Symphony No. 2

1. Allegro
2. Adagio
3. Scherzo – Allegretto
4. Finale – Andante con moto – Allegro

My Second Symphony was composed during 1996–97, and, like the First Symphony, was originally scored for brass band. A disc of the brass band versions of these symphonies was released by Black Dyke Band, conducted by Nick Childs, in 2020 (World of Sound, WOS 155). Symphony No. 2 is not as tightly organized as No. 2, yet I confess to liking it more. Perhaps this is an indication that structural composing may be as overrated as structural listening.[1]

The opening declamatory motive generates much of the music heard in the first section of the first movement, which is dominated by rhythmic interruptions and outbursts. It begins to calm down, and a theme of quirky character is introduced on solo violin, although it bears some features that are indebted to previous material. I was influenced by the quirky second subjects that Haydn sometimes employed in his symphonies, for instance in the first movement of No. 83 (‘La Poule’) and the finale of No. 86. The earlier material returns, and ideas are developed and played with in various guises. A loud assertion of the declamatory motive heralds the recapitulation. When the second subject returns it is played by a solo trumpet using a harmon mute, which gives that instrument a soft but metallic sound. A varied repeat of this theme includes a comical exchange between bassoon and tuba on the one hand and xylophone and solo violin on the other. The coda returns to the original material and ends with a loud restatement of the declamatory motive.

After the Adagio’s short introduction, a solo begins to unfold an embellished melody that falls somewhere between song and recitative (arioso). The melodic decoration draws on popular and folk ornamentation, rather than those that seem too locked into the historical past, such as turns and trills. This arioso passage leads into a much more obviously songlike tune, which the rest of the cellos join. When that is repeated, traces of the rhythmic interjections that characterized the first movement become noticeable in the accompaniment. A peaceful, central section begins, with imitative writing for the woodwind, as a musical phrase is passed among them. A climax is reached, rhythmic figures return, a tam-tam is heard, and brass instruments resonate. The music quietens and returns to the arioso melody accompanied by divided strings, flute and harp. Before long, the cantabile theme, which enters on an unexpected harmony, is in full flood, against some accompanying rhythmic figures that are once more reminiscent of the first movement. These persist into the quiet coda, adding a ripple of disturbance to its tranquillity.

The Scherzo enjoys playing games with the pastoral 6/8 metre, sometimes inclining towards a stress of three crotchets (quarter notes) in a bar, instead of following the normal division into two pairs of three quavers (eighth notes) each. It is a feature that delights me in William Byrd’s madrigal ‘Though Amaryllis Dance in Green’. I hope to capture something of the spirit of dance, as the Byrd madrigal does so effectively. The first section is strewn with musical fragments, although a solo clarinet manages to play an eight-bar tune at one point. When more extended melody does arrive, it is on bassoons and solo trombone, and set against a vigorous accompaniment of syncopated chords in strings and wind. Two other trombones play low growling pedal notes at this point. After a brief interlude, this section is repeated with varied accompaniment. The shape of the movement is based on the eighteenth-century Minuet and Trio, and the Trio section now begins with a tune on the clarinet accompanied by harp and strings, then repeated by violins, flutes and oboe. A bluesy dissonance punctuates it, then previously heard material returns and is further elaborated.

The Finale begins with call-and-response section that echoes the style of the African-American protest song ‘Go Down, Moses’ with its memorable demand, ‘Let my people go’.[2] The call is heard on the oboe and the response is provided by three trombones. The Allegro then begins with a striving theme on violins set against a rhythmic, restless bass figure. It gives way to a horn melody, whose initial bars become important later in the movement. Rhythmic figures on brass, reminiscent of the first movement, are heard. A rhythmic figure from the trombone response in the movement’s opening now becomes insistent but yields to overlapping antiphonal exchanges on solo violin and solo cello (based on the horn melody). The music builds to a massive climax before subsiding in preparation for the return of opening solo, now on trumpet and responded to by trombones, upper woodwind and timpani. The striving Allegro theme returns with more call-and-response exchanges and, when the melody previously stated by horns returns in a final climactic section, it is adorned with flourishes on piccolo that incorporate the sextuplet rhythm that characterized much of the first movement.

[1]The term ‘structural listening’ was coined by Roae Rosengard Subotnik. For a collection of essays exploring other possibilities, see Andre dell’ Antoio, ed. Beyond Structural Listening?: Postmodern Modes of Hearing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

[2]First published anonymously, as ‘The Song of the Contrabands’ in 1862. Contrabands was a term used to describe escaped slaves during the American Civil War.