Talk:A London Symphony

Structure
Yes - wondered about rolling the formal tempo directions and the descriptions together. Glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority. Tim riley (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Recordings
The timings of recordings can be somewhat misleading. The first almost complete recording of VW2 under Sir Henry Wood (he made a small and pointless cut of a few bars at one point lasting just a few seconds) is taken very fast throughout, presumably so that the work could be accommodated on a given number of 78rpm sides. However, the first stereo LP under Barbirolli in 1959 lasted around 10 minutes longer at 46'50", simply because he took everything at a far more moderate pace. Compare his overall timing with that of Goossens, also recorded on 78rpm discs. Goossens used the 1920 edition of the score (one of only two recordings to do so) which contained substantial extra music in the 2nd and 4th movements. Despite this, the whole work lasted 40 minutes (on a Biddulph CD) again because Goossens was much speedier in his tempos in 1941 than Barbirolli was in 1959. Philipson55 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Philipson55

I have added details of the work's first ever complete recording, by Dan Godfrey and the LSO for Columbia. This was made acoustically and has never been issued on LP or CD. It's of the same version used by Goossens, but it's at least 6 minutes longer! That must have meant an extra record.Willowmusic (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In Gramophone February 1996, Andrew Achenbach surveyed all the recordings of the work and stated that Sir Dan Godfrey and the LSO had initially recorded "merely an abridged first movement and scherzo" (these records were reviewed in the January 1924 Gramophone) while Godfrey's next recording, made two years later, was "more complete, yet still featured a sizeable cut in the finale" (reviewed April 1926).

It should also be noted that the booklet notes accompanying the 1941 Goossens / Cincinnati RCA Victor 78s state that the 1920 score "was the third and final version" of the work. Clearly news of the 1936 revision had never crossed the Atlantic and neither had the score or a new set of parts, otherwise Goossens would have used them in his recording and the booklet notes writer would have been aware of the revision too!

Incidentally, Goossens took 9 sides for the complete work (no cuts) yet Godfrey appears to have taken 12 sides even with a cut in the finale. Achenbach refers to Goossens' "propulsive view" of the work, so the difference in the number of sides can presumably be put down to each conductor's tempos. Philipson55 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this. I've now managed to listen to the 1926 Godfrey version and have made an amendment to the article based on what you've said.  One thing I can't confirm is the strong suspicion that RVW sanctioned the cut in the Epilogue - after all, he cut the passage himself later.Willowmusic (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lost score
I have added a short passage about how the score came to be lost after the first performance. (There was something before, but it was removed in some generally good cleaning up.) I think it's important to explain the circumstances of the loss - after all, it's a very unusual occurrence. I have referenced it to Michael Kennedy, but there are many more possible sources.Willowmusic (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1920 publication
And now I see that Hyperion Records plans to release the first post-WW2 recording of the 1920 score; between that, Hickox's recording of the first version, and recordings of the 1933 edition there should be some standards of comparison though preferably there should, it's this writer's opinion, be more of each. Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)