Tommasini Loves van Zweden But Not the Pairing

[lennygoran]

By Anthony Tommasini

Jan. 17, 2019

The subscription-series format long commonplace at American orchestras, with a weekly offering of standard repertory, is looking a little, well, standard.

Take the program Jaap van Zweden led with the New York Philharmonic at David Geffen Hall on Wednesday. There was no particular musical connection or thematic thread linking the two staples performed: Beethoven’s Second Piano Concerto and Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony.

Yet, on its own terms, this was an exceptional concert. The brilliant pianist Yefim Bronfman was the soloist in a pristine, elegant account of Beethoven’s youthful concerto. And for Philharmonic regulars trying to glean what special qualities Mr. van Zweden may be bringing to the orchestra in his inaugural season as its music director, the compelling performance he led of Rachmaninoff’s rhapsodic symphony revealed new dimensions of his artistry.

I get impatient with the hourlong piece, which for all its lyrical richness can seem long-winded. During whole stretches, this plushly orchestrated symphony strikes me as a Rachmaninoff piano concerto that’s missing the solo part. When the orchestra goes through endless manipulations of some theme, I find myself wanting a pianist to break in and take charge with a cascade of steely chords.

In trying to bring freshness to standard repertory works, Mr. van Zweden has a tendency to overdo things. With his insightful account of this symphony, though, he did almost the opposite. He brought out inner details, revealing the rhetoric of the piece — that is, the way phrases are written like sentences, grouped into paragraphs, even when the music seems on the surface to run on with overextended elaborations of themes.

Rachmaninoff was in his mid-30s when he wrote the Second Symphony, first performed in 1908, and still felt bruised by the hostile reaction to his First a decade earlier. The slow Largo section that opens the piece unfolded like the introduction to an essay, with themes almost presented for consideration. The orchestral sound is rich and thick, with passages played over dark, sustained bass tones. Yet the performance had remarkable lucidity and breadth, which continued as the Largo segued into the restless, expansive Allegro main section of the first movement.

Mr. van Zweden drew crisp, snappy playing from the orchestra in the exuberant, scherzo-like second movement. The intriguing way he began the slow movement made it seem like it starts in the middle of some long melodic line. His approach set up the Adagio’s true theme, a wistful, elegiac melody for solo clarinet, played gorgeously by Anthony McGill, the Philharmonic’s principal clarinet. The account of the finale captured all its headlong energy, music at once festive and frenzied.

Mr. Bronfman has made news in recent years at the Philharmonic in the premieres of daunting concertos written for him by Esa-Pekka Salonen and Magnus Lindberg. There was plenty of sparkling passagework in his playing of Beethoven’s ebullient Second Concerto. But he seemed intent on highlighting the music’s reflective passages and poetic flights, especially in his dreamy account of the slow movement.

It was a pleasure to hear such a lithe and refined account of Beethoven’s bracing concerto. Why it made sense to pair it with the Rachmaninoff symphony, though, I cannot say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/arts ... weden.html

[John F]

Tommasini's complaint in the first two paragraphs doesn't make sense to me. Why should there be a "particular musical connection or thematic thread linking the two staples performed"? If each piece is worth hearing, and the performances were excellent (as Tommasini says), that in itself is justification enough for the program.

If Tommasini had begun with his 3rd paragraph, that would have given him space to provide a piece of relevant and important information. The Rachmaninoff is often cut, perhaps usually. Tommasini's complaint that it "can seem long-winded," and that it's an hour long, suggests that van Zweden performed it without cuts, but doesn't say so.

As for the notion that the music would be better as a piano concerto, I wonder if anybody else has ever thought so - I certainly haven't. Tommasini is 71 - is he losing it? I might suggest it could be time for him to retire, if it weren't that his successor, Zachary Woolfe, is even worse.

[lennygoran]

John as someone who needs all the help he can get when it comes to classical music let me thank you-well put imho-you should take their place or if not that send tommasini and the nytimes a response-for me woolf has become pretty bad. Len

[Ricordanza]

Tommasini's oft-repeated complaint about the standard repertory is a little tiresome, but I can't fault him for his observation that Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony is a little long-winded. It's one of several pieces in the orchestral repertory that could have used some editing.

In the book publishing world, as you well know, John, a good editor can help transform a shapeless, oversize blob into a more compact, cohesive work. There are musical compositions that could have used the same treatment.

[John F]

Rachmaninoff often authorized cuts in his music even after publishing it. The 3rd concerto may be the best known example of this; Rachmaninoff's own recording is cut, and not just to fit the music onto the 78s. As for the 2nd symphony, the YouTube timings of various versions range from 66 to 47 minutes - Ormandy, whose relationship with Rachmaninoff was quite close.

If van Zweden performed the symphony uncut, which he did according to the NY Phil program notes, Tommasini might not only have criticized the music as "long-winded" but suggested that it would have improved the music to cut it. The Philharmonic has kept a list of twenty-nine cuts supposedly approved by the composer, who nonetheless made no cuts when he personally conducted it. But Tommasini doesn't raise that issue, if he was aware of it.

[lennygoran]

Here are his thoughts on the Met's pairing of Bluebeard and Iolante-I agree with him that putting them together is a bit of a strain-still he thinks as a metaphor it works. As for me the combination was atrocious-the Iolante-the first ever at the Met was superb-the Bluebeard-a work I pretty much hate to begin with was a terrible production imo and playing it last after the wonderful Iolante left a bad taste in our ears. Len

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/arts ... e-met.html

[Rach3]

I recall my parents' RCA set of 78's of the Rach 2nd Symphony with Ormandy/PO, don't recall if cuts or not , probably in the 78 era and Ormandy's practice, but the album still weighed a ton, six 78's if I recall.

Heard a memorable Rach 2 (in 1968 I believe) when Ormandy returned to lead the then Minneapolis Symphony for the first time since he left the orchestra in 1936.First half was Strauss' Don Juan and Heldenleben.In the Symphony's Adagio, some in the audience were visibly moved to tears. At the final note, about 2 secs of silence then a roar from the 4000 or so assembled in huge Northrup Auditorium, the sound wave from which roar seemed to " hit " and startle the bassists in the back row of the orchestra.On his second return to the podium, the orchestra remained seated applauding Ormandy despite his direction to them to them to rise.

[John F]

The Ormandy Victor set of the symphony took 12 sides at 78rpm, maybe 50 minutes. His Columbia LP recording runs to about 48 minutes. Complete performances run anything from 60 to 65 minutes according to YouTube, which gives an idea of how deep Ormandy's cuts were.

[maestrob]

The Ormandy Victor set of the symphony took 12 sides at 78rpm, maybe 50 minutes. His Columbia LP recording runs to about 48 minutes. Complete performances run anything from 60 to 65 minutes according to YouTube, which gives an idea of how deep Ormandy's cuts were.

Ormandy recorded Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony four times as recording technology improved. His first was in Minneapolis for RCA (1930's: I grew up on that one.), the second was issued as a mono LP on Columbia (also w/cuts), then a stereo LP (grey label), also for Columbia. When RCA wooed Ormandy back to that label, Ormandy opened all the cuts, and it is to my ears the least successful of the lot. That said, I've not heard of a modern performance with cuts, especially in the first movement. The trend now is to perform the symphony complete, and that's too bad, because it does IMHO need some editing, especially in the first movement.

[John F]

I don't know the symphony well enough to be sure, but I believe Yuri Temirkanov's performance with the Baltimore Symphony some years ago was cut, I couldn't say how much. In YouTube there are 2 Temirkanov performances, the 1977 one at 47 minutes, the 2014 at an hour. One comment says he takes a repeat in the first movement in 2014; I don't have time to check this.

[THEHORN]

In fact, there is a recent version of the Rachmaninov 2nd as a piano concerto, with a piano part added by someone whose name I can't recall off hand , and you can hear it on youtube .
It's called the Rachmaninov piano concerto number five ! I posted it on Facebook for some of mu musician friends there not too long ago and they thought it was awful - musical sacrilege .

[Belle]

Tommasini's oft-repeated complaint about the standard repertory is a little tiresome, but I can't fault him for his observation that Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony is a little long-winded. It's one of several pieces in the orchestral repertory that could have used some editing.

In the book publishing world, as you well know, John, a good editor can help transform a shapeless, oversize blob into a more compact, cohesive work. There are musical compositions that could have used the same treatment.

Don't you think Rachmaninov was developing a line of thought already adopted by Mahler and Bruckner? I enjoy Rachmaninov and his huge tone poems, Tchaikowskian excursions and melodic sketching; the other two bore me senseless. I find myself thinking, "come to the point, if you please". So, yes, symphonies ARE essays for me - with an argument/s stated, questions asked and a discernible conclusion.

[John F]

Now I think of it, the Rachmaninoff 2nd symphony rather reminds me of Sibelius's early symphonies. More volatile than Bruckner, more conventional in form than Mahler.

[Rach3]

I feel Rach's 1st Symphony is under-appreciated, mine Slatkin,St.Louis. His 3rd ( which the composer thought was great ) is more Mahlerian, thus not my cup of tea.

[Belle]

Now I think of it, the Rachmaninoff 2nd symphony rather reminds me of Sibelius's early symphonies. More volatile than Bruckner, more conventional in form than Mahler.

You make a valid comparison!!

[maestrob]

Nearly everything Rachmaninoff wrote works for me, except the First and Fourth Piano concerti, which are too Baroque for my taste and seem to go nowhere. His Symphonies are masterpieces, as are the Symphonic Dances.

Van Zweden would be, IMHO, an ideal Rachmaninoff conductor.

Rachmaninoff's solo piano works are all gems. Nothing weak about any of them, including the Piano Sonatas.

[Lance]

I have no problem with the Beethoven/Rachmaninoff pairing as presented by van Zweden. I wish I could have attended this concert. Of Rachmaninoff's three symphonies, No. 2 has received the most recordings. Dimitri Mitropoulos commercially recorded it for RCA Victor [LP LM-1068] with the Minneapolis Symphony. I also have a live performance with Mitropoulos from 1954 with the New York Philharmonic that once appeared on the now defunct AS Disc label [524]. For sure, it is a dark work but not quite as dark as the Isle of the Dead. I find it surprising that such a great orchestra as the Boston Symphony never recorded it, best to my knowledge unless it was issued on one of the BSO's own discs. [Anyone know for sure?] While Ormandy conducted it with the Philadelphia Orchestra for both RCA and Columbia, 1959 and 1973 respectively, we have the fabulous sound in this symphony with their famous strings that Rachmaninoff so loved. It would have been interesting to hear Stokowkski lead this since he did such a fabulous job with the Symphony No. 3, recorded on a Desmar LP in 1975 and subsequently reissued on EMI [CD 66759], the latter which already appears to be out-of-print.

[John F]

The only BSO conductor who might have recorded that symphony was Koussevitzky, but I can't find any info that he ever conducted it. A BSO recording would have been an expensive project, Victor had two recordings of it on the market (Ormandy and Mitropoulos), and the music wasn't that popular anyway.

[maestrob]

The only BSO conductor who might have recorded that symphony was Koussevitzky, but I can't find any info that he ever conducted it. A BSO recording would have been an expensive project, Victor had two recordings of it on the market (Ormandy and Mitropoulos), and the music wasn't that popular anyway.

Say, wait a second! If the music "wasn't that popular anyway," why was Ormandy asked to record it four times?

Sometimes, your off-the-cuff remarks astound me, John. Wow!

My alternate theory is that other conductors recognized Ormandy's close working relationship with Rachmaninoff, who concurred with Ormandy's cuts that made the music more saleable. Thus, other maestros simply "stayed away" from Ormandy's custom-made version of the score.

Rachmaninoff was very much a part of my growing up years: I loved Ormandy's Minneapolis version of the score on 78's (although I must admit that, as a toddler, I destroyed nearly half the discs in the set of 6 on RCA. (then along came LPs and I was happy again!) Oh, and what about that tear-jerker of a movie that used the Second Piano Concerto as its musical soundtrack? Rachmaninoff.....Not popular?

[John F]

If the symphony was really popular, why didn't the New York Philharmonic perform it from 1960 to 1983? Except for Henry Lewis as guest conductor in 1980. It's certainly not twice as popular as Beethoven's 5th, which Ormandy recorded only twice. Alan Gilbert is the orchestra's only music director since Mitropoulos to perform it at all.

No doubt Victor and Columbia had their reasons for making so many recordings with Ornandy, but as always, the record catalogs can give a misleading impression of the actual concert repertoire. You would think from the record catalogs that Holst's "The Planets" was one of the most popular 20th century works in the repertoire, but the Philharmonic didn't perform it complete from 1921 to 1971.

[maestrob]

If the symphony was really popular, why didn't the New York Philharmonic perform it from 1960 to 1983? Except for Henry Lewis as guest conductor in 1980. It's certainly not twice as popular as Beethoven's 5th, which Ormandy recorded only twice. Alan Gilbert is the orchestra's only music director since Mitropoulos to perform it at all.

No doubt Victor and Columbia had their reasons for making so many recordings with Ornandy, but as always, the record catalogs can give a misleading impression of the actual concert repertoire. You would think from the record catalogs that Holst's "The Planets" was one of the most popular 20th century works in the repertoire, but the Philharmonic didn't perform it complete from 1921 to 1971.

John, I think the answer to both of your examples would be that, as I stated above, Ormandy/Philadelphia really just owned the Rachmaninoff, while the same can be said for Sir Adrian Boult "owning" The Planets. I have almost all the available performances of Planets, and to this day nobody has come close to Boult's analog version for EMI. Hard to compete with that. As well, Planets takes a lot of preparation time, as it is unique and difficult music. (Ormandy did a fine job of it with Philadelphia for RCA, and Steinberg/Boston is also very good.).

[Lance]

I did little research on the Boston Symphony and Rachmaninoff Second Symphony. The only thing I could find was a Third Symphony, live 1947 with the BSO, Koussevitzky conducting, which appeared on AS Disc [CD 569] and Lys CD [382], both long OOP and glad I have them.

[John F]

John, I think the answer to both of your examples would be that, as I stated above, Ormandy/Philadelphia really just owned the Rachmaninoff, while the same can be said for Sir Adrian Boult "owning" The Planets. I have almost all the available performances of Planets, and to this day nobody has come close to Boult's analog version for EMI. Hard to compete with that. As well, Planets takes a lot of preparation time, as it is unique and difficult music. (Ormandy did a fine job of it with Philadelphia for RCA, and Steinberg/Boston is also very good.).

There are many recordings of "The Planets" by conductors who seldom, if ever, conducted it in concert - Stokowski and Karajan, for example. Why? "The Planets" was a showpiece for a top-flight "high fidelity" sound system, and I'm sure many people bought records of it who seldom if ever heard it in concert. (I'm one of them.) As I said, the market for recordings is not the same as the market for live performances, though of course they overlap.

As for Ormandy and the Rachmaninoff symphony, remember that Ormandy's first recording was in 1935 for Victor with the Minneapolis Symphony, before he went to Philadelphia. Columbia then recorded it with Ormandy and the Philadelphia on a very early LP, published in 1951, and it must have sold well enough for them to remake it in stereo in 1960. Then, when Ormandy and the Philadelphia switched to RCA Victor, they sought to trump the Columbia recording with a new version, this time uncut, published in 1975. Why Columbia and Victor played tag like that with this particular symphony is a puzzlement. Meanwhile, other major conductors such as Bernstein, Karajan, Stokowski, and Koussevitzky apparently weren't interested.

[Lance]

Very interesting to bring "The Planets" into this discussion, John Francis! I love to hear what orchestras do with this piece, the colours they bring to associate that sound with each planet. I have almost 30 recordings of the piece with myriad conductors, including two-piano arrangements of the work. Nothing, however, beats the orchestral version. And as you have stated, it is rarely performed in concert. I have never heard it live. I did a quick search on possible live performances and found four so far that have been given or will be given: Montreal Symphony/Kent Nagano (2 performances); Hamilton, Ontario S/?; Seattle Symphony/Jonathan Heyward. The only major orchestra in that group is the Montreal. Personally, I think concert-goers would very much enjoy hearing this work live. But you're right: it IS a grand work to hear on good playback systems.

John, I think the answer to both of your examples would be that, as I stated above, Ormandy/Philadelphia really just owned the Rachmaninoff, while the same can be said for Sir Adrian Boult "owning" The Planets. I have almost all the available performances of Planets, and to this day nobody has come close to Boult's analog version for EMI. Hard to compete with that. As well, Planets takes a lot of preparation time, as it is unique and difficult music. (Ormandy did a fine job of it with Philadelphia for RCA, and Steinberg/Boston is also very good.).

There are many recordings of "The Planets" by conductors who seldom, if ever, conducted it in concert - Stokowski and Karajan, for example. Why? "The Planets" was a showpiece for a top-flight "high fidelity" sound system, and I'm sure many people bought records of it who seldom if ever heard it in concert. (I'm one of them.) As I said, the market for recordings is not the same as the market for live performances, though of course they overlap.

As for Ormandy and the Rachmaninoff symphony, remember that Ormandy's first recording was in 1935 for Victor with the Minneapolis Symphony, before he went to Philadelphia. Columbia then recorded it with Ormandy and the Philadelphia on a very early LP, published in 1951, and it must have sold well enough for them to remake it in stereo in 1960. Then, when Ormandy and the Philadelphia switched to RCA Victor, they sought to trump the Columbia recording with a new version, this time uncut, published in 1975. Why Columbia and Victor played tag like that with this particular symphony is a puzzlement. Meanwhile, other major conductors such as Bernstein, Karajan, Stokowski, and Koussevitzky apparently weren't interested.