# Favorite Prokofiev Symphony Cycle



## adriesba

I didn't see a thread for this. 
Which Prokofiev symphony cycle recording is your favorite? Or which ones do you like?


----------



## Ulfilas

I went with Kitayenko and the Gürzenich Orchestra on Berlin Classics, over Järvi and Gergiev.

Donald Vroon in the American Record Guide concluded his review with this:

"This set is very Russian but still has the rich sound and perfect playing of a great German orchestra. It has revised my whole Prokofieff collection."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The two I've heard have been by Valery Gergiev and Neeme Jarvi. Jarvi seems to get all the accolades, and it's a very well-played cycle (with great powerful brass, which I've strangely noticed is a trademark quality of Scottish orchestras) but quite safe interpretively as is all of Jarvi. Gergiev has more personality and quirkiness. Karajan for the 5th is also a must-have/hear, one of my favorite things he recorded.


----------



## Heck148

*Rozhdest'sky/Moscow Radio SO/Melodiya*; rec. '65-67
Fine readings of all 7..this is the raw, Russian sound of that period....highly recommended. 
for individual symphonies:

#3 - *Rozh'sky* recorded it again in '69 - with *USSR Large Radio/TVSO* [??] - I assume it's a different recording - I have it on Mobile Fidelity disc in excellent sound - my long-time favorite - 
_Kondrashin/CSO_ - '76 - CSO Archival set - <<CSO in 20th Century>> - as good or better, than previous - some stellar playing, and Kondrashin really brings out the "creepiness", the spooky, otherworldly atmosphere of the "Fiery Angel" music

#5 - *Levine/CSO/DG* - a total knockout, great recording
*Reiner/CSO* - archival set <<CSO -1st 100 Years>> from a live performance in '58, recorded by WBAI...sound isn't the greatest, but terrific performance - can't imagine what it sounded like live in Orchestra Hall....

#6 - along with above complete Rozh'sky, Mravinsky/LenPO/Praga - 5/67, and Ormandy/Phila/CBS

I have most of the Jarvi/RSNO Chandos set - these are good, decent - very well-recorded by Chandos, well played by the RSNO....but Jarvi's readings tend to be bland, straight thru, not much on the expression or drama...ie - his #6 is quite good, but sounds rather pedestrian when compared with Mravinsky, Ormandy or Rozh'sky....the RSNO is not a match for the LeningradPO or Philadelphia in their prime...
same with his #3 - well-played, fine sound, but pretty tame compared with Rozh'sky and Kondrashin...
Jarvi's #s 2 and 4 [both versions] are good...but Rozh'sky has more "bite", more "_feroce_". The Russians sound like they're tearing up sheet metal in the back row!! lol!!


----------



## Knorf

For a modern complete cycle in good sound, for me Gergiev with the London Symphony is the most satisfying. It's more vividly characterized than Järvi (although that cycle isn't bad), better recorded and played than Kuchar, and more consistent in all respects than the Rostropovich with Orchestre National de France. Caveat: I've heard zero of the recent Gaffigan cycle, which has been praised by some, and none of Ashkenazi with Sydney, concerning which I've heard little to encourage me to try it.


----------



## adriesba

How does this set fit in?

View attachment 134939


----------



## Merl

adriesba said:


> How does this set fit in?
> 
> View attachment 134939


If you know Weller's Beethoven you'll know some of what to expect but his Prokofiev is beefier than his Beethoven. It's a fairly lusty, big-band set that's performed very well. I like it.


----------



## Knorf

The Weller Prokofiev is very likeable, but I recall thinking it wasn't very Russian sounding. 

The biggest problem with Prokofiev Symphonies is that most conductors only get part of it right. Many will go for the lyricism and big tunes above all. Others will emphasize the steel and machinery. Still others will highlight the bitter sardonicism. Too much of any of those three to the neglect of the others upsets the delicate balance that for me makes this symphonic cycle so compelling. Those three affects are frequently juxtaposed in quick succession, or even layered. Many recordings get one layer right, but miss the others completely. Very few are sufficiently attentive to these details without coming across as fussy. 

Ozawa is a good example: lyricism above all, but missing everything that gives that lyricism context.

Järvi gets the machinery, but under-expresses the lyricism that is its antidote. (Still a recommendable cycle, though.) The old Soviet recordings, aside from scrappy playing and terrible sound, have a similar issue, although are nonetheless essential listening.

Gergiev's LSO cycle isn't perfect, but it is one of the best at revealing and honoring all of the varying, conflicting/contrasting affects in this music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

For reasons that I can't remember, I have the set by Dmitrij Kitajenko with the Gurzenich-Orchester Koln. I don't think I've played it, and haven't heard of the conductor or the orchestra. Should I open the box? It gets a pretty good review on some websites. He also includes both versions of number 4, which should please completists.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I have three complete cycles, but I think Prokofiev as a symphonist ended up producing a very mixed bag, and there's precious little that makes them a coherent body of works. No.1 is a nice little bonbon, and deserves its fame and popularity. No.2 is vacuous empty noise in the first movement, and the much finer following movement isn't enough to rescue it as a work. I admire, but don't get No.3, and have never found No.4 interesting. The last three, especially No.6, are among the greatest Symphonies of the last century.

So I reckon he's well-served by individual performances. Karajan, Previn and Jansons stand out for me in certain works. Of the three cycles I have, all three are very fine indeed, and the only thing I have against the Martinon set is the dated stereo sound, otherwise it's an absolute winner. Nobody has mentioned Zdeněk Košler on Supraphon yet, his set is magical. But on both of those, they just lose out to Jarvi on Chandos. I think these could well be his best contribution to the whole recorded catalogue, although there are other contenders out there, really exciting performances, and the sound quality is faultless, the best of the best from Chandos.


----------



## Knorf

Eclectic Al said:


> For reasons that I can't remember, I have the set by Dmitrij Kitajenko with the Gurzenich-Orchester Koln. I don't think I've played it, and haven't heard of the conductor or the orchestra. Should I open the box? It gets a pretty good review on some websites. He also includes both versions of number 4, which should please completists.


Yeah, give it a go! Why not? That set has earned reasonably broad acceptance.


----------



## Kiki

CnC Bartok said:


> I have three complete cycles, but I think Prokofiev as a symphonist ended up producing a very mixed bag, and there's precious little that makes them a coherent body of works. No.1 is a nice little bonbon, and deserves its fame and popularity. No.2 is vacuous empty noise in the first movement, and the much finer following movement isn't enough to rescue it as a work. I admire, but don't get No.3, and have never found No.4 interesting. The last three, especially No.6, are among the greatest Symphonies of the last century.
> 
> So I reckon he's well-served by individual performances. Karajan, Previn and Jansons stand out for me in certain works. Of the three cycles I have, all three are very fine indeed, and the only thing I have against the Martinon set is the dated stereo sound, otherwise it's an absolute winner. Nobody has mentioned Zdeněk Košler on Supraphon yet, his set is magical. But on both of those, they just lose out to Jarvi on Chandos. I think these could well be his best contribution to the whole recorded catalogue, although there are other contenders out there, really exciting performances, and the sound quality is faultless, the best of the best from Chandos.


I have the Košler set. Wasn't impressed by it, but have to admit I haven't listened to it enough. I'll have to give it a more serious listen.

Also have the sets from Järvi, Rostropovich, Ozawa, Rozhdestvensky, Gergiev and Ashkenazy. The one that I've consistently returned to is Järvi. He's the all-rounder in these symphonies, and in No. 6 he excels IMO.

Apart from Järvi, I've often found myself going to individual recordings instead. Have to agree on the excellence of Karajan, Previn and Jansons. I've also foung Leinsdorf, Mitropoulos and Abbado impressive.


----------



## Josquin13

I'm going to go against the tide here, and say that I didn't overly care for the Gergiev and Kitajenko cycles, and regretted buying them. I think you can do better. A good symphony to use as a basis for comparison is Prokofiev's 3rd Symphony, and here both Gergiev and Kitajenko aren't especially imaginative, in my view.

More to my liking--among digital era cycles--has been the young Kyril Karabits' cycle in Bournemouth. Karabits CD of the 3rd & 7th Symphonies is my favorite recording from his cycle, but they're all good. In the 7th, Karabits is every bit in the same league with Nikolai Malko's classic 1955 recording of the 7th, which is saying something, and he has been given excellent digital sound from Onyx.

--Karabits, Symphony no. 3, Bournemouth S.O.:




--Karabits, Symphony no. 7, Bournemouth S.O.:



--Malko, Symphony no. 7, Philharmonia Orchestra:




--Karabits, Symphonies nos. 4 (op. 112) & 6: 




--Karabits, Symphonies nos. 4 (op. 47) & 5: 




--Karabits, Symphony no. 1 (excerpt): 




Among pre-digital era cycles, Gennady Rozhdestvensky's cycle is great, and I'd say probably the best on record. However, the 1960s Melodiya sound isn't ideal, but it's not bad, either.

--Rozhdestvensky, Symphony No. 3, Moscow Radio Symphony: 



--Rozhdestvensky, Symphony No. 4, Moscow R.S.: 



--Rozhdestvensky , Symphony no. 7, Moscow R.S.: 




As for individual recordings, I'd suggest that you look into the Prokofiev recordings by Claudio Abbado, Riccardo Chailly, and Evgeny Mravinsky (though you had better sample Mravinsky's recordings first, to make sure you're okay with the sound). (& maybe Andre Previn, too, but I've not listened to his Prokofiev Symphony recordings in years, only the ballets.)

--Mravinsky, 5th Symphony, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra: 



--Mravinsky, 6th Symphony, Leningrad Philharmonic Orcestra: 



--Chailly, 3rd Symphony, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra: 



--Abbado, 1st & 3rd Symphonies, London Symphony Orchestra & the Chamber Orchestra of Europe: 


























(--Andre Previn, 5th Symphony, London Symphony Orchestra: 



)


----------



## HenryPenfold

Favourite cycle? I only listen to 2,3 & 4 :lol:


----------



## Simplicissimus

I have 1, 3, and 5 by Muti/Philadelphia, nothing for comparison. I am happy with them... wonder if I should be. I’m inclined to buy the 4-CD Ozawa/Berliner Philharmoniker set unless someone tells me that would be a blunder. Pursuant to what CnC Bartok said, though, I’m not so sure I am really interested in going after anything other than 6 and 7 at this point.


----------



## Blancrocher

Knorf said:


> For a modern complete cycle in good sound, for me Gergiev with the London Symphony is the most satisfying. It's more vividly characterized than Järvi (although that cycle isn't bad), better recorded and played than Kuchar, and more consistent in all respects than the Rostropovich with Orchestre National de France. Caveat: I've heard zero of the recent Gaffigan cycle, which has been praised by some, and none of Ashkenazi with Sydney, concerning which I've heard little to encourage me to try it.


Love the brass in Gergiev's Stravinsky--need to hear his Prokofiev.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Just listened to Jarvi and Katajenko in number 6 - my favourite of the symphonies. Found Kitajenko sluggish. Jarvi seemed like a good performance: enough energy and bite for me, and a coherent, well-played account overall.


----------



## perdido34

Check out Szell/Cleveland in #5.


----------



## 13hm13

Just went thru D. Hurwitz's "IDEAL" cycle video (made of singleton and selections from box sets).

Hurwitz did have one very strong *warning*: don't get the Ozawa/Boston/DG set! It rates well on Amazon, however--it certainly has the most number of total ratings than any other Prok. box for sale.

I'm not familiar with that Ozawa set ... your thoughts?


----------



## bavlf

LPO & LSO, Walter Weller, Decca or BrilliantClassics


----------



## Kiki

13hm13 said:


> :
> :
> I'm not familiar with that Ozawa set ... your thoughts?


My impression of the Ozawa set:

Overall the whole set is articulated and lyrical, with mostly moderate, occasionally slow, tempi. Presentation is steady with no extreme changes in tempo/dynamics. Neither is there any exaggerated aggression or sentimentality; or put it another way, these attributes are lacking. Playing is glorious throughout, which is a big plus.

Whether that is good or bad depends on what one wants. For me, #1 is underwhelming; #2&3 become more approachable; #4-7 let the music do the talking - this may or may not be a compliment - while I cannot say this is bad, this set does not show as strong a character as some others, which in fact may be a good thing depending on what you are looking for.

Orchestral details are transparent. The piano is audible! I'm on the brink of tears.


----------



## Forster

I've got one complete cycle (Jarvi and SNO) which is ok. Prokofiev can sound 'cold' to me sometimes and this set, with its large hall echoes exaggerates it.

I've got 4 other 5ths - Marin Alsop/Sao Paolo, HvK/BPO, Oramo/FinnishRSO all on CD, and a recording off the TV of Rotterdam Phil with Nezet Seguin. I like the Alsop and the Nezet-Seguin. I see that Alsop has done the complete cycle, so I might investigate further.


----------



## Malx

13hm13 said:


> Just went thru D. Hurwitz's "IDEAL" cycle video (made of singleton and selections from box sets).
> 
> Hurwitz did have one very strong *warning*: don't get the Ozawa/Boston/DG set! It rates well on Amazon, however--it certainly has the most number of total ratings than any other Prok. box for sale.
> 
> I'm not familiar with that Ozawa set ... your thoughts?


My thoughts are pretty much in tune with Kiki's.
All I would add is that any set that makes 2 and 3 more approachable to some degree don't do the symphonies any favours for me these two should be at times quite raucous. Overall I found the set a bit overly polite - I like my Prokofiev to have some attitude and zing.
But that of course is very much only my opinion.


----------



## Granate

I'd go with *Karabits Bournemouth for a complete cycle,* if I really cared about a complete cycle. Rounded and perfectly played. The Kuchar Ukraine set has its moments. Almost all of them are a mixed bag for me.

I don't think the Ozawa is THAT terrible. But not deserving that praise either.

I got my Kuchar recording of the No.4 (2nd V) and now I have to wait for the Leinsdorf recordings to be reissued. And that would be my Symphonic Prokofiev.


----------



## Knorf

Granate said:


> I don't think the Ozawa is THAT terrible. But not deserving that praise either.


Yes, I think that's fair.


----------



## HenryPenfold

HenryPenfold said:


> Favourite cycle? I only listen to 2,3 & 4 :lol:


Add 6 & 7 :lol:


----------



## JohnP

I'm content with the two cycles I have: Jarvi and Kuchar. I haven't seen Kuchar mentioned; I like that set. But if pressed, I'd choose Jarvi.

Now, the symphonies are best heard by assembling certain individual recordings, not cycles. I think of cycles as a reference point in Prokofiev, Beethoven, Mahler, you name it. If you asked to pick my favorite 1st or 5th, for example, that would be a different matter--and for a different thread.


----------



## Forster

JohnP said:


> I'm content with the two cycles I have: Jarvi and Kuchar. I haven't seen Kuchar mentioned; I like that set. But if pressed, I'd choose Jarvi.
> 
> Now, the symphonies are best heard by assembling certain individual recordings, not cycles. I think of cycles as a reference point in Prokofiev, Beethoven, Mahler, you name it. If you asked to pick my favorite 1st or 5th, for example, that would be a different matter--and for a different thread.


I think if you want to offer an idea of a 'mixed' cycle, that's legit in this thread! My favourite first is Abbado/Chamber Orch of Europe (from 'Sting's' Peter and the Wolf)



Granate said:


> I'd go with *Karabits Bournemouth for a complete cycle,* if I really cared about a complete cycle. Rounded and perfectly played.


I've got the 4 and 6 from this cycle, but I've not listened to it that much...must go back and try it properly.


----------

