Stanford or Parry?

[Alan Howe]

My starting-point with both composers was their symphonies. To refresh your memories, these are their outputs:

Stanford:

No. 1 in B flat major (1876)
No. 2 in D minor, 'Elegiac' (1882)
No. 3 in F minor, 'Irish', Op. 28 (1887)
No. 4 in F major, Op. 31 (1888)
No. 5 in D major, 'L'Allegro ed il Penseroso', Op. 56 (1894)
No. 6 in E flat major, 'In Memoriam G. F. Watts', Op. 94 (1905)
No. 7 in D minor, Op. 124 (1911)

Parry:

No. 1 in G major c. 1878–82
No. 2 in F major ('Cambridge') c. 1883, p. 1900
No. 3 in C major ('English') c. 1889, p. 1907
No. 4 in E minor c. 1889, p. 1921
No. 5 ('Symphonic Fantasia 1912') in B minor ' c. 1912, p. 1922

Now, I have long thought that Parry's are the richer, more gripping works, but perhaps others may disagree..?

[FBerwald]

I won't disagree with you. Parry's music grips one as he almost always has something to convey unlike Stanford, whose music while no less attractive, seems to have a clinical feel to it so that I have never been wholly engrossed by them [Stanford's concertos are another matter, but I'm sticking to the Symphonies as per the thread]. One of my most favorite pieces is his Elegy for Brahms, and his Symphony No. 5 is surely an English masterpiece [sorry but I'm not a fan of Elgar's attempts!]. Pity it's not more famous. [Also a pity imho that we don't have a decent recording of his charming Piano concerto].

[Alan Howe]

I'm just listening to the overwhelmingly grand ending of Parry's 3rd. Why isn't this played at the Proms? It'd go down a storm!

Stanford's concertos, as you suggest, are another matter. What bewitching works his VC(1) and PC2 are!

[FBerwald]

The newly Orchestrated [by J. Dibble] Violin Concerto no. 2 in D minor, Op. 162 is a fascinating insight into a concise and to-the-point Stanford. It's probably his best concerto.

[Alan Howe]

Not better than PC2, I'd venture...

[FBerwald]

No, Stanford's PC2 can stand on it's own feet any day . Incidentally has there been any alternate [...non-commercial] attempts for Parry's Piano Concerto. The Hyperion version employs a very draggy tempo and it has been a huge disappointment for me.

[Alan Howe]

I'll have to give the Hyperion CD a spin...

[Mark Thomas]

Returning to the symphonies, I'm obviously in the minority here, but I just love Stanford's. In them he is a master of exciting, colourful orchestration, he gives them great rhythmic impulse and he is always a superb melodist, all of which add up to an exciting listen. I'm not denying the qualities of Parry's oeuvre, mind you, but I find his works rather more sober and correct, whereas Stanford is wearing his heart on his sleeve.

[Jimfin]

I'm for the Stanford ones. Apart from the rather early first, I listen to them all regularly. The sixth is especially magnificent, and I listened twice in the last week. Whereas I find Parry's rather uneven. The Third is lovely in its way, but it's more of a sinfonietta (Parry didn't really want to call it a symphony, but his publisher pressured him), the fourth needed a lot of revision, and the fifth is of more of a symphonic poem to me. The Cambridge is good, but I would say not as good as Stanford at his best. And I agree about the Stanford concertos, though Parry's sole example is rather fine.

Personally I'm not sure Parry was a wholly committed orchestral composer: I think choral music was where his heart lay.

[Alan Howe]

I disagree totally. No.3 is quite definitely a symphony - imposing in its richness and sweep - and not a sinfonietta. Parry himself apparently said: "I suppose it might be announced as a Symphony - Sinfonietta looks too affected. The announcement might perhaps give it as 'Short Symphony'." In fact, at nearly 35 minutes, it's not really that short either.

The only one of Stanford's that has held my attention throughout is No.3, but I must clearly go back and listen to the cycle again.

Great to disagree, isn't it? Makes one re-assess one's opinions and listen again...

[FBerwald]

Are the Naxos versions of Stanford Symphonies better than the old Chandos ones?

[Alan Howe]

No - but as good as, I'd say. You'd be safe with either set.

[Mark Thomas]

I must clearly go back and listen to the cycle again.

For my money, the best of the bunch is No.5 with its magnificent finale, closely followed by Nos.6 and 7. I in my turn will reacquaint myself with Parry's canon!

[MartinH]

Stanford for me, no question. I also really love his chamber music, the choral works...heck, Stanford is great! I was really touched when I was in London last year to actually hear an anthem of his being sung in church one Sunday. Beautiful. I've never heard any of his music sung in the US. You look at pictures of Stanford and think here's some dry, boring, academic composer. But he's not that at all. Overshadowed by Elgar (who isn't?) but alongside Holbrooke, he's fully worthy of performance.

[Alan Howe]

Oh, Stanford's no stuffy academic. I think my overall preference for Parry is to do with the man's open-hearted music and the feeling that Elgar is just round the corner. Am listening to Stanford 2 (Naxos) as I write this - great stuff. Memory obviously playing tricks.