CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Rouvali Sibelius. - Ralph Moore
Posted by Terence on October 4, 2023, 7:30 pm
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
I've just reviewed a live Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
Mr. Moore sir, as the 6th is your favourite Mahler symphony I imagine you must have listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times. After all that cogitation, what is your opinion about the order of the middle movements?
Previous Message
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
Tom, that was my colleague Marc Bridle who posted that preference, not I, so I'll hand over to him.
Previous Message
Mr. Moore sir, as the 6th is your favourite Mahler symphony I imagine you must have listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times. After all that cogitation, what is your opinion about the order of the middle movements?
Previous Message
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
The reason for me has to do with the the Scherzo relating more to the first movement and the Andante to the final movement - they logically sit in the right place played S - A.There's also two other reasons. Tonality - a logical shift from A major to A minor (the key of this symphony). More importantly, this symphony is about how you get to the closing bars of the final movement and placing the Scherzo third stops it being an inevitable journey of despair and desolation. Besides, played well the Andante is hardly settling music - it has its own ominous crescendos and decrescendos which act as a prelude to the fourth movement's more catastrophic ones.
Svetlanov played it both ways - so he clearly couldn't decide.
Previous Message
Mr. Moore sir, as the 6th is your favourite Mahler symphony I imagine you must have listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times. After all that cogitation, what is your opinion about the order of the middle movements?
Previous Message
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
For what it's worth, I agree with Marc's reasoning and note that of the dozen or so versions of Mahler's Sixth on my shelves, only Barbirolli adheres to the Andante-Scherzo order, suggesting that nearly everybody prefers Mahler's original thoughts.
The reason for me has to do with the the Scherzo relating more to the first movement and the Andante to the final movement - they logically sit in the right place played S - A.There's also two other reasons. Tonality - a logical shift from A major to A minor (the key of this symphony). More importantly, this symphony is about how you get to the closing bars of the final movement and placing the Scherzo third stops it being an inevitable journey of despair and desolation. Besides, played well the Andante is hardly settling music - it has its own ominous crescendos and decrescendos which act as a prelude to the fourth movement's more catastrophic ones.
Svetlanov played it both ways - so he clearly couldn't decide.
Previous Message
Mr. Moore sir, as the 6th is your favourite Mahler symphony I imagine you must have listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times. After all that cogitation, what is your opinion about the order of the middle movements?
Previous Message
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.
Just to add my ha'penny's worth to the expert comments of my distinguished colleagues, Marc Bridle and Ralph Moore:
* Regarding Ralph's comments on John Barbirolli's EMI recording of the Sixth, readers may be interested to learn that the original release was of scherzo-andante, much to the chagrin of the conductor;
* Probably the most sensible commentary I have read on the order of the middle movements in this symphony, came from David Zinman who pointed out, quite rightly in my view, that in the end it doesn't really matter since what follows them, the musical tsunami of this this symphony's final movement that detroys everything in its path, renders the vexed question of scherzo-andante/andante-scherzo inconsequential.
Lee
Previous Message
For what it's worth, I agree with Marc's reasoning and note that of the dozen or so versions of Mahler's Sixth on my shelves, only Barbirolli adheres to the Andante-Scherzo order, suggesting that nearly everybody prefers Mahler's original thoughts.
The reason for me has to do with the the Scherzo relating more to the first movement and the Andante to the final movement - they logically sit in the right place played S - A.There's also two other reasons. Tonality - a logical shift from A major to A minor (the key of this symphony). More importantly, this symphony is about how you get to the closing bars of the final movement and placing the Scherzo third stops it being an inevitable journey of despair and desolation. Besides, played well the Andante is hardly settling music - it has its own ominous crescendos and decrescendos which act as a prelude to the fourth movement's more catastrophic ones.
Svetlanov played it both ways - so he clearly couldn't decide.
Previous Message
Mr. Moore sir, as the 6th is your favourite Mahler symphony I imagine you must have listened to it dozens if not hundreds of times. After all that cogitation, what is your opinion about the order of the middle movements?
Previous Message
I would be interested to hear a Mahler 6 from Rouvali, simply because it's my favourite Mahler symphony, but I really can't imagine what it would be like. I remember Sinopoli giving an overwhelming performance of the 6th with the Philharmonia - I can't see Rouvali coming close to it.
I'm not fan of Makela, nor of Nelsons. The final Shostakovich discs of his cycle just happen to have one of the most misguided performances of the 12th Symphony I have ever heard. It's hard to understand why he takes the first movement in what is basically a single tempo when Shostakovich clearly writes it in two rather different ones. Rouvali did the same. Perhaps it's a new trend.
I recently heard Vladimir Jurowski with his Bavarian orchestra - what a loss he is London. I wish I had heard more of his concerts and less of Salonen's. Very good in Stravinsky and Varese - lousy in Bruckner.
Previous Message
Yes, some of the music these conductors make is half-baked. How could it not be when Makela, for example, is 27, and at the helm of three or so of the world's best orchestras. A Bachtrack poll last week had Makela 9th of the world's best conductors: no mention of Chailaly, Jarvi Honeck, Nelsons. Still, if any of these men have something to say about a composerl it might be Sibelius. It's shameful, and I really don't want to have much to do with an industry that brings shallowness to new depths, as they say. Rouvali's Mahler, btw, is not good, and I can imagine a Verdi Requiem is not a forte.
e Verdi Requiem with the Philharmonia conducted by him. A disaster. More a case of uninspired and I think just not a work he has any affinity with.
I think he's very good in Strauss and Shostakovich (a fabulous Leningrad, which I really wish they had recorded but they didn't). On the other hand, he did a Shostakovich 12 with the Royal Concertgebouw which was so slow it made no sense. His Mahler is okay. A recent Ein Heldenleben was just bizarre (if my review of the concert is confirmed by the recording then it lasted just under an hour). It seemed to go on forever.
Given the Philharmonia's notorious history with Sinopoli I'm surprised they don't recognise how close Rouvali is to him. He manipulates tempos, adds music to scores (at least Sinopoli didn't do that), and doesn't give performances which can always be described as mainstream.
I've largely given him good reviews, and I do think he's gifted. I'd like to hear a Nielsen Fourth from him - Rouvali is a percussionist. Timpani and percussion are always a bit of a revelation in Rouvali performances.
But you can't say he's uninteresting - and I'd rather have that than a conductor who is bog standard dull.
Previous Message
So glad you have discovered this and agree, Terence. As you might expect, not everyone is of our mind about Rouvali and, as my experience of him live and on recordings suggests, he doesn't always get it so right - but he's a major talent.
Previous Message
I played his CD of Sibelius's 5th today for the first careful listening. I own maybe 30 recordings of this symphony, to me one of the greatest symphonic works. Rouvali is the best interpretation (and recording) in decades, and now goes to the top of the pile. As Ralph Moore said (I didn't know he had reviewed it until today), he gets the grandeur right. It's a stupendous performance of a life-enhancing masterpiece. Gothenberg is magnificent, and ideally recorded.