Vaughan Williams Symphonies 4 and 5

[Barbirollians]

Have the original recordings of 4 ( by the composer ) and 5 by Halle/Barbirolli ever been matched let alone surpassed musically / Listening to the Dutton CD today I struggle to think of any that have the same charge despite how many splendid recordings there have been since the 1940s

[Maclintick]

Have the original recordings of 4 ( by the composer ) and 5 by Halle/Barbirolli ever been matched let alone surpassed musically / Listening to the Dutton CD today I struggle to think of any that have the same charge despite how many splendid recordings there have been since the 1940s

It's likely that RVW's original recording of no.4 has never been surpassed, at least in the sense of 'taking the bull by the horns", as it were. I can't claim comprehensive knowledge of the RVW catalogue, but there have been many excellent versions added to by Boult, Haitink, Previn & Handley amongst others, as you say.
No 5 has also fared well, although I'm only familiar with JB's later excellent stereo HMV version with the Philharmonia, so unable to comment vis-a-vis the 78-era Hallé. FWIW, Mrs M & I chanced on a radio broadcast of no. 5 so utterly devoid of musicality (&vibrato !) that, staring at each other in horror, we uttered the name in unison...Not much of an answer to your original query, I'm afraid, but probably a version to avoid.

[Master Jacques]

It's likely that RVW's original recording of no.4 has never been surpassed, at least in the sense of 'taking the bull by the horns", as it were. I can't claim comprehensive knowledge of the RVW catalogue, but there have been many excellent versions added to by Boult, Haitink, Previn & Handley amongst others, as you say.
No 5 has also fared well, although I'm only familiar with JB's later excellent stereo HMV version with the Philharmonia, so unable to comment vis-a-vis the 78-era Hallé. FWIW, Mrs M & I chanced on a radio broadcast of no. 5 so utterly devoid of musicality (&vibrato !) that, staring at each other in horror, we uttered the name in unison...Not much of an answer to your original query, I'm afraid, but probably a version to avoid.

Wise words all round on the untouchable greatness of RVW's own recording of his 4th Symphony.

I am second to none in my love of Barbirolli's work, but have always been slightly disappointed by him in RVW's 5th. For me (I may be alone) he reduces the spirituality of the slow movement by emphasising operatic emotions over slightly detached mysticism, if that makes sense to anyone. I feel this in both his recordings, especially the stereo remake.

My own fondness - currently - is for performances by a minor German and minor Swiss orchestra - The Brandenberg Frankfurt Orchestra under Walter Hilgers (Genuin CD) and the Argovia SO under Bostock (Coviello CD). The first for its Brucknerian brass and extraordinary focus, the second for its light, absolutely gorgeous pastel freshness. I wouldn't want to be without either of these RVW 5s, or without Boult's old mono version, or many others ... including Norrington!

[smittims]

I always used to call these two symphonies by the titles the composer gave them: 'Symphony in F minor' (this was on the first page of the first OUP score) and 'Symphony in D'. But increasingly I found that people didn't know which one I meant ,so I accepted that this was a bit close to pedantry, and I now say 'VW's fourth (or fifth) symphonies' which they are . I've since found letters where VW himself refers to 'number five' and so on, privately and colloquially at least.

I doubt if VW's own recording of the fourth will ever be matched as a performance , though I suspect it may have been rehearsed by Boult first. He had been recording at Abbey Road with the orchestra since 1932 and they had of course given the premiere. Incidentally, though the sound of the Dutton transfer is fine, there is an unfortunate editing fault at figure 16 in the finale where three bars are omitted. I suspect the editor thought it was a deliberate overlap between sides, as sometimes happened on 78s. I still prefer the original final note of the second movement (f) to the composer's 1950s revision to 'e'. Does anyone else?

I've never heard a performance of the D major which pleased me more than one by Paul Watkins (who I know as a cellist; I didn't know he conducted) around 2011 on Radio 3. It really is superbly sensistive and alive to the special 'atmosphere' of this work. I also admire John Wilson's and Andrew Manze's interpretations, to mention more recent ones than the time-honoured Boult and Barbirolli versions.

I can't resist straying onto the subject of the so-called 'copyist's error' in the third movement (Romanza) . The timpani play in only a few bars at the climax, and if you look at the bass line in the orchestra, it looks as if the timpani part has been printed a bar late all through. This was changed in Vernon Handley's 'Eminence' recording with the RLPO in the mid-80s and is now (as far as I know ) always played in this revised way with the timpani a bar later than the old score. I can't help thinking the matter is not as simple as it sounds. The 'wrong' version still sounds 'right ' to me, and presumably it did to the symphony's early conductors , including Boult, Barbirolli and the composer himself who all left at least two recordings each of the work with the 'wrong' timp part. I keep meaning to ask the Royal Academy of Music (who according to Kennedy own the autograph) if I could have a look at this page. I'd love to discover that VW really did write it 'wrong'!

.

[Andrew Slater]

Incidentally, though the sound of the Dutton transfer is fine, there is an unfortunate editing fault at figure 16 in the finale where three bars are omitted. I suspect the editor thought it was a deliberate overlap between sides, as sometimes happened on 78s.

Well spotted! I hadn't noticed before, but on a close listening (my copy of the score isn't to hand where I am) I think I heard the gap - is it at about 9 minutes in on the scherzo / finale track? I compared it with the Naxos transfer, which seems OK at this point. (Something goes wrong about 38 seconds later but that might be on the original recording - something similar happens on the Dutton transfer.)

I still prefer the original final note of the second movement (f) to the composer's 1950s revision to 'e'. Does anyone else?

Yes, I agree: the revision seems to 'soften' the effect; the original note, for me, acts as a 'cliffhanger', in preparation for the scherzo, if that makes sense? I think I can see why the composer changed it, but on the whole I would have preferred it if he hadn't!

[Barbirollians]

I must dig out my HMV Treasury LP of this coupling . Does it happen on that if anyone has it ?

[smittims]

I don't know an HMV Treasury Lp but I do have the previous World Records Lp transferred by Anthony Griffith (probably the same transfer) and that is complete as the score. I even prefer it to the Naxos CD as sound!

Another recording which uses the original f natural ending of the second movement is the Mitropoulos on SONY. Mitropoulos and the NYPO played the F minor symphony at the Edinburgh Festival and the British critics didn't like the sound of their wide -bore brass instruments. I think it's a terrific performance, as is the Bernstein from the late '60s.

[Pulcinella]

I can't remember now if there was much comment about 'the note' in this thread or in the book (which I'll dig out and investigate).

https://www.for3.org/forums/forum/classical-forum/talking-about-music/23699-vw-and-boult-new-book

[Andrew Slater]

I'm a bit distant from the book as well as the score. However, the letter to Boult where VW changed the note is online here. VW uses a strange phrase for an atheist / agnostic, citing "the Lord" for his change of mind, although he still says he isn't sure about the note. (I daren't quote too much - the website seems quite strict about quoting the letters.)

[smittims]

VW's letter to Boult about the f to e change (probably typed by Ursula but signed and amended by Ralph) was reproduced in miniature facsimile on the back of the LP sleeve of Boult's EMI stereo recording when it came out in April 1968.

As to his phrase 'the Lord came down' , well, of course he was an agnostic, but he loved the English Bible as part of English culture (he even tried to get up a campaign to get the New English Bible banned) and I think he regarded the Lord coming down as folklore, the sort of 'magic ' thing that happens in stories (Ursula was much into this sort of thing too). It was his modest way of saying 'it just occurred to me '.

[Barbirollians]

My HMV Treasury LP has AC Griffith as having transferred the 4th but the 5th is described as transferred from 78s by Peter Bown - sounds like the original masters must have gone missing.

[neiltingley]

It's likely that RVW's original recording of no.4 has never been surpassed, at least in the sense of 'taking the bull by the horns", as it were.

Try Bernstein, Mitropoulos ! Or with UK orchestras, Slatkin (Philharmonia) or Berglund (BSO). The RVW recording is fierce but Berglund's is more so and better recorded.

The FOURTH IS A MASTERPIECE that's been let down my flacid, low voltage performances lauded by critics who should know better.

[smittims]

I agree. It's no wonder there's been so much speculation about the source and inspiration of this amazing work. When one hears it, it's an integrated, spontaneous mass of white-hot genius, but it's worth remembering that he worked on it for several years and completely re-wrote it at least once. I think the amount of sheer hard work he put into it is a guide to the quality of the work: the art that conceals art. A close parallel is Virginia Woolf's novel The Waves, written , I think, about the same time. That too appears tous like a tightly-knit utterance, concealing the years of revision that went into it.

[rauschwerk]

To repeat what I said in 2022: I acquired Berglund's VW4 on the strength of the last BaL recommendation, to add to versions by the composer, Previn and Haitink. There are passages in the finale which are very difficult to execute at the prescribed metronome mark. There are three solutions: one (composer) is to take it at the marked speed and never mind the untidy bits; another (Previn) is to take the whole movement below the prescribed tempo; the third (Berglund) is to go at the prescribed speed and slow down for the tricky bits. I still prefer the composer's approach. I'd like to hear Stokowski and Pappano.

[akiralx]

On the Chandos Hickox/A Davis cycle there is a bonus CD including an interview with Boult, where the interviewer, having recently heard the Fourth again in concert, proposes that it has dated rather badly. Boult doesn't entirely disagree, saying that he felt that the composer 'got something out of his system' by writing it.

Berglund's is a very good version though my favourite is probably Slatkin which I recall was praised as the best of his cycle, which can now be bought in a bargain box.