Holst's The Planets

Started by Elgarian, April 27, 2012, 07:07:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

kishnevi

Gergiev is hit or miss or miss or miss...

He's best in Russian music. Did any obscure Russian or Soviet composer ever write a планеты?

Peter Power Pop

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 19, 2017, 07:07:58 PM
Gergiev is hit or miss or miss or miss...

He's best in Russian music. Did any obscure Russian or Soviet composer ever write a планеты?

Not as far as I know.

relm1

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 19, 2017, 07:07:58 PM
Gergiev is hit or miss or miss or miss...

He's best in Russian music. Did any obscure Russian or Soviet composer ever write a планеты?

Sort of.  If you consider Planets to be astrological/mystical as Holst intended rather than astronomical, then maybe you would consider Scriabin's Mysterium as a contemporary peer.  If you think more astronomical, Yuri Smirnov wrote a work called "A Space Odyssey".

Peter Power Pop

#803
Quote from: relm1 on October 20, 2017, 06:55:54 AM
Sort of.  If you consider Planets to be astrological/mystical as Holst intended rather than astronomical, then maybe you would consider Scriabin's Mysterium as a contemporary peer.  If you think more astronomical, Yuri Smirnov wrote a work called "A Space Odyssey".

As soon as I saw the words "A Space Odyssey" I thought of this:

https://www.youtube.com/v/T0rDBncLS6k

mc ukrneal

#78 on your list is conducted by Mardjani. You then discovered it sounds identical to Kakhidze. In the wiki list of Tchaikovsky 5 recordings, it lists Mardjani as likely being a pseudonym. When I looked up the Kakhidze recording, I cannot find any evidence of that, but the recording timings are almost identical to Mardjani. The first three movements are each within a 5 second difference, while the 4th movement is 11 seconds different. Thus, I suspect that this was indeed a pseudonym. I still don't have hard evidence, but they do both use the Georgian Festival Orchestra. I just thought I would mention it as I like it when I can settle mysteries such as this. And this one seems likely solved.
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Peter Power Pop

Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 18, 2017, 12:54:28 PM
#78 on your list is conducted by Mardjani. You then discovered it sounds identical to Kakhidze. In the wiki list of Tchaikovsky 5 recordings, it lists Mardjani as likely being a pseudonym. When I looked up the Kakhidze recording, I cannot find any evidence of that, but the recording timings are almost identical to Mardjani. The first three movements are each within a 5 second difference, while the 4th movement is 11 seconds different. Thus, I suspect that this was indeed a pseudonym. I still don't have hard evidence, but they do both use the Georgian Festival Orchestra. I just thought I would mention it as I like it when I can settle mysteries such as this. And this one seems likely solved.

Thanks for the detective work, Unreal Neal.

[Putting on my most flamboyant voice] Your assiduousness is astounding!

Mirror Image

#806
Thought I would revive this thread...

Here's a review I recently wrote on Dutoit's Planets on Decca via Amazon:



Title: This Solar System Has Become Diluted

Let me begin by saying that I think the fidelity of this recording is quite good and much better than the reviewer who criticized the audio mix. There's nothing wrong with the mix of this recording. What I find objectionable about Dutoit's "Planets" is the interpretation itself. Everything sounds 'correct' to my ears and in this regard, it certainly could never be faulted as Dutoit was one of those perfectionist conductors who never let something that sounded bad come out of an orchestra. But here lies my main problem with this performance, there aren't any moments where Dutoit loses control and lets his emotions take over to fuel the performance. He sees the score, he gets the orchestra to perform it and then they go home. That's it! There's nothing individual about this performance and this is why I can only allot it two stars. "The Planets" is one of the most well-known orchestral works in the classical repertoire. It's been recorded countless times and continues to be a crowd-pleaser. I need more of Dutoit's personal stamp in this music because, otherwise, I can listen to other performances who also just play the notes.

I fail to understand why this recorded is lauded by critics and fans alike. It's not a 'terrible' recording, but it is faceless and one I never return to. My own favorite recordings (in no particular order): Bernstein/NYPO, Boult/LPO, Mehta/LAPO, Karajan/Wiener and Groves/RPO.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will reiterate a few points. I generally like Dutoit's conducting and think he excels in French music, but I felt he lost his way in this work. In fact, I think he's lost in any of the English music I've heard him conduct. His Mars just plods along and it felt like someone put a wet blanket over the whole musical proceedings. It's limp, devoid of any menace and sounds like he's not even aware of what this music is supposed to invoke or call to mind. Another big letdown was Saturn, which is my favorite movement. Where's the gravitas? Where's the crushing weight of inevitability as we watch the clock? I have never understood how this recording gets such superlative ratings, but it doesn't from me. I gave it two stars and that was from the performance of the Montreal SO and the sound engineering from Decca. Dutoit gets zero stars. Truly one of the worst Planets I've heard.

Roasted Swan

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2020, 01:36:34 PM
Thought I would revive this thread...

