|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.116.116.127
In Reply to: Ivan Fischer's Mahler 2nd Symphony-Channel Classics response posted by Robert C. Lang on December 25, 2006 at 19:28:37:
I have a lot of respect for him and Channel, but he doesn't actually answer the question.
Follow Ups:
In my original post I expressed disappointment that the Mahler 2nd Symphony was spread over two discs and questioned why with all the capacity of SACD that a single disc was not sufficient.Mr. Sacks explained that given the dynamics of the music that it was not possible to squeeze in a 81 minute hybrid (not to mention multi-channel layer) performance of the Mahler 2nd onto a single disc. I believe he said that his limit with the material (or similar material) was 78 minutes.
There are any number of Mahler 2nd hybrid SACDs out there. How many of them are on a single disc?
HowdyWell he explained why 80 minutes was not possible which is the claim to which he responded. With lossless compression (DST in this case) you don't get a fixed compression ratio and as he alluded to the 2nd (especially in light of it's dynamic nature) wasn't going to fit no matter what he did.
Yes, he answered a question about why he needed two discs for this.I thought the question was, and one I asked myself on www.sa-cd.net, is why he has the first two movements on disc one and the remainder on disc two, when Mahler called for a pause after movement one. Surely it would have made more sense to have had the first movement only on disc one.
How the split was made was a subset of the larger (main) question of why was a split needed to begin with. Mr. Sacks answered the primary question but didn't pick up on the concern that some may have had about where the split was placed.Mr. Sacks' post spoke to several points made in the thread but not all. That would have been a tall order to fill in a single post.
But regarding where the split was placed, those of us who pause their players (for 5 minutes I think) for comtemplation after the first movement please raise your hand. Also, at live performances that I have attended or seen the pause has never been observed. It is probably rare that it is observed which is why I no longer raise the issue. My beef was that there was *any* split. But I do agree if a split *has* to be made why not make it after the first movement instead of the Andante Moderato which for me was absolutely the wrong place for a split.
Robert C. Lang
I don't want to make a big deal of this, as it is a small thing in the overall context. On the basis of the uniformly excellent reviews I did buy the Fischer recording, but have not listened to it yet. BTW, I purchased 3 other Channel recordings at the same time, bringing the total in my SACD collection to at least 10, including the wonderful Bach Christmas Oratorio, which has some of the most beautiful packaging I've seen in a CD-type format. Count me in a as fan of Mr. Sacks and his label.The first issue - yes, there should be a pause. Silence is a part of music, and while the pause after a movement is not the same, in my view anyway, as a rest during a movement, it is still an instruction from the composer to be respected. The San Francisco performances a few years back, which formed the basis of the SACD, did observe this pause. (While MTT's interpretation is controversial, this is one where you have to listen to the whole thing as intended to understand what he was up to - he underplays the opening of the work, for example, which gives him a place to go).
The other issue is that there should NOT be a length pause between movements 2 and 3, which will, as you point out, disrupt the flow.
Robert, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: