YOUR Ten Great Opera Recordings
LastRedLeafFalls
It's not that there aren't aspects of the below that I find less than ideal,
but I have never heard a "perfect" recording of any opera, nor have I seen such
a performance on film or in the theater. Some just come closer than others. I
love each of these performances as a totality, and when I listen to them,
whatever shortcomings I perceive aurally or recognize intellectually, I don't
look at it as though I'm having to "live with" anything about them. I never
have found these other than deeply satisfying and rewarding traversals.
Something that sets these ten apart from other worthy candidates -- recordings
also satisfying, and with which I would have a hard time parting -- is that
their very flaws, whether over time or from the first, have become endearing,
compelling, in some cases even fascinating ones, rather than more troubling to
me. (An attempt to illustrate my point: While Rysanek's isn't an ideal timbre
for Desdemona in the _Otello_ below, and while I do wish she could get through
three consecutive bars without some struggle with/deviation from the written
pitch, I could never be without her Desdemona, for it is the most passionate,
multifaceted, *womanly* assumption of that role I've ever experienced on disc
or on film, and shows up many a prettier-sounding rival as bland and
dramatically obvious. That, and her voice lines up handsomely against that of
Vickers in their duets; it's a striking contrast.)
Here's what keeps this from being a true "deserted island" list: My favorite
opera is not on it. I regret that I cannot find a single recording of what I
consider the most profound and beautiful opera ever written -- certainly a
greater work than a few that *are* represented -- that I consider good enough
for inclusion. And it isn't for lack of looking, believe me. I was tempted
simply to put the least-objectionable recording of the work on my list, just to
get it in there, and chuck something else out to make room. I resisted, with
difficulty.
Anyway, in chronological order, oldest first:
Verdi: _Simon Boccanegra_ (Tibbett, Rethberg, Martinelli, Pinza; Panizza)
[Myto]
Puccini: _La Bohème_ (Björling, de los Angeles, Merrill, Reardon, Tozzi;
Beecham) [EMI]
Verdi: _Falstaff_ (Gobbi, Schwarzkopf, Alva, Moffo, Barbieri; Karajan) [EMI]
R. Strauss: _Der Rosenkavalier_ (Schwarzkopf, Edelmann, Ludwig, Wächter,
Stich-Randall; Karajan) [EMI]
Mozart: _Don Giovanni_ (Wächter, Sutherland, Alva, Schwarzkopf, Taddei;
Giulini) [EMI]
Verdi: _Otello_ (Vickers, Rysanek, Gobbi; Serafin) [RCA]
Purcell: _Dido and Aeneas_ (Baker, Clark, Herincx, Sinclair; Lewis) [Decca]
Wagner: _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ (Adam, Ridderbusch, Donath, Kollo,
Evans; Karajan) [EMI]
Verdi: _Aida_ (Caballé, Cossotto, Domingo, Ghiaurov, Cappuccilli; R. Muti)
[EMI]
Mozart: _Cosi fan tutte_ (Gens, Fink, Gura, Boone, Spagnoli, Oddone; Jacobs)
[Harmonia Mundi]
- Todd K
Andy Evans
Fidelio - old Toscanini LPs
Boris Godunov - London/Bolshoi/Melik-Pasheev.(LPs)
Wagner - Meistersinger, Solti 2 Chicago SO
Wagner - Gotterdammerung - Solti
Ravel - L'Enfant et les Sortileges - Maazel or Ansermet. Is this classed as an
opera?
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Philippa Ballard
"A Streetcar Named Desire" by Andre Previn.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:883b0517.0301130543.48db9625
@posting.google.com:
> What's the world's WORST opera...?
>
> "A Streetcar Named Desire" by Andre Previn.
Not even close in the subcategory of Tennessee Williams-related operas.
You haven't heard _Lord Byron's Love Letter_ by Rafaello de Banfield.
--
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
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
David7Gable
Pleasantly surprised to find Todd K enthusing about Rysanek's Desdemona,
although the aged Serafin's lack of energy and the bad orchestral playing rule
the famous RCA Otello with Vickers and Gobbi out for me. Not that I don't like
it, but it would never make a top ten list of mine.
I'm not sure I can list what I think are the ten greatest opera recordings of
all time. All I can do is list some I think are terrific for one reason or
another--or should I say for multiple reasons, one of which is always the
conducting. Intense involvement is another. And singers with--brains may not
be quite the word, although I have nothing against brains in a singer--but a
certain kind of musical intelligence and persuasiveness in phrasing. A couple
of these recordings are not commercial recordings but "live." A few comments
follow.
1. Donizetti: L'elisir d'amore w/Gueden, di Stefano, Capecchi, Corena,
Orchestra of the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino, Molinari-Pradelli (Decca)
2. Donizetti: Don Pasquale w/Rizzoli, Munteanu, Capecchi, Valdengo, Teatro di
San Carlo, Molinari-Pradelli (Philips)
3. Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro w/della Casa, Gueden, Danco, Siepi, Pöll, Vienna
Philharmonic, Erich Kleiber (Decca)
4. Mozart: Cosi fan tutte w/Della Casa, Ludwig, Loose, Dermota, Kunz,
Schoeffler, Vienna Philharmonic, Böhm (Decca)
5. Spontini: La vestale w/Gencer, Mattiucci, Merolla, Bruson, Ferrin, Teatro
Massimo di Palermo, Previtali ("live")
6. Spontini: Agnes von Hohenstaufen (sung in Italian as Agnese di
Hohenstaufen) w/Udovick, Corelli, Orchestra of the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino,
Gui ("live")
7. Verdi: Macbeth w/Rysanek, Bergonzi, Warren, Hines, Metropolitan Opera,
Leinsdorf
8. Verdi: Luisa Miller w/Moffo, Verrett, Bergonzi, MacNeil, Tozzi, Flagello,
RCA Italiana Opera Orchestra, Cleva
9. Verdi: Rigoletto w/Berger, Merriman, Peerce, Warren, Tajo, RCA Victor
Orchestra, Cellini
10. Verdi: Un Ballo in Maschera w/Nelli, Peerce, Merrill, NBC SO, Toscanini
(RCA)
11. Verdi: Falstaff w/Nelli, Stich-Randall, Elmo, Madasi, Valdengo, Guarrera,
NBC SO, Toscanini (RCA)
12. Wagner: Die Meistersinger w/Gueden, Treptow, Dermota, Schoeffler, Vienna
Philharmonic, Knappertsbusch (Decca)
13. Berg: Lulu w/Stratas, Minton, Riegel, Mazura, Opéra de Paris, Boulez (DGG)
14. Mussorgsky: Khovanschina w/Lipovsek, Atlantov, Haugland et al, Vienna
State Opera, Abbado (DGG)
15. Beethoven: Fidelio w/Rysanek, Seefried, Haefliger, Fischer-Dieskau,
Frick, Berlin Philharmonic, Fricsay (DGG)
With the exception of the last two, all of these recordings, even Toscanini's,
owe their inclusion to styles of phrasing that have all but disappeared from
the performance of so-called classical music. The recordings with Francesco
Molinari-Pradelli, Renato Cellini, and Fernando Previtali (whom I very often
don't like), and Fausto Cleva (whom I don't place on quite the same exalted
level as Molinari-Pradelli or Celllini at their best) demonstrate that the
Italian so-called "routiniers" of the 50's were more distinctive in their
phrasing and had more responsive orchestral musicians at their disposal than
the superstar Italian-opera conductors of a later generation (e.g., Abbado and
Muti). The same is true for that master of Italianate phrasing, Erich
Leinsdorf. However odd it may seem, his style of conducting is very much of a
piece with the Italian conductors of the 50's listed here, and he's far more
persuasive with an oom-pah-pah accompaniment than Karajan, Solti, or Carlos
Kleiber, as are all of the Italians on my list.
The Donizetti recordings capture the incomparable Molinari-Pradelli, at his
very best. In primo ottocento repertory,
the meter projected by the oom-pah-pah-style accompanimental patterns--the
polonaise, bolero, and waltz rhythms--has to be projected fairly strictly while
the melody is allowed room to breathe, and Molinari-Pradelli knew just how to
strike the perfect balance between these conflicting demands. He conducts the
more sentimental bits in these Donizetti comedies with an incomparable amabile
touch and makes the effervescent bits really fizz. The Gui Agnese is one of
the two best-conducted performances of a post-Gluck opera I've ever heard (the
other being a live Von Matacic Spontini Fernando Cortez). As for the Ballo and
Falstaff, I think they're Toscanini's most successful NBC SO recordings of
Verdi operas, the Traviata being overdriven, Nelli being overparted by the
title role of Aida, Otello . . . I'm not sure why I think Otello is a little
less good, but it's not because of Vinay. The distinctive and vigorous Renato
Cellini is even better on the RCA Rigoletto than in the even more famous
Trovatore with Milanov, Barbieri, Bjoerling, and Warren. (Only Milanov's
contribution keeps that set off my list. Past her prime, she drags behind the
beat and sinks below the pitch a bit too often.)
Moving along to Vienna, we find the same kind of rapport between the Vienna
Philharmonic of the 1950's and Erich Kleiber, Karl Böhm (whose Cosi I love so
much I can almost forgive him for what might almost be called an abridged
performance because of the cuts), and Hans Knappertsbusch, the same instinct
for phrasing distinctively as in the Italian opera performances listed here.
I've never been able to understand how anybody could dismiss Knappertsbusch out
of hand as a kind of hack. In Wagner, at least, his shaping of everything from
the level of the individual motive on up to the large-scale flow is masterly.
He's un-self-consciously attentive at every moment and never misses a trick.
Everything is given its own weight from the nuance on up to the massive
effect--even moreso than with Erich Kleiber's Figaro, which coming from me is
saying a lot, because similar virtues exhibited in a different style are
characteristic of E. Kleiber's Figaro and to only an infinitesimally lesser
extent Böhm's Cosi.
There is something at least a little relaxed about parts of all of these Vienna
recordings, although there is always enough energy in them and they're not too
relaxed. Fricsay's Fidelio whipcrack Fidelio is another thing entirely, but
then Beethoven benefits from the approach more than Mozart on the one hand or
Wagner on the other. In any case, this performance is sheer undistilled
essence of white hot Beethoven. It's sort of a cross between the virtues of
Klemperer on the one hand, Toscanini on the other, and better than both.
Haefliger for me is the weak link here, but at least he's no slouch as a
musician. But I don't like his voice, which is also too small for Florestan.
I have no problem with Fi-Di's Pizarro, and Rysanek is as over the top as
Fricsay.)
And what ensemble casts were assembled for most of these sets. In the
Donizetti, Mozart, and Wagner performances, and in the Rigoletto and Falstaff,
not only is everybody musical, expressive, involved, attentive to the words,
and so on, but the ensemble interactions are a thing to behold, constituting a
marvelous entity in their own right. Within the framework of the composer's
notated rhythms, these actors hang on each others words and respond to them
with an enviable "naturalness." Not an automaton in the bunch but "real
people." (In Boulez's and Abbado's performances, everything is in place, but
the ensemble interactions are not a distinctive entity in their own right in
quite the same way, but only the byproduct of a supremely disciplined
performance. Not that the singers don't listen to one another, but . . . I'm
not sure that I can convey what it is that I hear in this "ensemble" dimension
in the 50's performances listed, but it's there.)
Not that I'm dismissive of Abbado and Boulez. Abbado's affinity with
Mussorgsky is better demonstrated by his live Vienna Khovanschina than by his
duller canned Berlin Boris, and Boulez's overwhelming Lulu may owe some of its
tremendous energyand sense of involvement to the sense of occasion that must
have inhered in the premiere of the completed opera--and to the fact that the
recording was made between performances during the premiere run.
Some of the singers on these sets are great favorites of mine, including
Gueden, Della Casa, and Gencer, who, together with de los Angeles, are among my
absolute favorite sopranos. I like Rysanek's over the top involvement, too.
(Callas's, too. She should be on this list.) I certainly prefer Rysanek as
Lady Macbeth to a singer with a more beautiful voice but less imagination like
Cossotto. It's unfortunate that the supremely musical Petre Munteanu, who
sings Ernesto in Don Pasquale for Molinari-Pradelli, is not better known. A
favorite of Scherchen's, he recorded a certain amount of Lieder, and his voice
is as sweet as he is sensitive. Capecchi, Valdengo, and Tajo are supremely
intelligent singing actors of a type that used to be mass produced in Italy
along side a dumber variety of singer, and Rizzoli, Molinari-Pradelli's Norina
in Don Pasquale is the female equivalent: her interactions with Valdengo and
Capecchi are not to be believed.
The intensely involved Jan Peerce sings his heart out in a couple of Verdi
recordings listed here, and I'm one of those people who really loves his voice.
(He had more slancio than Bergonzi, whom I nevertheless admire.) The Luisa
probably features the most sheerly gorgeous singing of any of these sets--what
a gorgeous voice Cornell MacNeil had!--and it features Moffo's finest recorded
performance. She truly rises to the occasion here. Like many a Leonard Warren
fan, I love Warren's sumptuous voice, his authentic Verdi baritone, but I also
think he's underrated as a vocal actor. He may not be in a league with
Capecchi or Taddei in that regard but he phrases beautifully. Treptow was
never a truly great singer--he certainly never possessed a great voice, his
vocal production is often strained and awkward, and there are parts of his
Walther von Stolzing I can't listen to. But he sings with such passion and
gusto, such conviction and sensitivity to the words he's singing, that I'm able
to overlook sounds that will drive many another opera fancier away in horror.
There's nothing to complain about in Dermota's intelligent and sweet-voiced
David, Gueden's perfect Eva, or Schöffler's thoughtful Sachs, although
Schöffler is in fresher voice on a couple of live Meistersinger's from the
40's.
Who am I forgetting? Erna Berger. She has perhaps the most perfect vocal
technique of any of the singers listed, and , more important, she was a
marvelous musician. I have ambivalent feelings about Franco Corelli, but what
he lacked in subtlety--and he's wasn'tt invariably unsubtle--he made up for
with an intense and narcissistic involvement. In the Agnese, he's in fresh and
youthful voice, and his phrasing in the romanza Heinrich/Enrico sings in
prison, if not quite idiomatic--Spontini was not Puccini--is not to be
believed. Corelli really did have the instinct to shape a phrase, even if his
phrases all too often got bogged down in the excessive portamenti with which he
insured a seamless legato. And speaking of superstar tenors, Di Stefano's
signal traits were an ingenuous earnestness and intensity, traits ideal for
Nemorino in Elixir, his signature role.
I wish there were some Berlioz on this list, but I don't know any Berlioz opera
that has been as well conducted on records as the performances listed here.
(There are always the Damnation's of Markevitch and Munch.) Josephine Veasey's
Didon and Béatrice certainly belong here, since she's the Callas or Gencer of
Berlioz mezzos. Speaking of mezzos, Barbieri, Berganza, and Fassbänder all
belong here, too. They're great favorites of mine. I also love some of
Haydn's operas (although not the two late seria), but Dorati's very fine
recordings, good as they are, don't feature the same levels of intense
involvement as the sets listed here.
-david gable
David7Gable
>
>Not even close in the subcategory of Tennessee Williams-related operas.
>You haven't heard _Lord Byron's Love Letter_ by Rafaello de Banfield.
And surely Cilea's Adriana Lecouvreur is at least in the running.
(L'Arlesiana's better.)
-david gable
David7Gable
When I wrote the following:
>With the exception of the last two, all of these recordings, even
>Toscanini's,
>owe their inclusion to styles of phrasing that have all but disappeared from
>the performance of so-called classical music.
I had not yet added Fricsay's Fidelio to my list, and "the last two" refers to
the Abbado Khovanschina and Boulez Lulu.
I should have added Toscanini's Boheme and the Rethberg/Tibbett/Panizza
Boccanegra that Todd K mentions to my list, too, but it's already 15 long.
-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20030113214553...@mb-bk.aol.com:
When did Tennessee write those?
David7Gable
>> (L'Arlesiana's better.)
>
>When did Tennessee write those?
Is THAT why Adriana is so bad! Actually, I placed Adriana in the running in
the worst opera category, not in the worst T Williams-related opera category,
but I'd be happy to see it in any worst opera category.
-david gable
Arthur La Porta
Have I lost my mind, or did this guy drone on and on about how his
favorite opera is not on the list without ever mentioning what his
favorite opera is?
LastRedLeafFalls
>
>Have I lost my mind, or did this guy drone on and on about how his
>favorite opera is not on the list without ever mentioning what his
>favorite opera is?
He did.
- That Guy
allankohrman
1. Don Giovanni: Pinza, Kipnis, Bampton, Novotna, Sayao, Harrell, Kullman,
Cordon, Walter, Metropolitan Opera, March 7, 1942
For me this is the operatic performance of the century. The only studio
recording that is worthy of the opera is Gardiner's.
2. Marriage of Figaro: Kleiber, for the same reasons David Gable stated.
3. Die Zauberflote: Szell, Salzburg Festival 1957. Who would have thought
Szell would serve up so much joy?
4. Cosi Fan Tutte: Karajan, early 50s. A model ensemble performance.
Practically the only recording by Schwarzkopf and Karajan that I like.
5. Il Trovatore: Milanov Bjoerling, early 50s. Zinka is past her prime by
only a bit, I think. This is the best Verdi recording I know.
6. Ballo in Maschera: Milanov, Bjoerling, Panizza, Met Opera. early 40s.
The best Verdi live performance.
7. Falstaff: Toscanini 1947. Yet another great ensemble performance,
featuring Toscanini's most magical conducting. But the relatively new
Abbado recording is equally good, as are the various live performances
featuring Leonard Warren.
8. Rigoletto: Berger, Peerce, Warren, 1950. But how I wish Bjoerling had
been chosen to sing the Duke!
9.Barber of Seville: De Los Angeles, Gui.
But the later Berganza/Abbado recording is quite appealing.
10. La Boheme: De Los Angeles, Bjoerling, Beecham. The first act of this
recording is the music to play when you are hoping someone will fall in love
with you.
Allan Kohrman
Newton, MA
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I wish to consider live performances as well as studio recordings.
:
: 1. Don Giovanni: Pinza, Kipnis, Bampton, Novotna, Sayao, Harrell, Kullman,
: Cordon, Walter, Metropolitan Opera, March 7, 1942
:
: For me this is the operatic performance of the century.
Even more than Walter's recording of Act I of Die Walkuere?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"What I do object to is uninformed malicious pandering to low level
uncouthness, even if it comes from the holiest of lands, Israel!"
-- Kenneth Lane, Wagnerian Romantischer Heldenspammer
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:ONXU9.49721$Dn.9523@sccrnsc03:
> I wish to consider live performances as well as studio recordings.
>
> 1. Don Giovanni: Pinza, Kipnis, Bampton, Novotna, Sayao, Harrell,
> Kullman, Cordon, Walter, Metropolitan Opera, March 7, 1942
Olé Toledo!
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:b01jeo$dat$4...@news.iucc.ac.il:
> In article <ONXU9.49721$Dn.9523@sccrnsc03>, allankohrman
> <allank...@attbi.com> wrote:
>: I wish to consider live performances as well as studio recordings.
>:
>: 1. Don Giovanni: Pinza, Kipnis, Bampton, Novotna, Sayao, Harrell,
>: Kullman, Cordon, Walter, Metropolitan Opera, March 7, 1942
>:
>: For me this is the operatic performance of the century.
>
> Even more than Walter's recording of Act I of Die Walkuere?
I think Allan was referring specifically to live performances, at least in
this instance.
GMcNally
I'm sorry not to see a Don Giovanni recording listed. Do you have one
that you consider above the rest?
Jerry
David7Gable
>8. Rigoletto: Berger, Peerce, Warren, 1950. But how I wish Bjoerling had
>been chosen to sing the Duke!
Everybody says that, but I'm glad he wasn't the Duke. First of all, I've got
the terrific Bjoerling-Warren-Sodero Rigoletto on Naxos, and there's also his
commercial recording on RCA where Bjoerling at least is terrific. And finally,
I love Peerce's Duke.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Even more than Walter's recording of Act I of Die Walkuere?
Good as they are, I don't think Walter's Don Giovanni or Act I of Die Walkuere
is the greatest operatic performance of the century. They're good but
overrated. I think the singing from Lehmann, Melchior, and List is as good as
it gets, but as conducting I prefer Toscanini/Traubel/Melchior in Act I, Scene
3. And I don't think either Walter or Toscanini is as distinctive as
Knappertsbusch and Furtwaengler in Wagner.
-david gable
David7Gable
Jerry, you're the second person to ask me what my favorite Don Giovanni is.
And I'm not sure. I probably have more Don G's than any other opera:
Walter live Met 42 w/Pinza (Naxos)
Mitropoulos live Salzburg w/Siepi (Sony)
Furtwaengler w/Siepi (EMI)
Krips w/Siepi (Decca)
Leinsdorf w/Siepi (Decca)
Boehm live German language w/Della Casa and London (RCA)
Davis (Philips)
but none of these strikes me as being as successful a performance as the
Kleiber Figaro. Walter is fast, which I like, but insufficiently nuanced.
Mitropoulos is good but not as good as I had hoped and the sound's not as good
as I had hoped. Excellent cast, though. Furtwaengler is very good but on its
own Furtwaenglerian terms. Again an excellent cast. The Krips is good but
Krips himself is more lively in an early 50's Decca Abduction and therefore
comparatively disappointing here. Yet another excellent cast.
Leinsdorf is a sentimental favorite that I can't view objectively, having
learned the opera from this recording, but, heresy of heresies, Leinsdorf
strikes me as more distinctive than Walter. Nilsson can hardly be considered
an ideal Anna, though, although her fans will admire her performance as a tour
de force for so heavy a voice. Boehm's DG is in German and a bit heavy handed
at times. I also prefer Siepi or Pinza to London as the Don. The Davis is
very good as far as weights and tempi go but comparatively anonymous in its
phrasing, despite the trademark Davis enthusiasm. And his Don and Leporello
are decent rather than great. (I perversely admire Arroyo's erratic but
perfectly intentioned Donna Anna.)
If I could only keep one Don Giovanni, it would probably be the Krips. It
wouldn't be Walter or Davis or Boehm. I don't like the famous Giulini
recording either. It's decent enough but vastly overrated. I rather like the
old Cetra recording with Max Rudolf or did many years ago, and I really want to
hear Leyla Gencer's Donna Anna and Donna Elvira.
-david gable
Elizabeth Hubbell
While utterly deploring the entirely uncalled-for tone of the question
(shades of the sick and dying rec.music.opera), I willingly concede that
I am just as interested -- sincerely -- in which opera "That Guy";-)
finds he prefers now above all others. I would be especially interested
-- please -- in which recordings of that opera he finds himself most
drawn to, while at the same time finding each of them still wanting in
one respect or another.
As a hopefully successful way of inducing a response, I'll begin by
saying that I myself go back and forth between Meistersinger and
Parsifal. Meistersinger seems the more perfect from beginning to end,
musically, even though the middle lines of Sachs's final peroration seem
rather regrettable, IMO; Parsifal's music in much of the first scene of
Act I can be variable, but all of Act II, Scene 2 and Act III, Scene 1
seem, IMO, more inspired than any other two scenes that have ever
emerged from any composer's pen, including Wagner's himself, including
anything in Meistersinger, excepting the great quintet. Both works have
always struck me as two inspired examples of poetic drama as well.
(FWIW, three other operas that have fascinated me nearly as much have
been Berlioz' Les Troyens, Tchaikovsky's Eugen Onegin and Beethoven's
Fidelio.)
Unfortunately, no Parsifal or Meistersinger recording gives me
unequivocal satisfaction either.
Ideally, Parsifal needs the very sound of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
itself for a true appreciation if its score. This is heard at its most
incandescent in the '62 Knappertsbusch recording with Jess Thomas at his
considerable best and Irene Dalis. Unfortunately, both London and
Hotter seem too far past their best, IMO, to afford real pleasure. Kna
can be heard with a more consistent cast in the first unveiling of this
same Wieland Wagner production in '51, although Windgassen, while good
enough, is not as inspired or as plangent as Thomas, IMO, and Moedl,
whom I sometimes find thrilling, is at less than her best here, while
still potent. London, though, is excellent here, and I've rarely heard
a Gurnemanz to equal Weber. The other great Bayreuth set (on specialty
labels only) is the '53 Clemens Krauss performance with almost the same
cast, but with Vinay replacing Windgassen. Vinay is not as vocally
fresh/consistent as the (O.K.) Windgassen, but there are moments where
he is so poetically inspired that one can forgive much. I still
probably prefer Windgassen here, though. The full greatness of Moedl's
Kundry finally overwhelms in '53. I often wonder whether anyone has
ever entirely matched the abundance of insight and opulent tone she
brings to the role. Moedl was a very inconsistent vocalist, but when
she was at her greatest, as here, the twin virtues of searing
intelligence and rich and expressive sounds can seem well-nigh
incomparable.
For a more consistent cast than any of these, one must go outside
Bayreuth, which is a compromise for sure. I'd single out the Jordan and
Barenboim sets. Jordan is more consistent in sustaining mood and
narrative, but when Barenboim peaks -- as in the entire second scene of
Act II -- there is an electric charge and a feeling of psychological
movement that is matched only by Kna and (occasionally) Goodall. Jordan
is not in the same league. I might still feel happy exchanging
Barenboim's moments of sheer inspiration for Jordan's greater
consistency because the trio of the young Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton
and Robert Lloyd in the Jordan mesh so brilliantly together, IMO. In
the Barenboim, Matthias Hoelle can seem rather pale in dramatic profile
alongside Siegfried Jerusalem and Waltraud Meier. OTOH, Jordan's
Wolfgang Schoene makes nowhere near the same impact as Barenboim's Van
Dam.
For Meistersinger, I would second David Gable's praise of the
Schoeffler/Kna set as a triumph of ensemble (see his posting above).
The orchestral sonorities, though, are curiously attenuated in this set
(so-so sound quality), and, while Treptow's instrument is imposing
enough as an innate sound, it is the wrong kind of sound for Walther,
IMO. The ideal sense of easy abandon in the top notes is not just
musically and vocally needed in this part, it is dramatically needed as
well. The man is, above all, impetuous and fearless. Treptow's narrow
production does not help that, IMO (although I've certainly heard far
worse). Kna's set is a triumph of the "conversational", while the
second Kempe (EMI) is a triumph of warmth and that over-used term,
gemutlichkeit. Few, for instance, make the festive sounds at the
opening of Act II more inviting, and the cast itself is even finer than
the Kna in the smaller roles. Frantz, however, is not as mesmerizing a
Sachs as Schoeffler, although he's not bad, and as for Schock's Walther
(and I know I'm in a minority in this respect), his basic timbre may
suggest more of a Walther than Treptow's does, but, personally, I find
Schock even more strained at the top! Both Gueden (with Kna) and
Gruemmer (with Kempe) are superb. I'd be hard-pressed choosing between
the two.
The two great stereo sets (IMO) are the Kubelik and the second Solti
(with Chicago). Kubelik is as inviting as Kempe in many ways. His cast
is superb for the most part. Finally, here is a Walther (Sandor Konya)
who projects fearless, impetuous inspiration through the voice in the
way I always hope for. Beautiful tone, capable of inspired poetic
expression as well! Janowitz matches Gueden and Gruemmer in a number of
happy ways. I confess, though, I go hot and cold re Stewart's Sachs.
The character he projects is immediately arresting and distinct, and
he's an alert musician. However, after repeated hearings, one becomes
too aware of an (unintended) irascibility in this Sachs: a sense of
slightly too much exasperation over life's little foibles -- partly
brought about by occasional vocal effortfulness? -- and not enough of
that philosophical "Zen" quality that comes so naturally to Schoeffler.
It is in this latter quality where I find that the (somewhat underrated,
IMO) Hans Sachs of Jose Van Dam excells. Here is the reconciled
philosopher par excellence embodied with the utmost refinement and true
musicianship. For some, refinement may not be the first thing that
comes to mind when it comes to Sachs, but I find that it fits in this
case. Van Dam seems most persuasive. His Walther (Ben Heppner), while
not as impetuous as Konya, is equally attractive in other ways. One can
believe that a highly sensitive artist is being portrayed through
Heppner's voice, and Heppner offers beauty and exaltation in the many
rewrites of the Prize Song verses. Mattila's Eva has its special
beauties as well, although, as an interpretation, she brings more to the
role today (possibly even more vocal richness as well?). Van Dam's
conductor, Georg Solti in his last recording, does not, however, bring
as much naturalness and geniality to the score as Kna, Kempe and
Kubelik. There is something "buttoned up" in Solti's reading that
detracts from a few of the inviting qualities one has come to expect in
this score. For that, one has to go elsewhere.
All five nominated Parsifals and and all four nominated Meistersingers
can give one a reasonably rich experience in which there is ever more to
enjoy in Wagner's genius than to regret in occasional shortcomings of
any individual performer (or even of any conductor). But are any of
these sets self-sufficient in the way that a strong nominee for Great
Opera Recording should be? Probably not, IMO.
With sincere hopes that this may occasion a response from
"LastRedLeafFalls", I am
Cordially,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
[courtesy cc of this rec.music.classical.recordings posting also sent to
"LastRedLeafFalls"]
Dan
> Puccini: _La Bohème_ (Björling, de los Angeles, Merrill, Reardon, Tozzi;
> Beecham) [EMI]
>
> Verdi: _Falstaff_ (Gobbi, Schwarzkopf, Alva, Moffo, Barbieri; Karajan)
[EMI]
>
>
> Giulini) [EMI]
>
Some more conventional and probably controversial choices:
Verdi: Traviata (Kleiber and all) [DG] - yes I know a lot of ppl in this
newsgroup hate it but that's really too bad for them. Cotrubas is the best
Violetta ever and Kleiber's driven tempi are superb and dazzling and I've
never heard anything better conducted.
Verdi: Aida (Solti, Price, Vickers, Gorr) [Decca] - Gorr is the best Amneris
ever, and Price is the best Aida, and Muti's set just doesn't cut it. It's
slow, Caballe sounds silly and it sounds like Muti is trying to delve deeply
into... well nothing. Aida is very short on philosophy and depth and Solti
goes for the right approach: loud, bombastic, dramatic, and it blows your
socks off.
Rossini: Il barbiere di Siviglia (Abbado, Berganza, Prey, etc) [DG] - soooo
much fun, and Abbado's conducting is magical
Puccini: Turandot (Mehta, Pavarotti, Sutherland, et al) [Decca] - ok so the
Nilsson, Corelli set is golden age, unbeatable, etc, but for me Mehta's
conducting is without match and really in Turandot if you don't have great
sound much of the magic is gone, and Pavarotti and Sutherland (while again,
not Corelli and Nilsson) really do catch the characters well. And you have
Ghiaurov and Caballe, plus others in the superb supporting cast which just
make it benchmark for me.
Mascagni: Cavalleria rusticana (Karajan, Bergonzi, Cossotto) [DG] - What a
good conductor can do with a sensationalist opera is unbelievable. The slow
tempi are perfectly judged. If anybody thinks slow conducting is boring (and
I'm generally of that opinion) listen to this.
Puccini: Tosca (De Sabata, Callas, Di Stefano) [EMI] - So obvious, really
there is no match for this.
Verdi: Forza del destino (Levine, Domingo, Price, etc) [RCA] - Forget Tucker
and Tebaldi and Mollinardi-Pradelli (awful, awful conductor, most indulgent
and sloppy ever) this delivers the goods. Domingo is probably at his best
here and the rest of the cast is perfectly suited also.
Ansermetniac
1)Rigoleto-Last Act Toscanini 1944 Live
Peerce
Warren
Milanov
Meriman
NBC and NY Phil Together at MSG
2)Boito Mefistofole Prologue Toscanini 1954 Live
Moscana
The Childrens Chorus
and That Brass
Neil DiBiasi-Principal
Abe Pearlstein
John Clark-Bass
The trombones are finally recorded corrrectly and reveal power and
musicallity that are ASTOUNDING
Carnegie Hall-Oh Yeah!!!!
Can you believe they were going to bulldoze it. Thanks Issaac
Abbedd the Ansermetniac
"allankohrman" <allank...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ONXU9.49721$Dn.9523@sccrnsc03...
LastRedLeafFalls
>Verdi: Aida (Solti, Price, Vickers, Gorr) [Decca] - Gorr is the best Amneris
>ever, and Price is the best Aida, and Muti's set just doesn't cut it. It's
>slow, Caballe sounds silly and it sounds like Muti is trying to delve deeply
>into... well nothing.
Slow? We're talking about the same Muti, the EMI recording? Usually it's
criticized for being excessively *brisk*. It's about eight cumulative minutes
faster than the one you cite as your ideal, the Solti.
Anyway, I can't agree. I love Leontyne, and I keep Solti's set as a studio
souvenir of her Aida in her prime time, but I like almost nothing else about it
-- not the squally, too-prominent brass; not Gorr's thick and imposing gargoyle
of an Amneris (give me Cossotto's spoiled but regal and alluring conception any
day, if those are the two choices), and not Vickers's queerly pronounced
Radames (I can generally do without him in any of the Italian rep other than
Otello).
- Todd K
LastRedLeafFalls
>> Arthur La Porta wrote:
>> >
>> >Have I lost my mind, or did this guy drone on and on about how his
>> >favorite opera is not on the list without ever mentioning what his
>> >favorite opera is?
>>
>> He did.
>>
>> - That Guy
>
>
>While utterly deploring the entirely uncalled-for tone of the question
>(shades of the sick and dying rec.music.opera),
Well, yes, but we still have some way to fall here. If it were rec.music.opera,
someone would have quoted the whole of my post just to reply at the bottom,
"rysanek sucks, studer is the best desdemona. fag."
>I willingly concede that
>I am just as interested -- sincerely -- in which opera "That Guy";-)
>finds he prefers now above all others. I would be especially interested
>-- please -- in which recordings of that opera he finds himself most
>drawn to, while at the same time finding each of them still wanting in
>one respect or another.
In the interest of doing full justice to the topic -- mostly the part about
comparing the recordings -- I will have to get back to you (and the group) on
that. But, request received and considered.
- Todd K
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20030114153756...@mb-fx.aol.com:
How about that half-hour of _Götterdämmerung_ with Leider and Melchior,
Furtwängler conducting, Covent Garden c. 1938?
Matthew B. Tepper
> Jerry, you're the second person to ask me what my favorite Don Giovanni
> is. And I'm not sure. I probably have more Don G's than any other opera:
>
> Walter live Met 42 w/Pinza (Naxos)
> Mitropoulos live Salzburg w/Siepi (Sony)
> Furtwaengler w/Siepi (EMI)
> Krips w/Siepi (Decca)
> Leinsdorf w/Siepi (Decca)
> Boehm live German language w/Della Casa and London (RCA)
> Davis (Philips)
Are you looking forward to the Andante release of the Walter Salzburg?
(Assuming, of course, that it is of the quality of that _Nozze_?)
Elizabeth Hubbell
David7Gable wrote:
>
> Pleasantly surprised to find Todd K enthusing about Rysanek's Desdemona,
> although the aged Serafin's lack of energy and the bad orchestral playing rule
> the famous RCA Otello with Vickers and Gobbi out for me. Not that I don't like
> it, but it would never make a top ten list of mine.
>
> I'm not sure I can list what I think are the ten greatest opera recordings of
> all time. All I can do is list some I think are terrific for one reason or
> another--or should I say for multiple reasons, one of which is always the
> conducting. Intense involvement is another. And singers with--brains may not
> be quite the word, although I have nothing against brains in a singer--but a
> certain kind of musical intelligence and persuasiveness in phrasing.
For me, I suppose it's that elusive term, heart. One MIGHT describe
that as a feeling of compulsion in communication, but a compulsion that
is richly bound in with music itself as a second language, as natural in
its spontaneous potential for ready expression as the spoken word.
>A couple
> of these recordings are not commercial recordings but "live." A few comments
> follow.
>
> 1. Donizetti: L'elisir d'amore w/Gueden, di Stefano, Capecchi, Corena,
> Orchestra of the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino, Molinari-Pradelli (Decca)
Couldn't agree more. This is one of the treasures of the Decca
catalogue. An Elisir that I wouldn't trade in for any other -- surely,
one reason for qualification as a top "Great Opera Recording" (tGOR).
Its irreplaceability makes it an authentic benchmark, IMO.
>
> 2. Donizetti: Don Pasquale w/Rizzoli, Munteanu, Capecchi, Valdengo, Teatro di
> San Carlo, Molinari-Pradelli (Philips)
Wish I could agree here. Molinari-Pradelli is completely satisfying,
yes. Capecchi is one of the very great Pasquales. Frankly, though, I
find unevennesses in the rest of the cast. For almost as much
naturalness and with a more consistent cast, IMO, I might go instead for
the old Cetra set with Bruscantini, Noni, Valletti, and Boriello, under
Rossi. But even this would not be a candidate for a tGOR, since it's
outflanked -- again, IMO -- by a "live" Corena performance under Erede
(who may not be the most fizzing conductor, true) that can boast superb
colleagues including the surprisingly strong D'Angelo (here, anyway) and
the young Kraus.
>
> 3. Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro w/della Casa, Gueden, Danco, Siepi, Pöll, Vienna
> Philharmonic, Erich Kleiber (Decca)
It's a delight hearing the score uncut (I believe?) with a fine and
consistent cast like this one. Surprisingly -- and I write as an Erich
Kleiber fan -- a recent rehearing of this set shows some listlessness in
Kleiber's handling of Act I. A spot comparison of the old Glyndebourne
set (heavily cut) with Fritz Busch was a rude reality check, I'm
afraid. Busch is simply more engaged, IMO. No, the Busch is not my top
choice for Figaro either, and Kleiber undoubtedly lives up to his
potential in the rest of his recording. I only wish I could respond to
the first act in the same way. It would then be my top Figaro all the
way.
