A pretty useless review of Nézet-Séguin’s Mendelssohn Symphony Box

Spoiler alert

Yes, again no post in 2 weeks, but I assume you don’t want to hear my lame excuses (too much work, family, etc.).

So let me start with a spoiler alert (actually, a bit late given that the title already gives it away), this will be a relatively useless review. I’ll actually be writing only about 2 out of 5 symphonies, and you won’t even get a proper review, just a very subjective “I like it, but”, with out getting any more specific.

Mendelssohn

I haven’t written that much about Mendelssohn yet. And this is not because I don’t like the composer, to the contrary. I adore his Lieder ohne Worte  (Song without Words), and have written about them here.

I also very much like his violin concerto, and have mentioned Janine Jansen’s recording among my 25 Essential Classical albums.

But I haven’t really written about his symphonies yet. Why is that? Well, for once, I really only like symphonies 3 and 4, the Scottish and the Italian. No. 1 and 2 never touched me, and the reformation was with the exception of certain elements also not really my cup of tea.

Furthermore, I have yet to find my preferred set of these two. I still often go back to Christoph von Dohnanyi’s or Claudio Abbado’s old recordings.

I was very hopeful for the recent approach of Heras-Casado with the Freiburgers, but again, wasn’t convinced.

Therefore, I obviously immediately had to check out a new version by Yannick Nézet-Séguin with the COE.

Mendelssohn: The Symphonies – Yannick Nézet-Séguin – Chanber Orchestra of Europe (DG 2017)

Mendelssohn: Symphonies No. 1-5 - Yannick Nézet-Séguin - Chamber Orchestra of Europe - RIAS Kammerchor - Deutsche Grammophon 24/96

It is no secret, I generally like Nézet-Séguin, the dynamic Canadian, and especially so with the COE. Be it for his Cosi Fan Tutte or for example his great Rachmaninov recoring with Daniel Trifonov.

Some critics say he has too many orchestras, having been involved with the COE, the Philadelphia, and the Rotterdam, to just name some, but he still is one of the most promising conductors of our time.

So, after this long intro, what about his Mendelssohn?

As mentioned above, I’m not too familiar with Symphonies 1, 2, and 5, and will leave the judgment to others.

But for 3 and 4, I do have an opinion. I can simply say, after at least 4-5 listenings, this is a 4 star recording to me. Lots of energy, punch at the right places, enough darkness in the Scottish, enough lightness in the Italian (but with a twist).

So what is wrong, why not 5 stars? And here is again where I get useless. There is something missing, but I simply cannot put my finger on it. This will be a version that I’ll go to again many times, but will it be my reference? Probably not.

But then again, as mentioned above, I really don’t have a reference yet. Maybe the seemingly accessible symphonies 3 and 4 have some dirty secret, that just make them impossible to master. I’ll keep looking.

I’m curious what the professional reviewers will be saying (at the time of writing, I haven’t seen any reviews out there yet).

In the meantime, check out this recording. You won’t be disappointed, I promise, in spite of my rather useless review.

My rating: 4 stars

YOu can find it here (Qobuz) and here (Prestoclassical)

Author: Musicophile

I'm not a professional musician, I don't work in the music industry, I'm just what the name says, somebody who loves music. I've been in love with music for all of my life, took piano lessons for nearly 10 years, and played in several amateur Jazz groups. I go to concerts, both classical and Jazz, quite regularly. And I collect music previously on vinyl and CDs, now on my computer, and am slightly OCD on my music collection. You can reach me at Musicophile1(AT)gmail.com

2 thoughts on “A pretty useless review of Nézet-Séguin’s Mendelssohn Symphony Box”

  1. Ok, to begin with I disagree with the fact that your title says “a pretty useless review”. I really think you underestimate your reviews in general. I have read some “professional” newspaper reviews where the reviewer only says in a paragraph about the history of a work (thanks, but I can look it up on Wikipedia myself!) and then adds a couple of lines saying “played magnificently by X orchestra”.

    Having said that, I find your review is much more honest in saying that there is something missing. I have only recently reviewed another Mendelssohn disc on my site. The reason I avoided reviewing the Seguin set is because I like Yannick Nézet-Séguin so much that I found his Mendelssohn set really disappointing and didn’t feel right giving him 4/5 stars myself. As for why, the reason is simple for me: I found it to be a routine, lifeless performance of all 5 symphonies. All notes played correctly with utter precision — but is that really what makes a good performance? I do feel his Scottish is not atmospheric enough, his Italian doesn’t dance, the Reformation has seen much more vital recordings.And I think the recorded sound is a bit too flat for these works.

    I’m also curious to see what other reviewers say, but I will not be surprised if I read glowing reviews.

    Like

    1. Thanks for your kind words. As you can see from my review, I’m not as critical as you are about this new Mendelssohn set. But I like your comment about “routine”. Indeed there is sometimes a little bit of a surprise element lacking.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s