ARNELL: Piano Concerto, Op. 44 (1946). Symphony
No. 2, Op. 33 "Rufus" (1942,
David Owen Norris (piano); Royal Scottish National Orchestra/Martin Yates.
Dutton DCLX 7184 () (DDD) TT: 66:29
BUY NOW FROM AMAZON
The British Richard Arnell came to New York in the late Thirties for
the World's Fair and found himself trapped for the duration of World
War II. In the meantime, he carried on a career as a composer, hobnobbing
with such lights as Virgil Thomson, Mark Rothko, and Bernard Herrmann.
When the war ended, he returned to England and began to build his career
all over again. At first, he was lucky, even though -- like Alwyn, Arnold,
Walton, even Vaughan Williams, and just about every tonal British composer
of the time not Britten -- musical fashion had moved away from his brand
of neo-Romanticism. Great conductors took him up -- first Barbirolli
in New York, and, more lasting, Beecham. When Beecham died, Arnell lacked
a great champion, and his music sank into obscurity, although he continued
to compose (Arnell, as far as I know, is still alive, by the way, and
apparently still composes). I wonder what else is out there, waiting
for recording. He's the kind of composer people who like neo-Romantic
Modern music will probably enjoy.
I first encountered his music on a Lyrita LP of "lollipops" --
the suite from The Great Detective, a ballet about Sherlock Holmes
-- so I was not at all prepared for his larger works, like the Symphony
No. 3 (Dutton CDLX7161). I found a composer with an amazingly fecund
musical imagination. Indeed, at times he seemed to have too many really
good ideas for a piece to hold together. If a well-argued score flies
like an arrow directly to a target, Arnell's larger works (that is,
ones I've heard) tend to scatter like shrapnel. Nevertheless, you still
get a lot of bang for your buck.
Having heard now four large pieces -- the Symphony No. 3, the "New
Age" Overture, and the two here -- I find that the scale, as opposed
to the length, at which Arnell so easily works, amazes me. Something
about his orchestral sound suggests great vistas, like the music of
In 1942, Arnell entered a competition for new symphonies and used the
nom de guerre "Rufus." He didn't win and, despite a promise
of performance from Beecham, a musician's strike put paid to his entry's
immediate premiere. It remained in the composer's drawer until 1988,
when Edward Downes and the BBC finally played it. It's the earliest
Arnell work I know. Despite its number, the composer wrote it before
first symphony, sort of like Chopin and his piano concertos. We see
in the symphony the influence of Hindemith, Walton, and Sibelius, the
especially potent on British composers of the time. The Hindemith,
however, surprises me, since the composer had few disciples in England
Arnold Cooke and Franz Reizenstein, the latter a German expat. Here,
although the Hindemith riffs are pretty obvious, Arnell uses them for
little more than getting started. He generates ideas of his own with
ease. Hindemith shows up strongly in the first movement -- a symphonic
waltz -- in the shape of themes, the mainly quartal harmonies, the
development procedures, and the emphasis on vigorous rhythmic counterpoint.
moves tautly, rather than sinuously, and Arnell keeps the whole movement
together in a close argument. In the long second movement -- a slow,
reflective march, that frames some noble singing -- the spirit of Hindemith
weakens, and something more personal and more poetic takes its place.
This was, of course, wartime, and I might be forgiven for speculating
that this movement laments the war dead. About three to four minutes
from the end, the texture becomes positively ethereal, as if one saw
the souls themselves taken up. The finale, a rondo, uses a theme of
strong Hindemithian cast in a movement more like Walton. In many ways,
this the most interesting, if the loosest, movement of the three. Its
symphonic thought takes big strides, and its counterpoint, quirky and
powerful at the same time, invigorates it.
The 1946 Piano Concerto, the first of two, had slightly better luck.
Bernard Herrmann conducted the CBS Symphony in the 1947 premiere and
probably lobbied CBS to commission the work. The concerto throws off
the impression of a big, heroic piece, but a close examination of means
reveals this as an illusion. The good thing is that one finds Hindemith
nowhere in sight. Arnell has become his own man.
Most of the solo piano writing tends to the simple: octaves, with double
octaves for excitement, or chords against melody. Yet the musical ideas
themselves are big, and Arnell's orchestra reacts to the solo work
like a magician's assistant, providing a large frame for a spring-loaded "bouquet." Parturient
montes, and all that. Arnell pulls one fabulous melody out of his hat
after another, but he writes essentially a lyric, rather than an epic.
The concerto follows the standard three-movement arrangement: call to
arms, contemplative song, fizzy finale. For all the double octaves, it
doesn't "feel" like a piano concerto. For one thing, there's
very little dialogue between soloist and orchestra, and the balance
of forces is way off, with the weight going to the orchestra. It sounds
as if the orchestra plays at least half again as much as the piano.
example, Arnell produces a glorious, Romantic second subject but doesn't
seem able to make much of it on the piano. It takes the orchestra to
realize the theme's glory. Also, the movement runs a bit long, like
the Third Symphony, in my opinion. There are simply too many great
and I don't really see how a conductor can keep the movement from sprawling.
The end is wonderful, but the musical material comes out of the blue.
So we get not a summing up, but yet another spur off the main line.
This strikes me as a rhetorical mistake.
The second movement, a chromatic song, begins with the solo piano. In
texture and in its emotional territory of nostalgic regret, if not in
idiom, it reminds me a little of Rachmaninoff. The first subject seems
more suited to the piano, and the soloist enters a real dialogue with
the orchestra. The balance shifts more to the piano nearly throughout.
The cadenza is quite fine, both musically and as a vehicle for the soloist.
Nevertheless, the movement's second theme, dolce poetico, doesn't suit
the piano at all -- too sustained. Its successful restatement in the
strings doesn't really surprise you.
The third movement, yet another rondo, opens with much of the bounding
energy of the American symphonists of the Forties, particularly Piston.
But there's a Romantic overlay in the concerto not found in Piston.
For my money, this is the concerto's strongest movement musically,
and "concerto-wise." One of the rondo episodes, an extensive
andante for the soloist alone both shows the most idiomatic keyboard
writing and will tear your heart out, besides. The movement finishes
David Owen Norris does as well as he can in the concerto. When Arnell
deals him a decent hand, he makes the most of it. Yates and his Royal
Scots give a sympathetic, committed account. Arnell's musical heart seems
to lie with the orchestra, so the orchestra had better be good. Arnell
rewards them by making them sound magnificent.
S.G.S. (November 2007)