Messages

[at all]

You know, this came out the same year as Bruckner's and Tchaikovsky's 2nd (numbered) symphonies, and I prefer Raff's 6th to either of those more famous works.  I'm not kidding.  Or, maybe I should say I enjoy passages of Raff 6 more than any passages found in either of those other two contemporary symphonies (well, I don't like Bruckner's at all, so maybe that's not fair).  The first time I heard the first movement, the main theme was imprinted into my memory.  While I agree that this symphony rambles a bit much - in all four movements, in my opinion - I've found myself repeatedly listening to segments of each movement and avoiding the whole work.  For example, I'll listen to the first half of the first movement, and stop.  I realise this is blasphemous as far as legitimate music listening goes, but it's a way of "trimming the fat", I guess.  Especially with the main tune of the first movement, I just think it's too good to toss away, even for those who dislike the symphony as a whole.

I'm only a music-listener; I have no training or education to know what I'm talking about.  I can barely name what note is which on paper.  Not only that, I usually don't come out of my Classical Era panic-room to listen to late 19th century music, so my ears are far from natural-born natives.  Much of the music from that time hurts my poor late-18th century ears, but Raff never has.  Maybe that's why the 6th symphony made a positive impression on me with first listen; at the time, I had no idea what anyone else thought of it, how it was perceived, how popular it was, or anything else... I was listening to it "blind", so to speak.  I certainly liked it.  I think the first movement is really nice, but I think it would be drastically improved by being shortened by 3 and a half minutes or so.  Some of that "note-spinning noodling", as you call it, stood out to me even without being prompted by anyone else's comments or thoughts.

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.

There were two Vranický's, brothers no less, so it gets a tad confusing when searching them up.  The one who wrote an Aphrodite Symphony was Antonín Vranický, and possibly his most well-known (or at least well-distributed) piece right now would be his Violin Concerto in C.  The CD that's on is terrific, and I highly recommend it.  It's also on the Supraphon label:

http://www.amazon.com/Concertos-Violin-Orchestra-Benda/dp/B001QVCER4
http://www.amazon.com/Benda-Pichl-Vranicky-Violin-Concertos/dp/B003SLQOBW

I own and enjoy music by both of the Vranický brothers, but it can sometimes be a tad difficult to come by.  One reason their music is hard to pin down is that one or both of them has various spellings of his last name (Wranitzky is one spelling), and I remember reading about a CD that mis-attributed a work to the wrong brother.  This name-changing business wasn't just done after their lifetimes, but during.  Quite a few composers in the late 18th century changed their names when moving around in Europe to be easier to name by the locals.  Danged foreigners, Europe's chock full of 'em.  Anyway, that Violin Concerto by younger brother Antonín - the same who wrote that symphony you and I both like - is really outstanding.  If you're interested in obtaining the CD you heard on the radio, I have it myself, and it also contains a passable symphony by Václav Tomášek¹.

This may be pre-Romantic music, but the composers from the area we'd now call Czech were the most ahead-of-their-time composers of the 1800-1820 period, in my opinion.  At least, the overall feel of their sound in general tended to come across as sharper, more complex, and "harsher", certain qualities I generally associate with music composed from 1825 onward.


¹I really want to warm to Tomášek, but everything I've heard just isn't my thing.  Don't get me wrong, I mildly like all of his music that I've heard.  At its worst, it's inoffensive and doesn't turn me off, but it doesn't turn me on either.  I hate to bring any negativity around, but in recommending that CD, I just feel the need to point out that his music - including that symphony - doesn't sweep me off my feet.  However, some people prefer it to the A.Vranický work on the same disc, so what can I say?  It takes all kinds.

Sorry about the poorly-written post, but I'm feeling very lazy and not willing to clean it up tonight.

[actually]

This stuff does get really confusing.  One of the worst offenders is the Franz Schubert (1808-1878) known for only one work, L´Abeille, a nice little piece for violin and piano.  I mean, the second result when I searched on Google was a false attribution involving this composer:

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/The-Bee/670704

They attribute it to the more famous Franz Schubert (1797-1828).  Actually, paging through search results, it seems at least a third of the results attribute this piece to the wrong Schubert.  It's a real nightmare for someone like me, as I'm uncontrollably mentally obsessive about facts being right.  I literally lose sleep thinking about something as insignificant as this; I simply can't stand the thought of someone believing something that's factually untrue.  Man... why did somebody have to start a topic like this?

Let's not forget Brahms' Variations on a Theme of Haydn (Joseph, Michael??).  Only it wasn't by either one, but by Pleyel.  Oh wait, it may not have been even by Pleyel, as nobody can find the originating work in Pleyel's collection of works.  The whole origin of this confusion apparently comes from one person, Carl Ferdinand Pohl, who showed Brahms this theme and either invented or falsely learned about a made-up piece and attributed it to Joseph Haydn.  Geez, maybe that librarian Pohl actually wrote it himself, but was afraid Brahms wouldn't take it seriously since it sounded so outdated, unless he claimed it to be by a much-earlier composer.  PS: not to be confused with Richard Pohl, an actual composer. Who was opposed to Brahms.  Hey, maybe they were cousins, and the theme is actually by Richard Pohl, thinking to pull a big one over on Brahms and his little club of "classical" groupies by having a joke at his expense, his cousin Carl waiting a few years to show it to Brahms...

Wait, am I drunk or something without realising it?!  What the hell did I just type?  I'm done.

EDIT: Wait, no I'm not.  Just to add to the mess, the Michael Haydn symphony may be numbered 25, but it probably wasn't his chronological 25th.  The order is screwed up partially due to some of them being falsely attributed to older brother Joseph, in some cases into the 20th century.  And as we know, the numbers stick; like, calling that slow intro W.A. Mozart's Symphony #37, when it was more like #49 or #50, somewhere in that range.  What an absolute nightmare.

That Bristow F-sharp minor symphony has downright incredible first and second movements, and the last two movements are outstanding, which is why it sprang to my mind right away.  But I might average out the four movements of Chadwick's #2 to just barely edge it out for the top spot as a total package.  Maybe.  To me, it's really hard to choose between those two.  The sheer tuneful memorability and flawless technical execution of the first movement of the Bristow is kind of hard to beat.

Is it possible that people in the US were setting war-related words to music by Raff to create battle songs on the cheap?  This was done fairly often in the US.  For that matter, even the US national anthem is a lifted tune.  The music could very well be by Raff, but it could be from something absolutely unrelated to the US Civil War, which Raff would probably have cared little about.

Anyway, my guess - with admittedly no information to back it up - is that it is the very same Raff, just putting words to his tunes without his knowledge/consent.  Then again, maybe with his consent and a small fee?  I have no idea.  Just tossing it out there as a possibility.  It sprang to my mind instantly.  Happened a lot in the US (and every "western" country, to some extent or another, before the 20th century).

[100%]

I don't see anything wrong with being a "follower".  I mean, theoretically couldn't someone of superior talent follow an original thinker of inferior talent and actually improve on the idea?  Suppose we find that Rufinatscha was actually the slavish imitator of a completely lost teacher, and simply applied genius to the style of another?

There are ladder builders, and ladder climbers.  All I'm saying is that sometimes ladder climbers can go higher by using the rungs placed by the original-thinking builders.  I've never held "originality" to mean anything when I'm actually listening... notes are notes, and I enjoy them or not, regardless of any other factors.  And, as I mentioned with Rufinatscha above, even in the case of supposedly-original composers, we can't be absolutely sure how original they really were, especially back in the days before provable copyrights and virtually infinite record-keeping.  Even more, to wax truly philosphical, there are no 100% original composers since the first person to have the very concept of music in the caveman days, so it's all a matter of personal judgment just how you want to rate a composer's originality.  Someone deeply familiar with obscure French orchestral music of the 1790s might not tag Beethoven as the hyper-original orchestrator that even highly educated listeners usually do.

I would be completely thrilled if someone in modern times, with fully equal musical genius and talent to, say, Beethoven, were to compose new works in complete slavish imitation of Beethoven.  Theoretically, all things being equal, it would be precisely as good as if Beethoven had written more music.  So what difference would it make whether or not this composer were original or not?  You're getting a new Beethoven symphony, as far as listening goes, so what difference does it make how "original" it is if it's absolutely perfectly in synch with what Beethoven himself would have written?  Not that I'm saying this was Netzer - based on my listening, I'd say no - but you know what I mean.

[Демон]

I hate to get all speculative, but somehow I feel with his symphonies that Rubinstein was deliberately not playing to his strengths. I can only guess, but I get the impression that he was trying to write symphonies like famous symphonists.  A symphony à la his own PCs #3 or #4, or perhaps in the vein of his under-known Violin Concerto, might have been superb.  Clearly (at least to me) the guy could orchestrate, he could come out with some really fantastic tunes.  But in his symphonies, they strike me as usually well-orchestrated, okay tunes, but I find them so forgettable that I forget them before they're even done playing.

I hate to say this, because based on a few works and his refusal to get ridiculously "nationalistic", I love Rubinstein.  And, as symphonies are my second-favourite musical form (after operas), I want to love his symphonies.  Don't get me wrong, I don't dis like any of them, but despite all my wishing and repeated attempts, I can't even fall in Like with them, much less fall in love.

I don't normally post in threads when I have nothing positive to say - it doesn't help anybody, including me.  But this is different.  When I say I want to love his symphonies, I'm totally sincere.  Are there any passages in #5 that I should check out in detail?  Can someone name a recording and perhaps give specific times on the tracks that I could check out?  Rubinstein is exactly the type of Romantic composer I should love most, so I am willing to put in the effort here.  I made the same effort after a few mildly-positive experiences with Reinecke and now he's one of my favourites!

PS: I actually like Демон quite a bit, though for some reason I feel it's a bit longish for its musical material. I must sheepishly admit to listening only to my favourite numbers from it these days.

I have every single CD of that series that has been released.  I consider it the greatest such series ever released!  The sound quality is exceptional, the performances tend to sound like the orchestra is enthusiastic for the music (always a big plus), and a lot of the music is, in my opinion, truly Great with a capital G.

Not to mention, the Clementi "Big #1" Symphony gets its best-ever recording in this series.  It blows away the two other versions I've heard, the competition's not even close.

Sorry that I don't have anything useful to add, but I just want to say that this news excites me.  I've thought for years that Kalivoda (or however you spell it) is a drastically under-rated and under-appreciated master of the orchestra.  His symphonies #5 and #6 are among my all-time favourite works of the genre.  I've been dying to hear more for ages!  There are a few composers whose neglect on the recording stage baffle me, and I don't know who would top my personal list of such, but Kalivoda would be a contender for the #1 spot.

Look in Hoboken catalogue, section II, amongst the divertimenti, cassations, and so on.  They were like one-movement divertimenti.

Jirí Antonin Benda ended a harpsichord concerto with a scherzo before F.J. Haydn used it.  I would bet against him being the "inventor", though... such a thing is probably virtually impossible to discover.  It might have first been employed by an obscure composer in a manuscript that ended up in a landfill somewhere. Or being used to wrap fish.

Large stretches of the Bazzini string quartets do sound like they could have been written in the first half of the 19th century!  Maybe a factual error in dating there, but not a spiritual one.  Listen to the start of #6 even, and try to tell me that anybody would have found that bizarre even as early as 1810.

Personally, I wasn't blown away, but I don't dislike any of them. I'll admit that the string quartet is not one of my favourite forms, but in my book, these aren't all that spectacular.  I have the recording mentioned above, the Quartetto d'Archi Venezia, but I don't know what else is available.

Just to my taste, none of these 6 comes anywhere close to Verdi's terrific sole-surviving entry into the genre, and I don't hear anything that leads me to believe another performance would change that.  This is pure guesswork, but based on how simple the openings of most of the movements are, I get the impression that Bazzini was putting all his eggs in the tune-basket... and none of the tunes are all that good to me. This thread did coax me to pull out my Foote SQs though for some reason, and I can never have too much of that! I guess that's what I think when I am considering great late Romantic String Quartets and what they had the potential to be.

The greatest melodist of all time is Japanese, and writes a lot of music that could have been performed in the late 19th century and raised not a single eyebrow.  植松 伸夫 (Uematsu Nobuo) is his name, and I seriously do consider him the greatest writer of melodies I've ever known.

Here's a fun little sample, but one with quite a few errors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYzq0am3B4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBK_O3kbsh0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBVndOfMg2A

And a gorgeous little string quartet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYk5-ZLYH8


These aren't in that CD series, and I apologise for being technically off-topic, but anyone who wants to listen to very much Romantic-sounding Japanese music (not quite so modern) might want to give this a try.

The Chandos disc in the "Contemporaries of Mozart" series that has 3 Clementi symphonies on it, has a version of the "#1" that blows away either of the other two versions I've heard.  It's the London Mozart Players, conducted by Mathias Bamert.  Grouped with it are the only two of his earlier (six) symphonies that survive, and I love them also.  The orchestra is crystal clear, letting you hear that brilliant orchestration of the first of his "big" symphonies in a way that the other two recordings I have don't even touch.  In addition, the overall sound quality of the disc itself is higher; I've usually thought Chandos had really good sound quality.

Just get that CD and check out the first movement of WoO32; if you think that Clementi was a good orchestrator from either of the complete sets that are out, just wait until you hear how it sounds here.  I actually consider Clementi the greatest orchestrator prior to Raff.  Before I knew Raff, I considered him the greatest orchestrator I'd ever heard.


PS: Pengelli, I think it is the first movement of the "Great National" symphony that is the standout in that work. I've got the first 15 seconds or so after the slow intro stuck in my head right now, just from reading about it.  I admit to loving all four movements, though, including the fun finale.  I'm not sure why that symphony isn't more famous... the main theme employed in the second and fourth movements is certainly memorable!