Heinrich von Herzogenberg (1843-1900)

[Mark Thomas]

Alan, Peter, as I said, I know it's my loss but no matter how many times I put on some Herzogenberg (heaven knows, I have enough!) and will myself into a receptive, positive mood the same thing happens: nothing!

I'm resigned to just not getting it but I'm pleased for those of you who do.

[DennisS]

Hello

Have just listened to the Herzogenberg symphonies again and agree with you Alan re - symphony no 2. I much prefer it to no 1. If I were a little critical though, I feel that the finale of no 2 at times wanders a little but all in all, makes for an enjoyable listen.

Cheers
Dennis

[Ilja]

I always felt that the finales to the first and fourth movements of the Herzogenberg 2nd ought to be swapped - the first mvt concludes with such a firm gesture that it would make a good ending to the entire work.

- but then, who am I to advise Herzogenberg...?

[Peter1953]

Sometimes it's so hard waiting patiently...Well, just a few more days... Please view at http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/Heinrich-von-Herzogenberg-Violinkonzert-A-Dur-WoO-4/hnum/8752507

Finally I found at a reasonable price the CD "Romantiker im alten Berlin" on the FSM label with piano music played by Irma Hofmeister. I wanted the disc because of Ludwig Berger's Grande Sonate pathétique in C minor, op. 1 (I already have his revised version op. 7, marvellously played by Frederick Marvin).
But the disc also features Acht Veränderungen für das Pianoforte, op. 3 (1865), a lovely piano piece of variations, lasting almost 12.5 minutes. This is another gem by Von Herzogenberg. I love this composer, like Gernsheim, more and more.

By the way, the above mentioned CD also features a Capriccio Appassionato in B minor, op. 49, a beautiful piano piece by Ernst Rudorff (1840-1916). Has anyone ever heard of Rudorff?

[Alan Howe]

Yes, Rudorff is on my list as a composer to investigate - unfortunately there's almost nothing of his on CD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Rudorff

[petershott@btinternet.com]

It is a quite idle threat and will leave everyone else quite unaffected, but the next time I see a Brahms versus Herzogenberg posting I shall turn off my computer! Consider the plain facts: they were born 10 years apart, B (despite the cigars) outlived H by 7 years; they lived in approx the same place; participated in the same broad culture and had similar audiences; both had a veneration for JSB and the tradition; they wrote approximately the same amount, and for orchestra, chamber, keyboard and voices (the B worklist is in fact slightly longer, and contains more songs, but then he had 7 years longer at it than H). So inevitably there are 'similarities' between their musics.
But this (typically male!) preoccupation with whether one is 'better' or at a 'greater level' (and what on earth do those easy tags mean?) is plain daft. Whether we wished it or not we all had B embedded in our minds before we learnt to play conkers - at school, the first music lessons, the culture in which we grew up. Even now we bump into B in lifts, public spaces, TV adverts. There is a long history of B performance. People have strong views on 'right' and 'wrong' ways to perform B. It is a measure of B's utter glorious greatness as a composer that we want to go on listening to B, and most times, except in the hands of Mr Gardiner, with immeasurable joy.
Now H, for good or ill, hasn't experienced that. My teachers hadn't even heard of H. We only discovered H a few years ago, and felt very very lucky to have done so. There is no real performance history with H. The man on the Clapham omnibus still hasn't heard of H. H isn't in our bloodstream or musical genetic makeup in the way that B is.
Now when we ask 'is X a truly great composer?' I think in a way we're asking 'can X withstand the test of time?', 'Do we want to go on listening to X, and with huge satisfaction, despite already knowing these works very well?'. To my mind B passes that test with the most radiant flying colours. H hasn't yet had that opportunity. Thus we just can't go about asking whether one is greater than the other. Who knows? Only time will tell.
As for me, I couldn't now do without either B or H, and will only finally be comforted if I receive an assurance that I can go on listening to them in the hereafter (when I can finally escape the likes of many who have been recorded in the Naxos American Classics series). And I put anyone to the test: just listen to a few passages in either B or H. Unmistakenly it could just not be written by the other, anymore than a passage of Mozart be confused with one of Haydn. 'Is Haydn on the same level as Mozart?' What a very silly, time-wasting, and futile question! So, please, an end to this B vs H debate!

