EJ Moeran

[Roasted Swan]

Strange levels of passive agression on a forum where we theoretically come together to share a love for music and an enthusiasm for an Art form that is at risk of being at best marginalised or at worst dismissed by the great majority.  So instead of mutually supporting each other's appreciation and enjoyment of the form we debate the meaning of "myth".  Forgive me, I have to go and arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.......

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Strange levels of passive agression on a forum where we theoretically come together to share a love for music and an enthusiasm for an Art form that is at risk of being at best marginalised or at worst dismissed by the great majority.  So instead of mutually supporting each other's appreciation and enjoyment of the form we debate the meaning of "myth".  Forgive me, I have to go and arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic.......

Thank you for bringing this up as this has been quite upsetting to me and it should be discussed....

+1

[vandermolen]

I hope to to read the new biographies of Moeran (and Miaskovsky for that matter) if I can ever afford them - I might get my local library to get them through inter-library loan. I'm sure that they will contain many new insights. It's a pity that 'HotFXMan' has left us. The only thing I would add is that the best way of promoting one's own thesis is not necessarily by rubbishing those of other people, especially as Geoffrey Self is sadly no longer around to defend his own book on Moeran (which I, for one, enjoyed enormously). I think that a more nuanced approach is needed - I'm sure that you all agree 

[calyptorhynchus]

Of course.  We know you're the lapdog who the honorable gentleman gave a nice little pat to earlier.

Actually, I'm not, I did raise some queries about the assumptions in the thesis when that was posted here a little while ago, and I think that the biography of Moeran is of little interest compared to the works; he seems to have had a pretty wretched life, but still managed to produce a series of marvelous works, many of which are warmer and more fun-filled than you'd expect given the biography.

Can anyone who has the book tell me if there is a decent discussions of the works, or is it all biography?

[J]

Actually, I'm not, I did raise some queries about the assumptions in the thesis when that was posted here a little while ago, and I think that the biography of Moeran is of little interest compared to the works; he seems to have had a pretty wretched life, but still managed to produce a series of marvelous works, many of which are warmer and more fun-filled than you'd expect given the biography.

Can anyone who has the book tell me if there is a decent discussions of the works, or is it all biography?

I assume given the title of "Life & Music" there would be substantial coverage (though in the dissertation, at least, it was unsystematic), - I hope for my own sake more understandably descriptive than with pages of score reproduction and analyses.

It was Maxwell himself who rather presumptively if not dismissively applied the notion of "myth" (i.e. the "Moeran Myth") to the aggregate of all previous writing about Moeran before his own, and announced (in the thesis) his mission as that of debunking and correcting the accumulating mess.  My only purpose was merely to suggest myth as a possibly more elastic notion than his own chosen application allowed for.  Somehow he took that as a crusade to belittle and invalidate his work, which I had previously and repeatedly praised and expressed gratitude for here.  Weird.

Besides that, if you're an Oxbridge don and now distinguished author who encounters some anonymous bloke on an internet forum making what you regard as disparaging and ignorant remarks about your work, is it really a mature response stooping to invective, and then cutting out in a huff absent any discussion?  A bit of disarming grace and/or patient repudiation would have been much more worthy in my estimation.

Done with it.

[Irons]

I assume given the title of "Life & Music" there would be substantial coverage (though in the dissertation, at least, it was unsystematic), - I hope for my own sake more understandably descriptive than with pages of score reproduction and analyses.

It was Maxwell himself who rather presumptively if not dismissively applied the notion of "myth" (i.e. the "Moeran Myth") to the aggregate of all previous writing about Moeran before his own, and announced (in the thesis) his mission as that of debunking and correcting the accumulating mess.  My only purpose was merely to suggest myth as a possibly more elastic notion than his own chosen application allowed for.  Somehow he took that as a crusade to belittle and invalidate his work, which I had previously and repeatedly praised and expressed gratitude for here.  Weird.

Besides that, if you're an Oxbridge don and now distinguished author who encounters some anonymous bloke on an internet forum making what you regard as disparaging and ignorant remarks about your work, is it really a mature response stooping to invective, and then cutting out in a huff absent any discussion?  A bit of disarming grace and/or patient repudiation would have been much more worthy in my estimation.

Done with it.

I agree. I found it surprising he got so upset, it would take more then that to get me going. The discussion was way above my head so kept out of it but is myth such a terrible thing? Plenty, I  imagine, attached to Beethoven and hasn't done him any harm. I'm not against some colour attached to hard facts.

