Havergal Brian's Violin Concerto

[Empfindsamer]

Hi folks.
What do you think about Brian's VC?
I think it's a quite original composition, with its symphonic structure.
More opinions?

[eschiss1]

Assuming the never-orchestrated and lost "first" concerto hasn't been recovered and reconstructed somehow and this refers to the concerto usually referred to as no.2 (I'd agree without real reason ?... anyhow, see http://www.havergalbrian.org/violinconc.htm )... - I find it very good, if maybe slightly unsatisfactory in the way the finale is balanced, in the one recording (on Marco Polo) that I've heard.  Only slightly I guess, the first two movements seem to me to work especially well (especially the passacaglia).  Though its symphonic qualities wouldn't, I think, in themselves be reason to call it unique or even groundbreaking among concertos, not in 1935. Fairly reasonable list of concertos of that size, audacity of structure etc. by then, I think? (Berg, Sessions (both also from 1935), Brahms (1878), Reger (1907-8), Elgar (1909-10)...) though I admit I can't find a chaconne among any just offhand... (I suspect Johann Nepomuk David or another German mid-century composer might have done just that, but his come later...)

Not sure I understand?

[Empfindsamer]

I agree, surely.
I also think that this Concerto is more like a "Sinfonia Concertante", or a symphony with an extensive solo violino part, rather than an actual Violin Concerto in Romantic style.

[John H White]

I gather that this "second" violin concerto is really an attempt to reconstruct from memory on Brian's part the original concerto, whose manuscript was in his brief case when it was stolen. No doubt, as with most composers, he introduced various improvements during the reconstruction process.

[eschiss1]

I gather that this "second" violin concerto is really an attempt to reconstruct from memory on Brian's part the original concerto, whose manuscript was in his brief case when it was stolen. No doubt, as with most composers, he introduced various improvements during the reconstruction process.

This seems to be the case or at least, that's the claim made by the composer according to some sources I'd read, and reproduced, I think, at the link I provided- impossible to tell. The first concerto never progressed beyond violin/piano stage as far as I know- which is not a very "as far as"! - in any case.
(Just to check that claim I made earlier- sorry...- about JN David, indeed his first violin concerto did not come out until 1952; don't know if his 3 concertos for violin have passacaglias in them or not . ... Will keep looking, there's of course http://violinconcerto.de (subject of an extensive thread some while back!) for at least basic information...

[Pengelli]

I definately prefer the Ralph Holmes recording. I find the Naxos performance too 'rushed'. In particular that wierd stomping march,which in the Naxos recording is taking at such a hectic pace it just sounds frenetic & banal. In fact the whole performance seems to be an exercise in flashy virtuosity. I mean,okay,it's obviously an impressive performance 'technically',but the older performance,for me anyway,has far more atmosphere. Unfortunately,the Holmes performance isn't available commercially,as yet.

[Pengelli]

Actually, I think it's probably more the fault of the conductor. I would,however, urge anyone who enjoyed,or was at least intrigued by, the Naxos recording to try and hear the Holmes interpretation,somehow.