released July 3, 2023

Beecham Symphony Orchestra
Sir Thomas Beecham, conductor

Tracks 1-4: recorded during August 1915
Tracks 5-8: recorded during September 1915
Tracks 9-11 recorded during February 1916
Track 12: recorded during July 1916

Production and transfers by Jolyon Hudson

Thomas Beecham’s first Columbia Graphophone Company recordings 1915-1918

Louis Stirling, who had in December 1914 become European manager of The Columbia Graphophone Company, saw an opportunity to seriously undercut His Master’s Voice [HMV] records, and was prepared to pay for it. To this end he began a vigorous campaign and launched a new double-sided ‘Celebrity’ label using the prefix ‘L’ for 12 inch discs and ‘D’ for 10 inch. These double-sided records were respectively priced at 4s 6d and 5s 6d each, whereas the HMV equivalent black label discs, which were then still single-sided records, were priced respectively at 5s 6d and 7s 6d each. Columbia’s pricing allowed buyers to purchase the same quality of artist and quantity of music at something like a little above a third of the price that HMV was charging its customers.

Gramophone records were still an expensive luxury, even at the lower prices that Columbia was marketing them. By way of comparison, a ticket for hearing an opera conducted by Beecham at Drury Lane Theatre cost from 1s 3d to 12s 6d, and an orchestral concert ranged from 1s to 4s.

The famous contralto Clara Butt had defected from HMV and she approached Sir Henry Wood on Columbia’s behalf, in a letter of the 29th July 1915. ‘The Columbia Co. know they have no real good orchestral records and that is why they are anxious to secure you. They are sure you would get fine results. I am empowered to make you this offer, that you sign a contact for 3 years. They guarantee you 300 guineas [£315] a year. Will pay your men a guinea [£1. 1s] per man each session … .’ Doubtless Beecham also received a very similar letter with a similar offer and so fairly swiftly began to make his first recordings for Columbia sometime in late September or the beginning of October 1915. Wood’s first sessions followed on shortly afterwards. The orchestra was on a reduced scale with approximately thirty players assembled for each recording session. Assuming Wood and Beecham were offered the same contract, and Beecham produced the recordings over nine sessions, then the total investment by Columbia would have been £1,228 10s of which Beecham would be receiving £945, or 77% of the total.

This first period of Beecham’s association with the company was to continue until August 1918. During this three year period there were to be eight sessions of orchestral music altogether with a special session in which Clara Butt sang Edward German’s patriotic song ‘Have you news of my boy Jack?’. It is worth noting that during the same three year period Sir Henry Wood, who was then considered to be the greater conductor, provided slightly over twice as many recorded sides as Beecham. Columbia in fact used Sir Henry Wood in much the same way as HMV used Sir Edward Elgar in providing prestige to their output. Beecham however was not to return to the recording studio again until 1925.

The first seven double-sided records in Columbia’s new Celebrity series were advertised in October 1915. These included two discs conducted by Wood, two of the cellist W.H. Squire accompanied by Hamilton Harty as pianist (one of which was a 10 inch disc), and a single disc of the London String Quartet. Numerically first are two discs of ‘The Beecham Symphony Orchestra. (Conducted by Thomas Beecham.)’ on L1001 & L1002. Beecham was to be ennobled in the January 1916 when the records labels had to be updated with the prefix ‘Sir’.

The Beecham Symphony Orchestra had really ceased to exist in 1914 and we now can’t be sure who the musicians are who are playing on these records. There is little doubt however the assembled band included some of the very best players from the various London orchestras. These musicians were generally hand picked for each recording session depending on the music being performed. This was demanding work so they certainly earned their guineas.

The recordings were all made at the Columbia recording ‘studio’ on the top floor of their headquarters at 102-108 Clerkenwell Road, London. The room was about 25 x 20 feet and approximately 15 feet high with a glass lantern roof. The walls were lined with vanished wood panelling and the room had a bare wooden floor which all helped to reflect the sound. The making of recordings had been greatly refined by 1915 but the main elements of a tapered horn, or horns, attached to a recording diaphragm had really not changed since Edison’s invention in 1877. The chief disabilities were that the amount of energy available for cutting a record was limited to the small fraction of acoustic energy that could be picked up by the combination of horns acting on a two inch glass diaphragm. To maximise the acoustic energy the musicians had to be grouped, almost huddled in some cases, around the horns to make an adequate recording. The weakest instrument, especially the strings were placed as close to the horn as possible and the more powerful instruments were placed at some distance away or removed altogether.

In order to produce a good recording the players were placed in an arrangement of five or six stepped rows. A typical arrangement would be to have at the front, and closest to the recording horn, two rows of violins (8), and violas (2). Behind and above them in another two rows were the cellos (2), the oboes (2), clarinets (2) bassoons (2) cor anglais (1) and flutes (2) and lastly at the back of the room were French horns (2), trombones (2) trumpets (2), tuba (1) and in a corner the timpani. The placement, number and combination of instruments would vary according to the needs of the music of course and those instruments, which had a prominent role to play in a particular composition, needed to be moved forward displacing several other instruments. The room remained static during the recording of a side, but subsequent sides often required a different arrangement. The musicians sat on wooden stools or high chairs that increased in height the further back they were in the room. This arrangement was designed to give each instrument an unimpeded view of the recording horn, even if this meant that the musicians’ view of each other, as well as the conductor, was completely obstructed. A certain amount of give and take was needed in this arrangement with some of the music being hung from the ceiling. Also several small mirrors were dotted around the room to allow sight-lines to both conductor and other musicians. The conductor generally also stood on a stool or platform to one side of the recording horn. As can well be imagined the recording room was cramped and could also get excessively hot, hence the need to generally construct them at the top of a building both for ventilation and the avoidance of any extraneous sounds.

This complicated arrangement was all done in order to achieve a vague semblance of orchestral balance when the record was reproduced. Despite the recording engineers’ best endeavours the inherent weaknesses in the recording equipment introduced serious distortions into the sound quality of the instruments, both by nullifying various harmonics and seriously reducing the frequency range.

To a greater or lesser degree modern software can rectify these distortions, however a different issue becomes apparent when such restoration is attempted. Although we can now more easily recognise the quality of the instruments and hear greater detailing of the players and performances, we also now recover the acoustic as it was heard by the players and sounding like a tightly packed band in a small wood panelled room. Certain sounds including the plucking of the strings played a few inches from the recording horn, a solo flute or clarinet, and other directional instruments played in close proximity to the recording equipment now seem excessive in places. The brass instruments at the back of the room on the other hand seem rather far away. The tuba, being altogether a rather powerful instrument, stood in for the double-bass and now sounds a rather dubious substitute. On top of this the delicate glass recording diaphragm got rather overloaded during some of the louder passages of the performance. The surface noise, inherent in the fabrication of the discs and the material they were pressed in, hardly helps.

The other obvious problem for the musicians and the recording company is that much of the music had to be both re-orchestrated and cut in order to fit the duration that recordings then allowed. This invariably meant that repeats are not taken and in most cases a central section of the music has been excised from the score for the greater majority of the recordings. This can be rather disconcerting when listen to the recordings today.

It very rarely occurred that music was ever speeded up to fit a recorded side. Beecham and his peers would probably not have countenanced any such expedient in any case. Indeed there is spare recording space for recordings to be longer from 30 seconds to over a minute on each of the these Beecham sides. We can be fairly certain then that the tempos taken in these recordings were unaffected.

Columbia Graphophone Company recordings of
Thomas Beecham and the Beecham Symphony Orchestra

During the period that Beecham first recorded for them Columbia aimed to produce two satisfactory takes for each recorded side that could then be forwarded to the factory for processing. On the day of recording several other takes would have been made but these would have been rejected for artistic or technical reasons and thus never processed.

The matrix numbers underlined with a solid line are known/believed to have been issued as pressings, with the other take usually being destroyed or kept as a back-up. The documentary material for Columbia is both lacking and incomplete and in many cases we do not know which take was actually issued in the acoustic period. We are fairly certain when just one of the takes was used but there are also alternate takes that were apparently pressed into use for matrix numbers 6560, 6905, 6922, and 6908. The surviving matrix cards, or rather stamper cards, as the recording ledgers and matrix cards no longer exist, are somewhat ambiguous so we cannot be sure whether some of these takes are possibly copy masters. Having compared several copies of Beecham’s pressings for these recordings I have not been able to identify any as being an alternative take.

