Customer Reviews

Martinu: Symphonies

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This has been my record find of the past few years. I've been raised on the Ancerl, Neumann and Belohlavek versions, all fine performances dead centre in the Czech tradition with Czech orchestras. Czech recordings too, at Supraphon studios or Prague Castle, venues with long reverberation times that give a thrilling sheen to the strings, but tend to mush the inner voices. Bryden Thomson and the Scottish National playing Martinu? Bax for sure, but not Martinu. Nevertheless, when these cds reappeared on the Chandos mid-price label I took the plunge, and a great move that turned out to be. Thomson and his orchestra bring out the singing beauty of these works, the rhythmic vitality, but far more than that. Inner voices are clear for the first time in my experience, and Thomson has a far clearer grasp of the architecture of these works than any of his predecessors. I have the 4th Symphony in five different versions going back to Turnovsky, and although each performance offers one or two details that outshine the others, overall Thomson's is by fair margin the best. The recording is good, if a little over-bright, in the Chandos tradition. Too bad the British music press, who tend to go overboard in their support of domestic performers, were a touch lukewarm in their original assessment of these recordings. Perhaps even more than his Bax cycle, they are the jewels of Thomson's musical legacy.

Like most of you who plan on buying this set, I came to Martinu's music by reading about him. Talking can sometimes overstate (or understate) the case for a little-known composer. But thankfully in Martinu's case, there is absolutely nothing to disappoint.

The first symphony is lively, driving, and a tad stringent in the manner of Arthur Honegger's symphonies. The second symphony is a delight! It starts with a streaming flow of strings and woodwinds. There's a magical undercurrent of piano throughout. The following four symphonies are just as rewarding. The sixth symphony ("Fantaisies symphoniques") was originally to be titled "Une Nouvelle Symphonie Fantastique," because Martinu was inspired by the music of Berlioz. He later backed off the title, but there is no denying that this work is as fantastical as that of Berlioz.

These symphonies aren't long by Mahlerian or Brucknerian standards. They fit snugly within the 30-minute range. There is not a hint of pretension or grandstanding in the music. Martinu doesn't endeavor to imitate or outdo Beethoven, Brahms, or Mahler. He is his own voice. These works are fresh and accessible. I would suggest, however, turning up the volume for maximum enjoyment.

These performances bring out all the fantasy and excitement that these works need in an interpretation. Many thanks to Bryden Thomson's excellent vision and the Royal Scottish Nat'l Orchestra's superb playing.

Bohuslav Martinu (1890-1959)is not so well known among lovers of Classical music. His oeuvre appears during the first third to the middle of the Twentieth Century, but, in this eminently listenable collection, is not troubled by the dissonance, atonality and bleak harshness that characterizes so much of the music of that era.

I have found all six of Martinu's symphonies to be immediately accessible from the very first hearing, refreshingly modern and thoroughly enjoyable. I can compare his style to bits of Copland, Hindemith and Bartok.

Bryden Thomson has provided a spirited, engaging and clearly affectionate reading of Martinu's six symphonies in this boxed set. I heartily recommend this set to any aficionado of serious music.

I've been listening to this Chandos box of Martinu symphonies for a couple of years now. It's great, and now that I have Jarvi's cycle for comparison, I've written a review. (This box is a reissue of the original 1993 Chandos set.)

Bohuslav Martinu (1890-1959) only began composing symphonies after fleeing the Nazis into American exile in 1941. He was of a generation that saw the symphony as passe -- Bartok was born in 1881 and Stravinsky in 1882, and Martinu was born in 1890 -- while Mahler was born in 1860, and Sibelius and Nielsen in 1865. Modernism entailed new forms and styles, and while Martinu was never a modernist he did inhabit a soundworld with a lighter touch full of dance rhythms, not heavy, four-square symphonies. But he received a commission from Koussevitsky and the Boston Symphony, so he wrote a symphony. And then another, and another... He ended up composing a symphony a year every year from 1942 to 1946, No.s 1 through 5, and later a Sixth, his most popular. They are graceful, full of dancing rhythms, and of classical proportions, ranging from 23 to 36 minutes in length. Symphonies 1, 2 and 4 are in the traditional four-movement form, while No.s 3, 5 and 6 each have three movements. The First, Third and Sixth were premiered by the Boston Symphony, the Second was premiered by the Cleveland Orchestra, the Fourth was premiered by the Philadelphia Orchestra, and the Fifth is unique in having been premiered by the Czech Philharmonic and Rafael Kubelik.

Symphony No. 1 demonstrated that Martinu's gifts, previously applied to the concerto grosso form, all manner of chamber music, and opera, could be applied to great effect to the symphonic form, despite his misgivings. Its success spurred him on. Symphony No. 2 is shorter and uses Czech and Moravian folk melodies in the slow movement, his most Czech symphony, and features the use of several small groups of instruments. Symphony No. 3 stands out from the others in its dark and somber hue. While parts of the First and Second had reflected the war, the Third is clearly marked by it through and through. It is Martinu's only work that reminds me of Shostakovich in its gravity and tragic cast. It is a powerful work which ends without a triumphant resolution, despite Beethoven's Eroica being an inspiration and despite the D-Day landing at Normandy taking place shortly before Martinu completed it. Though atypical, I consider this to be one of the finest jewels in this string of six. The Fourth complements the Third perfectly as it celebrates victory. The second movement Allegro vivo reminds me of nothing so much as the scherzo to Beethoven's 9th, a propulsive dancing march rhythm. It has the forward momentum of the opening of Roussel's Third Symphony, but is lighter on its feet. And the Poco allegro finale is an ecstatic celebration, the triumph that was withheld at the conclusion of the Third. The Fifth is more questing and tentative after that burst of enthusiasm. It was first heard at the inaugural Prague Spring Festival in 1947. A head injury caused by a fall from an open second-floor terrace led to several years of expensive treatment and convalesence, but Martinu returned to composing at the peak of his powers. The Sixth was finished in 1953, and is the most broadly Romantic of his symphonies, sounding like Copland in parts with lush, sweeping melodies, and using the melody "Across the Wide Missouri," though I've never seen this mentioned anywhere. Listen for yourself and see. It remains one of Martinu's most popular works.

This box, with Bryden Thomson leading the Royal Scottish National Orchestra,is now in direct competition with the Brilliant box with Neemi Jarvi leading the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra. They were recorded at about the same time -- Jarvi's cycle, originally on BIS, in 1987/1988, and Thomson's in 1989/1990. The Jarvi set combines the works chronologically, with 1 & 2 on Disc One, 3 & 4 on Disc Two, and 5 & 6 on Disc Three. The Chandos box pairs 1 & 5, 2 & 6 and 3 & 4. I prefer the chronological ordering myself. The Chandos box is a "true box" with the discs in cardboard sleeves, while the Brilliant set is not actually a box, but rather a fold-out with three jewel-case inserts for the discs. This box is more elegant.

Some have reached the sweeping conclusion that the Thomson set is faster than the Jarvi set. This is not totally accurate. Comparing movement by movement, Jarvi is actually faster in 8, while Thomson is faster in 13. It is true that Jarvi takes the slow movements more slowly, but the overall timing does not dramatically differ between the two. And while both cycles are fine accomplishments, I would not be without Jarvi's Third, which I prefer decisively over Thomson's because the opening is *faster.* Overall Thomson excels in bringing out the dancing rhythms in Martinu, a key element of his style, while Jarvi is better at accentuating the more classical, more Germanic, elements, but these differences are relatively minor.

If you are a symphony lover, and/or someone interested in hearing great early 20th century classical music, you should definitely not miss the symphonies of Martinu!

(verified purchase from ArkivMusic)

It should be noted that the late Bryden Thomson should be commended for taking on Martinu's symphonies, which had very little exposure on record not unless you count Neumann's, Jarvi's, and Ancerl's recordings. There have been several cycles recorded: Thomson, Neumann, Jarvi, Fagen, and Belohlavek (who hasn't recorded Martinu's Symphony No. 2 yet for some reason). My favorite cyle is the Neumann not only for his grounding in Czech music, but also for fantastic playing from the Czech Philharmonic who know this music like the back of their hands.

I've heard many criticisms of Thomson's cycle and one of the most interesting and accurate that I've read, and experienced, is that Thomson over exaggerates a lot of the musical passages. Martinu's music is very rhapsodic and as another reviewer points out he underplays some of the more introspective qualities of the music. One particular disappointment for me was his reading of "Symphony No. 4," which lacked that Czech bite that we hear in Neumann's performance. The performance of "Symphony No. 1" is not entirely convincing either as he just blods along thinking that this symphony is again Romantic. Martinu was not a Romantic. If anything he was a Neo-Classicist with impressionistic leanings (he studied with Roussel in Paris), especially in the always inventive harmony he employed in his music.

The playing from the Royal Scottish National Orchestra is quite good, but I feel that they were terribly misguided in this music, especially since Thomson shows no real affinity for Martinu's idiom. While I respect Thomson for taking a risk (as he has done with Nielsen) I can't help but feel that he should have stuck to what he excelled at: English music. 3 1/2 stars. I can't fully recommend this cycle for the afore mentioned reasons. If you purchase it, then be prepared to suppliment it with Neumann, Belohlavek, and Ancerl who offer more convincing accounts of Martinu's music.

I enjoyed all of Martinu's six symphonies. Although the symphonies do not contain much music which you might consider melodic, they are quite accessible. The music may be lyrical at times, but it is primarily dramatic and emotional. The symphonies are not grandiose in scale, length-wise or in orchestration; they sound Twentieth Century, but seem to hearken back to the sounds of Classical and Romantic era symphonies. It is amazing how Martinu was able to use themes based on a few amount of notes, and develop them into movements of symphonies; some of these themes are dance-like and catchy. I was also impressed by his smooth transitions between different moods and different tempos, within individual movements, and his blending of the sounds of the piano with the other instruments of the orchestra. Five of the six symphonies are scored for a more extensive use of the piano, than is usual(the sixth is not scored for the piano at all), but don't sound like concertos. The Royal Scottish National Orchestra and Bryden Thompson performed with energy and passion. Before purchasing this set, I listened to the samples of all the recordings of these symphonies, available on various websites, and this set is the one which gave me the most listening enjoyment.

