Giovanni Sgambati - Symphony No.2 in E-flat (1885) 

Grazie delle spiegazioni. Anche io lo considero un ottimo musicista. Belle anche le composizioni pianistiche.

Sono d'accordo

Phil Homes - I agree 100%. I’ve never heard anything by Sgambati that didn’t make me (hell) compel me to come back and hear it again and again. That’s what Brahms used to do to me when I was a kid. I like Martucci and Casella also but I love Sgambati’s music.

L'opera è un mix tra composizioni strumentali e vocali

@@marssta3658 Hei...Non generalizziamo.Sono due cose distinte.Molto ben distinte.

@@fulviopolce9785 cazzata... Basta il barocco italiano per sotterrare qualunque scena strumentale europea allora. Ma davvero pensi che l'Italia sia bellini e donizzetti? La musica strumentale italiana oltre ad essere la base della classica ha prodotto talmente di quella roba che è semplicemente inattaccabile. Sammartini credo che basti con le sue 70 sinfonie. Il padre della sinfonia Moderna ad oscurare qualunque merda uscita dopo. Ascoltate musica italiana. Punto. I padri di qualunque cosa dal piano alla sonata al concerto alla sinfonia sono compositori italiani. L'Italia infatti è la culla della musica classica

@@fulviopolce9785 la Germania NON È la culla di nulla. L'Italia è. Tu sei un altro di quei cretini che esaltano la musica estera. Senza sapere che deriva da quella italiana povero cesso che sei.

@@marssta3658 chi ha detto della Germania.povera ignorante che sei. Gli insulti tienili per te.

Well, Aram, YOUR second one is a masterpiece as well, I'd say ;)

Dear J.L., I am the conductor of this Symphony that I reconstructed . You have said a bitter truth: Orchestras and Concert Societies they are afraid they will not fill the halls without known names and then some masterpieces like this remain unkown to public. Francesco Attardi

Francesco Attardi, I am honored indeed to correspond with you, sir. I am indeed in your debt. Music is something I desired as a child, but had no access, even to listen, until later in life. Those of you who have the ability to make such beautiful music are a blessing to those of us who can only listen and enjoy. Thank you for bringing this gem to life. I shall look for your name in the future as I purchase music. Any recommendations would be more than appreciated. jlc

I think I speak for a lot of us when I say that I'm very thankful you recorded this piece! I would be very interested in whatever recordings of Giovanni Sgambati you have done! As well as other composers.

dear Mr Callison, Sgambati was born to a British woman, his grandfather was a famous sculptor, Joseph Gott, who settled in Rome. Sgambati grew up with an Anglo-Saxon education. I tried to make known Sgambati in England and America, but unfortunately there is the prejudice that Italian music is just Operatic

So very unfortunate! Thank you, sir. I shall watch for more with bated breath. While it is true there is much wonderful Italian opera, there is so much more great music to be enjoyed than just opera. I applaud your efforts.

Fred Coleman Indeed it is, now we only need his Epitalamio sinfonico.

tedwilks My ears, and the comment from the publisher of this score tell me that the initial material of the first movement is in the minor mode, and it is from that that a key designation for the entire work is made.

James Levee I don't disagree with you. How about a compromise? Let's use Kuhlaudilfeng's decription of simply "E-flat" and leave unstated the matter of minor or major? By failing to state the matter explicitly perhaps Sgambati knew exactly what he was doing! Ted

It would be interesting to see exactly what, if anything, Sgambati himself had to say on the issue.

+tedwilks According to imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Giovanni_Sgambati the key is E flat minor/major :-)

Generally speaking, the tonality is the key of the first movement. The first movement is most definitely in E-flat minor. Major key resolutions at the end don't go into the nomenclature.

Exactly, sure!

abdul7591 Nope, it's from an italian music magazine, Amadeus. You can get it here www.ezpress.it/riviste.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=3299

What do you mean exactly? I found that website but my search for "sgambati" had no result.

It is with the Number of March 2015: www.belviveremedia.com/shop/edicola-arretrati/amadeus-arr/marzo-2015

Williams and Zimmer aso are unbelievably overrrated. But Sgambati has colours enough, so why combine him with Hollywood trash?

.

James Levee Thanks, Kuhlua - been wanting to hear this.

According to the score, the person who created the edition admits that the symphony starts out in the minor mode, but ends in the major. Unfortunately, by convention, unless there is a compelling reason I don't hear in this case, if it starts out in the minor mode, you say it's in the minor mode. The principal theme of the opening Agitato (after the introduction) is in the minor mode, ergo...

@@JAMESLEVEE I’m not convinced it’s that definitive, and honestly I think just calling it “in E flat” is the right move. Yes, the introduction is in E flat minor/ G flat Major (it’s relative Major), and yes the first theme opens in E flat minor. But, the second theme group is pretty convincingly in B flat Major/G minor, which is far more closely related to E flat Major than E flat minor. Furthermore, after the development section (during which the music comes flirtatiously close to E flat Major a couple of times), the music settles strongly on E flat Major; thereafter the music only returns to E flat minor ONCE for a few seconds during the remainder of the movement, and only to recapitulate the first theme, after which the movement ends convincingly in E flat Major. I realize these comparisons aren’t completely one for one, but Beethoven’s Fourth and Mahler’s First both open definitively in the minor mode and end in the major, and both symphonies are referred to in the major. The only real difference between this first movement and those is that those first movements settle on the major for the first theme after the introduction, whereas this movement keeps it’s first theme in the minor. In spite of that, the direction of the movement is still clearly toward E flat Major, and the last leg of the movement is solidly in E flat Major with the singular exception of the recap of the first theme, which immediately gives way to E flat Major again after only a few seconds. Could you argue convincingly it’s in E flat minor? Formally, yes. But, I think there is plenty of good reason to take that argument with a pinch of salt. I think these reasons are compelling enough to at least question this conclusion.

@@themajor2072While you make some valid observations, my point still remains valid. First, while both the Beethoven 4th, and Mahler 1st have minor (or minor inflected, in the case of the Beethoven) key introductions, the main body of the movement is definitely in the major mode. As I mentioned in my comment, the modality of the first theme dictates the nomenclature of the work. That is why, beyond the Mahler and Beethoven, Haydn's 98th and 104th Symphonies are both in the major key of the principal themes of the first movements, despite tonic minor-key introductions. Likewise, even though Mendelssohn's 5th Symphony starts with a slow intro in D Major, the main body of the movement starts in D minor, and is centered around the minor modality. As far as the secondary group's theme is concerned, it is true tha Sgambati moves toward the dominant, rather than the relative major. Again, reference Mendelssohn, this time the1st Piano Trio, where he goes to the dominant as well. Yet the key is well established to be D minor. As far as the ending of the first movement, reference Haydn's Hen Sympnony (No. 83 in G minor), or for that matter, any of Haydn's minor key symphonies after his 40s.. After recapitulating the primary material, he pretty much stays in G Major for the rest of the movement, once the secondary material is reprised, thus maintaining symmetry with the exposition. So, no, I don't find your argument for calling the key E-flat Major that compelling.

@@JAMESLEVEE Firstly, let’s get one thing straight; I’m not calling for the key of E flat Major, rather I am arguing that the mode of the work not be distinguished by the title at all. That is to say, the title should be “Symphony in E flat”, not “Symphony in E flat Major” or “Symphony in E flat minor”. Secondly, I understand that you are designating the key of the work to the modality of the principal theme in the sonata structure, and am familiar with the examples you cite. However, I think it worth noting that none of those examples are quite the same, each movement (except Haydn 83, I’ll get to that) ends in the mode established by the first subject. You mentioned that you would make exceptions to works that provided a compelling reason to analyze their tonal structure differently, and there are definitely instances where this approach is warranted. Nielsen’s Fourth, for instance, does not (and should not) designate a key center in its name; or, for another example, Mahler does not designate a key for his Fifth, Seventh, or Ninth symphonies (and I think this approach is warranted). With that in mind, I think it worth making a distinction between what Sgambati is doing and what Haydn does in Symphony No. 83 and I think that the Sgambati should be named differently because the musical form behaves differently. Haydn approaches the modulation to the Major with a very classical approach to tonality, whereas Sgambati is clearly post-Beethoven in thinking of the symphonic form in terms of a struggle from one modality to another. The difference between this movement and the opening movements of Beethoven’s Fifth or Ninth, however, is that this movement both ends in the parallel Major and, unlike Haydn, is heading in that direction for most of the movement. As you yourself say, Haydn modulates only after a thorough recap of the opening subject, and he does so both abruptly and without foreshadowing G Major at any prior point in the work. Haydn did not think of his movements in these more progressive terms (as in, being the struggle and progression from the minor to the Major, not “progressive tonality”), and he does not prepare the modulation, he really only modulates at all to match the symmetry of the exposition and to end with a “stronger” cadence in the Major (something composers had been doing for a long time with the Picardy Third). This symphonic movement, on the other hand, has a progression away from E flat minor and towards E flat Major, and the tension in the development stems from the uncertainty of which mode will eventually dominate. It ends in E flat Major, it takes about 45 seconds total to recap the material in E flat minor (at 7:00 and about 10:00) whereas everything else in the recap is in the Major, including everything in the coda except the statement of the first subject (again, about 10:00). Both have second subjects in B flat Major, but in the Haydn it serves as the relative Major (the traditional choice for a minor sonata movement) whereas in this work it is in the Dominant (the traditional choice for a sonata in the Major, and in this instance it is the recap of this subject that signals the transition to E flat Major, and the subject Sgambati takes the most time for in the recap by far). To be fair, you are right to point out that the first Agitato theme is in the minor, and it is even recapped in the minor, but unlike the Haydn where the modulation is a quick pivot into the Major at the end, the conflict between Major and minor is absolutely central to this movement’s structure. Yes, Mendelssohn also used the dominant (A Major) in the first piano trio, but Mendelssohn then moves into A minor and back to D minor before heading into the development section, he later uses A Major to segue from the development back into D minor for the recap, and most pertinently of all the movement ends decisively in D minor. The important distinction is that Sgambati actually ends in the Major mode, and Haydn is the only example you mentioned that actually does this. But, Haydn never once implies G Major before he makes an abrupt modulation halfway through the recap, whereas Sgambati is being pulled either in the direction of E flat Major or minor for the entire movement. In Haydn, G minor is the direction of the movement up to the recapitulation, it is where the arc of the development leads, and he only pivots at the very end to resolve in the Major and to create symmetry in the exposition and the recap. In the Sgambati, E flat Major is the direction of the whole movement, and the harmonic tension derives not from the journey back to the tonic, but rather the tension between the two modes that the tonic could end up in. What I’m arguing is that the distinction is in why the composer ends in the Major, and how the composer gets from the minor to the Major. Haydn did not think of his symphonic movement in terms of progressing or struggling from the minor to the Major in the romantic (i.e. Post-Beethoven) sense. For that matter, neither did Beethoven, or Mendelssohn, at least not like this. The first movement of the Reformation Symphony ends in the minor, just like the opening movements of Beethoven’s Fifth and Ninth. But Sgambati doesn’t just juxtapose Major and minor modes, he actually succeeds in ending in E flat Major in the very first movement, unlike Beethoven and Mendelssohn. This fact, coupled with the fundamental difference in approach between Sgambati’s more romantic style and Haydn’s more classically conventional MO, I think it misleading to call the work in E flat minor, there is not only not a single movement of the work that ends in E flat minor, but even the first movement puts an emphasis on the transition from minor to Major that Haydn simply didn’t. I am personally most satisfied with the title “Symphony in E flat”, but that’s just my two cents.

Insist he leave at once so you can enjoy the music!