Once upon a time in the Nation, John Leonard spoke of an experience in New York City. Of all the details he mentioned, only one interests me. He attended a concert, which he describes succinctly: "After quite a lot of Stenhammar's symphony number 2" (I may not have his quote verbatim, but the "quite a lot of" certainly is.)

You will pardon me if I take this reference to one of my favorite symphonies as being, perhaps, less than complimentary. In fact it seems to me (in my more paranoid moments) to be an attack, not just on this powerful work, but on the enterprise of resurrecting lesser-known Romantic works, in general. (That the Stenhammar is in many ways not a Romantic work is a fact, but may or may not have been within Mr. Leonard's ken.)

I mislike this possibility, for John Leonard has been, if not a favorite writer of mine, at least one of those I do respect more. He delightfully skewered, in one article, the pretensions of those who attribute to television (or television and movies) alone the violence in our society. If his perceptions do not extend to seeing, or seeing the need to state clearly, the even greater correlation with income inequality, this is merely further reason why if I respect him I yet respect others more.

I wonder what, specifically, he did not like in this symphony? Was he bored? Is he bored by Bruckner (whose symphonies are often longer and, to my mind, less well held together, though not without points of comparison)? It would do to pinpoint what, exactly, about this composition puts off not just Mr. Leonard, but others as well, if indeed it does. The symphony is in four movements, a sonata, a theme and variations, a scherzo, and an introduction followed by a fugue on two themes. The themes are attractive and effective, the timing near-perfect, and the climaxes, in a good performance, extremely satisfying (especially the ends of the first and last movements).

The first movement opens with an unharmonized theme, based on a folk tune but suggesting chant. It is answered by something like a hornsignal, though not presently given to a horn. (If you know Bax's 2nd string quartet, the very opening of this symphony is somewhat similar to the cello solo that opens that fine quartet.) This develops into a sort of propulsive dance, introducing two other important motives, and builds a head of steam which dissipates for the rather more romantic second theme in c# minor, slightly reminiscent of, of all things, Fur Elise. (This is not a pastiche symphony nor one full of cute quotes, however.) A dactylic (short-long) rhythm (in F) of markedly annunciatory qualities raises the energy level again, but the second group ends quietly with a turn from d minor (the key in which the group ends) back to g.

This begins the development, which starts with the opening three notes of the symphony (G-D-D) and varies them. The various motives of the first group are brought in and used to, in one memorable moment, change key rapidly from d minor to c minor. After several climaxes the material from the second group is brought in and juxtaposed with the hornsignal-like theme; a crescendo brings in a varied recapitulation. This follows on naturally from the development; the first group now ends in C and the second group begins in b minor (the held D ending one is treated as third to the other, in musicspeak); the big, rhythmic theme comes back in the same F major as before, and the exposition ends on a G major chord. End of movement, right?

The coda sneaks in, quietly, increasing in menace and ominousness through varied repetitions of the opening melody, until a fast version of that melody's significant motive brings in the final portion of the movement in a huge stretto, slowing down at the end but always intensifying until the last G major chord.

The second movement is a theme and variations in C major, and reaches a beautifully sad climax near the end. It begins and ends in major but is mainly in a minor. I used to put this movement down considerably and at present barely know it in consequence, though I like it much more now. When I know it better, I will describe it.

The third movement is a scherzo in g minor with a weird and very operatic trio (with what we call recitative-like qualities) for winds only in the middle. The main part seems to have folk inspiration behind both its quite heavy opening and its lighter episodes. Near the end of the scherzo (both times it appears), there is a moment that sounds a lot like the end of the exposition in the first movement, with only the hornsignal-theme absent.

Misleadingly, the finale begins in E-flat, with the opening of the first fugue theme, and turns to c minor as the second theme is sounded. (Though they aren't fugue themes yet! The introduction introduces and repeats two themes, which once the fugue is underway are revealed to be the basis for its themes. I lied.) The introduction is brief, and the rather faster fugue begins soon.

The first theme begins in B-flat major, though its snaky tail, rotating around the note D, brings us to g minor. [To be continued.]
Go to my Home page.
Send me email.