Vaughan Williams's Veranda

[relm1]

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.

Can you toss in Owain Arwel Hughes to your assessment since you are looking for a 1933 reference?  I quite like that interpretation.

[Spotted Horses]

Can you toss in Owain Arwel Hughes to your assessment since you are looking for a 1933 reference?  I quite like that interpretation.

Alas, I don't have that one.

[vandermolen]

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.

I think it's 1936 but I may be wrong. AFAIK the first movement was not changed. Will be interested to hear your conclusions.

[Roasted Swan]

Ah the joy (ease) of Wiki and cut and paste........

The main differences between the first and last versions may be summarised as follows:

First movement: One bar was cut from the 1914 version.
Slow movement: 52 bars of the 1914 score were cut in 1933/36, chiefly from the quiet coda.
Scherzo: At the end of the original is a dark andantino passage, of which no trace survives in the definitive version.
Finale: In the 1914 score, the central E minor section, familiar in the definitive text, is interrupted by an orchestral "cry of anguish" based on the opening theme, after which the allegro resumes. After the conclusion of the allegro section, the 1914 score has a long andantino section for strings and woodwinds later dismissed by Vaughan Williams as "a bad hymn tune". Finally, the original Epilogue extends to 109 bars.[11]
Below is a summary of the changes made between the original and the two published versions. It shows the number of bars in each movement and the total for the whole symphony:[9]

Version   Mvt I     Mvt II   Mvt III   Mvt IV   Epilogue   Total
1914           408     202            386            227             109           1322
1920           407    162            398           173              85           1225
1933           407    150            398           162              60           1177

The final version is more than twenty minutes shorter than the original, as some indicative timings show:

1914 version:

London Symphony Orchestra/Richard Hickox: 61:19 (I: 15:04; II: 16:16; III: 11:04; IV: 18:50)[8]
1920 revision:

London Symphony Orchestra/Dan Godfrey (rec 1925): 44:39 (I:13:37: II:12:17; III: 7:07; IV: 11:45) [Godfrey had already recorded the first movement (very heavily cut) and second movement (complete) in 1923, with the same forces. However, this later recording is still not a complete performance, since he now cut 23 bars from the Epilogue in order that it would fit on to 12 sides. The cut was from 9 bars after T until W. This is exactly what the composer would later do for the 1933 final version, leaving the suspicion that he may have been influenced by Godfrey's recording.][14][15]
Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra/Eugene Goossens (rec 1941): 38:45 (I:11:06: II:9:22; III: 5:09; IV: 13:15) [This performance makes no cuts, but does not play the repeat in the third movement.][16]
1933/36 revision:

Queen's Hall Orchestra/Sir Henry Wood (rec 1936): 37:09 (I:11:40: II:8:39; III: 5:21; IV: 10:49)[17]
London Philharmonic Orchestra/Sir Adrian Boult (rec 1971): 43:03 (I: 14:24; II: 9:32; III:7:07; IV:12:00)[18]
The reception accorded to the Chandos recording of the 1914 score persuaded Ursula Vaughan Williams to allow a live performance of the original version. In November 2003, Richard Hickox conducted the original 1914 score with the London Symphony Orchestra at the Barbican, in the first live performance of this version since 1918.[19] The Proms presented an additional live performance of the 1914 version on 19 July 2005, with Hickox conducting the BBC National Orchestra of Wales.[20]

In his liner note commentary to the Chandos recording of the original version, Michael Kennedy placed the status of the original score as subordinate to the final 1936 published version:[8]

There can be no question of the original version supplanting the revision. The 1936 score represents the symphony as Vaughan Williams wanted it to exist for posterity. The cuts and re-scorings were his own decisions, not forced on him, like Bruckner's, by well-meaning friends. Vaughan Williams would, and did, ask for advice, but never took it against his own inclinations.

[Spotted Horses]

Hold on, I had the impression that the options for the 1920 version were Godfrey, Goosens, and Brabbins, but then I stumbled across Yates, a 2015 recording that pre-dates Brabbins by a few years.



And, I must say I'm intrigued by the two piano transcription.

[vandermolen]

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.

I think that the two-piano A London Symphony is very successful. There is a companion CD of Walton's 1st Symphony which I didn't think worked so well, although still interesting to hear. I think, with A London Symphony, that I'm so familiar with the orchestral version that my mind 'fills in the blanks' in the piano reduction which, paradoxically, allows you to hear more detail with greater awareness of how the work is structured.

[vandermolen]

Hold on, I had the impression that the options for the 1920 version were Godfrey, Goosens, and Brabbins, but then I stumbled across Yates, a 2015 recording that pre-dates Brabbins by a few years.



