Bwv 562

[pwhodges]

I agree it is strange to have omitted the one while including the others. The "Jig" fugue is an opus dubius - it isn't in the NBA either, though Bärenreiter did include it in a recent volume (not NBA, but in compatible format) of such works that are now considered to be probably by Bach after all. I don't know the ins and outs of why it is/was thought not to be by Bach.

That volume is NBA (I have the brown NBA version rather than the blue "consumer" version). But the short 8 are in a "compatible" blue Bärenreiter volume, as they are still not considered to be even possibly by Bach - there is a fairly extensive discussion of the possible authorship in the preface.

 

Paul

[Vox Humana]

Sorry. Yes, you are quite right; it is NBA.

 

The Bärenreiter edition of the "8 short" is excellently edited and beautifully clean. I am sure the editor, Alfred Dürr, is correct in ascribing them "formerly attributed to J. S. Bach". They do not sound to me even like early Bach - or like J. L. Krebs for that matter. They are not nearly such bad pieces as sometimes made out (except perhaps for that wretched F major prelude), but they are best left in decent anonymity.

[MusingMuso]

He still managed to write the only truly "great" organ music other than Bach's. (I know no-one will disagree!)

 

Stephen Barber

 

 

========================

 

I really must weigh-in on this one.....cor blimey!

 

"Great" music must surely fulfill certain criteria. It has to be as well crafted as other great music, it must have impact and it must wear well on the ear.

 

On that basis, let me suggest a few truly GREAT organ works:-

 

1. Alain - Litanies

2. Reubke - Sonata 94th psalm (possibly the greatest of all organ works after Bach)

3. Reger - "Hallelujah! Gott zu loben!" (So thoroughly balanced and concise for a major work)

4. Reger - Introduction & Passacaglia (the shorter one), which is just stunningly effective.

5. Reger - BACH (A truly exciting work, which few can pull off effectively)

6. Durufle - Suite Op.5

7. Bruhns - E minor and G major

8. Klement Slavicky - Ecce Homo

9. Mozart - Both the K608 F minor, and the Major/minor thingy

 

The list could go on, but it would certainly include music by Pachelbel, Brahms, Froberger, possibly the Widor 6th and concertos by Handel and Jongen.

 

I'm sure that I've missed a lot out, (especially by Reger), but those listed are works which do it for me.

 

Liszt, I'm afraid, leaves me quite cold by and large.

 

MM

[Paul Morley]

========================

Liszt, I'm afraid, leaves me quite cold by and large.

 

MM

Surely a man of your intellect cannot fail to be fascinated by the Piano Sonata?

[sbarber49]

========================

 

I really must weigh-in on this one.....cor blimey!

 

"Great" music must surely fulfill certain criteria. It has to be as well crafted as other great music, it must have impact and it must wear well on the ear.

 

On that basis, let me suggest a few truly GREAT organ works:-

 

1. Alain - Litanies

2. Reubke - Sonata 94th psalm (possibly the greatest of all organ works after Bach)

3. Reger - "Hallelujah! Gott zu loben!" (So thoroughly balanced and concise for a major work)

4. Reger - Introduction & Passacaglia (the shorter one), which is just stunningly effective.

5. Reger - BACH (A truly exciting work, which few can pull off effectively)

6. Durufle - Suite Op.5

7. Bruhns - E minor and G major

8. Klement Slavicky - Ecce Homo

9. Mozart - Both the K608 F minor, and the Major/minor thingy

 

The list could go on, but it would certainly include music by Pachelbel, Brahms, Froberger, possibly the Widor 6th and concertos by Handel and Jongen.

 

I'm sure that I've missed a lot out, (especially by Reger), but those listed are works which do it for me.

 

Liszt, I'm afraid, leaves me quite cold by and large.

 

MM

 

By “great” I mean organ music which reaches the level of the best works of those regarded as “Great composers”, not just music which is great in terms of organ music. I wouldn’t, myself, put the Mozart clock pieces on a par with his best music (much as I love K608) and I wonder how highly non-organists rate Reger. Personally I’d trade all the organ music of Reger, Reubke and Liszt for the B minor and A minor Chorales of Franck. I’ve never heard of Slavicky, I must admit.

 

Stephen Barber

[gazman]

Personally I’d trade all the organ music of Reger, Reubke and Liszt for the B minor and A minor Chorales of Franck.

 

Seconded here!

