# Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

I have had Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique in my collection for some time but never really listened to it. I am listening to it now and I am not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit strange but still there is something to it. Should I work on it? What is your opinion on this symphony?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

So far (I revise my opinions constantly  ), Berlioz has been a secondary composer for me. _Symphonie fantastique_ seems somewhat pompous and I feel its importance is more that of an audience-pleaser than of a piece to "work on" to deepen one's appreciation of. It certainly has it's moments and, despite my somewhat cool impression, I usually find myself rather liking it when I do give it a chance 

I have this one:









I think Norrington is responsible for softening my hard opposition to the piece


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Wonderful piece, well worth "working on."

What seems a bit strange at first might start to sound more specifically like a mutated behemoth of the musical language inherent to the time. So much inventiveness with an early romantic musical language. Inventive is definitely a good word for it, I think. Think of the wackiness of Beethoven's 7th, amplified several times.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Definitely give this one repeated listenings. Berlioz has been a recent discovery of mine and I greatly anticipate and enjoy every piece I hear of his. I know it has a reputation of being worn out by many people because of its popularity, but for me personally, I haven't heard it much so it's still very fresh.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

There's this: 





Berlioz has always been criticized because of the various 'faults' in his music. I still like it and I appreciate its innovations.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've loved this work for a few decades now. There's nothing not to like, and the 2nd movement is pure genius.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

When you consider that the _Symphonie Fantastique _was written in 1830 by a guitar player who was self-taught in composition and orchestration ... the piece becomes a must hear. Compare it to anything else written in the first 30 years of the nineteenth century and you'll realize how amazing this piece is. It has a little of something for everyone. And ... don't ignore the "program" that Berlioz insists goes with the movements of the work. The story is fascinating and enhances the experience of listening to the symphony. This piece is one of the great ones -- a true "War Horse" that survives every battle with style and class.

Here's my favorite version:


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

It's one of the greatest works of musical composition ever, so yeah...you should work on it!


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2014)

DrMuller said:


> Should I work on it?


No, it's fine just like it is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> self-taught in composition and orchestration


Not sure how this one got started, but it has been pretty persistent for almost two hundred years now. And doesn't look like going away any time soon. In spite of the fact that Berlioz' biography is not inaccessible.

Berlioz was brilliant, it's true. And he did come up with a lot of things all on his own. But self-taught? Well. If you don't count his various teachers when he was growing up, starting with his dad. And if you don't count Lesueur. Or Cherubini. Or the Paris Conservatoire. For example. He even took piano lessons as a kid. He supposedly could not play piano, either. Well, neither can I, though I took piano lessons, too.

I ran "berlioz self-taught" through a search. My favorite was from a blog: "he was entirely self-taught, though he did accept criticism and doggedly pursued a certain prize, Le Prix de Rome." This was a scholarship. For students. Of the Paris Conservatoire. (Later in the same blog entry, you "learn" that Berlioz was never a student at the conservatory.)

Anyway, Berlioz was quite self-motivated. He took it upon himself to learn as much as he could, either from textbooks or from scores or from listening to music or from teachers. And he was 23 already before he was formally enrolled in the conservatory. But he did attend. And he did have a formal training in music. The Prix de Rome, which he won, was part of that. And he was brilliant and original. Perhaps it's that "formal training" and "original" seem incompatible that the idea grew up that Berlioz was either entirely self-taught or largely self-taught, depending on who you read.

Well, like every other self-motivated person, he was partially self-taught. Who among us is not? However acquired, Berlioz had a thorough grounding in music theory and practice.



SONNET CLV said:


> And ... don't ignore the "program" that Berlioz insists goes with the movements of the work.


I think it would be impossible to ignore the program. It's ubiquitous. It's better known than the music, even. So much so that the story, which was originally designed to help early listeners "make sense" of a unique piece of music, has been completely flipped so that the music, which is perfectly fine on its own, has come to be seen (heard) as telling the story. (The story was written to tell the music. As it were.)

Berlioz did insist on one thing. And that was that the program not be printed unless the entire opus 14 were being performed. And how often does _that_ happen? He insisted that it not be printed because he saw that it had taken over, that the music was not being listened to as music but as a story.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> =
> 
> Berlioz has always been criticized because of the various 'faults' in his music. I still like it and I appreciate its innovations.


It's true, although not all 'experts' agree that there are many faults at all. Luckily for me I don't have the musical knowledge/ear to be aware of them. Any faults certainly aren't apparent to ears like mine! In fact, his 'weak counterpoint' is some of my favourite. It often sounds a bit unusual, but it has this quirky, fresh quality that I prefer to the more rigorous and traditional counterpoint, and maybe the experts have been blinded to this (or maybe not at all). To the relatively untrained ear, there are no flaws in this brilliant music!

I love the Fantastique, although I find the third movement a bit tedious (okay, there's a 'flaw' to me). But while it seems to be his best known work, I've found a few of the later works I've heard to be comparable and some to be quite a lot better. I'm very much in the exploration stage and probably 90% of the music by composers who would be considered to be 'top 100' composers I'm not at all familiar with, and I've probably only really familiar (heard most, but some only once or twice, and often in a rather superficial way) with half of even Berlioz' large scale works. I can tell you though that of all that I have to explore there is nothing else I am more excited about than anything by this composer: every single thing I've heard has been unique, sparkling, incredibly imaginative, psychologically penetrating, and to me has the word 'genius' written all over it. Even so called 'lesser' pieces like, say, Lelio, his funeral symphony, and Benevenuto Cellini...Every piece is a world of its own: nothing derivative, everything novel and fantastic.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

This is my version, Charles Dutoit and the OSM
View attachment 46151


I've had a chance to perform the piece as well, but we were unable to yield the full potential of the piece as we didn't have all the necessary performers. It's a fantastic piece of music, lots of interesting things going on. I find the orchestration of Berlioz rather unique.

This was one of the first symphonies I got to know as a kid, my mother had an LP, or maybe a cassette, I can't remember. I don't remember who was performing either. But I listened to this piece many times, and I got to know it well. As a kid, who wouldn't be attracted to the the guillotine and the witch's sabbath? I don't listen as much any more, once every couple of years.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

My definitive Symphonie Fantastique

It isn't really one of my favorite pieces of music, but sometimes I'm in the mood for it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Berlioz was a genius, but like many such stellar personalities, parts of his unique insights are 'off the scale' for some people.

So, for many people, his Romanticism can appear over-the-top to those rooted in the 20th (or 21st) century, but it was genuine for him. Hence the self-portrait he presents in this work is HIS self-portrait - it mattered to him, he was sincere in expressing it, he genuinely felt it, he was proud of it for what it showed about him, but above all for the quality of the music - it is not just an 'audience-pleaser' as suggested in the second post. Yes, it was intended to please ONE person - Harriet Simpson, but long, long after that, Berlioz performed the work (and Liszt among others promoted it vigorously) because of its musical quality - not as a freak or as an innovative work or as a autobiographical oddity, but as a genuinely worthwhile piece of high quality music.

I love it and have listened to it hundreds of times over the course of 40 years.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I love the Fantastic Symphony - although you won't be in the mood everyday for the adagio, march and the unbridled silliness of the finale (although sometimes you will!) the fever dream comings and goings of the first movement are an utter joy and the waltz is, to me at least, untouchably perfect

Do familiarise yourself with the programme and allow the idee fixe stuck in your head - that should put you in the mood!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

dgee said:


> I love the Fantastic Symphony


Symphonie fantastique - please!

It isn't just gallic resistance to americanisms - it has a subtle difference in meaning for many people :tiphat:


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Clunky and prosaic English translations make me smile - what can I say! 

But yes, it is indeed Symphonie Fantastique


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> I have had Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique in my collection for some time but never really listened to it. I am listening to it now and I am not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit strange but still there is something to it. Should I work on it? What is your opinion on this symphony?


Enjoyable but not as epic as some other listeners might make of it. It has its significance but it's not near any Beethoven symphony nor Mozart's later nes, or even Brahms, Schubert symphonies. Give it some time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2014)

I hate to always be Disputatious Debbie,* but there's another thing about the infamous story that accompanies Symphonie fantastique.

It's not autobiographical. The episodes in the life of _an_ artist are not episodes from Berlioz' own life. He and Harriet had never gone to a ball together, or had a picnic in the country. He certainly never lost his head. Well, not literally, anyway. And he and Harriet never took part in any witches sabbath, either. Reveries and passions? Well maybe. But no more than in _Harold in Italy,_ also not autobiographical, but more autobiographical than _Symphonie fantastique._ And certainly no more than in _Romeo et Juliette._

So aside from any piece by any composer any time being a sort of spiritual self-portrait (until Cage showed a way out of that), _Symphonie fantastique_ is not particularly portraitious.

But these stories do get around, it's true. And take on a life of their own. And have, apparently, a real aura about them, too, since it always seems quibblesome to um quibble about them.

*Sexist. (It's actually Disputatious Davey.)


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

I have been listening to it all day now and I feel like a nervous wrack. I do love the last 2 movements though and the second movement is starting to grove on me too but I don't get the first one. This work sounds more like a very-late romantic piece than an early one. I will listen to it again tomorrow.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> It's not autobiographical. The episodes in the life of _an_ artist are not episodes from Berlioz' own life...


It's not supposed to be autobiographical. It's supposed to be the opium-induced dreams of an overwrought romantic composer with an impressive hairdo (and a tendency to lose pistols).

Amazing to think it was written in 1830, six years after Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

dgee said:


> I love the Fantastic Symphony - although you won't be in the mood everyday for the adagio, march and the unbridled silliness of the finale (although sometimes you will!) the fever dream comings and goings of the first movement are an utter joy and the waltz is, to me at least, untouchably perfect
> 
> Do familiarise yourself with the programme and allow the idee fixe stuck in your head - that should put you in the mood!


"...the unbridled silliness of the finale"! An excellent description of Bernstein's interpretation. This work really needs help from the program only because the country scene is pretty weak without it. Let a good French conductor like Monteux at it; nothing silly about it then.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2014)

KenOC said:


> It's not supposed to be autobiographical.


I was, as I'm sure you're aware, primarily responding to its being called autobiographical in this thread. I'm also pretty sure you're aware that this symphony has been called autobiographical (or a self-portrait) by many different people many times over the past hundred and eighty years or so.



KenOC said:


> It's supposed to be the opium-induced dreams of an overwrought romantic composer with an impressive hairdo (and a tendency to lose pistols).


Yes, there have been those who have supposed this as well.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

An important work of course in the history of music, but personally I never found it particularly interesting musically. A lot of started gesturing that doesn´t really lead to much. I prefer say "Romeo & Juliette". 
I´ve got 8 old LP recordings.

- Scherchen,LSO/westm mono 56 xwn 18279
- Paray,DetroitSO/mercury mono mg 50254
- Zecchi,CzechPO/sup st 63 st 50103
- Cluytens,PO/cfp 168 (Cover.Ellison)
- Bernstein,NYPO/cbs st ms6607 (Cover:Condak)
- Barenboim,ParO/dg 79 2531 092 (Cover:Wandrey)
- Beecham,ORTF/angel s60165
- Pretre,BostSO/rca vics 1646 (Cover: David Hecht)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Enjoyable but not as epic as some other listeners might make of it. It has its significance but *it's not **near any Beethoven symphony nor Mozart's later nes, or even Brahms, Schubert symphonies. Give it some time.*


*

You are correct, because the Berlioz is simply better. Tremendous orchestration!*


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Get another version of it, and keep listening. Then, get ANOTHER version of it and keep listening.

It is a wonderful piece of music.

V


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2014)

While I do not agree with Joen_cph that Symphonie fantastique is not that interesting musically, I have to say that I'm in complete agreement with him about Romeo et Juliette, which is a smashing symphony by a mature and supremely gifted and confident composer.

Symphonie fantastique is by a young and supremely gifted and confident composer. You see the difference.

But the fantastique gets all the attention, even by musicians, while Romeo et Juliette gets little attention and has, still, only one superb recorded performance and a couple of good ones. Symphonie fantastique has several quite good recorded performances. And dozens of good ones. And even a few stinkers. I think that Romeo et Juliette has only one stinker. And that one is only the mezzo-soprano, who can't sing in tune for ****.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Yes, I tried to enjoy that. I didn't work very well. You might add that to the record.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I enjoy it quite a bit. It 100% has to be the 1975 Karajan release. Something magical about the performance and how it was recorded. The bells in the finale just sound perfect to me.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

_Symphonie Fantastique_ has never failed to produce for me a most profound indifference. Maybe this is why:



SONNET CLV said:


> . . . It has a little of something for everyone.


I don't know. I don't hate it, but it has never done much for me. I pull it out every couple of years and give it another chance.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> I have been listening to it all day now and I feel like a nervous wrack. I do love the last 2 movements though and the second movement is starting to grove on me too but I don't get the first one. This work sounds more like a very-late romantic piece than an early one. I will listen to it again tomorrow.


The first movement is the odd one out in at least one sense. The others are programatic in a literalistic way in the same sense as Beethoven's Sixth and characteristic symphonies of the classical era - its events and scenarios take place more or less in real time. The onomatopoeic bits (thunder, guillotine and head) and the dances (waltzers and witches), shepherds pipes, and marches are idealized, fictionalized portrayals of real-life events. The first movement is vague programatically with no connection between the time of its unfolding and real-world time. This sort of programaticism is characteristic of much Romantic program music.

Edward T. Cone had a lot of interesting things to say about the symphony both in his preface to the Norton Score and in the beginning of his book, _The Composer's Voice_.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> This work sounds more like a very-late romantic piece than an early one.


Nah, SF is essentially early-romantic. It's filled with this imagination, ferocity and vehemence that only original, genuine romanticism of first half of XIXth century posessed, before late- also known as pseudo-romanticism came in and when it all became academic gimmick.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Nah, SF is essentially early-romantic. It's filled with this imagination, ferocity and vehemence that only original, genuine romanticism of first half of XIXth century posessed, before late- also known as pseudo-romanticism came in and when it all became academic gimmick.


Huh, most people think the gimmickry started in the mid-20th century or the early 20th century. Never seen someone push it back to the late 19th century


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

violadude said:


> Huh, most people think the gimmickry started in the mid-20th century or the early 20th century. Never seen someone push it back to the late 19th century


There are many kinds of gimmickry. To me, late XIXth century composer writing fashionable program music with cliche and unimaginative tone painting, breathing artificial, hollow drama and pathos he learned to emulate in conservatory is even more painful to listen to than what you're refering to.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> There are many kinds of gimmickry. To me, late XIXth century composer writing fashionable program music with cliche and unimaginative tone painting, breathing artificial, hollow drama and pathos he learned to emulate in conservatory is even more painful to listen to than what you're refering to.


Program music is artificial by its very nature. Formalizing it is an inevitable process, using composing techniques taken from ballet and opera... which evolve in a similar fashion.



:devil:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Aramis said:


> There are many kinds of gimmickry. To me, late XIXth century composer writing fashionable program music with cliche and unimaginative tone painting, breathing artificial, hollow drama and pathos he learned to emulate in conservatory is even more painful to listen to than what you're refering to.


Not a Richard Strauss fan I take it...


----------



## csacks (Dec 5, 2013)

To me, the second movement worth the full symphony.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Aramis said:


> There are many kinds of gimmickry. To me, late XIXth century composer writing fashionable program music with cliche and unimaginative tone painting, breathing artificial, hollow drama and pathos he learned to emulate in conservatory is even more painful to listen to than what you're refering to.


You make it sound as if all late-romantic music was composed by one person or a bunch of clones. I don't buy it and believe that it is appropriate to judge an individual composer rather than lumping them all together.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Bulldog said:


> You make it sound as if all late-romantic music was composed by one person or a bunch of clones. I don't buy it and believe that it is appropriate to judge an individual composer rather than lumping them all together.


Sure, when we discuss periods we discuss tendentions, when we discuss composers - we discuss individual cases. My feelings towards late romanticism in general are like I said, but it doesn't mean there are no composers under this label that I appreciate.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> The first movement is the odd one out in at least one sense. The others are programatic in a literalistic way in the same sense as Beethoven's Sixth and characteristic symphonies of the classical era - its events and scenarios take place more or less in real time. The onomatopoeic bits (thunder, guillotine and head) and the dances (waltzers and witches), shepherds pipes, and marches are idealized, fictionalized portrayals of real-life events. The first movement is vague programatically with no connection between the time of its unfolding and real-world time. This sort of programaticism is characteristic of much Romantic program music.
> 
> Edward T. Cone had a lot of interesting things to say about the symphony both in his preface to the Norton Score and in the beginning of his book, _The Composer's Voice_.


So it's not strange that I dislike the first movement but enjoy the other ones. I actually think the last movement is pretty brilliant.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DrMuller said:


> So it's not strange that I dislike the first movement but enjoy the other ones. I actually think the last movement is pretty brilliant.


Not strange to me, for the very little that's worth. The symphony is one of a kind. Puts me in mind of the more fantastic side of Victor Hugo.


----------

