Havergal Brian.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

There's a surprise. You are a total addict. (...)

It's called love, John, not addiction...    Before you go on to those symphonies, have you ever listened to Malcolm MacDonald's excellent introduction to Brian (with excerpts)? If not, I recommend it! (right-click and save)


http://www.havergalbrian.org/hb_mm.mp3

[John Whitmore]

It's called love, John, not addiction...    Before you go on to those symhonies, have you ever listened to Malcolm MacDonald's excellent introduction to Brian (with excerpts)? If not, I recommend it! (right-click and save)


http://www.havergalbrian.org/hb_mm.mp3

I will listen to it. I recall this bloke's name - he wrote a huge review (a couple of pages long) of the Unicorn 10/21 in (I think) Records and Recording magazine and said it was the most significant release of 1973. Did you see it? It's in my loft somewhere so I can dig it out and scan it if you like.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

MM is the undisputed Brian expert, and the link is to an illustrated talk... As for his review, no need to dig, I think I can find it on JSTOR! And may already have read it...

[cilgwyn]

Back to Brian,as it should be. My sincere apologies for,briefly, turning this into a Daniel Jones thread (Sorry Johan) & Dundonnell's discreet & rewarding link to the appropriate thread!!!! The mod on that message board I used to use would NOT have been so polite.
Haven't heard Malcolm Macdonalds illustrated talk. I would love to hear this too.
  Brian got a review several pages long in Records and Recording? That must have been a good magazine! Those were the days....

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Back to Brian,as it should be. My sincere apologies for,briefly, turning this into a Daniel Jones thread (Sorry Johan) & Dundonnell's discreet & rewarding link to the appropriate thread!!!! The mod on that message board I used to use would NOT have been so polite.
Haven't heard Malcolm Macdonalds illustrated talk. I would love to hear this too.
  Brian got a review several pages long in Records and Recording? That must have been a good magazine! Those were the days....

A thread can veer off, that's no sin. Btw, it's our very own Dundonnell (Colin), who as a mere 16-year old alerted his friend Malcolm to the existence of one Havergal Brian... 

[Hattoff]

Thanks to John for cleaning up the English Suite files, you have done a good job. I'm glad the files are being shared.
You can have the original LP as long as I get a copy of the new brighter files

[cilgwyn]

Really? Well,I'm not suprised,in a way. I wouldn't have thought allot of stuff that good would get past him. Indeed,long before I began to post on this Message Board,I would actually refer 'Dundonnell's' posts when I was trying to find information about an unusual or neglected composer,or if I was choosing a recording. I used others,of course,but I remember his posts were very informative. They stood out from the crowd!
Must say,it would be nice to see that Daniel Jones reach a bit further than one page! Some new recordings or broadcasts would help!
Anyway..................

[karlhenning]

It's called love, John, not addiction...    Before you go on to those symphonies, have you ever listened to Malcolm MacDonald's excellent introduction to Brian (with excerpts)? If not, I recommend it! (right-click and save)

http://www.havergalbrian.org/hb_mm.mp3

Thanks for this, Johan; will listen this weekend.

[cilgwyn]

I've downloaded it! (Thought there was someone at the door. It's a sound effect on the Solti recording of 'The Marriage of Figaro'!!!!!!)

[John Whitmore]

MM is the undisputed Brian expert, and the link is to an illustrated talk... As for his review, no need to dig, I think I can find it on JSTOR! And may already have read it...

Hi Johan, If you can find the JSTOR copy it would save me a trip to the atticc!! I've listen intently to the superb illustrated talk. Absolutely excellent and thoroughly enjoyable but as much as I admire the presentation skills and knowledge of the composer I have to disagree with some of its content. Here I go, John giveth and John then taketh away (quote: Johan). He doesn't really admit some of the faults and issues with the music. It's a bit like having a 3 legged dog and doing a talk about it for 30 minutes without referring to the fact that it has a leg missing. Actually, worse than that, the talk actually says that the 3 legged nature of the beast is actually planned. I don't hold the view that some of the lack of symphonic argument is planned by Brian. I still sit in the camp that feels that the ideas don't always go through to a satisfying conclusion. The mastery of the orchestra is mentioned. Sorry but even Bob Simpson refers to the writing as being crude in places and "as rough as a bear's backside". Some of the passages are just too thick, not in terms of excessive counterpoint, but the actual orchestration of the counterpoint making it difficult to get the strands actually heard through the notes. Ravel was a master of the orchestra. To claim this for HB is just too fanciful. Brian would have benefitted from hearing his first thoughts played live by an orchestra and then I'm pretty sure he would have got out the Tippex (a la Tippett). I like the sound of Brian but an orchestral master he wasn't - ask some pro players, they will almost always tell you that his writing is awkward and too dense. Now to a question - brass bands are referred to a couple of times but brass bands don't use trumpets they use cornets. Did Brian ever write for cornets (Berlioz certainly did)? I ask this as a serious question because anyone with a brass band influence would use Euphs and Tubas (Brain does) and also Cornets (Did he?). Getting back to my earlier point about listening to first drafts I found the side drum comment a bit strange. Brian needs 3 because 1 wasn't enough. Did he ever actually hear the music live? This is a peculiar point because I can assure everyone out there that sitting in the ranks of the 2nd fiddles during Nielsen 5 is overwhelming. You can't hear yourself think. The side drum goes berserk and drowns everything out. The requirement for 3 of them is mind and ear boggling.  I loved the music chosen, obviously the 2 LSSO excerpts tickled my fancy but the end of the 9th is a joy. I make my points sincerely - I had a dog once with 4 legs and the animal had its faults. I loved it anyway ditto some of HBs work. As good as the talk is, for me, it's trying to position Brian with Elgar, Shostakovitch and Dick Strauss. Sorry (again) but he isn't quite in their league (my subjective personal view only I hasten to add). I hope I don't need to get a tin helmet on!!! Off now, Leicester City kick off in 15 mins. Will listen to HB 7 later tonight. Toodle pip.

[John Whitmore]

Thanks to John for cleaning up the English Suite files, you have done a good job. I'm glad the files are being shared.
You can have the original LP as long as I get a copy of the new brighter files

That would be good. Is it stereo - the MP3s are mono.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Excellent (penultimate) post, John. Your view is clear and well-argued. Remains the fact - did Brian want transparency? Did he intend everything to be audible? Or is a Brian score something to read, too? I have been looking at the score of 'The Gothic' the past 24 hours. I am no pro, but I know my way around a score and do notice things. The score teems with detail and it's a joy just seeing it. Every composer has to translate his aural vision into the concrete and playable form of a score. I get the impression that Brian sometimes writes for the ideal orchestra of his mind.


I know Karl will have a look at the score, too. I hope that in the coming weeks he could comment on John's fundamental criticism, too. Luke already did, of course. But we need every voice!

[karlhenning]

I should be many a year trying to get up to Luke's speed here . . . .

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I should be many a year trying to get up to Luke's speed here . . . .

That goes without saying. Still, you are bound to notice things. If you do, please report back if you can spare the time!

[cilgwyn]

As rough as bears back side?

[John Whitmore]

As rough as bears back side?

Yep. He says it on The Unknown Warrior film.

[John Whitmore]

Excellent (penultimate) post, John. Your view is clear and well-argued. Remains the fact - did Brian want transparency? Did he intend everything to be audible? Or is a Brian score something to read, too? I have been looking at the score of 'The Gothic' the past 24 hours. I am no pro, but I know my way around a score and do notice things. The score teems with detail and it's a joy just seeing it. Every composer has to translate his aural vision into the concrete and playable form of a score. I get the impression that Brian sometimes writes for the ideal orchestra of his mind.


I know Karl will have a look at the score, too. I hope that in the coming weeks he could comment on John's fundamental criticism, too. Luke already did, of course. But we need every voice!

That is unintentionally damning Johan if you don't mind me saying. All scores are to be read. Mozart is a miracle - it looks nothing on paper but sounds heavenly. Dick Strauss scores are teeming with notes but miraculously virtually everything can be heard - no multi layering to unfocus the argument. There's no point putting stuff on paper that isn't heard. All it does is clutter the orchestral sound and decrease the impact of the important strands that must be heard. Result - a thick orchestral swamp that sounds unattractive and just turns people off. I return to my previous point on an earlier post - Brian would have realised this fundamental flaw (that's what I believe it to be) had he had an orchestra at his disposal to try his music out in his early career. I feel for the bloke because this did him no favours whatsoever. Look at the Rite of Spring. It looks a horror on paper but it's transparent because all the notes are required and the piece is superbly scored to get everything out into the auditorium. The point that Brian is writing for an ideal orchestra of his mind gives further ammunition to critics who call his music unpractical and amateur. Discuss...........

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

It sounds more damning than I intend. Apart from which - who am I? Just a writer with a love of music. Wagner wrote for superhuman voices, too, and not many nowadays are able to cope with his demands. When I speak of an 'ideal orchestra', I mean the sense Brian gives me of keeping as close to something in his mind. It is this quality of being 'inside' a very fertile consciousness that Brian's music conveys perfectly. And it is precisely that which can create an obsession in those who love his music.

[John Whitmore]

It sounds more damning than I intend. Apart from which - who am I? Just a writer with a love of music. Wagner wrote for superhuman voices, too, and not many nowadays are able to cope with his demands. When I speak of an 'ideal orchestra', I mean the sense Brian gives me of keeping as close to something in his mind. It is this quality of being 'inside' a very fertile consciousness that Brian's music conveys perfectly. And it is precisely that which can create an obsession in those who love his music.

I now see where you are coming from and agree with what you are saying. Lost in translation so to speak.......

[Luke]

My own thoughts on John's thoughts, FWIW...

He doesn't really admit some of the faults and issues with the music. It's a bit like having a 3 legged dog and doing a talk about it for 30 minutes without referring to the fact that it has a leg missing.

I think one can forgive a bit of defensiveness, or at least a clear intention to present the Other Side of the argument strongly, from one who actually knows of what he speaks, when most of what gets written about Brian in the wider press is pretty superficial and often very misleading. And as you say...

Actually, worse than that, the talk actually says that the 3 legged nature of the beast is actually planned.

...it's only 'worse than that' if MM is wrong. If he is right, and he has more knowledge of the music than anyone else, so he is likely to be, then why shouldn't he present his case?  In which case, it isn't 'worse than that' at all. MM is a Brian lover, of course, but he is not blinded by this; he is more than willing to criticise the symphonies when he sees flaws (13 and 14 get the roughest treatment!). But in the context of this brief talk, whose purpose is to provide a stylistic introduction, why would he talk about that?

I don't hold the view that some of the lack of symphonic argument is planned by Brian. I still sit in the camp that feels that the ideas don't always go through to a satisfying conclusion.

That's fair enough; that's the sort of thing that can never be proved. Personally I am of the opinion that there are no more naturally symphonic symponists that Brian; that is not the same thing as saying his symphonies re the best; what it means is that my own feeling of Brian is that he had a pretty unerring instinct for what was truly symphonic. I have trust in that side of him, and when I don't 'get' a work immediately I have trust that it reveal its logic to me at some point. It almost always does. The 8th, the one I always talk about, is nothing like a symphony in construction....and yet, and yet, I feel it is more truly a symphony than almost any other work I know. It goes beyond the surface to the nub of what symphonies are, IMO. And though I mention the 8th, that goes for many of the others too - the 10th is one of them, BTW.

The mastery of the orchestra is mentioned. Sorry but even Bob Simpson refers to the writing as being crude in places and "as rough as a bear's backside". Some of the passages are just too thick, not in terms of excessive counterpoint, but the actual orchestration of the counterpoint making it difficult to get the strands actually heard through the notes. Ravel was a master of the orchestra. To claim this for HB is just too fanciful. Brian would have benefitted from hearing his first thoughts played live by an orchestra and then I'm pretty sure he would have got out the Tippex (a la Tippett). I like the sound of Brian but an orchestral master he wasn't - ask some pro players, they will almost always tell you that his writing is awkward and too dense.

Well, this is what we discussed yesterday, and I think we agreed on it, really. Working backwards, it may be the case that pro players will find x,y and z awkward and dense in Brian, but I really don't think that pro players' verdicts, in themselves, are interesting on any other level than the technical; they don't tell us if it good music or not, just that they find it hard. If this sort of 'flaw' in the music is part of the definition of bad music, Janacek's music is some of the worst ever composed! As I said yesterday, 'pro players' tend to like to find flaws in lesser-known composers, for whatever reason. They don't tend to do so with the established names, who have 'proved themselves'; but as we talked about yesterday, the established names are just as guilty, sometimes! Brian himself was not the amateur known-nothing in orchestration he can be painted as. He played in orchestras himself, for a start; and though much of his music went unheard, he heard quite a chunk of it, too. Meanwhile, in his regular work as a music writer/critic, he studied (often very orchestrally advanced) scores and heard orchestras just like every other composer. His knowledge of orchestration was excellent; his writings on Berlioz's Treatise prove that he knew and understood it inside out. None of this makes him a good orchestrator, of course, but they do hint that he certainly knew what he was about. As for me, I adore the inimitable sound of a Brian orchestra. The best sounding symphonies, orchestrally, always seem to be the ones which are best played, by the best orchestras, too.  That ought to tell us something - it's hard, but when played properly, it sounds just fine, thank you! 

Now to a question - brass bands are referred to a couple of times but brass bands don't use trumpets they use cornets. Did Brian ever write for cornets (Berlioz certainly did)? I ask this as a serious question because anyone with a brass band influence would use Euphs and Tubas (Brain does) and also Cornets (Did he?).

Yes. There are cornets in The Gothic, but funnily enough, not in the bands themselves (according to the score at any rate, but it's not always trustworthy)

Getting back to my earlier point about listening to first drafts I found the side drum comment a bit strange. Brian needs 3 because 1 wasn't enough. Did he ever actually hear the music live?

Yes, AFAIK it is because he heard it live that he decided that the 3 side drums should be the norm. He found one on its own too weak in tone.

This is a peculiar point because I can assure everyone out there that sitting in the ranks of the 2nd fiddles during Nielsen 5 is overwhelming. You can't hear yourself think. The side drum goes berserk and drowns everything out. The requirement for 3 of them is mind and ear boggling. 

But Nielsen 5 is an exceptional cas,e in which the side drum is supposed to go beserk. Brian's 3 drums are used (as I understand it) not so much for an increase in volume as for greater timbral weight, in the quiet passages as much as in the loud. He simply thought that 3 drums sounded better than 1 - not louder, better.

I loved the music chosen, obviously the 2 LSSO excerpts tickled my fancy but the end of the 9th is a joy. I make my points sincerely - I had a dog once with 4 legs and the animal had its faults. I loved it anyway ditto some of HBs work. As good as the talk is, for me, it's trying to position Brian with Elgar, Shostakovitch and Dick Strauss. Sorry (again) but he isn't quite in their league (my subjective personal view only I hasten to add). I hope I don't need to get a tin helmet on!!!

As far as Brian's 'status' goes, I think of him as a specialist symphonist (those poor operas, though...!) and thus as a bit of a case apart. I don't really know many others like him in this respect. He certainly lacks some of the things that make the three composers you name great, important among them some of the things that give music an immediate appeal - he wasn't the greatest melodist (though some of the extended melodies are heart-stoppingly gorgeous; he wasn't one for seductive glitter and show (though when he wanted to he could do this); his structrues and techniques can confuse and obfuscate. But it is possible, of course, that they lacked some of the things that made him great, or at least made him him. I think that is the point, really, those last few words - Brian was Brian, through and through; it is the unique doggedness and character, the brusqueness and then unexpected potry, the humour and the wisdom that make him who he is, and the music is brim-full of these things. That's why I love him, and why ranking him against others isn't really the point for me.

Off now, Leicester City kick off in 15 mins. Will listen to HB 7 later tonight. Toodle pip.

How did we do? I haven't checked yet. Not been the best start so far, has it....