# Rite of Spring recommendations



## bryla (Dec 26, 2009)

I'm out to buy The Rite of Spring - preferably on iTunes. Can you recommend a recording of it? Which one I mean?


----------



## David Story (Dec 26, 2009)

Stravinsky conducting the Columbia Symphony, paired with Petrushka. He gets the music.





Also get Boulez and Cleveland, they are more precise, great recording, you can hear amazing details.
Gergiev is also magic.


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 26, 2009)

Stravinsky conducting the Columbia Symphony, paired with Petrushka.

+1
I have this on CD ,used to have as SACD as well,absolutely* amazing!!!!*

make sure dl as aiff or wav and if you can put it hrough a good dac you will love it.


:D 


KG


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 26, 2009)

Always buy one version of Stravinsky conducting any of his pieces you're interested in. You always hear how they're supposed to sound - and it's almost always much drier than other peoples' interpretation.

The most extreme example of that is Pulcinella, in fact the whole point of the piece is that it's *not* a typical flowing baroque piece.


----------



## caseyjames (Dec 26, 2009)

The recent Valery Gergiev recording is breath taking.

I have many versions and they're are moments in each that take my preference. 

That said the quality of the Gergiev recording paired with the absolute control over the phrasing really makes the others historical curiosities as far as my listening is concerned.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2009)

Personally I've listen to the Boulez recording done with the New York Phil in the '70's.

Also, any of the Leonard Slatkin recordings are very good. 

The Stravinsky records are good from an educational standpoint, but the only problem with him is that he wasn't much of a performer and I actually find that he has a hard time leading the orchestra through some of his own tempo and meter changes. But of course you could blame the orchestra too for not getting it. But, I always look at it from the perspective of he was never one to voluntarily jump up in front of the orchestra to conduct. He was no Mahler.

As far as the Bernstein recordings, I love Bernie but this is not his piece. And I've heard from some of my old professors that Stravinsky would openly criticize Bernstein. As I understand he thought that Lenny was too much of a showman for his music.

Jose


----------



## Unison (Dec 27, 2009)

+1 for Gergiev on Phillips. 

You also get Scriabins colourful _Poem of Ecstacy _ on that disc


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 27, 2009)

> The Stravinsky records are good from an educational standpoint, but the only problem with him is that he wasn't much of a performer and I actually find that he has a hard time leading the orchestra through some of his own tempo and meter changes



Really?! Seriously?!

You may be thinking of recordings I don't know about, but the ones I do know - especially L'Histoire du Soldat (which actually doesn't have tempo changes I can think of)....he's just great. So is the recording of him conducting Pulcinella, I have another one of Dunbarton Oaks, and Octet for Winds...all those are GREAT performances. I also have one of him conducting the Firebird.

There are other good versions, no question, but he's holding it together like glue in all those. I certainly disagree that he wasn't a performer.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2009)

I respect your opinion I certainly do. Of course at that level its a mater of taste. Histoire is wicked hard and does have a lot of tempo and meter changes. You don't necessarily hear them because by ear it does kind of go chunk chunk but on paper the meter is changing just about every bar in some of the movements.

Personally comparing the Boulez recordings with Stravinsky recordings I just think that the more experienced conductors recordings have a better flow to them and are rhythmically tighter. The Firebird recording I've heard Stravinsky does great in the slower sections but is clearly struggling in the more difficult sections. As witnessed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tGA6bpscj8

But like I said at his level is just a matter of personal choice and I don't really believe that I have any kind of valid point what so ever.


----------



## mf (Dec 27, 2009)

Magnificent!
Stravinsky conducting Stravinsky is like Rachmaninov playing Rachmaninov. No way anyone can beat that.


----------



## David Story (Dec 27, 2009)

Beautiful, a classic performance. Thanks Jose!
The crowd and orchestra sure love him.
"Conducting rarely attracts original minds". I like Stravinsky's' style of getting a good performance. Strong, minimal gestures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQKyek3 ... re=related


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2009)

imo he does amazingly well in the slower more lyrical sections. Never heard anything like that. But, imo the ending is just way to choppy and he lags behind the orchestra. I feel like the orchestra is trying to get him to stay with them rather than the other way around. But the conducting in the beginning is just masterful and precise. The connection of the themes is something I've never heard before.


