Building a Library - General Discussion

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No objections from me, Pulcie - as the "official" feature is on its annual Summer holiday...

But is it though? As I said earlier, the BBC Music Magazine lists a BaL for every Saturday in July.

We should know the truth tomorrow.

[aeolium]

The Vienna Philharmonic is the concert-giving name of the same ensemble that plays for the Vienna State Opera. When the VPO had exclusive recording contracts, other record companies could get round the legalities by billing them on covers (as in this case) as the Vienna State Opera Orchestra. So Boult would record The Planets for Westminster with the VSOO, but would have exactly the same people in front of him when they recorded Mahler for Decca, billed as the VPO.

The curious thing is that the VSOO also appears on some very well-known Decca recordings, presumably at the same time that the VPO had a recording contract with Decca. For example, the wonderful Kertesz recording of La Clemenza di Tito has the VSOO as its nominated orchestra, and there's certainly no substandard playing on that performance!

Perhaps the explanation with the Boult/VSOO recording of The Planets is lack of rehearsal time, or lack of orchestral enthusiasm for the music (unprofessional, but not unknown).

[Pulcinella]

But is it though? As I said earlier, the BBC Music Magazine lists a BaL for every Saturday in July.

We should know the truth tomorrow.

We know already, Alpie: the text in #389 was taken from the R3 schedule for 14 July.
Maybe not always the most reliable source of information, but in this case I think it may well be.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

We know already, Alpie: the text in #389 was taken from the R3 schedule for 14 July.
Maybe not always the most reliable source of information, but in this case I think it may well be.

Er, yes... I see.

A HOLIDAY.

[LeMartinPecheur]

BaL - the sheer size of the task

After the discussions around this morning's 'Top Eight'-style survey for the Schumann piano concerto I thought to look at a couple of volumes on my shelves. Back in 1979 and 1980 OUP published summaries of recent BaL adjudications with lists of the recordings considered. As far as I can tell these were a good shot at all the versions currently available in the UK - no doubt the Gramophone quarterly catalogue helped here.

I thought it might be interesting to compare numbers on works that have figured in the last few years via Alpie's excellent lists, with the following specimen results;

Mozart Don Giovanni: 8 against 82
Holst Planets: 10 against 48 (ignoring funny arrangements!)
Mahler Symphony No 2: 9 against 87 (again, ignoring...)

More available on request (possibly!).

So, 5 or 10x the number of versions. Clearly, all that's needed is an expanded 7-hr slot

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's certainly true that the scale of the programme has expanded way beyond what it was originally intended to be - and certainly there is an argument for a reviewer making an individual short list of recordings to make a selection more manageable. But, if the programme is intended to guide listeners to "best" recordings of a work, then I feel that reviewers should include some discussion of recordings that have been highly regarded by other "experts", even if only to demonstrate why they believe such a reputation is not (or no longer) valid. And the programme does itself no favours when a reviewer completely ignores a recording that has been the chosen disc on a previous BaL from not-that=many years ago.

Oh - and Andrew McGregor should go away and let the time-wasting wittering be put to better purpose by the reviewer.

[ardcarp]

Oh - and Andrew McGregor should go away and let the time-wasting wittering be put to better purpose by the reviewer.

And I'm just longing for the time when, on a live duologue, the reviewer would flagrantly disagree with the pre-planned direction of travel, e.g.

AMcG "Doesn't Bolokovski bring a wonderful transparency to the texture of that middle movement?"
ANOther "No. I find it incredibly muddy."
AMcG "And his tempi are so....PARDON? What did you say????"

[DracoM]

And the next line:
'Look, am I the reviewer here, or are you? If it's you, I'm out of here' - sound of papers being collected and AMcG left with the next 20 mins to fill solo.


Please, please, please!!

[Mal]

They should have a listeners response right after the programme, read out the thread on this forum, and respond to the comments on air. Imagine the conversation!

AMcG: Again, 10 out of 11 posts are saying I witter on too much, and should just get lost.
Guest: Quite right... Andrew... Where are you going Andrew?.... Andrew... Er... What do I do now?... DEAD AIR...

[Serial_Apologist]

They should have a listeners response right after the programme, read out the thread on this forum, and respond to the comments on air. Imagine the conversation!

AMcG: Again, 10 out of 11 posts are saying I witter on too much, and should just get lost.
Guest: Quite right... Andrew... Where are you going Andrew?.... Andrew... Er... What do I do now?... DEAD AIR...

Cue "If you wouldn't mind holding the line for a few moments while I get someone", followed by the Spring movement from The Four Seasons!

[Nick Armstrong]

It's certainly true that the scale of the programme has expanded way beyond what it was originally intended to be - and certainly there is an argument for a reviewer making an individual short list of recordings to make a selection more manageable. But, if the programme is intended to guide listeners to "best" recordings of a work, then I feel that reviewers should include some discussion of recordings that have been highly regarded by other "experts", even if only to demonstrate why they believe such a reputation is not (or no longer) valid. And the programme does itself no favours when a reviewer completely ignores a recording that has been the chosen disc on a previous BaL from not-that=many years ago.

Oh - and Andrew McGregor should go away and let the time-wasting wittering be put to better purpose by the reviewer.

Agree with every word of that

[pastoralguy]

I really must protest at the venom that's being thrown in Andrew McGregor's direction. We really don't know the circumstances behind these 'twofers' although I suspect that he's simply following orders from on high. In which case, why not write to the controller of Radio3 and express your feelings to him?

I appreciate these 'discussions' are not ideal and I do prefer the individual reviewers being given their head and being allowed to give their opinions unchallenged. I often suspect that these BaLs were recorded well in advance.

And don't forget that no one is forcing us to purchase the 'winner'. It's simply the personal opinion of one critic.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

why not write to the controller of Radio3 and express your feelings to him?

Some of us already have, pasto.

Whether or not AMcG is "just following orders" or deliberately turning the programme into The Andrew McGregor Show is not really relevant to me - the important thing for me is that his interruptions are intrusive, lacking insight, and prevent more detailed discussion from the principal reviewer. As they have made me decide to stop listening to a programme that for decades was one of my favourites, I don't know what else I feel inclined to throw in his direction, other than "venom". It will have no effect on him.

[pastoralguy]

Some of us already have, pasto.

.

Have you had any response, Ferney? (Or is it the usual arrogant BBC response of 'we know best?')

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Have you had any response, Ferney? (Or is it the usual arrogant BBC response of 'we know best?')

More a case of a pleasant "We're very interested in what you have to say", but with no effect on the decisions already made.

I'm sorry that I've upset some Forumistas who admire AMcG - but because I do not wish to upset anyone here; I don't think my comments will cause him, or anyone at the Beeb, any distress. I don't withdraw my criticisms - the changes at BaL have ruined a favourite programme for me - but I apologise to all Forumistas who have been annoyed by them.