Suffolkcoastal's Symphonic Journey

[Suffolkcoastal]

Continuing my symphonic journey, the last couple of evening's listening.

1883 (conclusion)
Parry: Symphony No 2 in G major (Cambridge) (revised 1887 version)
Svendsen: Symphony No 2 in B flat
Zweers: Symphony No 2 in E flat
1884
Fuchs: Symphony No 1 in C major
Herzogenberg: Symphony No 1 in C minor
Hol: Symphony No 3 in B flat major
Rimsky-Korsakov: Sinfonietta on Russian Themes
R Strauss: Symphony in F minor
Taneyev: Symphony No 3 in D minor

I am including where possible Sinfoniettas and Sinfonias in my little journey.
Parry's 2nd Symphony once again shows his individuality, personally I don't find the first two movement to be the equal of his 1st Symphony, however the slow movement is another matter and has real eloquence, the finale's main theme is typical Parry and particularly English sounding, something that Parry was to make typically his own.
Svendsen's 2nd Symphony is as delightfully engaging as his 1st and really should be heard more often. The scherzo is once again memorable and the work as a whole is totally convincing.
Zweers's 2nd Symphony is interesting though stylistically one feels that at times it belongs in the 1st rather than the 2nd half of the 19th century. The slow movement is rather operatic, almost Bellini or early Verdi like and the finale is energetic but perhaps there is too much gesture over content.
Fuchs is better known as a teacher than a composer. His 1st symphony is actually quite a strong work, the opening has become an earworm and for all its Brahmsian touches I actually find the work has a certain individuality and is quite enjoyable.
Herzogenberg is usually regarded as just a Brahms imitator, whilst the finale of his 1st Symphony clearly shows Brahms influence I actually find the symphony quite engaging at times, the 1st movement though perhaps not the most masterly 1st movement ever written actually reminded me of Elgar in places!
Richard Hol's 3rd Symphony is his best so far, it is more convincing and works well, of particular interest is the 3rd movement 'Nachtmusik' which has a haunting quality in places.
As mentioned above I am including Sinfoniettas and Sinfonias, Rimsky-Korsakov's Sinfonietta on Russian Themes is an enjoyable unpretentious work, the slow central movement used a folk tune familiar from its later use by Stravinsky in The Firebird.
In some ways I find Richard Strauss F Minor Symphony less enjoyable than his earlier D Minor one. The scherzo is the most attractive movement and stays in the memory with occasional hints on the mature composer. The slow movement I find rather dull and the finale doesn't convince, however this is still the work of a talented 20 year old.
Finally Taneyev's 3rd Symphony. The first movement maybe slightly outstays its welcome, being a little long for its material, the rest of the work though is thoroughly enjoyable, with an engaging Scherzo, a gently wistful intermezzo and a forthright Russian finale showing off Taneyev's contrapuntal skills and his admiration for Tchaikovsky.

[Suffolkcoastal]

My symphonic journey continued:

1885
Brahms: Symphony No 4 in E minor
Chadwick: Symphony No 2 in B flat major
Dvorak: Symphony No 7 in D minor
Hamerik: Symphony No 3 in E major 'Symphonie Lyrique'
Kajanus: Aino Symphony
Scharwenka: Symphony in C minor
Tchaikovsky: Manfred Symphony

1886 (beginning)
Draeseke: Symphony No 3 in C 'Symphonia Tragica'
Glazunov: Symphony No 2 in F sharp minor
D'Indy: Symphonie Cevenole

The Brahms 4th Symphony needs no introduction from me. It is one of the great 19th century symphonies. Masterfully written. I just wish performances were less 'heavy' with more sprung rhythms at times.
Chadwick's 2nd Symphony is delighful. He really does have a distinctive style that has something American about it, even though the language is basically Germanic. The scherzo is immediately appealing and the slow movement has a thoughtfulness and depth to it.
The 7th is Dvorak's symphonic masterpiece IMO. It is one of the great 19th century symphonies too. The work is utterly convincing throughout and proceeds with an enviable inevitability.
Asgar Hamerik's 3rd Symphony is an improvement on his earlier efforts. The slow introduction has a Russian feel to it, but then we are launched into the main body with an idea that reminds me of American popular music of the period (he was resident in America for many years) and is reminiscent of Chadwick in places. The attractive 'scherzo' is more Scandinavian in feeling. The slow movement is less interesting but the finale is fun, with brief fragments of national anthems thrown around.
Kajanus's Aino Symphony is sometimes called a symphony though it is only 15 minutes long, but more often and in reality it is a symphonic poem and a high effective work it is too. Wagner is a strong influence, but certain aspects of the scoring in particular clearly had an influence on Sibelius.
Scharwenka's C minor Symphony is an effective work and perhaps deserves an occasional performance and broadcast. The 1st movement is a bit long for its material, but the slow movement has real depth and the finale makes a satisfactory conclusion.
I've long been in two minds about Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony, some days I think it superb other days less so. There is no doubting that it contains some of Tchaikovsky's most dramatic and powerful writing and does 'hang together' effectively and I can listen too it without the programmatic element in mind and I still enjoy it. Certainly listening to it yesterday I responded to it favourably.
Felix Draeseke's 3rd Symphony is a fine work and really does need more exposure. I find him a symphonist of some stature only a lack of real thematic memorability prevents lets him down. I find the finale the large scale finale of this 45 minute symphony to be the best movement along with the very moving slow movement. The latter has real emotional weight and the former shows superb command of counterpoint and is highly dramatic and Draeseke has one more surprise by ending the symphony unexpectedly quietly which is most convincing.
I love the first two movements of Glazunov's 2nd Symphony, the first movement has real breadth and the slow movement is most beautiful. The remaining movements are fine but don't quite measure up to the first two IMO.
Finally D'Indy's charming Symphonie Cevenole, probably his best known work with its obbligato piano. It is unpretentious and always a delight to hear.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Here comes another installment of my symphonic journey:

1886 (concluded)
Lalo: Symphony in G minor
E Prout: Symphony No 4 in D
Rubinstein: Symphony No 6 in A minor
Saint-Saens: Symphony No 3 in C minor (Organ)

1887 (beginning)
Borodin: Symphony No 3 in A minor (unfinished)
Bruckner: Symphony No 8 in C minor
Fuchs: Symphony No 2 in C minor
Gernsheim: Symphony No 3 in C minor 'Mirjam'
K Goldmark: Symphony No 2 in E flat

Lalo's G minor symphony is a work that isn't heard enough, a highly attractive work not too long with engaging thematic ideas, nicely orchestrated. The finale is a real earworm as I find to my cost everytime I listen too it.
Ebenezer Prout is of course better known as a musicologist including his famous Handel editions. His 4th Symphony is a pleasant enough work but belongs firmly in the 1st half of the 19th century, indebted to Mendelssohn and Beethoven, though a rather mild mannered Beethoven! Not up to the standards of the contemporary Parry & Stanford symphonies but still good to hear another English symphony of the period.
Along with its predecessor the 6th is the probably the best of the Rubinstein symphonies. It is well written and has some genuinely attractive and dramatic writing at times, with a memorable Scherzo.
No introduction needed for Saint-Saens' well known 3rd Symphony. I always enjoy listening to it, though it is rather overplayed compared with many other fine French symphonies of the period.
Borodin's unfinished 3rd Symphony could be classed as Glazunov's symphony no 2 and a half as there is probably more Glazunov in the 1st movement than Borodin. The two movement torso is most attractive and enhanced by Glazunov's orchestration. It seems that my listening to Bruckner's 8th has coincided with several other MB's listening to the same work! A great symphony, I wonder if Bruckner deliberately set out to make it bottom heavy (the last two movements nearly twice the length of the first two) the opposite of its predecessor the 7th Symphony. It is probably the hardest nut to crack in the Bruckner canon, it took me a few years to really appreciate it, but 100% worth the effort once you come to terms with it. The magnificent slow movement I find quite disturbing at times almost unsettling as if there is some hidden emotion under the surface.
The 2nd Symphony of Fuchs is oddly balanced, a long 1st movement almost equal in length to the remaining three. The 1st movement does somewhat outstay its welcome as the material isn't particularly memorable, the other almost serenade like movements are far more engaging, especially the 3rd movement, a menuetto and worth a listen.
Gernsheim's 3rd Symphony is a very fine work. Now this symphony does need more exposure. The slow movement in particular is really worth seeking out and inspite of an occasional touch of Brahms, especially in the finale, Gernsheim really is a composer of distinction and I strongly recommend him.
Karl Goldmark's 2nd Symphony has an enticing opening and generally strong 1st movement, the remaining movements are certainly worth a listen too. Though no masterpiece this is still worth an occasional hearing.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The latest episode in the journey through my symphonic collection:

1887 (conclusion)
Lyapunov: Symphony No 1 in B minor
G Schumann: Symphony in B minor
Stanford: Symphony No 3 in F minor 'Irish'

1888 (beginning)
Foerster: Symphony No 1 in D minor
Franck: Symphony in D minor
Mahler: Symphony No 1 in D
Stanford: Symphony No 4 in F major
Strong: Symphony No 2 in G minor 'Sintram'

The Lyapunov 1st Symphony I find to be a fairly strong work, well written and it makes a most satisfying whole. Thoroughly Russian in feeling, Lyapunov still has a certain individuality that reveals itself the more one gets acquainted with the work.
Georg Schumann is probably a name that will be unfamiliar to many MBs. The 45 minute work is nicely crafted, but without real individuality leaning heavily of his namesake Robert as times and Raff at other times. However there is some inventive writing especially in the finale.
The 3rd is the best known of Stanford's symphonies and one can see why, as the work is most inventive and attractive. There is of course the Brahmsian controversy discussed recently on the boards, however there is much in this work that points the way to his pupil Vaughan Williams, and while there are also many Brahmsian features there is enough individuality in Stanfords work to ride above this IMO.
Josef Foerster's 1st Symphony really needs a CD release, this is a most striking and individual work. From its very opening it is clear that here is a composer whose music rarely sounds like that of any of his contemporaries, which some quite ear catching sonorities and harmonic touches.
Cesar Franck's engaging D minor Symphony seems to have fallen from favour in recent years for some inexplicable reason. This is a pity as it is one of the few important French symphonies. The departure from standard symphonic form, having three movements and using cyclic form are very notable. The orchestration may be a little clumsy in places, but the clarity of the thematic writing makes this a very straightforward and gratifying symphony to follow.
My antipathy towards Mahler is of course well known on these boards, but I still treat listening to Mahler with the same respect I do any composer. His 1st Symphony does indeed mark quite a startling entry on to the symphonic stage and his individuality is in no doubt from the start. I have some problems with the outer movements on a personal level, the 1st movement I find to static at times and the finale far too long and overblown, but the harmonic palette and orchestration are still most striking.
Stanford's 4th Symphony followed closely on the heels of its predecessor, though it like the charm and appeal of that work. It is still though a most competent and charming work, with a moving slow movement and an attractive finale and dsereves more exposure.
Finally the American born George Templeton Strong's 2nd Symphony. He spent most of his long life in Europe and this large hour long programmatic work is steeped in European romanticism. One can hear elements of Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner & Liszt in the work. He knew and was helped by Liszt earlier in his career. In one place one idea is strikingly Elgarian. The work is rather long winded at times, however there is enough of interest in his writing and very interesting orchestration to keep one's attantion and this work is worth seeking out.

[Suffolkcoastal]

More from my symphonic journey:

Many thanks for all the positive comments from fellow MBs.

1888 (conclusion)
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No 5 in E minor

1889
Arensky: Symphony No 2 in A major
Dvorak: Symphony No 8 in G major
Hamerik: Symphony No 4 in C major 'Symphonien Majesteuse'
Herzogenberg: Symphony No 2 in B flat major
Hol: Symphony No 4 in A major
Kopylov: Symphony in C minor
Lange-Muller: Symphony No 2 in D minor
Parry: Symphony No 3 in C major 'English'
Parry: Symphony No 4 in E minor (revised 1910 version)

