Tchaikovsky's "Manfred": any suggestions on good recordings (Toscanini excluded)
Dennis
Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. The work has a relatively bad
recording fate.
Can anyone suggest the best performance of it especially by the
conductors of older generation (excluding Toscanini)?
A. Brain
news:32eb19d0.04040...@posting.google.com...
This much-maligned work, rather like two allegedly difficult
West Highland White Terriers I have rescued in the past
ten years (and turned out to be wonderful dogs),
has become something of a favorite of mine.
The Chailly recording is excellent sonically. The Rostropovich
is more exciting interpretatively. I understand that the Jansons
and Muti are well done, and they're on my want list.
I am shocked that someone like Bernstein, who excelled at
excess, especially in his later years, apparently disliked this
piece. I mean, what's not to like?
As for older conductors, surely this piece was one that
Stokowski recorded, but I am not sure.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
david gideon
<abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
> As for older conductors, surely this piece was one that
> Stokowski recorded, but I am not sure.
Sadly he did not.
dg
--
CD issues of long-unavailable classic performances from Scherchen, Stokowski,
Paray, Steinberg, and more, exclusively at: http://www.rediscovery.us
sam6...@earthlink.net
david gideon wrote:
> In article <RbLcc.13655$WO7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, A. Brain
> <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
>
>
>>As for older conductors, surely this piece was one that
>>Stokowski recorded, but I am not sure.
>
>
> Sadly he did not.
Sadly indeed -- this would have been a "Stokowskian" opus.
Happily Silvestri did record it and, after having explored most avenues,
there is no version I prefer to any of the four Silvestri versions I
proudly possess.
regards,
SG
David M. Cook
Muti/Philadelphia is excellent.
Dave Cook
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
news:32eb19d0.04040...@posting.google.com:
Not the most brilliant way to ask this question; there is no "best," only
favored recordings. But the one I favor is a live Maazel/Cleveland in the
orchestra's 75th anniversary box; it makes an astonishingly fine case for
it as a piece of music.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Raymond Hall
news:RbLcc.13655$WO7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> I am shocked that someone like Bernstein, who excelled at
> excess, especially in his later years, apparently disliked this
> piece. I mean, what's not to like?
Almost everything. Tacky stuff for such a great composer. The work is even
more boring than *that* kid found Shrub's speech to be. Wish I had taped it.
The kid and Bush, not the Tchaik. A classic if ever there was one.
I am assuming that Americans did see the kid and Bush episode, or was it
prohibited from being aired? Ever felt like the kid? Either, (a) listen to
the Shrub, or (b) listen to Tchaik's Manfred, and then you'll all feel like
the kid did.
<g>
Ray, Taree, NSW
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
A. Brain
news:ezOcc.1926$8P2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
> news:RbLcc.13655$WO7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> > I am shocked that someone like Bernstein, who excelled at
> > excess, especially in his later years, apparently disliked this
> > piece. I mean, what's not to like?
>
>
> Almost everything. Tacky stuff for such a great composer. The work is
even
> more boring than *that* kid found Shrub's speech to be. Wish I had
taped it.
> The kid and Bush, not the Tchaik. A classic if ever there was one.
>
> I am assuming that Americans did see the kid and Bush episode, or was
it
> prohibited from being aired? Ever felt like the kid? Either, (a)
listen to
> the Shrub, or (b) listen to Tchaik's Manfred, and then you'll all feel
like
> the kid did.
Well, Ray and I disagree about a lot of musical things, but certainly
not about Mr. Bush (or maybe I should say Mr. Cheney, since he
and Karl Rove are the ones really running things). Bush is the worst
president in American history, by far, and one of the worst
persons in American history. Cheney is one of the worst persons
in world history. Both owe explanations to our dead and wounded
soldiers as well as to the innocent Iraquis who are dead and wounded.
Both should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors--taking
the country to war for reasons that were ludicrous at best, and more
importantly, were purely political, designed to make Bush into some
kind of "wartime president". What a joke. This country had been
attacked before 9/11/01. Incredibly, some of the same kinds of
right wingers who claim, in spite of the best historical evidence,
that FDR engineered the Pearl Harbor surprise, don't realize what
Bush's handlers have done with 9/11/01. Like, what happened to
the Anthrax murderers, and what is Ashcroft doing about that?
Before 9-11-01, he was concentrating on prostitutes in New
Orleans.
87 billion dollars would buy a lot of security if it was spent on
our domestic vulnerabilities instead of on fantasies of Islamic
democracies.
Saddam was not too different from a number of other brutal dictators
around the world, or even the Middle Eastern world, or the Islamic
world. But notably, he was the one brutal dictator there who was just
a brutal dictator, and not so much an Islamic and ideological dictator.
