The Great American Symphony

[kishnevi]

Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.

I don't particularly care for Schuman 3:  does not hit my ears agreeably.  But it is an important and influential work.  Some music can be utterly craptastic and yet still be important and influential. For instance, the music of a certain German composer named....well, nevermind

[Karl Henning]

Craptastique des Dieux

[Cato]

I don't particularly care for Schuman 3:  does not hit my ears agreeably.  But it is an important and influential work.  Some music can be utterly craptastic and yet still be important and influential. For instance, the music of a certain German composer named....well, nevermind

Friedrich Mistmacher ?

Immanuel Quatschmann ?

Oswald Schundspieler ?

Ignatz Wuschelkopf ?

[North Star]

I think Jeffrey is referring to Reinhardt Bogner.

[Scion7]

Someone ... someday ...

COMPOSER-Symphony No.6 in e, Op.22  'Craptastique'

[relm1]

Any love here for Benjamin Lees?  I found his Symphony No. 4 quite moving.

[kishnevi]

Any love here for Benjamin Lees?  I found his Symphony No. 4 quite moving.

I have that,  although I was not overwhelmed by it.  Also his violin concerto which I think I liked more.  Both fine pieces of music.  I certainly liked the Lees symphony more than Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs (to pick an obvious European parallel).


Which merely gives more evidence that a symphony does not have to be the equal of Beethoven's Third to be worth hearing.

[some guy]

I cannot make this string of words make any sort of sense at all:

the equal of Beethoven's Third

For that to make sense, there would have to be at least one symphony that is comparable to Beethoven's Third and preferably several more than one.

But there isn't. There is only one symphony that is like Beethoven's Third and that is Beethoven's Third.

With certain exceptions, which we will pass over quickly and silently as they're a huge embarrassment for all concerned, that's how the arts work. Sui generis.

Of course, there are similarities and family resemblances between every work and one or two other works. Or hundreds. Just as there are between humans of the same family. But here's the sticking point for me. I have three sons. They have many similarities, obviously. But they are three, distinct, unique and easily distinguishable persons. They are not comparable. There is only one of each.

Even Haydn's 100 plus symphonies. There are certain resemblances. But each one is distinct, unique, and easily distinguishable from the others as well as from every other symphony ever written--at least every other symphony written to be something other than a Haydn pastiche.

Comparisons, levels, rankings and the like are for things that can be so treated, jeans, breakfast cereals, speaker systems, chairs. Not for things like paintings or symphonies or plays or sculptures or poems. Those things, like people, are unique. In spite of their obvious similarities, they are very much themselves. I have to confess: I cannot even compare nine symphonies by the same guy.* They are all quite different. I can easily compare my jeans and the jeans in the store and the jeans my friends wear.

In our mad rush to make sure we give due importance to the incomparable music we favor, the music we consider to be "great" and incalculably valuable, we have treated it as if it were as comparable as the things that are, which are things not incalculably valuable. Not really valuable at all. If I never wore another pair of jeans in my life, my life would be in every way unaltered and unaffected. If I were never to hear Beethoven's Third again, or Schuman's Third for that matter, my life would be clearly diminished.

I need, now that I have them, each individual piece of music that I have ever enjoyed.

*Why, I cannot even compare thee to a summer's day.

[kishnevi]

I cannot make this string of words make any sort of sense at all:
For that to make sense, there would have to be at least one symphony that is comparable to Beethoven's Third and preferably several more than one.

But there isn't. There is only one symphony that is like Beethoven's Third and that is Beethoven's Third.

With certain exceptions, which we will pass over quickly and silently as they're a huge embarrassment for all concerned, that's how the arts work. Sui generis.

Of course, there are similarities and family resemblances between every work and one or two other works. Or hundreds. Just as there are between humans of the same family. But here's the sticking point for me. I have three sons. They have many similarities, obviously. But they are three, distinct, unique and easily distinguishable persons. They are not comparable. There is only one of each.

Even Haydn's 100 plus symphonies. There are certain resemblances. But each one is distinct, unique, and easily distinguishable from the others as well as from every other symphony ever written--at least every other symphony written to be something other than a Haydn pastiche.

Comparisons, levels, rankings and the like are for things that can be so treated, jeans, breakfast cereals, speaker systems, chairs. Not for things like paintings or symphonies or plays or sculptures or poems. Those things, like people, are unique. In spite of their obvious similarities, they are very much themselves. I have to confess: I cannot even compare nine symphonies by the same guy.* They are all quite different. I can easily compare my jeans and the jeans in the store and the jeans my friends wear.

In our mad rush to make sure we give due importance to the incomparable music we favor, the music we consider to be "great" and incalculably valuable, we have treated it as if it were as comparable as the things that are, which are things not incalculably valuable. Not really valuable at all. If I never wore another pair of jeans in my life, my life would be in every way unaltered and unaffected. If I were never to hear Beethoven's Third again, or Schuman's Third for that matter, my life would be clearly diminished.

I need, now that I have them, each individual piece of music that I have ever enjoyed.

*Why, I cannot even compare thee to a summer's day.

That is a lot of verbiage to state the obvious.  And what I was saying ought to be obvious and has no similarity to what you were talking about.

Of course, the Eroica is sui generis.  Same with every other symphony ever written.

But it is more influential, more widely known, more important in the history of music, than many other symphonies.. say, to keep it simple, Beethoven's Second and Fourth.

Very few, if any, of the works we are discussing here are as influential, as important in history, as widely known, as B3.  That does not mean (as James seems to asserting) that they are not worth bothering with.

They should be listened to and valued as good music.

I think you agree with me on that point.

[Mirror Image]

Nope. Classical music would have been just fine without the American's 3rd Symphony. He's not a great composer. And trying to put Schuman up there with Brahms is ridiculous. I'm sure Schuman himself would have shaken his head at even the thought.

Classical music would have been just fine without Stockhausen, too, but it's your right to claim the opposite, but the fact of the matter is your opinion isn't some kind of sacred truth. It's simply an opinion. Please just get off your high horse and post in a thread where you actually can make some kind of meaningful contribution, because you're completely out of your element here and you're just embarrassing yourself at this juncture IMHO.

[James]

Schuman would have done so because of humility.

Perhaps a little of that, but only because of a sound education & training.

[James]

Please just get off your high horse and post in a thread where you actually can make some kind of meaningful contribution, because you're completely out of your element here and you're just embarrassing yourself at this juncture IMHO.

I'm just injecting a little reality into the thread. I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas. I'm a realist.

[Scion7]

I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas.

So we've noticed. 

[James]

See below, for an example .. (though the thread is loaded)

William Schuman's 3rd symphony is as essential and important in its own area/nook of Classical music as is, say, Brahms' 2nd symphony in that portion of the Classical music spectrum - and, yes, it ranks as a 'great symphony.'

[Mirror Image]

I'm just injecting a little reality into the thread. I think people get really carried away with their words & ideas. I'm a realist.

Well that's nice and all, but you've still added nothing to the ongoing discussion and continue to pollute this thread with your sacred truths and holy wiseman attitude.

[Mirror Image]

I fully endorse Schuman's Symphony No. 3 by the way. I think it's a masterpiece of American symphonic music and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who believes this to be the case. Got to love those American third symphonies.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I fully endorse Schuman's Symphony No. 3 by the way. I think it's a masterpiece of American symphonic music and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who believes this to be the case. Got to love those American third symphonies.

I fully endorse this post, and I think his 6th is maybe even better.

[Mirror Image]

I fully endorse this post, and I think his 6th is maybe even better.

Yes! The 6th is amazing. One of my favorites from him.

[Heck148]

I'm a realist.

Eeeuuuwww!! Did somebody just break wind on-line?? 

[Heck148]

Yes! The 6th is amazing. One of my favorites from him.

yes, I've become very fond of #s 9 and 10, as well...