BaL 11.05.24 - Stravinsky: The Firebird

[MickyD]

It was a golden age Micky, I've been playing the 'Rite', also Cornall/Dunkerley and the Petrouchka, also engineered by Dunkerley but produced by Ray Minshull, both terrific!

I collected nearly all the Dutoit/Montréal recordings when they came out as you just knew they would be a treat for the ears. Respighi, Suppe, Offenbach etc, it was an impressive catalogue.

[Roger Webb]

I collected nearly all the Dutoit/Montréal recordings when they came out as you just knew they would be a treat for the ears. Respighi, Suppe, Offenbach etc, it was an impressive catalogue.

Funny, I played the Respighi (another Ray Minshall and Dunkers) this afternoon, prompted by talk of the Beatrice Harrison and Nightingale story!

Just looking up to see what Dunkers does now, apparently he runs courses at Abbey Road for budding engineers, passing on his refinements to the Decca Tree method of mike placement so successfully employed in those recordings.

[oliver sudden]

On the basis of very recent experience I can verify should verification be needed that even here in the Rhineland in 2024 a German recording engineer will call a Decca Tree exactly that, in the middle of a German conversation.

[Retune]

She might have handled 'it' quite well, but what worries me is that 'it' needs handling at all.
Are we not all able to make our own decisions on such things?
Are we to expect a similar 'apology if I cause offence'-type caveat if any Dutoit, Levine, King....performance should be chosen in future?

Well, the alternative is to sweep this issue under the carpet, either by silently excluding recordings from consideration (which may be happening already on other episodes), or by simply not mentioning the relevant issue when a recording is selected. This doesn't seem to be satisfactory either, especially when listeners may be unaware of what has happened (allegedly or otherwise) when buying a recording, but may learn about it later. Yes, we should be able to make our own decisions, but they should be informed decisions, so that everyone can assess for themselves whether their experience is likely to be 'tainted' by this knowledge, and choose whether to support the artist financially (in however small a way) by purchasing their work. Not everyone can separate the art from the artist, and they shouldn't feel obliged to. Having bought a recording by at least one of these artists before I knew about the nature of the allegations concerning them, I may well have chosen differently if I had been better informed. There are, after all, likely to be several accounts with compelling claims to be the 'best' recording in the repertoire considered by BaL. This week I happened to have one of the other recordings that made it to the final shortlist, and which might easily have been chosen as the 'winner' (but without its baggage).

[MickyD]

Funny, I played the Respighi (another Ray Minshall and Dunkers) this afternoon, prompted by talk of the Beatrice Harrison and Nightingale story!

Just looking up to see what Dunkers does now, apparently he runs courses at Abbey Road for budding engineers, passing on his refinements to the Decca Tree method of mike placement so successfully employed in those recordings.

Well, isn't that marvellous that he is passing on all his valuable experience? Good for him.

[Roger Webb]

Well, isn't that marvellous that he is passing on all his valuable experience? Good for him.

This might be interesting as a bit of background to the famous Decca tree.

https://abbeyroadinstitute.co.uk/blog/the-decca-tree-the-secrets-behind-the-legendary-recording-technique/

[richardfinegold]

Well, the alternative is to sweep this issue under the carpet, either by silently excluding recordings from consideration (which may be happening already on other episodes), or by simply not mentioning the relevant issue when a recording is selected. This doesn't seem to be satisfactory either, especially when listeners may be unaware of what has happened (allegedly or otherwise) when buying a recording, but may learn about it later. Yes, we should be able to make our own decisions, but they should be informed decisions, so that everyone can assess for themselves whether their experience is likely to be 'tainted' by this knowledge, and choose whether to support the artist financially (in however small a way) by purchasing their work. Not everyone can separate the art from the artist, and they shouldn't feel obliged to. Having bought a recording by at least one of these artists before I knew about the nature of the allegations concerning them, I may well have chosen differently if I had been better informed. There are, after all, likely to be several accounts with compelling claims to be the 'best' recording in the repertoire considered by BaL. This week I happened to have one of the other recordings that made it to the final shortlist, and which might easily have been chosen as the 'winner' (but without its baggage).

It is such a difficult subject. Do we punish all the musicians and recording personnel because of the transgressions of the stick waver? And where does it end? If the conductor is not morally tainted, but an important player such as the lead oboe is later found to be morally imperfect, is it ok to listen to those recordings only if another player is digitally brushed in?
IMO at some point we accept the failings of other Humans without condoning those failings. At some level Art has an independent existence from the human frailties of those that produce it. I don’t feel that it is the responsibility of the presenter, dealing with a finite time allotted and multiple, perhaps hundreds, of alternative recordings, to go there.

[smittims]

When Otto Klemperer returned to Germany after 1945 (the first emigre musician to do so) they said 'our first oboe is not very good. We havea better one , but he was a Nazi. Which would you prefer?'

'The Nazi, of course', said K.

[Retune]

It is such a difficult subject. Do we punish all the musicians and recording personnel because of the transgressions of the stick waver? And where does it end? If the conductor is not morally tainted, but an important player such as the lead oboe is later found to be morally imperfect, is it ok to listen to those recordings only if another player is digitally brushed in?
IMO at some point we accept the failings of other Humans without condoning those failings. At some level Art has an independent existence from the human frailties of those that produce it. I don’t feel that it is the responsibility of the presenter, dealing with a finite time allotted and multiple, perhaps hundreds, of alternative recordings, to go there.

