Havergal Brian.

[Sergeant Rock]

I think the first two movements in Brabbins' reading are easily the best ever.

Agree with that. Which is another reason I was disappointed by the Vivace...the climax anyway. On first listen of those two movements, my expectations for the Vivace were just so high.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

I'll go ahead and state the obvious: it cannot be easy to conduct such a long, big work. And it is less easy still, for there being so few pioneers ahead of this performance.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

You're right, of course, Karl. There is no performance tradition to guide you or make you do otherwise. Still, Brabbins can think for himself and he knows exactly what he is doing. He had already shown that on his Brian CD for Dutton. There, too, you can disagree with some of the tempi he adopted in symphonies 10 and 30, but it is clear everything has been thoroughly thought through. Martyn Brabbins might well become the first real Brian conductor, if time and the economy permit it...

[John Whitmore]

Along with the A minor explosion at the end of Mahler's Sixth, it's the single most important chord in 1000 years of classical music. I wish I were kidding 

Sarge

Sorry Sarge you must be kidding. It's just a chord and not even an innovative one. On the basis that Brian's Gothic has hardly ever been heard it certainly has had no effect whatsoever on the future direction of music (unlike, for example the Eroica or The Rite of Spring). I like the piece but it isn't ground breaking. It's tonal, hugely entertaining and certainly has its moments. However, it's not a serious piece for study by young composers going through the music academies etc. It's just a good piece. End of story. We must be very careful not to over egg a first symphony by a still relatively unknown English composer. I still find it strange that Bernstein saw the score but never bothered to play any of it. He can't have been that impressed despite his kind words. We've had some decent conductors over the years - Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, Rattle. They've not done much for Brian either have they? Elgar had kind words for HB but when it came to it there were no actions to support his words. Runs for tin hat.....

[Sergeant Rock]

Sorry Sarge you must be kidding. It's just a chord and not even an innovative one. On the basis that Brian's Gothic has hardly ever been heard it certainly has had no effect whatsoever on the future direction of music (unlike, for example the Eroica or The Rite of Spring). I like the piece but it isn't ground breaking. It's tonal, hugely entertaining and certainly has its moments. However, it's not a serious piece for study by young composers going through the music academies etc. It's just a good piece. End of story. We must be very careful not to over egg a first symphony by a still relatively unknown English composer. I still find it strange that Bernstein saw the score but never bothered to play any of it. He can't have been that impressed despite his kind words. We've had some decent conductors over the years - Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, Rattle. They've not done much for Brian either have they? Elgar had kind words for HB but when it came to it there were no actions to support his words. Runs for tin hat.....

Just the kind of response I'd expect from a heathen unbeliever 

Sarge

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I agree with John that there are chords in symphonic and operatic literature that have made history. Beethoven and the first chord of the Ninth's finale, Wagner's Tristan chord, Scriabin's 'mystic' chord, Bruckner's apocalyptic chord in his final Adagio and Mahler's in his, Stravinsky's Petrushka chord... I agree with Sarge that the progression of those three chords, the enormous energy in them, is something inspired. And it may not have influenced anyone, it still is one of the great moments in 20th century symphonic music.

[Karl Henning]

. . . I still find it strange that Bernstein saw the score but never bothered to play any of it. He can't have been that impressed despite his kind words.

I guess it depends on what you mean by that impressed.  Lenny may well strike us as flighty and artsy, but he was also capable and organized.  Consider (again) how huge the piece is, the forces (and rehearsals) required.  I think there's plenty of room for Bernstein being impressed by the piece, in harmony with (I am apt to think) perfectly sincere & kind words, but this was not a logistical battle which he chose to undertake.

One of the things I admire about Lenny was his voracious musical appetite.  But, not even Lenny could do everything which he might have wished (in a perfect world) to do.

[John Whitmore]

I guess it depends on what you mean by that impressed.  Lenny may well strike us as flighty and artsy, but he was also capable and organized.  Consider (again) how huge the piece is, the forces (and rehearsals) required.  I think there's plenty of room for Bernstein being impressed by the piece, in harmony with (I am apt to think) perfectly sincere & kind words, but this was not a logistical battle which he chose to undertake.

One of the things I admire about Lenny was his voracious musical appetite.  But, not even Lenny could do everything which he might have wished (in a perfect world) to do.

Lenny loved theatre. He loved huge works. He was organised. He was nuts on Mahler - not exactly small scale chamber music is it? He always got his own way with CBS and DGG. Logistics shouldn't have been an issue. He didn't even play part one. Orchestrally it's not hard. Semi pros can play it. OK, it's long but that's no big deal. It's not challenging 12 tone music or technically difficult like Boulez and Birtwistle. Indeed, it's romantic and old fashioned. That's why I enjoy it. Maybe the chorus was an issue. It nearly always is - they tend to be amateurs more used to The Messiah. Maybe the shambolic parts put him off. Who knows. American orchestras would have eaten the symphony alive, especially the New York Phil. CBS made many pioneering LPs with Lenny - Ives, Nielsen come to mind. His Mahler 3 from London was epic. The bottom line is that he didn't play the thing. Maybe he would have preferred a London orchestra to record it with but he was notoriously disliked by the London orchestras. Can't win 'em all. Now where did I put that tin hat........

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Finished listening to the Brabbins Gothic. Of course, I was there in the hall on 17 July 2011, but hearing the performance on CD is something else. The visual and dramatic aspects are gone, and what you have is a very detailed, very analytical reading. All the glitches are miraculously gone (a pity the organ support is still there in the Judex, though). It is as if you are part of the orchestra itself, the music really envelops you. The radio recordings were good, but they are no match for what we have here. Brabbins is very much in control, he keeps a tight rein on this 'monstrous' work. Brabbins is a realist. The music has great clarity and forward momentum. Perhaps my only criticism is that the visionary side of Brian isn't much in evidence. I wonder if it is a generational thing, but Thomas Dausgaard also misses that side in his otherwise excellent Langgaard performances (both are near-contemporaries of mine, though). Mystery needs blurred edges, not too much light of day. I wonder what a Furtwängler would have done with The Gothic!


(I compared Brabbins and Lenard in that crucial Vivace passage - I prefer Brabbins now. I love the way he wrings a crescendo from an already blazing F sharp minor chord, hurling you into D minor. Very powerful.)


OK. I'm done for today!


Just to be clear - I think this is one of the best recordings ever of a Brian symphony.

[Dundonnell]

Sorry Sarge you must be kidding. It's just a chord and not even an innovative one. On the basis that Brian's Gothic has hardly ever been heard it certainly has had no effect whatsoever on the future direction of music (unlike, for example the Eroica or The Rite of Spring). I like the piece but it isn't ground breaking. It's tonal, hugely entertaining and certainly has its moments. However, it's not a serious piece for study by young composers going through the music academies etc. It's just a good piece. End of story. We must be very careful not to over egg a first symphony by a still relatively unknown English composer. I still find it strange that Bernstein saw the score but never bothered to play any of it. He can't have been that impressed despite his kind words. We've had some decent conductors over the years - Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, Rattle. They've not done much for Brian either have they? Elgar had kind words for HB but when it came to it there were no actions to support his words. Runs for tin hat.....

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to make by citing a list of conductors who might have played Brian's music but didn't. If the quality of a composer's work depends on whether conductors x, y and z perform the music then a number of great composers and a number of great works would fall off the radar.
Boult DID substantially enhance Brian's reputation by giving the first professional performance of the Gothic, a work he clearly believed in and admired, and that first professional performance was, at the time, an immense undertaking for a conductor then aged 77. Boult also gave the first performance of the Eighth Symphony.
Yes, Barbirolli conducted a very great deal of British music but he also tended to shy away from works which he considered "too difficult".
There were huge swathes of British music Beecham wouldn't touch after the 1920s or so. He very seldom performed any Vaughan Williams, for example, and professed not to like that composer's music.
Much the same can be said of Simon Rattle-again, particularly, with respect to Vaughan Williams but also to a large number of other British composers whose music Rattle will simply not perform.

I am not in the business of pronouncing the Gothic one of the greatest musical masterpieces ever composed but it is a very fine piece of music which is now giving an increasing number of people much pleasure and, indeed, excitement. The neglect of Brian's music for so long or the failure of a number of eminent conductors to perform that music has as much bearing on its intrinsic merit as the neglect of the music of Anton Bruckner and Gustav Mahler for so much of the first half of the 20th century.

[John Whitmore]

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to make by citing a list of conductors who might have played Brian's music but didn't. If the quality of a composer's work depends on whether conductors x, y and z perform the music then a number of great composers and a number of great works would fall off the radar.
Boult DID substantially enhance Brian's reputation by giving the first professional performance of the Gothic, a work he clearly believed in and admired, and that first professional performance was, at the time, an immense undertaking for a conductor then aged 77. Boult also gave the first performance of the Eighth Symphony.
Yes, Barbirolli conducted a very great deal of British music but he also tended to shy away from works which he considered "too difficult".
There were huge swathes of British music Beecham wouldn't touch after the 1920s or so. He very seldom performed any Vaughan Williams, for example, and professed not to like that composer's music.
Much the same can be said of Simon Rattle-again, particularly, with respect to Vaughan Williams but also to a large number of other British composers whose music Rattle will simply not perform.

