Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Herman

IMO there is just no best complete set. All these 1 - 7 sets have severe weak spots.

karlhenning

Quote from: Herman on May 31, 2009, 04:59:18 AM
IMO there is just no best complete set. All these 1 - 7 sets have severe weak spots.

As well as I like the Ozawa set, it does have its weak bits.

Herman

I bought the 6 & 7 cd out of Gergiev's cycle, touted as its best single cd, and it was disappointing.

karlhenning

I'd readily go hear him live, but I scarcely ever feel the impulse to buy a Gergiev recording, FWIW.

karlhenning

Anyone know anything of when a vol. II may be forthcoming from David Nice?

Nick

I spoke to David Nice online a few days ago but not in regards to his publication. He has his own online blog which I haven't looked into. Perhaps there may be information there in regards to his publications.

I think he's pretty much a freelance writer and not associated with an academic entity, no? He views Britten, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich with equal admiration and does not appear to go far out of his way to champion particular composers, though apparently he's gotten involved in defending Prokofiev when, for example, Ashkenazy put together this totally lop-sided "Prokofiev and Shostakovich under the Stalin" series several years ago.

Still, he's an interesting man, and pleasant to talk to. He gave good lectures. I last saw him at the Bard Summerscape Festival. Well, now I'm off the "All-Prokofiev Celebration" at ABT with "On the Dnieper." It starts in two hours.

Dancing Divertimentian

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 01, 2009, 03:50:00 AM
I'd readily go hear him live, but I scarcely ever feel the impulse to buy a Gergiev recording, FWIW.

One area where Gergiev seems to have consistently done well on disc is his Russian opera series on Philips - but that's generally early-ish Gergiev, before his jet-set days (there are a few exceptions). Not sure if such a distinction (early/late Gergiev) really holds water but FWIW.

I mention this only to bring attention to his successes in Prokofiev's operas as part of that series. The competition in this repertoire is slim anyway so it's almost a default choice in Gergiev but to me he really makes exceptional work of these operas (or the three I have anyway). Truly wonderful listening experiences (Love For Three Oranges is my favorite - mainly for the piece itself [pre-Soviet Prokofiev]).   
Veit Bach-a baker who found his greatest pleasure in a little cittern which he took with him even into the mill and played while the grinding was going on. In this way he had a chance to have the rhythm drilled into him. And this was the beginning of a musical inclination in his descendants. JS Bach

Nick

#347
I have all the recordings that Gergiev made of Prokofiev operas, and I'm quite pleased with all of them, though I don't have any other versions.

Often, it's hard for me to appreciate an interpretation of a piece that's different from the one I grew up on. I had other recordings of Chout, Le Pas d'Acier, Scythian Suite, the Second Piano Concerto, Fourth Piano Concerto, First Violin Concerto, and the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Symphonies, but I was very happy with every performance I heard from Gergiev live with these works. The only exception was with the First Symphony, but it was in the spirit of adventure.

I think Gergiev did the most important thing a conductor can do: introduce important works to the broader public. Nobody would have heard a lot of these works without him, though there's too few of us who know Fiery Angel, The Gambler, etc. I also really admire the Gergiev recoding of Ivan the Terrible, which is great music!

Dancing Divertimentian

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on June 01, 2009, 08:41:34 PM
I have all the recordings that Gergiev made of Prokofiev operas, and I'm quite pleased with all of them, though I don't have any other versions.

I think Gergiev did the most important thing a conductor can do: introduce important works to the broader public.

Yes, good point.
Veit Bach-a baker who found his greatest pleasure in a little cittern which he took with him even into the mill and played while the grinding was going on. In this way he had a chance to have the rhythm drilled into him. And this was the beginning of a musical inclination in his descendants. JS Bach

eyeresist

It seems Prokofiev has to be "introduced" to the public every few years. Very depressing. Anyone remember when Jarvi's recordings were the big thing that would bring Prokofiev into the mainstream?


Quote from: Bahamut on May 30, 2009, 07:31:38 PM
He also hated church music. I'd love to videotape him in a Pentecostal church.
You won't have the opportunity, I'm afraid.

Nick

I think part of the problem is that he was too prolific. I find it much easier to talk about a composer when I know his whole output. It also costs $600-1000 dollars to buy Prokofiev's Opp.1-135, while you can pick up Webern and Stravinsky together for much less than a hundred bucks total. The complete Prokofiev solo piano music alone will cost you $200-250.

It's also difficult to talk in a seemingly intellectual manner with Prokofiev vis a vis a lot of other composers. There aren't as many sexy terms or words from music theory that are applicable, here.

But he wasn't an "American" composer like Stravinsky or Schoenberg; a quasi-American like Rachmaninoff, Hindemith or Bartok; or, as some might say, an honorary one for the sake of dissidence like Shostakovich. My impression is that out of all the major 20th century composers, the one who was least enamored with America was Prokofiev. But I could be wrong about that.

In sum: he was prolific, anti-American, unlucky, impersonal, unintellectual, and without the right connections. His music is unPC, propagandistic, banal low art, and the only reason we listen to him is because we're too stupid to appreciate Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Messiaen. Actually, the only thing you should listen to of his is Peter and the Wolf.

karlhenning

He isn't anti-American at all.

greg

Well, I assume that last paragraph was sarcastic.

