Roger Hecht wrote:

>>Don't get too excited about the Second. At least from what I heard about
>>it. It's supposed to be one of Harris's weakest.

And Karl Miller replied

>I would not agree.  I have looked at the score off and on for several
>years.  The second movement seems to be the weakest.  It is rather canonic
>as I recall and it gets a bit thick.  It is a piece that will take a
>conductor who can really push it and make the most out of the high points.
>
>I remember a review that Elliot Carter wrote of the 3rd in which he
>stated something to the effect that he thought the Second was a better
>piece.  There were some notational problems in the parts that angered
>Koussevitzky, hence Burgin conducted the first performance.  That story
>came from Harris.  He also said that he didn't think it was a good piece.

The following is not to argue with Karl at all.  Rather, it is to state
what I should have made clear in the first place.  "from what I heard" is
one of those "unnamed sources" people complain about in the news media.
But I was tired, bored from hiding out in an air conditioned room all day
to avoid 100 degree heat (I despise hot weather), and worst of all, lazy.
This is what I should have written.

1) As Karl said, Harris did not think much of the work, calling it a
"failure".

2) In his analysis of the work, Harris's biographer Dan Stehman did
not really pass judgment one way or the other.  Given Harris's view of
the piece, I have always taken Stehman's lack of a strong countering
endorsement to be at best lukewarm support of the work.  I could be wrong,
of course and don't mean to speak for Mr. Stehman.

3) Then there was Koussevitsky's pulling out of the first performance.
Stehman says it was "over matters about which the composer and subsequent
chroniclers recalled differently and which are still not clear." No Harris
scholar myself, I know nothing more about it than that.  (Stheman's book
was written in 1984, so it's possible things came to light after that.)
In any case, after Richard Burgin conducted the premiere, it apparently
disappeared from the repertoire.  Meanwhile, Koussevitsky, did conduct the
premier of the Third.  All this led me to believe, correctly or not, that
Koussevitsky was not overwhelmed by the Second.

4) A conductor friend of mine recently led the work and did not care for
it at all.  To be fair, he is not a Harris aficionado, though he does like
more "modern" American music, so I cannot be sure that he is right (if one
can ever be right judging a piece of music).

All of which led me to believe--tentatively, as I hope my qualifying remark
made clear--that the Second was a weak entry for Harris.

Curiously, Karl views the second movement as the weakest.  From one quote
anyway, Harris thought it the best: "It had only one good movement--the
second." Stehman's analysis indicated that he liked one part of the
movement, anyway.

That said, Karl's response and the fact that he has looked at the score
encourages me greatly about this work and makes me hope that the stories
about Albany's recording it are true.  Indeed, if Albany is about to
undertake it now with so many other Harris symphonies out there yet to be
recorded, that would be a another good sign.

Roger Hecht