Sibelius 5 - Gibson/LSO
Greg
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=57829
I have looked casually for this for some time without finding it for a
reasonable price, but now seems to be the time for those interested.
Does anyone that has heard it care to compare it to the competition?
Greg
td
> This, on LP, was 'coveted' mainly by latter-day Blinkered Audiophiles
> (aspects are still praiseworthy - ie some noticeable 'transparency' of
> orchestral texture).
> As a performance it's in the 'lame flop' category. Uninspired/sounds
> more like a 'rehearsal'. Fatally lacking in 'tension'. 'Careful' is
> the operative adjective...and you'd likely not be drawn ro re-listen
> to it.
> .
> And, whatever contemporary 'opinions' are, @ the outset it got some
> mediocre reviews...but not from Trevor Harvey (Gramophone', April
> 1960... You could easily have acquired a goodly Library of rubbish on
> his 'recommendation'..)
> Gibson recorded it again, for Classics for Pleasure, with the Scottish
> National (Gramophone, September 1975) and Robert Layton commented on a
> 'want of imagination'. That, some 15years later..
> Not been tempted to give that version much of a listen; the 1st
> Symphony is disappointing - as is the 1967 HMV (Scottish Nat) of
> sundry Sibelius droppings.
>
> SRG Vol.2
> Alexander Gibson,
"Sixty year old contemporaneous reviews snipped"
There are better versions of both
> these works listed in The Art of Record Buying. E.EE.
The best thing to do is to ignore such contemporaneous critics and
just listen to this performance. The next thing we know someone is
going to quote Conrad Osborne on operas from High Fidelity in the
1960s!!!!
Frankly, I have never heard a better Sibelius 5. No, not Karajan, not
Maazel, not Rattle, not Ehrling, not Berglund, not Ormandy. Nobody has
come even close to this recording, which is not only beautifully made,
but also musically unmatched, at least in my experience.
TD
td
BUY IT!!!
It is the best performance of this symphony ever set down on tape.
There IS no competition.
TD
Bob Harper
While I'm not sure I'd go as far as Tom, I agree that this is a great
performance, and that the reviews quoted are simply wrong-headed.
Bob Harper
M forever
Sure there is. Lots of it. Can you explain in musical terms why you
hold that opinion?
Taffy Brendel
No, he cannot do that. He is not capable of doing that.
His response to the reviews provided was to surprise
surprise state that they should be ignored due their
age despite that in at least one of the reviews there
was actual analysis based on the score.
When has he ever displayed any real ability to
criticize a performance in other than in the most
generalized subjective language - "molten toffy"
comes to mind.
I agree with frankwm's opinion of the recording.
I listened to it recently and was underwhelmed.
Other recordings are quite competitive ( Karajan
(I know that you are not particularly enamored of
his DG recording these days), Colin Davis (BS0),
Rattle's first recording, Berglund (first recording),
Bernstein - I am sure that others will mention
many more). I think the Gibson recording is
worth having but as was pointed out its reputation
is based more on its perceived audio quality
rather than the performance itself.
I may be wrong but I think that Deacon may
well have had something to do with having the
Gibson recording released on cd. If so his opinion
is hardly without bias.
Taffy
td
Ask me again sometime when I have a notion to reply to your queries.
TD
td
> I may be wrong but I think that Deacon may
> well have had something to do with having the
> Gibson recording released on cd. If so his opinion
> is hardly without bias.
I was absolutely instrumental in causing the release of this
extraordinary recording. Nobody in my A&R team had ever heard it
before, as it was first released on LP only in the USA and at budget
price in the UK. Decca didn't value Gibson. He wasn't one of their
artists.
Moreover, I do believe that now it has been deleted and is fetching a
high price, which says volumes. The original RCA Victor LPs also fetch
high prices and Classic Records chose it for reissue in their series.
No opinion is without bias. Mine are hardly hidden. I could care less.
Anyone who loves this symphony owes it to themselves to hear this
recording and act.
TD
M forever
There are lots of OOP recordings which go for very high prices. That
may be a rough indication of their value to collectors for a variety
of reasons, but it is not necessarily a gauge for quality.
That opinions aren't without bias is well known, but since you are so
convinced of the extraordinary quality of this recording though, you
should at least be able to explain your personal opinion in musical
terms.
This recording might interest me, but based on Gibson's later SNO
recordings of the symphonies and tone poems which are generally
competent but not really outstanding in any way, I want more
information before I am convinced to try it.
Dave Cook
> performance, and that the reviews quoted are simply wrong-headed.
Richard Kaplan rates it very highly in his Sibeliusaurus (Fanfare,
Jan/Feb 2007) . There must be few others who have listened to as many
Sibelius recordings (of course tastes differ even then.) Here is the
beginning of his entry on the 5th:
"DESERT ISLAND VERSION: Bernstein (1961). [...]
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: There are more effective recordings of the Fifth
than of any other symphony, so I will hone down the list to my
favorites, beginning with Gibson (1959). This recording with the
London Symphony was originally issued in the US on an RCA LP, coupled
with the most sparkling recording of the Karelia Suite ever; it was
once available on a Decca CD. It may be a bit understated, but the
unfolding of the musical logic is natural and sure-handed, and the
sound is terrific. Gibson made at least one other superb Sibelius LP
for EMI in the 1960s. Chandos must have caught him too late in his
career; his early-1980s cycle is sadly prosaic by comparison with his
earlier work."
The other highly recommended recordings are Barbirolli (1969), Berglund (1976 &
1984), Ashkenazy (1980), Rattle (1986), Saraste (1988), Segerstam
(1990), Davis (1994).
I wouldn't rate Gibson as highly as either of the Karajan EMI stereo
recordings or Bernstein/NYP, but it's not far from the top (I have the
London STS Lp).
Dave Cook
Spam Stopper
td
> > as it was first released on LP only in the USA and at budget
> > price in the UK.
>
> Re-issued 1966 - VICS 1016 - used the same matrices as the original
> stereo - KFBY 0049/50 1D/1D
> Re-Reissued 1971 - Decca SPA 122 - matrices ZAL 10324/5... re-cut
> twice: - last being 3W/2W.
>
> Sold a pristine 1960 copy to Korea - where they'll buy any old
> rubbishy performance...as that market is led-by-the-nose by the Cloth-
> Eared & Unscrupulous..
You confirm my point.
Decca never issued this recording at full price. It was immediately
licensed to RCA Victor for release in the USA and the UK.
Seems the Koreans know what is what.
TD
td
I don't care whether you get it or not, quite frankly. If you don't
get it, I will be thrilled, because it means that you will continue to
be ignorant.
TD
O
<1e0cf1e4-c880-4988...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> I don't care whether you get it or not, quite frankly. If you don't
> get it, I will be thrilled, because it means that you will continue to
> be ignorant.
>
Really? Ignorance gives you a thrill?
-Owen
td
> > Decca never issued this recording at full price. It was immediately
> > licensed to RCA Victor for release in the USA and the UK.
>
> Made from a Master Recording of R.C.A."
>
> Mastered/Pressed/Advertised/Distributed by...Decca.
Of course.
RCA Victor had a deal in the late 1950s to press RCA Victor product
for sale in the UK.
TD
td
> In article
> <1e0cf1e4-c880-4988-a8c4-0ccf1eaf7...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, td
>
> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't care whether you get it or not, quite frankly. If you don't
> > get it, I will be thrilled, because it means that you will continue to
> > be ignorant.
>
> Really? Ignorance gives you a thrill?
When it suits the ignoramus to a tee, yes.
Michael Schaffer has been described as an offensive, arrogant bully.
He is also ignorant. At the very least of what this wonderful
recording sounds like.
You, however, are a different case.
Just a little insignificant tease and a jokster. I don't get a thrill
from your posts, or your ignorance, much of which is posturing for
effect.
So phoney.
TD
O
<eba66d15-8fbe-401a...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
I'm glad you like them.
-Owen
wagnerfan
news:221020091015241128%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
Lets not forget who Deacon is - an old fraud who became a laughing stock on
this board when it surfaced that he gave exactly the same recording two
totally different reviews based only on who he thought the artist was. A
horrible bigot who called someone who posted here a "mongrel' because the
posters parents were of two different religions. A jackass totally ignorant
of history. A bitter old has-been fired from his last job who surfaces here
now and then hoping that the board has forgetten what a fool he is - we
haven't. The only nice thing to see is that its so obvious some of the
posters here have really gotten under his crusty old skin. Wagner fan
O
<wagn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Lets not forget who Deacon is - an old fraud who became a laughing stock on
> this board when it surfaced that he gave exactly the same recording two
> totally different reviews based only on who he thought the artist was. A
> horrible bigot who called someone who posted here a "mongrel' because the
> posters parents were of two different religions. A jackass totally ignorant
> of history. A bitter old has-been fired from his last job who surfaces here
> now and then hoping that the board has forgetten what a fool he is - we
> haven't. The only nice thing to see is that its so obvious some of the
> posters here have really gotten under his crusty old skin. Wagner fan
>
Deacon just does the personal attacks to get a rise out of people - he
gets off on it. He's like the traditional schoolyard bully, he only
teases people who react. There's something about usenet that makes
people feel they've got to "defend their reputation" to the hilt, not
realizing no one here has a reputation beyond their words, and that
defenses are not only meaningless, but just so much clutter. He
thrives on getting an "ouch" from his barbs, but that's just an outlet
for the wealth of anger brooding under the surface.
-Owen
td
> There's something about usenet that makes
> people feel they've got to "defend their reputation" to the hilt, not
> realizing no one here has a reputation beyond their words, and that
> defenses are not only meaningless, but just so much clutter. He
> thrives on getting an "ouch" from his barbs, but that's just an outlet
> for the wealth of anger brooding under the surface.
LOL.
Never try to become a psychologist.
You're a flop.
TD
M forever
That's OK, why should you care whether I get it or not. Even if I had
it and had a different opinion, you wouldn't be influenced by that.
That's OK, too.
But none of that has anything to do with the fact that you are
obviously quite unable to explain in musical terms why you think this
is such a great recording. That is probably because you have shown
many times here that you don't really have much of a clue about music,
just enough clichés and anecdotal knowledge to fool some people and
bully others into thinking you may know what you are talking about.
And you aren't "just" someone who "just" happens to like to listen to
music. You actually worked in the record industry, apparently with not
too much lasting success though, and you give very strong judgments of
musical performances not just along the lines of "I like this" or
"that doesn't work for me", you act as if you were able to judge these
things on the basis of professional musical knowledge and experience.
So if that is the case, you can also easily explain why you don't just
like this recording, but why it is towering above any other.
Why is that, Deacon? Is it "like molten toffee"? Or more like frozen
cake?
O
<64feff38-9b86-4dd1...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
Too much schooling. I haven't got that much time.
>
> You're a flop.
Am I spoiling your fun, Tom? You've had a love/hate relationship with
this group since you got here.
-Owen
Anonymous
Charlie
wagnerfan
What day was the love????? Wagner fan
O
<wagn...@comcast.net> wrote:
He's still here, isn't he? Must be something he likes. Maybe just the
Jello mud wrestling he compares it to.
-Owen
td
>
> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 11:03 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > > There's something about usenet that makes
> > > people feel they've got to "defend their reputation" to the hilt, not
> > > realizing no one here has a reputation beyond their words, and that
> > > defenses are not only meaningless, but just so much clutter. He
> > > thrives on getting an "ouch" from his barbs, but that's just an outlet
> > > for the wealth of anger brooding under the surface.
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Never try to become a psychologist.
>
> Too much schooling. I haven't got that much time.
>
>
>
> > You're a flop.
>
> Am I spoiling your fun, Tom? You've had a love/hate relationship with
> this group since you got here.
Eliminate one of those words and you fairly sum it up.
TD
td
> In article <daOdnaF_iOWAOn3XnZ2dnUVZ_uSdn...@giganews.com>, wagnerfan
>
>
>
> <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
> >news:221020091415587177%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
> > > In article
> > > <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Oct 22, 11:03 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > There's something about usenet that makes
> > >> > people feel they've got to "defend their reputation" to the hilt, not
> > >> > realizing no one here has a reputation beyond their words, and that
> > >> > defenses are not only meaningless, but just so much clutter. He
> > >> > thrives on getting an "ouch" from his barbs, but that's just an outlet
> > >> > for the wealth of anger brooding under the surface.
>
> > >> LOL.
>
> > >> Never try to become a psychologist.
>
> > > Too much schooling. I haven't got that much time.
>
> > >> You're a flop.
>
> > > Am I spoiling your fun, Tom? You've had a love/hate relationship with
> > > this group since you got here.
>
> > > -Owen
>
> > What day was the love????? Wagner fan
>
> He's still here, isn't he? Must be something he likes. Maybe just the
> Jello mud wrestling he compares it to.
Jello?
I never compared you to jello. But come to think of it....
TD
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:daOdnaF_iOWAOn3X...@giganews.com:
> "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
> news:221020091415587177%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
>>
>> Am I spoiling your fun, Tom? You've had a love/hate relationship with
>> this group since you got here.
>>
>> -Owen
>
> What day was the love????? Wagner fan
I must have blinked.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
td
> "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed innews:daOdnaF_iOWAOn3X...@giganews.com:
>
> > "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
> >news:221020091415587177%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
>
> >> Am I spoiling your fun, Tom? You've had a love/hate relationship with
> >> this group since you got here.
>
> >> -Owen
>
> > What day was the love????? Wagner fan
>
> I must have blinked.
No. You just never lifted your head out of the bog.
TD
td
> Am I spoiling your fun, Tom?
I was about to ask you the same question.
AFTER, that is, I asked whether you have ever heard (or even care
about) Gibson's Sibelius 5 with the LSO. This is, or was, the topic of
this thread.
Curious that Schaffer hasn't heard it, the little fascist mongrel
hasn't heard it and wouldn't care anyway because Wagner didn't write
any symphonies, Anony-mouse doesn't even exist. Perhaps the only
person other than myself, Bob Harper, and Dave Cook who has actually
heard this and contributed to this thread is Frank Wim, who seems to
live in old review magazines from 1960. Three of us love this
performance, Frank doesn't. He's outvoted. The other contributors to
the thread are just flapping their gums.
Next?
TD
noauth
Bob
wagnerfan
news:5262cfbe-d160-471a...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Oct, 00:49, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>> .....Wagner didn't write any symphonies,
>
> Yep - you can always be relied-upon to know-the-facts...
Actually Wagner wrote a Symphony in C major early in his career - once again
Deacon gets it wrong (yawn!!!) - "what an aqua-maroon!!!!!" Wagner fan
M forever
Next? First of all, Wagner actually wrote a symphony, although it's
not a really memorable one, an early work. I am not surprised though
that you don't know that - what do you know? Not much when it comes to
music, as is so obvious from many, if not most of your posts. Then, we
aren't talking about Wagner at all here, but about Sibelius.
Obviously, another composer you don't know much about except for worn
out clichés.
Pretty lame also your attempt to equate Germans = fascists = Wagner
fanatics = not interested in symphonies (because Wagner "didn't write
any symphonies" although he actually did) even though most of the
symphonic literature comes from German (or Austrian) composers (being
of both German and Austrian ancestry, I am happily both, and happily a
"mongrel").
What a complete fucking windbag and ignorant you are. How threatened
and completely derailed you get by a simple request to back up an
"opinion" about a musical performance in musical terms.
Total meltdown. Total nonsense. Total incompetence. You really don't
have anything to say.
Let's not hold that against Gibson and this particular Sibelius
performance though. It's not their fault that the total phony Deacon
"praises" this performance just to make himself look more interesting.
Maybe the recording still is very good, maybe even outstanding. Can
anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
comment on that?
Christopher Howell
>
> >Decca didn't value Gibson. He wasn't one of their
> >artists.
>
> Gibson's LSO / Berganza: Rossini Recital on Decca SXL 2132 predated
> the Sibelius - by 6months.
And later they had him conduct the Suisse Romande in Bizet's Symphony/
L'Arlesienne. Delius pico/Debussy Fantaisie with Jean-Rodolphe Kars
also comes to mind. But the paucity of such issues rather proves the
point.
Since I was a student in Edinburgh in the 70s and attended all
Scottish National O and Scottish Opera perfomances over a 4-year
period, I think I understand the problem. At his best, Gibson was
great. There was a Rachmaninov 2 that was the talk of the town. There
was an Elgar 1 that had Elgarians in their seventh heaven. But
sometimes he just didn't seem to care, or the orchestra didn't and he
tried to fire them up by pitching in at too fast tempi. Not long after
the marvellous Elgar 1 he repeated it and this time had Elgarian's
blood boiling, it was so rushed and sloppy.
In his recordings he often steered a careful course between the two
extremes. Attempts to rekindle old memories by buying recordings of
works I remember him conducting have often been disappointing, yet I
don't think my memories are false. This failure to deliver when he
most needed to rather kept Gibson from rising to the top.
We might remember that his Chandos series began on RCA. After a well-
received US tour the SNO and Gibson landed an RCA contract, but after
a handful of issues it fell through, Chandos took over the existing
recordings and continued to make others, but never recorded Gibson
again after Jarvi took over the orchestra.
That said, while I don't know his LSO Sibelius 5, I bought his second
version (Classics for Pleasure) when it came out and, while I have
enjoyed many other recordings, and in spite of orchestral lapses, this
is the recording I always find myself coming back to, the music seems
to speak to me more directly than with any others that I know.
Chris Howell
AN
> In his recordings he often steered a careful course between the two
> extremes. Attempts to rekindle old memories by buying recordings of
> works I remember him conducting have often been disappointing, yet I
> don't think my memories are false. This failure to deliver when he
> most needed to rather kept Gibson from rising to the top.
>
> Chris Howell
Was he really known (in Scotland) as "Flash Haggis"?
Bob Harper
Your post makes me think of what I might say about James Depreist and
the Oregon Symphony. At his best--the first time I heard them do the
Rachmaninov 2nd--it was fabulous. The Shostakovich 11th was very nearly
as good. But too often, and especially in the later years of his tenure,
the music-making was 'sludgy', and I went away wishing for a bit more
spine in the music.
You really do owe it to yourself to hear the LSO Sibelius 5th. One of
the great ones, IMHO.
Bob Harper
wagnerfan
appears"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91705749-2e36-49d9...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 7:49 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:15 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > Am I spoiling your fun, Tom?
>
> I was about to ask you the same question.
>
> AFTER, that is, I asked whether you have ever heard (or even care
> about) Gibson's Sibelius 5 with the LSO. This is, or was, the topic of
> this thread.
>
> Curious that Schaffer hasn't heard it, the little fascist mongrel
> hasn't heard it and wouldn't care anyway because Wagner didn't write
> any symphonies, Anony-mouse doesn't even exist. Perhaps the only
> person other than myself, Bob Harper, and Dave Cook who has actually
> heard this and contributed to this thread is Frank Wim, who seems to
> live in old review magazines from 1960. Three of us love this
> performance, Frank doesn't. He's outvoted. The other contributors to
> the thread are just flapping their gums.
>
> Next?
>
> TD
Next? First of all, Wagner actually wrote a symphony, although it's
not a really memorable one, an early work. I am not surprised though
that you don't know that - what do you know? Not much when it comes to
music, as is so obvious from many, if not most of your posts. Then, we
aren't talking about Wagner at all here, but about Sibelius.
Obviously, another composer you don't know much about except for worn
out clich�s.
Pretty lame also your attempt to equate Germans = fascists = Wagner
fanatics = not interested in symphonies (because Wagner "didn't write
any symphonies" although he actually did) even though most of the
symphonic literature comes from German (or Austrian) composers (being
of both German and Austrian ancestry, I am happily both, and happily a
"mongrel").
What a complete fucking windbag and ignorant you are. How threatened
and completely derailed you get by a simple request to back up an
"opinion" about a musical performance in musical terms.
Total meltdown. Total nonsense. Total incompetence. You really don't
have anything to say.
Let's not hold that against Gibson and this particular Sibelius
performance though. It's not their fault that the total phony Deacon
"praises" this performance just to make himself look more interesting.
Maybe the recording still is very good, maybe even outstanding. Can
anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
comment on that?
"What a complete fucking windbag and ignorant you are"
I would have thought by now he would have run out of ways to make himself
look ridiculous but apparently the trough is bottomless. We all know he is
bitter and envious but the poor slob really is stupid. Wagner fan
Gerard
Your post is a complete falsification because you make it seem that you have
written it yourself.
Learn how to quote.
Christopher Howell
Never heard this. "Flash Haggis" is an obvious take on "Flash
Harry" (= Sir Malcolm Sargent). So suggest the nickname was used in
Gibson's early days (I think he did look quite dashing in the 60s)
then was forgotten after Sargent died and Gibson's own flash began to
age
Chris Howell
td
> On 23 Oct, 00:49, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > .....Wagner didn't write any symphonies,
>
> Yep - you can always be relied-upon to know-the-facts...
That's not a symphony, dolt.
TD
td
> "frankwm" <frankwmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
That's not a symphony. It's trash.
TD
td
> On Oct 22, 7:49 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2:15 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > > Am I spoiling your fun, Tom?
>
> > I was about to ask you the same question.
>
> > AFTER, that is, I asked whether you have ever heard (or even care
> > about) Gibson's Sibelius 5 with the LSO. This is, or was, the topic of
> > this thread.
>
> > Curious that Schaffer hasn't heard it, the little fascist mongrel
> > hasn't heard it and wouldn't care anyway because Wagner didn't write
> > any symphonies, Anony-mouse doesn't even exist. Perhaps the only
> > person other than myself, Bob Harper, and Dave Cook who has actually
> > heard this and contributed to this thread is Frank Wim, who seems to
> > live in old review magazines from 1960. Three of us love this
> > performance, Frank doesn't. He's outvoted. The other contributors to
> > the thread are just flapping their gums.
>
> > Next?
>
> > TD
>
> Next? First of all, Wagner actually wrote a symphony, although it's
> not a really memorable one, an early work.
And I suppose you think I don't know that?
He also wrote piano music. Martin Galling once recorded it, to the
mirth of all who listened to it.
> Let's not hold that against Gibson and this particular Sibelius
> performance though. It's not their fault that the total phony Deacon
> "praises" this performance just to make himself look more interesting.
>
> Maybe the recording still is very good, maybe even outstanding. Can
> anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
> comment on that?
So glad you're curious. But far be it from me to satisfy your
curiosity. Not even slightly.
TD
td
Gibson's problem was ALCOHOL.
He was very talented but he was also a drunk.
TD
td
He can't. He's a blithering idiot. And a mongrel.
Don't expect too much. Try to be charitable.
TD
AN
No, I hadn't until a few days ago. I thought I'd read it in The Times
- a search of "flash haggis" has "e.g. Prime Minister" underneath.
However, there is a reference here:
http://www.rodoni.ch/OPERNHAUS/novembre/intervistapountney.html
sounds as though it was from his early days.
Christopher Howell
>
> Gibson's problem was ALCOHOL.
>
> He was very talented but he was also a drunk.
>
> TD-
True, I'm afraid. But it doesn't explain everything. Bernstein's
talent blazed to the end in spite of his lifestyle.
Chris Howell
M forever
> On Oct 23, 2:14 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:49 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 2:15 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Am I spoiling your fun, Tom?
>
> > > I was about to ask you the same question.
>
> > > AFTER, that is, I asked whether you have ever heard (or even care
> > > about) Gibson's Sibelius 5 with the LSO. This is, or was, the topic of
> > > this thread.
>
> > > Curious that Schaffer hasn't heard it, the little fascist mongrel
> > > hasn't heard it and wouldn't care anyway because Wagner didn't write
> > > any symphonies, Anony-mouse doesn't even exist. Perhaps the only
> > > person other than myself, Bob Harper, and Dave Cook who has actually
> > > heard this and contributed to this thread is Frank Wim, who seems to
> > > live in old review magazines from 1960. Three of us love this
> > > performance, Frank doesn't. He's outvoted. The other contributors to
> > > the thread are just flapping their gums.
>
> > > Next?
>
> > > TD
>
> > Next? First of all, Wagner actually wrote a symphony, although it's
> > not a really memorable one, an early work.
>
> And I suppose you think I don't know that?
You do now, but I know you didn't know that because you said so
yourself.
See above, idiot.
Even if you had known that, your convoluted nonsense doesn't make any
sense. You even seem to run out of clichés with which to attack
people.
> He also wrote piano music. Martin Galling once recorded it, to the
> mirth of all who listened to it.
>
> > Let's not hold that against Gibson and this particular Sibelius
> > performance though. It's not their fault that the total phony Deacon
> > "praises" this performance just to make himself look more interesting.
>
> > Maybe the recording still is very good, maybe even outstanding. Can
> > anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
> > comment on that?
>
> So glad you're curious. But far be it from me to satisfy your
> curiosity. Not even slightly.
You couldn't satisfy anyone's curiosity even if you wanted to *because
you have no fucking clue*. You just fling around clichés and little
bits of information and anecdotes to make you look knowledgeable about
music.
But I said:
"Can anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
comment on that?"
and by that I obviously meant, not you, you ignorant fool.
M forever
What a lame attempt to cover up your ignorance.
M forever
What an *even lamer* attempt to cover up your ignorance.
wagnerfan
"M forever" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc1dabec-d5e3-4b6a...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
sense. You even seem to run out of clich�s with which to attack
people.
> He also wrote piano music. Martin Galling once recorded it, to the
> mirth of all who listened to it.
>
> > Let's not hold that against Gibson and this particular Sibelius
> > performance though. It's not their fault that the total phony Deacon
> > "praises" this performance just to make himself look more interesting.
>
> > Maybe the recording still is very good, maybe even outstanding. Can
> > anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
> > comment on that?
>
> So glad you're curious. But far be it from me to satisfy your
> curiosity. Not even slightly.
You couldn't satisfy anyone's curiosity even if you wanted to *because
you have no fucking clue*. You just fling around clich�s and little
bits of information and anecdotes to make you look knowledgeable about
music.
But I said:
"Can anybody who actually knows a few things about music and Sibelius
comment on that?"
and by that I obviously meant, not you, you ignorant fool.
"And I suppose you think I don't know that"
Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
is missing some bat shit. Wagner Fan
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Fcudnc0Lwpj9b3zX...@giganews.com:
> Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> is missing some bat shit. Wagner Fan
Electrons spent arguing with ToDe are electrons wasted. Also the time spent
doing so.
And by the way:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000034SQ
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
td
> On 23 Ott, 11:58, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gibson's problem was ALCOHOL.
>
> > He was very talented but he was also a drunk.
>
> > TD-
>
> True, I'm afraid. But it doesn't explain everything.
Sure explains the sloppy performance I heard him give in Paris in the
1960s. Couldn't believe my ears.
Still, that's irrelevant to the quality of the LSO Sibelius 5.
TD
td
> Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> is missing some bat shit.
The symphony sits in my library, unloved and in the cave along with
the bat shit you mention. I don't go in there very often as I am
afraid I would run into the likes of you.
LOL
I have a question for you: Please hum a single theme from this
"symphony". Just one. Anyone.
I dare you, blow-hard.
Then I am waiting for your learned comments on Gibson's Sibelius 5,
assuming you have ever heard it, of course.
TD
td
> ...so I'm left wondering if he's now back in Diapers too?
Certainly not. Nothing but Ralph Lauren. Sorry to disappoint.
TD
td
> "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed innews:Fcudnc0Lwpj9b3zX...@giganews.com:
>
> > Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> > did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> > is missing some bat shit. Wagner Fan
>
> Electrons spent arguing with ToDe are electrons wasted. Also the time spent
> doing so.
>
> And by the way:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000034SQ
Only in Tokyo - where Wagner is revered, along with the "music Hitler
loved".
HA HA HA HA HA HA
TD
Al Eisner
> wagnerfan wrote:
[stuff]
> Your post is a complete falsification because you make it seem that you have
> written it yourself.
> Learn how to quote.
Or, to put it more precisely, wagnerfan formats his posts in such a
way that it appears he has written what was actually written by
someone else. But complaining won't do any good. I've complained about
this several times in the past, to no avail. He is oblivious.
--
Al Eisner
Gerard
But in the mean time he has shown at a very few occasions that he _does_ know
how to post and to quote properly. So I think that it is laziness and not caring
about communicating in a clear way.
M forever
I was wondering when you would run out of arguments and drag Hitler
into this - you seem to think that makes you automatically right about
whatever nonsense you are blabbering. It actually came earlier than I
thought - amazing to think that I even overestimated you.
Of course, Wagner is not only popular "in Tokyo" and his music is not
performed "only in Tokyo" either. You don't even try to make sense
anymore.
M forever
> On Oct 23, 2:13 pm, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> > did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> > is missing some bat shit.
>
> The symphony sits in my library, unloved and in the cave along with
> the bat shit you mention. I don't go in there very often as I am
> afraid I would run into the likes of you.
>
> LOL
>
> I have a question for you: Please hum a single theme from this
> "symphony". Just one. Anyone.
>
> I dare you, blow-hard.
Even if you could hear him or anyone else hum a theme from the
symphony, you wouldn't be able to tell if it is from that piece or not
- until very recently, you didn't even know it existed.
"HAHAHAHHAHA"
> Then I am waiting for your learned comments on Gibson's Sibelius 5,
> assuming you have ever heard it, of course.
We have been waiting for *your* "learned comments on Gibson's Sibelius
5" for quite a while now, but you haven't been able to say anything
intelligent about this recording at all so far.
After all, you are the one who says it is a must to hear this
recording. So, tell us in musical terms why you think that is.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> On Oct 20, 9:14=A0pm, frankwm <frankwmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This, on LP, was 'coveted' mainly by latter-day Blinkered Audiophiles
>> (aspects are still praiseworthy - ie some noticeable 'transparency' of
>> orchestral texture).
>> As a performance it's in the 'lame flop' category. =A0Uninspired/sounds
>> more like a 'rehearsal'. Fatally lacking in 'tension'. 'Careful' is
>> the operative adjective...and you'd likely not be drawn ro re-listen
>> to it.
>> .
>> And, whatever contemporary 'opinions' are, @ the outset it got some
>> mediocre reviews...but not from Trevor Harvey (Gramophone', April
>> 1960... =A0You could easily have acquired a goodly Library of rubbish on
>> his 'recommendation'..)
>> Gibson recorded it again, for Classics for Pleasure, with the Scottish
>> National (Gramophone, September 1975) and Robert Layton commented on a
>> 'want of imagination'. That, some 15years later..
>> Not been tempted to give that version much of a listen; the 1st
>> Symphony is disappointing - as is the 1967 HMV (Scottish Nat) of
>> sundry Sibelius droppings.
>>
>> SRG Vol.2
>> Alexander Gibson,
>
> "Sixty year old contemporaneous reviews snipped"
>
>
> There are better versions of both
>> these works listed in The Art of Record Buying. E.EE.
>
> The best thing to do is to ignore such contemporaneous critics and
> just listen to this performance. The next thing we know someone is
> going to quote Conrad Osborne on operas from High Fidelity in the
> 1960s!!!!
>
> Frankly, I have never heard a better Sibelius 5. No, not Karajan, not
> Maazel, not Rattle, not Ehrling, not Berglund, not Ormandy. Nobody has
> come even close to this recording, which is not only beautifully made,
> but also musically unmatched, at least in my experience.
>
>
>
> TD
I agree with you about the quality of the performance, while admiring
others than your exemplars more than who you think provide (somewhat?)
equal quality.
Brendan
Gerard
Of course not. Trying so in "discussion" with you does not make sense at all.
3Bs
I've called TD some well-deserved names, but some things are best said
only once. Those who continue to prod him and defend against him are
in the thrall of a worthless frenzy. There is nothing worthwhile to
prove about him, and nobody should grant him the respect deserving of
a lengthy response.
td
It would seem that he has listened to so much Wagner that everything
he does, writes and says is part of a seamless ooze.
TD
td
> On Oct 23, 5:59 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 3:13 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> > > letters to be typed innews:Fcudnc0Lwpj9b3zX...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> > > > did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> > > > is missing some bat shit. Wagner Fan
>
> > > Electrons spent arguing with ToDe are electrons wasted. Also the time spent
> > > doing so.
>
> > > And by the way:
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000034SQ
>
> > Only in Tokyo - where Wagner is revered, along with the "music Hitler
> > loved".
>
> > HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> > TD
>
> I was wondering when you would run out of arguments and drag Hitler
> into this
Poor Adolf.
He is only hear because of that Nazi worshiper who is a fan of
Hitler's favourite composer.
> Of course, Wagner is not only popular "in Tokyo" and his music is not
> performed "only in Tokyo" either. You don't even try to make sense
> anymore.
That's because everything has to be explained to your little teutonic
brain.
Only in Tokyo would anyone bother to record Wagner's silly symphony.
Got it now, dummy?
TD
td
wrote:
I have tried to parse that sentence. Impossible.
There are lots of good performances of Sibelius 5. This one is just
very special, indeed. To my mind, it is near definitive.
TD
td
> M forever wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 5:59 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
It is wrong to expect too much from Schaffer. He can be extraordinarly
stupid for someone who assembles so many words per square inch.
TD
Taffy Brendel
And also:
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/w/121319/Richard-Wagner-Symphony-in-C-major
Deacon displays his utter ignorance once more. TD the de Waart
recording was
released by Philips. Have you ever heard of that company?
TD the first to invoke Hitler and impugn the Japanese:-)! TD's
inherent racism is never
far from the surface, of course. Now we can wait for him to impugn
the citizens of San Francisco,
the Dutch...again (de Waart) and Norwegians. So apparently not only
in Tok
And we are still waiting for his criticism of the Gibson Sibelius 5th
in musical terms.
HA HA HA HA HA
Taffy
M forever
> On Oct 23, 9:10 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:59 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 3:13 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> > > > letters to be typed innews:Fcudnc0Lwpj9b3zX...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > > Yeah - sure Deacon "knew' that Wagner wrote an early symphony - SURE he
> > > > > did!!!!!! I'm not saying Deacon is nuts but the bottom of a cave somewhere
> > > > > is missing some bat shit. Wagner Fan
>
> > > > Electrons spent arguing with ToDe are electrons wasted. Also the time spent
> > > > doing so.
>
> > > > And by the way:
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000034SQ
>
> > > Only in Tokyo - where Wagner is revered, along with the "music Hitler
> > > loved".
>
> > > HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> > > TD
>
> > I was wondering when you would run out of arguments and drag Hitler
> > into this
>
> Poor Adolf.
>
> He is only hear because of that Nazi worshiper who is a fan of
> Hitler's favourite composer.
No, he is only "hear", or rather, here because you have run out of
rhetorics to distract from the fact that you were blabbering about the
musical greatness of this particular Sibelius recording by Gibson, but
you don't have the ears, knowledge and vocabulary to actually explain
why you think that.
It may still be a great performance, but we can't tell from
your...uh...judgment because it is, like pretty much everything else
you say, just you bullshitting once again in order t make yourself
appear as an expert.
All this drama instead of just explaining in musical terms what you
think is so great about this performance...
Well, that's because you can't do that. No wonder you were fired from
each job in the music industry soon after you BSed your way into it.
> > Of course, Wagner is not only popular "in Tokyo" and his music is
not
> > performed "only in Tokyo" either. You don't even try to make sense
> > anymore.
>
> That's because everything has to be explained to your little teutonic
> brain.
>
> Only in Tokyo would anyone bother to record Wagner's silly symphony.
>
> Got it now, dummy?
>
> TD
So now the Japanese are all Nazis, too? Oh yes, they must be, after
all, they were allies of Germany once, and they like German music a
lot.
What a fucking idiot you are.
But - how do you know the symphony is silly? You don't even know the
piece. You didn't even know it existed.
BTW, it has been recorded in other places as well. Like San Francisco
and London.
M forever
That's not what you said earlier. You said:
"It is the best performance of this symphony ever set down on tape.
There IS no competition."
And you still haven't explained to us why. As someone who worked in a
recording company and radio station (at least, until they figured out
what a fraud you are and fired you) and as someone who produces a lot
of verbal refuse here, you are astonishingly uneloquent when asked to
discuss something in musical terms.
Let's just say then it is "like molten toffee", OK?
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
Gerard
With a little cultural background you could have seen that these stataments are
not exactly in contradiction with each other.
>
> And you still haven't explained to us why. As someone who worked in a
> recording company and radio station (at least, until they figured out
> what a fraud you are and fired you) and as someone who produces a lot
> of verbal refuse here, you are astonishingly uneloquent when asked to
> discuss something in musical terms.
>
You've said this ad nauseam already.
M forever
It's "to each other", idiot boy. With a little cultural background you
could have known that.
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
> > And you still haven't explained to us why. As someone who worked in a
> > recording company and radio station (at least, until they figured out
> > what a fraud you are and fired you) and as someone who produces a lot
> > of verbal refuse here, you are astonishingly uneloquent when asked to
> > discuss something in musical terms.
>
> You've said this ad nauseam already.
And who forces you to read and comment on my posts? Have you turned
into a Deacon fan now? I wouldn't be surprised. His rhetoric is
designed to fool and impress idiots like you.
Gerard
I am free to read your BS - and to comment on it - as much as I want.
After all: you spend so many hours daily on it to spit on people, that almost
noboy reads it any more.
M forever
But I can rely on you reading *and* commenting on anything I say,
little obsessed idiot boy. Of course, it doesn't matter because you
don't have anything of interest to say and I usually ignore you,
except for once in a while because I have to admit I do feel sorry for
you. Well, only a little bit. When I open a thread and I see all the
new messages by you, not just replying to almost anything I say, but
to a lot of other people, too. Most of which also ignore you, except
your friend John and a few other dimwits. But you keep replying and
replying, day in, day out, no matter what time of the day in what time
zone. I can always rely on you replying within a matter of minutes, no
matter when I go online.
I know there is some really sad story behind all this over there where
you sit at your computer all day long and reply to people all day long
who mostly ignore you. What happened to you? Was it that "nice uncle"
who fucked you in the ass when you were a kid? Or was it even your
dad? What is it that traumatized you so much and made you incapable of
functioning in the real world?
Gerard
You've told these lies too often already.
How boring you are.
>
> little obsessed idiot boy. Of course, it doesn't matter because you
> don't have anything of interest to say and I usually ignore you,
Your ignoring is even more boring.
>
> except for once in a while because I have to admit I do feel sorry for
> you.
There you lie again.
So boring.
>
> Well, only a little bit. When I open a thread and I see all the
> new messages by you, not just replying to almost anything I say, but
> to a lot of other people, too. Most of which also ignore you, except
> your friend John and a few other dimwits. But you keep replying and
> replying, day in, day out, no matter what time of the day in what time
> zone. I can always rely on you replying within a matter of minutes, no
> matter when I go online.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> I know there is some really sad story behind all this over there where
> you sit at your computer all day long and reply to people all day long
> who mostly ignore you. What happened to you? Was it that "nice uncle"
> who fucked you in the ass when you were a kid? Or was it even your
> dad? What is it that traumatized you so much and made you incapable of
> functioning in the real world?
Ah, I see: you have troubles again with your cultural background and
"civilization".
M forever
Apparently not. That's why you have to obsessively reply to everything
I write. And you will reply to this post, too. You just can't help it.
> > except for once in a while because I have to admit I do feel sorry for
> > you.
>
> There you lie again.
> So boring.
>
>
>
> > Well, only a little bit. When I open a thread and I see all the
> > new messages by you, not just replying to almost anything I say, but
> > to a lot of other people, too. Most of which also ignore you, except
> > your friend John and a few other dimwits. But you keep replying and
> > replying, day in, day out, no matter what time of the day in what time
> > zone. I can always rely on you replying within a matter of minutes, no
> > matter when I go online.
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Good one! You obviously never sleep but hang out online all day and
night. I didn't know you had that kind of sense of humor, and self-
irony.
> > I know there is some really sad story behind all this over there where
> > you sit at your computer all day long and reply to people all day long
> > who mostly ignore you. What happened to you? Was it that "nice uncle"
> > who fucked you in the ass when you were a kid? Or was it even your
> > dad? What is it that traumatized you so much and made you incapable of
> > functioning in the real world?
>
> Ah, I see: you have troubles again with your cultural background and
> "civilization".
My background has nothing to do with your backside, and what happened
to it.
td
Goodness me.
I think Michael Schaffer is the very person he is describing in this
paragraph.
How pathetic!
TD
M forever
The only thing pathetic here is how you make dramatic statements but
then completely lack the knowledge and the balls to back them up. You
are a fake, an ignoramus and a sad coward.
Gerard
Of course not. You know nothing about people. The only thing you can say about
them, is that they are 'idiots', 'racists', 'nationalists' etcetera.
>
> > > I know there is some really sad story behind all this over there
> > > where you sit at your computer all day long and reply to people
> > > all day long who mostly ignore you. What happened to you? Was it
> > > that "nice uncle" who fucked you in the ass when you were a kid?
> > > Or was it even your dad? What is it that traumatized you so much
> > > and made you incapable of functioning in the real world?
> >
> > Ah, I see: you have troubles again with your cultural background and
> > "civilization".
>
> My background has nothing to do with your backside, and what happened
> to it.
Indeed. You are showing your level of "civilisation" and your "cultural
background" (sewer) here daily, and that has nothing to do with me.
Gerard
He is much more pathetic than that.
Everything he is calling others is about himself.
td
I agree.
TD
Jim Logan
>
> Greg
I'm another who thinks this ia a fine performance. The greatest? I don't
know.
Why?
Let me try.
Off your seat exciting performance. No!
Best orchestral playing ever. No!
Big lush 'romantic' interpretation. No!
Restained steady ( almost 'classical' ) build up of granite like monumental
'elemental' force as only a true Sibelius interpreter understands . YES!!!!!
Just my reaction of course. Works for me. Might not for you.
AntiTroll02
Thread-Mender
td
> > Does anyone that has heard it care to compare it to the competition?
>
> > Greg
>
> I'm another who thinks this ia a fine performance. The greatest? I don't
> know.
> Why?
> Let me try.
> Off your seat exciting performance. No!
> Best orchestral playing ever. No!
> Big lush 'romantic' interpretation. No!
> Restained steady ( almost 'classical' ) build up of granite like monumental
> 'elemental' force as only a true Sibelius interpreter understands . YES!!!!!
You got the point. Great, isn't it?
TD
Edward A. Cowan
Decca LP (SPA 122). Yes, the performance is a bit understated, but I
found that trait very helpful in this instance, mostly as a curative to
other more zealous, even frenetic, recorded performances. The stereo
sound is spectacular (but not digital, of course!), and Gibson's lighter
"take" on the music leads to beautiful clarity in the orchestral
textures as recorded.
Gibson's Sibelius recordings with the Scottish National Orchestra, as it
was known back then, were highly desired items, and I have several of
them, including the Scottish recording of the Sibelius 5th. I'll give it
a listen RSN and report back.
The 5th, with the 1st and the 2nd, is among my favorite works in the
symphonic repertoire. The others, notably the dreary 4th, are not now
part of my prefererd listening "repertoire". Still, I have two complete
recorded sets of the Sibelius symphonies, the Davis with Boston (CD) and
one made in Japan cond. by Akeo Watanabe (LP).
Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
td <tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
> The best thing to do is to ignore such contemporaneous critics and
> just listen to this performance.
--
hrabanus
M forever
> This afternoon I did just that: I played the LSO Sibelius 5th from a
> Decca LP (SPA 122). Yes, the performance is a bit understated, but I
> found that trait very helpful in this instance, mostly as a curative to
> other more zealous, even frenetic, recorded performances. The stereo
> sound is spectacular (but not digital, of course!), and Gibson's lighter
> "take" on the music leads to beautiful clarity in the orchestral
> textures as recorded.
>
> Gibson's Sibelius recordings with the Scottish National Orchestra, as it
> was known back then, were highly desired items, and I have several of
> them, including the Scottish recording of the Sibelius 5th. I'll give it
> a listen RSN and report back.
>
> The 5th, with the 1st and the 2nd, is among my favorite works in the
> symphonic repertoire. The others, notably the dreary 4th, are not now
> part of my prefererd listening "repertoire". Still, I have two complete
> recorded sets of the Sibelius symphonies, the Davis with Boston (CD) and
> one made in Japan cond. by Akeo Watanabe (LP).
>
> Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
There aren't that many "recent" complete sets really. There is a
complete cycle with Gothenburg SO/N.Järvi on DG which is OK but not
particularly distinguished, sloppy in its attention (or lack thereof)
for detail - a typical N.Järvi product.
Then there is HelsinkiPO/Segerstam (Ondine) which is very nicely
played and recorded in very "warm" but also slightly "hazy" sound but
which is musically nothing special either. Segerstam just pours a
thick, nice sauce over the music and doesn't bother with musical
detail either. But it all sounds "really nice"!
And then there is San Francisco SO/Blomstedt (Decca) which I would
definitely recomend. Very clear structures and textures, lean and
defined orchestral sound, a certain "icy" clarity, and musically
Blomstedt pays both attention to fine detail and context, the
narrative which keeps everything together.
In short, I recommend to pass on the Segerstam and Järvi cycles, but
definitely get the Blomstedt.
Edward A. Cowan
including a set of LvB symphonies, and I'll give Blomstedt some
considered attention. --E.A.C.
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In short, I recommend to pass on the Segerstam and J�rvi cycles, but
> definitely get the Blomstedt.
--
hrabanus
Gerard
>
> Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
>
There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin Davis on LSO
Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld appreciate it very much.
V�nsk�'s set on BIS will be reissued soon, with all alternative versions of
movements or complete symphonies (no. 5!). This cannot be recommended enough.
But wait for the new reissue.
See: http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
A less recent version by Blomstedt has been reissued by Decca recently, and
maybe still can be found for the price of one disc.
Segerstam on Ondine has been issued as a set not very long ago. IIRC complete
with a good performance of the violin concerto.
td
> Edward A. Cowan wrote:
>
> > Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
>
> There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin Davis on LSO
> Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld appreciate it very much.
>
> movements or complete symphonies (no. 5!). This cannot be recommended enough.
> But wait for the new reissue.
>
> See:http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
>
> A less recent version by Blomstedt has been reissued by Decca recently, and
> maybe still can be found for the price of one disc.
> Segerstam on Ondine has been issued as a set not very long ago. IIRC complete
> with a good performance of the violin concerto.
Not sure I would pick the Davis LSO LIve set. The older BSO version
features an orchestra steeped in the music of Sibelius (Koussevitzky
was a long-time supporter of this music).
Also, individual performances remain of primordial importance.
Maazel's Sibelius 4 with the VPO has never been matched, I think, for
its sense of terror and chill. Szell and Monteux in No. 2. Karajan in
all the symphonies he recorded, not complete, alas. And so on.
TD
Gerard
> On Nov 1, 7:54 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Edward A. Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
> >
> > There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin
> > Davis on LSO Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld
> > appreciate it very much.
> >
> > versions of movements or complete symphonies (no. 5!). This cannot
> > be recommended enough. But wait for the new reissue.
> >
> > See:http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
> >
> > A less recent version by Blomstedt has been reissued by Decca
> > recently, and maybe still can be found for the price of one disc.
> > Segerstam on Ondine has been issued as a set not very long ago.
> > IIRC complete with a good performance of the violin concerto.
>
> Not sure I would pick the Davis LSO LIve set. The older BSO version
> features an orchestra steeped in the music of Sibelius (Koussevitzky
> was a long-time supporter of this music).
>
> Also, individual performances remain of primordial importance.
> Maazel's Sibelius 4 with the VPO has never been matched, I think, for
> its sense of terror and chill. Szell and Monteux in No. 2. Karajan in
> all the symphonies he recorded, not complete, alas. And so on.
>
> TD
The question was about more recent sets.
We don't know what was exactly meant by "more recent". But the ones you've
mentioned are rather old.
td
> td wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Edward A. Cowan wrote:
>
> > > > Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
>
> > > There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin
> > > Davis on LSO Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld
> > > appreciate it very much.
>
> > > versions of movements or complete symphonies (no. 5!). This cannot
> > > be recommended enough. But wait for the new reissue.
>
> > > See:http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
>
> > > A less recent version by Blomstedt has been reissued by Decca
> > > recently, and maybe still can be found for the price of one disc.
> > > Segerstam on Ondine has been issued as a set not very long ago.
> > > IIRC complete with a good performance of the violin concerto.
>
> > Not sure I would pick the Davis LSO LIve set. The older BSO version
> > features an orchestra steeped in the music of Sibelius (Koussevitzky
> > was a long-time supporter of this music).
>
> > Also, individual performances remain of primordial importance.
> > Maazel's Sibelius 4 with the VPO has never been matched, I think, for
> > its sense of terror and chill. Szell and Monteux in No. 2. Karajan in
> > all the symphonies he recorded, not complete, alas. And so on.
>
> > TD
>
> The question was about more recent sets.
> We don't know what was exactly meant by "more recent". But the ones you've
> mentioned are rather old.
Well, not monaural, at least! If I had included those, the situation
would have been quite different.
Frankly, I think Decca's sound from the late 1950 and early 1960s is
as good as anything you are likely to hear today. Philips' sound in
Boston is also sota. Karajan? Well, that depends, of course.
In any event, despite its former rarity and costliness, the Blomstedt/
SFO didn't really set musical standards in Sibelius. Its fame came
from not being easily available, particularly in the USA, of course. I
tend to leave cost aside in collecting music on record, you may have
noticed, as prices tend to fluctuate from time to time and
affordability depends largely upon the resources available, which also
vary from collector to collector.
Sound is a different matter, perhaps. But frankly if Beecham is mono
but blazingly good, I don't really care that much.
TD
Gerard
> On Nov 1, 8:44 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > td wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Edward A. Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > > > Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works?
> > > > > --E.A.C.
> >
> > > > There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin
> > > > Davis on LSO Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld
> > > > appreciate it very much.
> >
I am quite sure that this fame fenomena was only about the non-availability of
the CD with the symphonies #1 and #7 (a CD I've seen only once in a store where
one would not expect to find many classical recordings) and the absurd bidding
for it on eBay.
Not 'really setting musical standards' does not have to be any kind of
disqualification.
A very good "middle of the road" version can be very recommandable to anyone who
is asking for a recent version. I think Blomstedt's set is better than that.
> I
> tend to leave cost aside in collecting music on record, you may have
> noticed, as prices tend to fluctuate from time to time and
> affordability depends largely upon the resources available, which also
> vary from collector to collector.
Quite possible. But my posts were about replying/recommending something to the
"OP" (in this case Edwatd Cowan). I don't know if cost is an important thing to
him; to many people it is.
>
> Sound is a different matter, perhaps. But frankly if Beecham is mono
> but blazingly good, I don't really care that much.
>
> TD
You may find it blazingly good. But since Beecham there has been some progress
in recorded sound.
td
> > Sound is a different matter, perhaps. But frankly if Beecham is mono
> > but blazingly good, I don't really care that much.
>
> > TD
>
> You may find it blazingly good. But since Beecham there has been some progress
> in recorded sound.
Yes.
But not necessarily in musical insight.
TD
Bob Harper
> On Nov 1, 7:54 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Edward A. Cowan wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone recommend a more recent set of these works? --E.A.C.
>> There are quite a few sets. The last one I've seen is by Colin Davis on LSO
>> Live - if someone can comment on that set, 'ld appreciate it very much.
>>
>> movements or complete symphonies (no. 5!). This cannot be recommended enough.
>> But wait for the new reissue.
>>
>> See:http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php
>>
>> A less recent version by Blomstedt has been reissued by Decca recently, and
>> maybe still can be found for the price of one disc.
>> Segerstam on Ondine has been issued as a set not very long ago. IIRC complete
>> with a good performance of the violin concerto.
>
> Not sure I would pick the Davis LSO LIve set. The older BSO version
> features an orchestra steeped in the music of Sibelius (Koussevitzky
> was a long-time supporter of this music).
>
> Also, individual performances remain of primordial importance.
> Maazel's Sibelius 4 with the VPO has never been matched, I think, for
> its sense of terror and chill. Szell and Monteux in No. 2. Karajan in
> all the symphonies he recorded, not complete, alas. And so on.
>
> TD
up there with Maazel, I think.
Bob Harper