Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[snyprrr]

Visions fugitives, buddy.

I used to have Mustonen there... can't remember a lick...

The thing with Prokofiev to me is that he does sound very balletic to me,- very Russian in the Rimsky mold, "fairy tale" sound effects and such, married to a virtuoso 'bad boy' technique. Nothing is offensive, but what stands out as much as - mm- the opening of Symphony No.7, which succeeds because it sounds so much like Shostakovich? Maybe I'm just pissed because Prokofiev has so much music... aye...with so many considerations...

1) The 2 Violin Concertos have already won me over.

2) I'm quite interested in the earlier Piano Concertos 1-2, and some of the pre-USA work. I have Fleischer in 4...

3)I'm much much more critical of the Symphonies as a whole- finding them almost as hard to remember as Henze's. I'm willing to give No.6 another try- No.5 yesterday with Dutoit went nowhere,- and I'm not sure how to feel about the "not-the-masterpiece" No.7, whose first movement sounds as good as any Russian Music of Foreboding as I've ever heard (the rest, not so much- Malko anyone?).

I keep giving the 'Mechanistic' 2nd a hearing, but maybe I'm just spoilt, I have a hard time being impressed with this "radical" depiction- as if others haven't done the same thing better.

3-4? Which is which? Oh yes, 3 is the one that has the exciting Scherzo.

4) Chamber Music: Not part of the current survey. SQs, VSs, all great stuff,... no problem here.

5) PCs 3 & 5: Richter in 5,... who in 3?

6) Ballet Music: This is obviously where I fall down,... or go to sleep,... too much semi-cool music that I could spend too much time with? This, or Villa-Lobos,...?... I just don't have the time or patience for too many prolific mid-century types right now.

7) Symphony-Concerto

[Karl Henning]

I used to have Mustonen there... can't remember a lick...

Although I do enjoy Mustonen here, I shouldn't call his performance typical.  Béroff or Raekallio are very fine.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

3)I'm much much more critical of the Symphonies as a whole- finding them almost as hard to remember as Henze's. I'm willing to give No.6 another try- No.5 yesterday with Dutoit went nowhere,- and I'm not sure how to feel about the "not-the-masterpiece" No.7, whose first movement sounds as good as any Russian Music of Foreboding as I've ever heard (the rest, not so much- Malko anyone?).

I've said it before, but the symphonies aren't among Prokofiev's top works. Two of them are hodgepodges of other works (3rd and 4th) and one is a throwback work (1st - though and extremely successful throwback). If the symphonies don't work for you there's plenty of other Prokofiev to keep you satisfied.

5) PCs 3 & 5: Richter in 5,... who in 3?

For the 3rd PC, Katchen/Kertesz is top-o-the-heap for me, in this set:



[asin]B00000IIYB[/asin]

Argerich's 3rd PC is also great, and readily available.

6) Ballet Music: This is obviously where I fall down,... or go to sleep,... too much semi-cool music that I could spend too much time with? This, or Villa-Lobos,...?... I just don't have the time or patience for too many prolific mid-century types right now.

The two kings of Prokofiev ballet are Romeo & Juliet and Cinderella. For good reason. They're simply loaded with world-class music. The other ballets (I hesitate to call them "minor") also stand with some of the best Prokofiev but they'll still be there when your exploration of the Big Two ballets is finished. Just get-a-going on those Big Two.


 

[Mandryka]

I used to have Mustonen there... can't remember a lick...

The thing with Prokofiev to me is that he does sound very balletic to me,- very Russian in the Rimsky mold, "fairy tale" sound effects and such, married to a virtuoso 'bad boy' technique. Nothing is offensive, but what stands out as much as - mm- the opening of Symphony No.7, which succeeds because it sounds so much like Shostakovich? Maybe I'm just pissed because Prokofiev has so much music... aye...with so many considerations...

1) The 2 Violin Concertos have already won me over.

2) I'm quite interested in the earlier Piano Concertos 1-2, and some of the pre-USA work. I have Fleischer in 4...

