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

[Alan Howe]

Well, not Bamert - at least not on the evidence of his soggy recording. OK, the recording is pretty misty, but the way he 'sits down' on the rhythms is what kills it. I'd go for Noseda.

[JimL]

What I find to be a shame is that this will be the 7th CD, and nobody has thought to use one of the paintings that actually depict Burger's poem.  You can see "The Ballad of Lenore, or 'The Dead go Fast'" by Horace Vernet on the cover of an Alkan CD (Hyperion CDA67218) or another, inferior, painting also depicting Lenore's ride on a Sterling CD of Klughardt's symphonic poem, "Lenore."  I imagine there are similar paintings I'm unaware of.

I seem to recall that the cover of the Nonesuch re-release of the Unicorn premiere performance with Bernard Hermann had a picture on the cover that seemed to be pretty much the final mad ride, although the rider in the picture was more like a centaur.

[Mark Thomas]

I've now downloaded the other five tracks in this release: three opera overtures, the Prelude to  Dornröschen (Sleeping Beauty) and the Abends-Rhapsodie. The two latter, essentially slow, pieces are glowingly played by the Swiss Romande orchestra, and Järvi (and Chandos' sound engineering) brings out much more detail in their orchestration than either Kluttig (Dornröschen) or Stadlmair did. He also shaves off getting on for a quarter of the duration of each piece, without either ever sounding rushed or inappropriately fast. The Lisztian central climax of the Dornröschen Prelude in particular is a gorgeous moment under Järvi's baton.

Järvi's overall timings for the overtures to the comic operas Dame Kobold and Die Eifersüchtigen pretty much match those of Stadlmair and Kluttig respectively, but in each case he slows the introduction and seems to me to be just that bit faster in the succeeding Allegro, to tremendous effect. The articulation and rhythmic vivacity of the orchestra in these mainly fast pieces makes for joyous listening - these are by far the best performances we have of these very attractive works. The big King Alfred Overture is a much more varied and dramatic piece, built from a solemn chorale, a perky march and battle music. Järvi is much better than Kluttig in moulding these episodic elements into a convincing whole, transforming what appeared from the Sterling issue to be an impressive, but arguably ramshackle, construction into a much tauter and dramatically convincing one. Needless to say, in the process he cuts the timing from almost 15 minutes to under 14.

In short, as with vol.1, the smaller pieces in this second release from Chandos receive just as mould-breaking performances as does the Symphony which they accompany. All the more pity that vol.3 won't be recorded until October next year, and so we'll have to wait until 2016 for more revelatory Raff.

[John 514tga]

Here's a final tempo chart, based on listening to my copy of the Jarvi:


            Raff     Herrmann     Schneider     Stadlmair          Jarvi

I.         168          128              140              152                176

II.         86            64                72                72                 100

III.       160          120              124              124                160

IV.       162          124              136              152                160


Now, let's look at the same chart as a percentage of Raff's specified tempos:


            Raff          Herrmann     Schneider      Stadlmair             Jarvi

I.         100%           76%              83%              90%                105%

II.        100%           74%              84%              84%                116%

III.       100%           75%              78%              78%                100%

IV.        100%           77%              84%              94%                 99%


As can be seen, he is closer to the mark in every movement except the 2nd, where he is just as fast (+16%) as Scheider and Stadlmair are slow (-16%).  I wish I could say this performance was as much a revelation as the 2nd Symphony.  Instead, it just more accurately reflects what Raff wanted you to hear -- would that he did not. 

[Alan Howe]

That is truly fascinating - and very revealing. Thank you for doing all that spade-work.

[Mark Thomas]

Yes indeed, very many thanks.

[Martin Eastick]

I have now listened to this new Jarvi version of Op177 several times over the past week but I still cannot "get it"  - so to speak! I have also carefully read all the opinions etc of all those concerned, many of whom are far more learned in al matters Raff than myself, but I still feel that the tempi being observed are for the most part excessive, even if perhaps closer to Raff's intention than others. As to an ideal version, I do appreciate that all Jarvi's predecessors have varying "weaknesses" in different places throughout the work, but I still personally find myself returning to either Bamert or Hermann.

In spite of this, the rest of this interesting new release is, IMHO much better!

[Alan Howe]

Martin: the problem, I think, is what one has been used to in this work. It is as if one has grown up with Klemperer in the Eroica, with the result that Chailly (for example) sounds quite wrong...

