Classical Music for Aficionados

Glad you enjoyed it, rvpiano.  Fantastic score by one of the great American composers.  Recorded at NYC’s “Manhattan Center”.  NY Philharmonic/ Gustavo Dudamel cond.  Please forgive a bit of self promotion; the saxophone solos are by yours truly. 

Beautiful tune and beautifully played by Ungar. As to whether it is “Classical” or not, while I’m not sure where exactly the genre dividing line can be drawn, it should be remembered that quite a few Classical composers have incorporated the folk music of their native lands in their works. Antonio Dvorak, Bela Bartok, Zoltan Kodaly, Manuel DeFalla, Ralph Vaughn Williams and in the USA, Aaron Copland of course, to name a few.

As to Ashokan, I know the area well. Beautiful area in upstate NY. Every time I drive by I marvel at how the water that comes out of my tap in NYC comes from a reservoir 130 miles away.

Melm, I don’t disagree with you re Ashokan Farewell at all; that was not the thrust of my comments.  Where we may disagree, in part, is over the ultimate “importance of distinguishing” between genres, particularly when the distinction is based upon things such as technical ease of playing, simplicity of harmony, number of accidentals, etc; all characteristics which in fact can be found in some Classical works.  Those things are not what necessarily define a genre.  Btw, here are some violin works clearly in a Classical style played entirely in first position that may be of interest to you:

https://www.laurelthomsen.com/Violin_Geek_Blog/Entries/2020/9/6_First_Position_Beginning_Violin_Concerto_Repertoire.html

Melm, you miss the point. Moreover, why the need to be so heavy handed? As I said, I don’t disagree with you about Ashokan. No desire to argue, but the particulars of your “argument” leave something (much) to be desired.

On the subjects of Leonard Bernstein (West Side Story), young music students, and “what is Classical music?”.  From a great (American) musical mind:

 

 

 

Many wonderful recommendations; thanks to all. I would like to recommend the music of some less known composers and some unusual works.

A very broad historical perspective can be very rewarding and puts the music in better context, imo. The compositional evolution of the music throughout its various historical periods can be fascinating. As such, I would like to recommend a recording of the music of one of the most intriguing composers of the Renaissance period, Carlo Gesualdo. His personal life was marked by notoriety and scandal. His music was incredibly ahead of its time with the use of dissonance and chromaticism in a way that would not become commonplace for at least two hundred years. I Iove his madrigals; Book 6 in particular. Two favorite recordings:

Kassiopeia Quintet /Globe Records:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j2HbQsUIBQI

Concerto Italiano/Alliance Records:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_F1OuMeVSw

Moving ahead almost three hundred years. One of my favorite composers, this time from the late Romantic period, Alexander Glazunov. His Violin Concerto is a favorite. Although the RCA recording by Jascha Heifetz is probably the most popular, my favorite is by the great Nathan Milstein with the Pittsburgh Symphony on EMI:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HOFt7QZ61LI

Another composer whose vocal music I really like is the Hungarian composer Zoltan Kodaly. This recording of the Girls Choir Of Budapest on Angel Records (EMI) is, as far as I know, available only on original lp, but is worth finding and copies should be available. It also includes choral works by Bela Bartok:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMjZQWdi0Bg

Speaking of Bartok. His string quartets are described by some as “difficult” music; of course, that is entirely relative. His Quartet No.3 is a good place to start for anyone unfamiliar with his unusual harmonic language. This recording by the Kasacs Qt. on Decca is excellent:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pAu0WROpq-g

John Adams is my favorite of contemporary “Minimalist” composers. IMO, his music is in an entirely different category compared to the more well known Phillip Glass. This recording on Nonesuch Records of his chamber work “Road Movies” for violin and piano is typical Adams with emphasis on rhythmic impetus and the influence of other genres including jazz and bluegrass.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8rBUvtBfeMnGlQdvmA0K0vmXmADXwM9P

The OP mentions one my favorite works, Rachmaninov’s “Symphonic Dances”. Also one of my favorite records from the standpoint of sound. Fantastically natural timbres that remind me of the best of the Decca recordings (but a little “juicier”) which as much as one can generalize about recorded sound of different labels are my favorites. Pretty good performance overall; but, imo, kind of lackluster as far as individual solo performances are concerned; especially the woodwinds (the beautiful saxophone solo is borderline embarrassing in the intonation department). This version on Reference Recordings with Eiji Oue conducting the Minnesota Orchestra is my favorite:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CCVnO6tbYEM

Thanks for the great thread and Happy (and Musical) Holidays to all!

Gorgeous playing.  Thanks.

Was listening to this other great Brahms sonata just last night.  Dedicated to Richard Muhlfeld whose playing inspired and caused Brahms to come out of “retirement”: 

 

Celibidache “Adagio”:  Very fine indeed and different, as you say.  I can’t add to mahgister’s excellent comments.  Thank you, had not heard that.

One word, globalization.  This has led to a certain standardization of approaches to playing as opposed to in the past when there was more emphasis (acceptance) on a more personal approach.  The same can be said of soloists on any instrument, not just violin and piano.  On a “larger” scale the result of this globalization can be clearly heard in the major orchestras whose previously very distinctive personalities have become somewhat homogenized due to the phenomenon of the prevalence of the traveling guest conductor and, even more recently, principal players from different parts of the world who are the product of different “schools” and their respective approaches.

Btw, on the wonderful Milstein/Horowitz Brahms clip, I think that rv’s astute observation re tuning is, more than anything, a result of pitch instability in the playback of the recording.  Obvious with the piano’s sound which doesn’t have the more forgiving “cushion” of the violin’s vibrato.  
 

 

Can’t think of a better Op.57.  Appassionata, indeed.  I welcome other opinions.  

https://youtu.be/ACB2a7dOHmU

 

Lovely “Meditation” by Perlman. Meditation of a different kind:

 

I agree re Perlman.  Certainly a great player, but hard to match the restrained sophistication of expression of Milstein.  For instance, his glissandi are, in fact, a little “thick”.  His Glazunov “Meditation” is beautiful, but FOR ME, when he makes a glissando from one note to the other he accentuates the glissando a little much with the effect of sounding dangerously close to the overly dramatic.  With Milstein the glissando doesn’t draw attention to itself and away from the melodic line.  

 

 

Merry Christmas to all!

On the subject of practicing:

No question that disciplined practicing elevates one’s playing no matter what stage of one’s development as a musician is at. It is a life (career) long pursuit. To a great artist, there really is no such thing as perfection and while we may attribute perfection to favorite artists, they themselves would be the first to recognize (if not necessarily point out) the imperfections in their own playing. This attitude is really the only path to true greatness.

Having said all that, there are different ways to “practice”. To a certain extent it is a very personal matter and what it takes some players four hours to achieve, someone else might be able to accomplish in one. A very busy artist is concertizing all the time and that half hour of “warm up” in a dressing room before a performance may be all he gets given the very busy schedule. Performance itself helps keep the playing in shape. Developing a personal and extremely efficient practice routine is key. Personal in that it considers the player’s personality and any physical idiosyncrasies or limitations; they all have them to one degree or another.

