Unsung Composers

I found it here:
http://classique.abeillemusique.com/SACD-Hybride/Classique/CHSA5135/0095115513521/Chandos-Records/Joachim-Raff/Oeuvres-orchestrales-Volume-2/cleart-79870.html
(http://classique.abeillemusique.com/SACD-Hybride/Classique/CHSA5135/0095115513521/Chandos-Records/Joachim-Raff/Oeuvres-orchestrales-Volume-2/cleart-79870.html)

Thanks. Looks like a March release - contents as follows:

Symphony No.5, Op.177 Lenore
Overtures:  Dame Kobold; König Alfred; Die Eifersüchtigen
Prelude to Dornröschen
Abends: Rhapsodie, Op.163b
Suisse Romande Orchestra
Neeme Järvi

Fingers crossed for another eye-opener. Thanks, Jasthill.

Here it is in all its glory at MDT:
http://www.mdt.co.uk/raff-orchestral-works-vol-2-neeme-jarvi-chandos-records-sacd.html (http://www.mdt.co.uk/raff-orchestral-works-vol-2-neeme-jarvi-chandos-records-sacd.html)

It's certainly a well-filled CD. I hope that doesn't mean there are any cuts - or rushed tempi.

Lenore, I understand, is going to be pretty swift. I think that'll work in the first, third and fourth movements, but I'm nervous about the slow movement, I have to say. Still, Järvi was convincing in the swiftly-taken slow movement of No.2, so...

Anyway, it's on order!

I felt Jarvi's recording of Symphony no. 2 and the Four Shakespeare Preludes was very convincing-Jarvi's conducting style fits the vim and vigor of Raff's music like a glove. It has been his overall failure to wallow (in a good way) in the lush romanticism of composers like Atterberg that has concerned me most. So, my hopes remain high for this upcoming recording!

It's already available for download via Chandos/TheClassicalShop for those who can't wait for the CD!  ::)

Where? I can't see it.

It's here:
http://www.theclassicalshop.net/Details.aspx?CatalogueNumber=CHAN%205135 (http://www.theclassicalshop.net/Details.aspx?CatalogueNumber=CHAN%205135)

Here are some comparative timings:

Herrmann (p.1970)         Stadlmair (p.1999)              Järvi (p.2014)

1.   15:01                              12:40                                 10:29
2.   14:00                              11:53                                   8:04 
3.   12:34                              11:15                                   9:13
4.   14:48                              13:52                                 11:53
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      56:23                              49:40                                 39:39

In listening to the Järvi, I'm reminded of Chailly's recent Beethoven Symphonies cycle. My reaction to both is "that shouldn't work" - but it does, once you accustom yourself to the overall concept. However, the 'Thielemann' inside me wants to wallow a bit more in the lyrical episodes, so, while genuinely appreciating Järvi's thorough spring-clean, I do think there's room for something a little more yielding.

Even more interesting is that Stadlmair, who was once deemed speedy, now seems merely 'moderate', with all the other recorded performances equating, perhaps, to a Giulini-type approach

Alan, I so agree with you on this one. This speed seems risky in theory but Järvi pulls it off like Chailly's Beethoven Symphonies and Hough's Tchaikovsky Concerto No. 1 on RPC 50. I am so getting this one. Thank you Järvi for a fresh approach to a forgotten giant!

Another comparison with the way Järvi approaches Raff would be the great pre-war recordings of Brahms' symphonies conducted by Felix Weingartner (now available in much improved sound on Pristine Classical).

Having listened to the soundbites on the Chandos Classical Shop I must admit that the only movement which struck me as too fast was the opening of the 1st - this  did seem rushed to my ears.  All the others seemed to work very well, even (or actually especially) the second. I need to hear the whole work, however, before making a judgement.

I have yet to hear even the sound bites and, frustratingly, will probably not be able to hear anything of this new release for another two weeks, but some time ago I talked about it with Avrohom Leichtling, who once again wrote the booklet notes for it. He had heard the complete recording and confirms that, in his opinion, it is as revelatory and "correct" as was Järvi's Second Symphony. I can't wait to hear it, but unfortunately I'm going to have to!

Avrohom is a great authority. I will try to listen to it - when I get it - with his ears. I guess we've all been brought up on the Herrmann and that is bound to colour, to some extent, our aural view of later interpretations.

It works as a whole, though, Gareth. But it's a seat-of-the-pants performance. This is Raff red in tooth and claw, and it's not very often you hear his music played as though the players' lives depended on it.
I do understand about the first movement, though: I'm sure there's room for another, more yielding view.

Well, how nice it is that we are in a position to compare a number of different interpretations on disk - a situation we little thought, back in the 1960s and '70s, would ever obtain.

Absolutely right.

Name any other work by any composer with so many different recordings that is completely absent from live concerts and ignored by mainstream orchestras and conductors. Frustrating, isn't it? Raff & Lenore deserve better!

I too have just listened to the sound bites and echo what Gareth has said regarding the tempo of the first movement. I too feel that it is very, very rushed. I also feel that the 3rd movement also seems a little rushed - it's now quite a quick march indeed! It's difficult though to make an overall judgement of Järvi's interpretation without hearing the work in its entirety. For me personally, I have become very used to and very fond of the slower tempos in Stadlmair's version and I think I will have to listen a number of times to this latest version, trying at the same time to "forget" that I am used to hearing this music played at slower (much slower!)speeds. I have to say though that's it's great to have another interpretation on the market as it gives the listener free rein to choose the interpretation which is the most satisfying personally. I guess I'm saying that Järvi's interpretation needs to be approached with an open mind and has to be judged on its own merits.

I think that's an understandable reaction, Dennis. All I can say is that one quickly gets used to the tempi and that the reward is a work that suddenly seems much less 'comfortable' and much, much more exciting - perhaps especially in the finale.

Just one further thought: Dennis is onto something, I think - in that our problem is the tradition of Raff interpretation that has grown up in the past 30-40 years and which has tended to view him from a late nineteenth-century perspective, meaning in particular tempo choices that may work in Brahms but not in the leaner, more athletic music of Raff.

What I'd now like to hear is a conductor such as Chailly take up Raff and give the music just a little more time to breath. But not too much!!

Bottom line, though: this is great music given its head by Järvi. A knockout performance!

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Alan. In broad terms performance tradition in the first three quarters of the 19th century probably favoured faster tempi than we were used to until the likes of Roger Norrington came along and showed us how exciting Beethoven could sound if one followed something like the composer's metronome markings. (How dull and sluggish Klemperer's approach to the Beethoven symphonies seems now!)
I hope Jarvi will record Raff's No. 3 - all the signs are that that might be a spine-tingling performance.

The reason I suggested Chailly rather than Norrington is that the latter seems to me to spoil the freshness of his approach to tempi by his absurd insistence on legato-destroying vibrato-less string playing. Chailly, on the other hand, has learned the lessons of HIP and applied them sensibly to the romantic repertoire. As for Klemperer - I agree, there's no going back; however, modern-day conductors could learn a thing or two from him about springing rhythms that make even slow tempi sound athletic. As evidence I would propose Klemperer's Beethoven 4 from the late 1950s (EMI/Philhamonia).

How I would love to have heard Abbado conduct Raff, but alas that was never to be...

BTW In Beethoven, conductors such as Scherchen and Leibowitz got there long before Norrington, as did Weingartner in Brahms. And Karajan didn't exactly hang around either, although his preference for saturated and blended textures was a major difference. In Raff, though, Järvi is the first to re-think the music along HIP lines, much to the music's advantage. I have never sat through Lenore and felt that the whole thing hangs together as it does under the great Estonian.

