# SS 05.09.20 - Harris #7



## cougarjuno (Jul 1, 2012)

SS 05.09.20 - Harris #7

A continuation of the Saturday Symphonies Tradition:

Welcome to another weekend of symphonic listening!

For your listening pleasure this weekend:

*Roy Harris (1898 - 1979)
*
Symphony #7

in one movement
---------------------

Post what recording you are going to listen to giving details of Orchestra / Conductor / Chorus / Soloists etc - Enjoy!


----------



## cougarjuno (Jul 1, 2012)

Seems realdeal is away again this week.

We'll go American this week and for the USA Labor Day weekend, a workmanlike symphony in Roy Harris' Symphony #7. Harris certainly was enamored with the one-movement format as this one, like the third symphony, is of modest proportions. The symphony begins with a passacaglia and variations with much counterpoint and rhythmic variations while keeping the folk character Harris is famous for. There are a few recordings of the work which is his most popular after the 3rd symphony including Ormandy and Philadelphia






I'll go with Naxos version with Kuchar and National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

The same for me.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Kuchar for me as well.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I'll give the Ukrainians a spin too. I must confess Roy Harris has never really grabbed me, and the "great American Symphony" epithet of No.3 has puzzled me. So I'll give him another go....


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm afraid I only have this one - the sound is pretty awful but I'll give it a spin to honour this thread's tradition.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

cougarjuno said:


> Seems realdeal is away again this week.
> 
> We'll go American this week and for the USA Labor Day weekend, a workmanlike symphony in Roy Harris' Symphony #7. Harris certainly was enamored with the one-movement format as this one, like the third symphony, is of modest proportions. The symphony begins with a passacaglia and variations with much counterpoint and rhythmic variations while keeping the folk character Harris is famous for. There are a few recordings of the work which is his most popular after the 3rd symphony including Ormandy and Philadelphia
> 
> ...


Thanks cougarjuno for stepping in again. I will listen Naxos recording also.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'll be going with Kuchar on Naxos, which is up on Youtube.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

KenOC said:


> I'll be going with Kuchar on Naxos, which is up on Youtube.


Me too, can't find it on my streaming service. But I'm going to listen to the Weber one last time and give a brief read-out, FWIW.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Rogerx said:


> The same for me.


And for me also


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I listened to Kuchar and quite enjoyed it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I listened to Ormandy/PhilaOrch, from the 50s....good recording!!OK piece, not blown away, but worth some further listening....


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Listened to the Kuchar then the Ormandy. I really like this symphony! It has great positive energy with a lot of forward momentum. It’s not often that works of music dramatically affect my mood, but this one has made me feel a lot more hopeful and positive. I’ve been unhappy bordering on depressed recently, and this music is just the thing to make me feel better. What a fortunate coincidence that it’s our Saturday Symphony this week!

I distinctly prefer Ormandy’s interpretation. The sound quality is not the greatest, but the overall effect is a richer, fuller sound with more coherent interplay among the orchestra sections. The Kuchar version is fine, but Ormandy’s is, to me, masterful. I started listening to the Stoki recording, but I couldn’t handle the poor sound quality.

There’s a lot going on in this music instrumentally, with some snare drums, bells, chimes, blaring brass, and a lot of syncopated rhythms in the strings. Somehow, it comes together for me into a really wonderful whole.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Yes, Ormandy is very good....very vigorous and energetic... that disc has an excellent Piston Sym #4 as well....these were recorded the 50s...


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Simplicissimus said:


> Listened to the Kuchar then the Ormandy. I really like this symphony! It has great positive energy with a lot of forward momentum. It's not often that works of music dramatically affect my mood, but this one has made me feel a lot more hopeful and positive. I've been unhappy bordering on depressed recently, and this music is just the thing to make me feel better. What a fortunate coincidence that it's our Saturday Symphony this week!
> 
> I distinctly prefer Ormandy's interpretation. The sound quality is not the greatest, but the overall effect is a richer, fuller sound with more coherent interplay among the orchestra sections. The Kuchar version is fine, but Ormandy's is, to me, masterful. I started listening to the Stoki recording, but I couldn't handle the poor sound quality.
> 
> There's a lot going on in this music instrumentally, with some snare drums, bells, chimes, blaring brass, and a lot of syncopated rhythms in the strings. Somehow, it comes together for me into a really wonderful whole.


I'm somewhere between you and Heck in my considered evaluation (!) of this work. Good listening, interesting orchestration, and it seems to fit together nicely. I can't get away from the feeling that it's not shouting "Roy Harris" at me, and I can't say the themes are as memorable as others I could mention. But a worthwhile symphony as far as I am concerned, and I will try to find the time to give old Roy another listen, especially No.3. I think I might have been put off by the rather trite 4th symphony, to be honest.

I seem to have a love-hate relationship with the American Symphonists; I have really enjoyed some of the older ones - MacDowell, Amy Beach for example, but I don't see them as particularly American, more exiled European (sorry if that offends, not the intention). I really don't understand the fuss with Charles Ives (I don't care if that offends!!:devil, and feel that Copland is more suited to episodic/balletic music than the Symphony (although No.3 is a proper stunner!). The most appealing to me so far have been Walter Piston and Paul Creston (and to a lesser extent Ned Rorem); for me by far the best (and I don't know all of them) has been David Diamond. His voice just sounds that little bit more personal than the others.....?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

CnC Bartok said:


> I seem to have a love-hate relationship with the American Symphonists; I have really enjoyed some of the older ones - MacDowell, Amy Beach for example, but I don't see them as particularly American, more exiled European (sorry if that offends, not the intention). I really don't understand the fuss with Charles Ives (I don't care if that offends!!:devil, and feel that Copland is more suited to episodic/balletic music than the Symphony (although No.3 is a proper stunner!). The most appealing to me so far have been Walter Piston and Paul Creston (and to a lesser extent Ned Rorem); for me by far the best (and I don't know all of them) has been David Diamond. His voice just sounds that little bit more personal than the others.....?


Diamond is very good, so is Wm Schuman.....Hanson wrote some very strong symphonies, as well -#3 and #1 esp.. Harris and Piston are more inconsistent....they seem to stick to more rigid, formal structures...Harris #3 is my favorite by him, tho 5 and 6 have some definite possibilities.....Piston seems more "academic", for lack of a better term. I tend to favor the fast movements the most...he can generate some energy....the orchestration is more rigid, more conservative....George Antheil is certainly worth a listen - Sym #4 is the strongest, but 5 and 6 are good, too...Antheil, in Sym #3 seems almost Ivesian in some ways....but instead of quoting hymns, nationalistic songs, he favors more folk/Country tunes...


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

CnC Bartok said:


> I seem to have a love-hate relationship with the American Symphonists; I have really enjoyed some of the older ones - MacDowell, Amy Beach for example, but I don't see them as particularly American, more exiled European (sorry if that offends, not the intention). I really don't understand the fuss with Charles Ives (I don't care if that offends!!:devil, and feel that Copland is more suited to episodic/balletic music than the Symphony (although No.3 is a proper stunner!). The most appealing to me so far have been Walter Piston and Paul Creston (and to a lesser extent Ned Rorem); for me by far the best (and I don't know all of them) has been David Diamond. His voice just sounds that little bit more personal than the others.....?


Not to hijack this conversation about Harris 7 into an Ives discussion, but I want to say something briefly. I usually think claims that you need a certain background in order readily to appreciate a composer are bogus, but I do think this is the case with Ives. Growing up in the U.S. (at least up to the 1980s) with K-8 music education, summer camp, Scouting, small-town parades, and church activities, people like me got loaded up with the raw materials that Ives used in his compositions. Those are musical experiences of a quite specific character. I think it's quite easy to appreciate Ives if you have this background, but maybe not so much if you don't. As for Harris 7, I hear him as "American" more by association to contemporaries like Piston, Schuman, Sessions, Hanson, and Mennin than by raw thematic material.


----------

