Prokofiev symphony #5 by Paavo Jarvi
Gerard
on ClassicsToday:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11443
If this were a review by Hurwitz (the review is by "Victor Carr Jr"), this could
mean it is a very bad recording (American orchestras usually get "9" or "10" on
ClassicsToday).
But how bad is this recording actually?
Thornhill
From the review: "After his success with Prokofiev's Romeo and
Juliet..."
Eh, I thought that recording was the definition of pedestrian.
jrsnfld
I don't know this disc yet, but I've heard three different Prokofiev
5s from him on the radio, with three different orchestras, and they
were all superb (I think I mentioned one or two of them here earlier).
Passionate, thrilling--everything you could want. However, his Telarc
recordings tend to find him ultra-cautious and clinical--good playing
and clarity but relatively dull. Nothing like what I hear from the
concerts. So it wouldn't surprise me if this disc were yet another
disappointment.
--Jeff
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
It is. It is totally lame and mediocre in every respect. It doesn't
sound that good either. The sound is flatish, dryish, and the
orchestra sounds smallish, too. There are a few interesting details,
but not enough to make a better impression. The playing is generally
OK, but not particularly good either. A completely superfluous
product.
The ct review mentions Muti's Philadelphia recording as one of the
references. I happen to have listened to that just a few days ago and
while I don't see it as a "reference" recording, it is rather good
indeed, very solid in every respect. It reminded me a lot of Ozawa's
Berlin recording from his complete cycle which I also find very solid
and generally "underrated". While I am a big fan of the Russian style
of orchestral playing preserved on historic recodings from the Soviet
era, I don't believe that the brass generally has to be screechy and
distorted for the music to sound "authentic". Both Muti and Ozawa
offer a very detail attentive, colorful view of the music. The same
also applies to Ozawa's BSO R+J.
CharlesSmith
So what would your recommendation be for a Russian recording - good
sound without the screechy brass of course? And talking of modern
recordings, has anyone heard Sanderling (Thomas) with the Novosibirsk
ASO on Audite?
Michael Schaffer
No, I haven't but I have some of the DSCH stuff he did for DG which is
pretty good. I don't really have a recommendation for a Russian
recording of the 5th - in fact, I don't think I know any recording of
this symphony which I find completely satisfying.
Temirkanov's St.P is pretty good, but very heavy-handed and
"lumbering", it gets on your nerves after a while (or maybe not, but
it did get on mine). Jansons' live recording made when it was still
the Leningrad P (on Chandos) is better, but then somewhat on the
hurried side, I think, but the sound is quite good. I haven't listened
to it in about 200 years, but it used to be among my favorites.
Russ (not Martha)
> Jansons' live recording made when it was still
> the Leningrad P (on Chandos) is better, but then somewhat on the
> hurried side, I think, but the sound is quite good. I haven't listened
It was the Chandos Jansons/LenPO Prokofiev 5th that prompted me to
finally switch my loyalties from LP to CD in 1988.
I have always regretted that Jansons has never made a recording of
Prokofiev's 6th symphony as well.
Are you quite certain that the Jansons P5 is a live recording?
There's no applause at the end, and I don't remember hearing a single
peep from an audience over the many times I've heard this favorite
version.
Russ (not Martha)
J.Martin
> If this were a review by Hurwitz
I dunno,,, that remark about the "shockinhgly prominent tam tam" sure
sounded likeJurwitz, even if he didn't get the byline.
This does seem to be surprisingly difficult symphony to get right. I
like the Jansons and Muti mentioned in this thread, but I keep hoping
for a great new recording in up-to-date sound. Sadly, sounds like
this one isn't it.
JM
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
I always thought it was a live recording made in Dublin during a tour
of the Distinguished Collective of the Republic, The Academic Symphony
Orchestra of the Leningrad State Philharmonia, but it could of course
be a studio recording, just like DG's recordings with Mravinsky made
in 1960 in London or Vienna. I looked up the old Gramophone review and
that doesn't specifically mention that it is a live recording, so I
have no idea where I got that idea. Maybe it is not live.
Michael Schaffer
It does seem like a particularly difficult piece to get "right",
probably because the musical language is so uniquely personal. Some
rather satisfying performances, e.g. Muti, never quite manage to get
beyond the feeling that they are just playing the notes, even if in a
very brilliant and highly precise way.
That said, I just remembered that one recording that I have always
liked a lot is Dutoit's with the OSM. While some people seem to be
convinced that Dutoit is always "bland" and "superficial, this is a
very spirited and musical recording which has a lot of color and
drive. I just put on the finale and that immediately confirmed my
memory. Few play this as exuberantly and lyrically, but the weight and
impact is there, too. Also great attention to detail and textures.
Gerard
The booklet only says "recorded on 15 October 1987".
Maybe it's not live.
Thornhill
The Muti 5 is a real sleeper, and the disc featuring 1 & 3 from the
aborted cycle is even better.
jrsnfld
I frequently find Temirkanov rather heavy handed and lumbering on
record. He is not one of my favorite conductors. However, his recent
Prokofiev 1 and 5 broadcast from France (the St Petersburg on tour)
were anything but heavy handed. They were nearly ideal and still very
darkly "Russian" after all these years of changes in the orchestras
there.
--Jeff
Paige Turner
>
> That said, I just remembered that one recording that I have always
> liked a lot is Dutoit's with the OSM. While some people seem to be
> convinced that Dutoit is always "bland" and "superficial, this is a
> very spirited and musical recording which has a lot of color and
> drive. I just put on the finale and that immediately confirmed my
> memory. Few play this as exuberantly and lyrically, but the weight and
> impact is there, too. Also great attention to detail and textures.
I heard him do it live and he had the measure of the work. Spectacular
performance with the Minnesota Orchestra. His recording is very good,
too. I think this symphony is a specialty of his. He also does
Stravinsky and de Falla very well.
Best,
pt
TareeDawg
I am discovering that Muti, with the Philadelphia, turning out some good
recordings. His Scriabin symphonies, now on Brilliant, is really
excellent. The horns in Poem d'Extase are haunting.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
Michael Schaffer
Is that available for download somewhere? I checked Operashare but
didn't find it there.
jrsnfld
What do you think of Jurowski/RNO Charles?
--Jeff
Thornhill
> On Feb 15, 4:42 pm, "J.Martin" <mistalu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If this were a review by Hurwitz
>
> > I dunno,,, that remark about the "shockinhgly prominent tam tam" sure
> > sounded likeJurwitz, even if he didn't get the byline.
>
> > This does seem to be surprisingly difficult symphony to get right. I
> > like the Jansons and Muti mentioned in this thread, but I keep hoping
> > for a great new recording in up-to-date sound. Sadly, sounds like
> > this one isn't it.
>
> > JM
>
> It does seem like a particularly difficult piece to get "right",
> probably because the musical language is so uniquely personal. Some
> rather satisfying performances, e.g. Muti, never quite manage to get
> beyond the feeling that they are just playing the notes, even if in a
> very brilliant and highly precise way.
Really? I feel just the opposite about the Muti recording.
Michael Schaffer
Yes, the playing is precise, well rehearsed, very disciplined, but
rather faceless and anonymous when you compare it to the much more
involved, organic and "eloquent" phrasing of, for instance Dutoit/OSM.
For them, it seems that the music makes much more "sense" and that
there is a musical "story" behind the notes which with Muti is never
there. With him, it's just interesting sonic structures. The OSM
playing also has a much better sense of rhythm and pulse. The many
intricate things which are going on in the accompaniment are correctly
executed in the Philadelphia reading, but in a rather stiff and
technical way, while in the OSM performance, they have much more life
and nuance. A good example is the way the last movement takes off
after the slow introduction. Or rather, how it does not really take
off in the Muti reading. The clarinet, then the strings, just play one
note after the other. Everything is well prepared, articulation,
bowings, everything is worked out and executed according to plan, but
without inner life and character. It sounds like somebody reading a
text syllable by syllable, everything is clearly e-nun-ci-a-ted. Then
listen to the OSM recording. There is some really lively and engaged
music making going on there. The phrases have much more coherence and
"meaning". They don't sound as angular and mechanical. The Muti
recording is a very sophisticated listening experience, but the Dutoit
performance is a real journey.
jrsnfld
I haven't seen any uploads either.
--Jeff
CharlesSmith
Good question. I've his Chout with the WDR, which is excellent but
doesn't pose the interpretive challenges of the symphony.
The reviews I've seen for the symphony are sharply divided - no
average ratings - eg see:
http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/4856
I've found track lengths and samples at jpc. The timings look middle
of the road - which is fine. The samples show quite a close sound with
interesting texture (capturing that 'dark Russian' sound). So this
might well be a good option for the Russian recording I'd like to add
to my non-Russian collection, but I doubt it's that missing ideal
performance that many seem to be looking for.
CharlesSmith
> Jansons' live recording made when it was still
> the Leningrad P (on Chandos) is better, but then somewhat on the
> hurried side, I think, but the sound is quite good. I haven't listened
> to it in about 200 years, but it used to be among my favorites.
I got to know this symphony via the Bernstein IPO, which in retrospect
was probably a big mistake - I still hear the first movement as a
massive adagio. Nowadays I enjoy more flowing tempi - but just
listening to a few Jansons samples I find him intolerably rushed.
Michael Schaffer
That orchestra only shows trace elements of a traditional Russian
sound in their recordings for DG on which it sounds pretty generic, so
I don't think it really matters if you get it for that reason or not.
It may still be a good performance, of course.
If you find the Jansons recording too fast, you can always get
Temirkanov which I find a little too slow and heavy, but it's probably
the most "Russian sounding" you can get in modern sound. Apart from
Jansons', of course which belongs into every collection simply for
that reason - it's one of the very few recordings which captures the
"old" Leningrad Philharmonic in decent sound. I find the third
movement a little too rushed myself, but you shouldn't judge from a
few brief samples.
It's probably best if you get both!
I also downloaded the Sanderling/Novosibirsk recording. It's pretty
good but nothing special musically and sound wise, it's OK, but not
really good. The sound is somewhat reverberant and hazy and whatever
Russian colors there may be are pretty washed out by the sound. The
brass is uncharacteristically weak and also placed somewhat in the
back in the recording and, while, like I said before, the screechy
brass of Soviet recordings is not necessarily an "authentic"
representation of what these orchestras sounded like, some prominence
is needed in the right places, definitely more prominence than this
orchestra's brass has.
Like I said in another post, this thread inspired me to revisit a few
recordings I hadn't listened to in a long time, and this "reminded" me
how excellent in every respect the Dutoit/OSM recording is. I will
probably relisten to a few more in the next days, but this is so good,
I don't really expect to find anything better.
A warning: there is also a recording with Kitaenko and a Moscow
orchestra from the 80s which was on Melodiya and also on RCA, but even
if you are desperate to find a Russian recording, you should
absolutely avoid this. It's a very mediocre performance, and the sound
is absolutely horrible, among the worst recordings I have ever heard.
It sounds as if "Ansermetniac" had liberated it from the audio, maybe
even worse, if you can imagine that.
Kalman Rubinson
<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A warning: there is also a recording with Kitaenko and a Moscow
>orchestra from the 80s which was on Melodiya and also on RCA, but even
>if you are desperate to find a Russian recording, you should
>absolutely avoid this. It's a very mediocre performance, and the sound
>is absolutely horrible, among the worst recordings I have ever heard.
>It sounds as if "Ansermetniac" had liberated it from the audio, maybe
>even worse, if you can imagine that.
What do you think of the one from the new Kitaenko set?
Kal
jrsnfld
I'm not aware of a Kitaenko set...is it on the same label as his
newish Shostakovich set?
Kitaenko's Prokofiev 5 is on a not-so-new out-of-print "Audiophile
Classics".
--Jeff
--Jeff
jrsnfld
>
> > > What do you think of Jurowski/RNO Charles?
>
> > > --Jeff
>
> > Good question. I've his Chout with the WDR, which is excellent but
> > doesn't pose the interpretive challenges of the symphony.
> > The reviews I've seen for the symphony are sharply divided - no
> > average ratings - eg see:http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/4856
> > I've found track lengths and samples at jpc. The timings look middle
> > of the road - which is fine. The samples show quite a close sound with
> > interesting texture (capturing that 'dark Russian' sound). So this
> > might well be a good option for the Russian recording I'd like to add
> > to my non-Russian collection, but I doubt it's that missing ideal
> > performance that many seem to be looking for.
>
> That orchestra only shows trace elements of a traditional Russian
> sound in their recordings for DG on which it sounds pretty generic, so
> I don't think it really matters if you get it for that reason or not.
But Charles just said it had that "dark Russian sound", so maybe you
two don't agree on what's Russian and what's not. Especially since
Charles also said he wanted a less funky Russian brass sound. RNO fits
the bill pretty well in that regard, and overall their sound is better
represented on Pentatone than on the earlier DG recordings, which
tended towared brighter (shallower?) sound.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
That Chout is with Michael Jurowski conducting...I was referring to
Vladimir Jurowski.
--Jeff
CharlesSmith
Ouch yes. I thought he looked young for his 60+ years!
Curtis Croulet
until this thread. As for P. Jarvi, it was so thoroughly damned by you and
others, I think I'll buy it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
CharlesSmith
I'm only listening to samples of the Jurowski on jpc, and now of the
Temirkanov on musicbox.de (US sites won't let me listen to samples).
For the Jurowski I was struck by the full rich texture of the lower
strings, which I took as a Russian characteristic. OTOH although
there's very little loud brass in these samples I'm sure there's no
old fashioned vibrato. Nor, I think, are the brass excessively brash
in the Temirkanov, but the overall sound seems brighter, and the
woodwind characterisation is more extreme - which again I take as a
Russian characteristic.
