|
|
One line review: A startlingly realistic MC recording. An original and convincing performance. Anyone else ?
|
|
|
Post by sylvian May 6, 2013 (2 of 7)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
One line review: A startlingly realistic MC recording. An original and convincing performance. Anyone else ?
I prefer Nott over Stenz. Furthermore Nott 2nd is closest to Mehta/Israeli symphony recording from 1982 (wonderfully resored for DVD-A release by Sony) which I consider as referrence recording.
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
I prefer Nott over Stenz. Furthermore Nott 2nd is closest to Mehta/Israeli symphony recording from 1982 (wonderfully resored for DVD-A release by Sony) which I consider as referrence recording.
Why deflect the thread when you have not even heard the disc? This is not a discussion about your Mahler preferences. Please stay on topic.
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
Why deflect the thread when you have not even heard the disc?
And you know this how?
And since when have you ever stayed on topic?
|
|
|
Post by sylvian May 7, 2013 (5 of 7)
|
|
hiredfox said:
Why deflect the thread when you have not even heard the disc? This is not a discussion about your Mahler preferences. Please stay on topic.
I heard this particular Stenz disc (although I have not listed it in my library), I consider myself as a slight-expert to Mahler (If you could check my library, you will find that I already have more than one rendition of great symphonies).
I just expressed my preferrences with allowing as much room for other peoples preferrences as I can. I simply stated that I am not preferring Stenz as much as I am not preferring Zinman or MTT/SFO (his 2nd is not awful but it is not loveable as well - which also does not mean that I have not heard others by MTT/SFO).
|
|
|
|
|
samayoeruorandajin said:
And you know this how?
And since when have you ever stayed on topic?
When I stray off topic there's usually a good reason for doing so...
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
I prefer Nott over Stenz. Furthermore Nott 2nd is closest to Mehta/Israeli symphony recording from 1982 (wonderfully resored for DVD-A release by Sony) which I consider as referrence recording.
The Nott 4th is excellent and I enjoy it. But the Stenz is beautifully phrased also and (I need to relisten to the Nott to be certain) I think the Stenz is more vividly, realistically recorded. I would not want to say to anyone: "You should get this one, not that one." I would recommend both and if your preference is to vivid recorded sound, and only want one, Stenz is wonderful.
|
|