Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Do you know the Concertgebouw/Kondrashin Third? It's my go-to recording for this work--brings out both the lyrical and the apocalyptic sides to the work so well (and I find it's really easy to underestimate how much lyrical material there is in this symphony).

Which isn't to say that I don't like the BSO/Leinsdorf recording--if the Kondrashin didn't exist I'm sure he and Rozhdestvensky would leave me very happy in the work.

I agree about the qualities of the Kondrashin/Concertgebouw. Too bad it's out of print. Muti/Philadelphia is good, too. Too bad it's out of print.

I haven't heard Leinsdorf's BSO recording but if it's as good as his recordings of the 2nd and 6th syms I have I'm sure it's first rate.

Generally though when I reach for this symphony I tend to go for the complete opera. I miss the voices and the greater "substance" I feel when the singing hasn't been excised.

I'm a sucker for those operas of his...

[TheGSMoeller]

I agree about the qualities of the Kondrashin/Concertgebouw. Too bad it's out of print. Muti/Philadelphia is good, too. Too bad it's out of print.

I haven't heard Leinsdorf's BSO recording but if it's as good as his recordings of the 2nd and 6th syms I have I'm sure it's first rate.

Generally though when I reach for this symphony I tend to go for the complete opera. I miss the voices and the greater "substance" I feel when the singing hasn't been excised.

I'm a sucker for those operas of his...

Muti/Phila is my go-to recording for the 3rd, has been for a while. Try to get your hands on it, the performance is monstrous and Muti pulls no punches when it comes to dynamics. I love comparing Gergiev's final chord of the 3rd, which he sustains for 10 seconds compared to Muti's at 3 seconds. Muti's definitely leaves the listener a little more jarred.

And a BIG yes for the complete opera. I spent years neglecting The Fiery Angel opera, big mistake, it's the source of the fire from Symphony no.3 and then about 90 minutes more!

[Mirror Image]

So I'm listening to Raphael Wallfisch's performance of Sinfonia Concertante yet again and let me say I'm never left unsatisfied with this performance. It's quite emotional and I think Jarvi has done the best job, of the performances I've heard, of accompanying the soloist. The other two performances I've heard (and own): Chang/Pappano I found Chang just to be too extreme in the work and not really that subtle with it at all, I also felt she played too mechanically, and Pappano could have done a better job of building climaxes and driving the orchestra and the Rostropovich/Sargent I found disappointing because I thought Sargent's accompaniment was uninspired and he seemed like he was completely disinterested in the music. Rostropovich played very well, but I think he, too, suffered the same fate as Chang and was just too erratic for my tastes. He played much, much better than Chang though.

The other performance I own but shut off almost immediately was Rudin/Kuchar. The sound quality wasn't up to par with the other performances I own. Rudin also didn't impress me.

I bought these two recordings today, so I'm interested to see how they stack up with my preferred choice of Wallfisch/Jarvi:

[asin]B002FWR7DO[/asin]

[asin]B002WQ5CP8[/asin]

[Karl Henning]

That is interesting, John.

I've not heard any of those! The three I have heard are:

Navarra/Cz Phil/Ančerl
Slava/LSO/Ozawa
Ivashkin/Russian State Symphony/Polyansky

[Mirror Image]

That is interesting, John.

I've not heard any of those! The three I have heard are:

Navarra/Cz Phil/Ančerl
Slava/LSO/Ozawa
Ivashkin/Russian State Symphony/Polyansky

And I haven't heard any of those! What's the Polyansky like? The second performance of Rostropovich may be interesting to hear too.

[Karl Henning]

It's a while since I've listened to it.  It was the first recording I heard of the Op.125, and it sold me on the piece, entirely.  The Navarra/Ančerl & Slava/Ozawa are both very fine; so (unusually lucky, it may be) I actually think well of all the recordings I've heard thus far.  I should revisit the Ivashkin, in order to answer with more texture.

[Mirror Image]

It's a while since I've listened to it.  It was the first recording I heard of the Op.125, and it sold me on the piece, entirely.  The Navarra/Ančerl & Slava/Ozawa are both very fine; so (unusually lucky, it may be) I actually think well of all the recordings I've heard thus far.  I should revisit the Ivashkin, in order to answer with more texture.

Thanks for the feedback, Karl. I'm so in love with the work that I'm still in search of one performance that outperforms my choice of Wallfisch/Jarvi. Please have a listen to the Ivashkin/Polyansky when you have the time. I'd be interested, especially in how the second movement sounds in their hands.

[Karl Henning]

It's perfect. I remember that much ; )

[Mirror Image]

It's perfect. I remember that much ; )

Ha!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Muti/Phila is my go-to recording for the 3rd, has been for a while. Try to get your hands on it, the performance is monstrous and Muti pulls no punches when it comes to dynamics. I love comparing Gergiev's final chord of the 3rd, which he sustains for 10 seconds compared to Muti's at 3 seconds. Muti's definitely leaves the listener a little more jarred.

