Search - Dvorak, Jarvi, Royal Scottish Nat'l Orchestra :: Symphonies 1-9

Very good Dvorak, but there is better

Prescott Cunningham Moore | 09/19/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"These recordings were birthed from the cottage industry that typified Chandos's relationship with Jarvi. In essence, the label set Jarvi to the task of recording everything, regardless of whether the conductor had an affinity with the music or not. Luckily, there was some really good music making taking place, from his wonderful Prokofiev cycle to some pretty stellar Shostakovich. Indeed, it may not have been such a bad idea in retrospect. While Jarvi certainly is not the most exciting conductor, he does deliver light textures emphasizing structure over flash-in-the-pan excitement. And in music, like Prokofiev and Shostakovich, which tend towards excess, a steady hand actually helps (a quality Haitink shares with Jarvi, which is why his Shostakovich cycle remains viable after all these years).



In Dvorak, however, moments do not just play themselves, and often probing from the podium is necessary to infuse some of Dvorak more diffuse music, like the early symphonies, with necessary weight. Thus, this cycle, like so many, gets better as you approach the canonic three.



It does not help that Chandos always had trouble recoding in Henry Wood Hall. Add to this a perspective that places the listener towards the rear of the hall. In toto, the effect is particularly diffuse, boomy, and unfocused, as if the orchestra were playing in a nearby cave. This would not be such an issue if the orchestra's timbre were more lean, but, as typical with British orchestras, the Royal (now National) Scottish Orchestra has creamy strings, full-bodied brass, and rather indifferent winds. Thus, the total effect is much akin to fog rolling over the moors.



Take the scherzo of the second, where the plodding strings fail to deliver the light, dance-like texture this music requires. Or listen to the opening of the Third, where the music sounds homogonous and soupy. Indeed, this is as much Dvorak's fault as the orchestra's, but conductors have been able to clean this music with greater effect. The finale of the Sixth, inspired by the finale of Brahms' Second, needs cleaner playing while the competition in the last three symphonies is simply to stiff for Jarvi's soft-edged performances. Having heard Jarvi live in the Eighth, I can appreciate his way with the music, but there are plenty of conductors who achieve similar architectural results with more incisive playing.



Of course, there are some fine moments. The finale of the Fourth is quite fun, while the allegro of the Sixth, with expositional repeat, is really well done, featuring some surprisingly clear work from the lower brass. The entirety of the Fifth is exceptionally done, the timbre of the orchestra actually complementing (for once) the pastoral nature of this work. Jarvi revels in the fun of this music, especially in the trio of the Scherzo and in the finale as a whole, with touching effectiveness.



Individually, save perhaps the Fifth, these performances cannot stand up to the competition from Harnoncourt, Masur, Kubelik, Bernstein, Dohnanyi, Chung, or Levine. As far as cycles go, it is recommendable as a supplement to the full cycles from Kertesz or Kubelik."

Nice Try, But No Thanks

Music Is Everything | Colorado Springs, CO USA | 06/04/2009

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Recording all of Dvorak's symphonies is a major undertaking, and I appreciate that about this set, but on every level the actual experience falls way short. Jarvi has made a massive output of recordings for Chandos in far too short a time, so there isn't much consistency or real quality.



Dvorak was notoriously critical of his own compositions. He actually removed his first four symphonies from his output and wouldn't claim them, later fighting a battle with his publisher, which continued selling them. Dvorak was right: They were far from mature and had many mistakes. Any responsible conductor would at least fix the glaring errors, but Jarvi plows ahead with no consideration, so you're treated to loads of wrong notes that the editors can downplay but can't hide completely.



On top of that, the Scottish National Orchestra isn't the best orchestra for this repertoire. Even though I'm fond of a powerful brass section, these guys are just plain rough and aggressive--no warmth or depth. The rest of the orchestra, though somewhat better, often responds in kind.



Meanwhile, Jarvi demonstrates repeatedly that he hasn't conducted all of these symphonies enough to be recording them. The level of performance is so inconsistent from one symphony to the next that it's clear he doesn't always know what he wants to say.



So, for the early symphonies, I still go to the old standby--the London Symphony with Kertesz conducting. For the later ones, especially 7, 8, and 9, there are many better recordings, so I recommend buying those separately in any one of dozens of well-established performances.



And perhaps Maestro Jarvi will take a moment, take a deep breath, and not panic if he isn't releasing a dozen new recordings each week. Better to get it right than to simply get it out."

Mixed Feelings

P. Weber | Los Angeles | 02/24/2008

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Whether or not you like this set may depend - as it does for me - on the chandos sound. It's too reverberant for my taste and I find, in some cases, it muddies up the texture and sounds a bit like an echo chamber. Sometimes Jarvi is really into the music (#5)and other times he seems bored and plows right through it. You're better off choosing individual performances."