Rudolfinum/House of Artists in Prague
Michael Schaffer
posters as well, the Rudolfinum and the House of Artists in Prague are
the same building, right? Does that building have several halls? Some
recordings say "Supraphon Studio, House of Arts". Does that simply mean
that they recorded them in the great hall of the Rudolfinum under
studio conditions or is there an actual separate Supraphon studio there?
Pierre Paquin
Communist Era.
Wilfrid Biscaye-Prickre
www.HaydnHouse.com
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164414482.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Steve Emerson
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sure Mr Watkins will be able to explain this, and maybe other
> posters as well, the Rudolfinum and the House of Artists in Prague are
> the same building, right? Does that building have several halls?
It's a large building, and I think it may have multiple halls. Dvorak
Hall is, if I remember accurately, the big one where the CPO plays.
> Some
> recordings say "Supraphon Studio, House of Arts". Does that simply mean
> that they recorded them in the great hall of the Rudolfinum under
> studio conditions or is there an actual separate Supraphon studio there?
SE.
alanwa...@aol.com
The Rudolfinum and the House of Artists are the same building. Between
the wars it was the seat of the Czech parliament but in recent years
has more or less been restored to the original state.
The main hall is the Dvorak hall and is where the Czech Philharmonic
play. There is a smaller hall for lieder/chamber music which seats
around 200 and this is called the Suk Hall. There is also an art
gallery in the building and various other rooms which are hired out for
business seminars, receptions etc. Chamber music has been played in
the Column Hall as well but that is quite rare as it only seats about
120/130.
In the Communist era the recording aspect was administered by Supraphon
but is now in the hands of the Czech Philharmonic who hire the hall
out. There is a large control room and a second smaller control room
inside which you could record say a string quartet but nothing much
bigger than that.
There is not a separate "studio" for recordings at the Rudolfinum other
than that. In recent years the Czech National Symphony have built
their own studio where they record most of their film/crossover work
and hire it out to other groups as well. They also have a smaller
studio for rock/jazz/chamber groups.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Michael Schaffer
On Nov 25, 12:48 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
> > I am sure Mr Watkins will be able to explain this, and maybe other
> > posters as well, the Rudolfinum and the House of Artists in Prague are
> > the same building, right? Does that building have several halls? Some
> > recordings say "Supraphon Studio, House of Arts". Does that simply mean
> > that they recorded them in the great hall of the Rudolfinum under
> > studio conditions or is there an actual separate Supraphon studio there?The Rudolfinum and the House of Artists are the same building. Between
> the wars it was the seat of the Czech parliament but in recent years
> has more or less been restored to the original state.
>
> The main hall is the Dvorak hall and is where the Czech Philharmonic
> play. There is a smaller hall for lieder/chamber music which seats
> around 200 and this is called the Suk Hall. There is also an art
> gallery in the building and various other rooms which are hired out for
> business seminars, receptions etc. Chamber music has been played in
> the Column Hall as well but that is quite rare as it only seats about
> 120/130.
>
> In the Communist era the recording aspect was administered by Supraphon
> but is now in the hands of the Czech Philharmonic who hire the hall
> out. There is a large control room and a second smaller control room
> inside which you could record say a string quartet but nothing much
> bigger than that.
>
> There is not a separate "studio" for recordings at the Rudolfinum other
> than that. In recent years the Czech National Symphony have built
> their own studio where they record most of their film/crossover work
> and hire it out to other groups as well. They also have a smaller
> studio for rock/jazz/chamber groups.
>
> Kind regards,
> Alan M. Watkins
Thanks for the explanation. So the "Supraphon studio" would probably be
the control room from which recordings which are made in Dvorak Hall
are recorded and supervised?
alanwa...@aol.com
Yes you are right. On older Communist-era recordings it was really the
"Supraphon studio" (or, if you wish to be pedantic, the Ministry of
Culture studio) but today it is a bit of artistic licence - it is
"their" studio because they hired it for the particular sessions and
almost certainly used their own staff to engineer it.
Sadly today Supraphon cannot afford to use the Czech Philharmonic and
for the first time in living memory have no contract with them. All
their recent symphonic stuff is licensed from Prague Radio or back
catalogue. I exclude from this small chamber groups.
CPO's main recording contract currently is with Octavia Records, Japan
(of which I know nothing) and for whom Mr Macal and the orchestra are
recording the complete symphonies of Dvorak, Mahler, Tchaikovsky and
Brahms, at least some of them on the back of live performances. I have
no idea if the Octavia recordings are live.
