Tippett's Tearoom

[Mirror Image]

I'm not surprised at the criticisms, though I haven't read much about him.  Is overambition a good thing?  It could be said most classical composers are ambitious in a sense.  Certainly people have said his music comes from the heart, though is that just a comment on the style as I suppose as you could say that in general about many other composers too.  Some I suppose may use a more reticent style, but that could also be expressive at times.  What people probably mean is that even when his music is lighter it might still still feel intense in a way.  That may appeal to some people more or give a greater sounding importance to his music.  This was one of things behind my comment before about the 'tearoom' title, it probably gives a wrong impression of his style.   

I will give him another go sometime though I have wondered in the past why he specifically became more famous than other composers.  I think the ambition part of it is probably behind that, same maybe with Britten.  Getting big commissions and big publicised recordings and performances as a result will make critics take notice of you.  And it's better to be taken notice of than to be completely ignored, even if there are criticisms.

The critiicisms of a composer never bothered me much. I think, as a listener, we all have to reach our own conclusions. If I had taken what many critics said about Tippett, I wouldn't have ever heard a note of his music! Many have simply degraded him and I think it's a shame. He doesn't deserve that kind of treatment at all. I recognize his music has it's detractors as all composers but he has composed some solid music that's just as compelling as anything that has come from Shostakovich or his contemporary Britten. It's too often that I think people get caught up in the negative aspects of a composer that they simply don't want to accept the positives. Like for example, I don't like Schnittke's music, but I think it is some fascinating music and I can certainly understand why it appeals to some people. I'm just one of those listeners who it hasn't connected with. This said, he deserves all the attention he can get just like I think Tippett deserves all the attention he can get. I read a quote from Tippett that said that public recognition doesn't always translate to a composer's inner fulfillment or something to that effect.

Luke will probably be delighted when he reads my post and I sure hope he is because Tippett's music has taken ahold of me and it's not letting go!

[Karl Henning]

It has been mentioned many, many times before, especially by critics, but it seems that Tippett can't escape the criticism of being a rather uneven and flawed composer. This could be said of any composer. There are no composers that are perfect.

Luke will probably be delighted when he reads my post and I sure hope he is because Tippett's music has taken ahold of me and it's not letting go!

Luke will possibly remark that liking all the Tippett you've heard is one thing, and that the claim that "There are no composers that are perfect,"  is entirely another.   Luke may even ask you, since you claim that "rather uneven and flawed . . . could be said of any composer," just where this unevenness, and these flaws, are, in the music of (e.g.) Ravel?

[not edward]

Speaking as an absolutely unqualified lover of much of Tippett's music, I think there's a lot of truth in the comments about him being uneven and flawed by conventional musical standards, but that this absolutely cannot be separated from the nature of the music. It's very obvious that Tippett wished to communicate certain things that clearly were very important to him in an extremely direct manner, and sometimes the tradition within which he worked did not contain the necessary tools to express himself in this way. Hence unconventional things like the "blues" (not that it is a blues) in the 3rd symphony, the breathing in the 4th symphony, the in-your-face treatments of racial issues in some of the operas, and so on.

Sometimes these things unequivocally work (for me, at least, the finale of the 3rd symphony is an unquestioned success, and resolves the micro-scale dynamic/macro-scale static nature of the previous three movements by giving the work the macro-scale direction that Tippett had so carefully avoided up till that point). Sometimes they don't work at all for me--I cannot get anything out of The Knot Garden, for example, and perhaps most often I find that they work sometimes but not always within the confines of one work (as for example in The Ice Break, an uneven opera that is still absolutely essential Tippett, because it contains some of the composer's very finest writing).

In many ways I think this is part of Tippett's Beethovenian inheritance--most of his mature work proclaims Beethoven as a model in every bar, but of course Beethoven's solutions were no longer adequate to solving the problems that Tippett's music had to resolve.

[Karl Henning]

Most interesting, thanks, Edward.

[Karl Henning]

And thanks for this . . . I'm probably about ready to give that one a try.

[Mirror Image]

Luke will possibly remark that liking all the Tippett you've heard is one thing, and that the claim that "There are no composers that are perfect,"  is entirely another.   Luke may even ask you, since you claim that "rather uneven and flawed . . . could be said of any composer," just where this unevenness, and these flaws, are, in the music of (e.g.) Ravel?

There are flaws in every composer's music. Some are just more noticeable than others. Even the music of Ravel has it's flaws. Some would say that Ravel suffers from too much flash from the orchestra and not enough substance in the music. I, of course, disagree, but this has been a criticism I've read before. No composer is not without some kind of flaw because none of them are perfect. They can strive for perfection, such as Ravel, but this merely isn't something that's worth chasing after. Even with Ravel there are moments where he simply lets down his guard long enough to let us hear his heart. In the end, it doesn't matter what the music sounds like but rather how it affects and moves us emotionally/intellectually.

[Karl Henning]

There are flaws in every composer's music.

Back that assertion up with examples in Ravel's music; that was the question, you see. You don't answer a question by rephrasing your assertion.

I should also like examples of flaws in the music of: JS Bach, Mozart and Bartók. It's got to be easy, right, since you assert that there are flaws in every composer's music?  As a composer, I am interested, you see.  What exactly are these flaws.

Take your time and make an intelligent answer. TIA.

[Karl Henning]

Make it easy on yourself, John: find one flaw in the music of any of the four I've named.  You must admit, I've made your work easier by not selecting obscurities.

[Mirror Image]

  Anyway, getting back on topic with Tippett which is the only reason I visit this thread and not to be challenged by Karl with a topic that I think is common sense.

I'm excited about hearing The Midsummer Marriage, the two versions of A Child of our Time I bought, and The Ice Break. Now to acquire King Priam.

[springrite]

Sometimes what others call "flaws" I consider them to be strength. Like a pianist with maybe less than perfect technique or have other apparent shortcomings, and I am now reminded of Alicia de Larrocha's small hands when playing works that actually demands bigger hands, she somehow more or less pulls it off, and you can hear and feel the tension (as opposed to easy-as-pie) and the struggle, the music came across so much better. It is the same with many tenors I prefer to the apparent easiness of Pavarotti. Tippett is the similar in that regard. He is not afraid to take risks and he fails on occasions but more often than not more or less pulls it off, with the apparent struggles. And occasionally, he got it so wonderfully that you say WOW! It is something that a "genius" composer like Saint-Saens could never achieve even if he tries (because even if he tried, it'd never sound like he tried).

[Karl Henning]

Interesting post, Paul; and thank you for underscoring the fact that the term flaw is being slung around without definition.

How many times has a conversation chased its own tail because terms have been allowed to remain vague?

That is why, John, since you are teaching us all that every composer has flaws, I invite you to point a few out.  That will get us closer to learning what you mean by flaws.

[Karl Henning]

Anyway, getting back on topic with Tippett which is the only reason I visit this thread and not to be challenged by Karl with a topic that I think is common sense.

Thank you for not answering my question, and for your implicit agreement thereby, that your assertion is hot air.

[Karl Henning]

It's a pity, because I think that discussion of what compositional flaws may be is of much greater interest than slinging around vapid assertions, and ducking for cover under the compound assertion that it's "common sense."

[Mirror Image]

 

Getting back to Tippett I pray...

[Karl Henning]

Speaking as an absolutely unqualified lover of much of Tippett's music, I think there's a lot of truth in the comments about him being uneven and flawed by conventional musical standards, but that this absolutely cannot be separated from the nature of the music. . . .

This recalls some comments which Luke has made, sometimes of Tippett, sometimes of (IIRC) Janáček: that the humanity of the composers (and, at least in the case of Tippett, the occasional faltering) is warp and weft of the music.

[springrite]

Getting back to Tippett I pray...

Or to Michael Palin. They are one and the same, you know.

[Mirror Image]

I've really been getting a kick out of Symphony No. 3. What strangely beautiful composition. I'm trying to figure whether I prefer the C. Davis to Hickox. Both performances are excellent.

[starrynight]

I've never liked Schnittke's music much either, it can feel a bit suffocating.

All composers may well have flaws in that they are probably better at doing some things than others.  The key is probably for them to realise what they are good at and to develop that to its fullest.  If they venture into areas where they aren't so good and aren't likely to develop to a high degree that could cause some aggravation to some listeners, though others may enjoy seeing the compositional struggle at work.  Ambition in itself from my perspective isn't the main thing.  A composer can be very ambitious and produce a very complex and large scale work but if it still doesn't really cohere for me then I probably wouldn't be impressed as I wouldn't feel I enjoyed it that much.  That is probably the case with some of Tippett like some orchestral works for instance.  If I'm only intermittently impressed by a piece it tends to leave me frustrated.

[Karl Henning]

All composers may well have flaws in that they are probably better at doing some things than others.

That's a good point, but it is something which I think is not most aptly termed a flaw.

[Karl Henning]

What would you call then, Karl?

Well, let's think about that a bit, John.

Meanwhile, say that Bach was better at doing some things than others.  Can you give examples of these others? ; )

Calling those other things "flaws" is like pointing to a cherry and calling it an orange, because that's the word you have in mind.