# 20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Eighteen - Ives' Symphony No. 4



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Eighteen - Ives' _Symphony No. 4_



















Ives' Fourth Symphony is conceived on the largest scale of all his completed orchestral works. Begun in 1910, the first stage of work on the Fourth was complete by 1916. This early version was likely in three movements only, with the opening movement included as an unnumbered "Prelude" and the "Hawthorne Concerto" in the place of the current second movement.

Between 1919-1922 Ives completely recast the second movement into the "comedy" that it is now, using the piano piece The Celestial Railroad as sort of intermediary between the "Concerto" and "comedy." The third movement is an orchestration of the first movement of Ives' String Quartet No. 1 (1898). In 1922-1923, a full ink score of the first three movements was prepared, but the fourth movement had to wait until 1943 when John J. Becker completed this part of the score under Ives' supervision.

The Fourth Symphony calls for an enlarged orchestra augmented with chorus, an extra battery of percussion, organ, and four-hand quarter-tone piano with options for saxophones and theremin. While the orchestra retains the main stage, the chorus and percussion is placed throughout the auditorium, achieving a spatial separation that is difficult to transmit via recording. The work requires three conductors, and Ives provides extensive cues in the score to facilitate this.

Ives "aesthetic program" for the Fourth Symphony is "that of a searching question of 'What' and 'Why' which the spirit of man asks of life." The question is stated in the first movement, Prelude: maestoso where the chorus sings an altered setting of the hymn "Watchman, Tell Us of the Night" over a background suggestive of universal space and mystery. The first answer, Allegretto, Ives described as a "comedy" in the transcendental sense; it is a dazzlingly complex collage of tune quotations, representing the confusion of urban existence. Ives punctuates this movement with bizarre effects, including at one point a series of tremolandi heard throughout the entire orchestra. In the third movement, Fugue, the stoic reserve of religious life as Ives knew it is presented as the second answer to the question. In the final movement, Largo, the distant percussion enters quietly and is joined by the orchestra engaging in a battle between tonally centered material and discordant, "universal" sounds. The chorus enters singing a wordless, peaceful passage that quells down the whole texture until just the percussion is left, providing the final, transcendental answer to Ives' question.

The first two movements were premiered at Town Hall in New York City under Eugene Goosens in January 1927. Composer Jerome Moross arranged the first and third movements for a New School performance conducted by Bernard Herrmann in 1933. Otherwise, the premiere of the whole work did not occur until 1965 under Leopold Stokowski, José Serebrier, and David Katz at Carnegie Hall with the American Symphony Orchestra.

[Article taken from All Music Guide]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

One of my favorite symphonies of all-time. Ives was quite a madman, but he was brilliant in his all-encompassing musical style. I can't remember the first time I heard his _Symphony No. 4_, but it must've been a bit after I heard his _Symphony No. 2_ (the Bernstein recording on DG). Anyway, what do you guys think of this work? Any favorite performances? My vote goes to Stokowski on Columbia (Sony) --- a thrilling account.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I remember being fascinated by this piece in my conservatory years - I once played it in composition class, expecting my fellow students to be amazed by it, but you could see that they were used to much more extreme things... it was pretty much a contest who could think of the most avant-garde stuff back then. Not the healthiest of environments for an oldfashioned neo-romantic like myself. I can still see those smug faces when the 3rd movement played, with its sudden throwback to traditional harmony. Mind you, that was before post-modernism and neo-traditionalism found its way to our backwater conservatory, so it was all avant-garde or bust.

But of course the style clashes part of the appeal of the piece, and not only between the individual movements. There's a constant clashing between tonal material and atonal textures, and by interchangeable tonal structures, rhythmically shifted and distorted. Formally I think the piece is perfect, with the emotional highlights in the first and last movements, and the chaotic "comedy" elements from the 2nd movement returning, transformed and transcended in the finale. It's balanced wonderfully, with the weight of every musical aspect evenly distributed.

That said, there's something about Ives that kind of irks me. How much of his musical vision he could really oversee, control and fixate in his score - and how much was purely conjecture, with him unable to predict how his music would sound and what effect it would have? I don't think he was the kind of genius who could predict the effect of every single note in his composition. There must have been a lot of "happy accidents" in his scores that we love, but that he couldn't have planned or foreseen. So what's left to admire is the courage to come with such concepts, but not the concepts themselves - at least to me, who adheres to the belief that complete control over the musical material is a prerequisite for a composer.

The fact that there are no two performances of this symphony that sound alike kind of confirms my doubts. One could say that I'm listening to it with the "wrong ears", with a too traditional mindset, but those vastly different sounding recordings stemming from the same, extremely detailed score, make me think "will the real Charles Ives stand up?"
But what saves the symphony for me - and makes it an great listening experience, every single time - is that the emotional highlights in all recordings are in the same places and roughly have the same impact. The chorus entering with the "Watchman" hymn in the first movement, and the unforgettable moment where the chaotic music comes to a halt in the last movement, as if stopping in its tracks before a huge abyss, and the chorus continuing softly with "Nearer my God to Thee", accompanied by silvery, crystalline textures. But then again, those are the big "traditional", romantic moments. maybe other people, listening to the symphony with different "ears" will have different experiences?

As for recordings, my first one was Ozawa's (taped off the radio). Later I got the Tilson Thomas complete symphonies set, wonderfully done, with a great performance of the Holiday Symphony as well. What I dislike are recordings that make the piano sound too forward, if I remember correctly, Stokowski's video performance does that, combined with a underpowered orchestra and a small chorus. It sounds like intimate chamber music like this, losing the massive impact that Ives must have envisioned.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

It is definitely a symphony that sounds different under each conductor. I will agree that Tilson Thomas seems to bring a sense to this piece that others lack. I have the old vanguard set with Harold Farberman. It is adequate, but rather muddy. For video performances the BBC with David Robertson is fantastic, even if the audience at the Proms probably did not know what they were in for. It is seeing and hearing this performance that keeps Ives' 4th on the top of my must attend list. We have a great hall and a very good orchestra in Kansas City, but thus far, I don't think Michael Stern has approached it. Which is sad, because he is quite an Ives advocate.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

PeterKC said:


> It is definitely a symphony that sounds different under each conductor. I will agree that Tilson Thomas seems to bring a sense to this piece that others lack. I have the old vanguard set with Harold Farberman. It is adequate, but rather muddy. For video performances the BBC with David Robertson is fantastic, even if the audience at the Proms probably did not know what they were in for. It is seeing and hearing this performance that keeps Ives' 4th on the top of my must attend list. We have a great hall and a very good orchestra in Kansas City, but thus far, I don't think Michael Stern has approached it. Which is sad, because he is quite an Ives advocate.


I'm actually rather surprised that James Sinclair (a hardcore Ives champion) didn't record it for Naxos since he recorded so much of this composer's music for them.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I quickly snatched up the LP when5.1 Stokowski did it - and couldn't make heads or tails of it. A large part was addressed in the article quoted above: without spatial separation of the various ensembles it's a jumbled mess. Some cds make it better: Litton on Hyperion, for one. But the real ear-opener was hearing it live at the BBC Proms some years back. Even in that dismal acoustic it made a much better impression. Now I'd like to think that some enterprising conductor would realize that the technology exists to really make the individual groups stand out and be clearly audible, and nothing really extraordinary: just plain old 5.1 Surround Sound or even Dolby Atmos. But I imagine the number of listeners who have a proper set up and would be interested in the Ives is miniscule. It's the only way I can think of that this monstrously difficult work will ever get the appreciation it needs.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> I quickly snatched up the LP when5.1 Stokowski did it - and couldn't make heads or tails of it. A large part was addressed in the article quoted above: without spatial separation of the various ensembles it's a jumbled mess. Some cds make it better: Litton on Hyperion, for one. But the real ear-opener was hearing it live at the BBC Proms some years back. Even in that dismal acoustic it made a much better impression. Now I'd like to think that some enterprising conductor would realize that the technology exists to really make the individual groups stand out and be clearly audible, and nothing really extraordinary: just plain old 5.1 Surround Sound or even Dolby Atmos. But I imagine the number of listeners who have a proper set up and would be interested in the Ives is miniscule. It's the only way I can think of that this monstrously difficult work will ever get the appreciation it needs.


I imagine hearing it live would be an ear-opening experience, but I still love it on record and, until I can hear it in concert, I'll continue to enjoy it on CD.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> I imagine hearing it live would be an ear-opening experience, but I still love it on record and, until I can hear it in concert, I'll continue to enjoy it on CD.


I heard Stokowski/AmericanSO perform it in NY in the 60s...i was still in high school...really thrilling concert, also included Strauss ASZ, iirc (long time ago!!)


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I actually played it with my undergrad orchestra (c.1970-72). The single conductor version had recently been published and that's the one we used. While it was a blast to do it, there are numerous spots where individual rhythms are so complex that each player can only do his/her best to come close. No wonder some of the previous posters here, say that no two recordings sound alike.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Vasks said:


> I actually played it with my undergrad orchestra (c.1970-72). The single conductor version had recently been published and that's the one we used. While it was a blast to do it, there are numerous spots where individual rhythms are so complex that each player can only do his/her best to come close. No wonder some of the previous posters here, say that no two recordings sound alike.


The Tilson Thomas CSO recording is the only one I've listened to over the years. Should I be listening to some other versions?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

starthrower said:


> The Tilson Thomas CSO recording is the only one I've listened to over the years. Should I be listening to some other versions?


Yes! Try Stokowski and for a more modern recording: Litton.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

I'm not in general a fan of Ives but the 4th symphony is absolutely fascinating -- one of the weirdest in the repertoire.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

Neo, I really like this thread. You have forced me to listen to many works I generally pass by, and I am happy to have broadened my enjoyment because of it.

If you program any other American Symphonies, I will vote for Randall Thompson's
or Virgil Thomson's 2nds. Both rather neglected in the states but to my ears fine and very American masterpieces. Happy New Year!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

PeterKC said:


> Neo, I really like this thread. You have forced me to listen to many works I generally pass by, and I am happy to have broadened my enjoyment because of it.
> 
> If you program any other American Symphonies, I will vote for Randall Thompson's
> or Virgil Thompson's 2nds. Both rather neglected in the states but to my ears fine and very American masterpieces. Happy New Year!


Thanks, @PeterKC! I'm just trying to post about works that I've loved for years and, hopefully, the enthusiasm will rub off on someone. If I can get just one person to listen to one of the works featured in these ongoing series, then this would be a great thing, indeed.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> Thanks, @PeterKC! I'm just trying to post about works that I've loved for years and, hopefully, the enthusiasm will rub off on someone. If I can get just one person to listen to one of the works featured in these ongoing series, then this would be a great thing, indeed.


You have succeeded.


----------

