Mimi Ezust ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>I just got the symphonies of Sir Charles Hubert H. Parry on Chandos,
>performed by the London Philharmonic, Matthias Bamert, conducting.
>
>If you heard that Brahms had destroyed many of his own symphonies and you
>were sad about it, then Parry and Stanford are for you.

He did? String quartets, yes, symphonies I didn't think.

>The musical language sounds to me very much in the same tradition.  Parry
>has hints of Mendelssohn and Schumann, too.  This is wonderful rich
>romantic music.  I have taken to it instantly.

What else is in the box? There is an Elegy for Brahms and other
wonderful shorter pieces too.

>I haven't yet read the notes that come with this three cd set, but I can
>guess that Parry was a strong influence on British Music.

Probably more as a teacher and writer:  he wrote for the first edition of
Grove and succeeded Grove, in 1894, as director of the Royal College of
Music (whose staff he'd been a member of since it opened in 1883) and
reminaed in the post until his death in 1918.  He was also Professor of
Music at Oxford (succeeding Stainer) from 1900-08.

He is probably best know today for his setting of William Blake's visionary
poem Jerusalem (although the orchestration we all know is by Elgar) and for
his spectacular anthem I Was Glad, written for the coronation of Edward VII
in 1902 but sung at every coronation since.

 From this distance we can enjoy Parry and Stanford and their ilk for what
they were:  excellent technicians and occasionally inspired.  In Britain at
the time, though, the musical scene was viewed as over-influenced by the
Germans and insufficiently National.  It is easy to understand why Elgar
made the tremendous impact he did.

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]