Prom 33 - 10.08.14: NYOGB, Schwizgebel / Gardner

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sunday, 10 August
7.45 p.m. – c. 10.00 p.m.
Royal Albert Hall

Stravinsky: Petrushka (1911 version)
Prokofiev: Concerto for Piano No. 1 in Db, Op 10

Sir Harrison Birtwistle: Sonance Severance 2000
Lutosławski: Concerto for Orchestra

Louis Schwizgebel, piano (Proms debut artist, New Generation Artist)
National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain
Edward Gardner, conductor

The National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain makes its annual visit to the Proms with a fiery and virtuosic programme of 20th-century orchestral showpieces, conducted by Proms regular Edward Gardner.

A Russian first half sees BBC Radio 3 New Generation Artist Louis Schwizgebel take the lead in Prokofiev's youthful First Piano Concerto. Written while the composer was still a student, it brims with the same audacious energy that pulses through Stravinsky's great ballet Petrushka. Lutoslawski's vivacious Concerto for Orchestra closes the evening with still more primary-coloured, folkloric brilliance and drama.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No excuse for not doing the 1911 version with an orchestra of this size.

[Lento]

Another fascinating talk by Stephen Johnson on the Proms website.

[Petrushka]

This looks a super programme and I'll be tuning in.

[jayne lee wilson]

Still basking in the glow of the Cadogan PSM 2... but hope to stagger in with an espresso for Part 2...

[Ferretfancy]

Still basking in the glow of the Cadogan PSM 2... but hope to stagger in with an espresso for Part 2...

Another excellent Prom. The 1911 version of Petrushka sounded a little over massive, well beyond Diaghilev's pocket I would have imagined ! I counted ten horns and seven trombones with two tubas, not to mention trumpets, winds and half a dozen percussionists! It went pretty well, with only a handful of glitches, and what an amazing sound world Stravinsky evokes!

Louis Schwizgebel dazzled in the Prokofiev ist Piano Concerto, beautifully fleet playing. Sometimes this concerto can seem hectoring, but not this time. A perfect encore followed, Schubert's Standchen.

Finally came the Lutoslawski Concerto for Orchestra, which I thought was the best performance of the evening from these talented young people, who obviously enjoyed the evening, nicely sheepish faced with the RAH applause!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Another excellent Prom. The 1911 version of Petrushka sounded a little over massive, well beyond Diaghilev's pocket I would have imagined ! I counted ten horns and seven trombones with two tubas, not to mention trumpets, winds and half a dozen percussionists! It went pretty well, with only a handful of glitches, and what an amazing sound world Stravinsky evokes!

Didn't Stravinsky regard the 1947 as the new standard version? I'm pleased that it didn't consign the 1911 one to oblivion.
But it is expensive.

[Ferretfancy]

Didn't Stravinsky regard the 1947 as the new standard version? I'm pleased that it didn't consign the 1911 one to oblivion.
But it is expensive.

I understand that he revised most of his earlier works, because thay had all appeared in pirated editions earlier in the century. I always dread hearing Petrushka with the tacked on flourish at the end, instead of those mysterious last four pizzicato chords.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I understand that he revised most of his earlier works, because thay had all appeared in pirated editions earlier in the century. I always dread hearing Petrushka with the tacked on flourish at the end, instead of those mysterious last four pizzicato chords.

Yes - every edition that was published in the United States was exempt from royalty payments (as the US hadn't signed the international copyright agreement) - and, as he wasn't receiving royalties from the Russian editions either (the Russians having dealt with Royalty in every way) unless he was conducting his most famous works, then he would be the only person who didn't profit from a performance of his own work. The American revisions were partly a response to this - but in many cases, they also offer interesting insights into how the middle-aged Neo-Classicist regarded the "sins" of his youth. The 1947 Petrushka is a valid alternative score (and is easier to conduct) if lacking the exuberence of the 1911 orchestration. (The "tacked-on flourish", by the way, isn't part of the 1947 revision, but IIRC part of the truncated Petrushka Suite that Stravinsky prepared for concert performance of (some of) the Ballet score. He, too, detested this ending and regretted wasting time on the Suite. The 1947 revision of the complete score, on the other hand, he ever after preferred.

[Ockeghem's Razor]

(the Russians having dealt with Royalty in every way)

Very good

[Ferretfancy]

Yes - every edition that was published in the United States was exempt from royalty payments (as the US hadn't signed the international copyright agreement) - and, as he wasn't receiving royalties from the Russian editions either (the Russians having dealt with Royalty in every way) unless he was conducting his most famous works, then he would be the only person who didn't profit from a performance of his own work. The American revisions were partly a response to this - but in many cases, they also offer interesting insights into how the middle-aged Neo-Classicist regarded the "sins" of his youth. The 1947 Petrushka is a valid alternative score (and is easier to conduct) if lacking the exuberence of the 1911 orchestration. (The "tacked-on flourish", by the way, isn't part of the 1947 revision, but IIRC part of the truncated Petrushka Suite that Stravinsky prepared for concert performance of (some of) the Ballet score. He, too, detested this ending and regretted wasting time on the Suite. The 1947 revision of the complete score, on the other hand, he ever after preferred.

Thanks for that, ferney, Michael Tilson Thomas conducted the 1947 version two or three years ago at the Barbican, but added that noisy ending, which came as a great surprise and disappointment.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's terrible, Ferretf - AFAIK, Stravinsky never authorised this. Checking, there's no mention of this in Stephen Walsh's detailed biography, either. But a couple of useful comments:

Stravinsky had probably assumed that the revision of "Petrushka" ... would be a largely mechanical process, one of those afternoon activities that he liked to engage in ... But then as he worked on it , it began to turn into a complete retexturing - a thorough rethinking of the score in the spirit of his recent Music, with a sharper delineation of sonorities and less reliance on rhthmic washes of harmony

(page 190)

Once he had started looking at the score, he had wanted to to work it over thoroughly; and the result was like a painting whose colours had been completely reorganized: Picasso's "Demoiselles d'Avignon" recoloured in the style of his "Woman in a Blue Dress".

(page 208).

The revision of Petrushka were more substantial than those of Le Sacre or Firebird - but didn't incorporate the ending he'd provided for the "concert Suite".

[Pulcinella]

Not sure you are quite right about the endings, fhg.

The pocket score I have (Boosey and Hawkes 639) of what claims to be the revised 1947 version does indeed have both endings, with an instruction a few bars after figure 250 that says: for concert performance use the ending on page 172.
So it seems to be intentional, even if later Stravinsky regretted it, and not only simply associated with the suite.

I might see if Eric Walter White has anything to say about revisions; should have done that before posting this!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not sure you are quite right about the endings, fhg.

The pocket score I have (Boosey and Hawkes 639) of what claims to be the revised 1947 version does indeed have both endings, with an instruction a few bars after figure 250 that says: for concert performance use the ending on page 172.
So it seems to be intentional, even if later Stravinsky regretted it, and not only simply associated with the suite.

- you're absolutely right, of course. But the concert ending isn't!

[Pulcinella]

Agreed!