Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[Karl Henning]

Thank you for stating what I think was obvious from my own post ; )

[Mirror Image]

Thank you for stating what I think was obvious from my own post ; )

[Gurn Blanston]

I like both the Ivashkin/Polyansky (my first) and the Navarra/Ančerl.  Honestly, from the Järvi/Prokofiev I have heard, I am skeptical that he could better either of these.

Let me get this straight, Karl; that IS just an opinion, isn't it? 'cause you know, I prefer Jarvi here. Just sayin'...

[Karl Henning]

Let me get this straight, Karl; that IS just an opinion, isn't it? 'cause you know, I prefer Jarvi here. Just sayin'...

I am glad you ask, O Gurn . . . it never hurts to go over First Things again.

The key is right at the start. Let's go to the video-tape:

I like both the Ivashkin/Polyansky (my first) and the Navarra/Ančerl.  Honestly, from the Järvi/Prokofiev I have heard, I am skeptical that he could better either of these.

It's right there, out in front! The opinionizing formula I like — an enormous clew that what follows is being offered in light of an opinion, not as any disingenuous claim that these recordings are superior to anything else on earth, and you're the wan moonlight gleaming off a sick polecat's hairball if you don't think so, too.

[mahler10th]

Does anyone have any preferences when it comes to Prokofievs Alexander Nevsky?  I am interested to hear, as I love the piece, and am looking to augment the single Abbado recording I have with either something more "Russian" or something...er...eehhhhh....well, something that might be considered definitive. 

[DieNacht]

I have Abbado/Obraztsova DG and Svetlanov/Avdeyeva Melodiya/EMI.

IMO Svetlanov is more passioned and cinematic, and I actually prefer the sound there too; even that seems more engaging, your living room being more or less transformed into a battlefield of Teutonic knights and Novgorodnians   :-). Orchestral and vocal forces of course distinctively Russian, but the brass not too arrestingly so.

Timings are
1. 3:05
2. 3:09
3. 7:22
4. 2:26
5. 12:40
6. 5:53
7. 4:03

[mahler10th]

I have Abbado/Obraztsova DG and Svetlanov/Avdeyeva Melodiya/EMI.

IMO Svetlanov is more passioned and cinematic, and I actually prefer the sound there too; even that seems more engaging, your living room being more or less transformed into a battlefield of Teutonic knights and Novgorodnians   :-). Orchestral and vocal forces of course distinctively Russian, but the brass not too arrestingly so.

Timings are
1. 3:05
2. 3:09
3. 7:22
4. 2:26
5. 12:40
6. 5:53
7. 4:03

I appreciate your feedback DieNacht.

your living room being more or less transformed into a battlefield of Teutonic knights and Novgorodnians

Yes, that sounds like what I'm after!

[mc ukrneal]

Does anyone have any preferences when it comes to Prokofievs Alexander Nevsky?  I am interested to hear, as I love the piece, and am looking to augment the single Abbado recording I have with either something more "Russian" or something...er...eehhhhh....well, something that might be considered definitive. 

Well, there are those two plus Jarvi, Stokowski, and Ancerl. The Jarvi is good, but I was never entirely satisfied. The Stokowski is excellent - with the exception of one small issue that I have written about in earlier posts. Ancerl was recommended here to me by Brian and I have not heard it just yet. You can read my Stokowski comments here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9.msg455143.html#msg455143

But there are also at least Temirkanov, Previn, Reiner, and Yablonsky - none of which I have heard.

[mahler10th]

Well, there are those two plus Jarvi, Stokowski, and Ancerl. The Jarvi is good, but I was never entirely satisfied. The Stokowski is excellent - with the exception of one small issue that I have written about in earlier posts. Ancerl was recommended here to me by Brian and I have not heard it just yet. You can read my Stokowski comments here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9.msg455143.html#msg455143

But there are also at least Temirkanov, Previn, Reiner, and Yablonsky - none of which I have heard.

I am having a look now Mr. 3000 poster.   

[TheGSMoeller]

Does anyone have any preferences when it comes to Prokofievs Alexander Nevsky?  I am interested to hear, as I love the piece, and am looking to augment the single Abbado recording I have with either something more "Russian" or something...er...eehhhhh....well, something that might be considered definitive. 

The Temirkinov/St Petersburg recording is interesting being thats it's the score to the film, not the cantata. It has great sound and a good performance.
I have the Temikinov, Jarvi, Abbado & Dutoit and pleased with all four.

[mc ukrneal]

I am having a look now Mr. 3000 poster.   

oooh. I hadn't even noticed! Thankee! Has a nice ring. The Temirkanov comment is a good one too - an important differentiator from the others.

[eyeresist]

You should hear Wallfisch/Jarvi. The best performance of Sinfonia Concertante I've heard.

I've heard Wallfish in the Shostakovich concertos, and found them too warm-hearted and mellow, for my tastes at least, so probably won't seek out this recording immediately. (Also, am not a fan of Jarvi's Prokofiev.) Sorry!

Re Nevsky, my first recording was the Reiner, which made no positive impression. Then I bought Temirkanov's recording of the film score, which was okay, but not really as satisfying as the cantata, and also had some annoying sound effects added. I got the Gergiev, after being impressed with his Ivan, but his Nevsky was unsatisfying and rather abrasive. I did a bit of a search, my main criteria being that the overture be taken broadly. I now have the Abbado, which is excellent. I would like to hear Svetlanov someday....

I am also intrigued with this recording by the Mexico Philharmonic, which has the slowest timings of all (there's also a CD version selling for $49):
[ASIN]B001V678XO[/ASIN]

[eyeresist]

Here's an idea I had last night, which gave me some pleasure:

Prokofiev's cycle of symphonies may be said to form a symmetrical ARC (or trough, if you're feeling negative).

1 & 7 - deceptively light, neoclassical works (I think of 7 as Schumann-esque).
2 & 6 - harmonically his toughest, structurally his least conventional. We know he planned to revise 2 in three movements, which would have made the correspondence even more obvious.
3 & 5 - solid modern updatings of the symphony qua symphony. Both noted for memorable wacky scherzos.
4 - the pastoral capstone (or nadir!) of the cycle. In keeping with the symmetry of my conceit, its structure is two fast movements surrounding a pair of slow movements.

Does this fancy have merit? I'd love to see it turn up in liner notes or a concert program sometime.

[Karl Henning]

Curious as to why you think of the Seventh as Schumann-esque . . . .

[eyeresist]

Something to do with the whimsical, melancholic strain of the melodies combined with the rich-yet-light sound of the orchestra (excepting the piano, obviously). I should add that I strongly disapprove of the tendency of conductors to try to make the work more "serious" by turning it into a dirge. See Malko for the correct approach

[TheGSMoeller]

Came across the beautiful gem this evening, a wonderful animated short on Prokofiev's life.
I don't speak Russian so I do not understand the narrator, but knowing enough about Prokofiev's life I was able to keep up with the story.


http://www.youtube.com/v/wHvxY6ouQp0

[Hattoff]

What a smashing little film. Interesting post soviet viewpoint of his departure from Russia in 1918. Also contains a brief excerpt from his childhood opera "The Giant". Excellent, thanks for that.

[not edward]

Something to do with the whimsical, melancholic strain of the melodies combined with the rich-yet-light sound of the orchestra (excepting the piano, obviously). I should add that I strongly disapprove of the tendency of conductors to try to make the work more "serious" by turning it into a dirge. See Malko for the correct approach

If only Malko had the original ending, I doubt I'd feel much need to go elsewhere in this symphony.

Agreed on the issues with overly grave interpretations; given that the music so effectively combines grace and nostalgia, you can't do much worse than overegging the pudding. Plus it reduces the effect of the ending, which--I'd say--should (so typically for Prokofiev) give the listener a rather different perspective on what went on before.

It's very much a personal interpretation, but in some ways I think the 7th is every bit as dark a work as its predecessor. However, where the 6th expresses its rage and sorrow very directly, the 7th wears an elegant, well-made mask that sometimes slips a bit to give the listener a glimpse of what lies beneath.

[TheGSMoeller]

It's very much a personal interpretation, but in some ways I think the 7th is every bit as dark a work as its predecessor. However, where the 6th expresses its rage and sorrow very directly, the 7th wears an elegant, well-made mask that sometimes slips a bit to give the listener a glimpse of what lies beneath.

I've always found an underlining sense of sadness from the 7th.
I believe that it was written for a children's program in early 1950s, which might explain some of the light-heartedness that has always labeled it. But I've always imagined that a composer late in his life, and after experiencing so many traumatic personal and world events, that writing a piece for children might not be as lighthearted as first expected. As I get older thinking back on my youth and my innocence lost, I feel a little more sadness that it is gone, happy and joyful memories followed by a urge to feel that way again and then realizing that it's gone. Perhaps this was how Prokofiev felt?
Sorry for the rambling, but that is how I've always viewed #7, and why it has always been my favorite of Prokofiev.

[not edward]

Yes, it's hard not to see it as a nostalgic reminiscence of a past can no longer be recovered; the end of the finale (if the correct ending is played) always leaves me feeling very uncomfortable, as to me the message is that the composer's looking back on the past because the only thing he sees in front of him is his own death. (I wouldn't be surprised if this was how Shostakovich viewed it too; his praise for the work is oft-quoted and to me there are very clear parallels with the end of DSCH 15.)