Uploaded September 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Orchestre de la Suisse Romande conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Moderato alla breve (𝅗𝅥 = 66) - Tempo agitato senza troppo accelerare (𝅘𝅥 = 132-44) - Tempo I (𝅘𝅥 = 132): 0:00
II - Larghetto concertante (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 50) - Doppio movimento - Doppio valore - (attacca): 9:49
III - Allegretto (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 104) - Meno mosso (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 78) - Tempo I. Allegretto (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 104): 16:22
IV - Adagio (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 50) - Tempo giusto, alla breve (𝅗𝅥 = 84) - Largo (𝅘𝅥 = 60-6) - A tempo (𝅗𝅥 = 84): 21:19
Stravinsky's Symphony in C was composed between January 1938 and August 1940, being commissioned by Robert Woods Bliss for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to celebrate its 50th anniversary. It was premiered on November 7 of 1940, performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Stravinsky. The piece was infrequently performed in the composer's lifetime; Stravinsky noted that for several years he was the only person conducting the work. It was choreographed by Martha Graham in the late 1980s. She named the result "Persephone" in ironic reference to another major work by Stravinsky.
The piece was composed in a dramatic period of Stravinsky's life; his new works were being poorly received in France, as his brand of neoclassicism was not liked for the French audiences of the time, and he became the target of increasingly hostile criticism in major publications. In addition, between 1938-9 his eldest daughter, wife and his mother died, the latter two by tuberculosis. Stravinsky also caught the illness. With the beginning of World War II in September 1939, the composer decided to emigrate to the United States. It was while holding music lectures at the Harvard University where he completed the symphony. Stravinsky described the piece as classical in spirit, denying any connection with the events in his personal life and the world.
Looking at Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven as models for inspiration, the work employs more traditional structures, harmonic schemes and a more modest orchestration, all while still sounding characteristically Stravinsky. Stylistic differences can be heard between the first two movements, written while still in France, use more traditional rhythmic patterns and harmonizations. The last two, written after arriving to the United States, use frequent modulations of rhythm and are much more chromatic. Much of the symphony’s thematic material is built out of the three-note motif B-C-G, heard right at the outset. It is transposition of a chord in the final movement of Stravinsky’s earlier Symphony of Psalms (1930).
The first movement is structured in the classical sonata form. It begins with a rhythmic and agitated introduction that presents the three-note motive, which in turn seems inspired by the famous fate motive that permeates Beethoven's Symphony No.5. The alternation between C major and E minor, also heard in the outset, harmonically structures most of the movement. The main allegro then starts with an elegant and graceful main theme in C major, presented by the oboe and clearly derived from the introduction material. After a substantial modulatory transition, the second theme in F major is more melodic in nature, supported by a pervasive ostinato figure and ending with an E minor cadence after several modulations.
The development section focuses onto the main theme, with some transitional material included. It begins with a transformation in A major, moving to D major, D minor, G major. Then back to C major an A major, before then modulating to E-flat major, E-flat minor, back to C major, then E minor, G major. A climax is reached in a dramatic outburst in E-flat minor, before an E-flat major transition leads to the recapitulation of the main themes in C major. The only major divergence is that the transition material is juxtaposed with the second theme. After a sudden pause, a G minor coda seems to quietly end the movement, before C major chords are violently hammered down.
The second movement is structured in ternary form. It opens with a lyrical main theme in F major introduced by the oboe, supported by strings and also derived from the three-note motive. Then starts a G minor canon between flute, oboe and clarinet, which leads to the expressive unravelling of the material and also incorporates Stravinsky's characteristic frequent changes of rhythm. A Roccoco-like transition from strings leads to a short repeat of the first part. The central section starts with an agitated and dramatic second theme in D minor, offering great contrast as it modulates to F-sharp major. The main theme is then recapitulated with exchanges between woodwinds, ending the larghetto with a link to the next part.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section].
Picture: Portrait of Igor Stravinsky (1915) by French painter Jacques-Émile Blanche.
Sources: tinyurl.com/22dksvxp and tinyurl.com/23d2tr85
To check the score: tinyurl.com/29zsknra
Orchestre de la Suisse Romande conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Moderato alla breve (𝅗𝅥 = 66) - Tempo agitato senza troppo accelerare (𝅘𝅥 = 132-44) - Tempo I (𝅘𝅥 = 132): 0:00
II - Larghetto concertante (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 50) - Doppio movimento - Doppio valore - (attacca): 9:49
III - Allegretto (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 104) - Meno mosso (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 78) - Tempo I. Allegretto (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 104): 16:22
IV - Adagio (𝅘𝅥𝅮 = 50) - Tempo giusto, alla breve (𝅗𝅥 = 84) - Largo (𝅘𝅥 = 60-6) - A tempo (𝅗𝅥 = 84): 21:19
Stravinsky's Symphony in C was composed between January 1938 and August 1940, being commissioned by Robert Woods Bliss for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to celebrate its 50th anniversary. It was premiered on November 7 of 1940, performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conducted by Stravinsky. The piece was infrequently performed in the composer's lifetime; Stravinsky noted that for several years he was the only person conducting the work. It was choreographed by Martha Graham in the late 1980s. She named the result "Persephone" in ironic reference to another major work by Stravinsky.
The piece was composed in a dramatic period of Stravinsky's life; his new works were being poorly received in France, as his brand of neoclassicism was not liked for the French audiences of the time, and he became the target of increasingly hostile criticism in major publications. In addition, between 1938-9 his eldest daughter, wife and his mother died, the latter two by tuberculosis. Stravinsky also caught the illness. With the beginning of World War II in September 1939, the composer decided to emigrate to the United States. It was while holding music lectures at the Harvard University where he completed the symphony. Stravinsky described the piece as classical in spirit, denying any connection with the events in his personal life and the world.
Looking at Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven as models for inspiration, the work employs more traditional structures, harmonic schemes and a more modest orchestration, all while still sounding characteristically Stravinsky. Stylistic differences can be heard between the first two movements, written while still in France, use more traditional rhythmic patterns and harmonizations. The last two, written after arriving to the United States, use frequent modulations of rhythm and are much more chromatic. Much of the symphony’s thematic material is built out of the three-note motif B-C-G, heard right at the outset. It is transposition of a chord in the final movement of Stravinsky’s earlier Symphony of Psalms (1930).
The first movement is structured in the classical sonata form. It begins with a rhythmic and agitated introduction that presents the three-note motive, which in turn seems inspired by the famous fate motive that permeates Beethoven's Symphony No.5. The alternation between C major and E minor, also heard in the outset, harmonically structures most of the movement. The main allegro then starts with an elegant and graceful main theme in C major, presented by the oboe and clearly derived from the introduction material. After a substantial modulatory transition, the second theme in F major is more melodic in nature, supported by a pervasive ostinato figure and ending with an E minor cadence after several modulations.
The development section focuses onto the main theme, with some transitional material included. It begins with a transformation in A major, moving to D major, D minor, G major. Then back to C major an A major, before then modulating to E-flat major, E-flat minor, back to C major, then E minor, G major. A climax is reached in a dramatic outburst in E-flat minor, before an E-flat major transition leads to the recapitulation of the main themes in C major. The only major divergence is that the transition material is juxtaposed with the second theme. After a sudden pause, a G minor coda seems to quietly end the movement, before C major chords are violently hammered down.
The second movement is structured in ternary form. It opens with a lyrical main theme in F major introduced by the oboe, supported by strings and also derived from the three-note motive. Then starts a G minor canon between flute, oboe and clarinet, which leads to the expressive unravelling of the material and also incorporates Stravinsky's characteristic frequent changes of rhythm. A Roccoco-like transition from strings leads to a short repeat of the first part. The central section starts with an agitated and dramatic second theme in D minor, offering great contrast as it modulates to F-sharp major. The main theme is then recapitulated with exchanges between woodwinds, ending the larghetto with a link to the next part.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section].
Picture: Portrait of Igor Stravinsky (1915) by French painter Jacques-Émile Blanche.
Sources: tinyurl.com/22dksvxp and tinyurl.com/23d2tr85
To check the score: tinyurl.com/29zsknra





![Symphony No.1 in A-flat major - Edward Elgar
London Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Georg Solti.
I - Andante. Nobilmente e semplice - Allegro - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso - Tempo I - Poco animato - Grandioso (Tempo I) - Meno mosso - Poco più mosso - Tempo I - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Allegro molto - (attacca): 17:48
III - Adagio - Molto espressivo e sostenuto: 24:55
IV - Lento - Allegro - Grandioso (poco largamente): 37:11
Elgars Symphony No.1 was composed between June 1907 and September 1908. It was premiered on December 3 of 1908, performed by the Hallé Orchestra conducted by Hans Richter. The work was very-well received and was performed more than a hundred times the first year, being considered by many as the first great English symphony. Elgar, who for ten years was unsure to write a symphony, was then considered as the most important composer of the period in England.
Elgar’s only public statement about the meaning of his symphony was that There is no program beyond a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a massive hope in the future. He also told one friend that it was a reflex or picture or elucidation of his life and to another he confided I am really alone in this music. The symphony is ambitious in scale and scope, with a complexity that was quite new for Elgar at the time, despite the vast choral canvasses he had already achieved. Musically, the work’s style was influenced by Wagner, constructed on a web of interrelated themes and motives.
The first movement is structured in an expansive sonata form. It begins with a slow introduction, with a noble and solemn theme that is quietly introduced by violas and wood before taken by full orchestra. This theme will reappear through the whole work. The main allegro opens with a passionate and nervous main theme on strings and woods, passing to the horns. It is contrasted by a lyrical and tender second theme, constructed over three motives on multiple instruments. The main theme is brought back and is answered by a menacing brass motive. The calm reappearance of the noble opening theme leads us to the extensive development section, which veers between the intensely dramatic and the deeply lyrical, culminating in a central climax. The noble theme on cello and horn leads us to the recapitulation of the main themes. The main theme is repeated, answered again by the ominous brass motive. The opening theme reappears once more at the end of the movement, at first only played by the last desks of the string section amid fragmentary reminiscences of other themes. A slow coda ends with a quiet reminiscence of the fateful motif.
The second movement is a scherzo structured as a sonata-rondo. It opens with an agitated and rushed main theme on strings, which is the reversed version of the noble opening theme. It is followed by an imperious and sinister march as a second theme, reminiscent of Elgars own Pomp and Circumstance marches. The trio section features a lyrical theme of pastoral nature on the woodwinds. The scherzo is then continued, before the trio material reappears in form of a development, to which the scherzo material is soon added. The music gradually calms down, with hints of the noble theme, leading us directly into the adagio.
