Unsung Monumental Symphonies

[Peter1953]

Dear friends, this might be a tricky topic, but I'll give it a try.

We all love various kinds of music by unsung and very unsung composers. Over the past one and a half year I rarely listened to famous composers and their works, except for Chopin. Thanks to this Forum I've discovered a lot of music by composers I've seldom or never heard of before. And now I cannot do anymore without most of the music by composers like Bortkiewicz, Gernsheim, von Henselt, von Herzogenberg, Kirchner, Raff, Reinecke, Rubinstein, Rufinatscha, Xaver Scharwenka and Thalberg, just to name some of my hero's. And I know, there are many, many more.

Last Sunday afternoon I listened to a radio broadcast of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony. Wow... A very famous, monumental work which I haven't heard for quite a few years. And I realized that this is the ultimate level of music for me (BTW, I only discuss here and now the symphony). After that I've listened to Schumann's 2nd (on CD).
Both are IMHO monumental symphonies of the highest calibre. Very sung works, but I think not without reason.
It is what Rossini said: the essence of music is the melody. And I agree. A melody can make you happy, can move you to tears, make you smile, or whatever. It's all about emotion.

And then I asked myself the question: I have a lot of so-called unsung music, and quite a number of masterpieces, but are there also monumental works like the Schumann and Tchaikovsky symphonies? 
I know, it's arbitrary, because what is "monumental"? Is a symphony monumental if it is the communis opinio? Well, just as an example, for me the symphonies by Schumann (1-4) and Tchaikovsky (4-6) are monumental.

Then I went through my collection. Which symphonies can measure with those "monumental" symphonies? Not so many, I discovered. Not even one by Raff (although...1, 3 and 5...) and Rubinstein, despite the fact that I'm very fond of Raff's 1-7 and all Rubinstein's. Very close to monumental are in my opinion the Burgmüller 2, Cliffe 1, Noskowski 1 and Rufinatscha 5.

What is your opinion? Is this topic bare nonsense? Or do you agree to a certain extent? If so, which unsung symphonies do you think are monumental?

Peter

[Mark Thomas]

The topic is certainly not nonsense, Peter. Are you able to define in any way why you feel what you feel about Tchaikovsky's Fifth and Schumann's Second that you don't fell about, say, Raff's Third?

I'm asking you the question because, whilst I recognise the emotion, I'm not sure that I can analyse it without some deeper thought than I've given it so far! It's difficult isn't it?

Most of us, I'm sure, recognise a great work when we hear it: that experience of total immersion, that feeling of joy at someone else's marvellous creation, that lifting of the spirit. As someone whose approach to music is instinctively emotional and only secondarily intellectual I have a strong inclination not to analyse it too much. To pick up on Alan's entirely correct assertion in the objectivity/subjectivity topic that "'X is beautiful because....' is very interesting", that no doubt means that I'd make a very poor critic!

[Alan Howe]

I'm interested in your new topic too, Peter. If you are categorising symphonies as 'monumental' on account of their range, scope, size, etc., then I guess that all of Bruckner would count, together with, say, Beethoven 3 & 9, Schubert 9, Rufinatscha 6, Dietrich, Raff 1,3,5 & 7, Draeseke 3, Berger 2...

[JimL]

All of Mahler.  Ditto on Rufi 6.  Not so sure I'd characterize the Dietrich as monumental.  Ambitious, certainly, but so is Brahms, without truly being what I'd consider monumental (except for the 1st).  How about the Urspruch?

[Amphissa]

 
Peter, I know what you are talking about -- I think. I'm not sure I can define it any better than you, but I understand what you mean -- I think.

The fact is, a lot of the "Monumental Symphonies" by "Great Composers" are achievements in music that only a few achieve. They are considered "Great Composers" for reasons. It is not just experts who say they are "Great." They are considered "Great" by almost everyone who hears them. And by "Monumental" I would personally not mean "monumental" in terms of length or size of orchestra, but "monumental" in the sense of "Here is a great symphony that becomes a standard that other composers must reach to be considered great composers themselves."

I could make a long list of monumental symphonies in that sense -- by composers who are accepted as the great composers. Brahms 1st for example (although many would choose Brahms 2nd or 3rd -- which is why he remains on the list of "great" composers) or Beethoven 5 (although some might prefer his 7th or 9th) or Bruckner 9 (although some might prefer 8 or 7) or ........

I love music by the unsungs, and I listen to it a lot. But I do listen to the "Great" composers as well. And when I listen to Rachmaninoff's 2nd or Mahler's 9th, I am reminded of the glorious achievements of our greatest composers.

I do not discover many "monumental" symphonies by unsungs, if we mean "monumental" as a symphony that stands as a monument to the achievements of a great composer, or even as a "monument" that stands as a single symphony the *equal* of the best of Brahms or Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, or Mahler.

The closest I come are these few:

Taneyev 4
Gliere 3
Myaskovsky 6

I notice that I list only Russian composers. Maybe that is because Russian composers are the ones I know best and love most. And perhaps the only reason they appear on my list is because I am "attuned" to Russian music. Those who are "attuned" to German music often do not seem to like Russian music as much as I do, and like German composers better than I do.

Okay, maybe I have embarrassed myself now with another off-target post.

[DennisS]

Hi Amphissa

Just a quick post to say that I echo your take on what constitutes a monumental symphony. I think you have put it very aptly. What caught my eye even more though, was your comment on Russian composers. I love a huge number of composers, including the great German/Austrian ones, but I have a particular empathy with all things Russian! I have a substantial collection of works by both sung and unsung Russian composers and would not be without them! You might have noticed that I have opened a number of threads on this forum re-Russian composers such as Khrennikov and Popov for example.

Reverting to the theme of this particular thread however, I would like to suggest a non-Russian monumental symphony and that is Bruckner's 8th symphony. At the last count, I had 8 different versions of the symphony and the Adagio in particular moves me deeply every time I listen to it!

cheers
Dennis

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Hang on! I sense all you fellows are about to start compiling lists - in fact, its already started. But I find Peter's question interesting, and yet we lack clear criteria for the application of 'monumental' to a symphony.

Strictly 'monumental' means 'pertaining to a monument'. And a monument in turn is a structure, edifice, construction (and no reason why a symphony could not be such a structure), designed or created with the intention that something (a person, an event, a happening or whatever) is remembered in perpetuity. In that sense Nelson's Column is a paradigm case of a monument.

Thus far the examples given are those of splendid symphonies - but they're not in the above sense 'monumental symphonies'. (Unless of course one wants to make maybe a little too much of Bruckner's naive mutterings about God).

I think answers to Peter's question could be really interesting if this sense of 'monument' was taken up. And why restrict it to symphonies? There are many, for example, symphonic poems or overtures composed with the express intention of causing someone or something to be remembered in perpetuity (including some rather naff 20th century Russian ones in celebration of dictators whom we might not now choose to celebrate!)

So how about some answers to Peter's question with the above sense in mind? And just to tease others some more, there's absolutely no reason why a monumental piece of music needs to be (crudely speaking) 'big', 'massive', 'long', 'scored for 120 plus' or whatever. So there's a challenge for people! I was about to dig into the memory and identify, for example, a piece of music for keyboard (and a short one) that could be said to be genuinely 'monumental'. But the eyelids droop, and I shall think about that with the head on the pillow!

Peter

[JimL]

Naw, you guys, it's gotta be LONG.  Schubert 9, Beethoven 3 & 9, Tchaikovsky 5, those are long.  If you take the Schubert 9th with all the repeats and get the tempo just right, you can get an hour out of it.  Same with Rufinatscha 6.  Beethoven 5 is great, but not 'monumental' in the way I define it.  And "all of Bruckner" doesn't qualify.  Bruckner 5, yes, Bruckner 6, no. 

[chill319]

Peter, when you use "monumental" to describe Tchaikovsky 5 and Schumann 2, is there some overlap with phrases like "larger than life" or "awe inspiring"? There is for me, anyway.

"Monumental haiku" may be a clear oxymoron, but I'm not sure stopwatches have much to do with my experience of monumental either. Beethoven's Pastorale is longer than his Fifth, but IMHO less monumental.

[mbhaub]

When I think of a monumental symphony it has to be awe inspiring, thrilling, epic. Long, yes to an extent. I think the Gliere 3rd is monumental, but the Taneyev 4th isn't -- it's kind of light weight by comparison. Monumental must have a certain gravitas and sense of the heroic. A battle fought and won. There are many well-known symphonies in that category. My favorite "monumental" symphony remains the Bloch Symphony in C# minor.

[JimL]

Now, epic is one thing, monumental another.  There are lots of epic symphonies.  The Beethoven 5 is certainly one.  Neither the 5th nor his 6th are monumental to me, however.  To qualify as monumental, to me, in any event, it's gotta be both epic and long.  Loooooooooooooooong.

