STRAVINSKY: Symphony in Three Movements. Symphony of Psalms. Symphony in C.
Berlin Radio Choir; Berlin Philharmonic/Simon Rattle.
EMI 7630 (F) (DDD) TT: 76:39

They shouldn't have bothered. Stravinsky wrote four symphonies, if you don't count the Symphonies of Wind Instruments (and I don't). His first, in E-flat, represented his graduation exam from his study with Rimsky-Korsakov. It's a very Rimskian work, as you might expect, and I find it charming. His next three, pretty much sui generis, don't follow the Central European models, and critics have taken their shots accordingly. The main criticism lies along the lines of the lack of thematic transformation. In Robert Simpson's formulation, Stravinsky's symphonies don't differ in method from his ballets, which basically string together episodes. Nevertheless, these scores exercised great influence on symphonists in the Forties, particularly in the United States. Furthermore, a certain strain of Russian thought -- particularly associated with elements of the kuchka -- always regarded classical symphonic procedures with suspicion. All three of Stravinsky's symphonies show a degree of assurance and clarity that comes only from a master composer.

Robert Simpson's criticism also slights the ballets from Le Sacre on. Of course you get little thematic transformation or motific argument. Yet these works cohere over a long span, the feeling of coherence one gets in symphonies. Undoubtedly not traditional symphonies, they nevertheless lay out fruitful paths. Nielsen and Simpson didn't write traditional symphonies either. I think it fair to say that Stravinsky wrote symphonic ballets and balletic symphonies.

Symphony of Psalms comes from Koussevitzky's legendary commissions marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Boston Symphony. Besides the Stravinsky, this series included Ravel's piano concerto in G, Prokofiev's Fourth Symphony, Roussel's Third, Hanson's Second, Hindemith's Concert Music for Brass and Strings, and Gershwin's Second Rhapsody. Stravinsky's score quickly became a choral classic, and not just of the modern era. It's a unique work, filled with sounds you won't hear anywhere else, not even in other Stravinsky. The opening chord—a sharp cuff—though a pure e-minor, is so spaced and orchestrated that it sounds like it's in no key at all. The double fugue that starts the second movement is at once both complex and expressively clear. The proportions are gorgeous, with a succeeding movement roughly twice the length of its predecessor. But beyond the brilliant workings, we breathe an atmosphere entirely new to sacred music, new and old and oddly ritualistic at the same time, with no attempt to paint pretty pictures of heaven. This work stings, boils with energy, and processes through sacred time.

The Symphony in C comes from a hard period in Stravinsky's life, during which he lost his mother, his first wife, and his daughter all in the same year. He and his surviving children were also treated for tuberculosis. Writers usually argue that the symphony reflects none of the personal strife. To me, however, even before I knew of Stravinsky's life, this has always been a symphony of classical tragedy. From the first, it put me in mind of the Mozart #40 in g. To begin with, despite the title, it often doesn't sound like C-major, but e-minor, and Stravinsky keeps undermining the key of C by "weakly-rooted" chords and a lack of dominant-tonic progressions. Nevertheless, it's certainly the Stravinsky symphony closest to classical models, with a faux-sonata first movement. The sonata structure is there, complete with recapitulation, but, as Simpson points out, the development is really an accumulation of episodes, despite a rather sophisticated variation of motific cells and figures. Stravinsky doesn't make an argument in the usual, Germanic sense. Indeed, he may even mock it here. In a way, it reminds me of a Cubist collage or of a kaleidoscopic pattern, with the same little bits in various parts of the picture. In the symphony, the same pieces show up in all four movements.

Stravinsky assembled the Symphony in Three Movements from various projects around the Forties including an abortive Concerto for Orchestra and music to accompany the film The Song of Bernadette. Stephen Walsh, a leading Stravinsky scholar who provided the liner notes for this release, talks about the similarities between this symphony and The Rite of Spring. To me, the symphony marks a compositional advance on The Rite, particularly in its scoring. The composer no longer feels the need to impress you with his mastery of a super-colossal orchestra, and he sublimates the descriptive impulse into something, again, very much like a symphony. I find as much of the Symphony of Psalms, particularly as it pertains to the use of the orchestral piano in both. For me, Stravinsky revisits the rhythmic ferocity of The Rite, this time in crisper, more incisive colors and gestures. Stravinsky admitted to a programmatic impulse, related to the progress of World War II, particularly as seen in newsreels. The first movement sprang from images of Nazi mechanized warfare, the last movement from images of the Allied armies on their way to victory. The music brims with the thrill of that. In between lies a serene slow movement (the harp replaces the piano). This was going to be Stravinsky's music for a Hollywood movie. It's incredibly beautiful but so far away from what the producers would eventually accept, that you realize Stravinsky simply had no clue about the nature of commercial American films (the studio went with Alfred Newman instead). Frankly, Stravinsky's music would be a tough Hollywood sell even today.

The performances disappoint big-time. This is the Berlin Philharmonic, after all. I thought that Rattle's excitement and the BPO precision would have scored a hit with this music. However, I'd describe their Symphony of Psalms as a hot steaming mess, particularly when the choir enters and bland the rest of the time. In the Symphony in Three Movements, I miss the elemental power of Klemperer on EMI and even Stravinsky on Sony. The Symphony in C fares best, since it seems the best played, but it doesn't strike me as especially insightful. The rhythms are precise, but attacks have nothing behind them. Rattle's BPO trade in power (and each of these scores could alleviate the energy crisis) for an insipid suavity. I've never heard these works played with such serious cluelessness. The hell of it is, the Berlin has done both the later symphonies much better under Boulez (on DGG). I would also recommend Thomas and the London Symphony Orchestra on Sony before Rattle. For the Symphony of Psalms, nobody has beaten Robert Shaw on RCA (as far as I know, never available on CD). Shaw's Telarc remake is good, but not as good. In lieu of Shaw, I'd go with Karel Ancerl on Supraphon, and you get a fine Oedipus Rex as a bonus.

S.G.S. (January 2009)