The third movement is very free in form. It begins with a deeply lyrical main theme on strings, derived from the main theme of the scherzo (which was the reversed version of the opening noble theme). It is unfolded in a contemplative manner, lacking any dramatic or yearning outburst. Several other ideas and motives are introduced, which impulse a flowing and seamless development. Violins introduce a second melodic theme, which hardly brings contrast but compliments the main one as it romantically unfolds and reaches an expressive climax. The main theme is recapitulated in the central part, followed by the series of motives. In the extensive coda, a new lyrical theme is introduced by strings, recalling the famous Nimrod variation from the Enigma Variations. It is actually, once again, a cunning reworking of the first movement’s opening theme. The movement ends with great serenity.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: Whitby - The Abbey of St Hilda (1913) by the English painter Albert Goodwin.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/28xoyhd9 and https://tinyurl.com/2cyrmmpr
To check the score: https://tinyurl.com/24qrarmk Symphony No.1 in A-flat major - Edward Elgar](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6zo_rUjAQhg/mqdefault.jpg)


![Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev
Scottish National Orchestra conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Allegro ben articolato - Poco meno mosso - Meno mosso - Tempo primo - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso. Tempestoso - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Theme and variations: Tema. Andante (11:47) - Variation I. Listesso tempo (13:24) - Variation II. Allegro non troppo (15:21) - Variation III. Allegro (17:59) - Variation IV. Larghetto (20:00) - Variation V. Allegro con brio (23:52) - Variation VI. Allegro moderato (26:32) - Più mosso - Più mosso. Con precipitazione - Assai meno mosso - Tema. Andante molto, doppio movimento (31:05)
Prokofievs Symphony No.2 was composed between 1924-5, written as a response to the prevailing modernist musical trends in Paris; style mécanique, unbridled dissonance and extreme complexity. The composer was no longer considered the daring avant-garde as in pre-war Europe, so he feared his music was becoming old-fashioned, but the symphony failed to achieve its purpose. It was premiered in Paris on June 6 of 1925, conducted by Serge Koussevitzky (to whom the score is dedicated) as part of his Paris series of concerts. The piece had an ambivalent reception, failing to gain the success the composer expected.
The symphony went on to be performed in the Soviet Union on June 6 of 1928 in Leningrad, and on 30 November 30 of 1934 in Moscow, conducted on both occasions by Alexander Gauk. In a letter to his friend Myaskovsky, Prokofiev admitted to not fully understanding the work himself, as well as having doubts about his ability as a composer for the first time in his life. The work, unlike the popular classical symphony, never secured a comfortable foothold in the orchestral repertoire, being only sporadically performed and recorded. In 1953, Prokofiev projected a substantial revision of the work, planning to transform the piece into a three-movement symphony. Unfortunately this came to nothing with his death on March 5 of that year.
Technology and machines, the idols of the new age, pressurized into music. Thus, the symphony is a typical child of its time: as far as content is concerned closely linked to the prevalent uncritical faith in machinery, radical progressive thinking, and almost naive enthusiasm for technology. Prokofiev may have been inspired or influenced by Honeggers Pacific 231, the orchestral work about the locomotive whose premiere Prokofiev attended on May 8 of 1924. Prokofiev characterized this symphony as a work of iron and steel, formally modelled after Beethovens Piano Sonata No.32. Much later on, contemporary composer Christopher Rouse called it the best of all of them, and wrote his own Symphony No. 3 (2011) in homage to the piece.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with fierce trumpet fanfares, which leads to a forceful and violent first theme on full orchestra, constructed over several repeating rhythmic motives (ostinati). The music is characterized by the abundance not only of ostinati, but also textural thickness, polytonal dissonance and near-constant forward momentum. The music reaches a brief but intense climax, followed by a syncopated transition dominated by strings, piano and woods. Then a harsh and menacing second theme is introduced in form of a dissonant polytonal chorale, introduced by brass over wood ostinati figures, leading to an agitated and nightmarish second climax.
This musical onslaught to the ears is briefly stopped at the beginning of the development, with double basses and low brass with martial ostinati that are the root of the material. These are contrapuntally developed as more instruments are added, up to seven different voices as we reach a riotous and acid climax. The material is then vigorously recapitulated, growing into another nightmarish climax with the second theme. Both then are put in counterpoint in the opening of the frantic and dissonant coda, before ending with a sequence of baleful D minor brass chords, with no real sense of triumph or victory.
The second movement is written as a theme and variations. It opens with undulating strings, over which a melancholic and lyrical main theme is presented by the oboe. The first variation is in the same tempo and continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by the addition of ostinato figures on woodwind and strings. The second variation is more rhythmic and animated, with ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings. The music build to a grotesque and dissonant climax, before returning to the previous section. The third variation is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the themes steady unfolding in the depths.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: Two Heads (1925) by the Russian artist Pavel Filonov.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/24edo8pb
To check the score: https://tinyurl.com/2xvky22b Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8MaC62Lc71s/mqdefault.jpg)