The last contract Supraphon had with the CPO was, as far as I know, for
a new recording of the Martinu symphonies conducted by Mr Belohlavek
who has prepared his own "urtext" edition of them. They recorded 3/4
which I think got very good reviews but has sold under 1000 (or at
least a few months ago). The last rumour I heard was that Mr B was
going to record them all for another company with his own Prague
Philharmonia.
An amusing piece of recent "artistic licence" was the credit for a
pre-mixing Katherine Jenkins CD (which are recorded in Prague) in which
the orchestra turned up as L'Orchestre de la Rudolfinum:):)
Very grand but, sadly, the usual suspects available on the date (s)
required. And, yes, there are some from the Czech Philharmonic as you
will all understand.
Dontait...@aol.com
On Nov 25, 2:48 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Michael Schaffer wrote:
> > I am sure Mr Watkins will be able to explain this, and maybe other
> > posters as well, the Rudolfinum and the House of Artists in Prague are
> > the same building, right? Does that building have several halls? Some
> > recordings say "Supraphon Studio, House of Arts". Does that simply mean
> > that they recorded them in the great hall of the Rudolfinum under
> > studio conditions or is there an actual separate Supraphon studio there?The Rudolfinum and the House of Artists are the same building. Between
> the wars it was the seat of the Czech parliament but in recent years
> has more or less been restored to the original state.
>
> The main hall is the Dvorak hall and is where the Czech Philharmonic
> play. There is a smaller hall for lieder/chamber music which seats
> around 200 and this is called the Suk Hall. There is also an art
> gallery in the building and various other rooms which are hired out for
> business seminars, receptions etc. Chamber music has been played in
> the Column Hall as well but that is quite rare as it only seats about
> 120/130.
During the 1960s I used to hear American collectors say that
Supraphon recorded the Czech Philharmonic in "Smetana Hall." Was that
an error? Would it have been "Dvorak Hall"? Was the name changed,
perhaps? Or is there a "Smetana Hall" elsewhere where Supraphon might
have made orchestral recordings?
Thanks.
Don Tait
Don Tait
alanwa...@aol.com
Dontait...@aol.com wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:48?am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
> wrote:
> > Michael Schaffer wrote:
> > > I am sure Mr Watkins will be able to explain this, and maybe other
> > > posters as well, the Rudolfinum and the House of Artists in Prague are
> > > the same building, right? Does that building have several halls? Some
> > > recordings say "Supraphon Studio, House of Arts". Does that simply mean
> > > that they recorded them in the great hall of the Rudolfinum under
> > the wars it was the seat of the Czech parliament but in recent years
> > has more or less been restored to the original state.
> >
> > The main hall is the Dvorak hall and is where the Czech Philharmonic
> > around 200 and this is called the Suk Hall. ?There is also an art
> > gallery in the building and various other rooms which are hired out for
> > the Column Hall as well but that is quite rare as it only seats about
> > 120/130.
>
> During the 1960s I used to hear American collectors say that
> Supraphon recorded the Czech Philharmonic in "Smetana Hall." Was that
> an error? Would it have been "Dvorak Hall"? Was the name changed,
> perhaps? Or is there a "Smetana Hall" elsewhere where Supraphon might
> have made orchestral recordings?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Don Tait
>
> Don Tait
They certainly would have recorded in the Smetana Hall (aka The
Municipal House, confusing isn't it?) which is very "art noveau" and
located with several halls within in Republic Square. Built from about
1900 and something onwards and not the House of Artists and/or
Rudolfinum.
Currently the main concert home of the Prague Symphony Orchestra.
This is not to mention the Czech Collegium Symphony, the Praga
Sinfonietta (I believe I am doing Carmina Burana with them which may be
a bit much for a Sinfionietta but I am hopeful it will be expanded),
the Prague Royal Orchestra, the Beethoven Orchestra of Prague and the
Vivaldi Orchestra of Prague.
The Prague Royal Orchestra and the Beethoven Orchestra of Prague (from
personal knowledge) have the additional thrill from time to time of
dressing up in "authentic" ill fitting costumes complete with very
itchy wigs.
Sadly and rather like L'Orchestre de la Rudolfinum for Miss Jenkins
they inevitably comprise of the usual suspects who were available on
the date (s) offered.