I am not in the business of pronouncing the Gothic one of the greatest musical masterpieces ever composed but it is a very fine piece of music which is now giving an increasing number of people much pleasure and, indeed, excitement. The neglect of Brian's music for so long or the failure of a number of eminent conductors to perform that music has as much bearing on its intrinsic merit as the neglect of the music of Anton Bruckner and Gustav Mahler for so much of the first half of the 20th century.

On this we agree. I just feel that sometimes I have entered a parallel universe on this board. Suggestions of the Gothic containing one of the most important chords in 1000 years of the history of music etc as if it's Tristan. This sort of thing triggers my reality gland. I do know one thing for sure - Brian has his own sound. Like it or lump it, it's Brian. There's often that Lloyd Webber thing going on (he's nicked this bit!) but overall he has his own sound as did Tippett, Martinu, Nielsen and many others. For that he should be given credit.

[John Whitmore]

Finished listening to the Brabbins Gothic. Of course, I was there in the hall on 17 July 2011, but hearing the performance on CD is something else. The visual and dramatic aspects are gone, and what you have is a very detailed, very analytical reading. All the glitches are miraculously gone (a pity the organ support is still there in the Judex, though). It is as if you are part of the orchestra itself, the music really envelops you. The radio recordings were good, but they are no match for what we have here. Brabbins is very much in control, he keeps a tight rein on this 'monstrous' work. Brabbins is a realist. The music has great clarity and forward momentum. Perhaps my only criticism is that the visionary side of Brian isn't much in evidence. I wonder if it is a generational thing, but Thomas Dausgaard also misses that side in his otherwise excellent Langgaard performances (both are near-contemporaries of mine, though). Mystery needs blurred edges, not too much light of day. I wonder what a Furtwängler would have done with The Gothic!
(I compared Brabbins and Lenard in that crucial Vivace passage - I prefer Brabbins now. I love the way he wrings a crescendo from an already blazing F sharp minor chord, hurling you into D minor. Very powerful.)


OK. I'm done for today!


Just to be clear - I think this is one of the best recordings ever of a Brian symphony.

He would have taken a cursory look, chucked it in the bin and then taken out the score of Brahms 4.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

He would have taken a cursory look, chucked it in the bin and then taken out the score of Brahms 4.

Doubtless...    But I was thinking more of the type of conductor he was, compared to the no-nonsense Toscanini, for example.

[cilgwyn]

Of course,the Gothic could hardly be any worse than anything Furtwangler wrote!

[John Whitmore]

Doubtless...    But I was thinking more of the type of conductor he was, compared to the no-nonsense Toscanini, for example.

Oh I see. Let's rephrase it then. He would have opened the score very carefully, taken a mysterious look at the first two pages to see if he could make all the edges soft and the entries inaccurate. After due consideration he would have placed the score very gently into the bin and continued the rehearsal with Brahms 4. Toscanini on the other hand would have looked at the first 8 bars, triggering a frightful rage and an onslaught of appalling bad language. The score would be ripped into shreds and thrown towards the woodwind section. The rehearsal would then proceed as normal with a totally over the top Force of Destiny played without a semiquaver out of place. On a more serious note I wonder what Kempe would have made of it? My No.1 by some distance - perfect stick technique, perfect balance (especially in R Strauss) and not one ounce of showmanship. His Don Quixote is exquisite (the 1959 one in Berlin), maybe his Gothic would have been similar. We will never know.

[John Whitmore]

Of course,the Gothic could hardly be any worse than anything Furtwangler wrote!

Absolutely. His 1st symphony is grim. Worse than Bruckner.

[cilgwyn]

Worse than Bruckner?
Even worse than Wetz?
Brian also had the sense to start making his shorter!

[Dundonnell]

Worse than Bruckner?
Even worse than Wetz?
Brian also had the sense to start making his shorter!

Stop it

[cilgwyn]

Actually,I may be mistaken,but I seem to recall that Brian initially planned an even longer (or larger) symphony as a follow up to the 'Gothic' & that some of the orchestral works performed by the Hull Youth SO,and latterly,on Naxos are remnants of that?

Seriously,Dundonnell,the more Brian the better!

Actually,I think I'm referring to the so called 'Fantastic Symphony' (1907-08)? This is what comes of not hanging on to Malcolm MacDonalds books!!! But I did have some idea that Brian did,initially,plan a more ambitious follow up to No1 (than No 2,anyway!)

[cilgwyn]

As I say,this is what comes of not hanging on to Malcolm MacDonalds books! My advice,if the baliffs ever call! Give them the car & the leather settee,but hide the books!
Wish they'd reprint them!