Gioachino ROSSINI (1792 – 1868) Overture:
La Cenerentola (1817) [8:09]
Pyotr Il’yich TCHAIKOVSKY (1840 – 1893) Symphony No.4 in F minor, op.36
(1877/1878) [40:55]
NBC Symphony Orchestra/Guido Cantelli
rec. 14 February 1954, Carnegie Hall, New York, NY. ADD
PRISTINE AUDIO PASC 245 [49:04]
Pyotr Il’yich TCHAIKOVSKY (1840 – 1893)
Symphony No.4 in F minor, op.36 (1877/1878) [41:10]
Waltz from Serenade in C, op.48 (1880) [3:41]
Serenade in C, op.48 (1880) [30:15]
Boston Symphony Orchestra/Serge Koussevitzky
rec. 26 April 1949 (Symphony) and 27 April 1949 (Waltz), Symphony Hall, Boston;
16 August 1949, Theatre–Concert Hall, Tanglewood (Serenade). ADD
PRISTINE AUDIO PASC 247 [75:06]
Here are two historical documents of prime importance. They represent the
old world, Koussevitzky had studied with Arthur Nikisch in Berlin, and the
new, Cantelli studied at the Milan Conservatory under Arrigo Pedrollo. Both
recordings were made two years before the conductors died, thus both are the
work of musicians at the very end of their careers, but here’s the irony.
Koussevitzky’s interpretation is the result of half a century of music-making,
whereas Cantelli’s professional career was only ten years old at the time
of this performance.
Both are totally electrifying, Cantelli having the edge in that his is a live
performance and thus there is that added tension which one gets from such
an event. Tension is the hallmark of the first movement, and Cantelli drives
the music irrevocably forwards, there’s even an underlying nervousness in
the jaunty second theme. It’s a hard fought battle and the end is devastating
in its power. This is a very special interpretation indeed. The slow movement
is richer than one might expect, and the middle section dances, not gaily
but with a purpose. Some may feel that it borders on the heavy-handed but
Cantelli is always just the right side of letting the music get out of hand.
Whilst the winsomeness of the marvellous oboe tune is somewhat lost in the
overall conception, he makes his vision work with very satisfactory results.
The scherzo is delightfully fun-filled, with vibrant pizzicato strings, sparkling
woodwinds and bluff brass. This is a very nicely conceived interlude before
the fiery finale taken at a slightly deliberate tempo, which gives time for
the fantastic runs to register cleanly and clearly. This is a fantastic performance,
it’s in superb sound and we are given a little of the audience’s enthusiasm
at the end – which one wants to join for one feels elated. Rossini’s La
Cenerentola Overture makes for a delicious makeweight.
Whereas Cantelli, the young man, might think that fate cannot affect him and
thus gives a dangerously vibrant account of Tchaikovsky’s 4th,
the older Koussevitzky understands the inevitability of kismet and thus he
sees the first movement as music full of nervous energy, restless, questing.
Here the second subject is held back, looking for its place in the grand scheme
of things. Whereas Cantelli sticks to his tempo from start to finish Koussevitzky
pulls it around to suit his emotional thoughts. Both readings work equally
well and it is testimony to Tchaikovsky’s skill that he can create a work
which can take two such different approaches. Cantelli may have delivered
a rich sound to the slow movement, but it’s as nothing compared to the death
by sumptuous orchestral textures Koussevitzky gives us. This does go slightly
over–the–top, but there’s sincerity in every bar and thus we know that it’s
well meant and has been considered prior to recording. The scherzo is fast,
almost too fast, and there is the slight feeling of discomfort from the poor
strings who pluck as fast as they can – excitement seems to be on Koussevitzky’s
agenda for this movement, rather than playfulness. But again, with all three
elements of the music taken into consideration it’s obviously exactly how
the conductor sees the music, and one cannot argue with a well thought out
interpretation. The finale is a tour de force of orchestral playing and it’s
certainly exciting. The Waltz from the Serenade for Strings was issued as
the coupling for the Symphony and it has a very nice dancing lilt to it.
Koussevitzky’s complete recording of the Serenade is in a closer, and drier,
acoustic and this tends to emphasise the hardness of the strings. That said,
it cannot disguise a very well thought out, if occasionally hard-driven, performance.
Tempi are standard and unsurprising, and the large string body is well captured.
The upper strings have a glassy sheen to them and I don’t know if this is
because of Koussevitzky or the recording engineer. This performance isn’t
for the casual listener, it’s far too specialised in its outlook, and the
sound might not be found to be acceptable. For a full red–bloodied account
of the Serenade go to Barbirolli’s 1964 recording with the London Symphony
(EMI Phoenixa 63962. coupled with a fiery account of Tchaikovsky’s 5th
Symphony in a 1959 Hallé account).
As to the Symphony both these disks offer excellent performances, albeit different
interpretations. The sound on Cantelli’s recording is the better of the two,
and Koussevitzky offers a heavier view of the work. I will not be drawn. Buy
them both, you won’t be disappointed as both performances are worthy of attention.
Bob Briggs
Both performances are worthy of attention.