The music sounds so much modern in its original version ; Mussorgsky was a visionary. Definitely. I didn't know this performance by the London Philharmonic under the baton of David Lloyd-Jones, I've the habit to hear Abbado/LSO recording : thanks a lot for this discovery !
This is much more personal version of Modest's intentions. He may have been a little high while writing it. BUT That makes so much real authentic. Rimsky and Ravel did great arrangements. I find this version refreshing.
It's interesting from a musicological view to hear the Mussorgsky original, but in my opinion, Rimsky-Korsakov did a tremendous service to this piece by creating his version. And yes, you may say that the commonly performed version is a co-creation of Mussorgsky and Rimsky; there's no shame in that, because it's an amazing piece of music. The same may be said of "Pictures" in Ravel's orchestration. This does not lessen Mussorgsky's genius.
As much as I love original versions and historically informed performance I agree. From every direction this version is interesting and original but it’s sort of a trainwreck - heavy handed orchestration, no transitions, no development. I don’t know much about Mussorgsky but I remember reading his whole career was a calculated middle finger to the musical establishment…he was intentionally writing in as different a way as possible.
True, but Mussorgsky also revised this and used it in his opera “The Fair at Sorochyntsi”… that version is a lot more similar to the Rimsky-Korsakov version
@@Boccaccio1811 Because Rimsky-Korsakov's version was actually based on that Sorochyntsi version, NOT this original version whose score Rimsky-Korsakov never had any access to!
I was at first amazed at the difference between Rimsky's famous arrangement and the original -- it appeared as if Rimsky had largely recomposed the piece to his own liking. THEN I discovered Mussorgsky's later version that he had inserted into his unfinished comic opera Sorochintsy Fair (as is mentioned above), and saw that Rimsky was following his friend Mussorgsky very closely. The version for opera incorporates chorus, which actually makes the music scarier (there's a solo bass who interrupts the action a couple of times -- just keep listening): ua-cam.com/video/-vKo-VOrpvs/v-deo.html
Wunderschöne und spannende Interpretation dieses romantischen und perfekt komponierten Tongedichts mit farbenreichen doch perfekt entsprechenden Tönen aller Instrumente. Der intelligente und erfahrene Dirigent leitet das ausgezeichnete Orchester im lebhaften Tempo und mit effektiver Dynamik. Wundervoll und atemberaubend zugleich!
It's not perfectly composed at all! It's a patchwork of different ideas, rather losely put together and really not leading anywhere. Mussorgskij was an amateur composer. One can understand that Rimskij-Korsakov made a new version of it. I know that you always write the same comment to everything, and it's often true, but this time I had to disagree. 😊 But that said, Mussorgskij was a genial inventor of new harmonic, melodic and rhytmic ways -- perhaps because he wasn't restricted by academic rules.
@@larsjohansson7954 I know Mussorgsky was a chemist by profession. But I don't think this work was amateurish. Rather it was an experimental composition which enabled Rimsky-Korsakov to refine in his own way.
Mussogsky's version is a superior and more enjoyable piece of music compared to Rimsky-Korsakov's if you ask me, which is a lot more conventional. Mussorgsky's original is more varied, playful, colourful, evocative and perhaps ahead of it's time. His version I think has more in common with later composers such as Stravinsky and film composers like John Williams.
This recording is pretty good, but it’s almost like they’re trying to play it as if it is the korsakov version. There is a recording by the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine conducted by Theodore Kuchar that seems to better capture the intention, phrasing, and orchestrations of Mussorgsky’s original score, in my opinion.
I believe this was the first recording of the original version (taped in the 1970s?), so it would have been new territory for the players. I would also like to note that David Lloyd-Jones (1934-2022) was not only a conductor and a co-founder of Opera North in the UK, but was the editor of the landmark Oxford University Press edition of the authentic full score of Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov. His extensive recorded legacy includes some fine interpretations of music by British composers, including an outstanding version of Vaughan Williams's ballet Job.
