That ‘hard-won modernity’ did not imply a total rejection of such traditional genres as symphony and concerto – though some would say it should have done. Certainly Lutoslawski’s Symphony No. 2 (1966-7) remains a problem-piece, mainly because the material of its first movement seems designed precisely not to generate a traditional kind of symphonic argument. The second movement has far greater breadth, but it can hardly serve to ‘explain’ the first movement in retrospect; it would be better on its own.

Twenty years later, in his Piano Concerto, Lutoslawski was more alert to the possibilities of creating a viable symphonic style out of the interaction rather than separation of lyric and dramatic materials, and although the concerto’s range of stylistic allusions can be disconcerting, a good performance can turn such ambiguities to positive ends.

This is certainly a good performance. If the recording by Krystian Zimerman, the work’s dedicatee, summons up shades of Rachmaninov, Paul Crossley’s less forceful but no less well-characterized reading seems closer to Ravel. Esa-Pekka Salonen is a sensitive accompanist, and the Sony sound is consistent with what I described, reviewing Salonen’s earlier Lutoslawski recordings (11/94), as “spacious clarity as well as spatial depth”, even if it “may not bring the orchestra far enough forward for some tastes”.

This recording of Symphony No. 2 must rank as superior to either of the composer’s, and although Dawn Upshaw is occasionally rather shrill in Chantefleurs et Chantefables the performance as a whole is well judged. As for the brief Fanfare, it has a splendidly brassy exuberance.'

-- Arnold Whittall, Gramophone [6/1996]