Janos Gereben wrote:

>A friend by the coincidental name of Guy gifted me with Guy Ropartz'
>Symphony No. 3 (Plasson-Toulouse), and I am of two minds:
>
>1.  Even with the given of my non-European upbringing (I am from Hungary),
>how is it possible that this very prolific French composer straddling two
>centuries (1864-1955) remained unknown to me?
>
>2.  How is it possible to write so many notes and say so little?

This reminds me of a familiar, but nevertheless intriguing fact often
encountered in our discussions on the French-speaking classical music
mailing-list.  Meaningfulness, even melodic appeal, can vary dramatically
from one listener to another, each having strong (if unwritten) reasons to
believe that he/she is right.  It is not (or not only) a matter of cultural
context or, at least, of geographical origin.

For instance, Ropartz is considered stern and academic by many French
critics, and is relatively little-known to general audiences here.  OTOH,
some (inculding myself) find his themes intensely telling and sustained by
his excellent craftsmanship in a most adequate manner -- which means that
we seldom have to take refuge in Ropartz's technical skills to maintain a
level of interest or conceal a lack of inner necessity.  His 3rd symphony
impresses me precisely for its abundance of nobly moving melodies which
never (for me) indulge in mawkishness or complacency.  Each theme seems to
reach its climax in due time, without occulting a subtle interplay of shade
and light (which is by no means obvious in such a large structure without
becoming anecdotic).  Moreover, the transitions from one idea to the other
have an organic feeling about them, if not in the literal sense as can be
used for Sibelius or Nielsen.  Possibly a touch of traditional song, and
more specifically of Breton choirs, add to the eloquence of the work, and
here a Gallic background might help.

Now I am not too surprised by Janos Gereben's reaction, since I sometimes
find Saint-Saens slightly plain, dull and unrefined.  Not in his handling
of compositional techniques, of course, but in his thematic inspiration.
Of course several of his works are magnificent and I very willingly
surrender to them, his 3rd symphony probably is more essential than
Ropartz's IMHO, but many other pieces of his ultimately do not convince
me.  This may partly depend on how much one likes music to be explicitly
stated.  Ropartz's 3rd appears to me as a strongly defined, powerfully
shaped work, but dealing with the sun and sea in an "elemental" approach.
In comparison, many of Saint-Saens brilliant themes seem to reduce the
scope...  But another possible perception is to find Saint-Saens richer
and Ropartz empty and boring!  In general I am very grateful to have both
of them in our repertoire, but they definitely do not belong to the very
same universe.

However many of Ropartz's works are much shorter and certainly use less
notes than equivalent pieces by Saint-Saens, so Janos and other listers
might find them more pithy and rewarding.  The 3rd violin sonata is an
instance of this, with Ropartz's unmistakable marine poetry.  It is a shame
that so little is recorded, and this, I'm afraid, largely comes from the
general neglect of French composers who spent their life far from Paris.

Sorry to digress, but since Janos is of Hungarian origin -- would anybody
have heard of a commercial recording of Harsanyi's wonderful symphony?
This is a very colourful work, both Hungarian and French in flavour,
impressively well-wrought and escaping the lack of substance sometimes
found in the many forgotten French symphonies of the time (the eraly
1950s).

Best wishes,

Thanh-Tam Le
[log in to unmask]