I don't think Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony needs much of an introduction, it is rather over-played these days. I personally don't find it to be among his strongest scores, though the sheer memorability of his ideas holds the work together, I used to dislike the finale, though the recording I was listening too (Jansons) makes a good case for it by playing it with more urgency than some performances which works for me.
Arensky's 2nd Symphony is a curious rather short work, the Tchaikovskian influence is less intrusive than in some of his works and I think it a pity he never wrote another symphony in the reamining years of his relatively short life, as the compactness of the work shows potential for further interesting developments.
Dvorak's 8th is of course very popular. Personally I don't find it as convincing as a whole as I do its two great predecessors. Again like with the Tchaikovsky 5th, the sheer memorability of the delighful ideas keeps the work popular and enjoyable.
I would like to be more postive over Hamerik's 4th Symphony, it has a strong and suitably 'majestic' opening but after that the music seems to lose direction and the inspiration falls away. As in its predessor, certain elements of American popular music of the time (he was resident in America for many years) occasionally surface, though less so than in the 3rd.
Herzogenberg's 2nd Symphony is rather attractive and is a much better work than his 1st IMO. I was led by critical opinion to expect complete Brahmsian imitation in this work, there is some of this, especially in the finale, but there is also enough of merit and distinctiveness in this work to make me question crtical opinion. The writing has a lightness to it and where one is reminded of Brahms it is of his Serenades rather than his Symphonies.
Dutchman Richard Hol's 4th and final symphony is a very effective and well written work and has much to recommend it, only the slightly unmemorable thematic writing lets this work down.
Kopylov wrote hardly any orchestral music and the C minor Symphony is his only symphonic example. It is Russian nationalist in spirit with an occasional nod to Tchaikovsky and is attractive enough but doesn't have the personality or the skills on orchestration of a composer like Glazunov to really make the work memorable.
Peter Lange-Muller's 2nd Symphony is less 'folk inspired' than his 1st. It is still a relatively light work, clearly Scandinavian in feeling with hints of Grieg in places, again real memorability is the works chief failing.
I always enjoy listening to Parry's delightful 3rd Symphony, the most popular of his symphonies during his lifetime. It is a thoroughly engaging work with earcatching thematic ideas, which though perhaps occasionally Brahmsian also have elements that are distintincly English in feeling and entirely personal. The slow movement is really most beautifully and in places almost Elgarian. Only the theme and variations finale fails to totally convince at times.
Parry's 4th Symphony followed closely on the heels of his 3rd. It is a much more serious work and wasn't successfully so Parry revised the work and wrote a new Scherzo later for Richter in 1910. It is also the longest of Parry's symphonies and does need carefully listening. Ultimately I find this an impressive work, there is real emotional depth at times, again the slow movement impresses, the new Scherzo is an absolute delight and I now have the big noble idea form the Finale going around in my head!

[Suffolkcoastal]

Not so much listening the past few days for various reasons, anway here's the latest instalment in my symphonic journey.

1890
Chausson: Symphony in B flat
Glazunov: Symphony No 3 in D
Magnard: Symphony No 1 in C minor
Sinding: Symphony No 1 in D minor
Zweers: Symphony No 3 Aan Mijn Vaderland

1891
Hamerik: Symphony No 5 in G minor 'Symphony Sereuse'
Rachmaninov: Symphonic Movement in D minor (Youth Symphony)

1892
Gilson: Symphony - The Sea
Nielsen: Symphony No 1 in G minor
Sibelius: Kullervo Symphony
Zemlinsky: Symphony No 1 in D minor

1893 (beginning)
Elfrida Andree: Symphony No 2 in A minor

Chausson's only symphony is appearing more often on R3 in recent years and is a very fine work, indeed I find Chausson an understimated composer. Chausson has real individuality and it is a pity that an accident robbed the musical world of this composer far too early.
Glazunov's 3rd Symphony is most enjoyable, the 1st movement is excellenty written and the scherzo is among Glazunov's most attractive and memorable. Like all Glazunov's slow movements, the slow movement of this symphony needs concentrated listening as it is a moving and slightly melancholic movement. The finale is weaker and a little too long I feel.
Magnard 1st Symphony is a striking work and announces a composer with a very distinctive voice, yes there are Wagnerian
echoes but at the same time some strikingly unusual and surprisingly dissonant harmonic touches that have a feeling of Richard Strauss, well worth exploring if you don't already know the work.
Sinding's 1st Symphony is also an attractive work of some distinction, occasional hints of his compatriot Grieg mix with more Germanic writing. Thers are some rather lovely sections especially in the slow movement with exquisite harmonic and orchestral touches.
Zweers's arge scale 3rd Symphony is probably his best known work. In some ways eitherfound it rather disappointing and long-winded, yes there are some attractive parts but I wasn't overwhelmed and much prefer his previous symphonies.
Hamerik's 5th Symphony is I feel his best so far. There is much more purpose in the writing and it has a fine slow movement and a rather Beethovenian scherzo.
Rachmaninov's early D Minor Symphonic Movement, known as the 'Youth Symphony' is heavily under the influence of Tchaikovsky, but teh 17 year old's work still contains the odd hint of the composer to come.
Paul Gilson's Symphony - The Sea isn't a true symphony though it is in 4 movements, it feels more like 4 consecutive tone poems. But there it is attractive with moments of genuine poetry and some interesting textures in the long 3rd movement 'Twilight'.
The 1st Symphony of Carl Nielsen is a striking first symphonic statement from a great symphonist. What a stylistically original work this is with a very strong and individual personality.
Sibelius's Kullervo Symphony marks his entry onto the symphonic stage. Not always the easiest of works to listen too I find. Sibelius's individual sound world is already emerging and hearing in chronological context is a fascinating experience.
Zemlinsky's 1st Symphony is by no means insignificant. It is in three movements and very Viennese in feeling. The strangely pensive finale with its curious quiet questioning ending is most striking and has a Mahlerian feel to it on a smaller scale.
Elfrida Andree's 2nd Symphony is worth hearing and of the few symphonies by a woman composer of that period. It is attractive in places though personally I find it rather undistinguished.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The latest installment of my symphonic journey:

1893 (concluded)
Dvorak: Symphony No 9 in E minor 'From the New World'
Fibich: Symphony No 2 in E flat
Foerster: Symphony No 2 in F major
German: Symphony No 2 in A minor 'Norwich'
Glazunov: Symphony No 4 in E flat major
Grechaninov: Symphony No 1 in B minor
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No 6 in B minor 'Pathetique'

1894 (beginning)
Chadwick: Symphony No 3 in F major
Foerster: Symphony No 3 in D major
Louis Glass: Symphony No 1 in E major
Magnard: Symphony No 2 in E major
Mahler: Symphony No 2 in C minor 'Resurrection'

No introduction needed of course for Dvorak's 9th. I'm actually quite fond of it but over exposure lessens its impact. It is a very fine symphony only the finale slightly lets it down. With the famous slow movement I've always preferred the c sharp minor idea, one of Dvorak's most haunting ideas.
Fibich's 2nd Symphony is well worth exploring. The 1st movement is not as memorable as the that of his 1st symphony, however the middle movements are excellent, especially the exceptionally beautiful slow movement which never fails to move me.
The 3rd Czech symphony in a row, Foerster's 2nd Symphony is stylistically like his 1st very individual, in fact Foerster really doesn't sound like anyone else. I believe only the 4th Symphony is currently available on CD, this really needs amending as Foerster is certainly a composer worth investigating.
Edward German's 2nd Symphony is quite attractive, the outer movements are perhaps a lacking in real inspiration but the slow movement is most appealing and it is followed by a rather catchy lightweight scherzo.
The opening movement of Glazunov's 4th Symphony is among his finest and most expansive creations, while the other two movements aren't quite up to the standard of this glorious 1st movement this is still a work that should merit more broadcasts and performances.
Grechaninov's 1st Symphony is also a work worth investigating, completed at the end of his studies with Rimsky-Korsakov. The outer movements are solid workmanlike affairs with touches of Russian Nationalism and Tchaikovsky. The slow movement is lovely and the scherzo absolutely delightful. The orchestration as one would expect from a Rimsky pupil is excellent throughout.
Tchaikovsky's final symphony also needs no introduction. Personally I adore the work and think one of the great symphonic masterpieces and love following the score as I seem to find something new each time.
Chadwick's 3rd Symphony is IMO not quite as memorable as his 2nd. But it is an expertly written symphony well worth exploring and Chadwick's style which though very European still has an individual feel to it, and at the same time there is something American about it.
Like its predecessors Foerster's 3rd Symphony is a fascinatingly individual work. At times in the 1st movement it reminds me of Nielsen's 1st Symphony and there are distinct modal touches in the work displaying an interest perhaps in earlier church modes.
Louis Glass's 1st Symphony I found a little disappointing. It struggles to maintain interest during its 40 or so minutes. There are some quirky individual touches but is doesn't stay in one's memory.
Magnard's 2nd Symphony is a much better work. Again often quirky but highly individual and quite fascinating. Harmonically he is quite adventurous and there is an energy which propels the work.
Well I'm no fan of Mahler's 2nd Symphony but this is purely personal and nothing to do with the quality of the work. I did find the 1st movement more interesting this time and there is absolutely no doubting the sheer individuality of Mahler's writing and harmonic daring.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The latest installment through my symphonic journey.

A bit more listening the last couple of days as I've had to put my feet up due to another Gout attack.

1895
Gernsheim: Symphony No 4 in B flat
Glazunov: Symphony No 5 in B flat
R Hermann: Symphony No 1 in C major
Kallinikov: Symphony No 1 in G minor
Martucci: Symphony No 1 in D minor
Rachmaninov: Symphony No 1 in D minor
Reinecke: Symphony No 3 in G minor

1896
Alfven: Symphony No 1 in F minor
Beach: Symphony in E minor 'Gaelic
Bruckner: Symphony No 9 in D minor
Coleridge-Taylor: Symphony in A minor
Dukas: Symphony in C
Glazunov: Symphony No 6 in C minor
Magnard: Symphony No 3 in B flat minor
Mahler: Symphony No 3

1897 (beginning)
Cowen: Symphony No 6 in E major 'Idyllic'
Hamerik: Symphony No 6 in G major 'Symphonie Spirituelle'

Gernsheim's 4th and final symphony is up to the standard of its predecessors. Expertly written with individual touches inspite of occasional Brahmsian touches well worth seeking out.
The 5th Symphony of Glazunov is among his finest works expertly written and making a very satisfactory whole with a delightful scherzo and thought provoking slow movement.
The Swiss composer Hermann's 1st Symphony isn't a strong work. It has at times a charming lightness of touch with folk like elements, but the long slow movement is rather tedious and clumsily put together.
Kallinikov's 1st Symphony is a delight, the occasional formal shortcomings are outweighed by the delightful invention, especially that glorious 2nd subject in the first movement, once heard you can't get it out of your head for days. Yes Tchaikovsky is a strong influence but there is enough individuality to mark what could have become a substrantial composer if illness and relatively early death not intervened.
Martucci 1st Symphony, is a very fine work and worth seeking out, The invention is distinguished and inspite of Brahmsian and occasional Schumanesque touches there is enough of individuality and memorability to make this work stand out.
Rachmaninov's 1st Symphony is a striking almost demonic work in places, the disasterous first performance of which seriously affected the composer. Many commentators have marked that he may have become a proficient and finer symphonist if the first performance hadn't been such a distaster. This may be true as he takes the Tchaikovskyian symphony to an even more extreme level of tension that is quite striking.
Reinecke's 3rd and final symphony followed over 20 years on from its predecessor. Though heavily criticised for its Schumannesque and Mendelssohnian influences this work is quite a good one, plenty of energy in the 1st movement and well written throughout and he is certainly aware of Brahms who influence occasionally strays in.
Alfven's 1st Symphony is a pleasant work and improves as it goes along especially when folk-like elements are introduced, not top-notch but worth a hearing.
Amy Beach's 'Gaelic Symphony' has become more popular in recent years and its easy to hear why, as it is a charming and fresh work with attractive ideas and very nicely orchestrated too. Bruckner's final and incomplete symphony is a superb work which I love especially the mysterious almost unworldly slow movement. I had a listen to the 2005 completion of the unfinished finale which was interesting, I'm unsure at present whether or not I feel this is satisfactory.
Coleridge-Taylor's only symphony is a youthful effort, the finale was written no fewer than 4 times. The central movements come off best are delightful clearly showing the future mature composer. Dukas's only symphony follows the model of the Franck and Chausson symphonies being in three movements. I admire this work, it isn't really memorable but despite this is very satisfactory. The energy of the 1st movement is infectious and the slow movement is most moving.
Glazunov's 6th Symphony is an interesting work more subdued than its predecessors and formally different in its central movements having a theme and variations and intermezzo. This symphony has a certain melancholic quality and understatement that makes it most appealing.
Magnard's 3rd Symphony like its predessors is well worth investigating. At times its sound strikingly 20th century and is highly individual. The opening is very unusual almost for a moment reminding me of Shostakovich 11th. The slow movement is moving and the wholework is totally fascinating.
I can't say much about Mahler's enormous 3rd Symphony, I'm afraid it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest and as usual bores me. I do feel sorry for the boy' choir who have to wait for 70 minutes for their few minutes of fame. Still it of course has some quite startling orchestral and harmonic writing and was as adventurous as any other composer of the time with the possible exception of Richard Strauss.
Cowen's 6th Symphony is a far better work than his 3rd. The invention is actually quite attractive and there is a certain openess of sound that adds to the attraction. The unexpected quite ending adds to the interest. Finally Asgar Hamerik's 6th Symphony. Again not of the top-rank but rather attractive in places and one can hear the influence of Grieg at times and is scored for strings alone which adds to the general lightweight appeal of the work.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Another installment in the continual journey through my symphonic collection.

