Raff/Järvi Chandos vol. 2 - Symphony 5 etc.

[Alan Howe]

Chailly has re-thought his approach in the same sort of way that Abbado did in some repertoire areas. For example Chailly's earlier Brahms cycle with the Concertgebouw Orchestra was broader and richer - a bit like Karajan's. His new cycle is more along the lines of Toscanini or Weingartner. He may have learned from HIP, but he has retained a fuller sound.

To return to the Raff 5/Järvi issue, it's interesting to note how a basically classical approach actually brings out the psychological drama of the programme so powerfully. Another important point is that Raff simply doesn't 'go' like, say, Brahms. His music has 'lighter feet', as it were, so that a heavier approach which might work in Brahms really doesn't in Raff. IMHO, of course - and with due deference and gratitude to Bernard Herrmann...

[Alan Howe]

If there is ever another recording of the 5th, I would hope some deeply committed romantic would take it up...

I don't think that's the way to go with Raff. But I'd buy it like a shot to find out...

[adriano]

@mbhaub
it's the listener's personal taste that makes music also interesting :-)

[DennisS]

Following on from Alan's suggestion, I have been listening for the past 10 days or so to Chailly's Beethoven cycle. I can now well understand why Chailly has been discussed in this thread (thank you Alan).Chailly has faithfully followed Beethoven's metronome markings (as members of this forum well know), with the result that many of the movements are played at much faster tempi than we, the listeners, (or should I say "than I", the listener) are accustomed to hearing. I have to agree with Alan that the music under Chailly definitely generates a lot of excitement and I was very pleasantly surprised that I I found myself really liking his take on the symphonies. I do however understand why some listeners believe that the excitement of the music with its faster tempi sometimes militates against the depth of feeling and inherent beauty of Beethoven's music. I think my enjoyment was enhanced, due to the fact that I hadn't listened to my Karajan cycle in quite a long time, thus Chailly's interpretations sounded fresh and vibrant. That said, I won't be getting rid of my Karajan cycle! It's great to have both!

With Chailly's faster Beethoven tempi still in mind, this brings me back to Järvi's Lenore. Because of all the talk about Herrmann's much,much slower tempi in his Lenore and not being familiar with his take, I decided to purchase a copy of the CD (quite expensive, cost £26 but worth it!). Just as I did with Stadlmair/Järvi, I then did extended listening to all 3 versions i.e. Herrmann/Stadlmair/Järvi, the one after the other, even at times just listening consecutively to the same movement of all 3, one after the other.The experience was revelatory! As others have remarked, each version has its strengths and weaknesses but to keep things simple I will just say that for me Herrmann is the most romantic, Järvi the most modern and Stadlmair in the middle. I will say though that Herrmann's is very beautiful with some exquisite orchestral colouring. What was though surprising to me is that, as a result of listening to Chailly's Beethoven cycle and then listening to Herrmann's, Stadlmair's and Järvi's Lenore, I now find myself really warming to Järvi's faster tempi!

Why is this so? The obvious answer is down to listening to music that is NOT familiar(i.e. not as expected) but through repeated listenings becomes familiar. Järvi's Lenore with its faster tempi (unsettling to me at first) sounded "unfamiliar" to me, it was not what I was used to hearing!, especially compared to Stadlmair and even more so to Herrmann. Now though, Järvi's take has become very familiar to me indeed and my opinion on it has changed dramatically! UC has again taught me a musical lesson. Don't judge a piece of music too quickly! Give the music time to grow and become really familiar. No, I won't do away with my Stadlmair and Herrmann but if I want excitement in Lenore (as against a more romantic take on the symphony, just as valid of course), then Järvi is the one I will listen to!

Sorry this post is so long!

[Alan Howe]

A fascinating journey, Dennis. Thanks for telling us all about it.

[mbhaub]

Two very positive reviews of the Jarvis traversal of Lenore at Music Web International this morning. Worth a read - they make every attempt to defend the rapid speeds. One mistake: the Herrmann recording used the London Philharmonic, not the London Symphony Orchestra, although that would be nice Mr. Gergiev.

