So far I am very much more with Elkus than Seckerson (who appears heavily stuck in the Ives edited and 'improved' Bernstein mold).
BaL 25.02.17 - Ives: Symphony no. 2
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostSo far I am very much more with Elkus than Seckerson (who appears heavily stuck in the Ives edited and 'improved' Bernstein mold).[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by PJPJ View PostI was a little surprised at the ease with which distortions of the text were accepted.
(I hate to mention it, but I do remember Ida Haendel being disqualified from the BaL on Britten's Violin Concerto because she changed a bar)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pulcinella View PostOh dear: another 'twofer'.
I do wish Andrew would stop trying to lead the debate!
On to Ives! I very seldom rush out and buy the object of a BAL, but as there is a yawning gap in my CD heap, I may very well go for the earlier Bernstein. I found myself smiling quite a lot.
Comment
-
-
Have rarely if ever commented in this section and won't do so regularly. However, I listened to the section of the programme carefully, having been with R3 since before breakfast. To my ears, their comments were mainly right, especially in the slower more expressive Bernstein, but I could see that it would be a problem for some with the one minute cut.
Then I had a look at my second-hand four symphony set to remind myself who I had. It is a mixture of Mehta, Dohnanyi and Marriner on Decca. Mehta for the second. I think the programme echoes published reviews in that it restates what we all know which is that individual opinion differs although there may be trends. This thread reinforces that point.
The feature is all to the good in that it is interesting and it is helpful to those who want the perceived best in their comprehensive collections. But if I check first on written reviews and find one that seems acceptable, I'm happy to settle with it and spend any little extra money on a wider range of compositions. That is, unless I find the sound is truly atrocious.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 25-02-17, 11:08.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ardcarp View PostThat such a seasoned reviewer as ES should need Andrew to hold his hand beggars belief. However, Andrew was kept rather firmly in his place I felt, with occasional comments by ES, e.g. I'll be coming to that in due course or words to that effect.
On to Ives! I very seldom rush out and buy the object of a BAL, but as there is a yawning gap in my CD heap, I may very well go for the earlier Bernstein. I found myself smiling quite a lot.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ardcarp View PostThat such a seasoned reviewer as ES should need Andrew to hold his hand beggars belief. However, Andrew was kept rather firmly in his place I felt, with occasional comments by ES, e.g. I'll be coming to that in due course or words to that effect.
On to Ives! I very seldom rush out and buy the object of a BAL, but as there is a yawning gap in my CD heap, I may very well go for the earlier Bernstein. I found myself smiling quite a lot.
And the chat goes on in the next part of the programme: not sure how much more I can bear!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pulcinella View PostCut and final chord notwithstanding, I preferred the Bernstein to the more refined MTT version, though I hope to listen to that tomorrow.
And the chat goes on in the next part of the programme: not sure how much more I can bear!
I like you, prefer the Bernstein to the Tilson Thomas, I think. I may resist getting the MTT.
Comment
-
-
For a better informed, though not particularly up to date, survey of recordings of the work, see http://www.musicweb-international.com/Ives/RR_Sym_2.htm .
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostFor a better informed, though not particularly up to date, survey of recordings of the work, see http://www.musicweb-international.com/Ives/RR_Sym_2.htm .
Was looking at that last night, but it was late and I was tired so had to turn-in. Will look later today.
Comment
-
Comment