# Nielsen's 5th symphony - Strangest Symphony Of All Time ?



## superhorn

Nielsen's 5th may very well be the strangest symphony ever written. Everything about it is totally unconventional and original . It's a one-of-a-kind work. It confounds all your expectations of what a symphony is supposed to be. 
It was premiered in 1922 under the composer's direction, and when he soon after conducted the Swedish premiere in Gothenburg, where he regularly appeared to conduct, the audience was completely stunned by the weird battle between the snare drum and the orchestra in the first of the two movements; a near riot ensued, like the premiere of Strravinsky's Rite of Spring.
Nielsen conceived the work as a kind of struggle between good and evil, chaos and order . The first movement is not in the traditional sonata form, or any pre-existing form for that matter. falls basically into three parts , progressing in tonal center from F, C to G , rising by fifths . It begins in a kind of twilight zone with a wavering ostinato figure of the notes C and A in the strings . The music seems to be describing a state of chaos . What the heck is going on ? All the different instruments of th e orchestra seem to be carrying on with no regard for each other. Just endless ostinatos . All of a sudden, a solo snare drums begins to start tapping out an ostinato figure -rat-ta-ta-tat tat-. A tonal center of F,not really f major or minor has been reached. Then it rises to a center of C. Chaos-nothing but chaos . Again, what the heck is going on ? 
Eventually , an unambiguous G major is reached, and a beatuiful lyrical melody appears- the first time any these as such has appeared . What is happening now ? Why did this beautiful theme appear out of nowhere ?
But the snare drum continues its mindless ostinato , and the mood becomes ominous - something is wrong. 
A violent confrontation seems about to begin . Then, the snare drummer is directed by the composer to start flailing away on his instrument and to improvise his part as if he had gone berserk. 
The G major theme is in 3/4 , but the snare drummer is playing in 4/4 ! All hell breaks loose ! A titanic conflct erupts, and you feel as though the world is about to end ! But the orchestra continues to make a huge crescendo , and the snare drum is finally defeated. The player goes off stage ,continuing to play. 
There is a calm postlude with a solo clarinet reflecting on the chaos that has taken place, and it feels as though an enormous struggle has taken place .
The second movement is an attempt to rise from the ashes of the bizarre first movement . It is in four sections , a vigorous outbirst of affirmation in B mjaor , leading to a nervous fugue in F minor which gradually seems to go completely berserk, eventually calming down and leading to a reflective slow fugue based on theme of the opening of the second movement . 
This leads to a retune to the opening B major . But the music becomes more energetic and urgent , and soon all sense of any key seems to be evaporationg. It shifts to overdrive and seems to be hurtling madding into who knows what . Again, what the heck is going on ? Where is the music leading? What is going to happen ?
But there is light at the end of the tunnel - the final key of E flat major has been reached , and there is a majestic allargando - the symphony ends in pure,defiant triumph . The ending in e flat major , a key which had never appeared in the symphony, comes almost as a kind of physical shock ! So ends this enigmatic and unique work .


----------



## itywltmt

Yes, but it's about the _music_, and the _message_: the struggle of Man as he emerges victorious from WWI (that whoie snare drum episode that occupies the last few muinutes of the 1st movement before the coda is epic, ut uis pure genius! And probably one of the most memorable sections of the 20th symphonic repertoire IMHO. Wow!

I simply refuse to get caught in form and what not when you have such great things to say!


----------



## Vesteralen

Love the analysis.

This work is one of very few in the repertoire that totally engages me from beginning to end without a break. I've heard Horenstein, Bernstein, Blomstedt, and Jensen in this piece - all quite good. Looking forward to hearing Dudamel, Rattle, Davis and the new one coming out from the New York Philharmonic soon.

As a composer, Nielsen is one of my absolute favorites - especially as a symphonist. He's unique - as unmistakable a voice as there is in music composition. But, more importantly, it's a voice that speaks directly to me. It's a voice that I "get".


----------



## samurai

Me too!....


----------



## violadude

No, the strangest symphony of all time is Schnittke's 1st.

But I agree that Nielson's 5th is an amazing piece of music.  Nielson is definitely one of my favorite symphonists.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

violadude said:


> No, the strangest symphony of all time is Schnittke's 1st.
> 
> But I agree that Nielson's 5th is an amazing piece of music.  Nielson is definitely one of my favorite symphonists.


Mine too!


----------



## mikey

Certainly one of the most epic and terrifying!
First time I heard it was LSO/Davis live (which I now have the CD of ). I remember him saying something along the lines of compared to Sibelius, Nielsen is wild!


----------



## EdwardBast

Thanks for the recommendation. Listened once through with NY Phil under Bernstein. (Talk about hot mikes — heard every bit of stand noise and pad clack.) Magnificent orchestration toward the end. Caught onto the fact that the manner in which elements from the early sections return in the peroration is going to be a key to "getting it." But I haven't gotten it. Yet. This one will take a little work — and sounds like it is worth the effort.


----------



## techniquest

Nielsen's 5th is next weeks 'Saturday Symphony', so a really excellent excuse for us to sit down and give this remarkable work a real good listen and then have some discussion around the different recordings and interpretations


----------



## arpeggio

*Fifth and Seventh*

There has been a number of discussions concerning the apparent worth of Shostakovitch's _Seventh Symphony_. Some love it, others hate it.

I have been reviewing the various submissions and I have been unable to find any entries that mention the possible connection between the Shostakovitch _Seventh_ and the Nielson _Fifth._ Does anyone know if Dimtri was familiar Nielson when he composed the _Seventh_?


----------



## joen_cph

Interesting question, so I spend some minutes exploring the subject:

Nielsen´s 5th (1921-1926) was conducted by Furtwängler in 1927 at the ISCM in Frankfurt, and later in that year also by Monteux in Concertgebouw and Horenstein in Königsberg/Kaliningrad. So it quickly gained some international reputation.

Detlef Gojowy in "Neue Sowjetische Musik der 20er Jahre" brings a list of some the major classical concerts in the USSR of the late 20s, illustrating a very liberal programme and lots of international guest conductors, before Stalin began to uniform the cultural life there (p.436-441). Regular conductors in 1928-29 seasons in Moscow and Leningrad included Scherchen, Ansermet, Klemperer, Walter, Abendroth, Hindemith, Clemens Kraus, and there were many famous other performers from the West (Serkin, Bartok, Szigeti etc.). The list doesn´t specify the concert programmes though.

A Danish musical magazine published in 1950 a contemporary Soviet magazine´s article on Danish classical music life, to illustrate Soviet aesthetics. The article is extremely propaganda-like, deploring US-influenced and generally decadent taste, but it shows some knowledge on Danish composers (version in Danish http://dvm.nu/periodical/dmt/dmt_1951/dmt_1951_01/sovjet-syn-pa-dansk-musiktidsskrift/).

Shostakovich´s friend Sollertinsky - who apparently introduced him to Mahler quite early - might have known Nielsen, cf. this book reference http://books.google.dk/books?id=mZC...v=onepage&q=sollertinsky carl nielsen&f=false where the Soviets are said to be largely unaware of Nielsen, though.

I´ve only come across one Melodiya recording of a Danish piece of music ever - Nielsen´s Wind Quintet, an LP from around 1965 or so. Nielsen was definitely much lesser known than Sibelius in the USSR.


----------



## Ukko

Among the many fine things about the 5th symphony is the 6th symphony. I have heard several complaints about the disappointment it brings. Personally, it does what I need it to do - repair the stresses that the 5th induced.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Maybe I'll give it a listen sometime then since you all recommend him...


----------



## starthrower

Listen to no. 3 too. It's a great symphony.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

So far I only have heard 3 symphonies by Nielsen: the last three. I began listening to them in reverse order and got stuck on no. 5 for ages. I listened to no. 4 after no. 5 and was somewhat disappointed...so whenever I want to listen to Nielsen I always end up listening to his 5th symphony which has become one of my most listened to symphonies by now.


----------



## samurai

Ukko said:


> Among the many fine things about the 5th symphony is the 6th symphony. I have heard several complaints about the disappointment it brings. Personally, it does what I need it to do - repair the stresses that the 5th induced.


With me, I find just the opposite regarding these two works. I have a much easier time "getting" his *Fifth* as compared to the *Sixth *{*"Sinfonia semplice"*}. I'm not sure if "semplice" means *simple *in Danish; if it indeed does, then I have found it to be anything but! :scold:
Anyways, I guess it just goes to show that great minds *don't* always think alike, after all. :lol:


----------



## violadude

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Maybe I'll give it a listen sometime then since you all recommend him...


Please do. However, I would suggest trying the first two first in your case.


----------



## EdwardBast

arpeggio said:


> There has been a number of discussions concerning the apparent worth of Shostakovitch's _Seventh Symphony_. Some love it, others hate it.
> 
> I have been reviewing the various submissions and I have been unable to find any entries that mention the possible connection between the Shostakovitch _Seventh_ and the Nielson _Fifth._ Does anyone know if Dimtri was familiar Nielson when he composed the _Seventh_?


arpeggio,
Do you hear a connection and are you trying to verify if there is a historical basis for or causal explanation for it? If so, I'd be interested to hear about it. The 7th is not one of the Shostakovich symphonies I listen to regularly but I am always interested in these influence/lineage speculations - if that's what you have in mind.


----------



## arpeggio

*I do not know*



EdwardBast said:


> arpeggio,
> Do you hear a connection and are you trying to verify if there is a historical basis for or causal explanation for it? If so, I'd be interested to hear about it. The 7th is not one of the Shostakovich symphonies I listen to regularly but I am always interested in these influence/lineage speculations - if that's what you have in mind.


I thought that I made it clear that I do not know. Sorry if I gave the impression that I am some sort of expert about this. I am not. To my ears they sound similar. I am asking if anyone, who actually has more knowledge than I do, knows if there is a connection. Maybe my ears are screwed up and I am just imagining it.


----------



## Radames

When I think of Shostokovich 7th I think too long and too loud. I find Nielsen's 5th just enigmatic, not bomastic. To me the Shostokovich 15th Symphony is the strange and enigmatic one. That is the one I find most like the Nielsen 5th.


----------



## mikey

Ukko said:


> Among the many fine things about the 5th symphony is the 6th symphony. I have heard several complaints about the disappointment it brings. Personally, it does what I need it to do - repair the stresses that the 5th induced.


I heard the 6th as part of the LSO's Nielsen cycle (not too may places in the world would put on a Nielsen cycle!) and it was one of the strangest most enigmatic things I've ever heard! One of my friend who was in the orchestra told me Colin Davis's only words after running through it were "good luck" :lol:


----------



## Ukko

mikey said:


> I heard the 6th as part of the LSO's Nielsen cycle (not too may places in the world would put on a Nielsen cycle!) and it was one of the strangest most enigmatic things I've ever heard! One of my friend who was in the orchestra told me Colin Davis's only words after running through it were "good luck" :lol:


Davis's words are pretty enigmatic too. If he didn't get it, the audience has little chance of getting it either.


----------



## superhorn

I've gotten accustomed to the Nielsen 6th with repeated hearings, and I don't consider it to 
be in any way disappointing after the 4th& 5th . It certainly is enigmatic , a mixture of apparent surface
simplicity with grotesquery . 
Nielsen was suffering from the heart ailment which eventually took his life in 1931 when he wrote it, and
according to him, there is a grindingly dissonant passge in th efirst movement which depicts one of his
heart attacks ! The second movement is a hiarious spoof of the music of Schoenberg and the
second Viennese school . 
The finale may be the most bizarre theme and variations ever written .It's apparently a Humorous 
farewell to life, unlike the Bruckner & Mahler 9th symphonies ! Nielsen meets death laughing in the face
of the absurdity of life . The work ends with a raspberry from the bassoons on a low note .


----------



## aajj

Nielsen's 5th and 6th are great and unique symphonies but i cannot say they are any more unique or "strange" than the 4th Ives.


----------



## techniquest

Reading through this thread, my own perspective would be that Nielsen's 5th is quite probably one of the strangest '_mainstream_' symphonies ever written, but overall there are much stranger examples out there: Schnittke's 1st and Ives' 4th have already been cited, and any of the 2 or 3 hundred symphonies from Segerstam are stranger than the Nielsen by far.
Personally I don't find any link between Nielsen's 5th and Shostakovich's 7th other than rather a lot of snare drum!


----------



## Xaltotun

Radames said:


> When I think of Shostokovich 7th I think too long and too loud. I find Nielsen's 5th just enigmatic, not bomastic. To me the Shostokovich 15th Symphony is the strange and enigmatic one. That is the one I find most like the Nielsen 5th.


The same with me and Nielsen 5th & Shostakovich 15th, I listen to them from time to time to challenge myself but I just don't get them.

