Search - Igor Stravinsky, Columbia Symphony Orchestra, C. B. C. Symphony Orchestra :: Igor Stravinsky: The Recorded Legacy

The prime building block of any Stravinsky collection, with

Discophage | France | 02/28/2010

(5 out of 5 stars)

"There is this notion circulated in some quarters that Stravinsky was a bad conductor. I think it confuses two things. I will make no pronouncement on Stravinsky's conducting skills in live performance, I'd need to hear more live recordings (the premiere performance of The Rake's Progress in 1951, Stravinsky: The Rake's Progress, does have its faulty moments - but not the 1951 recording of the tricky Symphonies for Wind Instruments included in vol. 7). And how the studio recordings were made, who prepared the orchestras (common wisdom is that it was Stravinsky's assistant Robert Craft), how many takes and splices they required, is as uninteresting to me as what happens in the kitchen of a great chef. What we have and what we hear are the "final product", the recordings, and it is solely on those, independent of any other consideration or "reputation", that I base my claim that Stravinsky was in general the greatest interpreter of his own works.



This conclusion is based on thorough comparative listening, with score, of many versions of the following works: the Octet, the Suite from The Soldier's Tale, the Piano Concerto and Capriccio, Violin Concerto, Ebony Concerto, Symphonies for Wind Instruments, Symphony in Three Movements, Symphony of Psalms, Mass, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, The Rake's Progress. Some of that listening was made some years ago (Symphonies, Mass, Dylan Thomas), so maybe things have changed with subsequent recordings. Still, in those works Stravinsky has rarely been equaled, let alone surpassed. Only in the three Russian ballets (I also did lots of comparative listening on The Rite of Spring years ago) was he a bit tame compared to the best recordings already available then.



What makes these recordings so great? The authority in conception and the excellence in execution, all abetted by the stupendous Columbia sonics, always affording great clarity of the counterpoint and secondary voices, and, more important still, pungent instrumental character - two essential traits in these compositions (often inspired by the baroque Concerto Grosso model, and always marked by their brilliant and imaginative orchestration) and a distinguishing feature of Stravinsky's recordings.



Obviously Stravinsky knew exactly what he wanted to get - and he got it. These interpretations are always remarkable not only for their unique instrumental character, but also for a bite and crispness of articulation which has rarely been emulated, sometimes even their massive power, as in the Piano Concerto and Capriccio, and the Symphony in three movements. Speaking of the two Concertos, I had long thought of Philippe Entremont as a hack pianist, based on the rehearsal excerpts that are now included in vol. 4, in which he smears egg over his face by seeming unable to understand the syncopation that Stravinsky demands of him. Entirely wrong: he was then a formidable pianist, and hardly anybody has played these works before and since with such massive power, grandeur, bite, muscular staccato, but also sense of wistfulness in some passages (volume 5).



Part of the "anti-Stravinsky' notion is also that with age, his interpretations mellowed and slowed down. This is not always the case. Yes, it is true with The Soldier's Tale-suite. As fine as Stravinsky's reading is in 1961, it had more bite and urgency in 1954, making it a preferable version (Stravinsky Conducts Stravinsky: The Mono Years 1952-1955). But few other versions, then and now, have more bite and urgency - and true swing - that his Ebony Concerto with Benny Goodman on vol. 7 (Rattle maybe), or his Dumbarton Oaks Concerto (vol. 6).



One fascinating aspect is that usually Stravinsky does NOT follow his own metronome marks. Sometimes he is faster, sometimes slower, but rarely exactly there. That raises endless questions I find about the art of interpretation. If a composer as finicky and demanding as Stravinsky for respect and precision in the execution of his scores could pay so little heed to his own metronome marks, what implications does that have on the performance, say, of Beethoven? Does it mean that Stravinsky considered tempo to be less essential to the character of music than pitch, rhythm, articulation, dynamics? But God knows a different tempo can change the character of the music much more dramatically than fiddling with the dynamics and articulation. Or did he realize in performance that his metronome marks didn't work, and should the tempo of the recording be considered the "right" one? But then which is the "right" tempo, considering that he himself adopted different tempos in his different recordings? And why then didn't he change the metronome marks in the subsequent editions of his scores? But I guess all this leaves complete liberty to the other performers in their approach to tempo - which is exactly what they do.



Equally valid versions can be found of course, sometimes with widely different interpretive approaches - and not always by who you'd expect. For the Psalm Symphony, who would expect Gary Bertini (Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms; Abraham and Isaac)? For the Piano Concerto and Capriccio, East-German teams have provided surprisingly good alternatives (Stravinsky: Piano Concerto; Concerto Dumbarton Oaks; Suites Nos. 1 & 2; Piano Pieces, Strawinsky: Pulcinella Suite; Chant du Rossignol; Capriccio). For the Violin Concerto, to limit myself to the recordings made in Stravinsky's lifetime, Oistrakh-Haitink (Mozart Violin Concerto 1 / Stravinsky Violin Concerto - Oistrakh, Haitink) and Grumiaux-Bour (Berg / Stravinsky: Violin Concerto - Grumiaux, Markevitch, Bour) are great, and let me extend that to Chung-Previn from 1974 (Prokofiev: Violin Concertos 1 & 2; Stravinsky: Violin Concerto). Rattle in the Ebony Concerto should not be missed - especially at that price: Simon Rattle: The Jazz Album. There have been many good versions of The Rake's Progress, but Stravinsky remains a great one for its instrumental verve.



The Sony edition has been reissued cheaper (Works of Igor Stravinsky [Box Set]). The original edition came with a lavish introductory booklet containing a pertinent introduction by the reissue's executive producer Vera Zorina (the famous dancer, and also narrator in many Columbia recordings of those years), a moving tribute written on the occasion of Stravinsky's death by her husband Goddard Lieberson, Columbia's top executive who masterminded the company's involvement with Stravinsky, a chronology, a collection of quotes from Stravinsky or contemporary newspapers, and an invaluable portfolio of photos. Each volume comes with its own booklet with presentations of the works, sometimes frustratingly short.



Some qualms? A few - but this website 1000-word limit doesn't allow me to state them here. Don't worry, I've found the loophole: follow me in the comments section for the conclusion.

"