Havergal Brian.

[karlhenning]

Perhaps it is Sforzando who can't stand the fact that Brian is getting positive attention from board members? It sounds like to me that he has an inability to accept that Brian's music is gaining admirers.

Speaking as someone who knows (poco) Sfz personally . . . your remark is grasping at straws. (A polite way of putting it, I assure you.)

BTW, thanks for the chuckle, when you asked if had defined genuinely great. Link us up to where you define truly beautiful, there's a good chap.

[Brian]

Perhaps it is Sforzando who can't stand the fact that Brian is getting positive attention from board members? It sounds like to me that he has an inability to accept that Brian's music is gaining admirers.

Why would this be the case? Why would he have a vested interest in people hating Havergal Brian?

Sforzando has a right to write the post he did, in the place he wrote it. It's not an ill-informed attack; it raises legitimate talking-points.

[karlhenning]

Bullshit

Hey, I thought your St Crispin's Day speech allusion witty and an agreeable degree of sentimental.  But then, I do like the Gothic, myself.

[Klaatu]

But say a word against the all-holy Havergal Brian!!!!! and you prove yourself silly (cilgwyn), unserious (Guido), uninformed and unprofessional (Sgt. Rock), facile, rude, and intellectually lazy (Klaatu), truculent and ignorant (Legge), asinine (5against4), self-important (Hatoff), sad but amusing, predictable, pontificating, hopelessly out-of-touch (Luke), and similar ad hominem attacks.

Right, let's get this clear. I have no objection to anyone rubbishing "The Gothic" after giving it a proper hearing - preferably, more than one. But to brush the whole thing off as a "white elephant" after listening to "a bit of it" is facile and intellectually lazy. (I don't remember using the word "rude".)

That's not an ad hominem; it's a simple fact.

Now in your case, Sforzando, you've listened to this music several times, and find it "grandiose, overlong, bombastic, disjointed, and banal". I have absolutely no quibble with this at all, because you've given the work a fair crack of the whip, and therefore your opinion of it is at least as valid as mine, Malcolm Macdonald's, or anyone else's.

At the end of the day, Brian will undoubtedly remain a sidelined composer, because of this one work. Had he written just four of the shorter symphonies - 6, 8, 10 and 16 - he would undoubtedly have been given more credibility as a significant overlooked talent. But The Gothic has been his undoing. For all that I love the work, sometimes I really wish he'd never composed it!

[Mirror Image]

Speaking as someone who knows (poco) Sfz personally . . . your remark is grasping at straws. (A polite way of putting it, I assure you.)

I don't need to know Sfz personally to know that he's contradicting himself with his comments. He may or may not remember his comments to me on the Messiaen thread where I said some harsh things about the composer and his music, but all of a sudden now he's complaining that he's tired of people jumping on other's who have made negative comments about Brian's music? Isn't he doing the same thing when he jumped on me for saying what I did about Messiaen? This is why I can't take his "points" seriously.

[Brian]

I don't need to know Sfz personally to know that he's contradicting himself with his comments. He may or may not remember his comments to me on the Messiaen thread where I said some harsh things about the composer and his music, but all of a sudden now he's complaining that he's tired of people jumping on other's who have made negative comments about Brian's music? Isn't he doing the same thing when he jumped on me for saying what I did about Messiaen? This is why I can't take his "points" seriously.

For that matter, I remember when you barged into this thread yourself and said you thought HB was totally silly for writing an unplayable symphony. Glad you came around

[Mirror Image]

For that matter, I remember when you barged into this thread yourself and said you thought HB was totally silly for writing an unplayable symphony. Glad you came around

But I never said I disliked the piece, did I? I liked the Gothic the first time I heard. In fact when I first bought the Naxos recording, I listened to it about 6 or 7 times in a row.

[Brian]

But I never said I disliked the piece, did I? I liked the Gothic the first time I heard. In fact when I first bought the Naxos recording, I listened to it about 6 or 7 times in a row.

Well, good, but that's not what's at stake here; Sfz has a perfect right to dislike the piece and his post made me want to go back and validate or erase my sudden fear that the symphony really is bombastic.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Sforzando, you know as wel as I that reputations have to be made, they don't grow on trees. Reputations are the outcome of a battle. Brian neglected to further his own cause, although it is uncertain whether he would ever have 'arrived'. Almost no composer ever was welcomed with open arms. Perhaps it is too late to try, retro-actively, to change the face of 20th century music. People are conservative and a change of the artistic landscape which the belated recognition of 'greatness' entails, is a bloody business. It can mean things will have to be seen in a different light.

If Brian's work is viewed as the important contribution to (British) music it is, it will cause a re-evaluation of other composers' works. I regard Havergal Brian as a fascinating and important composer. He has influenced me in my writing. I see similarities between his (late) style and James Joyce's. Brian is also related to J.R.R. Tolkien, another derided writer, in the way he single-mindedly explored his inner world and they share the experience of World War I. I think that if an artist is as divisive as Brian, it means he won't die. And so the battle continues.

