Prokofiev's Paddy Wagon

[TheGSMoeller]

Polyansky might be my favourite Second. Given that it has Ivashkin's excellent Symphony-Concerto on the disc too, I'm inclined to regard it as a no-brainer purchase.

I don't have this one, although my eye has been on it for a while. But the Prokofiev/Polyansky combo has been very successful, I have the following three that are superbly recorded and performed and also make a strong case for some of S.P.'s lesser recorded works (Egyptian Nights, Hamlet, Songs of our Days)

 

[Karl Henning]

Polyansky might be my favourite Second. Given that it has Ivashkin's excellent Symphony-Concerto on the disc too, I'm inclined to regard it as a no-brainer purchase.

Most excellent cause, indeed.

[snyprrr]

The only other Second I need, is the Leinsdorf/BSO reissue.

(That said . . . I should revisit the Polyansky . . . .)

Polyansky seemed to be the only competitive modern.

I listened to No.2 quite a few times last night- obviously my fav Prokofiev at this point!- that second movement reminds me of DSCH4?? And just got together with DSCH4 (Slava) and that may be my current fav DSCH (except for any obvious heartbreaking melody!).

But, I can't imagine Polansky recorded better than Ozawa- that DG is really transparent- yes, it's totally 'fake', but it's great for study. The piano in the Ozawa Cycle is obviously larger than life, but it really adds to be able to hear it so well (in 5 too- or maybe it's 5 I'm thinking about).

Still, No.7 just reminds me of an hommage to Miaskovsky, very conservative. Could it be the Last Conservative Russian Symphony? I do hear some fists on the table in 7 though...

[snyprrr]

Symphony No.3 "The Fiery Angel"

I became aware of a Rozh 3 that a couple of Reviewers said was the ONLY recording that brought out the "unholiness" of the music. Now, I see what appears to be two different Rozh recordings

1) the one that's available on what looks like a cheap Vox cd- with the "TV & Radio" orchestra

2) the one on the Amazon LP cover (with a Review) which seems to be with a different orchestra. One of the Reviewers seems to state that both are the same,  but does anyone know for sure?

tHE rEVIEWERS SAY EVERY OTHER VERSION SUCKS NEXT TO THIS ONE. yOU know WHAT THAT DOES TO ME(WHOOPs overzealous Saturday!!)

[TheGSMoeller]

Symphony No.3 "The Fiery Angel"

I became aware of a Rozh 3 that a couple of Reviewers said was the ONLY recording that brought out the "unholiness" of the music. Now, I see what appears to be two different Rozh recordings

1) the one that's available on what looks like a cheap Vox cd- with the "TV & Radio" orchestra

2) the one on the Amazon LP cover (with a Review) which seems to be with a different orchestra. One of the Reviewers seems to state that both are the same,  but does anyone know for sure?

tHE rEVIEWERS SAY EVERY OTHER VERSION SUCKS NEXT TO THIS ONE. yOU know WHAT THAT DOES TO ME(WHOOPs overzealous Saturday!!)

Saying all others versions suck compared to this is being ignorant. There are many very good performances of the 3rd on record. The "unholiness" is contained in the notes, not only how loud the musicians play. The Chailly recording with RCO is more lyrical and tame in volume than others, but offers its own eerie touch. Something like Jarvi or Muti's can tear the roof off the ceiling, but doesn't necessarily make it darker.

[snyprrr]

Symphony No.4

This one may have put me to sleep, I can't remember, but what's the skinny here? Which do you prefer, and who should guide me (I was thinking either Jarvi or Rosty (Rosty has both on one CD)? I promise this will be my last Prokofiev hassle!!

[TheGSMoeller]

Symphony No.4

This one may have put me to sleep, I can't remember, but what's the skinny here? Which do you prefer, and who should guide me (I was thinking either Jarvi or Rosty (Rosty has both on one CD)? I promise this will be my last Prokofiev hassle!!

Which No. 4? Op. 47 or 112?
The latter one tends to drag just a bit more, I've always preferred the original Op. 47, it feels more like Prokofiev to me than the revised 112. Even the coda of 112 is too much of a shift from the previous music and sounds forced.
But both are filled with good music. But don't ignore The Prodigal Son which is what inspired the 4th.

[snyprrr]

Saying all others versions suck compared to this is being ignorant. There are many very good performances of the 3rd on record. The "unholiness" is contained in the notes, not only how loud the musicians play. The Chailly recording with RCO is more lyrical and tame in volume than others, but offers its own eerie touch. Something like Jarvi or Muti's can tear the roof off the ceiling, but doesn't necessarily make it darker.

But but this guy said the Rozh made Muti & All sound "wimpy". Waaaah!! I'm just going by what the other person said (ignorant or not- they may have every version?). I can't see me wanting "lyrical" or "tame" here. If Rozh is full of the nether regions, well, must we not find out if the claims are true? Maybe his is far passed others in terms of aggravating the notes? Only a vast conflagration of consensus can bring us to sanity!

[Brahmsian]

Which No. 4? Op. 47 or 112?
The latter one tends to drag just a bit more, I've always preferred the original Op. 47, it feels more like Prokofiev to me than the revised 112. Even the coda of 112 is too much of a shift from the previous music and sounds forced.
But both are filled with good music. But don't ignore The Prodigal Son which is what inspired the 4th.

I used to feel that way, Greg.  In fact, when first coming upon Prokofiev's symphonies, the original 4th (Op. 47) was my favourite Sergei symphony (along with the 'Classical'), and in the beginning, I vastly preferred the original to the revised Op. 112.

Times have changed for me, and I like them both, however, I have a slight preference to the revised Op. 112.

[TheGSMoeller]

But but this guy said the Rozh made Muti & All sound "wimpy". Waaaah!! I'm just going by what the other person said (ignorant or not- they may have every version?). I can't see me wanting "lyrical" or "tame" here. If Rozh is full of the nether regions, well, must we not find out if the claims are true? Maybe his is far passed others in terms of aggravating the notes? Only a vast conflagration of consensus can bring us to sanity!

I think we've read the same review.  the one that calls this "a noisy work"?

[TheGSMoeller]

I used to feel that way, Greg.  In fact, when first coming upon Prokofiev's symphonies, the original 4th (Op. 47) was my favourite Sergei symphony (along with the 'Classical'), and in the beginning, I vastly preferred the original to the revised Op. 112.

Times have changed for me, and I like them both, however, I have a slight preference to the revised Op. 112.

Morning, Ray.

I do wish the 4th (both versions) received more solo recordings, seems to only be available in sets ATM. It deserves more attention.

[Brahmsian]

Morning, Ray.

I do wish the 4th (both versions) received more solo recordings, seems to only be available in sets ATM. It deserves more attention.

It's a great symphony, and I liked it from the very beginning.  Took a lot longer to enjoy and appreciate S# 2, 3, and 6.

[snyprrr]

Which No. 4? Op. 47 or 112?
The latter one tends to drag just a bit more, I've always preferred the original Op. 47, it feels more like Prokofiev to me than the revised 112. Even the coda of 112 is too much of a shift from the previous music and sounds forced.
But both are filled with good music. But don't ignore The Prodigal Son which is what inspired the 4th.

I'm curious about both 4s. You've already given me an inkling as to where my sympathies might lie.

Doesn't the ballet have shorter movements? If it's all the "same" music, I might be more inclined to the longer movement form- but that Jarvi disc of Prodigal is like the Grail of his Cycle- if it were between the Sym. and that disc I might go for the latter.

I think we've read the same review.  the one that calls this "a noisy work"?

The one Review was for the LP. Some other Reviews hinted at Rozh's greatness here, but it's unclear whether there is 1 Rozh recording, or 2. Either way, cheap cheap cheap...

but I did read the "noisy" review (just forget which it is)

The Prokofiev Reviews have a lot of the usual suspects- SantaFeListener seems a pretty good guide... I.Giles... some others... yes, I'm totally going on Review Conflagration!!

I'm not ready to go whole hog on Prokofiev ballet music- too much for now...

[snyprrr]

It's a great symphony, and I liked it from the very beginning.  Took a lot longer to enjoy and appreciate S# 2, 3, and 6.

Who are you liking (in either version)?

[Brahmsian]

Who are you liking (in either version)?

Not the best person to ask.  I don't own multiple Prokofiev symphonies (only Jarvi/RSNO). 

[Brahmsian]

I'm not ready to go whole hog on Prokofiev ballet music- too much for now...

Well, this was my first ever Prokofiev disc I ever purchased, and still a huge favorite of mine.  AND YES, this is a disc conducted by Paavo Jarvi, and he is NOT on the front cover!!  What was Telarc thinking??    To be fair, he is on the back cover of the disc. 

Seriously, listen the the 3 Ballet Suites of R&J and then go to the whole ballet.  Both are very worthy.  This disc includes the 3 ballet suites of R&J (many only record the first two suites).

[asin]B0000TO0EI[/asin]

[Drasko]

Symphony No.3 "The Fiery Angel"

I became aware of a Rozh 3 that a couple of Reviewers said was the ONLY recording that brought out the "unholiness" of the music. Now, I see what appears to be two different Rozh recordings

1) the one that's available on what looks like a cheap Vox cd- with the "TV & Radio" orchestra

2) the one on the Amazon LP cover (with a Review) which seems to be with a different orchestra. One of the Reviewers seems to state that both are the same,  but does anyone know for sure?

tHE rEVIEWERS SAY EVERY OTHER VERSION SUCKS NEXT TO THIS ONE. yOU know WHAT THAT DOES TO ME(WHOOPs overzealous Saturday!!)

There is a live recording of the 3rd by Rozhdestvensky from early 60s, but my Revelation CD lists orchestra as State Symphony Orchestra (that would later be Svetlanov's orchestra, at the time Konstantin Ivanov's).
It's very intense performance, audibly live, and decently recorded for its day and place. I prefer it to Muti, but is  better than every other I can't say.



http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-Symphony-recorded-Prokofiev-January/dp/B000006B9F

[snyprrr]

There is a live recording of the 3rd by Rozhdestvensky from early 60s, but my Revelation CD lists orchestra as State Symphony Orchestra (that would later be Svetlanov's orchestra, at the time Konstantin Ivanov's).
It's very intense performance, audibly live, and decently recorded for its day and place. I prefer it to Muti, but is  better than every other I can't say.



http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-Symphony-recorded-Prokofiev-January/dp/B000006B9F

ok, I THINK that's actually it.

The one on Vox (or whatever cheapie it is) is with the "Radio & TV" something another, but the one on the LP, that got the super rave, was with the "State" orchestra.

We may have it here- can we get a third witness??? (or fourth)



See, Drasko e here likes it better than the Muti- the reviewer said that the 'live'-ness of it all added to the feral quality of the music- you seem to somewhat confirm this.

Not trying to start something- just trying to save $$$ and keep myself from being disappointed

(as the mystery Reviewer in question stated- he ALWAYS got disappointed with every recording of this "so called" "FRIGHTENING" whoops- vision, never actually hearing demons and hell and such, but with the Rozh, apparently, there's actually some scary stuff going on. I remember hearing Muti and asking what the fuss was about (in terms of "terror"). It's been years though...

See? When I read stuff like that, of course I'm going to ring the bell until all come running.

[snyprrr]

Hey- if you all don't appreciate me mucking things up here in the Thread, I'll move on to Glazunov,- ha- otherwise, thanks for putting up with my interrogation!! There's too much Prokofiev on the market for me to have to climb the mountain from scratch, by myself.

So far:

No.1: Rostropovitch- I won't listen to the 1st. Not interested. They say Rosty is "dignified" here... anyhow, unless you have an outrageous recommendation, I'm just not even considering the 1st.

No.2: Ozawa- really really enjoyed this, music and presentation. Maybe would like Polansky to compare, but Ozawa's sonics are neurally VIVID!!

No.3:

No.4A

No.4B

No.5: Ozawa- VIVID, - loved everything except the rather quick Adagio.

         Dutoit- fell to Ozawa, except he had the sense to milk the slow movement (though, not enough for me).

         Ashkenazy- hasn't arrived yet

No.6: Rostropovitch- the one Reviewer said this was the only one that brought out 'that stuff', and, after hearing it I'm afraid to try any other. It's aswesome!

No.7: Ozawa- VIVID- but I have a problem with the way the initial notes flow (Sarge, just like the initial problem in DSCH VC1 with the "first three notes"), so, I'd like it either slower or faster. The rest sounds like a movie soundtrack to me, I'm sorry- unless there is another who CAN convince me (Rozh? Tennstedt? Kosler? even happy ending Malko?), I just don't like the music (which really blows my mind that I would say that, but I've giving the 7th every chance in the book (it's in c# minor, for a bloomin onion, what key is cooler??) but it sounds like 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians' to me (I'd be more impressed if it were Saint'Saens final work (don't hate me)).  Anyhow...


For some reason, I just hit on a Prokofiev & DSCH Revival for the last few weeks, so, thanks for bearing with me.



Oh, BTFW!!

If you've checked Amazon's "Prokofiev Symphony 5" search in the last week, you CAN see the effect the 'Prokofiev Op.100' Thread has had, and I TAKE ALL CREDIT!!haha- hey someone send me a check for generating some income for the weary business owners of this once great nation!!

[not edward]

Saying all others versions suck compared to this is being ignorant. There are many very good performances of the 3rd on record. The "unholiness" is contained in the notes, not only how loud the musicians play. The Chailly recording with RCO is more lyrical and tame in volume than others, but offers its own eerie touch. Something like Jarvi or Muti's can tear the roof off the ceiling, but doesn't necessarily make it darker.

One of the things I think is easy to forget about the 3rd is just how much of the music is lyrical in nature and no louder than mf. This, of course, is part of what makes the catastrophic climax of the finale so effective.

I'm very partial to a different Prokofiev 3rd with the RCO, the live Kondrashin that used to be available on Philips. One might expect Kondrashin to go for broke a la Gergiev or Jarvi, but he's more nuanced than that; the explosive passages are certainly furious, but he constrasts it wonderfully with the lyrical and mysterious parts of the work.