William Sterndale Bennett Born 13.4.1816 Sheffield, England - Died 1.2.1875 London, England
Orchestral Music which is extant
Symphony No.1 Wo.20 1832
Symphony No.2 Wo.23 1833
Symphony No.4 Wo.28 1838
Symphony No.5 Wo.31 1836
Symphony in G minor Op.43 1864
Overtures
The Tempest Wo.22 1832
Overture in D minor Wo.24 1833
Merry Wives of Windsor Wo.25 1834
Parisina Overture Op.3 1835
Dramatic Overture Wo.? 1836
The Naiads Overture Op.15 1836
Die Waldnymphe (The Wood Nymph) Overture Op.20 1838
Marie du Bois Wo.46 1844
Paridise and the Peri Op.42 1862
Ajax Wo.83 1872
Orchestral music that is now lost
Symphony No.3 1883
Symphony in B minor 1836
Symphony 1838/40
Piano and Orchestra
Piano Concerto No.1 in D minor Op.1 1832
Piano Concerto No.2 in E flat Op.4 1833
Piano Concerto No.3 in C minor Op.9 1834
Piano Concerto No.4 in F minor Op.19 1838
Piano Concerto No.5 in F minor Wo.32 1836
Piano Concerto No.6 in A minor Wo.48 1843-8 (concertstuck)
Piano Concerto for two pianos, one movement only. 1835. Joint composition with George Macfarren 1813-1887
Adagio in G minor Wo.27 1834
Caprice in E major Op.22 1838
A Stroll Through the Meadows Wo.37 1838
Chamber
String Quartet in G 1831
Sextet in F sharp for Piano, 2 violins, viola, cello and double bass 1835
Piano trio Op.26 1835
Sonata duo in A for piano and cello Op.32 1852
Piano
Capriccio in D
Three musical sketches Op.10
Six studies Op.11
Three impromptus Op.12
Sonata Op.13 1842
Three Romances Op.14
Fantasia Op.16 1842
Three diversions for piano duet Op.17 1838
Allegro Grazioso Op.18
Suite of pieces for piano Op.2 1843
Rondo Piacevale Op.25
Scherzo Op.27
Rondino Op.28 1853
Two Studies Op.29
Theme and variations Op.31
Sixty preludes and lessons Op.33 1853
Rondo Op.35
Toccata Op.38
Sonata 'The Maid of Orleans' Op.46
Song
Six songs Op.23
Six songs Op.35
Thanks Giles, I didn't realise that there was so much orchestral music. What happened to Symphony No.3?
I have two different G minor symphonies in my collections, the later one listed and one dated 1836.
He is a new discovery for me and I like what I have heard very much. But I have one question: does he have a double-barrelled surname, or is Sterndale a middle name?
Sterndale was a middle name (as with 'Walford' in Walford Davies). Is the early G minor symphony (which is available on this site) numbered)
It is known that he wrote symphony No.3 however it would appear that it has been missing for over a century.
After his marriage in 1844, he almost gave up composing spending most of his time teaching and working at The Royal College of Music in London. He never regained his initial heights of composition that were much praised by Mendelssohn and Schumann.
William Sterndale Bennett had three children , two sons and a daughter. The second son, James changed his surname by deed poll from Bennett to Sterndale-Bennett. WSB left his music archive and his correspondence to be divided equally between his three children, however shortly after his death the eldest son got into financial difficulty and James purchased his brother's share of his father'sarchive.
I always believed that his compositional powers declined as a result of academic work, but the late Symphony in G minor seems to belie that, a marvellous discovery it was for me. I wish I could hear some of the choral works, but I doubt there is much chance of them being revived. Yes, I also wonder about the numbering of the earlier G minor symphony
Symphonies:
No.1 in B-flat, WoO 20, 1832.
No.2 in D minor, WoO 23, 1832-33.
No.4 in A major, WoO 28, 1833-34.
No.5 in G minor, WoO 31, 1835-36.
No.6? in G minor, Op.43, 1863-64.
(From IMSLP and some other sources.) (Source as noted: Williamson, Rosemary. William Sterndale Bennett: A Descriptive Thematic Catalogue. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.)
The Royal College in London might be prevailed to do one of his choral works. After all he saved them from decline. Several years ago they had a one day seminar about him with much of his music being played though none of the choral music. as far as I can recall. This was followed by a series of evening lectures at London University, it seems he chose to dedicate himself to The Royal College and what by any standards would be an excessive amount of teaching, leaving little time for composition.
I think you mean the Royal Academy of Music (RAM) - Bennett was Principal there.
Well, he may have had little time for composition, as Giles said, but he nonethless managed to find time for 140 or so compositions before his incredibly busy life ended at age only 58. Composing, teaching, writing, editing major works, performing, running the Academy, having a family and staying sane and decent.... an amazing achievement! 8)
Perhaps someone here has read his biography, and could tell us a little more about what kind of man he was. :)
His teaching schedules have survived - there was a presentation that covered Bennett's workload at the NAVSA conference at Yale two years ago - and they indicate a killing pace: something like sixteen piano lessons a day, six days a week, and travelling between most of them to the various houses. Sullivan's comments about Bennett's dislike of Schumann's music is telling, considering Schumann and Bennett's former friendship; I think Bennett was hurt by Schumann's critical disappointment of his later works and deliberately shut him out. Harold Schonberg recorded a particularly acid comment of Bennett's concerning Costa's tempos when Costa was appointed as the Philharmonic's conductor -"the only advantage of having him is that we can have the whole of Beethoven's symphonies in one evening and still be home in time for supper." He seems to have been sensitive, very supportive of his students and protective of the Royal Academy, but touchy and slow to forgive slights - signs of an easily hurt and definitely overworked/undercompensated man.
Yes, my mistake it was of course the RAM that he saved though he resigned from there in 1858. It was however the Royal College that had the one day seminar. I was there.
What about the Piano Concerto No. 6 in A minor, Wo 48.. I remember reading somewhere that the manuscript was in private hands or is it lost.
Don't get me started on PC No. 6 ms. I sounded off about that on the old forum. If I start again it will not only be bad for my blood pressure, but Mark and Alan will throw me off the forum in case I write something that is actionable and bring the site into disrepute - or worse!
I've loved the concerti since they came out on Lyrita back in the last century. On the whole he (Bennett) seems more adept on the larger canvasses...
Oooookaaaay... While Gareth looks for his "water pills" ;D maybe someone with a non-chronic attachment to the score :D [which I'm starting to believe exists!!!] can shed some light on the situation.
I think Giles can enlighten us on that question, but it may not be safe for him to go public on it.
The score exists all right. It is just in the hands of someone who will not allow it to be copied (or even seen, I think!). I will refrain from expressing an opinion on this situation.
Thanks for the fine list:
You may want to check here for samples and more solo works.
I wonder what is known of Genevieve op Post?
http://classical-music-online.net/en/composer/Bennett/2780 (http://classical-music-online.net/en/composer/Bennett/2780)
I see that there is a recording of Bennett's Trio op. 26 listed at classical-music-online. Is this a commercial release? I would like to replace my faded broadcast recording.
This is the CD for opus 26:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/trio-lengyel-play-sir-william-sterndale-bennet-sir-lennox-berkeley-amp-benjamin-britten-mr0002700511 (http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/trio-lengyel-play-sir-william-sterndale-bennet-sir-lennox-berkeley-amp-benjamin-britten-mr0002700511)
I had a real delight last night revisiting Bennett's Piano Sextet in F sharp minor (Pf, 2 Vn, Va, Vc and Contrabass, although in the Marco Polo recording the latter played by double bass).
What a marvellous work it is - right from the very first notes of the opening Allegro moderato ma con passione you know you're in for a treat, and if not a masterwork then at least one of very high calibre. The construction of that first movement causes real pleasure in hearing it unfold and is frequently dazzling in its brilliance. After the Quasi presto, a perfectly gorgeous third movement (Andante grazioso), and then a final movement Allegro assai ed energico hurtling towards its spirited conclusion. Terrific!
I'd also lay a wager that if I played the work to someone who hadn't heard it, and told them (trying to suppress a mischievous glint in the eye) that it was a recently discovered and previously unknown work by Mendelssohn then they would be taken in by the deception. I think Bennett's Sextet is that good.
Reflecting some more I came to the conclusion that one of the many sad things in the history of music is that Bennett wrote so few chamber works. Apart from the Cello Sonata of 1852 (also on the same Marco Polo disc), there is a very early String Quartet in G major (written when he was 15 and maybe not worth a recording?), and the Piano Trio of 1839 (which various texts often refer to as one of his most popular works - but again unrecorded I think). So along with the present Sextet that amounts to a mere four chamber works.
Apart from this Marco Polo disc (which is perfectly acceptable but recorded back in 1993) why the neglect? All four works would probably make up a most welcome 'twofer' and would be a splendid project for, for example, Hyperion or EM Records. (Hope they read this!)
And why "sad"? Well, from his very early days Bennett was clearly a major talent. The first D minor Pf Concerto was composed when he was 16, and it made an immediate impact with a Royal Command performance at Windsor following its first performance in London, and then a second London performance at which Mendelssohn himself was present and, by all accounts, hugely impressed by the work. Bennett then rubbed shoulders with Mendelssohn and Schumann in Leipzig for a considerable time. In this period there was every indication Bennett would develop into a quite major figure in the history of music.
However, for good or ill, when he returned to England an unceasing and relentless activity as a teacher, scholar, performer and administrator seemed to take over and block further composition throughout the middle period of his life. True, the contemporary musical world owed much to him. It seems he was a dedicated, supportive and gifted teacher, and he also turned the Royal Academy of Music on its head and enabled its future development. But, alas, no string quartets, or piano quintets, quartets or trios. Just think of the things Bennett might have written had things been different. Enormously sad, yes?
As I have just been listening to the Symphony No.5 in G minor after a long hiatus, I thought I'd pick up on this old thread about one of the very gifted UCs about whom we rarely speak.
As a belated reply to the last post, from Peter, yes sad that he died in his 50s and that he was so encumbered with work, but as I pointed out in a previous post he still managed an astonishing output, including 6 symphonies (the two G minor ones being excellent), and five/six piano concertos (we don't need to revisit that one!). The latter are on CD, but I think the symphonies are still hard to find.
If anyone is interested, I am happy to upload an mp3 of the Symphony No.5 in the old BBC radio performance by the Ulster Orchestra, conducted by Kenneth Alwyn. I believe this is a studio/concert performance rather than ex-LP. I recorded it directly from the BBC broadcast all those years ago, and now I see the same broadcast has popped up on YouTube. ::)
There is also some good news for those that can wait. 2016 will be the bicentenary of his birth and there are positive indications of a festival around his music. Plans are already underway.
May I reopen this? I was googling for info on SB and thus came across this site which I had never seen before - very good to learn of its existence.
The OP speaks among the know works of his early overture The Tempest, which is what I was searching for. I cannot as yet find any other reference to it. Does anyone know where it might be found?
Welcome to UC. Has anyone any info on this piece?
not on whether it still exists, just that it seems to have...
I've read the book that Bennett's son (James Robert Sterndale Bennett) wrote about his father, and apparently WSB was every bit as prickly as Mendelssohn when it came to criticism...
I have just emailed Barry Sterndale-Bennett to ask if he knows where it is.
That is very much appreciated. Thank you.
I understand that the MS is in private ownership and not available for performance. It is possibly one his best orchestral pieces.
The same person who has the MS of piano concerto No. 6, I suppose. I can feel my blood pressure rising!
A rhetorical question, I know, but why do people do this? It makes no sense. You'd think that a recording, or even just a performance, would enhance the MS's value, wouldn't you?