That's one of the reasons the U.S. supported him in the past. He was
like a Tito in the Balkans, a bad guy who nevertheless tended to
make for some stability.
As Hans Blix said, Saddam put up a sign saying "Beware of Dog".
There was no dog.
Meanwhile, the pundits are saying that we can't "cut and run".
Years ago, about the time I was drafted at age 18 for prospective
slaughter in Vietnam, the pundits were saying the same thing.
As I recall, it took a Republican senator from Vermont to
suggest that we declare victory and leave. If Saddam was the
problem, he's gone. Now is the time to let self-determination
take over, for better or worse.
sam6...@earthlink.net
A. Brain wrote:
> Bush is the worst
> president in American history, by far, and one of the worst
> persons in American history. Cheney is one of the worst persons
> in world history. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
At the end of the day -- or beginning, rather, judging by what time it
is -- rmcr must be the place of wonders. Only here Mozart's C Minor Mass
gets bogged in Bertie Wooster's reckless betting and Dick Cheney gets a
warm recommendation as a marvelous conductor of the Manfred Symphony.
( :
regards,
SG
Sol L. Siegel
>> Can anyone suggest the best performance of it especially by the
>> conductors of older generation (excluding Toscanini)?
>
>Muti/Philadelphia is excellent.
You mean Muti/Philharmonia, unless there's a broadcast
transcription running about in the cd-burning underground. (He
did play it here.) OOP, anyway.
I've got a soft spot for Ashkenazy, which AFAIK has only made
it to CD in a three-disc set with the late symphonies.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"I really liked it. Even the music was good." - Yogi Berra, after seeing
"Tosca"
--------------------
(Remove "exitspam" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
David M. Cook
> You mean Muti/Philharmonia, unless there's a broadcast
Yes, you're right. I assumed it was one of his Philadelphia recordings.
Dave Cook
Van Eyes
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Martha & Russ Oppenheim
A very powerful Markevitch/LSO. The harmonium in the finale is next to
inaudible, which is OK with me because that's not my favorite instrument
anyhow.
Also, probably unexpectedly for everyone, Abravanel/Utah.
I much regret Toscanini's big cut in the finale (which expunges the
fugato followed by my favorite climax) and I believe there are other
small cuts scattered about.
I don't the work has been all that badly treated as far as recordings
are concerned. (It's one of my top Tchaik favorites, along with the
"Polish" Symphony)
Philip Edwards
the Svetlanov as my benchmark recording. Yes, the playing is typical of the
Soviet era, brass section prominent, but the sound is a little warmer than
some releases. Choose this if you want an excellent 'Russian' recording.
Although not currently available, it comes up on ebay fairly frequently.
Amazon is a good place to pre-order it used. Manfred is not included in the
set of symphonies by Svetlanov on Melodiya CD.
The only problem I have with questions like this is I have to listen to all
the versions I have again and re-evaluate them. Not really a problem
listening, just might take some time to give you my unqualified reply.One's
taste can change. I normally only reply to the group, but perhaps I should
reply to group & personally should you not have been persuaded one way or
the other.
In my collection - SVETLANOV. LITTON. SILVESTRI. PLETNEV. MUTI. SIMONOV.
LENARD. JANSONS. ROSTROPOVITCH. SINAISKY.
Regards, Phil.
"Dennis" <maria_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:32eb19d0.04040...@posting.google.com...
Vincent Ventrone
to
> the Svetlanov as my benchmark recording. Yes, the playing is typical of
the
> Soviet era, brass section prominent, but the sound is a little warmer than
FWIW I gave my copy of the Svetlanov away -- many people like it, but I
found it "blowsy" for lack of a better term. I would suggest the
Markevitch/LSO recording in the EMI "Great Conductors" series -- you also
get a fabulous La Mer to boot...
Adam Golding
i have no real basis for comparison, since i mainly know one set, by
abravanel--but i quite like it--the winds are strong, what with being
down in the bandlands and all...
Alan Watkins
> news:RbLcc.13655$WO7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> > I am shocked that someone like Bernstein, who excelled at
> > excess, especially in his later years, apparently disliked this
> > piece. I mean, what's not to like?
>
>
> Almost everything. Tacky stuff for such a great composer. The work is even
> more boring than *that* kid found Shrub's speech to be. Wish I had taped it.
> The kid and Bush, not the Tchaik. A classic if ever there was one.
>
> I am assuming that Americans did see the kid and Bush episode, or was it
> prohibited from being aired? Ever felt like the kid? Either, (a) listen to
> the Shrub, or (b) listen to Tchaik's Manfred, and then you'll all feel like
> the kid did.
> <g>
>
> Ray, Taree, NSW
I don't think Mr Hall likes this work:):) (which is fair enough, of
course). It is not boring to play because it is immensely difficult
and, in my opinion, far more difficult than 4, 5 or 6.
Tchaikovsky himself had a high opinion of it, writing to Madam von
Meck that "it seems to me that this is the best of my symphonic
compositions." He said much the same thing to one of his cousins but
offered it free to his publisher because he thought "owing to the
unusual complications and difficulty, it is likely to be performed
only once in ten years or so."
It was actually written between the 4th and 5th symphonies but
Tchaikovsky was the third choice composer. The idea was offered first
to Berlioz and then Balakirev who both turned it down. It was
Balakirev who passed it on to Tchaikovsky.
I would think that at least a small part of the success of Manfred (or
otherwise) would have to do with the conductor. This is a sprawling
score to manage but two I have played it for were Svetlanov and
Rozhdestvensky and it is my belief they could manage it. Balancing
the orchestra so that one section does not overwhelm the orchestra is
a major requirement in Tchaikovsky, given his propensity for writing
ppppppppppppppp and ffffffffffffffffffffff etc etc and is absolutely
essential if this work is to make an impression.
I would not personally have said it was "tacky" but certainly, in the
wrong hands, it can turn into a noise machine here and there. The
other problem is also quite substantial: it is a programmatic work
tied to a major literary work and I think it presupposes that the
listeners might put it into context with Byron's writing rather than
listen to it as "pure" unconnected music. It is very much tied to the
story line and, interestingly, has Manfred's leitmotif right through
the work (rather in the manner of Symphonie Fantastique?).
I actually think the third movement is almost "Mahlerian" in that the
dreamy musings are blown away by ominous repetitions of the Manfred
theme which undermines the quasi "happiness" and which, in the right
hands, can be very menacing.
I imagine you will not care much for the "infernal orgy" in the
underground palace of a demon that makes up the last movement but it
is certainly Hell to play:):) (Please note that Tchaikovsky grants
Manfred a degree of peace which Byron did not do quite so explicitly).
I am not going to argue that it is a great piece of music (for all
this is just opinion) but I do personally like it and I love the
challenge of playing it, which is something completely different.
Tchaikovsky certainly got one thing right: I would think I have only
played it once every ten years!!
I played a wonderful concert for Rozhdestvensky once which consisted
of Tchaikovsky Sym 1 and Manfred and they were among the most
wonderful experiences I have had. It could be that you do not like
Tchaikovsky 1, either, but Mr R can make that absolutely magical.
I've always remembered the performance because he said at the
rehearsal (of No 1): "Just remember, everything has got snow on
it!:):)
People have written about recordings I do not know (although I know
Silvestri to be a great conductor whose reward in England was to be
vilified by critics for his Tchaikovsky and which cost him his EMI
contract, but I digress) but my guess would be that in Manfred (and
quite a number of other things) that if the conductor believes in it,
conveys this in rehearsal and gets the balance right it may have a
chance of being at least worth hearing from time to time.
Suk's Fairy Tale might be tacky but it certainly can be improved by
someone who actually believes it is worth doing (aka lots of other
pieces).
As always, Vive La Difference!
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Audiophilia
> Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony.
Buy Muti. Avoid Previn.
sam6...@earthlink.net
Alan Watkins wrote:
[much of cogent apologia snipped]
> It was actually written between the 4th and 5th symphonies but
> Tchaikovsky was the third choice composer. The idea was offered first
> to ***Berlioz*** and then Balakirev who both turned it down. It was
> Balakirev who passed it on to Tchaikovsky.
Sorry, is that Borodin or something?
> I would think that at least a small part of the success of Manfred (or
> otherwise) would have to do with the conductor. This is a sprawling
> score to manage but two I have played it for were Svetlanov and
> Rozhdestvensky and it is my belief they could manage it. Balancing
> the orchestra so that one section does not overwhelm the orchestra is
> a major requirement in Tchaikovsky, given his propensity for writing
> ppppppppppppppp and ffffffffffffffffffffff etc etc and is absolutely
> essential if this work is to make an impression.
In fact, my strong personal preference for Silvestri apart, I think both
Svetlanov and Rozh have very good versions of this. I know one Svetlanov
and two "Rozh"'s. As regards Tchaikovsky's propensity for extreme
dynamics (I trust he goes as far as sextuple "p"s or "f"s in the Sixth
Symphony, right?), I've always taken it to mean more in terms of
emotional involvement and suggested color rather than absolute dynamics,
so you're totally right that a conductor should interpret such extreme
indications *in context* rather than ascribe them a certain number of
decibels.
> I would not personally have said it was "tacky" but certainly, in the
> wrong hands, it can turn into a noise machine here and there. The
> other problem is also quite substantial: it is a programmatic work
> tied to a major literary work and I think it presupposes that the
> listeners might put it into context with Byron's writing rather than
> listen to it as "pure" unconnected music. It is very much tied to the
> story line and, interestingly, has Manfred's leitmotif right through
> the work (rather in the manner of Symphonie Fantastique?).
Yes.
> I actually think the third movement is almost "Mahlerian" in that the
> dreamy musings are blown away by ominous repetitions of the Manfred
> theme which undermines the quasi "happiness" and which, in the right
> hands, can be very menacing.
I actually reached the conclusion that "Manfred"'s form is, if anything,
more organic then that of the "regular" PIT symphonies, insofar in the
latter Tchaikovsky attempted to compromise between the "received wisdom"
of the German symphonism and his highly individual melos, while in
"Manfred" he created "crazy" forms, subjectively judicious,
corresponding more to the organic tendency of his own materials rather
than to an imitation of the Beethovenian use of motivic development.
> People have written about recordings I do not know (although I know
> Silvestri to be a great conductor whose reward in England was to be
> vilified by critics for his Tchaikovsky and which cost him his EMI
> contract, but I digress) but my guess would be that in Manfred (and
> quite a number of other things) that if the conductor believes in it,
> conveys this in rehearsal and gets the balance right it may have a
> chance of being at least worth hearing from time to time.
It may please you to know that Silvestri's rehearsal plan (he made
something of a specialty out of performing this work) always consisted
in having one entire rehearsal with percussion only. One can hear why,
and what the advantages of that approach were, in his recordings of
which I have four.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
>
>
>Alan Watkins wrote:
>
>[much of cogent apologia snipped]
>
>> It was actually written between the 4th and 5th symphonies but
>> Tchaikovsky was the third choice composer. The idea was offered first
>> to ***Berlioz*** and then Balakirev who both turned it down. It was
>> Balakirev who passed it on to Tchaikovsky.
>
>Sorry, is that Borodin or something?
>
The jacket notes on my Svetlanov LP say it was Berlioz.
Chronologically that's not impossible?
bl
sam6...@earthlink.net
Bob Lombard wrote:
>>Sorry, is that Borodin or something?
>>
>
> The jacket notes on my Svetlanov LP say it was Berlioz.
> Chronologically that's not impossible?
Probably I mixed up some memories then.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
sam6...@earthlink.net says...
Ditto on that. Up to the present, no one beats Silvestri.
Dave Hurwitz
Phil Garon
> In article <XjLcc.18027$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> sam6...@earthlink.net says...
> >Happily Silvestri did record it and, after having explored most avenues,
> >there is no version I prefer to any of the four Silvestri versions I
> >proudly possess.
> >
> >regards,
> >SG
>
> Ditto on that. Up to the present, no one beats Silvestri.
>
> Dave Hurwitz
I noticed that Amazon.com lists "Manfred" recordings by Silvestri as
available on BBC Legends and Testament CD releases. Is one of these
more recommendable than the other?
pgaron
Alan Watkins
> > It was actually written between the 4th and 5th symphonies but
> > Tchaikovsky was the third choice composer. The idea was offered first
> > to ***Berlioz*** and then Balakirev who both turned it down. It was
> > Balakirev who passed it on to Tchaikovsky.
>
> Sorry, is that Borodin or something?
The idea for this work came from a Russian music critic (and my
failing memory does not enable me to remember his name) but who
thought Berlioz was the man for this piece (Berlioz had just given a
series of famous concerts in Russia) and used Balakirev as the
intermediary to suggest it. Nothing came of that and then the critic
suggested that Balakirev might like to attempt it. Instead of that,
Balakirev suggested it to Tchaikovsky and I am pretty certain he even
made "helpful suggestions" re scoring etc. Whether Tchaikovsky
incorporated any of these I do not know.
>
>
> > I would think that at least a small part of the success of Manfred (or
> > otherwise) would have to do with the conductor. This is a sprawling
> > score to manage but two I have played it for were Svetlanov and
> > Rozhdestvensky and it is my belief they could manage it. Balancing
> > the orchestra so that one section does not overwhelm the orchestra is
> > a major requirement in Tchaikovsky, given his propensity for writing
> > ppppppppppppppp and ffffffffffffffffffffff etc etc and is absolutely
> > essential if this work is to make an impression.
>
> In fact, my strong personal preference for Silvestri apart, I think both
> Svetlanov and Rozh have very good versions of this. I know one Svetlanov
> and two "Rozh"'s. As regards Tchaikovsky's propensity for extreme
> dynamics (I trust he goes as far as sextuple "p"s or "f"s in the Sixth
> Symphony, right?), I've always taken it to mean more in terms of
> emotional involvement and suggested color rather than absolute dynamics,
> so you're totally right that a conductor should interpret such extreme
> indications *in context* rather than ascribe them a certain number of
> decibels.