Alan, ... How on God's Green Earth do you go into MY head, read my thoughts and write them down  ;D ;D ;D 

I agree, Alan, about Klemperer's "springing rhythms", but as he got older he got slower and slower and his last Beethoven recordings are for me almost unlistenable to.
Like you, I wish Abbado had given us some Raff - that would surely have been inspiring. Let us hope that Chailly will, however.
I note that I have forgotten that Toscanini didn't hang about either, nor Beecham. Perhaps the taste for more leisurely tempi emerged in the 20th century, rather than the late 19th. Certainly Josef Holbrooke wanted conductors to "get a move on" with his music.

You're right about very late Klemperer - his Beethoven from the late fifties/early sixties is already pretty stately, but the really late stuff (e.g. his final Beethoven 7) is virtually unlistenable, so slow is it. I too forgot to mention Toscanini.
I'd say the slowcoaches were a phenomenon of the mid-to-late 20th century and, of course, many conductors who worked well into old age tended to get slower anyway (e.g. Walter, Klemperer, Giulini, Celibidache). I wonder whether a case could be made for the notion that, because conductors have lived longer in the modern era, tempi have become slower? Of course, there are always exceptions - Toscanini, for example. 

I know I am way off the Raff/Järvi topic but since we seem to have temporarily diverged to "slow and fast conductors of music ;)",  Sir Charles Mackerras' version of Beethoven [from the Edinburgh festival] is pretty energy packed ... tempo wise as well as interpretation. 

Mackerras adopted a modified form of HIP in his later years, rather as Abbado did. But neither did anything as remotely silly in mid-to-late romantic music as Norrington has. Mackerras would have made a fine Raff conductor.

It may be that Jarvi has it right.  Here is a comparison between Raff's metronome markings and the initial tempos adopted by three different conductors:

          Raff     Herrmann     Schneider     Stadlmair

I.        168          128              140              152

II.         86            64               72                72

III.      160          120              124              124

IV.       162          124              136              152


Jarvi remains to be seen, but he probably has adopted the written tempos, which on the face of it seem ridiculously fast.  But look how well the Second Symphony worked!  I am reminded of being in New York to hear John Eliot Gardner conduct Beethoven's Ninth (well, I really was there to hear Christiane Oelze sing the soprano part -- that was before she cut her hair) and being amazed by the revelatory experience of hearing the Ninth in 59 minutes.  Suddenly the routine of hearing the Ninth as a kind of proto-Bruckner or paleo-Mahler was gone, replaced by a work that had its roots firmly in the early 19th century.  It was a best-of-both worlds solution: original tempos with modern instruments...and vibrato!

Speaking of which, there are several passages in Lenore where the strings are directed to play vibrato.  Not more vibrato, just vibrato.  If Raff asked that these passage be played vibrato, what was his expectation for the rest?

So much for theory.  How will it sound?

I'm a little bit behind the curve on this, but have now managed to download the mp3s of Järvi's Lenore. The overtures will have to wait until I get home.

Before turning to Järvi's performance, maybe it would be best to remind ourselves that this is one of Raff's two genuine programatic symphonies in the tradition of Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, as distinct from the seven which would better be described as "illustrative", after the fashion of Beethoven's Pastoral. The programme is based on a true gothic horror classic, a spine-chilling, blasphemous nightmare. Listening to Järvi's interpretation, it seems to me that for the first time we are hearing the whole of Raff's Lenore as a true reflection of Bürger's original ballad: not just the finale (with its bar-by-bar retelling of the poem's own climax), but the whole work is suffused with the nightmare tale.

I'm away from home at present, so I can't check whether Järvi's tempi match Raff's metronome markings, but I don't think they'll be far out and so I guess that what we are hearing is nearer Raff's intention than anything else we've heard before. I was certainly taken aback initially by the pace at the very start of the work, and I do think that it would benefit from a broader approach in the first few bars, but the Allegro first movement as a whole, although much faster than we are used to, doesn't seem too fast at all if one bears in mind the nightmare nature of the whole piece. This isn't love's young dream, it's a tale of horror. Järvi offers plenty of tempi variation and dynamic variety within the overall quick pace and those sudden frenzied leaps and bounds all add to the fevered atmosphere.

As the Second Symphony's slow movement did, the lovely Andante really benefits from Järvi having the guts to conduct as Raff wrote it. The absence of wallowing allows the movement to act as calm before the storm resumes, but without slowing down the pace of the drama. The speed at which the Marsch is taken returns us to the poem's manic atmosphere, and blurs the edges of its four-square themes, so that it almost resembles a scherzo more typical of Raff. At first hearing, I was disappointed that the trio wasn't more contrasted with the surrounding march, because I think that Järvi misses the pathos which other interpreters have found there, but overall his approach to this movement, which makes its palindromic scheme seem much less contrived, is a revelation.

Unlike most of Raff's other symphonies, the finale of the Fifth is the climax of the work, and it's also arguably the most successful movement in most of the recordings. Here I think there is less to separate Järvi from his competitors but, because of what has gone before, the tension is screwed a notch higher in his interpretation, the action just that bit more frenzied, the denouement a shade more dramatic. It's all hugely exciting. My only quibble (but a major one) is that the closing chorale, in which Raff hints at Lenore's salvation, is distressingly perfunctory.

Although the OSR rise to the occasion heroically it's still definitely a white knuckle ride, but a tremendously rewarding one, despite the odd misgiving which I've mentioned. I'm convinced that this new recording brings us much nearer to Raff's intention than we have been before.

As an aside, I should mention that I was listening to Stadlmair's recording of the Sixth yesterday. Now, that work's a lot better than its contemporary reputation would have one believe, but listening to Järvi's Fifth today brought home to me why audiences and critics were so disappointed when the Sixth appeared.

Quote from: john_christopher on Sunday 02 February 2014, 03:02

Jarvi remains to be seen, but he probably has adopted the written tempos, which on the face of it seem ridiculously fast.  But look how well the Second Symphony worked!  I am reminded of being in New York to hear John Eliot Gardner conduct Beethoven's Ninth (well, I really was there to hear Christiane Oelze sing the soprano part -- that was before she cut her hair) and being amazed by the revelatory experience of hearing the Ninth in 59 minutes.  Suddenly the routine of hearing the Ninth as a kind of proto-Bruckner or paleo-Mahler was gone, replaced by a work that had its roots firmly in the early 19th century.  It was a best-of-both worlds solution: original tempos with modern instruments...and vibrato!

I'm reminded of a lecture from The Teaching Company where there was an aural comparison of two unnamed conductors' (pretty sure it was Karajan and Gardiner, but that's just a guess) recordings of the beginning of Beethoven's 3rd. Of course the point was the same, that mid 20th century tempos were ridiculously slow and it wasn't until the whole HIP movement that brought things back into perspective on how they really should be.

...and Karajan's Beethoven 3 is actually pretty swift.
As I said before, the HIP movement has done a great job in re-focusing attention on marked tempi, etc.; however, we shouldn't run away with the idea that everything pre-HIP was anachronistically slow. As I said before, the influence of a certain group of conductors whose old age coincided with the advent of more advanced recording technology (stereo, then digital) has much to do with the skewing of the overall picture. Now, of course, most of these 'greats' are dead, and so the field is open to others...

Here's the front cover:

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/C/H/CHSA5135.jpg)

Another one to look forward to.
Tom

Well listening to the samples....huh that third movement just sounds wierd going so fast. Does it really follow the tempo marking? Otherwise, it sounds very top notch as a whole.

The performance has to be heard as a whole, without preconceptions. Then it makes perfect sense. I'm 100% convinced.

Shedding those aural preconceptions can be fairly difficult, especially with lesser known composers.  When someone says they cut their teeth on a particular Gunter Wand recording of a Beethoven symphony, it is hard to imagine they weren't exposed to other recordings via radio, TV, etc.  When I walked into a CD Superstore in 1989 and saw the Bamert "Lenore" on Koch, I'd never heard of Raff, much less heard his music.  Lucky I was eager to try something new that day and liked the painting detail on the front!  For a couple of years, that CD had the Raff section in my rack to itself.  As I eventually collected Schneider, Hermann, Butt, Carthy & Stadlmair, I could discern pros & cons of all 6 recordings as far as sound, playing & recording were concerned.  My gut and my ear, however, always convinced me that the tempi & phrasing on the Bamert were correct.  Now, thanks to reading up on the matter (God bless you Raff Society website!), I am, intellectually, at least, prepared to admit that any recording that can play to Raff's metronome marks with the required skill & precision might just be what I want.  The 6 CD recordings we have, to my mind, at least, are all wanting in one aspect or another.  If this is to be the 5 star recording I've hoped for for years, I think I'd just as soon it was played the way it was written.  Now, if my mind can only convince my gut & ear of that!

By the way, does anyone know the painter or title of the painting on the cover of the Bamert CD?  I've been hoping to see the whole thing for for years, too?

QuoteBy the way, does anyone know the painter or title of the painting on the cover of the Bamert CD?  I've been hoping to see the whole thing for for years, too?

The painting is Caspar David Friedrich's "Abtei im Eichwald" (1809/10).

My copy of the Bamert has a painting of a young woman...

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHi_03_tG8jEmAUY9BVHZ8iPPe92AkEMIQF2Bf_toFI5mJqTaf)

...whereas this is the Fredrich painting:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Caspar_David_Friedrich_002.jpg/300px-Caspar_David_Friedrich_002.jpg)

Mention of the Bamert recording caused me to go back and listen to the first movement in that recording. I came to the conclusion that it isn't just about tempi, because Bamert isn't just slow, he's soggy too, i.e. there is little sense of Raffian dynamism and rhythmic profile. From being initially extremely apprehensive about whether I could live with Järvi's approach, I now feel that his performance best captures the work's nervous intensity throughout. And, rather than the piece being some 50 mins plus monster, it actually falls much more closely into line with the other great symphonies that preceded it, i.e. nos 2, 3 and 4.

I just hope that Järvi will give us 3 and 4. Let's hope he lives long enough...

I imagine that maestro Järvi would agree with you, Alan!

The Bamert recording would probably come off a lot better if it weren't for the muffled, echoey sound.  Anyway, it was, indeed, issued twice, with different covers.

What I find to be a shame is that this will be the 7th CD, and nobody has thought to use one of the paintings that actually depict Burger's poem.  You can see "The Ballad of Lenore, or 'The Dead go Fast'" by Horace Vernet on the cover of an Alkan CD (Hyperion CDA67218) or another, inferior, painting also depicting Lenore's ride on a Sterling CD of Klughardt's symphonic poem, "Lenore."  I imagine there are similar paintings I'm unaware of.

If Neeme Jarvi doesn't make it through 3 & 4 (8-11 would be nice , too!), maybe Chandos will get Bamert or Andrew Davis to take up the project, assuming sales are good enough to warrant it.

Well, not Bamert - at least not on the evidence of his soggy recording. OK, the recording is pretty misty, but the way he 'sits down' on the rhythms is what kills it. I'd go for Noseda.

QuoteWhat I find to be a shame is that this will be the 7th CD, and nobody has thought to use one of the paintings that actually depict Burger's poem.  You can see "The Ballad of Lenore, or 'The Dead go Fast'" by Horace Vernet on the cover of an Alkan CD (Hyperion CDA67218) or another, inferior, painting also depicting Lenore's ride on a Sterling CD of Klughardt's symphonic poem, "Lenore."  I imagine there are similar paintings I'm unaware of.

I seem to recall that the cover of the Nonesuch re-release of the Unicorn premiere performance with Bernard Hermann had a picture on the cover that seemed to be pretty much the final mad ride, although the rider in the picture was more like a centaur.

I've now downloaded the other five tracks in this release: three opera overtures, the Prelude to  Dornröschen (Sleeping Beauty) and the Abends-Rhapsodie. The two latter, essentially slow, pieces are glowingly played by the Swiss Romande orchestra, and Järvi (and Chandos' sound engineering) brings out much more detail in their orchestration than either Kluttig (Dornröschen) or Stadlmair did. He also shaves off getting on for a quarter of the duration of each piece, without either ever sounding rushed or inappropriately fast. The Lisztian central climax of the Dornröschen Prelude in particular is a gorgeous moment under Järvi's baton.

Järvi's overall timings for the overtures to the comic operas Dame Kobold and Die Eifersüchtigen pretty much match those of Stadlmair and Kluttig respectively, but in each case he slows the introduction and seems to me to be just that bit faster in the succeeding Allegro, to tremendous effect. The articulation and rhythmic vivacity of the orchestra in these mainly fast pieces makes for joyous listening - these are by far the best performances we have of these very attractive works. The big King Alfred Overture is a much more varied and dramatic piece, built from a solemn chorale, a perky march and battle music. Järvi is much better than Kluttig in moulding these episodic elements into a convincing whole, transforming what appeared from the Sterling issue to be an impressive, but arguably ramshackle, construction into a much tauter and dramatically convincing one. Needless to say, in the process he cuts the timing from almost 15 minutes to under 14.

In short, as with vol.1, the smaller pieces in this second release from Chandos receive just as mould-breaking performances as does the Symphony which they accompany. All the more pity that vol.3 won't be recorded until October next year, and so we'll have to wait until 2016 for more revelatory Raff.

Here's a final tempo chart, based on listening to my copy of the Jarvi:


            Raff     Herrmann     Schneider     Stadlmair          Jarvi

I.         168          128              140              152                176

II.         86            64                72                72                 100

III.       160          120              124              124                160

IV.       162          124              136              152                160


Now, let's look at the same chart as a percentage of Raff's specified tempos:


            Raff          Herrmann     Schneider      Stadlmair             Jarvi

I.         100%           76%              83%              90%                105%

II.        100%           74%              84%              84%                116%

III.       100%           75%              78%              78%                100%

IV.        100%           77%              84%              94%                 99%


As can be seen, he is closer to the mark in every movement except the 2nd, where he is just as fast (+16%) as Scheider and Stadlmair are slow (-16%).  I wish I could say this performance was as much a revelation as the 2nd Symphony.  Instead, it just more accurately reflects what Raff wanted you to hear -- would that he did not. 

That is truly fascinating - and very revealing. Thank you for doing all that spade-work.

Yes indeed, very many thanks.

I have now listened to this new Jarvi version of Op177 several times over the past week but I still cannot "get it"  - so to speak! I have also carefully read all the opinions etc of all those concerned, many of whom are far more learned in al matters Raff than myself, but I still feel that the tempi being observed are for the most part excessive, even if perhaps closer to Raff's intention than others. As to an ideal version, I do appreciate that all Jarvi's predecessors have varying "weaknesses" in different places throughout the work, but I still personally find myself returning to either Bamert or Hermann.

In spite of this, the rest of this interesting new release is, IMHO much better!

Martin: the problem, I think, is what one has been used to in this work. It is as if one has grown up with Klemperer in the Eroica, with the result that Chailly (for example) sounds quite wrong...

I have listened quite a few times now to Järvi's new recording and, having at first applauded it as a breath of fresh air, I am afraid that I have gradually become less convinced by it as the definitive reading of Lenore. Or at least, by parts of it. There's no denying, as John's very helpful chart clearly illustrates, that overall he gets nearer than anyone else to Raff's indicated tempi. The major exception is the slow movement, but despite the fact that he takes it 16% faster than Raff indicated, it doesn't seem to be too fast; the music can take it. It doesn't sound rushed, the phrasing doesn't lose definition, the contrast with the movements either side is maintained and, if anything, its descriptive role in the work as "love music" is enhanced. The march is certainly very fast, but it's bang on Raff's tempo, and this shifts the movement towards the recognisable territory of a more traditional Raff scherzo. It's an interesting phenomenon, this newly revealed march/scherzo, and one which I think works, particularly as the speed somehow offsets the rather literal palindromic design. Järvi is again almost on the nail in the finale, and this is a hugely successful and exciting reading. Personally, I would prefer that he slowed the final chorale a la Hermann, but I have to accept that that's not what Raff wrote.

