A London Symphony is the second symphony that Ralph Vaughan Williams composed. The work is sometimes referred to as Symphony No. 2, though the composer did not designate that name for the work. First performed in 1914, the original score of this four-movement symphony was lost and subsequently reconstructed. Vaughan Williams continued revisions of the work into its final definitive form, which was published in 1936.
The first mention of A London Symphony is in a letter from Vaughan Williams to Cecil Sharp in July 1911: "I am in the middle of a great work & unless I get stuck in it I don't want to leave it". In the view of his biographer Michael Kennedy, the composer's comment suggests he may have begun to compose the work as early as 1910.[1] His friend and fellow composer George Butterworth had urged him to write a symphony:
One of my most grateful memories of George is connected with my "London Symphony". Indeed I owe its whole idea to him. I remember very well how the idea originated. He had been sitting with us one evening talking, smoking & playing … At the end of the evening just as he was getting up to go he said in his characteristically abrupt way "You know, you ought to write a symphony". From that moment the idea of a symphony – a thing which I had always declared I would never attempt – dominated my mind.[2]
In a programme note written in 1925 the composer set out his intentions in writing the symphony:
It has been suggested that this symphony has been misnamed, it should rather be called "Symphony by a Londoner". That is to say it is in no sense descriptive, and though the introduction of the "Westminster Chimes" in the first movement, the slight reminiscence of the "Lavender Cry" in the slow movement, and the very faint suggestion of mouth organs and mechanical pianos in the Scherzo give it a tinge of "local colour", yet it is intended to be listened to as "absolute" music.[3]
The work was first performed on 27 March 1914 at the Queen's Hall, London, conducted by Geoffrey Toye.[4] The performance was a success. The press reports mention the cordiality of its reception, the first movement in particular being "tremendously applauded", according to the music critic Richard Capell, who found the slow movement "one of the noblest symphonic pieces in modern English music".[5]The Times commented, "His harmonic freedom is exhilarating. ... A ragtime tune in the first movement, the cry of the lavender sellers in the lento, the 'hoochy-koochy' chords, such as a youth sucks from a mouth-organ, preluding the first trio of the scherzo, are pieces of realism, plain enough to make the dull listener imagine that it is all a fantasy on street music. But it is much more than that; it is a symphonv, a work written solely in music and meant to appeal solely to the musical imagination of the hearers".[6]The Musical Times observed, "There is a big impulse, a big rhythmic line underlying the whole design which makes it a real symphony and a real reflection of the London spirit, a spirit which we feel all the more strongly because it is disguised beneath a myriad attractions and distractions".[7]
The composer's programme note says, "There are four movements: The first begins with a slow prelude; this leads to a vigorous allegro – which may perhaps suggest the noise and hurry of London, with its always underlying calm".[3] The symphony opens quietly, and after a few nocturnal bars, the Westminster chimes are heard, played on the harp.[9]
After a silent pause, the allegro risoluto section, much of it triple forte, is vigorous and brisk, and the ensuing second subject, dominated by the wind and brass, is no less so (evoking "Hampstead Heath on an August Bank Holiday") [10]
After a contrasting gentle interlude scored for string sextet and harp, the vigorous themes return and bring the movement to a lively close, with full orchestra playing fortissimo.[8]
2. Lento
The composer wrote, "The second (slow) movement has been called 'Bloomsbury Square on a November afternoon'. This may serve as a clue to the music, but it is not a necessary "explanation" of it.[3] The movement opens with muted strings playing ppp.
Quiet themes led in turn by cor anglais, flute, trumpet and viola give way to a grave, impassioned forte section, after which the movement gradually subsides to its original quiet dynamic.
3. Scherzo (Nocturne)
In the composer's words, "If the listener will imagine himself standing on Westminster Embankment at night, surrounded by the distant sounds of The Strand, with its great hotels on one side and the "New Cut" on the other, with its crowded streets and flaring lights, it may serve as a mood in which to listen to this movement."[3] In the definitive score, the movement revolves around two scherzo themes, the first marked fugato and the second straightforward and lively.
