GMG Classical Music Forum

Let's see what everyone thinks, were RVW's last thoughts on this work, the best, or...?

1913 ...although I haven't heard the 1920.

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 24, 2015, 02:31:38 AM
1913 ...although I haven't heard the 1920.

Sarge

Neither have I but I thought that I should include it for completeness as there is at least one recording of it available.

As to my preference, definitely the 1913 version, if for no other reason for the magical slow movement where much of what I see as the magic was removed in the interests of symphonic structure.  I can't gainsay RVW's thoughts but I am sad that so much was cut.

There are two CD versions of the 1920 version available; one from World War Two with Eugene Goosens conducting the Cincinatti SO and a new one from Dutton. I can no longer listen to the 1936 version as the composer excised the best bit of the symphony (IMHO) just before the Epilogue. In 1936 Sibelius was at the height of his reputation in Britain. VW I suspect was rather in awe of him and therefore attempted a greater level of concision in 'A London Symphony' this, I believe was a mistake. The sprawling nature of the 1913 and to a lesser extent 1920 version perfectly reflect the sprawling nature of the city it depicts in music (I was born and brought up in central London). Most commentators prefer VW's 1936 final version but I certainly do not. I prefer the 1913 version to the 1936 one.

Quote from: vandermolen on December 24, 2015, 10:26:36 AM
There are two versions of the 1920 version available; one from World War Two with Eugene Goosens conducting the Cincinatti SO and a new one from Dutton. I can no longer listen to the 1936 version as the composer excised the best bit of the symphony (IMHO) just before the Epilogue. In 1936 Sibelius was at the height of his reputation in Britain. VW I suspect was rather in awe of him and therefore attempted a greater level of concision in 'A London Symphony' this, I believe was a mistake. The sprawling nature of the 1913 and to a lesser extent 1920 version perfectly reflect the sprawling nature of the city it depicts in music (I was born and brought up in central London). Most commentators prefer VW's 1936 final version but I certainly do not. I prefer the 1913 version to the 1936 one.

A fascinating take on it, thank you.  While I did not grow up in London (Manchester then moved to California in my teens), I can still sense the nature of the city as I have come to know it well.

Since getting the recording of the 1913 version about 2 years ago, it's the only one I ever listen to now.

Quote from: CRMS on December 24, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
A fascinating take on it, thank you.  While I did not grow up in London (Manchester then moved to California in my teens), I can still sense the nature of the city as I have come to know it well.

No need to grow up in London to appreciate this. I have just reviewed the new Dutton CD of the 1920 version for the Journal of the RVW Society, stating that I think that Vaughan Willams went 'a revision too far in 1936'. After all he must have appreciated those sections up to 1936 to have kept them in the symphony. Boult, Bax and Bernard Herrmann, all friends of the composer, remonstrated with him  about the 1936 cuts, but to no avail. I expect that the argument will all 'kick off' in the next issue of the Journal.  ::)

Quote from: Maestro267 on December 25, 2015, 12:33:31 PM
Since getting the recording of the 1913 version about 2 years ago, it's the only one I ever listen to now.

I can totally understand this. I now invariably listen to the 1913 or 1920 version in preference to the 'definitive' version of 1936.

I like the 1913 version the best but I also like the 1920 also.

Quote from: Johnnie Burgess on September 10, 2016, 02:22:10 PM
I like the 1913 version the best but I also like the 1920 also.

Totally agree. Both of those versions maintain that wonderfully poetic section just before the Epilogue of the last movement. I was lucky to get to Richard Hickox's first performance of the 1913 version for about eighty years when he conducted it at the Barbican London some years ago - a wonderful evening. Afterwards I queued up to get the much missed conductor to sign my concert programme for me. As he did so I told him that I thought that Vaughan Williams had excised the best bit of the symphony (and one of the most moving moments in his music). Richard Hickox said that he agreed.

I can't choose as this really isn't one of my favorite RVW symphonies, although I do have a preference for the revised version just because I feel the symphony is closer to the composer's own idea of the work. I mean if he was satisfied with it, then clearly he wouldn't have felt the urge to revise it. That's my POV anyway.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:29:03 AM
I can't choose as this really isn't one of my favorite RVW symphonies, although I do have a preference for the revised version just because I feel the symphony is closer to the composer's own idea of the work. I mean if he was satisfied with it, then clearly he wouldn't have felt the urge to revise it. That's my POV anyway.

I think that he was too much in awe of Sibelius when he made the 1936 revision.

Don't really care as I am not even sure which versions I have...

Like MI said not one of my favorite, just find it pretty tough slogging. I like his 4th which I think is magnificent.

Quote from: vandermolen on September 18, 2016, 11:47:03 AM
I think that he was too much in awe of Sibelius when he made the 1936 revision.

But wouldn't you say it's true that there's a Sibelian influence in a good bit of Vaughan Williams' music? Many composers make revisions because they feel some improvements can be made. I'm not sure whether the improvements made to A London Symphony were necessary, but this still doesn't detract from the notion that he felt it was necessary to make these changes. I think we should, at least, except his later thoughts as much as his early thoughts. Both are completely valid and have their place.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 12:36:49 PM
But wouldn't you say it's true that there's a Sibelian influence in a good bit of Vaughan Williams' music? Many composers make revisions because they feel some improvements can be made. I'm not sure whether the improvements made to A London Symphony were necessary, but this still doesn't detract from the notion that he felt it was necessary to make these changes. I think we should, at least, except his later thoughts as much as his early thoughts. Both are completely valid and have their place.

I don't disagree John. I think you are right that there is a strong Sibelius influence elsewhere, especially in the wonderful Symphony 5 which is dedicated to Sibelius. I just think that the more rambling style of the earlier versions of A London Symphony better suit the sprawling nature of London itself (my home city). The 1936 version will rightly remain the definitive final version as Vaughan Williams wanted it but I still think that he cut out one of the most moving sections in any of his symphonies just before the Epilogue and that he therefore went 'a revision too far'.

Quote from: vandermolen on September 18, 2016, 11:11:40 PM
I don't disagree John. I think you are right that there is a strong Sibelius influence elsewhere, especially in the wonderful Symphony 5 which is dedicated to Sibelius. I just think that the more rambling style of the earlier versions of A London Symphony better suit the sprawling nature of London itself (my home city). The 1936 version will rightly remain the definitive final version as Vaughan Williams wanted it but I still think that he cut out one of the most moving sections in any of his symphonies just before the Epilogue and that he therefore went 'a revision too far'.

I really ought to give the original version a fresh listen as it's been quite some time. Too bad my favorite RVW conductors, Boult, Previn, and Thomson, never recorded the original version of A London Symphony. :-\ Despite my previous grievance about this symphony, it's still a work I enjoy listening to and it does have a beautiful slow movement.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 19, 2016, 01:58:30 PM
I really ought to give the original version a fresh listen as it's been quite some time. Too bad my favorite RVW conductors, Boult, Previn, and Thomson, never recorded the original version of A London Symphony. :-\ Despite my previous grievance about this symphony, it's still a work I enjoy listening to and it does have a beautiful slow movement.

Yes, for Previn, Boult or Thomson to have recorded would have been quite something. There is a fine old version with Eugene Goossens conducting the 1920 version with the Cincinatti SO but I know that you are not keen on historic recordings. The CD was a big eye-opener for me as it was the first to reveal the quality of the music which VW excised for the final revision. Boult, Bernard Herrmann and Bax all argued with VW about these final revisions.

The original version has too much imitation Debussy.

Quote from: Vaulted on October 23, 2016, 09:14:21 PM
The original version has too much imitation Debussy.

Of course he studied with Ravel who was definitely an influence, although I feel it more obviously in his First String Quartet and 'On Wenlock Edge'.