Brian is no cult. He simply deserves a place in the canon (if that still has any use) and in the concert-hall (if there will be any in the Decline of the West). I'll do my damnedest to get him into both, by arguing and explaining his merits as cogently as I can.

As for the annoying 'Malcolm' and 'Bob' - the HBS has 216 members, I think. Brian lovers are few and far between. The Brian world is a village still. That's where the shorthand originates.

[5against4]

The last thing i want to do is draw myself into a battle that i really don't think has anything to do with me, but the fact that (poco) Sforzando took a pot-shot means i feel i should at least respond.

i do NOT subscribe to the Havergal Brian "cult" (if such a thing exists). i must admit there are aspects of this entire discussion about the Proms performance that made me have reservations about even joining in in the first place, as i've encountered numerous 'factions' over the years, supporting an assortment of neglected figures in British music, & almost without exception, they have been people with decidedly one-dimensional outlooks. At which point, let me say immediately that i don't know any of the people involved in this Havergal Brian thread, so i wouldn't dare to throw any such accusation their way.

So i am in no way wanting to fan the flames of some delusional "blind love" towards Havergal Brian. i don't know the composer's music at all beyond this one piece. i can't honestly say i'm dying to hear more. i found the 'Gothic' intensely interesting, a fascinating interpretation both of the concept of 'gothic' as well as the notion of what a 'symphony' might be in the early 20th Century. Yes, i called it a "masterpiece" at the end of the article, & it's a word i've been wrangling with ever since i wrote it. But i think i'm prepared to stick by it, simply because it's a work i find myself still going around in circles trying to make sense of. Even if i end up disliking it, i'm grateful for the challenge & the opportunity to have something to grapple with; not many pieces offer that these days. Perhaps in a few years time i might retract my assessment; we'll see.

But i'm saddened to see my attempts to engage with the work deemed 'asinine'. i explicitly did NOT denigrate other reviewers at all (as pocosf claims) - i simply expressed surprise & shock that they hadn't done a bit of homework for what is, after all, more than the usual kind of musical challenge. To denigrate, according to my dictionary at least, is to "criticise unfairly", which i hardly think i did.

Oh, & yes, i myself called Tom Service "asinine", but as i said in the article, that was simply because he was practically getting an erection at the simple massiveness of the 'Gothic', which i continue to find stupid beyond belief.

& that's all i feel inclined to say on the matter. Truthfully, it makes me regret getting involved in this discussion in the first place if a few carefully considered comments can get rounded on with such unwarranted vitriol. It's precisely this kind of behaviour that's always made me steer clear of fora such as these. Perhaps it's time to retreat once more; life really is too short for this kind of senselessly elliptical argument.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

5against4, I am sorry to read your post. I hope you will stick around. It is always important to stay calm and invest only so much energy as is needed. Learn when to ignore. But take valid criticism seriously (when it is there, of course!)

[Brahmsian]

Well, this will be my first post in the Havergal Brian thread.  I was a little curious as to the extensive activity in this thread, but then I remembered that the Gothic Symphony was just recently performed live.

I have not heard a single note of Havergal Brian's music, but I am now more than ever anxious to hear some of his music.   

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Well, this will be my first post in the Havergal Brian thread.  I was a little curious as to the extensive activity in this thread, but then I remembered that the Gothic Symphony was just recently performed live.

I have not heard a single note of Havergal Brian's music, but I am now more than ever anxious to hear some of his music.   

Ha! You enter at a beautiful moment. But do join us! I'll put up some nice pictures shortly.

[karlhenning]

The last thing i want to do is draw myself into a battle that i really don't think has anything to do with me, but the fact that (poco) Sforzando took a pot-shot means i feel i should at least respond.

i do NOT subscribe to the Havergal Brian "cult" (if such a thing exists). i must admit there are aspects of this entire discussion about the Proms performance that made me have reservations about even joining in in the first place, as i've encountered numerous 'factions' over the years, supporting an assortment of neglected figures in British music, & almost without exception, they have been people with decidedly one-dimensional outlooks. At which point, let me say immediately that i don't know any of the people involved in this Havergal Brian thread, so i wouldn't dare to throw any such accusation their way.

So i am in no way wanting to fan the flames of some delusional "blind love" towards Havergal Brian. i don't know the composer's music at all beyond this one piece. i can't honestly say i'm dying to hear more. i found the 'Gothic' intensely interesting, a fascinating interpretation both of the concept of 'gothic' as well as the notion of what a 'symphony' might be in the early 20th Century. Yes, i called it a "masterpiece" at the end of the article, & it's a word i've been wrangling with ever since i wrote it. But i think i'm prepared to stick by it, simply because it's a work i find myself still going around in circles trying to make sense of. Even if i end up disliking it, i'm grateful for the challenge & the opportunity to have something to grapple with; not many pieces offer that these days. Perhaps in a few years time i might retract my assessment; we'll see.

But i'm saddened to see my attempts to engage with the work deemed 'asinine'. i explicitly did NOT denigrate other reviewers at all (as pocosf claims) - i simply expressed surprise & shock that they hadn't done a bit of homework for what is, after all, more than the usual kind of musical challenge. To denigrate, according to my dictionary at least, is to "criticise unfairly", which i hardly think i did.

Oh, & yes, i myself called Tom Service "asinine", but as i said in the article, that was simply because he was practically getting an erection at the simple massiveness of the 'Gothic', which i continue to find stupid beyond belief.

& that's all i feel inclined to say on the matter. Truthfully, it makes me regret getting involved in this discussion in the first place if a few carefully considered comments can get rounded on with such unwarranted vitriol. It's precisely this kind of behaviour that's always made me steer clear of fora such as these. Perhaps it's time to retreat once more; life really is too short for this kind of senselessly elliptical argument.

Most of us appreciate your having joined in.  Nor do I believe that (poco) Sfz's comments were at all directed particularly towards yourself.

And . . . this is quite calm and rational objection.  It does not match at all genuine vitriol which has at times appeared even in this forum.  I think that on the whole, you'll find this a tolerant and intelligent community. Which, again, is why many of us are glad to welcome you.

[Brahmsian]

Ha! You enter at a beautiful moment. But do join us! I'll put up some nice pictures shortly.

Excellent.     I can see there is a lot of hot debate about Brian's music.  I think any discussion of sorts is very good.  I'll admit to have a soft spot for the Brian supporters, as there are sadly many neglected composers, and that is a shame in many cases.  I'll mention my favorite of the neglected, Sergey Taneyev (although to be fair, recordings of his music and his reputation have started to accelerate at a good pace now).

[Guido]

I think you've missed the point slightly Mr. Sfz (I forget if you still like to remain anonymous or not!  )

It's not that I can't hear a bad word said about him - it's the arrogance of dismissing a work of this complexity, strangeness and magnitude after one hearing. I was surprised that none appeared to have heard it before on CD for instance, or familiarised themselves with the rest of his style or oeuvre. I think part of the problem is that Brian can appear to be doing something quite traditional in a rather vulgar, stentorian way, because the music seems so rooted in the 19th century. But it's a red herring: he's really a true modern and it takes time to adjust the ear and stop playing comparison games with Bruckner/Reger et al. The space he inhabits, that is his compositional approach, if not his technique or style is perhaps comparable to Ives and Janacek, i.e. doing strange things with quite traditional materials. And these two were also long neglected and maligned until people realised what they were really doing, how individual they were. I'm not saying Brian is a figure as significant as these two, but I make the comparison only inasmuch as I think his status is comparable to theirs.

I get similarly exasperated when people dismiss Bruckner out of hand (and so many do): having heard one symphony once, so many people I know write off the lot as dull, granitic, prolix behemoths, because they're so strange and slow paced in comparison to his contemporary symphonists, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. It doesn't bother me too much though, because Bruckner has received his due in the wider musical world (certainly not the case for a long time). Mahler also took a long, long time to be fully appreciated (and personally, I think the balance has gone too far in his re-evaluation!).

Again to reiterate, I have absolutely no issue with you if you have listened to it several times like you said, and still find it without a redeeming feature. I actually respect you very much for trying so hard! Just as I have no issue with people rejecting my beloved Ives, Barber, Goldschmidt, Kurtag, Feldman, Schoeck, Ruggles, Janacek, Finzi etc. so long as they have made an effort to engage with the work, and found that it doesn't do it for them. When that is the case, there is nothing to say: it's simply a matter of taste, inclination, background etc.

The reason no one gets upset when Bach or Mozart or Schubert are criticised, is because their status isn't exactly in question: there's not really a discussion to be had. One just looks on in pity, and doesn't concern oneself with what others are missing.

[karlhenning]

The reason no one gets upset when Bach or Mozart or Schubert are criticised, is because their status isn't exactly in question: there's not really a discussion to be had. One just looks on in pity, and doesn't concern oneself with what others are missing.

QFT. For that reason, one doesn't exactly rankle in Beethoven's defense when a rabid Elgar-ophile thinks the English composer a "superior symphonist."

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

My friend Michiel Schuijer and three GMG members, just after the concert.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

The same bunch...

[Mirror Image]

Well, good, but that's not what's at stake here; Sfz has a perfect right to dislike the piece and his post made me want to go back and validate or erase my sudden fear that the symphony really is bombastic.

He has a right to dislike Brian just like I have a right to dislike Messiaen. All is well in the world.