Some players need and strive for 110% consistency of a particular technical goal during practice. For instance, if there is a particularly brutal fast technical passage in a musical work some strive for accuracy at an even faster tempo with the knowledge that at performance there will most likely be some reduction in the level of accuracy. Conversely, another player may feel that this approach is over practicing and they enjoy the controlled tension that results from aiming for something new during performance as a means of achieving a musical goal for that performance.  Regardless, no player becomes the kind of artist considered here without having practiced a tremendous amount of time at various points in their careers. Of course, in the case of the great artists discussed here this all happens at an extremely high and exalted level with the goal of personal artistic expression; always a reflection of personality. A couple of favorite quotes on the topic:

- ”If you sound great practicing, you are practicing the wrong things”

- “If I don’t practice for one day, my fingers know it. If I don’t practice for two days, my friends know it. If I don’t practice for three days, the public knows it. On the fourth day, the critics hear about it” - Ignacy Paderewski (sometimes attributed to Heifetz, or Louis Armstrong)

 

 

Putting aside the question of whether musicians such as Milstein, or Perlman can be compared to unquestionable geniuses such as Haydn. The very things that drive any particular artist’s personal approach to “practice” in its various forms are also what shape an artist’s musical personality.  It is about more than simply what is sometimes perceived as a reflection of that person’s work ethic.  These are hugely accomplished individuals with often equally huge personalities, musically and otherwise. Artistic expression is an expression of the musician’s personality even when taking a back seat to that of the composer. I have always had trouble with the notion of a “greatest”, or “best”.  Personal favorites?  Of course.  Our own personal preferences (biases) are always a part of the mix of reasons that influence our reactions as listener; enough to always throw into question an attempt at designating a “greatest”.  

Amazing Pavarotti.

As their title makes clear, composed for “practicing”. 😊

pryso, missed your question; sorry about that.

You are exactly right; so that not all the stands of (in this case) violins have to turn the page at the same time.  Notice that the violins with pages 1&2 of the music showing are also on the outside, closest to the audience.  Optics.  

This is the job of the orchestra’s music library.  Photocopying page 2 of the music which is often on the backside of page 1 makes it possible to have both pages visible without having to make a page turn.  Sometimes music publishers don’t pay enough attention to where it makes most sense to put a rest written in the part and the player is forced to make a very quick page turn; sometimes even in the middle of a phrase forcing the player to have to play a measure or two from memory.  

Of course, in any given score not all instruments have the same number of notes to play and while the violins may have two pages of music in the first movement of that concerto (as is the case in this work) a different instrument or section of instruments may have all the music for that movement on just one page.  

Hope this helps and best wishes.

 

It is common to think that the soloist always has the last word. This is not always the case at all. First of all, “Das Lied” is a symphonic poem; the orchestral writing is much more than simply accompaniment for the soloist. Whether the soloist (or listener) likes it or not, the maestro has the last word. Depending on the stature of the soloist, a conductor will be more or less deferential to the soloist’s wishes, whims and limitations. Moreover, this type of disagreement is common in the rehearsal process. In this case, the problem is not only one of differing musical visions. It is not that only she thinks that the music will be better served at a slower tempo. As wonderful as she is, she is clearly having difficulty keeping up with Bernstein’s tempo (her limitation). A smart conductor will recognize this and, when all else fails, will adjust his musical vision for the sake of the music. Otherwise, the end result will be the rhythmic mess that we hear in this example. It would be interesting to hear what the final outcome was. Bernstein was a smart conductor.

Excellent comments and excellent versions of this great work.  Not to disagree with any of them since we all have our favorites and reasons why, but simply food for thought:

While much is sometimes made of the sudden and dramatic dynamic contrasts being indicative or symbolic of the composer’s own personality, I think it is relevant to keep in mind that when Beethoven composed this work, no piano existed that would allow a player to take those contrasts to the extremes that some modern interpretations of the work take them.  Beethoven’s instruments simply did not have the power of a modern Steinway or Bosendorfer.  In that context, some of the choices made in some interpretations sometimes strike me as a bit of dynamic excess.  

I have to agree with Schubert’s comments re Barber. If in strict keeping with the topic of the thread, the foremost American composer. I also agree that there is something wrong with the sound of the Dudamel performance.

