Tony Duggan's Mahler Recordings Survey - Revisions Underway
pgaron
Mahler recordings, which he last revised in 1999. The revised Preface
and survey of Mahler's 1st Symphony recordings are now complete and
posted on-line. Per Tony's request, I am passing along his message
that he sent to the Mahler List, which has the link to use. - pgaron]
From: Tony Duggan
Subject: Recordings survey revision - Now begins "live"
The first two parts of the revision of my Mahler recordings synoptic
survey is now "live". Maybe an image or two will be added, but you can
read it OK. The URL below is now the one to use for entry as it
contains the "International" designation. You will see a new Preface
and a new Mahler 1 entry both for the 2006 revision.
For the busy exectutive, here is who is out and who is in for M1: OUT:
Kubelik (DG), Haitink BPO. IN: Kubelik (Audite), Muti, Tilson Thomas,
Kegel, Neuhold, Ruud. There is also a summing up of those that didn't
quite make the cut.
Go to: http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/Mahler1.htm
...and PLEASE take note of the Preface as this explains much about the
philosophy of both the site and the revision. Can those of you on other
Mahler sites and also on the Usenet groups please make sure people
there know the revision process is now underway. I would be most
grateful. This was a Mahler public service announcement.
Tony Duggan
Thornhill
I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
Vaneyes
Thornhill wrote:
>
> ....Horenstein's god-awful Mahler recordings....
Not 3 & 4, and I'm still anxious to hear 6.
Regards
bzuk...@phillynews.com
> For the busy exectutive, here is who is out and who is in for M1: OUT:
> Kubelik (DG), Haitink BPO. IN: Kubelik (Audite), Muti, Tilson Thomas,
> Kegel, Neuhold, Ruud. There is also a summing up of those that didn't
> quite make the cut.
>
It's just a minor point, but for accuracy sake, In the Muti review, you
say you aren't aware of him having conducted any other Mahler since
that recording was made. I believe I recall reading a review of a
performance of Mahler's 4th that he led in New York, probably with the
VPO, perhaps 8-10 years ago.
Barry
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:1140054808.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> [Tony Duggan has begun revising and updating his excellent survey of
> Mahler recordings, which he last revised in 1999. The revised Preface
> and survey of Mahler's 1st Symphony recordings are now complete and
> posted on-line. Per Tony's request, I am passing along his message
> that he sent to the Mahler List, which has the link to use. - pgaron]
Far quackin' out! Very interesting indeed, and I very much look forward to
Tony's new coverage of my onw favorite Mahler symphony, the 4th.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:1140055938.461226.301110
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
> Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
IMAO the awful ones are the Vox ones, and the French "Kindertotenlieder"
with Marian Anderson singing flat throughout. I still love the Unicorn 1st
and 3rd, and absolutely adore the wonderful BBC 8th.
record...@gmail.com
I bought the Horenstein third because "they" say it's one of the best
versions of this symphony, and it was one of the shrillest, horriblest
recordings I ever owned.
Thornhill
I don't understand people's obsession with his recording of the 3rd. I
can't imagine anyone preferring it to Gielen's. Horenstein smooths the
music back into the romantic era covering up how 'modern' the symphony
sounds, compresses the dynamics (climaxes are particularly half baked),
the playing is fair, and the recorded sound is worse than radio
recordings from the era.
Thornhill
Ditto. When I started collecting classical CDs, that was the first
recording of the 3rd I bought because it was so unbelievably highly
recommend. The recording left me cold, and as a result, I neglected the
3rd symphony for years. I figured that I just didn't like it and spent
my time on other music. A few years later I heard a radio broadcast of
it and realized what I was missing out on, or rather, what Horenstein
had completely missed.
Vaneyes
Thornhill wrote:
>
> I don't understand people's obsession with his recording of the 3rd. I
> can't imagine anyone preferring it to Gielen's. Horenstein smooths the
> music back into the romantic era covering up how 'modern' the symphony
> sounds, compresses the dynamics (climaxes are particularly half baked),
> the playing is fair, and the recorded sound is worse than radio
> recordings from the era.
What a load of rubbish is spewed, in order to tout a fave. Imagining?
Imagine this. Gielen and Chailly were eventually traded. Bernstein
(Sony), and Horenstein stayed.
Regards
record...@gmail.com
Fortunately, I didn't get a copy until I'd been listening to Mahler for
quite a few years. My first was the CBS Bernstein, so the M3 has always
been a favorite. The CBS Bernstein was the only one I'd listen to
regularly until the Michael Tilson-Thomas SACD, which I like a lot. I
haven't heard the Gielen.
Thornhill
Vaneyes wrote:
>
> What a load of rubbish is spewed, in order to tout a fave. Imagining?
Let me be the first to welcome you to the internet.
Vaneyes
Maybe 1995, the year he did M4 with the VPO at Mahler Fest (Amsterdam).
Regards
Eric Nagamine
I've heard that the transfer of the 3rd in the Brilliant box was not
very good. The problem with many of the Horenstein Unicorn recording is
not Horenstein (I still think the LSO 1st holds up well as a
performance/reading), but the late Robert Auger's strangely balanced
recordings. It was a problem to listen to on LP, but I suspect that both
the Unicorn and Brilliant CD's only magnified the problems with the
original recording.
All the Bob Auger recordings I've heard on Unicorn had strange balances.
I don't know if it had to do with their Ambisonic recordings, but even
a Decca Phase4 recording had more listenable balances.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/mahlerb/broadcaststartpage.html
Richard Schultz
:> I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
:> Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
: IMAO the awful ones are the Vox ones, and the French "Kindertotenlieder"
: with Marian Anderson singing flat throughout. I still love the Unicorn 1st
: and 3rd, and absolutely adore the wonderful BBC 8th.
supposedly "legendary" status. Would that it were literally legendary.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"[Horenstein] couldn't control an orchestra if his reputation depended on it,
which it didn't."
-- spoken by an anonymous "fan"
Bob Harper
> I've heard that the transfer of the 3rd in the Brilliant box was not
> very good. The problem with many of the Horenstein Unicorn recording is
> not Horenstein (I still think the LSO 1st holds up well as a
> performance/reading), but the late Robert Auger's strangely balanced
> recordings. It was a problem to listen to on LP, but I suspect that both
> the Unicorn and Brilliant CD's only magnified the problems with the
> original recording.
>
> All the Bob Auger recordings I've heard on Unicorn had strange balances.
> I don't know if it had to do with their Ambisonic recordings, but even
> a Decca Phase4 recording had more listenable balances.
>
I have read that the H Mahler 3rd as issued was very much multi-miked.
At the same time, someone (whether Auger or someone else I don't know)
recorded at least portions of the sessions with a more-or-less Blumlein
setup (a crossed pair of figure-8 mikes), and that the balances on
*those* tapes are much better. I've never heard any of this, but would
certainly like to have the opportunity.
Bob Harper
Dave Cook
> I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
> Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
I recently listened to the Horenstein 3 (the Brilliant Classics discs; my
Unicorn discs bronzed) and was not impressed with any of it. The end of the
final movement was particularly screechy. I never really liked the Unicorn
1.
Now I'm a bit afraid to listen to that Nielsen 5 :(
The reputation of recordings like this seem to have a huge inertia. I
wonder if many critics are simply going by memories of the Lps (or rather
memories of impressions of the Lps.)
Dave Cook
Dave Cook
> For the busy exectutive, here is who is out and who is in for M1: OUT:
> Kubelik (DG), Haitink BPO. IN: Kubelik (Audite), Muti, Tilson Thomas,
> Kegel, Neuhold, Ruud. There is also a summing up of those that didn't
> quite make the cut.
No Ancerl?
Dave Cook
Gerard
Not even a Kondrashin!
Tony - sidoze
Indeed, like his very last, unforgettable concert.
Paul Ilechko
>>I bought the Horenstein third because "they" say it's one of the best
>>versions of this symphony, and it was one of the shrillest, horriblest
>>recordings I ever owned.
>
>
> Ditto. When I started collecting classical CDs, that was the first
> recording of the 3rd I bought because it was so unbelievably highly
> recommend. The recording left me cold, and as a result, I neglected the
> 3rd symphony for years. I figured that I just didn't like it and spent
> my time on other music. A few years later I heard a radio broadcast of
> it and realized what I was missing out on, or rather, what Horenstein
> had completely missed.
>
I could say almost the same thing, replacing "Horen" with "Bern", and
adding a qualifier of (DG).
Gerard
> [Tony Duggan has begun revising and updating his excellent survey of
> Mahler recordings, which he last revised in 1999. The revised Preface
> and survey of Mahler's 1st Symphony recordings are now complete and
> posted on-line. Per Tony's request, I am passing along his message
> that he sent to the Mahler List, which has the link to use. - pgaron]
>
> From: Tony Duggan
> Subject: Recordings survey revision - Now begins "live"
>
> Go to: http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/Mahler1.htm
>
> ...and PLEASE take note of the Preface as this explains much about the
> philosophy of both the site and the revision. Can those of you on
> other Mahler sites and also on the Usenet groups please make sure
> people there know the revision process is now underway. I would be
> most grateful. This was a Mahler public service announcement.
>
However, the introducing page
http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html is now so wide (by the
advertising banners) that is doesn't fit anymore in a window narrower than a
maximized window on a 17 inch screen.
More: the text is spread over the full width.
If one wants to read this, one has to scroll left and right the whole "day".
It is so easy to make this a very little user friendly (by using a left and a
right border for the text e.g.)
Paul Ilechko
>
> However, the introducing page
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html is now so wide (by the
> advertising banners) that is doesn't fit anymore in a window narrower than a
> maximized window on a 17 inch screen.
> More: the text is spread over the full width.
> If one wants to read this, one has to scroll left and right the whole "day".
> It is so easy to make this a very little user friendly (by using a left and a
> right border for the text e.g.)
>
>
Nope, not on my laptop I don't. Seems like you need to find a machine
that has an available screen resolution more in line with current
technology standards. I run at 1400 x 1050, and the page takes up no
more than 2/3 the width of my browser window.
Gerard
> Gerard wrote:
>
> >
> > However, the introducing page
> > http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html is now so
> > wide (by the advertising banners) that is doesn't fit anymore in a
> > window narrower than a maximized window on a 17 inch screen.
> > More: the text is spread over the full width.
> > If one wants to read this, one has to scroll left and right the
> > whole "day". It is so easy to make this a very little user friendly
> > (by using a left and a right border for the text e.g.)
> >
> >
>
> Nope, not on my laptop I don't. Seems like you need to find a machine
> that has an available screen resolution more in line with current
> technology standards.
Nope. A website that only can be seen with maximized windows on a large screen
etc. is a badly designed website by definition.
Using a border is so easy.
More: those very long lines are difficult and tiring to read.
> I run at 1400 x 1050, and the page takes up no
> more than 2/3 the width of my browser window.
A webmaster should not be interested in what you run. I'm neither.
What you run is not a standard resolution, an on many, many, many screens this
resolution is not available at all.
Paul Ilechko
> More: those very long lines are difficult and tiring to read.
Poor baby.
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Thornhill wrote:
>
> I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
> Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
Then might I suggest you don't read any more of my survey. Otherwise
you are going to be a VERY unhappy Mahlerbunny indeed. Needless to say
I will go on recommending MOST of Horenstein's Mahler recordings to
everyone......along with plenty of others.
But thanks for your interest anyway. (I think.)
Tony Duggan
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Memory jogged. One for the next revision.
Tony Duggan
record...@gmail.com
I reset my screen from 800 X 600 pixels to 1024 X 768 pixels, and now
such pages appear in full without that sloppy overhang.
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Thornhill wrote on Horenstein Mahler 3:
> I don't understand people's obsession with his recording of the 3rd. I
> can't imagine anyone preferring it to Gielen's
I do. However, I like Gielen also. Different side of same coin. The
Gielen is going into the survey.
> Horenstein smooths the
> music back into the romantic era covering up how 'modern' the symphony
> sounds, compresses the dynamics (climaxes are particularly half baked),
> the playing is fair, and the recorded sound is worse than radio
> recordings from the era.
Are we listening to the same recording ? One of the reasons why I rate
the Horenstein is that he is not a "smoothychops" in this work and does
stress the modernity. Ah well. As my old granny used to say, what a
dull world if we all agreed.
Tony Duggan
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
I am indeed Ancerless.
Tony Duggan
Gerard
Having to reset your screen proves the poor design.
Gerard
You obviously have no notion at all about dsign and usability of web sites.
Nor about people.
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In article <Xns976BBBC30C7...@207.217.125.201>, Matthew B. Tepper <oy?@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :> I'll be impressed when people stop recommending Horenstein's god-awful
> :> Mahler recordings to novice collectors.
>
> : IMAO the awful ones are the Vox ones, and the French "Kindertotenlieder"
> : with Marian Anderson singing flat throughout. I still love the Unicorn 1st
> : and 3rd, and absolutely adore the wonderful BBC 8th.
>
> But the BBC dLvdE is, alas, one of the "god-awful" kind, despite its
> supposedly "legendary" status. Would that it were literally legendary.
Oh dear, then I think you need to avoid the my entry on DLVDE as the
Hortenstein will have its place. There is a new star in the firmament,
though.
Tony Duggan
Gerard
Joe Martin
It's a bird, it's a plane... it's Rafaek Kubelik!
My new fave, anyway.
Simon Roberts
>I've heard that the transfer of the 3rd in the Brilliant box was not
>very good. The problem with many of the Horenstein Unicorn recording is
>not Horenstein (I still think the LSO 1st holds up well as a
>performance/reading), but the late Robert Auger's strangely balanced
>recordings. It was a problem to listen to on LP, but I suspect that both
>the Unicorn and Brilliant CD's only magnified the problems with the
>original recording.
>
>All the Bob Auger recordings I've heard on Unicorn had strange balances.
> I don't know if it had to do with their Ambisonic recordings, but even
>a Decca Phase4 recording had more listenable balances.
I've not heard the Brilliant Classics transfer, but the sound on Unicorn is
terrible. For instance, in the opening of the first movement, the timpanist is
recorded with absurd prominence (drowning out everything else), while the
important upward-scurrying cello/bass passages are recorded so distantly as to
be largely robbed of their effect. I suspect this performance is better than it
sounds, not that it matters.
Simon
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Dave Cook wrote on Horenstein Mahler 3:
> The reputation of recordings like this seem to have a huge inertia. I
> wonder if many critics are simply going by memories of the Lps (or rather
> memories of impressions of the Lps.)
This critic can assure you that I heard the Horenstein Mahler 3 on CD
as recently as three weeks ago and will hear it again next week in
preparation for revising my survey. You couldn't possibly think I would
NOT hear it again before RE-recommending it, would you ? :-) I still
regard it as one of the greatest Mahler performances on record of all
time. It is still the second M3 I reach for these days.
Tony Duggan
Tony - sidoze
Indeed, mine as well. It's more like a constellation too.
Gerard
>
> Sure, it's not the prettiest piece of work (and I'm seeing it without
> the ads!), but the owner's unlikely to change it to suit you.
Nor others.
> Try Plan
> B: self-reliance.
>
> > If one wants to read this, one has to scroll left and right the
> > whole "day". It is so easy to make this a very little user friendly
> > (by using a left and a right border for the text e.g.)
>
> Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C; Alt-Tab to (or open) text editor; Ctrl-V.
>
> Five seconds, faster with practice. Plan C: Look into tweakish
> bookmarklets or Firefox extensions. You needn't treat whatever pops up
> on your screen as gospel.
All this is not necessary and should not be necessary on a proper web site.
It's almost common knowledge (at least for people who have read a little about
usability of web sites) that long pages with text do not invite to read at
all.
The pages on this site are very, very long pages. Short pages are possible.
But one does not care at all.
Webmasters do not like criticism about their work. Of course; very
understandable. But there are so many things that can be improved, making
sites much more agreeable to visit, if one wants to listen.
record...@gmail.com
Have you heard the sound on the Brilliant Classics box set? You might
mention the screechiness of it if you *have* to recommend this. It's
totally offputting, and I'm no audiophile.
Paul Ilechko
> You obviously have no notion at all about dsign and usability of web sites.
> Nor about people.
>
>
You haven't convinced me yet that you are people. And you have very
archaic notions about websites.
Paul Ilechko
> All this is not necessary and should not be necessary on a proper web site.
> It's almost common knowledge (at least for people who have read a little about
> usability of web sites) that long pages with text do not invite to read at
> all.
In fact, as no-one reads anymore, Tony should scrap the entire website
and remake it as a TV show of Mahler's life. Although he really ought to
scrap Mahler given that he was so dull, and do Paris Hilton instead,
perhaps as a pornographic video game ...
> The pages on this site are very, very long pages. Short pages are possible.
He's not trying to sell you anything.
> But one does not care at all.
Which 'one'?
david...@aol.com
I am forever in Tony's debt for introducing me to a live Mahler 2nd
with Boulez and the BBC SO from the early 70's. Merci encore, Tony.
-david gable
MW
Unless the terms of Barbirolli's contract were very very bad, his
recording was made for Pye, not pie.
Vaneyes
(link below).
Sound was mentioned for a few offerings in this set, but not for the
Horenstein M3.
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2000/nov00/Mahler_Symphonies.htm
My enjoyable Horenstein M3 experiences have been with the Unicorn. I
listen to it with floor-standing and bookshelf speakers only.
Regards
record...@gmail.com
What other kinds of speakers are there, ones that sit on your sofa?
Vaneyes
For you, it's not too difficult to imagine boom-box.
Regards
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> - Thu, 16 Feb 2006
> 15:49:27 -0500:
>
>
>>You haven't convinced me yet that you are people. And you have very
>>archaic notions about websites.
>
>
> ones. It's called "liquid design".
How's your grandmother doing with the eggs?
Iain Neill Reid
>Gerard wrote:
>
>> All this is not necessary and should not be necessary on a proper web site.
>> It's almost common knowledge (at least for people who have read a little about
>> usability of web sites) that long pages with text do not invite to read at
>> all.
>
>In fact, as no-one reads anymore, Tony should scrap the entire website
>and remake it as a TV show of Mahler's life. Although he really ought to
>scrap Mahler given that he was so dull, and do Paris Hilton instead,
>perhaps as a pornographic video game ...
Didn't Ken Russell do this already 25 years ago?
Neill Reid
Philip Peters
I have no problem reading Tony's site, pages are normal on my PC and I'm
just the average equipment user. Moreover, I am happy with such labours
of love as Tony's Mahler site and I think that's much more important
than whining about how it is designed (it looks good to me BTW).
Philip
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:1140124021....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Another minor point-
> Unless the terms of Barbirolli's contract were very very bad, his
> recording was made for Pye, not pie.
Could have been the tobacco leaf pie from one of those "Fractured Fairy
Tales."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Paul Goodman
<noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>Gerard wrote:
>
>>
>> However, the introducing page
>> http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html is now so wide (by the
>> advertising banners) that is doesn't fit anymore in a window narrower than a
>> maximized window on a 17 inch screen.
>> More: the text is spread over the full width.
>> If one wants to read this, one has to scroll left and right the whole "day".
>> It is so easy to make this a very little user friendly (by using a left and a
>> right border for the text e.g.)
>>
>>
>
>Nope, not on my laptop I don't. Seems like you need to find a machine
>that has an available screen resolution more in line with current
>technology standards. I run at 1400 x 1050, and the page takes up no
>more than 2/3 the width of my browser window.
Looks good on my laptop too. I don't have to scroll to see the text
at all.
--
Paul Goodman
prg...@qtm.net
good...@comcast.net
Richard Schultz
:> But the BBC dLvdE is, alas, one of the "god-awful" kind, despite its
:> supposedly "legendary" status. Would that it were literally legendary.
: Oh dear, then I think you need to avoid the my entry on DLVDE as the
: Hortenstein will have its place. There is a new star in the firmament,
: though.
