Our Summer BaL 33: Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that's what I have (sticky tape over the cover only leaves the 7 showing) but inside it's 16328. It has 10/- in pencil on the front!! Probably bought 1967 or 1968.

- at the bottom of every page of the score (presumably [and I'd use square brackets - or even dashes - for brackets {or, indeed, parentheses} within brackets] to discourage photocopying), too. At the bottom right of the last page, there's also "BHMP 10/76" suggesting a later pressing.

Even at this size, the print is remarkably easy to read.

[LeMartinPecheur]

- I have the earlier publication (B&H # 637) which is more pocket-sized (a bit smaller than A5). Bought for £1 in the early '80s.

I think that's what I have (sticky tape over the cover only leaves the 7 showing) but inside it's 16328. It has 10/- in pencil on the front!! Probably bought 1967 or 1968.
(The Mass is 655 on the cover and 16501 inside; it cost an appalling 18/- (perhaps just 8/-; hard to tell if there's a smudge or not) on 6 June 1970.)

Pulcinella: you are talking about the same score as fhg judging by #16328. I got a s/h copy last year for £1.99 in Truro Oxfam, which I have not yet 'exercised'.
I can't read scores very much, but they do focus attention when listening. Haven't found the time for this yet, and the same goes for the Octet score bought at the same time tho' for some off reason this was £2.99 - fewer MS notes perhaps?
Anyway, any thanks to previous owner of both scores, Lisa Haidley

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

- I have the earlier publication (B&H # 637) which is more pocket-sized (a bit smaller than A5). Bought for £1 in the early '80s.

Gosh! The print must be tiny!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Gosh! The print must be tiny!

No - much clearer than the print for B&H's Shostakovich #5 or OUP for the (much larger) Sinfonia Antartica (which is the only score I've ever decided not to buy at all, having ordered three different copies and sent them all back because of the illegible print). Symphonie de Psaumes has a maximum of 22 staves per page - fewer than those required for Petrouchka in the same format size (B&H 16236) which is also quite clear.

[Pulcinella]

- at the bottom of every page of the score (presumably [and I'd use square brackets - or even dashes - for brackets {or, indeed, parentheses} within brackets] to discourage photocopying), too. At the bottom right of the last page, there's also "BHMP 10/76" suggesting a later pressing.

Even at this size, the print is remarkably easy to read.

Aha! Mine says 11.67 (actually a centre dot). That would tie in with when I thought I bought it.

By the way, the usual (maths) bracket hierarchy is {[(...)]}, as French Frank has in one of her postings. I've never really seen this use apart from in a maths setting. Clever mathematical typesetting systems such as TeX would actually set an expression such as `We can use the formula given above (where f(x) is obtained from equation (3)) to obtain...' with slightly larger (by one point) opening and closing round brackets; square brackets would be totally unnecessary (imho) in such an English sentence, though of course in this example you could argue that commas would be just as good!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No - much clearer than the print for B&H's Shostakovich #5 or OUP for the (much larger) Sinfonia Antartica (which is the only score I've ever decided not to buy at all, having ordered three different copies and sent them all back because of the illegible print). Symphonie de Psaumes has a maximum of 22 staves per page - fewer than those required for Petrouchka in the same format size (B&H 16236) which is also quite clear.

I think the smallest print in a miniature score is the Novello one I have of Elgar's 1st Symphony. It's almost microscopic. Fortunately I also have a large full score, which is several times larger..

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

By the way, the usual (maths) bracket hierarchy is {[(...)]}, as French Frank has in one of her postings. I've never really seen this use apart from in a maths setting. Clever mathematical typesetting systems such as TeX would actually set an expression such as `We can use the formula given above (where f(x) is obtained from equation (3)) to obtain...' with slightly larger (by one point) opening and closing round brackets; square brackets would be totally unnecessary (imho) in such an English sentence, though of course in this example you could argue that commas would be just as good!

Sorry; you've lost me.

[Pulcinella]

Sorry; you've lost me.

I hope you won't lose sleep over this, though!
You used the sequence ([{...}]) in your post.
Don't worry; it's what I get up to in my day job (editing for scientific journals), to provide the gin and holiday money to supplement my occupational pension (no state pension yet).

Back on topic, I have found that I have 12 versions of the Symphony of Psalms on my shelves, and the Craft recording twice (Koch and Naxos). Not sure how sad that is.

Even sadder, perhaps, I jotted down the movement timings from the liner information.
Some interesting timing differences, though perhaps not completely trustworthy, as even the two Craft recordings differ, by 7 seconds in movement 1.
Movement 1 ranges from 3:04 (Bertini) to 3:36 (Bernstein).
Movement 2 ranges from 4:52 (Markevitch) to 8:10 (Bernstein).
Movement 3 ranges from 10:24 (Ansermet) to 12:32 (Rattle).

Stravinsky's CBCSO recording has 3:22, 6:15, and 11:56.

[Bryn]

... Stravinsky's CBCSO recording has 3:22, 6:15, and 11:56.

Middle of the road as ever, eh?

[Barbirollians]

Rattle for me - ducks to avoid the usual anti-Rattle brickbats

[Pulcinella]

Am I right in thinking that the Herreweghe recording, which is missing from the list in message 1, has what I think is called European Latin pronunciation, so eum sounds ee-um not ay-um? I seem to recall hearing an extract on CD review when it was released; I was interested because I thought I might buy it for the couplings, which included Monumentum pro Gesualdo, but decided that I couldn't live with that pronunciation.

Here's a link to the recording.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monumentum-Symphonie-Psaumes-Collegium-Philharmonic/dp/B002VD5DZG/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1405236042&sr=1-1&keywords=Stravinsky+herreweghe

[verismissimo]

... Back on topic, I have found that I have 12 versions of the Symphony of Psalms on my shelves, and the Craft recording twice (Koch and Naxos). Not sure how sad that is...

Only sad, Pulci, if you fail to advise which are recommended and which are to be avoided...

[Pulcinella]

Only sad, Pulci, if you fail to advise which are recommended and which are to be avoided...

Well, that's telling me!
OK: watch this space, but it may take a while.
I'll have to decide on some assessment criteria and then find the time to listen and judge.
There's a load of ironing to do, but this demands more serious attention than just having on as background music while I smooth the creases.

[Petrushka]

I have Rattle, Solti, Karajan and Stravinsky himself so not many versions by my usual standards. All of them are fine but, like Barbirollians, I think that Rattle gets the vote.

[HighlandDougie]

the Herreweghe recording, which is missing from the list in message 1

Apologies for the omission - now added.

It was listening to the Rattle version which set me off on this quest for a BaL-type recommendation on this work (it's a CD I've had in the car so have been listening it to it quite often). It's OK but it doesn't quite convince me - it's all a bit safe. I've never heard the Gielen but, on the basis that it should be a work which suits him, I've ordered it. I've also never consciously heard the Markevitch but the pro- and anti- comments about it have got me intrigued. Anyone have views on it?