Norberto Guinaldo pieces for the year

Norberto Guinaldo, 'For this cause I came into this hour' (from 'Agnus Dei').

The Lent and Easter Music of Norberto Guinaldo. The drama of the Cross outstandingly portrayed in the following works: Seven Pieces for the Season of Lent; Agnus Dei (Six Pieces); Lauda Sion Salvatorem; Prelude for the Passion of the Lord; O Sons and Daughters of the King; "Lauda Sion Salvatorem" a shorter setting in the The New Paltz Organ Book.

For information:  www.guinaldopublications.com.  

"Wisdom and Kindness"  from the collection, A Woman of Valor, by Norberto Guinaldo.

"She opens her mouth and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31:26)

Number five in a set of seven pieces titled A Woman of Valor, "Wisdom and Kindness" is used here as a sample of the compositional style used in this set. Here the melodies are sinuous, undulant, and the harmonies lush and sensual. These pieces are based on Proverbs 31, which extolls the character of an ideal woman: a wife, a mother, a home maker, and a business partner.

For complete information: www.guinaldopublications.com

Gavin Black

The Art of the Fugue, part 6

I recently had a concert performance anxiety dream. This one was specifically about The Art of the Fugue, and it followed a common pattern: I was aware I was to perform the piece, and I sat down at the organ, but when I looked at the score, I realized that I had never seen the music before. I started to panic, but also to try to scheme: could I get away with sight-reading this? How slow could I play it without giving away what was going on? Could I leave out the hardest bits? I remember looking around hoping to see something happening that would force the concert to be abruptly canceled. The music on the page was not actually The Art of the Fugue. It was dense, chordal, and chromatic. The typeface looked like something French from the late nineteenth century. But within the dream I accepted that this was indeed the work that I was supposed to be playing. I had just somehow neglected to learn it.

I have this kind of dream once or twice a year, but I am pretty sure that these dreams usually involve playing at someone else’s behest, in chamber music or in a church service, not solo performance. My Art of the Fugue project is something that is being carried out only at my own behest. My decision to do it is a choice to focus on something that is specifically important to me and that I am utterly convinced I can only do well if I am very committed to doing it the way I want it to be done.

So why the dream? My only thought so far is that I am trying to remind myself that I should really learn the thing! There are always traps in any project, and maybe the trap with this one is that my sense of “ownership” over this work, my awareness that I have been studying it and interacting with it for nearly fifty years, my experience of being comfortable with it at a conceptual level will disguise how hard it is to play and lead me into complacency about the business of learning the notes. Maybe that is what the dream was about, or maybe not. Yet, any interpretation of a dream that reminds me to work as hard as I can to become as certain of the notes as possible is worth paying attention to!

Connections

The connection between the sense of understanding, inner commitment, ownership, and the nitty-gritty practical learning of a piece is a complicated one. At one level, there is the fact that, for almost everyone, focus and concentration are easier and more successful working on something we love than on something that we do not care about, or at least not very much. This is why I want students who endeavor to become more accomplished players to work on music they care about. The translation of time and effort into growth as a player is most efficient this way. Students do not know what music is out there as well as I do or another teacher does. The process of helping them to explore things that they do not know interacts in complicated ways with the goal of working on music they love.

Yet, I am wondering about something deeper. If one feels a deep bond with the music one is working on, what dangers does that invite? I believe there is a risk of assuming that the bond with a piece or a composer or a repertoire is in itself enough to make something come across to listeners. If I feel something while I am playing and listening, am I interpreting the music a certain way because of my love of the music? Is this hiding the necessity of doing something interpretively from me?

Overall structure of The Art of the Fugue

I now turn to some thoughts about the overall structure of The Art of the Fugue. There are two salient facts I would like to discuss. The first is that one of the movements is incomplete—the one that most of us take to be the final movement. Second, that there is some uncertainty as to the order in which Bach intended the movements to be played. There has been a lot of serious, thorough, and fascinating scholarship about both of these matters, each of which has a different set of interactions with performance. Regarding the final movement, there is the question of whether to play it as it has come down to us, breaking off abruptly, or to alter it in some way, either by completing it or by ending it at an earlier point than the break-off. As a set of choices this is probably more about philosophy than about scholarship or research. Scholarship, research, and analysis can, for those who wish to perform a completed version of the piece, elucidate different possibilities for that completion. There is also, however, the question of whether to play it at all. This is a matter that has to be addressed by a combination of scholarship and philosophy. It used to be fairly common for performers or scholars to entertain the possibility that this movement was actually never meant to be part of this work. I believe this is a rarely held view nowadays, and indeed the musical connections between this movement and the rest of the work are convincingly strong. To be fair, though, there are one or two quite recent recordings of the work that omit the long, unfinished fugue.

Anyone who sets out to perform The Art of the Fugue has perforce to end up making a decision about an order in which to play the pieces. And, speaking of recording, I have just completed a quick and random survey of a dozen or so CDs of the work, and no two recordings present the movements in the same order! This includes performances on organ, harpsichord, piano, and by chamber ensembles, such as saxophone ensembles, consorts of viols, and so on. These are mostly recent recordings, subsequent to the burgeoning of Art of the Fugue scholarship that we have seen over the last few decades.

(Further regarding recording: nowadays it is easy to set up a recording of the piece with each movement in a separate file, and with playing order to be determined by the listener. This could be as a set order or as a random “shuffle.” So I should say that any performance of The Art of the Fugue presupposes a choice by the performer about movement order. Only a live performance does so of necessity.)

There are two underlying causes of uncertainty about movement order. The first is there are two primary sources for the piece: a manuscript of most of the movements in Bach’s own hand from the mid-1740s, and the edition published in 1751 by Bach’s heirs. These sources have different numbers of movements and are presented in different order. The second source of uncertainty is we do not know how much input J. S. Bach himself had in the preparation of the printed edition. Therefore we do not know that he had signed off on the order represented there.

For example, it is possible for a performer to assume that, since the people who finished the preparation of the 1751 edition were close to J. S. Bach and worked with him directly on at least much of the project, the order that they created is probably the correct order. But this would be at best just an assumption, and there is a significant amount of scholarship to call it into question. A further complication is that the published edition contains elements that almost everyone agrees are not really part of The Art of the Fugue at all, at least not part of the integral structure of the work as a whole. For instance, there are alternate versions of two of the movements and a chorale prelude, the latter manifestly added to the end of the publication as a kind of compensation for its incompleteness and a memorial to the composer. I have never encountered or even heard rumored any performance of literally every note in that original edition in the order in which those notes are found there. So what were these early editors up to, and what did or didn’t they understand about the composer’s intentions?

You will probably not be surprised to read that we cannot answer that question. As I said, there is a lot of good scholarship on the matter, but that scholarship is often in disagreement. Every argument rests on assumptions, and while many of those assumptions seem sound, none of them seem rock-solid certain.

As a performer I must come up with an order. I notice, reading my 1985 program notes, that I then completely accepted the order that I had grown up with. This is the order that Helmut Walcha used in his recording, and I used the same order. This is almost the same as the order used by the early twentieth-century scholar Wolfgang Graeser, who is credited with rediscovering The Art of the Fugue, and whose edition was used as the basis for the first known public performance of the work, which took place in 1927. As best I remember, I did not particularly know at the time there were issues about movement order, since much of the scholarship on the matter has been carried out since then.

I found considerable structural logic in the shape of the piece with this order of movements. For example, I considered the placement of the group of four canons, with their two-voice and therefore relatively light texture right after the dense and complex Contrapunctus XI, to be aesthetically and structurally significant. However, the canons as a group are not placed after Contrapunctus XI in either original source, and they are differently placed in the two sources. Other performers find logic in spreading them out around the other mostly four-voice fugal contrapuncti. This uses the lighter texture to define groupings in the successive fugal pieces. Some performers place them after the long unfinished fugue, displacing it as the ending, and instead ending the work using the lighter textures to create a relaxed sort of coda.

I also found logic in the gradual introduction of the B-A-C-H motif, successively more open and clear in Contrapuncti IV, VIII, XI, and XVIII. Likewise, I find logic in the immediacy of the motion from the flourish ending Contrapunctus XVI—the four-voice mirror fugue—to the opening subject of Contrapunctus XVIII of which it is a very close pre-echo. This happens only if the appropriate section of Contrapunctus XVI is the last item before Contrapunctus XVIII. I also found the juxtaposition of Contrapunctus VIII—the first one whose subject opens with an interval smaller than a fourth—and Contrapunctus IX—the first one whose subject opens with an interval greater than a fifth—to be meaningful. This is only a juxtaposition if those two movements are indeed next to each other.

There are a number of questions that arise out of this complicated picture. If I see a convincing overall structure in this piece with a particular movement order, does that mean that this is likely to be the “correct” order, the order that the composer had in mind? (I will answer this one: no.) Or am I simply imposing that sense of structure because I am accustomed to that order and fondly want to believe the piece has a meaningful overarching shape? (Maybe.) Is it possible that if we really knew for sure what order Bach had in mind we would see that order gave to the work an even more compelling overall shape than we experience now?

Musical entities that are not just clearly one unit have a variety of shapes. To stick with Bach for the moment, The Well-Tempered Clavier is one thing (a collection of completely separate pieces, but ones constructed along similar lines to one another); a suite or partita is something else (a piece clearly intended to have an overall shape, but made up of movements that are in different forms from one another, each of which could stand as a piece in itself); The Goldberg Variations is something completely different yet a piece made up of clearly separate movements, but also with a clear unifying principal among the movements. Das Orgelbüchlein falls into the same category as the WTC. How about Clavierübung III? Unlike all of the above, it gets part of its unified or structured feeling externally, through the associations that we have with the hymns on which the pieces are based. It is also given a circular structure by the prelude at the beginning and the fugue at the end.

Which of all of these would seem very different if the order of the component parts were changed? It would probably depend on the specifics of the changes. For example, if in The Goldberg Variations, the return to the opening “Aria” were taken away from the end and placed somewhere in the middle, that would feel like a drastic change, probably a change for the worse. If the imposing “Variation 16” were moved away from the position that it occupies in the middle of the work that would probably seem odd and weaken the overall shape of the piece. Moving other movements around might make considerably less difference. In Clavierübung III, if the closing fugue were moved into second position right after the prelude, leaving the work to end with the four duets, the structure of the whole would seem radically different. If the four duets were distributed throughout the piece rather than placed in a group at the end that would seem like a real change as well.

In all of these cases we have reason to believe that we know what order Bach intended. With The Art of the Fugue we approach the same sorts of issues from a less anchored place.

I will continue this discussion next month, attempting to tie it in as closely as possible to some of the specific compositional details of The Art of the Fugue and, in turn, to performance as such.

To be continued.

Gavin Black

The Art of the Fugue, Part 1

Before delving into the principal topic of this column, I must first briefly revisit the subject of the last two columns, which dealt with aspects of the practice of listening to music. Shortly after I finished the May column, I was in New York City for the day, and I happened to notice, walking along one of the avenues, some bins of used LPs outside an antique store. I had a few minutes to spare, so I started leafing through the boxes. Midway through I saw a record of Brahms’s First Symphony. This is a favorite piece of mine, and part of my program for that day was to hear a concert performance of it at Lincoln Center. I pulled it out to take a look, as I wanted to know who recorded it. But there was nothing: no orchestra name, no conductor, no date, no recording venue, no clues.

I had just written of my experience noticing that students and other listeners have a habit of seeking out recordings online and listening to them without noticing anything about who the performers are. I presented this as being a characteristic of the structure of modern listening technology and a strong and well-accepted modern ethos. But it is interesting to be reminded that it also is not a new concept. This Brahms LP, monaural as far as I could tell, is an artifact reflecting the view that it is perfectly acceptable to listen to a performance not only without noticing who is playing, but also without having any way to find out.

Some of the implications of this would be fascinating to explore at greater length, and I will write more about it at some point. When we listen to a performance, especially when we listen to the same one repeatedly, what do we feel about letting that particular way of performing the piece shape our way of defining it? Do we think about this consciously and give the performance permission consciously and deliberately to affect us in certain ways? The history of this has been more complicated than I was remembering when I touched on it before. That in turn ties in with questions of authenticity, which we tend to think of as being about composers, and authority, which can come from any number of places—writings, performances, teachers—and which can influence us with or without our being aware of it.

Questions concerning Bach’s The Art of the Fugue

For this month’s discussion, I turn to Johann Sebastian Bach’s The Art of the Fugue, BWV 1080. There are a myriad of issues surrounding this monumental opus that open windows into our thinking about authenticity and authority in particular, as well as many different aspects and dimensions of what we do as performers, listeners, students, and teachers. With its length, complexity, and importance in the arc of the work and career of Bach, crucial questions about the work are unanswered and perhaps unanswerable.

So, what is The Art of the Fugue?

It is a work written by Bach over the last decade or so of his life, consisting of many movements—about twenty, but that is one of the areas that can be looked at a number of different ways—each constructed contrapuntally, some as fugues and some as canons. The movements are all based to some extent and in some way on a particular theme. The piece was published shortly after Bach’s death in an engraved edition, and while Bach certainly composed the bulk of the music, the work was completed by others. There are also surviving earlier manuscripts of some but not all of the work.

The theme mentioned above is found in Example 1. The theme in this form opens the first movement, which is a four-voice fugue on this subject. The first movement is the only one to open with a simple statement of the theme in exactly this form and the only one that is based primarily on this form of the theme. The variants of the theme that form the basis of the other movements include inversions, diminutions and augmentations, rhythmic variations, and versions with added passing tones.

One question that intrigues me, and that I will broach here and come back to in the course of these articles about The Art of the Fugue, is, why this theme? One answer could be, why not? After all, Bach wrote fugues on a large number of different subjects and must have improvised fugues on many, many more. However, I think that it is worth interrogating the ways in which this theme in particular might have lent itself to the extended and varied treatment that constitutes this long work. The Art of the Fugue theme was not, as far as we know, or as far as I have ever heard, taken from somewhere else. (As, for example, the theme of A Musical Offering was, or as the themes of all chorale-based pieces are.) Bach wrote a number of other fugues on themes that are largely based on a minor triad, like this one. That is true of the subject of the fugue from the Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542, and, in an even more thoroughgoing way, of the stand-alone Fugue in G Minor, BWV 578. The Canzona in D Minor, BWV 588, is based on a subject that could in fact qualify as a variant of The Art of the Fugue theme (Example 2).

(If that piece were dropped into the middle of The Art of the Fugue it would be quite possible to justify it, at least as far as themes and motifs are concerned, as part of the work. It would seem an interesting variant that the semitone by which the subject departs from the confines of the perfect fifth is the one going up, whereas in the original subject it is the one going down, and that the two of those outline the notes that give the minor mode its harmonic flexibility or instability.)

I have heard or read suggestions that this theme or subject is so simple, basic, plain, that it is astonishing that Bach could construct a massive edifice upon it: that his ability to do so is a particular proof of the power of his genius. I do not disagree with that conclusion, in that it took a genius to create this work. However, I am not inclined to agree with the premise. It seems to me that constructing this theme was indeed part of the genius: that it is specifically and purposely designed to carry the weight of all that was developed out of it, and potentially more. I will come back to this later on.

That brings us to one of the most famous and important things about The Art of the Fugue: that it is incomplete. The movement we regard as the final one, while already the longest in the piece, breaks off in the middle of a measure. It is not a neat ending; it is not the end of a section—just an abrupt crashing from music into silence.

The reason that fugue is incomplete is that Bach died before he could finish it. Perhaps, he had it composed in his head. It seems likely that Bach or any composer would have had to have a fairly strong idea as to where a big contrapuntal structure such as this movement was going before venturing on starting it. It is a complicated fugue with multiple themes. But that does not mean that he had worked out the ending in detail.

In any case, we do not have the last measures of this movement, and therefore we do not have all of The Art of the Fugue. This creates a set of dilemmas for performers. Should one simply break off, playing all and only those notes that we have, allowing the “ending” to be jarring? Or should the performer or performers play one of the many endings that composers, scholars, and performers have composed over the last hundred years or so? Or should one look for a nice closing cadence as close as possible to where the piece currently ends and stop there? The fundamental fact is that none of these portrays Bach’s true intentions.

I have always favored the practice of ending abruptly. This preserves a certain “purity” of playing only Bach. It also forces us to confront in the most direct way the fact that things do not always go the way we want. That breaking off is beyond jarring: it can be deeply distressing and filled with anguish. It is an ending determined, as endings often are, not by any person but by death itself.

There is no way to maintain that this troubling breaking off is what Bach intended. I have had colleagues point out to me that by playing only and all of what we have on the page, we guarantee that we are doing something that Bach could not possibly have wanted. And every completion that has been attempted has been predicated on some analysis of what Bach might have been planning. Therefore any one of them has a chance at least of being similar in concept to what Bach would have envisioned. If nothing else, the length of the piece gets closer with each added measure to wherever it would have ended up if Bach had been able to finish it. And the abrupt breaking off is replaced by a normal ending. In between, the further working-out of the counterpoint might well be something like what Bach would have done. That is presumably the goal for those who have written such continuations, and each person has brought knowledge, care, and analysis to that project. But it is not Bach’s ending, and the piece is no longer just a Bach piece.

The first published edition, supervised by some of Bach’s surviving family and colleagues, chose a version of the third plan. The printed edition ends with the last solid chord, so to speak, before the spot where the manuscript source breaks off. This is an A-major chord in a piece in D-minor and indeed sounds like a dominant. It is a chord, and the rhythmic structure of what has preceded it gives it some solidity. But it does not sound stable, which raises an interesting question about authority. This is the approach apparently sanctioned by those closest to Bach. What authority do we give to that? What do we know or believe about how likely it was that they got that idea from J. S. Bach himself?

We tend to believe that this movement, an ostensible triple fugue that was very likely intended to end up as a quadruple fugue, was clearly meant to be the last section of the overall work. It certainly looks the part. However, we do not know for certain that if he had had several more years, Bach would not have added much more. Perhaps this triple (quadruple?) fugue would have ended up as a centerpiece rather than a culmination. Or perhaps it was really intended to be a centerpiece even without more movements. We do not have absolute certainly about the intended order of the movements, only very well-informed guesses.

Speaking of performance: we also do not know for certain what Bach’s intentions were for the performing forces that are brought to bear on this work. The surviving manuscript sources and the first edition say nothing about what the music is “for.” It is all in open score—four staves for a four-voice piece, three for a three-voice piece, and so on. There are no instrument names or any words on the pages of music talking about instrumentation or performance. There is a significant amount of evidence that this was probably intended to be a work for keyboard instruments, though that is not absolutely certain. And accepting that, it is less clear whether it was for harpsichord or for organ. There is a tantalizingly similar amount of suggestive evidence for each. Another real possibility is that the piece was intended equally for each of those two instruments. There was a long tradition of writing music that fits that profile, mostly from the generations before J. S. Bach. And there is a great deal about this piece that suggests that the composer wanted it to resonate in part as a throwback to those older generations.

The question of what instrument or instruments to use in playing a piece is crucially relevant to performance, to put it mildly. And since this series of columns is really about my own efforts to grapple with The Art of the Fugue as a performer, I will return to this in considerable detail.

David Herman

It was the only paying job I’d ever had.

So said Ralph Vaughan Williams, speaking on the biographical DVD, O Thou Transcendent, as he talked about his first—and only—church organist position.

Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872–1958), arguably the most imaginative, prolific, and engaging British composer of the first half of the twentieth century, wrote so relatively few works for solo organ.¹ Why was this? Other twentieth-century British composers (such as Matthias, Leighton, Wills, Jackson, and, especially, Howells) contributed to the organ’s literature in major ways. Some say Vaughan Williams did not like the organ. It is more accurate, I believe, to suggest he did not enjoy playing the organ. It might have been difficult for him; he was, after all, a large man and had (as noted by relatives speaking on the DVD) long fingers and “enormous” feet! Others suggest his personal brand of Christian agnosticism got in the way of composing solo organ music.² But there are, of course, British organs in not only churches and cathedrals but also in many town halls and other non-religious concert venues. There was even an organ set up in his childhood home in Surrey so that he could practice.

Perhaps Vaughan Williams could not quite sort out how to translate some musical thoughts into organistic musical thoughts. In one of his many profoundly important observations on playing the organ, the late Erik Routley once wrote, “The organist must translate the [hymn] score into organ language [author’s emphasis] when he or she plays.”³

It is true that while many places in Vaughan Williams’s organ works have the ingredients for great musical expression, they are not entirely easy to bring off at the organ, due to matters of fingering, pedaling, and especially of texture. The same could be said of organ music by some other composers (Jehan Alain comes to mind), for which the player’s creative imagination must be called upon to combine with the composer’s notes.

It is the goal of this short work to consider Vaughan Williams’s views about and experiences with the organ and to examine the organ works that he left us. In so doing we will note some of the important influences on his compositional life, including his friendship with Gustav Holst, and especially his long and admiring relationship with the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. And, we will see that the organ had an important role in Vaughan Williams’s life from his early teens through his funeral in Westminster Abbey in August 1958.

A final theory offered by some in explaining Vaughan Williams’s relatively small output for the organ is that he simply couldn’t play the organ well.

I cannot tell that I think he is justified in going in for an organist’s career which is his pet idea. He seems to me so hopelessly ‘unhandy’ . . . . I can never trust him to play a simple service for me without some dread at what he may do.

So wrote Alan Gray, Vaughan Williams’s organ teacher at Trinity College.⁴ Vaughan Williams himself, likely with a degree of false modesty, was critical of his own playing. We should take care, however, in believing that he was not a competent organist, as many factors suggest otherwise. To begin with a significant milestone, he studied for and passed (in 1898) the demanding Fellowship exams for the Royal College of Organists (only to resign his membership a few years later). John Francis, Vaughan Williams scholar, author, and vice president/treasurer of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society, suggests that the situation above that Alan Gray complained of was due to the fact that Vaughan Williams was “unpredictable rather than technically incompetent.”⁵ Francis continues:

Self-deprecatory remarks by Vaughan Williams in later years have perhaps been taken too often at face value. We have no account of his [organ] playing by anybody who heard him play.

Further, Gray himself followed his lament by adding,

And this he combines with considerable knowledge & taste on organ and musical matters generally.⁶

This essay is not a biography of Ralph Vaughan Williams; fortunately, there are many excellent volumes available, some issued quite recently. Nevertheless, many events in his childhood, youth, and university days are intertwined with a study of his organ music. The reader will note at the end a list of some twenty-four sources consulted. Also particularly useful is the Timeline found on the website of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society: www.rvwsociety.com.

Vaughan Williams’s father was the vicar of Down Ampney (which Vaughan Williams pronounced “Amney”)⁷ in Gloucestershire. He died when his son was only two years old. His mother came from families of means: she was the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood (of pottery fame) and the niece of Charles Darwin.⁸ Let Vaughan Williams’s own words summarize the next few years, as spoken in Tony Palmer’s video, O Thou Transcendent:⁹

At age 11 [1883] I was sent to a horrid school at Rottingdean. Three years later I arrived at Charterhouse [1887]. They still sing my hymns there to this day. From Charterhouse I was sent off to the RCM [1890], and there I met a fellow pupil called Gustav Holst.

In his youth Holst had also secured a church position involving considerable responsibility. Vaughan Williams’s niece, recalling these early days with Vaughan Williams, remarked,

We used to laugh about Uncle Ralph but he wasn’t very good at the organ, and yet he was always playing for funerals or weddings or things.¹⁰

While at Charterhouse he was once greatly impressed by a schoolmate’s playing of Bach’s “St. Anne” fugue—a work that would remain a favorite throughout his life and which he himself designated as the postlude for his memorial service in Westminster Abbey.¹¹

During school holidays he practiced diligently, and the family even arranged for an organ to be installed at Leith Hill Place near Dorking, the seventeenth-century house in Surrey, wherein lived Wedgwoods and Darwins and which had become Vaughan Williams’s childhood home. (He later remarked that Dorking was “my home for nearly 40 years.”¹²) He inherited the house from his brother in 1944, whereupon he gave it to Britain’s National Trust.¹³ Breakfast at Leith Hill was at 7:30, and “Mr. Ralph” normally practiced beforehand. “The trouble about the early morning was finding a blower for the organ.”¹⁴ The butler, housemaids, groom, and gardener all avoided him!¹⁵ On Sundays he would practice long after the rest of the household had started to walk the two miles to church, usually arriving just as the service was starting. While a student at Charterhouse he was allowed to practice on the chapel organ. (One wonders what pieces he was working on!) In any case, from an early age Vaughan Williams seemed committed to the organ.

Throughout his childhood Vaughan Williams was steadfast in declaring his desire to be a professional musician. His family agreed, with the provision that he became an organist. (Thoughts were different in the late nineteenth century!) He later wrote:

I believe I should have made quite a decent fiddler but the authorities [!] decided that if I was to take up music at all the violin was too ‘doubtful’ a career and I must seek the safety of the organ stool, a trade for which I was entirely unsuited.¹⁶

It should be noted that when he subsequently left his only church position after only four or so years, it would seem that, although he disliked being an organist, there is no evidence that he disliked the organ.

The Royal College of Music

Vaughan Williams entered the Royal College of Music in 1890, just prior to his eighteenth birthday, and there became a pupil of Charles Hubert Hastings Parry. His family wanted him to commute, which he usually did by rail but occasionally on foot! (Really? London to Leith Hill in Surrey—some thirty miles! Far from the 200 miles Bach supposedly walked from Arnstadt to Lübeck, but . . . ). He often announced his arrival at Leith Hill Place by first having a go at the organ.¹⁷

While studying at the Royal College of Music he also entered Trinity College, Cambridge (1892), and there experienced a “spiritual awakening.”

As my mother insisted that I had a ‘proper’ education, I was sent to Cambridge . . .
what an awakening that was! You might almost say a spiritual awakening. The sense that even if you didn’t believe in God, there was something beyond. Something mysterious.¹⁸

Vaughan Williams would have heard many organ recitals and services at Cambridge and in nearby Ely Cathedral (whose organist then was T. Tertius Nobel, later to become organist at Saint Thomas Church, Fifth Avenue, New York City). Undergraduates at Trinity College were obliged to attend chapel services, and Vaughan Williams sometimes avoided this duty by retreating to the organ loft. At Cambridge he studied the organ with Alan Gray¹⁹ (organist of Trinity College) and left the university with a B.Mus degree in 1894, returning to the Royal College of Music in 1895. There Vaughan Williams began composition study with Charles Villiers Stanford, with whom he had a famously difficult relationship; Stanford’s comment on Vaughan Williams’s music often consisted only of “All rot, me boy.” Vaughan Williams, however, was in later years to speak warmly of him.

The Church of Saint Barnabas, South Lambeth

Vaughan Williams was appointed organist here in 1895. Since this was to be his first and only church position it seems appropriate to include here some details of the place and his duties. It seems that he held this post until 1899. Vaughan Williams describes his work there, again with some false modesty:

I was appointed to my first and last organ post, at St. Barnabas, South Lambeth. As I already said, I never could play the organ, but this appointment gave me an insight into good and bad church music which stood me in good stead later on. I also had to train the choir and give organ recitals and accompany the services, which gave me some knowledge of music from the performer’s point of view.²¹

This was a large church (originally seating 1,500 people) on Guildford Road in South Lambeth. The parish, as confirmed by the Diocese of Southwark office, exists no more.

The building, however, is still there, having been gutted and refitted as a series of “council flats” (low-income housing). Interestingly, when I visited there, the building manager was astonished to learn that a very famous composer had once served as organist of the church! Vaughan Williams presided over a largish instrument built by Hill and rebuilt by Bishop.²² At the time of his tenure the church supported an ambitious music program with a sizeable budget. The duties, for which Vaughan Williams was paid a salary of £50 per year, were demanding and time consuming.²³ His wife Adeline reported that he worked very hard and practiced on the organ up to five hours per day. For Vaughan Williams the salary was probably incidental to the experience.

He did not need to earn a living, having a healthy but not excessive private income. His work as an organist was for his continuing education, not to keep body and soul together.²⁴

His time at Saint Barnabas was not easy. He told his friend Holst that his choristers were “louts” and the vicar “quite mad.” The vicar insisted on the organist’s taking communion; Vaughan Williams felt that he, as a principled atheist, could not. So he resigned, without any apparent regret.²⁵ First, however, resolving to go abroad to study (with Max Bruch), he requested from the church, and was granted, a leave of absence. It is here that his friend Gustav Holst enters the picture.

Vaughan Williams and Holst

Vaughan Williams met Holst (1874–1934) at the Royal College of Music in 1895, and they remained fast friends for forty years until Holst’s death, going for extended hikes in the countryside and critiquing each other’s compositions. These “field days,” when they played and dissected their respective works were to prove invaluable to them both. Although in his youth Holst also had various tries at being a church organist, he was instead to become a professional trombonist (recommended as a treatment for his asthma).

He [Holst] left the College of Music to abandon the eminently respectable career of an organist . . . and to get at music from the inside as a trombonist in an orchestra. The very worst that a trombonist has to put up with is as nothing compared to what a church organist has to endure.²⁶

In taking leave of the organ bench at Saint Barnabas it was natural for Vaughan Williams to think of his friend Holst. There are somewhat differing accounts of the manner in which he broached the subject with Holst. Heirs and Rebels,²⁷ the collection of letters exchanged between the two composers, establishes some clarity. First, in a letter from Vaughan Williams to Holst, probably July 1897:

I am leaving this damned place [Saint Barnabas] in October and going abroad.

And then, contrary to some accounts in which he offered Holst the job, he in fact inquired about the latter’s interest:

Suppose you were offered it would you consider the matter? The screw [sic!] is £50 [per annum] and the minimum duties . . .

And here he lays out what sounds like a demanding list of tasks, working on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays, as well as running the choral society and giving occasional organ recitals. Vaughan Williams later states:

Mind I AM NOT OFFERING IT YOU [VW’s caps] only [sic] if you would like it I will do my best to Back you.

He concludes by asking Holst to deputize for him while he is gone and provides many specific instructions on getting through the service (pitches, cues, etc.). He suggests beginning the morning service with a “short and easy voluntary” and concluding with a “long and difficult voluntary.” He notes about the choir:

Those louts of men will slope in about 8.45 and make you mad—the only ones who can sing will be away.

As a postscript VW adds, “The vicar is quite mad.” (Does any of this sound familiar to us today?) In any event, the position was not taken by Holst but probably by William H. Harris (later a faculty member at the Royal College of Music and organist at Saint George’s Chapel, Windsor).²⁸

Vaughan Williams and Bach

Vaughan Williams showed nearly life-long fondness and admiration for the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, whom he placed above all musicians. He regarded the Saint Matthew Passion, a work that he would conduct many times, to be Bach’s greatest achievement. Vaughan Williams had clear and strongly held thoughts on performing Bach’s music. First, he insisted that, for his audiences, the choral works, including the Matthew Passion, be sung in English (a preference shared by the late David Willcocks when he was director of the Bach Choir). He did not have patience with so-called “authentic performance practices” of early music.

Bach, though superficially he may speak the eighteenth-century language, belongs to no school or period.²⁹

Vaughan Williams had a clear and oft-stated aversion to the harpsichord! He used the grand piano as the continuo instrument in his many Bach performances.

The harpsichord, however it may sound in a small room—and to my mind it never [author’s emphasis] has a pleasant sound—in a large concert room sounds just like the ticking of a sewing machine.³⁰

He had similar thoughts about the so-called Baroque organ, which in the 1950s put him distinctly at odds with those planning the new organ for London’s Royal Festival Hall.

By the way, I see there is a movement afoot to substitute the bubble-and-squeak type of instrument for the noble diapason and soft mixtures of our cathedral organs.³¹

It is interesting to note that the opening recital on the Royal Festival Hall organ included Vaughan Williams’s Three Preludes Founded on Welsh Hymn Tunes.

These views on instruments and performing practices may now be considered old-fashioned and out-of-date. They are, nonetheless, the beliefs of a great musician whose musical thoughts and ideas, planted in the mid-Victorian era, grew through more than a half-century of music making. “Vaughan Williams paid tribute to Bach practically, in his non-authentic but deeply moving performances of the major choral works at Dorking.”³² [For the Leith Hill Festivals, founded in 1905, which he conducted from 1905 to 1953.]

The Great War

The effect of war on musicians has been a topic of lengthy and interesting studies. In addition to the English composers who did not return from the First World War, the Second World War took the lives of many composers, including Jehan Alain and Hugo Distler, and affected the lives of countless others. Although space does not permit an excursion on this topic, it seems relative to touch on Vaughan Williams’s army service, which relates to his work as organist and church musician.

Vaughan Williams volunteered for military service in the Royal Army Medical Corps (in 1914, at age 42!) and from May 1915 was stationed at Saffron Walden where he spent considerable time at the organ of the parish church,³³ finding refuge from the horrors of war through playing Bach. At the outbreak of war he was for a time stationed with his unit in Dorking. When there was a death in the company and no organist could be found for the service at Saint Martin’s Church, Vaughan Williams offered to play, providing he could have some volunteers to form a choir. In the same year he was posted to a field ambulance brigade. The following year he was sent to France (at the rank of lieutenant) and was involved in the Battle of the Somme.

Vaughan Williams’s patriotic spirit was evident during the Second World War through his composing of film music to aid the war effort and in many types of volunteer work. For example, he regularly gathered scrap metal. His Thanksgiving for Victory was written and performed in 1945 in celebration of the war’s end.

Vaughan Williams and church music

We have seen that, with the one exception of four or so years at the end of the nineteenth century, Vaughan Williams never functioned as a parish musician. Nonetheless, his many choral works, large (Hodie) and small (O Taste and See), enrich the repertory of all manner of choral organizations, ranging from parish singers to concert choirs. His choral music was written not so much for places (as with Howells’s many settings of the services for various cathedrals and collegiate chapels) but for occasions (coronations, victories, and more).

One of Vaughan Williams’s most monumentally important works in the field of church music was as editor of The English Hymnal. In 1904 a committee headed by the Reverend Percy Dearmer³⁴ set about creating a new hymnbook, in succession to the venerable Hymns Ancient and Modern.³⁵ Vaughan Williams was invited to be the musical editor and, by his own testimony, in the process learned a great deal about music—the good and the bad. He introduced several new tunes of his own creation as well as folk melodies, making it a thoroughly “English” book. He succeeded in purging the new hymnal of many poor Victorian hymn tunes (while retaining the better ones), and those which he was forced to keep he banned to the back of the book in a section he called “The Chamber of Horrors.”

Songs of Praise followed in 1925, once more with Dearmer as general editor and Vaughan Williams, assisted by Martin Shaw, the musical editor. It is said that Vaughan Williams was thrilled by the sound of an enthusiastic congregation singing a great hymn. The same trio of Dearmer, Vaughan Williams, and Martin Shaw worked together again to produce The Oxford Book of Carols in 1928.

Organist friends of Vaughan Williams

Vaughan Williams loved the typical cathedral organs of the first half of the twentieth century and liked hearing them played. In return, many cathedral organists enjoyed playing for him—often at night when the building was closed, often playing works of Bach. Such special playings took place often—by Walter Alcock at Salisbury; Herbert Sumsion in Gloucester; William McKie in Westminster Abbey, as they worked together preparing for the 1953 coronation. After Vaughan Williams’s death in 1958, it was decided to place his ashes next to those of Stanford and Purcell in the Abbey.

Other prominent organists who were friends and colleagues, and from whom he no doubt learned much about the instrument: Thomas Armstrong, Ivor Atkins, Harold Darke, Walford Davies, John Dykes Bower, Alan Gray, Herbert Howells, John Ireland, Henry Ley, Christopher Morris, Boris Ord, Cyril Rootham, Martin Shaw, R. R. Terry, and George Thalban-Ball.³⁶

In considering Vaughan Williams and the organ, Relf Clark suggests an interesting comparison with Elgar:³⁷

Early in their careers, both were briefly the organist of a parish church. Neither of them appears to have enjoyed the experience very much. Both wrote for the instrument a handful of not entirely characteristic works. Both made notable use of the organ in a few orchestral scores. And both enjoyed the friendship and support of professional organists.

In a famous letter to The Daily Telegraph, January 14, 1951, Vaughan Williams makes some views clear, beginning with his thoughts on the “bubble and squeak” tones of continental organs.

Is it really proposed that we should abandon in favour of this unpleasant sound the noble diapasons and rich soft ‘mixtures’ of our best church organs?

He particularly admired the organ at Saint Michael’s Church, Cornhill (Hill; Rushworth & Dreaper), presided over by his friend Harold Darke, and believed it possessed the ideal English organ tone.

The works for organ

This essay offers not so much analyses but comments on Vaughan Williams’s music. For structural and thematic analyses of the organ works see the excellent articles by Hugh Benham [See “Sources and further reading,” B/2] and Relf Clark [See “Sources and further reading,” C]. It would seem that Vaughan Williams’s major organ works were conceived or written at Saint Mary’s Church, Saffron Walden, where he spent a great deal of time practicing while stationed there in 1915. The late Michael Kennedy, the chief authority on the works of Ralph Vaughan Williams, cites the following as “The Organ Works:”

• Three Preludes Founded On Welsh Hymn Tunes, published in 1920 by Stainer & Bell. The second prelude of the set, Rhosymedre, was played at Vaughan Williams’s funeral in 1958. Clark observes that the registrations in the score likely reflected the organ at Trinity College. He further suggests that Vaughan Williams first encountered these tunes when editing The English Hymnal (1906). The preludes are likely among the first works completed after his leaving the army in 1919.³⁸

Bryn Calfaria is at once the most interesting musically and, although fun to play, nonetheless the most challenging to bring off at the organ. It is dramatic and improvisatory; fragments of the tune are given out through a thick and tangled texture. Like many other fine organ works (some of Alain’s come to mind) the piece involves the player as interpreter: adding musical imagination to the text.

Rhosymedre is the most well liked and often played of the three. Simple, quiet, and gently dance-like, it states the tune twice, in a straightforward manner.

Hyfrydol makes a bit of an odd conclusion to the set: a very thick-textured setting of the tune (difficult to play, especially for those with small hands) above a constantly moving pedal part that romps over two octaves (get out your Gleason book to help your feet prepare).

