|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
162.119.238.161
In Reply to: RE: Barenboim, believe it or not posted by Paul_A on September 16, 2011 at 16:29:36
better? good, what does better mean?
I was surprised on this board of negative opinion of Szell's set, esp due to his retouching of Schumann's orchestrations.
Follow Ups:
. . . but according to one poster on Amazon, Barenboim diddles with the orchestration too. I'm not generally on Barenboim's wavelength anyway, but this "feature" just would rule it out of court for me. If you want to hear these works without the retouchings (i.e., as Schumann wrote them!), I can vouch for Paray, Bernstein, Sawallisch, Dausgard (HIP influenced), and Sinopoli. There may be others who also play these works as Schumann wrote them, but, as for Barenboim, Szell, Celibidache, Giulini (his first recording anyway - not sure about his LAPO recording), Ceccato, Chailly, et al., I just kind of steer clear of this kind of hubris these days. Schumann just does not need this kind of "help" IMHO.
So Chris, you're into HCP, Historically Composed Performances? Before you know it, you'll want to hear the instruments that coincide with the composition... :)
Is this the early Giulini recording that you refer to? It's actually the Mahler arrangement. I just picked this up, but I've been busy and have not gotten around to listening to it yet. This thread piqued my interest and I think I'll have to put it on. I'm curious about anyone's opinion about it. I don't think it was ever in stereo, unless one surfaced later, and I have no idea if it was ever issued on CD.
Slatkin did a whole cycle of the Mahler/Beethoven symphonies with the National SO a few yers ago here. I heard the ninth and was not particularly crazy about it. My wife was playing second piccolo on it, which Mahler only has playing in the final Allegro, doubling the other piccolo. An hour fifteen minutes sitting around to play 2 minutes. Virtually the whole wind section is doubled, and there were a few moments where the mass of sound was effective, but once in a lifetime was plenty for me to hear that arrangement.
I, too, picked up the one with earlier London Philharmonia/ Giulini Schumann "Rhenish" albeit mine is a US Angel reissue.
Your Columbia pressing is supposed to sound very nice.
I was referring to the Angel recording shown in your post, which, as you say, uses Mahler's re-orchestration. What I don't remember is what Giulini did on his LAPO recording many years later.
.
Apparently the recording was done in stereo. Does the one you pictured say anywhere that it is the Mahler orchestration? It looks like an early issue (red label disc?). There was no Columbia stereo issue, or any LP issue other than the Angel that I can find. It is available in stereo on a 2 cd set of early Giulini recordings from EMI Classics, part of their "Great Conductors of the 20th Century" series. The orchestration notwithstanding, it seems well-regarded. The notes say that it the first release on CD.
From the liner notes:
...'Mahler's principal aims were to lighten the texture by doing away with unnecessary doublings and to give a sharper definition to Schumann's melodic and rhythmic idas by deft alterations. thus, in the original opening of the Third Symphony, horns and trumpets are allotted merely harmonic fillings; in Mahler's version they are made to reinforce the first violins, which have the main theme requiring uderlining. Similarly , for the sake of greater clarity, Mahler transposes ceratin thematic pasage san octave higher, notably in caes where Schumann entrusted them to low-lying oboes and clarinets. Mahler's revisions also include changes in the phrase markings, in the dynamics and the matter of playing.'
I'm not sure how old my record is but it is a large angel red label and it says 'manufactured in England'. I figured it's the same '58 London recording.
Anyways, with all this talk about 'Rhenish', now I am curious to see what the 'original' version sounds like.
What you have is actually a pretty sought-after record. It is an original issue, and as far as I can tell, it was the only stereo issue on LP.
One confusing thing to me, however. You say that it says "manufactured in England" but to my knowledge, all of the Angel stereos were pressed in the US (mono red labels were pressed in the UK for the most part). Every red label Angel stereo I have seen says "recorded in England" to the right of the spindle hole and "manufactured in the USA" to the left. I apologize for getting into minutia, but if you did have a stereo Angel pressed in the UK of this disc, it would be a big-time rarity.
But he was conducting at a time when performers saw themselves as co-creators rather than reliable conduits of the composer's vision. I wonder whether someone who witholds his own vision can claim to bring this quality back from the grave. The ideal of a "reliable interpretation" seems one that is doomed to fail.
. . . I generally like a wide latitude of interpretive choice, and in fact I'm in the process of reading and relishing Earl Wild's memoir ("A Walk on the Wild Side") right now (over 800 pages and weighing in at three-and-a-half pounds!) . Wild has some great insights about the pious "respect for the score" attitude by musicians whom he considers second-rate. So, in general, I'm with you on this point. But I seem to have a blind spot as far as the Schumann Symphonies go - I just can't stand those re-orchestrations and re-touchings! ;-)
Chris
Went on the internet and I see that the Wild book with shipping will cost about $56. I am a Earl Wild fan and want to know if you think the book is worth the money?
Alan
Well, of course I can't decide if it will be worth $56 to you, but if you look at it on a "pounds of paper and binding per dollar" basis, I feel you DO get your money's worth! ;-)I read one review where the reviewer said that Wild could have used a good editor and could have slimmed down the book to a more manageable size, but I certainly don't mind Wild's discursiveness at all. I'm about a quarter of the way through it so far, and I can say that it's full of wonderful stories, and he pulls no punches in describing what he thinks about people and things. Example:
The word "technician" is usually used as a derogatory term, implying that you play without any emotion, giving only dry, technically dutiful, and machine-like clinical performances. This could not be a more inaccurate conclusion. Good technique comes from years and years of devotion to one's art, a constant analysis of one's playing, delving into the music at hand, and exhaustive listening to oneself. It goes far beyond the highly overrated attitude of "profundity"! I feel the term "profound" is a synonym for "pedantic".
Or this account of an exchange between Zinka Milanov and Fausto Cleva at the Met:
I remember an amusing moment at one of Zinka's Met rehearsals when she was performing in a production of Norma . The conductor was Fausto Cleva (1902- 1971), and Zinka was onstage during a run-through for that night's performance. Zinka happened to sing an incorrect turn and Maustro Cleva, who was an excellent conductor and knew the music backward and forward, stopped the rehearsal and asked the orchestra to please play the correct turn for Mme. Milanov. Zinka was so angered at Maestro Cleva's behavior that she walked downstage to the footlights and spoke to him across the pit. "I no come to this rehearsal for me; I come for you!" Cleva shot back, "Zinka, you a bad girl - I bet you bad in bed too!" To that, Zinka responded, "Ah, you remember!"
So if this is the kind of material that sounds as appealing to you as as it is to me, then I say, go ahead and risk your $56. ;-)
Edits: 09/17/11
Thanks for the info. It sounds like my kind of book. I will order it
Alan
I saw him play the Well Tempered Clavier live and I can't think of a sloppier more willful performance. But in the Schumann he really nailed it.
A more compelling performance? Interpretations that create a musical world that you didn't know existed in these pieces? I'm afraid I can't tell you anything about his tempos, or whether that would make any difference.
Szell's interpretation grabbed me more than the others I had listened to before Barenboim Barenboim. Following a score doesn't ensure a better performance and Szell made decisions about orchestration that he thought clarified his vision. I'm cool with that.
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: