Search - Modest Mussorgsky, Giorgy Strautman, Valery Gergiev :: Modest Moussorgsky: Khovanshchina

Far from Mussorgskiy and Shostakovich, but surprisingly good

moskvich | Moscow | 07/08/2000

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Khovanshina is one of the most difficult operas to interprit. Since Mussorgskiy did not orchestrate the opera and did not even finish the score, it is impossible to find a "correct" version. Among the most famous orchestrations are the ones by Rimskiy-Korsakov and Shastakovich (the one used on the present recording). Since the two versions are pracrically two different operas (just like the different Godunovs)it is best to be fammiliar with both of them. It is now considered that Shostakovich's version is more "Mussorgskian", since his orchestration is much more somber and darker. True, Khovanshina is possibly the most somber opera ever written, but it also has some bright moments, as the introduction, known as "Dawn over Moskva river". Since I was fortunate to see the sunrise above the Kremlin catherdrals, Red Square and the Moskva river, I must say that it is impossible for a person who never visited Russia to fully understand the melody. The "dawn" theme also has a second meaning. It is associated with Peter the Great - who was also in a way a sunrize for Russia. Almost every time Peter is mentioned you hear the "dawn".I, persanally, prefer the version made by Rimskiy-Korsakov, and I am sure that Mussorgskiy himself would find the Rimskiy version better than Shostakovich, though unperfect. To say the truth, Shostakovich's Khovanshina sounds like a long funeral march, while the only funeral music in the opera, in Mussorgskiy's own words, are the prelude to scene five, and Marfa's "Slyshal-li ty...". Both of them are made better by Rimskiy-Korsakov. Shostakovich's version has one privilege - It is more complete, but Shostakovich himself wrote some extra music, which is not used in the recording. Then we have the following question - if you record Shostakovich's version, which is not as fammiuliar as Rimskiy's, why make cuts?Shostakovich made the orchestration specialy for a 1958 film, directed by Vera Stroyeva, with Mark Reizen, Alexei Krivchenia, Kira Leonova, Yevgeniy Kibkalo and Anton Grigoryev. The aria of Shaklovityi was made in to two different ones - the begining "Spit streletskoye gnezdo..." was sung by Shaklovityi (Kibkalo), and the ending "Gospodi, ty s vysot bespredel'nyh nash greshnyi mir ob'elmushiy" was given to a character not used in any of the versions of the opera - a simple peasent. What is also interesting, is that Shostakovich ended the opera not like Rimkiy (Peter's march) or like in this recording (a prayer), but with both of them AND a final reprise of the "dawn" theme.Now about the recording. The best singers in the cast are Bulat Minzhelkiyev, Vladimir Galuzin and Konstantin Pluzhnikov. All have good "Russian" voices and are good actors, while Olga Borodina and Valeriy Alexeyev do not make such a good impression. Borodina is to sentimental. She seems to forget that Marfa is supposed to be not just a religious fanatic, but also a young and atractive woman. Alexeyev is a good singer, but he makes Shaklovityi a complete antagonist, while in reallity he just dissagrees with the other characters, but he is concearned with his country's fate as much as Dosifey and Golitsin. Nikolay Okhotnikov, a good singer, is a fine Dosifey, but it is hard to compare him to Shaliapin, Reizen, Petrov, Ognivtsev or Nestereno. Yelena Prokina is a rarely charming Emma. The future star baritone Visiliy Gerello is singing the small role of Streshnev. Gergiev conducts slowly and makes the opera sound even more somber. I recomend this recording, but you should also get the Bolshoy version cunducted by Khaikin (Rimskiy-Korsakov orchestration). It features Ognivtsev, Krivchenia, Arkhipova, Malennikov, Pyavko, Nechipaylo and Tugarinova. The small roles of Shtreshev and Kuzka are sung by two young bariones (Vladimir Fedoseyev and Yuriy Grigoryev), both of whom later became major stars (Grigoryev is now the head of the Bolshoi opera company.) You should also get the two Russian videos (Kirov, with alomst identical cast, and Bolshoi, once more Rimskiy version, with Nesterenko, Vedernikov, Arkhipova, Raikov, Pyavko and Romanovskiy, conducted by Simonov). There is no perfect khovanshina yet, but among the Shostakovich recordings, altogether this is the best one."

