Prom 14: Prokofiev piano concertos (28.07.15)

[edashtav]

Of the reviews that I've encountered so far, I find this one by Mark Pullinger to be the most useful and thought-provoking:

http://bachtrack.com/review-prom-14-prokofiev-trifonov-babayan-volodin-gergiev-lso-july-2015

[Nick Armstrong]

Of the reviews that I've encountered so far, I find this one by Mark Pullinger to be the most useful and thought-provoking:

http://bachtrack.com/review-prom-14-...-lso-july-2015

Yes good stuff as ever from our Grand Inquisitor!

(Where is IGI by the way? Haven't seen a post lately. Too busy travelling the world to concerts'n'operas and penning stimulating reviews, one suspects!)

[antongould]

Have followed the suggested route of listening via iplayer and just heard No.2 which I didn't know and found quite wonderful - in fact I think the whole Prom is a wizard idea ....

[maestro267]

Thoroughly enjoyed this Prom on Tuesday. A fine opportunity to totally immerse oneself in the sound world of a single composer in a single form, and follow said composer's progress through that sound world.

[Sir Velo]

A very different take from the usual encomiums from the pen of The Torygraph's esteemed critic, Ivan Hewett.

For once, the comments as well are worth reading, particularly the witty little parody of Hewett's own writing!

I must confess my own partial sympathy with the beleaguered critic. 3 is an out and out masterpiece; 1 and 2 have their moments; but 4 and 5 would have been better left to another night (or season, for that matter).

[edashtav]

A very different take from the usual encomiums from the pen of The Torygraph's esteemed critic, Ivan Hewett.

For once, the comments as well are worth reading, particularly the witty little parody of Hewett's own writing!

Many thanks for pointing us in the direction of comments on Ivan Hewett's review. They are entertaining and interesting. Both in conception and execution, this Prokofiev concert has caused a wide spectrum of response .

[Nick Armstrong]

For once, the comments as well are worth reading, particularly the witty little parody of Hewett's own writing!

I must confess my own partial sympathy with the beleaguered critic. 3 is an out and out masterpiece; 1 and 2 have their moments; but 4 and 5 would have been better left to another night (or season, for that matter).

I echo that confession. I'd have been a very bad person to review this concert, and for similar reasons. Which makes some of the criticism of the Hewitt item as a review of the performances hold some water, I think.

[Zucchini]

The Times gave ***. (I only quote because online it's subscription only).

"The cumulative effect was of watching a fireworks display: noisy, spectacular and empty"

[edashtav]

The New York Times report may be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/ar...rtos.html?_r=0

It's probably the most enthusiastic of the printed reviews. This is their critic, David Allen at his most ecstatic:

"...Tuesday’s Prom was a triumph. The program looked daft but interesting: one orchestra, one conductor, three pianists, all five of Prokofiev’s piano concertos.”

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

Of the reviews that I've encountered so far, I find this one by Mark Pullinger to be the most useful and thought-provoking:

http://bachtrack.com/review-prom-14-...-lso-july-2015

Yes good stuff as ever from our Grand Inquisitor!

(Where is IGI by the way? Haven't seen a post lately. Too busy travelling the world to concerts'n'operas and penning stimulating reviews, one suspects!)

Thank you, both. I have indeed been so busy reviewing that my FoR3 presence has been somewhat diminished... even when not reviewing, I'm usually out somewhere. For example, this week I was also at the Proms on Wednesday (accompanying my Parisian reviewer) and at Turgenyev's A Month in the Country on Thursday. And this is "the quiet season"!

[Simon B]

Hewett's Review in summary:

Bloke who doesn't much like Prokofiev piano concertos goes to concert comprising nothing else. Doesn't enjoy the experience much. In other news, bears etc...

Clearly this concert was a stupid idea for people in the above category. Fortunately most such people wouldn't have been dumb or masochistic enough to fork out for a ticket and rock up.

Andrew Clements does this as well. Reviews a piece (e.g. the RVW Sea Symphony) he doesn't think much of and then proceeds to tell us he didn't think much of it.

Since insight of this quality seems to qualify as a useful contribution I might as well start writing reviews of (insert title of anything by) Mozart detailing how the problem was that, as usual, I snapped to about halfway through to realise I'd spent the last 10 minutes contemplating methods for the removal of ear wax or solving differential equations in my head to alleviate the boredom. Then charge for it.

What's the point?

[Serial_Apologist]

Hewett's Review in summary:

Bloke who doesn't much like Prokofiev piano concertos goes to concert comprising nothing else. Doesn't enjoy the experience much. In other news, bears etc...

Clearly this concert was a stupid idea for people in the above category. Fortunately most such people wouldn't have been dumb or masochistic enough to fork out for a ticket and rock up.

Andrew Clements does this as well. Reviews a piece (e.g. the RVW Sea Symphony) he doesn't think much of and then proceeds to tell us he didn't think much of it.

Since insight of this quality seems to qualify as a useful contribution I might as well start writing reviews of (insert title of anything by) Mozart detailing how the problem was that, as usual, I snapped to about halfway through to realise I'd spent the last 10 minutes contemplating methods for the removal of ear wax or solving differential equations in my head to alleviate the boredom. Then charge for it.

What's the point?

I've always said I would rather not write up a concert or CD not to my liking than diss it, as opposed to hand over to someone sympathetic; the problem can arise when what one went to in highest expectations turns out to be duff. What does the reviewer then do? Write what he really thinks, or leave his journal in the lurch?

[Simon B]

the problem can arise when what one went to in highest expectations turns out to be duff. What does the reviewer then do? Write what he really thinks, or leave his journal in the lurch?

Surely this is much closer to the point of the exercise? If it's a sincere response, especially one which can be expressed in enumerated specifics, that's useful information. The reader can still choose to ignore it or infer a different conclusion from the specifics ("the trombones were too loud at x" - not possible ).

Reviewing something you know you're out of sympathy with a priori is surely pointless. The exception might be if an a posteriori damascene conversion occurs due to a particular performance or situation. Obviously, no-one can be booked in advance to do such a review!

[BBMmk2]

Managed the first half, going to hear these complete!