[Mark Thomas]

I have listened quite a few times now to Järvi's new recording and, having at first applauded it as a breath of fresh air, I am afraid that I have gradually become less convinced by it as the definitive reading of Lenore. Or at least, by parts of it. There's no denying, as John's very helpful chart clearly illustrates, that overall he gets nearer than anyone else to Raff's indicated tempi. The major exception is the slow movement, but despite the fact that he takes it 16% faster than Raff indicated, it doesn't seem to be too fast; the music can take it. It doesn't sound rushed, the phrasing doesn't lose definition, the contrast with the movements either side is maintained and, if anything, its descriptive role in the work as "love music" is enhanced. The march is certainly very fast, but it's bang on Raff's tempo, and this shifts the movement towards the recognisable territory of a more traditional Raff scherzo. It's an interesting phenomenon, this newly revealed march/scherzo, and one which I think works, particularly as the speed somehow offsets the rather literal palindromic design. Järvi is again almost on the nail in the finale, and this is a hugely successful and exciting reading. Personally, I would prefer that he slowed the final chorale a la Hermann, but I have to accept that that's not what Raff wrote.

My main misgiving about Järvi's interpretation, therefore, is the first movement. Now, this is only 5% faster than the metronome marking, and I am quite happy with the 16% relative speed up in the slow movement, but that felt right and this does not. I'd like to be more scientific about it, but I can't. In places even such a fine orchestra as L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande only just about manage to keep up, and the phrasing of strings and woodwind sometimes suffers in the process. I just can't believe that such a practised and practical composer as Raff would have written a movement which was so difficult for such a good orchestra to play well. I can't think of any similar examples in his orchestral writing. To my mind, Järvi is just too much of a speed merchant here and Stadlmair, himself substantially faster than Herrmann, manages to combine clarity and expansiveness with that all-important characteristic of a Raff first movement: propulsive momentum.

So overall, much as I want to, I can't regard Järvi's as the definitive Lenore, a status which I gladly accord to his reading of the Second Symphony.  One has to accept that he comes closest, at least in terms of tempi, to the literal score of Lenore and in that sense at least it is a perfectly valid interpretation, but for me Stadmair gets closest to the spirit of the opening movement and, for all his relative slowness in the other movements, his is just as valid a view of the work. I'm afraid though that, although after 40 years I do still love Herrmann's reading, we have to accept that it's a long way from what Raff would have expected.

Sonically, of course, Järvi is in a class of his own, and Raff's skills as an orchestrator have never had a better showcase. I should also put in a brief word for the very generous fillers which share his CD: three substantial opera overtures, the lovely Abends-Rhapsodie and equally gorgeous Dornröschen Prelude. All of them, in my book, ideal interpretations which blow out of the water those which we already have.

[Alan Howe]

Mark is pretty well spot-on, The difference for me is that I haven't lived with a particular conception of the work - for example, I first encountered Herrmann relatively recently. The one real problem, therefore, for me, is the rushed articulation of the SRO's woodwind in the opening measures, where Järvi seems to be trying to push the music too hard - or not quite conveying his intentions to the orchestra. However, once past some slight awkwardness here, Järvi in my view completely trumps Stadlmair's much more staid approach, making the whole first movement burst into the sort of life I'm sure Raff intended. So, while not being 100% definitive, it's by some way the most convincing account we have. Of course, another new recording would always be welcome...

[John 514tga]

I've listened to it three times now.  I wish it were the same revelation as Jarvi's treatment of the 2nd Symphony, but for me it is not.  This has nothing to do with Herrmann.  I've heard many works first in the hands of one interpreter only to hear them better in the hands of others, Jarvi's 2nd being just one example.  But there's more to a great performance than correct observance of metronome markings.  Herrmann may be slow, but how beautifully he shapes everything!

I have remarked on the revelation of hearing Beethoven's 9th a tempo, but I now recall when I heard his 7th the same way, I was dismayed.  So it is with this Lenore.  The tempos may be what Raff wanted, but the results are very disagreeable.  It's a pity, too, because the sound is so lovely. 

It's no wonder Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Wagner had little use for the metronome.

[adriano]

Incidentally, I have a complete (live broadcast) recording of Raff's opera "Benedetto Marcello"...

[FBerwald]

All these issues with interpretations are, I believe because of our individual "... does'nt feel right to me..." ideas. One must agree that a composer has the final say in his/her piece whether we agree or not. However musguided [we might feel] the composers directions, let's not forget that the he/she has spend mindnumbing hours slaving over the piece and so has complete freedom to do whatever he/she feels with it [yes incase of Sibelius burn the manuscript ?? ] even set a tempo we might not agree. That being said I do feel that the first couple of bars of Lenore do feel rushed but when he jumps into the body of the work Järvi more than makes up for it! Kudos to Järvi for finally giving this piece a worthy modern recording. 

   

[Mark Thomas]

One point which I forget to include in my over long exposition last night: my comments were made from a purely musical standpoint, but we shouldn't forget that Lenore is a programme symphony. Bürger's ballade Lenore is a gothic horror story, filled with blasphemy, death and ghoulish apparitions, and one great plus of Järvi's interpretation is that he drops you straight into that fevered, frantic atmosphere - you're not in the real world from the very start. He establishes that atmosphere and, because the pace never slackens, it just intensifies until one reaches the catastrophe of the final movement. I know of no other performance which has this appropriately nightmarish quality.

[Alan Howe]

That's absolutely right, Mark.