----------



## caseyjames (Dec 28, 2009)

I think that was the first version I heard of the firebird... It was exactly the choppiness of those final chords that hooked me as the distinguishing feature. I'm glad to find out that it was his creative intention.

Watching his face is fascinating, his moment to moment opinion of the playing is clear to see.


----------



## bryla (Dec 28, 2009)

Thank you every one! I think I'll be getting the Stravinsky, Gergiev and Boulez for now


----------



## mf (Dec 28, 2009)

josejherring @ Sun Dec 27 said:


> But, imo the ending is just way to choppy and he lags behind the orchestra. I feel like the orchestra is trying to get him to stay with them rather than the other way around.


I think the ending was absolutely glorious. Lagging behind the orchestra?? Most likely, the orchestra was playing as he taught them at the rehearsals. It doesn't matter that his body language and hands movements don't have the elegance of a Bernstein; what matters is the result, which is the living expression of Stravinsky's vision. No, definitely not lagging behind; the man was on top of everything. I doubt anyone else can get so much expression out of that finale. That Firebird was really flying. And burning. Intensely.
I guess the recording is in stereo, yes?


----------



## bryla (Dec 28, 2009)

The first Stravinsky version from 1940 is in mono


----------



## Olias (Dec 28, 2009)

For a heavier version, I really like the Michael Tilson Thomas/San Francisco Symphony version (http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Firebird-Spring-Persephone-Francisco/dp/B00000IOCZ)


----------



## bryla (Dec 28, 2009)

Love Michael Tilson Thomas in general, so I might squeeze that in too.

So which score edition?


The one I see everywhere:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0486258572/ref=sib_err_dp (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0486 ... sib_err_dp)

Or the B&H that I already own a couple of and know the quality:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rite-Spring-Printemps-Masterworks-Library/dp/0851621910/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262040542&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rite-Spring-Pri ... 542&amp;sr=8-1)

I thought that B&H where new ones, but it's published 12 years before the Dover, and the Dover is 20 pages longer?

The Dover is used though, and I - for some reason - don't want to buy used books, so may find it elsewhere.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Dec 28, 2009)

mf @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> Magnificent!
> Stravinsky conducting Stravinsky is like Rachmaninov playing Rachmaninov. No way anyone can beat that.



Didn't Horowitz top Rachmaninov in his 3rd piano concerto? :wink: Rach never performed it again after hearing Horowitz play it.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> mf @ Mon Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificent!
> ...



That brings me to my only complaint when I hear classical composers perform their own works. One tends to just get an accurate rendition of the notes as they appear on the page. Rach was no different. Though I do think that what's lacking in performers that don't compose is an accurate understanding of the structural components of concert music. 

Though I've heard Strauss conducting the Berlin Phil on Also Spracht... and I heard in the Library for the Performing Arts in New York an old old recording taken from a wax cylinder of Brahms performing one of his sonatas. These recordings were just spectacular on every level.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 28, 2009)

Jose, L'Histoire has meter changes almost every bar, but I can't think of any tempo changes. Where are they? I'm trying hard to remember.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 28, 2009)

I've heard the Salonen with the LA Phil is a revelation (from a very credible source but haven't heard it myself.)


----------



## david robinson (Dec 28, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> I've heard the Salonen with the LA Phil is a revelation (from a very credible source but haven't heard it myself.)



yep, d/l'd from YT a year or more ago.
very good performance and recording.

but, as others have said: nothing beats the master at work.
i've owned ALL of the columbia stravinsky records since 1978.
stravinsky is a great example of what short guys can do in a tall world.
LOL.
JR.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Dec 28, 2009)

Composers conducting their own works are surely recordings to treasure, but the same thing can't be said about composers performing their own works, with some exceptions as Rachmaninov and a few others, and it is not unusual that they will be the worst at performing their own works.


----------



## mf (Dec 28, 2009)

josejherring @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> my only complaint when I hear classical composers perform their own works. One tends to just get an accurate rendition of the notes as they appear on the page. Rach was no different.


He surely was - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l37utZxMQ

Yes, an accurate rendition of the notes, of the articulations, plus the right tempos, dynamics, phrasing, and - above all - an accurate rendition of the composer's VISION. The most accurate rendition. Same as in Stravinsky's case. When it comes to their own stuff, these guys are WAY above anyone's understanding. You simply can't know better than them. They have access to knowledge that is unavailable to you. You can play the signs in the score, while interpreting them according to your own limitations. They can play the music. THEIR music.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2009)

mf @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > my only complaint when I hear classical composers perform their own works. One tends to just get an accurate rendition of the notes as they appear on the page. Rach was no different.
> ...



As soon as he puts the notes on the page then publishes it its open to interpretation and quite frankly there are a few pianist that interpreted his music better than he did imo. Rachy's performances didn't match up to Rubenstein's or Horowitz performances. Rachy was imo again too concerned with what was on the page. Not that his performances where bad. They where quite brilliant. But others then came along and did his music even more brilliantly and he admitted as much. 

To my ears this recording has way more lyricism in the melodic interpretation and much more life to the rhythm than Rach gave his own piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoG8a6WR ... L&index=37


----------



## mf (Dec 28, 2009)

josejherring @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> Rachy was imo again too concerned with what was on the page.


You think so? I think he was more concerned with the music in his head. You know, the real music is not on the page but in the composer's head. And musical notation is too limited to accurately translate that on paper. I think nobody can seriously presume to know a composer's meanings and intentions better than the composer himself.


----------



## mf (Dec 29, 2009)

I own the Boosey&Hawkes wdition, which is the revised 1947 version (re-engraved 1967). Very well laid out on page, easy to read. 
Don't know about Dover, they usually reprint old editions, so I guess that would be the 1913 original version. 
I think the revised version is more often played though.


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 29, 2009)

mf @ Tue Dec 29 said:


> Don't know about Dover, they usually reprint old editions, so I guess that would be the 1913 original version.
> I think the revised version is more often played though.



The "Unabridged Dover version" is a republication of the Izdatel'stvo "Muzyka" Moscow 1965 Edition. The printing quality is quite good.

It would be interesting to have both to see what kind of note changes were made.


----------



## bryla (Dec 29, 2009)

Okay just bought the B&H version.

I will check out your audio recommendations. So far I'm listening to the Boulez, and I found out I already had a version with Sixten Ehrling - Maybe as a part of the Professional Orchestration?


----------



## synthetic (Dec 29, 2009)

Have fun. Rite of Spring is the next score I'm tearing into, but right now I'm knee-deep in Ravel's Daphnis & Chloé.


----------



## bryla (Dec 29, 2009)

I am too!  Damn there's a lot to learn from Daphnis & Chloé. I heard it with Gergiev and LSO three months ago - wow!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 29, 2009)

"I look at it like this. A screenwriter or a playwrite can create a drama, but it takes actors to bring it to life. The two diciplines are different"

In general I agree. It's just that Stravinsky more than most composers has a very specific idea about the way his music is supposed to sound, and once you hear his versions you understand that exactly. There are certainly other great performances of his music, but a lot of people just don't get it.

In my opinion.


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 31, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 29 said:


> "I look at it like this. A screenwriter or a playwrite can create a drama, but it takes actors to bring it to life. The two diciplines are different"
> 
> In general I agree. It's just that Stravinsky more than most composers has a very specific idea about the way his music is supposed to sound, and once you hear his versions you understand that exactly. There are certainly other great performances of his music, but a lot of people just don't get it.
> 
> In my opinion.



True, in fact in the CD collection of Stravinsky conducting (ALL!) his works for Columbia Records (NY Phil) there is a lengthy section where you hear him rehearsing various sections of pieces with the orchestra where it's obvious he knows exactly what he wants every beat of every bar.


----------

