Their Isle of the Dead, however, leaves me absolutely cold. Frankly, I find the performance one of the worst ever committed to disc. It's such a hard-driven performance, so lacking in power or not rooted in the tradition of this work, I don't understand the rationale behind it. It slightly reminded me of the Maazel/BPO recording - all glassiness in the strings (I don't know how Maazel managed to do that to the Berlin strings). British strings (something they have in common with Japanese ones) can sound very Russian - but not here in the slightest.
The only Rachmaninoff Nr.2 with the repeat which I DO enjoy, and which should be re-issued because it is an outstanding performance, is the Philharmonia Orchestra's with Jacek Kaspsyk. He also recorded a great Isle of the Dead as it happens. A pity he never completed the cycle (there's no Nr.3).
For the sake of clarity I should say I have not listened to (avoided if truth be told) Wilson's 2 recent Rachmaninov/off recordings. I find I have an ongoing tussle with myself over these recordings. As a player myself I am very impressed by the sheer virtuosity of the orchestra and the sound that Chandos has created for the orchestra seems to be different than their default (still very good indeed) engineering. Almost as if they have created a sonic sound stage that underlines the power and precision of the execution. But personally I have an increasing sense that Wilson as an interpreter is lacking. I heard him and the Sinfonia play live on their recent UK tour - the first such they have done. I wrote a review for this site's "Seen and Heard" which said "believe the hype" and I meant it. Live, this orchestra was every bit as technically polished and phenomenal as they sound on disc. For example the Walton Scapino Overture was brilliant in every sense of the word. But again choices from the podium that in the early releases sounded fresh and energetic and incisive have now become everything feels fast and furious simply because it can be rather than there being a musical imperative. For sure this does make for an exciting experience but not an enduring one.
I have listened to the very end of the Rach Symphony 3 as a kind of bet to myself.... I wondered how it would be played and indeed I was right..... breathtakingly fast and furious. Remarkable that it holds together at that speed so in that sense a tour de force but in fact so fast that it looses any kind of musical logic.
I stand by my praise of the Roman trilogy. I think that remains the disc where the virtues of the playing, engineering and conducting style come together best. Reiner after all never recorded "Festivals" (some might say that is little loss to the world given the nature of the piece) so I don't think a direct comparison there is fair since its not a direct comparison.
On a tangent - I personally prefer the repeat in the Rach 2nd symphony to be taken - and the Rohzdestvensky performance is a perfect example of why it works. After all the composer chose to write the repeat - as he does in the 3rd but not in the 1st so I think it fair to assume he did it for structural rather than 'traditional' reasons. The repeat is always observed in No.3 so why not No.2.
Of course a performance can be great without the repeat - one of my all time favourites is Svetlanov with the Bolshoi who take no repeat and then chop the finale to pieces but the spirit of the work blazes.
In his review of the John Wilson Rachmaninoff Nr.2 Ralph Moore refers to the Rozhdestvensky recording of the symphony as "notably more leisurely" in comparison (actually some ten minutes longer he writes).
What he doesn't mention is that the reason Rozhdestvensky is longer in the first movement is because he takes the exposition repeat whereas Wilson – and the vast majority of conductors – does not.
This doesn't make Wilson's performance swift; it places his performance entirely in the range of all of the conductors who do not take the exposition repeat in the first movement.
Rozhdestvensky isn't an outlier compared with say, Sanderling and the Philharmonia, or Arwel Hughes, both of whom also take the repeat. Others who do are Litton and José Cura - possibly the best if you want this particular view of the symphony.
Ralph can write about timings - but the context of the performances is also relevant if he does.
The repeat is contentious in my view (many disagree with me, I know). There are any number of superb performances without the repeat that show why it's unnecessary - but very few with it that make the symphony work.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb