Tippett's Tearoom

[Mirror Image]

Well, let's think about that a bit, John.

Meanwhile, say that Bach was better at doing some things than others.  Can you give examples of these others? ; )

Calling those other things "flaws" is like pointing to a cherry and calling it an orange, because that's the word you have in mind.

Flaw isn't the right word in describing a composer who was better in area than another. That's just recognizing each composer's limitations. Perhaps limitations is better word than flaw?

Karl, you mention Ravel as being a perfect composer, but do you honestly think that everything he wrote was perfect?

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps limitations is better word than flaw?

Well, I can certainly agree that most composers have limitations to a greater or lesser degree.

Karl, you mention Ravel as being a perfect composer, but do you honestly think that everything he wrote was perfect?

Now that is really an excellent question!

I have not studied everything Ravel wrote, so the quick answer is, I am not in a position to answer.

That said, of all the music of Ravel's which I have studied, I have not found anything, anything at all, which I should consider in the light of an "imperfection."

I should have thought you might seize upon Mozart, since obviously we have a wealth of juvenilia which is perforce not an a level to match his mature masterworks.  But that is a different matter, isn't it?  We don't call a composer's work "flawed" based on early works before he achieved mastery.  And to round back to Tippett, that's not what, for instance, Edward is saying, in finding unevenness in a late opera — an opera which he nevertheless considers essential Tippett.

[Mirror Image]

Well, I can certainly agree that most composers have limitations to a greater or lesser degree.

Now that is really an excellent question!

I have not studied everything Ravel wrote, so the quick answer is, I am not in a position to answer.

That said, of all the music of Ravel's which I have studied, I have not found anything, anything at all, which I should consider in the light of an "imperfection."

I should have thought you might seize upon Mozart, since obviously we have a wealth of juvenilia which is perforce not an a level to match his mature masterworks.  But that is a different matter, isn't it?  We don't call a composer's work "flawed" based on early works before he achieved mastery.  And to round back to Tippett, that's not what, for instance, Edward is saying, in finding unevenness in a late opera — an opera which he nevertheless considers essential Tippett.

I need to listen to more of Mozart's late works. I've always admired his Requiem, but that's for another thread. Unevenness is perhaps an even better word than flawed. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more wisely? Anyway, I'm in full agreement with Edward about Tippett's unevenness. His Symphony No. 4, for example, is just well odd, but I think even it has some merit to it. His Symphony No. 3 is another work that has sparked serious debate, but I like it just the way it is. I think the closest thing that Tippett wrote that I could consider perfection would be his works for string orchestra like Concerto for Double String Orchestra and Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli. These's not a note out-of-place in these works IMHO. Everything is just heavenly.

[Karl Henning]

. . . I think the closest thing that Tippett wrote that I could consider perfection would be his works for string orchestra like Concerto for Double String Orchestra and Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli.

Those two works are surely flawless : )

[Mirror Image]

Those two works are surely flawless : )

[Luke]

Wow! You go to work for a day, and suddenly the Tippett thread springs into life! How funny - I was talking to my girlfriend about just these issues only today.

Clearly I am as predictable as I fear, because both Mirror Image and Karl have correctly remembered the sort of thing I habitually say here,  and though there seems to have been some kind of frisson going on between them on this issue, I don't feel I'm ducking out by saying I agree with both. If terminonolgy is the problem - the word flaw, for instance - well, so be it. All I know is that I love Tippett unreservedly, and I love Ravel in the same degree.

Tippett is a brave composer. He reminds me of Brian and Janacek in this respect - no wonder all three are such deeply rooted favourites of mine. These are composers whose convictions were so strong that they led them in directions which were/are often considered misguided, foolish, amateurish etc, and yet they went on regardless because they felt so strongly. Janacek kept on writing his peculiarly-scored, weirdly-notated, awkward music because he could and would do nothing else - it was the fundamental tenet of his philosophy that he be true to himself only; Brian kept on composing symphony after symphony of rough, rugged, idiosyncratic oddness because he had decided that he would keep on doing so regardless of whether the world wanted them or not. Tippett, meanwhile, remained true to himself, his interior vision, the faith in his own dreams (literally, I mean, in the Jungian sense) and in TS Elliot's advice, never mind that he was constantly sneered at for a substandard technique.

