Unsung Monumental Symphonies

[wunderkind]

I would nominate the Fourth Symphony of Joly Braga Santos.  The final movement, alone, qualifies the work as "monumental."  It's one of the truly unsung symphonies of the 20th century.

[Alan Howe]

This topic is in danger of descending into a list of candidates for the description 'monumental symphony' without there being any real definition of what is meant by 'monumental'. A quick look in my well-thumbed dictionary suggests 'massive', 'vast', 'impressive ' - all very general words applicable to a larger number of symphonies. However, if we restrict ourselves to unsung works, there are far fewer general candidates...

Draeseke 3
Raff 1
Berger 2
Bloch C# minor
Glière 3
Rufinatscha 6
Lachner 5

So, perhaps if we stick to the unsung... 

[John Hudock]

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned Harvergal Brian's Sym #1 'Gothic'. If that doesn't count as monumental, I'm not sure what does. As a reminder of the forces involved, from the Havergal Brian Society (http://www.havergalbrian.org/):

Part one [1]:
2 piccolos (1 also flute), 3 flutes (1 also alto flute), 2 oboes,  oboe d'amore, cor anglais,  bass oboe, Eb clarinet, 2  Bb clarinets, basset horn, bass clarinet, 3 bassoons, contrabassoon, 6 horns, Eb cornet, 4 trumpets in F, bass trumpet, 3 tenor trombones, 2 tubas, 2 sets (min 3 drums) timpani, 2 harps, organ, celesta, min 8 percussion:  glockenspiel, xylophone, 2 bass drums, 3 side drums, tambourine, pair cymbals, gong, triangle;  strings [say 16.16.12.10.8]

Part two [1]:
Soprano, alto, tenor, bass soloists, large children's choir, 2 large mixed double choruses [in practice 4 large SATB choirs]
orchestra: 2 piccolos (1 also flute), 6 flutes (1 also alto flute), 6 oboes (1 also oboe d'amore, 1 also bass oboe), 2 cors anglais, 2 Eb clarinets (1 also Bb clarinet), 4  Bb clarinets, 2 basset horns, 2 bass clarinets, contrabass clarinet, 3 bassoons, 2 contrabassoons, 8 horns, 2 Eb cornets, 4 trumpets in F, bass trumpet, 3 tenor trombones, bass trombone, contrabass trombone, 2 euphoniums, 2 tubas, 2 sets (min 3 [in practice 4] drums) timpani, 2 harps, organ, celesta, min 18 percussion:  glockenspiel, xylophone, 2 bass drums, 3 side drums, long drum, 2 tambourines, 6 pairs cymbals, gong, thunder machine [not thunder sheet], tubular bells, chimes, chains, 2 triangles, birdscare;   strings (20.20.16.14.12)
4 off stage groups: each containing 2 horns, 2 trumpets, 2 tenor trombones, set (min 3 drums) of timpani
(in summary: 32 wind, 24 on stage brass, 24 off stage brass, 6 timpanists, 18 percussion, 4 keyboards and harps, 82 strings - total orchestra c190 players, plus adult choir of min 500 [assumes largely professionals], children's choir of 100, 4 soloists = c800)

It takes from 95-110 minutes to perform.

[Alan Howe]

Yes, the Gothic surely qualifies - although it's hardly unsung. Its monumental size is widely known. Underperformed, perhaps?

[John Hudock]

Yes, the Gothic surely qualifies - although it's hardly unsung. Its monumental size is widely known. Underperformed, perhaps?

It's underperformed because it's hard to get enough liquor to get that many musicians together in one place. 

[Alan Howe]

Well, obviously, yes. The point I was making was that its reputation is well established - its monumentality is hardly unkown. By comparison, great symphonies such as Draeseke 3 or Rufinatscha 6 are almost completely unsung.

[petershott@btinternet.com]

"This topic is in danger of descending into a list of candidates for the description 'monumental symphony' without there being any real definition of what is meant by 'monumental'." - Alan.

Yes, absolutely. See my previous postings for a reminder of what 'monumental' means!

Everyone seems to have hurtled off into producing lists of symphonies that are long in duration or scored for the great number of instrumentalists. That isn't the name of the game, as Alan recognises. But then I humbly suggest that even Alan isn't wholly focussed. He produces examples of symphonies that are "massive, vast, impressive" - but it doesn't follow from this that they should be called 'monumental'. There is more to 'monumentality' than just those three characteristics.

