# Edmund Rubbra



## MagneticGhost

EDMUND RUBBRA









Edmund Rubbra (23 May 1901 - 14 February 1986) was a British composer. He composed both instrumental and vocal works for soloists, chamber groups and full choruses and orchestras. He was greatly esteemed by fellow musicians and was at the peak of his fame in the mid-20th century. The most famous of his pieces are his eleven symphonies. Although he was active at a time when many people wrote twelve-tone music, he decided not to write in this idiom himself. Instead he devised his own distinctive style. His later works were not as popular with the concert-going public as his previous ones had been, although he never lost the respect of his colleagues. Therefore his output as a whole is less celebrated today than would have been expected from its sheer merit and from his early popularity. Yet his compositions are full of drama, often with an improvisatory element.

A pupil of Cyril Scott and Gustav Holst, Rubbra established himself as one of the leading English symphonists of his time. A man of wide interests and sympathies, he taught at Oxford and in London and appeared as a pianist in chamber-music recitals. His compositions are in a variety of genres, without any attempt at writing for the theatre.

Orchestral and Choral Music

Rubbra's principal achievement must lie in his 11 symphonies and in solo concertos for violin, viola and piano. He wrote a number of choral works, many of them reflecting his own Catholic beliefs.

Chamber Music

Rubbra's chamber music includes sonatas for violin, for oboe and for cello and two piano trios. His four string quartets demonstrate his contrapuntal gifts as well as the influence of Holst.

(Taken from the Naxos - Rubbra Homepage + Wikipedia)

This man is the business. I've been getting to know his works over the last few months.
He has yet to disappoint me. 
Here's his Symphony No. 6





And his Quartet No.2





Many Apologies -- Just realised - someone had already opened a Rubbra page. He compares Rubbra to Sibelius! So if jim prideux is reading - get listening. 
http://www.talkclassical.com/4270-edmund-rubbra.html


----------



## violadude

I haven't heard his string quartets yet, but his symphonies are brilliant, all of them. His style is similar to the "organic growth" style of Sibelius. His symphony cycle is right up there with the greatest British symphonists.


----------



## arpeggio

I got a recording of one his symphonies and I did not care for it. I can not remember which one. I gave it away.

After hearing the You Tube of the _Sixth_ I said to myself "I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken." I definitely have to give this composer another look. Thanks.


----------



## Chrythes

The Molto adagio mvmnt. from his third symphony must have inspired The Shadow of The Past from LOTR.


----------



## Trout

I really enjoy his fourth symphony, but especially like the last few minutes in particular. It is one of the best finales I have ever heard, in my opinion:






(the part starts around 25:41 to the end)


----------



## TrevBus

#8 is my favorite but really hard to choose. Love them all.


----------



## DrKilroy

I have to give him another chance. I haven't find anything interesting in his music so far.  

Best regards, Dr


----------



## MagneticGhost

This arrived yesterday.

The blurb on the back has this to say.



> Edmund Rubbra holds a distinguished place in the history of English Music. His works combine lyrical beauty and intellectual vigour, with harmonic inventiveness deployed to draw out strong thematic ideas. Rubbra's deeply felt spirituality and religious beliefs proved an inexhaustible wellspring in his composition, inspiring a corpus of sacred music which is at once bold and revelatory. Both the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis and the Missa Cantuariensis are major contributions to the Anglican repertoire, whilst the Missa in honorem Sancti Dominici and the Nine Tenebrae Motets are Latin setting which place Rubbra in the central tradition of 20th Century European religious writing.


----------



## Ingélou

- I have to admit - ahem - that I had never heard of Edmund Rubbra, but I am listening to your first clip at the moment and it sounds lovely! Thank you for starting the thread, Magnetic Ghost.

Join TalkClassical and get an education!


----------



## starthrower

No. 6 is beautiful. I'm really enjoying it!


----------



## PetrB

Rubbra was one of those names of composers I had heard of without every having heard any of the works, until I was prompted by a number of mentions of him on TC.

I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.

I surveyed a number of the symphonies, and found them dull as or duller than ditch water. With all the press about 'great symphonist of the 20th century,' I was expecting anything but that old Brahms stuff, which is all it seems to me.

What others take as deeply exciting, fulfilling, seems paper thin to me, as if the later more traditional 20th century symphonists, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra and a few others were filling the same old pie crust with a slightly new filling which was not as flavorful, strong, or hearty as their forebears... it all sounds effete to me, i.e. thin, worn out, dated and lesser.

Rubbra's music is, though, plainly respected and liked, but just not my cuppa.


----------



## starthrower

PetrB said:


> I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.


You're entitled to your assumptions and generalizations. In my case, I'm not afraid of anything "more actually"  contemporary/ modern. I enjoy all kinds of music, and I don't worry about whether I'm hip or not. I just don't give a sh#t.


----------



## Neo Romanza

PetrB said:


> Rubbra was one of those names of composers I had heard of without every having heard any of the works, until I was prompted by a number of mentions of him on TC.
> 
> I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.
> 
> I surveyed a number of the symphonies, and found them dull as or duller than ditch water. With all the press about 'great symphonist of the 20th century,' I was expecting anything but that old Brahms stuff, which is all it seems to me.
> 
> What others take as deeply exciting, fulfilling, seems paper thin to me, as if the later more traditional 20th century symphonists, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra and a few others were filling the same old pie crust with a slightly new filling which was not as flavorful, strong, or hearty as their forebears... it all sounds effete to me, i.e. thin, worn out, dated and lesser.
> 
> Rubbra's music is, though, plainly respected and liked, but just not my cuppa.


Which all of this shows that you simply don't _get_ Rubbra's music. It's merely your own shortcomings as a listener and you shouldn't degrade Rubbra because you didn't enjoy the music. It seems to me, from what I've read of your posts here on Talk Classical, that you're quite an elitist listener and you continually make a habit of downgrading music that doesn't coincide with your own expectations and general point-of-view.

Thankfully, I'm not as jaded of a listener as you appear to be.


----------



## Neo Romanza

starthrower said:


> You're entitled to your assumptions and generalizations. In my case, I'm not afraid of anything "more actually"  contemporary/ modern. I enjoy all kinds of music, and I don't worry about whether I'm hip or not. I just don't give a sh#t.


I fully agree, starthrower. I think people who follow trends are the ones most prone to spewing their venom and hatred for anything that's not up to their 'high standards.' Whereas, a listener like myself, I remain open-minded and if I don't like something, I've certainly got a lot better things to do than insult the composer and his music. We should all focus on music we actually enjoy listening to rather than complaining about music that we don't. I think things would be a lot more fruitful if this kind of thing would happen. It's one thing to be asked for an honest opinion and it's another to simply trail-off on some kind of negative tangent.


----------



## arpeggio

Although I have recently revised my views toward Rubbra, my initial reactions toward his music were the same as 'PetrB'. There are some fine samples of his music here so a person can make up his own mind.

As far as 'PetrB's criticism of Rubbra's, they are rather mild. Even if these remarks are accurate, if a person likes Rubbra, so what. It appears to me that no one should view these comments as some kind of threat to their musical integrity. I have seen many nastier remarks concerning other composers in other threads. One of my favorite contemporary composers is Eric Whitacre. In a thread dedicated to him I read some really nasty, unfair observations that were a lot worse.


----------



## hreichgott

PetrB said:


> What others take as deeply exciting, fulfilling, seems paper thin to me, as if the later more traditional 20th century symphonists, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra and a few others were filling the same old pie crust with a slightly new filling which was not as flavorful, strong, or hearty as their forebears... it all sounds effete to me, i.e. thin, worn out, dated and lesser.


Do you feel the same about all of those symphony composers? (Sibelius, Shostakovich and Rubbra)


----------



## Blake

I'll have to check this chap out.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Rubbra was one of those names of composers I had heard of without every having heard any of the works, until I was prompted by a number of mentions of him on TC.
> 
> I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.
> 
> I surveyed a number of the symphonies, and found them dull as or duller than ditch water. With all the press about 'great symphonist of the 20th century,' I was expecting anything but that old Brahms stuff, which is all it seems to me.
> 
> What others take as deeply exciting, fulfilling, seems paper thin to me, as if the later more traditional 20th century symphonists, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra and a few others were filling the same old pie crust with a slightly new filling which was not as flavorful, strong, or hearty as their forebears... it all sounds effete to me, i.e. thin, worn out, dated and lesser.
> 
> Rubbra's music is, though, plainly respected and liked, but just not my cuppa.


Do you simply live on the wrong side of the bed? I understand not liking something, but yeesh. Go hit a punching bag a few times... or for a few days. Haha

I'm really enjoying what I'm hearing so far. There's something fresh about Rubbra's way.


----------



## PetrB

hreichgott said:


> Do you feel the same about all of those symphony composers? (Sibelius, Shostakovich and Rubbra)


I'm afraid I do, even though there is no denying they are 'great symphonists,' i.e. work well within that extended form (o.a. so were R. Vaughan Williams & William Schuman).

Even Sibelius, the earliest of those "late" to be writing old format symphonies, sounds rather thin to me. This is an apart sense of hearing on my part which has nothing to do with the fact _those composers knew how to write,_ but the form, and what they "said" / "did" within it seems paper-thin worn out, a vessel or format which has been much more headily filled by those who went before. They are to me, effete, then, in that slightly older sense of the worn thin shiny seat of an old pair of serge pants, just worn thin, not what they were, and none of it sounds much "vital signs" to me. [I do think Sibelius is the best of those, and have nothing but great admiration for Nielsen's 5th, but find only that 5th of real interest to me.]

I can fully understand the attention and status given Sibelius, and to a much lesser degree, Shostakovich -- but why Rubbra has anyone's attention is completely beyond my understanding... of the three, his music to me has the least of "anything there."

But we're on a forum where many seem to think personal taste is also a dictate of what is good and bad -- I cannot help if the works of the above composers do, literally, nothing for me, and what I say of them is merely a by the way of an explanation why.


----------



## Blake

That comes off as a much more genuine answer, PetrB. I can understand your perspective now. Before it was similar to the rant of a tyrant.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.


It seems to me that this statement says nothing about the quality of the music, only the shortcomings of those who enjoy it.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that this statement says nothing about the quality of the music, only the shortcomings of those who enjoy it.


For some, the Bible is literature, for others, it is the Holy Word: are people who think of it one way or the other "less?"

I thought it pretty plain by now that I think of even the greatest of music as "literature." A comment on popular good or less than great novels, or one on those who read and love them, is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Blake

S'all good. You can't deny that Rubbra is a highly skilled composer. Whether you feel for the music or not is on you.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> S'all good. You can't deny that Rubbra is a highly skilled composer. Whether you feel for the music or not is on you.


There is no denying that composers X,Y,and Z, all extremely high up in the lexicon and beloved by the public, knew how to write -- as much as there is no doubt that, after over six decades of intensive involvement with music, and attentive listening, those composers "do not speak to me." Their reputations, and mine, are intact


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> There is no denying that composers X,Y,and Z, all extremely high up in the lexicon and beloved by the public, knew how to write -- as much as there is no doubt that, after over six decades of intensive involvement with music, and attentive listening, those composers "do not speak to me." Their reputations, and mine, are intact


A worthy closing statement. This is simply one way our perspectives differ.


----------



## violadude

I started a review series of Rubbra's symphonies.


----------



## Blake

Nice job, violadude.


----------



## moody

Neo Romanza said:


> Which all of this shows that you simply don't _get_ Rubbra's music. It's merely your own shortcomings as a listener and you shouldn't degrade Rubbra because you didn't enjoy the music. It seems to me, from what I've read of your posts here on Talk Classical, that you're quite an elitist listener and you continually make a habit of downgrading music that doesn't coincide with your own expectations and general point-of-view.
> 
> Thankfully, I'm not as jaded of a listener as you appear to be.


He would look silly downgrading music that he liked.
He's absolutely entitled to his opinion and if you want to criticise do so on the music content.


----------



## Blake

moody said:


> He would look silly downgrading music that he liked.
> He's absolutely entitled to his opinion and if you want to criticise do so on the music content.


Certainly. But there's no need to ram it into the ground. I simply don't comment much on things I don't like out of consideration for the people who do like it. It's called common courtesy. Of course a civilized debate is welcome, but it should be known when the line is crossed. And that crossing is pretty evident when the comments are rife with emotional bias... that's no longer a productive argument.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Certainly. But there's no need to ram it into the ground. I simply don't comment much on things I don't like out of consideration for the people who do like it. It's called common courtesy. Of course a civilized debate is welcome, but it should be known when the line is crossed. And that crossing is pretty evident when the comments are rife with emotional bias... that's no longer a productive argument.