And there's the rub - does Tippett have a substandard technique? Apparently so, if one believes someone like Elizabeth Lutyens. Does it matter? Not a jot, because any problems this causes are part of the sound that makes Tippett who he is. In a larger sense, they aren't flaws at all. Possibly Tippett even revelled in them. Maybe the last laugh is on him, not on eg Lutyens. I'm thinking of something like the way the music breaks down in the middle of the last movement of the Triple Concerto - most commentators would agree that something has gone wrong here...yet it's one of the most lovable, typically Tippettian moments in this sublime score. The 'flaws' in Tippett, as far as I sense them, tend to appear in his most ambitious pieces - and that's just where they should be, showing the strain of writing music at the limits. They bear within them the mark of the difficulty and the courage of the venture - we listen to th emusic and we know how wildly exciting and exhilarating the whole thing is, and that the composer was just as excitied to be writing it as we are to listen.

****

Re Ravel. Yes, it is odd - as I was discussing with my girlfriend - that my favourite composers are, on the one hand, these rough, warts-and-all unpolished diamonds like Brian, Janacek and Tippett, and on the other hand the most consummate, flawless craftsmen like Brahms and Ravel. But the way I feel it is this - what I value in all these composers, and all the others I love most, is that there is something desperate they have to say. Not a note is written just for the hell of it - that's something I always react badly to! The urgency of the need to compose is written all over Brian, Janacek and Tippett; in other composers I adore, like Chopin, it lives in the nuances, the countless moments of poetic enlightenment. In Brahms there is that wondrous blend of sumptuous technique and burning passion beneath the surface (but boiling over in the most controlled, effective of ways), each holding the other in balance and making both more effective for it. Give me the radiant, luminescent, 'grey pearl' (Clara Schumann) floating harmonies of op 119/1, contained in their gentle cage/shell of canonic treble and bass, over a more uncontrolled effusion. I find Brahms all the more touching for this balance, this give and take. Ravel gives us this same sort of thing, but in a different fashion. With Ravel, the poise, the archness, the humour, above all the Mask, the artifice - these things are always present, delectably so...and then (as MI says) they give way, they let something darker or more cathartic through, just for a few exquisite moments, they show us the humanity deeper within - Pan arises, the lights come on in the house at the end of the garden, the brittle sarabande boils over into a teeming, dense cadenza, the crescendo of the waltz goes too far and devours itself. Again, as with Brahms, the two sides of the equation reinforce each other. Ravel was well aware of this, he kept the balance striclty controlled (there is the interesting fact that Ravel originally let the Rachmaninov-esque passion boil over after the cadenza in the Concerto in G, but that he then cut this section ruthlessly, allowing us to hear the passion in its undisguised form for only a few bars before returning us to the mechanistic artifice of the main body of the music.

As for flaws in Ravel - well, if you search they are there I suppose, though mostly in early, flight-of-fancy piees like the Serenade Grotesque and the Sites Auriculaires. But that isn't really the point. My point, in a nutshell, is that some composers acheive expressivity by allowing themselves to show everything, at the risk of exposing the sensitive underbelly of their music, and some by the balance they keep between revealing and hiding.

I apologise for the length of this post - it says something very simple in far too verbose a way (which, I suppose, is my own flaw and my own personality ) I would edit it down, but my laptop battery is low, so I'd better just post it, warts-and-all      Be indulgent, please....

[Mirror Image]

Another outstanding post, Luke! I enjoyed every word of it.

[Karl Henning]

Clearly I am as predictable as I fear, because both Mirror Image and Karl have correctly remembered the sort of thing I habitually say here ....

Not predictable, dear fellow; it's just that we pay attention to your insightful posts.

[Mirror Image]

I don't know what it is but Tippett's music just has this hold over me right now. I've been listening to other composers throughout the day, but this is day 2 of listening to more and more Tippett. Should I go see a psychologist or something?

[springrite]

I don't know what it is but Tippett's music just has this hold over me right now. I've been listening to other composers throughout the day, but this is day 2 of listening to more and more Tippett. Should I go see a psychologist or something?

Well, this psychologist is available and he is telling you that he had done it for three days. So you are normal.

(I need you to be normal so I can say that I am!)

[Mirror Image]

Well, this psychologist is available and he is telling you that he had done it for three days. So you are normal.

(I need you to be normal so I can say that I am!)

We are normal, Paul! I repeat: WE ARE NORMAL!!! If I keep trying to tell myself this maybe it will become a reality...ah who the heck am I kidding here? I'm nuttier than a Payday candy bar!

[eyeresist]

Well, no-one's perfect

[Mirror Image]

Well, no-one's perfect

[TheGSMoeller]

"Please don't introduce Tippett to Greg." -Greg's wallet

[Mirror Image]

"Please don't introduce Tippett to Greg." -Greg's wallet

Well since your wallet did mention Tippett, have you heard any of Tippett's music, Greg? Allow me to give you a little appetizer to start off with:

http://www.youtube.com/v/9X2isPqDYsc

[TheGSMoeller]

Well since your wallet did mention Tippett, have you heard any of Tippett's music, Greg? Allow me to give you a little appetizer to start off with:

http://www.youtube.com/v/9X2isPqDYsc

Lovely, lovely...thanks for sharing, John.

