Bendix Symphony No. 2 "Summer Sounds from Southern Russia"

[Maury]

Ilja,

 The reason I call it the Bendix style, referring to his Sym 2 onwards, is that I can't find an earlier example of it. If I or someone else does find an earlier example then I will call it by them.

As for Sinding, his symphony 1 of 1890 seems standard high Romantic style to me. It is only the Symphony 2 of 1902 where there is some leaning towards a less rhetorical style of Romanticism. That's 14 years after Bendix 2, 8 years after Glass Sym 1 and 7 years after Hermann Sym 1. Incidentally the Sibelius Sym 3 is now looking less surprising. 

[Alan Howe]

Sometimes you just have to give up and say that a particular composer has come up with a (recognisable) style of his/her own making - an individual synthesis, as it were, of various other styles.

There's also the influence of folk music to consider here - and the reference to 'Summer Sounds from South Russia', whatever that might mean in practice.

Finally, it might also be worth comparing the two symphonies of Bendix's almost exact Danish contemporary, Peter Lange-Müller (1850-1926):
No.1 'Autumn' (1879-82): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs_OXczN89k
No.2 (1889 - v. lightly rev.1915): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiTtqC419QA

[Maury]

Mr Howe,

 I'm not sure if you were directing your comment to Ilja, to me or both. Yes pastoralism was an important aspect of standard Romanticism, both literary and musical. There was the Pastoral Symphony of Beethoven of course. I did note that the Bendix style did have a vague feeling of pastoralism in a post above but I am not sure that is really the case now the more I listen.

As I tried to show in my example of the Glass Sym 4 Finale there is a very direct subversion of Romantic style rhetoric though without overt satire. This softening of the tension and urgency of standard high Romanticism can approximate certain aspects of pastoral music but it is far from identical. The symphonies of Lange Muller are definitely along the lines of folk pastoral but he still employs Romantic symphonic rhetoric in restrained fashion typical of Romantic pastoral.This is not really the case with the Bendix et al style IMO.

I think composers by 1890 or so were starting to realize that the high Romantic style was becoming predictable. Some adopted neo Tristanesque chromaticism, others continued on unwilling/unable to change and other composers were experimenting.

[Alan Howe]

The symphonies of Lange Muller are definitely along the lines of folk pastoral but he still employs Romantic symphonic rhetoric in restrained fashion typical of Romantic pastoral.This is not really the case with the Bendix et al style IMO

Well, I don't really agree. And I don't think there's a single Bendix style either. I trust that dacapo vol.2 will tell us more. I think the Glass connection is dubious (he's really half a generation later than Bendix) and I'd be looking further afield than Denmark, to composers such as Smetana or Fibich, as well as to Liszt and Wagner.

[Maury]

I accept people may not agree with me and I think there may be disputes about the exact nature and boundaries of Romantic pastoralism. But I did try to be specific in my comments so at least people can see why I am saying this.  Going back to my survey of Louis Glass symphonies I did make the specific point that there was an evolution in this style and that unlike the Glass Sym 1, which was only a few years after the Bendix Sym 2, the Glass Sym 4 (1911)and 5 (1919) seemed more similar to the early Brun style rather than pointing backwards to the Bendix Sym 2 of 1888.  And to be clear I am leaving off the High Romantic Bendix Sym 1 and starting with his Sym 2.

[Alan Howe]

the high Romantic style

Please could you explain what you mean by this. Do you mean Brahms? Or his antipode, Bruckner, perhaps? Because, by 1890, there was already no such thing that could be adequately defined stylistically - only a period of time with very rough edges at both ends. Musical nationalism was well established, the Symphony as a form had been undergoing huge developmental changes over the course of the 19thC (think Berlioz, Liszt, even Rubinstein or Schumann), Wagner's revolutionary ideas were becoming pervasive (and not just in the field of opera), and the symphonic poem was a fixture across Europe, making the growth of programme (as opposed to absolute) music a major factor. Romanticism in music had yet to reach its apogee, in fact, as the influence of the 'New Germans' (Liszt, Wagner, etc.) had yet fully to play out.
   This extensive Wikipedia article may help us to trace the complex development of musical romanticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music     (although - annoyingly - it completely ignores Raff, despite the plethora of names!)

As far as Bendix is concerned, he's one the milder experimenters of his period, soon to be overtaken and overshadowed in Scandinavia by Sibelius, Nielsen et al., which is why we should pay him particular attention. He wasn't an innovator in any serious sense, but stood on the brink of the end-period of the romantic movement dominated by composers born in the last third of the 19thC.
   This paragraph is worth noting, I think:
<<He was the only Dane present when Wagner laid the foundation stone of the Festspielhaus in Bayreuth in 1872. He also spent some time with Franz Liszt in 1872 and in successive years. He showed his first symphony to the great Hungarian. Liszt approved, not least because Bendix had conformed to his methods, combining an abstract four-movement form with a program, like a symphonic poem whose form Liszt pioneered. Bendix was obviously attracted by the New Weimar School of Music (the music of the future). It should also be noted that he conducted the first performance of Tristan in Denmark. He mounted the performance at his own expense, because the Royal Danish Theatre would not take on the responsibility.>>
https://musicwebinternational.com/2024/10/bendix-symphonies-nos-1-3-dacapo/

My instinct is to suggest that one should look for influences from the major composers of the period leading up to Bendix's creative years. Similarities with the works of others of his contemporaries are likely to be traceable back to the same influential figures in a process of parallel development. There are also individual factors to bear in mind: Symphony No.3, for example, has a particularly individual stamp in both its form (three movements) and content (its slow finale), perhaps pointing to some sort of personal adversity.

[Ilja]

Some good points, Alan, but I would not underestimate Bendix's innovation - not to our ears perhaps, or even those of contemporary Germans, but certainly within the Danish musical world, where Schumann and Mendelssohn still served as templates and symphonic forms as a whole were still a relatively rare phenomenon (compared to (primarily religious) choral music and Lieder). Further progression by subsequent composers would perhaps not have been possible without this precedent.

I've also been pondering earlier remarks about folk music. That's clearly an influence, but I'd wager they were imported from Norway (Winter-Hjelm, Grieg, Svendsen) rather than Central Europe, considering the many intra-Scandinavian networks.

[Alan Howe]

I would not underestimate Bendix's innovation

Fair enough. But Bendix knew the music of Liszt and Wagner - and it's hard to avoid comparisons. The more profound innovator in Danish music in the later years of the 19thC was Carl Nielsen: his music is like a breath of fresh air. For those who don't know his 1st Symphony (1892), do give it a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSkaKDR1lQ0&t=62s

Mind you, Bendix is certainly worth investigating further. I'm really looking forward to dacapo vol.2.