Holst's The Planets

[Pat B]

I thought for sure the process of your having listened to 90 some odd recordings of the planets would have a tremendous impact on how you assess the work in the first place, so that upon completion you would immediately start all over again but this time incorporating what you learned having already gone through this effort.  I am teasing of course... Your list is a valuable compendium.

Seriously, it might be interesting to go back and re-listen to the first few. But then, I can't really imagine undertaking this sort of project at all -- I probably would have burnt out by #30.

Peter, did you reconsider the Elder? Your write-up seemed relatively enthusiastic but then you ranked it in the middle of the pack. I'm curious about this one because there aren't many live recordings, and it's unsampleable.

[Peter Power Pop]

I thought for sure the process of your having listened to 90 some odd recordings of the planets would have a tremendous impact on how you assess the work in the first place, ...

It did. After listening to it x amount of times (a few hundred I guess), I came to realise the following things:

• I'm not sick of The Planets – in fact I like it more than I ever have.

• I've yet to hear a mistake-free The Planets. (It must be a monster to play.)

• A couple of (very minor) things about the composition bother me. (But I'm not an orchestral composer, so I'm in no position to moan about compositional shortcomings.)

• The Planets is such a sturdy piece of music that it takes some effort to mess it up. (But it can be done.)

... so that upon completion you would immediately start all over again but this time incorporating what you learned having already gone through this effort. ...

Now there's an idea. (Peter's Recommended Planets, Redux. I like it!)

However, I have listened to most of the recordings more than once. In general, I try to listen to something three times before making any kind of assessment about it. But for the purposes of this Planets list, I made notes as I listened to each new recording.

... I am teasing of course... ...

No problem at all. Tease away, baby. But then again... Redux. Hmm.

... Your list is a valuable compendium.

Thanks.

[Peter Power Pop]

Seriously, it might be interesting to go back and re-listen to the first few. But then, I can't really imagine undertaking this sort of project at all -- I probably would have burnt out by #30.

It became surprisingly easy. I have no trouble listening to the same piece of music over and over again. And curiosity drove me to listen to more and more interpretations, as I was intensely interested in knowing one thing: "Is this new recording better than the others?"

I re-listened to quite a few of the recordings. Well, the ones I liked – I tended not to revisit the shabby ones. (Listening to Bernard Herrmann's catastrophe only once was more than enough for me.)

Peter, did you reconsider the Elder? Your write-up seemed relatively enthusiastic but then you ranked it in the middle of the pack. I'm curious about this one because there aren't many live recordings, and it's unsampleable.

"Unsampleable"? We shall see.

[André]

It became surprisingly easy. I have no trouble listening to the same piece of music over and over again. And curiosity drove me to listen to more and more interpretations, as I was intensely interested in knowing one thing: "Is this new recording better than the others?"

I re-listened to quite a few of the recordings. Well, the ones I liked – I tended not to revisit the shabby ones. (Listening to Bernard Herrmann's catastrophe only once was more than enough for me.)

"Unsampleable"? We shall see.

I have gone through the same process with Bruckner's 8th symphony, listening to over 60 different versions - only to find out I didn't remember/recall all that had gone through/by in the first half or so... ... but willing to find out !

[Peter Power Pop]

I have gone through the same process with Bruckner's 8th symphony, listening to over 60 different versions - only to find out I didn't remember/recall all that had gone through/by in the first half or so... ... but willing to find out !

I know where you're coming from, André.

[relm1]

It did. After listening to it x amount of times (a few hundred I guess), I came to realise the following things:

• I've yet to hear a mistake-free The Planets. (It must be a monster to play.)

• A couple of (very minor) things about the composition bother me. (But I'm not an orchestral composer, so I'm in no position to moan about compositional shortcomings.)

I would like to hear more about these points - I have performed it twice and am an orchestral composer...

[Peter Power Pop]

The list is now complete:

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/

[North Star]

The list is now complete:

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/

And you recommend them all, huh? 

[kishnevi]

So both Holst and Colin Davis manage to place in both the top ten and bottom ten....

[Peter Power Pop]

So both Holst and Colin Davis manage to place in both the top ten and bottom ten....

I didn't notice that bit of statistical weirdness.

Thanks for spotting it, JS.

Now that I'm aware of it, I think it successfully highlights the uselessness of lists.

[Peter Power Pop]

It did. After listening to it x amount of times (a few hundred I guess), I came to realise the following things:

• I've yet to hear a mistake-free The Planets. (It must be a monster to play.)

• A couple of (very minor) things about the composition bother me. (But I'm not an orchestral composer, so I'm in no position to moan about compositional shortcomings.)

I would like to hear more about these points - I have performed it twice and am an orchestral composer...

The Dutoit recording is the one with the least amount of mistakes. It has only one: In "Mars", a trumpet plays a slightly sharp note at 5:25 in the right channel.

As for the composition itself, there are two things that annoy me, and they both occur in "Uranus":

1. The ff trumpets-and-trombones fanfare that begins the piece. Because it comes straight after the transcendence of the last part of "Saturn" (The Calm Acceptance Of Mortality part – i.e., rehearsal number V onwards), it's always way too loud for me. And it doesn't matter how long the delay is between the end of "Saturn" and the beginning of "Uranus", that opening fanfare is way too loud. I don't know what Gusto was aiming for there with those blaring brass beasties, but I find it ear-splitting. Maybe he wanted to wake audiences up. (Who knows?) I would have much preferred a very quiet start to "Uranus", with a long crescendo to the main section.

2. The false ending. After the climax with the organ glissando (at the end of rehearsal number VII), there are 29 more bars of music. Almost all of that music is played at pp (although the orchestra does play two bars of ff before rehearsal number X, and then fff at X for a bar and a half). Unfortunately, in most recordings you can barely hear that music, which (for me anyway) results in the sensation of spending two or three minutes with virtually no sound. I think those very quiet bars are totally extraneous. I've read in a few places that the quietitude is supposed to be a trick The Big H plays on the listener, fooling you into believing the piece has ended when it actually hasn't, which is in keeping with the nature of the movement. I've also read that the last 10 bars (rehearsal number IX onwards), where the dynamic level drops down to ppp, are there to prepare you for "Neptune". Either way, I think everything after the climax with the organ is pointless.

[Dax]

It's his musical signature - GuStAv Holst. He was a trombonist . . .

[Peter Power Pop]

It's his musical signature - GuStAv Holst. He was a trombonist . . .

I know – but does it have to be that loud?

By the way, I found out about Gustavo's musical calling card on BBC Radio 3 program Building A Library's episode on The Planets.

Also by the way, David Owen Norris, the chap who hosted that episode, surveyed A Pile of Planets™. His favourite was the one by Paavo Järvi and the Cincinnati Orchestra.

[aukhawk]

... it's always way too loud for me. And it doesn't matter how long the delay is between the end of "Saturn" and the beginning of "Uranus", that opening fanfare is way too loud.

I agree, I always feel that (well actually, I usually skip Uranus altogether).

But I suppose, in a concert hall -
1. The listener hasn't been edging the volume up to enjoy the last bars of Saturn to the full.
2. There's a visual cue (trombonists readying themselves and conductor waving arms frantically) to take the edge off the impact.

[Peter Power Pop]

2. There's a visual cue (trombonists readying themselves and conductor waving arms frantically) to take the edge off the impact.

Which gives you just enough time to stick your fingers in your ears.

[aukhawk]

... or poke your neighbour's eye out.

Actually - if a trombonist spots you putting your fingers in your ears you'd better hope you don't meet him in a dark alley later.

[relm1]

The Dutoit recording is the one with the least amount of mistakes. It has only one: In "Mars", a trumpet plays a slightly sharp note at 5:25 in the right channel.

As for the composition itself, there are two things that annoy me, and they both occur in "Uranus":

1. The ff trumpets-and-trombones fanfare that begins the piece. Because it comes straight after the transcendence of the last part of "Saturn" (The Calm Acceptance Of Mortality part – i.e., rehearsal number V onwards), it's always way too loud for me. And it doesn't matter how long the delay is between the end of "Saturn" and the beginning of "Uranus", that opening fanfare is way too loud. I don't know what Gusto was aiming for there with those blaring brass beasties, but I find it ear-splitting. Maybe he wanted to wake audiences up. (Who knows?) I would have much preferred a very quiet start to "Uranus", with a long crescendo to the main section.

