Glazunov's symphonies were left stranded by the ebb tide of musical history. But they show much musical skill and craftmanship; the writing is cultured and pleasing, if at times a little long-winded, especially the finales. (Glazunov lacked Tchaikovsky's gift of being able to make rhetoric seem really thrilling.) The First Symphony appeared in 1882 and showed a precocious teenage genius; no wonder it was admired, for the composer hardly bettered it. The Second has a comparable command and fecundity of invention, but one cannot say the composer continued to develop very far, although within the limitations of his style he offers the listener much that is agreeable to listen to. The scherzos are always the best movements, often deliciously scored, and one regrets it when, as in No. 6, the composer substitutes an Intermezzo, even a charming one. But he then compensates the listener by offering a fine set of variations for the slow movement. The Eighth, although it shows no great advance, is clearly the most mature of the set: it really sounds very impressive in Rozhdestvensky's hands and it is a pity that in assembling the complete set, Olympia did not take out one of the shorter orchestral fillers to make room for the single movement Ninth Symphony (available separately on Olympia (CD) OCD147). It was completed by Yudin, who conducts this recording and its construction and content suggest that had Glazunov continued he might have taken a step forward in his overall achievement.
These works are now very seldom heard in the concert hall outside Russia, and, as with so much less-than-first-rate music, they are kept alive by their recordings. In making a choice between the available complete sets one must remember that Yondani Butt has also embarked on a series with the LSO for ASV and his is the preferred choice for No. 6 (reviewed below), while his No. 3 would be strongly competitive too, were it given a coupling. The LSO playing is first class and the British recordings are fresher and more open than the Jarvi/Orfeo series. Throughout his cycle Rozhdestvensky brings out the music's Slavic feeling powerfully, and the response of the Russians has considerably greater fervour than the more cultured Bamberg or Bavarian orchestras under Jarvi. There is some very good playing (especially the woodwind) from the USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra, but the snag is that when the Russian trombones enter their braying is at odds with the music's civilized veneer. Sometimes, too, the violins are made to seem edgy by the brilliant digital Olympia sound balance and both these faults are especially apparent in the Second and Third Symphonies. Jarvi's recording is fuller and richer, but plushier too, and there is less bite in the music-making; in the Eighth, and sometimes elsewhere there is a hint of Schumann. The best of the Rozhdestvensky series, apart from the Eighth, are the Fourth and Fifth, coupled together, a splendid disc and successfully recorded too. Choice between the two series is otherwise not clear cut: Jarvi is more comfortable, and undoubtedly sympathetic, but Rozhdestvensky is almost always more involving. Another advantage of the Russian set is the generous playing time of all six CDs, with a great deal of other music added, almost all of which is worth having.'