Hans Rott (1858-1884)
Symphony No. 1 in E major (1880)
Gustav Mahler (1860-1911)
Andante allegretto ‘Blumine’ (1884)
Anton Bruckner (1824-1896)
Symphonic Prelude in C minor, WAB 297 (1876)
Bamberger Symphoniker/Jakob Hrůša
rec. 2021/22, Konzerthalle, Joseph-Keilberth-Saal, Bamberg
Deutsche Grammophon 486 2932 [70]
I first encountered Hans Rott’s symphony when Hyperion released the work’s premiere recording back in 1989 and I made a speculative purchase. I liked what I heard, though I have to confess that it’s been quite some time since I listened to the disc: that’s no reflection on either work or performance, but rather a question of other listening commitments. That recording (CDA66366) was made by the Cincinnati Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Gerhard Samuel. This was a student ensemble, the first orchestra of the University of Cincinnati’s College-Conservatory. It may have been a student orchestra but they did a fine job for Rott. Furthermore, only a few days before making their recording, Samuel and the CPO gave the very first performance of the symphony on 4 March 1989. That premiere took place in Cincinnati and a few days later the same performers gave further performances in Paris and London before setting down their interpretation in a London church. How was it that this symphony waited 109 years to achieve its first performance? Much is explained by Paul Banks in his note for the Hyperion disc; I draw on his essay in the following paragraph.
Rott was born in a Vienna suburb. He studied at the Vienna Conservatory where his teachers included Bruckner, with whom he studied the organ. One of Rott’s fellow pupils was Gustav Mahler. As a student composer Rott was much influenced by both Bruckner and Wagner – as his symphony was to make clear – but Paul Banks notes that the young man also admired Brahms. In the final year of his studies (1878) Rott submitted a symphonic movement as his entry for the Conservatory’s composition competition. Sadly, the music was roundly rejected by the jury. Notwithstanding this rebuff, Rott went on to compose a full symphony into which the rejected music was incorporated as the first movement. The symphony was completed by June 1880. A little while later, in September 1880, Rott paid a visit to Brahms and played the symphony through to him, only to be rebuffed by the senior composer. At the end of October, Rott suffered a severe mental breakdown – how long had it been brewing, I wonder? He was confined to a mental institution where, over time, both his physical and mental health declined; he died of tuberculosis in June 1884. His symphony lay unperformed: before his breakdown he had tried to interest Richter in performing it, but to no avail. Lacking an influential champion, Rott’s symphony was largely forgotten. Apparently, the autograph score of the first movement was lost but the score of the other three movements survived in the National Library in Vienna. Importantly, so too did a copyist’s score and two sets of orchestral parts for the first movement. From all this material Paul Banks was able to compile an edition of the entire symphony which was used for the Samuel recording. For this new recording Jakob Hrůša has used an edition by Bert Hagels; I don’t know if there are any substantive differences between the two editions.
The first of the four movements – the one rejected by the competition jury – is simply marked Alla breve. To my ears, there’s a Brucknerian feel to the attractive opening melody. The movement as a whole has a sense of the open air and the influences of both Bruckner and Wagner are readily discernible. I was impressed by the noble tutti (from around 8:40) which leads to the conclusion of the movement. The melodic foundation to the movement is very appealing and Rott shows confidence in the way he handles his material: one feels that the competition jury were much too harsh on Rott, probably for reasons that had more to do with Viennese musical politics than anything else.
The second movement, Sehr langsam, is again indebted to Bruckner, not least because the music is so spacious. There is genuine nobility to be heard here. At 6:54 Rott changes tack with a more energetic fugal passage; I’m not quite sure why. More rewarding is the passage that begins at 7:57; this is a slow, quiet chorale played by the trumpets. It’s impossible not to think of Wagner hereabouts and, more specifically, the Wagner of Lohengrin and Parsifal. The Scherzo is marked Frisch und lebhaft (Fresh and lively). Initially I was put in mind of the comparable movement in Mahler’s First symphony, though that pre-echo, which is to do with mood and not thematic similarity, must surely be a coincidence. The music is robust and in the present performance there’s plenty of vigour, which allows Rott’s bucolic energy to come through. The Trio (2:54 – 6:06) is significantly slower; Hrůša makes this into a dreamy episode. I’ve written the word “maverick” in my notes to describe the way Rott reintroduces the Scherzo; it’s the most original music we’ve heard to date – and in saying that I don’t mean to deprecate any of the music that has gone before. What follows is far from a reprise of the Scherzo; instead, the music is much more diverse in character. One passage is a violin solo which (from 8:24) is taken up and developed with mounting vigour by the rest of the strings; as this passage progressed I was increasingly put in mind of elements of the music which Mahler would later write in the third movement of the ‘Resurrection’ Symphony. The closing pages of Rott’s Scherzo are whipped up into a wild dance.
I can’t escape the feeling that the finale is overblown. In this performance it lasts for 23:02 (the Samuel performance plays for 23:52). Once again, the shadow of Bruckner hovers and with the best will in the world I don’t feel that at this stage in his compositional career Rott was up to the challenge of writing on such an epic scale. The music seems to me to be episodic in nature and I struggle to get a feel for the structure. To tell the truth, my attention wandered at times in this movement, despite the advocacy of Hrůša and his fine orchestra. That said, there are several passages along the way that justify admiration..
Had Rott not been stricken by illness and had he lived longer, who knows what he might have achieved. For example, he had begun to sketch another symphony (which, presumably, is why DG label the E major symphony as No 1). Furthermore, had he been fortunate enough to attract the championship of an influential conductor, his career might have blossomed. On the other hand, at the time he fell ill, he was about to take up a post as organist of a church in Mühlhausen; might a worthy but obscure provincial career have beckoned? I can’t help wondering if he might have revised his E major symphony had he lived longer. As it stands, it’s an interesting work but one that hints at what might have been. Returning after a gap of several years to the Paul Banks essay in the booklet accompanying the Samuel recording, one particular detail caught my eye. Banks tells us that in the summer of 1900 Mahler borrowed the score of Rott’s symphony to read through during his holiday. Banks quotes some very admiring comments made by Mahler after his study of the music but this one seems to me to be the most relevant: “it is true that [Rott] has not yet fully realized his aims here. It is like someone taking a run for the longest possible throw and not quite hitting the mark. But I know what he was driving at.”
Back in 2014, my colleague Rob Maynard reviewed a recording conducted by Hansjörg Albrecht. In the course of his appraisal he commented briefly on several recordings that had appeared since the pioneering CPO/Samuel traversal. He commented that “We still await a recording of student-composer Hans Rott’s symphony by an orchestra and conductor of the very first rank.” I think the Bamberger Symphoniker and Jakob Hrůša would fall into that category. It’s evident from what he says in the booklet that Hrůša, having discovered the symphony relatively recently, is someone who thinks highly of it; you get that sense from listening to the performance. His orchestra plays very well indeed for him.
It was a good idea to fill up the disc with short pieces by Bruckner, Rott’s teacher, and by Mahler, his fellow-student. The ‘Blumine’ movement, which Mahler initially thought to include in his First Symphony, has become quite familiar. Some conductors have chosen to include it in performances and recordings of the symphony but whenever I hear a five-movement account of the First I think that Mahler was right to jettison ‘Blumine’. It’s charming but it holds up the action of the symphony to no great purpose. Hrůša leads an attractive performance.
Bruckner’s Symphonic Prelude in C minor was completely new to me. It was apparently composed in 1876 – between the Fourth and Fifth symphonies. Whether Bruckner intended it as a standalone piece or as part of a larger work I can’t say; the author of DG’s booklet notes doesn’t have much to say about the Prelude, other than that when it was discovered there was controversy as to whether or not the music was actually by Bruckner. According to Wikipedia, the music was discovered, as a piano duet, as recently as 1974 by Paul Banks in the Austrian National Library. This recording uses an edition by Wolfgang Hiltl and Benjamin Gunnar Cohrs. The music seems to me to be very characteristic of Bruckner, but I can’t say in all honesty that it advances our knowledge of the composer significantly; what he says in this movement he said to greater effect in several of his symphonies. Still, the recording is welcome.
The performances on this CD are very good and since it’s clear that Jakob Hrůša was determined to ‘do his bit’ for the Rott symphony it’s very good that he made the opportunity to record it. The performances have been captured in warm, sympathetic sound that shows off the orchestra – and the music – to best advantage. The documentation includes a short essay by the conductor about how he discovered the symphony. There’s also a set of notes about the music by Heidi Rogge. These are, frankly, somewhat superficial – it will be noted that I had to turn to Wikipedia for information about the Bruckner; Paul Banks’ Hyperion notes about the Rott symphony tell the listener far more about this fairly unfamiliar work than Ms Rogge manages to convey, although she was probably limited by space constraints.
John Quinn
Help us financially by purchasing from
