# Thoughts on 20th Century British Composers



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Since I am currently listening to the (magnificent) symphony no. 6 by Ralph Vaughan Williams, I am indeed surprised by the great compositions that are not as highly regarded as other composers which have not been so important in the history of music, with various examples depending on what we regard as unimportant. However, the listener is prone to enjoy and understand Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten and Arnold Bax, for example, once their musical taste has developed and can get away from the easy-to-listen harmonies in Mozart, Haydn et al. to arrive to these points in music. Of course, while not being an acquired taste by themselves, these British composers need a deep musical background in order to be accepted by the general public.

Arnold Bax's Third Symphony also surprised me, due to the increasingly complex way he developed some themes. These two composers I have mentioned are particularly difficult to conduct correctly. In fact, this is a huge turn off for smaller orchestras, which would regard these symphonies as works that require a major effort. These smaller orchestras would finally decide to perform some of the more well-known compositions that are more accessible to the general public with less musical background. Apply Beethoven's 5th and 7th symphonies, Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony and other works to this cause. These do require preparation like the Ralph Vaughan Williams or Arnold Bax ones (and unlike the more feasible 1812 Overture), but they are certainly known to succeed.

The 20th Century British composers are therefore left out by small orchestras. Therefore, the majority of the performances of their symphonies outside of the UK are played by more important orchestras and less frequently than (WARNING: typical statement) they deserve.

My main aim is to know what you think about these innovative composers and whether you would like to share any other works or composers which fit in this topic.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

One of my favourite composers is EJ Moeran, in particular his cello concerto, violin concerto and symphony.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Why British composers are so little known and performed outside their homeland, is a mystery to me. The fact that they are vastly underrated is especially curious given their great potential of appealing to the audiences. Recently, I gave a presentation on XX century music to my class at school. Afterwards, I asked some of my colleagues about their impressions - they mentioned "the British composer" (that is, Ralph Vaughan Williams - I included a snippet of "The Lark Ascending") as the highlight. It is unnecessary to mention that they had no or little interest in classical music at all. I am sure that British music would be no less popular with audiences than usual warhorses or more famous composers with similar style (here I mean Sibelius, whose music inspired many Britons), was it simply more popularised and programmed around the world.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

British composers of the 20th C are among my favourites. Being British, I suppose it's not surprising. 

In rough order (top down): 

•	Elgar
•	Vaughan Williams
•	Walton
•	Britten
•	Holst (Gustav)
•	Delius (I count him as British, although I know it's debateable)
•	Bax
•	Bridge
•	Arnold 
•	Finzi
•	Tippet
•	Ireland
•	Butterworth
•	Moeran
•	Warlock
•	Holst (Imogen)

My collection is high for Elgar. It's pretty good for RVW, Walton and Britten, Holst, Delius. Thereafter it declines but I have some of these composers' best-known works.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Favorite British Composers (20th/21st Centuries)*

Barrett, Ferneyhough, Finnissy, Birtwistle, Britten, Dillon and Foulds.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

There are more: Granville Bantock; Bliss; Coleridge-Taylor; Tavener; Nyman. For some reason, the British get a raw deal, and it's not just in the 20th century, there's a wide range of music from the Eton Choirbook on through Byrd, Tallis and into the Baroque with Mudge, Avison, Boyce and Arne that seems to be off the radar for most people.

I would disagree with "deep musical background", however. One of the beauties of RVW is his accessibility, particularly through his folksong suites.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Barrett, Ferneyhough, Finnissy, Birtwistle, Britten, Dillon and Foulds.


To which, mi amigo Lope, I would add Adès, Maxwell Davies, Goehr, Harvey, Rodney Bennett ... 
Your turn!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Band junkie strikes*

Beyond the Holst and Vaughn Williams band works, there are several contemporary British composers who have written some fine band works: Philip Sparke, Adam Gorb and Nigel Clark.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> To which, mi amigo Lope, I would add Adès, Maxwell Davies, Goehr, Harvey, Rodney Bennett ...
> Your turn!


Julian Anderson, George Benjamin, Rebecca Saunders, Oliver Knussen - but Harvey probably my Fav


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Other Composers*

Other neat composers:

George Lloyd
John McCabe
Humphry Searle
Benjamin Frankel
Alan Rawsthorne
Robert Simpson
James McMillan (OK he is a Scotsman)
William Alwyn


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Delius
Sorabji
Cardew
Brown
Cashian


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

dgee said:


> Julian Anderson, George Benjamin, Rebecca Saunders, Oliver Knussen - but Harvey probably my Fav


Yes! 
May I add Denis Smalley and Robert Simpson (but not really in the same breath)?


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Delius
> Sorabji
> Cardew
> Brown
> Cashian


Yep, some good thoughts coming out here on UK composers. Well done, everybody.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

William Hurlstone, Arnold Cooke, Lennox Berkeley, William Wordsworth, and, of course, the English Satie, Lord Berners...


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

Thank you Reverend Doctor Dave!
Never knew Lord Berners was a composer! In what way was he the English Satie? Had a Scottish name? Liked his absinthe?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

So, none of you are prepared to give the rest of us _any_ credit for helping to make Benjamin Britten the 4th-most performed composer in his centennial year?

http://bachtrack.com/files/1083-2-infographic_5.pdf

And we'll take your thanks for our kindness to Handel as well--though you're all quiet about him, he counts!


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

Scream! We forgot Benjie !! And George !!!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> So, none of you are prepared to give the rest of us _any_ credit for helping to make Benjamin Britten the 4th-most performed composer in his centennial year?
> 
> http://bachtrack.com/files/1083-2-infographic_5.pdf
> 
> And we'll take your thanks for our kindness to Handel as well--though you're all quiet about him, he counts!


I thought Britten was a given. :trp:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm adding William Mathias - his symphonies and string quartets (three of each) are especially recommended. The Lyrita and Nimbus labels have helped keep the flame flickering.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Partita's list is very much what Elisabeth Lutyens called "cow-pat music". Pastoralism was a significant part of British music of the late 19th early 20th century and that probably translates to parochialism for the rest of the world. It doesn't really matter that Holst composed music about the planets or Hindu mythology, he often gets marketed with album covers of rolling hills. Most of the other composers on that list didn't only make music for staring at cows but that is what they seem primarily known for. Even Britten is most often represented by his picturesque _Sea Interludes_.

12-tone Lizzie, as Lutyens was nicknamed, didn't really fit that trend. The other major trend of the time was light music but composers such as Eric Coates and Albert Ketèlbey were never really going to set the world on fire.

I forgot where I was going with this post, probably something to do with the factionalism of musical styles in the 20th century, often along national lines. But never mind that, NMC is a good label for the interesting new crop of modern British composers. http://www.nmcrec.co.uk/


----------



## worov (Oct 12, 2012)

I haven't seen Howard Blake's name yet. How is this possible ?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I agree with Quack's post - as he says, even Britten is occasionally roped into the cow-pat category but I think his cow-pats are far less squelchy than most of the others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

quack said:


> [...] "cow-pat music" [...]


Magnificent term ! Not copyright I hope, Quack? I'd like to use it elsewhere, if you don't mind. I'll credit you each time, I promise.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> There are more: Granville Bantock; Bliss; Coleridge-Taylor; Tavener; Nyman. For some reason, the British get a raw deal, and it's not just in the 20th century, there's a wide range of music from the Eton Choirbook on through Byrd, Tallis and into the Baroque with Mudge, Avison, Boyce and Arne that seems to be off the radar for most people.
> 
> I would disagree with "deep musical background", however. One of the beauties of RVW is his accessibility, particularly through his folksong suites.


