Frederic Cowen

[albion]

I see that not too many people in the forum have a favourable view of the music of Frederic Cowen (1852-1935). Admittedly we haven't yet had the opportunity to hear some of his strongest work on disc. The problem with Cowen is compounded by the fact that so many of his (unpublished) autograph full scores are missing, including his first two symphonies, an 1881 Sinfonietta, numerous overtures, and all four of his major operas 'Pauline' (1876), 'Thorgrim' (1890), 'Signa' (1892) and 'Harold' (1895). He did not have any children and the whereabouts of his personal music library is a mystery.

I would number Cowen amongst the five most significant late-Victorian British composers, along with Sullivan, Mackenzie, Parry and Stanford. In 1866, after just seven months of study, his parents recalled him from Leipzig due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. Although he returned to Germany (Berlin) in 1867 to study privately with Kiel and Taubert, he did not benefit from the 'Conservatoire' route that shaped many of his contemporaries.

Cowen was a master of the lighter genres - predominantly the orchestral suite rather than the symphony. His symphonic works are attractive but not constructed with the intellectual rigour of Parry's or the suave expertise of Stanford's. The Marco Polo recording of the 3rd is truly dismal (as is the whole disc), but the Classico performance of the 6th I think reveals many of Cowen's characteristics, especially the deft orchestration. This music does not sound like his British contemporaries, if anything it has always struck me as Anglicized Grieg. We need really good performances of the 3rd, 4th and 5th before we can even begin to fully assess Cowen's stature. The 5th was actually recorded a couple of years ago by the BBC in sessions left over from one of their Dutton recordings, but to my knowledge (and despite several enquiries to the Corporation) this sight-read performance has never been broadcast.

Of Cowen's major works that were either published in full score or where the autograph is still extant, I would recommend the following for serious consideration, with an asterisk indicating that an adequate recording already exists:

Symphony No.3 'Scandinavian' (1880)
The Language of the Flowers, First Suite (1880)
Symphony No.4 (1884)
Sleeping Beauty, cantata (1885)
Symphony No.5 (1887)
The Water-Lily, cantata (1892)
In Fairyland, Suite (1896)
Symphony No.6 (1897)*
The Dream of Endymion, tenor and orchestra (1897)
Ode to the Passions, chorus and orchestra (1898)
Concertstuck, for piano and orchestra (1900)
The Butterfly's Ball, Overture (1901)
A Phantasy of Life and Love (1901)
John Gilpin, chorus and orchestra (1904)
A Suite of Old English Dances, Second Set (1905)
The Veil, cantata (1910)
The Months, 12 short pieces for orchestra (1912)
The Language of the Flowers, Second Suite (1914)

One solitary asterisk! I would not recommend the 1903 'Indian Rhapsody' (recorded by Marco Polo) even if a better performance could be secured, or the first Suite of English Dances (1896) but everything else I would whole-heartedly endorse. It is wonderful news that the Concertstuck (written for Paderewski) is scheduled for inclusion in volume 55 of Hyperion's Romantic Piano Concerto series, and this will hopefully encourage other recordings. Five of Cowen's extant choral works are included in the above list - these, I think, are the strongest and deserve to be heard again.

[edurban]

...I would not recommend the 1903 'Indian Rhapsody' (recorded by Marco Polo) even if a better performance could be secured...

Why, I wonder?  It's by far the most attractive Cowen piece I've heard.  A fine performance, well-recorded, would be delightful, in my book.

David

[albion]

I simply don't think it represents Cowen at anywhere near his best! Despite some colourful orchestration, I think the melodic material is contrived and lacks spontaneity. The striving after 'orientalisms' seems to me to be very laboured and the whole thing is a bit of a rambling mess: even given the leeway allowed by the term 'Rhapsody', I don't think that this particular example hangs together at all with it's unsubtle and unintegrated sectional structure. If others disagree with this opinion and experience more positive reactions to the 'Indian Rhapsody', I'm only too glad!

I would say that Cowen demands the same sort of critical support as Holbrooke - with many works to champion it is important that stronger pieces are given prominence over weaker ones. I'm glad that Hyperion will be giving us the 'Concertstuck' which is in reality another Rhapsody, but a much more impressive achievement:

"Although entitled a Concertstuck, the piece is more or less of the nature of a Rhapsody, while much of the thematic material is quite characteristic of the composer, and the pianoforte part, which is more important than the orchestral, is most brilliant, and often very difficult. It is about half a dozen short movements linked together without a break, the last section recalling some of the themes already heard. This, indeed, and the last movement but one, which may almost remind the hearer of some of the Rhapsodies of Liszt, are most effective portions of the work" (Daily News, 29 June 1900)

Compared to the 'Indian Rhapsody' there is ingenious thematic development in the 'Concertstuck' within a basic slow-quick-slow-quick (coda) structure. Having read the score published by Joseph Williams I can't wait to hear it!

[Alan Howe]

I couldn't possibly put Cowen in the same league as Parry, Sullivan and Stanford - nor Mackenzie for that matter. A much more substantial composer in every way was Algernon Ashton...

[albion]

We must agree to disagree on this one! Judging from the vocal scores of 'Thorgrim' (Novello), 'Signa' (Ascherberg) and 'Harold' (Joseph Williams) Cowen's accomplishment in opera was very real, certainly superior to Stanford's early efforts in 'The Veiled Prophet' (Boosey), 'The Canterbury Pilgrims' (Boosey) and 'Savonarola' (privately printed). Incidentally, also much stronger works than Stanford's are Arthur Goring Thomas's 'Esmeralda' (1883) and 'Nadeshda' (1885) both written for Carl Rosa.

Likewise, the five choral works I included all indicate a very real talent which cannot be fully realised until we are more familiar with them in orchestral performance. They show a very strong and personal melodic gift allied to word-setting close to Sullivan in its skill and regard for the inflections of language.

As to Algernon Ashton, the loss of his large-scale orchestral works is indeed a tragedy, so any attempt to assess them in terms of his contemporaries must necessarily be the wildest speculation - his piano music is a different matter. Nobody has heard Cowen's music beyond the little that has been recorded (and 'The Dream of Endymion', performed by the Broadheath Singers some years back) and fewer still have taken the time to look at what published scores there are.

[Alan Howe]

Cowen's 3rd and 6th are way inferior to anything written by Parry or Stanford; by comparison he's a lightweight. Of course, we don't have everything by Ashton, but by the side of Cowen, he was a compositional giant.

Sorry: as you say, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but I'm not holding my breath at the thought of new issues of Cowen's music (although I'd buy them, of course!)

[albion]

Just precisely how (by analysis, not supposition) is Cowen (judged by his total output) a "compositional lightweight": in the mould of Arthur Sullivan and Edward German perhaps (this is intentionally ironic). This is a truly pejorative criticism of the worst order. His 3rd and 6th are "way inferior to anything written by Parry or Stanford" - have you really listened attentively to Parry's 'Overture to an Unwritten Tragedy' or Stanford's Overture to 'The Canterbury Pilgrims'?

[Alan Howe]

Pretty obviously I was comparing like with like: Cowen 6, even in the alert performance by Bostock, is pretty thin stuff for a lot of the time (I'm listening attentively to it as I write this) and much of what I hear, especially of the 2nd movement, is more akin to (skilfully written) light music. It just doesn't have the same ambition, let alone quality as any of the symphonies of Parry or Stanford. The slow movement, I grant you, is attractive, but I just can't get excited by this ever-so civilised music. It seems to me that, on the evidence, of the 6th, there are many better composers out there deserving of our attention. As I said, let's agree to disagree; but do let's keep the stature of Cowen in proper perspective.

[Alan Howe]

And, by the way, I'd swap anything I've heard by Cowen (admittedly not all that much, but, as I said, I'm not holding my breath on the evidence presented so far) for Sullivan's marvellous Symphony.

[albion]

The stature of Cowen is still an unknown quantity, as is the stature of any composer whose lifetime achievement is unavailable to the listener through good live performance or competent recording. Skilfully written light music is not to be derided - as Alexander Mackenzie found in writing 'His Majesty' for the Savoy in 1897 it requires a special kind of genius which Sullivan had but Mackenzie most certainly did not. A symphony does not have to plumb the depths of passion or present an intellectual conundrum - it can simply entertain, as many of Haydn's do. I was entertained by Cowen's 6th, but a chacun son gout! There are probably many "better" composers than Frederic Cowen, but this forum should give all a fair hearing based on a wider knowledge than simply what is already available on compact disc.

[Alan Howe]

And you've been getting a fair hearing. But we should be realistic as well as fair. And Cowen's just not a composer of real stature - IMHO, of course.

[John H White]

One of my all time favourite recordings is of Frederic Cowen's 3rd Symphony on Marco Polo. However, by comparison, I found his 6th Symphony on Classico rather disappointing, much preferring the "fill up" of Samuel Coleridge-Taylor's fine youthful Symphony in A minor.

[namoji]

Symphonies 3 and 6 are in their best production, I believe that we should not judge it by its contemporaries, but focus on him and his real purpose in writing was not as ambitious as his contemporaries, rather I think they settle for making music light to listen and understand, even for the very little that I've heard (the overture butterfly, is charming) I think it is in my humble opinion a composer worthy of being studied, and listened, with very characteristic features.
sullivan and stanford are a world apart.

[Pengelli]

I remain open minded towards Cowen,and would certainly buy a cd of his music,even though,I have to say,I have been disappointed by what I have heard to date. What cannot be denied is the fact that he was a major figure in his time & in that respect I think he is worth investigating.
As to Stanford,I must confess to having all of his symphonies on cd,and the Chandos recording of 'Songs of the Fleet' (etc),but,without wishing to upset anyone here,find them all rather bland & forgettable. No 5 certainly has it's moments,is beautifully orchestrated & the introduction of the organ in the finale is quite ingenious & genuinely imaginative,the Fourth is quite good fun. But overall I would rather listen to the infinitely superior symphonies of Hubert Parry,which are quite wonderful,and everything that Stanford's aren't. As to the 'Songs of the Fleet. HMS Pinafore & 'The Pirates of Penzance' have just about twice as much sea salt in them and oodles more fun (Decca D'oyly Carte for me).
Apologies,however,to anyone who enjoys Stanford. Each to his own,as they say.

[Pengelli]

I should really have said,that his 'Irish rhapsodies' are, in my opinion, mini masterpieces.