostro (http://www.robertopaternostro.com/en/menu33/news155/); and the Dresden Philharmonic (talk about obscure!) will be performing the Franck on June 22 2024 (https://www.dresdnerphilharmonie.de/en/concerts-tickets/calendarschedule/beethoven-tripelkonzert/).
Gratifying news - thanks, Eric. Definitely second-tier ensembles (nothing wrong with that), but at least the Symphony's getting some performances.
I prefer to think perhaps the symphony's publicity may be increasing, with performances in more locales than fewer, but I see your point!
Besides Muti other conductors of the first rank today active have (not recently) recorded the Symphony: Barenboim, Bychkov, Chailly.
Last June I saw and heard in streaming a live performance by Barenboim and the Berliner.
Last year in my city I saw two perfomances conducted by Marc Albrecht and Jan Latham Koenig.
Anyway an amount of decline is undeniable.
Among the various "older" recording of Franck's glorious Symphony I have (and cherish), it is interesting to note that Pierre Monteux, Paul Paray and Lorin Maazel recorded it twice, Maazel even within the stereo aera, the two others first in stereo, then in mono. All splendid and stylistically most respectful performances!
In 1953, the same year as Paray's first recording, Wilhelm Furtwängler recorded the Symphony with the Vienna Philharmonic - another great achievement! But I am also very fond of Karajan's, Jean Fournet's and Jean Martinon's versions! All these documents are an important contribution to my own musical culture.
Of course there are quite a few of other very valuable interpretations on disc. I also admire, for example, Christian Arming's "historical" version, which was issued in a highly interesting César Franck Jubilee box in 2021.
Some time ago, I met with a Swiss music lover (a Wagner fanatic) telling me that he does not like French music and that the French are uncapable of composing Symphonies! He does not even speak French, so he must be a genuine Francophobe (or Frankophobe?).
Maybe off the subject, .. but part of the problem is I think is the tendency of many modern (resident and guest) conductors to have pre-packaged interpretations of certain repertory pieces that they can "mail-in" whenever the opportunity arises. A little tweaking here and there I.e. "strings a little dolce in bar 120, .. winds slur the triplet in bar. 29, etc." rehearsal over, assistant conductor does the run through. Just get up in front wave the stick, grimace at the appropriate times, bow when done. No need to delve into compositions that deserve deeper introspection or exposure. Maybe the audience would enjoy the excursion. Here locally we seem to be stuck on recurrences of the Schumann 2nd Symphony, Mozart Overtures, and Bernstein West Side Story Dances. Sure would like to hear the Frank Symphony again, or even Chausson's Symphony, maybe even some d'Indy.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 04 December 2023, 12:32I think Classic FM and other similar radio stations have a lot to answer for: you don't have to listen for long to realise that certain pieces of music are played to death while others are completely neglected.
This is also the case in Australia, especially at 'peak listening times'. I have noted the same work being played three or four times in a week. One longs for the days of BBC Radio 3, which constantly took listeners into unexplored repertoire, and whose announcers knew their Haydn from their Hayden! ;D
When the Franck does turn up on my local station (WDAV, Davidson) it's usually the finale. Can't recall hearing the symphony broadcast in its entirety in quite a while. Same with the Chausson, unfortunately.
The Chausson's never been that well-known, though. And now it's yet another victim of the Bruckner-Mahler craze.
I think this holds true for French (and to a lesser extent, Russian) music in general. And it's not just Bruckner and Mahler. Over the 20th century it has become usual for the large European orchestras to have a large German/Austrian symphony as the "main course" at most concerts.
As I see it (but others have reflected on this but may not agree) this is the combined effect of the general post-war reduction of the orchestral concert repertoire and snobbery, to which the classical music world has unfortunately never been a stranger. Especially Mahler's quasi-philosophical statements about his symphonies encompassing the entirety of creation seem to have created an atmosphere where only a German symphony contains intellectual and philosophical depth and everything else is "lightweight".
Of course this is an oversimplification, but I have seen the sentiment in action and it works both against anything outside of the iron repertory and most things outside of the Germanic realm. This is why it is so valuable when major orchestras try their hand at things like the Franck or Gounod symponies; the change must come from them if it is to come from anyone. Unfortunately, it's not easy; in a recent discussion I had with a member of a major orchestra, the mere suggestion that they were to play more than the merest token of non-Germanic fare was met with derision.
The Symphony in D minor is neatly analysed, and its disappearance from concert halls noted, in the UK's Guardian newspaper back in 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/apr/29/symphony-guide-francks-d-minor
Yes, it was once standard fare on BBC Radio 3, and in live concerts, but I never warmed to it myself, and haven't listened to my CD (RPO/Leppard) for years; time for another try, with rather older ears. Ditto the Chausson.
Ilja hits upon a very important issue, namely the fact that the Austro-German symphonic tradition has arrived at a position of almost unrivalled hegemony in the classical world. Of course, this is hardly surprising when one considers the extraordinary achievements of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler.
However, there are two very serious downsides to this state of affairs, namely (i) the relative neglect of the wide range of symphonic works from beyond the confines of the strict Austro-German tradition and (ii) the undeniable fact that, in the 20th century, the symphonic mainstream was actually to be found elsewhere, among composers such as Sibelius, Nielsen, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich. And this is not even to mention the symphonies within the Austro-German tradition which have simply been forgotten, as if mown down by the juggernaut represented by the abovementioned list of nine composers.
And that's why we're talking here about César Franck...
At the risk of becoming too anthropological here, the reason why we see Haydn, Mozart et al.'s achievements as "extraordinary" has much as much to do with the fact that we've been told they are for over two centuries by this point as by the intrinsic merit of their work. Moreover, the globalization of the classical music world has led to the establishment of a new music canon that has gone at the expense of various regional and local musical traditions at the expense of the dominant German one.
In that sense, it's not unlike how the dominance of a national language through new, centralized media often marginalizes regional dialects and accents. And as in those cases I do regard it as an impoverishment. In the case of classical music, such globalization and the resultant nomadic existence of many professional musicians (with jet-set conductors at the front) has already led to the loss of local performance traditions.
From a UK point of view, though, our own musical renaissance from Parry/Stanford/Elgar onwards has managed to some extent to counter the dominant Austro-German narrative. I'd say that the figure of Vaughan Williams alone was of sufficient stature to offer the necessary corrective, but of course, he's nothing like so well-known on the Continent. We are islanders, after all...
That may be true, but only in Britain - just like French composers are played in France and Russian ones in Russia, whereas the Germanic canon is played everywhere, and usually more than national music. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Dvorak and Rachmaninov, but even they are still regarded by the more pretentious members of the audience as "superficial" and "vulgar" in a way that you see rarely happen to Mahler (who, to be honest, deserves it).
Quite so. I did say, though, that we are islanders, when all's said and done! So, while suffering from the same Austro-German symphonic hegemony, the 20th century renaissance of musical life in the UK does, for us, offer a different slant on the later history of the symphony. Thus, for example the venerable paperback book 'The Symphony 2: Elgar to the Present Day', edited by Robert Simpson (himself a symphonist of note) and published in 1967, contains chapters on Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Brian, Rubbra & Tippett, and Walton, while the only Austro-German included is Franz Schmidt.
To summarise, then: the reality - especially in respect of the later development of the Symphony - is not matched either by performances 'on the ground' or recordings. However, recordings have redressed the balance somewhat (for instance, there's a Rachmaninov craze going on at the moment), and we are probably extra-fortunate here in the UK to have had companies such as Chandos and Hyperion who have released performances of so many examples of the British symphonic renaissance over the past 30 years or so.
And so I remain frustrated by the eclipse of Franck and the utter neglect of his successors, Chausson, d'Indy, Dukas, et al. And I know what I think about musical history: most of the cream does rise to the top, as it were, but there's still some cream stuck half-way up the upturned jug!