A lot of British composers get the same 'raw deal' many an American 20th century composer gets, i.e. because there are a fair amount of :good ones' who composed 'good enough' music which is not of 'any importance' in the "development of music in general" category. So, like it or not, most of those here mentioned are second or third tier, like Americans Vincent Persichetti, Walter Piston, Leonard Bernstein, etc. would be considered of second or third tier importance.

Some of each, the British and the American, seem to be near to exclusively "local taste."


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

quack said:


> Partita's list is very much what Elisabeth Lutyens called "cow-pat music". Pastoralism was a significant part of British music of the late 19th early 20th century and that probably translates to parochialism for the rest of the world. It doesn't really matter that Holst composed music about the planets or Hindu mythology, he often gets marketed with album covers of rolling hills. Most of the other composers on that list didn't only make music for staring at cows but that is what they seem primarily known for.
> 
> <snip>


Nowt wrong with cow-pat music. What people tend to forget is that many of the "English" folk songs were also collected by Sharp and Karpeles in the Appalachians and run across into the music of Copland.

Although "Holst composed music about the planets or Hindu mythology" one of his main interests was English folk music as we can see from Second Suite in F for Military Band of 1911 with the fantasy on Dargason, the Six Choral Folksongs of 1916 or the St Paul's Suite dating from 1912 but not published until 1922. So it is no surprise that "he often gets marketed with album covers of rolling hills".

Interestingly, Sharp had published the second part of the The Country Dance Book in 1911 (containing Dargason), so obviously Holst was well in touch with contemporary folk music scholarship.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So, like it or not, most of those here mentioned are second or third tier, like Americans Vincent Persichetti...


Not to a band junkie.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Not to a band junkie.


But Band Junkies are junkies, so their collective taste is more that dubious, 
"Hey, its _for band_ and it has _a great Sarrusaphone part_!"


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

quack said:


> Partita's list is very much what Elisabeth Lutyens called "cow-pat music".


Yes indeed, I must like "cow-pat" music from the list I provided.

I wasn't thinking of Holst's Planet Suite as the main reason for including him so highly. As you will know, he wrote tons of other material that's very varied from songs to wind quintets to choral symphony to military marches. I love it all.

Thanks for reminding me about Coates and Ketèlbey. I must admit that I had overlooked them, quite badly I fear because I have most of their outputs and think it's all mostly very good.

The problem is that I have all my 20th Century composers listed under each of the various main styles - neo-romantic, neo-classical, English National, Mystical, Light Classical, etc - and I had to switch from one to another to produce a list of favourites. I forgot to look in "Light Classical", because if I had done so I would have included Coates and Ketèlbey, quite high up.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Other neat composers:
> ...James McMillan (OK he is a Scotsman)...


And so, British*

* At the time of publication


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> So, none of you are prepared to give the rest of us _any_ credit for helping to make Benjamin Britten the 4th-most performed composer in his centennial year?
> 
> http://bachtrack.com/files/1083-2-infographic_5.pdf
> 
> And we'll take your thanks for our kindness to Handel as well--though you're all quiet about him, he counts!


I think Britten gets the credit, and no one else. The Handel became English ergo he is English debate I'll leave to others.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Light classical is like film music, right on the edge of classical, unsure if it is permitted to be included. It is interesting to think how significant it was in Britain before the 60s, partly due to it being used by the BBC so much, and then how quickly it vanished and became forgotten as a genre. Percy Grainger is another composer that fits right into that folk music/pastorialism group, despite being Australian, training in Germany and living much of his life in America he based much of his work on British folk traditions, as well as other countries' traditions.



Partita said:


> The problem is that I have all my 20th Century composers listed under each of the various main styles - neo-romantic, neo-classical, English National, Mystical, Light Classical, etc - and I had to switch from one to another to produce a list of favourites. I forgot to look in "Light Classical", because if I had done so I would have included Coates and Ketèlbey, quite high up.


I'd be interested in finding out who goes in your "Mystical" category.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I think Britten gets the credit, and no one else. The Handel became English ergo he is English debate I'll leave to others.


Please don't,we've had the Handel thing in depth fairly recently.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Please don't,we've had the Handel thing in depth fairly recently.


LOL, what part of "I'll leave that to others...."

Best regards.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Thank you Reverend Doctor Dave!
> Never knew Lord Berners was a composer! In what way was he the English Satie? Had a Scottish name? Liked his absinthe?


I don't remember where I first encountered the reference to Berners as the English Satie but I think it's in reference to the facts that, like his French namesake, he was essentially a miniaturist, wrote much of his output for piano, and was fond of giving his works obtuse titles: _Fragments Psychologiques_, _Dispute Between Tom Filuter and His Man by Ned the Dog Stealer_, _Dispute Between the Butterfly and the Toad_, and _Funeral March for a Canary_. Berners, who was in the British Diplomatic Service before he gave it up to compose full time, attracted the attention of no less a composer than Stravinsky, and was also admired by Constant Lambert, Eugene Goossens, and Arthur Bliss.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

Keith Rowe
Chris Cutler
Tim Hodgkinson
Diana Simpson Salazar
Natasha Barrett (resident in Norway)
Anna Clyne (Chicago Symphony Orchestra composer in residence)
Jonty Harrison
Adam Stansbie

Denis Smalley, who is a favorite of mine, was born in New Zealand--does that make him British? (I don't know. I'm guessing maybe yes.)


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

some guy said:


> Denis Smalley, who is a favorite of mine, was born in New Zealand--does that make him British? (I don't know. I'm guessing maybe yes.)


Heck no it does not make him British - although the length of his stay in the UK may make a naturalised englander. See also NZ born Scottish-based composer Lyell Cresswell

I keep meaning to check out Smalley (he is my countryman, after all) - could you recommend a place to start?


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/smalley_de/discog/

Clips here: http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/smalley_de/oeuvres/

Also

http://www.discogs.com/artist/176253-Denis-Smalley

Not a huge output--or I should say not a huge number of recordings. So it matters less where you start with him. Plus, he's pretty consistently fine.

There's a clip on soundcloud, too. One clip. Two things mentioned, Pulses of Time, which is a piece and the name of the album that includes it and the other thing mentioned, Chanson de geste, which is what the clip is of.

Pulses of Time is on youtube, however:


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Thank you sir - my evening sorted


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

Brian, Maw, M. Berkeley, Leighton, McEwen (Scottish).


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

quack said:


> Light classical is like film music, right on the edge of classical, unsure if it is permitted to be included. It is interesting to think how significant it was in Britain before the 60s, partly due to it being used by the BBC so much, and then how quickly it vanished and became forgotten as a genre. Percy Grainger is another composer that fits right into that folk music/pastorialism group, despite being Australian, training in Germany and living much of his life in America he based much of his work on British folk traditions, as well as other countries' traditions.
> 
> I'd be interested in finding out who goes in your "Mystical" category.


In my "Mystical" category I have John Tavener (1944-2013). Other terms that refer to the same thing in music are "holy minimalism", "spiritual minimalism". Similar composers include Arvo Pärt, Alan Hovhaness, Henryk Górecki. Their works are typically minimalist in style with a mystical or religious subject.

Sir John Tavener was probably the most famous British mystical minimalist. His death last year was widely reported in the British press. In 1993 he wrote the "Song for Athene" (aka "Alleluia. May Flights of Angels Sing Thee to Thy Rest") which was famously used at Princess Diana's funeral in 1997. Other nice works of his include "Eternal Memory", and "Hymn for The Dormition of the Mother of God".