[edurban]

Still, Brahms is the better man

David

[Peter1953]

In the 2nd half of the 19th century Brahms is everywhere. Brahms is a giant. Brahms is the benchmark.
So many sung and unsung composers are compared with Brahms. Take booklet notes, not only those in CD's of Von Herzogenberg, Gernsheim, Wilhelm Berger, just to name a few, but also in many others, you will find nearly always comparisons with Brahms. Recently I bought a CD titled "In the Shadow of Brahms, Vol. 2" (I bought it for Wilhelm Berger's Trio, op. 94).
So many high Romantic works are compared with Brahms, whether we like it or not. I wonder what Brahms himself would think of this. 
We know that many of Brahms's contemporaries tried to develop their own style, and some were pretty successful. Just think of Rufinatscha. But others tried to imitate him, because his music was so beloved by a broad audience, because... well, he was just great and successful, and he was such a strong personality. Brahms was an example to many more conservative composers. Some composers were proud to be a member of the Brahms circle of friends.
But I think that it's sometimes very easy in a discussion or a CD review to compare the music with Brahms, because when you listen to that particular piece of music more carefully, you hear and realize that the composer has created a work which is all of its own. Comparing with Brahms can be too simplistic and even unjustified.

However, why shouldn't we, as members of this Forum, compare some composers and their works with Brahms? If I read in a thread that a certain composition is in the style of Brahms, I usually buy it, and I've never been disappointed.

[Alan Howe]

Still, Brahms was the greater composer. Nevertheless, Herzogenberg was a very fine composer indeed - as were, say, Gernsheim and Fuchs, who are often compared to Brahms. I think such comparisons are inevitable - and acceptable provided that they are made with an open mind as to the quality of other composers' music. And I too couldn't now live without these newly-rediscovered masters.

BTW the facts: Herzogenberg was born 10 years later than Brahms, but only outlived him by 3.
   
To be contentious: only Draeseke, Raff and Rufinatscha match Brahms' stature - because they wrote great music that could never be mistaken for Brahms'. 

[Ilja]

While I might not have put in the same terms, I generally agree with Petershott's comments. Naming some as 'great' and others as 'inferior' is exactly what has turned the iron repertory into its present petrified state (although there are encouraging developments looming).

Generally speaking, I'm not at all interested in the question whether Herzogenberg's work was better or worse than Brahms's. Both have composed works that I love, B possibly a few more than H, but then again I know more of B's works than H's.

The *historical* importance of Brahms vs. Herzogenberg is an altogether different matter, and one which can be determined far more easily than any question of (personal or general) aesthetics. But I firmly believe that making influential and therefore important composers the 'greats' is a bad mistake.

[edurban]

"Naming some as 'great' and others as 'inferior' is exactly what has turned the iron repertory into its present petrified state"

I can't agree with this. Recognising that there are different levels of achievement did not creat the "masterwork repertoire".  What created it was a destructive attitude unique to classical music, one which has been well described by conductor (and etc) Leon Botstein, which I recently posted, but which got lost in a discussion of the particular merits of Henry Cowell:

"...[the problem]... rests in the mistaken but recalcitrant idea that first, the standard repertory today reflects the collective and legitimate aesthetic judgment of history and therefore a quasi-Darwinian process of objective selection, and second, that music is an art that demands competitive comparison, that only works befitting the attribute "masterpiece" deserve the time and effort to be heard and played in concert...

For some odd reason, changing inherited impressions has become much harder in music than it has in either painting or literature. In music, the unremitting standard of the "masterpiece" is more of an excluding factor than it is in any other art. Why does listening to a piece of concert music require a judgment to determine it is not something else—perhaps by Stravinsky, Mozart, Mahler, or Copland? We do not read books this way, and we do not view paintings this way. We do not furnish our homes with paintings and prints and objects that way. No one can argue that the idea that a painting of Botticelli or a play by Shakespeare are daunting and overwhelming examples of the triumph of human imagination. But the greatest Botticelli or Shakespeare need not diminish our appreciation of other paintings and plays. We do not reject plays and paintings old or new in our theaters and museums because they are not Botticelli and Shakespeare. We do not demand that the only things performed or displayed are by Botticelli and Shakespeare. We profess a wider and more eclectic range of appreciation for unquestionably excellent examples of human expression in painting and writing. Yet in music, a dominant snobbery apparent in writers, performers, and listeners would shut down the exercise of curiosity. Young performers and conductors learn and offer almost exactly the same historical repertoire that their counterparts did thirty and fifty years ago. Concert promoters encourage this. But ...[t]here is a wide range of music that inspires, ennobles and delights audiences who have the insight to listen to a work in relation to their personal preferences or opinions, not in relation to what they have learned are the narrow group of the "best" composers and compositions.

Our reasons for performing unfamiliar repertoire are not about searching for lost treasures. We are not on some sort of Antiques Roadshow, trying to assess rare work by some pre-existing standard of comparative values. We are not in the business of being musical truffle hounds. Rather, we perform ...music...to show not rarity but the unexpected vastness, quality, and depth of musical expression that is available to be heard within the history of music. Our only standard is that it is music that deserves to be enjoyed and experienced. The music must have the inspiration and craftsmanship to capture the attention of those who love to play and listen. Not every work will take its place alongside an acknowledged masterpiece, but it doesn't have to. As in other arts, all kinds of music contribute to an unimaginably large and varied experience, in which anyone will eventually find something they like. For those who restricted their capacity for the joy of music to a few famous works (an unreasonable fragment of cultural history), they may find that repetition of those works will ultimately eviscerate their power to move the listener by eroding the essential reactions of surprise and engagement those works inspire."

David

[Peter1953]

It happened. After the first time I've heard this piece of music, I already said to myself: this is going to grab me by the throat after a few more hearings. And it did. How heavenly beautiful, so touching, so emotional. I'm talking about the gripping slow 2nd movement of the Odysseus Symphony, called Penelope. I cannot get this music, the main theme, anymore out of my head. It reminds me of Sibelius, maybe Mahler, but it is not possible, because Herzogenberg composed it in 1872.

In my perception it is by far the most moving, original music Herzogenberg composed. This goes directly into my heart. How much I love all the other music by Herzogenberg, now I am in a sort of confusion.
Herzogenberg, why did you after your opus 16 turn yourself to Brahms? Why not developed a whole style of your own, maybe based upon Wagner & Liszt, but with unpredictable melodies, so beautiful in the style of Penelope? This is so far from Brahms, quite progressive, but at the same time so utterly late romantic. And yes, the other three movements are surprisingly beautiful as well. Just give it a chance to grow into you.

Sit down, make sure you cannot get disturbed, and listen to this amazing, most thrilling music. I love to learn what you think of it. Penelope in particular.

[oldman]

"Music seems to be understood best by its proximity to other music that is
more familiar. We do not hear what we hear... only what we remember."

Morton Feldman - "Give my regards to 8th street" (p209)

I have found that one of the major prerequisites of listening to so called unsung composers in general is to try to "check ones ears at the door", so to speak, and just listen to the music.

In the case of Herzogenberg, I have found his work so compelling that the fact that it might at time inhabit a sound world similar to that of Brahms' music seems secondary at worst and actually a plus. I get to hear some new music in the vein of music that I like, as opposed to the umpteenth run through the Works of the "master".

Brahms never used the orchestra the way that Herzogenberg does in his two symphonies (the new CPO CD is on its way from GErmany as I write this). In fact his treatment of the brass as fully chromatic  (vs. Brahms treatment of trumpets and horns as if they were still valveless) gives Herzogenbergs symphonies a color that Brahms never had in his orchestral work.


Just my two cents.

[Marcus]

I think petershott,peter1953 & edurban have summed up the situation very well, but I will add my two bob's worth. (it might only be worth a zac !)
However, I , like most, will always make comparisons, as we need a benchmark to determine what we like & disilike. My brain is rusted onto the 19th  & early 20th century period, but I have hundreds of CDs of modern works, music which, for me, often  requires often intense concentration. My appetite for new works will never be satisfied, and I am happy to listen to anything. (at least once, or give away to friends like the Schnabel CDs & others.)
In the past, there was too much snobbery in music. Those geniuses, like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann,Brahms, Liszt, Wagner etc whose works of undeniable  quality were generally easily acceptable, and pursued by rich patrons, made it very difficult for the Herzogenbergs, Raffs,Draesekes etc. Some, like Ries, were brilliant performers, and managed to disseminate some of their works before the public,  but always the comparison with Beethoven or other majors.. Some composers just gave up trying to compete, and had to earn a living teaching or performing. The popular composers drew the crowds, and there was no money to be made with the unknowns, even in those days.
It was that snobbery, which I hope does not exist today,(at least not to the same extent), that relegated many competent composers to the archives. We today are discovering those gems, and  much remains to be unearthed. Today's main problem, as in previous times,  is money, and CD companies are not benevolent societies. They hope to make a profit on their outlay, and small labels such as Sterling,deserve our support. Except for half a dozen or so, I have all the Sterling CDs, and even if some of the content is occasionally mediocre, I will always buy & try, as Bo Hyttner is a confirmed romantic music lover. I have my favourites with other labels, and do my best to support them. At least today, the ability to promote world-wide, with instant information at our fingertips, (i/net), will continue to unearth & rescue many worthy unsungs from the archives. And all of us have different perceptions with music. And I thank God for that !Finally, I love all the Herzogenberg music I have heard so far, and am waiting patiently for the Odysseus Symphony.  Ethel Smythe was a pupil of H, and an "intimate"(not my word)  friend of Elisabeth.
Marcus.

[Empfindsamer]

Hi sirs.
I'm an Italian classical listener-aficionado.
I've an authentic passion on unsung composer.
I beg you pardon, but I didn't find a "New members introducing" section in our forum, so here I am.
Exactly today I was listening to Herzogenberg First on CPO disc. I think that's a bit "reactionary", with no negative meanings: it place itself along Beethoven-Spohr-Schubert legacy, rather than Brahms-Schumann's. I'm right?
I think that Beermann rendition is very polite and accurate, but maybe I would like a little more fire in conducting.

Excuse me, but English isn't my native language.