Gramophone Awards - Record of the Year
news.ntlworld.com
(LSO/Hickox) on Chandos.........
John
Sol L. Siegel
>"news.ntlworld.com" <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Just heard that this is the Vaughan Williams 'original' London
>>Symphony (LSO/Hickox) on Chandos.........
>
>English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
Mayhaps. But how many better candidates can you think of?
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"To every complicated question, there is an answer that is simple, satisfying
and wrong." - Winston Churchill
--------------------
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
John Wilson
<robert...@xtravert-comm.com> wrote:
>English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
>
Gramophone doesn't need the excuse of war to favor British recordings
of British composers.
John
Bob Lombard
Wilson) wrote:
>
>Gramophone doesn't need the excuse of war to favor British recordings
>of British composers.
>
>John
Indeed. Quite provincial, those Brits.
bl
John Durbin
"Bob Lombard" <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:3kc3ttojtms0ref4u...@4ax.com...
Matthew B. Tepper
news:4vq2ttol4eh5t1cbr...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:36:45 +0100, "news.ntlworld.com"
><johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
I can't think of that many Afghanistanian symphonies.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Simon Roberts
"Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.comkillspam> wrote in message
news:20011020090235...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> Bob Janssen robert...@xtravert-comm.com writes:
>
> >"news.ntlworld.com" <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Just heard that this is the Vaughan Williams 'original' London
> >>Symphony (LSO/Hickox) on Chandos.........
> >
> >English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
>
> Mayhaps. But how many better candidates can you think of?
More than a few. Not that it matters.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
@netnews.upenn.edu:
What are the nominees for the Simon Awards? (Seriously, I'd like to know.)
Simon Roberts
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZEhA7.4832$SP.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> What are the nominees for the Simon Awards? (Seriously, I'd like to
know.)
I'm flattered, but since I have a hard time remembering what came out
when, and don't keep track of what I buy and when (I know I should, but
it's too late to start now), I'm not sure how to go about answering.
Such a list would include some historical reissues, which don't seem to
count at all chez Gramophone. Of the discs that made it to Gramophone's
short list that I've heard I would probably pick Harnoncourt's SMP or
Anderszewski's Diabelli Vars., but then there are Minkowski's two Handel
vocal discs, Bartoli's Gluck disc, and on and on. But the notion of *a*
recording of the year strikes me as silly, perhaps even nonsensical: how
do you go about determining whether a stunning performance of a Bruckner
symphony is more worthy than a stunning performance of a Handel cantata,
and even if you could, how do you compare a stunning performance of
familiar music with a first recording of music that's new (or new to
disc)?
Simon
Bob Lombard
<johnd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>we can't be that provincial if we are helping you guys win wars.....
>
Being provincial has no bearing on helping your American
cousins. As a Vermonter, I'm familiar with provincialism -
"Buy Vermont First" - "Vermont For Vermonters" - oh yeah.
For recorded classical music we are pretty much limited to
the Marlboro issues - and then only if we ignore the fact
that most of those folks were/are furriners.
bl
Tony Duggan
news:4vq2ttol4eh5t1cbr...@4ax.com...
Wrong, some of the Gramophone reviwers of Scottish and Welsh.
--
Tony Duggan, England.
tony....@ukgateway.net
Mahler recordings survey:
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/Mahler/index.html
Jeffrey Smith
<robert...@xtravert-comm.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:36:45 +0100, "news.ntlworld.com"
><johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
>
>Bob Janssen
Very cheap, if you don't mind me saying so. Not that I care all that
much whether you mind or not. If you boys spent as much time producing
award winning recordings as you spend knocking those who do, then you
would win a bit more and whinge a bit less.
Jeffrey Smith.
John Robicheau
"Tony Duggan" <Tony....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3bd1baeb$1$8512$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Bob Janssen <robert...@xtravert-comm.com> wrote in message
> news:4vq2ttol4eh5t1cbr...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:36:45 +0100, "news.ntlworld.com"
> > <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Just heard that this is the Vaughan Williams 'original' London Symphony
> > >(LSO/Hickox) on Chandos.........
> >
> > English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
>
> Wrong, some of the Gramophone reviwers of Scottish and Welsh.
and wasn't Rafe of Welsh extraction? so he's a Brit, not
English...