Very good, but not the best

Carsten Stampe Jorgensen | Copenhagen, Denmark | 06/05/2000

(3 out of 5 stars)

"This is indeed a good performance, but for a truly magnificient performance, you have to turn to Tchakarov on Sony. This has not only to do with Tchakarov's secure pacing and shaping of the music, but certainly also has to do with the vocalists. Only Olga Borodina and Vladimir Galusin equals the standards of their counterparts in the Sony-recording. Actually Galusin is my preferred Andrei Khovansky. The rest of the cast is of high standard, except for Bulat Minjelkiev. He does not even make the smallest attempt to interpretate his part. This is a shame since the role of Ivan Khovansky really needs a singer with great dramatic acting abilities. The part receives the right treatment in the Sony-recording, where Nicolai Ghiaurov is nothing short of magnificient. The mayor difference between this Philips recording and the Sony recording is the difference between the vocal school of Russia and Bulgaria. In the Sony recording the cast is Bulgarian, and it does sound as though the Bulgarian school (Thanks to Hristo Brumbarov) is superior to the russian. Compared to the Bulgarians the Russian counterparts sound a shade stiff and dry-voiced. They neither match the rich timbre of the Bulgarians, nor do they equal their acting abilities. The chorus of Kirov is convincing, but again in comparison with the chorus of The Sofia National Opera, it falls a bit short. Gergiev does create great intensity and a good deal of white heat, but does have a tendency to skate along the surface of this brilliant score. This is a very good performance, but an even better one can be purchased."

Almost Boris Good Enough!

tmallon | Quakertown, PA United States | 07/04/2000

(4 out of 5 stars)

"This piece of Russian history challenges references to their Teutonic neighbors (the Huns). This is compounded by the perpetual plight and pain so familiar to the Russian people, even today. Czar Peter (the Great) creates the name "Khovanschina" within the opera. It refers to the Strelsky (ancient Brownshirts) with a pension for drunken violence. Prince Khovansky, a non-royal (ancient Ernst Roehm) commands the Strelsky. Thus the name: Khovanschina or Khovansky-Affair. Shaklovity (shades of Hitler) weeping in one scene later murders Khovansky.Moussorgsky may have had a need to write this opera because of the Russian national revival movement that he and the "Mighty Handful" were so fond of. No doubt Modest took the side of the "Old Believers", since Peter the Great did more for the likes of Tchaikovsky (no fan of the Handful) with his European influences, than for the nationalists. However, unlike with Boris Goudanov, Moussorgsky didn't have to battle with the censors to get Khovanschina out the door. Instead, he drank himself to death before completion and let his buddy Rimsky wrestle with them. Rather than deal with it, Rimsky finished it in fine Rimsky fashion and made it very royal sounding. That version was later hacked by Stravinsky and Pictures-at-an-Exhibitions-Ravel. Even this was later cleaned up to a more Moussorgsky sound by Shastokovitch where he had the opportunity to throw in some drums (Shastokovitch loved drums) and tweak some of Rimsky's bugle calls. The best thing, historically, about this recording is Valery Gergiev's handling of this above-mentioned edits. Gone are the drums and bugle calls to where we now have something close to what would have been Moussorgsky's first draft. And that's the real tragedy! Had Moussorgsky lived, this opera (and the dramatics) would have been revised substantially. As with Boris Godounov, Moussorgsky would have reacted to criticism and did multiple rewrites to a clarified staging. So rating this performance becomes very difficult. On one hand it gets 5 stars as a historic success, because unless they uncover some of Modest's own orchestrations this is finally it. The performance gets 5 big stars as well (love the Kirov recordings); the limp libretto only gets two (first attempt). However, I thank Rimsky for getting the ball rolling (he gets beat up to much as the "tinkerer"). You will find it easy to love this opera with all its flaws (as in loving a drunk). It's not Boris Godounov (which it always gets compared to), but guess what? Boris doesn't have some of the glorious scenes that Khovanschina has! 4 stars will do nicely."