BaL 1.06.13 - Brahms Symphony no 2 in D

[BBMmk2]

Jurowski!!

[amateur51]

Who's this Stella SJ just mentioned? Not Rattle, Abbado or Alsop apparently

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There you go, Thropple; your each-way bet gets you your beer money.

So, Abbado "good but not distinguished", eh? Well; that's me told!


(Tears up betting slip and goes off to play Loughran.)

[antongould]

Anyway, LPO/Jurowski will win and I congratulate in advance the dapper Mr Johnson on his selection.

Hope you didn't have to go odds on Alison......

[amateur51]

There you go, Thropple; your each-way bet gets you your beer money.

So, Abbado "good but not distinguished", eh? Well; that's me told!


(Tears up betting slip and goes off to play Loughran.)

I was rather taken by the snippet he played of Jochum's early 1950s performance. I was very glad that he played Toscanini and Furtwangler recordings but no Walter?

But an excellent BaL I thought - a neophyte will not go wrong with Jurowski's winner and yet will be left with lots of other versions to explore intriguingly

Andrew let the decision-making cat out of the bag at the end - SJ chose the only recording on which you can hear his clapping and cry of "hello Mum!"

[Nimrod]

We all have our favourites, of course, and Mr Johnson played some fine performances and some not so fine. But what I find irritating time after time, and yet again today, is the BAL teams frequent omission of any reference to Barbirolli's achivements. He was a regular conductor of Brahms and a fine one too, and right now there are three live perfomances on CD all of which he would not have to apologise for, such as he did with Toscanini! Does the old predjudice of anything North of Watford still linger on??

[cloughie]

Any mention of Kempe or Monteux?

[Alison]

Hope you didn't have to go odds on Alison......

Now need Dawn Approach for the double. Lots off odds against available !

[Nick Armstrong]

Wand fallen and on his way to the Tesco burger factory; overtaken by Jurowski - the bookies suddenly looking worried. But Haitink (changing mounts from Amsterdam to London: is that allowed?!) keeping his position.

Any mention of Kempe or Monteux?

Nope


Best BAL thread ever ?!?

[Nick Armstrong]

go odds on

I have never known what that means....

[BBMmk2]

No Abbado this time! So just goes to0 show! All depends on the critic!

[aeolium]

And the vexed question of the exposition repeat was IIRC never mentioned by SJ (perhaps because at least two and perhaps three of his placed runners, Klemperer, Haintink/CO and Jochum did not perform the repeat)

I liked the Boult excerpt, and was sorry there was no mention of van Beinum's live version from 1954...

[Alison]

I have never known what that means....

With odds the second number is what you have to stake to win the first number.

Eg. 6-4. A four pound stake would win you six quid plus the return of your four pounds.

With odds on the second number is bigger then than the first.

Eg. 1-2 or 4-6.

When you bet odds on you will win less than your stake.

[Nick Armstrong]

With odds the second number is what you have to stake to win the first number.

Eg. 6-4. A four pound stake would win you six quid plus the return of your four pounds.

With odds on the second number is bigger then than the first.

Eg. 1-2 or 4-6.

When you bet odds on you will less than your stake.

Thanks Alison (in your last line, is that "you will win..."?)

But why would you ever

have to go odds on

... why might you be forced to ?

[amateur51]

With odds the second number is what you have to stake to win the first number.

Eg. 6-4. A four pound stake would win you six quid plus the return of your four pounds.

With odds on the second number is bigger then than the first.

Eg. 1-2 or 4-6.

When you bet odds on you will less than your stake.

Blimey Alison, many thanks - my floor is covered in scales that have fallen