Common courtesy might also allow for a difference of opinion, as long as that is not a bash, i.e. "this music is crap!" Now, if you want a universal love fest kind of thread (which of course is artificial and synthetic), I suggest a highly supervised lower school sort of affair, where a monitor is constantly present to make sure nothing is said which hurts anyone's feelings -- as if anyone not caring at all for the work of "your" beloved composer should in any way hurt your feelings or affect what you think / feel about that composer's music.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Common courtesy might also allow for a difference of opinion, as long as that is not a bash, i.e. "this music is crap!" Now, if you want a universal love fest kind of thread (which of course is artificial and synthetic), I suggest a highly supervised lower school sort of affair, where a monitor is constantly present to make sure nothing is said which hurts anyone's feelings -- as if anyone not caring at all for the work of "your" beloved composer should in any way hurt your feelings or affect what you think / feel about that composer's music.


Again with this emotional banter.... You can't help yourself, eh? I'm not in love with this composer, for one. Go read your first couple of post and tell me if that's from an intelligent, courteous person. I'm down for varying opinions, but if this is going to be a gossip circle then you'd be better off going to your nearest highschool and sitting at the little girls' table. I'm sure you'd find good company.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB, this paragraph is probably the spark that lit the tinder:

"I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern."

That doesn't insult anyone except those who _place themselves_ in the category described - and it seems unlikely that anyone would do so. _*But*_ unlikely as it seems, only one, perhaps inconsequential word in the description is required to convey the insult to multitudes. Even in cases where that 'pick-up' doesn't happen, when your words have left the computer screen they are remembered only approximately. Once misremembered, the damage is done, even if the conscious mind subsequently corrects the error.

[Another geezer lecture. This is why I changed my moniker, to suggest that I can't control myself.]


----------



## Blake

I'm not insulted by it. I was making a point on his behalf because I could tell the road he was going down.... and it's unnecessary.


----------



## Blake

There's still love in this heart o' mine.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Again with this emotional banter.... You can't help yourself, eh? I'm not in love with this composer, for one. Go read your first couple of post and tell me if that's from an intelligent, courteous person. I'm down for varying opinions, but if this is going to be a gossip circle then you'd be better off going to your nearest highschool and sitting at the little girls' table. I'm sure you'd find good company.


Clearly, your kind of fun is not my kind of fun.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Clearly, your kind of fun is not my kind of fun.
> 
> Class dismissed.


At least our evolution is enough to know when to end this nonsense.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

The guy made pretty music. His symphonies, like Bantock's, are decent orchestral serenades. I don't think he is underrated though.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> Rubbra was one of those names of composers I had heard of without every having heard any of the works, until I was prompted by a number of mentions of him on TC.
> 
> I found it all old-hat, _been there / done that_ symphonic music, with some slight modernist language -- the sort that appeals to and does not much challenge a bourgeois audience who would like to think they are into contemporary / modern music but are afraid of anything more actually contemporary / modern.
> 
> I surveyed a number of the symphonies, and found them dull as or duller than ditch water. With all the press about 'great symphonist of the 20th century,' I was expecting anything but that old Brahms stuff, which is all it seems to me.
> 
> What others take as deeply exciting, fulfilling, seems paper thin to me, as if the later more traditional 20th century symphonists, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra and a few others were filling the same old pie crust with a slightly new filling which was not as flavorful, strong, or hearty as their forebears... it all sounds effete to me, i.e. thin, worn out, dated and lesser.
> 
> Rubbra's music is, though, plainly respected and liked, but just not my cuppa.


Your modernist ideology is blinding you perhaps even to some great music.

Edit: And evidently it's not making you many friends either.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> Common courtesy might also allow for a difference of opinion, as long as that is not a bash, i.e. "this music is crap!" Now, if you want a universal love fest kind of thread (which of course is artificial and synthetic), I suggest a highly supervised lower school sort of affair, where a monitor is constantly present to make sure nothing is said which hurts anyone's feelings -- as if anyone not caring at all for the work of "your" beloved composer should in any way hurt your feelings or affect what you think / feel about that composer's music.


But it is a bit odd to show up on thread after thread in this forum only to say you disapprove of the composer under discussion.


----------

