Robert Simpson(1921-1997)

Started by Dundonnell, March 25, 2008, 02:09:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vandermolen

#340
Quote from: JohnP on July 27, 2018, 08:27:01 AM
Well!, Steve Schwartz at Classical Net believes that Simpson stands at least level with Shostakovich and his string quartets bear comparison with Beethoven and Bartok. Vandermolen and relm1 don't think he's up to much. Fascinating....http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/h/hyp66905a.php

Isn't that the fascination of this forum, if taken the right way, the differences of opinion? We live in an age of increasing intolerance but, as a rule, I do not find that here.
:)
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

vandermolen

Quote from: relm1 on July 27, 2018, 06:17:04 AM
Why you little *(#@*!.  Actually, I agree with you.  Simpson seems to be a music scholar/musicologist who wrote music.  He generally understands what the material needs structurally or architecturally, just doesn't have the talent to pull it off which is fine.  Some composers have a lot of talent but lack the skill/architecture (perhaps Mussorgsky).

Haha! When I read your opening sentence I wondered whether my wife had joined the forum and was commenting on my CD collection.  :D
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

CRCulver

Quote from: JohnP on July 27, 2018, 08:27:01 AM
Well!, Steve Schwartz at Classical Net believes that Simpson stands at least level with Shostakovich and his string quartets bear comparison with Beethoven and Bartok.

Does he still believe that? I have never heard a note of Simpson (though, as a Holmboe fan, I have been meaning to), but over my years in the classical music community I have repeatedly seen people acquire a small Simpson collection, gush about his music to others, and then admit a few months or years later that his music wasn't so great after all.

We all do that with various composers (I still cringe that I gave Brodsgaard's Piano Concerto a 5-star review on Amazon, WTF was I thinking?), but with Simpson it seems to be more common than with others.

J.Z. Herrenberg

#343
Quote from: vandermolen on July 27, 2018, 09:28:45 AM
Haha! When I read your opening sentence I wondered whether my wife had joined the forum and was commenting on my CD collection.  :D
;D
Re 'tolerance': you cannot force someone to like a certain composer or a certain piece of music. Even within an oeuvre you have your preferences. I enjoy this Simpson discussion very much. I admire the man, I have read his books, I like a few of his symphonies (1, 3, 9), but I have always felt his focus on process was always greater than the force of the ideas he uses to shape that process in the first place... My well-known favourite, Havergal Brian, is intellectually and architectonically perhaps Simpson's inferior. But he is a far more compelling, gripping and humanly moving symphonist to these ears.
P.S. I agree with Jeffrey's 'scaffolding' argument.
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything. -- Plato

Archaic Torso of Apollo

Quote from: CRCulver on July 27, 2018, 09:31:29 AM
Does he still believe that? I have never heard a note of Simpson (though, as a Holmboe fan, I have been meaning to), but over my years in the classical music community I have repeatedly seen people acquire a small Simpson collection, gush about his music to others, and then admit a few months or years later that his music wasn't so great after all.

I first heard Simpson in the form of the 9th Symphony, back in 1998 or so. Re-listened a couple of years ago, and was pleased to discover it still held up, even if it didn't feel quite as revelatory as the first time.

I have kind of lost interest in some of his symphonies (particularly 3 & 5), but a number of other works I got to know long ago still sound good to me. I am wondering if perhaps his quartets are a greater achievement?

Quote from: CRCulver on July 27, 2018, 09:31:29 AM
We all do that with various composers (I still cringe that I gave Brodsgaard's Piano Concerto a 5-star review on Amazon, WTF was I thinking?), but with Simpson it seems to be more common than with others.

Maybe - it's hard to tell, there aren't a lot of Simpson listeners out there to begin with.
formerly VELIMIR (before that, Spitvalve)

"Who knows not strict counterpoint, lives and dies an ignoramus" - CPE Bach

SymphonicAddict

Regarding the string quartets, for me, they are much less compelling than the symphonies. They hardly ever hold my attention, I feel them rather tough. Possibly others could enjoy them.

calyptorhynchus

I wonder how useful it is for people to keep on posting and saying they find Simpson's music disappointing. What is the point of saying this?

When I say I find Simpson endlessly compelling, and amongst the greatest music ever written, then I hope I am encouraging people to listen to it, and hope that some of my comments provide further information to help people to understand the music.

But to say you don't find his music interesting is only possibly to deter people from listening, which is what you want to avoid.

There are many composers I think are terrible composers and hugely overrated, but I don't go to those threads telling people this (I might make a few throw-away remarks to that effect in other threads). I know you can't make people like a given composer's work, but equally you can't make them dislike an oeuvre.

I commend those composers I like and when I post here I hope I provide further information to people about them. The only time I ever criticise works is in the context of other works by the same composer (ie why is Nielsen's Violin Concerto so awful compared to his other works, why was the normally impeccable Holmboe infected with a fundamentalist Christian brainstorm when he wrote Requiem for Nietzsche? and so forth).
'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

relm1

#347
Quote from: JohnP on July 27, 2018, 08:27:01 AM
Well!, Steve Schwartz at Classical Net believes that Simpson stands at least level with Shostakovich and his string quartets bear comparison with Beethoven and Bartok. Vandermolen and relm1 don't think he's up to much. Fascinating....http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/h/hyp66905a.php

Well, Steve is an expert at English Literature and Computer Science so I will defer to him on those topics but I have a masters in music composition.  :P
   
Steve Schwartz bio:
    Oberlin, AB (1968);
    University of Michigan, MA (1969)
    University of Michigan, Ph.D. (1974); all degrees in English Literature.
    University of New Orleans, B.S. (1981) in computer science.

Seriously no disrespect intended...he probably makes 100k more than me per year (at least).

vandermolen

Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 27, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
I wonder how useful it is for people to keep on posting and saying they find Simpson's music disappointing. What is the point of saying this?

When I say I find Simpson endlessly compelling, and amongst the greatest music ever written, then I hope I am encouraging people to listen to it, and hope that some of my comments provide further information to help people to understand the music.

But to say you don't find his music interesting is only possibly to deter people from listening, which is what you want to avoid.

There are many composers I think are terrible composers and hugely overrated, but I don't go to those threads telling people this (I might make a few throw-away remarks to that effect in other threads). I know you can't make people like a given composer's work, but equally you can't make them dislike an oeuvre.

I commend those composers I like and when I post here I hope I provide further information to people about them. The only time I ever criticise works is in the context of other works by the same composer (ie why is Nielsen's Violin Concerto so awful compared to his other works, why was the normally impeccable Holmboe infected with a fundamentalist Christian brainstorm when he wrote Requiem for Nietzsche? and so forth).

I see your point although speaking for myself I made it clear that I like Simpson's symphonies 1 and 3 and want to hear 2 and 4. I usually write enthusiastically about music I like but it is good, I believe, to have a range of view as here. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' about it and actually I think I'm missing out by not getting 'into' works like Simpson's 9th Symphony which some consider a towering masterpiece. On Amazon 99% of the time I review music which I really like and to draw attention to it, especially, if it's not well known (Stanley Bate, Miaskovsky etc) but occasionally I think a work is over-hyped and I might write a more negative review (Christopher Gunning's symphonies for example) as I think that others might be mislead by over-enthusiastic (in my opinion) reviews and be disappointed if they splash out their money to purchase something, as I have, based on misleading reviews. As for here I think that it's good to have a range of views, which is largely, I think, what we get.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

cilgwyn

The cd of symphonies 1 & 8 arrived here today! I listened to the Second late last night,after two pints of lager,and I must admit I did rather enjoy it;although,it is possible the lager helped!! (I didn't have a spoon full of sugar,to hand! ;D) My favourite parts of the symphony were the quieter bits. I can't help thinking of his interest in astronomy,here. Those moments of stillness,and quietude,in Simpson's music,are the bits I like most. That said,while I can hear the "Nielsen without the tunes" jibe in allot of his orchestration (it does often sound like Nielsen,without the tunes! ::) ;D) yet,I do rather like the sounds his orchestration makes. The woodwind,particularly. The Fourth strikes me as a gruffer,nut to chew on. It's also noisier,and you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes ("You AMAZE me Holmes!" ;D) to hear the Beethoven influence. I'm going to need another listen a bit later.

Harry

Quote from: cilgwyn on July 28, 2018, 02:13:18 AM
The cd of symphonies 1 & 8 arrived here today! I listened to the Second late last night,after two pints of lager,and I must admit I did rather enjoy it;although,it is possible the lager helped!! (I didn't have a spoon full of sugar,to hand! ;D) My favourite parts of the symphony were the quieter bits. I can't help thinking of his interest in astronomy,here. Those moments of stillness,and quietude,in Simpson's music,are the bits I like most. That said,while I can hear the "Nielsen without the tunes" jibe in allot of his orchestration (it does often sound like Nielsen,without the tunes! ::) ;D) yet,I do rather like the sounds his orchestration makes. The woodwind,particularly. The Fourth strikes me as a gruffer,nut to chew on. It's also noisier,and you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes ("You AMAZE me Holmes!" ;D) to hear the Beethoven influence. I'm going to need another listen a bit later.

You approached Simpson's works in the right way, two pints of lager is an absolute minimum, but okay. I totally agree with your assessment, and assure you that even the loudest parts of his symphonies will embrace you like the cuddle of a babe! :)
Quote from Manuel, born in Spain, currently working at Fawlty Towers.

" I am from Barcelona, I know nothing.............."

cilgwyn

 :) I've been thinking,going by some of our taste in composers;if you like Robert Simpson,surely I must like him?!! I'm going to put on the cd of 1 & 8,shortly. This will be my first ever listen. Later on,another listen to No 4! And maybe (probably! ::) ;D) some more lager!

vandermolen

Quote from: cilgwyn on July 28, 2018, 04:18:06 AM
:) I've been thinking,going by some of our taste in composers;if you like Robert Simpson,surely I must like him?!! I'm going to put on the cd of 1 & 8,shortly. This will be my first ever listen. Later on,another listen to No 4! And maybe (probably! ::) ;D) some more lager!

I enjoyed your posting (as I always do) - I'll be interested to hear your views of Symphony 1 - my favourite of those I know.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

relm1

#353
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 27, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
I wonder how useful it is for people to keep on posting and saying they find Simpson's music disappointing. What is the point of saying this?

When I say I find Simpson endlessly compelling, and amongst the greatest music ever written, then I hope I am encouraging people to listen to it, and hope that some of my comments provide further information to help people to understand the music.

But to say you don't find his music interesting is only possibly to deter people from listening, which is what you want to avoid.

There are many composers I think are terrible composers and hugely overrated, but I don't go to those threads telling people this (I might make a few throw-away remarks to that effect in other threads). I know you can't make people like a given composer's work, but equally you can't make them dislike an oeuvre.

I commend those composers I like and when I post here I hope I provide further information to people about them. The only time I ever criticise works is in the context of other works by the same composer (ie why is Nielsen's Violin Concerto so awful compared to his other works, why was the normally impeccable Holmboe infected with a fundamentalist Christian brainstorm when he wrote Requiem for Nietzsche? and so forth).

Well, this is a forum and people can and do have different opinions.  There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion.  I for one have no interest if people listen to Simpson or avoid him but I do enjoy engaging on the topic with people who are informed and might have a different opinion than I do hence a forum discussion.  Sometimes a composers work clicks with a listener and one can't really debate that subjectively (you like it or you don't) and sometimes people make an objective case for a composer which can and does invite debate.  No harm or disrespect is meant, but disagreements are likely.  I think one reason why it is entirely fair to criticize Simpson is he himself was a harsh critic of some very good composers who in same cases were superior to his capabilities. 

calyptorhynchus

"I think one reason why it is entirely fair to criticize Simpson is he himself was a harsh critic of some very good composers who in same cases were superior to his capabilities. "

Who? I say this not in a hostile way but out of genuine interest, because I know his writings quite well and I can't think of an example.

I just want to see if I can stop this thread turning into the Milhaud thread, where you're not allowed to say anything nice about Milhaud.

'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

relm1

#355
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on July 28, 2018, 02:52:21 PM
"I think one reason why it is entirely fair to criticize Simpson is he himself was a harsh critic of some very good composers who in same cases were superior to his capabilities. "

Who? I say this not in a hostile way but out of genuine interest, because I know his writings quite well and I can't think of an example.

I just want to see if I can stop this thread turning into the Milhaud thread, where you're not allowed to say anything nice about Milhaud.

He disliked Rachmaninoff for example siting it as overly romantic and lacking form.  I consider Rachmaninoff to be extremely sublime structurally most specifically in his Symphonic Dances but most works of his I cant fault in this area. 

calyptorhynchus

I share Simpson's view of Rachmaniov  ;)
Seriously though, did he say thisa throw away remark or as a considered opinion? I find him very diplomatic in his writings... and mow i think about it in The Symphony, a Pelican Book he edited he wrote highly of Rach S1 (though not of Ss2 & 3).
'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

J.Z. Herrenberg

Rach 1 is tremendous. 2 and 3 are lesser works, though I like 2 a lot. I am with RS.
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything. -- Plato

vandermolen

Quote from: J.Z. Herrenberg on July 28, 2018, 10:44:58 PM
Rach 1 is tremendous. 2 and 3 are lesser works, though I like 2 a lot. I am with RS.

Yes, I love Rachmaninov's First Symphony (part of iwhich was used as a BBC Current events TV programme theme tune decades ago). I enjoy 2 and especially 3 but 1 is my favourite.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

cilgwyn

Well,after a bit of lager last night I listened to Robert Simpson's Eighth. I was particularly interested in hearing it,since vandermolen disliked it so much. Well,the booze might have helped,but to my surprise I loved it. Yes,I did have some difficulty with following his argument,or train of thought (which might just be because I'm thick?! ::) ;D) but what grabbed me was the sounds coming from the orchestra. The sonorities,the,sometimes,almost bird like,chirruping of his woodwind (very Nielsenesque,but nothing wrong with that) and I don't mean in the pictorial sense. Above all,the thing that most impressed me the most,was his use of the brass section of the orchestra. I think some of the sounds I heard were some of the amazing I have ever heard coming from a symphony orchestra. The sounds are so sonorous and deep,they seem to blaze and boom. I'm not too keen on using this word,it sounds so teenage ("It's awesome,man!") but that is the word that came to mind. In terms of the sound world,and all that booming brass;it did make me think of the Ninth symphony,which I have known for some years. Yet,I think I prefer the Eighth because the score is more varied. I also liked the quieter moments. Simpson's moment of repose are particularly compelling,to my ears. Those moments of stillness,with just the string section,or plaintive,chirruping from the woodwind,which I referred to earlier. But his use of brass really makes this symphony stand out for me. Not sure about the underlying thread that holds it all together,or where some of it was going;but with such amazing noises coming from the brass section,who cares?! Oh,and one really astonishing bit where the brass seem to go into a mad,stamping rhythm,that repeats over and over again. I just wish I was a trained musician,so I could convey what I was hearing without sounding like a berk! :-[ ::) ;D

As to the First symphony. I was so taken by the eighth,which I played first (for the above reason) I didn't have as much time to spend on the First. That said,what I heard justifies all the positive reactions of those who admire this symphony. I need to have a separate listen to this symphony,now,before I can really pass comment. But it struck me that a symphony that good should be more widely performed. Again,I concentrated so much of my attention on the eighth. I need to listen to the first,'on it's own'.

NB: Some of his use of brass in the eighth symphony actually evoked a very unlikely bed fellow,Jon Leifs (those deep,booming sounds!)!!