Perhaps a few more recent readings would have been useful: not to feature more of Argerich and the recent Fliter seemed a shame to me. Cleverly done, under the circumstances, but I suspect a "solo" prerecorded studio presentation by Kenneth Hamilton would have produced an even more rewarding programme for the radio listener.
-
Last edited by Lento; 01-11-14, 12:08. -
I agree, I have the Argerich and it is all I need. I found the presenter knowledgable but tedious. I was listening in the car while on my way to a shop and was glad when I got there.Originally posted by Lento View PostComment
-
Quite so. Why not treat the great Cortot (and perhaps Rubinstein) as hors concours in order to spend more time illustrating interesting recent versions? Disappointing.Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostComment
-
I thought this was a dreadful BAL....most disappointing for me, knowing that Ken Hamilton is under normal circumstances hugely knowledgeable, a fine pianist in his own right, and a witty and entertaining public speaker.
There were several problems:
1. Glaringly obvious was the format. OK, if it has to be a dialogue, then if live on air things must be arranged in advance if only to play the chosen extracts at the right time. BUT it ended up (as it always does) with AMG feeding lines to the guest in (IMO) a boorish way, and the response always being in total agreement. It rather reminded me of the old Spitting Image sketches of the two Davids (Owen and Steele).
2. Quite right that Cortot was used as a yardstick, but surely (as others have commented) we heard far too few recent versions? This was partly because of too much chat (and OMG AMG went on chatting through the Dowland item too
) but partly because of Ken H's academic views. Briefly put, they are that the great figures of the past had a hugely different attitude to performance; scrupulous attention to the score was less important than the emotion, rubato was more often applied and (harking back to a Lisztian generation) even a certain element of improvisation would be considered usual. Hence, Ken does not like manicured Chopin. BAL expresses the reviewer's choice, but frankly Ken's preferred versions probably existed before the recording era. Maybe a nod towards the digital age would have been helpful, if only to illustrate what he didn't like?
3. Why all this fading in and out of the 'coffee and cake' noises?
Just to show R3 is cool?
By the end of the whole programme Mrs A and I were pretty much spitting blood. It was fortunate that Tom Allen had the persona and stature to out-talk AMG; and this was surely the only redeeming feature of this week's CD Review?Comment
-
... i fell back to sleep ....According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.Comment
-
Gulda, could have got 50-1 I think.Comment
-
At least he said that next week's BAL will be "without any intervention from me". I am finding today's virtually unlistenable.Originally posted by rauschwerk View PostComment
-
One of the worst in recent memory. The interview format is dreadful - when will they realise that?Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostComment
-
I think it's very difficult to take an important segment like BAL and do it 'live' in public. Most of the visitors to the cafe weren't paying attention to the proceedings and sat and talked amongst themselves about anything other than the music being discussed. In fact, I got the impression that the regular habitués of THE Sage found it a bit irritating having their coffee area taken over by Radio 3. (And, inevitably, there was a bawling child to contend with!)Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post
From what I could ascertain, Andrew McGregor hadn't met the reviewer before hand. ('It's really nice to meet you', I overheard) so it doesn't seem to be pre-scripted. Obviously, the examples are pre-set by the reviewer so it's up to Andrew McGregor to set him up in a context so that the extracts make sense. I suppose it's difficult to talk about the subtleties of high class music making when two toddlers are having a bun fight 10 feet away!Comment
-
Yes, dire, it was. Format doesn't work at all. The whole thing too superficial - too much chatting, and nothing of any real substance.
Sounded like they were in the middle of the church hall during a 'bring and buy' coffee morning.Comment
-
Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post
AMcG didn’t seem to have done any homework. It sounded as if he thought that the Rubinstein recording on LP with which he was ‘brought up’ was different from the 1946 one about to be discussed.
A terrible example of the ‘chat’ format, as others have said, and very unbalanced, even on its own terms. No mention of Gulda until one example right near the end of the programme and, suddenly, he was the winner! Talk about a dark horse coming suddenly out of the pack …
The teacup noises and bathroom acoustic didn’t really worry me, but it would have been much better without, and just seemed completely irrelevant and unnecessary. All for the sake of trendy immediacy, I trow.Comment
-
I like AMcG, but this format DOESN'T WORK! Such a contrast to the recent exemplary Strauss Oboe Concert BaL.Comment
-
I thought Gulda "won" - but I may have lost interest by that late stage in the proceedings.Originally posted by Don Petter View PostComment
-
Culpa mea! Now corrected.Originally posted by visualnickmos View Post
My memories are even more jumbled than the programme ...Comment
-
Comment