► An Index of ionarts Discographies
Continuing my discographies, this is a survey of — hopefully — every extant recorded cycle of the Sergei Prokofiev symphonies. They are listed in chronological order of completion. This should include all cycles, whether they were issued as such or not, including those where multiple conductors were at work on it. (Incidentally, that’s not an occurrence in Prokofiev, as far as I know.) I have heard many of these and possibly at least some symphonies of most of them, but hardly all of them. Comments on what you like or dislike about any given cycle are very much appreciated — be it below (where they might take a while to be noticed) on Twitter, or best: in both places.
On a personal note: It has rather taken me a while to really get into Sergei Prokofiev’s symphonies. I didn’t find them particularly attractive propositions before I even had known them well. I remember a friend, classically inclined, yes, but she had less exposure to it than I and far, far fewer CDs, of course. But, somehow, she had the Walter Weller set of the symphonies on Decca. (This was from a time when you did not, could not frivolously add sets to your collection.) Somehow, in any case, I figured that if even Decca couldn’t come up with a more notable name than Weller to record these symphonies with, the works can’t be all that. (I don’t mean to throw shade at the perfectly wonderful Walter Weller – but that’s how I naïvely felt, at the time.)
Also, there simply was not that much attention paid to Prokofiev, outside the popular 1st and 5th symphonies. In the early Aughts, there really were only Weller, Ozawa, and Rostropovich easily available as sets. Rozhdestvensky and Martinon hadn’t made the jump to CD; Košler was essentially unavailable in the West. Gergiev came in 2004, at least, while Neeme Järvi wasn’t re-issued as a price-saving box until 2008. Naxos had Kuchar’s cycle available as an all-Prokofiev “White Box”, but generally it was sold on single discs and, at the time, confined to the budget bins in record stores. A newer major cycle, with Vladimir Ashkenazy conducting the LSO, RCO, and Cleveland, only got up to four symphonies on Decca.
Now the situation looks a little different. Granted, there haven’t been any sets by the big companies or the most famous orchestras. Ashkenazy threw his hat into the ring, after all, but “only” with the Sydney Symphony” and on Exton, which means that the recordings are either difficult to attain or afford. Kitayenko/Cologne, Karabits, Alsop (in a new cycle for Naxos from São Paulo), Gaffigan, and, probably the most promising of them in a long, long time, Litton from Bergen on BIS.
Several others are on the way, it seems, and some lie strewn on the wayside, incomplete but too good to ignore, so I have included them. One of the more important of these (at the time, at least, and largely for the concertos) is probably Erich Leinsdorf’s Boston non-cycle. At least Sony did box his Prokofiev recordings, which also include the piano concertos with John Browning, the Violin Concertos (Friedman & Perlman), R&J excerpts and the Lieutenant Kijé Suite. That is more (from Sony) than can be said about the Ormandy-Prokofiev (who recorded 5 symphonies). The Gergiev/Mariinsky cycle on the orchestra’s own label can probably be considered abandoned, for the time being, even if recordings of the remaining symphonies were made. Vadim Jurowski, Petrenko (Vasily, not yet Kyrill, alas), Inkinen, and Sokhiev are working on cycles, it seems; Noseda is, too, but that’s digital-only, for the time being. Previn, spread across two orchestras and labels, has 4/7 of a cycle. Arguably the most significant recordings that never became a cycle are those of (and I don’t say this often) Riccardo Muti’s with the Philadelphia Orchestra. He’s got the best-ever Third to his name, bookended by a superb combo of the stalwarts, One and Five. Shame that didn’t get any further.
What makes a good cycle is going to be different for everyone; it is, as we know, a mix of objective aspects and subjective responses. But there is also some common sense in approaching a set: A first-and-only set to satisfy one’s Prokofiev-itch will have to do a different kind of lifting than a fifth set. And yes, a recommended set should be able to do everything well. Still, realistically, if you are thinking of getting a complete set of these symphonies, it would not be unrealistic to assume that you are a bit of a collector with previous Prokofiev-exposure. And as such, it’s almost certain that you have a (perhaps favorite) recording of No.1 and probably also one of No.5. And even if you do not, those are easy to add to the collection. As such, I happen to think that if a cycle has its weak spots precisely on one or two of those symphonies, that’s not a deal breaker, that’s the most easily excusable place to have one. After all, a Prokofiev symphony cycle set is most probably gotten to fill in the gaps with the lesser recorded works and therefore needs to make strong arguments for those symphonies that need to have the strongest arguments made for them.
A word on the versions: There are two versions of the Fourth Symphony and of the Seventh Symphony, if “version” is the right term in the latter case. The Seventh (despite being written “specifically for children”) originally ended (despite the finale being titled and beginning “vivace”) on a rather desolate note, a skeptical stream of musical consciousness on the bell-theme of the first movement that slowly fades away. Then, shortly before his death, Prokofiev decided to tack on a happy-end to the work. There are competing stories that try to explain the new ending. Was it because of criticism, when the quiet ending was condemned after the symphony’s premiere under Samuil Samosud? Rostropovich and a few others have suggested that the Samosud suggested that Prokofiev end the movement “vivace”, by using the principal theme of the finale as that would probably win him a first rather than a second-class Stalin Prize, which meant an extra 25,000 rubles. (The stories, as told, vary as to what the amount is and which prize the symphony might have otherwise won – but it’s told often enough.) Similarly, it has been suggested that Prokofiev changed his mind and confessed to preferring the original ending.
The difference is actually close to nil; these 25 seconds of “Yay” tacked on – almost like a joke: as if that little disconnected coda could possibly change the mood of the preceding music – make no darn difference. If you like the Seventh (I do), it works just fine either way. It is, in any case, up to the conductor. Many conductors profess to prefer the original ending but most (though usually not the Russians!) offer the alternate ending, playing the bright add-on. Sometimes that is set off by adding a new track for it, so that one could just skip it (relatively) easily. I mark the sets below with a smiley and/or frowny face, to indicate the endings. In essence, if you have the happy end, you also have the frowny end; if I do include the frowny face and a smiley, that means that the ending has a separate track or that the entire finale is recorded twice (Litton, for example). (But once more: It simply does not matter.)
With the Fourth Symphony, the differences between the earlier and later version were significant enough for Prokofiev assign it a new opus number: Opus 47 (1930) thus became Opus 112 (1947). Generally, it is the latter version that is being preferred by conductors but again, some sets (Neeme Järvi, Gaffigan, Gergiev, Kitajenko, Karabits) contain both and a few only the earlier version (Martinon, Rostropovich). Prokofiev added a few instruments (most notably Piano, more colorful percussion, and the harp), added a lot of material to bolster its breadth, width, and length. Ultimately, he set out to give the work more appeal, either with the politicians, the public, or probably both, wanting to “rehabilitate a defective but worthy score by adjusting it to the standards and practices consolidated in the Fifth and Sixth [Symphonies]”. I'll note the opus numbers below, to indicate which version was used. (Prokofiev was also going to revise wholesale his unsuccessful Second Symphony. He had even picked out a new opus number for it, “136”, but then never go around to it. Had he lived, he might have begun to rival Bruckner in causing Edition-confusion.)
General housekeeping: I am sitting on the data for several new discographic entries under work. Ring cycles, Mahler, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven symphony cycles, Mozart Piano Concerto and String Quartet-cycles, Mendelssohn String Quartet cycles, and DSCH-Prelude & Fugue recordings. They take an awful lot of time to research, however, and even more time to put into html-presentable shape. Even then they are rarely complete or mistake-free. Neither will this one be, and every such post is also a plea to generously inclined readers with more information and knowledge of the subject than I have to lend a helping hand correcting my mistakes or filling data-lacunae.
