BaL 30.11.19 - Purcell: Dido & Aeneas

[Master Jacques]

I didn't listen - have largely given up on BAL - but must ask, Master Jacques, did you by any chance hear Dr Gibson's excellent and largely well received solo effort on Dowland's Lachrimae a while back? A perfectly scholarly, well-judged and balanced BAL of the essay variety and which furthermore came to the right conclusion ? Is this (without having listened ) yet another case of the Curse of McGregor - being forced to spar with him being enough to throw anybody off their game? He's become a bore.

I didn't hear it, Richard - and thank you for redressing the balance. I'm sure Dr Gibson did a perfectly good job on Dowland. She did not today on Purcell, which is all I have to go on - and (as I began by saying) in my estimation she was helped, not hindered, by Mr McGregor's professionalism. And that's all from me on this thread, as I don't want to become a bore myself!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Dr Gibson is not a professional broadcaster, how ever you or I like to parse the word, but an academic, and I would hope we can agree on that.

Indeed - she's an academic with limited broadcasting experience.

[doversoul1]

Any thoughts on the recordings we heard on the programme? I thought Emma Kirkby as Dido was a most odd choice. She was a perfect Belinda to Catherine Bott’s Dido which wasn’t included on today’s programme.

[Lordgeous]

SO MANY recordings not even mentiomed again. IS there any point in BAL any more???

[DracoM]

But...but...........surely with something like this work, or e.g. Beethoven or Mozart symphonies, or Wagner's operas, how on earth CAN a review of this length ever hope to cover all the recordings, or even mention all of them?

Just asking!

[MickyD]

Any thoughts on the recordings we heard on the programme? I thought Emma Kirkby as Dido was a most odd choice. She was a perfect Belinda to Catherine Bott’s Dido which wasn’t included on today’s programme.

I think you will find that the latter is the Hogwood recording, ds, which was indeed mentioned today, but only illustrating David Thomas as one of the witches.

[MickyD]

The Hogwood was first choice in 2009 and the Jacobs in 2001 so you have both the previous recommendations. Back in 1998 there was a Purcell Stage Works BaL in which Christie was the recommendation for Dido alongside a special recommendation for Lewis because of Janet Baker’s interpretation.

Thank you for that...I'll rest content with those two, I think.

[ardcarp]

Any thoughts on the recordings we heard on the programme? I thought Emma Kirkby as Dido was a most odd choice. She was a perfect Belinda to Catherine Bott’s Dido which wasn’t included on today’s programme.

That's a hard question, dovers. One can never know what a dramatic soprano aria might have sounded like in Purcell's time, but one should not perhaps 'over-think' the plot or the psychology (e.g. in posts 34 - 36). D&A was an entertainment after all. Speaking personally, I don't find an over-coloured operatic voice appropriate, and I'd rather hear a Bott, a Kirkby or an Elin M-T https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQq3HcOB0Y

Anthony Lewis, a pioneer in the revival of staging Baroque operas, was at least partly responsible for launching Janet Baker's career. Thank goodness we have her Dido's Lament for posterity! Not sure Jessye Norman (Raymond Leppard) floats my boat, fine soprano though she is.

[Master Jacques]

But...but...........surely with something like this work, or e.g. Beethoven or Mozart symphonies, or Wagner's operas, how on earth CAN a review of this length ever hope to cover all the recordings, or even mention all of them?

Just asking!

This is a vital point, which does cast doubt on the question as to whether BaL can be much use to anyone, any more. With dozens of recordings - even of Purcell's semi-operas these days - the kind of all-inclusive reviews which were possible in the 1970s simply aren't feasible these days. I sympathise with R3 on that point, but addressing it by (a) truncating the time available for a BaL review, (b) ditching concentrated talks with multiple examples into chat shows with less music, and (c) limiting the contributors to discussion of a small number of recordings, has resulted in the kind of nonsense we had this morning - whether we found Dr Gibson a competent reviewer or not.

To take one example: any decent comparative review of Dido and Aeneas needs to find time to discuss textual questions (e.g. who has recorded the alleged 'torso' and who has added this or that); it needs to differentiate between recordings by the same singer (e.g. not lumping together both Baker versions as an "iconic classic" when her interpretations - not to mention the musical content, castings and stylistic decisions of those two recordings - are so very different); it needs to devote some space to recorded quality (was that anywhere at all this morning?); it needs serious and informed discussion of different dramatic approaches to the work as heard (absent today, bar some opinionated scattergun remarks); above all, the cultural context of the work, from Purcell's time to our own, needs to be addressed (merely saying repeatedly that "there are different camps" as to interpretation is too narrow and unhelpful a view for newcomers.)

That's why I seriously wonder who BaL is aimed at these days, and regret the loss of a tool which could still - I believe - have its uses. I suppose some listeners want somebody else to tell them "who's version is best" so they can go and buy it, but many more are interested in the kind of comparisons which the current format - and choice of presenters - rarely allows.

[Master Jacques]

That's a hard question, dovers. One can never know what a dramatic soprano aria might have sounded like in Purcell's time, but one should not perhaps 'over-think' the plot or the psychology (e.g. in posts 34 - 36). D&A was an entertainment after all. Speaking personally, I don't find an over-coloured operatic voice appropriate, and I'd rather hear a Bott, a Kirkby or an Elin M-T

Yes indeed. I am with you, and am not happy these days listening to Purcell which has moved too far from the low-vibrato, low-volume 'purity' of the singers you cite. What we can know is that nothing like any idea we might have of 'dramatic soprano' today was around in England during Purcell's time. We also know that works such as Dido and Aeneas and Blow's equally lovely Venus and Adonis were not written for the kind of Italianate-style sopranos and castrati who gravitated to the capitals of Europe (especially London) in the early years of the 18th century. A Bott, Kirky or Elin M-T style was what Purcell had in mind, not a Jessye Norman, Kirsten Flagstad or Janet Baker.

None of which is to say that these voices cannot provide performances of equal aesthetic value - they can, and they have. Although I don't much like listening to the complete performance these days, I know that Janet Baker's first recording of Dido's Lament (under Lewis) will remain a desert island disc for me until the day I die. Nor is Flagstad so far behind... this is a question of great artistry, big enough to change lives, not stylistic rectitude.

[doversoul1]

That's a hard question, dovers. One can never know what a dramatic soprano aria might have sounded like in Purcell's time, but one should not perhaps 'over-think' the plot or the psychology (e.g. in posts 34 - 36). D&A was an entertainment after all. Speaking personally, I don't find an over-coloured operatic voice appropriate, and I'd rather hear a Bott, a Kirkby or an Elin M-T https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQq3HcOB0Y

Anthony Lewis, a pioneer in the revival of staging Baroque operas, was at least partly responsible for launching Janet Baker's career. Thank goodness we have her Dido's Lament for posterity! Not sure Jessye Norman (Raymond Leppard) floats my boat, fine soprano though she is.

Apologies for this diversion and double posting but this should be interesting.

Tomorrow 23.00
Today’s episode is all about the voice. How did the pioneers of authentic classical repertory create a vocal sound that was just right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000btx4

Back to Dido.

[jayne lee wilson]

This is a vital point, which does cast doubt on the question as to whether BaL can be much use to anyone, any more. With dozens of recordings - even of Purcell's semi-operas these days - the kind of all-inclusive reviews which were possible in the 1970s simply aren't feasible these days. I sympathise with R3 on that point, but addressing it by (a) truncating the time available for a BaL review, (b) ditching concentrated talks with multiple examples into chat shows with less music, and (c) limiting the contributors to discussion of a small number of recordings, has resulted in the kind of nonsense we had this morning - whether we found Dr Gibson a competent reviewer or not.

To take one example: any decent comparative review of Dido and Aeneas needs to find time to discuss textual questions (e.g. who has recorded the alleged 'torso' and who has added this or that; it needs to differentiate between recordings by the same singer (e.g. not lumping together both Baker versions as an "iconic classic" when her interpretation - not to mention the musical content, castings and stylistic decisions of those two recordings - are so very different); it needs to devote some space to recorded quality (was that anywhere at all this morning?); it needs serious and informed discussion of different dramatic approaches to the work as heard (absent today, bar some opinionated scattergun remarks); above all, the cultural context of the work, from Purcell's time to our own, needs to be addressed (merely saying repeatedly that "there are different camps" as to interpretation is too narrow and unhelpful a view for newcomers.)

That's why I seriously wonder who BaL is aimed at these days, and regret the loss of a tool which could still - I believe - have its uses. I suppose some listeners want somebody else to tell them "who's version is best" so they can go and buy it, but many more are interested in the kind of comparisons which the current format - and choice of presenters - rarely allows.

Last time on the Haydn 102 there were 15 musical examples from 10 different conductors, covering a wide stylistic range, all very clearly commented upon by Sarah Walker and her colleague. A heroic effort in 45 minutes, I felt..... Yet it still got much criticism here....
Our threads can amplify those comments and choices too....which is often a lotta fun.

Even if you posit a new Interpretations on Record, there would still have to be some limitations to the range presented, especial with a familiar classic. And one's subjective perception of/response to the quality or lack of it would still be mostly due to the critic herself - not necessarily time or singular presentation.

Otherwise stick to Gramophone Collection - excellent every month usually with a shortlist of 4 in different categories..... last month a very good survey of Tchaikovsky's 4th (RC)....

[Lordgeous]

This is a vital point, which does cast doubt on the question as to whether BaL can be much use to anyone, any more. With dozens of recordings - even of Purcell's semi-operas these days - the kind of all-inclusive reviews which were possible in the 1970s simply aren't feasible these days. I sympathise with R3 on that point, but addressing it by (a) truncating the time available for a BaL review, (b) ditching concentrated talks with multiple examples into chat shows with less music, and (c) limiting the contributors to discussion of a small number of recordings, has resulted in the kind of nonsense we had this morning - whether we found Dr Gibson a competent reviewer or not.

To take one example: any decent comparative review of Dido and Aeneas needs to find time to discuss textual questions (e.g. who has recorded the alleged 'torso' and who has added this or that; it needs to differentiate between recordings by the same singer (e.g. not lumping together both Baker versions as an "iconic classic" when her interpretation - not to mention the musical content, castings and stylistic decisions of those two recordings - are so very different); it needs to devote some space to recorded quality (was that anywhere at all this morning?); it needs serious and informed discussion of different dramatic approaches to the work as heard (absent today, bar some opinionated scattergun remarks); above all, the cultural context of the work, from Purcell's time to our own, needs to be addressed (merely saying repeatedly that "there are different camps" as to interpretation is too narrow and unhelpful a view for newcomers.)

That's why I seriously wonder who BaL is aimed at these days, and regret the loss of a tool which could still - I believe - have its uses. I suppose some listeners want somebody else to tell them "who's version is best" so they can go and buy it, but many more are interested in the kind of comparisons which the current format - and choice of presenters - rarely allows.

Exactly!

[doversoul1]

I think you will find that the latter is the Hogwood recording, ds, which was indeed mentioned today, but only illustrating David Thomas as one of the witches.

Thank you for the reminder. I, too, am content with the Hogwood recording.

[Goon525]

I agree with Jayne about the merits of the Gramophone Collection - although it obviously has somewhat limited editorial space, it’s so well done that a sensible reasoned argument can be followed. Is one of the problems with BaL at the moment the reluctance to use G reviewers? Incidentally, the BBC Music Mag version isn’t quite as good, not so much because of reviewer quality, but because of much more limited space and the dumbing-down involved in daft headings like ‘Three Other Great Versions’ (there aren’t always four ‘Great’ versions!) and ‘One to Avoid’ (often an artificial choice, generally Karajan if he’s available). But it’s still usually interesting, although the format limited to just five versions opens it up to much the same criticisms we see here about the current radio BaL.