Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
Mon, May 30 2011, 9:35PM
#2
RE: Who were the great
... if the question had been about the greatest 19th-century symphonists, I would unhesitatingly have included Brahms, even though I don't really much care for his music.
Why? (To both parts of that last sentence.)
Well, I know the Brahms symphonies pretty well, own full scores as well as several recordings, and would judge that they were among the finest works of the second half of the 19th century. Why don't I much like them? Not really my period, that's all: the 15th and 16th centuries are where I really belong.
That's hardly fair on Hovhaness, is it? What if someone had only heard Beethoven's First & Second? Or his Fourth & Eighth? Or only his Ninth, come to that? And if they'd only heard Schubert's Eighth & Ninth, they might well say that Schubert was the greater symphonist.
No, I don't think it's unfair to Hovhaness not to include him among the last century's greatest symphonists. As far as Beethoven goes, don't forget that Elgar first understood the power of orchestral music through reading the score of Beethoven's 1st. And some people who know all of both Beethoven's and Schubert's symphonies might still say that Schubert is the greater. Why should one have to choose?
DF
Tue, May 31 2011, 10:01AM
#3
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
I'm surprised and disappointed that no one mentioned Nikolay Myaskovsky-to me the giant of Soviet symphonists. Others worth mentoring include Tubin, Skulte, Melartin, Shebalin Boris Tchaikovsky, Eshpai, Lyatoshynsky, Weinberg, and of course Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Another commentator mentioned the Americans, and rightly so, though I would add William Grant Still to the discussion (and Antheil for that matter). Atterberg is also worth mentioning, although he is not poor man's Sibelius as troyen1 puts it (he's a much more stronger personality than that I found). As for Nielsen, indeed a great Dane.
You may have missed my mentioning of Miaskovsky and questioning as to whether he can be termed 'Great.'
I've only heard of a couple of the other composers that you mention and have only heard one, Tubin. Oh dear.
Has anyone considered Langaard? Wise not too.
However, I enjoy Hovhaness to the extent that he is great, in my ears, anyway. He is my favourite N. American symphonist.
It is five years since I last heard a symphony by Atterberg and time that I re-visited.
Wed, Jun 1 2011, 2:59AM
#4
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
Perhaps there are no 20th-century symphonists as undisputedly great as Beethoven, but that doesn't mean there aren't any that most serious listeners would rank higher than others, without necessarily having to hear every note of symphonic music written in the last century. I've only ever heard one or two of Hovhaness's many symphonies, but I don't think I need to hear all the rest in order to decide whether he's in the front rank or not.
That's hardly fair on Hovhaness, is it? What if someone had only heard Beethoven's First & Second? Or his Fourth & Eighth? Or only his Ninth, come to that? And if they'd only heard Schubert's Eighth & Ninth, they might well say that Schubert was the greater symphonist.
No, I don't think it's unfair to Hovhaness not to include him among the last century's greatest symphonists...
I’m in an agreement with Wigmaker in that it’s unfair to completely dismiss the importance of a composer after only listening to one or two of the composer’s works. I experienced this with Shostakovich’s works. People were always telling me how great his 1st, 5th, and 7th symphonies are, but I didn’t like any of them. For me, it was a bad first impression of Shostakovich. It wasn’t until I listened to his 15th symphony that I realized what Shostakovich was truly capable of. I don’t have a problem with anyone dismissing any composer, but to so without first exploring a good amount of that composer’s work would seem like a mistake.
Wed, Jun 1 2011, 8:43PM
#5
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
To be fair (to me) I never said I'd only listened to one or two of Hovhaness's works - I specifically mentioned symphonies. Also, I didn't intend to dismiss him - given that another of my areas of particular interest is north Indian classical music, I am fascinated by his own interest in this genre and its influence on his work. But I stand by my judgment that he isn't to be included among the last century's most significant symphonists - by which I meant, if I may be allowed to use Partsong's hypothetical volume The Symphony in the 20th Century, that I wouldn't expect Hovhaness to command the same attention in such a work as did Mahler, Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky or Shostakovich. (Nor would I expect the same coverage to be given to Rosenberg, Tubin or Brian, all of whom I love unreservedly.)
DF
Wed, Jun 8 2011, 7:41AM
#6
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
I would say: Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Schuman, Satie, Sibelius.
I think it will be very interesting to see who "averages" on most lists.
and for classical music and concert tickets check eventim.
Thu, Jun 2 2011, 8:29PM
#7
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
Must admit I'm a bit puzzled by mention of Stravinsky and Satie in this context. High on the list of 20th Century musicians? Perhaps, certainly arguable. But I've never thought of either as a symphonist.
It's valid to insist you can't judge a musician on a handful of works, and we'd all differ on our entry points. But I need help on Hovhaness. Like DaveF, the bits I've touched on don't lay claim to greatness, nor do they inspire me to explore the whole canon - what's he up to now in terms of symphonies, 60-something? Can anybody point me in the right direction?
Thu, Jun 2 2011, 9:32PM
#8
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
This thread just gets better and better! What makes a symphonist, indeed? Stravinsky wrote 5 "symphonies" - perhaps the Symphonies of Wind Instruments isn't actually a symphony, but three of the others (Psalms, Three Movements, C) are among his finest works... yet I share some of Taglie's unease in actually calling him a symphonist.
And I'm keeping more-or-less quiet about Hovhaness - although no.2, Mysterious Mountain, seems to have been recorded several times, and was actually premiered by Stokowski. Amazon.com claims it as his greatest.
DF
Fri, Jun 3 2011, 12:32AM
#9
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
but three of the others (Psalms, Three Movements, C) are among his finest
Three great works, and the Symphony in C has that kind of overall, classical symphony structure. But I think if we start looking at all the parameters that add up to what we traditonally call a symphony, they creak a bit. The same could be said of Prokofiev, at least as far as symphonies 2, 3, 4 and perhaps 7 are concerned. Which doesn't necessarily lessen their claims to be great music and I can't get enough of the material he used for 3, whether in Fiery Angel or symphonic format.
You're right, an interesting thread topic. Go for it!
Sat, Jun 4 2011, 5:01AM
#10
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/sites/gramophone.co.uk/themes/gramophone_zen...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #d5dee6; background-position: 50% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">
troyen1 wrote "It is five years since I last heard a symphony by Atterberg and time that I re-visited." When you do, try out his Second Symphony first, for this music is of a very high order (full of nobility and ingenuity, with superb and imaginative orchestration). Then I would go onto his First, Third, & Fourth (and just take it from there). Ari Rasilainen's CPO set is one of the excellent sets currently available in the market (with the recording sound consistently first class). Sorry for overlooking your mentioning of Myaskovsky. That said, he is a great symphonist. Please sample first his 5th, 6th, 13th, 16th, 25th, and 27th symphonies & I think you'll see what I mean.
Enjoy (hopefully).
Dave.
Sat, Jun 4 2011, 3:20PM
#11
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/sites/gramophone.co.uk/themes/gramophone_zen...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #d5dee6; background-position: 50% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat repeat; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">
troyen1 wrote "It is five years since I last heard a symphony by Atterberg and time that I re-visited." When you do, try out his Second Symphony first, for this music is of a very high order (full of nobility and ingenuity, with superb and imaginative orchestration). Then I would go onto his First, Third, & Fourth (and just take it from there). Ari Rasilainen's CPO set is one of the excellent sets currently available in the market (with the recording sound consistently first class). Sorry for overlooking your mentioning of Myaskovsky. That said, he is a great symphonist. Please sample first his 5th, 6th, 13th, 16th, 25th, and 27th symphonies & I think you'll see what I mean.
Enjoy (hopefully).
Dave.
I'm ahead of you as I have both the CPO set and Svetlanov's complete Miaskovsky, not just the symphonies.
As I remember Atterberg's 3rd had a 'big' Sibelian - type tune but I might be wrong.
Favourite Miaskovsky, outside of the later symphonies (25 and 27 particularly), is the 3rd.
It's not that I'm a completist but when I hear something I like I want more so I have complete Arnold, Bax, Simpson, Magnard, Honegger, Hartmann, Bantock and Schmidt as well as the usual suspects
Sat, Jun 4 2011, 3:24PM
#12
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
And I'm keeping more-or-less quiet about Hovhaness - although no.2, Mysterious Mountain, seems to have been recorded several times, and was actually premiered by Stokowski. Amazon.com claims it as his greatest.
DF
That's good but I would recommend No. 22 "City of Light." Naxos, not much of a price to pay if you do not like it.
Sun, Jun 5 2011, 4:58PM
#13
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
This morning down at a Sunday morning market, I found an LP of Roger Goeb´s Third Symphony. Has anybody ever heard this work, and if so could you give me any pointers?
Sun, Jun 5 2011, 6:44PM
#14
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
... an LP of Roger Goeb´s Third Symphony...
