It breaks my heart that Copland only left us with 3 symphonies. But I listen to them recurrently, and this fills with me with a delight to the brim. This symphony here is quite extraordinary.
The joy of listening to pre-20th century music is that you KNOW what`s to come next. The joy of listening to music composed after1900 is that you do NOT know what is to come next. Before listening to a live performance of his 3rd Symphony last night I read in the program notes about Walter Damrosch`s damning comment about Copeland`s organ piece. So, I just had to look it up on UA-cam this morning. I, too, loved it and waited with anticipation what would greet my ears around every Copeland corner.
Another of the joys of 20th Century music is that many of the composers got to go into a studio and record their works, so we hear them EXACTLY as they intended them to be heard. With composers before the era of recorded music we have the scores with notes, but we will never know EXACTLY how they intended them to be heard.
What a symphony! The Prelude doesn't so much prepare you for what's to follow but lays you open - vulnerable even - to the very tough and wide-ranging symphonic discourse that is to follow. The stunningly virtuosic syncopations of the scherzo - the consistent but ever inventive sequential procedures of the trio - the Scherzo's return - nothing repetitive here. The organ throughout is integrated as an extended part of the orchestra - a extended woodwind in the Scherzo, extended Brass in the finale - and even an extended muted solo string instrument. Wait to for one of the most amusing fugues in a symphony ever! Now, what if Copland had written many more symphonies than just three??
11:30 as a student I could not execute this little triplet rhythm, where voice #1 speaks at beats# 1 + 2; voice #2 speaks at 2 + 3. It was like rubbing your stomach and patting your head simultaneously. . This is a lovely recording!
This work was later turned by Copland into an organ-less "Symphony no. 1" but the original version is very much to be preferred. The organ brings so much atmosphere to it. Virgil Thomson told Nadia Boulanger he had wept when he heard it - "because I had not written it myself." "Virg" was at least as intelligent as Copland, but he was not a genius. Helas.
A really fantastic an neglected work. I din't understand why organists don't play it all the time. do we really need another performance of the Saint Saens?
Boston Symphony Conductor, Koussevitzky. told Copland at a young age that he was to compose a piece for orchestra and solo organ. Copland had little experience wth orchestrated works at that time but agreed. AND Natalie Boulanger, Copland's teacher, was to play the organ. There is some serious history with this little gem! It's so cool.
@@candiceburrows6812 Yes, there is a lineage: Saint-Saens mentored Faure, Faure mentored Nadia Boulanger, Boulanger mentored Copland. I believe Nadia premiered this work for Copland as conductor. Copland had a great mind: Nadia cultivated it into perfection.
The Saint Saens is a great achievement in integration of the organ with orchestra - none better. This work simply doesn't measure up to it. It doesn't seem to be able to find a mood and sustain it, to my ears its many pieces just doesn't cohere. Even the organ itself is seldom necessary, which Copland proved by removing the organ part and publishing this as his Symphony No 1. It was no doubt an important transitional work for Copland in his development as a composer. And that is part of the reason the SS reigns supreme as a rare example of organ and orchestra working together to achieve something greater than its parts, and offers a thrilling ride to boot.
Unfortunately Copland's work is underated, unperformed and does not get the appreciation it deserves. So many wonderful, colourful and breathtaking works. pieces you want to here, you want to know what's going to happen next.
Reaction to the premier of this piece: "If a gifted young man can write a symphony like that at age twenty-three, within five years he will be ready to commit murder!" Copeland was such fertile ground for so many that followed him... from the Bernstein "brothers" to Keith Emerson.
I was just re-reading Faucett's excellent biography of Chadwick, and Chadwick attended a performance of Copeland's Organ Symphony in 1925. Chadwick wrote about it "Caplan piece is the most impudent and indecent specimen of Hebrew godlessness was have yet heard." So not everyone had a positive reaction. I was really disappointed to learn the dark, bigoted side of Chadwick, a composer that I feel was very solid - and even, at his best, quite good. I can understand his difficulty with the music, being born in 1854 and quite conservative even by that measure, but that "critique" is nonsense and appalling. Just a funny coincidence that this video appeared in my recommended list, and I saw your comment, and literally read this passage in the book again not a week ago, so it was fresh in my mind. Just as an aside, I don't share Chadwick's powerful distaste for this "Caplan" Symphony at all! My taste is usually more in line with Chadwick, and the 20th century contains tons of music that I abhor, but when Copeland was in crowd-pleasing mode, even a pre-1900s diehard like myself gets won over!
Lol. There seems to be an ongoing bit of either wishful thinking or misinformation -- that assumed 'brother' is the not at all related film composer Elmer Bernstein.
It breaks my heart that Copland only left us with 3 symphonies. But I listen to them recurrently, and this fills with me with a delight to the brim. This symphony here is quite extraordinary.
The joy of listening to pre-20th century music is that you KNOW what`s to come next. The joy of listening to music composed after1900 is that you do NOT know what is to come next. Before listening to a live performance of his 3rd Symphony last night I read in the program notes about Walter Damrosch`s damning comment about Copeland`s organ piece. So, I just had to look it up on UA-cam this morning. I, too, loved it and waited with anticipation what would greet my ears around every Copeland corner.
Another of the joys of 20th Century music is that many of the composers got to go into a studio and record their works, so we hear them EXACTLY as they intended them to be heard. With composers before the era of recorded music we have the scores with notes, but we will never know EXACTLY how they intended them to be heard.
I've always been curious to hear this early work. Absolutely marvelous! Thanks so much for posting. (The performance is excellent!)
What a symphony! The Prelude doesn't so much prepare you for what's to follow but lays you open - vulnerable even - to the very tough and wide-ranging symphonic discourse that is to follow. The stunningly virtuosic syncopations of the scherzo - the consistent but ever inventive sequential procedures of the trio - the Scherzo's return - nothing repetitive here. The organ throughout is integrated as an extended part of the orchestra - a extended woodwind in the Scherzo, extended Brass in the finale - and even an extended muted solo string instrument. Wait to for one of the most amusing fugues in a symphony ever! Now, what if Copland had written many more symphonies than just three??
I love your music-appreciation comments about this and I listened for the fugue. It was great.
If there is such a thing as an introverted piece of music, the first movement of this marvelous work certainly fits the bill....
Majestic and magnificent
11:30 as a student I could not execute this little triplet rhythm, where voice #1 speaks at beats# 1 + 2; voice #2 speaks at 2 + 3. It was like rubbing your stomach and patting your head simultaneously. .
This is a lovely recording!
This work was later turned by Copland into an organ-less "Symphony no. 1" but the original version is very much to be preferred. The organ brings so much atmosphere to it. Virgil Thomson told Nadia Boulanger he had wept when he heard it - "because I had not written it myself." "Virg" was at least as intelligent as Copland, but he was not a genius. Helas.
Thank you--I agree on this point, finding the piece extraordinary in its own right.
A really fantastic an neglected work. I din't understand why organists don't play it all the time. do we really need another performance of the Saint Saens?
Boston Symphony Conductor, Koussevitzky. told Copland at a young age that he was to compose a piece for orchestra and solo organ. Copland had little experience wth orchestrated works at that time but agreed. AND Natalie Boulanger, Copland's teacher, was to play the organ. There is some serious history with this little gem! It's so cool.
@@candiceburrows6812 Yes, there is a lineage: Saint-Saens mentored Faure, Faure mentored Nadia Boulanger, Boulanger mentored Copland. I believe Nadia premiered this work for Copland as conductor. Copland had a great mind: Nadia cultivated it into perfection.
The Saint Saens is a great achievement in integration of the organ with orchestra - none better. This work simply doesn't measure up to it. It doesn't seem to be able to find a mood and sustain it, to my ears its many pieces just doesn't cohere. Even the organ itself is seldom necessary, which Copland proved by removing the organ part and publishing this as his Symphony No 1. It was no doubt an important transitional work for Copland in his development as a composer. And that is part of the reason the SS reigns supreme as a rare example of organ and orchestra working together to achieve something greater than its parts, and offers a thrilling ride to boot.
Unfortunately Copland's work is underated, unperformed and does not get the appreciation it deserves. So many wonderful, colourful and breathtaking works. pieces you want to here, you want to know what's going to happen next.
Reaction to the premier of this piece: "If a gifted young man can write a symphony like that at age twenty-three, within five years he will be ready to commit murder!" Copeland was such fertile ground for so many that followed him... from the Bernstein "brothers" to Keith Emerson.
I was just re-reading Faucett's excellent biography of Chadwick, and Chadwick attended a performance of Copeland's Organ Symphony in 1925. Chadwick wrote about it "Caplan piece is the most impudent and indecent specimen of Hebrew godlessness was have yet heard."
So not everyone had a positive reaction. I was really disappointed to learn the dark, bigoted side of Chadwick, a composer that I feel was very solid - and even, at his best, quite good. I can understand his difficulty with the music, being born in 1854 and quite conservative even by that measure, but that "critique" is nonsense and appalling.
Just a funny coincidence that this video appeared in my recommended list, and I saw your comment, and literally read this passage in the book again not a week ago, so it was fresh in my mind. Just as an aside, I don't share Chadwick's powerful distaste for this "Caplan" Symphony at all! My taste is usually more in line with Chadwick, and the 20th century contains tons of music that I abhor, but when Copeland was in crowd-pleasing mode, even a pre-1900s diehard like myself gets won over!
Bernstein brothers...well he did have a brother Burton who was a staff writer for the New Yorker.
Lol. There seems to be an ongoing bit of either wishful thinking or misinformation -- that assumed 'brother' is the not at all related film composer Elmer Bernstein.
You mean the Gershowitz (Gershwin) bros, George and Ira, I presume...
Who the hell puts ads on a symphony?
Andrew, you clearly do not know how UA-cam works. Who do you think pays for it? You can opt out of ads for a price.
10:47
19:20