Ask Dave: Why Doesn't Franck's Symphony Get The Respect It Deserves?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- This is a very interesting question the answer to which involves the aesthetics of romantic nationalism, the character of the composer, the work's performance history, and that most mysterious quality of all: taste.
- เพลง
You should do more of these music history talks. Very interesting.
Great informative talk. My favorite line: "Patriotism is love of one's country. Nationalism is hatred of every other one." Can't overstate the truth of that statement.
Franck is actually belgian. Which also explains some of the disdain in France
He was actually born in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, his native city of Liège being coopted into the breakaway realm of Belgium after 1830. Also, Franck adopted French citizenship in 1872.
Rachmaninoff's 3rd Symphony largely follows Franck's conception. And, speaking of film music, no less a luminary than Miklos Rozsa wrote his score to Billy Wilder's masterwork of suspense, "Double Indemnity," using variations on Franck's Symphony. It worked spectacularly.
I went through that edgelord period of youth where I disdained the "big tune" symphonies, of which this is exhibit A (Sibelius 2 was another, with its big tune finale). I got past that and now know the errors of my ways and embrace and adore the symphony.
The Franck symphony was one of my first LPs I purchased in 1962, through a record club. I thought it to be a wonderful work then, and I still do, over 60 years later. It's full of haunting melodies, interesting tonal progressions. The Monteux/CSO, and Martinon/ONF are my favorites.
@@kenm.3512 Another work by Franck that grows on one is for piano, Prelude,Chorale, and Fugue. I recommend late pianist Ivan Moravec, if you can find it. I appreciate your comment, and hope you enjoy this fine piece.
Oh, how I do wish I could write a “thesis” on Franck. I always found everything I heard if his deeply satisfying, intriguing and leaving me wanting more. There is so much to learn from him and from the generations of composers directly associated with him.
Yeah, it’s hard to overstate the impact of the Monteux recording, which is certainly on the shortlist for being the very greatest recording ever made of anything. The Franck Symphony was in the repertoire of both Toscanini and Furtwangler and many others in that era, performed generally poorly by pretty much all of them. And then there was Monteux. I grew up down the street from the principal hornist on that recording. He was an often bitter gentleman, but the reverence with which he spoke of Monteux and of the experience making that recording was amazing to listen to (the other recording he played on that he spoke of with the same reverence was the Reiner Beethoven 9th). The irony for me personally is that I don’t especially like the Franck Symphony. I’ve always found it a bit structurally bloated. But perhaps that’s what really shows Monteux’s genius. The buildup up to the Finale’s last explosion of sound is one of the greatest examples of pure pacing in recorded history. It’s absolutely breathtaking to listen to. Whatever the merits or problems of the work, Monteux made the greatest possible case for it.
Perhaps Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest summed it up best: “French songs I cannot possibly allow. People always seem to think that they are improper, and either look shocked, which is vulgar, or laugh, which is worse. But German sounds a thoroughly respectable language, and indeed, I believe is so.”
I remember the Symphony Orchestra of India playing this in a concert (coupled with the Saint-Saens Piano Concerto No. 5) in Mumbai right before the start of Covid. It got a standing ovation.
I'm sorry I missed that performance as I attend the NCPA regularly. I live in Pune, but was away in Feb / early March 2020 and just got back in time for lockdown. Perhaps the performance was during that period?
@@jjquinn2004 i believe it was the 1st week of March
@@jjquinn2004 btw did u attend this Season? Jenkins Requiem. I was luck enough to be able to sing in it.
We played an excerpt in my high school orchestra back in the 1960's, which made me want to hear the rest, so I bought the CSO-Monteux LP. I've enjoyed it ever since.
This is a terrific answer, and goes to support the truth that great music sometimes needs advocacy...it doesn't always automatically rise to the top.
I think the elves who type the closed captions need a stern lesson in cultural sensitivity: their rendition of the title of the work under discussion was: "the Frog Symphony."
Franck by the way was born in Belgium. A country where 3 different languages are spoken. Dutch, French and also German.
Franck was born in the City of Liege. The part of Belgium where French is spoken. Belgium people don‘t feel French. So please Franck is a Belgium composer
I couldn't care less. We all know where he was born. His language and culture were French, and the majority of his musical life was spent in France. As far as I am concerned, as a composer, he's French. You have no idea whatsoever how he felt about it, and how other Belgians feel today is irrelevant.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Franck felt and thought he was French from his teens (when his father took French citizenship). So, ironically, Franck didn't feel he was Belgian at all, so please, Franck is a French composer. These are the hard facts
Franck was technically born in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. His native city of Liège was coopted in the breakaway realm of Belgium after 1830.