So for different reasons they're both attractive. And the Temirkanov
costs practically nothing, so why not?
pgaron
greatly enjoy are Szell/Cleveland and Levine/Chicago. I haven't heard
it in a long while, but I recall that the Leinsdorf/Boston recording
was also a very good one. The top-flight American orchestras do not
suffer in comparison with the Russian orchestras in performing this
work.
pgaron
.
jrsnfld
This work may not have a ton of Russian performances to recommend in
modern sound, but in lesser sound there are at least two worthwhile
Rozhdestvensky recordings, plus Mravinsky, to consider.
Of course non-Russian orchestras do not "suffer" in comparison to such
great performances, they're just different. Ormandy, Koussevitzky,
Tennstedt, Celibidache, Horenstein, Szell, Karajan, (yes, Dutoit
too)...there are many I wouldn't want to be without.
--Jeff
Paul Goldstein
jrsnfld says...
>
>On Feb 16, 10:17=A0am, pgaron <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Two "non-Russian" performances of the Prokofiev 5th Symphony that I
>> it in a long while, but I recall that the Leinsdorf/Boston recording
>> suffer in comparison with the Russian orchestras in performing this
>> work.
>>
>> pgaron
>>
>> .
>
>This work may not have a ton of Russian performances to recommend in
>modern sound, but in lesser sound there are at least two worthwhile
>Rozhdestvensky recordings, plus Mravinsky, to consider.
>
>Of course non-Russian orchestras do not "suffer" in comparison to such
>great performances, they're just different. Ormandy, Koussevitzky,
>Tennstedt, Celibidache, Horenstein, Szell, Karajan, (yes, Dutoit
>too)...there are many I wouldn't want to be without.
Hasn't anyone mentioned Levine/CSO? That's still the best one I've heard. I've
also come to like Bernstein/Israel very much, though I didn't when it first came
out.
jrsnfld
> In article <500cfe9c-aaec-43fa-94e8-7339eb407...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, Phil just mentioned Levine in the post ahead of mine. Personally,
I am not particularly attached to it, even though so many others rave
about it. I didn't much like the Bernstein when I first heard it and
haven't gone back to it.
My most recent purchases were Oistrakh/Moscow, Tennstedt/Bavarian
Radio and Rozhdestvensky/Leningrad, all of which were worthy. The
flood of broadcasts since then practically swept them aside, however.
--Jeff
Gerard
>
> My most recent purchases were Oistrakh/Moscow, Tennstedt/Bavarian
> Radio and Rozhdestvensky/Leningrad, all of which were worthy. The
> flood of broadcasts since then practically swept them aside, however.
>
Do you know if the Rozhdestvensky/USR RTV Large Symphony Orchestra recording has
been issued on CD?
Michael Schaffer
> In article <500cfe9c-aaec-43fa-94e8-7339eb407...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
> jrsnfld says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 10:17=A0am, pgaron <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Two "non-Russian" performances of the Prokofiev 5th Symphony that I
> >> greatly enjoy are Szell/Cleveland and Levine/Chicago. =A0I haven't heard
> >> it in a long while, but I recall that the Leinsdorf/Boston recording
> >> was also a very good one. =A0The top-flight American orchestras do not
> >> suffer in comparison with the Russian orchestras in performing this
> >> work.
>
> >> pgaron
>
> >> .
>
> >This work may not have a ton of Russian performances to recommend in
> >modern sound, but in lesser sound there are at least two worthwhile
> >Rozhdestvensky recordings, plus Mravinsky, to consider.
>
> >Of course non-Russian orchestras do not "suffer" in comparison to such
> >great performances, they're just different. Ormandy, Koussevitzky,
> >Tennstedt, Celibidache, Horenstein, Szell, Karajan, (yes, Dutoit
> >too)...there are many I wouldn't want to be without.
>
> Hasn't anyone mentioned Levine/CSO?
Technically very well played, but not necessarily better than a number
of other performances, very brightly an antiseptically cleanly
recorded by DG, but overall, not just in sound, a rather sterile and
mechanical polished high end product. The orchestra lacks the depth
and diversity of sonorities to really do this music justice, the
strings in particular.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> I don't recall seeing a favorable notice for Dutoit's Montreal recording
> until this thread. As for P. Jarvi, it was so thoroughly damned by you and
> others, I think I'll buy it.
Why? People disagree about what they like and why all the time, but it
appears to me that in this rare case, pretty much everyone here agrees
that this is a mediocre and superfluous recording in every respect? So
what makes you interested in it?
Yes, you should rather get the Dutoit recording. It's vastly superior
to this one in every respect.
Curtis Croulet
When people start to pile on, I get suspicious. Anyway, it's SACD, and I'm
curious. I have mixed feelings about other P. Jarvi items I've bought.
jrsnfld
I think it was in a BMG two-fer, at least. I have the first volume
(the two-fer of 1-4) from Rozhdestvensky's cycle, but not the second
volume. I have another of his performances on Russian Revelation, as
well as the recent BBC disc.
--Jeff
Gerard
I have that first twofer too. But I have never seen the rest.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > Why?
>
> When people start to pile on, I get suspicious.
Do you think there is...a conspiracy going on here? Do you
think...they...are...watching us?
> Anyway, it's SACD, and I'm
> curious.
I think the same applies here that has applied since the dawn of
recordings: the medium is just the medium, and if the original
recording is not well done, it doesn't make it any better. Not
everyone with a high end camera is Annie Leibowitz.
Michael Schaffer
I am not aware of a new set. Details please!
jrsnfld
I remember choosing between the two volumes in the store when I bought
it, but perhaps my memory is faulty.
Anyway, the cycle was also released on individual Consonance CDs. Here
is a listing for the release with the 5th:
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
> On Feb 16, 3:22 am, Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > What do you think of Jurowski/RNO Charles?
>
> > > > --Jeff
>
> > > Good question. I've his Chout with the WDR, which is excellent but
> > > doesn't pose the interpretive challenges of the symphony.
> > > The reviews I've seen for the symphony are sharply divided - no
> > > average ratings - eg see:http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/4856
> > > I've found track lengths and samples at jpc. The timings look middle
> > > of the road - which is fine. The samples show quite a close sound with
> > > interesting texture (capturing that 'dark Russian' sound). So this
> > > might well be a good option for the Russian recording I'd like to add
> > > to my non-Russian collection, but I doubt it's that missing ideal
> > > performance that many seem to be looking for.
>
> > That orchestra only shows trace elements of a traditional Russian
> > sound in their recordings for DG on which it sounds pretty generic, so
> > I don't think it really matters if you get it for that reason or not.
>
> But Charles just said it had that "dark Russian sound", so maybe you
> two don't agree on what's Russian and what's not.
Dunno, but I base my opinion on what a traditional Russian sound is -
or was in the Soviet era - on the orchestras I heard live in the 80s,
Svetlanov and the USSR SO and Rozhdestvensky and the Ministry of
Culture band. When I listen to their recordings, I always keep in mind
how they sounded in real life. Which was very, very different.
But certain characteristics of the playing, certain sonorities and
stylistical elements are what in my mind are the defining elements.
"Dark", especially dense and dark strings, certainly was and still is
one of those defining elements which I don't think has really changed
that much, if at all. But this kind of string sound is often very hard
to glean from some of those Soviet recordings.
Rozhdestvensky's orchestra which often sounds shrill, wiry, glaring
even on recordings made during the 80s had a very dark, rich, velvety
string sound, very much in the string. The woodwinds did sound fairly
reedy and "woody" and the brass were somewhat bright and focused, but
not nearly as shrill as they often sound on those recordings. The
horns were really dark and round, with a deep red-brown glow to the
sound, a somewhat muted quality and a very characteristic attack in
the piano which is hard to describe but, I think, obvious when you
hear it.
Curtis Croulet
> think...they...are...watching us?
Why this? Are you offended that I'm not taking your advice?
jrsnfld
> On Feb 16, 11:25 am, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:22 am, Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you think of Jurowski/RNO Charles?
>
> > > > > --Jeff
>
> > > > Good question. I've his Chout with the WDR, which is excellent but
> > > > doesn't pose the interpretive challenges of the symphony.
> > > > The reviews I've seen for the symphony are sharply divided - no
> > > > average ratings - eg see:http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/4856
> > > > I've found track lengths and samples at jpc. The timings look middle
> > > > of the road - which is fine. The samples show quite a close sound with
> > > > interesting texture (capturing that 'dark Russian' sound). So this
> > > > might well be a good option for the Russian recording I'd like to add
> > > > to my non-Russian collection, but I doubt it's that missing ideal
> > > > performance that many seem to be looking for.
>
> > > That orchestra only shows trace elements of a traditional Russian
> > > sound in their recordings for DG on which it sounds pretty generic, so
> > > I don't think it really matters if you get it for that reason or not.
>
> > But Charles just said it had that "dark Russian sound", so maybe you
> > two don't agree on what's Russian and what's not.
>
> Dunno, but I base my opinion on what a traditional Russian sound is -
> or was in the Soviet era - on the orchestras I heard live in the 80s,
> Svetlanov and the USSR SO and Rozhdestvensky and the Ministry of
> Culture band.
It seems that Charles is basing his opinion on the same information.
Having heard live the same Soviet era orchestras myself, including the
Mravinsky-era Leningraders (and several times since under Temirkanov)
and other recent orchestras from that part of the world, I can see
where he's coming from. I can sort of see where you're coming from
too, except that it has always been clear that not all Soviet
orchestras sounded alike--ever--so the notion of "a" traditional
Russian sound is a little muddy. It's not just "one" sound.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
It is, although that characteristic is often hard to guess from older
recordings and it is of course not the only defining characteristic,
but I am sure you didn't mean to imply that it was. How deep and dark
and rich the string sound was in "real life", especially the bottom
end, really "shocked" me when I heard Rozhdestvensky and his band live
in the 80s. You really couldn't tell from the recordings.
Of course, that or similar kinds of string sound are not only found in
Russia. It is interesting that you specifically mention the lower
strings which is something that often catches my attention since I
play the bass myself. Prokofieff's orchestral writing really is an
extension of his dazzling pianism. The complex and detailed textures
he came up with sound like someone with many virtuoso hands, and
that's why I think it is so important that those inner and lower
voices are not just correctly executed, but really played musically.
This is one of the things that struck me most about the Dutoit
recording, how good the bass playing is and how they drive the
orchestra from below. In Muti's recording, the basses in most places
merely play along nicely, just like the middle voices are just
accompaniments, nothing more. I think the difference is immediately
obvious when you listen to it.
> OTOH although
> there's very little loud brass in these samples I'm sure there's no
> old fashioned vibrato. Nor, I think, are the brass excessively brash
> in the Temirkanov, but the overall sound seems brighter, and the
> woodwind characterisation is more extreme - which again I take as a
> Russian characteristic.
The orchestral sound on this recording in indeed rather characterful
(as it is on the Jansons), so if that is what you are looking for
primarily, I don't think you will be disappointed.
I personally like the brass vibrato style because it is so
characteristic, but it could be argued that it is not necessarily more
"authentic" since that only started towards the very end of
Prokofieff's life time.
> So for different reasons they're both attractive. And the Temirkanov
> costs practically nothing, so why not?
I think that is a good decision.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
No. Why should I? Although you should know better. Your loss. I just
found it curious that you said "When people start to pile on, I get
suspicious." That puzzles me.
Michael Schaffer
I can see that, too, and I basically agree with him. What I don't see
is why you seem to think that I don't.
> I can sort of see where you're coming from
> too, except that it has always been clear that not all Soviet
> orchestras sounded alike--ever--so the notion of "a" traditional
> Russian sound is a little muddy. It's not just "one" sound.
Did I say it was? No. I didn't. On the contrary, it was me who said
that it is not "just dark".
> --Jeff
jrsnfld
Sometimes you say things that indicate you hear more than one sound,
but then other times you talk about "a traditional" Russian sound as
if to imply there's one target there, something that was ever fixed in
time to harken back to, and as if somehow what we hear today is not
"traditional" enough. Yet never was there a Russian sound that anybody
would have called "traditional". It was always in flux, always
dependent on the latest great teachers. In the end I think what was
then was then--the best those teachers could summon to make music.
Given Charles' interests, the current RNO, the Mariinsky Theater
orchestra, the post-Mravinsky St. Petersburg Phil, and others, all fit
his needs well, from a sound-palette point of view. The problem is
finding a really good recording from one of these recent incarnations
of Russian orchestral playing.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
That's what I said myself, e.g. when I pointed out that the vibrato
style that I like so much only came in use towards the end of
Prokofieff's life. The "Russian sound" is more a spectrum than a
narrowly definable stylistic phenomenon. It does seem though as if
some people think that what defines a "typically Russian" sound is a
certain edginess and screechiness.
CharlesSmith
But I think some recordings have it in more (and different) ways than
others. Just taking the two I looked at earlier, the RNO has that
beautiful rich lower string sound. But if I listen to the second
movement opening in the Temirkanov St P the clarinet has a wonderful
ripe Russian in-your-face aggressive style, while the Jurowski RNO
clarinet is cautious and has a light smooth tone that could have been
honed in any of 1000 conservatoires around the planet.
So Michael has listed a whole range of Russian timbres (which I
recognise in the Svetlanov USSR SO recordings) but I don't think you
find these as a 'palette' in any of the modern recordings - just some
elements to varying degrees. So there's no one-stop answer to my quest
for a decent 'Russian' recording.
jrsnfld
I've never heard anyone say the typical Russian sound was "edgy" or
"screechy" except maybe in reference to the trumpets, and even then
I'm not sure I've heard those words use by anyone who knew anything--
not even those bad old recordings make the brass sound edgy. At worst:
acidic, splatty, spreading, overbearing, etc., etc.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
One thing I've noticed in live RNO concerts is that the clarinets
don't particularly project well. They're often dark but kind of
stubbornly refusing to open up and use the full spectrum of clarinet-
like overtones.