I am explicitly grateful for any such pointers, hinters, and corrections and apologize for any bloomers. (Preferably on Twitter, where I'll read the comment much sooner than here, but either works!) Unlike some of my earliest discographies, this one does intend to be comprehensive. I am therefore especially grateful when I get sets that I have missed (such ones that have only ever appeared on LP, for example) pointed out to me. I have not listened to all the recordings above, but most of them and favorites are indicated with the "ionarts choice" graphic. Ditto recommended cycles by ClassicsToday/David Hurwitz or, if the fancy strikes me so, Gramophone. Links to reputable reviews are included where I thought of it and could find any. With hundreds of links in this document, there are, despite my best efforts, bound to be some that are broken or misplaced; I am glad about every correction that comes my way re. those, too.
Enjoy and leave a comment in some form!
Edits
04.04.2026 This survey is pretty much done; at least as far as the complete cycles are concerned. I will still add incomplete and ongoing cycles below but don't feel like that's urgent enough to keep this survey unpublished for however long it would take me. In any case, these are the non-cycles I am thinking of adding: Ashkenazy I, Jurowski, Petrenko, Inkinen, Sokhiev, Noseda, Previn, Welser-Möst (assuming they are really ongoning cycles and will find some physical manifestation. [I'm looking at you, Noseda!] And I might boycot Welser-Möst for coming in an idiotic shape.
(Survey begins after the break, if you didn't land on this page directly)
Gennady Rozhdestvensky
(1965*-1967)
Moscow Radio [Large] Symphony OrchestraMelodiya
(112, 🙁)
Gennady Rozhdestvensky was the first one to tackle a Prokofiev Symphony cycle, starting the endeavour about a decade after the composer had passed away on the same day as Stalin. Rozhdestvensky was well suited to the task, having known Prokofiev's work intimately. (He premiered the revision of the Fourth Symphony, op.112, which is the version included in this set). The set was available on LPs alright, in the USSR, of course, and in France and Germany (Chant du Monde/Eurodisc). But their moment on CD was blink-and-you-will-miss-it short, with two remastered issues from Melodiya (MEL CD 10 01797) briefly available in 2011 and 2014. The first four symphonies can still be found with reasonable ease on an older Melodiya/BGM twofer. One might also find old single-disc releases on Consonance. The 2006 licensed version (with the VC1 & 5 PCs) has the helpfup small print on the back: "This excellent disc which has historical value was made from the original master tape in the best condition as of today. Please understand that dropouts, distortion, nosie, pop, and flutter of this disc were caused by the original master tape." Given the current political situation (2026), fat chance of that seeing re-issue any time soon, but one can hope. (Symphony No.2 may have been recorded in 1962; data seems conflicting on that one.)
ClassicalNet review
ClassicalNet review
Jean Martinon
(1971)
Orchestre national de l'ORTFVox/Turabout
(47, 😀)
Jean Martinon was a pioneer of Prokofiev in the West but forgotten as such when the CD age hit, which made him the go-to guy for all matters Debussy and Ravel, which were always readily available (until now)
He recorded some Prokofiev (Symphonies 5 & 7, to be precise; also available on Testament) for Decca/RCA Living Stereo in ‘57 and then the complete cycle, with the Orchestre national de l'ORTF (now just the “Orchestre National de France”) for Vox/Turnabout. In 1971, the best analogue sound recordings could be as good as anything one might wish for – this is not one of them. The whole project has a rough-and-tumble element about them, a bit unkempt, but full of heart. It certainly doesn’t hurt in the wilder of the symphonies; the Parisian Antheil-esque industrial chic of his Second (which can be read as a parody of the Second Viennese School) rather benefits from it, I would argue. If Martinon introduces a rather light, airy French touch to these works, that’s only appropriate at least for the middle symphonies, composed while his home was Paris – even if the Fourth was composed mainly in the United States, making the most of his train travels on tour as a pianist. Still, this set is old and hasn’t got that vague ’authenticity-factor’ going for it, that Rozhdestvensky (unavailable though his set might be) has. It’s probably fair to say that this is neither bad nor, in today’s market, competitive as a first or even third set – though still valuable for the insatiable Prokofivian!
Walter Weller
(1974-1978)
London Philharmonic, London Symphony OrchestraDecca
The underrated Viennese Walter Weller started his career as a concertmaster of the Vienna Philharmonic before becoming a conductor of very good second-tier orchestras all over Europe. His career reached its high points in Britain, however, with MD posts at the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (in London), and the Scottish National Orchestra (also “Royal” now) held between 1977 and 1997, while frequently recording with the City of Birmingham Orchestra, London Philharmonic, and LSO. It was with the latter two orchestras that he recorded the first major cycle of these symphonies for Decca (1, 5 & 7 are with the LSO) which became an oxymoronically ‘unhailed classic’.
It’s certainly a fabulously well recorded cycle (mostly under Kenneth Wilkinson at Kingsway Hall), which helps its reputation, to the extent it has one… and there might be some parallels to Haitink’s Shostakovich cycle on Decca, which was the first major label DSCH-cycle to appear in the West, also in terrific sound, also with the occasional suggestion that it somehow wasn’t “Russian enough”. At the time, many of the less popular symphonies were not widely recorded (Weller made what was then only the second-ever recording of the revised Fourth) and as such it was easy to stand out with new, “best” performances of them. That kind of reputation, once attained, sticks. And still, some of the praise this set gets even by genuinely impressed listeners can sound a bit faint, even patronizing.
This set was also re-issued by Brilliant Classics, once in a jewel case (2009) and a clamshell box (2012; both with the same cover). And, although I personally dislike catch-all box-sets intensly, you can obviously also find these symphonies in the 2025 Eloquence Classics "Walter Weller: Decca Legacy" set.
It’s certainly a fabulously well recorded cycle (mostly under Kenneth Wilkinson at Kingsway Hall), which helps its reputation, to the extent it has one… and there might be some parallels to Haitink’s Shostakovich cycle on Decca, which was the first major label DSCH-cycle to appear in the West, also in terrific sound, also with the occasional suggestion that it somehow wasn’t “Russian enough”. At the time, many of the less popular symphonies were not widely recorded (Weller made what was then only the second-ever recording of the revised Fourth) and as such it was easy to stand out with new, “best” performances of them. That kind of reputation, once attained, sticks. And still, some of the praise this set gets even by genuinely impressed listeners can sound a bit faint, even patronizing.
This set was also re-issued by Brilliant Classics, once in a jewel case (2009) and a clamshell box (2012; both with the same cover). And, although I personally dislike catch-all box-sets intensly, you can obviously also find these symphonies in the 2025 Eloquence Classics "Walter Weller: Decca Legacy" set.
