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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb