# Vaughan Williams London Symphony - 1913, 1920 or 1936?



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Hyperion has just released a new recording of the 1920 RVW London Symphony which, along with the Dutton recording, allows us to second-guess the composer's ongoing thoughts on this symphony. As a very brief overview, here are the timings for recordings of the 3 versions.

1913 - Hickox/LSO 15:08 16:16 11:06 18:51
1920 - Yates/RSNO 13:18 14:17 7:13 13:53
1936 - Handley/RLPO 13:42 10:50 7:35 12:29

I should also note that there was a 1918 revision but it was not published.

Rather than attempt a crude description of the differences, here is a brief summary of the differences between 1913 & 1936 from Wikipedia:


First movement: One bar was cut from the 1913 version.
Slow movement: 52 bars of the 1913 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 1913 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.

Ever since hearing the 1913 version it has been the one that I go back to most often. While there is no argument that RVW made the symphony much tighter in the later revisions, there is much beautiful music which was sadly lost and I, for one, miss it. Listening to the 1920 version tonight has not really changed my thoughts. The slow movement hasn't changed very much, the biggest different being the coda, but the last two have. I agree that the andantino section of the scherzo does seem, as some have said, out of place, but it must be remembered that the symphony represents a sense of time and place and for that reason, the missing music leaves us the poorer. I would imagine that much of the changes were partly due to how different things were, both physically and emotionally between pre- and post-WW1 world but I prefer 1913 London  Finally I must agree with Bernard Herrmann who said that _'the most original poetic moments in the entire symphony' were subsequently lost in the revisions.'_


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

I think we're lucky to be able to hear all the available versions and can take our pick. There are some lovely new passages in the slow movement of the 1913 version but I think RVW's tightening up of the structure was an improvement. My favourite recording is Barbirolli's early stereo version from the 1950s.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Thanks for the info. I have only just started listening to Williams Symphonies. I have listened to A London symphony as conducted by Handley and liked it enough to listen several times. I'll look up the 1913 on the YouTube and give it a listen.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I have only just started listening to Williams Symphonies.


The surname is Vaughan Williams, not Williams. That might help when you search for more of his work.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> The surname is Vaughan Williams, not Williams. That might help when you search for more of his work.


I'm sure it would help to use the correct name. Thanks.
You know he could have the courtesy to use a hyphen.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

A great topic this, although I am not absolutely sure which version is out and out "the best"! Hickox is a wonderful advocate for the original version, and there are indeed some very beautiful passages excised for the later versions. And in an era when nobody bats an eyelid at the prospect of listening to a whole, long, diffuse, Bruckner symphony, what's wrong with a bigger, longer, diffuser VW work?
On the other hand, I can't help thinking that part of the success of the 1913 version is down to Hickox. His incomplete cycle on Chandos would have been his crowning glory as a recording conductor. Not only is his London wonderful, so are the others, especially for me the Pastoral. It was the recording that finally helped me click with a work I had never liked and never "got", and it's now my favourite of the nine.
If forced to choose a version of the London, I'd suggest, very tentatively, that VW knew what he wanted to do with this, his favourite symphony, and the tauter symphonic structure of the last revision is probably the one to go for.
I have the Henry Wood version of the 1920, I think I'll get hold of the new Brabbins recording on Hyperion.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I like having both versions available. I was pretty familiar with and really loved the work when the Hickox version arrived and I agree with the posters here that regret the loss of the excised passages.
RVW greatly disliked Mahler and I don’t believe was keen on Bruckner either. I’m wondering if he felt the need to prune his early work as a reaction to what he may have regarded as a tendency to sprawl that made him feel as if he was beginning to approach the dimensions of those Composers Symphonic Canvasses. Certainly the Symphonies that follow are very tightly organized and don’t outstay their welcome.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Original uncut version (Hickox on Chandos) - you can hear how the artificial joins created by cuts vanish when the music is heard in full.


----------