You raise a very important point. In the parts to Manfred that I know
there are the usual lots of p's and f's but I utterly agree with you
that to be successful with Tchaikovsky you have to interpret these in
context and I also agree that the only practical way to do that is to
take the approach that they are indicative of emotional involvement
and/or colour (colour) otherwise it degenerates into "who can play
loudest" and the music is the loser.
>
>
> > I would not personally have said it was "tacky" but certainly, in the
> > wrong hands, it can turn into a noise machine here and there. The
> > other problem is also quite substantial: it is a programmatic work
> > tied to a major literary work and I think it presupposes that the
> > listeners might put it into context with Byron's writing rather than
> > listen to it as "pure" unconnected music. It is very much tied to the
> > story line and, interestingly, has Manfred's leitmotif right through
> > the work (rather in the manner of Symphonie Fantastique?).
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > I actually think the third movement is almost "Mahlerian" in that the
> > dreamy musings are blown away by ominous repetitions of the Manfred
> > theme which undermines the quasi "happiness" and which, in the right
> > hands, can be very menacing.
>
> I actually reached the conclusion that "Manfred"'s form is, if anything,
> more organic then that of the "regular" PIT symphonies, insofar in the
> latter Tchaikovsky attempted to compromise between the "received wisdom"
> of the German symphonism and his highly individual melos, while in
> "Manfred" he created "crazy" forms, subjectively judicious,
> corresponding more to the organic tendency of his own materials rather
> than to an imitation of the Beethovenian use of motivic development.
Again, a perceptive point. I can understand that Manfred may not be
for lots of people because it is a radical departure for Tchaikovsky
(so far as I know he never attempted anything else like it) but
because it IS such a radical departure I do not think you can
musically pitch it against the symphonies. You can say that you
prefer the form of the symphonies but Manfred has probably suffered as
much as anything by being included as part of his normal "canon" of
symphonies when, to me, it clearly is not. This was, if you like,
Tchaikovsky let "off the lead" and out of the constraints of pure
symphonic form. Berlioz had the good sense to add Fantastique after
the word Symphony. Tchaikovsky did not. For me it is, however,
"Fantastique" which, I would suggest, is why it might appear "off the
wall" in relation to the usual six symphonies.
>
>
> > People have written about recordings I do not know (although I know
> > Silvestri to be a great conductor whose reward in England was to be
> > vilified by critics for his Tchaikovsky and which cost him his EMI
> > contract, but I digress) but my guess would be that in Manfred (and
> > quite a number of other things) that if the conductor believes in it,
> > conveys this in rehearsal and gets the balance right it may have a
> > chance of being at least worth hearing from time to time.
>
>
> It may please you to know that Silvestri's rehearsal plan (he made
> something of a specialty out of performing this work) always consisted
> in having one entire rehearsal with percussion only. One can hear why,
> and what the advantages of that approach were, in his recordings of
> which I have four.
Rozhdestevensky also had a percussion rehearsal. I would stress that
this is NOT a "playthrough" piece and I would think that any attempt
to approach it as such would be disastrous. You and others have
written warmly of Mr Silvestri and you describe him as "making
something of a speciality out of performing this work."
Mr Silvestri was a world class conductor but unfortunately did not
possess the guile or the PR mechanism to persuade the world of that
(so far as I know) although I am heartened to see his efforts worth a
thing or two on here. He was much loved by orchestras for being on
"top of the score" (see also Rozhdestvensky).
Glen Gould
To bad this got separated from the rest of the Manfred discussion.
I'm with Tepper in the full discussion about people using the term
"Best Performance" and I haven't heard some of the performances
mentioned, but of the non-Toscanini's, the Testament Silvestri is
really stunning, shall I say Toscaninian, and in excellent sound.
Much better than his performance on BBC Legends.
Glen Gould
Toscanini web site
http://www.laden-gould.com/toscanini
sam6...@earthlink.net
[SG:]
>>>>Happily Silvestri did record it and, after having explored most avenues,
>>>>there is no version I prefer to any of the four Silvestri versions I
>>>>proudly possess.
>>>Ditto on that. Up to the present, no one beats Silvestri.
>>>
>>>Dave Hurwitz
>>I noticed that Amazon.com lists "Manfred" recordings by Silvestri as
>>available on BBC Legends and Testament CD releases. Is one of these
>>more recommendable than the other?
> Too bad this got separated from the rest of the Manfred discussion.
> I'm with Tepper in the full discussion about people using the term
> "Best Performance" and I haven't heard some of the performances
> mentioned, but of the non-Toscanini's, the Testament Silvestri is
> really stunning, shall I say Toscaninian, and in excellent sound.