Difficult indeed, raising questions with no simple answers. But in these and other situations I think that we do regard conductors (and soloists) differently to the rank and file members of the orchestra. While their reputations remain unblemished, the conductors are usually the main focus of music criticism (and marketing). It's their artistic vision we are buying into, and everyone who goes to concerts regularly knows the crucial difference a great conductor can make to an orchestra that might have given us a less inspired performance under a different baton. We might only really notice that oboe player when they crack a note, and it will be the conductor who gets the lion's share of the royalties from the CD. That doesn't mean the allegations (or offences) of a disgraced conductor need to be listed every time they are mentioned (Levine was I think included the other week without comment), but when, like Dutoit, they become the BaL choice, it would seem odd to say nothing about the substantial cloud hanging over them. And the world of Classical Music does seem extraordinarily forgiving about alleged or proven misdeeds that would end careers in other areas (including other genres of music). King was welcomed back with barely a ripple. Levine before his death (and now Dutoit) had more limited opportunities to perform, but still got gigs. Cortot, not just a court musician of a despicable regime like Furtwängler or Karajan (or Gergiev), but a member of one with an official government position, had only a short time out before he was able to give concerts, and today his artistry is celebrated with boxed sets. And as a soloist, we cannot say that cancelling him would be punishing anyone else.

[MickyD]

I haven't heard any more news about Philip Pickett, of whose recordings I have many.

[Retune]

I haven't heard any more news about Philip Pickett, of whose recordings I have many.

I suppose this should go in the appropriate thread, but with an 11 year sentence handed out in 2015, the most he could hope for would be probation by now. Perhaps even the forgiveness of the classical music world has its limits, and this is one artist we have now seen the last of (to the relief of his victims).

[Master Jacques]

Yes, someone with the guts to choose a Dutoit/Montreal recording - which is more the reviewer had for Daphnis....although KM made it plain that the award was for the orchestral players not 'the man on the podium'. Well, yes, up to a point - but it is a collaborative enterprise isn't it Kate.

I'm late to this debate, having only just heard this BaL (at the proper time of 9am on a Saturday morning); but I must say that I found Kate Molleson's expression of her personal views, at several points of her "analysis" of Firebird recordings, regrettable.

An experienced broadcaster should not be making comments prejudicial to any legal processes that may (or may not) be going on, over this or that ancient conductor's sex life. Such moral lectures have their place on national radio - but from contributors, not BBC presenters, who must take very great care not to air their own opinions as to legal guilt or innocence in public. Her careful wording may have avoided legal action, but her implications were clear and her words reprehensible. As Pulcinella rightly said, it should be up to us individually to decide whether we avoid this or that recording on moral, as opposed to musical, grounds.

Mind you, my morning had already been soured by an even more slyly expressed dig at the entire Russian people, in a laughably skewed description of Prince Igor chasing and hunting the Firebird:

Ivan, our supposed hero, hunts her down. You can read into that as you choose, about what this archetypal hero character says about the national psyche (77m in)

No we can't "read into that as we choose", when we're being told what to think in such a blatant manner. I'm sure Kate will be embarrassed by her lack of professionalism, when she stops to think about what she's said. Political soapboxing is wildly inappropriate for Record Review; and although I enjoyed the reviewer's insights into the character of Kaschei the Immortal ("more an aura than a character") this BaL left a very nasty taste in my mouth. Where on earth is Radio 3 heading?

[Roger Webb]

I'm late to this debate, having only just heard this BaL (at the proper time of 9am on a Saturday morning); but I must say that I found Kate Molleson's expression of her personal views, at several points of her "analysis" of Firebird recordings, regrettable.

An experienced broadcaster should not be making comments prejudicial to any legal processes that may (or may not) be going on, over this or that ancient conductor's sex life. Such moral lectures have their place on national radio - but from contributors, not BBC presenters, who must take very great care not to air their own opinions as to legal guilt or innocence in public. Her careful wording may have avoided legal action, but her implications were clear and her words reprehensible. As Pulcinella rightly said, it should be up to us individually to decide whether we avoid this or that recording on moral, as opposed to musical, grounds.

Mind you, my morning had already been soured by an even more slyly expressed dig at the entire Russian people, in a laughably skewed description of Prince Igor chasing and hunting the Firebird:

No we can't "read into that as we choose", when we're being told what to think in such a blatant manner. I'm sure Kate will be embarrassed by her lack of professionalism, when she stops to think about what she's said. Political soapboxing is wildly inappropriate for Record Review; and although I enjoyed the reviewer's insights into the character of Kaschei the Immortal ("more an aura than a character") this BaL left a very nasty taste in my mouth. Where on earth is Radio 3 heading?

This is the same Kate Molleson that stated that she would like 'women composers' to be thought of as just 'composers'.......but then took part in International Women's Day on Radio 3, where the whole day was given over to women composers just because they are women!!!

[Master Jacques]

This is the same Kate Molleson that stated that she would like 'women composers' to be thought of as just 'composers'.......but then took part in International Women's Day on Radio 3, where the whole day was given over to women composers just because they are women!!!

It is the same Kate Molleson, Roger. As for the Firebird itself, doesn't she get it wrong in thinking that the hunt is a regrettable example of male on female violence? Unlike the Princess, the Firebird is a "they" (gender neutral) outside the human world altogether. The role needn't be danced by a woman, except by convention. If it were to be danced by a man, Kate would presumably shun such sexist comments as she made about the ballet's plot and theme? It really Will Not Do.

[Barbirollians]

This is the same Kate Molleson that stated that she would like 'women composers' to be thought of as just 'composers'.......but then took part in International Women's Day on Radio 3, where the whole day was given over to women composers just because they are women!!!

I see nothing wrong with that female composers have often rather been patronised or neglected or had to take backseats to their husband’s careers. Her position is not inconsistent.