 

Yes, I think the point is that, with the exception of some of JSB's opus, and a few other pieces (in which I would include the chorales of Franck), very little of the organ repertoire is really great music in the overall scheme of things.

[MusingMuso]

By “great” I mean organ music which reaches the level of the best works of those regarded as “Great composers”, not just music which is great in terms of organ music. I wouldn’t, myself, put the Mozart clock pieces on a par with his best music (much as I love K608) and I wonder how highly non-organists rate Reger. Personally I’d trade all the organ music of Reger, Reubke and Liszt for the B minor and A minor Chorales of Franck. I’ve never heard of Slavicky, I must admit.

 

Stephen Barber

 

=====================

 

 

I'll try and find other links, but after downloading and listening to the Piano Toccata by Klement Slavicky (Cz) (somewhere well down the page), I think you will remember his name in future.

 

If you're going to write Toccatas, this is how to do it.

 

http://www.martinkasik.com/index.php?lang=en&page=3

 

Here a linkl to the Slavicky "Ecce Homo" from our good friends in the Netherlands. (Super organ!)

 

http://www.orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav...ntCsHtGAkBbCYmN

 

 

 

With regard to Mozart's K608, would anyone please tell me if they can find BETTER counterpoint than this anywhere in the organ literature?

 

It's interesting that Reubke is dismissed so easily, considering that he was "fast tracked" at about age 21, by Hans von Bulow, and pushed towards his tutor and mentor Liszt. Liszt was never one to give compliments, but he certainly did on the death of Reubke: age just 24.

 

I'm not sure why people are regarded as great composers, except that some wrote a lot, some lived a long time, and others were establishment figures. In his day, Saint-Seans was regarded as a great composer, but he probably wasn't, even if he was very good.

 

Some great music is in the category of the "one trick pony," but it doesn't lessen the greatness of a work.

 

As for Reger, I've never understood why it is that English organists tend to dismiss him and then proceed to rave about Howells, when his music is taken very seriously in America, the Netherlands, Germany and elsewhere. In almost all genres, he was a major romantic composer with a vast output of music.

 

Of course, the best organists always did and DO take Reger's music seriously, and play it regularly.

 

Here's three who did:- Germani, Straube, Anton Heiller, Melville Cook; each of them giants in the performing stakes.

 

Here are some who DO:- Jos van der Kooy, Kevin Bowyer, Simon Preston, Paul Jacobs, Felix Hell (etc etc)....not exactly lightweights.

 

What about the other great composers who wrote for organ? Pachalbel, Buxtehude, Froberger, Frescobaldi and Brahms for example.

 

Why are English organists so ill-informed about the wider organ repertoire, myself included?

 

Do we pride ourselves in it?

 

MM

[Nick Bennett]

Seconded here!

 

Yes, I think the point is that, with the exception of some of JSB's opus, and a few other pieces (in which I would include the chorales of Franck), very little of the organ repertoire is really great music in the overall scheme of things.

 

Much the same could be said about solo piano works, symphonies, concerti, string quartets, songs, opera, choral works, works for piano and violin, etc, etc, etc. I notice that not all paintings are of the very highest quality either. Neither are the vast majority of novels, works of poetry, stage works or posts on message boards.

 

Why single out the organ repertiore as if it had some flaw from which all other human endeavours were immune?

 

And what, exactly, is your point?

[gazman]

Much the same could be said about solo piano works, symphonies, concerti, string quartets, songs, opera, choral works, works for piano and violin, etc, etc, etc. I notice that not all paintings are of the very highest quality either. Neither are the vast majority of novels, works of poetry, stage works or posts on message boards.

 

Why single out the organ repertiore as if it had some flaw from which all other human endeavours were immune?

 

And what, exactly, is your point?

 

Calm down, Nick! I thought I'd stated it quite clearly. I certainly can't think how I could make it any clearer.

 

Yes, of course much the same could be said of other works of art. It goes without saying, one would have thought.

 

But, unfortunately and obviously, most of the "great" composers (especially those of the Classical era) thought the organ not really worthy of their efforts, alas. The repertoire of our instrument would probably be much richer had they thought differently.

[gazman]

Here's three who did:- Germani, Straube, Anton Heiller, Melville Cook; each of them giants in the performing stakes.

 

Four?

 

But you do make the starting point for a good discussion MM!

[Guest Cynic]

But, unfortunately and obviously, most of the "great" composers (especially those of the Classical era) thought the organ not really worthy of their efforts, alas. The repertoire of our instrument would probably be much richer had they thought differently.

