Paavo Järvi’s recordings with the Cincinnati
Symphony Orchestra for Telarc have to
date made a feature of juxtaposing interesting
repertoire on the same disc. To my knowledge
this is the first time that the Bartók
and Lutosławski concertos have
been paired [but see
footnote]. As the conductor himself
asks in the booklet, “Is it possible
that two works can share so much in
common purely by accident?” In formal
terms both works display their composers’
interest in the use of folk melodies
and chorale structures as integral parts
of a musical form. Who is to say if
Bartók’s work directly influenced Lutosławski
in the writing of his? One can only
guess at the extent, but one thing is
for sure both works show their composers’
love of their native lands in times
of personal struggle. Bartók’s struggle
was with poor health, a decline in demand
for his services as a solo pianist and
emigration to the United States. Lutosławski’s
struggle was faced on home soil in having
to work under the crippling cultural
dictates of Poland’s neo-Stalinist regime.
There are alternative versions of both
works - several in respect of the Bartók
concerto. It’s interesting to start,
however, with the Lutosławski concerto.
EMI’s release of the work as part of
a 2 CD mid-price set – 8 73833 2, including
Symphonies 1 and 2, Symphonic
Variations, Musique funèbre, Jeux vénitiens,
Livre pour orchestre and Mi-parti
– is an essential part of any Lutosławskian’s
discography owing to the fact that the
composer himself conducts all the performances.
In respect of the Concerto, Lutosławski
consistently adopts swifter tempi than
Paavo Järvi. Not only that but Järvi’s
textures are always heavier than those
Lutosławski draws from the Polish
Radio National Symphony Orchestra. Alright,
so Järvi’s orchestra is more polished
in their playing, but for me that does
not entirely work in their favour. In
order to give variety within the overall
body there is a reliance by Telarc on
spotlighting individual orchestral lines
so they get fully noticed: the cellos
at the very opening of the piece or,
later, horns that cut through an already
thick texture with a little too much
ease serve as but two examples. For
my money the composer’s recording makes
as great an impact but it gets there
by a different route. There is more
resonant space around the players and
you are made to feel the effort that
went into their playing.
The Fanfare for Louisville is
a brief example of Lutosławski’s
later style, written in thanks to the
Louisville Orchestra whom the composer
conducted in performances of his Third
Symphony in 1985. Don’t let the relative
brevity let you think there isn’t some
dense writing here. Reliance on heavy
brass textures marks out the work as
does a requirement for the players to
throw forth tightly knit bodies of sound
with relative independence of their
neighbours’ activity. Järvi and his
Cincinnati orchestra don’t shy away
from the challenges presented either.
Bartók’s concerto is just as demanding
on the orchestra – indeed, more so one
could say – and it is also a work that
should have an almost indefinable mystery
about it in performance, with distant
dark shades of Duke Bluebeard’s Castle
at the start perhaps brought to mind.
Alternating with this one wants some
measure of incisive rhythmic punch and
clarity present in the wind and harp
parts as they unfold. Järvi’s reading
on the whole appears that little bit
too cleanly phrased to leave any room
for mystery, although he does give you
plenty of rhythmic involvement when
called for, though at first not as insistently
as I had expected. The sense of flow
between the sections of the music can
seem a little artificial too: the result
of pieced-together takes? If this sounds
as if I don’t favour the recording at
all, it’s not true. The playing can
be thrilling in itself. Take the brass
ensemble at around 8’20”–8’35” in the
first movement and the whipped up ending,
from 10’15” onwards, as examples of
this. It just does not hang together
as a single movement in the way it should.
The second movement, Gioco delle
coppie, is on the whole better in
appearing cut from one piece of cloth.
The drumbeats at the start are cleanly
though atmospherically given with the
wind and string passages that follow
crisply given. Brass lines are full
and resonant. Good though it is to have
a prominent string bass line there are
times when the balance might have been
a bit more in the winds’ favour. As
the movement progresses some of the
wit that could be profitably exploited
gets a touch overlooked to really register.
Elegia, the third movement, suffers
a little from the same issue of balance.
Might the adopted tempo be slightly
too slow also before the full orchestral
tutti kicks in? Intermezzo interrotto,
the fourth movement, is in many ways
the most successful of the concerto.
It brings together subtle wind, brass
and string playing to a degree that
was lacking in earlier movements until
the ‘rude’ interruptions of the brass
interject. Järvi makes the most of those.
The lengthy Finale kicks off
well at a fair lick and maintains clean
voicing of the instruments too, but
things come a little unstuck with the
arrival of the first tranquillo passage.
After this a true tempo I – as Bartók
requires – is not re-established. I
can only question too why Järvi takes
some 10’24” over the movement when the
composer emphasised anything around
a minute less would be acceptable. It
cannot be denied though that Järvi goes
for, and largely secures, an imposing
conclusion to his reading.
Supported with useful notes this is
a release I will revisit occasionally
if the mood takes me, the Lutosławski
performances more successful on the
whole than the Bartók.
Evan Dickerson
Footnote
We thank Todd Schurk
for informing us that this coupling
did appear on a Decca Dohnanyi/Cleveland
recording (425 694-2 long oop)
Cincinnati
Symphony Orchestra /Paavo Järvi 
for
details
