Did Cantilena/ Phillip Cave (Linn) get a mention? The 2012 Gramophone Guide hailed it as "the best performance to date".
-
I keep hitting the Escape key, but I'm still here! -
-
Winchester Cath for me, or NCO - both also dismissed fairly promptly - both worth re-visiting.
Loved the Taverner Ensembler, though.
Just listening to the Clerkes of Oxenford's 1973 version recorded in Merton Coll Chapel. Briskish, but electrifying.Comment
-
Whilst not opposed to his Taverner Choir choice, I found much of this programme annoying... neither informative and definitely not comprehensive.
I feel a big rant coming on, but it'll have to wait until I am in a more analytical and less grumpy mood...and until such time as we don't have imminent lunch guests!
As for...
Why not??????????? Couldn't he pop off for a pop up coffee?Andrew can’t just sit back and let his guest talk the whole time.Comment
-
Indeed, a very unsatisfying review, I turned off half way through as the chat became increasingly annoying.Originally posted by ardcarp View PostComment
-
Not even a mention of the Huelgas/Paul Van Nevel (performed in the round but recorded in 2 channel stereo). This remains my favourite among those I have heard. It's available either as a single disc or in the Sony Vivarte Vol. 1 box where in the accompanying booklet it is strangely attributed to Haydn.
[Oops. Just discovered a surround SACD was released by Harmonia Mundi in 2011. Just ordered it.]
Last edited by Bryn; 01-10-16, 12:17.Comment
-
I enjoyed it. Possibly because I have no strong opinions (or much knowledge for that matter) about the work, I found SH’s presentation quite interesting.Comment
-
Didn't neither The Sixteen's recordings get a mention?Don’t cry for me
I go where music was born
J S Bach 1685-1750Comment
-
Originally posted by Brassbandmaestro View Post
Again, mentioned briefly, and the later one illustrated, and then dismissed.Comment
-
There was more to it than that, I thought - wasn't it an extract from their performance of the revised version for Prince Henry, a digression which I found interesting.....Originally posted by Bryn View PostComment
-
Briefly, there is no early manuscript source giving the underlay for the Latin text: the 1610 copies give the underlay for the English contrafactum "Sing and glorify" (the Prince Henry version)) with the Latin words given at the bottom.
This isn't my rant yet.Comment
-
Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
How did lunch go?
My reaction to the programme was to order the Tallis Scholars version - currently my only version being Oxford Camerata....Comment
-
I didn't mind the conversation format.
I was surprised at how much I liked the Robert Hollingworth ( not Hollingsworth!) version with instruments, as I don't usually like Renaissance music accompanied at all.Comment
-
Heighes sounded flustered, peeved by interruptions, as AMcG wittered and chivvied - was there teeny tiny bit of a row bubbling between them? Yes, AMcG has a time schedule to keep to, I fully appreciate that, so why not do what they usually do - analyse, script, pre-record and edit. Send AMcG off for a drop of arsenic latte, and let the analyst get on with it. Grrrr!
The chat-format simply does not / did NOT work - gosh, so many have said this so many times over the years on these threads - and frankly it seemed a vanity purely to strut the Sound Frontiers / pop-up / residency / look at us being ever so daring in this glass box mess that has kept me wearily irritated for the best part of ......oh, for goodness' sake, since 'it' started.
As said upthread, if you are not as interested as a Renaissance music scholar in the can of worms that is the debate about how the age's music should be / is performed, then the chat was probably OK. But if you know the piece reasonably well, and anything about its background and performance probs, then the amount of time wasted in this chat-format was annoying. Did anyone count the number of versions actually referred to? It seemed to be me to be surprisingly few when set against the number on record.
My one quiet delight was the exclusion of the KCC versionComment
-
Comment