But I love Nielsen 4th rather madly...


----------



## Albert7

I really enjoy Nielsen and his symphonies are just incredible in fact ... The Utah Symphony last year did a cycle of them live.


----------



## Vaneyes

Of Nielsen's, the 6th could be deemed stranger. I also sometimes wonder about Prokofiev 2.


----------



## samurai

Vaneyes said:


> Of Nielsen's, the 6th could be deemed stranger. I also sometimes wonder about Prokofiev 2.


Yes, I am at the moment trying to "screw up enough courage" to have another go at it.


----------



## techniquest

samurai said:


> Yes, I am at the moment trying to "screw up enough courage" to have another go at it.


Which; Nielsen's 6th or Prokofiev's 2nd?


----------



## Becca

I love Nielsen's 5th! It was the first of his works that I encountered in my late teens (a radio broadcast of the Bernstein/NYPO recording) and it made a great impact on me. Since then I have heard many versions of it, some great (Blomstedt/SFSO), some not (Zinman/Berlin PO). I can think of many descriptions for it but I wouldn't describe it as strange or unique, it is definitely the sibling to the 4th! The 6th, however, is an odd one, and I say that after 'giving it another go' just two weeks ago when it sounded less odd that I remembered!


----------



## manyene

I agree with those who consider the Nielsen 6th as an even stranger work, a mixture of humour, satire, fond reminiscence of the past and moments of sheer unremitting discord, reflecting what somebody earlier remarked was probably a reference to Nielsen's heart condition. For a long time I avoided the work in preference to the other five but came back recently and began to understand what the composer was getting at. I have the Blomstedt cycle with the SFSO which remains a favourite although I have heard many others, and grew up with the Bernstein 5th.


----------



## jim prideaux

samurai said:


> Me too!....


me too!........yes I have no doubt that in an analytical sense there may be a certain 'strangeness' to his music but for whatever reason Nielsen lives in a world I recognise-there is an obvious humanity in his music........well you know what I mean..surely?


----------



## clavichorder

Radames said:


> When I think of Shostokovich 7th I think too long and too loud. I find Nielsen's 5th just enigmatic, not bomastic. To me the Shostokovich 15th Symphony is the strange and enigmatic one. That is the one I find most like the Nielsen 5th.


Shostakovich's 15 is more like Nielsen's 6th than his 5th. Down to the fact that they both begin with a little chime.


----------



## clavichorder

Nielsen's 6th is perhaps a stranger work in terms of it's harmony and mood. It's certainly darker, but it has an arc and form that more closely resembles what we are used to in a symphony(however, I still believe that something like the odd process that fully came to fruition in symphony 5 is at work in it). The 5th does not really have that, though it comes a bit closer to our expectations in movement 2(it flows with a sequence of ideas, and even has a very weird fugue at one point).

I've been mulling over this way to think of the 1st movement of symphony 5. The more I listen to it, the more I feel I am seeing how well it works. Nielsen has been described as using his instruments in his symphonies more like an opera composer(Mozart, specifically); though the works are never programatic in a visual sense, there seems to be a psychological or mental program to them at times, but *that is often just the starting point* for peeking into what is actually going on. His habit of having one line seem to interrupt another musical line(or instrument with another instrument), or feed into another in a way that seems bizarrely *interactive* can be seen as early as the perky 1st symphony. In the 1A 1B of Symphony that has come to full fruition, and interactions between lines and instruments, seem to grow the shape of the piece into being.

My point is, you could call it psychological or like tone painting in some sense, but I believe that implies too much of a visual component associated either with reality or mood. I think it is pure musical logic at work, of a very different kind, possibly a freeing up of divergent thought. Musical things(themes, instrument timbres, whatever can be recalled at later points) just seem to feed off each other and modify in subtle ways rather than obeying an overarching purpose, and in doing so create that purpose.

To illustrate this, there is one part where the oboe is playing rather simply, almost lazily a variation of the initial oscillating figure(it's like an "eddy" off the oscillating "tide"), and then a quick few note downward half scale of lower strings interrupts it on it's way, and after that passes the oboe comes right back sounding like a more intense and unstable version of the same line, because the strings basically stomp it out. One could interrupt such things like this(that are just more obvious outlets of the most prominent essence at work in this piece) as having a real world narrative analogue or emotional analogue, but I think it makes sense in an abstract and logical manner and I think it reflects the most unique feature of Nielsen's thinking as a composer.

