I am convinced that one of the major problems in approaching Arnold
Cooke’s music is the presumption that it owes virtually everything to Paul
Hindemith. At least this seems to be the prevailing view amongst the few music
critics that I have read. Most listeners will acknowledge Hindemith as a
well-known composer and teacher, yet I guess he is not universally popular
beyond Germany. There is a thinking abroad that somehow Cooke sold-out on his
Britishness to become a kind of Germanic clone. On the other hand, there is an
expectation that an English composer should write music in a recognisably
nationalistic style: perhaps making use of folk tunes or nodding to the vocal
lines of Tallis or the romanticism of Elgar. Yet, this assumption would destroy
the reputation of a number of fine British composers. Think of Lennox Berkeley
and his French connection, or Vaughan Williams’s valuable lessons with Maurice
Ravel. And what about the Frankfurt Group including Balfour Gardiner and Cyril
Scott? All these composers have absorbed teaching from French or German
composers, yet have retained to a greater or lesser degree a sense of
Englishness. So it is with Cooke.
Arnold Cooke was one of only two English pupils of Paul Hindemith: the other was Walter Leigh. It is fair to say that he learnt much from his teacher.
Malcolm MacDonald sums this up in the programme notes to the Lyrita CD of this
work. He writes that what Cooke ‘really imbibed was a broad framework of
technique and a sense of direction: a view of music as a living polyphonic
entity and a feeling for individual instruments that goes back to the practice
of J.S. Bach.’ As Havergal Brian wrote in 1936, Cooke ‘appears to think and
breathe contrapuntally … and he has tradition in his bones: his working
principles are nearer to the Elizabethans and Bach than to Wagner and Strauss.’
And note here Brian's reference to the Elizabethans.
This is not the place to write
even a short biography or musical study of Arnold Cooke. There is plenty of
information available on MusicWeb and
a fine booklet written by Eric Wetherell and published by the BMS that may
still be found in second hand bookshops.
The first Symphony was
composed in 1947, when Cooke was 41 years old. The general opinion of the
critics seems to be that this work represents the first major statement of
Cooke’s fully developed style – a style that was to change comparatively little
over the next half century.
There are a number of possible
models for this work including Hindemith’s Symphony in E dating from
1940. The British exemplars of that time would have been Walton’s B minor and
Vaughan Williams’ 4th and 5th. It is fair to say that Cooke neither parodies
nor cribs from any of these works. What he has written is original and quite
personal.
There are four movements with the
first being the longest. Interestingly, the classical model is altered, with
the scherzo coming second. The general mood of the Symphony as
a strong and robust work is immediately apparent in the opening movement. This
is in a reasonably traditional sonata form. Yet the tempo does not slow up for
the second subject. There is some fine brass writing, particularly for the
French horns. A good balance is maintained between what may be deemed
‘aggressive’ and ‘lyrical’ music.
The second movement is not really
a proper Scherzo. The classicist would tell us that the ‘trio’ is missing.
The impression is of activity: the momentum never seems to stop. It is not
quicksilver - more of a whirlwind. There is a swing and a swagger to this
movement that continues unabated to the very last bar.
The heart of this work is the
elegiac slow movement. This is deeply considered music, timeless and beholden
to no man. Here we find music that may nod, according to MacDonald, towards
Bach or perhaps even the Elizabethan viol school. However, all this ‘source
criticism’ is small beer compared to the overarching power of this expansive
and frankly sad music.
Fortunately, the tension is
diminished during the finale. This is an exuberant excursion into the world of
festivals and fanfares. Lots of different themes and figures and episodes are
tossed around before the work concludes with a fine coda.
With thanks to MusicWeb
International where this review was first published 7 May 2007.
2 comments:
I am sorry that you did not say anything about the ballet music from "Jabez and the Devil"...
I am sorry that you did not say anything about the ballet music from "Jabez and the Devil"...
Post a Comment