Strauss Symphony in F minor

[Ilja]

Of course, there are more ways than one to respect the composer. Also, there is a difference between "rushing" (again, that implication of superficiality) and using fast tempi, which can very well be done while remaining faithful to the material. For me, Weigle's expansiveness (which does appear to "Alpensinfonie" the work to my ears) is less fitting than Järvi's pace.


Haven't heard the Bäumer yet, cpo appears reluctant to provide me with CDs these days.

And even early Strauss should definitely not be treated like Raff

In fact, I guess you could make a good point that early Strauss should be treated more like Raff than like late Strauss.

[Alan Howe]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. All I'll say is that Järvi is very much the odd one out here - doesn't make him wrong, but still...

I don't think that the Raff-early Strauss connection really works. Strauss' template is definitely not Raff. Järvi in Raff is refreshing; Järvi in early Strauss pushes on where a steadier hand is required. Too often louder means faster.

[hyperdanny]

 "Too often louder means faster"

Actually, this last phrase from Alan allows me to mention another highlight of the Baumer recording, which is the carefully nuanced terracing of the dynamics...Before,  i really had no idea there was so much light and shade in this piece.
So , as so often it's not only a question of tempi (after all, Baumer takes only 4 more minutes)
In comparison to him Jarvi is almost always forte or mezzo-forte.

[Alan Howe]

An example of the problem I find with Järvi occurs between roughly 09:15 and 10.00 into his recording of the first movement where he first slows down and then speeds up where there are no such markings in the score. I think this may be due to the basically faster tempo which Järvis chooses for the movement as a whole (and which I find rather smudges quite a lot of detail, despite the fine playing of the RSNO).

To turn to Bäumer, who is two whole minutes longer in the first movement, we have a very different conception of the music. He sets a broader overall tempo so that he doesn't have to 'change gear' as much or as often as Järvi. Now, in my opinion Bäumer's approach is much more appropriate to a symphony written at roughly the same time as Brahms 3 (1883) by a composer born in 1864. Järvi's faster basic tempo (sustained - correctly - in Raff), just don't work so well in this later, heavier idiom.

If I only had Järvi, I'd be pretty satisfied; but others have come along - and their approach to this opening movement has been quite different. Järvi takes 12:55; but Bäumer takes 14:57, Wakasugi 14:31 and Weigle 14:22. In this case I think one is (somewhat) wrong-headed and three are nearer what the composer intended.

And there I rest my case...