BaL 22.03.25 - Bruckner: Symphony 4

[MickyD]

[QUOTE=LMcD;n1333971]

*Spoiler alert*
.... they do seem to have given away the winner before the programme is actually broadcast.

Shades of The Two Ronnies' 'Mastermind' sketch.

That's probably my favourite sketch that they ever did, never fails to make me laugh.

[richardfinegold]

I wasn't sure if I had the Honeck as it's not on the shelves but Amazon tells me I bought it in July 2024 so it must be among the pile on the floor upstairs awaiting filing!

If that's the case, then I’ve got all three of those on the shortlist. I'm not sure why Rattle is there as I was less than enthusiastic about it on release. However, I've not heard it for a very long time.

I have it as well. Probably played it twice. Will have to try it again

[LMcD]

[QUOTE=MickyD;n1333975]

That's probably my favourite sketch that they ever did, never fails to make me laugh.

Perhaps, in an attempt to attract more listeners to BAL, the 'winner' should be announced in advance and the identity of the first person to correctly guess the work concerned revealed at the start of the broadcast, their prize being a copy of the performance in question or a year's subscription to their favourite streaming service.

[Barbirollians]

Well that was a waste of an hour . He blithered on about classics but only played one the 1965 Jochum - no Bohm, Klemperer, Karajan (why waste time in playing bits of Young's 1874 version )? - Haitink's opening was praised but then he was never heard from again . When you compare this shallow BAL with the old RO and SJ BALs on Bruckner it shows how far Radio 3 has fallen.

And most of all Columbia SO/Walter ,whose version Honeck apparently quoted himself as being in the tradition of in his booklet note ,was completely ignored.

[Barbirollians]

And no comparison between Rattle's BPO and LSO Fourths.

[jonfan]

I wonder if BAL needs an overhaul. In this case there’s so many fine recordings and interpretations that selecting a ‘winner’ is ridiculous. Reviving ‘Interpretations on Record’ would be a good move IMHO, then we might get something interesting and worthy of the works in question. One person doing the analysis, AM was useless yesterday, making an ill-prepared BAL worse.

[HighlandDougie]

I wonder if BAL needs an overhaul. In this case there’s so many fine recordings and interpretations that selecting a ‘winner’ is ridiculous. Reviving ‘Interpretations on Record’ would be a good move IMHO, then we might get something interesting and worthy of the works in question. One person doing the analysis, AM was useless yesterday, making an ill-prepared BAL worse.

Being charitable, a brave try but as Jonfan says, selecting a, "winner (was) ridiculous", given the various editions of the symphony from the original onwards. The interjection of that edition, courtesy of Simone Young, was, at that point in the programme, all a bit egregious. And while the choice of illustrated versions remains the prerogative of the reviewer, it did seem perverse to omit, in particular, HvK, Böhm and Klemperer. No issues about the recommended recording - it is excellent - but, all in all, a real curate's egg of a BaL.

[Barbirollians]

I wonder if BAL needs an overhaul. In this case there’s so many fine recordings and interpretations that selecting a ‘winner’ is ridiculous. Reviving ‘Interpretations on Record’ would be a good move IMHO, then we might get something interesting and worthy of the works in question. One person doing the analysis, AM was useless yesterday, making an ill-prepared BAL worse.

I felt - what I often feel - if Andrew McGregor wants to do a BAL it would much better to revert to the scripted talk and let him do a few himself . He certainly seemed to know the work and its recorded history better yesterday than Professor Mival .

[silvestrione]

Being charitable, a brave try but as Jonfan says, selecting a, "winner (was) ridiculous", given the various editions of the symphony from the original onwards. The interjection of that edition, courtesy of Simone Young, was, at that point in the programme, all a bit egregious. And while the choice of illustrated versions remains the prerogative of the reviewer, it did seem perverse to omit, in particular, HvK, Böhm and Klemperer. No issues about the recommended recording - it is excellent - but, all in all, a real curate's egg of a BaL.

Very strange, to have Rattle/BPO sort of prominent at the end, and no mention of HvK/BPO at all! I am an enthusiast for Rattle, but this was going a bit far, I thought. And I rather thought Rattle's LSO version superior to the earlier one anyway. But, well, the extracts he played were impressive, and I did enjoy the programme for the range and quality of the excerpts.

I am an admirer of Honeck and the Pittsburghers, whom I have heard live in the Proms, and have recordings of (both cases, Tchaikovsky 5), but 'intellectual' was an odd way to characterise the Bruckner performance.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Very strange, to have Rattle/BPO sort of prominent at the end, and no mention of HvK/BPO at all! I am an enthusiast for Rattle, but this was going a bit far, I thought. And I rather thought Rattle's LSO version superior to the earlier one anyway. But, well, the extracts he played were impressive, and I did enjoy the programme for the range and quality of the excerpts.

I am an admirer of Honeck and the Pittsburghers, whom I have heard live in the Proms, and have recordings of (both cases, Tchaikovsky 5), but 'intellectual' was an odd way to characterise the Bruckner performance.

Wasn’t an HVK excerpt played early on ? And praised I think .The problem with this BAL was he kept playing magnificent excerpt after magnificent excerpt and then giving no very good reason for dropping that conductor, it’s an impossible task with Bruckner - so much about conducting it is long term structural and even 1 min clips can’t show that. The one bit of detail he made a fuss over - the BPO violas in the Rattle didn’t knock me sideways. Just sounded like some perfectly good string playing whereas some of the brass in Jochum and Barenboim was staggering .

[HighlandDougie]

Wasn’t an HVK excerpt played early on ? And praised I think

I don't remember one (but that's probably my fading brain). Haitink and the LSO, yes. Near the beginning of the programme.

[Pulcinella]

Recommended recording:
Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra
Manfred Honeck (conductor)
Reference Recordings FR-713

Added to OP too.

[LMcD]

One can't help noticing that there seem to be as many posts about the presenter(s) as there are about the short list and eventual winner.

[Alison]

I don’t really enjoy WM’s library builds and this one was no exception. He did seem a bit edgy and under prepared.
As for the winner I’m reminded again of Robert Layton’s old adage:
’one is too aware of an interpreter at work’. Maybe ‘Bill’ was overly influenced by the sleeve notes! For me not a version to return to very often.

[Nick Armstrong]

Well that was a waste of an hour . He blithered on about classics but only played one the 1965 Jochum - no Bohm, Klemperer, Karajan (why waste time in playing bits of Young's 1874 version )? - Haitink's opening was praised but then he was never heard from again . When you compare this shallow BAL with the old RO and SJ BALs on Bruckner it shows how far Radio 3 has fallen.

And most of all Columbia SO/Walter ,whose version Honeck apparently quoted himself as being in the tradition of in his booklet note ,was completely ignored.

Yes all a bit random. I found myself listening with interest to the various extracts, drawing my own conclusions and (other than sensing that Honeck was being set up as the ‘winner’ early on) pretty much ignoring the blather in between, often the case these days.

I’ve never listened to the Honeck, so it was useful to that extent