>
> 4. Mozart: Cosi fan tutte w/Della Casa, Ludwig, Loose, Dermota, Kunz,
> Schoeffler, Vienna Philharmonic, Böhm (Decca)
If not for the cuts, I might agree. No question it's far more inspired
than Boehm's later set for EMI with fewer cuts. But the only one I'm
willing to tolerate despite cuts is, again, Fritz Busch. In fact, I
might go so far as to say that that first Busch set may still be my
first choice for Cosi (in case anyone gets the vague impression that I'm
a besotted Busch fan.....they're right:-).
>
> 5. Spontini: La vestale w/Gencer, Mattiucci, Merolla, Bruson, Ferrin, Teatro
> Massimo di Palermo, Previtali ("live")
A frustration: I've been aware of this Vestale but have been unable to
hunt it down, and I still have not listened to it, nor do I know the
date, although I'd dearly love to know that. For me, 1966 and earlier
is fine for Gencer, with 1960 to 1963 her very peak. Frankly, anything
1967 or later tends to be uneven, IMO. I realize that the greatness of
Gencer is as much in her interpretation as her vocalism, but there's a
point for me beyond which I'm distracted from however fine an
interpretation, if the musicianship itself seems effectively
compromised. Such is the case, for instance, in much -- I won't say all
-- of Gencer's Medea (1968?) and Gencer's Caterina Cornaro (1971?)
.
>
> 6. Spontini: Agnes von Hohenstaufen (sung in Italian as Agnese di
> Hohenstaufen) w/Udovick, Corelli, Orchestra of the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino,
> Gui ("live")
We have a Spontini fan here, don't we!<G> (For more on this item, see
below.)
>
> 7. Verdi: Macbeth w/Rysanek, Bergonzi, Warren, Hines, Metropolitan Opera,
> Leinsdorf
Have always liked this set, but I'd probably go for the
Verrett/Cappuccilli/Abbado as a totality over this set, even though
Warren is one of a kind, who perhaps turned in his very finest
interpretation ever with this set.
>
> 8. Verdi: Luisa Miller w/Moffo, Verrett, Bergonzi, MacNeil, Tozzi, Flagello,
> RCA Italiana Opera Orchestra, Cleva
Superb all the way. A macabre factoid, if I may: this is the last time,
IMO, that we get to hear both Moffo and MacNeil in prime form. Did the
effort of providing posterity with an almost ideal reading of a
relatively unfamiliar opera somehow "use them up"?;-)
>
> 9. Verdi: Rigoletto w/Berger, Merriman, Peerce, Warren, Tajo, RCA Victor
> Orchestra, Cellini
I'm completely conflicted over three different Rigolettos, and I might
end up including all three despite the overall restriction to ten sets
only! Two of the three are studio-made and are about as different in
approach as two different sets could ever be. Yet they both work
perfectly as a whole, IMO. Those two are this Cellini and the Serafin
with Gobbi and Callas. The fact that they are strongly contrasted yet
both convincing throughout is cause for wonder and delight. The third
set would be another Warren performance recorded "live" from the Met
(1945) with Sayao and Bjoerling, under the underrated Sodero. He may
not be as uniformly compelling as Cellini and Serafin (each in their
way), but he's strong enough to sustain a remarkable afternoon with
three treasurable vocalists all in their prime and utterly engrossed in
their roles, IMO. The ten candidates for tGOR should be benchmarks in
one's personal opinion, and if one admits any equals for the same opera,
are such candidates still benchmarks at all? An excruciating and
pertinent question, I believe, which does not accommodate the
uncomfortable fact that Rigoletto has had extraordinary luck on disc,
and there ought to be at least one Rigoletto included in any lineup of
tGORs. Translation: HELP!!!!
>
> 10. Verdi: Un Ballo in Maschera w/Nelli, Peerce, Merrill, NBC SO, Toscanini
> (RCA)
Wish I could agree, but there's too much uneven vocalism here, IMO,
however revelatory all the conducting is -- and its superb Renato.
>
> 11. Verdi: Falstaff w/Nelli, Stich-Randall, Elmo, Madasi, Valdengo, Guarrera,
> NBC SO, Toscanini (RCA)
A tie -- yet, like Rigoletto, a tie involving near-perfection. I still
admire equally much the "live" De Sabata La Scala revival with Stabile
and Tebaldi from the early '50s. Apparently, its most recent reissue on
Music & Arts is supposed to be its best transfer ever, and I can't wait
to hear it.
>
> 12. Wagner: Die Meistersinger w/Gueden, Treptow, Dermota, Schoeffler, Vienna
> Philharmonic, Knappertsbusch (Decca)
No Meistersinger is a benchmark, IMO, although this one is certainly one
of my strongest candidates. I've indulged in a summary of the most
viable Meistersingers, IMO, further on in this thread (not in this
posting), and I invite any masochists ;-) to peruse that if they wish.
>
> 13. Berg: Lulu w/Stratas, Minton, Riegel, Mazura, Opéra de Paris, Boulez (DGG)
Y E S !!!!!!!!!
>
> 14. Mussorgsky: Khovanschina w/Lipovsek, Atlantov, Haugland et al, Vienna
> State Opera, Abbado (DGG)
Wish I knew this recording better. I've only heard excerpts of it, but
I've liked what I heard. My greatest experience with this work was in
1985, when I heard Naeme Jarvi conduct it with Aage Haugland, Martti
Talvela, and Helga Dernesch. I've never known why Jarvi never recorded
this complete, as it was one of the most uplifting evenings I ever had
at the opera. Thank goodness that revival was broadcast, so future
generations with access to strong tape collections may get to appreciate
it. A caveat was that it was a fairly cut performing edition that was
used. But it was a revelation nevertheless.
>
> 15. Beethoven: Fidelio w/Rysanek, Seefried, Haefliger, Fischer-Dieskau,
> Frick, Berlin Philharmonic, Fricsay (DGG)
Yes, this is one of the great Fidelios. As with Rigoletto, the best two
studio sets of Fidelio, IMO, could not be more contrasted: this one and
the Klemperer/Ludwig for EMI. In this case, though, I find that,
ultimately, I do go for one over the other: the Klemperer lingers so
strongly afterward in the mind's ear. It has set its stamp on my own
aural picture of this work pretty much for good, and that's as much for
Ludwig and Vickers as for its conducting. Sentimentality may play a
part here as well: ever since I was lucky enough to attend a Parsifal
with Vickers and Ludwig in 1979, I have come to regard this partnership
as on a par with Flagstad/Melchior. There is such a rightness in their
response to each other that I have found it impossible to think up any
other two artists who mesh so perfectly. Saying these two are on the
same wavelength is the understatement of the (still young and uncertain)
century. I might go even further: if, instead of selecting ten sets,
one were to select one set only, my choice might very well be the
Klemperer/Ludwig Fidelio.
>
> With the exception of the last two, all of these recordings, even Toscanini's,
> owe their inclusion to styles of phrasing that have all but disappeared from
> the performance of so-called classical music. The recordings with Francesco
> Molinari-Pradelli, Renato Cellini, and Fernando Previtali (whom I very often
> don't like), and Fausto Cleva (whom I don't place on quite the same exalted
> level as Molinari-Pradelli or Celllini at their best)
Agreed.
> demonstrate that the
> Italian so-called "routiniers" of the 50's were more distinctive in their
> phrasing and had more responsive orchestral musicians at their disposal than
> the superstar Italian-opera conductors of a later generation (e.g., Abbado and
> Muti). The same is true for that master of Italianate phrasing, Erich
> Leinsdorf. However odd it may seem, his style of conducting is very much of a
> piece with the Italian conductors of the 50's listed here, and he's far more
> persuasive with an oom-pah-pah accompaniment than Karajan, Solti, or Carlos
> Kleiber, as are all of the Italians on my list.
>
> The Donizetti recordings capture the incomparable Molinari-Pradelli, at his
> very best. In primo ottocento repertory,
> the meter projected by the oom-pah-pah-style accompanimental patterns--the
> polonaise, bolero, and waltz rhythms--has to be projected fairly strictly while
> the melody is allowed room to breathe, and Molinari-Pradelli knew just how to
> strike the perfect balance between these conflicting demands. He conducts the
> more sentimental bits in these Donizetti comedies with an incomparable amabile
> touch and makes the effervescent bits really fizz. The Gui Agnese is one of
> the two best-conducted performances of a post-Gluck opera I've ever heard (the
> other being a live Von Matacic Spontini Fernando Cortez). As for the Ballo and
> Falstaff, I think they're Toscanini's most successful NBC SO recordings of
> Verdi operas, the Traviata being overdriven,
Couldn't agree more re the Traviata, although the Dress is quite a
(pleasant) surprise.
> Nelli being overparted by the
> title role of Aida, Otello . . .
and also Amelia, IMO.
> I'm not sure why I think Otello is a little
> less good, but it's not because of Vinay.
I swear by this Otello. Everything the Maestro does here is
unforgettable, all three principals are at their best, IMO, and even the
sound doesn't seem quite as boxy as usual for this series. Strong
candidate for benchmark, IMO.
[continued]
[courtesy cc of this rec.music.classical.recordings posting also sent to
David Gable]
Elizabeth Hubbell
[continued]
David7Gable wrote:
>
> The distinctive and vigorous Renato
> Cellini is even better on the RCA Rigoletto than in the even more famous
> Trovatore with Milanov, Barbieri, Bjoerling, and Warren. (Only Milanov's
> contribution keeps that set off my list. Past her prime, she drags behind the
> beat and sinks below the pitch a bit too often.)
IMHO, both these Cellini sets deserve serious consideration as a
benchmark.
Trovatore's structure depends for its impact on the notion of much time
passing between its acts. It doesn't have the same close-knit narrative
structure of Rigoletto, and I feel that Cellini's conducting (rightly)
reflects that. There's somewhat the feeling of a dark novel to
Trovatore, not the well-made play (based, after all, on Victor Hugo) of
Rigoletto. Cellini has such an elusive knack for the natural, the
spontaneous, and that is heard in both sets, IMO.
As for Milanov, I find her singing here to be as sumptuous as it ever is
in her entire discography. I quite frankly love the sound of her voice
in this role. It's almost impossible for me to imagine anyone else who
would sound so "right". As for her pitch, there are two ways of
compromising pitch, I suppose: one is to swoop and scoop a bit in
reaching certain pitches but usually finding them, the other is to take
and sustain a clearly flat tone. In the former, the attack can be
occasionally under pitch but, ultimately, the center of the note emerges
accurately. In the latter, the center of the note is clearly flat
throughout and jars markedly with the instrumental accompaniment and
with any hapless colleagues who may be caught up in the mess. I find
that Milanov is certainly guilty of the former occasionally, which I
find I can live with, but very rarely guilty of the latter, if at all.
Please, I am sincerely intersted: may we know where Mr. Gable detects a
deliberately sustained, clearly flat note? Thanks.
Trovatore, like Rigoletto, has two sharply contrasted, but equally
convincing (IMO), sets: the Cellini studio-made set on RCA and the
"live" Salzburg set, now out on DG, with Von Karajan, in atypically
sympathetic mode, and Corelli/Simionato/L.Price. It's impossible for me
to choose between these two. They're both so different and so uniformly
riveting, IMO.
>
> Moving along to Vienna, we find the same kind of rapport between the Vienna
> Philharmonic of the 1950's and Erich Kleiber, Karl Böhm (whose Cosi I love so
> much I can almost forgive him for what might almost be called an abridged
> performance because of the cuts), and Hans Knappertsbusch, the same instinct
> for phrasing distinctively as in the Italian opera performances listed here.
> I've never been able to understand how anybody could dismiss Knappertsbusch out
> of hand as a kind of hack. In Wagner, at least, his shaping of everything from
> the level of the individual motive on up to the large-scale flow is masterly.
> He's un-self-consciously attentive at every moment and never misses a trick.
> Everything is given its own weight from the nuance on up to the massive
> effect--even moreso than with Erich Kleiber's Figaro, which coming from me is
> saying a lot, because similar virtues exhibited in a different style are
> characteristic of E. Kleiber's Figaro and to only an infinitesimally lesser
> extent Böhm's Cosi.
Strongly feel that Knappertsbusch -- at least as contrasted with the E.
Kleiber of the Figaro and the Boehm of the Decca Cosi -- comes off even
more consistently than the other two. I've already said that there are
a tiny handful of other Meistersingers that, in their way, have, I
believe, as much title to primacy in the Meistersinger discography as
this Kna set. I'd like to add, though, that, satisfying as Kna is here,
he's even more engrossing in a "live" Meistersinger from Bayreuth (1952,
I believe). That performance, however, does not have as generally
strong a cast as this Decca/Schoeffler set.
>
> There is something at least a little relaxed about parts of all of these Vienna
> recordings, although there is always enough energy in them and they're not too
> relaxed. Fricsay's Fidelio whipcrack Fidelio is another thing entirely, but
> then Beethoven benefits from the approach more than Mozart on the one hand or
> Wagner on the other. In any case, this performance is sheer undistilled
> essence of white hot Beethoven. It's sort of a cross between the virtues of
> Klemperer on the one hand, Toscanini on the other, and better than both.
I would dispute the "better", although I do prefer it to the Toscanini.
> Haefliger for me is the weak link here, but at least he's no slouch as a
> musician. But I don't like his voice, which is also too small for Florestan.
Haefliger's is not so strong as you-know-who;-), but I must say that if
I can't have Vickers here, I happily go for two others above and beyond
anyone else, heavy or light: Julius Patzak and Ernst Haefliger.
Florestan is a visionary, and Vickers, Haefliger amd Patzak understand
that in their bones, IMO. I'm grateful that all three have had their
interpretations preserved -- and I actually like the sheer sound of
Haefliger's voice, FWIW. It's always seemed essentially simpatico to
me.
> I have no problem with Fi-Di's Pizarro, and Rysanek is as over the top as
> Fricsay.)
>
> And what ensemble casts were assembled for most of these sets. In the
> Donizetti, Mozart, and Wagner performances, and in the Rigoletto and Falstaff,
> not only is everybody musical, expressive, involved, attentive to the words,
> and so on, but the ensemble interactions are a thing to behold, constituting a
> marvelous entity in their own right. Within the framework of the composer's
> notated rhythms, these actors hang on each others words and respond to them
> with an enviable "naturalness." Not an automaton in the bunch but "real
> people." (In Boulez's and Abbado's performances, everything is in place, but
> the ensemble interactions are not a distinctive entity in their own right in
> quite the same way, but only the byproduct of a supremely disciplined
> performance. Not that the singers don't listen to one another, but . . . I'm
> not sure that I can convey what it is that I hear in this "ensemble" dimension
> in the 50's performances listed, but it's there.)
>
> Not that I'm dismissive of Abbado and Boulez. Abbado's affinity with
> Mussorgsky is better demonstrated by his live Vienna Khovanschina than by his
> duller canned Berlin Boris, and Boulez's overwhelming Lulu may owe some of its
> tremendous energyand sense of involvement to the sense of occasion that must
> have inhered in the premiere of the completed opera--and to the fact that the
> recording was made between performances during the premiere run.
And yet I find the same admirable qualities in his Pelleas with Shirley
and Soederstroem. I've never felt that Boulez's occasionally vaunted
security in twentieth-century rep is at all exaggerated (nor do I
believe that Mr. Gable is implying that it is). In fact, I believe him
to be one of the most perceptive and disciplined artists -- and
consistent -- that so-called modern music has ever had. I appreciate
that Mr. Gable wasn't necessarily saying that -- sans a special occasion
-- Boulez might not have been just as satisfying here. And -- of course
-- this Lulu was indeed a special occasion. But Boulez is an artist of
almost Spartan discipline, IMO, and I would hazard a guess that Boulez
and Berg were simply a perfect fit.
>
> Some of the singers on these sets are great favorites of mine, including
> Gueden, Della Casa, and Gencer, who, together with de los Angeles, are among my
> absolute favorite sopranos. I like Rysanek's over the top involvement, too.
> (Callas's, too. She should be on this list.)
As an overall totality, I might add two Callas studio-made sets not
mentioned in this posting: the Serafin/Di Stefano Pagliacci and the De
Sabata/Di Stefano Tosca. Callas never performed Pagliacci (Nedda) on
stage, but she is compelling in her recording, and Di Stefano's Canio
(made one year before the Elisir) is one of the most moving and
vulnerable readings I know. It is not the traditional dramatic-tenor
reading, but its overwhelming sincerity and the staggering caliber of
all his colleagues, down to Panerai's Silvio and Monti's Beppe(!), make
this a triumph of the recording studio, IMO. The De Sabata Tosca is
already a classic and needs no defense. If we extend the Callas
discography beyond the studio sets, two "live" '55 performances are top
of the pecking order, IMO: the Berlin Lucia with Di Stefano and Panerai
and the December opening-night Norma with Del Monaco and Simionato.
Unfortunately, the Callas/De Sabata Macbeth telecast (sadly, only the
audio survives and in so-so sound) is burdened by a partner/protagonist
who has all the personality of a pet rock, IMHO.
> I certainly prefer Rysanek as
> Lady Macbeth to a singer with a more beautiful voice but less imagination like
> Cossotto. It's unfortunate that the supremely musical Petre Munteanu, who
> sings Ernesto in Don Pasquale for Molinari-Pradelli, is not better known. A
> favorite of Scherchen's, he recorded a certain amount of Lieder, and his voice
> is as sweet as he is sensitive. Capecchi, Valdengo, and Tajo are supremely
> intelligent singing actors of a type that used to be mass produced in Italy
> along side a dumber variety of singer, and Rizzoli, Molinari-Pradelli's Norina
> in Don Pasquale is the female equivalent: her interactions with Valdengo and
> Capecchi are not to be believed.
>
> The intensely involved Jan Peerce sings his heart out in a couple of Verdi
> recordings listed here, and I'm one of those people who really loves his voice.
> (He had more slancio than Bergonzi, whom I nevertheless admire.) The Luisa
> probably features the most sheerly gorgeous singing of any of these sets--what
> a gorgeous voice Cornell MacNeil had!--and it features Moffo's finest recorded
> performance. She truly rises to the occasion here. Like many a Leonard Warren
> fan, I love Warren's sumptuous voice, his authentic Verdi baritone, but I also
> think he's underrated as a vocal actor. He may not be in a league with
> Capecchi or Taddei in that regard but he phrases beautifully. Treptow was
> never a truly great singer--he certainly never possessed a great voice, his
> vocal production is often strained and awkward, and there are parts of his
> Walther von Stolzing I can't listen to. But he sings with such passion and
> gusto, such conviction and sensitivity to the words he's singing, that I'm able
> to overlook sounds that will drive many another opera fancier away in horror.
See my posting further on where I discuss Treptow's Walther.
> There's nothing to complain about in Dermota's intelligent and sweet-voiced
> David, Gueden's perfect Eva, or Schöffler's thoughtful Sachs, although
> Schöffler is in fresher voice on a couple of live Meistersinger's from the
> 40's.
>
> Who am I forgetting? Erna Berger. She has perhaps the most perfect vocal
> technique of any of the singers listed, and , more important, she was a
> marvelous musician. I have ambivalent feelings about Franco Corelli, but what
> he lacked in subtlety--and he's wasn'tt invariably unsubtle--he made up for
> with an intense and narcissistic involvement. In the Agnese, he's in fresh and
> youthful voice, and his phrasing in the romanza Heinrich/Enrico sings in
> prison, if not quite idiomatic--Spontini was not Puccini--is not to be
> believed. Corelli really did have the instinct to shape a phrase, even if his
> phrases all too often got bogged down in the excessive portamenti with which he
> insured a seamless legato.
I had this quite a while ago, but gave it to my brother, Charles, who's
more of a completist when it comes to Corelli. I prize Corelli in his
later, more open, brighter period when the vowels were not so oval as
they are here. The instrument is still remarkable here, of course.
>And speaking of superstar tenors, Di Stefano's
> signal traits were an ingenuous earnestness and intensity, traits ideal for
> Nemorino in Elixir, his signature role.
>
> I wish there were some Berlioz on this list, but I don't know any Berlioz opera
> that has been as well conducted on records as the performances listed here.
> (There are always the Damnation's of Markevitch and Munch.)
And, frankly, the first thing that occurred to me already was that Munch
Damnation de Faust! I'm intoxicated by this set. It was my
introduction to Berlioz, and I still believe it's one of the great
recordings. For me, this Munch set pops into my mind right away as a
benchmark, as all the things we've been speaking of. It's unfortunate
that the Markevitch has those disfiguring cuts, or the situation might
be comparable to Rigoletto or Trovatore. But as it is, the Munch
Damnation is a must, IMO.
> Josephine Veasey's
> Didon and Béatrice certainly belong here, since she's the Callas or Gencer of
> Berlioz mezzos. Speaking of mezzos, Barbieri, Berganza, and Fassbänder all
> belong here, too. They're great favorites of mine. I also love some of
> Haydn's operas (although not the two late seria), but Dorati's very fine
> recordings, good as they are, don't feature the same levels of intense
> involvement as the sets listed here.
I suppose not, although they certainly did the trick in getting me
hooked on Haydn's operas. -- Incidentally, I much enjoy Haydn's
Armida. I feel it's a fine work and am only sorry it's not done more
often. Yes, Haydn's Orfeo is fragmentary, not as satisfying (probably
due to his never having put it through final rehearsal), but that one
too has some very exciting sequences. I always enjoy the set with Helen
Donath. Everyone else there (and the conductor) sounds "up" here,
including a young unknown bass-baritone as the father Creon.....one
Thomas Quasthoff<GGG>!
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
Ansermetniac
here in new york called hime tennesse Ernie Williams. He was instantly
turned back into a weather man. Poof!!!
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9302CC28192...@207.217.77.24...
LastRedLeafFalls
>As a hopefully successful way of inducing a response,
[snip of interesting comments re: _Parsifal_ and _Meistersinger_]
>With sincere hopes that this may occasion a response from
>"LastRedLeafFalls"
Well, you have set a high standard, and I hope at least for the credit of
trying. I'm not sure how much I can do with the time I have available to me
this evening, but...
I actually left the title out of my original post by design rather than
oversight, but as some of my acquaintances on the group may have known/guessed,
my favorite opera is Verdi's _Don Carlo/s_. I've heard all of the extant studio
recordings and most of the well-known live ones -- as well as many of the
lesser-known live ones -- and I've remarked in the past that the work has been
both lucky and unlucky on disc. Lucky in that most of the documented
performances have *something* going for them, unlucky in that it never *all*
seems to come together, even to the degree that one might reasonably expect --
i.e., singers in each of the major roles who are armed with both the notes and
the insights and also are on their best form for the occasion, with a conductor
capable of bringing out all of this lengthy and varied score's moods and hues,
and an orchestra equal to the task.
A note on preference: I'm an unusual _Don Carlo/s_ lover in that it does not
greatly matter to me in which language I hear it, French or Italian. I am aware
of the awkward passages in the Italian translation, but I have found the work
tremendously effective music and theater in both of the languages in which we
commonly hear it. I expect that the current hardness of prejudice against
recordings/stagings of the Italian _Carlo_, as with many other silly dogmatic
stances of the rabid authenticism movement, will soften with time.
I'm far more concerned with the number of acts: While a case can be made for
the artistic achievements of some recordings of Verdi's four-act revision, my
ideal recording would have to be one of the five-act traversals. The
Fontainebleau music and the accompanying drama are too important to me, and
having once heard/seen that "true" first act, I could never regard any four-act
performance as a more or less bothersome truncation; a hobbling.
Moving on to the recordings, and I'll only write about the ones I've (a) heard,
(b) remember well enough to comment upon, and (c) believe offer something of
value in an overview (for instance, I won't be mentioning Levine's studio
recording at all). By all means, though, feel free to speak up in support of
anything I'm leaving off.
If a critical consensus choice exists, it is undoubtedly Giulini's Covent
Garden recording of the five-act Italian translation on EMI (1970-71). This is
eloquently conducted in its sober, restrained way, and there's abundant
evidence of the conductor's skill at conjuring a ravishing sonority (the
sepulchral chill that steals across the monks' music near the beginning of Act
II; the beautifully contemplative treatment of the prelude to Filippo's big
aria). The attention to local detail is magnificent. But there's more in this
score than sober contemplation and dark velvety legato, and at times
Giulini/EMI strikes me as too sedate, not so much in slow speeds as in the
consistently gentle accents and softened dynamic contrasts. One never forgets
that one is in the presence of a superb orchestral governor, but there are
times when one wants less governing and more galvanizing (e.g., the
auto-da-fé), and while CMG wasn't as sleepy in 1970-71 as he would become in
later years, he's already trending toward slackness. He has a cast of young
singers who were all either on the verge of/in the early years of stardom
(Domingo, Milnes, Caballé, Verrett, Raimondi), and they provide more freshness
of voice and tonal beauty, role for role, than is to be found on any other
commercial recording, but only Verrett's Eboli is a full and apt assumption.
Raimondi's bass is light and quasi-baritonal, which muddies the waters in the
bass/baritone duet; Milnes has a tendency here to insert hammy mannerisms in
the place of a characterization; Caballé's dramatic temperament, always a
darting and elusive thing, is more or less submerged; Domingo sounds splendid
but a little reticent, as if in awe of the occasion.
The earlier Covent Garden recording led by Solti (1965, Decca), also five-act
Italian and also starry, provides some of what I find lacking in Giulini's, but
with predictable corresponding deficits -- *his* conducting strikes me as *too*
pushy, superficial, even graceless in its trod through more lyrical passages.
Solti's singers are more engaged, especially Bergonzi's quite unsurpassed
Carlo. Ghiaurov has a voice that I find so beautiful and magnetic as to disable
my critical faculties, and this is remarkable qua singing, but he would refine
his Filippo over the years, and the portrayal is still jejune at this point.
Fischer-Dieskau's Rodrigo is neither the best nor the worst souvenir of his
adventures in Italian opera, but in the mostly idiomatic company in which we
encounter it, its fussiness grates very early on. Tebaldi is near the end of
the line, if still sympathetic and winning; Bumbry is a capable Eboli, and
there's the inspired touch of Talvela's enormous Inquisitor pitted against
Ghiaurov's Philip -- a true summit of gargantuas.
It is a shame that Karajan never took up the Fontainebleau music; he returned
to the opera often, and stuck by the four-act version until the end (so has
Muti, in a dismissable recording of 1992). That omission is what keeps me from
making his 1978 EMI (Carreras, Freni, Baltsa, Cappuccilli, Ghiaurov) a first
choice, or at least "co-favorite." Some of Karajan's singers are a size small,
a situation aggravated by the massive, weighty sounds he goes in for (and it
must be said that the orchestral passages, such as the terrifying treatment of
the final act's prelude, are awesome in their blended sumptuousness); but
they're in fine vocal estate and sing as though they mean what they say.
Carreras, especially, is a match for any Carlo on record. Ghiaurov's big voice
has dried out and wizened since the Solti set, but I find his *performance*
more compelling this time; perhaps necessary vocal caution adds to the (mostly
welcome) sense of restraint. Only Raimondi seems out of place; his mildness is
even more troublesome as the Inquisitor. It is a pleasure to hear such major
singers as van Dam, Gruberova, and Hendricks in the smaller roles. The
conductor's personality and predilections all over this recording; most of us
by now know whether to take that as inducement or warning, to taste. But this
is a monumental and brilliantly executed view of the four-act version.
I also hold on to the DG Festspiel recording of a 1958 Salzburg performance
conducted by Karajan (leaner, more urgent and excitable, less "blanket of
sound" in approach). The edition isn't even a worthy four-act -- the score is
cut to ribbons, as was all too customary in the era -- but it's valuable for
preserving several treasurable performances: Siepi's Filippo; Bastianini's
suave, almost seductive Rodrigo; Simionato's Eboli, and above all Jurinac's
commanding and dignified Elisabetta. It's a great loss to the discography that
the latter never took this role into the studio, and also that, in such
majestic form as she was on this night, her big Act IV aria is significantly
compromised by brutal editing -- a whole section in the middle is missing.
A few end-notes on the Italian translation: I would have ditched Santini's
dreary and dated EMI recording (1955) long ago if it didn't boast Tito Gobbi's
thoroughly considered and brilliantly detailed Rodrigo -- no rival discussed
here is remotely in the same league in this role. Christoff fans may also want
this for his Filippo; for my part, I've found it monotonous with repeated
exposure. Nothing else here need detain us.
I know two live recordings of this opera that catch Claudio Abbado in more
theatrically lively and alert form than on his DG studio set. One of the two
(from December 1968) also fills an unfortunate gap in the studio discography --
the fierce Eboli of Fiorenza Cossotto in her prime. She handles the Veil Song
with a flexibility that reminds one that she did her share of Mozart and
Rossini singing nearer the beginning of her career. She's still better under
the lackluster direction of Inbal, July 1969. But everything else of note on
both of these performances is duplicated in better sound elsewhere (Ghiaurov,
Cappuccilli, Talvela, Domingo, Caballé, et cetera).
I hesitate to bring a filmed version into this discussion, but I value the Met
DVD of the 1983 five-act Italian (plus peasants' chorus!) conducted by Levine,
featuring Domingo, Freni, Ghiaurov, and Bumbry. While only the tenor could
reasonably be said to be in his prime, one is grateful to have the work of
these performers captured and preserved in this medium -- for me, it was worth
the price of the disc to be able to see as well as hear Ghiaurov's delivery of
Filippo's aria. Whatever the vocal wear, he'd given up nothing in stage
presence. On the other hand, there's a Rodrigo (Qullico) so irritating in his
mannerisms and vocally insipid that one may wish for the character to be shot
two acts earlier.
The two major French-language recordings are even less of a "definitive" (or
even "entirely satisfactory") representation than the Italians, though again,
there are reasons to make space for them. Abbado's (1984, DG) has been perhaps
excessively criticized. I remember being warned away from it by most, but it's
neither as bad as its detractors claim nor as good as the assembled talent
seems to promise. The cast struggles valiantly with the language, but only
Domingo approaches facility with it; he's keener of interpretation than for
Giulini, and the voice is in good, representative mid-career form. Ricciarelli
sounds tired and prematurely worn, and does her share of undersupported
crooning, but she's dramatically invested and addresses her character's
situation with specificity (her farewell solo to the Countess in Act II may be
the most touching account of it on records, thin top notes and all). I can't
say as much for Nucci or Raimondi. As Eboli, Valentini-Terrani is out of her
weight class as well as taxed by the tessitura. Abbado brings great power and
thrilling effect to some passages -- he shapes and paces the tenor/baritone
duet well, and the lusty choral singing and playing in the auto-da-fé are
welcome (as usual, the Scala players achieve considerable virtuosity under his
baton). At other points he's indifferent, and even sloppy; the orchestra's
attacks aren't even well coordinated with the singers in Act V.
Pappano's more recent attempt (EMI, 1996), made from live performances, gets
much better press than Abbado's, but I'm not sure it's a significant advance.
The chief distinguishing feature (or saving grace, at culling time?) is its
strict adherence to the music of the Paris premiere, and so one can enjoy the
novelty of hearing rare and unfamiliar music integrated with the familiar
(rather than consigned to an appendix disc, as with Abbado/DG), as well as
earlier versions of scenes Verdi subsequently reworked (in most cases, I prefer
the reworkings -- the tenor/baritone duet in particular builds more excitingly
to its cabaletta in the "familiar" version; here it seems to lack shape). This
isn't the state-of-the-art live recording one might expect under the
circumstances. The audibility of the singers varies as they move about the
stage, and the orchestra is recessed to such an extent that it's impossible to
tell whether Pappano's conducting is merely understated or truly spineless.
There are points (mostly when none of the soloists is singing) at which the
recording needs a volume boost to be heard at all. And the cast is -- wait for
it -- variable. They have the advantage over Abbado's group in their idiomatic
treatment of the French language, but only Mattila's work is both vocally
alluring and dramatically subtle enough to take hold in the memory and call one
back for repeated hearing -- it is one of her best performances, and she has
the top to fill out Elisabeth's highs better than anyone on a studio recording.
At the other end of the spectrum, Meier's Eboli is a total loss -- she's
embarrassingly out of her element in the Veil Song, barely able to indicate the
trills; wobbly and uncontrolled in "O don fatal" and elsewhere. The men fall
somewhere in between, none better than adequate: Alagna can be shrill and
adenoidal, though his command of the language is partial compensation; Hampson
croons and slides his way through Rodrigue, at times channeling the worst of
Fischer-Dieskau.
In sum, if someone were to ask me for a recommendation with regard to
_Carlo/s_, I'd recommend that he or she learn the opera from the Giulini
recording, which is thoughtfully conducted, beautifully played, and with vocal
glamour to burn (even if that glamour is a bit skin deep), and then make every
effort to buy, borrow, view, or hear as many of the above alternatives (and
others) as possible. As can be seen above, I've heard nothing that takes the
full measure of the work, and I may never find an "ideal" recording. I do look
forward to resuming the hunt.
- Todd K
LastRedLeafFalls
>and
>having once heard/seen that "true" first act, I could never regard any
>four-act
>performance as a more or less bothersome truncation; a hobbling.
Blech. Should be "...I could never regard a four-act performance as anything
other than a more or less bothersome truncation; a hobbling."
- Todd K
David7Gable
>How about that half-hour of _Götterdämmerung_ with Leider and Melchior,
>Furtwängler conducting, Covent Garden c. 1938?
>
Doesn't get much better than that. Like you, I admire Leider enormously.
-david gable
David7Gable
>(Assuming, of course, that it is of the quality of that _Nozze_?)
No, because I can't afford any more Don Giovanni's. The worst calamity will be
if I come suspect it's the best ever.
-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper (Earthlink)
following letters to be typed in
> When Tennesse Williams Died, Storm Fiels, a weather man turned achor
> man here in new york called hime tennesse Ernie Williams. He was
> instantly turned back into a weather man. Poof!!!
Haw! One more mistake, and he'll be covering classical music for
Associated Press!
Jon A Conrad
own personal taste. (Which includes a desire for good singing, playing,
and conducting; completeness; audibility; style and passion and
conviction.) The cast members I list are the ones I feel contribute to the
recording's excellence.
Mozart: COSI FAN TUTTE. Decca/Solti. Lorengar, Berganza, Davies, Krause.
Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
Verdi: DON CARLO. EMI/Giulini. Caballe, Verrett, Domingo, Milnes.
Verdi: AIDA. EMI/Muti. Caballe, Cossotto, Domingo.
Verdi: OTELLO. RCA/Toscanini.
Wagner: GOETTERDAEMMERUNG. Decca/Solti. Nilsson, Ludwig, Windgassen,
Fischer-Dieskau, Neidlinger, Frick.
Puccini: LA BOHEME. EMI/Beecham. De Los Angeles, Amara, Bjoerling,
Merrill, Reardon, Tozzi.
Puccini: TORANDOT. Decca/Mehta. Sutherland, Caballe, Pavarotti, Krause,
Ghiaurov.
Strauss: ARIADNE AUF NAXOS. EMI/Kempe. Janowitz, Prey.
Strauss: DIE FRAU OHNE SCHATTEN. EMI/Sawallisch. Studer, Schwarz.
Aaand... there's 10 already. No room for any of my Britten
(Grimes/Haitink, Screw/Bedford, Dream/HaitinkVideo).
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
Simon Roberts
I generally agree (and toss in Signani and a few other Amnerises as well).
As for Muti and Aida, I don't much care for his studio recording, but I
would take his recent live recording on Orfeo over any stereo studio
recording I've heard, partly because of the Aida; Tomowa-Sintow (a singer
I don't usually much care for), Fassbaender and Nimsgern may not sound quite
authentically Italian (if so, it doesn't bother me at all), but they're
otherwise superb (and Domingo is at his best). First rate sound, too.
Have you heard it?
Simon
LastRedLeafFalls
I have not, but I've been tempted by other good reviews of it (the first and
most enthusiastic in _Gramophone_), and your comments help its case. What was
holding me back was Tomowa-Sintow, whose vibrato I often find so coarse and
excessive as to suggest instability, and the basic timbre of the voice doesn't
do much for me either (having just used "matronly" on Gorr, I wish I could
think of some other word that does the job -- "hefty"?). But if she's singled
out as a highlight by another non-fan...
- Todd K
Simon Roberts
>
>I have not, but I've been tempted by other good reviews of it (the first and
>most enthusiastic in _Gramophone_), and your comments help its case. What was
>holding me back was Tomowa-Sintow, whose vibrato I often find so coarse and
>excessive as to suggest instability, and the basic timbre of the voice doesn't
>do much for me either (having just used "matronly" on Gorr, I wish I could
>think of some other word that does the job -- "hefty"?). But if she's singled
>out as a highlight by another non-fan...
Those are usually the very qualities that I dislike in her. I don't hear
them here (nor do I recall hearing them in a Verdi recital that came out a
decade or so ago; I forget the label). I guess you should try to listen
to it before buying....
Simon
Dan
"LastRedLeafFalls" <lastredl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030114192807...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Ok maybe some of it isn't slow. A good example is Muti's excellent tempo for
the ballet. However, 'O patria mia' is taken horribly slowly and I found it
very annoying to listen to, I think that was what I was thinking of when I
wrote that. The same goes for most of the arias. The ensembles are fast, and
rushed in many points. Karajan, slow, true, Muti, frenzied fast tempos,
balanced by boring slow sections. I needed Solti's version to gain a like
for Aida. And Gorr is fantastic, I never found Amneris seductive, more like
misunderstood. Thus, maybe Cossotto is interesting, but she doesn't throw
herself into the role like Gorr - compare the curse scene.
Dan
Elizabeth Hubbell
A splendid, stimulating posting in the best tradition of the now-dying
rec.music.opera. My sincere compliments. A breath of fresh air.