1897 (concluded)
Huber: Symphony No 2 'Bocklinsinfonie'
Kallinkov: Symphony No 2 in A major
Zemlinsky: Symphony No 2 in B flat major

1898
Alnaes: Symphony No 1 in C minor
Balakirev: Symphony No 1 in C
Buttner: Symphony No 1 in F major
Fibich: Symphony No 3 in E minor
Ives: Symphony No 1
Taneyev: Symphony No 4 in C minor

1899 (beginning)
Alfven: Symphony No 2 in D major
L Glass: Symphony No 2 in C minor
F Schmidt: Symphony No 1 in E major

Swiss composer Hans Huber's 2nd Symphony inspired by Bocklin paintings is a much more interesting work than his 1st Symphony, in many ways a very romantic symphony but with some very interesting colourful touches that are occasionally quite absorbing.
Kallinikov's 2nd Symphony is generally less well known than his 1st, but is IMO no less attractive, though unlike the 1st with its Tchaikovskyian leanings, here Borodin seems to be a much stronger influence. The material is attractive and quite memorable and the slow movement rather beautiful. Pity his illness and early death prevented more from his pen.
Zemlinsky's 2nd Symphony is more in the Brahmsian/Dvorak orbit than his 1st Symphony and is in many ways less interesting than the earlier work, but not without genuine melodic interest.
Alnaes 1st Symphony is a real discovery and really worth seeking out. A very competent 1st movement is followed by an immensely moving and beautiful slow movement an attractive scherzo and convincing finale.
Balakirev's 1st Symphony probably has one of the longest symphonic gestation periods as it was begun initially in the 1860's and belongs as one would expect firmly to the Russian National tradition. It still seems to sit just off the edge of the repertoire and one would welcome more performances, as those who know it will I hope agree, for all its short comings it is a very attractive and melodically appealing work.
German composer Paul Buttner's 1st Symphony is very interesting, this work needs a professional recording ( I was listening to a recording made from a broadcast performance). Buttner certainly has a style that very much in the Austro-German romantic tradition, but is at the same time distinctive.
Fibich's 3rd and final symphony I find perhaps more competently composed than his 2nd but rather less attractive than that delightful symphony. There are Czech elements in the work, tempered with more Germanic elements (due probably to his mixed German/Czech parentage). The scherzo is by far the most appealing movement.
Charles Ives 1st Symphony is fairly well known, composed in a rather Dvorakian idiom with distinct individual touches, especially the continually shifting tonality and interesting counterpoint. I do find the 1st movement a bit long-winded at times though.
Tanayev's 4th Symphony is a very fine work, strong and convincing throughout, it stays in the memory and I can't really understand why this isn't recorded and performed more often.
Alfven's 2nd Symphony is a fresh sounding work, obviously Scandinavian in feeling, for me though the work is rather let down by the Prelude & Fugue finale, where the inspiration rather falls away and produces a rather mechanical and uninspired ending.
Louis Glass's 2nd Symphony is a most curious mixture. The 1st movement begins promisingly but then rather thrashes around rhetorically and become rather tedious and its attempt at the 'grand gesture'. The lighter and slightly quirky scherzo is an improvement, but then follows a slow movement with two vocal soloists which almost seems to anticipate his compatriot Nielsen's 3rd Symphony, though this is much darker in mood. The finale includes an organ but doesn't really have much substance.
Finally Franz Schmidt's 1st Symphony. This work has been growing on me over the years. The 1st movement is wonderfully expansive suiting the home key and the following scherzo has an attractive lightness of touch to nicely offset the 1st movement. The slow movement is also rather appealing, whilst the finale shows of Schmidt's considerable contrapunctal skills.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Continuing my symphonic journey, here's the listening of the last few days.

1899 (conclusion)
C Scott: Symphony No 1 in G major
Sibelius: Symphony No 1 in E minor
Suk: Symphony in E
Wallace: Creation Symphony in C sharp minor

1900
Borresen: Symphony No 1 in C minor
Gliere: Symphony No 1 in E flat major
Holst: Cotswold Symphony
Mahler: Symphony No 4 in G
Ropartz: Symphony No 2 in F minor
Scriabin: Symphony No 1 in E major
Tournemire: Symphony No 1 in A major 'Romantique'

1901 (beginning)
Dohnanyi: Symphony No 1 in D minor

Cyril Scott's 1st Symphony is a relatively lightweight work but very attractive and enjoyable. Interesting in a couple of places to hear hints of Delius, the scherzo is really engaging and a real earworm. Little comment needed on Sibelius 1st purely orchestral symphony. I'm a great Sibelius fan and never fail to be awestruck at the individual soundworld he created, though the 1st symphony for me is influenced by Tchaikovsky and at times Bruckner. Only the finale disappoints somewhat.
Josef Suk's E major Symphony is a relatively early work, the influence of Dvorak is clear and expected, though there are already many distinctive individul touches, particularly harmonically. William Wallace 'Creation Symphony' is a curiosity, Wagner seems a strong influence at times and it has some interesting textures that do occasional verge on the impressionistic, though for me the work doesn't come over as particularly symphonic.
The Dane Borresen's 1st Symphony is interesting, Tchaikovsky is a strong influence and the symphony even ends with a slow movement. The material is particularly memorable however, but the work seems competent enough. Gliere's 1st Symphony is very much under the spell of the Russian National School. I find it quite enjoyable and some of the ideas stay in the memory, even if the work doesn't totally convince me as a whole.
Holst's Cotswold Symphony is an early work. Along with the influence of Wagner, there are occasional anticipations of the mature composer, especially in the slow movement (In Memorian William H Morris) which is by far the best movement. It is interesting now that a couple of early Vaughan Williams orchestral works have come to light how there are occasional similarities of style between the two composers early in their respective careers.
Mahler's 4th Symphony is of course very well known, though of course I'm no Mahler fan, I don't mind this work and do occasionally listen to it!
The 2nd Symphony of Ropartz is worth seeking out. The sound world a mix of romaticism with hints of a mystical impressionism is most beguiling. The slow movement is very beautiful and the finale has some very vigorous writing.
I'm never sure what to make of Scriabin, the soundworld he creates in his 1st Symphony is already very individual and it easy to be overawed by the luxurious orchestration and harmony. But for me the symphony just drags too much, even the introduction of the two soloists in the finale doesn't really lift the work and the whole work sought of 'washes over you' leaving a curious feeling of exhaustion.
Charles Tournemire's 1st Symphony is a fairly compact work for the period (under half an hour in length) and is nicely balanced, sometimes the gestures become somewhat inflated but there is certainly some individuality.
Finally Dohnanyi's 1st Symphony. This is quite a large work, very romantic in feeling and very much of its time. It really quite a striking work for a composer still in his early 20's and it already displays some interesting individual touches that don't sound like any other composers of the time. For me it is let down by the over-long finale which seems the most Brahmsian in feeling.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Here's the latest episode from the journey through my symphonic collection.

1991 (conclusion)
Gilse: Symphony No 1 in F major
L Glass: Symphony No 3 in D major 'Wood Symphony'
Scriabin: Symphony No 2 in C minor
Sibelius: Symphony No 2 in D
1902
Bloch: Symphony in C sharp minor
Bowen: Symphony No 1 in G major
Glazunov: Symphony No 7 in F major
Huber: Symphony No 3 in C 'Heroic'
Ives: Symphony No 2
Mahler: Sympphony No 5 in C sharp minor
Melartin: Symphony No 1 in C minor
Nielsen: Symphony No 2 'The Four Temperaments'
O Olsson: Symphony in G minor
1903 (beginning)
Gilse: Symphony No 3 in E flat
D'Indy: Symphony No 2 in B flat

Gilse's 1st Symphony is a nicely balanced work and quite attractive, not very individual though with a variety of influences from Brahms to Dvorak and Tchaikovsky all to readily apparent I feel.
Louis Glass's 3rd Symphony is certainly an improvement on its two rather undistinguished predecessors. This is a much lighter work with folk elements present, attractive ideas, better scored and without much of the empty rhetoric that marred his earlier efforts.
Likewise I find Scriabin's 2nd Symphony more enjoyable than his 1st, it still doesn't totally convince me as a whole but I feel Scriabin has better control in this work without sacrificing his emerging individuality.
No introduction of course really needed for Sibelius's ever popular 2nd Symphony. I'm very fond of it and always find the first two movements totally fascinating especially the first.
Bloch's youthful C sharp minor symphony certainly makes an instant impression which seems to be the composer's intention. There is some astonishingly daring harmonic writing and near impressionist writing at times. But for me the work is really let down by its scoring, which is at times exceptionally dense and completely overblown, as if Bloch is just trying too hard. Any other boarders know this work?
I felt a little disappointed by York Bowen's 1st Symphony it is not unattractive and quite well written, with for me Russian overtones in places, but it really didn't 'grab me' at all sadly. Glazunov's 7th Symphony is the most immediately appealing of his later symphonies, with attractive memorable ideas and expertly scored as always. The rather understated slow movement I find thought provoking and only the slightly over extended finale detracts slightly from the overall work.
Hans Huber's 3rd Symphony is interesting and very romantic in feeling, but I do feel he doesn't quite have the ability or individuality to really pull off a really memorable work. The finale in particular is weak, with a sort of apotheosis with a Soprano singing the words of the Sanctus and an organ that sounds out of place.
Ives's 2nd Symphony is fairly well known, and it really is a most attractive late romantic work in which Ives is already successfully integrating the various hymn and popular tunes he knew so well to make a very individual sound world, that is striking without being too 'advanced'. I can't really comment on the infamous last chord though!
Try as I might I can't get on with Mahler's 5th I'm afraid, his individuality is of course striking and remarkable, especially hearing it in symphonic historical context. Perhaps I'll 'get it' one day!
The Finnish composer Melartin's 1st Symphony is a very well written work which is surprisingly Austro/German in feeling. The scherzo in particular is memorable and it marks an interesting symphonic debut.
Nielsen's 2nd Symphony is of course well known. The sheer individuality of Nielsen's writing never fails to fascinate me and I always enjoy this work. Otto Olsson's G minor Symphony is a big work. It is let down by a rather long and meandering slow movement which is twice the length of any of the other movements. The last movement is a rather attractive almost moto perpetuo like movement though as a whole the symphony doesn't really convince.
Gilse's 2nd Symphony is an improvement on the 1st, this is quite a strong symphony. The influence of Richard Strauss is apparent hear and there and this three movement symphony is certainly well written and scored and deserving of a recording.
Finally Vincent D'Indy's 2nd Symphony. I rather like this work and find it convincing and D'Indy even nods to the impressionists in places in what is an attractively scored and well written work and one perhaps we should hear more often. Any other Boarders enjoy this symphony?

[Suffolkcoastal]

Here's this week's listening in the journey though my symphonic collection.

1903 (conclusion)
Gilse: Symphony No 3 in D minor 'Erhebung'
Karlowicz: Symphony in E minor 'Rebirth Symphony'
Peterson-Berger: Symphony No 1 in B flat 'The Banner'
R Strauss: Sinfonia Domestica

1904
Borresen: Symphony No 2 in A major
Harty: An Irish Symphony
Ives: Symphony No 3
Mahler: Symphony No 6 in A minor
Martucci: Symphony No 2 in F major
Melartin: Symphony No 2 in E minor
Noskowski: Symphony No 3 in F major 'From Spring to Spring'
Sinding: Symphony No 2 in D

1905 (beginning)
Boughton: Symphony NO 1 'Oliver Cromwell'
Enescu: Symphony No 1 in E flat
Foerster: Symphony No 4 in C minor 'Easter Eve'
R Hermann: Symphony No 2 in B minor
Huber: Symphony No 5 in F major 'Romantic'
Reznicek: Symphony No 2 in B flat major 'Ironic'

