Sir Thomas Beecham: Handel transcriptions
Roland van Gaalen
series:
Suite de Ballet:-The Origin of Design recorded 1932
The Gods Go A'Begging (excerpts) recorded 1933-37
The Gods Go A'Begging (excerpts) recorded 1949
Piano Concert in A major (Lady Beecham, piano) 1945
At that time I had my doubts. I don't anymore. This is very entertaining
music;
the Handelian splendor is definitely therem, brilliantly played.
Ref: SOMM-BEECHAM 7
Sir Thomas Beecham
London Philh; Royal Philh
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl (AT=@)
Dontait...@aol.com
On Dec 25, 12:54 pm, "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSignat...@DeadSpam.com>
wrote:
I agree completely. "Entertaining" is a perfect term. It isn't
authentic 18th-century style Handel by any means, but Beecham evidently
didn't intend it to be. He wanted to let people hear music by Handel
that at the time he made the arrangements (the 1930s, '30s, and later),
mostly from the operas, wasn't performed at all and was virtually
unknown. For me they're made special by Beecham's unique charm and
style plus, as you say, the brilliant playing.
You'd probably also enjoy his other Handel arrangements --
The Faithful Shepherd Suite, which he recorded twice, with the LPO in
the '30s on Columbia 78s and the early '50s with the RPO for an
American Columbia LP;
Amaryllis, from which I think he recorded only a few excerpts;
The Great Elopement, from which he made two recordings of suites
around 1946 and 1950; and
Love in Bath, an expansion of The Great Elopement, which he recorded
with the RPO around 1957 or '58.
They've all appeared on CD at one time or another, but I don't have
the numbers at hand.
Don Tait
Ralph
Manon and would think I had justly profited by the exchange." - Sir
Thomas Beecham
alanwa...@aol.com
Dontait...@aol.com wrote:
> On Dec 25, 12:54?pm, "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSignat...@DeadSpam.com>
You and Roland may be interested to know that there are plans afoot to
record the complete Beecham transcriptions of Handel for which, if the
project goes ahead, I shall be supplying the sleeve notes.
The importance, historically, of what Beecham did cannot be
underestimated in terms of bringing to light music which, in the UK at
least, had not at that time been performed (in some cases) for nearly
two centuries. It is mostly Handel's notes, not his orchestration of
course, while most of the "segues" where they occur are pure Beecham.
Not all of it is from opera: there are a number of pieces whose origin
lies in oratorio. At the time, a great deal of this music was dead
upon the page and known to scholars only.
There was another "arranger" of then virtually unknown music into
modern dress with success: Vincenzo Tommasini, now mostly forgotten,
whose Good Humoured Ladies (Scarlatti sonatas arranged for orchestra)
was seen at the time as a considerable triumph for the Ballet Russes
and is equally brilliantly scored.
I have almost completed my own venture into this ancient-modern world
(after 27 years of working on it!). My ballet setting is of the music
of Thomas Campion and Philip Rosseter and in which, in my idealised
choreography, both occupy huge chairs in the full dress of the time
either side front of stage.
If it ever gets performed anywhere, astute listeners will hear that the
"leitmotif" is Rosseter's song (Campion's words): "What then is love
but mourning?" Every section principal in the (small) orchestra gets
to solo the opening measures of Rosseter's lute accompaniment at some
stage in the score.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Juan I. Cahis
qualify it as an outstanding "arrangement", isn't it?
Dontait...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 25, 12:540m, "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSignat...@DeadSpam.com>
Thanks
Juan I. Cahis
Santiago de Chile (South America)
Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it!
jme...@peoplepc.com
> And what do you think of his last recording of "Messiah"? I will
> qualify it as an outstanding "arrangement", isn't it?
Well, it is and it isn't. All the numbers appear in the order in which
Handel intended them (if you excuse the Appendix), and nothing is
changed in the vocal parts. It's the colorful instrumentation that's
different, and much of that was done for Beecham by Eugene Goosens. I
think it's great fun, BTW.
In the 1947 recording, for those who don't know it, there are some
orchestral reinforcements (and of course the dreaded harpsichord is
banished) but otherwise the performance is very much like the Boult
recording of some ten years later. However, Beecham takes "Unto which
of the Angels" and "Let all the angels of God," and moves them right
before "Worthy is the Lamb"--the effect is amazing.
jrs...@aol.com
Dontait...@aol.com wrote:
> On Dec 25, 12:54?pm, "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSignat...@DeadSpam.com>
> wrote:
> > A few years ago, I bought this recording from "The Beecham Collection"
> > series:
> >
> > Suite de Ballet:-The Origin of Design recorded 1932
> > The Gods Go A'Begging (excerpts) recorded 1933-37
> > The Gods Go A'Begging (excerpts) recorded 1949
> > Piano Concert in A major (Lady Beecham, piano) 1945
> >
> > At that time I had my doubts. I don't anymore. This is very entertaining
> > music;
> > the Handelian splendor is definitely therem, brilliantly played.
> >
> > Ref: SOMM-BEECHAM 7
> > Sir Thomas Beecham
> > London Philh; Royal Philh
> > --
> > Roland van Gaalen
> > Amsterdam
>
> I agree completely. "Entertaining" is a perfect term. It isn't
> authentic 18th-century style Handel by any means, but Beecham evidently
> didn't intend it to be. He wanted to let people hear music by Handel
> that at the time he made the arrangements (the 1930s, '30s, and later),
> mostly from the operas, wasn't performed at all and was virtually
> unknown. For me they're made special by Beecham's unique charm and
> style plus, as you say, the brilliant playing.
>
> Love in Bath, an expansion of The Great Elopement, which he recorded
> with the RPO around 1957 or '58.
It's taken a while, but I've finally come around to the same point of
view vis a vis Beecham's Handel and went ahead and bought the disc with
Love in Bath about a month ago. I could stand to hear some more of this
type of arrangement.
--Jeff
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:1167105386.2...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
Used to have that on RCA Vault Treasure LPs. I think the tenor was none
other than Jon Vickers.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Xns98A4ECD7D6...@207.217.125.201:
> jme...@peoplepc.com appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:1167105386.2...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Juan I. Cahis wrote:
>>> And what do you think of his last recording of "Messiah"? I will
>>> qualify it as an outstanding "arrangement", isn't it?
>>
>> Well, it is and it isn't. All the numbers appear in the order in which
>> Handel intended them (if you excuse the Appendix), and nothing is
>> changed in the vocal parts. It's the colorful instrumentation that's
>> different, and much of that was done for Beecham by Eugene Goosens. I
>> think it's great fun, BTW.
>>
>> In the 1947 recording, for those who don't know it, there are some
>> orchestral reinforcements (and of course the dreaded harpsichord is
>> banished) but otherwise the performance is very much like the Boult
>> recording of some ten years later. However, Beecham takes "Unto which
>> of the Angels" and "Let all the angels of God," and moves them right
>> before "Worthy is the Lamb"--the effect is amazing.
>
> Used to have that on RCA Vault Treasure LPs. I think the tenor was none
> other than Jon Vickers.
I once read a critic (in Fanfare?) complaining about an announcer who always
sounded something like, "Thee conductor is now entering thee pit." William
Pierce, for all that I treasure the memory of the BSO and Boston Pops
concerts he hosted, seems to fit this perfectly.
Handel8
And who will be doing that recording, pray tell ? If not done right,
like Beecham did, they could be dreadful, but that is just a surmise
on my part as I have never heard them done by anyone else. I recall
having a 3 disc set of one of these arrangements on RCA 78s and was
amazed at good the sound of the recording was. Great hall sound for
the orchestra. I can't remember which suite it was. For modern cds, I
would think that any that are on Dutton cds would be the preferable
versions to get.
In the 1959 Beecham-Goosens Messiah, the part that always cracks me
up is the brass band that appears for a brief moment in the middle of
the Hallejuhah(sic) chorus. It sounds like it was recorded at a Barnum
and Bailey circus ! Handel under the Big Top ! LOL ! The opening
tenor aria by Vickers is just stunningly great. Worth getting just for
that. Too bad you can hear some dynamic range limiting in the
recording. It was recorded in Kingsway Hall. You can tell just from
hearing it. It has all the trademarks of that lost wonderful place.
Alan Prichard
jme...@peoplepc.com
>
> Used to have that on RCA Vault Treasure LPs. I think the tenor was none
> other than Jon Vickers.
He is, and Giorgio Tozzi is the bass; the women are not, to my ear, so
wonderful.
Edward A. Cowan
http://www.uib.no/herrmann/articles/phototours/london/page3.html
Scroll down about midway to find these.
There may be other websites with more photos of Kingsway. --E.A.C.
harpsichordian
This just goes to show, even the great have their blind spots. Bach
was his.
Best wishes,
Bryan Bishop
tomdeacon
jme...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> Juan I. Cahis wrote:
> > And what do you think of his last recording of "Messiah"? I will
> > qualify it as an outstanding "arrangement", isn't it?
>
> Well, it is and it isn't. All the numbers appear in the order in which
> Handel intended them (if you excuse the Appendix), and nothing is
> changed in the vocal parts. It's the colorful instrumentation that's
> different, and much of that was done for Beecham by Eugene Goosens. I
> think it's great fun, BTW.
In fact very little of it was actually done by Goosens. Beecham was so
frustrated by Goosens' conservative approach that he took over the
whole job himself and thus, although Goosens had a hand in it,
Beecham's whole body was contained in that version of Messiah!!!
TD
tomdeacon
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> jme...@peoplepc.com appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:1167105386.2...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Juan I. Cahis wrote:
> >> And what do you think of his last recording of "Messiah"? I will
> >> qualify it as an outstanding "arrangement", isn't it?
> >
> > Well, it is and it isn't. All the numbers appear in the order in which
> > Handel intended them (if you excuse the Appendix), and nothing is
> > changed in the vocal parts. It's the colorful instrumentation that's
> > different, and much of that was done for Beecham by Eugene Goosens. I
> > think it's great fun, BTW.
> >
> > In the 1947 recording, for those who don't know it, there are some
> > orchestral reinforcements (and of course the dreaded harpsichord is
> > banished) but otherwise the performance is very much like the Boult
> > recording of some ten years later. However, Beecham takes "Unto which
> > of the Angels" and "Let all the angels of God," and moves them right
> > before "Worthy is the Lamb"--the effect is amazing.
>
> Used to have that on RCA Vault Treasure LPs. I think the tenor was none
> other than Jon Vickers.
Wrong. (Quelle surprise!) Vickers was till pitching hay on the farm in
Saskatchewan at that time.
Vickers DID sing in Beecham's final stereo Messiah, however, some
twelve years later.
Vickers can also be heard in Messiah on an RCA Victor Messiah with the
Toronto Symphony under Sir Earnest MacMillan which first appeared on
the BEAVER label in Canada. (along with some early Gould items, in
fact)
TD
Ralph
Awww. Can you blame Sir Thomas? He was hearing Bach, when the flat
earth society of pre-HIP Bach ruled the roost. Over and out. (Before the
usual suspects, who get apoplectic, whenever they see those three
capitalized letters, tap the keyboard).
Ralph
jrs...@aol.com
I don't know about you, but when I tap the keyboard it doesn't sound
like skeletons copulating on a tin roof, the way typewriters did back
in Beecham's day. ;-)
--Jeff
Handel8
Attyribute it as you like, oh great one, Mr. TD. The common
attribution is to Goosens, but in any case, whose ever arrangement it
actually was, it is totally over the top. There are added harps and
woodwinds at the very least in every bar ! And that Barnum and
Bailey/Sousa brass band in the Hallejulah chorus I mentioned before.
Alan Prichard
graham
<Dontait...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167082335.8...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 12:54pm, "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSignat...@DeadSpam.com>
wrote:
>
I agree completely. "Entertaining" is a perfect term.
A noted Handelian scholar explained to me that Handel was a man of the
theatre and was always incorporating effects for their entertainment value.
I would much rather listen (or sing in) performances like Beecham's than by
the dry as dust, so-called authentic, whole earth/birkenstock brigade.
Beecham, in a sense, comes closer to GFH than that crowd!
Graham
alanwa...@aol.com
alanwa...@aol.com
I am not free to say who has these recordings projected but if the
conductor they hope to engage is free I think they will be okay.
Handel8
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, it is true that the early HIP Handel was
dry as dust. Messiah recordings by the likes of Hogwood and Gardiner
were just bloodless IMO. One only has to compare the way the opening
tenor aria is done in these two recordings against that in the stereo
Beecham Messiah. That being said, when one actually sits down and
listens to this Beecham Messiah straight through, the effect, at least
on me, is one of incredible perverse excess, even given the good work
of the soloists. After a while, one says to oneself: "Enough of all
the added harps, woodwinds, trumpets, etc !" It is the cumulative
effect that is just deadly and stultifying IMO.
If you want to hear how a great but heartfelt HIP performance of the
Messiah goes, get the new Rene Jacobs recording, which I can not
recommend enough. I would also mention that I do not agree with the
overt religious sentiments expressed in the work, but only the emotion
of the score and the way the perfromance brings that out. As the
Handel scholar Ruth Smith has pointed out in her great book on Handel,
this work's libretto was cobbled together by Jennons to buck up the
people's religious beliefs which were thought under attack at the time.
Alan Prichard
makropulos
tomdeacon wrote:
> In fact very little of it was actually done by Goosens. Beecham was so
> frustrated by Goosens' conservative approach that he took over the
> whole job himself and thus, although Goosens had a hand in it,
> Beecham's whole body was contained in that version of Messiah!!!
>
> TD
"In fact" that's absolute nonsense unsupported by any kind of serious
evidence. TD's claim is based an old and inaccurate rumour that
seemingly won't go away. The manuscript of this orchestration - the
handwritten score used by TB for the recording - is currently in
Sheffield University Library (along with many of TB's scores) is in
Eugene Goossens' hand, contains his annotations and is demonstrably his
work and not Beecham's, whatever may have been said subsequently. The
orginal is there for anyone to see, and it's Goossens, and only
Goossens.
alanwa...@aol.com
I have found that the "originals" of whichever composer are altered by
one or more conductors so it is probably hardly
surprising...............
Simon Roberts
Well, yeah, but it all depends on what you find entertaining. In Handel, for
instance, Jacobs and Minkowski entertain me; Beecham bores me. And so it goes.
Simon
Simon Roberts
says...
> Attyribute it as you like, oh great one, Mr. TD. The common
>attribution is to Goosens, but in any case, whose ever arrangement it
>actually was, it is totally over the top. There are added harps and
>woodwinds at the very least in every bar ! And that Barnum and
>Bailey/Sousa brass band in the Hallejulah chorus I mentioned before.
It's a shame Beecham serves up this tasteless edition with a performance that's
so tasteful it's downright tame; it's almost as though he's suffering from
late-in-the-day embarrassment at the whole thing.
Simon
Roland van Gaalen
news:ems3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
I dislike it too.
But what do you think of his recording from 1928?
In my opinion that Messiah resembles in various respects the Handel
arrangements which I recommended at the beginning of this thread
(eg excitement and warmth)
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Dontait...@aol.com
I love the last version. Beecham carries it off with such
characteristic elan, conviction, and buoyancy that what might sound
vulgar with someone else is joyously spectacular. I like his first two
recordings too (the first one, from about 1929 or '30, is moderately
abridged) and agree about the 1947 one. Also, in that, in addition to
the orchestral reinforcements, he used choruses of varying size
depending upon the text and character of the music.
One of the most memorable things about Beecham's Messiahs for me is
the sense of cohesion he gives the work. When they're over one has an
unusually great feeling of having experienced a satisfyingly complete
progression, one work that mustn't be interrupted, rather than a long
oratorio with lots of separate sections. That's especially true of the
last one. Beecham's sense of structure was outstanding, as was his
sense of drama.
Don Tait
jrs...@aol.com
In every generation and style, some entertain and some do not. I
haven't heard the Jacobs yet, but I have heard plenty of entertaining
ideas from Harnoncourt and Pinnock and Hogwood in the Messiah (and
overall like Harnoncourt's recording but for a few missteps he makes).
Where do people get this idea that there's a whole unredeemable brigade
of untheatrical interpreters of Handel?
--Jeff
makropulos
> I have found that the "originals" of whichever composer are altered by
> one or more conductors so it is probably hardly
> surprising...............
>
surprising was TD's assertion, repeating an old and unreliable claim,
that "very little of it was actually done by Goossens". The reverse is
the case. The documents (specifically the Goossens manuscript of his
orchestration) tell the story more accurately than hearsay evidence.
Richard Loeb
"makropulos" <makro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167172474.1...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I thought it was common knowledge that it was the Goosens orchestration
Richard
harpsichordian
Somehow I doubt that hearing HIP performances of Bach would have
convinced Sir Thomas. The Bachian ethos just didn't resonate with him,
and the manner of performance would have made no difference.
Actually Beecham did make one quite nice Bach recording - the sinfonia
to the Christmas Oratorio, in the late 40s.
Best wishes,
Bryan Bishop
Dontait...@aol.com
On Dec 26, 4:34 pm, "makropulos" <makropu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> alanwatkin...@aol.com wrote:
> > makropulos wrote:
> > > tomdeacon wrote:
> > > > In fact very little of it was actually done by Goosens. Beecham was so
> > > > frustrated by Goosens' conservative approach that he took over the
> > > > whole job himself and thus, although Goosens had a hand in it,
> > > > Beecham's whole body was contained in that version of Messiah!!!
>
> > > > TD
>
> > > "In fact" that's absolute nonsense unsupported by any kind of serious
> > > evidence. TD's claim is based an old and inaccurate rumour that
> > > seemingly won't go away. The manuscript of this orchestration - the
> > > handwritten score used by TB for the recording - is currently in
> > > Sheffield University Library (along with many of TB's scores) is in
> > > Eugene Goossens' hand, contains his annotations and is demonstrably his
> > > work and not Beecham's, whatever may have been said subsequently. The
> > > orginal is there for anyone to see, and it's Goossens, and only
> > > Goossens.
>
> > I have found that the "originals" of whichever composer are altered by
> > one or more conductors so it is probably hardly
> > surprising...............
>
> alanwatkin...@aol.com wrote:
> > I have found that the "originals" of whichever composer are altered by
> > one or more conductors so it is probably hardly
> > surprising...............
> I don't quite see what you're getting at here, Alan. What was
> surprising was TD's assertion, repeating an old and unreliable claim,
> that "very little of it was actually done by Goossens". The reverse is
> the case. The documents (specifically the Goossens manuscript of his
> orchestration) tell the story more accurately than hearsay evidence.- Show quoted text -
In her book about the family, "The Goossens -- A Musical Century"
(Northeastern University Press, 1993), Carol Rosen writes about this
for several pages. Too long to quote. However, she states that Beecham
commissioned it on May 19, 1959. Goossens did it on 400 pages of
twenty-eight stave music paper, which RPO messengers picked up bit by
bit, had copied, and sent ro Beecham. Beecham conducted the
just-completed version in Lucerne in September 1959 and recorded it
shortly thereafter. In a lengthy subsequent paragraph she explores the
subsequent controversy among critics about whether Beecham revised it
himself and concludes that that is untrue. She writes "According to
Norman Millar, present at the recording sessions as manager of the
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Beecham decided at the last minute that
he wanted a small section normally cut from the performance to be
included; this was rescored by the RPO's Librarian George Brownfoot.
Apart from this minor addition, the entire recording was of Goossens'
orchestration and approved by Beecham."
Don Tait
makropulos
Dontait...@aol.com wrote:
Thank you, Don - that's precisely it. As I say, the manuscript can be
consulted by anybody who's interested, along with a large portion of
Beecham's library of scores and parts, in the Special Collections of
Sheffield University Library (UK). It's a fascinating collection but at
present it is only partly catalogued online (there's a handlist
available in the music library).
Dontait...@aol.com
On Dec 26, 5:46 pm, "makropulos" <makropu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> available in the music library).- Hide quoted text
And thank you.
Don T.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:1167172474.142977.277530
@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> I don't quite see what you're getting at here, Alan. What was surprising
> was TD's assertion, repeating an old and unreliable claim, that "very
> little of it was actually done by Goossens". The reverse is the case. The
> documents (specifically the Goossens manuscript of his orchestration) tell
> the story more accurately than hearsay evidence.
Where and when was it first claimed that the orchestration was by Beecham
himself? I don't mean in this thread; I mean in real life.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Harrington/Coy is a gay wrestler who won't come out of the closet
makropulos
The story has been circulating for a while - one example was a radio
interview by Lady Beecham where she made the claim. I may be able to
find a date (at least an approximate one) if you're interested.
Richard Loeb
"makropulos" <makro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167167300....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I advise you not to hold your breathe waiting for a retraction or apology
from Deacon - his nature won't allow him to admit he made a mistake
Richard
Brendan R. Wehrung
There aren't a great number of Beecham arrangements (compared to
Stokowski) but they do get played from time to time, as does the
Barbirolli Pucell suite. Why? Nobody else has bothered to mine the
riches inherent in orchestral arrangements.
I guess we're all purists now.
Brendan
Matthew B. Tepper
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>> "makropulos" <makro...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed in news:1167172474.142977.277530
>> @n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I don't quite see what you're getting at here, Alan. What was
>> > surprising was TD's assertion, repeating an old and unreliable claim,
>> > that "very little of it was actually done by Goossens". The reverse is
>> > the case. The documents (specifically the Goossens manuscript of his
>> > orchestration) tell the story more accurately than hearsay evidence.
>>
>> Where and when was it first claimed that the orchestration was by
>> Beecham himself? I don't mean in this thread; I mean in real life.
>
> The story has been circulating for a while - one example was a radio
> interview by Lady Beecham where she made the claim. I may be able to
> find a date (at least an approximate one) if you're interested.
Was it Betty, Lady Beecham, or Shirley, Lady Beecham?
makropulos
Betty Humby (Lady Beecham) diied in 1958 - before the (stereo)
recording for which Goossens made the orchestrations was made. It was
Shirley.
makropulos
rents the performance material for the Goossens Messiah.
When Graham Whettam had called at Goossens' Hamilton Terrace home in
the spring of 1959 he found Eugène, with his companion and assistant
Pamela Main, hard at work on the "Messiah" orchestration, there being
all too little time before Beecham was to record it. Goossens was
writing on very large score-paper, Pam copying in duplicate lines
whilst Eugène got on with something further.
Somebody called every day from the R.P.O. office to collect finished
pages for the copying of orchestral parts. The original manuscript,
presently in the Library of Sheffield University, abounds with
initialled messages in Goossens' handwriting. In the margin of page 360
is the last of these: "final two sheets tomorrow Tuesday 2nd E.G."
Those final four pages (two double-sided sheets) were completed as
promised, being dated and signed with Goossens' monogram four days
before recording began. R.P.O. secretary Shirley Hudson personally
collected these pages from Hamilton Terrace. The score for which
Beecham had paid ,1.000 (a useful sum in 1959) was at last complete.
When the completed recording was eventually launched, Beecham announced
- in his best bravura manner - that whilst the idea for
re-orchestrating "Messiah" had been his own, Goossens had actually
written it. Goossens had certainly done so: it was his own original
work! But the idea for a re-orchestration was hardly new, Mozart and
various others having re-orchestrated Handel's "Messiah" for their own
times, and Handel himself had performed it using an enlarged orchestra.
The Handel/Goossens "Messiah" recording being completed, the
thirty-something R.P.O. secretary Shirley Hudson quietly married the
octogenarian Thomas in Switzerland, thereby becoming Shirley, Lady
Beecham. Sir Thomas lived for another eighteen months or so, and
Goossens continued working until illness and death struck him down in
June 1962. But the recording had a life of its own,
Sadly it must be said that some fifteen years or so after Goossen's
death rumours began to circulate that Goossens' orchestration had been
made, at least partly, by none other than Sir Thomas himself,
well-known for engaging musicians like Eric Fenby to make musical
arrangements which later emerged as Beecham's own.
Presenters of BBC broadcasts from the Handel/Goossens recording,
received calls from Shirley Beecham to the effect that the work should
be credited to her late husband. A clear instance occurred on St.
Valentine's day 1999 in BBC Radio 3's Building a Library, and became
the subject of correspondence in the magazine Gramophone and a feature
article in The Sunday Telegraph. Beecham's widow even claimed that he
had had Goossens' score re-orchestrated!! Interestingly Meriden
Music's photocopy of the original manuscript score actually used for
Beecham's recording contains not one note in a foreign hand.
The London première and broadcasts of September 1999 obliged the BBC
to investigate the matter, resulting in a letter dated 27th August from
Stephen Hanlon, the Corporation's Head of Legal Affairs, which began:
"The work which will be performed at the concert on September 12th is,
in our view,
Sir Eugene Goossens' orchestration of Handel's "Messiah".
It is not an adaptation of Sir Eugene's work by a third party."
---MIKE---
recently re-released on CD.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Matthew B. Tepper
Thomas Wood
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ems3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
I mostly agree, although two factors redeem that recording for me: Jennifer
Vyvyan's wonderful soprano voice (which really wouldn't be out of place in a
Gardiner oratorio recording) and the choral tenors -- that section could
really rip.
Tom Wood
Dontait...@aol.com
On Dec 29, 1:24 pm, "Thomas Wood" <woo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Simon Roberts" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:ems3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > It's a shame Beecham serves up this tasteless edition with a performance
> > that's
> > so tasteful it's downright tame; it's almost as though he's suffering from
> > late-in-the-day embarrassment at the whole thing.
> I mostly agree, although two factors redeem that recording for me: Jennifer
> Vyvyan's wonderful soprano voice (which really wouldn't be out of place in a
> Gardiner oratorio recording) and the choral tenors -- that section could
> really rip.
>
> Tom Wood
Agreed about Jennifer Vyvyan. She was a superb singer in every way
and it's a shame we didn't get more recordings by her. During the 1950s
there was a Decca (London in the USA) LP by her called "Songs of
England." I had several friends who treasured it, both for the
selections and her singing. They talked about it frequently. I never
got a copy because it was out of print when that happened and a cut-out
never turned up.
Don Tait