Zdeněk Košler
(1976-1982)
Czech Philharmonic OrchestraSupraphon
For being the fourth cycle ever recorded, Zdeněk Košler’s really has flown under the radar! Recorded in the late seventies and early eighties, it was hidden behind the iron curtain on Supraphon LPs and records of the Gramofonový Klub before making its first, completely unhailed appearance on disc in 1995, when distribution of Supraphon in the West was still spotty, at best. A remastered, very pretty looking clam-shell box set re-issue in 2012 (now with the Scythian Suite from 1973 added), however, got it some belated attention – and rightly so, after all, this is the Czech Phil performing the symphonies of Prokofiev in the Rudolfinum! And although, as we shall see, famous orchestras performing this music is hardly a guarantee of a great result, that’s still something. Also, Zdeněk Košler, while very much in the shadow of many of his more famous Czech conductor-colleagues (Ančerl, Bělohlávek, Kubelik, Neumann, Talich, maybe even Turnovský, Šejna, Mácal and Válek), might be known to Shostakovich-lovers for his incredible Ninth!
In any case, the recorded sound is not the greatest, the orchestral sound largely is. The performances are not the most cohesive but then again, the symphonies aren’t either. There’s nothing bad about this cycle and some aspects are excellent. The opening jumble of the Second Symphony is superbly caught by the Czech brass; the Wagner-allusions in the Largo of the Sixth come out really nicely; the performance of the Seventh reminds me of that DSCH9! The rest does not, as far as that undefinable quality goes, grab me by the lapels, much as I would love to love it. Still, it does have its fans that rate this above all others. MusicWeb review; Hurwitz likes it as a supplemental set, being generally positive about it.
In any case, the recorded sound is not the greatest, the orchestral sound largely is. The performances are not the most cohesive but then again, the symphonies aren’t either. There’s nothing bad about this cycle and some aspects are excellent. The opening jumble of the Second Symphony is superbly caught by the Czech brass; the Wagner-allusions in the Largo of the Sixth come out really nicely; the performance of the Seventh reminds me of that DSCH9! The rest does not, as far as that undefinable quality goes, grab me by the lapels, much as I would love to love it. Still, it does have its fans that rate this above all others. MusicWeb review; Hurwitz likes it as a supplemental set, being generally positive about it.
Neeme Järvi
(1984-1985)
Royal Scottish National OrchestraDecca
This is a bloody brilliant, great sounding set that’s (almost) universally loved and offers both versions of the Fourth Symphony. What more could you possibly want? Exactly.
Of course, there will be those who claim that somehow this is a “non-starter” – but that’s a strange opinion that smacks of being different for being different’s sake. Elsewhere, the fever-pitched tone of excitement has come down a bit in the subsequent decades: “As a Prokofiev interpreter Neeme Järvi is among the best. The wide-open spaces conjured by the Chandos sound team can’t quite disguise the weak string tone and there are some awkward corners in the playing. Nevertheless this remains an attractive, well annotated option at its new price.” (Gramophone’s David Gutman in a review of either Kitajenko’s or Gergiev’s set; hard to tell which one.) Let’s just quote my own review from MusicWeb:
The recorded sound is great, the Scottish National Orchestra plays like a world class band, and the symphonies don’t just have bite - or that pensive beauty as in the case of the marvelous, charming, sweeping Järvi Seventh – they are [each] coherent and unified structures. Like Gergiev, Järvi includes the original version of the Fourth Symphony (concise, restrained) as well as the revised version (epic, sprawling-impressive), and both get first rate performances. Without resorting to exaggeration, Järvi gives the spiky works a beauty I’d never heard or even expected. At the same time, he doesn’t let a brutal work like the Third fall victim to harmlessness. There’s still blood on the floor when Järvi is finished with it, ... All in all, this is not only a set to complete your Prokofiev collection, it’s also the one to start it - if you haven’t yet.It also made my ionarts Best Recordings of 2008 list. Classical.net review. ClassicsToday review (paywalled).
Mstislav Rostropovich
(1985-1987)
Orchestra National de FranceErato/Warner
It might be one of the strikes against Rostropovich’s set that it came on the heels of the Järvi set which had been praised so widely. Nor will it have helped that his reputation as a conductor was, despite some really terrific recordings that he made, rightly sketchy. (See In Memoriam: Hearing Mstislav Rostropovich.) This lengthy excerpt from the original, 1988 (?) Gramophone review by Edward Seckerson, will give you a taste of why the set was never considered a frontrunner.
I have largely stayed away from Rostropovich as a conductor myself, but there was no denying that if and when he was highly invested in the music, he could get orchestras to perform the heck out of the music and create vivid greatness. Shostakovich sometimes, and Prokofiev quite often, actually. His recordings of the Violin Concertos with Vengerov (No.1 & No.2) and the Third Piano Concerto with Pletnev are absolute corkers. The set of symphonies, though, never had anything like those recording’s reputation.
But when I finally, not that long ago, picked up a set in a what-the-heck spirit of curiosity – and put the CDs in the player, one after another, I found myself shockingly well entertained: Symphonies 2, 4.1, 4.2 (he includes both), 5, and 7 (pace Gramophone) are absolutely top-notch performances. No lumbering that I found, but appropriately varyingly characterized, and with plenty of edge. I will re-listen before long and maybe reconsider, but until then, darnit, I will give this an ionarts-recommendation.
The set has been issued a number of times and for some of the earlier versions there are multiple entries on Amazon; I’ve provided alternative links where I found them. The “Prokofiev 50th Anniversary Edition” (same remastering as the latest box) has the best liner notes by far.
When the Fourth [op.47] and Seventh Symphonies appeared independently last year, RL was none too enamoured, neither was I. Rostropovich dwelt fondly, rather too fondly, on and around the Seventh Symphony’s dreamier flights of fancy. Speeds were leisurely, even listless, transitions sometimes awkward, rhythms surprisingly sluggish; though he did at least insist (and few do) on the original quiet ending of the Seventh—wistful, ambiguous; 'they lived happily ever after...'—or did they? That in itself gave him one firm advantage—the only one—over Jarvi's outstanding Chandos account…On could think that the notorious pro-British bias of the magazine didn’t help the French/Russian team to fare better, when compared to the English/Scottish/Järvi release, but it’s a detailed enough review to take seriously. And Cummings (Classical.net, no dedicated review) also thinks it’s “inferior”, although even he thinks his (Slava’s) Second is good stuff.
[Is] the Seventh is typical of Rostropovich's approach in general[?] To some extent, yes. There is a tendency to linger and labour (the Classical Symphony is extraordinarily heavy-handed); and even where the speeds are more or less consistent with, say, Jarvi’s choices, Rostropovich usually sounds slower. It’s a question of movement, of accentuation. [On] occasions one inevitably begins to question his technical ability (as a conductor) to convey all that he undoubtedly feels about these pieces. In the darkest of the symphonies—the forbidding Sixth—tension is certainly sacrificed to breadth. The enormous first movement may brood effectively enough, the melancholy runs deep, episode for episode. But the cumulative impact, particularly as we approach the climax of the development… is not all that it should be. Likewise the contrast between slow movement and finale…
To be fair, Erato’s spacious recorded image—as deep as it is wide but a little too ‘generalized’ for my liking—doesn’t exactly help in matters of rhythmic profile and internal clarity. If one turns to… the Third Symphony where textures are consistently dense and fantastical, the problem grows more troublesome by the bar. In the finale…, Prokofiev’s great washes of sound are imposing… but none too well defined. Even the strings—and in particular the violins… are pitted against heavy wind and percussion—sound oddly recessed. …Rostropovich’s grasp of outline and rhythm here could always be tighter: he fails to clinch the orgiastic first movement climax by making so little of Prokofiev's electrifying change of gear; the slow movement wafts and meanders, lacking the sensual potency of a performance like Jarvi's; tension ebbs in the grisly scherzo.
