BaL 28.04.18 - Brahms: Symphony no. 1 in C minor

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

.


... is it this one -

http://amzn.eu/59MK7FK

VPO 27 January 1952.

(ferney's #179 is Nov 1947)

Dang - indeed; I'd missed the connection with sivestrione's earlier comment. Apologies.

[Barbirollians]

.


... is it this one? -

http://amzn.eu/59MK7FK

VPO 27 January 1952.

(ferney's #179 is 17/20 Nov 1947)


.

That's the one .

[Barbirollians]

That's the one .

Changing conductors and referring to fhgl's earlier posts I like Szell's account . I certainly cannot hear the ruthlessness that Trevor Harvey found in his 1967 Gramophone review.

[cloughie]

Changing conductors and referring to fhgl's earlier posts I like Szell's account . I certainly cannot hear the ruthlessness that Trevor Harvey found in his 1967 Gramophone review.

Maybe not but the sound on CD is much improved in comparison with the original LP!

[Nick Armstrong]

I absolutely agree, EA. This struck me as being a very inconsistent, content-lite BAL with little coherence.
....
I know it's a tough job picking one of so many recordings, but this really felt like a lazy trot through the handful of CDs Ivan Hewett happened to have lying around.

Very much my feeling too, having listened this morning. I actually 'rewound' to make sure I hadn't dozed off and missed consideration of a slew of different recordings, so few seemed to have been considered. Likewise, to see if the Jurowski was mentioned more than once - it wasn't, as far as I could detect: unsatisfactory, having referred to it as an interesting approach, to neglect referring to how that interpretation dealt with later parts of the piece.

It felt like a few random snapshots, rather than a decent panorama, of one of the great musical landscapes.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think that's a little harsh, Cal.... see my earlier posts for why, but surely the problem is the choice of work and the time allotted to it?
Too vast a catalogue to do it justice really, and he did include most of the more interpretatively interesting recent cycles.

Shame less obvious symphonic rep isn't covered more often of course, the Roussel or Martinu Symphonies, say, or Bartok Piano Concertos, where even considering complete cycles wouldn't be too much for a knowledgeable reviewer in 45 minutes....

We recall Tom Service doing a great job on the equally extensive lists of the Bruckner 3rd, but then he had the question of editions to concentrate the mind most wonderfully...

[Barbirollians]

I think that's a little harsh, Cal.... see my earlier posts for why, but surely the problem is the choice of work and the time allotted to it?
Too vast a catalogue to do it justice really, and he did include most of the more interpretatively interesting recent cycles.

Shame less obvious symphonic rep isn't covered more often of course, the Roussel or Martinu Symphonies, say, or Bartok Piano Concertos, where even considering complete cycles wouldn't be too much for a knowledgeable reviewer in 45 minutes....

We recall Tom Service doing a great job on the equally extensive lists of the Bruckner 3rd, but then he had the question of editions to concentrate the mind most wonderfully...

Hewett did not even announce that these were just a selection of a giant catalogue and he could not include them all as some BAL presenters do.

Not even mentioning Walter or Karajan did seem very odd to me.

[mikealdren]

Hewett did not even announce that these were just a selection of a giant catalogue and he could not include them all as some BAL presenters do.

Not even mentioning Walter or Karajan did seem very odd to me.

Or Toscanini or Horenstein, the other recordings I have.

Following Jayne's point on 45 mins, how is it that when we suffer the dreaded Twofers, they are an hour long, even when, like Candide, there are so few recordings. Is it a tacit acknowledgement that Twofers are long winded?

[jayne lee wilson]

Hewett did not even announce that these were just a selection of a giant catalogue and he could not include them all as some BAL presenters do.

Not even mentioning Walter or Karajan did seem very odd to me.

But as I said earlier, I think the qualities of these recordings are very well known, and he wished to highlight more recent versions with a different approach; personally I feel it would have been worse to spend much time on Karajan, Toscanini et al, and not take note of what Norrington, Chailly and Ticciati have been doing... which is why I think it was worse to omit any consideration of Mackerras' SCO set, which was something of a pioneer, most certainly ground-breaking, and very interesting in itself.....

[mikealdren]

But as I said earlier, I think the qualities of these recordings are very well known, and he wished to highlight more recent versions with a different approach; personally I feel it would have been worse to spend much time on Karajan, Toscanini et al, and not take note of what Norrington, Chailly and Ticciati have been doing... which is why I think it was worse to omit any consideration of Mackerras' SCO set, which was something of a pioneer, most certainly ground-breaking, and very interesting in itself.....

You may well be right Jayne but he didn't say so and he did choose one of the oldest and most revered version of all. An extra 15 mins would have allowed him to consider much more.....

[cloughie]

But as I said earlier, I think the qualities of these recordings are very well known, and he wished to highlight more recent versions with a different approach; personally I feel it would have been worse to spend much time on Karajan, Toscanini et al, and not take note of what Norrington, Chailly and Ticciati have been doing... which is why I think it was worse to omit any consideration of Mackerras' SCO set, which was something of a pioneer, most certainly ground-breaking, and very interesting in itself.....

Hey Jayne you've changed your tune - recently you were deeply into Mengelberg and Toscanini!

[Nick Armstrong]

Following Jayne's point on 45 mins, how is it that when we suffer the dreaded Twofers, they are an hour long, even when, like Candide, there are so few recordings. Is it a tacit acknowledgement that Twofers are long winded?

Quite. I wish the BAL slot was 1 hour, whichever style.

[jayne lee wilson]

Hey Jayne you've changed your tune - recently you were deeply into Mengelberg and Toscanini!

Notable Brahmsians both, but my comment was about this BaL coverage and what is practical within the programme's terms, not any sudden personal shift in my attitudes to those two conductors. There's little point having a survey of a very familiar much-recorded work if it doesn't take some account of recent developments, as Richard Morrison did with the Schumann 2nd a few years ago.

[cloughie]

Notable Brahmsians both, but my comment was about this BaL coverage and what is practical within the programme's terms, not any sudden personal shift in my attitudes to those two conductors. There's little point having a survey of a very familiar much-recorded work if it doesn't take some account of recent developments, as Richard Morrison did with the Schumann 2nd a few years ago.

Yes but the programme is 'Building a Library' - not 'Adding to a Library with Recent Recordings'. Historic and Big Band are all part of the equation.

[kea]

I checked my collection, and my Furt recording is from 1951, so apparently not the winner. Are there any Furtwanglerians here who are sufficiently aware of the differences between them?

I have long had a Furt BPO recording from 1951 (which was probably my #1 choice for the work) but checking against the 1952 performance in the DG box, the timings are almost identical. So I'm assuming 1951 was a typo (or that the recording was pirated by the label). He does seem to have given other 1951 performances of Brahms 1 that have survived, just not with the BPO.