20 replies to this topic

[David Ayers]

In terms of pure music I don't really rate Shostakovich very highly, but I do take an interest in his work, I like to hear it in concert, and I listen to recordings. I'm obviously not alone as there seems to be a keen market for Shostakovich symphonies, with cycles in progress from Gergiev, Wigglesworth, Petrenko, Boreyko, Kreizberg, Raiskin (the last three I'm not sure if they are cycles or not); add to that completed cycles by Barshai, Jansons, Jarvi, Kitaenko, Kofman, Ashkenazy, Haitink, Kondrashin, Rostropovich, Maxim S., Caetani, Slovak, and maybe others.

It's all good, but the thing with these symphonies is, first, that there are many you don't really need to have in mutiple versions, and that even the ones you can sort of get on with the recordings don't sound so dissimilar that you need lots of versions. So while I will generally hazard a 4, don't mind another 8, will squeeze in an 11 and can just about come to terms with another 5, 7, or 10, I don't really need another 15, am not bothered about 6 or 9, am happy with my 13s and 14s, regard 2 and 3 as a merely documentary necessity, like 1 but it's no 'Classical' and never wish to hear 12 again.

I have a feeling I'm not alone in seeing it this way, and so I wonder who is buying all those cycles, as opposed to cherry-picking, which is what I do?

Edited by David Ayers, 18 April 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Stefan Wood]

I have the Barshai box, and that is good enough for me.

[J.A.W.]

I have the complete Haitink cycle with the LPO and the CGO on individual CDs, Ashkenazy's interpretation of the 5th with the RPO, Previn with the LSO in No.6 and Karajan with the BPO in No.10. Shostakovich's symphonies are definitely a mixed bag, but I'm not so negative as David - I guess I'm a bit more tolerant of some of the "film music" aspects of his work and the influence the pressure (euphemistically put) from the Soviet authorities may have had on it.

The Haitink, Previn and Karajan interpretations are regarded by some as being "too smooth, too Western." I don't mind, many Russian versions I've heard often sounded too "raw" to me.

Edited by J.A.W., 18 April 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Larry Kart]

I too have the Barshai box, and that is good enough for me (though much of the music IMO is mediocre/banal, you name it).

[J.A.W.]

(though much of the music IMO is mediocre/banal, you name it).

Sure, I agree, but there are enough interesting moments in the music for me to enjoy parts of it (hm, that probably says something about my musical taste... )

[David Ayers]

It's not that I am negative, exactly, it is the fact of so many *complete* cycles that has me wondering. I too have the Barshai, all of the Gergiev so far, selections from the cycles of Wigglesworth, Petrenko, Haitink, Jansons, Jarvi, and some non-cycle one-offs or mini-series including Karajan, P. Jarvi, Rostropovich/LSO, Mravinsky and likely others. I can obviously not buy ones I don't want (!) but I just wonder who but novices will be rushing to hear e.g. No. 12 in it latest incarnation...

[A Lark Ascending]

Why stick to Shostakovich? If there are going to be these endless cycles then he's as worthy as anyone.

The wider question is do we need these endless cycles? Well I don't but I can only assume that their existence suggests there is a market - new listeners, people who enjoy comparing different versions.

I'm more amused by all the 'historic' releases pouring out in boxes, cycles, single discs etc. Buy a box of Furtwangler and become a connoisseur.

'Tis all marketing.

Edited by A Lark Ascending, 18 April 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Stefan Wood]

I find the 'historic' box reissues more interesting than the contemporary stuff being spat out ad infinitum. I have the Furtwangler Box on Audite and the music is terrific.

[John L]

(though much of the music IMO is mediocre/banal, you name it).

Sure, I agree, but there are enough interesting moments in the music for me to enjoy parts of it (hm, that probably says something about my musical taste... )

Yes. Often banal, more rarely mediocre. With Shostokovich, it is a sublime moments rather than consistent brilliance. But those moments are worth it all.

[Bigshot]

I have Barshai and Rostropovich and the Barshai is much better than the other. I have a couple of odd Haitinks too. They're not as sparky.

[Chuck Nessa]

I urge (once again) whatever cycle you have, search out #4 on Naxos conducted by Slovak.

[David Ayers]

Gramophone reviewed accounts of the fourth here http://www.gramophon...ONY No 4 MAKING

'Not worth a flyer' was the verdict on Slovak. That's harsh. It is balanced forward, as the reviewer says, but that makes it sound ok on the PC ( ). Worth hearing but there have been too many fourths since for this to really hold its place. I like the clarity and occasional force, I don't like the tempi (first movement so sloooow!) and the occasional bad intonation. Strings thin, some good woodwind solos. But too spotlit!

[Chuck Nessa]

Gramophone reviewed accounts of the fourth here http://www.gramophon...ONY No 4 MAKING

'Not worth a flyer' was the verdict on Slovak. That's harsh. It is balanced forward, as the reviewer says, but that makes it sound ok on the PC ( ). Worth hearing but there have been too many fourths since for this to really hold its place. I like the clarity and occasional force, I don't like the tempi (first movement so sloooow!) and the occasional bad intonation. Strings thin, some good woodwind solos. But too spotlit!

I agree with most of the above and it is still my favorite.

[A Lark Ascending]

I find the 'historic' box reissues more interesting than the contemporary stuff being spat out ad infinitum. I have the Furtwangler Box on Audite and the music is terrific.

I think the 'industry' is spitting out both 'historic' and contemporary 'ad infinitum' and cleverly marketing both - historic is always marketed 'for the more discerning listener'. They know the buttons to push.

Which is no judgement at all on the quality of the music itself. That's quite separate from the marketing.

Personally, I think there is a tendency to exaggerate the special qualities of the older recordings. I totally understand how someone who grew up with Furtwangler's recordings would still default to them. I default to Boult and Barbirolli in English music because that's where my view of the music was formed. I don't assume there is anything special about their recordings compared to more recent views.

What the market does is tries to mythologise these older recordings for commercial reasons. And they do it by suggesting you are joining a club of particularly astute listeners by buying them.

Which, of course, does not mean that are not very enjoyable recordings.

Edited by A Lark Ascending, 20 April 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[Stefan Wood]

In my case, the 'historic' recordings have been revealing, opening my ears to conducting and performing that I do not hear in contemporary recordings. Perhaps I do not listen to enough, but there is a finite amount of listening time, and my attention is focused more on jazz. Less clinical, more interpretive then adhering strictly to the music sheets. I like Furtwangler because of his expressive abilities. I like Carl Schuricht, Edvard Van Beiunum, and above all, Herman Scherchen for similar reasons. I had no idea Scherchen was Xenakis' mentor, but having listened to more of Scherchen's conducting on the Tahra label, it makes sense. I'll even take Boult's mono Vaughan Williams cycle over his later one on EMI (didn't he do another on Lyrita?).

[A Lark Ascending]

As long as you enjoy them, nothing else matters.

[Bigshot]

Historical recordings definitely have unique and varied conducting styles compared to modern recordings. Today it seems everyone is searching for the one true interpretation and anyone who steps in a different direction is criticized for not conducting a proper performance. It was the opposite in the past.

[A Lark Ascending]

Historical recordings definitely have unique and varied conducting styles compared to modern recordings.

I suspect that has more to do with technology; it was harder to hear other versions 50+ years ago therefore orchestras were more likely to interpret with greater variation.

I put the love of 'classic' classical recordings in the same bracket as 'classic' cars or classic 'railway' engines. Nothing wrong with that nostalgia; but the record companies know how to milk it just as well as they do when telling us that the latest bright young pianist or violinist or conductor is someone we 'must' hear. In fact sometimes they mix the two with claims that one of the latter is special because they have returned to the values of the former.

[David Ayers]

Well, this thread didn't really have to do with boxed sets but with ongoing cycles. On reflection I'd have to say that it is clear that Gergiev's interrupted cycle had to be completed (and the Mravinsky series is also set to repeat the ones already recorded for Philips); it is obvious that Naxos can sell a Shostakovich cycle to label enthusiasts and they have the right conductor for it; the Wigglesworth has taken a long time and a change of orchestra, and again that is a label with followers even if the conductor does not have a massive presence.

The other 'cycles' I mentioned may not be cycles at all so that remains to be seen. I never mentioned the multi-conductor RNO cycle from Pentatone, that too a long time coming and perhaps still far from completion.

The debate about Western vs Eastern Shostakovich dates back to a period when there were fewer recordings and the Kondrashin/Mravinsky vs Haitink contrast seemed more stark. Nostalgia for Soviet orchestras has faded and the new Russian orchestras sound a bit different and are also less remote (they tour, there are many recordings). Add to that the ubiquity of Gergiev and of other Russian conductors, that East-West debate seems a thing of the past. In any case Shostakovich was an international common property from his Fifth onward so the question of authenticity has - I think - been replaced by more straightforward questions of interpretation. For now.

Edited by David Ayers, 21 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Bigshot]

Re: Variation in historical recordings

I suspect that has more to do with technology; it was harder to hear other versions 50+ years ago therefore orchestras were more likely to interpret with greater variation.

Actually, it was because conductors were primarily known for live performance, not recordings. In a live performance, they could take chances that wouldn't be engraved in record grooves for all time. This encouraged conductors to develop a personal style. Later, these styles made their mark on records, but that wasn't what created them.

[A Lark Ascending]

Re: Variation in historical recordings

I suspect that has more to do with technology; it was harder to hear other versions 50+ years ago therefore orchestras were more likely to interpret with greater variation.

Actually, it was because conductors were primarily known for live performance, not recordings. In a live performance, they could take chances that wouldn't be engraved in record grooves for all time. This encouraged conductors to develop a personal style. Later, these styles made their mark on records, but that wasn't what created them.

Yes, that's what I meant. Harder to hear different interpretations of Beethoven 5. If you are conducting in Krefeld in 1850 then you are only rarely in your lifetime going to hear someone else conducting Beethoven 5. The 'who's best?' circus has mushroomed with the recording industry. The connoisseur establishes his or her fine taste by asserting the superiority of recording X over recording Y (with special attention to the failings of Y).

Edited by A Lark Ascending, 24 April 2012 - 01:40 PM.