Vaughan Williams's Veranda

[vandermolen]

You're reminding me I have the Hyperion recording of the 1920 version. I decided to prepare for it by listening to the familiar version so I would notice the differences.  I chose the the Barbirolli recording. After listening to the Barbirolli recording, there didn't seem to be a reason to ever listen to another recording of the piece.

I really like that Hyperion CD, which is my favourite of the 1920 version. I hardly ever listen to the 1936 version now as it excludes my favourite section just before the Epilogue. If I listen to the 1936 version I'm acutely aware of this missing section which spoils my enjoyment. I agree with Michael Kennedy who said that the 1936 version jumps too abruptly to the Epilogue. I like all Barbirolli's VW recordings including both recordings (PYE/EMI) of A London Symphony.

[Spotted Horses]

I really like that Hyperion CD, which is my favourite of the 1920 version. I hardly ever listen to the 1936 version now as it excludes my favourite section just before the Epilogue. If I listen to the 1936 version I'm acutely aware of this missing section which spoils my enjoyment. I agree with Michael Kennedy who said that the 1936 version jumps too abruptly to the Epilogue. I like all Barbirolli's VW recordings including both recordings (PYE/EMI) of A London Symphony.

Ok, you've convinced me to pull up the Hickox recording of the original version. My reservation is that I don't know the work well enough to recognize when I'm hearing the parts that were removed.

Looking at the Wikipedia page, I see that the cuts between 1914 and 1920 are more extensive than the subsequent cuts from 1920 to 1933. Do you prefer the 1914 or 1920 version?

[vandermolen]

Ok, you've convinced me to pull up the Hickox recording of the original version. My reservation is that I don't know the work well enough to recognize when I'm hearing the parts that were removed.

Looking at the Wikipedia page, I see that the cuts between 1914 and 1920 are more extensive than the subsequent cuts from 1920 to 1933. Do you prefer the 1914 or 1920 version?

I like them both but if I had to choose I'd go for the 1920 version. I was lucky to hear the 1913 version live in London - the first performance since c.1920 with Hickox conducting. If you listen to the last few minutes of the 1936 version and then do the same with the 1920 or 1913 version I suspect that you'd be able to spot the difference - there's an intensely poetic section which had disappeared by 1936. The other obvious omission is a discordant section at the end of the Lento second movement. Bax, Hermann and Boult all remonstrated with Vaughan Williams about these excisions and I think they were right.
May be of interest?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/25/vaughan-williams-london-symphony-1920-cd-review-bbc-scottish-so-brabbins-hyperion

PS I'm playing the two piano version of the 1920 London Symphony now and really enjoying it:

[Spotted Horses]

You've made your case, I'll queue up the 1920 version on Hyperion and give a listen when I can.

[relm1]

I like them both but if I had to choose I'd go for the 1920 version. I was lucky to hear the 1913 version live in London - the first performance since c.1920 with Hickox conducting. If you listen to the last few minutes of the 1936 version and then do the same with the 1920 or 1913 version I suspect that you'd be able to spot the difference - there's an intensely poetic section which had disappeared by 1936. The other obvious omission is a discordant section at the end of the Lento second movement. Bax, Hermann and Boult all remonstrated with Vaughan Williams about these excisions and I think they were right.
May be of interest?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/25/vaughan-williams-london-symphony-1920-cd-review-bbc-scottish-so-brabbins-hyperion

PS I'm playing the two piano version of the 1920 London Symphony now and really enjoying it:

I love the 1913 version the most but not the Hickox recording but it's the only one!  I'm too damn picky!  The rhapsodic moments are very fine and yes do impact the taughtness.  That's allowed when the material is so of interest.  Too taught can be boring.  It's so great that we have a choice but with all great composers no one single version addresses all concerns. 

[Roasted Swan]

I love the 1913 version the most but not the Hickox recording but it's the only one!  I'm too damn picky!  The rhapsodic moments are very fine and yes do impact the taughtness.  That's allowed when the material is so of interest.  Too taught can be boring.  It's so great that we have a choice but with all great composers no one single version addresses all concerns.

Its what I said to my teachers at school when they accused me of not listening......."too taught can be boring...."

[vandermolen]

I love the 1913 version the most but not the Hickox recording but it's the only one!  I'm too damn picky!  The rhapsodic moments are very fine and yes do impact the taughtness.  That's allowed when the material is so of interest.  Too taught can be boring.  It's so great that we have a choice but with all great composers no one single version addresses all concerns.

I'm curious to know why the 1913 version was only allowed one recording (and two performances I think) but the 1920 version does not appear to be subject to similar restrictions. Including the new piano version I think that there are four recordings so far (Goossens, Yates, Brabbins, piano version with Arnold/Matthews).

[vandermolen]

You've made your case, I'll queue up the 1920 version on Hyperion and give a listen when I can.

Excellent! 

[vandermolen]

I love the 1913 version the most but not the Hickox recording but it's the only one!  I'm too damn picky!  The rhapsodic moments are very fine and yes do impact the taughtness.  That's allowed when the material is so of interest.  Too taught can be boring.  It's so great that we have a choice but with all great composers no one single version addresses all concerns.

Yes, I was so interested when I discovered Goossens old recording with the Cincinnati SO which was the first time that I heard any of the 'missing' sections.

[Spotted Horses]

I'm curious to know why the 1913 version was only allowed one recording (and two performances I think) but the 1920 version does not appear to be subject to similar restrictions. Including the new piano version I think that there are four recordings so far (Goossens, Yates, Brabbins, piano version with Arnold/Matthews).

Perhaps the distinction is that the 1920 version was published and that the prior versions exist in form of unpublished manuscripts that can only be obtained from the owner. Copyright law is complicated and varies in different countries, but in the U.S. things published before 1923 are considered public domain.

[Roasted Swan]

Perhaps the distinction is that the 1920 version was published and that the prior versions exist in form of unpublished manuscripts that can only be obtained from the owner. Copyright law is complicated and varies in different countries, but in the U.S. things published before 1923 are considered public domain.

Not only was the 1920 edition published but it done so as part of the prestigious "Carnegie Collection of British Music"



Rather frustratingly (naughtily?) Stainer and Bell retained this cover when they subsequently published the 1934 final revision with a tiny amendment to the top right hand of the cover to the effect of it being the "revised" edition.  I know because I bought a copy thinking it was a rare 1920 score only to find it was the 'standard' revision.......

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I like them both but if I had to choose I'd go for the 1920 version. I was lucky to hear the 1913 version live in London - the first performance since c.1920 with Hickox conducting. If you listen to the last few minutes of the 1936 version and then do the same with the 1920 or 1913 version I suspect that you'd be able to spot the difference - there's an intensely poetic section which had disappeared by 1936. The other obvious omission is a discordant section at the end of the Lento second movement. Bax, Hermann and Boult all remonstrated with Vaughan Williams about these excisions and I think they were right.
May be of interest?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/oct/25/vaughan-williams-london-symphony-1920-cd-review-bbc-scottish-so-brabbins-hyperion

PS I'm playing the two piano version of the 1920 London Symphony now and really enjoying it:

Lucky you jeffrey!  That must have been quite special to have been there and to have seen and heard it live. 

Sorry, I had missed the discussion as to which Hyperion CD you were referring to?

PD

[vandermolen]

Perhaps the distinction is that the 1920 version was published and that the prior versions exist in form of unpublished manuscripts that can only be obtained from the owner. Copyright law is complicated and varies in different countries, but in the U.S. things published before 1923 are considered public domain.

Very good point Arthur - makes good sense. I think that the original version is housed in the British Museum.

[vandermolen]

Not only was the 1920 edition published but it done so as part of the prestigious "Carnegie Collection of British Music"



Rather frustratingly (naughtily?) Stainer and Bell retained this cover when they subsequently published the 1934 final revision with a tiny amendment to the top right hand of the cover to the effect of it being the "revised" edition.  I know because I bought a copy thinking it was a rare 1920 score only to find it was the 'standard' revision.......

I see that it's inscribed and signed by the Great Man himself!

[vandermolen]

Lucky you jeffrey!  That must have been quite special to have been there and to have seen and heard it live. 

Sorry, I had missed the discussion as to which Hyperion CD you were referring to?

PD

This one PD and yes, it was a great occasion - I briefly spoke to the conductor Richard Hickox when I got him to sign my programme:

[Pohjolas Daughter]

This one PD and yes, it was a great occasion - I briefly spoke to the conductor Richard Hickox when I got him to sign my programme:

Thanks!

PD

[Roasted Swan]

This one PD and yes, it was a great occasion - I briefly spoke to the conductor Richard Hickox when I got him to sign my programme:

I like Brabbins' London Symphony but the coupling bugs me a lot (clearly I have too much time in my life....)  The RCM has no such ensemble as a Brass Band.  In other words this is a symphonic brass ensemble - very well played for sure but one that sounds very different indeed from a "proper" brass band.  Rant over......

[Spotted Horses]

I think I will try Brabbins vs Haitink in a movement by movement comparison of the London Symphony, so I can get my head around the revisions. Unless, of course, I hear strong objections to Haitink. I also have Boult (Decca), Previn, Slatkin, Andrew Davis, Thompson cycles.

[calyptorhynchus]

I have been enjoying the two-piano version of the 1920 London Symphony. I have never listened to a piano reduction of an orchestral work before and was amazed by how much of the orchestral texture still remains. The other pieces on the disk are good too.

Brabbins' recording of the 1920 version is a favourite of mine, it seems much more folky than other versions I have heard.

[Spotted Horses]

In preparation for my listening to the 1920 version I listened to the first movement with Brabbins along side a recording of the final 1933 version. Actually I ended up listening to two recordings of the 1933 version, Slatkin/Philharmonia and Haitink/LPO. Vaughan Williams made only very minor revisions to the first movement, but there was such a variety of interpretation! At the close Haitink is slow and majestic, Slatkin fast and frenetic, with Brabbins about half-way in between. I am left undecided which will be my 1933 reference. Second movement is tomorrow.