CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Dismissive review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings
Posted by Gregory Walz on November 20, 2019, 8:30 pm
Ralph More's recent review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings is dismissive.
However, it is tiresome to read a critic describe an orchestra's playing as "adequate, workaday, lacking in nuance," when what the critic wants to telegraph is that they prefer a different interpretation, from which it does not follow that the playing on the preferred releases is somehow automatically better or more nuanced. It is just different, with a different character, and almost never has obviously more character or less character, whatever that may mean.
Could it be that the critic just likes the sound of that trumpet solo better or that chorus, therefore it must obviously have more nuance, more resonance. More "attack," more "bite." Is there such a thing as playing with no character -- "blandness" -- at the highest levels of orchestral playing or choral performance?
Was it just an off day by all concerned, with no commitment by the conductor or players whatsoever in concert? In both concerts? Is the Utah Symphony just a provincial orchestra, compared to the Russian State Symphony, the Dallas Symphony, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, or the fabled London Symphony Orchestra and the Montreal Symphony?
And then there are the words "largely devoid of atmosphere," and "risibly prosaic manner." Perhaps the beginnings of a cavalry charge are more "prosaic" than what follows? Do cavalry charges -- does battle -- have an emotional trajectory? What is "atmosphere" in orchestral playing? Well, I just know it when I hear its absence?
And when a critic notes that a mezzo-soprano has "a minimum of emotional involvement in her delivery of the text," is it as simple as that -- as simple as, well, I just know it has less emotional involvement when I hear it like that? The slippery slopes of what is almost an all-or-nothing perspective then flaunt themselves in beguilingly fashion.
Mr. Moore refers to conductor Thierry Fischer accelerating the pacing at 4:10-4:17 minutes into The Battle on the Ice because of the wish to be different at that portion of the score compared to other conductors on other commercially released recordings. In this Mr. Moore makes a makes an assumption that at times is all too common among some record reviewers: that conductors somehow study commercial recordings extensively in preparation for performances, when I would submit that the truth, at least for a conductor of Thierry Fischer's generation -- born in 1957 -- is that they study the score religiously, not exhaustively review the discography and listen to its recordings. This should be an obvious point. And besides, this acceleration, at least in cinematic terms, could reflect the knights' final onrush into the melee between forces. Is it indicated in the score? Do all conductors only conduct what is in the score at every moment?
This argument extends, at least tangentially, to another false premise of some reviewers that Mr. Moore does not mention: that commercial recordings of certain works should only be contemplated by record labels, conductors, orchestras, and record producers and engineers if all of them have studied the discography in detail and somehow have determined that they are prepared to make a "better" or "different" interpretation or recording than those that have been released in decades past. Of course, if the recording or interpretation in question meets with the reviewer's approval, all of the above becomes strangely irrelevant.
And what of an extensive review of a composition's discography? Are we to judge performances largely or exclusively based on the purported conclusions of such a study? I enjoy reading them as much as any other avid concert attendee and record collector. They are difficult to write and require a tremendous amount of concentrated listening and comparison.
But can one view a performance, live or on record, as thoroughly convincing without regard to reviews of other live and commercially released performances? I submit that most performances by most professional orchestras today are, on their own terms, enjoyable. Is it the case that conductors, soloists, and musicians are consciously seeking or striving for the exceptional in every performance, the holy grail of a "great" performance. I submit that the answer is almost never.
And if one reads enough reviews, one can even find a critic who describes the sound on a particular recording as "muddy," when, again, that critic just prefers a different sound -- more distant, less distant. Or the critic prefers a different balance: more chorus, less chorus. The critic would like the orchestra to be more prominent in the mix, or less prominent, therefore the recording is somehow inadequate.
For the record, I attended the live performances from which the bulk of this recording was made.
Re: Dismissive review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings
I love this work, listened to twenty-four different recordings for my survey and reported honestly what I hear. I give my reasons for not liking it and I think they are valid but I do also point out that the individual review by my MusicWeb colleague John Quinn is considerably more complimentary and that surely provides balance. In the end, I cannot apologise for not pleasing Mr Walz if I am to fulfil what I see as my task faithfully and stand by my response; those who pay attention to my views might find them helpful but I make no claims to infallibility.
Re: Dismissive review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings
I was wondering if you might invite Mr Walz to contribute his own review, Len; thank you. I should perhaps have pointed out in my first reply that it is hardly a "false premise" that new issues must be compared with existing recordings, as that is the raison d'être of MusicWeb - precisely what it is for. Furthermore, its Seen and Heard section exists for the purpose of evaluating live performances rather than recordings of them and indeed they can be different experiences. I certainly don't think that Fischer's is "without merit" but I submit that for the purposes of the prospective punter there are better alternatives.
Re: Dismissive review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings
Methinks Mr Walz is leading everyone on a merry dance.
The whole point of music reviews is to give an opinion of a recorded performance and judging by the footfall on this site, the existence of other websites of a similar nature, plus the long-time publication of well-known monthly journals, it is something many people find interesting.
Personally, I occasionally read reviews where the conclusions drawn lead me to question the reviewer's sanity. I'm sure the same thing happens when others read reviews penned by myself !
If everybody liked the same thing, the world would be a boring place. However it is always going to be inevitable that some recordings are better than others and whilst I have no doubt that Mr Fischer hasn't listened to as many recordings of Alexander Nevsky as Ralph Moore, the very fact that he has allowed a recording to be released of him conducting the work is inviting music critics, such as Mr Moore, to compare it to other available versions - it's what they do. No-one is obliged to agree with a critic's opinion and if the review appears "tiresome", perhaps not reading it in the first place would be a prudent thing to do.
Maybe with regards to this particular recording, the end results captured haven't quite done justice to the excitement and immediacy of the music-making as experienced by Mr Walz who attended the one of the concerts himself. It has happened to us all.
Best
lee
Re: Dismissive review of the Utah Symphony's Prokofiev release on Reference Recordings
As a belated addition to this discussion, I note that David Hurwitz - a critic with whom admittedly I rarely agree - in Classics Today remarks of this recording that, "the playing is lackluster and the conducting so unexciting. You’ll listen in vain for the menace in “The Crusaders in Pskov,” or the patriotic fervor in “Arise, People of Russia” and the jubilant finale. As for “The Battle on the Ice,” well, it’s more of a minor skirmish."
So it would seem that I am not alone in my response here.