CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
Posted by Jim Westhead on October 8, 2019, 10:19 pm
In his detailed and thorough review of the above CD, Mr Godfrey states that the text to the three verses of Stanford's "Fairy Day" "surpass even that doggerel for nauseous sentimentality", then later "and although the diction of the choir in Fairy Day is done no favours by their backward balance we might perhaps be grateful for the fact that Allingham’s words are not clearer. They are provided in the booklet for those of a suitably hardened disposition". Well, Mr Godfrey, please pause to reflect that such verses were not generally considered to be "nauseous doggerel" in their day; in fact they chimed in quite well with the standard of children's verses of the time, and were, in fact, popular. It's a shame that he cannot try to judge such things by the standards of children's rhymes of 1874, rather than those of much more sophisticated adults of today. A mild comment trying to put the matter into some historical/social context, whilst relating your own personal distaste would acceptable.
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
Well, tastes change, and I don't think that the fact that some poetry was popular in its day (if indeed it really was, except to adults who viewed children through sentimental glasses) can be used to justify its merits in absolute terms. We must judge the quality of words - and music - by current standards, unless we are to regard them purely as 'period pieces' - in which case the law of supply and demands surely takes over, as in the case of antique ornaments. But that is a long way from judgements "of today". I cannot place myself in the position of a child of 1874; the brief passage which I quoted in my review surely demonstrates the sheer inanity of the verses themselves. What, for example, is a "nooklet" except a twee way of describing a nook that happens to conveniently rhyme?
In this context I might cite the views of J R R Tolkien, who was himself responsible for the perpetration of a poem entitled "Goblin Feet" in his early career, a poem very much in the Allingham tradition. At the end of his life however he wrote of it: "I wish the unhappy little thing, representing all thast I came (so soon after) to fervently dislike, could be buried for ever." I very much feel in sympathy with that view.
That does not mean of course that bad verse cannot inspire good, or even great music. And I did observe in my review that this happened in the third of Stanford's settings, where the musical inspiration takes over from the words and rises to heights than cannot possibly be justified as a simple response to the poetry.
Otherwise, to quote from the third section of Fairy Day: "When broadens the moonlight, we frolic and jest; when darkles [sic] the forest, we sink into rest."
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
I was intrigued to find that Allingham's most famous poem "The Fairies" contained this verse:
They stole little Bridget For seven years long; When she came down again Her friends were all gone. They took her lightly back, Between the night and morrow, They thought that she was fast asleep, But she was dead with sorrow. They have kept her ever since Deep within the lake, On a bed of flag-leaves, Watching till she wake.
Another poem contained this line:
The Wizard! the Wizard! He's up on the bough, He'll bite through your gizzard He's close to you now!
Maybe not Shakespeare, but appealing for children who generally have the odd propensity of enjoying being frightened, as well as imbuing the piece with the seriously dark side of the world of Faery.
The frequent inclusion of song-settings of the words shows how Allingham must have thought of this work - not as great, noble literature but as something that would appeal to children, rather like a superior kind of nursery-rhyme.
And surely a piece which begins like:
Golden, golden, Light unfolding, Busily, merrily, work and play, In flowery meadows, And forest shadows, All the length of a Summer day! All the length of a Summer day!
Isn't terribly far in intent, although perhaps it is in execution, from :
Where the bee sucks, there suck I: In a cowslip's bell I lie; There I couch when owls do cry. On the bat's back I do fly After summer merrily: Merrily, merrily, shall I live now, Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
but that carries the magic name of Shakespeare so escapes any accusation of "tweeness."
And as for the notion that we must judge words and music of the past by current standards as expressed in another part of the thread, I'm left to wonder just who sets current standards, what they are thought to be and whether or not they are any better than those which were in effect during previous eras.
Previous Message
Well, tastes change, and I don't think that the fact that some poetry was popular in its day (if indeed it really was, except to adults who viewed children through sentimental glasses) can be used to justify its merits in absolute terms. We must judge the quality of words - and music - by current standards, unless we are to regard them purely as 'period pieces' - in which case the law of supply and demands surely takes over, as in the case of antique ornaments. But that is a long way from judgements "of today". I cannot place myself in the position of a child of 1874; the brief passage which I quoted in my review surely demonstrates the sheer inanity of the verses themselves. What, for example, is a "nooklet" except a twee way of describing a nook that happens to conveniently rhyme?
In this context I might cite the views of J R R Tolkien, who was himself responsible for the perpetration of a poem entitled "Goblin Feet" in his early career, a poem very much in the Allingham tradition. At the end of his life however he wrote of it: "I wish the unhappy little thing, representing all thast I came (so soon after) to fervently dislike, could be buried for ever." I very much feel in sympathy with that view.
That does not mean of course that bad verse cannot inspire good, or even great music. And I did observe in my review that this happened in the third of Stanford's settings, where the musical inspiration takes over from the words and rises to heights than cannot possibly be justified as a simple response to the poetry.
Otherwise, to quote from the third section of Fairy Day: "When broadens the moonlight, we frolic and jest; when darkles [sic] the forest, we sink into rest."
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
I would hesitate to describe myself as someone with a “permanent form of stiff upper lip”, indeed regarding my upper lip as potentially as tremulous as anyone else's. We also seem to have strayed a very long way indeed from my original criticism of Allingham’s poetry as a basis for Stanford’s music. I would simply observe that the passages selected by Stanford for his musical treatment fall in several places well below those now cited by Mr Lague.
I would also dispute that I am in any way seeking to judge the verses of Allingham purely by the standards of a different and later age. Even in the Victorian era we find Andrew Lang in his preface to the Lilac Fairy Book commenting on writers of the then-contemporary school, whose “fairies try to be funny and fail; or they try to preach and succeed.” The whimsical nature of Allingham’s poetry avoids the second trap by falling headlong into the first, as is instanced by the deliberately comic use of a word such as “gizzard” purely on the basis that it provides a rhyme for “wizard”. The texts employed by Stanford in A Fairy Day are full of such would-be humorous conceits.
Shakespeare really doesn’t enter into the equation, such poems as Where the bee sucks being employed for purely comic effect in a more extended narrative. There is plenty of scope for ‘light verse’ in this all-too-dismal world; but we shouldn’t make a habit of elevating it even by a ‘magic name’ such as Shakespeare to the standard of great literature, even when it can furnish the basis for effective musical setting (as Stanford certainly does in places in A Fairy Day). And Shakespeare did the same for Mendelssohn, of course, in such settings as Ye spotted snakes. In the next generation of English poetry, writers such as Belloc, Milne and Kipling achieve these humous effects with a much more assured touch totally defying the stiffest of upper lips.
But this has now strayed even further from the original discussion of Stanford’s music.
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
I am gratified that Mr Corfield Godfrey has commended my selection of Allingham's poetry as superior to those selected by Stanford -and I note the qualifying "in several places" - for his musical setting in "Fairy Day." I would point out that my third selection, "Golden, golden, Light unfolding" forms part of Stanford's selection of words for the first song of his piece "Fairy Dawn."
The Andrew Lang preface appears to have been written in 1910 or thereabouts some years after Victoria had gone to her rest. He was writing about the fairy-tale writers of his own day , certainly not Allingham who had died in 1889.
The Victorian vogue for fairies (usually the diaphonous , pretty kind rather than some of the nastier creatures who inhabit the old myths from which they spring) was surprisingly active. I remember, not too long ago, going to an exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts of Victorian Fairy Painting (35 artists including Richard Doyle which might explain why his nephew, Arthur, became such an advocate of the case for the Cottingley Fairies). Quite why this should have been so I cannot try to explain but it's obvious that Allingham was responding to the vogue probably in the hope of attracting young children to poetry by using a subject which would pique their interest. I examined some other examples of Allingham's poetry available online and was delighted to see that one bore the title of "The Dirty Old Man." On reading this verse it became obvious it was meant to be read in the rhythm of an Irish-jig even though its matter, somewhat dissapointingly, was of Dirty Dick of Leadenhall Street in London. Another, Meadowsweet, attests more to Allingham's gifts although he was very far from being a great poet even though his work apparently influenced WB Yeats.
I entered this discussion primarily to try to discover why the word "Sentimental" has so often been used as a term of denigration. I still don't know. Although I suppose I could be accused of mawkish tenderness when, like Chaucer's prioress, I heave a sigh of sympathy when I find the body of a mouse which one of my cats has dispatched in the garden.
Another mystery is how this matter came to be resurrected on the opening page of the MWI message board when all posts prior to my own appear to date from 2019 a fact which I have only just noticed.... Some sort of computer glitch or have wicked fairies been at work ?
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
These things can be very subjective and also dependent upon context. I have no view on the text in question, being unacquainted with it, but I have, for example, often defended Cardinal - soon to be Saint John Henry - Newman's libretto for "The Dream of Gerontius" as moving and skilful poetry, whereas others have excoriated it for its supposed pious sentimentality. Furthermore, the music itself can often elevate indifferent verse; I think again of Elgar, but would this time cite some of the songs in his "Sea Pictures" - or perhaps various opera libretti whose quality is questionable but are transfigured by sublime music. I'm sure PCG will agree that we reviewers are on occasion tempted by the desire to make an impact with a rhetorical flourish into being rather more acid then we should - I've certainly done it myself then felt rather ashamed of my churlishness.
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
Why is the word "Sentimental" used in such a pejorative way ? The online dictionary defines the word as, " of or prompted by feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia:"
The antonyms include "Cynical, hardeaded, hard-edged, unromantic."
I like "Sentimental."
Previous Message
In his detailed and thorough review of the above CD, Mr Godfrey states that the text to the three verses of Stanford's "Fairy Day" "surpass even that doggerel for nauseous sentimentality", then later "and although the diction of the choir in Fairy Day is done no favours by their backward balance we might perhaps be grateful for the fact that Allingham’s words are not clearer. They are provided in the booklet for those of a suitably hardened disposition". Well, Mr Godfrey, please pause to reflect that such verses were not generally considered to be "nauseous doggerel" in their day; in fact they chimed in quite well with the standard of children's verses of the time, and were, in fact, popular. It's a shame that he cannot try to judge such things by the standards of children's rhymes of 1874, rather than those of much more sophisticated adults of today. A mild comment trying to put the matter into some historical/social context, whilst relating your own personal distaste would acceptable.
Re: Stanford : Fairy Day; Review by Paul Corfield Godfrey
I am much surprised to find that a review I wrote nearly four years ago is still capable of exciting such controversy. It is surely more than anybody, either William Allingham or myself, deserves.
But anybody who quotes a dictionary definition should be aware of the various elements involved. The Oxford English Dictionary gives no fewer than nine definitions of 'sentiment' including the following: "(a) a mawkish tenderness: (b) the display of this."
I would defy anybody to claim that Allingham's verses employed in Stanford's setting are anything other than 'sentimental' in this sense. The twee use of vocubulary reeks of an author looking over the shoulder of parents reading the poems to their children, with the smug conspiratorial expression of a complicit sense of self-satisfied cuteness. I stand by every word of my description.
This is quite distinct from, for example, 'noble sentiments' which are clearly praiseworthy provided they are not hypocritical. The context is everything.
It may even be that Stanford's contemporaries might have agreed. Although "Fairy Day" was commissioned by a conductor from the composer, it doesn't appear that he ever actually performed the pieces which remained unheard until some ten years ago. Which is a pity because, as I said in my original review, some of the music is good despite the texts.