# Favorite English Composer



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I thought the time was ripe for a new poll. Question is simple- whose your favorite English composer? As always, posting a response with an explanation is encouraged. 


I'm not as familiar with English music as I'd like to be. As far as English composers who have written pieces I love the most, Elgar probably wins with his Cello and Violin Concerto. But Vaughan Williams and Britten can't be too far behind (Lark Ascending, Oboe Concerto, and Tallis Fantasia from the former, and War Requiem, Cello Symphony and Peter Grimes with the latter). 

Also to avoid controversy about Handel, I'll say now that New Grove defines him as an 'English composer, born in Germany.' So we're going with that.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Now I must confess a terrible thing. For long time I had aversion to English music based solely on the stereotyphe of English people being flegmatic and having little passion. Forgive me, but even Berlioz did spread such view. 

But it's hard to explore music and keep away from Elgar's Cello Concerto. It was first work of English composer I loved. Then some Ralph Vaueaueaguaehahan Williams from CD including his four (or five?) "Popular Orchestral Works" (Marriner).

I'm still not into English music but since you ask, my answer is: Elgar. Mentioned concerto, then the serenade for string... and his moustache.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Lots of good choices. I chose Walton, because I think he has a broad swath of music, touched everything from symphonies, to concertos, to film music, to marches, ...

My favourite Walton piece is *Belshazaar's Feast*, with his *viola concerto *close second. Also (in the Guilty Pleasures department) I am partial to both his coronation marches (*Crown Imperial *for George VI and *Orb and Sceptre *for QE2). Nice to hear _Crown _at the William and Kate wedding.

Honourable mentions go to Britten (*War Requiem *moves me to tears) and Vaughan-Williams (*Symphony No. 1 "Sea Symphony"* is a great piece of music).


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I don't listen to my compatriots as much as I do foreigners, well, in classical side of things anyway.

Possibly, Howard Skempton, Cornelius Cardew, maybe even Michael Nyman, but I honestly can't say I've heard that many pieces by them (about half a dozen or so for each).

The Planets is my favourite composition by anyone on the poll with a few by Vaughn Williams coming close. I don't think I've ever heard anything by Tippett or Alwyn though.

Wasn't Handel a sausage muncher?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

Shouldn't that be "British"?

England is only one of the countries of the UK. (That would be like doing a poll of US composers and including only Texans.)

And even better than "British" would be UK, of course. UK composers, like US composers. (American would have to include Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, eh?)

Anyway, having said that, in order to participate in this poll, I would have to choose "Other," because the original list has left off all of my favorite UK composers.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Argus said:


> Wasn't Handel a sausage muncher?


Nah, I think he was straight.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

1. Bax
2. Moeran (sadly missing from your list)
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Finzi
5. Alwyn


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I know it does go against the official stance, but I still don't consider Handel to be English. He didn't move to England until he was 25 and maybe I'm close enough to that age to still think him thoroughly German. He is also probably the best on the list. I went for Elgar because I have invested the most time in listening to his music. I like some of Britten's work too - have been listening to his rather sinister sounding Sinfonia Da Requiem.


----------



## CaptainAzure (May 2, 2011)

Handel being a naturalised English gentleman would be my first choice (although he's obviously 100% German I still like to claim him as one of our own  )

I also like my Purcell. (Thanks in part to A Clockwork Orange)


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> Shouldn't that be "British"?
> 
> England is only one of the countries of the UK. (That would be like doing a poll of US composers and including only Texans.)
> 
> And even better than "British" would be UK, of course. UK composers, like US composers. (American would have to include Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, eh?)


Well, if we extend it to British that changes everything. Then I'd include some of those great Welsh, Scottish and N. Irish composers like.... wait.... just give me a minute... er... Karl Jenkins?


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Handel by a mile.

No other composer on the list quite redefined music like he did - the impact he had on opera, choral music, and concerti was enormous. When I hear a work like _Giulio Cesare_, the _Messiah_, or one of the concerti grossi, I am constantly reminded of the enormous range of expression and beauty the man was able to express - from the dancing jubilee of the last movement of the 14th organ concerto to the beautiful despair of "Se Pieta" to the wild rage of "Where Shall I Fly?" and the religious, almost heavenly euphoria of the Hallelujah Chorus. I think he easily ranks in the top 10 of all composers, a position that we have only began to reevaluate recently due to a renewed interest in Handel's output.

Byrd, Purcell, and Britten all did very significant things in their respective periods too, yet my next favorite on the list would probably be William Walton. In my opinion, he wrote some of the best concertos of the entire 20th century - the cello concerto, the violin concerto, the sinfonia concertante, and one of his crowning achievements, the viola concerto. His talent in film music was unmatched, writing over half a dozen scores - my favorite of the ones I've heard so far being _Henry V_. Beyond that, his oratorio _Belshazzar's Feast_ is very exciting in that it fuses classic oratorio elements with romantic sentiment and slight modernist tinge and at the same time is able to incorporate film score-like elements too. Finally, the _First Symphony_ can't be left unmentioned, such an archetype of the modernist spirit it is. The beginning of the symphony is overwhelming, almost apocalyptic.

I like all the composers on the list however... and it would be hard not to give a nod to a work like Alwyn's _Lyra Angelica_, Vaughan Williams' _Job_, Purcell's _Dido and Aeneas_, or even Tippett's _A Child in our Time_. Of the list the ones I am least familiar with are probably Britten, Byrd, and Dunstable. I definitely need to check these three composers out more.

Delius, Bantock, Brian, Finzi and Gibbons also deserve a mention.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I love Handel and Vaughan Williams, but if I only have one vote then it's no contest: Elgar. I can have a go at 'explaining' my choice, but these attempts at explanations about why he's my _favourite_ don't really 'explain' anything. They just give an opportunity to talk about it.

1. His music has haunted me for nearly 50 years. When I first heard _Enigma Variations_ as a boy, it felt like a coming-together of souls. This is at least partly I think because I share some of Elgar's neuroses: his insecurity; his tendency to be disappointed with his own achievements, and their reception; his dreams of noble ideals, but also his tendency to slip easily into depression when they come to nothing.

2. A great deal of his music seems to me to be closely evocative of my feelings about the English landscape. I'm reminded of what Cezanne said, when he explained that his paintings represented 'a harmony parallel to nature'; in the same way, Elgar's music represents a harmony parallel to the English landscape. The _Introduction and Allegro for Strings_ seems to have been carved from the air of English hills. The great late chamber music - particularly the quartet and piano quintet - creates soundscapes that remind me of the beauty and sometimes weird spookiness of English woodland.

3. The violin concerto has been the single most compelling 'musical listening project' through my life. Starting from a position of disappointed fascination, and a feeling that it was too long, that I didn't really get it, it gradually transformed during repeated listenings over years into one of the most profound musical experiences I know. Again, like Cezanne's famous statement about his paintings representing a 'harmony parallel to nature', the violin concerto in many ways represents a harmony parallel to _human nature_: it explores, in music, the difference between the personal and private aspects of life, and the way they interact; the longing for the eternal feminine principle; the loveliness of life's best moments, and the dreadful mind-numbing almost-deaths of life's worst disappointments (nowhere is this more apparent than in the 10-minute accompanied cadenza). I've written about it in more detail in the Edward Elgar thread, here.

4. The 1st symphony was my personal favourite of all symphonies 40-odd years ago. It still is. Apart from leading off with a fantastic tune that reappears to great effect in the final movement, it has a musical optimism rare in Elgar, full of hope that all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

5. _The Spirit of England_, a far-too-neglected masterpiece, is Elgar's great Requiem: his musical working-out of the big questions posed by the deaths of the young men in the Great War, and his exploration of what our response is, and should be, to that. Gratitude; admiration; grief; the hollow pain of loss, not just of men, but of hopes; the noble determination to remember. If I could have only one piece of choral music on my desert island, it would be this.

That's enough for now. This is long enough to put most people to sleep already!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I have to go with Elgar as well. (And, like others above, I can not think of Handel as an English composer - sorry.)

I have not had the privilege of hearing as many of Elgar's works as Elgarian. Nor do I have any personal (first hand) knowledge of the English countryside. And, to be honest, there are still some of his works i have heard that just don't speak to me at all at this point in my life or perhaps at this point in my familiarity with them (i.e., the second symphony, the violin concerto).

So, why pick Elgar anyhow?

For one thing, none of the composers on the list above (including Elgar) have consistantly pleased me. But, I have experienced more personally moving listening experiences from Elgar's music than I have from any of the others (including Handel). Somehow, after all is said and done it comes down to this (as unobjective and indefensible, and perhaps as embarrassing a position as one can have): who has given me chills or moved me to tears more? No question - Elgar.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Since the question is my favorite, not who I consider the best or the most influential, out of the list, I'd grab William Byrd first. His way with polyphony, though at the end of the era, was still unique in how he extended phrases and how he varied the entrances of his points of imitation. The masses for 5, 4, and 3 voices are interesting in how he coped with the varying forces. And his Ave Verum Corpus is one of the most poignant pieces I've heard.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

If I include Handel (as the OP insists), he is my clear choice. Like others I have trouble with thinking Handel is British (but I voted for him since that was the rule).

If I exclude Handel, I'd go with Elgar. His cello concerto and Enigma Variations are truly spectacular. I also love his piano quintet, Serenade in E, and Introduction and Allegro for Strings.

After Elgar is Vaughan Williams with Finzi, Alwyn, and Bax following.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted *Vaughan Williams* even though I still don't know how to pronounce his first name. I voted for him mainly for the Sinfonia Antartica and of course the Tallis Fantasia. I enjoy his other music but none so much as these two.

Those who haven't heard *Tippet* should give him a try. It's contemporary enough without sounding like a room full of cats being killed by slow torture.

If we are including all of the UK, one cannot dismiss the importance of *John Field*, who allegedly invented the nocturne. I know his piano sonatas are incredible.

And if I may indulge in a little so called "pop" music, my favorite would have to be *Ian Anderson*, who has an uncanny knack for satisfying yet idiosyncratic melodies and musical gestures.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Holst. Even if you you take out the Planets, his contribution to choral and wind band music cannot be overstated. His two suites for military band in essence raised the modern concert band to a status of high art. His orchestration techniques are gorgeous and he had a wonderful mixture of folk influence and modern harmonic language.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Handel by more than a mile... in spite of the fact that he was German. We wouldn't call Chopin French or Schoenberg American now would we? But considering the OP put Handel on the list there is no other possible choice. The more I have explored Handel's work... his brilliant Italian cantatas, his operas, oratorios, and other vocal works... the more I am impressed with him. He seriously stands shoulder to shoulder with Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Handel by more than a mile... He seriously stands shoulder to shoulder with Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.




Bold words... 

But the fact is there remains much Handel I have not yet listened to, as with many of the other composers in that list. So I refrained from voting. In order of my personal preference right now though, I'd vote Handel followed by Britten, the rest are either too unfamiliar or too close to call for me right now.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Like others I think of Handel as German, but he's on the list, and being an opera maniac I've got to vote for him. 

But of truly English opera composers it would have to be Britten. Purcell a close second.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Handel by more than a mile... in spite of the fact that he was German. We wouldn't call Chopin French or Schoenberg American now would we?


Well what you say, as well as the things that member some guy brang up, alludes to the fact that when we talk about a composer, musician, or any prominent person as being "English," "German," "Czech" or "Australian" for that matter it all gets very confusing & kind of rubbery. I mean, take Delius for example, a lot of people think of him as English or British, but he had little love for his "country" of birth & spent most of his life outside of it - in Norway, France, & the USA. Same with Percy Grainger, who was born here in Australia, but spent most of his life overseas. Maybe we should invent a set of "new" nationality nametags for composers like this - simply "European" for guys like Handel (who also spent quite a bit of time in Italy) & Chopin & "international" for guys like Schoenberg, Delius, Grainger, Stravinsky, etc.

But as far as Handel goes, I think the Brits see him as "one of their own," definitely. His oratorios basically gave rise to the British tradition of singing with massed choirs, indeed, it is difficult to think of things like Elgar's _Dream of Gerontius _or Tippett's _A Child of Our Time_ being composed without the huge input of Handel into this area. Handel was basically the "spark plug" for these things to happen later. & he was also buried with full honours & now lies in Westminster (along with "home grown" guys like Purcell). _Messiah _was actually premiered in Dublin, so he didn't only stay in the English "orbit" of London - he travelled to other parts of the UK. So, speaking to these things, Handel (for all intents & purposes) can be counted as English or British or whatever.



> But considering the OP put Handel on the list there is no other possible choice. The more I have explored Handel's work... his brilliant Italian cantatas, his operas, oratorios, and other vocal works... the more I am impressed with him. He seriously stands shoulder to shoulder with Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


My head says Handel, but my heart says *Walton* (speaking to the in-depth reasons others like member Air have given above). His music has enough of the old & quite a bit of the new, an aspect which I like a lot. This proved to not work in Walton's favour in a way, he was the rising star of UK music in the inter-war period, taking the baton from older guys like Vaughan Williams, but after WW2, Walton was kind of eclipsed by others, esp. Britten. So Walton kind of "fell in between two chairs" so to speak - not traditional enough for the conservatives, but not pushing boundaries enough for the radicals. In a nutshell, that's probably why I love his stuff a lot.

Having said that, I like & in many cases love all the composers listed in the poll, Bax is the only one who I don't connect with a great deal (but still love some of his non-symphonic works like _Tintagel_ quite a bit). Dowland, Dunstable & Alwyn are largely uncharted territories for me at this point.

& another one I'd add is *Arthur Bliss*, who was much admired by guys like Britten for bringing continental European influences strongly into UK music. His _A Colour Symphony _& _Clarinet Quintet _are my favourite works by him...


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Hmm... maybe it was a mistake including Handel in the list. I thought there would be _more_ a fuss if I didn't include him though.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

... when we talk about a composer, musician, or any prominent person as being "English," "German," "Czech" or "Australian" for that matter it all gets very confusing & kind of rubbery. I mean, take Delius for example, a lot of people think of him as English or British, but he had little love for his "country" of birth & spent most of his life outside of it - in Norway, France, & the USA. Same with Percy Grainger, who was born here in Australia, but spent most of his life overseas. Maybe we should invent a set of "new" nationality nametags for composers like this - simply "European" for guys like Handel (who also spent quite a bit of time in Italy) & Chopin & "international" for guys like Schoenberg, Delius, Grainger, Stravinsky, etc.

Personally, I think that where one is born and raised will have the most profound cultural impact upon the individual. I agree that there are elements in Handel that are clearly English... but there are also elements undoubtedly owed to his Italian experience and there are unquestionable German aspects to his music.

But as far as Handel goes, I think the Brits see him as "one of their own," definitely. His oratorios basically gave rise to the British tradition of singing with massed choirs, indeed, it is difficult to think of things like Elgar's Dream of Gerontius or Tippett's A Child of Our Time being composed without the huge input of Handel into this area.

Of course the Brits see him as one of their own. Their musical achievements without Handel are quite a bit less than stellar (much as I like English music). I agree that he had a major impact upon the British choral tradition... although this was already well established since Purcell and before. Still, one might point out that Chopin had an unquestionable impact upon the French musical tradition through Faure, Debussy, Satie, Alkin, and others... but he remains Polish. Of course Handel composed in an era before the notion of nationalism had taken hold... certainly not in "Germany" which in reality was but a collection of city states.

My head says Handel, but my heart says Walton (speaking to the in-depth reasons others like member Air have given above). 

Walton is someone I must explore more. Removing Handel, I would probably go with Britten based upon the strength of his operas and his other vocal music especially... but also any number of instrumental works such as his marvelous Cello Sonatas. My heart, however, would probably go with Delius (not included!!!!), who brought a marvelous Impressionistic French touch to the English pastoral.

Of course I also love the earlier composers such as Dowland, Purcell, Tallis, etc...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Handel. No contest. As for those of you Britons who think he might be German; well, your "old bosses" members of the Royal Family since Queen Anne, followed by King George I (who was born in Hanover) were his patron both when alive and long dead right up to today. Thank Handel for introducing Italian forms of Baroque music (certainly as far as Italian opera was concerned) and signifcantly contributed to British musical society to a degree that none before him did, and arguably a while yet following his death.