Another thought: the question of the Symphony as pure music (the classical conception) or as 'embracing the world' (the progressive conception) really starts with Beethoven, as the contrast between his final two symphonies, nos. 8 and 9, demonstrates. Speaking personally, I reject the notion that the composer has to 'throw in the kitchen sink', as it were, in order to achieve some sort of musical transcendence. When all is said and done, to try to 'top', say, Mahler's 8th becomes impossible; all that is left is to return to a more modest conception. No wonder there was nowhere to go post-Mahler within his tradition, except back (e.g. Franz Schmidt). Sibelius in his 7th Symphony makes, I think, the point very clearly.
And so too does Franck in his sublime masterpiece - combining concision (three movements and cyclical construction) with the new harmonic aesthetic (Wagner). Less is sometimes more...
I have been quite happy with my Dutoit/Montreal recording from 1989, but recently I picked up the Bernstein/NYPO from 1959. The sound still holds up, although it would have been a little better had they recorded it at the Manhattan Center, which was used for many NYPO recordings even after Lincoln Center was finished, rather than the St. George Hotel as they did for this recording. The St. George was good for 20th century fair, but 19th century music sounds better in the more resonant acoustic of the Manhattan Center. Still, it's a vivid, exciting performance.
His NYPO Franck symphony never made it to the Bernstein Century edition. I have it on the Royal Edition from a few years earlier, coupled with Francescatti playing the Chausson Poeme and Casadesus in the Faure Ballade. It brought back fond memories of the old Columbia LP that the Faure was on, where it was coupled with the Franck Symphonic Variations and the Saint-Saens Fourth Concerto.
This got me to thinking how the Chausson, both Franck works, and even the Saint-Saens Fourth have all but disappeared. As has been mentioned, it's not just Franck.
I think its time for a decent pause in the number of recordings of Bruckner and Mahler symphonies being made. However, it's the bicentenary of Bruckner's birth in 2024, so things are only going to get worse!
At least this Forum appreciates the wider repertoire...
Just for context: the BBC Proms this summer featured 27 symphonies. 13 of these were from the Austro-German tradition, with the most recent being Mahler's 10th; 14 fell outside that tradition, with 8 being from the Romantic era and 6 being from the later 20thC, with the latest being Shostakovich's 10th. The sole unsung symphony was that by Dora Pejacevic.
The only British symphony was Walton 1; there wasn't a single representative from the Franco-Belgian tradition. Go figure...
...and now the January issue of Gramophone magazine is taken up with the Bruckner bicentenary. I'm all Brucknered-out already. And there are some wrong-headed recommendations too, but that's not for this website...
Because Alan liked it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7_MOr9ync0).
Thanks. I think...
Returning to Franck, one thing this thread has done is motivate a re-listen (after several years) of the Franckian symphonic tradition: Chausson, Dukas, Lazzari et al. Boy, there's a lot to enjoy there.
...and d'Indy.
..and Magnard and Ropartz.
Quite so. And Biarent and Dubois...
Wasn't Franck's symphony at the Proms as recently as late summer 2022?
... and Boëllmann and Vierne...
Personally, I'd put Boëllman at a somewhat greater distance from Franck. He wasn't as much part of his orbit as others mentioned here.
Quote from: eschiss1 on Tuesday 26 December 2023, 01:39Wasn't Franck's symphony at the Proms as recently as late summer 2022?
Yes, it was - conducted by Fabien Gabel. Probably to mark the bicentenary of Franck's birth.
Also, was this whole conversation prompted by the upcoming (12 January 2024) issue of a CD on Naxos of Chausson and Franck symphonies conducted by Jean-Luc Tingaud? (It's unclear right now whether this will be a reissue of his 1994 Dorian recording of the Chausson symphony, but judging from the description of the text of the Chausson as much-edited, maybe not?)
Edit: correction. The new recording of the Chausson takes 2 minutes longer in the Chausson first movement, e.g. ...compare old (https://www.naxos.com/CatalogueDetail/?id=DOR-90181) to new (https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/NX%204536). (Edit 2: the only obvious older commercial Franck recording by Tingaud is of Psyché, le Chasseur maudit, and les Éolides, also on Naxos.)
