Eduard Tubin (1905-82)

[cilgwyn]

Funnily enough the Sixth is the only Tubin symphony I don't like, for the reason Cilgwyn mentioned, the bombast, particularly the ending.

The fact that it was the only one I knew for years (apart from the Second) thanks to two still playable off air cassettes (one of them 25yrs old) is another factor,I suppose. Of course,I've got the BIS cycle now. I'm glad to hear that the Sixth has a fan. It is interesting how what I referred to as bombast (maybe it isn't,if you like it?!) has a different effect on calyptorhyncus. I suppose I shouldn't like it really. I'm not so keen on noisy music these days. Khatchaturian got allot of hearings in my youth;usually at a very high volume,with lots of bass! . Now I'm more likely to put on Delius or Moeran;although after hearing Jarvi's Khatchaturian two and an upload of Tjeknavorian's truly exciting reading of his First (none of the other recordings do it justice!) I am starting to like Khatchaturian the symphonist,again! Just not so sure about anything else he composed?!
I should point out,the first Tubin symphony I ever heard was No 2! Then the Sixth.......and nothing else for years. Maybe calyptorhyncus has a point?! Hm?!! Actually,I think it was just the expense,and so much other music on my list to explore.

[cilgwyn]

Tubin at the Proms would be rather nice! It's funny,these sudden flurries of interest. George Lloyd and Tubin symphonies on R3 (back in the eighties,I think?) and people talking excitedly about their rediscovery,then nothing (much,anyway) for years. I only recently read a very dismissive review of Tubin. Was it Andrew Clements? Something about his music being stuck in the past. I disagreed of course;but he's still one of those off-the-beaten track sort of composers;even if allot of music lovers like 'us' rate him highly.

[calyptorhynchus]

Funnily enough the Sixth is by far my favourite, ever since I first heard it. The first two movements are so strong IMHO that the third could only alter the game and start a huge passacaglia ending not in bombast, but Shostakovichean-grotesque protest against it, i.e. (Soviet) brutality. Spine-tingling, breathtaking. 

I've got a horrible feeling that I've got egg on face and it's another symphony I don't like because of an overly triumphant ending. Have to listen to them again...

[calyptorhynchus]

Yes, I had a quick listen when I got home... it's No.5 I don't like because of a too triumphant ending.

Generally I think the symphonies get better and better, so my favourites are 7, 8, 9 and 10.

[Christo]

Tubin at the Proms would be rather nice!

I was happy enough to hear Nos. 5 and 6 live in my home town, Utrecht, under conductors Arvo Volmer and, IIRC, Eri Klas. And also the unfinished No. 11 (only the first movement, completed by Kaljo Raid) with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam under Neeme Järvi. No Proms, perhaps, but not bad either. 

[springrite]

2 & 6 were my first encounter with Tubin, and I do like #6, bombast and all!

[cilgwyn]

A bit of bombast can be allot of fun! Respighi's Roman Festivals,for example. It has it's critics,but I love it! The recent bis cd of the trilogy was particularly spectacular. Pity about the nightingale,but only a minor blemish on a great disc. The finale of George Lloyd's Seventh with it's Star Wars hi-jinks is another one. I do like Tubin's earlier symphonies allot;but I agree with calyptorhyncus that the later ones are even better. His sound world is more subtle,refined and like a good joint,all the excess fat trimmed off. They are more sombre,but you feel better for listening to them. Well,I do!

[Mirror Image]

I think Tubin's 1st and 7th stand out the most to me. That first movement of the 1st is a miniature masterpiece.

[Brian]

Listening to the first half of the Tubin symphony cycle today. Here are my notes.

No. 1. This one sounds attractive, and has some really striking moments. But it's so disorganized and episodic - stuff happens and it's never clear why. Especially without catchy melodies to help you gain a point of reference, the first two movements fall under the category of "nice enough, but uncompelling" for me. The finale is a bit different, since, for its second half, Tubin finds an idea and sticks to it, developing it more carefully. But this is not going to be my favorite late romantic symphony.

No. 2 "Legendaire." Here Tubin harnesses his apparent penchant for disorganization, and uses it to his advantage. It's a huge advance over the First, while not being any more formally structured. That's because Tubin really takes time to let the episodes develop, and the transitions are much better, too. (As some GMGers have commented, the symphonies do have a lot in common, sound-world-wise.) The "Legendaire" subtitle should be read more as "Mythologique," given the tone of the music. A lot of it sounds truly mythic, like a Lord of the Rings epic or something along those lines. Terrific orchestration, big mighty climaxes. This is not an essential symphony, or anything like that, but it's certainly a lot of fun.

No. 3. It's audacious to start a symphony with a fugue (well, ok, there's a 3-minute introduction). After the fugue ends, the bassoons quote "Dies irae". And the symphony is, of course, in D minor. But that triple threat of old-fashioned-ness is mostly defused, because the fugal material never comes back; neither does Dies irae. Instead the movement shifts to a slow passage and then a surprisingly happy ending. As weird as that portion is, I do like the rest of the symphony. This work is perfectly fine, with its very cool scherzo and a cohesive marchy finale that leaves an unusually strong impression and builds to a big, brassy, weirdly Debussian ending. There are strong Atterbergian echoes. Orchestration again superb - brings to mind what would happen if you put all the French Impressionists in a boat and sailed them to the Baltic.

No. 4 "Lirica." Dave Hurwitz compares this to Vaughan Williams's Symphony No. 5, which (remarkably) was written in the exact same year, 1943. Sibelius's Sixth might also be a decent comparison, in a few respects. The title "Lirica" is well-lived-up-to, with lyricism and long, flowing melody a priority. This is also the first conventionally-structured Tubin symphony, insofar as it has themes and develops them in traditional classical forms. Also, this is the first four-movement symphony with a separate scherzo and andante. (Amazingly, Tubin only wrote 2 four-movement symphonies in 10.5 tries.)

This symphony is not as inspired as RVW's in terms of melody, and its emotional arc may not resonate as strongly (the way RVW's slow movement ties in to the finale...). Also, the final coda is a bit of a letdown to me. But Tubin No. 4 is definitely the highlight of the cycle so far. There is some seriously good stuff here. Volmer's performance is good enough, but I think that a truly world-class conductor/orchestra combo would take this symphony to another level.

No. 5. Wow, a major change in the composer's style. Now Tubin has taken off the jacket of late-romantic harmony and donned the vest of neoclassical rhythmic emphasis. Boy was that a terrible sentence. But he's not so much about jumping around in atmospheric puddles anymore, and has moved on to sterner, more incisive things. I don't get the Prokofiev comparisons; Prokofiev had a more distinctive melodic voice and the Prokian enigmatic voice concealed different emotions from the Tubinian enigmatic voice. There is a faint echo of Sibelius to the slow movement, and Roussel. Is there an organ in there? This is an interesting symphony, and as martial and even bitter as it gets, I like it. Cool timpani part! No. 5 is the other side of No. 4's coin, and while it would be a tough sell in the concert hall, it's an interesting listen.

Enjoyed a lot: 4
Enjoyed plenty: 2, 5
Okay: 3
Meh: 1

[Mirror Image]

Look forward to the rest of your write-up on Tubin's symphonies, Brian. My main problem with Tubin, and this is certainly why he's not in my Top 20 or even my Top 50, is there's nothing remotely memorable about his themes or musical ideas. They simply do not stick in my head and leave me wondering about them long after a piece has finished. Is this the only criteria I use to evaluate a composer? Certainly not, but my favorite composers have a strong sense of melody. I'm not too worried about structure as I love rhapsodic music, but when it comes to the symphonic form is when my opinion changes and becomes extremely critical. I enjoy Tubin's music the moment I'm listening to it, but it doesn't really extend beyond that point.

[Brian]

Look forward to the rest of your write-up on Tubin's symphonies, Brian. My main problem with Tubin, and this is certainly why he's not in my Top 20 or even my Top 50, is there's nothing remotely memorable about his themes or musical ideas. They simply do not stick in my head and leave me wondering about them long after a piece has finished. Is this the only criteria I use to evaluate a composer? Certainly not, but my favorite composers have a strong sense of melody. I'm not too worried about structure as I love rhapsodic music, but when it comes to the symphonic form is when my opinion changes and becomes extremely critical. I enjoy Tubin's music the moment I'm listening to it, but it doesn't really extend beyond that point.

So far, I find a lot to agree with here. Tubin isn't exactly hummable. Melody isn't valuable just for its own sake, though - it's also valuable as a marker for your ears. When you're hearing a symphony for the first time, if you can't easily pick out "Oh, we've heard that idea before," it can lead to real trouble as you figure out where the symphony is going.

I do like rhapsodic music too, but it has to have a certain internal logic and flow - a palpable sense of storytelling or to use another metaphor, journey. If you can sense how one step leads to another, that's good. Sonata form is a traditional and strong way of achieving that, but there are others.

[Florestan]

I enjoy Tubin's music the moment I'm listening to it

I haven´t yet heard a single note of Tubin´s music but it seems to me that your comment would actually please him, or any other composer for that matter. Isn´t that their goal, that people enjoy their music when they hear it? 

[Mirror Image]

I haven´t yet heard a single note of Tubin´s music but it seems to me that your comment would actually please him, or any other composer for that matter. Isn't that their goal, that people enjoy their music when they hear it? 

Sure, but it's afterwards where the real problem lies for me.

[Mirror Image]

So far, I find a lot to agree with here. Tubin isn't exactly hummable. Melody isn't valuable just for its own sake, though - it's also valuable as a marker for your ears. When you're hearing a symphony for the first time, if you can't easily pick out "Oh, we've heard that idea before," it can lead to real trouble as you figure out where the symphony is going.

I do like rhapsodic music too, but it has to have a certain internal logic and flow - a palpable sense of storytelling or to use another metaphor, journey. If you can sense how one step leads to another, that's good. Sonata form is a traditional and strong way of achieving that, but there are others.

I'll be even more blunt: I need melody --- if I don't have it, then I really become quite uninterested in where the music is going, because there isn't a narrative if there isn't a melody. Of course, music is much more than melodies, but, for me to fully enjoy a piece of music it must have a solid melodic foundation. Harmony is also very important to me, but that's a different matter for a different day.

[Florestan]

Sure, but it's afterwards where the real problem lies for me.

Okay, so afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!". Then when you play it again, you enjoy it. Then afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!" Then when you play it again you enjoy it. Then afterwards etc etc etc.

[Florestan]

I'll be even more blunt: I need melody --- if I don't have it, then I really become quite uninterested in where the music is going, because there isn't a narrative if there isn't a melody. Of course, music is much more than melodies, but, for me to fully enjoy a piece of music it must have a solid melodic foundation. Harmony is also very important to me, but that's a different matter for a different day.

Sign me up for this manifesto!

[Mirror Image]

Sign me up for this manifesto!

Your name is now on the list.

Okay, so afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!". Then when you play it again, you enjoy it. Then afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!" Then when you play it again you enjoy it. Then afterwards etc etc etc.

I guess where I'm getting at is my favorite composers make me want to hear a piece again and again, etc. I seldom listen to Tubin and part of my curiosity lies with simply trying to figure where he's going with his music and what the point could possibly be. I don't have a problem with his music --- it's just that I could never come to love it and rank him with my favorites for the afore mentioned reason.

[Florestan]

Your name is now on the list.

I´m honored! 

I guess where I'm getting at is my favorite composers make me want to hear a piece again and again, etc. I seldom listen to Tubin and part of my curiosity lies with simply trying to figure where he's going with his music and what the point could possibly be. I don't have a problem with his music --- it's just that I could never come to love it and rank him with my favorites.

I know what you mean. I was just teasing you. 

[Brian]

Okay, so afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!". Then when you play it again, you enjoy it. Then afterwards you say "Wait a minute, this is not that good, actually!" Then when you play it again you enjoy it. Then afterwards etc etc etc.

