Obscure Composers Series - Havergal Brian

[Godzillaviolist]

 Interesting tidbit: Stokowski recorded Brian's violin concerto!
 

[Drasko]

Thanks for the link Godzillaviolist

[drogulus]

I hope number four will be put out on Naxos like The Gothic and the violin concerto was...

      Here it is. 

[springrite]

I have 6 or 8 Brian symphonies. So far, I have never gotten into Gothic, for some reason. But I like most of the others, and my favorite is undoubtedly #4. But unlike Ives or Langgaard, his music does not hold my attention throughout. I get distracted or lost in places. The music is definitely interesting, but does not hit me as quite as concentrated, held-together, or integral as the other two composers mentioned.

[lukeottevanger]

I have 6 or 8 Brian symphonies. So far, I have never gotten into Gothic, for some reason. But I like most of the others, and my favorite is undoubtedly #4. But unlike Ives or Langgaard, his music does not hold my attention throughout. I get distracted or lost in places. The music is definitely interesting, but does not hit me as quite as concentrated, held-together, or integral as the other two composers mentioned.

Do you have any of the later symphonies, Paul? - they are the very definition of concentration and integration! Most of them are very brief indeed, pithy, concise, hard-argued works....they are pretty hard to get into, I must admit - for me, no 12 is the last one that is an 'easy listen' (and a very atmospheric one too), but they should certainly hold your attention. But no 8 also, which though a bit longer than these late works is the first of Brian's shorter symphonies, is also a very economical, tautly-argued piece -  all the virtues of the earlier pieces combined with those of the later ones: as I said, my favourite Brian symphony by a short distance.

[Godzillaviolist]

Of the late symphonies, I've only heard number 32, but I must agree with luke's assesment. It's written in a very compact, direct language quite different from the Romantic sprawl of early works. It's a Romantic symphony with all the "Romanticism" removed and the musical ideas are left relatively unadorned.

[drogulus]

      For those interested, this is the current Naxos list for Brian:

      Orchestral
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 12 and 4, 'Psalm of Victory'   8.223447   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 17 and 32 / In Memoriam   8.223481   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 11 and 15   8.223588   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 20 and 25   8.223731   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 2 / Festival Fanfare   8.223790   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 1, 'The Gothic'   8.557418-19   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 18 / Violin Concerto / The Jolly Miller   8.557775   
 
Concertos
BRIAN: Symphony No. 18 / Violin Concerto / The Jolly Miller   8.557775   
 
Choral
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 12 and 4, 'Psalm of Victory'   8.223447   

     

[Godzillaviolist]

      For those interested, this is the current Naxos list for Brian:

      Orchestral
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 12 and 4, 'Psalm of Victory'   8.223447   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 17 and 32 / In Memoriam   8.223481   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 11 and 15   8.223588   
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 20 and 25   8.223731   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 2 / Festival Fanfare   8.223790   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 1, 'The Gothic'   8.557418-19   
BRIAN: Symphony No. 18 / Violin Concerto / The Jolly Miller   8.557775   
 
Concertos
BRIAN: Symphony No. 18 / Violin Concerto / The Jolly Miller   8.557775   
 
Choral
BRIAN: Symphonies Nos. 12 and 4, 'Psalm of Victory'   8.223447   

     

I thought all of the ones on Marco Polo were cancelled?

[DavidW]

I thought all of the ones on Marco Polo were cancelled?

They're being reissued-- the Gothic symphony was just the beginning.

To quote a poster from rmcr again

Through the courtesy of information supplied to another group of which
I am a member by Martin Anderson, a committee member of the Havergal
Brian Society, it appears that the cycle of his symphonies which
stopped rather suddenly will resume in time.

Apparently the plan is that the previous issues, discontinued on Marco
Polo, are to be reissued on Naxos and when that is complete the cycle
will resume...on Naxos.

In fact I see there is an issue out on Naxos now - Symphony No 18, the
Violin Concerto and The Jolly Miller, BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Lionel Friend.  The soloist is Marat Bisengaliev.8557775.

The Violin Concerto is extremely difficult for the soloist (and for the
orchestra, like so much Brian).

When I first met the composer he told me about the violin concerto and
how the original version was lost when he left - or someone stole - his
briefcase containing the score on a train.  It was lost for ever
because it was never handed in.

I asked him: "What did you do?"  He said: "Oh, I just sat down and
wrote it again......"  He did, but it is not an exact copy of the
original lost concerto.  He said that he remembered some of the themes
he had used first time round and these are incorporated but it is not a
"carbon copy" of his first thoughts on the matter.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

[lukeottevanger]

Of the late symphonies, I've only heard number 32, but I must agree with luke's assesment. It's written in a very compact, direct language quite different from the Romantic sprawl of early works. It's a Romantic symphony with all the "Romanticism" removed and the musical ideas are left relatively unadorned.

Absolutely right, though I don't think the language is 'quite different from the...early works' (though I can see why you could say that): in fact, what I find interesting is the fact that the language remains the same, but Brian 'simply' uses it to express himself ever-more succinctly in the later pieces. Rather like Mahler, Brian is recognisably Brian from first work to last, because the basic blocks of his style (certain characteristic rhythms, certain types of melodic motion, certain orchestral habits, bass-driven textures, etc.) remain constant throughout his oeuvre, just as they do in Mahler's. This is why his style is so distinctive; if one can get to grips with these features then the music becomes pretty easy to hang on to - in fact, I think one reason the 8th Symphony stands out for me is that it is a work in which Brian leads the listener into his soundworld rather than expecting them to be there from the off.... the piece works as a series of extreme juxtapositions, notable of lyricism and virility (expressed in violent or martial terms), of stasis and movement, of simple textures and extraordinary teeming contrapuntal pages, and within this unambiguously clear, almost programmtic structure Brian's basic musical habits are more easily apprehended. That's why I recommend it to all Brian neophytes. And btw, in all this discussion of Naxos/Marco Polo Brian releases, the following essential (and easy-to-find) CDs have been overlooked:


(the highly impressive no 3)


(the best introduction IMO - No 7-9, 31 + Comedy Overture)

Promted by this thread, I've been flicking through the first volume of Macdonald's books on the Symphonies (it deals with nos 1-12) for the first time in years, and am being re-dazzled (!) by what I see - such incredible imagination, all expressed in such strongly personal, inimitable terms. Looking forward to listening to some more later tonight!

[vandermolen]

Of the ones I know, Symphonies 1, 3, 6 and 16 (Lyrita LP), 22 (CBS LP),7,8,9 and 10 are my favourites.

We really need CDs of Symphonies 6, 10,16 and 22. No 10 was briefly available on a Unicorn CD but it was performed (very well) by the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. It was the first commercial release of any of Brian's music when it first appeared on LP.

[Godzillaviolist]

Absolutely right, though I don't think the language is 'quite different from the...early works' (though I can see why you could say that): in fact, what I find interesting is the fact that the language remains the same, but Brian 'simply' uses it to express himself ever-more succinctly in the later pieces.

 My statement is not contradictory to yours: the "..." is important. Many of his early works are full of the "Romantic Sprawl" I was referring to.  I consider the early "giantism" to be a characteristic of  his early musical language that disappeared or declined later on.
 Talking about Brian has made me want to listen to the Gothic again!

[D Minor]

The Gothic isn't in D minor - it moves away from that key towards E major.

As a matter of convention, it is proper and accurate to indicate that a composition is in the key of d minor if it opens in that key (i.e., if the 1st movement is in that key).  The first movement of Brian's Gothic Symphony opens in the key of d minor; thus it is proper to indicate that it is a d minor symphony.  It's merely a label . . . . . and in this instance, the label is misleading (for the reasons you note). 

Interestingly, two other symphonies begin in d minor and are ultimately nudged in the direction of E Major:  Nielsen's 4th (The Inextinguishable) and Bruckner's 9th.

[lukeottevanger]

My statement is not contradictory to yours: the "..." is important. Many of his early works are full of the "Romantic Sprawl" I was referring to.  I consider the early "giantism" to be a characteristic of  his early musical language that disappeared or declined later on.
 Talking about Brian has made me want to listen to the Gothic again!

No, your statement isn't contradictory to mine, as I suggested - just a semantic difference in the way we express it. I eliminated the reference to 'giantism' (my '...') because that's precisely where the semantic difference lies - the 'giantism' of the '...' is a primary clause in your definition, and a secondary clause of mine; to sum this up:

You said (in effect):
Brian's concise later works use a different language to the gigantic earlier ones' (the implication being that the 'giantism' constitutes a different language)

I said (in effect):
Brian's concise later works use the same language as the gigantic earlier ones, but in a different way (the impliction being that the 'giantism', and all in entails, constitutes that 'different way' of using the same language)

I just think this tiny distinction sheds some light on the consistent underlying principles of Brian's music, that's all - but as you say, we are in total agreement about things really!

As a matter of convention, it is proper and accurate to indicate that a composition is in the key of d minor if it opens in that key (i.e., if the 1st movement is in that key).  The first movement of Brian's Gothic Symphony opens in the key of d minor; thus it is proper to indicate that it is a d minor symphony.  It's merely a label . . . . . and in this instance, the label is misleading (for the reasons you note). 

Well, you know you are right in that the Gothic is usually classified as Symphony No 1 in D minor. But I think there's a subtle difference between this legalistic classification and the musical truth about the piece, which is why I posted what I originally did. The reason I think it's a relatively big deal is that the progression from D minor to E major is the single most significant harmonic feature of the piece - even more so than a smilar move in a Nielsen or Mahler Symphony. In fact, the Gothic is occasionally classified as two Symphonies, for obviosu reasons (no. 1/2 and no 1!). 'No 1/2' is unequivacally in D minor; but 'No 1' is unequivically not.

Key classifications can be a pretty blunt instrument at times, as this description of the Gothic demonstrates. I'm not just talking about pieces in Nielsen-esque progressive tonality, or Mahler-esque inconsistent tonality (I've yet to be convinced that Mahler's key centres are as carefully planned as Nielsen's, though that doesn't mean they aren't) but also piece like Tchaikovsky's Sixth. We know it's in B minor, and it certainly has the overall aura of a B minor piece - but actually the first movement ends in B major; the last movement is the only movement to end in the minor (an unusual reversal of normal procedure); and the very begining of the Symphony is in E minor, preparatory to the first subject's B minor. So the label of B minor is correct, but nevertheless perhaps somewhat misleading...

Interestingly, two other symphonies begin in d minor and are ultimately nudged in the direction of E Major:  Nielsen's 4th (The Inextinguishable) and Bruckner's 9th.

Yes, but Bruckner's 9th was unfinished; it was ultimately supposed to head back towards D - according to Bruckner's doctor, Richard Heller, it finished with a 'song of praise' in D major, which Bruckner played to him on the piano.

[D Minor]

Well, you know you are right in that the Gothic is usually classified as Symphony No 1 in D minor. But I think there's a subtle difference between this legalistic classification and the musical truth about the piece, which is why I posted what I originally did. The reason I think it's a relatively big deal is that the progression from D minor to E major is the single most significant harmonic feature of the piece - even more so than a smilar move in a Nielsen or Mahler Symphony. In fact, the Gothic is occasionally classified as two Symphonies, for obviosu reasons (no. 1/2 and no 1!). 'No 1/2' is unequivacally in D minor; but 'No 1' is unequivically not.

Key classifications can be a pretty blunt instrument at times, as this description of the Gothic demonstrates. I'm not just talking about pieces in Nielsen-esque progressive tonality, or Mahler-esque inconsistent tonality (I've yet to be convinced that Mahler's key centres are as carefully planned as Nielsen's, though that doesn't mean they aren't) but also piece like Tchaikovsky's Sixth. We know it's in B minor, and it certainly has the overall aura of a B minor piece - but actually the first movement ends in B major; the last movement is the only movement to end in the minor (an unusual reversal of normal procedure); and the very begining of the Symphony is in E minor, preparatory to the first subject's B minor. So the label of B minor is correct, but nevertheless perhaps somewhat misleading...

Yes, but Bruckner's 9th was unfinished; it was ultimately supposed to head back towards D - according to Bruckner's doctor, Richard Heller, it finished with a 'song of praise' in D major, which Bruckner played to him on the piano.

Luke, thanks for your excellent post.  I agree on all points!