Amazing how many of these references from the golden age of the American orchestra still stand up today. Of course we benefitted greatly by the diaspora of European talent but, still. We had plenty of great home-grown musicians in those bands.
Truly an outstanding recording. What struck me in this recording is the transition from the introduction to exposition in the 1st movement. The theme is based on the same motif, but being faster, it's a very exciting moment, it's a revelation.
Glad to see acknowledgement that Monteux was capable of “his own personal interpretation.” Conductors of the same generation may still differ interpretively. First-hand knowledge of 19th-century performance style wouldn’t necessarily make one a hostage to it. Rather than a homogeneous, uniform, monolithic style that was preserved unaltered, a spectrum of interpretation in one century would seem to have given rise to a spectrum in the next.
Oh Jeez, the very thought of this symphony makes me twitch. I had to study it for a school exam at age 16 in the UK, got thoroughly sick of it and avoided listening ever again. I'll try the reference recording to see if I can love it again! Thanks Dave.
Great timing - I had never heard this recording until today when it was played on Sirius XM. I turned it on, it was on in the middle of the first movement and it was so intense and articulated, I had never heard this piece so bold, vigorous and passionate. I immediately had to scroll to the beginning and know which recording it was - and I couldn’t believe it was something done so long ago. It sounds brand new.
I don't think I've seen you so excited with a reference recording as in this case. It almost sounds like a favorite. Makes one want to rush and go listen to it right away.
Which I did. Along with the rest of the RCA box. :)) Thus far, happy as punch with it. And the 3 Franck D Minor versions included are all worthwhile, although this is much ahead in recorded sound and orchestral discipline - as a reference recording ought to be.
Many many years ago, when I was in High School, I graduated in 1961, my mother took me to the Buffalo Philharmonic where they played the Frank D minor Symphony. That was when I fell in love with classical music. A couple of years later, I built (yes built from a kit) my first stereo. One of the first stereo recordings I purchased was the Monteux version of Frank D minor with the Chicago Symphony. Your review brought back some very fond memories.
The obvious only choice! I discovered this symphony way back in 1972 as a kid. The D minor is among my favorite works along with most of the rest of Francks works.
Dave, you are a complete star in my musical firmament! Why is it that I agree with everything you say? Have you some sinister telepathic powers over us all? Come on! Own up!
Je vous approuvé totalement: la version de Pierre Monteux est, de loin! , la meilleure ( la pire étant, d'après moi, celle de Guilini, par ailleurs grand artiste mais en plein contresens ici). Cependant , je signale aussi à votre attention l'enregistrement de Roger Desormiere qui fut approuvé par Guy Ropartz, proche élève de Franck et toujours en vie a l'époque. A ce titre elle mérite certainement d'être entendue.
Thank you, Dave! I am so happy! Why? Because I have lots and lots of the reference recordings you‘ve introduced here in my Franklin Mint Collection „The 100 Greatest Recordings of All Time“ - on 100 wonderful vinyls, wine-red and gorgeous sounding. Bought them for less than 100 bucks. Do you know this collection of mainstream classics? - Greetings from Berlin, Harry
A wonderful work. I actually don’t mind all the ways famous conductors have pushed and pulled it around, that’s part of its flexibility in staying wonderful. Dreadful shame we don’t hear it much in concert now because we are bombarded with Bruckner Mahler Shostakovich etc (not that I don’t like those, but it’s just become so predictable, the programming)
I've never understood all the critique against Franck's use of the English horn in his symphony. Come on! It's late romantic! It's just an alto oboe! Berlioz used them as solo instruments already in 1830 in S. Fantastique, and prominently in e.g. the Carneval Overture. Wagner used them all the time. Strange...
Well off topic, but the Haydn Symphony Crusade is crying out for an update! A couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to get the Doratti cycle on LPs [ Forty years old if a day!] that are in splendid condition. Maybe not the reference? But more than just good! Fifty or so LPs will take a fair while to make a comprehensive listen through, so they will be my last ever recordings to buy. With such splendours to examine in detail after a lifetime of getting good or great recordings of all all my other favourite music, I don't have the time left to go on exploring that which appealed less! For myself, the Frank Symphony is much nicer to play than sit in the audience and listen to! Frank was a very strange character, and his music is no less strange, but fascinating to play! Thanks and best wishes from George
Anton Rubinstein censured Tchaikovsky's wonderful Overture to Ostrovsky's "The Storm," which he composed while he was still Rubintein's student, because it had an English Horn and a Harp! In his subsequent "numbered" symphonies, he NEVER used these instruments. His "Manfred" symphony remained unnumbered (presumably there were other additional reasons) because it has a bass clarinet and a harp.
