Stravinsky review of Sacre de Printemps recordings

[woytek]

Four years ago Wagner Fan in RMCR posted final thoughts from Igor Stravinsky famous review published in 1965 Hi Fi Stereo about Boulez, Craft and Karajan recordings of “Sacre de Printemps”. Maybe someone has the full text and could share it? Thanks in advance!

[woytek]

W dniu niedziela, 26 maja 2013 15:50:33 UTC+2 użytkownik woytek napisał:
> Four years ago Wagner Fan in RMCR posted final thoughts from Igor Stravinsky famous review published in 1965 Hi Fi Stereo about Boulez, Craft and Karajan recordings of “Sacre de Printemps”. Maybe someone has the full text and could share it? Thanks in advance!

ok i've just found it in Google Books, if someone is interested it's pages 81-90 in Robert Craft and Igor Stravinsky "Dialogues" published by UCP in 1982

[William Sommerwerck]

Fascinating.

It's easy to criticize Stravinsky for insisting that his work be performed
"just so". After all, a good work of art has enough "layers" and
"implications" to justify varied interpretations. But when the conductors
ignore what is written in the score, Igor certainly has the -- uh -- right to
excoriate them.

On the other hand, there's a bit of hypocrisy here. Stravinsky complains that
none of these performances is sufficiently "savage". Fine, but neither is his.
(Or is it Craft's? Does anyone know who conducted the Columbia set?)

[woytek]

It’s very precise review I must say at the same time he criticized recordings which compete with his own form the commercial point of view.
And this cruel phrase at the end: none of the three performances is good enough to be preserved. Strong statesmen!

[peter gutmann]

It seems important to recognize that the Stravinsky who wrote in 1965,
as well as the conductor of each of his three recordings -- even the
1929 "creator's" recording that can be cited as the most authentic of
all -- were not by the same man who composed the Rite. Even by 1929
Stravinsky's aesthetics had evolved radically and had considerably
mellowed from those of the firebrand he was in 1913.

[greg lee]

On May 26, 3:50 am, woytek <bar...@op.pl> wrote:
> Four years ago Wagner Fan in RMCR posted final thoughts from Igor Stravinsky famous review published in 1965 Hi Fi Stereo about Boulez, Craft and Karajan recordings of “Sacre de Printemps”. Maybe someone has the full text and could share it? Thanks in advance!

The following review of RITE... recordings may be of interest:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/rite.html

[John Wiser]

"peter gutmann" <pgut...@wcsr.com> wrote in message
news:c0a99f2f-ecd7-44f3...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

Are you aware of this recording, which appeared in the 60s in the USA on a Nonesuch LP.?

http://www.allmusic.com/album/igor-stravinsky-le-sacre-du-printemps-quatre-etudes-pour-orchestre-mw0001351563

jdw

[Ray Hall]

greg lee wrote:
> On May 26, 3:50 am, woytek <bar...@op.pl> wrote:
>> Four years ago Wagner Fan in RMCR posted final thoughts

from Igor Stravinsky famous review published in 1965 Hi Fi

Stereo about Boulez, Craft and Karajan recordings of

�Sacre de Printemps�. Maybe someone has the full text and could share

it? Thanks in advance!
>
> The following review of RITE... recordings may be of interest:
>
> http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/rite.html
>

Does anyone know whether any of the CBS reincarnations of Bernstein's
Rite are of the same audio quality? It is coupled with the Firebird suite.

Ray Hall, Taree

[peter gutmann]

Yes -- I have that Nonesuch LP, but for sheer raw power to conjure the
shock of the premiere I still think the 1958 Bernstein/NY Philharmonic
Columbia recording has never been matched, at least among studio
recordings.

[John Wiser]

"peter gutmann" <pgut...@wcsr.com> wrote in message

news:e73a73c7-c28d-4bda...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

I have always preferred a certain amount of finesse in this work, including
presentable string playing. Bernstein doesn't reach me. He seldom does,
in any music, with any orchestra.The point escapes me, of speculating about
the qualities of an unknowable event, and how a modern recording might
approach them. The premiere wouldn't have had to be particularly raw
to violate prevailing musical sensibilities.

jdw

[peter gutmann]

The premiere wouldn't have had to be particularly raw
to violate prevailing musical sensibilities.

