I wrote, concerning the Rozdezvensky set of Enescu symphonies:

>>I don't know either set. The Olympias are pretty scratchy. I love the
>>Rozdezvensky on Chandos. He plays them hell bent for romantic opulance.

And Christopher Webber replied:

>He does indeed, which is precisely what's wrong with his performances of
>these symphonies. They are not Rachmaninov. Besides Mandeal the results
>sound flabby, overblown and unidiomatic -

I am no expert in Enescu.  At his suggestion, I have bought all three of
the Mandeal recordings and have listened to One and Three so far.  Now I
may change my mind in time and agree with Chris, but at the moment, I find
his assessment of the Rozdestvensky a bit severe--though I can understand
the point.  To me, Rozdestvensky, rather than being flabby, etc., brings
more color and warmth to these works than Mandeal, if at a cost of energy
and thrust.  Great works can bear up under different approaches--imagine
the stylistic extremes applied to Elgar, Bruckner, Mahler and everyone
else.  Enescu's symphonies are great works that can take a more romantic
treatment.  Now maybe someone else could do them romantically with more
drive, but I always have enjoyed the Rozdestvenskys and still do.

The main problem I have with Mandeal is not his conducting, but the
orchestral playing.  It is not bad, but it is not as polished as
Rozdestvensky's BBC Philharmonic.  This I can hear from the first notes.
The Rumanian orchestra is willing and committed, but they simply cannot
produce an orchestral sound to equal that of the BBC orchestra, and a lot
of this music is about sound--at least to me.  Listeners have to weigh
these factors for themselves, but I think these works deserve the best
playing they can get, and that is where the Mandeal recordings come up
short.

One test may be my wife's reaction to both sets.  She too is heavily
influened by playing quality.  Put simply, she found the Arte Nova's
bombastic while she enjoyed Rozdestvensky.

I don't mean to run down Mandeal.  I enjoy his readings, but I keep wishing
for better playing, just as I might come to find that I will want more
energy than Rozdestensky applies.

Meanwhile, I thank Chris for his recommendation of the Sea.  I'm looking
forward to seeing that in the stores.

>not unlike some others, alas,
>amongst this very great Russian conductor's recent efforts for Chandos.

The Nielsen symphonies, perhaps? I just got those and have listened to 2
and 3.  I like them.  But I'd never recommend them blindly.  They are slow,
again playing up the lyrical aspect of the symphonies at the expense of the
energy.  I have several sets, so I can live with this alternative.  It's
enjoyable if you're in the mood for it.  But as one's only Nielsen set? Oh
no.

To another writer, Christopher Webber replied:

>I think you might have heard, and rightly been nonplussed by, the old
>Marco Polo cycle. The new Arte Nova Enescu series is indeed an unmatched
>treasure, and I for one can't wait to hear Mandeal in other repertoire.
>What might he not do with Bax? Well, we can dream ...

I'd like to see him try. But with a better orchestra.

Roger Hecht