BaL 12.11.16 - Vaughan Williams: A London Symphony

[LeMartinPecheur]

It occurs to me that we haven't (so far) had any messages along the lines of "God, how I hate the Handley. How could any reviewer even give it house-room?"

Not that I'm saying this myself you understand, but I think it sort of shows that we're all more or less agreed on what makes a good performance, and - as fhg said above - there aren't any utterly dreadful ones on record. The worst are flat and uninteresting, but not maddeningly misconceived (in our humble opinion). I'd make a big contrast with reactions to BaLs on the Viennese standard classics.

If this is a reasonably assessment of the forum evidence, is this because the score, metronome marks in particular, is specific enough to keep performances relatively standardised? Or is it that early interpreters, probably Boult in particular, set such a clear benchmark that nowadays little deviation is possible?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If this is a reasonably assessment of the forum evidence, is this because the score, metronome marks in particular, is specific enough to keep performances relatively standardised? Or is it that early interpreters, probably Boult in particular, set such a clear benchmark that nowadays little deviation is possible?

Interesting point - and it's certainly true that nobody who admires the work has spoken out against the Handley (I was struck how marvellously detailed the recording is - something I hadn't remembered). I think that the consistently high standard of performance of the work is a mixture of the points you mention; the clarity of RVW's scores, and the fortunate (and comparatively recent - when Previn recorded the work, for example, there were still performers from Godfrey's recording around, and they had taught the Musicians in Previn's LSO) performance history, together with radio broadcasts and recordings of the work. (Even the variously "abridged" early recordings by Dan Godfrey and Henry Wood give enough idea of the work for subsequent performers to be able to fill in the missing bars with a decent idea of how they might best fit in). Boult's lifelong performance history - and Barbirolli's for the North of England at any rate - meant that traditions of composer-approved readings became well established, a keen part of the experience of both listeners and performers.

In this, it is interesting that the last three Symphonies - the Antartica and Ninth in particular - have only more recently become accepted into more mainstream concert performance; needing time to shake off the "it's only film Music", "it shows a waning of powers" myths that surrounded them. Lacking the longer performance history of the London (and the subsequent symphonies written in the '20s, '30s and '40s), they have needed more time - and less involvement/advice/approval from the composer - to find their rightful place in the repertoire.

[ardcarp]

the clarity of RVW's scores

..by which you mean the unambiguous markings. That, and the performance history make for a 'performing tradition'. OTOH, the Russian performance (can't remember what or by whom) didn't get a total thumbs-down, and judging from the short extract, it still sounded like...well... RVW's London Symphony! It was the phrase 'clarity of RVW's scores' which set me off on this train of thought. Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want RVW's orchestral writing to be changed by one iota, but his use of the orchestra is generally quite dense, with a high proportion of full strings plus doublings from wind (a gross oversimplification, I know). Compare that with Elgar's Enigma which was played earlier, demonstrating if you like a much more athletic approach to the orchestral palette. I think the point I'm trying make is that it would be difficult to make one of RVW's pre-Symphony No. 4 scores sound NOT like RVW in the tradition we have inherited.

One further thought: were RVW's 'tinkerings' with the London, bringing it down from 1 hour to 45 mins done purely on aesthetic grounds, or partly from the demands of the recording technology of the day? I've not yet heard Hickox's 'complete' version, though I'd like to.

I'm probably rambling, so I'll stop.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As will have been noticed, I never allow "rambling" to stop me!

A couple of points - I did say "performing traditions" rather than the more restrictive singular that you put in inverted commas. And I don't share your assessment of the "generally quite dense" assessment of RVW's scoring. The full orchestra is sparingly used, and the clarity of the Handley recording I think demonstrates the Ravelian (?Ravelesque?)subtlety of the orchestration. The "high proportion of full strings plus doubling by wind" occurs - as in Shostakovich - only when a loud noise is required; and they are not that prevalent in the London.

The "tinkerings" as a result of recording restrictions is interesting - I think that there would be more supporting evidence if the composer hadn't "suppressed" the longer versions from being performed Live in concert. (And, if I've got my chronology right the "tinkerings" didn't prevent two recordings appearing which make even further cuts in addition to RVW's.) And the composer survived into the LP era, so could have restored his "edits" if he hadn't thought them artisticlly (as opposed to technologically) necessary - just as Elgar made complete recordings of his works once the technological limitations that had required abridged recordings of his works had been solved.

[ardcarp]

I wonder if Pabs could spare a moment to comment on VW's use of the orchestra? He is about as knowledgeable as anyone can be about English music of that era.

PS Loved post #73.

[Stanley Stewart]

A most informative BAL with happy memories of Mark Lowther as a fine R3 producer in the 80s and 90s and, mercifully, he opted for a standard single presentation.

As a non-musician but regular listener, I am always prepared to do a bit of homework, using the same research as I did when a thespian, so that I have a sense of the social background or dimension to any work. Lists of numbered symphony preferences an instant turn-off. My shelves contain a couple of RVW biographies, the most recent , Keith Alldritt's, VW, Composer, Radical, Patriot, (2016), an informed and perceptive account of his life and music. Useful, too, to have off-air videos - now on DVD - of Tony Palmer's, O Thou Transcendent and John Bridcut's documentary as partners. Prized, too, is the Ken Russell, South Bank Show, RVW - A Symphonic Portrait, 55 mins, in which Ursula VW - a strong screen presence -, talks KR through each symphony and its relative background with some splendid archive footage. Always a new learning curve in my kind of pleasure.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wonder if Pabs could spare a moment to comment on VW's use of the orchestra? He is about as knowledgeable as anyone can be about English music of that era.

PS Loved post #73.

[visualnickmos]

Nobody has yet (AFAIK) mentioned the Rozhdestvensky from 'Leningrad' with the USSR Min. of Culture etc, etc,Orch.

This 'wild card' was referred to, and indeed, an extract played, but I will avoid it - however, as a curiosity, it is certainly interesting, but not something I would want to hear more than once. Nothing wrong with it, per se, but just a bit too rough around the edges, for my taste.

I remember a couple of years ago, some discussion of it (Rozhdestvensky's RVW cycle) on here, which some heaped praise on...

[Pabmusic]

I wonder if Pabs could spare a moment to comment on VW's use of the orchestra? He is about as knowledgeable as anyone can be about English music of that era.

PS Loved post #73.

Love to, but don't expect anything for a week or so.

[EdgeleyRob]

Nobody has yet (AFAIK) mentioned the Rozhdestvensky from 'Leningrad' with the USSR Min. of Culture etc, etc,Orch.

This 'wild card' was referred to, and indeed, an extract played, but I will avoid it - however, as a curiosity, it is certainly interesting, but not something I would want to hear more than once. Nothing wrong with it, per se, but just a bit too rough around the edges, for my taste.

I remember a couple of years ago, some discussion of it (Rozhdestvensky's RVW cycle) on here, which some heaped praise on...

Yes vn,I think it's a very interesting set,I was glad to hear the London get a mention today

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?11704-Rozhdestvensky-s-live-Vaughan-Williams-Cycle/page4&highlight=Rozhdestvensky

A wonderful BAL,although I find Bakels a bit more than just OK and Manze is still the best recommendation IMVHO.

Current ranking here,9 (always first),5,7,3,4,6,2,1,8

[Nimrod]

Interesting point - and it's certainly true that nobody who admires the work has spoken out against the Handley (I was struck how marvellously detailed the recording is - something I hadn't remembered). I think that the consistently high standard of performance of the work is a mixture of the points you mention; the clarity of RVW's scores, and the fortunate (and comparatively recent - when Previn recorded the work, for example, there were still performers from Godfrey's recording around, and they had taught the Musicians in Previn's LSO) performance history, together with radio broadcasts and recordings of the work. (Even the variously "abridged" early recordings by Dan Godfrey and Henry Wood give enough idea of the work for subsequent performers to be able to fill in the missing bars with a decent idea of how they might best fit in). Boult's lifelong performance history - and Barbirolli's for the North of England at any rate - meant that traditions of composer-approved readings became well established, a keen part of the experience of both listeners and performers.

In this, it is interesting that the last three Symphonies - the Antartica and Ninth in particular - have only more recently become accepted into more mainstream concert performance; needing time to shake off the "it's only film Music", "it shows a waning of powers" myths that surrounded them. Lacking the longer performance history of the London (and the subsequent symphonies written in the '20s, '30s and '40s), they have needed more time - and less involvement/advice/approval from the composer - to find their rightful place in the repertoire.

A most interesting and well judged BAL. Ferney....your comment about Boult is no doubt true, but to think Barbirolli only performed this work "in the North of England" is, I suggest, not factually true. The first time Barbirolli conducted this work was in............New York!! in 1940; he subsequently conduced it there again in 1968. In the meantime not only Bradford and Sheffield, but Houston, the state of Montana, Cheltenham, Wolverhampton and Manchester were all graced with a performance, or two. Strangely, I cannot find a record (sic) of him conducting it in London at a public concert!! Between 1940 and 1970 he conducted it 25 times.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The first time Barbirolli conducted this work was in............New York!! in 1940; he subsequently conduced it there again in 1968. In the meantime not only Bradford and Sheffield, but Houston, the state of Montana, Cheltenham, Wolverhampton and Manchester were all graced with a performance, or two. Strangely, I cannot find a record (sic) of him conducting it in London at a public concert!! Between 1940 and 1970 he conducted it 25 times.

Fascinating information, Nim; many thanks. I hadn't meant to suggest that JB only performed the work in the North, rather that in addition to Boult's frequent Live performances of the work in the capital (and elsewhere), Barbirolli provided audiences in Manchester with Live performances. No doubt Boult brought his readings further North, just as Barbirolli got as far South as Cheltenham.

[PJPJ]

Yes - on the i-Player, at around 59mins from the start of the programme (not the start of the review) focussed on the Scherzo.

Summary: "Manze knows his RVW ... fresh & thoughtful ... I like the tempo there ... buoyancy to the rhythm ... the whole performance seems to get better and better as it goes on; the last movement is terrific ... but the overall symphonic structure doesn't come across as well as it does with the very best. Well worth hearing, though."

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.

[EdgeleyRob]

Yes - on the i-Player, at around 59mins from the start of the programme (not the start of the review) focussed on the Scherzo.

Summary: "Manze knows his RVW ... fresh & thoughtful ... I like the tempo there ... buoyancy to the rhythm ... the whole performance seems to get better and better as it goes on; the last movement is terrific ... but the overall symphonic structure doesn't come across as well as it does with the very best. Well worth hearing, though."

Not quite sure what that means exactly

[EdgeleyRob]

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.