Sort of like a James Franco movie?

[Madiel]

Listening to the first half of the Tubin symphony cycle today. Here are my notes.

No. 1. This one sounds attractive, and has some really striking moments. But it's so disorganized and episodic - stuff happens and it's never clear why. Especially without catchy melodies to help you gain a point of reference, the first two movements fall under the category of "nice enough, but uncompelling" for me. The finale is a bit different, since, for its second half, Tubin finds an idea and sticks to it, developing it more carefully. But this is not going to be my favorite late romantic symphony.

No. 2 "Legendaire." Here Tubin harnesses his apparent penchant for disorganization, and uses it to his advantage. It's a huge advance over the First, while not being any more formally structured. That's because Tubin really takes time to let the episodes develop, and the transitions are much better, too. (As some GMGers have commented, the symphonies do have a lot in common, sound-world-wise.) The "Legendaire" subtitle should be read more as "Mythologique," given the tone of the music. A lot of it sounds truly mythic, like a Lord of the Rings epic or something along those lines. Terrific orchestration, big mighty climaxes. This is not an essential symphony, or anything like that, but it's certainly a lot of fun.

No. 3. It's audacious to start a symphony with a fugue (well, ok, there's a 3-minute introduction). After the fugue ends, the bassoons quote "Dies irae". And the symphony is, of course, in D minor. But that triple threat of old-fashioned-ness is mostly defused, because the fugal material never comes back; neither does Dies irae. Instead the movement shifts to a slow passage and then a surprisingly happy ending. As weird as that portion is, I do like the rest of the symphony. This work is perfectly fine, with its very cool scherzo and a cohesive marchy finale that leaves an unusually strong impression and builds to a big, brassy, weirdly Debussian ending. There are strong Atterbergian echoes. Orchestration again superb - brings to mind what would happen if you put all the French Impressionists in a boat and sailed them to the Baltic.

No. 4 "Lirica." Dave Hurwitz compares this to Vaughan Williams's Symphony No. 5, which (remarkably) was written in the exact same year, 1943. Sibelius's Sixth might also be a decent comparison, in a few respects. The title "Lirica" is well-lived-up-to, with lyricism and long, flowing melody a priority. This is also the first conventionally-structured Tubin symphony, insofar as it has themes and develops them in traditional classical forms. Also, this is the first four-movement symphony with a separate scherzo and andante. (Amazingly, Tubin only wrote 2 four-movement symphonies in 10.5 tries.)

This symphony is not as inspired as RVW's in terms of melody, and its emotional arc may not resonate as strongly (the way RVW's slow movement ties in to the finale...). Also, the final coda is a bit of a letdown to me. But Tubin No. 4 is definitely the highlight of the cycle so far. There is some seriously good stuff here. Volmer's performance is good enough, but I think that a truly world-class conductor/orchestra combo would take this symphony to another level.

No. 5. Wow, a major change in the composer's style. Now Tubin has taken off the jacket of late-romantic harmony and donned the vest of neoclassical rhythmic emphasis. Boy was that a terrible sentence. But he's not so much about jumping around in atmospheric puddles anymore, and has moved on to sterner, more incisive things. I don't get the Prokofiev comparisons; Prokofiev had a more distinctive melodic voice and the Prokian enigmatic voice concealed different emotions from the Tubinian enigmatic voice. There is a faint echo of Sibelius to the slow movement, and Roussel. Is there an organ in there? This is an interesting symphony, and as martial and even bitter as it gets, I like it. Cool timpani part! No. 5 is the other side of No. 4's coin, and while it would be a tough sell in the concert hall, it's an interesting listen.

Enjoyed a lot: 4
Enjoyed plenty: 2, 5
Okay: 3
Meh: 1

You did all that in one go?

I listened to no.1... last weekend I think it was. And it was suggested I comment on my experiences, but they'll be old hat. By the time I get through the cycle (using Jarvi), you'll have collected the complete works!

PS Classics Today review of Vollmer specifically didn't like No.1, saying he didn't hold it together as well as Jarvi did. Something to bear in mind.