Building a Library - General Discussion

[DracoM]

.........which many of us have been saying for ages of these wretched RR twofers - esp + Andrew McGod non-stop interrupting.
Pre-record them, edit them, give us a proper analytic, thought out package. Or a solo. Twofer format is nearly always a fractured penny-farthing bike in the making

[ardcarp]

Apart from the twofer format (which sometimes works...sort of...but usually just wastes time) there are other things I find unhelpful:

1. A short short-list
2. Always going through a piece in order (eg movements 1 - 4 in a symphony)
3. Always pretending to make 'the decision' at the end of the above process. I think the word 'winnowing' was used on Sat.
4. Not often comparing the same extract from different performances. (I think it happened a couple of times this Sat. but not enough.)

To achieve all the above would need more time, so (a) bin the twofer and (b) give BAL another 15 mins.

Incidentally I've not heard the Malki version before. From the snippets, it sounded good. I was quite surprised when Emma didn't choose it, especially as she'd bigged it up so much.

[gurnemanz]

4. Not often comparing the same extract from different performances. (I think it happened a couple of times this Sat. but not enough.)

I agree with all your points. Specifically, re the above: When reviewing Schumann's Dichterliebe a couple of years ago Laura Tunbridge played the same quite short phrase from different singers half a dozen or so times one after another. This not only offered revealing insights into the multiple, presumably infinite, interpretative possibilities but also made clear how difficult (futile?) it is to pick just one. The obvious challenge of BaL is to do just that and despite the format's limitations I still think it is worth while attempting it. If it is a work you love you are likely to accquire/listen to as many recordings as possible. I seem to have 19 recordings of Dichterliebe.

[Alison]

Andrew McG rarely plays devils advocate, content to frame questions in a way that will draw out the answer he already knows. It doesn’t make for compelling listening. Is his role to agree with everything his guests say?

[ardcarp]

Andrew McG rarely plays devils advocate, content to frame questions in a way that will draw out the answer he already knows. It doesn’t make for compelling listening. Is his role to agree with everything his guests say?

...and I'd highlight the word 'absolutely' in this context. And ban its use?

[Bryn]

...and I'd highlight the word 'absolutely' in this context. And ban its use?

Quite!

[Lordgeous]

Not long enough. Why not make it around an hour. Its a popular (part of a) programme surely?

[kindofblue]

If I may contribute my two penneth on the vexed subject of BAL...

My love for classical music began roughly thirty years ago when two friends played me some of their favourite pieces; a Forumista played me the Bernstein Mahler 6 on their recently-imported speakers, and another friend played me DSCH's 8th quartet. That was it, I was hooked. I would then look forward to Record Review and BAL precisely because I was in the process of actually building a library of the key works, I had little other frame of reference. I have a very clear memory from the early 90's of hearing a BAL on Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen and then immediately getting on the bus into Leeds to buy 'that' Barbirolli/Janet Baker recording. [I kept the receipt, as we all used to, and I can still just about read the faded brown paper with 'The Classical Record Shop' on the top]. The gentleman who served me had been listening to the same programme in the shop and we had one of those special, fleeting conversations that people who share passions have from time to time. I miss those days.

I now possess a library of sorts, and I share some of the frustrations of fellow contributers regarding BAL, in the main about you-know-who's constant interruptions. [It's poor radio]. I am though no longer a novice but there are many people for whom BAL will serve a very useful purpose, namely to guide listeners to, at the very least, a very good recording. My point is this; many people on this Forum have 50 years+ of listening under their belt and well-formed tastes. BAL cannot possibly please this group of people as the list of omissions alone will be a source of irritation, as well as the issues relating to style; the volume of recordings that might now be considered is almost overwhelming. For the comparative novice however it will still be both interesting and useful for the purposes of... building a library. [I have made friends aware of the programme and they enjoy it].

For those of us who are finding the format a little tired there is clearly a need for a different programme, possibly along the lines of a 'Tribune des Critiques de Disques' which other Forumistas are acquainted with. One presenter, three 'experts', blind listening. [There is though still a selection of just six possible 'winners'!] The advantage of this programme is that the focus is on the performance and listening, without people getting giddy about the big names. Debates around HIPP, vibrato etc... are here entirely appropriate given the audience. My view is that we keep BAL pretty much as it is as it serves a very useful function, but lean towards solo presenters who can get through more stuff because AM isn't twittering away valuable air time; in addition to BAL though we need another, more specialised programme for those who may already have said library.

[Darloboy]

Has BaL now decided that we no longer need any opera in our libraries? All we’ve had this series is The Merry Widow.

[kernelbogey]

A dialogue could be productive if better done. It pretends to be spontaneous - but you can't have AM saying both 'What have you got next?' and 'I believe your next example will show us....'

[gurnemanz]

A dialogue could be productive if better done. It pretends to be spontneous - but you can't have AM saying both 'What have you got next?' and 'I believe your next example will show us....'

The interviewer's contributions are either jollying along of the above type or nodding along in general agreement. In both cases unnecessary time-wasting.

[RichardB]

My point is this; many people on this Forum have 50 years+ of listening under their belt and well-formed tastes. BAL cannot possibly please this group of people as the list of omissions alone will be a source of irritation, as well as the issues relating to style; the volume of recordings that might now be considered is almost overwhelming. For the comparative novice however it will still be both interesting and useful for the purposes of... building a library. [I have made friends aware of the programme and they enjoy it].

This is really an important point. Note that as soon as a BAL programme is announced, people start piling in to cite their personal favourite(s), reignite the endless (and to me, I have to say, endlessly fascinating) discussion about HIPP versus HUPP, and so on, so that when the programme finally comes on it can only be an anticlimax. I don't bother listening to it very often. Sometimes I check out the "winner" if it's something I haven't come across or taken sufficient notice of. As you say, this programme isn't for me, or for most of the contributors to this forum, and probably serves its purpose fairly well for the people it is aimed at.

Or does it? In the 2020s, the concept of "building a library" is becoming a thing of the past. Maybe this programme ought to bring itself up to date by recognising that especially "new" listeners aren't thinking of which physical sound-carrying object to buy, but which one to stream. In other words there's no more outlay involved in listening to fifty recordings than there is for one, which means the concept of a single "winner" is perhaps no longer a very useful way to do things anyway.

[mahlerfan]

"..... the concept of a single "winner" is perhaps no longer a very useful way to do things anyway".

Agreed - the recent Daphnis being an example. The aim should be to give an intelligent steer towards a group of recordings and the listener, especially the young or newbie, should be encouraged to explore them and land on their own, informed preference. This facilitative approach is possible given the easy access to music these days, and is more relevant than the post-war, didactic paternalistic BBC approach that many of us grew up with (which I certainly have no complaint about, but times change.....). That's my recommendation.


Edit: I've been building my 'library' for over 50 years so I have no real need of the programme, but I know younger people who say they enjoy it and gain from it.

[kindofblue]

This is really an important point. Note that as soon as a BAL programme is announced, people start piling in to cite their personal favourite(s), reignite the endless (and to me, I have to say, endlessly fascinating) discussion about HIPP versus HUPP, and so on, so that when the programme finally comes on it can only be an anticlimax. I don't bother listening to it very often. Sometimes I check out the "winner" if it's something I haven't come across or taken sufficient notice of. As you say, this programme isn't for me, or for most of the contributors to this forum, and probably serves its purpose fairly well for the people it is aimed at.

Or does it? In the 2020s, the concept of "building a library" is becoming a thing of the past. Maybe this programme ought to bring itself up to date by recognising that especially "new" listeners aren't thinking of which physical sound-carrying object to buy, but which one to stream. In other words there's no more outlay involved in listening to fifty recordings than there is for one, which means the concept of a single "winner" is perhaps no longer a very useful way to do things anyway.

I'm reflecting on my post in light of your comments RichardB; the two words 'library' and 'streaming' are of great significance. In my early years of listening to classical music finances dictated that, if I didn't have a CD of a particular piece then a 'library standard' recording would be a smart one to get. As my tastes developed I started to acquire more than one version of the same piece, but even then only a handful. The arrival of the box set made this a whole lot easier of course, as companies started to think of ever more imaginative ways of re-branding old wares... usually after the performer had passed on! But economics made the concept of a library perfectly valid, along with the phrase '.... so if I were forced to live with only one version it would be...'

We no longer have to live with the one version though thanks to streaming. Out of interest I may choose to listen to a version of a Bruckner symphony that is rarely performed, or compare several versions of the Ravel Trio - I would never have bought those CDs and I may enjoy them equally. But now I have Qobuz. To expand on RichardB's point - there might possiblybe some pieces where there is a broad consensus that there is a single valid library version, but for the most part don't we simply want to know about some performances that are just really good in different ways that we can simply enjoy? I agree that the concept of a winner may now be a little old hat.

Returning to my original post I maintain that a R3 version of 'Trbune des Critiques...' would actually make for a damned good programme. A small group of really well-informed guests who are actually allowd to give a real opinion would be wonderful. The French programme really comes alive when a critic gives a negative opinion of an artist who is deemed untouchable in terms of reputation, or a virtual unknown sweeps the board. Bring it on!

[visualnickmos]

Returning to my original post I maintain that a R3 version of 'Trbune des Critiques...' would actually make for a damned good programme. A small group of really well-informed guests who are actually allowd to give a real opinion would be wonderful. The French programme really comes alive when a critic gives a negative opinion of an artist who is deemed untouchable in terms of reputation, or a virtual unknown sweeps the board. Bring it on!

Totally agree! Also - the programme is long enough for the participants to really get into it.