Franz Schmidt Symphonies 1-4 (P.Järvi)

[Alan Howe]

And so, first, to what I can hear - and I certainly don't find that the woodwind are obscured by the strings at all, so I'm afraid I just don't agree with MartinH's assessment. And my venerable TEAC CD player (which hates CD-Rs) had no trouble with an 85+ minute disc...

Here's a review which I'd endorse:
https://theclassicreview.com/album-reviews/review-franz-schmidt-complete-symphonies-frankfurt-radio-symphony-orchestra-paavo-jarvi/

That said, I'd still take Mehta's version of the 4th Symphony over any other recording of a Schmidt Symphony. He's grander, takes more risks - and he has the VPO!

[Joachim Raff]

Let me put a different perceptive on things. I could not find a thread on the Naxos cycle of Schmidt symphonies. So in that respect, this Jarvi Cycle is being broadcast as a new revelation. Anyone scrutinised the Malmo Symphony/ Vassily Sinaisky cycle in the same way? Oh, I'm not talking about so called musical critics but folk on this forum

[Alan Howe]

I have Nos.1-4 with Sinaisky but don't remember much about them. I'll report back...

I'd just offer a word of caution, though. I'm no expert - I've just got a large collection of CDs. And I wouldn't write off all 'so-called musical critics' - many are well worth reading/listening to, provided one understands their prejudices, etc. For example, David Hurwitz is clearly a fan of Bernstein, Monteux, Munch, Ormandy, etc. and doesn't much care for Rattle, Abbado, Boult, Handley, etc. In other words, there's a certain pro-US and anti-UK bias in his reviews. He prefers obviously exciting performances, as opposed to those exhibiting a certain reserve. Now, that's fine, as long as one understands what interpretive approaches he's likely to favour. In fact, I've learned quite a lot from him - and caught up with interpretations/recordings that I had never considered worth buying. A classic case was Munch's Schubert 9 - so different from, say, Boult whose recording has long been regarded as a classic on this side of the Atlantic. So, don't write all critics off!

[Alan Howe]

Sinaisky's recording of No.4 is different from Paavo Järvi's: it's more distantly recorded (which I prefer) and just a touch more spacious, by approx. two minutes overall (which I also prefer). It might also be decribed as laid-back in its approach - critics might even say it's rather bland. I like it, but ultimately I want more scruff-of-the-neck drama. I still believe this great work is best served by Mehta - at 49+ minutes his recording is certainly spacious and, although nearly fifty years old, was recorded by Decca in Vienna, and we all know how far ahead of their time those recordings were! So, it's still Mehta for me.

[Joachim Raff]

A classic case was Munch's Schubert 9 - so different from, say, Boult whose recording has long been regarded as a classic on this side of the Atlantic. So, don't write all critics off!

Schubert's 9th? Hardly unsung. Alan, you should know better. But seeing you mentioned it, my view of Munch is that's its a freakish version, set at breakneck speeds. Simply does not impress me and neither do so call critics 

[Joachim Raff]

Sinaisky's recording of No.4 is different from Paavo Järvi's: it's more distantly recorded (which I prefer) and just a touch more spacious, by approx. two minutes overall (which I also prefer). It might also be decribed as laid-back in its approach - critics might even say it's rather bland. I like it, but ultimately I want more scruff-of-the-neck drama.

Alan, thank you for your comments. So am I to believe that Paavo brings anything new to the 4th and other versions are preferred including Sinaisky?

[Alan Howe]

Schubert's 9th? Hardly unsung. Alan, you should know better.

And you should know better than to quote me out of context - which was your ridiculous comment about writing off 'so-called music critics'. You are, of course, entitled to your view of the recording mentioned (and I might even agree with you if it came to a favourite version), but simply to write off critics in general in the way you do is beyond silly.

Paavo Järvi's view of No.4 is perfectly valid - it's well played and well recorded, but it's not weighty enough for me, probably because I've been brought up on Mehta's recording. Of course, someone coming new to the work might well prefer Paavo and find Mehta too studied. Arguments could be made both ways. In the end it's a matter of personal choice - and that's the reason I often buy more than one version of a work. Sometimes it's good to hear music done a different way - one that challenges me to re-think my prejudices. And that was the reason I bought Munch's Schubert 9.

And by the way: my views are neither here nor there. It'd be far better to read someone who really knows what they're talking about.

[Joachim Raff]

And by the way: my views are neither here nor there. It'd be far better to read someone who really knows what they're talking about.

I disagree, your views are equally valid as anyone else's. You usually find professional critics have a bias in their makeup. This can purely be a human factor or something more sinister like bribes or financial incentives.

[Alan Howe]

Well, I have no real expertise. Just a fair amount of listening experience. And I won't pretend that I don't read the critics, because I do. The important thing is to listen for yourself and try to be as fair as possible. I do have my own prejudices, though: I'm not fond of HIP, early pianos, vibrato-less string playing à la Norrington or poor vocal standards in opera.

And with that, back to Schmidt...

[Ilja]

I would say that the problem with Schmidt is that so much weight is given to the fourth, often at the expense of the other symphonies. As tremendous a piece of music as it may be, I think the fourth isn't actually that problematic a work to play for any decent orchestra and conductor combo - not in the last place because contrary to the other symphonies, there is something of a performance tradition and consensus. For me, the yardstick for any Schmidt symphonies set is how it handles the much more ambivalent First, and I'm absolutely persuaded by Järvi fils.

[Alan Howe]

Yes - Paavo Järvi is superb in No.1. His reading is dynamic and full-blooded. I'm tempted to say he's better here than in No.4, but then I'm biased in favour of Mehta...

[Joachim Raff]

Listening to the 1st Symphony tonight and its a cracker. Its a classical symphony with a Haydn type influence. The third movement is like a Viennese waltz,    there's  a beautiful flow to it.  I love it, and this suits P.Jarvi's meticulous style. It needs attention to detail and he gives it. Delightful stuff with plenty of ebb and flow. The progression of the composer's style will suit some conductors more than others but the first definitely suits Paavo.

[eschiss1]

do we mean the same thing by "classical" symphony?... it sounds more like Strauss than Haydn...

[Alan Howe]

Its a classical symphony with a Haydn type influence

As Eric suggests, it has the stamp of Richard Strauss all over it, particularly Don Juan in the first movement, which is patently obvious. Can't hear any Haydn.

[Joachim Raff]

I would say there are similarities to an early Strauss but his 1st symphony is far more melodically complex. Pigeon holing this guy is difficult.