Meistersinger question.
wkas...@comcast.net
recording (with Bode, Kollo, Bailey, Weikl, Moll)? My recollection is
that the last time I heard it (probably 25 years ago), it was flawed
but competitive; I remember really enjoying Bailey's Sachs and finding
the rest of the cast more or less adequate.
But after 25 years, I no longer trust my memory of the set. I'm
thinking of buying it, but I have a funny feeling that after 25 years
of hearing the additional recordings that have been issued (Kubelik,
Sawallisch, Abendroth, Solti 2, Jochum 1949, Bayreuth 1956 et al), the
first Solti may be superfluous. Or is Bailey that good that I need to
hear it again?
Bill
Richard Loeb
and Decca sound are wonderful - Bailey was not in the best voice for the
sessions - some of his work was spliced in at different times - but still an
effective Sachs. Weikl is the kind of Beckmesser I like - not a caricature
but an attractive and legitimate aspirant to the hand of Eva (sung prettily
but anonymously by Bode). Kollo's voice was still in atttractive shape for
these (difficult) sessions. Its the kind of set who would want if one
wanted only one - in the end satisfying. You are probably asking this
because the set has just been reissued - I don;t know about the sound - what
I can say is that the reissued Falstaff and Troyens both sound better than
the first CD incarnations. Richard
news:1117027471....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:1117027471....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
You won't find my opinion useful, because I cannot stand Bailey's tone.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Jon A Conrad
>A pretty specific one - what are people's opinions of the *first* Solti
>recording (with Bode, Kollo, Bailey, Weikl, Moll)? My recollection is
>that the last time I heard it (probably 25 years ago), it was flawed
>but competitive; I remember really enjoying Bailey's Sachs and finding
>the rest of the cast more or less adequate.
I was happy with this recording when it first appeared (it had some
features otherwise lacking in the sets that had preceded it), but am less
so now that we have Kubelik, Sawallisch, Solti II, and some of the
historical sets.
It is best, as you hint, in the lower male voices: Bailey is one of the
best of the Sachses, with depth and breadth in his voice, and warm
humanity in his presence; Moll is a very fine Pogner; and Weikl is the
first of the "singing" Beckmessers (and still to my mind one of the best,
as he doesn't neglect to characterize him as well).
But Kollo is much worsened since his first recording (Karajan II) -- he
understands the part in more detail now, but the sound has become so
leathery and squeezed that there's no pleasure in enduring him, and no
beauty in the songs that are supposed to be his triumphs. And Bode is just
mediocre (when we have had truly radiant, beautiful Evas like Gruemmer,
Schwarzkopf, Janowitz, Donath, Studer -- yes, Studer); the voice won't
stay in the groove, constantly sounding as if it's about to lose focus or
slip out of tune. So there goes the ballgame on those two pivotal roles.
There are things I enjoy in Solti's approach here: an energy and rhythmic
definition that's an essential component of some scenes of the opera and
which is missing in such fine predecessors as Kempe, Knappertsbusch, and
Karajan (both times). But he doesn't shape the conversational scenes with
that lyrical inevitability they need, and the Vienna Phil is recorded in
a flat, two-dimensional way, sounding mixed-down.
One unique thing in this recording's favor: it is (as far as I know) the
only one to cast the alto apprentices with boys, so that they actually can
yodel into falsetto as Wagner specifically asks in some sections (women
altos always have to fake this weakly).
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
capa0...@aol.com
" and Weikl is the first of the "singing" Beckmessers (and still to my
mind one of the best, as he doesn't neglect to characterize him as
well).
=========================
Weikl was a creditable Sachs,as well. Isn't that a rather unusual
double? Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone else who sang
both roles at that level.
Pat
grndp...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.opera, rec.music.classical.recordings
From: wkasi...@comcast.net - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 May 2005 06:24:31 -0700
Local: Wed,May 25 2005 9:24 am
Subject: Meistersinger question.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill,
This opera has so many magnificent roles it is extremely difficult to
find a recording in which each of the principals is outstanding.
Norman Bailey is one who seems to get high marks from British critics,
but I am not keen on his somewhat nasal singing.
Unfortunately none of the modern portrayers of Sachs is fully to my
liking.
My favorite, from the 1938 recording (Act III only) is Hans Hermann
Nissen.
Ferdinand Frantz, on the Kempe recording (which has the best casting of
all I've heard) is a bit old-sounding for the role (but I still prefer
him to the young Bailey).
Solti, I find, has a tendency to drive the music and loses some of the
beautiful lightness Wagner wrote into this opera.
For pacing, my favorite Meistersinger is Jochum's. DFD's barking much
of the time reduced the pleasure I derive from this recording. DFD
could have been a contender were it not for his apparently deliberate
choice to make Sachs something of an unpleasant character.
Domingo is a superb Stolzing, exuding warmth and charm in a role that
often brings out the mildly offensive chest-beating (cf. Hans Hopf and
Gunther Treptow).
The best Evas -- perhaps the only fully satisfying ones as far as I am
concerned -- are Gruemmer (with Kempe) and Schwarzkopf (with Karajan).
Kempe has outstanding singers in Kusche (Beckmesser), Unger (David),
Neidlinger (Kothner), Frick (Pogner [why does this character seem to
attract better performances than those of Sachs?]), Prey
(Nightwatchman, no less).
I recommend all Meistersinger aficianados acquire the 1938 Boehm
recording. The singing is at an extraordinarily high level and the
conductor conveys the immense charm and good nature of the opera.
As great as this opera is as a totality, Act III is a pinnacle of
Wagner's achievement as a musical dramatist.
==G/P Dave
Ken Meltzer
Jon A Conrad wrote:
> But Kollo is much worsened since his first recording (Karajan II) -- he
> understands the part in more detail now, but the sound has become so
> leathery and squeezed that there's no pleasure in enduring him, and no
> beauty in the songs that are supposed to be his triumphs.
I agree with Jon. I like Kollo on the Karajan EMI recording, and was
really disappointed with his performance on the Solti. And for me,
that's enough to consign this recording to less-favored status.
Best,
Ken
Geoffrey Riggs
Candidly, I found that Weikl was sounding badly worn by the time he sang
Sachs, IMO. His Sachs on the Sawallisch set from the early '90s is the
chief reason why I ultimately relegated that set to the status of an
also-ran, notwithstanding the fine caliber of the two lovers
(Studer/Heppner).
As for the first Solti, I share some others' reservations concerning the
short-changed conversational sequences, and the Bailey tone has always
been a turnoff for me (although fellow posters should know that I find
faaaar fewer heldenbaritones of the stereo+ era even bearable than most
do, in any case).
This set, with Bailey's rather unpleasant Sachs (IMO), Kollo's vocally
worn Walther and Bode's unauthoritative if inoffensive Eva, has never
even seemed an also-ran to me (the way the Sawallisch at least is), but
rather one of Solti's most disappointing recordings -- almost as much of
a loss, I feel, as Solti's Tristan.
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs (Meistersinger Monster)
http://www.operacast.com/meisters.htm
Geoffrey Riggs
grndp...@aol.com wrote:
> This opera has so many magnificent roles it is extremely difficult to
> find a recording in which each of the principals is outstanding.
>
> Norman Bailey is one who seems to get high marks from British critics,
> but I am not keen on his somewhat nasal singing.
>
> Unfortunately none of the modern portrayers of Sachs is fully to my
> liking.
I would generally agree, although Van Dam at least has the requisite
sense of poetry and musical line, IMO. And of an earlier generation but
still available in fine stereo sound, Stewart, despite a few fleeting
moments of unsteadiness, chiefly in that grueling final scene, is
generally sympathetic and vocally attractive, IMO.
