...featuring the Symphonies in C minor (1826/1847) and B flat (1821), together with his Concertante for Piano, Violin, Cello, Double Bass and Orchestra and his Overture 'The Tempest':
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/cipriani-potter-symphonien-c-moll/hnum/11171777
Thank you, Howard Griffiths!
Have any of these works been recorded before?
He apparently has a symphony (no.3/6) in C minor (1826) and a symphony (unnumbered by the composer, sometimes given "no.8") in C minor (1834). I'm not sure what the (1847) refers to again? (His symphony in E-flat was revised in 1846, though. The no.2 in B-flat (1821, revised 1839) seems to be the other... the opening pages of the holograph of its 1839 version are available at Archive.org and mirrored at IMSLP.)
I see commercial recordings of
*symphony no.1 in G minor, (1819/1824-26/1833)
*"Symphony no.8 in E-flat and Symphony no.10 in G minor" (now called no.5- called no.8 by the composer- (1828/46) and symphony no.6 (composer called both no.2 and no.10 (1832))
*Symphony "no.7" (now no.4) in F (1826) (recorded with Bennett's Op.43) ; there's probably other commercial recordings. The B-flat may have been recorded non-commercially. I don't know what the C minor symphony is supposed to be, again.
The "Concertante for violin, cello, double bass, piano and orchestra on Les folies d'Espagne" in D minor was recently published (possibly a first non-ms edition?) by Ries & Erler (Hagels edition "Based on the autograph score (shelfmark: Add MS 31782) preserved in the British Library, London"), I see no sign at least of an earlier commercial recording.
Thanks,Eric! It seems that these are premiere recordings.
Howard Griffiths' vol.2 (cpo) contains Symphony No.3 in C minor (Potter's No.6), i.e. the earlier of the two in that key, and Symphony No.2 in B flat (unnumbered by Potter).
Howard Griffiths' vol.1 (cpo) contains No.1 in G minor (also Potter's No.1)
Hilary Davan Wetton (on Unicorn Kanchana) has recorded No.5 in E flat (Potter's No. 8 ) and No.6 in G minor (Potter's No.10).
Douglas Bostock (on Classico) has recorded No.4 in F (Potter's No.7).
So, by my calculation, we now have commercial recordings of six of Potter's Symphonies. We should also remember that Howard Griffiths is recording them all for cpo. It looks as though cpo will be following Potter's numbering/non-numbering rather than the modern (chronological) system adopted by Wikipedia - see below:
Symphony [No. 1] in G minor (1819, revised 1824–26 & 1833) [styled No. 1 by the composer]
Symphony [No. 2] in B♭ major (1821, revised 1839) [unnumbered by the composer]
Symphony [No. 3] in C minor (1826, revised 1847) [styled No. 6 by the composer]
Symphony [No. 4] in F major (1826) [styled No. 7 by the composer]
Symphony [No. 5] in E♭ major (1828, revised 1846 with replacement slow movement) [styled No. 8 by the composer]
Symphony [No. 6] in G minor (1832) [styled both No. 10 and No. 2 in G minor by the composer]
Symphony [No. 7] in D major (1833) [styled No. 2 in D major by the composer]
Symphony [No. 8] in C minor (1834) [unnumbered by the composer]
Symphony [No. 9] in D major (1834) [styled No. 4 in D major by the composer]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipriani_Potter
N.B. Nos. 3 and 9 (misnumbered as 7), as per the Wikipedia numbering, can be found on YouTube.
Alan,I am intrigued by the reference to Potter originally styling one of his symphonies "No 10". But you mention nine. Is there another one out there somewhere (or,even more than one?)?
I don't know myself, but the Wikipedia article says this:
<<Although there are nine extant symphonies, the composer's numbering shows that he wrote ten.>>
So, it seems that Potter may have written ten, but only nine have survived. Perhaps someone else can shed more light on this...
Potter's symphonies numbering is a nightmare!
He wrote two symphonies in C minor.
From Griffiths's vol. 2 booklet:
First one in 1826 revised in 1847, which is his third symphony (also known as number 6)
Second one in 1834, his eighth (available on youtube)
The second volume of Griffiths's contains the first one.
Moderator's note: please see the above post which explains about the numbering problem.
I suggest we stick to the modern, chronological numbering (1 - 9) system here - it's the least confusing way of referring to his Symphonies, especially as Potter himself didn't give them all numbers!
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 12 September 2024, 16:52Howard Griffiths' vol.2 (cpo) contains Symphony No.8 in C minor (unnumbered by Potter), i.e. the later of the two in that key, and Symphony No.2 in B flat (also unnumbered by Potter).
Note: original post now corrected.
I just wanted to emphasize that the C minor symphony in this recording is the one from 1826, his No. 3 and not No. 8 from 1834 (according to the booklet).
Duly noted - thanks. Corrections duly made. It doesn't help that the C minor Symphony involved is described as from '1847' on the website and from '1826/1847' on the back of the CD.
My copy has now arrived and it really is a model of how to present these symphonies. The string section uses the minimum of vibrato, but the orchestra (the BBCNOW) is of sufficient size never to underplay the latent power of the writing. If only the cpo had used a comparable band in their recording of Van Bree recently...
Incidentally, I hadn't realised that Symphony No.2 in B flat is in three movements, i.e. without a scherzo - the only one of Potter's symphonies to follow this pattern.
...and the Symphony in B flat is an absolute riot of invention and must be an absolute pig to play for the violins, although they do have some occasional respite. Do I sense some influence from Rossini here? Perhaps...
What a pity Potter didn't continue to compose symphonies along the lines of his very fine, serious overture 'The Tempest', completed in early December 1837. We are almost in Weber/Mendelssohn territory here...
I was rather underwhelmed by the C minor symphony,Alan. Not the performance,I should add, but the music itself. I would have pre-dated it somewhat,as the B flat symphony sounds to me more advanced. And more up to the standard and individuality of symphonic composition that I have now come to expect of Potter.
I would love to know your considered thoughts on the C minor symphony,Alan,and the curiosity of the concertante work that I was expecting to sound like Spohr - but it certainly didn't.
I agree with you: the B flat Symphony sounds altogether more convincing. Maybe Potter wasn't really a C minor-key guy?
I didn't find the Concertante very convincing, I'm afraid. Very much small beer.
I listened to this recording several times, without losing interest. It's way better than the old BBC recording, faster tempo and greater dynamic contrast. Looping the Scherzo of the C minor several times. Really did justice to the symphonies. And I agree, the Concertante is not a good piece, I am removing it from the playlist every time.
I recently had a brief conversation with Howard Griffiths on Facebook -
I said - I've just been listening to Cipriani Potter's C minor symphony & it reminds me of Ries' C minor symphony. They were both premiering in London at about the same time, is there possibly some influence passing between the two composers? Or is it just the lingua franca?
He said - That's a very interesting question. They certainly both lived in London at the same time for several years. As far as I can find out there does not seem to have been any great friendship between them. They were almost rivals in the London scene. Particularly as both were involved in the Royal Philharmonic Society. I think both were under the influence of Beethoven as many other composers of that time.
I replied - I'll have another listen and see if I can identify the passage that set me thinking.
& me again - The finales. Both have a lyric theme with prominent winds, and then a dramatic march like second theme. Potter prefaces his with fanfares. That's the similarity I noticed.
(PS I think the La Folia concertante is great fun)
Howard Griffiths is a very generous correspondent. How many other conductors would be open to this sort of discussion?
I once had an interesting conversation with David Lloyd-Jones by Email. Otherwise I wouldn't really know how conductors would respond to such an approach. I was certainly pleased with Howard Griffiths' response (we may be wandering off topic)
I could give another example also. I'm aware there are "divas" in the classical music world but the conductors, musicologists, etc. who work in our area are generally not them, I think...