I'd like to commend to your attention the new recording of Strauss' Symphony in F minor on Oehms featuring the superb (if inelegantly named) Frankfurt Opera and Museum Orchestra under Sebastian Weigle (who is a dab hand in this repertoire).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Opern-_und_Museumsorchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Opern-_und_Museumsorchester)
The performance of the symphony is quite the strongest I've heard of this, the second of Strauss' two early symphonies. It's often described as backward-looking (in comparison to Don Juan which also features on this CD), but quite honestly it sounds magnificently of its time (1883) here. It also makes for some fascinating comparisons with two roughly contemporary symphonies - those by d'Albert (in F - 1886) and Georg Schumann (B minor - 1887).
A winner of a CD! Audio samples here:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/don-juan-symphonie-f-moll-op-12/hnum/8325962 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/don-juan-symphonie-f-moll-op-12/hnum/8325962)
Nice to hear this. The 1994 CD with Hiroshi Wakasugi conducting the Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony is quite a nice version too :-)
Here's another work whose absence from concert halls (and recordings) has never made sense. It could sure use a new, strong performance. But really, another Don Juan? The competition here is just overwhelming. Wish they had coupled it with another Strauss rarity, like Macbeth. Nonetheless, I'll pick this up. My old Records International version with Halasz needs company.
or the Pan-Athens Procession, or (less rare, but this would really interest me) the German Motets...
Good news, even if I never thought Järvi's recording left much to be desired. For those searching for instant gratification, it is also downloadable via the iTunes store.
Järvi's is a fine performance - leaner, as one might expect. Weigle is weightier.
Weigle's is indeed an impressive performance. If one didn't know the composer's name, one would never guess that this grand work was juvenilia. To be able to write such music at 21! That said, I marginally prefer the even earlier D minor Symphony because it has freshness and vigour which is not so much to the fore in this more sober piece.
cpo is issuing a new recording of the F minor
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/richard-strauss-symphonie-f-moll-op-12/hnum/8992789
For some reason I thought they'd done so already, but it seems their contribution to Strauss' output has been mainly recordings of his lesser-known operas (not a bad thing). The above thread does mention more recordings of the F minor symphony than I'd remembered existed, though...
I will give this a pass because the Jarvi is just perfect to me: the interpretation always was great, and the remastered mid-price reissue fixes the too recessed and somewhat fuzzy early Chandos vintage sound. I A/B'd them , and I threw away the old cd.
What I would really like is a new recording of the D minor, because neither of the 2 releases I have totally satisfies me.
One (Rickenbacher) is gorgeously played and recorded, but I find it indifferently conducted, workmanlike.
The other (Seibel) is stupendously shaped by an understanding conductor, and very well played, but let down by the almost insufferable (to these ears) Colosseum sound, boxy and harsh at the same time, quite a feat.
How about Klauspeter Seibel on Colosseum?>>>
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00004TC7D/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_6?smid=AZDZIBH5X2SOL&psc=1 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00004TC7D/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_6?smid=AZDZIBH5X2SOL&psc=1)
It's in D minor, by the way.
of course you're right..in a hurry , i had even mispelled the conductor's name, and , being a soundtrack listener, I also conflated Colosseum with Varese Sarabande, because in that remit they're closely connected, a lot of hiccups in a little post!..all edited.
thank you
I've been listening again to Järvi's performance - which is much more volatile, but also occasionally too glib by half, especially when he rushes his fences. Bäumer on cpo is superficially less exciting, but he really gets the mystery of the music whereas Järvi pushes ahead, anxious to get to the next climax. With Bäumer the Symphony sounds like a much bigger statement; I think he treats it with greater respect, rather as Weigle does.
From a customer review at jpc:
<<Dirigent Bäumer lässt sich - im Vergleich zu Järvi auf CHANDOS - dreieinhalb Minuten Mehr Zeit, besonders im ersten Satz. Das nimmt der Musik zwar etwas an Feuer, verleiht ihr andererseits aber auch mehr Gewicht, was der Musik gut bekommt.>>
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/richard-strauss-symphonie-f-moll-op-12/hnum/8992789 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/richard-strauss-symphonie-f-moll-op-12/hnum/8992789)
Translation:
<<In comparison with Järvi on Chandos, the conductor, Bäumer, allows himself an extra three and a half minutes, particularly in the first movement. This takes away something of the music's fire, but on the other hand it lends it more weight, which suits the music well.>>
I thoroughly agree.
