But with high expectations (and an open mind, remembering how wonderful his recording of the 3rd Symphony was), this reading soon established itself to be so different from the norm, I had to consult the score to ascertain what Wilson was seeing that no one else has (which I suspected was absolutely nothing). His approach isn’t bad; it’s just…different. But not necessarily in a good way. Immediately (and all through the piece) we hear a simple unfolding of the notes on the page with a rather cold detachment so typical of John Wilson when playing “serious” Classical music. (And we heard it affecting his earlier recording of the 2nd Symphony as well – disastrously so.)
After completely inaudible pizzicatos at the very beginning, and a simple opening at a nicely moving non Allegro, the Lento tempo indication for the saxophone solo is largely ignored, as is the molto espressivo marking. Compared to every recording I can remember, this is very quick indeed, rendering the arpeggiated noodling in the oboe, flute and clarinet rather frivolous and musically nonsensical, and the sax less expressive than usual. (Why in his “editing” of the score would Wilson disregard an important tempo marking like this?) But when the 1st violins and cellos take up the tune, it becomes a bit more impassioned. But not much – until the 2nds and violas join in a few bars later, when he pours on some passion at last, finally taking note of one of the many molto espressivo indications for the first time.
Not intending to dissect every measure of the score, I put it down at this point and just listened as it continued – which it did uneventfully. And after an uneventful climax, the movement ends simply, almost with resignation.1
The 2nd movement is lightweight and quick – typical of Wilson’s “let’s just get through this and on to something more exciting to me” manner of recording with this orchestra. They play with such effortless perfection, he seems content to just let them do their thing. (I recently read a quote of him saying, “I sometimes tell them ‘Just go with it.’”)
After a tepid brass introduction, there is a brief violin solo with a very fast, tight, nervous vibrato, which doesn’t seem quite suitable. (And I hear this occasionally from the full section as well.) It is followed by an exquisite English Horn, sounding all the more ravishing after the thin violin, before a smallish-sounding string section takes up the tune with matter-of-fact simplicity and little regard for the espressivo indication. As it gets going, the music lilts just enough to establish the waltz element, but sounds a bit contrived and not entirely spontaneous; thus it doesn’t really dance. I do like the quickness of the tempo, but Wilson’s leaden stiffness inhibits any inherent sensuousness, as he determinedly hurries through it to get to the finale. Even those little tenuto marks in the meno mosso (just before Fig 42) go for naught, barely even acknowledged in his haste. And I constantly long for more richness, tonal color and heartfelt passion from the strings.
This just doesn’t sound settled. (Even more so than the 1st movement). And I think back to an interview John Wilson did with BBC Music magazine several years ago (right after his recording of the Korngold Symphony) in which he stated with great pride that “this orchestra can sightread anything!” And that’s exactly what this sounds like they’re doing here. Sightreading.
Now for the finale, surely he’ll turn up the power. Hardly. It’s lightweight from the get-go, and as the Allegro vivace takes off, it is curiously delicate. Even the passage of pesante downbows in the strings a couple minutes into it (just before Fig 57), marked ff with an 8th rest following each, are played looooong bows, without the pauses between them, and missing the sharp attack of bow on string. (The strings continue to sound uncharacteristically small-scale and lacking muscle.) Later (at Fig 78), those aching violin/viola lines marked lamentoso (along with hairpin crescendo/diminuendos) go by without much notice, or barely any emotion. And the cellos immediately following, marked ff, are exasperatingly timid – barely mf. Wilson just hurries along to get to the next vivace, without much involvement or concern for detail. (“Just go with it.”) And that actually describes this entire reading – it just progresses along without much involvement or musical interest. Even as we approach the finish-line, those fanfare-like proclamations on the brass aren’t anywhere near ff, let alone triumphant, as Wilson inexplicably keeps holding them back. (And I fear with utter dread he’s going to do the same thing in the finale of the Symphony.) But I like that he executes the tam-tam part at the end exactly as written.2
I go into such scrupulous detail because these things are musically important, and illustrate where Wilson diverges from the score. And one wonders what prompted him to undertake a new “edit” of this particular score in the first place. (The booklet makes no mention whatever of it.) But I do wish he’d stop editing his own scores. For just as in his earlier Daphnis and Chloe, here too I hear a preoccupation with the notes at the expense of the music. And as I indicated at the top, this isn’t bad. It just has no soul. (Well, now that I think about it, I guess that is bad.) I came away thinking this sounds more British than Russian. And in Rachmaninoff, that can’t be good.
I was hesitant to listen to the Symphony after this. And right off the bat, in the upbeat to the very 1st measure, I was dismayed to hear the horns playing that opening triplet along with the woodwinds. Tsk, tsk. (I know, I know – almost everyone does it, but as Wilson claims to be a musical scholar, editing his own scores, I would expect a little more faithfulness to the printed page from him.) But at least there is some power to it. However, there could be more bite to the bow-on-string downbows in the strings. They’re loud enough and heavy enough, but are a bit thick rather than incisive. And at the Allegro ma non troppo, where is the articulation to the staccato 8th notes? I realize they’re marked pp, but we have to hear them. (Plus there’s nowhere left to go in ppp passages.) The violins sing with loveliness at the moderato after Fig 3, and at that first fff passage, they literally scream (almost screech – ee gads!) with startling vigor (and a rather blatant boost of the volume knob in the control room ), but could use more voluptuousness to their vibrato to support it.
I really like the fugue at the Allegro vivace, taken at quite a clip. Wilson was just waiting to let it fly – and it does just that. And the strings have a nice sheen to them. But a few bars in, I again miss weight to the violins in those triple-stops just before Fig 7. But never mind, I’m enjoying this. And I’m happy the brass are finally delivering some real power – though I am noting a bit of congestion in the acoustic as things really get going. This movement continues on satisfactorily, building to a fine climax at the end.
Wilson makes a nice little Scherzo out of the second movement, scrupulously observing every little detail. It’s not that interesting musically bringing everything out like this, but it’s sure fun to follow the score with. It’s light, gossamer and effortless.
In the 3rd movement, a simple clarinet announces the Larghetto, while Wilson ensures we’re aware of the little triplet motifs in the violas. (And to be fair, they’re marked f, as opposed to the clarinet’s p, so that’s pretty interesting.) As we progress, I miss some creaminess to the con sordino string sound (the violins actually sound a little thin here), but there is some heartfelt emotion to it. The central Largo is very nicely done, with some real drama, and the lower strings finally assert themselves with authority. I could use a bit more freedom of expression in the various woodwind solos along the way, as Wilson insists on keeping it rather simple. But it works well enough.
And now the big finale. The trumpets step up and seem happy with themselves, and there is a sense of triumph to that opening – though I continue to hear a bit of congestion. (And is that a touch of overload distortion on the low brass?) And at the moto primo, the strings finally bring it. They’re only marked f here, but they produce more sound (and muscle) than I’ve heard from them anywhere else thus far, and they’re much more incisive on all those accents. Now that’s more like it! And they deliver some real passion at the con anima just before Fig 48 – at a true fortissimo. Nice! (Dynamics are nicely observed all through this passage.) Unfortunately, it kind of goes into autopilot throughout the entire Allegro mosso (Fig 51-56), which isn’t as engaging or even atmospheric as it should be. (“Just go with it.”)
As the final dash nears, a sense of anticipation begins to build as the Allegro con fuoco takes off. But we definitely need more sheer fuoco from the cellos – specifically in the sfs, which cry out for more muscle from the bow than they receive. (Why are the low strings consistently so anemic in this recording?) The entire ending is actually very good, as Wilson generates real momentum and a good amount of drama. And I am relieved the final section is not too ponderous and not too slow – which is good! (It is marked con moto.) And the strings produce some real strength here. But damn! – the timpani in the last 5 bars are WAY back there, slightly muffled in the reverberation. (I realize, physically, they really are way back there; but surely we can expect a little more sheer power from ff kettle drums at the ultimate climax – especially from a recording.)3 Nevertheless, Wilson is better here than I was expecting, bringing a real sense of grandeur (even a touch of pageantry), and I came away pretty happy with it.
