Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971)
Symphony in Three Movements (1942-45)
Symphonies of Wind instruments (1920)
Symphony in C (1938-40)
Orquesta Sinfónica de Galicia/Dima Slobodeniouk
rec. 2019/23, Palacio de la Ópera, A Coruña, Spain
BIS BIS-2441 SACD [62]
Stravinsky wrote five works which he called “Symphony”. The earliest Symphony in E flat is a remarkably accomplished student work although the debt to his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov and the wider Russian Nationalist School is very clear. In its final 1948 revision the choral Symphony of Psalms bookends his symphonic output which leaves the three neo-classical works offered on this disc. As such they make a logical if not overly generous coupling. Whether or not conductor Dima Slobodeniouk and his fine Orquesta Sinfónica de Galicia will complete their survey for BIS is not clear. For many listeners their knowledge of Stravinsky might be limited to the three famous ‘big’ ballets plus Pulchinella perhaps with the later neo-classical and the serial works less immediately appealing in populist terms. But that said the catalogue is packed with major conductors and orchestras presenting various combinations of these symphonies in compelling and impressive performances.
The question arises – as so often – if a new recording can bring something to these works that tempts the listener to add this disc to their collection. There are many virtues to this disc; given it is a BIS production no surprise at all that the SACD surround engineering (I listened to the SACD stereo layer) is impressively fine. Possibly for this kind of repertoire the acoustic of the Palacio de la Ópera, A Coruña is just a tad too generous. Not that a dry or clinical soundscape would be preferable but some of Stravinsky’s tart and angular writing is rather smoothed away. BIS also has a happy knack of choosing performers of consistently the highest calibre. I had not heard any recordings by the artists involved here – I see they accompanied Ilya Gringolts in the Stravinsky Violin Concerto on a previous disc for the company. They are exactly what you expect of modern orchestras; technically refined and virtuosic with superb ensemble. Slobodeniouk’s conducting is eminently sane but I must admit for all the high production values and performing qualities I did not find this to be the most riveting of listens.
The disc opens with the Symphony in Three Movements. As with the Symphony in C this is Stravinsky at his most musically abstract and absolute. However, there were outside influences that clearly impacted Stravinsky consciously or otherwise. Two are significant – although initially Stravinsky denied any exterior motivation the liner points out that in later years he did describe it as his “war symphony” with the various thematic sources for each movement interestingly described. The outer movements were suggested by Japan’s scorched-earth tactics in China and newsreel footage of goose-stepping German soliders. The other clear influence was that parallel to writing this work Stravinsky was revising The Rite of Spring so revisiting the unique world of that masterpiece clearly impacted his use of ostinati, cliff-face dynamic shifts and even some of the woodwind writing. All of these influences suggest a performance that will be angular perhaps, certainly with a sense of rhythmic tension even aggression. Dipping into various other versions almost at random; Rattle/CBSO, Ashkenazy/Berlin RSO, Jarvi/OSR let alone ‘classics’ from the composer himself or Boulez in Berlin this does appear to be a unifying approach. Certainly there appear to be audible – even emotional – links back to the pre-neo-classical scores in a way that the more serene Symphony in C does not seek. My feeling is that Slobodeniouk seeks a linkage between these two symphonies by literally playing down the aggression of the later work while emphasising the lyricism and indeed classicism of the earlier. The result is a very attractive performance of Symphony in C and a quite different take on the Symphony in Three Movements. Of course when one’s preconceptions and conventions are challenged it is easy to dismiss something simply for being different. Having listened to this disc several times I have grown to respect the concept although I do feel that the two works should be strongly contrasted while both representing different aspects of neo-classicism. For me the interest and musical tension exists precisely because of the conflict between these contrasting musical elements.
This is also where the warmth of the sound afforded this recording tends to work for the earlier symphony and against the latter. Furthermore in the Symphony in Three Movements Stravinsky wrote quasi-concertante parts of the piano and harp. While they are audibly present, in other recordings they are afforded a greater crisp placement within the orchestra. Ashkenazy’s Decca recording in Berlin is in a similarly warm acoustic but the engineers there have given the piano some discrete spotlighting to good effect. Returning to Stravinsky’s own famous recording 1961 recording with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra it still sounds remarkably good from a technical point of view with an instrumental balance that is obviously created in a studio but pleasingly clean and clear. Slobodeniouk’s slightly relaxed approach creates the impression his tempi are on the slow side although a quick check against a metronome shows him exactly on the crochet/quarter note = 160 indicated in the score. Jarvi tweaks that tempo faster to create his rather exciting performance.
The two larger symphonies were both recorded in a group of sessions in 2019 which probably explains the interpretative kinship. As I said before, Slobodeniouk’s lighter almost playful approach pays dividends in the earlier Symphony in C although the work itself was born out of a time of stress and tragedy for Stravinsky. In the years and months immediately preceding and during its composition Stravinsky lost his wife, daughter and mother to illness and also had to leave Europe for the USA because of the outbreak of War. The composer himself acknowledged the differences between the first two quasi-traditional “European” movements and the concluding “American” movements with their higher levels of chromaticism and rhythmic complexity. Slobodeniouk’s approach here smoothes these differences and, it could be argued, makes for a more coherent and effective whole. Again the actual playing is genuinely excellent with a sense of easy refinement which again impresses.
Separating the two main works is a performance of the original version of the Symphonies of Wind instruments from 1920. This earlier version was written for a slightly larger group of instruments than the more common 1947 (not 1940 as it says in the liner) revision with an alto flute and basset horn adding tonal richness to the instrumental palette. The recording here dates from 2023 and does feel closer and more focussed – of course the reduced instrumental group helps with that impression. This receives a wholly enjoyable and impressive performance with the wind and brass of the Orquesta Sinfónica de Galicia sounding beautiful matched and balanced.
Ultimately this is not a disc I would say demands attention but if a lighter and more playful approach to the two main symphonies appeals then it is certainly worth hearing. The reliable quality of the BIS engineering and the excellence of the playing combine to make the best possible case for this slightly unconventional approach.
Nick Barnard
If you purchase this recording using a link below, it generates revenue for MWI and helps us maintain free access to the site
