Symphonies: the finale problem

[Lento]

Having just enjoyed Mahler 9 as performed by BBCSO with Donald Runnicles (Thursday's Live in Concert 7.30), a thought struck me concerning finales in general and long finales of the late Romantic repertoire in particular. Would it perhaps be a worthwhile project to gain extra familiarity with these movements in isolation (on CD of course) when one is fresh and not beginning to "flag" at the end of a long concert? A little like learning a new piece starting at the end, so that one is always approaching the familiar when the piece is approached the "right way round"? So one could give oneself a week of, say, Bruckner finales (quite a thought, I must admit) or, indeed Mahler's, the finale of whose 6th can be a particular problem for some of us who sometimes admit to being challenged on the concentration front! Of course such pieces form an integral part of the work, frequently drawing on earlier material .... so feel free to shoot me down!

[Don Petter]

Interesting thoughts. Though might there not be a danger, if one's mental collection of finales became too familiar, that in a complete performance one might 'switch off' at that point, and not really appreciate their true standing?

[Lento]

might there not be a danger, if one's mental collection of finales became too familiar, that in a complete performance one might 'switch off' at that point

Mmm - the law of unintended consequences!

[Thropplenoggin]

Having just enjoyed Mahler 9 as performed by BBCSO with Donald Runnicles (Thursday's Live in Concert 7.30), a thought struck me concerning finales in general and long finales of the late Romantic repertoire in particular. Would it perhaps be a worthwhile project to gain extra familiarity with these movements in isolation (on CD of course) when one is fresh and not beginning to "flag" at the end of a long concert? A little like learning a new piece starting at the end, so that one is always approaching the familiar when the piece is approached the "right way round"? So one could give oneself a week of, say, Bruckner finales (quite a thought, I must admit) or, indeed Mahler's, the finale of whose 6th can be a particular problem for some of us who sometimes admit to being challenged on the concentration front! Of course such pieces form an integral part of the work, frequently drawing on earlier material .... so feel free to shoot me down!

Since Runnicles is oft 'run out of town' for all kind of 'conductor crimes' on this board (by non-professionals, naturally), perhaps you could reflect a bit more on tonight's performance (especially as there's a prom with the same symphony/orchestra/conductor in August.

As for your thread (was the Sherlockian pun intended? ) I wonder how Mahler would have tinkered with this finale had he lived and heard it (I believe he often adjusted orchestrations this way); it's a lamentable thing to say, but given its beauty - particularly the luminous yet sparse string writing at the end - I'm often glad he couldn't tinker.

[Petrushka]

Having just enjoyed Mahler 9 as performed by BBCSO with Donald Runnicles (Thursday's Live in Concert 7.30), a thought struck me concerning finales in general and long finales of the late Romantic repertoire in particular. Would it perhaps be a worthwhile project to gain extra familiarity with these movements in isolation (on CD of course) when one is fresh and not beginning to "flag" at the end of a long concert? A little like learning a new piece starting at the end, so that one is always approaching the familiar when the piece is approached the "right way round"? So one could give oneself a week of, say, Bruckner finales (quite a thought, I must admit) or, indeed Mahler's, the finale of whose 6th can be a particular problem for some of us who sometimes admit to being challenged on the concentration front! Of course such pieces form an integral part of the work, frequently drawing on earlier material

This is crucial and especially so in Bruckner and Mahler. The movements are not separate pieces like a suite but a coherent argument and one that can be seen as an arch-like structure. Very often the closing bars are a transformation of the very theme that opened the whole symphony and the sense of fulfilment that this brings can be overwhelming and is the entire point of the journey. Resist any such impulse to listen to finales on their own!

[Beef Oven!]

Since Runnicles is oft 'run out of town' for all kind of 'conductor crimes' on this board (by non-professionals, naturally), perhaps you could reflect a bit more on tonight's performance (especially as there's a prom with the same symphony/orchestra/conductor in August.

What is the beef with Runnicles?

Have his distractors ever been to his gigs, or are they just regurgitating what they've read in their beloved magazines?

[richardfinegold]

[/B]

This is crucial and especially so in Bruckner and Mahler. The movements are not separate pieces like a suite but a coherent argument and one that can be seen as an arch-like structure. Very often the closing bars are a transformation of the very theme that opened the whole symphony and the sense of fulfilment that this brings can be overwhelming and is the entire point of the journey. Resist any such impulse to listen to finales on their own!

Appreciation of Mahler and Bruckner really began to increase with the advent of the lp. When we could sit at home and take t he music in on our own terms, perhaps one or two movements an evening, we are able to digest it better and then able to work our way up to hearing entire works in one sitting. Having a familiarity with the structure of these works gained through recordings then makes promotes the appreciation of hearing them live.

[Roehre]

Blame Beethoven.
The first symphony in which it really is the finale which bears the heaviest weight in the composition is Beethoven 5, and after that one the obvious Ninth [and it has to be mentioned that the completion of a symphony in C which he sketched before the First (also in C) failed due to problems creating a finale - hence this sketched work's opening mvt provided the finale of op.21]
Even the great finale of the Jupiter is weighed down (if you like) by the opening movement, a situation which is even far more obvious in the Prague.
Beethoven was the first to shift the weight from the first to the final movements of a symphonic work.

Brahms struggled with that problem, creating a "Beethoven 10" of heavy weight 1st and 4th mvts with relatively "tiny" mvts in between. 2-4 are more balanced in that respect.

Bruckner struggled from no.5 onwards with heavy weight finales, Mahler avoided the problem in 4, but struggled in 7 e.g.

The 20C shows a varied picture: DSCH's works e.g. tend to have "heavy" finales, but the 6th and especially the Ninth avoid them. The same applies for composers like Prokofiev, while Walton struggled with the First.

An interesting subject indeed.

[LeMartinPecheur]

[/B]

This is crucial and especially so in Bruckner and Mahler. The movements are not separate pieces like a suite but a coherent argument and one that can be seen as an arch-like structure. Very often the closing bars are a transformation of the very theme that opened the whole symphony and the sense of fulfilment that this brings can be overwhelming and is the entire point of the journey. Resist any such impulse to listen to finales on their own!

Ummm, not altogether sure that Roger Wright would fully endorse this as policy for R3!

[ahinton]

What is the beef with Runnicles?

Well, if it is indeed "beef", then you presumably ought to know!

Have his distractors ever been to his gigs, or are they just regurgitating what they've read in their beloved magazines?

I don't know; I've never had a problem with his work at all - in fact I've heard quite a number of very impressive performance from him.

Anyway, whilst the topic is indeed an interesting one and I would broadly agree that this "problem" originated with Beethoven, I do think that rather too much has been made of the "last movement problem" over the years to the point at which is has become widely perceived as a "problem" inherent in the composition of a multi-movement symphonic work. For those who do consider it to be a "problem" by definition, wrwiting single-movement symphonic works is one way out, I suppose, although Sibelius left that kind of solution until his final completed symphonic utterance; another way is to telescope the movements together as Schönberg did in his D minor String Quartet and even more so in his E major Chamber Symphony. But does it have to be regarded as a "problem"? I've not written a symphony per se but I have written a "symphonic" work that's heavily weighted towards its finale (so much so that it's not far short of three times the size of the totality of its preceding four movements); I'm sure that, if there is a "problem" in having attempted this and wkith the results of my efforts, I've failed dismally to solve it, but it didn't occur to me at the time that it would necesarily be a "problem".

[Beef Oven!]

Well, if it is indeed "beef", then you presumably ought to know!


I don't know; I've never had a problem with his work at all - in fact I've heard quite a number of very impressive performance from him.

Anyway, whilst the topic is indeed an interesting one and I would broadly agree that this "problem" originated with Beethoven, I do think that rather too much has been made of the "last movement problem" over the years to the point at which is has become widely perceived as a "problem" inherent in the composition of a multi-movement symphonic work. For those who do consider it to be a "problem" by definition, wrwiting single-movement symphonic works is one way out, I suppose, although Sibelius left that kind of solution until his final completed symphonic utterance; another way is to telescope the movements together as Schönberg did in his D minor String Quartet and even more so in his E major Chamber Symphony. But does it have to be regarded as a "problem"? I've not written a symphony per se but I have written a "symphonic" work that's heavily weighted towards its finale (so much so that it's not far short of three times the size of the totality of its preceding four movements); I'm sure that, if there is a "problem" in having attempted this and wkith the results of my efforts, I've failed dismally to solve it, but it didn't occur to me at the time that it would necesarily be a "problem".

I thought your pun on 'beef' was hilarious. My wife and I positively roared when we read it and we still haven't stopped laughing.

Re Runnicles, my experience too - agreed.

Re the finale of your Op.13, being a non-musician who couldn't tell a rising fifth from a rissole (that's me, not you), a 'problem' in the finale does not mean so much to me, on a technical level. Otherwise I think the finale might be a tad long, but with wonderful singing and what for me, is beautiful music with aromas of Beethoven and 2nd Viennese, does it matter? How have you failed? Another example of that 'music to love, or academically respect' question.

For the record, I struggle with more than 3 movements in Bruckner 9, and I believe that having written the first two movements of symphony #7, Bruckner could have left it there as a perfectly wrought symphony.

Just some random ideas on finales by a 'musical dunce'.

[kea]

I have occasionally encountered what one might term the 'finale problem'. Namely, that sometimes the finale is just boring, or drags on for much too long.

I can't say I've ever had this problem with e.g. Beethoven's 9th or Brahms's 1st, but undoubtedly some people do. (I have occasionally half-heartedly entertained the idea of arranging the finale of Beethoven's Op. 132 into an 'alternate' instrumental finale for the 9th symphony, but what would be the point of such an exercise considering that I like the choral finale just fine?) Of the few Bruckner symphonies I've listened to (4, 5 and 8) the finale is actually where it seems to start picking up, and I pay a bit more attention—generally I find them the most memorable bits. (Though 5 takes forever to end! Seriously Anton, move it on a bit) Apart from Bruckner and Mahler... is there anyone else who's frequently accused of a 'finale problem'? I can't think of any major examples in Elgar, Rachmaninov, etc, though I don't know their works well.

Off topic: For pieces whose finales I've never got on with... Brahms's 1st piano concerto would be a much more successful piece with its 2nd and 3rd movements amputated. Parts of the 2nd are worth keeping and could be condensed into an 'intermezzo' in the development section of the new one-movement concerto, but the 3rd is just a rehash of the rondo of Beethoven's Op. 37 and can be safely jettisoned.

[Roehre]

...... Apart from Bruckner and Mahler... is there anyone else who's frequently accused of a 'finale problem'? I can't think of any major examples in Elgar, Rachmaninov, etc, though I don't know their works well......

A composer who IMHO suffers from finale problems in general (i.e. Sonatas, quartets and a symphony) is Schubert.

[aeolium]

A composer who IMHO suffers from finale problems in general (i.e. Sonatas, quartets and a symphony) is Schubert.

Yes, and perhaps also a piano trio (the E flat).

He solved it effectively in the B minor symphony, though

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yes, and perhaps also a piano trio (the E flat).

He solved it effectively in the B minor symphony, though

… until Gerald Abraham came along.