Unsung Composers

Not exactly unknown or unsung. But does anyone else feel that Scriabin's
symphonies are terribly underated; or am I alone?

Underrated - and over-the-top. A great wallow.

Ah,there is some one else! Just wondered,really.Particularly the first two which
are very 'hummable'.

I really like his first symphony a lot. It's maybe not for everybody. Not "exciting" enough for a lot of people, I'd imagine. But I like it. Actually, although Scriabin is better known for his later works, I prefer his earlier works. The piano concerto is first rate, IMO.

I agree. I too much prefer the earlier Scriabin, especially the PC. Although I play my CD of it reasonably often, I'm always caught out when I hear it on the radio - thinking something like 'I didn't know Rachmaninov wrote that...'

I have always considered Scriabin's 1st Symphony to be a real gem. I knew it before even the (at one time) ubiquitous Poem of Ecstasy. It is full of beautiful tunes and has, to my ears, a glorious finale. Yes, he hasn't quite found his voice and parts of it sound like Rachmaninov (like Alan, I'm often caught out in this respect) and there are even touches of Elgar in some sections, but it is heartfelt, sincere music... And it isn't "bonkers" like Prometheus (wonderful though that is in a completely different way).

I remember being very intrigued,as a teenager, by the curiously 'jazzy' sounding theme that starts off the 2nd movement of Symphony No2. (My favourite).

I've never been able to get into Scriabin, and I've tried and tried. I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I just don't care for any of it. Any recording recommendations that might change my mind are welcome. I've tried the Inbal set, some Jarvi, and the Maazel.

I love the PC too, though the early romantic symphonies didn't 'do' it for me when I listened (and it was the Classicstoday recommended recording too). Oddly enough, I like his early piano music, but not his late....but do enjoy Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus. Hmmmm.

Is anyone here familiar with the Golovanov recordings?

Gareth. I agree with you about the 1st. Why can't they do that now and again instead of another Mahler? Or at the Proms! (Some hope?)

I'm with Martin on Scriabin: I've tried many times to see what others see in his music and I still don't get it. All I hear is over-coloured, self indulgent excess which always, always overstays its welcome. Like Martin, I'd welcome someone's recommendation of a good performance/recording which might put me on the right road.

Even the PC, Mark? And what about the lovely early piano music?

To be honest, I consider the piano concerto (and the early symphonic poem) and the symphonies (including Promethée and Ecstacy) as more or less separate entities. And am I alone in regarding the whole series of symphony 2 through Promethée as a continually evolving 'work in progress'?

Yes, the Piano Concerto too, Alan. He's obviously a blind spot for me.

I just got a recording from Pentatone of Scriabin's 1st and his Poem of Ecstasy with Plentnev conducting the Russian National Orchestra. Nice sound. Someone I've never heard in a live concert.
Tom

Ilja, this is a well-known thing since ages! But I would rather say an evolving work in progress since Symphony No.3.
And what Mark Thomas says, simply makes me shudder.
There are a lot of excellent recordings of his orchestral works (Golovanov, Kitajenko, Svetalnov etc.) which just prove the contrary. Not to speak about Michael Ponti's incredible approach and exciting renderings of his (complete) piano works. Listen also to the Sonatas played by Roberto Szidon and you will find out that there is much more behind that!

I agree, Adriano, but even I find Prometheus hard to take - as well as the late piano sonatas.

The latter sound remarkably (probably much too) clear to me in Ashkenazy's recording on Decca- but to each, etc.

Sorry I made you shudder, Adriano! I couldn't imagine what it was that I'd written, but I see it was almost six years ago. All the same, Scriabin remains a complete blind spot for me. My loss, I am absolutely sure.

Are you still sure you don't like the lovely PC, positioned stylistically somewhere between Chopin and Rachmaninov?

Try also to listen to Scriabin's last work, in the completed form by Alexander Nemtin, whom I met in Moscow one year before he died. DeccaA/Ashkenazy "The Final Mystery". Thanks to Nemtin I was able to understand much about Scriabin's futuristic ideas and possible style to come. Nemtin was a wonderful person - a composer himself - and at that time in financial needs. He had lost his money because he had trusted in those ruinous Russian State Bank funds who went bancrupt. When we met, he did not even have the money to pay the taxi fare from his home to my Hotel, and when I invited him and his wife (the musicologist Julia Makarova) for dinner, their eyes shined of gratitude. I actually intended to record this work, but Marco Polo found that the 4000 Dollars I wanted Nemtin to receive, were too much. I would have copied the score and extracted the parts. But it seems that Ashkenazy already counted with this project before I did. This listening needs some patience, but it's worth it.
The 1st part of this work had been already recorded on Melodiya by Kirill Kondrashin in 1973 ("Universe").
The mentioned (excellently conducted) Decca CD is very interesting, since it also contains Nemtin's orchestrations of 14 piano pieces by Scriabin, grouped unter the title "Nuances".
Actually, right these days I am editing a video documentary on my many Moscow stays, in which my enounter with Nemtin is mentioned.

I can't take this unfinished Scriabin at all seriously; as music it tries one's patience; as a philosophical concept it smacks of megalomania. Sorry...

So you dont'like Wagner as well, Alan, which is an earlier megalomaniac :-)

It's simply ages since I heard Scriabin's Piano Concerto, Alan. I'll give it another listen, since you suggest it so appealingly!  :)

Well, at least Wagner knows when to stop... ;) 
As I said, the Scriabin simply tries one's patience - all those unresolved climaxes.

The climax of "Poem of Ecstasy" resolves into very simple C major. Of course it is, compared to his Symphony, a short thing. But I agree in loving his wonderfully Romantic Piano Concerto!

QuoteThe climax of "Poem of Ecstasy" resolves into very simple C major]The climax of "Poem of Ecstasy" resolves into very simple C major

Eventually. Anyway, it's the The Final Mystery that really tries one's patience...

... I'm not sure how much of a completed-by-other-hands can be blamed on the composer who didn't finish it, but I speak without in-depth knowledge there. (Is Nemtin as detailed about what he did in his reconstruction as Payne has been - which is to say, extremely, especially iirc in the notes to the full score - in writing about the Elgar 3, for example?... Or is it more like Lobanova's reconstruction of Roslavets' 6th violin sonata, where a paragraph "suffices" to explain the whole "this wasn't even described as a sonata by the composer but..."? (and nothing, iirc, about how much editorial invention was involved besides that, though I'll double-check that statement...))

I enjoy his Poem of Ecstasy. He had his own ideas with the use of the color wheel etc. Sorry he died so young as it would have been interesting to see how he evolved.

Two years ago, when I visited the Scriabin House again, I was contemplating his "house made" prototype of the "colour wheel". I the score of "Prometheus" there an extra part, called "Luce" ("Light"), with exact indications where and which light bulb "button" have to be pressed. Of course, later on, in 1958, Jewgeny Murzin conceived a (coloured) keyboard, connected to a complicated electronic device, able to project the "played" colours on to a wall.

I think I'll just close my eyes instead.

I would do the same, Alan, but at least respect the avant-garde thoughts Scriabin had!
Well, Handel's "Fireworks" Music is something similar :-)

No, it isn't. Not even close. There's no system in the Handel, whereas in Scriabin it's all bound up with his crazy philosophising. I don't usually listen to 18thC music, but I'll take the fresh air and utter joyfulness of Handel over Scriabin's late-period descent into megalomania any day...

Personally, I would love to experience a performance of Prometheus with the coloured lights specified by the composer. I think it could be both interesting and exciting. The added dimension might, I think, open a window on this work.

There is a lot of Scriabin, early middle late and very-late, that I enjoy, but at the moment so far as his symphonies are concerned, my favorite Scriabin symphony is Myaskovsky's 3rd. (Which is not epigonic, merely sometimes earns (... I think!) the adjective Scriabinesque, but then Scriabin's symphonies aren't epigonic either...)

The state of "epigonic"! - I love it, Eric. Such nice use of language.

Yes, eschiss1, Miaskowsky's Third is a great Symphony, biut I also like his Second very much, of which I have right now a first-print score of 1928 in front of me :-)

Yes, the 2nd might be my favorite (... one of my favorites??) of the 27 (though not by so much that I feel that it was some sort of great decline after that, or something; I find e.g. no.20 wonderful (and 7&10, though 7 is even more Scriabinesque in quite different ways, fascinating and -- well...*- etc. etc. Anyway.)

Ikonnikov's description of the 2nd symphony as a journey through- iirc?? - Tchaikovsky-like territory, through Scriabinesque (middle movement), to mostly echt-Miaskovsky (close of the 2nd movement & attacca finale) (maybe not coincidentally the movement which got the composer in the most trouble, at least its 10-note? penultimate chord- historians still searching for the missing Miaskovski-Mahler correspondence ;) ) - seems if not dead-on-the-mark than at least food for thought, I think.  That the symphony's -first- significant major-mode theme of any duration is delayed until the "second theme" group of the slow movement (and then occurs in E-flat, a tritone away from the key (A minor) that- with trouble- has been established for the slow movement after a troubled introduction...) - a significant delay - seems significant, too. (Probably paraphrasing something I wrote about the piece elsewhere... sorry.)

I do find much more of a sense of direction in these works- early-ish, like syms.1-3, or a bit later (sym.7) - by Myaskovsky than in the Scriabin symphonies I've heard that they remind me of (to the extent I know the latter. And this even though I like, enjoy, Scriabin's music and in his early late/later period his piano music on the whole seems more directional and convincing than what orchestral music I seem to recall hearing from around the same time. But this could be insufficient familiarity on my part...

*Though I appreciate Marco Polo (as a label, not as a business enterprise - where I have no personal experience), I won't argue that some of their orchestral recordings have, as has become the consensus, ended up something in the nature of "well, ... first efforts", or ... right!anyway...!

Case in point maybe, the Myask. 7&10; no.7 being, as I said, a symphony even more to put one in mind of Scriabin (my opinion), but much better performed and recorded by Svetlanov for Melodiya (or whoever he intended his complete cycle for? before it was issued on Russian Disc, on Olympia, on Erato/Warner (in the late 2000s))... than by Michael Halász (conducting) for Marco Polo.

**(and now Melodiya itself, which never really ceased to exist in some form has issued a 3-CD set (2014) of various and sundry old Myaskovsky LPs, but that doesn't relate to the new Svetlanov cycle, though the 2014 recording contains Svetlanov-conducted recordings of 22, 17, 25, 27 from 1971-92, as well as Ivanov's recordings of 16 and 21 from 1950.)

But returning to Scriabin...

Scriabin was a synesthete. More specifically, he sensed musical notes as color, called chromesthesia. (Rimsky-Korsakov was also said to have this sensory trait.)

Anyway, it is only natural that he would then try to convey to audiences this unique experience, by incorporating the visual aspect of color into performance of his music.

Personally, I find this fascinating. Scriabin was the inventor of the concert light show, long before Pink Floyd came along! haha

I really like Scriabin's 1st symphony, and I've bought every recording I've run across over the years. They all suffer some deadly defect -- audio, performance, or some dreadful mezzo warbling. I'd love to hear a splendid (or even just competent) recording of this symphony.

On a similar note, the autograph score of Liszt's Dante symphony included instructions for using a wind machine and also some lighting effects. Sadly, he abandoned these ideas (this is mentioned in one of Alan Walker's excellent biographies, not sure which volume though. Come to that, it might even have been the Faust symphony - I will check later on and amend this posting!)

I checked - it might be mentioned in Alan Walker's book but it is certainly in Derek Watson's Master Musicians book.  It does refer to the Dante symphony in that in 1854, while sketching the piece, Liszt considered using lantern slides projected through some form of diorama so that the work would be some sort of audio visual experience (see page 279 of the aforementioned book)

I see, Alan, no sense anymore for me to continue discussing in this thread with you; your hate for Scriabin is indistructible, but discussible. A musicologist could answer you appropriately, but I am not. And you did not even notice that my (impossible) comparison to Handel was intended as a joke - although there is someting in common: music accompanied by light effects.
Thanks, Amphissa, for intrervening :-)

I don't hate Scriabin. I rather like his music - that is, up until his descent into philosophical idiocy; indeed I have all his piano music and orchestral music (except for the Nemtin reconstruction). His PC is actually one of my favourites.

As to whether Scriabin was actually a synesthete, there seems to be some doubt. Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source, I know), has this:

Though Scriabin's late works are often considered to be influenced by synesthesia, a condition wherein one experiences sensation in one sense in response to stimulus in another, it is doubted that Scriabin actually experienced this. His colour system, unlike most synesthetic experience, accords with the circle of fifths: it was a thought-out system based on Sir Isaac Newton's Opticks.

Apologies for not spotting the Handel 'joke'...

Alan, the one does not necessarily exclude the other. Like most early-20th-century people Scriabin was given to thinking that all reality should be shoehorned into 'systems' of some kind, and he might well have wanted to stylize his personal experiences into something that he could combine with his music. This is speculation of course - but so is virtually everything that I've read about Scriabin's synasthesia.


But Scriabin's descent into megalomania, while personally tragic, is something I find musically interesting. After all, we have a number of composers whose mental turmoil (let's call it that) can be heard through their musical output: Langgaard is one, Rangström another, and one might even include Tchaikovsky. Great creativity probably needs a degree of instability: down-to-earth accountants rarely make for good composers.


Having said that, although I own the Nemtin reconstruction on CD, I really can't get my head around. We should probably experience it in its intended setting, during the apocalypse, played through immense speakers attached to airships.

QuoteWe should probably experience it in its intended setting, during the apocalypse, played through immense speakers attached to airships.

I'll take The Messiah in that scenario any day ;). Less is definitely more.

Scriabin's thought processes were immensely complicated, even tinged with solipsism. "I am God," he once wrote in one of his secret philosophical journals. He embraced Helen Blavatsky's Theosophy. In London he visited the room in which Mme. Blavatsky died. Scriabin considered his last music to be fragments of an immense piece to be called Mysterium. This seven-day-long megawork would be performed at the foothills of the Himalayas in India, after which the world would dissolve in bliss. Bells suspended from clouds would summon spectators. Sunrises would be preludes and sunsets codas. Flames would erupt in shafts of light and sheets of fire. Perfumes appropriate to the music would change and pervade the air. At the time of his death, Scriabin left 72 orchestral-size pages of sketches for a preliminary work Prefatory Action, intended to "prepare" the world for the apocalyptic ultimate masterpiece.
http://www.scriabinsociety.com/biography.html (http://www.scriabinsociety.com/biography.html)

*shudders!!!!!!!!!* please, Bach (any of a large selection of choices from his output) over that Handel work but as you say, back to Scriabin...

Has anyone else bought the Pletnev recording of Symphony No.1?

I've looked at it several times and passed each time. Given Pletnev's personal proclivities, which I find abhorrent and disgusting, I've not bought any of his music for years. And I'm not likely to purchase anything with his name on it in the future.

That said, there is a 2012 broadcast recording of Pletnev conducting the same orchestra, playing Scriabin's 1st Symphony, but with different vocalists and in a different country. So it is not the same recording used by Pentatone. I have this in my archive and would be willing to upload it to UC, if you are interested.

I'd forgotten about that issue. Perhaps I'll stick with Muti, then...

I'm guessing it would be -way- offtopic to ask if one's referring to political views of his or to very serious charges (not yet proven or even perhaps even raised? in court) of the sort that have - it's true - also caused me to look at recordings conducted by Johannes Somary (including some I already have in my collection) with a 2nd-thoughtful eye/ear :( ...

Let's not stray into those distasteful issues here.

But I seem to remember that Pletnev was exonerated in court?


To return to Scriabin's First Symphony, I am particularly enamored of Golovschin's rendition on Naxos. He's a bit 'rough around the edges', but I greatlly prefer that to Muti's overly smooth version which doesn't befit the music at all. And Agafonov in particular puts in a fine effort.

I have given this some thought, but I am extremely sceptical of the whole "Scriabin as a madman" thing. What I do think is that he was extremely adept at marketing, and niftily played into the Belle Epoque's taste for eastern philosophy, eroticism, the irrational, and gigantism. Scriabin dabbled with theosophy, Nietzsche and a whole list of other things without actually fully committing to anything. Also, I guess that his reputation as a loose cannon allowed him to get away with certain personal indiscretions that other people might have faced grave repercussions over.  But while Scriabin was very succesful in his day in Russia, France and Belgium, particularly this eroticism made him few friends in places such as Britain and, after the Revolution, Russia itself. Adrian Boult dismissing Scriabin's music as 'evil' is a case in point. It is no coincidence that such dismissals were the strongest in cultures which frowned upon sensualism and overt sexual themes, and Scriabin's supposed madness helped to bring about the rejection of his music on moral grounds.

Looking at the Proms archives, the performance schedule of the symphonies seems to be about as Ilja says - symphony 1 performed at the Proms in 1916, 1921, and 2010; symphony 2 in 1921 only; symphony 3 in 1918, 1921 and 2010; symphony 4 is something of an exception, performed in 17 events from 1921 to 2015 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/events/works/2597) (I don't think I see quite as huge a gap as for the others...); and Prometheus performed 7 times (http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/events/works/2595) from 1918 to 2014 (with a gap between 1922 and 1966). Also some of the piano sonatas and other works, and the piano concerto, listed...

Scriabin and Rachmaninoff were classmates, of course, studying at Moscow Conservatory under Arensky and Taneyev. His piano concerto and first symphony were redolent with Russian romanticism, but he had a musical wild streak even in school. As a result, Arensky refused to sign off on his degree. And because of his small hands, although he was successful on the concert stage, he would never become a great virtuoso. His 1st Piano Sonata was a "cry against God, against fate." He was extraordinarily frustrated by this "handicap" -- so much so that he damaged his right hand trying to play Balakirev's Islamey and Liszt's Réminiscences de Don Juan.

I guess what I'm getting at is that he may have, psychologically, been impelled toward ever more extreme directions as a way to differentiate himself from the crowd of "good but not great" performers and composers.

I say this with absolutely no scholarly support for my hypotheses, since I've never read a biography or in-depth review if his work. So, feel free to trash these ideas.

Can anyone suggest an excellent Scriabin biography (hopefully as good in their opinion as imhonesto Walker's Liszt biography and Beaumont's "Zemlinsky" both are - big, in-depth, expansive, covering many topics relevant to the composer's life yet managing to say some interesting, important, detailed things about each (sometimes also new, with extensive author research, in the case of both the biographies I mentioned)? Those have become among my touchstone music biographies, I think, not because they're perfect (of course not)  but because of the many things they do seem to accomplish. Anything reasonably similar on Scriabin's life? :) )

Golovanov and Svetlanov are, in my personal opinion, the greatest Scriabin interpreters. Golovanov is wild, as usual, and Svetlanov more moderate in tempio and dynamics. More "modern" and less "traditionally Russian", but very fascinating are Kitajenko and Segerstam. Kitajenko's 1992-1994 RCA recordings are now available as a SONY bargain box. This does not mean, that Muti and Ashkenazy's renderings are unacceptable: I still like to relisten them and compare. All these 5 versions I have in my collection can fit particular and momentary moods I feel when I decide to listen music by Scriabin.

Eric, the problem with Scriabin is that most of what's been written about him is compromised by personal or political prejudice. Of course, so are most other biographies, but Scriabin's polarising role makes it a larger problem than usual. Boris de Schloezer's (his brother-in-law) biography fully continues Scriabin's myth-making, for instance, as does (to a lesser extent) Faubion Bowers' biography of 1969. The second is a good read, but De Schloezer can be insufferably syccophantic at times. Hugh MacDonald's biography of the late 1970s is more draped around the madness thesis, but - in my opinion at least - takes that far too much for granted and is unclear as to what such 'madness' actually means. Interestingly, instead of condemning him MacDonald argues (IIRC, it's been a while) that such madness was (to some degree) a positive force, without which the mercurial compositions of Scriabin's later life would have been impossible.

Because of all these complications and the rejection by the Soviet regime during the Stalin years, the number of biographies had remained fairly small - and tiny compared to the numerous (more technical) works about Scriabin's music that have been published from the 1960s onwards. An interesting third category is offered by Anatole Leikin's The Performing Style of Alexander Scriabin (2011), which focuses on his performances in relation to his compositions for piano.

@eschiss and @ilya. Re biography: Horowitz once claimed (in connection with a story about his uncle) that Scriabin resigned from teaching at the Moscow conservatory in protest against institutionalized anti-Semitism there. If that is correct it is noteworthy, albeit hard -- perhaps impossible -- to square with the waxed-moustache dandy who appears in so many CD portraits.

Regarding the piano concerto (another thread here that search has not uncovered): If you are open to old-style Russian pianism (the kind with shoulders) and know Bashkirov (with Richter and Gilels one of the few pianists Sofronitsky actively promoted) you will want to listen to his superlative performance of the Scriabin concerto on YouTube. Here is a performance at once focused more on formal cohesion than dreamy wallowing yet totally at home with the nuanced, expressive elasticity that Sofronitsky brings to phrasing. As with all Bashkirov recordings, the range of tone colors is remarkable, too.

I'm not fond of Scriabin's first two symphonies at all; I consider them second or third rate works of unfocused Wagnerian tendencies. However, the 3rd is terrific.

That's a very hard judgement, mincacciosa: I am shocked :-)
What exactly do you mean with "unfocused Wagnerian tendencies"?
In my (personal) opinion, the First, for example, is an excellent (ane very beautiful) work. Wagnerian tendencies or not, much of the music of that time was influenced by Wagner: but this cannot be an argument of making Scriabin's music third rate; his use of Wagner is not ofembarrasing kind.

Regarding Symphony 1, I've never quite understood how movement 2 and movement 4 relate to each other and to the whole, but the first movement has my vote for the most beautiful use of the circle of fifths ever, and the last movement really takes that baton and crosses the finish line with it. Overall, an amazing first symphony.

Hadrianus, I apologize for the passion of my judgements; I realize everyone may not agree. I see and hear a tremendous growth between the first two symphonies and the third, which also has much more memorable material and more competent motivic development. I've actually performed No.2 as a section violinist. I remember rehearsing it, and at that time already knowing the third, the second appeared rather weak to me by comparison.

@chill319
I think there is no need of a correlation between these two (2nd and 4th) momevents. The 4th is just a kind of scherzo-intermezzo (mazurka-like?). The Sonata principle used in the 2nd movement is interrupted for a while and will be taken up again only in the 5th movement. The 3rd mvement too appears to me like a slow-movement-like (ABA) interlude.
In other words:
1) Lento - a short prelude (similar to his earlier orchestral work "Reverie"
2) Allegro drammatico - sonata form with a sort of "secondary section"
3) Lento - an ABA interlude
4) Scherzo-Intermezzo - (with a quite different orchestration than the rest)
5) Allegro (Sonata form taken up again - and, at the same time conceived as the Symphonie's Finale)
6) Andante (a postlude-like addition, an extra piece with voices)
At the (rather unsuccessful) premiere, the last movement was omitted - and only played in a performance some months later.
In my (totally unprofessional) opinion, this work is a combination between a suite and a symphony - or a suite with symphonic elements. Scriabin was still searching and experimenting.
Hope that some members in here will not having heart attacks reading this, it just came out spontaeously, with not enough time to consult my score :-)

We all have our opinions. I like the 3rd very much.
Tom

I don't know why it didn't register with me before but his single movement 4th symphony could easily have been a part of The Planets.