Also premiered by Stokowski! I see it's on Spotify, so I'll have a listen later. The Grove article on Goeb says that he "composed directly for instruments, rather than merely orchestrating" - not too unusual, I'd have thought, but one hopes for the freshness of a Berlioz or a Nielsen after reading that. I'm looking forward to it - at 24' it's unlikely to outstay its welcome.
DF
Sun, Jun 5 2011, 8:58PM
#15
RE: Who were the great twentieth century symphonists?
Re Goeb's 3rd - right, listened to it now, which took longer than the 24' length because I enjoyed it so much that the 1st and 2nd movements had to be encored. If I say it's "what you expect" from its provenance and period, that's in no way to disparage it - it has all those "American" qualities of spaciousness, clarity (yes, he's a very good orchestrator) and vigour. Somewhere not too far away are Copland's 3rd and Stravinsky in 3 movements. However, the really extraordinary parallel for me, especially in the 1st movement, was with Tippett's 2nd (which it predates by 7 years), to the extent that I wondered whether Sir Michael knew Stokowski's 1952 recording. The resemblance between the loud, hammering 1st subjects and calmer, repetitive, woodwind-led 2nd is almost too close to be coincidental. The 2nd movement is impressive too - both here and in the 1st, Goeb has a trick of introducting an idea which sounds like no more than a bit of orchestral wizardry yet develops into something substantial. I was especially struck in this regard by the weird ostinatos that begin shortly after 3' in the slow movement and form the central episode. The finale impressed me less, teetering perilously close to Bernstein's America for a lot of the time (although of course it pre-dates that too), but still makes a merry noise (especially with Stokowski in charge). So thanks, Dubrob, for the intro to a complete unknown for me. I shall be looking out for him, although there doesn't seem to be anything in the catalogue at the moment - even the Naxos Historical issue of the Stokowski is deleted.
DF
First of all, thanks to Chris and Dave for defending their opinions and the validity of this thread.
Dear Wigmaker,
Ok I actually take your point about the use of words like 'great' and 'symphonist'. However, if we object to those words then we ought to be careful that we are not hoist with our own petard.
You yourself used the word 'classical' in the line beforehand. What does 'classical' mean? I have never really felt comfortable with the term, because to me, 'classical' means, strictly speaking, from the classical period. So what else do we call it? 'Serious' music, 'Art Music' (gaining some ground)?'Proper Music'?
Mozart called the Stamitz family 'a family of wretched scribblers' Funny, yes, but contemptuous. With the passage of time he was probably right - I would think that only a classical period enthusiast would listen to Stamitz and sons. Yet ultimately his opinion.
I also do not like the term 'classical' because if I pop into somewhere like HMV to order a CD and say, to some student behind the counter, 'I'd like to order a CD please by Gavin Bryars. He's a classical composer', I feel uncomfortable not just with the word 'classical' but also because I feel I am having to 'apologize' for ordering that genre of music.
We all have our own thoughts about terms used.
However, if I had worded the topic 'most notable symphonists', most 'widely regarded symphonists', most 'significant symphonists', then you or others might still have objected to the wording.
There is subjective opinion, yes. Of course there is. I recently discovered that there are completely different editorial interpretations of the shakes, trills and mordants used in Bach's two-part inventions between the AB edition and the Urtext edition of the same text. How is that possible? Presumably the editors must have some knowledge of the music in order to be editors, yet there are completely different suggestions as to the way those ornaments are to be played.
Presumably any decent conductor would start by comparing different editions of the same score in order to arrive at 'their' take on it.
If a reviewer remarks that the playing on this CD by such and such an orchestra is superb - is that not also subjective opinion?
The editors themselves have recently invited a general fisticuffs on Mahler - a contested composer - and the results so far have been surprisingly tame!
So there is subjective opinion. There is though something called consensus of opinion. My agenda in posting the question was to find out if there is such a consensus of opinion as to who the most important 20th Century Symphonists were. That is a perfectly reasonable topic for debate.
My own view- we are not far enough removed from the 20th Century yet to acknowledge who the symphonic greats were, after taking on board what people have said in reply. There is some consensus of opinion and some conflicting opinion.
Has anyone written a study called 'The Symphony in the 20th Century'? What would we call such a book - would we call it 'authoritative' 'wide-ranging' 'superb' 'A forerunner'? One thing is for sure, such a study would call for a great deal of research.
Perhaps you might like to get involved on the 'subjectivity versus objectivity' thread which has been posted very recently on the 'general discussion' part of the site.
Regards
Partsong