Rachmaninov symphony 2, and cuts, but no review
Gerard
BBC Philharmonic Orchestra/Gianandrea Noseda
rec. Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, England, 11, 12, 24 November 2009. DDD
CHANDOS CHAN 10589 [74:52
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/May10/Rachmaninov2_CHAN10589.htm
(BTW this is a typical example of a non-review: the actual review consists of
the sentence "The orchestra provides an excellent reading of the score."
About the conductor only is said "studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mariinsky
fame) and will have also studied Rachmaninoff in his training".)
But what surprises are the remarks about cuts in this symphony.
Like "This performance reinstates a number of cuts that the composer made after
its first performance and so it is interesting to hear the originally intended
construction."
Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at recordings)
without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
jrsnfld
wrote:
> On MusicWeb a recording of Symphony No. 2 by Rachmaninov has been reviewed:
>
> BBC Philharmonic Orchestra/Gianandrea Noseda
> rec. Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, England, 11, 12, 24 November 2009. DDD
> CHANDOS CHAN 10589 [74:52
>
>
> (BTW this is a typical example of a non-review: the actual review consists of
> the sentence "The orchestra provides an excellent reading of the score."
> About the conductor only is said "studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mariinsky
> fame) and will have also studied Rachmaninoff in his training".)
>
> But what surprises are the remarks about cuts in this symphony.
> Like "This performance reinstates a number of cuts that the composer made after
> its first performance and so it is interesting to hear the originally intended
> construction."
>
> Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at recordings)
> without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
"reinstates..cuts" literally means: the cuts are used. I don't
remember for sure, but I think Noseda takes the usual practice of
reinstating *the music* that was cut, not the cuts themselves, so the
ambiguity tends toward error here. One might say Noseda "opens up the
cuts" or "reinstates the deleted music".
Anyway, what I find interesting is that you've now found two instances
of "blind" review at MusicWeb. "Blind" not in the sense that the
reviewer doesn't know who he's reviewing; rather, "blind" in the sense
of the editor making an assignment without considering if the reviewer
is actually sympathetic to the music...i.e., appropriate for the task.
--Jeff
Taffy Brendel
>
> BBC Philharmonic Orchestra/Gianandrea Noseda
> rec. Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, England, 11, 12, 24 November 2009. DDD
> CHANDOS CHAN 10589 [74:52
>
>
> (BTW this is a typical example of a non-review: the actual review consists of
> the sentence "The orchestra provides an excellent reading of the score."
> About the conductor only is said "studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mariinsky
> fame) and will have also studied Rachmaninoff in his training".)
>
> But what surprises are the remarks about cuts in this symphony.
> Like "This performance reinstates a number of cuts that the composer made after
> its first performance and so it is interesting to hear the originally intended
> construction."
>
> Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at recordings)
> without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
Yes, thank you for the non-review of the review.
In your spectacularly benighted fashion you continue
your incessant whining.
Generally, it is the fashion to play/record the symphony uncut these
days.
I can think of two recording since Previn that I believe are cut,
the Teldec Sanderling and I believe the Depriest are cut. Slatkin
does not take the 1st movement exposition repeat in his new
recording (yes, I know this is not a cut).
Taffy
Gerard
> On May 11, 11:23 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On MusicWeb a recording of Symphony No. 2 by Rachmaninov has been
> > reviewed:
> >
> > BBC Philharmonic Orchestra/Gianandrea Noseda
> > rec. Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, England, 11, 12, 24 November
> > 2009. DDD CHANDOS CHAN 10589 [74:52
> >
> > http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/May10/Rachmaninov...
> >
> > (BTW this is a typical example of a non-review: the actual review
> > consists of the sentence "The orchestra provides an excellent
> > reading of the score."
> > About the conductor only is said "studied under Valery Gergiev (of
> > Mariinsky fame) and will have also studied Rachmaninoff in his
> > training".)
> >
> > But what surprises are the remarks about cuts in this symphony.
> > Like "This performance reinstates a number of cuts that the
> > composer made after its first performance and so it is interesting
> > to hear the originally intended construction."
> >
> > Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least
> > at recordings) without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
>
> "reinstates..cuts" literally means: the cuts are used. I don't
> remember for sure, but I think Noseda takes the usual practice of
> reinstating *the music* that was cut, not the cuts themselves, so the
> ambiguity tends toward error here. One might say Noseda "opens up the
> cuts" or "reinstates the deleted music".
The reviewer also writes:
"so it is interesting to hear the originally intended construction."
Of course, that's interesting. But do we know if he heard it?
>
> Anyway, what I find interesting is that you've now found two instances
> of "blind" review at MusicWeb. "Blind" not in the sense that the
> reviewer doesn't know who he's reviewing; rather, "blind" in the sense
> of the editor making an assignment without considering if the reviewer
> is actually sympathetic to the music...i.e., appropriate for the task.
>
> --Jeff
It's interesting indeed ;-)
Result is BTW that the review itself is mute.
Kerrison
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder who else thinks that Previn's first LSO recording for RCA
(with the cuts) was a damn sight better performance than his later EMI
one, where the score was played complete.
Paul Goldstein
Kerrison says...
>
>On May 11, 7:48=A0pm, Taffy Brendel <taffy_Bren...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 11:23=A0am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen=F...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On MusicWeb a recording of Symphony No. 2 by Rachmaninov has been revie=
>wed:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 BBC Philharmonic Orchestra/Gianandrea Noseda
>> > =A0 =A0 rec. Bridgewater Hall, Manchester, England, 11, 12, 24 November=
> 2009. DDD
>> > =A0 =A0 CHANDOS CHAN 10589 [74:52
>>
>> >http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/May10/Rachmaninov...
>>
>> > (BTW this is a typical example of a non-review: the actual review consi=
>sts of
>> > the sentence "The orchestra provides an excellent reading of the score.=
>"
>> > About the conductor only is said "studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mari=
>insky
>> > fame) and will have also studied Rachmaninoff in his training".)
>>
>> > But what surprises are the remarks about cuts in this symphony.
>> > Like "This performance reinstates a number of cuts that the composer ma=
>de after
>> > its first performance and so it is interesting to hear the originally i=
>ntended
>> > construction."
>>
>> > Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at re=
>cordings)
>> > without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
>>
>> Yes, thank you for the non-review of the review.
>> In your spectacularly benighted fashion you continue
>> your incessant whining.
>>
>> Generally, it is the fashion to play/record the symphony uncut these
>> days.
>>
>> I can think of two recording since Previn that I believe are cut,
>> the Teldec Sanderling and I believe the Depriest are cut. =A0Slatkin
>> does not take the 1st movement exposition repeat in his new
>> recording (yes, I know this is not a cut).
>>
>> Taffy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I wonder who else thinks that Previn's first LSO recording for RCA
>(with the cuts) was a damn sight better performance than his later EMI
>one, where the score was played complete.
You can say that about all of Previn's first recordings for RCA vis-a-vis
whatever pedestrian-to-boring remake(s) he made for other labels. A box set of
Previn's RCA recordings, expertly remastered, would be of great value.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>>
>> I wonder who else thinks that Previn's first LSO recording for RCA
>> (with the cuts) was a damn sight better performance than his later EMI
>> one, where the score was played complete.
>
> You can say that about all of Previn's first recordings for RCA vis-a-vis
> whatever pedestrian-to-boring remake(s) he made for other labels. A box set of
> Previn's RCA recordings, expertly remastered, would be of great value.
>
I've never heard that first recording, though you are not the first
person whose opinion I've read which preferred to the EMI.
The RCA Walton 1st, of course, blows away its successor and practically
every other performance released before or since. I just hope some day
someone makes as good a performance in better sound. And yes, a set like
Paul describes would have a buyer in me as well.
Bob Harper
Heck51
>
> The RCA Walton 1st, of course, blows away its successor and practically
> every other performance released before or since.>>>
Yup, that's a great recording. best I've heard of that great work.
Sol L. Siegel
news:e85c1$4be9a0bf$5ed13b3d$10...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:
> Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at
> recordings) without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
IIRC, it was Kletzki/OSR on London/Decca that brought the uncut symphony to
the US catalog.
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Stan Punzel
As much as I do like the EMI recording, the earlier RCA is the one I
turn to. I wish that all of his early RCAs were readily available.
Stan Punzel
wanwan
Not me. The composer approved cuts are hideous. I've been watching the
Ormandy/Philly video and just looking over the shoulders of the
violinists at the parts on the stands...the score is cut to shreds. So
much glorious music is lost with the cuts.
-----------------
Eric
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:631cc97c-0c58-48fc-b05c-
4765dd...@o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> I wonder who else thinks that Previn's first LSO recording for RCA
> (with the cuts) was a damn sight better performance than his later EMI
> one, where the score was played complete.
There's a live Rachmaninoff Symphony #2 with Previn and Pittsburgh that's
been floating around the trading world for a while. It's about 62 minutes
long and reportedly opens up ALL cuts. Does anybody have a performance date?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Gerard
In the same league: Shostakovich symphony 5. Previn's remake on EMI could be
missed.
The Historian
I might be able to offer some insight here.
In response to a challenge the owner of Musicweb offered in January to
another poster here I contacted them about a position as a reviewer.
As far as I can tell, there is no process of "assigning" recordings to
reviewers. Instead, a list of available recordings is distributed and
reviewers select what they want. This method is consistent with other
magazines, online and print, I've written for - when I was writing for
Correspondence Chess News nearly a decade ago, for example, we
received a book on some chess opening, and it was offered to whoever
wanted to review it.
You might criticize the reviewer for his work, but I think it's a bit
harsh to chide the editor for not 'assigning' a 'sympathetic'
reviewer. An editor has to work with the talent he has. Not everyone
can bring the passion they feel for certain music to the written word,
unfortunately. Mr. Walker appears to suffer from that.
Kerrison
>
> - Show quoted text -
I might also add the splendid version of Tchaikovsky's "Little
Russian" Symphony which Previn did for RCA yet never re-recorded. On
the other hand, his Vaughan Williams cycle was somewhat up-and-down
but I've always thought his "Sinfonia Antartica" one of the best,
probably because it derived from film music, in which genre Previn
made his career.
herman
> An editor has to work with the talent he has. Not everyone
> can bring the passion they feel for certain music to the written word,
> unfortunately. Mr. Walker appears to suffer from that.
This guy writes that type of benighted prose I recall "reviewese".
Pretty much every paragraph could be revised and condensed back to one
or two sentences, just cutting all the fancy circumlocution. The irony
is that these amateurs think this is the way professionals write,
giving pleasure to their readers, whereas the obverse is the case.
This kind of prose is a cringe from start to finish and no one would
get a job writing this way.
I'll give an example:
"A certain strength in this recording lies in its leader, Yuri
Torchinsky, who will be very much at home with this Russian composer.
It also does not go unnoticed that Italian conductor, Gianandrea
Noseda, studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mariinsky fame) and will have
also studied Rachmaninoff in his training."
becomes:
"Conductor Gianandrea Noseda studied under Valery Gergiev of the
Mariinsky."
And of course mr Len of MusicWeb has the gall to sollicit donations
for MusicWeb, the fons et origo of Hattogate.
The Historian
> On 12 mai, 14:41, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An editor has to work with the talent he has. Not everyone
> > can bring the passion they feel for certain music to the written word,
> > unfortunately. Mr. Walker appears to suffer from that.
>
> This guy writes that type of benighted prose I recall "reviewese".
> Pretty much every paragraph could be revised and condensed back to one
> or two sentences, just cutting all the fancy circumlocution. The irony
> is that these amateurs think this is the way professionals write,
> giving pleasure to their readers, whereas the obverse is the case.
> This kind of prose is a cringe from start to finish and no one would
> get a job writing this way.
Actually, many people do. Unfortunately.
> I'll give an example:
>
> "A certain strength in this recording lies in its leader, Yuri
> Torchinsky, who will be very much at home with this Russian composer.
> It also does not go unnoticed that Italian conductor, Gianandrea
> Noseda, studied under Valery Gergiev (of Mariinsky fame) and will have
> also studied Rachmaninoff in his training."
>
> becomes:
>
> "Conductor Gianandrea Noseda studied under Valery Gergiev of the
> Mariinsky."
I don't disagree with your analysis of the prose style, or Gerard's
description of it as a "non-review." It's a puff- piece that needs to
have the air let out of it. Say what you like about opinionated
critics like David Hurwitz, but he'd never write such a lukewarm pink-
tea and crumpets article.
francis
> "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksenþ@hotmail.com> wrote innews:e85c1$4be9a0bf$5ed13b3d$10...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:
>
> > Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at
> > recordings) without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
>
> IIRC, it was Kletzki/OSR on London/Decca that brought the uncut symphony to
> the US catalog.
>
> --
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Sometime back on this group there was a similar thread to which I
contributed some comments and an opinion. In summary, I don’t think
Rachmaninoff himself ever made cuts in the second symphony—the last
time he conducted it was in Moscow in October 1914 on an otherwise all-
Liadov program. We don’t know when cuts, composer-sanctioned or not,
began to occur in performances of the Second. Its champions in the
teens, besides the composer, included, among others Altschuler,
Nikitsch, Siloti, Max Fiedler (whose reading SR particularly liked),
Stokowski and Koussevitsky. We do know that the first set of cuts
the composer explicitly sanctioned were those in the Sokoloff/
Cleveland Orchestra recording—and those cuts are less severe than
those which came to be regarded as composer-sanctioned—Ormandy’s.
But when conductors asked him which cuts he would prefer (to Ormandy
he’d said he prefer no cuts—but then relented)—he would direct them to
follow Sokoloff’s recording. A three word telegram to Detroit
Symphony conductor Ossip Gabrilowitsch survives stating: “USE RECORD’S
CUTS”
That said, after living with the e minor symphony for forty-four
years, I no longer have a preference regarding cuts. There are great
performances of both varieties. If it doesn’t bore me, if the first
movement engages the imagination, the made scherzo terrifies, the
third movement leaves no dry seat in the house and the finale gets
everybody on their feet, that’s good enough for me. (I enjoy very much
the Ormandy videotaped performance from late in his career that Eric
finds so disconcerting.) The afore mention Kletzki'/Suisse Romande &
the several live Mitropoulos NY Phil performances remain my own
personal favorites--but there are several dozen at least that I think
highly of. Let me also take this opportunity to remind one of our
archivist/benefactors of a promise to upload the first (mono) Ormandy/
Philadelphia recording—and maybe the Massimo Freccia/Baltimore?
Lastly, for your consideration in this context, a few days ago I came
across the following from the New York Times of Nov 13, 1910. In
context, the composer’s first American tour occurred from November
1909 to February 1910. The most famous occurrences of that tour were
the performances of the Third Piano Concerto in NY, first with Walter
Damrosch the NY Symphony and then with Mahler and the Philharmonic.
But he also conducted a lot on the tour—including conducting the
Boston Symphony and Philadelphia Orchestra in the e minor symphony—the
only times he conducted it in the western hemisphere. Altschuler, who
met SR at the boat in Boston on his arrival—has made one obvious error—
the composer’s nervous breakdown occurred following the premier of his
first symphony—he was doing fine and at his most productive in the
1908-10—the years following the composition of the symphony. But I
don’t doubt Altschuler’s recounting of SR revising his approach to the
symphony with regard to tempi:
“The first subscription concert of the series to be given this season
by the Russian Symphony Orchestra, Modest Altschuler, conductor, will
take place next Thursday evening, Nov. 17 (1910) in Carnegie Hall…The
feature of the programme will be Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony.
