Author Topic: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)  (Read 10411 times)

Offline barry guerrero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3928
David gives this recording an 8/9 rating. But if you're mostly concerned about Slatkin's Mussorgsky, read the sentence that I chose to highlight. Personally, I think that this worth getting for the bizarre "Great Gate" alone, as well as the incredible tam-tam smashes at the end of it. I totally agree with David's thoughts on doing these protracted and strange sounding versions of our national anthem.

FRANZ LISZT
Piano Concerto No. 1
MODEST MUSSORGSKY
Pictures at an Exhibition (arr. various composers)
Peng Peng (piano)

Nashville Symphony Orchestra

Leonard Slatkin

Naxos- 8.570716(CD)
Reference Recording - None for this coupling

Listen to samples on Naxos.com

    rating: 8/9

    This curious hodgepodge of a disc begins with the Liszt First piano concerto in a straightforward, exciting performance by young Chinese pianist Peng Peng (no, I won't go there). Aside from a bit of banging at the opening, as much Liszt's doing as Peng's, he brings plenty of sizzle to the scherzo section and real freshness to the concluding march. It's certainly enjoyable in its own right, though what it's doing on the disc is anyone's guess.

    Leonard Slatkin has made a reputation for himself for assembling performances of Pictures at an Exhibition by various arrangers aside from Ravel. His earlier version focused on some of the French composer's contemporaries, whereas this one looks largely at later (mostly unknown) efforts while still including a touch of Ravel (Con mortuis), Henry Wood (Two Polish Jews), Stokowski (Baba Yaga), and the somewhat well-known Sergey Gorchakov (Gnomus).

    The problem all of the later arrangers face is that Ravel's orchestration is so good, his instrumental choices so inevitable, that some of them seem stuck doing something different so as not to sound imitative, and so have to settle for being less good. This is particularly true of D. Wilson Ochon's uninspired opening Promenade (must we have a glockenspiel?) and Geert Van Keulen's Tuileries. On the other hand, Emile Naoumoff's Old Castle, with its added piano decorations, is interesting, and Douglas Gamely pulls out all the stops (including organ and male chorus) in the Great Gate of Kiev, even if he inevitably sounds just like Ravel at the end. Two further notable contributions are Lucien Cailliet's Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks and Vladimir Ashkenazy's Bydlo (the best number in his version of the complete suite).

    Through it all the Nashville Symphony plays very well, and is very well recorded, particularly for a one-off live performance. The program even has an encore, Rob Mathes' weird arrangement of The Star-Spangled Banner, yet another of those ghastly 9/11 tributes that today's classical composers can't stop churning out in a pathetic effort to do something "relevant". I detest this stuff--but never mind. Forget the couplings. Pictures is great fun, and for that reason you should seriously consider giving this a listen.

    --David Hurwitz

Offline Amphissa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2008, 11:06:24 PM »

To my knowledge, DH has not reviewed the real winner, which is Ashkenazy's own album. On that album, Ashkenazy plays first the piano version. It may not quite equal Richter's Sofia masterpiece, but it is exceptionally good. He follows Mussorgsky's markings in spirit as well as in scription. The second piece on the CD is Ashkenazy's own orchestration of the Pictures. We've become so familiar with Ravel's orchestration that anything different seems somehow "wrong." But Mussorgsky was Russian, not French, and Ashkenazy's orchestration is more in the Russian tradition, so it is an interesting contrast to Ravel's. In both the piano version and the orchestrated version, Ashkenazy's Bydlo is among the very best ever recorded. He really has an insight into that picture.

I have not heard this Slatkin CD. I've never been particularly impressed with Slatkin. The recordings from his years at St Louis were, in my opinion, uniformly mediocre. His tenure at National Symphony Orchestra in Washington, where I attended one of his concerts in person, did nothing to alter my opinion. And his lack of artistic vision and conception seems apparent to me in the selection of works on this CD, although it is possible the CD was simply a throw-together "product" of the Naxos marketing mavens.

