# The Villa-Lobos 'cycle'



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I've never seen the Villa Lobos symphonies get the same treatment in terms of recording discography as other symphonic cycles (Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner, Dvorak, Shostakovitch etc.) which makes me wonder if the public opinion and general listening audience agrees with my opinion: they're just really....not that captivating. 

I adore Villa-Lobos' work in literally any other medium but symphonic. To be fair, I've only listened to a handful of his symphonies but none of them do it for me. To put it bluntly, I just don't think they're that good. Full of empty bombast and no substance and nothing memorable that sticks. But of course I'm not just here to soapbox my under-informed opinions, I want to hear what the community has to say about these works and whether my suspicions are correct as to why they don't get an awful lot of attention in recording.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I've never seen the Villa Lobos symphonies get the same treatment in terms of recording discography as other symphonic cycles (Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner, Dvorak, Shostakovitch etc.) which makes me wonder if the public opinion and general listening audience agrees with my opinion: they're just really....not that captivating.
> 
> I adore Villa-Lobos' work in literally any other medium but symphonic. To be fair, I've only listened to a handful of his symphonies but none of them do it for me. To put it bluntly, I just don't think they're that good. Full of empty bombast and no substance and nothing memorable that sticks. But of course I'm not just here to soapbox my under-informed opinions, I want to hear what the community has to say about these works and whether my suspicions are correct as to why they don't get an awful lot of attention in recording.


Tbh, I'd say that's a fair assessment of his symphonies. They start out with promise but fail to evolve, rather fizzling out into nothingness. There's nothing terribly wrong with them but equally none are memorable in any way and melodic ideas and themes remain underdeveloped . I much prefer his string quartets but even some of these are a bit disjointed.


----------



## leonsm (Jan 15, 2011)

I've only listened the symphonies no. 3, 4, 6 and 10. I really like the 3 one, the 10 is very good too. The 4 and 6 I have to listen more.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

My boyfriend and I just listened to No. 4 tonight and we both thought it was amazing. I'll have to give more of these a shot.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I fear they are being a little misunderstood. They are a mixed bunch and the music in each of them is often a bit mixed as well. But this is Villa Lobos we are talking about and I don't think you come here for formal greatness or profundity even though they are called symphonies. But they are filled with invention and colour and great moments and are often exhilarating. There are perhaps some kitschy passages as well but they are surprisingly rare - Villa Lobos usually managed to carry off the "risks with taste that he takes". Not great symphonies, perhaps, but there is nothing quite like them the musical world would be much the poorer without them. I do agree, though, that the later ones are not as striking as the earlier.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Reading back, perhaps my last post came across as a bit harsh. There are lots of good ideas in the VL symphonies and some are more successful than others, for me. I actually prefer the earlier symphonies but it's often a case of whether you appreciate VL's quite different textures. When these textures are too dense I tend to switch off. The Carl St. Clair and SWR recordings, on CPO, are particularly strong in representing this music and I enjoyed these. I may need to revisit VL's symphonies some time soon as recently I've noticed my tastes are changing in symphonic music.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I imagine that someday someone will get around to making a new, complete cycle and throw in some of the other lesser-known music while they're at it. Sao Paulo has a great orchestra. I like a lot of his music, but "symphonic" isn't a very good description really. There's plenty of atmosphere and evocative, even barbaric sounds. But nothing resembling symphonic structure or development. He went his own way. Still, it's worth exploring. I once thought that the symphonies could be good for amateur orchestras to take on, but the percussion demands are just overwhelming for smaller organizations. And who knows, maybe some musicologist will discover the long lost score to the 5th on some dusty shelf.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I like a lot of his music, but "symphonic" isn't a very good description really. There's plenty of atmosphere and evocative, even barbaric sounds. But nothing resembling symphonic structure or development. He went his own way. Still, it's worth exploring.


I don't disagree. But isn't this true of quite a few of the 20th century's lesser symphonies - and even some major ones? What Villa Lobos lacks - and thank God! - is the habit of making portentous gestures and sounds to gain acceptance that he is being truly symphonic.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't disagree. But isn't this true of quite a few of the 20th century's lesser symphonies - and even some major ones?


I think so. Some composers who do actually write symphonically - in the traditional sense - make the music so complex, ugly, and difficult to listen to that audiences just don't care and won't support it. Roger Sessions comes to mind! And we're all too enamored of the "portentous gesture", that cathartic ending that the 19th c masters usually provided. We want grandiose, exciting - a Hollywood ending if you will. The Carlos Chavez no. 2 is a good example: it just kind of stops with no grand statement and leaves the listener a bit unsatisfied. Villa-Lobos is like that.


----------

