Orchestre National de France Thursday 17th April

[Hornspieler]

Orchestre National de France - Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky
Duration: 3 hours
First broadcast:Thursday 17 April 2014 Live from the Théâtre du Châtelet, Paris

Presented by Sara Mohr-Pietsch

Daniele Gatti conducts the Orchestre National de France in Stravinsky's Symphony in C and Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 5.

Stravinsky: Symphony in C

19.30: Interval

Tchaikovsky: Symphony No 5 in E minor

Orchestre National de France
Daniele Gatti, conductor

Daniele Gatti, principal conductor of the Orchestre National de France, Radio France's flagship orchestra, in two contrasting Russian symphonies: Stravinsky's neo-classical Symphony in C and Tchaikovsky's ever-popular Symphony No 5

NOTE THE START TIME. Tchaik 5 may be "Old hat" but the Stravinsky is one of my favourites (together with Chant du Rossignol and The Firebird)

HS

[Zucchini]

They can be a v good orchestra indeed these days so might listen

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks for the note about the 19:00 start, HS - this does look interesting and an earlier start makes it easier for me to fit it in. The Tchaikovsky 5th may even be worth a shot if the Stravinsky sounds well (very fond of the Symphony in C, delighted & surprised with the HvK one recently). Don't recall hearing the Chatelet on-air before (I visited it years ago as an assistante)... so it will be a surprise acoustically at least...

[Ariosto]

They can be a v good orchestra indeed these days so might listen

YEA! This was a good band last time I heard them. But I only listen to to the owls and foxes late at night now. But old Horny knows what's what these days!

[jayne lee wilson]

An excellent performance of Stravinsky's Symphony in C; really, I can't imagine it being played much better than that. Crisp and light, neat and tidy, with warm but textured strings (if a touch bright in the upper reaches), clear and characterful winds, brightly coloured, agile brass. Am immaculate neo-classical delivery, putting you in mind of Dumbarton Oaks or the Octet in the nonchalantly played (but never featureless) first 3 movements, then calling the Symphony in Three Movements to mind with the extra energy and punch in the finale. Perfectly precise and idiomatic.

Lovely, quite distinctive, balance from the Chatelet via R3 HDs. Rather warmer and more characterful than we usually hear from most of the London venues. Nicely tangible instrumental presence.

[Pulcinella]

Sorry to disagree, jlw, but these ears heard the Stravinsky differently.
Scrappy, awkward gear/tempo changes, and a final string chord that didn't work: the score marks it pesante sub p, taking over from the wind and brass. Should be a magical transition, but it just wasn't.
A great disappointment.

[jayne lee wilson]

Whether the character of the acoustic or the orchestra was less welcoming to the broadly-phrased Romantic idiom of the Tchaikovsky, the result was an oddly constrained, compressed sound; never really opening up in the climax. There seemed little dynamic contrast or tonal light and shade; Gatti had said he wanted to play it faster (apparently as per score), but this seemed often rushed rather than urgent, a light-and-bright performance, not always convincingly paced within each movement; and a noticeable lack of inner tensions or urgency, even in the finale. The upper strings often sounded edgy and pressured in the adagio, and the opening movement had a strangely preludial feel. The lightly-worn discipline I enjoyed in the Stravinsky seemed gradually to disappear as the 5th Symphony progressed.

A benefit of avoiding the familiar or the potentially-too-familiar can be the freshness of your response when you do encounter it; tonight, I'm afraid I was feeling very weary as the finale began. What a shame they didn't play all three Stravinsky Symphonies, or some Roussel (Magnard's sound might have been too demanding for this band, or in this space; at least as broadcast tonight). But to judge from the reaction of the audience after the Tchaikovsky, there didn't seem much enthusiasm in the theatre either.

A game of two halves, then...

[BBMmk2]

Hmmm what apity. I never think with the old war horses of the central repertoire, is wrong to programme them, especially if the performance is a superlative one. I am just wondering wether it may justify a listen, on this occaision?

[Hornspieler]

Hmmm what apity. I never think with the old war horses of the central repertoire, is wrong to programme them, especially if the performance is a superlative one. I am just wondering wether it may justify a listen, on this occaision?

O M G !

What a disappointment.

The Stravinsky was a bit of a curate's (Easter) egg. Not nearly spiky enough in the faster movements and rather featureless in the slower ones. I would have expected a better understanding of this music from a French orchestra; considering Stravinsky's close association with France.

Now listening to Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony.

Scrappy first movement. Rushing forward like lemmings towards a cliff edge. I remember the words of Clarence Raybold, addressing a wayward young soloist: "I would remind you that this is a string orchestra. It is not an elastic band!"

A nicely played horn solo in the slow movement, but the conductor hurried things on when the woodwind took over.

Generally an unrhythmical performance. As my personal penance on this holiest of days, I shall stay with it to the end, but in the words of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra's 1st horn to his Assistant Principal "... You take over. I'll rest here awhile with the wounded."

HS

[edashtav]

I was delighted to hear the infrequently performed Stravinsky. It started well at a good speed with lines clearly and lovingly etched. As the performance wore on I moved from Jayne's camp towards Pulcinella's. My worries were structural ones, moments were just that- neat cameos- but often unrelated: the awkward gear changes that irked Pulcinella. These peaked in the finale where the grave introduction and the perky, rhythmic, driven motif which jlw rightly links with the Symphony in Three Movements did not come together but existed as polar opposites. Hence, I fear, the disaster, that pulcinella described, that overwhelmed, or do I mean underwhelmed, the final chord. [ That old saw remains true: it's vital that performances start and end well.]

The clear, bright acoustics of the Châtelet Theatre suited Stravinsky better than Tchaikovsky. His symphony was traduced by the same conductorial flaws : beautiful detailing but lacking of overall power, shape and direction. It was all very French. At one point I thought, "This is just how Maurice Ravel would have conceived this music." Tchaikovsky was not a watchsmith, he was driven to express strong emotions. Gatti had cut out the middle man, Anthony Payne, but created in real time, Tchaikovsky in miniature (c.f. the recent Payne out of Bruckner 2nd Symphony). When Tommy Beecham likened the sound of a harpsichord to cats copulating on a galvanised iron roof, he was not looking forward, enthusiastically, to Tchaikovsky arr. Gatti Symphony no. 5 for virginals. (Editorial promise: this performance uses no catgut.)

[Alison]

Great review Tavers!

I feel Anthony Payne will regret the Bruckner 2 in the long term.

[Tony Halstead]

Tommy Beecham likened the sound of a harpsichord to cats copulating on a galvanised iron roof, a

It was actually SKELETONS 'copulating...etc..etc.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well, I just listened back to the Stravinsky Symphony in C... really, what an absolutely WONDERFUL performance. I can't hear a hint of scrappiness anywhere, just disciplined and truly idiomatic playing throughout. Lovely wind and trumpet solos in the larghetto, elegantly voiced divisi strings; then a much perkier allegretto with sharp attack and a a nice variety of colour and texture from the strings, who were heroes throughout. Every section was fully characterised - humorous, phlegmatic or energetic.

Nor do the tempi sound awkwardly managed; the sections in the concertante or the allegretto are supposed to be very contrasted after all. (The allegretto abounds in changes of time-signature). As for the last chord - it was quiet, but it was there - what on earth was wrong with it? No score markings are exact calculations, whether p or sub p.

I can see why HS may have missed some spikiness, or found slower sections "featureless", but surely that's part of the point of a neo-classical style: it's vital that it isn't too driven; it SHOULD be nonchalant, laidback, at times almost po-faced, hence my referencing of the Octet and Dumbarton Oaks. Remember it was conceived as a response to and a contrast with the late-Romantic or the Expressionist. It's a foolish conductor who tries to generate interest through an excess of excitement or activity.

Second time around, the finale sounded even more brilliantly virtuoso. I was very glad I had been motivated to listen again and I would urge anyone who hasn't heard it to do so - you're in for a treat!

(A final technical point: all the above comments relate to the webcast as heard live and via iPlayer on HDs at 320 kbps; as ever, listeners to FM or Freeview at 192 kbps may have varying results with matters of acoustic, detail, timbre or dynamics and so on.)

[teamsaint]

After reading the comments on here (), I took time to listen as closely as possible to the Stravinsky.

I would have had few complaints if I had been in the hall. I simply felt all those changes ,features, textures coming through loud and clear, but thoroughly controlled.
Actually, my over riding sensation, for some reason, was " I bet this is what it would have been like to hear it soon after it was written".
But I can't justify that.
Well not late on a Friday night .

Great thread, thanks everybody.

[edashtav]

It was actually SKELETONS 'copulating...etc..etc.

Thanks, Tony for that correction: Dem Bones, Dem Bone, Dem Dry Bones!