If you understand how the players for Mr Stokowski's "His" Symphony
Orchestra were recruited (as I am sure you do) you will understand the
situation perfectly.
http://www.pragueexperience.com/places.asp?PlaceID=649
Michael Schaffer
On Nov 25, 11:04 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
> > are recorded and supervised?Yes you are right. On older Communist-era recordings it was really the
> "Supraphon studio" (or, if you wish to be pedantic, the Ministry of
> Culture studio) but today it is a bit of artistic licence - it is
> "their" studio because they hired it for the particular sessions and
> almost certainly used their own staff to engineer it.
>
> Sadly today Supraphon cannot afford to use the Czech Philharmonic and
> for the first time in living memory have no contract with them. All
> their recent symphonic stuff is licensed from Prague Radio or back
> catalogue. I exclude from this small chamber groups.
>
> CPO's main recording contract currently is with Octavia Records, Japan
> (of which I know nothing) and for whom Mr Macal and the orchestra are
> recording the complete symphonies of Dvorak, Mahler, Tchaikovsky and
> Brahms, at least some of them on the back of live performances. I have
> no idea if the Octavia recordings are live.
Isn't that "Exton"? Or are they affiliated with "Octavia"? I know there
are several Mahler and Dvorak symphonies on "Exton", but I haven't
heard any of them yet. In any case, it's good to hear they are still
active recording, although I have no idea how good the recordings are.
I never heard any thing conducted by Macal, except for one really
boring concert when he stepped in for somebody at the BP, conducting
Beethoven 7. I think he was never asked back.
The latest recording I have heard of the orchestra is the Ashkenazy
Alpensinfonie which suggests the sound of the orchestra is still
noticeably Czech, although the recorded sound is rather mushy, so it's
hard to tell.
How do they sound these days? Has the sound changed from the Neumann
days?
> The last contract Supraphon had with the CPO was, as far as I know, for
> a new recording of the Martinu symphonies conducted by Mr Belohlavek
> who has prepared his own "urtext" edition of them. They recorded 3/4
> which I think got very good reviews but has sold under 1000 (or at
> least a few months ago). The last rumour I heard was that Mr B was
> going to record them all for another company with his own Prague
> Philharmonia.
I just bought a box with Brahms recordings with Mr B and the Czech
Philharmonic which are nicely played, but musically complete
non-events. I don't think I have ever heard any more uninteresting and
superficial Brahms readings. Unfortunately, the sound is rather soft
focus and diffuse, too, so one can't enjoy the sound and playing style
of the orchestra too much. A completely superfluous product.
Brendan R. Wehrung
What sort of setup does the Slovak Phil have for Naxos?
Brendan
Gerard
>
> I just bought a box with Brahms recordings with Mr B and the Czech
> Philharmonic which are nicely played, but musically complete
> non-events. I don't think I have ever heard any more uninteresting and
> superficial Brahms readings. Unfortunately, the sound is rather soft
> focus and diffuse, too, so one can't enjoy the sound and playing style
> of the orchestra too much. A completely superfluous product.
It's not as bad as you write, where most Brahms cycli are superfluous.
But was is superb, is his (Belohlavek's) recording of the 2 Serenades.
>
> > An amusing piece of recent "artistic licence" was the credit for a
> > pre-mixing Katherine Jenkins CD (which are recorded in Prague) in
> > which the orchestra turned up as L'Orchestre de la Rudolfinum:):)
> >
> > Very grand but, sadly, the usual suspects available on the date (s)
> > required. And, yes, there are some from the Czech Philharmonic as
> > you will all understand.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Alan M. Watkins
PS Would you please cut the text you quote without replying on it?
Dontait...@aol.com
On Nov 25, 2:22 pm, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > During the 1960s I used to hear American collectors say that
> > Supraphon recorded the Czech Philharmonic in "Smetana Hall." Was that
> > an error? Would it have been "Dvorak Hall"? Was the name changed,
> > perhaps? Or is there a "Smetana Hall" elsewhere where Supraphon might
> > have made orchestral recordings?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > Don Tait
> They certainly would have recorded in the Smetana Hall (aka The
> Municipal House, confusing isn't it?) which is very "art noveau" and
> located with several halls within in Republic Square. Built from about
> 1900 and something onwards and not the House of Artists and/or
> Rudolfinum.
>
> Currently the main concert home of the Prague Symphony Orchestra.
Yes, it is confusing! But you explained it well.
What a rich musical life it indicates.
Thanks
Don Tait
alanwa...@aol.com
Octavia is what I read but it could of course be wrong. I don't
personally find Mr Macal boring and I think he can be very interesting
and sometimes quite exciting but obviously not on the occasion you
heard him. I have done Mahler a couple of times with him and I thought
it was pretty good - he was quite like Neumann, rather "straight" with
it (which some won't like of course).
