Dundonnell
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2016, 03:01:59 am » |
|
I am grateful to both Greg and Alistair for their responses.
There is no doubt that musical analysis, criticism and debate will inevitably and properly involved discussion of the influences derived by one composer from his predecessors. I accept that without reservation. I am often reluctant to involve myself in comparisons of the music produced by one composer and that of another-not because it is in any way improper but because as someone without any musical training or indeed "technical" knowledge of musical construction I am only too well aware that my responses to the music I hear are entirely subjective and are based virtually exclusively on my own personal response to the particular sound-world of the music I hear. Thus I can respect and, to a degree, appreciate the qualities of a composer's music and can recognise that the music has (as Greg puts it) a "significance" without it making much of a direct connection to me as an individual.
Put quite simply....that is why I try to stay away from commenting on music which "means little to me" or which I find in some way lacking "significance". It is also why I tend to avoid comparing one composer's music with another. That could result in me saying nothing at all and remaining mute. Instead however I choose to share my enthusiasms for those composers whose music does appeal to me. It would be of no great interest to others for me to say that I regard Mahler as a grossly over-rated composer because I can recognise that he was a great composer but one whose appeal to me is limited to his first two symphonies. The days when the afore-mentioned Malcolm MacDonald and I used to discuss the respective merits of Sibelius and Carl Nielsen or William Walton and Benjamin Britten, set in contrast or even opposition to each other have long passed.
I can recognise the comparisons and contrast between the music of Edmund Rubbra and that of Arnold Cooke. If I am pushed to say so (and I suppose in this context I am ;D) then....yes, I do happen to think that Rubbra's music does have a level of 'profoundity' far beyond that of Arnold Cooke. There is a spirituality about Rubbra, a depth of emotional expression which makes his music far more moving for me than that of Arnold Cooke. I don't for one minute however think that Cooke was aiming for such a depth. Perhaps, in that sense, Malcolm was being somewhat over-generous in his use of the word "profoundity" in relation to Cooke. Perhaps Cooke's music is to be admired-if indeed it is-more for its innate craftsmanship than for any other quality.
But that very last point brings me full circle. I did say in my earlier post that I made no extravagent claims for the music of Arnold Cooke. There are a number (actually I am fortuinate enough that it is a very large number ;D) of composers whose music does appeal to me. But the appeal of different composers differs both in degree and in the nature of that appeal. If I was to attempt to generalise (and this is really of little interest to others and would earn me the contempt and derision of some) then I suppose I would admit to a preference for the serious as opposed to the light-hearted, to the large-scale, to a Nordic grimness, to the monumentality of Bruckner or Shostakovich, and the romantic lyricism of many mid-20th century British and American composers.
Cooke's music fits into that, not entirely comfortably, but it does. I cannot justify that.....but then nor should I have to. I can understand those who have a different opinion and a different perspective. They are just as entitled to their view as am I. This does not invalidate discussion or debate....far from it! We can (and no doubt will) continue to argue the case for the music of particular composers-as we should :)
|
|
|
|
|
|