Robert Simpson(1921-1997)

[vandermolen]

Not all music has to have tunes. Symphonies are structures first and foremost. And Simpson did more than most to inject life into the symphonic form. Creating a work in the 9th Symphony which maintains the same pulse for 50 minutes and yet still gives the impression of distinct sections. That's skill right there.

Oh, I agree with you about the tunes. Works I enjoy like Norgard's 'Austera' and Blomdahl's 1st and 3rd symphonies, for example, are hardly bubbling-over with sing-a-long tunes but I greatly appreciate them.

[foxandpeng]

And yet, somehow he had no clue about the interpretation of his own symphonies...

I think that is probably a fairly subjective thing, usually. Reading back through the thread today, Simpson's concern was the lack of rehearsal time and the workman-like results which that brought. However competent a composer may be to judge recordings of their work, lack of prep will show through. To be fair to his competence, he probably was able to see faults where others might not.

Having said that, an artist isn't always the best judge of interpretation and performance. Another field, I know, but have you ever heard Don Paterson read his own poetry?? May as well let my dog have a stab at it. Not good.

Reading the Simpson thread has been valuable, because not only is the difference of opinion on the value of Simpson there, but there is also a real and passionate advocacy of his work from thinking people - some of whom no longer contribute here. For me, Simpson is worth exploring and tunes are irrelevant. Have you heard some of what our fellow GMGers rave about? Hardly tuneful or aesthetically pleasing at first pass. There is still beauty and value, structure and attraction, however.

I get the lack of emotion, the lack of melodies, the lack of 'religion', even. For me, Simpson is so worth the journey. He isn't RVW, and I'm glad. He is thorny, and I'm glad, too.

[Spotted Horses]

I think that is probably a fairly subjective thing, usually. Reading back through the thread today, Simpson's concern was the lack of rehearsal time and the workman-like results which that brought. However competent a composer may be to judge recordings of their work, lack of prep will show through. To be fair to his competence, he probably was able to see faults where others might not.

Having said that, an artist isn't always the best judge of interpretation and performance. Another field, I know, but have you ever heard Don Paterson read his own poetry?? May as well let my dog have a stab at it. Not good.

Reading the Simpson thread has been valuable, because not only is the difference of opinion on the value of Simpson there, but there is also a real and passionate advocacy of his work from thinking people - some of whom no longer contribute here. For me, Simpson is worth exploring and tunes are irrelevant. Have you heard some of what our fellow GMGers rave about? Hardly tuneful or aesthetically pleasing at first pass. There is still beauty and value, structure and attraction, however.

I get the lack of emotion, the lack of melodies, the lack of 'religion', even. For me, Simpson is so worth the journey. He isn't RVW, and I'm glad. He is thorny, and I'm glad, too.

I am not one that requires "tunes" either. Any Simpson-o-philes care to suggest an installment from the Hyperion Symphony Cycle that would be a good entry point?

[amw]

I don't have any alternative recordings, and most enjoy symphonies 2, 7 and 8, as well as 9 to some extent. I'm aware these are all on separate CDs so that's somewhat unhelpful.

7 is probably my overall favourite.

[calyptorhynchus]

I am not one that requires "tunes" either. Any Simpson-o-philes care to suggest an installment from the Hyperion Symphony Cycle that would be a good entry point?

Just plunge in. Or if you want to go carefully, start at 1 and end at 11.

I love them all, and they have been part of my life since the CDs started coming out in the late 80s, but I like No.4 (can't understand why it isn't the standard modern symphony, it's Beethoven updated 150 years), No.8 (no-one talks about it, wonderful profound work that moves from innocence through strife and violence to at the end not triumph, but vigorous optimism, No.10 the Hammerklavier Sonata as a symphony 150 years on, No.11 wonderful new mysterious beginnings at the end of his career.

[Madiel]

I think that is probably a fairly subjective thing, usually. Reading back through the thread today, Simpson's concern was the lack of rehearsal time and the workman-like results which that brought. However competent a composer may be to judge recordings of their work, lack of prep will show through. To be fair to his competence, he probably was able to see faults where others might not.

Having said that, an artist isn't always the best judge of interpretation and performance. Another field, I know, but have you ever heard Don Paterson read his own poetry?? May as well let my dog have a stab at it. Not good.

Reading the Simpson thread has been valuable, because not only is the difference of opinion on the value of Simpson there, but there is also a real and passionate advocacy of his work from thinking people - some of whom no longer contribute here. For me, Simpson is worth exploring and tunes are irrelevant. Have you heard some of what our fellow GMGers rave about? Hardly tuneful or aesthetically pleasing at first pass. There is still beauty and value, structure and attraction, however.

I get the lack of emotion, the lack of melodies, the lack of 'religion', even. For me, Simpson is so worth the journey. He isn't RVW, and I'm glad. He is thorny, and I'm glad, too.

I was being ironic. The poster who wants us to consider Simpson a symphonic genius is the same poster who told us that Simpson was completely wrong to dislike the Hyperion recordings.

And didn't post in a way that allowed either of those to be matters of subjectivity.

[foxandpeng]

I was being ironic. The poster who wants us to consider Simpson a symphonic genius is the same poster who told us that Simpson was completely wrong to dislike the Hyperion recordings.

And didn't post in a way that allowed either of those to be matters of subjectivity.

I was interested to read your Handley/Boult comparison in #1. I haven't had the opportunity to hear the Hyperion version, apart from the short sample snippets on their website. .. I appreciate that your preference of interpretation runs with Boult, but how does the sound quality compare? I don't generally care a great deal for historical recordings, and much prefer a more modern sound.

[Spotted Horses]

I don't have any alternative recordings, and most enjoy symphonies 2, 7 and 8, as well as 9 to some extent. I'm aware these are all on separate CDs so that's somewhat unhelpful.

7 is probably my overall favourite.

I have the cycle so the couplings are not important. I think I'll start with no 7, and go from there.

[Madiel]

I was interested to read your Handley/Boult comparison in #1. I haven't had the opportunity to hear the Hyperion version, apart from the short sample snippets on their website. .. I appreciate that your preference of interpretation runs with Boult, but how does the sound quality compare? I don't generally care a great deal for historical recordings, and much prefer a more modern sound.

I was streaming Boult and was very pleasantly surprised at how good the sound was for a 1950s recording, because in general for something that old I'd be a put off. My tolerance level tends to be around the mid-1960s.

The Handley sound is undoubtedly a little better, but there wasn't much in it. The Hyperion recordings are mostly made between 1987 and 1996, with one made in 2003.

[vandermolen]

I was interested to read your Handley/Boult comparison in #1. I haven't had the opportunity to hear the Hyperion version, apart from the short sample snippets on their website. .. I appreciate that your preference of interpretation runs with Boult, but how does the sound quality compare? I don't generally care a great deal for historical recordings, and much prefer a more modern sound.

I agree with Madiel about the Boult recording of No.1

[Mountain Goat]

I am not one that requires "tunes" either. Any Simpson-o-philes care to suggest an installment from the Hyperion Symphony Cycle that would be a good entry point?

2 and 4 are probably the most approachable so might be a good place to start, then maybe 9 after listening to Simpson's spoken introduction.

[foxandpeng]

Couldn't hold off any longer, so have bitten the bullet and purchased the Hyperion Vernon Handley set. The temptation to have a more modern recording of the symphonies that I can access, and to own the complete set was too much. The older Boult, Horenstein and Brabbins have their place, I'm sure, but I'm glad to gave these downloads.

I was reading an interview today from 5 January 1991 that was between Robert Simpson and Bruce Duffie, where Simpson talked about the Vernon Handley recordings. This sounds as though RS was very positive about Handley's recordings...

RS: Yes. I've been very delighted with Vernon Handley and the works that have been recorded so far. He's a marvelous conductor. You ought to know more of him in America. You should have him conduct something over there. He's a marvelous conductor and he understands my music right from the word go. He really wants to do it. He wants to understand it. He wants to get inside it. And what I like very much about him is that he's always got positive ideas of his own which shows that he's thought about the music. He's not really a person who mechanically wants to reproduce what the composer is asking for. He's got qualitive, substantive ideas which are discussed with you and he asks you about. He's very stimulating and interesting to work with.

http://www.bruceduffie.com/simpson.html

[Irons]

Couldn't hold off any longer, so have bitten the bullet and purchased the Hyperion Vernon Handley set. The temptation to have a more modern recording of the symphonies that I can access, and to own the complete set was too much. The older Boult, Horenstein and Brabbins have their place, I'm sure, but I'm glad to gave these downloads.

I was reading an interview today from 5 January 1991 that was between Robert Simpson and Bruce Duffie, where Simpson talked about the Vernon Handley recordings. This sounds as though RS was very positive about Handley's recordings...

RS: Yes. I've been very delighted with Vernon Handley and the works that have been recorded so far. He's a marvelous conductor. You ought to know more of him in America. You should have him conduct something over there. He's a marvelous conductor and he understands my music right from the word go. He really wants to do it. He wants to understand it. He wants to get inside it. And what I like very much about him is that he's always got positive ideas of his own which shows that he's thought about the music. He's not really a person who mechanically wants to reproduce what the composer is asking for. He's got qualitive, substantive ideas which are discussed with you and he asks you about. He's very stimulating and interesting to work with.

http://www.bruceduffie.com/simpson.html

Enjoy.

[foxandpeng]

Enjoy.

Cheers, my friend. I was really interested to read the Duffie interview that was later broadcast in part on WNIB in 1991 and 1996, giving Simpson's endorsement to the Handley cycle, particularly as it stands in opposition to anecdotal suggestions that Simpson was less keen. Even if if Simpson expressed some private reservations about one or more of the recordings, that doesn't seem to be borne out here - I guess he may have wanted to promote the recordings with hyperbole, but that is just guesswork and runs counter to his seeming warmth.

I've caught up the first three symphonies last night and this morning, and the improvement in sound and recording over some of the undoubtedly well-performed, but dated alternatives, is great. Sometimes I feel that having more than one performance of a work forces attention on the interpretations of the music rather than the individual merits of the works themselves, so performance comparison can be distracting, but I'll be bleeding these downloads into my listening for some time now, I think. What is obviously important is the music, and although Simpson divides (as do all composers, I guess), it gives me the chance to explore and appreciate the contribution of someone who I thinks needs greater attention as a significant British symphonist.

Listening to #8 now, for the first time and I have to agree with calyptorhynchus - this is a 'wonderful profound work that moves from innocence through strife and violence to at the end not triumph, but vigorous optimism'.

Excellent stuff!

[Spotted Horses]

Having listened to the 7th symphony twice, I'll say that I found it a satisfying piece. I made the mistake of reading the notes that accompanied the recording, and now I remember Simpson's tendency to give the impression of being slavishly devoted to some peculiar scheme that he has conceived which seems to be about how the music looks on the page rather than how it sounds (something about a competition between tone clusters).

I don't see that Handey's spirited conducting can be faulted, but if there is a basis for a criticism of being "lifeless" it might be Hyperion's engineering. I never was attracted to Hyperion's "house sound" for orchestral recordings, which strikes me as too dry. Perhaps good for hearing every note, but not so much for experience opulence of orchestration.

I've started on the 6th symphony (on the same CD) and again there is something in the booklet about Simpson deciding that symphonic development should mimic development of a biological cell. Huh? I have to stop reading these booklets. A preliminary listen to part I of the two part work gives an impression of music that is less obsessive than the 7th symphony, no impression of mitosis, or any such, yet.

[Maestro267]

Nah you see I find that fascinating. How many other symphonies in the world mimic the development of a biological cell? In much the same way as the Fifth is based on that opening chord, from which you have two Canons that break down and build up respectively that chord.

[CRCulver]

This sounds as though RS was very positive about Handley's recordings...

It's not unusual for composers to be positive about recordings in public even while being dissatisfied in private, because they don't want to burn bridges and develop reputations as hard-to-please; that would just hurt their chances at future performances.

[Madiel]

Having listened to the 7th symphony twice, I'll say that I found it a satisfying piece. I made the mistake of reading the notes that accompanied the recording, and now I remember Simpson's tendency to give the impression of being slavishly devoted to some peculiar scheme that he has conceived which seems to be about how the music looks on the page rather than how it sounds (something about a competition between tone clusters).

I don't see that Handey's spirited conducting can be faulted, but if there is a basis for a criticism of being "lifeless" it might be Hyperion's engineering. I never was attracted to Hyperion's "house sound" for orchestral recordings, which strikes me as too dry. Perhaps good for hearing every note, but not so much for experience opulence of orchestration.

I've started on the 6th symphony (on the same CD) and again there is something in the booklet about Simpson deciding that symphonic development should mimic development of a biological cell. Huh? I have to stop reading these booklets. A preliminary listen to part I of the two part work gives an impression of music that is less obsessive than the 7th symphony, no impression of mitosis, or any such, yet.

The 7th is one of the ones I've enjoyed the most.

I get what you mean about the explanations. There's a definite tendency to say "look at this beautiful scaffolding I built" when the average person doesn't want their attention to be drawn to the scaffolding.

[foxandpeng]

Having listened to the 7th symphony twice, I'll say that I found it a satisfying piece. I made the mistake of reading the notes that accompanied the recording, and now I remember Simpson's tendency to give the impression of being slavishly devoted to some peculiar scheme that he has conceived which seems to be about how the music looks on the page rather than how it sounds (something about a competition between tone clusters).

I don't see that Handey's spirited conducting can be faulted, but if there is a basis for a criticism of being "lifeless" it might be Hyperion's engineering. I never was attracted to Hyperion's "house sound" for orchestral recordings, which strikes me as too dry. Perhaps good for hearing every note, but not so much for experience opulence of orchestration.

I've started on the 6th symphony (on the same CD) and again there is something in the booklet about Simpson deciding that symphonic development should mimic development of a biological cell. Huh? I have to stop reading these booklets. A preliminary listen to part I of the two part work gives an impression of music that is less obsessive than the 7th symphony, no impression of mitosis, or any such, yet.

Have very much enjoyed #7 also. I don't have enough experience of Hyperion to know their house sound, but I'm sold so far ... descriptions aside 😁

It's not unusual for composers to be positive about recordings in public even while being dissatisfied in private, because they don't want to burn bridges and develop reputations as hard-to-please; that would just hurt their chances at future performances.

Indeed. As I suggested in my post, it's possible he was making sure of his sales, because that's human. Doesn't seem much like Simpson, but it isn't impossible. On the other hand, it's possible that he meant it.

Either way, I feel positive about them 

[foxandpeng]

Continuing to explore the Handley Simpson cycle with #9. I can see why this has its admirers. 50 minutes of energy and power, pulsing growth, contemplation and hush, and enough complexity to mean that it will take a while to fully appreciate.

There's a fair bit to read about #9! According to Issue 26 of Tonic, the journal of the Robert Simpson Society, a BBC Music Magazine poll in December 1999 placed Simpson #9 alongside Shostakovich #5 as one of the greatest 20th century symphonies, and Simpson himself as the poll's 5th favourite composer. Interesting.

I find it fascinating that the Society (described by Simpson as 'not my society', but a bunch of 'nutcases' 😁), should count John McCabe, Vernon Handley, Vagn Holmboe (whose musical oeuvre seems to have real similarities of style and approach), David Matthews, John Pickard and Sir Adrian Boult as some of its Presidents, patrons and committee members. I'm glad I've taken the plunge to poke these...