Maybe I should have started this last month, as it may be more relevant to Remembrance Day than Christmas, but I've long wanted to know what people think of this hymn, which I gather has aroused strong feelings, both for and against , at times.
I've always felt the adaptation of Holst's tune was a mistake. The original version in Jupiter rises an octave each time it's played (two-and-a-half times) , something of a masterstroke, I think. To make it singable by a congregation the wonderful upward leap of a fifth halfway through is turned into a falling fourth, which I always think gloomy and depressing, reminding me of Princess Diana's doleful face as she sang it at her wedding , for all that she said it was a favourite since schooldays . An of course it's given the tune a spurious association with religion, patriotism and Remembrance, far from the idea of 'jollity' where it began.
I've been trying to discover how the adaptation came about. It seems Holst's publisher Curwen asked him to set the poem, written before the Great War but popular by 1918. Imogen Holst has been quoted as saying that he was tired and overworked and relieved to discover that the tune fitted the words, rather than writing a new one. But I've always suspected Uncle Ralph had a hand in it.
In 1920, the year the Planets had their public premiere, Vaughan Williams published an essay on Holst's music in which he quotes the tune and says it's a pity it's hidden away in an orchestral work rather than made the centre of a public gathering or celebration. This was much in line with the view of music he expressed to a friend shortly before , deploring concerts and wishing music was used for public occasions. At other times he expressed views suggesting he thought it better for people to make music themselves rather than pay to sit passively and hear it played to them.
The song, originally published by Curwen as a separate unison song , was harmonised by Holst and incorporated in the influential hymn book Songs of Praise , which Vaughan Willams edited.
I was interested to see that the words, so revered by many , have been criticised as 'heretical' and even 'obscene' for their patriotic views, linking religion to patriotism. But maybe there's a bit of anachronism here.The Poet, who I think died in 1918, had been Ambassador in Washington and played a part in getting the USA to join in the Great War. So maybe he was simply a man of his time. In an age when the question is often asked 'what does it mean to be British?' (usually, I think. a covert plea for 'inclusivity') it may be difficult to look back objectively to the deas expressed in the words.
I've always felt the adaptation of Holst's tune was a mistake. The original version in Jupiter rises an octave each time it's played (two-and-a-half times) , something of a masterstroke, I think. To make it singable by a congregation the wonderful upward leap of a fifth halfway through is turned into a falling fourth, which I always think gloomy and depressing, reminding me of Princess Diana's doleful face as she sang it at her wedding , for all that she said it was a favourite since schooldays . An of course it's given the tune a spurious association with religion, patriotism and Remembrance, far from the idea of 'jollity' where it began.
I've been trying to discover how the adaptation came about. It seems Holst's publisher Curwen asked him to set the poem, written before the Great War but popular by 1918. Imogen Holst has been quoted as saying that he was tired and overworked and relieved to discover that the tune fitted the words, rather than writing a new one. But I've always suspected Uncle Ralph had a hand in it.
In 1920, the year the Planets had their public premiere, Vaughan Williams published an essay on Holst's music in which he quotes the tune and says it's a pity it's hidden away in an orchestral work rather than made the centre of a public gathering or celebration. This was much in line with the view of music he expressed to a friend shortly before , deploring concerts and wishing music was used for public occasions. At other times he expressed views suggesting he thought it better for people to make music themselves rather than pay to sit passively and hear it played to them.
The song, originally published by Curwen as a separate unison song , was harmonised by Holst and incorporated in the influential hymn book Songs of Praise , which Vaughan Willams edited.
I was interested to see that the words, so revered by many , have been criticised as 'heretical' and even 'obscene' for their patriotic views, linking religion to patriotism. But maybe there's a bit of anachronism here.The Poet, who I think died in 1918, had been Ambassador in Washington and played a part in getting the USA to join in the Great War. So maybe he was simply a man of his time. In an age when the question is often asked 'what does it mean to be British?' (usually, I think. a covert plea for 'inclusivity') it may be difficult to look back objectively to the deas expressed in the words.
Comment