Will Debbie Reynolds be singing for Jean Hagen, or will Jean Hagen be
singing for Debbie Reynolds? (Don't worry; I'm aware that the allusion
is probably another one of my obscure ones.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:dt3os6$hhp$3...@news.iucc.ac.il:
> In article <1140118467.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
>:> But the BBC dLvdE is, alas, one of the "god-awful" kind, despite its
>:> supposedly "legendary" status. Would that it were literally
>:> legendary.
>
>: Oh dear, then I think you need to avoid the my entry on DLVDE as the
>: Hortenstein will have its place. There is a new star in the firmament,
>: though.
>
> Will Debbie Reynolds be singing for Jean Hagen, or will Jean Hagen be
> singing for Debbie Reynolds? (Don't worry; I'm aware that the allusion
> is probably another one of my obscure ones.)
But they make more money than Calvin Coolidge -- put t'gither!
Gerard
The typical "I see no problem so there IS no problem" way.
You're the perfect man for working at a helpdesk.
Richard Schultz
: The typical "I see no problem so there IS no problem" way.
: You're the perfect man for working at a helpdesk.
I would guess not, since the worst he would do would be to not fix things.
Most help desk people screw up your computer and then tell you that the
only way to repair the damage is to reformat the hard disk and reinstall
all of your programs from scratch.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk
Joe Martin wrote:
> dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> There is a new star in the firmament,
> > though.
> >
> > Tony Duggan
>
> It's a bird, it's a plane... it's Rafaek Kubelik!
Correct. Rafael Kubelik on Audite. Irony that he never recorded it in
the studio.
Tony Duggan
Bob Harper
recordings, perhaps just as well.
(Which is not to say that he was bad in the studio; he was
just--IMO--that much better live.)
Bob Harper
Michael Schaffer
dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> Thornhill wrote on Horenstein Mahler 3:
>
> > I don't understand people's obsession with his recording of the 3rd. I
> > can't imagine anyone preferring it to Gielen's
>
> I do. However, I like Gielen also. Different side of same coin. The
> Gielen is going into the survey.
>
> > Horenstein smooths the
> > music back into the romantic era covering up how 'modern' the symphony
> > sounds, compresses the dynamics (climaxes are particularly half baked),
> > the playing is fair, and the recorded sound is worse than radio
> > recordings from the era.
>
> Are we listening to the same recording ? One of the reasons why I rate
> the Horenstein is that he is not a "smoothychops" in this work and does
> stress the modernity. Ah well. As my old granny used to say, what a
> dull world if we all agreed.
>
> Tony Duggan
Have you heard the recent WP/Boulez recording? I think one could say he
also stresses the modernity of the work, but what I really like is that
it is musically so extremely detailed. Not just in the sense of that
you can hear a lot of detail, but also in the marvelous playing of the
orchestra and the many fine touches in the playing. Odd that a lot of
people only hear a technically correct run-through when there are so
many great nuances in this performance.
I also heard to the Chailly recording which seems to be a favorite of a
lot of people. Although no doubt a very good and extremely well played
reading, this made me far less happy than it apparently does many other
listeners. I find it too heavy and dark in many places, and too dimly
lit.
Joe Martin
recordings, perhaps just as well.
(Which is not to say that he was bad in the studio; he was
just--IMO--that much better live.)
Bob Harper
Yes, I always liked the DGs--until the Audites came out! I haven't
heard the whole series, but I've got 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and DLVDE, and
except for the 9th, RK outdoes himself in the live concerts. BTW, the
recent live 'New World' on Orfeo is a real barn-burner, too, which
makes me curious to hear even more of his live work.
Matthew Silverstein
> Yes, I always liked the DGs--until the Audites came out! I haven't
> heard the whole series, but I've got 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and DLVDE, and
> except for the 9th, RK outdoes himself in the live concerts. BTW, the
> recent live 'New World' on Orfeo is a real barn-burner, too, which
> makes me curious to hear even more of his live work.
I prefer the studio 2, at least in the first movement.
Matty
Bob Harper
superior (he plays the work as if pursued by a swarm of killer bees).
I'm wondering if there's to be a 4th or not. I've only heard the Orfeo
Dvorak 6th, but given its quality will undoubtedly get 7-9 in time.
Bob Harper
david...@aol.com
"Have you heard the recent WP/Boulez recording? [I presume Mr. Schaffer
is talking about Mahler's 3rd] I think one could say he also stresses
the modernity of the work, but what I really like is that it is
musically so extremely detailed."
I don't think Boulez "stresses the modernity of the work." As far as
I'm concerned, this statement is completely unintellgible, for all that
record reviewers love to spout such nonsense. I don't think performers
do or should or can "stress the modernity" or the Romanticism or the
Classicism or any other abstraction used as a convenient label for a
large and vaguely defined cultural movement or moment. What conductors
can do is to shape phrases, to regulate balances, and to affect subtle
intangible aspects of sonority. (They can do more in rehearsal.) They
do, of course, bring their own cultures and predispositions and
personalities with them, and these naturally and inevitably and rightly
color the results they attain.
As for the famous refined details in a Boulez performance, DG does its
very best to obscure them with an artificial recorded sound that
vitiates whatever energy is left in Boulez when he takes a piece into
the studio. If Mr. Schaffer is talking about Boulez's DG recording of
Mahler's 3rd, the recording is a travesty of Boulez's approach, which
was so much more beautifully and faithfully captured by the radio
engineers during the broadcast of a live performance of Mahler's 3rd
with Boulez a few days before the recording was made. Boulez's DG
recordings of Mahler do not remotely reflect what Boulez's Mahler
sounds like in the concert hall in the days before the recording.
After reading Simon Roberts' back to back comparison of Boulez's live
Vienna Phil Mahler 3rd and the DG recording that followed, I now
realize to what an extent the blame for the completely smooth and tepid
approach revealed in the DG recordings lies, not with the conductor,
but, as Simon suggests, with the DG engineers. Call me a masochist,
but, after reading what Simon wrote, I actually bought the DG Mahler
3rd to prove to myself that he was right . . . and to have the before
and after evidence in my possession.
Simon's theory explains why Boulez's earlier CBS recordings and
Boulez's live performances all sound so very different from his late DG
recordings. And I speak as somebody who loves Boulez's music who has
heard virtually every studio recording Boulez has ever made (even the
C.P.E. Bach) and who owns most of them, as someone who has heard him
conduct in person countless times who owns all the live recordings I
can get my hands on (including, for example, the world premieres of
Visage nuptial; Figures, doubles, prismes; cummings ist der dichter;
...explosante/fixe...; and Repons; and countless live Mahler
performances including three of the 3rd symphony).
How a self-proclaimed keeper of the flame of the old German and
Austrian performing traditions can endorse any of Boulez's DG Mahler is
beyond me.
-david gable
Ian Pace
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140298014....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Schaffer writes:
>
> "Have you heard the recent WP/Boulez recording? [I presume Mr. Schaffer
> is talking about Mahler's 3rd] I think one could say he also stresses
> the modernity of the work, but what I really like is that it is
> musically so extremely detailed."
>
> I don't think Boulez "stresses the modernity of the work." As far as
> I'm concerned, this statement is completely unintellgible, for all that
> record reviewers love to spout such nonsense. I don't think performers
> do or should or can "stress the modernity" or the Romanticism or the
> Classicism or any other abstraction used as a convenient label for a
> large and vaguely defined cultural movement or moment.
But they can bring to bear on the work a precise and clearly defined label
such as "old-fashioned phrasing", presumably?
:)
Ian
Matthew Silverstein
> After reading Simon Roberts' back to back comparison of Boulez's live
> Vienna Phil Mahler 3rd and the DG recording that followed, [snip]
Was that posted here? I must have missed it.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
>> After reading Simon Roberts' back to back comparison of Boulez's live
>> Vienna Phil Mahler 3rd and the DG recording that followed, [snip]
>
> Was that posted here? I must have missed it.
Never mind--I found it!
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Call me a masochist, but, after reading what Simon wrote, I actually
> bought the DG Mahler 3rd to prove to myself that he was right . . . and
> to have the before and after evidence in my possession.
I have a question about the Boulez's live Mahler 3. My favorite moment in
the studio recording is the wonderfully hushed and legato playing of the
quiet brass chorale near the end of the final movement. (I keep Boulez's DG
recording only the finale, and largely for that moment, which always takes
my breath away.) Can the playing of the VPO at this point on the live
recording compare?
Matty
Ian Pace
>
> "Have you heard the recent WP/Boulez recording? [I presume Mr. Schaffer
> is talking about Mahler's 3rd] I think one could say he also stresses
> the modernity of the work, but what I really like is that it is
> musically so extremely detailed."
>
> I don't think Boulez "stresses the modernity of the work."
I don't know that recording, but would aver that Boulez stresses the
'modernism' (not the same thing as 'modernity') of some other Mahler (and
other music). That statement needs fine-tuning, though, because in music
there are differing concepts which have comparable claims to the term
'modernism' - it could refer as different phenomena as the free atonal
expressionism of mid-period Schoenberg, the objectivism and primitivism of
early Stravinsky, or the defamiliarised use of tropes and forms drawn from
popular culture in the stage works of Weill and Brecht, for example. And in
the case of Boulez's own music, some hybrid of the first two of these and
other influences, generally with less in the way of the sort of overt
subjective expression manifested in every phrase of mid-period Schoenberg.
But the term 'modernism' is frequently used to delineate a variety of
attributes found across the 20th century - a tendency towards a type of
rhythmic 'objectivism', usually predicated upon a reasonably strict and even
pulse as opposed to the more stylised irregular pulses found in some earlier
localised musical traditions, a degree of emphasis upon dissonant harmonies
without requiring that they achieve some sort of 'resolution' through
creating certain sorts of linear harmonic interconnectedness, a wider
emphasis on the more fragmentary and discontinuous progressions and
juxtapositions existing in musical time without any 'smoothing over', a
great deal of clarity of individual lines as opposed to more blended
sonorities and a certain aloofness from what is perceived as late romantic
'heart on sleeve' subjectivity, manifested through a resistance to types of
phrasing, shaping, texture, timbre that are so prevalent in late romantic
music as to assume an almost manneristic quality. Now, none of these
elements are unique to the 20th century, nor are all of them found in
combination in some music generally thought of as 'modern'. However, their
degree of emphasis seems a very particular characteristic of the 20th
century, and are sufficiently widespread as to be able to be used as some
sort of meaningful category. 'Modernity', on the other hand, is to me a term
that is entirely relative to the period in which it is being used. So that,
say, Wagner's performances of Beethoven probably stressed the modernity of
those works in the terms of his own time and place, whereas a quite
different performance of Beethoven today could be described in the same way.
I personally can find both positive and negative ways of conceiving of what
might constitute 'modernity' in a sense that is specific to now (as opposed
to 30 years ago, say), but think this makes things more complicated than is
necessary.
As far as
> I'm concerned, this statement is completely unintellgible, for all that
> record reviewers love to spout such nonsense. I don't think performers
> do or should or can "stress the modernity" or the Romanticism or the
> Classicism or any other abstraction used as a convenient label for a
> large and vaguely defined cultural movement or moment.
All criticism (and much language) makes use of a level of abstract
generalisation, in the understanding that the terms in question will
resonate with the intended readership, who will thus have a reasonable idea
of what is being alluded to. If I prefer 'modernism' to 'modernity' in the
above, nonetheless it's pretty clear to me what is being described, not
least in terms of Boulez's distance from other more stylised and overtly
'expressive' performances of Mahler.
> What conductors
> can do is to shape phrases, to regulate balances, and to affect subtle
> intangible aspects of sonority. (They can do more in rehearsal.)
Yes, but with some sort of ends in mind as they do so, which affect their
particular choices in this respect (whether in rehearsal or more
spontaneously in performance). And their type of overall conception of a
work (which may involve locating within particular musical traditions)
inform precisely *how* they shape phrases, regulate balances, etc.
> They
> do, of course, bring their own cultures and predispositions and
> personalities with them, and these naturally and inevitably and rightly
> color the results they attain.
And their ideas and convictions, and ability to make conscious choices.
>
> As for the famous refined details in a Boulez performance, DG does its
> very best to obscure them with an artificial recorded sound that
> vitiates whatever energy is left in Boulez when he takes a piece into
> the studio. If Mr. Schaffer is talking about Boulez's DG recording of
> Mahler's 3rd, the recording is a travesty of Boulez's approach, which
> was so much more beautifully and faithfully captured by the radio
> engineers during the broadcast of a live performance of Mahler's 3rd
> with Boulez a few days before the recording was made. Boulez's DG
> recordings of Mahler do not remotely reflect what Boulez's Mahler
> sounds like in the concert hall in the days before the recording.
This assumes that one wants a recording to resemble a live performance as
far as possible. That is not necessarily what I look for from a recording.
After all, I'm unlikely to listen to it in a space remotely resembling a
concert hall.
> After reading Simon Roberts' back to back comparison of Boulez's live
> Vienna Phil Mahler 3rd and the DG recording that followed, I now
> realize to what an extent the blame for the completely smooth and tepid
> approach revealed in the DG recordings lies, not with the conductor,
> but, as Simon suggests, with the DG engineers. Call me a masochist,
> but, after reading what Simon wrote, I actually bought the DG Mahler
> 3rd to prove to myself that he was right . . . and to have the before
> and after evidence in my possession.
>
> Simon's theory explains why Boulez's earlier CBS recordings and
> Boulez's live performances all sound so very different from his late DG
> recordings. And I speak as somebody who loves Boulez's music who has
> heard virtually every studio recording Boulez has ever made (even the
> C.P.E. Bach) and who owns most of them, as someone who has heard him
> conduct in person countless times who owns all the live recordings I
> can get my hands on (including, for example, the world premieres of
> Visage nuptial; Figures, doubles, prismes; cummings ist der dichter;
> ...explosante/fixe...; and Repons; and countless live Mahler
> performances including three of the 3rd symphony).
>
> How a self-proclaimed keeper of the flame of the old German and
> Austrian performing traditions can endorse any of Boulez's DG Mahler is
> beyond me.
>
Where does Michael proclaim himself as a 'keeper of the flame of the old
German and Austrian performing traditions'? As far as I recall, all he has
ever suggested is that, having worked and studied in places at the hearts of
these worlds, he finds your characterisation of them quite inaccurate.
Ian
Simon Roberts
david...@aol.com says...
Call me a masochist,
>but, after reading what Simon wrote, I actually bought the DG Mahler
>3rd to prove to myself that he was right . . . and to have the before
>and after evidence in my possession.
Heavens; if you had asked I would have sent you mine on indefinite loan!
Simon
Thornhill
Ian Pace wrote:
> > As for the famous refined details in a Boulez performance, DG does its
> > very best to obscure them with an artificial recorded sound that
> > vitiates whatever energy is left in Boulez when he takes a piece into
> > the studio. If Mr. Schaffer is talking about Boulez's DG recording of
> > Mahler's 3rd, the recording is a travesty of Boulez's approach, which
> > was so much more beautifully and faithfully captured by the radio
> > engineers during the broadcast of a live performance of Mahler's 3rd
> > with Boulez a few days before the recording was made. Boulez's DG
> > recordings of Mahler do not remotely reflect what Boulez's Mahler
> > sounds like in the concert hall in the days before the recording.
>
> This assumes that one wants a recording to resemble a live performance as
> far as possible. That is not necessarily what I look for from a recording.
> After all, I'm unlikely to listen to it in a space remotely resembling a
> concert hall.
This is an excellent point. Studio recordings are not facsimiles of
live performances. Many conductors and performers attempt to achieve a
different sound for their recordings. A most notorious example would be
Stokowksi who was in favor of spot-lighting instruments. He loved the
artificial sound of Decca's "Phase 4" 20 track system which allowed for
endless manipulation in post. To a lesser extent, Karajan had both a
studio and live aesthetic.
But speaking more generally, recorded sound is tailored to the home
listening experience. Balances heard live may not always work well on
home systems. Remember, you're compressing the sounds heard in a
massive acoustical space into someones listening room. Or more
basically, recordings are manipulated so that they give your speakers a
workout (Phase 4 sound, for instance, might have been artificial, but
when there weren't overload distortions they were the kind of
recordings you'd use to show off your speakers). So while the radio
recording of Boulez's Mahler 3 may have better captured the nuances of
Boulez's interpretation, the studio recording probably better showcases
your speakers, and this is what consumers want. And for all we know,
Boulez may be happy with how his recorded performances sound.
Gardiner seems to be exploring creating recordings that do document the
live performance; he just released what is to be the first of a series
of single-take unedited recordings.
david...@aol.com
"But [posters] can bring to bear on the work a precise and clearly
defined label such as 'old-fashioned phrasing,' presumably? "
The expression "old fashioned phrasing" makes no ambitious explanatory
claims and it doesn't take the form of an ambitious explanatory claim.
It only points to a vague general class of phrasing without pretending
to explain it. Modestly and even diffidently, this classification
points to without attempting to explain "the kind of thing I like." It
doesn't pretend to any cosmic descriptive power.
Usage has to be understood in context. "Old fashioned phrasing" is a
kind of informal shorthand used by one poster within a small community
of people used to reading each other's posts. "Old fashioned phrasing"
is conversational language, not something you would find in a formal
paper.
To claim that a performance of Mahler "stresses the modernity" of the
work is something much more grandiose. To make such a statement is to
offer a "philosophical" explanation of the core nature of somebody's
approach. Except that it doesn't say anything.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
david...@aol.com
"Heavens; if you had asked I would have sent you mine on indefinite
loan!"
Simon, I know that. In fact, you offered to send it to me, for which,
I thank you very much.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
"And for all we know, Boulez may be happy with how his recorded
performances sound."
Don't count on it. Don't count on his having listened to a single note
of the final edit of any recording he's released. In some matters,
Boulez can be anal retentive with the best of them. In others, he's
scandalously cavalier (as well as excessively trusting in the
professionalism of others because of his own). There is also the
different psychology that pertains to musicians (and to some more than
to others) when listening for mistakes during playbacks versus
listening to pieces unfold when standing in front of ensembles during
live performances.
Does anybody think that Boulez actually listened, score in hand, to the
bad edits in the DG recordings of Symphony of Psalms and Mahler 3, and
then said, "Release them"? (David Hurwitz castigated Boulez for his
irresponsibility in the case of the Stravinsky.) Boulez was aware of
the problems with the murky recording of the Berg Violin Concerto he
made with Zukerman because the venue of the recording was changed at
the last minute to an overly resonant hall. He was shocked to discover
long after its release that his Erato recording of Sinfonia sounded as
if it had been recorded under water.
-david gable
Thornhill
david...@aol.com wrote:
> "And for all we know, Boulez may be happy with how his recorded
> performances sound."
>
> Don't count on it. Don't count on his having listened to a single note
> of the final edit of any recording he's released.
If Boulez doesn't take a few hours out of his schedule to listen to
playback, than he's as guilty as DG for the poor sonics.
> Does anybody think that Boulez actually listened, score in hand, to the
> bad edits in the DG recordings of Symphony of Psalms and Mahler 3, and
> then said, "Release them"?
Perhaps he was aware of them, but DG had no way to make them sound
better, and he thought it was better to release the recording with the
mistakes than banish it to the vault. That is, he felt the good
outweighed the bad. And he probably also took into account how money
had been spent to make the recording. Remember, this is a for profit
industry. They cannot afford to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on
a recording than not release it because it's not perfect.
And recordings with technical problems being released is nothing new.
Think of all the recordings with overload distortions released in the
'60s and '70s.
Michael Schaffer
The only thing grandiose in this discussion is your hollow pompousness.
We come here to discuss music, which is difficult to do in words
anyway, not to split hairs over what whose formulations generally might
mean or not. If "old fashioned phrasing" means "the kind of thing you
like", then you don't have to put other people's formulations on the
gold scale either.
What I meant is simply that his clarity and good balance, the
transparancy of the textures in his performances brings out those
elements in Mahler's music which were innovative very clearly, rather
than smoothing them over and rounding them off as can also be done in
this music which will then make it sound more "traditional" or
"romantic", whatever that actually means. There is no point in starting
a new argument about whatever that can mean as long as what I am trying
to say comes across or not. Maybe it doesn't, then I have to try to
find a better formulation.
There is nothing "philosophical" or "ambitious" in that. It is just
trying to communicate about music in the very imprecise language of
words.
Michael Schaffer
I never proclaimed to be the "keeper of the flame of the old German or
Austrian performing traditions". I also explained that dozens of times
already. The persistence with which you repeat that completely false
statement only shows how right I was when I said that you are going on
about "grown traditions" without actually understanding much about
them.
But I did say that I grew up in such a performance tradition myself and
therefore it is obvious to me that you don't understand what you talk
about so professorally.
At the same time, who says one can't be grounded in one performance
tradition and still appreciate and enjoy other performance styles and
approaches?
In fact, that is EXACTLY what I said in that discussion back then -
that I have the traditional background but still enjoy other styles and
approaches like, in the context of that particular discussion, "HIP",
and that there aren't the fundamental contradictions you see anyway.
But that also applies to many other styles as well. In fact, I can
probably appraciate different performance styles better because of my
background. I collect performances from many different schools, in
fact, I started several discussions here about "cross-style"
performances and just today, I tore the LP of Mahler 1st with
Maazel/ONF from the shrinkwrap, an LP that I had hunted because I
wanted to hear this French orchestra in Mahler.
Anyway, as far as Boulez' Mahler is concerned, all that doesn't apply
anyway because his recording of the 3rd is a feast for those who like
traditional playing. The playing and sound of the WP is one of the
elements which makes this recording so good, and Boulez allows the
orchestra to unfold its sound substance and playing within his concept.
In fact, his ear for color and texture is so good that he works with
what the orchestra offers him and balances it so well that the specific
sound world of this orchestra in this work comes across extremely well.
Even if there is that bad editing slip, and there are a few details
which aren't ideally clear - which recording allows you to hear
absolutely everything? -, the sound is very good, crisp and defined,
with just the right amount of athmosphere around it, excellent placing
- you can even hear which part of the horn section plays at any moment,
not just the general direction they come from, and great balance within
the sections. The playing itself is absolutely top class, with many
wonderful nuances of articulation and phrasing. Ensemble is very good
and contributions from solo players very characterful.
In short, an outstanding performance within a very clear and well
reflected concept, sonically captured very well - unless you don't have
the playback equipment which can transport that. Apparently, you don't.
Whatever you think about Boulez' live performances is completely
irrelevant. We aren't comparing live vs. studio here. This is a studio
performance with all the advantages and maybe drawbacks of such a
production. It is more a concept recording of the score than the
attempt to recreate a live performance. Interestingly, Mr Hurwitz holds
the exact opposite view in his review. I don't take his opinions any
more seriously than I do yours, but it is interesting to note that he
thinks the recording is much better than the live performances he
apparently attended.
Ian Pace
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140324273.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If I can try and summarise what's at stake here (using terms I know David
won't be too fond of), I'd say that the type of 'tradition' (or, for that
matter, 'old-fashioned phrasing') that David is alluding to, is a form of
idealised reification pure and simple, and as such is a purely post-modern
phenomenon with little to do with the diverse and dynamic nature of
'tradition'. These 'old German or Austrian performing traditions' don't
exist, and have probably never existed, in the idealised form that David
portrays (free from any sort of conscious intellectual engagement with what
is being done, just simply passed down from generation to generation in an
almost mystical manner). Rather, the concept in this form is a contemporary
invention created antagonistically out of dissatisfaction with other aspects
of the modern musical world (a dissatisfaction I don't necessarily disagree
with in all its aspects). It's a far-too-easy (and deeply dangerous,
especially when translated into the political arena) strategy to hold up
some idealised 'golden age' in opposition to the complexities of the
present.
Ian
Michael Schaffer
I think that is a good way of putting it, and what also gives away that
David7 doesn't really understand what he's talking about. There is
indeed no easily definable "true" traditional way of playing, it is
more a spectrum, and one the parts of which are constantly shifting and
changing. It is fairly hard for the outsider to understand the true
nature of these elements, so I can see why he resorts to defining
whatever he heard on some of the old recordings he airconducts as the
only "true" way which was passed down "unconsciously" through the
generations and then "wiped out" by "HIP".
> Rather, the concept in this form is a contemporary
> invention created antagonistically out of dissatisfaction with other aspects
> of the modern musical world (a dissatisfaction I don't necessarily disagree
> with in all its aspects). It's a far-too-easy (and deeply dangerous,
> especially when translated into the political arena) strategy to hold up
> some idealised 'golden age' in opposition to the complexities of the
> present.
>
> Ian
The Boulez recording of Mahler 3 is a very good example for that
complexity because it does sound like a very modern performance, fom
our days, but at the same time, the sound and playing also has many
very traditional elements in it.
Michael Schaffer
Anyway, it was really Mr Duggan's opinion that I was interested in, not
another of David7's delusional rants. I just relistened to the first
movement. How someone can not get the richness of musical detail
captured here within a clear and well built formal framework is beyond
me. But then there are people whose equipment is overloaded by the wide
dynamic range of the recording and who think it's the recordings fault.
Richard Schultz
: I never proclaimed to be the "keeper of the flame of the old German or
: Austrian performing traditions". I also explained that dozens of times
: already. The persistence with which you repeat that completely false
: statement only shows how right I was when I said that you are going on
: about "grown traditions" without actually understanding much about them.
Why does it bother you when other people repeat completely false statements,
and yet you personally are more than happy to repeat completely false,
indeed libelously false, statements?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Michael Schaffer
I thought you were working on sticking your head up your ass. How is it
coming?
Bob Harper
Do you really have to ask? If you do, then clearly you couldn't
understand :)
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> Why does it bother you when other people repeat completely false statements,
:> and yet you personally are more than happy to repeat completely false,
:> indeed libelously false, statements?
: Do you really have to ask? If you do, then clearly you couldn't
: understand :)
Thanks, Louis, but my point was mostly that Mr. Schaffer wouldn't know
a rhetorical question if it smacked him on the nose.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
tlh...@gmail.com
>
> All this is not necessary and should not be necessary on a proper web site.
> It's almost common knowledge (at least for people who have read a little about
> usability of web sites) that long pages with text do not invite to read at
> all.
