Customer Reviews

Rachmaninov: Symphony No. 2 / Sanderling, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra

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

 

 

A great impression was created in the 1950s when a series of DGG recordings appeared. The recordings featured the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra and the conductor was Kurt Sanderling. All agreed that the work of an orchestra and conductor in top form had been wondrously well captured on disc.

Well, here is one of those famous recordings, the most popular symphony of Rachmaninov, in a successful transfer to CD. You will hear playing of such beauty, fervour and intensity that you might begin to wonder, like me, why Rachmaninov's symphonies have seemed so hard to sit through in actual performance.

First time listeners will notice horn and oboe solos played on instruments with an unusual sonority. Also noticeable is the "spot-lighting" of the first violin soloist in the first movement. Don't let these oddities deter you, however. Consult any CD guide and reviewers manual and you'll find this CD either earning a rosette or topping the list.

This has long been my favorite recording of the Rachmaninov 2nd Symphony, despite two obvious shorcomings: first, the abbreviated fourth movement, which may have been needed to fit the entire symphony on a single LP without compromising sound quality; second, the distortion in louder passages, and overall sound quality that is good by 1956 mono standards, but far short of what is possible today. (However, the CD transfer is very good.)

On the positive side is its great power and passion, and at the same time clean, tight ensemble, a rare combination. It was recorded in a German church with just the right ambience for Rachmaninov. There have been many excellent versions since this one, but in my opinion none replace it.

Being familiar with more modern approaches to this wonderful symphony, I was taken aback the first time I heard this CD. Sanderling, against all expectations, is rampantly expressive with shifts in tempo reminiscent of the great conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler. The result is an unforgettably poignant reading, above all in the crucial first movement. The orchestra is superb (wind and brass seem more under control than usual) and the recording, though mono, is fantastic for its time. I agree with amazon.com's reviewer that the finale is a slight disappointment, both in its unfortunate cut and in a unnecessarily cautious tempo. For this reason you may want to get another more recent version of the symphony (I suggest Pletnev or Ashkenazy) in addition to this one. But in the earlier movements Sanderling offers a unique experience that no Rachmaninov lover should miss!

Sanderling leads the prestigious Leningrad Symphony through the difficult waters of Rachmaninov's Symphony #2, recorded in West Berlin in 1956.

I find the Adagio particularly beautiful and the tempo so well controlled here. Possibly there are other recordings that match or exceed this historic one, however, I find this version to be a very wonderful addition to my collection which will enjoy much play time.

I purchased this CD having read rave reviews about the performance. However I was very disappointed. The finale was taken at a slower tempo (Rachmaninoff preferred a faster tempo as mentioned in his biography) and this kills this performance in my opinion. Listen, if you can find it, to the Svetlanov performance with the Bolshoi formerly available on Vox; this performance really catches fire and leaves an unforgettable impression. No one generates the excitement of Svetlanov in this symphony.

This recording truly has some special characteristics compared to other recordings of this symphony. The first movement has a riveting energy and a magnificent exploration of the inner detail of this composition. The second movement maintains the great level of excitement generated in the first. The third symphony has some very memorable woodwind playing. The final movement, while slower than what one is accustomed to hearing, is nevertheless very special and inpsiring. There is a cut about 10 minutes into the finale, which does somewhat unexpectedly thrust the ending upon the listener. Nevertheless, this cut, while disappointing, is not crippling and should not discourage the prospective listener.

The mono recording is surprisingly vibrant and full-bodied. There is some graniness in the strings and brass at times. I would not put the primitiveness at 1930s or 1940s level, though. Think of it as a CBS or RCA Living Stereo recording of the same era without stereo separation.

This recording is a good complement to one's collection of Rachmaninoff's Second. Some have said this is the definitive recording. However, I would not select this recording to the extent that other equally spectacular recordings, such as Ashkenazy (London/Decca), Temirnakov (BMG/RCA Red Seal), Pletnev (DG), Bychkov (Philips, Orchestre de Paris) were neglected.

This is one of those 'legendary' recordings... if, like me, you have to seek out the 'best' performances of your favourite music, this is the one that all the advice seems to be pointing towards.

I have to say I was disappointed. Nothing wrong with the performance - its good, and it has its own insights. But it doesn't seem to me to offer more than many other, more modern performances and, as the Editorial Review here points out, there's a long cut in the finale.

I was also disappointed with the sound. While I don't expect 'state of the art' from a 1950s recording, the violins at the top end are positively painful!

My advice? Ashkenazy with the Concertgebouw is probably my personal choice, but both Previn with the London Symphony Orchestra and Pletnev with the Russian National Orchestra are very good indeed.

This is one of those sacred cows of the gramophone, which on reissue proves to be something of a disappointment. I'm afraid that while it was probably competitive when it first appeared, it has simply been surpassed in terms of both performance and recording.

The playing is fine, and the mono recording OK-ish for the mid-fifties, but Sanderling's interpretation (not to mention the cuts) make this hardly recommendable.

....