Customer Reviews

Rachmaninov: Symphonies Nos. 1-3 / The Isle of the Dead / Symphonic Dances / Vocalise, Opp. 13,14,27,29,44,45 / Aleko (extracts)

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

 

 

The second symphony from this recording is by the far the stormiest and loveliest recording of this momenumental masterpiece that I have heard. The opening with its brooding melody has never failed to induce within me a certain tinge of despair. The quality of sound on these recordings are certainly not as not advanced as the set by Ashkenazy, but I certainly do feel that the recordings here give a more honest reading of the symphonies gigantic depth. No other recording features chimes in the first symphony's opening movement (the middle section after the music has exploded into a rage of uncalculated fury-leaping into cosmos of bittersweetness and savoured elegia), you certainly don't find these chimes present in Maazel's or Ashkenazy's recordings. Although I must say that the third symphony is a bit ill-conceived here by Previn and the LSO, they still manage to deliver a solid performance with much emotion: the performers were never lazy from the start- contrary to other opinions..... I think the true gem comes from the second symphony's Largo movement, I certainly see this beautiful movement as a sort of soundtrack to a "romantic outting =) ", and quite honestly, Previn's rendition of it has been the only one that has ever conduced a feeling of absolute warmth and beauty to me the listener... Buy it, and see for yourself why Previn's rendition truly matches up to other recordings of these masterpieces.

An excellent set.

Sym 1, Isle of the Dead and Symphonic Dances are all done extremely well, which is all that matters, since these are Rachmaninov's orchestral works of sheer genius (plus the Bells), in my view.

Pletnev's Rach Sym 1 on DG is pretty good too, but you can't go wrong with this set.

Sir Andre and the 1970s LSO had a unique, symbiotic relationship. Together with their Decca Rachmaninov Piano Concertos & Paganini Rhapsody (with Vladimir Ashkenazy), this cycle of the Symphonies (and the other major orchestral pieces) just may be their greatest work ever. The fantastic LSO strings, admittedly lacking the famous post-war Ormandy/Philly gloss, make it easier to take these works more seriously than before. (Granted, R's symphonies are not the Brahms FOURTH, or the Bruckner EIGHTH, but they deserve better than "pops-concert" condescension.) Everything runs deeper.

First off, a respectful nod to all the other reviewers here and a small, salient fact: RACHMANINOV COMPOSED MORE THAN THE SECOND SYMPHONY !!! (And yes, this SECOND is stupendous in its breadth and commitment.)

This FIRST SYMPHONY is pungent, exotic, at times even barbaric...The VOCALISE is bittersweet, not merely sweet. And Sir Andre actually takes the repeat !... The ALEKO fragments are tantalizing. The ISLE OF THE DEAD is no-holds barred and heady...But the real glories of this set are the THIRD and the SYMPHONIC DANCES...They pick up where Ormandy left off, great as Ormandy undoubtedly was with these works (after all, he DID prepare the THIRD's premiere for Stokowski, and conducted the premiere of the DANCES himself- and both under R's supervision).

Throughout the THIRD, you get a whiff of both the Russian countyside AND the American plains, with a Deliusian "sensuous heartbreak." Play the beginning of the THIRD's second movement and be instructed by its ontological sadness; marvel at the sly, compassionate humor of R's sticking a scherzo within an adagio and how this humor plays out at the end of the movement; be uplifted by the gamut of moods which Sir Andre holds together so beautifully in the last movement.

The SYMPHONIC DANCES were originally titled FANTASTIC DANCES- which is a better description of this music...It was to have been a three-movement ballet depicting Noon, Twilight and Midnight. The Noon of the first movement is restless and adolescent in mood (culminating with a regretful quote from the FIRST SYMPHONY, whose undeservedly failed premiere scarred R for life). The second movement (described in several places as a "haunted ballroom") is elfin & ghostly. The final movement of the DANCES is frighteningly deep and modern (in parts of this movement you'll think of Bartok !). By its very end, the DIES IRAE motiv (ever present in R's music) morphs into a kind of phrygian-mode, death-tinged "flamenco-gone-nuts"...But not before all kinds of ethereal encounters with lost youth, regret & sensuality (some faint, swaying echoes of the THE BELLS' 2nd movement: the "golden bells of happiness"), and adoration of God (a pentultimate, jazzed-up quote from R's VESPERS: "Blagosloven Yesi, Gospodi" - "Blessed Art Thou, O Lord").