 

 

I'm not looking to argue with anyone, I just want to put the point that we already have the most extensive and interesting repertoire of any instrument so we shouldn't keep moaning. As to whether all organ works are masterpieces, well they couldn't possibly be, could they? Not all composers are born geniuses, however the point to bear in mind is that we do not exactly need more works of high academic rigour or cleverness. What we need, and what our listeners need is variety - and we have this but few players even start to explore the barest fraction of what there is! The sad truth is that we dig our own musical graves by playing the same few works to death. I'm playing 'the' Toccata and Fugue in D minor on Sunday afternoon, but I can safely say that the folks I am playing to won't know everything on my programme by a long way.

 

Three different theories might equally explain why some players give us a very limited range of pieces to enjoy. [so limited that each time they perform or record one can fairly predict what they will play!]

1. They are such exalted musicians with such professional standards that very few composers have ever written works of a high enough quality for them.

1. They are insecure. They fear that offering works that an audience cannot recognise will risk upsetting said audience

2. They are lazy. Adding new works to one's repertoire takes time and effort.

 

This 'high art - low art' business is not helpful. One needs to be able to play wonderful works - big Bach Preludes and Fugues, Franck Chorales, Reger Fantasias of course if one is a serious player, but once some of these are safely on your programme there is room for practically anything else once in a while.

 

Why would it undermine the quality of a Bach work earlier in the programme if one let one's hair down for a few moments by playing Lefebure-Wely's March in C? Of course it wouldn't. If anyone in your audience objected to a little bit of fun in the programme well, IMHO their reaction is mere musical snobbery and they are firmly in the minority of your listeners. Fortunately, I don't think many of your audience are of the 'wine-connoisseur' type when it comes to organ music. If so, they are going to be disappointed very often! Indeed, after a loud piece, one needs something softer. Equally, after a demanding piece one needs something light. The ideal programme is like a grand dinner of several courses all carefully arranged, chosen and contrasted. I'd better not tell you who it was, but I once heard an entire programme based on B.A.C.H. - all in the same key, all loud, all fast, all tense...... Then there was the programme where the Sei Gregusset Variations were followed by a further G minor Bach work. We were stuck in that key for the best part of an hour.

 

I reckon that with careful planning I could get almost anything into a programme and the thing would still work. Mind you, the other pieces might need very careful balancing! A varied diet is good for us all. There is so much interesting stuff out there that practically nobody ever plays. Stacks and stacks of it - you can keep the dull, the poor, the 'worthy' and the merely well-written and there's still stacks of it, I promise you. My repertoire currently stands at about 300 hours of music, but I could find you at least another 20 hours of English stuff alone (waiting on my shelves) that I really ought to learn and perform - it all takes time of course.

 

Please don't moan about how there isn't enough organ music worth playing, there's plenty. We should all go out and learn some!

[Pierre Lauwers]

As always, the fashions lead to disasters.....With the "Repertoire" as with the instruments

themselves!

We human beings love to decrete "Top tens". But whenever you do that, you throw

90 pieces into the bin !

150 years ago the french believed the french baroque music was but little worth,

save maybe one Couperin Mass and De Grigny.

50 years ago, only Franck was given a few interest, all the rest was bull....hem.

 

As a result, even today, there are many guys who believe the french baroque music

equals Couperin and De Grigny, the romantic music equals Franck....Period!

German baroque music= Bach and Buxtehude.

English music= HA HA HA.

And, and, and....

As for the instruments, all you need is a Schnitger and a Cavaillé-Coll -even better,

a mixture of the two-.

 

BUT....Whenever you give an ancient organ-loft a thorough visit, you will find, round

a 1875 Schyven, for example, about half a ton old music sheets -all from that period-,

totally unknown today for...90% (logical, isn't it?)

All rubish ?

 

There is actually an huge "Repertoire" for about any period, style, area; and whenever

we do not find it, like for the 18th century Spain, then the guys were improvising.

And believe me, before playing God saying "pfuuuui, that was not that interesting", we

should better investigate somewhat, because I do not know why an area would devellop

a highly characterfull organ style only to play rubish upon it.

 

I do not know how many german baroque organ styles existed. 50, 100, more ?

Nobody knows exactly, so rich and diverse that period was there.

The country was divided in countless little duchies, each with its idiosyncrasies.

The music sheets did not circulate through the Internet, and we may guess 90% of

it did not travel outside one Duchy. Was it "bad"?

Even today, nobody here will disagree if I tell we all here have some creations of our

own that sleeps deeply in the depths of the basement. Be it books, music, or something else.

So...

[Vox Humana]

Please don't moan about how there isn't enough organ music worth playing, there's plenty.

I don't think anyone is saying there isn't enough music worth playing, are they? Of course there is plenty of organ music that is fun to play and fun to listen to without it being great - and that goes for any other branch of music too. But compared to (some) other instruments the organ is poorly served by great music. Pianists, for example have reams of really top rank stuff by Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven Mendelssohn, Schumann, Debussy, Ravel - the list is endless - but the organ has... what? Nothing like these riches to be sure.

 

Programme planning: well, that's an art in itself and I hope no one will disagree with your comments.

 

As for organists not exploring uncharted repertoire, here are few if any who do so like you do, but, with respect, I do not think insecurity comes into it and I do not know anyone snobbish enough to confine themselves solely to the greatest music. Laziness may be a factor, though I suspect money is a greater one.

[Guest Cynic]

I don't think anyone is saying there isn't enough music worth playing, are they? Of course there is plenty of organ music that is fun to play and fun to listen to without it being great - and that goes for any other branch of music too. But compared to (some) other instruments the organ is poorly served by great music. Pianists, for example have reams of really top rank stuff by Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven Mendelssohn, Schumann, Debussy, Ravel - the list is endless - but the organ has... what? Nothing like these riches to be sure.

 

Programme planning: well, that's an art in itself and I hope no one will disagree with your comments.

 

As for organists not exploring uncharted repertoire, here are few if any who do so like you do, but, with respect, I do not think insecurity comes into it and I do not know anyone snobbish enough to confine themselves solely to the greatest music. Laziness may be a factor, though I suspect money is a greater one.

 

 

These are considerate comments which I largely accept.

While your great piano composers certainly composed masterpieces from time to time, not a single one of them can match Bach's works for organ, so I remain happy with things the way they are! [i certainly enjoy playing Debussy and Chopin on the piano too.]

 

As regards money being a problem, I accept that building up a library of contemporary works may be seriously expensive, but some of my favourite discoveries have been very nearly free - music often dismissed as junk or kindly passed on by others. In passing: I recommend every Organists' Association holds Bring and Buy sales of Organ Music, a great way of clearing your shelves of things you don't want that others might.

 

The bit about insecurity...well what else would you call it? Look at chefs, even the work-a-day ones don't keep to the same menu for years and years. Particularly if they are building up a reputation, they continually experiment, vary, they borrow or adapt recipes. The ones that don't, well their reasons will be the same as the ones I suggested for recitalists who never vary what they offer - fear that only a few well-known items will satisfy, smug self-satisfaction that what they already do must (by definition) be enough, or laziness - aware that other things exist but why should they bother?

 

All of us can get stale, I was simply suggesting that instead of worrying about what music we have not got, we explore more fully that material we do have - there's so, so much....and largely unexplored.

[Vox Humana]

In passing: I recommend every Organists' Association holds Bring and Buy sales of Organ Music, a great way of clearing your shelves of things you don't want that others might.

An excellent idea. I shall be suggesting that! (Might be a good way to pick up a complete set of Caleb Simper if nothing else!)

 

The bit about insecurity...well what else would you call it? Look at chefs, even the work-a-day ones don't keep to the same menu for years and years. Particularly if they are building up a reputation, they continually experiment, vary, they borrow or adapt recipes. The ones that don't, well their reasons will be the same as the ones I suggested for recitalists who never vary what they offer - fear that only a few well-known items will satisfy, smug self-satisfaction that what they already do must (by definition) be enough, or laziness - aware that other things exist but why should they bother?

I see what you mean. Yes, you have a point.

 

All of can get stale, I was simply suggesting that instead of worrying about what music we have not got, we explore more fully that material we do have - there's so, so much....and largely unexplored.

Indeed. I have been slowly trawling my way through what is online in the Sibley library. A lot of it is, frankly, too sentimental for me, but there is a some really good stuff in there which is now in the public domain.

[gazman]

I don't think anyone is saying there isn't enough music worth playing, are they? Of course there is plenty of organ music that is fun to play and fun to listen to without it being great - and that goes for any other branch of music too. But compared to (some) other instruments the organ is poorly served by great music. Pianists, for example have reams of really top rank stuff by Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Debussy, Ravel - the list is endless - but the organ has... what? Nothing like these riches to be sure.

 

Thank you, Vox. That's summed up perfectly the point I was making rather less eloquently.

[MusingMuso]

Four?

 

But you do make the starting point for a good discussion MM!

 

========================

 

 

Oh, well in that case, we'd better add two other heavyweight performers: Gerre Hancock and Heinz Wunderlich; the latter one the the great Reger exponents.

 

I'll add names as I bring them back to mind.

 

MM

[Guest Cynic]

It's the thrill of the chase!

 

Give you an example: while waiting for dinner to cook last Thursday night, I sat at the console with a (very musical) friend and a stack taken from one of my mouldering heaps. I sight-read through a few things: the rule is, the first page has to grab me if the piece is worth spending time on. Within ten minutes we had found several contenders for items to learn that neither of us had ever met. My friend probably has as many organ music recordings as I have scores - his bungalow is literally stacked with them. If neither he nor I know something, it's probably pretty thoroughly forgotten! Doesn't mean it's not worth learning, though.

 

Anyway, do you know Harvey Grace's Resurgam? Only a few of us play it - I think upon hearing it anyone would agree it's good stuff. Ever met his Epilogue? No, neither had we. It's just as good. I very recently met Ernest McMillan's Cortege Academique it's on Malcolm Rileys new (and splendid) CD from St.Bride's Fleet Street. Turns out I'd had it for years and never seriously looked at it. I've just got to learn it now!

 

Apologies for over-enthusiasm, I'll get my coat.....

[MusingMuso]

Thank you, Vox. That's summed up perfectly the point I was making rather less eloquently.

 

 

====================

 

 

Sorry, I can't agree, unless people are so hooked on sonata form, string-quartets, symphonies and opera that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

Perhaps it is simply that, as a quite specialised instrument (like the harpsichord), there are only certain ways in which music can be written for the instrument, and the best way is not necessarily full of pretty tunes.

 

Perhaps our German firends can come to our assistance here, because there's a huge repertoire of German/Austrian-romantic organ-music, which few play or know much about.

 

At least Paul Derret plays Karg-Elert!

 

How many people know the organ-music of Schmidt, Schroeder, Distler, Middelshulte or Heinz Wunderlich?

 

I'm not sure that I do, but at least I am aware of it and I have a few recordings.

 

MM

[Guest Cynic]

snip

 

How many people know the organ-music of Schmidt, Schroeder, Distler, Middelshulte or Heinz Wunderlich?

 

 

MM

 

 

That's not the question. No problem about the above (though what did Wunderlich actually compose?) but when you've gone to the trouble of collecting the scores, you may ask as I have why I have heard of Max Drischner? I blame Bryan Hesford.

 

Thinks: We should get Kevin Bowyer on this forum. He revels in the unknown stuff and plays things I wouldn't dare touch.

[sbarber49]

=====================

 

 

I'll try and find other links, but after downloading and listening to the Piano Toccata by Klement Slavicky (Cz) (somewhere well down the page), I think you will remember his name in future.

 

If you're going to write Toccatas, this is how to do it.

 

http://www.martinkasik.com/index.php?lang=en&page=3

 

Yes, it's an effective piece.

 

Here a linkl to the Slavicky "Ecce Homo" from our good friends in the Netherlands. (Super organ!)

 

http://www.orgelconcerten.ncrv.nl/ncrv?nav...ntCsHtGAkBbCYmN

 

It's too much like improvising for me.

 

With regard to Mozart's K608, would anyone please tell me if they can find BETTER counterpoint than this anywhere in the organ literature?

Well I should have thought, any mature Bach fugue (purely as counterpoint - I'm not discussing the relative merits of the pieces as successful music).

 

It's interesting that Reubke is dismissed so easily, considering that he was "fast tracked" at about age 21, by Hans von Bulow, and pushed towards his tutor and mentor Liszt. Liszt was never one to give compliments, but he certainly did on the death of Reubke: age just 24.

That's the Liszt who said that Franck's 6 pieces were worthy to stand beside the masterpieces of Bach? (Not the masterpieces of Bach and Reubke.)

 

As for Reger, I've never understood why it is that English organists tend to dismiss him and then proceed to rave about Howells, when his music is taken very seriously in America, the Netherlands, Germany and elsewhere. In almost all genres, he was a major romantic composer with a vast output of music.

 

Of course, the best organists always did and DO take Reger's music seriously, and play it regularly.