Of course, the real rarity here is the C minor overture. I hadn't heard that before, and it is enjoyable in a sort of early-careerist way.
Adriano is right, by the way: the version conducted by Hiroshi Wakasugi on Denon is also excellent - at least as good as Bäumer or Weigle, albeit, I think, rather more refined, with all of them turning in performances that are much more subtle than the rather brash Järvi. In addition, Wakasugi benefits from very good Denon engineering, with particularly good bass definition.
Ah, Alan!
That's telepathy: right now I was coming in to post a reminder on this very recording :)
Do tell us what you think the advantages of the Wakasugi recording are...
In my collection I have only the Wakasugi and the Rickenbacher recordings, which I both find excellently performed and well recorded. I was quite astonished that Rickenbacher's tempi were so fresh, since generally he was a rather slow-tempo man (we knew eachother since 1970; occasionally he came back to me asking for less-known scores, photocopies or infos on Respighi and Schreker).
I prefer Wakasugi's performance, mainly due to its warmer and brighter string sound (Rickenbacher's Bavarians strings, in some little high places, have occasional tiny intonation problems). Wakasugi also uses rubato. In a way, his performance gives each Symphonie's movements more impact. Rickenbacher's has a more dry (but fully justifiable) approach and, in my opinion, it really "breaks out" only in the last movement. Perhaps he wanted so. But I think that dramatic situations could be more emphasized already in the first movement.
I am happy having listened to these CDs after so many years! And I did by following with a score. New recordings of this wonderful work are welcome, but I remain happy with what I already have :-)
Wakasugi was conductor-in-chief of the Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra from 1987 to 1991 and I remember some of his wonderful concerts. His four "unsung" Strauss-Denon CDs (recorded between 1989 and 1994) are super - a recommendable repertoire compendium to Rudolf Kempe's Strauss box (recorded in Dresden), which was produced by RCA in the 1970s (at the time Kempe was chef at the Tonhalle). In 1971, he made a sensation with the first stereo recording of the "Alpensinfonie". Karajan's transcendental recording (which for me remains the absolute best - I know, some music-lovers will be scandalised) was done only 10 years later. The excellent Decca recordings by Georg Solti and Zubin Metha were done just in-between Kempe's and Karajan's.
That's a really fascinating series of insights - thank you. Wakasugi was obviously a very fine, but underrated conductor.
And no, I'm not scandalised at your assessment of Karajan's Alpine Symphony. At his best (as there) his conducting was indeed transcendental - as was his orchestra. I'm also glad to hear you speak of Strauss' F minor Symphony as 'this wonderful work' instead of following the critical crowd and dismissing it as a piece of insignificant juvenilia. I agree one hundred per cent.
thank you Hadrianus for sharing such wealth of insightful info!
Your recollections are a treasure,
You have brilliantly clarified to me why I am not totally happy with Rickenbacher (notwithstanding an overall very good interpretation and great audio quality).
I think I'll have to get the Wakasugi...
I've just checked and I have the Rickenbacher as well. I shall have to give it a spin again as it's been a while since I've heard it and then probably decide I need the Wakasugi as well!
credit where it's due (especially Alan)..I just listened to the freshly purchased Baumer/cpo and you were right: here's there's a majesty, a sense of mistery, that in the Jarvi is simply not there.
I still like Jarvi's père customary energy,but, without a doubt, Baumer (and the very good, echt-German sounding orchestra) make this a "big", plush piece, still vigorous and stormy, though.
This is now my reference.Wonderful.
I just hope that this team could give us the other symphony, sooner or later-
...as I keep saying ad nauseam, we need a commercial recording of Berger 2.
I wanted to record Berger 25 years ago on Marco Polo: No interest!
One would have thought Herr Schmilgun at CPO might show some interest, but I suppose you have already contacted him, Alan.
Yes, years ago. I seem to remember sending him a copy of the Bernbacher/Bremen performance.
Maybe another gentle prod would do no harm.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 04 November 2019, 22:13
Adriano is right, by the way: the version conducted by Hiroshi Wakasugi on Denon is also excellent - at least as good as Bäumer or Weigle, albeit, I think, rather more refined, with all of them turning in performances that are much more subtle than the rather brash Järvi. In addition, Wakasugi benefits from very good Denon engineering, with particularly good bass definition.
I think that we're at a serious risk at looking for more depth here than is there; it's a symphony written by a nineteen-year-old after all. And while I don't think people that young are incapabale of intellectual depth (quite the contrary), a certain amount of energy is also called for. To me, this makes Järvi's approach quite compelling, and particularly Weigle not so much.
(also, I don't adhere to the implication that there is a proporitonate relationship between speed and interpretational superficiality, but that is perhaps a different discussion)
Well - respectfully - I disagree. Järvi is too flip; Bäumer gets it about right - as do Weigle and Wakasugi. Too often Järvi simply rushes his fences. This isn't a question of looking for more depth where there isn't any - it's a matter, ultimately, of respect for what the composer wrote.
Järvi père has form in this area. His recent recording of Rubinstein's PC5 is a case in point. When I was in Manchester in 2010 observing Noseda record Rufinatscha for Chandos, Järvi's Raff recordings were being planned. "I'll bet that'll be fast!" was the comment from the recording team in the studio. As it turned out, Järvi's tempi in the two Raff symphonies he recorded proved a necessary corrective to what had gone before; however, his tendency to rush is clearly well known in the business. And even early Strauss should definitely not be treated like Raff.
Of course, there are more ways than one to respect the composer. Also, there is a difference between "rushing" (again, that implication of superficiality) and using fast tempi, which can very well be done while remaining faithful to the material. For me, Weigle's expansiveness (which
does appear to "Alpensinfonie" the work to my ears) is less fitting than Järvi's pace.
Haven't heard the Bäumer yet, cpo appears reluctant to provide me with CDs these days.
QuoteAnd even early Strauss should definitely not be treated like Raff
In fact, I guess you could make a good point that early Strauss should be treated more like Raff than like late Strauss.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. All I'll say is that Järvi is very much the odd one out here - doesn't make him wrong, but still...
I don't think that the Raff-early Strauss connection really works. Strauss' template is definitely not Raff. Järvi in Raff is refreshing; Järvi in early Strauss pushes on where a steadier hand is required. Too often louder means faster.
"Too often louder means faster"
Actually, this last phrase from Alan allows me to mention another highlight of the Baumer recording, which is the carefully nuanced terracing of the dynamics...Before, i really had no idea there was so much light and shade in this piece.
So , as so often it's not only a question of tempi (after all, Baumer takes only 4 more minutes)
In comparison to him Jarvi is almost always forte or mezzo-forte.
An example of the problem I find with Järvi occurs between roughly 09:15 and 10.00 into his recording of the first movement where he first slows down and then speeds up where there are no such markings in the score. I think this may be due to the basically faster tempo which Järvis chooses for the movement as a whole (and which I find rather smudges quite a lot of detail, despite the fine playing of the RSNO).
To turn to Bäumer, who is two whole minutes longer in the first movement, we have a very different conception of the music. He sets a broader overall tempo so that he doesn't have to 'change gear' as much or as often as Järvi. Now, in my opinion Bäumer's approach is much more appropriate to a symphony written at roughly the same time as Brahms 3 (1883) by a composer born in 1864. Järvi's faster basic tempo (sustained - correctly - in Raff), just don't work so well in this later, heavier idiom.
If I only had Järvi, I'd be pretty satisfied; but others have come along - and their approach to this opening movement has been quite different. Järvi takes 12:55; but Bäumer takes 14:57, Wakasugi 14:31 and Weigle 14:22. In this case I think one is (somewhat) wrong-headed and three are nearer what the composer intended.
And there I rest my case...