Unusual 19 Century Symphonists?
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
I was listening to Bruckner's Symphony 0 and he already has a lot of weird Bruckner stuff going on that no one else was doing.
Can you think of other post-Beethoven 19th Century symphonists who are so unlike the rest of the crowd?
Someone, as with Bruckner, who has a style that resembles no one else?
Can you think of other post-Beethoven 19th Century symphonists who are so unlike the rest of the crowd?
Someone, as with Bruckner, who has a style that resembles no one else?
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
I would argue they all have a style that is unlike others'. I can't really think of any romantic symphonist who I might hear and say, "oh sounds exactly like composer X". You can usually find some similarities with others early on when they're still figuring out their style, but then you look back in retrospect and you can see the DNA of their style was always there. Case in point with Bruckner in a non-symphonic context: his Requiem is very Mozartian and definitely harkens back to an old Austrian style and tradition, yet it is full of fully typical Brucknerian moments.
In a similar vein, I love Wagner's Symphony in C Major, a youth work that is rarely played. There are definitely some parts of it that are not super interesting, but the second movement especially is really good (and a lot of the first is also very nice, especially the intro, and the coda with its foreshadowing of the main motive of the second). I think Wagner meant it to be squarely in Beethoven's continuity, and it shows. You can also hear clear Mendelssohnian influences – at that point Wagner still admired him. It somewhat foreshadows, ironically, some characteristics of Brahms's music. But still, through all that and even in this very early work, there is already some clearly recognizable elements of Wagner's personal style showing. It's also fascinating to see how he employs them, and how they might have evolved very differently if he had become a symphonist.
<YOUTUBE id="m4_V7E__ehY" t="754">[media]https://youtu.be/m4_V7E__ehY?t=12m34s</YOUTUBE>
In a similar vein, I love Wagner's Symphony in C Major, a youth work that is rarely played. There are definitely some parts of it that are not super interesting, but the second movement especially is really good (and a lot of the first is also very nice, especially the intro, and the coda with its foreshadowing of the main motive of the second). I think Wagner meant it to be squarely in Beethoven's continuity, and it shows. You can also hear clear Mendelssohnian influences – at that point Wagner still admired him. It somewhat foreshadows, ironically, some characteristics of Brahms's music. But still, through all that and even in this very early work, there is already some clearly recognizable elements of Wagner's personal style showing. It's also fascinating to see how he employs them, and how they might have evolved very differently if he had become a symphonist.
<YOUTUBE id="m4_V7E__ehY" t="754">
- EdwardSolomon
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
Try the symphonies of Muzio Clementi, Miguel Marquès, Franz Berwald, and Cipriani Potter. They will delight and surprise in equal measure.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]I would argue they all have a style that is unlike others'.[/quote]
I agree that the composers we regard as great are not easily confused for someone else.
But I recall Brahms was perceived to be the successor to Beethoven and I can hear why people would say that. That doesn't happen because one sounds nothing like Beethoven.
I recall Tchaikovsky was judged "too European" to be Russian "school". That doesn't happen because one does not remind listeners of what they've already heard from European composers.
This is a theme that would be entirely at home in a Beethoven symphony and many other central Europeans'.
Neither Tchaikovsky nor Brahms are doing themes or development that are out-of-the-box to their listeners' ears. Their success is that they are so skilled at building with these ordinary elements.
Bruckner, on the other hand, is often very odd and not like the other boys. I am surprised that he got any traction in his own lifetime.
I agree that the composers we regard as great are not easily confused for someone else.
But I recall Brahms was perceived to be the successor to Beethoven and I can hear why people would say that. That doesn't happen because one sounds nothing like Beethoven.
I recall Tchaikovsky was judged "too European" to be Russian "school". That doesn't happen because one does not remind listeners of what they've already heard from European composers.
This is a theme that would be entirely at home in a Beethoven symphony and many other central Europeans'.
Neither Tchaikovsky nor Brahms are doing themes or development that are out-of-the-box to their listeners' ears. Their success is that they are so skilled at building with these ordinary elements.
Bruckner, on the other hand, is often very odd and not like the other boys. I am surprised that he got any traction in his own lifetime.
- heldenbone
- Posts: 274
- Joined: Aug 21, 2018
Hector Berlioz is to me instantly recognizable. His "style" seems to me to elevate the musical nonsequitur to a structural foundation. If you've read his memoir, it's easy to perceive an all-consuming paranoia along with preoccupation with "effect." That, and constant moaning about the woeful lack of adequate serpent or ophecleide players. He was nuts.
Likewise, Aleksandr Scriabin is almost always obvious within a few bars. If you haven't heard it before, give a listen to his Poem of Exstacy some time. He "heard" in colors. He too was nuts.
Likewise, Aleksandr Scriabin is almost always obvious within a few bars. If you haven't heard it before, give a listen to his Poem of Exstacy some time. He "heard" in colors. He too was nuts.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="heldenbone"]Hector Berlioz is to me instantly recognizable. His "style" seems to me to elevate the musical nonsequitur to a structural foundation. If you've read his memoir, it's easy to perceive an all-consuming paranoia along with preoccupation with "effect." That, and constant moaning about the woeful lack of adequate serpent or ophecleide players. He was nuts.
Likewise, Aleksandr Scriabin is almost always obvious within a few bars. If you haven't heard it before, give a listen to his Poem of Exstacy some time. He "heard" in colors. He too was nuts.[/quote]
Yeah Berlioz came to my mind too. First generation romantic, his Symphonie Fantastique written only three years after Beethoven died, and 6 or 7 years only after Beethoven composed his 9th, yet a whole different sound world.
Likewise, Aleksandr Scriabin is almost always obvious within a few bars. If you haven't heard it before, give a listen to his Poem of Exstacy some time. He "heard" in colors. He too was nuts.[/quote]
Yeah Berlioz came to my mind too. First generation romantic, his Symphonie Fantastique written only three years after Beethoven died, and 6 or 7 years only after Beethoven composed his 9th, yet a whole different sound world.