My main misgiving about Järvi's interpretation, therefore, is the first movement. Now, this is only 5% faster than the metronome marking, and I am quite happy with the 16% relative speed up in the slow movement, but that felt right and this does not. I'd like to be more scientific about it, but I can't. In places even such a fine orchestra as L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande only just about manage to keep up, and the phrasing of strings and woodwind sometimes suffers in the process. I just can't believe that such a practised and practical composer as Raff would have written a movement which was so difficult for such a good orchestra to play well. I can't think of any similar examples in his orchestral writing. To my mind, Järvi is just too much of a speed merchant here and Stadlmair, himself substantially faster than Herrmann, manages to combine clarity and expansiveness with that all-important characteristic of a Raff first movement: propulsive momentum.

So overall, much as I want to, I can't regard Järvi's as the definitive Lenore, a status which I gladly accord to his reading of the Second Symphony.  One has to accept that he comes closest, at least in terms of tempi, to the literal score of Lenore and in that sense at least it is a perfectly valid interpretation, but for me Stadmair gets closest to the spirit of the opening movement and, for all his relative slowness in the other movements, his is just as valid a view of the work. I'm afraid though that, although after 40 years I do still love Herrmann's reading, we have to accept that it's a long way from what Raff would have expected.

Sonically, of course, Järvi is in a class of his own, and Raff's skills as an orchestrator have never had a better showcase. I should also put in a brief word for the very generous fillers which share his CD: three substantial opera overtures, the lovely Abends-Rhapsodie and equally gorgeous Dornröschen Prelude. All of them, in my book, ideal interpretations which blow out of the water those which we already have.

Mark is pretty well spot-on, The difference for me is that I haven't lived with a particular conception of the work - for example, I first encountered Herrmann relatively recently. The one real problem, therefore, for me, is the rushed articulation of the SRO's woodwind in the opening measures, where Järvi seems to be trying to push the music too hard - or not quite conveying his intentions to the orchestra. However, once past some slight awkwardness here, Järvi in my view completely trumps Stadlmair's much more staid approach, making the whole first movement burst into the sort of life I'm sure Raff intended. So, while not being 100% definitive, it's by some way the most convincing account we have. Of course, another new recording would always be welcome...

I've listened to it three times now.  I wish it were the same revelation as Jarvi's treatment of the 2nd Symphony, but for me it is not.  This has nothing to do with Herrmann.  I've heard many works first in the hands of one interpreter only to hear them better in the hands of others, Jarvi's 2nd being just one example.  But there's more to a great performance than correct observance of metronome markings.  Herrmann may be slow, but how beautifully he shapes everything!

I have remarked on the revelation of hearing Beethoven's 9th a tempo, but I now recall when I heard his 7th the same way, I was dismayed.  So it is with this Lenore.  The tempos may be what Raff wanted, but the results are very disagreeable.  It's a pity, too, because the sound is so lovely. 

It's no wonder Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Wagner had little use for the metronome.

Incidentally, I have a complete (live broadcast) recording of Raff's opera "Benedetto Marcello"...

All these issues with interpretations are, I believe because of our individual "... does'nt feel right to me..." ideas. One must agree that a composer has the final say in his/her piece whether we agree or not. However musguided [we might feel] the composers directions, let's not forget that the he/she has spend mindnumbing hours slaving over the piece and so has complete freedom to do whatever he/she feels with it [yes incase of Sibelius burn the manuscript ?? :D] even set a tempo we might not agree. That being said I do feel that the first couple of bars of Lenore do feel rushed but when he jumps into the body of the work Järvi more than makes up for it! Kudos to Järvi for finally giving this piece a worthy modern recording. 

   

One point which I forget to include in my over long exposition last night: my comments were made from a purely musical standpoint, but we shouldn't forget that Lenore is a programme symphony. Bürger's ballade Lenore is a gothic horror story, filled with blasphemy, death and ghoulish apparitions, and one great plus of Järvi's interpretation is that he drops you straight into that fevered, frantic atmosphere - you're not in the real world from the very start. He establishes that atmosphere and, because the pace never slackens, it just intensifies until one reaches the catastrophe of the final movement. I know of no other performance which has this appropriately nightmarish quality.

That's absolutely right, Mark.

Once again, I have noted the contents of the most recent posts here, and again, accept many of the points being made. The only concession (in my personal opinion) would be that, progressing through the 4 movements, the issue of excessive tempi becomes slightly less of an issue! I still feel that the worst excesses of the opening movement could raise a question of musicality, and at the same time do seem to test the orchestra to the absolute limit! The second movement also loses much without the spaciousness of a mor relaxed approach. Although still with reservations about the third, my sense of disappointment has somewhat lessened by the conclusion!

I would also echo other sentiments raised here concerning Jarvi's 2nd - no problems here at all!

I suspect, Martin, that this is just a reading which will always divide opinion. I'm not as 100% a convert as Alan obviously is, but I'm more favourably disposed towards it than are you or John. How lucky we are now to have no fewer that seven different recordings about which to debate: Herrmann, Bamert, Butt, Carthy, Stadlmair, Schneider, and now Järvi. Who'd have thought it forty years ago?

I too have been following all the posts on this thread with close attention. As per my earlier post, I was very much taken aback by Järvi's fast tempi, especially in the opening movement. Following the succeeding posts and bearing in mind the programmatic content of the symphony, together with Raff's metronome indications, I endeavoured to (really) like the new interpretation of the piece. I kept telling myself that this is what the composer wanted. In spite of this, I still did "not get it"! The first movement continued to sound excessively rushed and thereby diminished my listening enjoyment! I did not however post my reservations regarding the Järvi tempi as I felt it "must be me"!!! Now, the latest posts have made me feel less foolish in not liking Järvi's interpretation and indeed, have confirmed to me that I was not incorrect in feeling the way I did. In spite of Järvi's faithfulness to Raff's metronome markings, I cannot believe that Raff would have wanted his symphony to sound "uncomfortably" rushed and thereby impacting on the listening pleasure! I do however, applaud Järvi for setting out to do what he did, interpretation wise, as we are far richer for the listening experience.

I received my copy on Saturday and have to agree with those who find the first movement too fast, especially the very beginning.  I find the second movement too fast, also.  Had those movements been as close to the metronome timings as the 3rd and 4th, I think it would have made a big difference. 

Half a minute off the first might only have helped a little, but surely 10 minutes flat would have been preferable to the 8.04 accorded the slow movement.  It is still very beautiful, but now lacks that time-standing-still-for-love dreaminess.  Mind you, I intend to listen to it a lot and see if my brain & ear can adjust, but I won't be giving away my Stadlmair or Bamert anytime soon.  Maybe the Chandos issue will draw the attention of BIS to Lenore!

Hi there
A couple of years ago, I visited Tchaikovsky's house in Klin. There I could experiment with his travel metronome,which was but a kind of a tailor's band with marks, according to the tempi. Well, holding with one hand the band at those marks you had then to take the end of the tape with the other hand, on which a stone weight was fixed. From an angle of 90 degrees you had to loose the stone end and see the band swing.
I think discussing about tempi/lenghts and comparing them meticulously in the case of Raff's Symphonies is quite silly. One should rather compare the organics, the interpretation, the balance, the changes of tempi within one same movement - without measuring them with a modern metronome. Last but not least compare the artistic feeling and the respect towards the music's style. Very slow tempi can be wonderfully plyed by great conductors, if they know how to make them interesting.
I once discovered a man in a Zurich Tonhalle concert with an electronic metronome in his hand, that must have been a critic or some other strange man. I approached him during the break, asking him why he would do such a thing and (revealing himself a critic!) he said, that he was on the way of writing a study on Mozart's last Symphonies! I replied "good luck, you poor devil" and mentally sent him to the devil.

