sir Malcolm Arnold

Started by Thom, April 12, 2007, 10:28:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

relm1

What do you all think of seven through nine? It seems they got increasingly terse and grim along with his deteriorating sanity.   It doesn't have quite the Mahler sense of existential strife but clearly personal demons. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into that documentary.

vandermolen

#221
Quote from: André on April 29, 2016, 01:06:17 PM
Right now listening to this:



Arnold's First symphony - already jolly and sarcastic in I, quietly anguished and enigmatic in II, etc.

And his 5th, possibly his most 'popular' work in the genre. As with Beethoven, Mahler, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich: a 'people's symphony'.
That is a GREAT CD combining possibly my two favourite Arnold symphonies. I think that No.1 was written after he shot himself through the foot to get out of military service and No.5 commemorates friends who died young:
Like this CD too:
[asin]B00004SUM3[/asin]
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mirror Image

Quote from: André on April 29, 2016, 01:06:17 PM
Right now listening to this:



Arnold's First symphony - already jolly and sarcastic in I, quietly anguished and enigmatic in II, etc.

And his 5th, possibly his most 'popular' work in the genre. As with Beethoven, Mahler, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich: a 'people's symphony'.

I'm quite anxious to revisit Handley's Arnold series. I do own the original Conifer recordings with Handley, but one plus of that budget set is the remastered 24-bit audio, but I remember the original recordings had a great sound to them. I'll have to listen to Symphony No. 1 tonight.

Mirror Image

#223
Quote from: relm1 on April 29, 2016, 02:26:39 PMWhat do you all think of seven through nine? It seems they got increasingly terse and grim along with his deteriorating sanity.   It doesn't have quite the Mahler sense of existential strife but clearly personal demons. Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into that documentary.

I love all of those symphonies, but the 9th gets my vote for the best Arnold symphony of them all. The feeling of resignation and hopelessness run deep throughout that symphony. That last movement Lento is one of the most magnificent things I've ever heard in music. The thematic material is so straightforward, but underneath this lies a deep pool of loneliness, anguish, and heartbreak.

relm1

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 29, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
I love all of those symphonies, but the 9th gets my vote for the best Arnold symphony of them all. That feeling of resignation and hopelessness run deep throughout that symphony. That last movement Lento is one of the most magnificent things I've ever heard in music. The thematic material is so straightforward, but underneath this lies a deep pool of loneliness, anguish, and heartbreak.

I agree with you.  Where would you place him in the 20th century British symphonic group?  Post Britten but a peer to Alwyn?  Sub-Walton?  His own thing?  I hear zero of Vaughan Williams so he seems a different approach the British sound.

Scion7

#225
An unashamed eclectic . . . a valedictory Ninth (1986) clearly modelled on Tchaikovsky and Mahler. The Second (1953) follows in the line of English Pastorals that stretches back to Holst and Vaughan Williams and even earlier, and was and remains widely played; while the Third (1957), in somewhat similar vein . . .  The early influence of Sibelius, textural and emotional, is replaced by the more all-embracing aspirations and even the thematic contours of Mahler. Along with Berlioz, these composers were regularly described by Arnold as forming his private pantheon.    - from The New Grove

I pretty much agree with the editors' consensus on Arnold.
When, a few months before his death, Rachmaninov lamented that he no longer had the "strength and fire" to compose, friends reminded him of the Symphonic Dances, so charged with fire and strength. "Yes," he admitted. "I don't know how that happened. That was probably my last flicker."

Mirror Image

Quote from: relm1 on April 29, 2016, 05:21:38 PM
I agree with you.  Where would you place him in the 20th century British symphonic group?  Post Britten but a peer to Alwyn?  Sub-Walton?  His own thing?  I hear zero of Vaughan Williams so he seems a different approach the British sound.

Yes, he doesn't really belong to the same musical world as Vaughan Williams nor do I really align him with composers like Alwyn, Walton, or Britten. He certainly shared nothing in common with those post-RVW composers like Moeran, Finzi, or Howells. Sigh...I think it's best we just give Arnold his own category. :)

relm1

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 29, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Yes, he doesn't really belong to the same musical world as Vaughan Williams nor do I really align him with composers like Alwyn, Walton, or Britten. He certainly shared nothing in common with those post-RVW composers like Moeran, Finzi, or Howells. Sigh...I think it's best we just give Arnold his own category. :)
But that would make him an innovator. I don't think I've heard anything from him would I see as his being innovative (and I have all the symphonies).  I do find him quite unique but borrowing too.  There is some pastiche, pop music,  and Brittish pomp too. It's a complicated mix but I do not see him as an innovator at all.    That does not mean I do not fully enjoy it. Maybe he's something like a popular version of Hoddinott. 

Mirror Image

Quote from: relm1 on April 29, 2016, 06:08:46 PM
But that would make him an innovator. I don't think I've heard anything from him would I see as his being innovative (and I have all the symphonies).  I do find him quite unique but borrowing too.  There is some pastiche, pop music,  and Brittish pomp too. It's a complicated mix but I do not see him as an innovator at all.    That does not mean I do not fully enjoy it. Maybe he's something like a popular version of Hoddinott.

Being an innovator and having a unique compositional voice are two different things in my view. What I meant is that no one really sounds like Arnold. He didn't innovate anything and didn't need to --- he borrowed from popular music, folk music, and melded it all into a unique synthesis.

vandermolen

I think that Mahler is the most obvious influence on Arnold with the juxtaposition of the serious and grotesque/banal material. I consider this an asset and part of Arnold's appeal.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Scion7

#230
However, Arnold was also a prolific composer of (very good!) chamber music - which only occasionally reflects a Mahlerian feel. I hear Jazz elements and also some English music house comedic influences, and I wonder how aware he was of Bliss, Bowen, Alwyn, Bax, et al - not so much to be influenced in his sound, but by the challenge of their extensive chamber works.  In a few pieces there is an impression of Rafe's influence.  And while it is sad that he had depression over much of his life, its influence on his composing is what gave his music his edge in a lot of ways.
When, a few months before his death, Rachmaninov lamented that he no longer had the "strength and fire" to compose, friends reminded him of the Symphonic Dances, so charged with fire and strength. "Yes," he admitted. "I don't know how that happened. That was probably my last flicker."

Scion7

#231

     
[asin]B000JJ4GF2[/asin]

From start to finish, great listening.
Also, points out the mistaken notion that Arnold's works post-Symphony Nr.9 were "not memorable," as the critic stated on page one of this thread.
The Little Suite No.3 for Brass, Op.131  (1987) and Brass Quintet No.2, Op.132  (1988)  -  as well as the previously mentioned Divertimento for Wind Octet, Op.137  (1988),  puts that myth to bed.
Note to fans of Anthony Braxton - you will find that the leap from his music to this CD is not large.  ;)
When, a few months before his death, Rachmaninov lamented that he no longer had the "strength and fire" to compose, friends reminded him of the Symphonic Dances, so charged with fire and strength. "Yes," he admitted. "I don't know how that happened. That was probably my last flicker."

vandermolen

There's an early work called 'Larch Trees' I think which shows some VW influence.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mirror Image

Quote from: vandermolen on April 29, 2016, 10:57:31 PM
I think that Mahler is the most obvious influence on Arnold with the juxtaposition of the serious and grotesque/banal material. I consider this an asset and part of Arnold's appeal.

Exactly and he's not unlike Shostakovich or Schnittke in this regard either.

vandermolen

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 30, 2016, 05:32:28 AM
Exactly and he's not unlike Shostakovich or Schnittke in this regard either.
Very much agree. Thinking about it I agree that Sibelius and Walton (whom Arnold was friends with) were also influences but Mahler stands out most.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mirror Image

Quote from: vandermolen on April 30, 2016, 05:39:50 AM
Very much agree. Thinking about it I agree that Sibelius and Walton (whom Arnold was friends with) were also influences but Mahler stands out most.

Speaking of the Sibelius influence, I was listening to Symphony No. 2 last night and was awestruck by some of these Sibelian musical passages that reminded me of Sibelius' own symphonies. I hear a minimal Walton influence, though. I read that Arnold also cited Berlioz as an influence. I think Arnold was quite aware of the music of other composers, but, like any good composer, he just found his own avenue and pursued it relentlessly.

Mirror Image

Quote from: Scion7 on April 30, 2016, 12:23:41 AM
However, Arnold was also a prolific composer of (very good!) chamber music - which only occasionally reflects a Mahlerian feel. I hear Jazz elements and also some English music house comedic influences, and I wonder how aware he was of Bliss, Bowen, Alwyn, Bax, et al - not so much to be influenced in his sound, but by the challenge of their extensive chamber works.  In a few pieces there is an impression of Rafe's influence.  And while it is sad that he had depression over much of his life, its influence on his composing is what gave his music his edge in a lot of ways.

This is certainly true. His chamber music speaks of a very different composer than what we're used to hearing in the orchestral works, especially the symphonies. More jazzy and perhaps even a bit of a Neoclassical feel to some of the music. For such a prolific composer, I'm amazed at the consistency in his oeuvre. His music never is reduced to mere note-spinning. There always seems to be some kind of ongoing narrative in the music.

Mirror Image

Quote from: Scion7 on April 29, 2016, 08:58:23 AM
LPO–0013
© 2004 London Philharmonic Orchestra Ltd
Recorded live at the Royal Festival Hall, London, on 24 September 2004
Total playing time: 69:08
DDD Stereo
Released September 2006

  [asin]B000H4VZIK[/asin]

Oops!  Scrolling back to page 5 or so, I see that Vandermolen already covered this one.

I just bought this recording. Looking forward to hearing it.

relm1

Quote from: Mirror Image on April 29, 2016, 06:13:12 PM
Being an innovator and having a unique compositional voice are two different things in my view. What I meant is that no one really sounds like Arnold. He didn't innovate anything and didn't need to --- he borrowed from popular music, folk music, and melded it all into a unique synthesis.

I agree with you.  It isn't so much that he "belongs in his own category" but that he falls in several categories in a distinct way.  Very, very few belong in their own category.

Mirror Image

Quote from: relm1 on April 30, 2016, 06:59:36 AM
I agree with you.  It isn't so much that he "belongs in his own category" but that he falls in several categories in a distinct way.  Very, very few belong in their own category.

I suppose my comment was a bit 'over the top'. I certainly agree with your sentiments here.