[The] most accomplished among these performances are those of the Second and Fifth Symphonies. … The woodwind voices [in the Fifth] are definitely better projected; the strings sound fuller and marginally more immediate. I might single out the first movement’s climactic processional with low brass and heavy percussion weighing-in to thrilling effect: all the more effective for the sense of purpose and cogency that Rostropovich achieves in this movement—indeed the whole symphony. Tempos are of a middlerange variety (first movement not far off Jarvi’s speed: broader than Jansons/Chandos or Karajan/DG but well short of Bernstein’s all-time record for CBS), languor is for the most part kept well in check (though, as one might expect, he does indulge his cellos in their extended solo at the opening of the finale); the quirkiness of scherzo and finale (some very piquant woodwind contributions oboe especially) is keenly observed. I don't know of anybody who has made the final bars of the symphony sound quite so dottily eccentric.
No less striking in its way is the relentless ‘iron and steel’ of the Second Symphony’s first movement. Prokofiev sought to pull the rug from beneath our feet with his ferocious opening bars; Rostropovich duly obliges. The strident French National trumpets come ruthlessly into their own, here, and for some 12 minutes there is very little let-up. The dissonance is properly uncomfortable. I have heard more colourful and gripping accounts of the undeniably problematic second movement: theme and variations. But then again, I don't ever recall it sounding so dark or so grimly unsettling as it does here: shades of black and grey, and very effective too.
Like Jarvi, Rostropovich offers both versions of the ‘Prodigal Son’ Fourth Symphony… … [This] is far too variable a cycle to recommend as a cycle. Particularly with Jarvi’s set there to shadow it.
I have largely stayed away from Rostropovich as a conductor myself, but there was no denying that if and when he was highly invested in the music, he could get orchestras to perform the heck out of the music and create vivid greatness. Shostakovich sometimes, and Prokofiev quite often, actually. His recordings of the Violin Concertos with Vengerov (No.1 & No.2) and the Third Piano Concerto with Pletnev are absolute corkers. The set of symphonies, though, never had anything like those recording’s reputation.
But when I finally, not that long ago, picked up a set in a what-the-heck spirit of curiosity – and put the CDs in the player, one after another, I found myself shockingly well entertained: Symphonies 2, 4.1, 4.2 (he includes both), 5, and 7 (pace Gramophone) are absolutely top-notch performances. No lumbering that I found, but appropriately varyingly characterized, and with plenty of edge. I will re-listen before long and maybe reconsider, but until then, darnit, I will give this an ionarts-recommendation.
The set has been issued a number of times and for some of the earlier versions there are multiple entries on Amazon; I’ve provided alternative links where I found them. The “Prokofiev 50th Anniversary Edition” (same remastering as the latest box) has the best liner notes by far.
Seiji Ozawa
(1989-1995)
Berlin PhilharmonicDeutsche Grammophon
This was supposed to be the Reference set of Prokofiev Symphonies: On Deutsche Grammophon (when that still meant something), with Seiji Ozawa (arguably at the height of his career, when he was said to be in the running for succeeding Karajan, who resigned in April of 1989, three months before his death) at the helm of that very orchestra, certainly then deemed the best in the world. Alas, that’s not how it came to be, on either front. In October that year, Abbado was announced as the next MD. And the Prokofiev set fell flat on its face, panned by critics. (Incidentally, the set seems to be to Prokofiev what Haitink’s set is to Ralph Vaughan Williams: Completely dismissed by many and thoroughly loved by a very convinced minority.)
The Penguin Guide gave it a rare one (!) star. David Hurwitz has been partly responsible for setting the tone about this set being “lousy”, full of indifferent, lightweight performances, devoid of any impact. It’s a strong take, as is his wont (and it has only gotten stronger over times since his review on ClassicsToday) – and it’s hard to deny that there seems to be some classical cruising going on – and often very slow cruising, at that. Gramophone is in agreement here, calling it “consistently bland” while praising the sonics. (Gramophone Review) For a more positive, if hardly gushing take, read Robert Cummings’s review on Classical.net…
I have not spent much time with this set (similarly scared off the bad reviews) – but the time I did spend with it suggests that it really is a proper curate’s egg: “Parts of it are excellent!” The first two movements of the Fourth (op.112) absolutely have marvelous drive. The slow movement of the Sixth doesn’t brush out the Parsifal elements as much as others but equally had thrust and flow that sound very good to these ears. The Fifth is, if anything, brisk. The Third underpowered. At the same time, there is no denying that Ozawa, wherever possible, focuses on the beauty of theses scores [half a miracle it is still such a good Second, actually.] Best probably to check it out for yourself, if interested and not afraid of getting too deeply in the Prokofian mire.
The Penguin Guide gave it a rare one (!) star. David Hurwitz has been partly responsible for setting the tone about this set being “lousy”, full of indifferent, lightweight performances, devoid of any impact. It’s a strong take, as is his wont (and it has only gotten stronger over times since his review on ClassicsToday) – and it’s hard to deny that there seems to be some classical cruising going on – and often very slow cruising, at that. Gramophone is in agreement here, calling it “consistently bland” while praising the sonics. (Gramophone Review) For a more positive, if hardly gushing take, read Robert Cummings’s review on Classical.net…
I have not spent much time with this set (similarly scared off the bad reviews) – but the time I did spend with it suggests that it really is a proper curate’s egg: “Parts of it are excellent!” The first two movements of the Fourth (op.112) absolutely have marvelous drive. The slow movement of the Sixth doesn’t brush out the Parsifal elements as much as others but equally had thrust and flow that sound very good to these ears. The Fifth is, if anything, brisk. The Third underpowered. At the same time, there is no denying that Ozawa, wherever possible, focuses on the beauty of theses scores [half a miracle it is still such a good Second, actually.] Best probably to check it out for yourself, if interested and not afraid of getting too deeply in the Prokofian mire.
Theodore Kuchar
(1985-1987)
National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine Naxos
Theodore Kuchar is to Prokofiev what Adrian Leaper is to Nielsen and Arthur Fagen to Martinů; maybe even Bakels/Daniels to Vaughan Williams: Cycles from the mid-early days of Naxos that were dismissed on account of ‘lesser’ orchestras and the cheapo-label with the dour looks and clumsy design and layout… and which have come to be dark-horse competitors, good enough to take on the strongest of competitions.
Some of that status comes from the fact that it is fun for critics to point to the assumed weakling that the orthodoxy would dismiss – and declare it superb, thus bolstering one’s reputation as a confident, daring truth-teller. Sometimes having a good relationship with Naxos also helps. But these re-bendings of the narrative are usually not completely devoid of any mooring in reality. Same here; Kuchar’s Prokofiev really does pack a punch and is sensitive to the symphonies’ various needs. And no one can accuse it of being “unidiomatic” (as with the Martinů cycle), because the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine (or, before 1994, “Ukrainian State Symphony Orchestra” may be directed by the American Kuchar, but it’s, of course, playing the music of a native son of Ukraine, Prokofiev.
Quick aside: Orchestral names change and are transliterated and can be confusing. Well, don’t confuse the NSOU, founded in 1918, of which Kuchar has been Principal Guest conductor since 1992, Principal Conductor since ’94, Conductor Laureate for Life since 2000, with, say, the young (1995) Academic Symphony Orchestra of the National Philharmonic of Ukraine (of which Kuchar is the principal conductor) or the National Philharmonic of Ukraine (which is the building itself), or the storied Lviv National Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of which the principal (guest) conductor since 2020/22 is… you guessed it, Theodore Kuchar.
The set is in good, nicely reverberant sound, the orchestra offers gnarly brass and strident strings (a good thing that, for the most part), in all the lively bits there’s an ‘always-on-the-go’ kind of energy that helps these works a lot. Hair-raising Fourth (op.112). Available only on single discs (the white box is hopelessly out of print) and therefore actually one of the more expensive sets, unless acquired used. (But it would be the sort of thing that turns up in a charity shop or used CD haven.)
Classical.net: Wild praise for No.2. Praise for No.5. Almost as enthusiastic about the 6th (which I really like). But then, I might add, Cummings, to whose reviews (also on MusicWeb) I shall link a good deal more below, seems to love one Prokofiev recording better than the next, everything being “among the very best”, each “challenging [his previous favorite account] of this [or that] symphony.” Makes one want to scream: “Stop loving everything!” and wish for a ‘dash of Hurwitz’. Except Dave loves this set, too, and presumably not just because it’s on Naxos.
(I am including an alternative coupling of the popular First & Fifth, simply because it is out there, and the Sinfonia Concertante just to get to an even eight CD covers.)
Some of that status comes from the fact that it is fun for critics to point to the assumed weakling that the orthodoxy would dismiss – and declare it superb, thus bolstering one’s reputation as a confident, daring truth-teller. Sometimes having a good relationship with Naxos also helps. But these re-bendings of the narrative are usually not completely devoid of any mooring in reality. Same here; Kuchar’s Prokofiev really does pack a punch and is sensitive to the symphonies’ various needs. And no one can accuse it of being “unidiomatic” (as with the Martinů cycle), because the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine (or, before 1994, “Ukrainian State Symphony Orchestra” may be directed by the American Kuchar, but it’s, of course, playing the music of a native son of Ukraine, Prokofiev.
Quick aside: Orchestral names change and are transliterated and can be confusing. Well, don’t confuse the NSOU, founded in 1918, of which Kuchar has been Principal Guest conductor since 1992, Principal Conductor since ’94, Conductor Laureate for Life since 2000, with, say, the young (1995) Academic Symphony Orchestra of the National Philharmonic of Ukraine (of which Kuchar is the principal conductor) or the National Philharmonic of Ukraine (which is the building itself), or the storied Lviv National Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of which the principal (guest) conductor since 2020/22 is… you guessed it, Theodore Kuchar.
The set is in good, nicely reverberant sound, the orchestra offers gnarly brass and strident strings (a good thing that, for the most part), in all the lively bits there’s an ‘always-on-the-go’ kind of energy that helps these works a lot. Hair-raising Fourth (op.112). Available only on single discs (the white box is hopelessly out of print) and therefore actually one of the more expensive sets, unless acquired used. (But it would be the sort of thing that turns up in a charity shop or used CD haven.)
Classical.net: Wild praise for No.2. Praise for No.5. Almost as enthusiastic about the 6th (which I really like). But then, I might add, Cummings, to whose reviews (also on MusicWeb) I shall link a good deal more below, seems to love one Prokofiev recording better than the next, everything being “among the very best”, each “challenging [his previous favorite account] of this [or that] symphony.” Makes one want to scream: “Stop loving everything!” and wish for a ‘dash of Hurwitz’. Except Dave loves this set, too, and presumably not just because it’s on Naxos.
(I am including an alternative coupling of the popular First & Fifth, simply because it is out there, and the Sinfonia Concertante just to get to an even eight CD covers.)
Valery Gergiev
(2004)
London Symphony OrchestraPhilips/Decca
When Gergiev’s set came on the scene, it was a big deal. He was hot, at the time. His Philips contract (though near its end, as it turned out) had brought out some scorching releases and were sporting a cool, stone-gray look. His appointment with the LSO was not far away. That he would choose the LSO and not his newly rebranded Mariinsky Orchestra was a matter of prestige and a statement. He was the Russian conductor at the time and his Prokofiev would be an authoritative statement. Well, kind-of.
For all [of Prokofiev’s] protean variety [his is] an idiom that responds well… to Valery Gergiev’s extrovert, sometimes brusque approach. If that sounds like criticism, I should say at once that the new performances of the Second, Sixth and Seventh are probably the finest on CD. While the Third packs a supercharged punch, it may be found too raw and driven for its subtleties to register. The familiar “Classical” gets the most destabilising treatment with a stodgy opening movement and a whirlwind finale. The cycle was taped live during Gergiev’s Barbican series in May 2004 and emerges now… in Philips livery. Given the venue’s acoustic problems, sound-quality is better than one dared hope – bold, immediate and lacking only the last ounce of depth and allure… Whatever the difficulties, the players deliver the goods with a hefty, if not overly refined, sonority... We do get both editions of the Fourth… Any sense of disappointment there may be associated with the music’s relative poverty of invention, though there is more charm in the material than the conducting allows. Swallowed whole as it must be, the set nonetheless confirms Gergiev as Prokofiev’s most ardent contemporary advocate. The visceral thrust and passion of the LSO's playing knocks the likes of Ozawa’s Berlin Philharmonic into a cocked hat. Strongly recommended. (Gramophone, David Gutman)If you are not any the wiser for this tentatively positive review, try the one on ClassicsToday: you won’t get much more out of it; Dave hedges, for once. My own take at the time was this: “While the recent Gergiev cycle was, of course; much hailed as a whole, I found it curiously unsatisfactory. Something didn’t seem right, even if the grittier approach, compared to Ozawa, certainly benefited Symphonies Three or Six, which are very fine with the brooding, sloppy Russian maestro. The sound is good, but not great and too dry, the playing very good, but not outstanding. Almost all the symphonies have great moments, but none has an unbroken arch. The Seventh lacks pensive beauty.” I have refreshed my memory some, through the Naxos Music Library, but admittedly not listened to this set from CDs (or in its entirety, in a long time.) Some symphonies, like the Sixth, are widely considered to be absolutely superb – but generally the response to this set has been postiive while muted… not entirely unlike mine. Except from Cummings: “Overall, he must be judged the best among the cyclists.” (Of course.)
Dmitri Kitayenko (Kitajenko)
(2005 - 2007)
Gürzenich Orchestra CologneCapriccio
Dmitri Georgijewitsch Kitayenko (often transliterated the German way as “Kitayenko” or sometimes as “Kitaenko – there hasn’t been a consensus in the romanization of his name – which makes googling him tricky) is a bit like Walter Weller: Well-known but not famous. Weller has the advantage of having been around longer. But unlike Weller, Kitayenko had an advantage with me: He’s the conductor of one of my all-time-favorite recordings! Also, he has a well-regarded Shostakovich cycle to his name. Sonically, it is – or certainly was, when it came out – considered the new reference. Generalizations (so hard with these symphonies) leave Kitayenko on the broad-but-powerful side of the spectrum.
There’s a hard-to-parse Gramophone review that characterizes Kitaenko’s Prokofiev as “ever lucid, [seeing] him as a primarily elegiac figure with a very particular sound world.” I have no idea what that actually means, but the review also states that “most listeners’ choice will rest between Gergiev and Kitaenko”, suggesting it to be a top recommendation, even over Järvi [gasp] who is judged to occupy a middle approach between Kitayenko’s and the “smash-and-grab overstatement” Gergiev.
