BaL 21.12.19 - Tchaikovsky: The Nutcracker

[Master Jacques]

I think the suite was performed first in March 1892 and the full ballet afterwards in December of that year. Part of the reason for the lukewarm response to the ballet was that the first act did not have all the lollipops of the second.

Quite so - but PT had already prepared the full score of the ballet, before extracting the divertissement dances and Act 1 Overture for the Suite. It seems that he did most probably orchestrate the numbers for the Suite before the rest (for reasons of time), but no there's no evidence he altered anything else while doing so.

The name of the ballet, though, does seem to still have been up in the air for a long time:

http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/The_Nutcracker

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

.

.



... from the product description on amazon : " Fistoulari included not only the familiar 'First' Suite but a Second Suite of his own confection, featuring more music from the First Act such as the Waltz of the Snowflakes as well as the Spanish Dance from the Second-Act divertissement and the sublime Final Waltz and Apotheosis."

My uncle had the LP with the Fistoulari 2nd Suite, so I got to know some rather special music that wasn't played that much in the late 1950s.

[Braunschlag]

I’ll put in a plug for Maurice Abravanel/Utah SO. Got it on a whim a few years back and rather liked it. Excellent Vanguard recording. I seem to recall it contains some cuts but I’ve not really got around to checking that.
He did some good work back then.

[Pianoman]

I'm just comparing my few versions - Ashkenazy/ RPO, Tilson Thomas/ LSO, Gergiev/ Kirov and, as of today, Rattle/ BPO which I have to say is mighty fine, some lovely playing, full recording and more relaxed than Gergiev (but who isn't). Very impressive, especially at £3.99 from iTunes !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... Rattle/ BPO which I have to say is mighty fine, some lovely playing, full recording and more relaxed than Gergiev (but who isn't).

Rattle was one who used to deride Tchaikovsky, as Pierre Boulez did. But he seems to have made an exception for this ballet.

[Pianoman]

Yes, there's quite a lengthy note in the booklet that as a young timpanist he played a lot of Tchaikovsky and didn't really rate it. Then a number of his musical friends said he really should try the Nutcracker if he wanted to hear where Stravinsky (among others) got his early inspiration from, especially in terms of orchestration, timbre etc. So he had his 'Damascus' moment and started championing it, which certainly comes across in this rendition.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, for once I actually welcomed AMcG's interruptions, such was the supercilious nature of Edward Seckerson's diatribe. It was quite clear from the start that he was only really interested in two versions, and that the rushed Kirov/Gergiev was going to be the winner.
Recordings of ballet music for pure listening can be more indulgent than in actual ballet performances. I was a ballet school pianist for a while, as soon learnt that dancers can't defy gravity in slow motion, so for much of the time, it has to be brisk.

But to put down slower performances (including Previn), in the smirky way he did, was a little crass in my opinion.

[Master Jacques]

But to put down slower performances (including Previn), in the smirky way he did, was a little crass in my opinion.

... almost as crass as his coy simpering, over whether Jurowski would forgive him for two-timing with Gergiev!

Your point about choosing ballet music performances for home listening, as opposed to the quasi-theatrical experience, is very well made. Mr S. followed the last BaL on the subject in crowning Gergiev (though he carefully avoiding playing the worst bits, which are horribly manic). Some reviewers we learn to trust, others...

As I said earlier, I recently took possession of the ROH Ermler recording, which I've enjoyed. It squares the circle of home listening and theatricality rather nicely, even if it lacks the subtler magics of the old Previn, Ansermet or Dorati (2nd) versions. Not that either Ermler or Ansermet got a look in today: one reason I tend to be wary of Edward Seckerson's choices is that - like Edward Greenfield in his latter years - he's often fervent in lauding rather ordinary recent recordings (whether he's met the conductor or not) over well-matured classics.

[Oakapple]

He described the Previn as "wan" at one point but he pronounced it so as to rhyme with "ban". I've never heard it like that before. It rhymes with "gone" surely?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

He described the Previn as "wan" at one point but he pronounced it so as to rhyme with "ban". I've never heard it like that before. It rhymes with "gone" surely?

Yes - as in "want". Some people prononce it in the original Anglo-Saxon manner (rhyming with "ban") to avoid ambiguity with "one". Whatever the pronunciation, it is a ridiculous description of Previn's sparkling LSO recording. (Which, at 86 minutes in total, is hardly sluggardly. I played it for the first time in ages minus a "sherry" yesterday, and whilst I thought the Overture could have been a bit perkier, the rest was a cornucopia of well-judged tempo and dynamic choices.)

Seckerson sounds as if he was on his usual form this morning.

[Alison]

How many times in one year does Secko describe Jurowski as ‘intelligent’? Very annoying.

Tchaikovsky is the great classicist he smugly declares, before trashing any performance less than full on romantic.

[MickyD]

... almost as crass as his coy simpering, over whether Jurowski would forgive him for two-timing with Gergiev!

Your point about choosing ballet music performances for home listening, as opposed to the quasi-theatrical experience, is very well made. Mr S. followed the last BaL on the subject in crowning Gergiev (though he carefully avoiding playing the worst bits, which are horribly manic). Some reviewers we learn to trust, others...

As I said earlier, I recently took possession of the ROH Ermler recording, which I've enjoyed. It squares the circle of home listening and theatricality rather nicely, even if it lacks the subtler magics of the old Previn, Ansermet or Dorati (2nd) versions. Not that either Ermler or Ansermet got a look in today: one reason I tend to be wary of Edward Seckerson's choices is that - like Edward Greenfield in his latter years - he's often fervent in lauding rather ordinary recent recordings (whether he's met the conductor or not) over well-matured classics.

I couldn't agree more - I never listen when he is on BAL, as he is unable to do the job without name-dropping. The review usually ends up being more about him than the recordings.

[Goon525]

I listened in the car, but ended up pretty sure I’d rather listen to Jurowski than Gergiev.

[Nick Armstrong]

How many times in one year does Secko describe Jurowski as ‘intelligent’? Very annoying.

Tchaikovsky is the great classicist he smugly declares, before trashing any performance less than full on romantic.

I dipped in and out, and heard the Previn-bashing.

My main problem is that the ruddy “Pas de Deux” is one of my 2 or 3 ultimate musical bêtes noires (or perhaps casse-noisettes), which is a pity since there’s a lot of better music in Nutcracker (there’d have to be).

Anyone know of a Suite / selection which omits the PdD?

[Ein Heldenleben]

I dipped in and out, and heard the Previn-bashing.

My main problem is that the ruddy “Pas de Deux” is one of my 2 or 3 ultimate musical bêtes noires (or perhaps casse-noisettes), which is a pity since there’s a lot of better music in Nutcracker (there’d have to be).

Anyone know of a Suite / selection which omits the PdD?

As you know I love that descending G major scale - the reviewer was quite a fan as well. There was a pretty good live rendition of Pletnev’s ultra tricky piano transcription of it last night on In Tune ...