You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > The Symphony: A Moral Vision Revealed In Music
 
Perhaps the crucial and central point in Beethoven’s legacy, flagged up in Lewis Lockwood’s exploratory new book, is his moral vision — a prophetic lesson which was to grab the imagination of composers over a century later. These more modern works, like their Beethovenian models, give the impression of having to be written — a compulsion even beyond the will of their creators. I am reminded of this every time I conduct Vaughan Williams’s Fourth Symphony, for example. He saw this piece as pure music, unlike his first three. It is also more severe and angular in its language, not immediately inviting like some of his other music. It is not conventionally beautiful and seems troubled. Written in 1935, two years before Shostakovich’s Fifth, it seems to detect the coming storm in Europe. Later the composer said of it: “I’m not at all sure if I like it myself now. All I know is that it’s what I wanted to do at the time.”

Vaughan Williams went on to write a further five symphonies. I have also reached my number four. My first three symphonies employed programmatic elements, whether exploring poetic imagery or literary references, but my fourth, premièred by the BBC Scottish on August 3 under the work’s dedicatee Donald Runnicles, is essentially abstract. I was interested in the interplay of different types of material, following upon a fascination with music as ritual that has stretched from Monteverdi through to Boulez and Birtwistle. There are four distinct archetypes in the symphony which can be viewed as rituals of movement, exhortation, petition and joy. These four ideas are juxtaposed in quick succession from the outset, over the first five minutes or so. As the work progresses these are sometimes individually developed in an organic way; at times they comingle, and at others they are opposed and argumentative in a dialectic manner.

The work as a whole is also a homage to Robert Carver, the most important Scottish composer of the high Renaissance, whose intricate multi-part choral music I’ve loved since performing it as a student. There are allusions to his ten-voice Mass Dum Sacrum Mysterium embedded into the work, and at a number of points it emerges across the centuries in a more discernible form. The polyphony is muted and muffled, literally in the distance, as it is played delicately by the back desks of the violas, cellos and double basses.

The symphonic tradition, and Beethoven’s monumental impact on it, is an imposing legacy which looms like a giant ghost over the shoulder of any living composer foolhardy enough to consider adding to it. Some turn away in terror and even disdain, preferring to carve out a rejectionary stance. It might be the safer option. Others can’t help themselves. Perhaps not fully knowing what writing a symphony “means” any more, some of us are drawn towards it like moths flapping around a candle flame. We might get burned. I feel a fifth coming on. Dah-dah-dah-dum.


View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Gerald Brennan
October 14th, 2015
5:10 PM
Is the name the thing? Is the above-cited "symphony" scored for only five players and an actor to be compared with, say, many works for full orchestra by Iannis Xenakis -- none of them called "symphony?" To most of us, pro and casual listener alike, symphony implies orchestra. Xenakis, for example, made good use of the symphony orchestra in a hugely avant-garde way, his works are (like them or not) still an enormous challenge to the finest ear and perception, but his works are rarely performed because they need monstrous rehearsal time - not cost-effective. (This is one reason why minimalism had such a long run. An orchestra can sight-read most of it.) I have observed that as the remaining orchestras struggle to stay afloat they are much constrained in what they undertake, and many of the ones that seem to be doing well are functioning more as museums (or morgues) of music instead of the exciting arenas of inspiration and creativity that they need to be to ensure their relevance. With such belt-tightening and a minimum of risk-taking in an effort to get more asses in the seats, the rare contemporary pieces selected for performance are too often unworthy (read: boring) works, featuring composers who have the power, though the academy or other connections, to oblige their appearance. Few would argue that the public has not taken kindly to contemporary orchestral music of the last few decades. This is a large part of the reason. It is not a meritocracy out there, less so now I believe than at any time in the orchestra's history.

Mark Shulgasser
September 26th, 2015
11:09 PM
You write: "I have always been heartened by Beethoven’s rejection of a tyrant and his recognition of the true nature of revolutionary fervour as destructive, divisive and corrupt." I wonder if you can corroborate this view. I would have thought that Beethoven considered Napoleon a betrayal of 'the true nature of revolutionary fervour', not the revelation of it.

Alistair Hinton
September 26th, 2015
5:09 PM
An interesting article which I hope you will find another place to expand as it deserves. The fact that the symphony remains alive today has never been a matter of great surprise to me. The notion that "all the best ones have been written already" is the nonsense that it has to be, not least because it could as easily have been alleged just after Haydn's, or Mozart's, or Beethoven's had all been written and would have carried just as little weight and credibility at the time. You mention RVW4, which was written at the same time as Shostakovich 4 (arguably his greatest symphony of all). Perhaps one of the most remarkable examples of symphonic reinvention is Carter, whose neo-classical symphony from the early 1940s was followed more than half a century later by Symphonia: sum fluxæ pretium spei, an ambitious work from the full flowering of his maturity. In Britain, Hoddinott was another composer of ten symphonies; I would be surprised if David Matthews, with eight already behind him, doesn't reach or exceed that tally. Yes, symphonies can be many things today (as your Ustvolskaya example shows); indeed, perhaps one reason why I struggled to come to terms with Shostakovich 14, for all my admiration for him, is that it took me time to accept that the work is really more song-cycle than symphony in the conventional sense. In many (though by no means all) cases, composers of symphonies tend to espouse tonality and explore tonal relationships to some degree and that's probably why some other composers who don't write symphonies tend to regard their work as "conservative", but that, to me, smacks of mere convenient over-simplified pigeon-holing; what some of the more adventurous composers from the early 1900s onwards have done, however, is expand expressive capabilities rather than supplanting particuilar means of expression; acceptance of that goes some way to explain why symphonic composition is as alive now as ever it was. That said, so-called "conservative" composers are by no means all drawn to the symphony; one has only to consider the work of our sadly recently departed compatriot Ronald Stevenson to observe a prime example of that! Anyway, thank you for the article and good luck with your own hopefully "Dah-dah-dah-dum"-free fifth!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.