> Much better than his performance on BBC Legends.
If I may chime in my 2c: both recordings are wonderful and, imho,
preferable to the other recorded Manfreds.
I used to offer the same recommendation as the gentleman above
(Testament) and I agree that there are Toscaninian aspects to it. Now I
am not that sure anymore. I would rather say "both", really (if you like
the piece enough). It is not one of those cases in which the fan of a
certain conductor sees some very slight differences through a magnifying
glass and therefore claims that the whole world should have ten Eroicas
from the same conductor or so. No. The versions are noticeably different
in many details, from recording aspects (Testament's "rough" but good
mono vs. remarkable BBC stereo), general balances (I find the Testament
version more thoroughly thought out and rehearsed in what regards the
innumerable percussion aspects, while the BBc version excels in the
warmth of strings).
Fwiw, here's the comparison of the two versions I made about a year ago
followed by a short "update":
_________________________________
First: both Testament and BBC Legends have one terrifically valuable
Silvestri complement -- Liszt's "Tasso" on Testament and Respighi's
"Pines of Rome" on BBC Legends. It is hard to choose between them, but
those who got the Disky 10 CD-set I commented upon sometime ago already
have the Testament "Tasso" there -- it is the same recording.
Silvestri's Respighi is only available on BBC Legends. Funny, this also
was a specialty of another Romanian conductor, Celibidache -- Toscanini
also was quite good with it -- but I think I prefer Silvestri to both of
them -- the exquisitely "childish" polytonal themes in the first part
are thrown at the listener with undescribable joie de vivre while the
Great Crescendo in the last part is hair-raising, a genuine masterclass
in building up a climax in as perfect a cumulative dynamic curve as an
unavoidable natural phenomenon would occur.
Silvestri's "Tasso" has been described by some musical critics as the
best recording of the piece. In Gritten's book, one can read the
testimony of a fellow British conductor who thought "Tasso" was bad
music only to find it superb when he listened to Silvestri's
interpretation. 'Nuff said.
Now on to the "Manfred"s themselves -- both these recordings are my
favorite of the work, no question about that, and I've heard all or most
(some of them excellent) of the ones recommended in recent threads, plus
a Chicago SO Gennadi R broadcast. I'd even go as far as to say that
either of Silvestri's recordings may prove the best chance the skeptical
listener will ever get at going from the "Manfred is bad music" to the
"Manfred is [at least in part] astonishing music" opinion, as I did. (I
am waiting for *two* more Silvestri "Manfred" recordings: another, later
Bornemouth version and a Philadelphia one.)
That being said, if Manfred is what interests you most, the studio
version on Testament is unquestionably the first choice. Regardless of
its being mono as opposed to BBC's stereo, it is overall much better
recorded and notably better played. The finale is vastly superior to the
BBC Legends version in purely technical terms -- speed, articulation,
clarity of balances, proper presence of the (wonderfully employed by
Tchaikovsky) various percussion effects. While not absolutely impeccable
(Silvestri's many a risk-taking could seldom go there), it is
nevertheless one of the most impressive feats of orchestral virtuosity
I've heard. Tchaikovsky's remarkably original (if possibly inspired to
an extent by Berlioz) orchestration uses unusual registers of various
instruments as well as unusual combinations of the said registers, and
in no recording I've heard do those colorful features come through as
well as in the one on Testament.
Again for the "Manfred" itself, BBC Legends can't help but be a second
choice, perhaps for those who want the Respighi or who like the other
version so much that they would want to acquire a second one. Aside the
already commented upon global technical inferiority, are there *some*
redeeming features to the live BornemouthSO (BBC) version? I would
surely say so. Even technically, in the second movement the winds play
all those speedy serpentine filigrees with better clarity and (adequate)
"weirdness". However, what I really like about the BornemouthSO version
though is its increased degree of intimacy and "inner" (rather than
extrovert) emotion. Many of the lyrical phrases are even warmer, even
more personal than in the already hyperintense Paris [Testament]
version. The extended dreamy sections in the middle of (i) and in the
third movement are performed, I think, with a feeling of personal
confession which is touching to an extreme. So I wouldn't be without
this version either.
In short: for those curious to know what all this Silvestri-Manfred talk
is about, the way to go is Testament. For those who love the piece a
lot, going for both might not disappoint.
____________________________________________
Present comment: for what it's worth, I found myself increasingly
reaching for the BBC version and less for the Testament one, which now
strikes me as a tad too forceful and "played out", if that makes any sense.
Given that the BBC disc can be had for peanuts at Berkshire and that it
includes the stunning Respighi, I may now say "go for it first".
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
Dan Koren
news:Xns94C5ED78D4...@207.217.125.202...
>
> Thank you, both of you gentlemen; I'll at least try the Testament.
>
Don't leave home without one!
dk
Tom Deacon
Is that what your stopwatch concludes? Or is this one of those rare
occasions when you have tried to give some thought to the question?
In any case, nobody, not even Silvestri, was trying to "beat" anyone in
Tchaikovsky's Manfred. Music is not a race. You might give that concept some
thought. If you can.
TD
Glen Gould
> [SG:]
>
[Snip]
>
> _________________________________
> First: both Testament and BBC Legends have one terrifically valuable
> Silvestri complement -- Liszt's "Tasso" on Testament and Respighi's
> "Pines of Rome" on BBC Legends. It is hard to choose between them, but
> those who got the Disky 10 CD-set I commented upon sometime ago already
> have the Testament "Tasso" there -- it is the same recording.
> Silvestri's Respighi is only available on BBC Legends. Funny, this also
> was a specialty of another Romanian conductor, Celibidache -- Toscanini
> also was quite good with it -- but I think I prefer Silvestri to both of
> them -- the exquisitely "childish" polytonal themes in the first part
> are thrown at the listener with undescribable joie de vivre while the
> Great Crescendo in the last part is hair-raising, a genuine masterclass
> in building up a climax in as perfect a cumulative dynamic curve as an
> unavoidable natural phenomenon would occur.
>
>
>
> Given that the BBC disc can be had for peanuts at Berkshire and that it
> includes the stunning Respighi, I may now say "go for it first".
>
> regards,
> SG
Thanks for reminding me about the awsome Respighi! It definitely
supplants my love for Toscanini's. I would like to ammend my response
to say that although I still prefer the Manfred on Testament, the BBC
Legends is worth it for the Pines alone and you will get a still
wonderful by anybody's standards Manfred. I may now say "Get both!".
As I say on my web site about the 10 CD Disky set of Silvestri - "I
can give no higher praise to this great conductor than to say I would
be hard pressed to assemble 10 CDs of Toscanini that would contain
this much incredible music making."
Donald C. Patterson
glen_...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/9/04 12:48 AM:
> pga...@my-deja.com (Phil Garon) wrote in message
> news:<613e3493.0404...@posting.google.com>...
>> David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:<91390118.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>> In article <XjLcc.18027$Dv2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> sam6...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>>>> Happily Silvestri did record it and, after having explored most avenues,
>>>> there is no version I prefer to any of the four Silvestri versions I
>>>> proudly possess.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> SG
>>>
>>> Ditto on that. Up to the present, no one beats Silvestri.
>>>
>>> Dave Hurwitz
>>
So, what you're saying is that I should choose Silvestri
over...say...Marriner?
;-}
Don
Bob Lombard
I feel the necessity (dunno why) to point out that neither Samir's "no
version I prefer" nor David's "no one beats" says that the Silvestris
are better than all others. Maybe because I hold the Svetlanov in
approximately equal regard - for qualities compatible with but
different from the Silvestri version I have.
bl
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
news:26728527.04040...@posting.google.com:
> As I say on my web site about the 10 CD Disky set of Silvestri - "I
> can give no higher praise to this great conductor than to say I would
> be hard pressed to assemble 10 CDs of Toscanini that would contain
> this much incredible music making."
Sounds like a challenge to me!
I'll start with the Philharmonic-Symphony Beethoven 7th, the 1950 Debussy
recordings, and the 1940 Verdi Requiem. Next?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Ron Whitaker
It's too bad the Chicago Symphony has not issued their broadcast with
Rozhdestvensky from the late 70's-early 80's. It was one of the
greatest performances of the work I ever expect to hear. Stunningly
played, which is no surprise.
I have fond memories of Kletzki/Philharmonia on EMI. Anyone else
remember this one?
Ron Whitaker
A. Brain
news:UcQcc.3$k0...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> A. Brain wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bush is the worst
> > president in American history, by far, and one of the worst
> > persons in American history. Cheney is one of the worst persons
> > in world history. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> At the end of the day -- or beginning, rather, judging by what time it
> is -- rmcr must be the place of wonders. Only here Mozart's C Minor
Mass
> gets bogged in Bertie Wooster's reckless betting and Dick Cheney gets
a
> warm recommendation as a marvelous conductor of the Manfred Symphony.
A confluence or convergence is unusual, but then it seems that Bush,
a self-proclaimed "uniter, not a divider", has managed to unite Iraqis
against the invading and occupying "coalition". As more mosques are
attacked, and more innocent civilians are killed and wounded,
and the inevitable alienation of the Iraqi populace continues, it seems
reasonable to suppose that the stupidity of this Iraq war may become
apparent to even the NASCAR dads (most of them probably delinquent
on child support payments) who support Bush despite their economic
circumstances.