Quote from: eschiss1 on Thursday 28 December 2023, 13:33Also, was this whole conversation prompted by the upcoming (12 January 2024) issue of a CD on Naxos of Chausson and Franck symphonies conducted by Jean-Luc Tingaud?
No. I was merely pondering how the avalanche of releases of Bruckner and Mahler symphonies has affected other contemporary symphonists, and in particular Franck and his successors. I was also thinking about different approaches to Franck's Symphony in particular and its discographical history. That's when it dawned on me how little attention it has had from conductors and record labels in recent years. I don't think a release, however good, on Naxos by a conductor hardly anyone has heard of is going to make much of an impact. I may investigate it, though!
Here's a performance of the 'grand and unhurried' variety - not great sonics, but the conductor really believes in the piece:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeLcH2nLshI
The Langree performance was lovely. Thanks for sharing the link.
Upon investigation, Langree recorded both the Franck and Chausson Symphonies in 2005. Universal Music France 476 8069, the barcode is 0028947680697.
Langree is the music director of the Cincinnati Symphony. Those Ohioans are lucky to have him.
I had already ordered a copy of the recording you mention. I rather think it flew under the radar when it was released.
Re Mahler, though, having just listened to maybe as much as I could of a poor (painful...) performance of his sixth, the fact that there -are- so many orchestras that can even perform his works (note-perfect and with shape) (and make them sound easy!..., but then I hear a performance like this last* one after just a few minutes in...) - which reminds me of something Alan Walker wrote about Liszt's sonata... - deserves, but won't receive here, praise.
*Essen Philharmonic, on YouTube, which avoid.
For me it's something of a trial even to consider how much poor Mahler (and Bruckner) there is out there. No wonder Dave Hurwitz is so often apoplectic in his videos - he has a right to be! There are conductors who shouldn't be taking on this repertoire (e.g. Nelsons in Bruckner) and orchestras which are simply not up to the job (e.g. the Essen Philharmonic in Mahler, mentioned by Eric, above).
It's a relief to turn to Franck - frankly! Who says you can't encompass all the emotions within a 40-minute span anyway?
How about Karajan for 'grand and unhurried' in Franck's Symphony?>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSSK7KaGjyE
Well, if you raise the issue, I hear a much wider range in the only slightly longer Mahler 4. Irony, for starters.
It's problematic comparing Franck with Mahler - different generations and all that.
However, Daniel Barenboim has now re-recorded the Franck with the Berlin Philharmonic in what looks to be a very 'measured' performance (47:07):
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/9663848--franck-symphony-in-d-minor-faure-pelleas-et-melisande
Oh dear, this is definitely NOT how the finale is supposed to go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CJ-u_FsVTU
I agree with Alan about his assessment. Barenboim's performance drains all of the life out of this great Symphony. The recording is sadly not recommended.
After hearing (and now sticking with the Monteux/Chicago S.O.), I don't have the need to look for other recordings, frankly. That is still the performance to beat after more than 60 years now in my humble opinion.
Quote from: Tapiola on Wednesday 20 November 2024, 03:43That is still the performance to beat
Probably correct. But there are other ways of conducting the work (just not Barenboim's!)
Disclaimer: I like my Franck's symphony "Germanic and monumental", probably because I don't love it deeply, so the authentic French way doen't work for me, I find it mawkish.
That said, there's ways to do it and ways not to.
Very interesting (for me) to compare Baremboim's finale with one of my favorites, incidentally with the same orchestra and label, Giulini's.
That also is criticized for being slow and un-French, and actually timings are almost the same.
But in the Giulini I perceive a deep conviction , a rythmic undercurrent that keeps together the whole movement and carries it inexorably to a triumphant finale that's really "final"
I hear nothing of that in Baremboim's, it's very disorganic, and the final bars are underwhelming.
When the Symphony is done badly, it's usually because it's too drawn-out and unrhythmical. That's where the latest Barenboim release goes wrong. Franck is NOT Bruckner!