I have the advantage of never hearing the previous versions before so this was a real treat for me. I thought it was wonderful and while I can't comment on Herrmann I can't imagine the first movement being over 5 minutes longer. I like the Super Audio recording also as they add a little extra to the listening experience.
Tom

That's valuable testimony, Tom. There's no doubt that living with one way of interpreting a piece for 40-odd years will inevitably tend to make one feel that that's the way it should sound.

It is so true Mark. Do our archives contain a Herrmann recording of the Raff? At some point I would like to hear it.
Tom

No, Tom, there's no Lenore in our archives I'm afraid.

I could make a MP3 or WAVE file of the Herrmann Lenore recording (which I like very much) and send it to an appropriate address via wetransfer.com, but only starting next tuesday, since I am still in Moscow :-)

Following this thread has been really stimulating and thought-provoking. Since my last post, I have listened two more times to Järvi's Lenore and still feel as before that I still don't get it, in spite of really wanting to – the first movement being the main stumbling block! UC has taught me to not merely make a statement but give reasons why; not always easy to put into words. In trying to understand why I don't get it, I took a look again at Raff's notes on each movement's programme. I would just like to very briefly refer to his notes regarding movements one and four only. Raff describes the first movement as depicting "the longing for and striving after happiness in love", the fourth "as containing the catastrophe.... Lenore gives herself up to despair .... Rushes into the arms of her lover --- the ride to the churchyard begins", leading to Lenore's death and the conclusion of the movement points to "peace and redemption". For me, the first movement still sounds uncomfortably fast, I would go so far as to say that there is a frantic, frenzied element to the music that I find unsettling, particularly as the listener is thrown into this sound world without any preamble, we go from nothing to all out frenzy. This seems to me to not really fit with Raff's description of the first movement. On the other hand, the faster tempo in the fourth movement lends itself far better to the idea of frenzied, frantic music that the storyline calls for. I guess I am trying to say that I could make a case for justifying the faster tempo of movement number four but not for Järvi's  super-fast movement number 1!

I would also like to make a comment on what we, as listeners, are used to hearing when listening to Raff's Symphony no 5. It has already been stated in this thread that we have been conditioned to hearing Lenore played with much slower tempi that those indicated by Raff's metronome markings. It thereby follows from this statement that that is the way we feel the music should sound. On the other hand, because Järvi has followed almost religiously Raff's metronome markings (more faithfully that any other conductor  - but let's not forget that Järvi has opted for a fractionally faster tempo vis-à-vis Raff's metronome indication in movement no 1!! ) , we should now believe that this is the way the music should sound as per the composer's wishes. For me, this remains a bit of a dilemma. Which sound world has the most validity? Ultimately, the decision rests with the listener, who has to decide which version is the most emotionally satisfying. I prefer Stadlmair's version obviously (even at the risk of this not being what Raff intended?) but others may prefer Järvi's. I am not saying that Järvi's version is bad, nor am I saying it doesn't work – it just doesn't work for me as well as Stadlmair's for example!

I would like to finish this post (sorry for it being so long!) by asking a question. Is there a historical basis why all previous conductors (pre  Järvi) opted for much slower tempi in this symphony, in spite of Raff's metronome markings? I will just add that I again commend Järvi for being true to Raff and although Järvi's version will not be my favourite version, I will return to it every so often for a change of pace –  as Mark has said, it's wonderful to now have seven versions of Lenore for our delectation!

QuoteIs there a historical basis why all previous conductors (pre  Järvi) opted for much slower tempi in this symphony, in spite of Raff's metronome markings?

An interesting question, Dennis. Apart from Raff's metronome markings, the only evidence which we have for the duration of the Symphony in 19th century performances is in Theodor Müller-Reuter's Lexikon der Deutschen Konzertliteratur, which gives indicative performance timings of many then current major works, including those by Raff. The Lexikon gives these startling timings (I've added a comparison with Järvi):

Müller-Reuter:
I.  8 mins  II. 9 mins  III. 7 mins   IV. 10 mins   Total: 35 mins

Järvi:
I.  10:33   II. 8:08     III. 9:17      IV. 11:55      Total: 39:54

Now, Müller-Reuter knew Raff well (he was his pupil) and respected him. He could well have heard Raff conduct the Symphony, which Raff did on several occasions, and presumably he observed at least the spirit of his own tempi indications. I must admit that I find it very hard to believe that those timings are accurate for an uncut performance of the work, but Reuter is at pains in his introduction to the Lexikon to make it clear that his performance timings are the average of many observations of full performances, and Lenore is by no means the only Raff symphony to have very fast timings - Reuter reckons that the Seventh (over 50 mins in modern performances) would be over in 33 mins! On the other hand, several of the shorter symphonies have indicative durations which are very similar to modern performances. So, make of Reuter what you will. 

Because the Symphony was played so infrequently during the 20th century, I doubt whether Herrmann had ever heard it played before he took it up. Toscanini had performed Im Walde in the USA, but not Lenore, I believe. So the recent performance tradition, such as it is, was created by him in his 1970 LP recording. But, he had conducted it at least once before, in 1949, for a live broadcast on CBS radio in the USA. Once again, it's interesting to compare his timings:

1949:
I. 12:20    II. 10:45    III. 11:04    IV. 14:41    Total: 48:50

1970:
I. 15:02    II. 14:03    III. 12:36    IV. 14:46    Total: 56:27

Interesting, isn't it? Apart from the finale, his view of the Symphony became substantially more expansive in the intervening years, and his earlier view of it was much more in accord with that of, say, Stadlmair amongst our modern interpreters. Yet, because many of us Raff enthusiasts had only Hermann's 1970 performance  to listen to for twenty years, that, by default, became the benchmark against which we tend to judge newcomers.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from all this, except to echo Adriano's point that mere overall movement timings aren't in themselves indicative of very much.

QuoteBut, he had conducted it at least once before, in 1949, for a live broadcast on CBS radio in the USA. Once again, it's interesting to compare his timings ...

Do you perhaps have this recording? ... and maybe even post it as download (regardless of sound quality) ???? 
That would be great!

Mike, I do have the recording. It is in poor sound and missing the first few bars of the first movement. I'll happily post it, but not yet. As you can see here (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4924.0.html), I have a major problem with MediaFire at present, which seems to have wiped all my UC downloads, and I'm not posting anything, anywhere, until that's resolved. Remind me if I forget, please.

This issue of timing is quite interesting. I haven't heard the Jarvi yet - but I do recall years ago when the Nicholas Carthy recording came out that there was a lot of discussion about his relatively brisk (12:25) first movement. I liked it, others didn't. In general I like faster tempos and it's no surprise that one of my favorite conductors of the past was Paul Paray who moved music along at quite a good clip.

Last night, after a rehearsal of Scheherazade, at a nearby pub we got to talking about the differences in tempo we were taking vs. the markings in the score. The conductor was present and offered this: quite often, "composer's time" is different from "performer's time" vs. "listener's time". As a composer himself, he said that while he was composing something he would think thru it mentally and come up with what he thought would be an ideal tempo. Yet, when someone else played it - at the marked tempo - even he thought it sounded wrong. His internal clock said one thing, but hearing it was a different matter. And he said the same thing happens as a conductor. He might think he's going at a moderately quick tempo, but listening to the playback reveals he was going too fast. So the idea of tempo is more fluid than we might think. He also added that as orchestras grew larger, tempos just naturally slowed - a kind of musical inertia. That would explain why during the 20th c Beethoven got so much slower as the big bands grew to over 100 players and a modern, period-instrument orchestra (COE) can play so much quicker.

