# Suite Spot: The Nineteenth-Century Orchestral Suite



## Roger Knox

Here's a heads-up on a topic that I plan to look at more closely when returning to regular posting on TalkClassical at the beginning of September. This 1998 musicology dissertation by Allan Scott Morris on the 19th-century suite and serenade has piqued my interest, especially in the orchestral suites:






The wellsprings of neo-classicism in music: The nineteenth-century suite and serenade | TSpace Repository







tspace.library.utoronto.ca





Why? In surveying late romantic orchestral music by German/Austrian, French, and Russian composers, I kept coming across unfamiliar examples of these genres. Realizing I didn't know much about them, I decided to avoid serenades altogether, and to skim through orchestral suites listening only for anything striking. Often there wasn't, but I'm now glad to have found a source to help answer my questions, and to document the wrong assumptions and conclusions that exist in the literature. The thread will focus on the Nineteenth-Century Orchestral Suite.


----------



## Roger Knox

The late world-renowned musicologist Richard Taruskin wrote a book _Defining Russia Musically_ (Princeton University Press,1997) that includes "Chaikovsky and the Human: A Centennial Essay." Here he discusses the importance of the composer's orchestral suites for our understanding of the composer's classical side and of his aesthetic values. I find it interesting that Chaikovsky held Massenet's orchestral suites in high esteem. Indeed I'm beginning to appreciate the significance of this genre for a large number of composers active post-1850 in various countries. Excerpts from the article appear at the below address, enough to get a basic sense of Taruskin's views.









Defining Russia Musically


The world-renowned musicologist Richard Taruskin devoted much of his career to helping listeners appreciate Russian and Soviet music in new and sometimes controversial ways. Defining Russia Musically represents one of his landmark achievements: here Taruskin uses music, together with history and...



books.google.ca


----------



## mbhaub

Listening to a lot of suites would be interesting and probably very pleasant; they do get short shrift; at least most of them. I read the abstract at the link provided and the author makes a good point I'd never thought of: neo-classicism's roots in orchestra suites. 

For years I have suggested to conductors of small, amateur orchestras to play suites rather than the big romantic symphonies they want to. The suites are for the most part much more audience friendly, easier to play and overall very pleasant. Just this upcoming season I convinced one maestro to play the two Carmen suites rather than Bizet's much, much more difficult symphony. The suites of Massenet and Saint-Saens should be standard repertoire. Of course, the Tchaikovsky ballet suites are pretty popular, so why aren't the opera suites that are recorded on Melodiya? 

Let us know what you're listening to - this could be fun.


----------



## Vasks

Joachim Raff composed several suites not drawn from opera or ballet.


----------



## Bulldog

Julius Rontgen composed a few orchestral suites. My favorite is Aus Jotunheim from a CPO disc.


----------



## Vasks

Jules Massenet wrote both suites not drawn from opera/ballet as well as suites that are. My all time favorite is his from "Le Cid"


----------



## SanAntone

Othmar Schoeck wrote Suite in A flat major for String Orchestra, Op. 59.

Here's the first movement:


----------



## Becca

The OP explicitly mentioned serenades also ... a great example would be Stenhammer's


----------



## Roger Knox

mbhaub said:


> Listening to a lot of suites would be interesting and probably very pleasant; they do get short shrift; at least most of them. I read the abstract at the link provided and the author makes a good point I'd never thought of: neo-classicism's roots in orchestra suites.
> 
> For years I have suggested to conductors of small, amateur orchestras to play suites rather than the big romantic symphonies they want to. The suites are for the most part much more audience friendly, easier to play and overall very pleasant. Just this upcoming season I convinced one maestro to play the two Carmen suites rather than Bizet's much, much more difficult symphony. The suites of Massenet and Saint-Saens should be standard repertoire. Of course, the Tchaikovsky ballet suites are pretty popular, so why aren't the opera suites that are recorded on Melodiya?
> 
> Let us know what you're listening to - this could be fun.


Agreed! One composer I haven't listened to before is Franz Lachner, who turns out to have been a pioneer. His Suite No. 1 suggests a genre that's mature in concept but needs better content (which was soon to come). Thanks to everyone who has posted, and for your excellent choices! For personal reasons I just can't do _anything _more till the beginning of September -- but please keep posting your musical suggestions and ideas, including how this thread should work (more informally than the previous ones where I was the OP.) Yes, I hope this will be fun, while sharing our respect for the underrated 19th c. orchestral suite. 

Luckily I found a copy of this book in the library: Vol. 10 of the _New Oxford History of Music_, ed. Gerald Abraham, Oxford University Press, 1990. Section VIII, Major Instrumental Forms: 1850-90, (pp. 560 ff.) by Robert Pascall is the best summary of the genre I've seen. 








Romanticism (1830-1890)


Romanticism--a concept more easily recognized than defined--dominated the artistic landscape of music from 1830-1890. Like the other volumes in the New Oxford History of Music series, this final volume to be published provides a detailed, scholarly critical survey of the music and composers of...



books.google.ca





If anyone has other reference suggestions please let us know.


----------



## Vasks

Bizet - Roma [aka Suite de Concert]
Chabrier - Suite Pastorale
T. Dubois - Suite concertante for Cello, Piano & Orchestra
Respighi - Suite in E (1905)
Taneyev - Suite de Concert
Ippolitov-Ivanov - Caucasian Sketches Suites
Gade - A Summer's Day in the Country & Holbergiana are suites
Nielsen - Little Suite for strings, Op. 1


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

Here are some slightly lesser known Romantic era orchestral suites. There is some very enjoyable music here, including the Busoni, Magnard, Arthur Foote, Glazunov, Kalinnikov, Edward German, Niels Gade, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, and von Reznicek. Arthur de Greef's _Suite d'orchestre _is a special favorite of mine.

Suite caractéristique, Op.9 (Aleksandr Glazunov)
Symphonische Suite, Op.25, BV 201 (Ferruccio Busoni)
Suite d’orchestre dans le style ancien, Op.2 (Albéric Magnard)
Suite d'orchestre (Arthur de Greef)
Episodes chevaleresques, Op.35b (Christian Sinding)
Le foyer illustré (Albert Corbin)
Im Schlosshof, Op.78 (Heinrich Hofmann)
Impressions d'Italie (Gustave Charpentier)
Italienische Suite, WoO.35 (Joachim Raff)
Suite No.2, Op.75 (Heinrich Esser)
La korrigane (suite) (Charles-Marie Widor)
3 Petites pièces pour orchestre (Théodore Dubois)
Raymonda Suite, Op.57a (Aleksandr Glazunov)
Shylock, suite, Op.57 (Gabriel Faure)
Symphonische Suite No.1 & No. 2 (Emil von Reznicek)
Suite No.5 (Gerard von Brucken Fock)
Gipsy Suite (Edward German)
Suite d'Orchestre No.1, Op.39 (Moritz Moszkowski)
Les naïades (Albert Corbin)
Orchestral Suite No.1, Op.23 (Arthur Coquard)
Suite for Orchestra, Op.36 (Arthur Foote)
Suite for Orchestra (Vasily Kalinnikov)
Suite No.1, Op.4 (Aleksandr Ilyinsky)
Episodes chevaleresques, Op.35b (Christian Sinding)
Hiawatha, Op.82 (Samuel Coleridge-Taylor)
Suite No.2, Op.38 (Émile Bernard)


----------



## Roger Knox

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Here are some slightly lesser known Romantic era orchestral suites. There is some very enjoyable music here, including the Busoni, Magnard, Arthur Foote, Glazunov, Kalinnikov, Edward German, Niels Gade, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, and von Reznicek. Arthur de Greef's _Suite d'orchestre _is a special favorite of mine.
> 
> Suite caractéristique, Op.9 (Aleksandr Glazunov)
> Symphonische Suite, Op.25, BV 201 (Ferruccio Busoni)
> Suite d’orchestre dans le style ancien, Op.2 (Albéric Magnard)
> Suite d'orchestre (Arthur de Greef)
> Episodes chevaleresques, Op.35b (Christian Sinding)
> Le foyer illustré (Albert Corbin)
> Im Schlosshof, Op.78 (Heinrich Hofmann)
> Impressions d'Italie (Gustave Charpentier)
> Italienische Suite, WoO.35 (Joachim Raff)
> Suite No.2, Op.75 (Heinrich Esser)
> La korrigane (suite) (Charles-Marie Widor)
> 3 Petites pièces pour orchestre (Théodore Dubois)
> Raymonda Suite, Op.57a (Aleksandr Glazunov)
> Shylock, suite, Op.57 (Gabriel Faure)
> Symphonische Suite No.1 & No. 2 (Emil von Reznicek)
> Suite No.5 (Gerard von Brucken Fock)
> Gipsy Suite (Edward German)
> Suite d'Orchestre No.1, Op.39 (Moritz Moszkowski)
> Les naïades (Albert Corbin)
> Orchestral Suite No.1, Op.23 (Arthur Coquard)
> Suite for Orchestra, Op.36 (Arthur Foote)
> Suite for Orchestra (Vasily Kalinnikov)
> Suite No.1, Op.4 (Aleksandr Ilyinsky)
> Episodes chevaleresques, Op.35b (Christian Sinding)
> Le foyer illustré (Albert Corbin)
> Gipsy Suite (Edward German)
> Hiawatha, Op.82 (Samuel Coleridge-Taylor)
> Suite No.2, Op.38 (Émile Bernard)


Great list! -- a lot of these are new me.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

Roger Knox said:


> Great list! -- a lot of these are new me.


Glad you like it. I realized that I had posted some duplicates, so here are several more delightful orchestral suites from bygone days to make up the difference.

Dyveke, Op.45 (Emil Hartmann)
Kleine Suite No.2, Op.6 (Arthur H. Bird)
Kleine Suite No.3, Op.32 (Arthur H. Bird)
Le message (Leon Dufils)
The Martyr of Antioch (suite) (Arthur Sullivan)
Ballet égyptien (Alexandre Luigini)
The Christmas Tree (suite), Op.21a (Vladimir Rebikov)
Scènes bretonnes, Op.24 (Guy Ropartz)
Suite de danses anciennes et modernes, Op.103 (Benjamin Godard)
Orchestral Suite No.2, Op.51 (Otto Malling)
Nordic Suite No.1, Op.22 (Asger Hamerik)
Ungarische Suite, Op.16 (Heinrich Hofmann)


----------



## Andante Largo

Saint-Saëns - Suite in D major, Op. 49 (1869)
Moszkowski - From Foreign Lands, suite for orchestra, Op. 23 (1879)
Saint-Saëns - Suite algérienne, Op. 60 (1880)
Delius - Florida Suite (1887)
Sibelius - Lemminkäinen Suite, Op. 22 (1895)


----------



## Roger Knox

The Saint-Saëns Suite in D major, Op. 49 (1869) is a truly gorgeous piece. Originally composed for harmonium, the composer's orchestration fits it like a glove.


----------



## Roger Knox

_*What shall we include on The Nineteenth-Century Orchestral Suite?*_

Before September comes, may I invite everyone to offer ideas and opinions on what the scope of this thread should be. Some have already done so. I hope that we can decide enough by September 1 to move into listening and discussion.

Concerning the _chronological scope_, Nineteenth-Century Orchestral Suites begin after 1850, so are a category separated from the Baroque or Classical eras. Two possibilities for organization: (1) by date-of-composition, used in the dissertation by Alan Scott Morris (see the link in the OP); or (2) by date-of-composer's-birth that I've used in previous threads.

In (1) there are three periods for date of composition: before 1870; 1871-89; 1890-1914. In (2) there would be longer periods, e.g. born before 1850; 1851-74; 1875-99. I prefer (1) because it shows the development of the suite better, and because it is an already-existing structure. (N.B. The author includes solo and chamber ensemble suites, which we're not doing here.)

As for compositions to be included, orchestral suites were created in one of three ways (my typology):

composed for orchestra
composed for keyboard; orchestrated by the composer or another orchestrator
_extraction suite_ from composer's music for a stage work (opera, ballet, incidental music for a play); arranged by the composer or another arranger
Questions:
(1) should we include _extraction suites_?
(2) should we include _concertante suites_, i.e. suites for soloist(s) and orchestra?
(3) should we include _serenades _as was done by A.S. Morris, and as Becca suggested in Post #8?

To be continued ...


----------



## Roger Knox

mbhaub said:


> For years I have suggested to conductors of small, amateur orchestras to play suites rather than the big romantic symphonies they want to. The suites are for the most part much more audience friendly, easier to play and overall very pleasant. Just this upcoming season I convinced one maestro to play the two Carmen suites rather than Bizet's much, much more difficult symphony. The suites of Massenet and Saint-Saens should be standard repertoire. Of course, the Tchaikovsky ballet suites are pretty popular, so why aren't the opera suites that are recorded on Melodiya?
> 
> Let us know what you're listening to - this could be fun.


Continuing from post #16, again may I invite everyone to give suggestions about the scope of this thread *now*. After September 1 we'll move on to specific pieces or composers. We may proceed informally without following specific categories -- depends on your feedback. The main thing is that we're able to identify and enjoy favorite works and composers, and discuss what we like about them or otherwise.

It does fascinate me that the idea of orchestral suites as an alternative to symphonies now is raised by mhaub, because that was a factor when the first orchestral suites were composed. Here's a list of good early orchestral suites, composed before 1870, that I've listened to and are available on recordings or YT:

Franz Lachner: Suite No. 1, Op. 113 (1861); Suite No. 2, Op. 115 (1864)
Joachim Raff: Suite No. 1 for Orchestra, Op. 101 (1863)
Camille Saint-Sa_ë_ns: Suite in D Major, Op. 49 (1863)
Jules Massenet: Suite No. 1 in F major (1865)
Julius Grimm: Suite in Canon-form, Op. 10 (1866)

Not very many! The number grew rapidly after 1870. Lachner stopped at eight symphonies and wrote suites instead. Specifically, a suite unlike a symphony could avoid the standard requirements and developmental processes of sonata-allegro form. Massenet deliberately avoided the symphony, seeing himself as a composer of operas: when it came to instrumental music he wanted spontaneity rather than getting wrapped up in motivic procedures. (These composers were living in the shadow of Beethoven and were aware of Brahms too.)

Please listen to and comment on any of the listed works at this point. For recordings I use Presto Music, Amazon and You Tube; if anyone uses Spotify regularly please let us know of relevant listings. The recordings situation is worrisome now but not impossible.

To me the orchestral suite stood at a crossroads, trying to meet the expectations of increasingly large audiences for accessibility, and the demands of late 19th-century music styles for increasing complexity. The suite was not intended to be as simple as marches, standard waltzes, or occasional music such as anthems. Composers handled this issue differently and it's a matter for discussion by TC listeners.


----------



## Roger Knox

The composition of Franz Lachner's Suite No. 1, Op. 113 (1861) was a significant event -- re-establishment of the orchestral suite that had been dormant since the first half of the 18th century. As the first 19th-century orchestral suite it started a genre, different from the Baroque orchestral suite, that has continued to the present day. It's too bad that many people have vague ideas of the suite. An orchestral suite isn't any old collection of pieces. Although there is no rigid form, it has a definite historical starting-point and is a work that has certain characteristics, which I will discuss in a later post. It is usually identified by the composer as such, unless it is programmatic with a title suggesting the non-musical reference, where one may need an additional source to determine whether or not it is a suite.

My own approach to describing the suite is compositional, which is how I arrived at the typology in post #16. The three types arise from a simple idea -- how the work came to be. That determines which type it is. For example it may not seem a big deal whether a suite was composed directly for orchestra or for piano and then orchestra. But it is. Julius Grimm's Suite in Canon-form, Op. 10 (1866) for strings could not have arisen from a piano piece because of the polyphonic voice-by-voice texture of the canon (derived from vocal music). By contrast Saint-Sa_ë_ns' Suite in D Major, Op. 49 (1863) was composed originally for the harmonium. That determined both the texture and choice of instruments in the orchestral version. Some composers envisioned works that would have both piano and orchestral versions, so may be uncertain how they should be considered. But the main thing is to try to know how the composer proceeded and what the end result was.


----------



## GraemeG

I don't understand why the nineteenth century apparently begins in 1850, and I don't understand the difference between a suite and a serenade to the extent that one should be included in the discussion and the other not. Seems to be just playing with semantics


----------



## Forster

Debussy - Petite Suite (for piano, transcribed by Busser) 1886-89 - was the first I bought for myself, but the Massenet was probably the first I heard and liked. Other suites (and sinfoniettas - would they count too?) I know are mostly 20th C (Prokofiev, Roussel, Poulenc)


----------



## Roger Knox

Welcome! As promised by September 1 (today), I've read your feedback and am ready to proceed with listening and discussion of composers and pieces -- and recordings too of course! Thanks for all of your posts -- now I have an idea of what TC members are looking for. I will start with another post on Franz Lachner's Suite No. 1 (1861). I haven't had time to answer all your comments but will try to in the next few days.

Concerning the questions I posed in post #16 about orchestral suites, we will proceed inclusively. Yes! we'll include _extracted suites _whether arranged by the composer or someone else; we'll include _concertante suites; _and we'll include _serenades! _For chronology we will use date-of-composition grouped in three time periods, as in the dissertation by Alan Scott Morris (see the link in the OP and discussion in post#16). The three time periods for date of suite composition are: before 1870; 1871-89; 1890-1914. I don't know of any orchestral suites composed in the 19th century before 1860, and the 19th-century serenade for orchestra seems to begin with Brahms No. 1 in 1858 and No. 2 in 1858-9.

Please send your comments, reactions from listening, ideas! We won't use strict chronological order, but could we _please _stick to the period "before 1870," which means the five orchestral suites listed in post #17 plus the two Brahms Serenades, for the next week or so? After 1870 comes a flood of suites. Once again, for more information please see "The Wellsprings of Neo-Classicism ..." cited in the OP.


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> Jules Massenet wrote both suites not drawn from opera/ballet as well as suites that are. My all time favorite is his from "Le Cid"


Yes, Massenet is one of the greatest composers of 19th-century orchestral suites. After some deliberation, we're including both types of suites that you mention, and I will get to "Le Cid." Are there any characteristics of his music you particularly like? His Suite No. 1 in F major (1865) is one of the earliest orchestral suites.


----------



## Roger Knox

Forster said:


> Debussy - Petite Suite (for piano, transcribed by Busser) 1886-89 - was the first I bought for myself, but the Massenet was probably the first I heard and liked.


Interesting -- which Massenet suite was it? I like all of the them; the earliest is Suite No. 1 in F major (1865). We'll be including serenades but not sinfoniettas. They are a good suggestion but this thread tries to maintain separation from the "symphony" line of composition.


----------



## Roger Knox

Becca said:


> The OP explicitly mentioned serenades also ... a great example would be Stenhammer's


We are including serenades from Brahms onward and Stenhammer will soon be very welcome. Don't want to spend a lot of time on the well-known early ones by Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak, fine as they are.


----------



## Otis B. Driftwood

Hmm does this one count?
Grieg - Holberg Suite, Op. 40


----------



## Roger Knox

GraemeG said:


> I don't understand why the nineteenth century apparently begins in 1850, and I don't understand the difference between a suite and a serenade to the extent that one should be included in the discussion and the other not. Seems to be just playing with semantics


Those are good points. Though titled Nineteenth Century Orchestral Suites, the thread begins after 1850 because there weren't any nineteenth-century orchestral suites before 1850, according to the source given in Post #1. We're including serenades too and the same source has a lot of background on them also.


----------



## Roger Knox

Otis B. Driftwood said:


> Hmm does this one count?
> Grieg - Holberg Suite, Op. 40


Sure! Please post on it, maybe a week from now, after we've considered the few pre-1870 orchestral suites. Its date is 1884.


----------



## Roger Knox

I hope we'll make this thread lively and informal. Please know controversial ideas and constructive criticism (with a little "backup") are welcome! For example I've mentioned Franz Lachner (1803-1890) and readers may wonder "Who he?" or "What's with his Suite No. 1 (1861)?" Early on he was a close colleague of Franz Schubert before the latter's untimely death. Lachner himself became a celebrated international conductor and composer. He laid foundations and nurtured Munich's orchestra, which became one of the greatest in the world.

He wrote eight symphonies and much else before his Suite No. 1, the first nineteenth-century orchestral suite. It's not a strong piece in my opinion -- too long with stiff, clichéd patches. But he was the first and his ideas are important (_N.B._: _to come_). He composed seven orchestral suites plus the unnumbered Ball Suite, Op. 170 (1875), which I like. Sadly only that one along with Nos. 1 and 7 are in the current catalogue. No. 2 with archival sound is on YT. No. 7 is good -- but "Where's the recording?" Benefactors please note. And I'm not going to get onto the "unheralded composers" theme this time -- Lachner was well-known and respected in his time and it may just be that decision-makers don't think orchestral suites are as important as symphonies. What do TC members think?


----------



## Forster

Roger Knox said:


> Interesting -- which Massenet suite was it? I like all of the them; the earliest is Suite No. 1 in F major (1865). We'll be including serenades but not sinfoniettas. They are a good suggestion but this thread tries to maintain separation from the "symphony" line of composition.


Le Cid, as mentioned by Vasks.


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> Joachim Raff composed several suites not drawn from opera or ballet.


His four suites are an important early set. The Suite No. 1 for Orchestra, Op. 101 (1863) followed closely on the one by Lachner and is likewise an example of absolute music (no program). Please feel free to post on it or on the Raff suites generally. All a post needs is the composer, title and date with your comments and reaction -- for example what you like about it. Of course there can be more, information on recordings is useful.


----------



## Roger Knox

*!An Important Update to Post #21!*
This update is to simplify the previous request for posts.

There's now a broader window of dates of composition for orchestral suites, changed from _before 1870 (previously)_ to _1850-1914 (now)._ *All *replies are welcome, simple or detailed, especially on specific works, groups of works, and composers -- and what you like in them.

I'd still like comments on pre-1870 suites (from Post#17), but will ensure those works are covered anyway:

Franz Lachner: Suite No. 1, Op. 113 (1861); Suite No. 2, Op. 115 (1864)
Joachim Raff: Suite No. 1 for Orchestra, Op. 101 (1863)
Camille Saint-Sa_ë_ns: Suite in D Major, Op. 49 (1863)
Jules Massenet: Suite No. 1 in F major (1865)
Julius Grimm: Suite in Canon-form, Op. 10 (1866)

-- plus the two Brahms Serenades from 1858 and 1858-59 -- please help me with them!

There are lists of orchestral suites already submitted by posters to this thread, and also in the source linked to the OP (not all orchestral though). I'll supply more selective lists like the one above but longer. Please remember the cutoff date of composition -- *1914*. Whether we go further chronologically is open. There are many pre-1914 suites and we'll consider only a sample, depending on your interests!


----------



## Andante Largo

Stanford - Suite for Violin & Orchestra, Op. 32 (1889)
Stojowski - Suite for Large Orchestra, Op. 9 (1891)
Sibelius - Karelia Suite, Op. 11 (1893)
Järnefelt - Suite in E-flat major (1897)
Glazunov - From the Middle Ages, orchestral suite in E major, Op. 79 (1902)
Novák - Slovak Suite (1903)
Respighi - Suite for Strings (1905)
Respighi - Suite in Sol Maggiore (1905)
Perosi - Suite No. 2 'Venezia' (1906)
Perosi - Suite No. 5 'Tortona' (ca. 1908)
Dohnányi - Suite in F-sharp minor, Op. 19 (1909)
Perosi - Suite No. 7 'Torino' (ca. 1912)
Reger - A Romantic Suite (1912)
Sibelius - Rakastava, Op. 14 (1912)
Howells - The B's, suite for orchestra, Op. 13 (1914)

Peterson-Berger - Earina Suite (1917)
*__*
Serenades:

Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 1 in D major, Op. 9 (1874)
Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 2 in C major, Op. 14 (1876)
Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 3 in E minor, Op. 21 (1878)
Glazunov - Serenade No. 1, Op. 7 (1883)
Glazunov - Serenade No. 2, Op. 11 (1884)
Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra and 2 horns in G minor, Op. 51 (1892)
Järnefelt - Serenade for orchestra in six movements (1893)
Fuchs - Serenade for small orchestra in D major, Op. 53 (1894)
Wolf-Ferrari - Serenade for Strings (1894)
Karłowicz - Serenade for Strings, Op. 2 (1897)
Reinecke - Serenade for Strings, Op. 242 (1898)
Respighi - Serenata, P.54 (1904)
Sibelius - 2 Serenades for Violin and Orchestra, Op. 69 (1913)
Stenhammar - Serenade in F major, Op. 31 (1913, rev. 1919)


----------



## maestro267

Most of those are 20th century. Why is the cutoff point 1914? We have a very clearly defined cutoff point by the very nature of the thread title, namely December 31st, 1900.


----------



## Roger Knox

maestro267 said:


> Most of those are 20th century. Why is the cutoff point 1914? We have a very clearly defined cutoff point by the very nature of the thread title, namely December 31st, 1900.


It is a good point. Nevertheless, the reason for the cutoff point 1914 is to use the same time period and associated lists as the source "The Wellsprings of Neo-Classicism ... " given in the OP.

Post #16 states: "For chronology we will use date-of-composition grouped in three time periods, as in the dissertation by Alan Scott Morris (see the link in the OP and discussion in post#16). The three time periods for date of suite composition are: before 1870; 1871-89; 1890-1914."

However, we're not observing the three time periods any more. And with inclusion of extract suites, concertante suites and serenades, we will have plenty of works to discuss up to 1900. I am open to either choice for a cutoff point -- 1900 or 1914 -- but we must decide soon. If anyone else would like the thread to end at 1900 _*please send a post to this thread by Friday, Sept. 9*_.

(P.S. If the cutoff point is changed to 1900 we _might _decide to have another thread for the 20th century, given the interest in post-1900 suites already shown by several posters.)


----------



## Roger Knox

The Suite No. 1, Op. 113 (1861) by Franz Lachner illustrates a number of his ideas about the orchestral suite. It is in four movements, the first a Praeludium and the last an easy-to-follow Fugue (with Introduction), referencing the Baroque era and linking with a distinguished, noble tradition. The second movement is a Minuet with a slower, pastoral Trio, evoking the classical symphony. The suite was intended to be straightforward and easier to follow than the symphony; this movement would still fit the suite ideal in its dance form with clear themes and without complex motivic development. The third movement I find impossible to accept -- Variations closing with a March. In a 44-minute work this movement is too long, at 24 minutes over half of the total. As with the rest of the work, the variations are clear, competent, and sometimes attractive. But they lack a sense of progression that would give the movement shape. Worst is the March, intended to provide an element with wide appeal. But the melody is banal, and the movement below the calibre of the rest of the work. Would that Lachner had learned from the striking march melodies of his early colleague Schubert! Other notable aspects are conservative, mostly diatonic harmony, high-caliber orchestration, and varied textures within the conservative style. The work was well received by critics and popular with an aristocratic concert audience at the Munich premiere, being seen as an alternative not only to complicated symphonism but also to emotive or vague romanticism. The orchestral suite could appeal to an international audience and by the time of his much better Suite No. 7, Lachner's works were widely performed. Both suites are on a recording by the Polish State PO/Stephen Gunzenhauser; Marco Polo (1990) that is in the catalogue and on YT; the orchestra is well-led though not of top caliber.


----------



## Roger Knox

_*Update:*_
To simplify things I have edited out all the Type 1-Type 2, etc. descriptions in Posts #16 and #18, and replaced the description with this in Post #16:
"Orchestral suites were created in one of three ways (my typology):

composed for orchestra
composed for keyboard; orchestrated by the composer or another orchestrator
_extraction suites_ were compiled from the composer's music for a stage work (opera, ballet, incidental music for a play); arranged by the composer or another arranger"


----------



## Roger Knox

Andante Largo said:


> Stanford - Suite for Violin & Orchestra, Op. 32 (1889)
> Stojowski - Suite for Large Orchestra, Op. 9 (1891)
> Sibelius - Karelia Suite, Op. 11 (1893)
> Järnefelt - Suite in E-flat major (1897)
> Glazunov - From the Middle Ages, orchestral suite in E major, Op. 79 (1902)
> Novák - Slovak Suite (1903)
> Respighi - Suite for Strings (1905)
> Respighi - Suite in Sol Maggiore (1905)
> Perosi - Suite No. 2 'Venezia' (1906)
> Perosi - Suite No. 5 'Tortona' (ca. 1908)
> Dohnányi - Suite in F-sharp minor, Op. 19 (1909)
> Perosi - Suite No. 7 'Torino' (ca. 1912)
> Reger - A Romantic Suite (1912)
> Sibelius - Rakastava, Op. 14 (1912)
> Howells - The B's, suite for orchestra, Op. 13 (1914)
> 
> Peterson-Berger - Earina Suite (1917)
> *__*
> Serenades:
> 
> Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 1 in D major, Op. 9 (1874)
> Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 2 in C major, Op. 14 (1876)
> Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra No. 3 in E minor, Op. 21 (1878)
> Glazunov - Serenade No. 1, Op. 7 (1883)
> Glazunov - Serenade No. 2, Op. 11 (1884)
> Fuchs - Serenade for string orchestra and 2 horns in G minor, Op. 51 (1892)
> Järnefelt - Serenade for orchestra in six movements (1893)
> Fuchs - Serenade for small orchestra in D major, Op. 53 (1894)
> Wolf-Ferrari - Serenade for Strings (1894)
> Karłowicz - Serenade for Strings, Op. 2 (1897)
> Reinecke - Serenade for Strings, Op. 242 (1898)
> Respighi - Serenata, P.54 (1904)
> Sibelius - 2 Serenades for Violin and Orchestra, Op. 69 (1913)
> Stenhammar - Serenade in F major, Op. 31 (1913, rev. 1919)


Thank you. Looking forward to the Serenades by Glazunov!

Another thought. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Sibelius _Lemminkäinen Suite_, Op. 22 (1895) is best thought of as a suite or as a set of four tone poems? (Sibelius used the term "tone poems," following Richard Strauss). "The Swan of Tuonela" is a great tone poem that fits the stunning scene in the _Kalevala, _but I don't think that the other three are effective individually as tone poems. Whereas as a _program suite_ the story brings forward-moving unity to the whole. I believe Sibelius himself called it a suite; originally he had planned to write an opera.


----------



## Roger Knox

Not long after Lachner’s Suite No. 1 came notable first orchestral suites by Joachim Raff, Camille Saint-Saens, and Jules Massenet. Raff’s Suite No. 1 in C Major, Op. 101 (1863) has quite a lot in common with Lachner’s. It is absolute rather than program music, conservative in style, and uses the same augmented classical orchestra: strings; double winds plus piccolo; 4 horns, 2 trumpets, & 3 trombones; and percussion. It too features an Introduction and Fugue, Minuet and Trio, and March. The charming third movement Adagietto with its beautiful woodwind theme and the deft fourth movement Scherzo that opens strikingly in the high strings, are my favorite movements. After a pompous Introduction things get more interesting with the Fugue over a walking bass. Raff has what strikes me as occasional lapses of taste, such as the two accented chords that keep interrupting the Menuet and the stiff opening motif of the closing March. Perhaps such passages are reasons for it not being received as well as Lachner’s, but in any case Raff went on to further successes including three more orchestral suites. A recording in the catalogue (and on YT) by the Bamberg Symphony/Hans Stadlmaier; Tudor (2005) pairs it with the composer’s wonderful Symphony No. 5 (_Lenore_).


----------



## Roger Knox

The next leap forward in early orchestral suites was the five-movement Suite in D Major, Op. 49 (1863) by Camille Saint-Sa_ë_ns, originally for harmonium. Of its orchestrated version for strings and winds I have only praise -- it is one of my favorite orchestral suites! In a recording with score on YT by the Bretagne Orchestra/Nicolas Chalvin (originally on Timpani), one can follow the limpid 2-part canon writing in much of the Prelude. This movement and the following Sarabande and Gavotte movements illustrate two Baroque tendencies of 19th-century suites: contrapuntal composition as with the fugues in other works, and revived dance styles. Publication of the complete works of J.S. Bach supported by the German Bach-Gesellschaft from 1850 onward contributed greatly to the revival of Baroque dances in suites and partitas. Nevertheless, this suite moves beyond the Baroque with a lyrical Romance and lively Finale, both proficient and passionate in Saint-Saens' clear, poised style. There are at least three other recordings in the current catalogue; more on recordings later.

Going from strength to strength we have the Suite No. 1 in F major, Op. 13 (1865) by Jules Massenet. It's more complex than the Saint-Saens and with a larger orchestra including brass. Also it is absolute not program music, and it reminds us of elements in the other German and French orchestral suites, with movements titled Pastorale and Fugue, Variations, March and Stretto. But the word "stretto" is also giveaway of something important; the whole March is dynamic, with dramatic contrast and trumpet fanfares but also light, intricate string passages -- Massenet was above all an opera composer! As with the moving and justly famous Nocturne in this work that I find unforgettable. A remarkable work from the 23-year-old composer, and as we know French composers would be high among the leaders in orchestral suite composition for many decades to come. I like the idiomatic recording by the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra/Jean-Yves Ossonce on Naxos which is both on YT and in the catalogue, but there are others available too.


----------



## Roger Knox

Little-known Julius Grimm (1827-1903) was from early on a close friend of Brahms. His Suite No. 1 in Canonform (1866) for string orchestra is notable for employing canonical writing in every movement, and more so for achieving attractive results.

The nineteenth century concept of reviving styles and practices from the Baroque and Classical eras was not the same as that of historically informed practice today. Rather than staying authentic to the period, composers saw earlier musical styles as resources to incorporate into the suite or other genres, along with practices of their own times. Grimm’s Suite No. 1 has four movements of the same types as the Classical symphony. The opening Allegro shows his ingenious Baroque-sounding two-voice canonical procedure. Without a score what I can say is that the lead voice is followed by a harder-to-hear second voice, an octave lower and at a close distance. This technique leads to doubling in thirds while the single voices pop out at the beginnings and endings of phrases. The other voices are also active though not as far as I can tell in canon; they contribute to the rich texture and harmonic direction. The whole creates much energy along with with the melodic and rhythmic vitality of the themes!

A similar procedure occurs in the Minuet and Finale. In the Andante the imitating voices are spaced further apart, the second responding to the lead in a more relaxed manner. I’ve enjoyed listening to Suite No. 1 a number of times, and the attempt to tease out its contrapuntal secrets is intriguing though not always successful! Grimm wrote two more suites including another canonical one for full orchestra but I don’t know of any recordings.

Julius Otto Grimm - Suite in Canonform can be heard on YT in a performance by Collegium Instrumentale Köln (Cologne) broadcast on WDR.


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> Joachim Raff composed several suites not drawn from opera or ballet.


Vasks, do you have any favorites among those suites, e.g. Suite No 1, and the Hungarian, Italian, and Thuringian Suites? There are some remarks by me in post #38 about Suite No. 1. It seems to me they all have merit.


----------



## Vasks

Roger Knox said:


> Vasks, do you have any favorites among those suites, e.g. Suite No 1, and the Hungarian, Italian, and Thuringian Suites? There are some remarks by me in post #38 about Suite No. 1. It seems to me they all have merit.


No, both are good and are on the same Marco Polo CD. Both have 5 movements, but the Thuringen depicts specific things from that region while the Italian is an overture followed by dances/standard forms that have Italian overtones.


----------



## Roger Knox

..............................................


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> It is a good point. Nevertheless, the reason for the cutoff point 1914 is to use the same time period and associated lists as the source "The Wellsprings of Neo-Classicism ... " given in the OP.
> 
> Post #16 states: "For chronology we will use date-of-composition grouped in three time periods, as in the dissertation by Alan Scott Morris (see the link in the OP and discussion in post#16). The three time periods for date of suite composition are: before 1870; 1871-89; 1890-1914."
> 
> However, we're not observing the three time periods any more. And with inclusion of extract suites, concertante suites and serenades, we will have plenty of works to discuss up to 1900. I am open to either choice for a cutoff point -- 1900 or 1914 -- but we must decide soon. If anyone else would like the thread to end at 1900 _*please send a post to this thread by Friday, Sept. 9*_.
> 
> (P.S. If the cutoff point is changed to 1900 we _might _decide to have another thread for the 20th century, given the interest in post-1900 suites already shown by several posters.)


The above quote was my reply to *maestro267's *post #33*,* requesting that this thread's time period end at 1900. Since then I haven't heard from anyone re the cutoff date. In consideration of the request to end at 1900, in my own responses and posts I'm going to prioritize suites written up to that year. 

My request now is for new posts on specific suites from 1870 to 1914. And also for general comments, and for responses to any posts made on this thread up to now, regardless of dates of the music involved.

Please accept my apologies for the confusion on this thread. Especially I am sorry for my pushing ahead with posts and not responding adequately to your suggestions. It will be the other way around from now on. There's lots of good music and potential discussion to come!


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> No, both are good and are on the same Marco Polo CD. Both have 5 movements, but the Thuringen depicts specific things from that region while the Italian is an overture followed by dances/standard forms that have Italian overtones.


Thank you, Vasks, Raff would have been intimately familiar with Thuringia from the time he spent in Weimar orchestrating Liszt's early symphonic poems. I especially like the articulation and accentuation in the Thuringian's goofy, virtuosic middle movement, Round-Dance of the Gnomes and Sylphs, and also the slow movement, Elizabeth's Hymn. In the opening movement I hear the motif rhythm of the main theme in Schumann's Symphony No. 1, 1st movement. After his Weimar stint, Raff had renounced the Liszt-Wagner direction in German music for the more traditional Mendelssohn-Schumann line.

The CD with Joachim Raff’s Thuringian (1875) and Italian Suites (1871) is in the catalogue: Slovak State PO/Richard Edlinger; Marco Polo (1991). Also in the catalogue is a 9-CD recording of Raff's symphonies, suites, and overtures by the Bamberg Symphony & Bavarian Staatsphilharmonie/Hans Stadlmair; Tudor (2010). Unfortunately the most recent content description does not include the Thuringian Suite -- if the package has been trimmed that would be most unfortunate.


----------



## Vasks

I listened to the Raff "Italian Suite" today. Here's my reactions:

Mvmt. 1 "Overture" - After a short, solemn introduction, it moves into an allegro that reminds one of Verdi in a serious mood. The design of this movement is not like a typical Verdi overture however as its closer to a sonata form rather than assorted tunes from an opera.

Mvmt. 2 "Barcarole" - The design here is ABCBA with the A having a melancholy mood while the B portion is in a major key with the violins singing while the woodwinds are cascading chromatically.

Mvmt. 3 "Intermezzo" - This is a minor key scherzo in a duple meter (2/4 or 2/2). Nothing Italian to me.

Mvmt. 4 "Nocturne" - Form is ternary (ABA) with an extended coda that slowly evaporates. Since it is in a duple compound meter (6/8 or 6/4), it comes across as another Barcarole. Ah, but that coda is really touching and special.

Mvmt. 5 "Tarantelle" - It is clearly influenced by the famous Mendelssohn finale to his "Italian Symphony" and is nothing more than that. It includes a brief central fugato passage.


----------



## Roger Knox

Thank you again, now for your comments on Raff's Italian Suite, which have drawn my attention to the specific character of its Overture and to the Mendelssohn "Italian Symphony" influence on the Tarantelle. Like you I think that that the third movement Intermezzo doesn't sound specifically Italian, though its charm and liveliness (especially towards the end) do evoke the _commedia dell'arte_ character Pulcinella. Also agree that my favorite, the fourth movement Notturno, comes across tempo-wise like another Barcarole. 

Finally there is Raff's Orchestral Suite No. 2 in F major, "Hungarian" (1874). I particularly like the ornamental, atmospheric oboe in movement 2, Auf der Puszta -- Traumerei (On the Grasslands -- Dreaming), and the swagger of the third movement March. The influences of folk song and dance are clear in the fourth movement Theme and Variations, and the fifth movement Czardas. Concerning orchestral suites, Raff was among the first composers to write _orchestral program suites_ (around the same time as he started writing program symphonies) and include folk music. Yes, his suites weren't as authentically "national" as those of some later composers. Suite No. 2 appears on the collection of Raff symphonies, suites, and overtures mentioned in post #45, by the Bamberg Symphony & Bavarian Staatsphilharmonie/Hans Stadlmair; Tudor (2010).


----------



## Roger Knox

Moving along, please join me if you wish with replies to any of the previous posts on orchestral suites by Roentgen, Massenet, Schoeck, or Grieg. Or on the Stenhammer Serenade.

The 1870's were the great decade of Massenet's suites, and of Bizet's if the orchestrations of Ernest Guiraud are included. I've been listening to Brahms's Serenades Nos. 1 & 2 and haven't forgotten Saint-Saëns. Nobody's mentioned Tchaikovsky's orchestral suites!


----------



## Roger Knox

Bulldog said:


> Julius Rontgen composed a few orchestral suites. My favorite is Aus Jotunheim from a CPO disc.


I also find Julius Röntgen’s orchestral suite Aus Jotunheim (1892) to be exceptional, one of the best I’ve heard since starting this thread. Originally composed for violin and piano it commemorates the 25th wedding anniversary of Grieg and his wife, so a Norwegian folk song basis is not surprising. The five movements are in a slow-fast-slow-fast-slow pattern. There is a minor-key melody for solo violin near the opening that recurs in the wonderful finale with a slight re-ordering of notes. Both movements become highly expressive and in the last movement I especially like the contrast between the violin solo and a lower-pitched major key passage -- a hymn, perhaps processional? Each inner movement has its own character. For example the fourth one emphasizes strings with varying figurations and bowing types. Then winds answer towards a charming close played by the glockenspiel, an instrument favored by Röntgen. The work is still available along with the composer's Symphony No. 3 on the CPO disc (2007), played by the Staatsphilharmonie Rheinland-Pfalz/David Porcelijn.


----------



## Roger Knox

"Working hypothesis" -- A hunch is that the most influential factor in my choice of favorite orchestral suites is melody. No surprise there. I don't mean only themes, but also the longer-term unfolding of melody. 

I won't try to define "unfolding of melody" here. Some composers seem to do it better than others. It seems more obvious in suites than in symphonies, where motivic development, counterpoint, variation, and formal requirements add complexity. Nearly all composers at this level handle harmony and counterpoint reasonably well. It's usually with melody where some stumble -- lack of inspiration, poor taste, insufficient editing, cliche, repetition, and other issues. To focus long-term on "how it goes" seems more valuable to me than other ways of evaluating. 

I'm over-simplifying and could be wrong altogether. What do you think?


----------



## Roger Knox

Roger Knox said:


> "Working hypothesis" -- A hunch is that the most influential factor in my choice of favorite orchestral suites is melody. No surprise there. I don't mean only themes, but also the longer-term unfolding of melody.


Listening to Bizet's _L'Arlésienne Suites Nos. 1 & 2_ has nearly convinced me -- _melody _is what is most outstanding in these compositions that flow beautifully from beginning to end. Bizet was challenged to incorporate music of different types and cultural traditions into dramatic situations, and he succeeded astonishingly well. These orchestral suites are my favorites so far, and my favorite Bizet works too. More to come.


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> Jules Massenet wrote both suites not drawn from opera/ballet as well as suites that are. My all time favorite is his from "Le Cid"


Vasks, It's been a long time since your post, but now I finally feel able to respond to it. I love the suite from Massenet's opera _Le Cid _(1885)_. _A few words for those like me who are new to the work. The title means "Honor." The opera from which the suite is "extracted" is based on a play by Corneille about a medieval knight. The suite is a seven-number ballet sequence from Act II. Massenet brings out the characteristics of several Spanish dances with distinctive rhythms and brilliant orchestration. And melodic interest never flags. A couple of slow atmospheric numbers I find especially appealing: Aubade (morning song) opens with strummed violins evoking a guitar and birdsong in the high woodwinds. Madrilène (person from Madrid) starts with a slow, appealing woodwind duo followed by a boisterous faster dance. There are also ballet suites from Massenet's later operas _Thaïs _(1894) and _Cendrillon _(1899). All three are on an excellent recording by the Academy of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields/Marriner on Capriccio (now available in MP3 or FLAC formats), and also appear on the 14-CD Sir Neville Marriner: The London Years (2018).


----------



## Roger Knox

in post #17 I mentioned the rapid increase in orchestral suites during the 1870's, particularly in France. This increase correlates with the number of distinguished French composers of orchestral suites born 1835-45 including Saint-Saëns, Delibes, Bizet, Chabrier, Massenet, and Fauré (we might add Ernest Guiraud and Théodore Dubois). All types of suites were composed, but the big increases were in program and extraction suites, the latter mainly from opera and ballet. The number of suites in the absolute music model of Lachner was much smaller, as was the number of Austrian and German orchestral suite composers. However, the latter turned to the serenade frequently.

We might consider here whether the influence of French opera and ballet also changed the nature of the suite. For example, using the more popular numbers from Bizet's _Carmen _as Guiraud did in his two extraction suites gave box-office appeal, but made the suites secondary spinoffs from the famous opera. Some listeners may even assume (wrongly) that late nineteenth suites usually come from pre-existing stage works. It would be better to repeat here that there were different types of suites; there is no "line of development" of the orchestral suite, but rather various changes over time.


----------



## Roger Knox

French composer Léo Delibes (1836-1891) is somewhat neglected nowadays. Here we will discuss briefly his ballet suites, which are the first we've considered that come from a composer's full-length ballets. The best known are the _Coppelia _suite (1870) and the _Sylvia _suite (1880, from the 1876 ballet). Many listeners will recognize instantly the Waltz from _Coppelia _and the Pizzicato from _Sylvia. _Delibes was a successful composer with gifts for melody, harmony, orchestration, and dramatic characterization. He raised the standard of ballet music in Paris and was a major influence on Tchaikovsky and Massenet. I'm surprised by the offerings on YT: there are both new recordings and older LP's including _Coppelia _by the Berlin Philharmonic/von Karajan and _Sylvia _by the Boston SO/Monteux. I find Delibes' style straight-ahead, witty, and imaginative, and his melodies outdo even Massenet's. He is the missing link that takes us from the style of his teacher Alphonse Adam to that of the great ballet scores of the late nineteenth century, his own included.


----------



## Roger Knox

David Hurwitz's "Ten Essential Orchestral Suites for Beginners" has appeared on YT just as we've begun French extraction suites. The post is exactly what the title describes and I'd recommend it for any beginner now ready to plunge ahead with suites by composers of other nationalities. It includes Bizet's _L'Arlésienne_ that I have discussed. The familiar Grieg _Peer Gynt_, Tchaikovsky _Nutcracker, _and Ravel _Mother Goose _suites also appear along with other late nineteenth or early twentieth-century orchestral suites, with emphasis on broad appeal.

Viewers of Hurwitz's post will not hear of the Austrian/German beginnings of the nineteenth-century orchestral suite presented here, or listen to examples other than extraction suites. That is OK for a first pass at the repertoire. Because I feel that symphonies and concertos are too dominant now, it doesn't bother me to see a strong recommendation for compositions of the orchestral suite genre that some dismiss as "warhorses." And if my church choir is an indication, currently there's a taste for older well-known music.


----------



## Vasks

Roger Knox said:


> Vasks, It's been a long time since your post, but now I finally feel able to respond to it. I love the suite from Massenet's opera _Le Cid _(1885)_._


Glad to hear that. Many years ago, I was chosen to be the conductor for a regional honors high school orchestra. The Le Cid suite was one of the works I picked to program. With the exception of omitting the movement that has a big harp solo spot as there was no harpist, the kids played the suite wonderfully and they fully enjoyed it.


----------



## Roger Knox

Vasks said:


> Glad to hear that. Many years ago, I was chosen to be the conductor for a regional honors high school orchestra. The Le Cid suite was one of the works I picked to program. With the exception of omitting the movement that has a big harp solo spot as there was no harpist, the kids played the suite wonderfully and they fully enjoyed it.


I bet there will be happy memories of that occasion.


----------



## Roger Knox

Andante Largo, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the lists of orchestral suites in your posts and that they include a lot of works that look intriguing. If there's a work or recording (or more) which you'd especially like to recommend, please do so. I won't get anywhere near listening to all of them; in fact this whole topic has turned out to be unruly! That is OK because music doesn't come in neat parcels.


----------



## Andante Largo

Glazunov - From the Middle Ages, orchestral suite in E major, Op. 79 (1902) from the Chandos, conducted by Neeme Järvi
Novák - Slovak Suite (1903) from the Virgin Classics
Respighi - Suite in Sol Maggiore (1905) from the Brilliant Classics
Perosi - Suite No. 2 'Venezia' (1906) from the Bongiovanni

It is definitely worth knowing these works.


----------



## Roger Knox

Thank you, I second you recommendation of Glazunov's program orchestral suite From the Middle Ages, both the work and the recording. Glazunov was successful in composing for a wide variety of orchestral genres. As for the others I have some listening to do.


----------



## Roger Knox

Of Jules Massenet’s seven orchestral suites intended from the start to be concert works, the last six are programmatic. He brought the imagination and dramatic flair of a successful opera and ballet composer to these compositions, setting a more broadly-conceived "fantasy" agenda for the genre. Each suite is made up of imaginary “scenes.” Nos. 4 and 7 are among the most popular suites and they illustrate two types of content, based on either the character or the geographic location of the scenes. _Sc_è_nes pittoresques_ (No. 4; 1874) clearly etches the character of four picturesque scenes: Marche, Air de ballet, Angelus, and Fête bohème. I especially like the witty charm of the toy-soldier-like Marche, and the chant-like opening, French horn “bells,” and orchestral build-up of Angelus. The four scenes of _Scènes alsaciennes_ (No. 7; 1882) evoke a Sunday in the Alsace region: Dimanche matin, Au cabaret, Sous les tilleuls (lime-trees), and Dimanche soir, the latter a spectacularly-orchestrated closer with the middle section portraying dancing in the village square. There are a number of recordings; the New Zealand SO/Jean-Yves Ossonce complete set on Naxos is a reliable choice.


----------



## Roger Knox

mbhaub said:


> ... For years I have suggested to conductors of small, amateur orchestras to play suites rather than the big romantic symphonies they want to. The suites are for the most part much more audience friendly, easier to play and overall very pleasant. Just this upcoming season I convinced one maestro to play the two Carmen suites rather than Bizet's much, much more difficult symphony. The suites of Massenet and Saint-Saens should be standard repertoire. Of course, the Tchaikovsky ballet suites are pretty popular, so why aren't the opera suites that are recorded on Melodiya?


Having heard several suites by French composers including Bizet's now, it's time to return to mhaub's post. mhaub's key idea of community orchestras playing suites instead of symphonies is timely too. In an age of immaculate air-brushed recordings I dislike the idea of community orchestras sweating through music that's beyond them and audiences having to listen. A wider repertoire could include music that is easier yet more creative. Top conductors have not been embarrassed to conduct suites.

Speaking of the Carmen suites, my _untimely _introduction to orchestral playing was at music camp (for piano). There were no percussionists. I was a last-minute recruit as triangle player in_ Carmen Suite_ No. 1 standing beside a staff member attempting to play cymbals while drunk. (The result was like nothing Bizet ever imagined!) But things turned out OK -- later in the program I performed as piano soloist with the orchestra; eventually the staff member sobered up and had a very successful career. Those relatively low-pressure musical experiences are valuable. Being in a relaxed environment long-lasting friendships and future connections can develop.


----------



## Roger Knox

The music of Georges Bizet’s unique opera _Carmen _(1875) is well-known as are the selections in the two Carmen Suites (c. 1885, 1886). It remains to point up a few relevant aspects of the orchestral suites here. These extraction suites are different from Massenet’s suite _Le Cid,_ which is the same as the already existing ballet in the opera. Bizet’s colleague Ernest Guiraud selected instrumental numbers for Carmen Suite 1 while re-arranging vocal numbers for both suites. His arrangements are straightforward, e.g. in Suite 2 using trumpet for the Toreador Song melody and viola and violin for the “Nocturne” (Micaela’s aria _Je dis que rien ne m’épouvante_).

Bizet’s use of popular-style songs with “catchy” melodies would move the suites into more populist territory. He referred to his own Toreador Song as “trash” while he used the _Habañera _melody under the impression that it was a folk song; when informed that it was actually a recent song by the Basque composer de Yradier he included the attribution on the premiere program. The mention of folk-song reminds me that it would become the basis for many suites, both to increase audience comprehension and in some cases to advance nationalist objectives. Not only melodies but emotion-enhancing harmony and orchestration were aspects that added drama to Bizet’s suites. Personally I’d just as soon listen to the opera _Carmen_ itself as to the suites; in any case they appear together with Bizet's two L'Arlésienne Suites on a recording by the Barcelona SO/Pablo González; Naxos (2017).


----------



## Roger Knox

Forster said:


> Le Cid, as mentioned by Vasks.


You are not alone, it seems that Massenet's _Le Cid_ suite is admired and enjoyed by many including me. You also mentioned not liking Debussy's _Petite Suite_. I just found out recently that Debussy's _Images _for orchestra is actually a suite. It's also one of my favorite compositions by him. 

The whole phenomenon of the orchestral suite becoming such a big thing in France is also interesting. First, many 19th-century French composers (though not Saint-Saens) took the Mediterranean attitude of avoiding symphonies and concertos, which were seen as a German preoccupation. The symphonic poem, short _concertante _pieces, and of course opera were seen as alternatives. Then the symphonic poem became too associated with the Wagnerian New German School for some. The orchestral suite, programmatic character pieces for orchestra, and ballet composition were important options for Debussy, Ravel and others.


----------



## Forster

Roger Knox said:


> You are not alone, it seems that Massenet's _Le Cid_ suite is admired and enjoyed by many including me. *You also mentioned not liking Debussy's Petite Suite. *I just found out recently that Debussy's _Images _for orchestra is actually a suite. It's also one of my favorite compositions by him.
> 
> The whole phenomenon of the orchestral suite becoming such a big thing in France is also interesting. First, many 19th-century French composers (though not Saint-Saens) took the Mediterranean attitude of avoiding symphonies and concertos, which were seen as a German preoccupation. The symphonic poem, short _concertante _pieces, and of course opera were seen as alternatives. Then the symphonic poem became too associated with the Wagnerian New German School for some. The orchestral suite, programmatic character pieces for orchestra, and ballet composition were important options for Debussy, Ravel and others.


Rereading what I wrote about the Debussy, I can understand why you might think I didn't like it. What I meant was that _Le Cid_ was the first suite I can recall hearing when I was a child and liking. My stepfather played it a lot and had recorded on to our 4-track tape recorder. The Debussy was the first I bought for myself when I was a student, and liked.


----------



## Roger Knox

Forster, glad to hear your stepfather enjoyed _Le Cid_ too. Massenet wrote 30 operas and there are any number of suites from them done by Massenet or an arranger. Was he the suite-king? I don't know how many there are. (Not ready to write about Debussy yet.)


----------



## Roger Knox

There's one thing I want to emphasize here that also pertains to other discussions I've been involved in on TC. The orchestral suite emerged as one of the19th-century genres tending to bridge the gap between so-called elite and popular music, as was noted previously with Bizet. In fact there were enormous efforts in that direction (e.g. operetta, piano miniatures, "parlor songs," folk-music arranging). I had hoped that the late 19th-century orchestral suite and the concrete examples here would lead to discussion of "bridging the gap" -- e.g. what worked? what didn't? was it worth it? But that hasn't happened. I feel this thread is close to inert. Maybe something important is missing ...


----------



## Roger Knox

With one exception Gabriel Fauré’s suites come later than those from the 1870’s and ‘80’s by his near-contemporaries Saint-Saëns, Delibes, Bizet, and Massenet. The exception is his never-completed Symphonic Suite in F major, Op 20 (1865-74), which now exists only as an attractive opening Allegro. Of the planned remaining movements the second and fourth are not extant, while the third became the Gavotte of his much later suite _Masques et bergamasques_ (1919). (Long-form orchestral works caused Fauré difficulties; his early symphony was destroyed, and of the Violin Concerto only one movement was completed.) Otherwise, I particularly like Fauré’s four-movement suite (1900) extracted from his incidental music for Maeterlinck’s verse-play _Pelléas et Melissande_. This work displays his responsiveness to symbolist poetry, as do _Masques et bergamasques_ and a number of his songs including _Clair de lune (_Verlaine).


----------



## Roger Knox

We've had looks at the beginning of the nineteenth century orchestral suite in non-programmatic Austrian and German works of the 1860's, and at the dominance of French composers in programmatic and extracted suites during the 1870's. Major composers of orchestral suites including Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Grieg, Gade, Dvorak, Janacek, Elgar, Delius and others had entered the fray by 1890. From there orchestral suites of all the types we've discussed continued well into the 20th century, indeed have never ceased. The lists on this thread from sources I've mentioned, and from TC members earlier on, provide a lot of possibilities for ongoing listening. Unfortunately we didn't get to serenades or to concertante suites as promised.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed. I won't continue to post regularly on this thread but I hope it will stay open. If you have any favorites please go ahead with recommendations.


----------



## Roger Knox

I happened to be listening to Gustav Holst's orchestral suite _The Planets _(1914-1917) today and it struck me that this is a remarkable masterpiece. It is neither a symphony nor a symphonic poem, and it's not extracted or orchestrated from an already-existing work. I have seen the work discussed as Pops orchestra fare and (over and over) as film music before its time. But I think it would be preferable to see it in the context of concert works from its era that are of similar scope. For example, one piece that Holst consulted is Schoenberg's _Five Pieces for Orchestra. _The original title on Holst's score for _The Planets_ is "Seven Pieces for Orchestra." Hardly an influence from the "light music" direction! Also, frequently _The Planets_ has been extolled for its brilliant orchestration. That is one of its strengths, but there are others in the area of compositional craft. In fact I see that Holst melded together a number of contemporary developments in technique and style. The convincing result is much variety in the context of a loosely-unified whole, which is the ideal of many orchestral suites as discussed on this thread. Is _The Planets_ possibly the apogee of the orchestral suite?


----------



## PeterKC

Grofe, anyone?


----------



## Roger Knox

PeterKC said:


> Grofe, anyone?


This thread has been dormant for a while. But in my personal listening I'm well into the 20th century and will be listening to the Grand Canyon Suite soon.


----------



## maestro267

This 19th century seems to be lasting longer than a century...


----------



## Roger Knox

maestro267 said:


> This 19th century seems to be lasting longer than a century...


Yes you mentioned that in post #33. This thread ground to a halt in early October, apart from a few posts I made to try to keep it going. At this point I'm happy to respond to any posts on what people are interested in, including Ferde Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite (1929-31). The composer was an innovative orchestrator whose interesting background is worth checking out on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Also this work recently had a plug from David Hurwitz in his video "10 Essential Orchestral Suites for Beginners."

I think my mistake with this thread was to begin with too much historical detail about the late 19th-century orchestral suite. Hurwitz makes the case for becoming acquainted with a number of well-known orchestral suites before getting into other issues.


----------



## Roger Knox

maestro267 said:


> This 19th century seems to be lasting longer than a century...


maestro267, I just want to add to my previous post that I appreciate your interest in maintaining the chronological framework proposed in the OP. Personally I understand classical music to be "through and through historical" -- that is, not only is there music history but music theory, composition, performance, education, music appreciation and so on are best understood through a historical perspective. This does not mean "living in the past" or "going backwards." Rather it is a matter of awareness -- the who-what-where-when-how-why of what happened and what is happening as bases for heading into the future. I'd be interested in knowing more of how you see classical music and chronology.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

I think it makes perfect sense to take an elastic view of these time spans. The great historian Eric Hobsbawm has written a compelling history of "The Short 20th Century" spanning the years between 1914 and 1989. This corresponds to the "Long 19th Century ", spanning the time between 1789 and 1914, a term he also used, I think. Hobsbawm is so much fun to read because he looked at political, social, economic and cultural phenomena and trends together way before this became de rigueur in historical writing. In terms of musical chronology, it could make sense to talk not necessarily of a long 19th century but of a "shifted" 19th century, beginning with the early romantics in the 1820s to the late or post-romantics at around the time of the First World War.


----------



## Roger Knox

FastkeinBrahms said:


> I think it makes perfect sense to take an elastic view of these time spans. The great historian Eric Hobsbawm has written a compelling history of "The Short 20th Century" spanning the years between 1914 and 1989. This corresponds to the "Long 19th Century ", spanning the time between 1789 and 1914, a term he also used, I think. Hobsbawm is so much fun to read because he looked at political, social, economic and cultural phenomena and trends together way before this became de rigueur in historical writing. In terms of musical chronology, it could make sense to talk not necessarily of a long 19th century but of a "shifted" 19th century, beginning with the early romantics in the 1820s to the late or post-romantics at around the time of the First World War.


The source for suites referenced in the OP went from 1850-1914; for orchestral suites that would mean 1860-1914. Conceptually I agree that it makes sense to be flexible. For this thread I'm not going to add anything more about dates.

I read Hobsbawm's "The Short 20th Century" a couple of decades ago. His writing style and command of history in several different fields made it an excellent read. Given events since 1989, it might be a good idea to re-check the last chapters in particular as to whether 1989 holds up as the 20th century's end date compared to, say, 2000.


----------



## Roger Knox

In addition to all the different types of orchestral suites noted previously, we have another question to consider in the late-19th century/early 20th-century repertoire, particularly in England. That is the emergence of "light classical" suites by composers such as Eric Coates and Alfred Ketelby. There were Palm Court Orchestras and the like that played light classical repertoire, and I've noticed that accomplished classical composers such as Arthur Benjamin, Gordon Jacob, and Arthur Bliss also composed suites of this type. I guess the problem for me is that, to put it bluntly, I don't like this kind of music and don't want to listen to it. What do you think?


----------



## joen_cph

I agree, there's generally a good deal of self-complacency in such music ... but John Foulds should probably also be mentioned in that respect, adding a bit more interesting traits and circumstances, though this was mainly in the early 1900s. And possibly even Lord Berners ...


----------



## Roger Knox

joen_cph said:


> ... but John Foulds should probably also be mentioned in that respect, adding a bit more interesting traits and circumstances, though this was mainly in the early 1900s. And possibly even Lord Berners ...


Thank you joen_cph, I will check them out. "Self-complacency" is a good way of putting it. And to be fair these suites weren't necessarily intended for full attention -- as one writer put it, they might be "listened to with one ear" (the other one being occupied with conversation, etc.). Most of the suites we've been discussing up to now were intended for concertgoers.


----------

