BaL 12.11.16 - Vaughan Williams: A London Symphony

[visualnickmos]

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

Thanks for the info; amazing the sheer volume of detailed facts and knowledge that surface on here.

Whoever they were - still wizards!

PS Just looked at the booklet - seems the producer and balance engineer were in fact, (respectively) Douglas Terry and Robert Auger

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

I wonder idly, as one does, if Mr Lowther didn't check (read "listen to") the Godfrey recording, but just glanced at the back cover of the SYMPOSIUM CD release which makes the comment "the first movement is much cut" - without further reading that this refers to Godfrey's first recording of 1923: the rest of the disc consists of the complete work (minus the cut in the Epilogue which the composer incorporated into the 1933 edition) which Godfrey made in 1925?

[vibratoforever]

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

The London (1957) was not a Mercury team recording, though the 8th (1956) which accompanies it was and the sound is better to my ears.

[makropulos]

This was a most enjoyable BAL, though I certainly don't agree with the final choice. That doesn't really matter since the whole thing was so cogently argued and interestingly presented.

For what it's worth, I thought Boult's second recording got rather short shrift (I love it), and his first is (probably) my favourite of all the recordings. But as I say, that's not the important thing: this was one of the best thought-out BALs I've heard for some time.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

For what it's worth, I thought Boult's second recording got rather short shrift (I love it), and his first is (probably) my favourite of all the recordings. But as I say, that's not the important thing: this was one of the best thought-out BALs I've heard for some time.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

For what it's worth, I thought Boult's second recording got rather short shrift (I love it), and his first is (probably) my favourite of all the recordings.

Yes - you, Michael Kennedy, and FWiW me all rate the second Boult much more highly than does Mr Lowther (for years it was one of the few Boult recordings I could listen to with total pleasure and admiration -one of the joys of getting older has been hearing how wonderful Boult's post-1960s recordings are for the first time).

I'm surprised by your emphatic comment that you "certainly don'tagree with the final choice", though, Makka - do you mean that you think Handley isn't a good performance/recording? I'd strongly disagree if so.

[seabright]

I was wondering how many of you restrict the number of recordings of any one work in your collections to a specific number, as much for storage reasons as for anything else. I did think a while back that I'd stick to half-a-dozen of each work but it hasn't always worked out like that! I remember an avid member of the Sibelius Society once said (was it in here?) that he had over 60 recordings of Sibelius's 2nd Symphony, which is going well over the top.

For what it's worth, my RVW "London" recordings go over the half-dozen: ... ie: (1) Wood / Queen's Hall Orchestra (Dutton; rec. 1936); (2) Goossens / Cincinnati Orchestra (Biddulph; rec. 1941: 1920 edition); (3) Mitropoulos / NBC Symphony (Pristine; 1945 broadcast); (4) Boult / LPO (Decca; rec. 1952); (5) Barbirolli / Halle (Pye/EMI; rec. 1957); (6) Sargent / Chicago Symphony (CSO 'Collector's Choice' Boxed Set; 1967 broadcast); (7) Previn / LSO (RCA; rec. 1972); (8) Handley / LPO (CFP; rec. 1977); (9) Rozhdestvensky / USSR State Symphony (Melodya; 1988 broadcast); (10) Slatkin / Philharmonia (BMG; rec. 1991). (11) Hickox / LSO (Chandos; rec. 2000: 1913 edition); (12) Yates / RSNO (Dutton; rec. 2015: 1920 edition). 12 versions are quite enough, so notwithstanding the final BAL choice I shan't be acquiring any more! I wonder how many RVW collectors have more than 12 on the shelf?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

12 versions are quite enough, so notwithstanding the final BAL choice I shan't be acquiring any more!

Well - you already have most of the recordings that were recommended (including the "chosen one") and quite a few that weren't even mentioned! However, if you're not superstitious, I would strongly suggest that the Haitink recording is a serious gap in your collection that needs "remedying" - and, if you are superstitious, add the second Boult to your order!

I wonder how many RVW collectors have more than 12 on the shelf?

Not I - in fact I have only five (Haitink, both Boults, and both Barbirollis - the later one on cassette). Which is one fewer than I'd thought - the Handley version isn't where it should be on the shelf!

[Pulcinella]

Well - you already have most of the recordings that were recommended (including the "chosen one") and quite a few that weren't even mentioned! However, if you're not superstitious, I would strongly suggest that the Haitink recording is a serious gap in your collection that needs "remedying" - and, if you are superstitious, add the second Boult to your order!


Not I - in fact I have only five (Haitink, both Boults, and both Barbirollis - the later one on cassette). Which is one fewer than I'd thought - the Handley version isn't where it should be on the shelf!

I think not, Blackadder!

The chosen one (isn't that The rite of spring?) was Handley with the RLPO not the LPO!
Presumably that's why there's the 'notwithstanding' comment in seabright's posting.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think not, Blackadder!

The chosen one (isn't that The rite of spring?) was Handley with the RLPO not the LPO!
Presumably that's why there's the 'notwithstanding' comment in seabright's posting.

Well done, Pulcie - I was wondering who'd be the first one to spot that!







So - another three needed, then, seabright!

[makropulos]

Yes - you, Michael Kennedy, and FWiW me all rate the second Boult much more highly than does Mr Lowther (for years it was one of the few Boult recordings I could listen to with total pleasure and admiration -one of the joys of getting older has been hearing how wonderful Boult's post-1960s recordings are for the first time).

I'm surprised by your emphatic comment that you "certainly don'tagree with the final choice", though, Makka - do you mean that you think Handley isn't a good performance/recording? I'd strongly disagree if so.

Ah - I was being too emphatic, Ferney! Of course Handley's good - but speaking purely personally I just don't find him as impressive as Boult in terms of evoking atmosphere, or pacing, or rhythmic control, or orchestral colouring, or overall grasp of the work.

[Pulcinella]

Yes - you, Michael Kennedy, and FWiW me all rate the second Boult much more highly than does Mr Lowther (for years it was one of the few Boult recordings I could listen to with total pleasure and admiration -one of the joys of getting older has been hearing how wonderful Boult's post-1960s recordings are for the first time).

I'm surprised by your emphatic comment that you "certainly don'tagree with the final choice", though, Makka - do you mean that you think Handley isn't a good performance/recording? I'd strongly disagree if so.

Ah - I was being too emphatic, Ferney! Of course Handley's good - but speaking purely personally I just don't find him as impressive as Boult in terms of evoking atmosphere, or pacing, or rhythmic control, or orchestral colouring, or overall grasp of the work.

Well, the two of you have certainly made me want to dig out the Boult and listen again (with my 'older' ears too!).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ah - I was being too emphatic, Ferney! Of course Handley's good - but speaking purely personally I just don't find him as impressive as Boult in terms of evoking atmosphere, or pacing, or rhythmic control, or orchestral colouring, or overall grasp of the work.

- I think I'd agree - except when actually listening to the Handley.

Well, the two of you have certainly made me want to dig out the Boult and listen again (with my 'older' ears too!).

[visualnickmos]

I remembered one of the versions I have of this work is a CfM release, with the Philharmonia, conducted by Owain Arwel Hughes. It wasn't mentioned at all (AFAIK) which may mean it's not up to much, or "unavailable".

Fact is, I rather like it - well, very much like it actually. Just wondered if anyone on here knows this version, and if so, what you think of it....

I particularly like the fact that the pause, before the coda of the finale, is exactly the right length. Several recordings arrive at this point, and the pause is too short. You really do need that break to "breathe" before the coda stirs...with all it's drakness - it should be a tingle-factor moment!

[Beef Oven!]

I remembered one of the versions I have of this work is a CfM release, with the Philharmonia, conducted by Owain Arwel Hughes. It wasn't mentioned at all (AFAIK) which may mean it's not up to much, or "unavailable".

Fact is, I rather like it - well, very much like it actually. Just wondered if anyone on here knows this version, and if so, what you think of it....

I particularly like the fact that the pause, before the coda of the finale, is exactly the right length. Several recordings arrive at this point, and the pause is too short. You really do need that break to "breathe" before the coda stirs...with all it's drakness - it should be a tingle-factor moment!

Owain Arwel Hughes is a very good conductor indeed, and Ive heard good things about the Philharmonia, too.