|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.5.126
Yeah, I'm dredging up this subject again. There was a recent post on the rec.music.classical.recordings newsgroup which pretty succinctly summarizes why the tubular chimes people (Ansermet, Maazel, Bernstein, Blomstedt, et al) are wrong, wrong wrong! Here's the copy and paste of a couple of key points:Sibelius definitely wanted glockenspiel. The first edition had glock. which was mistaken for Glocken. Sibelius said that tubular bells sounded "too oriental." Source: Andrew Barnett [Yale University Press, 2007]. . .I invite anyone who is interested in this subject to listen to the Beecham recording and tell me what is heard in the last movement. It is by no stretch of the imagination tubular chimes.Beecham's 1937 recording is special because it was approved by the composer.
QED - Let's put this "controversy" to bed now!
Edits: 04/06/15Follow Ups:
Geez, this is like another rendition of the "hammer blows" argument and movement order in Mahler 6. Does anybody but the navel-gazing score-worshiping fanatics give a damn?
The only thing that matters is, when you hear it, do you like it? If it sux, don't listen to it again. If you like it, do it.
I vote for BOTH glockenspiel AND tubular bells, because ya know, in case you miss one, you get the other, and if you get both, well, it's like two toys at Christmas instead on none.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: