RVW - "A London Symphony"

[Bryn]

How strange.

The 1920 version is a rewriting of the original, a true restructuring (at least in terms of the Scherzo and Finale) and ought to be thought of as London 2.0. The 1936 version is not a restructuring, it's little more than London-Lite.

Here's a page of RVW's tinkering for the 1936 version (the printed version is the 1920). I can't imagine why Stainer & Bell agreed to it. They had to re-engrave many pages of score, and produce new parts - and by the mid-1930s RVW had stopped using them anyway. Perhaps they were trying to win back his custom.

Is the first revision, which was performed under Boult in 1918, extant? If so, in what way does it differ from that published in 1920 (now available in the low cost Dover edition)?

Having watched/listened to the Prom performance of the original version yesterday, I am now listening to the Brabbins recording of the 1920 version, and will later spin the final revised version as recorded by the LPO under Sir Roger Norrington (it can't always by the Nixa Hallé/Barbirilli that I opt for).

[Pabmusic]

Is the first revision, which was performed under Boult in 1918, extant? If so, in what way does it differ from that published in 1920 (now available in the low cost Dover edition)?

Having watched/listened to the Prom performance of the original version yesterday, I am now listening to the Brabbins recording of the 1920 version, and will later spin the final revised version as recorded by the LPO under Sir Roger Norrington (it can't always by the Nixa Hallé/Barbirilli that I opt for).

Please note: the low-cost Dover edition is NOT the 1920 version. It's the 1936 edition. The 1920 has 199 pages of music, the 1936, 193 pages. The problem is that both call themselves 'revised version' and have a copyright date of 1920. You used to be able to buy a Kalmus or Luck's score of the real 1920 version, but I'm not sure you can now. I have a Kalmus score and a Stainer & Bell miniature score.

There was no '1918' version. What happened was that Boult programmed it, but there was an air raid and very few punters. (That was the 5th performance of the original.) RVW was home on leave and took his first opportunity to make revisions; he sat in Boult's office "slashing" the score, and Boult performed it the next month. But RVW was very clear to Boult that "it's re-writing it wants" - his slashing were just a temporary thing. He rewrote it in 1919 after he was demobbed and that was what was published in 1920 by S & B. That's why the 1920 is London 2.0.

Check my posts at the beginning of this thread for obsessive details.

[Bryn]

Please note: the low-cost Dover edition is NOT the 1920 version. It's the 1936 edition. The 1920 has 199 pages of music, the 1936, 193 pages. The problem is that both call themselves 'revised version' and have a copyright date of 1920. You used to be able to buy a Kalmus or Luck's score of the real 1920 version, but I'm not sure you can now. I have a Kalmus score and a Stainer & Bell miniature score.

There was no '1918' version. What happened was that Boult programmed it, but there was an air raid and very few punters. (That was the 5th performance of the original.) RVW was home on leave and took his first opportunity to make revisions; he sat in Boult's office "slashing" the score, and Boult performed it the next month. But RVW was very clear to Boult that "it's re-writing it wants" - his slashing were just a temporary thing. He rewrote it in 1919 after he was demobbed and that was what was published in 1920 by S & B. That's why the 1920 is London 2.0.

Check my posts at the beginning of this thread for obsessive details.

Ah, thanks. So Robert Matthew-Walker's notes for the Brabbins recording are, to put it mildly, misleading. He claims there to have been three revisons, with the 1920 being the second, and the 1930s the third. Strange that Dover should claim their version to be a reprint of the 1920, though your point about the copyright date maybe what lead to a careless publisher thinking they were dealing with the 1920 revision.

[Pabmusic]

Ah, thanks. So Robert Matthew-Walker's notes for the Brabbins recording are, to put it mildly, misleading. He claims there to have been three revisons, with the 1920 being the second, and the 1930s the third. Strange that Dover should claim their version to be a reprint of the 1920, though your point about the copyright date maybe what lead to a careless publisher thinking they were dealing with the 1920 revision.

Even though the revision was published in 1936, the symphony is copyright 1920. Don't ask me why. :)

[BBMmk2]

Ah, thanks. So Robert Matthew-Walker's notes for the Brabbins recording are, to put it mildly, misleading. He claims there to have been three revisons, with the 1920 being the second, and the 1930s the third. Strange that Dover should claim their version to be a reprint of the 1920, though your point about the copyright date maybe what lead to a careless publisher thinking they were dealing with the 1920 revision.

Which is the one most often used then?

[Pabmusic]

Which is the one most often used then?

The 1936 London-Lite. Many people (famously Boult) regretted that version. The 1936 score says that the previous version should not be played. I'm glad we now have 4 recordings of it.

[Pabmusic]

Ah, thanks. So Robert Matthew-Walker's notes for the Brabbins recording are, to put it mildly, misleading...

It is one of the most confusing tales. I made this 'documentary' to accompany Dan Godfrey's (almost complete) 1925 recording. Godfrey programmed it at Bournemouth every year between 1920 and 1934!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Xn6WZr-kc&t=19s&frags=pl%2Cwn

[Lat-Literal]

It is one of the most confusing tales. I made this 'documentary' to accompany Dan Godfrey's (almost complete) 1925 recording. Godfrey programmed it at Bournemouth every year between 1920 and 1934!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Xn...&frags=pl%2Cwn

I have just skim viewed this but will give it more attention. How absolutely wonderful. The second movement will never be beaten. Is W Denis Browne involved there, then? To Gratiana - so musical. I think what I am missing - and you have really provided it all - is the feeling of enthusiasm around this music at the time. RVW, such a solid figure with the benefit of hindsight, is less than confident. He was young. But were they all doing their best and a bit circumspect with undoubted keenness or thinking that they were onto something special?

Thanks again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjR91VzRxkQ

(This is the centenary of 1918 - may I humbly suggest that you latch the book onto that : it's good timing - R3 could be doing rather more)