Post by Jonty June 23, 2009 (11 of 21)
|
|
As I said "for one reason or another" so here goes:
Turandot - Not really a fan of Pavarotti in heroic parts. Sutherland is not the right voice type and diction is still a problem. Technically I haven't rated it as one of Decca's best. It just doesn't seem to gel. I can't 'see' the soloists being on stage. But Caballe is incomparabale as Lui.
Prefer Bjorling as Calaf, Nilsson as Turandot although Leinsdorf is not the world's greatest Puccini conductor I would on the whole plump for that recording and perhaps give a nod to the one in English on Chandos for modern sound. I will have a listen to the Callas/Serafin as I haven't heard it in a long while.
London Symphonies - I have found the Davis records to be rather muddily recorded. Although the Penatone transfer of symphonies 88 and 99 has improved things considerably. In general for Haydn I would look to Mackerras, Kuijken, Dorati and A. Fischer (the new recording are much better technically than the old Nimbus/Brilliant ones) with perhaps Harnoncourt as a back up. Weil's recordings of some of the earlier symphonies are good but I wish he would relax just occasionally so I am interested to hear what he will do in the London symphonies.
As someone will ask about the Fry Street Quartet comment. Without surround I found the Isomike recordings dry and un-involving. I think this a function of my equipment rather than their basic quality and I would like to judge them as surround recordings one day.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox June 23, 2009 (12 of 21)
|
|
Would somebody enlighten me please, is this a DSD recording? It is not listed as such by Zeus but perhaps he doesn't know without having sight of the booklet. All of the newer HM's in my collection are.
|
|
|
Post by tream June 23, 2009 (13 of 21)
|
|
Jonty said:
As I said "for one reason or another" so here goes:
Turandot - Not really a fan of Pavarotti in heroic parts. Sutherland is not the right voice type and diction is still a problem. Technically I haven't rated it as one of Decca's best. It just doesn't seem to gel. I can't 'see' the soloists being on stage. But Caballe is incomparabale as Lui.
Prefer Bjorling as Calaf, Nilsson as Turandot although Leinsdorf is not the world's greatest Puccini conductor I would on the whole plump for that recording and perhaps give a nod to the one in English on Chandos for modern sound. I will have a listen to the Callas/Serafin as I haven't heard it in a long while.
London Symphonies - I have found the Davis records to be rather muddily recorded. Although the Penatone transfer of symphonies 88 and 99 has improved things considerably. In general for Haydn I would look to Mackerras, Kuijken, Dorati and A. Fischer (the new recording are much better technically than the old Nimbus/Brilliant ones) with perhaps Harnoncourt as a back up. Weil's recordings of some of the earlier symphonies are good but I wish he would relax just occasionally so I am interested to hear what he will do in the London symphonies.
As someone will ask about the Fry Street Quartet comment. Without surround I found the Isomike recordings dry and un-involving. I think this a function of my equipment rather than their basic quality and I would like to judge them as surround recordings one day.
I second you on Fischer's MDG remakes being better technically than the Nimbus, some of which sound like they were recorded in someone's bathroom.
I also second you on some of your comments on the Mehta Turandot, although I think the thing works as a whole. However, I still stand by my recommendation of the Serafin over the Mehta, as being much better conducted, and Callas sings a remarkable Turandot. But Bjorling is my favorite spinto tenor and so the RCA is a must have as well....I just think that Nilsson is unyielding compared to Callas. There is no doubt that Nilsson is far more secure vocally than Callas, but Callas inhabits the part.
|
|
|
Post by zeus June 23, 2009 (14 of 21)
|
|
hiredfox said:
Would somebody enlighten me please, is this a DSD recording? It is not listed as such by Zeus but perhaps he doesn't know without having sight of the booklet. All of the newer HM's in my collection are.
There's no information. I suspect PCM but this isn't the issue. It's perhaps an unfair comparison given the relative scales of the works but have a listen to:
Purcell: Dido and Aeneas - Musica ad Rhenum/Jed Wentz
The soloists aren't of the same calibre but this, to my ears, is a model of transparency and balance. And a real delight to listen to. Yet another overlooked gem in the SA-CD catalogue.
|
|
|
Post by Jonty June 24, 2009 (15 of 21)
|
|
zeus said:
There's no information. I suspect PCM but this isn't the issue. It's perhaps an unfair comparison given the relative scales of the works but have a listen to:
Purcell: Dido and Aeneas - Musica ad Rhenum/Jed Wentz
The soloists aren't of the same calibre but this, to my ears, is a model of transparency and balance. And a real delight to listen to. Yet another overlooked gem in the SA-CD catalogue.
I couldn't agree more about this Dido recording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
Nothing like a bit of controversy to start the week ...
I'd like to ask the 31 people that universally recommended this recording (before I added my vote) what they hear in it because to my ears it's a dog. Highly processed sound from the opening bars, flat, poor timbal accuracy, woeful balance ... need I go on? It shares the same attributes as Mozart: The Marriage of Figaro - René Jacobs, a multi-award winning recording! I recently upgraded to a better player and my opinion hasn't changed. I should add that I'm not talking about the music or performance, both very fine, just the sonics. Nor is this a PCM vs DSD debate as I've heard better CDs. I buy most of Harmonia Mundi's SA-CDs and find them generally excellent. So what are you people hearing that I'm not?
Leaving aside the audio quality, the point of your post, there are two even greater reasons for the poor quality of the recording:
1. poor vocal soloists and a rather woolly-sounding choir;
2. the music is absolute kitsch, perhaps the worst work Haydn ever wrote.
|
|
|
Post by Jonty June 28, 2009 (17 of 21)
|
|
Osbert Parsley said:
Leaving aside the audio quality, the point of your post, there are two even greater reasons for the poor quality of the recording:
1. poor vocal soloists and a rather woolly-sounding choir;
2. the music is absolute kitsch, perhaps the worst work Haydn ever wrote.
OP strikes again. Vibrato-less singing is not the only way perform music before 1850 and you are wrong that the Seasons is 'perhaps the worst music that Haydn ever wrote'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonty said:
OP strikes again. Vibrato-less singing is not the only way perform music before 1850 and you are wrong that the Seasons is 'perhaps the worst music that Haydn ever wrote'.
It is not only vibrato that is the problem - it is the whole voice production technique employed.
I accept that vibrato-less singing is not the only way for pre-1850 music, but a reduced vibrato, used only as an ornament or to emphasise a particular phrase or note rather than as a consistent element of the voice, is the only way to go if you want to adhere to historically informed singing style. Why does everyone accept period instrument orchestras performing in this way but accept different rules for the singers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonty said:
... you are wrong that the Seasons is 'perhaps the worst music that Haydn ever wrote'.
What is the worst he wrote, then?
|
|
|
Post by Jonty July 2, 2009 (20 of 21)
|
|
Osbert Parsley said:
What is the worst he wrote, then?
How about some of the bayrton trios?
|
|
