Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Vaughan Williams)

I am not at all certain that this article does the score justice. When I have time I hope to add to what is here, to help explain what is a very complex and enigmatic work. Though perhaps not among RVW's greatest symphonies, this is a much finer work than is generally admitted; among a few admittedly rather aimless passages there is also much very profound music. Wspencer11

I have re-written this, I hope on a more factual basis with less picturesque language. Feel free to add anything else that's suitable. Wspencer11 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Symphony nickname?

Someone has added material alleging a nickname for the symphony. I have never ever heard this. If you can please cite a source for your addition? Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either. I'll see if I can find any references. Myopic Bookworm 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

--With regard to the title, Tess of the Durbervilles, during my studies at Stellenbosch University, I found references to the work's name in a Boosey & Hawkes Score of the Symphony, as small italics below the main title. Further, two biographys of the composer refer to the Symphony alternately as Tess of the D'Urbervilles or even Hardy's Wessex and once as Hardy's Tess. There have been over 4 references in biography and score for the title Tess of the D'Urbervilles, and I concede that it is a not very often used title. Deepshark5 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Never used as a title - and never should be. This addition should be removed. Does anyone disagree? John Hamilton (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Greatest works"

I have reverted the latest edit alleging a general consensus that this is now seen as being among RVW's greatest works. As far as I have ever seen, there is no such consensus; if there is a citation to be added that can substantiate the claim please include it. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reinstating my earlier comment - with a reference which includes several recent articles on the ninth symphony.John Hamilton 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I am not over-egging the pudding, but as I feel that this great work has often been under-valued, I have added a second reference. John Hamilton 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to reduce the egg while retaining the pudding. I'll give it another go some time soon, but I've never noticed that RVW did anything in the 9th that he hadn't already done somewhere else between Job and the Sinfonia Antartica. So at the moment I'm part of the older consensus that it's not among his greatest works. Myopic Bookworm 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not break any more eggs (at least pending your other possible revisions), although I do consider that your "at least worthy...." is far too condescending. As to novelty; Haydn (for example) may not have broken many very new frontiers in his last years, but continued to create works that must be considered "among his greatest" until the end. John Hamilton 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A general rewrite of the passage in question will go a long way toward helping this issue. I agree that the symphony definitely deserves more attention and more performances, but I am also not convinced that it is among his greatest achievements. There is much very fine music in it, powerful, searching, and profound, yet there is also a fair amount of endless-triplet rambling that feels pretty aimless. On the whole the good stuff undoubtedly outweighs the not-so-good stuff, but the not-so-good stuff, I think, prevents the work as a whole from reaching the best-of list. Sad but true, at least to me. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"...endless-triplet rambling"... That really does sound subjective (think of some repetitive passages in Shostakovitch, or Beethoven for that matter - intended repetition, for effect, rather than rambling? We can at least agree that "on the whole the good stuff undoubtedly outweighs the not-so-good stuff". (And, personally, although I attended the first performance - and was left rather cold at the time - I have seen and felt more and more in it over the years since then). I will not re-edit the article, but ( equally subjectively, perhaps) I really do now consider the ninth to be among his greatest works. John Hamilton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our place to debate here whether the piece is great or hideous or something in between or even to debate whether "at least worthy...." is "far too condescending". Did the sources cited say "at least worthy"? If not, let's avoid putting words in their mouths. In fact, rather than footnote them, let's quote them directly (and accurately) in the article. Some direct quotes from the original unfavorable reaction would be helpful as well. TheScotch (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel (as in my November remarks above) that "..at least.." should be deleted from that sentence, as being an unsupported and subjective observation. The fact that a fairly recent critical evaluation has been published is in itself sufficient evidence that the symphony is "worthy" of continuing study. I would also agree that this (i.e. the main article, rather than the discussion here) is not the place to discuss something as subjective as the ranking of the 9th among the composer's works. Nevertheless, it WAS greeted (or even dismissed) with much scorn by some critics at the time. I have no reference to hand, but still clearly remember reading a review of the premiere that contained phrases such as "bleeding edges". This may still be the view of some but, 50 years on, it is not appropriate to give undue weight to such opinions. Whatever its "ranking", it is not controversial or subjective to say that it is now recognised by many (as evidenced by ref.3) to be "among" his greatest works. I did not want to take the responsibility of editing the article any further, as I feel lacking in sufficient musical expertise and objectivity. But the phrase "...at least.." should be deleted, even if no more extensive re-write is done. In the interests of objectivity, would TheScotch like to do one or the other? John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I would also agree that this (i.e. the main article, rather than the discussion here) is not the place to discuss something as subjective as the ranking of the 9th among the composer's works.":

No, not "rather than the discussion here". The discussion here is supposed to pertain to the article. The various editors's opinions as to the artistic worth of the symphony are not to be expressed on this page, especially such that a dispute results, and it doesn't matter who starts.

Re: "Whatever its "ranking", it is not controversial or subjective to say that it is now recognised by many (as evidenced by ref.3) to be "among" his greatest works.":

Again: We should simply say who contends this and quote him directly. TheScotch (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I did not want to take the responsibility of editing the article any further, as I feel lacking in sufficient musical expertise and objectivity. But the phrase "...at least.." should be deleted, even if no more extensive re-write is done. In the interests of objectivity, would TheScotch like to do one or the other?":

If I interpret the above discussion correctly, you yourself supplied some of the references (the "eggs"), which suggests to me you may easy access to them that I don't. If you don't want to be responsible for adding direct quotes to the article, you can quote them here (the bits you think are relevant), and I'll put them in the article (and delete "at least worthy"). TheScotch (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To "TheScotch" - I'm not ignoring your message; but I'm going away for a week and haven't got time at the moment to search out my copy of the relevant RVW Soc Journal. (Unfortunately my filing system is far from perfect)! I'll try to put some relevant quotes here later next week and leave you to use what you may think is worth using.John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added later: Quotes from two references that came to hand while searching for the others

"It can now be seen as not just the most powerful musical expression the composer had made since the Sixth symphony - with which it shares the key of E minor - but as one of the most powerful he ever made" (Vaughan Williams, by Eric Heffer, Phoenix, 2001)

"...[it has] every right to take its place among the most profound utterances of 20th century symphonic music" (from the Audio commentary by John Guinn for the 2007 season of "The Great Nines" - Vaughan Williams 9th broadcast of 30 Oct 2007 ) http://www.detroitsymphony.com/res/news/audionotes/VaughanWilliams9th2.mp3

So far a quick search for the others has been in vain, but I will look again next week John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In haste I omitted the ISBN for the book quoted above: 0 75381 124 3 John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've incorporated direct quotation from the latest edition of the New Grove as an example of how the work is currently viewed, and quotation from an unfavorable 1959 review by one Murray Shafer as an example of its more immediate critical reception. I haven't yet adjusted the surrounding text, but I do think it needs adjusting. TheScotch (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Program note" in "Trivia" section

Trivia sections in Wikipedia are "discouraged" with the recommendation that relevant entries be integrated into the article and irrelevant entries be deleted. There is currently one entry in the "trivia" section:

"The composer’s program note for the first performance takes a surprisingly (but in many ways typically) flippant tone for such a baffling and somber work."

I would like to integrate something (not necessarily this) about the "program note" into the article, or encourage someone else to, before deleting the section, but first it's necessary to know what the "program note" actually says. Can someone reproduce it here? Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have searched everywhere for my programme from the 1st performance - sadly, without success. However, the CD notes for the Leonard Slatkin recording quotes part of it, as follows:

"The usual symphony orchestra is used with the addition of three saxophones and flugelhorn. This beautiful and neglected instrument is not usually allowed in the select circles of the orchestra and has been banished to the brass band, where it is allowed to indulge in the bad habit of vibrato to its heart's content. While in the orchestra it will be oblighes to sit up and play straight. The saxophones, also, are not expected, except possibly in one place in the scherzo, to behave like demented cats, but are allowed to be their own romantic selves. Otherwise the orchestra is normal, and is, the composer hopes, sound in wind and strings." John Hamilton (OldFaw) (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job. It seems to me this entire paragraph could go directly into the article (and readers can decide for themselves if they think it incongruously flip). TheScotch (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to edit the article TheScotch? Presumably the "Trivia" section should be removed completely and the quote, above, incorporated into the main article, with an introductory sentence - perhaps between ...which does not need extra support."[2] and This attitude has kept... (the latter sentence being slightly modified)? John Hamilton (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we append it to the "Instrumentation" section?TheScotch (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. But the "flippant tone" did have some part in the perception of this symphony and its composer, and perhaps brief mention of this should also be made in the "Critical reception" section. I've just checked Kennedy's comment: "...there was no denying the coolness of the critics' reception of the music. Its enigmatic mood puzzled them, and more attention was therefore paid to the use of the flugel horn and to the flippant programme note." (M Kennedy, Works of VW, Second ed. p342-3) John Hamilton (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the program note quote at the end of the "Instrumentation" section and the Kennedy quote at the beginning of the "Critical reception" section immediately following. I then eliminated the "Trivia" section on the ground that its information (both the reference to program note in general and the reference to the program note's putative "flippant tone" in particular) is now integrated into the article. TheScotch (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work TheScotch! IMHO it is now very much improved as an article, and more balanced in treatment. I shall stop fretting about it! John Hamilton (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception and scheduled 2008 performances

