BaL 24.04.21 - Stravinsky: Violin concerto in D

[Barbirollians]

Chung/Previn for me. I recall Gramophone were big fans of Mutter/Sacher.

[mikealdren]

Since recording quality rules out earlier performances (you really need a good recording of the orchestra in this piece) to hear the orchestra, my top recordings are Mullova and Hahn. For me, Kopatchinkaja is fantastic but a just bit too idiosyncratic for a library pick.

[richardfinegold]

I love this piece but I haven't acquired more than just two recordings. My first was Perlman/Ozawa Boston, a DG lp that was coupled with the Berg Concerto (and which I reacquired on CD). Both works were unknown to me and made quite the impression. By coincidence I acquired only my second recording of both Concertos when I acquired most of the 'Ancerl Gold' series on Supraphon.
It's an attractive piece, by a big name Composer, that doesn't seem topper on Concert programs as often as it should

[Pulcinella]

Listening to the CD now. There is the occasional weakness in the brass section but, on the whole, Stravinsky's timbral combinations are very well handled. Very different to the Pat Kop recording, of course, of which I am very fond. The Stern/Stravinsky has long been my 'go-to', but as much due to its having been my introduction to the work as anything else. It's fair to say ti was the other works on the MMC CD that tipped the balance in its favour, especially The Flood.

I've now got onto the songs. I do not think you will be disappointed.

Ordered yesterday, just arrived.
Like yours, it looks to be in excellent condition.
Looking forward to giving it a spin.
(Unfortunately, my ears are blocked at present, but I have a wax removal appointment booked for Monday, so my hearing should be restored that afternoon!)

[Pulcinella]

Some very interesting comments about the performance in the Music Masters CD liner notes, by Craft, worth reproducing here (with crazy US punctuation!! ).

The present performance restores the violin pizzicato with the last chord of the second movement. This is found in the piano score, not in the manuscript or published full score, but Stravinsky asked for it in performances. The recording also corrects a number of important errors. This the metronomic quarter at the beginning of the first movement is an unplayably fast 120, whereas the end gives 96 for the "Tempo Primo." The "allargando" at the end of the first movement begins with the last five notes of the two trumpets, as in the manuscript. The metronomic quarter in the second movement should be changed to 126 (from 116), with 96 for the half-note in the middle section. In the third movement the eighth should equal 62, increasing to 92 in the middle section. In the last movement the eighth becomes 134, accelerating to 176 at [119] and 208 at [123]. In the last bar before [124] the first F should have a natural sign. No. [107] lacks the Tempo Primo sign, and the two bars before lack the "accelerando." In the bar after [102] the clarinets in A should have a flat on the written D.

I suspect that Hahn takes the first movement at something nearer the marked/incorrect 120, which is why I found that it sounded too hectic.

Bryn: You probably spotted the comment on page 11 of the liner notes about errors in the score of Movements, too.

[Bert]

Not only does this CD do it for me with the Prokofiev, it is also my Stravinsky goto.

[Bryn]

Some very interesting comments about the performance in the Music Masters CD liner notes, by Craft, worth mentioning here.

The present performance restores the violin pizzicato with the last chord of the second movement. This is found in the piano score, not in the manuscript or published full score, but Stravinsky asked for it in performances. The recording also corrects a number of important errors. This the metronomic quarter at the beginning of the first movement is an unplayably fast 120, whereas the end gives 96 for the "Tempo Primo". The "allargando" at the end of the first movement begins with the last five notes of the two trumpets, as in the manuscript. The metronomic quarter in the second movement should be changed to 126 (from 116), with 96 for the half-note in the middle section. In the third movement the eighth should equal 62, increasing to 92 in the middle section. In the last movement the eighth becomes 134, accelerating to 176 at [119] and 208 at [123]. In the last bar before [124] the first F should have a natural sign. No. [107] lacks the Tempo Primo sign, and the two bars before lack the "accelerando". In the bar after [102] the clarinets in A should have a flat on the written D.

I suspect that Hahn takes the first movement at something nearer the marked/incorrect 120, which is why I found that it sounded too hectic.

Bryn: You probably spotted the comment on page 11 of the liner notes about errors in the score of Movements, too.

Indeed. I found the programme notes for these recordings very illuminating, including the fact that there were other corrections which he was unable to resolve, though for what reason is not made clear, presumably it was due to their coming to light loo late.

[makropulos]

Indeed. I found the programme notes for these recordings very illuminating, including the fact that there were other corrections which he was unable to resolve, though for what reason is not made clear, presumably it was due to their coming to light loo late.

It's been a delight listening to a lot of recordings of this piece for the BAL (which we're recording next week) –with the customary shortlist of 10 versions to discuss in a bit of detail. Those are certainly interesting comments by Craft, but the most conspicuous 'correction' to the tempo at the start of the first movement is already correct (96) in every edition I've seen of the full score (mine is a reprint from about 1960) and also on Stravinsky's 1935 recording with Dushkin (who does indeed play a pizzicato last note in the second movement). As for the Allargando at the end of the first movt, Stravinsky/Dushkin starts this much earlier than Craft suggests. So who does one believe? Stravinsky or Craft? I know how I answer that question... The Tempo 1 at Fig. 107 is a case of the blindingly obvious: there's not a single player I've heard who doesn't already observe this (even though it's not printed in the score). As Pulcinella says, Hahn is alone in going for around 120 as the tempo of the first movement –something I'll be discussing. It's not only incorrect but also never been marked that way in the full score (perhaps it was on early printings of the solo violin part). But more importantly, it was never taken seriously by Dushkin, Grumiaux, Oistrakh, Schneiderhan who recorded it during Stravinsky's lifetime –all of them around 96.

[Pulcinella]

It's been a delight listening to a lot of recordings of this piece for the BAL (which we're recording next week) –with the customary shortlist of 10 versions to discuss in a bit of detail. Those are certainly interesting comments by Craft, but the most conspicuous 'correction' to the tempo at the start of the first movement is already correct (96) in every edition I've seen of the full score (mine is a reprint from about 1960) and also on Stravinsky's 1935 recording with Dushkin (who does indeed play a pizzicato last note in the second movement). As for the Allargando at the end of the first movt, Stravinsky/Dushkin starts this much earlier than Craft suggests. So who does one believe? Stravinsky or Craft? I know how I answer that question... The Tempo 1 at Fig. 107 is a case of the blindingly obvious: there's not a single player I've heard who doesn't already observe this (even though it's not printed in the score). As Pulcinella says, Hahn is alone in going for around 120 as the tempo of the first movement –something I'll be discussing. It's not only incorrect but also never been marked that way in the full score (perhaps it was on early printings of the solo violin part). But more importantly, it was never taken seriously by Dushkin, Grumiaux, Oistrakh, Schneiderhan who recorded it during Stravinsky's lifetime –all of them around 96.

My appetite is even whetter (more whetted?) than it was before: many thanks for this.
My pocket score (copyright 1931, renewed 1959) certainly has crotchet = 96 at the start of the first movement.
I hope that the BaL recording session goes well.

[makropulos]

My appetite is even whetter (more whetted?) than it was before: many thanks for this.
My pocket score (copyright 1931, renewed 1959) certainly has crotchet = 96 at the start of the first movement.
I hope that the BaL recording session goes well.

Thanks –it's a piece I'm incredibly fond of, so it was lovely to be asked to take it on. I've had about six weeks of intensive Stravinsky immersion and came out of that enjoying the piece even more.

[Petrushka]

Not only does this CD do it for me with the Prokofiev, it is also my Stravinsky goto.

The Chung/LSO/Previn is also my 'go to' recording for all three works on the disc - a great CD.

[Bert]

The Chung/LSO/Previn is also my 'go to' recording for all three works on the disc - a great CD.

It will be interesting to see whether it gets any consideration in the forthcoming BaL.

[jayne lee wilson]

Some excellent newer recordings of this, e.g. from David Nebel and Baiba Skride....renewed and refreshed.... check them out on Qobuz etc....

Glass, Martin, Honegger the fascinating coupling crosslights.....

[Pulcinella]

The Chung/LSO/Previn is also my 'go to' recording for all three works on the disc - a great CD.

Mine too, though I still retain a fondness for Stern, with Ormandy and the Philadelphia, in the Prokofiev, as they were the first versions I got to know.
The Walton (the original coupling of the Stravinsky on LP) was very fine too, if memory serves.

[Barbirollians]

Interesting that some big names never recorded it judging by that list Heifetz and Menuhin for example.

The Chung Cd is excellent but I think on LP it was originally coupled with the Walton.