The British Composers Thread

[Lilas Pastia]

I never read it in the original German. Is that how it was written? There's so much humour in that humongous novel, and it comes in very unexpected touches. This one's a little gem.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I never read it in the original German. Is that how it was written? There's so much humour in that humongous novel, and it comes in very unexpected touches. This one's a little gem.

I haven't read it either, André. I just thought that would be the *right* wrong title!

[Lilas Pastia]

Quite probable, actually ! This jeu de mots is much more plausible that way. 'Hero' translates as 'helden' in German, so there's no way a german speaker would mistake 'eroica' with its german equivalent. Anyone here knows the answer? 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Quite probable, actually ! This jeu de mots is much more plausible that way. 'Hero' translates as 'helden' in German, so there's no way a german speaker would mistake 'eroica' with its german equivalent. Anyone here knows the answer? 

Yes, I do... The Germans use the word 'heroisch', too. And between 'heroisch' and 'erotisch' there isn't that much difference, apart from an obtrusive t.  0:)

[Lilas Pastia]

The Germans use the word 'heroisch', too.

I didn't know that! So, the plot thickens !! 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I found the passage in German! It's in Chapter Six, a section called 'Schnee' (Snow):

Frau Stöhr weinte begeistert im Anblick der Form des ehemaligen Joachim. »Ein Held! Ein Held!« rief sie mehrfach und verlangte, daß an seinem Grabe die »Erotika« von Beethoven gespielt werden müsse.

So - it's a Frau Stöhr who says she wants Beethoven's Erotica to be played at Joachim's (? Joseph, the violinist? haven't read the novel) grave...

[Lilas Pastia]

Ha! Fantastische! Joachim Ziemssen is Hans Castorp's cousin. The story starts when Castorp goes to the Davos sanatorium to visit his cousin.

Although it has nothing to do in this thread, may I just conclude by adding that Zauberberg is one of 20th century's most fascinating, seminal and important novels. A classic for the ages. Excellent Wiki article.. BTW music plays an important role throughout the novel.

[Dundonnell]

Richard Arnell's death reduces still further the number of established British composers of symphonies.

Those who remain include-

John Linton Gardner(born 1917)-3
Arthur Butterworth(born 1923)-6
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies(born 1934)-8
Sir Richard Rodney Bennett(born 1936)-3
John McCabe(born 1939)-5
David Matthews(born 1943)-6
James Macmillan(born 1959)-3

I find this rather depressing

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Richard Arnell's death reduces still further the number of established British composers of symphonies.

Those who remain include-

John Linton Gardner(born 1917)-3
Arthur Butterworth(born 1923)-6
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies(born 1934)-8
Sir Richard Rodney Bennett(born 1936)-3
John McCabe(born 1939)-5
David Matthews(born 1943)-6
James Macmillan(born 1959)-3

I find this rather depressing

You forgot

John Pickard (born 1963)-4,

Colin...

[Dundonnell]

Thank you, Johan

And Pickard(like Macmillan) is younger than me.....so there is some hope after all


.....But would someone please record Pickard's 2nd and 3rd!!

[vandermolen]

Don't forget David Bedford's First Symphony (1985), which I have actually heard live - it is good fun.

[Dax]

John White has written 25 symphonies, but many of them are electronic. But there is one for solo piano (dedicated to the memory of Alkan) and another for organ and 6 tubas.

[Guido]

Not everything has to be a Symphony! Nor does everyone have to write them to be worthwhile composers! (see Ades!)

[sul G]

No, Guido, I agree. However, if you guys want to club together and organise a commission to ensure the survival of the British Symphony (in the shape of Ottevanger's #1) then I won't stand in your way. 

[Guido]

No, Guido, I agree. However, if you guys want to club together and organise a commission to ensure the survival of the British Symphony (in the shape of Ottevanger's #1) then I won't stand in your way. 

Didn't know you had it in you! What would a 21st century symphony look like?

As to the commissioning - maybe when I have more money/power/influence!

[Grazioso]

Not everything has to be a Symphony! Nor does everyone have to write them to be worthwhile composers! (see Ades!)

