Walton's first symphony did not exactly explode onto the musical scene; he
was a very slow worker. Whilst living with the Sitwells he had come to notice
with Façade (1923), followed by the resounding successes of the Viola
Concerto (1928) and Belshazzar's Feast (1931). Façade and Belshazzar's
Feast had demonstrated his ability to compose with great rhythmic drive and
an element of barbarity. These were to emerge in the first symphony -
but only after much labour. He struggled over it for three years with the
first performance comprising only the first three movements because he was
unable to complete the finale, even though the ending of the work was the
first part to be composed; the third movement was the first to be completed.
As only the first and third movements had been completed he missed the planned
première with Sir Hamilton Harty who had wanted to perform it
in March 1934 to complete his first season with the LSO. Harty re-scheduled
it for December 1934 but the finale was still incomplete so Walton agreed
to allow it to go ahead as it stood - to great acclaim - but this has
allowed the suspicion that the last movement was a pale after-thought, which
is most definitely not the case.. The beginning and the coda of the Finale
were ready but he seemed unable to string them together. It was at this time
that he was abandoned by Imma von Doernberg leaving him in an emotional turmoil
hardly conducive to symphonic problem solving, which then resolved itself
through the special relationship he developed with Alice Wimborne who inspired
him to complete the work, and a suggestion from Constant Lambert that the
way out of his impasse was to use a fugue to join the two sections together.
The symphony may not have exploded onto the musical scene but André
Previn's 1967 recording most certainly did. There were no other recordings
currently available at the time although Sargent's recording appears to have
been released in the same month. Recordings have come and gone but Previn's
has always been highly rated and has usually been selected as first choice.
My copy of the CD gives no recording details although I have always understood
it was recorded in the UK by Decca engineers. I did not hear the Sargent
recording until its re-release on Concert Classics and was struck by a very
different viewpoint to Previn's, now reinforced by the first CD issue of
Haitink's recording from 1982. This was an EMI digital recording which had
only a short life on LP. I bought the chrome cassette at that time and have
waited with ever greater impatience for a CD issue to appear. It is very
similar in concept to Sargent concentrating on the dark underside of this
score in contrast to the brilliance that Previn finds. It is a measure of
the greatness of this symphony that it can withstand such diametrically opposed
readings. The first CD issue of this symphony came from Gibson with the Royal
Scottish National Orchestra on Chandos, although this became superceded by
Thomson from the same stable. The original CD issue was not a good transfer.
Like the Haitink, the Gibson has now been reissued as a TWOfer CD set. My
final comparison will be with the Rattle recording. I heard Rattle give a
blistering performance live and I taped a broadcast that was similarly
spectacular, but had to wait some considerable time for EMI to record
it. This is not a Symphony Hall recording but the CBSO's earlier venue at
the Warwick Arts Centre, Warwick University.
Previn's performance is renowned for its breathtaking speed.
After
an initial timpani-roll and held notes on horns the first movement is marked
by a repeated rhythmic figure that occurs throughout most of the movement.
The cellos then introduce a five note motif that recurs throughout the
movement.
The performances can be immediately divided at this point. Previn
almost skips away on this figure although the rhythm is very precise, rather
like a gallop. Rattle is almost identical to Previn but Gibson is, unbelievably,
even faster than Previn and loses the sharp delineation of the rhythmic pattern.
Haitink is markedly slower which has the effect not of skipping but of a
determined, dogged limp. I do not mean this in any derogatory sense as it
is very effective and serves as a marker for the very different performance
we are to hear. Haitink's performance is altogether slower than Previn's
but this does not lead to any loss of tension; it increases in concentration
as the darker undercurrents are revealed. There is pain in this symphony,
of which I was totally unaware until I heard the Haitink performance; probably
reflecting Walton's unrequited love affair. There are two ways of looking
at this symphony just as there are with those of Malcolm Arnold. The oboe
solo has a sense of desolation and resignation rather than brilliance. As
the movement proceeds the motifs circle through the woodwind, brass and strings
like a huge flywheel building a massive structure culminating in the original
five note cello motif resounding in the brass. Where Previn sounds
exultant at this point Haitink sounds more like an unstoppable Leviathan.
After this great climax the mood relaxes with solo oboe [figure19 meno
mosso]. With Previn this is a rather romantic interlude with this section
of the score lasting 50 seconds [Rattle 51, Gibson a fast 40]. Haitink sees
this differently - painfull, unrequited, poignant - taking 1'07". The only
reading that does not sound valid is Gibson's.
The movement ends with a continuous terracing of ostinati leading to a huge
climax (although no tam-tam or cymbals).With Previn it is like a huge
incandescent pyrotechnic display producing a feeling of wonderment and
exhilaration and that it would not be possible to pile on any more tension.
Haitink, as might be expected by now, is steadier but immensely powerful
leaving us absolutely drained rather than exhilarated, as with many a
Shostakovich climax.
The scherzo is marked Presto, con malizia (very fast, with malice);
has this marking ever been used by any other composer and what does it mean?
Music can certainly convey happiness, fun (Haydn can make me chuckle), sadness,
tenderness, love, sorrow, anger; it can be frightening (first movement of
Mahler 9) or excoriating (many a Shostakovich extended climax) but can it
be malicious? (Strauss in the critics section of Ein Heldenleben
perhaps?) My interpretation of this marking is that it is the orchestra
who should be feeling malicious having fought their way through a powerful,
dramatic first movement to find no reprieve in the next, which is very fast
and rhythmically intricate. So I look for an incandescent anger in their
playing. I really only find this with the Previn performance that rips through
this movement with fury in a minute less than the other performers. In summary:-
Previn: fleet and feisty; - a knockout; Rattle: fast, lithe but cool - no
anger there; Gibson: rather woolly; Haitink: much steadier but totally dramatic
- a threatening anger. Flipping between the versions it has always been Haitink
who led me on way past the point where I intended to switch discs.
The slow movement is a wonderful achievement. Romantic in the grand sense
- a voluptuous love story but with a poignant yearning that perhaps
informs us of an unrequited love. With Previn the analogue tape hiss
is most obvious in this movement. The timings vary from Gibson 10:10, Previn
11:19, Rattle 11:15 to Haitink 14:09. These seem vastly different to the
eye but not to the ear. The Gibson does not sound too fast and is as successful
as Previn or Rattle in unfolding this sublimely beautiful music. It is only
in juxtaposition that differences are noted with Previn able to constantly
urge across the bar lines to provide an underlying restlessness in line with
the rest of the symphony. Haitink, however, is true to his conception of
this symphony and brings out not just the beauty but also sadness, or perhaps
regret, sounding almost Elgarian at times. Again I find his performance most
revealing and refreshing.
The finale opens with dramatic statements - slow and stately. I feel Gibson
takes these a touch too fast. Rattle is again robbed of impact by his recording,
Previn makes a bold statement and Haitink underlines his by being more deliberate
with marked punctuation from the timpanist. Walton then launches into a
rapid-fire string section against brass interjections. Previn here uses his
understanding of jazz inflections in finding just the right jaunty rhythmn,
as does Rattle. Gibson shows less flexibility and I get a feeling of
apprehensiveness from the strings although the brass are most forceful -
and forceful is the correct term for Haitink's approach to the central
fugue! It has to be admitted that the strings of the RSNO are shown up by
those of the LSO, CBSO and Philharmonia. The final climax is preceded by
the Last Post on trumpet and then, for the first time, Walton uses cymbals
and tam-tam. In Previn's analogue recording these are slightly obscured and
are much clearer in the Rattle performance, although he indulges in a little
agogic distortion in the Sibelian chords that close the symphony. To really
hear their impact you have to turn to the earlier EMI recording for Haitink
whose slightly slower approach allows each stroke of the tam-tam to swell
most convincingly
The different approaches of Haitink and Previn have validity and both
are immensely satisfying. The Gibson performance is very much the also-ran
here. I had high expectations of Rattle from hearing him live but this is
not fulfilled on this recording. I can hear what I am looking for, a very
similar performance to Previn's, but I get nothing out of it; and this
is due to the recording. I have seen the technical aspects of this recording
praised and the disc highly recommended because of the coupling. There is
no immediacy to the recording even though the dynamic range is wider than
any of the others. The symphony opens at a low level, is recessed and fails
to catch fire. I have exactly the same response to some other EMI Rattle
recordings e.g Shostakovich 4th symphony where the live experience is not
captured. With that recording I assumed it was a problem of inexperience
recording in Symphony Hall but this was the Butterworth Hall at Warwick
University where the engineers had plenty of experience. The Haitink is a
perfectly balanced recording with every strand made clear but without the
orchestra crowding the sound picture. The Previn recording is in much older,
analogue sound with a touch of tape hiss. It is a close recording which gives
it tremendous impact but a loss of subtlety. This is immediately obvious
in the opening timpani rolls which are much closer than any other recording.
But the full vigour and excitement come over with satisfying impact.
Purely on the basis of performance and recording I would choose Haitink and
Previn as two valid, satisfying, alternative versions of this major work.
The Haitink is well coupled and contains both symphonies, unlike the Chandos
two-fer. I think I was very fortunate in hearing the second symphony before
the first (by several years) so have never had the feeling that it was in
any way inferior - and the conductor of the second symphony is Previn so
you can end up with him in both symphonies for very reasonable outlay.
Reviewer
Len Mullenger
a comparative review: Previn, Haitink, Rattle,
Gibson