The piece closes with muted strings playing pppp.[8]
4. Finale– Andante con moto– Maestoso alla marcia– Allegro– Lento– Epilogue
The composer's note says "The last movement consists of an agitated theme in three-time, alternating with a march movement, at first solemn and later on energetic. At the end of the finale comes a suggestion of the noise and fever of the first movement – this time much subdued – then the "Westminster Chimes" are heard once more: on this follows an 'Epilogue' in which the slow prelude is developed into a movement of some length".[3] The finale opens on a grave march theme, punctuated with a lighter allegro section, with full orchestra initially forte and appassionato.[8] After the reappearance of the march, the main allegro theme of the first movement returns. Following this, the Westminster Chimes strike again, this time the harp plays the first three-quarters of the hour chimes,[8] and there is a quiet Epilogue, inspired by the last chapter of H. G. Wells's novel Tono-Bungay:[10][11]
The last great movement in the London Symphony in which the true scheme of the old order is altogether dwarfed and swallowed up ... Light after light goes down. England and the Kingdom, Britain and the Empire, the old prides and the old devotions, glide abeam, astern, sink down upon the horizon, pass – pass. The river passes – London passes, England passes.[12]
Later history and versions
Shortly after the first performance the composer sent the manuscript score to the conductor Fritz Busch in Germany, and it disappeared in the upheaval of the outbreak of the First World War.[13] Butterworth, aided by Toye, and the critic E. J. Dent, reconstructed the score from the orchestral parts,[14] and the reconstruction was performed on 11 February 1915 by the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra under Dan Godfrey (deputising for the composer, whose wartime duties in the army prevented him from being there).[15]
The symphony went through several revisions before reaching its final form. Vaughan Williams revised it for a performance in March 1918, conducted by Adrian Boult.[4] and again in 1919–1920, a version which Albert Coates premiered at the Queen's Hall.[4] The third and final revision was first given by Sir Thomas Beecham and the London Philharmonic Orchestra in 1934.[4] The second revision became the first published version, and was recorded for the gramophone in 1925 by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Sir Dan Godfrey. The final version was published in 1936.[4]
In 2000 the composer's widow, Ursula, gave permission for a studio recording of the original 1914 score, which was issued by Chandos Records in 2001. The new recording attracted attention from various music critics, including some comment that in his subsequent revisions the composer had cut many bars of interesting music.[14][16][17] Richard Tiedman commented, "The 1913 score is more meditative, dark-shaded and tragic in tone, almost Mahleresque in its inclusiveness. By 1933 Vaughan Williams's concept of symphonic architecture was becoming more aligned with a Sibelian logic and severity."[14]The Guardian's music critic, Andrew Clements, commented:
Some of the excisions seem to have been sensible – the finale is dangerously episodic in the first version ... Much of what was removed is music of vivid poetic description. Admirers of Vaughan Williams will certainly want to hear all this restored music, some of it of a very high quality indeed, and while it does not supplant the version of the work that we know, it makes a very worthwhile addition to the catalogue.[16]
Kennedy wrote:
There can be no question of the original version supplanting the revision. The 1936 score represents the symphony as Vaughan Williams wanted it to exist for posterity. The cuts and re-scorings were his own decisions, not forced on him, like Bruckner's, by well-meaning friends. Vaughan Williams would, and did, ask for advice, but never took it against his own inclinations.[1]
The main differences between the first and last versions may be summarised as follows:
First movement: One bar was cut from the 1914 version.
Slow movement: 52 bars of the 1914 score were cut in 1933/36, chiefly from the quiet coda.
Scherzo: At the end of the original is a dark andantino passage, of which no trace survives in the definitive version.
Finale: In the 1914 score, the central E minor section, familiar in the definitive text, is interrupted by an orchestral "cry of anguish" based on the opening theme, after which the allegro resumes. After the conclusion of the allegro section, the 1914 score has a long andantino section for strings and woodwinds later dismissed by Vaughan Williams as "a bad hymn tune". Finally, the original Epilogue extends to 109 bars.[14]
Below is a summary of the changes made between the original and the two published versions. It shows the number of bars in each movement and the total for the whole symphony:[18]
Version
Mvt I
Mvt II
Mvt III
Mvt IV
Epilogue
Total
1914
408
202
386
227
109
1322
1920
407
162
398
173
85
1225
1936
407
150
398
162
60
1177
The final version is around twenty minutes shorter than the original, as some indicative timings show:
London Symphony Orchestra/Sir Dan Godfrey (rec 1925): 44:39 (I:13:37: II:12:17; III: 7:07; IV: 11:45) [Godfrey had already recorded the first movement (very heavily cut) and second movement (complete) in 1923, with the same forces. However, this later recording is still not a complete performance, since he now cut 23 bars from the Epilogue in order that it would fit on to 12 sides. The cut was from 9 bars after T until W. This is exactly what the composer would later do for the 1933 final version, leaving the suspicion that he may have been influenced by Godfrey's recording.][19][20]
Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra/Eugene Goossens (rec 1941): 38:45 (I:11:06: II:9:22; III: 5:09; IV: 13:15) [This performance makes no cuts, but does not play the repeat in the third movement.][21]
The reception accorded to the Chandos recording of the 1914 score persuaded Ursula Vaughan Williams to authorise a live performance of the original version. In November 2003, Richard Hickox conducted the original 1914 score with the London Symphony Orchestra at the Barbican, in the first live performance of this version since 1918.[24]The Proms presented an additional live performance of the 1914 version on 19 July 2005, with Hickox conducting the BBC National Orchestra of Wales.[25]
↑Kennedy, Michael, A Catalogue of the Works of Vaughan Williams, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 73. Kennedy quotes a letter from the composer: "I think it was [Donald] Tovey who suggested I should send it to Busch"
1234Tiedman, Richard. "Review", Tempo, no. 218, October 2001, pp. 58–59 (subscription required)
↑"The Winter Gardens, Bournemouth", Swanage and Wareham Guardian, 13 February 1915, p. 5
Lloyd, Stephen (1998). "Vaughan Williams's A London Symphony: The Original Version and Early Performances and Recordings". In Lewis Foreman (ed.). Vaughan Williams in Perspective: Studies of an English Composer. Ilminster: Albion Press. ISBN978-0-95-287061-6.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