Peter

[John Hudock]

Well, obviously, yes. The point I was making was that its reputation is well established - its monumentality is hardly unkown. By comparison, great symphonies such as Draeseke 3 or Rufinatscha 6 are almost completely unsung.

I'm not so sure I agree it's not unsung. It may be well known by the members of this group, but none of the Brian symphonies gets much play. Until the Marco Polo/Naxos series there were not lots of recordings of Brian's symphonies. (and except for some additions by EMI and Lyrita there still aren't)  A pretty sophisticated friend (who mostly listens to jazz, but goes to a fair number of classical concerts in NY every year) was telling me about attending a recent performance of Mahler's 8th and I mentioned Brian's Gothic and he had never heard of the work or the composer.

I guess it depends on where you cutoff sung vs unsung, but Raff seems to be pretty much considered unsung from the posts on the forum but he is far better represented in the catalog than Brian (A quick Amazon search reveals 40 CDs for Brian, mostly the MP symphones and 167 for Raff. I grant that he's a better composer as well, but my point is that he is certainly not less well known to most of the public than Brian).

[thalbergmad]

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

I have never attended a concert of this magnitude, so it is going to be an experience for me. Whether or not it is going to be a pleasant one, I do not know, but an experience none the less.

I will definately be taking my own cushion, which i purchased after suffering from numbum syndrone after the Messiah at Rochester Cathedral.

Almost everything from Sorabji's pen is in the monumental bracket.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

If 'monumental' means 'massive, vast, impressive' perhaps we ought to be asking: how big is 'monumental'?

Actually, we did this thread before - under the much more suggestive title of 'big beasts'...

[Hofrat]

This discussion reminds me of the movie "Dead Poets' Society."  Literary works were measured or graded by a "Pritchard Scale" (IIRC) where some characteristic was put on the x-axis and another another characteristic on the y-axis.  The area created by the extention of the x and y values shows the "greatness" of the literary work.  In the movie the teacher said that this scale was excrement.

Are we not making a "Pritchard" graph to measure the "monumentalness" of a music work?  What parameters do we put on the x-axis and y-axis? 

I do not think there is way to measure monumentalness. 

[Gareth Vaughan]

This is a very interesting topic to which I hope to contribute, but I trust you will not be offended, Peter, if I correct your misuse of one word. It is an error frequently made and, to my sorrow, I have heard it perpetrated twice in the last 10 days on the BBC, of all places;
You wrote: "Two things mitigate against doing so."  This is an incorrect use of "mitigate". What you mean is: "Two things militate against doing so." To mitigate is to appease, moderate, reduce the severity of - as in "mitigating circumstances" when referring to a crime. To militate is to take part in warfare (against) something, generally used figuratively.
Sorry for the English lesson, but it's a mistake which is becoming all too frequent. Please forgive an old pedant!

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Thank you, Gareth! Of course you're right, and in my desire to check the exuberance of all those who think 'monumental' is simply synonymous with 'big' I was careless and sloppy. And, of course, no offence taken at all: criticism, especially when delivered in a courteous fashion, always makes one a better man. (Actually I'm rather grateful to you for....oops....I rather suspect I have been prone to using 'mitigate' incorrectly, and, what is more, in a legal context!!!!)

Tee hee, I suppose we're now both quite off-thread!

Peter

[Alan Howe]

As this thread has come down to a debate on the meaning of the word 'monumental', perhaps we'd better move on to something else...?

[Peter1953]

Many thanks for all your interesting, thoughtful posts. I will try to respond more properly over the weekend, but for now I only want to say that I'm convinced that what makes a symphony (or any other musical genre) 'monumental' is the melody, or better, the concatenation of striking themes that cause deep felt emotions. I don't think it has anything to do with the length of a work.
The creativeness of composers like Tchaikovsky to write melodies that grabs you by the throat, is unsurpassed. Listen to the opening theme of the 5th, how powerful, how captivating and touching. And then the main theme of the 2nd movement... almost an explosion of sadness. The development of the theme in the final movement is breathtaking. I have no words for what this music does to me, and I think to many others. Like Mark writes, it's difficult. Does this make the symphony monumental? I'll guess so. I'm looking for unsung symphonies which cause the same effect.