On 25
                    September 2007 Colin Davis celebrated
                    his 80th birthday. This two CD set presents him
                    as a Mozart interpreter in his early thirties in the three
                    complete Mozart LPs he made for L’Oiseau-Lyre with the English
                    Chamber Orchestra. The Divertimenti were first issued on
                    SOL 60029, Symphonies 33 and 36 on SOL 60049 and Symphonies
                    28 and 38 on SOL 266.
                
                 
                
                
                Freshness
                    of engagement is the most striking feature of these performances.
                    The English Chamber Orchestra emerged in 1960 but evolved
                    from the Goldsbrough Orchestra which had specialized in baroque
                    repertoire. So Mozart was being approached from a chamber
                    perspective and from awareness of earlier music. Another
                    key element is Davis’ incisive
                    approach to rhythm. These are performances of great zest
                    without ever being abrasive. They are also refined without
                    ever becoming just ornamental, as in the strings’ filigree
                    work in the first movement of Symphony 28. In its slow movement
                    the strings are warm, tender and gossamery without becoming
                    mushy. In the Minuet Davis relishes the beguiling contrast
                    of upstanding and relaxed manner in alternate phrases while
                    the Trio is surprisingly fun. The finale contrasts delicate
                    violins and bracing tuttis with prominent horns.
                
                 
                
                I
                    compared the 1968 recording by the Berliner Philharmoniker/Karl
                    Bohm (Deutsche Grammophon 453 231-2). Here are the comparative
              timings: 
              
                            
              
                
                  |   | 
                  I  | 
                  II  | 
                  III  | 
                  IV  | 
                  Total  | 
                
                
                  | Davis | 
                  5:20  | 
                  8:13  | 
                  4:07  | 
                  3:51  | 
                  21:34  | 
                
                
                  | Bohm | 
                  5:48  | 
                  6:59 (9:36)  | 
                  4:11  | 
                  4:17  | 
                  21:22 (23:59)  | 
                
              
              
                In
                    the outer movements both Davis and Bohm make the first half
                    but not second half repeats. In the slow movement Davis makes
                    both first and second half repeats but Bohm only repeats
                    the first half, so I’ve put in brackets above an exact equivalent
                    timing. Bohm’s first movement is formal, sonorous and rather
                    strenuously high powered in the tuttis. Davis is
                    more festive than powerful in the tuttis,
                    has more momentum and humour, for example in the second theme
                    (tr. 1 0:42). Bohm’s slow movement lingers affectionately. Davis brings
                    more sense of progression, shape and flow. Bohm’s Minuet
                    is rather portly in the opening of its sections where Davis is
                    more forthright. Bohm’s Trio is similarly starchy where Davis is
                    dapper. Bohm’s finale is a touch careful in the opening violins’ figuration
                    where Davis shows
                    a more lithe athleticism. Bohm’s second theme is resilient
                    but with Davis (tr. 4 0:28) it’s more optimistic
                    with the sheen and lilt of his first violins.
                
                 
                
                Davis’ account of Symphony 33 is characterized in
                    its first movement by clean line, a certain classical detachment
                    and pleasing phrasing.
                    His slow movement has a warm dignity, with a sunnier second
                    section. The tempo seems just right: due measure but not
                    over indulged. You could say the same of his spruce Minuet
                    and neat and courtly Trio. The finale offers a delightful
                    succession of tunes delivered with thematic clarity and lightness
                    of texture and touch, the strings displaying delicacy and
                    verve by turns.
                
                 
                
                I
                    compared Colin Davis’ recording with the Staatskapelle Dresden made
              in 1991 (Decca 475 9120). Here are the comparative timings:
              
               
              
                
                  |   | 
                  I  | 
                  II  | 
                  III  | 
                  IV  | 
                  Total  | 
                
                
                  | Davis 1961 | 
                  7:26  | 
                  5:03  | 
                  2:55  | 
                  4:29  | 
                  19:54  | 
                
                
                  | Davis 1991 | 
                  7:23  | 
                  5:03  | 
                  2:59  | 
                  6:18 (4:25)  | 
                  21:43 (19:50)  | 
                
              
              
                The
                    1991 Davis repeats the first half of the finale
                    but not the second, so the figures above in brackets provide
                    an exact comparison. The Dresden Davis is more stylish in
                    the first movement but also more considered. The English
                    Davis is fresher and more incisive with a sweetly reflective
                    second theme (tr. 5 1:04) even if not as beguiling
                    as the Dresden. The sudden, soft passage in
                    the coda (6:55) remains smooth and sunny where
                    the Dresden account makes it a more vivid shadow. 
                
                 
                
                In
                    the opening of the slow movement the English Davis doesn’t
                    have as rich a strings’ texture as the Dresden but the phrasing
                    is more flowing, the second section (tr. 6 1:01) simpler,
                    more affecting in its appeal than the more expressive plaintiveness
                    of the Dresden. The English Davis development (2:16)
                    opens more gracefully too. In the Minuet it’s the English
                    Davis who has more lift and thrust, even a touch of cheekiness
                    while his Trio has a well contrasted quieter, unassuming
                    flow. The English Davis finale is a bundle of energy with
                    a light second theme (tr. 8 0:29), not as smiling as the Dresden,
                    and sweet third one (0:58). The English Davis development
                    (1:54), slightly languorous, is more expressive
                    than the Dresden’s
                    urbanity. 
                
                 
                
                Turning
                    next to Symphony 36, the introduction to the first movement
                    is finely shaped by Davis: a direct, forthright
                    opening is followed by a spacious, lyrical response with
                    the sforzandi rather
                    understated. The main allegro has an ideal blend of
                    crispness and lyricism. Davis brings
                    to the slow movement a touch of dreaminess to its softer
                    focus, yet the development has an appropriate touch of firmness.
                    The Minuet is spruce and clear yet relaxed by turns. The
                    finale is a mix of the sprightly and bracing with always
                    a clean line and invigorating effect. I compared the English
                    Chamber Orchestra conducted by Jeffrey Tate, recorded in
              1985 (EMI 5855892). Here are the comparative timings:              
              
               
              
                
                  |   | 
                  I  | 
                  II  | 
                  III  | 
                  IV  | 
                  Total  | 
                
                
                  | Davis | 
                  8:43  | 
                  7:32  | 
                  3:29  | 
                  5:46  | 
                  25:31  | 
                
                
                  | Tate | 
                  11:00 (8:29)  | 
                  11:07 (8:17)  | 
                  3:33  | 
                  7:23 (5:18)  | 
                  33:03 (25:37)  | 
                
              
              
                Tate
                    brings a majestic, measured introduction opening with a rather
                    romantically melting lyrical response followed by a lively allegro of
                    rounded weightiness with fairly beefy horns, trumpets and
                    timpani. There’s more progression to Davis’ introduction
                    while his allegro is more spikily assertive. Smoother passages
                    for woodwind alone
                    contrast with grittier strings. The whole has more bite but
                    on the other hand Davis also provides more
                    poised shaping of the first violins’ motif that dominates
                    the opening of the development (CD2, tr. 1, 4:22).
                
                 
                
                Tate
                    finds a smooth, crafted expressiveness for the slow movement
                    including sensitive attention to dynamic contrasts. The effect
                    is stylish, even wistful at times, but a little calculated. Davis has
                    a sheenier flow and sunnier feel yet his climaxes are more
                    ardent, so his expressiveness seems more heart-on-sleeve.
                    Again he brings more character to a strings’ motif that is
                    showcased in the development (tr. 2 2:40).
                
                 
                
                Tate’s
                    Minuet has fair bounce and is by turns grand and cajoling. Davis’ Minuet has more zip in the louder passages and is more coquettish
                    in the softer. His Trio has a more comely, carefree flow
                    where Tate is somewhat formal. Tate’s finale alternates a
                    gratefully reflective sunny quality and vigour. It has excitement
                    of projection and a chic development. Davis, slightly slower, again reveals more
                    character, with more sheen and musing quality to the reflective
                    passages and more bite to the vigorous ones. His development
                    (tr. 4 2:14), more sharply articulated, introduces
                    more tension. In sum, Tate’s Mozart is more beautiful but Davis gives you more guts. In the first
                    movement Tate repeats the exposition while Davis does not. Hence the timing above in brackets for exact comparison.
                    In the slow movement and finale Tate repeats the exposition
                    but not the second half while Davis makes
                    neither repeat.
                
                 
                
                Symphony
                    38 is the last in this Eloquence collection. Davis makes
                    the first movement introduction measured and brooding but
                    it’s
                    followed by a forthright allegro and rigorous development.
                    Yet the lighter aspects also stand out, such as the first
                    lyrical response in the introduction, the allegro’s
                    sinuous second theme and even a swashbuckling kind of recapitulation.
                    The slow movement is dreamier, perhaps a touch too slow but
                    with plenty of allure and the patient way all the elements
                    unfold is satisfying. The finale has all the festive bounce
                    you could desire and a fiery close.
                
                 
                
                Again
                    I compared Colin Davis’ recording with the Staatskapelle
                    Dresden, this one made in 1988 (Decca 475 9120). Here are
                    the comparative timings:
                
               
              
                
                  |   | 
                  I  | 
                  II  | 
                  III  | 
                  Total  | 
                
                
                  | Davis 1962 | 
                  10:37 (13:35)  | 
                  9:40 (13:24)  | 
                  5:56  | 
                  26:13 (32:55)  | 
                
                
                  | Davis 1988 | 
                  13:36  | 
                  12:39  | 
                  6:05  | 
                  32:20  | 
                
              
                              The
                    Dresden Davis is more poetic in the softer passages in the
                    first movement introduction but this latterly becomes a little
                    mannered in its expansive approach, timing at 3:09 against
                    the English Davis 3:02 whose approach is more flowing and
                    shape firmer. The Dresden Davis allegro is lighter,
                    more expectant whereas the English Davis is more projected
                    with the strings’ semiquavers more fiery. The English Davis’ second
                    theme (4:01) is light and deft where the Dresden is
                    more relaxed. The English Davis third theme (4:41)
                    is more winsome in its fluent progression and continuation.
                    His development (6:02) begins very light but
                    soon becomes more rigorous, more so than the Dresden,
                    and is notable for its clarity of rhythm and texture and
                    also sense of exploration.
                
                 
                
                
                The Dresden slow movement seems very measured
                    but is notable for its sensitive and dramatic dynamic shading
                    and warm, tender development. The English Davis slow movement
                    is more clearly shaped which gives an impression of more
                    momentum though the exposition at 3:44 is slower than the
                    Dresden’s 3:34. This also gives the English Davis development
                    a more wistful and reflective manner.
                
                 
                
                The Dresden finale alternates light and imposingly
                    weighty articulation with rigorous and stark tuttis in
                    the development contrasted with airier woodwind passages.
                    The English Davis finale has a more energetic feel. The development’s tutti are
                    more healthily boisterous with a sense of heroic striving
                    and the contrasted woodwind passages, featuring fine ensemble,
                    are a particular delight. The Dresden Davis repeats the first
                    movement exposition but not the second half. The English
                    Davis makes neither repeat. The Dresden Davis repeats the
                    slow movement exposition, the English Davis doesn’t. In the
                    finale both recordings make the exposition but not second
                    half repeat. The figures in the table above in brackets provide
                    an exact comparison.
                
                 
                
                In
                    the K247 Divertimento Davis gets
                    across well the variation of mood in the first movement.
                    If the more masculine aspects, the accents in particular,
                    are rather gruffly realized, the lyrical ones are sweetly
                    revealed, the singing violin lines delicately skating. In
                    the second movement, the bittersweet gleam to the strings
                    has an earnest charm. In the first Minuet the horns bring
                    rawness while both they and the strings have a furtive, questioning
                    air in the Trio. In the adagio, shot through with
                    hope despite the overall sadness, we’re in the world of Figaro’s
                    Countess, a heart melting performance. The second Minuet
                    is a dapper one with a dainty Trio. The andante introduction
                    to the finale is a little too mistily sentimental but the allegro
                    assai recovers decorum and lightness of touch for a suitably
                    rollicking close.
                
                 
                
                To
                    the K251 Divertimento Davis brings a robust, perky baroque
                    manner. In the opening movement a bracing canter meets an
                    elegant parade. The first Minuet’s stateliness is subverted
                    by its touches of geniality. The third movement has a demure
                    simplicity and appealing oboe touches as it varies the theme
                    towards the end. The second Minuet features jocular variations
                    by solo oboe and violin in turn. Than comes an effervescent
                    Rondeau and finally a grand and beaming March. Both Divertimenti
                    were recorded by Sandor Vegh and the Camerata Academica des
                    Mozarteums Salzburg in 1986-7 (Capriccio 49 368) with more
                    appropriately modest forces and neater, more stylish pointing
                    but also more politeness and less internal contrast. 
                
                 
                
                Throughout Davis brings spirited performances which
                    engage your attention. However, the recordings lack finesse.
                    Despite their clarity, the bass and overall ambience are
                    rather dull and the strings in loud passages somewhat glassy.
                    Nevertheless the brightness and sweetness of the playing
                    comes through.
                
                 
                
                Michael
                        Greenhalgh