# Blind comparison - Symphonic Dances



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Back by (semi-)popular demand (ok, a few said yes!), another in the blind comparison series. This time there are 4 performances of Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances for your listening. As always the identities of the performers are not given so that you can comment without being prejudiced by knowing the culprits. Feel free to comment or rank them, and even try guessing if you wish, but all I ask is that if you recognize one of them, please do not post the details so as not to spoil it for the rest. If you really want to know who's who before the official unveiling, please PM me.

Just one final note, at least one of these is from a live performance where I captured the audio and there is some compression in the sound so please don't let that impact your judgments.

Here are the links to the folders, each of which contains the 3 sections as separate files.

A - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZWff2kZstwKHCsECvyQFUyIiaBLeSY8erbV
B - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZOff2kZqlmCm9Qj2WYcobXdavx4oFqFGNAX
C - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ5Bf2kZmqGkGCYaJlXkcxMyp5GP0BK5Ubmk
D - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZzBf2kZzxgxKFHvFAkkqFsF8WxBypBjciO7

I did have an embarrassment of riches to choose from but only chose 4 so as not to overwhelm you, however if you really want, I can provide 3 more interesting performances ... just ask.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Subject to requests, I expect to post the performers sometime on Sunday.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Could we have a bit more time? Sorry I’m slow.

I’ve gone through the first movement of all four a few times. B seems the most impressive, with good forward momentum, good dynamics, good contrast between the inner section and the outer sections. The inner section has also got a strong aura of nostalgia/loneliness. But I’m not sure I like it. It seems to be on the blink or being sentimental at a few places, like sudden changes in dynamics or slight variation in tempo, especially in the middle section, which I do not appreciate in Rachmaninov. Maybe after I’ve got used to it, it will sound more agreeable... On the other hand, A starts in a slightly subdued way, but it picks itself up soon with a good sense of rhythm. The woodwinds and the strings are haunting in the middle section like A. Strangely enough I find C intriguing, since it is probably the most unpassionate, the least subtle and the lightest among the four. But there’s absolutely no trace or suggestion of sentimentality. I would rate C above B for this single (obsessive) reason. The recording level of D is extremely loud. The woodwind in the middle section can sound as loud as the whole orchestra in the outer sections. While the recording of C is poor, D is abysmal. I might now know why you warned us about compression, Becca……. Otherwise, it starts with good momentum right away. Performance-wise, it’s not too bad. 

I hope to finish listening to the second and third movements before Tuesday.

Good selection of recordings, Becca. Intriguing, since I’m feeling a bit confused about B and C in particular.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Kiki said:


> Could we have a bit more time? Sorry I'm slow.


Certainly!

Yes I am disappointed with the sound of D but thought it an interesting performance to include. I figured that if we can listen through some 70+ year old recordings, we can probably manage this!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Listening to four performances of anything in rapid succession isn't something I'd ordinarily want to do, but I didn't mind testing my endurance with a favorite work. I think it's still a favorite after the ordeal!

This rhythmically energetic, colorful piece is probably hard to screw up badly, but each of the three movements presents a challenge. In the first movement it's the saxophone solo and its accompanying woodwind figures, where the difficulty is to create a rapt mood while maintaining forward motion. The second movement's haunted waltz presents a wealth of opportunities for the imaginative application of rubato, and requires a fine control of tempo transitions. In the third movement the final push to the end involves a slight slowing of the tempo which has to maintain momentum, and there's that infamous gong which some conductors let ring while others stop it (the score gives no indication that it should be stopped).

None of these is a really poor performance (with the exception of a single movement noted below), but two stand out for me: B and D. In the first movement of B, the middle section with the solo is beautifully handled, with soft saxophone tone and subtle shadings of tempo and dynamics; in D the sax is a bit more full-bodied. Both performances make the most of the second movement waltz, with different but equally effective tempo modifications. The one place where D definitely excels B is in the finale; at the "poco meno mosso" of the final stretch, B slows down more than necessary and loses a little tension and momentum, and also stops the gong from ringing at the end. Both of these performances are full of interesting detail and are well-enough recorded to do justice to the imaginativeness and sensuous beauty of Rachmaninoff's scoring.

Of the remaining two performances I prefer C. It's very solid and there are no eccentricities or missteps. I could say the same for most of A, but it falls flat in the waltz, where the conductor seems to have had no idea what to do with it, insisting on a steady, medium tempo with few inflections. This movement might be the most interesting waltz ever composed, and if a conductor fails to convey the shifting emotions of its strange, phantasmal narrative I would suggest that he ought not to conduct the _Symphonic Dances_ at all.


----------



## brunumb (Dec 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Listening to four performances of anything in rapid succession isn't something I'd ordinarily want to do, but I didn't mind testing my endurance with a favorite work. I think it's still a favorite after the ordeal!


Aside from this blind comparison Woodduck, may ask what is your favourite recording of the Symphonic Dances please.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

brunumb said:


> Aside from this blind comparison Woodduck, may ask what is your favourite recording of the Symphonic Dances please.


Possibly the best performance I've ever heard is Kirill Kondrashin's, recorded in Moscow in 1963. The recording quality isn't great, but I know of no one who does more justice to the work's varied facets. His detailed handling of the slow middle section of the third movement is unique. It's on YouTube:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

A disclaimer before you read my thoughts: I did not listen straight through all of the four performances (i.e. I skipped around a bit), nor was I familiar with the Symphonic Dances before hearing them. Thus, my reviews should be taken with a major grain of salt. But then again, shouldn't all subjective opinions be taken as such?

A: My first impression is that this is a very subdued interpretation. The conducting tends to emphasize the mystery and darkly-shaded lyricism of the music rather than the Dionysian power and contrast. The playing is very straight-laced but quite effective with some gorgeous phrasing throughout- I hear minimal to no vibrato in the strings and winds. Proves you don't need to be overtly expressive in order to interpret the music well. Despite the distorted sound quality, every instrument can be heard clearly and the overall texture is consistently transparent. The wide color palette of Rachmaninoff's creative scoring shines through without too much extraneous intervention. The finale is handled with élan and finesse. Reminds me a lot of Boulez's conducting style. I like it for what it is, but prefer a more dynamic approach. 

B: This one is definitely more rhythmically vital and powerful than A. Good, strong dance spirit and nice accents in all three movements. The second movement is lushly played with a great opening viola solo (great strings overall in this orchestra). Otherwise, however, I find this reading somewhat pedestrian- though conventionally dramatic, it doesn't have too many unique traits to make it stand out for me. The final note seems to be unfortunately without that epic tam-tam crash, and the audience cheers too prematurely

C: There is quite a bit of thrust from the get-go here at a decidedly fleeter tempo than the rest. First movement is very well-done, with a nice, atmospheric alto saxophone solo. Really digging the earthy sound of the woodwinds here- almost sounds like the Czech Philharmonic (or the Clevelanders under Szell who had a similarly vibrant wind sound). Come to think of it, the strings sound different too- this is great stuff. Really liking this! The snappy dance rhythms, altogether different orchestral sound, and fluid conducting team up to create a highly successful performance. Only downfall is some occasionally sloppy attacks. 

D: I'm going to out on a limb and guess this is a Russian orchestra from the Soviet era due to the heavy brass and woodwind vibrato. The first movement saxophone solo is probably my favorite of the bunch. A distinct overall flavor here. Some of the phrasing is very beautiful. Power and lyricism, passion and precision, are balanced very well. The second movement is quite a bit faster than the rest, which turns it into a more sinister, Shostakovich-esque waltz rather than a nocturnal reflection. The conductor then adds some subtle rubato to maintain a more natural pace and expression. Probably the most daring interpretation of the four. The finale comes off as incredibly exciting, with almost manic plunges, robust attacks, and rough-hewn but virtuosic playing with appropriately flexible tempi. The percussionist actually hits the final tam-tam stroke with force instead of a polite little tap. Hats off, bravo!

My personal rough ranking from best to worst would be: D, C, A, B. Thanks for setting this up, Becca- it was a very illuminating experience for me. I now also consider the Symphonic Dances to be one of the finest orchestral works of the century- such creative, colorful, and vital music from the final stages of a true genius's life.


----------



## brunumb (Dec 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Possibly the best performance I've ever heard is Kirill Kondrashin's, recorded in Moscow in 1963. The recording quality isn't great, but I know of no one who does more justice to the work's varied facets. His detailed handling of the slow middle section of the third movement is unique. It's on YouTube:


Awesome! Thank you. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Thanks for setting this up, Becca- it was a very illuminating experience for me. I now also consider the Symphonic Dances to be one of the finest orchestral works of the century- such creative, colorful, and vital music from the final stages of a true genius's life.


I agree. It's a potent and original work that puts into perspective the rap that Rachmaninoff is merely a conservative late Romantic, a sort of appendage to Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It is actually one of the few Rachmaninoff works that has made it to my relatively frequent listening list. Others are _Isle of the Dead_ with the first symphony coming behind it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> It is actually one of the few Rachmaninoff works that has made it to my relatively frequent listening list. Others are _Isle of the Dead_ with the first symphony coming behind it.


_Symphonic Dances_, _Isle of the Dead_ and _The Bells_ are probably my favorite Rach works, although the third symphony and a couple of the songs beg for inclusion.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Went through the Waltz of all four recordings a few times now.

The one that I definitely don’t like is B. Plenty of exaggerated sentimental touches, mixed in among the otherwise emotionally engaging music making, that unfortunately spoils my enjoyment of the music. At the end of the day, the bits that annoy me have greatly un-done the good bits. I am afraid B sounds superficial to me. The Waltz of C is a big surprise to me. It’s out and out sentimental and it lingers, lingers and lingers on more. What a big difference in my reaction to first movement! But at least the sentimentality sounds consistent throughout the movement, except perhaps in the casual sounding closing passage. I actually admire this consistency, even though I don’t like its sentimentality. In the Waltz, it is A instead of C that sounds the most subdued to me. However, I do find it sounding natural with no exaggeration. The music seems to flow with ease. No fuss. D is more engaging than A, even though it does lingers on a bit at places, but is certainly no way near the superficiality of B, nor the out and out sentimentality of C. I like D the most in the Waltz.

However, I’m afraid I sensed no magic in the Waltz of any of these four recordings.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Some selective listening for a second go-round confirms my initial impressions but gives D a more distinct edge over the rest, not only for the exciting finale, but also for the waltz, consistently interesting and building to an intense climax. The waltz in B is highly creative and expressive but a bit more relaxed. Since A was the first of the four I listened to, I wanted to give it another chance, and I guess it could be praised faintly for being straightforward and unmannered; the waltz is so middling in tempo and lacking in rubato that you could comfortably dance to much of it, which may be what the conductor has in mind. But I think this work is so rich in emotional chiaroscuro, in harmonic instability and shifts of orchestral color, texture and dynamics, that a conductor simply has to show that he understands the expressive possiblities which are constantly opening up. Among performances I've heard, Kirill Kondrashin's makes the most of its fantastic, kaleidoscopic nature and manages to seem imaginative and unmannered at the same time, but example D here comes very close to that high standard. 

My order of preference is now definitely D, B, C, A.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Only sampled bits of these up to now but I agree with others that D is the best performance (even though the recording isnt great). I also agree that A is the least convincing as it lacks a bit of colour although i like the straightforward rubato-less approach. C and B are just ok to me. Nothing bad but nothing particularly memorable. For now ill go DCAB but none of these are performances that id hunt out (although D sounds like a very badly recorded version of an account i already have conducted by a very well known pianist and a British orchestra). Agree with others that Kondrashin is THE reference in this work but Ive always loved Jansons and the BRSO's stunning account too.

Edit: I've just been listening to more of A and its actually rather good in places and the performance is intriguingly, purposely underplayed at times. This is a damn good orchestra!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Went through the final movement.

Both A and D are exciting and straight forward, and this time surprisingly there are more infectious touches in A. There is also a longer than usual pause at the beginning of the middle section, which had me turning my head to look at the PC to see if it has hung up… :lol: A also has slightly more contrast between the outer sections and the inner section that paints a beautiful midnight picture but without any sentimentality. I like it. C starts rather unceremoniously, and it’s difficult to listen beyond the congested sound towards the end, but otherwise it is also an exciting account. B has got richer sound. The changes in dynamics and tempo are not as unpleasant as in previous movements, although I feel the middle section lingers on a bit too much. A also feels slow in the middle section, but it does not induce the same negative feeling. 

So far, for me, A and D are on an equal footing and are ahead of C. (The Waltz in C has messed it up for me.) I’m not very keen on B. Will probably make up my mind after listening to all four in proper movement order in the next day or so.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I really need to see if I can get a better capture of D. All I will say is that it is a live performance which isn't on YouTube.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have been able to get an improved version of D and have uploaded it to a new folder site...

D (revised) - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZgGM2kZaG1aUt6oh3SXpYeUkX1Yob7Nie1k


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Hard for my ears to separate these, but based on some quick sampling, D seems to have a greater intensity. Maybe overdone? A seems pretty good, stronger than B and C, but not overly intense. Not sure which would be my favorite without listing to them completely several times each.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

For those who want to know the answers, read the invisible ink below  For those who don't, don't!

All of them are live performances available as noted...
A - Yuri Temirkanov / St. Petersburg Philharmonic (YouTube)
B - Tugan Sokhiev / Berlin Philharmonic (BPO Digital Concert Hall)
C - Kirill Petrenko / Bavarian Radio Symphony (YouTube)
D - Andris Nelsons / Royal Concertgebow (Concertgebouw website)


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Thanks Becca for re-uploading D.

Couldn't resist reading the hidden answers... wow I can't believe it, no Simon Rattle? (Just kidding! In fact I quite like his Symphonic Dances.)

About the answers...

In fact I have two commercial recordings of Symphonic Dances from A. I like both. Straight forward with a good sense of rhythm IMHO. No wonder I like it.

D is a surprise. Well, my reaction to this conductor's commercial recordings is very polarised. Like some, hate some. Now I've found out I like his Symphonic Dances.

C is... well he remains an enigma to me. I don't know what to say.

B is not a conductor I'm familiar with, but the answer probably explains why I felt the sound was rich and grand. No opinion to add honestly.

Thanks again for setting this up. I enjoyed this exercise.

There are many commercial recordings of the Symphonic Dances that I enjoy. Apart from Kondrashin '63 that was mentioned by others, there are Previn, Temirkanov, Jansons (3x), V. Peternko, Ashkenazy (3x) etc. Most are pretty straight forward accounts. A recent one that caught my ears is Long Yu (on DG), a relatively straight forward reading with good forward momentum.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I just _knew_ that someone was going to say that :lol:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I was convinced that A was a certain conductor who pops up regularly in Becca's comparisons but no. Again, a good comparison and I wasn't wholly surprised by the answers although I thought C would have made a better job of the Dances. Stick by my revised DACB rating but I'll stick with Jansons and Kondrashin as my faves. Btw, I was very surprised at the quality of the orchesttal playing in recording A. Impressive for an orchestra that's not top rank


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

All of them are live performances available as noted...
A - Yuri Temirkanov / St. Petersburg Philharmonic (YouTube)
B - Tugan Sokhiev / Berlin Philharmonic (BPO Digital Concert Hall)
C - Kirill Petrenko / Bavarian Radio Symphony (YouTube)
D - Andris Nelsons / Royal Concertgebow (Concertgebouw website)

For those unfamiliar with him, Tugan Sokhiev is the music director of the Bolshoi, also of the Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse. He is a past director at the Welsh National Opera and is a regular guest with the Berlin Philharmonic.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I had 3 other performances that I was considering for the list but decided against...

Semyon Bychkov / WDR Symphony
Edward Gardner / Radio Filharmonisch Orkest (Netherlands)
Karina Canellakis / BBC Scottish Symphony


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> I had 3 other performances that I was considering for the list but decided against...
> 
> Semyon Bychkov / WDR Symphony
> Edward Gardner / Radio Filharmonisch Orkest (Netherlands)
> Karina Canellakis / BBC Scottish Symphony


Damn, I'd have got the Bychkov. I've got that one.


----------



## xankl (Jul 6, 2018)

Well thanks Becca for doing this fun little exercise. I'd only listened to the first movement of each so didn't comment. But my preferences would have been d, then a, then the other two.
I was reminded how much I like the piece of music and although I enjoyed two more, there were none I disliked.
Really surprised to see what a was. I felt it had a slightly traditional, or old fashioned feel that I don't usually seek but quite enjoyed.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl said:


> Damn, I'd have got the Bychkov. I've got that one.


Is there anything that you *don't* have?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> Is there anything that you *don't* have?