Love this talk! Do informative! Thank you!
I first heard the Franck Symphony when I bought Ormandy's 1948 Columbia LP from a Goodwill store about 1977. I was 21 years old and didn't know the work at all but did know that anything by Ormandy and the Philadelphia on a Columbia LP had a certain level of quality that made listening to it something to be taken seriously. So I did, and loved every minute of it, especially the big tune in the first movement. I still love it and always will.
I've always thought the Franck was a victim of generational bias: go back to mid 20th c and it seems like everyone was doing it: Monteux, Paray, Munch, Karajan, Bernstein, Maazel, Stokowski, Ormandy, Boult...but when that generation passed the baton the younger crowd wasn't interested. We've had recordings from Chailly and some others which never really caught fire. For reasons unknown the Franck fell away; it wasn't the first work and won't be the last to be forgotten. There was a time when Caucausian Sketches were well known and frequently played. The likes of Toscanini played the Kalinnikov First Symphony. Now, both of those beautiful scores languish on the shelves. Maybe it's just that conductors have gotten lazy or are champing at the bit to do their Mahler cycle and Franck can wait - forever.
Excellent advocacy on the part of Mr Hurwitz- I’ve never understood why this piece is neglected of late as it’s a great work. Chausson and Magnard also wrote excellent symphonies so the French can do them when they are in the mood. Having said that, the Franck symphony is actually being performed next Saturday in London - yes-amazing. I’ve got my ticket!
N
Having heard the Franck D minor in concert in Copenhagen recently - close to sold out -and deservedly applauded with uninhibited enthusiasm, I personally believe that the days of disregard of this major work is a thing of the past.
What I think has contributed to its wavering status at least here in the northern Scandi-Germanic region is foremost the last factor mentioned;
That the work invites to cheesy over romanticized push'n pull interpretations that can make audiences feel fed up, especially so in the pre-Mahlerism times not so long ago, where the acknowledged repertoire of eruptive romantic sensualism in symphonic form limited itself to the D minor, Saint-Saëns op 78, Rimski's Shéhérazade and Sibelius first (and that was about it - OK you may count in Tjajkovski if you want). With the inevitable result that the D minor became a "Oh no; THAT one again?" repeat-piece for many listeners who probably basically liked it but feared for another vulgarised concert hall account.
We never hear Franck`s orchestral music in Sweden, if I had known, I would have gone to Copenhagen.
I’ve been going to symphony concerts since 1963 and I have never heard a live performance of César Franck’s Symphony in D. In my experience it’s hardly been programmed in and around New York and Los Angeles. Of course I’ve heard recordings of it over the years. I like your explanation.
I am lucky enough to have played it at least twice - I can't remember precisely how many times, to my regret. The orchestras loved it.
Glad to hear your positive appreciation of it, as I was surprised you didn't include it in your list of great unnumbered symphonies. Some people over the years dismissed it as "an organist's symphony", but what's wrong with that anyway? Not convinced by some of the ideas on what British think; Franck's symphony was a staple part of the repertoire in the middle of the 20th century. Was reading Tovey's analysis of the Franck Symphony just the other day and it seemed very positive, though I do remember the quote that it was maybe more like a symphonic poem (or 3?).
I really learned something interesting in this video, Dave! Thanks. You put together a number of ideas I had long thought about, but never in the way you did here. Once you see it, these odd opinions one has been hearing for years all make "sense" in terms of the attitudes you discuss. AS I am sure you are aware, some music lovers have often tried to portrayed such music as "over-the-top" or even "camp." This never made sense to me at all since these sorts of notions are really more modern attitudes, and not ones of the 19th Century. The way you have portrayed it here makes the odd opinions about such a great work as the Franck Symphony more identifiable with cultural history of the period. Really, Dave, you should write a book on this issue!
I heard a wonderful performance of the Franck Symphony at the Proms last year and was moved to tears as I'd loved it since I was a small boy in Gibraltar in the late 50s... 🎶💜🎶
BBC Music Magazine featured Franck in the December issue to commemorate his 200th birthday and for their cover disc included that very performance of the Symphony from last summer’s Proms. Excellent, too, and maybe the best I’ve heard since Monteux’s famous CSO recording.
@@johnwright7557 Thanks for your comment! I wish I'd known as I'd have snapped up a copy of the magazine/cd as a memento of that wonderful concert! 🐱🎶🤞🏻I've just found out that one can order back copies online and have done so! £7.50 is well worth it to me...
I too went to it: the first time I have ever seen it on a concert programme since buying my first recording of it in 1972.
@@MrBulky992 There's going to be a performance of it at the Festival Hall on Saturday as part of an all-French programme...
Excellent discussion!! 😊
I read on the liner notes of one album that the French looked down on Franck because he wasn't French, he was born in Belgium. It went on to say that the orchestra musicians refused to play the Symphony in D minor and only agreed when they were given a bonus in their paycheck. Sad, it's a great work. THANKS DAVE !!!
He was technically born in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, his native area becoming coopted in the breakaway realm of Belgium after 1830.
Thanks for the update. Country borderlines were very unstable back then, I guess.
@@FREDGARRISON It was a period of growing nationalism, with residue of revolutionary fervor still simmering in the reactionary decades following the French Revolution. The part of the Netherlands where Franck was born, French being a primary language and the citizens strongly Roman Catholic, broke away to become the sovereign Kingdom of Belgium in 1830 (not recognized by the Dutch until 1839), so strong had the feeling of separateness from the mostly Protestant and Dutch-speaking northerners become by that time.
Great contribution. As an American living in Germany most of my life I can tell you nationalism is very much present and not just in Germany. The opinions Europeans have of each blows my socks away. But to the symphony. I always found it corny, but kept it In my back pocket because I knew at one time I would be asked to conduct it. When the time came I was not only completely prepared and in rehearsing it I came to love it.
It's a beautiful symphony. The last movement is so delightful.
Would you consider commenting on the Franck String Quartet. There is no other work where my own musical taste is so different from that of other listeners. Most don't even know that this piece exists. This is one of my favorite chamber works; I rank it right up there with the quartets of Beethoven. However, typical lists of the top 100 string quartets rarely include it.
Would you consider making a video (music chat?) taking a look at the connection that certain strains of Jazz music seem to have with Renaissance and Baroque period classical music? I feel like it's a very interesting topic and someone with your knowledge and eye for history might be able to look and that in an interesting way.
I love talks like these...I have always liked the Franck symphony and I think its cyclical nature and the-for the time unusual-instrumentation portray a progressive attitude towards the symphony, regardless of its nationality...yet it is not that unlike the first French progressive symphony, the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, yet that piece has always found acceptance...go figure, maybe the program saved that piece and that's why Tovey thought Franck needed a program
"Emotionally strong, but structurally weak" is the statement in the book "the Symphony" edited by Robert Simpson, and I think it is true to some extent, but I appreciate the organ-like orchestration (his Amor et Psychee shows that Franck could orchestrate in different ways). I don't know how often the Franck Symphony is performed in general, but in Sweden we never hear Franck´s orchestral music, only his organ music. The orchestral repertoire in Sweden is still very Germanic.
Simpson couldn't be more wrong. But then, on the other hand, his own music is structurally strong but emotionally weak.
@@DavesClassicalGuide To be fair, it was John Manduell who wrote about Franck in that book. But the symphony was at least included.
One angle may be that although Cesar Franck's Symphony in D Minor is well-developed with memorable themes, it is not his greatest piece of music. That honor rests with the Sonata for Violin and Piano in A Major and his penultimate Three Chorales for Organ, the latter reaching the zenith of composition for that instrument on par with anything J.S. Bach wrote.
The only time I ever encountered the Franck Symphony in years of concert going, it was conducted by an Italian. Abbado--Roberto, not Claudio. Maybe because Italians didn't generally have a dog in that symphonic hunt? He also did the Cherubini Symphony which I was grateful for, though the performances were only capable but not great.
I love this symphony, but then I have the Monteux recording, so I am hearing it at its best. It seems that this symphony went through a period of popularity in the middle of the 20th century. It seems like there were numerous recordings of it, and it was likely to be found in budget priced LP box sets of "great symphonies." The famous melody from the slow movement was used as the theme music for the late 1940s radio program "Quiet Please" in a rather haunting piano and organ arrangement. Since I used to collect records, and mid-20th century classical records are very common and very inexpensive, I naturally thought it was a well accepted classic with a prominent place in the repertoire. When I started collecting more recent recordings and taking notice of what was programmed at the concert hall, I observed that it had dropped quite a bit from its mid 20th century peak of popularity. I wish it would return to popularity, as I would love to hear it live in the concert hall.
In digital form, I currently have four recordings - the famous Monteux/Chicago Symphony recording, and three others, all of which are historical curiosities not ideal for general listening: NBC Symphony/Rodzinski (1939), New Queens Hall Orchestra/Henry Wood (1924), and Philadelphia Orchestra/Stokowski (1927). It's interesting that I don't even have a recent one. I would imagine that some good ones probably exist by now, but can anything top the Monteux?
For what this old man's opinion is worth, Monteux's performance has never been surpassed. It's simply amazing, and it feels so "right."
@@maximisaev6974 I just listened to the Monteux recording. I agree. It is hard to imagine that anything will ever surpass it. This is one of the few classical recordings that I would regard as "perfect" - it is a recording of one of the greatest masterpieces of all time, by an orchestra and conductor who understand it perfectly. Even though it will be hard to surpass this recording, I would like to hear some modern takes on this symphony. They might add something interesting to the conversation. If anyone has recommendations for relatively recent recordings, I would certainly consider purchasing them.
Monteux’s has been considered THE performance to have, pretty much since it came out. At the time, I recall one or two reviews of it that said the recording was a bit overloaded in the loudest climaxes. Owning the original LP from that time, I can sort of see what they’re talking about. Perhaps someone who owns the current CD remastering can comment as to this aspect of the sound.
Your point about the Franck symphony falling in & out of favor made me think of a classic Pauline Kael put-down of the actor Dirk Bogarde in the 1974 film "The Night Porter." It's the kind of killer exit line that only works if the reference is fresh, in this case if the Franck were as ubiquitous on concert programs as it once was. Of Bogarde, she said: "We know his neurasthenic tics--the semiphoric eyebrows, the twitching mouth, the sneaky vindictive gleam, the pinch of suffering. His warmed over performance has all the surprise of the Franck Symphony in D minor." That just wouldn't land the same way today.
Kael's description was more fitting of herself. I never could stand her pompous arrogance, the kind that gives critics a bad name.
I agree with Lee Stamm. I also admire his brevity and restraint - I would be nastier about Pauline Kael (don't get me started...). My idea of a great critic is Dave, who always gives us his honest best! We're all learning from him and enjoying every minute of it! Thanks and bravo, Dave!
@@adrianleverkuehn9832 Well, Kael could really write--even her worst enemies would admit she was a hell of a prose stylist and had what most great critics have, a recognizable voice and point of view (things Dave Hurwitz has in spades). But she could also be mean-spirited, savage actually, when it came to her betes noires, and Bogarde was one of them. I actually used to look forward to reading her every week during those New Yorker years, even though I mostly ended up red-faced and arguing with her judgments, her celebration of (in her own words) "trash," and the kind of vindictive knee-capping she does in this review. I have to admit, though, that her line about the Franck Symphony has been lodged in my head for decades. Which says something!
@@tom6693 She may have had some good lines, but even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
Tom's comments are on the money and informative. I really appreciate your original point - using Kael's remark to illustrate how often the Franck Symphony was heard years ago.
Dave have you ever seen the German film "Céleste" by Percy Adlon (1980)? She was Proust's housekeeper, and in one scene ol' Marcel has a string quartet come over and play (some of) the Franck D Major Quartet. It's on youtube, Gott Sei Dank.
As an English person I think this is generally true - but it’s the 19thc rising middle class who are the problem, worried by the French and feeling only Protestant German things are acceptable - and this means that they had no idea what Handel was really like either - all that sexy opera! But ironically the early 19thc German romantics loved English literature and gardens -!for the fantasy and comedy - but that was before the Victorian thing took over. The 18th century was very different.
Elgar was thought very suspect because he was very un-English bring a passionate Catholic!
My question for Dave: How did Karajan fiddle with the orchestration in Mahler's sixth symphony? I tried to follow along with a score, but it wasn't easy.
Just look at the percussion parts in the finale.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Findings: Most of the percussion is tucked away somewhere in the juicy orchestral sound, except for the timpani which must have gotten special permission to be loud. Most recessed of all is the bass drum, which I could only pick out in the orchestral texture a few times in the entire movement, maybe it was badly recorded.
In your talk about the best Mahler sixths you played a passage from this movement from the Bernstein/VPO recording, in this recording I could hardly pick out any percussion at all in the same part, which is strange. The occasional cymbal crash also seemed to be missing, maybe that is some score issue.