• Prelude and Fugue in C Minor, composed in 1921 for orchestra and first performed in that year at the Three Choirs Festival in Hereford. The orchestral version was performed first (conducted by the composer). The piece was then arranged for organ between 1921 and 1930 (completed in 1921, revised in 1923, published in 1930). Vaughan Williams told the dedicatee Henry Ley that the work was modeled on Bach’s Prelude and Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546.³⁹ Ley (pronounced “Lee”), then organist at Christ Church, Oxford, commented on the piece’s difficulty. According to Ley, Vaughan Williams said that the work was written in 1915 while he was stationed at Saffron Walden using the organ at Saint Mary’s Church.⁴⁰ The prelude and fugue together occupy some ten minutes.

The Prelude is very well written for the organ. Vaughan Williams was attentive to details of registration (including frequent use of manual 16′s) and manual divisions. The piece has quite a lot of bitonal dissonance. Ley was right: it is not easy play, due to the constantly changing chord colors, large amount of chromaticism, and fast contrapuntal passages. Vaughan Williams employed chords in parallel sweeping lines, often in contrary motion. Thick homophonic passages alternate with longer sections of thinner, busy counterpoint, generating an ABABA design. The quick B sections are terrifically fast at the specified tempo of quarter = 120 beats per minute. Thinking I could not play it that fast, I initially suspected a case of “composer tempo overreach.” David Briggs, however, manages these brilliantly on the two-CD set of the complete organ music (original and transcriptions) of Vaughan Williams, Bursts of Acclamation. (Albion ALBCD021/2, available from the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society, https://
rvwsociety.com).

The prelude is somewhat impressionistic in sound, using parallelism, tonal vagueness (often resulting from mixed modes), the use of ninth and major-seventh chords, as well as tetra- and pentatonic scales. The result: the prelude clearly sounds like Vaughan Williams. It ends suddenly in C major, a somewhat astonishing tonality not really heard before in the piece.

For someone who was a master at contrapuntal writing and an ardent admirer of Bach, Vaughan Williams seems not to have written very many fugues. This fugue is a good one, a double fugue in fact, whose two subjects are first treated separately and then combined at the climax. It begins not so much in C minor but C Aeolian. The omnipresent triplets against duplets, which get a bit wearing (to this player, at least), is an element in both fugue subjects. Parallel chords in contrary motion, drawn from the prelude, occasionally interrupt the rather dissonant fugal entries.

• Two Organ Preludes, founded on Welsh Folk Songs, published in 1956. These are Romanza (“The White Rock”) and Toccata (“St. David’s Day”). These works are generally regarded as being less than indicative of the composer’s skill and imagination and not very “organistic.”

• In 1964 Oxford University Press published A Vaughan Williams Organ Album (still in print) consisting of transcriptions as well as the two organ preludes of 1956. Various composers, including Henry Ley, have made organ transcriptions of several of Vaughan Williams’s orchestral works.⁴¹

• Kennedy mentions an Organ Overture, from 1890 (the manuscript of which is in the British Library).⁴²

• A Wedding Tune for Anne, 1943 (contained in A Vaughan Williams Organ Album).

• Various incomplete sketches left at the time of his death.

Returning to the opening question

There are two Vaughan Williams organ works of relatively major stature, dating from during and just after the time of the First World War: the preludes on Welsh hymns and the Prelude and Fugue in C Minor. A generation later would come Benjamin Britten’s comparable opus, Prelude and Fugue on a Theme of Vittoria (1946). They have not much in common, save being one of few examples of their masters’ contributions to the canon of organ music. Both composers wrote for situations or performances: Vaughan Williams for the Three Choirs Festival in Hereford, for example; Britten’s was a commission from Saint Matthew’s, Northampton (for which he had earlier written the cantata Rejoice in the Lamb, containing some of the most original and dramatic writing for organ in any choral work). These preludes and fugues, valued for their singular stature, are nonetheless not entirely representative of their composers’ genius, language, invention, and musical imaginations.

Douglas Fairhurst suggests that Vaughan Williams, as a great artist, was more at ease and naturally expressive having a larger canvass for his music. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams commented that, while it was unorthodox to consider canonization for a non-believer, the Christian church owed a great deal to him for his contributions.⁴³ In any case, after his death in 1958 Vaughan Williams’s ashes were buried in Westminster Abbey, appropriately near those of Stanford and Purcell. Of special note: his was the first funeral service held in the Abbey for a commoner since that of Purcell, nearly 300 years earlier.⁴⁴

Supplement I: some other works in which the organ is prominent

The organ has played a central role in many centuries of choral music. Vaughan Williams realized the expressive and dramatic powers of the organ and used them to good effect in some of his orchestral works as well.

• Job, A Masque for Dancing. In Scene VI (the Dance of Job’s Comforters) we see/hear a vivid representation of Satan and his retinue in Hell. Included is a part for “Full Organ with Solo Reeds Coupled,” supplementing the full orchestra.

• A Vision of Aeroplanes⁴⁵ is a substantial late work (1956) for chorus and organ, setting familiar words from the first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel. It opens with a dramatic, dissonant organ solo that, as with subsequent organ interludes, reminds one of the organ’s use in Howells’s A Sequence for St. Michael, to be written some five years later.

• A Sea Symphony includes passages for organ, more for support, as a member of the orchestra, than for effect.

• However, the dramatic blast of chords occurring about 3/4th through the “Landscape” (Lento) movement in Sinfonia Antarctica, shows the organ as hair-raising, important, and soloistic.

Supplement II: selected choral works in which the organ has a prominent role

[These lists extracted from Neil Butterworth: Ralph Vaughan Williams: A Guide To Research. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1990.]

Vexilla Regis (for the Cambridge B.Mus), 1894

Mass (for the Cambridge D.Mus), 1899

Toward the Unknown Region, 1907

Fantasia on Christmas Carols, 1912

Sancta Civitas, 1923–1925

Three Choral Hymns, 1929

Flourish for a Coronation, 1937

Six Choral Songs: To be sung in time of war, 1940

England, My England, 1941

Thanksgiving for Victory (later A Song of Thanksgiving), 1945

Folk Songs of the Four Seasons, 1949

Fantasia (Quasi Variazione) on the “Old 104th Psalm Tune,” 1949

Hodie, 1953–1954

Supplement III: some choral music for the church

O Clap Your Hands, 1920

Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Refuge, 1921

Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis (The Village Service), 1925

The Pilgrim Pavement, 1934

O How Amiable, 1934

Festival Te Deum in F, 1937

All Hail the Power (Miles Lane), 1938

Services in D Minor, 1939

Hymn for St. Margaret, 1948

The Old Hundredth Psalm, 1953

Te Deum and Benedictus, 1954

A Vision of Aeroplanes, 1956

Notes

1. In this he does not stand alone, of course. The same could be said of RVW’s best friend, Gustav Holst (who around 1930 started what he hoped would be an organ concerto). We wish Alain and Distler could have had longer lives in which to continue their composing for organ. And, although the organ parts in many of Benjamin Britten’s choral works are tour de forces of rhythm, texture, and organ color, Britten, too, left us a regrettably small number of organ works (which reveal relatively little of his musical genius).