> My favorite, from the 1938 recording (Act III only) is Hans Hermann
> Nissen.
For me, Nissen, Schorr and Schoeffler are the most attractive of all.
> Ferdinand Frantz, on the Kempe recording (which has the best casting of
> all I've heard) is a bit old-sounding for the role (but I still prefer
> him to the young Bailey).
AMEN!!!!
> Solti, I find, has a tendency to drive the music and loses some of the
> beautiful lightness Wagner wrote into this opera.
>
> For pacing, my favorite Meistersinger is Jochum's. DFD's barking much
> of the time reduced the pleasure I derive from this recording. DFD
> could have been a contender were it not for his apparently deliberate
> choice to make Sachs something of an unpleasant character.
Fortunately, Jochum, in even more incandescent form, is also available
now in a rather well-recorded (considering) "live" 1949 reading from
Munich, with the considerably more simpatico young, fresh-voiced Hans
Hotter as the cobbler-poet.
> Domingo is a superb Stolzing, exuding warmth and charm in a role that
> often brings out the mildly offensive chest-beating (cf. Hans Hopf and
> Gunther Treptow).
Personally, although I'd agree that both Hopf and Treptow don't have the
world's most attractive sounds, I still find Treptow's basic approach,
both in the "live" '49 Jochum and in the studio Knappertsbusch,
distinctly more musical than Hopf's. The only place where I really find
Treptow unpleasant in the same way is in the opening "rehearsal" scene
of Act III in the studio Kna.
> The best Evas -- perhaps the only fully satisfying ones as far as I am
> concerned -- are Gruemmer (with Kempe) and Schwarzkopf (with Karajan).
No argument there. Although going beyond CDs, I find Mattila's Eva on
the new DVD magnetic, not only on a par with Gruemmer and Schwarzkopf,
IMO, but definitely superior to her rather tame reading on the second
Solti set, beautiful as the vocalism from everyone there is.
> Kempe has outstanding singers in Kusche (Beckmesser), Unger (David),
> Neidlinger (Kothner), Frick (Pogner [why does this character seem to
> attract better performances than those of Sachs?]), Prey
> (Nightwatchman, no less).
We've gone over this before, I realize, but, FWIW, the one aspect that
really bothers me on the Kempe (and we're talking here of Kempe's second
set for EMI) is Schock's overly effortful Walther (IMO), notwithstanding
his basic sound being arguably more suited to Walther than a Hopf or a
Treptow. It's just that, with all Treptow's unsuitability to the part,
I still find Treptow's _rendering_ marginally more musical than the more
apt _sounding_ Schock's.
> I recommend all Meistersinger aficianados acquire the 1938 Boehm
> recording. The singing is at an extraordinarily high level and the
> conductor conveys the immense charm and good nature of the opera.
Would that all three principals here had recorded the whole opera, but
in those days the _whole_ opera on '78s....<roll eyes>!!!!!! Yes,
Nissen, Teschemacher and Ralf here seem ideal. Sometimes, the Toscanini
threesome of Nissen/Reining/Noort (now in newly restored sound on
ANDANTE) and the Kubelik threesome of Stewart/Janowitz/Konya (now on
ARTS ARCHIV) strike me as almost as apt -- the reason why the Kubelik
and the Toscanini are now my favorites among complete recordings. But I
would add that there's a naturalness throughout the Boehm Act III that
may still be unparallelled.
For that kind of naturalness among complete recordings, for conducting
and general conversational quality beyond the three principals, the
studio Knappertsbusch remains unique, though (again, IMO). And I don't
necessarily dislike Treptow on the Kna, as I say; it's just that the
fine balance of Nissen/Reining/Noort w/Toscanini and
Stewart/Janowitz/Konya w/Kubelik come closer to the ideal that we find
in this Boehm Act III, I feel, than the threesome on the studio Kna.
Would that either Toscanini's threesome or Kubelik's had been heard with
Knappertsbusch(!) -- not that both Kna's Schoeffler and Kna's Gueden,
each taken on their own, aren't commensurate with the best, Schoeffler
particularly so.
> As great as this opera is as a totality, Act III is a pinnacle of
> Wagner's achievement as a musical dramatist.
For me, in fact, the greatest musical and dramatic sequence in all opera
might well be those last twenty minutes or so of Act III, Scene 1,
starting with Eva's entrance and concluding with the final phrases of
the Quintet.
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs ("Meistersinger Monster")
http://www.operacast.com/meisters.htm
Richard Loeb
have to back to Schorr for the ideal combinmation of voice ( warm and brown)
and interpretation (direct, honest and human). The famous EMI excerpts that
are available I think on a number of different labels give me more of the
essense of this opera than any of the completes. The GROC LP had everything
except the Rethberg Act III bit - I have a ver y interesting Symposium CD
set that splices in these famous studio recordings with the live excerpts
from Berlin in 1928 - now this is is what Meistersinger is all about.
Richard
"Geoffrey Riggs" <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4294C048...@verizon.net...
wkas...@comcast.net
Richard Loeb wrote:
> For me, even with all the complete recordings we have discussed, you still
> have to back to Schorr for the ideal combinmation of voice ( warm and brown)
> and interpretation (direct, honest and human).
I agree, although for the two monologues, Hotter's earliest recordings
(for DG, recently reissued in the Hotter Original Masters set) are
pretty close to Schorr in quality.
Bill
david...@aol.com
Eva. I'm also relieved that Geoffrey shares my opinion of Treptow:
maybe I'm not entirely deluded in finding a certain amount to admire in
his Walther. It really is a shame he didn't have a voice and couldn't
sing. (I wish I could find a review in Fanfare that William Youngren
wrote years ago in which there were a couple of insightful remarks
about Treptow. He hit the nail on the head, but I can no longer find
the review. And, speaking of reviews, Geoffrey has published a summary
of Meistersinger recordings somewhere on the internet that's well worth
reading.)
I haven't heard Solti 1 in years, but Solti would not be my first
choice for Meistersinger, not by a long shot. In fact, I think
Meistersinger is the mature Wagner opera for which he is least well
suited. In his second recording, Solti and the CSO supply absolutely
everything one could ever hope for except the essential thing.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Schorr and Hotter. Schorr had the most voice, though. (Why did the
species of the musical Wagnerian singer with a gorgeous voice and
splendid technique die out? The first music from Meistersinger I ever
heard was the Quintet with Schorr, Schumann, and Melchior.
Unbelievable.)
-david gable
Richard Loeb
his Tannhauser Conrad said something like "the case of Treptow is
particularly regrettable since the basic quality and metal of what could
have been a significant voice sometimes shows through a technique that must
have been acquired through lessons in progressive self-strangulation -
sometimes a ringing note or a well molded phrase emerges through all of the
squeezing and straining" Treptow sang forever he has a part on the Henze
:Der Junge Lord" Richard
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117046617....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Loeb
an attempt to get audience noise out of the tape, they have robbed the sound
and performance from any semblance of life or movement. Its like a kind of
aural zombie - that plus the surprising zero of van Dams Sachs - takes it
completely out of the running. You can't have a great Meistersinger without
a great Sachs - you can have interesting ones (e.g. the 63 Munich) but not
the essense. Richard
Richard Loeb
Schumanns opening phrases are unbelievable - utter perfection Richard
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117047006.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrs...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> I don't like Solti II at all - the engineering is absolutely terrible - in
> an attempt to get audience noise out of the tape, they have robbed the sound
> and performance from any semblance of life or movement. Its like a kind of
> aural zombie - that plus the surprising zero of van Dams Sachs - takes it
> completely out of the running. You can't have a great Meistersinger without
> a great Sachs - you can have interesting ones (e.g. the 63 Munich) but not
> the essense. Richard
I have to agree that the sound isn't all I was hoping for. The Jochum
is still the most pleasing version I have, sound-wise, because both
orchestra and singers are vivid.
