Vaughan Williams's Veranda

[Mirror Image]

Seeing the new recording of the 1920 edition of A London Symphony triggered a desire to do a comparison of versions. I have Hickox' recording of the original 1913 version but have never found time to listen to it. I listened to the first movement of Brabbins' new recording and didn't get much pleasure from it. After a bit of indecision, I listened to the official version of the symphony in Andrew Davis' recording, which I found utterly splendid. No little part of the enjoyment came from the audio quality. Teldec still maintains something of the old Telefunken "house sound" which I enjoy. Then went back to Haitink, which I also enjoyed, although the mid 80's early digital engineering was a little grating. Now I feel I've run out of steam before getting to the Hickox 1913 version. I never really seem to get much enjoyment from "comparisons" anyway, and based on what I've been reading the final version of the symphony is likely to be my favourite anyway.

Funny, I find Andrew Davis' RVW an absolute bore. The new Brabbins is outstanding. I really hope this signifies a new cycle, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

[aukhawk]

It's a good recording and performance, but I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the final (edited) edition of the Symphony. The last movement is very meandering in the earlier versions.

[aukhawk]

I think the Leppard/Antarctica is very fine - ...

I think its rather patronising to state that a) an actor is unknown to one and then b) state they are a c-lister.  To my ear Allam is excellent in his delivery of the text giving these diary entries warmth and humanity.  In recent times Allam has been a stalwart of many fine British TV programmes and films.... no c-lister in my book.

In no sense is this recording "taking one for the team".  Fine engineering, fine orchestral playing and a convincing interpretation make this a version well worth hearing.

I think I did compare Allam's delivery favourably with that of John Gielgud.  And I agree the whole thing is very fine, just two points of interpretation which I personally don't much like.  This music needs the stoicism of Boult, or the steel of Haitink.  Leppard certainly does have an advantage, that (like Boult, and Barbirolli) he had a direct connection with the composer.
I forgot to mention there is a filler by the way - not obvious from the sleeve artwork - the Tallis Fantasia - but I haven't listened to it yet.

[Baron Scarpia]

Funny, I find Andrew Davis' RVW an absolute bore. The new Brabbins is outstanding. I really hope this signifies a new cycle, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

I can't speak for the cycle, but I found the Andrew Davis recording of A London Symphony to be close to ideal. I don't really see there is much room for interpretive liberty in this music, but Andrew Davis keeps the very heavy orchestration in this music in perfect balance and I like the unhurried tempo of the Scherzo. I also appreciate that the heavy (unpleasantly excessive) use of untuned percussion (bass drum, cymbals) is not allowed to get out of control. What I listened to of Brabbins seemed very well done, but the engineering wasn't as appealing to me.

It's a good recording and performance, but I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the final (edited) edition of the Symphony. The last movement is very meandering in the earlier versions.

I am curious to hear the excised passages that were so highly praised by Vaughan Williams' contemporaries, but the work does not lack for meandering, even in its final form.

[vandermolen]

The 1920 version remains my favourite. I think that Ralph went 'a revision too far' - over influenced by the concision of Sibelius I think, who was at the height of his fame in Britain in the mid 1930s.

[Baron Scarpia]

Maybe I will try 1920 instead of 1913 but at the moment I feel RVW saturation.

[vandermolen]

Maybe I will try 1920 instead of 1913.

There are three versions, Goossens (historic), Yates and Brabbins (modern). IMHO VW cut out the most moving bit of the symphony in the Epilogue just before the end.

[André]

Funny, I find Andrew Davis' RVW an absolute bore. The new Brabbins is outstanding. I really hope this signifies a new cycle, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

Hi John ! It's not the first time you mention Davis not doing anything for you in VW's music  . I have that set, as well as the 2 Boults, the Handley, the Slatkin and assorted singles from other sets. I love Davis for the firmness he brings to the musical argument, the commitment of the playing and the lucidity of the engineering. Obviously no single set will score consistently top marks for all the symphonies, but I won't part with Davis any time soon.

Regarding the 1920 version of no 2: I've never heard it. Thanks for your recommendation (and Vandermolen's as well). I'll look for that Brabbins disc.

Cheers!

André

[Mirror Image]

I can't speak for the cycle, but I found the Andrew Davis recording of A London Symphony to be close to ideal. I don't really see there is much room for interpretive liberty in this music, but Andrew Davis keeps the very heavy orchestration in this music in perfect balance and I like the unhurried tempo of the Scherzo. I also appreciate that the heavy (unpleasantly excessive) use of untuned percussion (bass drum, cymbals) is not allowed to get out of control. What I listened to of Brabbins seemed very well done, but the engineering wasn't as appealing to me.

I am curious to hear the excised passages that were so highly praised by Vaughan Williams' contemporaries, but the work does not lack for meandering, even in its final form.

I really should revisit Davis' RVW cycle, but my last impression was I found too 'middle of the road' for me and I expected more fire. I don't really have any issues with the audio quality on the Brabbins recording. Sounds great to my ears.

[Mirror Image]

Hi John ! It's not the first time you mention Davis not doing anything for you in VW's music  . I have that set, as well as the 2 Boults, the Handley, the Slatkin and assorted singles from other sets. I love Davis for the firmness he brings to the musical argument, the commitment of the playing and the lucidity of the engineering. Obviously no single set will score consistently top marks for all the symphonies, but I won't part with Davis any time soon.

Regarding the 1920 version of no 2: I've never heard it. Thanks for your recommendation (and Vandermolen's as well). I'll look for that Brabbins disc.

Cheers!

André

I really ought to revisit the Davis BBC SO cycle now! This is the second mention of him in this thread recently and my head is spinning in trying to decide what to do. Obviously, I should just listen with a clear-head. I'll probably listen to his cycle over the weekend. I do like Andrew Davis' conducting in general.

Concerning the new Brabbins disc, yes you should! I think you'll enjoy it greatly.

[Baron Scarpia]

I really should revisit Davis' RVW cycle, but my last impression was I found too 'middle of the road' for me and I expected more fire.

I like Andrew Davis because he is neutral (rather than "middle of the road") producing a well balanced, committed performance without introducing idiosyncratic elements. (Andre introduced the word "committed" which nicely sums it up.) I hold his RVW, Elgar and Holst in very high regard because of this approach and because of the splendid sound Teldec gave him. If he is not your cup of tea, nothing wrong with that. I always pipe up for him because I think readers of the site shouldn't take away the impression that he is to be summarily dismissed.

[Karl Henning]

I like Andrew Davis because he is neutral (rather than "middle of the road") producing a well balanced, committed performance without introducing idiosyncratic elements. (Andre introduced the word "committed" which nicely sums it up.) I hold his RVW, Elgar and Holst in very high regard because of this approach and because of the splendid sound Teldec gave him. If he is not your cup of tea, nothing wrong with that. I always pipe up for him because I think readers of the site shouldn't take away the impression that he is to be summarily dismissed.

Thanks; I should revisit Davis' Elgar, which I recall enjoying.

[André]

Thanks; I should revisit Davis' Elgar, which I recall enjoying.

Firmly recommended: his Chandos recordings of The Crown of India and The Dream of Gerontius. I find it impossible to fault them in any way.

[Mirror Image]

I like Andrew Davis because he is neutral (rather than "middle of the road") producing a well balanced, committed performance without introducing idiosyncratic elements. (Andre introduced the word "committed" which nicely sums it up.) I hold his RVW, Elgar and Holst in very high regard because of this approach and because of the splendid sound Teldec gave him. If he is not your cup of tea, nothing wrong with that. I always pipe up for him because I think readers of the site shouldn't take away the impression that he is to be summarily dismissed.

I certainly enjoy Davis' Elgar. I find both his Teldec and Signum Classics recordings to be top-drawer. I listened to his The Lark Ascending with Tasmin Little (on Teldec) earlier this morning and I think they both missed some detail in this work and Davis' general tempo made feel like he was ready for lunch already. Not my kind of performance at all. If this is any indication of what his RVW performances are going to be like I'm in for some disappointment I'm afraid. Anyway, I'll probably revisit the cycle this weekend.

[André]

It's perfectly okay to like or not to like a conductor's approach. Davis is a non-romantic VW conductor. He's not without feelings, but he focuses on a work's architecture, balances, sonorities, possibly at the expense of the music's emotional possibilities. His reading of the 6th is high on drama, possibly his best interpretation of the cycle. I don't find him emotionally distant, deficient or constipated, but I can understand someone may feel shortchanged in this area !

[Mirror Image]

It's perfectly okay to like or not to like a conductor's approach. Davis is a non-romantic VW conductor. He's not without feelings, but he focuses on a work's architecture, balances, sonorities, possibly at the expense of the music's emotional possibilities. His reading of the 6th is high on drama, possibly his best interpretation of the cycle. I don't find him emotionally distant, deficient or constipated, but I can understand someone may feel shortchanged in this area !

I do need to refresh my memory of the cycle. I remember being much more harsh on Davis' later RVW recordings (on Chandos) and found his Teldec cycle to be quite good overall. But, again, I need a refresher.

[Baron Scarpia]

There are three versions, Goossens (historic), Yates and Brabbins (modern). IMHO VW cut out the most moving bit of the symphony in the Epilogue just before the end.

What's your favorite excised passage and how far back do I have to go to hear it? 1913 or 1920?

[vandermolen]

What's your favorite excised passage and how far back do I have to go to hear it? 1913 or 1920?

Ok - it is still there in 1920 and remained in place until the composer's (mistaken IMHO) revision in 1936. In other words for 23 years the composer thought it worth including.

I have Martin Yates's Dutton RSNO recording of the 1920 version to hand and on that CD you will hear it from c.10.25 minutes into the last movement (Track 7) until about 12.00 minutes. A minute and a half or so of movingly poetic music, the absence of which I'm acutely aware of whenever I listen to the 1936 version, which I hardly ever do nowadays. If you listen to the 1913 version or the other two recordings of the 1920 version you should find it around the same place. Hope this helps.

[André]

You're the best, my good man !

I have the original version on Chandos. What was changed in the 1920 revision ? Am I missing something important ?

Edit: maybe a link to some article ? Meanwhile I'll scour wikipedia to see what they have to say 

[vandermolen]

You're the best, my good man !

I have the original version on Chandos. What was changed in the 1920 revision ? Am I missing something important ?

Haha 

The 1913 version has everything in it, so you don't, IMHO, need the 1920 version. Because I am an OCDCDCD completist nutter I have, of course, collected all versions including two of the 1920 Goossens version (different cover images you understand  )
Having said that the new Brabbins version of the 1920 edition is worth having for the interesting additional works. Also the 1920 version is my favourite I think. The 1913 version is perhaps a bit rambling and diffuse (like London itself) and the 1936 version, over influenced by the example of Sibelius (IMO of course) is too concise. The 1920 version is just right (reminds me of Goldilocks and the porridge). 

PS the first movement is the same in all editions. VW made some cuts in the slow movement in 1920, cutting twelve bars and adjusting the orchestration somewhat.

That CD of the 1913 version is one of the most important VW recordings ever made. It was such a pleasure to be there in London to hear the first performance of the 1913 version since c.1920. When I asked him to sign my programme for the concert Richard Hickox, the conductor, said that he agreed with me that VW had excised the best bit of the symphony - although he may, of course, have been agreeing to get rid of me.

So, basically, my good friend, you are not missing anything.
 

Here is the info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_London_Symphony