As to the sound of the orchestra I think it is still noticeably Czech,
particularly the strings perhaps, and I think at least some of the wind
have got their own noise back but I don't think it can be the same as
it was under Neumann because times have changed. There are today a
considerable number of professors who will encourage students not to be
"too individual". Not all do this but a significant number do and that
is bound to have an effect. I suspect that this more prominent in
Prague than it is in say Brno or Ostrava. When I do gigs there I often
hear a sound which probably music lovers hear would say is "traditional
Czech". I did a Rusalka a couple of years ago in Ostrava where the
wind playing was utterly individual and very, very good but also full
of "character".
I would not say this has been lost but I definitely think individuality
has been "watered down" and downright frowned upon in some quarters
which I think regrettable because once you have lost this approach you
may have lost it for a very long time. However, I suspect in fairness
there are people who enjoy "soundalike" sections.
I think Mr Macal has actually done a good job with the Czech
Philharmonic but the problem lies in the future. He has a three year
contract but he's around 70 or so and one wonders if it will be
extended or whether he wants an extension. If not, they have to find a
successor and that will not be easy. He was the ideal choice: Czech by
birth but with a reasonable international standing and a known
recording artist (some very good, in my opinion). Libor Pesek is
around the same age and didn't get offered it the first time round
so..........
Jiri Kout could do it but he's neither a name nor an "international"
recording artist although musically he would be fine. Seriously
underrated conductor. Ditto Petr Altrichter, the latter possibly one
of the better guardians of the "Czech sound", even attempting it with
foreign orchestras in Czech works as Liverpool discovered. And, of
course, it's far too late for the man who should have got it earlier:
Martin Turnovsky.
We shall see!
I have not heard the Brahms recording you mention but I assume this was
recorded some while back? Mr Belohlavek tends to the lyrical in the
classics rather than dramatic - indeed I would say he does so generally
and so anyone wanting a "big statement" in works is likely to be
disappointed I would say. I did a Brahms 1 with him quite some years
ago and he was all the time cutting down the dynamics of Movement I and
there was certainly no "big statement" in the opening measures as some
conductors like (Macal among them). He is, I think, quite successful
in Mendelssohn but of course this is different from Brahms.
A Czech comparitive case in point is Mr Belohlavek's account of
Dvorak's somewhat forgotten masterpiece St Ludmila - or at least it
does not get as many outings as his more well known choral/orchestra
pieces. Mr Belohlavek's account is beautifully played and beautifully
sung (it is a glorious score) but if you heard Mr Smetacek's (three)
accounts of this piece, a work he adored, you might think you were only
getting part of the picture.
Mr B is a good no-nonsense rehearser and I respect his take on music
but I can imagine that some may find some performances underpowered.
alanwa...@aol.com
>
> What sort of setup does the Slovak Phil have for Naxos?
>
> Brendan
The truth is that I do not know the answer. In the past they have used
them quite a lot and they do a considerable amount of recording still
but I do not know if there is a long term contractual relationship. I
get the impression that some of the newer Naxos recordings have
switched to Russia where I suspect there may be cost advantages.
I think the Slovak Philharmonic is a terrific orchestra with a very
broad range of repertoire as may be seen from their current concert
listings:
http://www.filharm.sk/index.php?page=concerts
There are other fine orchestras which have yet to make a recording
impact, among them the Moravian Philharmonic and the East Bohemia
Philharmonic, the latter having Miriam Nemcova as one of their major
conductors (She is head of conducting at the Prague Conservatoire).
For Mr Schaffer lamenting an "underpowered" Brahms from Mr Belohlavek
she and her orchestra would be just the antidote to that I would
think:):)
Her Elgar Gerontius is pretty powerful as well!
Michael Schaffer
On Nov 26, 11:48 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
wrote:
> > What sort of setup does the Slovak Phil have for Naxos?
>
> > BrendanThe truth is that I do not know the answer. In the past they have used
> them quite a lot and they do a considerable amount of recording still
> but I do not know if there is a long term contractual relationship. I
> get the impression that some of the newer Naxos recordings have
> switched to Russia where I suspect there may be cost advantages.
>
> I think the Slovak Philharmonic is a terrific orchestra with a very
> broad range of repertoire as may be seen from their current concert
> listings:
>
> http://www.filharm.sk/index.php?page=concerts
>
> There are other fine orchestras which have yet to make a recording
> impact, among them the Moravian Philharmonic and the East Bohemia
> Philharmonic, the latter having Miriam Nemcova as one of their major
> conductors (She is head of conducting at the Prague Conservatoire).
