Originally posted by Mandryka
(There was also an edition featuring a "Classical" 'cellist "Faking it" as a turntable DJ. Not as memorable, I think.*)
* = Translation: I don't remember much of it!
-
Yes; I remember that, too. An engaging young man (I wonder what happened to him) who rejected all the pieces suggested to him by his mentor before finally opting for the Rossini Overture - and, in concert, he only slipped at the abrupt change of tempo at the end of the Introduction; and I've witnessed that happening by much more established reputations! He had distinct Musicality (unlike a couple of the "safer" bona fide student conductors) and coaxed a decent performers from the orchestra.
(There was also an edition featuring a "Classical" 'cellist "Faking it" as a turntable DJ. Not as memorable, I think.*)
* = Translation: I don't remember much of it![FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT] -
But is it possible in reality? For example, I have around 50 recordings of Mahler's Resurrection Symphony and - although I haven't put this to the test - I reckon that I would be able to tell which recording was being played from the opening couple of bars from all the factors involved. The opening trumpet fanfare of the Mahler 5 would also give the game away. As the recording progressed, supposing I was familiar with it in the first place. it would become more obvious whose version was being played from the clues available. Vocal works and opera also have the extra familiarity of voices to contend with and it doesn't need a Sherlock to pick out a Peter Pears or a Fischer-Dieskau as two examples.Originally posted by Mr PeeI think that is an excellent idea. Many reviewers seem to have pre-conceptions regarding certain conductors, or in some cases a clear bias toward recordings of, shall we say, a certain vintage, to the extent that one can often have a pretty good idea which performance they will favour from the very beginning.
Listening "blind" would result in a much fairer judgement, unmarred by previous experience and personal preference.
Nice idea - not practical."The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard HaitinkComment
-
I don't think so - Barrington-Coupe seems to have had excellent taste in what he chose to steal.Originally posted by amateur51A case of unintended consequences, Bryn
Comment
-
Agreed, and it does seem to have been mainly an act of love for his ailing wife, rather than a money-spinning scheme. That also appears to be the view taken by many of his 'victims'.Originally posted by PJPJComment
-
Sorry, I meant in bringing this recording to Bryn's attention - that's not why Barrington-Coupe fiddled with it tho'Originally posted by PJPJ
Comment
-
So rather than BAL we have BAl from 25 picked out - randomly ? After a long list review by a producer ???Originally posted by Richard TarletonNo, hence my #33. He said he listened to 25 versions, didn't name them all, so we don't know if he considered it.
I listened to it yesterday afternoon anyway, having recently replaced my worn LP with the CD
I note that Richard Osborne has reviewed hardly anything for Gramophone recently .I hope he is not unwell - his Bruckner 8 BAL from last year was a model of how to do it . Shame he did not do Bruckner 4.Comment
-
The French critics aren't rigid - I don't think it's all or nothing. They acknowledge the distinctive quality of voices, and often don't present opera 'blind-folded' but rather as a forensic comparison, ditto vocal works... Although not always - there was a recent edition, considering 'Les Nuits d'Été' I think, where they did 'blind taste'... and eliminated Régine Crespin at once, without having recognised her voice. To their surprise, amusement and slight embarrassment after the 'reveal'.Originally posted by Petrushka
So I think it is practical, with sensible flexibility.
Of course we're talking about two things aren't we: (i) the reviewer compiling his or her review blind, as Jeremy Summerly claims to do; and (ii) the programme being presented to the public on a 'blind tasting' basis with horses and riders only revealed at some stage during the broadcast. It would need a different structure to the programme, I think. It's no accident that the French equivalent lasts 2 hours rather than 50 minutes.
Back to Bruckner 4 - good survey I thought. I didn't pick up anything untoward about the treatment of the Karajan recording - I did agree with SJ about the schmalzy octave swoop upwards by the violins in one of the extracts played.
I found the highlighting of different approaches to tempi and tempo relationships interesting - the 'slow' Celi making the 'normal' speed extract which followed it sound rushed... and the desirability or otherwise of accelerandi.
I did my own BAL some years back on Bruckner 4 using borrowed versions, and apart from the Jochum/Dresden performance in the light green EMI box, the result was that Wand/Berlin PO came out my preferred one, and is the only single-disc version I own. So to that extent, I felt on a wave-length with Stephen Johnson when I listened earlier..."...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
Listening blind is certainly one way of doing it that can work well - but I'm baffled by the idea of a "fairer judgement": why would no "previous experience" or "personal preference" be any sort of advantage in a comparative review (or any review, for that matter)? Surely we want critics to be both informed and able to express a personal preference, rather than inexperienced and unable to come to a viewpoint?Originally posted by Mr PeeI think that is an excellent idea. Many reviewers seem to have pre-conceptions regarding certain conductors, or in some cases a clear bias toward recordings of, shall we say, a certain vintage, to the extent that one can often have a pretty good idea which performance they will favour from the very beginning.
Listening "blind" would result in a much fairer judgement, unmarred by previous experience and personal preference.Comment
-
The now defunct R3 "Interpretations on Record" with its wider coverage of more out-of-print recordings, would be a better model for BaL now, given so many 2ndhand bargains available. As with the current Gramophone "Collection" approach, that programme could conclude with several recommendations in various categories...Comment
-
Agree totally with this. I've been saying for some time that the BaL format has outlived its usefulness. You only have to look at EA's list of available versions each week to know that the reviewer has a pretty thankless task. Not saying that every version should be considered but the net needs to be spread wider.Originally posted by jayne lee wilson"The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard HaitinkComment
-
It isn't that easy to fake it though, remember Maestro a year or two ago!Originally posted by Mandryka
MikeComment
-
As a slight aside, a while back I thought about obtaining Wand's Bruckner syms on RCA with the Koln Radio SO, but decided against, as I had no real way of knowing what it is like, and how it is generally regarded by Bruckner buffs..... decisions, decisions! Can anyone be of help with guidance? Thanks.
I do, however have Bohm's set with Dresden on EMI, which I find excellent and fresh-sounding - despite the reviewer's comments!Comment
-
VisualNick
If you PM me your address, I'll send you what are now duplicate copies of Wand's BPO 4th and 5th (the box including them has arrived from amazon.es) which will get you started. I'd rather that they went to a good home en France than into what I have found to be the off-handedly rapacious hands of Oxfam.
HDComment
-
? Jochum's, visnic - or have I missed something? (A Böhm Bruckner cycle isn't something I'd want to miss!)Originally posted by visualnickmos[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
Hello HighlandDougie (msg 81)
Many thanks indeed. I have just PMd you.
NickComment
Comment