Harrison Birtwistle 80

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, it's a very original work to be sure. And, while I'm here, can I just say how greatly underrated I think Tippett's music is.

Some years ago there was a little festival at the SBC which combined Birtwistle's music with other pieces chosen by him. Most of his choices were fairly predictable, as I remember (and none the worse for that) but among the more surprising items was Stockhausen's Kontra-Punkte (in which the pianist was a certain Michael Finnissy).

Not all that surprising - Birtwistle has frequently expressed his admiration for Stockhausen's works from the 1950s. One of his Desert Island Discs was Gruppen. Another (and, IIRC, his "if only allowed one choice") was Sherry by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons "so I've got something to dance to". The image of Birtwistle bopping at sunset on a deserted tropical island is one I find quite pleasantly difficult to shake off.

(And, no; I'm not that keen on Endless Parade, either.)

[Richard Barrett]

Not all that surprising - Birtwistle has frequently expressed his admiration for Stockhausen's works from the 1950s. One of his Desert Island Discs was Gruppen.

There speaks someone who knows Birtwistle's opinions better than I do! Maybe you might shed some light on why his forays into electronic music have been so sporadic... for me this aspect is one thing that puts The Mask of Orpheus so far above his other operas (and here the crucial creative contribution by his studio collaborator Barry Anderson needs to be mentioned). Of course in many respects he's always been a relatively traditional composer, not that there's anything wrong with that in itself.

What about his influence on younger composers? Simon Holt and John Woolrich spring to mind, both of whom have produced some interesting work I think.

[jayne lee wilson]

Why do I like Endless Parade so much... I just like the sound of it, or...

...going back to the original 1991 HH/Elgar Howarth recording, I was struck by how much less engaging it sounded than last Saturday's at the Cadogan - solo and ensemble were richer, warmer, more immediate and with far greater prominence to the constantly shifting patterns, textures and movements in the strings:

.. strings....at times like a flock of birds at others a swarm of insects; sometimes the trumpet rides against them, sometimes sings along; a warmly expressive solo is suddenly contradicted with an aggressive flourish; darker reflections denied all value in a moment; I love the sense of a traditional trumpet's rhetoric instantly deflected into hesitancy or repose; sweeping into timbral exhibition and showing off; how that opening figure keeps returning like an earthly landmark in a surreal landscape, keeping us in touch with our listening selves, with being here and in the moment.

It leaves me with vivid and memorable sound-images, with the lovely paradox of an arbitrarily-structured piece finding the pleasures of recognition with repetition; with its light and vivid touch upon dark matters, and an ending which reaches no grander conclusion than that's all folks...

[Richard Barrett]

how that opening figure keeps returning like an earthly landmark in a surreal landscape

... or like someone reiterating some banal catchphrase that they seem to think is witty...

[jayne lee wilson]

... or like someone reiterating some banal catchphrase that they seem to think is witty...

"There's nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so..."

I count myself a queen of infinite space in the nutshell of Endless Parade...
(The bad dreams are part of the deal).

[Blotto]

One of Birtwistle's formative experiences as a young composer ... the first performance in the UK of Turangalila... he played Clarinet in a student performance of the Quartet. So allusions to Messiaen aren't surprising ... Tippett? Yes - the Second Piano Sonata, the Concerto for Orchestra, King Priam: possibly more of a Sixties thing than a direct influence?

But I love this Music so that the influences are absorbed into the whole for me (just as Haydn and Mozart are centre and absence of Beethoven's Music) - it just sounds like Birtwistle. There's a performance of Silbury Air on youTube somewhere: highly recommended!

Goodness, I've got alot of points/questions. One at a time.

1. I must confess that I knew of HB's interest in Messiaen from listening to interviews so that whilst I wasn't looking for the influence of Messian, when the influence showed itself, I could put a name to it.

When I went through Carmen Arcadiae again, Tippett seemed to be everywhere in it; scoring, figures/phrases (especially of the 3rd and 4th symphonies and the subsequent triple concerto) and styles. By styles, I mean the ceremonial style of the horn writing, for example, and the 'unmusical' melodies, particularly the dancing music from 1960 onwards which in Tippett so often sounds like the singing to themselves of young children (and the tone deaf!).

It has crossed my mind also that Birtwistle's "continuous exposition" could be looked at as an extension of those immense, unfolding melodies that Tippett sometimes wrote. There do seem to be alot of musical intersections between the two, and some extra-musical ones such as, for instance, in their dramas with the mutual use of myth.

Perhaps there's an additional connection in their free 'inspiration by' (and use of ) other people's music?

[Blotto]

... the Tippett connection (particularly from the Concerto for Orchestra/King Priam period) is often to be heard in his work I think. Maybe the influence even went both ways - the opening of Tippett's Third Symphony sounds to me like the work of someone who'd been impressed by Birtwistle.

I feel I hear the 3rd and 4th symphonies in Carmen Arcadiae which follows them but hear Tippett's triple concerto in Carmen which was written at the same time (78/9, I believe). Their paths really do seem to be crossing at this point. I'll have to hear more Birtwistle to judge whether there are links across their careers and be very interested to read any pointers or, for that matter, any contradictions.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Maybe you might shed some light on why his forays into electronic music have been so sporadic... for me this aspect is one thing that puts The Mask of Orpheus so far above his other operas (and here the crucial creative contribution by his studio collaborator Barry Anderson needs to be mentioned).

I don't know - I suspect it's a lack of confidence and experience in the medium - his few electronic scores were created in collaboration with Peter Zinovieff as well as Barry Anderson's superb realizations of the ideas HB had. HB also withdrew most of the works that include electronics - Medusa from 1969, Signals from 1970, and he doesn't seem too keen to promote Four Interludes for a Tragedy. Apart from Orpheus, only the recorded works (Chronometer and the film score for The Offence) remain in the public domain, so to speak.

The nearest I've heard him speak publicly about anything approaching these matters was at a study day with the Arditti Quartet when the first UK performance of Pulse Shadows was being prepared. Speaking of why he disliked amplifying instruments he said "It ennervates the sound."

What about his influence on younger composers? Simon Holt and John Woolrich spring to mind, both of whom have produced some interesting work I think.

He was instrumental (ho-ho) in getting Holt and other younger colleagues publishing deals with Universal Edition, and that company's decision to drop those contracts was partly behind his own decision to move to Boosey & Hawkes. (I suspect that Universal's delays in producing his scores - ten years after it had first been performed, Earth Dances was not readily available to the general public - might also have been a factor. B&H produced the engraved Cry of Anubis in time for the world premiere.) I used to hear many works by young composers in the 1990s that sounded like superficial Birtwistle, but fewer of these now.

And, yes; The Mask of Orpheus is a very special piece. If I could only take one work by Birtwistle to a desert island with me ...



... I'd be really pissed off.

[Blotto]

So allusions to Messiaen aren't surprising; I've always preferred Birtwistle's Music to Messiaen's (dry white wine in preferrence to very sweet sherry) - and I hear Varese (in particular the Octet) and Xenakis more in these works from the '60s. Tippett? Yes - the Second Piano Sonata, the Concerto for Orchestra, King Priam: possibly more of a Sixties thing than a direct influence? Not sure about Britten, though - except that, now you mention it, the opening of the 'cello Symphony and that of Anubis ... hmm ...

But I love this Music so that the influences are absorbed into the whole for me (just as Haydn and Mozart are centre and absence of Beethoven's Music) - it just sounds like Birtwistle. There's a performance of Silbury Air on youTube somewhere: highly recommended!

More points / queries.

2. Thanks for the references to other music. Varese's Octandre speaks very much like a close ancestor to HB.

Performance of new music. How often do performers get new music right? (Also, how often do composers re-write new music in the wake of performance?) How often do recordings of new music get the balance right and so correctly represent the piece? I ask this after hearing with tremendous interest and some pleasure two recordings of Silbury Hill on Spotify yesterday.

I listened a few days ago to the London Sinfonietta/Elgar Howarth recording (I wonder if it was done live?). It didn't speak to me, at all. I just couldn't catch it. Yesterday, I noticed another performance by the Sydney Alpha Ensemble and when I played it, I wasn't sure I was listening to the same piece. I'm still not sure and wonder if it might have been re-written between the time of the two recordings because they're so radically different in sound to my ears.

The Sinfonietta seems to be missing some instrumentation which is so essential to the propulsive rhythm, the 'deep' harmony and the simple variety in the sound. The Sydney recording is Concorde to NMC's bi-plane.

I'm fully prepared for being told that the Sydney version is actually a travesty or a cock-up. It's vigorous in an almost toe-tappingly explicit fashion - and sometimes sets out in a way that's reminiscent of Steve Reich to my ears (it doesn't progress like Reich but initiates similarly). It seems, if not actually tuneful, still the tones and intervals seem to have equal weight with the force and beat.

Which brings me back to performances and recordings of new music and their quality. How effectively is new music performed?

Using Spotify, I have gone back to find Britten's recording of the sea interludes with the Covent Garden orchestra. At about 40 seconds, in the big swell for Sunday Morning, there is a cock-up; I don't know what happens - the strings and woodwind come out of synch and the things crumbles for a few moments; a trumpet certainly pegs out at 2' 09". In a recording of Britten by Britten! I remember being amazed when I first heard it.

Now Britten's music is rhythmically so clear that an unsophisticated listener - a listener like myself without any ear for the modern delicacy of Boulez, Xenakis or Stockhausen - can hear it and appreciate that if the music seems to fail for a moment, what I'm hearing may not be intended or ineptness by the composer. Well, if that can happen in Britten conducted by Britten, what are the chances for getting other new music right?

The Colin Davis recording of Tippett's triple concerto - in the second interlude - has a different rhythm to any other performance I've heard. The Correlli fantasia - about a year ago, I heard a live recording which was the only one I've ever heard where the soloists manage to slot their hundreds of notes into the right spaces. The subtle dis-integration of the soloists from every performance and recording I'd heard was missing and consequently the slight smearing of the faster moments of the variations was missing, too. After hearing the piece dozens of times over a quarter of a century, I finally relax and know that what seemed like small rhythmic weaknesses I persistently heard weren't shortcomings of the score.

If this can happen commonly with music in which it is comparatively easy for the listener to notice rhythmic errors, it's going to happen elsewhere and happen in music with fewer 'hooks' and where the shortcomings of performance or recording may more easily but mistakenly be attributed to the composer. Am I mishearing the pieces or does it happen in these recordings of Silbury Air?

[Serial_Apologist]

If this can happen commonly with music in which it is comparatively easy for the listener to notice rhythmic errors, it's going to happen elsewhere and happen in music with fewer 'hooks' where the shortcomings of performance or recording may more easily but mistakenly be attributed to the composer. Am I mishearing the pieces or does it happen in these recordings of Silbury Air?

I would have to listen to the two respective recordings to which you refer side-by-side and bar-by-bar, if necessary with a score to hand, but my general impression from re-performances I've heard of contemporary works from the era of high modernism is that back then, so often such a high premium was placed on accuracy as to sacrifice any sense of continuity or expressivity. It was a charge against many performances of Webern in the 1950s that the music was often left sounding atomised, contrary to the composer's intention, and that this was creating a false sense of a model suitable for composers extending serialist pointillism. No doubt the relatively liberal formal rigours of any Britten piece would have been seen in relatively relieved terms back then as a welcome opportunity for creative interpretation, euphemism for innaccuracy, objectively speaking; whereas what would have been seen as slipshod performance if applied in performing, say, Birtwistle's "Silbury Air", might today pass muster or at any rate go by the board? It's a hard one to judge, because so much of the effectiveness of those rigourously written complex pieces apparently depended on accurate readings, which was why some composers turned instead to electronic tape composition to accurately transmit their meaning. How much this applies to Birtwistle (not a serialist) is hard to say, and to judge by the discussion on this thread the jury is out on HB's view of electronics, so I'm probably talking out of my ignorance.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The three works on the ETCETERA CD with the London Sinfonietta conducted by Elgar Haworth (re-issued, I believe on NMC?) were all (afaik) studio recordings. Perhaps it may have been better if they'd set down Live performences they might have been given a bit more welly - as it is, I always get the impression that they're making sure that the score is carefully realized, perhaps in the fear that, if this is going to be the only recording of the works, there'd better not be anything interpretively controversial about them. They are perfectly functional, creditable, serviceable performances, but ... well, I find them a bit "safe"; "cautious", even. Other performances (including a couple conducted by Haworth that were broadcast in the late '80s/early '90s) and recordings have revealed more of the razor tightrope that these works tread defiantly: the wellies not protecting the bleeding feet. (I'll stop this metaphor now.) I think it's a sign of the way these works offer more to subsequent generations of performers (the Haworth CD is a quarter of a century old!) who then build on the experience of their predecessors' experiences to speak the language more fluently, and reveal more of what is being done - a sign of the "greatness" - no, sod that: the Greatness, no inverted commas needed - of this Music.

[Blotto]

I'd be very interested to know what you gents (and others) make of the Sydney performance. It may be that it isn't a match for the Sinfonietta but it's potent to my ears in the way the other is not.

I take your points about the possible imperatives of new music recordings - getting it 'right'. I was simply struck by the recognition that new music isn't always played well or not roundly well. You point out a plausible concentration on accuracy that may lack expression, for example. Yet new pieces perhaps depend on recordings for much of the audience to ever even hear it, let alone absorb it or become familiar. These 'one-shot' performances, if they're not right, doom the music and doom the audience to the conviction that it has nothing for them.

I agree with ferney that the Howarth seems spiritless and note my own unlooked-for reaction to the other recording. Even where a listener is disposed to try the music, how many performances are potent enough to persuade?

[Blotto]

Which simply means: you have got to listen and re-listen (which applies to most "serious" ["classical", jazz] music, btw)

If the music is quite rarely performed, does this necessarily mean that it's music which is dependent on recording to be appreciated?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If the music is quite rarely performed, does this necessarily mean that it's music which is dependent on recording to be appreciated?

Good question - my own relistenings to Birtwistle were largely via cassette recordings of R3 concerts of/including his Music (New Music of this type was much more regularly featured in the main evening schedules pre-Birt/Kenyon). CDs came out less requently, but I bought them assiduously when they did. Nowadays, I use youTube to access New Music: which is in some ways an improvement, as it's not unusual for there to be alternative performances of a work available all at the type in a search engine.

More proficient performers than I am might also try playing some of the stuff themselves, of course (I envy them). But, in the main, Music that is outside the regular repertoire (it doesn't have to be New Music - everything I've said applies equally to Early Music, late 19th Century Spanish String Quintets, or indigenous Music from the Philippines) and in an unfamiliar idiom is dependent on such recordings to be understood/appreciated ... or just simply "heard"!

[Blotto]

Nowadays, I use youTube to access New Music: which is in some ways an improvement, as it's not unusual for there to be alternative performances of a work available all at the type in a search engine.

... in the main, Music that is outside the regular repertoire ... and in an unfamiliar idiom is dependent on such recordings to be understood/appreciated ... or just simply "heard"!

Youtube and Spotify are a great boon but I do have a twinge when I stream a piece for 70 performers for which I pay nothing or a fraction of a penny. However ...

The willing, if baffling exposure to Birtwistle is paying off a little. I listened last week and again last night to a live performance of the Clarinet Quintet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlxSrMy_e-Y A week ago, it was a 20 minute whiffle; today, I can grasp some of the repeated and varied fragments.

The individual musical material does seem rather drably shapeless and listless. It seems quite nihilistic and puts me in mind particularly of the painter Bram van Velde (who I adore). Like the work of van Velde, there seems to be a great contradiction in the quintet; the lines are deliberate but they also seem raggedly loose and meaningless and apparently aspire to be so. In rhythm, melody and harmony (though in harmony the least), the components are unremarkable, aren't they? They patter along fairly desultorily and then stop. I don't dislike it but, at this stage, I struggle to see what about it there is that HB would positively want to write or want us to hear.

Is there another perception of this music? Do other listeners find any meaning in a piece like the HB quintet?