My starting-point with both composers was their symphonies. To refresh your memories, these are their outputs:
Stanford:
No. 1 in B flat major (1876)
No. 2 in D minor, 'Elegiac' (1882)
No. 3 in F minor, 'Irish', Op. 28 (1887)
No. 4 in F major, Op. 31 (1888)
No. 5 in D major, 'L'Allegro ed il Penseroso', Op. 56 (1894)
No. 6 in E flat major, 'In Memoriam G. F. Watts', Op. 94 (1905)
No. 7 in D minor, Op. 124 (1911)
Parry:
No. 1 in G major c. 1878–82
No. 2 in F major ('Cambridge') c. 1883, p. 1900
No. 3 in C major ('English') c. 1889, p. 1907
No. 4 in E minor c. 1889, p. 1921
No. 5 ('Symphonic Fantasia 1912') in B minor ' c. 1912, p. 1922
Now, I have long thought that Parry's are the richer, more gripping works, but perhaps others may disagree..?
I won't disagree with you. Parry's music grips one as he almost always has something to convey unlike Stanford, whose music while no less attractive, seems to have a clinical feel to it so that I have never been wholly engrossed by them [Stanford's concertos are another matter, but I'm sticking to the Symphonies as per the thread]. One of my most favorite pieces is his Elegy for Brahms, and his Symphony No. 5 is surely an English masterpiece [sorry but I'm not a fan of Elgar's attempts!]. Pity it's not more famous. [Also a pity imho that we don't have a decent recording of his charming Piano concerto].
I'm just listening to the overwhelmingly grand ending of Parry's 3rd. Why isn't this played at the Proms? It'd go down a storm!
Stanford's concertos, as you suggest, are another matter. What bewitching works his VC(1) and PC2 are!
The newly Orchestrated [by J. Dibble] Violin Concerto no. 2 in D minor, Op. 162 is a fascinating insight into a concise and to-the-point Stanford. It's probably his best concerto.
Not better than PC2, I'd venture...
No, Stanford's PC2 can stand on it's own feet any day :D. Incidentally has there been any alternate [...non-commercial] attempts for Parry's Piano Concerto. The Hyperion version employs a very draggy tempo and it has been a huge disappointment for me.
I'll have to give the Hyperion CD a spin...
Returning to the symphonies, I'm obviously in the minority here, but I just love Stanford's. In them he is a master of exciting, colourful orchestration, he gives them great rhythmic impulse and he is always a superb melodist, all of which add up to an exciting listen. I'm not denying the qualities of Parry's oeuvre, mind you, but I find his works rather more sober and correct, whereas Stanford is wearing his heart on his sleeve.
I'm for the Stanford ones. Apart from the rather early first, I listen to them all regularly. The sixth is especially magnificent, and I listened twice in the last week. Whereas I find Parry's rather uneven. The Third is lovely in its way, but it's more of a sinfonietta (Parry didn't really want to call it a symphony, but his publisher pressured him), the fourth needed a lot of revision, and the fifth is of more of a symphonic poem to me. The Cambridge is good, but I would say not as good as Stanford at his best. And I agree about the Stanford concertos, though Parry's sole example is rather fine.
Personally I'm not sure Parry was a wholly committed orchestral composer: I think choral music was where his heart lay.
I disagree totally. No.3 is quite definitely a symphony - imposing in its richness and sweep - and not a sinfonietta. Parry himself apparently said: "I suppose it might be announced as a Symphony - Sinfonietta looks too affected. The announcement might perhaps give it as 'Short Symphony'." In fact, at nearly 35 minutes, it's not really that short either.
The only one of Stanford's that has held my attention throughout is No.3, but I must clearly go back and listen to the cycle again.
Great to disagree, isn't it? Makes one re-assess one's opinions and listen again...
Are the Naxos versions of Stanford Symphonies better than the old Chandos ones?
No - but as good as, I'd say. You'd be safe with either set.
QuoteI must clearly go back and listen to the cycle again.
For my money, the best of the bunch is No.5 with its magnificent finale, closely followed by Nos.6 and 7. I in my turn will reacquaint myself with Parry's canon!
Stanford for me, no question. I also really love his chamber music, the choral works...heck, Stanford is great! I was really touched when I was in London last year to actually hear an anthem of his being sung in church one Sunday. Beautiful. I've never heard any of his music sung in the US. You look at pictures of Stanford and think here's some dry, boring, academic composer. But he's not that at all. Overshadowed by Elgar (who isn't?) but alongside Holbrooke, he's fully worthy of performance.
Oh, Stanford's no stuffy academic. I think my overall preference for Parry is to do with the man's open-hearted music and the feeling that Elgar is just round the corner. Am listening to Stanford 2 (Naxos) as I write this - great stuff. Memory obviously playing tricks.
...and am now playing Parry's 2nd. Again, I prefer the sense of a mighty flood of sound (Parry), as opposed to the leaner athleticism of Stanford. Very interesting...
For me Parry's 4th is his symphonic masterpiece. Elgar must have heard this - and inwardly digested it. Such power, such a flood of invention. Wonderful.
Parry for me. 3, 4 and 5 grip me from first bar to last. The Fourth is probably the finest, but I love the breezy quality of 3 too. With Stanford, there are many beauties but my attention is usually not maintained so strongly. I love the Boult version of Parry 5 which was his very last recording at the end of a marvellous career. May be rose tinted specs from when I bought it on HMV LP in Queens Road, Bristol in 1980 but I think it stands up very well (I think Boult was around 90 at the time.) I remember thinking the playing was a bit ragged then, but strangely I don't notice that so much now. The Symphonic Variations are rather splendid too.....
Phew! I thought it was just me!
As you wrote earlier, Alan, it's good to disagree! For me, Parry's Symphonic Variations is his finest orchestral work by some way and it really does deserve a permanent place in the repertory, at least in the UK.
Parry's Symphonic Variations is his finest orchestral work by some way ... unreservedly agree, Mark, and when it comes to the symphonies, I think Stanford's 5th is a winner. They are the two works with which I am most familiar, and maybe I am unfairly neglecting the Parry symphonies. Fortunately, of course, we can have both Stanford and Parry, and in abundance these days. I am sure Sir Adrian would have been chuffed! :)
As for which cycle: I think they are both excellent, and I listen to both. It would be nice if someone could do a second Parry cycle: no 5 is the only one I know more than one version of. Oh, and no. 3 in that "Masters of the English Musical Renaissance collection"
I am a fan of Parry since remote days when to find records of English music (not by masters like Elgar) was very difficult and rare.
For me the opening work were the Symphonic Variations (Lyrita, Boult), still my favourite; later the Third Symphony (Forlane, Hager), later again the last Boult record with the Fifth , the Elegy for Brahms and again the Symphonic Variations (which were conducted more than once in Italy by....Giuseppe Martucci).
Stanford came much later, in the Cd period. Among the Symphonies , I prefer the Third.
While I have never listened a boring work by Stanford, the single work which appears to me of very high status is the Second Piano concerto.
In the end my prefence certainly goes to Parry, which appears to me a more personal voice.
Stanford's symphonies are formally correct and well orchestrated but I have always found them to be on the dry side. They do not visit my CD player very often. However I am always listening to Parry's five. I have known the fifth since about 1980 in Boult's fine performance and the others later on. I would say that the Fourth is the greatest, but at the moment the First is my favourite. I normally listen to it when I travel up to Norfolk as it lasts almost exactly for the rail journey from Colchester to Diss. In fact this music is mixed up in my mind with the countryside on that journey. Not I suppose what Parry had in mind!
Parry's orchestral music is well catered for in recordings but there are still many choral works which are crying out for performances and recordings.
In the case of both composers much of their chamber music was - remains - unpublished, sometimes still unrecorded. (Half of Stanford's string quartets unpublished, for example...) (They fared a little better with their orchestral music, but Stanford's symphonies have been twice recorded (as a complete cycle- Chandos, Naxos- I may be forgetting a third) despite their being I think no published versions of nos.5 & 6 (and less surprisingly 1 &2) and only a reduced version of 4. I'm guessing in some cases it may only be that _some_ of these works were unpublished widely but were maybe available to prospective performers from publishers (or libraries, e.g. RAM or RCM) in manuscript parts, but...
(I'm fairly sure that even the rare record company that considers recording (e.g.) all 3 of Parry's string quartets may pass on to other projects if a score and parts aren't available. Which they are, for #3 (published 1995- and the only one broadcast on BBC and the only one recorded.) ... Anyways. Availability may count in these things, is all I say...
I'm a bit struck that Dibble seems to hold on to his editions, on the whole, after he makes them, speaking of; I don't see them published anywhere. (The Communion Service ©2010 excepted of course.) But no matter...)
*A new edition of Stanford's string quartet no.4 Op.99 is the product of (and discussed in) a dissertation by Colleen Ferguson for the University of Iowa, 2015, by the way. ... I think I'm going to see if I can interloan that dissertation (maybe not, I don't know if U Iowa and my library do inter loans, but nothing ventured)... just discovered it and I have been curious about that never-(before) published work of his... ... Neat.
How would you compare the two composers, Eric? Any thoughts?
I would agree that Parry has much more distinctive personality than Stanford, who often seemed to sound like someone else, Verdi in his requiem, Rachmaninov in the Second Piano Concerto, probably Mascagni in Lorenza. But the 3rd, 5th and 6th Symphonies in particular really transport me with their energy and sureness of touch. It's interesting to see how everyone is pretty decided on this issue, at least everyone who has chosen to comment.
I came across this while trying to read more about Parry's Piano Concerto ....
(http://i68.tinypic.com/30if1ja.png)
This excerpt from Seven Unpublished Organ Works by Sir C. Hubert H. Parry in Bodleian Library - mentions 2 Piano Concertos. Any idea if this is true or if this is a misprint.
Grove online has this intriguing entry:
Piano Concerto, g, 1869, inc
I'm assuming that this refers to an incomplete early Piano Concerto in G minor, dating from 1869. Wonder where the manuscript might be?
I wonder how many people know Parry's orchestral Concertstück of 1877? It's actually quite a progressive-sounding work and makes one wonder just how Parry's music would have developed had he continued down this particular stylistic and aesthetic path (the influences are clearly early Wagner and Liszt rather than Brahms).
Knocks Henry Cotter Nixon into a cocked hat, by the way. (Sorry, Martin!)
QuoteWonder where the manuscript might be?
Dibble, assiduous biographer of both Parry and Stanford, says in his biography that all that exists is eight pages of full score and the rest of the first movement as a sketched short score. He prints a page from the opening
Andante. I can't find a source for this autograph in the book, but all the MSS sources listed are the British Library.
Thanks, Mark. Thanks too to Dibble...
...sorry, couldn't resist it.
Anyway, who's the top cat - Stanford or Parry?
If I remember my Saturday morning cartoons correctly, Officer Dibble loved listening to records of violin music.
Now that's some level of recall! Wonder whether that included any Stanford or Parry?
Maybe neither, it was just caterwauling.
...must be the time of year. Put away the sherry!
:-[
Quoteall the MSS sources listed are the British Library
Actually, I was wrong: it looks like Parry's manuscripts are held by the Royal College of Music, of which he was Director for 25 years, of course. That said, the mss of the G minor Concerto fragments isn't listed in their library's online catalogue, although the mss of the later one in F# minor is.
Does anyone know the point at which the 'big tune' enters in the finale of Parry 4? It's absolutely heart-stopping. That's what I miss in Stanford - he doesn't pull the heart-strings in anything like the same way.
Dibble describes the genesis of Parry's 4th in some detail in his study. We have to bear in mind that Parry undertook an extensive revision in 1910. He wrote a new Scherzo and reworked the Finale drastically. According to Dibble only the first subject remained intact. All other subjects, including the 'big tune', date from 1910.
I agree, Parry must have been a great influence on Elgar but by 1910 Elgar had been an established composer himself, currently working at his 2nd Symphony. Aesthetically Parry's 4th is way behind the state of the art at 1910 but its emotional impact is overwhelming. Today we can take a balanced view on these developments but it needs strong advocates, musicians and conductors of our time, who believe in Parry's vision and dare to take the risk of programming such a piece.
I admire Parry's genius for communication in music. At its best moments his music achieves a state of transcendence.
Remember Gerald Finzi's dictum, he himself being an ardent advocat of Parry's music: "Men are great or small not according to their language but to their stature."
That's very interesting indeed, thanks. Does Dibble suggest some sort of creative cross-fertilisation of ideas between Parry and his younger contemporaries, including Elgar?
Cough kept me awake, so decided to listen to Parry's Invocation to Music. My goodness, what music this is! All very typical of the composer, I suppose, but again the power is overwhelming - especially 'Rejoice, ye dead...' Wow!
I have but a fraction of the knowledge of many of you chaps, but when i got a copy of the Parry PC manuscript, i couldn't believe the amount of crossings out and changes. It looked painful and as if Parry was uncomfortable in this genre.
My own opinion is that the Parry symphonies are superior to those by Stanford, but when a piano is added to the equation, Stanford kicks ass.
I am of course not able to musically justify this.
Thal
Stanford's PC2 is a spectacularly good piece, I agree.
Yes. When the Piano is added to the equation, Stanford kicks ass.... Even the 1st Piano concerto in G Major, light weight in comparison to the spectacular 2nd, is very enjoyable.
BTW Alan have you had a chance to give Parry's F-sharp minor concerto a spin? Any thoughts..?
I'm listening to the Parry PC now. I'm more impressed by the slower second subject section than by the rather galumphing opening of the first movement. Doesn't sound a great deal like typical Parry and, quite frankly, I wouldn't go out of my way to give it a further hearing. There's some beautiful writing in the slow movement, but overall it seems to lack direction.The finale's a lot of fun (very unParry-like) - more like Saint-Saëns crossed with Brahms or suchlike - but it does go on a bit. Overall, I'd say it was far from Parry's best work. If it were on a concert programme, I wouldn't bother going; on the other hand if any of the symphonies (but especially 3-5) were featured, I'd be buying tickets like a shot.
Seems I am in the minority this time ;) because if this was on a concert program, I would definitely go! I like this concerto for all its quirks. The "galumphing" opening as you call it is what attracts me the most. I imagine is the tempo is increased slightly, this movement would gain momentum... anyways to each his own.
I'd go to hear the concerto like a shot too, unlike the symphonies. Though frankly any Parry or Stanford concert programming (that isn't Jerusalem or I was Glad) would be welcomed gladly by me. Despite the above opinions, I'm a great admirer of both composers, and of Mackenzie (the little that I have been able to listen to).
There was an earlier broacast performance of the Parry which was altogether livelier, and which greatly endeared me to the piece; however, on the day of the recording for some reason the same performers seem to have opted for slower tempi and stodgier rhythms, and I've always been disappointed by the results. High time for someone else to come along and rescue it - it can really sparkle!
Any chance this broadcast was recorded by someone... ?
And not having listened to it for I don't know how long, I give Stanford's 6th a spin and (re)-discover a magnificent work - bracingly athletic in the first movement and, my goodness, the slow movement must surely be one of the great creations in all British music. I'm not abandoning my attachment to Parry's 4th yet, but this is gorgeous stuff...
Don't like to say "I told you so", but.... ;D
...you did, I know. Should've known better...
I'd suggest you now sample Stanford's No.5.
I'm currently sampling Parry's 2nd - whose power I had also forgotten about. Oh dear, so much to go back to and re-evaluate. I guess what I attracts me so much about Parry is his ability to write music that moves in great waves that carry the listener along with them. Maybe he learned that from Wagner...
Alan.. "..music that moves in great waves that carry the listener along with them." Sounds more like Handle ;D ;D Handel to me whose music I adore as unfortunately is out of the forum scope.
Handle? ;)
Yikes. I stepped in that one didn't I!
Never mind. You handeled it well...
Well... I finally got a Handel to my name!
Ok. Back to Parry or Stanford or both!
Quite.
I'm now inclined to nominate the 6th as Stanford's finest symphony. Would I be wrong, d'you think?
Personally I'd go for the 5th, but for no good reason that I can explain. Certainly the final three are all exceptionally fine works, and there's not much to choose between the 5th and 6th in terms of quality of invention, melodic material, orchestration and sheer exhilaration.
Unless something's changed recently, and interestingly for works that have been multiply recorded, the 5th and 6th (and less surprisingly the early 1st and 2nd) of Stanford's symphonies are still, I believe, unpublished. (I think of Parry's symphonies the full scores, anyway, of all but the first have been published. That's only as regards symphonies, though.)
According to Lewis Foreman's notes in the Chandos booklet Stanford's 5th has been published in 1923 "under the aegis of the Carnegie Award Scheme which assisted the publication of many British scores just after the First World War."
That is correct and I believe there are copies at the British Library and The Bodleian, Oxford. Published by Stainer and Bell, 1923.
Ah! My mistake, then :)
Has anyone heard this new recording of Stanford's Piano Concerto No. 2 by Benjamin Frith?
No, but how wonderful: so there are at least three recordings of that work now. I've ordered it, and hoping for something interesting among the solo pieces as well.
Actually, there's at least 4 recordings of this concerto before this
Margaret Fingerhut.
Finghin Collins.
Malcolm Binns.
Andreas Jetter.
...of which the Jetter's a bit of a dud, I gather. AVOID!
I've heard all the recordings of this concerto except for the one by Andreas Jetter. (Great to see the concerto taken up by a foreign pianist!)There's not really a lot to choose between them. Frith is very fine. My favourite, though, is Collins:
"Collins and Montgomery find an ounce more poetry in the slow movement and there are a number of imaginative touches, such as the ritardando at the transition into the first movement's development and an irresistible burst of excitement at the concerto's conclusion."
There are some exciting things on the chamber music front going on in recording studios right now to provide some new CD releases in the Parry centenary year in 2018. In one case a newly discovered work. But lips tightly sealed, I'm afraid!
I haven't heard the Binns, but yes, I usually listen to the Collins. This concerto is frequently on my listening list. As is "Down among the Dead Men".
I see that the Armistice Concert in St Johns Smith Square on Sat 10th November, which I am going to, features Parry's Songs of Farewell. I look forward to getting to know this composer. https://www.sjss.org.uk/events/remembrance (https://www.sjss.org.uk/events/remembrance) if anyone else based in London is interested. Full programme is:
Arvo Pärt - Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten
Parry - Songs of Farewell
Mozart - Requiem in D minor K626
The London Choral Sinfonia
Kim-Lillian Strebel - SOPRANO
Anna Harvey - ALTO
Nick Pritchard - TENOR
Duncan Rock - BASS
Michael Waldron - CONDUCTOR
Three of the songs also featured in yesterday's superb Armistice Concert in Westminster Abbey (My soul, there is a country; There is an old belief; At the round earth's imagined corners) and I really enjoyed them.
the second of last month's BBC Composer of the week Parry programs expires in 6-7 hours or so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000nl5 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000nl5).
I prefer Stanford. His symphony no.5 shows him at his best, although I think Parry was a better symphonist overall. I must say I melt when I hear the slow movement of the 6th, extraordinary movement that!
Stanford wrote finer concertos(seriously the violin no 1, clarinet and Piano no. 2, should be in the standard repertory) than symphonies.
Whats Parry's chamber music like though? I've never even explored any of it yet, which is a surprise to me.
For me, Parry, on account of his 4th Symphony (in its revised version). Just behind that would be Stanford's magnificent PC2. However, both composers should be played far more often: if they were German, I'm sure they would be.
Yep, I agree about Parry's 4th Symphony, 3rd and 5th aren't far behind in my book. Kinda irks me that so many British composers are ignored or even dismissed, especially in the field of opera.
To be honest, I think British unsung composers have been served comparatively well, especially on record – probably not in the last place due to the strong position of British record labels such as Hyperion and Chandos. I can name quite a few countries that have much more to complain about.