BaL 15.10.11 - Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique

[Tony Halstead]

Vinteuil, I have the Immerseel...I usually like his work, but I do find his substitution of the usual bell for an old Erard piano rather curious and underwhelming. I'm definitely going to seek out that Les Siècles disc.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the bell issue...
The 'usual' orchestra's tubular bells ( Berlioz asks for two of course, in C and G) are puny, tinny things, from my memory of sitting in front of them on many occasions.
To my ear, the two pianos have a deeper bass sonority than the tubular bells.
I really and truly like the awesome, almost terrifying recorded bells of Karajan and Gardiner and don't see why they caused so much critical flak.

[Biffo]

I liked the two piano substitution for bells more than the reviewer did. As pointed out in earlier postings we don't know what sort of bells Berlioz used in Paris but he only used pianos as a last resort while touring Germany. In his Treatise on Orchestration there is a section on bells and the musical example Berlioz quotes is from the Finale of the SF with no mention of pianos as a substitute.

Another reason for discarding Immerseel is the turgid, formless March to the Scaffold. Immerseel says the March should be at a steady pace and is usually taken too fast. Norrington made the same point over 20 years ago and in his performance managed a steady slowish pace that still had pulse and direction.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Another reason for discarding Immerseel is the turgid, formless March to the Scaffold. Immerseel says the March should be at a steady pace and is usually taken too fast. Norrington made the same point over 20 years ago and in his performance managed a steady slowish pace that still had pulse and direction.

I'm sorry, Biffo, but, when reading your post I couldn't get rid of the mental image of you sitting at your computer with half a packet of Hobnobs balanced on your head: because of this, I don't think anyone should take your posting seriously.


Yes, I know: a cheap shot and I do apologize. You were quite right in your earlier post: I should've spent at least some of the 90mins between the end of SJ's review and my response to it here to check both my facts and my temper. Had I done so, I might not have displayed such a lack of generosity of spirit; as I said, I thought there was a great deal of insight in this BaL and I'm sure Bbm will enjoy listening to it on the i-Player. But I don't think it unfair to suggest that it was spoiled by SJ's habitual tendency to pepper his comments with irrelevant and/or inaccurate "opinions": the Beecham comment being the most glaring example. (The Karajan criticism could also be included, but it's taken as read that you're as likely to find a favourable comment on Karajan from SJ as you are to read promotion of Marxist ideas in the Telegraph.)

Thank you for the caveat about the speed of Immerseel's March: I shall have to listen to this before I part with money.

Best Wishes.

[Mahlerei]

SJ liked Nezet-Seguin a lot more than I did; taken not in chunks but as a whole N-S seems terribly fitful and mannered, unlike his fab Berlin debut with the work (available on the Digital Concert Hall).

As an aside, I was rather taken with McCreesh's new recording of the Requiem, though I'm not at all sure the decision to place the tenor so far back in the Sanctus is the right one. Still, this is the one Berlioz work I'd rescue from a burning building too.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Now that the whole 'H.I.P.'/ 'original instrument orchestras' thing is an accepted part of our musical life rather than an esoteric 'anorak' pursuit, IMV the reviewer's brief should include a final judgement of both 'modern' and 'authentic' recordings.

That would be the best way to go forward. It would ensure that reviewers who either dismiss HIPP altogether, or those utter blinkered by it, include the different playing styles in a balanced way.

[Biffo]

Because YOU have a mental image of me with a packet of Hobnobs balanced on my head no one else should take my posting seriously. Strange mental image, strange logic. In any case I never buy Hobnobs as I can't resist them, balancing them on my head is the last thing I would think of doing with them.

Somehow I missed the Karajan reference; I know there are some serious (tedious?) Karajanophobes around but, like you, I take their opinions with a pinch of salt.

All the best

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Because YOU have a mental image of me with a packet of Hobnobs balanced on my head no one else should take my posting seriously. Strange mental image, strange logic.

PRECISELY my criticism of SJ using the "logic" of his imagining Beecham "covorting around" to be a valid reason why nobody else should take his recording of SF seriously!

[makropulos]

I found this a disappointing BAL.

Too many errors from SJ (some already raised, though I don't know if anyone has mentioned his blunder of "a later score" in which Berlioz mentions pianos in place of bells? That'll be the autograph manuscript...where it's perfectly explicit, and it's not a later edition either). I'm not always convinced by Immerseel, but I do think his Fanastique is worth hearing.

Rather too few versions considered, I thought - in fact far too few, whatever the constraints of time. The concentration on Nézet-Séguin was baffling. Nothing historical (apart from the silly remark about Beecham): disappointed not to hear any mention of van Beinum, van Otterloo or Paray, for instance, or Bernstein's NYPO recording. There are dozens of others, including the Davis performance that is (I think) preferable to the LSO live one - several people have already mentioned the Concertgebouw recording. So many others... And why no mention of who does and doesn't use the cornet in the second movement?

Altogether rather short on illumination I thought. Probably just me though.

[ostuni]

No, not just you - I was disappointed by how few versions he seemed to find room for (and would have loved to have heard a bit of les Siècles who, unlike Immerseel, aren't on Spotify). Though I had to agree with SJ in finding Karajan's bells way over the top. Immerseel's pianos, however, sound rather good to me.

[Mahlerei]

makropulos

The more I think about it the more I agree this BaL was disappointing. Like you I found his response to Nézet-Séguin baffling; it's a really dire performance and I could hear nothing of what SJ purported to hear in his chosen extracts. I also thought the net should have been cast a lot wider, to include the likes of Bernstein, Mehta and Ansermet to name just a few.

My biggest beef with BaL - and I realise it's a failing of the format itself - is that one can get quite the wrong impression from selected snippets. FWIW I also find Davis's Concertgebouw account the best of his four, but then I 'imprinted' on that one.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But there's no way of reviewing all versions of a work as popular as this without discarding the majority of issues from the word "go". If a whole morning was available (e.g. Monday - Friday 7.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon, when there isn't any worthwhile programming) then a real in-depth reviews would be possible.

[Mahlerei]

EA

I don't think anyone would expect every version to get a mention merely that a more representative selection is chosen. Nézet-Séguin is so far down the list I'm surprised he got so much air time when the likes of Bernstein didn't even get a mention. That seems perverse to me.

[Petrushka]

EA

I don't think anyone would expect every version to get a mention merely that a more representative selection is chosen. Nézet-Séguin is so far down the list I'm surprised he got so much air time when the likes of Bernstein didn't even get a mention. That seems perverse to me.

My own view is that when there are so many recorded versions available, the reviewer should state from the outset the, say, half a dozen runners and riders who will be considered and then whittle those down to a chosen version by way of a detailed review and perhaps including excerpts from other versions to illustrate a point.

I recall one reviewer (it may have been Richard Osborne) who once turned the format on its head by declaring his chosen version at the start then used the review to show why.

[barber olly]

But there's no way of reviewing all versions of a work as popular as this without discarding the majority of issues from the word "go". If a whole morning was available (e.g. Monday - Friday 7.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon, when there isn't any worthwhile programming) then a real in-depth reviews would be possible.

I like that idea - definitely an Essential Classic - Rob would enjoy the task!

[makropulos]

EA

I don't think anyone would expect every version to get a mention merely that a more representative selection is chosen. Nézet-Séguin is so far down the list I'm surprised he got so much air time when the likes of Bernstein didn't even get a mention. That seems perverse to me.

Agree very much, Mahlerei - I think that's one of the things that irritated me.

On a much more positive note, I have to say how much I enjoyed Jeremy Summerly's slot (and he managed to get more than a word in edgeways, fortunately). Some terrific records to discuss, and some extremely astute comments on them.