# Exploring the Early 20th Century?



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Does the following list "mean" anything besides the fact that these are basically the only classical pieces from 1900-1950 that I especially like? In other words, does it indicate any style or school or do the composers lead naturally to other composers or the pieces to other pieces for further exploration?


Bela Bartok - Concerto for Orchestra, Sz. 116
Alfredo Casella - Harp Sonata, Op. 68
Gerald Finzi - Clarinet Concerto, Op.31
Reinhold Gliere - Harp Concerto in E-flat, Op. 74
Hamilton Harty
An Irish Symphony
Violin Concerto
In Ireland, fantasy for flute, harp, and orchestra

Gustav Holst - The Planets
Leos Janacek - Sinfonietta
Zoltan Kodaly - String Quartet No. 1 in C minor, Op. 2
Carl Nielsen
Wind Quintet, Op. 43
Symphony No. 5, Op. 50

Francis Poulenc
Trois mouvements perpetuels, FP 14a
Concert champetre, FP 49
Sextet for Piano and Winds, FP 100
Sonata for Flute and Piano, FP 164

Ottorino Respighi
Fountains of Rome, Pines of Rome
Ancient Airs and Dances
The Birds

Cyril Scott - Symphony No. 3, "The Muses"
Jean Sibelius - Violin Concerto in D minor, Op. 47
Richard Strauss
Oboe Concerto in D
Horn Concerto No. 2

Igor Stravinsky - Concerto in E-flat, 8.v.38, "Dumbarton Oaks"
Karol Szymanowski - Stabat Mater, Op. 53
Ralph Vaughan Williams - English Folk Song Suite
Peter Warlock - Capriol Suite

I'm basically an 18th century kind of guy when it comes to "classical" music (along with earlier stuff and some 19th century) but I did have a baker's dozen of pieces I liked from this period, added five or six by vague wandering, and then noticed the convenient "20th century by decades" game threads and the "Boulez' top 10 of the 20th" threads which helped me add eight more (plus one from the other half of the century) in a more directed way and I'm wondering what all this is and where to go from here.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It shows you like more melodic music. I'm also a big fan of Harty's Irish Symphony. I'm surprised you don't have any Ravel. His Mother Goose suite for orchestra is spellbinding. If you like folkish tunes, you might want to try out Janis Ivanov's 2nd and 3rd symphonies. Also Barber and Korngold's Violin Concertos have real nice middle movements. And Kallinikov's symphonies.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The difficulty in suggesting other pieces to listen to is that we don't know what you've disliked. For instance, is the absence of, say, Strauss Alpensifonie or Vaughan Williams's Tallis Fantasia because you don't like them, or you haven't heard them? What about vocal music?

Other suggestions - Copland's Rodeo and Appalachian Spring, Villa-Lobos's Bachianas Brasileiras, Rodrigo's Concierto Aranjuez, Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, Hindemith's Symphonic Metamorphoses...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

You list Gerald Finzi - Clarinet Concerto, Op.31

Suggestions to follow up:
Finzi - Cello Concerto
Bax - Tintagel
Moeran - Violin Concerto


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Based on your post I think you would like Prokofiev Symphony no.1, “Classical” as well as Malcolm Arnold Symphony no.5. Two great pieces of music.

I would also “try on” Barber’s VC as Phil loves Classical suggests. It’s a phenomenal work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Common Listener said:


> Does the following list "mean" anything besides the fact that these are basically the only classical pieces from 1900-1950 that I especially like? In other words, does it indicate any style or school or do the composers lead naturally to other composers or the pieces to other pieces for further exploration?
> 
> 
> Bela Bartok - Concerto for Orchestra, Sz. 116
> ...


Your list seems to tell me that it is early days for you! There is much that is not so very different to the works of each composer you have chosen and I can see no reason why you wouldn't like those works too. There is, I suppose, a small bias towards neoclassicism.

As the years hurtle by I am coming to see the music of the 1920s and 1930s as recognisable as music of those two decades - just as many of us already do for the music of the two decades before them - even composers who were once seen as so different, as opposites even. They were wonderful decades!

I do not yet hear the music of the 1940s and 50s as similar in the same way. Not yet. But I am sure I will one day. For now I hear a lot of variety ... and, as ever, a lot of great music!


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

You've cited some of my very favorites here, but this is actually the period that I listen to the most. The safest, most relevant recommendations I can make are for other pieces by composers you already like. These are my favorite versions for performance and sound quality.

Bartok - Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta. Reiner/Chicago SO, 1958, RCA Living Stereo.
Holst - Brook Green Suite, H. 190. Hickox/City of London Sinfonia, 1993, Chandos.
Janacek - Taras Bulba. Andrew Davis/Toronto SO, 1977, Sony.
Kodaly - Hary Janos Suite. Dorati/Philharmonia Hungarica, 1973, Decca.
Nielsen - Symphony No. 4, Op. 29 "The Inextinguishable". Martinon/Chicago SO, 1969, RCA Red Seal.
Sibelius - The Swan of Tuonela, Op. 22. Ormandy/Philadelphia, 1973, RCA (Sony)
R. Strauss - Le bourgeois gentilhomme Suite, Op. 60. Reiner/Chicago SO, 1956, RCA Living Stereo.
Stravinsky - Petrouchka. Monteaux/Boston SO, 1959, RCA Living Stereo.
Vaughn Williams - Flos campi. Handley/Liverpool, 1987, EMI.

For my part, I'm going to look more into Cyril Scott and Karol Szymanowski. I don't know their music well at all.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I agree you seem to like tonal, romantic music. A composer you do not list who fit that bill is Samuel Barber, the American. He composed one of the best *violin concerto*s of the 20th century and many more. His *adagio for strings*, taken from a longer work, is also famous. Here is a famous recording of some of his other works you may wish to try









Here are some other recommendations for music from the first half of the 20th century

Ernest Bloch *Trombone Symphony* (1954 if that bothers you); Bloch wrote three other romantic symphonies and a great deal of other music. He is one of the most underrated romantic composers.

Jean Sibelius *Symphony No. 7,* somewhat elusive and hard to attach to at first but worth the time.

Richard Strauss *Alpine Symphony*, *Oboe Concerto* and *Horn Concerto No. 2*, *Sonatina in F "The Happy Workshop"*

Edward Elgar *Cockaine Overture, Violin and Cello concertos, Pomp and Circumstance marches, In the South*.

Victor Herbert *Pan American*. Herbert was born Ireland but is considered American. All the composers that follow are also American.

Charles Ives *Symphony No. 3 "Camp Meeting"*.

Walter Piston *Symphony No. 2*.

Virgil Thomson *Symphony On a Hymn Tune, Suite from "The River" and "The Plow That Broke The Plains", Louisiana Story.*

Peter Mennin *Symphony No. 3*.

Howard Hanson *Symphony No. 2 "Romantic"* perhaps the greatest of all American symphonies sometimes recorded with the great Barber Violin Concerto as here









Aaron Copland *Symphony No. 3, Rodeo, Fanfare For the Common Man*, many other portraits of high quality.

Ferde Grofe *Grand Canyon, Mississippi and Niagara Falls suites*.

You can investigate other American composers; Americans were a font of tonal romanticism in the early and middle 20th century.


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Wow! Thanks for all the replies. I'm familiar with a few of the suggestions but this gives me a *lot* to explore. 



Phil loves classical said:


> It shows you like more melodic music.[...] I'm surprised you don't have any Ravel. His Mother Goose suite for orchestra is spellbinding.


This is probably true but there are a lot of exceptions which I can't really articulate or defend - for instance, I don't generally like Ravel at all, so far as I know, maybe because it's just outside the "Goldilocks" zone, but I'll give the Mother Goose suite a listen, along with your other suggestions. Thanks!



Nereffid said:


> The difficulty in suggesting other pieces to listen to is that we don't know what you've disliked. For instance, is the absence of, say, Strauss Alpensifonie or Vaughan Williams's Tallis Fantasia because you don't like them, or you haven't heard them? What about vocal music?
> 
> Other suggestions - Copland's Rodeo and Appalachian Spring, Villa-Lobos's Bachianas Brasileiras, Rodrigo's Concierto Aranjuez, Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, Hindemith's Symphonic Metamorphoses...


Yeah, that's a good point - it's easy to list what I like of this period because it's a short, definite set. As far as what I don't like, it's much longer and more open. I don't like that Strauss and I actually thought I didn't like Strauss at all (aside from the 2001 theme  ) because I don't like Zarathustra as a whole or some other Strauss, but I love those two concertos (both recent discoveries) so I need to reassess there and I'm open to things like them. I think the Tallis Fantasia is fine, but doesn't really stick out for me, Similarly, I like Rhapsody in Blue in the sense of not turning it off if it comes on, but wouldn't put it on myself, generally, and like Appalachian Spring a little less. As far as vocal music, I prefer instrumental but there are vocal works I like and, of them, I generally prefer choral.

As far as what I don't like more generally, I can't appreciate most of Boulez' top 10 (of the whole 20th century) at all. The Varese, Berg, Webern, Berio, Stockhausen, Schoenberg, and Boulez' own work. Also, I know Mahler has devoted fans and he's much more in the ballpark of someone I could appreciate but all I've ever heard is a bit "much" for me. Back on the rest of the list, I think the atonal, minimal, "avant-garde," etc. stuff is just not for me at this point.



Enthusiast said:


> There is, I suppose, a small bias towards neoclassicism.


That's one term that perplexes me. When I hear Warlock's Capriol Suite (one of my very favorites) and Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances, and it's called "neoclassical" (maybe more accurately, neobaroque or neorenaissance), I think "that makes sense, and I'd like to hear more." And it doesn't have to be that direct - for instance, Dumbarton Oaks is supposed to come from a "neoclassical period" for Stravinsky, and I get that. But other things are called "neoclassical" and I just don't understand why (unfortunately, I can't think of an example now) and it makes me wonder about the term.



larold said:


> I agree you seem to like tonal, romantic music.


This does seem to be true, but there are limits. Relative to late Baroque and Classical, I don't like Romantic music much but, when it comes to pushing on through the 19th and 20th centuries, that's where I end up. Even among the Romantics, my favorites are - I guess you'd call it fairly conservative - the late-Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, etc., along with some that go further afield like Bizet. I love Dvorak, too, which, with some pieces by Smetana and the Kodaly and Bartok and others, made me wonder if there's some Czech/Hungarian/whatever sort of locus of interest. I haven't listened to much Kodaly and can't find a lot of Bartok that does it for me like the Concerto for Orchestra (which is so sonically fascinating, aggressive but controlled, and purposeful) so I'm not sure there.

Anyway, I'll be listening to these suggestions and will report back. Thanks again! (And, as much as it is, if anyone has more suggestions, I'd appreciate those, too.)


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Reporting back. 

A lot of music from this period, for me, is either too boring or too obnoxious but most of the suggestions were quite listenable and, interestingly, every one pointed me to at least a piece I like at least pretty well and I haven't yet gotten to larold's All-American section. I also found a couple of others along the way. New additions:


Samuel Barber
Intermezzo (from Vanessa)
Medea's (Meditation and) Dance of Vengeance

Gerald Finzi - Cello Concerto
Paul Hindemith
Symphonic Metamorphosis...
Viola Concerto "Der Schwanendreher"

Gustav Holst - Brook Green Suite
Janis Ivanovs - Symphony No. 2 in D minor
Vasily Kalinnikov
Symphony No. 1 in G minor
Symphony No. 2 in A

Zoltan Kodaly
Hary Janos Suite
String Quartet No. 2

Sergei Prokofiev - Symphony No. 1 in D "Classical"
Jean Sibelius
The Swan of Tuonela
Symphony No. 7 in C

Richard Strauss - Sonatina No. 1 in F for Sixteen Wind Instruments
Igor Stravinsky - Petrushka
Heitor Villa-Lobos - Bachianas Brasileiras

