The liner notes remind the listener that Searle’s own modernist leanings made him receptive to Roseingrave’s nonconformity, and in 1966 he marked the composer’s bicentenary by orchestrating three of his voluntaries and fugues for strings. The gesture may echo Webern’s Bach transcriptions, though Searle’s handling of eighteenth‑century material is notably more conventional.
Although reviews of the CD were generally positive, opinions differed over the worth of Searle’s transcription. Interestingly the album was ignored by The Gramophone magazine.
Jonathan Woolf, writing on MusicWeb
International (6 August 2006) argued that Searle largely “sleepwalks”
through Roseingrave’s pieces, conceding only a touch of harmonic deftness in
the first Fugue. A month later, (6 September 2006), Michael Cookson questioned
“where Searle found the energy to make arrangements of these works, that are
meagre in content and lacking in memorability and inspiration.”
The most positive review was in the American Record Guide (December 2006) where a certain “Trotter” wrote: Also memorable is the suite made from Humphrey Searle's transcription of three organ pieces by Thomas Roseingrave (don't you love the name?)…In 1966, the bicentenary of Roseingrave's untimely death, Mr Searle chose to honour him with this trio of transcriptions, fashioned in a style reminiscent of Anton Webern's Bach orchestrations (Searle had been a pupil of Webern's and made no secret of the ways Webern influenced his mature compositions). The result is a fascinating musical hybrid that seems as though it shouldn't work but does, quite fetchingly.
Personally, I find these arrangements for string orchestra enjoyable. To be sure, they are not a critical part of Searle’s catalogue, yet they are well wrought, pleasant to listen to and reflect Thomas Roseingrave’s legacy in a good light.
No comments:
Post a Comment