And, I must say I'm intrigued by the two piano transcription.

Godfrey's version does not restore the cut to the last movement. I think that it's more truncated than any version - a big disappointment. Yates's recording was the first of the 1920 version since Goossens's wartime performance with the Cincinnati SO. I like the coupling of the Concerto for Two Pianos. I think that Bernard Herrmann may have recorded A London Symphony but I don't think that there was ever an LP or CD of the recording - if it exists at all. I'd love to hear it though.

[Spotted Horses]

I have gotten to the second movement of A London Symphony and, listening to Brabbins after first listening to the Haitink recording, I did recognize the passage that had been removed in the final version. I agree with those who wish it had not been removed. However my main takeaway was that Haitink performed the "big tune" towards the end so much more beautifully than Brabbins. (Don't get me on the subject of Barbirolli again.) Maybe I should try Hickox again.

In any case, expect to listen to the third movement tomorrow.

[foxandpeng]

I have gotten to the second movement of A London Symphony and, listening to Brabbins after first listening to the Haitink recording, I did recognize the passage that had been removed in the final version. I agree with those who wish it had not been removed. However my main takeaway was that Haitink performed the "big tune" towards the end so much more beautifully than Brabbins. (Don't get me on the subject of Barbirolli again.) Maybe I should try Hickox again.

In any case, expect to listen to the third movement tomorrow.

The Hickox is definitely my preferred cycle (well, nearly cycle), with the 1913 #2 as my high point.

*puts RVW back on the impending listening list*

[Spotted Horses]

The Hickox is definitely my preferred cycle (well, nearly cycle), with the 1913 #2 as my high point.

*puts RVW back on the impending listening list*

I should try Hickox again. His Vaughan Williams cycle doesn't seem to generate much enthusiasm, but I am generally an admirer of Hickox in other recordings. I have his recording of A London Symphony, and several others.

I find I haven't ripped the Hickox RVW, except for the 2nd. Planning some rummaging through boxes to see if I can find the discs...

[Spotted Horses]

Third movement of A London Symphony today, again listening first to the 1933/1936 version from Haitink, then 1920 version from Brabbins. I can't say I noticed a significant difference in interpretation; it seems self-evident how this music is mean't to be performed.

Again, I may very well have not noticed the difference without a comparison (I am familiar with this work, but I have not listened to it often enough that I anticipate every passage). But I did recognize what the Wikipedia article calls "a dark andantino passage." In the final version a loud statement of one of the main themes diminishes rather quickly to a very quiet close, but in the 1920 version there is this transitional passage where the loud statement of the theme sort of winds down with some wonderfully sensuous writing for low strings. I can't imagine why RVW would have removed this.

It is similar to the second movement, where the excised passage made the transition from a loud statement of the theme to a quiet ending more gradual. It seems to signal a more severe aesthetic from Vaughan Williams, during the period when he was working on the 4th symphony. Generally, I think it best for artists to let their earlier works stand, rather than remold their earlier work to the later style. Hindemith was another one to do this, in some instances.

If I were entrusted with editing Vaughan Williams' symphonies, I think I would apply an eraser to remove p's. Too many "pppp" passages, especially at the ends of movements. I grow fatigued of sitting there, asking myself, "is it over or are they still playing something too soft for me to hear?" Often it is the most attractive music that is played too softly for my tired ears.

[vandermolen]

Third movement of A London Symphony today, again listening first to the 1933/1936 version from Haitink, then 1920 version from Brabbins. I can't say I noticed a significant difference in interpretation; it seems self-evident how this music is mean't to be performed.

Again, I may very well have not noticed the difference without a comparison (I am familiar with this work, but I have not listened to it often enough that I anticipate every passage). But I did recognize what the Wikipedia article calls "a dark andantino passage." In the final version a loud statement of one of the main themes diminishes rather quickly to a very quiet close, but in the 1920 version there is this transitional passage where the loud statement of the theme sort of winds down with some wonderfully sensuous writing for low strings. I can't imagine why RVW would have removed this.

It is similar to the second movement, where the excised passage made the transition from a loud statement of the theme to a quiet ending more gradual. It seems to signal a more severe aesthetic from Vaughan Williams, during the period when he was working on the 4th symphony. Generally, I think it best for artists to let their earlier works stand, rather than remold their earlier work to the later style. Hindemith was another one to do this, in some instances.

If I were entrusted with editing Vaughan Williams' symphonies, I think I would apply an eraser to remove p's. Too many "pppp" passages, especially at the ends of movements. I grow fatigued of sitting there, asking myself, "is it over or are they still playing something too soft for me to hear?" Often it is the most attractive music that is played too softly for my tired ears.

I think that the final movement (especially towards the ending) is the most interesting point of comparison.

[vandermolen]

The Hickox is definitely my preferred cycle (well, nearly cycle), with the 1913 #2 as my high point.

*puts RVW back on the impending listening list*

Interesting. I heard Hickox deliver a VG performance of No.9 (a pity that it wasn't recorded) not long before his untimely death.
I like his unique Symphony No.2 (1913) but I also enjoyed No.4 and the additional works 'Pilgrim's Pavement' etc coupled with Symphony No.5.
I didn't like No.6 with the stupid photo of a baby on the front, but I've heard others enthuse about it, so I should listen again.

[foxandpeng]

Interesting. I heard Hickox deliver a VG performance of No.9 (a pity that it wasn't recorded) not long before his untimely death.
I like his unique Symphony No.2 (1913) but I also enjoyed No.4 and the additional works 'Pilgrim's Pavement' etc coupled with Symphony No.5.
I didn't like No.6 with the stupid photo of a baby on the front, but I've heard others enthuse about it, so I should listen again.

What a real shame it wasn't recorded.

I haven't seen the cover art on #6, thankfully 😁. The recording is good, though. The additional music in each of the couplings is great. I explained earlier to my wife that The Wasps is a B side, which was sufficiently amusing for me to almost cough my drink everywhere. I am easily amused, if a little lame.

I'm becoming quite a fan of the Kees Bakels cycle with the Bournemouth SO. Apart from the obvious shortcoming of the lack of the 1913.

[vandermolen]

What a real shame it wasn't recorded.

I haven't seen the cover art on #6, thankfully 😁. The recording is good, though. The additional music in each of the couplings is great. I explained earlier to my wife that The Wasps is a B side, which was sufficiently amusing for me to almost cough my drink everywhere. I am easily amused, if a little lame.

A clever play on words for those quick enough to spot it. 

[Biffo]

My copy of the Hickox recording of No 6 (coupled with No 8 and the premiere recording of Nocturne ) has a nocturnal landscape on the cover.

I collected the Hickox recordings as they were issued; they got mixed reviews, some fairly tepid, but I enjoyed them all.

Edit: The only Hickox recording I have with a baby on the cover is Delius' A Mass of Life,

[Pohjolas Daughter]

What a real shame it wasn't recorded.

I haven't seen the cover art on #6, thankfully 😁. The recording is good, though. The additional music in each of the couplings is great. I explained earlier to my wife that The Wasps is a B side, which was sufficiently amusing for me to almost cough my drink everywhere. I am easily amused, if a little lame.

I'm becoming quite a fan of the Kees Bakels cycle with the Bournemouth SO. Apart from the obvious shortcoming of the lack of the 1913.

A clever play on words for those quick enough to spot it. 

Took a moment for your witty comment to kicking in Fox; to be fair though, it's 5 a.m. here! 

And what cover were you referring to Jeffrey?  I'm only familiar with the Chandos cover--the SACD ones.  Mine, of the sixth, shows a misty picture of a pier leading out into the water.

PD

p.s.  no babies involved--unless they are hidden in the mist.

[relm1]

The Hickox is definitely my preferred cycle (well, nearly cycle), with the 1913 #2 as my high point.

*puts RVW back on the impending listening list*

Just an FYI, some of the symphonies not released in the Hickox Chandos cycle were conducted and recorded in concert.  I love his Symphony No. 9 for example, but can't seem to find it at the moment, but they are out there.  You might consider those concert performances as supplements to completing the cycle.

[relm1]

Interesting. I heard Hickox deliver a VG performance of No.9 (a pity that it wasn't recorded) not long before his untimely death.
I like his unique Symphony No.2 (1913) but I also enjoyed No.4 and the additional works 'Pilgrim's Pavement' etc coupled with Symphony No.5.
I didn't like No.6 with the stupid photo of a baby on the front, but I've heard others enthuse about it, so I should listen again.

I think that's the same one I just mentioned.  It is available, just not commercially and I agree it was a VG performance and you know I'm picky about No. 9. 

[Roasted Swan]

My copy of the Hickox recording of No 6 (coupled with No 8 and the premiere recording of Nocturne ) has a nocturnal landscape on the cover.

I collected the Hickox recordings as they were issued; they got mixed reviews, some fairly tepid, but I enjoyed them all.

Edit: The only Hickox recording I have with a baby on the cover is Delius' A Mass of Life,

You are absolutely right about the covers - RVW 6&8 was always a "night scene" image and the original Delius Mass of Life was a rather annoyed looking baby which was latterly changed for something more mundance.