Customer Reviews

Prokofiev: The Complete Symphonies

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

 

 

No sooner had I very enthusiastically reviewed the complete set of Prokofiev symphonies done by Dimitri Kitajenko and the Gürzenich-Orchester Köln Prokofiev: The Symphonies [Box Set] (see my review ), this complete set with Neeme Järvi and the Scottish National Orchestra came along. This set is a repackaging of the individual issues from the mid-1980s and they were all lauded at the time of their original release. Well, what's a person to do? My advice, since both of these box sets are budget-priced, is get 'em both! Certainly I have not lost my enthusiasm for the Kitajenko set, but this one by Järvi, surely one of the best Prokofiev conductors around these days, is just as attractive. And to be honest there isn't that much to differentiate the two sets. Both conductors clearly have the music in their bones and they both have marvelously responsive orchestras to work with. Neither orchestra is Russian, of course, but make no mistake: both of these orchestras are first-class. Not only that, Järvi had conducted the Scottish bunch in any number of other Prokofiev sets.e.g, Prokofiev: The Prodigal Son, Prokofiev: Four Portraits From 'The Gambler'; Suite from 'Semyon Kotko', Prokofiev: Suite From 'The Buffoon'; Waltz Suite so they clearly had his (and Prokofiev's) style firmly at their command.

There are some differences, of course, between the two sets. In general the Scottish Orchestra set has a lighter, more transparent sound, the Gürzenich a richer, deeper sound. The former makes it easier to penetrate the sometimes dense orchestration -- let's face, it's OFTEN dense with Prokofiev -- and this makes, for instance, the chromatic polyphony of the Second and Third Symphonies easier to hear. On the other hand the sound of, say, the two versions of the Fourth Symphony is more succulent with Kitajenko.

I do think that these two box sets are far superior to the other fairly recent complete traversal, that of Gergiev and the London Symphony, which I found frequently simply wayward for all the great playing by the LSO. I do still like the several Karajan recordings and the magnificent Third by Muti, but for a complete set I don't think you can go wrong with either Järvi or Kitajenko. Or with both.

One further word: the Järvi set's 1980s sound has been remastered beautifully and when I compare some of the individual symphonies in the present set with their earlier incarnations I find the sound improved. Kudos to the original engineer, Ralph Couzens, and the remastering engineer, Jonathan Cooper, for that.

Scott Morrison

This is a repackaging of Jarvi's recordings of the Prokofiev symphonies with the "fillers" omitted. When orginially released, they set a new standard, and are overall still the best recordings of these works. There are better versions of the 1st and 5th symphonies, but you will be hard pressed to find better versions of the 3rd, 4th (both versions) 6th and 7th.

Complete sets of someone's symphonies or sonatas are not a commodity that I deal in very much. Invariably, something in the collection is done more to my liking elsewhere, so I prefer in general to collect the works individually. However I have two good reasons for buying Jarvi's set of the Prokofiev symphonies, the more important of these being that I wanted to hear them all from one interpreter's viewpoint, provided it was the right interpreter. How would I recognise this kind of interpreter? Partly from the reviews I have read of course, but also because I happen to own Jarvi's account of the second symphony, the most uncompromising of the series, and I found in it an affinity with this vehement and unfriendly music that was exactly what I was looking for. The score is not all so hostile by any means, indeed the theme for variations is Prokofiev in his most beautiful lyric mode. Jarvi handles that to my liking also, so I took the chance on his complete set, wanting to settle in my mind once and for all what I thought of Prokofiev as a symphonist. In general, one criterion that should not be applied is how one `rates' or `ranks' Jarvi among conductors. That kind of thing is based on an assessment of all his work, these symphonies included, and belongs in biographies and obituaries. The quality of the orchestra is a legitimate consideration, but not in my opinion all that important. The SNO may not be the equal of the LSO, but the standard today is so high that we need not lose much sleep over that. Indeed I prefer Mravinsky's readings of the Tchaikovsky symphonies to those of any westerner, although his Leningrad orchestra was not the equal of the best western bands in its time.

Is it Russian-ness that we should look for in that case? I'd say not quite. I think of Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Stravinsky and Shostakovich as Russian, but Prokofiev as Soviet specifically. The ambience of tank-assembling and tractor production-quotas is strong in quite a lot of his music, but in the symphonies most of all, excluding nos 1 and 7. The right conductor will not be afraid of this, and if Jarvi was so upfront with no 2 then he should be the man for the other four qualifiers, I thought.

So here was the consistent idiomatic approach that I wanted to help me decide for myself whether Prokofiev was or was not a `true' symphonist. Shostakovich gets unquestioning endorsement as such, but the pundits have found out that Prokofiev adapted material from his ballets for symphonies 3 and 4, hence the so-called problem. To me it is no problem. When I hear symphonies by Prokofiev I don't exclaim to myself `How symphonic!' over passage A, and `How suggestive of ballet!' at passage B. My basic ideas of what is `symphonic' were created more than 50 years ago by Haydn and Beethoven, and they don't fit any Russian composer unless maybe Balakirev. The whole concept has loosened and broadened over time, as it was bound to do. Some music used in ballets, such as the famous Montagus-and-Capulets music by Prokofiev, could not be put to symphonic use just as it is, but the categories are far from mutually exclusive in the main, and I reflect that even Beethoven used ballet music in the Eroica.

No 5 is usually thought of as the best of the series, and I think I agree. Jarvi handles it to my entire satisfaction, even though my LP collection includes the legendary account by Koussevitsky as a benchmark. For most of the others, even the criticism often levelled at Jarvi that he encourages a strident orchestral tone is actually a point in his favour in this context. Pulling punches is not the name of this particular game, and if you thought the start of no 2 was uniquely brutal and cacophonous, try the way Jarvi handles the first movement of no 3 and you may find that that runs it close. This kind of thing is not the whole story either by any means, and I think you will find a soul in communion with the composer's in the lyric sections. Indeed, when in the final no 7 Prokofiev's tone was softening (and maybe his head as well) I hope you will experience, as I have just done, a rather touching and idiomatic hint of the schmaltzy idiom of Khachaturian.

One warning should be given, and not many reviews are giving it. The first symphony, the charming lightweight `Classical', is plain awful here - slow, portly and heavy-footed. However it is so easy to find excellent performances of this piece that I do not propose to reduce the overall rating below 4 stars, as I can hardly imagine that it will be what anyone wants this set for. No 7 I have already mentioned, and if you want detailed comment on the others you will have to look for it elsewhere. To me they don't require detailed comment because quite simply they are the real deal, whatever niceties of comparisons can be made with other versions.

And I have a second reason for picking up this complete set. The concerts of the Scottish National Orchestra were where I learned to love good music back in the 1950's. They have come on a long way since then, and a lot of the credit for that presumably belongs with Maestro Jarvi. I am very fond of Prokofiev, although not chiefly of his symphonies. However these accounts have made better sense of them to me than any others have so far done, and they may do the same for you.

I recently attended a concert by the Florida Symphony conducted by Sanderling that included Prokofiev's Symphony No. 6. I had not heard this work in concert before and was blown away by it's intense stucture and tight disciplined interior workings;it truly held me in it's grip to the very end. I thus wished to hear it again on a recording. After perusing the listings for Prokofiev Symphonies I found that there were few available and none for this symphony alone. I then decided to select a one of the sets of the complete symphonies that were available. After reading the summeries and recalling my own experience with the conductors and orchestras of the various sets, I chose the one conducted by Neeme Jarve and the Scottish National Orchestra. It turned out to be an excellent choice. Over the years I've heard several of the Symphonies done by various orchestras. There was a time before the Mahler binge that more Prokofiev and Shostokovitch was played. At Chicago F. Reiner often did them and G Szell in Cleveland. In later times only the Fifth was played with any regularity and some readings were just bad. I was happily surprised by this present collection. It is very sensitive to the intricate design of the individual symphonies and is quite illuminating in others. The conducting is restrained and controlled. A great plus when I've heard some noted conductors simply blast the audience right out of their seats. Not here, all is fine tuned and carefully done. It has been a true treasure trove of beautiful sound illuminating musical delight. All of the symphonies are given a good performance. I was particularly intrigued by the two versions of Symphony no. 4, one from 1930 and the revised one of 1947. I must confess I prefer the original as the more profound. It is interesting that as you go through the Symphonies one after another you hear little familiar passage recalling some other Prokofiev work that was being devised at the time; Alexander Nevsky, Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella etc etc. This is a fine set for the Prokofiev fan and I'm one.
n.b. The first symphony was an exercise; a snub directed at his Conservatory professors. It is quite popular. The others are the fruits of his imagination.

The problem with buying any complete set of the Prokofiev symphonies is that only two, the youthful first and the vibrant, mature fifth, are masterpieces. The Sixth, which builds on the vocabulary of the Fifth -- the same vocabulary of lush, romantic, high-spirited ballet music epitomized by Romeo and Juliet -- is also a major work. Its proponents actually prefer it to the fifth, but that, I fear, stretches its virtues. The Fourth and Seventh are mild works that need strong advocacy from an inspired conductor. The Second and Third are dissonant Machine Age works that find Prokofiev at his least ingratiating -- they exist on the far margins of the standard repertoire outisde Russia.

Neeme Jarvi's well-recorded Prokofiev cycle was rapturously received by the Gramophone, but in retrospect is was a make-do until a major Russian conductor stepped up, as Valery Gergiev did several years ago. The London Sym. knocks the wheels off the playing of Jarvi's Scottish orchestra, and Gergiev himself stands on a higher plane than Jarvi. Still, his cycle has its fans, and I wanted to revisit it to see how the individual symphonies stand up. In the whole cycle Chandos provides its trademark sound, big, fairly distant, with a spacious soundstage.

Sym. 1 - We are off to a dull start with a shockingly inert "Classical" Sym. so bereft of wit and sparkle that it isn't remotely competitive. Tempos are slow and the playing lackluster.

Sym. 2 -- Jarvi's besetting sin as an interpreter is his tendency to be blatant and coarse, but that actually serves him well in the Prokofiev Second. He seems in his element, flailing away in the composer's hard-driving factory. No false elegance here. By comparison, both Ozawa with the Berliners on DG and Grgiev are too civilized. A highlight of Jarvi's cycle, even though the Scottish orchestra lacks the weight and impact this music demands.

Sym. 3 - This symphony is extracted from Prokofiev's opera, the Fiery Angel, his most daring venture into savage modernism. But the composer couldn't escape his lyrical gift, so the slow movement in particular is kinder on the listener's nerves. Without words and stage action, I'm not sure this music holds one's attention as a symphony. Considered as a suite, it finds Jarvi in a sympathetic mood. Ozawa has a far better orchestra and does a more elegant job, however.

Sym. 4 --This symphony is associated with Prokofiev's biblical ballet, The Prodigal Son. The idiom for that ballet is pulp modernism, a pounding but populist style that, to me, verges on Soviet junk. The Fourth Sym. doesn't much improve on the source. Jarvi, like several others, plays both the original and the revised version. At best this music is a warm-up to the Fifth. Jarvi is in a sympathetic mood and does a good-enough job. Oddly, Gergiev feels rather dispirited in this work, so Jarvi's bluff, cherful energy is welcome.

Sym. 5 -- This, Prokofiev's symphonic masterpiece, has been done so magnificently by the likes of Bernstein and Karajan (my two favorites), not to mention a host of Russian conductors, that Jarvi's version is completely outclassed. On its own, however, it has style and energy. The shortcomings of the orchestra are evident but not painfully so. If you want a cheerful, non-nonsense account, here you to.

Sym. 6 - The Sixth wants to bee a major symphony and can sound like one in the hands of Mravinsky or Rostropovich, both of whom recorded riveting accounts. Jarvi is also on the mark, giving us a lean, snarky reading mixed with sweet lyricism, a tangy blend that is peculiar to Prokofiev. Since Ozawa and Gergiev are both too civilized, Jarvi makes his mark. The raw playing also helps to make sure the edges aren't rubbed off. The finale is nicely buoyant and chamber-like.

Sym. 7 - At the very end of his life a waning of powers, worsened by a head injury, led to some of Prokofiev's feeblest music, and the Seventh has a hard time unless the conductor ignites it (as Nikolai Malko does on EMI, a classic reading from the Fifties). Jarvi begins with real conviction in the first movement, which contains the best music, but he's good at covering up the weaknesses of the lesser parts as well. The orchestra's gives him sweet tone in the Andante and sounds playful in the finale, although it could be more Vivace.

In sum, the best readings are Sym. 2, 3, 6, and 7, wit only 1 being a total loss. I'm not sure that's enough to justify buying Jarvi's whole cycle, especially with Ozawa's Berlin Phil. and Gergiev's London Sym. looming over the landscape. But it was a worthwhile listen, one time around.

I really enjoyed these recordings and performances. Others consider these the standard by which others are gauged... I now understand why.