There’s a hard-to-parse Gramophone review that characterizes Kitaenko’s Prokofiev as “ever lucid, [seeing] him as a primarily elegiac figure with a very particular sound world.” I have no idea what that actually means, but the review also states that “most listeners’ choice will rest between Gergiev and Kitaenko”, suggesting it to be a top recommendation, even over Järvi [gasp] who is judged to occupy a middle approach between Kitayenko’s and the “smash-and-grab overstatement” Gergiev.
The Kitaenko cycle proves not so much controversial as simply divided in the response to it. Mind you: not as to sound quality. Sonically speaking it’s ahead of the competition with the orchestra exceptionally well prepared [in] an acoustically wonderful hall. I just wasn’t sure what to make of the conductor’s consistently broad and lyrical approach… And review of the 6th with Litton remarks, for example, that the former “lacks that last ounce of power one hears in Kitayenko's account on Capriccio”. But interpretatively. Here is another excerpt from the Gramophone review:I am, of course, contractually obliged to love all Capriccio product. And yet I don’t love this set. I should probably go back and give it a more proper listening, to find that the fault has been mine all along. Until then I tend to agree with Hurwitz who finds the set “good, not very exciting, restrained and elegant”. Maybe it was the mood I was in while listening to Kitayenko. In any case, are some reviewers whose mood was right when they listened: Donald Vroon in the American Record Guide concluded his review thus: “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.” And Robert Cummings over at Classical.net loves that set above all:
[Kitaenko’s] Classical Symphony works better than Gergiev’s, comparably relaxed, even ponderous in the Larghetto, yet with a more consistent treatment of the finale. [In the Fifth], Kitaenko [remains] a little pale. In the Sixth he is the more literal guide but his restraint does not extend to the passage in which the music collapses in on itself, evoking one of Prokofiev’s hypertensive episodes with horns painfully wheezing over irregular low pizzicato heartbeats. As with Järvi and Rostropovich, the overall structure is paced so that the central slow movement emerges as the work’s longest and biggest. Kitaenko also obeys… the a tempo injunction at fig 60. Hence there is no final grimace such as you find with Järvi or Gergiev.
The performances are all convincing and, in some cases, among the finest ever given. There are [hardly any] weak moments… in a set that must overall be ranked as the finest set of Prokofiev symphonies available. Urgently recommended!The MusicWeb review gushes, too, and at some length, for whatever that is worth. It is probably worth a consideration (and no more a gamble than trusting me with Rostropovich!) as a second or third set.
Vladimir Ashkenazy
(2009)
Sydney SymphonyCapriccio
Here comes Vladimir Ashkenazy. Promising, because Ashkenazy’s Prokofiev is really good, generally speaking. There are the piano concertos with Previn and the LSO, for example (here, here, here, or here), which upon closer inspection I found having had taken for granted for too long, when really, they’re top notch! His Cleveland-Cinderella has always been the Belle of the ball, his R&J terrific, and his 1967 recordings of Sonatas 7 & 8 is a classic… Oh, and he recorded four of the seven symphonies amazingly well with the LSO, RCO, and especially Cleveland Orchestra. So clearly, bring on the complete symphonies, at last!?
Well, these live and session recordings from the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House, made in November of 2009, on Exton, don’t seem to cut the mustard. Hurwitz opined succinctly: “Second rate and drab”, going on to complain about substandard orchestral playing and bad sound. Spot-listening (it can be found in the Naxos Music Library!) has indeed found it to be rather indifferently played. That pushes it off my “damn-the-reviews-I’ve-got-to-find-out-for-myself-by-having-it-physically” list which, you wouldn’t believe, is quite long… Pity. Still, you may want to know: He gives us the revised Fourth and, surprisingly, the 18 seconds of Happy Ending for the Seventh.
Well, these live and session recordings from the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House, made in November of 2009, on Exton, don’t seem to cut the mustard. Hurwitz opined succinctly: “Second rate and drab”, going on to complain about substandard orchestral playing and bad sound. Spot-listening (it can be found in the Naxos Music Library!) has indeed found it to be rather indifferently played. That pushes it off my “damn-the-reviews-I’ve-got-to-find-out-for-myself-by-having-it-physically” list which, you wouldn’t believe, is quite long… Pity. Still, you may want to know: He gives us the revised Fourth and, surprisingly, the 18 seconds of Happy Ending for the Seventh.
Kirill Karabits
(2013-2015)
Bournemouth Symphony OrchestraOnyx
Every Prokofiev cycle seems to fly under the radar a bit – perhaps because Prokofiev’s popularity as a composer is wildly selective. We really love the four or five works we know and cherish – but when it comes to the rest of the stuff, we don’t care that much. And by “that much”, I mean “at all”. A bit like Franz Liszt, really, who is world-famous on the back of about three compositions that actually get programmed in the concert hall.
And, because there’s no money to be made with Prokofiev, these newer sets are often issued and then left dangling: no follow-up with a neat little box: only individual issues partially out of print. Frustrating – if perhaps only to three, four people out there, one of whom would be me.
Kirill Karabits’ cycle on Onyx falls into this category, alas. That’s kind of a pity, because it’s as complete and lovingly made a cycle as you can find. Not only does the Ukrainian-born conductor (and son of the very fine composer Ivan Karabyts!) provide both op.47 and op.112, in his set (spread over four individual CDs), he also includes the Sinfonietta op.48, Dreams op.6, the Autumnal Sketch op.8, the alternative finale of the Seventh tracked separately, and an early, prepubescent symphonic sketch from 1902 (all three minutes of it)!
Robert Cummings, as per usual, loves this set – but in his defense, he makes his enthusiasm sound rather compelling at times (here, here, and here). If you want to douse this “Huzzah!” with an ample helping of Debbie Downer, Hurwitz (in his only review, of 4.1/5) provides you with it: “yet another underwhelming Prokofiev Fifth… The composer deserves better.” MusicWeb has reviewed each volume several times. These reviews are, unurprisingly, not all equally enlightening. Here are the useful ones, which are by John Quinn: 1/2, 3/7, 4.1/5, and 4.2/6.
The gist, however, is one of admiration bordering enthusiasm. David Gutman reviewed a few releases warmly for Gramophone; the Guardian’s review manages to say nothing about the actual performances of 3/7 – but hands out five encouraging stars! Finally, Charles reviewed the first volume right here on ionarts.
Harking back: Unlike love-it-all-Cummings’ enthusiasm for Gergiev II or Alsop, which rings hollow when compared to the actual recordings, listening to the recordings of Karabits support his optimism. At every turn, they reveal some very compelling music-making that I shouldn’t mind marinating in a bit longer. Too bad it’s unlikely ever to be re-issued in physical form (barring it from any meaningful recommendation) – though I will update this survey, of course, if it is.
And, because there’s no money to be made with Prokofiev, these newer sets are often issued and then left dangling: no follow-up with a neat little box: only individual issues partially out of print. Frustrating – if perhaps only to three, four people out there, one of whom would be me.
Kirill Karabits’ cycle on Onyx falls into this category, alas. That’s kind of a pity, because it’s as complete and lovingly made a cycle as you can find. Not only does the Ukrainian-born conductor (and son of the very fine composer Ivan Karabyts!) provide both op.47 and op.112, in his set (spread over four individual CDs), he also includes the Sinfonietta op.48, Dreams op.6, the Autumnal Sketch op.8, the alternative finale of the Seventh tracked separately, and an early, prepubescent symphonic sketch from 1902 (all three minutes of it)!
