Post by raffells July 22, 2008 (11 of 22)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Dave,
I believe I am likewise astonished now that I think about it.
I believe that mostly it was to point out that this disc, if not the end-all, be-all of Sacres must, to Geohominid at least, not be "Dead Boring". But perhaps you are right in your unspoken criticism, wherein you imply that RCO Live do not need me to defend their decision to release this disc.
Another part of what must have been the "why" of my posting is a gut response I invariably have to what almost seems a pathologically unrelenting negativism. I just felt I needed to say something in refutation. We all have our "buttons" that others can push. Negativism is one of mine and I should guard against being a reactor.
You think I have already made up my mind about this disc without hearing it. I have expectations - that is all. Expectations I fervently hope are fullfilled.
Where you leave me behind is your comment:
"We don't really need you to tell us "what counts" even quoting somebody else. I cannot see any reasonable point in you mentioning it,especially when You seem to have pre decided?."
It would seem that any opinion expressed in a forum amounts to the poster telling others what the poster thinks counts. Am I such a pariah in your mind that I should not do this too? Or do you take exception only to the fact that I used another's review as the basis for my having said what I did?
Point One/ Whilst I dont feel it my perogative to defend anyone who is probably sitting in his sauna drinking a pure lager, eating smorgesbord and laughing his socks off at your posting whilst doing international reviews in any of his multi languages.
I should point out he has slowed down on his beneficial reviews on this website probably because of the negativity towards him.
Whilst in this area, my original comment was aimed at someone who hasnt reviewed anything for eons.If not negative it sure isnt posetive.Sure you can winge about others not being positive but pot calling the kettle is another well know saying to be considered.
You tend to use quotations that other people state as though it justifies your opinions.I read Stevens comment as a simple message which you could have considered.ie IT WAS ONLY EDWINS Opinion that it was boring.
Myself I have had a sample listen which seems more than you have indicated you did before blasting off.After 40 years of hearing these works its gonna take something special to keep me interested.The sample didnt.
Hope I have made my points clear.
Just curious what happened to that advice that you offered about sitting reading and waiting 24 hours before a response.No dont bother I will be away placing my ear against one of the side rear pillars inside LaScala trying to hear how it sounds.
Its a pity you dont genuinely dont review in advance cos I could do with knowing whether next weeks performace is any good and therby save me a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn July 22, 2008 (12 of 22)
|
|
raffells said:
Point One/ Whilst I dont feel it my perogative to defend anyone who is probably sitting in his sauna drinking a pure lager, eating smorgesbord and laughing his socks off at your posting whilst doing international reviews in any of his multi languages.
I should point out he has slowed down on his beneficial reviews on this website probably because of the negativity towards him.
Whilst in this area, my original comment was aimed at someone who hasnt reviewed anything for eons.If not negative it sure isnt posetive.Sure you can winge about others not being positive but pot calling the kettle is another well know saying to be considered.
You tend to use quotations that other people state as though it justifies your opinions.I read Stevens comment as a simple message which you could have considered.ie IT WAS ONLY EDWINS Opinion that it was boring.
Myself I have had a sample listen which seems more than you have indicated you did before blasting off.After 40 years of hearing these works its gonna take something special to keep me interested.The sample didnt.
Hope I have made my points clear.
Just curious what happened to that advice that you offered about sitting reading and waiting 24 hours before a response.No dont bother I will be away placing my ear against one of the side rear pillars inside LaScala trying to hear how it sounds.
Its a pity you dont genuinely dont review in advance cos I could do with knowing whether next weeks performace is any good and therby save me a fortune.
Dead Boring
|
|
|
Post by Edvin July 22, 2008 (13 of 22)
|
|
So what do we expect of a new Rite? Well, it is an SACD so please keep criticism to a minimum. Remember Sibelius with Neeme Järvi? Rubbish performances issued on SACD. I can, of course, give you numerous examples of recorded performances receiving high accolades because of being SACD's only.