Odd choice by the condcutor to drastically slow down in the last 30 seconds when the tempo marking says "even faster". Also, why was there no tam-tam at any point? Baffling! Still a better version than old Rimsky's job though
Naturally, primordially and without mawkish insertions by Rimsky-Korsakov, reminiscent of a cock crow. R-K only made the work primitive, unnecessarily stereotyped, repetitive, and it lost the unbridled character of nature.
To be fair, Rimsky-Korsakov pretty much just orchestrated Mussorgsky’s later version of this piece - which was an Interlude in his unfinished opera; Sorochensky Fair. The two versions by the composer himself are significantly different. The later version also includes the beautiful “dawn” part at the end, and the “development” section in the middle.
Slightly unrelated but whats the most beautiful piece youve heard this month or even this year And then whats the most relentless, driving piece youve heard this month
I sincerely think I love the original version so much more than the one everyone knows. But, can we take a sec and take note of the recording that was chosen? LPO is missing so many of the expressive markings...the LSO with Abbado is a much more sensitive (and better-played) recording. Splitting hairs, of course...
It is impossible for me to always upload "the best" rendition of a work. I do my best. There is also such a thing as copyright. This older recording has no issues. A good reason for me to choose it.
Rimsky-Korsakov's version is epic, but Mussorgsky's original version really captures the chaos he meant to express. I prefer this one!
@@grantn.9061 i agree. Mussorgsky's version is more 'tone poem' esque.
The music sounds so much modern in its original version ; Mussorgsky was a visionary. Definitely. I didn't know this performance by the London Philharmonic under the baton of David Lloyd-Jones, I've the habit to hear Abbado/LSO recording : thanks a lot for this discovery !
Never heard this version before. It is quite wild.
So true. It's totally different piece of music
And I don't like this one at all.
This is much more personal version of Modest's intentions.
He may have been a little high while writing it. BUT
That makes so much real authentic.
Rimsky and Ravel did great arrangements.
I find this version refreshing.
It's interesting from a musicological view to hear the Mussorgsky original, but in my opinion, Rimsky-Korsakov did a tremendous service to this piece by creating his version. And yes, you may say that the commonly performed version is a co-creation of Mussorgsky and Rimsky; there's no shame in that, because it's an amazing piece of music. The same may be said of "Pictures" in Ravel's orchestration. This does not lessen Mussorgsky's genius.
agreed, but I am in love with stokowskis version as well
As much as I love original versions and historically informed performance I agree. From every direction this version is interesting and original but it’s sort of a trainwreck - heavy handed orchestration, no transitions, no development. I don’t know much about Mussorgsky but I remember reading his whole career was a calculated middle finger to the musical establishment…he was intentionally writing in as different a way as possible.
True, but Mussorgsky also revised this and used it in his opera “The Fair at Sorochyntsi”… that version is a lot more similar to the Rimsky-Korsakov version
@@Boccaccio1811 Because Rimsky-Korsakov's version was actually based on that Sorochyntsi version, NOT this original version whose score Rimsky-Korsakov never had any access to!
Yes, Mussorgsky was trully ahead of his time. I like Rimsky-Korsakov's interpretation, but the original version is more deep in my opinion.
no freaking way dude i was just searching for this score right now!!
xd 😂😂😂
I've always heard the edited version, the one used in Fantasia. Interesting to hear what material was kept, shortened or taken out all together.
Wow! Score of the orignal version!! THANK YOU! And yes, it's far superior
My favorite! I adore how the theme is introduced with the other instruments
My favorite version is the adaptation that Mussorgsky made for his opera “Sorochintsy Fair” (composed 1874-1880, unfinished at his death in 1881).
I was at first amazed at the difference between Rimsky's famous arrangement and the original -- it appeared as if Rimsky had largely recomposed the piece to his own liking. THEN I discovered Mussorgsky's later version that he had inserted into his unfinished comic opera Sorochintsy Fair (as is mentioned above), and saw that Rimsky was following his friend Mussorgsky very closely. The version for opera incorporates chorus, which actually makes the music scarier (there's a solo bass who interrupts the action a couple of times -- just keep listening): ua-cam.com/video/-vKo-VOrpvs/v-deo.html
My favorite version. Abbado conducts it cool
Wunderschöne und spannende Interpretation dieses romantischen und perfekt komponierten Tongedichts mit farbenreichen doch perfekt entsprechenden Tönen aller Instrumente. Der intelligente und erfahrene Dirigent leitet das ausgezeichnete Orchester im lebhaften Tempo und mit effektiver Dynamik. Wundervoll und atemberaubend zugleich!
It's not perfectly composed at all! It's a patchwork of different ideas, rather losely put together and really not leading anywhere. Mussorgskij was an amateur composer. One can understand that Rimskij-Korsakov made a new version of it.
I know that you always write the same comment to everything, and it's often true, but this time I had to disagree. 😊
But that said, Mussorgskij was a genial inventor of new harmonic, melodic and rhytmic ways -- perhaps because he wasn't restricted by academic rules.
@@larsjohansson7954 I know Mussorgsky was a chemist by profession. But I don't think this work was amateurish. Rather it was an experimental composition which enabled Rimsky-Korsakov to refine in his own way.
This version has an amazing energy. But, to be honest, Rimsky-Korsakov’s heavy edit is the only reason we know this work at all.
Interesting to hear this version 😊
Mussogsky's version is a superior and more enjoyable piece of music compared to Rimsky-Korsakov's if you ask me, which is a lot more conventional. Mussorgsky's original is more varied, playful, colourful, evocative and perhaps ahead of it's time. His version I think has more in common with later composers such as Stravinsky and film composers like John Williams.
Excelente 👏👏👏
This recording is pretty good, but it’s almost like they’re trying to play it as if it is the korsakov version. There is a recording by the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine conducted by Theodore Kuchar that seems to better capture the intention, phrasing, and orchestrations of Mussorgsky’s original score, in my opinion.
Yes but I don't have that performance. I used the one I have which is just fine for me.
@@bartjebartmans Oh of course. I meant no disrespect, just an observation, and only my opinion 🙂
I believe this was the first recording of the original version (taped in the 1970s?), so it would have been new territory for the players. I would also like to note that David Lloyd-Jones (1934-2022) was not only a conductor and a co-founder of Opera North in the UK, but was the editor of the landmark Oxford University Press edition of the authentic full score of Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov. His extensive recorded legacy includes some fine interpretations of music by British composers, including an outstanding version of Vaughan Williams's ballet Job.
idk what it is about this piece and its original version, but it sounds more russian than ravel's version
Odd choice by the condcutor to drastically slow down in the last 30 seconds when the tempo marking says "even faster". Also, why was there no tam-tam at any point? Baffling! Still a better version than old Rimsky's job though
I like it. However, I think Rimsky-Korsakov’s version is much better. They are very different though
Naturally, primordially and without mawkish insertions by Rimsky-Korsakov, reminiscent of a cock crow. R-K only made the work primitive, unnecessarily stereotyped, repetitive, and it lost the unbridled character of nature.
To be fair, Rimsky-Korsakov pretty much just orchestrated Mussorgsky’s later version of this piece - which was an Interlude in his unfinished opera; Sorochensky Fair. The two versions by the composer himself are significantly different. The later version also includes the beautiful “dawn” part at the end, and the “development” section in the middle.
This is not as good as later versions.
Here rhythm is best and true mussorgsky. But conducting yes
Slightly unrelated but whats the most beautiful piece youve heard this month or even this year
And then whats the most relentless, driving piece youve heard this month
I sincerely think I love the original version so much more than the one everyone knows. But, can we take a sec and take note of the recording that was chosen? LPO is missing so many of the expressive markings...the LSO with Abbado is a much more sensitive (and better-played) recording. Splitting hairs, of course...
It is impossible for me to always upload "the best" rendition of a work. I do my best. There is also such a thing as copyright. This older recording has no issues. A good reason for me to choose it.