CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Didrik Schiele <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:49:05 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
Ed Zubrow wrote:

>Since the spring I have been trying to listen to as much of Walton's music
>and that of Malcolm Arnold as I can.  I am interested in the similarities
>and differences between these two composers (who I would cautiously suggest
>may be "under-rated") and the more well known Britten, Vaughan WIlliams and
>Elgar.

You tell me Walton is underrated.  Then Walton had, like Vaughan-Williams
all chances to break through with a fat boom as they had so much support
from the establishment.  V-W was, as a personal friend of Humphrey Milford,
in a position where he, not bound by any written contract, could lend in
everything he wrote to Oxford University Press, and they with the
gentlemans agreement, published everything he lent in.  When Vaughan knew
the head of the whole institution, Walton was on 2nd position with knowing
the first music editor, Hubert Foss.  He took Walton to the International
Society of Contemporary Music Festivals, he introduced him to Alban Berg,
he showed him everything what was happening in European music....these
influences can be heard in Waltons music from the late 1920-s through the
1930-s.  Benjamin Britten, on the other hand, came when Rafes and Williams
positions were firmly rooted by the institution already.  When Oxford
finally came to a point where they would have to decide whether to pick him
up or not, they knew also that Boosey & Hawkes was angling after him.  What
Britten at the occasion (1934) had to offer Foss was the Sinfonietta(?) and
the Oboe Quartett, both rather long shoots for a publisher - would it be
Oxford or Boosey-Hawkes - Foss argued that it would be a pity to let
Britten go, but rather costy to keep him, and decided to let Boosey &
Hawkes waste money on him as long as they had Walton and Vaughan.  Boosey
& Hawkes had financical problems at the same time, and were uneager to go
for long shots.  For one who stood in this relationship to the economic
forces it is at least a little interesting that Britten succeeded to axe
the mantle of Elgar after Vaughan-Williams.

Didrik Schiele

ATOM RSS1 RSS2