Vaughan Williams's Veranda

[Roasted Swan]

Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw isn't a barrel of laughs.  How about RVW's own No. 7 or is that not choral enough to be considered choral?  Prokofiev's They Are Seven.  James MacMillan's St. John Passion.  Lots of Arvo Part's music I find very sad, but maybe that is more piety.  For example, his Berliner Messe, it's not a gloomy end, just sad.  Shostakovich's The Execution of Stepan Razin ends with blaring Soviet style orchestral ramblings.  Similar with Schnittke's Nagasaki oratorio.  Then there is Pendericki.

Survivor from Warsaw is a powerful ending and certainly not a bleak nihilistic abyss.  Rather exhibiting the extraordinary power of the human spirit I'd say.  RVW 7 doesn't count as a choral work - the choir are colouristic only.  I still think we are searching for the world's most miserable choral ending - if only to keep Vandermolen's daughter "happy" in a "sad" way 

[Lisztianwagner]

Great review! It can be found on the double CD release I listed above + the Boult VW box and the original CD (and LP release). I very much agree with your positive view of the work. Although it was composed over a long period of time, I think that it hangs together very well. I have been lucky enough to hear it live on two or three occasions. Last time, a few years ago, I took my daughter to hear it at the Proms. She enjoyed it but said that the affirmative ending went a bit too 'It's A Wonderful Life' for her taste - but she is a cynic!

Thanks! Wow, would she have preferred a darker, bleaker catastrophe as conclusion? It would have sounded a very strange plea for peace.
Anyway, I find very interesting that the composition doesn't end with the gorgeous, mighty climax built during the final movement, with the chorus at full power, but with the soprano soloist and the orchestra in pianissimo, in a quieter atmosphere; as though it wants to evoke an echo reminding that, despite anxieties and fears, a fleeble, but still alive hope is present.

Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw isn't a barrel of laughs. 

Survivor from Warsaw is a powerful ending and certainly not a bleak nihilistic abyss.  Rather exhibiting the extraordinary power of the human spirit I'd say.  RVW 7 doesn't count as a choral work - the choir are colouristic only.  I still think we are searching for the world's most miserable choral ending - if only to keep Vandermolen's daughter "happy" in a "sad" way 

Agreed, it can show how people can fall into the obscure abyss of brutality, but in Schönberg's Survivor from Warsaw the frightful, tragic an haunting mood of work is somehow contrasted by the powerful final hymn, which is meant to be a corageous response and a strong affirmation of the human dignity against the blind cruelty of the war. 

[relm1]

Thanks! Wow, would she have preferred a darker, bleaker catastrophe as conclusion? It would have sounded a very strange plea for peace.
Anyway, I find very interesting that the composition doesn't end with the gorgeous, mighty climax built during the final movement, with the chorus at full power, but with the soprano soloist and the orchestra in pianissimo, in a quieter atmosphere; as though it wants to evoke an echo reminding that, despite anxieties and fears, a fleeble, but still alive hope is present.

Agreed, it can show how people can fall into the obscure abyss of brutality, but in Schönberg's Survivor from Warsaw the frightful, tragic an haunting mood of work is somehow contrasted by the powerful final hymn, which is meant to be a corageous response and a strong affirmation of the human dignity against the blind cruelty of the war.

I think part of the challenge of this quest is there are other mediums better suited for bleak choral endings.  For example, opera, where you get blazingly bleek endings with choir but it's theatrical even when choral.  EG: Shostakovich Lady Macbeth which harkens to Mussorgsky operas.  And of course, Puccini choral tragic finales. 

[vandermolen]

Survivor from Warsaw is a powerful ending and certainly not a bleak nihilistic abyss.  Rather exhibiting the extraordinary power of the human spirit I'd say.  RVW 7 doesn't count as a choral work - the choir are colouristic only.  I still think we are searching for the world's most miserable choral ending - if only to keep Vandermolen's daughter "happy" in a "sad" way 

Haha - I've enjoyed reading these posts and must tell my daughter about them!
Schoenberg's 'A Survivor from Warsaw' is an extraordinary piece. Shostakovich's Symphony No.13 is a most interesting choice - I find the ending, with the chimes, extraordinary moving, especially in Haitink's recording:

[aukhawk]

An upbeat / optimistic / aspirational ending is pretty much the default position in all classical music (not just choral).  It was baked-in to the 18thC aesthetic and has stuck in the music ever since.  Also it helps in performance, to give the audience something to cheer.  So that the exceptions - such as Tchaikovsky's and RVW's 6th Symphonies, DSCH's 15th - are very notable for that reason.  Although many more could be cited, still across the whole wide gamut of 'classical' music downbeat endings are rare.

[VonStupp]

As to the "affirmative ending"; this got me thinking - how many Choral works end very glummly??  Requiems end up "In Paradisium", can't think of any religious/choral works that don't end with some kind of positive chorus or at least "peaceful".  Can anyone come up with a few totally nihilistic choral works - Herrmann's "Moby Dick"?  Delius' "Sea Drift" is sad rather than anything else.....  There must be - I just can't think of them at this time in the morning!

Edit;  even DSCH 13/Babi Yar is at best emotionally ambiguous (I'm using "best" in the sense of most closely correlating to my bleak-ending idea!)

I always thought Martinů's Epic of Gilgamesh and Orff's Trionfo di Afrodite had rather unsettled endings, at least musically. I don't have texts to these anymore, but knowing of the sensual subjects in Orff's cantatas, perhaps it ends more ecstatically.

VS

[Karl Henning]

Separately, last night I heard the Master Singers of Lexington sing the Three Elizabethan part-songs to open their program (their first since the advent of the plague.)

[vandermolen]

Separately, last night I heard the Master Singers of Lexington sing the Three Elizabethan part-songs to open their program (their first since the advent of the plague.)

Very nice!

[relm1]

Tonight, I listened to RVW's DNP by Bryden Thomson/LPO.  Fantastic performance but for me, it doesn't displace Hickox as my favorite interpretation.  Very much nitpicks about phrasing and slight balance issues but to me, each time, Hickox excelled.  BUT this performance of Five Mystical Songs is so freaking gorgeous.  I don't think I've heard it better.  Brian Rayner Cook (baritone) is fantastic in this!  It is so full of atmosphere and so beautifully performed.  I felt immediately transported. 

[vandermolen]

Tonight, I listened to RVW's DNP by Bryden Thomson/LPO.  Fantastic performance but for me, it doesn't displace Hickox as my favorite interpretation.  Very much nitpicks about phrasing and slight balance issues but to me, each time, Hickox excelled.  BUT this performance of Five Mystical Songs is so freaking gorgeous.  I don't think I've heard it better.  Brian Rayner Cook (baritone) is fantastic in this!  It is so full of atmosphere and so beautifully performed.  I felt immediately transported.

Interesting - I fished out the Thomson CD yesterday and hope to play it today. I think that I have every recording of DNP and don't think that there is a weak one amongst them. In fact, I think that Dona Nobis Pacem has been well served on disc. I'm looking forward to receiving the remastered/remastered version on Somm, reissued for the 150th Anniversary. I first got to know the work through Abravanel's Utah recording which I retain affection for (there's a great Vanguard CD featuring it coupled with Abravanel's excellent recording of the 6th Symphony - a unique coupling of two of VW's finest works). I remember being very delighted when the Boult LP appeared and that is a favourite version as well. More recently I have really enjoyed Litton's Colorado SO version on Hyperion.

[Roasted Swan]

I've been having a quick dipping in/first listen to parts of the new "RVW Live Vol.3" set from Somm;



A couple of things for those considering this set to know;  The London Symphony from the Proms in July 1946 is a blazing performance full of extraordinary drive, power and atmosphere.  NOT AT ALL the kind of misty-Monet-down the Thames the piece can sometimes seem.  BUT because it was privately recorded off-air by Kenneth Leech there are missing passages while Leech was having to change over recordable discs.  So there are 2 "gaps" in both the 1st and 2nd movements, the end of the scherzo is missing and there is one big gap around 1' 20" in the finale.  The shortest gap is just 10" in the slow movement so not sure what the problem was in the finale.  For me because this is literally a unique/historical document and the performance is so impressive I can live with this as a fascinating reference version.  The same 'gaps' occur for the same reason in the 1943 premiere performance of Symphony No.5.  Disc 2 of this set is a new mastering of the same performances Somm have previously released although apparently the source recording of No.5 is different so it does NOT omit some bars missing in the earlier Somm version.  Undoubtedly important and valuable in providing insights into RVW's vision of his own music but ultimately quite a 'specialist' release I would think.

[Karl Henning]

I've been having a quick dipping in/first listen to parts of the new "RVW Live Vol.3" set from Somm;



A couple of things for those considering this set to know;  The London Symphony from the Proms in July 1946 is a blazing performance full of extraordinary drive, power and atmosphere.  NOT AT ALL the kind of misty-Monet-down the Thames the piece can sometimes seem.  BUT because it was privately recorded off-air by Kenneth Leech there are missing passages while Leech was having to change over recordable discs.  So there are 2 "gaps" in th both the 1st and 2nd movements, the end of the scherzo is missing and there is one big gap around 1' 20" in the finale.  The shortest gap is just 10" in the slow movement so not sure what the problem was in the finale.  For me because this is literally a unique/historical document and the performance is so impressive I can live with this as a fascinating reference version.  The same 'gaps' occur for the same reason in the 1943 premiere performance of Symphony No.5.  Disc 2 of this set is a new mastering of the same performances Somm have previously released although apparently the source recording of No.5 is different so it does NOT omit some bars missing in the earlier Somm version.  Undoubtedly important and valuable in providing insights into RVW's vision of his own music but ultimately quite a 'specialist' release I would think.

Most interesting, thanks.

[vandermolen]

I've been having a quick dipping in/first listen to parts of the new "RVW Live Vol.3" set from Somm;



A couple of things for those considering this set to know;  The London Symphony from the Proms in July 1946 is a blazing performance full of extraordinary drive, power and atmosphere.  NOT AT ALL the kind of misty-Monet-down the Thames the piece can sometimes seem.  BUT because it was privately recorded off-air by Kenneth Leech there are missing passages while Leech was having to change over recordable discs.  So there are 2 "gaps" in th both the 1st and 2nd movements, the end of the scherzo is missing and there is one big gap around 1' 20" in the finale.  The shortest gap is just 10" in the slow movement so not sure what the problem was in the finale.  For me because this is literally a unique/historical document and the performance is so impressive I can live with this as a fascinating reference version.  The same 'gaps' occur for the same reason in the 1943 premiere performance of Symphony No.5.  Disc 2 of this set is a new mastering of the same performances Somm have previously released although apparently the source recording of No.5 is different so it does NOT omit some bars missing in the earlier Somm version.  Undoubtedly important and valuable in providing insights into RVW's vision of his own music but ultimately quite a 'specialist' release I would think.

That's very interesting to know, thanks, although it will not stop me ordering the release. Today I listened to Hickox's recording of the 1913 version of A London Symphony and had forgotten how much additional music is contained in the finale compared with the more familiar 1936 version. It is most extraordinary, and the work has a darker and more turbulent aspect to it. If I had to choose between the 1913 version and the one of 1936, despite the greater concision of the latter I would definitely opt for the earlier, more Mahlerian edition.

[relm1]

That's very interesting to know, thanks, although it will not stop me ordering the release. Today I listened to Hickox's recording of the 1913 version of A London Symphony and had forgotten how much additional music is contained in the finale compared with the more familiar 1936 version. It is most extraordinary, and the work has a darker and more turbulent aspect to it. If I had to choose between the 1913 version and the one of 1936, despite the greater concision of the latter I would definitely opt for the earlier, more Mahlerian edition.

Interestingly, RVW original 1913 version made it his longest symphony at 70 minutes.  Truly on a Mahlerian scale.  It is interesting how composers develop their material and struggle with structure and concision.  For example, how Sibelius seemed to really struggle structurally with his Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 5.  The original versions are very different and the final versions vastly improved, but the ideas themselves, not so different. 

[Roasted Swan]

That's very interesting to know, thanks, although it will not stop me ordering the release. Today I listened to Hickox's recording of the 1913 version of A London Symphony and had forgotten how much additional music is contained in the finale compared with the more familiar 1936 version. It is most extraordinary, and the work has a darker and more turbulent aspect to it. If I had to choose between the 1913 version and the one of 1936, despite the greater concision of the latter I would definitely opt for the earlier, more Mahlerian edition.

I've spent quite a bit of time listening to the 1st disc in this set which contains the 1946 Proms London Symphony in the 1936 revision and the 1943 World Premiere of Symphony No.5.  Even allowing for the issues of pretty lo-fi recording and the missing passages while recording discs were changed both are stunning performances.  Given RVW's clear statement that the 1936 version of No.2 London was the only version to play it is very interesting to hear his take on the work.  Simply put he keeps all the tempi flowing - its an urgent very dramatic, very beautiful but completely unsentimental performance.  A case in point is the way he moves in the finale from the last great climax into the Epilogue.  Its really no-nonsense, no lingering looking at the view and it works wonderfully.  This is after all the passage where he cut most from the 1st version and here in this performance - for all the individual beauty of the cut music - you understand why he did it.  The greater concision ties the whole work together more effectively - to my ear the longer epilogue risks the formal balance of the movement and indeed the whole work.  I'm certainly very glad to be able to hear the longer versions but if anything this performances makes me think more than ever that the composer was right!!

