I know a large majority of you reading this at the moment already view composers such as Shostakovich and Mahler as superior to the one I am going to write about today. Do not get me wrong, these are all brilliant composers in their own right.
I do not expect this article to change your opinion on this matter, nor do I think it will rip through your mind and make you think twice about how you see these composers. You can even analyse the persuasive techniques in it if you wish, although my English writing skills denote that it may not be all that valuable in this respect. But I wish to write this anyway so that you can see why I so admire this composer’s ability and maybe even why you might not. I will also speak of why he is not as recognised as he should be, and also outline his remarkable individuality.
All of the ALP music blog members are acquainted with at least a small part of the music of Robert Simpson, except Stuart of course. As I have only heard this composer’s symphonies, I do not believe that I have the authority to compare his string quartets, chamber music or concerti to that of other composers. I have scarcely been acquainted with this composer for 2 months as well, but I practically know off by heart the overall argument of each of his symphonies. So, where to start?
First of all, there are a couple of misconceptions I would like to address. The first is that Robert Simpson does not have or has not shown the ability to write memorable melodies or motives. Anyone who is acquainted with the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or ninth symphonies can quickly dispel this myth from their minds, for one knows the incredible catchiness of the finale of no. 2, the developing motive in the second movement of no. 3, the gorgeous and lyrical melodies of almost all of no. 4, the violent central movement of no. 5, the stalking unison figure of no. 6 which descends in fifths or the chorale prelude of no. 9. That is only taking into account the melodies one can remember after only one or two listenings; if we add a few more listenings one can grasp the thematic strength of the first, seventh and eleventh symphonies. Perhaps the eighth and tenth are a little different, they are highly concentrated works that serve a different purpose.
The second misconception is that Simpson does not know how to write beautiful music. For those with a taste of slow, lyrical movements, one cannot be untouched by the diatonic purity and timelessness of the middle section of no. 1, the elegiac slow movements of nos. 2 and 4, the piercingly beautiful slow part of no. 7 and the meditative opening movement of no. 11. There are many other moments, but I cannot assimilate a list of them at this point in time.
***
So, now that I have that out of the way I would like to speak on the part in which I admire Simpson above all else, and that is in form. Simpson once said that ‘What music expresses is form’. In my humble opinion I believe that Simpson is the greatest composer of the twentieth century I have come across in terms of musical structure and form. Yet this never comes at the cost of the music which is consistently rewarding. Simpson is consistently original yet taught in his form. Allow me to furnish you with a few examples.
First I would like to speak of what is arguably his first masterpiece; the Symphony No. 2. As we all know, form isn’t just ABA and so on – it is also the structural unity of the music; how the motives are used, how the music develops, what the structural basis of the music is. The remarkable opening movement of no. 2 is beyond the orthodoxy of Shostakovich, Mahler and Penderecki’s first movements (where they exist). Simpson not only is almost continually developing his material in a fashion which feels undeniably inevitable when it closes; he also uses tonality in a remarkable way. Using his ingenuity he creates scenarios where there are conflicting keys – not just that, he gives them gravitational pulls. For instance, the first movement of no. 2 is centred in B but is constantly being pull towards 2 distant keys – G major and E flat major. To use this technique is one thing – to make it sound natural is another. You can see this technique at work in all of his first three symphonies, and just as successfully in each as well.
Simpson has another thing to pull out of the hat for the second movement – it is a palindrome (the same backwards as forwards). To be honest, there are moments in Shostakovich where I feel that he can’t write forwards! Yet this movement is beautiful, elegiac, taut and a set of 13 variations on a palindromic theme. Of course, he didn’t discard the idea of the first movement here; it begins in B major, climaxes in G in the middle, and returns to B at the end, with E flat there in the background.
Symphony No. 3 is another work centred on more than one tonality (here the keys are B flat and C). So can Simpson write in classical sonata form? Sure can! First movement is straight down the line sonata-form, Beethovenian in its texture, and a wonderful movement it is too! Yet the second movement is far less orthodox, but still very successful. The motives are continuously developing – yet always sounding inevitable, and the result is beyond masterly. He manages to develop the tonality of the music in such a way that when that when the dominant chord on C hits you at the very end it sounds like an over-familiar harmony – a stunning revelation, and then you remember the bitonality of the work and see why it was so familiar – C major chord with an added B flat! In this piece the ‘positive’ key of C major prevailed.
Now that he has experimented with bitonality, he moves onto different techniques for his symphonies 4 and 5. Both of these works are immensely powerful, yet emotional opposites. The fourth symphony is the finest fourth I have come to know from twentieth century music, even though it maintains the tradition of fourth symphonies generally not being dark pieces (although there is a shadow as well as sunlight to the music!). It is the most orthodox in form out of all the symphonies, although the classical forms are more developed here rather than duplicated on. The outer movements are always developing, and he somehow keeps churning out related memorable, often touching melodies – particularly in the finale, which has one of the most optimistic conclusions I have heard in all music!
Symphony No. 5 is astonishing – a formal masterpiece of the highest order. The enigmatic six note chord that opens the piece forms the basis of almost all of the material of the symphony, as well as the structure – which is eerily duplicated in the development of motives in the outer movements. The music itself is terrifying – not for nothing did one of the first performances ban children under the age of 10 for this reason!
Symphony No. 6 is a piece more concerned than ever before with development from start to end and is inspired by prime of life; the descending figure and chains of fifths I was referring to before are likened to a DNA molecule, and in the music you can make out the genes splitting and the molecules duplicating. What an extraordinary context to place music in! The second part represents the rapid growth of an individual, and uses the same thematic material as the first part but continues to develop it.
Before spending too much time on form, I would like to skip to Symphony No. 9 (nos. 7 and 8 are both masterly; ask me about them later if you want). Why No. 9? Because it is simply in my view one of the finest pieces of music I have listened to. Everything about it is mastered to the highest order and I really cannot say much about it except that entire work is beyond anything any of the three composers I mentioned in the first paragraph have achieved. The themes of the opening bars are in a wedge shape, the overall shape of the first few minutes is a wedge harmonically – the entire symphony is in the shape of a wedge! The other amazing achievements of this piece I will discuss below.
***
So what else can I give Simpson the credit for? Firstly, he is the finest composer of the twentieth century in terms of musical motion. I should also point out that the first and ninth symphonies both maintain a basic pulse and beat throughout the whole of the work, and never change tempo. His music consistently has a direction and a goal, and sense of momentum unsurpassed by anyone I have come across since Beethoven– his music is astronomical, reflecting his keen hobby as an astronomer. He writes some of the biggest climaxes in all music and his use of brass is masterly; sample Symphony No. 9! Nobody has surpassed his achievements in these areas.
Simpson is also exceedingly more original than Mahler or Shostakovich. His music is strikingly individual, although there are influences of course – notably Nielsen, Beethoven, Haydn and Bruckner. There is also an air of Sibelius in his sixth and seventh symphonies. Simpson was quite simply the 20th century successor to Beethoven.
***
So why isn’t Simpson more widely known and why hasn’t his music come to the fore of classical music if he is so good? Firstly, Simpson, as of November 11, died exactly 10 years ago. Few composers have experience great fame so soon after their death, but yes, there are some. What else?
Simpson is not a modernist or a neo-classist. Therefore, both of these two major ‘camps’ reject him. Take Penderecki for example. He was seen as the finest living composer around until he started composing neo-romanticist music. Now he can hardly claim to be the leading late composer in his own country, overshadowed by Gorecki for a while. This brings me to my next point. Why is it that people judge music not by its substance or virtues but simply by its genre? Why is it that pop-music is so to the fore? Why is it that composers such as Simpson and Penderecki have not come out, being such masters, and that Shostakovich has prevailed above both of them, even within classical music? This is a terrible thing in music, the worst thing there is. Both of these composers are original – their music is very new but not as radical. Nobody can fall in line with them. How can one say that twelve-tone technique is more original for that matter? It is one of my life-time ambitions to bring composers like these two masters out, to bring them to the wider public – to have them recognised to the extent they should be.
***
If you have genuinely got this far then thank you for having a read! Take a break and enjoy some music, and find some space for something new and less well known in there as well. You’ll never know what you may find!
