Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5: reviews and thoughts

[mc ukrneal]

Neal, I wonder if you noticed that one of the alternative reviews available for Pletnev/PentaTone was written by me.  I liked the recording a lot less than you did, but our gripes were very similar. Wish I'd thought of the hilarious Disney analogy in the last paragraph!

Ha! I missed that. That one had a lot of reviews, so I didn't go through them as thoroughly. Reading yours, we are indeed quite similar in our comments. That spot where the orchestra gets stuck really irritated me.  I'm doubtful that I liked it any more than you did, but I also think he is taking a different approach (perhaps I was reminded of it because I had listened to the other recordng first), and of that I am perhaps less critical. ALthough, some seemed to feel he was taking no approach at all.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Rafael Kubelik and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. 1960.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Nice start. Clarinets have a nice weight to them and isolation that I like (by isolation, I mean they are audible separate from the orchestra, and quite transparent). Really quite beautiful beginning. The next section moves at a moderate pace. The strings are somewhat sloppy in their entrance, but settle down after that. Flutes are set back somewhat, and so their little runs are lost (barely heard), but the brass have a nice presence. Climaxes are solid. I'm not always a fan of the sudden tempo changes, but for the most part they don't stick out as much as some, though they could be a bit more organic at times. In general, the woodwinds seem set back a bit in the sound and this makes some of their melodies/counterpoint/seconding or thirding of parts/etc. hard to hear. I think it is a recording issue, but it does mean there is a lack of playing sometimes when it is expected. They are fine in the solos though (though again the problem with the flutes I noted earlier). Still, it is mostly good overall.

Second Movement: Nice dynamics in the start with a lyrical opening. Horn is very prominent and I had to turn sound down a hair. It is very beautiful playing with no vibrato. Highs are rock solid. I wish there was perhaps a bit more variance in the dynamics, which seem mostly mf and forte (or perhaps some nuance in the phrasing).  Strings don't quite have the weight they can have with some of the other groups. It is nicely played, but that extra 'oomph' is missing. It's a fairly straight reading (doesn't linger) and it moves along fairly quickly.

Third movement: Bit of a slower tempo waltz, but I found it to be quite moving. I guess the Viennese know a thing or two about the waltz! This one has great flow, though the rubato is quite strong in a few places.

Fourth Movement: Very stately start, a bit on the slow side (and despite this a small unison issue around 2:25). Then they are into the allegro vivace (after timpani roll, but no downbeat) at a fairly moderate pace, but again a couple of unison issues creep up. Here is another version the opposite of Mravinsky, taking it at a laid back pace and with more beauty than intensity. Kubelik also does not have as many tempo changes, which is good in some ways, but also makes the piece seem more homogenous and does not allow the different sections to contrast themselves as much.  What is strange is that at these slow speeds, there are some unison issues in this movement. The climaxes are, for the most part, quite restrained as well – this is 180 degrees from Russian angst. Speeds are quite stable until the very end (molto meno mosso) when there is a speed up, with the last four notes in time. In general, the use of accents, forceful attacks, and drama is limited.

Overall: So So. It pains me to say it, because I generally like Kubelik, but I think he misses the boat on a lot of things. The fourth movement is neutered to some degree. He simply avoids many of the tempo issues, which is one of the things any conductor must resolve for himself/herself. That movement is strangely subdued as well. The first movement comes off the best. But I'd much rather Dorati who recorded it around the same time with some similar sound issues. Dorati simply does much more with the piece.

Sound: There is some hiss audible pretty much the whole time. Those looking for the most modern sound will probably look elsewhere. Woodwinds (the oboe and flutes for sure) are set back in the sound as well, which means their parts are not always as prominent as they should be (and are not always audible).

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/t/tst01322a.php
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10030/

[Kontrapunctus]

I eagerly await a review of Kitajenko and the Cologne Gurzenich Orchestra's recording.

[MishaK]

Overall: So So. It pains me to say it, because I generally like Kubelik,

I've not heard this particular recording, but I've generally found his work with the VPO rather unsatisfying. Of all his Ma Vlasts, for example, the one with the VPO on Decca is by far the least satisfying. Likewise, there is a VPO Brahms cycle on Decca that is neither here nor there. In part, the Decca sound engineers might be to blame, who in all of the Kubelik/VPO recordings I've heard have tended toward a recessed, woolly, murky kind of sound that doesn't help things and is unlikely to be an accurate representation of what Kubelik did. If there's one thing characteristic of Kubelik's conducting it's the absolutely brilliant balancing of the voices even when the sound is warm and rich. The Decca VPO recordings fail to capture this, and your description of the recessed woodwinds is in line with this. This Testament issue also originated with Decca, I assume?

[mc ukrneal]

I eagerly await a review of Kitajenko and the Cologne Gurzenich Orchestra's recording.

I am interested in that one too (as I am many of the newer ones I have never heard).

I've not heard this particular recording, but I've generally found his work with the VPO rather unsatisfying. Of all his Ma Vlasts, for example, the one with the VPO on Decca is by far the least satisfying. Likewise, there is a VPO Brahms cycle on Decca that is neither here nor there. In part, the Decca sound engineers might be to blame, who in all of the Kubelik/VPO recordings I've heard have tended toward a recessed, woolly, murky kind of sound that doesn't help things and is unlikely to be an accurate representation of what Kubelik did. If there's one thing characteristic of Kubelik's conducting it's the absolutely brilliant balancing of the voices even when the sound is warm and rich. The Decca VPO recordings fail to capture this, and your description of the recessed woodwinds is in line with this. This Testament issue also originated with Decca, I assume?

They were recorded by EMI according to the classical.net review. When I look for the LP, I find they were recorded by His Majesty's Voice, which was owned by the EMI Group. I am not sure what this means for the quality of the recording as I am not familiar with the history of that group.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Constantin Silvestri and the Philharmonia Orchestra. 1957.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Slow tempo to start. Clarinet has nice impact and transparency. Some of the phrasing is more subdued compared to some versions, but seems to work with the subdued style at the start. But then the next section starts very slow (which is to be expected as he is among the 15 slowest in this movement). Yet as they get going, the effect is quite marvelous and it doesn't feel too slow. It's possible that some will miss a bit of speed here, but I find it so well played that I am ok with the slower speed (in part because phrases are played to their fullest, thereby not leaving moments of silence that stop momentum). There is certainly some rubato here along with some changes in tempo. The tempo changes are reasonably well done (mostly flowing). Though I personally prefer this a bit faster, I cannot fault the performance – it is quite good. The phrasing and energy are both there in abundance despite the speed (and the feeling that they have forward momentum is not lost despite it).

Second Movement: Slightly faster start, but beautiful. Oh, and this is a gorgeous solo. It is very legato (slight vibrato) and just oozes out with a beautiful tone!  Not much done with the dynamics, but it is so soft and silky, I can live with that. Woodwind 'solos' are quite nicely done as well. SIlvestri has a great feel for the line and the buildups are so organic and natural, they just flow out. His climaxes are not always quite as sustained as some, but they feel right (they certainly don't overstay their welcome, which is a plus for me). Loses just a bit of momentum in the middle of the movement, but is soon regained. We get a sudden surge of tempo increase near the end (fanfare) and then back to a slower tempo and gentle ending.

Third movement: Slower start, followed by an increase in tempo. There seems to be a lot of tempo changes in this one, which I find don't allow the movement to flow as nicely as it could.  Interestingly, the trumpets parts stand out for some reason in the recording – never really paid much attention to them in this section before (which is mostly strings and woodwind). Overall, it's still ok.

Fourth Movement: Stately start, if a bit more staccato than some versions. And then into the allegro vivace (after a timpini downbeat), we are off at a brisk pace. It isn't quite as intense as it can be, and the timpini is a bit more prominent than usual, but the impact is still quite exciting. The playing is quite good here and the orchestra really stay together well with the changing tempos, dynamics, etc. And then at about 6:30 it REALLY takes off like a shot. The tempo changes are really getting a workout. Some seem a bit harsh to me, but the orchestra doesn't miss a beat and so it works. There are no unison issues here at all (just as I wrote that the trumpets had a minor hiccup, but really minor), and a rather flexible orchestra (they are light and turn like a whip). And then the ending is wonderfully sustained (tempos and style beautifully flowing) until the presto when they fly like the wind (and no one gonna catch them – and the unison is phenomenal). The molto meno mosso, which is taken faster than written, is slower than the maniac speed of the previous section and so the contrast still makes it work.  I am not always a fan of the sudden and abrupt speed changes that occur in this piece, but they are judicious here, and so it doesn't bother me so much (that and the fact that they play so precisely at such a fast speed, well I can't help but be impressed!).

Overall: Good. This one has a very slow first movement and a last movement that really moves along. The horn solo was sweet sounding and hit just the 'right notes' for me! Oddly, the third movement is the weakest for me. Other versions will have a more organic sounding fourth movement or more intense. But Silvestri more than holds his own overall.

Sound: Hiss is lightly audible throughout (listening to the Artist Profile twofer). But one gets to used it and can ignore it for the most part (more so than Dorati or Kubelik).

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=859904

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Christoph Poppen and the Deutsche Radio Philharmonic Orchestra. 2012.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Slightly faster start, but warm in sound. It has a reticence in the clarinet (or perhaps it is just set back a bit far in the soundstage as it doesn't seem to play such a leading role in this version as it is less forward compared to other versions). Into the next section, just a hair faster – speeds on the slow to moderate side overall. Dynamics seem static at times, in the mp to f range. Rubato seems lacking in a few moments – perhaps I have been getting too used to it? Climaxes are ok, but they never really get the blood going, rather a much more laid back approach to them. I'd like a little more, if for no other reason than to provide added contrast. The strings also lack a richness/sweetness that I missed. Brass are ok, but trumpets do not have much bite. And then in the last chord, brass really stand out and it sounds totally out of balance. Perhaps this is a technical issue, but a real bummer considering how new the recording is.

Second Movement: Starts at a decent speed. Horn plays assuredly with a nice tone and good phrasing (and a little bit of vibrato). I liked that the soloist used a bit wider range of dynamics than some soloists did. The strings are still lacking a bit of fullness/sweetness that would add so much to the sound. Entrances sound a bit dulled, as if they were told to play legato without accents all the time. Whatever it is they are doing, it lessens the impact of the music. Phrasing does not always maximize the use of dynamics either, which create a blander impact (for example, the last two climaxes, which reminds me to some degree of Dudamel – they had a similar problem). Pretty ending.

Third movement: On the slow side, and played somewhat homogenously. It lacks a bit of character as well. When strings had the melody, they were sometimes harder to hear than they should have been.

Fourth Movement: Stately, but just a shade on the faster side (more personality to start the movement though, which I like). Woodwinds don't have enough prominence though and their parts do not always stand out in the opening. Into the allegro vivace, they come in during the timpini roll which interestingly peaks several bars after the orchestra comes in. Tempo is on the slower side. Again, the beauty is there, but not so much the fire. Unison is good though. Tempo is very inflexible as well, in the sense of a march where the beat is precise and unvaried. Again, perhaps I have been to listening to too many that use a lot of rubato, but I think it makes it a bit too robotic here (and there is little change in tempo). And even when there is a change of tempo, it is only barely noticeable. But then it picks up to start the moderato assai, though it slows a bit as it goes along. Ending is fairly quick with these last sections more interesting from a tempo point of view. And then shock – this was a live performance. I would never have guessed that from my comments. Perhaps they played it safe.

Overall: So So. Somewhat bland at times, I got the feeling they were trying to play beautifully, but perhaps at the exclusion of all else. There are no ugly sounds in this one, but I wish it had a bit more fire and personality. I think the strings in particular did not have a full sound at times. Overall, attacks and accents were muted. And overall balance was also not always to my liking.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None yet

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Isaac Karabtchevsky and the Orchestre National des Pays de la Loire. 2005. Live.

