Eloq uence PROKOFIEV Symphony No. 1 Symphony No. 5 Symphony No. 6 Pari Conervatoire Orchetra L Orchetre de la Suie Romande Ernet Anermet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T
SERGEI PROKOFIEV (1891-1953) CD 1 55 13 Symphony No. 1 in D major, Op. 25 Claical 1 I Allegro 4 41 2 II Larghetto 4 15 3 III Gavotta (Non troppo allegro) 1 22 4 IV Finale (Vivace) 4 14 Symphony No. 6 in E flat major, Op. 111 5 I Allegro moderato 13 25 6 II Largo 14 38 7 III Vivace 12 12 CD 2 56 26 Symphony No. 1 in D major, Op. 25 Claical 1 I Allegro 4 42 2 II Larghetto 4 20 3 III Gavotta (Non troppo allegro) 1 27 4 IV Finale (Vivace) 4 09 Symphony No. 5 in B flat major, Op. 100 5 I Andante 11 39 6 II Allegro marcato 7 53 7 III Adagio 12 04 8 IV Allegro giocoo 9 41 Pari Conervatoire Orchetra [CD1 1-4] L Orchetre de la Suie Romande Ernet Anermet Total timing: 111 39
Prokofiev compoed hi even ymphonie over a period of 35 year. He wa a brah 27-year-old when the firt one appeared, and a humiliated, ickly 61-year-old at the premiere of the final one. Both are materpiece, although highly unlike each other. Together, all even ymphonie contitute a ort of muical autobiography, a well a depiction of the milieu under which they were compoed. Nikolai Tcherepnin, Prokofiev profeor of conducting at the St. Peterburg Conervatory, liked to ue Haydn ymphonie in hi clae. Thi practice gave Prokofiev the idea, in 1917, of writing a ymphony in the claical tyle. If Haydn were alive during our time, he wrote in hi hort autobiography, he would retain hi own tyle of compoition, but he would incorporate omething modern into it. The reult wa Prokofiev firt mature (and mot popular) ymphony, which he titled the Claical Symphony. Prokofiev ue of a neoclaical tyle in thi work wa alo influenced by hi deciion to compoe the ymphony away from a piano. It eemed eaier to dive into the unfamiliar water of compoing without a piano, he wrote, by working in a familiar etting. Although the ymphony wa compoed in 1917, the third movement, a Gavotte, had been compoed a a piano piece a year earlier, and Prokofiev added it to the ymphony. (Later, it would be adapted for ue in the ballet Romeo and Juliet.) The firt and econd movement alo ued older material. The finale, however, contained completely new theme. Prokofiev intentionally avoided uing minor chord in thi movement. He claimed that it wa hi intention, in thi ymphony, to teae the geee. Anermet recorded thi ymphony twice firt with the Pari Conervatoire Orchetra in 1953, and again in tereo with L Orchetre de la Suie Romande. Many conductor ue thi ymphony a an excue to diplay their orchetra virtuoity, driving the tempo in the outer movement to breathle extreme. Neither recording i o afflicted. Epecially in hi earlier reading, Anermet emphaize the opening movement gawky humor particularly in the angular econd ubject by taking a more moderate tempo. There i more elegance in the later reading, and a richer orchetral ound, but even o, Anermet eem to be cautioning u againt taking the muic too eriouly. In the Pari recording, Anermet' econd movement i unexpectedly oulful, and in the third he produce an effect that i more cheerful than pompou, again defying tradition. In the later recording, the econd movement i haped m d g t re a a C in b p e m e B p P d e c y m w a M p e p re
t,, t,,, r r t l more traditionally, yet Anermet eem to take delight in Prokofiev' hifting of the harmonic gear. In the third movement, the traightforward good humour of the Pari recording i largely retained in the remake but again, an extra layer of elegance ha been added. The omewhat dry ound of the Pari Conervatoire Orchetra perfectly uit the incipient wryne of the finale. The later reading butle along with more polih but even more peronality; Anermet exchange kinetic excitement for character, and the trade-off i mot welcome, when compared to the hyperefficient reading that are the norm today. By the time the Claical Symphony wa premiered in St. Peterburg (then called Petrograd) in 1918, many of the geee were too ditracted to be teaed. Ruia, following the event of the revolution the year before, continued to be in a tate of flux, and the ymphony did not receive the attention one might have expected for uch an innovative work. Prokofiev took advantage of the preence at the concert of the new Soviet government Miniter of Education and Art to requet permiion to travel abroad, where he would enjoy greater opportunitie. Regretfully, permiion wa given, and Prokofiev, with few reource to hi name other than hi abundant talent, left hi homeland. After eventeen year of life abroad, motly in Pari, Prokofiev returned to the Soviet Union at the end of 1935. Hi primary motivation appear to have been homeickne. However, many of hi friend quetioned why the free-thinking Prokofiev would return to uch an artitically oppreive environment. Not long after hi homecoming, it became quite clear that ertwhile bad-boy compoer needed to watch themelve let they fall victim to the capriciou wrath of Stalin and hi minion. Neverthele, if Prokofiev regretted hi deciion, he left little direct evidence behind to demontrate it. One can make inference, though. The long gap between Prokofiev Fourth (1930) and Fifth (1944) Symphonie might be explained, in part, by Prokofiev worrie over how uch a work would be received by the government. A mitep could be diatrou. Having lived elewhere for o long, and having returned home with a wife who wa a foreigner were two izeable trike againt him, o no doubt he undertood the need for caution. There are other explanation, though, for Prokofiev long ilence a a ymphonit. In 1941, when the Soviet Union wa invaded by Germany and drawn into World War II, prioritie changed,
not leat among compoer, who, by choice or compulion, wrote muic that contributed to the war effort, or at leat reflected upon it in ome way. (Shotakovich Leningrad Symphony i an obviou example of uch muic.) Prokofiev made an effort to do what wa expected of him during the war, but if hi feeling about fulfilling thee obligation were a ambivalent a Shotakovich, he wa le adept at camouflaging hi ambivalence. One of the more ucceful work from thi period a maive operatic adaptation of Toltoy War and Peace necearily took a tremendou amount of time and energy, to the excluion of other project. And War and Peace wa not the only large-cale work to occupy Prokofiev after hi return to the Soviet Union. The ballet Romeo and Juliet and Cinderella, the opera Semyon Kotko and Betrothal in a Monatery, and Alexander Nevky (firt the film core and then the cantata) all date from between 1935 and 1944. Prokofiev pent much of the war out of harm way in ettlement arranged by the Soviet government, ome of them quite far from Mocow. By 1944, however, the Axi wa on the run, and the Soviet Compoer Union wa given a rural etate ome 50 mile from Mocow near the town of Ivanovo. It wa to thi Compoer Home actually a tone manion urrounded by everal cottage to which many of the Soviet Union mot important compoer were invited. All of their need were provided for, and although wartime condition till prevailed, life wa good and a collegial atmophere prevailed. It wa here that Prokofiev wrote hi Fifth Symphony. The compoer preferred a cheduled life, and hi tay in Ivanovo wa no exception. He compoed in the morning, and pent the afternoon reviewing what he had done and planning what he would do next. Having little aptitude for volleyball, which wa popular among the other compoer and their familie, Prokofiev devoted many of hi leiure hour to che, at which he wa very adept. He alo erved a an unofficial mentor to the other compoer, encouraging them, and aking them each day what they had accomplihed. He wa particularly cloe with Dmitri Kabalevky, who relate that during thi period Prokofiev became intereted in ant and would routinely inpect neighbourhood anthill. A tray dog alo received hi loving attention. By the end of the ummer, the Fifth Symphony wa all but complete, except for the orchetration. The new ymphony premiere in Mocow, on 13 January 13 1945, wa highly anticipated what would the reclaimed Soviet compoer offer th h O h S re b o h fo G a S T in k w li e In d q g h p m ir
t r t t r r l. r the motherland? The program, with Prokofiev himelf conducting the State Symphony Orchetra of the USSR, alo included, in the firt half, Peter and the Wolf and the Claical Symphony. After the intermiion, Prokofiev returned to the podium. Jut a he raied hi baton, the expectant ilence in the Grand Hall of the Mocow Conervatory wa broken by the ound of heavy artillery. There wa no attack, however. The Red Army, victoriou over Axi force, wa croing the Vitula River into Germany, and the artillery fire wa meant a a alute. Thu, it became natural to hear the Fifth Symphony a a ymphony of wartime victory. That wa more pecific than what Prokofiev had intended, but it enhanced the ymphony ucce greatly. If Prokofiev had objection, he kept them to himelf. He imply referred to the work a the culminating point of [hi] creative life, adding, I imagined the ymphony a an expreion of the greatne of the human pirit. Interetingly, Anermet 1964 recording downplay the ymphony potentially epic qualitie. Rather than econd the compoer in a grandioe tatement about the greatne of the human pirit, Anermet eem at many point, particularly in the econd and fourth movement, to want to remind u of Prokofiev irreverent younger elf, and of hi penchant for motoric rhythm and primitivim. By the ame token, much of the firt movement i played fater than uual, which make it eem more unettled, le monumental. The brah reading of the ymphony final page ha a much to do with Anermet point of view a with the tonal idioyncraie of the Orchetre de la Suie Romande eldom the moothet enemble in term of intrumental blend, but one hardly ever lacking in character. Prokofiev Fifth Symphony often i compared to Shotakovich Fifth Symphony. Their contruction i imilar, their tone i epic, and they were tremendou popular uccee. Prokofiev pot-war Sixth Symphony ometime i compared to Shotakovich pot-war Eighth. Now we are celebrating victory, he aid, but every one of u till ha unhealed wound: ome lot their dear one, other their health We hould not forget thi (quoted in Sergei Prokofiev: A Soviet Tragedy by Victor Seroff). In fact, during the period between hi Fifth and Sixth Symphonie, Prokofiev did loe hi health, but the war had nothing to do with it, at leat not directly. Only day after the ucceful premiere of the Fifth Symphony, Prokofiev fell, hit hi head, and uffered a eriou concuion. (The fall apparently wa brought on by undiagnoed high blood preure.) For week, it
wa uncertain whether he would live or die. Friend viited him in the hopital, and at time he did not even recognize them. He finally pulled through but never completely recovered only becaue of the loving attention of hi de facto wife, Mira Mendelon, and the trictne of hi doctor. A he lowly convaleced, Prokofiev wa forbidden from engaging in many of the thing that he loved the mot: going to concert, moking, playing che, and mot of all, compoing. For ome time he wa forced to rely on tealth and ubterfuge jut to hurriedly cribble down muical thought that had come to hi mind. For a formerly active peron, almot obeively o, the treatment clearly wa wore than the dieae. Still, to be fair, hi doctor probably aved hi life. In time he wa allowed to move around, although moking and che till were off-limit, and he wa forbidden to work for more than an hour or two each day. By the ummer of 1945, he wa well enough to pend another ummer at the Compoer Home in Ivanovo, and he made a good tart on what wa to become hi Sixth Symphony. A the war wa drawing to an end, he alo wa continuing to tinker with War and Peace, and muic for the econd part of Eientein two-part film Ivan the Terrible. (Another work from thi period, the noiy Ode to the End of the War, had been drafted entirely in Prokofiev head during hi enforced tay in a anatorium.) Cinderella wa premiered at the end of 1945 by the Bolhoi Ballet. To conerve hi energy, Prokofiev watched only one act per night, over three conecutive night. Given hi health he till uffered debilitating headache and noebleed doctor order, and competing activitie, work on the Sixth Symphony wa low. He and Mira moved to a mall houe well outide of Mocow, and only infrequently returned to the city. Thi iolated Prokofiev, jut a he had been iolated by hi illne, but he made the bet of it. One work well in the peace of the country, he commented. He took an amued interet in hi agrarian urrounding, and, competitive in pirit a ever, he organized chicken race in hi courtyard. Finally, in February 1947, the Sixth Symphony wa complete. Now that there wa no quetion of Prokofiev conducting the October premiere, a he did with the Fifth, the reponibility went to Evgeny Mravinky, who ubequently became aociated with the ymphony. The new core wa received well, both at home and abroad, but then omething unexpected happened: Joeph Stalin had a bad night at the opera. T V h b in d K th 1 o to w A re h th m m c la c O c c c S a w S
,, t, : The opera wa not one of Prokofiev but one by Vano Muradeli, titled The Great Friendhip. It had been carefully written to appeal to Stalin, but Stalin diliked it. Thu began the mot intene crackdown on Soviet compoer in a decade. Nobody wa afe, not even Khachaturian, Shotakovich and Prokofiev, the three mot prominent Soviet ymphonit of the 1940. Prokofiev Sixth now wa dimied a o much garbage, it earlier ucce attributed to ycophantic, boot-licking critic. Earlier work were ubjected to official diapproval too. After thi dreing-down, the ailing Prokofiev reponded with a elf-humiliating letter in which he expreed upport for the hatchet-work of the Union of Soviet Compoer, headed by the mediocre Tikhon Khrennikov. He vowed to mend hi way, blaming the Wet for having caued him to tray from uing a muical language worthy of our people and of our great country (Seroff). Talk about eating humble pie. One can ee what dipleaed Khrennikov and hi cronie about the Sixth Symphony, even if one cannot agree with it. Following the war, compoer were expected to celebrate the Soviet Union triumph over adverity. More than a paing backward look at the tragedy of war wa unacceptable, and the problem with Shotakovich Eighth Symphony and Prokofiev Sixth wa that both are fundamentally tragic work. (Shotakovich flippant Ninth, completed in 1945, wa no better, but that i another tory.) The ymphony eluive mood are well-realized in Anermet recording. In the firt movement, the long-breathed econd ubject i phraed mot witfully, and the outburt that diturb it i hocking. Anermet hape the movement phantamagoric progre with a ure hand. After the coolne of the firt movement, he emphaize the econd movement paion more than mot conductor, bringing out it connection with the love muic from Romeo and Juliet. The lat movement teeter uneaily, Shotakovich-like, between optimim and uncertainty, the latter quietly brought home late in the game by the return of a theme from the firt movement a wonderfully ambiguou moment in thi particular recording. Raymond Tuttle
Swi conductor ERNEST ANSERMET wa born in Vevey on 11 November 1883 and died aged 85 in Geneva on 20 February 1969. He wa inclined to muic from an early age, learning the violin and the clarinet. He wa alo intereted in mathematic and taught the ubject. Anermet tudied muic in Pari and Geneva and made hi conducting debut in 1910. Although Anermet i particularly aociated with the Geneva-baed L Orchetre de la Suie Romande, he alo guetconducted throughout hi career including in America (with numerou top orchetra there and in 1962 conducting Debuy Pelléa et Méliande, an opera Anermet twice recorded, at the Metropolitan, New York) and England (with London orchetra and not leat when he conducted the première of Benjamin Britten opera The Rape of Lucretia at Glyndebourne in 1946). Anermet had previouly made hi debut at the Salzburg Fetival, conducting the Vienna Philharmonic in 1942. Anermet relationhip with the Suie Romande Orchetra lated for 50 year from 1918, when he founded the orchetra, to 1967 when he tood down a it conductor (and handed the rein to Paul Kletzki). Anermet continued to work in Geneva until hi death; hi final concert wa in December 1968 and conited of a typically eclectic mix of compoer on that occaion it wa J.S. Bach, Bartók, Debuy and Honegger. In hi early day (between 1911 and 1927) Anermet held appointment in Montreux and Bueno Aire and alo conducted for Diaghilev Ballet Rue company. It i however the Anermet/Suie Romande aociation that remain an indiviible partnerhip one kept alive by the many recording they made for Decca and which document Anermet highly-regarded interpretation of Debuy, Ravel and Stravinky (he knew all three compoer) a well a lucid and atifying verion of ymphonie by Beethoven, Brahm (both complete) and Haydn a well a copiou further example of French, German and Ruian repertoire, both core and le familiar. LP collector have long treaured thee recording, which fully exploit the plendid acoutic of the Victoria Hall in Geneva, and they continue to grace the catalogue on compact dic for their muical and audiophile excellence. Anermet prepared performance notable for their clarity and intelligence; he took all he needed from the compoer core and aw no need to add hi own glo (or vanity) but to focu on the compoer intention and a Anermet himelf aid to touch the heart of the muic o a to make it heart-beat heard by the litener. Thu Anermet art i not only
, PHOTO : DECCA, r f Ernet Anermet
authoritative it i alo timele and cut through fad and fahion. Criticim ha been levied on the technical quality of the Suie Romande Orchetra. While it i true that the enemble wa not uper-virtuoo or immered in centurie-old tradition, what i alway apparent in thee recording i that the orchetra conited of dedicated and knowledgeable muician very much attuned to Anermet direction and leaving the litener in no doubt a to their candid commitment to muical truth. Sometime fallible in execution, maybe but alo capable of inpiration there i a muical focu that engroe, illuminate and utain. Colin Anderon
Ernet Anermet complete Prokofiev recording for DECCA: Symphonie No. 1 (two verion), 5 & 6 Decca Eloquence 480 0834 Romeo and Juliet; Cinderella The Prodigal Son; Scythian Suite The Love of Three Orange Decca Eloquence 480 0830 Violin Concerto No. 1 & 2 Piano Concerto No. 3 Ruggiero Ricci Juliu Katchen Decca Eloquence 480 0837
Recording producer: John Culhaw (Symphony No. 1: PCO); Victor Olof (Symphony No. 6); Jame Walker (Symphony No. 1: OSR); Michael Bremner (Symphony No. 5) Recording engineer: Gil Went (Symphony No. 6); Roy Wallace (Symphony No. 1: OSR); Jame Lock (Symphony No. 5) Recording location: Victoria Hall, Geneva, Switzerland, October 1951 (Symphony No. 6), February 1961 (Symphony No. 1: OSR), April 1964 (Symphony No. 5); Maion de la Mutualité, Pari, France, June 1953 (Symphony No. 1: PCO) Eloquence erie manager: Cyru Meher-Homji Art direction: Chilu Tong www.chilu.com Booklet editor: Bruce Raggatt
480 0834