# What happened to Enlgish classical music between Purcell and Elgar?



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I'm not saying there were no English composers between this period but my impression is there weren't many of note. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that it's not like England stopped caring about the western musical tradition since they welcomed Haydn with gusto. Also there were all kinds of English authors and poets during this period so it's not like there was a total dearth of the arts.

So what's the explanation for this?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, Boyce was enjoyable. Some in the late 19th century, just before Elgar, but not to make you sit up and cheer.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

The same counts for Michael William Balfe , nice music and I do think he tried his best .


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Avison is an example of the problem. He played in Newcastle with mainly amateur musicians. They liked Scarlatti but didn't have the skill to play it so he wrote simple arrangements.

If you look at somebody like Thomas Arne (Rule Britannia among others) you see somebody who played for Handel and then developed as a theatre musician in his own right. 

After Purcell, you have Blow, Clarke (the trumpet tune) and Croft all working at the Chapel Royal. Despite the efforts of the Banisters, there wasn't a thriving concert scene in London. So again few opportunities to develop the skills.

We can see something similar with Lord Kellie later in the 18th Century. He went to Mannheim on the Grand Tour and was inspired by the music. When he returned, it was felt a little ungentlemanly to practice enough to achieve musical competence.

There was a thriving music scene at the pleasure gardens in London but much of this was occasional music.

Even somebody like Charles Dibdin (Tom Bowling and other sea songs) gets ignored.

Basically, the eighteenth century music went out of fashion and in the Nineteenth Century even somebody like Sullivan never managed to get away from being seen as a composer of stage music.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Taggart said:


> Avison is an example of the problem. He played in Newcastle with mainly amateur musicians. They liked Scarlatti but didn't have the skill to play it so he wrote simple arrangements.


To add to what you said and not to contradict any of it, but from reading memoirs, novels and biographies my impression is that England, from about the time of Queen Anne, became a country of amateurs. I read that Handel's favourite tenor had been a chorister at the Chapel Royal and there were certainly church organists and choirs all over the country, but mostly the English imported their professional performers. And their composers - Handel, Porpora, Mozart, Haydn, J. C. Bach, Mendelssohn ...

Charles Burney had been apprenticed to Arne but thought it had been a waste of time.

But they loved music - Samuel Johnson complained that "All animated nature loves music - except myself!" Boswell and Horace Walpole loved Handel's Messiah but Walpole was scathing about the inadequacy of the performers when it was first heard in London.



> We can see something similar with Lord Kellie later in the 18th Century. He went to Mannheim on the Grand Tour and was inspired by the music. When he returned, it was felt a little ungentlemanly to practice enough to achieve musical competence.


That's interesting. I'm thinking of Jack Aubrey and his Amati.

Your reference to Mannheim gives me another idea. England was an island the sole capital of an island. (I think Edinburgh and Dublin were out of contention at the time).

Mozart could drop in to listen to the Mannheim orchestra. Composers of fairly ordinary means could sometimes go to the fountainhead of music - Italy (Naples, Rome, Venice...) as Mozart did as a child. Or they could wander around the German-speaking lands picking up and swapping ideas - Bach could walk to Lubeck to hear Buxtehude, Pachelbel seems to have met everybody (including a lot of Bachs), Beethoven and Brahms gravitated towards Vienna but there was also Leipzig, Dresden, Dusseldorf, Berlin ... I admit that Haydn didn't get about much before he became famous.

So, was it just that bit too arduous and expensive for an insular English musician of the middle or lower-middle class to be part of the creative toing-and-froing?

Another idea:

The English monarchs of the C18 and C19 didn't have court orchestras did they? I don't think they supported native (or foreign) genius as the rulers of the Italian and German states, or the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs and the Bourbons did. Is there any record of an English ruler being an enthusiast for music between the reigns of Queen Mary (Purcell) and Queen Victoria (Mendelssohn)?

Third idea (I'm even less sure of this one):

The Anglican liturgy, over time, became too well-mannered to inspire brilliant or intense music.

My fourth guess (they're getting feebler):

England's sons [not daughters, sorry] were too busy launching the Industrial Revolution and colonising half the planet.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

jenspen said:


> Your reference to Mannheim gives me another idea. England was an island the sole capital of an island. (I think Edinburgh and Dublin were out of contention at the time).
> 
> Mozart could drop in to listen to the Mannheim orchestra. Composers of fairly ordinary means could sometimes go to the fountainhead of music - Italy (Naples, Rome, Venice...) as Mozart did as a child. Or they could wander around the German-speaking lands picking up and swapping ideas - Bach could walk to Lubeck to hear Buxtehude, Pachelbel seems to have met everybody (including a lot of Bachs), Beethoven and Brahms gravitated towards Vienna but there was also Leipzig, Dresden, Dusseldorf, Berlin ... I admit that Haydn didn't get about much before he became famous.
> 
> So, was it just that bit too arduous and expensive for an insular English musician of the middle or lower-middle class to be part of the creative toing-and-froing?


Geminiani worked all over the place. Avison was one of his pupils. He also met Carolan in Dublin. Don't forget that Handel premiered the Messiah in Dublin and the Earl of Kellie was one of the major players in the Edinburgh music society.

The big problem is that neither London or Edinburgh managed to get enough good musicians together to generate a sustained musical culture.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's not so much a lack of composers as a lack of world class composers. Some of it had to do with taste. Just as nineteenth century Americasn composers too much tried to be German; English composers tried to copy what its thought the public wanted -- Italinate Handelian Baroque stuff, Mendelssohnian oratorios and the like. They forgot that there could be such a thing as an "English School."


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Maybe we just haven't looked hard enough: we know about Stanford, Parry and Sullivan but no doubt there are plenty of others to be found: it just needs excursions through various libraries to uncover schools that have been gathering dust over the years.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

manyene said:


> Maybe we just haven't looked hard enough: we know about Stanford, Parry and Sullivan but no doubt there are plenty of others to be found: it just needs excursions through various libraries to uncover schools that have been gathering dust over the years.


I think you are right that there will be more English composers to be found. As Mark W said: "It's not so much a lack of composers as a lack of world class composers."

God knows, I'm no expert, but I share Dedalus's impression that there "not many" English composers "of note" between Purcell and Elgar. I'd be delighted, but amazed, if there are any such mouldering away in libraries.

I just googled. Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time the question has been raised. We have already touched on some of the reasons that were given. But I was actually googling to get some data about the number of obscure German-speaking and Italian composers in the period we are considering. I didn't stick at it but, because so many have already been exhumed in my listening lifetime, I'd guess they vastly outnumber their obscure contemporaries from the English-speaking lands.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The greatest English composer of the baroque was, of course, Handel. He even anglicized the spelling of his last name, or so I remember.* He became Kapellmeister to the man who would shortly become King George I and enjoyed the patronage of several members of royalty at various levels. He settled in England in 1713 and remained, effectively, an Englishman for almost a half century until his death. Well, he did have an accent.

In 1726, he applied for citizenship under the name "George Frideric Handel" without the dots.

“No alien musician ever more quickly saw what the people of this country required or so promptly qualified himself to supply it. A German among the Germans, and an Italian among the Italians, Handel was an Englishman among the English and, if anything, bettered his model.”

*He got rid of those ridiculous little dots. Every time I see somebody spell his name "Haendel" I cringe at the stunning and mistaken pretentiousness of it.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The greatest English composer of the baroque was, of course, Handel. He even anglicized the spelling of his last name, or so I remember.* He became Kapellmeister to the man who would shortly become King George I and enjoyed the patronage of several members of royalty at various levels. He settled in England in 1713 and remained, effectively, an Englishman for almost a half century until his death. Well, he did have an accent.
> 
> In 1726, he applied for citizenship under the name "George Frideric Handel" without the dots.
> 
> ...


I see what your saying but I can't consider him truly an English composer... for obvious reasons.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I'd also argue that Handel was an English composer, despite his German birth and upbringing. As we know, many people immigrate to a desired country, adopt the culture, and are completely accepted by their new homeland. Most of his greatest works were composed there. So to me, Handel should be included and helps fill the gap in the void between Purcell and Elgar. 

(Umlaut also sometimes spelled with ae, but to me not an issue to be proud of one's ethnicity)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> I see what your saying but I can't consider him truly an English composer... for obvious reasons.