LastRedLeafFalls wrote:
>
> Geoffrey Riggs wrote:
>
> >As a hopefully successful way of inducing a response,
>
> [snip of interesting comments re: _Parsifal_ and _Meistersinger_]
>
> >With sincere hopes that this may occasion a response from
> >"LastRedLeafFalls"
>
> Well, you have set a high standard,
Todd K.'s is at least as high.
> and I hope at least for the credit of
> trying. I'm not sure how much I can do with the time I have available to me
> this evening, but...
>
> I actually left the title out of my original post by design rather than
> oversight, but as some of my acquaintances on the group may have known/guessed,
> my favorite opera is Verdi's _Don Carlo/s_. I've heard all of the extant studio
> recordings and most of the well-known live ones -- as well as many of the
> lesser-known live ones -- and I've remarked in the past that the work has been
> both lucky and unlucky on disc. Lucky in that most of the documented
> performances have *something* going for them, unlucky in that it never *all*
> seems to come together, even to the degree that one might reasonably expect --
> i.e., singers in each of the major roles who are armed with both the notes and
> the insights and also are on their best form for the occasion, with a conductor
> capable of bringing out all of this lengthy and varied score's moods and hues,
> and an orchestra equal to the task.
>
> A note on preference: I'm an unusual _Don Carlo/s_ lover in that it does not
> greatly matter to me in which language I hear it, French or Italian. I am aware
> of the awkward passages in the Italian translation, but I have found the work
> tremendously effective music and theater in both of the languages in which we
> commonly hear it. I expect that the current hardness of prejudice against
> recordings/stagings of the Italian _Carlo_, as with many other silly dogmatic
> stances of the rabid authenticism movement, will soften with time.
Frankly, what I'm hoping is that, with the emergence of certain fine
artists today who seem, IMO, to represent a slight uptick from what
we've been hearing in the last decade or so, a firmer ensemble may yet
emerge for Verdi's final Modena revision of 1886, still in French and
with the first act intact. Like Todd K., I prize a fine performance in
Italian more than a so-so reading in the original French -- so long as
the first act is retained. But, unlike Todd K., I'd probably choose an
uneven French reading like the Pappano over a splendidly executed
Italian reading like the studio Karajan if it means forfeiting the first
act.
There is no question that it is painfully correct to assert that,
even among the more plentiful Italian readings, there is still no
unequivocal benchmark that one can point to the way one can, say, to the
Di Stefano Elisir, the Sawallisch Die Feen, the De Sabata Tosca, the
Stratas Lulu, and so on. These represent moments in the opera catalogue
of sheer natural mastery that leave one in awe. Nothing comes together
in quite the same way in any Italian (let alone French) Don Carlos that
I'm aware of -- let alone any Meistersinger or Parsifal, for that
matter.
>
> I'm far more concerned with the number of acts: While a case can be made for
> the artistic achievements of some recordings of Verdi's four-act revision, my
> ideal recording would have to be one of the five-act traversals. The
> Fontainebleau music and the accompanying drama are too important to me, and
> having once heard/seen that "true" first act, I could never regard any four-act
> performance as [other than] a more or less bothersome truncation; a hobbling.
>
> Moving on to the recordings, [OMIT and?] I'll only write about the ones I've (a) heard,
> (b) remember well enough to comment upon, and (c) believe offer something of
> value in an overview (for instance, I won't be mentioning Levine's studio
> recording at all). By all means, though, feel free to speak up in support of
> anything I'm leaving off.
I suppose there are roughly half a dozen, in addition, that would seem
worthy of mention, although only one or two of them may merit
consideration as a candidate for top choice (see below).
>
> If a critical consensus choice exists, it is undoubtedly Giulini's Covent
> Garden recording of the five-act Italian translation on EMI (1970-71). This is
> eloquently conducted in its sober, restrained way, and there's abundant
> evidence of the conductor's skill at conjuring a ravishing sonority (the
> sepulchral chill that steals across the monks' music near the beginning of Act
> II; the beautifully contemplative treatment of the prelude to Filippo's big
> aria). The attention to local detail is magnificent. But there's more in this
> score than sober contemplation and dark velvety legato, and at times
> Giulini/EMI strikes me as too sedate, not so much in slow speeds as in the
> consistently gentle accents and softened dynamic contrasts. One never forgets
> that one is in the presence of a superb orchestral governor, but there are
> times when one wants less governing and more galvanizing (e.g., the
> auto-da-fé), and while CMG wasn't as sleepy in 1970-71 as he would become in
> later years, he's already trending toward slackness.
Would reluctantly agree, although there's no gainsaying his mastery of
texture.
> He has a cast of young
> singers who were all either on the verge of/in the early years of stardom
> (Domingo, Milnes, Caballé, Verrett, Raimondi), and they provide more freshness
> of voice and tonal beauty, role for role, than is to be found on any other
> commercial recording, but only Verrett's Eboli is a full and apt assumption.
I would agree that Verrett's Eboli stands out, but see my thoughts on
Raimondi following.
> Raimondi's bass is light and quasi-baritonal, which muddies the waters in the
> bass/baritone duet;
There's no question that Raimondi is a basso cantante at the most,
not a basso profondo like Ghiaurov or Christoff. But having heard
Raimondi in person, going way back to the early 70s, I have to say that
the sheer roominess and grandeur in his tone in person has been lost on
recordings (such is not always the case with boomy basses of this kind,
of course, which makes it particularly unfortunate with Raimondi) and
that the sound in person of the young Raimondi at this stage was
unquestionably bass, not baritone.
Raimondi just happens to have a peculiarly pointed quality in his upper
tones, which didn't detract from the generally imposing quality of his
authentic bass in person, but which is exaggerated to a degree in
recordings, swamping the overall effect of his voice. I happen to
admire Raimondi quite a bit. I might still take Ghiaurov over Raimondi
in this role, but I might very well take Raimondi over Christoff, who
was, of course, quite celebrated in this part. (For more on Christoff,
see below.)
> Milnes has a tendency here to insert hammy mannerisms in
> the place of a characterization;
I'm afraid that's right, even though the voice is splendidly healthy
here and appears free of the pitch problems that were to overtake him
relatively soon after this set was made.
>Caballé's dramatic temperament, always a
> darting and elusive thing, is more or less submerged; Domingo sounds splendid
> but a little reticent, as if in awe of the occasion.
Tend to agree on both counts.
There is a much more energized Giulini reading from more than ten years
earlier that I find has all of his strengths and none of his weaknesses:
a "live" Covent Garden performance from 1958 starring one of the three
finest interpreters (IMO) of the title role, Jon Vickers. (I cover the
other two further down.) This was an epochal Visconti production that
revealed to many audiences for the first time the full artistic
dimensions of Verdi's masterpiece. (FWIW, I go back and forth between
this and Otello as Verdi's finest work.)
The interplay between all the principals is extraordinary throughout.
Gre Brouwenstijn's heartbreaking tension with Vickers in the later acts
is brilliant, and Vickers responds accordingly. There is the same
thrilling rapport between the "live" Rodrigo of Tito Gobbi and the King
Philip of Boris Christoff. The latter is heard to more varied effect in
this reading than in either of his studio outings, although I still find
that he (occasionally) overdoes the granitic in this role. Ghiaurov
(later in his career) attains more of a balance in this role, IMO.
Barbieri, too, is utterly committed dramatically and responds well to
her superbly directed colleagues. Unfortunately, she can no longer sing
the role properly and literally "marks" all the top notes, singing not
one of them at any point in the evening! This is sad, for stylistically
and tonally she has a rightness in this role that few can match.
Barbieri's dire vocal troubles and the performing edition are the chief
stumbling blocks in this set. Although Giulini's choice to restore the
first act from decades of slumber (at that time) is welcome, the rest of
the score is subjected to dozens of hair-raising nips and tucks
throughout -- and in some cases, five-or-ten-minute stretches get dumped
entirely! This is probably the most disconcerting aspect of this entire
performance and is the reason why it too cannot be considered truly
self-sufficient or a benchmark. There is, however, one dominant aspect
that stays with one long after: Jon Vickers' indelible loneliness and
the secure musicianship with which he conveys all the anguish in this
role. Don Carlo himself is the spine that holds the entire structure of
this masterpiece together, but it is rare to have a protagonist with the
perception, let alone the vocal variety, to restore the true importance
of this Hamlet-like figure after all.
>
> The earlier Covent Garden recording led by Solti (1965, Decca), also five-act
> Italian and also starry, provides some of what I find lacking in Giulini's, but
> with predictable corresponding deficits -- *his* conducting strikes me as *too*
> pushy, superficial, even graceless in its trod through more lyrical passages.
Spot-on, IMO.
> Solti's singers are more engaged, especially Bergonzi's quite unsurpassed
> Carlo.
Here I would disagree: I believe he is surpassed by three "live"
interpretations (one being Vickers) and equalled by yet a fourth in the
recording studio. But he is certainly one of the two finest ever to
record the role in the studio, that's for sure (for his equal in the
studio, see below).
> Ghiaurov has a voice that I find so beautiful and magnetic as to disable
> my critical faculties, and this is remarkable qua singing, but he would refine
> his Filippo over the years, and the portrayal is still jejune at this point.
Yes, it is jejune -- to put it mildly:-(
I feel the ghost of ersatz Christoff haunts much of Ghiaurov's earliest
singing, and this immature Philip and his overdone Gounod Mephisto
(opposite Franco Corelli and Joan Sutherland, also on Decca/London) are
tied for Exhibit A showing this unhappy tendency, IMO. When one
considers that (again, IMO) Ghiaurov's voice was, in fact, more
beautiful than Christoff's, this has to be counted a tragic lost
opportunity. Ghiaurov sings as though his voice is not equal, in
certain ways, to a Siepi, a Pinza, and a Plancon. But it arguably is,
and Ghiaurov didn't yet understand that the projection of yearning and
sorrow (all there in Verdi's music), melifluously expressed, does not
detract from projecting a figure capable of instilling terror at the
same time. Many singers (like Christoff to a degree, for example) never
reach the full self-confidence to truly absorb this lesson when dealing
with "the villain" (no matter the context). Thank goodness Ghiaurov
eventually did.
> Fischer-Dieskau's Rodrigo is neither the best nor the worst souvenir of his
> adventures in Italian opera, but in the mostly idiomatic company in which we
> encounter it, its fussiness grates very early on.
Earlier, rather than later -- for me, anyway. In fact, his Rodrigo
constitutes, IMO, the chief flaw in this set.
> Tebaldi is near the end of
> the line, if still sympathetic and winning; Bumbry is a capable Eboli, and
> there's the inspired touch of Talvela's enormous Inquisitor pitted against
> Ghiaurov's Philip -- a true summit of gargantuas.
>
> It is a shame that Karajan never took up the Fontainebleau music; he returned
> to the opera often, and stuck by the four-act version until the end (so has
> Muti, in a dismissable recording of 1992). That omission is what keeps me from
> making his 1978 EMI (Carreras, Freni, Baltsa, Cappuccilli, Ghiaurov) a first
> choice, or at least "co-favorite." Some of Karajan's singers are a size small,
> a situation aggravated by the massive, weighty sounds he goes in for (and it
> must be said that the orchestral passages, such as the terrifying treatment of
> the final act's prelude, are awesome in their blended sumptuousness); but
> they're in fine vocal estate and sing as though they mean what they say.
> Carreras, especially, is a match for any Carlo on record.
Among the studio protagonists, I would agree that this is the case --
even when it comes to matching Carreras up against Bergonzi. (Earlier,
Todd K. termed Bergonzi's recorded Carlo "unsurpassed". Has he
contradicted himself here?;-) Carreras throws himself heart and soul
into his role, and his voice is of breathtaking beauty. The map of his
instrument may not have the sheer variety of a Vickers, but the
sincerity of his presentation and a distinctive caress to many a phrase
place him in a special class all the same. A shame we do not get to
hear him in the opening scene: a Love Duet of the high caliber Verdi
gives his two principals is an important component of this role, and
something is missing when we don't get to hear it.
> Ghiaurov's big voice
> has dried out and wizened since the Solti set, but I find his *performance*
> more compelling this time; perhaps necessary vocal caution adds to the (mostly
> welcome) sense of restraint.
I also, frankly, find him an altogether better vocalist as well. The
sound itself may not be fully as rich as in the Solti set, but every
aspect of his technique and his musicianship are much more at his
command: the length of his phrasing, the economy of the breath, the
suppleness and variety of his dynamics, the accuracy of his intonation,
the ease of legato, the steadiness of tone -- all show far better
control and a more responsive instrument here, however slightly narrowed
the basic shape of the sound. He is a better singer, IMO, as well as
becoming the finest interpreter of the King on disc.
> Only Raimondi seems out of place; his mildness is
> even more troublesome as the Inquisitor.
When it comes to the brighter color, I would agree, but, again, the
instrument still seems quite imposing -- and I concede I may be
projecting what I've heard from him in person. Still and all, his
Inquisitor is not as apt as his King, of course.
>It is a pleasure to hear such major
> singers as van Dam, Gruberova, and Hendricks in the smaller roles. The
> conductor's personality and predilections all over this recording; most of us
> by now know whether to take that as inducement or warning, to taste. But this
> is a monumental and brilliantly executed view of the four-act version.
This work concerns (among other things) a clash of personalities. While
admiring Karajan in certain earlier offerings, I feel the visceral
personal elements in Verdi's (and Schiller's) world get (occasionally)
shortchanged here. Certain of the clashes seem to take place at a
slight remove somehow. That said, had this set included the first act,
it would have been my top choice.
>
> I also hold on to the DG Festspiel recording of a 1958 Salzburg performance
> conducted by Karajan (leaner, more urgent and excitable, less "blanket of
> sound" in approach). The edition isn't even a worthy four-act -- the score is
> cut to ribbons, as was all too customary in the era -- but it's valuable for
> preserving several treasurable performances: Siepi's Filippo; Bastianini's
> suave, almost seductive Rodrigo; Simionato's Eboli, and above all Jurinac's
> commanding and dignified Elisabetta. It's a great loss to the discography that
> the latter never took this role into the studio, and also that, in such
> majestic form as she was on this night, her big Act IV aria is significantly
> compromised by brutal editing -- a whole section in the middle is missing.
Having only heard snippets of this performance (primarily because I am
usually less interested in investigating four-act versions anyway), I'd
be curious, please, as to what kind of impression Fernandi makes in the
title role? Thanks.
[continued]
[courtesy cc of rec.music.classical.recordings posting also sent to Todd
K.]
Elizabeth Hubbell
[continued]
>
> A few end-notes on the Italian translation: I would have ditched Santini's
> dreary and dated EMI recording (1955) long ago if it didn't boast Tito Gobbi's
> thoroughly considered and brilliantly detailed Rodrigo -- no rival discussed
> here is remotely in the same league in this role. Christoff fans may also want
> this for his Filippo; for my part, I've found it monotonous with repeated
> exposure. Nothing else here need detain us.
And Santini's conducting is deadly, IMO. As already indicated, I would
agree that, despite a fabulous presence, Christoff's Filippo can become
monotonous in the recording studio.
>
> I know two live recordings of this opera that catch Claudio Abbado in more
> theatrically lively and alert form than on his DG studio set. One of the two
> (from December 1968) also fills an unfortunate gap in the studio discography --
> the fierce Eboli of Fiorenza Cossotto in her prime. She handles the Veil Song
> with a flexibility that reminds one that she did her share of Mozart and
> Rossini singing nearer the beginning of her career. She's still better under
> the lackluster direction of Inbal, July 1969. But everything else of note on
> both of these performances is duplicated in better sound elsewhere (Ghiaurov,
> Cappuccilli, Talvela, Domingo, Caballé, et cetera).
Not certain whether or not the operative words here are "in her prime".
If they are, then it's true that prime Cossotto in this role is not to
be heard in any commercial release. However, earlier, when just making
the big time, she did record the role commercially for DG -- possibly
before ever singing it on stage? (This set came out early in the stereo
era, ca. 1960.) Cossotto's interpretation is rather unformed, but the
vocalism is already spectacular. Unfortunately, once again, we're up
against the oblivious Santini.
DG's protagonist, Flaviano Labo, has, I believe, been unfairly
neglected. No, his is not the inspired reading of a Carreras or a
Bergonzi -- let alone a Vickers! -- but he is a secure singer with a
degree of freedom and abandon in his impersonation that wears well,
IMO. The most worthwhile elements in this set are the only commercial
documentations of Cossotto's Eboli and Ettore Bastianini's Rodrigo, one
of the most suave readings of this role ever. It does not have the
insights of Gobbi's (whose does?!), but it is an extremely sympathetic,
warmly sung performance. The sincerity of a very decent, upstanding man
comes through admirably in all this sumptuous vocalism. Again,
Christoff thunders his way impressively (and unvaryingly) through the
King's music.
The other asset here (unique at the time of its release) is the
first-time inclusion of the first act. Unfortunately, numerous
irritating little cuts throughout detract from this inclusion. Its
Elisabetta, Antonietta Stella, is also not heard at her best. Flaws
like this (and the hopeless conducting) disqualify this set from
consideration for the top rank.
>
> I hesitate to bring a filmed version into this discussion, but I value the Met
> DVD of the 1983 five-act Italian (plus peasants' chorus!) conducted by Levine,
> featuring Domingo, Freni, Ghiaurov, and Bumbry. While only the tenor could
> reasonably be said to be in his prime, one is grateful to have the work of
> these performers captured and preserved in this medium -- for me, it was worth
> the price of the disc to be able to see as well as hear Ghiaurov's delivery of
> Filippo's aria. Whatever the vocal wear, he'd given up nothing in stage
> presence. On the other hand, there's a Rodrigo (Qullico) so irritating in his
> mannerisms and vocally insipid that one may wish for the character to be shot
> two acts earlier.
For another possibly worthwhile video, see below.
>
> The two major French-language recordings are even less of a "definitive" (or
> even "entirely satisfactory") representation than the Italians, though again,
> there are reasons to make space for them. Abbado's (1984, DG) has been perhaps
> excessively criticized. I remember being warned away from it by most, but it's
> neither as bad as its detractors claim nor as good as the assembled talent
> seems to promise. The cast struggles valiantly with the language, but only
> Domingo approaches facility with it; he's keener of interpretation than for
> Giulini, and the voice is in good, representative mid-career form. Ricciarelli
> sounds tired and prematurely worn, and does her share of undersupported
> crooning, but she's dramatically invested and addresses her character's
> situation with specificity (her farewell solo to the Countess in Act II may be
> the most touching account of it on records, thin top notes and all). I can't
> say as much for Nucci or Raimondi. As Eboli, Valentini-Terrani is out of her
> weight class as well as taxed by the tessitura. Abbado brings great power and
> thrilling effect to some passages -- he shapes and paces the tenor/baritone
> duet well, and the lusty choral singing and playing in the auto-da-fé are
> welcome (as usual, the Scala players achieve considerable virtuosity under his
> baton). At other points he's indifferent, and even sloppy; the orchestra's
> attacks aren't even well coordinated with the singers in Act V.
We get another chance to hear Abbado in as lively form as in the '68
performance cited by Todd K. above, fully eclipsing Abbado's studio
rendering, IMO: I refer to a "live" 1977 Scala performance (MYTO). In
fact, this performance may be the strongest contender I know for
"Preferred Recording". It, too, is not perfect. I'm far less
enthralled than some by Obratzova[sp.?]'s ungainly Eboli. But at least
she has the notes if not the style (unlike the vocally challenged
Barbieri with Vickers, for instance, who thoroughly understands what she
is [trying to] sing and sounds entirely apt and stylish so long as she
does not have to reach above the staff).
Above all, this MYTO set projects successfully an aural image of
characters truly communicating with each other--the special ensemble
quality that the Solti set--for the most part--has.......only this
"live" Abbado reading may have even more of that, and more sensitive,
although just as exciting, conducting!
In addition, we hear the original quiet ending where Carlos is withdrawn
by Charles V into the shadows amid the recall of the sad phrases heard
at the end of the (restored) first act rather than the thunderous
rush-rush chords of the more familiar version. Other than this, we hear
Verdi's final thoughts throughout the performance -- and uncut -- but I
believe there is good reason for restoring the quiet ending. In the
familiar revision, the thundering chords at the end of the opera recall
what had become the first act by recalling the theme sung by the
offstage voices led by the Friar (really Charles V) in Act II. This
aptly rounds out a four-act opera by bringing to mind sounds and
harmonies from what has become Act I. In the original ending, the quiet
notes bringing down the curtain recall Don Carlo's dejected phrases upon
being deprived of Elisabetta (or Isabelle) in Act I. Clearly, Verdi
intended the ending to "round out" the experience for the audience by
renewing an acquaintance with the emotions and associations connected
with the happenings of the first act, whatever those might be. It seems
to make more sense, IMO, to adopt the original quiet ending if one is to
include the first act. Otherwise, one wonders why the theme of the
offstage friars should seem so important as to be reprised in the
opera's final moments at all. The thunderous ending seems a relic
peculiarly suited to the four-act version. Why retain it when one can
have the duet and its sad outcome at Fontainebleau? Rightly, that
Fontainebleau scene haunts the entire score, and its recall in the
opera's original final measures becomes heartbreaking in Abbado's
hands. It is of note, I believe, that, starting with the revised Forza,
we have a series of masterpieces from Verdi that all end quietly: the
Forza revision, the original Don Carlos, Aida, the Requiem and Otello.
Hearing the full canvas of Verdi's Don Carlos (the ballet, though, is
omitted) with a superb cast in their vocal prime under an inspired
Maestro Abbado makes this a unique experience. No one could ignore the
profound greatness of Verdi's opera after hearing this amazing
performance. If one is interested in hearing the most gripping
performance available of a full reading of the complete score, then this
Abbado set *may* come closer to being that than any other.
As I say, though, it is still not perfect, IMO. The catch? Well, with
all of the inspired integration of passage after passage, this Abbado
reading still does not use the original French. It reverts to the
traditional Italian translation. So, if one is ultimately interested in
acquiring a French-language version superior to the DG, one still looks
elsewhere.
Its cast? Here, the news is good. Aside from the stylistically
challenged Obratzova[sp.?], the principals of this Abbado performance
are essentially the same as those on the four-act Karajan set -- save
that they are a year younger, sound a tad fresher, are just as
dramatically involved, with a conductor that, IMO, is more sympathetic
and just as dramatically acute, if not more so. In addition, in place
of the cantante Raimondi as the Inquisitor, we get the profondo
Nesterenko in his prime. An added attraction is the priceless
experience of hearing the fresh-voiced Carreras and Freni in the duet at
Fontainebleau!
>
> Pappano's more recent attempt (EMI, 1996), made from live performances, gets
> much better press than Abbado's, but I'm not sure it's a significant advance.
> The chief distinguishing feature (or saving grace, at culling time?) is its
> strict adherence to the music of the Paris premiere, and so one can enjoy the
> novelty of hearing rare and unfamiliar music integrated with the familiar
> (rather than consigned to an appendix disc, as with Abbado/DG), as well as
> earlier versions of scenes Verdi subsequently reworked (in most cases, I prefer
> the reworkings -- the tenor/baritone duet in particular builds more excitingly
> to its cabaletta in the "familiar" version; here it seems to lack shape).
Frankly, I would agree when it comes to the relative weakness of the
original settings, the sole exception, IMO, being Verdi's original quiet
ending to the score that I've already cited above. However, having to
forego Verdi's rewrites elsewhere is not necessarily a deal-breaker for
me if I can hear it all in French and with reasonably adequate (if not
uniformly inspiring) singers.
> This
> isn't the state-of-the-art live recording one might expect under the
> circumstances. The audibility of the singers varies as they move about the
> stage, and the orchestra is recessed to such an extent that it's impossible to
> tell whether Pappano's conducting is merely understated or truly spineless.
> There are points (mostly when none of the soloists is singing) at which the
> recording needs a volume boost to be heard at all. And the cast is -- wait for
> it -- variable. They have the advantage over Abbado's group in their idiomatic
> treatment of the French language, but only Mattila's work is both vocally
> alluring and dramatically subtle enough to take hold in the memory and call one
> back for repeated hearing -- it is one of her best performances, and she has
> the top to fill out Elisabeth's highs better than anyone on a studio recording.
> At the other end of the spectrum, Meier's Eboli is a total loss -- she's
> embarrassingly out of her element in the Veil Song, barely able to indicate the
> trills; wobbly and uncontrolled in "O don fatal" and elsewhere. The men fall
> somewhere in between, none better than adequate: Alagna can be shrill and
> adenoidal, though his command of the language is partial compensation; Hampson
> croons and slides his way through Rodrigue, at times channeling the worst of
> Fischer-Dieskau.
Surprisingly, a different reading by the same cast of the same version
comes off better in a Video edition. Here, everybody sounds more "up"
and there is an elan from Alagna that is quite surprising. What both
the CD and the Video have in common is (I would agree) an overwhelming
Elisabetta (or rather Isabelle in the French) from Karita Mattila.
Though the general condition of the cast is superior in the Video,
Mattila easily overwhelms the rest of the principals in both the Video
and the CD.
If one is happy with a Video rather than a CD and would prefer hearing
it in the original French, I'd say the search ends here. The Video with
Alagna and Pappano conducting is a reasonably viable presentation of the
original version in the language in which it was first written. Yes,
there is still plenty of room for improvement, but I find this Video to
be slightly more than a mere stopgap (unlike its strangely uncomfortable
CD).
If one restricts the search for an adequate French version to CD, a
"live" performance on the PONTO label seems to boast a somewhat more
cohesive ensemble, IMO, than either the Pappano set (as heard on CD) or
the DG French version with the off-form Abbado: this features Andre Turp
in the title role. That said, the Turp version still has its
inconsistencies, certainly a paucity of glamorous voices, albeit they
all sing attentively and idiomatically. One will find that, as an
overall performance, this still does not have as much "carry-through" as
the "live" Abbado from '77. The performance is under the efficient, but
not profound, baton of Maestro Matheson.
It is a shame that, among the three most mercurial and moving
interpretations of the title role, only the Vickers Don Carlo was
afforded the chance to be preserved with the first act intact, with
mostly effective colleagues and with a conductor of genuine Verdian
command. That fact alone entitles the Vickers/Giulini to consideration
as a more serious candidate for parity with the '77 Abbado Scala
performance than any other. (Ironic that both these "live" sets are on
MYTO.)
IMO, the other two protagonists that ought to be considered as equally
wide-ranging in their mastery of the different facets of the role are
Jussi Bjoerling and Franco Corelli. There are significant differences
between these two, of course, and when they arrive at a point of mastery
in this music, they reach it from different directions. Bjoerling is
ever the secure musician, but it took Webster's stage direction at the
Metropolitan to bring Bjoerling to as live an awareness of words,
volatility and dynamic variety (intrinsic to this role, IMO) as
Corelli's. OTOH, Corelli's occasionally present/occasionally absent
grasp of subtlety and his uneven musicianship can play fast and loose
with his Don Carlo as early as the early '60s or as late as the early
'70s. Fortunately, Margaret Webster's Met production in 1950 caught
Bjoerling at just the right moment, as heard in a "live" broadcast from
the 50/51 season, and when the Met gave the opera on tour in late 1966,
Corelli was at his most imaginative, as well as his vocal best. (Some
admire the solid ensemble around Corelli in the Vienna broadcast under
Stein (1970), but I do not find Corelli quite as open and generous here,
and, even though the overall cast in Vienna is superior, Vienna isn't
perfect either, with a hectoring Rodrigo, IMO, in Eberhard Waechter; a
still later, equally exciting, ensemble is heard around Corelli in 1972
from the Metropolitan, but here, too, IMO, Corelli is not at his best,
while the cast around him is still not as satisfying, though good, as in
the '77 Abbado or the '58 Giulini -- if one can't have an ensemble that
at least rivals those two, one may as well take Corelli at his very
best, i.e. in '66.) Neither Bjoerling nor Corelli are heard, at any
point in their discography, in the first act:-(.
The Bjoerling from 1950 is burdened with an Elisabetta, who, despite a
striking instrument and much personality, only "brings it all together"
to a degree in the final scene. This is an artist whose highly
infrequent recordings from the '40s show an uncommon talent. One must
regret the decline that appears evident during her Metropolitan
sojourn. However, one reason, aside from Bjoerling, to value this
performance is the experience of Barbieri's Eboli in her galvanizing
prime. Also, Siepi's King is heard at its most youthful, Merrill's
Rodrigo is possibly as sumptuously sung as Bastianini's, and we get a
chance to hear a genuine profondo at his most youthful as well, Jerome
Hines. The conductor here is not as inspiring with this score as others
we have heard, but he does not get in the way of his sterling
protaganist.
Neither is the conducting in the "live" tour performance in '66 that
satisfying. But Corelli is fully as inspiring as Bjoerling. Even more
than the Bjoerling performance, the chief aspect that gives this '66 set
its distinction is its protagonist at the height of his powers. The
ensemble is not as distinguished as for Bjoerling, although Kabaivanska
in '66 is a superior Elisabetta, and it's intriguing, although not too
illuminating, to hear "live" the young, immature Ghiaurov repeating his
impressively thundered, though not probing, King that we hear under
Solti. Since this set was recorded out in the middle of the auditorium
with home equipment (apparently), it is not in as good sound as the
Bjoerling set. But for anyone studying the title role, it is as
essential listening as the Vickers or the Bjoerling.
I don't look on it as a coincidence that the two most influential
productions in bringing Don Carlo back on the map, so to speak, were the
Webster production starring Bjoerling and the Visconti production with
Vickers. Bjoerling and Vickers bring overwhelming vocal abundance and
profound emotional insight to the title role (as does Franco Corelli).
This, and strong colleagues, told in the long run. Still and above all,
IMO, it was the magic at the center of the cast that set the seal on Don
Carlo's revival in the second half of the twentieth century. Yes,
Verdi's opera is a magnificent epic that depends on consistency of
dedication and emotional projection from all -- a true ensemble, in
other words. But, in addition, it takes the overwhelming stature of a
Bjoerling, a Vickers or a Corelli to indicate that Verdi's title role
may be, IMO, Italian -- and French? -- opera's answer to Shakespeare's
Hamlet. This may sound like hyperbole, but, hearing the courageous
emotional and musical commitment and infinite vocal variety of
Bjoerling, Vickers and Corelli in this role, such a claim can seem all
too plausible.
>
> In sum, if someone were to ask me for a recommendation with regard to
> _Carlo/s_, I'd recommend that he or she learn the opera from the Giulini
> recording, which is thoughtfully conducted, beautifully played, and with vocal
> glamour to burn (even if that glamour is a bit skin deep), and then make every
> effort to buy, borrow, view, or hear as many of the above alternatives (and
> others) as possible. As can be seen above, I've heard nothing that takes the
> full measure of the work, and I may never find an "ideal" recording. I do look
> forward to resuming the hunt.
I suppose, for me, I might recommend starting with the "live"
Carreras/Abbado, balancing that with the Vickers/Giulini, and following
that with two studio sets, the Karajan (despite its four acts) and the
early '70s Giulini. When utterly smitten with Verdi's dramaturgy and
brilliance at characterization, that would probably be the time to move
on to the Bjoerling broadcast and to Franco Corelli on tour ('66).
Like Todd K., I wish I could recommend one single recording. I can't.
One could dream that Berini might have replaced Obratzova[sp.?], the
ballet might have been restored and the performance might have been done
in French, when it comes to the "live" '77 Abbado. One could wish that
all the cuts might have been opened, Simionato might have been tapped
for Eboli and French been used, when it comes to the Vickers. One could
wish that the first act might have been restored and the French text
used and the vocal/orchestral balance modified somewhat in the Karajan,
and that Vickers and a youthful Abbado ("live") and a French text might
have been substituted in the '70s Giulini. But none of this was to be,
and a totality is yet to be achieved. Hence, the cumbersome
recommendation of four versions!
Todd K. has initiated an exciting journey through the discography of a
towering masterpiece, and he is much to be congratulated.
With sincere gratitude for such an inspirational posting,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
[courtesy cc of rec.music.classical.recordings posting also sent to Todd
K.]
Marcus Maroney
> What's the world's WORST opera...?
>
> "A Streetcar Named Desire" by Andre Previn.
I'm sorry, but Michael Daugherty's horrid contribution ("Jackie O.")
to the genre takes the cake.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
David7Gable
>The two best opera recordings are coupled on the same cd
>
>1)Rigoleto-Last Act Toscanini 1944 Live
>2)Boito Mefistofole Prologue Toscanini 1954 Live
>Moscana
>The Childrens Chorus
>and That Brass
What do you think of the Toscanini recording of Verdi's Te Deum? It's one of
my favorite recordings of anything and my nomination for the most underrated
piece of 19th century music.
-david gable
David7Gable
I don't either, despite the opulent vocalism of Cossotto and Domingo.
> Fassbaender and Nimsgern may not sound quite
>authentically Italian (if so, it doesn't bother me at all), but they're
>otherwise superb (and Domingo is at his best).
Fassbaender??? Now that sounds interesting.
-david gable
David7Gable
>herself into the role like Gorr - compare the curse scene.
>
I have to agree with you there. I always love Cossotto's singing but always
wish she was more distinctive as actress and musician. Dan, have you heard
Barbieri on the Milanov-Barbieri-Bjoerling-Warren set with Perlea? Although
Milanov spoils a lot of that set for me (but emphatically not the entire final
scene).
-david gable
LastRedLeafFalls
>Frankly, what I'm hoping is that, with the emergence of certain fine
>artists today who seem, IMO, to represent a slight uptick from what
>we've been hearing in the last decade or so, a firmer ensemble may yet
>emerge for Verdi's final Modena revision of 1886, still in French and
>with the first act intact.
Agreed.
>There is no question that it is painfully correct to assert that,
>even among the more plentiful Italian readings, there is still no
>unequivocal benchmark that one can point to the way one can, say, to the
>Di Stefano Elisir, the Sawallisch Die Feen, the De Sabata Tosca, the
>Stratas Lulu, and so on.
Right. I couldn't honestly say that any of what's available to us gets as much
of it "right" as what I had put on my original list in the "personal ten"
thread.
>There's no question that Raimondi is a basso cantante at the most,
>not a basso profondo like Ghiaurov or Christoff. But having heard
>Raimondi in person, going way back to the early 70s, I have to say that
>the sheer roominess and grandeur in his tone in person has been lost on
>recordings (such is not always the case with boomy basses of this kind,
>of course, which makes it particularly unfortunate with Raimondi) and
>that the sound in person of the young Raimondi at this stage was
>unquestionably bass, not baritone.
I've been told this by others as well (for example, that he made a towering
Boris in the eighties). I've never heard him in the theater.
>(FWIW, I go back and forth between
>this and Otello as Verdi's finest work.)
As do I, and at the moment, _Carlo_ is leading.
Every once in a while I also express the opinion that the revision of _Simon
Boccanegra_ is not far behind them, because (a) I do believe that, and (b) it
can still use the PR.
[snip of Giulini/Vickers -- It was one of those I didn't mention because it's
been a while since I've heard it.]
>I feel the ghost of ersatz Christoff haunts much of Ghiaurov's earliest
>singing, and this immature Philip and his overdone Gounod Mephisto
>(opposite Franco Corelli and Joan Sutherland, also on Decca/London) are
>tied for Exhibit A showing this unhappy tendency, IMO.
Also his performance in the famous Verdi Requiem with Giulini. The video of it
with Karajan at La Scala (1967) documents a performance both more
stylistically apt and more musically judicious, IMO.
>When one
>considers that (again, IMO) Ghiaurov's voice was, in fact, more
>beautiful than Christoff's, this has to be counted a tragic lost
>opportunity.
Oh, I think only the most zealous Christoff fan would argue with you there.
> (Earlier,
>Todd K. termed Bergonzi's recorded Carlo "unsurpassed". Has he
>contradicted himself here?;-)
No; just a bit of sloppiness. I meant "equal of" rather than "match for."
Carreras does not *exceed* what Bergonzi had done, but in the areas that matter
to me in the role, he reaches the same level. I do wish Karajan had allowed him
all the music.
>Having only heard snippets of this performance (primarily because I am
>usually less interested in investigating four-act versions anyway), I'd
>be curious, please, as to what kind of impression Fernandi makes in the
>title role? Thanks.
I didn't mention him because he did not make a strong impression on me in this,
vis-a-vis his castmates. He makes a big, healthy sound, but what he does with
it strikes me as dramatically unvarying. It's the kind of performance some
might characterize as "provincial."
[Cossotto]
>Not certain whether or not the operative >words here are "in her prime".
>If they are, then it's true that prime >Cossotto in this role is not to
>be heard in any commercial release. >However, earlier, when just making
>the big time, she did record the role >commercially for DG -- possibly
>before ever singing it on stage?
Yes; I knew about Santini '61, and I agree that her performance there is solid
qua vocalism, but the voice would gain in size and depth as she moved into the
later sixties and seventies (compare Azucena under Serafin to Azucena under
Muti), with little compromise in the agility; and so I find it unfortunate that
Eboli is missing from her studio traversal of Verdi's mezzo bitch gallery from
that period.
>The thunderous ending seems a relic
>peculiarly suited to the four-act version. >Why retain it when one can
>have the duet and its sad outcome at >Fontainebleau? Rightly, that
>Fontainebleau scene haunts the entire >score, and its recall in the
>opera's original final measures becomes >heartbreaking in Abbado's
>hands. It is of note, I believe, that, >starting with the revised Forza,
>we have a series of masterpieces from >Verdi that all end quietly: the
>Forza revision, the original Don Carlos, >Aida, the Requiem and Otello.
Hm. I have not entirely "warmed" to the quiet ending, but that may simply be a
function of my attachment to the familiar, more theatrical and histrionic
version I'd first got to know. Your case is compelling.
>Frankly, I would agree when it comes to >the relative weakness of the
>original settings, the sole exception, IMO, >being Verdi's original quiet
>ending to the score that I've already cited >above.