>
> For Mr Schaffer lamenting an "underpowered" Brahms from Mr Belohlavek
> she and her orchestra would be just the antidote to that I would
> think:):)
I didn't say "underpowered". See above.
Michael Schaffer
On Nov 26, 11:10 am, "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com>
wrote:
> personally find Mr Macal boring and I think he can be very interesting
> and sometimes quite exciting but obviously not on the occasion you
> heard him. I have done Mahler a couple of times with him and I thought
> it was pretty good - he was quite like Neumann, rather "straight" with
> it (which some won't like of course).
I like Neumann's Mahler recordings a lot, and many other things he did.
I would be interested in trying some of those Mahler recordings, so I
have put them on my wishlist and will decide next time I order from
hmv.co.jp. They are rather pricey though, and i would also like to have
some of the Neumann remakes on the same label (Exton). I hear the
recorded sound is rather good. Not that there is much wrong with the
sound on the "old" Neumann recordings. But it would be nice to have
some alternative versions to those.
> As to the sound of the orchestra I think it is still noticeably Czech,
> particularly the strings perhaps, and I think at least some of the wind
> have got their own noise back but I don't think it can be the same as
> it was under Neumann because times have changed. There are today a
> considerable number of professors who will encourage students not to be
> "too individual". Not all do this but a significant number do and that
> is bound to have an effect. I suspect that this more prominent in
> Prague than it is in say Brno or Ostrava. When I do gigs there I often
> hear a sound which probably music lovers hear would say is "traditional
> Czech". I did a Rusalka a couple of years ago in Ostrava where the
> wind playing was utterly individual and very, very good but also full
> of "character".
>
> I would not say this has been lost but I definitely think individuality
> has been "watered down" and downright frowned upon in some quarters
> which I think regrettable because once you have lost this approach you
> may have lost it for a very long time. However, I suspect in fairness
> there are people who enjoy "soundalike" sections.
I think it's a pity if they lose that characteristic sound. We all know
the tendency goes towards a rather "globalized" sound, and there is
nothing wrong with being able to be able to play in various styles, on
the contrary, but I think orchestras should retain their special "home"
character. Those that still do and have a "brand sound" are generally
very successful with it.
> I think Mr Macal has actually done a good job with the Czech
> Philharmonic but the problem lies in the future. He has a three year
> contract but he's around 70 or so and one wonders if it will be
> extended or whether he wants an extension. If not, they have to find a
> successor and that will not be easy. He was the ideal choice: Czech by
> birth but with a reasonable international standing and a known
> recording artist (some very good, in my opinion). Libor Pesek is
> around the same age and didn't get offered it the first time round
> so..........
>
> Jiri Kout could do it but he's neither a name nor an "international"
> recording artist although musically he would be fine. Seriously
> underrated conductor. Ditto Petr Altrichter, the latter possibly one
> of the better guardians of the "Czech sound", even attempting it with
> foreign orchestras in Czech works as Liverpool discovered. And, of
> course, it's far too late for the man who should have got it earlier:
> Martin Turnovsky.
>
> We shall see!
I have never heard any of Mr Turnovsky's work. I know he was in Dresden
for just a few years, but apart from that, I don't know much about him
or his career.
Mr B was principal conductor for 2-3 years. Why not longer?
I wonder why they chose Albrecht then. He is a good conductor, but I
never found him particularly distinguished.
And then why Ashkenazy? He is a good conductor, no doubt, but he is
also one of those jetsetting people who are everywhere all the time.
Although he did some good things with the DSO Berlin while he was
there. But why didn't they chose Macal earlier?
> I have not heard the Brahms recording you mention but I assume this was
> recorded some while back? Mr Belohlavek tends to the lyrical in the
> classics rather than dramatic - indeed I would say he does so generally
> and so anyone wanting a "big statement" in works is likely to be
> disappointed I would say. I did a Brahms 1 with him quite some years
> ago and he was all the time cutting down the dynamics of Movement I and
> there was certainly no "big statement" in the opening measures as some
> conductors like (Macal among them). He is, I think, quite successful
> in Mendelssohn but of course this is different from Brahms.
Yes, the recordings were made in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't
really think these recordings are "underpowered". I have no "problem"
with a more "laid back" or "sensitive" lyrical approach at all, it
doesn't always have to be the "big statement". I just don't think Mr
B's readings make too much musical sense. There are a lot of loose ends
when passages just doodle by, that has not much to do with the chosen
dynamics or the lack of extrovert drama.
