Skip to main content

Schubert: Symphony #8, The Unfinished Symphony

After listening to this symphony, it's hard not to recognize the great leap in style Schubert makes from his very Classical-sounding Third in just seven years. He was barely 18 when he wrote his Third Symphony. By the time he had turned 25, he had composed (okay, partly composed) one of the quintessential Romantic-era symphonies.
**********************
Carlos Kleiber and the Wiener Philharmoniker
Franz Schubert (1797-1828)
Schubert: Symphony #3, Symphony #8
Deutsche Grammophon, 1979
**********************
If Schubert's Third sounds like Haydn, then his Eighth sounds like Brahms. Only Brahms wrote his symphonies some 30 to 50 years later.

It took Schubert seven years to go from writing a derivative and backward looking symphony to writing a work that was 50 years ahead of its time. Imagine what he could have done had he lived as long as Beethoven.

It makes me think that the greatest tragedy in the history of 19th century classical music was the early and untimely death of Franz Schubert.

Finally, I have to quote one of the all-too-few episodes of The Simpsons that involves classical music:

Principal Skinner: Tonight, Sherbert's, oops... heh heh... Schubert's Unfinished symphony.
Homer:
Oh good, unfinished. This shouldn't take long.

Of course, the joke's on him. Even though the Eighth is only two movements "long," this work is actually longer than his four-movement Third Symphony. Later in the episode:

Homer: D'oh! How much longer was Sherbert planning on making this piece of junk?

Listener notes for Sherbert's Unfinished Symphony:
1) I didn't understand at first why Deutsche Grammophon would put Schubert's Third and Eighth Symphonies on the same CD. But it's the contrast that makes these two symphonies so enjoyable. After finishing the Third, a beautiful and pleasant symphony, it only takes the first five seconds of the Eighth to make you feel like you've been plucked from the Classical era and dropped into the late decades of the Romantic era. From Kansas to Oz in 16 bars.

2) Notice the simple and memorable six-note motif, the modulation and the inversion of that theme throughout the work, the use of an extensive dynamic range, and the overall gravitas of the music. Classic markers of Romantic era symphonies. Oh, and the brass parts are more fun to play.

3) The stress and tension at the halfway mark in the first movement is nearly unbearable. See passages at 7:30, 7:43, 7:55 and especially the entire passage from 8:07 until the music resolves back to the major key at around the 9:00 mark. What compelling music!

4) Listen for the clarinet solo, beginning at 2:14 in the second movement. That is how a clarinet should be played. In tune, mournful and not shrill. Maybe I should mail this CD to the principal clarinetist of the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Come back in five days for our final Schubert post!





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does Bach Suck?

It's not often that you see a classical music-related comment that makes you spit out your coffee : "Bach sucks because he was not a true composer. A true composer hears the music before he writes it. Bach composed using a mathematical system of numbers which he tought[sic] his students. After his death one of his students published a book “How to write a menuet[sic] with little or no musical knowledge”. Frankly, the result of his work is not musical, the opening bars always sound musical because he copied someone else’s melody, broke it down into numbers and wrote counterpoint from it. Handel did not even like Bach, because Handel wrote music. Anyone who does like Bach does so because they are told to. For a comparison, listen to music by Frescobaldi, Rameau, or Couperin, then listen to Bach. The difference? Something that is musical throughout the entire piece, and something that is musical for 10 seconds and quickly loses interest." Once I'd finished mopping the co

Why Classical Music Writing is So Difficult to Read

Have you ever read the liner notes of a classical music CD and scratched your head wondering what the heck the writer was trying to say? Or attempted to read a classical music concert review in your newspaper and felt totally illiterate? One of the things that frustrates many people about classical music is its perceived elitism. It's unfortunate, but most of what gets written about classical music only worsens that perception. Most of the classical music writing I see out there--either in symphony concert program books, in concert reviews in major papers like the New York Times, or worst of all in the little essays in the booklets accompanying most classical music CDs--is quite simply terrible. Often, it is pretentiously written, it is full of industry jargon (yes, even the classical music industry has its own jargon), and it reads like an intellectually insecure liberal arts student's PhD thesis. There are a few reasons for this. First, there's the fundamental difficulty

Schubert: Symphony #3

I have a confession to make. Today's CD is not only further proof of my need to start this blog, but it is perhaps the most embarrassing example of how mindless and uncontemplative my life had become over the past several years. This CD sat on my shelf with more than a hundred other CDs for years, unlistened to, unnoticed, and collecting dust. It was just like all the rest of my CDs, except, uh, in one key respect: It was still in its cellophane wrapper. I had been so out of touch with myself that I bought CDs that I forgot I bought. I must have wanted to listen to this CD at some point, but apparently in the time between buying the CD and putting it on the shelf, I got distracted. For ten years. That is a prime, and admittedly foolish-sounding, example of why I'm taking a break from my career, and why I started this blog. I guess I didn't want to wake up in another ten years and hear myself making excuses for myself like "I work too hard and make too much money to