Bohuslav Martinů (1890-1959)

[Luke]

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. I don't find the 4th simple at all - from an emotional (if not really a structural) standpoint, there seems to be many different layers to it, with each mvt. having its own distinctive emotional profile and atmosphere.

That's kind of my point, though. IMO we get too hung up on trying to penetrate the emotional 'content' or 'meaning' of a piece sometimes, when in the case of the 4th, though we might not know exactly what that emotional trajectory 'means', the structures, as you say, are incredibly clear, and the emotional profiles of each movement, as you also say, are very clear and distinct. That is enough, to my mind, to make a work easily accesible, simple, if you like. We 'kind of get it' straightaway, understand the language, hear the large-scale rhymes and rhythms, because the music speaks so clearly, even if we don't quite comprehend the deeper inferences immediately.

[Mirror Image]

I'll have to go back and listen to the 4th, I haven't heard it in a while. I've got Walter Weller's performance (I think the orchestra is from London?) on EMI. & yes, I do like the "mimimalistic" feel of Martinu's slow movements. He really pointed to new horizons in his music, although it is not always highly engaging as a whole at the first listen. I mean, the Double Concerto for piano, strings & timpani grabbed me more than his Sinfonia Concertante or Concerto for String Quartet. But as I said, I have to go back & give these works another listen (I've got them all on an EMI Gemini 2 disc set).

Martinu's Double Concerto for String Orchestra is a killer work no question about it. So full of angst, bitterness, it's as if somebody really pissed Martinu off. Anyway, this was my gateway into understanding Martinu more. My better understanding of his symphonies didn't happen until much later. As I said earlier, his Symphony No. 1 still confounds me, but I'm enjoying it the more I listen to it..

All of this said, Martinu wrote a lot of throwaway works as well. I do not like a lot of his ballet music, because they don't sound like him. I will probably listen to Spalicek again today which is a ballet written for voices, chorus, and orchestra. I will report back to this thread my impressions of this work later.

[Mirror Image]

That's kind of my point, though. IMO we get too hung up on trying to penetrate the emotional 'content' or 'meaning' of a piece sometimes, when in the case of the 4th, though we might not know exactly what that emotional trajectory 'means', the structures, as you say, are incredibly clear, and the emotional profiles of each movement, as you also say, are very clear and distinct. That is enough, to my mind, to make a work easily accesible, simple, if you like. We 'kind of get it' straightaway, understand the language, hear the large-scale rhymes and rhythms, because the music speaks so clearly, even if we don't quite comprehend the deeper inferences immediately.

I loved the 4th right when I heard it. I love Symphonies Nos. 5 & 6 as well. Such amazingly beautiful music.

[Sergeant Rock]

Martinu's music, as Scarpia mentioned to me, is more rhapsodic and Romantic gestures simply don't work with his music. I understand this more and more as I listen to Martinu and absorb his music. He's coming from more of a Neo-Classical angle with tight structure and rhythms, but as I have mentioned I believe his harmony is more impressionistic. Very ambiguous, which lends the music a very mysterious and airy quality.

Edit: I now heard the entire set of Martinu symphonies with Neumann/Czech Philharmonic. It blows away Thomson easily. Neumann is more in tune with Martinu's music and what it's trying to express.

I'm looking for another cycle to compliment Järvi's. Since Scarpia and I usually disagree on performances, I'm skeptical about Neumann. Curious to know what each of you think of this comment about Neumann's cycle from Gramophone's E.S., a critic I often agree with (he's not very keen on Thomson's either):

"Acceptable might best describe the performances too. It's that last degree of fantasy coupled with a certain potency in the rhythms that I miss. Where Martinu's confidence rises, where optimism goes into overdrive and the music quite literally jumps for joy, Neumann is still very much in first gear. The infectious scherzo of the Fourth is a case in point—hopelessly pale and sluggish. Neumann fares best in Martinu's homesick reveries where the Czech woodwinds can be so reassuring or so bleak, as the case may be, but Järvi and the Bamberg Symphony (BIS) still offer the most compelling complete cycle to date."

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

I'm looking for another cycle to compliment Järvi's. Since Scarpia and I usually disagree on performances, I'm skeptical about Neumann. Curious to know what each of you think of this comment about Neumann's cycle from Gramophone's E.S., a critic I often agree with (he's not very keen on Thomson either):

"Acceptable might best describe the performances too. It's that last degree of fantasy coupled with a certain potency in the rhythms that I miss. Where Martinu's confidence rises, where optimism goes into overdrive and the music quite literally jumps for joy, Neumann is still very much in first gear. The infectious scherzo of the Fourth is a case in point—hopelessly pale and sluggish. Neumann fares best in Martinu's homesick reveries where the Czech woodwinds can be so reassuring or so bleak, as the case may be, but Järvi and the Bamberg Symphony (BIS) still offer the most compelling complete cycle to date."

Sarge

I disagree with that Gramophone critic's opinion. I find the Neumann cycle the most consistent of all the cycles I've heard. I do enjoy Jarvi's cycle too, but for me, Neumann seems like he's more in-tune with the music than Jarvi. One significant advantage Jarvi and Thomson have is superior audio, but the Neumann has very good audio quality as well, in fact, better than I expected it to be considering these were recorded in the 70s and Supraphon haven't always yielded the best results when it came to audio.

I take what most critics say with a grain of salt and would rather get the opinion of somebody who has spent more time with the music and knows the music much better. One thing to remember though is everybody is a critic, but I own all the Martinu symphony cycles and right now Neumann and Jarvi are my favorites.

This is one instance in which I agree with Scarpia. Martinu is not a Romantic and shouldn't be played that way. This is the thing that I can finally say that bugs me about the Thomson cycle. Neumann conducts the music in a more free-flowing, rhapsodic, lyrical style that suits Martinu like a glove. This is not to say that Neumann doesn't get aggressive when he needs to be, because there's plenty of aggressiveness and intensity in these intepretations.

[not edward]

Sarge,

I think the best way I could come up with to describe Neumann's Martinu is this: if you like things like his Leipzig Mahler, you'll like it. It has very much the same overall feel to me: very naturally phrased and played, and avoiding interpretative extremes: superficially, at least, a 'non-interventionist' style.

I consider it massively superior to Thomson, though the recent Belohlavek 3rd and 4th might have the edge for me amongst recent recordings that may lead to full cycles. (I haven't heard Jarvi and doubt his way with Martinu would convince me.)

[Scarpia]

I'm looking for another cycle to compliment Järvi's. Since Scarpia and I usually disagree on performances, I'm skeptical about Neumann. Curious to know what each of you think of this comment about Neumann's cycle from Gramophone's E.S., a critic I often agree with (he's not very keen on Thomson's either):

Actually I've never heard Neumann's Martinu, Mirror was commenting that his impression of Neumann's recording matched my idea of how it should be played.  Actually, Mirror panned my preferred recording (Valek).  But, I think it may be useful to explore Martinu outside the symphonies.  Martinu wrote most of his symphonies during a short period of time, and unlike many composers, they are not the defining genre for him.  He wrote many wonderful concerti for diverse groups of instruments, and other types of orchestral music.   Belohlavek is a great conductor of Martinu and this release as some wonderful misic on it:

[Mirror Image]

Sarge,

I think the best way I could come up with to describe Neumann's Martinu is this: if you like things like his Leipzig Mahler, you'll like it. It has very much the same overall feel to me: very naturally phrased and played, and avoiding interpretative extremes: superficially, at least, a 'non-interventionist' style.

I consider it massively superior to Thomson, though the recent Belohlavek 3rd and 4th might have the edge for me amongst recent recordings that may lead to full cycles. (I haven't heard Jarvi and doubt his way with Martinu would convince me.)

I'm not that impressed with Jarvi, but it's better than Valek's, Thomson's, and Fagen's cycles. The overall problem with conductors like Jarvi and Thomson is that they don't understand Martinu's idiom enough to conduct with any kind of authority. Jarvi fairs better in late-Romantic music and Thomson is better with English composers. I mean this could be disputed all day long, but Neumann really did a fantastic job with these symphonies I think and Sarge should definitely consider them.

[Mirror Image]

Actually I've never heard Neumann's Martinu, Mirror was commenting that his impression of Neumann's recording matched my idea of how it should be played.  Actually, Mirror panned my preferred recording (Valek).  But, I think it may be useful to explore Martinu outside the symphonies.  Martinu wrote most of his symphonies during a short period of time, and unlike many composers, they are not the defining genre for him.  He wrote many wonderful concerti for diverse groups of instruments, and other types of orchestral music.   Belohlavek is a great conductor of Martinu and this release as some wonderful misic on it:

That is a very good recording. Neumann, Ancerl, and Belohlavek are my to-go-to Martinu conductors. The reason I panned the Valek recordings is they lacked rhythmic vitality and given when the recordings were made pretty recently (around 2005 or 2006) the audio quality could have been better.

His symphonies may very well not be an important part of his output in your opinion, but they are going to be works that most people explore at some time or another if they're going to get into Martinu's music. Just because you feel they're unimportant doesn't mean that somebody else will feel this way.

Sarge if you usually don't see eye-to-eye with Scarpia's recommendations, then avoid the Valek like the plague. Go for the Neumann. You won't be sorry.

[Daverz]

I'm looking for another cycle to compliment Järvi's. Since Scarpia and I usually disagree on performances, I'm skeptical about Neumann. Curious to know what each of you think of this comment about Neumann's cycle from Gramophone

You can get the Neumann recordings separately.  I'd start with 1+2.  (In any case, like a lot of pre-1994 Supraphons, the discs in the older box have pre-emphasis, and many modern CD players don't apply de-emphasis).

[Sid]

I listened to my recording of the 4th Symphony (with the Royal Liverpool/Walter Weller on EMI). I think there is a kind of hyperactivity in this work (as the liner notes say), the changes in mood and tempo give guys like Stravinsky a run for their money. There is much repetition here too, but with slight changes, which remind me of minimalism (especially the slow movement, which has this big climax towards the middle, after mounting tension). There seems to be a battle between a theme with a heavy beat and a gentler Czech theme at the end, and the symphony ends in a triumphant way. It was finished just as the D-Day landings were occuring.

I can't say I fully grasp this symphony as yet, but repeated listening will further my understanding of it, no doubt. I will also listen to the other works on the 2 cd set & tell you all about my impressions later.

[Sergeant Rock]

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments, the recommendations. I ordered several items from Amazon. It's late here (after 3 a.m.) and I'm tired. I'll answer more fully tomorrow.

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

You can get the Neumann recordings separately.  I'd start with 1+2.  (In any case, like a lot of pre-1994 Supraphons, the discs in the older box have pre-emphasis, and many modern CD players don't apply de-emphasis).

I would have bought them individually, but it was cheaper for me to buy the box set. The recording of Symphonies Nos. 5 & 6 have an extra orchestral work called Iventions on it that sounded really good. My advice to Sarge is if he can buy the CDs individually, then get them, but if not, then just get box set.

[Scarpia]

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the comments, the recommendations. I ordered several items from Amazon. It's late here (after 3 a.m.) and I'm tired. I'll answer more fully tomorrow.

I see.  The one thing that puzzles me, I am under the impression we normally agree about recordings.   After all, you haven't had you bazooka smiley out recently. 

[Sergeant Rock]

I see.  The one thing that puzzles me, I am under the impression we normally agree about recordings.

Do we? Maybe we do now. But you know, Scarpia, you tend to disagree forcefully with everybody--and I would never voluntarily put myself in a different, elitist category from everybody else 

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

Do we? Maybe we do now. But you know, Scarpia, you tend to disagree forcefully with everybody--and I would never voluntarily put myself in a different, elitist category from everybody else 

Sarge

Yes he does, but then when somebody gives him a taste of his own medicine, so to speak, he gets mad and blocks you. How immature is that? 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I'm looking for another cycle to compliment Järvi's. Since Scarpia and I usually disagree on performances, I'm skeptical about Neumann. Curious to know what each of you think of this comment about Neumann's cycle from Gramophone's E.S., a critic I often agree with (he's not very keen on Thomson's either):

"Acceptable might best describe the performances too. It's that last degree of fantasy coupled with a certain potency in the rhythms that I miss. Where Martinu's confidence rises, where optimism goes into overdrive and the music quite literally jumps for joy, Neumann is still very much in first gear. The infectious scherzo of the Fourth is a case in point—hopelessly pale and sluggish. Neumann fares best in Martinu's homesick reveries where the Czech woodwinds can be so reassuring or so bleak, as the case may be, but Järvi and the Bamberg Symphony (BIS) still offer the most compelling complete cycle to date."

Sarge

I'm with the others, Sarge. The way I see it this Gramophone review misses the mark completely. "Very much in first gear"? Not to my ears.

Now, I don't have any non-Czech performances of the symphonies for comparison but the four Neumann symphonies I have plug right into Martinu's quirky aesthetic perfectly. Perhaps the reviewer likes his Martinu less quirky, less colorful, with fewer surprises (leaning more towards the mainstream?) but to slight these qualities is to rip the heart right out of Martinu.

The rest of my Martinu symphonies consist of performances by Belohlavek and Sejna. All with the CzPO. They belong in the first rank, too. (I'm with Edward in his admiration for Belohlavek - EDIT: on Supraphon).

As far as the sound for Neumann, I find it perfectly pleasing. To me part of any engineer's job when recording Martinu is to allow plenty of room for the orchestra to breathe and let Martinu's many colors flower. Here I feel Supraphon does the music proud by not suffocating things while not perhaps being in that subjective "demonstration" category. No matter. The music sings here and that's what's important.   

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Another vote for the Neumann cycle, although it's not perfect. I have a couple of problems with it: 1) the sound is a bit recessed, and 2) the percussion is weak. Also, sometimes Neumann is a bit sluggish where he should charge ahead (like the scherzo of the 1st Symphony). But on the whole it's a very solid cycle.

Neumann, Ancerl, and Belohlavek are my to-go-to Martinu conductors.

Agreed. Stick with these guys and you won't go wrong. 

It was finished just as the D-Day landings were occuring.

Actually, that's the 3rd Symphony. The 4th Symphony was completed at the very end of the war (May-June 1945).

[Sergeant Rock]

Usually when one asks for a recommendation in this forum, every extant recording will be mentioned at least once plus not a few that have been OOP for fifty years   But there is remarkable consistency in this thread. Don, Velimir, Daverz, MI, Edward all urged me to choose Neumann. Taking Daverz's advice (seconded by MI) I ordered the symphonies separately (the total at Amazon DE coming to the same price as the box anyway). There is unanimity about Ancerl so I also ordered his two gold edition CDs (with the Parables, Lidice and Symphonies 5 & 6). And with a nod to Luke and others who are enthusiastic about Turnovsky's Fourth, I grabbed that too.

Belohlavek and Thomson have their supporters. Future purchases perhaps.

Thanks for the help.

Sarge

[The new erato]

Please leave something for us!