Is Sinopoli a great conductor?
Richard Sauer
I've heard various reports about Sinopoli. Some say he is a fraud, and
others say he is inspired. What's the verdict on the doctor turned
maestro?
R.Sauer
drob...@ycvax.york.cuny.edu
In Article <4shvd0$9...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
I really haven't heard too many recordings by him; but let me say
that the one time I saw him in concert, I was disappointed. He
was at Carnegie Hall with the Dresdan Staatskapelle about six
months ago, and I was unhappy with their performance of Ein
Heldenleben--it was at least 10 to 12 minutes longer than the
classic recording by Reiner and the CSO (I timed it, but forgot
the exact number). But I guess I'm spoiled by the Reiner
recording.
John Drobnicki
Reference Librarian
York College/CUNY
"I speak for no one but myself."
JohnK54250
John Drobnicki wrote that he was disappointed in Simopoli's Heldenleben
being too slow and that he was "spoiled by the Reiner recording". Too
true. Now Fritz was a great conductor, who, if he'd guested a bit more
would have more of a legendary reputation (other the one he has for being
such a nice guy to play for :)
Sinopoli takes the notion of allowing Strauss' music to breathe to the
point of distending the melodic lines such that he can't shape them. He' s
a brilliant technician, but so what? Give me some passion for heaven's
sake. We don't need more score-dissectors on the podium nowadays - maybe
it was his 4 years of anatomy in Italian medical school. He's also a
psychiatrist - this should tell us about his approach to music and life -
analysis analysis analysis.........give me Furtwangler any day. Now he was
a great conductor.........
Eric Nagamine
Richard Sauer wrote:
>
> I've heard various reports about Sinopoli. Some say he is a fraud, and
> others say he is inspired. What's the verdict on the doctor turned
> maestro?
>
I'd say he's no better or worse than anyone else out there today. His
Pictures at an Exhibition is best I've heard since Reiner's and Ozawa's.
His Mendelsohn Italian and Schubert Unfinished are also very good. The
New York Phil Wagner excerpts is excellent. On the other hand I've found
his Mahler to be undistinguished for the most part.
Recently I heard two concerts by him in Vienna with the Dresden
Staatskapelle. His Bruckner 5th symphony was tedious and uncontrolled.
I hardly recognized the orchestra as being the Staatskaplle. It was bad
enough that some of the audience stood up and left after the performance
without applauding. The next day I heard him rehearse and perform the
Bruckner 4th symphony. If not quite in the league with Bohm, it was a
most beautiful rendition. On this occasion the orchestra produced some
quite glorious sounds. This time the Viennese stayed and applauded.
Aloha,
Eric
Rick Hayward
In message <4shvd0$9...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
hots...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Sauer ) writes:
> I've heard various reports about Sinopoli. Some say he is a fraud, and
> others say he is inspired. What's the verdict on the doctor turned
> maestro?
From brief observation, neither a fraud nor consistently inspired.
Obviously talented, but perhaps relatively inexperienced in handling
an orchestra. Possibly too 'intellectual' in his approach to
rehearsal - has a tendency to verbalise too much in realising his
intentions, which can get in the way of the orchestra playing - he
doesn't seem yet to have developed fully the ability to communicate
intentions musically and 'go with the flow'. Stick technique is a bit awkward.
RH
--
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
David M Pickering
No.
JohnK54250
Fred Kahlil wrote:
I guess I feel compelled to rise to Sinopoli's defense. If all living
conductors were being compared to Furtwangler most of them would be
consigned to the rubbish heap, wouldn't they? I can think of a dozen
conductors whose perfunctory surface approaches don't tell me anything
about a score I haven't heard many times before. Even though Sinopoli is
not always successful in everything he does, his probing reveals much. So
what if the result is sometimes clinical sounding. Other times you'll
hear magic. Listen to his recordings of Schoenberg's Pelleas und
Melisande, Mahler's Symphony #1, or Ravel's Daphnis Suite #2. OK, it
could be argued that these pieces don't depend on interpretive genius to
succeed, but still. If his recordings of these works stand out in a
crowded field of contenders that should count for something. I've
listened to concert broadcasts and heard him conduct live in Boston. For
me there is no question: I'd rather take a chance on hearing someone's
unusually thoughtful interpretation than a competent runthrough that
offers little new in the way of hearing what is already more often than
not an overly familiar piece.
Let the flames begin.
I never said this guy Sinopoli couldn't sometimes be interesting or
provide a thoughtful or probing performance, and I didn't mean to compare
him ONLY to Furt, I merely used him as an example which, if we're talking
Boston here, could equally well be made with Munch, Koussy or Monteux. For
my money any one of these gents delivered a good deal more listener
pleasure TO ME than Giuseppe does. Sure I've heard him do good things -
but his Strauss (which was the original stuff of the discussion) is
absolutely not among them.
