english musical ren.
Robert G. Rawson
A lot of ink has been spilled on the subject of The English Musical
Renaissance. Most endeavors surrounding the topic tend to favour the same
composers again and again and often the discussion revolves around just
exactly what composers *belong*. It all smacks of the old boys club to me.
There was indeed a period of renewed musical activity in Britain which
deserves to be collectively thought of as a renaissance; so why include only
certain composers and exclude others? For example, it would be feeble to
suggest that Dittersdorf was not a "part" of what we now think of the early
Classical period only because he's not as good as Mozart and Haydn. The
Merrion and Hughes book (among many others) on the EMR often suggested that
While RVW was part of the EMR, Coleridge-Taylor was not, nor was Foulds -
yet Warlock was, etc. It is the only section (with the possible exeption of
the new Viennese school) in music history books which reduces an entire era
to club status. Most Elgarians get all excited when they see the quote from
Richard Strauss about how Elgar was "England's first progressivist
composer." I am, of course, a great admirer of Elgar; but "Progressivist"?
In terms of Modernity the so-called leaders of the EMR were a far cry the
true progressivists of the Continent. Britain certainly had some modernist
pioneers, but they are scarcely ever mentioned in survey books. Why?
In the US, where I did my undergrduate work, 20th century British music is
panned entirely. A great pity. I played in several university orchestras
over the course of six years and not one piece by Elgar or RVW or Britten
was ever on my stand. So to whine about the fact that they are all one ever
hears about here in the UK may not warrant consideration, depending on which
side of the Pond you now stand. While the EMR produced many, many,
remarkable composers, and an even greater number of remarkable pieces, when
considered as a whole the "movement" (when considered as a club) was
remarkably conservative.
My gripe in summary: In Britain, survey books (i.e Blackwell's and many
others) try to hold up Elgar and RVW as Britain's "Modernist" composers in
the early 20th century - despite their obvious conservatism, and pan those
pioneers who were in-tune with modern idioms of the Continent. In the US,
this fascinating chapter in British musical history is ,sadly, all but
omitted.
I would like to make it clear ( so that I may avoid being bombarded with
hate mail) that I love the music of both Elgar and RVW. I only hope to
start a discussion about modernism in Britain and it's reception elsewhere -
if anyone is interested. There has been much fine work, both by scholars
and musicians, to seek a clearer view of this period and there is much to be
happy about in this respect.
Best,
Robert G. Rawson
London, England
jaq...@en.com
In article <jrawson-1407...@client866f.globalnet.co.uk>, "Robert
G. Rawson" <jra...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> A lot of ink has been spilled on the subject of The English Musical
> Renaissance. <snip> The
> Merrion and Hughes book (among many others) on the EMR often suggested that
> While RVW was part of the EMR, Coleridge-Taylor was not, nor was Foulds -
> yet Warlock was, etc. It is the only section (with the possible exeption of
> the new Viennese school) in music history books which reduces an entire era
> to club status. Most Elgarians get all excited when they see the quote from
> Richard Strauss about how Elgar was "England's first progressivist
> composer." I am, of course, a great admirer of Elgar; but "Progressivist"?
I'd make a distinction between "Progressivist" and "modern", the latter
referring to a wholesale revision of musical language. I've recently read
a bio of Elgar, which I don't have with me, but it seems to me that the
quote was made prior to about 1905, in which case it's true. We're talking
at least 2 if not three generations here; by the early 'teens Elgar was
being spoken of as old-hat in relation to RVW and Grainger.
> In terms of Modernity the so-called leaders of the EMR were a far cry the
> true progressivists of the Continent. Britain certainly had some modernist
> pioneers, but they are scarcely ever mentioned in survey books. Why?
"To the victor belongs the spoils"- we had for awhile a similar situation
in the US, where the '30s were all about Copland, Harris, Barber, Piston
and a cast of also-rans. If Koussevitzky didn't play your music, you were
dog-dirt.
Information on the radical British can be incredibly hard to come by over
here. I have yet to hear a single note by van Dieren, and only 2 string
quartets by Foulds. We get a fair bit of Sorabji, and also Havergal Brian
(if you want to count him- I think of him as I think of Debussy, more
radical than the face of his music would indicate at first hearing). Who
else is there? Cyril Scott's fugue in mixed meters?
> In the US, where I did my undergrduate work, 20th century British music is
> panned entirely. A great pity.
Where did you do undergrad? Not my experience, here in the Midwest. It's
not a matter of big academic interest (nor is Scandinavian music), but the
audiences like it.
> My gripe in summary: In Britain, survey books (i.e Blackwell's and many
> others) try to hold up Elgar and RVW as Britain's "Modernist" composers in
> the early 20th century - despite their obvious conservatism, and pan those
> pioneers who were in-tune with modern idioms of the Continent. In the US,
> this fascinating chapter in British musical history is ,sadly, all but
> omitted.
There's always an element of popularity-contest in this. It was a wholly
different music culture in respect to new music. Consider "Pomp &
Circumstance" needing to be encored TWICE at the Proms, or the added extra
performances of Elgar's First. Name me a reception in concert music, post
WWII, that even compares to that.
--
Jeffrey Quick
http://www.en.com/users/jaquick
"...if the creative artist is _aware_, he must ask every subject asking for treatment two _heavy_ questions: Is it _fun_? Is it (may it be) beautiful?" --John Alden Carpenter
Robert G. Rawson
Robert Rawson wrote:
[...]I am, of course, a great admirer of Elgar; but "Progressivist"?
>I'd make a distinction between "Progressivist" and "modern", the latter
>referring to a wholesale revision of musical language. I've recently read
>a bio of Elgar, which I don't have with me, but it seems to me that the
>quote was made prior to about 1905, in which case it's true. We're talking
>at least 2 if not three generations here; by the early 'teens Elgar was
>being spoken of as old-hat in relation to RVW and Grainger.
Yes, but do really think that circa 1905 that Elgar was Britain's most
progressive composer? I would say that Strauss had very little little
knowledge of what was going on England concerning other composers, so this
comment *should* have been taken with a grain of salt. For example, John
Foulds' had already begun to implement quarter-tones by 1898. In terms of
both progressiveness (foulds continued to compose in Keys, for example) and
in terms of Modernity (foulds' efforts to escape old forms like concerto,
symmphony and sonata).
>> In terms of Modernity the so-called leaders of the EMR were a far cry the
>> true progressivists of the Continent. Britain certainly had some
modernist
>> pioneers, but they are scarcely ever mentioned in survey books. Why?
>"To the victor belongs the spoils"- we had for awhile a similar situation
>in the US, where the '30s were all about Copland, Harris, Barber, Piston
>and a cast of also-rans. If Koussevitzky didn't play your music, you were
>dog-dirt.
>Information on the radical British can be incredibly hard to come by over
>here. I have yet to hear a single note by van Dieren, and only 2 string
>quartets by Foulds...[..]
Yes, but what a quartet! (Quartetto Intimo) There is nothing in all of
Britain's string quartet rep to compare. One would have go to Bartok or
Stravinsky to find it's kin.
>We get a fair bit of Sorabji, and also Havergal Brian
>(if you want to count him- I think of him as I think of Debussy, more
>radical than the face of his music would indicate at first hearing). Who
>else is there? Cyril Scott's fugue in mixed meters?
Well, If the revolution was fought on largely harmonic grounds(as it is
seems it was) than I would leave out both Grainger and Warlock as being true
Moderns. I would say englands from line consisted of(in chron. order)
Foulds, Lutyens(student of Foulds), Frankel, Searle and others of course
that I'm sure I've yet to hear.
> In the US, where I did my undergrduate work, 20th century British music is
> panned entirely. A great pity.
>Where did you do undergrad? Not my experience, here in the Midwest. It's
>not a matter of big academic interest (nor is Scandinavian music), but the
>audiences like it.
I like it too. I got my BMA from the U-M in Ann Arbor.
> My gripe in summary: In Britain, survey books (i.e Blackwell's and many
> others) try to hold up Elgar and RVW as Britain's "Modernist" composers in
> the early 20th century - despite their obvious conservatism[...]
>>There's always an element of popularity-contest in this. It was a wholly
>>different music culture in respect to new music. Consider "Pomp &
>>Circumstance" needing to be encored TWICE at the Proms
Yes, but Pomp and Cirmumstance...The Proms...was this the front line even
for Elgar?
I really love Elgar, but like Ravel and many others, best known for his
worst stuff. How many great composers this century have to fight the
reputation of their successful lollipops? Elgar, Foulds, Korngold, Frankel,
Ravel...
>>[...] Name me a reception in concert music, post
>>WWII, that even compares to that.
Uuuuuuhhhmmm.....
Best,
Robert G. Rawson
Royal Holloway, University of London
England
Robert Clements
In article <jrawson-1407...@client866f.globalnet.co.uk>, "Robert G. Rawson" <jra...@globalnet.co.uk> says:
>
>A lot of ink has been spilled on the subject of The English Musical
>composers again and again and often the discussion revolves around just
>exactly what composers *belong*. It all smacks of the old boys club to me.
>There was indeed a period of renewed musical activity in Britain which
>deserves to be collectively thought of as a renaissance; so why include only
>certain composers and exclude others? For example, it would be feeble to
>suggest that Dittersdorf was not a "part" of what we now think of the early
>Merrion and Hughes book (among many others) on the EMR often suggested that
>While RVW was part of the EMR, Coleridge-Taylor was not, nor was Foulds -
>yet Warlock was, etc. It is the only section (with the possible exeption of
>the new Viennese school) in music history books which reduces an entire era
>to club status. Most Elgarians get all excited when they see the quote from
>Richard Strauss about how Elgar was "England's first progressivist
>true progressivists of the Continent. Britain certainly had some modernist
>pioneers, but they are scarcely ever mentioned in survey books. Why?
The problem with your argument is that you're looking at things through
the wrong side of the telescope: in the context of his time, Elgar was
unquestionably a _Modernist_. What happened after the Great War (or
WWI as its now known) was that the aesthetic goalposts started to shift
bigtime; & the term _modernism_ started to develop its present definition
(& odiom?). The shift was completed by WWII & the timely death of von
Webern, by the way; but definitely started with the Great War.
In that context, however much i personally enjoy the music of Samuel
Coleridge Taylor, i can certainly understand why someone like Jaeger
might be disappointed in his obvious conservatism. Foulds is a strange
case; & difficult to fit into any obvious picture of English music...
indeed, it wouldn't be widely inaccurate to think of him as England's
answer to Ives in the US or even Scelsi in Italy....
All the best
Robert Clements
clem...@mailhost.world.net