Barber's Medea and the Stravinsky brought something to mind: the piano and orchestral pieces became dominant in the classical era and, of course, there are innumerable piano concertos but how many pieces use the piano IN the orchestra? Both were very effective here. I much prefer Finzi's clarinet to the cello, but I still liked the cello. The Hindemith viola that I found is strange, but interesting and viola music's hard to come by, so...  The Metamorphosis was great. I'd never heard of Ivanovs or Kalinnikov and liked them both - the other Ivanovs symphony I played was okay but I particularly like the three on the list. I also added Kodaly's SQ2 since I already liked No .1. It may be more efficient, but less impressive or maybe not - not sure which I like better, but both are good. The Hary Janos made me wonder if I wasn't listening to a Hungarian Copland, but I liked it. Prokofiev didn't knock my socks off or anything, but it was nice. Both Sibelius' were almost too syrupy for me (No. 7 less so) but I like them. Not that they have anything to do with each other but Swan kept bringing Smetana's Moldau to mind in the sense that I like the Moldau's movement (flowing movement, of course) better than Swan's sort of static ethereality but it was still nice. Barber's Intermezzo was in this ballpark, too, but I think had a little more edge. Strauss' Sonatina No. 1 is perhaps too long or needs more dynamism or something, but I liked it enough that I'll be checking out the second one soon. And I'm sure I've heard the Villa-Lobos before but this is probably the first time I really _listened_ to it (just once, though - the others I've played at least twice so far) and the later ones don't hold my interest as much but everything up to and including the No. 5 vocal one (I think) were good.

Again, if anyone has more suggestions, I'm all ears but thanks very much for everything so far, and especially for those on this list!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Common Listener said:


> That's one term that perplexes me. When I hear Warlock's Capriol Suite (one of my very favorites) and Respighi's Ancient Airs and Dances, and it's called "neoclassical" (maybe more accurately, neobaroque or neorenaissance), I think "that makes sense, and I'd like to hear more." And it doesn't have to be that direct - for instance, Dumbarton Oaks is supposed to come from a "neoclassical period" for Stravinsky, and I get that. But other things are called "neoclassical" and I just don't understand why (unfortunately, I can't think of an example now) and it makes me wonder about the term.


Terms are confusing. The works you mention do indeed owe much to earlier music and must, I suppose, be termed neoclassical for that reason. But the term neoclassical is more correctly much more broad and includes most of Stravinsky after 1920 and those who more or less followed his lead - Frank Martin, Poulenc, Martinu and Hindemith - and it represented a movement against the excesses of Romanticism. The term is also by some used to describe works like Bartok's very great second violin concerto but I can't really understand why.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

For Paul Hindemith, I think you would love the Symphony Mathis der Maler.


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Terms are confusing. The works you mention do indeed owe much to earlier music and must, I suppose, be termed neoclassical for that reason. But the term neoclassical is more correctly much more broad and includes most of Stravinsky after 1920 and those who more or less followed his lead - Frank Martin, Poulenc, Martinu and Hindemith - and it represented a movement against the excesses of Romanticism. The term is also by some used to describe works like Bartok's very great second violin concerto but I can't really understand why.


So "anti-romantic" would (loosely, in a sense) be a more accurate term than "neoclassical," I guess. When you say "excesses" do you mean sonically, like Mahler or the like, or the decline of structure or is it more the philosophical/metaphorical aspects - subjectivity, cult of youth, and so on? (I'm not sure how much of that I really see in music but many people view music in those terms and a certain contingent of composers themselves talk about the "meaning" of the music.) It's unfortunate that it's not a simpler "this is a label stuck on a particular 'sound'" so that I could easily find more of that "sound." There is a certain coherent, clean, and sprightly "Capriol Suite sound" that I hear traces of elsewhere that seems like it ought to be a thing to me.  Not too much of undifferentiated impressionism, not too much of big bombast, etc.



Art Rock said:


> For Paul Hindemith, I think you would love the Symphony Mathis der Maler.


Do you have a recommended recording for that? I have heard Jascha Horenstein and the London Symphony Orchestra and I'm willing to give it another listen because it had some interest but it didn't really click for me in that one.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Regarding a recommendation for a recording of Hindemith's _Symfonie Mathis der Maler_:

This really gets the blood flowing for big Hindemith fans like me! You will probably get lots of good recommendations. I'd just mention that there is also a Hindemith opera entitled Mathis der Maler, which I will not say anything about to avoid unnecessary complication. I own three CD recordings of the symphony and have heard it performed in concert a couple of times. It doesn't get as much radio air time as I think it deserves, so I cannot really claim to be familiar with more than the three recordings that I own.

Bottom line up front: For me, the best is Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra, 1962, Sony (via RCA). In the Hindemith fan world, proponents of this recording are known to be extraordinarily committed to it. But other fans don't like it much or at all. It seems to be a divisive issue. For an old recording, the sound quality is excellent.

The other recordings I know, which I consider good (I take some pride in curating my CD collection), are Abbado/Berliner Philharmoniker, 1995, DG; and Steinberg/Boston SO, 1972, DG (via Polydor). The Abbado recording is from a live performance and the DDD recording has great sound quality.

Franz


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Re: Hindemith - Mathis der Maler



Common Listener said:


> Do you have a recommended recording for that? I have heard Jascha Horenstein and the London Symphony Orchestra and I'm willing to give it another listen because it had some interest but it didn't really click for me in that one.


I can tell you the recordings I have:

Karajan & Berliner on EMI (sound is not brilliant, recorded in 1957)
Blomstedt & San Francisco on Decca (my choice between these two)


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Thanks to you both, Franz and Art Rock. I listened to the Ormandy and Blomstedt and I do like the first two movements (of the Ormandy especially) but something about the last movement throws me. Strident, strained, something. (Maybe due to the "program" nature.) I may keep trying it periodically, though, and it might start to work for me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'd say if you enjoy Bartok's formulaic concerto for orchestra you would doubtless enjoy his *Music For Strings, Percussion and Celesta* and his *Divertimento for String Orchestra*, two of his most accessible and enduring works.


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

larold said:


> I'd say if you enjoy Bartok's formulaic concerto for orchestra you would doubtless enjoy his *Music For Strings, Percussion and Celesta* and his *Divertimento for String Orchestra*, two of his most accessible and enduring works.


I'd played the Celesta piece a couple of times - that seems to be The Big Piece or something (frequently and favorably mentioned) - but, perplexingly,it hasn't done much for me. As far as the Divertimento, I seem to have played it before, too, but didn't recall it and played it again on your recommendation. I like it just fine, but not in the remarkable way in which I like most of the others I've mentioned including the Concerto. I guess you might say it just doesn't have that winning formula.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Apologies if I missed this, but did/have you listen(ed) to Bartok's Quartet No. 4?

Also, for what has not been mentioned:

Elgar - Symphonies / Violin Concerto / In the South (Alassio) / Serenade for Strings (precipice of Romanticism)
Korngold - Violin Concerto (rambunctious) 
Schuman - Symphony No. 3 (raucous)


----------



## Common Listener (Apr 6, 2019)

Avey said:


> Apologies if I missed this, but did/have you listen(ed) to Bartok's Quartet No. 4?
> 
> Also, for what has not been mentioned:
> 
> ...


The Korngold and most of the Elgar had been mentioned but I hadn't yet listened to the Bartok, Schuman, or Elgar's Serenade for Strings. The latter's not bad, but a little too soft and sweet for me. On the other hand, the Bartok didn't work for me - not at all soft or sweet.  On the other other hand, the Schuman was very interesting. Not sure what I think of it, exactly, but I'll certainly play it more than once to find out. (I think the Chorale segment was probably my favorite right away, but the more raucous sections seemed vigorously (and not crazily) raucous.) Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Common Listener said:


> ...the Schuman was very interesting. Not sure what I think of it, exactly, but I'll certainly play it more than once to find out. (I think the Chorale segment was probably my favorite right away, but the more raucous sections seemed vigorously (and not crazily) raucous.)


Vigorous, yes! Great description.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Charles Ives wrote at the turn of the century in American and avant-garde formats. This has both:


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

You could extend the range a little into early Michael Tippett? I suggest his gloriously energetic concerto for Double String Orchestra. 
And if Gerald Finzi is striking a chord with you, try sampling around Arnold Bax.


----------

