Sir Adrian Boult Anniversary

[Pabmusic]

Brahms Symphony #3

Thanks Tony. - i missed the typo!

[richardfinegold]

I had an Everest lp that I believe coupled RVW *+( Symphonies (I may be confusing it with a CD incarnation) that contains a spoken intro by Boult as the Composer had died on the Eve of the recording...that is my favorite.

[Pabmusic]

I had an Everest lp that I believe coupled RVW *+( Symphonies (I may be confusing it with a CD incarnation) that contains a spoken intro by Boult as the Composer had died on the Eve of the recording...that is my favorite.

Yes - it was the first recording of no. 9. I son't know why Everest recorded rather than Decca, who had recorded the others.

[Pabmusic]

Just musing on the subject, I rather think we can credit Boult and the LPO (through Decca) with the fact that RVW gave the number '8' to the D minor symphony of 1956 and not '7'.

You see, he did that at the insistence of OUP, who foresaw problems in having a D minor and a D major symphony. So - what number to give it?

RVW had avoided using any numbers, but we know from the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the 'London' that he and others considered it his first ("I replied [to George Butterworth, who'd suggested writing a symphony] that I never had and never intended to"). It was the D minor that changed things. But by 1956 Decca had already recorded all the works called symphonies, starting with the 'Sea' - and there were seven of them. So, most reluctantly, RVW opted for No. 8 in D minor.

Circumstances had caught up with him.

[BBMmk2]

Thank you as usual, Pabs. I had a good session of some Elgar recordings yesterday. See WAYTNIII

[BBMmk2]

Rather liked hearing the Tchaikovsky recording via Spotify!

[LMcD]

What I believe was his last recording (please correct me if I'm wrong!) - works by Parry including the 5th Symphony.

[Pabmusic]

What I believe was his last recording (please correct me if I'm wrong!) - works by Parry including the 5th Symphony.

Oct. 4, 9. 19 &Dec. 20 1978.

The sessions were recored in parallel using digital, which was still experimental, but it wasn't a success and was not issued. This makes Sir Adrian perhaps the only conductor (or at least one of the few) who began their recording career acoustically (Nov 5 1920) but ended it digitally.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Just musing on the subject, I rather think we can credit Boult and the LPO (through Decca) with the fact that RVW gave the number '8' to the D minor symphony of 1956 and not '7'.

You see, he did that at the insistence of OUP, who foresaw problems in having a D minor and a D major symphony. So - what number to give it?

RVW had avoided using any numbers, but we know from the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the 'London' that he and others considered it his first ("I replied [to George Butterworth, who'd suggested writing a symphony] that I never had and never intended to"). It was the D minor that changed things. But by 1956 Decca had already recorded all the works called symphonies, starting with the 'Sea' - and there were seven of them. So, most reluctantly, RVW opted for No. 8 in D minor.

Circumstances had caught up with him.

- and he would have had a problem keeping to a "no numbers" principle anyway, when he got to #9, his "second symphony in E minor": Sea, London, Pastoral, F minor, D major, E minor #1, Antartica, D minor, E minor #2 ... not very elegant? (And you could refer to either of them as "The Great", because they both are!)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This might be of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWjB3tdtjuo

[Pabmusic]

- and he would have had a problem keeping to a "no numbers" principle anyway, when he got to #9, his "second symphony in E minor": Sea, London, Pastoral, F minor, D major, E minor #1, Antartica, D minor, E minor #2 ... not very elegant? (And you could refer to either of them as "The Great", because they both are!)

Quite agree. But one lesson is - if you don't consider it a 'symphony' don't call it one!

Of course, he could have given them all subtitles. In which case - what for 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9?

[Pabmusic]

Here's a nice programme from 1970.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlIz-P-kdhE&t=1619s

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Quite agree. But one lesson is - if you don't consider it a 'symphony' don't call it one!

Of course, he could have given them all subtitles. In which case - what for 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9?

Oh, now there's a nice new Thread for RVW aficionados (?"aficionadi"?) !

[AmpH]

Oh, now there's a nice new Thread for RVW aficionados (?"aficionadi"?) !

In which case I might suggest " Storm " for No 4

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In which case I might suggest " Storm " for No 4

Given the Tempest connection, that might be more appropriate for "#6"? (For "#4", how about the "Don't Mention the War" Symphony?)

Shall I start a new Thread?