Thank you! I particularly love Charles Groves's recording of Number 8. (What a debt we owe Groves - he was the conductor who insisted that Arnold's 9th Symphony was inspired.) As you say, Brian's style is immediately recognisable and very strange. Interestingly, he was (probably) Britain's first significant composer from an industrial working-class background. It was another working-class composer, Robert Simpson, who rediscovered him. Now *that* is a challenging oeuvre...
I saw Brian’s Gothic Symphony, at the Royal Albert Hall, many years ago. Fell in love at first sight. I have Brabbins’s Hyperion, very good. I don’t have this recording but I don’t have this one. I think you just can’t go wrong with Naxos.
As always, a balanced overview of Brian. A couple of things I'd like to add: of all composers, his works demand repeated listenings. Particularly in the short symphonies, his thinking is extremely condensed and what appear to be non-sequiturs at first listen can strike you as totally logical later on. Brian fans tend to differ to some extent on the good, bad an ugly in his oeuvre. Personally, I continue to wrestle with symphonies 21 and 4, picked as favourites by contributors on this page. At the same time I'd agree with David in that even the less successful works like 14 and 23 are worth a hearing. Plainly there are lots of knowledgeable Brian fans on here and other pages of David's site mentioning Brian, and I'm a bit surprised symphony 28 hasn't had a few thumbs-up. To my ears it's a singular and breathtaking work.
I made the mistake you describe in your remarks. I picked up Brian's first symphony on a Marco Polo recording from 1989 at a used CD shop back in the mid-naughts. It was a difficult listen - interesting in spots, interminably dull in others - it left me with the feeling the piece was just an eccentric curiosity and I guess I sort of dismissed it. After listening to your talk I'll give Havergal another shot. Thank the reigning deities for RUclips! You, by the way, are responsible for turning me on to the music of Lajtha - who I've really been struck by - just the first three symphonies so far, but I really like what I've heard so far, so thanks for that too.
Don't let its reputation put you off - the Gothic Symphony is a remarkable work. There isn't one wrong note in the whole thing: pure, unbridled genius from beginning to end, and well worth getting to know. I've listened to it so many times I feel like I've memorized whole sections of it.
I was introduced to Brian's music by a very knowledgeable record (remember them?) retailer. He said if you like Sibelius/Mahler/Magnard, you will find something in Brian. You no doubt know Robert Simpson. All his works are on Hyperion and his String Quartets are marvellous. He's another one to marvel at. In my opinion.
@@DavesClassicalGuide The Simpson First String Quartet - simpler style and moving by the end, in an idiom he left behind. I was at the premiere of the Eighth Symphony, the live Simpson orchestra gave a fresh dimension to later style but I doubt I'll ever get the chance to hear any Simpson work live, again.
For me, Simpson is a frustrating composer, fussing about with formal tricks that look clever on paper but mean nothing to the ear on the one hand, invigorating and rewarding on the other. The switch from being clever to laying bare something inside can be breathtaking, as at the end of the prestissimo of his 5th quartet. Or when he let's his hair down, as in the Variations on a theme of Nielsen.
I'm shamefaced to admit Dave that I've NEVER listened to a single note of Havergal Brian. Your advocacy for this composer convinces me I need to address this ignorant blind spot of mine. Your talk has gotten me very, very interested. I'll give this particular disc a try. If I enjoy it, I note that on a certain retailer's website NAXOS seems to have the market cornered on Brian's works; and they've pretty good reviews. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? :) Thanks so much for the recommendation!
In the UK, with Brian, class and institutional discrimination have to be contributory factors to his exclusion. Whatever you think of these symphonies, clearly they're interesting at the very least, they deserve more performances for what they have to say and the way they express those ideas in such an original language. I've noticed Arnold mentioned elsewhere in comments and his neglect is truly astonishing.
Brian's style may be distinctive, but it doesn't mean it's going to be interesting most of the time (at least not to me). What I often dislike is his orchestration and sense of structure which make no sense in places. I suspect that he was thinking that using extravagant orchestrations was going to easily impress listeners. However, some pieces by him do manage to leave a good impression on me, namely the English Suite No. 3 and the Symphony No. 4.
I wouldn't speculate on what he may or may not have been thinking. His orchestration in the most difficult works isn't terribly extravagant--it's just personal.
AsZ do you know The Tigers? It gives a taste of Brian's imaginative and cultural range on a big scale, plus his technical mastery and his humour. The later works (most of the symphonies and later operas) were written with no expectation of performance. Of all composers he was not trying to impress any listeners at all, just writing from the heart and mind, take it or leave it. We could do with a modern Brian performing tradition and won't get one. The 'Gothic' Symphony live at the RAH (now on Hyperion) was excellent but even there you could hear what might be done a bit better with a sprawling work. Most Brian recordings (we're very fortunate to have them all) would obvs. have benefitted from more familiarity and live shows. There's a lot of emotional warmth in the music, as well as the gruffness, compression and grotesquerie. I'd start with Symphony 21 - two committed recordings, neither ideal, but you can imagine what it might be and the impact is already considerable and unique.
Thank you! I particularly love Charles Groves's recording of Number 8. (What a debt we owe Groves - he was the conductor who insisted that Arnold's 9th Symphony was inspired.) As you say, Brian's style is immediately recognisable and very strange. Interestingly, he was (probably) Britain's first significant composer from an industrial working-class background. It was another working-class composer, Robert Simpson, who rediscovered him. Now *that* is a challenging oeuvre...
I saw Brian’s Gothic Symphony, at the Royal Albert Hall, many years ago. Fell in love at first sight. I have Brabbins’s Hyperion, very good. I don’t have this recording but I don’t have this one. I think you just can’t go wrong with Naxos.
Thank you for keeping Brian in the spotlight.
The Gothic Symphony is the Symphony of Ten Thousands !
As always, a balanced overview of Brian. A couple of things I'd like to add: of all composers, his works demand repeated listenings. Particularly in the short symphonies, his thinking is extremely condensed and what appear to be non-sequiturs at first listen can strike you as totally logical later on.
Brian fans tend to differ to some extent on the good, bad an ugly in his oeuvre. Personally, I continue to wrestle with symphonies 21 and 4, picked as favourites by contributors on this page. At the same time I'd agree with David in that even the less successful works like 14 and 23 are worth a hearing.
Plainly there are lots of knowledgeable Brian fans on here and other pages of David's site mentioning Brian, and I'm a bit surprised symphony 28 hasn't had a few thumbs-up. To my ears it's a singular and breathtaking work.
Oddly enough no. 14 is one of my favourites ...
I made the mistake you describe in your remarks. I picked up Brian's first symphony on a Marco Polo recording from 1989 at a used CD shop back in the mid-naughts. It was a difficult listen - interesting in spots, interminably dull in others - it left me with the feeling the piece was just an eccentric curiosity and I guess I sort of dismissed it. After listening to your talk I'll give Havergal another shot. Thank the reigning deities for RUclips! You, by the way, are responsible for turning me on to the music of Lajtha - who I've really been struck by - just the first three symphonies so far, but I really like what I've heard so far, so thanks for that too.
Don't let its reputation put you off - the Gothic Symphony is a remarkable work. There isn't one wrong note in the whole thing: pure, unbridled genius from beginning to end, and well worth getting to know. I've listened to it so many times I feel like I've memorized whole sections of it.
I was introduced to Brian's music by a very knowledgeable record (remember them?) retailer. He said if you like Sibelius/Mahler/Magnard, you will find something in Brian. You no doubt know Robert Simpson. All his works are on Hyperion and his String Quartets are marvellous. He's another one to marvel at. In my opinion.
I disagree about Simpson. I find him dry and pedantic, although there are exceptions (such as the 4th Symphony).
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for your thoughts, Dave.
@@DavesClassicalGuide The Simpson First String Quartet - simpler style and moving by the end, in an idiom he left behind. I was at the premiere of the Eighth Symphony, the live Simpson orchestra gave a fresh dimension to later style but I doubt I'll ever get the chance to hear any Simpson work live, again.
For me, Simpson is a frustrating composer, fussing about with formal tricks that look clever on paper but mean nothing to the ear on the one hand, invigorating and rewarding on the other. The switch from being clever to laying bare something inside can be breathtaking, as at the end of the prestissimo of his 5th quartet. Or when he let's his hair down, as in the Variations on a theme of Nielsen.
@@johnstoddart3962 I think that sums it up nicely.
I'm shamefaced to admit Dave that I've NEVER listened to a single note of Havergal Brian. Your advocacy for this composer convinces me I need to address this ignorant blind spot of mine. Your talk has gotten me very, very interested. I'll give this particular disc a try. If I enjoy it, I note that on a certain retailer's website NAXOS seems to have the market cornered on Brian's works; and they've pretty good reviews. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? :) Thanks so much for the recommendation!
You're welcome. Have fun!
This is going to be interesting.
In the UK, with Brian, class and institutional discrimination have to be contributory factors to his exclusion. Whatever you think of these symphonies, clearly they're interesting at the very least, they deserve more performances for what they have to say and the way they express those ideas in such an original language.
I've noticed Arnold mentioned elsewhere in comments and his neglect is truly astonishing.
Dr. Merryheart is delightful. I checked for "junk" but didn't find any
What other works/recordings of his would you recommend?
Symphonies 6-10 are fun too.
Brian's style may be distinctive, but it doesn't mean it's going to be interesting most of the time (at least not to me). What I often dislike is his orchestration and sense of structure which make no sense in places. I suspect that he was thinking that using extravagant orchestrations was going to easily impress listeners. However, some pieces by him do manage to leave a good impression on me, namely the English Suite No. 3 and the Symphony No. 4.
I wouldn't speculate on what he may or may not have been thinking. His orchestration in the most difficult works isn't terribly extravagant--it's just personal.
AsZ do you know The Tigers? It gives a taste of Brian's imaginative and cultural range on a big scale, plus his technical mastery and his humour. The later works (most of the symphonies and later operas) were written with no expectation of performance. Of all composers he was not trying to impress any listeners at all, just writing from the heart and mind, take it or leave it. We could do with a modern Brian performing tradition and won't get one. The 'Gothic' Symphony live at the RAH (now on Hyperion) was excellent but even there you could hear what might be done a bit better with a sprawling work. Most Brian recordings (we're very fortunate to have them all) would obvs. have benefitted from more familiarity and live shows. There's a lot of emotional warmth in the music, as well as the gruffness, compression and grotesquerie. I'd start with Symphony 21 - two committed recordings, neither ideal, but you can imagine what it might be and the impact is already considerable and unique.