Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5: reviews and thoughts

[Que]

No, no;  no offense in calling an artistic practice a disease, I see that 

Oh dear.. Of course I used it purely in a rhetorical way. But perhaps tendency is a better term? 

I'm not sure we can so easily decide between the chicken and the egg, in this issue.

The HIP movement came first, so if there would be causality - which is admittedly up for debate - it would be the egg...

Q

[Marc]

Slow-motion was, with some notable exceptions (Fricsay, Walter, Szell a.o.), the conducting disease of the post war period. I wouldn't, for instance, touch any Giulini or Celibidache box set with a ten foot pole...(no offense)

But we can see in this new century a tendency in the opposite direction. I claim this as a major influence of the HIP movement on the conducting of main stream (Classical & Romantic) orchestral repertoire.

Q

I'm not entirely sure if your post connects with the pattern suggested by jochanaan.
As far as I understand it, he's saying the the tempi have slowed down in more recent years.

Apart from that, I don't agree about the post-war 'slow-motion' disease if both Giulini and Celibidache are concerned, unless you mean post-cold-war.
In their younger years, shortly after World War 2, they weren't known to be slow at all.
As the back cover of the boxset Sergiu Celibidache: The Berlin Recordings, 1945-1957 says: Unlike the elegiac, lyrical interpretations of his mature period, Celibidache also reveals his youthful, boisterous side in these recordings.

Giulini also slowed down a lot during his older days.
In live concerts, he was known for adapting his tempi to the acoustics of the concert hall or to the skills of the musicians.
Concerning Giulini & Tchaikovsky: his Pathétique with the Philharmonia Orchestra is beautiful IMHO.

[Que]

I'm not entirely sure if your post connects with the pattern suggested by jochanaan.
As far as I understand it, he's saying the the tempi have slowed down in more recent years.

Even slower?  That cannot be possible. I was under the impression that these days "mean and lean" is more the fashion?

Apart from that, I don't agree about the post-war 'slow-motion' disease if both Giulini and Celibidache are concerned, unless you mean post-cold-war.
In their younger years, shortly after World War 2, they weren't known to be slow at all.
As the back cover of the boxset Sergiu Celibidache: The Berlin Recordings, 1945-1957 says: Unlike the elegiac, lyrical interpretations of his mature period, Celibidache also reveals his youthful, boisterous side in these recordings.

Giulini also slowed down a lot during his older days.
In live concerts, he was known for adapting his tempi to the acoustics of the concert hall or to the skills of the musicians.
Concerning Giulini & Tchaikovsky: his Pathétique with the Philharmonia Orchestra is beautiful IMHO.

Most conductors generally slow down with age! So, Celi was brisker when he was young - noted. And you are right to say things weren't that bad slow in the years right after WWII. Don't know Giulini's Tchaikovsky.

Q

[Marc]

Next up: Riccardo Chailly and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. 1980.

Available in these editions:


[....]

Overall: Good. This is a solid version. It has some beautiful lyrical and romantic qualities. Ultimately, it is very well performed. Horn solo was not my ideal (just one too many times struggling with being in tune). Waltz, on the other hand, was pretty ideal for me.  Fourth movement had a nice speed to it.

[....]

You got me interested in this one, so I placed a library order.

[Karl Henning]

The HIP movement came first, so if there would be causalty - which is admittedly up for debate - it would be the egg...

Q

Well, I mean that a great deal of the motivation towards HIP was the reaction against the Romantifying languor;  HIP is part reaction, and part in its own turn a driver.

[Marc]

Even slower?  That cannot be possible. I was under the impression that these days "mean and lean" is more the fashion?

I'm not sury if we totally understand each other.
Apart from that, I was under the impression that whilst jochanaan was saying Earlier recordings fast and tight, with great detail; later ones beautiful but slow and less coherent --, I therefore concluded that he did not notice much HIP-influence in the more recent recordings.

Most conductors generally slow down with age! So, Celi was brisker when he was young - noted. And you are right to say things weren't that bad slow in the years right after WWII. Don't know Giulini's Tchaikovsky.

About the slowing down matter: many times when I listen to older recordings, I am surprised by the tempi. Because, as you mentioned yourself, I expected them to be much much slower. But in many recordings this isn't the case, unless the music was composed in the 18th century or earlier (again, with exceptions).

But if you listen f.i. to Brahms or Bruckner conducted by people like Van Beinum and Jochum, then you would be surprised (perhaps) about their vitality. And Von Karajan, to name just another one, wasn't slow either. Even the younger Bernstein wasn't. And EVEN the older Bernstein was able to conduct a fresh sounding Schubert or Mendelssohn.

I feel that, in some cases, members of the HIP school have exaggerated the slowness of their predecessors. The main HIP influence on romantic repertoire might be the different way of connecting musical phrases: less focused on beauty and more focused on expression.
Just telling a story in notes instead of suggesting a certain mood that reflects the story.



But it's a difficult thing to explain and I'm not qualified enough to really comprehend matters like these.

[vandermolen]

I just bought an inexpensive CD of Barbirolli conducting a live 1939 performance in New York (Dutton). Despite the surface noise I found this to be an extremely gripping and moving version - the best one I know.

[trung224]

I'm not sury if we totally understand each other.
Apart from that, I was under the impression that whilst jochanaan was saying Earlier recordings fast and tight, with great detail; later ones beautiful but slow and less coherent --, I therefore concluded that he did not notice much HIP-influence in the more recent recordings.

About the slowing down matter: many times when I listen to older recordings, I am surprised by the tempi. Because, as you mentioned yourself, I expected them to be much much slower. But in many recordings this isn't the case, unless the music was composed in the 18th century or earlier (again, with exceptions).

But if you listen f.i. to Brahms or Bruckner conducted by people like Van Beinum and Jochum, then you would be surprised (perhaps) about their vitality. And Von Karajan, to name just another one, wasn't slow either. Even the younger Bernstein wasn't. And EVEN the older Bernstein was able to conduct a fresh sounding Schubert or Mendelssohn.

I feel that, in some cases, members of the HIP school have exaggerated the slowness of their predecessors. The main HIP influence on romantic repertoire might be the different way of connecting musical phrases: less focused on beauty and more focused on expression.
Just telling a story in notes instead of suggesting a certain mood that reflects the story.


But it's a difficult thing to explain and I'm not qualified enough to really comprehend matters like these.

   I agree with you but with minor exception. Your statement, HIP focused on expression, is true with baroque and early classical (Haydn,Mozart, possibly early Schubert and Schumann) rather than echt Romantic (Beethoven 9, late Schubert, late Schumann, Tchaikovsky,Dvorak, Brahms,...). They offer more clarity, yes but more expression, especially on the slow movement, I don't think so.  For me, HIP avoid something like metaphysical quality in Romantic music, and focus more on simple things.

[Que]

Well, I mean that a great deal of the motivation towards HIP was the reaction against the Romantifying languor;  HIP is part reaction, and part in its own turn a driver.

I see what you mean, interesting thought.

You got me interested in this one, so I placed a library order.

I have another Tchaikovsky by Chailly, well worth checking out:

[asin]B00000E3QL[/asin]

And apologies for derailing the thread....

Q

[jochanaan]

Que, I think I set up the train wreck. 

I confess I am not as familiar with the most recent recordings as I might be. Others have said that recordings of Romantic music in the last ten years or so are faster than ones from the 70s through the 90s or so, but economic factors have greatly decreased my buying power in that time period. So maybe I'm not the best judge of recent recordings. Yet to compare Toscanini, Barbirolli, Refiner, even early Ormandy and Stokowski with later Bernstein, Karajan, Giulini et al is a revelation. The earlier masters are almost always faster.

(Not all conductors slow down with age. Toscanini, Monteux and Reiner didn't. Ormandy tended to go slower, but I remember a late Ormandy/Philadelphia recording of Sibelius' Four Legends--maybe 1980-that was as brisk and magical as any I've heard. )

[Marc]

   I agree with you but with minor exception. Your statement, HIP focused on expression, is true with baroque and early classical (Haydn,Mozart, possibly early Schubert and Schumann) rather than echt Romantic (Beethoven 9, late Schubert, late Schumann, Tchaikovsky,Dvorak, Brahms,...). They offer more clarity, yes but more expression, especially on the slow movement, I don't think so.  For me, HIP avoid something like metaphysical quality in Romantic music, and focus more on simple things.

Yes, I was struggling with words and not sure how to put in in a language which is not my mother tongue, but in a way I was trying to say something like this. I meant to refer mainly to 'plain' one-dimensional musical expression and not to more 'vague' things like atmosphere and mood, like those metaphysical qualities you mentioned.
That's why, even though I like the more 'sober' HIP qualities (like clarity), I still can submerge myself in romantic (sometimes overly romantic) interpretations of romantic music. But I find it hard to endure romantic approaches in f.i. renaissance and baroque music. That just doesn't work for me.

So in the end, I think there is much agreement here.

And also apologies for derailing the thread.

[Marc]

I just bought an inexpensive CD of Barbirolli conducting a live 1939 performance in New York (Dutton). Despite the surface noise I found this to be an extremely gripping and moving version - the best one I know.

Check out the opinion of The Thread's Father:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21805.msg773815.html#msg773815

[vandermolen]

Check out the opinion of The Thread's Father:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21805.msg773815.html#msg773815

Many thanks. I totally agree about the intensity of the performance. Played it in the car again today.

[mc ukrneal]

No derailing at all and quite an interesting discussion. It is hard to compare the timings of these recordings to some degree because: 1) Some have cuts and while we could estimate the time difference, it is hard to know how it might have affected the rest of the perfromance, and 2) Some of the overall timings are similar, but individual parts are not. Having now had it pointed out, it is something to consider as I move from version to version. It is also hard to generalize sometimes. I would also add that there were 21 recordings made from 1922 to 1948. The same number of recordings were made from 1990 to 1994 and from 2001 to 2008. It just shows that we don't have quite as complete a picture from those early years, so it makes me wonder if they are perhaps not as representative as later years are.

[jochanaan]

...I would also add that there were 21 recordings made from 1922 to 1948. The same number of recordings were made from 1990 to 1994 and from 2001 to 2008. It just shows that we don't have quite as complete a picture from those early years, so it makes me wonder if they are perhaps not as representative as later years are.

Or maybe there just weren't as many recordings made from 1922 to 1948.

[Que]

I would also add that there were 21 recordings made from 1922 to 1948.

Which reminds me of the fact hat you haven't gotten to Mengelberg yet, or, if I'm not mistaken, Stokowski's 1934 recording?

Q

[mc ukrneal]

Which reminds me of the fact hat you haven't gotten to Mengelberg yet, or, if I'm not mistaken, Stokowski's 1934 recording?

Q

Well, for Mengelberg, I have everything identified, just a matter of buying. I can get the '28 performance in a nice Andante set. It will set me back aabout $21 for 3 discs of his stuff (but I think that is most likely to have the best pressing, as I could also get this for $14 on Memories at Berkshire, but I dislike buying Memories if I can avoid it). The '40 can be had on a Teldec disc (used) and the '39 I can get on Memories at Berhshire.

I think I can get the Stokowski at Berkshire too, on an Aura disc, though the problem with Stokowski is that there are so many recordings and the labeling is not precise.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: John Barbirolli and the Halle Orchestra. 1959.

Available in these editions:   


First movement: Slow, subdued start. Clarinet has nice tone, though in general details here are also subdued. Very, very long pause here (creates too much of a break I think). Into the next section, we see a major change. Tone is brighter, phrasing is quite staccato, and attacks are much stronger. Tempo is on the faster side. Wow – brass are powerful sounding and have that nice raspy sound. Strings, on the runs, seem a bit back in terms of sound. Slow sections are taken very slowly. Unison is not always quite as precise as I'd like (oddly, usually in some slower moments, especially compared to the previous Barbirolli performance – perhaps my expectations have been changed). Unison in climaxes and faster sections is actually quite excellent. Dynamics are perhaps not varied quite as much, but overall ok. I love how strong the brass sound, but I wonder if they are perhaps balanced a little too forward. Fanfares around 8:20 are mushy. Tempos are changing quite a bit, but they are mostly with the change in dynamics. Tempos are consistently on the faster side, though there are some extremes and abrupt changes as well. Fast to the end here too. Climaxes are exciting. 

Second Movement: Beautiful start, and nice tempo (probably faster than typical, but after that fast start, it seems somehow appropriate). Horn solo generates quite a sweet tone. Phrasing seems a bit lacking, though it is played with total confidence. No vibrato. Not the best (a bit cold), but could be worse. It moves along at a fair clip, and yet there is some really beautiful playing across the orchestra. It does not dwell though, so perhaps not ideal for those who want maximum angst. The climaxes are quite effective.  It stays fast and is one of the faster recordings of this movement available (nearly a minute faster than the 1939 performance, only Mravinsky took it consistently faster). After the solo, this one always feels like it is moving forward. Second to last climax arrives a bit too early, but it is still fantastically done! Woodwinds have a nice presence in this movement. Good closure.

Third movement: A full minute slower than 1939, this sounds better. Although, it seems a bit heavy and lacking in detail (particularly dynamics).  It slows down in the early middle for some reason. String runs don't have quite the precision (unison) needed.

Fourth Movement: Stately start. It's slightly faster, but slows a hair as well. Dynamics a bit too static. And then we are into the allegro vivace (after the downbeat of the timpani roll) and off at a moderate pace, though it slows down a bit as it goes on (and feels sluggish/heavy at the start). The pace picks up as it goes along. Trumpets have a nice bright sound here that I sometimes wish others would do as well (though lower brass are a bit washed out at times). Although it is not as fast as some, it does not lack for excitement. Tempos seem too inconsistently followed at times (they always seem to be changing). Timpani overwhelms at 7:50 or so (just too loud or forward). Into the ending sections, tempo slows down to a crawl. It picks up a bit in the presto (not as much as it could), but slows for the last section (with last four notes even slower).

Overall: Good. I think the 1939 is actually more exciting and better played (precision wise), but this one is still pretty good (and of course is in better sound). Again, I like his way with attacks and accents, which I think add a lot of excitement and energy. It also creates a brighter sound. The playing is generally good, though I wish the dynamics were a little more varied and the phrasing a bit more polished.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[Cosi bel do]

My favourite interpretations would be Mravinsky of course (mainly DG of course, but Erato too), the live Monteux with the LSO (Vanguard), and Rodzinski with the RPO on Westminster.

Szell is good, just a little too neat when compared to these 3. The Bernstein DG might be the best of the three late live recordings of 4-5-6, it is certainly interesting to know (but far after the 3 previous mentioned).

[mc ukrneal]

My favourite interpretations would be Mravinsky of course (mainly DG of course, but Erato too), the live Monteux with the LSO (Vanguard), and Rodzinski with the RPO on Westminster.

Szell is good, just a little too neat when compared to these 3. The Bernstein DG might be the best of the three late live recordings of 4-5-6, it is certainly interesting to know (but far after the 3 previous mentioned).

I will be listening to most of these. Before I started I would have picked Mravinsky (the famous DG version) and the DG Bernstein as my favorites. But it will be interesting to see what I think of them when I get to them, as I plan to listen to them a bit closer towards the middle or end of this project. I have nearly all of the rest you listed, except for the Rodzinski, which was also mentioned by at least one other poster. I have it wishlisted though. Same goes for the Mravinsky on Erato/Warner.

I am surprised that my enthusiasm for the project hasn't waned, although it has slowed at times to account for life.