I have very few Symphonic Dances. Probably only 4 recordings - Bychkov, Kondrashin., Jansons and Batiz. Used to have Previn too but that got lost in a house move (I think).


----------



## Dirge (Apr 10, 2012)

:: Johanos/Dallas Symphony Orchestra [Vox/Turnabout '67]





Back in the old days, this was a very popular recording among audiophiles and a sizable cult of normal classical music listeners. The performance doesn't have the fire and bite and kick-butt mentality of the rightly famous Kondrashin/Moscow Philharmonic performance [Melodiya '63], but I often prefer it in the slower, softer music, which is beautifully phrased and features very characterful solo contributions throughout. It's an interesting contrasting-but-complementary alternative to Kondrashin/Moscow.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I learned many things from this wonderful exercise, but here are my three main takeaways: (a.) just because an orchestra produces gorgeous and lush (as in Recording B, which I had a heavy suspicion was the BPO) sounds doesn't mean it always produces a successful performance. (b.) The Bavarian Radio Symphony has a wonderfully distinct sound that Petrenko harnesses very well in this recording to create the dreamiest soundscapes of the four. (c.) I must check out more from Nelsons, as evidenced by his knockout conducting with the Concertgebouw. I've heard very mixed things about his Beethoven and Shostakovich cycles, but now I really want to hear them to see if he can do similar things with that music that he did in this performance. 

I would love to see this become a TC staple! Would you consider doing Debussy's La Mer? That would be really fascinating. Any Beethoven symphony would also be great, with the incredible variety of recordings both new and obscure out there.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I would love to see this become a TC staple! Would you consider doing Debussy's La Mer? That would be really fascinating. Any Beethoven symphony would also be great, with the incredible variety of recordings both new and obscure out there.


If you like Sibelius' _Luonnotar_, the files from my last blind comparison are still available if you or anyone else wants to give it a try, you just need to avoid looking at the 'answers'!
Blind Comparison - Luonnotar

As to La Mer ... that partly depends on what is available as I like to avoid the well-known recordings as too many can easily recognize them thereby canceling out the blind interest part ... but I will look.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I learned many things from this wonderful exercise, but here are my three main takeaways: (a.) just because an orchestra produces gorgeous and lush (as in Recording B, which I had a heavy suspicion was the BPO) sounds doesn't mean it always produces a successful performance. (b.) The Bavarian Radio Symphony has a wonderfully distinct sound that Petrenko harnesses very well in this recording to create the dreamiest soundscapes of the four. (c.) I must check out more from Nelsons, as evidenced by his knockout conducting with the Concertgebouw. I've heard very mixed things about his Beethoven and Shostakovich cycles, but now I really want to hear them to see if he can do similar things with that music that he did in this performance.
> 
> I would love to see this become a TC staple! Would you consider doing Debussy's La Mer? That would be really fascinating. Any Beethoven symphony would also be great, with the incredible variety of recordings both new and obscure out there.


We've had quite a few blind comparisons on here, ACB. Do a Google search on 'blind comparison talkclassical' and it should throw up all the ones we've had. Mahler 4, Sibelius 1,5 and 7, Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique and Beethoven 5 and Leonore III are ones I can remember. Someone was considering doing Debussy's La Mer years ago but it never happened. If no-one else takes it on I'll do it but it'll be more obscure versions. Everyone knows the biggies. If you wanna do it Becca, then feel free. I'm looking forward to hearing Rattle's latest version. Lol


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl said:


> Everyone knows the biggies. If you wanna do it Becca, then feel free. I'm looking forward to hearing Rattle's latest version. Lol


I think that the hardest part of coming up with a selection of performances is to decide whether I can confuse the regulars by including a Rattle performance, or whether I can confuse them by not including a Rattle performance :lol:

As to La Mer, if I do it, it will be in 2 or 3 weeks. Merl, if you want to do it before then, be my guest.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> I think that the hardest part of coming up with a selection of performances is to decide whether I can confuse the regulars by including a Rattle performance, or whether I can confuse them by not including a Rattle performance :lol:
> 
> As to La Mer, if I do it, it will be in 2 or 3 weeks. Merl, if you want to do it before then, be my guest.


Funnily enough I was listening to a recording of La, Mer in the car a few days ago (not the ideal place to listen to it) if I do it that may make it in.


----------

