Bruckner: Symphony no. 7 BaL 13/12/14

[waldo]

I didn't have any problem with the format, either. I thought it was a good discussion, even if the expertise was heavily loaded to one side.

I was also surprised to enjoy the Celidibache. I'd read about his gargantuan interpretations for years, but never actually listened to them. I always told myself they wouldn't be for me. The sheer length just sounded absurd. I may also have been put off by the fanaticism of his advocates - not a good reason, I know, but often true in my case. But the intensity, even in the short clip they played, was just breathtaking. Whether it is "correct" or not, I couldn't care less......

[Barbirollians]

An essay being read aloud - indeed!

I think that once the usual suspects of Wand, Jochum, Bohm, Karajan et al were quickly given a short back and sides, a large part of the listenership went into protest mode!

Not at all . AmcG frequently interrupted Deathridge so much time was wasted with him having to remake a point he would have made but for McGregor's pointless interjection.

It was bizarre to give an extended playing time to the BAL and find that Deathridge was excluding recordings he plainly thought deserved to be played because they did not have enough time to make the shortlist .

VF's criticisms above of Deathridge's sweeping statements are well founded too . RO anytime in this work or even Rob Cowan - where indeed were the much praised recent recordings from Fischer , Skrowacewski and the live Barenboim ???

[aeolium]

I think the discussion format is fine for reviews of groups of new discs, e.g. new chamber music recordings. But for BaL, and especially a BaL like this, where a lot of information needs to be conveyed concisely within a short time-slot, the essay-with-extracts format is simply much better. I didn't think AMcG's contributions added anything and no reviewer can be as concise and coherent in a live discussion as he can be with a script. It also meant that fewer extracts could be played than would have been possible with the old format, limiting the scope of the review. It was the more disappointing as Deathridge had some interesting points to make and should have been given free rein.

[gurnemanz]

I think the discussion format is fine for reviews of groups of new discs, e.g. new chamber music recordings. But for BaL, and especially a BaL like this, where a lot of information needs to be conveyed concisely within a short time-slot, the essay-with-extracts format is simply much better. I didn't think AMcG's contributions added anything and no reviewer can be as concise and coherent in a live discussion as he can be with a script. It also meant that fewer extracts could be played than would have been possible with the old format, limiting the scope of the review. It was the more disappointing as Deathridge had some interesting points to make and should have been given free rein.

I agree completely, especially since he started off by referring to listening to over 50 recordings and many hours of driving other people and his cat crazy. What is your state of mind after such a mammoth Bruckner stint to which no human being would normally subject himself? And how on earth could you distil the experience into a such a relatively brief summary? As he said, he did it by commenting on the ones he found "interesting", which is fair enough.

[Beef Oven!]

Not at all . AmcG frequently interrupted Deathridge so much time was wasted with him having to remake a point he would have made but for McGregor's pointless interjection.

It was bizarre to give an extended playing time to the BAL and find that Deathridge was excluding recordings he plainly thought deserved to be played because they did not have enough time to make the shortlist .

VF's criticisms above of Deathridge's sweeping statements are well founded too . RO anytime in this work or even Rob Cowan - where indeed were the much praised recent recordings from Fischer , Skrowacewski and the live Barenboim ???

You've missed the point.

You are going over old ground about how Deathridge and McGregor performed.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the format.

[mikealdren]

You've missed the point.

You are going over old ground about how Deathridge and McGregor performed.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the format.

I take your point but the format is AMcG + AN Other and the issue does seems to be how AMcG performs.

The reviewer, in this case the excellent John Deathridge, has spent many hours preparing a detailed and reasoned argument for his choice but it gets diverted and derailed by unnecessary chat.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You are going over old ground about how Deathridge and McGregor performed.

The fact that it has been said before does not make it less true. On the contrary, it confirms that the error is being repeated.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the format.

But people are expressing a view that there is.

[amateur51]

You've missed the point.

You are going over old ground about how Deathridge and McGregor performed.

This does not mean there is anything wrong with the format.

It seems that many people disagree with you.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The discussion format faces three problems:

The present one (AMcG adding nothing and taking much away from the discussion)

Two presenters who agree with each other (in which case, why not just have a single presenter devoting more time to their choices?)

Two presenters who disagree with each other (in which case more time and attention might be focussed on their discussion, and the purpose of BaL - to help listeners decide which CDs they're going to add to their collection - gets obscured. If "expert" x recommends this recording, but "expert" Y rejects it as rubbish and prefers a recording that X thinks is a travesty, then we reach the black hole that is at the heart of BaL - no matter which version you buy, there will be many people who would call it the best ever, and many, many others who'll tell you you've bought a dud.)

Me? Neophobe that I am, on the Radio I prefer lectures to chatter, and AMcG's contributions are as welcome as a girlfriend bring her husband to the intimate candlelit dinner you invited her to. More like this, and CDR will become (yet) another R3 programme that I won't bother listening to.

[Bryn]

It seems that many people disagree with you.

On this occasion that does not include me. Yes AMcG's interjections added little, but I tend to agree with Oxo that the objections being raised are rooted in the dismissal of the non-Brucknerian stretched tempi etc.

I think the criticism of the Norrington hit the nail on the head. The problem lay not in the basic Allegro moderato observed (pretty much uniquely) by Norrington in the first movement, but his use of, and dogged adherence to, the dodgy Haas edition.

[amateur51]

Perhaps it's time to suggest that Mr Davey should listen to the French Critiques approach and suggest that he might like to give it a five-week trial.

And of course there's some support for the Interpretations on record-approach

[DracoM]

On this occasion that does not include me. Yes AMcG's interjections added little, but I tend to agree with Oxo that the objections being raised are rooted in the dismissal of the non-Brucknerian stretched tempi etc.

I think the criticism of the Norrington hit the nail on the head. The problem lay not in the basic Allegro moderato observed (pretty much uniquely) by Norrington in the first movement, but his use of, and dogged adherence to, the dodgy Haas edition.

No. My objections have nothing to do with any of the polemic in Deathridge's choices. What I objected to was that BAL is an essay in which a reviewer / scholar sets out a coherent view at his won pace within limits, and helps us clarify our own views - whether we agree with him/ her or not.

This BAL was rendered largely incoherent by AMcG's inane and largely pointless interjections that got in the way of that coherence, and manifestly on air annoyed Deathridge as he tried to be polite enough to take them seriously. It was an unforgivable decision to go for the 'fireside chat' model and on such a complex piece of music with all its inherent scholarly / editorial anomalies, a seriously confusing model at that. Bruckner symphonies are all bedevilled by such anomalies so it is not rocket science for a musically clued-up editorial team to realise what sort of shape such a review would take. To have made it even more complicated by introducing McG into it beggars belief.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think the criticism of the Norrington hit the nail on the head. The problem lay not in the basic Allegro moderato observed (pretty much uniquely) by Norrington in the first movement, but his use of, and dogged adherence to, the dodgy Haas edition.

But is the Haas edition so dodgy? Haas was replaced by Nowak for (understandable) political reasons. Here, the difference between Haas & Nowak is small in any case. Do I find myself sticking up for Sir Roger for the first time ever?

[Roehre]

But is the Haas edition so dodgy? Haas was replaced by Nowak for (understandable) political reasons. Here, the difference between Haas & Nowak is small in any case. Do I find myself sticking up for Sir Roger for the first time ever?

Contrary to e.g. the 3rd, 4th and 8th symphonies the differences between the Nowak and the Haas are basically negligable - a phrase here, a slur there, and in the 7th that cymbal clash.
No fundamental changes in structure or orchestration, and hardly if at all noticable without a score (and with 2/3/4/8 the differences are audible anyway if one knows the works well), though there are disputable tempo-indications around.

Discrediting Norrington for using Haas is b****y non-sense apart from the fact that he's supposed to go back to the sources of the music, and that's Bruckner's score plus his amendments. The Nowak is nearer to that than the Haas in ALL symphonies, whatever Fassung/Version.

IMVHO discrediting Norrington for the Haas-version is a form of character-assassination.

[Beef Oven!]

The fact that it has been said before does not make it less true. On the contrary, it confirms that the error is being repeated.

Wrong. People have criticised the format, and the reasons given pertain to Andrew McGregor's performance (mainly), the interaction between the two of them, which has got nothing to do with the format.

It must have escaped your notice that millions upon millions of successful TV and radio broadcasts have avoided a single talking-head presentation.

There is nothing wrong with people wishing that CDR remains the same as it always has, as a species, we fear change - but that clearly is not the only view.

But people are expressing a view that there is.

Then they should talk about the format, not the presenters.

I looked on Facebook, and despite the hoo-ha whipped up on here, it all seemed quiet on the subject.

Btw, people are also quietly expressing the opposite view in here (not me, I struggle with all forms of quiet)