I cannot agree with your estimation of Stanford as being "first rank". Undoubtedly he is a vital part of the evolution that was the English Musical Renaissance. But more so as a teacher than through his own compositions. I would say he is a fine 2nd rank composer and a great teacher. His animosity towards Elgar suggests that on some level he realised himself that he was simply not in the same league as the likes of Elgar - but then no other contemporary British composer was!
I completely accept that he was a remarkable polymath and generally very tlaented but sheer quantity of work alone is no measure of enduring quality. At the end of the day he was no revolutionary musically and by that alone he will always remain a valued but minor figure as a composer.
Prompted by the latest of Christopher Howell’s ‘Stanfordian Thoughts’ (as usual fascinating in its exploration of the byways of Stanford’s career), I had one of my own! Was he not perhaps the most complete musician Britain has ever produced? His worth as a composer is gradually being reassessed through recordings if not live performances and his stature is now surely unarguable – not a giant such as Elgar or Vaughan Williams perhaps, but still a composer of the first rank. His output was prodigious with his opus numbers reaching 194 and there are a good many works in addition including at least three operas, two symphonies and three concertos, but beyond that he was teacher, conductor, performer, administrator – and, if not in the Berlioz class, his memoirs are nonetheless an entertaining read too. A truly remarkable man - and still, so far as live performance is concerned (except perhaps in cathedrals), something of a prophet without honour and all that!
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb