Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5: reviews and thoughts

[Karl Henning]

Melody is the essence of music.

Not when the music is an unpitched percussion ensemble.

Really, Sean, these unthinking pronouncements are too easy to pick off ; )

[Karl Henning]

Tchaikovsky's greatest work is Swan Lake where he didn't have to worry himself over symphonic architectonics and could let his amazing creativity flourish step by step across a long still timespan, and to even greater concluding and perhaps unsurpassed statements of passion and humanity.

So if you're thinking along those lines I don't understand where Sleeping Beauty goes, which is a much more sophisticated work than Swan Lake IMO.

Sean's remark also strikes me peculiarly like praising the filing cabinet as an architectural achievement greater than the basilica (I mean, a bit: the ballets are obviously better than filing cabinets, but you see my point, Herman).

Next up: Tugan Sokhiev and Orchestre Nationale du Capitole de Toulouse. 2011.

[snip]

Overall: Good. I really enjoyed this recording. There is nothing extreme – not too slow, not too fast, not too over the top, etc. I think someone who finds fault with all the extremes that some others do with this piece might find this to be a nice middle ground. It’s well played too, with a beautifully phrased horn solo in the second movement.

Okay, though I am a bit uneasy reading of a rushed maestoso.

[mc ukrneal]

Okay, though I am a bit uneasy reading of a rushed maestoso.

You are referring to the opening of the fourth movement, yes?  I think rushed could be too strong a word (but I don't want to say it is too strong as you may not feel that way). It is a little bit faster than its metronome marking. It certainly is played well enough. Here, you can check for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4n29bbQysA&list=PL0qz7jwpf-DoB5zOrd1B_VicHwWto26rl

[Karl Henning]

You are referring to the opening of the fourth movement, yes?

Да, the initial marking for the fourth movement is Andante maestoso.

[mc ukrneal]

Да, the initial marking or the fourth movement is Andante maestoso.

Then try the opening of the clip and see what you think. I would be interested to hear another view. In some versions, I can find the opening a bit too uneventful - they get the atmosphere right, but there is not enough detail. Here at least, everything else is pretty good, so if you can tolerate the the tempo, you might like it. I don;t think he goes so fast as to spoil it, but it is probably a preference thing. In any case, most versions (90%+) probably do not properly observe the tempo markings all the way through anyway. There tends to be at least one change from the score, if not multiple changes. It's an interesting topic, especially as the tempo choices have such a big impact on the effectiveness of the fourth movement.

[Sean]

So if you're thinking along those lines I don't understand where Sleeping Beauty goes, which is a much more sophisticated work than Swan Lake IMO.

People say this but the music becomes a little faded and anonymous as SL never does.

[elotito]

Isn't this recording supposed to be highly regarded?

[MishaK]

I'm glad you liked Sokhiev, Neal. I'm really enjoying everything I've heard of his. He did a marvellous 4th here in Chicago on his debut with the CSO. Unique, individual interpretation, got the orchestra to sound much darker than it normally does and had them follow his flexible tempos. Very fine conductor.

[mc ukrneal]

Isn't this recording supposed to be highly regarded?

It is often regarded as 'the one' for this symphony, and is certainly the benchmark against which all others are usually compared. It is a wonderful performance (with an intense fourth movement that I have never heard equaled in that manor - yet). I did not want to start with that one, but rather listen to many different approaches (many of which he influenced) before getting to that one. He has several other perfomances that some others say are as good or better, but I have never heard those (yet).

[Sean]

Not when the music is an unpitched percussion ensemble.

Really, Sean, these unthinking pronouncements are too easy to pick off ; )

Well you can write for unpitched anything and invest it with all the rhythmic dynamic contrivance to be mustered but posterity will still respond with the universal eh?? or the Okay okay, go on then, I like the formal arrangements but when's the music on the programme tonight?

[elotito]

Ok thanks mc ukrneal, that's good to know I don't have a complete dud of a recording! I think it's the only version I've heard and I've never felt the need to find another but I may explore some of those reviewed in this thread.

[Karl Henning]

It is often regarded as 'the one' for this symphony, and is certainly the benchmark against which all others are usually compared. It is a wonderful performance (with an intense fourth movement that I have never heard equaled in that manor - yet). I did not want to start with that one, but rather listen to many different approaches (many of which he influenced) before getting to that one. He has several other perfomances that some others say are as good or better, but I have never heard those (yet).

Mravinsky's Allegro furioso con fuoco in the fourth movement is a joy forever, that's for sure.

[Herman]

People say this but the music becomes a little faded and anonymous as SL never does.

I have never experienced this fading, so what can I say?

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Gustavo Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela. 2008.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Initial attack not quite together, but then fine. Slow start, and pauses are on the long side. There is less detail in this opening in terms of phrasing and dynamics, which makes for a duller opening. Then into the allegro con anima, it remains quite slow, though as the speed starts to push forward there, it does so unevenly among the different departments. Nice balance of sound in the climaxes. And then around 5:45 – a sudden burst of speed, but soon back to the starting tempo (slower even). What is striking is how little the strings (and actually a lot of others too) use dynamics and phrasing to create interest within the longer lines of the music. It is very much legato, which is fine (I actually enjoy hearing how in each performance they all make different choices on this point). But the dynamics are static within a section of the music. So they perform some details as a department or group (a crescendo or change in dynamics from piano to forte, for example), but not in the smaller segments (for example, some of the 'mini-solos' frequently heard throughout), which creates a sort of static approach to this music, which as heard by other groups, can have much more variety/interest. Tempo changes don't really seem to have much rhyme or reason, but neither do they seem quite as forced as others and so this didn't bother me for the most part.

Second Movement: Dark, beautiful opening. But considering how slow it goes, it does not try to milk the music. The horn is set back a hair in the soundstage. No vibrato. It's more wistful than beautiful. It's decently played (occasionally goes out of tune towards the end of the solo parts), but again the lack of phrasing and dynamics hurts. As a result, the slower tempo makes it seem a bit boring, as if there is not much happening. But then there is some redemption when the orchestra plays something together – suddenly there are more details and interest. He does sometimes get to the climax too early, wonderful as they can be.

Third movement: Slower waltz.  Again, lacks differentiation and detail. It's like they're playing the music, but not feeling the music.
   
Fourth Movement: Slower start, but here the group dynamic approach works well as they generally all play together. And then at the allegro vivace they are off to the races (after the timpini downbeat). They play it fine, and the breathtaking speed is exciting, but I just wish they played with more nuance and detail – it is sorely lacking throughout. There is also a tendency to be inconsistent with the speeds within departments. Trumpets are quite restrained – you'd think this was the time to start letting loose. Woodwinds slow it down with their little 'solos', though they get back to the faster speed later.  This is, by far, the most exciting movement they have done.  Last sections are at more or less the same speeds. And they just seem to play really loud at the end, without much dynamic change or phrasing – just in your face.

Overall: So So. This version is at its best when the orchestra is playing a theme or melody together (and usually in climaxes). But it is sorely lacking in detail (phrasing and dynamics in particular), which creates the feeling that the music isn't going anywhere.  I cannot recommend this when there are so many other versions out there that do much more with the music.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-14897/?search=1
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Apr09/Tchaikovsky_Dudamel_4778022.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/mar/06/tchaikovsky-symphony-5-francesca-rimini
http://www.classical-music.com/review/tchaikovsky-%E2%80%93%C2%A0symphony-no-5-francesca-da-rimini
http://www.classicalcdreview.com/pit.html
http://www.allmusic.com/album/tchaikovsky-symphony-no-5-mw0001413315

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Sian Edwards and the London Philharmonic Orchestra. 1990.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Smooth start, and here is one that already you can see is going to make good use of dynamic changes, phrasing, etc. The clarinet and orchestra are not static like some and this creates some beautiful moments. I'm only 30 seconds in, but already I am transfixed. And nice speed into the next section. A lot of legato (and some ruabto), which is making each phrase complete. And she doesn't just blast her way into the climaxes (like Dudamel, for example). The orchestra is being very disciplined – just how I like it. Brass is perhaps a slight bit restrained at times – I'd prefer them a hair more prominent in the balance in some of the climaxes (but this is a preference thing I think). Again, the details are marvelous. When you have multiple instruments, you can hear the line of each of them with no difficulties. Sound is a bit over-reverberant, which is a shame.

Second Movement: Beautiful opening. When they go from chord to chord to start, it just gives me goosebumps (and you can really feel the long line in this one). Then we have the solo (occasional vibrato), which is slower than many of the others, but nicely phrased and sounds good (and fairly straight-forward). The horn sounds beautiful with good use of dynamics (especially on the softer side). There is a beautiful interplay of the various mini-solos with the orchestra. This movement has great flow of tempo and dynamic changes – very natural sounding. And she doesn't anticipate the climaxes and get too loud too early here. Another great movement.

Third movement: More use of rubato here with the bassoon works well. Nicely done in appropriate style.
   
Fourth Movement: Stately start (nice details in dynamics), and not too fast. Very fine opening, a section that can sometimes be unvaried. And then we go into the allegro vivace in a slightly different way – they enter on the roll, but the timpini does a decrescendo there (or a piano or something) after reaching the top so that the silence almost gives you the impression of a downbeat (though by then the orchestra has come in). Neat. And then we are moving at a relatively moderate pace (but not quite as slow as Markevitch). At a slower speed, I prefer the phrases to be drawn out (otherwise there are periods of quiet), but she doesn't really do that here. But they are with her entirely on the tempo, so that comes off without a hitch. But by choosing moderate tempi, you are able to hear lots of detail. The brass has a great presence here too (and because there is good use of accents and attacks it has a more intense feel to it than some). Presto is faster, but not super speedy (as some do). And then into the end, we are faster yet. Last four notes are done in time (and because we are relatively fast, it comes off a bit like a fanfare ending). 

Overall: Excellent. It has great detail (in use of dynamics in particular) and just flows very naturally. The tempo choices are generally on the moderate side, so this doesn't have quite the frenetic energy that the Honeck (for example) has, but it has a rousing fullness in its place. It's a fairly straight-forward interpretation for the most part, but at a very high level. 

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[trung224]

  Excellent reviews, Neal.  Have you heard Temirkanov's performance with St.Peterburg Orchestra on RCA? I bought it recently and found it very interesting.

[mc ukrneal]

  Excellent reviews, Neal.  Have you heard Temirkanov's performance with St.Peterburg Orchestra on RCA? I bought it recently and found it very interesting.

I have that one and the Royal Philharmonic (so will be able to compare them). They were made just three years apart, so I wonder why RCA (and Temirkanov) did the second one. I don't remember which one I heard, but my first impression (admittedly superficial) was not all that great.  I do remember it being a bit different. But in this exercise, I try not to focus on whether I like it or not, but what it is I like or don't like so that someone can say, "Hey, I love it when they play that slower or that part less sentimental, so that sounds like a version for me."

I've got to admit that I am enjoying myself immensely, far more than I expected.

[David M]

Overall: Good. Honeck clearly had a clear vision when he conducted this and it shines through. The sound of the orchestra is incredible too.  A precise and disciplined recording only adds to my delight, though some may prefer less sudden tempo shifts (I found them too sudden and seemingly random, though often quite exciting). The length of notes, tempos, dynamics, etc. are all well-coordinated across the orchestra. The sound is also excellent and though it is live, I forgot about that until they started clapping at the end.

MC Ukrneal, great review and description of the performance. I may have been one of those clapping as the PSO is my home orchestra and I have seen Honeck do the Fifth a couple of times. He clearly loves the piece and it has a special meaning for him. He does it so often here, on tour, guest conducting, we like to call it the Manfred symphony. If you get a chance to see him do it live, do go.

[mc ukrneal]

MC Ukrneal, great review and description of the performance. I may have been one of those clapping as the PSO is my home orchestra and I have seen Honeck do the Fifth a couple of times. He clearly loves the piece and it has a special meaning for him. He does it so often here, on tour, guest conducting, we like to call it the Manfred symphony. If you get a chance to see him do it live, do go.

It was one of the recordings I was most excited to listen to and I wasn't disappointed. He's a conductor I will look out for (and with many raves about his Mahler...no, I must be strong! ).

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Paul van Kempen and the Concertgebouw Orchestra. 1951.

Available in these editions:

Beware: Amazon have an mp3 version of this, but the timings to not match the Philips or Andromeda versions, so it must be someone else there (or a different Van Kempen recording, though I have only ever seen this one recording by Van Kempen) or perhaps there is an error in the tracks. Not sure.

This is an older recording, so won't have some of the aural impressiveness that others have. Still, it is a well-known recording, popular in its time. I am listening to the Andromeda release, and what I have read leads me to believe the sound is better there (in any case, my comments on sound will relate to that version).

First movement: Nice start. Sound is a bit reverberant and has troubles when it gets too loud, but is also quite clear. Nice clarinet to start. Speed up in the next section is measured, but the phrasing is quite unique with strong accents. The phrasing here has been unified throughout the orchestra, so despite the limitations in the sound, the effect is outstanding. The tempo changes are so organic, you almost don't realize the tempo is changing. The speeds change quite a bit, but they are so natural, you don't feel he is imposing his will on it. There is a lightness and fleetness to it that I really enjoy (and a pulse). There is just such a natural flow here, despite all the tempo shifts.

Second Movement: Too reverberant, but still the impact of those low strings is impressive. The solo is sweetly played. No vibrato. Phrasing is great, and I can only imagine how it would have sounded in modern sound. The contrast with the oboe and bassoon is so interesting, because they do have vibrato. Stirring playing here. It moves along, but quite lyrical nonetheless. Timpini really booms, which is a shame, but that is what you get for 1951. Precision is outstanding here though, and you can tell you are listening to a world class performance.

Third movement: Harsher sounding, and the waltz lacks some of the beauty that others have due to the sound. But this is still very well played.

Fourth Movement: Stately start, well played. And into the allegro vivace...wow! The timpini plays a much more highlighted roll and they play at the top of the roll (but no boom, very interesting). And the tempo is quite slow. But what intensity! The underlying strings are given a nice weight, which makes it seem like fate is simply unstoppable. It's slow, but it's coming to get you no matter what you do – that sort of feeling. Van Kempen does not change tempos like others (you may or may not like that). And then the cuts – typical for this period and a shame, but that was the approach of the time. There is some small speed up, but it never goes insanely fast as some do. Not everyone will like this. And then in the end, the sound is starting to get a bit warped/distorted, as I feared. Cymbal crashes into the last section! SO cool! Ok, not everyone will like these, but I thought they were great fun and worked well. Final section goes at a faster pace, and the last four notes are in time. 

Overall: Excellent. Despite the sound. Despite the cuts. Despite the additions. I would not recommend this as a first choice, because the sound is just not good enough (and because of the cuts), but here is a recording that just feels so right and might make an interesting alternative recording. Everything has a logic to it. The orchestra is fantastic. The cuts are a problem, but not so different compared to other older recordings. The cymbal crashes are a hoot, and I actually liked them!  If you can overlook the sound and just want a great interpretation, this makes a fine choice.

Alternative reviews available on the net:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2007/Apr07/Tchaikovsky5_Kempen_ArkivCD_420858.htm
http://www.classicalcdreview.com/pit.html