The Arts in Victorian Britain

[Bella Kemp]

[The Composer of the Week devoted to the life and work of Malcolm Arnold] has been a revelatory series, and most moving. Growing up, and loving the film scores and the country dances, I had always imagined Malcolm Arnold to be a cheerful sort of chap, a composer of 'light music' on a par with Ernest Tomlinson and Percy Grainger. The wonderful Donald Macleod suggests that we have a far greater composer than we might have imagined. Somehow, it seems as if in the popular imagination St Trinians negates the Third Symphony - he has silly moments therefore can't be taken seriously. I think you make an excellent point serial apologist - Arnold made a serious point and then blew a raspberry. It's what George Steiner refers to when he says the British would never accept a Hitler - there is something in the national character that rebels against pomposity. When leaders become too big for their boots - Churchill is a good example - we boot them out. Perhaps this explains why we have never had 'great' composers such as Beethoven or Wagner. We do 'magnificent' but not 'great'. (Writers don't count, by the way, as they are silent, sounding only in one's head or in the desolate voices to be heard on stage - their greatness is quiet).

[LMcD]

It has been a revelatory series, and most moving. Growing up, and loving the film scores and the country dances, I had always imagined Malcolm Arnold to be a cheerful sort of chap, a composer of 'light music' on a par with Ernest Tomlinson and Percy Grainger. The wonderful Donald Macleod suggests that we have a far greater composer than we might have imagined. Somehow, it seems as if in the popular imagination St Trinians negates the Third Symphony - he has silly moments therefore can't be taken seriously. I think you make an excellent point serial apologist - Arnold made a serious point and then blew a raspberry. It's what George Steiner refers to when he says the British would never accept a Hitler - there is something in the national character that rebels against pomposity. When leaders become too big for their boots - Churchill is a good example - we boot them out. Perhaps this explains why we have never had 'great' composers such as Beethoven or Wagner. We do 'magnificent' but not 'great'. (Writers don't count, by the way, as they are silent, sounding only in one's head or in the desolate voices to be heard on stage - their greatness is quiet).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Perhaps this explains why we have never had 'great' composers such as Beethoven or Wagner. We do 'magnificent' but not 'great'.

Not in that 19th Century sense, certainly - but in what way(s) are Dunstable, Byrd, or Lawes (just to stick to composers from before the 21st Century) not "great" composers, Bella?

[ardcarp]

Glad you mentioned Dunstable, fernery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FTw9xl5h-Y

An unlikely bedfellow for the subject of the thread, but undoubtedly one of our greats.

[Bella Kemp]

Not in that 19th Century sense, certainly - but in what way(s) are Dunstable, Byrd, or Lawes (just to stick to composers from before the 21st Century) not "great" composers, Bella?

Yes, you're right ferney, but I suppose I did mean that sense of the word 'great' that inspired that old German description of Britain as 'Das Land ohne Musik' which is very 19th century. I'm reminded, by the by, of my old 'S' Level music exam (does anyone remember those!) where one of our questions asked us to evaluate this statement.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, you're right ferney, but I suppose I did mean that sense of the word 'great' that inspired that old German description of Britain as 'Das Land ohne Musik' which is very 19th century. I'm reminded, by the by, of my old 'S' Level music exam (does anyone remember those!) where one of our questions asked us to evaluate this statement.

Asking a 17-year old that was asking rather a lot, in my view, even back then.

[ardcarp]

Asking a 17-year old that was asking rather a lot, in my view, even back then.

I remember an exam paper which gave Britten's quote, "After Beethoven came the rot" and asked us to 'discuss'. I also remember not having the faintest idea what it was all about and writing a load of flannel. [I'm still not sure. ]

[Master Jacques]

Asking a 17-year old that was asking rather a lot, in my view, even back then.

Certainly! There's much debate as to exactly when and where the phrase "Das Land ohne Musik" originated; but what is certain, is that it reached popular consciousness (in Germany as well as Britain) in the years immediately before the First World War, when German musicologists were attempting to reclaim Handel as their own and there was a propaganda war to win. It wasn't originally aimed at 19th c. Britain at all, but was a (stupendously ignorant) attempt to pretend that there was no English music before Handel came along!

As to that 19th century ... commercially speaking, London was the capital of the musical world throughout the 19th century, the great pot of gold into which every composer wanted to dip his hand. London had the best orchestras, the best players, and employed the best composers. Where they originated was neither here nor there: we're talking an early example of globalisation, here. In opera, everyone from Weber to Verdi and Puccini wanted to write or revive work here - in London, Manchester or elsewhere - and it was one of the great bitter failures of Wagner's career (as he saw it) that he never wrote a stage work for London, with its superior musicians, singers and stage machinery.