Oh, I have Muti's 3rd. I just meant it's a pity the current generation is deprived!

And a BIG yes for the complete opera. I spent years neglecting The Fiery Angel opera, big mistake, it's the source of the fire from Symphony no.3 and then about 90 minutes more!

Yep!

[eyeresist]

MI, have you heard Maisky's recording of the symphony concerto? I am curious about it....

Great timing, too, as I revisited the Overture on Hebrew Themes, twice, after a long absence just yesterday.

Karl, have you ever heard the early version of the Overture? As usual with this things, there are some nice moments that got cut, but you can tell the work is much tauter in the revised version.

[ASIN]B00006372J[/ASIN]

[mc ukrneal]

MI, have you heard Maisky's recording of the symphony concerto? I am curious about it....

You did not ask me, but I have that recording. I think it works pretty well for the most part (assuming you mean the disc coupled with Miaskovsky). I am not always a fan of Maisky, but I love the balance with the orchestra (they flow together seemlessly) and the instrument sounds good. I think Pletnev and team have done a wonderful job on the sonic impact. There is plenty of bite, but beauty as well.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I don't know but these two recordings may just have sat on the shelf all this while:  the Symphony-Concerto Op.125 performed severally by Slava/LSO/Ozawa and Navarra/Cz Phil/Ančerl.  Well, I've listened to both, now.  The former is a bit nervier (without failing of lyricism), and the latter is a bit more lyrical (without any flagging energy).  The sound is perforce better in the former, though the latter does not suffer at all, sonically.

Time to revisit the Ivashkin/Russian State Symphony/Polyansky recording . . . .

[Mirror Image]

MI, have you heard Maisky's recording of the symphony concerto? I am curious about it....

Interestingly enough, this is a recording I've been trying to get a hold of but still have had no luck in getting a used copy in mint condition.

[Mirror Image]

Well, I don't know but these two recordings may just have sat on the shelf all this while:  the Symphony-Concerto Op.125 performed severally by Slava/LSO/Ozawa and Navarra/Cz Phil/Ančerl.  Well, I've listened to both, now.  The former is a bit nervier (without failing of lyricism), and the latter is a bit more lyrical (without any flagging energy).  The sound is perforce better in the former, though the latter does not suffer at all, sonically.

Time to revisit the Ivashkin/Russian State Symphony/Polyansky recording . . . .

Cool, thanks for the feedback, Karl. Now I await your opinion of the Ivashkin...

[eyeresist]

You did not ask me, but I have that recording. I think it works pretty well for the most part (assuming you mean the disc coupled with Miaskovsky). I am not always a fan of Maisky, but I love the balance with the orchestra (they flow together seemlessly) and the instrument sounds good. I think Pletnev and team have done a wonderful job on the sonic impact. There is plenty of bite, but beauty as well.

Thanks for this assessment. Pletnev hasn't conducted much 20th century work, as I recall...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Thanks for this assessment. Pletnev hasn't conducted much 20th century work, as I recall...

I don't know much about Pletnev's conducting but I do know he recorded a fantastic performance of Cinderella. If that helps anyone...

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: Dancing

I don't know much about Pletnev's conducting but I do know he recorded a fantastic performance of Cinderella.

And, of course, he has performed the two-piano suite taken from Cinderella with Martha Argerich.

Myself, I am enjoying a sort of "mini-saturation" in The Tale of the Stone Flower, Op.118, listening to both the Jurowski and Noseda recordings of the entire ballet . . . more for increasing my familiarity with the score, than for comparison (though the Hannover Radio band is obviously rougher-shod than the BBC Phil).  The ballet did not immediately come within my musical affections, a couple of years ago when I first made its acquaintance. Why?  Two reasons, to start with.

1. First I ever knew of it was via Harlow Robinson's bio.  It's some years since last I looked into that volume, but I rather suspect that he expresses a low opinion of it — and chances are, that opinion was a poison in my thought on the score.

2. The obvious difference in this piece to either Cinderella or Romeo and Juliet is, the story is unfamiliar.  For me, at any rate, this meant that the advantage held by the Opp. 64 & 87 — apart from the real possibility, let us own in all fairness, that they may in fact be stronger scores — was in the first place, that a listener such as myself, making the acquaintance of the piece not in the theatre, but via recordings, could readily imagine action, even if not closely following the libretto. (Not that I would necessarily fit all the action accurately to the music — the important psychological advantage, I think, is that whether I followed the story correctly by the music, I knew the story, and could visualize.)

Now, in the Noseda recording, the full ballet runs just a little longer than does Romeo and Juliet; and (probably) none of us here feels that the Op.64 contains even a single superfluous, unnecessary note, substantial of duration though it be.

The long and the short of my preamble, then, is that I readily entertain the possibility that (* ahem *) The Tale of the Stone Flower is not "too long," any more than I think that War and Peace (Tolstoy, I mean, specifically) is "too long."  But in both cases (as my working hypothesis goes) the artwork needs an audience disposed to take it at its own pace, in its own dimensions.  And that the fact that The Tale of the Stone Flower is a good deal more expansive than Le pas d'acier means nothing qualitatively about either work.

There, I think that will do for now.

[TheGSMoeller]

And, of course, he has performed the two-piano suite taken from Cinderella with Martha Argerich.

Myself, I am enjoying a sort of "mini-saturation" in The Tale of the Stone Flower, Op.118, listening to both the Jurowski and Noseda recordings of the entire ballet . . . more for increasing my familiarity with the score, than for comparison (though the Hannover Radio band is obviously rougher-shod than the BBC Phil).  The ballet did not immediately come within my musical affections, a cople of years ago when I first made its acquaintance. Why?  Two reasons, to start with.

1. First I ever knew of it was via Harlow Robinson's bio.  It's some years since last I looked into that volume, but I rather suspect that he expresses a low opinion of it — and chances are, that opinion was a poison in my thought on the score.

2. The obvious difference in this piece to either Cinderella or Romeo and Juliet is, the story is unfamiliar.  For me, at any rate, this meant that the advantage held by the Opp. 64 & 87 — apart from the real possibility, let us own in all fairness, that they may in fact be stronger scores — was in the first place, that a listener such as myself, making the acquaintance of the piece not in the theatre, but via recordings, could readily imagine action, even if not closely following the libretto. (Not that I would necessarily fit all the action accurately to the music — the important psychological advantage, I think, is that whether I followed the story correctly by the music, I knew the story, anc could visualize.

Now, in the Noseda recording, the full ballet runs just a little longer than does Romeo and Juliet; and (probably) none of us here feels that the Op.64 contains even a single superfluous, unnecessary note, substantial of duration though it be.

The long and the short of my preamble, then, is that I readily entertain the possibility that (* ahem *) The Tale of the Stone Flower is not "too long," any more than I think that War and Peace (Tolstoy, I mean, specifically) is "too long."  But in both cases (as my working hypothesis goes) the artwork needs an audience disposed to take it at its own pace, in its own dimensions.  And that the fact that The Tale of the Stone Flower is a good deal more expansive than Le pas d'acier means nothing qualitatively about either work.

There, I think that will do for now.

[Standing Ovation] Bravo!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

And, of course, he has performed the two-piano suite taken from Cinderella with Martha Argerich.

Have you by chance heard this recording, Karl? Looks tempting...

Myself, I am enjoying a sort of "mini-saturation" in The Tale of the Stone Flower, Op.118, listening to both the Jurowski and Noseda recordings of the entire ballet . . . more for increasing my familiarity with the score, than for comparison (though the Hannover Radio band is obviously rougher-shod than the BBC Phil).  The ballet did not immediately come within my musical affections, a cople of years ago when I first made its acquaintance. Why?  Two reasons, to start with.

1. First I ever knew of it was via Harlow Robinson's bio.  It's some years since last I looked into that volume, but I rather suspect that he expresses a low opinion of it — and chances are, that opinion was a poison in my thought on the score.

2. The obvious difference in this piece to either Cinderella or Romeo and Juliet is, the story is unfamiliar.  For me, at any rate, this meant that the advantage held by the Opp. 64 & 87 — apart from the real possibility, let us own in all fairness, that they may in fact be stronger scores — was in the first place, that a listener such as myself, making the acquaintance of the piece not in the theatre, but via recordings, could readily imagine action, even if not closely following the libretto. (Not that I would necessarily fit all the action accurately to the music — the important psychological advantage, I think, is that whether I followed the story correctly by the music, I knew the story, anc could visualize.

Now, in the Noseda recording, the full ballet runs just a little longer than does Romeo and Juliet; and (probably) none of us here feels that the Op.64 contains even a single superfluous, unnecessary note, substantial of duration though it be.

The long and the short of my preamble, then, is that I readily entertain the possibility that (* ahem *) The Tale of the Stone Flower is not "too long," any more than I think that War and Peace (Tolstoy, I mean, specifically) is "too long."  But in both cases (as my working hypothesis goes) the artwork needs an audience disposed to take it at its own pace, in its own dimensions.  And that the fact that The Tale of the Stone Flower is a good deal more expansive than Le pas d'acier means nothing qualitatively about either work.

There, I think that will do for now.[/font]

Nice write up. I've long held a similar view of the Stone Flower. I've always felt it lacked a certain "angle" or requisite "hooks" to really grab the average listener. This however is based solely on the experience of listening to my Jurowski recording, as opposed to actually seeing it staged.

No doubt "hooks" are a good thing in a score but setting aside the need to actually BE hooked by a score, I find settling in and letting the musical experience take hold without prejudice can often produce gold.

Happily I've been won over by the sheer expertise of Prokofiev's vision in this work. It does indeed need to be "taken on its own terms" but no one who ventures into it is likely to be the poorer for the experience.