A partial exception I didn't write about earlier: The Paris conclusion to Act
IV that makes use of what would become the "Lacrymosa" from the Requiem, is an
intriguing and quite beautiful "branch," if you will, in the history of this
work. It may not be the way I'd want to hear it performed each time -- I could
imagine it causing the scene to drag if not properly paced -- but I am glad to
have it as an alternative, per Pappano et al.
[Pappano]
>Surprisingly, a different reading by the >same cast of the same version
>comes off better in a Video edition.
I hope that this is soon to be released on DVD.
>With sincere gratitude for such an >inspirational posting,
Likewise. And I must set aside time to revisit Abbado '77.
- Todd K
LastRedLeafFalls
>the voice would gain in size and depth as she moved into the
>later sixties and seventies (compare Azucena under Serafin to Azucena under
>Muti),
Put those credit cards away, Fiorenza fans. The latter one should be "Azucena
under Mehta." :)
- Todd K
mniszek
> [from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]
>
> A splendid, stimulating posting in the best tradition of the now-dying
> rec.music.opera. My sincere compliments. A breath of fresh air.
It was a really wonderful posting. And your comments are no less
inspiring. But I have to reduce my response to two traditions in our
perception of "Don Carlo"2.
> >
> > Raimondi's bass is light and quasi-baritonal, which muddies the waters in the
> > bass/baritone duet;
>
> >
> Raimondi just happens to have a peculiarly pointed quality in his upper
> tones, which didn't detract from the generally imposing quality of his
> authentic bass in person, but which is exaggerated to a degree in
> recordings, swamping the overall effect of his voice. I happen to
> admire Raimondi quite a bit. I might still take Ghiaurov over Raimondi
> in this role, but I might very well take Raimondi over Christoff, who
> was, of course, quite celebrated in this part. (For more on Christoff,
> see below.)
>
I do not hear Raimondi "quasi-baritonal" in the Giulini recording. To
my ears it is a beautiful bass who imparts the tone of regal nobility
and humane doubt to the role. He is not very much lighter than
Ghiaurov, only he sings with a better fluency (or legato) than
Ghiaurov throughout the role.
On the whole I do not quite accept strict timbre requirements to opera
roles. An opera role should be sung in accordance with the score and
interpreted in accordance with the libretto. It is the result that
counts. In this connection I do not see why I should reject a
wonderfully sung and phrased Philip because the voice is not a very
deep bass. There is no indication in the Verdi score that Philip is a
basso-profondo and no other singer should ever try on the role. Rossi
Lemeni, a fascinating Philip, was not a deep bass either.
>
> > Fischer-Dieskau's Rodrigo is neither the best nor the worst souvenir of his
> > adventures in Italian opera, but in the mostly idiomatic company in which we
> > encounter it, its fussiness grates very early on.
>
> Earlier, rather than later -- for me, anyway. In fact, his Rodrigo
> constitutes, IMO, the chief flaw in this set.
BTW I find him a virtue. It is one of the most interesting readings of
the role.
> > Tebaldi is near the end of
> > the line, if still sympathetic and winning; Bumbry is a capable Eboli, and
> > there's the inspired touch of Talvela's enormous Inquisitor pitted against
> > Ghiaurov's Philip -- a true summit of gargantuas.
Why should they be "gargantuas"?
> > Only Raimondi seems out of place; his mildness is
> > even more troublesome as the Inquisitor.
>
> When it comes to the brighter color, I would agree, but, again, the
> instrument still seems quite imposing -- and I concede I may be
> projecting what I've heard from him in person. Still and all, his
> Inquisitor is not as apt as his King, of course.
It was Karajan's idea to make the Inquisitor more menacing in the
context of the words and subtones, than to present him again as a
roaring bore. I find that Raimondi was well up to the task. The
Inquisitor has become insinuating, crafty and perfidious, raising his
voice only when the King displays his great weakness, which much more
suits a 99-year-old blind man than a thundering bass.
Thank you again for your detailed comments.
Mniszek
Dan
was a fabulous Aida, though Perlea messed up the ends of scenes for me, with
his overly-hurried tempi. As much as I know Barbieri is considered a really
great singing actress, there is something about her voice that doesn't do it
for me. I find it "sour". I find I can appreciate great artists even when I
don't like them due to some personal taste (which may develop in time after
repeated listenings, ie. Callas) but there are some singers (Sutherland,
Caballe and Tucker for example) who I can listen to and say, wow that's
great singing, but still say it doesn't really do it for me in terms of
sheer sound of their voice. That being said, the only role I find
Sutherland's and Caballe's voices to be "suitable" in is something like
Turandot surprisingly (talking about timbre not heft, because neither could
have sung it properly on stage) Caballe as Violetta sounds terrible to me,
and Sutherland in the role is a joke, no matter how amazing their
pianissimos or trills or runs, or even acting (for Caballe, not JS)
Dan
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030115231054...@mb-fx.aol.com...
Simon Roberts
Never a dull moment.... And she's vocally at her peak.
Simon
Ivailo Partchev
IN the score, and BEHIND the score, and is vocally superb. Milanov is
arguably the best Aida on record, the only thing she spoils is that famous
vocalise but it's not that important compared to the true vocal colour for
Aida and the projection she brings to the part. Barbieri has the sheer power
to dominate her, great tonal imagination, great phrasing. Of Bjoerling and
Warren I say nothing, my vocabulary being insufficient. Christoff is a model
of a great singer making the most of a small part: total grasp of the role,
attention to detail, no self-indulgence at all.
Muti's EMI is I think quite miserable. Muti is simply not nearly as good a
conductor as Perlea. Cossotto is ugliness incarnate, Domingo and Cappuccilli
in bad form, and Caballe seems to be singing La Donna del Lago. Ghiaurov
sings whatever he feels like: e.g. in 2nd scene he is supposed to sing with
the choir but he does not; there is a "morte" that is supposed to be held 4
times, he does something like one and a half out of it, just compare him to
Christoff...
The Munich Muti is I think an improvement over the EMI, Domingo in
particular is better. Solti might be overall the best stereo version. Just
for the record: the best recorded Amneris is arguably Alexandrina Milcheva
on a Bulgarian recording which also has a splendid Ramfis in Ghiuselev.
Conducting is bad and the other singers are past their prime. Nikola Nikolov
was a fantastic tenor about 1960, but this is from 1974 (Laserlight lie it
was made in 1982 so that they can lie further it was a DDD recording, which
it was obviously not).
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20030115231054...@mb-fx.aol.com...
Ivailo Partchev
for the Grand Inquisitor. This is met by Christoff-Neri and
Ghiaurov-Talvela. The greatest flaw in the Giulini recording is that F is
60% and GI 30% at best. The other flaw is a praying monk / Carlo V who
sounds more Aztec than Spanish.
"Elizabeth Hubbell" <elizabet...@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3E25F5DA...@verizon.net...
lastvisibledog
> I don't listen much to opera, but I do listen particularly to:
> Boris Godunov - London/Bolshoi/Melik-Pasheev.(LPs)
Now a Sony CD, too.
Nicolai Zwar
> Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
That's by far my favorite recording of "Die Zauberfloete". One of the
most magical recordings I have ever heard.
--
Nicolai Zwar
"Billions of dollars have been spent to make these nuclear plants safe.
Fail-safe! The odds against anything going wrong are astronomical, Doctor!"
"I appreciate that, Doctor. But let me ask you: In all your fail-safe
techniques, is there a provision for an attack by killer bees?!"
(From Irwin Allen's "The Swarm")
Simon Roberts
>Jon A Conrad wrote:
>
>> Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
>
>That's by far my favorite recording of "Die Zauberfloete". One of the
>most magical recordings I have ever heard.
Do you like any of the female contributions (or, for that matter, the
conducting)?
Simon (who keeps it for Franz Crass and not much else)
Nicolai Zwar
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:22:02 +0100, Nicolai Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>Jon A Conrad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
>>
>>That's by far my favorite recording of "Die Zauberfloete". One of the
>>most magical recordings I have ever heard.
>
>
> Do you like any of the female contributions (or, for that matter, the
> conducting)?
Yes, very much so. But before you now jump all over me for that, let me
explain that I'm not oblivious to the obvious "faults" of this
recording. One could argue that the female voices sometimes seem to miss
the mark, or that Boehm's conducting is perhaps a bit slow, and you
could compare it to the many other excellent "Magic Flute" recordings
(say, Klemperer) and then ask "why this one?".
But this is one of those recordings where the sum of the parts adds up
to more than the individual parts may suggest. For one, Boehm's
"Zauberfloete" has "magic". The spoken scenes are the most atmospheric
of any recorded version I know. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Fritz
Wunderlich, and of course Franz Crass don't just _sing_ their parts,
they perform them like real actors. Hans Hotter's short scene is terrific.
There may be other recordings of the "Magic Flute" that outshine Boehm's
recording in this or that aspect. There are other versions of the "Magic
Flute" I can turn to and appreciate for the superior singing, or the
authorative conducting, or simply purely for Mozart's music. Sure. But
when I turn to Boehm's recording, I forget that I'm listening to an
opera (this may be the reason I can easily over"hear" all of the
"faults") because I'm transported into the fairy tale world of where it
takes place. That's the strength of this recording IMO.
> Simon (who keeps it for Franz Crass and not much else)
--
Matthew B. Tepper (Earthlink)
letters to be typed in news:3E2714...@bigfoot.com:
> Jon A Conrad wrote:
>
>> Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
>
> That's by far my favorite recording of "Die Zauberfloete". One of the
> most magical recordings I have ever heard.
I feel the same way. Better men than women in that cast, though.
Andy Evans
Now a Sony CD, too.
What - the London version????? That's news. available where?
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Richard Bernas
Carlos.
In my own experience, Christoff's Phillip was incredibly imposing and
compelling on stage. His command of the scene, even when silent, was
remarkable. This is obviously not caught on disc, nor is the
exceptional dynamic range of his voice, in which every pianissimo
projected in the theater as vividly as the loudest forte. So I don't
know if either the commercial releases, let alone the live Giulini
performance, really tell us the whole story of his remarkable
portrayal.
I liked the Bjorling/Corelli comparison a lot. However, the Vickers
performance was captured at an early stage of his career. It's a
dark-colored sound, more uniformly used than it was just a few years
later. For me, it simply doesn't represent the best Vickers could have
done for that role, either vocally or interpretively.
Finally, the Abbado/La Scala run of Don Carlos was televised in
Europe. Because of contractual problems with Unitel/HvK the singers
that were already signed to his production/record/film did not
participate and instead one saw Maragret Price, Domingo (on great
form) and Bruson. Has this ever turned up on audio or video? I
remember it as a very brilliant and moving performance. Giulini's dark
elegance, careful balances and eloquent phrasing animated by an epic
sweep and often electrifying orchestral playing. More than any other
conductor at that time (late 70s) Abbado "owned" Don Carlo.
Elizabeth Hubbell
Nicolai Zwar wrote:
>
> Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:22:02 +0100, Nicolai Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Jon A Conrad wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mozart: ZAUBERFLUTE. DG/Boehm. Wunderlich, Fischer-Dieskau, Crass.
> >>
> >>That's by far my favorite recording of "Die Zauberfloete". One of the
> >>most magical recordings I have ever heard.
> >
> >
> > Do you like any of the female contributions (or, for that matter, the
> > conducting)?
>
> Yes, very much so. But before you now jump all over me for that, let me
> explain that I'm not oblivious to the obvious "faults" of this
> recording. One could argue that the female voices sometimes seem to miss
> the mark, or that Boehm's conducting is perhaps a bit slow,
Mr. Zwar certainly makes an eloquent case (below) when it comes to a
strong sense of "place" in this set. When it comes to Boehm, though,
here is a real puzzler. It's not just that Boehm's conducting here is
slow (and it is a bit). There are slower ones out there that seem to
provide more "spine", IMO. It's that the incredible buoyancy heard in
Boehm's early DECCA/LONDON set (w/out dialogue) featuring Leopold
Simoneau has evaporated. That early set has on offer one of the most
alive conducting jobs I've ever heard in this work. There is such
alertness to so much of the "little things" in the music, yet it's all
so brilliantly integrated into a seamless whole that practically tells a
story, IMO (the missing dialogue detracts).
Are others here possibly struck by the oddity that, from being arguably
one of the most scintillating interpreters of this score ever, Boehm
seems to become (IMO) a pro forma nine-to-five traffic cop for DG (I'm
exaggerating a bit, but not by much I believe)? Please, what happened?
Or is it just my imagination? Thanks.
> and you
> could compare it to the many other excellent "Magic Flute" recordings
> (say, Klemperer) and then ask "why this one?".
Just as an example: Recently (and I'm not much of an
original-instruments fan, so I was amazed), I've fallen completely under
the spell of the Arnold Oestman recording from Drottningholm. Everyone
seems in character and comes off as a superb Mozartean as well. This is
a well enacted, as well as lovingly sung, reading, IMO.
>
> But this is one of those recordings where the sum of the parts adds up
> to more than the individual parts may suggest. For one, Boehm's
> "Zauberfloete" has "magic". The spoken scenes are the most atmospheric
> of any recorded version I know. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Fritz
> Wunderlich, and of course Franz Crass don't just _sing_ their parts,
> they perform them like real actors. Hans Hotter's short scene is terrific.
It's refreshing that (I believe?) all the principals here also speak
their dialogue (unlike the classic Fricsay recording) making for a
striking sense of continuity throughout.
> There may be other recordings of the "Magic Flute" that outshine Boehm's
> recording in this or that aspect. There are other versions of the "Magic
> Flute" I can turn to and appreciate for the superior singing, or the
> authorative conducting, or simply purely for Mozart's music. Sure. But
> when I turn to Boehm's recording, I forget that I'm listening to an
> opera (this may be the reason I can easily over"hear" all of the
> "faults") because I'm transported into the fairy tale world of where it
> takes place. That's the strength of this recording IMO.
By and large, I suppose I would agree on this point. It gets down to
that simple thing, atmosphere. It's rather hard to have atmosphere (at
least continuously) if one doesn't have the dialogue (as in the
Klemperer and the early Boehm and the Beecham, otherwise vivid
entries). And the way this set integrates the dialogue and the music so
naturally is quite an accomplishment, no question. Since I feel,
though, that the "live" Furtwaengler and the Oestman provide the same
vivid sense of "place" (a very rare quality, I grant) with a marginally
superior overall ensemble, I go to those usually before going to the
Boehm/Wunderlich --
>
> > Simon (who keeps it for Franz Crass and not much else)
-- but I go to this for far more than Franz Crass, whom I agree is
quite fine -- and sadly underrecorded. I am afraid that Mr. Roberts has
now stirred my curiosity<G>. Please, wouldn't Wunderlich be at least as
good a reason to repair to this set? His Tamino is one of the most
inspired and vocally lustrous I've ever heard. That would appear to beg
the (respectful) question, what's not to like<G>? Most other listeners
tend to single out Wunderlich's Tamino as well, FWIW. So I suppose I
would be sincerely interested in which Taminos have stirred Mr Roberts
most, and which aspects might he find lacking in Wunderlich?
Personally, I treasure the single cut that we have of Richard Tauber's
"Dies Bildnis" (which he recorded three times) and only wish that we had
his entire Covent Garden Zauberfloete under Beecham (1938). But we
don't, so among the complete Taminos I might single out Ernst
Haefliger's rapt assumption on the Fricsay as my "completest" Tamino, so
to speak. He brings a truly spiritual quality to the role, IMO. But it
still seems evident to me that Wunderlich remains one of the very
finest.
So please? Thanks.
Respectfully,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
Simon Roberts
<elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Mr. Zwar certainly makes an eloquent case (below) when it comes to a
>strong sense of "place" in this set. When it comes to Boehm, though,
>here is a real puzzler. It's not just that Boehm's conducting here is
>slow (and it is a bit). There are slower ones out there that seem to
>provide more "spine", IMO.
Indeed, such as Klemperer. That anyone could launch the opening of the
fast section of the first Queen of the Night aria in such a lethargic
manner is remarkable (I think, though, that there are one or two spots,
such as the Armed Men's music, which work well in this set).
It's that the incredible buoyancy heard in
>Boehm's early DECCA/LONDON set (w/out dialogue) featuring Leopold
>Simoneau has evaporated. That early set has on offer one of the most
>alive conducting jobs I've ever heard in this work. There is such
>alertness to so much of the "little things" in the music, yet it's all
>so brilliantly integrated into a seamless whole that practically tells a
>story, IMO (the missing dialogue detracts).
>
>Are others here possibly struck by the oddity that, from being arguably
>one of the most scintillating interpreters of this score ever, Boehm
>seems to become (IMO) a pro forma nine-to-five traffic cop for DG (I'm
>exaggerating a bit, but not by much I believe)? Please, what happened?
>Or is it just my imagination? Thanks.
Much the same is true of Boehm in Cosi - he presided over some remarkably
alive performances (especially live, and especially the one with Danco
released by Urania) in the 1950s, compared to which his much-lauded EMI
recording sounds rather staid (though probably better overall than the
Magic Flute).
> -- but I go to this for far more than Franz Crass, whom I agree is
>quite fine -- and sadly underrecorded. I am afraid that Mr. Roberts has
>now stirred my curiosity<G>. Please, wouldn't Wunderlich be at least as
>good a reason to repair to this set? His Tamino is one of the most
>inspired and vocally lustrous I've ever heard. That would appear to beg
>the (respectful) question, what's not to like<G>? Most other listeners
>tend to single out Wunderlich's Tamino as well, FWIW. So I suppose I
>would be sincerely interested in which Taminos have stirred Mr Roberts
>most, and which aspects might he find lacking in Wunderlich?
I probably should have said that I keep it for the men, all of whom I like
(Boehm/DG probably has the best two armed men on records, for instance).
As for Wunderlich, while I still like most of what he does, and can hardly
complain about his voice as such, I find him a trifle disappointing
dramatically - he often seems a bit uninvolved (the worst example being
where he mentions to Papageno that it's "eine schrechliche Nacht." He
sounds as though he's checking off inventory in a hardware store. I
prefer Burrows on Solti I (a performance I very much like in many other
ways, though not orchestral balance).
>
>Personally, I treasure the single cut that we have of Richard Tauber's
>"Dies Bildnis" (which he recorded three times) and only wish that we had
>his entire Covent Garden Zauberfloete under Beecham (1938). But we
>don't, so among the complete Taminos I might single out Ernst
>Haefliger's rapt assumption on the Fricsay as my "completest" Tamino, so
>to speak. He brings a truly spiritual quality to the role, IMO. But it
>still seems evident to me that Wunderlich remains one of the very
>finest.
I agree (re Wunderlich, that is - I'm not wild about Haefliger's voice).
I would put Dermota very high on the list of desirable Taminos (Beecham's
Roswaenge wouldn't be anywhere near it).
Simon
Elizabeth Hubbell
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:39:19 GMT, Elizabeth Hubbell
> <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's that the incredible buoyancy heard in
> >Boehm's early DECCA/LONDON set (w/out dialogue) featuring Leopold
> >Simoneau has evaporated. That early set has on offer one of the most
> >alive conducting jobs I've ever heard in this work. There is such
> >alertness to so much of the "little things" in the music, yet it's all
> >so brilliantly integrated into a seamless whole that practically tells a
> >story, IMO (the missing dialogue detracts).
> >
> >Are others here possibly struck by the oddity that, from being arguably
> >one of the most scintillating interpreters of this score ever, Boehm
> >seems to become (IMO) a pro forma nine-to-five traffic cop for DG (I'm
> >exaggerating a bit, but not by much I believe)? Please, what happened?
> >Or is it just my imagination? Thanks.
>
> Much the same is true of Boehm in Cosi - he presided over some remarkably
> alive performances (especially live, and especially the one with Danco
> released by Urania) in the 1950s, compared to which his much-lauded EMI
> recording sounds rather staid (though probably better overall than the
> Magic Flute).
Nevertheless, I would not say that the DG Magic Flute necessarily shows
Boehm *entirely* off-form (while I might agree that the tame EMI Cosi is
still a tad better). That dubious distinction belongs to his DG Don
Giovanni with Fi-Di, IMHO. Talk about holding on to sets for isolated
reasons(!): Arroyo, Grist, Talvela and Mariotti[sp.?] (a rare basso
Masetto, as Mozart possibly wanted) are the only reasons I hold on to
this one.
>
> > -- but I go to this for far more than Franz Crass, whom I agree is
> >quite fine -- and sadly underrecorded. I am afraid that Mr. Roberts has
> >now stirred my curiosity<G>. Please, wouldn't Wunderlich be at least as
> >good a reason to repair to this set? His Tamino is one of the most
> >inspired and vocally lustrous I've ever heard. That would appear to beg
> >the (respectful) question, what's not to like<G>? Most other listeners
> >tend to single out Wunderlich's Tamino as well, FWIW. So I suppose I
> >would be sincerely interested in which Taminos have stirred Mr Roberts
> >most, and which aspects might he find lacking in Wunderlich?
>
> I probably should have said that I keep it for the men, all of whom I like
> (Boehm/DG probably has the best two armed men on records, for instance).
> As for Wunderlich, while I still like most of what he does, and can hardly
> complain about his voice as such, I find him a trifle disappointing
> dramatically - he often seems a bit uninvolved (the worst example being
> where he mentions to Papageno that it's "eine schrechliche Nacht." He
> sounds as though he's checking off inventory in a hardware store. I
> prefer Burrows on Solti I (a performance I very much like in many other
> ways, though not orchestral balance).
Sincere thanks for answering my query.
>
> >
> >Personally, I treasure the single cut that we have of Richard Tauber's
> >"Dies Bildnis" (which he recorded three times) and only wish that we had
> >his entire Covent Garden Zauberfloete under Beecham (1938). But we
> >don't, so among the complete Taminos I might single out Ernst
> >Haefliger's rapt assumption on the Fricsay as my "completest" Tamino, so
> >to speak. He brings a truly spiritual quality to the role, IMO. But it
> >still seems evident to me that Wunderlich remains one of the very
> >finest.
>
> I agree (re Wunderlich, that is - I'm not wild about Haefliger's voice).
> I would put Dermota very high on the list of desirable Taminos
Agreed on Dermota: Haefliger, Simoneau, Dermota, Wunderlich are about
the pick of the crop, IMO.
I like some of Gedda's Tamino, but I can't help feeling it might have
been more simpatico a year or two earlier. It's fortunate, I feel, that
Simoneau made his studio recording when he did, since, IMminorityO,
Simoneau in 1959 ("live" with Szell) is already sounding rather sere.
My failing? I suppose when it comes to Burrows, even though I was much
taken with his voice per se at his Metropolitan broadcast debut in the
role (c. '71-'72), he always seemed slightly "metronomic", so to speak,
in his approach -- at least to me (the broadcast was under Maag, not
Solti). But then, I always go for Tauber's quite free 78s!<G>
BTW, any feelings re Kurt Streit on the Oestman/Drottningholm? Just
curious.
> (Beecham's
> Roswaenge wouldn't be anywhere near it).
AMEN!!!! Talk about the Emperor's new clothes! It *hurts* whenever I
read accounts of Beecham and Legge's attempt at getting Tauber for the
set. Roswaenge must be the most ungainly, most percussive Tamino
anywhere. What a ripoff. I realize there are a few rather remarkable
78s of this tenor in other rep. I've heard some of them, and they're
certainly striking, at least. But his Mozart.........
One wonders, if they couldn't get Tauber, why they couldn't go to
someone like Patzak or Voelker or Groh or Pataky or even someone like
Nash in England. He may sometimes come off as a stuffed shirt, but at
least he can *sing* this stuff. Heck, if one's going to go for a
Teutonic heldentenor, why not go all the way and pick Melchior!!<GG>
Personally, I truly believe that, with a decent Tamino and the dialogue
restored, this Beecham set would be near-impossible to beat.
Cheers,
Geoffrey
www.operacast.com
Commspkmn
<< As for Wunderlich, while I still like most of what he does, and can hardly
complain about his voice as such, I find him a trifle disappointing
dramatically - he often seems a bit uninvolved (the worst example being
where he mentions to Papageno that it's "eine schrechliche Nacht." He
sounds as though he's checking off inventory in a hardware store. >>
I'm more impressed by Wunderlich on the DGG set than you are. But for
comparison, compare his 1964 Munich performance, issued on Golden Melodram.
Here, Wunderlich is far more passionate than in his studio recording. And the
Pamina of Anneliese Rothenberger and Papageno of Hermann Prey only add to the
pleasure.
Ken Meltzer
Simon Roberts
<elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I like some of Gedda's Tamino, but I can't help feeling it might have
>been more simpatico a year or two earlier.
If you want to hear him at his best in this music, listen (if you can
stand the translation) to Karajan's Flauto Magico from 1953 on Myto (and
probably others); he's far better there.
It's fortunate, I feel, that
>Simoneau made his studio recording when he did, since, IMminorityO,
>Simoneau in 1959 ("live" with Szell) is already sounding rather sere.
>My failing?
If so, mine too - I don't hear much to like on that recording. It's main
appeal for me is Della Casa, but she's better on a live performance
conducted by Boehm in 1949.
I suppose when it comes to Burrows, even though I was much
>taken with his voice per se at his Metropolitan broadcast debut in the
>role (c. '71-'72), he always seemed slightly "metronomic", so to speak,
>in his approach -- at least to me (the broadcast was under Maag, not
>Solti).
Well, I've not heard any of those. I've just been doing a Flute cull (I
don't really need more than two feet of them), and Burrows would still be
at or near the top of my personal heap.
But then, I always go for Tauber's quite free 78s!<G>
>
>BTW, any feelings re Kurt Streit on the Oestman/Drottningholm? Just
>curious.
I like him quite a bit, though among more recent Tamino's I find Blochwitz
- preferably with Christie (my favorite HIP performance of the piece),
though he's also good with Harnoncourt. I continue to find Oestman's a
bit of a problem. Every time I try to get rid of it, I listen again and
think, well, yes, in its way its more-or-less perfect. But I feel as
though I'm listening to a puppet performance rather than a real
flesh-and-blood adult event - which I get from Christie (a conductor I
almost never like, and whose Entfuehrung I find hopelessly wimpy).
>
>> (Beecham's
>> Roswaenge wouldn't be anywhere near it).
>
>AMEN!!!! Talk about the Emperor's new clothes! It *hurts* whenever I
>read accounts of Beecham and Legge's attempt at getting Tauber for the
>set. Roswaenge must be the most ungainly, most percussive Tamino
>anywhere. What a ripoff. I realize there are a few rather remarkable
>78s of this tenor in other rep. I've heard some of them, and they're
>certainly striking, at least. But his Mozart.........
Indeed.
>
>One wonders, if they couldn't get Tauber, why they couldn't go to
>someone like Patzak or Voelker or Groh or Pataky or even someone like
>Nash in England. He may sometimes come off as a stuffed shirt, but at
>least he can *sing* this stuff. Heck, if one's going to go for a
>Teutonic heldentenor, why not go all the way and pick Melchior!!<GG>
>
Absolutely. He's somewhat better for Toscanini, and at least that has
Novotna's stunning Pamina.
>Personally, I truly believe that, with a decent Tamino and the dialogue
>restored, this Beecham set would be near-impossible to beat.
>
I wish I could agree. Aside from Beecham himself and Husch, who's
superb, I don't like anything about it....
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>I'm more impressed by Wunderlich on the DGG set than you are. But for
>comparison, compare his 1964 Munich performance, issued on Golden Melodram.
>Here, Wunderlich is far more passionate than in his studio recording. And the
>Pamina of Anneliese Rothenberger and Papageno of Hermann Prey only add to the
>pleasure.
Thanks for the tip - if only I weren't trying to shed recordings of the
piece rather than add....
Simon
Elizabeth Hubbell
I would like to know what anyone here can tell us about Fritz Rieger's
conducting. I am not familiar with his work. Thanks.
I am also curious -- and if Simon is feeling hounded he can always
ignore this question<G> -- whether it's his guess that both the Oestman
and the "live" Dermota/Furtwaengler will end up on his discard pile.
Again, just curious.
As an example, I think it's time for me to discard my Norrington set. I
don't find Hadley or many of his other colleagues especially attractive,
and I've never been particularly enthusiastic re Norrington anyway. My
main reason for prizing this set was as a souvenir of Dawn Upshaw's
Pamina, whom I found incandescent at the Met under Levine (not usually
the most apt Mozartean, IMHO). But in this Norrington set, Upshaw seems
a bit hamstrung. She does not "spread her wings" the way she did at the
Met (Norrinngton's fault?).
So does Simon expect the Oestman and the "live" Dermota/Furtwaengler
(1951) to share the same fate of being set aside?
Incorrigibly,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
Jon A Conrad
[ZAUBERFLOETE]
>As an example, I think it's time for me to discard my Norrington set. I
>don't find Hadley or many of his other colleagues especially attractive,
I can understand getting rid of Norrington (I never acquired it), but
Hadley has nothing to do with it, as he's not in this recording.
Norrington's Tamino is Anthony Rolfe Johnson.
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
Simon Roberts
<elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I am also curious -- and if Simon is feeling hounded he can always
>ignore this question<G> -- whether it's his guess that both the Oestman
>and the "live" Dermota/Furtwaengler will end up on his discard pile.
>Again, just curious.
I can't decide about Oestman. The problem is, I always like it more than
I think I'm going to when I try to cull it, so I end up keeping it,
whereupon I forget what I liked about it and never listen to it anyway, so
I might as well have culled it.... Am tempted by the twofer reissue, if
only because the original takes up so much space. Not sure about the
Furtwaengler - I may just copy the Dermota bits and forget the rest.
>
>As an example, I think it's time for me to discard my Norrington set. I
>don't find Hadley or many of his other colleagues especially attractive,
>and I've never been particularly enthusiastic re Norrington anyway.
Hadley's on Mackerras's; Norrington has Rolfe-Johnson - very musical, and
dramatically aware, I suppose, but I find his tone and vibrato
unappealing, at least here.
My
>main reason for prizing this set was as a souvenir of Dawn Upshaw's
>Pamina, whom I found incandescent at the Met under Levine (not usually
>the most apt Mozartean, IMHO). But in this Norrington set, Upshaw seems
>a bit hamstrung. She does not "spread her wings" the way she did at the
>Met (Norrinngton's fault?).
Could be. I'm not keeping it. It's main appeal to me is the sheer
sonority he gets from the orchestra in certain spots, mainly thanks to his
exuberant horn players (e.g. at the end of the Queen's first aria - but
then you have to put up with Beverly Hoch's unappealing voice).
Simon
Mitchell Kaufman
> Perlea is the ultimate Aida of course, it does full justice to whatever is
> IN the score, and BEHIND the score, and is vocally superb. Milanov is
> arguably the best Aida on record
With the emphasis on "arguably." ;-)
Personally, I think she's a few years past it. Her floatability quotient is
still high (e.g., O patria mia, the more ethereal passages of the Nile duet, and
the Tomb Scene), but anything forceful or agitated is blowsy and shrewish.
Unfortunately this applies to most of Ritorna vincitor, which means exactly
fifty percent of her solos are so marred (not to mention the Aida-Amneris scene
in Act II and a lot of the Nile duet). A performance of intermittent
exquisiteness, but in the final estimate, incomplete.
The best-sung performance of the title role is for me a toss-up between
Tebaldi's first, mono recording and Dusolina Giannini's.
> Aida and the projection she brings to the part. Barbieri has the sheer power
> to dominate her, great tonal imagination, great phrasing. Of Bjoerling and
> Warren I say nothing, my vocabulary being insufficient.
I wouldn't necessarily lump those two in this particular case. Bjoerling is in
typical late-career form, which means a bit more effortful than earlier, but the
voice otherwise retaining most of the lyrical beauty; Warren, frankly, I find to
be in poor form--the voice is wooly and unsteady as it often became under
pressure (particularly at this late date--compare to his great and absolutely
secure Di Luna on the Trovatore three years earlier).
> Christoff is a model
> of a great singer making the most of a small part: total grasp of the role,
> attention to detail, no self-indulgence at all.
Others' mileage may vary, but I love Christoff in Italian opera--this being no
exception--though again the voice is not quite up to the standard of his early
years (I'm thinking around 1950 or so).
> Solti might be overall the best stereo version.
No question about that in my mind. Muti's I find square and uninflected, and in
any event I can't rank an Aida with Placido Domingo as Radames very highly
unless the rest is superlative, which this isn't.
My favorite Aida: the Met broadcast of 12/7/63 on Myto (Price, Gorr, Bergonzi,
Sereni, Siepi; Solti). Price is at her typical best in this role, Gorr is
overwhelming, Bergonzi gives the performance of a lifetime, and Solti inspires
the Met orchestra to play way over their heads. Worth it for the white-hot Nile
Scene alone.
MK
Edward A. Cowan
> Not sure about the
> Furtwaengler - I may just copy the Dermota bits and forget the rest.
FWIW, here's a reason why you might want to hang onto the Furtwaengler
_Zauberfloete_: I found it possible, when playing the HvK VPO recording
(the pre-GROC CD edition), to insert the dialog from the Furtwaengler
recording into the "spaces" between the numbers in the HvK edition. (The
singers in the two recordings are mostly the same.) This is because the
dialog in the Furtwaengler recording is (mostly) tracked separately from
the musical numbers. To be sure, I used my CD changer for this purpose.
It worked quite well.
--E.A.C.
Mitchell Kaufman
> sweep and often electrifying orchestral playing. More than any other
> conductor at that time (late 70s) Abbado "owned" Don Carlo.
Well, I think he may have shared it with Karajan (four acts of it, anyway). ;-)
MK
Simon Roberts
>
>FWIW, here's a reason why you might want to hang onto the Furtwaengler
>_Zauberfloete_: I found it possible, when playing the HvK VPO recording
>(the pre-GROC CD edition), to insert the dialog from the Furtwaengler
>recording into the "spaces" between the numbers in the HvK edition. (The
>singers in the two recordings are mostly the same.) This is because the
>dialog in the Furtwaengler recording is (mostly) tracked separately from
>the musical numbers. To be sure, I used my CD changer for this purpose.
>It worked quite well.
I'm sure, but I don't want to keep Karajan's either....
Simon
Elizabeth Hubbell
Jon A Conrad wrote:
>
> >[from Geof. Riggs;
>
> [ZAUBERFLOETE]
> >As an example, I think it's time for me to discard my Norrington set. I
> >don't find Hadley or many of his other colleagues especially attractive,
>
> I can understand getting rid of Norrington (I never acquired it), but
> Hadley has nothing to do with it, as he's not in this recording.
> Norrington's Tamino is Anthony Rolfe Johnson.
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:34:36 GMT, Elizabeth Hubbell
> <elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >As an example, I think it's time for me to discard my Norrington set. I
> >don't find Hadley or many of his other colleagues especially attractive,
> >and I've never been particularly enthusiastic re Norrington anyway.
>
> Hadley's on Mackerras's; Norrington has Rolfe-Johnson - very musical, and
> dramatically aware, I suppose, but I find his tone and vibrato
> unappealing, at least here.
Both gentlemen are so correct:-(. I realized what I had typed seconds
after I sent it -- when it was too late, of course....... I could say
that I was thinking ahead to the Mackerras when I was scribbling away
(and I was), but that doesn't palliate the sheer
sloppiness.......(excuses, excuses)..............
I then decided not to move on to the Mackerras after all, since my
recent posts have been getting *too* *looooong*. In any case, both
Hadley and Rolfe-Johnson have their problems in this role, IMO, although
I find neither of them really bad the way Roswaenge can be.
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:11:46 GMT, Edward A. Cowan <eac...@anet-dfw.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>I found it possible, when playing the HvK VPO recording
> >(the pre-GROC CD edition), to insert the dialog from the Furtwaengler
> >recording into the "spaces" between the numbers in the HvK edition.<snip>
>
> I'm sure, but I don't want to keep Karajan's either....
Ahem.......so....er....whi -- which single Zauberfloete *do* you like
most<G> (unless your preference for Christie among the HIP recordings
covers it all)? Don't worry, you're allowed to prefer two or three
rather than just one;-)
Cheers,
Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com
Simon Roberts
<elizabet...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>I then decided not to move on to the Mackerras after all, since my
>recent posts have been getting *too* *looooong*.
Given the content:length ratio, no, they haven't! I would very much like
to hear what you have to say about it. For my part I wish he had a
different cast almost across the board. His conducting and the orchestral
playing strike me as being at or near the top of the heap, but Hadley is
as unappealing as ever (though he has become worse since), Hendricks has
an appealingly distinctive tone but swoops too much (and often never quite
makes it), Anderson seems as though she may have a less girly voice than
one often encounters but lightens her tone so much for the fast bits that
that particular advantage vanishes (and she's not quite accurate enough),
and....
>> I'm sure, but I don't want to keep Karajan's either....
>
>Ahem.......so....er....whi -- which single Zauberfloete *do* you like
>most<G> (unless your preference for Christie among the HIP recordings
>covers it all)? Don't worry, you're allowed to prefer two or three
>rather than just one;-)
Just as well.... If I were to keep one only, it would be Christie's.
Increase it to two, and I would add Solti I which, despite its flaws,
strikes me as the best of the "big" studio performances overall (it
doubtless helps that I imprinted on this and Boehm's, spending hours in
my teens comparing the two on extensive loan from the local record
library before finally plumping for Solti's). But then
I wouldn't want to be without Klemperer's amazing Ladies (and Berry and
Janowitz), Boehm/DG's men, a souvenir of Dermota and Furtwaengler's
conducting, Beecham's Huesch, Toscanini's Novotna and....
Simon
Lawrence Chalmers
Peter Grimes - Decca/Britten cond.
Wozzeck - Mitropoulos
The Ring - Solti/Decca (if this counts as 4, then)
Tristan 2 and 3 - Furtwangler/Archipel
Salome - Reiner/Met '49*
Turandot - Callas/emi (!)
*But I also consider the Reiner Elektra, Salome
excerpts a top choice as well.