# Rimsky-Korsakov best recordings/performances



## speekless (Jun 4, 2019)

*Rimsky-Korsakov - Best recordings/performances*

Following up on same question I asked about Ravel, what are your absolute favorite recordings/performances of Rismky-Korsakov?

I've found it particularly difficult to find a satisfying version of Scheherazade, the violin solo from the Prince is often over-performed - in my opinion.

Out of the ordinary suggestions are also welcome, I once heard a Turkish version which I found very interesting (unfortunately I cannot recall by which conductor/orchestra).


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are many, many satisfying Scheherazades. I don't understand your "violin solo from the Prince" though. The violin solo represents Scheherazade. I love this music - it is easily one of my very favorite works. I've collected several dozen recordings, and while some are clearly better than others, there are few really disappointing ones. 

My personal favorite recording is an oldie from the Everest label, with Eugene Goosens and the London Symphony. Just perfect. And the sound is still quite good these 60 years later.

The next favorite is also with the London Symphony: Charles Mackerras on Telarc. Spectacular playing and sound.

And the next is also from the LSO: Pierre Monteux on Decca.

Then comes Beecham with the Royal Philharmonic. Lovro von Matacic with the Philharmonia

Interesting isn't it: they're all from London. What is it? I dunno. There are many other fine versions.

Ones to avoid: Ormandy (makes a stupid cut in III), Svetlanov (actually makes it boring), Serebrier (awful overloaded and congested sound - on a Reference Recordings disk no less), Dorati on Mercury (strident sound, horrible bassoon solo sound)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

From my Scheherazade survey thread, these are the recordings I rated 4 1/2 stars or better.

Stokowski (1927) (Biddulph) (*****) - Stokowski at his best, combining passion, beauty, and an improvisatory interpretation that manages to sound just right. Although there is the inevitable constant hiss, the sound quality is surprisingly good for the period, with the lush Philadelphia sound vividly caught. This recording truly captures the essence of the work. There is an alternate take of the first movement which is even more committed than the original.

Stokowski (1934) (Cala) (*****) - The same collaboration as before with similarly magical results. Choice between this and the earlier Philadelphia recording will come down to taste. Interpretively, Stokowski is a bit more risk-taking at times in this later recording. I prefer the slightly more natural feel of the earlier version. The later recording does boast more clear sound, though the earlier recording has greater body and fullness accentuating the beauty of the Philadelphia strings. 

Stokowski (1951) (Testament) (*****) - Stokowski's later versions find him slightly more wayward compared to the earlier Philadelphia accounts but still exhibiting his inimitable sensuousness. The 1951 Philharmonia account is simply ravishing with plenty of beauty, power, and gusto in abundance. The sound is somewhat muddy even for the time period, but it represents obvious improvement over the earlier accounts in presence, fullness and clarity.

Kondrashin (1979) (Philips) (*****) - This is my top choice in modern sound, supplying a perfect blend of color, excitement, and beauty. Given the excellent sound quality, it makes an ideal first introduction to the piece as Kondrashin's interpretation is one where everything sounds right. Herman Krebbers' lovely, authoritative account of the violin solo is a major bonus. The final movement is among the most powerful ever recorded.

Gergiev (2001) (Philips) (*****) - If you want unbridled passion, look no further. Gergiev's interpretation is seductive, impassioned and powerful in the best Russian tradition. This really knocks your socks off! Some find the interpretation too subjective, but for me Gergiev is one of the few to really capture the essence of the work in the same way as Stokowski's old Philadelphia accounts.

Beecham (1958) (EMI) (*****) - That Beecham touch and sensitivity works its wonders. Few if any have ever captured the ethereal dreaminess of the work like Beecham. Perhaps there is a certain lack of thrust and power compared to some others, but taken on its own merits the recording is essential listening. No consideration need be made for the 1958 sound, which is excellent and full-bodied.

Stokowski (1964) (Decca, Cala) (*****) - Stokowski is not quite as inspired as in 1951 and even a bit more mannered. However, with the vastly improved sound quality you get an invaluably vivid taste of Stokowski's way with the work. This stands among the handful of greatest stereo recordings in its thrust and passion. Essential for lovers of this work. If you value modern sound, this is the Stokowski version to get.

Van Beinum (1957) (Decca) (*****) - If you want a great vintage recording without the mannerisms of a Stokowski, look no further than Van Beinum. The performance is robust, exciting, romantic, and the Concertgebouw in their heyday perform gloriously. The sound quality lacks fullness and clarity in comparison to contemporary recordings from Beecham and Reiner, but this is more than made up for in the lush sounds emanating from the orchestra. 

Previn (1968) (RCA) (*****) - Though his spacious, measured approach may not appeal to all tastes, Previn's earlier account blends poetic sensuousness with robust, overwhelming climaxes in an interpretation that is unerring in its inspired concentration and spontaneity. The London Symphony performs gloriously, and the sound quality is clear and full.

Goossens (1958) (Everest) (*****) - Another one of the more underrated Scheherazade recordings, this is one that truly captures the magical, evocative nature of the work with plenty of excitement and sensuousness in abundance. Goossens allows the music to unfold naturally, and many may prefer this approach to that of more celebrated readings. The Everest sound is a model of its kind in its brilliance and clarity.