The taste issue for me is that the first movement toggles too easily between the ominous material of the opening and the fanfare-like big tune that isn’t really top-drawer quality. I’m reminded of the phrase “ instant pathos.” The middle movement is fabulous
It may be a 'reference recording', but it's not a R.R. that I particularly like. For me, the Chicago treatment is just waaay too brass centric (and I say that as a brass player myself). I like the Bernstein/L'Orchestre National de France one better.
Compared Monteux to Makela, and yes Monteux better rhythms, the big timing difference is in the Shrovetide fair, where Makela is 2 minutes slower, and clearly drags, I agree he focuses on side chain details, and loses the plot of the phrasing, perhaps lack of experience as an actual orchestral player
Personally, the Monteux/Chicago recording of the Franck Symphony was my first exposure to the piece, and I found it pretty boring. (I've warmed to it since.) But then I never liked the work until I heard a performance I know you can't stand: Furtwängler's Vienna Philharmonic version from 1951. I did enjoy your dissing the period-instrument people (again), especially when it comes to works composed late enough that people who participated in the premieres lived long enough to make records. And I remember reading a criticism of Franck's Symphony that said the orchestration had "an organist's thickness" - as if that were a bad thing?
Видеоклипы
Of course, the reference and still the best recording of a really great symphony!
Amazing how many of these references from the golden age of the American orchestra still stand up today. Of course we benefitted greatly by the diaspora of European talent but, still. We had plenty of great home-grown musicians in those bands.
My childhood introduction to the Franck Symphony was the great Monteux recording. The slow movement is remarkable.
Truly an outstanding recording. What struck me in this recording is the transition from the introduction to exposition in the 1st movement. The theme is based on the same motif, but being faster, it's a very exciting moment, it's a revelation.
Glad to see acknowledgement that Monteux was capable of “his own personal interpretation.” Conductors of the same generation may still differ interpretively. First-hand knowledge of 19th-century performance style wouldn’t necessarily make one a hostage to it. Rather than a homogeneous, uniform, monolithic style that was preserved unaltered, a spectrum of interpretation in one century would seem to have given rise to a spectrum in the next.
Franck certainly showed Liszt how properly to handle a similar motive as used in Les Preludes.
💯 This recording in numero uno.
Oh Jeez, the very thought of this symphony makes me twitch. I had to study it for a school exam at age 16 in the UK, got thoroughly sick of it and avoided listening ever again. I'll try the reference recording to see if I can love it again! Thanks Dave.
I agree. Just doesn’t do it for me. But I know it is my fault, not the composer’s.
So did I. Music O level 1982. Have loved it ever since.
Great timing - I had never heard this recording until today when it was played on Sirius XM. I turned it on, it was on in the middle of the first movement and it was so intense and articulated, I had never heard this piece so bold, vigorous and passionate. I immediately had to scroll to the beginning and know which recording it was - and I couldn’t believe it was something done so long ago. It sounds brand new.
I don't think I've seen you so excited with a reference recording as in this case. It almost sounds like a favorite. Makes one want to rush and go listen to it right away.
Which I did. Along with the rest of the RCA box. :)) Thus far, happy as punch with it. And the 3 Franck D Minor versions included are all worthwhile, although this is much ahead in recorded sound and orchestral discipline - as a reference recording ought to be.
@@bigg2988 That is very good to hear! 😃
Who the heck could not like this symphony? Totally agree on the reference recording, beautiful.
An absolute treasure of a recording 💕
Many many years ago, when I was in High School, I graduated in 1961, my mother took me to the Buffalo Philharmonic where they played the Frank D minor Symphony. That was when I fell in love with classical music. A couple of years later, I built (yes built from a kit) my first stereo. One of the first stereo recordings I purchased was the Monteux version of Frank D minor with the Chicago Symphony. Your review brought back some very fond memories.
The Buffalo Philharmonic! Didn’t they do that wonderful Sibelius Four Legends with Lucas Foss? With one of the greatest album covers ever?
This is first choice, without any doubt.
The last movement of this Symphony is spectacular!!!
The obvious only choice! I discovered this symphony way back in 1972 as a kid. The D minor is among my favorite works along with most of the rest of Francks works.
The great Bud Herseth once remarked the Chicago Symphony adored Monteux and played their absolute best for him.