There's a 4th symphony? Is it recorded?

Poème de l'extase, Op.54, and quite a few times, yes.

Just got a new recording of it with the LSO and I really enjoy it.
Tom :)

If I may,

A performance by the Frankfurt Radio Symphony (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwLcKTAtfs) of the Poème de l'extase (on their own YouTube channel; not a rip by someone else, not a sample. Whole thing. Conducted by Markus Stenz. Really good YouTube channel, by the way, though not everything they play on it was composed strictly between 1825 and 1920, so for those who insist on that, duly warned. ;^) )

Is their a recording of the first that people are fond of?

I think the version by Golovanov and all three versions by Svetlanov (1963-68s, 1990-92s and 1996) are excellent and intensive. I also like the ones by Kitaienko (available since a couple of month as a complete bargain set), Muti and Segerstam :-)

(one hour later)
Just re-listened (after many years) to the Riccardo Muti version (Philadelphia Orchestra, 1985).
A real discovery, and how lyrical and tense at the same moment! And very exctatic when it should be - already preparing the spirit of Scriabin's following Symphonies.
In the second movement I discover an extra 3 bars of timpani, which were never in the scores - maybe added by Muti - but which are more than plausible... Now I must find out who else did the same thing. In any case, not even in the new critical edition they are to be found.
Muti makes a splendid interpretation of the 3rd movement, perhaps the best?
The (Glazunovian) fourth movement is really pianissmo-piano as I never heard before; very eerie-like and mysterious.
The last movement with soloists and choir is excellent and very mystical. This may become very easily cheap, depending on the interpreation.
In all movements, Muti delivers splendidly organic rubati and intersting tempi changes.

I like your enthusiasm about the Muti recording and will hunt it down. Currently I have the Pletnev recording with the Russian National Orchestra. It is coupled with The Poem of Ecstasy which I can say that I prefer the trumpet work on this recording over my new LSO recording which I quite enjoy the 3rd on.

Pletnev is as good as Muti in No.1 - and is better recorded. Muti has been the standard recommendation for all the symphonies for many years now.

Is there a tie breaker?

You are right, Alan, I had always problems with those too "distant" or too "panoramic" Philadelphia acoustics - already during the Ormandy-CBS years... I reconfirm this since I've just bought Ormandy's 12-CD Tchaikovsky (bargain) box. But the orchestra is really splendid.
As far as the trumpet is concerned, Svetlanov used to make almost a trumpet concerto of "Poem of Ecstasy" :-)

Quotethose too "distant" or too "panoramic" Philadelphia acoustics

I find the sound rather opaque: plenty of impact, but insufficient clarity. In comparison, the Decca recording in Berlin for Ashkenazy is far superior, but the performances don't have Muti's fire and passion.

Getting back to my question of the best recording?

sdtom: try to find this out by yourself :-) our opinions are still personal ones.
There is nothing more exciting to discover a piece of music and start loving it as if it would become a personal property - and cherish it all your life long.
In any case try out Muti, Kitaenko, Segerstam and why not, good old Golovanov (suppose you won't like the historical sound) - and the always more than reliable Svetlanov (3 versions!). Inbal is not bad either. Telling you this (but not more) since I have all these recordings im my collection (including the Akskenazy ones).

For all three: Muti.

Yes, Alan :-)
After listening - and score comparing - of the Segerstam version, I can say that this is quite convincing, except in the 4th movement, which is dull and too slow. The second movement has fascinating dark colours which Muti does not need.
And here too, there are many passages for timpani, cymbals and glockenspiel which do not figure in the scores! Must find out with the help of my Russian friends what's about this - the critical edition ignores this subject completely! Tomorrow, my listening will continue :-)

Thanks to Alan and Adriano for your input. I realize that I must find this out for myself and if I were a rich man monetarily I would buy them all. Right now as far as the first is concerned I have Pletnev and Golovschin. I prefer Pletnev. With the fourth I have Pletnev and Gergiev. On this one I've mixed feelings. I like the trumpet better in the Pletnev but enjoy the Gergiev overall. It is a fine recording. The 3rd I only have the Gergiev and the 2nd nothing at this time. Historical recordings don't bother me at all. In fact I recently completed a review of the Lost Weekend and the sound quality was horrible but it was nice to have the original material. I'm not sure where the extra percussion material is but I hope you'll explain to us where. Pletnev offers a fine rendition of the second movement and it was well recorded by pentatone.

Hi sdtom.
Good to hear bravo!
Incidentally, the Pletnev is a Deutsche Grammophone recording from the 1990s, re-issued by Pentatone. They seem, apparently, being sponsored by businessman and composer Gordon Getty (J. Paul Getty's son) - that's why you can have at least 10 CDs with Getty's works on this label.
And there is even a connection to Pletnev: the Gettys also sponsored Pletnev's Tchaikovsky recordings for DGG (which are also being re-issued by Pentatone). I don't have his Scriabin DGG recordings, maybe they also were sponsored the same way...
Connections - connections - connections, that how money makes the world go round... The arts, unfortunately, need these too...
Strange too, the fact that those Tchaikovsky CD were first reissued as a bargain box by Universal/DGG and then later on at a much more expensive price by Pentatone.... An "in-between re-issue" on Brilliant would have been wishful thinking :-). Finally, who buys Pletnev as a conductor - except some aficionados?? Same story, presumably, with Ashkenazy and Barenboim... In other words, such "cases" always need thick sponsors, otherwise original labels would never risk one reissue after another...

Quotethe Pletnev is a Deutsche Grammophone recording from the 1990s, re-issued by Pentatone

Actually, it isn't: it was recorded in March 2014, at DZZ Studio 5, Moscow. It was Symphony No.3 that Pletnev recorded back in the 90s for DG.

I'm also pretty sure that Pletnev has recorded Tchaikovsky's symphonies more than once. I have No.2 on Pentatone, recorded in Moscow in April 2011; his DG recording of the same work (according to Amazon) is dated March 1998. In addition, I'm certain that Pletnev has recorded Symphony No.6 three times: first for Virgin in the early 90s, secondly for DG around 1999 and lastly for Pentatone in 2011.

Pentatone do reissue recordings originally made earlier by other labels, but this is not, I think, the case with Pletnev's Scriabin or Tchaikovsky. Please tell me if I'm wrong...

I have the original releases of the six Tchaikovsky symphonies plus overtures. They are overall good. Money is an issue many times.

Oh I see, Alan, in other words I was totally wrong about those Pentatones. But I bet, they were again sponsored by Pletenv's friend Getty.
Funny enough, in their advertising lists, they never say "recorded in...", but just "released in...", so I wonder if anyone in this forum may have a look at all of these discs' technical smallprints to confirm...
On the other hand, the covers state "Hybrid Multichannel" and "Super surround"; which was not the case of the DGG set.
In other words, this "re-issue" follows the old Karajan procedure: let's redo the whole as soon as we have new technologies. But those who bought the earlier set(s), will they buy again the new ones? And one still wonders why record labels are complaining about declining sales!
A quoted review, saying "This release is one of the finest of Pletnev's Tchaikovsky survey and for many will be a clear first choice especially if sound quality is a major consideration. Enthusiastically recommended!" is, indirectly, an understament and a sad confirmation how classical recordings are being approached and promoted today: enjoy the sound and put the performance on a second place.

Quotethe old Karajan procedure: let's redo the whole as soon as we have new technologies

That's a good comparison.

As for recording dates, if the Tchaik 2/Pentatone CD (which I own) gives its recording date as 2014, we can be pretty sure that it is part of a second Pletnev cycle.

Now to the percussion parts of that absolutely wild and crazy (but magnificent) interpretation of Scriabin's First by Golovanov:
The original score has only timpani and glockenspiel as percussion instruments - used very dicreetly all over. Besides eliminating some, or introducing extra timpani passages, there are quite a few more suprizes: instead of using glockenspiel only in the 4th movement (as the MS indicates; there are glockenspiel passages in the 6th (choral) movement. Sometimes it even substitutes the flute, or just doubles it. And a lot of cymbals are used in there too! Incidentally, the climax section of this movement can be considered as a "pre-Poem-of-Ecstasy" section - and Golovanov enjoys emphazising this.

Adriano's descriptions make me wish I had the Golovanov 1st, when I have Svetlanov, and Svetlanov's 3rd when I have Golovanov! Maybe I got lucky when I bought Muti's 2nd. All good for that "wallow" that Alan mentioned, though  ;D

There is no doubt that they were rerecorded as I own both of Tchaikovsky's 2nd that he did and they are a bit different.

Thanks Alan and thanks sdtom for your help :-)

You are welcome.

Svetlanov too takes up in his recordings of Scriabin's First those (originally unwritten) "percussion frills", already used by Golovanov. I am happy to discover a review, just mentioning this subject - which I am analyzing these days. I find it strange, that the editor (Valentina Rubtsova, a Scriabin specialist!) does not mention this fact at all (not even who was responsible for those "extras") in her detailed notes of the score (Scriabin, collected works, new edition, 2011). These frills were also not included in previous score editions, except a couple of tamtam bars in the 5th movement, which were included to the second edition of 1900.
The mentioned review:
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/scriabin-orchestral-works

Soon I'll have more recordings to compare and explore of Scriabin.

A new update about "percussion frills" in Scriabin's First (and, most probably, also Second) Symphony:
Kitakenko follows his predecessors Golovanov and Svetlanov by adding more timpani, glockenpiel and cymbals.
Ashkenazy could not resist either: but he adds only a few bar's timpani in the 2nd movement and some glockenspiel drops in the final movement.
Inbal's is the most consequent version: he ignores all these extras.
All three versions are very good interpretations in a more "traditional" way, and not as "more personal" ones like Glovanov's and Muti's. But they have the advantage of emphasizing those many, almost chamber-like transparently orchestrated sections - this supported by exellent/intelligent sonics in which one can clearly recognize what's going on in every instrumental section.
Considering that I have all three versions by Svetlanov, I do no expect surprizes after having heard his earlier one already. So far I considered only versions which are parts of complete sets and which are in my collection. Let's perhaps hear form other members what they heard in versions by Pletnev and others, who did not record all Symphonies. Golovchin's Naxos versions are also missing in my collection, suppose it's not a great loss...

I need to first listen to the work as written and then compare.

A (final) note on the Pletnev-Tchaikovsky Pentatone box:
Symphonies 1-3, rec. April 2011
Symphonies 4-6, rec. June 2010
Manfred, rec. April 2013
All recordings made at DZZ Studio 5, Moscow; organ of Manfred recorded separately at the St. Ludwig's Kirche, Berlin.
(In Russia, there is still not one decent great organ to be found, I had to experience this myself).
And, as I suspected, these recordings are again supported by the Getty Foundation. Additionally to this, a support by the "Mikhaik Prokhorov Foundation" is mentioned.

Money, money, money...

I have the original recordings that he did on DGG and they are acceptable to me.

I have them too; I must say his interpretations have many interesting and original aspects - and I wonder if there will be differences in these later SACD recordings. This Mikhail Prokhorov Foundation" seems mainly to be a charity institution (no further comments...).

He certainly does have his own thoughts.

@hadrianus -- thank you for your detailed reply on Scriabin's first symphony.

Since you conduct, and since I don't have access to a critical edition, I have a question about your thoughts regarding the curious additional percussion: Is it possible that the published parts for the symphony have (if Belaieff, potentially Scriabin sanctioned) more percussion than is seen in the published score? Or is it more likely that conductors seeing good percussionists sitting in the rear of the orchestra unemployed (like trombonists in Beethoven's 5th waiting for the finale) decided to give them something additional to do? Or something else?

@chill319
So far - and as I already wrote - I could not find those percussion extras in earlier printed scores. This has been applied only to Symphonies 1 and 2. No. 3 has all kind of Scriabin-original percussion parts in all printed scores. I think it must have been Golovanov who had these ideas, and somewhere in Russia extra parts could be still found - a thing which I am on the way to find out. But the Russians are among the most slowly answering - and most unreliable - people in the world, I will have to be very patient. In Janaury, anyway, they celbrate their Holidays...
Of course, later conductors revised these extra parts... With all my respect for Scriabin, I must say I approve these extras too, since they have been done in the style of Symphony No. 3.
I am only suprised that the critical edition ignores this fact totally - at least a mentioning in the critical notes would have been fair (I have written to the editor...)
Incidentally, I found also some cuts in Golovanov's recording of 3rd Symphony...

QuoteIncidentally, I found also some cuts in Golovanov's recording of 3rd Symphony...

Oh dear. That's disappointing.

such a pleasure to have you on the site.

Scriabin's Third Symphony, Golovanov recording:
Yes, Alan, unfortunately there are two cuts in the 2nd movement: one of 20 and another of 15 bars. In the 3rd movement there is a cut of 20 bars...
I correct what I said earlier about "original percussion" use: Golovanov adds a lot of cymbals in this Symphony too. In the 3rd movement's climaxes, for example, there are cymbals orgies!
Still, Golovanov's interpretations are really incredible and very original, also as far as some unwritten stops in-between the movements are concerned.
Cosidering the fact that such erotic/sensual and out of the world music was performed and broadcast during Stalin's last years (Soviet "Realism" was still the rule), just at the time Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Khachaturian and other "formalists" had been denounced and forbidden, one must remain quite perplex...