Michael Tippett (1905 - 98)

[ardcarp]

The Frank Bridge Variations, where Britten uses every string playing technique there is - arco, pizz, sul pont, harmonics, con sord, col legno; the sort of technique he may have discovered in his studies of the work of the Second Viennese School.

Britten's string writing...absolutely incredible. I was listening to the opening of A Midsummer Night's Dream today. The way he evokes other-worldliness with those measured string glissandi is extraordinary and highly original. The whole opera in fact is wonderfully wrought; the way he handles the rustics' scenes (Owen Brannigan being the best Bottom ever) and his choice of a counter-tenor as Oberon (conceived for Deller but perfect for Bowman) is nothing short of genius.

Apropos of nothing, a lovely little snippet of Tippett here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFdLub6H-o

[edashtav]

[…]
But, as you say, it was an "observation" rather than a "criticism". All I can add is that this is frequently how I respond to Tippett's vocal writing - the instrumental writing always strikes me as far more interesting.

And.. his instrumental writimg is far more grateful to play than the vocal lines are to sing.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And.. his instrumental writimg is far more grateful to play than the vocal lines are to sing.

Oh, I wouldn't bet your life savings on that idea, ed - none of Tippett's vocal works ever crashed in performance as spectacularly as the premiere of the Second Symphony; and many a one who's tried playing the fourth or fifth string quartet, or any of the Piano Sonatas from the second onwards, or tried counting in the Concerto for Orchestra or Third Symphony would gladly question what you mean by "far more grateful"!

[BBMmk2]

Oh, I wouldn't bet your life savings on that idea, ed - none of Tippett's vocal works ever crashed in performance as spectacularly as the premiere of the Second Symphony; and many a one who's tried playing the fourth or fifth string quartet, or any of the Piano Sonatas from the second onwards, or tried counting in the Concerto for Orchestra or Third Symphony would gladly question what you mean by "far more grateful"!

One forgets the difficulties with these wonderful works.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

One forgets the difficulties with these wonderful works.

Indeed, I think precisely because they have become familiar to listeners, the Music sounds so perfectly suited to the instruments that it seems "natural", that the performers' struggles are left in the rehearsal/practice rooms (it's the same with the late Beethoven Piano Sonatas and String Quartets - I wonder if it must be a temptation to allow a few mistakes in performance, just to remind audiences that this Music needs a lot of hard work?!). But, as the programmes reminded us, Musicians of the calibre of Julius Katchen would reject the pieces, declaring them to be "unplayable", and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra - that's The Chicago Symphony Orchestra - had enormous difficulties getting fingers, eyes and breath to come to terms with the Fourth Symphony in rehearsals for the first performance. (Some of which can be heard in the recording of the World Premiere of the work.)

I think - and I'm very happy to be shot down with copious evidence to the contrary on this point - that with singers, whose muscles and lungs directly create the sound (with no intermediary instrument to "help"), it's much clearer, more immediately obvious to listeners - and audiences watching them perform in concert - just how much strain is being demanded of the performer.

[BBMmk2]

Wholeheartedly agree with you Ferney.

[edashtav]

Wholeheartedly agree with you Ferney.

I'm becoming a believer,too... I'm afraid that I should have though longer and harder.

[Maclintick]

Musicians of the calibre of Julius Katchen would reject the pieces, declaring them to be "unplayable", and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra - that's The Chicago Symphony Orchestra - had enormous difficulties getting fingers, eyes and breath to come to terms with the Fourth Symphony in rehearsals for the first performance. (Some of which can be heard in the recording of the World Premiere of the work.)

I think - and I'm very happy to be shot down with copious evidence to the contrary on this point - that with singers, whose muscles and lungs directly create the sound (with no intermediary instrument to "help"), it's much clearer, more immediately obvious to listeners - and audiences watching them perform in concert - just how much strain is being demanded of the performer.

Good points. Listening to Byzantium in my COTW Tippettathon yesterday, with a copy of the Yeats poem in view, it struck me that I was missing the visual dimension, the visceral impact of actually seeing as well as hearing the phenomenal Faye Robinson deliver in concert, just as I would more fully register the fiendish, scurrying, string writing in Part One of MT's Third, if the players were sweating away in front of me. A trite observation on the inadequacy of a recording, I know, but I felt as I would looking at a photo of a Rembrandt self-portrait rather than standing in front of the genuine article.

On FHG's point of the playability or otherwise of MT's oeuvre, I'd stick my head out and say that sixty years on, any professional British orchestra, given a competent conductor and adequate rehearsal time would make a pretty good fist of The Second Symphony, and that moreover, the same would apply to the NYO or another similarly talented group of youngsters -- something unthinkable in 1957.

The Third ? LSO/Davis & Bournemouth/Hickox are valiant but imperfect in Part One. I await BBCSSO/Brabbins with bated breath...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Good points. Listening to Byzantium in my COTW Tippettathon yesterday, with a copy of the Yeats poem in view, it struck me that I was missing the visual dimension, the visceral impact of actually seeing as well as hearing the phenomenal Faye Robinson deliver in concert, just as I would more fully register the fiendish, scurrying, string writing in Part One of MT's Third, if the players were sweating away in front of me. A trite observation on the inadequacy of a recording, I know, but I felt as I would looking at a photo of a Rembrandt self-portrait rather than standing in front of the genuine article.

Absolutely - this was something Richard Barrett brought up in Barb's "Not for casual listening" Thread - whether or not it is a "trite" observation or not, it is something that I feel gets to something very profound about the nature of the Music/Listener relationship. (So profound that I haven't been able to gather my scattered ideas on the subject and reply to that Thread.)

On FHG's point of the playability or otherwise of MT's oeuvre, I'd stick my head out and say that sixty years on, any professional British orchestra, given a competent conductor and adequate rehearsal time would make a pretty good fist of The Second Symphony, and that moreover, the same would apply to the NYO or another similarly talented group of youngsters -- something unthinkable in 1957.

Yes - I should have made clear that Katchen's "unplayable" comment was pretty quickly disproved by Louis Kentner - and blown completely out of the water by Ogdon, Frith, Tirimo, Shelley, Osbourne, and all the performers who have taken the work into their repertory. (For some reason, I think it would marvellously match the skills of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, and would love to hear him play the Concerto.) I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the first Live performance of the Second Symphony was given - magnificently - by the Leicester Schools Symphony Orchestra (at a concert at York University in c 1981). "Unplayable" seems to be a standard, knee-jerk response from many performers to a lot of Music in an idiom unfamiliar to them - I remember Birtwistle's comment after a student performance of his Refrains and Choruses, "everybdy used to tell me that it couldn't be played, and certainly not without a conductor." Once one generation of performers manages to get to grips with such a work, it often seems that subsequent generations take to the idiom much more readily - I think it's not a coincidence that the same is true of audiences.

[Maclintick]

Yes - I should have made clear that Katchen's "unplayable" comment was pretty quickly disproved by Louis Kentner - and blown completely out of the water by Ogdon, Frith, Tirimo, Shelley, Osbourne, and all the performers who have taken the work into their repertory. (For some reason, I think it would marvellously match the skills of Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, and would love to hear him play the Concerto.)

That would be quite something. I hadn't heard the Frith/BBCSSO/Hurst recording until this week, but thought they conjured up the dreamy, hypnotic atmosphere of the first movement beautifully (I feel a download coming on -- £5.42 in Prestoclassical). Steven Osborne's double-CD set of the sonatas plus concerto, with the BBCSSO & Martyn Brabbins remains my go-to version. Must now investigate Shelley/BSO/Hickox...

[Sir Velo]

any amount of facile and conventional notespinning by the Brittens of this world (especially of this country) and their musical descendants comes nowhere near

Does one detect a certain amount of personal animus here I wonder?

It's hard for me to see works such as Our Hunting extremely pFathers; the Bridge Variations; Sinfonia da Requiem; Billy Budd; Storm and the passacaglia from Grimes; the third string quartet; Serenade etc as being facile or conventional. Rather, they are inspired creations of an original musical mind. Some of his later work may not be as rewarding as the pre and immediately post war work, but at his best he is an extremely gifted composer.

[visualnickmos]

Does one detect a certain amount of personal animus here I wonder?

It's hard for me to see works such as Our Hunting extremely pFathers; the Bridge Variations; Sinfonia da Requiem; Billy Budd; Storm and the passacaglia from Grimes; the third string quartet; Serenade etc as being facile or conventional. Rather, they are inspired creations of an original musical mind. Some of his later work may not be as rewarding as the pre and immediately post war work, but at his best he is an extremely gifted composer.

Absolutely agree. I, too feel that BB's early works are pure genius and brimming with originality, - take the violin concerto - need I say more?

That's not to say I prefer one over the other. I've never liked the idea of comparing composers as if it's a dog show, or something. Bartok "Competitions are for horses, NOT artists"

[Richard Barrett]

at his best he is an extremely gifted composer

That is, as always, a matter of opinion. One person's "brimming with originality" is another person's "facile and conventional". It all depends on where the person in question stands. Being "extremely gifted" doesn't really guarantee anything. Anyway I would much prefer to talk about what I find valuable in Tippett's music than about what I find unattractive in Britten's. I'm not really interested in comparing them; Britten's work impinges on my consciousness very rarely in the normal run of things.

[ardcarp]

Does one detect a certain amount of personal animus here I wonder?

It's hard for me to see works such as Our Hunting extremely pFathers; the Bridge Variations; Sinfonia da Requiem; Billy Budd; Storm and the passacaglia from Grimes; the third string quartet; Serenade etc as being facile or conventional. Rather, they are inspired creations of an original musical mind. Some of his later work may not be as rewarding as the pre and immediately post war work, but at his best he is an extremely gifted composer.

I agree wholeheartedly, and would add the choral works...Hymn to St Cecilia, Rejoice in the Lamb, A Boy was Born (extraordinary vocal dexterity needed!), Te Deum in C, Missa Brevis, A Ceremony of Carols. Then there's the extraordinary Les Illuminations and Serenade for Tenor Horn and String. These are anything but facile. I can agree that Britten occasionally veered to the naive. Personally I quail every time I hear The Salley Gardens, and can only think of Dudley Moore doing Little Miss Muffet.

Tippett (for whom I've a great deal of time) did seem to love complexity. Take a choral piece such as Plebs Angelica for double choir. Clearly inspired by the Renaissance imitative style, it is worked in minute detail as anyone who has sung it will know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeCUHzmB0YA

Risking the sort of foolish over-simplification of an undergraduate essay, would it be fair to say that Tippett's work just became more and more 'difficult' as time went on?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I suppose that needs clarification about "difficult for whom", ardy? I think that many of his works are more "demanding" of the listeners' attention than others - and, for some, that isn't what they want from a work of Art. But there's no doubt that these works reward the effort required of them - so that, for me at any rate, they are "richer" and "more generous" for their "complexity" than many a more "accessible" composer. And, again for me, their "difficulties" fade with familiarity, whilst the demands/rewards remain ever fresh.

Whether they became "more and more 'difficult' as time went on" for performers, I can't comment on - other than to note that it was a repertoire that attracted more and more performers who weren't put off by any difficulties it might hold for them.