The medium is the symphony, a form that Martinu did not turn to until he was past 50. Over a period of 10 or 11 years he then turned out 5 pukka specimens plus a sixth and last that is rather different in style, having started its career as a `symphonic fantasia' like the last symphony of Sibelius. Martinu's offering is not fully continuous in that way but is divided, like all Gaul, into three parts. This is an attractively priced set, presented in a cardboard box containing 3 discs. I can recommend it without hesitation to any who, like myself, want to improve our knowledge, and with any luck our understanding, of the composer. Those for whom he has more of a message than he has for me are likely to find that their basic view of the composer will radically influence how well they like these works played the way they are played here.

One issue is whether non-Czech artists can fully capture the Czech musical idiom. If I may say so, my own experience of Czechs who claim proprietary understanding has been that when one plays them older performances of their own music by, say, Talich, they are prone to reply that that is not how it is done these days. Passing on, therefore, from that question, the debate of more substance and interest concerns the supposed influence on Martinu of the concerto grosso. The composer himself declared an affinity with it, but if he had not said so I doubt you would guess. The defining feature of the concerto grosso (e.g. Bach's Brandenburgs or the sets by Handel, Corelli Telemann and others) is the opposition between a `concertino' group of solo instruments and the full `ripieno' band. I find not a trace of that style here: indeed give or take the inclusion in the orchestra of the piano plus various extra percussion jobs, Martinu's scoring has more affinity with Brahms's than it may be tactful to suggest.

Bryden Thomson and the Royal Scottish National Orchestra play these symphonies, or at least the first five, as being in the 19th century tradition, and that is how I understand them too. Considering that their dates of composition run from 1941 to 1951, they are remarkably traditional in idiom. In the 20th century composers mainly abandoned the `symphony' as defined by Haydn and Beethoven, or they did new things with it, as Sibelius and Mahler did. Bartok and Schoenberg turned their back on it completely, and works to which Strauss and Stravinsky gave the name `symphony' were as unlike the Beethoven model as they were unlike each other. For all that, the 19th century tradition was strong and did not quite die. Elgar and Nielsen carried on very successfully with the traditional format and idiom because they had enough of their own to say within its parameters. To my way of thinking, Martinu did very much the same.

So that is what I am awarding the full 5 stars to. If we assume the basic approach, fine details of tempo here or there are, well, neither here nor there. It is all very good of its kind. There is a real sense of affection for the music, and the orchestral playing is excellent - it gives me great pleasure to hear how the Scottish National Orchestra of my own boyhood, where I learned to love music, has advanced to the level we encounter here. The sound, dating from 1989 and 1990, is very good too without being spectacular. It has no call to be spectacular - this is not Stravinsky or Ravel or Messiaen - and these accounts must have been among the last recordings made by Bryden Thomson, who died in 1991. The symphonies do not follow in chronological sequence, and on the three discs you will find successively nos 1&5, 2&6, 3&4. This means that each disc contains one 4-movement symphony and one 3-movement symphony, giving an average playing time of less than an hour per disc. I found it best to play the symphonies in their order of composition, but this was basically to try to identify development and change in the style. I could not say with any honesty that I found anything of the kind, but this very way of organising the presentation made me think of something else. What I thought back to was the two symphonies by Walton (and the superb Sargent version of the first is still actually available here and there). The first symphony is wonderful. It has 4 long movements, and the orchestra is fairly standard with a bit of extra brass, whereas the greatly inferior second is shorter overall, has only 3 movements and has a piano in the orchestra. Brevity, 3-movement format and a piano in the band can sometimes (though not of course reliably) be a sign that the composer's divine afflatus is of less than hurricane strength, and I am inclined to suspect that here in the Martinu symphonies. As if to be in the spirit of it all, the liner note is pleasantly expressed, sympathetic, mildly informative, but definitely too long for anything of significance it has to say. It is almost like a cloak tailored to fit a body of six symphonies about which much the same might be suggested.

I'd like to offer a somewhat dissenting view of these recordings. While they have vitality and make the music clear and accessible, I feel they sometimes skate over the surface with overly brisk tempos and fail to reveal the more introspective qualities of Martinu's music as well as others do. I generally like Thompson as a conductor, but I feel this kind of brisk and extravert approach characterizes his Nielsen readings as well (his briskness works well in the dramatic 4th, but much less well in the more expansive movements of other symphonies). Claus Peter Flor's readings of Martinu's 1st and 2nd symphonies are wonderful, and to me Jarvi's set seems superior to this one. Neumann's does too, for that matter, though the sound quality is slightly dated.

After many, many years of listening to the Jarvi recordings, this set is a wonderful change. These are dynamic, brilliantly recorded performances. The Scottish orchestra sounds fine, though occasionally challenged. Though I've heard some of them, I can't speak in general for the Czech performances, which may be more idiomatic, but you can't go wrong with this set.