Sir Andre & his band plunge into all this with a shattering, "total immersion" which will show you why R called the DANCES "my last spark."

On the strength of Previn's acclaimed Rachmaninov Second from 1973, you might be attracted to this ultra-bargain set of all three symphonies, but that performance was something of a one-off. It still sounds very good. The LSO easily outplays any Soviet orchestra of the time, especially as heard in gritty Melodiya sound. EMI's sonics are splendid, and Previn gives himself fully to the score, never swooing too much, respecting the dignity of the music even when Rachmaninov is at his most Hollywood. But his fervent involvement didn't extend to Sym. #1, which rambles much of the time under Previn's baton and suffers from fitful outbursts of energy that go nowhere. In truth it took the collapse of the Soviet empire and the emigration of top-flight Russian conductors to show everyone how this problematic work -- the source of a catastrophic mental collapse in Rachmaninov's early career -- can be performed to bring out its best qualities.

The Third is easier to conduct; its style and shape are very close to the Second. But Previn seems to be at loose ends here, too. Each event follows the last with lovely playing and considerable energy, Previn is at his best in the pure schmaltz of the second movement, but the whole reading doesn't hang together very memorably. In this same three-for-one series EMI gives us the three symphonies in far more convincing readings under Mariss Jansons and the St. Petersburg Phil., playing with passion in the first flush of liberation after the end of the Soviet era. They made a great impression in the early Nineties, and still do. (Even better will be Gergiev's complete cycle to judge by his recent Sym. #2, a knockout on the London Symphony's house label.)

Previn's fillers are the usual popular short works by Rachmaninov, but whether in The Isle of the Dead or the Symphonic Dances, he is outshone by the younger Russian generation, such as Vladimir Jurowski and Vasily Petrenko, who have fully absorbed the tradition so vigorously exemplified in this music by Svetlanov and Rozhdestvensky thirty years ago. So despite the LSO's consistently beautiful playing, Previn's appeal in Rachmaninov isn't what it once was.

Having seen a TV show featuring Previn rehearsing one of the Rachmaninov symphonies with the LSO, I got interested in his superb conducting style. In the 1970's when he conducted the London Symphony Orchestra, Previn had a special rapport with the orchestra and he was adored by the London concertgoers. So with that in the back of my mind, I went looking for a Previn set of the three symphonies and luckily found it. I find the performances and the sound of the digitally remastered pieces to be outstanding and recommend the set without reservations.

I have only heard the 2nd symphony from this set (in EMI's Great Recordings of the Century remastering, which seems not to be available yet...) so my comments are restricted to that work. Looking at the reviews below, it appears that some people really like this performance. I respect their opinions, but I can only report my own honest reaction to this performance, which is that is is too slow, too uninflected, and ultimately too boring for my taste.

As a reviewer states below, this performance was taped after a successful tour by Previn and the London Symphony Orchestra which showcased the Second. However, the notes in the Great Recordings edition report that the taping took place over a year after the tour ended (although the players wanted it taped immediately). This delay may explain what I hear as a routineness about the performance. There is certainly nothing wrong with the quality of the orchestral playing or the sound engineering (although neither approaches what Ormandy and the Philadelphia achieved in the Sony version of 1959, 12 years earlier). But I just don't hear anything special here.

In all four movements, tempos are consistently on the slow side. What is more, Previn takes a very straightforward interpretative approach, when I feel that this music cries out for the little touches of magic, such as Rachmaninov shows in his own recording of the Third Symphony. Compare with the earlier Ormandy recording: although Ormandy takes similarly steady tempos in the first three movements, his orchestra, especially the strings, knows how to put a little rubato here, a little portamento there, to bring this large work to life. With Previn it just sounds like a play through by a very competent orchestra and conductor.