Excluding Handel, I might select Britten and Purcell.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Hm, I thought I posted but it doesn't seem to be here! But, as my TC account seems to have gremlins that hide my posts from me occasionally, perhaps it is here somewhere... Forgive me if this is in fact my second post on this thread and very similar to my first.

Anyway.

Britten! No contest. Richly varied. Very distinctive personal style. Never boring (which is more than I can say for Handel, though I do usually like him). Actually, I don't think I've ever heard a piece by Britten that didn't fascinate, move, or at least entertain me. I particularly love his operas. I think I can safely say (despite being a bit of an opera neophyte) that Britten is my favorite opera composer.

Next would be Vaughan Williams, just because so much of his music is so _beautiful_. 

And next after that is one not on this list, Ethel Smyth. She's my pet composer right now and a brilliant exception to the 


Aramis said:


> stereotyphe of English people being flegmatic and having little passion.


Listen to _The Wreckers_ (her most famous opera). Just in case you haven't already heard me say so.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Britten! No contest. Richly varied. Very distinctive personal style. Never boring (which is more than I can say for Handel...



Accck!!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I "liked" both your posts above (stlukes & HC), but HC put what I was trying to argue very well -



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...Thank Handel for introducing Italian forms of Baroque music (certainly as far as Italian opera was concerned) and signifcantly contributed to British musical society to a degree that none before him did, and arguably a while yet following his death.


But, as I said, this is a "rubbery" area, I must strongly admit.



> ...Excluding Handel, I might select *Britten* and *Purcell*.


They were both pivotal in their own times. Britten acutally wrote a set of variations & fugue on a theme by Purcell, called _The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra_. I remember hearing it live as a kid (with narration) & I like it as much now as I did then. Purcell's music, what little I've heard of it, always speaks to me of his way of doing things in a very interesting way. His famous _Chacony in G minor _"grabs" me every time (what a great pity the man died so young!) -


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> the violin concerto in many ways represents a harmony parallel to _human nature_: it explores, in music, the difference between the personal and private aspects of life, and the way they interact


The forum software won't allow me to edit what I wrote yesterday, but I made a typo which is misleading. What I'd intended to write was:

The violin concerto in many ways represents a harmony parallel to human nature: it explores, in music, the difference between the *public* and private aspects of life, and the way they interact.


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> I voted *Vaughan Williams* even though I still don't know how to pronounce his first name.


Vaughan is said _'Vorn'_

I thought John Field was Irish - and I mean from Dublin, not the north; mind you he was born in 1782 and that is the date of the creation of the Irish Constitution, but thinking further, Ireland didn't become part of the Union until 1800 - och who cares, John Field's piano music is very very good.

I love British composers - and even though Brits are phlegmatic in the sense that we in general have stable outlooks, we cen very much be passionate, it's just not flaunted round the place  - but when it comes to music, thats a very intersting observation, some composers do have the stiff upper lip mentality in their music, but some show true emotion (Elgar's Cello Concerto being a good example of that).






I voted for elgar, because the above Cello Concerto, when first I heard it, moved me immensly (into the next room infact..... not really).

But I do like this by ole Ralph Vaughan Williams (pronounced: rayfe vorn)


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

ooh just another thought - under the other category - Thomas Tallis 1505-1585, composer of many foundation themes, like his canon


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

crmoorhead said:


> I like some of Britten's work too - have been listening to his rather sinister sounding Sinfonia Da Requiem.


I voted for Britten. _Sinfonia da Requiem_ is my favourite British piece. Holst would probably get second place for _The Planets_ and _Egdon Heath_, Bax third for _Tintagel_ and his other symphonic poems.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I voted for Purcell, though I enjoy Dowland about as much. It's that anachronistic set for viols that forced my hand.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I ended up with a three-way tie between Alwyn, Bridge and Walton, but Bridge was not included in the alternatives and Walton already had a few votes, so Alwyn got it.

Favorite Alwyn works: piano concertos, Lyra Angelica, Sonata alla toccata, piano music, string quartets

Favorite Bridge works: piano music

Favorite Walton works: piano quartet, concertos

Runners-up would be Vaughan Williams, Holst and Delius.

[SORRY] I excluded Händel... [/SORRY]


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

TresPicos said:


> [SORRY] I excluded Händel... [/SORRY]


Who he? After the Brits adopted him, he became Handel. Not Händel, not Haendel. Awhile later the house of Hanover became the house of Windsor. These things happen.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Weston said:


> ...Those who haven't heard *Tippet* should give him a try...


Seconded. I esp. like his _Piano Concerto_, inspired by Gieseking's playing of Beethoven's 4th PC during his visits to London after WW2. The "vibe" of Beethoven is definitely there (though not in a literal sense) as is the full-on (techni)colour & lyrical sensitivity of Gieseking's playing technique/style. I don't think Gieseking ever played it (?), but it was offered to Julius Katchen, who turned it down, citing it being "unplayable." But John Ogdon dispelled this view, playing it expertly, with much refinement & zest. Listen to the duet between piano & celesta in the last movt. & you'll be transported to another world, which is very colourful & comes across as something maybe Ravel (or other Frenchmen) would've done if he'd been more "atonal." Another favourite Tippett piece of mine is his _String Quartet No. 3_ - again, Beethoven is in the background, this work has no less than three fugues! - a very lyrical piece, kind of bringing up images of Tippett's youth in Suffolk, but not the "old style" pastoralism of guys like Vaughan Williams. With this work, I feel I'm kind of hovering over the landscape - similar to a painting by John Constable - admiring the view, and with the final slow fugue in the coda, it's like a gentle descent by hot air balloon back to terra firma. The ending of Beethoven's _Archduke_ piano trio comes to mind strongly here too. Tippett often puts a strong chord at the end of his works, so the listener has some sense of resolution or finality to hang on to...



> It's contemporary enough without sounding like a room full of cats being killed by slow torture...


It's true, Tippett's got a quite modern sound, but not too high-end modern (in terms of works I've heard from him). The Brits probably saw him as a bit of a radical, but I'd surmise that on the continent his music wouldn't have been seen as like that at all. Not that he was a conservative, but you probably can't easily put him in a "box."



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...My heart, however, would probably go with *Delius* (not included!!!!), who brought a marvelous Impressionistic French touch to the English pastoral...


I'm not a huge fan of Delius at this point, I have found him a bit too "unfocussed" compared to say Debussy in that style, but I haven't heard his chamber works yet, which could change my opinion of him. I remember hearing Delius' piano concerto on air about 2 years ago, & I think I liked it to a greater degree, much more than his orchestral rhapsodies & stuff like that (the addition of the solo piano seemed to give this work a bit more focus or structure for me)...


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Who he? After the Brits adopted him, he became Handel. Not Händel, not Haendel. Awhile later the house of Hanover became the house of Windsor. These things happen.


Sorry again. I was lured into using the correct letter, since my language has it too.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Very hard choice. I've voted Michael Tippett on the grounds of some ravishingly beautiful works he wrote before his music went thorny and spiky in the sixties. Anyone unfamiliar with Tippett should try the Ritual Dances from The Midsummer Marriage, the Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli, or the Piano Concerto.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Who he? After the Brits adopted him, he became Handel. Not Händel, not Haendel. Awhile later the house of Hanover became the house of Windsor. These things happen.


Actually, it was the house of Saxe-Coberg and Gotha that changed it's name to Windsor.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Chris said:


> Anyone unfamiliar with Tippett should try the Ritual Dances from The Midsummer Marriage, the Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli, or the Piano Concerto.


I'm one of those; I've never heard anything by him. I'm listening to the Midsummer Marriage. Lovely sounds; so far, it's reminding me of Delius on Red Bull. (That's a good thing.)


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

Elgar for me as well. His Cello and Violin concertos are great, as is Enigma Variations. I quite like his 1st Symphony as well.



Elgarian said:


> The violin concerto has been the single most compelling 'musical listening project' through my life. Starting from a position of disappointed fascination, and a feeling that it was too long, that I didn't really get it, it gradually transformed during repeated listenings over years into one of the most profound musical experiences I know.


Ah, we share similar experiences! At first, it felt too long, and not quite as enticing as other violin concertos I loved. After multiple listens, though, it's really grown on me, and has become a concerto I would rate fairly highly. My favorite version is Menuhin with the composer conducting; there's something about that version that speaks of personal struggle that I don't feel nearly as much in other versions I've heard (granted, I've only listened to Ida Haendel's and Kyung Wha Chung's versions aside from this one, so limited exposure).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Agreed about the special qualities of the young Menuhin's recording of Elgar's violin concerto, with the composer conducting. I used to have it on disc, coupled with the original recording of his cello concerto with Beatrice Harrison, which was no less moving. I need to get this again!

I just remembered when thinking about this thread, I think that *Arthur Sullivan *was a very significant composer of the UK during his time (late c19th). The operettas he composed with W.S. Gilbert as lyricist have been firm parts of that repertoire ever since in English speaking countries. Sullivan was probably the biggest figure - at least in terms of popularity at home - in between Purcell & Elgar (the latter's first big hit being the _Enigma Variations_, first performed in 1900, a year after Sullivan's death). Sullivan aspired to be a successful "serious" composer, putting down many choral works, a delightful symphony & cello concerto, as well as one grand opera (_Ivanhoe_) but none of these works have ever been as successful as his operettas. Handel & Schumann were his compositional heroes, & he had a tendency to downgrade the importance of his contributions of "light" music. Whether he liked it or not, his obvious talents lay in giving people a few good laughs, having a good time & lampooning British society...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Llyranor said:


> My favorite version is Menuhin with the composer conducting; there's something about that version that speaks of personal struggle that I don't feel nearly as much in other versions I've heard (granted, I've only listened to Ida Haendel's and Kyung Wha Chung's versions aside from this one, so limited exposure).


And *Sid* said:


> Agreed about the special qualities of the young Menuhin's recording of Elgar's violin concerto, with the composer conducting. I used to have it on disc, coupled with the original recording of his cello concerto with Beatrice Harrison, which was no less moving. I need to get this again!


Yes. Those historic recordings (Menuhin and Harrison) will always have a special place, partly because of the fine performances by the soloists, but also because Elgar himself is conducting - so we get a special insight into how he expected the works to be performed (though I realise this isn't precise science). Beatrice Harrison's cello concerto is in fact my favourite version, partly because she seems to understand it so completely; partly because she was Elgar's choice of soloist again and again in concert; but also admittedly for extra-musical reasons. (Try reading her autobiographical journal, _The Cello and the Nightingales_, not published until after she died. I found it introduced an extra personal warmth to the listening experience - I've written more extensively about this here.)

On the violin concerto: over the years (because of my special interest in it) I've tended to collected a lot of different recordings of it and I've never heard a bad one yet. Even so, I tend to keep going back to Hugh Bean's perfectly balanced approach (with Groves and the RLPO) which is my personal favourite; and Dong-Suk Kang (with Leaper and the Polish National Radio SO) for its gypsy-flavoured approach that won me over despite all my initial misgivings. If I were to be picky, I'd say Kennedy's versions seem a bit too flashy for my taste, but to be honest the main reason for having a wide selection to choose from is that it helps to keep the piece alive for me after living with it for so long, and I wouldn't want to get rid of any of them.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Handel's about as English as Andy Murray. That is, he's Scottish! :lol:

If you're going to set your net so far, then I vote Mozart. He visited England as a child, so surely that qualifies him? :tiphat:


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I voted for Elgar


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

If choice rested on the number of recordings owned I would have to place Britten first and them Vaughan Williams, but the truth is I would be satisfied with every one of them including those not listed such as Maxwell Davies and James MacMillian. I regard Britten's War Requiem to be the best choral composition of the Twentieth Century.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

i'm not an expert at all, but for what i've listened my favorites works are those of John Foulds, Peter Warlock and Frederick Delius. In this list at this moment my favorites are Britten, Vaughan Williams, Bax, Holst, Dowland and Purcell, but i can't say who is my favorite between them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Do people here think that, because Handel, Elgar & Vaughan Williams are leading this poll, that people's tastes are kind of "conservative?" (for want of a better term). Of course, that's not to denigrate these composers, who were truly great in their own ways. But speaking to how other composers aren't garnering much support here, do you all think that maybe many or some listeners of today regarding the UK classical composers have a need for a kind of "nostalgia?" Does the history of monarchism or the former British Empire play into this? (though I realise that these three composer's personal "politics" are probably not easy to stereotype & label, or what we know about their thoughts on these things). Just throwing this out there for wider/general discussion...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Do people here think that, because Handel, Elgar & Vaughan Williams are leading this poll, that people's tastes are kind of "conservative?" (for want of a better term). Of course, that's not to denigrate these composers, who were truly great in their own ways. But speaking to how other composers aren't garnering much support here, do you all think that maybe many or some listeners of today regarding the UK classical composers have a need for a kind of "nostalgia?" Does the history of monarchism or the former British Empire play into this? (though I realise that these three composer's personal "politics" are probably not easy to stereotype & label, or what we know about their thoughts on these things). Just throwing this out there for wider/general discussion...


Difficult to say just by looking at this poll. Handel and Elgar are clearly leading the poll outcome but looking at the number of recordings of Handel versus Elgar for example in shops and internet sites, there are way, way more Handel recordings. British musical taste of the past tended to be on the conservative side anyway, and I agree with you that the hangover from the Empire days must surely have a lot to do with it, especially with pieces that were composed during that time (Elgar).


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Henry VIII


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Do people here think that, because Handel, Elgar & Vaughan Williams are leading this poll, that people's tastes are kind of "conservative?" (for want of a better term).


Isn't that just the way it always is in polls here on TC? 18th and 19th century composers always win over 20th century ones. And if Beethoven is among the alternatives, Beethoven always wins. 

So, it's not necessarily a UK thing, I think. But it's interesting that the pattern still holds despite of the long "gap" between Purcell (or Handel) and Elgar.



> But speaking to how other composers aren't garnering much support here, do you all think that maybe many or some listeners of today regarding the UK classical composers have a need for a kind of "nostalgia?" Does the history of monarchism or the former British Empire play into this?


For UK listeners, there is most likely an extra component, perhaps nostalgia. In a way, Elgar does seem to be the most "British" of all British composers.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> Do people here think that, because Handel, Elgar & Vaughan Williams are leading this poll, that people's tastes are kind of "conservative?" (for want of a better term).


Nice question! I can't speak for others, but I'm frequently to be heard asserting that Handel invented rock & roll. Something like 'Dopo Notte' (from _Ariodante_) makes me feel like strutting around the place punching the air, and I'm astounded that he could write something that sounds so much as if it were composed yesterday.

I love Elgar's music for a wide range of reasons, one of which is that so much of it is _exciting!_ The Intro & Allegro for strings is full of wildness and rawness. The finale of the 1st symphony makes me want to shout 'Dammit, yes, I _will_ try to be a better person!' There's nothing _conservative_ in any of this; not in the essence of its creative impulse. There may be be a _technical _conservatism (in the sense that Elgar remained a man of his time and didn't experiment with the technical developments of the twentieth century). But the creative driving force is as vital today as it was when he wrote it. When I listen to _The Spirit of England_ it doesn't encourage me to yearn for some long-lost Imperial glory (not that Elgar ever intended it to); it breaks my heart, because nothing has changed; we still have to struggle to maintain our ideals in a world that often seems hostile and indifferent, and his music expresses that perfectly, and for all times. The eerie but beautiful spookiness of the piano quintet is just as relevant to anyone who takes a walk through a bit of English woodland today as it was 100 years ago. It's beautiful but it's not safe; it's unsettling.

So speaking purely for myself of course, I love Elgar's music not because it reminds me of the past, or because it's safe and conventional, but because it challenges, extends and enriches my life in the present.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...British musical taste of the past tended to be on the conservative side anyway...


That's very true, thinking of how a number of composers who "made it big" in the UK were no spring chickens when they got their first "big breaks." I'm thinking here mainly of Elgar & Tippett, maybe even Vaughan Williams. Britten was an exception in not only that he was quite young when he began to make a splash, but his music travelled better to the European continent & USA than those others (he maintained his dominance of the British musical scene right up until his death). Then there were others who only had one or a few works that made any big impact - Holst, Walton, Bax.



> ...and I agree with you that the hangover from the Empire days must surely have a lot to do with it, especially with pieces that were composed during that time (Elgar)...





TresPicos said:


> For UK listeners, there is most likely an extra component, perhaps nostalgia. In a way, Elgar does seem to be the most "British" of all British composers.


His facility with great tunes worked for him & against him. For, because everyone knows things like Land of Hope & Glory. & amongst those other UK guys featured annually at the Last Night of the Proms - Wood, Parry, Arne - Elgar could write both "popular" and "serious" music, pleasing both "highbrows" & "lowbrows" alike (if we want to use those cliched terms). The "against" part is many people's connection of his music with British Imperialism, of which I think he was quite ambivalent about, which you can hear in some of his post-WW1 works like the _Cello Concerto_, more intimate thoughts were expressed "privately" in his chamber works, many also from that period. & it's funny how he came off the bat of German composers (Richard Strauss was a big fan of Elgar) yet fashioned a "sound" that spoke to his countrymen like no other before or since...



TresPicos said:


> Isn't that just the way it always is in polls here on TC? 18th and 19th century composers always win over 20th century ones. And if Beethoven is among the alternatives, Beethoven always wins.


Yes, maybe this preference for the older things is not just about UK music, but music in general. It's not necessarily about conservatism, but also about other things like exposure, familiarity, or "the comfort factor." As Harpsichord Concerto was talking about regarding the many recordings now available of Handel's music.



Elgarian said:


> Nice question! I can't speak for others, but I'm frequently to be heard asserting that Handel invented rock & roll. Something like 'Dopo Notte' (from _Ariodante_) makes me feel like strutting around the place punching the air, and I'm astounded that he could write something that sounds so much as if it were composed yesterday.
> 
> ...So speaking purely for myself of course, I love Elgar's music not because it reminds me of the past, or because it's safe and conventional, but because it challenges, extends and enriches my life in the present.


I like what you say there, but it's probably true that not all classical listeners are so nuanced in their appreciation as you are of guys like Handel or Elgar. But they were great because their music "speaks" to everyone, not only the British peoples. & yes, like the best of the best, they were unique artists & one can listen to them & hear many exciting & "extensive" things.

& talking about the issue of "national identity" expressed in music - I find it funny how (for me) anything that Handel wrote once he was esconced in the UK sounds FAR more "English" or "British" or whatever than what I've heard from Purcell. It's the same issue as Elgar's strong Germanic infuences. Both Handel & Elgar, despite their widely different origins, could delve into the "national psyche" & speak to it clear as a bell...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> The "against" part is many people's connection of his music with British Imperialism, of which I think he was quite ambivalent about, which you can hear in some of his post-WW1 works like the _Cello Concerto_, more intimate thoughts were expressed "privately" in his chamber works, many also from that period.


I used to feel uneasy about Elgar's 'Imperialism' - even defensive. So if I were discussing why I loved his music, I'd begin by saying defensively: 'not the stuff like the Pomp & Circumstance marches, of course'. But I feel differently about it now, for several reasons. First, it involves a kind of chronological snobbery - an unwarranted assumption that if I were writing music in England at that time, I'd somehow be able to 'rise above' the prevailing general atmosphere and escape absorbing some Imperialistic attitudes. But secondly, my defensiveness was based on a misunderstanding of Elgar's personal take on Imperialism. I've written about this before, but Elgar's Imperialism wasn't (except for a handful of arguably ill-judged instances) jingoistic: it was based on ideals that I myself would want to endorse and advocate: ideals of brotherhood; chivalry; self-sacrifice for the benefit of others; nobility of purpose. And those things (as you point out, Sid) are actually universal, and not specifically English at all. Despite its title, _The Spirit of England_ addresses _all_ people, regardless of nationality, who are suffering grief and loss and disillusion.

The happy outcome of all this is that I actually 'like' Elgar more wholeheartedly now, than I used to years ago (when I understood less).


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Handel should never have been on this poll! If he wins it perpetuates the myth that it takes a German to write good English music. And even if he doesn't win he takes votes away distorting the statistics concerning the actual English composers. Maybe I should start a favorite American composers list and add Schoenberg and Stravinsky!

My favorite composer on the list is Handel, but since he is not English I voted for Arnold. I prefer his music to RVW and Elgar any day of the week. My second choice would be Bax.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Do people here think that, because Handel, Elgar & Vaughan Williams are leading this poll, that people's tastes are kind of "conservative?"


Since Robert Simpson, the great symphonist, is not on the poll, and also notable composer Maxwell Davies also not on this poll (and I think I'm the first to even notice that neither one is on the poll!), and Britten has received almost no votes despite being one of the greatest composers of the 20th century... uh yes that is a yes, the tastes around here run towards the conservative.

Edit: and let's not forget Birtwhistle!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

It's kind of odd. Judging by my own reaction to them, I'd say that polls tend to polarize. I feel the sudden need to defend my choices and reject those of other people.

Whereas, I learn a lot more by opening up to new things.


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

*Arnold Bax* is one of the first rate english british composers to stand alongside RVW and elgar and not one of the more laboured derivative few secondary ones hes always lumped with - his symphonies are as magnificantly argued as those of RVW and have bristling magical power that is found nowhere else in the canon - his 6th symphony for example is the equal of any work of its ptype in the 20th C and certainly as profound and individual as vw's best, and the first 5 symphonies are all as special and brilliant. There is much by Bax that renders tintagel just another work..


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> It's kind of odd. Judging by my own reaction to them, I'd say that polls tend to polarize. I feel the sudden need to defend my choices and reject those of other people.
> 
> Whereas, I learn a lot more by opening up to new things.


I will only add here that it's a long, long way from Purcell to Tipperary.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I, like so many others, do consider Händel a German composer, and although he is one of my favourite composers, I don't think he can be counted (sorry, HC).

There are still several English/British composers whose works I enjoy immensely, though. Thomas Tallis is a very strong contender; his _Lamentations of Jeremiah_ and _Spem in Alium_ is some of the most moving vocal music ever written.
Both Holst and Vaughan Williams are also among my favourites, especially because of their writings for wind band together with Percy Grainger in large part created the symphonic wind band tradition. Holst's two suites for military band and Vaughan Williams' English Folk Song Suite and Sea Songs are some of my favourite pieces for wind band. Also, Holst wrote a trombone concertino with wind band accompaniment. And he played the trombone as well.
So Holst it is, then!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I can see what people are getting at with Handel's nationality. In a way, his nationality or identity may well be a debatable area, but his contribution to the musical culture of the UK is certainly beyond question. Another thing is that someone said above that he was about 25 when he arrived there, which is quite young (& he had a "good innings" in terms of lifespan after that), so I think comparing him with guys like Schoenberg & Stravinsky is not entirely apt. When they arrived in the USA, the musical culture had already been well established with guys like Ives decades before, not to speak of between the wars - Copland, Bernstein, Gershwin, etc. Those two Europeans were also way past 25 when they first stepped off their ships onto American soil.

*@ haydnfan* - Good that you mention the more contemporary British composers. I have heard a few of their works, but not many or regularly. I've probably read more about them than actually heard. I am interested in them as well, I think Maxwell-Davies is considered by many to be one of the finest symphonists & chamber composers around today.

*@ JAKEWYB* - I agree with your assessment of Bax, he's certainly not a "rehash" type of guy like he can be stereotyped as. I used to be ambivalent about him before as well, but now I've "connected" big time with esp. his 7th symphony. Do you think this final symphony of his is good, because you only mention the earlier six? I am starting with his final one & will go back - I've already got the 6th on Naxos as well & then will slowly go to the earlier symphonies.



Elgarian said:


> I used to feel uneasy about Elgar's 'Imperialism' - even defensive. So if I were discussing why I loved his music, I'd begin by saying defensively: 'not the stuff like the Pomp & Circumstance marches, of course'. But I feel differently about it now, for several reasons. First, it involves a kind of chronological snobbery - an unwarranted assumption that if I were writing music in England at that time, I'd somehow be able to 'rise above' the prevailing general atmosphere and escape absorbing some Imperialistic attitudes.


This is true, and these unhelpful "defensive" attitudes also speak to valuing "serious" music above the "lighter" things. Elgar did both very well & that's partly why he's got a very broad appeal. & sometimes we mix politics & ideologies (or stereotypes, "assumptions" of them) with the actual music & the former tends to muddy the latter. It's a "lose-lose" situtation if we approach things like that & kind of complicate matters like that, imo.



> But secondly, my defensiveness was based on a misunderstanding of Elgar's personal take on Imperialism. I've written about this before, but Elgar's Imperialism wasn't (except for a handful of arguably ill-judged instances) jingoistic: it was based on ideals that I myself would want to endorse and advocate: ideals of brotherhood; chivalry; self-sacrifice for the benefit of others; nobility of purpose. And those things (as you point out, Sid) are actually universal, and not specifically English at all. Despite its title, _The Spirit of England_ addresses _all_ people, *regardless of nationality, who are suffering grief and loss and disillusion*.


Well, that work sounds interesting & I know you have said before it's one of the man's finest. I actually purchased a local Australian recording of _The Dream of Gerontius _which has been on my "back-log" from months. I want to get into the right "headspace" to tackle this long & complex work. I heard it on radio a year ago, they played Sir Charles Mackerras recording of it as a tribute to him, I was at a friend's place & we both loved the music, so deep & kind of spritual, but it didn't sound to me as being even a bit religiously dogmatic. It was very sincere, imo & I look forward to hearing my different recording when I am in the mood.

Talking to Elgar's "politics," you are right, there is a sensitivity there & a kind of reserve. Behind his memorable tunes there are many levels of questioning & leaving things open. & these things are universal & speak to the values you talk about. As you know, Elgar was an "outsider" regarding the British musical establishment, mainly self-taught & not coming from the upper classes. His "breaking in" to the musical scene, winning accolades at home & abroad (he was hugely admired in Germany) is similar to the story of Brahms' life. They both had quite humble beginnings. In a lot of Brahm's music, I hear a kind of personal struggle, his story of triumph over adversity. In the "big" works by Elgar that I know, he shows many emotions. The listener cannot help but connect with a kind of pathos & deep sadness in his concertos, for example. If anything, the man there is revealed maybe too close for comfort, he expresses his deep feelings "in your face." There is not much holding back or stiff upper lippery in those works, imo, but as we've discussed, the best performers are able to bring out the many other nuanced things in his music...



> The happy outcome of all this is that I actually 'like' Elgar more wholeheartedly now, than I used to years ago (when I understood less).


& I think I am kind of the same, with a lot of British music which at first sounded a bit alien to me - eg. Bliss & others like Bax - but now I am connecting with them a lot more than previously. It's all good...


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

haydnfan said:


> Since Robert Simpson, the great symphonist, is not on the poll, and also notable composer Maxwell Davies also not on this poll (and I think I'm the first to even notice that neither one is on the poll!), and Britten has received almost no votes despite being one of the greatest composers of the 20th century... uh yes that is a yes, the tastes around here run towards the conservative.
> 
> Edit: and let's not forget Birtwhistle!


Britten would be a no-brainer for me if Handel had not been on the poll. But I simply listen more to Handel than Britten.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Britten would be a no-brainer for me if Handel had not been on the poll. But I simply listen more to Handel than Britten.


That's exactly why Handel shouldn't be on the poll! He takes votes away from real English composers. It's nice to also see that they're not only being taken away from the two giants: Elgar and RVW. I don't blame posters for voting for them, they practically defined the flavor of British neoromanticism that has become so popular, while at the same time showing just a taste of modernist complexity that some of their copycats don't show.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

haydnfan said:


> That's exactly why Handel shouldn't be on the poll! He takes votes away from real English composers.


I tend to agree. He's no more English than Haydn or Mendelssohn - he just stayed in England longer.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

My first choice would be Tallis and Orlando Gibbons would be in with a shout for the number two spot...neither of whom are even options! Weird list- very heavily weighted towards 19th-20th C composers which is contrary to the strengths of English/British music. My third and fourth spots would go to Purcell and Byrd (though I'm not too sure which order they'd go in after TT). Where are John Taverner, William Lawes, Charles Avison, Samuel Wesley etc.etc.? Really, you can't have a serious list without Tallis.

Oh yeah, and Handel is most definitely German. IMHO nationality is the environment and culture that someone grows up in and how that affects them (even if they hated it as Delius seemed to) not where they choose to live later in life.


----------



## Charon (Sep 8, 2008)

Elgar would be my favourite I think. I wouldn't consider Handel to be English. He was raised in Germany wasn't he?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Handel was English/British but with a German background/heritage, imo. He also spent a reasonable amount of time in Italy, soaking up the culture there, that was just as much an influence on his music (& therefore, "outlook?") as his country of birth. Anyway, this is to add to what I (& some others) wrote above, he really contributed big-time to the musical culture/development of the British Isles...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Woah! Handel and Elgar are tied in first place!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Händel would be my choice if I didn't consider him German, so instead I chose Byrd.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

RVW and Walton, because both have distinguished style, easily recognized from other, not necessery the best. Edmund Rubbra also worth mention, he composed interesting string quartets.

for piano lover, John Field (Irish included?)

wait...Charles Stanford?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I voted for Bax. He's not necessarily my absolute favorite english composer...but I think he's one of the most underrated. I know a lot of people who really like his music but on a whole I think the quality of his pieces is ill-proportioned with his general popularity. I haven't heard his various orchestra pieces except for Tintagel and Rouge's Comedy Overture, but his symphony cycle is colorful, dynamic, dramatic and shows a lot of inventiveness regarding theme transformation (Sibelius was one of his influences) and I think his symphony cycle, dare I say, could stand alongside RVW's.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Sid James wrote:*



> Anyway, this is to add to what I (& some others) wrote above, he (Handel) really contributed big-time to the musical culture/development of the British Isles...


This is bandied about as if it were an obvious truth but I do think it's worth questioning. Sure he contributed greatly to the culture but as far as development goes...really? He had a massive influence on the generation that followed him (Boyce, Arne, Stanley, Hebden -Avison: not so much!) no doubt but after that I'm not convinced. In the longer run JC Bach, CF Abel and later Haydn etc became the influences just as that style was everywhere else -if anything Handel's huge impact in Britain resulted in the native music lingering in the baroque for longer than anywhere else so you might say that he actually held musical development back (through no fault of his own).

Handel was certainly an immense cultural figure and the baroque revival ensured that he's remained so but in the bigger picture the idea that he was some sort of great beneficial influence on the development of British music strikes me as probably being flawed.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> I actually purchased a local Australian recording of _The Dream of Gerontius _which has been on my "back-log" from months. I want to get into the right "headspace" to tackle this long & complex work. I heard it on radio a year ago, they played Sir Charles Mackerras recording of it as a tribute to him, I was at a friend's place & we both loved the music, so deep & kind of spritual, but it didn't sound to me as being even a bit religiously dogmatic. It was very sincere, imo & I look forward to hearing my different recording when I am in the mood.


It's a matter of great regret to me that _The Dream of Gerontius_ has never quite 'clicked' for me, and always seems to last about twice as long as I wish it did! I mean - here am I, an empassioned Elgar devotee, being persistently lukewarm about the work that he regarded as his finest ('This is the best of me', etc.). There's clearly something that I'm missing, but I don't know what it is. I'd be tempted to generalise and say that the problem includes all the vocal works (_The Kingdom_ and _The Apostles_ don't get much playing time here either), if it were not for the fact that I'm fond of _Caractacus_, and most especially because _The Spirit of England_ tears me to pieces, emotionally, year in, year out, without fail. Of course this last is a much more concise work, lasting only half an hour; the others require a much bigger commitment of time and attention.

Still, it's a bit unnerving. It tells me my Elgar journey, long though it's been, has some way to go still.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ violadude* - As a recent "convert" to Bax & his music, I'd hazard a guess that he was the most (or if not one of the most) experimental composers in the UK between the two world wars. His symphonies, though certainly orchestrated with a kind of "Late Romantic" & "Impressionist" garb, have many innovative features, eg. ambigious tonality, unconventional structural layouts, their hovering between being symphonies & kind of like extended tone poems. Maybe a reason why he could be so uncompromising at that time was that he didn't compose to make a living (I read he was of financially "independent means," perhaps living off existing assets or "old money" from his parents/family?). In any case, he was a bit like Charles Ives in this regard, he didn't have to "pander" to any musical cliques or curry favour with anyone. He just did what he did, & was bloody good at it, imo. His death (in 1953) was at an unpropitious time in terms of his musical reputation. This era saw the rise of more "experimental" or "avant-garde" trends in the UK & the rest of Europe. Bax's reputation is still kind of recovering from this "set back." I'd hazard a guess that quite a few of the composers - though not the best of the best - from what some consider the rigidly dogmatic post-war era are now considered "history" & progenitors of "faddish" musics, but Bax's reputation seems quite secure even though it is yet to get to the stage of some of his better known contemporaries like Vaughan Williams. In terms of recordings currently available, guys like the Vernon Handley, Bryden Thompson & David Lloyd-Jones have added a lot to Bax's continuing posthumous legacy...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *@ violadude* - As a recent "convert" to Bax & his music, I'd hazard a guess that he was the most (or if not one of the most) experimental composers in the UK between the two world wars. His symphonies, though certainly orchestrated with a kind of "Late Romantic" & "Impressionist" garb, have many innovative features, eg. ambigious tonality, unconventional structural layouts, their hovering between being symphonies & kind of like extended tone poems. Maybe a reason why he could be so uncompromising at that time was that he didn't compose to make a living (I read he was of financially "independent means," perhaps living off existing assets or "old money" from his parents/family?). In any case, he was a bit like Charles Ives in this regard, he didn't have to "pander" to any musical cliques or curry favour with anyone. He just did what he did, & was bloody good at it, imo. His death (in 1953) was at an unpropitious time in terms of his musical reputation. This era saw the rise of more "experimental" or "avant-garde" trends in the UK & the rest of Europe. Bax's reputation is still kind of recovering from this "set back." I'd hazard a guess that quite a few of the composers - though not the best of the best - from what some consider the rigidly dogmatic post-war era are now considered "history" & progenitors of "faddish" musics, but Bax's reputation seems quite secure even though it is yet to get to the stage of some of his better known contemporaries like Vaughan Williams. In terms of recordings currently available, guys like the Vernon Handley, Bryden Thompson & David Lloyd-Jones have added a lot to Bax's continuing posthumous legacy...


That's definitely true about Bax being more on the experimental side in terms of English composers of the time. Had I not heard about your own struggles with Bax I would not have pegged him as a difficult composer actually, because his music had immediate surface appeal to me. One of the thing's that I think is really difficult about his music is that it definitely cannot be "background music," you have to be very aware and perceptive about what is going on in terms of thematic development and things like that (one of the reasons why I think Sibelius is so difficult for some as well). I didn't know that about him being financially independent, that's pretty interesting.

BTW Sid, I don't know how interested you are in recording comparison, since I know you are already listening to his symphonies on the Naxos recordings. However, if you ever want to get another recording of his symphonies I would definitely recommend the Handley, if not for the performance quality, then for the fact that the last disc of the set is a really great interview with the conductor about each symphony. He seems like a really nice guy, which makes the interviews both informative AND fun!


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Aramis wrote:*



> Now I must confess a terrible thing. For long time I had aversion to English music based solely on the stereotyphe of English people being flegmatic and having little passion. Forgive me, but even Berlioz did spread such view.


Sorry to pick you up on this Aramis but it did make me laugh. I can understand people giving English music a miss because they'd heard it was all rubbish what with it being 'the land without music' and all that but due to a national stereotype?

So has anyone else avoided a country's musical heritage as a result of caricatured prejudices? Has anyone avoided German music since they're all cold hearted, mercilessly efficient and mechanical? Italian because they're vain corrupt braggarts obssessed only with the appearance of things? French music's not worth botheriing with as they're a bunch of effeminate supercilious ponces and obvioulsly you should give Chopin a miss as all Polacks are well known to be stupid.

Bizarre.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Hey, William Byrd is up to two votes! Woo-hoo!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> Hey, William Byrd is up to two votes! Woo-hoo!


None for Dowland though. Don't know if it's the melancholy or the lute. Tobias Hume isn't listed (low volume makes that deficiency reasonable), so no clue on the melancholy question.

I am curious about how many of the post-Purcell votes are from Brits. There is a Common Conception, y'know.

:devil:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> None for Dowland though. Don't know if it's the melancholy or the lute.


I'm just happy _somebody_ from the Renaissance is getting a showing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> None for Dowland though.


Fixed. I only mentioned Handel and Britten, because I've listened to a lot of their works. The truth is what I've heard of guys like Dowland and Purcell I absolutely love as well. Dowland deserves some recognition no doubt. The man composed lute pieces in the renaissance that still sound in ways modern and completely relevant today...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hocket said:


> This is bandied about as if it were an obvious truth but I do think it's worth questioning. Sure he contributed greatly to the culture but as far as development goes...really? He had a massive influence on the generation that followed him ...if anything Handel's huge impact in Britain resulted in the native music lingering in the baroque for longer than anywhere else so you might say that he actually held musical development back (through no fault of his own).
> 
> Handel was certainly an immense cultural figure and the baroque revival ensured that he's remained so but in the bigger picture the idea that he was some sort of great beneficial influence on the development of British music strikes me as probably being flawed.


Well, I wasn't thinking of the "Baroque" style & Handel's influence on UK composers in terms of that, but more in terms of him being the first to write works for performance by massed choirs to be performed in the UK (or at least the first composer to do that who really made an impact). Many composers did "spin-offs" of Handel's format laid down in things like _The Messiah _- guys like Tippett in _A Child of our Time_ clearly built upon Handel's template in that work. I think things like Stanford's (an Irishman, but his career was made in England), Parry's, Elgar's, Britten's & Walton's many large scale choral works also speak to this fact/view. Not to mention others from overseas who visited England & were inspired to write works of this type - eg. Haydn (_The Creation_), Mendelssohn (_Elijah_). But I disagree that Handel was largely a kind of "holding back" type of influence - things like his work with counterpoint would inspire all these future composers in many ways, Handel gave much more than what he took back, imo. I even read that Beethoven's 9th symphony (the choral) was firstly commissioned by a British choral society to be premiered there, but I think it didn't turn out that way in the end. Whether this is true or not, Handel's choral music written in the UK had very wide influence on the continent (to Beethoven, Handel was a god!). I'd say Handel's overall influence (not only in terms of narrower issues like style) didn't hold the UK back, same way as it didn't the European Continent.



Elgarian said:


> ...Still, it's a bit unnerving. It tells me my Elgar journey, long though it's been, has some way to go still.


Well, you're probably on the path of that "Elgar journey" far ahead of me! But when listening to that broadcast of his _Gerontius_, I listened to the announcer speak of the content of the work, the composer wishing to convey a man's journey from life to death. I listened to Maestro Mackerras' performance of the whole long work that followed, and for me it perfectly conveyed that netherworld between life and death. It wasn't hellish, but maybe purgatorial, but certainly more spiritual than kind of full-on "in your face" dramatic. There was a lot of subtlety there & I like that. I think you're kind of beating yourself too much to maybe understand too much, because you love Elgar's music to such a high level. I think we all do that with our favourites sometimes. Maybe you shouldn't be too hard on yourself, speaking personally, often if I am able to tap into even a little of the overall "vibe" of a work, I am pleased with this. The friend I listened to that broadcast to also liked the music, was quite impressed with it (first time hearing for both of us). I think the fact that Richard Strauss praised this work to the heavens speaks a lot of it's ability to capture the "zeitgeist" of the times as well, concerns with the temporal & spiritual, that is so strong in many of these guys music (Stanford's much more obscure _Requiem_ does exactly the same to me in many ways)...



violadude said:


> That's definitely true about Bax being more on the experimental side in terms of English composers of the time. Had I not heard about your own struggles with Bax I would not have pegged him as a difficult composer actually, because his music had immediate surface appeal to me. One of the thing's that I think is really difficult about his music is that it definitely cannot be "background music," you have to be very aware and perceptive about what is going on in terms of thematic development and things like that (one of the reasons why I think Sibelius is so difficult for some as well). I didn't know that about him being financially independent, that's pretty interesting.


I think it was that very "surface appeal" that got in the way of me appreciating Bax more, I thought he was a kind of re-hash of earlier composers, but I think that's not true to me now. He was just as unique as any other composer I can think of from the time. Your comparison with Sibelius is indeed apt, both composer's works aimed for thematic unity/integrity, although this is not always easily apparent. Indeed, Bax dedicated his 5th symphony (which I haven't yet heard) to the great Finn. & BTW - thanks for mentioning Maestro Handley, esp. the interviews. Sounds good, I'll try to get my hands on this at some point in time. I regret this conductor's passing, he was so good in his interpretations of this field...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> I think you're kind of beating yourself too much to maybe understand too much, because you love Elgar's music to such a high level. I think we all do that with our favourites sometimes. Maybe you shouldn't be too hard on yourself


I don't actually beat myself up about it - I just wish I understood his music better. I think it's good for me, actually, to encounter a few problems of this sort. I've been listening to Elgar for so long that there's a lazy, complacent tendency for me to think I've got him 'sorted out' in some way. It's when I listen to the big oratorios (most especially _D of G_) that I realise I haven't; that there are some really significant gaps in my understanding and appreciation; and (most importantly) that he's bigger then I think he is. The same being true of all great composers - indeed all great _artists_. In fact I think I might propose it as a general rule that at those times when we think we've finally got them 'sorted out', we can be sure we haven't.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Many composers did "spin-offs" of Handel's format laid down in things like _The Messiah _- guys like Tippett in _A Child of our Time_ clearly built upon Handel's template in that work. I think things like Stanford's (an Irishman, but his career was made in England), Parry's, Elgar's, Britten's & Walton's many large scale choral works also speak to this fact/view.


Sure, of course you're right, I'm not suggesting that he wasn't an influence on many composers but that stuff's more than a 100 years after he died and there's a big gap between the time of John Stanley et al until then. I took your meaning to be that he had a continuous influence, changing the direction of English music in some way -which I don't think is sustainable.



> I'd say Handel's overall influence (not only in terms of narrower issues like style) didn't hold the UK back, same way as it didn't the European Continent.


Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was some sort of curse. Actually I don't really believe in the big fish that bellyflopped into the pond splashing the water out and leaving none for the other fishes theory. The generation that followed Handel may be derivative but it's still a rich one with plenty of quality. I think we need to look elsewhere for the roots of the malaise of 19th C British music and its paucity of memorable composers.

Anyway, FWIW, I probably wouldn't have picked Handel even if he was English (which he isn't ).

I'm surprised Purcell hasn't performed better in this poll as he has long been touted as 'Britain's Greatest Composer (TM)'.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I’m very surprise Purcell didn’t get a better vote.
Maybe he’s not an instantly great sounding composer such as Elgar, but there is some real depth hiding in his music.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

presto said:


> I'm very surprise Purcell didn't get a better vote.
> Maybe he's not an instantly great sounding composer such as Elgar, but there is some real depth hiding in his music.


Handel would be the most logical choice I guess, but since he's not a blood-Brit and he really doesn't need my vote anyway I've just voted for Purcell for the reasons you mention, although I find his music very accessible and tuneful myself. I listened to Christie's recording of The Fairy Çueen the other day, and he's kinda "wow!!!" really.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I'd like to further clarify my reasoning for including Handel in the poll, since it's causing such a hubbub. Not only does the New Grove Encylopedia of Western Music refer to him as an 'English composer of German birth' but this is also what music students are taught in music history. That Handel was an English composer, pivotal in the development of English music. One person made the comparison of saying Schoenberg must be considered American then. I think a more accurate comparison would be Cesar Franck. Franck was born and raised in Belgium, but just about everyone today associates him as a French composer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Nix said:


> I'd like to further clarify my reasoning for including Handel in the poll, since it's causing such a hubbub. Not only does the New Grove Encylopedia of Western Music refer to him as an 'English composer of German birth' but this is also what music students are taught in music history. That Handel was an English composer, pivotal in the development of English music...


That's roughly what I wrote earlier on this thread:



Sid James said:


> Handel was English/British but with a German background/heritage, imo. He also spent a reasonable amount of time in Italy, soaking up the culture there, that was just as much an influence on his music (& therefore, "outlook?") as his country of birth. Anyway, this is to add to what I (& some others) wrote above, he really contributed big-time to the musical culture/development of the British Isles...


Not that this is, or should be, a factor in whether we enjoy Handel's music or not (as some have said above, they wouldn't have chosen Handel regardless of what they think his nationality was). There are no "borders" in terms of enjoying music by composers who are "ethnically" different from us. This is what the Nazis tried to do & thank goodness they failed! There will be no war between the UK & Germany over which one Handel belongs to...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

For the sake of sanity, my dear folks here at TC, Handel was a naturalised English subject and was recognised as such, both socially and legally when he was alive. What more?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I voted Dowland, since he's one of my favorite composers of any nationality. Granted, I haven't heard _all_ of the composers on this poll, but Dowland is such a magnificently solid composer that I can't imagine the ones I haven't heard surpassing him in my book.

(I had a sorta surreal moment looking through the names and I thought "Where the hell is Elgar???" And then I found him. There should be a mental disorder about not seeing names of famous composers until after you realize you haven't seen them.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

World Violist said:


> ... There should be a mental disorder about not seeing names of famous composers until after you realize you haven't seen them...


I think Benjamin Britten may have had a similar "disorder" regarding Elgar's music. If he'd hear an announcement on radio that Elgar's music would be the next item, he'd promptly switch it off! But I think that Britten did "mellow" regarding Elgar's music in his later years, he grew to like some of his pieces, but which ones exactly, I don't know...


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> For the sake of sanity, my dear folks here at TC, Handel was a naturalised English subject and was recognised as such, both socially and legally when he was alive. What more?


Actually Handel was a naturalised _British_ subject, not _English_. Perhaps it's a difference in viewpoint between 'new' countries that are largely populated by colonists and their descendants and 'old' ones but I'd never view a first generation immigrant (who came as an adult) even as British. Legal citizenship and actually 'being' something strike me as very different things, nebulous and tricky to define as they might be. Their children would be British (though still not English, Scottish etc. but making such distinctions is perhaps a luxury of 'composite' nations like ours). Kevin Petersen, Owen Hargreaves and Greg Rusdedski are certainly not people I'd ever really regard as British, let alone English (unless I were using incredibly broad and rather old fashioned conceptions of all former colonists descendants - or perhaps even all former colonies- as being British. Of course many such people would probably take offence at being counted as 'British'- especially Aussies).

Incidentally I'd consider Franck to be an awful example as its usually ignorance rather than informed distinction since Belgians are frequently infuriated by being mistaken for being French (even Plastic Jacques!). Haven't you ever enjoyed a Poirot mystery?

Personally I find the inclusion of Handel as British (let alone English) as rather embarrassing, as if we were trying to pad out our rather measly count of top drawer composers in more modern periods. Presumably Ferrabosco the elder, Geminiani and Clementi are all British too then? Dr John Bull and Peter Philips must be Flemish... (along with Beethoven -another one which strikes me as being a bit desperate).

As for Purcell, I certainly wouldn't consider him 'difficult' and with all those lush recordings by the King's Consort you'd think he'd have more advocates; but perhaps one underestimates the Romantic comfort zone of the general TC membership?


----------



## johnfkavanagh (Sep 9, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> It's a matter of great regret to me that _The Dream of Gerontius_ has never quite 'clicked' for me, and always seems to last about twice as long as I wish it did! I mean - here am I, an empassioned Elgar devotee, being persistently lukewarm about the work that he regarded as his finest ('This is the best of me', etc.). There's clearly something that I'm missing, but I don't know what it is. I'd be tempted to generalise and say that the problem includes all the vocal works (_The Kingdom_ and _The Apostles_ don't get much playing time here either), if it were not for the fact that I'm fond of _Caractacus_, and most especially because _The Spirit of England_ tears me to pieces, emotionally, year in, year out, without fail. Of course this last is a much more concise work, lasting only half an hour; the others require a much bigger commitment of time and attention.
> 
> Still, it's a bit unnerving. It tells me my Elgar journey, long though it's been, has some way to go still.


I have exactly the opposite opinion - _Gerontius_ is the only piece by Elgar that I want to listen to time and time again.


----------



## johnfkavanagh (Sep 9, 2011)

I voted for Tippett. It is unfortunate that his music doesn't seem to travel well. Second would have been Bax. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the likes of Frank Bridge and Alan Rawsthorne. Doggedly individualist but very approachable.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Wow that's tough. Toss up between Handel and Purcell with special mentions for Britten, Byrd and the unmentioned Tallis.


----------