DavidRoss

Strange.  It seems to me that Prokofiev's music has as firm a hold on the basic repertoire as that of any primarily 20th Century composer.  I hear one or two of his pieces performed virtually every year in ordinary subscription series--PCs #2 & 3 this past season, for instance, and in recent years Five Melodies, Cinderella, some piano sonatas, the 2nd Symphony, to name just those that come readily to mind.
"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

karlhenning

Aye; to cast Prokofiev as an outsider, it were necessary to confine the field to a subset of academia. Happily, the world of living music is much broader.  Why, there are performers and music directors, and not academics only!  ;)

Herman

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on June 02, 2009, 12:46:37 PM
I think part of the problem is that he was too prolific. I find it much easier to talk about a composer when I know his whole output. It also costs $600-1000 dollars to buy Prokofiev's Opp.1-135, while you can pick up Webern and Stravinsky together for much less than a hundred bucks total. The complete Prokofiev solo piano music alone will cost you $200-250.

I haven't tried this, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. Stravinsky was just as prolific.

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on June 02, 2009, 12:46:37 PMIt's also difficult to talk in a seemingly intellectual manner with Prokofiev vis a vis a lot of other composers. There aren't as many sexy terms or words from music theory that are applicable, here.

I don't think there'd be any problem talking about Prokofiev in intellectual termns. Speaking of which: "vis à vis" means "in relation to" rather than "compared to"  -  if that's what you meant ???

Quote from: Prokofiev1891 on June 02, 2009, 12:46:37 PMBut he wasn't an "American" composer like Stravinsky or Schoenberg; a quasi-American like Rachmaninoff, Hindemith or Bartok; or, as some might say, an honorary one for the sake of dissidence like Shostakovich. My impression is that out of all the major 20th century composers, the one who was least enamored with America was Prokofiev. But I could be wrong about that.

Yes, I think you're wrong. Not so much about these composers "Americaness" but rather in that this is a very strange, completely unfruitful way of looking at these composers. Prokofiev wrote a fair number of compositions that sound completely cosmopolitan, and some of his musicc sounds very "Russian". There's also a fair amount of Schumann in his music. So go figure.

The new erato

Quote from: Herman on June 03, 2009, 04:38:20 AM
I haven't tried this, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. Stravinsky was just as prolific.

In no of works or playing time? The complete Stravinsky is on 22 CDs (granted you would need a couple more for odds and ends), which seems about what is needed for a complete Prokofiev Opera Collection. Which leaves the rest of his works by the wayside, so certainly not equal in terms of playing time at least.

Nick

But that's not all!

He was a neoromantic with light fluffy melodies, while Shostakovich was an avant-garde modernist who wrote deeply personal music suffused with the soul. He went back to Russia because he knew he'd never be as good as Stravinsky, where he actually gave Stalin a blow job. Shostakovich, on the other hand, actually killed Stalin.

Now his keyboard music is empty virtuosity, while Bartok's (especially his piano concertos) has no virtuosity. He was a terrible orchestrator, a red, a commie, and he asked that his first wife be sent to the gulag. Generally, his music is a failed imitation of Stravinsky. But we should assess his music based on the extent to which he influenced other composers.

karlhenning

I wish I liked the Third and Fourth symphonies better. Maybe it's Ozawa's fault.  But fact is, even Abbado's account of the Third (excellent though it is rightly accounted) doesn't leave me enthralled with the piece.

Nick

#359
Symphony No.3, Op.44 is a wonderful piece. Perfectly constructed, with no notes in excess. It's likely my favorite Prokofiev symphony, but of course, I love Fiery Angel, Op.37. Koussevitzky called it "the greatest symphony since Tchaikovsky's Sixth."

What do you think about Fiery Angel, Op.37, Karl?

The reviews for On the Dnieper have just come in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/arts/dance/03abt.html?ref=dance

Ratmansky's response to this score is so inside the understated rhythms, the folk-tinged ambience, and piquant harmonies, that it took my breath away on both nights. But this score, just like the choreography that's inevitably associated with it, is almost inaccessible in creating an introverted landscape. It never reaches out for you, but you also don't disturb it and float seamlessly back out of that world when it's over. Therefore, the choreography seemed purposefully understated, using a more traditional dance vocabulary, and to some extent, underdeveloping parts of the tale.

But then much of the time, the story can still come through in emotional terms. In Ratmansky's opening choreography, Sergei's restlessness, the fact that he's alone, helps explain why he, all of a sudden, gives up on his fiancee for this new woman, Olga: she has two legs. She's probably the first woman he's seen in five years of fighting. Simply, he sees her before he sees his fiancee, and Ratmansky's opening characterization of this restlessness helps to explain things without a lot of pretext.

As regards stage images, I particularly enjoyed the quarter-turn pivots with one arm raised that open and close the ballet; the "confetti" image with Olga and the fiancee; Natalia resting her head in a kind of prayer, and many others.

Oh boy, could I not agree less with Apollinaire Scherr (a reviewer for the Wall Street Journal) in that this score is match. As I've listened to this piece, I've always wondered what so many of the numbers might look like on stage, and some of them just scream for choreography. It's the story that's thorny; the music would light up like kindling.