I asked about NON-ORGANISTS! Of course organists play and appreciate Reger.

 

What about the other great composers who wrote for organ? Pachalbel, Buxtehude, Froberger, Frescobaldi and Brahms for example.

Pachelbel a "great" composer? A good one, of course, with some beautiful music (the F minor Ciacona is hard to beat). Brahms is certainly, in my view, a very great composer but his organ music is not among his geatest music, though I'd hate to be without the chorale preludes.

 

I still say that Franck's music far surpasses the rest. His Piano Quintet, Violin Sonata & Symphony are in the mainstream classical repertoire and his best organ music is al least on the same level. What lifts it above Reger for me is that it has such satisfying structures - although he was famed as an improviser his music never sounds like improvising. In my view, too much organ music meanders and no amount of complex textures and huge numbers of notes makes up for that.

 

Stephen Barber

[MusingMuso]

Yes, it's an effective piece.

It's too much like improvising for me.

 

 

Well I should have thought, any mature Bach fugue (purely as counterpoint - I'm not discussing the relative merits of the pieces as successful music).

That's the Liszt who said that Franck's 6 pieces were worthy to stand beside the masterpieces of Bach? (Not the masterpieces of Bach and Reubke.)

I asked about NON-ORGANISTS! Of course organists play and appreciate Reger.

Pachelbel a "great" composer? A good one, of course, with some beautiful music (the F minor Ciacona is hard to beat). Brahms is certainly, in my view, a very great composer but his organ music is not among his geatest music, though I'd hate to be without the chorale preludes.

 

I still say that Franck's music far surpasses the rest. His Piano Quintet, Violin Sonata & Symphony are in the mainstream classical repertoire and his best organ music is al least on the same level. What lifts it above Reger for me is that it has such satisfying structures - although he was famed as an improviser his music never sounds like improvising. In my view, too much organ music meanders and no amount of complex textures and huge numbers of notes makes up for that.

 

Stephen Barber

 

======================

 

 

We could exchange views forever, and get nowhere. However, entering into the spirit of the subject, I owuld have thought that Reubke completely eclipsed Liszt with just the one organ work, and without mentioning his other big piano work.

 

It could be argued that Mozart would never have achieved the quality of his later works (age 33-35 or so), without a careful study of Bach, but I would suggest that he was Bach's equal when he did; albeit subservient, as always, to a good tune or two.

 

Pachelble, in his day, was indeed one of the great composers. Bach liked his music anyway.

 

As for "structures," surely the whole "Raison d'Etre" of Reger, was his more or less complete rejection of anything other than classical-form and fugue; certainly in the organ-music. His use of variation form, passacaglia and double fugue, goes straight back to Bach. Whilst acknowledging that some of the works are over-long and often harmocially over-complex, the best of his works are wonderfully structured and deeply satisfying to master. (I often wish I had more time).

 

As for Reger being respected by non-organists, his chamber-music is fantastic, as are some of the piano pieces and songs.

 

If we relied on mainstream fashion, we would almost never hear Brahms these days, would we?

 

Complex and melancholic though much of Reger's music is, it nevertheless towers above the majority of French music, yet is not appreciated in England. Go to the Netherlands, and where the organs are at all suitable, I would hazard the guess that he is the second most-played composer after Bach, which is why I like to go there.

 

Of course, we'll never agree, if only because I tend not to play French music beyond a few pieces here and there; the "Litanies" by Alain being one I admire enormously. I've never been drawn to learn a single Vierne Synphony, and Cesar Franck is more "easy listening" than repertoire to me.

 

MM

[Davidb]

The problem with Vierne Symphonies is their inconsistencies. Many of them have one or two superb movements, that just are not matched by the rest of the symphony (E.G. the 1st, 2nd and last movemnts of the 1st, 1+2 of the 2nd and 1 of the 3rd, finale of the 5th)

 

Great music though? sadly not

[sbarber49]

The problem with Vierne Symphonies is their inconsistencies. Many of them have one or two superb movements, that just are not matched by the rest of the symphony (E.G. the 1st, 2nd and last movemnts of the 1st, 1+2 of the 2nd and 1 of the 3rd, finale of the 5th)

 

Great music though? sadly not

 

I reckon that No 3 is pretty good throughout.

 

Stephen Barber

[Guest Cynic]

I reckon that No 3 is pretty good throughout.

 

Stephen Barber

 

 

I agree with you,SB, I happen to agree with you about Cesar Franck too but ?fools seldom differ?