EJ Moeran

[J]

Look what arrived in today's post!

What did you pay?

I see it for just under $60(US) here where I am (shipping included), - much less than anticipated.

I wonder how the book's been modified (both content-wise & structurally) from the doctoral thesis.

[Roasted Swan]

What did you pay?

I see it for just under $60(US) here where I am (shipping included), - much less than anticipated.

I wonder how the book's been modified (both content-wise & structurally) from the doctoral thesis.

I think it was about £45.00 including shipping - I got Jeremy Dibble's new book on Delius at the same time.  Dr Ian Maxwell who wrote the Moeran book occasionally has posted on this thread so I guess he might see this and answer your question directly.  Just started reading it but as an actual physical book it is absolutely lovely - beautifully printed and bound.  Its why I can't get into digital books!

[HotFXMan]

What did you pay?

I see it for just under $60(US) here where I am (shipping included), - much less than anticipated.

I wonder how the book's been modified (both content-wise & structurally) from the doctoral thesis.

I completed and submitted the PhD thesis in January 2014. The book represents the result of six more years of research, the bulk of which has rendered obsolete many of the conclusions I reached at that time. The book is in no sense a modification of the PhD thesis - it entirely supersedes it. Indeed, I have now embargoed the thesis on this basis.

As far as I can gather the book is selling well, but I have yet to see any review of its content.

[J]

I completed and submitted the PhD thesis in January 2014. The book represents the result of six more years of research, the bulk of which has rendered obsolete many of the conclusions I reached at that time. The book is in no sense a modification of the PhD thesis - it entirely supersedes it.

Given that an outcome of the PhD thesis (at least in your own mind) was the proving wrong of much previous Moeran scholarship (the "Moeran Myth" as you called it) it's curious to see you imply that at least some of the research amounted to just your own alternative mythicizing.

Without a complete giveaway, could you elaborate somewhat on conclusions reached in your dissertation now rendered obsolete by subsequent investigation?

One instance of that, perhaps?

[Roasted Swan]

Given that an outcome of the PhD thesis (at least in your own mind) was the proving wrong of much previous Moeran scholarship (the "Moeran Myth" as you called it) it's curious to see you imply that at least some of the research amounted to just your own alternative mythicizing.

Without a complete giveaway, could you elaborate somewhat on conclusions reached in your dissertation now rendered obsolete by subsequent investigation?

One instance of that, perhaps?

buy the book and judge for yourself!  less than a tank of fuel or a decent meal out.  Any subject - the deeper you go into it the more nuanced your conclusions will become

[J]

buy the book and judge for yourself!  less than a tank of fuel or a decent meal out.  Any subject - the deeper you go into it the more nuanced your conclusions will become

My copy is on order.

Dr Maxwell doesn't refer to merely changed "nuances" as between dissertation and book, but rather the "obsolescence" of previous conclusions.  That strikes me as much more radical.

In any case, this isn't some potboiler whereby if the author reveals parts of the scoop in advance he could well sacrifice thousands of copies in sales.

The original thesis (which I read through twice) unfolded almost like a judicial proceeding, wherein certain longstanding and seemingly well-established assertions about Moeran were painstakingly debunked in no uncertain fashion.  It's somewhat surprising then (though admirable in its way) to see the author now admitting that case was substantially mistaken or "superceded" as he puts it.  Having myself thought at the time it was quite brilliant and gripping detective work, I'm a bit taken aback that the evidence was apparently not so clearcut after all, - or at least the conclusions more speculative and questionable than he let on.   

[HotFXMan]

... it's curious to see you imply that at least some of the research amounted to just your own alternative mythicizing ...

I implied nothing of the sort. You asked how the book had been modified from the doctoral thesis, and I responded by explaining that the book is NOT a modification of the thesis. My January 2014 thesis represented the most considered understanding of Moeran's life and work at that time. Seven years later, knowledge has moved on as more primary evidence - Moeran's regimental war diaries, for example - has been unearthed, and which has necessitated a re-consideration of conclusions presented previously.

However, regardless of that, I most certainly did not indulge in "mythicizing" in my doctoral thesis, and I find the suggestion offensive.

