Nielsen 1

    So I think that Carl Nielsen might have the best symphonic batting average. Six symphonies, six winners (some might argue no. 6 isn't the best but I dig it). In some ways I consider him a culmination of the best features of both of the late Romantic schools of compositional thought. He has the accessibility of Brahms because of the clarity of ideas and formal aspects, but the adventurous nature of Bruckner in his orchestration. It is kind of like listening to Brahms if he learned how to take risks and what to do with the rest of the brass section beyond the horns. His harmonic ideas are also interesting as this G minor symphony starts off in C major as he writes pieces as a journey to the key rather than primarily in that key.

    Anyways, this is another situation where I'm gonna skip going over each movement because it would literally just be me gushing about every little aspect of the piece. He is easily in my top 5 symphonists, even though I didn't listen to his music until about a year and a half ago. In the future I'll plan this out more ahead of time and present some analysis (especially for the second, which is one of my favorites). In the mean time go listen to some Nielsen while I figure out what to listen to for post 50!

Hartmann 2

    Well this was a symphony that I initially started by thinking of it more favorably than his first, but I think in the end the first symphony might be stronger. While the orchestration and pacing is more polished in this symphony it feels like all the life was polished out of it at the same time. This piece is so subdued after the first movement that it just doesn't have the have the energy to carry itself to the finish line.

   Unlike the last symphony of his, where the last movement was strongest, the first here is probably the strongest, but that may only be by the virtue of the piece not having overstayed its welcome yet. The tempo was a bit rigid for my taste and the movement comes in at just under 15 minutes and it supports that, but only barely. I wrote in my notes that the movement seemed short "moments," and that problem carries through the symphony.

   The final 2 movements both have a pastorale quality to them, which is one of the interesting things about the work, since it replaces its scherzo with a pastorale movement. The finale in particular though starts off sounding like an extension of the third, and never really gives the sense of closure that is needed for a work of this scale.

Kayser 1

    I'd have to double check, but I think this might be the first one movement symphony I've done. Although I think that might be an artifact of the track listing because the piece separates itself in to 3 pretty convenient movements. So Leif Kayser seems like he might have an interesting backstory as apparently he gave up composing after having some early success to become a priest and later went back to composing.

    Looking back on my notes (the real problem with me letting these entries pile up), the only consistently positive thing I have listed in each section is the orchestration, which serves the ends of each section well, alternating between boisterous and adventurous to more pared down and austere. In particular on the latter point, the second movement is carefully crafted in its use of counterpoint between solo instruments. Other than that, I really liked the rhythmic language and dramatic structure of the piece. Melodically, not the strongest I've listened to though.

EDITS: Wow having to edit it this quickly to update my thoughts... I realized my notes weren't great and that I was a bit foggy on this so I relistened to some bits of it, and think I may have undersold it. My notes didn't remind me well enough just how interesting the orchestration is, and I think the recording I listened to initially may have not been the best because Aarhus Symphony Orchestra recording is pretty damn engaging. Also, it totally is in 3 movements and the first recording I had just lazily didn't put track breaks in. If I weren't already behind I just would've rewritten this all but oh well. I'll keep this here as a reminder of what a crappy notetaker I am.

Holmboe - Chamber Symphony No. 1

   This work is one of the finer examples of mid-20th century writing that I can think of. Often this era leaves me a little cold, but this piece has an energy and consistency of language that kept me engaged throughout.

    Apparently built on a system of motivic and thematic metamorphosis derived from Sibelius, the internal logic of the piece is airtight. I never felt lost while listening to the piece, instead I was carried away by the at times tense and other times nervous energy. I also liked that Vagn Holmboe didn't feel the need to use complex harmony all the time and allows the harmonic language to simplify when it serves the piece. The piece also comes to a satisfying conclusion in the finale, which feels like it wraps up the themes of the previous movements.

    Another winner!

Bendix No.2 "Sommerklange fra Sydrusland"

    Ok, I really need to keep myself to some sort of schedule, so I don't end up with this kind of backlog of entries to write. So todays entry, Victor Bendix No. 2 - "Summer Sounds from South Russia", deserves more written about it than I'm going to give it.

    The opening sets up high expectations for the piece. The melodic and harmonic language are consistently interesting and memorable. Bendix's scoring in particular is worth checking out. It is delicate and meticulous, and although the language is very chromatic late Romantic, he shows much more restraint than is generally associated with that. In fact, the subtlety of all the elements is wonderful. The sections of each movement blend in to each other masterfully. The rhythmic language is at times complex, but still natural sounding.

    This is a piece that I might try and find more information on, curious if it is based on specific folk songs (which I could see) or if it is just programmatic. In the mean time I'll just pull it out and listen to it when I want something that owns subtlety in the way that other composers of the era owned grandeur.

CEF Weyse 7

    Well Christoph Ernst Friedrich Weyse is one of the earliest Danish composers I found and this symphony was the first track on the album of his key masterpieces, so sure. Overall, I found the symphony to be a little too imitative of Mozart and Haydn, and not their best works either. The piece overall is mostly solid, although the second movement drags on too long for my taste. The finale is probably the most solid of the movements, as the main theme of the rondo is the strongest in the symphony.

     Wish I had more to say, but it is kind of exactly what you'd expect from a Classical symphony, and the themes generally aren't strong enough to carry it without something else adventurous. Another piece of fine background music I suppose.

JPE Hartmann 1

    Well I've decided on doing Danish composers this week, because why not. Themes help me pick out symphonies and I have a hankerin' to listen to some Nielsen later this week so let's go! We're gonna get started with a couple early figures in Danish music with this and the next entry. I think I'm going to listen Johann Peter Emilius Hartmann's second symphony later this week as well, because the first was written in 1836 and the second in 1880, so it'll be interesting to see how his music might evolve between the two. As it stands this symphony seems kind of reminiscent of Mendelssohn to me, but not to the point where it sounds like mere imitation.

    The themes throughout the symphony are clear and approachable and the main driver of the symphony and they also potentially have a light folk influence to them, especially in the last movement. The orchestration is very solid throughout, and I in particular like his willingness to really pare down the forces and allow solos to carry important parts. The first movement opens with a solo clarinet and uses it again to signal the ending. These little intimate moments break up what can sometimes feel a little longwinded in the outer movements. 

    I feel the inner movements are stronger here, although I do like the upbeat finale theme. I found it odd at first that the third movement was a Minuet instead of a Scherzo, but it fits the lighter tone of the symphony well. The second movement has some nice chordal progressions and has an interesting climax. I was really hoping for a clarinet solo in the last movement though because the first three all have important exposed clarinet parts, and wanted to make that connection, but no go.

   So overall I guess I'm lukewarm on this symphony? There were things I liked, but it just felt like it wasn't saying very much.

Brian 23

    Also quite brevis, only lasting around 14 minutes. I'll skip the Havergal Brian intro since it is in the previous entry. Both this and Brian 22 have a somewhat militaristic tone to them at times, especially at the beginning of the first movement of 23 with its use of brass and percussion. After the aggressive opening of the first movement it transforms in to a delicate section of woodwinds with absolutely fascinating orchestration. Around here I realized that I think I like Brian because I also have a short attention span when developing ideas. The melodies in this movement are not very strong but the development of motific ideas and use of harmonic complexity drive the arc of the piece.

    The second movement has a darkly triumphant feel at the opening. This movement feels like it is almost its own little microcosm of a symphony. It has a boisterous opening, followed by a simpler section, which leads in to a comic section, and ends big again. The end of the movement in particular has a lot going on and is very daunting sounding.

    Now to figure out the theme for this week, and actually get caught up.

Brian 22 - "Symphonia Brevis"

    Well clearly this whole writing an entry every day business has gone and failed hard. So in an effort to catch back up this entry and the next entry will be on a composer I find kind of interesting, Havergal Brian. He was a prolific symphony writer in the 20th century and most of his writing was done in his seventies to nineties. Also peculiar is that his first symphony, the Gothic, is a MASSIVE nearly two hour long work (which I will get to someday, but it is exhausting listening to it), but many of his later symphonies are very succinct.

    This is a very distilled symphony due to its brief two movement form. That doesn't prevent Brian from going through a large variety of ideas in each movement though, it just means that the results are turbulent and can shift to completely different affects on a whim. The counterpoint can be quite complex at times in both movements, and there is an uncomfortable energy permeating the first. There are periods of stillness and relative harmonic simplicity that are suddenly punctuated by grotesque dissonances, especially in the second movement, which is marked as a march. The end of the first movement ends suddenly, while the second ends in an almost comically obvious yet still unusual 5-6-7-8 in the melodic voice.

    Shorter Version: There is definitely enough of interest in here to spend the whole less than 10 minutes it takes to listen to it.

Cliffe 1

    Ok so here is another great symphony, that I can only assume isn't standard repertoire because the composer wasn't very prolific. Frederic Cliffe was an English composer who studied with Arthur Sullivan and only wrote a handful of orchestral pieces between 1889 and 1905. And I now need to find recordings of the rest of this cause this symphony was freakin great.

    The biggest thing that this symphony did for me that I've been missing lately is that it has the gravitas to support itself. The dramatic arc of each movement is great, and has the big moments that justify a structure of this size. The piece isn't programmatic, but the music is very evocative. It would be easy to create a narrative for what is happening in the music. The orchestration, especially the doublings, are inventive but still solid. The brass writing is also spectacular. Switching the scherzo to movement two also works in the favor for the pacing of the work and keeps the two longest movements from being against each other. It is kind of a shame this piece isn't standard and that Cliffe didn't write more... and that more of it isn't recorded.

    The outer movements are some of the best examples of late symphonic writing in the Wagnerian camp that I've heard. I particularly like the composers attention to orchestrational detail and layers. Underneath the surface there are a lot of little things of note going on. The finale even has a bit of the appeal some of the best of Dvorak's symphonies.

    As mentioned the scherzo is the second movement in this symphony and is presented in a lilting three throughout with the feel of some kind of grand dance. The orchestration in the only slightly slower contrasting section imitates an organ at spots. I would actually really like to see the score for both of the middle movements because these have the most interesting orchestration and doublings to me. The third movement, which is marked as a Ballade, may have some of my favorite moments in it, which is good because I was prepared for the worst when I saw an almost 16 minute long late Romantic slow movement. Usually that means you're in for a somewhat bloated, dismal slow movement, but the pastoral quality and forward momentum really carry this.

   This is another one that you must check out.

Stanford 2 - "Elegiac"

    And now to get caught back up a couple of Romantic British Isles composers... damn, with some more forethought I could have made this British week or something at this rate. Anyways, the first one is Charles Villiers Stanford, another Irish composer. This second symphony makes me want to listen to more Stanford, but probably not this one again.

    This symphony is an example of one that has a lot of things I like about it, but it just doesn't work for me. The dramatic arc of the piece just doesn't feel right to me. Which is a kind of subjective an hard to pin down thing, but I'll point out some things I noticed in each movement.

    The orchestration is pretty solid, but nothing really grabbed me throughout the first movement. There was a climax before the recap of that was very striking with its use of dramatic pauses, but it felt somewhat out of place. Despite the second movement being pretty active and having a lot of qualities I like, it just leaves me cold. Maybe the melodies are not strong enough to keep me engaged.

    The third movement opens with what must be a nerve-wracking horn solo, but the real nice moment here is the very end which ends with a sudden shift to a brass chorale. Although I am biased towards scherzos, I would call this the strongest movement again. The final movement has the same issues as the first, the themes are kind of weak and the structure just doesn't have the memorable moments needed to carry a piece of this scope.

    But that's all fine because the next entry is on something great.

Clementi D major Op.18, No. 2

    This has similar problems to the Sammartini from a couple posts ago. This symphony by Muzio Clementi (of the first sonatinas I think every pianist learns fame) seems more concerned with craft than anything and seems to just follow the outline of the symphony slavishly. This is of course without doing an analysis of the piece, which I need to get around to sometime. So this will be another situation of talking over any interesting points from my notes and not looking too deeply like the Sullivan symphony.

    The slow opening of the first movement feels kind of clunky to me, in particular its transition to the allegro. Rather than building up and leading in to the allegro, the introduction resolves and then there is a short pause before picking up again. It is moments like this that make me feel like the the piece is a little uninspired sounding. The slow movement is probably my favorite although I do like the minor theme from the minuet. The final movement has some interesting use of pedal tones, but otherwise is a little dull as well.

    Be back later to keep catching up.

Sullivan - Symphony in E minor - "Irish"

    Yes, Arthur Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan. As far as I know, this is his only symphony and is title the "Irish", in the same way the Mendelssohn's 3rd is the Scottish. The ideas for the piece were generated while he was on vacation there. Overall, the vibe is early-mid Romantic, and kind of sounds like an amalgamation of Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn with a couple exceptions that I'll talk about briefly. Mostly, though, the piece just sounds like an imitation of other symphonies at the time, without a lot of Sullivan's personal style in it.

    So the exceptions... the outer movements have a heavy reliance of dotted rhythms, and are probably the closest to demonstrating the style that Sullivan is known for. The second movement's main theme is curiously presented in octave horn and alto trombone (yes I read that somewhere... can't pick out an alto trombone out of a crowd). The third movement feels the most genuine, with an almost pastoral quality and an excellent use of oboe solo. Also odd is that I wouldn't have assumed this was a British symphony until the last two movements.

    Other than the third movement I would probably just suggest a Schubert or Mendelssohn symphony to someone. To be fair, probably Schubert, as I'm not the biggest Mendelssohn fan.

Sammartini 5 in Bb Major

   Ok this is going to be a really short entry, which is fitting as this symphony by Giovanni Sammartini is not particularly long. But also because I realize that maybe I don't have the knowledge baseline needed to make educated commentary on earlier symphonies. Like, the piece seems solidly constructed enough, but it vanishes from my mind seconds after hearing it. I love craft as much as the next guy, maybe more, but for anything other than background music I'm not sure I would really suggest this. I can't even comment on the orchestration, since it is just strings and harpsichord throughout. Though to be fair this is an early symphony of Sammartini so maybe I should try and listen to something later by him.

Goldmark 2

    Ok... way behind on my posts so here goes a big ol dump of 5 of them. First off is Karl Goldmark's second symphony. He was a late Romantic Hungarian composer and you can definitely hear the influences of the Wagnerian school of thought in his composition although apparently the two composers had issues with each other (go figure, Wagner having and issue with a composer named Goldmark).

    I would overall say that the symphony fits in the vein of the Wagnerian school, but perhaps a little less excessive than Bruckner or Wagner. It has the complex use of forms, emphasis on motives over themes (to a degree), highly contrapuntal development of ideas (although that is more generally Germanic), and extremely dramatic high and low points. The first movement is an exemplar of these traits and even has a bit of the Brucknerian tendency to pause briefly between dramatic shifts in the tone of the music. Of note to me were the fugal development (which seems a bit odd in the first movement of a symphony), and the climactic section about 8 minutes in to the movement.

    The slow movement is pretty standard fare for this era, but not nearly as long or excessive as many symphonies at the time, which I think works in its favor. I often find myself getting lost in the excessive slow movements of the late Romantic, and they also seem to be the most homogenous movements in terms of timbre which does them no favors.

    The scherzo movements on the other hand, tend to be more short lived than I like, although in the proportions of this symphony, it seems about right. I really enjoyed this movement. The opening movement is a delicate interplay of phrases between the woodwind and string choirs. This movement really struck me though with the contrasting theme which is chorale-like with a trumpet solo, which almost reminded me more of British music than German.

    The last movement opens with a slow section, but quickly works in to an Allegro Alla Breve that is a great display of technical prowess. In a good way... that isn't always the case. The brass sit a lot of this movement out or in the background, only coming to the foreground to signal the end. This movement has swirling chromatic gestures peppered throughout it as well.

    Overall, I think I'll keep this in the back of my mind for when I'm in the mood for something late Romantic, but don't have an hour to listen to one. It seems like a solid B+ kind of piece to me. I still prefer Bruckner, but this symphony also has it's place.

Smith - Symphony in A minor

Rec.:London Mozart Players

    This is a symphony I was thinking of doing for the week of symphonies by women composers, so I'm doing it now, because I clearly didn't get to it then. Alice Mary Smith was an English composer in the mid-1800's and wrote a couple symphonies, in addition to many other works. This work doesn't have the tonally ambiguous nature or overly dramatic tones of the Romantic, but it rather seems like an extension and refinement of Classical music.

    The clarity of the themes is one thing that strikes me as Classical in nature with this symphony. They are almost always the foreground and unobscured. In many hands this would get dull rather quickly, but her orchestration, while conventional, is very skillful and precise, which keeps the straightforward presentation of ideas from getting dull. That might actually be a good description of the work overall, mediocre ideas saved by excellent craftwork (not kraftwerk, though). And I do appreciate some good craft displayed in addition to artistry.

    This is another one of those symphonies that remind us not to draw stylistic lines in the sand with respect to date. I feel like we tell a narrative in the Romantic era about how complexity builds up until Brahms decided to look back to the simplicity of the Classical era to inform his music, but the more I listen to composers that are off the beaten path, it seems like that tradition never really died during the Romantic. We all just love Beethoven so much that we are more concerned with the development of music in his footsteps, but it seems like plenty of composers were happy to keep developing in a more conservative style during this era as well and that their music is equally interesting. Well maybe not to Beethoven's... that guys music is legit I hear, but certainly to some other Romantics. I'd rather listen to this again than Schubert 1 again.

Wanhal - Sinfonie in G minor

Rec.:Camerata Zürich

    Hmm... I'm gonna have to stretch to find something meaningful to say about this one. That is not an indication of quality, but that it fits the mold of a Classical symphony almost too well, and there aren't any rough edges or unusual features to really point out. Each movement is about what you'd expect out of a run of the mill Classical symphony. It is firmly what I'd consider background music, but I may want to check Johann Baptist Wanhal more because it seems like he was a pretty major figure at the time, and especially in Czech Classical music (really? I really need to stop gravitating to Czech composers so often).

    Anyways though, I'm gonna skip the movement by movement yet again, because the symphony just kind of vanished from my head when I was done. I mean, the themes were good, the scoring and orchestration were good, everything was good, but there was no real drama to the piece. It didn't seem to tell a story to me (no, I don't mean that in the programmatic sense), the movements just kind of start and then stop after fulfilling the requirements of that movement. But again, if you are looking for good study music, it might be ok? I find that the kind of middle of the road Classical music is best for that because you aren't constantly distracted by inspired moments in the piece.

Mozart - Cassation in G Major

Rec.:Toronto Chamber Orchestra

    And now for something that really catches the spirit of April Fool's Day. It is both fun and stupid. Wait you say that title isn't for a symphony. Well, this is more commonly known as the Toy Symphony by (maybe?) Leopold Mozart. This is definitely a piece to only listen to once in a long while. While the various bird calls and percussive effects are interesting to listen to because of how out of place they sound among the traditional Classical music, it wears thin pretty quick because they are used kind of blandly and repetitively. The percussion effects are particularly awkward.

    Other than that the symphony is a pretty standard 3 movement affair, although the drone in the last movement is an interesting musical idea, when present. But clearly, this piece wasn't composed to be the most stunning piece of serious music, and was probably meant to entertain children, so that does forgive some of the plain presentation.

    Anyways, it is a fun novelty to check out, but not much more beyond that.

Gossec - Symphonie à 17 parties en fa majeur

Rec.:Concerto Köln

     Checking the dates on Francois-Joseph Gossec I find it interesting that it was written in 1809 by a composer who did most of his symphonic writing in the 1760's and 1770's. This is because this sounds like a Baroque work in many ways that is just adopting the structure of a Classical work. What is even weirder are hearing little flashes of Romanticism in spots. Probably because this guy was born in 1734 and lived to be 95! Probably making him a unique example of a composer who wrote in three pretty distinct eras.

    That is also what I would say is the most compelling case for checking this symphony out. It is crazy to think that this was written AFTER Beethoven 1. I can't think of anything else I've heard like this and I actually quite enjoy it. It has the building intensity of Baroque sequencing practice, with the clarity of Classical melodies, and the orchestration sense and dramatic moments of an early Romantic work (minus the harpsichord, but again that is what makes this great).

    I'm going to skip the movement by movement break down here because the above describes each movement well. Each movement serves the purpose you expect out of a symphony at the time, although I find it odd that the minuet is the longest movement. Another one to definitely listen to. Oh, I also picked this because I like the idea of 17 parties, especially in F major.