Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Vaughan Williams)

I'm afraid I disagree with a fair amount of this discussion. For example, "syncopation" is not the right word to describe the rhythmic style in the first movement, and the last movement, far from being boring, is extraordinarily intense in expression, but simply in a highly compressed, even "strangled" vein. Vaughan Williams is often described as being a "visionary" composer, and that defintely holds true in this symphony and particularly in the last movement...it's just that the vision being presented here is negative to the point of nihilism. This is also RVW's most Holst-influenced symphony, I think, and not just because it ends quietly like the Planets does. Wspencer11


 * You are not on your own in your disagreement with the article's content. I have plans to delete much of the inaccurate personal essay making up this article; if you get to it before me then more power to your elbow!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There, I did it, for what it's worth. I have tried to keep the POV out but others will know better than I how successful I was in that. Wspencer11 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine job! That's much better.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit
I have moved part of this phrase: "The symphony continues to provoke much speculation about its “meaning,” which is understandable, due to it's very unique nature." from the end of the article back here for some discussion, since this remark strikes me as being essentially meaningless. The symphony undoubtedly has an extraordinarily distinctive, maybe even unique, character, but to say so in this manner (and I'm not even considering the grammatical issues present) doesn't say anything at all about what that nature is, it seems to me. Let's see if we can explain that nature in a way that clarifies the need to speculate about its meaning. And "meaning" is going to be awfully hard to pin down, so we may well fail here. Remember that somebody wrote a letter to Sibelius in the 1930s, saying he had just purchased and listened to a recording of his Fourth Symphony (another work fraught with "meaning"), and could Sibelius please explain what it meant? Sibelius responded by saying, "Listen to it again." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference from his widow's book concerning the composer's "clue" - but the comments on "meaning", while inevitable in connection with this symphony, seem to be too nebulous - and take up too much space - as well as being duplicated towards the end. I think the article still needs to be completely rewritten. (But, I hasten to add, by someone with greater authority than me).John Hamilton 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to know what it "means", here is a hint from the | program notes by musicologist Byron Adams for a Dec. 10, 2014 performance by the American Symphony Orchestra, Vaughn Williams wrote:
 * "'With regard to the last movement of my No. 6, I do NOT BELIEVE IN meanings and mottoes, as you know, but I think we can get in words nearest to the substance of my last movement in ‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded by [sic] a sleep.’” Despite its bluster, this declaration, made in 1956, hints at an inner narrative for the Sixth Symphony that the composer was loathe to reveal. After the premiere of the score in 1948, Vaughan Williams had vehemently disputed the British music critic Frank Howes’ description of the Sixth Symphony as a “war symphony.” Like many composers, Vaughan Williams wanted to have his aesthetic cake and eat it: he did not want to dictate to his listeners, but did not wish to disguise fully that the Sixth Symphony had “extra-musical” origins. During rehearsals for the premiere, Vaughan Williams confided to the pianist and composer Howard Ferguson, “I call [the symphony] the ‘The Big Three’”—“The Big Three” being Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt meeting at Yalta in 1945."
 * Mballen (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign) Mballen (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotations
According to the WPMOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Italics), "An entire quotation is not italicized solely because it is a quotation." So I have removed them. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoopsie! Glad to know Le  the  17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilgim's Progress link
In the sleeve note to the Chandos/Richard Hickox recording of Pilgrim's Progress, Stephen Connock comments that Pilgrim "cries 'what shall I do' in phrases which recall the Sixth symphony" - and there is an unmistakable flavour of the scherzo in the Vanity Fair music. It would be surprising if there were no links because, as Kennedy points out "composition of both works ran parallel for the crucial years of 1944-7". But Kennedy seems to regard such links as coincidental (or subconscious) rather than a use of the same material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldfaw (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barbirolli?
The "Recordings" section claims that Sir John recorded this symphony, which I don't think he did. There may be an aircheck that was issued at one point, maybe, but to me that is not the same thing as "a recording." If anyone can find a documented reference to a studio recording he made, please say so, otherwise I'll delete his name. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The "aircheck" you refer to was a 1964 broadcast which Barbirolli gave of the work in a concert with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. It was issued in 1987 by 'Music and Arts' on CD-251(2) - a two-CD set which also included music by Delius and Purcell as well as Elgar's 2nd Symphony. Barbirolli never recorded the work for a commercial studio recording. However, for what it is worth (and it is only my opinion) his 'live' Boston Symphony performance is one of the finest of VW6 that I've heard on disc. Philipson55 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Philipson55

Time of composition
In the article's first sentence it is stated, that it was composed in 1946–47, during and immediately after World War II. But WWII ended in September---in Europe even in May---1945. So either the years or the during should be altered. Does anyone know the years for sure? Otherwise I'd delete during and. Steffen (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most authoritative work on VW's compositions, "The Works of Ralph Vaughan Williams", by Michael Kennedy (Oxford University Press, 1964) states on page 286 (paperback version) that in 1944 "the new symphony was well underway". And in the list of "Select List of Compositions", on page 425 he gives the composition date for Symphony No.6 as 1944-47 So the war (and the renewed terror of the late bombardment of London by the V1 and V2 weapons) was very definitely still in his and everyone else's mind at the time composition of this great work started. John Hamilton (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of recordings
Unless whoever keeps adding this list has a warehouse full of mouldering lps they may be copying the list from somewhere without permission or attribution. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with a music example
I have been bothered for some time by the example showing the opening motive of the second movement. It appears to show a tie of the B♭ over the barline, while the upper line moves from B♭ to C ♭ and back to either C♭ or C♮. Now that I have the score in hand, I see that in fact there is a slur (not a tie) of the upper voice, with a rising chromatic line in the first clarinet, first bassoon, first violins, upper-divisi second violins, and (two octaves lower) double-basses: B♭, C ♭, C♮. At the same time, the second clarinet, second bassoon, lower-divisi first violins, upper-divisi violas and cellos re-enter on the second-bar downbeat with B♭. I appreciate that this is extremely difficult to represent in a single-staff reduction, but there really should be a cautionary ♮ on the downbeat C, and the slur should be above the staff, in order not to look like a tie, and the downbeat B♭ should have a staccato dot under it. I do not have the necessary skill with Lilypond to make these changes, and I notice that User:Profbounds, who created the example in |this edit has not been active for about two years now. Perhaps another editor currently active in Lilypond editing, such as User:Spencerpiers, could tackle this problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Inactive, but still out here. I made a quick correction concerning the staccato and the cautionary ♮. I could break the example out into multiple staves, but that can begin to look too cluttered for a short example. Thoughts?


 * Thank you, Profbounds! It is better, but still looks like a tie from the B♭ in the first bar to the same note on the downbeat of the second bar. Can the slur be made to appear above the staff, so it doesn't look like a tie? I agree that multiple staves may be too cluttered for such a short example but, if the Lilypond software cannot deal with this, perhaps it would be better to use two staves.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will explore some options and update soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profbounds (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Perhaps this seems picky, but the voice-leading implications are reinforced by the doubling of the upper line two octaves lower in the double-bass, despite the contrary behaviour of the violas and cellos. Ordinarily, a two-voice reduction to a single stave is done with contrary stem directions in the two voices. This example does seem rather ambiguous in this respect, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't read this as being picky. It was a difficult line to simplify given the orchestration. Keeping it to a single stave means losing the 7th in the violas/violoncelli as well as the tied E♮ from the previous movement. I appreciate the discussion and collaboration.Profbounds (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am relieved to hear you say so. Your latest revision solves the problem perfectly, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)