Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

Started by Danny, April 07, 2007, 09:29:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rappy

Agreed, I don't like the 6th that much, either, apart from the lovely last movement.
My order would be: 5, 3, 2, 7, 1, 6 - 4 I don't know yet, 1 I've listened to too often.

DavidRoss

Quote from: Greta on May 30, 2008, 08:44:26 PM
You know, I have a confession to make. Though I am familiar with a good bit of Prokofiev and like the music I have never heard any Symphony of his besides the "Classical" all the way through. Don't know how I managed that feat for so long.
...
What other symphonies would you recommend next? I don't even know what's out there recording wise, except I remember hearing about Ozawa and Gergiev.
I'm curious as to what you will make of the 2nd.  The Ozawa recording is good with stunning turn-on-a-dime playing from the BP, and it's quite a bargain, to boot--4 discs for $20.  As for the other symphonies, I probably listen most often to the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 1st.  Think about them reminds me that I scarcely know the 3rd and am not sure if I've ever even really listened to the 4th.  Time to remedy that!
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

greg

Quote from: DavidRoss on June 01, 2008, 04:06:50 AM
I'm curious as to what you will make of the 2nd.  The Ozawa recording is good with stunning turn-on-a-dime playing from the BP, and it's quite a bargain, to boot--4 discs for $20. 
This is what I meat to recommend to Greta (the set I have) but somehow forgot!


Quote from: DavidRoss on June 01, 2008, 04:06:50 AM
Think about them reminds me that I scarcely know the 3rd and am not sure if I've ever even really listened to the 4th.  Time to remedy that!
I don't think those two symphonies really have the personality that the other symphonies have. Sure, they're nice and all, but very very forgettable.

DavidRoss

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on June 01, 2008, 04:58:39 AM
This is what I meat to recommend to Greta (the set I have) but somehow forgot!

I don't think those two symphonies really have the personality that the other symphonies have. Sure, they're nice and all, but very very forgettable.
Yep.  I just listened to the 4th and it's not much--warmed over ballet music, pleasant but hardly the stuff of greatness.  Next time I'll have to give Gergiev's a try--both the original and the revised versions--to see if his generally more driven approach spices it up any.

The recycled opera music the 3rd was based on is better, IIRC--more dramatic and memorable and more cohesively structured, so that it hangs together better and seems less like some expanded episodic bits and pieces pasted together to make movements and complete a commission.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

greg

Quote from: DavidRoss on June 01, 2008, 05:57:39 AM
Next time I'll have to give Gergiev's a try--both the original and the revised versions--to see if his generally more driven approach spices it up any.

Report back when you do!

karlhenning

Quote from: DavidRoss on June 01, 2008, 05:57:39 AM
Yep.  I just listened to the 4th and it's not much--warmed over ballet music, pleasant but hardly the stuff of greatness.

The Fourth has never quite found its way in to my ears' graces, either;  but the Ur-text, L'enfant prodigue, is another matter completely.  The original ballet I find breathtaking in its simplicity and unforced charm.

Sergeant Rock

Seems I'm the only one who really cares for the Fourth. As I told David in the listening thread, it's hash I enjoy consuming.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

karlhenning

Well, to add some little nuance, Sarge, I like all the stuff in the Fourth, but it doesn't quite convince me that it's a symphony, somehow . . . not in the way that all the other six do.

eyeresist

Current Top 7 Symphonies:

1 - Malko: Brisk but elegant, tasteful but cheeky.
2 - Gergiev: I didn't like his cycle, as he seemed to be conducting from moment to moment as though it was opera or ballet, but in this case he (plus LSO & engineers) make this often dense, harsh work into quite an interesting journey. A bit more moulding wouldn't have gone astray.
3 - Kuchar (provisional): I haven't heard better but I'm sure better is possible. I'd particularly like to hear the opening taken more slowly, to get a real blasting quality.
4 - Kuchar: Nicely understated; most beautiful 2nd movement I've heard.
5 - Temirkanov (provisional): This is the most "neo-classical" performance I've heard (a good thing in my book), but could dig deeper.
6 - Rozhdestvensky: So far the only performance I've heard that isn't killed by dull tempos. A great cynical finale; haven't heard Mravinsky.
7 - Malko: The only conductor with the sense to play what's on the page and let the feeling emerge by itself.


karlhenning

But the Fifth isn't really a neoclassical piece, is it, now?

M forever

Quote from: eyeresist on June 26, 2008, 12:27:54 AM
5 - Temirkanov (provisional): This is the most "neo-classical" performance I've heard (a good thing in my book), but could dig deeper.

It is? I thought it was just slow, drawn out, undetailed, tedious. Sounds like Temirkanov was drunk again when they made the recording.

some guy

Amazing how many people admit not having heard all that much by Prokofiev. He's so engaging and delightful and all that.

But that's as may be. I wasn't all that taken with Gergiev's symphony set (nor with his concerto set, either). And I adore his performances of the dramatic works. Not sure why, but he seems just a bit unengaged when he's doing something other than a ballet or an opera. Otherwise, if you're looking to become familiar with the fourth symphony, there are two distinct versions, and if you don't like the more popular (and more frequently recorded) revised version, then still give the original version a spin or two, I'd say. It's tighter and leaner and altogether better than its corpulent younger brother.

As it were.

I just recently listened again to the Beroff/Masur set of piano concerti. Wow. I hadn't been as impressed when I first bought this,* but I found the performance of the second just blew me away.

And if you're looking for a truly fine performance of the other second, the second symphony, I don't think you'll do any better than Leinsdorf's, which is out on CD now (though very pricey--20 bucks as I recall). It's savage for the savage bits and tender for the tender bits and lyrical for the lyrical bits. If only Leinsdorf had done the 6th, too (which I would put at the very top of the list--if I made lists).

Oh, wait! He did do that one. And it's on that 20 dollar CD with the second, though I don't think it replaces Rozhdestvensky's. It's scrappy and rough-edged, almost too much so to be an utterly convincing account. I have yet to hear an utterly convincing performance of the sixth.

*Partly because the Richter performance of the fifth is so outrageously superior to everyone else's.

eyeresist

Quote from: karlhenning on June 26, 2008, 04:14:09 AM
But the Fifth isn't really a neoclassical piece, is it, now?
Well, I've been struggling with the enigma of Prokofiev for a while now - cosmopolitan but Russian, modern but romantic, ironic but heartfelt, elegant but raw.... I've concluded (for the moment) that it doesn't do to over-stress the bombastic aspect of P's work, certainly not at the expense of detail. Anyone can do bombast, but no-one writes notes like Prokofiev! Temirkanov currently gets my vote because of clarity of sound and orchestral detail, doing a fairly objective interpretation without sounding like a run-through.

You'll see this preference in most of my choices above, except for 6. My previous top pick of a weak bunch was Ashkenazy, because it sounded fairly convinced, in good sound. But, to give a prime example, the ending of the symphony, when Prok rejects the home key in the last bar, sounded in the Ashkenazy performance quite grand and a bit curious, whereas under Rozdh it sounds like a big "f--- you" to the Man. Attitude matters in this symphony, and most recordings I've heard are failures in this respect.

greg

Quote from: eyeresist on June 26, 2008, 06:20:20 PM
whereas under Rozdh it sounds like a big "f--- you" to the Man.
curiously noted.  :)

karlhenning

Quote from: some guy on June 26, 2008, 06:10:23 PM
I just recently listened again to the Beroff/Masur set of piano concerti. Wow. I hadn't been as impressed when I first bought this,* but I found the performance of the second just blew me away.

Yes, this recording of the concerti was one of the first things I loaded onto my fauxPod.

karlhenning

Quote from: eyeresist on June 26, 2008, 06:20:20 PM
Well, I've been struggling with the enigma of Prokofiev for a while now - cosmopolitan but Russian, modern but romantic, ironic but heartfelt, elegant but raw.... I've concluded (for the moment) that it doesn't do to over-stress the bombastic aspect of P's work, certainly not at the expense of detail. Anyone can do bombast, but no-one writes notes like Prokofiev!

Good observations, thanks.

eyeresist

#216
Regarding the ranking of Prokofiev's symphonies, I agree with previous posters who have questioned the current fashion for raising the 6th as his best. I haven't really been convinced by this work yet, I guess partly because most performances are so dull.

On the other hand, I won't hear a word against the 3rd! I think it's a terrific work, at least the equal of the 5th. Again, many performances are unconvincing, lacking sufficient vigour and fire.

("Fire", geddit?)

karlhenning

Well, it's time I gave the Fourth a fresh try . . . .

jurajjak

"Regarding the ranking of Prokofiev's symphonies, I agree with previous posters who have questioned the current fashion for raising the 6th as his best. I haven't really been convinced by this work yet, I guess partly because most performances are so dull."


...I confess that, after many years, I now believe the 6th is the best. It may be the case that the 6th is preferred by people who have heard every single piece by Prokofiev (as obsessive as that sounds).  After you've heard everything, you realize the 6th is a unique work in his output--he truly concentrates in this work and strives deeper than he usually does. The first and second movements are his longest symphonic statements; these are rare moments when he develops themes fully rather than abandoning them (the 1st mvmt of the 5th is another example).  Having said that, it took me years to warm up this symphony; I prefer the Rostropovich recording, which is slow but very powerful if you're in the right frame of mind.  The Jarvi is also good, as is the Slatkin (especially in the 1st mvmt). 

My order for the symphonies is probably 6, 5, 2, 3, 4 (revised), 7, 4 (original), and then 1.  I know most people--including some of Prok's own biographers--tend to regard the revised 4th as a bloated suite, but I think it's wonderful music that can be better appreciated if we put aside the idea that a "real" symphony has to be a self-important, Mahleresque event. Just treat it as "music" and you should enjoy it. My only problem with the 4th is the overly light 3rd mvmt., which unfortunately betrays its roots as recycled ballet music. Had Prok. chosen (and developed) more vigorous themes from Prodigal Son for the 3rd mvmt. scherzo, the whole symphony might be perceived differently.   


andrew

greg

so i'm assuming that to finally understand the 6th, i have to listen to the rest of his output and then maybe years later it'll click?  ;D