Comparative Review: Bartok Concerto For Orchestra

[Pulcinella]

I have a note in my pocket score, where the movement is designated Allegretto scherzando, crotchet = 74, saying Solti crotchet = 94; original score had 94 speed Allegro scherzando, and movement title Presentando le coppie rather than Giuoco delle coppie (but surely that is not proper Italian: Gioco?).

The timing for the first page (24 bars) of 30 seconds, given in the score, would suggest crotchet = 96!

PS! Posting overlapped a little with fhg's edit.
Total timing for movement given in score is approx 6'17", so Dorati was spot on!

[jayne lee wilson]

I have never heard the Solti/LSO, which I think is better known than the Solti/CSO of a few years later which I do have. Reviews that I have read suggest that there isn't a significant difference between them.

EG compared the CSO and LSO recordings in Gramophone 9/81, finding the earlier one to have a "degree more rubato..... contrasts of mood more sharply defined....more persuasive in the complex ebb and flow of tempi in the Dance Suite" calling it one of Solti's "most spontaneous recordings"... finally he preferred the Chicago one for its greater richness of sound and detail, but.... he didn't have the stunningly natural & immediate Decca Legends 2001 reissue to be impressed by...
A true Kingsway-Culshaw classic, remarkable even by his standards, still sounds amazing even to this mainly-new-release buyer...(and it includes that classic album LP cover too...)

BTW, Reiner also plays a quick copy-game in a mere 5'58...in Chicago. In 1955.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Indeed. The movement takes 6'50" with the LSO and 6'11" in Chicago. I remember the emphasis placed on this "discovery" and, like LMP, being distinctly underwhelmed by the result!

fhg: my Jubilee LP reissue c.1983 says 6'40".

Pulcinella may be pleased that the reissued LSO still says Giuoco where the CSO says Gioco. I guess scores are still being corrected on this point all over the globe...

BTW, Ivan Fischer takes 5'57" and therefore pips Reiner at the post (Subject to slow motion replay to check for any unfair inclusion of reverberation hang-over...)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

fhg: my Jubilee LP reissue c.1983 says 6'40".

Ah - I was taking the timing from the download timings. There is also an earlier Solti recording with the Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra, where the movement takes 6'25". and a 1995 performance with the World Orchestra for Peace (a BBCMusMag cover CD) which takes 5'58".

[Dave2002]

Are there any definitive versions of the score? Reading this I seem to recall that many years ago I listened to one version, I think it was Solti's, and there were definitely some small points which his players did not observe. However, they may have been playing what they were reading.

Since then I've not repeated this with that work, or indeed with many others, but one thing which I think is a considerable difference is what happens at the end. As I recall, some conductors slow down then speed up, and others have a different approach. I'd have to go back to a definitive score to see what is the "correct" approach before commenting further on any particular version, but I do think many do get the ending wrong. They can't all be right - if fidelity to the score is considered important.

Of course it is possible that some which sound good actually do ignore what the score says - I really don't know. Many of us are likely to be in a state of ignorance regarding adherence to a score, and this doesn't only apply to this single piece.

I do recall one performance by Svetlanov which I liked a lot, and on LP I have mostly enjoyed Ormandy's version. I haven't actually tried to listen to this work for years.

[makropulos]

Are there any definitive versions of the score? Reading this I seem to recall that many years ago I listened to one version, I think it was Solti's, and there were definitely some small points which his players did not observe. However, they may have been playing what they were reading.

Since then I've not repeated this with that work, or indeed with many others, but one thing which I think is a considerable difference is what happens at the end. As I recall, some conductors slow down then speed up, and others have a different approach. I'd have to go back to a definitive score to see what is the "correct" approach before commenting further on any particular version, but I do think many do get the ending wrong. They can't all be right - if fidelity to the score is considered important.

Of course it is possible that some which sound good actually do ignore what the score says - I really don't know. Many of us are likely to be in a state of ignorance regarding adherence to a score, and this doesn't only apply to this single piece.

I do recall one performance by Svetlanov which I liked a lot, and on LP I have mostly enjoyed Ormandy's version. I haven't actually tried to listen to this work for years.

The Boosey & Hawkes score, first published in 1946 and reprinted many times since, is the only (legal) edition of the work.

There are two quite different endings printed in the score - the shorter one used by Koussevitzky at the prem and few others, and the longer one Bartók produced as a second thought (and a good one!) which the vast majority of recordings use. Meanwhile, Szell made a big cut of his own inventing in the last movement.

As for the slowing down and speeding up (in the usual, revised, ending), there's a Rit. marked at bar 600, and an Accel. from 604 to 608, so Bartók certainly wanted the speed to change. However, from the 'a tempo' at bar 609 to the end there are no markings, though quite a few conductors like to pull around the bars where the trumpets come in (bars 617-620). Bartók says nothing whatsoever about this, and playing it pretty much straight seems to be what he wanted, and works extremely well in the right hands.

[Barbirollians]

Talking of Ancerl let us not forget his splendid collaborations with Ida Haendel !

[richardfinegold]

Talking of Ancerl let us not forget his splendid collaborations with Ida Haendel !

I have the disc pairing the Lalo Symphognie Easpagnole with the Ravel Tzigane and the Hartman Concerto Funebre. Unusual pairings, thrilling performances

[Barbirollians]

Going back to Bartok I have always had a very soft spot for the Kubelik recording of the CFO.

[gurnemanz]

Worth a mention is György Sándor's piano solo transcription (daft price - I heard it on the radio). The Concerto for Orchestra without orchestra sounds perverse but this is a fascinating version, brilliantly performed.

[Dave2002]

The Boosey & Hawkes score, first published in 1946 and reprinted many times since, is the only (legal) edition of the work.

There are two quite different endings printed in the score - the shorter one used by Koussevitzky at the prem and few others, and the longer one Bartók produced as a second thought (and a good one!) which the vast majority of recordings use. Meanwhile, Szell made a big cut of his own inventing in the last movement.

As for the slowing down and speeding up (in the usual, revised, ending), there's a Rit. marked at bar 600, and an Accel. from 604 to 608, so Bartók certainly wanted the speed to change. However, from the 'a tempo' at bar 609 to the end there are no markings, though quite a few conductors like to pull around the bars where the trumpets come in (bars 617-620). Bartók says nothing whatsoever about this, and playing it pretty much straight seems to be what he wanted, and works extremely well in the right hands.

Thanks for reminding me of the two endings. You have now prompted me to rethink my position re libraries. In the past I used to use libraries a lot, and indeed I had access to some good ones, so it was fairly easy to check things like this. In theory the rise of the internet has made many aspects of libraries redundant, but where things break down is when one hits the copyright restrictions, such as on the IMSLP pages, where they may indeed be a copy of the score, but one cannot legally access such. There may be a lof of us who have not noticed the gradual disappearance of convenient libraries, or amalgamation of smaller libraries into larger (better?) but not so convenient libraries.

I will now add regaining access to some of the libraries to my TODO lists, but many won't easily have that option, or perhaps won't think of that. There used to be good music libraries in Liverpool, and also in London - somewhere near Marble Arch I think, as well as in several other towns and universities/colleges.

Of course I could buy the scores - but libraries do make sense if there are a lot to study.

Re the Bartók piece it is worth drawing the attention of others to the different endings, and the ways that different conductors treat the final bars. Some manage to virtually bring things to a standstill, while others mess things up in other ways. Maybe there is a matter of personal preference there, but it is worth noting the issue. Surely there should be some impetus at the end. Without doing a comparison listeners to only one version might not notice this.