Anyway, maybe that's part of the answer: what Raff heard in his head, what he heard while he was conducting wasn't the reality for the audience. But by any measure, 8 minutes (!) for the first movement seems impossible - there had to be cuts.

That's a fascinating insight, Martin. Thank you. As for the issue of whether the Müller-Reuter "average concert timings" were indicative of cuts routinely being made in Lenore, well yes, you'd think so, except that he makes the point in his introduction to the book that all his timings are for "full" performances.  That said, amongst Raff's symphonies, not only is Lenore credited with being of 35 minutes duration, but In den Alpen is 33 minutes and Im Walde 31 minutes! The other symphonies are much more in line with modern practice and the gargantuan An das Vaterland (surely also a candidate for cuts if Lenore was) is clocked at 69 minutes, which seems about right. I just don't know.

This might be interesting, but require someone with more computer skills than I have. I know that there's a way of increasing the speed of a sound file without changing the pitch - but I don't know what software to use, much less how to use it. Take the first movement from cleanest sounding recording of Lenore, increase the speed by 40% or whatever it takes to get it to fit the 8 minute mark. What would it sound like? Not that anyone would do it like that (the slow sections would especially be wrong), but it would be interesting to hear nonetheless.

I have the software for the job, Martin, but to be honest I've never seen the point because it is just so manifestly wrong.

That said, for anyone interested here's a zip file (http://www.mediafire.com/download/qbja9xrymd9juau/lenore_muller_reuter_timings.zip) with all four of Lenore's movements speeded up to match the timings given by Müller-Reuter in his Lexikon:

I.  8 mins  II. 9 mins  III. 7 mins   IV. 10 mins   Total: 35 mins

I have cheated slightly - the first movement is 8½ minutes long - I figured that Müller-Reuter rounded down!

Wrong, wrong. Manifestly....

Oh, absolutely.

Alvin and the Chipmunks do Raff...

Some of the slower parts of I weren't as bad as I expected - the faster parts are nuts.

II loses everything

III is ridiculous. This is no march.

There HAD to be cuts. Maybe he meant "complete" in the sense of the Marco Polo Raff 3rd (or the Candide/Vox recording for that matter.)

It was fun to listen too, but just so very wrong. Although, The Ring...

Combining this and Walker's (and many others' that I've not read) discussions of traditions of (often actually fairly well-considered, not actually always particularly butcher-y in artistic quality) cuts in 19th-century music I find myself wondering how long a Raff symphony did last in actual typical (and typically cut) 19th-century performance during, and shortly after, Raff's lifetime (before the more recent desire on the part of some of us to have these works exactly as written- when such a beast can be well-defined, which is sometimes but not, of course, as often as would like- a mostly separate issue, maybe.)

To calm down this rather absurd craze in here about tempi and Metronome, let me tell you another story: In Arthur Honegger's Paris flat, there still stands his pyramid Metronome, which was given him by his mother when he was a student. Honegger's daughter told me once that it could be found out that its beat was slightly slower, in other words not corresponsing to reality. Honegger, however, did not care about this and carried on composing (and writing out) his tempi according to this Metronome.

I do agree that this speculation gets us nowhere, as do Müller-Reuter's timings. Yes, there had to be cuts, I agree, and we don't now what was cut (and where) and what wasn't.

It may not get us anywhere - but at least we know that there's more to M-R's timings than meets the eye.

Or less than meets the ear, in Lenore's case!

The Ballad of Lenore's Timings?

Regarding the relativity of tempi: Other members may remember an interview with Karajan published when his third Beethoven cycle was released. K stated that after performances were put on tape he took dubs to his chalet in Switzerland to give them a critical listen. He expected to do some nit-picking but to his astonishment, it immediately became clear that ALL his tempi were too fast. Repeated listening only confirmed his reaction. Discouraged, he returned to Berlin. He talked to the DG engineers about what he had discovered and played them some samples to illustrate. Except that back in Berlin, the tempi sounded right. K hypothesized that some physical change -- perhaps in metabolism -- due to the significant change in elevation was responsible for his different experiences of tempi.

It gets a very positive review in this month's Gramophone.

@chill319, you are perfectly right. I do not want to compare me with Karajan, but sometimes, while relistening takes of my recordings a day later or in the afternoon of a morning session, I stop and ask the producer with an alarmed look: was I that fast/slow yesterday? He answers that everything is still in the correct tempo. I am 70 now - it must be metabolism  ::)

At long last, I received my copy of the Jarvi Raff 5. Was it worth the wait?

The sound is glorious SACD and with the volume turned up, is excellent. Close your eyes and you feel like you're in the middle of the hall. Balances are not artificially pumped up.

Orchestral playing is superb - the OSR sure has come a long ways since the Ansermet days. Tuning is precise, rhythmically precise, phrasing is fine. No complaints here.

Movement 1: at the hectic pace it actually works, although I would still prefer a slightly more relaxed second theme.

Movement 2: I just don't know about this. It just seems so rushed - like looking at the Alps from a tour bus.

Movement 3: This is just not right. The score is marked march tempo - this is like some parody of a march, a cartoonish rush stomping off to war. I just can't believe this is what Raff wanted or intended.

Movement 4: This is just bad. Played at this tempo the introduction is robbed of all atmosphere and mystery. The main section goes ok. But then catastrophe! At the climax, rather than taking a dramatic pause, Jarvi just moves right on, not allowing the music a moment repose.

So, after a fine Symphony 2, this comes along and despite the sound and playing, the conducting ruins it. Now, the fine booklet notes by Avrohom make a case for the rapid tempos indicated in the score. But I don't like it. Maybe if we had never known Bernard Herrmann's version (he tended to slower tempos in everything) and if Jarvi's had been the first recording, this would have been the version imprinted on our brains and these tempos would be "normal". But I do know Herrmann and all the other versions done. Maybe it's Raff's fault - did he REALLY want these tempos? Is his autograph score available? Does it contain these tempo marks or did some editor add them?

I should be grateful as can be that Chandos would spend the effort and money to make this recording, but this is not going to be my Raff 5th of choice - that remains Herrmann. Maybe in time I'll come to accept this. When conductors started using faster tempos in Beethoven I rejected those too, having grown up on Klemperer and Walter. Now, I can't imagine going back to those glacial tempos. Anyway, that's my opinion. Maybe others have responded more positively. By the way, Mark's interesting digital speeded up version isn't that far off from Jarvi.

Just to respond to a minor point: no, Martin, the autograph of Lenore is lost. This is true of almost all Raff's published works. He placed no value on his manuscripts once the music was published, and they seem to have been disposed of by his publishers. The few Raff autographs which we have are those of the unpublished works. However, he was a punctilious corrector of the proofs of his music, so I am as certain as I can be that the printed score represents what he wanted published. With a few exceptions, he only used metronome markings from the early 1870s and they are often surprisingly fast, not following our modern interpretations of his corresponding tempo indications of Andante, Allegro etc. Whether this was deliberate and typical of his time, or the result of a faulty metronome a la Beethoven I have no idea.

I think it's a question of what one is used to. IRR reviewer Richard Whitehouse (April 2014 issue) says that 'those coming to Lenore afresh should certainly make the Järvi their first option'. I agree. Herrmann for me is just miles too slow, but then I was never used to his performance...