Was King George I, Handel's patron, an English king? He didn't arriver in England until he was 53! His accent was probably worse than Handel's.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> I'd also argue that Handel was an English composer, despite his German birth and upbringing. As we know, many people immigrate to a desired country, adopt the culture, and are completely accepted by their new homeland. Most of his greatest works were composed there. So to me, Handel should be included and helps fill the gap in the void between Purcell and Elgar.
> 
> (Umlaut also sometimes spelled with ae, but to me not an issue to be proud of one's ethnicity)


Like I said, I get why you HandelisanEnglishcomposer people would think that but he was raised to full adulthood and took many of his studies in Germany, which In my humble opinion is why he shouldn't be considered as such. If he had immigrated at age 5 or even as late as 7 or 8 I could see myself being in that camp but alas it was not to be.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks for all the great responses! I was very curious about this, and I learned a lot from you all.

One of my thoughts was something somebody mentioned, about England being too busy having an industrial revolution and taking over half the world. I thought of this, and I thought of the other colonial powers such as Portugal and Spain, who also aren't very big in classical music (I think?) The only problem with this is France, who was a big colonial power but managed to juggle their music scene along with it. Good job France!

Also the fact that the English were on an island and therefore somewhat isolated seems to make perfect sense to me.

The small quibble about whether or not Handel was English or not doesn't seem to really matter as far as my original question was concerned. Whether he ended up being English or not doesn't explain why it took an immigrant who spent all of his formative years _somewhere else_ to become the greatest English Baroque composer. What is it about England's culture at the time that wasn't conducive to creating great composers? That was my original question and whether you call Handel English or German it doesn't change the fact that nobody who grew up in England became a great composer for some 150 years, an incredible gap of time.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> The small quibble about whether or not Handel was English or not doesn't seem to really matter as far as my original question was concerned. Whether he ended up being English or not doesn't explain why it took an immigrant who spent all of his formative years _somewhere else_ to become the greatest English Baroque composer. What is it about England's culture at the time that wasn't conducive to creating great composers? That was my original question and whether you call Handel English or German it doesn't change the fact that nobody who grew up in England became a great composer for some 150 years, an incredible gap of time.


To me, it seems the question isn't so much why England failed to produce a major classical composer for a long time, as why all of them seem to have come from German speaking places. 

After all, lots of countries never or seldom produced major classical composers. It might simply be chance, in which case there isn't anything to explain.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I'm not sure why there should be an onus on England to compete with Germany and Italy in the number of well-known composers as now perceived. England certainly had many good composers throughout its history. Maybe standards of what is considered great music and who are great composers are relative to modern tastes and the current culture we live in. Mahler and Bach are examples of composers not considered universally great in their time, but tastes and perceptions have changed since then.

I also think it's inaccurate to dismiss Handel as not an English composer because he spent his youngest and least productive years in Germany. He clearly was influenced by English culture, tastes, and music tradition where he lived most of his life. His creativity and evolution continued there and did not cease because he stepped foot on a boat to cross the channel.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Maybe we should first turn the question around: what are the English good at when it comes to art or culture? 

Just of the top of my head the first things that come to mind are:
- great literature
- great theatre (drama & comedy)
- some great painters
- important innovation in popular music genres (prog rock, punk, etc.)
- their excellent sense of (absurd) humour
- inventing all kinds of sports (that other nations get better at in the end)

English classical music doesn't spring to my mind...


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Casebearer said:


> Maybe we should first turn the question around: what are the English good at when it comes to art or culture?
> 
> Just of the top of my head the first things that come to mind are:
> - great literature
> ...


And then there's English cuisine.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> And then there's English cuisine.


Only in: how to cook shows on telly.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

They're not all German - Lully, Rameau and the Couperins for a start. Interesting that Louis XIV was a good dancer hence all Lully's ballet music.

Charles II brought Violinists over from France but it never caught on. The later monarchs seemed to have little interest in music.

The Italians had a number of Operatic composers - most of whom sank without trace.

British Baroque musc - the music of Mudge, Avison, Bond, Boyce, Dibdin, the Eccles - is alive and well and supported by small local Baroque groups usually playing on "authentic" instruments. It's well worth a listen.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> And then there's English cuisine.


as Casebearer said .... "their excellent sense of (absurd) humour" :lol:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

MarkW said:


> And then there's English cuisine.


Yeah, Casebearer forgot to mention Marmite...


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I'm not saying there were no English composers between this period but my impression is there weren't many of note. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that it's not like England stopped caring about the western musical tradition since they welcomed Haydn with gusto. Also there were all kinds of English authors and poets during this period so it's not like there was a total dearth of the arts.
> 
> So what's the explanation for this?


Do you think Handel was representation for England in that period with his productivity and impact in that era? What about John Field and his contribution to piano works? Haydn certainly was one of the best know composer.

I think the German/Austrian influence was greater toward classical music. We certainly do not want to undermine or downplay England for their contribution. IMHO, I think Bach had set such a high standard and influence toward classical music that most music lover would be attracted to or follow the German/Austrian music history and their composer's work. England or other countries could be considered a branch off.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Field is Irish with Italian piano training - Giordiano in Dublin and Clementi when he moved to London.

One of Clementi's other pupils - Ludwig Berger - taught Felix Mendelssohn while Field himself (with the nocturne form) had a major impact on Chopin.

So Field is neither English nor does his training or influence support German/Austrian dominance.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

They are not bad at least, but simply overshadowed by those miracles from Germany/Austria, Italy, France etc.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

British Baroque musc - the music of Mudge, Avison, Bond, Boyce, Dibdin, the Eccles - is alive and well 

Who??!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Outside of the realm of architecture, the British didn't really offer much until the era of the Rococo (late 1700s/early 1800s): Gainsborough, Romney, Hogarth, Rowlandson, Raeburn, etc... and they don't really become major players until Romanticism and painters such as Turner, Blake, and Constable. 

But does anyone surpass British literature?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But does anyone surpass British literature?


This is a question I had in the back of my mind since my OP. I really don't think anybody surpasses British literature. And if that's not the case, certainly nobody surpasses English _language_ literature. I think this, but I can't help but wonder if it's just my bias from being an American and growing up speaking English. Either way, there really is just so much literature from England and Britain and the UK as a whole (depending on the time frame..) Everything from Shakespeare and Chaucer to the popularization of the novel with Dickens. There's the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen, George Orwell.. It just goes on and on. And that's not even getting into poetry (Keats, Blake, Shakespeare again...)

THEN as I said if you start to include things like the Irish you get James Joyce, then if you include Americas you get... Tons more. And if these places aren't necessarily indebted to the English for their literature, they are at least in some way an extension of it. Maybe?

Anyway, so if it's the case that there wasn't much music happening in Britain for a significant period it also seems the case that the English and others were excelling in other areas. Again, I fear that my bias as an English speaker blinds me from all the literature from France, Spain, Italy, China, etc., and I know all these places have great works. Still as far as I know, Britain actually wins the literature game.

(Btw stlukes, I remember seeing you on online-literature.com. It's been a long time since I've checked it out, but I just happen to remember seeing you post there something like three years ago.)


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> British Baroque musc - the music of Mudge, Avison, Bond, Boyce, Dibdin, the Eccles - is alive and well
> 
> Who??!


I'm afraid I haven't come across this music myself yet, except for a bit of Boyce and a song by Dibdin. If you've watched "The Last Night of the Poms/Proms" you might have heard his song "Tom Bowling" which I seem to remember hearing in the Fantasia of British Sea Songs which sends everybody home happy.

The story they tell is that it was composed for Dibdin's Royal Navy officer brother who had died at sea. It's sentimental but it's grown on me and I really like it now. _Edited to say: I see that Taggart has already mentioned this song_. Anyway, here's the wonderful Robert Tear's version:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I really like Boyce and his bouncy little symphonies. Here's No. 1.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

William Sterndale Bennet (1816-1875) was an accomplished English prodigy, composer, music educator and pianist. He was well-thought of by both Mendelssohn and Schumann. This Andante of his Piano Concerto #1 is an amazing work for a 16-17 year old:


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I agree the British win the prize for literature and also for humour and for inventing sports.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think the Brits probably win for biggest contributions to rock music. 

