David Matthews SYMPHONY NO. 8 First Performance 17/04/15

[Roehre]

It's the bit in brackets that seems to me to be of the essence here; some others may simply not engage with this but perhaps some others again do not wish to do so as it seems to them not to accord to the world view to which they choose to subscribe...
....

which is exactly the discussion we strongly had in the 1950s and '60s around the "Symphony", its form(s), its relevance (within and outside the musical world) and the related world views, isn't it?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's the bit in brackets that seems to me to be of the essence here; some others may simply not engage with this but perhaps some others again do not wish to do so as it seems to them not to accord to the world view to which they choose to subscribe...

There's cutting edge on the one hand - and cutting ice (or not) on the other...

For me, it's not "the bit in brackets" that sums up the discussion on this Thread - rather, I focus on JLW's "makes it new": what exactly is it in this Eighth Symphony (which I repeat, I rather enjoyed) - or DM's other work - that is "new"? The world view to which I choose to subscribe doesn't really get excited by substituting a Scherzo by a Foxtrot.

To quote Matthews himself:

If composers still want to express such emotions [as "joy, gaiety, exuberance"] they might profitably consider how Tippett's language in its development from orthodox tonality to pantonality has always been a potent vehicle for the widest range of expression.

... but such "considerations" haven't entered Matthews' own work in the Eighth Symphony, which sounds like a repudiation of that very development that he rightly admires in Tippett's work. By denying the expressive power of Music beyond the Martinu/Rubbra type of vocabularies, by closing its ears even to the Tippett Third Symphony or the Concerto for Orchestra, Matthews betrays his own (earlier) aesthetic, and instead of "joy, gaiety, exuberance" he offers a rather moribund view of the Present and a pessimistic "world view" that offers nothing of hope or optimism.

There's cutting edge on one hand - and cutting a sorry figure on the other.

[ahinton]

which is exactly the discussion we strongly had in the 1950s and '60s around the "Symphony", its form(s), its relevance (within and outside the musical world) and the related world views, isn't it?

Yes, but with such diversity of approach even then, to say nothing of now, how could agreement over it ever be reached? That diversity is reflected - as one would surely expect - in the diversity of listener response. The "symphony" as an expressive entity today remains relevant to some but no longer to others; is either view "wrong"? The string quartet, as I mentioned earlier, has reinvented itself perhaps even more than the symphony (I cited Ferneyhough's six and Matthews' thirteen in that context); is Ferneyhough's view of the medium better or worse than Matthews' in terms of relevance of response to its time?

[ahinton]

For me, it's not "the bit in brackets" that sums up the discussion on this Thread - rather, I focus on JLW's "makes it new": what exactly is it in this Eighth Symphony (which I repeat, I rather enjoyed) - or DM's other work - that is "new"? The world view to which I choose to subscribe doesn't really get excited by substituting a Scherzo by a Foxtrot.

Fair comment insofar as it goes, of course - but what's "new", "reinventive" or whatever to one pair of ears will never be the same as what they are to others; nature of the beast, methinks...

To quote Matthews himself:

If composers still want to express such emotions [as "joy, gaiety, exuberance"] they might profitably consider how Tippett's language in its development from orthodox tonality to pantonality has always been a potent vehicle for the widest range of expression.

... but such "considerations" haven't entered Matthews' own work in the Eighth Symphony, which sounds like a repudiation of that very development that he rightly admires in Tippett's work. By denying the expressive power of Music beyond the Martinu/Rubbra type of vocabularies, by closing its ears even to the Tippett Third Symphony or the Concerto for Orchestra, Matthews betrays his own (earlier) aesthetic, and instead of "joy, gaiety, exuberance" he offers a rather moribund view of the Present and a pessimistic "world view" that offers nothing of hope or optimism.

Well, that's not how I heard the work - which doesn't make my view or anyone else's "right" or "wrong". Closing one's ears to Tippett's Third Symphony strikes me as no such a bad idea (ouch!), althought the Concerto for Orchestra is a wonderful and, I think, underappreciated piece.

There's cutting edge on one hand - and cutting a sorry figure on the other.

And there's cutting remarks, too! Seriously, though, I don't see DM cutting a sorry figure with this - but then "we don't walk the same way home", as the expression once had it...

[ahinton]

[deleted]

[Richard Barrett]

closing its ears even to the Tippett Third Symphony

Now that is a composition which attempts to engage with symphonic tradition in other than a subservient way. Your point about optimism is also highly relevant here I think. When I said earlier that this kind of music "irritates the hell out of me" what I should more precisely have ascribed this feeling to was something like your "moribund view of the Present and a pessimistic "world view" that offers nothing of hope or optimism".

[ahinton]

Now that is a composition which attempts to engage with symphonic tradition in other than a subservient way. Your point about optimism is also highly relevant here I think. When I said earlier that this kind of music "irritates the hell out of me" what I should more precisely have ascribed this feeling to was something like your "moribund view of the Present and a pessimistic "world view" that offers nothing of hope or optimism".

Oh, Tippett 3 at least does that all right but the results to me still just don't work convincingly and sound quite incredibly mannered - and that's from someone who admires Tippett in general in a way that I simply cannot do with Britten...

But anyway, some of this has to do with the whole "symphony" business; without in any sense wishing to undermine the questions posed by Jayne, suppose that David Matthews had instead entitled his piece Three Pieces for Orchestra (albeit a title that's just SO last century!)? What then?

OK, let's try this.

Did DM write a piece of cutting edge "forward looking" musical modernism that is an instantly an universally recognisable response to his and our own time? No. Did he set out to do this but somehow failed? No. Is there such a thing as an univerally recognissable response to out time in a piece of music? Doubtful - uncertain, anyway. Had it been a more obviously engaging response to the best of Tippett, would some of its more vociferous detractors have favoured it any more than they do now? Again, doubtful. Had he instead written that piece of "cutting edge "forward looking" musical modernism", might some of those detractors begin to suspect a modicum of creative dishonesty on his part? NOt for me to answer...

[jayne lee wilson]

For me, it's not "the bit in brackets" that sums up the discussion on this Thread - rather, I focus on JLW's "makes it new": what exactly is it in this Eighth Symphony (which I repeat, I rather enjoyed) - or DM's other work - that is "new"? The world view to which I choose to subscribe doesn't really get excited by substituting a Scherzo by a Foxtrot.

To quote Matthews himself:

If composers still want to express such emotions [as "joy, gaiety, exuberance"] they might profitably consider how Tippett's language in its development from orthodox tonality to pantonality has always been a potent vehicle for the widest range of expression.

... but such "considerations" haven't entered Matthews' own work in the Eighth Symphony, which sounds like a repudiation of that very development that he rightly admires in Tippett's work. By denying the expressive power of Music beyond the Martinu/Rubbra type of vocabularies, by closing its ears even to the Tippett Third Symphony or the Concerto for Orchestra, Matthews betrays his own (earlier) aesthetic, and instead of "joy, gaiety, exuberance" he offers a rather moribund view of the Present and a pessimistic "world view" that offers nothing of hope or optimism.

There's cutting edge on one hand - and cutting a sorry figure on the other.

I haven't enough time today - usually I'd think a bit longer before replying..... but to repeat, what strikes me as odd is asking all this of ONE symphony, of being so very demanding of an 8th (or any single) Symphony, and not hearing it in context. I just can't see how the 8th "repudiates" anything, let alone the Tippett comment, by being the way it is. IT'S A WORK OF ART, NOT A MANIFESTO. It can be what it jolly well wants. (Maybe even what the composer wants...)

Does it repudiate or "betray" the concerto-for-orchestral, abstractly sonorous extremities of the 2nd, or the fiery neoclassical brilliance of the 5th, or make the 4th's ending pointlessly open-ended? Surely not...for me and my listening experiences, all of these thrillingly "make it new". Why should I keep going back to them otherwise?
(Thrilling again to the 1st Symphony & 1st Violin Concerto this morning, I do wonder how much open-eared listening has been going on with contributors here, beyond the 8th itself...which seems far too new in a literal sense to pass dismissive, isolated judgement upon.)

How hard it is to get one's (music-loving!) point across... let's take another angle: suppose Matthews' 9th was a dark, brooding piece, imagine a "pantonal" single movement with a huge discordant central climax, feeling like a vastly extended Egdon Heath...
...suppose, in a few years time, the 8th came to have "In Memoriam Normal Worrall" attached to it...(the central adagio was inspired by his death)...

My point in the original review about painting sunsets after a long, wide-ranging journey...but that he'd be unlikely to do the same again...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But anyway, some of this has to do with the whole "symphony" business; without in any sense wishing to undermine the questions posed by Jayne, suppose that David Matthews had instead entitled his piece Three Pieces for Orchestra (albeit a title that's just SO last century!)? What then?

OK, let's try this.

Did DM write a piece of cutting edge "forward looking" musical modernism that is an instantly an universally recognisable response to his and our own time? No. Did he set out to do this but somehow failed? No. Is there such a thing as an univerally recognissable response to out time in a piece of music? Doubtful - uncertain, anyway. Had it been a more obviously engaging response to the best of Tippett, would some of its more vociferous detractors have favoured it any more than they do now? Again, doubtful. Had he instead written that piece of "cutting edge "forward looking" musical modernism", might some of those detractors begin to suspect a modicum of creative dishonesty on his part? NOt for me to answer...

There's another thing we might try:

Tippett wrote his Third Symphony in reaction to a performance of Boulez' pli selon pli - he disliked the sounds he was listening to, but recognized what Boulez was doing and this sparked off his own new ways of thinking in his own Music. That is positive reaction.

Or, to return to a path I know we both enjoy walking down, Anthony Payne's Time's Arrow. Music by somebody who has heard and responded enthusiastically to Berio and Birtwistle, and has incorporated this enthusiasm into his own (more "traditionalist") soundworld - and produced a valid and highly impressive work that could not have been written by anyone else nor at any other time.

