Problematic Tchaikovsky but Amazing Myaskovsky.
341405
When Vadim Repin did his first recording for Philips, he decided to perform an interesting combination; firstly, the eternal
warhorse for every violinist who want to show their abilities, such as the Tchaikovsky's concerto. And then, the curious and
amazingly great Concerto by Myaskovsky. In both cases the accompaniment is by the Kirov Orchestra, under the unpredictable
baton of Valery Gergiev.

This is not Repin's first effort delivering Tchaikovsky, since he recorded it before with Emmanuel Krivine for Erato, with a bit
better results. Repin's approach in both cases is around the same: sharply polished and ultravirtuosistic, but he's not Heifetz,
and Gergiev's accompaniment is a real problem in the first movement, so the results are variable; some really good bravura passages
but some ugly playing in the lyrical ones with some hesitating orchestral playing along the movement, that almost ruins
everything in the very first and heroic orchestral tutti. Things go much better in the Canzonetta, but there's still a lack
in lyricism and sincerity. The best of the work arrives, of course, in the Finale, where soloist, conductor and orchestra deliver
the best in a typical odorously russian and moving performance that ends triumphally a very problematic musical journey.

And now, the real revelation of this CD, that is the Myaskovsky's Concerto. It's been a real shocking experience lo listen this.
It's a great work, plenty of power, mastery, lyricism and originality. It was written in 1938 and premiered in Moscow, the
next year. It is indebted with Tchaikovsky and Glazunov in many ways. Superbly played by Repin, he looks and sounds much more
convincent than he did in Tchaikovsky. He seems to be more confortable and in his element, perhaps because it's a work of much
less competitors. Here we can also appreciate a more concentrate, less erratic and much better judging Gergiev, quite different
from the former performance. The result is an ideal performance of this concerto, a perfect match to any version taken as reference.

The sound quality is also problematic, and definitively not for my taste. In summary, three stars for Tchaikovsky and well
deserved five for Myaskovsky, the highlight in this couple.
4901060
This version of Prince Igor has some fantastic perks, and some drawbacks.  If you are new to this opera, buy the Tchakarov version (Sony, The Russian Opera) first.  Then pick this up, and enjoy its advantages.  If you are a veteran listener, buy this one.

  The key problem with this version is with the singer who plays Igor.  A strong, resonant basso is essential to Russian opera.  In this case, Igor is virtually missing, his voice and interpretations are so weak.  And yet, his character should be key to the opera.  This Igor rushes the tempo and often doesn't take advantage of dramatic moments.  He lacks resonance and depth.  His projection is insufficient.

  Galitsky's basso performance is variable.  He does superbly in his duet with Yaroslavna.  But later, he lacks depth and resonance, and doesn't take advantage of dramatic opportunities.  Sometimes his voice is nasal.

Konchak's vibrato is too rapid, and clouds his voice.  His low notes are weak.

  Igor's son Vladimir has a fine voice, and uses it very expressively.  I'd usually found this character to be bland, but not in this case.

  Konchakovna's voice is occasionally so nasal that it is grating and painful to listen to, especially in her initial solo.  Later, she improves, but her voice is too soft.

Yaroslavna is one of the crowning points of this recording.  She has a truly lovely voice, and is very skilled and expressive.  For veterans of this opera, her performance alone is worth buying this version.

  But there are other reasons to buy it as well.  The chorus is very strong, and has beautiful Slavic pronunciation.  Excellent choirs are essential to Russian opera.  The orchestra gives fresh, exuberant interpretations to the music, although occasionally at too fast a tempo.  The recording quality is excellent.

  I was very intrigued by the new sections of music included in this recording.  Listen to them.  What do you think?

  The altered ending, which became a reiteration of the beginning, worked well for me.  I was never happy with the original ending.

  May I offer a request?  Please, will someone make Ovlur's part into the gem that it is?  I was raised on the Popovich version of Igor, by the Belgrade National Opera Orchestra.  The director made Olvur's part into a piquant, deeply touching moment of light in the darkness of Igor's imprisonment under Konchak.  Every conductor since then has rushed the part and ignored its possibilities.

