Prom 1: First Night of the Proms

[Suffolkcoastal]

"....Stephen Hough delivering Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on Paganini's theme with characteristic sparkle and dazzle... There was not a trace of keyboard warhorse in Hough's brightly coloured treatment of the Rachmaninov, instead almost a chamber music feel to the score, with delicious interplay between Hough and a succession of woodwind and string soloists. No needless wallow in the celebrated 18th variation either, with Hough limpid and restrained and Oramo, keenly attentive throughout, allowing the orchestra only briefly off the leash."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jul/13/first-night-proms-royal-albert-hall-review?CMP=twt_fd

Seems as if it came across somewhat differently in the hall.

Look forward to reports from those who were there...

I never take the slightest bit of notice of music critics these days, they're just people who get paid (far too much) for writing a load of rubbish. I wonder if he was even there, as the critic certainly was listening to the same performance.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The Sea Symphony was completed when RVW was 37 which is a bit old to still be an apprentice I would have thought; Mozart had already been dead two years!

Elgar hadn't even started a symphony.

[Nick Armstrong]

I wonder if he was even there

In my head, while I was writing my post, that thought was indeed packed into the word 'Seems'...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I never take the slightest bit of notice of music critics these days, they're just people who get paid (far too much) for writing a load of rubbish. I wonder if he was even there, as the critic certainly was listening to the same performance.

I totally agree. I've read quite a few reviews over the years that suggest that the critic(s) skived off on those particular evenings.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I put it to you that the 1947 version of the RoS was created merely to print money. Igor loved money and was not above a bit of deception when it came to improving his income.

If there is no doubt that there are "corrections", then this presumes that were mistakes to "correct". In what way is it "deceptive" for a composer to remove inaccurasies from one of his/her published works? In what sense is a set of "corrections" not a "genuine" "Musical neeed"? Had Stravinsky and his publishers merely replaced F#s with Gbs, you might have a point. As it is, I don't think you have: Le Sacre du Printemps (unlike RVW's Sea Symphony) is a world-changing masterpiece of Music; its accurate (re)presentation is essential.

[edashtav]

Le Sacre du Printemps (unlike RVW's Sea Symphony) is a world-changing masterpiece of Music; its accurate (re)presentation is essential.

I reply, simply, that the accurate presentation of this masterpiece is impossible in Europe without breaking copyright regulations because the scores / parts that are legally available are known to be freighted with errors, too manifold and too extensive to be corrected during rehearsal. I regard that as a sorry state of affairs in a world in which computer technology enables parts to be derived from master scores with 100% accuracy. Publishers use copyright laws to protect profits not prophets.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If there is no doubt that there are "corrections", then this presumes that were mistakes to "correct". In what way is it "deceptive" for a composer to remove inaccurasies from one of his/her published works? .

The question is whether a few corrections by the composer merits the accolade of being a "new version". Clearly the Firebird revision had some significant changes (not necessarily for the better) but in the case of The Rite, there isn't much to discuss.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The question is whether a few corrections by the composer merits the accolade of being a "new version". Clearly the Firebird revision had some significant changes (not necessarily for the better) but in the case of The Rite, there isn't much to discuss.

But did the composer (or B&H for that matter) ever refer to the corrected editions as being "new versions"? Are there really no significant differences between the edition published by Dover Scores and that by B&H?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Now you've gone and done it, Ferney.
I'll just have to buy a Dover Score and compare the two.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Now you've gone and done it, Ferney.
I'll just have to buy a Dover Score and compare the two.

We should also remember that, in the 20s, 30s and 40s, the only person who didn't make any money out of Stravinsky's Russian-published works was the composer himself (unless he was involved as a performer) - he had no rights to his own most profitable (to others) creations. Disney paid him a fee for "allowing" The Rite to be used in Fantasia, but pointed out that, if the composer didn't "allow" it, they'd use it anyway and just not pay him! Nor did Stravinsky profit very much from the newer editions: performers in the US continued to use the old versions. ('Though a few - Szell, I believe, was one - paid for the hire of the B&H editions so that the composer got his Royalties, but used the old versions in concert!)


Erm - none of which has much to do with the Sea Symphony

[Daniel]

Hello.

For the little that it's worth, I thought the Rachmaninov last night was really good. I sometimes find listening to Stephen Hough slightly unrewarding, but I was a little surprised at the amount of antipathy to this particular performance. What some people have found mannered and flat, I thought was persuasive and quite revelatory. I do empathise with how mannered playing can be a big turn off (I personally sometimes find this a problem with Simon Rattle for example, although in some things he can be very exciting), but the nuance in one's own mind between a fresh and a mannered performance can be very fine I think.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Welcome to the Forum, Daniel.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

I never take the slightest bit of notice of music critics these days, they're just people who get paid (far too much) for writing a load of rubbish. I wonder if he was even there, as the critic certainly was listening to the same performance.

Hmm. Reviewing several Proms last summer for Classical Source, I became aware of one particular critic (for a national newspaper) who seemingly b******d off during the interval, never to return. He may, of course, have relocated for the second half of each programme to experience the sound elsewhere in the RAH, but the fact that none of the resulting reviews referred to any of the music in these second halves indicates otherwise...

I thoroughly agree with the ArtsDesk review posted by Mr Pee (though should declare that Alexa is a personal friend). The Storm from the Sea Interludes was a mess, as was pianist/ orchestra co-ordination in the Rachmaninov. I rather liked following the Rachmaninov with the Lutosławski, which acted as a breezy encore.

Like several posters here, in the Sea Symphony I found Sally Matthews' vibrato too intrusive, but the ever-reliable Roddy Williams was on superb form.

[antongould]

Have to say having, at last, listened to the whole Prom I very much enjoyed it. I felt the opener was excellent and also warmed to the Lutoslawski which was new to me. Giving this evening's a miss!

[EnemyoftheStoat]

IMHO, Proms critics should be forced to occupy the best listening place possible, i.e. standing (yes) somewhere mid-Arena. It amazes me that anything based on a hearing from "critic-alley" (8 o'clock if the stage is 12 o'clock) can be used by anyone commenting on ensemble or diction.