This new Rite is expertly played, as can be expected from this orchestra. But there is no thrill, no sweat and no drama. I have written several articles comparing recorded versions of this piece over the years and the recommended ones remain Muti Philadelphia, Bernstein NY 1958 and Stravinsky 1960. My latest addition was Tilson Thomas on DVD, Keeping Score.
The Rite of Spring always raises my pulse, well almost that is. A few, very few, missed that goal. The recent Salonen is dead boring, and the Rattle didn't make my heart miss a beat. This Jansons is safe and all that The Rite isn't about.
|
|
|
Post by ramesh July 23, 2008 (14 of 22)
|
|
I agree with THomas about the virtues of Stravinsky's own recording for CBS, and the Muti/ Philadelphia.
Muti's performance is my personal favourite. He seems to have studied Stravinsky's own recording in terms of tempi and balance, but has the inestimable advantage of the Philadelphia orchestra. At least the Stravinsky is on SACD.
The Muti has the advantage of being recorded in analogue rather than early digital sound. I've been waiting for Toshiba-EMI to remaster this on CD, since the Japanese EMI remasterings of analogue tapes seem to be consistently superior to the stock EMI CDs. It doesn't seem to have happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 23, 2008 (15 of 22)
|
|
ramesh said:
I agree with THomas about the virtues of Stravinsky's own recording for CBS, and the Muti/ Philadelphia.
Muti's performance is my personal favourite. He seems to have studied Stravinsky's own recording in terms of tempi and balance, but has the inestimable advantage of the Philadelphia orchestra. At least the Stravinsky is on SACD.
The Muti has the advantage of being recorded in analogue rather than early digital sound. I've been waiting for Toshiba-EMI to remaster this on CD, since the Japanese EMI remasterings of analogue tapes seem to be consistently superior to the stock EMI CDs. It doesn't seem to have happened yet.
The Muti is also my personal favorite, but I doubt that the a Japanese remastering will fix the compression and overload distortions.
|
|
|
Post by akiralx July 25, 2008 (16 of 22)
|
|
Edvin said:
So what do we expect of a new Rite? Well, it is an SACD so please keep criticism to a minimum. Remember Sibelius with Neeme Järvi? Rubbish performances issued on SACD.
Actually as I said in my review Jarvi's Sibelius symphonies SACDs are very fine, especially 3-7, with unique insights in the Sixth. But I would prefer Colin Davis or Ashkenazy's recent Exton SACD for the Second, and Bernstein on DG for the First.
However Jarvi's Tchaikovsky SACDs are very average.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin July 25, 2008 (17 of 22)
|
|
Yes, and I disagree. In my opinion the Sibelius from Järvi is very bad, as is the Ashkenazy series. The music making is far too shallow and superficial. There is a depth to Sibelius that these musicians don't even approach.
Järvi's Tchaikovsky is not average at all, it is lousy and the worst cycle ever recorded.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr July 25, 2008 (18 of 22)
|
|
Edvin said:
Yes, and I disagree. In my opinion the Sibelius from Järvi is very bad, as is the Ashkenazy series. The music making is far too shallow and superficial. There is a depth to Sibelius that these musicians don't even approach.
Järvi's Tchaikovsky is not average at all, it is lousy and the worst cycle ever recorded.
Edvin,
I like your commentaries. You don't pussyfoot around and make something "nice", you just tell it like it is. I enjoy that.
That being said, I received the Jarvi/Tchaikovsky 4th in the mail today, after a long wait. I'll put it on later. It's nice to now have a BOTTOM benchmark for this symphony!
It's weirdly nice to have something in the BOTTOM 10!
The disc in the title of this thread should arrive next week. Oh More Joy!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by akiralx July 30, 2008 (19 of 22)
|
|
Edvin said:
Järvi's Tchaikovsky is not average at all, it is lousy and the worst cycle ever recorded.
No, I won't have that! I've got a Ljubljana SO CD under Nanut somewhere bought from a local petrol station which I'm sure undercuts him...
|
|
|
Post by Edvin July 30, 2008 (20 of 22)
|
|
I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
