Festive Overture, opus 96[a]; Piano Concerto No. 2 in F major, opus 102[b]; Symphony No. 5 in D minor, opus 47[c].
Andrew Litton, Dallas Symphony Orchestra; Andrew Litton (piano)[b].
Delos DE 3246. DDD. TT 73:59.
Recorded McDermott Hall, Meyerson Center, Dallas, 19-20 May 1998[a,c]; 30 September 1998[b].

Assessing the Fifth Symphony is complicated business. Everyone has his/her favourite recording and there seems to be a lack of consensus as to which is the all-round top recommendation. Performance of the Fifth remains dogged by issues of interpretation and tempo, owing no less to the remarks in Testimony than to mistakes in the metronome markings.

Litton dives in with a fine performance, I might say quickly lest this should be forgotten. My initial response was one of great enthusiasm; much of what Litton and the Dallas Symphony do really moves the listener. The sound is splendid, especially since Delos have always seemed to me in the past to be missing something aurally - their engineers have obviously made great improvements in this area. Delos also boast "Virtual Reality" sound, meaning that this CD can be heard in surround sound through a Dolby Pro-Logic decoder. This review, however, was conducted using my normal hi-fi stereo set-up.

After several listenings little idiosyncrasies begin to creep in on the listener. It's especially true of this symphony, which has so captured our imaginations, that preconceptions as to how it should unfold are hard to override. But this may be our problem, not Litton's. I for one, reared on the straightforward readings of Previn (EMI 572658 2) and Ashkenazy (Decca 421 120 2; deleted) with their brisk Finale and Coda, have taken quite a while to appreciate and assimilate the tension and darkness of the slower approach to the coda, which is best handled by Järvi (Chandos CHAN 8650) and Mravinsky (Russian Disc 11023, rec. 1966).

I shall not go into the issue of tempi in the Finale since it should be well known to DSCH readers, except to say that there are some tempi that have developed purely out of performance habit and are not written in the score. For example, the common practice of slowing down seven bars after Fig. 111 is not marked on any score I know (except in the band transcription by Richter, Boosey and Hawkes, 1947). In the end, it is a matter of taste, although the outer movements of the Fifth work in a highly cinematic manner, with scenes cutting from one to another, and just the right shaping is critical to overall success.

Right, back to Litton. For me the real test of a conductor's grasp of this symphony is how he handles the crucial First Movement, with its many problematic transitions. Here Litton does admirably, articulating the opening pattern with great fluency (none of that irritating detached articulation) and with requisite ferocity, pulling the many parts together with great poetry. This is an aspect I also admire in Previn's underrated 1977 recording with the Chicago Symphony; Järvi too has excellent pacing in this movement. Litton roughly follows their interpretive style.

The first subject is well phrased and conveys an atmosphere of nervous anticipation. The second subject thus arrives as a defrosting of emotions, again taken at a moderately slow pulse so that the arching string lines have time to contemplate. Ancerl and Mravinsky push this section well beyond its Moderato, sacrificing the false sense of calm that would make the development more threatening. Litton's development needs a little more bite from the brass, who are resonant, if a little too manicured. Nevertheless, Litton whips up a sufficient storm after a slight lapse midway, and splices expertly into the grimacing march. I miss the terror in Mravinsky's furious development, a harrowing edge also captured by Järvi and Ashkenazy, but only just glimpsed through Litton.

The Allegretto is skilfully performed, striking a nice balance between humour and sarcasm. The liberties Litton takes with some dramatic tenuto, and the lethargy of the violin-flute solos may not be to all tastes, but they do little to spoil an insightful execution. More annoying are the first violins who are noticeably lax in the first entry, playing a lazy legato where sharp staccato (marked marcato) is required.

The Largo is also beautifully executed; here Litton explores the numb terror of this music instead of indulging in the often-overplayed anguish and pain . The strings achieve a lovely shimmering glow, which in this atmosphere of stillness hovers like mist on a gloomy night. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, Litton plays out this movement as the composer's eulogy, whispered in solitude until it cannot contain its anger. Again, if Litton could extract a little more rawness from his forces - from the timpani, for example, at the first climax - this movement would be that much more rewarding.

When the Finale breaks the hushed memorial it does sound a rude intrusion. Curiously, the woodwinds enter with a slow trill in the baroque manner. Litton observes the composer's carefully marked increases in tempo almost literally where others apply it more subtly, except at Fig. 105 where he anticipates the marked accelerando by several bars, which rather spoils the effect. Still this section has plenty of bite, although no one can match the frenzy that Mravinsky whips out of the Leningraders.

Litton's Piu Mosso trumpet solo does not sound as desperate amidst the swarm of violins as does Mravinsky's or Järvi's, although throughout this work the xylophone has been exemplary in really hammering it out as required. From here on things take a decidedly "post-Testimony" turn (I hate the term but I expect that its implications are clear). Litton grinds the frantic Piu Mosso to a halt with a huge allargando before Fig. 111 (the point where the trombones re-introduce the main theme to the tam-tam splash). The score in fact marks an increase in tempo to minim=92. I don't particularly like this rather ugly bit of over-dramatising, but Litton probably takes his cue from Rostropovich, whom he seems to follow from here until the very end.

As can be expected, the start of the final section begins far more slowly than with Järvi and Mravinsky. From here it is one drag through the mud to the final coda, which I personally experienced as a laboured anticlimax. I know that Shostakovich allegedly wanted the Finale to reflect forced rejoicing, but as Mravinsky and Järvi have both shown, the score amply supplies the ironies without need for exaggeration. Again if you are comfortable with Rostropovich's vision then you should welcome Litton's approach. I just don't believe the Finale is best served this way.

After years of scouring for the perfect Fifth (no pun intended) my ideal still comes no closer than a combination of vintage Mravinsky, Järvi and Ashkenazy. Mravinsky drives the music unrelentingly, Järvi supplies a biting account of the revised coda tempo, while Ashkenazy offers a convincing middle-ground interpretation with plenty of edge.

Measured against current favourites, Litton does not put enough grit into what is a polished, sensitive performance. There is a definite sense of great events unfolding but the listener is not plunged head-on into the maelstrom as with the others. But apart from the Finale, which will appeal only to those who like the hollow triumph of the coda beaten into them, Litton does show an admirable grasp of the symphony's inner world.

Litton serves up a crisp, rollicking account of the Second Piano Concerto, playing the solo himself with great style and plenty of dash in the outer movements and a warm poetic flair in the Andante. I particularly enjoyed the nimble interplay between the soloist and the orchestra, especially during the headlong rush to the closing of the first movement.

The Festive Overture is served up with a glowing, majestic sound that is this orchestra's hallmark, and is perfectly paced and beautifully balanced, even if at the big cello tune those diabolical syncopations are not as nimble as they should be. Personally, I would have preferred the couplings to come at the end - opening the programme with such cheeriness somehow seems disrespectful to the harrowing Fifth.

Conclusion? I have heard worse Fifth Symphonies from more-established ensembles and conductors (Maxim's on Collins Classics CD 70122 is one such major disappointment), so Litton delivers much more than I expected. The Dallas Orchestra sound fantastic, an ensemble full of vibrant colour and expression, and through Litton's direction it is a sound that manages to convey some of the bleakness required. Will it displace any of the alternatives mentioned? I am afraid not, by quite a margin. In particular, the brass are just a bit too clean, an asset in any other case (for example in the Festive Overture), but not one that serves the Fifth Symphony well. My suspicion is that a bit more metal (and thus mettle) would have pushed the voltage of this recording up a few notches.

C. H. Loh
Top