Langgaard's Lyre

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Quote from: vandermolen on 25-02-2012, 18:41:40

One of the CD guides described Langgaard as a kind of 'Danish Havergal Brian' so maybe they are destined to be together 

Clearly I need to listen to 1 and 16 from opposite ends of Langgaard's composing career. I have some of the Stupel recordings so will fish them out.


Langgaard resembles Brian only in the neglect he suffered. Musically, intellectually, they are very different, I think. Brian is much more consistently adventurous and didn't have a spiritual programme, like Langgaard did (got it from his parents). The musical language of Langgaard's first symphony isn't very different from his last. Only in symphony no. 6 and, even more, the Music of the Spheres does he write music of astonishing boldness and novelty. But No. 7 retreats into the nineteenth century. This Brian never does. It's not just 40 years that separate the Gothic and Symphony No. 32, but a wholly different musical outlook.

[cilgwyn]

What do you think of his 'Antikrist' opera,Johan? A bit late (or,early!) to answer this question,now,but I am curious as to you're thoughts on this.

And yes,Brian never goes back,does he,in the way Langgaard did. Although,the English Suite No 5 is a kind of revisiting of something he did earlier. But even that's in his later,more allusive style.

[Mirror Image]

What do you think of his 'Antikrist' opera,Johan? A bit late (or,early!) to answer this question,now,but I am curious as to you're thoughts on this.

I know you didn't ask me, but Langgaard's Antikrist is certainly one of the better operas I've heard. There is such an orchestral brilliance throughout the work. Some moments are absolutely jaw-dropping. I didn't follow along with the libretto, but on a purely musical level it's one of his best works IMHO. If you love his symphonies, then you'll love this opera.

[vandermolen]

#14 - once you familiarize yourself with its program and movement titles (eg. Dad's rushing to the office) it becomes even more enjoyable, plus it's choral bookends enhance the symphony's uniqueness.

And I have grown to appreciate the first version of symphony #5 quite a bit. Only have one version (Dausgard)

Many thanks - I have both of these works so I will listen again.

[cilgwyn]

I know you didn't ask me, but Langgaard's Antikrist is certainly one of the better operas I've heard. There is such an orchestral brilliance throughout the work. Some moments are absolutely jaw-dropping. I didn't follow along with the libretto, but on a purely musical level it's one of his best works IMHO. If you love his symphonies, then you'll love this opera.

Actually,I DO have the opera on cd,MI. I just wondered,that's all,Johan being a HBS member & the Langaard-Havergal Brian comparisons. Having said that,I know flattery gets you nowhere ,but judging by you're posts you certainly know you're music! And yes,'Antikrist' IS very orchestral,almost symphonic in places. This is one opera where you really can enjoy the music & singing,even if you aren't following a libretto,or even if you just heard it on the radio & didn't know what the heck was going on.
 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

MI and cilgwyn - I still have to listen to Antikrist and read the libretto... It shares music with Symphony No. 6, of course, so I do know some of it. When I have the time I'll listen to it. I know what the subject matter is and I can read Danish, so it will be interesting to see how Langgaard combines word and music, and if he is indebted to Wagner and Strauss in any way.


So, for the moment - no opinion!

[cilgwyn]

Thanks,Johan! Incidentally,I wonder if anyone here has the dvd? I have watched some excerpts on 'Youtube'.
Nice to be able to read it in Danish. Of course reading the libretto is the right way of listening to an opera,especially one like this. Langgaard is an ideas man after all;this isn't verismo froth we're dealing with. I was just observing that the music is,as MI pointed out,is so brilliant,in terms of orchestration,that it IS possible to just sit back and just wallow in the sheer sumptuousness and jaw dropping originality of some of Langgaards wildly imaginative sound world.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

For those who want to read some reviews of Antikrist and about RL himself... http://www.mediafire.com/?dd0ufsdkqecdd

[cilgwyn]

Thank you,Johan,I will have a look at that.Even if Langgaard has a tendency to look backwards,as opposed to forwards,there is some truly astonishing orchestration in some of his best symphonies,even if he was never 'up there' with his nemesis,Carl Nielsen (well.maybe in his dreams & I bet old Nielsen came out badly in them ). The Fourth is a case in point & the sixth has a visionary quality.The fact that he seems to make a giant leap back in time,afterwards,is initially,a bit of a disappointment. But,when you get to know his music better,it is this leaping back and forth,in time and styles,and wild,wacky,inconsistency that is,at least for me,part of the puzzle that makes RL such an intriguing composer. Although,having said that,as interesting as he is,I don't think I would ever feel as much of a need to post in the RL thread as I do in the HB! Somehow,HB has a far more universal appeal.There are more layers to unpeel.
  Mind you,like Dundonnell.I don't like all these comparisons,anyway. For example,I was on the Louis Spohr thread a moment ago,and while I would be loathe,and probably extremely foolish or eccentric,to rank him alongside Beethoven,with whom he was once compared,I really DID enjoy the two symphonies I have just heard & he does have his own sound world,even if it wasn't as epoch making or influential,in the way that Beethoven's was.

This reviewer is suitable boggled by Langgaard's maverick eccentricity,anyway!:

http://www.operatoday.com/content/2005/11/langgaard_antik.php

[vandermolen]

Quote from: vandermolen on 25-02-2012, 18:41:40

One of the CD guides described Langgaard as a kind of 'Danish Havergal Brian' so maybe they are destined to be together 

Clearly I need to listen to 1 and 16 from opposite ends of Langgaard's composing career. I have some of the Stupel recordings so will fish them out.


Langgaard resembles Brian only in the neglect he suffered. Musically, intellectually, they are very different, I think. Brian is much more consistently adventurous and didn't have a spiritual programme, like Langgaard did (got it from his parents). The musical language of Langgaard's first symphony isn't very different from his last. Only in symphony no. 6 and, even more, the Music of the Spheres does he write music of astonishing boldness and novelty. But No. 7 retreats into the nineteenth century. This Brian never does. It's not just 40 years that separate the Gothic and Symphony No. 32, but a wholly different musical outlook.

Thanks Johan - I think that it was in this spirit that the comment was originally made and certaily how I took it - two eccentric loners persevering in the face of public and music establishment indifference.  I don't think that there was ever any suggestion of stylistic connection.

[Dundonnell]

Thanks Johan - I think that it was in this spirit that the comment was originally made and certaily how I took it - two eccentric loners persevering in the face of public and music establishment indifference.  I don't think that there was ever any suggestion of stylistic connection.

Yes..and that is a problem for me Jeffrey's phrase- "two eccentric loners persevering in the face of public and music establishment indifference"

Now I am not actually sure that I would characterise Brian as 'eccentric', Langgaard yes! But this image is one which has been built up since these composers died and since their music came to be revived. It is a powerful image and there is an attraction to it. Some of us empathise strongly with the image and support, with sometimes boundless enthusiasm, the rehabilitation of the composers and their music. The music may indeed deserve the encomia lavished on it by its fanatical supporters-Brian's certainly does, Langgaard's I am not quite so sure of.

But there are two problems. One if that the critical musical establishment reacts by closing ranks against the lobby of enthusiasts, characterising them as equally 'eccentric' devotees of a justifiably ignored mediocrity. That, I can live with. The second problem-which I regard as more serious, even if less often discussed-is that, in expending so much energy and enthusiasm in extolling the merits of these composers, we tend to have less time, less enthusiasm for other fine composers whose personal stories cannot so readily be transformed into the stuff of myth. These people worked away, perhaps enjoying brief periods of, if not fame, then acceptance before falling out of fashion and into comparative neglect. They are not necessarily colourful characters, we can weave no web of mystery about them, sometimes indeed we know very little about them. But is their music to be rated as so much poorer because they do not attract people to write screeds and screeds about them?

In short(hah ) while Havergal Brian attracts well in excess of 200 pages on this forum and Langgaard 13, other worthy composers struggle to get half a dozen comments in total.

And it is this which worries me

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Interesting post, Colin. I'd like to say the following:


Art isn't democratic. Every artist likes to be the centre of attention, and only a handful succeeds. A minority survives death. Why? There must be something in the work - not just the life - which fascinates and merits repeated viewings, readings, listens. There must be abundance, mastery, vitality, mystery. If an artist possesses all these attributes, he will continue to attract new 'customers', whatever the critics say. That many artists are not so lucky can't be helped - life is short and you must make choices. That's why I do think that comparing artists is useful - it sharpens critical awareness and it saves time...

[Dundonnell]

I am not sure that I would agree that "every artist likes to be the centre of attention" Did it matter so very much to Brian that his works were almost totally ignored for so long and that he was, most certainly, not "the centre of attention"

Of course there are 'unsung composers' whose work may attract a handful of dedicated enthusiasts but does not have sufficient intrinsic merit to attract others to it. Brian's music does have that merit, it is fascinating music of enduring power and vitality but his cause has been helped-and I think we should acknowledge this-by the image of the old man working away in semi-isolation, producing 32 symphonies, including one of extraordinary dimensions and grandeur. I know that it was this 'image' that initially grabbed my attention, along with Deryck Cooke's so-powerful piece of writing about The Gothic, back in 1962 or whenever it was.

The second sentence of the Wikipedia article on Brian:

"Brian acquired a legendary status at the time of his rediscovery in the 1950s and 1960s for the many symphonies he had managed to write. By the end of his life he had completed 32, an unusually large number for any composer since Haydn or Mozart. More remarkably, he completed 14 of these symphonies in his 80s, and seven more in his early 90s."

I agree that "art isn't democratic". There are fine composers whose music does deserve to be heard more widely but is not given the chance to do so because they lack both a colourful back-story and an effective champion. Suppose, for the sake of argument, neither Robert Simpson or Malcolm MacDonald had happened to like HB's music. Where would it now be, I wonder

I don't have the capacity, ability or knowledge to write a book about, let's just say, William Wordsworth. Nor am I a music producer at the BBC with the opportunity to get his music performed. All I can do is to write on forums like this and hope to encourage two or three other people to take an interest in music which I do believe has value.
It is not anything like enough.....but I shall go on trying

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I think it speaks for the power of Brian's music that he could attract two such tremendous advocates. Just as great literature creates great critics, great music inspires passionate advocacy in those suspectible to its charms. As for 'being the centre of attention' - Brian thought he was fated to write great music. Though he didn't have a lot of success, you can hear in the music that his ambition was enormous and that the urge to create powerful works never diminished. He must have known that all his labour wasn't in vain and gave his all.


Langgaard, on the other hand, was an embittered man. He started out as a Wunderkind but was overtaken by the great Carl Nielsen, who wrote the 'modern' music the Danes liked. Langgaard was regarded as outdated. Perhaps it was fortunate for Brian he was used to being a nobody, whereas Langgaard had tasted fame in Germany, for a short while.

[Winky Willy]

Out of personal curiosity, may I interrupt this interesting conversation to ask whether anybody thinks this Langaard is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7fZdvQMxk

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Quote from: Winky Willy on Today at 01:31:26

Out of personal curiosity, may I interrupt this interesting conversation to ask whether anybody thinks this Langaard is good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7fZdvQMxk


'Good', isn't the right word. It's funny and obsessive... The theme goes round and round (Ixion's Wheel) and then Wagner tubas join in. The next symphony is just as strange, with a very abrupt ending where the score reads: the composer explodes...

[Winky Willy]

I personally find it one of the stupidest and most offensive (to the intellect of the listener) works I have ever heard.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I think the stupidity is intentional. I am not easily offended, nor is my intelligence (in this case). I consider the work a bitter joke.

[cilgwyn]

  I'll have a listen to that one tommorrow! If I end up gnashing my teeth I'll have to blame you,I'm afraid,Johan! I have heard it before and I can't say it particularly offended me. I like Langgaard's music,when I'm in the right mood,but he's never going to be everyone's metaphorical cup of tea!

Of course,you don't mean funny,as in 'Dads Army',do you?!!!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

No, not 'Dad's Army'-funny. More absurdly funny.