I downloaded Gilse's 3rd Symphony at the weekend. This is an interesting work that also calls for a solo soprano in two of the movements both Mahler and R Strauss come to mind when listening to the work and its well worth investigating. Karlowicz's 'Rebirth Symphony' is also worth investigating for those who don't know it, it shows plenty of promise and it was pity that a tragic accident a few years later, cut short the career of such a promising composer.
The 1st Symphony of Peterson-Berger certainly makes an impression in the first movement which is expansive and heroic in tone, the scherzo too is rather good if a little too light in tone, however the other two movements are less successful and lack distinction.
I'm never sure what to make of Strauss's Sinfonia Domestica, to be honest its not among my favourite works of a composer I generally quite like. I don't think its the excessive programmatic content that bothers me, more that I find the work somewhat unmemorable.
Borresen's 2nd Symphony is like his 1st Symphony quite Tchaikovskyian, the first movement is quite expansive and the whole symphony whilst not of the highest rank is certainly worth a listen. Hamilton Harty's Irish Symphony is great fun and very enjoyable, not in any way a masterpiece, but a work to give pleasure and at the same attractively written and nicely orchestrated too.
The 3rd is my favourite among the Ives symphonies. I love the very opening, completely American in feel, harmonically very unsettling but at the same time creating an atmosphere of simplicity. There are a number of editions, the version I chose to listen to (Naxos) differs in places from my score and my other two recordings.
Mahler's 6th Symphony is one of two Mahler symphonies I can readily appreciate. For me he seems more in control in tis work than in some of the earlier symphonies and the whole work makes real logical sense to me. The slow movement in particular really moves me and I find it very poignant.
Martucci's 2nd Symphony is a very fine work, well written and balanced and quite memorable, it is a pity his early death robbed the world of a potential major symphonist. It is among the finest symphonies produced in Italy and if you don't know it I recommend trying it.
Melartin's 2nd Symphony shows the same individuality and craftsmanship evident in his first symphony. There is a nod to Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony in the same key with the use of a fate motif but Melartin skillfully avoids sounding like the Russian master. Noskowski's 3rd Symphony is a pleasant enough work, very romantic in feeling tracing the journey of the seasons from spring back through to the emergence of spring again, though personally I find this work rather anonymous, though others may enjoy it.
Sinding's 2nd Symphony is rather good. The expansive and striking 1st movement is orchestrated with real virtousity and the 2nd and 3rd movements are also very fine, The finale is somewhat less inspired but still satisfactory. Some of writing is clearly influenced by R Strauss but Sinding shows enough skill to avoid merely imitating the German master.
Rutland Boughton's 1st Symphony 'Oliver Cromwell' has an outline of programme though Boughton denied it was explicitly programmatic. The 1st movement in particular is quite striking and powerfully written. The other movements are less interesting for me. The finale is a setting of Oliver Cromwell's last prayer sung by a Baritone, though the setting is a particularly memorable one.
Enescu's 1st Symphony is a work of interest and promise which I must try and listen too again soon. In three movements it has some engaging writing and orchestration in places.
Foerster's 4th Symphony 'Easter Eve' is a very fine symphony. I have been impressed by all the Foerster symphonies so far and really think it is about time we heard more of him on the radio and in the concert hall. Foerster has an original sound world, not overtly Czech, though the scherzo of this symphony is more Czech in feeling, has engaging ideas and I certainly will be returning to his symphonies more frequently and must investigate other of his works.
Robert Herrman's 2nd Symphony is in places quite engaging, a curious mix of counterpoint of almost Bach like seriousness mixed with lighter folk like elements. Ultimately though the results are rather unsatisfactory but still worth a listen
Hans Huber's 5th Symphony is for a considerable portion a rather attractive work with a prominent role for a solo violin. Some of the ideas and orchestration are most engaging. The work is let down by a rather long and dull finale and Huber again as in his 3rd symphony unneccessarily introduces an organ whoich just doesn;t for me come off.
Emil von Reznicek's 2nd symphony started life as a sinfonietta and is a relatively light weight work. It is rather fun to listen to with an almost 'tongue in cheek' feel to it and definitely worth a listen to.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The latest in the journey through my symphonic collection.

1905 (conclusion)
Ropartz: Symphony No 3 in E
Scriabin: Symphony No 3 'The Divine Poem'
Stanford: Symphony No 6 in E flat major 'In honour .... of George F Watts'
1906
Alfven: Symphony No 3 in E
Bleyle: Symphony No 2 in F
Casella: Symphony No 1 in B minor
Glazunov: Symphony No 8 in E flat major
Hamerik: Symphony No 'Choral'
Mahler: Symphony No 7 in E minor
Maliperio: Sinfonia del Mare
Roussel: Symphony No 1 'La Poeme de la Foret'
Schoenberg: Chamber Symphony No 1
Steinberg: Symphony No 1 in D major
Suk: Symphony No 2 in C minor 'Asrael'

The 3rd Symphony is probably Ropartz's best known work though it is rarely played or broadcast these days. An extended work with chorus, it is very much of its time with some exquisitely beautiful writing, and certainly worth getting to know.
Scriabin's 3rd Symphony seems to be a transitional work to his last major orchestral works such as Prometheus. There is some truly gorgeous harmonic touches and luxurious orchestral writing mixed with more rhetorical and less satisfactory moments, but I find it more enjoyable than his earlier two efforts.
I think that the 6th is the finest of Stanford's symphonies and among the best British symphonies of pre World War One. The first movement is taughtlly constructed with real energy and the slow movement really is lovely, a short scherzo is folllowed by a highly satisfactory finale that makes a perfect summing up. If you don't know it, I think you should give it a try!
Alfven's 3rd Symphony is quite attractive especially the first movement and scherzo, the work is rtaher let down by its finale which is rather undistinguished to my ears.
The name of the Austrian composer Karl Bleyle may not be familiar to many MB's. His 2nd Symphony is quite interesting, very much of its time and if I had to date it without knowing when it was written I would certainly have placed it in the 1st decade of the 20th century. He takes aspects of a number of contemporaries but still sounds quite distinctive.
Casella's 1st symphony is a right mixture! In three movements, the 1st is very Russian whilst the other movements are more strongly influenced by Brahms, Wagner and Mahler. The orchestration is effective, though the work is rather loosely constructed, inspite of this it is still worth a listen and it is an early work by this composer.
Glazunov's 8th and final completed symphony is among his most impressive. Much more solemn, reflective and melancholy than its predecessors, even the Scherzo is subdued and the slow movement is very moving and thought provoking. The more Nationalistic elements of the finale have a certain wistful nostalgic defiance.
Asgar Hamerik's 7th and final symphony is scored for chorus and orchestra and though effective enough, it is rather unmemorable.
Maliperio's early symphonic effort 'Sinfonia de la Mare' is really a tone poem. The sea features of course in many works of the period and the work is well orchestrated and atmospheric with some hints of the mature composer in places though not particularly symphonic in nature.
I'm not a big fan of Mahler's 7th Symphony and find it a rather unsatisfactory work with the exception of the eerie central Scherzo with its sardonic edge which I rather like. I find the work lacks the compulsion and direction of its predecessor.
Roussel's 1st Symphony is very much under the impressionistic wing and not particularly typical of the later composer, who emerges in the 2nd Symphony, It is though an atmospheric work which can 'come off' if you are sympathetic to it.
The very opening of Schoenberg's 1st Chamber Symphony seems to usher in the 20th Century musically, this work is without doubt a masterpiece, and a key work in the history of music. I haven't actually listened to it for a couple of years until today, and I think hearing it again today it has come over even more convincingly than ever before.
Maximilian Steinberg's 1st Symphony is a rather typical Russian late romantoc work, with hints of Rimsky-Korsakov (as one would expect) and Tchaikovsky but also shows an awareness of R Strauss in places. The work is let down by an over-long, empty and rhetorical finale that doesn't really know when to stop!
Finally to finish on another masterpiece. Suk's Asrael Symphony is I find a gripping and intensely moving work of the highest order and a work I would love to hear live one day, the last movement in particular is almost unbearably poignant. Still not performed or broadcast enough IMO, although Suk's star has been rising in recent year.

[Suffolkcoastal]

The latest from my symphonic journey, not much listening recently as preparing to move tomorrow into Norwich (where I work), so will be a few more days before all my music is across and ready to listen to.

1907
Fuchs: Symphony No 3 in E major
Mahler: Symphony No 8 in E flat
Melartin: Symphony No 3 in F major
Rachmaninov: Symphony No 2 in E minor
Scriabin: Poem of Ecstasy (Symphony No 4)
Sibelius: Symphony No 3 in C
Stravinsky: Symphony in E flat
Szymanowski: Symphony No 1 in F minor
Vierne: Symphony in A minor

Several well known works from this year!

The Fuchs 3rd Symphony was written a number of years after the 2nd, it is a pleasant competent work, still very much under the influence of Brahms, even in the scoring. I wish it were more engaging though as it doesn't really stick in the memory.
I'm afraid I have little appreciation for Mahler's 8th. The ecstatic 1st movement I feel should be a separate piece, it is a pity about the rest of the work, which apart from one tiny idea, I never find memorable.
Melartin's 3rd Symphony continues his fine symphonic cycle. Again this is an interesting work and Mahler's influence is discernable, especially in the first 2 movements, though in this symphony Melartin does occasionally acknowledge Sibelius. The scherzo is the longest movement and the most colourfully orchestrated, and the work ends with a movement in a slower tempo. The work is expertly written throughout and I cannot recommend Melartin highly enough.
It is strange that yet again one of the symphonies I've listened too has coincided with the Building a Library appearance. I do have a soft spot for Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony. Yes it is far too long for its material in places, but it is so thoroughly personal and Russian in feeling and most of the ideas so memorable (inspite of the occasional sentimentality) that I can forgive the composer and I just love to listen to the work.
Both Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus have been labelled as symphonies (4 & 5) at times so I feel I should include them, especially as there works clearly labelled symphonies that aren't! It is easy to become totally intoxicated with the sound world that Scriabin creates in his Poem of Ecstasy (Symphony No 4). I find the work as revolutionary in colour and harmony as many more famous works of the period and generally there is a forward momentum achieved by Scriabin here that is more convincing that his previous three labelled symphonies.
Sibelius's 3rd Symphony is one of my favourite Sibelius works. Its scoring and relatively brevity seems a reaction to many of the large opulent scores being written at the time. The transformations in the 1st movement and the gradual momentum built up in the scherzo/finale are masterly and compelling. The slow movement may over rely on its memorable main idea though.
Stravinsky's early E flat Symphony is fairly well known, still largely under the influence of the Russian National School, it is still an enjoyable work and attractive too, with only the occasional hint (such as the closing section of the slow movement) of the composer that was to emerge in the three great ballets only a few years later.
Szymanowski's 1st symphony is a two movement torso of about 20 minutes in length, very opulent in its scoring, it seems at times to inhabit and almost Scriabin/R Strauss like world, though perhaps ultimately it is rather unmemorable, especially considering the works to come.
Finally Louis Vierne's A minor Symphony. This is a rather sombre and dark hued work, it shows an impressive command of counterpoint at times, though the ideas themselves are not particularly memorable, the overall feeling of the work remains with one afterwards and it is certainly worth investigation.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Now I've safely moved and sorted out my music collection, I've continued with my symphonic journey the last few days again.

1908
Balakirev: Symphony No 2 in D minor
Buttner: Symphony No 2 in G major
Elgar: Symphony No 1 in A flat
Gliere: Symphony No 2 in C minor
Ippolitov-Ivanov: Symphony No 1 in E minor
von Klenau: Symphony No 1 in F minor
Lemba: Symphony in C sharp minor
Miaskovsky: Symphony No 1 in C minor

The Balakirev really seems to belong to the 1870's and is one of the last romantic Russian National School symphonies. It has its moments, with an attractive scherzo and a forthright Polonaise style finale, the slow movement is rather bland though and rather detracts from the rest of the work.
Paul Buttner's 2nd Symphony I find far less interesting than his 1st. It is a bit of a mish-mash of styles, with a promising Straussian 1st movement, followed by a Beethovenian 2nd movement which sounds out of a place and a rather inspired rhetorical slightly Wagnerian finale.
Elgar's 1st Symphony of course needs no introduction. I am a big Elgar fan and the one thing that really stands out for me, especially hearing it in historical context, is the sheer virtuosity of the orchestral writing, something virtually no British composer had achieved up to that time.
Gliere's 2nd Symphony starts off ok, a solid 1st movement and a typically Russian scherzo, however the theme and variations slow movement and finale I find rather empty with little material of distinction.
The same could describe Ippolitov-Ivanov's E minor Symphony, it has some attractive moments and is generally well orchestrated and at least a couple of ideas do stay in the memory even if the overall flow of the work is less than totally convincing.
The Danish born Paul von Klenau's 1st Symphony doesn't strike as a very inspiring work. Very much in the late romantic tradition it starts off atmospherically but soon loses its way in rather uninteresting ideas and rather outstays its welcome.
Artur Lemba is generally regarded as the father of Estonian music and his early C sharp minor symphony is actually quite attractive with ideas of some distinction and makes a rather convincing whole even if it still harks back to Tchaikovsky occasionally at times.
Finally the first of Miaskovsky's 27 symphonies. This 3 movement work was revised in 1921 which is the version I was listening to. The 1st movement already displays the somewhat brooding slightly melancholy aspects of the mature composer and both it and the slow movement are just a little long for their material. The finale which was the most heavily cut movement in the revision, certainly shows off Miaskovsky's considerable abilities in counterpoint and fugal writing, though the writing does occasionally become somewhat cluttered, still a fairly impressive symphonic debut.