Muti/CSO Scriabin and Tchaikovsky

[richardfinegold]

On tap last night was Scriabin's Poeme and the Tchaikovsky Manfred.
I had been preparing for the Concert by listening to the Poeme, a piece that I had never appreciated, in a recording dating from 1958, Pierre Monteux and the Boston Symphony, in what is reputed to be an early stereo recording but sounds more like mono to these ears. Hearing the full resources of the CSO live, including trumpet playing that was simply astonishing, was a revelation of glorious sound. The Monteux also emphasizes the ecstatic elements, whereas last night Muti concentrated on balances and well, just projecting the music. The final coda was a little underpowered, my only quibble. I also found it helpful to completely disregard the program notes and whatever program the Composer had in mind and just listen to the music. In short, I enjoyed it.
The Manfred was a joy. I have Muti's Tchaikovsky cycle with the Philharmonia, now at least 30 years old. Compared to that recording, the music felt much more deeply considered without being ponderous. The highlight was the magical coda to II, but the whole thing hung together than it usually does and was a believable music drama. The Orchestral balances were exemplary; gone are the days of the brass blaring everone else into submission.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I also found it helpful to completely disregard the program notes and whatever program the Composer had in mind and just listen to the music.

Very wise, IMO - for most composers, words are their second language!

[bluestateprommer]

For RF, did Muti conduct Manfred with Tchaikovsky's original ending, complete with organ part? I ask because Jaap van Zweden led a performance several years back which used Svetlanov's edit of the finale, which simply tacked on the close of the 1st movement back at the very end. I suspect the reason that the CSO did that was to avoid paying an extra organist, even though they desperately tried to rationalize that version as better than the original (which Svetlanov's version definitely is not).

[richardfinegold]

For RF, did Muti conduct Manfred with Tchaikovsky's original ending, complete with organ part? I ask because Jaap van Zweden led a performance several years back which used Svetlanov's edit of the finale, which simply tacked on the close of the 1st movement back at the very end. I suspect the reason that the CSO did that was to avoid paying an extra organist, even though they desperately tried to rationalize that version as better than the original (which Svetlanov's version definitely is not).

The organ was very much in attendance. I didn't realize that there was an alternative ending. My first exposure to the Manfred was a Svetlanov recording, available here in the 70s and that also features an organ

[BBMmk2]

Riccardo Muti is the man for Scriabin! :)

[bluestateprommer]

The organ was very much in attendance. I didn't realize that there was an alternative ending. My first exposure to the Manfred was a Svetlanov recording, available here in the 70s and that also features an organ

I guess that I could have dug up the pdf of the CSO's program note for that week and read this bit:

"Manfred dies accompanied by a grand chorale of organ chords, and the music slowly unwinds and resolves to suggest a peace that is less certain in Byron:

He’s gone—his soul hath ta’en its earthless flight;
Whither? I dread to think—but he is gone."

There's also the "postscript" from Philip Huscher, re the organ question:

"The Russian conductor Yevgeny Svetlanov has made his own edition of the finale that omits the fugue and tacks on the coda of the first movement in place of the organ apotheosis. That version is often performed today - it was used in the most recent Chicago Symphony performances, in fact - and it is arguably more faithful to Byron, but it is not what Tchaikovsky wrote."

I remember reading in the December 2012 booklet the vehemence of the argument for rationalizing the alternative Svetlanov ending that they used then, which had more than an element of desperation (and even condescension) about it. I'm glad that Muti kept to his philosophy of 'come scritto' here, with the Tchaikovsky. Maybe Huscher is trying to walk it back just a tiny bit, with the comment about "what Tchaikovsky wrote" at the end.

I'm also not so sure that the Svetlanov-ending version is that often performed, as all the recent Proms performances, as examples, have kept to the original, which is very sensible, as it allows use of the RAH organ in full splendor. So I've yet to hear the work live as Peter Ilyich wrote it. Glad that you got to enjoy the concert there.

[richardfinegold]

I guess that I could have dug up the pdf of the CSO's program note for that week and read this bit:



There's also the "postscript" from Philip Huscher, re the organ question:



I remember reading in the December 2012 booklet the vehemence of the argument for rationalizing the alternative Svetlanov ending that they used then, which had more than an element of desperation (and even condescension) about it. I'm glad that Muti kept to his philosophy of 'come scritto' here, with the Tchaikovsky. Maybe Huscher is trying to walk it back just a tiny bit, with the comment about "what Tchaikovsky wrote" at the end.

I'm also not so sure that the Svetlanov-ending version is that often performed, as all the recent Proms performances, as examples, have kept to the original, which is very sensible, as it allows use of the RAH organ in full splendor. So I've yet to hear the work live as Peter Ilyich wrote it. Glad that you got to enjoy the concert there.

The other part of this that leaves me puzzled is that I first learned the piece from a Svetlanov recording that very definitely features an organ.

[slarty]

There was a Berlin Phil concert last May conducted by Tugan Sokhiev (MD at the Bolshoi) and he used this abomination of an ending.
It could not have been for want of an organ, as the Philharmonie has a very good one.
Also when I heard Chailly conduct the Manfred Symphony in 1979 with the Munich Philharmonic at the Herkulessaal he used this ending as well, which was pretty perverse as the first half of the concert contained the Poulenc Organ Concerto. It really is a bit of a con trick especially when there is an organ ready for use.
I can imagine the only reason for it's use would be for concert halls with no organ.

[Gordon]

For RF, did Muti conduct Manfred with Tchaikovsky's original ending, complete with organ part? I ask because Jaap van Zweden led a performance several years back which used Svetlanov's edit of the finale, which simply tacked on the close of the 1st movement back at the very end. I suspect the reason that the CSO did that was to avoid paying an extra organist, even though they desperately tried to rationalize that version as better than the original (which Svetlanov's version definitely is not).

Muti's 1981 digital recording with the Philharmonia does have an organ as in the score and the ending is not the same as the first movement. It was recorded at Kingsway Hall which had an organ at this time unlike Abbey Road where the other symphonies except No 1 were recorded. However the organ at KH was not in good repair by the early 80s and if it was used must have had a good going over from the tuners.

BTW at this time EMI were using their own in-house digital recorders [as were Decca] that at first were stereo only later with a 16 channel digital mixer. It sampled at 50 kHz and used 14 bits in a 12+2 format. Their first classical release was Previn/LSO in Debussy. A friend of mine worked on this system at Hayes and then at AR before moving to Sony to build their professional audio systems. It was used in Vienna, Amsterdam and Philadelphia around the early 80s.

[mahlerei]

Re Scriabin: do watch out for the new Pletnev/RNO recording of Symphony No. 1 and the Poème de l'extase (Pentatone). It's due for UK release on 17th July.

[Stanfordian]

Re Scriabin: do watch out for the new Pletnev/RNO recording of Symphony No. 1 and the Poème de l'extase (Pentatone). It's due for UK release on 17th July.

Hiya mahlerei,

Both the Symphony No. 1 and the Poème de l'extase are fine works with Muti doing and excellent job but its always good to have additional recordings. I've been impressed with the RNO in the past so I'll be looking out eagerly for its Pentatone release.

[mahlerei]

Hi Stanfordian

The RNO are in very good shape, as demonstrated by their recent recording of Shostakovich's Seventh with Paavo Järvi. Pletnev's Scriabin will be released in the UK on 17th July, but if you're interested my MusicWeb review appears well before then (2nd July).

[Barbirollians]

I remain baffled by Warner's failure to reissue the Muti set this year .

[Gordon]

I remain baffled by Warner's failure to reissue the Muti set this year .

Quite so B but those of us who already have the set can be content that we got in early, some years ago in fact; then there is always the Brilliant classics re-issue even if it is billed as an import and pricey as a result:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scriabin-Philadelphia-Orchestra-Riccardo-Muti/dp/B000BVXC5S

The US site has the EMI set at $40 [even used ones] if you are willing to wait for shipping - one seller there wants $249!!!

Since these were digitally recorded between 1985 and 1990 perhaps a revamp wouldn't go amiss but if they've licensed the set out to Brilliant perhaps Warners don't value them.

[johnb]

If you don't mind downloads the EMI Muti set is available on Qobuz for £20.40.