The Cyclopean Symphony Cycle Cyclopedia

[ibanezmonster]

Makes me think of this:

Yep, that's about what comes to mind.

Well, that was a real treat, Greg.

And as for "100% there, flawlessly," that's not even a real category. For one, humans don't do flawless. Fro two, who gets to decide if something is flawless or not?

In any case, if I were to find fault with this, it's that the long drawing out is a bit weakened by too much embellishment. But I don't find fault with it. Sounded like a fine symphony by Avet Terterian to me.

I just thought it could be a bit better.
I'm not sure what embellishment you're talking about in the 5th- surely not the beginning! lol I like the atmosphere, but it just goes on slightly too long.

[some guy]

Hey Greg, and I think that Beethoven's ninth could have been better, too.

As for Terterian, I thought that given the materials with with he opened the piece, that the kind of thing the soloist does around the 2:44* mark came too soon. (Too soon or maybe even should not have come at all.) Otherwise, this listen, I thought the pacing was done very well. That even the clarinet stuff around six minutes in was not too much. First time I listened, I thought that things moved way faster than the material called for. I still think they moved faster but no longer do I think way faster!

Different listeners, different needs. That's why I don't think "improved" or "better" really makes much sense here. Better for you might mean quite a bit worse for me. And who gets to decide? Better to just take what the composer gives and live with it.

Anyway, since Avet has been dead for almost 18 years, angry letters to him will have no effect!

*3:43 on the Qamancha video--the piece starts at the :59 mark.

[eyeresist]

As for Terterian, I thought that given the materials with with he opened the piece, that the kind of thing the soloist does around the 2:44* mark came too soon. (Too soon or maybe even should not have come at all.) Otherwise, this listen, I thought the pacing was done very well. That even the clarinet stuff around six minutes in was not too much. First time I listened, I thought that things moved way faster than the material called for. I still think they moved faster but no longer do I think way faster!

Apparently recordings of the 4th range from 20 to 35 minutes, so possibly aleatoric technique is responsible for the uncomfortable timings in this version of the 5th?

[ibanezmonster]

And... no Terterian symphony scores are to be found. Of course, anyone could guess that by now I've googled "Terterian symphony pdf" by now? 

It would be nice to know if he uses some type of aleatoric technique or absolute timing (like early Penderecki).

[Lilas Pastia]

Gerhard's symphonies are, of course, to die for. And so different from each other. One's obsessive little motif that just keeps going and going.... The second's bright sonorities--better in the original version, but I wouldn't want to be without the revised version, either. The third's stunning brass work and delicious electronics--OK in the Bamert, much better balanced in the Prausnitz LP. The fourth's quiet confidence and maturity, evident in the Davis but much better put across in the Bamert.

One of the more interesting of the major composers nobody seems to know anything about.

And the Lutosławski four. Wow. This is about as delightful as twentieth century orchestral music gets. Not quite Lachenmann, but still. Powerful and rewarding stuff. As eloquent a case for the validity of symphonic music post 1939 as you're gonna get, I'd say. (Ultimately not convincing, I'd also say, but still. Wow. Especially that third one. What a treat. As soon as this Birtwistle disc finishes, I'll have to put that Lutosławski on. Been too long since I've listened to that.)

Otherwise, the Sessions nine are fabulous--and interesting to listen to in order to hear the evolution of his thought. (This is also true for the Wellesz nine and for the Petrassi eight concerti for orchestra. If you like that kind of information.)

I haven't listened to the Gerhardt symphonies in the last ten years or so - or his ballet music and cantata-oratorio The Plague for that matter  .  Wellesz is a more recent acquaintance. Haven't heard all his symphonies, just  4 of them.  I have enthused about the Petrassi concertos in these pages long ago, but haven't listened to them in a few years either. They all deserve to be heard and cherished. This is what 20th Century is all about. Forget about Henze, Boulez and Xenakis. They are unmusical.