I am by trade a violinist. I recently purchased a remarkably fine bow. The dealer who sold it to me let it go with some reluctance because although he is a friend, and respects my playing, the bow was in such perfect condition that he was quite uncomfortable with its being used. Its existence for him was enough. I guess this situation is similar.
I will turn my attentions to other works by WSB instead. I thank those on this forum for their efforts in tracing things this far.
Quote...the bow was in such perfect condition that he was quite uncomfortable with its being used. Its existence for him was enough. I guess this situation is similar.
I very much doubt it. Call me cynical but I think MONEY is at the bottom of this "dog in the manger" attitude. With music the notes on the page are not the finished article. They are a statement of intent. (The same is true of a play.) The finished article is the performance - and every one will be different. Some will come closer than others to realizing the composer's intention, and some may offer insights of which even the composer might be unaware - and we can all instance composers who made notable changes to their works after hearing performances. Deliberately refusing to allow a piece of music to be performed is the same as shutting a visual work of art (like a painting or a sculpture) in a box so that nobody can see it. It also shows a vast contempt for the creator of the work of art. Music is written to be heard. That is all. If it is not heard it might as well not exist.
Amen, Gareth. You hit the nail on the proverbial head. It's a contemptible insult to the composer.
I have the same feeling about film archives who won't release films from the silent era to be captured on digital media. "It's mine and if you wanna see it, you come to my house......" Sad that such folks are entrusted with these precious relics....
Jerry
I sometimes feel this way about the treasures the BBC has and doesn't release publicly (and they have been known to destroy a lot too, though I think that was in the past).
I also agree with you Gareth, there is one work in particular by Liszt which is in a collection in the Middle East which I would really, really like to see recorded but the person who bought it refuses to let it be studied. What's the point - Liszt would certainly have played it in public in the 1830s and 40s and so I see little point in restriciting it to a small circle of individuals. I have the auction catalogue in which it was advertised and it reproduces tantalising exerpts from the work which makes me really interested to see what the rest of it is like. In theory, if this individual would allow it to be studied and recorded, the value of the manuscript is likely to increase so it's stupid to keep it under wraps forever.
Sorry, this sort of thing really gets my goat. >:(
I don't know if this is a pointless quire.... but are there legal options?
Why is this any different from a wealthy person buying art masterpieces that have never been photographed or exhibited and hanging them on the walls of his own home, never to be seen by the public or even researchers?
Isn't that the whole point of getting rich -- so one can have "nice things" that re-affirm one's own greatness, stroking one's own ego? And isn't a part of that whole scene the clamor of the unwashed peasants bemoaning that they can't benefit from those "nice things" themselves?
My point is, sometimes it is not about the money, but about the power and control and self-adulation that comes with ownership, just knowing "I'm the only one" who can ever enjoy this.
I can't say that I really grok that mentality, but we see it in evidence all the time, and not identifying with it probably explains why I'm not rich. ;D
QuoteMy point is, sometimes it is not about the money, but about the power and control and self-adulation that comes with ownership, just knowing "I'm the only one" who can ever enjoy this.
But they can't enjoy it because it is not performed. If you have a piece of visual art you
can enjoy it. In the case of music the finished work of art is not the MS but the
performance. If they allowed it to be performed, they could still have the kudos of being the only one with the original MS - there are plenty of collectors of MSS, literary and musical. I think it would be nice to own an original MS of a Jane Austen novel, for instance, but were I lucky enough to do so I would not be depriving the rest of the world from enjoying the novel. Nor would its value be diminished by the fact that the text of the novel was available to everyone.
Try to convince the owner -- if you can ever get past the gate. It's owning and keeping away from others that feeds the self-adulation. Especially with music, if you give it to the world to be performed and recorded, you no longer own it.
I'm not justifying this. It is a mentality I can't really connect with. But I think it is a real phenomenon.
How sick!
There's no true love of the music or the composer within that mindset. A few of Chopin's pieces have met the same fate.