This older message thread in the Raff Forum has been archived.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
Mark Thomas   14/5/2003	Subject: The 6th. Symphony - a re-assessment Message: The Symphony No.6 has featured in the Forum quite a bit recently and, by coincidence, Tudor have just released a new recording of it which I've reviewed for the monthly update next week. Writing that, I've listened several times both to the new recording (Stadlmair and the Bamberg Symphony ) and the Marco Polo one under Urs Schneider. This intensive exposure, coupled with Jamie's plea here in an earlier thread that the work is better than its reputation, has made me re-examine my attitude that this, together with Nos.7 and 11, is amongst the weakest of Raff's symphonic canon. There was no epiphany but I have warmed very much to the work. For me, the key is to ignore the portentous programme which, after all, Raff himself largely did when it came to publication. In fact, though I doubt that it's the case, I wouldn't be too surprised if the programme post-dated the composition, like Bruckner's for his "Romantic" symphony. Stylistically this piece belongs firmly with his other untitled symphonies, Nos.2 and 4. It is much less overtly pictorial than any of the other programme symphonies, except perhaps the immature No.1. Even the wonderful slow movement with its funeral march doesn't need an "explanation". Such movements weren't unknown even in Raff's day. He doesn't seek to justify the obviously religious atmosphere of the 2nd's. slow movement with a programme, for instance. The scherzo is very much the same mould as those in the two earlier works and the 4th. symphony too features a reprise of the opening movement's material in the finale. I guess that I'm suggesting that at the stage that he sat down to write No.6, Raff had created two symphonic models for himself - the abstract, exemplified by Nos.2 and 4, and the pictorially programmatic like Nos.3 and 5. No.6 feels at most like a compromise between the two styles, though I think it is more abstract than not. I won't repeat my review of the new CD here, but suffice to say that Stadlmair is an improvement over Schneider in the first two movements which has helped me see the quality of them, to which Jamie has already alluded. The opening Allegro is a fine vigorous piece very much on a par with Nos.2 and 4 if not perhaps rising to the heights of "Im Walde" or "Lenore". I don't think that the melodic ideas are quite as strong as those in any of those four works, however. The second movement is as fine a scherzo as Raff wrote, every bit as good as my own favourite - No.2. I love the constant interruption of what one assumes will be the Trio - to such an extent that it never gets going. The wonderful slow movement is a work of genius and I couldn't better Jamie's characterisation of it. My problem is the finale. Pace Jamie, I still think that it is desperately weak. In terms of its thematic material and the sheer note-spinning to keep things afloat, it is amongst the weakest of Raff's symphonic movements. It doesn't in any way do justice to Raff's assertion that it represents "joy at the end of suffering for the departed", unless you feel that a sort of jolly country dance festival fits the bill. A great shame. The recall of the first movement's material is an effective moment, true, but hardly an original one (Raff had already employed the device in symphonies Nos.3,4 and 5) and it sits awkwardly with the rest of the movement IMHO. One can well understand Raff's contemporaries' complaint that the work was a disappointment after "Lenore". Firstly, the finale lets the whole piece down badly - had Raff written something of the quality of the 4th's finale, say, I reckon that its reception would have been rather different. Secondly, I contend that it isn't really a programme symphony at all and certainly not one after the fashion of "Im Walde" or "Lenore". The public wanted more of the same, as they always do. More hunting calls and spectres, not a piece of pure music to which a quasi-philosophical programme had been stapled. It's interesting to speculate whether Raff would have gone on to write five more overtly programmatic symphonies had No.6 itself been more successful - after all, in his huge output of chamber music only a couple of the large works have programmes. My apologies for this unusually long post. I'm thinking of doing a page on this work for the June update and I'd really value the opinion of others on this rather enigmatic piece - or perhaps someone would like to volunteer to write that page themselves? Best wishes as always,
Greg Moore   23/8/2003	RE: The 6th. Symphony - a re-assessment IP: Logged Message: I enjoyed the 6th Symphony very much although I agree that the finale is somewhat difficult to follow even though there are some interesting things presented.