2. The false ending. After the climax with the organ glissando (at the end of rehearsal number VII), there are 29 more bars of music. Almost all of that music is played at pp (although the orchestra does play two bars of ff before rehearsal number X, and then fff at X for a bar and a half). Unfortunately, in most recordings you can barely hear that music, which (for me anyway) results in the sensation of spending two or three minutes with virtually no sound. I think those very quiet bars are totally extraneous. I've read in a few places that the quietitude is supposed to be a trick The Big H plays on the listener, fooling you into believing the piece has ended when it actually hasn't, which is in keeping with the nature of the movement. I've also read that the last 10 bars (rehearsal number IX onwards), where the dynamic level drops down to ppp, are there to prepare you for "Neptune". Either way, I think everything after the climax with the organ is pointless.

Hi Peter, those are good points. 

Regarding your comment "Dutoit has only one mistake on Mars", at rehearsal III of Mars, Dutoit has a noticeable mistake in the timpani during the organ swells (around 2:00 in the Dutoit Mars) where the timpani has repeated hits not found in the score making it sound like the two sets of timpani are out of sync with each other.  But I am in agreement that it is the best overall single disc version with huge climaxes, technical quality, and musicality.

Regarding the two annoyances about Uranus, here is my take on it.  I wouldn’t really consider these compositional but rather dramaturgical considerations (the opening too jarring and the ending drags and has an unneeded false ending).   My thinking of this is Saturn->Uranus->Neptune follow the astrological order.  Given the piece has such variety, what you are suggesting would result in the last half of the work having three movements in a row that all start quietly and end with a fade out.  If you consider the extra-musical source of inspiration being of Uranus being a magician, or conjurer then this movement is dealing with a magician and according to Key of Astrology from 1891, Uranus is the king of Aquarius, fond of curiosities, and of dabbling in the occult sciences.  Alan Leo's "Astrology for All" which inspired Holst's Planets, says they are "chaotic, diffusive, deceptive, tricksters and clever for their own ends…often boasting of things they cannot perform".   To me this has some parallels with Dukas's "Sorcerer’s Apprentice" and Strauss's "till eulenspiegel" of just a few years earlier. 

So - with this context I think you apply the dramaturgical considerations to Uranus.  Rather than having three slow burners in a row, for maximum contrast between the movements you would have slow Saturn, fast and loud Uranus, very still Neptune.  Also adding a mischievous chaotic conjurer does seem to imply rather nicely a false ending that keeps you in suspense till the dramatic final conjuring.  These are dramatic choices that I think are effective. 

LETS GET TECHNICAL
Musically, remember the opening theme of Uranus is G, E flat, A, B gets recalled at the end but now with interval augmentation.  The ending is not just a restatement of the opening theme but a development of it since the intervals have widened.  The ending crunch is a pedal E with C minor on top.  The C minor has E flat so you have a crunch between clear tonality and a huge pedal that is a minor second apart (or a major/minor chord).  A nice exposition and we've heard this a lot throughout The Planets.  These alternating major/minors and polychords are found frequently in the Planets.  The very last chord heard in Uranus is undefined.  It is E and B without a third so it could be major or minor.  I hear it as major because of the F9 that proceeds it.    Now what is very interesting is that if you hear the last chord of Uranus as E major as I do, it is the dominant (so maximum contrast) to A minor with a relative major of C major.  The very first notes in Neptune are in C major but the tonality is polytonal (the flat II of C major is a Neapolitan and a very spacey progression - John Williams uses it alot in ET for example) but by the time you hear the trombones in Neptune, they are playing an A minor chord.  The high notes are playing a G# minor (or A flat minor).  Very murky polychords which will be frequented in Neptune.  So A minor low and A flat minor high at the same time is very dissonant...maximum dissonance because all the notes are a half step apart (though separated by timbre and register).  My point in all of this is that take out some of the melodies and what you have going from the end of Uranus to the start of Neptune is an F9-> E major -> A minor+A flat minor.  How I see this is that Uranus last note is a very nice setup and segway to how Neptune begins with maximum contrast structurally.

