The Symphony after 1945

[Caliban]

Did anyone hear Saturday’s Music Matters show? I taped it and listened to it on Monday night as it’s a subject I’m really interested in.

I am in the process of listening to it (thanks to the podcast) in small sections.

For me, the most thought-provoking point so far (apart from the various definitions of what a "symphony" is) was the comment about how indirectly, the rise to power of the Nazis, and the resulting murder or dispora of musicians, played a big role in snuffing out the great German symphonic tradition. The reference to Weill for example, who started down the symphonic track but then left and switched to other modes of expression...

Any thoughts here about that aspect, from 3VS and others?

[jayne lee wilson]

Tippett's 3rd Symphony is one of his boldest, most original creations, tightly unified motivically but embracing an extraordinary range of contrasting moods, emotions, orchestral colours and musical styles. It sets the elemental forces, both human energy and natural phenomena, of part one against the evocations of urban, totally human passions and conflict - at times inhuman as only humans can be - of part two. His quotation and subsequent distortion of Beethoven's Ode to Joy couldn't be clearer in addressing the problem of what we have lost - that universal aspiration to a sisterhood and brotherhood of humankind, the cry of joy which has become impossible for an artist to express with anything approaching the same power and conviction. In 2011, we are still further away from such possibilities than in 1972, but is there a composer alive now who could address these issues so directly in a convincing, large-scale symphonic structure?

The blues numbers themselves have many memorable and vivid musical ideas and images, those wildly gurgling winds in the fast blues, the sliding, sidestepping bass line in the last one, but it's here that I find the one "embarrassing" feature of the work - the lyrics! I don't envy the soprano who has to sing the second number; maybe we should blame TS Eliot for encouraging Tippett to write his own (for Child of Our Time)... I would add too that a true Big Band would give a much better account of the blues numbers than the LSO or the BSO manage (for all their other glories). Might cost a bit to mount it though...

For me, the blues works in context as the greatest possible contrast with part one, the endlessly inventive contrapuntal textures now followed by tunes and accompaniments, popular song. Thereafter the many threads of the work are drawn together in a coda of great dramatic force (and with better, more direct lyrics), but one which inevitably arrives at no musical or emotional answer to the Great Questions that have been asked.

Listening to the work now one is struck by how fresh and how challenging it still is to both ear and heart; I can well imagine the shocked or dismissive reaction it might get now, from audience and reviewers, in a world where forgettable accessibility is the norm for premieres, and music of true integrity and complexity like Ferneyhough or Dillon tends to be ghettoised into late night broadcasts from scattered festivals...

The Tippett dares to be both direct in its message and almost shockingly bold and original in its means.

Oh, so there's a committee now, is there? I was only responding to your comments, not those of a committee! Anyway, to be honest, it's not so much that I can't bring myself to accept that work as a symphony at all but that I can't bring myself to accept it as a Tippett symphony, given how awful, clunky, pseudo-trendy and at times embarrassingly point-proving a work it seems to be and given on the other hand how fine Tippett's other three symphonies are. Sorry and all that, but I suppose it's now back to that committee...

[jayne lee wilson]

Caliban, this is definitely the moment to consider Karl Amadeus Hartmann's Symphonies, which are a deeply eloquent response to this very problem...(only the 1st of his 8 pre-dates WW2)...
But it's very late so I hope someone can pick up the thread tomorrow... very busy day for me but - I'll be back.

I am in the process of listening to it (thanks to the podcast) in small sections.

For me, the most thought-provoking point so far (apart from the various definitions of what a "symphony" is) was the comment about how indirectly, the rise to power of the Nazis, and the resulting murder or dispora of musicians, played a big role in snuffing out the great German symphonic tradition. The reference to Weill for example, who started down the symphonic track but then left and switched to other modes of expression...

Any thoughts here about that aspect, from 3VS and others?

[Panjandrum]

I know that very well, thank you! What you seem (or preferred) not to have noticed is that I specifically stated that it was NOT a misprint!

No, I had noticed; and that is why I suggested that sic was the correct terminology for ensuring that the reader realised that there was no misprint, and what was written was intentional. Perhaps I should have made it clearer; when I wrote "apparent" I was referring to the fact that, to the uninitiated or unenlightened, it may have appeared a misprint. In these situations, one should write "sic" to confirm that the word used was intentional, it being latin of course, for "it is written thus". It's all explained here, so don't just take my word for it.

[ahinton]

Tippett's 3rd Symphony is one of his boldest, most original creations, tightly unified motivically but embracing an extraordinary range of contrasting moods, emotions, orchestral colours and musical styles. It sets the elemental forces, both human energy and natural phenomena, of part one against the evocations of urban, totally human passions and conflict - at times inhuman as only humans can be - of part two. His quotation and subsequent distortion of Beethoven's Ode to Joy couldn't be clearer in addressing the problem of what we have lost - that universal aspiration to a sisterhood and brotherhood of humankind, the cry of joy which has become impossible for an artist to express with anything approaching the same power and conviction. In 2011, we are still further away from such possibilities than in 1972, but is there a composer alive now who could address these issues so directly in a convincing, large-scale symphonic structure?

The blues numbers themselves have many memorable and vivid musical ideas and images, those wildly gurgling winds in the fast blues, the sliding, sidestepping bass line in the last one, but it's here that I find the one "embarrassing" feature of the work - the lyrics! I don't envy the soprano who has to sing the second number; maybe we should blame TS Eliot for encouraging Tippett to write his own (for Child of Our Time)... I would add too that a true Big Band would give a much better account of the blues numbers than the LSO or the BSO manage (for all their other glories). Might cost a bit to mount it though...

For me, the blues works in context as the greatest possible contrast with part one, the endlessly inventive contrapuntal textures now followed by tunes and accompaniments, popular song. Thereafter the many threads of the work are drawn together in a coda of great dramatic force (and with better, more direct lyrics), but one which inevitably arrives at no musical or emotional answer to the Great Questions that have been asked.

Listening to the work now one is struck by how fresh and how challenging it still is to both ear and heart; I can well imagine the shocked or dismissive reaction it might get now, from audience and reviewers, in a world where forgettable accessibility is the norm for premieres, and music of true integrity and complexity like Ferneyhough or Dillon tends to be ghettoised into late night broadcasts from scattered festivals...

The Tippett dares to be both direct in its message and almost shockingly bold and original in its means.

I cannot imagine a more cogent, persuasive and thought provoking case being made out for Tippett 3 than the one that you provide here! I also accept that what you say in the first paragraph in particular is a broadly accurate account of what Tippett sought to do in that work; however, I just cannot help but feel badly let down whenever I hear it because I feel that he doesn't succeed in doing any of those things - what he seems to me to do instead is set himself up for a fall and the result, though admittedly "tightly unified motivically" as you say, ends up for me as a sprawling mess of ideas and ideals more notable for the courage of the composer's convictions than for what they led to here. To try to put matters into perspective, I find his other three symphonies, The Heart's Assurance, all five quartets, A Midsummer Marriage, Concerto for Orchestra, Piano Sonata No. 3, Triple Concerto, Concerto for Double String Orchestra, Piano Concerto, The Vision of St. Augustine and others of his works wholly convincing and engaging, but the Third Symphony just doesn't do it for me at all, I'm afraid - and I must have listened to it at least a dozen times since it first appeared! Indeed, in one performance years ago (not a very good one and I've forgotten who gave it), it sounded almost as though some minor composer with ambitions way beyond his abilities had gotten Michael Tippett to help him write a symphony! But maybe I've been missing something; I've not heard it for a while now, so perhaps it's time for me to give it another go.

Curiously, though Britten barely concealed his disdain for the piece when he first heard it, at that time he was urging me to "get to know as much of Michael's music as possible" and spoke with great warmth about him and quite a few other works of his. He let out quite a revealing remark that indirectly and coincidentally seems to bear out in an interesting (well, to me, anyway!) way the kind of thing of which we've all probably heard rather too much, namely Tippett's alleged shortage of technique compared to Britten himself; I cannot now recall his exact words, but the gist of what he said was "when I write something, I have to be sure that I know just how to do it; when Michael writes something, he doesn't worry about such things at all - but then look at the results!"

Anyway, many thanks for writing about this symphony as you have; if my profound disappointment with the work has provided to you the necessary encouragement to write as you have above, then I've at least done something useful!

[ahinton]

Caliban, this is definitely the moment to consider Karl Amadeus Hartmann's Symphonies, which are a deeply eloquent response to this very problem...(only the 1st of his 8 pre-dates WW2)...
But it's very late so I hope someone can pick up the thread tomorrow... very busy day for me but - I'll be back.

And perhaps, going on from there, those of Henze who, above all other German composers, has kept it alive.

[ahinton]

No, I had noticed; and that is why I suggested that sic was the correct terminology for ensuring that the reader realised that there was no misprint, and what was written was intentional. Perhaps I should have made it clearer; when I wrote "apparent" I was referring to the fact that, to the uninitiated or unenlightened, it may have appeared a misprint. In these situations, one should write "sic" to confirm that the word used was intentional, it being latin of course, for "it is written thus". It's all explained here, so don't just take my word for it.

Perhaps it might have been better had I more simply and plainly expressed my grave disappointment with Tippett 3 as distinct from his other three numbered symphonies!

[Suffolkcoastal]

I'm in agreement with you ahinton about Tippett 3, it has the same effect on me. I wish I liked it better but it just doesn't come off for me. Another work of the same period, Songs for Dov, I also 'don't get'.

As for K A Hartmann, yes a very good symphonist, I have all the symphonies and a couple of other works and must get round to exploring this intriguing composer more. I've access to the University library (for the time being) to a few scores of his works so must take another look. I was quite astonished that a short work of his broadcast a few weeks ago on R3 was the 1st piece of his that R3 had broadcast in over 3 years!

[Caliban]

Caliban, this is definitely the moment to consider Karl Amadeus Hartmann's Symphonies, which are a deeply eloquent response to this very problem...(only the 1st of his 8 pre-dates WW2)...
But it's very late so I hope someone can pick up the thread tomorrow... very busy day for me but - I'll be back.

Yes Hartmann's 6th was mentioned on MM. I don't know any of his work. Look forward to your further thoughts!

[Roehre]

I'm in agreement with you ahinton about Tippett 3, it has the same effect on me. I wish I liked it better but it just doesn't come off for me. Another work of the same period, Songs for Dov, I also 'don't get'.

As for K A Hartmann, yes a very good symphonist, I have all the symphonies and a couple of other works and must get round to exploring this intriguing composer more. I've access to the University library (for the time being) to a few scores of his works so must take another look. I was quite astonished that a short work of his broadcast a few weeks ago on R3 was the 1st piece of his that R3 had broadcast in over 3 years!

I am afraid I concur with Ahinton and SC regarding Tippett 3.

KAHartmann was a brilliant symphonist. There are some problems however with the chronology of the symphonies, and as they are numbered now, only the nos. 6-8 are original works in that sense that these don't consist of parts of earlier conceived symphonies, or are based on earlier ones.

So we've got more than the numbered eight symphonies. We have to add the Miserae (1934), theSymphonie l'Oeuvre (1939)Sinfonia tragica (1940/'43), the Symphonische Hymnen (1942) and the Symphonie Klagegesang(1944), as well as his last, but unfinished work Gesangszene (1962/'63) as about the latter Hartmann was in doubt how to call it, as its working title was Symphonie IX Gesangszene. Some concertos have to be taken into account as well, as one of them was reworked as Symphonie concertante [no.5].
This simply means that approximately half of Hartmann's symphonies are rooted before WW2, or at least stem from before 1945.

I personally consider the works up to and including no.1 as one group, nos.2-4 as another, the stravinskyan no.5 as a stand alone work, and 6-8 + Gesangszene as the concluding group of symphonies.

In that sense it is Hartmann (and to some extent Hindemith, as IIRC all but one [Mathis der Maler, 1934] of his were written between 1946 and 1955 !) more than Henze who took the German symphony across the 1945 borderline.

Btw, Another composer - Dutch, but with strong German musical roots and highly regarded in the USA for his music for symphonic wind bands- is Henk Badings, with 15 symphonies (1931- 1983).