Building a Library - General Discussion

[Ariosto]

It was just old Alps avin' a bit of Olaf!

He's laughing so much he may fall off his perch soon!!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

He's laughing so much he may fall off his perch soon!!

That did concern me a little.

[Barbirollians]

Superb Cockaigne, possibly the best I've heard.

Have you not heard the Barbirolli ?

[MrGongGong]

Superb Cockaigne, possibly the best I've heard.

Better than Clapton ?

[cincinnatus]

I want to return to Thropplenoggin's original question. I recently sent an e-mail to CD Review, the gist of which was:-

'I had always understood that the reviewers you commission for each BAL are asked to listen to all the currently available recordings, whether as CDs or downloads, draw up a select long list from which extracts will be heard in the programme, and from which the eventual recommendation will come. In 2014 I have already heard Beethoven's 2nd and 7th symphonies and Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto where this has not been the case. In each of these programmes we were told how many recordings had been listened to in preparation and it was only a fraction of those currently available.

So is BAL looking at all currently available recordings or just some? Does it depend on how many? Is this a new policy or has it always been the case?'

CD Review's reply was:-

The policy is that we look at a large selection of recordings for the large works with an unwieldy number of recordings - but everything for works with fewer recordings.@

So now you know!

[french frank]

CD Review's reply was:-

The policy is that we look at a large selection of recordings for the large works with an unwieldy number of recordings - but everything for works with fewer recordings.@

So now you know!

Indeed. Though I suppose over the years the problem has become more and more difficult.

[amateur51]

At the start of her BaL on Elgar cello concerto, Helen Wallace remarked that she had listened to forty recordings, a Herculean task by any standards. However i got no sense of her applying arbitrary or heavy-handed criteria with which to whittle down the list.

So a tough task certainly but not impossible, apparently.

[Nick Armstrong]

The double-headed live BaL: Eagle or Dog?

In relation to recent live 'two-hander' BaLs, there has been debate about whether it's a good idea. The prevailing view was a conservative one, typical perhaps of this Forum, but in this weekend's Bartok BaL there were signs that some listeners warmed to the format.

I thought this deserved a thread on its own.

To kick off, I've picked out the main contributions to this weekend's discussion on the topic (hope this works, and this post isn't too long...)

It's "live".

I share your grimace. I love this work but don't think I am prepared to listen through the Andrew and Rob show to gain any insight into available recordings. I will wait for the final outcome to see where my current recording rates.

Oh dear, we don't like change.

I for one don't mind change. However we have tried this format a number of times and it doesn't work!

Change should be for the better. This isn't it.

I'm sitting in the car whilst Mrs. PG shops for clothes...! I'm really enjoyingthis discussion. Andrew and Rob strike me as a good combination with neither trying to dominate.

I agree. Contrary to received wisdom, I think this format can work with the right combination of reviewer and presenter - at least for a listener such as myself (an enthusiastic relative newcomer). I think RC and AM work well together.

I too must eat my words and say that I a enjoying it as well. I have in the past not like RC much as a critic/presenter but I am really enjoying this program. It could be that it is due to my love of the work being reviewed.

I certainly enjoyed it and felt that AM was drawing out extra insights from RC and even making good points of his own. Ardcarp's point about time wasted by talking is surely mitigated by the fact that the slot was the best part of an hour, about 15' more than they usually allow a solo presenter.

I enjoyed the discussion format and hope it will be used again.

Once again, I enjoyed the dog of two head presentation......
And I'm pleased that some forumites are embracing this new way of doing things, with at least one member being happy to 'eat his own words'

I think the double-headed eagle is beginning to take it's place on the BaL coat of arms - I actually enjoy the little 'asides' that come up in the chat......

It still wasn't good - just less awful than other times when this constant interruption format is used. Rob on his own would have been perfect.

Out of genuine interest, BeefO (or anyone who shares this preference) - why do you prefer the "conversation" format over the solo presentation? I find the constant "Oh, that is good", "Yes it is marvellous, isn't it" exchange wastes time and adds nothing to my understanding or appreciation of the recording concerned.

I find observing a conversation more engaging, more of a group thing. I think that this week's Bal was just as informative and engaging as last week's - a bit more actually.
As the format develops, I expect the interaction to become more dynamic.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the format has anything to do with wasted Bal-time. I think we'd agree that down the years there have been many Bals that have been as dry as toast and no more enlightening!

I leave many a mistake of thinking on the path of life behind me, and doubtless there shall be many more ahead - but ascribing to the conversation format wasted BaL time isn't one of them.
I rather like the twin-review idea that appears in Fanfare - and I'd quite like a couple of experts having a public spat over a new release (one passionately pro, the other vehemently contra) on Seedy Review. But dry toast is more to my taste than redundant confirmation phrases which do nothing but waste (my) time - to reach a single decision about which recording they think is the best representative of that work is necessarily the choice of an individual. This happened today; RC made his choices independently - all AMcG did, I felt, was to add a few aural nods of agreement. I didn't see the point of his being involved.

Which has little to do with the format and more to do with AMcG. And I hope I understood you right in not ascribing that to the format.

Beefy: surely this has everything to do with the format?
If no second person no aural nods of agreement from anyone; I don't think that AMcG would be the only culprit.

Any views from others, or further thoughts on the above? I shall add some of my own further down.

[johnb]

For what it's worth I thought the Bartok CoF BAL was all right but the chatty nature of double headers sometimes gets in the way of what the programme is trying to do. Rob Cowan on his own would have been better.

Up to now CDR is the only (?) morning programme that hasn't been dumbed down* (tweets excepted) - watch this space.

* Sorry, I should have written "made more accessible".

[Don Petter]

Up to now CDR is the only (?) morning programme that hasn't been dumbed down* (tweets excepted) - watch this space.

Arguably, the rot had already started when they included trails in the middle of the programme.

[Pulcinella]

Arguably, the rot had already started when they included trails in the middle of the programme.

Indeed!
I'm surprised that we don't get news bulletins every half hour, too.

[Flosshilde]

Well, that went off-topic pretty quickly

I haven't heard a 241 Bal, but if the 2nd person's role was as an interogator - probing a little more deeply into the reasons for rejecting or retaing a particular recording, it could be interesting, but fireside chat between two chums who agree about everything would be a bit dull.

[antongould]

Dog, IMVVHO.

[EdgeleyRob]

Dog.

Bring back interpretations on record.

[Black Swan]

Although, I liked this BAL, I am afraid it is a dog for me too. I think Saturdays BAL was an exception to what I have heard in the past.