Daft question of the week

[umslopogaas]

Post 8 Lateralthinking1

A recommendation for Faure's Requiem? The one I love best is Andre Cluytens conducting the Paris Conservatoire Orch. with Victoria de los Angeles and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. It was originally issued as an LP by HMV on their Angel label: cant find a date, but I think it was mid sixties.

And Puccini? Gosh, where to start? Maybe with Maria Callas.

For Tosca, must hear Callas and Tito Gobbi with the La Scala Orch. cond. by Victor de Sabata. Mono only, but unforgettable.

For Turandot, go for Birgit Nilsson, Jussi Bjorling and Renata Tebaldi with Rome Opera House Orch. cond. by Erich Leinsdorf on RCA. Nilsson and Bjorling are astonishing. Or, Callas again, with La Scala Orch. cond. by Serafin.

I think I'll leave Madama Butterfly to others, I dont really like it, Pinkerton is SUCH a b*****d!

For La Boheme, a couple of classic Deccas: Tebaldi and Bergonzi with Serafin, and Pavarotti and Freni with Karajan. Or, if you dont mind another mono, de los Angeles and Jussi Bjorling with Beecham.

I know all these from LP, but I cant believe they arent all out there on CD too. Certainly the Callas recordings are.

If I had to stick just to one of each, it would probably be Callas every time. It is true she didnt have the world's most beautiful voice, but she could get the notes and, given the power of her acting, I dont find myself even noticing the voice very much.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

lateral, i would endorse the Building A Library suggestion 100%, especially for orchestral works .... the detailed comparison of passages between different enembles is highly educative [ and addictive, one of my unmissables]

[mathias broucek]

for Appalachian Spring, try Tilson Thomas which is just $0.99 / £0.99 from Amazon as and MP3 track! It's much better played than Copland's own recording as well as a different interpretation.

For a different take on the Debussy, you could try Haitink or Monteux.

Delius, Satie, Rachmaninov and Rodrigo aren't really my thing but others may have some suggestions.

[Lateralthinking1]

Many thanks for these suggestions.

[rauschwerk]

Copland was not always the best conductor of his own work. I agree with umslopogaas that you should hear Michael Tilson Thomas, whose interpretation of Appalachian Spring is as near to perfection as one might reasonably expect in this life. As for the Delius, do try and hear Beecham (EMI). Try Karajan (DG) in La Mer, Previn in Images, the composer in Rach 2 (though Ashkenazy is certainly very fine here).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Great question Lateralthinking1. It's fairly easy to listen to Building a Library etc and appreciate the differences when they're pointed out to you - but how do you do it for yourself? I've found it sometimes just happens. I've been to live performances of pieces I know and love and have come away feeling that there was something not quite right - but I can't put my finger on what it is I'm not happy about. I suppose the thing is to enjoy the music - unless the performance gets in the way of that.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Since you name it in your post, VW's London Symphony could be a good place to start. As a good extra excuse for picking 2 discs you can buy recordings with significantly different versions of the work. Hickox on Chandos recorded VW's original 1913 score, everyone else does his later, significantly pruned, published version.

But whose 'standard' version would be the greatest contrast with Hickox?

I'd pick Boult's 1950s Decca version (available in a cheap box of all 9 symphonies) though be warned that the sound is mono and really very 'thin'. Perhaps a safer historical recording is Sir Henry Wood's on Dutton: very cheap if still available and with an absolutely wonderful performance of the 16-voice 'Serenade to Music' with the original soloists.

That should give you a good idea of how different recordings can throw different lights, even after you've learnt to allow for the slightly different scores. And you can of course apply your mind to the questions of whether VW was right to cut the score back, and whether Ursula VW was right to permit Hickox to record the version that VW had, at least technically, binned.

If you do form a view, do please share: there are no wrong answers to these questions!

If you like the 16-voice Serenade you can compare it with VW's versions for chorus and orch, or even plain orch. Here, there is only ONE right answer: the 16-voice version is far better than the plain orchestral version, while the choral version has nothing going for it at all, except economy/ practicality in live performace. There is NO excuse for buying it on record, OK?

[johnb]

JohnB - I would say that the first was stately and heavier in touch, the second lighter and more graceful, even slightly whimsical. I prefer the second. How have I done? Should I leave now? - Lat.

I agree with you. By comparison with the first, the second performace lifts the piece onto a different level.

(By the way, looking at the CDs you 'grabbed from the rack', you should recognise one of the versions!)

[Dave2002]

I enjoyed both A and B. A is slow - fairly static. Sometimes I like performances like that.
B is a bit faster, more flexible in tempo and phrasing, and passes one phrase on to the next in a more illuminating way. Also B seems to make more sense of structure - it's not just the same basic idea repeated over and over, and B does bring the work to a conclusion - it doesn't just "happen". On balance then I'd have to say I do prefer B, but occasionally I might like A.

[Don Petter]

On balance then I'd have to say I do prefer B, but occasionally I might like A.

I too used to suffer from indecision, but now I'm not sure...

[Lateralthinking1]

JohnB - Many thanks for your comments. I found this a really interesting exercise. So one is Roge acute - sorry, can't do the accent! Who is the other one? Lat.

[johnb]

Version A is Jean-Yves Thibaubet
Version B is Pascal Rogé

I cheated and copied the name, including the accent from Google, but hidden away in Windows is a character map utility which enables you to see the character sets and select, copy and paste (at least it is there in XP, not sure about Vista or 7:

Start/All Programmes/Accessories/System tools/Character map

But the easiest way is probably to get a list of the key-strokes needed to type the accented character.

[Don Petter]

And you can put a short cut to the Character Map on your desktop, which I find more convenient.

[johnb]

Don, I do the same.