Dave, you are a complete star in my musical firmament! Why is it that I agree with everything you say? Have you some sinister telepathic powers over us all? Come on! Own up!
Je vous approuvé totalement: la version de Pierre Monteux est, de loin! , la meilleure ( la pire étant, d'après moi, celle de Guilini, par ailleurs grand artiste mais en plein contresens ici). Cependant , je signale aussi à votre attention l'enregistrement de Roger Desormiere qui fut approuvé par Guy Ropartz, proche élève de Franck et toujours en vie a l'époque. A ce titre elle mérite certainement d'être entendue.
Agree with you. A favorite of mine is Bernstein on DG. Very different from this one.
Thank you, Dave! I am so happy! Why? Because I have lots and lots of the reference recordings you‘ve introduced here in my Franklin Mint Collection „The 100 Greatest Recordings of All Time“ - on 100 wonderful vinyls, wine-red and gorgeous sounding. Bought them for less than 100 bucks. Do you know this collection of mainstream classics? - Greetings from Berlin, Harry
Sure! Happy memories.
A wonderful work. I actually don’t mind all the ways famous conductors have pushed and pulled it around, that’s part of its flexibility in staying wonderful. Dreadful shame we don’t hear it much in concert now because we are bombarded with Bruckner Mahler Shostakovich etc (not that I don’t like those, but it’s just become so predictable, the programming)
Yeah. We do all agree!
I've never understood all the critique against Franck's use of the English horn in his symphony. Come on! It's late romantic! It's just an alto oboe! Berlioz used them as solo instruments already in 1830 in S. Fantastique, and prominently in e.g. the Carneval Overture. Wagner used them all the time. Strange...
That's the one for me! Franckly, it's great.
Of course it is. Agreed. Though it's not my version.
Well off topic, but the Haydn Symphony Crusade is crying out for an update!
A couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to get the Doratti cycle on LPs [ Forty years old if a day!] that are in splendid condition.
Maybe not the reference? But more than just good!
Fifty or so LPs will take a fair while to make a comprehensive listen through, so they will be my last ever recordings to buy. With such splendours to examine in detail after a lifetime of getting good or great recordings of all all my other favourite music, I don't have the time left to go on exploring that which appealed less!
For myself, the Frank Symphony is much nicer to play than sit in the audience and listen to! Frank was a very strange character, and his music is no less strange, but fascinating to play!
Thanks and best wishes from George
This is a symphony open to a range of approaches. I love the Monteux but also interpretations as different as Paray, Klemperer & Kegel.
Apologies, Sanderling not Kegel
This one wins the prize.
Anton Rubinstein censured Tchaikovsky's wonderful Overture to Ostrovsky's "The Storm," which he composed while he was still Rubintein's student, because it had an English Horn and a Harp! In his subsequent "numbered" symphonies, he NEVER used these instruments. His "Manfred" symphony remained unnumbered (presumably there were other additional reasons) because it has a bass clarinet and a harp.
The taste issue for me is that the first movement toggles too easily between the ominous material of the opening and the fanfare-like big tune that isn’t really top-drawer quality. I’m reminded of the phrase “ instant pathos.” The middle movement is fabulous
Yes, but it is "top drawer" quality.
What are your thoughts about Charles Tournemire's symphonies and his place in the French tradition?
I've made at least a dozen Tournemire videos on this channel. Have a look.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thank you, Mr. Dave. I shall.
It may be a 'reference recording', but it's not a R.R. that I particularly like. For me, the Chicago treatment is just waaay too brass centric (and I say that as a brass player myself). I like the Bernstein/L'Orchestre National de France one better.
I clearly have been listening to the wrong recordings of this work, it seems.
Compared Monteux to Makela, and yes Monteux better rhythms, the big timing difference is in the Shrovetide fair, where Makela is 2 minutes slower, and clearly drags, I agree he focuses on side chain details, and loses the plot of the phrasing, perhaps lack of experience as an actual orchestral player
Personally, the Monteux/Chicago recording of the Franck Symphony was my first exposure to the piece, and I found it pretty boring. (I've warmed to it since.) But then I never liked the work until I heard a performance I know you can't stand: Furtwängler's Vienna Philharmonic version from 1951. I did enjoy your dissing the period-instrument people (again), especially when it comes to works composed late enough that people who participated in the premieres lived long enough to make records. And I remember reading a criticism of Franck's Symphony that said the orchestration had "an organist's thickness" - as if that were a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing, but it's also not true.