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.