Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Sir Edward Downes.
I - Tranquillo - Allegro: 0:00
II - Largo: 18:28
III - Vivace: 32:38
Lloyd's Symphony No.8 was composed in 1961, being orchestrated in Spring of 1965. The piece was premiered in a BBC broadcast in 1977, performed by the BBC Northern Symphony Orchestra conducted by Sir Edward Downes. This broadcast attracted much attention and brought Lloyd to public light after over 20 years of musical obscurity. The symphony then received its first public performance at Southwell Minster in May 1978, performed by the Philharmonia Orchestra (conductor also unknown). This was followed by another performance at the Royal Festival Hall, also with the Philharmonia, in 1980.
Like the seventh symphony, the eight is scored for large orchestra and divided in three large movements. Unlike the seventh, however, it carries no extramusical elements and is much more bright and optimistic in tone. Lloyd himself states this: "When I started this work I wanted to write something vivacious, with brilliant colouring and no particular program; this would be in contrast to my previous occupation with the Proserpine legend that had turned into my Seventh Symphony and had become one of my most deeply felt."
The score was written at a time of neglect for Lloyd's music. His early success in the thirties was cut short by his service in World War II and a horrible accident that left the composer recovering for decades. In the fifties Lloyd attempted to restart his compositional career, but by then his postromantic style was no longer appreciated, as modernism and serialism had taken over as predominant styles. Unwilling to change his language, eventually he gave up and became a market gardener, only writing music on his spare time, confined to a shelf with no hope of performance. It wasn't until the broadcast of Lloyd's Symphony No.8 that his music was rediscovered by the public at large.
The first movement is loosely structrued in sonata form. It begins with a substantial slow introduction, with a six-note motive on flutes at the very outset which is the foundation of the entire movement. The tranquillo is mostly composed on increasingly expressive variations on this motive, before a sudden and loud dissonance begins the main allegro. A rhythmic and angular main theme is presented, followed by a more graceful and dance-like second theme shared between strings and woodwind. A more lyrical idea is also introduce, but not fully exposed until a romantic climax on full orchestra.
Much of the music is built up by the bold use of washes of contrasting colour, the repetition of decorative figures, and the sequential working of the material. After a crescendo transition, the development of the material starts with fragments of the themes, quickly leading to a dramatic and passionate climax. After another transition, a varied recapitulation of the material begins, reaching another grand climax. The movement ends with a slow and contemplative coda that recalls the very introduction, ending with a gentle fade-out.
The second movement is written as a rondo. It opens with a mysterious harp ostinato, a muted horn call and darkly coloured woodwind phrases, which gradually reveal an expressive and melancholic main theme. Strings fully expose it before being taken by woodwinds. The rhythm of a slow, almost funereal march is adopted by percussion, as the material unfolds. Interjected there are innocent and brief allegretto interludes, offering contrast. An intense if short-lived climax is reached with fateful brass calls, before the main material continues to be developed and reaches a bitterly dissonant climax. An expressive recapitulation of the theme leads to a passionate climax on full orchestra. Eventually, after the allegretto has again reappeared, a solo cello leads to the quiet and wistful coda.
The third movement is rather free in form. It begins with a rhythmic and vivacious main theme, taing the shape of a tarantella. Lloyd himself recognized he was influenced Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony in this part of the symphony. Other motives and ideas either contribute to the rhythmic momentum or offer brief contrast, without being fully fleshed out. Lloyd's orchestration truly excells in this movement, being the most colourful an richly scored. A massive climax is reached near the middle, followed by a kind of development of the various motives as well as the main theme. As the music moves towards the end, the percussion is increasingly used; rattling xylophone, chiming glockenspeil and bells. A haunting brief Lento interlude reminds us of the opening of the largo, before a fast march leads to a boisterous coda with a triumphal chord.
Picture: "Arcadian Landscape" (1935) by Dutch painter Carel Willink.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/23rgu34o, tinyurl.com/2dpfbuol as well as the recoring's booklet.
Unfortunately, the score isn't freely available.
Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Sir Edward Downes.
I - Tranquillo - Allegro: 0:00
II - Largo: 18:28
III - Vivace: 32:38
Lloyd's Symphony No.8 was composed in 1961, being orchestrated in Spring of 1965. The piece was premiered in a BBC broadcast in 1977, performed by the BBC Northern Symphony Orchestra conducted by Sir Edward Downes. This broadcast attracted much attention and brought Lloyd to public light after over 20 years of musical obscurity. The symphony then received its first public performance at Southwell Minster in May 1978, performed by the Philharmonia Orchestra (conductor also unknown). This was followed by another performance at the Royal Festival Hall, also with the Philharmonia, in 1980.
Like the seventh symphony, the eight is scored for large orchestra and divided in three large movements. Unlike the seventh, however, it carries no extramusical elements and is much more bright and optimistic in tone. Lloyd himself states this: "When I started this work I wanted to write something vivacious, with brilliant colouring and no particular program; this would be in contrast to my previous occupation with the Proserpine legend that had turned into my Seventh Symphony and had become one of my most deeply felt."
The score was written at a time of neglect for Lloyd's music. His early success in the thirties was cut short by his service in World War II and a horrible accident that left the composer recovering for decades. In the fifties Lloyd attempted to restart his compositional career, but by then his postromantic style was no longer appreciated, as modernism and serialism had taken over as predominant styles. Unwilling to change his language, eventually he gave up and became a market gardener, only writing music on his spare time, confined to a shelf with no hope of performance. It wasn't until the broadcast of Lloyd's Symphony No.8 that his music was rediscovered by the public at large.
The first movement is loosely structrued in sonata form. It begins with a substantial slow introduction, with a six-note motive on flutes at the very outset which is the foundation of the entire movement. The tranquillo is mostly composed on increasingly expressive variations on this motive, before a sudden and loud dissonance begins the main allegro. A rhythmic and angular main theme is presented, followed by a more graceful and dance-like second theme shared between strings and woodwind. A more lyrical idea is also introduce, but not fully exposed until a romantic climax on full orchestra.
Much of the music is built up by the bold use of washes of contrasting colour, the repetition of decorative figures, and the sequential working of the material. After a crescendo transition, the development of the material starts with fragments of the themes, quickly leading to a dramatic and passionate climax. After another transition, a varied recapitulation of the material begins, reaching another grand climax. The movement ends with a slow and contemplative coda that recalls the very introduction, ending with a gentle fade-out.
The second movement is written as a rondo. It opens with a mysterious harp ostinato, a muted horn call and darkly coloured woodwind phrases, which gradually reveal an expressive and melancholic main theme. Strings fully expose it before being taken by woodwinds. The rhythm of a slow, almost funereal march is adopted by percussion, as the material unfolds. Interjected there are innocent and brief allegretto interludes, offering contrast. An intense if short-lived climax is reached with fateful brass calls, before the main material continues to be developed and reaches a bitterly dissonant climax. An expressive recapitulation of the theme leads to a passionate climax on full orchestra. Eventually, after the allegretto has again reappeared, a solo cello leads to the quiet and wistful coda.
The third movement is rather free in form. It begins with a rhythmic and vivacious main theme, taing the shape of a tarantella. Lloyd himself recognized he was influenced Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony in this part of the symphony. Other motives and ideas either contribute to the rhythmic momentum or offer brief contrast, without being fully fleshed out. Lloyd's orchestration truly excells in this movement, being the most colourful an richly scored. A massive climax is reached near the middle, followed by a kind of development of the various motives as well as the main theme. As the music moves towards the end, the percussion is increasingly used; rattling xylophone, chiming glockenspeil and bells. A haunting brief Lento interlude reminds us of the opening of the largo, before a fast march leads to a boisterous coda with a triumphal chord.
Picture: "Arcadian Landscape" (1935) by Dutch painter Carel Willink.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/23rgu34o, tinyurl.com/2dpfbuol as well as the recoring's booklet.
Unfortunately, the score isn't freely available.
![Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev
Scottish National Orchestra conducted by Neeme Järvi.
I - Allegro ben articolato - Poco meno mosso - Meno mosso - Tempo primo - Poco meno mosso - Poco più mosso. Tempestoso - Poco meno mosso: 0:00
II - Theme and variations: Tema. Andante (11:47) - Variation I. Listesso tempo (13:24) - Variation II. Allegro non troppo (15:21) - Variation III. Allegro (17:59) - Variation IV. Larghetto (20:00) - Variation V. Allegro con brio (23:52) - Variation VI. Allegro moderato (26:32) - Più mosso - Più mosso. Con precipitazione - Assai meno mosso - Tema. Andante molto, doppio movimento (31:05)
Prokofievs Symphony No.2 was composed between 1924-5, written as a response to the prevailing modernist musical trends in Paris; style mécanique, unbridled dissonance and extreme complexity. The composer was no longer considered the daring avant-garde as in pre-war Europe, so he feared his music was becoming old-fashioned, but the symphony failed to achieve its purpose. It was premiered in Paris on June 6 of 1925, conducted by Serge Koussevitzky (to whom the score is dedicated) as part of his Paris series of concerts. The piece had an ambivalent reception, failing to gain the success the composer expected.
The symphony went on to be performed in the Soviet Union on June 6 of 1928 in Leningrad, and on 30 November 30 of 1934 in Moscow, conducted on both occasions by Alexander Gauk. In a letter to his friend Myaskovsky, Prokofiev admitted to not fully understanding the work himself, as well as having doubts about his ability as a composer for the first time in his life. The work, unlike the popular classical symphony, never secured a comfortable foothold in the orchestral repertoire, being only sporadically performed and recorded. In 1953, Prokofiev projected a substantial revision of the work, planning to transform the piece into a three-movement symphony. Unfortunately this came to nothing with his death on March 5 of that year.
Technology and machines, the idols of the new age, pressurized into music. Thus, the symphony is a typical child of its time: as far as content is concerned closely linked to the prevalent uncritical faith in machinery, radical progressive thinking, and almost naive enthusiasm for technology. Prokofiev may have been inspired or influenced by Honeggers Pacific 231, the orchestral work about the locomotive whose premiere Prokofiev attended on May 8 of 1924. Prokofiev characterized this symphony as a work of iron and steel, formally modelled after Beethovens Piano Sonata No.32. Much later on, contemporary composer Christopher Rouse called it the best of all of them, and wrote his own Symphony No. 3 (2011) in homage to the piece.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with fierce trumpet fanfares, which leads to a forceful and violent first theme on full orchestra, constructed over several repeating rhythmic motives (ostinati). The music is characterized by the abundance not only of ostinati, but also textural thickness, polytonal dissonance and near-constant forward momentum. The music reaches a brief but intense climax, followed by a syncopated transition dominated by strings, piano and woods. Then a harsh and menacing second theme is introduced in form of a dissonant polytonal chorale, introduced by brass over wood ostinati figures, leading to an agitated and nightmarish second climax.
This musical onslaught to the ears is briefly stopped at the beginning of the development, with double basses and low brass with martial ostinati that are the root of the material. These are contrapuntally developed as more instruments are added, up to seven different voices as we reach a riotous and acid climax. The material is then vigorously recapitulated, growing into another nightmarish climax with the second theme. Both then are put in counterpoint in the opening of the frantic and dissonant coda, before ending with a sequence of baleful D minor brass chords, with no real sense of triumph or victory.
The second movement is written as a theme and variations. It opens with undulating strings, over which a melancholic and lyrical main theme is presented by the oboe. The first variation is in the same tempo and continues this subdued mood, with the outlines of the theme often obscured by the addition of ostinato figures on woodwind and strings. The second variation is more rhythmic and animated, with ricocheting gestures on woodwind and strings. The music build to a grotesque and dissonant climax, before returning to the previous section. The third variation is a scherzo whose aggressive exchanges between the sections of the orchestra frequently conceal the themes steady unfolding in the depths.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: Two Heads (1925) by the Russian artist Pavel Filonov.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/24edo8pb
To check the score: https://tinyurl.com/2xvky22b Symphony No.2 in D minor - Sergei Prokofiev](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8MaC62Lc71s/mqdefault.jpg)








![Symphony No.2 in D - Edmund Rubbra
BBC National Orchestra of Wales conducted by Richard Hickox.
I - Lento rubato - (attacca): 0:00
II - Scherzo. Vivace assai: 9:52
III - Adagio tranquillo: 15:40
IV - Rondo. Allegretto amabile - Coda. Presto: 25:47
Rubbras Symphony No.2 was composed between February and November 1937, immediately after the first one. It was premiered in a radio broadcast on December 16 of 1938, conducted by Sir Adrian Boult (to whom the score is dedicated), who would conduct it multiple times aftwerwards. No.2 is the second of four closely related symphonies Rubbra wrote in quick succession between 1935-41. He described them as being different facets of one thought, since each was a reaction to the last. The Symphony also reflects the agitated and turbulent times of Britain in the 1930s, also portrayed in William Waltons Symphony No.1 in B-flat minor, Vaughan Williams Symphony No.4 in F minor or Alan Bush Symphony No.1 in C.
Rubbra substantially revised the work between 1945-6, reducing the requirement for triple woodwind down to double. He also made cuts to the first movement and revised the ending to finish in D major, somewhat clarifying the symphonys ambiguous tonality: the original version began in D minor and ended in E-flat major. The revised version was first performed at the Cheltenham Festival in 1946, with the composer conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It seems it was revised again in 1950. When Boult was a guest on the BBCs classical music program Desert Island Discs, in his choice of just ten recordings to take if he were to be exiled to a desert island for life, Boult chose this symphony as one of his ten
Rubbra himself described the work with the following words: My 2nd essay in symphonic form was directed… to discover how far the interplay of melodic lines could be made to realize the dramatic tension necessary in such a work: how far melodic lines and units, without the adventitious aid of pattern and colour, could carry the weight of a large symphonic movement. Robert Simpson praised the symphony on 1978: has all the deep thoughtfulness and lack of surface brilliance typical of this composer, the most substantial of whose works will withstand long familiarity and deep examination. No-one who takes music seriously should fail to get to know this work thoroughly.
The first movement begins with an expressive descending scale on strings, followed by an ascending one on woodwinds. These are the basic elements that construct the (mostly) D minor lento, Rubbra expertly creating long-range tension in relation to the home tonality. A dramatic main theme is contrapuntally unfolded, culminating in an agitated and passionate climax. Follows a calmer section introduced by a flute solo, but a long crescendo leads to a powerful second climax, showing a rather unique combination of expression and architecture. A rhythmic motive, previously introduced in the end of the first climax, lead to the movements final peak, the most dissonant and dramatic in tone. The oboe poignantly recapitulates the opening descending scale before leading to the next part.
The second movement is a very free scherzo. It opens with a rhythmic main theme that shows the influence of Holst, the most notable of Rubbras teachers. A lyrical second theme is introduced by strings and put in counterpoint with the main one. As with the first symphony, all of this material is largely derived from the opening, and in some ways the scherzo can be regarded as a development of the previous lento rubato. The music constantly changes of time signatures (9/8 and 15/8) alla Stravinsky, while harmonically the music struggles between C major and C-sharp minor. There is no contrasting trio section, but a brief slower bridge before the scherzo continues its contrapuntal vigour and energy. A muscular polytonal coda ends the vivace assai.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section].
Picture: Landscape with archaeological remains set design for Giuseppe Mulè Opera Taormina (1937) by Italian Scenographer Carlo Santocito.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: https://tinyurl.com/27wuox8z, https://tinyurl.com/27z4lllr, https://tinyurl.com/25m9ve9t and https://tinyurl.com/2cw34m77
Unfortunately, the score isnt freely available. Symphony No.2 in D - Edmund Rubbra](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BLUdN7j476E/mqdefault.jpg)
