This older message thread in the Raff Forum has been archived. Just click on the icon to email the writer direct. To see all the archived messages return to the Message archive.

Unfortunately it is not possible to add further messages to this archived threads. Instead, just start a new thread in the current Raff Forums.

Posted by	Message
Jack Kelso   12/5/2003	Subject: Raff's Originality Message: You are right about many of Raff's great works (e.g. the Third, Fifth, Eighth & Ninth Symphonies), they possess a wealth of material and reach occasionally sublime heights. But I still have a problem with one aspect of Raff's style: his often uncritical sense of when "enough-is-enough". Just one example of this: the codas of some of the later symphonies should have been shortened; he keeps going until one feels he is running out of steam. When I listen to the symphonies of Beethoven, Schumann and Brahms, I never feel that something is over-stated (Brahms' concerti might be another matter!), rather everything holds a valid sense of destiny. Also, sometimes Raff's expression is a bit too "glib", a little of that self-satisfaction that was Mendelssohn as well (but not in the better works). Does anyone else share this viewpoint --or wish to discuss pros and cons? --Jack
Luis deOrueta   12/5/2003	RE: Raff's Originality IP: Logged Message: When I was 15 I fell for the 3rd movement of Mahler´s Fourth, against all judicious advice from friends and relatives. At that time I could not envisage that one day I could possibly prefer any of the other three movements, not to metion the entire Seventh, which, when young, I tended to hide from curious listeners, like a father protects a malformed child. Nowdays I am 67 and I know better. Some of Raff´s music I still find boring and dispensable. The entire Aus Thuringen, for instance. But I do not pass judgement, just in case by the time I am 80, if I ever reach that age, I find some hidden beauties in it. My view is that some of us can become acquainted with some composer´s originality to the point of finding most pleasure precisely out of those features that musical good taste would hardly let pass without objection. It is not intentional. It just happens. With best regards. Luis
FERNANDO OLIVA   13/5/2003	RE: Raff's Originality IP: Logged Message: Dear Friends, I agree with Luis about Mahler 4th. When I was 19, I discovered this Symphony, and I like very, very much since today. His Third movement is simply "celestial" (is like slow trek to heavens), is a kindly vision of the life after death. When I listen one of the four versions that I have, forever think in Montserrat, a curious mountain with pinacle-rock forms, and fully of legends in Catalonia. That is Mahler´s great power of evocation. Last year, I was 39, and discovered Raff´s "Lenore", and causes me great and possitive impression. Lenore, is love, sepparation, death and live after death. Lenora is a Gothic Ballad and Fantastic Dream. Mahler Fourth and Raff´s Lenore talks about supernatural themes. I love both. Like forever, excuse me for my bad english. Sincerely yours, Fernando Oliva.
John Boyer   13/5/2003	RE: Raff's Originality IP: Logged Message: I agree that Raff sometimes goes on too long for his own good, though I don't think the codas are too bad. But certainly some of his works could have used some tightening. The First Symphony is the most egregious example, followed by the Second Violin Concerto. To a lesser extent, the celebrated Third and Fifth Symphonies could also have been more concise, though in these latter cases it's never more serious than a case of the composer having given us too much of a good thing. I do not advocate cutting, however, not even in the "Vaterland" Symphony. What's needed is careful recomposition of the portions that go on too long, as Brahms did with his First Piano Trio or Rachmaninoff did with his Fourth Piano Concerto. Since Raff is dead, however, the matter is closed. Cutting merely disfigures, making an unsatisfactory situation worse, while having another hand touch up the composer's work is even more unthinkable. Recall Siloti's desecration of Tchaikovsky's Second Piano Concerto, or the case of Raff's own First Violin Concerto. As for glibness degenerating into smug self-satisfaction, yes, it's there, but for me it's just part of who Raff is, just as it was for Mendelssohn. I suppose one can't help being a bit self-satisfied with oneself when one composes so effortlessly. We are left, then, with the works as they are. It's a pity that Bernstein never gave his attention to Raff. It should be remembered that he was instrumental in making Mahler what he is today, and he had a way with Elgar and Schumann like no one else did.