--Jeff
Curtis Croulet
> found it curious that you said "When people start to pile
> on, I get suspicious." That puzzles me.
Michael, I yield to your knowledge of orchestral playing, knowledge I can
never achieve. I value your insights. I was startled by but very
interested in your recent comments about Belohlavek, since some critics
think he's the ultimate in Czech music.
In the case of this particular P. Jarvi recording, it's certainly possible
that it's the worst Prok 5 ever recorded. I'm betting that it's not as bad
as you and others think, but -- if and when I get it -- I'll listen for the
things you don't like about it. I may wind up saying, "Why, oh, why didn't
I listen to Michael?" In fact, if that happens, I'm willing to post right
here that you were absolutely right, and that I should have taken your
advice.
Since you like Dutoit in Prokofiev 5, what do you think of his Prokofiev 6
and R&J with NHK?
Bob Lombard
I may wind up saying, "Why, oh, why didn't
> I listen to Michael?"
Doesn't everyone say that?
bl
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>I'm not aware of a Kitaenko set...is it on the same label as his
>newish Shostakovich set?
It is on Phoenix, the successor in some ways, to the label that
released the Shostakovich set, Capriccio. Same management.
http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=Phoenix135
Kal
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > No. Why should I? Although you should know better. Your loss. > I just
> > found it curious that you said "When people start to pile
> > on, I get suspicious." That puzzles me.
>
> Michael, I yield to your knowledge of orchestral playing, knowledge I can
> never achieve. I value your insights. I was startled by but very
> interested in your recent comments about Belohlavek, since some critics
> think he's the ultimate in Czech music.
Really? These critics must be completely clueless then. Just because
he is from there doesn't mean he is a great conductor of Czech music.
One would expect that he does understand the music from that area very
well, but he is just not a very good conductor, simple as that.
> In the case of this particular P. Jarvi recording, it's certainly possible
> that it's the worst Prok 5 ever recorded. I'm betting that it's not as bad
> as you and others think,
I don't think anybody said it was really "bad" or even "the worst".
It's just not really good at all, and in a world where many very good
and maybe also some really outstanding recordings of the same works
are available, this very mediocre one is just completely superfluous.
The playing and everything else is "OK", but "OK" is just not enough,
and the sound is not even "OK". Actually, given what is possible
today, I would say he sound *is* really bad.
> but -- if and when I get it -- I'll listen for the
> things you don't like about it. I may wind up saying, "Why, oh, why didn't
> I listen to Michael?" In fact, if that happens, I'm willing to post right
> here that you were absolutely right, and that I should have taken your
> advice.
You are of course free to take or leave advice, and there are many
cases where I would maybe just caution and say I prefer something else
but it may be worth your while and money if you are looking for this
or that angle or characteristic (see my slightly reserved
recommendations, e.g. for the Temirkanov recording). But in the case
of this Järvi recording, I can't see any reasons at all to even give
it a reserved recommendation. It is just a total waste of time and
money to get this. But - go ahead!
> Since you like Dutoit in Prokofiev 5, what do you think of his Prokofiev 6
> and R&J with NHK?
I don't have that disc. I do have the R+J with the OSM though which I
think is fantastic. I heard him conduct the Prokofieff 6 about 3 years
ago in SF wich was pretty good but the orchestra was a little
disappointing.
Michael Schaffer
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:20:30 -0800 (PST), jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com>
I didn't know about that set. I didknow about their DSCH cycle but
haven't heard any of the recordings. I have "the other" DSCH cycle
from Cologne, with Barshai.
Curtis Croulet
> bad.
I have his Ravel, Debussy & Prokofiev R&J discs. Also Rach 2. All
multichannel SACD. I think the sound is fine on those, although it lacks
the sense of depth that I hear in the best SACDs.
I have a couple of his new Beethoven sym discs on RCA SACDs. Some critics
have raved about them. One specific thing that bothers me is the utter lack
of pianissimo playing at the beginning of the Eroica's funeral march. One
can listen to recordings under many conductors, old-school and modern, great
& not-so-great, and they have no problem with this. When I hear this kind
of thing, I get the idea that P.J. is just not paying attention. But he
gets the distinction between f and ff at the end of the Hauptsatz OK.
Did you ever play Daphnis et Chloe?
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
Yes. Ravel is a lot of fun for bass players (except for Boléro),
actually for the whole orchestra. What's quite difficult though is the
underlying rhythm ("dum-du-dum-du-dum-du") of the concluding 5/4 danse
bacchanale on the low C on 5th string which does not speak easily. The
most fun Ravel piece to play for the basses is La Valse though.
Curtis Croulet
> Yes. Ravel is a lot of fun for bass players (except for Boléro),
> actually for the whole orchestra. What's quite difficult though is > the
> underlying rhythm ("dum-du-dum-du-dum-du") of the
> concluding 5/4 danse bacchanale on the low C on 5th string
> which does not speak easily. The most fun Ravel piece to play
> for the basses is La Valse though.
Then I've come to the right place. The beginning of "daybreak" at the start
of Part III of Daphnis (where Suite No. 2 starts) is marked pp. P. Jarvi
plays this well above what I would consider pp, but he's not alone. On old
recordings you might say, well, the engineers probably boosted the gain to
keep the music above LP surface noise. But that's not an issue now,
certainly not on SACD. Is this pp a major challenge or impossibility with a
good orchestra?
BTW, Ravel marks the beginning of Part III ten bars earlier than the
beginning of "daybreak," i.e. before where Suite No. 2 picks up. IIRC,
Stravinsky has sections of Le sacre starting earlier than one would think
just from listening to the music. I've always wondered if this related to
the choreography, maybe to give the dancers a few moments to get ready for
the new scene.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > > Did you ever play Daphnis et Chloe?
> > actually for the whole orchestra. What's quite difficult though is > the
> > underlying rhythm ("dum-du-dum-du-dum-du") of the
> > concluding 5/4 danse bacchanale on the low C on 5th string
> > which does not speak easily. The most fun Ravel piece to play
> > for the basses is La Valse though.
>
> Then I've come to the right place. The beginning of "daybreak" at the start
> of Part III of Daphnis (where Suite No. 2 starts) is marked pp. P. Jarvi
> plays this well above what I would consider pp, but he's not alone. On old
> recordings you might say, well, the engineers probably boosted the gain to
> keep the music above LP surface noise. But that's not an issue now,
> certainly not on SACD. Is this pp a major challenge or impossibility with a
> good orchestra?
Not at all. But it does depend a lot on the conductor if he really
balances the orchestra and brings out the colors, and changes of
colors, well. I think the fast figurations in the woodwinds are not
easy to really play pp, but not really a big problem for good players
either. The beginning of this passage is one of those places where you
really need a good conductor though for balance and color. It is not
difficult for the basses to play the chromatic "murmurings" really
soft, but it is difficult to play that clearly and it depends on a
good conductor to get that well balanced and built up step by step,
especially when the music starts to rise from the bottom up and that
often gets too loud too quickly. But it's not a "technical" problem,
more one of coordination. On recordings this passage is indeed often
boosted because of background noise and the available dynamic range.
But it's not just a question of soft dynamics - it's also one of sound
quality. I remember sitting in on a rehearsal of the 2nd suite with
the MP conducted by Celibidache and he spent a lot of time making sure
everything was really quiet but with a lot of substance. He actually
rehearsed the chromatic "murmurings" at the beginning with the basses
to make sure every note is clear and in tune and well balanced with a
quiet, but projecting sound, then he rehearsed and overlaid the other
textures one by one. Celibidache was really good with that sort of
thing. Karajan, too, BTW. I heard the 2nd suite with him when they
made the DG recording in 1986 and it sounded fantastic, very soft but
with a lot of substance and color.
> BTW, Ravel marks the beginning of Part III ten bars earlier than the
> beginning of "daybreak," i.e. before where Suite No. 2 picks up. IIRC,
> Stravinsky has sections of Le sacre starting earlier than one would think
> just from listening to the music. I've always wondered if this related to
> the choreography, maybe to give the dancers a few moments to get ready for
> the new scene.
I doubt that.
rkhalona
> > If this were a review by Hurwitz
>
> I dunno,,, that remark about the "shockinhgly prominent tam tam" sure
> sounded likeJurwitz, even if he didn't get the byline.
>
> This does seem to be surprisingly difficult symphony to get right. I
> like the Jansons and Muti mentioned in this thread, but I keep hoping
> for a great new recording in up-to-date sound. Sadly, sounds like
> this one isn't it.
>
> JM
The Temirkanov RCA recording has great sound. It is one of Tony
Faulkner's best efforts (as a recording engineer).
I have never heard a better recorded bass drum. The performance is
also quite good, but there is stiff competition
in good performances of this symphony (Jansons, Levine/CSO, parts of
Szell/Cleveland [his slow movement doesn't work for me], Leinsdorf,
both recordings by Kitaenko, etc.)
I will have to agree with the review of the Järvi recording, which I
found disappointing, but the accompanying Lt. Kijé fares much better.
RK
rkhalona
> In article <500cfe9c-aaec-43fa-94e8-7339eb407...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
> jrsnfld says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 16, 10:17=A0am, pgaron <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Two "non-Russian" performances of the Prokofiev 5th Symphony that I
> >> greatly enjoy are Szell/Cleveland and Levine/Chicago. =A0I haven't heard
> >> it in a long while, but I recall that the Leinsdorf/Boston recording
> >> was also a very good one. =A0The top-flight American orchestras do not
> >> suffer in comparison with the Russian orchestras in performing this
> >> work.
>
> >> pgaron
>
> >> .
>
> >This work may not have a ton of Russian performances to recommend in
> >modern sound, but in lesser sound there are at least two worthwhile
> >Rozhdestvensky recordings, plus Mravinsky, to consider.
>
> >Of course non-Russian orchestras do not "suffer" in comparison to such
> >great performances, they're just different. Ormandy, Koussevitzky,
> >Tennstedt, Celibidache, Horenstein, Szell, Karajan, (yes, Dutoit
> >too)...there are many I wouldn't want to be without.
>
> Hasn't anyone mentioned Levine/CSO?
I just did, before I read your post, that is.
RK
rkhalona
>
> My most recent purchases were Oistrakh/Moscow,
I transferred this years ago, and it was nicely restored by our late
friend John Wilson.
I was surprised by how good this performance is. On his Idlewild
label it was coupled with our transfer
of Rozhdestvensky's Prokofiev 6th, which had not been released on CD
at that time.
On what label is the Oistrakh recording you have?
>:Tennstedt/Bavarian
> Radio and Rozhdestvensky/Leningrad, all of which were worthy.
Both of these are good as well. I wouldn't have known that Tennstedt
had a great Prokofiev 5th in him, but that was
indeed the case.
RK
rkhalona
> On Feb 16, 12:26 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > jrsnfld wrote:
>
> > > My most recent purchases were Oistrakh/Moscow, Tennstedt/Bavarian
> > > Radio and Rozhdestvensky/Leningrad, all of which were worthy. The
> > > flood of broadcasts since then practically swept them aside, however.
>
> > Do you know if the Rozhdestvensky/USR RTV Large Symphony Orchestra recording has
> > been issued on CD?
>
> I think it was in a BMG two-fer, at least. I have the first volume
> (the two-fer of 1-4) from Rozhdestvensky's cycle, but not the second
> volume. I have another of his performances on Russian Revelation, as
> well as the recent BBC disc.
>
> --Jeff
I have never seen symphonies 5-7 released on BMG/Melodiya, but
symphonies 5 and 7 were released on Consonance. I don't think anyone
comes close to Rozhdy on the 7th, btw.
All of the symphonies and piano concerti were released on CD on the
Venezia label and may still be available from Japan.
RK
Michael Schaffer
Is that the recording on Profil?
Michael Schaffer
> On Feb 15, 1:42 pm, "J.Martin" <mistalu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If this were a review by Hurwitz
>
> > I dunno,,, that remark about the "shockinhgly prominent tam tam" sure
> > sounded likeJurwitz, even if he didn't get the byline.
>
> > This does seem to be surprisingly difficult symphony to get right. I
> > like the Jansons and Muti mentioned in this thread, but I keep hoping
> > for a great new recording in up-to-date sound. Sadly, sounds like
> > this one isn't it.
>
> > JM
>
> The Temirkanov RCA recording has great sound. It is one of Tony
> Faulkner's best efforts (as a recording engineer).
> I have never heard a better recorded bass drum. The performance is
> also quite good, but there is stiff competition
> in good performances of this symphony (Jansons, Levine/CSO, parts of
> Szell/Cleveland [his slow movement doesn't work for me], Leinsdorf,
> both recordings by Kitaenko, etc.)
Aren't you bothered by the horrible fake sound of the Kitaenko
recording from Moscow? There was an edition of this on RCA in which
they tried to fix that, but it only helped a little bit as the
original was so totally screwed up. This sounds as if someone had
mastered that to fit the sound quality of Soviet TV.
> I will have to agree with the review of the Järvi recording, which I
> found disappointing, but the accompanying Lt. Kijé fares much better.
Yet another negative vote! I think Curtis was right - this must be a
conspiracy!!!
> RK
Curtis Croulet
> made the DG recording in 1986 and it sounded fantastic, very
> soft but with a lot of substance and color.
The recording I have by Karajan is 1964. I didn't realize there was a later
one.
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > Karajan, too, BTW. I heard the 2nd suite with him when they
> > made the DG recording in 1986 and it sounded fantastic, very
> > soft but with a lot of substance and color.
>
> The recording I have by Karajan is 1964. I didn't realize there was a later
> one.
When it comes to Karajan, there nearly always is.
Curtis Croulet
> conspiracy!!!
I don't much believe in conspiracies. Most of what some people attribute to
conspiracies are, to me, cases of mutual incompetence, mutual inertia, or
group-think (people align themselves with what they perceive to be popular
or correct opinions).
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
I think all of the above applies in the case of the collective Järvi
bashing that is going on here. We should all be ashamed of ourselves!
rkhalona
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:22:56 -0800 (PST), Michael Schaffer
>
> <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >A warning: there is also a recording with Kitaenko and a Moscow
> >orchestra from the 80s which was on Melodiya and also on RCA, but even
> >if you are desperate to find a Russian recording, you should
> >absolutely avoid this. It's a very mediocre performance, and the sound
> >is absolutely horrible, among the worst recordings I have ever heard.
> >It sounds as if "Ansermetniac" had liberated it from the audio, maybe
> >even worse, if you can imagine that.
>
> What do you think of the one from the new Kitaenko set?
>
> Kal
It's a good performance in excellent sound, perhaps a bit relaxed in
the outer movements, but the gorgeous sound leaves little to complain
about.
RK
rkhalona
Yes.
RK
rkhalona
> of other performances, very brightly an antiseptically cleanly
> recorded by DG, but overall, not just in sound, a rather sterile and
> mechanical polished high end product. The orchestra lacks the depth
> and diversity of sonorities to really do this music justice, the
> strings in particular.
>
>
I could not disagree more with you on this particular recording
Michael, but to each his own.
I think this is one of Levine's best achievements and I hear nothing
wrong with the orchestra.
RK
Michael Schaffer
Neither do I.
Curtis Croulet
> > > made the DG recording in 1986 and it sounded fantastic, very
> > > soft but with a lot of substance and color.
> >
> > The recording I have by Karajan is 1964. I didn't realize there was a
> > later
> > one.
> When it comes to Karajan, there nearly always is.
This appears to be it:
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=207115
Michael Schaffer
wrote:
> > > > Karajan, too, BTW. I heard the 2nd suite with him when they
> > > > made the DG recording in 1986 and it sounded fantastic, very
> > > > soft but with a lot of substance and color.
>
> > > The recording I have by Karajan is 1964. I didn't realize there was a
> > > later
> > > one.
> > When it comes to Karajan, there nearly always is.
>
> This appears to be it:http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical
>/album.jsp?album_id=207115
It is indeed.
jrsnfld
wrote:
If its as good as his Prokofiev 6 with the CSO broadcast almost 2
years ago, it is superb.
By the way, I agree with you, that if too many people diss a
recording, there's often something interesting to be heard. But I
don't think it's a sign that the recording is generally preferable to
most others.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
True. In this case, it is indeed interesting to hear how bad a
recording made with the latest "state-of-the-art" technology can
sound. Reminds us that while the tools are important, it is the
craftsmanship that uses them well (or not) that counts (or not).
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:5Zqml.1028$hm....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>> Yet another negative vote! I think Curtis was right - this must be a
>> conspiracy!!!
>
> I don't much believe in conspiracies. Most of what some people attribute
> to conspiracies are, to me, cases of mutual incompetence, mutual inertia,
> or group-think (people align themselves with what they perceive to be
> popular or correct opinions).
You're in on it, then.
--
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
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
jrsnfld
> On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > No. Why should I? Although you should know better. Your loss. > I just
> > > found it curious that you said "When people start to pile
> > > on, I get suspicious." That puzzles me.
>
> > Michael, I yield to your knowledge of orchestral playing, knowledge I can
> > never achieve. I value your insights. I was startled by but very
> > interested in your recent comments about Belohlavek, since some critics
> > think he's the ultimate in Czech music.
>
> Really? These critics must be completely clueless then.
the "ultimate" in Czech music. He does a lot of it, however. I was
kind of impressed (and surprised by how much I liked his recent Ma
Vlast with the Berlin Phil, but I didn't really attribute the
concert's success to the conductor.
> ...he is just not a very good conductor, simple as that.
I was puzzled that the BBC Symphony chose him...that's an orchestra
that plays a lot of interesting repertoire and often is led by very
good people.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
I also have the NYP Prokofiev 5 with Tennstedt...I'm not sure which I
prefer. Probably the one on Profil. Both are mysteriously awkward at
the very beginning and then pick up steam.
--Jeff
Curtis Croulet
>> to conspiracies are, to me, cases of mutual incompetence, mutual inertia,
>> or group-think (people align themselves with what they perceive to be
>> popular or correct opinions).
>
> You're in on it, then.
I'm still awaiting my check from my masters at the CIA or FBI or NSA or
Crawford, TX, or wherever they are. If it doesn't come soon, I'll turn on
them.
Curtis Croulet
> recording, there's often something interesting to be heard.
You expressed better than I my interest in this recording (P. Järvi in
Prokofiev 5)
Gerard
> On Feb 16, 4:23 pm, Michael Schaffer <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, I yield to your knowledge of orchestral playing,
> > > knowledge I can never achieve. I value your insights. I was
> > > startled by but very interested in your recent comments about
> > > Belohlavek, since some critics think he's the ultimate in Czech
> > > music.
> >
> > Really? These critics must be completely clueless then.
> I don' think I've ever encountered a critic who thought Belohlavek was
> the "ultimate" in Czech music. He does a lot of it, however. I was
> kind of impressed (and surprised by how much I liked his recent Ma
> Vlast with the Berlin Phil, but I didn't really attribute the
> concert's success to the conductor.
>
I have a Supraphon recording of Ma Vlast by Belohlavek. I've heard it only once,
because it was disapppointing. So was his Dvorak symphony #9. And his Dvorak
Serenade for strings.
OTOH his recording of the Serenades by Brahms are excellent.
Gerard
> > Yet another negative vote! I think Curtis was right - this must be
> > > a conspiracy!!!
>
> I don't much believe in conspiracies. Most of what some people
> attribute to conspiracies are, to me, cases of mutual incompetence,
> mutual inertia, or group-think (people align themselves with what
> they perceive to be popular or correct opinions).
Or safe opinions (opinions which are - they know in advance - supported or
back-upped (sp?) by others).
Ed Presson
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1268955a-d49e-4f1b...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 10:36 am, Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:22:56 -0800 (PST), Michael Schaffer
>
> <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think of the one from the new Kitaenko set?
>
> Kal
I am not aware of a new set. Details please!
___________________
If you're interested, the new set is reviewed in the December 2008
Gramophone and in the January 2009 ARG. The first ambivalent; the second
enthusiastic.
Regards,
Ed Presson
jrsnfld
The Brahms serenades are good indeed. There's also a pretty good live
Brahms 2 that was issued by the BBC. The Martinu 4 is serviceable.
Other than that I own none of his commercial recordings. But the live
Ma Vlast was a beauty--not to be confused with the mushy indifference
I often hear in his conducting of Czech music. He's a long ways from
Ancerl and Talich!g
--Jeff
Curtis Croulet
> Gramophone and in the January 2009 ARG. The first ambivalent; the second
> enthusiastic.