There is a lack of appropriate balance between the upper and lower strings; as if the lower strings were recorded more up close than the upper strings. This leads to a reduction of the appropriate relationship between the various voices, with celli and bassi being overly prominent relative to the upper strings; both spatially and volume wise. The orchestra sounds too “concentrated” spatially. Perhaps it is a function of mic placement or mic choice for the respective string sections. I suspect it is that, as well as an over aggressive desire on the part of Dudamel to bring forward the “inner voices”; to the extent that the leading voice almost gets lost at times.

I can forgive the technical problems with the sound, but more importantly, there is a static quality to this interpretation of what, as rvpiano correctly points out, is something very beautiful. I prefer to hear more movement within each phrase and less overt “drama” from the crescendi and the length of the silences between phrases.

For me, this performance, with a more old school recorded sound, gets the balances and pacing right; and the Philadelphia strings sound glorious:

https://youtu.be/ThDIKvee_mY

Btw, Re the comment by Inna about “too many instruments”. I understand the point, but while I don’t necessarily agree, it should be noted that this beautiful work is a version arranged for large string orchestra (by Barber) of the second movement of his String Quartet Op. 11.

https://youtu.be/kxtMe9CPZ9M

Orchestras can be ruthless with a conductor that they don’t like or respect. You are entirely correct. One can pick up on how the orchestra feels about a conductor simply by the way that they welcome the maestro when he walks out unto the stage; and the performance will reflect that. It can be obvious enthusiasm, or just obviously obligatory half smiles. Watch the speed and unanimity (or
lack of) with which the players rise to their feet.  It may be subtle, but always obvious.

**** a soulful poet ****

Precisely.

Poetry and no excess:

https://youtu.be/FjLu0j6mIPQ

Schubert, I own Schnabel’s The Complete Sonatas. If I’m not mistaken, his is the first ever release of the entire cycle. I like the recordings very much. Obviously, a brilliant musician. Actually, I find quiet a few similarities between his and Perahia’s Appassionata. Schnabel’s sense of the architecture of a work is pretty amazing. He did not exaggerate the dynamic contrasts and the climaxes occur in their proper musically logical place. IMO, many players treat the work as a Romantic work when it is squarely in the Classical tradition; hence the frequent, what I refer to as, “excess” of dynamic contrast. This, in spite of the liberties that he took by deviating from classic sonata form.

Thanks for the reminder; it had been a while.

**** Their culture is "how am I doing " , Ours is " how are we doing " .****

Interesting comment coming from a learned professor, but to assume that in music making this is necessarily a “problem” is a mistake, IMO. I assume that he was speaking about the concept of “ensemble”. Yes, in any ensemble small or large, it is important to think as one and feel phrasing as one when necessary....but, not at all times and certainly not at the total expense and subjugation of individuality. Unanimity of musical concept is of paramount importance, but individuality at appropriate times is equally as important; otherwise a performance runs the risk of being very bland. The key to good ensemble playing is knowing when to ask oneself “how am I doing”, and when to ask “how are we doing”. The great ensemble player knows how to strike the right balance between the two.

The comment is particularly interesting because it goes counter to what is one of the main differences in the training of players in Europe vs the US. First, neither European nor American conservatories have a clear advantage nor superiority in all areas of training one over the other. The main problem in the US right now is probably that there too many fine conservatories for the number of jobs available. Importantly, the main difference is that in European conservatories professors tend to overwhelmingly be natives of the country where the conservatory is located. American conservatories have much more diversity in their teaching staff and the various European playing traditions are well represented; and their influence (and others) came together to create the “American” school of playing.  There is no reason that the very relevant idea of the advantages and richness that are the result of diversity should not apply to music making; just as exists bias against it.

As usual, there is danger in generalities. Just one example of the opposite view:

https://nyconcertreview.com/articles/the-european-string-quartet-tradition-in-americathe-henschel-ku...

Sometimes, a double bass. Still other times, piano or a wind; sometimes a third violin. Generally speaking and re nomenclature, whatever the fifth added instrument, that is the type of quintet that it, technically, is referred to as. Schubert’s Quintet D. 956 is, technically speaking, a “cello quintet”.

