Ruth Gipps (1921-99)

[relm1]

Excellently put, her instrumentation is indeed exceptionally good. For that reason alone, I cannot understand why some people say they find the music 'boring'. Every second vibrates with original ideas. 

What Hurwitz said is it is a bunch of attractive episodes, but he didn't get a sense Gipps knew where it was going but still considers her a talented composer albeit lacking in inspiration. 

[kyjo]

I have made a different sound here before, and will continue to do so. In recent months I had the rare opportunity to play both her five symphonies and George Lloyd's twelve - which I had also skipped for decades. They are compared by more people here, but for me the outcome is clear: Gipps wins on all fronts. It's a real question for me why some -- here including the highly respected Cesar, who already reacted so much differently to what I think is her masterpiece so far, her Third, but similar sounds I saw in a video of the always forminadable Hurwitzer -- find her modal tonality so "boring" and repetitive, where to me, on the contrary, it is exciting, contrasting and extremely creative. Indeed: I admire many British symphonic cycles, from Vaughan Williams to Alwyn, Arnold, Brian, Bate, Rubbra and so many more, but she is at the top for me. Does it have something to do with her modality? On that point, otherwise I find her quite different, there are similarities with Vaughan Williams. Or with the late Respighi or with Barber's Knoxville: Summer of 1915, the one work by Barber that the forlorn Hurwitzer finds unbearably boring, while I find it his best and most exciting work. Anyway: I am happy to be among the minority here who find Gipps a discovery of the first order. Glad there are now such good performances. And always special to discover how differently we can react to some music. I fully comply with Jill Halstead, writing on her centenary: >Stylistically her work parallels the other British composers of her generation who were influenced by the folk song revival and the new Franco-Russian movement. Her style is easily accessible and rich in character, marked by use of highly melodic tonal-modal themes and vibrant orchestration; harmonically her work can be chromatically complex yet never fully leaves the realms of tonality.< 

I normally agree with you, Johan, but I'll take Lloyd over Gipps any day. I enjoy Gipps' music - in particular her beautiful, luminous orchestration - but it doesn't quite have "staying power" for me. By contrast, Lloyd's infectious melodies and powerful climaxes linger long in my mind after listening (and he was also an excellent orchestrator). That said, I look forward to hearing the new Chandos disc of her 5th Symphony and VC, which seems quite promising.

[kyjo]

Prompted by this thread, I gave her newly-released Fifth Symphony (1982) a listen:



I stand somewhere between those who think Gipps is a neglected master and those who think her music is insubstantial and unremarkable (though overall I'm more on the positive side of the fence). I would say she was a very good composer who had a quietly individual voice, especially regarding her beautifully luminous orchestration and harmonic language. Rather like George Lloyd, it seems she developed a fondness later in life for including a prominent role for tuned percussion (marimba, glockenspiel, etc.) in her orchestral works. The Fifth Symphony is definitely "conservative" for 1982, but of course that shouldn't matter to us today. The opening of the work immediately grabbed me with its magical, kaleidoscopic aura and a subtle tension between consonance and more piquant harmonies. However, I felt as the work progresses, that tension is mostly lost and the music becomes a bit too "samey" emotionally and harmonically. I just wished for a bit more development and variety overall, unfailingly pleasing though the music is. I did find the construction of the finale as an instrumental "Missa Brevis" to be quite interesting and original. So overall, I wouldn't call Gipps' 5th a lost masterpiece, but it's certainly worthy of revival and I enjoyed making its acquaintance. The first movement, in particular, is quite special and would compel me to return to the work. I look forward to hearing the VC next!

[Christo]

Her great strength, as I wrote earlier, lies in the 'personal' character, the heart of the music that you only gradually discover. I too was not particularly touched on first hearing, and found especially the slow movements unremarkable, until I started to discover the inside, the hidden lyricism and inner strength. Now I can't imagine not hearing it before as I do now. So yes, for me she is one of the masters. 

[Harry]

Her great strength, as I wrote earlier, lies in the 'personal' character, the heart of the music that you only gradually discover. I too was not particularly touched on first hearing, and found especially the slow movements unremarkable, until I started to discover the inside, the hidden lyricism and inner strength. Now I can't imagine not hearing it before as I do now. So yes, for me she is one of the masters. 

And for me too!

[foxandpeng]

I'm on my sixth play of Symphony #3, but have to confess that I haven't found the same sustained interest as I have in #1 and #2. This may be little more than a personal preference over the ranking of each work, however.

I push on!