[J]

I implied nothing of the sort. You asked how the book had been modified from the doctoral thesis, and I responded by explaining that the book is NOT a modification of the thesis. My January 2014 thesis represented the most considered understanding of Moeran's life and work at that time. Seven years later, knowledge has moved on as more primary evidence - Moeran's regimental war diaries, for example - has been unearthed, and which has necessitated a re-consideration of conclusions presented previously.

However, regardless of that, I most certainly did not indulge in "mythicizing" in my doctoral thesis, and I find the suggestion offensive.

Whatever "mythicizing" might mean (which is arguable, and not necessarily pejoritive in my own mind), you did after all judge your predecessors (by repeatedly referring to the "Moeran Myth") as guilty of just such an "offense".  Why not have just said that new evidence had rendered their own conclusions obsolete (as you now say about (some of) your dissertation), rather than referring to them as "mythical".  Could they not rightly regard that as unfair literary effect?  (I've added a paragraph to my previous post with additional thoughts).

[Roasted Swan]

The simple truth is that both of the previous published books on Moeran are lovely but limited.  Neither professed to be an in depth survey of the music or indeed a study of the man.  I would not want to be without either but at the same time the publication of a new in-depth study is a cause for rejoicing. 

But don't start critiquing a book before a page has been read even if it is based in part on a previous publication.  especially if that previous publication has now been withdrawn on the basis of new research.  The essence of any good biographer/ researcher/scientist whatever is an ability to change theories and concepts as new evidence emerges and not be bogged down in previously held beliefs.  Otherwise we would still be living on an earth that was flat......!

[HotFXMan]

Whatever "mythicizing" might mean (which is arguable, and not necessarily pejoritive in my own mind), you did after all judge your predecessors (by repeatedly referring to the "Moeran Myth") as guilty of just such an "offense".  (I've added a paragraph to my previous post with additional thoughts).

Mythicizing was your word, and in the context of referring to the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented in an extended thesis for which a research degree was awarded, it is most certainly pejorative.

With regard to your additional paragraph, stating that my book supersedes my thesis is NOT an admission that my case was substantially mistaken. On the contrary, the book extends substantially the case presented in the thesis, but it does revisit some conclusions in the light of additional evidence.

In order to avoid further misunderstanding, I suggest this conversation be suspended until you have read the book. I will then be very interested in your opinions and happy to discuss anything in more detail.

[J]

Mythicizing was your word, and in the context of referring to the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented in an extended thesis for which a research degree was awarded, it is most certainly pejorative.

With regard to your additional paragraph, stating that my book supersedes my thesis is NOT an admission that my case was substantially mistaken. On the contrary, the book extends substantially the case presented in the thesis, but it does revisit some conclusions in the light of additional evidence.

In order to avoid further misunderstanding, I suggest this conversation be suspended until you have read the book. I will then be very interested in your opinions and happy to discuss anything in more detail.

Nonetheless, it was you who coined "Moeran Myth" as the outcome of your predecessors efforts.

I'll gladly suspend further comment until after reading the new volume.

[vandermolen]

Just catching up on this interesting discussion. I still remember the impact that Neville Dilkes's LP of the Symphony in G Minor had on me when I came across it in the Harrods Music Dept c. 1972. I certainly think that Moeran had an original style and is not just Vaughan Williams and Delius/Sibelius with water. That symphony still remains one of my favourites and I had the pleasure of seeing Sinaisky conduct it at the Proms some years ago. I'd like to ask 'HotFXMan' which is his favourite recording of the Symphony. I'm playing this one at the moment:

[HotFXMan]

The simple truth is that both of the previous published books on Moeran are lovely but limited.  Neither professed to be an in depth survey of the music or indeed a study of the man.

Very true. Geoffrey Self and Lionel Hill both worked with the limited biographical evidence available to them at the time, and relied on testimony they had no reason to regard as suspect. Thus, their accounts represent honest and genuine perspectives appropriate to the circumstances under which their books were written. They cannot be blamed for not knowing what they could not have known.

I endeavoured to be fair to both in my critique of their books in my thesis, and I hope that I have done the same in my book.

[J]

Very true. Geoffrey Self and Lionel Hill both worked with the limited biographical evidence available to them at the time, and relied on testimony they had no reason to regard as suspect. Thus, their accounts represent honest and genuine perspectives appropriate to the circumstances under which their books were written. They cannot be blamed for not knowing what they could not have known.

I endeavoured to be fair to both in my critique of their books in my thesis, and I hope that I have done the same in my book.

Honorably stated, but in that case how is it appropriate to associate their work with "myth" while so strenuously objecting in its application to your own?  Merely more accurate facts is hardly equivalent to the "real history".

Whatever.

[J]

Just catching up on this interesting discussion. I still remember the impact that Neville Dilkes's LP of the Symphony in G Minor had on me when I came across it in the Harrods Music Dept c. 1975. I certainly think that Moeran had an original style and is not just Vaughan Williams and Delius/Sibelius with water. That symphony still remains one of my favourites and I had the pleasure of seeing Sinaisky conduct it at the Proms some years ago. I'd like to ask 'HotFXMan' which is his favourite recording of the Symphony. I'm playing this one at the moment:

Not that you asked ME, Jeffrey, but the Handley concert performance on YouTube bests all the alternatives in my view, and I may rate Sinaisky's own YouTube performance (definitely different from the BBC Music Magazine accompanied one) just below that.
Dilkes is still my favorite commercially recorded performance, followed by Boult, - but more judicious to just say they all offer
valued individual perspectives, - which is different from suggesting all "better or worse" judgments are merely subjective.

[J]

I got Jeremy Dibble's new book on Delius at the same time. 

I'm almost glad this is a musicological study rather than a biographical one, as my book budget for a while will be exhausted by Moeran/Maxwell and the even more painfully expensive Zuk/Myaskovsky (though I suppose the authors deserve it).

I'd appreciate but don't expect it that Maxwell elaborate more on Moeran's relationship to Delius than he did in the PhD thesis.
Wiki states Moeran (with Heseltine) traveled to France "ostensibly to meet Delius", - which implies a meeting never happened,
but just what communications may have occurred, and just why and how Moeran became so enamored with Delius would be curious to learn more about.

[Roasted Swan]

Just catching up on this interesting discussion. I still remember the impact that Neville Dilkes's LP of the Symphony in G Minor had on me when I came across it in the Harrods Music Dept c. 1972. I certainly think that Moeran had an original style and is not just Vaughan Williams and Delius/Sibelius with water. That symphony still remains one of my favourites and I had the pleasure of seeing Sinaisky conduct it at the Proms some years ago. I'd like to ask 'HotFXMan' which is his favourite recording of the Symphony. I'm playing this one at the moment:

Trying to raise the intellectual level of this conversation - I am still struggling with the realisation that Neville Dilkes is actually no more than the stage name of BoJo The Great

[vandermolen]

Not that you asked ME, Jeffrey, but the Handley concert performance on YouTube bests all the alternatives in my view, and I may rate Sinaisky's own YouTube performance (definitely different from the BBC Music Magazine accompanied one) just below that.
Dilkes is still my favorite commercially recorded performance, followed by Boult, - but more judicious to just say they all offer
valued individual perspectives, - which is different from suggesting all "better or worse" judgments are merely subjective.

Thanks Greg - interesting to know. I remain very loyal to the Dilkes, which was my first encounter with the work. I played it over and over again on LP. The one I've come to appreciate more, recently, is Handley's 'beefy' Chandos recording.

[vandermolen]

Trying to raise the intellectual level of this conversation - I am still struggling with the realisation that Neville Dilkes is actually no more than the stage name of BoJo The Great

OT
Haha - I trust he'll be conducting the England supporters singing the National Anthem at Wembley tomorrow (no doubt wearing an England top), so that he can identify himself even more closely with England's unexpected success (so far!) in the Euros.

[calyptorhynchus]

Just to weigh in here on the Moeran Myth. It is actually quite common in academic discourse to talk about a "myth" surrounding a poet, writer or composer. Usually it is used to describe a common set of assumptions about the figure which align nicely with contemporary beliefs but is not based on any serious academic research. When such work is done it is not correct to call it an alternative myth, but instead an academic argument, which can only be refuted by equally comprehensive work.