Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5: reviews and thoughts

[Holden]

I have this as a single disc in a different cover (see below) which I found second hand in a store as. It's part of the box below




It's from 1949 and to my ears is superior to the Mravinsky

[Daverz]

Wow, service above and beyond.  The darkhorse recordings by Edwards and Dmitriev are intriguing.  I'm not a huge fan of the work, but I'd probably go for Markevitch when i'm in the mood.  And the Koussevitsky is lovely.

Edit: finished listening to the Klemps, which is fabulous.

[jochanaan]

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).

I meant the Andante cantabile, of course.  There's no oboe in the 1st movement's introduction.

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Claudio Abbado and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. 1985.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Nice start, with more integrated clarinets than in the DG version. Very legato opening, and more romantic than anything he did on the previous version. In the next section, it is taken at a moderate speed, but has a bit of inconsistency on tempo. Lower brass has great presence, and they are very exciting in their sound. Climaxes are a full bodied affair too! Strings are not particularly prominent, and I am not sure if this will be a problem later on. Tempos change quite a bit, but for the most part are smoothly handled and do not seem quite as abrupt as some (and the changes are sometimes quick). Good attacks throughout from the brass. Despite the start, this is not a particularly romantic approach (similar to the DG version). Interestingly, Abbado's timings of this movement are very, very close, differing by just a few seconds (including the third one I haven't heard yet). Overall, a nice start (as long as you don't mind things on the faster side for the most part – not much lingering here). Ending is perhaps too heavy on the lower strings (sounds 'blatty', which is not something I normally associate with those instruments).

Second Movement: Another faster start here, but a bit more space than the DG start. Horn solo is played quite straight. It's ok, but doesn't have quite the sweet tone I was expecting from the CSO soloist. It is played pretty assuredly though. Strings seem distant here (and not warm or full sounding), which I find a major blow to the impact of this movement. As a result, I never feel it carries the emotion well and sounds a bit colder. It isn't until the brass come in on the climaxes that we get back to a warmer sound (and woodwinds too). Tempo stays on the faster side for the most part. Though, I have to admit that the second to last climax is very well judged.

Third movement: Waltz seems to have a more flexible approach than previously (more rubato), but still has some inflexibility in the runs (as well as some messy playing there a couple of times), particularly the strings (just not their day I guess), which also sound thin.  Not as tight as I would like.

Fourth Movement: Stately start, but on the fast side. Some nice details here too. And into the allegro vivice (enter with a downbeat of the timpani roll), we are off at a moderate to fast speed (a bit faster than the DG recording). Oboe sounds a bit recessed here. I think the speed helps to make this movement a bit more exciting than the DG version, until it starts to slow down a bit. But then they are quickly back to speed (some minor unison issues here, mostly on the staccato attacks – I've noticed it periodically now across several sections). But though faster, and full sounding in the brass, this is not as in your face as some (which may be good or bad). There is a nice flow to it (despite some issues I have in the details). At the end, there is a lot of legato, which is nice (but is a problem when they don't cut off together). Presto is suitably fast, but not as much differentiation with what goes before it and then into the end we are at a suitable speed, but a bit heavy handed (I think the legato here was part of the issue).

Overall: So so. It's well played, but I find the lack of a full bodied string sound to be a problem (and this could be a mic placement or other technical issue, but I missed the strings here whatever the problem). If you don't mind this, you might put this up to the good level. Approach has not really changed much compared to the DG recording. Although, the fourth movement is definitely more exciting here, it is just not executed as perfectly as it could be.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/tchaikovsky-the-6-symphonies-box-set-mw0001867594

[mc ukrneal]

I meant the Andante cantabile, of course.  There's no oboe in the 1st movement's introduction.

I'm with you now. In general, though I haven't been commenting on the oboe specifically, I have been bowled over by many of them. And if I were to go back and grade the oboe player alone (on the same four category scale), I think you'd find an overwhelming number were good to excellent. For example, in the most recent Abbado, the oboe has (to me) a prettier sound and a more nuanced approach to the phrasing. I remember the Dorati as well, because the articulation was different (much stronger attacks as opposed to a more lyrical/softer approach). Of course, some were affected by sound (like Van Kempen, where the playing is good, but the sound is older, which of course impacts the sound there). Even where I didn't like the playing as much, the oboe was usually not the main culprit (like Dudamel or Anikhanov), though they were hurt by the playing around them. If there is a particular version you are interested in, I can go back to listen to the oboe for that version and report back - just let me know.

EDIT: I just realized you were more interested in whether they played rhythmically or not. There is a lot of adapting of that little solo. Very few seem to play it straight and 'as written', I think mostly for interpretive reasons. Sometimes, because of the other parts around them (and what comes before), they almost have no choice. There are some versions that seem to take a straighter approach (to the score) and these seem the more likely to play it 'correctly'.

[jochanaan]

EDIT: I just realized you were more interested in whether they played rhythmically or not. There is a lot of adapting of that little solo. Very few seem to play it straight and 'as written', I think mostly for interpretive reasons. Sometimes, because of the other parts around them (and what comes before), they almost have no choice. There are some versions that seem to take a straighter approach (to the score) and these seem the more likely to play it 'correctly'.

There's a fine line between adding personality and changing what's written.  I know, from when I've played that solo, that it's possible to play both "straight" and expressively; in fact, the rhythms as written are very expressive in themselves.  But I've heard lots of recordings where the rhythms here were just not what Tchaikovsky wrote...!  Of course, this was written in the Romantic period when just about anything went, as long as it was "artistic;" but it's nice to hear someone play things as written.

[kyjo]

Bernstein. 'Nuff said:

[asin]B000001GCB[/asin]

An expansive interpretation, as is Bernstein's Tchaik 6 (which is also one of my favorite performances). There is no loss of dramatic tension, however, and Bernstein delivers passion and energy in spades. And with an awesome R&J to boot!

[mc ukrneal]

Bernstein. 'Nuff said:

[asin]B000001GCB[/asin]

An expansive interpretation, as is Bernstein's Tchaik 6 (which is also one of my favorite performances). There is no loss of dramatic tension, however, and Bernstein delivers passion and energy in spades. And with an awesome R&J to boot!

Until this little experiment, there are two I always recommended (and both quite different): the Bernstein you posted and the Mravinsky 1960. And, I can still say that they will always be special (because they are well done and unique in many ways). But the purpose of these reviews for me was to identify good recordings (in part because so many of the reviewers did not seem to have heard enough versions to be trusted) and to help me understand the piece better (and appreciate the different approaches). It's been a smashing success, where I am totally enjoying the process. Anyway, I will not rush to listen to those two in order to give a number of other versions a chance. It's going to take a while! 

[Daverz]

Some other recordings that I think would be interesting to add to the mix:

Barbirolli
Bernstein/CBS
Jansons
One of the Karajans (DG/1975, perhaps; The EMI recordings seem rather harsh.)
Matacic
Monteux
Ormandy/CBS
Rodzinski/RPO
Rostropovich

[mc ukrneal]

Some other recordings that I think would be interesting to add to the mix:

Barbirolli

I have both of them, and I expect to get to these soon!

Bernstein/CBS

Got this one too, but as I will be waiting to listen to the other Bernstein and I want to listen to these two back to back, it may be a while...

Jansons

Got them both and am looking forward to comparing....

One of the Karajans (DG/1975, perhaps; The EMI recordings seem rather harsh.)

It has always struck me that very few seem to have heard them all, so I got them all to compare. I know, a bit nuts, but there you go...

Matacic

Check!

Monteux

I have two out of the four (or three), but was considering waiting for at least the third...

Ormandy/CBS

Check! I actually have two of the four, but not sure I'll wait for the others...

Rodzinski/RPO

Don't have even one (out of three) of these yet. He hasn't thrilled me in other things, so was not sure about getting one of these. Do you have good experience with him in this symphony?

Rostropovich

He did two - but one is in a set (assume this is the one you mean), and my previous order was cancelled. So, as I have plenty of other recordings in the meantime, I'll wait a bit on this one. Though should I see a good price...

The one I would be most excited to acquire today is the Rozhdestvensky on Melodiya (with the Moscow Symphony Orchestra). But it has gotten expensive...

[Daverz]

I have both [Barbirollis], and I expect to get to these soon!

I was thinking of the set (4-6 + Serenade) that was on "Royal Classics".

Got both [Jansons] and am looking forward to comparing....

I have a set on Chandos.

It has always struck me that very few seem to have heard all [the Karajans], so I got them all to compare. I know, a bit nuts, but there you go...

The DG recordings I have are in the Symphonies box.  I did like the 6th.  Suave and controlled, but not unfeeling.  Haven't listened to the 5th yet.  The sound of the EMI is rather crude and blaring, particularly disappointing when the other EMI Karajan recordings are so rich and smooth.

Check! I have two out of the four (or three) [recordings by Monteux], but was considering waiting for at least the third...

I was thinking of the stereo Boston. 

Check! I actually have two of the four [Ormandys], but not sure I'll wait for the others...

I was thinking of the stereo CBS (from the late 50s?).  Not RCA or Delos.

Don't have even one (out of three) of [Rodzinski] yet. He hasn't thrilled me in other things, so was not sure about getting one of these. Do you have good experience with him in this symphony?

This is the Westminster one.  I'll have to give it another listen.  He was a really great conductor.  Have you heard his Nutcracker?

Rostropovich did two - but one is in a set (assume this is the one you mean),

Yes, in the EMI box.

The one I would be most excited to acquire today is the Rozhdestvensky on Melodiya (with the Moscow Symphony Orchestra). But it has gotten expensive...

Different from the one with the "Large Symphony Orchestra"?

http://www.mdt.co.uk/tchaikovsky-8-symphonies-gennadi-rozhdestvensky-alto-6cds.html

All available separately as well.

The Melodiya at Presto:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Melodiya/MELCD1001754

[mc ukrneal]

I was thinking of the set (4-6 + Serenade) that was on "Royal Classics".

Yup. Got it.

I have a set on Chandos.

That is the more famous one. Jansons did another recording a few years ago.

The DG recordings I have are in the Symphonies box.  I did like the 6th.  Suave and controlled, but not unfeeling.  Haven't listened to the 5th yet.  The sound of the EMI is rather crude and blaring, particularly disappointing when the other EMI Karajan recordings are so rich and smooth.

I have heard so many different things about these, but I also find that people sometimes confuse them, so I am not always sure we are talking about the same ones (I dread trying to identify all the covers!). In general, I think these are the types of works that Karajan should do well in (and I had one of them on LP many years ago and enjoyed it).

I was thinking of the stereo Boston. 

That is the most famous one.

I was thinking of the stereo CBS (from the late 50s?).  Not RCA or Delos.

Yeah - that is the most well known Ormandy.

This is the Westminster one.  I'll have to give it another listen.  He was a really great conductor.  Have you heard his Nutcracker?

I haven't. I haven't heard him in Tchaikovsky at all.

Yes, in the EMI box.

Different from the one with the "Large Symphony Orchestra"?

http://www.mdt.co.uk/tchaikovsky-8-symphonies-gennadi-rozhdestvensky-alto-6cds.html

All available separately as well.

The Melodiya at Presto:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Melodiya/MELCD1001754

Yes, those are different performancs.

[Daverz]

I'd forgotten that Rodzinski makes a heavy cut in the last movement.

[mc ukrneal]

I'd forgotten that Rodzinski makes a heavy cut in the last movement.

Many did in those days. You don't happen to have the date of the recording? I'd add it to my list.

[Sergeant Rock]

Many did in those days. You don't happen to have the date of the recording?

The Cleveland recording was made Dec 1939/Jan 1940...but I think you're talking about a different recording?

Sarge

[Daverz]

This is the Westminster recording with the RPO.  Here is the Archivmusic page:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=53372

The date is given as 10/1954. 

Next up: Monteux/BSO I think.

[mc ukrneal]

The Cleveland recording was made Dec 1939/Jan 1940...but I think you're talking about a different recording?

Sarge

Actually, I see a mistake in my list (probably an mp3 from Amazon - I must say I would not trust their historical performance downloads) where I have a Roszinski recording with no date. But the timings are identical to the Rodzinsky recording of 1954. So I will delete that in my next edit as it appears to be a mis-spelling of the conductor.

This is the Westminster recording with the RPO.  Here is the Archivmusic page:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=53372

The date is given as 10/1954. 

Is it live or studio? Does it say?

[Daverz]

Is it live or studio? Does it say?

Most definitely studio recordings.

[mc ukrneal]

Most definitely studio recordings.

Fantastic - fills a small information void (until I get it anyway ). Thanks!

[mc ukrneal]

Next up: Claudio Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. 1994.

Available in these editions:


First movement: Nice start. Clarinet does a nice job, though they seem to strain when they play loud in the early going (I didn't like when they play loudly, which seems forced to me). In any case, a lot of words for a few seconds of music. Opening is quite measured and I like the overall impact. Into the next section, tempo starts faster, but it is pulled back slightly after a couple bars. Strings clearly have more weight here and it helps a lot. On the other hand, they feel a bit choppier (with more staccato too) in the way they play it, which sometimes hurts the flow/line.  Climaxes are exciting. Detail in dynamics seems a bit restrained too, where they don't maximize the crescendos and decrescendos. Abbado is clearly comfortable in this opening movement, but I think the previous two recordings were better in this movement. Sometimes the pauses in the music are a bit too much. It's interesting - the timing of this movement across the three performances is VERY similar. But this version seems so much slower and less interesting.

Second Movement: Start lacks a lot of the detail that others give it (or perhaps just muted). Horn solo is better, with a very sweet tone (and just a hair of vibrato at times), though lots of rubato here. Strings have more weight here and it gives the movement the fullness the previous recording sometimes lacked. It is also taken just a bit slower, which gives it just enough time to let some of the slower moments be fully realized, so a bit more romantic in approach here. His best second movement so far. Tempo does speed up in some middle parts to lend excitement, and climaxes sound nicely balanced. Again, he has judged well the second to last climax. Nice brass at the end too. And the end is suitably subdued.

Third movement: A more expressive start, and generally approach, to this movement. It's also a little bit faster. This is very elegantly played. I like how string runs feel lighter. Best third movement from Abbado.

Fourth Movement: Stately start, though dynamics could have been more differentiated in the very beginning. Still, this is decently dynamic start. And then they are into the allegro vivace (after the downbeat of the timpani at the top). Speed is moderate to fast, but feels a hair faster than the previous versions. Middle section feels a bit laboring, especially with some inconsistent cutoffs on notes (which is part of what adds the heaviness) and strong legato in some sections.  Oops, some wrong notes in the brass around the 7 minute mark. Brass sound good, but feel a bit on the back of the beat at times (final reason for the heaviness). Attacks are not always crisp. Final sections are pretty exciting at speedier (but not insane like some) tempos for the most part. Ending is faster than previous section.

Overall: So So. I enjoyed the LSO version and this version most. The LSO have an a bit more intensity and I liked the way they attacked the piece more. Here, we have something of a middle road. It is less laid back than the CSO, but not quite as forward as the LSO. The attacks here are mushy too often and I didn't like that. This version is probably the most romantic of the three, but it is not one I'd characterize as romantic. The DG version is crisper in its execution, so I'd give the nod to that one overall.

Alternative reviews available on the net:
http://www.classical-music.com/review/tchaikovskymussorgsky