Stanford or Parry?

[Mark Thomas]

Wonder where the manuscript might be?

Dibble, assiduous biographer of both Parry and Stanford, says in his biography that all that exists is eight pages of full score and the rest of the first movement as a sketched short score. He prints a page from the opening Andante. I can't find a source for this autograph in the book, but all the MSS sources listed are the British Library.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Mark. Thanks too to Dibble...

[Alan Howe]

...sorry, couldn't resist it.

Anyway, who's the top cat - Stanford or Parry?

[MartinH]

If I remember my Saturday morning cartoons correctly, Officer Dibble loved listening to records of violin music.

[Alan Howe]

Now that's some level of recall! Wonder whether that included any Stanford or Parry?

[Mark Thomas]

Maybe neither, it was just caterwauling.

[Alan Howe]

...must be the time of year. Put away the sherry!

[Mark Thomas]

 

all the MSS sources listed are the British Library

Actually, I was wrong: it looks like Parry's manuscripts are held by the Royal College of Music, of which he was Director for 25 years, of course. That said, the mss of the G minor Concerto fragments isn't listed in their library's online catalogue, although the mss of the later one in F# minor is.

[Alan Howe]

Does anyone know the point at which the 'big tune' enters in the finale of Parry 4? It's absolutely heart-stopping. That's what I miss in Stanford - he doesn't pull the heart-strings in anything like the same way.

[britishcomposer]

Dibble describes the genesis of Parry's 4th in some detail in his study. We have to bear in mind that Parry undertook an extensive revision in 1910. He wrote a new Scherzo and reworked the Finale drastically. According to Dibble only the first subject remained intact. All other subjects, including the 'big tune', date from 1910.

I agree, Parry must have been a great influence on Elgar but by 1910 Elgar had been an established composer himself, currently working at his 2nd Symphony. Aesthetically Parry's 4th is way behind the state of the art at 1910 but its emotional impact is overwhelming. Today we can take a balanced view on these developments but it needs strong advocates, musicians and conductors of our time, who believe in Parry's vision and dare to take the risk of programming such a piece.

I admire Parry's genius for communication in music. At its best moments his music achieves a state of transcendence.
Remember Gerald Finzi's dictum, he himself being an ardent advocat of Parry's music: "Men are great or small not according to their language but to their stature."

[Alan Howe]

That's very interesting indeed, thanks. Does Dibble suggest some sort of creative cross-fertilisation of ideas between Parry and his younger contemporaries, including Elgar?

[Alan Howe]

Cough kept me awake, so decided to listen to Parry's Invocation to Music. My goodness, what music this is! All very typical of the composer, I suppose, but again the power is overwhelming - especially 'Rejoice, ye dead...' Wow!

[thalbergmad]

I have but a fraction of the knowledge of many of you chaps, but when i got a copy of the Parry PC manuscript, i couldn't believe the amount of crossings out  and changes. It looked painful and as if Parry was uncomfortable in this genre.

My own opinion is that the Parry symphonies are superior to those by Stanford, but when a piano is added to the equation, Stanford kicks ass.

I am of course not able to musically justify this.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

Stanford's PC2 is a spectacularly good piece, I agree.

[FBerwald]

Yes. When the Piano is added to the equation, Stanford kicks ass.... Even the 1st Piano concerto in G Major, light weight in comparison to the spectacular 2nd, is very enjoyable.

BTW Alan have you had a chance to give Parry's F-sharp minor concerto a spin? Any thoughts..?