Havergal Brian.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

As you will have gathered, I got my copy of Havergal Brian on Music, vol. 2 today. It makes for fascinating reading, you can apply many things Brian says about others to himself and (some of) his works. Take, for instance, this comment in 1934 about Busoni's mammoth Piano Concerto (p. 160-161) and think of The Gothic:


"A recent study of the score leaves me perplexed as to its lack of popularity, for musicians as a rule respond to beautiful melodies, to sumptuous and richly musical sonorities, to vivid orchestration, and to palpitating rhythms. There is every quality of attractiveness, the movements being built on either dance or march rhythms. Colossal stature or great lenghth may have hindered its performance, for it really is twice as long as most concertos; but the concert-goer, for whom most novelties are produced, does not trouble about size or length. He is only interested in music. He certainly might raise an eyebrow when told to listen to a double-length concerto, but would not worry about the pattern, let it be Mozartian, Brahmsian, or what it may! As a rule he does not know enough about the technique of composition to trouble about it. Who would pay to listen to 'form' when music is about? Lastly, a composer can do what he likes as regards length, provided always that he is intelligible and can hold his listeners. Busoni was much too great a craftsman to become obscure."

[cilgwyn]

Very interesting. You're excerpts made me look up the review of the first book on Musicweb. Unlike some re-printed criticism from the past this looks as if it gets to the matter in hand,instead of the usual self indulgent jokes and pompous grand standing. It's lively,no nonsense writing & if I'm not mistaken,a step up from the usual dry as dust,long winded hectoring,you so often get from this period. In fact,the style of writing strikes me as very 'modern' for the time in which it was written.
I have read some excerpts from HB's journalism before,but is his writing all as eloquent as this? If so,I'm going to have to slap these books on my list!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

The second review is worth reading, too. And yes, there are illuminating pearls scattered everywhere, that either teach you something about Brian or about his subject, or both simultaneously...


http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev//2010/Oct10/Brian_book.htm

[cilgwyn]

Thankyou for the handy link,Johan.

[Dundonnell]

One often tries to economize, of course. Still, there are events for which you pay a premium, and consider it money entirely well spent.

Having missed out in 1966 there was no way I was going to miss this performance

[vandermolen]

Long live NPR!


Jeffrey (vandermolen), Luke and Brian were promming, so they were standing in the Arena. They bought their tickets after the official sale started. Colin, Albion and I bought them earlier (and at a higher cost) through another site...


P.S. Forgot DaveF. Don't know how he got his ticket, though...

I was actually standing in the Gallery at the top of the Albert Hall.  My brother and I met for lunch at c 12.45 at a Polish restaurant in South Kensington and after several Polish beers I was ready for five hours in a queue during bursts of torrential rain. We were in the queue by c 2.00pm and were advised to queue for the Gallery rather than the Arena as we were told that we had much more chance of getting in, as so much of the Arena was taken up by the huge orchestral forces.  Actually we must have been about the 5th and 6th people in the queue - but season ticket holders would have priority.  It was well organised as they gave us numbered cloakroom tickets, so that we could leave the queue for half-an-hour or so (or an hour to attend the talk at the RCM) and retain our places. They were well organised - when it rained heavily a very pleasant young girl appeared to guide us all to a sheltered area for the duration. This was quite different to the 'every man for himself' scenario in the prom queues of my youth!

As for the soloists walking on stage - I rather liked that and only found it distracting in a good way - quite exciting really - like when the percussion section stands up for the closing sections of Shostakovich's 11th Symphony (especially when I was sitting right behind them in the choir stalls at the Festival Hall).

There was a moment of high comedy before the Brian concert started.  My older brother had bought a shooting stick to sit on during the concert - he meticulously assembled it - sat down and toppled straight backwards on to the floor - he wasn't hurt and was the first to comment that it was just as well my daughter wasn't there as she would have had a hysterical giggling fit!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Terrific post, Jeffrey!

[Renfield]

Rather obviously, I wasn't there for the Gothic after all - much to my significant disappointment. On the one hand, I sadly just couldn't afford the London trip the way my finances are at the moment; on the other, even if I could, I had guests.

So you might say I chose being a good host over a personal indulgence. My grandmother, were she alive, would surely have been proud! Either way, though, I was most disappointed for missing the chance to meet all of you in person.


Still, how was it? Historic, obviously, and very likely spectacular. But for those of you who know the piece very well, to say the least, how would you appraise the performance? Did it live up to your musical expectations?

I've little doubt the BBC recording will eventually be issued in some form. Will it be the Gothic, when it is?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Hi, Eugene! For comment and reaction go back to 17th July in these pages. A lot has been said by all those who were fortunate enough to have been present...

