Raff Symphonies (Tudor) reviewed by Hurwitz

[Ilja]

This is why it's such a shame that Järvi's cycle was cut short - his recording of Lenore transformed the piece for me, and it would have been interesting to see what he'd do with/to the other symphonies.


A few years ago, I artificially sped up Stadlmair's recording of the First Symphony (by 10-20%, at the recommendation of a forum member who has since left), and it improved the thing no end *ducks for rotten tomatoes*.

[Kevin]

I feel the opposite. People are going to hate me here but I'm not still entirely convinced by Jarvi's readings. I'm very much in the Stadlimar camp - I find them very convincing, in short the Tudor box set made me a lifelong fan.

[Gareth Vaughan]

I too deeply lament the curtailment of Jarvi's Raff recordings for Chandos. Such a shame. I was so looking forward to his take on No. 3 "Im Walde" in particular. I imagine they were halted because Chandos got cold feet on account of poor sales. Understandable, if so, but a pity.

[Ilja]

I feel the opposite. People are going to hate me here but I'm not still entirely convinced by Jarvi's readings. I'm very much in the Stadlimar camp - I find them very convincing, in short the Tudor box set made me a lifelong fan.

My point was that even if you don't like his particular approach, having a very well-known conductor apply a different approach from most others could only benefit Raff's recorded legacy. At least we have a choice between two very different but equally competent takes on Lenore.

[Alan Howe]

Friends will note that I've merged the two threads on this topic!

[Kevin]

At least we have a choice between two very different but equally competent takes on Lenore.

Of course you are entirely correct.

[Mark Thomas]

I imagine they were halted because Chandos got cold feet on account of poor sales

I don't think that's the reason, I believe it was due to Järvi's unexpected departure from L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande, when plans to record Im Walde were well advanced. Whatever the cause, it was a great disappointment and of course I completely agree with Ilja's point about the value of having competing high quality interpretations. At least with Lenore (or LEonorA, as Mr Hurwitz would have it), we have seven to choose from, three of which (Järvi, Stadlmair and Hermann) are worthy contenders. The other ten symphonies have between two and five alternatives each, although not all of the same quality, of course.

[Kevin]

You know what I would want? for CPO to have another go at the symphonies. I'm salivating at the thought.

[Mark Thomas]

I artificially sped up Stadlmair's recording of the First Symphony (by 10-20%, at the recommendation of a forum member who has since left), and it improved the thing no end *ducks for rotten tomatoes*.

No tomatoes will be harmed in this reply, I've done the same exercise myself!

Interestingly, Raff himself recognised the Symphony's faults: overlong and carrying a political message outdated by German unification. In the early 1870s he planned to replace the last two movements with a new finale, but never did so. A great shame, as its first three movements are the strongest IMHO and, had he complemented them with a fourth one of comparable quality, the work would have been greatly strengthened.

[Kevin]

I was disappointed Hurwitz dismissed the Seasons Symphonies, I don't think they deserved that.

[Alan Howe]

I agree - although his finest symphonies are surely Nos.2-5, i.e. 2 x classical (Nos.2 and 4) and 2 x programmatic (Nos.3 and 5).

[Kevin]

finest symphonies are surely Nos.2-5

Definitely. And whats more I'm 100% serious in saying they should be as well known as Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and Brahms Symphonies.

[Alan Howe]

Absolutely correct. They'd certainly be on my Desert Island...