Regards Percy Grainger, I have him listed among my "20th C English Nationalist" category, but I am well aware of his Australian and USA connections so I chose not to include him. I do like his work, and am always keen to add new stuff mainly from radio broadcasts when I hear it.

As you say, film music is a slightly dubious area in terms of its classical pretensions. Some think it should be included, others don't. It's possibly worth noting that the BBC "Proms" in 2013 had a film music session. They also had a separate 3 week period on their Radio 3 network in which film music was celebrated. On a fairly ad hoc basis, I have acquired theme music for several dozen of the more famous cinema films, some of which sounds classical to me. On the whole I can't pretend that it is among my favourite genres.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

I love British music.. probably because it's my home. But it's not a nationalistic thing. I was much more of a flag waver in my youth. But at that time I would have said Russian is my favourite. As I get older, I just appreciate the home comforts more I suppose.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned *Edmund Rubbra* yet.
The Hickox cycle of his symphonies is one of the jewels of my collection. I guess as someone else has mentioned above, it's probably all about whether you rate music's importance by where it fits into the historical development. Personally, that's all rubbish to me.(and I speak as someone who spent and enjoyed a few years in academia). Music is about how I perceive it when I'm listening to it.

I'm trying to get into *Robert Simpson*'s symphonies. They are arresting and exciting, but I never get the sense of having got anywhere at the end of listening to one. I continue to work at this composer because I'm convinced the lack is in me, rather than the music.

Veering into the 21st Century *Roxanna Panufnik* is composing some great choral music at the moment. The Talinn Mass (Dance of Life) has recently been released and is well worth a listen - bar a couple of small moments when she veers dangerously close to Jenkins territory. Her Beastly Tales CD is brilliant too.










We have a small group going which centres on English composers. Although I think we let some of other Union composers slip in 
Please come and join us. It was quite a vibrant happening place when I first made it. But things slip with time - and most don't make the most of groups. But at the very least - all the links to the British contingent on Composers Guestbook is collated in one place for ease of access.
http://www.talkclassical.com/groups/anglophile-aggregate.html


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

dgee said:


> Heck no it does not make him British - although the length of his stay in the UK may make a naturalised englander. See also NZ born Scottish-based composer Lyell Cresswell
> I keep meaning to check out Smalley (he is my countryman, after all) - could you recommend a place to start?


Hi Dgee! Here's a link to Denis Smalley's website. He no longer actively teaches at City; I understand he has retired to the south of France.
http://www.city.ac.uk/arts-social-sciences/academic-staff-profiles/professor-denis-smalley


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Thank you Magnetic Ghost I was beginning to think Robert Simpson was from Mars. His 9th alone puts him ahead of most of the list 'British' composers. May I ask why the distinction of being a Scottish composer or indeed a Welsh composer. Are they not all British. 
Anyway Magnetic Ghost enjoy your journey through Simpsonland it will pay dividends.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

John McLaughlin


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ...most of those here mentioned are second or third tier, like Americans Vincent Persichetti, Walter Piston, Leonard Bernstein, etc. would be considered of second or third tier importance.


Would you mind, PetrB, explaining for us TC members what exactly does second tier and/or third tier mean?

Is a composer to be 'branded' second tier according to academia? Or is a composer's 'floor level' determined more so by any given individual's taste?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

PetrB said:


> their collective taste is more that dubious


At what threshold is one's taste in music dubious (and when is such taste NOT dubious?)


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Prodromides said:


> At what threshold is one's taste in music dubious (and when is such taste NOT dubious?)


My tastes happen to be perfect when compared to the rest of the barbarians I come into contact with. Since I hate Verdi he must be a fraud. :devil:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Long Live Bax!*



Prodromides said:


> Would you mind, PetrB, explaining for us TC members what exactly does second tier and/or third tier mean?
> 
> Is a composer to be 'branded' second tier according to academia? Or is a composer's 'floor level' determined more so by any given individual's taste?


I don't care if a composer is second, third or even fourth tier. If I like his music, I am going to listen to it.

If we only listened to music that was as good as Mozart's life would be pretty boring.

One of my favorite British composers, whom I would concede is second tier, is Bax and I do not care. (Take that Some Guy) I love his music and I have recordings of over eighty of his works in my collection. I think I have recordings of all of his orchestral works. There are a few chamber works, like his Violin Sonatas, that are still missing from my collection.

Any suggestions on recordings of the Violin Sonatas? Don't subject me with comments that they are not as good as Beethoven's. I already know that and I don't care. :devil:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

arpeggio said:


> Any suggestions on recordings of the Violin Sonatas?


There are two Naxos CD's with them - they are on my wishlist. Reviews look good. Like you, I have most of his works, mainly on Chandos. I love Bax.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> One of my favorite British composers, whom I would concede is second tier, is Bax and I do not care. (Take that Some Guy)


I would not concede this, myself. I prefer listening without tiers.



arpeggio said:


> I love his music....


End of story.



arpeggio said:


> Don't subject me with comments that they are not as good as Beethoven's. I already know that and I don't care. :devil:


If you listen to them more frequently and with more pleasure than you do Beethoven's, then your experiences are better with Bax than with Beethoven. The putative quality of the pieces is not as important as the genuine quality of your experience.

[N.B.-arpeggio, of course, already knows all this. I'm just using his humorous "swipe" at me to ride one of my hobby horses, yee haw!]


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

*edit* Pathetic pun deleted. 

*further edit* In this situation, it was better to just give some guy a "like" and be done with it.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I have listened to British composers all my life, being British. Canada is my adopted home. It's as if British composers were never forgotten or neglected. Though my knowledge is not as expansive as many of you, I tend to listen to the most obvious composers RVW, Elgar, Holst, Delius, Britten. My mother's favorite is Eric Coates. The current conductor of the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra is Bramwell Tovey, British, who has also adopted Canada. There are quite a few expats here in the colonies keeping the English spirit alive. 

In June my family and I will attend Last Night of the Proms, here in Vancouver. They do it every year. Tovey and the VSO


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> I have listened to British composers all my life, being British. Canada is my adopted home. It's as if British composers were never forgotten or neglected. Though my knowledge is not as expansive as many of you, I tend to listen to the most obvious composers RVW, Elgar, Holst, Delius, Britten. My mother's favorite is Eric Coates. The current conductor of the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra is Bramwell Tovey, British, who has also adopted Canada. There are quite a few expats here in the colonies keeping the English spirit alive.
> 
> In June my family and I will attend Last Night of the Proms, here in Vancouver. They do it every year. Tovey and the VSO


I'm very glad to hear that you and your family are still waiving the flag for Britain. I spent a couple of weeks in Vancouver last year. It's a really nice city. I must have tried out every single coffee bar off Robson and Downtown Vancouver. I didn't get to see the Symphony Orchestra but by all accounts it's a good one. I think your choice of composers is excellent, as too is your mother's. As I noted previously, I too have a soft spot for Eric Coates, although inadvertently I failed to include him in my initial list. Does she perchance also like Albert Ketelbey?

.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Partita said:


> I'm very glad to hear that you and your family are still waiving the flag for Britain. I spent a couple of weeks in Vancouver last year. It's a really nice city. I must have tried out every single coffee bar off Robson and Downtown Vancouver. I didn't get to see the Symphony Orchestra but by all accounts it's a good one. I think your choice of composers is excellent, as too is your mother's. As I noted previously, I too have a soft spot for Eric Coates, although inadvertently I failed to include him in my initial list. Does she perchance also like Albert Ketelbey?


I have never heard of Albert Ketelbey. I doubt my mother has, but I'll ask her when I next see her.

I don't drink coffee, only tea. How English is that? Lots of coffee shops here. The VSO is pretty good, they've made a few recordings. I see them perform about five times a year.

I've returned to England a few times over the years. England doesn't feel "foreign" to me, yet it's not my home anymore. I've been here too long.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

DrKilroy said:


> Why British composers are so little known and performed outside their homeland, is a mystery to me. The fact that they are vastly underrated is especially curious given their great potential of appealing to the audiences. Recently, I gave a presentation on XX century music to my class at school. Afterwards, I asked some of my colleagues about their impressions - they mentioned "the British composer" (that is, Ralph Vaughan Williams - I included a snippet of "The Lark Ascending") as the highlight. It is unnecessary to mention that they had no or little interest in classical music at all. I am sure that British music would be no less popular with audiences than usual warhorses or more famous composers with similar style (here I mean Sibelius, whose music inspired many Britons), was it simply more popularised and programmed around the world.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


Its lack of popularity outside England is probably due to what seems like relative "blandness" to the foreign listener: less crafted than Ravel or R.Strauss, not as "monumental" as Bruckner or Mahler, less powerful than any of the Germans, "superfluous", "lightweight", not as "passionate" or "exotic" as the Russians, in some cases second rate Sibelian pastiche (where the similarity is on the surface when the developmental technique is different), and so on. It has it's "Britishness" with it's own modal inflections and orchestration.

I like some Elgar, many Vaughan Williams (symphonies 3,4,8 particularly) and Delius, Finzi's clarinet concerto, don't like much Holst or Britten, occasionally listen to Bax's Symphony No.3 and tone poems (for the "Bax woodwinds color"), occasionally listen to Moeran (perhaps too much Sibelius in there) and Walton's Symphony No.1 (which still rather disappoints me after the powerful beginning).


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Malcolm Arnold is one seriously good composer that needs to be far better known, I've been gradually getting to know the symphonies on Naxos, each CD I get is a revelation.
They must be overwhelming live in concert, but sadly they are rarely performed these days.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> *edit* Pathetic pun deleted.


Be fair, it is the pun that is strongly implied....


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

Thank you to Magneticghost and presto for adding Rubbra and Arnold. After my post late last night I realized that I had overlooked them and Bowen (but was to lazy to get out of bed and edit my post). Bottom line is that there are numerous modern British composers worth listening to and that they are well represented by recordings if you take the time to find them.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

I want to add Geoffrey Burgon to the list. His Requiem is fantastic.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Bax is awesome.


----------



## Berlioznestpasmort (Jan 24, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Its lack of popularity outside England is probably due to what seems like relative "blandness" to the foreign listener: less crafted than Ravel or R.Strauss, not as "monumental" as Bruckner or Mahler, less powerful than any of the Germans, "superfluous", "lightweight", not as "passionate" or "exotic" as the Russians, in some cases second rate Sibelian pastiche (where the similarity is on the surface when the developmental technique is different), and so on. It has it's "Britishness" with it's own modal inflections and orchestration.
> 
> I like some Elgar, many Vaughan Williams (symphonies 3,4,8 particularly) and Delius, Finzi's clarinet concerto, don't like much Holst or Britten, occasionally listen to Bax's Symphony No.3 and tone poems (for the "Bax woodwinds color"), occasionally listen to Moeran (perhaps too much Sibelius in there) and Walton's Symphony No.1 (which still rather disappoints me after the powerful beginning).


Now we're getting down to the _raison d'être _of this thread which has seen some avoidance behavior in the (albeit valuable and interesting) naming of British composers. Are we to conclude then that the problem with broader acceptance of British music is that it is - forgive, please - _insular_?:lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Now we're getting down to the _raison d'être _of this thread which has seen some avoidance behavior in the (albeit valuable and interesting) naming of British composers. Are we to conclude then that the problem with broader acceptance of British music is that it is - forgive, please - _insular_?:lol:


Well, while still recognizing the degree of craft involved, "bland" comes to mind.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Well, while still recognizing the degree of craft involved, "bland" comes to mind.


Haha, I remember you "hating" on this group... shame. You get a pass for being relatively intelligent, otherwise. 
:tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I remember you "hating" on this group... shame. You get a pass for being relatively intelligent, otherwise.
> :tiphat:


Hate in quotes -- one has to have an extremely strong reaction to something to hate it; "bland" does not evoke that amount of caring.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Berlioznestpasmort said:


> Now we're getting down to the _raison d'être _of this thread which has seen some avoidance behavior in the (albeit valuable and interesting) naming of British composers. Are we to conclude then that the problem with broader acceptance of British music is that it is - forgive, please - _insular_?:lol:


I wouldn't say insularity in its strictest sense, but maybe the barb of being called the nation without music went home so much that some British composers tried harder (too hard sometimes) to make their work more distinctive and recognisably British - although the pastoral element which many put across as being a quintessential element of this identity was fairly backward-looking, and it was also misleading in as much as it inaccurately portrayed Britain as a group of bucolic paradise islands largely devoid of industrialisation and its attendant social hardships and dangers, and whose lotus-eating torpor was only rudely interrupted by the inconvenience of WWI.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Even second or third tier composers (like PetrB call them) could produce works of stunning beauty. I think that for instance Peter Warlock's The Curlew is as great as Schubert's Winterreise. 
And maybe it's true that England wasn't important as other nations in the development of music but even Bach, Mozart or Brahms weren't famouses because they made music revolutions.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Hate in quotes -- one has to have an extremely strong reaction to something to hate it; "bland" does not evoke that amount of caring.


Oh, the internet can be a pain in the **** to communicate sometimes. I put hate in quotes to use it as a comedic metaphor relating to the hip-hop culture.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Prodromides said:


> Would you mind, PetrB, explaining for us TC members what exactly does second tier and/or third tier mean?
> 
> Is a composer to be 'branded' second tier according to academia? Or is a composer's 'floor level' determined more so by any given individual's taste?


It is simple, for every era there are from about one to three names everyone has heard of, the movers and shakers, those who do something which so notably forwards some musical development that whether people care for it or not, it is noted.

The rest of those active composers wrote very well, but were not revising the history books so much as writing more within the style(s) of their times. Vaughan Williams was one fine symphonist. Rubbra certainly knew what he was doing, etc. In brief, it is usually the more conservative composers, those who are less radical inventors, which has them on the olympics podium holding the silver and the bronze, not the gold. _Every nation has a host of composers of this rank,_ with again maybe only one or two of the more outstanding innovators which influence music for decades.

And high quality + music is not always or continually about innovation alone. Me, I consider bronze at the olympics a helluva achievement, but a rating system where someone will not win the gold, silver or bronze but by .001 seconds' difference, there 'tis. Popular ratings are very different, of course.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, the internet can be a pain in the **** to communicate sometimes. I put hate in quotes to use it as a comedic metaphor relating to the hip-hop culture.


I know -- there are some TC members and readers of that age who use it that way, so I thought it best to put that straight, give the word its real sense. I did not take the comment personally


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> In brief, it is usually the more conservative composers, those who are less radical inventors, which has them on the olympics podium holding the silver and the bronze, not the gold. _Every nation has a host of composers of this rank,_ with again maybe only one or two of the more outstanding innovators which influence music for decades.


Considering innovation as the most important thing we should consider people like Ernest Fanelli, Abel Decaux, Luigi Russolo way more important than Mozart, Bach or Brahms.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Considering innovation as the most important thing we should consider people like Ernest Fanelli, Abel Decaux, Luigi Russolo way more important than Mozart, Bach or Brahms.


