Glazunov, Alexander (1865 - 1936)

[jayne lee wilson]

Does no-one else like Svetlanov? His cycle is immaculately played and recorded by the USSRSO in the spacious fresh acoustic of the Grand Studio, and can be had either in Audiophile quality on Venezia (from HMV Japan) or presumably decent quality in the Warners Svetlanov edition - I haven't heard the Warners, but the Venezia (cdve 04259) is terrific!

My own favourite Glazunov piece is The Sea. Free of formal demands and ambitions, Glazunov found a truly evocative inspiration, and there are at least 2 Svetlanov version, one live on Exton and the familiar studio one (just out yet again on the recent Melodiya Glazunov anthology).

[Lat-Literal]

Rob Cowan seems to have a bit of a 'thing' about Glazunov. Every time he argues the case for this composer in general and/or a particular work, I really try to listen with an open mind and pay attention, but after a while I start to lose interest, and then become increasingly irritated. Currently playing is a symphony which appears, to my admittedly untrained ears, to be far too long for its few, endlessly rehashed, musical ideas. However...like Manuel, I am willing to learn from anybody who can tell me what I should be looking out for - assuming, of course, that there IS anything to look out for....

Glazunov and Essential Classics.

Yes.

It was there mostly that he came to my attention.

Sarah Walker, though.

The pluses - 4 and 5 and "The Sea" - solid, accessible and attractive enough.

The principal minus - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/t...ninovs-career/

[Dave2002]

The principal minus - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/t...ninovs-career/

I feel that Glazunov gets a bit of a rough press, and it's easy enough for some journalist to knock together some striking headlines, and produce an article which may be presenting only a part of the truth. Whatever one might think of Glazunov's music, I think there is little doubt that he had far more talent than most journalists.

We really don't know what happened at the first performance of Rachmaninov's first symphony, though presumably Rachmaninov was not as confident as Glazunov himself was when he conducted his own first symphony at a rather younger age - at which, incidentally Glazunov was immediately given a warm reception. Probably there is some truth about Glazunov's inebriation - though there is also some evidence that Glazunov did have a very good memory and was able to understand music rather quickly. Perhaps there just wasn't enough rehearsal time. Was there a general feeling that he wasn't a good conductor, or is that the only example which is cited frequently? Some have suggested that he deliberately wrecked the performance - a possibility, but why - and it doesn't seem to fit with other later behaviours.

However he clearly did resort to drink at times, as Shostakovich's recollections of his teaching illustrate. He did, later on, seemingly do a lot to keep the Saint Petersburg Conservatory running through some very difficult revolutionary periods, and mostly he seemed to have helped others. He doesn't appear to have been a cruel person, or always an incompetent one, though Stravinsky was somewhat dismissive of him.

Really we just don't know enough about him to judge him fairly on a few, possibly biased, reports - and some of his music is still worth listening to, though not everyone will like it, and not all of it is immediately likable. The same can be said of some other composers and their music.

[Lat-Literal]

I feel that Glazunov gets a bit of a rough press, and it's easy enough for some journalist to knock together some striking headlines, and produce an article which may be presenting only a part of the truth. Whatever one might think of Glazunov's music, I think there is little doubt that he had far more talent than most journalists.

We really don't know what happened at the first performance of Rachmaninov's first symphony, though presumably Rachmaninov was not as confident as Glazunov himself was when he conducted his own first symphony at a rather younger age - at which, incidentally Glazunov was immediately given a warm reception. Probably there is some truth about Glazunov's inebriation - though there is also some evidence that Glazunov did have a very good memory and was able to understand music rather quickly. Perhaps there just wasn't enough rehearsal time. Was there a general feeling that he wasn't a good conductor, or is that the only example which is cited frequently? Some have suggested that he deliberately wrecked the performance - a possibility, but why - and it doesn't seem to fit with other later behaviours.

However he clearly did resort to drink at times, as Shostakovich's recollections of his teaching illustrate. He did, later on, seemingly do a lot to keep the Saint Petersburg Conservatory running through some very difficult revolutionary periods, and mostly he seemed to have helped others. He doesn't appear to have been a cruel person, or always an incompetent one, though Stravinsky was somewhat dismissive of him.

Really we just don't know enough about him to judge him fairly on a few, possibly biased, reports - and some of his music is still worth listening to, though not everyone will like it, and not all of it is immediately likable. The same can be said of some other composers and their music.

Thanks Dave for an interesting and informative post. In many ways it's reassuring. In general terms, my impression of Glazunov is that he was a much more significant figure in
his day than his present day profile would suggest. I suppose that could be one good reason for more of him in R3 programming. I do like his music quite a lot - but not "hugely".

[gurnemanz]

Don't know that much of his stuff but I have really enjoyed this recently acquired song disc.