Available in these editions (at Amazon France, and was at Berkshire (for $1.99), on now defunct Calliope label):


First movement: Nice opening, with full sounding clarinet. Quite beautiful, a bit on the slower side. And then we are into the next section, at a stately pace (not rushed). Woodwinds are clearly a bit forward in the soundstage here. Strings, on the other hand, seem a bit back in the soundstage. Dynamic changes are limited, staying at a similar level throughout when there are lots of instruments playing (which is often!). Brass seems a hair off the tempo at times, and not always so sure in their playing. They too seem a bit more forward in the balance, so I am hearing parts I normally don't notice as much (which would be good except they don't always play it confidently). Having now listened to a bunch of these, I can really hear how the phrasing differs – here there are issues with dynamics, which tend to be too uniform and unchanging. When strings play their soft runs at times, for example, it can be hard to hear the whole part. No extreme tempo changes here, perhaps even too little differentiation.

Second Movement: In opening, violins are not prominent enough and I cannot hear the upper notes enough. Horn solo is ok and played pretty much straight (no vibrato). Tone is not as sweet as some and played a bit too matter of fact. Tempo is on the slower side for the most part, which would be fine except they don't seem to do much when there are no solos or climaxes. Low brass in some climaxes is barely audible – I've got to think (I hope) this is a technical issue, but it really hurts the performance. Climaxes are much more exciting, with better use of color, dynamics and phrasing, but then they forget to continue doing these things in the slower, calmer sections (making it somewhat bland). Reminds me a bit of Dudamel here. Ending is dull.

Third movement: Attractive and lightly played at a moderate tempo. Still the same issue with dynamics, but this section has more natural changes in dynamics due to the way it has instruments coming and going all the time. Tempo is steady but for the ocassional rubato.

Fourth Movement: Stately start. Again, minimal use of changing dynamics. Brass do not have as an imposing sound as some, again striving more for beauty here. Into the allegro vivace, timpani too reverberant and covers over the other instruments quite a bit (they play the roll long and the orchestra comes in at the very end/top of its crescendo). And then they are off at a moderate speed. Tempos do speed a bit, which I find helps a bit. It's actually played ok, just lacking in detail, but then the devil is in the detail. I am having a hard time characterizing this one – perhaps best to say they round off (smooth down) all the sharp edges. If you like the idea of that, perhaps this will appeal to you more than it did to me. It's strange to hear the 'fanfare-like section' sound beautiful rather than bombastic or full of power. Trumpets are sometimes further back in the soundstage (but not always) and I find the inconsistency a bit maddening. The final sections are generally at moderate speeds. Lower brass are too prominent at the very end.

Overall: So So. This one just seems to have too little going on. Balance is off at times too. They do not do as much with the piece – phrasing needs more interplay with dynamics. They rarely have strong attacks either, and they do not always seem very sure in their playing.  And sometimes the balance changes, whereby a certain instrument is barely audible (noticed with strings in early movements and brass in fourth movement). Not one I want to return to.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[jochanaan]

I just came across this thread.  Very interesting and thorough!

I tend to like a Fifth with drive and punch in the outer movements, lushness in the Andante cantabile, and good phrasing in the Waltz.  Perhaps my favorite recording is the 1959 Ormandy/Philadelphia, but even this one isn't perfect; not enough of the written tempo variations in the Andante.  Still, those trumpets at the end make up for everything.  (I think Gilbert Johnson was the principal trumpeter in the Philadelphia then.  He was one of the great ones.)

There is a tricky little oboe solo about halfway through the Andante that few oboists (not even John de Lancie in the aforementioned Philadelphia recording) get right.  I've played it, and I like to think I played the rhythms exactly as written, but it's not easy!  In your listening, which orchestral oboists play that solo exactly as written rhythmically?

[mc ukrneal]

I just came across this thread.  Very interesting and thorough!

I tend to like a Fifth with drive and punch in the outer movements, lushness in the Andante cantabile, and good phrasing in the Waltz.  Perhaps my favorite recording is the 1959 Ormandy/Philadelphia, but even this one isn't perfect; not enough of the written tempo variations in the Andante.  Still, those trumpets at the end make up for everything.  (I think Gilbert Johnson was the principal trumpeter in the Philadelphia then.  He was one of the great ones.)

There is a tricky little oboe solo about halfway through the Andante that few oboists (not even John de Lancie in the aforementioned Philadelphia recording) get right.  I've played it, and I like to think I played the rhythms exactly as written, but it's not easy!  In your listening, which orchestral oboists play that solo exactly as written rhythmically?

Do you mean the Andante cantabile (2nd movement) or the Andante (1st movement)? Just want to check, because both do have little solos at that point (a bit past halfway in the andante and closer to halfway in the andante cantabile).

[Brian]

This brand-new BIS release comes out on CD in September, but they are offering the 24-bit FLAC files for download at a discount right now (US $10.61, same as for MP3s).



My copy's downloading right now. You get MP3s for free if you buy the FLACs, so I'm grabbing both sets and burning an MP3 CD to play in the car tomorrow when I drive to San Antonio. Track timings are intriguing:

I. 13:16
II. 12:24
III. 6:03
IV. 12:16 [EDIT: I originally wrote 12:33 but found that BIS has put their customary 20 seconds of silence at the end]
= 43:59

EDIT: From the booklet PDF:
"Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony was the first symphony I ever heard when I was ten years old and it has been my favourite symphony ever since. It was the first symphony I ever played with an orchestra (at the age of 19 with the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra under Yevgeny Svetlanov), and in 2010, when I was invited by Valery Gergiev to perform it at the Mariinsky
Theatre in St Petersburg, the city where it was premièred in 1888, it felt almost as if 'fate' had put me in contact with the work. It, therefore, felt completely natural for me, together with my good friends at the Arctic Philharmonic Orchestra, to choose it for my first recording of a major work from the core orchestral repertoire. I hope you will enjoy listening to it as much as I enjoyed recording it!"

I don't know which is more intriguing, that his first pro concert (he's a trombonist) was under Svetlanov, or that he somehow heard this symphony before Beethoven's Fifth or any of the other usual suspects!

[TheGSMoeller]

This brand-new BIS release comes out on CD in September, but they are offering the 24-bit FLAC files for download at a discount right now (US $10.61, same as for MP3s).



My copy's downloading right now. You get MP3s for free if you buy the FLACs, so I'm grabbing both sets and burning an MP3 CD to play in the car tomorrow when I drive to San Antonio. Track timings are intriguing:

I. 13:16
II. 12:24
III. 6:03
IV. 12:16 [EDIT: I originally wrote 12:33 but found that BIS has put their customary 20 seconds of silence at the end]
= 43:59

Is that the trombonist Lindberg?

[Brian]

Is that the trombonist Lindberg?

Yes; see my edited-in comment above. He's conducted a few CDs before - Dvorak's Violin Concerto (Tognetti) and Legends, some Norwegian chamber-orchestra music (Leifs, Nielsen, Svendsen), Ole Olsen, and most recently Milhaud's Creation du monde, which is on a really terrific and entertaining CD featuring some cool saxophone concertos.

[TheGSMoeller]

Yes; see my edited-in comment above. He's conducted a few CDs before - Dvorak's Violin Concerto (Tognetti) and Legends, some Norwegian chamber-orchestra music (Leifs, Nielsen, Svendsen), Ole Olsen, and most recently Milhaud's Creation du monde, which is on a really terrific and entertaining CD featuring some cool saxophone concertos.

Interesting, was not aware of his conducting abilities.

[aukhawk]

BBC Prom this evening is Tchaikovsky's Fifth.  Scottish National Orchestra, conductor Peter Oundjian.
BBC R3 approx 21:45 UK (BST) time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037mtdt

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Claudio Abbado and the London Symphony Orchestra. 1972.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Clarinet has a forceful start here, prominent and in the forefront. Clarinet has a nice tone (is it perhaps too forceful at times?) and there are oodles of details in this opening. Mood is somber. Speed is moderate. Expressive, but not over the top romantic. Pauses leading to the next section are nearly too long, but then into the next section we are at a moderate speed. And again, we have tons of dynamics, good phrasing, organic speed changes, and excitement. All the departments are on board and the climax is absolutely as thrilling as any. Very nice transparency. Tempo changes are very well done in a nicely nuanced way (though once or twice more abrupt). They have a lot of accents and forceful entrances, yet at the same time there is a beautiful lyrical quality that nicely balances that. In terms of mood and atmosphere, this feels nearly flawless, so how can I quibble about anything? These are not over the top or particularly romantic versions though (so if you are looking for that, these may be of less interest to you), nor are they particularly Russian in approach. Trumpets seem a bit distant every so often. Still, wonderful movement.   

Second Movement: Starts on the quick side (so not romantic atmosphere) and a bit fast for my taste. It does not allow the music to breathe. Solo is also on the quick side too, though very well played (and sounds great). I enjoyed it, but I was not transported by it. This movement has a quicker feeling throughout much of the movement. There are some really minor unison issues that indicate it may have been difficult for the LSO to play it faster than they might usually. It finally slows down a bit about 3/5 of the way through. And then it has some moments of rubato, tempo changes, etc. that all seem appropriate. I'm enjoying the ending sections more than the beginning, which reminds me of how well they played the first movement. So a bit of a mixed bag on this movement for me, mostly because of a steady, fast tempo in the opening sections. Upper brass (trumpets) in the ending climaxes are too far back in the soundstage – missing that sound just a bit. Ends gently

Third movement: This feels like a standard waltz (as opposed to a Viennese style waltz). Rhythm is very steady and accents very much on the beat. Still, well played.

Fourth Movement: Stately start, perhaps just slightly fast. I'd prefer a bit more subtlety to the dynamics from the woodwinds here. And then into the allegro vivace (at the top of the timpani roll) and we are off at a moderate speed. Tempo is not held steady and unison is breaking down just a bit. As a result they slow down. But they do not lack for energy and are back to a high level in no time. There are many more tempo changes in some recent versions I have heard. If those versions sometimes let it fly too long at one pace, here it feels a bit choppy (some minor whiplash). For the first time, the tempos feel a bit forced. Still, quite exciting for the most part and some intense moments (loved the fanfare, for example). Trumpets are a bit distant sounding again. Ending is good though, and the presto moves along nicely, while the ending does not slow down much.

Overall: Good. This has an impressive first movement and has generally the right approach. I wanted to like it more, but there are just a few areas where they let things break down too much (first half second movement, parts of fourth movement). It is also a more direct approach, with less heart on sleeve or romantic impressions. So if you are looking for that, I'd look elsewhere. They say this was Abbado's best 5th, and I guess we will see soon as I will listen to the other two next.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
None

[Karl Henning]

Well, Annie, insofar as I have written more than one piece for unpitched percussion ensemble, and that I consider them completely unimpaired music, I am serious.

Sean is so effortlessly fatuous, though, and with such uncanny frequency, that one does well not to be too serious in addressing his posts.

[0spinboson]

Well, Annie, insofar as I have written more than one piece for unpitched percussion ensemble, and that I consider them completely unimpaired music, I am serious.

Those are two hecks of hypotheticals.. May I assume that, if you indeed wrote such pieces, you were inspired by Beethoven's wonderful Wellington's Victory?http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPX7RT9uFUU

[Roberto]

I am only familiar with the 1928 Columbia recording in its issue on Pearl, which is also the one issued on Opus Kura.
The 1939 recording is reportedly a live radio recording in not so good sound, and many issues seem to have a part missing. M&A and Q-disc are to have issued to complete thing.

I have the 1928 recording in the Andante 3 CD set but Opus Kura makes great reissues also. This recording is good but I prefer the 1939 live recording on Q disc.

[DavidW]

I don't know Sean and it's obvious that you have different world views  but what I do know is I've spent many hours reading your posts and you rendered all of them useless with this one. 

That is pretty rude and born out of ignorance.  You haven't heard his works, and just assume that he must have lead ears.  Let me assure you that Karl has a PhD in music, is a musician, conductor and composer that has freely shared his music with us in the past.  Yes many of us have heard his music and can attest to it's beauty and harmony.  Having heard his music me and others know that he can write something moving for anything he wishes.  Maybe you should try listening to his music sometime before passing judgment.