Dobrowen (1953) (Archipel, Opus Kura) (*****) - Another great pre-stereo account in sound that is quite acceptable for the period. This is a red-blooded, passionate performance with plenty of beauty and nuance. The Philharmonia play as if their lives depend on it.

Golovanov (1950) (Russian Classic Collection) (****1/2) - You will not find a more brazenly intense version of the work than this. Indeed, some may find it too high octane and the interpretation a bit too heavy-handed. The virtuosic playing is incredible, with the beautiful violin solo by none other than a young David Oistrakh. This is one of those versions that falls into the category of those that pack an emotional wallop but are not meant for everyday listening. The 1950 sound is quite acceptable for the time.

Stokowski (1974) (RCA) (****1/2) - Stokowski returned to the recording studio a fifth time nearly half a century after his first effort. Again, the results are revelatory if not quite as inspired as in previous efforts. In terms of sound quality, none of his previous recordings match the clarity of this one, though the 1964 recording has plenty of body and is even more committed and thrilling.

Haitink (1972) (Philips) (****1/2) - A solid, central recommendation in excellent, full sound. The London Philharmonic plays gloriously, and the interpretation from Haitink is alert and dedicated if not quite as individual as some others.

Ormandy (1973) (RCA) (****1/2) - Ormandy's last recording in Philadelphia presents their best collaboration. The interpretation is rock solid and the playing is stupendous - lush, grand, tense, and with thrilling climaxes. Only a slight lack of forward impetus at times prevents this from rating higher.

Dorati (1958) (Mercury) (****1/2) - From the opening bars is it apparent that Dorati understands the sensuous nature of the work. This is one of the most exciting, rapturous of versions, recorded in excellent vintage Mercury sound. Things are taken somewhat on the quick side, and there is a relative lack of tonal opulence in the strings. 

Reiner (1960) (RCA) (****1/2) - Arguably the most celebrated modern recording, particularly among audiophiles. However, on my list it falls short of that acclaim. No doubt the playing and sound quality are spectacular. However, despite its brilliance I get the feeling that this could be a performance of any orchestral work. Everything is done with great efficiency, but I fail to hear the sensuous spirit of Scheherazade come through as it does with those listed above.

Mackerras (1990) (Telarc) (****1/2) - This recording marries ethereal beauty with powerful attack in sound that is a marvel of clarity. The brass playing in particular is the most impressive of any Scheherazade recording I know. My only quibble with this interpretation is that in its clarity and perfection it misses some of the sensuous passion of others. As impressive an account as it is, I wouldn't want it to be my only version.


----------



## speekless (Jun 4, 2019)

Maybe I'm being really picky, but the violin solo, which indeed is an essential part of the piece, often sounds too expressive to me. It has to be played with just the right intention, not too much embellishment, not too much pathos, not too quickly. It's a part which is very, very revealing. And very difficult to play just right.

The same goes for the opening theme, it's often played either too gently, or the dynamics don't sound quite right to me. For instance, I dislike Gergiev's version, which is not a powerful enough opening to me. And then I find the Van Beinum version too dark.

I think overall it's a very revealing piece, which is probably why I have difficulty finding a satisfying version.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

The Ernest Ansermet recordings on London are great fun. Scheherazade: Reiner/CSO. For hoots, you must go to YouTube and watch Leif Segerstam - Sinfónica de Galicia, Mvt 4 at 45:00. Wild fun!!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

speekless said:


> Maybe I'm being really picky, but the violin solo, which indeed is an essential part of the piece, often sounds too expressive to me. It has to be played with just the right intention, not too much embellishment, not too much pathos, not too quickly. It's a part which is very, very revealing. And very difficult to play just right.
> 
> The same goes for the opening theme, it's often played either too gently, or the dynamics don't sound quite right to me. For instance, I dislike Gergiev's version, which is not a powerful enough opening to me. And then I find the Van Beinum version too dark.
> 
> I think overall it's a very revealing piece, which is probably why I have difficulty finding a satisfying version.


You have rejected many that I love so I am not sure I can help you but perhaps Kondrashin will work for you or Beecham? I do wonder, though, you have very clear ideas about how it should go ... where do these come from?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

speekless said:


> Maybe I'm being really picky, but the violin solo, which indeed is an essential part of the piece, often sounds too expressive to me.


Well why not? That is after all how the composer himself marked it:








Other than that, it's up to the performer, with maybe some input from the conductor, on how to play it. It's a solo and it's supposed to be expressive, just like the solos for clarinet, flute, and bassoon in II.


----------



## speekless (Jun 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> You have rejected many that I love so I am not sure I can help you but perhaps Kondrashin will work for you or Beecham? I do wonder, though, you have very clear ideas about how it should go ... where do these come from?


I'm not sure myself! Just a feeling I get...


----------



## speekless (Jun 4, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Well why not? That is after all how the composer himself marked it:
> View attachment 119696
> 
> 
> Other than that, it's up to the performer, with maybe some input from the conductor, on how to play it. It's a solo and it's supposed to be expressive, just like the solos for clarinet, flute, and bassoon in II.


Expressive, yes! But not *too* expressive.  But, no accounting for taste, I suppose!


----------

