Tchaikovsky: Symphony No 2, Rococo Variations, Andante Cantabile / Elschenbroich, Kitayenko
Oehms Classics
SACD
$19.99
Jan 29, 2013
TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No. 2 in c, “Little Russian.” Variations on a Rococo Theme1. String Quartet No. 1 in D: Andante cantabile • Dmitri Kitaenko, cond; 1Leonard Elschenbroich (vc); Cologne Guerzenich O • OEHMS 669 (SACD: 62:56)
As of early February 2013, here is the status of the four major ongoing Tchaikovsky symphony cycles.
Poppen Reviewed Reviewer Kitaenko Reviewed Reviewer
1 34:3 Dubins 1 36:3 Dubins
2 36:1 Morrison/Bayley 2 36:6 Dubins
3 36:1 Morrison/Bayley 5 35:6 Dubins
4 33:3 Dubins 6 35:1 Morrison
6 35:4 Dubins
Pletnev Reviewed Reviewer Jurowski Reviewed Reviewer
1 35:6 Dubins/Grames 1 33:4 Dubins
2 36:2 Dubins 4 36:4 Dubins
3 36:4 Dubins 5 36:4 Dubins
4 34:6 Pomeroy 6 33:4 Dubins
5 35:3 Rabinowitz
6 35:3 Dubins
Notes:
(1) Thus far, only Pletnev’s cycle is complete. Poppen’s is close, with only the Symphony No. 5 left to go. If a symphony number is absent from one of the above tables, it means that that symphony has not yet appeared as of this writing.
(2) Of the four cycles, two are on SACD—Pletnev’s on PentaTone and Kitaenko’s on Oehms.
(3) One label is competing against itself—the Kitaenko and Poppen cycles are both on Oehms, but only the former is available in SACD format.
(4) For the sake of consistency, I’ve adopted the spelling of Dmitri Kitaenko’s name as it appears in the Fanfare Archive, but the Oehms discs give his name as Kitajenko, and I’ve encountered it elsewhere as Kitayenko.
(5) As is clear from the above tables, the overwhelming majority of these releases have been assigned to me. I’ve enjoyed the assignments because I’m a fan of Tchaikovsky’s symphonies—well, most of them, anyway—but I wish that more of my colleagues could have submitted reviews of these releases as well; for I, and the reader, I’m sure, would be interested to learn if others share or disagree with my conclusions.
For the most part, I’ve favored Pletnev for his dramatically charged readings, for the superb playing of the Russian National Orchestra, and for PentaTone’s exceptionally dynamic recordings. But what I call dramatically charged, others might call volatile and over the top. I’ve also criticized PentaTone for its rather ungenerous fillers.
Between Poppen and Jurowski the only question is which one I prefer less than the other. Both conductors and their respective orchestras—the London Philharmonic for Jurowski and the Southwest German Radio Orchestra for Poppen—have their strong points, among which are solid and secure playing in even-tempered, articulate performances and first-rate recorded sound. But relistening to them in preparation for this review, I found my original conclusions confirmed. There’s nothing exceptional in Poppen or Jurowski’s readings to make them standouts in the crowd. Then too, of the four cycles under discussion, these are the two that are not in SACD. A few years ago that wouldn’t have mattered; the recordings would have been considered state-of-the-art. But Tchaikovsky is one of music’s greatest orchestrators, and the subtleties and myriad details of his orchestration really benefit from well-engineered multichannel recordings.
So, here we are with Kitaenko’s fourth installment in his cycle, Tchaikovsky’s “Little Russian” Symphony, the No. 2. As I’ve had occasion to opine before, it’s a tossup, as far as I’m concerned, as to which is the weakest of the composer’s symphonies, the No. 2 or the No. 3. Kitaenko actually makes a stronger case for No. 2, I believe, than does Pletnev, the only other No. 2 out of the four above cycles I’ve reviewed. Kitaenko’s first movement is slower by only 33 seconds—11:29 vs. 10:56—but that slightly slower tempo gives the performance a feeling of being tighter, more disciplined, and better controlled. Pletnev drives the movement harder, which, in comparison, makes it sound a bit wild-eyed. In Kitaenko’s hands, the remaining three movements are slower too, considerably so in fact, such that his overall timing for the symphony is 36:07 compared to Pletnev’s 31:47. That’s really a significant difference. For the most part, I do think Kitaenko’s slower tempos work to the advantage of this particular score. Tearing through it the way Pletnev does only further trivializes its already subpar inspiration.
Here comes the hard choice. Complementing the symphony on Kitaenko’s disc is Tchaikovsky’s Variations on a Rococo Theme, welcome for its brilliant performance by young, London-based cellist Leonard Elschenbroich who plays the magnificent “Leonard Rose” cello made by Venetian luthier, Matteo Goffriller. Unfortunately, Elschenbroich chooses to perform the defiled Wilhelm Fitzenhagen version of the score, as so many cellists do. In a nutshell, Tchaikovsky entrusted Fitzenhagen, a professor at the Moscow Conservatory, to edit and fine-tune the cello part. In the composer’s absence, the emboldened professor performed a sorcerer’s apprentice repair job on the vehicle, connecting the windshield wipers to the exhaust pipe. When the sorcerer returned from abroad, he was so shocked and disgusted by what Fitzenhagen had done that he washed his hands of the whole thing, exclaiming, “Let the devil take it; let it stay as it is.” And for the most part it has.
Beyond the minor changes to dynamics and phrasing, Fitzenhagen reduced the number of variations from eight to seven and moved the third variation, along with the cadenza that precedes it and the Allegro that follows it, to the very end of the work. This resulted in two variations of similar character being juxtaposed, a problem Fitzenhagen solved by removing the last variation and tacking its closing paragraphs on to the concluding Allegro vivace. What possessed him to do all of this is not clear, but Tchaikovsky’s exasperated “let it stay as it is” has been taken by many, if not most, modern cellists as license for performing Fitzenhagen’s hatchet job. If you would like to hear the piece the way Tchaikovsky originally wrote it, I can recommend Julian Lloyd Webber’s Philips recording with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Maxim Shostakovich.
The thing is that Elschenbroich’s performance of the work on this disc is really outstanding, which, in part, is what makes the choice between this new Kitaenko release and Pletnev’s a difficult one, for Pletnev offers as a filler for his Tchaikovsky Second the composer’s original first movement to the symphony, which the composer majorly revised a number of years later. The revised version is the standard form in which the symphony is performed today, so it’s instructive to be able to hear Tchaikovsky’s original thoughts.
The current Oehms album concludes with a souped-up version of the famous Andante cantabile movement from Tchaikovsky’s D-Major String quartet in what sounds like an arrangement for solo cello and string orchestra. My guess is that Elschenbroich plays the cello part while the orchestra’s strings play the violin and viola parts, but the cellist is placed so far forward and is so dominant that for much of the time it’s hard to tell what the strings are playing, or if they’re playing at all.
Decisions, decisions. I prefer Kitaenko’s way with the Second Symphony to Pletnev’s, and I’m very impressed by Elschenbroich’s Rococo Variations, though I wish he’d have opted for Tchaikovsky’s original version. On the other hand, Pletnev’s inclusion of the Second Symphony’s original first movement is a valuable addition to his disc. As for the respective orchestras and recordings, both make an equally visceral impact. I suppose the only advice I can offer you is to acquire them both. FANFARE: Jerry Dubins