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Eric Clapton
Black Sabbath
Brian Eno
David Bowie
Elton John
The Smiths
etc


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Who!!! ................................


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Pink Floyd and The Kinks. Totally modern baroque!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dedalus said:


> I'm not saying there were no English composers between this period but my impression is there weren't many of note. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that it's not like England stopped caring about the western musical tradition since they welcomed Haydn with gusto. Also there were all kinds of English authors and poets during this period so it's not like there was a total dearth of the arts.
> 
> So what's the explanation for this?


One name: Handel. Pure and simple.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Taggart said:


> Field is Irish with Italian piano training - Giordiano in Dublin and Clementi when he moved to London.
> 
> One of Clementi's other pupils - Ludwig Berger - taught Felix Mendelssohn while Field himself (with the nocturne form) had a major impact on Chopin.
> 
> So Field is neither English nor does his training or influence support German/Austrian dominance.


It is hard to say. Well, has Ireland separated from Britain in Field's time?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think the Brits probably win for biggest contributions to rock music. 

I'm not so sure about that. You don't get the blues/R&B infused music of Zeppelin, Clapton, or the Rolling Stones without the examples of the original Blues musicians such as: Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Elmore James, Willie Dixon, John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, Slim Harpo, and many, many more. The roots of rock owe just as much to American Country and Bluegrass artists such as Johnny Cash, Hand Williams, Hank Snow, Bob Wills, The Louvin Brothers, The Stanley Brothers, etc... and if you are going to suggest that Brian Eno, David Bowie, Elton John, and others are part of "Rock Music" then the argument can also be made for R&B/Motown musicians such as James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Al Green, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, and Michael Jackson as well as "Country" musicians such as George Jones, Willie Nelson, Maylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, etc... Then you have the founders of "Rock & Roll": Bo Diddly, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Roy Orbison, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, etc... to say nothing of subsequent individuals and groups such as The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Grateful Dead, The Byrds, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Band, The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed, The Eagles, The Talking Heads, Bruce Springsteen, REM, etc...


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Three words: The Glorious Revolution. 

Protestantism is bad for classical music, except for Lutheranism, which is extremely good for classical music. Actually the most important event came earlier: The triumph of English Protestantism when Elizabeth I succeeded Mary I in 1558. That made England stop producing world class composers like William Byrd. The Glorious Revolution was just the nail in the coffin that made England stop producing even not-bad-for-a-provincial composers like Purcell. Then when God died in the 19th century they got back up to the Purcell level with Elgar, but it still took them until the Beatles (meaning Paul McCartney) to produce another world class composer.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think the Brits probably win for biggest contributions to rock music.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. You don't get the blues/R&B infused music of Zeppelin, Clapton, or the Rolling Stones without the examples of the original Blues musicians such as: Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Elmore James, Willie Dixon, John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, Slim Harpo, and many, many more. The roots of rock owe just as much to American Country and Bluegrass artists such as Johnny Cash, Hand Williams, Hank Snow, Bob Wills, The Louvin Brothers, The Stanley Brothers, etc... and if you are going to suggest that Brian Eno, David Bowie, Elton John, and others are part of "Rock Music" then the argument can also be made for R&B/Motown musicians such as James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Al Green, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, and Michael Jackson as well as "Country" musicians such as George Jones, Willie Nelson, Maylon Jennings, Merle Haggard, etc... Then you have the founders of "Rock & Roll": Bo Diddly, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Roy Orbison, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, etc... to say nothing of subsequent individuals and groups such as The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Grateful Dead, The Byrds, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Band, The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed, The Eagles, The Talking Heads, Bruce Springsteen, REM, etc...


Well I see the blues and country as separate traditions, two traditions that America contributed the most to certainly. As far as Rock n' Roll the Americans certainly got the ball rolling, but from the late '60's to the present the most impactful bands were no doubt British. Some other big names that were left off my initial list are: Queen, Genesis, The Who, Jeff Beck, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, T. Rex, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, Supertramp, The Clash, P.J. Harvey and Radiohead, the latter band certainly one of the most important today in rock music and has even had some music arranged in classical music concert halls.