3)I'm much much more critical of the Symphonies as a whole- finding them almost as hard to remember as Henze's. I'm willing to give No.6 another try- No.5 yesterday with Dutoit went nowhere,- and I'm not sure how to feel about the "not-the-masterpiece" No.7, whose first movement sounds as good as any Russian Music of Foreboding as I've ever heard (the rest, not so much- Malko anyone?).

I keep giving the 'Mechanistic' 2nd a hearing, but maybe I'm just spoilt, I have a hard time being impressed with this "radical" depiction- as if others haven't done the same thing better.

3-4? Which is which? Oh yes, 3 is the one that has the exciting Scherzo.

4) Chamber Music: Not part of the current survey. SQs, VSs, all great stuff,... no problem here.

5) PCs 3 & 5: Richter in 5,... who in 3?

6) Ballet Music: This is obviously where I fall down,... or go to sleep,... too much semi-cool music that I could spend too much time with? This, or Villa-Lobos,...?... I just don't have the time or patience for too many prolific mid-century types right now.

7) Symphony-Concerto

Be sure to check out Yudina's Visions Fugitives, they used to be on youtube and anyway you can download them here

http://panovnik.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/maria-yudina-prokofiev-shostakovich.html

Also the live one from Vladimir Sofronitsky, from the Scriabin Museum. One I've really enjoyed recently is played by Katerina Ervy-Noviyskaya.

I very much like Malko in 7. I also like Nikolai Anosov. People who say 7 isn't a masterpiece are wrong. The other one I think is a masterpiece is 6. The rest seem less interesting to me.

If you grow to like 7 as much as I do, then I think you should explore the 9th piano sonata and Cinderella.

Re PC5 be sure to check out Schlimé/Pletnev. And I'm assuming you've heard the old Thor Johnson recording of PC 2 with Jorge Bolet - if not, you may enjoy it. PC2 is the masterpiece concerto, the rest I care much less about.

[Karl Henning]

I've said it before, but the symphonies aren't among Prokofiev's top works. Two of them are hodgepodges of other works (3rd and 4th) [...]

Now that I have found myself coming full around on the Fourth (but I shan't berate you as any infidel!), I wonder to what degree self-fulfilling prophecy is at play – both in that so many conductors are preparing the piece with, at best, "qualified conviction," and that so few of us listeners hear the piece without prior awareness of its "checkered history."

[North Star]

I've said it before, but the symphonies aren't among Prokofiev's top works. Two of them are hodgepodges of other works

Beethoven's 9th is 'hodgepodge' too, since the finale was originally composed for another piece. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Now that I have found myself coming full around on the Fourth (but I shan't berate you as any infidel!), I wonder to what degree self-fulfilling prophecy is at play – both in that so many conductors are preparing the piece with, at best, "qualified conviction," and that so few of us listeners hear the piece without prior awareness of its "checkered history."

It is interesting to hypothesize, no doubt. The music itself is wonderful - for both the 3rd and the 4th symphonies - and Prokofiev can't be blamed for trying to resurrect music which had otherwise been pretty much rejected by the public in its original form. It's great music after all.

Maybe trends play a part. Conductors don't seem to mind performing that most nefarious of musical plunderers - Bach - but when it comes to music of today (or at least post-baroque) have the fashion tables been turned?

For me it's the third symphony I grieve for most. I like the music of course (it's some of his most inventive) but minus the vocals from the opera I just get to squirming. It's not all it can be. Although, I have to say, that may simply be my problem.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Beethoven's 9th is 'hodgepodge' too, since the finale was originally composed for another piece. 

GAHHH!!!! Covers eyes....

[North Star]

For me it's the third symphony I grieve for most. I like the music of course (it's some of his most inventive) but minus the vocals from the opera I just get to squirming. It's not all it can be. Although, I have to say, that may simply be my problem.

Perhaps it's the same as novels and their movie adaptations - usually the book is much better than the movie, and in addition one's own interpretation clashing with the adaptation inhibits the acceptance of its validity. But since I've heard the symphony first, I have no trouble enjoying both. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Perhaps it's the same as novels and their movie adaptations - usually the book is much better than the movie, and in addition one's own interpretation clashing with the adaptation inhibits the acceptance of its validity. But since I've heard the symphony first, I have no trouble enjoying both. 

That is a distinct possibility.

[TheGSMoeller]

Perhaps it's the same as novels and their movie adaptations - usually the book is much better than the movie, and in addition one's own interpretation clashing with the adaptation inhibits the acceptance of its validity. But since I've heard the symphony first, I have no trouble enjoying both. 

What impresses me about the 3rd is how S.P. rearranged the music from The Fiery Angel to suit the symphony, it doesn't match chronologically how it appears in the opera. For example the ending of the third movement is from Act 5, and the final moments of the symphony (fourth movement) are taken from Act 2. It shows that S.P. took the time to construct a coherent symphony of its own merit rather than just creating a four movement retelling of The Fiery Angel.

Now I will say that the 3rd was the symphony that took me the longest to digest from S.P. and to truly enjoy it as much as the other 6 1/2. 

[Karl Henning]

Similarly, there was thoughtful recomposition in the making of the Fourth (both versions).

[Brahmsian]

Some people's hodgepodges were better  (ie. Prokofiev) than some other's flagship, bread and butter works. (ie. Stockhausen) 

[snyprrr]

Sinfonia Concertante (Symphony-Concerto)

Is there something about this I just don't like? I seem to have a slight block here, but I cannot deny that this is one monster piece of music, and a real 'Symphony' for cello. There's really nothing to not like here: a crazy involved cello line, Big Russian Melodies, odd special effects, length and substance. Maybe it all sounds too easy? It's not. At about forty minutes, it just won't go away until it has subliminally wormed its way into your craw, where it sits right now awaiting further instructions!

I have had Rostropovich/Ozawa for the duration, but the orchestra is not quite in the mix as much as it should (and many have commented on this), and one does crave the Technicolor textures here. I have also 'The Russian Years' recording, which, apparently, is a Frankenstein recording of, perhaps, a Gauk first movement and an unknown remainder (surely someone has the skinny). This much earlier, apparently 'live' recording is really almost as good as the Ozawa backing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Sargent was at least as good.

I'm currently considering Chang(EMI) but leaning towards Mork(Virgin)- Ivashkin/Polyansky sound rich and full too, and it almost seems as though no one ever puts a foot wrong in this piece (timings are pretty consistent across the board).

Where does this monster fit for you? I'd put it right next to the Britten (there is one recording with both). It's certainly much didfferent than Shostakovich; but it does have affinity with Khachtaturian. What are your thoughts?

[snyprrr]

Symphony No.5, Op.100

So, let me get this straight. This is music with the 'Emotion' written into the score, so, as with Stravinsky, one must simply, vigorously, play the notes? So, technically, the music should be played at, probably, a 'Perfect Tempo', and perhaps a 'Complimentary Alternate Tempo' (either faster or slower), meaning, that most performances should clock in at a pretty specific time?

As can be shown, both of the faster movements seems to rigidly adhere to a certain basic procedure no matter who is the Conductor. The rhythmic figure that op0ens the second movement is so obvious that a kindergartener would get the tempo right;- and, the only way one could get it wrong would be if one willfully pulled the music out of shape because of, say,...mm,... ego?

But, the first movement is rendered from 10-15 minutes, and so many get it right, and so many get it wrong, and what of it? From what I heard today, Jansons took it just a slice fast, and Levine took the same slice just a hair on the slow side. RohzBBC seemed just a hair slow. Szell? SZELL?? I mean,... reeeally,... sorry, I know it's everyone's favorite, but, come ON!, that's obviously not how the music should go, and one need only hear twenty some-odd witnesses to tell ya so,... no? Talk to me.