[aukhawk]

... - you understand why he did it.  The greater concision ties the whole work together more effectively - to my ear the longer epilogue risks the formal balance of the movement and indeed the whole work.  I'm certainly very glad to be able to hear the longer versions but if anything this performances makes me think more than ever that the composer was right!!

Choices made, by the composer or indeed by the interpreter/performer, in the final movement of a symphony, surely have no effect on the listening experience during the preceding movements?  It's a bit like Mahler's 4th - you may like, or dislike, the delivery of the sung final movement, but what difference does that make to the preceding 50 minutes?
(I think we probably listen to music in very different ways.)

[Roasted Swan]

Choices made, by the composer or indeed by the interpreter/performer, in the final movement of a symphony, surely have no effect on the listening experience during the preceding movements?  It's a bit like Mahler's 4th - you may like, or dislike, the delivery of the sung final movement, but what difference does that make to the preceding 50 minutes?
(I think we probably listen to music in very different ways.)

Because an extended "leave-taking" from the final climax and then into the epilogue shifts the balance to the end of the work - making that epilogue - which after all in a literal sense is something that happens after/in addition to the main narrative - disproportionately significant.  Of course there is an argument to say composers can be more obsessed with the structural side of a work than your average listener who can experience a work moment to moment (especially when hearing for the first time).  For what its worth an average total timing of the revised London Symphony is around 45 minutes total of which the epilogue is already/still roughly 4:30 so quite a substantial proportion.  My sense from hearing this recording is that Vaughan Williams did not want it (or the music that transitions into it) to account for any more of the whole work that it does here.

To take your Mahler analogy - I don't think you can consider his 4th Symphony except in totality.  That was how he conceived it/intended it to be heard.  If you don't like the sung finale/find it anachronistic in the context of the whole work then I think the work has failed for you [as it happens I don't like that finale so its a work I rarely listen to].  But as you say we all listen in different ways.  I only listen to complete works whether that means 5 minutes or 5 hours.  The only cherry-picking I do do is with say orchestral excerpts of Wagner or perhaps opera overtures - but certainly with symphonies or concerti its all or nothing for me!

[vandermolen]

Interestingly, RVW original 1913 version made it his longest symphony at 70 minutes.  Truly on a Mahlerian scale.  It is interesting how composers develop their material and struggle with structure and concision.  For example, how Sibelius seemed to really struggle structurally with his Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 5.  The original versions are very different and the final versions vastly improved, but the ideas themselves, not so different.

As with the VW I tend now to play the original version of Sibelius's 5th Symphony rather than the more familiar final version. It has some wonderful moments which are missing from the final version.

[vandermolen]

I've spent quite a bit of time listening to the 1st disc in this set which contains the 1946 Proms London Symphony in the 1936 revision and the 1943 World Premiere of Symphony No.5.  Even allowing for the issues of pretty lo-fi recording and the missing passages while recording discs were changed both are stunning performances.  Given RVW's clear statement that the 1936 version of No.2 London was the only version to play it is very interesting to hear his take on the work.  Simply put he keeps all the tempi flowing - its an urgent very dramatic, very beautiful but completely unsentimental performance.  A case in point is the way he moves in the finale from the last great climax into the Epilogue.  Its really no-nonsense, no lingering looking at the view and it works wonderfully.  This is after all the passage where he cut most from the 1st version and here in this performance - for all the individual beauty of the cut music - you understand why he did it.  The greater concision ties the whole work together more effectively - to my ear the longer epilogue risks the formal balance of the movement and indeed the whole work.  I'm certainly very glad to be able to hear the longer versions but if anything this performances makes me think more than ever that the composer was right!!

It is a shame that, unlike Elgar, we have so few recordings of VW conducting his own music. I'd love to hear what he made of Symphony No.6! There's an account of him conducting A London Symphony when the score, with his markings, went missing (it was eventually found in the piano). VW was apparently angry about the missing score but delivered a blistering performance from memory. I can't wait to hear the Somm release!

[relm1]

As with the VW I tend now to play the original version of Sibelius's 5th Symphony rather than the more familiar final version. It has some wonderful moments which are missing from the final version.

Fascinating.  I understand.  Maybe you are like me in that I love having Prokofiev's Symphony No. 4, op. 47 and Symphony No. 4, op. 112 as they are two very different wonderful symphonies both worth having even if I prefer the op. 112 if I had to pick one but am glad both exist as extant options.