Sir Malcolm Arnold, 1921 - 2006

This weekend, I was saddened to hear Sir Malcolm Arnold died.

I think the best tribute I heard was a friend of mine, who has never been a fan of Classical music, but said "Oh yes, Malcolm Arnold - he was fantastic, the second Elgar." His score for "The Bridge over the River Kwai" won him massive acclaim, and the unlikeliest of fans.

And I think this was the key thing about him - his wide-ranging appeal to people of all walks of life. He resolutely stood against all types of genre segregation, believing that there should not be such viscious distinction between jazz, folk, classical etc. His "themed" orchestral dances (two English sets, plus a set for each of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall) are an absolute joy, drawing heavily on folk sounds and styles and incorporating them into various dance styles. He wrote a concerto for Larry Adler, the harmonica player, and treated it every bit as seriously as he did his concertos for "standard" instruments, such as 'cello.

He was also a fantastic trumpet player, and wrote excellent, but phenomenally difficult, brass parts in his music. The second set of the English dances still gives me nightmares.

The appeal that Arnold had is something that I believe a lot of modern British composers have lost. I read a very good article some months ago where the writer was bemoaning the fact that few modern composers engage with their audiences the way earlier composers did. Mozart and Haydn were integral players in their court orchestras. Shostakovich played music for cinema. Sibelius played violin in several orchestras. Arnold played trumpet with the London Philharmonic. They all had an inherent understanding of what audiences appreciated, and what performers appreciated.

Yet several of today's composers do not have this "grounding", for want of a better word. They prodcue finely crafted pieces, of tremendous intellectual cunning and wit, yet which are intelligible to most average concert-goers. I am loathe to single out people, but I have never forgiven Sir Peter Maxwell-Davies for his contribution to the Queen's 80th birthday celebrations this year. One would expect a triumphal march, or even a jolly dance, based perhaps on some folk melody appropriate to the Queen, or a favourite piece of hers. Instead Maxwell-Davies produced a sombre dirge. The construction of the piece was extremely clever, and would have offered month's worth of analytical possibilities. But it was utterly inappropriate for the occasion.

I am not saying that our beliefs should not be subverted. Shostakovich frequently confounded all expectation, taking wild turns when a more orthodox line would have been expected. But even he knew that there was a time and a place for this. Maxwell-Davies was given a wonderful opportunity to reach out and engage with public, given a platform that many other composers would have longed for. And instead of producing something which could have done more good for the world of classical music than any number of "outreach" programs, he produced a piece which smacked of intellectual snobbery, and which reinforced the opinions of those who believe that modern classical music is an impenetrable confusing murk. Great British composers such as Walton and indeed Arnold had no qualms with producing music which, while not perhaps giving them as much intellectual stimulation in the writing, was appropriate to the occasion. They had a sense of what was expected, and I find that few modern composers, and particularly, modern British composers, have this any more. I do believe however, that in fifty years' time, Walton's "Crown Imperial" will still be playing to full houses, whereas I doubt that Maxwell-Davies' piece will receive a single performance.

Sir Malcolm Arnold, with his unpretentiousness, and his ability to synthesise whole musical worlds, was to my mind far more of a "modernist" than Maxwell-Davies, Taverner, or Turnage. His belief that music should transcend all genre barriers was a truly modern concept, and one that I feel should be revisited by others with more urgency, in order to prevent classical music ceasing to be. In many ways, while not as avant-garde and seemingly a world away, Arnold's synthesis of jazz, folk and classical is the closest we have produced to Steve Reich or John Adams.

To my regret, I know comparatively little of his music - specifically, Arnold the symphonist is an unknown quantity for me. Often the words "British Symphonist" are seen as an oxymoron, Elgar aside, though there is a lot to be said for the works of William Walton, Arnold Bax, and not forgetting the absolute genius that was Ralph Vaughan-Williams. I wish I had heard more Arnold, and shall now seek out all nine of his symphonies and discover a whole new world.