BaL 30.11.19 - Purcell: Dido & Aeneas

[ardcarp]

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

No apology needed. Quite relevant! Hope it's a good programme......

[Master Jacques]

L[snip] ... 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)....

I'm glad you second my point as to the difficulties presented by the mountainous plethora of recordings of repertory staples now available. Nobody is suggesting that any programme should cover every recording of course, which would be as undesirable as it is impossible. What is tending to happen, is that a few gestures are made to "classic" versions (i.e. a few stalwarts made before about 1990) before devoting most of the time and space available to the diaspora of recent versions by active performers. This can seem like valuing the bathwater above the baby.

As for Gramophone, words are one thing, and doubtless their monthly essays have their value. (I don't know, as I don't read them, as you know.) But sadly magazine articles (or more in-depth written surveys) can't come with musical examples. No - radio is the best medium for the purpose of informative, comparative reviewing. And that's where R3 Record Review is letting the side down.

[Barbirollians]

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.

They are far from infallible though - Campoli was excluded from the recent Mendelssohn VC collection which was extraordinary.

[jayne lee wilson]

I'm glad you second my point as to the difficulties presented by the mountainous plethora of recordings of repertory staples now available. Nobody is suggesting that any programme should cover every recording of course, which would be as undesirable as it is impossible. What is tending to happen, is that a few gestures are made to "classic" versions (i.e. a few stalwarts made before about 1990) before devoting most of the time and space available to the diaspora of recent versions by active performers. This can seem like valuing the bathwater above the baby.

As for Gramophone, words are one thing, and doubtless their monthly essays have their value. (I don't know, as I don't read them, as you know.) But sadly magazine articles (or more in-depth written surveys) can't come with musical examples. No - radio is the best medium for the purpose of informative, comparative reviewing. And that's where R3 Record Review is letting the side down.

In the age of streaming, musical examples (i.e. complete performances) can be found quickly and easily.
The BaLs over the last few years, especially of well-known classical symphonies (Schumann, Mendelssohn etc) have tended to ignore the most recent recordings...but I would say that if they do concentrate on such, that makes a lot of sense, given how very well-known older version have become, through - online reviews and comments, record guides, buyers' guides, and forums such as this....

If "radio is the best medium for the purpose"..... well, someone still has to fund that.....and recent comments on BaL here aren't exactly encouraging, are they?

[Master Jacques]

In the age of streaming, musical examples (i.e. complete performances) can be found quickly and easily.

Possibly, but they are not what's needed for comparative listening. This needs curation - by focusing in on one particular moment, and how a selection of performers tackle it. You could do a whole hour's programme on the first two phrases of Dido's Lament: listening to complete performances rather ruins the point, as what's wanted here is expert mediation, don't you think?

Unless R3 Forum keeps up the pressure on RR and BaL, do you think anything will ever get better? Criticism, not bland celebration, is the positive response.

Anyway ... that Dido BaL got me in such a bad mood yesterday (dispersed last night only by viewing Les enfants terribles with its decidedly un-HIPP Bach/Vivaldi soundtrack) that I am determined to be sunny and positive today. Probably therefore best to make this my last contribution to the Dido thread!

[gurnemanz]

Of course BaL is an exercise limited by matters of time, availabilty of recordings and subjective taste. You have only ever been able to take it on its own terms. I almost never go and buy the recommended version but am happy to give it a listen. Nowadays with streaming this is much easier. I have been buying classical recordings for well over fifty years and own thousands of CDs but I am not a trained musician or expert on interpretation or music theory and always get something new out of BaL sessions. I care little to what extent an academic reviewer invited on sounds like a professional broadcaster and believe they should be left to do their own thing and not be subjected to chippings-in from the side by Mr McGregor. However, I certainly won't boycott BaL just because I don't like the twofer regime.

[BBMmk2]

Neither will I boycott. Still very much part of my Saturday morning.

[Goon525]

Neither will I boycott. Still very much part of my Saturday morning.

I feel the same way. I’m not a fan of the new format, and would prefer it hadn’t happened - but I still enjoy and find value in BaL.

[Wolfram]

I feel the same way. I’m not a fan of the new format, and would prefer it hadn’t happened - but I still enjoy and find value in BaL.

:

[ardcarp]

The BBC is well aware of the annoyance many feel about the 'spontaneous dialogue' format. Unfortunately, they have a mind-set that chat is more 'accessible' than [what they think we think is] a lecture. I suspect also there may be a certain dogged refusal to accept any criticism however considered and constructive it may be. In other words, they're giving loyal BAL listeners the

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Unfortunately, they have a mind-set that chat is more 'accessible' than [what they think we think is] a lecture.

Perhaps it's not so much as a mindset - more a belief that once the BBC has decided upon a course of action, they cannot possibly be wrong.

[Nick Armstrong]

I was going to say Andrew McGregor was particularly overbearing today and I thought the reviewer would have done a good BaL had she been given a solo slot.

Just caught up with part of this BAL, and was going to say the same thing!

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.

Exactly. I recall her being excellent, and love her broadcasting voice. Sadly agree about the AMcG sabotage here. Wouldn’t be surprised if I don’t bother listening to the rest of this BAL.

[BBMmk2]

Just caught up with part of this BAL, and was going to say the same thing!



Exactly. I recall her being excellent, and love her broadcasting voice. Sadly agree about the AMcG sabotage here. Wouldn’t be surprised if I don’t bother listening to the rest of this BAL.

He seems to have good days and bad days. This was a bad day.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

He seems to have good days and bad days. This was a bad day.

Yes - we all have these "fluctuations", of course, which is why the change from the once-unmissable programme into The Andrew McGregor Show creates such unreasonable demands on him. To comment productively on every aspect of each recording for three hours every week is something well beyond his (and most people's) capabilities - so banal chirruppings are what's left, such that, for the sake of my health, I cannot listen to the programme any more.

As is my attitude to the vast majority of R3's output these days. There's much more informative stuff available elsewhere.

And, judging from the number posts and Threads responding to R3 broadcasts on this very Forum, it seems that I'm not alone in this attitude.

[verismissimo]

I've listened again to the winner, which has reinforced my previous impressions, which are:

The OAE are in top form, perfectly judged, but Sarah Connolly is too overstated for my taste. Too many expressive, bulging notes. And I'm usually such an admirer of her work.