Building a Library - General Discussion

[Nick Armstrong]

What's happening to BAL?

Taking a cue from this:

Am I being cynical in thinking that it allows a presenter to ride a current hobby horse without the rigour of a comprehensive review. Surely that is a feature and is what the rest of CD review is for. A review of Beecham or Bruckner should be in addition to Building a Library.

Mike

with which I agree, I raise the question of why the BAL concept is being watered down of late.

The two instances of 'recent releases' on a theme (Bruckner and Beecham) being chatted about by Andrew McG and a guest have nothing to do with the idea of BAL which is to take a work (or at a pinch, the output of a composer or performer) and provide a survey - from earliest releases to most recent - which suggests a recording or recordings which 'ought to' be in any collector's library.

That's not what the Bruckner and Beecham chats did. I don't mind chat's about recent releases - it's another staple of CD Review. But why are they being called Building a Library? The give-away is that those two chats have not been released as BAL podcasts.

And why have there be no actual BAL's those two weeks? Lack of contributors? Why not say "There's no Building a Library next week, but I'll be talking to Rob Cowan instead about some recent releases featuring Beecham" ?

My additional cynical thought is that it is money saving - I don't know how much they have to pay a BAL contributor to prepare and present his or her 50 minute slot, but I imagine it may be more than getting 'staffers' to chat about recent releases.

Something's going on and they are trying to cover it up by passing one thing off as something else. I wish the Cowans and the McGregors of this world would visit here, as they did the old boards, and explain matters!!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well the old boards were run by the BBC, so I suppose they felt a certain loyalty/affinity. It would be good to hear from them. I like to think they were treated with respect.

On the general issue, there have been BaLs in the past for Beethoven symphony cycles and Bach organ music that weren't so dissimilar.

[Nick Armstrong]

Well the old boards were run by the BBC, so I suppose they felt a certain loyalty/affinity. It would be good to hear from them. I like to think they were treated with respect.

On the general issue, there have been BaLs in the past for Beethoven symphony cycles and Bach organ music that weren't so dissimilar.

I think the key difference is Mike Aldren's word 'comprehensive'. When the deciding criterion is (as with the recent two chats) that only 'new releases' are considered, that removes the essential 'comprehensive' element of BAL, IMHO...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Fair comment.

[pilamenon]

I wonder if they're slowly phasing the traditional BaL out. Chat is much more in vogue nowadays than monologue.

I quite enjoyed yesterday's Beecham slot, but it did sound altogether a bit too cosy. There was also an excruciating three-hander last year on Dichterliebe, with the two guests cooing over Fischer-Dieskau in the most unbearable way. On the other hand, the discussion of Bach's organ music was, to me, absolutely fascinating. It depends on the reviewers, and how rigorous they are.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I quite like to hear a discussion, but only when the reviewers are sincere.
I don't like cooing either; it reminds of of those Proms interval chats with Special Guests.

[Nick Armstrong]

I quite like to hear a discussion, but only when the reviewers are sincere.
I don't like cooing either; it reminds of of those Proms interval chats with Special Guests.

Agreed, EA. I don't mind BAL in a discussion format either - done properly - as long as it conveys to the listener an overview of the recorded history of a piece (or, I suppose, of a performer's career).

[BBMmk2]

Well, they gone back to the one piece format again with Mahler's 10th.

[amateur51]

Agreed, EA. I don't mind BAL in a discussion format either - done properly - as long as it conveys to the listener an overview of the recorded history of a piece (or, I suppose, of a performer's career).

As was the case with this BAL, surely - an overview of Beecham's recording history with EMI. Cowan was very clear about the differences between Beecham's pre- and post-war interpretative styles, which I found fascinating.

[DracoM]

Totally agree, BUT usually in CDR, such surveys are NOT BAL slots at all, but almost always placed after it.

The survery format IMO diffuses the exercise, and actually in the end, I'm not sure what i've listeneed to or for what it might be useful. The one on Sat dotted about fairly confusingly from pre- to post-, this orchestra / that orchestra, this isn't in this collection, and I see they haven't included that EMI session at Walthamstow Town Hall when he conducted X, but the real treasure here is the X he did with band Y at...... etcetcetc.

All of which tended to make the survey feel a bit like people watching a fishing net come out of the sea, inspection of catch, but knowing that other boats had caught different stuff a few miles away.

Now if they restored 'Interpretations on Record', we would have a regular slot outside CDR that dealt with this and they could re-deploy that BAL area to exploratory chat a la Beecham jaw.

[Cellini]

I quite like to hear a discussion, but only when the reviewers are sincere.
I don't like cooing either; it reminds of of those Proms interval chats with Special Guests.

And what I hated (when I had a telly) was when everyone (the special "guests") - agreed and no-one (or at least not often) said that something was a poor piece of music, or badly performed and why, or made any meaningful comments about the concert. Always the too cosy worthless chat.

[Nick Armstrong]

Totally agree, BUT usually in CDR, such surveys are NOT BAL slots at all, but almost always placed after it.

The survery format IMO diffuses the exercise, and actually in the end, I'm not sure what i've listeneed to or for what it might be useful. The one on Sat dotted about fairly confusingly from pre- to post-, this orchestra / that orchestra, this isn't in this collection, and I see they haven't included that EMI session at Walthamstow Town Hall when he conducted X, but the real treasure here is the X he did with band Y at...... etcetcetc.

All of which tended to make the survey feel a bit like people watching a fishing net come out of the sea, inspection of catch, but knowing that other boats had caught different stuff a few miles away.

Now if they restored 'Interpretations on Record', we would have a regular slot outside CDR that dealt with this and they could re-deploy that BAL area to exploratory chat a la Beecham jaw.

Quite - plus the chat lacked the comprehensive survey quality of BAL - lots of stuff wasn't considered (Sibelius, operas) because they weren't in the 'new release' boxes being talked about. It was not a survey of Sir TB's recorded legacy - just of a couple of recently-released box sets.

[umslopogaas]

Post 5 Pilamenon

"Chat is much more in vogue nowadays than monologue."

Well yes, but at least chat offers the option for dialogue, assuming you dont usually talk to yourself. Nice to involve other people, they have different perspectives. Possibilities open up. Whereas monologue does imply a certain monotonous and unhealthy self-interest ... I suspect Adolf Hitler spent a lot of time in monologue and I'm sure he always agreed with the arguments. I'll settle for chat.

[mikealdren]

Personally I'm happy with chat or monologue but they are different. Chat is less structured and therefore less comprehensive, not really suitable for a reviewing all the versions of a work where the prepared and considered review (monologue) works well. Scripted chat always sounds false.

Mike

[StephenO]

Chat's fine, particularly when it involves Rob, but a monologue is better for giving one person's top recommendation of a work - and I thought that was the whole point of BaL.