Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1928-12)

The Phonograph Monthly Review 79 December, 1928 record buyers, seems soon to be solved. The Philadelphia program books are authority for Stokowski’s having recorded the work recently; undoubtedly the release will follow on the heels of the announcements Brilliance will be the word, one runs little risk in prophesying. And bril- liance is of course the appropriate word. The comparison between Coates’ and Stock versions of the Fifth has already between dwelt upon (in the September instalment of this series). Kits- chin’s Polydor set has not yet reached the Studio, but the dark, rugged strength of this conductor’s recording of Stenka Razin (Glazounow) ensures characteristic Russian qualities for the Tchaikow- sky work. Many conductors share Stock’s mis- conception of the Fifth, reading into it a luscious- ness and sentimentality that an unflinching em- phasis on the symphony’s essential virility would totally efface. Coates follows the wiser course of looking to the rhythmic and dynamic ecstacy of the work and letting its romanticism and passion- ateness (and Russianism) take care of them- selves, as the composer ably equipped them to do. It takes a Russian, I think, to maintain the work’s proper musical and emotional proportions. In the hands of a Coates (Russian by birth and sensi- bilities, if not entirely in his ancestry) or a Koussevitsky, Tchaikowsky’s Fifth assumes a burly strength which bears the same relation to the effete and colorless cosmopolitanism of the customary reading that the uncouth but passion- ate and mystical peasant of the snowy steppes bears to the inbred cosmopolite stock of the Germanized or Gallicized Russian expatriates. This is less true of the “Pathetique,” in which the composer’s infused personality is less charac- teristically nationalistic and more individualistic —more nervous, sensitive, morbid. Consequently the conductor with the highly sensitized individu- ality, rather than the one of Dostoievskian back- grounds, is the more likely to succeed with this work. Coates qualifies in both respects and his version is consequently an ably representative one. Dr. Weissmann had the best of the acous- tical versions (those by Ronald and Wood were scarcely passable workaday performances), but his reading gave a curious reduced reproduction of the work, as if it were seen through the wrong end of the interpretative telescope. Lyricism is not enough for the “Pathetique”: there must be an abandon, a wildness, an emotional surrender as well. In it the composer threw himself to the seas of his emotions, and while no conductor can ever safely drop all moorings and lose his compass as well, still he must catch at least some part of this unrestraint, while still maintaining the neces- sary vestige of control which will keep him master of the music where even the composer was its slave. The ancient recorded excerpts by Mengel- berg would prove his exceptional fitness for the “Pathetique,” even if his concert performances were not well known. There are others who do well with the work, but Mengelberg or Koussevit- zky could most safely be trusted to surpass the present Coates set. If Columbia should pass up Mengelberg for the work, it might do worse than entrust it to Beecham—an ideal exemplar of the ability to achieve the effect of complete abandon, while still holding fast to his inner mastery of the music, his men, and himself. Of the two recorded Dvorak symphonies, one is too well known and the other too little known to occupy much attention here. The Symphony in G, No. 4, has just been released in Great Britain with one Basil Cameron as conductor. As both composition and conductor are strange to me, comment can hardly be offered. (His Third sym- phony, in F, occasionally appears on concert pro- grams. It is pleasant but hardly profound.) The dispute over the symphony “From the New World,” has raged too often in these pages for the flames, which of late have shown some signs of abating, to be stirred up again. Harty who more than any other conductor understands Dvorak and can most effectively perform his works, has recorded his reading in the same spirit of good-humor, naive sentiment, and brimming vitality in which the work was conceived. The only other recording is Stokowski’s, a magnificent piece of orchestral playing—but a Symphony in E minor rather than Dvorak’s “From the New World.” There is also an H. M. V. set by Sir Landon Ronald—a prosaic performance and none- too-competent recording. The Franck D minor symphony was given con- siderable attention and space in the October in- stalment of this series. Stokowski’s still remains the only electrical set of the work. Three symphonies by contemporary composers remain: Elgar’s Second, Rachmaninoff’s Second, and Atterberg’s Sixth. The Elgar work is con- ducted by the composer and as he is vastly more effective in that role than most composers, his reading is effective as well as authentic. A.s far as a non-Elgarite may judge, the set is so thoroughly adequate as to preclude the necessity for any other recording for some time at least. The Rachmaninoff symphony, played by Sokoloff, is so fresh in our memories that it hardly bears further discussion, although one can hardly tire dwelling on its merits. It has the advantages of semi-authenticity, as it is recorded in the im- proved version made by the composer after Sokoloff’s suggestions. Barring the lack of as much rhythmic incisiveness as might be desired in the last movement, Sokoloff’s set possesses nearly all the interpretative and technical virtues. No conductor better fitted to the task could have been chosen, nor is any other needed or likely to essay the same work in the near future. Atter- berg’s prize-winning work is reviewed elsewhere in this present issue. In this instance the work is so new to us that it would be dangerous to decide upon Beecham’s version as a wholly ideal one. However, a first acquaintanceship with it gives one every reason for believing it to be. Beecham, whose personal characteristics of in- domitable vitality, glorious exuberance, and a far from pianissimo assertiveness are well-known, seems unimpeachably fitted to bring out the similar qualities in Atterberg’s stirring and— shall I say—somewhat rambunctious work. At any rate, discussion of other possible conductors