Debussy ~ L'apres midi d'un faune ~ 1894

Fanelli ~ Symphonic Tableaux: "The Romance of the Mummy" ~ 1912
So where is this 'controversy' or 'innovation' about Fanelli being the "originator / innovator" of impressionism... from yet another WikiDubiousPedia article?




This is about as much like the cheesy "Musical exoticism" (musical tourism) as Bantock's "In a Persian Market" -- nothing innovative here, as well as the fact it is pretty dreadful music, imo,

Decaux just sounds like an essay in modernism but at the same time, rather lost as what to do with it, or make more formal sense. It is 'interesting,' the following from 1913, but hey, we have Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire from the year prior and that little piece by Stravinsky, Le Sacre du Printemps, also from 1913.





Russolo, "inventor" of electronic music. There are primary inventors who were the catalyst for much which followed, that is of course an 'influence,' while like Russolo, what they actually made is less interesting than the innovative idea. So he gets a particular credit and then everyone moves on 

I think you were rather grabbing at straws to stretch an already weak point.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Even second or third tier composers (like PetrB call them) could produce works of stunning beauty. I think that for instance Peter Warlock's The Curlew is as great as Schubert's Winterreise.
> And maybe it's true that England wasn't important as other nations in the development of music but even Bach, Mozart or Brahms weren't famous because they made music revolutions.


Bach summed up and synthesized the previous two hundred years of music, no little feat. Brahms was a conservative who gave us many strikingly original pieces, and there is more than a little truth to Schoenberg's monograph, _*Brahms the progressive.*_

Mahlerian pointed out to me (in a PM) that Charles Rosen in _The Classical Style_, assessed that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were "so far ahead of their contemporaries in general as to make those contemporaries next to invisible in the grand scheme of musical history."

"Second tier" does not mean at all bad or forgettable: Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Honegger, and a good number of others are not the biggest of the big boys of the 20th century, but their works are fine enough to keep them in good esteem with academics, musicians, and the general public.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> "Second tier" does not mean at all bad or forgettable: Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Honegger, and a good number of others are not the biggest of the big boys of the 20th century, but their works are fine enough to keep them in good esteem with academics, musicians, and the general public.


, fixed something.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Debussy ~ L'apres midi d'un faune ~ 1894
> 
> Fanelli ~ Symphonic Tableaux: "The Romance of the Mummy" ~ 1912
> So where is this 'controversy' or 'innovation' about Fanelli being the "originator / innovator" of impressionism... from yet another WikiDubiousPedia article?
> ...


I think that the date is simply wrong. He "had given up composing in 1894". And what about this:


> Because the work predated the innovations of Maurice Ravel and Debussy there was speculation that either or both of them had seen the score in manuscript form. Ravel himself stated "now we know where his [Debussy's] impressionism comes from".[1] Debussy is said to have been so sensitive to these claims that he tried to avoid being seen listening to Fanelli's work. Ezra Pound recalls an episode in which he was sitting in a restaurant listening to Fanelli play a composition on the piano when Debussy walked in. As soon as Debussy saw Fanelli, he walked out again.[1]


So even if you don't like the quality of his work, it seems that his work was a real influence on Debussy.



PetrB said:


> Decaux just sounds like an essay in modernism but at the same time, rather lost as what to do with it, or make more formal sense. It is 'interesting,' the following from 1913, but hey, we have Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire from the year prior and that little piece by Stravinsky, Le Sacre du Printemps, also from 1913.


Clair de lune was written, accordin to wikipedia " between 1900 and 1907"



PetrB said:


> Russolo, "inventor" of electronic music. There are primary inventors who were the catalyst for much which followed, that is of course an 'influence,' while like Russolo, what they actually made is less interesting than the innovative idea. So he gets a particular credit and then everyone moves on
> 
> I think you were rather grabbing at straws to stretch an already weak point.


Russolo wasn't the inventor of electronic music, was the first composer to use "noises" the way that was populirized by Varese.
So we have three innovators (but I can make also other examples, if you don't like those three) that originated three of the most important developments of music in the twentieth century: impressionism, atonal music and the use of noise. 
So how can you say it's a weak point? I'm simply saying that if innovation is the most important thing, they are three of the greatest composers in the history of music while Mozart, Bach and Brahms are second or third tier composers.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> So we have three innovators (but I can make also other examples, if you don't like those three) that originated three of the most important developments of music in the twentieth century: impressionism, atonal music and the use of noise. So how can you say it's a weak point? I'm simply saying that if innovation is the most important thing, they are three of the greatest composers in the history of music while Mozart, Bach and Brahms are second or third tier composers.


Because simply doing something new is of little value. The innovations that further art are ones that continue to be applicable across stylistic and cultural boundaries. Doing something new, and doing it well; that's what people really care about.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

20th century British composers are a bit of a mixed bag for me. 

Vaughn-Williams was a great composer. Britten was a fantastic composer.

Elgar I am 50/50 on. The sound of his music is something I have to be in the mood for. I like some pieces a lot (Enigma Variations, Intro and Allegro for String Orchestra, String Quartet). But some pieces seem to drag on far too long and seem a little bit, er, stiff? or something. I'm not sure but I find many of his works are really kind of uninteresting at the moment.

I really like Rubbra and Bax. Rubbra I think had a great sense of constant development and I always think it's interesting to hear how his symphonies unfold. Bax's music is very colorful and he has interesting ways of treating traditional forms. 

I also really like Robert Simpson. His symphonies are spiky and modern but also have a Nielsonian coolness about them.

Some British composers I think are fine but a little bit unorganized and sound like movie composers (some of them were movie composers, but I mean their concert music sounds like movie music too). Here I think specifically of William Alwyn. Some here have praised the Harp Concerto (or was it a sonata). I haven't heard that one yet, I'm just judging based on the symphonies.

I'm not terribly fond of Malcolm Arnold. His music can be interesting sometimes, but horribly boring other times.

I really like Maxwell-Davies. I've mostly heard his string quartets and his "Mad King" piece and I enjoyed all very much.

Others I have either not heard anything of or have forgotten about.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Rubbra
Vaughan Williams
Walton
Finzi 
Moeran

by my reckoning that is quite an impressive contribution.........missed out Elgar because I personally do not like his music but would rather not get into the debate I ended up in last summer!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Bach summed up and synthesized the previous two hundred years of music, no little feat. Brahms was a conservative who gave us many strikingly original pieces, and there is more than a little truth to Schoenberg's monograph, _*Brahms the progressive.*_
> 
> Mahlerian pointed out to me (in a PM) that Charles Rosen in _The Classical Style_, assessed that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were "so far ahead of their contemporaries in general as to make those contemporaries next to invisible in the grand scheme of musical history."


what are the innovations of Mozart (I'm not talking of the sophistication of his style... maybe Rosen was referring to that) comparable to that of those three I've mentioned?
Sure he wrote something like the beginning of the dissonance quartet, but it's something we can even remotely compare to someone who influenced a century of composers like one who created impressionism, another who wrote the first atonal piece (before erwantung) or another who created noise music, another absolutely essential element in the music of the twentieth century?



PetrB said:


> "Second tier" does not mean at all bad or forgettable: Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Honegger, and a good number of others are not the biggest of the big boys of the 20th century, but their works are fine enough to keep them in good esteem with academics, musicians, and the general public.


I'm okay with that, I'm just contesting the idea that the greatest composers are those with the biggest influence or those who are the greatest innovators. Mentioning some of the most influential innovators who don't deserve to be considered among the greatest composers and some of the greatest composers who were not great innovators (or certainly they weren't innovators of the same magnitude).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Because simply doing something new is of little value. The innovations that further art are ones that continue to be applicable across stylistic and cultural boundaries. Doing something new, and doing it well; that's what people really care about.


Impressionism, atonalism, noise music... are you kidding me? Are you saying that those aren't three of the most influential innovations in the twentieth century?


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Doing something new, and doing it well; that's what people really care about.


Apparently I'm not a people then.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Impressionism, atonalism, noise music... are you kidding me? Are you saying that those aren't three of the most influential innovations in the twentieth century?


Let's rephrase Mahlerian's explanation:

You can invent a game but not be the best player. In the light of that, I think your listings are heavy on the petty pedant flavor while missing the meat.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Let's rephrase Mahlerian's explanation:
> 
> You can invent a game but not be the best player.


And I agree with that. 
For instance Brahms wasn't certainly an innovator with an impact like that of Fanelli who influenced Debussy and with that an incredible amount of music after him (and not just in classical music but also in jazz and even in pop music). And still, Brahms is widely considered one the greatest composers and a lot of people doesn't even know who Fanelli existed. And I wasn't certainly saying that he deserves to be considered a great composer like Brahms. 
In fact, I was contesting exactly the idea that innovation is the most important thing to consider in the evalution of a composer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> And I agree with that.
> For instance Brahms wasn't certainly an innovator with an impact like that of Fanelli who influenced Debussy and with that an incredible amount of music after him (and not just in classical music but also in jazz and even in pop music). And still, Brahms is widely considered one the greatest composers and a lot of people doesn't even know who Fanelli existed. And I wasn't certainly saying that he deserves to be considered a great composer like Brahms.
> In fact, I was contesting exactly the idea that innovation is the most important thing to consider in the evalution of a composer.


Plainly, it is both the innovation of the game and playing it superbly well. I thought that was near innately understood, which is why I did not think to include it, which led me to say your approach was 'academic.' -- that last for which I tender my apology to you.

History is filled with occasions of "someone who came up with _____ first," and sometimes that innovation was unknown to others, other times not. But simultaneous invention is littered throughout history, history favoring the one more noted for it by 'follow through.'

Milton Babbitt composed and published the first piece of "Total Serialist" music (I've forgotten the title of the piece) one year prior Messiaen's _"Mode de valeurs et d'intensités."_ Messiaen's piece is almost always the one cited as being the first to use the technique.

C'est la guerre


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Plainly, it is both the innovation of the game and playing it superbly well.


But still some of the most famous composers are considered important like Brahms or Mozart even if they didn't innovate anything (or their innovations were not important or influential) but just because their music is considered great. That was my point at the beginning of this discussion. I wonder what Boulez think of them: second pressing beethoven (for Brahms) and second pressing haydn (for Mozart)?


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2014)

I am very dubious of the notion that classical composers can be grouped into a hierarchy of "tiers" based on objective criteria such as influence, innovation and such like factors. I once used to believe in all that kind of thing, but not any more. The reasons for this are two-fold:

(i) It does not make any sense to believe in objectively based "tiers" because there are no widely accepted yardsticks for measuring things like "influence" or "innovation" or "aesthetic beauty". These are entirely matters of opinion and such opinions vary quite widely.

(ii) Even if there were such yardsticks, it would not get us anywhere because the composers with the highest ratings on some aspects might well score lower on some others. To get round this, it would be necessary to have a weighting system in order to combine all the attributes into a single composite result. Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory set of weights that is anything but entirely personal. My view of the importance of "influence" and "innovation" is low in comparison with "aesthetic beauty" of the generality of works created by individual composers. Somebody else's weighting might be different. The fact is that there is no "right" set of weights, and hence the notion of objectivity is dealt a further major blow.

The only thing that can be measured concerning composers, with any prospect of success provided no major errors are made in the process, is their popularity. Here the polls normally tell much the same story at least as regards the general order of rankings for the first 7-8 composers or so, but thereafter rankings become far more uncertain. For these lower ones, all one can do is say with a reasonable degree of confidence which composers are likely to fall within broad ranges. If people wish to associate popularity thus measured with "greatness" then so be it. I have no problem with that concept of "greatness" at all.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Rhombic said:


> 20th Century British Composers


their problem is they wrote a kind of down to earth music without much to say or convey or express and they had no melodies to charm a listener.


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

sharik said:


> their problem is they wrote a kind of down to earth music without much to say or convey or express and they had no melodies to charm a listener.


Well I think Britten's War Requiem has something to convey and it certainly impressed Shostakovich. Whilst Britten's music is short on charm it is frequently quite magical - well to this Brit anyway.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2014)

To illustrate the point about there being no objectivity concerning the degree of "innovation" of certain composers, mention has been made of Brahms "the progressive". 

As is noted elsewhere on this Board, in 1947 Schöenberg wrote a famous article called "Brahms the Progressive”. In all probability this was a disingenuous attempt to demonstrate a link between Brahms' method, and that of the modernists, including Schöenberg himself. The truth is that, chronologically, while Brahms wrote mainly in the late 1800s, stylistically he clung mainly to the days of Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, largely immune to the artistic developments of his own day. The great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler wrote in 1934 “There is little difference between the harmony of Brahms around the 90th year and that of Schubert in the 20th year of the same century”.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

sharik said:


> their problem is they wrote a kind of down to earth music without much to say or convey or express and they had no melodies to charm a listener.


You need to hear Britten's Peter Grimes. It has some absolutely beautiful solo arias and ensembles that absolutely would "charm a listener". Charmed me enough to pay big bucks to see Jon Vickers in the lead role twice in one season at the Met.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> You need to hear Britten's Peter Grimes


heard a bit of his _Death In Venice_ and _The Turn of The Srew_, it is the vocal parts that completely put me off, seemed like he had no idea what he wants from the vocals... the same thing with Delius, music is listenable, but as soon as the singing starts - makes me want to stop it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

sharik said:


> heard a bit of his _death in venice_ and _the turn of the srew_, it is the vocal parts that completely put me off, seemed like he had no idea what he wants from the vocals... The same thing with delius, music is listenable, but as soon as the singing starts - makes me want to stop it.


*p e t e r g r i m e s*


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

sharik said:


> their problem is they wrote a kind of down to earth music without much to say or convey or express and they had no melodies to charm a listener.


I think I qualify as a listener, and those melodies easily charm me.

More seriously, I don't consider it reasonable to take many dozens of individual composers and treat them as clones of one another.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Partita said:


> As is noted elsewhere on this Board, in 1947 Schöenberg wrote a famous article called "Brahms the Progressive". In all probability this was a disingenuous attempt to demonstrate a link between Brahms' method, and that of the modernists, including Schöenberg himself. The truth is that, chronologically, while Brahms wrote mainly in the late 1800s, stylistically he clung mainly to the days of Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, largely immune to the artistic developments of his own day. The great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler wrote in 1934 "There is little difference between the harmony of Brahms around the 90th year and that of Schubert in the 20th year of the same century".


Except that A) Schoenberg's claims regarding Brahms are not primarily about his harmonic practice, but rather his manner of motivic development and B) Schoenberg specifically points to passages in Brahms that are as daring harmonically as anything Wagner ever wrote. Time tends to blur aesthetic differences rather significantly, and this was, in part, the author's point.

Schoenberg did have a significant interest in playing up the classical elements of his own style and the links that could be demonstrated to the works of earlier masters, but there is no reason to believe that his primary motivation in writing this particular essay was not simply his love of the subject. After all, this is coming from a man who considered the emphasis on "contemporary" or "trendy" elements at the expense of quality ideas and development far more abhorrent than honest conservatism.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> But still some of the most famous composers are considered important like Brahms or Mozart even if they didn't innovate anything (or their innovations were not important or influential) but just because their music is considered great. That was my point at the beginning of this discussion. I wonder what Boulez think of them: second pressing beethoven (for Brahms) and second pressing haydn (for Mozart)?


Consistent hyper excellence will gain one a reputation (Brahms, Mozart) and Mozart, with the K466 D minor piano concerto, to cite just one piece of several, was hugely innovative.

This on Fanelli, by George Anthiel (the italics are mine):

"I soon discovered that Constantine von Sternberg had been right, at least in one regard: the works of Fanelli were pure "Afternoon of a Faun" or "Daphnis and Chloe", _at least in technique_, and they predated the Debussy-Ravel-Satie works by many years. But, as I also soon discovered, _they were not as talented as the works of the two slightly younger men_ although they had had the advantage of being "firsts" ... Debussy was the genius who had distilled Fanelli into immortality!


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> *p e t e r g r i m e s*


okay, i go downloading it already.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Partita said:


> To illustrate the point about there being no objectivity concerning the degree of "innovation" of certain composers, mention has been made of Brahms "the progressive".
> 
> As is noted elsewhere on this Board, in 1947 Schöenberg wrote a famous article called "Brahms the Progressive". In all probability this was a disingenuous attempt to demonstrate a link between Brahms' method, and that of the modernists, including Schöenberg himself. The truth is that, chronologically, while Brahms wrote mainly in the late 1800s, stylistically he clung mainly to the days of Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, largely immune to the artistic developments of his own day. The great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler wrote in 1934 "There is little difference between the harmony of Brahms around the 90th year and that of Schubert in the 20th year of the same century".


Schoenberg was far too self-conscious and took himself, others about him, and anything he did as very much in earnest -- a completely opposite sort of temperament to the personality of someone who would bother to write a monograph that was in any way coy, or 'disingenuous.'

There is so much known about the man it is odd that one who seems generally so very well informed would think otherwise.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I didn't expect this much discussion, but I guess that it's actually a quite controversial topic in some aspects.

In my opinion, some of the British composers are better at orchestration than many other composers. Furthermore, the development of ideas that they have is comparable to that of Brahms or Tchaikovsky, in some cases. I really see no reason whatsoever about the fact that Schumann is more well-known than Bax. But again, he wrote those easy piano _lieder_ which, after being played by so many _ab initio_ musicians and being themselves harmonically deficient, they end up getting way too annoying.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Consistent hyper excellence will gain one a reputation (Brahms, Mozart) and Mozart, with the K466 D minor piano concerto, to cite just one piece of several, was hugely innovative.
> 
> This on Fanelli, by George Anthiel (the italics are mine):
> 
> "I soon discovered that Constantine von Sternberg had been right, at least in one regard: the works of Fanelli were pure "Afternoon of a Faun" or "Daphnis and Chloe", _at least in technique_, and they predated the Debussy-Ravel-Satie works by many years. But, as I also soon discovered, _they were not as talented as the works of the two slightly younger men_ although they had had the advantage of being "firsts" ... Debussy was the genius who had distilled Fanelli into immortality!


I wasn't certainly trying to say that Fanelli deserves to be considered a better composer (or even a composer of the same level) than Debussy or Ravel, I hoped it was clear


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Except that A) Schoenberg's claims regarding Brahms are not primarily about his harmonic practice, but rather his manner of motivic development and B) Schoenberg specifically points to passages in Brahms that are as daring harmonically as anything Wagner ever wrote. Time tends to blur aesthetic differences rather significantly, and this was, in part, the author's point.
> 
> Schoenberg did have a significant interest in playing up the classical elements of his own style and the links that could be demonstrated to the works of earlier masters, but there is no reason to believe that his primary motivation in writing this particular essay was not simply his love of the subject. After all, this is coming from a man who considered the emphasis on "contemporary" or "trendy" elements at the expense of quality ideas and development far more abhorrent than honest conservatism.





PetrB said:


> Schoenberg was far too self-conscious and took himself, others about him, and anything he did as very much in earnest -- a completely opposite sort of temperament to the personality of someone who would bother to write a monograph that was in any way coy, or 'disingenuous.'
> 
> There is so much known about the man it is odd that one who seems generally so very well informed would think otherwise.


I will take both of these posts made in response to my previous one questioning how far Brahms was a true "progressive" as suggested by Schoenberg in his 1937 essay.

I assume that the reference in the first paragraph of the first quote is to Brahms' "motivic thorough-composition" technique that involved use of similar motivic material developed in diverse ways. I am aware, for example, of his very clever use of third-intervals that decline sequentially among several if his works, including the 4th Symphony and his late piano works (Ops 116-119).

This kind of thing is mere detail. I do not doubt for one moment that Brahms was a very highly skilled composer and an absolute master of variation. Nor do I doubt that he may have refined and perfected some techniques to a level that has not since been surpassed. He is among my top five favourite composers and this has long been the case. Nevertheless, I still find it difficult to believe that he was anything like a "shaker and mover" among the best classical composers, as alleged, despite the techniques that he refined as referred to above.

On the contrary, Brahms is typically seen as a reactionary and "backward-looking" composer, or at least one that did not want to see any major changes. He was among the chief sceptics of the new style being developed by new "Romantics", Liszt and Wagner in particular. Whereas these latter composers consciously wanted to break away from Classicism, which they felt was outmoded and too rigid to embody the spirit of Romanticism as they saw it, Brahms and his group were fighting in the other direction trying to retain classical principles which they he saw as the ideal model in which to develop their different ideas of Romanticism. For this purpose, the Brahms camp was prepared to develop classical techniques beyond where Beethoven's Classicism had left off, but chiefly as means of re-invigorating that style in order to make it more compatible with their view of the new Romanticism.

I therefore remain of the view that Brahms was not one of the most influential composers, as was suggested earlier. He was innovative up to a point, but not in terms of pointing the way towards new styles that were eventually to take root in the following century.

However, none of this matters to me because I do not regard "influence" and "innovation" as being of much relevance in determining the list of the "greatest" composers. I realise that others may disagree, and it is precisely because opinions on these matters do differ that there cannot be any one "right" view about the exact weights to be attached to these factors, and hence it is not possible to construct "tiers" of composers based on these attributes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> their problem is they wrote a kind of down to earth music without much to say or convey or express and they had no melodies to charm a listener.


I would be more than curious to read a list of composers / pieces which fit your criteria of being "charmingly melodic."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Perhaps if Bax got rid of those "idyllic" string chords in favour of an overall bolder string writing he wouldn't be viewed as an ugly duckling of the cow pat school.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I would be more than curious to read a list of composers / pieces which fit your criteria of being "charmingly melodic."


There were a lot of great British composers that fill that bill, but the kids nowadays aren't interested in them because they prefer the angular and annoying stuff. Coates, Farnon, Ketelby, Tomlinson, Johnson... People know a lot of this now as TV music because a lot of it was licensed through stock music companies.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> There were a lot of great British composers that fill that bill, but the kids nowadays aren't interested in them because they prefer the angular and annoying stuff. Coates, Farnon, Ketelby, Tomlinson, Johnson... People know a lot of this now as TV music because a lot of it was licensed through stock music companies.


But just think, it was already extant classical music which fit the bill for television, ready sentiment, non-challenging (i.e. immediately accessible) and like so much background music, fairly forgettable.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

bigshot said:


> There were a lot of great British composers that fill that bill, but the kids nowadays aren't interested in them because they prefer the angular and annoying stuff. Coates, Farnon, Ketelby, Tomlinson, Johnson... People know a lot of this now as TV music because a lot of it was licensed through stock music companies.


The light music of Foulds too, for instance his two "impressions of time and space" ("April England" and "Isles of Greece") are truly gorgeous. Finzi too wrote beautiful melodies.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Partita said:


> I am very dubious of the notion that classical composers can be grouped into a hierarchy of "tiers" based on objective criteria such as influence, innovation and such like factors.


PetrB stated that band junkies have dubious taste.

Then Partita is dubious of PetrB's notion to assign tier levels to composers.

Delicious! 

Lots of talk of dubious things here @ TC...


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Oh my.*

____________________________
View attachment 35436​


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

I am surprised that the old "cow-pat" adage is still being bandied about, after all, something like Vaughan Williams' 4th Symphony is hardly indicative of rural tranquillity, I realise that he did write a "Pastoral" Symphony, but then, so did Beethoven, and we don't fling cow-pats at him, do we? Well, most of us don't I trust. 
One of my first British musical loves was Elgar when I bought an LP of the Enigma Variations when I was 11. Truth be told, I bought it because the name of the piece fascinated me, but I fell head over heels in love with it, and a year later when our music teacher had a term off with a serious illness, we each had to do a written project to occupy us, I wrote a 75 page biography of Elgar (I still have it somewhere, most of it cribbed from the two books by W.H.Reed, which were all our local library possessed- mind you now they wouldn't have a single book on Elgar!), and we went and visited the birthplace at Broadheath. Dad said he would buy me one LP from there to assist my project, so I chose the World Records issue of Elgar himself conducting the 2nd Symphony- and the reason? Because this had a short rehearsal sequence on it, and I was curious to hear Elgar's voice! BUT the moment I put the record on the turntable and that gorgeous orchestral swoop which starts the piece off led me along its road, I felt I was entering into a place where I very much wanted to be, and I've never lost the feeling when listening to that symphony, of being led along on an endlessly fascinating journey, of which I never tire. So Elgar is someone whose works I would never want to be without. That first record of the Enigma had as its coupling VW's Tallis Fantasia, which in turn took me off on yet another road- that, plus a pictorial biography of VW that appeared in the school library- which introduced me to Holst, pictures a-plenty of him in there- the first work of his I got to know was "Beni-Mora", and that I've loved ever since. Others? Well, Walton and Britten were two I swiftly added to my pantheon of British composers, the more so as they were still both alive (albeit only just in Britten's case!), and it has gone on from there, my love of our native 20th century composers, Moeran, Warlock, Bax, Ireland, Ethel Smyth (admired by Brahms!), Bliss, Holbrooke, Bantock, Arnold Cooke, Havergal Brian, Dorothy Howell, and so on. 
On the lighter side of things, "In a Persian Market" by Ketelbey resided in our piano stool, and gave me immense pleasure to play as a youngster learning the piano, and I was pleased when asked to play a short recital of his music at the unveiling of a plaque to him in Birmingham. My father was a very fine player of the music of Billy Mayerl, who I would suggest, along with John Ireland remains one of the finest writers of piano music that this country has ever produced. I have enjoyed playing Mayerl for many years, and may add that many who have attempted it latterly have failed singularly to convey the rhythmic impulse behind it correctly, my father certainly could, and having grown up listening to him play it, plus Mayerl's own recordings, I may flatter myself that I don't do a bad job either! The best of the light composers though, in my opinion, is undoubtedly Eric Coates, whose harmonic and rhythmic idiom is streets ahead of his contemporaries. This I feel sure is down to his years as principal viola in the Queen's Hall Orchestra under Sir Henry Wood, where he would have played all the very latest classical music, which must have made an impression on him, and thus influenced his compositions- and certainly did influence his orchestration, for which he is second to none. 
So there it is, I've rambled on a bit, but hopefully conveyed to you some of my joy in British music of the 20th century.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Prodromides said:


> PetrB stated that band junkies have dubious taste.


Anyone with a strong bias to a particular ensemble, or an instrument, has, uh, bias -- like my retired (ex Toronto Symphony, New York Phil) Horn - playing pal who will, onto himself and with humor, rate a work with this comment, _"Great horn part!"_ :lol:

Piano centric listeners might prefer a number of concerti, of varying quality, over acknowledged orchestral masterpieces simply because the concerti have that predominant piano role.... etc.



Prodromides said:


> Then Partita is dubious of PetrB's notion to assign tier levels to composers.


Yet it seems Partita and I think that assigning any number (order of rank) when it comes to lists of 'great composers' is both usueless and without meaning 



Prodromides said:


> Delicious!


What a bland discussion it would be if all had the same opinion, taste, and point of view. Actually, complete agreement makes for no discussion at all, just a unanimous salute... _yawn_!

Delicious? I'm not so sure, but if you want to dig in to any number of threads, the contrast of one person's opinion to the next is, well, a bit "yummy."

Lots of talk of dubious things here @ TC...[/QUOTE]


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

well last night i sat through _Peter Grimes_ and don't think it all bad, at certain moments the choir sounds impressive enough, and The Storming Sea theme impresses too, but all in all Britten is lacking the sense of melody, unable to write melodies especially for vocals... the thing with British composers is they won't realise that writing music is akin to storytelling or narrative, and if you have no story* to tell, you would never write a true music masterpiece.

* _in melodic sense, not only that of books and librettoes._


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I would be more than curious to read a list of composers / pieces which fit your criteria of being "charmingly melodic."


Alban Berg, to start with, compare for example _Peter Grimes_ with _Wozzeck_, where _Wozzeck_ is a masterpice and _Peter Grimes_ is only a nice try etc.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

sharik said:


> well last night i sat through _Peter Grimes_ and don't think it all bad, at certain moments the choir sounds impressive enough, and The Storming Sea theme impresses too, but all in all Britten is lacking the sense of melody, unable to write melodies especially for vocals... the thing with British composers is they won't realise that writing music is akin to storytelling or narrative, and if you have no story* to tell, you would never write a true music masterpiece.
> 
> * _in melodic sense, not only that of books and librettoes._


I would ask you to listen again to excerpts: "Now the Great Bear and Pleiades", "We Planned That Their Lives" "From the Gutter". Beautiful and moving.

If we based a piece's worth only on "first hearings", Beethoven's symphonies and string quartets may not have survived.

I gently request that you please try the above listed excerpts again....and again.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I would ask you to listen again to excerpts: "Now the Great Bear and Pleiades", "We Planned That Their Lives" "From the Gutter"


are those from Peter Grimes?.. i can't remember seeing them there.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

sharik said:


> the thing with British composers is


that they are completely different one from the other like in any other country, you can't talk of harrison birtwistle, finzi , sorabji and john foulds like they composed all the same kind of music in the same way. Would you put in the same category webern and haydn talking of austrian music? It's the same, a meaningless generalization.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

sharik said:


> are those from Peter Grimes?.. i can't remember seeing them there.


Yes, they are! "From The Gutter" is a particularly striking ensemble.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

I can't help being amazed by Ralph Vaughan William's Symphony no. 3. Despite being less well-known, it still does not fail to surprise me. I would really want to recommend it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> There were a lot of great British composers that fill that bill, but *the kids nowadays* aren't interested in them because they prefer the angular and annoying stuff. Coates, Farnon, Ketelby, Tomlinson, Johnson... People know a lot of this now as TV music because a lot of it was licensed through stock music companies.


One thing constant about the history of mankind, and this is a surety, in any language from cro-magnon grunting to any present language spoken on the planet, the equivalent of the phrase, *the kids nowadays*, followed by a complaint of one sort or another which is also -- a constant -- about "the way it / we used to be," has echoed down from one generation to the next throughout millennia


----------