Reading is reading. As anyone going to Tony's survey site is most
likely already interested in the subject, it's the treating of the
subject that invites the reader to initiate and then hang on for the
full ride. By that I mean the writing. Tony is an articulate and
engaging writer. He is not working at simply providing information but
is trying to convey and develop understanding, and I find that approach
very inviting.
> The pages on this site are very, very long pages. Short pages are possible.
Yes, but if you will only read the text on those pages because of how
the pages are designed, then it seems to me that you are not very
interested in the subject matter anyhow. Honestly, if your mind
disengages because the pages seem too long and the sentences seem too
long and tiring, perhaps the problem for you is not really with the web
design.
Balancing the effort it takes for Tony to write his comments on the
Mahler symphonies against the effort it takes to move through a web
design that I don't find cumbersome at all is laughable. Are you at
all interested in Mahler and Mahler recordings and what Tony has to say
about them? If so, how much pampering do you need to entertain that
interest?
Tom Heilman
Gerard
> Gerard wrote:
>
> >
> > All this is not necessary and should not be necessary on a proper
> > web site. It's almost common knowledge (at least for people who
> > have read a little about usability of web sites) that long pages
> > with text do not invite to read at all.
>
> Reading is reading. As anyone going to Tony's survey site is most
> likely already interested in the subject, it's the treating of the
> subject that invites the reader to initiate and then hang on for the
> full ride. By that I mean the writing. Tony is an articulate and
> engaging writer. He is not working at simply providing information
> but is trying to convey and develop understanding, and I find that
> approach very inviting.
>
> > The pages on this site are very, very long pages. Short pages are
> > possible.
>
> Yes, but if you will only read the text on those pages because of how
> the pages are designed, then it seems to me that you are not very
> interested in the subject matter anyhow. Honestly, if your mind
> disengages because the pages seem too long and the sentences seem too
> long and tiring, perhaps the problem for you is not really with the
> web design.
Reading is reading, indeed.
I did not mention long _sentences_ but long lines (on the screen, so long that
they cause horizontal scroll bars).
Making long texts readable on a screen is not an art. It's simply to
accomplish, if one would want.
> Balancing the effort it takes for Tony to write his comments on the
> Mahler symphonies against the effort it takes to move through a web
> design that I don't find cumbersome at all is laughable. Are you at
> all interested in Mahler and Mahler recordings and what Tony has to
> say about them? If so, how much pampering do you need to entertain
> that interest?
>
My post was not about Tony at all.
Simon Roberts
Whatever you think about Boulez' live performances is completely
>irrelevant. We aren't comparing live vs. studio here. This is a studio
>performance with all the advantages and maybe drawbacks of such a
>production. It is more a concept recording of the score than the
>attempt to recreate a live performance. Interestingly, Mr Hurwitz holds
>the exact opposite view in his review. I don't take his opinions any
>more seriously than I do yours, but it is interesting to note that he
>thinks the recording is much better than the live performances he
>apparently attended.
You're somewhat missing the point. As it happens, there's a live recording,
evidently from a broadcast, from around the same time as the studio recording.
Interpretatively they're very similar, and aside from a few slips in the live
one, the playing is superb in both. What is striking, though, is how superior
(or, if you prefer, different) the broadcast sounds compared to the DG. You
suggest, in one of your responses to David, that it only seems like that to him
because he's listening via inferior equipment. I have no idea what equipment he
has, but the differences are significant to me, listening via Stax headphones.
Simon
Josep Vilanova
> You're somewhat missing the point. As it happens, there's a live recording,
> evidently from a broadcast, from around the same time as the studio recording.
> Interpretatively they're very similar, and aside from a few slips in the live
> one, the playing is superb in both. What is striking, though, is how superior
> (or, if you prefer, different) the broadcast sounds compared to the DG. You
> suggest, in one of your responses to David, that it only seems like that to
> him
> because he's listening via inferior equipment. I have no idea what equipment
> he
> has, but the differences are significant to me, listening via Stax headphones.
>
> Simon
>
You've been talking about that live recording for a long time... Where can
it be found. I've looked in many different places, but there's not trace of
it.
j
tlh...@gmail.com
>
> Reading is reading, indeed.
> I did not mention long _sentences_ but long lines (on the screen, so long that
> they cause horizontal scroll bars).<
Right. My mistake. You did say long lines and not long sentences. I
did not read you correctly. May I assume then, that as Tony's
sentences often go several lines, you often find reading less than a
sentence tiring then?
> Making long texts readable on a screen is not an art. It's simply to
> accomplish, if one would want.
I have no problem seeing Tony's full text at 1024 x 768. I need not
scroll left or right at all. The text is enclosed in a red border. At
800 x 600 I still can read Tony's full text without having to scroll
left or right. The full text is on screen. I lose the red border.
The red border, while a delight and satisfies my sometimes need to view
the world in right angles, is something I quickly lose sight of and
interest in once I start reading Tony's commentaries.
In neither resolution am I sucking oxygen or struggling with blurred
vision after having read the "long lines." Hang on. I'm about to try
and read twenty in a single
go..................................................Done! Pulse is 68.
Blood Pressure 122\72. I just brought up an eyechart via google. Let
me step back a bit. TEPOLFDZ. That's the 6th line down. Yep, did
okay.
>
>
> My post was not about Tony at all.
Yeah, that was my point.
Tom Heilman
Paul Ilechko
>
> My post was not about Tony at all.
>
Or Mahler. Or music. So it must have been about ... you !
Dave Cook
> You've been talking about that live recording for a long time... Where can
> it be found. I've looked in many different places, but there's not trace of
> it.
http://alnk.org/drabmoat (Froogle)
I've also had luck with towerrecords.com.
Dave Cook
Matthew B. Tepper
the following letters to be typed in news:45rm5kF...@individual.net:
> Gerard wrote:
>
>> My post was not about Tony at all.
>
> Or Mahler. Or music. So it must have been about ... you !
Can he do that?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Gerard
>
> I have no problem seeing Tony's full text at 1024 x 768. I need not
> scroll left or right at all. The text is enclosed in a red border. At
> 800 x 600 I still can read Tony's full text without having to scroll
> left or right.
The page I wrote about was
http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html
With your resolution this page can only be read when the window is maximized.
A simple example of user-unfriendly layout.
The same for
http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/Mahler1.htm
> >
> >
> > My post was not about Tony at all.
>
> Yeah, that was my point.
>
Wrong point.
Paul Ilechko
> With your resolution this page can only be read when the window is maximized.
> A simple example of user-unfriendly layout.
Ancient history .. does anyone still believe that old nonsense about
having multiple windows visible at the same time?
Gerard
You should know that there's more writing in this newsgroup about other
subjects than Mahler or music.
Unlike you I don't write much about republicans, Jews, Palestinians, and
related subjects.
Gerard
If that's nonsense .... *you* are the one who writes about it.