[Roasted Swan]

Actually, I'm not, I did raise some queries about the assumptions in the thesis when that was posted here a little while ago, and I think that the biography of Moeran is of little interest compared to the works; he seems to have had a pretty wretched life, but still managed to produce a series of marvelous works, many of which are warmer and more fun-filled than you'd expect given the biography.

Can anyone who has the book tell me if there is a decent discussions of the works, or is it all biography?

I've started reading the book - but it is very substantial so I'm still with the ancestors!  But in response to your query I've had a very quick skim through the book/index.  There are 62 printed music examples.  I picked 2 works - pretty much at random - to see how they have been discussed.  They were the Symphony as Moeran's largest work and the Op. posth. E flat String quartet - because I've played it a lot and like it!  The latter is discussed with 2 examples and provides the best solution/answer to the enduring question of whether this work dates from early or late in Moeran's career - the answer is both.  Oddly, the symphony seems to receive no musical analysis at all (as I say this is a skim of the index - perhaps I've missed an appendix or something).  The context is well laid out - interesting correspondance with Britten I don't remember reading before as well as a swingeing review of the HMV recording.

[vandermolen]

I've started reading the book - but it is very substantial so I'm still with the ancestors!  But in response to your query I've had a very quick skim through the book/index.  There are 62 printed music examples.  I picked 2 works - pretty much at random - to see how they have been discussed.  They were the Symphony as Moeran's largest work and the Op. posth. E flat String quartet - because I've played it a lot and like it!  The latter is discussed with 2 examples and provides the best solution/answer to the enduring question of whether this work dates from early or late in Moeran's career - the answer is both.  Oddly, the symphony seems to receive no musical analysis at all (as I say this is a skim of the index - perhaps I've missed an appendix or something).  The context is well laid out - interesting correspondance with Britten I don't remember reading before as well as a swingeing review of the HMV recording.

Tell us more please. The contact with Britten sounds most interesting. Is that (HMV recording) the Heward or Dikes version?
Thanks RS.
Years ago HMV issued this CD, in the days that their In-House releases were more adventurous:

[Roasted Swan]

Tell us more please. The contact with Britten sounds most interesting. Is that (HMV recording) the Heward or Dikes version?
Thanks RS.
Year ago HMV issued this CD, in the days that their In-House releases were more adventurous:

The review is about the Heward and it was by Edward Sackville-West writing in the New Statesman.  One choice excerpt reads; "... the impression made by each movement is in the last degree vague and imprecise.  Instead of dealing a series of well-aimed blows, the symphony flops against the mind like a stingless jellyfish"......   Erm..... ouch

The Britten reference is indeed interesting (actually Maxwell cites several meetings/letters/conversations between the two which I don't remember ever hearing about before)..  Apparently in the 30's there was some communication/friendship between Moeran and Britten with the older composer theoretically a guide/adviser to the younger.  But Britten wrote in his diary the following; "After dinner Jack Moeran comes with his new symphony.. it has some excellent things in it but terribly under the influence of Sibelius - moods, ideas & technique.  This is going to be as bad as the Brahms influence on English music I fear."

[J]

The review is about the Heward and it was by Edward Sackville-West writing in the New Statesman.  One choice excerpt reads; "... the impression made by each movement is in the last degree vague and imprecise.  Instead of dealing a series of well-aimed blows, the symphony flops against the mind like a stingless jellyfish"...... 

Whatever might this last statement mean (if anything)?  Are vague and imprecise impressions necessarily a bad thing? - and anyway, I hear plenty of apparently "well-aimed blows" in Moeran's Symphony.

[Roasted Swan]

Whatever might this last statement mean (if anything)?  Are vague and imprecise impressions necessarily a bad thing? - and anyway, I hear plenty of apparently "well-aimed blows" in Moeran's Symphony.

I think we can safely assume Mr Sackville-West was wholly negative in his appraisal!

[vandermolen]

The review is about the Heward and it was by Edward Sackville-West writing in the New Statesman.  One choice excerpt reads; "... the impression made by each movement is in the last degree vague and imprecise.  Instead of dealing a series of well-aimed blows, the symphony flops against the mind like a stingless jellyfish"......   Erm..... ouch

The Britten reference is indeed interesting (actually Maxwell cites several meetings/letters/conversations between the two which I don't remember ever hearing about before)..  Apparently in the 30's there was some communication/friendship between Moeran and Britten with the older composer theoretically a guide/adviser to the younger.  But Britten wrote in his diary the following; "After dinner Jack Moeran comes with his new symphony.. it has some excellent things in it but terribly under the influence of Sibelius - moods, ideas & technique.  This is going to be as bad as the Brahms influence on English music I fear."

Thanks very much. That sounds much more revealing about Britten than about Moeran's Symphony. I get the impression that Britten was quite a duplicitous individual.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I've started reading the book - but it is very substantial so I'm still with the ancestors!  But in response to your query I've had a very quick skim through the book/index.  There are 62 printed music examples.  I picked 2 works - pretty much at random - to see how they have been discussed.  They were the Symphony as Moeran's largest work and the Op. posth. E flat String quartet - because I've played it a lot and like it!  The latter is discussed with 2 examples and provides the best solution/answer to the enduring question of whether this work dates from early or late in Moeran's career - the answer is both.  Oddly, the symphony seems to receive no musical analysis at all (as I say this is a skim of the index - perhaps I've missed an appendix or something).  The context is well laid out - interesting correspondance with Britten I don't remember reading before as well as a swingeing review of the HMV recording.

Geoffrey Self's book is all about the music, quite analytical, with lots of examples (100). The Symphony gets a whole chapter to itself (102-133). Perhaps Mr Maxwell didn't want to duplicate Self's analysis (or couldn't improve on it?). I get the impression from what you're saying his Moeran book is more focussed on the life.

[calyptorhynchus]

Geoffrey Self's book is all about the music, quite analytical, with lots of examples (100). The Symphony gets a whole chapter to itself (102-133). Perhaps Mr Maxwell didn't want to duplicate Self's analysis (or couldn't improve on it?). I get the impression from what you're saying his Moeran book is more focussed on the life.

Dammit, sounds like I have to buy both now! 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Dammit, sounds like I have to buy both now! 

Ha!
I share Jeffrey's affection for Self's pioneering book.

[Roasted Swan]

Dammit, sounds like I have to buy both now! 

I think you will!

[Roasted Swan]

Ha!
I share Jeffrey's affection for Self's pioneering book.

Absolutely re Self.  I don't think Maxwell is saying for a second his book supercedes previous studies just simply that with the passage of time more documentation has come to light which provides more detail.  But Maxwell also states that much is still missing from the jigsaw puzzle that was Moeran's life and his hope is that his book might result in even more information surfacing - the proverbial unknown unknowns!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Agreed. I think Mr Maxwell's book will be an excellent addition to the not exactly burgeoning field of Moeran studies.

[vandermolen]

I agree. I found it surprising he got so upset, it would take more then that to get me going. The discussion was way above my head so kept out of it but is myth such a terrible thing? Plenty, I  imagine, attached to Beethoven and hasn't done him any harm. I'm not against some colour attached to hard facts.

I very much agree with you Lol. I don't want it all to 'kick off' again, but I think that 'HotFXMan' unfortunately rather overreacted to what were legitimate questions about his book. He didn't have to react that way - that was his choice. I'm sure that his book is a great contribution to understanding Moeran, and ironically it was J who kindly alerted me to Dr Maxwell's studies, knowing my enthusiasm for Moeran's music and even sent me a link to the PhD thesis.

[J]

I very much agree with you Lol. I don't want it all to 'kick off' again, but I think that 'HotFXMan' unfortunately rather overreacted to what were legitimate questions about his book. He didn't have to react that way - that was his choice. I'm sure that his book is a great contribution to understanding Moeran, and ironically it was J who kindly alerted me to Dr Maxwell's studies, knowing my enthusiasm for Moeran's music and even sent me a link to the PhD thesis.

I devoured Maxwell's Moeran thesis after first discovering it, - twice in quick succession and some sections many times more than that subsequently.  It fascinated me to read and consider his case, and I couldn't have been more grateful for his efforts in tracing out so many varying threads and the provocative judgments he argued for. Thus to see my hero later on sneer his contempt at me was something of a comedown, - though if having one's comments ignored is the worst fate one can endure here, then at least I got his attention .

Me calling Maxwell a "mythmaker" in his own right was part tweak over him sensationalizing the possible missteps of his predecessors (the "Moeran Myth"), and part recognition that after all the research, some essential mystery of Moeran remains (as with any person), - not just what we do not know, but what we cannot know.

That's hardly saying Maxwell's portraiture is therefore only a product of his imagination, or denying his authority in significantly advancing our understanding.  But is it improper to suggest the results might be conditioned and conditional in many respects nonetheless (though not merely relative), without reference to all the relevant historiographical, hermeneutical, personal, and literary issues involved?

This isn't a scholar's domain, and when those participate here they need to be a bit more indulgent in contending with their inferiors, couldn't we agree?  It's not all bad though, as I can now (sheepishly) tell my grandchildren the great EJ Moeran doyen Ian Maxwell one time got pissed off at me.  I'm saving the post(s) where it happened.