Peace
Steven Martin
I am glad someone brought this topic up. I have some performances by
Sinopoli that I like alot. These include a disk of Debussy/Ravel(La Mer,
Daphnis Suite, Bolero),Strauss(4 Last Songs) and Menelssohn's 4th.
However, I do not like his Mahler recordings. Sometimes I get the feeling
that he doesn't really have control of an Orchestra, making his recordings
have a lack of focus.
So I have mixed feelings about him. However, there are moments where he
gets a really gorgeous, clear sound. Once again, there is a disk that he
did with the Philharmonia on DG of Debussy and Ravel that I would highly
recommend. Check it out.
Steve M. (Northern Virginia)
Stephen P. Guthrie
I looked at an Italian opera recording guide recently and in the Puccini
section, it looked like Sinopoli's recordings were the highest rated.
So, for Italian music he gets good rating from Italian reviews. Can't
be too inauthentic then.
The sets in question being Manon Lescaut, Madama Butterfly, Tosca.
Frederick Kalil
JohnK54250 (johnk...@aol.com) wrote:
: John Drobnicki wrote that he was disappointed in Simopoli's Heldenleben
: being too slow and that he was "spoiled by the Reiner recording". Too
: true. Now Fritz was a great conductor, who, if he'd guested a bit more
: would have more of a legendary reputation (other the one he has for being
: such a nice guy to play for :)
: Sinopoli takes the notion of allowing Strauss' music to breathe to the
: point of distending the melodic lines such that he can't shape them. He' s
: a brilliant technician, but so what? Give me some passion for heaven's
: sake. We don't need more score-dissectors on the podium nowadays - maybe
: it was his 4 years of anatomy in Italian medical school. He's also a
: psychiatrist - this should tell us about his approach to music and life -
: analysis analysis analysis.........give me Furtwangler any day. Now he was
: a great conductor.........
I guess I feel compelled to rise to Sinopoli's defense. If all living
Patrick
>hear magic. Listen to his recordings of Schoenberg's Pelleas und
>Melisande, Mahler's Symphony #1, or Ravel's Daphnis Suite #2. OK, it
>could be argued that these pieces don't depend on interpretive genius to
>succeed, but still. If his recordings of these works stand out in a
I have some of the above and like them very much. His Pelleas und Melisande is
quite good and a beautiful recording, but his tempi are rather erratic in
parts of it. I prefer Barbirolli's performance here for a more structured and
consisent approach.
Sinopli's Mahler 1 is indeed excellent. I also like his 7th and 9th very much.
I have not heard his 3rd but am curious about it.
Sinopoli's Tchaikovsky is not bad either.
Patrick
James C Liu
johnk...@aol.com (JohnK54250) writes:
>John Drobnicki wrote that he was disappointed in Simopoli's Heldenleben
>being too slow and that he was "spoiled by the Reiner recording". Too
>true. Now Fritz was a great conductor, who, if he'd guested a bit more
>would have more of a legendary reputation (other the one he has for being
>such a nice guy to play for :)
Maybe if Fritz Reiner guested more (like the modern jet-setter
conductors), the Chicago SO would never have developed such a distinctive
sound, and perhaps he never would have developed any reputation. Maybe.
>Sinopoli takes the notion of allowing Strauss' music to breathe to the
>point of distending the melodic lines such that he can't shape them. He' s
>a brilliant technician, but so what? Give me some passion for heaven's
>sake. We don't need more score-dissectors on the podium nowadays - maybe
>it was his 4 years of anatomy in Italian medical school. He's also a
>psychiatrist - this should tell us about his approach to music and life -
>analysis analysis analysis.........give me Furtwangler any day. Now he was
>a great conductor.........
Unfortunately, tickets to Furtwaengler concerts are something of a
rarity, these days. I understand the complaint about Sinopoli's coldly
analytical style, but I'd hold that he at least sometimes takes an
interesting stance on a piece, which is more than I can say for many a
bloodless *and* boring contemporary of his. Sinopoli can be willful, he
can be infuriating, but (I think) never uninteresting, and I'd tack on a
disc of the Schubert 8th (Philharmonia, DG) as another example of why.
I'd also be curious if you think that Philippe Herreweghe's time in
Belgian anatomy classes and psychiatric training wound up leaving him as
a bloodless analyst, or if training in general in anatomy (I know of no
medical school, btw, that requires four years of anatomy) or psychiatry
condemns one Sinopoli's approach to music and life. Just curious.
--
/James C.S. Liu "... of all the animals, the boy
jl...@world.std.com is the most unmanageable."
New Haven, Connecticut -- Plato
Francois Martini
I consider Sinopoli an awful conductor, like the late Karajan,
Barenboim, Maazel, Levine, Janowski, Nagano and so many other who
are only interessed in making beautiful sounds and nothing more.
Sinopoli's 4 last songs with Cheryl Studer are an illustration of
this.
Those people should be forbidden to approach an orchestra.
--
Francois Martini, Paris - 10043...@compuserve.com
Steven Martin
Francois Martini (10043...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: I consider Sinopoli an awful conductor, like the late Karajan,
: are only interessed in making beautiful sounds and nothing more.
: Sinopoli's 4 last songs with Cheryl Studer are an illustration of
: this.
If there is anything I hate it is musicians who make beautiful sounds.
Man that really cheeses me something fierce!!!
Steve M.(Northern Virginia)
SWoods9629
NO.
Jan D.
In article <31FA3F...@firstnethou.com>,
alan stone <po...@firstnethou.com> wrote:
> Sinopoli's reviews in London indicate that he lacks even the most
> rudimentary technical talent.Look at any issue of the Financial Times
> reviewing one of his concerts Alan
You are assuming reviewers in London to have superior knowledge of
these matters, a dangerous thing to do.
IMHO, Sinopoli's Mahler is great, although a bit "analytical" at times.
Jan D.
alan stone
SWoods9629 wrote:
>
> NO.Sinopoli's reviews in London indicate that he lacks even the most
Naun Chew
jl...@world.std.com (James C Liu) wrote:
>I understand the complaint about Sinopoli's coldly
>analytical style, but I'd hold that he at least sometimes takes an
>interesting stance on a piece, which is more than I can say for many a
>bloodless *and* boring contemporary of his. Sinopoli can be willful, he
>can be infuriating, but (I think) never uninteresting [...]
I would hesitate to give an interpreter marks just for being "different"
or "interesting". While I wouldn't deny that musicians like Sinopoli or
Harnoncourt have given some good performances, I don't sense that their
"individuality" is of the same kind we hear on recordings by Toscanini,
Furtwaengler and others. It's not only that Toscanini and Furtwaengler
were stronger personalities, but their interpretations also seemed to
spring from a very deeply personal way of feeling and thinking about
music, and from a passionate and thoroughly assimilated conception of the
work in hand. I think you can sense in their performances how much care
they put into doing justice to the work, even if you don't particularly
agree with what they were doing. By contrast, I often feel that with
interpreters like Sinopoli and Harnoncourt that they are merely trying
out some bright ideas. Perhaps I am doing them an injustice in saying
this, but that is my impression. I think Alfred Brendel put it well
when he said that "'doing something different' should be the _outcome_ of
the process of interpretation, not the input!"
Doubtless many present-day interpreters _are_ bloodless and boring, yet I
have often found that it is performers who have been described in those
terms - people like Wand or Haitink or Sanderling, or indeed Brendel
himself - who have musically the most worthwhile things to say.
Naun.
David
Is Sinopoli a great conductor? No.
Lionel Tacchini
Naun Chew wrote:
>
> I would hesitate to give an interpreter marks just for being "different"
> or "interesting". While I wouldn't deny that musicians like Sinopoli or
> Harnoncourt have given some good performances, I don't sense that their
> "individuality" is of the same kind we hear on recordings by Toscanini,
> Furtwaengler and others. It's not only that Toscanini and Furtwaengler
> were stronger personalities, but their interpretations also seemed to
> spring from a very deeply personal way of feeling and thinking about
> music, and from a passionate and thoroughly assimilated conception of the
> work in hand. I think you can sense in their performances how much care
> they put into doing justice to the work, even if you don't particularly
> agree with what they were doing.
I don't know much of Sinopoli, but concerning Harnoncourt, I think that
all you say here about Toscanini and Furtwaengler applies to him too
(strong musical personality, passion, engagement ...).
> By contrast, I often feel that with
> interpreters like Sinopoli and Harnoncourt that they are merely trying
> out some bright ideas.
Yes, Harnoncourt's "bright ideas" often tend to be the tree hiding the
forest. Still, I keep marveling at his Beethoven and Haydn, although the
surprise effect of the "bright ideas" has long worn out.
> Perhaps I am doing them an injustice in saying
> this, but that is my impression. I think Alfred Brendel put it well
> when he said that "'doing something different' should be the _outcome_ of
> the process of interpretation, not the input!"
>
> Doubtless many present-day interpreters _are_ bloodless and boring, yet I
> have often found that it is performers who have been described in those
> terms - people like Wand or Haitink or Sanderling, or indeed Brendel
> himself - who have musically the most worthwhile things to say.
Am I the only one here to highly appreciate Furtwaengler AND Harnoncourt
AND Wand ? (Furt & Harnoncourt in Beethoven, Furt & Wand in Schubert and
Bruckner)
Lionel Tacchini.
Sam Samalsson
Im going to a concert with the Dainsh national radio symphony orchestra with
Sonopoli conducting Mahler 2th.
After that I will tell you.
---------------------
Leon Samalsson
Gronholtvej 49
DK-2650 Hvidovre
Denmark
Email: ra...@image.dk