Järvi properly considered

[mbhaub]

There's one review of the Jarvi/Brahms set on Amazon. Here's what Gramophone had to say:
1.
Jarvi's Brahms symphony cycle ends with a version of Symphony No. I recorded at earlier sessions than the three later symphonies. And after the release of three somewhat tepid performances it is a relief to be able to report that the First Symphony is given a good, strong reading—one which causes me to wonder why Järvi consciously adopted such a restrained approach in the other three symphonies. While it is true that there are one or two mannerisms in the first movement, which is played with the repeat, these are of little importance in the context of a sensible, just interpretation which generally has few frills but plenty of impetus and feeling. The tempo for the second movement is a little on the slow side, but Järvi moulds the music with care and good sense, while the third movement flows nicely, again at a slowish tempo. The opening section of the finale is delivered in a weighty fashion, but pace and tension increase as the movement develops, and the coda has a good deal of excitement.

2.
...the symphony opens gently and unobtrusively, and with a rather enervating lack of momentum. Phrasing is routine, the musical pulse is slack, and although the LSO play well they don't seem at all inspired. Towards the middle of the movement tension rises a little, but then Järvi introduces expressive ritardandos which impede the musical argument and pull the structure out of shape. The temperature is low in the slow movement too, which tends to meander, and the third movement is routinely played, with little sparkle. In the finale Järvi gets livelier playing from the LSO, but accents are still not sharp enough and phrasing is uninspired. It is a curiously generalized interpretation, with a lack of real commitment and warmth. At the end of the work Järvi does find more energy and attack, but it's too late to save the performance as a whole, which is set in a very high-quality recording.

3.
...Jarvi's performance is as disappointing as it was in his recording of the Fourth Symphony (reviewed in December). Already in the first few bars of the work there are little hesitations which rob the music of its natural momentum; then as the movement continues the conducting is a little sluggish and ponderous, with Jarvi opting for a relaxed, rather under-vitalized manner. And his interpretative points seem always to impair the music's structure and flow, as when he slows down excessively for the horn solo at letter F. The inner movements are similarly understated and even in the finale there is insufficient energy and a lack of weight in the symphonic argument, though the work's quiet ending is nicely managed.
4.
Järvi has been a prolific maker of records in the last two years, and I imagine that most collectors would think of him in terms of strong, highly committed, energetic performances. Yet the surprise here is his relaxed response to Brahms's serious, lofty vision. At the outset of the work he opts for a slowish tempo which would be perfectly acceptable as the foundation of a large-scale, cumulative first movement reading. But in fact the style is very legato with phrasing contrived in such a manner that it tends to inhibit the flow of the music. At several points Järvi introduces quite deliberate hesitations, which makes the music's pulse still more flaccid and enervating. Towards the end of this movement he whips up the tempo, but it is really too late to save the day. In the second movement a good, sensible tempo is again chosen, but there are more little hesitations which rob the music of its impulse: it's a curiously muted reading. By contrast the third movement is a trifle hectic and over-boisterous, and orchestral textures tend to become a little confused in a somewhat over-reverberant acoustic. The last movement also has one or two eccentricities of phrase, and the passacaglia structure seems more than usual a collection of short episodes rather than a single entity.

I have many, many Brahms sets and can never seem to part with any of them -- except the Jarvi which I gladly traded in. Ironically, his recording of Schoenberg's arrangement of the Brahms g minor quartet is terrific. It has everything the symphonies are missing.

[Alan Howe]

Well, all this shows is that there is a divergence of opinion about Järvi's Brahms. Am I surprised? No! All I'm trying to say is that those who make sweeping judgments about him, implying in particular that he is some sort of speed-merchant, aren't listening to a decent range of his recordings (and certainly not his Brahms).
BTW, I picked up Järvi's Brahms cycle second-hand on Amazon. A very cheap way of getting some lovely Brahms interpretation, playing and recording (save for the timps at the opening of 1:1, which are almost inaudible). And I too have many complete cycles of Brahms symphonies; the only one I have ever ditched was Dohnanyi's Cleveland set which I found totally anaemic. Even Maazel's was better than that one - in my humble and insignificant opinion.
Anyway, it's good to know that many of the opinions expressed here do not conform to the misleading stereotypes that have grown up on the basis of certain of Järvi's unsuccessful recordings.

[mbhaub]

There is one other aspect of Jarvi that is often overlooked: opera. I have many, if not all, of his opera recordings. Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa is almost a great opera under his direction. Prokofieff's Fiery Angle is utterly riveting - fabulous. And his trio of Rachmaninoff operas makes a strong case for each of them. Again, he records opera that few, other than Gergiev, seem able or willing to take on.

Is it possible that Jarvi just eschews the limelight, and want to be a musician first? There are others like him: Horenstein, Wand for example who weren't concerned about being famous and well paid. They love music and enjoy performing just for the sake of the music. Unlike many other more famous conductors who seem to record anything and everything to make some money. I hope that Neeme has passed on to Paavo and Kristen some interest in neglected repertoire. But with the latter's recording of the Schmidt Das Buch, and with the formers new recording of the Rott symphony, I am hopeful.

[semloh]

Following from that, may I digress very slightly and ask if anyone has had a chance to listen to that RCA CD you mention of Rott's symphony conducted by Paavo Järvi? If so, maybe they could start a new thread to discuss it? 

[Alan Howe]

There's already a thread about Paavo's Rott CD here, Colin:
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,750.0.html

[semloh]

There's already a thread about Paavo's Rott CD here, Colin:
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,750.0.html

You know, I checked with a search before posting and didn't see that one come up! 
I'll check it out... Thanks.

I am interested because, unlike so many reviewers, I truly hated his Beethoven symphonies. I sat at breakfast complaining and grumbling as one played on the radio - "who on earth is conducting this"? "God, it's awful! appalling!, dreadful! Poor Beethoven would turn in his grave! etc etc.... I haven't had such a strong reaction to a performance for many years"- it put me right off my porridge! 

[Alan Howe]

I didn't like Paavo's Beethoven either - too HIP-speedy for me. Trouble is, I was brought up on full-fat Beethoven. It's a generation thing, no doubt, although I do think HIP may have gone too far.

[FBerwald]

Paavo's Beethoven clearly crossed the limit. I broke a commandment!

[Alan Howe]

I broke a commandment!

Pretended the CDs were faulty and swapped it for Karajan? 

[mbhaub]

Gee, I rather loved the Paavo Beethoven recordings. They are so energetic, magnificently played, and the recording quality is absolutely first-rate. I loved the entire cycle -- I cannot fault any of them.  I think Beethoven would have loved it. His performances are fast, but he doesn't follow the score markings literally. For me, of the more recent sets, Jarvi and Krivine stand at the top of the pile, Mackerras just underneath. I may have grown up on the big-band recordings (Szell, Ormandy, Bernstein, Karajan, Walter, Leibowitz, Cluytens and more), but there is no getting around it: the small chamber orchestra versions are much, much better to my ears.

[Alan Howe]

...with which I heartily disagree. I find them tame and wiry beyond belief. Thank goodness for diversity of opinion, though! Always makes go back and re-visit my prejudices!

[chill319]

His Schmidt cycle is uneven, with a truly spectacular 2nd, solid 4th,  but the 3rd is way too fast.

I love the Järvi/Chandos recording of Schmidt 1. The pacing and balances allow the thick textures to sound almost transparent. Forgive the personal reference, but it's as sweet as hiking in the Porcupine Mountains on a sunny September day and apprising glinting glimpses of Lake Superior that the bear down the trail also sees.

Way too personal! But let me suggest an alternative take on Järvi: he's generally more comfortable with composers who didn't cultivate a Lisztian or post-Lisztian pianistic technique/performing tradition. Chadwick but not Beach. Schmidt but not Suk. Any counter-examples?

[obermann]

Regarding Paavo Järvi's Beethoven I have to add my name to the list of the outcasts who find them splendid readings. If you are going to use a smaller ensemble then I think this is by far the best way to play the music - taught and sinewy in the best sense. I seem to recollect dipping into the contemporaneous cycle from Vänska and the Minnesota Orchestra - while I liked that set is was second choice at the time. But hey... I grew up on Karajan, Klemperer and the rest and still find much to enjoy in those readings. Great music can withstand a wide range of interpretive choices, if they are carried off with conviction.

As for Neeme Järvi I have always found him admirably adventurous and a real advocate for the unsung, but often when matched against other conductors he seems to lack something. Take the Dvorak symphonies - the sixth is a fine performance until you hear others by Kubelik etc. Regarding Brahms I have very faint recollections of the set, which has faded from memory (never a good sign). I am actually in a terrible situation regarding Brahms - the best performances I ever heard were Guilini with the Philharmonia - unfortunately when he recorded them the same year with the VPO the performances lacked the extraordinary elasticity that I hear live.

Credit though to Järvi for the set of Berwald symphonies, which is by far the best set - extraordinary they are out of print! He really does make this fine music dance with all its great joy and passion. Makes me wonder what he might make of Mendelssohn?