However, spot checking a few other recordings for quick comparisons (Askenazy, Nezet-Seguin and Statkin’s Detroit remake) proved enlightening. While the recorded sound was a noteworthy difference in all 3, I was instantly drawn into the music (and the musicmaking) in a way that I wasn’t with Wilson. All three conductors demonstrated an inspired, impassioned outpouring of music, with a natural ebb-and-flow of dynamics, rubato and emotional involvement – in stunning contrast to Wilson – which illustrated just how reserved and musically detached he is (in both works). And it became clear to me what I’m hearing from him. Quite simply, he follows the score rather than his heart.
And finally, the recorded sound. I have always maintained that Chandos’ spectacular recorded sound is as instrumental in the success of John Wilson as his conducting. And when Chandos doesn’t deliver, Wilson simply falls flat. (Witness his Daphnis and Chloe a couple years ago.) And I think that’s largely what has happened here. This program is transferred to disc at a very low volume level – especially by Chandos standards. And the orchestra is set back at more of a distance than usual. (I had to turn up the volume several notches higher than normal to get any kind of impact.) This isn’t the characteristic house sound – upfront, robust and effortlessly dynamic – we typically hear from them. And I wonder why. (And I wonder if that has contributed to the slight congestion I keep hearing.) Chandos has made many recordings of this orchestra in this hall which sound pretty spectacular (with the notable exception of that Daphnis and Chloe). So what happened this time?
So what to make of this. The Symphony is actually pretty good, but certainly not a first choice for repeated listening (musically or sonically). It can’t match the very best recordings, such as Ashkenazy/Concertgebouw for Decca (which unbelievably, is over 40 years old now), Yannick Nezet-Seguin in Philadelphia on DG, or best of all, Edo De Waart and the Radio Philharmonic Orchestra of Holland on a spectacular Exton SACD. Or even the classic 1966 Ormandy – which is still pretty awesome to this day. And as for Symphonic Dances, well just about any other recording is preferable to this one.
In the end, I sure hope Chandos fixes whatever isn’t quite right here before tackling the Walton Symphonies which are in the pipeline. I really want them to be good.
1 Before I move on, I must touch on the “uneventfulness” of what I’m hearing – especially the uncharacteristically restrained ff passages. Several times I observed a curious “smallness” to the sound of the orchestra on this recording. It doesn’t sound like there are as many strings as usual in this group. This is evident not only in the crisp, dry articulation of rhythmic passages, but a lack of richness to their body of sound. And the recording is not as dynamic as usual from this source. The brass lack immediacy and sheer power, confined to the very back of the hall. This is odd; dynamics are typically a hallmark of this orchestra, expanding effortlessly into the big, spacious cathedral they record in for Chandos. But that is somewhat curtailed here in music which demands it. As a matter of fact, I occasionally thought this sounds almost more like chamber music than a big symphonic piece – which doesn’t seem quite right.
2 Wilson plays the controversial tam-tam crashes at the end correctly – exactly as written (and exactly as I would do it were I conducting it.) He strictly observes the note values and, more importantly, the rests notated for the tam-tam in the score. The popular thinking of many conductors these days is that the laisser vibrer (“let it vibrate”) indication should apply to the entirety of those final 3 measures – and even beyond, after the piece has ended. I personally have never agreed with that, and find no justification for it when studying the score. Letting it ring for an eternity at the very end is just absurd (and cannot possibly be what Rachmaninoff had in mind). I firmly believe the laisser vibrer literally applies to just the one measure (the 1st) where it appears, where Rachmaninoff writes a dotted half-note for the tam-tam while the rest of the orchestra has short 8th-notes followed by 8th-rests. So he wants the tam-tam to ring through that measure. Thereafter, one must adhere to the note-lengths and rests as written. That just makes sense musically and it makes sense technically as dictated by the score. I realize Wilson is not the first conductor to observe this, but it does go against the current (and inexplicably popular) trend – so hats off to Wilson for executing this properly.
3 I had the same complaint about Yannick Nezet-Sequin’s otherwise superlative 2019 Philadelphia recording for DG – though to be fair, that was recorded at a live concert.