True -- I agree that there are many other aspects of the Rite that
contributed to its impact on those who first heard it. Yet after a
century (or at least several decades, by the time of Bernstein's first
recording) of having become accustomed to further advances in music,
his audiences (and, even more so, we) find it virtually impossible to
"tune out" all we know to experience the shock of the new that the
Rite presented.

As I had written in the article cited below in greg lee’s comment:

Nowadays The Rite presents a vexing performance problem – how to
restore the original impact. The score was intended to assault
audiences with startling freshness, yet listeners now take its
innovations for granted. … Bernstein was well aware that what
shocked audiences in 1913 would seem pretty mild stuff two generations
later. He couldn't expect audiences to turn back the clock, forget
what they knew and participate in an aesthetic masquerade. Nor would
he falsify the score by adding more “modern” elements. There was only
one way to jolt contemporary listeners while preserving the integrity
of Stravinsky's original conception: to generate a level of energy so
intense as to restore the disparity between what the audience expected
and what they had to feel.

I do realize that comparable problems impair genuine identification
with the music of any past era., from Gregorian chant through Cage and
Coltrane. But that leads to the on-going debate over “historically-
informed” v. modern performance practice, and I’ll gladly leave that
to others. In this particular instance, I do think that Bernstein's
instincts served him (and continue to serve us) well.

[Bob Harper]

Yes. I had that Nonesuch LP and liked it a great deal. I do believe it
is the performance Stravinsky 'reviews' in the HF comparison. I haven't
been following this thread closely, so ask now whether it's available on CD.

Bob Harper

[Herman]

All this balderdash is based on a monumental misconception, eagerly exploited by Bernstein et al.

Paris 1913 audiences didn't have much of a problem with Stravinsky's music. The pre-premiere public was friendly. Diaghilev had invited people to the premiere with the intention to create a riot about Nijinsky's choreography. Conflicting claques.

It was the dancing that upset the audience. Not the music.

This has been thoroughly researched, but of course the myth came first, and that's what survives.

[M forever]

I think it's been well established that it was indeed the
choreography, not the music which caused the uproar. But how much do
we really know about whether Diaghilev really staged the riot or if it
was spontaneous, no matter how much good publicity it was for him?

[M forever]

You may find some answers to these questions in Robert Fink's essay
"The Rite of Spring and the Forging of a Modernist Performing Style"
which you can access through JSTOR.
But basically, as Herman already said, the idea that the first and
foremost quality of the music is that it should be a shock and awe
piece is probably not doing the music too much justice. It wasn't
necessarily intended that way. There is plenty of very fine detail and
color in there. I think a good performance of Le Sacre is one which
does all of its qualities justice, not one which turns it into nothing
but a slashblarebangboomfest.

[greg lee]

According to the following:

- While Bernstein would go on to record The Rite of Spring two more
times in stereo, a second for CBS and then one for DG, this first
stereo version remains my favorite. It may have been the composer’s
favorite, too, because when annotating different recordings of it,
Stravinsky wrote one word beside Bernstein’s: “Wow!”

http://classicalcandor.blogspot.com/2013/05/stravinsky-rite-of-spring-cd-review.html

[M forever]

> http://classicalcandor.blogspot.com/2013/05/stravinsky-rite-of-spring...

The excerpt presented there doesn't sound very "wow" to me. The
orchestra is almost falling apart in some places, and that's not a
problem because I would like this to be technically accurately
executed rather than impulsive, wild and exciting, it's a problem
because I don't find that impulsive, wild and exciting as the serious
problems the orchestra has robs the music of a lot of its rhythmical
drive and impact. These days, many youth orchestras play that better
and with more impact and focused rhythmic energy.

[Bob Harper]

On 5/27/13 5:14 PM, M forever wrote:(snip)

>
> You may find some answers to these questions in Robert Fink's essay
> "The Rite of Spring and the Forging of a Modernist Performing Style"
> which you can access through JSTOR.
> But basically, as Herman already said, the idea that the first and
> foremost quality of the music is that it should be a shock and awe
> piece is probably not doing the music too much justice. It wasn't
> necessarily intended that way. There is plenty of very fine detail and
> color in there. I think a good performance of Le Sacre is one which
> does all of its qualities justice, not one which turns it into nothing
> but a slashblarebangboomfest.

Yep, gotta have that very fine detail, the sine qua non for the M seal
of approval :)

Bob Harper (who in fact does like to hear detail in musical
performance, but who couldn't help poking fun at this recurrent verbal tic)

[Bob Harper]

On 5/27/13 7:16 PM, M forever wrote:
(snip)

> The excerpt presented there doesn't sound very "wow" to me. The
> orchestra is almost falling apart in some places, and that's not a
> problem because I would like this to be technically accurately
> executed rather than impulsive, wild and exciting, it's a problem
> because I don't find that impulsive, wild and exciting as the serious
> problems the orchestra has robs the music of a lot of its rhythmical
> drive and impact. These days, many youth orchestras play that better
> and with more impact and focused rhythmic energy.

Yep, can't have a great performance without the M-approved quantity of
fine detail, can we now?

Bob Harper

[Herman]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 2:42:03 PM UTC+2, peter gutmann wrote:


> Nowadays The Rite presents a vexing performance problem – how to
>
> restore the original impact. The score was intended to assault
>
> audiences with startling freshness, yet listeners now take its
>
> innovations for granted. … Bernstein was well aware that what
>
> shocked audiences in 1913 would seem pretty mild stuff two generations
>
> later.

I don't see why this is "a vexing problem". Is it a vexing problem with Beethoven's Hammerklavier? Why should the Sacre be all about "impact", particularly since the "original impact" has been largely misunderstood, due to various generations of self-promotors (such as Bernstein) misrepresenting what happened at the premiere - and not mentioning the many undisturbed 1913 performances?

[Herman]

One of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of the Sacre is all the flimflam written about this piece, the premiere and what you're supposed to be experiencing when you hear the Sacre.

[M forever]

I am not talking about "fine detail" here at all. That's an additional
layer that one would like to hear in addition to the fairly basic
flaws of this excerpt.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Herman" wrote in message
news:10c2b221-add3-4595...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, May 27, 2013 2:42:03 PM UTC+2, peter gutmann wrote:

>> Nowadays The Rite presents a vexing performance problem – how
>> to restore the original impact. The score was intended to assault
>> audiences with startling freshness, yet listeners now take its
>> innovations for granted. … Bernstein was well aware that what
>> shocked audiences in 1913 would seem pretty mild stuff two
>> generations later.

> I don't see why this is "a vexing problem".

But it is a "problem", in that we cannot "hear" these works as the first
audiences did. The "Eroica", for example... "Dah dah-dah, dah-dah-dah-dah-dah
dah DUM". The last note must have seem crashingly dissonant -- and even today
it doesn't sit well (Edith or Sacheverell).

Of course, the opposite occurs when we hear music from Arnold, Alban, and
Anton "correctly" performed -- the tiger often becomes a tabby.

> Is it a vexing problem with Beethoven's Hammerklavier?

Given that Beethoven stated that people would find the piece hard to
comprehend for many years to come, the fact that a good performance is pretty
easy to follow shows... what? That people can grow to understand something
"difficult"? This is unavoidable.

> Why should the Sacre be all about "impact", particularly since the
> "original impact" has been largely misunderstood, due to various

> generations of self-promoters (such as Bernstein) misrepresenting
> what happened at the premiere -- and not mentioning the many
> undisturbed 1913 performances?

Well, we do have Stravinsky himself criticizing performances for not being
savage enough. And inasmuch as the Chosen One dances herself to death, what
shouldn't a performance directly reflect that?

I first heard the "Rite" in "Fantasia" at the age of 10. It left a greater
impression than any other piece in the film, and I had no trouble whatever
"understanding" it. My ability to grasp nominally less-"difficult" music
(Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart) took considerably longer.

[Mark S]

Agreed. here's what I wrote at amazon in reviewing the latest reissue
of Bernstein's NYPO recording:

"...I hadn't listened to this recording for at least 15 years. Making
its reacquaintance has been instructive. The performance is pretty
much a one-dimensional approach: all energy and fury...and loud most
of the time. Other conductors find much more nuance and power in the
score than is on display here.

"Take the opening of Part II, for example, where pages and pages of
the score go by at a written dynamic no louder than mezzo forte. In
Bernstein's hands, those pages are played at a comfortable forte with
nary a piano or pianissimo in sight. It's not just a matter of the
dynamic. It's a matter of the tone color and quality that one gets on
instruments that are not playing piano. Many other conductors get a
lot more out of this section.

"...The brass are stellar most of the time. The winds are often
swamped by the rest of the orchestra. There are any number of ensemble
problems that one expects and accepts on a recording that was set down
in a single day.

"Enjoyable, but I can't agree with the composer whose "Wow"
description of this recording doesn't hold water for me. I reject the
idea that the best way for modern audiences to have an idea of what it
must have been like to experience Le sacre at its premiere is to play
the score as loudly and aggressively as possible. That seems in
essence to be the approach taken by Bernstein in this recording, as if
the harmonies and rhythms of the score weren't strange and "offensive"
enough in and of themselves back in the day. In fact, I believe a more-
nuanced approach would be more "offensive" than an approach that
simply ups the volume.

"My reference recording remains Markevitch's 1959 Philharmonia
recording on EMI (now on Testament as well)."

[J.Martin]

> I do realize that comparable problems impair genuine identification
> with the music of any past era., from Gregorian chant through Cage and
> Coltrane.  But that leads to the on-going debate over “historically-
> informed” v. modern performance practice, and I’ll gladly leave that
> to others.  In this particular instance, I do think that Bernstein's
> instincts served him (and continue to serve us) well.

Well said.

The audience that heard the first performance of Haydn's 'Military'
symphony thought it sounded like "the hellish roar of war" if the
reviewer is to be believed, and yet we don't speak of a conductor not
being able to recreate that effect for modern audiences. Why expect
it of the Rite?

To some extent, this has to do with the mythology surrounding the
debut. Fair enough. And certainly the music is supposed to have a
certain visceral power, even if it is perhaps to describe this as
being "shocking." But if the Rite had been merely shocking, it would
probably join the long list of "modernist" pieces written around the
same time that are no longer performed much except as examples of that
peculiar phase of modernism. Fortunately, there is much more to it.

I like the Bernstein, too. I recently played it for a friend who was
unfamiliar with the Rite, and we were both on the edge of our seats.
There are many other fine versions--I like Stravinsky's stereo,
Chailly, Monteux, and probably a lot of others that aren't springing
to mind at the moment.

[greg lee]

On May 28, 7:17 am, "J.Martin" <sixthg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do realize that comparable problems impair genuine identification
> > with the music of any past era., from Gregorian chant through Cage and
> > Coltrane.  But that leads to the on-going debate over “historically-
> > informed” v. modern performance practice, and I’ll gladly leave that
> > to others.  In this particular instance, I do think that Bernstein's
> > instincts served him (and continue to serve us) well.
>
> Well said.
>
> The audience that heard the first performance of Haydn's 'Military'
> symphony thought it sounded like "the hellish roar of war" if the

> reviewer is to be believed...

The following may be of interest:

https://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/browse_thread/thread/dd7cf9e1c0f584de?hl=en#

[Herman]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:09:16 AM UTC+2, greg lee wrote:

>
>
> The following may be of interest:
>

You're simply misinformed (and cling to your misinformation as if your life depends on it).

Prior to the storied Sacre premiere there was another performance at which simply nothing happened to indicate the audience was shocked by the music.

Diaghilev (of whom you may have heard) had invited various groups of people to the official premiere that were bound to clash, mostly over the nature and quality of Nijinsky's choreography - which by all accounts was incomplete and iffy.

After the Paris premiere the Sacre went to London, home of much more conservative audiences than Paris. Nothing happened at the London premiere.

[greg lee]

Recent article on the Ballets Russes which mentions RITE...:

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/187066946/modern-movement-how-the-ballets-russes-revolutionized-dance

[Christopher Webber]

On 01/06/2013 05:14, greg lee wrote:

> Recent article on the Ballets Russes which mentions RITE...:
>
> http://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/187066946/modern-movement-how-the-ballets-russes-revolutionized-dance
>

An Idiot's Guide to the Ballets Russes, written by somebody admirably
qualified for the job.

I notice that the word "ballet" is avoided wherever possible. "The Rite
of Spring" and "Afternoon of a Faun" are both described as a "dance" -
along the same lines I suppose as a movement of a Bruckner Symphony is
now described as a "song".

Sigh....

[Herman]

On Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:02:13 AM UTC+2, Christopher Webber wrote:

>
> An Idiot's Guide to the Ballets Russes, written by somebody admirably
>
> qualified for the job.
>

Most of it is pretty much correct, the problem is mostly in what is omitted, for instance that Diaghilev also brought the ultimate tutu ballets to western Europe, such as 'Les Sylphides', frequently performed during the prewar years, and, ultimately, Sleeping Beauty.

In a way Diaghilev is at the inception of both genres: classical ballet (via Sleeping Beauty) and modern dance (via Faun etc).