To me a similar analogy is comparing Italy to Germany in classical music contributions. Sure, it started in Italy but the most important composers came later in Germany. Led Zeppelin and the Beatles are to rock music what Bach and Beethoven are to classical. There are no American rock artists that are on the same tier as the Beatles and Zeppelin.

*edit - * Music that was created by David Bowie collaborating with Eno, and music by Elton John is commonly played on rock music radio stations. Michael Jackson and all the Motown and country western acts you named are not.

Dylan is mostly known for his lyrics, Hendrix is known for his guitar playing and cutting edge studio techniques, not so much song writing. The Beach Boys are fine musicians but not lyricists. Velvet Underground was innovative but compositionally not on the top tier. Elvis did not write his own music and did not push boundaries with the production techniques on his albums, nor did any of the '50's rockers you mentioned do things with studio effects and layering to the same extent. You won't find any American rock bands that have the combined sophisticated song writing, (music AND lyrics) as well as the cutting edge production, layering and studio effects like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Three words: The Glorious Revolution.
> 
> Protestantism is bad for classical music, except for Lutheranism, which is extremely good for classical music. Actually the most important event came earlier: The triumph of English Protestantism when Elizabeth I succeeded Mary I in 1558. That made England stop producing world class composers like William Byrd. ....


You have put more clearly something I had been hinting at myself. Though, to me it seems not to have been the English protestantism of the *Elizabethan *age that put a halt to the "production of composers" in England but the later triumph of* French/Swiss Puritanism* in the English speaking world. I read just now in an online scholarly text that "the [English] puritans objected to choral music and the use of musical instruments in church services....[but] *some* music was performed in the court of Oliver Cromwell". 
I can't think, off-hand, of instrumental music ever playing much part in English church music as it did, say, in Vienna and Leipzig. Perhaps you know?

Various Catholic musicians were still active in Elizabeth's day - Tallis, Byrd (whom you mentioned), also Dowland and Wilbye who were born well into her reign . I haven't checked which of the admired English composers of the succeeding century were Catholic but I suspect not many - certainly not Thomas Tomkins ("When David Heard that Absalom was Slain") or Orlando Gibbons ("Hosanna to the son of David") or Purcell (and hey! Purcell's great).

Catholic masses, Anglican church music (and madrigals) in Elizabeth's time were as complex, chromatic, polyphonic and ravishing as any culture could wish. Elizabeth loved music. As she was dying she asked for "Mr Bird's" lullaby.

I'm more inclined to blame the monarchs from William III on (his consort, Queen Mary an exception) for not actively supporting music and professional musicians as the continental courts of even quite minor rulers, both Catholic and Protestant, and as prosperous cities like Leipzig and Venice did.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

pcnog11 said:


> It is hard to say. Well, has Ireland separated from Britain in Field's time?


Nope.Field was British but nit English. But the OP was about English music. Oh and I muddied the waters with the Earl of Kellie (a Scot).


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Three words: The Glorious Revolution.
> 
> Protestantism is bad for classical music, except for Lutheranism, which is extremely good for classical music. Actually the most important event came earlier: The triumph of English Protestantism when Elizabeth I succeeded Mary I in 1558. That made England stop producing world class composers like William Byrd. The Glorious Revolution was just the nail in the coffin that made England stop producing even not-bad-for-a-provincial composers like Purcell. Then when God died in the 19th century they got back up to the Purcell level with Elgar, but it still took them until the Beatles (meaning Paul McCartney) to produce another world class composer.


Like all of this. Yes and no.

Calvinism is usually bad for music but ... look at Sweelinck the Dutch genius and "maker of organists". His Dutch pupils never took off as composers but the North Germans - they took the improvisatory form of the chorale and ran with it. The culmination is probably Buxtehude (who taught J S Bach). The Bach family were influenced by Sweelinck's work.

Trouble was that England was rather insular and didn't send people abroad to learn. Many composers started at their local Cathedral and either stayed there or moved to London. The exceptions in this period are Peter Phillips a Catholic priest and John Bull who fled on charges of adultery. So while Sweelinck's work was known - we have works by Bull, Phillips and Sweelinck in the Fitzwilliam virginal book - it did not have the impact that it did in Germany.


----------