I saying that I'm starting to get that real deep respect for this music, and I wonder if Prokofiev wrote it in just such a way as to set Conductors' heads on edge? If you play it just this way or that way all the accents change (is this one of those 'Bruckner Problem's?). Again, this is mostly happening in the two slower movements, which both seem to start with off-beat, 'clunky' rhythmic figures, that could be taken any number of ways depending on how you 'approach' the music.


So, Levine and Karajan were both 'too much' for me; Szell waaay too fast; Jarvi maybe just right?;,... which is the MOST "Standardized" 5th.

[Sergeant Rock]

But, the first movement is rendered from 10-15 minutes, and so many get it right, and so many get it wrong, and what of it? From what I heard today, Jansons took it just a slice fast, and Levine took the same slice just a hair on the slow side. RohzBBC seemed just a hair slow. Szell? SZELL?? I mean,... reeeally,... sorry, I know it's everyone's favorite, but, come ON!, that's obviously not how the music should go, and one need only hear twenty some-odd witnesses to tell ya so,... no? Talk to me....So, Levine and Karajan were both 'too much' for me; Szell waaay too fast; Jarvi maybe just right?;,... which is the MOST "Standardized" 5th.

And here I thought you liked and wanted to hear extreme interpretations! Now I find out you're a boring middle-of-the-roader! I'm so disappointed

Szell's Prok isn't everyone's favorite but it is mine. It doesn't sound fast to me but just right. I admit that surprises me. More often than not I prefer slower to faster in almost any music. But not op.100.

[Karl Henning]

I like the Szell
(Aye, very well.)

I don't recall the Järvi take on the Op.100;  but then, as a rule, the best that he manages in his symphony cycle is where he does The Least Harm

snypsss, I can only hazard a guess, at best, but here are those guesses: Slava & Ozawa.

[Sergeant Rock]

snypsss, I can only hazard a guess, at best, but here are those guesses: Slava & Ozawa.

That's what I was thinking...but hesitated to provide that answer because snyprrr always, always, rejects my recommendations    Celibidache is also rather middle-of-the-roadish actually...and I love almost everything Russian he did. As good as his Bruckner.

Sarge

[Brahmsian]

I don't recall the Järvi take on the Op.100;  but then, as a rule, the best that he manages in his symphony cycle is where he does The Least Harm

I love Järvi and the RSNO.  They rock in those symphonies.  They certainly are not tame, boring performances.  They don't hold anything back.  It's rock 'em sock 'em Prokofiev. 

[vandermolen]

Sinfonia Concertante (Symphony-Concerto)

Is there something about this I just don't like? I seem to have a slight block here, but I cannot deny that this is one monster piece of music, and a real 'Symphony' for cello. There's really nothing to not like here: a crazy involved cello line, Big Russian Melodies, odd special effects, length and substance. Maybe it all sounds too easy? It's not. At about forty minutes, it just won't go away until it has subliminally wormed its way into your craw, where it sits right now awaiting further instructions!

I have had Rostropovich/Ozawa for the duration, but the orchestra is not quite in the mix as much as it should (and many have commented on this), and one does crave the Technicolor textures here. I have also 'The Russian Years' recording, which, apparently, is a Frankenstein recording of, perhaps, a Gauk first movement and an unknown remainder (surely someone has the skinny). This much earlier, apparently 'live' recording is really almost as good as the Ozawa backing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Sargent was at least as good.

I'm currently considering Chang(EMI) but leaning towards Mork(Virgin)- Ivashkin/Polyansky sound rich and full too, and it almost seems as though no one ever puts a foot wrong in this piece (timings are pretty consistent across the board).

Where does this monster fit for you? I'd put it right next to the Britten (there is one recording with both). It's certainly much didfferent than Shostakovich; but it does have affinity with Khachtaturian. What are your thoughts?

Heard it live recently and didn't enjoy it at all. But then again I was waiting to hear Miaskovsky's 6th Symphony which was my reason for going to the concert. I am a great admirer of Prokofiev - but not this work. Doesn't surprise me that he had trouble finishing it.