Search - Prokofiev, Jarvi, Scottish National Orchestra :: Prokofiev: The Complete Symphonies

Still the Best

Hegelian | Concord, MA USA | 11/26/2008

(5 out of 5 stars)

"This is a repackaging of Jarvi's recordings of the Prokofiev symphonies with the "fillers" omitted. When orginially released, they set a new standard, and are overall still the best recordings of these works. There are better versions of the 1st and 5th symphonies, but you will be hard pressed to find better versions of the 3rd, 4th (both versions) 6th and 7th."

An Embarrassment of Riches

J Scott Morrison | Middlebury VT, USA | 01/09/2009

(5 out of 5 stars)

"No sooner had I very enthusiastically reviewed the complete set of Prokofiev symphonies done by Dimitri Kitajenko and the Gürzenich-Orchester Köln Prokofiev: The Symphonies [Box Set] (see my review ), this complete set with Neeme Järvi and the Scottish National Orchestra came along. This set is a repackaging of the individual issues from the mid-1980s and they were all lauded at the time of their original release. Well, what's a person to do? My advice, since both of these box sets are budget-priced, is get 'em both! Certainly I have not lost my enthusiasm for the Kitajenko set, but this one by Järvi, surely one of the best Prokofiev conductors around these days, is just as attractive. And to be honest there isn't that much to differentiate the two sets. Both conductors clearly have the music in their bones and they both have marvelously responsive orchestras to work with. Neither orchestra is Russian, of course, but make no mistake: both of these orchestras are first-class. Not only that, Järvi had conducted the Scottish bunch in any number of other Prokofiev sets.e.g, Prokofiev: The Prodigal Son, Prokofiev: Four Portraits From 'The Gambler'; Suite from 'Semyon Kotko', Prokofiev: Suite From 'The Buffoon'; Waltz Suite so they clearly had his (and Prokofiev's) style firmly at their command.



There are some differences, of course, between the two sets. In general the Scottish Orchestra set has a lighter, more transparent sound, the Gürzenich a richer, deeper sound. The former makes it easier to penetrate the sometimes dense orchestration -- let's face, it's OFTEN dense with Prokofiev -- and this makes, for instance, the chromatic polyphony of the Second and Third Symphonies easier to hear. On the other hand the sound of, say, the two versions of the Fourth Symphony is more succulent with Kitajenko.



I do think that these two box sets are far superior to the other fairly recent complete traversal, that of Gergiev and the London Symphony, which I found frequently simply wayward for all the great playing by the LSO. I do still like the several Karajan recordings and the magnificent Third by Muti, but for a complete set I don't think you can go wrong with either Järvi or Kitajenko. Or with both.



One further word: the Järvi set's 1980s sound has been remastered beautifully and when I compare some of the individual symphonies in the present set with their earlier incarnations I find the sound improved. Kudos to the original engineer, Ralph Couzens, and the remastering engineer, Jonathan Cooper, for that.



Scott Morrison

"

WHAT ARE COMPLETE SETS FOR?

DAVID BRYSON | Glossop Derbyshire England | 03/24/2010

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Complete sets of someone's symphonies or sonatas are not a commodity that I deal in very much. Invariably, something in the collection is done more to my liking elsewhere, so I prefer in general to collect the works individually. However I have two good reasons for buying Jarvi's set of the Prokofiev symphonies, the more important of these being that I wanted to hear them all from one interpreter's viewpoint, provided it was the right interpreter. How would I recognise this kind of interpreter? Partly from the reviews I have read of course, but also because I happen to own Jarvi's account of the second symphony, the most uncompromising of the series, and I found in it an affinity with this vehement and unfriendly music that was exactly what I was looking for. The score is not all so hostile by any means, indeed the theme for variations is Prokofiev in his most beautiful lyric mode. Jarvi handles that to my liking also, so I took the chance on his complete set, wanting to settle in my mind once and for all what I thought of Prokofiev as a symphonist. In general, one criterion that should not be applied is how one `rates' or `ranks' Jarvi among conductors. That kind of thing is based on an assessment of all his work, these symphonies included, and belongs in biographies and obituaries. The quality of the orchestra is a legitimate consideration, but not in my opinion all that important. The SNO may not be the equal of the LSO, but the standard today is so high that we need not lose much sleep over that. Indeed I prefer Mravinsky's readings of the Tchaikovsky symphonies to those of any westerner, although his Leningrad orchestra was not the equal of the best western bands in its time.



Is it Russian-ness that we should look for in that case? I'd say not quite. I think of Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Stravinsky and Shostakovich as Russian, but Prokofiev as Soviet specifically. The ambience of tank-assembling and tractor production-quotas is strong in quite a lot of his music, but in the symphonies most of all, excluding nos 1 and 7. The right conductor will not be afraid of this, and if Jarvi was so upfront with no 2 then he should be the man for the other four qualifiers, I thought.



So here was the consistent idiomatic approach that I wanted to help me decide for myself whether Prokofiev was or was not a `true' symphonist. Shostakovich gets unquestioning endorsement as such, but the pundits have found out that Prokofiev adapted material from his ballets for symphonies 3 and 4, hence the so-called problem. To me it is no problem. When I hear symphonies by Prokofiev I don't exclaim to myself `How symphonic!' over passage A, and `How suggestive of ballet!' at passage B. My basic ideas of what is `symphonic' were created more than 50 years ago by Haydn and Beethoven, and they don't fit any Russian composer unless maybe Balakirev. The whole concept has loosened and broadened over time, as it was bound to do. Some music used in ballets, such as the famous Montagus-and-Capulets music by Prokofiev, could not be put to symphonic use just as it is, but the categories are far from mutually exclusive in the main, and I reflect that even Beethoven used ballet music in the Eroica.



No 5 is usually thought of as the best of the series, and I think I agree. Jarvi handles it to my entire satisfaction, even though my LP collection includes the legendary account by Koussevitsky as a benchmark. For most of the others, even the criticism often levelled at Jarvi that he encourages a strident orchestral tone is actually a point in his favour in this context. Pulling punches is not the name of this particular game, and if you thought the start of no 2 was uniquely brutal and cacophonous, try the way Jarvi handles the first movement of no 3 and you may find that that runs it close. This kind of thing is not the whole story either by any means, and I think you will find a soul in communion with the composer's in the lyric sections. Indeed, when in the final no 7 Prokofiev's tone was softening (and maybe his head as well) I hope you will experience, as I have just done, a rather touching and idiomatic hint of the schmaltzy idiom of Khachaturian.



One warning should be given, and not many reviews are giving it. The first symphony, the charming lightweight `Classical', is plain awful here - slow, portly and heavy-footed. However it is so easy to find excellent performances of this piece that I do not propose to reduce the overall rating below 4 stars, as I can hardly imagine that it will be what anyone wants this set for. No 7 I have already mentioned, and if you want detailed comment on the others you will have to look for it elsewhere. To me they don't require detailed comment because quite simply they are the real deal, whatever niceties of comparisons can be made with other versions.



And I have a second reason for picking up this complete set. The concerts of the Scottish National Orchestra were where I learned to love good music back in the 1950's. They have come on a long way since then, and a lot of the credit for that presumably belongs with Maestro Jarvi. I am very fond of Prokofiev, although not chiefly of his symphonies. However these accounts have made better sense of them to me than any others have so far done, and they may do the same for you."