Bax Symphony in F (orch. Yates)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Master Jacques
    Full Member
    • Feb 2012
    • 1882

    Bax Symphony in F (orch. Yates)

    Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Martin Yates (conductor)
    DUTTON CDLX7308


    On this morning's CD Review William Mival was honest enough to admit that he wasn't really the person to be talking about this issue, as he wasn't a great admirer of Bax. One can only agree with him: he should have left it to someone who had a firmer idea what she/he was listening to, and his description of Bax as a "cherry cake" composer who wrote too much and too sloppily is about a couple of generations out of date. Just as well Tod Handley isn't still around to have heard such old-fashioned nonsense!

    If I may add my own, short gloss for anyone interested in hearing this disc, and who might have been put off by Mr Mival's bucket of condescendingly cold water....

    The Symphony in F has been orchestrated from Bax's 1907 1-piano short score. There are a handful of (generally generic) indications of scoring pencilled into the manuscript, such as "brass", "wind" or "pizz."; and at one point a piccolo phrase actually written out above the two staves. Mr Mival was quite wrong to suggest that Bax wrote all his symphonies out in short score and then orchestrated them if anybody came up with a performance offer. The 1st Symphony started as a Piano Sonata, which Bax realised had got too big for its boots, so the "short score" there has a special importance; but the later symphonies were all commissions, for which the short scores (heavily marked up with instrumentation) are working manuscripts, not hopeful first thoughts.

    The 1907 symphony sounds absolutely nothing like mature Bax (as may well have been apparent from the extracts played) though Mr Mival rather implied that it does. The reason Bax didn't score it was that he himself was dissatisfied with its form and extreme length. To that extent we're listening to something that the composer would not have wanted us to hear; although Martin Yates has certainly done a good job in scoring it with appropriate forces, in Bax's early manner - though occasionally with a suspicion of too much (and too Teutonic) a hand with the brass and woodwind.

    Which brings me to my main point of disagreement with the R3 reviewer. There is nothing at all "Celtic" in sound about this symphony, and not very much that reflects German music either, except for its fashionably "mega-symphonic" ambition. What strikes one on hearing it, is that Bax was very much working through the potent (and liberating) Russian influences on his work, such as Rimsky-Korsakov and Glazunov: the passage which Mr Mival neatly, and rather bafflingly, compared to Strauss's Salome is in fact much more reminiscent of a passage in Rimsky's Mlada, as to harmony and rhythms - it's Yates's orchestration which reflects the Dance of the Seven Veils!

    The first three movements hold up amazingly well, with strong, surprisingly angular thematic content in the first and third, and an ardent lyricism in the second which is closest to his later style. They are pretty well structured, with powerful climaxes growing naturally and organically from the ever-transforming material (I don't think Mival understands Baxian structures, as he seems fixated on German sonata form!) and only the last movement outstays its welcome. The thematic content of that last movement is also notably weaker than the remainder, as Bax himself was only too aware.

    I agree with the R3 reviewer that there is an understandably tentative feel to the recorded performance, though this was not down to a lack of rehearsal time in Glasgow - Dutton were most generous with that. But one can hardly expect a hitherto unplayed 80 minute work to go easily on its first outing.

    In a nutshell, Yates's orchestral embodiment of the Symphony in F is an intriguing work for Baxians and all lovers of English music. It hardly fits with Bax's later work, but is rather a "study symphony" pointing towards a path he chose *not* to take. Still, in itself it offers plenty of intense, lyric fire which is well worth hearing on its own merits.
  • moeranbiogman

    #2
    Many thanks for your perceptive comments MJ. I have listened to the CD several times now. Surely the 'least Baxian' movement is the fourth. In the second we are vy much in the world of Bax's early tone poems. I, for one, would not be without this music, and where would that be without the loving care of Mr Yates who has already brought back so many 'forgotten' pieces to life. Like others, I would hope for a live performance soon (this happened with Moeran's 2nd Symphony).

    Comment

    • Master Jacques
      Full Member
      • Feb 2012
      • 1882

      #3
      A pleasure, MBM. And yes, I agree that the fourth movement is the 'least Baxian' - and the problematic one of the four. It is a shame that the recorded performance couldn't have grown out of a public one, but let's hope - as with the even more intriguing "Moeran 2nd" - that somebody, somewhere will take up Martin Yates's dedicated realisation for an airing in concert.

      I suspect that, whoever does manage it, BBC R3 are alas not likely to be first in the queue to broadcast this Symphony!

      Comment

      • moeranbiogman

        #4
        The Moeran Second was lucky then. Radio 3 broadcast its first concert performance at the English Music Festival.

        Comment

        • Roehre

          #5
          Originally posted by moeranbiogman View Post
          The Moeran Second was lucky then. Radio 3 broadcast its first concert performance at the English Music Festival.
          And that was after the publication of the Dutton CD, so there is hope.

          Regarding the finale of the symphony in F, I do think that is the mvt mostlikely being severely revised had Bax eventually orchestrated the continuity draft of the work. Contrary to what is stated, the existing short score is in places as sketchy as Mahler 10. We don't have Bax's final thoughts here either therefore.

          Comment

          • Master Jacques
            Full Member
            • Feb 2012
            • 1882

            #6
            Originally posted by Roehre View Post
            Contrary to what is stated, the existing short score is in places as sketchy as Mahler 10. We don't have Bax's final thoughts here either therefore.
            I'm looking at the Piano Score of the Bax Symphony in F as I write. It is absolutely complete as to bars and structure; and although in a very few places it contains what Graham Parlett (who edited it) describes as "only the top and bottom lines", and there are some missing accents, it is in no sense "sketchy". It certainly didn't require Yates to compose anything (unlike his Moeran 2nd). Nor do Lewis Foreman's liner notes suggest otherwise.

            I'd agree, though, that we don't have Bax's final thoughts. Indeed, his final thought (as we know) was to put the manuscript in his bottom drawer and forget about it!

            Comment

            • Roehre

              #7
              Originally posted by Master Jacques View Post
              I'm looking at the Piano Score of the Bax Symphony in F as I write. It is absolutely complete as to bars and structure; and although in a very few places it contains what Graham Parlett (who edited it) describes as "only the top and bottom lines", and there are some missing accents, it is in no sense "sketchy". It certainly didn't require Yates to compose anything (unlike his Moeran 2nd). Nor do Lewis Foreman's liner notes suggest otherwise.

              I'd agree, though, that we don't have Bax's final thoughts. Indeed, his final thought (as we know) was to put the manuscript in his bottom drawer and forget about it!
              Sorry for the misunderstanding here. Mahler 10 is in itself complete from bar 1 of the Adagio to the very last bar of the finale too. But there are passages where we only have got the melodic line with some indications as to the harmonic structure. And in that sense my "sketchy" is meant. And -as you write- "only top and bottom lines" present in Bax' work means exactly that "sketchy" as well. There do exist quite nice and well edited piano scores of Mahler 10 too, for one as well as for two pianos (the ones presented at the Mahler 10 congress in December 1986 e.g.).

              Moeran's 2nd symphony is (re-)constructed from sketches, with a finale not based on sketches but on other existing moeranian material, and therefore a completely other kettle of fish. (And I do think there are good musical grounds why Moeran hasn't completed the work and seemingly was very hesitating to do so)

              Comment

              • Master Jacques
                Full Member
                • Feb 2012
                • 1882

                #8
                Originally posted by Roehre View Post
                And -as you write- "only top and bottom lines" present in Bax' work means exactly that "sketchy" as well.
                Well... the "only top and bottom" occurs in two cases, for two bars each. Both those are unison passages anyway, so the harmony is unaffected. There are just two bars where the "implied" harmony had to be added by Dr Parlett, in accordance with an earlier precedent (and I find that Yates adopted exactly the same harmonic solution at that point). There are also a few queries along the lines of "E flat or E natural?" where Bax has not followed the notational letter, or where it is not clear which note he wrote.

                There really is not the same room for editorial manoeuvre and conjecture here as with Mahler's 10th. And, after all, this piano score is the composer's own - not Dr Parlett's. He has carefully transcribed it from the handwritten m/s, and been scrupulous about his (remarkably few) editorial interventions.

                The Moeran 2nd is - as you say - quite another matter!

                Comment

                Working...
                X