Living Symphonists

[Dundonnell]

My apologies for upsetting you, Alan

I admit I was somewhat carried away with my indignation about Butterworth's neglect at the hands of the other parts of the musical fraternity

Dutton have done a lot for Butterworth's music and that is very much to their credit I readily withdraw the word "incumbent" and happily subsitute the words "devoutly to be be wished"

[Alan Howe]

No need for any apology, I'm sure. As you will no doubt agree, the recording companies have given us enormous riches in recent times for which we are all extremely grateful. Of course, we all want more of our own particular favourites and find it hard (even impossible) to understand their neglect, but one never can tell what might be round the corner.....
BTW I feel your pain. I've been hoping some company might feel it incumbent upon them to record some more Draeseke, but realise that all I can do is fervently hope...

[Dylan]

He's mentioned under the Australian Composers thread, but this seems a good place also to nominate the symphonies by Benton Broadstock. Absolutely dazzling, vividly colourful and intensely dramatic works, they would go down a storm IF (along with 90% of the 20th/21st century repertoire)  they ever stood a snowballs chance in hell of getting performed here: but this would involve a reassessment  of the desperately limited and parochial core repertoire so drastic  it'll simply never happen. (And indeed, to reinforce the point on record they're performed (bizarrely, but stunningly well) by a Siberian orchestra! )

[Dundonnell]

Following your post I went to the downloaded file of the Brenton Broadstock Symphony No.2 "Stars in a Dark Night" which I don't think I had ever listened to before.

Good stuff, indeed as you say What are the other symphonies like in comparison

[Alan Howe]

You can hear some excerpts here...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Broadstock-Good-Angels-Tears-Brenton/dp/B002YZHF4S/ref=sr_1_1_digr?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1336295101&sr=1-1

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I have the Etcetera set of Broadstock's first five symphonies (I believe there's now a sixth). They gather a bit of dust I'm afraid - interesting enough stuff, but then I find there's an awful lot of contemporary music that I find more interesting and rewarding.

My impressions? Certainly colourful and vivid music. But all - and I hope I'm not unfair - pretty much heart on the sleeve stuff. Frequently violent and a lot of it 'works' by making a full frontal assault on the ears - especially with great outbursts of brass. Think a kind of updated Australian Malcolm Arnold (though Arnold seemed to me a much more gifted composer). And certainly nothing like so interesting as Peter Sculthorpe.

Broadstock certainly attracts his enthusiasts - but, just like Hovhannes, people are either zealous in proclaiming his musical gifts or else content to give the stuff a miss thinking they haven't lost out by doing so. I can understand Dylan's enthusiasm, but I remain a Broadstock agnostic.

[ttle]

And yet nowhere do I recall anyone commenting on Erik Fordell who, in my 1977 ASCAP catalogue, is credited with some 25 symphonies. I have have never heard a note of his music although I would very much like to.

There seems to be at least 44, actually. The FIMIC website provides composition dates, and titles when relevant, for 38 of them. How do they sound, now that is a different story.

As for the Hovhaness vs. Sessions comment, while I do personnaly think that Sessions is indeed the greatest American symphonist ever, even is Harris's Third might be the best single symphony, I would not be so harsh as to deny Hovhaness the qualification of "symphonist". Several of his works called symphonies are worthy achievements in their own right (the relatively famous No. 2, but also Nos. 9, 19, 50...).

[Alan Howe]

May I ask a potentially unanswerable question? >

Is it possible to put the symphonists writing over the past, say, 30-40 years, in particular categories so that we can 'map the symphonic terrain'?

[Delicious Manager]

May I ask a potentially unanswerable question? >

Is it possible to put the symphonists writing over the past, say, 30-40 years, in particular categories so that we can 'map the symphonic terrain'?

How would the categories be defined? How many categories? There may also be some overlap between categories...

[Alan Howe]

I was hoping we might be able to come up with groups or families of like-minded symphonists. Perhaps, though, the terrain is too disparate in order to attempt such a thing?

[ahinton]

I was hoping we might be able to come up with groups or families of like-minded symphonists. Perhaps, though, the terrain is too disparate in order to attempt such a thing?

It surely must be far too disparate for that; indeed, one could argue that it should be so today, given the vast diversity of approaches to the composition of music nowadays compared to 100 years ago, let alone 200 years ago! That said, one could also argue that there is something about "the symphony" - and even more so "the string quartet" - that endures come what may, otherwise we'd have few or no living symphonists to discuss.

Suppose one looks at major living British symphonists who either have five or more symphonies to their credit or have been composing symphonies throughout most of their careers (or both); the first names that probably come to mind would be Peter Maxwell Davies, John McCabe and David Matthews, but one would hardly think to lump them together as members of some kind of present-day "English symphonic school"! Broadening the British symphonic horizons to include habitual symphonists who have lived and worked into the last quarter of the 20th century, far more names spring to mind, perhaps the most notable being Simpson, Hoddinott, Jones, Rubbra, Lloyd and Arnold with some 65 symphonies between them - and Searle, too, of course - but, once again, all that really "links" them is the very fact that the symphony remained a vital creative means for each of them throughout most of their composing lives. Most of Searle's symphonies lean towards atonality for quite a bit of the time (rather as most of Sessions's do), but the symphonies of both are real symphonies, without question. Oh - and let's not forget that Elgar also finished a symphony during that last quarter!...

[ahinton]

And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? 

I'm not sure what you would actually call such a composer but you'd have to acknowledge his/her Segerstamina in having written at least that many...

[Alan Howe]

He obviously needs to get a leif....

[Gijs vdM]

And how do we call a writer of over 215 symphonies? A symphoniac? 

I'm not sure what you would actually call such a composer but you'd have to acknowledge his/her Segerstamina in having written at least that many...

well, there is one (still living) composer of (a.o.) symphonies, one William Louis Schirmer (°1941), who's at present ever-growing catalog now numbers over 4,000 works in all genres, and includes at least 258 symphonies, 403 piano sonatas and 217 string quartets! That makes for some Segerstammering....!

All best,
Gijs

[ahinton]

He obviously needs to get a leif....

He already has one - as one of today's most remarkable conductors (of course) - so perhaps he should instead consider taking a leif out of someone else's book...