I can't comment on the quality of the performances or audio on this CD, of course, but I can say that, if you are looking for an alternative orchestral conception of the Pictures, with or without a very good piano performance, at a reasonable price, the Ashkenazy would be a choice worth considering. If you are looking for a recording of the Liszt piano concerto, there are a gazillion fine recordings. And if you are looking for the Star Spangled Banner, well, you are on your own.

This Slatkin CD appeals to me not in the least. Of course, as always, YMMV. DH seemed to like it.

"Life without music is a mistake." Nietzsche

Offline Dave H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2008, 02:16:52 AM »
I have a couple of comments here.

1. Ashkenazy's orchestration is at almost every point inferior to Ravel's, particularly in the Great Gate, with its reckless excess of bell sounds that don't sound remotely Russian (more like one of Malcolm Arnold's English Dances). Bydlo, I think, is the best part, but to buy into the PR puffery about his being somehow more "authentic" because he's Russian seems to me very naive. Indeed, the entire business about "Russian sound" is so much nonsense. Ravel's orchestration is, in fact, more "Russian" than anyone who came after him if by that we mean Rimsky-Korsakov and his school (which was the only Russian school there was at the time, Tchaikovsky aside, and no one would suggest that Mussorgsky should be scored like Tchaikovsky).

Ravel and all of his French colleagues knew Russian music far better than most of those who criticize his orchestration, thanks to the Ballet Russes, but also the rich cross-fertilization of musical culture between the two countries. Rimsky, in particular, was a major influence on turn of the century French music (his Antar took Paris by storm). Debussy was employed by Tchaikovsky's patroness, Mme. von Meck. Much of the orchestration we call "Russian" in turn has its roots in France, and in Grand Opera and (of course) ballet specifically. The problem today is that no one much listens to 19th century French orchestral music, but if you compare, say, Massenet's orchestral suites or Delibes' ballets to Rimsky and Glazunov, you hear the similarity immediately. So to say that Ravel's orchestration somehow isn't "Russian" simply because it's competent and he happened to be French is, in my opinion, simply untrue. One has only to compare "Pictures" to Ravel's other pieces to see how UNLIKE his typical sound so much of Pictures actually is.

Dave H




Offline Amphissa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2008, 04:50:49 AM »

David,

First, I did not say it was better than Ravel's orchestration, I said it was an "interesting contrast."

Second, I never said that "Mussorgsky should be scored like Tchaikovsky."

Third, I never mentioned anything about a "Russian sound."

Fourth, I did not say that "Ravel's orchestration somehow isn't 'Russian' simply because it's competent and he happened to be French."

Fifth, I am quite aware of the relationship between Russian and French composers and music.

In fact, I happen to like Ravel's orchestration. But the CD you reviewed has an assortment of pictures orchestrated by other composers, which is why my comments pertained to Ashkenazy's alternative orchestration, which I personally think better than the other alternative orchestrations that I have heard.

The reason I think it is more interesting than the other alternatives to Ravel is because it is more akin to Mussorgsky's own style and conforms more to Mussorgsky's own music. The fact is, Ashkenazy's orchestration is more faithful to Mussorgsky's original than is Ravel's. This is probably due to the fact that Ravel did not have Mussorgsky's original score to work from, but rather Rimsky-Korsakov's edition. As a result, Ravel omitted the fifth Promenade and his versions of the Baba Yaga, The Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks and Kiev are somewhat different. It is with Bydlo that Ravel's version differs most from Mussorgsky's intent, and it is with this picture that Ashkenazy's orchestration best succeeds. These differences are factual and verifiable. See, for example, Russ, Mussorgsky, pp. 76-86 for a more detailed discussion.

I am also not alone in my opinion that Ashkenazy's orchestration is more in the style of Mussorgsky than Ravel's. Most people can appreciate the accomplishment of Ravel and yet still value the contribution of Ashkenazy. Maes, for example, wrote "... Vladimir Ashkenazy produced a new orchestration, one more in keeping with Mussorgsky's own style. However, Ravel's version will probably always maintain its place on the concert stage as a masterpiece sui generis." A History of Russian Music, p. 273.

As to the accusation that I am naive and simply buying into PR puffery, I have yet to figure out why you come on these boards and intentionally pick fights with people. You don't know me and you have no clue how much I know about Russian music.

But I am a generally gracious person, I will leave it at that.
 

"Life without music is a mistake." Nietzsche

Offline Dave H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2008, 10:20:12 AM »
I am not trying to "pick a fight" with you, and if I came off that way, then I apologize. You DID say "But Mussorgsky was Russian, not French, and Ashkenazy's orchestration is more in the Russian tradition, so it is an interesting contrast to Ravel's." This is precisely my point, your objections to my paraphrasing notwithstanding. There is nothing I suggested that is not reasonable based on your stated claim, which suggests quite plainly a basic incompatibility between composer and transcriber on the basis of nationality, and specifically defines the "interest" in Ashkenazy as a function of his work being in a more authentic national style.

And the source you cite merely repeats the same thing, without giving any specifics. If you want to raise the old bugbear about the edition Ravel was working from, that argument won't hold water either--how is Rimsky's edition less "Russian" than Mussorgsky's original? There's a different between textual fidelity, in a scholarly sense, and the stylistics of a national school. Please explain how Rimsky's editorial work, or the omission of a promenade, "de-Russifies' Mussorgsky in any way? You may claim that Ashkenazy's version is closer to Mussorgsky in certain details, and there I would have to agree, but again, this begs the question of whether or not those details are specifically "Russian" in any meaningful way. I would suggest that they are not. I can accept that Mussorgsky had a personal style in his use of melody, harmony, and rhythm that has come to be associated with a particular quality of Russian-ness, but not as regards orchestration. He simply had too little experience in this field, and his output is too small, to reflect much besides his lack of ability.

This doesn't mean that everything Rimsky did was appropriate to Mussorgsky--Shostakovich's editions are perhaps better in this respect--but it's also worth noting that the people least concerned with textual authenticity, historically, have been composers close to Mussorgsky or those most sympathetic to him, all of them just as Russian as he was. That his orchestration is "characteristic" I would not dispute, but often not in a good way, and Ashkenazy's scoring strikes me as demonstrably less Mussorgskian than does Ravel's, which consistently captures the rawness and edge of Mussorgsky's style without its inconsistencies in a way that Ashkenazy (with the exception of Bydlo, where we agree) does not. I'm thinking of Gnomus, Catacombs, Baba Yaga, Two Jews, and the Great Gate, as well as the opening Promenade. And let us not forget that two of pictures, Tuilleries and Limoges, ARE French, so one can't knock Ravel there, while the Ballet of the Unhatched Chicks is, similarly, at least aesthetically French.

Even in Bydlo, Ravel's tuba solo is conceptually perfectly in keeping with the Russian tradition--the persistent use of pure tone color, and the simple juxtaposition of wind tone against string accompaniment. And while it may not follow Mussorgsky's original dynamics, Ravel's solution is arguably more apt than Ashkenazy's as reimagined for orchestra (which cannot successfully reproduce the loud banging of the piano's lower octaves), rather than as a more basic attempt at literal transcription. One may well appreciate Ashkenazy for his more literal view, but again, that's not especially "Russian."

One final point: I never suggested that you didn't like Ravel or had a problem with his edition. That is purely your imagination at work. Indeed, although you seemed to take it personally, I did not address you directly at all. My posting in reacting to your comments was in the nature of a general observation about a frequently encountered phenomenon. Too often in the musical world, someone makes an observation or statement about what ought to be an audible fact (or should at least be put in a well-defined and meaningful context), and this is then taken up and parroted, becoming eventually "conventional wisdom." One of the most common examples of this is the nationalist myth that people of one country have a special affinity to music of that country by right of birth, when in reality it's a function of training and experience, of practice more than patrimony. There have been many Russian artists who have been notably poor exponents of Russian music: Vladimir Feltsman (who seems more at home in Bach), and Semyon Bychkov are just two examples.

In the case at hand, we have a classic opportunity to consider the difference between what Ashkenazy says ("I'm Russian and am thus in a better position to capture the true Russian flavor of Mussorgsky"), and what he did, which was to produce an orchestration palpably inferior to Ravel's in most of the points of detail in which it differs (and there are many where it does not), many of which happen to be precisely those aspects that might be called "Russian style." After all, Ashkenazy is not a professional composer or orchestrator, certainly not one to withstand comparison to a certified genius like Ravel, and so the ONLY basis he has to make a claim for the aesthetic legitimacy of his version is his Russian-ness. And THAT, I feel, is largely meaningless based on the audible results of what he achieves.

