A benefit of the research into late eighteenth-century music over the last decade and a half has been the production of editions of symphonies by composers other than Haydn and Mozart. Through such publications, scholars have been given a more complete picture of trends in the symphony before Beethoven, performers have received an abundance of ‘new’ material to consider, and audiences have been introduced to many fine composers and works. Ignaz Pleyel is among those whose historical position until recently has rested almost entirely on his relationship with Joseph Haydn, first as his pupil from 1772 to 1777, then as his press-proclaimed London rival in 1791–1792. But Pleyel's own forty-plus symphonies, composed between 1778 and 1805, were quite popular during the 1790s and early 1800s, and so widely disseminated that Allan Badley suggests they may have ‘exerted a greater stylistic influence on local symphonic production’ in certain places than the works of his two more famous contemporaries (‘Ignaz Joseph Pleyel’, in The Symphonic Repertoire, Volume I: The Eighteenth-Century Symphony, ed. Mary Sue Morrow and Bathia Churgin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), 542). Anton Gabmayer, conductor of Die Haydn Akademie in Eisenstadt, has recently edited three Pleyel symphonies for Edition HH: of the two under review here, the Symphony in C major Ben 121 (identified as in C minor in many sources) was Pleyel's first symphony, completed in 1778 on the heels of his studies with Haydn, while the Symphony in F minor Ben 138 dates from 1786, when Pleyel was serving as assistant Kapellmeister to Franz Xaver Richter at Strasbourg Cathedral; a third, the Symphony in D major Ben 147 (not under review here), was one of the symphonies Pleyel composed for the London Professional Concerts in 1791.

The Symphony in C major includes strings, oboes, horns, trumpets and timpani, and the Symphony in F minor strings, oboes and horns. While it is perhaps inevitable to find Haydn's influence in both works, they exhibit the creativity and individuality of a fine composer whose achievements surpass that of a mere student or imitator. The C major work is indeed reminiscent of Haydn's symphonies, but it also suggests music from the stage. It begins with a dramatic C minor slow introduction (thus its being labelled a C minor work by Rita Benton and others) leading to a tuneful Allegro molto. The adagio second movement in F major features beautiful horn calls and string figuration common to symphonies of the 1770s, and the Minuetto includes a wind-dominated Ländler trio. A bright Presto concludes the work. Of the F minor Symphony, Gabmayer says in his introductory remarks (in English and German), ‘Its source of inspiration is easily identifiable, namely Joseph Haydn's “Sturm und Drang” works of the late 1760s and early 1770s. One could, with good reason, accuse Pleyel of having incorporated his former teacher's mannerisms a little too liberally … but it would be a mistake to regard the work as a mere stylistic copy’ (Introduction, v). Serving as assistant Kapellmeister to Richter, who had composed a number of minor-mode symphonies, is also likely to have inspired Pleyel. Perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that a lovely touch of the symphony's second movement is its frequent short oboe (and horn) solos and duets, sometimes coinciding with a removal of the bass. Is this a nod to Richter's symphonic style? (See Daniel Heartz, Music in European Capitals: The Galant Style, 1720–1780 (New York: Norton, 2003), 522–525.) Another interesting feature is Pleyel's decision to end the F major minuet in the parallel minor, setting up a minor-key rondo finale that withholds the major-mode statement of the main theme until the last forty bars.

Autograph scores are not extant for either of the symphonies. Interestingly, Pleyel did not publish his own symphonies, and instead entrusted the task to the Imbault firm, which published twenty-nine Pleyel simphonies périodiques between 1787 and 1805; the C major and the F minor symphonies were among Imbault's first set of twelve. Modern editions of both were published in 1998 (Ignaz Pleyel, Symphony in C minor (Benton 121), ed. Allan Badley (Wellington: Artaria, 1998), and Ignaz Pleyel, Symphony in F minor (Benton 138), ed. Allan Badley (Wellington: Artaria, 1998)), based on the Imbault prints, and the Capella Istropolitana recorded them shortly thereafter for Naxos (8.554696, 2000). Gabmayer, however, did not base the present editions on the Imbault sources. As he explains with respect to the C major Symphony, Imbault did not include the trumpets and timpani, and the other winds are marked ad libitum; ‘the Imbault publication is, in effect, a string-only version’ (Introduction, v). A publication released by Hummel the year before the Imbault score is the oldest source (Pleyel, Deux Simphonies A Grand Orchestre (Berlin: Hummel, 1786)); a copy survives at the Hohenlohe-Zentralarchiv Neuenstein (Archiv Musikalien Langenburg No. 165), and is listed as Benton document 1403 (Rita Benton, Ignace Pleyel: A Thematic Catalogue of His Compositions (New York: Pendragon, 1977), 27). This earlier Hummel source serves as the model for Gabmayer's edition of the work, despite the editor's observation that it contains ‘a considerable number of errors’ (Introduction, v). The editor lists no additional source as the basis for corrections, but says that they mostly involved the completion of dynamics and articulations. For the F minor Symphony, Gabmayer used a manuscript copy at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Mus.Hs.22718.Mus: Benton 1702, page 54), and as a secondary source an early nineteenth-century print held at Kremsmünster Abbey (Benton 1701, page 54) containing a note that the symphony was performed there on 20 January 1806 (Introduction, v). Gabmayer gives no explanation regarding his reasons for using these two sources for the F minor Symphony instead of the Imbault print (approved by Pleyel), nor any discussion of the relationship of the sources.

Both scores are neatly and clearly printed. Gabmayer provides short introductions to each, containing biographical and historical information and brief descriptions of the works themselves. Very little is written regarding the sources and editorial methods. The editor mentions in the Introduction for the C major Symphony that he made several corrections and choices regarding dynamics and articulations, but avoided ‘Routine duplication of dynamics and phrasing between, for example, wind and string parts’ (v). No editorial information is given in the Introduction of the F major score. The completeness of articulation and dynamics in the C major score indicates a considerable amount of editorial work, which is for the most part astute. Staccatos are indicated uniformly using strokes (inverted teardrops), even under slurs. Some of the dynamics appear out of place, such as mf in the viola part among a prevailing p in bar 63 of the first movement, a viola f in a prevailing p in bar 246 of the same movement, fs amid a p passage in 45–46 of the second movement, and a violin 1 diminuendo in bar 36 of the fourth. Such markings may have been added to the original Hummel parts to reflect a local tradition, but the editor does not offer any notes regarding these curiosities, nor does he in any way indicate editorial intervention except for two sets of dashed slurs in the first movement (violin 1 bars 124 and 277). There are a few other tiny editorial quirks here and there, but a significant problem occurs in the second movement, where the horn parts are mis-transposed throughout: the indication at the beginning of the movement is for horns in F, but the transposition remains in C.

The editorial approach in the F major Symphony is very different from that in the C major. Editorial completions and changes are clearly indicated here – dashed slurs and ties, and other markings in parentheses. It appears, however, that compared to the C major score, the editor was more reluctant to complete articulations where it would have been logical and helpful to do so, particularly in the first movement. Uniformity of staccato marks has been avoided, as both strokes (indicated by wedges) and dots are used. The original Imbault prints contain both, but their use is not always consistent with what appears in this edition, indicating that the manuscript consulted by Gabmayer came from a different source, or was an imprecise copy of the Imbault score. No explanation for the different markings is given, and in many places both markings appear in the same place among different parts (for just one of many examples, see bars 160–166 of the first movement: violin 1 has dots, while violin 2 and viola have strokes). As with the C major score, there are also several (though fewer) questionable dynamic markings and placements, such as rfz markings in the strings on the second quaver in bars 129 and 131 of the finale, rather than more logically on the first quaver (as they appear in the Imbault prints and the Badley/Artaria edition). There is also the rather glaring oversight of a missing bar in the third movement, between the edition's bars 54 and 55.

Unfortunately, then, these editions are of limited value. They lack adequate notes, editorial explanations and source information that would be useful for researchers, and the various mistakes and inconsistencies in the editing of articulations and dynamics make them only marginally beneficial to performers. Nevertheless, Edition HH and Anton Gabmayer are to be applauded for bringing these fine works back into the minds of the musical community, and one hopes that they will continue to publish symphonies by this and other talented yet historically marginalized late eighteenth-century composers.