Here's a review I recently wrote on Dutoit's Planets on Decca via Amazon:



Title: This Solar System Has Become Diluted

Let me begin by saying that I think the fidelity of this recording is quite good and much better than the reviewer who criticized the audio mix. There's nothing wrong with the mix of this recording. What I find objectionable about Dutoit's "Planets" is the interpretation itself. Everything sounds 'correct' to my ears and in this regard, it certainly could never be faulted as Dutoit was one of those perfectionist conductors who never let something that sounded bad come out of an orchestra. But here lies my main problem with this performance, there aren't any moments where Dutoit loses control and lets his emotions take over to fuel the performance. He sees the score, he gets the orchestra to perform it and then they go home. That's it! There's nothing individual about this performance and this is why I can only allot it two stars. "The Planets" is one of the most well-known orchestral works in the classical repertoire. It's been recorded countless times and continues to be a crowd-pleaser. I need more of Dutoit's personal stamp in this music because, otherwise, I can listen to other performances who also just play the notes.

I fail to understand why this recorded is lauded by critics and fans alike. It's not a 'terrible' recording, but it is faceless and one I never return to. My own favorite recordings (in no particular order): Bernstein/NYPO, Boult/LPO, Mehta/LAPO, Karajan/Wiener and Groves/RPO.

I think you touch on several key truths about this recording - but then curiously say you do not understand it's popularity.  It is precisely because the sanitised accuracy of the performance/interpretation and technical sophistication of the production chimes with what (seemingly) most of the buying public want.  Any technical fallibility will be berated over any amount of musical insight or individuality.  Faceless accuracy (it seems) is valued more highly than flawed revelation.  You pays your money and you take your choice....!

Mirror Image

Quote from: Roasted Swan on December 29, 2020, 01:50:00 PM
I think you touch on several key truths about this recording - but then curiously say you do not understand it's popularity.  It is precisely because the sanitised accuracy of the performance/interpretation and technical sophistication of the production chimes with what (seemingly) most of the buying public want.  Any technical fallibility will be berated over any amount of musical insight or individuality.  Faceless accuracy (it seems) is valued more highly than flawed revelation.  You pays your money and you take your choice....!

That's a fair point. I guess I don't really understand what the buying public wants, because I never really concerned myself with them. I'm not looking for technical proficiency or accuracy when I buy a recording, I'm listening out for what the interpretation at hand has to offer that another recording I own doesn't. Individuality is always of more importance to me.

aukhawk

Quote from: Roasted Swan on December 29, 2020, 01:50:00 PM
...  Faceless accuracy (it seems) is valued more highly than flawed revelation.  You pays your money and you take your choice....!

No reason not to have both. Accuracy doesn't have to be faceless. Revelation needn't be flawed.

geralmar

I'm one of those obsessives who collects recordings of The Planets (and Scheherazade and the Dvorak New World Symphony) and probably have three dozen or so CDs and original L.P.s of the work.  An advantage for The Planets collector is that there weren't that many Planets recordings before 1970.  I suspect the work was popularized by 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) although none of it was used in the movie.  My go-to recordings for strictly personal reasons are the dimly recorded1954 Sargent/LSO and the 1966 Boult/NPO.  The latter is slagged by some critics because of a trumpet "clam" in "Mars"; but I don't listen to music to impress critics.  For other obsessives the three EMI Boult recordings  (1945, 1966, 1978) are available in this set:



The other two Boult commercial recordings can be found elsewhere.







Brahmsian

Interesting thread, and I'm sure I'll go back into the beginning to read through the pages.

I only have two recordings.  Both of which I enjoy greatly.

David Lloyd-Jones conducting the Royal Scottish National Orchestra on Naxos label (this one includes the "Pluto" created by Colin Matthews)

The other one is Zubin Mehta conducting the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, on the Decca label.

Brahmsian

This work has always enchanted and fascinated me, and I truly wonder what it is?  Is it solely the music itself?  Or the program attached to the music?

In other words, would this work be as vastly popular as it is if it had simply been named something like "Suite for Orchestra" or "Seven Pieces for Orchestra"?  How much does adding a program and titles to a work contribute to its success and popularity?

Also, I find there are other works of classical music that strongly evoke the aura, atmosphere and vastness of space and cosmic wonder.  For me, these are the opening movement to Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, and the Adagio of Bruckner's 9th Symphony.

relm1

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2020, 01:36:34 PM
Thought I would revive this thread...

Here's a review I recently wrote on Dutoit's Planets on Decca via Amazon:



Title: This Solar System Has Become Diluted

Let me begin by saying that I think the fidelity of this recording is quite good and much better than the reviewer who criticized the audio mix. There's nothing wrong with the mix of this recording. What I find objectionable about Dutoit's "Planets" is the interpretation itself. Everything sounds 'correct' to my ears and in this regard, it certainly could never be faulted as Dutoit was one of those perfectionist conductors who never let something that sounded bad come out of an orchestra. But here lies my main problem with this performance, there aren't any moments where Dutoit loses control and lets his emotions take over to fuel the performance. He sees the score, he gets the orchestra to perform it and then they go home. That's it! There's nothing individual about this performance and this is why I can only allot it two stars. "The Planets" is one of the most well-known orchestral works in the classical repertoire. It's been recorded countless times and continues to be a crowd-pleaser. I need more of Dutoit's personal stamp in this music because, otherwise, I can listen to other performances who also just play the notes.

I fail to understand why this recorded is lauded by critics and fans alike. It's not a 'terrible' recording, but it is faceless and one I never return to. My own favorite recordings (in no particular order): Bernstein/NYPO, Boult/LPO, Mehta/LAPO, Karajan/Wiener and Groves/RPO.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will reiterate a few points. I generally like Dutoit's conducting and think he excels in French music, but I felt he lost his way in this work. In fact, I think he's lost in any of the English music I've heard him conduct. His Mars just plods along and it felt like someone put a wet blanket over the whole musical proceedings. It's limp, devoid of any menace and sounds like he's not even aware of what this music is supposed to invoke or call to mind. Another big letdown was Saturn, which is my favorite movement. Where's the gravitas? Where's the crushing weight of inevitability as we watch the clock? I have never understood how this recording gets such superlative ratings, but it doesn't from me. I gave it two stars and that was from the performance of the Montreal SO and the sound engineering from Decca. Dutoit gets zero stars. Truly one of the worst Planets I've heard.

It is not a flawless performance.  There are performance errors in this recording.  It actually is on the verge of collapse in Mars where it is breaking at the seems.  And in addition, excellent sonics. 

Mirror Image

Quote from: relm1 on December 30, 2020, 06:49:56 AM
It is not a flawless performance.  There are performance errors in this recording.  It actually is on the verge of collapse in Mars where it is breaking at the seems.  And in addition, excellent sonics.

Yeah, the entire performance is an error. So there! ;D

Mirror Image

#815
Quote from: OrchestralNut on December 30, 2020, 05:34:46 AM
This work has always enchanted and fascinated me, and I truly wonder what it is?  Is it solely the music itself?  Or the program attached to the music?

In other words, would this work be as vastly popular as it is if it had simply been named something like "Suite for Orchestra" or "Seven Pieces for Orchestra"?  How much does adding a program and titles to a work contribute to its success and popularity?

Also, I find there are other works of classical music that strongly evoke the aura, atmosphere and vastness of space and cosmic wonder.  For me, these are the opening movement to Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, and the Adagio of Bruckner's 9th Symphony.

The idea behind The Planets didn't originate with Holst himself but Clifford Bax and remember that this work was influenced astrology not necessarily the solar system itself. I think I read somewhere that Holst had immersed himself in this field of study and it wasn't until he saw a performance of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra that he decided to compose a suite for orchestra. Honestly, if it had no program attached to it, it would still be a masterpiece. I suppose he felt that the work needed a better title. I think he needed that extra push in inspiration to help give the work shape. I think if we look outside the program, it's still a damn fine piece of music. Each movement is a world unto itself and I was commenting to a friend that you can hear all the techniques that Holst had developed up until this point through the entirety of the work. There's a little Planets in everything Holst composed to some degree or another even those choral works and operas.

staxomega

For those that like Mehta's recording with LA Phil this was reissued recently on SACD by Analogue Productions. The CD from the 90s already sounded pretty great, but this SACD is a nice improvement; it sounds like you're listening to the open reel masters with the dynamics, bandwidth and vividness of tonal color.

I am not a detractor of this piece, but it still blows my mind that there would be 41 pages discussing it  :laugh:

Mirror Image

#817
Quote from: hvbias on December 30, 2020, 03:55:26 PM
For those that like Mehta's recording with LA Phil this was reissued recently on SACD by Analogue Productions. The CD from the 90s already sounded pretty great, but this SACD is a nice improvement; it sounds like you're listening to the open reel masters with the dynamics, bandwidth and vividness of tonal color.

I am not a detractor of this piece, but it still blows my mind that there would be 41 pages discussing it  :laugh:

I've got this recording of the Mehta:



I'm more than pleased with its fidelity. It sounds not quite as in-your-face as the original and other frequencies have been brought up/down to great effect. Demonstration quality all-around.

As for the 41 pages, I'm not surprised in the least. It's a masterpiece and actually deserves more pages.

Peter Power Pop

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 30, 2020, 08:55:44 PM
[snip]

As for the 41 pages, I'm not surprised in the least. It's a masterpiece and actually deserves more pages.

"More" you say? Well...

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/

Mirror Image

Quote from: Peter Power Pop on December 30, 2020, 09:20:25 PM
"More" you say? Well...

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/

I've already read a good bit from your page, Peter. Good stuff, although I disagree with your top choice.