There was clearly an attempt to ‘complete’ the Tchaikovsky ‘Pathétique’ and issue it on three discs. There was also an abridged form of Dvorak’s ‘New World’ symphony. However this would have needed at least a further four sides to make any musical sense and was evidently abandoned.

Session 1 : August 1915
6559 -1 MOZART: Die Zauberflöte, K. 620. Overture - Part 1
6559 -2 L1001 MOZART: Die Zauberflöte, K. 620. Overture - Part 1
6560 -1 L1001 MOZART: Die Zauberflöte, K. 620. Overture - Part 2
6560 -2 L1001 MOZART: Die Zauberflöte, K. 620. Overture - Part 2
6561 -1 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 17: Polovtsian Dances - Part 1
6561 -2 L1002 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 17: Polovtsian Dances - Part 1
6562 -1 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 17: Polovtsian Dances - Part 2
6562 -2 L1002 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 17: Polovtsian Dances - Part 2
6563 -1 L1020 MASSENET: Manon. Minuet
6563 -2 MASSENET: Manon. Minuet
6564 -1 STRAUSS, R.: Der Rosenkavalier, Op. 59. Act II: Waltzes
6564 -2 L1020 STRAUSS, R.: Der Rosenkavalier, Op. 59. Act II: Waltzes

Session 2 : September 1915
6601 -1 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 18: Préludé ‘Polovtsi March’
6601 -2 L1011 BORODIN: Prince Igor. No. 18: Préludé ‘Polovtsi March’
6602 -1 L1016 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 2nd movement (abridged)
6602 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 2nd movement (abridged)
6603 -1 L1016 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 3rd Movement (abridged)
6603 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 3rd Movement (abridged)
6604 -1 L1011 RIMSKY-KORSAKOV: Symphony No. 2, Op.9,"Antar" Movement 3: March
6604 -2 RIMSKY-KORSAKOV: Symphony No. 2, Op.9,"Antar" Movement 3: March

Session 3 : February 1916
6797 -1 STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite - Dance of the Firebird & Scherzo
6797 -2 L1040 STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite - Dance of the Firebird & Scherzo
6798 -1 [STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite – unknown selection]
6798 -2 [STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite – unknown selection]
6799 -1 STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite - Infernal Dance
6799 -2 L1040 STRAVINSKY: The Firebird. Ballet Suite - Infernal Dance
6800 -1 MENDELSSOHN: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Incidental Music, Op. 61. Scherzo
6800 -2 L1075 MENDELSSOHN: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Incidental Music, Op. 61. Scherzo
Session 4 : July 1916
6904 -1 L1132 MOZART: Divertimento in D, K. 131. Minuet
6904 -2 MOZART: Divertimento in D, K. 131. Minuet
6905 -1 L1075 ROSSINI : The Barber of Seville. Overture
6905 -2 L1075 ROSSINI : The Barber of Seville. Overture
6906 -1 [BERLIOZ: Roman Carnival Overture, Op. 9 - Part 1 - conjectural title]
6906 -2 [BERLIOZ: Roman Carnival Overture, Op. 9 - Part 1 - conjectural title]
6907 -1 L1105 BERLIOZ: Roman Carnival Overture, Op. 9 - [Part 2]
6907 -2 BERLIOZ: Roman Carnival Overture, Op. 9 - [Part 2]
6908 -1 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Overture
6908 -2 L1115 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Overture

Session 5 : July 1916
6918 -1 L1162 SIBELIUS: Kuolema, Op. 44. Valse triste
6918 -2 SIBELIUS: Kuolema, Op. 44. Valse triste
6919 -1 SMETANA: The Bartered Bride. Overture
6919 -2 L1115 SMETANA: The Bartered Bride. Overture
6920 -1 GRIEG: Symphonie Dance, Op. 64, No. 2
6920 -2 L1132 GRIEG: Symphonie Dance, Op. 64, No. 2
6921 -1 GOUNOD: Romeo et Juliette. March
6921 -2 L1132 GOUNOD: Romeo et Juliette. March
6922 -1 L1104 WEBER: Oberon. Overture - Part 1
6922 -2 L1104 WEBER: Oberon. Overture - Part 1
6923 -1 L1104 WEBER: Oberon. Overture - Part 2
6923 -2 WEBER: Oberon. Overture - Part 2
6924 -1 L1105 BERLIOZ: Le Damnation de Faust. Marche hongroise
6924 -2 BERLIOZ: Le Damnation de Faust. Marche hongroise
6908 -3 L1115 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Overture
6908 -4 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Overture

Session 6 : February 1917
75414 -1 GERMAN: Have you news of my boy Jack? (with Clara Butt, contralto)
75414 -2 7145 GERMAN: Have you news of my boy Jack? (with Clara Butt, contralto)
75415 -1 Unknown song sung by Clara Butt

Session 7 : September 1917
76033 -1 BORODIN: Prince Igor. Overture
76033 -2 BORODIN: Prince Igor. Overture
76034 -1 BORODIN: Prince Igor. Overture
76034 -2 BORODIN: Prince Igor. Overture
76035 -1 [MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Sarabande]?
76035 -2 [MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Sarabande]?
76036 -1 BIZET: Jolie Fille de Perth. Minuet
76036 -2 BIZET: Jolie Fille de Perth. Minuet
76037 -1 L1227 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Sarabande & LULLY: Les Amants Magnifiques. Minuet
76037 -2 MOZART: Le Nozze di Figaro, K. 492. Sarabande & LULLY: Les Amants Magnifiques. Minuet

Session 8 : July or early August 1918
76216 -1 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 4th Movement Part 1
76216 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 4th Movement Part 1
76217 -1 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 4th Movement Part 2
76217 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 4th Movement Part 2
76218 -1 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 1st Movement Part 1
76218 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 1st Movement Part 1
76219 -1 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 1st Movement Part 2
76219 -2 TCHAIKOVSKY: Symphony No. 6 in b, Op. 74, ‘Pathétique’ 1st Movement Part 2
76220 -1 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 1)
76220 -2 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 1)
76221 -1 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 2)?
76221 -2 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 2)?
76222 -1 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 3)?
76222 -2 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 3)?

Session 9 : Late July or early August 1918
76223 -1 SCHUMANN: Manfred, Op. 115 Ballet dances: Fantastic, Burla, Valse [see note below]
76223 -2 SCHUMANN: Manfred, Op. 115 Ballet dances: Fantastic, Burla, Valse
76224 -1 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 4)
76224 -2 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 4)
76225 -1 L1248 DEBUSSY: Petite Suite (orch. Busser) En bateau
76225 -2 DEBUSSY: Petite Suite (orch. Busser) En bateau
76226 -1 L1248 DEBUSSY: Petite Suite (orch. Busser) Ballet
76225 -2 DEBUSSY: Petite Suite (orch. Busser) Ballet
76221 -3 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 2)?
76221 -4 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 2)?
76222 -3 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 3)?
76222 -4 DVORAK: Symphony No. 9 in E, Op. 95, From the New World (Part 3)?

Note: The music that formed the content of Matrix 76223 is explained in a review in The Musical Times, of 1st September 1918: ‘Byron's gloomy tragedy ‘Manfred’ was performed on July 28 (Sunday) and 29, under the auspices of the Incorporated Stage Society. Schumann's music was performed by the Beecham Opera Company, under Sir Thomas Beecham. Besides the music written expressly by the composer for the poem, other of his compositions were drawn upon with fine judgment and excellent effect. The “Album Leaves,” the second of the two Romances, and the 'Rhenish' Symphony provided entr'actes and a highly attractive ballet. The whole production was boldly conceived and carried out. Neither poet nor the composer intended their work for the stage, but notwithstanding this drawback it must be acknowledged that, decked-out as it was on this occasion, it was remarkably acceptable. If Schumann is not always at his best in the incidental music, he has done nothing finer than the Overture, and there are moments of appealing beauty and there, the scene between Manfred and the Water Spirit being one of these. The whole performance had been prepared with the care with which we associate Sir Thomas Beecham. Mr. Courtenay Thorpe acted the part of Manfred with distinction, and Miss Edith Evans made the most of the part of Neme.’

Jolyon Hudson