One of my favorite Quintets. Brahms Clarinet Quintet. The great Harold Wright, clarinet. One of the best examples of what players today may refer to as an “old school” clarinet sound. Light and free, with a lot of “smile” in the tone; as opposed to the much more dense, darker and less flexible approach that is in vogue today. Beautiful player.

https://youtu.be/VK5ycY0vYzg

https://youtu.be/Dn_wzYVhmQg

https://youtu.be/fdLyQPlC_Vs

https://youtu.be/AE9LDwFGN5k

A few days ago, in a comment made partially in response to Schubert’s statement that Samuel Barber was the “foremost American composer”, I wrote that I agreed “if in strict keeping with the subject of this thread”. When I wrote that, I had George Gershwin in mind as contender for the title of “foremost”, with the qualification that he was not, in a strict sense, a Classical composer. Wonderful composer and arguably the greatest American song writer.

“Porgy and Bess” is a wonderful work and a true landmark in many respects and very controversial to say the least. Despite its huge success, many objected (and still do) to the idea of a white man’s notion of what life in the South at the time was like for blacks and that it promulgated racial stereotypes. In fact, to put Gershwin’s grasp (or lack thereof) of the subject in perspective, it should be noted that Gershwin spent a summer (?!) in South Carolina in order to get a sense of the flavor of black life in the South. At the same time many in the black arts community were glad for the fact that the work gave black singers an opportunity to perform on stage in a work on such a grand scale and of that “seriousness”. Gershwin insisted, and his estate still insists, that the cast be all black. The challenge was and still is in finding a large cast that can sing credibly in an operatic style as well as being able to bring a Jazz sensibility to some of the material. As an aside, he used a three saxophone section in his orchestration of the work. As we know, several of the songs have become Jazz standards. Gershwin called his work a “folk opera”.

Why all the above? Therein lies the reason that I have trouble with the Labeque interpretation of the “Porgy and Bess Fantasy (for two pianos)”. Very nice piano playing, but bizarre interpretation of the music. I know the music very well and I almost don’t recognize the music in spots. Too much “affectation”; and way too “precious” and languorous. Dare I say it? Too French. There is no hint of “folk” (Jazz) or Americana anywhere.

I find this rendition to be much truer to Gershwin’s intent; at least, based on how the music is approached the vast majority of the time:

https://youtu.be/uUfF-2JRHUU

Btw, the composer “Aldridge Grainger” is none other than Percy Grainger; Australian born, but citizen of the US and “American” composer by any standard.

More by the great Harold Wright.

One of Schubert’s (the other Schubert ☺️) last works and one of the the most charming chamber works in the literature. IMO, clarinet playing does not get better than this. Soprano Benita Valente is superb. Beautiful example of how to strike the right balance between “how are we doing” and “how am I doing.  Definitive performance by most accounts:

https://youtu.be/_Krrplpuxrw

Terfel is great, no doubt.  I have always liked him.  What do you think of Wright?

Thanks for the clip. Lovely voice. More than I can say about the clarinetist; no poetry in his playing and hesitant phrasing. Unfortunately, for me, this makes the overall performance a case of “how am I doing”, but without “how are we doing”.

Obviously, we all appreciate different qualities in players. I hope you don’t mind some thoughts Re your list of clarinetists. For whatever it may be worth, there is practically universal agreement among players of the instrument in the following regards. In fairness, players of the instrument react to certain aspects of playing that may or may not be priorities for others.

Karl Leister. Very fine player and one of my favorites. If not for his questionable and sometimes imprecise intonation, it would be a toss up for me between he and Wright. Lovely tone and overall musicianship.

Martin Frost. Absolute phenom on the clarinet. Incredible technique and capable of doing things on the instrument previously thought impossible to execute. I think the jury is still out as to how much depth there is in performances of works that don’t require that kind of virtuosity.

Jack Brymer. Fine player, but nothing particularly distinctive about his playing.

Richard Stolzman. Certain charm to his playing, but his playing is thought to be somewhat crass with unusual use of vibrato and unrefined tone. Not well regarded among players.

Here is Leister on Der Hiirt in a fairly well balanced ensemble performance. Still, for me, not on the level of the Wright/Valente. Questionable pitch, but lovely tone.

https://youtu.be/0xCIfvWrsBU

Curious, what did you mean by “slower than the Germans”? Leister actually plays the opening slower than Wright.

Thanks again for the clip.

Thanks for your assessment, Schubert.  Good point re Valente vs Elly.  I’m very biased toward the Marlboro recording being one of the first Wright recordings I heard many years ago while still in HS.  I will post Wright’s Brahms Clarinet sonatas later.  You being a Brahms fan, I think you’ll enjoy them.  

Rok, The “Gran Partita” is indeed magnificent.  One of the greatest works for winds,  Mozart’s genius is all over the work.  Notice the use of two Bassett horns (essentially alto clarinets in F with extended range) bridging the range gap between the clarinets and bassoons.  Wonderful color.  Great 

More from Marlboro:

https://youtu.be/0SPwPgeN-wo

No sweeter tone anywhere:

https://youtu.be/SA9UP23apVE

Brahms/Heifetz:

Excellent recorded sound, but for me the performance feels rushed, too fast.   Heifetz was a fantastic virtuoso, but sometimes sounded as if he used his virtuosity for the sake of showmanship. His earlier recording of this concerto with Serge Koussevitsky and Boston symphony, while not nearly as good recorded sound wise is more musical, taken at more reasonable tempos.  In fact, the performance is more than three minutes slower than the Reiner/Chicago; a good thing, in this case.  

A favorite, warmer and more poetic performance is Nathan Milstein with Philarmonia Orchestra/Anatole Fistoulari.  Of note is the fact that the first movement cadenza is by Milstein himself.  Then again, I can’t think of a Milstein recording that I haven’t liked.

Each string section (1rst violins, 2nd violins, violas, cellos and basses) has a “Principal” (“Concertmaster” in the case of the 1rst violins), an “Associate Principal”, and in some orchestras an “Assistant Principal” in addition to the “Principal” and the “Associate Principal”. In some orchestras a player auditions for and would hold a specific chair in a specific stand (usually two players) in the section and that is where they will always sit.

A very smart alternative method is the revolving seating method. In this method, with the exception of the “Principal” players, who will always sit in the first stand of the section, the other section players will rotate and take turns sitting in the various stands. The rotation can take place for different concerts or for different works within a concert. This allows each player to have an opportunity to sit in closer proximity to the section’s principal (and conductor) and avoids any one player having to sit in the last stand of the section which is sometimes comprised of a single player. There are very real musical advantages to this method.

Another:

Pre 1600 !!!!! Stunning use of chromaticism and dissonance:

https://youtu.be/mR-ylavYCSI

https://youtu.be/qFXrMrp1o60

https://youtu.be/i3JwLnK6Efw

rv, one of my favorite works by Ravel.  Sensuous indeed.  I will check out the Luxembourg, thanks.  Try this one on for size.  The sometimes forgotten Victoria de Los Angeles sounds glorious:

https://youtu.be/BOntupq6yGM

https://youtu.be/Sir3Ap5lbAc

https://youtu.be/lATgEroT4vA

Btw, since on the subject of sound quality and as a point of interest. Here is what I believe is the version from the original master, not the remastered version above. I believe it to be so because I own both versions and I hear the same issues. An example of perhaps needing to not tamper with success and leave well enough alone. The remaster “improves” clarity at the expense of a bit of digititis with a slight thinness in the upper registers and less well integrated vocal sibilants. The original sounds slightly covered up top, but sibilants are well integrated and don’t sound like artifacts; and the performance sounds even more relaxed. We pick our poison.

Neither gets in the way of the fabulous performance.

https://youtu.be/pyeE7zcJkSc

What orchestra is Blomsted conducting? Thanks.  

mahgister, thank you for the wonderful Neuhaus and Pollini clips.  I enjoyed them immensely.  What a great teacher of interpretation Neuhaus was.

“(Play it) a little more worried”, “...as if there is a sigh”

 Wonderful!

Thanks, edcyn (and even); I’ll check it out.  

I assume you refer to the orchestral version?  If so:  

Jean Martinon/Orchestre de Paris.  1975, Angel/EMI.  Vol. 4 of the series “Orchestral Music of Ravel”.  Fantastic performance with excellent sonics.  There’s something about the great French orchestras playing this music that is just right.  
If you refer to the piano version, Robert Casadesus’ recording on Columbia is a must hear.  The sonics (mono) are good, but a bit “dated” by audiophile standards.  Still, amazing playing.  

Fabulous work! One of my very favorite modern works and arguably the most popular composition out of the Second Viennese School. A twelve tone row with strong elements of late Romanticism making the paring with the Beethoven not quite as odd as it may seem at first glance.  The chorale in the Adagio is a thing of beauty.  Of note is the use of alto saxophone in the score for a very interesting color. Very good performance.  Thanks.  My favorite:

https://youtu.be/j-4hIAYwW4k

Hard to argue with the Grumiaux, mahgister. Wonderful playing and luminous tone indeed. Raises the question: was it one of his Guarnieris, the Strad, or the Guadagnini? I wonder what his insurance bill was? 😊

Glad you liked it. It does take some time to “get” serial music. One has to surrender to the different musical language; kind of like post bop Coltrane compared to Prez.  Try his opera “Wozzeck” sometime. Banned by the Nazis as “degenerate art”. Fabulous work.

Now, now. Tough crowd. ☺️

Excellent post!  Beautiful clip as well,  Thank you.

My favorite recording of Prokofiev’s homage to Haydn.  Wonderful performance.  For an orchestra to play with this level of cohesion without a conductor is miraculous.  

Yes, of course, Orpheus is a chamber orchestra. However, in this case……

Note that Prokofiev’s “Classical Symphony” is scored for double winds (two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons), two horns, two trumpets, timpani and strings. They kept the number of strings to a minimum, but otherwise pretty much a full size orchestra by most standards.  

“Romeo and Juliet”. One of my very favorite works and an orchestration tour de force. It features throughout and fairly prominently a tenor saxophone . Unusual for a major orchestral work where typically the use of saxophone, when used at all, is very limited.

An interesting factoid which I think may have significance and goes to the point of your quoted historical “Notes” is the fact Prokofiev borrowed (reused) some of his own music from his “Classical Symphony”for use in the later score of “Romeo”. In a sense, one could say that it ties together the moves from Russia to America and then back to Russia.

Quiz: what is that borrowed music that can be heard in both works? Hint: it is not one of the movements that you posted, but is one of the movements in the link below.

You posted a fine performance, but as far as I’m concerned no one understands this music like the great Russian conductors and great Russian orchestras. This is my favorite recording of “Romeo”:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nbUBb_5tVFMfsoMmxEae3BW1TD3ktdigc

Btw, the link above is highlights from the recording of the complete ballet by Gergiev/Kirov. Couldn’t find the complete on YouTube.

Re “Quiz” 😊:

https://youtu.be/Ckq5e4H-hy8

Sound familiar?:

https://youtu.be/4J93fi_1bQY

**** One could imagine Rachmaninoff himself playing. ****

https://youtu.be/sTUxrPJfpqk

https://youtu.be/lRkTOx2WwTU

https://youtu.be/ZcG-DnGdWRw

https://youtu.be/M8RyWFA7PSY