I could be called a musical ecosystem operating of it's own accord. It does not really seem chaotic, just operates on a weird and interactive sort of logic(most purely in the 1 A section, more dreamlike in the 1 B section). Nielsen himself said he wasn't quite sure how he made it, and the process when beginning symphony 6 seemed to be informed by this as well and is what ultimately made the work not so simple, in opposition to his original idea(which he admitted could very well lead down unexpected paths).

In that first movement it seems he has practically removed himself from the equation and in a sense his voice is at it's purest. The musical ecosystem in his imagination/mind just does it's thing. He, the composer, seems to be waking up in 1 B and then by movement 2, the Nielsen we know is back but things aren't quite the same, and the live and the almost entirely unshaped divergent quality of the beginning of the work seems to have it's say around what he's trying to do in his more 'conscious' compositional style, adding tremendous intensity that does build up to those remarkable last few bars.


----------



## clavichorder

Start listening at 8:20 for some great examples the "interruptions" and "continuations" that I was referring to above. The closest you get to this kind of writing in other music, is probably in opera scenes when characters have their own agenda and lines weaving about each other to represent that. I can recall a scene from Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin that was very involved in this manner, and Bizet's Carmen is ripe with this sort of thing, but it was dramatic thinking that enabled it. I just don't know about Nielsen 5, but I suspect this type of stuff just is how his mind worked.

Edit: I finally read the wikipedia page on it and here is something interesting in a letter of Nielsen's: 
"Then the "evil" motif intervenes - in the woodwind and strings - and the side drum becomes more and more angry and aggressive; but the nature-theme grows on, peaceful and unaffected, in the brass. Finally the evil has to give way, a last attempt and then it flees - and with a strophe thereafter in consoling major mode a solo clarinet ends this large idyll-movement, an expression of vegetative (idle, thoughtless) Nature."

These are lines obeying their own 'behaviors' and interacting when they cross paths.


----------



## Becca

A few years ago Herbert Blomstedt did the Nielsen 5th with the Berlin Philharmonic and the concert is available on the BPO's Digital Concert Hall. In the intermission talk, Blomstedt gave a very interesting talk about the 5th...

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/3463-3


----------



## dieter

Becca said:


> A few years ago Herbert Blomstedt did the Nielsen 5th with the Berlin Philharmonic and the concert is available on the BPO's Digital Concert Hall. In the intermission talk, Blomstedt gave a very interesting talk about the 5th...
> 
> https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/3463-3


Just watched the interview. So glad I did. For you who are wondering, go get Niesen 5! It's not strange, it's genius, Get Blomstedt, either EMi or Decca, though I know it's all Warner now.


----------



## Davila

Never heard it but that description certainly interests me


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Becca said:


> I love Nielsen's 5th! It was the first of his works that I encountered in my late teens (a radio broadcast of the Bernstein/NYPO recording) and it made a great impact on me. Since then I have heard many versions of it, some great (Blomstedt/SFSO), some not (Zinman/Berlin PO). I can think of many descriptions for it but I wouldn't describe it as strange or unique, it is definitely the sibling to the 4th! The 6th, however, is an odd one, and I say that after 'giving it another go' just two weeks ago when it sounded less odd that I remembered!


It is a great symphony by an underrated composer.


----------



## Pugg

I don't agree with above.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Here is another great version:

Neilsen: Symphony No. 5 , Saga Drøm
Jascha Horenstein, New Philharmonia Orchestra









https://www.amazon.com/Neilsen-Symp...ny+No+5+Horenstein+(Artist),+New+Philharmonia


----------



## Sloe

Pugg said:


> I don't agree with above.


It is a great symphony but I don´t think he is underrated.


----------



## Pugg

Sloe said:


> It is a great symphony but I don´t think he is underrated.


Every composer gets the attention he / she deserved


----------



## Sloe

Pugg said:


> Every composer gets the attention he / she deserved


I don´t agree with that I think much of this have to do with other circumstances and just coincidences.


----------



## Pugg

Sloe said:


> I don´t agree with that I think much of this have to do with other circumstances and just coincidences.


Okay, lets agree to disagree .


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> I don´t agree with that I think much of this have to do with other circumstances and just coincidences.


Wonder if Beethoven's shadow obscured other composers of his time.


----------