The ARG review is by Donald Vroon, which, of itself, will raise red flags
for some here. One can summarize Vroon's attitudes about Prokofiev this
way: the more a musician makes P. sound like Rachmaninoff's successor,
emphasizing melody and soft contours, the more Vroon likes him; the more a
conductor emphasizes Prokofiev's "modernist" tendencies, dissonance and
blaring brass, the less Vroon likes him. Thus, "No. 5 is again strong on
very noisy climaxes," of which Vroon is not so keen. He complains about
hearing Martinon play it that way in Chicago. "But III -- the Adagio -- is
quie lush here, like Slatkin or Michael Tilson Thomas." Vroon clearly likes
it. But then, "The last movement is oppressive -- both noisy and heavy."
The Kitaenko set apparently vascillates between the modernist and
"Rachmaninoff's successor" poles, but Vroon does say that if you liked
Kitaenko's Shostakovich set, then you "will want to hear this."
rkhalona
wrote:
I think it is pretty safe to say that just as Kitaenko's is the best-
recorded Shostakovich cycle,
the same applies to his Prokofiev cycle. There are some performances
I like better of all symphonies
(Celi in the 1st, Grin in the 2nd, Muti in the 3rd, Rozhdy or Ormandy
in the 4th, Jansons or Temirkanov in the 5th,
Mravinsky in the 6th and Rozhdy in the 7th), but no one who loves
Prokofiev should be without this set.
One more attractive item: Kitaenko offers both versions of the 4th
symphony.
RK
Michael Schaffer
> On Feb 17, 9:56 am, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > If you're interested, the new set is reviewed in the December 2008
> > > Gramophone and in the January 2009 ARG. The first ambivalent; the second
> > > enthusiastic.
>
> > The ARG review is by Donald Vroon, which, of itself, will raise red flags
> > for some here. One can summarize Vroon's attitudes about Prokofiev this
> > way: the more a musician makes P. sound like Rachmaninoff's successor,
> > emphasizing melody and soft contours, the more Vroon likes him; the more a
> > conductor emphasizes Prokofiev's "modernist" tendencies, dissonance and
> > blaring brass, the less Vroon likes him. Thus, "No. 5 is again strong on
> > very noisy climaxes," of which Vroon is not so keen. He complains about
> > hearing Martinon play it that way in Chicago. "But III -- the Adagio -- is
> > quie lush here, like Slatkin or Michael Tilson Thomas." Vroon clearly likes
> > it. But then, "The last movement is oppressive -- both noisy and heavy."
> > The Kitaenko set apparently vascillates between the modernist and
> > "Rachmaninoff's successor" poles, but Vroon does say that if you liked
> > Kitaenko's Shostakovich set, then you "will want to hear this."
>
> I think it is pretty safe to say that just as Kitaenko's is the best-
> recorded Shostakovich cycle,
> the same applies to his Prokofiev cycle.
If that is true, it makes him perhaps the conductor with some of the
best and the worst sounding recordings of the same pieces in
history...
Are we talking about multi-channel recordings here?
> There are some performances
> I like better of all symphonies
> (Celi in the 1st, Grin in the 2nd, Muti in the 3rd, Rozhdy or Ormandy
> in the 4th, Jansons or Temirkanov in the 5th,
> Mravinsky in the 6th and Rozhdy in the 7th), but no one who loves
> Prokofiev should be without this set.
> One more attractive item: Kitaenko offers both versions of the 4th
> symphony.
>
> RK
But isn't the playing of the orchestra somehow "unidiomatic", too
"Germanic"?
rkhalona
>
> Are we talking about multi-channel recordings here?
>
The set I have is a 5-CD box. I am not aware of it being available on
SACDs.
>
> But isn't the playing of the orchestra somehow "unidiomatic", too
> "Germanic"?
There are some good musicians in Germany and they can play Prokofiev
well, sometimes.
Having a Russian conductor helps :-) :-) :-)
RK
Curtis Croulet
> too "Germanic"?
Astoundingly, Vroon in ARG, who has always celebrated "Russian" playing in
Russian music in the past, now thinks a German style is OK!
"And it's very Russian, not French like Martinon. That means it has weight
and depth and rich emotion. And it's partly Germanic. I have always loved
Prokofieff a la Karajan or Leinsdorf, and here it's the wonderful Cologne
sound. (In fact, I prefer French music done German-style: there's nothing
like a Viennese La Mer. Both Leinsdorf and Karajan did French music better
than any French conductor. So did the Hungarian Ormandy."
rkhalona
wrote:
> > Actually, given what is possible today, I would say he sound *is* > really
> > bad.
>
> I have his Ravel, Debussy & Prokofiev R&J discs. Also Rach 2. All
> multichannel SACD. I think the sound is fine on those, although it lacks
> the sense of depth that I hear in the best SACDs.
>
> I have a couple of his new Beethoven sym discs on RCA SACDs. Some critics
> have raved about them. One specific thing that bothers me is the utter lack
> of pianissimo playing at the beginning of the Eroica's funeral march. One
> can listen to recordings under many conductors, old-school and modern, great
> & not-so-great, and they have no problem with this. When I hear this kind
> of thing, I get the idea that P.J. is just not paying attention.
When I first listened to P. Jarvi's Eroica I felt like throwing the CD
in the trash, and two more listenings
have not helped. I think the Eroica is historically the single
biggest step in symphonic music, but you'd never know it by listening
to this recording. Pretty disappointing.
RK
jrsnfld
> no one who loves
> Prokofiev should be without this set.
I know that's a common expression, and I think I love Prokofiev
(perhaps I am deluding myself!), but I am having trouble working up
enthusiasm for the Kitaenko set based on your comments. Good recorded
sound just means that someone else will come along with better
eventually, so what really matters to me is whether the performances
offer something particularly interesting.
The same problem stopped me from buying Kitaenko's Shostakovich.
--Jeff
rkhalona
I found the 8th to be the weak link in the Shostakovich cycle, but
there are some superb performances in there
that I would not be without, like the 11th and the 15th. These two
recordings alone are worth the price of the set.
Regarding the Prokofiev cycle, I agree this is less of a priority for
a seasoned music lover and collector, but for someone who is just
getting to know this music I think the set is highly recommendable. I
can put up with
substandard sound when I hear a great performance, but when one
doesn't know the music well, hearing it in good sound helps. Knowing
you, I think you would like Kitaenko's 6th and both of his 4ths. He
de-emphasizes the enfant terrible nature of Prokofiev's music (a
terrible sin for some, I am sure) and prefers a more lush symphonic
treatment,
but this works especially well in the 6th, which is a work full of
retrospective. As I said, I still prefer Mravinsky, still
the 'ne plus ultra' in this symphony, but Kitaenko offers a much
different view and I love this work enough (it's my favorite Prokofiev
symphony) not to be without it.
RK
Curtis Croulet
> He de-emphasizes the enfant terrible nature of
> Prokofiev's music (a terrible sin for some, I am sure) and prefers > a
> more lush symphonic treatment, but this works especially well > in the
> 6th, which is a work full of retrospective.
I haven't heard any of Kitaenko's set, but from what I'm reading here and in
Vroon's review, I'd probably want a little more "bite" than he offers.
There's only one way to find out!