I think what you have here is a very wide variety of musical material in the Planets with a large scale sense of structure - each sets up the next and that is why I think Uranus works well the way he constructed it and how it serves its dramatic, creative, and functional role.  He has brilliantly merged ambiguity and clarity within a large scale structure full of inventive variety and this makes it clear why the work is so popular that people would be willing to listen to 80 recordings back to back.

[Peter Power Pop]

Hi Peter, those are good points. 

Regarding your comment "Dutoit has only one mistake on Mars", at rehearsal III of Mars, Dutoit has a noticeable mistake in the timpani during the organ swells (around 2:00 in the Dutoit Mars) where the timpani has repeated hits not found in the score making it sound like the two sets of timpani are out of sync with each other. ...

Wow. Those timpani are mighty quiet. I can only just hear them. They certainly sound busier than they're meant to be.

Thanks for letting me know about it.

... But I am in agreement that it is the best overall single disc version with huge climaxes, technical quality, and musicality.

The Dutoit Planets does everything for me. (Well, everything Planets-related.)

Regarding the two annoyances about Uranus, here is my take on it.  I wouldn't really consider these compositional but rather dramaturgical considerations (the opening too jarring and the ending drags and has an unneeded false ending).   My thinking of this is Saturn->Uranus->Neptune follow the astrological order.  Given the piece has such variety, what you are suggesting would result in the last half of the work having three movements in a row that all start quietly and end with a fade out.  If you consider the extra-musical source of inspiration being of Uranus being a magician, or conjurer then this movement is dealing with a magician and according to Key of Astrology from 1891, Uranus is the king of Aquarius, fond of curiosities, and of dabbling in the occult sciences.  Alan Leo's "Astrology for All" which inspired Holst's Planets, says they are "chaotic, diffusive, deceptive, tricksters and clever for their own ends...often boasting of things they cannot perform".   To me this has some parallels with Dukas's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and Strauss's "till eulenspiegel" of just a few years earlier. 

So - with this context I think you apply the dramaturgical considerations to Uranus.  Rather than having three slow burners in a row, for maximum contrast between the movements you would have slow Saturn, fast and loud Uranus, very still Neptune.  Also adding a mischievous chaotic conjurer does seem to imply rather nicely a false ending that keeps you in suspense till the dramatic final conjuring.  These are dramatic choices that I think are effective. 

LETS GET TECHNICAL
Musically, remember the opening theme of Uranus is G, E flat, A, B gets recalled at the end but now with interval augmentation.  The ending is not just a restatement of the opening theme but a development of it since the intervals have widened.  The ending crunch is a pedal E with C minor on top.  The C minor has E flat so you have a crunch between clear tonality and a huge pedal that is a minor second apart (or a major/minor chord).  A nice exposition and we've heard this a lot throughout The Planets.  These alternating major/minors and polychords are found frequently in the Planets.  The very last chord heard in Uranus is undefined.  It is E and B without a third so it could be major or minor.  I hear it as major because of the F9 that proceeds it.    Now what is very interesting is that if you hear the last chord of Uranus as E major as I do, it is the dominant (so maximum contrast) to A minor with a relative major of C major.  The very first notes in Neptune are in C major but the tonality is polytonal (the flat II of C major is a Neapolitan and a very spacey progression - John Williams uses it alot in ET for example) but by the time you hear the trombones in Neptune, they are playing an A minor chord.  The high notes are playing a G# minor (or A flat minor).  Very murky polychords which will be frequented in Neptune.  So A minor low and A flat minor high at the same time is very dissonant...maximum dissonance because all the notes are a half step apart (though separated by timbre and register).  My point in all of this is that take out some of the melodies and what you have going from the end of Uranus to the start of Neptune is an F9-> E major -> A minor+A flat minor.  How I see this is that Uranus last note is a very nice setup and segway to how Neptune begins with maximum contrast structurally.

