Havergal Brian.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Yes I've got the 8th. Tried it numerous times. Will try again - does nothing for me. I will put it on straight away. When I have issues with music I always put a Nielsen symphony on the CD player. Now THERE'S  a composer.

I think you prefer orchestral music with clean and clear lines, John. One of your other favourites is Frankel, who is transparency itself.

[John Whitmore]

Well, here's another of those the-composer-must-have-been-an-amateur mistakes I spotted a few days ago. A double-stopped open G-middle C on the violin. The composer? That clodding know-nothing Claude Debussy. And that isn't just difficult, it is positively impossible. Saulian, in fact. Not sure that this relates to my point about Brian, now, in any but a slight way, however - that to judge a composer's capabilities on a few oddities, awkwardnesses or even mistakes is not entirely fair.

You are kidding aren't you? Transpose the C up to D and the job's a good 'un. The fleeting tonal clash might sound good. Is this a Kalmus edition by any chance? Debussy must be dismissed immediately. I will throw my 12 recordings of La Mer in the bin. Utter garbage.

[John Whitmore]

That reminds me of something I thought the other day - 'The Gothic' is always compared with Beethoven's Ninth. But there is another connection to these ears - the Missa Solemnis. The apocalyptic outbursts at the end of the Te Deum are Amériques crossed with the explosion in the final movement of the Missa, 'Agnus Dei', where war and peace are battling it out, too.

I'm going to make Johan's day. I find the Missa Solemnis a crashing bore. The Gothic is much better.

[Luke]

I find the 8th marvellously transparent, myself, more than its companions. It's more like late HB in that respect, but with the most amazing colour and fantasy and teeming complexity like many of the earlier works. Perhaps that is part of why I love it so much - it is echt-Brian. But I also think it is a most radically reductive work, pure symphonism of the highest quality, nothing more.

[Luke]

You are kidding aren't you? Transpose the C up to D and the job's a good 'un. The fleeting tonal clash might sound good. Is this a Kalmus edition by any chance? Debussy must be dismissed immediately. I will throw my 12 recordings of La Mer in the bin. Utter garbage.

   No, it's no misprint. In fact, there is an editor's note which says, effectively 'choose the one you like best'!

It is early Debussy (the piano trio) but that is no excuse.   

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I'm going to make Johan's day. I find the Missa Solemnis a crashing bore. The Gothic is much better.

You aren't...  The Missa is extraordinary.

[John Whitmore]

I think you prefer orchestral music with clean and clear lines, John. One of your other favourites is Frankel, who is transparency itself.

Quite right and very astute Johan. I don't care for clutter or too many notes for the sake of it. Maybe that's why my favourite Sibelius symphony is No.6. I love Janacek, especially the quartets. Love Bliss. Find Bax a bit of a bore. Admire Britten but don't much care much for the music (if you see what I mean). Frankel is very clear indeed. Detest Khachaturian. Above all - Mozart - he WAS good. Gradually becoming more attracted to that old amateur from the potteries who's name escapes me for the moment. We need a film called "Life of Brian" to further boost his reputation.

[John Whitmore]

You aren't...  The Missa is extraordinary.

I'll give it another try straight after the HB 8th. I have the Klemperer knocking around somewhere - it probably runds for around 4 hours.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I'll give it another try straight after the HB 8th. I have the Klemperer knocking around somewhere - it probably runds for around 4 hours.

The Klemperer is awe-inspiring. I have always regarded Beethoven as almost superhuman in this work, just as Shakespeare is at his strongest.


But that's me.

[Luke]

Quite right and very astute Johan. I don't care for clutter or too many notes for the sake of it. Maybe that's why my favourite Sibelius symphony is No.6. I love Janacek, especially the quartets. Love Bliss. Find Bax a bit of a bore. Admire Britten but don't much care much for the music (if you see what I mean). Frankel is very clear indeed. Detest Khachaturian. Above all - Mozart - he WAS good. Gradually becoming more attracted to that old amateur from the potteries who's name escapes me for the moment. We need a film called "Life of Brian" to further boost his reputation.

As in


'It's not The Messiah, it's Havergal Brian's 4th symphony'

?

I find the inclusion of Khachaturian on that list a bit peculiar, merely because so many other vastly more important composers aren't there at all . Still, I suppose if you feel so strongly about him he needs to be mentioned.

As I said above, I can't make head or tail of my own deepest preferences - there is the 'amateur' side of things, the Janacek and Tippett and Brian and late Beethoven and Satie and even Cage side. And there is the 'craftsman' side, Ravel, Bach, Mozart, Britten... And then there are those in between, Enescu, so scrupulously precise and yet so earthy; Brahms, so inexorably perfect but so profoundly passionate; Chopin, who swung between the refinement of the salon and the roughness of the fields...

[John Whitmore]

I find the inclusion of Khachaturian on that list a bit peculiar, merely because so many other vastly more important composers aren't there at all . Still, I suppose if you feel so strongly about him he needs to be mentioned.

I just go red with embarrassment when I listen to Khachaturian. It sounds so banal.

[karlhenning]

What is it with me and my lack of concision...?

Why, that post is the very model of concision. What are you on about, lad? ; )

[karlhenning]

. . . Saulian, in fact.

Oh, harshest of charges! : )

[karlhenning]

Well, for some fleeting seriousness, casting aside the drive-bys . . . the discussion of professional VS. amateur very interesting and one which really invites un-packing. I mean, consider Milhaud: an exemplary professional, and so damned what? A good many of his inarguably professional scores strike me as work-a-day, paint-by-numbers . . . music which says "Who cares if you listen?" more thoroughly than anything I've heard of Babbitt's.

[Luke]

Oh, harshest of charges! : )

But accurate.    Why, did not our Saul make that very same inspired mistake in his own wondrous scores?

[Luke]

Just to clarify this point

I think that Tippett 2 failed due to poor conducting and lack of rehearsal time rather than the messing with bowings but I may be wrong.

At the premiere of Tippett's Symphony No. 2, in London's Royal Festival Hall in February 1958, the performance broke down after the first few pages. The conductor, Adrian Boult, took the blame, but the real problem was that the concertmaster, Paul Beard, had changed all of Tippett's violin bowings, making the part seem rhythmically incomprehensible.

Somewhere (Kemp? Bowen? Whitall?) I've read that not only were the bowings changed but the beamings too. Which makes more sense of the above 'making the part seem rhythmically incomprehensible', because changing bowings itself might not be enough to do this.

[karlhenning]

But accurate.    Why, did not our Saul make that very same inspired mistake in his own wondrous scores?

I fear he did, and your charge is fair beyond reproach.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

'It's not The Messiah, it's Havergal Brian's 4th symphony'

[cilgwyn]

Good point Karl. I've never heard a score by Milhaud that didn't sound utterly banal. At the same time I find Ravel dreary and unappealing despite the fact that he's obviously a master. Terrible of me,eh?
By the way,what are you're favourite Brian scores,if any,John?

[Luke]

Ravel? Dreary? Fie and shame!