@@flowsouth8496 There are no issues in the Bernstein recording.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Apologies for not making myself clear. What I meant is that in the Karajan recording I was hardly able to make out any percussion at all in the same part of the movement. The cymbal comment also referred to the Karajan recording.
There's also an academic disdain for cyclic form, esp. Franck's; I'm often surprised at scholarly histories of the symphony that dismiss this work because of it. No matter, I (and clearly lots of other listeners) just love it and that's all that counts!
If there is such a prejudice against French composers, then how come Debussy and Ravel are so immensely popular? (and everyone plays the Symphonie Fantastique)
I would say it's the symphonic element that really brings out the bias, and those two didn't write symphonies(or did they?)
Did you pay attention to anything that I said? Sheesh.
@@rationalistssj6540
Like anyone cares about such things these days.
Along these intercultural lines I found Baudelaire’s respectful essay on Tannhäuser helpful in understanding Wagner.
Here's a question. Which orchestras and which conductors do we think would do a great job with this piece these days?
i have an album of two decca cds directed by ansermet and walter weller cosacrated with 4 symphonies from the french repertoire at the end of the 19th century, symphony by franck, Chausson, dukas and finally a symphonies that i love... for its beginning in choral form: the 3rd symphony by alberic magnard...four works which, all things considered, are major in the repertoire of music...of course about the symphony by franck, a lot of nonsense has been said...like this borrowing from the preludes by liszt for the theme of the first movement about which many things have been said.....in short, I consider this work to be major, whatever one may say....
I don't know if any major nation gets pooh-pooed more than the French, apart from the modernist credit that Ravel and Debussy gets. For the longest time from what I've read in old books, Meyerbeer (not French, but a composer of French Grand Opera, and Jewish as a bonus for the Wagnerians) was portrayed as the worst composer in history, CSS and Massanet were dismissed as lightweight. CSS's "Organ" kind of survived because it sounded great on stereo records. I'm still holding out for a (post)-modern revival of French opera, but I don't expect to see performances of "Les Hugenots" anytime soon.
On the other hand, Bizet's 'Carmen' is one of the most enduringly popular operas in history. And those who love the Romantic period of classical music often adore Berlioz. I must say that I have formed the general impression that Massenet's legacy is relatively lightweight, though 'Werther' is certainly a fine and substantial achievement. I would be curious to explore more of his work, as I would of Saint-Saëns, most of whose operas are virtually forgotten today.
I'd also mention the disdain the French of the late 19th century had towards Wagnerianism (the nationalist nonsense went both ways since the German-French wars) AND the disdain the French avantgarde had towards their own musical tradition before Debussy. Thus not even French conductors and ensembles championed the works of Gounod, Saint-Saens, d'Indy, Alkan or Franck regularly in concert.
Interesting question which applies to a large part of his oeuvre. Immediately after Franck's death a culture war started between Georges Franck (the son) and Vincent d'Indy, who considered himself Franck's favourite student and musical heir.
D'Indy was a reactionary catholic, antidemocratic and antisemitic. His biography was very influential and mainly responsible for the image of the 'père séraphique'. He even calls a pagan work like Psyché an 'oratorio' which is pure nonsense.
This image of Franck as an organist and religious man (he was both, but he was much more) has dominated the past hundred years.
The results of this: both first recordings of the Symphony (Coppola and Wood) took 31 minutes, without any cut. Today the piece is stretched sometimes over 50 minutes, and it becomes insufferable.
The same applies to his other pieces: they become slower, heavier and drowned in incense.
Klemperer's version is slow and magnificent but not sentimental or "drowned in incense". And the Barbirolli with the Czech Philharmonic in Supraphon is also marvellous.
@@alfredolabbe I'm not saying the music cannot be performed slowly, everybody can like what they like.
d'Indy insisted that everything had to be interpreted from a dogmatically catholic point of view, which hardly helps a modern audience. It is also completely at odds with Franck own MM and timings (which are always very fast) and historical recordings. That was my point, no more, no less.
It gets a rare outing here in London next week. LPO under de Billy
It was featured in last year's BBC Proms. I have loved the piece since playing the first movement with a very bad school orchestra in 1972 and the Proms performance is the first time I have come across it on a concert programme since that time! I suspect it was only performed because last year was Franck's bicentenary.
Perhaps you could do a follow up video about Symphonies in the style of Franck - like Chausson's B-flat for example. Which do you consider succesful and which are the failures?
Yes indeed! I sometimes listen to a cycle of such things - Chausson, Dukas, Magnard, Ropartz - especially no 4 - Roussel - Honegger.
Ask Dave: 'Why do you feel so indifferent about Maurizio Pollini (except for his Chopin, late Schubert and Beethoven)?'
Because sometimes he's great and sometimes he isn't. I find him to be very inconsistent.
I love Franck's music, despite my being English! I hope this silly prejudice against him is a bit less prevalent today. Maybe I'm being too optimistic. You make many good points here. Nationalism is toxic. (Americans, of course, have their own variety of it too, but not so much in classical music, so you are right to put it aside for these purposes).
As Arnold Schoenberg notoriously said, "Either what the French do is music, or what we do is music, but they cannot both be music."
In what context did he say this? It doesn't sound like a very intelligent generalization. Schoenberg was no dummy so I am curious as to what prompted him to say this.
@@shimoncrown I can't tell you for sure, as I ran into it a long time ago. Chances are it's tucked away somewhere in /Style and Idea/, perhaps as a joke.
@@David_Goza I searched for the quote on the web and even tried ChatGpt but couldn't find find it. According to the latter he did critique some aspects of French music but in a nuanced manner.
In any case the quote is a good one (if only to illustrate the closed mindedness of whoever said it).
@@shimoncrownSchoenberg was a rabid German nationalist who signed up to fight in World War I despite being over 40 just to stick it to those decadent French. I believe he only reconsidered these attitudes once the 1930s came around...
@@horsedoctorman Interesting. He clearly had a very complex character.
Franck was Belgian :)
Belgium didn't exist when he was born, he was born in Dutch territory. His parents were German and he took French nationality in 1872
And really, who cares?
Wasn't the French critic François Fétis famous for saying "If faut de bon gout" ("good taste is needed")? quoted by Berlioz in Lélio? Criticism of taste seems to know no national bounds.
Aside from Monteux, it was Charles Munch who best championed Franck's Symphony. Ironic, considering Munch was geographically and culturally almost German .
And Lenny, naturally.
@@estel5335 Yes! I am quite partial to Bernstein's, as well as Ormandy's, recording of the Franck Symphony!
@@paxpaxart4740 I'll definitely give those a listen. I have not heard them, but I do have Paray's Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, which is indeed amazing.
If you think the British reaction to Franck was bad, look at what they had to say about Scriabin...
I think it's as much about conservatism as it is about taste: Bruckner and Mahler made almost no headway in the UK until the 1960s. Taste definitely played a part as composers such as Gounod, Massenet and Faure were regarded as sugary and a bit vulgar.
@@MrBulky992 Certainly. Look at the way Rachmaninoff's music was regarded to be plebeian not even that long ago. But the two are not always easy to distinguish, and in Scriabin's reception among the British musical elite, I think prudishness and conservatism nicely augmented one another.
@@bomcabedal Yes, Puccini too.
Why haven't other composers (ie, Sibelius) been ignored for their symphonies? Wouldn't the same criticisms--nationalism, etc--apply?
Sibelius has been ignored, but not in Anglo-Saxon countries. He's never caught on in either France or Germany, despite the efforts of many major conductors (think Karajan).
Thank you, very interesting. It's pretty miserable to see francophobia still lingering in England.
I don't think there is francophobia in the UK anymore in relation to music: there is plenty of French music in British concert programmes and has been throughout my lifetime (nearly 70 years). It all happened before then. The Franck is hardly played in the UK but I think that is because it did not previously find its own place in the canon here which, in recent decades has taken on Bruckner and Mahler, leaving even less space for neglected works, especially late romantic symphonies.
Wagner was a fine one to talk. His own attempt at writing a symphony was terrible. And his "friend" Bruckner wrote enormous symphonies right in the face of Wagner who said the symphony was dead...hmmm
I hardly ever listen to the Franck Symphony because it is mentioned so rarely, I keep forgetting it exists. Also the tune of the second movement is very annoying because it's so catchy and now it's in my head...
That's not the only ear worm: there's the main thems of the last movement. All in a good way - it's a very memorable work.
Nationalistic Musicology is silly, effete nonsense and just gets in the way of music.
Any form of nationalism and flag waving is not just silly but dangerous. Nationalism and ignorance often go hand in hand.
Can your next talk be about musicology writing off Korngold for being a film composer when really they were just a bunch of anti-Semites?
I've discussed that at various times already.
@@DavesClassicalGuide yes, but in the case of the franck symphony, i thought it was worth its own video.