Tchaikovsky Orchestral Works
View record and artist detailsRecord and Artist Details
Composer or Director: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Label: Chandos
Magazine Review Date: 4/1993
Media Format: CD or Download
Media Runtime: 57
Mastering:
DDD
Catalogue Number: CHAN9130
Tracks:
Composition | Artist Credit |
---|---|
Symphony No. 7, 'A Symphony of Life' |
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Composer
London Philharmonic Orchestra Neeme Järvi, Conductor Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Composer |
Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 3 |
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Composer
Geoffrey Tozer, Piano London Philharmonic Orchestra Neeme Järvi, Conductor Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Composer |
Author: Edward Greenfield
The Philadelphia Orchestra first recorded Bogatryryev's completion of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 7 (CBS, since reissued by Sony), Neeme Jarvi provides this valuable alternative, helpfully coupled with the one-movement Piano Concerto No. 3 which Tchaikovsky drew from the symphony's first movement. This reconstructed symphony, abandoned not long before Tchaikovsky wrote his culminating masterpiece in the Pathetique Symphony, may be no match for the regular canon, but it brings many Tchaikovskian delights.
Having symphony and concerto side by side makes it very easy to compare Bogatryryev's reconstruction of the original version, in structure identical except for the central solo cadenza which Tchaikovsky inserted in the concerto. Having the piano set against the orchestra predictably brings sharper contrasts of texture, but the version for orchestra alone regularly sounds more Tchaikovskian, with the big opening theme far more effective on violins than in hollow octaves on the piano. When the dance rhythms of the Trepak third theme enter in the concerto, the piano articulates them much more crisply than the bassoon and violins do in the symphony version, but generally the symphony version gives more poetry to the ideas. That is no comment on the performance of the pianist here, Geoffrey Tozer who, as in his Medtner performances for Chandos (4/92), plays with sympathy as well as powerful bravura. The playing of the London Philharmonic is not so consistent, with violin tone as recorded often thin, not really opulent enough for the big Tchaikovsky melodies.
Not surprisingly, the Ormandy version of the symphony brings crisper ensemble and what allowing for inevitable edginess in the 1962 recording, is firmer, fuller violin tone. Against that Jarvi, with speeds a degree more expansive in all four movements, finds more poetry more fantasy, and the modern digital recording allows far more light and shade over a much wider dynamic range. So with Jarvi the scherzo, drawn from the tenth of Tchaikovsky's Op. 72 piano pieces, is lighter and more resilient, and though in the finale the opening is less exciting, the march theme of the second subject, which with Ormandy, is square and banal, is made to sound delightfully jaunty. Apart from the thinness on the upper strings, the recorded sound is satisfyingly full and warm, and my only disappointment is that the opportunity was not taken of including, in addition, Tanaiev's realization of the other two, incomplete movements of the concerto, the sketches for which were also used by Bogatryryev. There would have been just enough room on a single disc.'
Having symphony and concerto side by side makes it very easy to compare Bogatryryev's reconstruction of the original version, in structure identical except for the central solo cadenza which Tchaikovsky inserted in the concerto. Having the piano set against the orchestra predictably brings sharper contrasts of texture, but the version for orchestra alone regularly sounds more Tchaikovskian, with the big opening theme far more effective on violins than in hollow octaves on the piano. When the dance rhythms of the Trepak third theme enter in the concerto, the piano articulates them much more crisply than the bassoon and violins do in the symphony version, but generally the symphony version gives more poetry to the ideas. That is no comment on the performance of the pianist here, Geoffrey Tozer who, as in his Medtner performances for Chandos (4/92), plays with sympathy as well as powerful bravura. The playing of the London Philharmonic is not so consistent, with violin tone as recorded often thin, not really opulent enough for the big Tchaikovsky melodies.
Not surprisingly, the Ormandy version of the symphony brings crisper ensemble and what allowing for inevitable edginess in the 1962 recording, is firmer, fuller violin tone. Against that Jarvi, with speeds a degree more expansive in all four movements, finds more poetry more fantasy, and the modern digital recording allows far more light and shade over a much wider dynamic range. So with Jarvi the scherzo, drawn from the tenth of Tchaikovsky's Op. 72 piano pieces, is lighter and more resilient, and though in the finale the opening is less exciting, the march theme of the second subject, which with Ormandy, is square and banal, is made to sound delightfully jaunty. Apart from the thinness on the upper strings, the recorded sound is satisfyingly full and warm, and my only disappointment is that the opportunity was not taken of including, in addition, Tanaiev's realization of the other two, incomplete movements of the concerto, the sketches for which were also used by Bogatryryev. There would have been just enough room on a single disc.'
Explore the world’s largest classical music catalogue on Apple Music Classical.
Included with an Apple Music subscription. Download now.
Gramophone Digital Club
- Digital Edition
- Digital Archive
- Reviews Database
- Events & Offers
From £9.20 / month
SubscribeGramophone Club
- Print Edition
- Digital Edition
- Digital Archive
- Reviews Database
- Events & Offers
From £11.45 / month
Subscribe
If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.