Richard Todd wrote:
>That symphony is definitely divided into movements, though they may be
>continuous. I haven't heard it in some years. I know that one movement is
>a tenor vocalise, the next a soprano vocalise and, I think there may be one
>in which the two vocalize together, but perhaps not. Then there is at
>least one purely instrumental movement.
Yes, you are right. The "story" is very simple, it is a kind of
elementary love story, yearning, encounter, tragic dissolution of
happiness... The beginning and the end are instrumental. The fact that
singers use vocalises and no words obviously confers much of its impact
to the work. Now, playing one movement separately is not really possible
for at least three reasons: the movements are too intimately linked (as
opposed to Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony, for instance), the final part
is a kind of altered recapitulation -- as in Franz Schmidt's 4th, as it
were, although the precise structure is vastly different -- and the form
is that of a "musical tale". Whether one finds it convincing or not is
another question, but you wouldn't tell children only one chapter of their
favourite tale, would you?
However, I do recommend listening to the work again. The orchestration is
excellent (very large orchestra, but relatively little massive use of it),
the formal balance quite satisfactory, and most of all, melodies are fully
displayed throughout, a quality which is not as frequent as one might
think. It may sound naive from the description, but it is surprisingly
refined and subtle nevertheless.
Neeme Jarvi's rendition is fine, but maybe the one by Grevillius (whom
Alfven highly admired) is more gripping, despite its less sophisticated
sound. If you still do not like it, Symphony No. 2 is another big
achievement, in a strongly Beethovenian perspective. And if you only
have 4 minutes for Mr. Alfven (!), try "Sommarregn" (Summer Rain) in
"Bergakungen" (the Mountain King) -- sheer magic and poetry.
Best wishes,
Thanh-Tam Le
[log in to unmask]
|