I think what you have here is a very wide variety of musical material in the Planets with a large scale sense of structure - each sets up the next and that is why I think Uranus works well the way he constructed it and how it serves its dramatic, creative, and functional role.  He has brilliantly merged ambiguity and clarity within a large scale structure full of inventive variety and this makes it clear why the work is so popular that people would be willing to listen to 80 recordings back to back.

Thanks for going into as much detail as you did, relm1. It was enlightening.

I see the need for contrast between the movements, but does "Uranus"'s opening fanfare have to be that loud? How about the fanfare's first chord played mf or mp, and building up (via a crescendo) to the last chord played fff?. It's only four chords, so the crescendo won't take long. I can live with that. And I'd rather hear "Uranus" end loudly, with a bang. It may be clichéd, but that's what I want to hear. For me, it'd provide maximum contrast with the following "Neptune".

With regard to the tail end of "Uranus" as it is (as opposed to what I want it to be), there's only one recording where it does make sense: Sir Simon Rattle's 1981 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra. I listened to it again yesterday, and it's in this recording that I actually "got it".

[relm1]

Wow. Those timpani are mighty quiet. I can only just hear them. They certainly sound busier than they're meant to be.

Thanks for letting me know about it.

The Dutoit Planets does everything for me. (Well, everything Planets-related.)

Thanks for going into as much detail as you did, relm1. It was enlightening.

I see the need for contrast between the movements, but does "Uranus"'s opening fanfare have to be that loud? How about the fanfare's first chord played mf or mp, and building up (via a crescendo) to the last chord played fff?. It's only four chords, so the crescendo won't take long. I can live with that. And I'd rather hear "Uranus" end loudly, with a bang. It may be clichéd, but that's what I want to hear. For me, it'd provide maximum contrast with the following "Neptune".

With regard to the tail end of "Uranus" as it is (as opposed to what I want it to be), there's only one recording where it does make sense: Sir Simon Rattle's 1981 recording with the Philharmonia Orchestra. I listened to it again yesterday, and it's in this recording that I actually "got it".

Question for you, I am curious what if any performances of planets you have heard live and how you rank those?  I have heard Dutoit play it with the San Francisco Symphony plus a few other orchestras including my university orchestra and seeing it is interesting because you feel and see the percussion in action in Uranus.  Sort of like how seeing the orchestra play the most intense moments of Rite of Spring makes one hear it differently.

The thing that bugs me about the timpani in Dutoit/Mars (just that one moment) is it was a studio recording so they could have easily fixed it (or that's the best take) and it is jarring for me because this movement is a freaking rhythmic ostinato!  If something plays against the rhythm, it is problematic.  It was only for 2 seconds but still.  That is why in my edit, I actually used a different recording for that one section because the rest of dutoit/mars is so damn intense.  I will check out the Rattle/Philharmonia/Uranus in a few minutes.  It sounds like you have good dramatic instincts but it is a different story you are telling.  Maybe one day, if I have time, I will do a revision of Uranus following your approach to show you the result.  It would be interesting to use that material but adapt it dramatically and see how it fits.

EDIT (after hearing Rattle/Philharmonia/Uranus): Do you know if this was a live recording?  I know I can be picky but poor brass entrance.  This is definitely an exciting version.  Not the greatest technically (a few other very minor flubs).  Wow – big organ.  By the way, when I played it, I was the bass trombone so I had that low E at the end.  VERY big moment!  So I have a personal connection.  One thing I must confess is that through our discussion, I tended to slightly dismiss Uranus as too Technicolor and preferring how evocative Saturn and Neptune were.  But what I have come to realize is Uranus plays a pivotal role in the grand scheme of the work as a whole.   It is sort of like how Beethoven transitioned in Symphony No. 5 from the scherzo to the finale.

So what was it about Rattle '81 that made you get the movement?  I felt others did it better justice.

[brunumb]

The list is now complete:

https://petersplanets.wordpress.com/

Epic task.  Well done PPP.   

I didn't have the Dutoit or the Ozawa but based on your reviews I ordered them both from Amazon UK.  They were incredibly cheap, so no great risk involved.  I have a nagging feeling that I bought the Dutoit ages ago and got rid of it because I didn't like it.  It will be interesting to see what difference a few decades can make.