Music from the British Isles

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji on Prout:

"Prout, as one might expect, displayed in his "compositions" - if those unbelievably feeble and jejune recollections of watered Mendelssohn and second hand Haydn can be so called - A combination of naivete, ineptitude and sheer incompetence that have to be seen to be believed. Not one single flash, one sparklet of character, invention or even pleasantly ingenious joinery enlivens or adds interest, even the most transient, to these aborted jellyfish"

In light of this, I think using the term "plinky plonky" to describe Sorabji is tame (as well as accurate) and I will continue to use it until thrown off the forum.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Sorabji on Stanford:

"In one of his latest works, a piano concerto, we find an empty and meaningless manipulation of technical schoolroom tricks along with an insignificance of matter almost unbelievable, and to equal which in banality you would have to come to some of the "advanced" gentry of the present day, an example of the contact of extremes"

[Timtin]

Stainer and Bell's catalogue contains a number of works by Stanford.
Click on the link below to take a look at the free pages of music on offer.
You'll find that there are a number of works there that certainly weren't by
an 'average' composer! (Anyone with a familiarity with his Dante Rhapsodies,
Organ Sonatas, Violin Sonatas, Cello Sonatas, Piano Trios, String Quartets,
Piano Quintet, Irish Rhapsodies, the Concertos, Songs of the Fleet, The Revenge,
Songs of the Sea, the Symphonies, Stabat Mater, Bible Songs, or the Requiem,
will know what a truly magnificent composer he was, and Britain's finest ever imo.)

Regards, Stanfan.

http://www.stainer.co.uk/cgi-bin/ss0000 ... PR=-1&TB=A

[passthesalt]

Sorabji on Prout:

"Prout, as one might expect, displayed in his "compositions" - if those unbelievably feeble and jejune recollections of watered Mendelssohn and second hand Haydn can be so called - A combination of naivete, ineptitude and sheer incompetence that have to be seen to be believed. Not one single flash, one sparklet of character, invention or even pleasantly ingenious joinery enlivens or adds interest, even the most transient, to these aborted jellyfish"

In light of this, I think using the term "plinky plonky" to describe Sorabji is tame (as well as accurate) and I will continue to use it until thrown off the forum.

Thal

Agreed, Thal. If "aborted jellyfish" is a 10 on the insult scale, "plinky plonky" registers at only .2. Dorothy Parker's remarks look like pablum next to Sorabji's.

[ahinton]

The more you get to know the music of Stanford, the more you realise that
he certainly wasn't just an average composer. I've just been playing through
his 3 Dante Rhapsodies, and there's nothing average about them, or indeed
the dozens of other very high quality instrumental, chamber, orchestral,
and choral works which I had the pleasure of discovering by him over the
past few years. Give his Stabat Mater a listen for example. Was that
written by just an average composer? I think not. Reading Dibble's book
about the man also makes one realise that he was far from average.

OK, it's a matter of personal opinion, inevitably, but, to me, Stanford simply didn't have what some of his contemporaries had. I read a while ago some fluff from someone about an English music festival in which claims were made about people of thet calibre and age being on a par with Brahms and the like; it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Sorry.

[ahinton]

Sorabji on Prout:

"Prout, as one might expect, displayed in his "compositions" - if those unbelievably feeble and jejune recollections of watered Mendelssohn and second hand Haydn can be so called - A combination of naivete, ineptitude and sheer incompetence that have to be seen to be believed. Not one single flash, one sparklet of character, invention or even pleasantly ingenious joinery enlivens or adds interest, even the most transient, to these aborted jellyfish"

In light of this, I think using the term "plinky plonky" to describe Sorabji is tame (as well as accurate) and I will continue to use it until thrown off the forum.

But what credibility attaches to the notion of indiscriminately describing the work of one composer as "plinky plonky" purely on the back of that composer's negative comments about another composer with which you happen to disagree? I accept that Sorabji on Stanford was harsher than Stanford deserved, but you are now referring above to the compositions of the theorist Ebenezer Prout rather than Stanford in any case. Each of these composers' work - including Sorabji's - sounds as it does and is not and cannot be "influenced" in its effect by the work - or anyone's opinions on the work - of the others.

[ahinton]

Sorabji on Prout:

"Prout, as one might expect, displayed in his "compositions" - if those unbelievably feeble and jejune recollections of watered Mendelssohn and second hand Haydn can be so called - A combination of naivete, ineptitude and sheer incompetence that have to be seen to be believed. Not one single flash, one sparklet of character, invention or even pleasantly ingenious joinery enlivens or adds interest, even the most transient, to these aborted jellyfish"

In light of this, I think using the term "plinky plonky" to describe Sorabji is tame (as well as accurate) and I will continue to use it until thrown off the forum.

Thal

Agreed, Thal. If "aborted jellyfish" is a 10 on the insult scale, "plinky plonky" registers at only .2. Dorothy Parker's remarks look like pablum next to Sorabji's.

"Aborted jellyfish" is not an expression to which I would choose to have had recourse in this context but, again, you seem to be making the same mistake as Thal in being influenced purely by Sorabji's use of it to allow yourself to be motivated to describe Sorabji's music as "plinky plonky". How can the music of Prout, or anyone's opinions of it, determine how anyone would "accurately" describe Sorabji's music?

Having said that, perhaps someone who has somehow contrived to convince him/herself of the "plinky-plonkiness" of Sorabji's music (for whatever reason or none) could now step forward and account in some detail for the relevance and accuracy of that description so that other readers might be able to understand it and decide whether or not and to what extent it might accord with their own opinions of it if they already have any based on actually listening to some of his music.

In certain circles, my own work is supposedly "plinky-plonky", too, so if any such person might care to elaborate by accounting in similar detail for how that conclusion might have been formed, so much the better.

Heaven forfend that Thal be "thrown off the forum"!

Best,

Alistair

[Timtin]

The more you get to know the music of Stanford, the more you realise that
he certainly wasn't just an average composer. I've just been playing through
his 3 Dante Rhapsodies, and there's nothing average about them, or indeed
the dozens of other very high quality instrumental, chamber, orchestral,
and choral works which I had the pleasure of discovering by him over the
past few years. Give his Stabat Mater a listen for example. Was that
written by just an average composer? I think not. Reading Dibble's book
about the man also makes one realise that he was far from average.

OK, it's a matter of personal opinion, inevitably, but, to me, Stanford simply didn't have what some of his contemporaries had. I read a while ago some fluff from someone about an English music festival in which claims were made about people of thet calibre and age being on a par with Brahms and the like; it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Sorry.

Please note that I'm not comparing Stanford with the best of his European contemporaries,
just his British ones. This being the case, I stand by my opinion, one based on considerable
study of the man and his music, not just on some ill-informed opinions read a while ago at
an English music festival. Sorry.

[isokani]

Sorabji on Prout:

"Prout, as one might expect, displayed in his "compositions" - if those unbelievably feeble and jejune recollections of watered Mendelssohn and second hand Haydn can be so called - A combination of naivete, ineptitude and sheer incompetence that have to be seen to be believed. Not one single flash, one sparklet of character, invention or even pleasantly ingenious joinery enlivens or adds interest, even the most transient, to these aborted jellyfish"

In light of this, I think using the term "plinky plonky" to describe Sorabji is tame (as well as accurate) and I will continue to use it until thrown off the forum.

Thal

but if Sorabji was trying to convey that Prout, qua composer, was crap, he did so, and so what's the problem? He was not, after all, an academic who would follow established protocol in his discussions. And I do remember the fact that I sung quite a lot of Stanford. But I have pretty much completely forgotten the music. Something like Beatus quorum vir (in A flat), a mag and nunc in B flat (and possibly some others in other keys including one for kids alone?). All tedious. But melodious and harmless enough (unless you consider all the unpaid child labour - often at 6 or 7 in the freezing morning - required to perform this stuff).

[HullandHellandHalifax]

The more you get to know the music of Stanford, the more you realise that
he certainly wasn't just an average composer. I've just been playing through
his 3 Dante Rhapsodies, and there's nothing average about them, or indeed
the dozens of other very high quality instrumental, chamber, orchestral,
and choral works which I had the pleasure of discovering by him over the
past few years. Give his Stabat Mater a listen for example. Was that
written by just an average composer? I think not. Reading Dibble's book
about the man also makes one realise that he was far from average.

OK, it's a matter of personal opinion, inevitably, but, to me, Stanford simply didn't have what some of his contemporaries had. I read a while ago some fluff from someone about an English music festival in which claims were made about people of thet calibre and age being on a par with Brahms and the like; it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Sorry.

Without wishing to get too deeply involved in this (at the moment) less than erudite discussion I can add that with absolute certainty when it came to writing music for the organ Stanford wrote music for the organ far superior to anything Brahms wrote. If performances and recordings are any kind of yardstick then that alone would be proof of my assertion. As an organist who knows all the organ works of both composers I can speak from a position of technical knowledge of each composers standard when writing for that instrument and the Stanford works are of a superior standard where performability is measured. I won't get involved with comparing their other works as it is not necessary at the moment. Stanford had a great technical and theoretical knowledge and whether he had that vital spark necessary for greatness is only personal opinion which cannot be measured and as the English have a long history of ignoring their own (I know Stanford was Irish) for the glamour of a foreign sounding name then that makes it even more difficult to lay down criteria for honest assessment of someones value. Elgar had to have his music published in Germany and France before the English publishers took notice so what chance would Stanford have in popularity stakes, he remained provincial rather than a world-renowned composer. Nevertheless the music of Stanford ticks all my boxes and I think if we could get him away from the church for which he wrote eminently singable stuff then people might discover a composer that ticks all their boxes too.
regards
Brian