I read mbhaub's post with particular interest this morning. I have continued to listen to both Järvi's and Stadlmair's versions frequently - Raff's Lenore Symphony is one of my favourite Raff works - and by sheer coincidence, I was again listening to both yesterday afternoon. I have been listening to both repeatedly in an attempt to "re-educate" my thinking as regards the Järvi faster tempi. As has been stated previously, listeners are used to hearing the slower tempi of all the other conductors of this piece and it's been suggested that we are conditioned to hearing the slower tempi. I have tried to adjust my thinking but at this moment in time, I have failed miserably. I still feel strongly that the opening of the first movement in Järvi's hands stills feels way too rushed. That said, the movement sort of works but I have the strong feeling that it will always sound uncomfortably fast, even if that was the way Raff intended it to sound. Interestingly for me, listening at the same time to the Stadlmair version, I had the strange impression that , in Stadlmair's hands, the opening of the first movement now seems "faster" than I previously remembered! Strange! Maybe listening to Järvi is somehow changing my perception of the music i.e. just maybe I have become more used to hearing Järvi's interpretation of the opening movement? My biggest problem with the Järvi take is his handling of movement number three! This is simply way too fast for me! I know it is a march tempo but the way Järvi takes it, he goes hell to leather with it, leaving me with the impression that the music sounds like the accompaniment to a 1930s film i.e. it sounds ridiculously too fast and I can't imagine anyone marching that fast, even if it's a very quick march!!! I am less bothered by Järvis' tempi in movement 2. Yes it is a bit rushed but it sort of works. Listening to Stadlmair's movement no 2, it nearly felt at times that the music dragged just a little, something I didn't think I would ever say! Likewise, Järvis' movement no 4 again sort of works but I do understand mbhaub's comments on this movement and am inclined to agree with him. It's very clear to me that it's up to each listener to chose which version to favour and ultimately which version to love the most. My favourite Lenore is still Stadlmair's but I will continue to listen to the Järvi as well. who knows? Maybe I will come around to it more in time but deep down, I don't think that will happen.

Dennis: have you tried Chailly's Beethoven?

Hello Alan. No, I have not heard Chailly's Beethoven cycle. I have just googled Chailly and read a most interesting review on his Beethoven cycle - seems he has tried to be absolutely faithful to Beethoven's wishes and totally ignored what the music "should sound like"! You have whetted my appetite! I will investigate. Perhaps Chailly will put into the shade my Von Karajan cycle of Beethoven symphonies? Thanks for the tip.

Karajan is very hard to beat, Dennis. Chailly's Beethoven is rather like Järvi's Raff - I find him exhilarating, but wonder whether he's just too fast. Or am I simply accustomed to earlier performances, some of them a good deal slower?

Speaking maybe a little too abstractly, I -am- glad when one gets to the point where one no longer _certainly_ has too few recordings of all of a composer's most important works, and in fact has some choices to make between them- it did take a few decades after the advent of recordings to get to that point with even the most famous of composers, but to have 3 competing Raff symphony cycles (etc.) (and hoping for even better ones) may be a milestone in itself (though I may for myself regard some of his chamber music as containing even better stuff- but even there, there are now competing cycles in progress of sonatas and quartets etc. ... - anyway, anyway...)

Yes, and there is another Beethoven I do not like at all: Zinman's! He rehearsed with a metronome on his conducting stand and always consulted it, making all kind of conferences about Beethoven's tempi! Why did he not leave the podium and have the metronome beating alone? Karajan will never be surpassed as far as Beethoven and Brahms are concerned. Chailly's Brahms is interesting, but as questionable as Harnoncourt's and D'Avalos'. If you want to play music without rubato and Romantic feelings, you better go back to pure Baroque music and don't fiddle with o Neo-Baroque homages à la Brahms. Last but not least, there is tradition, but old masters/conductors who know about it are no longer alive; still, their recordings are like masterclasses.
A reminder: the metronome marks in my score of Raff's "Lenore" are Allegro (168), Andante quasi larghetto (86), Marsch-Tempo (160; in 4!) and Allegro (162). Järvi just wanted to respect that :-)
Personally, I like Herrmann's tempi; Stadlmaier's may be a better compromise. When I recorded G.T. Strong's Suite "Die Nacht", in the "Peasant's Battle March" I was confronted with an Alla breve of 130, and this made me consider that Raff's Marches were played fast. Strong had studied with Raff and his piece is a clear homage to the "Lenore" March.

Chailly's Brahms cycle is not really to be compared with those of the HIP brigade. For one thing, the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra still play with wonderful warmth - it's just that the tempi are quite (but only quite) brisk. Nothing extreme at all - and certainly not a baroque approach to Romantic music.
As far as Brahms interpretation as a whole is concerned, there has always been a tension between classicists (such as Weingartner - now he's really swift!) and romantic interpreters such as Max Fiedler.
No, Chailly is fine. It's Norrington and Gardiner that I can't stand in this repertoire - wiry strings, horridly clipped phrasing, etc.

Since we have diverged briefly to Beethoven, Gardiner - used period instruments so I believe we must make allowances for the strings [wiry or otherwise]. Norrington - No comment!

It might be interesting to compare the version by Sir Charles Mackerras from the Edinburgh Festival (?) released on Hyperion. The tempos are brisk and the cycle is on the whole very satisfying. What is the opinion of the members here on Weingartner's Beethoven?

What I wanted to focus on here is whether the performing tradition(s) in respect of other composers can throw light on the Raff 5 interpretation issue.

You are right, Alan, perhaps I exaggerated by putting Chailly in the same pot, but this comes from the fact that he (as quoted in the booklet) thinks: "the time is ripe for Brahms"!

Hadrianus: you bring up some things that make talking about music so interesting. For me, Zinman's Beethoven is terrific! One of the best. Very refreshing and exciting. Zinman has so much to say. I love his Schumann and Mahler, too! Although nowadays my go-to Beethoven is Mackerras.

On the other hand...I don't particularly like Karajan's Beethoven or Brahms. For my taste, there were several Beethoven cycles made at about that same time as the 60's Karajan that left him in the dust: Cluytens, Szell, and above all, Rene Leibowitz. The Brahms set laid down by Bruno Walter with the NYPO in glorious mono sound is still the one to beat. My favorite modern Brahms is...Mackerras, again.

So many different approaches to the same music, especially in terms of tempo. Years ago I was at a seminar with Lorin Maazel speaking, and he emphasized that during the romantic era, no composer or conductor would consider the score sacrosanct, but rather a rather plastic thing that could be molded as the performer saw fit. Listen to the old Mengelberg recordings, or even Scherchen and we get an idea of what liberties conductors took. I assume that conductors would do the same for Raff's 5th and not drive it like an out of control truck. There needs to be some give and take, some rubato and modulation of tempo. If there is ever another recording of the 5th, I would hope some deeply committed romantic would take it up, but given the current state of conducting I can't think of many.

Chailly has re-thought his approach in the same sort of way that Abbado did in some repertoire areas. For example Chailly's earlier Brahms cycle with the Concertgebouw Orchestra was broader and richer - a bit like Karajan's. His new cycle is more along the lines of Toscanini or Weingartner. He may have learned from HIP, but he has retained a fuller sound.

To return to the Raff 5/Järvi issue, it's interesting to note how a basically classical approach actually brings out the psychological drama of the programme so powerfully. Another important point is that Raff simply doesn't 'go' like, say, Brahms. His music has 'lighter feet', as it were, so that a heavier approach which might work in Brahms really doesn't in Raff. IMHO, of course - and with due deference and gratitude to Bernard Herrmann...

QuoteIf there is ever another recording of the 5th, I would hope some deeply committed romantic would take it up...

I don't think that's the way to go with Raff. But I'd buy it like a shot to find out...

@mbhaub
it's the listener's personal taste that makes music also interesting :-)

Following on from Alan's suggestion, I have been listening for the past 10 days or so to Chailly's Beethoven cycle. I can now well understand why Chailly has been discussed in this thread (thank you Alan).Chailly has faithfully followed Beethoven's metronome markings (as members of this forum well know), with the result that many of the movements are played at much faster tempi than we, the listeners, (or should I say "than I", the listener) are accustomed to hearing. I have to agree with Alan that the music under Chailly definitely generates a lot of excitement and I was very pleasantly surprised that I I found myself really liking his take on the symphonies. I do however understand why some listeners believe that the excitement of the music with its faster tempi sometimes militates against the depth of feeling and inherent beauty of Beethoven's music. I think my enjoyment was enhanced, due to the fact that I hadn't listened to my Karajan cycle in quite a long time, thus Chailly's interpretations sounded fresh and vibrant. That said, I won't be getting rid of my Karajan cycle! It's great to have both!

With Chailly's faster Beethoven tempi still in mind, this brings me back to Järvi's Lenore. Because of all the talk about Herrmann's much,much slower tempi in his Lenore and not being familiar with his take, I decided to purchase a copy of the CD (quite expensive, cost £26 but worth it!). Just as I did with Stadlmair/Järvi, I then did extended listening to all 3 versions i.e. Herrmann/Stadlmair/Järvi, the one after the other, even at times just listening consecutively to the same movement of all 3, one after the other.The experience was revelatory! As others have remarked, each version has its strengths and weaknesses but to keep things simple I will just say that for me Herrmann is the most romantic, Järvi the most modern and Stadlmair in the middle. I will say though that Herrmann's is very beautiful with some exquisite orchestral colouring. What was though surprising to me is that, as a result of listening to Chailly's Beethoven cycle and then listening to Herrmann's, Stadlmair's and Järvi's Lenore, I now find myself really warming to Järvi's faster tempi!

Why is this so? The obvious answer is down to listening to music that is NOT familiar(i.e. not as expected) but through repeated listenings becomes familiar. Järvi's Lenore with its faster tempi (unsettling to me at first) sounded "unfamiliar" to me, it was not what I was used to hearing!, especially compared to Stadlmair and even more so to Herrmann. Now though, Järvi's take has become very familiar to me indeed and my opinion on it has changed dramatically! UC has again taught me a musical lesson. Don't judge a piece of music too quickly! Give the music time to grow and become really familiar. No, I won't do away with my Stadlmair and Herrmann but if I want excitement in Lenore (as against a more romantic take on the symphony, just as valid of course), then Järvi is the one I will listen to!

Sorry this post is so long!

A fascinating journey, Dennis. Thanks for telling us all about it.

Two very positive reviews of the Jarvis traversal of Lenore at Music Web International this morning. Worth a read - they make every attempt to defend the rapid speeds. One mistake: the Herrmann recording used the London Philharmonic, not the London Symphony Orchestra, although that would be nice Mr. Gergiev.

QuoteTwo very positive reviews of the Jarvis traversal of Lenore at Music Web International

Here's the link:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Jun14/Raff_sy5_CHSA5135.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Jun14/Raff_sy5_CHSA5135.htm)

And here's a key remark:
<<Järvi is taking Raff at his word with his astonishingly fast metronome markings, but those who have had their opinions as to how this work should sound coloured by more leisurely approaches will likely need time to get used to these tempos, and those many long in thrall to Herrmann's account may possibly never accept them.>>
Good to know we've already been here...

I confess that, after strong initial misgivings, I am warming more and more to Järvi's approach to the first movement, having surrendered from the start on the question of the other three. What I appreciate most of all is that this reading brings out the fact that Raff's symphony is based upon a nightmare, and it's the feverishness with which Järvi launches the piece which sets the tone for the rest of the work. It's not the only interpretation I'd want to have: I still love Herrmann's reading, my introduction to Raff, I respect Stadlmair's but, my word, I realise that I am excited by Järvi's.

That's a very fair assessment, I think.

This thread isn't dead yet. Now, American Record Guide weighs in on the Jarvi reading of the 5th...From the September/October issue:

Some select quotes:

"...everything is constantly goaded on with no sensitivity whatever. Passages crying out for breathing space are simply steamrolled."

"...Raff expected conductors to have some instinct about where to speed up or slow down in accordance with its harmonic pulses. In Jarvi's performance, ritards, if taken at all are barely observed."

"...you'll have to endure one of the greatest program symphonies run into the ground. Any other available interpretation of Lenore is better."

No mention of the outstanding booklet notes and the discussion of tempi is mentioned.

Of course I haven't had the benefit of reading the whole review, but I'm sure that Martin's extracts are a fair cross-section,  in which case it seems a very simplistic assessment. Just focusing on Järvi's speed ignores his wider credentials as a Raff interpreter, which he established so convincingly in his performances of the Second Symphony and the four Shakespeare Preludes. The more I listen to Järvi's Lenore,  the more I think it an entirely valid, if by no means the only possible, interpretation.

The review does mention exemplary playing by the orchestra, superb recorded sound, and also that Jarvi is much more convincing in the overtures.

Critics and reviews can be so frustrating! Recently I read three reviews of the new Dvorak 8th from Honeck in Pittsburgh. They were ecstatic about it - what a revelation, a brilliant, exciting reading - maybe the best-ever 8th! But the same ARG issue that Raff comes from, dismisses the new 8th as dull, uninspired, pointless and gives it only one small paragraph. The Raff does get quite a bit of space.

The same is true of Ivan Fischer's new Bruckner 7 which, because it is pretty swift, has divided the critics. I personally dislike Bruckner being played like that, but I recognise that the same process (i.e. that of returning to how 19th century symphonies might actually have been played) may be at work here too.

One more quote from Mr. O'Connor's ARG review:

"The final adagio [...] is the noblest music Raff ever wrote and one of the most moving inspirations in the romantic repertoire.  Here it makes no effect whatever.  It's as if the note-values simply get longer (they do) rather than the emotional effect becoming deeper."

Whatever personal votes we have for Raff's most noble music, it's important to note that this is a review coming from a man who clearly likes Raff, which is rare enough among published writers.  Though it belongs in a different thread, Mr. O'Connor gives a positive review to Tra Nguyen's latest volume of Raff's piano music and praises the notes, written by a certain Mr. Thomas.

Oh, well I'll certainly allow myself a modest glow of pleasure at the last comment, thanks!

FWIW, and not just because he was kind about my booklet notes, I do agree with with Mr O'Connor's critique of Järvi's handling of the final pages of Lenore. It is certainly perfunctory and entirely misses the rapt, redemptory atmosphere which this serene music surely should have. As I mentioned above, I have come to value Järvi's interpretation because it is the only one which brings out the nightmare element of whole piece right from the start, but the final ecstatic apotheosis is necessary to put this into context, to illustrate not just that Lenore herself dies, but that she is forgiven for her blasphemy and is at peace, not dragged down to hell. That is entirely missed by Järvi and certainly spoils his performance for me. Herrmann, on the other hand, pitches it perfectly.

Swings and roundabouts...

How about another recording of this masterpiece? Chailly, Jansons, are you listening?

???
What is the overall feeling on this forum of the Herrmann recording of Raff's Symphony No. 5. I have the Jarvi and the older Marco Polo. Someone suggested to me (not on this board) that this was the recording to have.
Tom :)

Herrmann's was the pioneering recording of Lenore, way back in the 1970s. The sound is very dated now, but his interpretation is weightily magnificent and set the benchmark for all those that followed. In the wake of Stadlmair's recording for Tudor, and particularly Järvi's for Chandos, Herrmann can now appear very measured - it is substantially longer overall than Järvi's. Both, IMHO, entirely outclass Schneider on Marco Polo, but they are polar opposites. There is an extended comparison of the various Lenore recordings throughout this thread (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4845.0.html), Tom, and particularly around here (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4845.msg52321.html#msg52321).

I'm very happy with the Jarvi recording and disappointed with the Marco Polo. Best to leave well enough alone.
Tom :)