Job: A Masque for Dancing by Ralph Vaughan Williams (review)

Nigel Simeone

Notes, Volume 76, Number 2, December 2019, pp. 322-327 (Review)

Published by Music Library Association

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2019.0120

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/743088

Access provided at 9 Jan 2020 20:25 GMT from Indiana University Libraries
322 Notes, December 2019

Schellevis, but many are not. This is Verlag, 2017]), also prepared in antici-
unfortunate since Gounod’s setting is pation of the Gounod bicentennial.
particularly interesting when studied The present edition appears to com-
in relation to the broader concerted pare favorably with this other recent
Mass repertoire and its liturgical and publication. Though it lacks certain ele-
musical-cultural underpinnings. Never- ments included in the latter, such as
theless, the preface stands as useful and subsequent alternative versions of the
commendable. Focused mainly on the Offertoire, Schellevis’s edition is based
biographical and immediate Parisian on both the incomplete autograph
historical contexts, it is well-grounded score held by the British Library (GB-
in primary and secondary source re- Lbl 37639) and the complementary in-
search. Earlier performing editions complete autograph score held by the
have fallen short in this respect. For Library of Northwestern University
example, the edition by Elmar Schloter (US-Eu MSS 242), in addition to the
(Charles Gounod, Cäcilienmesse: Messe earliest published score (Paris: Lebeau,
solenelle [sic] de Sainte Cécile [Munich: 1856). Schellevis’s critical report ac-
Max Hieber, 1983]), provides only a counts for their divergences thor-
brief introductory text with little detail. oughly. In contrast, the Carus edition
Meanwhile, the edition by Andreas relies only on the British Library auto-
Schenck (Charles Gounod, Messe solen- graph and printed sources without ref-
nelle en l’honneur de Sainte-Cécile [Frank- erence to the Northwestern score. Con-
furt: C. F. Peters, 1995]) offers a more sequently, a variety of minor differences
substantial essay, but with a limited arise between the Credo, Sanctus, and
scope of research; tellingly, it perpetu- Benedictus portions of the two editions.
ates the mistaken understanding that A few errors mar the Bärenreiter score;
the work was first performed on 22 No- these are accounted for in a small er-
vember 1855. Further, Schellevis’s pref- rata sheet. Otherwise the edition is
ace is enriched by quotations from im- typographically quite admirable and
portant reviews by Camille Saint-Saëns, stands as a welcome and authoritative
Adolphe Adam, and Joseph d’Ortigue version of a work that Saint-Saëns once
that testify to the impression made by asserted would outlast all of Gounod’s
the premiere. A preface of comparable operas (Camille Saint-Saëns, Portraits et
quality may be found in the publication souvenirs [Paris: Societe d’edition artis-
by Carus-Verlag (Charles Gounod, tique, [1900], 84–85]).
Messe solennelle de Sainte-Cécile, ed. by Erick Arenas
Frank Höndgen [Stuttgart: Carus- San Francisco Conservatory of Music

VAUGHAN WILLIAMS’S JOB

Ralph Vaughan Williams. Job: A Masque for Dancing. Edited by Julian

Rushton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. [Preface, p. v–vii;
sources, p. viii–ix; textual notes, p. x–xi; appendix 1, p. xii–xvii; appendix
2, p. xviii; orchestration, p. [x]; score, p. [1]–121. ISBN 978-0-19-351432-
4. $26.95.]
Even those who are very familiar with Oxford University Press as a study
Vaughan Williams’s Job: A Masque for score. Most startling among these is
Dancing will find revelations in Julian the first publication (in appendix 1) of
Rushton’s new edition, published by music that was cut from the work. As
Music Reviews 323

the new score is so affordably priced, score came out, some small cuts had
this additional material is reason been made to the work by Vaughan
enough to acquire the edition. There Williams, and Job was fixed in the form
are plenty of other reasons to recom- we know it, though as yet it carried no
mend it: the note-text has been entirely dedication. Several concert perfor-
reset, so it is a lot easier to read than mances quickly followed, all of them
the various photo-reduced scores de- conducted from the autograph full
rived from the 1934 full score, starting score. Vaughan Williams gave the first
with the earliest—abnormally tiny— public performance in London at
miniature score in 1935 (the review by Queen’s Hall on 3 December 1931.
Scott Goddard in Music & Letters 16, Adrian Boult conducted it for the first
no. 4 [October 1935]: 355, noted that time in a BBC broadcast on 19 February
it was “for good eyes only”), and its 1933 and gave it again with BBC forces
successors in a more usable format (a at the Festival of Music and Drama in
study score first appeared in 1947). It is Canterbury Cathedral on 8 June 1933.
also the first to include measure num- A few months later, he included it as
bers (which restart at the beginning of the final item in the BBC Symphony
each scene), as well as replacing re- Orchestra concert at Queen’s Hall on
hearsal letters with numbers: a sensible 14 February 1934 (the first half com-
procedure since the old edition (and prised Weber’s Oberon Overture, and
the old orchestral material) had so Brahms’s Piano Concerto no. 1 in D mi-
many rehearsal letters that it ran to fig. nor with Artur Schnabel). In his diary
HHh. Here that becomes the much the previous day (13 February), Boult
more practicable fig. 52. I hope Oxford noted “Job rehearsal and dedication.”
University Press will make available a This dedication was closely connected
large format conducting score of this to the publication of the score: at
edition in due course (as they have Boult’s request, the cost of engraving
for the new editions of symphonies the full score for publication was sub-
nos. 4–9). scribed by the members of the Bach
The publishing history of Job began Choir as a farewell present to Boult
in 1931 when Oxford University Press when he gave up the conductorship of
issued an arrangement for piano by the choir due to his BBC commitments.
Vally Lasker. By the time this appeared, When Vaughan Williams heard about
Vaughan Williams had conducted both this, he dedicated the work to Boult.
the premiere at the Norwich Festival on As Michael Kennedy described it in his
23 October 1930, and a BBC broadcast biography (Adrian Boult [London:
on 13 February 1931 (when it was pre- Hamish Hamilton, 1987], 176), at the
ceded by Holst’s Sāvitri, conducted by rehearsal on 13 February 1934 the con-
Adrian Boult). The stage version was ductor “was amazed, on opening the
given at the Cambridge Theatre in manuscript full score to find that it was
London on 5 July 1931, conducted by now dedicated to him.” The printed
Constant Lambert, using his arrange- dedication “To Adrian Boult” duly ap-
ment for the reduced orchestral forces peared on the full score, which was pre-
that could be accommodated in a small pared from the autograph. Vaughan
theater pit (with his extensive experi- Williams subsequently gave the auto-
ence of ballet, Lambert had been graph manuscript to Boult who pre-
Vaughan Williams’s choice for the task sented it to the British Library in 1968
of making this reduction) and this was (where it is Add MS 54326).
repeated at the New Theatre, Oxford, For the rest of his life, Boult was the
on 24 July 1931. By the time the piano most devoted advocate of Job: he made
324 Notes, December 2019

four studio recordings of it (in 1946, use Vaughan Williams’s full orchestra-
1954, 1958, and 1970), and took it tion, a claim often repeated since, but a
around the world, performing it in letter from Constant Lambert to The
Salzburg with the Vienna Philharmonic Times (26 May 1948, p. 5) put the
(in 1935), with the Boston Symphony record straight: “My reduction for an
Orchestra (1946), Amsterdam Concert- orchestra of fewer than 30 players was a
gebouw Orchestra (1947), Chicago temporary expedient. . . . The moment
Symphony (Ravinia Festival, 1949), and the Sadler’s Wells orchestra became en-
Vienna Symphony Orchestra (1965), larged to symphonic stature, my reduc-
among others. In Salzburg, Boult later tion was quite naturally dropped, hav-
recalled that “Bruno Walter came to ing fulfilled its purpose.” A review in
me afterwards with tears in his eyes and The Times on 16 October 1935 (p. 12)
said it was the most beautiful music he confirms this: “For the first time
had ever heard” (quoted in Journal of [15 October 1935] Vaughan Williams’s
the RVW Society 19 [October 2000], 7). own full score was used instead of
He conducted numerous BBC broad- Mr. Constant Lambert’s clever reduc-
casts of Job (in 1933, 1934, 1940, 1943, tion.” Though other conductors per-
1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1962, formed Job—notably Lambert, who did
1966, 1968, and 1970), and on 12 Octo- it on many occasions in the theater
ber 1972, he gave it as the final work (“wonderfully” according to Vaughan
in the Vaughan Williams Centenary Williams)—Boult’s name is inextricably
concert at the Royal Festival Hall (tele- bound up in its performance history.
vised; published on DVD by ICA After Boult’s retirement in 1977 (he
Classics 5037 [2012])—a performance died in 1983), it found eloquent advo-
that Ursula Vaughan Williams de- cacy from the likes of Vernon Handley,
scribed in an unpublished letter to David Lloyd-Jones, Richard Hickox,
Boult as “the Job of a lifetime.” On Andrew Davis, and Barry Wordsworth,
16 March 1973, Boult even conducted all of whom recorded it. Others to
Constant Lambert’s reduced orchestra- conduct it included Walter Susskind,
tion with the Polyphonia Orchestra Bryden Thompson, John Pritchard,
(probably the only time he performed and Sakari Oramo. Andrew Manze’s
this version). At the age of 88, on recorded cycle of the symphonies (for
17 August 1977 in the Royal Albert Onyx) has been warmly received, and
Hall, Boult conducted Job with the in December 2019 he is performing
BBC Northern Symphony Orchestra. Job with the London Philharmonic
For those of us lucky enough to be Orchestra. But concert performances
there, or listening on the radio, it was are probably rarer than they were, and
an unforgettable experience (even Job has never quite established itself in
finer, in my view, than the 1972 perfor- the ballet repertory either: it’s very ef-
mance), and it turned out to be the last fective in the theater, but hasn’t been
of his 251 appearances at the Proms (a staged with any regularity (though as
recording of this magnificent perfor- well as occasional revivals at the Royal
mance is due to be released in autumn Ballet, it was staged by San Francisco
2019 by CRQ editions). Boult con- Ballet in 1992, choreographed by David
ducted the first night of a new stage Bintley). Shortly before his death
production at the Royal Opera House Diaghilev had rejected the proposed
on 20 May 1948, and returned for fur- scenario by Geoffrey Keynes and
ther performances there in 1955 and Gwendolen Raverat as “too English
1970. The 1948 production was de- and too old-fashioned,” but Lydia
scribed at the time as the first staging to Lopokova—who had been a dancer in
Music Reviews 325

Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes—wrote to rors were silently corrected in later

Keynes (her brother-in-law) on 7 August reprints of the study score. Now Rush-
1931 after seeing the first production: ton has sorted out some more ambigui-
“My chief pleasure was that it differed ties and errors, and he has also tidied
from the Russian Ballet tradition—the up dynamic markings and other details.
most important merit of Job.” Inci- His sources include not only the auto-
dentally, it was one of the first ballets to graph full score and the 1934 first edi-
be broadcast on BBC television: a tion, but also the hand-copied rental
slightly shortened version was given by score of Constant Lambert’s version for
the Vic-Wells company on 11 Novem- theater orchestra and Vally Lasker’s pi-
ber 1936 (with Robert Helpmann as ano reduction (both of which predate
Satan). From a purely musical point of the published full score by three years).
view, this luminous score has usually Significant changes to the note-text of
been held in the highest regard by the 1934 edition are relatively few (they
commentators on Vaughan Williams. are listed in Rushton’s textual notes).
Frank Howes, in The Music of Ralph One that occurs early on is the placing
Vaughan Williams ([London: Oxford of the violin I entry, 12 mm. after fig. C
University Press, 1954], 299) described (rehearsal no. 3 in the new score). In
it unhesitatingly as “one of the greatest the old score (p. 8, last m.) the violins
4
creations of its composer”—a view that enter half way through the third beat
I, for one, would not quarrel with—and (of a 2 m.). This has always been a puz-
Michael Kennedy believed it was zle since in the 1931 piano score—and
“equally splendid” as both a stage work in Lambert’s theater orchestration—
and as a concert piece, “where it has the violin entry is firmly on the third
the stature and cohesion of a sym- beat. That is how it now appears in
phony” (The Works of Ralph Vaughan Rushton’s score (p. 9, last m.).
Williams [London: Oxford University Some alterations are more problem-
Press, 1964], 221). He adds (p. 225) atic. I was baffled by a change at the
that “musically, it is a perfect reconcilia- end of scene II in the new score: the
tion of the various elements in his percussion parts in the last five mea-
style,” though he also points out that sures (timpani, bass drum and cymbal,
“Job is regarded as a wholly English all ! ) have completely vanished, de-
work. The Continental musicians who spite being in all earlier printings (com-
saw the ballet performed at Oxford pare p. 44 of the new score and p. 39 of
during the I.S.C.M. festival in late July the old one). Nor is this among the re-
of 1931 cavilled at the music’s lack of ductions to the percussion suggested by
novelty.” In spite of Bruno Walter’s en- Gustav Holst (which Rushton helpfully
thusiasm four years later, Job has only lists in his appendix II). In fact, I un-
rarely been taken up by non-British derstand that the omission of the per-
conductors: the American Thor cussion here was the result of a glitch
Johnson conducted it with the Boston during production; it should be a sim-
Symphony in 1949, the Czech born ple matter to restore it in a reprint.
Walter Susskind and Vilém Tauský con- There’s a questionable correction near
ducted BBC broadcasts, and more re- the start of scene VI: on p. 78, mm. 1
cently it was given at the 2014 Proms by and 2, the violin I part has “pizz.”
the Finnish Sakari Oramo. added. The commentary states that al-
Since the autograph manuscript of though this is not in the autograph or
Job served as the engraver’s copy for the the 1934 full score (p. 69, mm. 1 and
1934 full score, that edition had few se- 2), the “pizz.” marking is in Lambert’s
rious problems and several minor er- theater orchestration (which it is), and
326 Notes, December 2019

“in Boult’s score” (as reported to Rush- come from Vaughan Williams (given
ton by one of Boult’s pupils). There are Boult’s famous reluctance to tamper
two surviving scores in Boult’s library, a with scores) and for which Boult’s er-
full score and a miniature score, one rata is the only source, concerns the
unmarked, the other annotated—both climax of scene VI: in the timpani on
are in the possession of the conductor’s p. 88, m. 1, Boult suggests that the last
family (my warmest thanks are due to three notes should double the cello
Anthony Powers for his generous assis- line, playing E, A, B rather than the
tance with these scores). Neither of (uncharacteristic) A, A, A which is how
them has the “pizz.” marking in the they appear in all editions of the score.
strings at this point. There is also a list There’s a conspicuous wrong note
of more than forty corrections in Sir on the previous page of the new edi-
Adrian’s hand and that makes no tion: p. 87, mm. 4 and 5, the timpani
mention of it either. It’s a shame that roll should be on an A (doubling the
Boult’s errata list wasn’t known about organ pedal, tuba and basses), not a C
when the new edition was being pre- as it appears here (it is correct in all
pared: some of the errors he noted earlier sources). One troublesome note
were corrected in later reprints of the comes thirteen measures from the end
old edition; those corrections and sev- of the work (old score, p. 108, m. 2;
eral more have made it into the new new score, p. 120, m. 2): in the new edi-
edition, but a few have not (page refer- tion a % sign has been added to the last
ences are to the new edition): on p. 55, note (an E) in the cello I part. This is
rehearsal no. 25, the " marking in the neither in the autograph nor in the
violas is an oddity that has appeared in 1934 edition—and the 1934 score does
every edition of the orchestral score include a % on the first E in the follow-

preceding is a $. In Boult’s marked

(all the strings, including the violas, ing bar, seeming to suggest that the E
are marked # up to this point, and all
the others remain #); Boult, almost score, the cello note in question has a
certainly on Vaughan Williams’s advice, red pencil ring around it, indicating a
says “delete " ,” which makes musical problem to resolve, though it is not
sense—and Boult’s removal of the " mentioned in his errata. Something
marking is confirmed by Lambert’s certainly needs correcting here to rec-
score where the dynamics remain un- oncile the cellos with the harp, which
has an E %. Changing the harp note to
an E $ is one option that could work mu-
changed. On p. 59, two measures be-
fore rehearsal no. 27, the third note of

written C $ (not C %)—sounding B %)

the trumpet I part should, I think, be a sically, but persuasive evidence for
Rushton’s decision to opt for E % comes
matching the B % in the first violins dou- from Constant Lambert’s score which
bling the same line (this rogue trumpet also adds a % for this note in the cellos.
note is also wrong in Lambert’s score). From a visual point of view, one fea-
The frequent changes of key signature ture of the original edition of Job —and
in the “Pavane of the Sons of the of Oxford’s house style at the time—
Morning” can lead to problems with was printing empty measures without
missing or incorrect accidentals and rests, but as (literally) empty measures.
these have now been corrected, apart This was the practice in Oxford scores
from one: on p. 96, last measure, the until the late 1950s, but in this new edi-

be an F $ , as in the harp part (not an F &

first note in the first cello part should tion, rests are shown as we would
expect them to be. Other details of mu-
as suggested by the key signature). A sical orthography have been modern-
more substantial change that must have ized: the timpani tuning is not indi-
Music Reviews 327

cated on the prefatory staves for each more suggested cuts that Vaughan
scene, the presentation of the harp and Williams was unwilling to sanction (see
percussion parts has been tidied up, Simon Wright: “Ballet in black and
and the general appearance of the white: the ‘piano reduction,’ ” blog.oup
score is both cleaner and clearer. The .com/2015/02/ballet-black-white-piano
matter of the stage directions deserves - reduction [accessed 1 September
some mention. In the 1934 score, and 2019]). In both the old and new full
in this new edition, these are often scores, these passages are indicated in
shorter than the directions given in the footnotes “if required by the stage” and
piano score. I wonder if room might are never cut in concert performances.
have been found in an appendix to give To sum up: in spite of a few prob-
the fuller versions? With their refer- lems (notably the missing percussion at
ences to works of art other than Blake’s the end of scene II) which can easily be
illustrations—including named paint- put right in a reprint, this new Job is
ings by Rubens and Botticelli—they an essential addition to any Vaughan
are of interest in revealing some of Williams library. The appendix of mu-
Vaughan Williams’s thinking about the sic deleted by the composer adds signif-
visual aspects of his conception. Still, icantly to our knowledge of the work,
any readers wanting to compare the and Rushton’s other introductory mate-
different versions of the stage direc- rial provides valuable insights into the
tions can do so in Alison Sanders composition process. On a practical
McFarland’s article “A Deconstruction level, the note-text is not only more ac-
of William Blake’s Vision: Vaughan curate but also considerably more legi-
Williams and Job ” (International Journal ble than its predecessors. I hope Rush-
of Musicology 3 [1994]: 339–71). ton’s new edition will stimulate fresh
Lasker’s piano score is of general inter- interest in this glorious work, whether
est as the first appearance of Job in in the concert hall or in the theater.
print, and a manuscript copy of it
(marked “Copy No. II”) in Oxford Uni- Nigel Simeone
versity Press’s Archives includes several Rushden, England