Plus since the sound is rather on the diffuse side (it's not "that
bad", but if you that kind of approach *and* the sound is somewhat
general, not allowing a lot of detail too register well, then you have
a "problem").
The playing of the orchestra is generally very good, but also very
general and not as musically detailed and inspired and characterful as
they often are.
I just heard the disc with the Dvorak fairy tale tone poems conducted
by Neumann, and that also is, apart from a few very well placed and
judged dynamic climaxes (which then are rather impressive, too)
generally rather lyrically oriented and held back, not looking for
articial drama either. The difference is that it is extremely nuanced
and musically compelling, there are no "loose ends" and the playing of
the orchestra is incredibly cultivated and refined. If we had that kind
of music making in the Mr B Brahms cycle, I would be very happy, but,
like I said, most of that just doodles by uneventfully.
I like that basic "classicist" approach in Brahms, only Mr B isn't
apparently very good at it. There are some rather "nice" moments in
which especially the woodwinds sing pleasantly, but even there, Mr B
doesn't seem to have the sensibility to give them the breathing space
and that extra tick of flexibility that would turn this from a
playthrough into real music making.
I think Brahms can work very well on a dynamically more held back scale
and in a classicist concept, as Mr Mackerras demonstrated so well in
his chamber orchestra versions.
Speaking of him, I wanted to ask your opinion about one specific detail
in his recording of the "Sinfonietta" with the WP. In another forum,
one poster said that this was "completely unidiomatic". He argued that
since Czech is always stressed on the first syllable (is that correct?
is it that simple? or are there dialect variations), the themes always
have to be stressed on the first note, too. I find that a little
simplistic, and there are themes in the "Sinfonietta" which are
onviously notated in a way which make it clear that they start with an
upbeat, not a stressed "main note".
But then there is that intermezzo in the third movement with the dotted
rhythms first heard in the trombones, and here the short note is indeed
on the beat, indicating that this should not sound like an upbeat. It
often still does, but I can hear that in the WP recording, they play a
very light accent on each first note, and it appears to me that that is
the way it should be, especially since some of the entries later are
actually marked sf, and that wouldn't make sense if all the short notes
were strongly stressed.
So the passage always sounds a little like an upbeat motif, unless the
first notes are overaccented. But I don't think this passage needs
"sledgehammer" accents.
That gentleman's argument was that the players didn't know that
accentuation rule, but I think that's bull since it is well known that
Mackerras really knows his stuff when it comes to Czech music, and
apparently he also speaks the language very well (correct?), so he is
obviously aware of that, too.
I also listened to several recordings with the CP (Ancerl, Kosler,
Neumann, and the recent Mackerras), and they play that passage in
exactly the same way. The second, longer not is also slurred to the
first, dotted note, so overaccenting the first note rather than just
giving it a very light accent would also destroy the slurred character.
Actually, in the Ancerl recording, the second note is given a lot of
weight, too, his reading of the passage sounds much more "upbeaty" than
Mackerras, but I guess Ancerl can not be accused of ignorance of the
Czech language and Czech musical styles...
Brendan R. Wehrung
(esp. London, which has always had a surfeit of orchestral players)
musicians in the early part of the last century eaked out a living by
playing the season and then spreading out to various resorts. The style
of playing and type of music was mostly different from "classical"
(although "light classics"--not the rich resource of "light music" ASV has
mined--often appeared on the programs) and this probably had an influnece
on their versitility.
Was this true of Czech players as well? What sort of summer venues did
they work at, at was the music more "national" than British resorts, a
sort of refresher course each year in their native idiom that made their
performances (and recordings) special?
Brendan
Chris Manning
alanwa...@aol.com <alanwa...@aol.com> wrote:
> The last contract Supraphon had with the CPO was, as far as I know, for
> a new recording of the Martinu symphonies conducted by Mr Belohlavek
> who has prepared his own "urtext" edition of them. They recorded 3/4
> which I think got very good reviews but has sold under 1000 (or at
> least a few months ago).
I see that I bought a copy two years ago.
> The last rumour I heard was that Mr B was going to record them all for
> another company with his own Prague Philharmonia.
I already have his recordings of numbers 1 and 6 on the Chandos label,
as well as the Supraphon disc of 3 and 4; naturally I've been waiting
for his recordings of 2 and 5 to appear.
In view of Alan's news, would anyone care to suggest which versions I
should consider?
Chris