Started by Dundonnell, March 25, 2008, 02:09:14 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Lethe on March 27, 2008, 12:33:32 PMI adore his 9th quartet - a work I find simultaneously thrilling and extremely daunting...I have yet to become as close to any of his symphonies as I feel to his 11th, which I can't get enough of
Quote from: Jezetha on March 27, 2008, 12:51:35 PMI haven't heard the 11th Symphony yet (I know 1 to 9). Why can't you get enough of it?
Quote from: Lethe on June 16, 2009, 09:24:33 AMI am once again at the beginning of what seems to be turning into a major Simpson kick. I can't get enough of his unique style. Who could've thought that mere tonality and fine tinkering could be so divisive, prompting claims of "greatest late 20th century composer" and "absolutely boring" in equal measure. It fascinates me how he can use both the vehicle and the engine of the Romantic symphony, yet create music which is so far left-field that I have to smile. I don't mean this in a negative way when I say that I am amazed at how little overt emotion there is in this music. Even the coolest of 20th century Romantic/tonal-influenced aren't a patch on Simpson's strangely beautiful crystalline musings. This is not to say that the music cannot be passionate, but it is all taken to levels of such abstraction that it can require a major re-adjustment of the ears to appreciate. While it may gall some people to see the two mentioned in the same sentence, I do find some of Bach's transcendent qualities in this music - it has no real-life crutches, it exists in and as of itself (for want of a better phrased term). You can delve into the many inventive structural qualities to the music, or simply admire the many fine surface qualities to it.Part of what prompted me to replay his CDs recently was the realisation that I had retained many of his tunes and structures in my mind - some of them were very, very deeply ingrained in me. It is strange, as many do not consider Simpson a particularly melodic composer. I would agree with this, perhaps it is the context of the themes which is crucial rather than the themes themselves. But none the less, something about the music strikes me as utterly vital, and perhaps substantial segments of the 9th quartet remaining with me for a year or two after last hearing the piece (during which time many Romantic tunesmiths have come and gone) is as direct of an endorsement as I can give...
Quote from: Dundonnell on June 16, 2009, 06:28:06 PMI would really appreciate some comment from Jezetha(Johan) about the influence of Havergal Brian on Simpson's music. Simpson was, of course, the great Brian advocate at the BBC from the 1950s onwards and a devoted Brian admirer. I wrestle with the question of how much Brian we can hear in Simpson...if any?
Quote from: Lethe on June 16, 2009, 09:24:33 AMI do find some of Bach's transcendent qualities in this music - it has no real-life crutches, it exists in and as of itself (for want of a better phrased term). You can delve into the many inventive structural qualities to the music, or simply admire the many fine surface qualities to it.
Quote from: Sean on June 22, 2009, 11:01:19 AMDundonnellI wrestle with the question of how much Brian we can hear in Simpson...if any.Simpson's music is indeed basically boring. Brian's is boring but with good ideas that never take off. Brian can be Straussian but Simpson is the Continental and much less English composer; the slow movement from the 10th (or maybe it was the 11th) quartet is a very fine effort though...
Quote from: Sean on June 22, 2009, 11:01:19 AMDundonnellI wrestle with the question of how much Brian we can hear in Simpson...if any.Simpson's music is indeed basically boring. Brian's is boring but with good ideas that never take off.
Quote from: Sean on June 23, 2009, 12:02:00 AMI was being a bit trollish: these are the Simpson works I've explored and although he was not the most convincing figure for tonality in the post-tonal era, he's honest and solid enough.Energy, Nielsen variations, Piano concerto, Symphonies Nos.4-5, 7, 9 & 11, String quartets Nos.1-11 &String trio.The Fourth symphony was another satisfying constructed work; later symphonies seem more anonymous.
Quote from: Velimir on July 19, 2010, 01:11:37 AMSimpson had a big amateur interest in astronomy, so I assume that's the reason.
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 27 queries.