Dave H
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 06:12:11 PM by Dave H »

Offline barry guerrero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3928
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2008, 05:36:45 PM »
David,

I do think that most people would agree that Ravel's is the best overall orchestration from start to finish (and Gortchakov certainly has his fans too). Still, don't you think that there's something of a gap between what Ravel has done, and what Mussorgsky's own orchestrations tended to sound like? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But my point isn't that Ravel has somehow failed, but rather that the door should remain open for others to try their hand at it, regardless of how lame those results sometimes are. Regardless of that, I think that such serious discussions -  and I'm not singling you out here, trust me - steer us away from what I believe to be the spirit of Slatkin's pastiche, and that's simply to have fun with the piece, and allow others to have their musical voices heard too. Some of those ideas are pretty good, and other ones are certainly fairly strange sounding - no doubt about that. I do like the idea of having very different sounding Promenades. I don't know, I just like that.

I have to say, I'm also tired of these post 9/11 horror-shows foisted upon our national anthem.

Offline Dave H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2008, 06:20:52 PM »
Barry:

Of course you're right. Ravel does sound very different from Mussorgsky's usual orchestration, to the extent he had any, but his usual wasn't very good, and Ravel's being very good, doesn't therefore become "unRussian." The reality is that no one wants to orchestrate the way Mussorgsky did, and even the ones that claim to be closer to his authentic sound don't really do so. They're just less colorful than Ravel, perhaps darker, but there's no evidence that Mussorgsky would have preferred that. The original Night on Bald Mountain is much brighter and even garish in comparison to what Rimsky did, and why should Pictures sound like Boris Godunov? Anyway, as you noted, I like Slatkin also, and I think it's lots of fun to play around with different versions and see what happens, just as it's fun to hear what various hands do with the sketches for Mahler's Tenth. I hope they never stop arranging either of them!

Dave H

Offline barry guerrero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3928
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2008, 06:45:37 PM »
"The reality is that no one wants to orchestrate the way Mussorgsky did, and even the ones that claim to be closer to his authentic sound don't really do so. They're just less colorful than Ravel, perhaps darker, but there's no evidence that Mussorgsky would have preferred that. The original Night on Bald Mountain is much brighter and even garish in comparison to what Rimsky did, and why should Pictures sound like Boris Godunov?"

Interesting points.

Offline Amphissa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2008, 08:02:57 PM »


The original post, a review by DH, regarded alternative orchestrations to Ravel. I said I prefer Ashkenazy's alternative orchestration to the others that I've heard and to the thought of a hodge-podge of orchestrations like Slatkins.

I said that Ashkenazy's orchestration is closer to Mussorgsky's original in style and in note than Ravel's, and that it is as a consequence an interesting contrast to Ravel's.

I'm not going to be further drawn into this discussion. "... Ravel's [orchestration] being very good, doesn't therefore become 'unRussian.'" That quote alone is explanation enough, I think.

Instead, for those who are interested, I recommend the following excellent books by experts on the history of Russian music. The book by Maes is exceptionally well written and readable, in excellent translation. Tuskin and Russ are specifically on target regarding Mussorgsky's Pictures.

Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music
Richard Taruskin, Musorgsky
Michael Russ, Musorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition
Richard Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically
Stuart Campbell, Russians on Russian Music (2 vol)

I have nothing further to say on this subject.
 
 
"Life without music is a mistake." Nietzsche

Offline Dave H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Classicstoday on Slatkin's "hodge-podge" Pictures (Mussorgsky/everyone)
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2008, 04:19:07 AM »
I have a better suggestion: listen to the Slatkin recording. Anyone can list a bibliography of applicable books/articles. Nothing replaces the experience of hearing the performances in question and letting the evidence of your ears decide, and no supposed expert's judgment is any more valid than your own in this respect. And my way is a lot more fun.

Dave H

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk