# Abbado's Tchaikovsky Cycle with Chicago



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Abbado recorded the complete symphonies and other works with CSO between 1984-1991. Hearing the performance of Symphony No. 3, I can't help but wonder, even though Abbado is conducting, the forceful playing is a result of Solti's work as the music director, shaping how it sounded.

I would think Abbado wouldn't want the playing to sound forceful like Solti does.

Regardless, I think the performance is good. Thoughts on the boxed set?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I owned it once and thought Nos. 1 and 2, especially the latter, the best. When you compare the Little Russian to Abbado's earlier recording with the New Philharmonia Orchestra on DG you would note a world of difference -- far more thrust and power in Chicago, more balletic on the other. Whether this was Solti's doing is doubtful.

There is an old story about a guest conductor that showed up to play the New World symphony. He went through it once with the orchestra at practice without any discussion. After finishing the guest said, "Ok, now you played [Solti's or anyone else's] New World symphony; now we'll practice mine."

It doesn't seem possible that a conductor would purposely record an entire symphonic cycle leaving another conductor's footprint on it. Abbado didn't do that with anything he recorded in Berlin -- making it sound like the sheen and gloss or Karajan.

I think more likely Abbado reconsidered the Tchaikovsky symphonies between his 1960s recordings and the time he made them in Chicago.

Based on the reviews I read, his Chicago cycle was not particularly pleasing to critics. Somebody at American Record Guide called the set "sickening."


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

larold said:


> I owned it once and thought Nos. 1 and 2, especially the latter, the best. When you compare the Little Russian to Abbado's earlier recording with the New Philharmonia Orchestra on DG you would note a world of difference -- far more thrust and power in Chicago, more balletic on the other. Whether this was Solti's doing is doubtful.
> 
> There is an old story about a guest conductor that showed up to play the New World symphony. He went through it once with the orchestra at practice without any discussion. After finishing the guest said, "Ok, now you played [Solti's or anyone else's] New World symphony; now we'll practice mine."
> 
> ...


I am not suggesting Abbado recorded the set on auto-pilot. Rather that he could not change the way CSO sounded because otherwise the forcefulness seems uncharacteristic for Abbado.

Yes, he did change how Berliners sounded. His live Beethoven set from Rome is a keeper. Any favorite recordings from him and BPO?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I had the Abbado set, but finally gave it away. I don't think Tchaikovsky was in Abbado's blood. He did some great Mahler in Chicago, but he was not cut out for the Russian Nationals - and the Chicago Symphony wasn't the group best suited for that repertoire either, if I can make a such a broad statement. They're unbeatable in Mahler, Bruckner, Strauss, and such. During the Reiner years they recorded very little Tchaikovsky; it didn't seem to be his thing either, despite terrific readings of the 6th, the piano concerto, and Nutcracker suite. Tchaikovsky just didn't have a legacy in Chicago. The first LPs I had of the first two symphonies were Abbado, and I felt that compared to Markevitch, Maazel, and Dorati, those recordings were duller. In America, the Philadelphia was, and probably still is, the Tchaikovsky orchestra of choice.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

It's not that Abbado's Tchaikovsky is bad, it's not. The reason it's not touted as being a top set is because there are a lot of quality Tchaikovsky cycles out there and this good but not outstanding set can't compete with the likes of Dorati, Svetlanov, Markevitch, Muti, Petrenko, etc. You can pick this set up really cheaply online (I got it quite a few years back for a few quid) and I saw it going for £3 on ebay last week so if you can pick it up for silly money then get it. It's not disappointing, just not of the same quality as the sets mentioned. Sound quality is decent but slightly bassy. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Abbado fanboy (quite the opposite) but this set is nowhere near as bad as some paint it (check some online reviews which praise it). I have most of the big Tchaikovsky cycles and this ain't the worst but sadly it's not one of the best. Ive not played it for about a year but last time I did I enjoyed the 3rd and 6th the best. The rest was good but with so many great sets I've not returned to it since. My current cycle of choice, in the car, is Markevitch. Now that is a great one.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I have the Abbado/CSO Tchaik Syms 1-3 and I love them...Abbado was a principal guest conductor of Chicago for years, and made many recordings with them...yes, they are forceful and powerful, with terrific woodwind work as well as the brass.....he got a somewhat different sound than Solti, but a conductor is not going to change the basic sounds of the individual musicians..CA's CSO Mahler 5 & 7 are real spectaculars.
Reiner was a wonderful Tchaikovsky conductor - non pareil #6!! Excellent live #4, great Marche Slav, 1812 Ov, Vln Cto (Heifetz) Pno Cto ((Gilels)...Reiner avoided the schmaltz of Ormandy, and the melodrama of Bernstein (tho these approaches can work), he's more like Mravinsky - sweet, lyrical when it needs to be, gut-ripping as necessary.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> I had the Abbado set, but finally gave it away. I don't think Tchaikovsky was in Abbado's blood. He did some great Mahler in Chicago, but he was not cut out for the Russian Nationals - and the Chicago Symphony wasn't the group best suited for that repertoire either, if I can make a such a broad statement. They're unbeatable in Mahler, Bruckner, Strauss, and such. During the Reiner years they recorded very little Tchaikovsky; it didn't seem to be his thing either, despite terrific readings of the 6th, the piano concerto, and Nutcracker suite. Tchaikovsky just didn't have a legacy in Chicago. The first LPs I had of the first two symphonies were Abbado, and I felt that compared to Markevitch, Maazel, and Dorati, those recordings were duller. In America, the Philadelphia was, and probably still is, the Tchaikovsky orchestra of choice.


But Abbado did record a Russian composers: Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Mussorgsky. He must've loved these composers othewise he wouldn't have recorded so much of their output.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I agree - his Prokofiev is excellent, some of the best. It's Tchaikovsky in particular though that I don't think he had a real feel for, even if he thought differently. We never got a Rachmaninoff symphony - he "just" accompanies in piano concerti. Same with Shostakovich and Glazunov. But some really fine Stravinsky and Prokofiev for sure.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> ....
> Reiner was a wonderful Tchaikovsky conductor - non pareil #6!! ...Reiner avoided the schmaltz of Ormandy, and the melodrama of Bernstein (tho these approaches can work), he's more like Mravinsky - sweet, lyrical when it needs to be, gut-ripping as necessary.


Rainer's Pathetique is a great recording, I agree. But nonpareil? Surely not! As you note, there are many great recordings of the work ... I wouldn't be without it but then I wouldn't be without Mravinsky's or the recent Currentzis or the very powerful Celibidache (Munich) recordings, among others (indeed, I think I prefer all three of those to Reiner's). "Nonpareil" is a term I don't like very much when applied to great works that have enjoyed so many fine performances.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Rainer's Pathetique is a great recording, I agree. But nonpareil? Surely not! As you note, there are many great recordings of the work ... I wouldn't be without it but then I wouldn't be without Mravinsky's or the recent Currentzis or the very powerful Celibidache (Munich) recordings, among others (indeed, I think I prefer all three of those to Reiner's). "Nonpareil" is a term I don't like very much when applied to great works that have enjoyed so many fine performances.


Reiner/CSO Tchaik #6 is a great performance, one of Reiner's very best, which
places it way up there....the only true rivals Ive heard are Mravinsky/LenPO, and possibly, Mitropoulos/NYPO...I still like Reiner the best, tho....such a great effort
I agree, in general, about superlatives- "definitive recording" and so forth....definitive recording usually means the one the reviewer likes best...


----------



## Joachim Raff (Jan 31, 2020)

The cycle has merits. The Chicago brass is spectacular which is essential for a great Tchaikovsky cycle. There is one shining star though, and that's the Little Russian symphony. Its not that difficult to get right, but i do love a version that tends to raise the excitement levels. This ticks the all the boxes. The Tempest is just as dramatic. The sound is very much in your face with a bright edge but who cares if the performance is a great one.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I agree with Merl. Abbado's CSO Tchaikovsky is excellent, tons to enjoy and no particular reason why one shouldn't be pleased with that set. However, if you do some comparative listening there's a good chance you'll find some recordings that are even better. Tchaikovsky's music is very well understood and there are many superb renditions. I like Merl's short list, but would add Jansons, Karajan, and Gergiev. YMMV 

But I also could understand it if someone says Abbado/CSO remains their favorite, even after hearing others. It is very good.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

I recently heard the 1st from that set and wow, that might be one of the worst Tchaikovsky 1s I have ever heard. DOA and lifeless. Tchaikovsky's orchestral music needs energy - this was not that.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Joachim Raff said:


> The cycle has merits. The Chicago brass is spectacular which is essential for a great Tchaikovsky cycle. There is one shining star though, and that's the Little Russian symphony. Its not that difficult to get right, but i do love a version that tends to raise the excitement levels. This ticks the all the boxes. The Tempest is just as dramatic. The sound is very much in your face with a bright edge but who cares if the performance is a great one.
> 
> View attachment 149968


I have Syms 1-3 of this series and enjoy them very much...orchestra sounds great, Abbado's concept of the works is very solid and convincing....the finales, esp 2 and 3, are really exciting and compelling...great solo woodwind playing throughout these performances...


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I had the Abbado set, but finally gave it away. I don't think Tchaikovsky was in Abbado's blood. He did some great Mahler in Chicago, but he was not cut out for the Russian Nationals - and the Chicago Symphony wasn't the group best suited for that repertoire either, if I can make a such a broad statement. They're unbeatable in Mahler, Bruckner, Strauss, and such. During the Reiner years they recorded very little Tchaikovsky; it didn't seem to be his thing either, despite terrific readings of the 6th, the piano concerto, and Nutcracker suite. Tchaikovsky just didn't have a legacy in Chicago. The first LPs I had of the first two symphonies were Abbado, and I felt that compared to Markevitch, Maazel, and Dorati, those recordings were duller. In America, the Philadelphia was, and probably still is, the Tchaikovsky orchestra of choice.


His 1960s recordings of the 2nd and 4th symphonies with the Philharmonia Orchestra and VPO were outstanding. I am less familiar with the CSO set, but Abbado could certainly do a fine job conducting Tchaikovsky.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Well fortunately there's a bounty of Tchaikovsky to suit all tastes. When it comes to complete cycles lately I've been enjoying the Termirkanov set on RCA very much - he's a real Tchaikovsky conductor. Then there's a promising new one: Paavo Jarvi's recording of the 5th is absolutely thrilling. If he's doing a complete set and if this first outing is any indication, this could be terrific. (I must say though that his Cincinnati 6th, as well-played and well-recorded as it is, leaves me cold.) But I'd really like to hear the symphonies from Currentzis - he sure seems to have something to say in music.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

The orchestra carried out Solti’s handwriting for a long time....and thankfully so.... I miss that sound today.


----------

