The MusicWeb Message Board: Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony

Much as I admire the forging of Art in adversity, my personal feeling is that these later "Arnold conducts Arnold" recordings are a reflection of the profund mental decline he was fighting and not really an accurate representation of the performances he might have given 20 or 30 years earlier. His own performances of his symphonies 2&5 remain reference recordings and show how he could inspire orchestras. Of course this version of No.4 benefits from the Lyrita engineering and certainly the LPO play for all they are worth but I find other swifter versions of this symphony to be more compelling and convincing overall. Of course there is great value in having this version but by no means do I believe it can in any way be considered a reference/definitive version despite the composer conducting.

As far as the Lyrita catalogue is concerned where the "composer conducts" I find the Walton, Alwyn, Bliss or Berkeley to be more significant/accurate representations of the composer's intentions.

Previous Message

Whilst I agree with your reviewer’s enthusiasm for Malcolm Arnold’s own recording of his Fourth Symphony, it was perhaps remiss him of him not to say a little more about the timings. He comments on the length of the first and third movements and mentions comparative performances but neglects to say that Andrew Penny dispatches the first movement in 13’04 and Richard Hickox in 13’59 as opposed to Arnold’s 18’46. The differences in the slow movement and finale are almost as great and it really does change the character of the music.

Arnold seemed to favour much slower tempi in his later recordings, taking, for example, 39’08 minutes for Symphony No.1 compared to Hickpx (30’18) and Penny (28’27); the Reference Recordings disc of overtures shows much the same sort of disparity with Arnold himself taking 10'49 for 'Beckus the Dandipratt’ in 1991 as opposed to 7’23 in 1955. One cannot help but wonder why - was it just age and related to his well-known problems (the account of his behaviour during the recording sessions for the First Symphony is hair-raising!) or did he really come to see the music in a different light?

One other point about the review: Colin Clarke wonders whether ‘ the marking of the finale as "Con fuoco" is either deliberate misnomer or comes from Arnold’s misguided streak’ but the faster tempi in other recordings do more to justify it, and in any case it’s only one of several markings being followed by Alla marcia, Maestoso and Allegro molto - though admittedly there is also at one stage a return to Tempo primo.

I’m not sure I’d always want to hear the symphony in the elderly Arnold’s way but equally, it’s fascinating and I have to agree that it is indeed ‘a pinnacle of the Lyrita catalogue’.