Although he directed this last work two seasons ago at one of the
Russian Symphony concerts, Mr. Altschuler declares that his
interpretation at the approaching concert will be wholly different
from his reading of the score when it was first played. This is due,
it is announced, to Rachmaninoff’s altered viewpoint of his own
composition. Shortly after he wrote the symphony he suffered a
breakdown from which he did not recover for two years. When he
visited America last year he spent many evenings with Mr. Altschuler
and at that time played on the piano the work which the Russian
Symphony Orchestra will play next Thursday evening. His
interpretation was so wholly different from the original tempi marks
in the score that Mr. Alschuler asked his reasons for the radical
changes he had made. Rachmaninoff replied that the work as he now saw
it took on renewed color and life through a more brilliant
interpretation which called for faster tempi.”
herman
> If it doesn’t bore me, if the first
> movement engages the imagination, the made scherzo terrifies, the
> third movement leaves no dry seat in the house and the finale gets
> everybody on their feet, that’s good enough for me.
Excuse me? No dry seat? Surely people going to a Rachmaninoff symphony
wear proper diapers.
Rugby
> Excuse me? No dry seat? Surely people going to a Rachmaninoff symphony
> wear proper diapers.\
Uncut it is a long work, so I guess it Depends on the cuts ?
Rugby
Gerard
> On May 12, 9:35 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Excuse me? No dry seat? Surely people going to a Rachmaninoff
> > symphony wear proper diapers.\
>
> Uncut it is a long work,
Not really: around one hour. The "short version" is around 54 minutes. The very,
very short version around 50 minutes.
O
<e20ee325-2377-4cd3...@e35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Rugby <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no reason for concertgoers to be Pampered. If they want Luvs
and Huggies, let them go somewhere else.
-Owen
herman
> In article
> <e20ee325-2377-4cd3-bdbd-9cc62f5e2...@e35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:35 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Excuse me? No dry seat? Surely people going to a Rachmaninoff symphony
> > > wear proper diapers.\
>
> > Uncut it is a long work, so I guess it Depends on the cuts ?
>
> There's no reason for concertgoers to be Pampered. If they want Luvs
> and Huggies, let them go somewhere else.
>
> -Owen
I'm more worried about folks like Francis above who apparently think a
Pee Ovation is called for, in the case of Rachmaninoff.
Bob Lombard
>> movement engages the imagination, the made scherzo terrifies, the
>> third movement leaves no dry seat in the house and the finale gets
>
> Excuse me? No dry seat? Surely people going to a Rachmaninoff symphony
> wear proper diapers.
Congratulations, Herman. You unerringly went to the heart of Francis'
post.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
SG
> Uncut it is a long work, so I guess it depends on the cuts ?
"People compose yourselves. This is a bris. We are performing a bris
here, not a burlesque show. This is not a school play! This is not a
baggy pants farce! This is a bris."
The Mohel in "Seinfeld"
td
Perhaps a rationale for restoring the cuts would be more useful than
just gratuitous gushing.
TD
td
wrote:
Boult is shorter , I seem to recall. 45'?
TD
td
herman
>
> Perhaps a rationale for restoring the cuts would be more useful than
> just gratuitous gushing.
>
> TD
not if the audience rewards one with Golden Showers.
Dontait...@aol.com
> "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote innews:e85c1$4be9a0bf$5ed13b3d$10...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:
>
> > Wasn't it very usal and common to perform this symphony (at least at
> > recordings) without cuts since Previn's recording for EMI?
>
> IIRC, it was Kletzki/OSR on London/Decca that brought the uncut symphony to
> the US catalog.
>
> --
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
I found the Kletzki/Suisse Romande Orchestra recording on Decca/
London stunning. First, because of the intensity, grip, and emotional
eloquence of the performance. Second, because of the amazing change
Kletzki had evidently wrought in the sound and playing of the Suisse
Romande Orchestra. The old character, sometimes rhythmically slack and
tonally thin, was gone, replaced by robust color and strength. An
amazing recording. (I don't remember anything about the cuts issue.)
Incidentally: Kletzki seems to have somehow influenced musicians to
play with an extremely rich, almost saturated sound. It could have
been just his personality and presence. Of course perhaps he just
asked for it. But then, they'd have had to decide to do it. I heard
him achieve something like that in concert with the Chicago Symphony.
The orchestra sounded changed. Almost sonically thick, frankly.
Don Tait
francis
Don,
Was that around 1971? I heard Kletzki in Cleveland do the Borodin
2nd--and that is exactly the way I'd describe the sound he got from
the Orchestra in Severance. Though his was the first recording of the
Rachmaninoff 2nd I'd heard played without cuts, it was not that first
performance I'd heard. That was Svetlanov with one of the Russian
Orchestras (USSR Symphony I think) on tour in the Eastman Theatre in
Rochester on March 17, 1967. It was St. Patrick's Day and Svetlanov
sported a green carnation. And it a classic Svetlanov approach to
Rachmaninoff--a lush sound, and with driving, highly-accented
phrases.FC
Dontait...@aol.com
> On May 12, 3:39 pm, Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
No. the Kletzki/CSO concert was circa 1964. An all-French music
program, but the orchestra's sound seemed changed nonetheless.
Don T.
TareeDawg
I have long thought of Previn's RCA Antartica as the best. As a cycle
Previn's RVW still holds up exceptionally well. In fact there is little
that is not very fine from Previn in his RCA days.
Ray Hall, Taree
Ray Hall, Taree
Sol L. Siegel
news:f06db237-9316-434f...@o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>> > Uncut it is a long work,
>>
>> Not really: around one hour. The "short version" is around 54
>> minutes. The very, very short version around 50 minutes.
>
> Boult is shorter , I seem to recall. 45'?
As always, it varies by conductor.
Wallenstein/LAPO, IIRC, is around 42' - and in its time it was rated
among the best versions. I'm certain that the cut stereo Ormandy and
Previn are both under 50'. Paray (a fine version) was somewhere around
46. Some fine uncut versions are closer to 55 than 60, or even faster.
OTOH, you have the famous/infamous Rozhdestvensky (which I like), who,
with the first-movement repeat, takes 66.
Sol L. Siegel
news:555d9c31-d37f-4577...@o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>> The composer approved cuts are hideous. I've been watching
>> the Ormandy/Philly video and just looking over the shoulders of the
>> violinists at the parts on the stands...the score is cut to shreds.
>> So much glorious music is lost with the cuts.
>
> Perhaps a rationale for restoring the cuts would be more useful than
> just gratuitous gushing.
I can take or leave the cuts in the middle movements myself. But there
are two places where I would always leave the music alone. There is a
big build-up to the climax of the first-movement development that gets
axed in the cut version, and a few measures of cool-down afterward.
That climax is powerful in the cut version, buy with the extra build-up
it becomes literally orgasmic. (Whenever I hear it, during the calm
section after the cymbal crash and the die-down, I find myself thinking,
"This is where they lie back for a smoke.") The other is the
recapitulation of the finale - I want all of it, every note. The finale
is a journey, and without that long segment that gets omitted in the cut
version the sight of the final goal seems far too abrupt for my taste.
Kerrison
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stokowski is mentioned earlier, so has anyone here followed his 'live'
1946 Hollywood Bowl performance with a score (Music and Arts CD-769)?
It lasts 50:56 but I feel sure I've read somewhere that it wasn't cut,
which would be rather surprising if true.
CharlesSmith
> Some fine uncut versions are closer to 55 than 60, or even faster.
Pletnev/RNO take 51:30 uncut (but no 1st mov repeat), which is fine by
me.
Charles