Robert Cummings, as per usual, loves this set – but in his defense, he makes his enthusiasm sound rather compelling at times (here, here, and here). If you want to douse this “Huzzah!” with an ample helping of Debbie Downer, Hurwitz (in his only review, of 4.1/5) provides you with it: “yet another underwhelming Prokofiev Fifth… The composer deserves better.” MusicWeb has reviewed each volume several times. These reviews are, unurprisingly, not all equally enlightening. Here are the useful ones, which are by John Quinn: 1/2, 3/7, 4.1/5, and 4.2/6.
The gist, however, is one of admiration bordering enthusiasm. David Gutman reviewed a few releases warmly for Gramophone; the Guardian’s review manages to say nothing about the actual performances of 3/7 – but hands out five encouraging stars! Finally, Charles reviewed the first volume right here on ionarts.
Harking back: Unlike love-it-all-Cummings’ enthusiasm for Gergiev II or Alsop, which rings hollow when compared to the actual recordings, listening to the recordings of Karabits support his optimism. At every turn, they reveal some very compelling music-making that I shouldn’t mind marinating in a bit longer. Too bad it’s unlikely ever to be re-issued in physical form (barring it from any meaningful recommendation) – though I will update this survey, of course, if it is.
Marin Alsop
(2013-2015)
São Paulo State Symphony OrchestraNaxos
By a quirk of fate, Marin Alsop, who served as Principal Conductor of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra (2002-2008), was making a cycle of the Prokofiev symphonies in São Paulo at the same time that her successor in Bournemouth, Kirill Karabits (2009-2023), was recording the symphonies in Bournemouth. They are nicely boxed and in print; Naxos, of course, is good about that sort of thing and they’re doing right by their star conductor.
That said, I find these performances, on balance, slack, placid, and uninvolved (terms one can read in other reviews of these performances, even when they are generally trying to be positive) and whatever excitement there is seems oddly self-serving or self-contained. It’s hard to put my finger on it – perhaps because this set (and it’s not the only Alsop recording where that seems to be the case) is eye-wateringly middle-of-the-road. It’s not even properly bad and there is nothing that someone else doesn’t do better at any point of any of these symphonies, even where they might achieve less consistency. But what’s the point of consistency if you are consistently almost bored?
If you’re still thinking about this set, for some reason, here’s some more info and a few reviews for your consideration: Alsop’s set on 6 (!) CDs comes with all manner of fillers: Dreams, Scythian Suite, Autumnal Sketch, Prodigal Son, The Year 1941, Waltz Suite, Lieutenant Kijé Suite, and two inexplicably miniscule excerpts from the 3-Oranges Suite. She does not, however, offer us the op.47 version of Symphony No.4 – but we get the ‘happy ending’ of the Seventh as an added track.
ClassicsToday: 1/2 (9/9), 3 (9/9), 4.2 (9/9), 5 (7/7), 6 (7/8), 7 (7/7).
The response on MusicWeb/JQ was polite, at best; here are some reviews: No.5, No.6, and No.7. The few micro-reviews in the Guardian felt compelled to award three out of five stars.
That said, I find these performances, on balance, slack, placid, and uninvolved (terms one can read in other reviews of these performances, even when they are generally trying to be positive) and whatever excitement there is seems oddly self-serving or self-contained. It’s hard to put my finger on it – perhaps because this set (and it’s not the only Alsop recording where that seems to be the case) is eye-wateringly middle-of-the-road. It’s not even properly bad and there is nothing that someone else doesn’t do better at any point of any of these symphonies, even where they might achieve less consistency. But what’s the point of consistency if you are consistently almost bored?
If you’re still thinking about this set, for some reason, here’s some more info and a few reviews for your consideration: Alsop’s set on 6 (!) CDs comes with all manner of fillers: Dreams, Scythian Suite, Autumnal Sketch, Prodigal Son, The Year 1941, Waltz Suite, Lieutenant Kijé Suite, and two inexplicably miniscule excerpts from the 3-Oranges Suite. She does not, however, offer us the op.47 version of Symphony No.4 – but we get the ‘happy ending’ of the Seventh as an added track.
ClassicsToday: 1/2 (9/9), 3 (9/9), 4.2 (9/9), 5 (7/7), 6 (7/8), 7 (7/7).
The response on MusicWeb/JQ was polite, at best; here are some reviews: No.5, No.6, and No.7. The few micro-reviews in the Guardian felt compelled to award three out of five stars.
James Gaffigan
(2012-2016)
Radio Filharmonisch Orkest / Netherlands Radio Philharmonic OrchestraChallenge
This Dutch production of the Radio Filharmonisch Orkest was issued by Challenge Classics, on four individual SACDs, one of which is already out of print. There are no plans to box this, so unless either the orchestra or the conductor would care to foot that bill, that's not going to happen. Almost a shame, because it’s good playing and good conducting from youngish American James Gaffigan that’s on display here. Yes, the market for complete Prokofiev Symphony Cycles is probably tiny: Realistically, you could plan to sell what, maybe 150 copies of this? With another 50 copies distributed for promotional purposes and some for the warehouse. Hard to justify a print-run of 1000 for that. Unless you think of it as an expensive business card for the select few who would be astonished to hear that this combo delivers a much more freely flowing, gripping Sixth Symphony than the highly praised competition from Litton/Bergen. Or a finer, leanly-muscular Seventh. Bonus points if you know where this quote about this cycle comes from: “…can effectively rival any of the other four recent cycles.” Gramophone bemoans “the poised, somewhat cautious music-making eschew[ing] Soviet-era rawness… reluctan[ce] to take interpretative risks” – but the review itself is rather lukewarm and noncommittal. If it were available, and assuming that the discs I have not heard were roughly as good as the ones I have heard, this would be a contender for a top recommendation. As such, it’s merely a pointer that these versions might be worth seeking out or tuning in to if you are in the mood for (streaming) some Prokofiev.
Valery Gergiev (Video)
(2016)
Mariinsky Theatre OrchestraArthaus Musik
I’m in the CD business, not the DVD business, and I have little (actually: zero) time for classical music on DVD, except – in very rare instances – opera. But completism demands I include this set, which Gergiev and his Mariinsky forces pulled off over the course of a day or so, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of Prokofiev’s birthday: All the symphonies, all the piano concertos (Kozhukin, Matsuev, Trifonov, Redkin, Kholodenko), the violin concertos (Kavakos, Baráti), the Nevsky, Seven, they are Seven, and October Revolution Cantatas, Ivan the Terrible, the Cello Concerto, and the Scythian Suite! Only the early version of the Fourth Symphony is missing – and “missing” probably isn’t quite the right word, in that case, anyway. John Cumming reviewed it for MWeb, so you know what’s coming: He’s loving it!. Availability seems a bit spotty, in any case, and of course Gergiev is persona non grata currently. Not entirely unreasonably, I suppose, even if it sure as heck will not make me stop listening to those recordings of his, that are actually superb. (And there are a few.)
Andrew Litton
(2012-2017)
Bergen PhilharmonicBIS
Litton and his Bergen Orchestra (MD from 2003 to 2015) have recorded more Prokofiev than just the symphonies – and his recording of all three (!) Romeo and Juliet Suites (op.64bis, op.64ter, and op. 101 – but performed with all their individual bits as one large Suite instead of three distinct ones) – is included in the symphony SACD box set. His recordings of the Cello Concerto and Symphony Concerto op.125 (with Alban Gerhardt) and the Piano Concertos 2 and 3 (with Freddy Kempf) are not. Litton includes (only) the op.112 version of the Fourth, and the happy ending is tracked separately. (Just because it’s a neat enough coincidence: With Litton, we have the third (former) music director of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra – he was there from 1988 to 1994 – to record a cycle of these symphonies around the same time.)
