Eric Schissel wrote:

>(By the way, there is nothing, to my ears, 'Hindemithian', in response to
>Mr.  Newberry, about the third sonata, and I say this as someone who loves
>both composers but who can also tell the difference between them; the
>Hindemith second string trio for example - one of my favorite works of that
>period - is beautiful and open-spirited but recognizably Hindemith, while
>the Rubbra sonata is different harmonically, texturally, in quality of
>motion ...

Obviously Mr.  Schissel and I listen for very different things in music.
Rubbra is not a Hindemith clone by any means, but his method of thematic
exposition, his concern for creating consonant and dissonant centers
against a contrapunctal system which is clearly neo-classical in its tropic
language, but derrived from Bach in its methods of handling entrances and
cadnetial structure, as well as similiarities in the kinds of figuaration
- derrived from thematic material - mark these composers as being very
similar.

Another important similarity is the basic genre types out of which sections
are built - the chorale, the fugue, the overture passage work form - both
composers relate their genre types quite identifiably with models derrived
from Bach.  Their approaches are different, but their direction is, in the
end, quite the same.  Both composers close their careers with a search for
a spiritual expression in music which is achieved by sustained harmonic
regions, though which approach the creation of tonalities through
contrapunctal structurally derived transitions rather than common practice
or late 19th century chordal progressions.

I find it difficult to imagine that someone familiar with the solo sonatas
of Hindemith would not also welcome Rubbra's cycle for the violin and
piano.  Especially because the violin sonata is a much neglected genre
in almost every type of 20th century music.

Stirling Newberry <[log in to unmask]>