[vandermolen]

Rather obviously, I wasn't there for the Gothic after all - much to my significant disappointment. On the one hand, I sadly just couldn't afford the London trip the way my finances are at the moment; on the other, even if I could, I had guests.

So you might say I chose being a good host over a personal indulgence. My grandmother, were she alive, would surely have been proud! Either way, though, I was most disappointed for missing the chance to meet all of you in person.


Still, how was it? Historic, obviously, and very likely spectacular. But for those of you who know the piece very well, to say the least, how would you appraise the performance? Did it live up to your musical expectations?

I've little doubt the BBC recording will eventually be issued in some form. Will it be the Gothic, when it is?

For me it definitely surpassed expectations and it was a greater performance, as far as I can remember, than the Ole Schmidt one of the 1980s, which I also attended in the same venue (though sitting not standing).  Certainly, I now have a much greater appreciation of the Te Deum Part 2 than before.  There was a great atmosphere at the Albert Hall and , of course, it was an added bonus to meet up with Johan, Brian and Colin after the concert in the pub.

[Renfield]

Hi, Eugene! For comment and reaction go back to 17th July in these pages. A lot has been said by all those who were fortunate enough to have been present...

Hi Johan! True enough, I suspect you've taken it apart rather meticulously. However, the reason I'm asking now, rather than closer to the date (nevermind my aforementioned guest situation) is so I can get your 'settled' impressions, as it were.

For me it definitely surpassed expectations and it was a greater performance, as far as I can remember, than the Ole Schmidt one of the 1980s, which I also attended in the same venue (though sitting not standing).  Certainly, I now have a much greater appreciation of the Te Deum Part 2 than before.  There was a great atmosphere at the Albert Hall and , of course, it was an added bonus to meet up with Johan, Brian and Colin after the concert in the pub.

Thanks, Jeffrey. Besides the Gothic, I do envy the pub.

How about the Boult?

[vandermolen]

Hi Johan! True enough, I suspect you've taken it apart rather meticulously. However, the reason I'm asking now, rather than closer to the date (nevermind my aforementioned guest situation) is so I can get your 'settled' impressions, as it were.


Thanks, Jeffrey. Besides the Gothic, I do envy the pub.

How about the Boult?

Well, I wasn't at the Boult as I was only 10 or 11 at the time - although I did attend Wembley Stadium, in the same year, to see England win the football World Cup for the first and last time  .  I have the Boult recording - which I enjoy but with this work it is difficult to compare with a live performance.  I tend to play the Marco Polo/Naxos recording more often because of the more modern recording.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Hi Johan! True enough, I suspect you've taken it apart rather meticulously. However, the reason I'm asking now, rather than closer to the date (nevermind my aforementioned guest situation) is so I can get your 'settled' impressions, as it were.

You crafty beggar, don't want to wade through dozens of pages, eh? Can't blame you... 


My 'settled opinion'? Brabbins gave as the coolest, most meticulous performance so far. Boulez does Brian. Brabbins had everything under firm control - The Gothic became a large, but very efficient machine. This all in retrospect and after several listens, mind you. The sound in the Hall wasn't very good, but the atmosphere was tremendous and so was the spectacle itself. You got carried along. It was all very exciting. But again, what strikes me now is that the Brabbins performance, purely judged on its 'audio', is perhaps a tad too cool for my liking. I have noticed I tend to prefer the Curro (Brisbane), because that performance has the white heat that Brian must have felt when he conceived The Gothic. The chorus struggles a bit in that performance and they don't have the numbers. Nor are the soloists all that good (apart from the bass). [At the RAH the choir lost pitch, too (unavoidable).]  So - Brabbins gives us an x-ray, exposing many details I have never noticed before, Curro the body. I'm simplifying, of course... As for Boult, Schmidt, Lenard - I haven't had the time to listen to them again and really digest the differences. That will take time.

[Renfield]

You crafty beggar, don't want to wade through dozens of pages, eh? Can't blame you... 

Wade through, and piece together! Emphasis on the latter. Also, the above was a remarkably informative paragraph, vs. pages of no-doubt-warranted excitement and esoterica the particular signifance of which I am unlikely to grasp.

My 'settled opinion'? Brabbins gave as the coolest, most meticulous performance so far. Boulez does Brian. Brabbins had everything under firm control - The Gothic became a large, but very efficient machine. This all in retrospect and after several listens, mind you. The sound in the Hall wasn't very good, but the atmosphere was tremendous and so was the spectacle itself. You got carried along. It was all very exciting. But again, what strikes me now is that the Brabbins performance, purely judged on its 'audio', is perhaps a tad too cool for my liking. I have noticed I tend to prefer the Curro (Brisbane), because that performance has the white heat that Brian must have felt when he conceived The Gothic. The chorus struggles a bit in that performance and they don't have the numbers. Nor are the soloists all that good (apart from the bass). [At the RAH the choir lost pitch, too (unavoidable).]  So - Brabbins gives us an x-ray, exposing many details I have never noticed before, Curro the body. I'm simplifying, of course... As for Boult, Schmidt, Lenard - I haven't had the time to listen to them again and really digest the differences. That will take time.

Very interesting. Playing it a little safe, perhaps, given the occasion? Nonetheless, I'm intrigued by the thought of a Boulez-does-Brian Gothic; as I am by how even a carefully-rehearsed choir can't really handle that monster!


Jeffrey, I could probably get away with asking how it compared to the World Cup final, seeing as both involve about the same number of people shouting... Albeit more artfully, in the case of the Gothic.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Wade through, and piece together! Emphasis on the latter. Also, the above was a remarkably informative paragraph, vs. pages of no-doubt-warranted excitement and esoterica the particular signifance of which I am unlikely to grasp.


Very interesting. Playing it a little safe, perhaps, given the occasion? Nonetheless, I'm intrigued by the thought of a Boulez-does-Brian Gothic; as I am by how even a carefully-rehearsed choir can't really handle that monster!


Jeffrey, I could probably get away with asking how it compared to the World Cup final, seeing as both involve about the same number of people shouting... Albeit more artfully, in the case of the Gothic.

I have uploaded two snippets of the performance to my YouTube channel (Jezetha). They give you a flavour. If you haven't seen them already, that is...

[Renfield]

I have uploaded two snippets of the performance to my YouTube channel (Jezetha). They give you a flavour. If you haven't seen them already, that is...

I haven't! Thanks.

[vandermolen]

Jeffrey, I could probably get away with asking how it compared to the World Cup final, seeing as both involve about the same number of people shouting... Albeit more artfully, in the case of the Gothic.

Very funny! Well, at least I got to hear the Brian 'Gothic' live twice - I doubt that I shall live long enough to see England win the World Cup again - maybe, if I live as long as my wife's grandmother who is in her 103rd year!

[Lethevich]

But again, what strikes me now is that the Brabbins performance, purely judged on its 'audio', is perhaps a tad too cool for my liking.

Do you think that this is based on his experience with conducting the later works first? Do you believe the "passion" of the Gothic remains in the later works, or perhaps the conductor has to emphasis clarity simply to render all the complex lines audible and comprehesible?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Do you think that this is based on his experience with conducting the later works first? Do you believe the "passion" of the Gothic remains in the later works, or perhaps the conductor has to emphasis clarity simply to render all the complex lines audible and comprehesible?

A very good question. I started writing an answer, but that got longer and longer... I need time. I'll be back.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I think Martyn Brabbins is a very sober, a very no-nonsense conductor, whatever work he tackles. He reminds me of Thomas Dausgaard and Thomas Sanderling, whose recordings of Langgaard and Magnard, respectively, are also models of clarity. On Brabbins' Brian CD all the performances - of symphonies 10 and 31, the Third English Suite and the Concerto for Orchestra - are marked by a firm grip and an excellent understanding of the structures Brian devises. In Brian's music a conductor must get the intellectual and the emotional component right, Brian the architect and Brian the expressionist, the builder and the man responding to some powerful urge that makes him break his train of thought and suddenly open an unexpected vista. To give us that exciting shock, a conductor must be able to let go, to let himself be carried along, and this is something I slightly miss in Brabbins. With some of Brian's later, 'cooler' works, it pays dividends to be so disciplined, but even in No. 30 I think Brabbins' tempo in the first movement is too upbeat for what is, essentially, rather elegiac and sombre music.


As for The Gothic I think Brabbins gets the first two movements very very well. The climax of the Vivace, though, with that triumphal march and those three amazing chords, sounds rushed. The Te Deum laudamus 4th movement is all but perfect, but the Judex - apart from the difficulties the choir has with intonation - doesn't come off as it should (to these ears): the first orchestral interlude must be slow and processional, but Brabbins is too slow, which robs the music of its menace. And the second interlude must be brisker, and gets to be that only by a sudden accelerando (I don't own a score, though...). The final movement is, overall, excellent. Does The Gothic need that 'white heat' more than the other works? Perhaps. But I am not certain. As I said, everything Brian wrote is a mixture of the (seemingly?) planned and unpremeditated, of construction and fantasy.


In conclusion - I don't think Brabbins has been influenced by his experience of conducting some of Brian's later works. I think he is 'simply' a very consistent conductor.