Reviews are generally positive – arguably among the most positive that any modern cycle has received. Certainly, the enthusiastic ones are really enthusiastic! To my ears, the more temperate responses ring true, certainly when checked against my own listening to what I’ve found to be very fine if short-of-enthralling interpretations. This statement I read in a comment – “as good as Litton is, I find his Prokofiev a little too laid back, mellow, and beautiful in the wrong way” – struck me particularly. The fabled Bergen string section and fabulous recorded sound certainly work in these performances’ favor.
In any case, if you want to read for yourself, there are (mostly) raves from Dave Hurwitz (Nos.1–3 (10/10), No.5 (7/9), No.6 (9/9), No.4.2 & 7 (10/10), and the set on YouTube). In the end, Järvi is still Dave’s primary pick, though. Robert Cummings is as effusive as ever, to the point of total pointlessness. MusicWeb’s John Quinn is impressed, too, while Dan Morgan shows a little more reticence but likes the Fifth after deeming the Sixth a dud: (Nos.1–3 (JQ), Nos.4.2 & 7 (JQ), No.5 (DM + JQ & BR). Gutman in Gramophone was generally positive, if a little more reserved. I keep going back to this cycle, awaiting just that little bit more than I’ve been getting from it so far. What I do get, however, is superior to Alsop in just about every way, and unlike so many unlovingly treated, semi-abandoned cycles on other labels, BIS has laudably given this a very nice box and all the individual discs are still in print.
Reviews are generally positive – arguably among the most positive that any modern cycle has received. Certainly, the enthusiastic ones are really enthusiastic! To my ears, the more temperate responses ring true, certainly when checked against my own listening to what I’ve found to be very fine if short-of-enthralling interpretations. This statement I read in a comment – “as good as Litton is, I find his Prokofiev a little too laid back, mellow, and beautiful in the wrong way” – struck me particularly. The fabled Bergen string section and fabulous recorded sound certainly work in these performances’ favor.
In any case, if you want to read for yourself, there are (mostly) raves from Dave Hurwitz (Nos.1–3 (10/10), No.5 (7/9), No.6 (9/9), No.4.2 & 7 (10/10), and the set on YouTube). In the end, Järvi is still Dave’s primary pick, though. Robert Cummings is as effusive as ever, to the point of total pointlessness. MusicWeb’s John Quinn is impressed, too, while Dan Morgan shows a little more reticence but likes the Fifth after deeming the Sixth a dud: (Nos.1–3 (JQ), Nos.4.2 & 7 (JQ), No.5 (DM + JQ & BR). Gutman in Gramophone was generally positive, if a little more reserved. I keep going back to this cycle, awaiting just that little bit more than I’ve been getting from it so far. What I do get, however, is superior to Alsop in just about every way, and unlike so many unlovingly treated, semi-abandoned cycles on other labels, BIS has laudably given this a very nice box and all the individual discs are still in print.
Compilation Cycles
Warner Collector’s Edition
(N/A)
VariousBIS
Warner’s “Prokofiev Collector’s Edition” is a 36-CD set that contains many goodies and a few baffling lacunae. Peter and the Wolf in six languages, including Dutch… But why skip the first string quartet? The Violin Sonatas with a young Vadim Repin/Boris Berezovsky duo and the solo sonata with Frank Peter Zimmermann. Previn’s Romeo & Juliet, Rostropovich’s War and Peace and Nagano’s French Love for Three Oranges (but without libretti). Two versions of the Cello Sonata (Rostropovich/Mørk) and 7th Piano Sonata (Orosco/François). But the violin concertos only with Perlman and Oistrakh (classics: fair enough) and not also with Vengerov. Uh well. We’re here for the symphonies and those are Rostropovich’s (2-6), bookended by Previn (1 & 7) with the LSO. If that seems a little odd or uninspired, it’s worth remembering how few Prokofiev symphonies are in the combined EMI/warner (Virgin/Erato) catalogue. What were they going to do, include Celibidache’s First and Simon Rattle’s Fifth? But presumably someone sufficiently into Prokofiev to get this box is also proficiently enough into the symphonies to get multiple recordings of favorites… so it may not matter much, anyway.
Incomplete and Ongoing Cycles
Eugene Ormandy
(1953-61)
VariousCBS/Sony
Ormandy’s Prokofiev has been a classic for over half a century and remains a popular pick for No.1 and a bit of an insider’s choice for No.4 (op.112). But he’s recorded Nos. 5, 6, and 7 as well – all with his Phillies. So how is it possible, that Sony Classical has never managed to put all his Prokofiev (Symphonies) in one bloody box? Not even the “complete” (ha!) Philadelphia Box has them all. Well, there is one set that did just that, but that comes from Sony Japan and is somewhat out of print. Although that’s not satisfactory at all, for an immediate fix, the Naxos Music Library can help, having all five performances available.
Erich Leinsdorf
(1953-61)
VariousCBS/Sony
If I said (way above) that Erich Leinsdorf’s Boston set might be the most important of the incomplete Prokofiev cycles, then that’s arguably because it includes the five piano concertos with John Browning (as well as the Violin Concertos with Friedman & Perlman, R&J excerpts and the Lieutenant Kijé Suite), and not soooo much because of the symphony recordings (2, 3, 5, 6; also available on Testament). Still, it’s a very fine compilation of Prokofiev in one place and worth hearing.
Dmitri Kitayenko I
(1985-89)
Moscow Philharmonic OrchestraMelodiya
The Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra was Kirill Kondrashin’s Orchestra for 15 years (1960–1975). Less famously, they went on to be led by Dmitri Kitayenko for just about as long, from 1976–1990. During that time Kitayenko seems to have started something that looked like it was supposed to be a Prokofiev cycle, recording symphonies One through Five. If you look at the recording dates (1985 to 1989), you know what happened. Same as Flor’s Martinů cycle: History got in the way. I know nothing about the recordings/performances but if I find anything out, I will add it here.
Valery Gergiev II
(2012-15)
Mariinsky Theater OrchestraMariinsky Live
This looked very much like another All-Prokofiev All-Symphonies/All-Concertos Cycle from Gergiev ecorded mostly during the Moscow Easter Festival – for their own Mariinsky Live label. Except of course the label was closely tied together with the LSO Live label and then the war happened… so that would have nixed that. He got to Nos. 4 through 7, at least, garnished with three piano concertos on two SACD releases. Promising, certainly, but I never noticed much listening to them and I haven’t, after reading the few reviews as part of the research for this survey, felt the mood to go back and spend much time on that. If I come to an opinion, one way or the other, or find a review that reads plausible and well argued, I’ll add it here, of course.
Must-Have Recordings
This is a new little addition, perhaps because most people might not feel the need or want for one or more complete Prokofiev cycles. Well, at least consider these recordings then. I will add to them, if and when I become utterly convinced by something. But in order to be included, the performance REALLY must knock it out of the park, not just based on memory but also after-re-listening. Also: It must not be part of any of the above complete cycles. We will start with the one that is most obvious to me: Muti's Third, coupled with an excellent First, recorded in Memorial Hall, in late 1990, early 1991. Ormandy 1 might be a candidate, maybe Levine 5 or Dutoit 6... we will see.
fine.
Follow @ClassicalCritic
No comments:
Post a Comment