Rauchenecker Symphony No. 1 in F minor, etc.

[John Boyer]

 Alan, what do you mean by "sounds like"?  To me, it sounds like a German symphony from the second half of the 19th century — no more, no less.  This is why I really didn't like it at first. "Oh Heavens, not another faceless late 19th century German symphony from another deservedly forgotten composer!"  However on rehearing, I found more and more interesting details, but nothing that made it sound like a French symphony or Russian one or a German symphony from the early 20th century or one from the early 19th.  Just another not-so-bad late 19th century German symphony.

[Febct]

Finally spun this CD and very much enjoy the three works thereon. Haven't a clue from which direction Mr. Hurwitz is speaking.  He should reconsider his silly remarks.

BUT, and kindly pardon me if this issue was noted somewhere else in this long thread, but the timings shown for the movements of the Symphony all are wrong.  Therefore, along with the total absence of any mention of the bassist who fills out the quintet in the Oriental Phantasie, this adds up to a downright sloppy job by CPO.

As usual, however, a nice picture on the booklet cover. 

[eschiss1]

It becomes harder to defend the amount of time their discs take in the pipeline to release if they won't take a little more time to get things right, I hear that!!

[Alan Howe]

Alan, what do you mean by "sounds like"?  To me, it sounds like a German symphony from the second half of the 19th century — no more, no less

Hi John,

What makes Rauchenecker unusual (possibly unique for a German symphonist in 1875-6) is the clear influence of Wagner upon his orchestration, in particular his use of the brass. That's what I meant. I don't hear this in any of the (more classically-minded) symphonists of the period, except for Bruckner - and he was Austrian. If I'm wrong (perfectly possible!), please put me right...

[eschiss1]

And how much influence did Bruckner have in the mid-1870s- I think not very much. So I agree.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Eric. So the question I posed stands: what German symphony dating from before 1875/6 sounds like the Rauchenecker? If the answer is 'none', then I think Hurwitz is guilty of a serious error of judgment as to the character of the music and its place in musical history.

As I said before, please correct me if I'm wrong...

[eschiss1]

Serious but not uncommon, imho- it's actually more rare to find people, critics included, who can avoid hindhearing.

[Alan Howe]

Indeed. Mahler's 1st lies in the future (1888), as does Hans Rott's Symphony (1878-90). Both were Austrians, of course.

There had been hints, of course, in Schumann's 4th - in the transition into the finale of that work.

[Alan Howe]

hindhearing

Doesn't that require large quantities of alcohol?

[John Boyer]

What makes Rauchenecker unusual (possibly unique for a German symphonist in 1875-6) is the clear influence of Wagner upon his orchestration, in particular his use of the brass. That's what I meant.

Ach!  Die Wagnerfrage! Ja, ja!  You should have said so! 

Well, in that case I would say the thematic treatment and use of the brass does suggest Wagner in a way that other German symphonists of the day did not.  This is a curious phenomenon given that Wagner was 31 years Rauchenecker's senior and was nearing the end of this life when this symphony was written.  I think it illustrates the sharp divide between Wagnerites and traditionalists.  If you were a traditionalist, you avoided any reference to Wagner at all, while if you were a Wagnerite, you didn't write symphonies, viewing music drama as the only legitimate art form.  Curious, too, is how Rauchenecker tips his hat to the Wagner sound while using a strictly late Beethoven brass section -- no extra Wagner horns/tubas and the like.

I think your acknowledgement of the Schumann precedent is good, except to me the most Wagnerian moment in Schumann's symphonies comes in the 4th movement of the Rhenish.  But if Rauchenecker's sound is unusual, it is not unique.  There is one other German symphony that slightly predates it (1872) but is far more Wagenerian in sound, scoring, and scope: Herzogenberg's Symphony for Large Orchestra, "Odysseus".  Now don't object that "Odysseus" is a symphonic poem, not a symphony.  Not only is it titled "symphony" rather than "tone poem" or "symphonic poem" or "symphonic fantasy", it is cast in the standard four-movement form of sonata-allegro, slow movement, scherzo, and finale.  It is every bit as much a symphony as Raff's "Lenore", Berlioz's "Fantastique", or Tchaikovsky's "Manfred", perhaps even more so.

So, not unique, but I now agree that it is unusual. 

[eschiss1]

Now I'm curious to hear whether Klughardt's "Lenore" symphony of 1873 belongs in the same breath, I should check that out...

[Alan Howe]

Herzogenberg's Symphony for Large Orchestra, "Odysseus"

I hadn't forgotten the Herzogenberg, but I was relying on my memory as to its orchestration, etc. I must give the CD a spin...

Just one comment, though: strictly speaking 'Odysseus' is not absolute music in the sense that Rauchenecker's Symphony is. But I haven't listened to it in years, so I'm grateful for the prompt, John. 

[Alan Howe]

John is right, of course. Herzogenberg's Odysseus Symphony is far more Wagnerian overall than the Rauchenecker, so my argument falls. However, as I suggested, Rauchenecker was writing 'absolute music' in Wagnerian dress which Herzogenberg wasn't attempting.

[John Boyer]

Herzogenberg's Odysseus Symphony is far more Wagnerian overall than the Rauchenecker, so my argument falls.

Well, your point doesn't so much fall as just modifies a bit.  If you narrow the scope to absolute, non-programmatic symphonies, then Rauchenecker does appear to be among the first examples of the Wagner sound pervading a formal symphony. 

Since I don't like Hurwitz's videos, I'm not sure what his specific attacks on Rauchenecker were based on.  Derivative? Unoriginal?  Just plain dull?

[Alan Howe]

Hurwitz's view was that it just wasn't very interesting. Fair enough, but that simply ignores what makes it stand out - for its date, that is.