Re: "It may be significant that it is scheduled for two performances in London in 2008, during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the composer's death: at a Promenade concert in August, by Andrew Davis/BBC Symphony Orchestra, and at the Royal Festival Hall in November, by Richard Hickox/Philharmonia Orchestra.":

Mention of these performances might conceivably go in a new "Performance history" section (assuming a reasonable portion of the the missing half-century can be filled in) or in a new "Fiftieth anniversary commemoration" section, but I don't think it belongs in the "Critical reception" section. Wikipedia articles should state facts and back them with citations; they should not argue points or speculate. TheScotch (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the fact of two London performances this year modifies the preceding sentence, and also has a bearing on the next paragraph. But I take your point about speculation. As a half-way house I have removed "It may be significant..", and left it as a statement of fact (which nevertheless does still modify the preceding sentence re. infrequent performance). But if you think it is still inappropriate, please be my guest (or executioner) and remove the addition.John Hamilton (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why such prominence is given in this part of the article to the opinions of the critic Murray Shafer - or even why there should be a section especially on the "critical reception" of this great work. Having attended both London performances in 2008 (and having also attended the first performance in 1958) it seems to this (admittedly unqualified) commentator that the orchestration (including the use of the flugelhorn and saxophones) are essential to the composer's intentions. Also that the more often one listens to this remarkable work the more profound an utterance it seems to be.John Hamilton (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I am not sure why such prominence is given in this part of the article to the opinions of the critic Murray Shafer":

Closest I could come to a contemporaneous review and example of Kennedy's "coolness"--and it wasn't all that easy.

Re: "or even why there should be a section especially on the 'critical reception' of this great work":

Without something like this the reader has no basis on which to judge the piece's significance, and the article becomes merely another dangling set of facts in an ocean of fact.

Re: "Having attended both London performances in 2008 (and having also attended the first performance in 1958) it seems to this (admittedly unqualified) commentator that the orchestration (including the use of the flugelhorn and saxophones) are essential to the composer's intentions. Also that the more often one listens to this remarkable work the more profound an utterance it seems to be.":

Have a you a copy of or link to any published review of the 2008 concerts? TheScotch (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with (or at least accept) most of the points you have made, "TheScotch". I suppose my unease at Shafer's remarks is partly a reaction to what seems to me to be the extra-musical irrelevance of his points about its "numerical" aspect, including the so-called "well-known legend" - and, even more, what strikes me as his his amazing insensitivity in dismissing the use of flugelhorn and saxophones. To anyone making even a half-hearted attempt to come to grips with this work, like it or not, these are seen to be essential to the establishment of its sombre but elegiac mood and overall impact.

However... If you feel that mention of the two London performances this year are not appropriate here, maybe there should be another section - to balance the stuff about its earlier reception. I certainly feel that this article leaves the reader with too negative an impression, which is not justified by later comment.

re. the critical review of the recent London performance (in which it was preceded by the Tallis Fantasia), here is the relevant section of a review by Hilary Finch in The Times, 4 November 2008, of the performance at the Royal Festival Hall (Philharmonia?Hickox): "Undercurrents of the Tallis drifted on through Vaughan Williams's Ninth and last symphony, which seemed to breathe more deeply and more significantly, following on from the Fantasia. Commentators like to emphasise the Tess of the D'Urbervilles scenario for the symphony, discovered in its sketches. But this performance, like the work itself, transcended narrative, and seemed to evoke ever-shifting existential states of being. A startling sublimity would be troubled by a trombone, and shiver in retreat in tremulous strings. A tattoo of a scherzo would snarl and sneer in the voice of a saxophone and in the dry bones of a xylophone. The finale seemed to wander beyond the constraints of time, its metamorphoses and transfigurations becoming cloudy visions. Richard Hickox conducted a strong, sinewy, but immensely spacious performance, taut of texture and pacing." http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/live_reviews/article5074775.ece Not a comment on its place in the canon of symphonies, but this critic at least takes it seriously for the very striking work it is to anyone who can respond to it. John Hamilton (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New longest recording

Does the edit replacing Andre Previn's timing with Andrew Manze's as the longest need a reference? If so, the release booklet provides the timings, but how does one cite that? Rgrames (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)