In any case, the idea that there were no important 19th century composers of British origin is fatuous. There's a world beyond German romantic symphonies, and plenty of excellent British 19th c. music if you know where to look and aren't suffering from purblind prejudice. It's the idiotic idea of "the 50 great composers" and suchlike league tables which is the faulty thing, as usual.

[vinteuil]

In any case, the idea that there were no important 19th century composers of British origin is fatuous. There's a world beyond German romantic symphonies, and plenty of excellent British 19th c. music if you know where to look and aren't suffering from purblind prejudice. .

... hummmm. I can think of many German, Austrian, French, Italian - possibly even a cuppla Spanish - composers of the nineteenth who "do it" for me in the biggest way imaginable (to avoid troublesome words like 'great'.)

I can think of no equivalent nineteenth century British composers.

I don't know why there are such supreme composers as Dunstaple, Tallis, Carver, Dowland, Lawes, Byrd, Purcell ... and then why there is such a colossal gap until we start getting some good stuff in the 20th century. But it's how I hear things.


.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Certainly! There's much debate as to exactly when and where the phrase "Das Land ohne Musik" originated; but what is certain, is that it reached popular consciousness (in Germany as well as Britain) in the years immediately before the First World War, when German musicologists were attempting to reclaim Handel as their own and there was a propaganda war to win. It wasn't originally aimed at 19th c. Britain at all, but was a (stupendously ignorant) attempt to pretend that there was no English music before Handel came along!

As to that 19th century ... commercially speaking, London was the capital of the musical world throughout the 19th century, the great pot of gold into which every composer wanted to dip his hand. London had the best orchestras, the best players, and employed the best composers. Where they originated was neither here nor there: we're talking an early example of globalisation, here. In opera, everyone from Weber to Verdi and Puccini wanted to write or revive work here - in London, Manchester or elsewhere - and it was one of the great bitter failures of Wagner's career (as he saw it) that he never wrote a stage work for London, with its superior musicians, singers and stage machinery.

In any case, the idea that there were no important 19th century composers of British origin is fatuous. There's a world beyond German romantic symphonies, and plenty of excellent British 19th c. music if you know where to look and aren't suffering from purblind prejudice. It's the idiotic idea of "the 50 great composers" and suchlike league tables which is the faulty thing, as usual.

You make some very good points here . But it is still a bit of a mystery as to why ,given the economic conditions were ripe for domestic composers in the 19th century and also that there was a receptive audience , no British composers of the very first rank emerged until Elgar when if anything economic decline had commenced . I have often thought that despite our our pre eminence in fiction the Victorian era was one of general cultural decline with no poets in the early Wordsworth , Blake , Keats league , and no painters up to Turner and Constable standard , and as for drama - nothing really. Why should music be any different ? I wonder whether there was a certain complacency in Victorian England - a tolerance for the mediocre , a conviction that the Germans, Italians and French did that sort of thing better. Or it could just be that , given the rarity of genius it was our turn for a dry period ....

[Master Jacques]

...no British composers of the very first rank emerged until Elgar when if anything economic decline had commenced...

Forgive me for taking one phrase out of context, as your post has great reason and good sense behind it: but aren't we falling into the very trap which worries me here? Elgar is the first Germanic symphonic composer of the "very first rank" to emerge in the 19th century - late and strong. But there are other forms of music. In particular, at the risk of banging a drum too often beaten, I am always saddened and amazed that Arthur Sullivan (first rank in opera, by any standards, and performed around the world then and now) is so often overlooked, ignored or denigrated! If he's not "first rank", I don't know who is. Only the English seem to have a problem accepting his work, whether operatic or concert-hall-cantatoid - it's a bit like the French and Berlioz! Gounod at least thought Sullivan was the bees knees, and modelled his own sacred output on his English rival.

I's also raise an eyebrow about your poets, when we have Tennyson, Browning and Arnold to play with. Whether they are currently fashionable, in the Keats-Wordsworth league or not, is a matter of taste - I personally think they most certainly are, though very different in their concerns. As to artists, there's a heck of a lot to admire about the pre-Raphaelites, Alma-Tadema (if we count him as English) or Tissot (likewise) if we look at them in the right way - as (once again) people outside the UK seem well able to do.

Realist drama is (I totally agree) hampered by Victorian censorship in a way which these other arts are not. Yet in terms of popular theatre, Victorian England is a matchless golden age, with production levels (and acting) at least on a par with Paris, London's only rival.

It is an intriguing idea, but I doubt that London's intelligentsia had any more "tolerance for the mediocre" than they do today, though there may well have been that snobbish prejudice in favour of Foreigners "doing that sort of thing better", then as now. You are on the money there. Public taste continues to be fully in favour of mediocrity - and if we're looking for a "dry period" it seems to me that 2020 is nearer the mark than 1890 might have been. If there's a time I'd like to go back to, I'd be hard pressed to choose between 1600 London and 1900 London!

Is not "genius" 90% hard work and 10% opportunity? "Dry periods" are to do with social mores, rather than lack of individual talent, are they not?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Trying not to get into a league table but I can’t put Sullivan in the first rank....sorry. Ditto Arnold and Browning though I am very keen on both. I suspect that if they have gone out of fashion ( though Arnold is quoted all the time in the press ) it’s because so much of their work requires a classical grounding that is not really taught these days. All the names you mention I would not put in the first rank , though they were all highly talented with , say , Dickens or George Eliot. Alma- Tadema is a good example of what I think is wrong with some Victorian art - a sort of fetishised classical fakery - all the technique but nothing there really . I should add I don’t find anything fake in Arnold or Browning.
Whether this is a ‘drier ‘ period than 1890 posterity will have to judge though it’s certainly looking that way.
To answer your final question please can I crib from a 20th century genius T.S. Eliot and say that it’s a complex interaction between tradition the Individual talent , and the audience?

[Serial_Apologist]

... hummmm. I can think of many German, Austrian, French, Italian - possibly even a cuppla Spanish - composers of the nineteenth who "do it" for me in the biggest way imaginable (to avoid troublesome words like 'great'.)

I can think of no equivalent nineteenth century British composers.

I don't know why there are such supreme composers as Dunstaple, Tallis, Carver, Dowland, Lawes, Byrd, Purcell ... and then why there is such a colossal gap until we start getting some good stuff in the 20th century. But it's how I hear things.


.

I might suggest that the ruling classes were far too busy with building business and industrial empires to have time for or be bothered with wasting time in concert halls. This was one of the reasons British capitalism ruled the world, before the Americans came along. Enough time was already being wasted in church! The bourgeoisie wanted its achievements on the world scale represented in buildings, statues and paintings - something solid and investable when it was not a permanent monument on public display. These were hardly encouraging signposts when the European diaspora, carving out its national identities, was dealing with the in artistic terms with the psychological consequences. Britain's privileged economic position allowed for the amassing of sufficient wealth to buy off revolutionary impulses among the proletariat with reform abnd the promise of a better future underpinned by technological advance, or at any rate the promise of it, while at the same time breeding complacency among its artistic circles. It wasn't until the end of the Victorian era, when doubts began to be expressed amid the hubris and collective self-aggrandisement, the metropolitan middle classes started pining for a past age when the artisanship of their forbears had meant a sense belonging in villages and rustic towns, disburdened of the artificial mores and protocols prototypical of British middle class exclusivity and, alongside, that nation-specific sense of uprootedness that characterised British music and arts at the turn of the 20th century, rendering it a pale facsimile of revolutionary movements galvansing artists and composers in Europe. The fact that any doubts in "the system" could be brushed away with relative ease, didn't make for that sense of urgency and questioning that overturned accepted values and conventions, but pacified them. To shatter those would take a world war.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I might suggest that the ruling classes were far too busy with building business and industrial empires to have time for or be bothered with wasting time in concert halls. This was one of the reasons British capitalism ruled the world, before the Americans came along. Enough time was already being wasted in church! The bourgeoisie wanted its achievements on the world scale represented in buildings, statues and paintings - something solid and investable when it was not a permanent monument on public display. These were hardly encouraging signposts when the European diaspora, carving out its national identities, was dealing with the in artistic terms with the psychological consequences. Britain's privileged economic position allowed for the amassing of sufficient wealth to buy off revolutionary impulses among the proletariat with reform abnd the promise of a better future underpinned by technological advance, or at any rate the promise of it, while at the same time breeding complacency among its artistic circles. It wasn't until the end of the Victorian era, when doubts began to be expressed amid the hubris and collective self-aggrandisement, the metropolitan middle classes started pining for a past age when the artisanship of their forbears had meant a sense belonging in villages and rustic towns, disburdened of the artificial mores and protocols prototypical of British middle class exclusivity and, alongside, that nation-specific sense of uprootedness that characterised British music and arts at the turn of the 20th century, rendering it a pale facsimile of revolutionary movements galvansing artists and composers in Europe. The fact that any doubts in "the system" could be brushed away with relative ease, didn't make for that sense of urgency and questioning that overturned accepted values and conventions, but pacified them. To shatter those would take a world war.

Funny thing is some of those Victorian artists who were very successful (and also geniuses IMHO ) were precisely those who showed the harsh reality of Victorian England eg. Dickens , Eliot , Gaskell . Not to mention essayists like Carlyle , Arnold and Ruskin - huge critics of Victorian mores and culture and where untrammelled capitalism was leading. The Victorians were full of contradictions and complexity.