[ The MusicWeb Message Board ]

CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day.
Return to MusicWeb International

Arnold's Fourth Symphony Posted by Michael Bullivant on March 18, 2025, 1:55 pm 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’.

Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony Posted by Nick Barnard on March 19, 2025, 5:56 pm, in reply to "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’.

Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony Posted by keith brumpton on March 20, 2025, 8:23 am, in reply to "Arnold's Fourth Symphony" I very much agree. It seemed extraordinarily slow. A beautiful sound and I will definitely treasure it alongside other faster performances. And some amazing moments in the final movement 'growls'... 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’.

Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony Posted by Mike Hardy on March 25, 2025, 10:05 am, in reply to "Arnold's Fourth Symphony" Which raises the question - why are Arnold's symphonies so unknown in the concert hall? I am flummoxed, they are well structured, great tunes, brilliant orchestration, innovative and thoroughly enjoyable. If anyone is coming to them for the first time, try 2 and 5 then move to 4.There are no duds although I do find 7 a bit challenging. I also adore 9,but do leave it till last, it is not the easiest listen, the last movement at 21 minutes or so needs full concentration but well worth it. DO TRY THEM! Concert Managers - include them in your next season, you will be amazed at the audience reaction. As an aside if you are feeling a bit down (fashionable now!) try Arnold's St Trinian's music - I guarantee it will raise a smile. 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’.

Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony Posted by Eric Schissel on May 14, 2025, 9:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Arnold's Fourth Symphony" I remember listening to Arnold's 4th symphony on CD during my last year at college (so, heard it either in 1990 or 1991). My introduction to the composer, I think. Turns out to have been this late 1986 recording. I don't think I was able to sit through the whole thing, and I'm not entirely sure it was because of his conducting. The program notes didn't help. (I later acquired the EMI recording of symphonies 2 & 5 which I like somewhat better. Maybe he's just not for me; hope you're right and that I'm in the minority.) Previous Message Which raises the question - why are Arnold's symphonies so unknown in the concert hall? I am flummoxed, they are well structured, great tunes, brilliant orchestration, innovative and thoroughly enjoyable. If anyone is coming to them for the first time, try 2 and 5 then move to 4.There are no duds although I do find 7 a bit challenging. I also adore 9,but do leave it till last, it is not the easiest listen, the last movement at 21 minutes or so needs full concentration but well worth it. DO TRY THEM! Concert Managers - include them in your next season, you will be amazed at the audience reaction. As an aside if you are feeling a bit down (fashionable now!) try Arnold's St Trinian's music - I guarantee it will raise a smile. 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’.

« Back to index