  Prince Igor is, quite honestly, my favorite piece of music.  It introduced me to the rich, melodious, unique sounds of Russian music.  It is more enticing than Boris Godunov, and is an excellent introduction to Russian opera.
4463818
Gergiev has turned his live Tchaikovsky performances with the Vienna Phil. into something of an event, and it's true that no other Russian conductor, to my knowledge, has recorded with the orchestra in modern times. This SACD hybrid of the Fourth Sym. sounds terrific, even in two-channel stereo, so for impact, naturalness, and detail it goes to the top of my list. It's also wonderful to hear the refined virtuosity of the orchestra. In both respects this is a top-flight recording.

But Gergiev doesn't seem excited by this symphony, and Tchaikovsky, who is primarily about passion and drama, goes a bit flat when the conducting is this restrained. I suppose Gergiev wanted to rescue the work from its warhorse status, but why? Only an inflamed performance will make experienced listeners sit up and take notice. As it is, this interpretation has no flaws, but it has no great insights, either. I would put it in the middle of the pack, which may be good enough for anyone who has surround sound and wants a sonic rush.

P.S. 2013 - I should have mentioned that more exciting Fourths can be had from Karajan, Bernstein, and Monteux, to mention three personal favorites. Among the Russians there are too many choices to count, but the classic Mravinsky set of the last three symphonies on DG would be hard to topple.  One close rival is the Fourth from Vladimir Jurowski and the London Phil. on the orchestra's house label.

Gergiev remade the last three Tchaikovsky symphonies on BluRay video, and the performances have been conveniently pirated on YouTube (I'm surprised that they haven't been withdrawn). In the Fourth he seems more involved than on the Decca-Vienna account, probably because he's leading his own Mariinsky Orch., for whom Tchaikovsky is their Beethoven.
382131
Herbert Von Karajan mastered Tchaikovsky's symphonic form, as this set of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies attest. Karajan conducted the ballet suites to Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty and Nutcracker with great acclaim. I own those concert suites and this recording of the 4th, 5th and 6th symphonies, largely considered Tchaikovsky's most mature and musically powerful orchestral works. Far from being balletic pieces in the guise of symphonies, Karajan delivers the innately Russian fire and visceral qualities to some parts of the music. While the 4th is restrained, stately and somewhat dance-like and purely melodic, the 5th and 6th acquire a Beethovenesque and sometimes even Wagnerian quality. The 5th was a powerful piece of music, and eventhough it's quite long, it is exciting and climatic, and if done right, there is never a dull moment. Karajan is in his element conducting the 5th in particular. I can't describe in words the grandeur, the dramatic thrust and thrill it gives one upon hearing it. Karajan saw more than a romantically tragic figure in Tchaikovsky, he saw a Russian form of Mahler. The music is naked, raw and intense, and never more so than in the Pathetique. This last symphony was Tchaikovsky's Requiem in the form of a symphony. All his angst, his suffering, his crisis and his frustrations were expressed in harsh, intense and brutal music. It is one long cry of pain and a blow that brings death. Death looms large over the whole piece. Tchaikovsky, being the romantic he was, believed in the power of fate and felt his time was up, and that he was cursed for being gay. I'm very sure he felt this way for the music tells us so. Karajan gives the music an additional dimension of humanity and definate passion. The Berlin Philharmonic has never sounded better, and they harmonics and acoustics are great. The string section in particular is providing us with great musical execution. The trumpet, likewise, is terrifying and prophetic. This is probably the greatest rendition of the symphonies commercially available, but I would still consider Antal Dorati, Mariss Jansons and Claudio Abbado's recordings of these last symphonies.
766816
The problem with recordings of the Sonata is that Rubinsteins reading for (originally) the Soria Series exists. Once youve been captivated by his ineffably songful, dramatically well paced and beautifully crafted account, you are spoilt for any lesser performance. There have been many other fine readings, no doubt; and many of them with more satisfying recording technique. But I find it almost impossible to name a competitor who has quite touched the Chopinesque essence in the same degree as Rubinstein, at least in this sonata.
In my estimation, after years of auditioning an endless stream of successors, Demidenko comes very close to matching the spirit of Rubinsteins performance. I am not suggesting that he deliberately set out to do it; just that in his own way he also exhibits a innate feel for the work that has me completely engrossed. His reading is more massive in its climaxes and the sound itself is a considerable improvement on Rubinstein. But the ebb and flow between stormy and reflective, between acerbic and songful episodes is judged to perfection. Demidenko repeats the exposition, which some may find superfluous, others may welcome it. Thats your decision.
However, where Rubinsteins album couples the Sonata No. 2, here we have the 4 Ballades. Regrettably, these performances do not maintain the same high level of inspiration. There is even some perfunctory fingerwork, e.g. in the folk tune of No. 2, where Demidenko seems not to have noticed the undertones of grief; or in the very opening of No. 1, where I miss the aristocratic regret that infuses these early pages. Most of all I was disappointed with the crescendo near the end of No. 4, just before the Coda, which should issue in a really rivetting climax, but Demidenko plays it as if he ran out of breath and the climactic chords sound as if snapped off. These are details, perhaps, that may impair any performance on a particular day. But in a recording such things can be repaired; and since he didnt, he evidently sees their execution in the light as played.
Nevertheless, little gripes in an overall outstanding context. One of the finest Chopin discs in quite a long number of years.
1568554
Those of us of a certain age remember the huge splash the 1972 premiere of Shostakovich's 15th (and last) Symphony made, and those of us in the US were swept off our feet by Ormandy/Philadelphia's recording that came not long after. I was, at the time, struck by the puzzlement of various critics who didn't understand the seeming irrelevance of such things as Shostakovich's quotation of the William Tell Overture or of the Fate motif from Wagner's Ring. It all seemed perfectly clear to me and to those of us who not so long previously had come to terms with the sardonic side of Mahler and of his obvious acolyte, Shostakovich. This use of trivial motifs in otherwise serious works -- and yes, the 15th is a serious work in spite of Shostakovich's oft-quoted remark about it: 'I would like to write a cheerful symphony' -- is a hallmark of the composer's style. And we must remember that Shostakovich was dead within a year; he knew this might be his last work, he was still strongly affected by the difficult course of his life -- he also said, 'There were no specially happy moments in my life ...' -- and of his country. For me, the seeming lightheartedness in parts of the symphony is rather like the gaping rictus of a death's head, not for long mistaken as humorous, but rather as an indication of horror.

And that impression is heightened by the really great recordings of this work, those by Kondrashin&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shostakovich-Symphony-No-15-in-A-major-Op-141-Chaykovsky-Variations-for-Orchestra/dp/B000QCTFQC/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shostakovich: Symphony No. 15 in A major Op. 141; Chaykovsky: Variations for Orchestra</a>&nbsp;and Lopez Cobos&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shostakovich-Symphonies-Nos-1-15/dp/B00005N57Z/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shostakovich: Symphonies Nos. 1 & 15</a>, and slightly less so those by Haitink&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Dmitri-Shostakovich-Symphony-No-15-From-Jewish-Folk-Poetry-Bernard-Haitink/dp/B00000IP3B/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Dmitri Shostakovich: Symphony No. 15 / From Jewish Folk Poetry - Bernard Haitink</a>&nbsp;or Sanderling&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Shostakovich-Symphony-No-15-Rayok/dp/B000088DTI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Shostakovich: Symphony No. 15, Rayok</a>. The present recording, while well-played, is rather, erm, bland. All the notes are in place but where is the bite, the bitterness? For this reason I cannot endorse this recording except for those who are collecting the Pletnev Shostakovich series or who have a particular desire to hear the Russian National Symphony in this work.

As for the incidental music for 'Hamlet', dating from 1931, the impression is altogether better. The music was written for an adaptation of the play (a rather wild one, with added plot and dialog) by Nikolai Akimov. This is not the usual suite from the 'Hamlet' music. Rather Pletnev has dropped several sections from the Suite (Funeral March, Pantomime of the Actors, Feast, Ophelia's Song, Tournament) and inserted others (Dinner Music, Monologue of Claudius, Signals of Fortinbras) and added something not even from the 'Hamlet' music: a Gigue written in 1954 for an entirely different play. As a suite, this collection of pieces makes a wonderful whole. And here there is little evidence of Shostakovich's sardonic humor. Well-played, well-conceived, well-recorded. But probably not enough to make purchase of this CD necessary unless you particularly want to have Pletnev's idiosyncratic Hamlet suite.

Scott Morrison
2097931
The reviewer who called this music "boring" isn't listening hard enough. It's a beautifully intense piece of music that rewards the listener with each listening. Riccardo Chailly isn't really known for his Tchaikovsky interpretations, but this is a great reading with excellent playing from the Royal Concertgebouw and audio quality.

Unfortunately, like many recordings, this one is sadly out-of-print, but if you can find one used and in good shape for a good price, it would be worth it. "Manfred Symphony" is seldom recorded. I own many different versions: Jurowski, Pletnev, Petrenko, Jansons, and Rostropovich. I wish Bernstein had recorded this symphony as he would have really brought it alive, but this is a good performance by any standard and worth acquiring.
28016
This 1973 radio broadcast of a live performance of "Khovanshchina" is a bit of an oddity. The orchestra and chorus are RAI's own, conducted by an unknown Russian, in Italian with a mightily impressive, all-star cast the likes of which it would be hard to assemble today. It uses the complete edition of the 1959 score as completed by Shostakovich and as such fuller than any extant recording but culminates in a final scene musically less effective and dramatic than the Stravinsky version used by Abbado in his Vienna live recording made in 1979 (see my review).

The sound is a bit tinny but tolerable, especially if you are prepared to trade that off against the quality of the singing by both soloists and chorus and the commitment of the RAI orchestra. Harder to tolerate by the novice Mussorgskian is the lack of libretto and meaningful cues; this opera has one of the most complex, allusive and fragmentary plots of any and without a proper frame of reference must remain virtually incomprehensible, despite Bill Parker's valiant attempt to provide a synopsis in five meagre paragraphs, one per act.

Most collectors will therefore probably want this as a cheap supplement to a more user-friendly set such as that conducted by Abbado or Tchakarov. Either that, or you will be a curious voice-fancier with a bit of Italian and less concerned to follow the intricacies of the story than to sit back and enjoy some glorious singing.

Glorious singing indeed - so much so that it's hard to know where to start raving, but let's begin with the extraordinary voice of Fiorenza Cossotto, whose lustrous voice was as much at home in the roles of contralto depth as those requiring a soprano upper extension; truly a Verdi alto with a top C unexpectedly but ideally suited to the role of Marfa. She is absolutely thrilling. Then we have the great Ghiaurov in his prime, already habituated to the role of Prince Ivan Khovansky in Russian, cursing, blustering, declaiming and chuckling menacingly with his frequent asides of "Salvi Dio" (the Italian equivalent of "Spasi Bog" - "God save us"). Cesare Siepi is noble and sonorous as the Old Believer priest Dosifei, Luchetti's virile tenor perfect for the callow, lecherous Prince Andrei, Nimsgern very characterful as the oily, complex assassin Shaklovity, Ludovic Spiess vivid and believable as the degenerate Prince Golitsin, and the gifted but now largely forgotten soprano Mietta Sighele soars in the role of Emma. The supporting cast is excellent - and as a bonus we hear Elena Suliotis still imposing in 1973 and chilling as the fanatical Susanna.

Available so cheaply, this is irresistible to any lover of Russian opera curious to experience a still-neglected work in a surprisingly workable Italian translation sung by a panoply of first-class singers.
4319269
After hearing her Brahms and Dvorak symphony cycles (the Dvorak still in development), I was curious at how Marin Alsop would approach Mahler.  I've found the Brahms/Dvorak interpretations somewhat flawed in that there's way too much attention lavished on the little details while the greater sweep of the music tends to get lost in all the interpretive fussiness.

Now that I've listened to this Mahler 1, I find myself in broad agreement with critic David Nice's review of the Mahler symphony in the pages of BBC Music Magazine, who was disappointed in the interpretation.  He wrote:  "There's more than a hint of mud both in the upfront string sound -- brass and woodwinds project what character they can from the middle distance -- and in the interpretation."  He goes on to state that the sounds "never quite spring off the page."

I think this performance is hidebound in places -- in the first movement particularly.  And why the headlong dash at the end of the symphony?  Perhaps because it was a live recording, we're getting the adrenalin rush that sometimes mars concert performances when they near the finish line of a dramatic piece such as this.

While I've heard worse performances of the Mahler 1 than this one, there are a good many others you can sample that are more satisfying musically.  Among the newer recordings, the Ivan Fischer reading with the Budapest Festival Orchestra is a superlative new entrant to the catalogue.  And if you want to dip back into the archives of laudable early recordings, for sheer visceral excitement you can't go wrong with the vintage reading by Dimitri Mitropoulos and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra.
1035428
Here's a really RUSSIAN performance of great Russian music.  The big climaxes of the fourth symphony erupt and flow like molten lava.  It's enough to make the genteel editors of the Penguin Guide to Compact Discs wet their pants.  lol

Then you get to cool down with the highly civilized charms of the Serenade. A great program, a great disk.  One to play for anyone who thinks classical music is dry or boring.
256443
It's Russian liturgical music...you either like it or hate it!
795483
The Second Symphony recording could be much better. In the final movement, the orchestra sounds too undefined and the drum too near, so the melody loses its energy. Moreover, there's a bit of noise in the other recordings, specially in the calm parts of the works. And, in some occasions, the strings sound a bit far-off (the Fifth final required more strength strings). It's amazing, because these are English EMI recordings, and this combination has always a good result. Despite of it, Mutti's versions of Tchaikovsky symphonies are quite good and, sometimes, very Italian (in rythm and tempo, I mean).
3454119
Ivan Susanin is not known in the west, and it is unfortunate. Without knowing "Life for the Tsar" it is impossible to fully understand the works of Mussorgsky and Rimskiy-Korsakov.  In this recording, the sound  is not first class, but the master of the Bolshoi orchestra Aleksandr  Melik-Pashayev is conducting wonderfully. Mikhailov is great. His voice is  warm and large. Nelepp has a rare dramatic tenor, with a ring at the top,  equal to Del Monaco or Corelli. Shpiller has a full liric soprano, and her  Antonida is better then most sopranos I have heard. The only serious cut is  the epilogue "SLAV'SIA". Melik-Pashayev's tempos are faster then  most conductors tend to use in this opera.
3252816
I first heard this recording in the mid-1960's.  I'd been listening to Richter on Russian recordings for several years (some Beethoven sonatas, the Tchaikovsky piano concerto, etc) and knew what a superb artist he was.  Initially I was blown away by this recording.  The first movement is extraordinary.  Richter reimagines and recreates the piece, bringing spontaneity to his performance as only he could.  My only point of comparison for such a strong recreation in the piano concerto repertoire, interestingly, is Ivo Pogarelich's reading of the first movement of Chopin's second piano concerto (Abbado conducting).  There is a headlong quality, romantic and passionate and noble.  Just astonishing.

The second movement is nearly as original, and nearly as good.  The third and fourth movements are lovely and gorgeously played, and if it hadn't been for what Richter did in the first movement, they would be just fine.  But somehow they seem ordinary after such an extraordinary beginning.

A word about Leinsdorf: he was at best a maddeningly inconsistent conductor.  Here he provides good accompaniment to Richter, but he is still an accompanist in a piece which requires the orchestra to be an equal partner with the piano.  I understand that at the end of his life Richter complained that he was unhappy with this recording and that Leinsdorf pushed the tempi.  Whatever Richter's reasons for saying that may have been, I have a hard time believing that the choice of tempi, in the first two movements in particular, were not Richter's.  His whole approach is so integrated, the phrasing and dynamics flow so perfectly from the tempi, that Richter either chose them himself or he responded incredibly to Leinsdorf's preferences.

The sound is fine.  The Reinter-era Chicago Symphony plays well (although they play better for Reiner himself in his nearly contemporaneous recording of this same piece with Emil Gilels).  4 stars, not because the performance isn't fine, but only because it could have been so much more extraordinary.
4195749
Maybe it was a part of his Russian temperament, I don't know that, either, but Peter Tchaikovsky (1840-93) never seemed satisfied with much of his work, including his popular Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-flat minor, Op. 23. He finished it in 1875, revising it in 1879 and again in 1888. Its possible the composer was just overly sensitive to the criticism that came before and after the concertos premire, or possibly he didn't care for the way the first performers played the piece. Who knows. On this disc Ms. Paremski plays the Concerto with Maestro Gabel and the RSO, and I cant help thinking the composer would have been happy with the results.

Many of the biggest, most-popular piano concertos, the ones from Beethoven, Brahms, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov, for instance, have a brawny quality about them that might at first blush seem best suited to a masculine performer. However, Martha Argerich among other female pianists pushed that idea aside long ago. I doubt that anyone could accuse Ms. Paremski of not being strong enough in her presentation, which gets off to a grand, bravura start and never lets up. As important, she is able to lend a poise and refinement to the softer moments, something lacking in many competing recordings.

Ms. Paremski handles the second-movement Andantino with a quiet grace and then in the finale goes out with a burst of passion and fire. It may not be the absolute most attention-getting performance ever committed to disc, but Ms. Paremski does everything right, everything one could ask of her in this music, without ever drawing attention to herself with any undue bravura despite her obvious virtuosic piano skills. The performance is fun, exciting, intense, Romantic, and well recorded.

Coupled to the Tchaikovsky we find the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (1934) by Sergei Rachmaninov (1873-1943). Tchaikovsky predicted that Rachmaninov would be his logical successor, and surely Rachmaninov's symphonies and piano concertos, as well as the Rhapsody prove Tchaikovsky's prescience correct. Again, we find the Paremski, Gabel, RSO combo at the top of their game, producing an affectionate yet red-blooded account of the score. If anything, Ms. Paremski is even more joyously enthusiastic in the Rachmaninov than in the Tchaikovsky.

The sound is as big and bold as the music. There is a very wide frequency range involved and even wider dynamics. The perspective is somewhat close, yet it's also smooth and natural, with a fine sense of orchestral depth and bloom. Although the piano looms a bit large, to be sure, it also displays a sweet, resonant warmth.

John J. Puccio
Classical Candor
4235048
Seeing that this release of the Shostakovich Fourteenth, a deeply gloomy work, debuted at #1 in classical recordings at Amazon,uk indicates how popular Vasily Petrenko has become and how notable his entire Shostakovich cycle - it will conclude with one more release (Sym. 13 "Babi Yar"). Probably more than any of his other projects on disc, this long symphonic cycle made Petrenko's name, because he showed that he could stand up to great Shostakovich conductors on the order of Bernstein, Mravinsky, Kondrahsin, and Rozhdestvensky with fresh ideas and his immense musical gifts.

His Fourteenth is "taut and unsparing," to quote the Financial Times, to which we can add knife-edged. Where Simon Rattle, in his excellent, much more plush version from Berlin, softened the relentless theme of death that ties these eleven poems together, Petrenko's spareness is more confrontational. As most Russian recordings of the score have done, he's chosen a bass soloist with a deep, resonant voice (Alexander Vinogradov) where Rattle chose the less lugubrious, more European-sounding Thomas Quasthoff. The young Israeli soprano Gal James seems remarkably adept at Russian, and her delivery has a touch of Slavic throatiness, adding to the reading's air of authenticity. (For the exact opposite, turn to Haitink's recording with Fischer-Dieskau and Julia Varady, singing the poems in their original languages, thus introducing Spanish, German, and French.)

Perhaps I should have led with a succinct judgment: This performance is as engrossing and musically convincing as the best of Petrenko's previous Shostakovich. It's only disadvantage, which will bother only a few listeners, is that the small ensemble of strings and percussion isn't expanded on the scale of Rattle's account, and the playing as such isn't world class. Even if Petrenko had the sumptuous Berlin Phil. at his command, however, I think he would have delivered the same existential reading, and yet to his credit the mood is not relentlessly death-riddled. He gives us as much variety of tone and timbre as I've ever heard in this challenging, bleak late symphony.

P.S. - I think I overstated my enthusiasm for this bare-bones reading of the Shostakovich 14th, feeling that the performers should find more than raw bleakness in the score.  I'd direct buyers to rattle, Bernstein, and Haitink instead if they want richer accounts of the score.
314401
One of Tchaikovsky's most beautiful and melodious scores with brilliant singing to boot!  Orlov was one of the great Soviet conductors and the singers are all topnotch.  Rozhdestvenskaya's heavy metal Russian school soprano may take a little getting used to, but she's really wonderful if you can adjust to her style.  She was Rozhdestvensky's mother, by the way.  You can also hear young Dolukhanova in the trouser role of Basmanov, and you will realize why she was a much adored artist of the Soviet era.  She really could sing anything.

I do not understand why the Rozhdestvensky recording of Oprichnik has been released and re-released.  It is completely inferior to the Orlov recording, which is one of the best opera recordings in my collection.  The one benefit from the Rozhdestvensky recording is that it originally came with a libretto.  If given a choice, though, the Orlov is the vastly superior recording.