Quote from: hyperdanny on Thursday 21 November 2024, 12:33I don't love it deeply, so the authentic French way doen't work for me, I find it mawkish.
Are you referring to some perceived French performance style or the actual historical difference in the sonic characteristics of certain French instruments vs Germanic-Austro instruments? The former accentuated timbral differences while the latter favored blend. I have had trouble locating pre WW2 French orchestra performances of the Franck symphony. The earliest I found was Desormiere with the Paris Conservatoire in 1951. The French historical sound was fading quite a bit at this point although there was still a bit of difference that can be heard in the admittedly rough recording. Now of course the Germano Austro manner is widespread.
Philippe Gaubert/Orchestre de la Société des Concerts' recording dates from 1928. (There's another Pre- or early-WW2 one that's in neither category, with Koussevitsky conducting the Boston Symphony in this symphony in the early 1940s? on a National Broadcasting Co. LP. From OCLC 47909371 - which if two of the works were from the same concert, would be perhaps from December 1-2 1944, the premiere concert of Bartók's concerto; the Rimsky Coq d'Or selections on the LP might be from another. Koussevitzky performeed all three works- the Franck, Mozart's Idomeneo overture and the Rimsky- very often individually...)
Thanks eschiss for the Gaubert reference. To be clearer the search was only for early (pre WW2) French orchestras for the Franck Sym. They are what Franck would have heard predominantly.I didn't reference any early non French orchestra because they did not have the French orchestral sound. AFAIK only the Russian orchestras sort of backhandedly did but I'm not sure when they crossed over to the polyglot German blended sound current today.
I wonder (a) how close to the traditional French sound Beecham's recording was and (b) whether Munch in Boston and Monteux in Chicago managed to recreate anything of this tradition in their recordings?
Here's Munch with the Paris Conservatoire Orchestra in 1946:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nes9dxaX6Hg (first movement)
...available as part of this set:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8773271--the-legacy-of-charles-munch
(Note the overall timing of 34:35 in comparison with Barenboim at 47:07!)
Mr Howe,
This goes to the question I asked hyperdanny of French performance style vs orchestral sound. Clearly these can go together but are also potentially separable. I don't doubt that at least into the 50s that some non French conductors might have continued a French performance style tradition in the performance of French orchestral music. I do doubt that non French orchestras (other than possibly some Russian (Soviet) orchestras) between 1900 and 1955 used actual French orchestral instruments of that era in any widespread fashion. The difference in sound between French and German orchestras of that era was not subtle. But I don't know what instruments your citations had in their orchestras, particularly in the 1910 - 1930 time period.
I'd guess that Munch's 1946 recording of the Symphony with the Paris Conservatoire Orchestra would be pretty authentic. Dave Hurwitz has talked online about the orchestra in connection with their Beethoven recordings from the 1950s under Carl Schuricht.
This is the Gaubert recording (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obl1MQSoR5w) from 1928 (French Columbia) of the Franck symphony, on YouTube. (39 minutes.)
Thanks, Eric. Fascinating.
Yes eschiss I listened to the Gaubert already per your recommendation. The strings came through clearly enough but woodwinds were inaudible to me. The performance was interesting though. As for Mr Howe's post, yes the PCO in 1946 would at least have some flavor of the historical French orchestral sound from 1880 -1930 although I think it was already starting to fade post WW2. I was commenting on the Monteux and Munch Boston references.
I don't know how others feel but these French historical recordings of the d minor symphony seem much more exciting to me than the usual suspects of the stereo era.
Speaking purely personally, what really matters to me in this music is athleticism and clear rhythmic articulation. I am less concerned about the authenticity of the orchestra involved.
I don't disagree that the proof is in the performance rather than the means of the historical French orchestra, but it is reasonable to conclude that here at least one produces the other. The differentiated sound of the French historical orchestra provides more clarity and bite without much effort to score it. The blended orchestra sound of modern times based on the Germanic tradition rather impedes athleticism and clear articulation than fosters it unless special care is taken (e.g. Mahler). Franck might well have orchestrated the symphony differently if the Germano Austro orchestra was his standard.
Well, Franck occupies a unique position: his music isn't typically French in style at all, in comparison with, say, Fauré, as can be heard in the complex chromaticism derived principally from Wagner which marks his style, especially in his late works. Essentially, what this means is that the Symphony can be played in a leaner, more athletic French style or a (somewhat) heavier Germanic manner, provided that the French approach isn't abandoned altogether - which is what Barenboim has done in his latest recording, in the finale in particular.
David Hurwitz just published his take on baremboim's Franck, and he totally concurs with the consensus on this board.
Actually his video is quite the rant, and rather funny.
He's right. Sounds like something's seriously wrong with Barenboim. A recording that should never have been made.
I was so saddened by DH's review because Barenboim has been such a great musician. His 'stepping back' from performing due to a "serious neurological condition" was announced in late 2022. This CD is from a concert given in June 2023, and I can only agree with DH that really was the time to stop. After a great recording career, I see no point in going out with whimper... DGG presumably colluded because they still see dollar signs around his name. :(
Quote from: semloh on Friday 13 December 2024, 07:01DGG presumably colluded because they still see dollar signs around his name. :(
Looks like you came to basically DH's same conclusion: in a subsequent video, prompted by some recent releases that he despises (the Baremboim and, well, pretty much anything Thielemann) he argues that what once were called the major labels (DGG, Sony, Decca etc) should just stop releasing new recordings and concentrate on the back catalogue.
This because he says they don't really exist in the way we knew them: they're just a minute part of some conglomerate, they don't have a staff, they don't have editorial policies, they don't take care of their artists.
According to him (and debatable as he sometimes is, he knows the business) they just will release anything if somebody pays for it, be it the orchestra, some sponsor or whatever.
No vision or even quality control, just convenience and (I like the word) collusion.
This is his opinion, but it's a fact that nowadays anything interesting or well done comes from the independents.
Quote from: hyperdanny on Friday 13 December 2024, 09:14nowadays anything interesting or well done comes from the independents
...provided that they too haven't been swallowed up by the conglomerates.
Quote from: semloh on Friday 13 December 2024, 07:01I was so saddened by DH's review, because Barenboim has been such a great musician
So was I. Let's hope that this Franck is just a blip...
Agreed on Barenboim's talent. In 2004 I heard him conduct a Schumann 4 with the Staatskapelle Berlin at Carnegie that was bring-the-house-down amazing. I've never heard it better before or since. His Berlioz Te Deum is the only one I enjoy. And it takes a real musician to make Furtwangler's 2nd sound like a logical, well-ordered composition.
Sometimes great musicians miss the mark on what should be a sure fire success. I've always felt Bernstein didn't quite get Shostakovich 5.
No great conductor gets everything right. FWIW I'd rate Barenboim's Wagner very highly and I too like his Schumann 4. His Furtwängler 2 is unmatched, I think. All in all, a great musician.
Agreed. (I haven't heard his recording of Busoni's first finished opera- Die Brautwahl (1905-12) - but I imagine it's quite good too.)
On Youtube there's a video excerpt of the performance (a little more than 2 minutes) and, no, Baremboim does not look ok at all. Sad.
I know this thread refers to Franck's Symphony, but as it's a festive time I hope Alan and Mark will indulge me this once and allow a short recollection of Barenboim. :D
As a student in the 60s, I was frequently to be found in Holleyman & Treacher's labyrinthine secondhand bookshop in Brighton, Sussex. One day, somewhere around 1969, as I quietly pottered about, I walked into the room devoted to music books. There on the floor, surrounded by piles of old music scores, sat beautiful Jacqueline Du Pre, with a curly headed young Daniel Barenboim leaning over her shoulder. I said nothing, and slipped away. It was a brief encounter, but it's a precious little memory. ::)
Sadly, Barenboim has announced that he has Parkinson's Disease:
https://slippedisc.com/2025/02/daniel-barenboim-i-have-parkinsons-disease/