
DUNHILL: Symphony in A minor, op. 48. ARNELL: Lord
Byron: A Symphonic Portrait.
Royal Scottish National Orchestra/Martin Yates.
Dutton Epoch CDLX 7195 (F) (DDD) TT: 78:10
BUY
NOW FROM ARKIVMUSIC
A gentleman and a scoundrel. Perhaps only singers and lovers of British song
today remember Thomas Dunhill, a Stanford pupil. Janet Baker practically made
a party piece out of his beautiful "The Cloths of Heaven," from the
cycle The Wind among the Reeds. Occasionally, some of his light music
gets played -- the Guildford Suite and the Chiddingfold Suite,
for example. This is my first encounter with something more substantial.
Dunhill began the symphony in 1913 and completed it three years later. What
began as an ode to his first wife (he dedicated the symphony to her) became
touched by the Great War. Thus, despite its skill and consistent idiom, it
comes across as a spiritually schizophrenic piece. Dunhill's language is conservative,
even for its time (he's a contemporary of Vaughan Williams, Ireland, and Holst),
taking from Parry and Stanford. Listening to this symphony, you might doubt
that even Elgar had lived. It is decidedly minor work in its outlook, the accomplishment
of a gentleman. We expect some sort of ambition from a symphony, or at least
Beethoven has so trained us. The Twentieth Century changed our expectations,
because the music changed, but, even so, the older ideas of what a symphony
should do never really died out. Dunhill never subscribed to the newer ideals
in the first place. This symphony remains absolutely untouched by Modernism
or even, as with Elgar's mature works, Modern angst.
I find the symphony at a slightly lower level than a Parry or Stanford symphony,
although it's a respectable example of its kind. Still, most of the ideas are
essentially those of a light-music kind, a bit Olde-Englishe-y and twee (like
the Edward German Merrie England), and the symphonic elaboration seems
to me to inflate these ideas past the bursting point. The slow movement stands
as a notable exception to this. For me, it looks ahead to the first two symphonies
of Bax. Dunhill apparently wrote it during the Battle of the Marne, in which
at least one of his friends got killed. Still, it's not really war music, as
one might reasonably argue for Elgar's cello concerto. One senses a conventional
reserve as well as, I must say, a lack of vision. We miss, for lack of a better
word, empathy or understanding of the scale of the slaughter, as we get even
in other non-combatant composers of the time. In any case, should we judge
it at all in the context of its time? Probably not. On its own, it's a very
fine piece of work, though not a powerful one.
The Arnell, less ambitious and much shorter, rises to a far higher level of
interest. Indeed, this Dutton series of British music with, I assume, Lewis
Foreman as its guiding spirit, has stood out for its daring and its determination
to rescue composers from neglect. If nothing else, it has given us a better
picture of Arnell and focused attention on his considerable achievement as
a symphonist. In the Fifties, after a brilliant start, Arnell was eclipsed,
as so many other English composers were, not by the Atonal Apocalypse, but
by Britten and Tippett. Furthermore, his main champion, Beecham, died without
any other star conductor taking him up.
Lord Byron lies somewhere between tone poem and suite. It appeared
during the composer's most fecund period, the Fifties. Arnell's musical
language seems to come from both John Ireland and William Walton. He has
a highly Romantic and passionate sensibility. He has considerable wit and,
in his large works, a huge musical embrace, sometimes to the detriment
of structure, but his invention is so prodigious and of such high quality,
one tends to forgive a momentary loss of focus. Of course, Lord Byron stakes
no claim to symphonic lucidity, although it shows a surprising amount of
dramatic coherence and incisive psychology. Indeed, it made me wonder about
Arnell's operas. The "portrait" consists of eight movements: "Prelude," "Newstead," "Augusta," "Success
and Disgrace," "Voyage," "Serenade," "Battles," and "Epilogue." We
go from one movement to the next sans break. Very little of it
concerns the outward career of the poet, so spectacular to his contemporaries.
Here, Byron's inner life fascinates Arnell. From the very first movement,
Arnell takes us into Byron's inner world, limning especially that trace
of sadness even in the poet's high spirits. "Newstead," a sketch
of Bryon's riotous bouts, basically peters out. We sense that Byron may
be a rake, but an unhappy one. "Augusta," the sister seen through
Byron's eyes, is gentle, elegant, and more than a little sentimental. Arnell
leaves the question of their incest essentially unasked. "Success
and Disgrace" recounts Byron's fabulous rise and fall in England,
and it's one of the two shortest movements in the work. Again, Arnell concerns
himself less with externals. The war in Greece ("Battles") gets
similar short shrift, although it's more historically justified. Byron
died, after all, before he actually got to fight. The "Epilogue" begins
in the dumps and rises quickly to a kind of glory. A poet's glory counts
for something.
Martin Yates and his Royal Scots do well by the Dunhill and make you want to
hear more Arnell. I hope Foreman and Dutton get to continue.
S.G.S. (March 2008)