--Jeff
Richard Loeb
but the live as well - one great span culminating in the final scene -
overwhelming Richard
"Steven Chung" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d72kfo$nra$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4294C048...@verizon.net>,
> Geoffrey Riggs <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> # > The best Evas -- perhaps the only fully satisfying ones as far as I am
> # > concerned -- are Gruemmer (with Kempe) and Schwarzkopf (with Karajan).
> #
> # No argument there. Although going beyond CDs, I find Mattila's Eva on
> # the new DVD magnetic, not only on a par with Gruemmer and Schwarzkopf,
> # IMO, but definitely superior to her rather tame reading on the second
> # Solti set, beautiful as the vocalism from everyone there is.
>
> To think, her best performance in that run was the one they didn't video.
>
> But you've all omitted the finest Eva of all, better even than Reining
> (whom I'd put with the ones above): Seefried for Boehm. She was 23 at
> the time, and pretty much -is- Eva.
>
> She's much helped out by Boehm, whose conducting on this 1944 set is
> probably his best work on record, miles ahead of the somewhat disjointed
> 1938 Act III and at least on par with Toscanini et al. It's impossible to
> listen to the conversational passages without a huge grin. Tenors are
> poor, tho.
>
> # For me, in fact, the greatest musical and dramatic sequence in all opera
> # might well be those last twenty minutes or so of Act III, Scene 1,
> # starting with Eva's entrance and concluding with the final phrases of
> # the Quintet.
>
> I disagree -- the transition from this private scene to the overwhelming
> public festival that follows is even greater. Act III as a whole is the
> summit of Wagner's work.
>
> S.
Geoffrey Riggs
"david...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> Surprised nobody has mentioned Gueden's (as far as I'm concerned) ideal
> Eva. I'm also relieved that Geoffrey shares my opinion of Treptow:
> maybe I'm not entirely deluded in finding a certain amount to admire in
> his Walther. It really is a shame he didn't have a voice and couldn't
> sing. (I wish I could find a review in Fanfare that William Youngren
> wrote years ago in which there were a couple of insightful remarks
> about Treptow. He hit the nail on the head, but I can no longer find
> the review. And, speaking of reviews, Geoffrey has published a summary
> of Meistersinger recordings somewhere on the internet that's well worth
> reading.)
It's at
http://www.operacast.com/meisters.htm
> I haven't heard Solti 1 in years, but Solti would not be my first
> choice for Meistersinger, not by a long shot. In fact, I think
> Meistersinger is the mature Wagner opera for which he is least well
> suited. In his second recording, Solti and the CSO supply absolutely
> everything one could ever hope for except the essential thing.
It's a very pulled-in kind of reading, true. I feel that what does come
through in an interesting way, though, is the occasionally touching
aspirations to loftiness on the part of some of these characters. They
do attempt in their way, after all, to establish a community within a
community where a higher sensibility of a sort can emerge, whether
entirely successfully or not. Solti's Mozartian approach, in spots,
helps bring out this kind of would-be elegance that is a refreshing
corrective, IMO, to the frequently cliche blustering heard in other
sets.
No, this second Solti would not be my top choice, indeed partly because
of this very unusual ambience that this set maintains. It's somewhat
disorienting, and ultimately, my ideal would encompass something with
greater geniality to it. But it is not without point, all the same, and
I prize the refreshing musicality that this approach brings with it.
Geoffrey Riggs
Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> I don't like Solti II at all - the engineering is absolutely terrible - in
> an attempt to get audience noise out of the tape, they have robbed the sound
> and performance from any semblance of life or movement. Its like a kind of
> aural zombie - that plus the surprising zero of van Dams Sachs - takes it
> completely out of the running. You can't have a great Meistersinger without
> a great Sachs - you can have interesting ones (e.g. the 63 Munich) but not
> the essense. Richard
Hmmm...since I personally happen to view the '63 Munich's Sachs of
Wiener as utterly inadequate, by that yardstick I don't see why one
wouldn't view the second Solti with Van Dam as already interesting too
-- at worst, in fact. After all, Sachs is a person of great insight and
sensibility, and a musician who phrases with as much distinction and
musicality as Van Dam does, and with as poetic a sense of the word as
part of the artistic partnership of "Ton und Wort" (on which so much of
Meistersinger's plot hinges), is certainly not inadequate(!) (more than
one can say of the disastrous Wiener, IMO).
Maybe, Van Dam's relative reserve makes him dominate less than the
Schorrs, the Nissens, the Hotters, the Schoefflers, what-have-you. And
so it may make a kind of sense to view the second Solti recording as,
overall, one that falls just short of true greatness. O.K.
But -- unless I'm misreading Richard Loeb -- he seems to be implying
that the Keilberth/Munich set is entirely comparable to Solti #II,
because of its having an equally unimpressive(!) Sachs(?). Not so, IMO,
particularly when one considers Van Dam's dreary competition among
Sachses in full stereophonic sound (in practical terms, Van Dam's real
rivals for the general disc-buying public). Very frankly, I'd be
surprised if anyone here seriously feels that either the rather
dry-sounding Adam, the vocally off-form Bailey, the somewhat past-it and
unsteady Ridderbusch, the very-much past-it Weikl (with Sawallisch), the
unengaging Wiener, the hectoring Fischer-Dieskau or the monochromatic
Holl (these being some of the CD Sachses available complete in stereo)
give the reasonably simpatico and musical Van Dam a run for their money.
As the chased-away Tom Kaufman would have said (essentially), there's
sometimes no accounting for tastes. Still, we can't have Titans like
Schorr, Nissen et al in grand stereo, so who among the (frequently
inadequate) modern Sachses is there, aside from Van Dam, who can provide
us with clean, forward diction, a poet's thoughtful sensibility and a
genuine contained musical line with a truly defined tone and shapely
phrasing that follows Wagner's (many) original markings?
Richard Loeb
Munich) but without a great Sachs you can't have a great Meistersinger. I
don;t find Van Dams Sachs (and I'm a fan of this singer) at all interesting
or moving. Sachs may not be dominant in the beginning but he sure becomes
dominant as the opera proceeds - frankly I don;t get much of anything from
van Dams portrayel - again the engineering robs the voices of any kind of
life but I don;t even get the "insight" in his reading - and the voice is
just wrong. And frankly since there are other readings that have more to
offer, why bother???? Richardnews:4294E45A...@verizon.net...
Geoffrey Riggs
Steven Chung wrote:
>
> In article <4294C048...@verizon.net>,
> Geoffrey Riggs <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> # > The best Evas -- perhaps the only fully satisfying ones as far as I am
> # > concerned -- are Gruemmer (with Kempe) and Schwarzkopf (with Karajan).
> #
> # No argument there. Although going beyond CDs, I find Mattila's Eva on
> # the new DVD magnetic, not only on a par with Gruemmer and Schwarzkopf,
> # IMO, but definitely superior to her rather tame reading on the second
> # Solti set, beautiful as the vocalism from everyone there is.
>
> To think, her best performance in that run was the one they didn't video.
I know: I was at the Nov. 24th, 2001 performance, and it was one of the
highlights of entire operagoing life. Mattila's opening of the Quintet
that night will stay with me forever.
> But you've all omitted the finest Eva of all, better even than Reining
> (whom I'd put with the ones above): Seefried for Boehm. She was 23 at
> the time, and pretty much -is- Eva.
>
> She's much helped out by Boehm, whose conducting on this 1944 set is
> probably his best work on record, miles ahead of the somewhat disjointed
> 1938 Act III and at least on par with Toscanini et al. It's impossible to
> listen to the conversational passages without a huge grin. Tenors are
> poor, tho.
While I'd agree that Boehm's conducting here is even better than on the
studio Act III of 1938, I wouldn't call Boehm disjointed on the
commercial Act III. Also, I feel, one has to register strong regrets
for "tenorism" in '44 that you so euphemistically (;-) call "poor".
"Poor" isn't in it, IMHO. Seider's party record of a Walther, IMO,
makes Hopf seem like Ralf, Noort, Konya, and Heppner combined! If not
for Seider, this set would be fully comparable to the
Abendroth/Schoeffler (despite the Walther of the fresh-voiced but
inappropriate Suthaus being the chief flaw there, IMO).
And yes, Seefried is one of the most captivating Evas I know. I suppose
-- partly consciously, partly unconsciously -- I was at first limiting
myself to those especially fine Evas whom I feel are with generally
reasonable colleagues. I consider Hopf reasonably professional, if
ultimately unattractive. I don't find Seider even that. (And sometimes
I feel the same way about Wiener's Sachs, frankly.)
Another distinguished Eva who is actually available with a distinguished
cast is Elisabeth Rethberg from 1936. Here, though, issues of humdrum
sound and many (Bodanzky) cuts take Rethberg's Eva out of prime
consideration (in this current discussion's context, that is).
> # For me, in fact, the greatest musical and dramatic sequence in all opera
> # might well be those last twenty minutes or so of Act III, Scene 1,
> # starting with Eva's entrance and concluding with the final phrases of
> # the Quintet.
>
> I disagree -- the transition from this private scene to the overwhelming
> public festival that follows is even greater. Act III as a whole is the
> summit of Wagner's work.
I don't actually agree that the transition to Scene II is even greater,
but yes, it is still on a staggering level. And if I had to choose a
single self-sufficient act as a whole, I'd choose the entire third act
of Wagner's Meistersinger as indeed the summit of Wagner's entire output
in a heartbeat.
Gareth Williams
> A pretty specific one - what are people's opinions of the *first* Solti
> recording (with Bode, Kollo, Bailey, Weikl, Moll)? My recollection is
> that the last time I heard it (probably 25 years ago), it was flawed
> but competitive; I remember really enjoying Bailey's Sachs and finding
> the rest of the cast more or less adequate.
>
>> Norman Bailey is one who seems to get high marks from British critics,
>> but I am not keen on his somewhat nasal singing.
I find Norman Bailey's baritone "nasal" delivery errs on the positive
side of being warm and sonorous, which is ideal for Sachs I feel. Both in
the Solti recording and live on stage Bailey projected an agreeable,
avuncular embodiment of the role - the sort of Sachs who'd always have a
tall tale and bag of toffees at hand to delight the village children.
This is rarely to be heard elsewhere apart from the interpretatios
of Otto Edelmann and Karl Ridderbusch. There are other great assumptions
of this role on disk (Weikl, Van Dam, Thomas Stewart, Theo Adam - even
Fischer Dieskau's oft-maligned attempt is never less than interesting) but
most of them come across as slightly too cold and/or with far worse vocal
flaws than Bailey's mahogany-lined nasal sinuses produce.
--
Kind regards, Gareth Williams
Simon Roberts
>But -- unless I'm misreading Richard Loeb -- he seems to be implying
>that the Keilberth/Munich set is entirely comparable to Solti #II,
>because of its having an equally unimpressive(!) Sachs(?). Not so, IMO,
>particularly when one considers Van Dam's dreary competition among
>Sachses in full stereophonic sound (in practical terms, Van Dam's real
>rivals for the general disc-buying public). Very frankly, I'd be
>surprised if anyone here seriously feels that either the rather
>dry-sounding Adam, the vocally off-form Bailey, the somewhat past-it and
>unsteady Ridderbusch, the very-much past-it Weikl (with Sawallisch), the
>unengaging Wiener, the hectoring Fischer-Dieskau or the monochromatic
>Holl (these being some of the CD Sachses available complete in stereo)
>give the reasonably simpatico and musical Van Dam a run for their money.
What do you think of Kubelik's Stewart?
Simon
Richard Loeb
that you can't have a great Meistersinger without a great Sachs - so the
Solti II and Keilberth are not great Meistersinger recordings - thats all I
was trying to say. Now if you want to compare Solti II and Keilbeth in
toto - I will say I'll take the Keilberth - and its kind of hard to say why
since it has some serious weaknesses but the sound is great, the performance
is exactly that - a performance that has more of a live feel than the
antispetic Solti II which frankly I cannot stand to hear ( I mean I
physically cannot sit down and listen to it)since the sound is so wierd.- If
I have to be pinned down on one complete recording ( assuming I have the
Schorr excerpts) I don;t know what to say perhaps the 49 Munich which is a
really exciting live performance with many strong elements or the maturity
and wisdom of the Kna studio. As for Simons question about the Stewart
Sachs - I get more out of it every time I hear it - a very sympathetic,
detailed and moving interpretation Richard
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d72p4...@drn.newsguy.com...
Terry Simmons
wkas...@comcast.net wrote:
> A pretty specific one - what are people's opinions of the *first* Solti
> recording (with Bode, Kollo, Bailey, Weikl, Moll)? My recollection is
> that the last time I heard it (probably 25 years ago), it was flawed
> but competitive; I remember really enjoying Bailey's Sachs and finding
> the rest of the cast more or less adequate.
>
> But after 25 years, I no longer trust my memory of the set. I'm
> thinking of buying it, but I have a funny feeling that after 25 years
> of hearing the additional recordings that have been issued (Kubelik,
> Sawallisch, Abendroth, Solti 2, Jochum 1949, Bayreuth 1956 et al), the
> first Solti may be superfluous. Or is Bailey that good that I need to
> hear it again?
>
> Bill
I love that set, primarily because of Norman Bailey.
--
Cheers!
Terry
Geoffrey Riggs
Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> I said you can have interesting Meistersingers without a great Sachs (63
> Munich) but without a great Sachs you can't have a great Meistersinger. I
> don;t find Van Dams Sachs (and I'm a fan of this singer) at all interesting
> or moving. Sachs may not be dominant in the beginning but he sure becomes
> dominant as the opera proceeds - frankly I don;t get much of anything from
> van Dams portrayel - again the engineering robs the voices of any kind of
> life but I don;t even get the "insight" in his reading - and the voice is
> just wrong. And frankly since there are other readings that have more to
> offer, why bother???? Richard
Just curious: Please, which other readings of the role of Hans Sachs in
modern stereo sound do you feel have more to offer, and could you
pinpoint exactly why?
Best and thanks,
Richard Loeb
indeed and its a saddening situation - you see I have very high standards
for this role because there is a geat deal of historical material that shows
the way this role should be sung and frankly we don't have to to make do
with the stereo Sachs when there are better mono ones available. There is
not one stereo Sachs who sings with the warm humanity of Schoffler, the
vocal amplitude of Frantz on Kempe I from Dresden, the dramatic insights of
Hotter in Munich 1949 or the best of all Schorr who combines the best of
everything either on his excerpts or even on his live MET offerings.
Geoffrey - we are not living in an age of great Wagner singing and that has
been true for a long time - happily we have a lot of material that shows us
how this music sounds in the hands of great artsts Cheers Richard
"Geoffrey Riggs" <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4295E944...@verizon.net...
Geoffrey Riggs
Richard Loeb wrote:
>
> Why do you insist on stereo???? Because frankly the pickings are very slim
> indeed and its a saddening situation - you see I have very high standards
> for this role because there is a geat deal of historical material that shows
> the way this role should be sung and frankly we don't have to to make do
> with the stereo Sachs when there are better mono ones available. There is
> not one stereo Sachs who sings with the warm humanity of Schoffler, the
> vocal amplitude of Frantz on Kempe I from Dresden, the dramatic insights of
> Hotter in Munich 1949 or the best of all Schorr who combines the best of
> everything either on his excerpts or even on his live MET offerings.
Richard, I couldn't agree more. If you think I don't feel precisely
this way, you're wrong. On another occasion, I in fact remarked here
that I consider the heldenbariton situation as more dire, even, than the
heldentenor one! The problem, IMO, is that even in those few instances
these past few decades when we do have a genuine, if fleeting,
heldenbariton instrument in our midst (raaaaaare though that is), the
"done thing" seems to be to still sing roles like Sachs (and/or
Vanderdecken, Wotan, Amfortas, etc.) as if the instrument were no better
than the penny-a-day ones that have been the rule since Schoeffler and
Frantz retired! In other words, to hell with the music; if
second-stringers like (IMHO) Franz-Ferdinand Nentwig or Otto Wiener or
Theo Adam fall back on singing this in this kind of anti-musical way
because their instruments simply can't manage it any better, then the
very few others with far finer instruments seem to be coached (coerced?)
into doing it the very same anti-musical (and thus ultimately
anti-poetic) way -- as if it's a "true" tradition(?!?!) --
AAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! It's not a true tradition; it's vandalism -- and
it even seems deliberate --
Y
U
K!!!!!!!!!!!
At least, when reasonably plausibly voiced Tristans and Siegfrieds come
along these decades (raaaaaaarely, yes), they seem to feel SOME
obligation to impart a certain degree of musical shape to what they're
doing, rather than simply imitating the Hans Beirers, the Manfred Jungs,
the Claude Heaters, et al. But even the best-voiced heldenbaritons now
do precisely the equivalent of that (go back to the third-rate
heldenbariton equivalents of the heldentenor Beirers and Jungs), IMHO,
as if Otto Wiener et al are more important as a model than a Schoeffler
or a Schorr!! They seem to bend over backwards to adopt this disgusting
shtick rather than simply accidentally falling back on it the way
(sometimes) a Wolfgang Schmidt or a Jon Frederick West can, IMO.
Instead, the heldenbaritons of EVERY vocal quality today from eccellent
to lousy CULTIVATE this awful shtick:-(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why I feel a bit leery of dismissing Van Dam's Sachs out of
hand. Of course, it doesn't dominate the way a Schorr, a Schoeffler,
etc. does. Of course, the best Sachses can only be had on Mono. Of
course, even among the REAL Sachses, only the young Schorr had it ALL!
But we're not just in a vocal trough today, IMO. We're in a fearful
STYLISTIC trough as well. If a Schorr came along today, HE'D BE
EXPECTED TO BE DUMBED DOWN AND TO SING LIKE AN ADAM! He'd be WASTED! A
standard of mediocrity thus prevails.
Of course, no one today would DARE suggest to Heppner or Gould that they
sing like Jung! But that is the precise equivalent of what the
best-voiced heldenbaritons routinely do and have done for a WHOOOOOOOLE
generation!
What does Van Dam do? HE SIIIIIIIIIINGS THE PART! Maybe without a
maximum of variety. Maybe without genuine helden strength, particularly
in the lows. Maybe not with the acme of naturalness and spontaneity.
But he looks at the score, he applies his instrument musically, and he
methodically upsets the whole applecart of fake "stylistics" and the
toneless spasmodic curt grunts of practically every other Sachs from
Wiener on. You see, THE VAAAAAAAAAAAANDALS DIDN'T GET TO HIM!!!!!! He
may be dull as dishwater to some. Fine. But he SIIIIIIIIIIINGS the
music! He doesn't fall in with the shtick that every other Sachs (NO
MATTER HOW WELL ENDOWED VOCALLY) has gotten sucked in by again and again
and again and again and again and again and again.
Calming myself down a bit: ultimately, Van Dam stands as a corrective.
So I can't help but be concerned when some dismiss what Van Dam does as
"characterless". Heck, maybe it really is (in a way). But vandalistic
coaches the world over can simply take one look at such negative notices
and draw a simple (and disastrous) conclusion: "Yup, this Van Dam guy
must be wrong after all; let's bring back the Adam/Wiener express, let's
junk music (and thus poetry along with it) and bring back the cheaply
effective _noise_ and the monosyllabic (practically) phrase, and forget
clean pitch; let's show Sachs for the dreaarily macho, monosyllabic,
tedious, endlessly and unvaryingly emphatic hectorer we think he
reeeeeeeeeaally is":-(
This is why comparing Van Dam to those available in Stereo is indeed of
dire importance after all. Sure, one can claim that Van Dam pales
alongside the Schorrs, the Schoefflers -- what-have-you. But Van Dam's
efforts at bringing us back even the tiiiiiiiiniest bit from the brink
of this uniformly short-breathed, uniformly stentorian, uniformly
uninflected standard that has taken over the past generation may need at
least a modest degree of acknowledgement, IMHO. Most listeners today
probably don't even know how this music really sounds, PERIOD! --
although they think they do. This is because what they've mostly
listened to are recent recordings where the music's been routinely
ignored. So the threat to future Schorrs who will be suckered into
aping this kind of anti-musical nonsense is very, very real. Sadly, for
the sake of reclaiming such future potentially genuine Sachses from the
anti-musical sword of Damocles that awaits them in the studio, pointing
them -- and/or their potential coaches and/or listeners in general -- to
a Schorr or a Schoeffler may sometimes be a waste of time. I don't like
sating that. But it may be true. Why? Because many don't have either
the opportunity or the inclination to chase down ho-hum sonics in mono.
That's why. So they get what is available in Stereo instead, regardless
of what certain aficionados may say.
I just noted that, in a post sent to r.m.c.r. only, you remarked that
Stewart (who is available in fine Stereo) seems to be growing on you.
Fair enough (although his occasional unsteadiness in the final scene is
regrettable, IMO, while I still like him quite a bit anyway). In the
real world (and this irks me as much as it may irk you), a Schorr
recommendation may carry less weight than a Stewart recommendation,
because of the better sonics and readier availability of a Stewart.
This is not intended as a reflection on Stewart but a reflection on the
general buying habits of even reasonably dedicated classical music
buyers today. They'll go with what is readily available rather than
take the extra effort to find some perfectly spectacular SYMPOSIUM CD
that just happens not to be in high fidelity.
For all these reasons, I remain convinced that the question as to Van
Dam's most plausible rivals _in stereo sound_ -- if he has any -- is of
the utmost immediacy. Can Van Dam's rearing back from all these phony
hectoring stylistics establish a welcome trend where a more imposing
instrument than Van Dam's will eventually come along and heed the call
and achieve in "technicolor" what Van Dam may only achieve in "black and
white"? Or will the future more imposing instrument be sucked once
again into the same mediocre so-called "style" that Van Dam (however
palely, in your opinion) tries, valiantly, to buck? Is there any other
similarly musical model out there in full Stereophonic sound? If not
Van Dam, then Who? Stewart? Someone else? Who?
Mark my words (and you saw it here first): barring a miracle, Pape's
flagrantly, rebelliously, GLORIOUSLY bel canto style will go the way of
all Adam once he takes on Sachs and/or Wotan. And it won't be because
such a role is anywhere near too much for this glorious singer. Far
from it. It should fit him like a glove. Rather, it will be because
conductors, directors and coaches the world over will expect him to
"stylize" the part into the usual hand-me-down s_____t. And if he
refuses to fall in line, he won't get hired and will never be given the
opportunity to do the role at all. Those are his choices. It's that
simple -- and that deadly.
Even if he does take on the role with no unpleasant politics behind the
scenes after all, do you think that Pape, a furiously busy superstar
(deservedly so), will have the time to traipse around record stores
ferreting out SYMPOSIUM CDS, or out of print Kna recordings, or "live"
'40s _pirates_ from Munich, etc., in the midst of all the furious
preparations for some of the longest roles in the rep? If you think
that, I offer a bridge for sale! He'll listen to his ignorant, equally
frantically busy handlers instead, _maybe_ pick up the nearest Stereo
set that comes to hand -- and that's it. Why? Because that's all that
either he or his handlers will have the _time_ to do.
All IMO, of course.
Best,
Richard Loeb
though that your understandable concern about "singing" or shall I say
"lyric" Wagner singers is hardly a new issue - from the time of Cosima and
her insistence on a kind of declamation that became known as the "Bayreuth
Bark" we have had the same problem. For every Schorr there were many Rodes
and you only have to go back and listen to Wagner compendium Lp or CD issues
to hear the same kind of bad singing technically. For my money, you should
apply the same principles for singing Wagner as you would for Mozart or even
Bellini (to hear the results listen to some of Lilli Lehmanns recordings). I
guess we should lay the van Dam issue to rest - you can appreciate qualities
in his Sachs Solti II that elude me - some of the problems are not his fault
because of the sound issue which makes him sound grey and lifeless - but I
just don't get much of anything from him - its hard for me to appreciate his
legato singing when he's hardly there for me half the time. But if you enjoy
him fine -
I'm afraid I must disagree with you slightly on one other issue - the
absence of a Heldentenor issue is much much more of a problem than the the
lack of a Heldenbariton and has been so for decades. You may have some
problems with the way some of the past and current exponents of the roles of
Sachs and Wotan sing their roles but at least thay had the technical
equipment to do them correctly if they wished to - but for the roles of
Siegfried and Tristan and Tannhauser we have "made do" for many many years -
some singers get through them like Heppner who sounds damned good on the
recent Paris Tristan - but he is lyric tenor (like Windgassen was) not a
Heldentenor - not since Melchior have I heard a real one ( no, Vickers
wasn't one either, a strange voice but not for Siegfried). What I'm talking
about is a singer who can fully encompass the vocal demands of the part from
top to bottom without collapsing after a few years or having to take time
off to recover. I'm sorry but I always hear that we shouldn't compare with
singers of the past and we can hear some acceptable renditions of the above
roles today(without being fooled for a second) but there is just too much
historical evidence of the way these roles can be sung - there are tons of
CDs out there from the Wagnerian Golden Age of 1925-45 to allow us to put
these issues in their proper perspectives Cheers Richard
>ves.news:42961D3F...@verizon.net...
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
production...except the choreography of the 'fight scene' at act of Act 2.
Otherwise...it's a must have!
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Steven Chung" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d75dmi$6ko$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Morris over van Dam any day of a Wagnerian week.
>
> I haven't seen how the DVD came out however.
>
> S.
grndp...@aol.com
In my opinion there have been some excellent Wagnerian bass-baritones
since WW II.
Let me start with Hans Hotter, Josef Metternich, George London, James
Morris.
Morris, in fact, sang a magnificent Wanderer in the Lyric Opera of
Chicago's RING this past season.
As for Sachs, I think Ferdinand Frantz, Donald McIntyre and Hermann
Prey acquitted themselves quite well (far better than Jose van Dam).
Van Dam's problem is that his lower register lacks depth. (He exhibits
the same deficiency as Philippe II in Don Carlos.)
Although I rather enjoy Schoeffler, I think he has been overpraised.
He's good, possibly the best between 1945 and 1955, but not THAT good.
The Kna recording has the poorest balance between voices and orchestra
of any studio recording I've heard. (The voices are much too
close-miked and the orchestra not as audible as it should be.)
I see no reason not to prefer Meistersinger in stereo, especially for
the effects that can be achieved in Act III Scene 2 or the finale to
Act II. The opera is splendidly orchestrated and in a way that
Meyerbeer might have enjoyed. The entrance of the Guilds in the final
scene brings to mind the Coronation March from Le Prophete.
Wagner is playful enough to have quoted Rossini's Tancredi at the
arrival of the Tailors.
I also like the later Solti recording mainly for the magnificence of
the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
==G/P Dave
wkas...@comcast.net
> Let me start with Hans Hotter, Josef Metternich, George London, James
> Morris.
Unfortunately, we're talking about Sachs here. I doubt that Metternich
ever sang it - he was a lyric baritone forced into service in roles too
heavy for him. As for London, he may have recorded the monologues, but
I don't believe that he ever sang the role on stage. Hotter sang in
only two productions, Munich 1949 and Bayreuth 1956. Neither finds him
in great voice (at least compared to 1942, or to Schorr). As for
Morris, I think that he looks a lot better than he sounds, and his
Sachs is not as impressive as his Wotan.
> As for Sachs, I think Ferdinand Frantz, Donald McIntyre and Hermann
> Prey acquitted themselves quite well
I don't find much to enjoy in the singing of either Frantz or McIntyre.
The former has a stiff, unyielding tone that wears on my nerves after
about ten minutes, and despite his fine dramatic talents, McIntyre
wobbles. I've never heard Prey as Sachs.
> Van Dam's problem is that his lower register lacks depth. (He exhibits
> the same deficiency as Philippe II in Don Carlos.)
No, that's not the problem with his Sachs; the role doesn't require an
exceptionally resonant lower register. What it does require, though,
is a bigger voice. I adore van Dam in almost everything, but I can't
deny, based upon several live performances in the last decade or so,
that it isn't a very big voice. And it affects his Sachs on recording;
because it's a relatively small voice for the part, the dynamic range
is very limited, to a sort of all-purpose mezzo-forte. Attractive, but
not much variety. Even so, I prefer him to nearly all recorded
Sachses, simply because a) it's an attractive voice, b) he is an
extraordinarily musical singers, and c) he doesn't wobble or shout.
> Although I rather enjoy Schoeffler, I think he has been overpraised.
> He's good, possibly the best between 1945 and 1955, but not THAT good.
If you're basing your opinion on the 1951 studio recording, you may be
right. But he recorded it twice before that, in 1943 and 1944. I'm
not a huge fan, but he's vastly superior on these two earlier
recordings, and among the better recorded Sachses.
> I also like the later Solti recording mainly for the magnificence of
> the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
Unfortunately, they didn't get much help from their conductor or the
engineers.
Bill
Richard Loeb
Bayreuth. Richard
<wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1117145732.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Lehrman
Arthaus. Hasn't regretted my choice so far.
(Now I have to top-post too :-))
ML
"Jon E. Szostak, Sr." <jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:V-udnQ4KAKe...@giganews.com...
JJ
> grndp...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Van Dam's problem is that his lower register lacks depth. (He exhibits
>> the same deficiency as Philippe II in Don Carlos.)
>
> No, that's not the problem with his Sachs; the role doesn't require an
> exceptionally resonant lower register. What it does require, though,
> is a bigger voice. I adore van Dam in almost everything, but I can't
> deny, based upon several live performances in the last decade or so,
> that it isn't a very big voice. And it affects his Sachs on recording;
> because it's a relatively small voice for the part, the dynamic range
> is very limited, to a sort of all-purpose mezzo-forte. Attractive, but
> not much variety. Even so, I prefer him to nearly all recorded
> Sachses, simply because a) it's an attractive voice, b) he is an
> extraordinarily musical singers, and c) he doesn't wobble or shout.
Exactly - that's what makes Van Dam's recording so valuable. It's a very unforced and natural and
warm performance sung with a true legato (a rarity even among the best of Sachs interpreters). I'm
also reminded of a comment that Karajan made to Van Dam when he urged him to sing Sarastro for his
recording: "You'll be the first Sarastro who doesn't sound like he has a beer in one hand and a
sausage in the other" -- which applies, albeit a to a lesser degree, to his Sachs. No, it's not the
only way (or even the "authentic" way, whatever that means) to sing Sachs but it's a important
corrective to a lot of the competition.
Jon
Richard Loeb
wrong - you MUST have those low notes and the voice must be able to "sit" on
the bottom of the range - but it wasn't the frst time Karajan made a casting
mistake as we all know. I agree with you about legato - something I stress
over and over again is the importance of legato. Cheers Richard
"JJ" <jj...@NOSPAM.nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9662E867C85...@24.168.128.78...
david...@aol.com
"Treptow sang forever he has a part on the Henze
:Der Junge Lord" Richard
The capability for which tells you something about how good his ear
was. I agree with Conrad Osborne, by the way. His problems really
were technical. He never learned how to sing properly.
-david gable
Robert Storm
Kna's conducting is magnificent and so is the cast: Josef Greindl,
Elisabeth Grümmer, Wolfgang Windgassen, Gerhard Stolze and Theo Adam.
Jochum's studio Meistersinger looks very good on paper but simply does
not work. The conducting is dull, Fischer-Dieskau is far from his best
and the sound is dry. However, Jochum's live recording is one of the
best. Hotter is a magnificent Sachs. Günther Treptow is one of my
favorite Wagner tenors. Unlike other heavy-weight heldentenors
(Suthaus and Lorenz) his voice sounds very good as Stolzing. He is
also excellent in Knappertsbusch's studio recording, another favorite
of mine. It features Paul Schöffler, possibly the greatest Sachs of
all time.
Both 1943 Bayreuth recordings are good but not my favorites. As I
already said, the voices of Suthaus and Lorenz (both wonderful
heldentenors) sound too heavy for the part of Stolzing. Both have a
good Sachs though Schöffler is much better than Prohaska. Furtwängler
is a more interesting conductor than Abendroth. Unfortunately the
quintet is missing from Furtwängler's version.
Leinsdorf's 1959 recording could be one of the best with a different
Sachs. Otto Wiener was probably the worst singer who sang major roles
at Bayreuth during the time of Wieland Wagner. I haven't heard
Leinsdorf's Met recording but seems to have some wonderful singers:
Schorr, Kullman and Laufkötter.
Karajan's studio recording is an example of Karajan's polished and
undramatic 70's style. Kollo is an excellent Stolzing and other
singers are good as well. On Karajan's Bayreuth recording the
conducting is wonderful but there are two quite bad singers in major
roles: Otto Edelmann and Hans Hopf. Schwartzkopf, Unger and Malaniuk
are great though.
Kubelik is probably the best choice for somebody who doesn't own a
recording of this opera yet. The conducting is good though it doesn't
really have a personal touch. The same can be said about Thomas
Stewart's Sachs. Unger was still great at a rather late stage of his
career. Konya (Stolzing) and Janowitz (Eva) have gorgeous voices and
are absolutely superb. Konya is even better on Leitner's recording
which features Gustav Neidlinger as Sachs. I had thought that roles of
good guys probably wouldn't suit Neidlinger's voice. So I was
surprised to notice that he is one of the best Sachses.
There are still some interesting recordings I haven't heard: Leinsdorf
at Met, Kempe's studio recording, Böhm's recording and Cluytens's
recordings (some of which have only been released on vinyl).
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
'Hans Sachs'...I must try to find a copy of this. I've sung a number of
productions under the baton of Maestro Leitner...and found his readings
quite warm and wonderful. Also one of the best conductors to be able to
read from the stage...a very nice gentleman.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Robert Storm" <roo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d96fccb8.05053...@posting.google.com...
Richard Loeb
Neidlinger - all those years of jamming the voice into the top to give us
some wonderful Alberichs really work against him in the role of Sachs - you
can hear him struggling to keep the voice in focus at the middle and bottom
of the range Richardnews:bMGdnW1brpP...@comcast.com...
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
happen to him. He had a very focused voice...which was used on some very
difficult roles...sung many, many times...but he had a good career. Good to
him if he's still alive.
--
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8eGdna6TVqF...@comcast.com...
Richard Loeb
knew formally (secretaries, etc.) in more personal terms (but in an
endearing way) - retired in 77 and died in 91. Richardnews:Y4GdnQuX1vy...@comcast.com...
Robert Storm
recording which has been available on vinyl but not cd. Unfortunately I
haven't heard it. On Leitner's recording he is an excellent Sachs. I was
surprised to hear how well his voice suits the part (I didn't think he was a
very good Kurwenal though). The recording is definitely worth getting. It
was interesting to read what you wrote about Leitner.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
frank schneiders
short of breath, a bit rough, too, at times <"Johannisnacht">) for the part
but it is a brave and sensitive reading and a simple and honest one, a
wonderful embodiment of the poetic craftsman.
And the rest of the cast is very good. Watson, Konya, Unger, the wonderful
and seldom recorded Carlos Alexander as Beckmesser, Crass all are among the
very best on record. Leitner is a very good conductor, the orchestra not
always top. There are some coordination problems mainly between Leitner and
Neidlinger. The stereo (!) sound is pretty good.
My copy is on Living Stage.
Am 01.06.2005 14:54 Uhr schrieb "Robert Storm" unter <robert...@sci.fi>
in BEC38A9F.283A%robert...@sci.fi:
gggg...@gmail.com
> [from Geoff Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]
>
> grndp...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > This opera has so many magnificent roles it is extremely difficult to
> > find a recording in which each of the principals is outstanding.
> > Norman Bailey is one who seems to get high marks from British critics,
> > but I am not keen on his somewhat nasal singing.
> >
> > liking.
>
> I would generally agree, although Van Dam at least has the requisite
> sense of poetry and musical line, IMO. And of an earlier generation but
> still available in fine stereo sound, Stewart, despite a few fleeting
> moments of unsteadiness, chiefly in that grueling final scene, is
> generally sympathetic and vocally attractive, IMO.
>
> > My favorite, from the 1938 recording (Act III only) is Hans Hermann
> > Nissen.
>
> For me, Nissen, Schorr and Schoeffler are the most attractive of all.
>
> > Ferdinand Frantz, on the Kempe recording (which has the best casting of
> > all I've heard) is a bit old-sounding for the role (but I still prefer
> > him to the young Bailey).
>
> AMEN!!!!
>
> > Solti, I find, has a tendency to drive the music and loses some of the
> > beautiful lightness Wagner wrote into this opera.
> >
> > For pacing, my favorite Meistersinger is Jochum's. DFD's barking much
> > of the time reduced the pleasure I derive from this recording. DFD
> > could have been a contender were it not for his apparently deliberate
> > choice to make Sachs something of an unpleasant character.
>
> Fortunately, Jochum, in even more incandescent form, is also available
> now in a rather well-recorded (considering) "live" 1949 reading from
> Munich, with the considerably more simpatico young, fresh-voiced Hans
> Hotter as the cobbler-poet.
>
> > Domingo is a superb Stolzing, exuding warmth and charm in a role that
> > often brings out the mildly offensive chest-beating (cf. Hans Hopf and
> > Gunther Treptow).
>
> Personally, although I'd agree that both Hopf and Treptow don't have the
> world's most attractive sounds, I still find Treptow's basic approach,
> both in the "live" '49 Jochum and in the studio Knappertsbusch,
> distinctly more musical than Hopf's. The only place where I really find
> Treptow unpleasant in the same way is in the opening "rehearsal" scene
> of Act III in the studio Kna.
> > The best Evas -- perhaps the only fully satisfying ones as far as I am
>
>
> > Neidlinger (Kothner), Frick (Pogner [why does this character seem to
> > attract better performances than those of Sachs?]), Prey
> > (Nightwatchman, no less).
>
> We've gone over this before, I realize, but, FWIW, the one aspect that
> really bothers me on the Kempe (and we're talking here of Kempe's second
> set for EMI) is Schock's overly effortful Walther (IMO), notwithstanding
> his basic sound being arguably more suited to Walther than a Hopf or a
> Treptow. It's just that, with all Treptow's unsuitability to the part,
> I still find Treptow's _rendering_ marginally more musical than the more
> apt _sounding_ Schock's.
>
> > I recommend all Meistersinger aficianados acquire the 1938 Boehm
> > recording. The singing is at an extraordinarily high level and the
> > conductor conveys the immense charm and good nature of the opera.
>
> Would that all three principals here had recorded the whole opera, but
> in those days the _whole_ opera on '78s....<roll eyes>!!!!!! Yes,
> Nissen, Teschemacher and Ralf here seem ideal. Sometimes, the Toscanini
> threesome of Nissen/Reining/Noort (now in newly restored sound on
> ANDANTE) and the Kubelik threesome of Stewart/Janowitz/Konya (now on
> ARTS ARCHIV) strike me as almost as apt -- the reason why the Kubelik
> and the Toscanini are now my favorites among complete recordings. But I
> would add that there's a naturalness throughout the Boehm Act III that
> may still be unparallelled.
>
> For that kind of naturalness among complete recordings, for conducting
> and general conversational quality beyond the three principals, the
> studio Knappertsbusch remains unique, though (again, IMO). And I don't
> necessarily dislike Treptow on the Kna, as I say; it's just that the
> fine balance of Nissen/Reining/Noort w/Toscanini...
If you like Reining as Eva, you might want to check out the following which was recently uploaded on Youtube:
Furtwangler: 1937 DIE MEISTERSINGINER Highlights with the Vienna Philharmonic
Andy Evans
I have listened a lot to Solti 2, and generally enjoyed it - more than previous posters apparently. But I also have Kempe 1955, which I find more musical and has more character, plus excellent singing. It really holds the interest. So does his 1951 Dresden recording, though I prefer the 1955. From the excerpts I've heard I find Reiner 1955 interesting, also Kubelik 1967, Cluytens 1957 and Karajan 1 from 1951 and again from 1974, his BPO radio broadcast which is rather good. I wasn't as keen on Jochum as others appear to be, same with Sawallisch which has some good singing but is rather flat.
There are plenty of versions of this great opera over the years, and I'd like to hear some more recommendations and discussion.
Andy Evans
> Kempe/BPO
> > dk
Totally agree with Kempe BPO. Have you heard Karajan's 1974 radio broadcast? I prefer it - it's really good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSB_Z0mleAM
wkasimer
> I'm reviving this thread to get some recommendations for Meistersinger. It has some good previous discussions.
There have been some live Bayreuth performances issued by Orfeo - the 1960 performance conducted by Knappertsbusch is another essential recording, unless you're allergic to Greindl.
There's also a live Vienna performance on Ponto, in decent sound, with Ridderbusch, James King, and Janowitz. Unfortunately, it looks better on paper than it sounds, at least to my ears.
Andy Evans
Andy Evans
> > There have been some live Bayreuth performances issued by Orfeo - the 1960 performance conducted by Knappertsbusch is another essential recording, unless you're allergic to Greindl. >
> I'm very fond of Greindl - one of my favourite Winterreises in fact. What I can't take with Kna 1960 is all the declaiming in Act 1. It gets quite shouty and unpleasant. Surely what we want in Act 1 is a smooth, witty and pleasant exchange of dialogue between the protagonists, which is what Kempe gives us for instance. For that reason I prefer the 1952 Kna, or indeed the 1955 Munich one with Della Casa which is the best for me and doesn't "dramatise" the music as much as the Bayreuth versions.>
gggg gggg
M&S Frost
MIFrost
wkasimer
> Any idea where I can get the Kubelik recording at a reasonable price?. I can't seem to find it. TIA
Andy Evans
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2018/Dec/Wagner_Meistersinger_survey.pdf
Thanks for that. Ralph Moore appears to stop at 1999. I agree with his choices mostly, except I find Kubelik overrated.
For me there are three nice videos since then - Met/Levine, VPO/Gatti and Bayreuth/Jordan. I haven't listened to the Levine or Gatti all the way through, though I like what I've heard. But I've listened to the Jordan several times and it's as good as any for me. I really like it - very musical all the way through. I think it does justice to the opera, and this in excellent sound.
Ricardo Jimenez
opera, perhaps because I am not a German speaker so I don't get the
jokes. Here is a list of complaints:
1. I don't understand what the marks are all about. Do they
correspond to anything that musicians ever were taught?
2. Hans Sachs is a boring, lecherous fool.
3. Beckmesser's songs (yodels?) aren't worth a listen.
4. The first scene of the third act goes on too long.
5. I love the dance music and choruses that start the second scene
but as soon as Sachs starts his jingoistic BS, the doings get outright
annoying.
gggg gggg
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:30:47 -0800 (PST),
>
> >> I'm reviving this thread to get some recommendations for Meistersinger. It has some good previous discussions.
> >>
> >> I have listened a lot to Solti 2, and generally enjoyed it - more than previous posters apparently. But I also have Kempe 1955, which I find more musical and has more character, plus excellent singing. It really holds the interest. So does his 1951 Dresden recording, though I prefer the 1955. From the excerpts I've heard I find Reiner 1955 interesting, also Kubelik 1967, Cluytens 1957 and Karajan 1 from 1951 and again from 1974, his BPO radio broadcast which is rather good. I wasn't as keen on Jochum as others appear to be, same with Sawallisch which has some good singing but is rather flat.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of versions of this great opera over the years, and I'd like to hear some more recommendations and discussion.
> >
> >http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2018/Dec/Wagner_Meistersinger_survey.pdf
> I have the Glyndebourne blu-ray on tap but I am not a fan of this
> opera, perhaps because I am not a German speaker so I don't get the
> jokes. Here is a list of complaints:
>
> 1. I don't understand what the marks are all about. Do they
> correspond to anything that musicians ever were taught?
>
Didn't Wagner conceive that character and portray him as a role model?:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=o97NX7GPJK7osAerzarQBw&q=%22those+who+will+follow+the+role+model+of+sachs%22&oq=%22those+who+will+follow+the+role+model+of+sachs%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8072.8827.0.9025.5.5.0.0.0.0.245.245.2-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.0.0....0.shrMSf8swag
gggg gggg
> A pretty specific one - what are people's opinions of the *first* Solti
> recording (with Bode, Kollo, Bailey, Weikl, Moll)? My recollection is
> that the last time I heard it (probably 25 years ago), it was flawed
> but competitive; I remember really enjoying Bailey's Sachs and finding
> the rest of the cast more or less adequate.
> But after 25 years, I no longer trust my memory of the set. I'm
> thinking of buying it, but I have a funny feeling that after 25 years
> of hearing the additional recordings that have been issued (Kubelik,
> Sawallisch, Abendroth, Solti 2, Jochum 1949, Bayreuth 1956 et al), the
> first Solti may be superfluous. Or is Bailey that good that I need to
> hear it again?
> Bill
(Uploaded on Youtube earlier this year):
DIE MEISTERSINGER VON NÜRNBERG by Richard Wagner (Audio + Full Score)
gggg gggg
Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg Konya Janowitz Stewart Fassbaender Kubelik 1967