Author Topic: Humphrey Searle?  (Read 12345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Harry

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2007, 09:13:39 AM »
I think that Joonas Kokkonen is a kind of atonal composer but I really like his music, especially Symphony 4.

Kind of, but not really. ;D

Robert

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2007, 10:19:39 AM »
I think Searle and Frankel stink, large atonal symphonies as a rule do not work because our ears can't discern thematic developement, rendering these works vacuous and unconvincing.
I think this is a case of wax build-up.....

Offline Charles

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2007, 12:07:01 PM »
I weely weely like Frankel's music ... have the whole CPO box set.

Searle I have the 2 CPO discs also .. I haven't played them in a while but I they were execellent. I would start with the one with symphones 2 + 3 (it's blue).

Whether is 'atonal', or 12-tone shouldn't decide for you whether it can be enjoyable. I usually enjoy serially composed works (if done well) but it depends on the composer and how he writes, the technique does not dictate the style and the sound.

Frankel is more 'emotional', wears his heart on the sleeve if you will.

Searle is more masculine, a bit more foward and jarring, but that doesn't tell the whole picture. The 2nd symphony of Searle and Frankel are both highpoints.

Charles

Harry

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2007, 12:11:16 PM »
Thank you charles. :)

Offline The new erato

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 15484
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2007, 01:26:06 PM »
I think Searle and Frankel stink, large atonal symphonies as a rule do not work because our ears can't discern thematic developement, rendering these works vacuous and unconvincing.

What's wrong with this statement is that you use our ears when you clearly mean your ears.  Otherwise as your opinion this is clearly a valid statement, though I think that the crux of the matter lies not in the technique chosen, but the quality of the composer. Try some of Frank Martins works for example (his symphony). And by the tone of your post you seem to imply that this is a universal statement, denying the possibility that you will think otherwise in the future. If I hadn't any hope of developing my tastes by listening to music I would have given up this hobby years ago, in that case life would be like watching eternal reruns of the same shows on TV. Ah the delight of discovering depths where you previously thought there was none!

Hector

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2007, 04:51:32 AM »
Frankel is not Atonal, and Searle is not either.

And why are you using hate as a word, have you any idea what that means?

These are both serias seriol composers.

If they do not strike you as atonal, fine, after all, serialism does not have to be atonal although a lot of it might sound so.

You like everything. You are not a reliable guide at all. Everything you buy and listen to you recommend.

The CPO Searle might be at a knockdown price but I suspect our friend will not play them that often.

Explore Alwyn, Rubbra and Arnold if you want a truer representation of post-War British symphonic writing.

Searle and Frankel were very much out on their own, although Frankel did manage to include some tunes in his rampant serialism. Good for him!

Offline Christo

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 5487
  • ... an opening of those magic casements ...
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2007, 03:10:38 AM »
I have to admit that I find Searle's music rather turgid but I'm sure that is my loss. I struggle with Frankel but find his music more rewarding.

That could have been my answer - had it not been given by Jeffrey already. Yes, if forced to choose: opt for Frankel instead of Searle. And as Harry urges us to invest in the Violin Concert 'In Memory of the Six Million' (or so) you perhaps better follow his advise and start your quest here.
… music is not only an 'entertainment’, nor a mere luxury, but a necessity of the spiritual if not of the physical life, an opening of those magic casements through which we can catch a glimpse of that country where ultimate reality will be found.    RVW, 1948

Kullervo

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2007, 05:10:42 AM »
That could have been my answer - had it not been given by Jeffrey already. Yes, if forced to choose: opt for Frankel instead of Searle. And as Harry urges us to invest in the Violin Concert 'In Memory of the Six Million' (or so) you perhaps better follow his advise and start your quest here.

Thanks, I'll probably just get both...

Offline Dundonnell

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
  • Edmund Rubbra(1901-86)
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2007, 02:49:37 PM »
I know that this is an old thread but, having only recently joined this forum I am trying to catch up!

I must say that although I do find that Searle's last three symphonies are the proverbial 'tough nuts' I am a great admirer of Nos. 1 and 2. I played both again recently and was struck by the grandeur of much of Searle's writing. The brass in the slow movement of No.2 is splendlidly baleful and imposing(just how I like my music, I must admit!). I was reminded frequently-not of Webern(Searle's teacher) but of that great composer, Bela Bartok.

Yes, I suppose one could enter into a Searle-Frankel comparison but I really hate making what ultimately are invidious comparisons of that sort. Frankel too was a very fine composer-honoured more in Germany than here in Britain although I do remember a Third Programme cycle of his symphonies. Frankel's Second Symphony is one of my favourite symphonies-a quite superb work, in my opinion.

Lyrita will shortly re-release the Boult/Krips coupling of Searle Nos. 1 and 2. It will be interesting to compare these readings again with Alun Francis on CPO. Certainly a reminder of the catholicity of Boult's repertoire in British music and of that fine but little remembered conductor, Josef Krips.

Kullervo

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2007, 07:48:03 PM »
I know that this is an old thread but, having only recently joined this forum I am trying to catch up!

I must say that although I do find that Searle's last three symphonies are the proverbial 'tough nuts' I am a great admirer of Nos. 1 and 2. I played both again recently and was struck by the grandeur of much of Searle's writing. The brass in the slow movement of No.2 is splendlidly baleful and imposing(just how I like my music, I must admit!). I was reminded frequently-not of Webern(Searle's teacher) but of that great composer, Bela Bartok.

Yes, I suppose one could enter into a Searle-Frankel comparison but I really hate making what ultimately are invidious comparisons of that sort. Frankel too was a very fine composer-honoured more in Germany than here in Britain although I do remember a Third Programme cycle of his symphonies. Frankel's Second Symphony is one of my favourite symphonies-a quite superb work, in my opinion.

Lyrita will shortly re-release the Boult/Krips coupling of Searle Nos. 1 and 2. It will be interesting to compare these readings again with Alun Francis on CPO. Certainly a reminder of the catholicity of Boult's repertoire in British music and of that fine but little remembered conductor, Josef Krips.

Thanks for the info. I still have not yet got around to getting his symphonies, but I will.

Offline The new erato

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 15484
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2007, 09:18:45 PM »
I think Searle and Frankel stink, large atonal symphonies as a rule do not work because our ears can't discern thematic developement, rendering these works vacuous and unconvincing.
It doesn't work for YOU because you think thematic development is of paramount importance and overlook the fact that:

- It is possible to have discernible thematic development within a 12-note framework
- Other listeners may have more developed listening skills than you
- Other listeners may place more importance on other elements than themes.

Personally I find a cool beauty in these kind of works (if they're well written) that is very refreshing. This is NOT a comment on Searle, whose music I don't know, but on your sweeping generalization.

 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 02:28:19 AM by erato »

Offline vandermolen

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 22890
  • Location: Rotherfield, Sussex, UK
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2007, 12:58:53 AM »
I know that this is an old thread but, having only recently joined this forum I am trying to catch up!

I must say that although I do find that Searle's last three symphonies are the proverbial 'tough nuts' I am a great admirer of Nos. 1 and 2. I played both again recently and was struck by the grandeur of much of Searle's writing. The brass in the slow movement of No.2 is splendlidly baleful and imposing(just how I like my music, I must admit!). I was reminded frequently-not of Webern(Searle's teacher) but of that great composer, Bela Bartok.

Yes, I suppose one could enter into a Searle-Frankel comparison but I really hate making what ultimately are invidious comparisons of that sort. Frankel too was a very fine composer-honoured more in Germany than here in Britain although I do remember a Third Programme cycle of his symphonies. Frankel's Second Symphony is one of my favourite symphonies-a quite superb work, in my opinion.

Lyrita will shortly re-release the Boult/Krips coupling of Searle Nos. 1 and 2. It will be interesting to compare these readings again with Alun Francis on CPO. Certainly a reminder of the catholicity of Boult's repertoire in British music and of that fine but little remembered conductor, Josef Krips.

I remember Josef Krips well having seen him conduct; a fine conductor. I must listen to Frankel's Second Symphony (which I have somewhere) and you have encouraged me to investigate the early ones by Searle too.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Hector

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2007, 04:57:52 AM »
It doesn't work for YOU because you think thematic development is of paramount importance and overlook the fact that:

- It is possible to have discernible thematic development within a 12-note framework
- Other listeners may have more developed listening skills than you
- Other listeners may place more importance on other elements than themes.

Personally I find a cool beauty in these kind of works (if they're well written) that is very refreshing. This is NOT a comment on Searle, whose music I don't know, but on your sweeping generalization.

 

That is spot on.

Frankel's 1st Symphony has toons!

Searle, I must admit, I struggle with but, hey, this is the man who catologued Liszt's oeuvre and that alone gives him the right to a hearing/listen!

Offline Dundonnell

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
  • Edmund Rubbra(1901-86)
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2009, 07:48:48 AM »
http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//SRCD285.htm

Finally released ;D

Just such a pity that we could not have had the recording of the Searle 1st made by Sir Adrian Boult which was on the Lyrita LP or the recording of Seiber's marvellous setting of the James Joyce 'Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man' which was the coupling on the original Decca LP:( (Decca-I curse you!)
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 12:12:18 PM by Dundonnell »

snyprrr

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2009, 05:07:27 PM »
This is a great time to mention Roger Sessions' Sym. No.3! ;D

nudge, nudge, wink, wink 0:)

Offline Dundonnell

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
  • Edmund Rubbra(1901-86)
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2009, 07:45:47 PM »
Actually, I can see the similarities between Sessions and the Searle of Symphonies Nos. 3-5 ;D I must admit that I find them dense, thorny and intractable too ;D Searle's 1st and 2nd however I can handle and, in fact, I think that both are quite magnificent!

snyprrr

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2009, 11:08:10 AM »
ah...the prick leaves a sting...

I remember when I "flipped," when I went from not being able to stand "thorny" to craving the "punishment" that composers like this love inflicting upon me!

Yes, mistress, I've been a bad boy $:)!!!

However, I draw the line at Lou Harrison's 1960's Symphony on G. If anyone knows this piece, I would love to debate its "merits."  It is a symphony "on" G, not "in" G.  Did I say "1960s"?

snyprrr

  • Guest
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2009, 11:09:34 AM »
Any similarities amoungst the syms. of Searle and Toch or Wellesz?

Offline Dundonnell

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
  • Edmund Rubbra(1901-86)
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2009, 11:47:55 AM »
Any similarities amoungst the syms. of Searle and Toch or Wellesz?

On my way out to dinner :) I shall mull over any similarities while eating my food ;D

Offline Dundonnell

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3596
  • Edmund Rubbra(1901-86)
Re: Humphrey Searle?
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2009, 05:37:39 PM »
Have returned, bloated with too much food and red wine ;D

Similarities between Searle, Toch and Wellesz? Hmm. Toch is a much easier composer to listen to I think-the dissonances are more 'gentle' on the ear, the textures more 'airy'. Wellesz's music divides between the Brucknerian Symphonies Nos. 1-4 and the later serial symphonies which are, I suppose, more akin to later Searle.