[Alan Howe]

Two very positive reviews of the Jarvis traversal of Lenore at Music Web International

Here's the link:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Jun14/Raff_sy5_CHSA5135.htm

And here's a key remark:
<<Järvi is taking Raff at his word with his astonishingly fast metronome markings, but those who have had their opinions as to how this work should sound coloured by more leisurely approaches will likely need time to get used to these tempos, and those many long in thrall to Herrmann's account may possibly never accept them.>>
Good to know we've already been here...

[Mark Thomas]

I confess that, after strong initial misgivings, I am warming more and more to Järvi's approach to the first movement, having surrendered from the start on the question of the other three. What I appreciate most of all is that this reading brings out the fact that Raff's symphony is based upon a nightmare, and it's the feverishness with which Järvi launches the piece which sets the tone for the rest of the work. It's not the only interpretation I'd want to have: I still love Herrmann's reading, my introduction to Raff, I respect Stadlmair's but, my word, I realise that I am excited by Järvi's.

[Alan Howe]

That's a very fair assessment, I think.

[mbhaub]

This thread isn't dead yet. Now, American Record Guide weighs in on the Jarvi reading of the 5th...From the September/October issue:

Some select quotes:

"...everything is constantly goaded on with no sensitivity whatever. Passages crying out for breathing space are simply steamrolled."

"...Raff expected conductors to have some instinct about where to speed up or slow down in accordance with its harmonic pulses. In Jarvi's performance, ritards, if taken at all are barely observed."

"...you'll have to endure one of the greatest program symphonies run into the ground. Any other available interpretation of Lenore is better."

No mention of the outstanding booklet notes and the discussion of tempi is mentioned.

[Mark Thomas]

Of course I haven't had the benefit of reading the whole review, but I'm sure that Martin's extracts are a fair cross-section,  in which case it seems a very simplistic assessment. Just focusing on Järvi's speed ignores his wider credentials as a Raff interpreter, which he established so convincingly in his performances of the Second Symphony and the four Shakespeare Preludes. The more I listen to Järvi's Lenore,  the more I think it an entirely valid, if by no means the only possible, interpretation.

[mbhaub]

The review does mention exemplary playing by the orchestra, superb recorded sound, and also that Jarvi is much more convincing in the overtures.

Critics and reviews can be so frustrating! Recently I read three reviews of the new Dvorak 8th from Honeck in Pittsburgh. They were ecstatic about it - what a revelation, a brilliant, exciting reading - maybe the best-ever 8th! But the same ARG issue that Raff comes from, dismisses the new 8th as dull, uninspired, pointless and gives it only one small paragraph. The Raff does get quite a bit of space.

[Alan Howe]

The same is true of Ivan Fischer's new Bruckner 7 which, because it is pretty swift, has divided the critics. I personally dislike Bruckner being played like that, but I recognise that the same process (i.e. that of returning to how 19th century symphonies might actually have been played) may be at work here too.

[John 514tga]

One more quote from Mr. O'Connor's ARG review:

"The final adagio [...] is the noblest music Raff ever wrote and one of the most moving inspirations in the romantic repertoire.  Here it makes no effect whatever.  It's as if the note-values simply get longer (they do) rather than the emotional effect becoming deeper."

Whatever personal votes we have for Raff's most noble music, it's important to note that this is a review coming from a man who clearly likes Raff, which is rare enough among published writers.  Though it belongs in a different thread, Mr. O'Connor gives a positive review to Tra Nguyen's latest volume of Raff's piano music and praises the notes, written by a certain Mr. Thomas.

[Mark Thomas]

Oh, well I'll certainly allow myself a modest glow of pleasure at the last comment, thanks!

FWIW, and not just because he was kind about my booklet notes, I do agree with with Mr O'Connor's critique of Järvi's handling of the final pages of Lenore. It is certainly perfunctory and entirely misses the rapt, redemptory atmosphere which this serene music surely should have. As I mentioned above, I have come to value Järvi's interpretation because it is the only one which brings out the nightmare element of whole piece right from the start, but the final ecstatic apotheosis is necessary to put this into context, to illustrate not just that Lenore herself dies, but that she is forgiven for her blasphemy and is at peace, not dragged down to hell. That is entirely missed by Järvi and certainly spoils his performance for me. Herrmann, on the other hand, pitches it perfectly.