[Mirror Image]

Lovely, lovely...thanks for sharing, John.

Thought you might enjoy that, Greg. Tippett's music can be so lyrical, but his more uptempo movements have a rhythmic vigor to them that I just love. You may want to just go to YouTube and listen to some of his music before committing to any recording right now. Luke, Edward, and myself would be happy to give you some recommendations if you want to pursue his music any further.

[Luke]

I don't know what it is but Tippett's music just has this hold over me right now. I've been listening to other composers throughout the day, but this is day 2 of listening to more and more Tippett. Should I go see a psychologist or something?

Many composers fascinate me deeply for a few days or weeks; it's how my listening often runs. But there is something both qualitatively and quantitatively different with Tippett, for me. My Tippett binges are something different, deeper, and more intense. When the Tippett bug hits me full force, I can listen to almost no one else, and it lasts, sometimes, for months! During this time I scour amazon for CDs and books, I get hold of all the scores I can, which I suppose is something I habitally do anyway, but not quite in this obsessed way....So yes, MI, you're right, there is something about him, at least in my experience!

BTW, it is lovely to see you falling for Tippett like this! What do you make of the later, post-Priam, pre-String Quartet 4 works? These are some of the toughest Tippett to crack, with their (some would say naive) mosaic forms and so on, but they are just as essentially 'him' as the Piano Concerto and Midsummer Marriage, for example. The Concerto for orchestra is one of my favourites, naive or not...and its slow movement one of Tippett's best, to stand beside those in the 2nd and 3rd symphonies, or the Triple Concerto...

[Mirror Image]

Many composers fascinate me deeply for a few days or weeks; it's how my listening often runs. But there is something both qualitatively and quantitatively different with Tippett, for me. My Tippett binges are something different, deeper, and more intense. When the Tippett bug hits me full force, I can listen to almost no one else, and it lasts, sometimes, for months! During this time I scour amazon for CDs and books, I get hold of all the scores I can, which I suppose is something I habitally do anyway, but not quite in this obsessed way....So yes, MI, you're right, there is something about him, at least in my experience!

BTW, it is lovely to see you falling for Tippett like this! What do you make of the later, post-Priam, pre-String Quartet 4 works? These are some of the toughest Tippett to crack, with their (some would say naive) mosaic forms and so on, but they are just as essentially 'him' as the Piano Concerto and Midsummer Marriage, for example. The Concerto for orchestra is one of my favourites, naive or not...and its slow movement one of Tippett's best, to stand beside those in the 2nd and 3rd symphonies, or the Triple Concerto...

I really like the Concerto for Orchestra. I think it's a fascinating work. I don't think Tippett has never sounded like anyone but himself and I'm finding this out the more I listen to his music. Since you mentioned this period of post-Priam and pre-SQ 4, I like The Vision of St. Augustine, which has to be one of his major works composed, along with Concerto for Orchestra, during this time. It has some very aggressive orchestral writing that just bursts out of the darkenss and cuts like a knife's edge. I'm still in my discovery phase for this particular work and the only recording I own of it is with Tippett conducting. Is there another performance of it? Anyway, this is a work that will keep me busy for awhile as I'm trying to figure it out.

By the way, do you suppose the composers we go off the deep end with for several days/weeks/months are the composers that truly connect with us? I mean I've been on two or three Shostakovich and Prokofiev binges and I'm sure everybody remembers that Koechlin binge I went on. The same thing is happening to me with Tippett. It seems that composers that didn't make a great impression on me the first time around: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bruckner, Koechlin, and now Tippett are now the ones I'm actually deeply connected to for some reason or another. How odd it is the way our emotions and mind work.

[John Whitmore]

Ive been listening to this double decca Tippet over the weekend:



Interesting composer.  Don't know if I'll pick up anytihng else, as this seems to have most of the 'essential works', not bad though, not bad at all...think the concerto for double string orchestra is my favorite, but I like pretty much everything except byzantium and dance, clarion air.  Anyone know the instrumentation of the 'double string' concerto?

Yes, it's basically two string orchestras, each one comprising 1st and 2nd violins, violas, celli and double basses. The score doesn't specify numbers. Tippett uses the orchestras to create intricate passages that overlap and "talk to each other" so to speak and there are also plenty of antiphonal effects created by seating the orchestras left and right. Great work.