The one really distinctive feature of this recording is the account of the slow movement. I find it repellent, but others may like it. Previn takes a very slow, gentle, soft-focused approach which reminds me of film music for a Hollywood romance. I yearn for a more passionate and intense approach here, but Previn's way is an interesting alternative.

An important issue in considering any recording of this symphony is that of cuts. Many recordings (particularly older ones) excise large amounts of Rachmaninov's music (up to 25%). The older Ormandy I mentioned above is a tragic example of this. This recording is complete and uncut (with the exception of the first movement repeat). Good for Previn, then. Some British critics get very excited by the fact that before this recording was made, most recordings were cut, and that after it, they tended to be complete -- as if Previn had somehow single-handedly changed the climate for Rachmaninov's music. However, there are older uncut recordings --- for example, Leopold Stokowski's 1946 live performance with the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra and Paul Kletzki's Suisse Romande account. In fact, listening to Previn's performance somethimes made me think that the cuts were a good thing after all.

I would recommend against this account of the 2nd symphony. My favorite account -- by Dmitri Kitaenko (Kitayenko) with the Moscow Philharmonic -- is hard to find. The aforementioned Ormandy is magnificent but heavily cut. Given this, I also suggest Ashkenazy with the Concertgebouw Orchestra or Pletnev with the Russian National Orchestra.

never mind nos. 1 & 3 -- this is worth buying for no. 2 alone. this is the second digital remastering emi have done of no.2: the first (mid-80's) was horrible -- avoid. this one is much closer to the original 1973 lp. as far as i know, this second remastering of no.2 is only available as part of this set, i.e. not available separately.

previn/lso made this recording shortly after returning from a tour of the soviet union where they performed the work several times. 27 years later, it is still one of the finest recordings of any orchestral work available on record.

Haven't played it for several months. I turned it on to do the review and from the other room I hear "I haven't heard that for awhile, I could listen to that all day". It was Rachmaninov who elevated my musical appreciation to not only appreciate classical music but to become passionate about it. The second symphony is a hypnotic, stirring sojourn into the ether of some nether world of inner peace and symphonic harmony. There is a deliberate slowness throughout, which I thoroughly enjoy. At times you're swept into the whirlwind of strings swirling around you. The first two movements are lovely but compared to the third movement, all falls short. The third movement, one of the finest moments in orchestration and aesthetics, is a melodic and lovely romance between you and the music. The delicate textures weaving in and out are some of the most sensuous and irresistible notes ever created. Then, to your discomfort, comes the fourth movement's tempo which snaps you out of your lull and dreamy easy chair and back into the auditorium. It's was probably necessary for Rachmaninov to bring you back to reality as who could dare wake from this state of symphonic bliss on their own, let alone leave the auditorium. I highly recommend this second symphony for its quality in both it's performance and sound (I suggest you skip the fourth movement and let the ocean's gentle waves wash over you as the sun sets tangerine in the evening sky and all seems right and faraway from the daily grind).

I am sitting here listening to Rachmaninov's third symphony as played by David Zinman and the Baltimore Symphony that I got at the library this afternoon thinking to myself "Why did I ever buy Previn's Rachmaninov Symphonies?" As far as I am concerned, the Second Symphony is the only part of this set worth listening to. Like the rest of the set, it has horrible sound and a lot of scrappy playing, but the interpretation is inspired. The rest of the set is absolutely terrible. It sounds like it was recorded with the microphones encased in several feet of soft foam masking detail and orchestral color. The music sounds like ugly dark maroon similar to the CD cover. Less than perfect sound does not bother me unless the playing is also bad. Maybe it is just me, but except in the Second Symphony, the players seem lazy and uninterested. What mystifies me is that many classical music reviewers love this set. They must hear more in this set than I do. My recommendation is to look elsewhere, like in Baltimore for instance.