Meanwhile, some pundits are remarking that those who supported
the invasion had not much familiarity with history of the region, or
history generally. Of course, Bush probably hasn't even a notion
of what historical experience might have to do with the question,
but some more traditional "conservatives" like Pat Buchanan
were saying months ago, after the invasion by the so-called
"coalition", that Osama bin Laden is somewhere nodding his
head and muttering "mission accomplished".
There were actually some plausible justifications for
Vietnam. There were and are none for this fiasco.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
W F Hardman, Jr
> There were actually some plausible justifications for
> Vietnam. There were and are none for this fiasco.
vietnam attacked an american ship. yeah. fidel castro personally
assassinated jfk. art garfunkel had sex with my dad.
joew...@gmail.com
Terry
> The Silvestri/Philadelphia Manfred is here!
> https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/PASC490
Gerard
Very good recordings are those by Pletnev (both), Petrenko, Jurowski, Jansons, Markevich.
Sol L. Siegel
news:46b06f2f-dce2-4491...@googlegroups.com:
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Gerard
Listening now to Haitink's recording, also a good one.
markm...@gmail.com
> > Very good recordings are those by Pletnev (both), Petrenko, Jurowski,
> > Jansons, Markevich.
> >
>
> Ashkenazy!
>
>
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Mark
Lawrence Kart
juliek...@gmail.com
serg...@gmail.com
> I wonder if anyone knows about the best recorded performances of
> recording fate.
>
> Can anyone suggest the best performance of it especially by the
> conductors of older generation (excluding Toscanini)?
R. Mutti
Kerrison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJdei0M6jck
3mmm
<kerrison1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:40:25 PM UTC, serg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 7, 2004 at 5:24:32 AM UTC+2, Dennis wrote:
>> > I wonder if anyone knows about the best recorded performances of
>> > Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. The work has a relatively bad
>> > recording fate.
>> >
>> > Can anyone suggest the best performance of it especially by the
>> > conductors of older generation (excluding Toscanini)?
>>
>> R. Mutti
>
year old post?
d
Frank Berger
redundancy.
To pointlessly answer the question, Silvestri and Markevitch. Also
Goossens, who apparently doesn't mind extra letters in his name.
grac...@gmail.com
> I wonder if anyone knows about the best recorded performances of
> Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony. The work has a relatively bad
> recording fate.
>
> Can anyone suggest the best performance of it especially by the
> conductors of older generation (excluding Toscanini)?
Go for Yuri Abramovich with the London Symphony dated on 1977 on DG. Still available.
To me is the second best performance ever.
Hiram
John Fowler
Manfred dies at the end of Lord Byron's poem after refusing to renounce his life of sin, apparently doomed to hell.
But Tchaikovsky gave it a happy ending.
In the coda to the finale, he interrupts Manfred's death agonies with a majestic organ chorale, brass fanfares and a quiet fade to the end.
Seemingly Manfred has repented and is welcomed into Heaven.
I love Tchaikovsky's Manfred, but have always found this ending a disappointment.
And a bit silly.
In a 1989 performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, Yevgeny Svetlanov threw out the happy ending, and instead spliced the first movement coda onto the fourth movement, which prolongs Manfred's death agony to a desperate and final conclusion.
This is more than a matter of a few cuts, such as you get with Toscanini.
What Svetlanov did was morally indefensible, but I find it a great deal more satisfying, and fun to listen to.
He betrayed Tchaikovsky, but he was true to Byron!
Issued on Testament: https://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Manfred-Symphony-Haydn-No-100/dp/B00BUL97H0/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=svetlanov+manfred&qid=1587299000&s=music&sr=1-5
The finale (only) is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgP3aC_qwo8&t=567s
Surprising, since in 1967, with the USSR Symphony, Svetlanov made the first absolutely complete, uncut recording of Tchaikovsky’s original Manfred.
Actually, the revised ending may not have been Svetlanov's idea.
Yuri Temirkanov conducted it in the Royal Albert Hall when the St. Petersburg Philharmonic played Manfred at the 1992 London Proms:
https://www.amazon.com/Yuri-Temirkanov-At-BBC-Proms-Le-Corsaire-Manfred-Symphony-ICA-Classics-ICAD-5065-DVD-2012-NTSC/dp/B006VOX7PE/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8
The coda (only) is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLeITCu74ac
But without the rest of movement 4 (or movement 1) it doesn’t make much sense.
I wonder who gets the credit/blame for this idea: Svetlanov or Temirkanov?
markm...@gmail.com
3mmm
3mmm
Frank Berger
someone points this out long after others have done so. Just kidding.
Sort of.