How bad can it be? After all, the
London Symphony Orchestra and the Philharmonia are two of the great English orchestras. The
LSO is a well-crafted instrument with a virtuoso technique, a buoyant sense of tempo, and crisp, clean colors. The Philharmonia is a finely polished instrument with a warm sonority, a wonderfully blended sound, and deep-grained beauty of tone. Between them, the
LSO and the Philharmonia have been carrying deadbeat conductors for almost a century so how bad could their recordings with
Neeme Järvi of
Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 3 and Symphonic Dances be?
Not all that bad, really, but not all that good either: the
LSO and the Philharmonia do their part, playing with power, passion, and precision, and
Järvi does, well, if not his part, at least as much as he has in him to do. Now, this might not be much --
Järvi can learn a score by holding it to his forehead but his performances rarely go deeper than the forehead -- but at least in these 1987 and 1991 performances,
Järvi is fairly circumspect about imposing his will on the music, that is to say,
Järvi steps back and lets the
LSO and the Philharmonia play the music. But while that's to the good,
Järvi's interpretations, except for a few quirks and eccentricities that constitute his style, are essentially empty and devoid of deeper musical meaning. Compared with the great performances of the past -- the Olympian
Ormandy, the Dionysic
Stokowski, and of course the Apollonian
Rachmaninov --
Järvi's performances are well-played but void of meaning. Chandos' digital sound is big, rich, and warm.