Heresy!   Actually, while I've been exploring symphonies over the past few years (see this thread: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12000.0.html), I've been a bit surprised to see just how few significant composers from the Classical era onward didn't write at least one. Of the major canonical figures, only a few didn't: Chopin, Puccini, Verdi... And countless second-tier composers wrote them. And while Britain has her fine non-symphonists like Delius, Finzi, etc., most of its important figures have also been symphonists. If you're going to write classical music, you may as well go for the gold

[Guido]

Heresy!   Actually, while I've been exploring symphonies over the past few years (see this thread: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12000.0.html), I've been a bit surprised to see just how few significant composers from the Classical era onward didn't write at least one. Of the major canonical figures, only a few didn't: Chopin, Puccini, Verdi... And countless second-tier composers wrote them. And while Britain has her fine non-symphonists like Delius, Finzi, etc., most of its important figures have also been symphonists. If you're going to write classical music, you may as well go for the gold

Well it was the standard large scale medium for orchestra, so it's not that surprising... We need to define what we mean by 'symphonist' here - does writing one symphony make one a symphonist? Is Moeran a symphonist with his one (very fine) symphony? Does any piece with the word symphony in the title mean that it is symphonic in thought?  I would argue that Britten wasn't a symphonist either - his 3 works bearing the title fit more easily into other categories. And of course as I said, there are many major writers for orchestral forces that never wrote a symphony.

[Dundonnell]

Of course I agree with you that "not everything has to be a symphony" Why, I like concertos as well...and big choral works too

The list of composers who never wrote a symphony is indeed extensive. Grazioso mentioned Chopin, Puccini and Verdi, Delius and Finzi.
But you can add to those composers like Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Faure, Falla, Busoni, Bridge, Petrassi, Dallapiccola, Orff, Ginastera, Howells, Ireland, Poulenc, Reger, Mussorgsky, Rodrigo, Satie....just off the top of my head. There are great names in that list
Does Janacek's Sinfonietta make him a symphonist?

But, I have always regarded the symphony as the apex of orchestral composition and if I think back to the period in British music when composers like Alwyn, Arnell, Arnold, Berkeley, Brian, Alan Bush, Cooke, Frankel, Fricker, Hamilton, Hoddinott, Jones, Lloyd, Mathias, Rawsthorne, Rubbra, Searle, Simpson, Tippett, Walton and Wordsworth were active symphonists whose symphonies were being played and/or recorded and compare it to today..........

But, remember, I am of an older generation. It is kind of inevitable that I will be drawn into the "things are not as good now as they once were" mindset If the future lies with different musical forms then so be it

[sul G]

Does Janacek's Sinfonietta make him a symphonist?

Not IMO

[Lilas Pastia]

Thanks to Vandermolen's ardent and generous advocacy  I listened to Arnell' symphonies 3 - 5 these last few weeks. I started with 3, and felt as if I had hit a stumbling block. Therefore I dutifully gave it a couple more listenings before attempting to forge an opinion.

I had trouble with this work. It seemed to me to be anything but a classical symphony. Not a fault in itself, but a perception that forced me to figure out for myself the structure of the work. Although nominally in 6 movements, it's really more like 5 (# 5 is a very brief introduction to # 6) . The first two movements have so much material and so little connecting tissue they might have been part of a ballet suite. None the worse for that, as english composers of the time were particularly adept at the genre - indeed, unrivalled.

I liked most of it, while still trying to understand what all the critical fuss was about. This may sound harsh, but if a composer has labeled his work 'symphony no 3', he ought to expect that we'll take the terms 'symphony' and '# 3'  seriously. One particular instance that had me listening slack-jawed in admiration AND disbelief was the collage of 3-4 different codas to the work, as if the composer was discarding the preceding one aside before gleefully launching another big-hearted attempt at a suitable triumphant conclusion. Triumph is clearly the feeling the composer wants to convey, and although in the end he does manage, he leaves me trampled and exhausted in the process. An intriguing work that raminds me no a little bit of Havergal Brian's freewheeling ways with structure and harmonies.

Symphonies 4 and 5, each about half the length of 3 - and each in a more compact three movement layout - were more to my liking. Indeed, I found both quite remarkable. The composer has an ear for startling orchestral effects (the timpani tattoo that harks the 4th's first movement had me perking up my ears). And in a three movement structure the ending has a sense of arrival that doesn't sound like the Victor Borge spoof I can't escape hearing in the 3rd. I have to say that the 5th's 5 minute-long last movement sounds disconcertingly short. But overall I prefer that kind of brevity. All told, I'm firmly of the opinion that # 4 is a great work, the 5th a most engaging one, while #3 reminds me of Brian's first two symphonies. Hugely interesting material, but a disconcerting symphonic treatment