Robert Simpson

* Symphony No. 9 (1987)
* Simpson talks about his symphony and provides musical examples

Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra/Vernon Handley
Total Time: 66:21
Hyperion CDA66299

Summary for the Busy Executive: Amazing.

Robert Simpson led several lives:  producer for the BBC, writer on music,
and composer.  He promoted the works of Mahler, Bruckner, Carl Nielsen,
and Vagn Holmboe in the English-speaking world at a time when none of
these composers could get arrested as such (in fact, his superiors at the
BBC actively discouraged his efforts to scare up performances of Mahler
and Nielsen).  He resurrected, just about single-handedly, the music of
Havergal Brian and inspired Brian to continue to compose.  His Carl
Nielsen:  Symphonist remains probably the most influential of his works
and still a really good read.  Simpson was rather diffident about his own
composition.  Indeed, when your heroes are Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, and
Nielsen, this probably increases your modesty.  Furthermore, Simpson's two
main forms were symphony and string quartet, and I suspect that Beethoven's
examples daunted him.

Simpson studied with Herbert Howells.  He also for a brief time came
under the influence of Schoenberg and wrote serial music, all of which (if
I remember right) he destroyed.  His creative work depended on tonality,
although his approach to many of the problems of composition retained a
somewhat Schoenbergian view.  On the other hand, both composers share the
influence of Beethoven, and this could well be what Simpson responded to
in Schoenberg.  Simpson had real integrity, severing his connection with
the BBC over Proms programming policy and resolutely championing composers
prevailing opinion deemed unworthy.  At one point in the Fifties, I
believe, he actually had to persuade the BBC to record Horenstein's Mahler
8th.  They did it, but solely as a favor to Simpson.  Even so, Simpson's
own music highlights his true grit even more strongly.  He destroyed, for
example, four of his symphonies.  Even so, he managed eleven.  The
remaining works - tonal, but chromatic - make few concessions.  They
demand the listener concentrate, but they also repay that concentration.

Simpson's Ninth shows the large influence of Beethoven and, to a
slightly lesser extent, Bruckner.  Its argument occurs over one gigantic
span of roughly 48 uninterrupted minutes - a mighty piece of symphonic
construction..  "Span" implies that the listener perceives the symphony
as all of a piece, despite the perception of major blocks.  In his talk,
Simpson, one of the great explainers of how music works, tells you (with
musical illustrations) how he did it.  He presents his points beautifully
and remarks up front that while none of this kind of explanation will
likely convert someone who hates the piece to begin with, it does show
listeners for whom the symphony already works why it might work on them
in a certain way.  I won't go into the detail Simpson does - why cover
the same ground? - but I want to talk about the larger movement of the
symphony.  A good bit of Simpson's unity stems from the fact that all tempi
- slow and fast - relate to a single pulse.  For example, the tempo of the
scherzo is six beats for every beat of the opening section; in other words,
the scherzo moves exactly six times faster.  All the themes derive from
what Simpson calls a "wedge." That is, imagine a central pitch (say, C) and
successive notes increasingly further away above and below - ie, C' B C#'
Bb D' A Eb', and so on.  The odd notes in the series represent a rising
chromatic scale; the evens, a falling one.  This "wedge" spreads out from
the center.  The first two large subsections, through the end of the
scherzo, make use of variations on this idea.  The final two subsections
make use of the reverse - notes converging to a central pitch.  We also
have palindromic themes - that is, themes which sound the same played
forwards or backwards.  Thus, the symphonic rhetoric is "about" opening
and closing, expansion and folding in.  I almost wrote, "like a sine wave,"
but that implies something drier and more sterile than Simpson's actual
achievement.  For the symphony is a powerfully dramatic work.  One doesn't
really sustain interest over the long haul through abstract pattern alone.

As I've said, Beethoven stands behind much of this symphony, Simpson's
idiom may be more complex, with heavier reliance on counterpoint than
Beethoven's, but I can't imagine anyone who knew the Beethoven symphonies
not able to hear many of their bits in this work.  Yet, Simpson doesn't
merely appropriate.  The work indeed speaks a modern musical language, and
the tension between the Beethovenian games and Simpson's own message gives
rise to glory.  After all, it's no easy thing to take for oneself music
as distinctive as Beethoven's.  Yet other shades hover over this work:
Bruckner and Nielsen - Bruckner in Simpson's use of the chorale-prelude
form to build climaxes (Simpson refers to, without direct quote, the first
movement of Bruckner's Third); Nielsen in the way the first movement
proceeds and in the clash of key-centers throughout (cf.  the Nielsen
Fifth especially).  At the opening, Simpson lays out his material in a way
similar to Beethoven's opening of his Ninth.  Fragments eventually coalesce
into themes and, more importantly, movement.  The main technical difference
between Beethoven's opening and Simpson's is that Simpson's occurs on a
much larger time-scale.  The scherzo flies by, felt by the listener as an
explosion of the energy built up by the previous movement.  Events happen
quickly.  One of the few ideas that linger is a riff Simpson appropriates
from the opening of the Eroica scherzo.  This occurs against pitch-clashes
that build up and linger.  In fact, Simpson remarks that Beethoven might
well think a lunatic had gotten hold of one of his scherzi.  The transition
from an instrumental extravaganza of the scherzo climax to the adagio
(beginning as a fugue for strings alone) is for me one of the finest such
passages in the literature, including the transitions in the Beethoven
Fifth from scherzo to finale and in the Brahms First (itself undoubtedly
influenced by Beethoven's previous examples) from third to final movement.
With Simpson, it's not just a question of a dynamic drop or a rhythmic
slowdown.  The dynamic drop points back to the opening section and all
rhythmic transitions are mathematically (rationally) relatable.  As to
the fugue, palindromic themes lace it.  Writing a palindromic theme is
no big trick.  Writing a good one is.  Simpson himself remarks that
an effective palindrome depends on the listener's ability to perceive
it as such.  Simpson often breaks his palindromic themes along the fault
of some rhythmic or intervallic quirk in the line.  The quirk catches
the ear and provides the key to the palindrome.  For the slow movement,
Simpson acknowledges his debt to Bruckner's adagios.  Because of the large
proportions of the symphony's first half, Simpson felt the need to provide
a second half of equal weight, with a slow-movment climax (corresponding
structurally to the explosion into the scherzo) large enough to feel like
the climax for the entire work.  Like Bruckner, Simpson does this mainly
through his "chorale." The climax, in which most, if not all, of the major
pulses play simultaneously, immediately falls off into a long quiet coda,
in effect similar to Vaughan Williams's symphonic epilogues.

Again, I emphasize that, while a lot of composers hover about this
symphony, the work strikes me as above all very original.  Simpson can use
his predecessors without them swallowing him up because he makes something
new of their tropes.

By any measure, this symphony's a mighty handful.  The time-scale Simpson
envisions goes way beyond most previous composers, possibly excepting
Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner.  Handley is a fine conductor and gives us an
heroic reading.  But it's essentially a first reading, and given Simpson's
own remarks about the large structure of the work, not entirely successful.
The sense of forward momentum doesn't quite get as far as it needs to,
and an overenthusiastic attack of subsidiary climaxes weaken the major
symphonic climax Simpson has written in.  Still, it's a fabulous effort and
the level of playing very high indeed.  Counterpoint - both in its "school"
sense and in the larger sense of competing symphonic strands - always
stands out clearly.  Handley brings off the triumphant buildup to the
scherzo and the diminuendo to the slow movement.  The coda comes across as
a bit limp, lacking the sense of mystery Simpson, in his talk at any rate,
has called for.  Nevertheless, one must live with a work like this a long
time.  Conductors, to do it justice, need to keep at it and probably could
benefit from the viewpoint of others as well.  For now, however, this
recording represents a tremendous first effort, and no one will likely take
up the challenge proposed by the symphony any time soon.  If Simpson grabs
you or if just the thought of work like this intrigues you, take a serious
listen to this disc.

Sound is superb.

Steve Schwartz