BaL 13.05.17 - Monteverdi: Orfeo

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Each is trying to sound more important than the other.

[Gweefry]

Personally, I find that the greatest pleasure from BaL is getting a deeper understanding of the music from a reviewer who is knowledgeable and steeped in the piece, building a carefully argued case for a particular recording.

Admittedly, this doesn't always happen but seldom if ever in the twofer format where carefully argued opinion is replaced by chat.

Even more disappointing when, as today, it's a piece I enjoy and was looking forward to hearing Mr Summerly's views directly.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Personally, I find that the greatest pleasure from BaL is getting a deeper understanding of the music from a reviewer who is knowledgeable and steeped in the piece, building a carefully argued case for a particular recording.
Admittedly, this doesn't always happen but seldom if ever in the twofer format where carefully argued opinion is replaced by chat.
Even more disappointing when, as today, it's a piece I enjoy and was looking forward to hearing Mr Summerly's views directly.

- there is a very good BaL hidden behind this morning's programme; if only AMcG would just shut up and let the people who know what they're talking about get on with it without his inane chirruppings.

[mikealdren]

I'd forgotten this was a twofer and was really looking forward to the broadcast.

All this time wasted jabbering away. If we must have this kind of BaL, they need to be twice as long to compensate for the excessive padding.

Sadly it seems to be twice as long because with all the jabbering, it seems even longer!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

- there is a very good BaL hidden behind this morning's programme; if only AMcG would just shut up and let the people who know what they're talking about get on with it without his inane chirruppings.

I don't like having to agree with you, as A McG is one the gems of Radio 3.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sadly it seems to be twice as long because with all the jabbering, it seems even longer!

It's passed the hour mark. I'm just hovering over the keyboard in anticipation of highlighting the chosen version in the OP.

[Pulcinella]

But they ARE taking notice of comments being made: JS is just now talking about ornamentation in response to some request written/tweeted in.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But they ARE taking notice of comments being made: JS is just now talking about ornamentation in response to some request written/tweeted in.

PRECISELY!!!!!

If JS had not been continuously interrupted by AMcG's "Oooh, that is lovely, isn't it?" witterings, he'd've had more time to cover this. Because the conception is that audiences will be put off by such "academic" details, they're deliberately left out until it's made clear that the conception is just WRONG!

I just hope that they also realize pretty damn soon that the "twofer" format also causes dismay and irritation from a large section of the BaL regular listeners and dump it!

[vinteuil]

.

... delighted that Cavina / Venexiana was the choice of Jeremy Summerly - as it had been of Tess Knighton.

In The Times yesterday Richd: Morrison gave it a paltry one star - wishing that there had been more "drama and urgency [in] the singing, which is mostly polite and often turgid. I’m just surprised that someone thought this 2006 recording was worth distributing now."



Ho ho...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't like having to agree with you, as A McG is one the gems of Radio 3.

I will try very carefully to follow accepted Forum conventions about getting personal about individual presenters, but I have to disagree about the "gem" comparison.
AMcG has a superb radio voice, and would have fitted in well in the Tony Scotland etc days when presenters read out what others had written for them, contributing their own "material" only when emergencies demanded. I can see that someone with his general Musical enthusiasms, and the absence of any particular Musical expertise, might make him an unbiased mediator between the general listener and repertoire that might be unfamiliar to them. But today's Record Review is one of the increasing editions of the programme that demonstrate that in practice he has turned the programme into The Andrew McGregor Show. He introduced the recordings before BaL, and between each of the "features" - which is fair enough; RR presenters have always done this. But then he also "contributed" to the BaL, to the discussions of "contemporary" Music with Hannah Kendall, and to everything else in the programme. It is pure "presenter-led" broadcasting of the sort that I'm surprised to hear you defending, Alpie - particularly as AMcG gets under the feet of those he "talks to", interrupting what they have to say, and preventing them from saying everything that they want. Increasingly, he spoils what used to be one of my favourite R3 programmes, to the extent (and this is where I find it difficult not to get personal) that I think he has become stale and predictable on the programme, and should be moved on to make way for a different, perhaps younger, presenter.

[DracoM]

Actually, this a.m., Jeremy Summerley knows him of old and obviously saw him coming, and managed to talk him out of the Orfeo assessment before AMcG could get in to dominate. For me, it's his unexpurgated stream of non-stop marketing / record reviewer OTT cliches that puts me off.

Q: is it cheaper to get a reviewer into the studio live than to pre-record? I would have thought pre-record was cheaper? But..........can someone tell us?

I find these 'live' reviews much more confusing as each 'voice' tries to outdo the other, get their name in, their ideas in. It usually lacks arc and progression, and today was no exception. Summerley was so intent on lecturing 'us' / AMcG on his own methodology in approaching scores etc that the actual recordings got a little bit back-staged.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a truly fascinating Summerley lecture on Renaissance etc score-realisation we could all benefit from, but as part of a review, and he / they kept coming back to it, it distracted a bit. But that is the endemic ambush for these 'live' reviews/dialogues. particularly with a text with so many inherent scholarly, musicological and interpretative conundra. In such circs, this format seems seriously counter-intuitive.

I just wish they wouldn't do them.

[Serial_Apologist]

RE Ferney's post, I know ten years is a good while, but I really can't understand why works are repeated when there are so many worthy candidates that haven't been covered.

I wrote here to this effect on here several times regarding R3 total neglect of a whole grouping of French composer contemporaries of Dutilleux (Landowski being one) and no one responded.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I will try very carefully to follow accepted Forum conventions about getting personal about individual presenters, but I have to disagree about the "gem" comparison.
AMcG has a superb radio voice, and would have fitted in well in the Tony Scotland etc days when presenters read out what others had written for them, contributing their own "material" only when emergencies demanded. I can see that someone with his general Musical enthusiasms, and the absence of any particular Musical expertise, might make him an unbiased mediator between the general listener and repertoire that might be unfamiliar to them. But today's Record Review is one of the increasing editions of the programme that demonstrate that in practice he has turned the programme into The Andrew McGregor Show. He introduced the recordings before BaL, and between each of the "features" - which is fair enough; RR presenters have always done this. But then he also "contributed" to the BaL, to the discussions of "contemporary" Music with Hannah Kendall, and to everything else in the programme. It is pure "presenter-led" broadcasting of the sort that I'm surprised to hear you defending, Alpie - particularly as AMcG gets under the feet of those he "talks to", interrupting what they have to say, and preventing them from saying everything that they want. Increasingly, he spoils what used to be one of my favourite R3 programmes, to the extent (and this is where I find it difficult not to get personal) that I think he has become stale and predictable on the programme, and should be moved on to make way for a different, perhaps younger, presenter.

Um... yes. You do have a point, but I wonder whether this presenter-led stuff is another victim of BBC policy. It's rife all over the network.

[Nevilevelis]

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5uXoDj1eRo

Purists, stay clear. Personally, I adore it!

NVV

[ardcarp]

I will try very carefully to follow accepted Forum conventions about getting personal about individual presenters, but I have to disagree about the "gem" comparison.
AMcG has a superb radio voice, and would have fitted in well in the Tony Scotland etc days when presenters read out what others had written for them, contributing their own "material" only when emergencies demanded. I can see that someone with his general Musical enthusiasms, and the absence of any particular Musical expertise, might make him an unbiased mediator between the general listener and repertoire that might be unfamiliar to them. But today's Record Review is one of the increasing editions of the programme that demonstrate that in practice he has turned the programme into The Andrew McGregor Show. He introduced the recordings before BaL, and between each of the "features" - which is fair enough; RR presenters have always done this. But then he also "contributed" to the BaL, to the discussions of "contemporary" Music with Hannah Kendall, and to everything else in the programme. It is pure "presenter-led" broadcasting of the sort that I'm surprised to hear you defending, Alpie - particularly as AMcG gets under the feet of those he "talks to", interrupting what they have to say, and preventing them from saying everything that they want. Increasingly, he spoils what used to be one of my favourite R3 programmes, to the extent (and this is where I find it difficult not to get personal) that I think he has become stale and predictable on the programme, and should be moved on to make way for a different, perhaps younger, presenter.

I'm 100% with you Ferney, forum conventions notwithstanding. I also found JS (whom I admire enormously) somewhat dithery and indecisive. The Respighi 'orchestration' was interesting (but surely hardly worth more than a mention on historic grounds) as was Hindemith's didactic method.

As for:

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5uXoDj1eRo

Purists, stay clear. Personally, I adore it!

NVV

...it's cheered me up enormously!!!