2. Many have pondered this seeming contradiction between belief and the creative settings of sacred texts. One factor: he had, of course, a life-long love affair with Elizabethan English.

3. Church Music and the Christian Faith, by Erik Routley. Carol Stream, Illinois: Agape, 1978, p. 105.

4. Quoted in Aldritt, p. 55.

5. Francis/2. [The booklet pages are not numbered.]

6. RVW/3, p. 42.

7. Palmer.

8. Reference to the famous remark about Darwin is irresistible. As a child, VW asked his mother what was all the fuss about Great-Uncle Charles? She replied that the Bible says the earth was created in six days; Great-Uncle Charles believes it took somewhat longer.

9. Palmer.

10. Ibid.

11. Aldritt, p.30.

12. Palmer.

13. VW/3, p.258.

14. Ibid., p. 28.

15. As stated by J. Ellis Cook, son of the gardener at Leith Hill Place; quoted in Tributes, p. 25.

16. VW1, p. 134.

17. Aldritt, p. 37.

18. Palmer.

19. “Our friendship survived his despair at my playing and I became quite expert at managing the stops at his voluntaries and organ recitals.” And then wrote Alan Gray: “I cannot tell him that I think he is justified in going in for an organist’s career which is his pet idea. He seems to me so hopelessly ‘unhandy.’ I can never trust him to play a simple service for me without some dread as to what he may do.” Aldritt, p. 55. VW clearly achieved significant improvement by 1898, when he passed the F.R.C.O. exams!

20. The British title “organist” usually implies “organist and choirmaster.”

21. VW/1, p. 146.

22. Clark, p. 9.

23. In addition to services, these included four choral rehearsals each week as well as giving occasional organ recitals. Kennedy, p. 41.

24. Heffer, p. 18.

25. Ibid., p. 19.

26. VW/1, p. 71.

27. VW/4, pp. 5–6.

28. F/5, p. 9.

29. VW/1, p. 122.

30. Ibid., p. 123.

31. Ibid.

32. Mellers, p. 158.

33. F/2 (pages unnumbered).

34. Vicar of Saint Mary’s, Primrose Hill, where his organist was Martin Shaw.

35. Hymns Ancient & Modern, first published in 1861, continues to be found, in subsequent editions, in some British church pews today, often next to The English Hymnal.

36. All listed in B/3, Personalia, pp. 315–345.

37. Clark, p. 7.

38. Ibid., p. 10.

39. F/4, p. 8.

40. F/3. p. 16.

41. For details of these, see Randy L. Neighbarger’s, “Organ Music of Ralph Vaughan Williams: A Descriptive List of Original Works and Transcriptions,” The Diapason, October 1991, p. 10.

42. K/2, p. 3.

43. Palmer.

44. Ibid.

33. Written for RVW’s good friend Harold Drake, organist at the Church of Saint Michael’s, Cornhill, the work sets the dramatic account of the whirlwind, cloud, and fire from the book of Ezekiel.

Sources and further reading

A: Aldritt, Keith. Vaughan Williams: Composer, Radical, Patriot—A Biography. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: Robert Hale Books, 2015.

B/1: Barber, Robin. “Vaughan Williams in Hamburg, 1938: A Brush with Nazi Germany.” Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal, Issue 66, June 2016.

B/2: Benham, Hugh. “Music for Solo Organ by Ralph Vaughan Williams.” Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal, Issue 55, October 2012, 3–8.

B/3: Butterworth, Neil. Ralph Vaughan Williams: A Guide to Research. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1990.

C: Clark, Relf. “Vaughan Williams and the Organ: An Anniversary Review.” Organists’ Review, August 2008, 7-15.

F/1: Francis, John. Vice-Chairman of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society (UK) in correspondence with the author.

F/2: Francis, John. Notes in the booklet accompanying Bursts of Acclamation, two CD recordings of organ works by RVW published by Albion Records.

F/3: Francis, John. “Composers of the Great War Revisited.” Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal, Issue 65, February 2016, 15–16.

F/4: Francis, John. “Ralph Vaughan Williams and the Organ.” Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal, Issue 63, June 2015, 3–11.

F/5: Francis, John. “A Question of Chronology.” Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal, Issue No. 74, February 2019, 9.

H/1: Heffer, Simon. Vaughan Williams. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2000.

H/2: Holmes, Paul. Holst; Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers. London: Omnibus Press, 1997.

K/1: Kennedy, Michael. The Works of Ralph Vaughan Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964; 2nd edition,1996.

K/2: Kennedy, Michael. A Catalogue of the Works of Ralph Vaughan Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

M/3: Manning, David, ed. Vaughan Williams on Music. Oxford University Press, 2008.

M: Marshall, Em. Music in the Landscape. London: Robert Hale, 2011.

M/2: Mellers, Wilfrid. Vaughan Williams and the Vision of Albion. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1989.

N: Neighbarger, Randy L. “Organ Music of Ralph Vaughan Williams: A Descriptive List of Original Works and Transcriptions,” The Diapason, October 1991, 10–11.

T: Tributes to Vaughan Williams: 50 Years On. A reprint of The RCM Magazine, Vol. LV, No. 1, Easter Term 1959.

P: Palmer, Tony. O Thou Transcendent (a video commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Vaughan Williams’s death). Isolde Films, 2007.

VW/1: Some Thoughts on Beethoven’s Choral Symphony, With Writings on Other Musical Subjects. London: Oxford University Press, 1953.

VW/2: National Music and Other Essays. London: Oxford University Press, 1987.

VW/3: Vaughan Williams, Ursula. R. V. W.: A Biography of Ralph Vaughan Williams. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964.

VW/4: Heirs and Rebels: Letters written to each other and occasional writings on music by Ralph Vaughan Williams and Gustav Holst. Edited by Ursula Vaughan Williams and Imogen Holst. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Photograph of Ralph Vaughan Williams by Frank Chappelow (used with permission)