BY contrast, the Matthews Eighth seems to be taking the whole of Music since 1960 and pretending that it hasn't happened. Boulez? No. Carter? No. Scelsi? No. Berio? No. Birtwistle? No. Tippett? No. Coltrane, the Beatles, New Complexity, Gruber, Part, Reich, Feldman, Lutyens, Lutoslawski, Lachenmann, Cardew, Payne, Saariaho .... Nono. Nothing at all in any of it for him? That I find incredibly sad - that so much diverse creativity around him and he feels alienated from all of it, unable to produce something in response to the world in which he lives that sounds like ... well, Matthews; because if you and JLW are correct in asserting that the Eighth Symphony is one of his weaker works, then he's even saying No to himself!

[jayne lee wilson]

Well, I must be suffering politicians' brain-fade if I said anywhere (never mind "asserted"!) that the 8th is "one of Matthews weaker works". I just don't look at it that way at all. See above.....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My point in the original review about painting sunsets after a long, wide-ranging journey...but that he'd be unlikely to do the same again...

Which "sunsets"? With which materials? Using which colours? Making use of technology or not? Displaying the paintings where? We differ again, Jayne - you talk of generalities (sunsets), I need specifics. Your discussion of Matthews' output is generous in its descriptive communication of the emotional impact it has had on you (with which I wouldn't dream of arguing) but less communicative of what Musical features that demonstrate its originality and refute what I hear as its (pleasant, competently-written) negatively reactionary nature: sticking "In Memoriam" on the cover of the score won't alter the notes.

Seeing that you have introduced paintings, I'll mention Hockney. By no means a "conceptual" Artist, he's a self-proclaimed "representational"Artist - but he doesn't ape conservative styles of sixty years ago. Instead, he moves with each decade to renew and refreshen his work, relishing the opportunities offered to him from each development in technology - the exuberance that Matthews seemed to require from composers leaps from Hockney's work and writings. Hockney shows that traditionalist ways of communication can still afford the imaginative Artist new means of expressive content. Matthews doesn't.

[Beef Oven!]

Jayne, who decides the context? You, me, DM, everyone, anyone?

I for one don't think that the context is listening to the other seven as well.

[ahinton]

There's another thing we might try:

Tippett wrote his Third Symphony in reaction to a performance of Boulez' pli selon pli - he disliked the sounds he was listening to, but recognized what Boulez was doing and this sparked off his own new ways of thinking in his own Music. That is positive reaction.

It is indeed, albeit an unusual one. Pli selon pli is truly astonishing. Tippett 3, with the best will in the world, borders at times on the embarrassing, but let's not attirubte any of that, however indirectly, to Boulez!

Or, to return to a path I know we both enjoy walking down, Anthony Payne's Time's Arrow. Music by somebody who has heard and responded enthusiastically to Berio and Birtwistle, and has incorporated this enthusiasm into his own (more "traditionalist") soundworld - and produced a valid and highly impressive work that could not have been written by anyone else nor at any other time.

BY contrast, the Matthews Eighth seems to be taking the whole of Music since 1960 and pretending that it hasn't happened. Boulez? No. Carter? No. Scelsi? No. Berio? No. Birtwistle? No. Tippett? No. Coltrane, the Beatles, New Complexity, Gruber, Part, Reich, Feldman, Lutyens, Lutoslawski, Lachenmann, Cardew, Payne, Saariaho .... Nono. Nothing at all in any of it for him? That I find incredibly sad - that so much diverse creativity around him and he feels alienated from all of it, unable to produce something in response to the world in which he lives that sounds like ... well, Matthews; because if you and JLW are correct in asserting that the Eighth Symphony is one of his weaker works, then he's even saying No to himself!

I just don't hear DM8 in the way that you do I don't say that it's one of his "weaker" works - just that it ain't his Sixth, which I would heartily commend to any doubters perhaps above anything else of his - certainly any others of his symphonies. - but if it was weak per se I'd not have listened to it five times as I've now done (and Gruber, after all, whom you mention, conducted it and wanted it from him!).

Ah, well...(!)...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Matthews reaches a peak in his symphonic output through nos. 4 to 6; from the chamber-musical 4th, with its Machaut-inspired polyphonic opening and a tango for a scherzo, then the sheer brilliance of the 5th's cut-and-thrust which starts out as neo-classical then goes far beyond into dreamlike evocations (cf. Schnittke Concerto Grosso No.4/ Symphony No.5); to the towering confrontational expressionism of No.6 - it's quite an impressive sequence!.

I understood this (and "afterglow") as a suggestion that No 8 wasn't up to the standard you believed he had set himself in his earlier work, ergo "weaker".

[Richard Barrett]

asking all this of ONE symphony

I don't think that's what anyone is doing. You say it's a work of art and not a manifesto, but a work of art is always to some extent a manifesto, and if the (in this case) composer ignores the fact then it becomes an involuntary manifesto, in this case for a negative, limited and wholly pessimistic view of what the possibilities of music are in the early 21st century. The only way DM is prepared or able to make his musical statement is by saying "no" to the entire evolution of musical thinking in the past almost-century. It seems to me that it's only in the present era that a composer can do that and still have listeners take his/her work seriously, that a work which shows such characteristics can pass for "contemporary music", and surely this says nothing good about present-day culture, whether one likes this music or not.