BaL 12.11.16 - Vaughan Williams: A London Symphony

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thanks for that - I suspect when BaL's on a work I love, I tend to keep listening to the music after it's stopped and therefore don't hear some of the talk. For me this is one of those BaL's which is well worth hearing twice.

- this is probably why I missed the comments on the Elder recording. (Shameless )

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not quite sure what that means exactly

I think it just means that he thought that Handley, Haitink, and (IIRC) Davies have a better control of the structure of the Symphony (timing, placing of climaxes, pacing, balance and proportion between the various sections of the work) than has Manze (all in his opinion). He had said that the first two movements weren't as well judged as the latter two, and particularly the Finale.

[EdgeleyRob]

I think it just means that he thought that Handley, Haitink, and (IIRC) Davies have a better control of the structure of the Symphony (timing, placing of climaxes, pacing, balance and proportion between the various sections of the work) than has Manze (all in his opinion). He had said that the first two movements weren't as well judged as the latter two, and particularly the Finale.

Yeh but no but I'm not that well up on symphonic structures,but he's wrong

[Barbirollians]

I suspect left to his own devices and not needing a modern recommendation he would have chosen the Barbirolli Nixa recording .

[ardcarp]

Do you suspect some interference from 'the management' then?

[Barbirollians]

Do you suspect some interference from 'the management' then?

Yes I believe that now there is a requirement for a modern recording to win in the brief - when was the last historical winner of a BAL ? Or even pre 1970 ?

Lowther said if you are not allergic to early stereo then this may be the library choice or something along those lines .

[visualnickmos]

I suspect left to his own devices and not needing a modern recommendation he would have chosen the Barbirolli Nixa recording .

Quite possibly - but having said that, the Barbirolli is so brilliantly recorded, it may not sound exactly like a top-notch 'modern' recording, it cannot be faulted on any count, and the label 'historical' is, I feel rather a put-down in this case. Fine detail, depth, clarity, just stunning high-quality rich sound all round. Those EMI technicians and recording engineers, et al, were nothing short of technical geniuses in my books, and have given us some the greatest recordings in the history of recorded music.

Barbirolli's 1957 'London' is one of my all-time fav. recordings.

[Petrushka]

Yes I believe that now there is a requirement for a modern recording to win in the brief - when was the last historical winner of a BAL ? Or even pre 1970 ?

This is one of the reasons why I no longer listen to BaL Possibly the last historical choice I can recall was when Richard Osborne chose the 1951 Mitropolous recording of Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande and even I raised an eyebrow at that one!

[Beef Oven!]

Do you suspect some interference from 'the management' then?

Stretching it a bit, isn’t it? isn’t part of the simple specification for this exercise is to, among other things, recommend a performance that has good sound quality?* Less well-recorded performances simply distract. He did 'knock points off’ the Barbirolli for scrappy ensemble in places - and who knows, maybe (like me) he felt that Tod’s recording is all ends up, the best recording out there.


*The Barbirolli is in good enough sound quality for this not to be a major issue, though.

[rauschwerk]

Those EMI technicians and recording engineers, et al, were nothing short of technical geniuses in my books, and have given us some the greatest recordings in the history of recorded music.

I think you will find that they were produced by Wilma Cozart Fine and the Mercury Records team.

[seabright]

The reviewer mentioned that the earliest recordings, by Dan Godfrey and Henry Wood, were both cut but then failed to say that the first complete recording was made in Cincinnati in 1941 when Eugene Goossens recorded the first published score of 1920. That edition wasn't referred to either, even in connection with the Martin Yates CD on 'Dutton,' where the 1920 score was also opted for, rather than the 1936 revision. I suppose that as the Goossens 'Biddulph' CD isn't "available" it didn't deserve a mention. However, like so much that is "unavailable" it's on You Tube, so any interested RVW aficionados can readily hear it at the merest click of a link ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P_zVIxuiZ4&t=41s

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I suspect left to his own devices and not needing a modern recommendation he would have chosen the Barbirolli Nixa recording .

Oh! I got the impression that, were it not for the necessity of having decent modern sound, he would rather have gone for the 1950s Boult: right from the start, he lamented how Boult "in his prime" wasn't represented in good sound, and right at the very end, the main quality he singled out for Handley was its links to the Boult "tradition" (of melding a keen ear for symphonic structure, instrumental clarity, and "characterisation").

And can a recording now nearly a quarter of a century old, accurately be described as "modern"? I think it's true to say that none of the recordings that reached his final "list" was recorded in this Century.

[Pabmusic]

The reviewer mentioned that the earliest recordings, by Dan Godfrey and Henry Wood, were both cut but then failed to say that the first complete recording was made in Cincinnati in 1941 when Eugene Goossens recorded the first published score of 1920. That edition wasn't referred to either, even in connection with the Martin Yates CD on 'Dutton,' where the 1920 score was also opted for, rather than the 1936 revision. I suppose that as the Goossens 'Biddulph' CD isn't "available" it didn't deserve a mention. However, like so much that is "unavailable" it's on You Tube, so any interested RVW aficionados can readily hear it at the merest click of a link ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P_zVIxuiZ4&t=41s

The reviewer was misleading. The Godfrey is cut - 25 bars from the epilogue - but that's all. It's the same cut RVW made for the 1933 version. It even has the Scherzo repeat, which Goossens doesn't include.

Wood made his own cuts.

[Alain Maréchal]

I think you will find that they were produced by Wilma Cozart Fine and the Mercury Records team.

No. That is the case of the 8th Symphony (19.06.56). The London Symphony was recorded by Robert Auger (28-29.12.57). Information on CDM7941972 EMI Phoenixa.

[cloughie]

Oh! I got the impression that, were it not for the necessity of having decent modern sound, he would rather have gone for the 1950s Boult: right from the start, he lamented how Boult "in his prime" wasn't represented in good sound, and right at the very end, the main quality he singled out for Handley was its links to the Boult "tradition" (of melding a keen ear for symphonic structure, instrumental clarity, and "characterisation").

And can a recording now nearly a quarter of a century old, accurately be described as "modern"? I think it's true to say that none of the recordings that reached his final "list" was recorded in this Century.

Possibly not but though recording techniques may have changed in the last 25 years maybe the resulting sound has not necessarily improved whereas the improvements between say 1950 and 1975 were immense, or in fact 1950 and 1960. I find many 50 year old recordings knock spots off some modern recordings. Where I think there are major differences in quality are with live recordings. However it is probably only in the last thirty years that recording companies have made a deliberate policy of live recording for commercial issue - often mixing takes from more than one performance. I'll now get my coat and run from the high quality download bregade.