# Vaughan Williams 2nd symphony the original or revised version



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Which version do you like the original or revised?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

I voted for the original version. I have it done by: Richard Hickox and the LSO


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You left out the 1920 version of which there is a recording


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Have not seen that one. Who did it?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

In addition to the one below, there is a recording by Sir Eugene Goosens and the Cincinnati Symphony


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Does the cover say Martin Yates and Royal Scottish National Orchestra


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Does the cover say Martin Yates and Royal Scottish National Orchestra


Yes.........................


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

I just found it on amazon. They made it hard. Had to find it on google and it had a link to it and bought it. Sounds good so far.


----------



## GKC (Jun 2, 2011)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> I voted for the original version. I have it done by: Richard Hickox and the LSO
> View attachment 74604


Yes; wonderful recording. I miss the extra bits if I listen to the cut version.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

And in this case over 10 minutes of music was cut out.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Becca said:


> In addition to the one below, there is a recording by Sir Eugene Goosens and the Cincinnati Symphony
> 
> View attachment 74605


This is another good version. Vaughan Williams was underrated as a symphony composer.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Bumping this thread.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

which ever version Bryden Thompson decided on, as his cycle is the best there is. 
I have no idea which one Bryden chose. .
Take Prok's 4th sym, he made a revision. 
I hate both versions,.

Just revisited the 2nd sym, i am sure Bryden uses the revised, 
There is no way Bryden drags the sym on an extra 15 minutes, RVW was smart revising/cutting the fluff out. 
I will click poll results, maybe only like 5 votes, as TC does not have alot of RVW fans. My guess is 5 in favor of revised, 1 for *original*
RVW, england's greatest,,make that great britain , the entire area, scotland, ireland, wales, ,greatest composer.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> which ever version Bryden Thompson decided on, as his cycle is the best there is.
> I have no idea which one Bryden chose. .
> Take Prok's 4th sym, he made a revision.
> I hate both versions,.
> ...


Thompson used the 3rd version.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

original, 5/2. 
Let me see which one Bryden chose,,be right back.......a long revised version. So those who decided on the hour+ long original version, you guys got it all wrong. 
Just follow Thompson, he'll lead you right.
RVW realized, he could say everything needed to be said in a shorter rendition. 
why dispute both RVW and Thompson. 
??
Why?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Thompson used the 3rd version.


OK, I was wondering wats up with that. 
Its likea compromise twix the 45 revised and the 1 hour original. 
So Thompson was smart, he found a way to reconcile the 2. 
Which proves my hunch Thompson's cycle is the finest on record. 
Which proof can be had, as the set sells top $. No one is selling off their sets.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

paulbest said:


> original, 5/2.
> Let me see which one Bryden chose,,be right back.......a long revised version. So those who decided on the hour+ long original version, you guys got it all wrong.
> Just follow Thompson, he'll lead you right.
> RVW realized, he could say everything needed to be said in a shorter rendition.
> ...


I like the longer version. The second version does not cut as much as the 3rd one.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

*Every* recording except the Hickox and Yates use the only officially published version, the 1933/36 revision. Hickox had to get a special dispensation from the RVW's widow to do a single recording (no live performance) of the 1913 version. I am not sure of the provenance of the 1920 score that Yates used but they were still in use in the US up to at least 1941.

It is worth noting that there are actually 4 versions of the symphony, the original 1913 (which was actually reconstructed from the part scores after the full score was lost in Germany during WW1), a 1918 revision, the 1920 which was published, and the final revision from 1933 (published in 1936) after which RVW removed authorization for use of any previous version. The most significant revisions/cuts were made between 1918 and 1920.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Martyn Brabbins recorded the 1920 version relatively recently. Good performance, btw, but even taking that into account, or considering the wonderful Original Hickox version, i think RVW did a decent job in making the work less meandering, and my vote reluctantly goes for its final incarnation.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I agree. I don't see a strong reason here to disagree with the composer. His last thoughts were more disciplined and concise and although they came at the cost of losing some lovely music it was worth it. I am sure we all feel the same about the Sibelius works (5th symphony and violin concerto) that we know in the final versions and rarely if ever listen to in the earlier versions and yet his cutting was even more extreme and involved removing even more very good music. Stravinsky also produced later versions of his early ballet suites but in his case his interest was almost certainly financial rather than artistic.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Revised version for me too. RVW told Barbirolli in 1951 that after revising the orchestration of his first 6 symphonies, he left the 'London' alone, saying it was, 'past mending, though indeed with all its faults I love it still - indeed it is my favourite of my family of six'


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

But in cutting the original into the now standard version, he did wipe away some beautiful moments, and thankfully the Hickox was made to reveal to us the loss. In general, the composer's revisions should be respected and performed. There are some cases where it's maddening: I think Stravinsky's earlier Firebird and Petroushka are vastly superior to the 1940s rewrites (which he mainly did for copyright and financial reasons anyway).

As much as I like the work of Bryden Thomson - his Elgar, Martinu, and Bax are superb - I would never consider his RVW tops. There are two sets that tower over the competition, both oddly on RCA: Previn and Slatkin. Not to diminish Boult or others, I just find those two really excellent.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> As much as I like the work of Bryden Thomson - his Elgar, Martinu, and Bax are superb - I would never consider his RVW tops. There are two sets that tower over the competition, both oddly on RCA: Previn and Slatkin. Not to diminish Boult or others, I just find those two really excellent.


What about Vernon Handley?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have Handley on the Classics for Pleasure re-releases, and they're excellent, too. I can't think of anything Handley did that isn't of the highest quality. The Royal Liverpool Orchestra plays quite well, but Previn's London Symphony and Slatkin's Philharmonia are stiff competition.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Is the revised version the shorter one, that is usually played and recorded?? that's the one I like, but I've not heard the other...
I've played that version a couple of times - neat piece to play - excellent bassoon work....V-Wms loved the low woodwind sound, made great use of it...
I like the Previn/LSO/RCA version, and I also love the Sargent/CSO version in the CSO archival set <<CSO in 20th Century>>
this was one of Sargent's last performances, he was quite ill at the time...the orchestra really put it all out for him..


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> Is the revised version the shorter one, that is usually played and recorded?? that's the one I like, but I've not heard the other...


Yes ... the 1933/36 version is the official and shortest version.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

Becca said:


> Every recording except the Hickox and Yates use the only officially published version, the 1933/36 revision. Hickox had to get a special dispensation from the RVW's widow to do a single recording (no live performance) of the 1913 version.


The 1913 original version was performed by Hickox live at the 2005 Proms.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^Thank you, I was completely unaware of that!


----------