[Marcus]

Hello Peter1953,
This is a topic with many qualifiers, and the depth of debate will confirm that.
But for me, if monumental = previously unknown masterpiece, I will nominate Mahler's symphony no10 in F sharp.
Although it probably doesn't qualify for "unsung" staus these days, it most certainly was a revelation when Deryck Cooke completed the first performing  version. I remember waiting months to recieve the LP from overseas,  in the early 70's, havibg read about the problems encountered by Cooke during the preceeding years. I have the Cooke,Barshai , Matthews & Wheeler versions, but the Wyn Morris recording of Deryck Cooke's version is the best.
If monumental = duration, this work at 74'05" (Cooke),78'59 (Wheeler), 77'26"(Matthews), & 74'06"" Barshai, certainly qualifies.
The second work which I nominate is the Elgar 3rd completed by Anthony Paine. A disc released by Naxos of Payne's sketches, is an enlightening insight into his skills at re-assembling this work. However the music is pure Elgar, and a worthy addition to the catalogue.
The fact that both of these works have numerous recording versions in the catalogue, is proof of their importance as "Unsung monumental symphonies" of the 20th century at least. The fact that both works are not the complete original work of the composers, is irrelevant, as both were acclaimed as important "discoveries"by critics  at the time, although their qualification as "unsung", must have decreased as  the sales increased. But whether they qualify for the topic of this debate, I will let others decide. Maybe I am thinking "outside the square"?
Marcus.

[Mark Thomas]

Peter can speak for himself, I'm sure, but it's clear from his post that he wasn't using "monumental" as a measure of length! Neither Tchaikovsky's Fifth nor Schumann's Second are particularly long. No, I took it to mean "awe-inspiring" or "a work of undeniable genius", a "monument" to art. That's why I find it difficult to answer his question: why do a very few works fall into this category and other admirable and greatly admired works from fine composers not?

I might nominate Brahms' First and Mahler's Second, but what on earth do those pieces have in common? The only thing which comes to mind immediately is that they are both "journey" symphonies, charting a course from negative to positive, concluding in a radiant, joy-filled finale. Is that it, for me at least? Is it just because of the finale, because of the huge rush of positive feelings with which I am left whenever I have listened to them?  There are lots of other works out there which use the same device yet, in my own pantheon, few reach the heights of these two.

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji Organ Symphony No.2.

Premier this year in Glasgow and Amsterdam (which i am going to attend).

Could be momumental, but a shortish 6.5 hours.

Thal

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Dear Chaps - Nope, I continue to insist something doesn't have to be huge, massive, long, colossal, immense, epic or whatever in order to count as 'monumental'.

Just been re-reading the bard's 'Othello'. In Act V Sc ii, when Othello enters Desdemona's bedchamber he at first hesitates in his purpose of murdering her and says:

"......Yet I'll not shed her blood / Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow / And smooth as monumental alabaster......"

Now in every production I've seen, of both Shakespeare's play and Verdi's opera, Desdemona has never been acted or sung by a Big Lady. If indeed the actress / singer were massive, huge, colossal, immense or whatever then I rather think the production might be somewhat risible.

Naw, this all too ready identification of the monumental with a thing of near unimaginable magnitude undoubtedly betrays a simplistic male way of thinking. Ahem. No reason at all why a very short piece of music could not be 'monumental'. Any candidates?

And to be quite off-thread twice in a single posting, Thal's reference to Sorabji is an interesting one. There are, of course, three organ symphonies. The first is a very short one by Sorabji standards: Kevin Bowyer's magisterial performance on Continuum occupies a mere two CD's! The second, which as Thal indicates, is scheduled for performance at Glasgow University starting at 1.00 on Sunday 6 June, is estimated to have a duration of over 6 hours. (On a previous occasion I believe Bowyer played just the last movement containing a 90+ minute fugue). The Sorabji Organ Project, generously funded by the university, continues to work on the Third symphony and this work is likely to be completed by 2013. All three symphonies taken together would amount to 16 hours of music. Bah, less than a brisk performance of The Ring!

Just for the sheer hell of it, I'm tempted to get myself to Glasgow. Two things mitigate against doing so. First, the university has unwisely declared that entry is free and without ticket. So what will they do if a monumental (sic) crowd turns up? Second, the last time I sat through the short First Symphony I ended up with monumental headache. The Second Symphony at three times the length would doubtless produce a kind of tripartite monumental headache. There is surely a kind of monumental daftness in such music? No-one can possibly hold a such a colossal structure in their heads, even a head with a monumental memory, such that one can emerge from it with anymore than confused impressions...and a monumentally sore behind?

Peter