RVW: A London Symphony (1920 version)

[Pabmusic]

Dutton have released this:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+yates

This is an important release. RVW made two major revisions of the 1914 score (that is, the one reconstructed from the orchestral parts by George Butterworth & pals after RVW had sent the original to Germany in July 1914 - bad timing!) as well as many tinkerings. Richard Hickox recorded the 1914 score, but the one we are used to is the 1936 score, incorporating tinkerings from 1933.

However, the first major revision was for the 1920 publication of the score. (The booklet says that, once it was in print, the symphony was played often - Bournemouth heard it 15 times in 12 years - Dan Godfrey's doing, no doubt). This is the version recorded here. It has in fact been recorded twice before: Dan Godfrey recorded it with the LSO - acoustically - in 1925. That performance had a 15-bar cut in the epilogue, but did include the repeat in the scherzo. Then Eugene Goossens recorded it in 1941 with the Cincinnati SO. This had no cuts but omitted the scherzo repeat. Both these versions have been on CD, Godfrey's still is:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+godfrey

The 1933/36 'authorised' version was not universally accepted. Boult certainly regretted the loss of many passages. Most famously, Bernard Herrmann wrote of his disappointment of the loss of "six remarkable bars" in the slow movement:

...one of the most original poetic moments in the entire symphony. It is at this moment as though, when the hush and quietness have settled over Bloomsbury of a November twilight, that a damp drizzle of rain slowly falls, and it is this descending chromatic ponticello of the violins that so graphically depicts it.

Years later he taxed RVW with their omission. RVW replied:

Oh, it's much too long, much too long, and there was some horrid modern music in the middle - awful stuff. I cut that out - couldn't stand it.

The 1920 version is 97 bars shorter than the 1914 one, but 48 bars longer than the 'authorised' one.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well, Pab-M, you know where to take your passionate attentions to next: Bruckner Symphony No.3, with especial regard to 1873 (Novak) and 1874 (Carraghan)... you don't have to subject yourself to 1878 or 1889 unless you're a glutton for punishment...

[Roehre]

Many thanks Pabmusic, this release so far had escaped my attention

[Lat-Literal]

Dutton have released this:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+yates

This is an important release. RVW made two major revisions of the 1914 score (that is, the one reconstructed from the orchestral parts by George Butterworth & pals after RVW had sent the original to Germany in July 1914 - bad timing!) as well as many tinkerings. Richard Hickox recorded the 1914 score, but the one we are used to is the 1936 score, incorporating tinkerings from 1933.

However, the first major revision was for the 1920 publication of the score. (The booklet says that, once it was in print, the symphony was played often - Bournemouth heard it 15 times in 12 years - Dan Godfrey's doing, no doubt). This is the version recorded here. It has in fact been recorded twice before: Dan Godfrey recorded it with the LSO - acoustically - in 1925. That performance had a 15-bar cut in the epilogue, but did include the repeat in the scherzo. Then Eugene Goossens recorded it in 1941 with the Cincinnati SO. This had no cuts but omitted the scherzo repeat. Both these versions have been on CD, Godfrey's still is:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+godfrey

The 1933/36 'authorised' version was not universally accepted. Boult certainly regretted the loss of many passages. Most famously, Bernard Herrmann wrote of his disappointment of the loss of "six remarkable bars" in the slow movement:

...one of the most original poetic moments in the entire symphony. It is at this moment as though, when the hush and quietness have settled over Bloomsbury of a November twilight, that a damp drizzle of rain slowly falls, and it is this descending chromatic ponticello of the violins that so graphically depicts it.

Years later he taxed RVW with their omission. RVW replied:

Oh, it's much too long, much too long, and there was some horrid modern music in the middle - awful stuff. I cut that out - couldn't stand it.

The 1920 version is 97 bars shorter than the 1914 one, but 48 bars longer than the 'authorised' one.

Well, Pab, RVW 2 is my favourite symphony of all time and that is principally because of the Lento. I am not sure what to think of there being changes. The cassette tape I bought from a second hand shop sits very happily alongside my CDs, steadfastly refusing to be replaced. It is Previn and the LSO on RCA and I have owned it since the summer of 1984.

I believe that Previn recorded the symphony twice, the second time with a marginally slower tempo. I am happy with pace of the one I have. But one of the things I have always felt about the Lento is that I have wanted it to go on longer. If the changes you discuss make it longer, I now find I am of mixed mind. Maybe that feeling of wanting more has been a part of its appeal for me. There is in its immense beauty still some sense of a slight flaw. That's a plus. Now I come to think of it, it is probably the reason why I haven't always wanted to hear other recordings of it. There is another reason why the Lento matters. This is a London Symphony with its traffic noise and the chimes of Big Ben. However, there is scope in music for individual interpretation. What I hear in the Lento is the countryside - spring/summer - in a way that no other music has ever conveyed it to me. I like that irony, especially given that the intention was that it should be Bloomsbury Square in November and the more overt rural essence in many other compositions by Vaughan Williams.

This is not quite as crackers as it sounds. I feel that RVW never quite knew what he had composed. Your reference to "horrid modern music in the middle" doesn't sit easily with his statement that he believed it was his best symphony. And while there is the traffic and those chimes and that idea about Bloomsbury, none of those things sit well with the fact that it was originally simply Symphony No 2. He did not choose the title "A London Symphony" and preferred the alternative "Symphony by a Londoner". What I suggest is that there is something so instinctively "of the land and the earth" in the music of RVW that it appears even when that is not specifically intended. Furthermore, where it is not specifically intended, the music is less vulnerable to accusations of cliche. The Lento is not rolling green hills. It is much more organic. It seems to rise from the loam in a warm haze through colour and leaf and even the hum of the bees. It really is those things while being deeply impressionistic and I'd say it is also inadvertently the musical character of RVW himself.

As a footnote, on most years I visit the rhododendrons of Caroline Wedgwood on Leith Hill. As you will be aware, they are both next to Leith Hill Place where RVW lived and where Darwin conducted experiments to facilitate his research. Leith Hill is not very far removed from London as the crow flies. It is also close enough to the capital for an inhabitant to consider himself to be a Londoner. RVW 2 is close to Leith Hill in my mind but, given what I have said, it isn't Leith Hill in any precise sort of way but rather it is a representation.

Two years ago, I had the glorious experience of walking towards Leith Hill Place and on my approach hearing the music of Vaughan Williams in the breeze. It seemed unreal. Sadly it wasn't Symphony No 2. The closer I got to the building the more real the music became. When I reached the gate - there was nobody else on the approach - I discovered a small television camera crew there. They were chatting. They looked at me. I looked at them. I realised that no visitors would be welcome on that day. I then walked back. As time has passed, the work that was being played, presumably in preparation for a programme, has been deliberately put outside my mind. I know what it was but I am not keen to mention it here. That is because I have chosen to think of it as the Lento from the second symphony. In that way, the experience enhances the associations I have felt for very many years.

[EdgeleyRob]

Thanks Pabs for that most interesting post.

Lat you are not alone.
To me this work is Symphony No 2.
It's not about London,it's about any city,town,river,tree,field.......
I hear it everywhere.

[Pabmusic]

Well, Pab, RVW 2 is my favourite symphony of all time and that is principally because of the Lento. I am not sure what to think of there being changes...

Really interesting post, LL. I'm fascinated with the insight the earlier versions give us about the process of composition. This of course is different for every composer, and RVW was a noted 'tinkerer', seemingly never satisfied. In contrast, Elgar was handing out miniature scores of Falstaff at the first rehearsal, so confident was he.

I too love the London symphony, but it is instructive (even a shock) to realise that the symphony we know now is very different from the original. (Not quite so: RVW hardly altered anything in the first movement.) Here is a link to the Wikipedia article, some of which I was responsible for. You'll see there's a table showing the differences in numbers of bars between the 1914, 1920 and 1933/6 versions. Note that over the years the first movement lost one bar, the second 52 bars, the third gained 12, the fourth lost 65, and the Epilogue lost 49. The third and fourth movements originally ran into each other, and the fourth movement originally had an extra theme that RVW excised for the 1920 version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_London_Symphony

The thing to bear in mind is that we know the 1933/6 version best because that has been the only authorised version since 1936. But people who lived before then knew the 1920 version, which was the first published, and first recorded, version. To them the 1936 version was a considerable alteration to the text, and some regretted the changes (I've mentioned Boult and Hermann) while respecting RVW's instruction that the earlier version should no longer be played. However, because of the odd American copyright law (anything published before 1923 is public domain, unless copyright has been renewed in a specific way) the 1920 version has always been available - if not actually played - in the USA. I bought a score of the 1920 version as recently as 2000 from Kalmus. I'm just very interested to see that Dutton has recorded it - there's nothing in the booklet about it, but I guess the trustees gave permission, as they did when Hickox recorded the 1914 version for Chandos.

Also, the title "A London Symphony" was its original title; RVW never referred to it as No. 2. Indeed, when George Butterworth first suggested RVW write it, RVW's own account was "that I'd never written a symphony and never intended to".* (A Sea Symphony is a choral work primarily, after all.) RVW gave numbers to the 8th and 9th, but to no other ones.

*[Typical of the man. The quote is from a letter to Sir Alexander Butterworth after his son's death; it's quoted in the Wiki article, but here it is:

We were talking together one day when he said in his gruff, abrupt manner: 'You know, you ought to write a symphony'. I answered... that I'd never written a symphony and never intended to... I suppose Butterworth's words stung me and, anyhow, I looked out some sketches I had made for... a symphonic poem about London and decided to throw it into symphonic form... From that moment, the idea of a symphony dominated my mind. I showed the sketches to George bit by bit as they were finished, and it was then that I realised that he possessed in common with very few composers a wonderful power of criticism of other men's work and insight into their ideas and motives. I can never feel too grateful to him for all he did for me over this work and his help did not stop short at criticism.]

[richardfinegold]

Didn't Hickok record the original version on Chandos?

[Pabmusic]

Didn't Hickok record the original version on Chandos?

Yes, that's right.

[akiralx]

I will probably get this as a RVW completist, although I have read the performance is generally only OK. I did find Hickox's recording contained too much music which was not at the same level of inspiration as the final version, so I can see why it was revised. I look forward to hearing the Lento.

It is of course a wonderful work - of the versions I have, including both Boults, Previn, Barbirolli I, Arwel Hughes, Haitink and Slatkin - the two I favour are by Bryden Thomson and Mark Elder.

[Lat-Literal]

Really interesting post, LL. I'm fascinated with the insight the earlier versions give us about the process of composition. This of course is different for every composer, and RVW was a noted 'tinkerer', seemingly never satisfied. In contrast, Elgar was handing out miniature scores of Falstaff at the first rehearsal, so confident was he.

I too love the London symphony, but it is instructive (even a shock) to realise that the symphony we know now is very different from the original. (Not quite so: RVW hardly altered anything in the first movement.) Here is a link to the Wikipedia article, some of which I was responsible for. You'll see there's a table showing the differences in numbers of bars between the 1914, 1920 and 1933/6 versions. Note that over the years the first movement lost one bar, the second 52 bars, the third gained 12, the fourth lost 65, and the Epilogue lost 49. The third and fourth movements originally ran into each other, and the fourth movement originally had an extra theme that RVW excised for the 1920 version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_London_Symphony

The thing to bear in mind is that we know the 1933/6 version best because that has been the only authorised version since 1936. But people who lived before then knew the 1920 version, which was the first published, and first recorded, version. To them the 1936 version was a considerable alteration to the text, and some regretted the changes (I've mentioned Boult and Hermann) while respecting RVW's instruction that the earlier version should no longer be played. However, because of the odd American copyright law (anything published before 1923 is public domain, unless copyright has been renewed in a specific way) the 1920 version has always been available - if not actually played - in the USA. I bought a score of the 1920 version as recently as 2000 from Kalmus. I'm just very interested to see that Dutton has recorded it - there's nothing in the booklet about it, but I guess the trustees gave permission, as they did when Hickox recorded the 1914 version for Chandos.

Also, the title "A London Symphony" was its original title; RVW never referred to it as No. 2. Indeed, when George Butterworth first suggested RVW write it, RVW's own account was "that I'd never written a symphony and never intended to".* (A Sea Symphony is a choral work primarily, after all.) RVW gave numbers to the 8th and 9th, but to no other ones.

*[Typical of the man. The quote is from a letter to Sir Alexander Butterworth after his son's death; it's quoted in the Wiki article, but here it is:

We were talking together one day when he said in his gruff, abrupt manner: 'You know, you ought to write a symphony'. I answered... that I'd never written a symphony and never intended to... I suppose Butterworth's words stung me and, anyhow, I looked out some sketches I had made for... a symphonic poem about London and decided to throw it into symphonic form... From that moment, the idea of a symphony dominated my mind. I showed the sketches to George bit by bit as they were finished, and it was then that I realised that he possessed in common with very few composers a wonderful power of criticism of other men's work and insight into their ideas and motives. I can never feel too grateful to him for all he did for me over this work and his help did not stop short at criticism.]

Many thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it. Maybe I should try to listen to the earlier versions. The new recording doesn't appear to be mentioned on the RVW Society site but then it has its own selection of CDs to sell. I agree with what you say about VW the man. I like him. Am not sure to what extent he and Elgar are generally regarded as competing in terms of being regarded as "the national composer"? However, I tend to regard the first as "our Britain" and Elgar more as "their Britain". Maybe that isn't fair........I don't know!

[Lat-Literal]

Thanks Pabs for that most interesting post.

Lat you are not alone.
To me this work is Symphony No 2.
It's not about London,it's about any city,town,river,tree,field.......
I hear it everywhere.

I will probably get this as a RVW completist, although I have read the performance is generally only OK. I did find Hickox's recording contained too much music which was not at the same level of inspiration as the final version, so I can see why it was revised. I look forward to hearing the Lento.

It is of course a wonderful work - of the versions I have, including both Boults, Previn, Barbirolli I, Arwel Hughes, Haitink and Slatkin - the two I favour are by Bryden Thomson and Mark Elder.

Thanks for these too!

[Stanfordian]

Dutton have released this:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+yates

This is an important release. RVW made two major revisions of the 1914 score (that is, the one reconstructed from the orchestral parts by George Butterworth & pals after RVW had sent the original to Germany in July 1914 - bad timing!) as well as many tinkerings. Richard Hickox recorded the 1914 score, but the one we are used to is the 1936 score, incorporating tinkerings from 1933.

However, the first major revision was for the 1920 publication of the score. (The booklet says that, once it was in print, the symphony was played often - Bournemouth heard it 15 times in 12 years - Dan Godfrey's doing, no doubt). This is the version recorded here. It has in fact been recorded twice before: Dan Godfrey recorded it with the LSO - acoustically - in 1925. That performance had a 15-bar cut in the epilogue, but did include the repeat in the scherzo. Then Eugene Goossens recorded it in 1941 with the Cincinnati SO. This had no cuts but omitted the scherzo repeat. Both these versions have been on CD, Godfrey's still is:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=vaughan+london+godfrey

The 1933/36 'authorised' version was not universally accepted. Boult certainly regretted the loss of many passages. Most famously, Bernard Herrmann wrote of his disappointment of the loss of "six remarkable bars" in the slow movement:

...one of the most original poetic moments in the entire symphony. It is at this moment as though, when the hush and quietness have settled over Bloomsbury of a November twilight, that a damp drizzle of rain slowly falls, and it is this descending chromatic ponticello of the violins that so graphically depicts it.

Years later he taxed RVW with their omission. RVW replied:

Oh, it's much too long, much too long, and there was some horrid modern music in the middle - awful stuff. I cut that out - couldn't stand it.

The 1920 version is 97 bars shorter than the 1914 one, but 48 bars longer than the 'authorised' one.

Hiya Pab,

Richard Hickox's recording of the 1914 score on Chandos is superb. In my view it is the raison d'être of most composers to have their works performed even if it means sanctioning substantial cuts.

[Pabmusic]

Hiya Pab,

Richard Hickox's recording of the 1914 score on Chandos is superb. In my view it is the raison d'être of most composers to have their works performed even if it means sanctioning substantial cuts.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly on both counts. (I've found another musician who regretted the final (1933/6) cuts. Arnold Bax!)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In my view it is the raison d'être of most composers to have their works performed even if it means sanctioning substantial cuts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this in this context, Stanf - RVW didn't sanction "substantial cuts"; he made them himself, in this case against the wishes of many of his friends and admirers. The 1920s version was performed; and with some regualrity - nobody was saying "we'll only play this piece if you get rid of another 48 bars" - RVW himself was the originator of the cuts.

[visualnickmos]

I have a number of recordings of this wonderful work, but I find that the one I come 'home' to is always Boult's 1971 EMI recording. There is just something undefinable that (to my mind) marks it apart from any of the others I have.... all great, though they are.

It may be that with Boult, here - one is actually transported to that London of RVW, but the underlying feeling is the same now engrained on the streets - and as I spent most of my life there, I know what I mean!

I'll belt up now!