Bob Lombard
jrs...@beckman.demon.co.uk (Jeffrey Smith) wrote:
>
>Very cheap, if you don't mind me saying so. Not that I care all that
>much whether you mind or not. If you boys spent as much time producing
>award winning recordings as you spend knocking those who do, then you
>would win a bit more and whinge a bit less.
>
>Jeffrey Smith.
Far as I know, nobody over here 'whinges'. Maybe Simon?
bl
David Hurwitz
>>English, English/English on English. Nationalism in times of war?
>>
>>Bob Janssen
>
>Very cheap, if you don't mind me saying so. Not that I care all that
>much whether you mind or not. If you boys spent as much time producing
>award winning recordings as you spend knocking those who do, then you
>would win a bit more and whinge a bit less.
>
>Jeffrey Smith.
The observation that the Gramophone awards favor British performers is as
obvious as the Grammy Awards favoring Americans (particularly the Chicago and
Atlanta Symphonies) year after year. And to offer as a reposte to this
observation the above bit of circular reasoning (naturally the Brits produce
award winning recordings when they give themselves the awards) is a classic case
of exactly the sort of stupid provincialism and narrowness of perspective that
deserves a good whinge. It's particularly foolish when you consider that no one
is this thread is complaining about the dearth of specifically American winners,
merely that the Gramophone awards do not accurately reflect the best that the
WORLDWIDE industry has to offer. How interesting that Mr. Smith assumes that the
perspective of others is as nationalistically biased as his own. And how wrong
he is.
Dave
David Hurwitz
dhur...@classicstoday.com
www.classicstoday.com
Simon Roberts
I prefer to whine.
Simon
Simon Roberts
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9qsto...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> The observation that the Gramophone awards favor British performers is
as
> obvious as the Grammy Awards favoring Americans (particularly the
Chicago and
> Atlanta Symphonies) year after year. And to offer as a reposte to this
> observation the above bit of circular reasoning (naturally the Brits
produce
> award winning recordings when they give themselves the awards) is a
classic case
> of exactly the sort of stupid provincialism and narrowness of
perspective that
> deserves a good whinge. It's particularly foolish when you consider
that no one
> is this thread is complaining about the dearth of specifically
American winners,
> merely that the Gramophone awards do not accurately reflect the best
that the
> WORLDWIDE industry has to offer. How interesting that Mr. Smith
assumes that the
> perspective of others is as nationalistically biased as his own. And
how wrong
> he is.
Gramophone reviewers occasionally remind me of biased TV commentators
at the Olympics. Do reviewers in other countries make remarks such as
this by Alan Blyth in the current Gramophone concerning a Janet Baker
Schubert recital? "... a superb issue that, along with Bostridge's
Schubert ... finds a British artist disclosing the essence of the
composer."
Simon
D Krause
news:9qt11l$9er$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Gramophone reviewers occasionally remind me of biased TV commentators
> at the Olympics. Do reviewers in other countries make remarks such as
> this by Alan Blyth in the current Gramophone concerning a Janet Baker
> Schubert recital? "... a superb issue that, along with Bostridge's
> Schubert ... finds a British artist disclosing the essence of the
> composer."
Perhaps Blyth meant it as a "man bites dog"-type observation, i.e. an event
notable for its rarity. (Not necessarily my own opinion, of course.)
Happy listening.
bal...@australia.edu
Can I suggest, Jeffrey, that you look in the back of your latest
Gramophone and go to the 'Recommended Recordings' section. If you then
bother to count the number of recommended recordings that have a
British performer/orchestra/etc you would find that is well over 70%
of the nominees(I gave up after the 'N's.)
This suggests three possible things to me.
1 That British musicians make well over three quarters of all
classical music recordings
or
2 That British musicians are inexorably better than all other
nationalities when it comes to producing award winning performences
or
3 That British parochialism is as alive and well as ever!
Judging by the reviews from British magazines and guides that I've
read, the third choice would have to be most favoured.
Cheers
Baldric
Jeffrey Smith
I think that 1 and 2 are nearer the mark than 3.
Jeffrey Smith.
Matthew Silverstein
> I think that 1 and 2 are nearer the mark than 3.
Do you write for Gramophone, by any chance?
Matty
Raymond Hall
news:3bd2ba87...@news.demon.co.uk...
No. All three are most probably very close to the mark <g>
Baldric should be reminded that parochialism is probably more alive and
rampant in Australia than anywhere else. Especially when it comes to sport
and knocking all things English. Emanates from a small colonial population
inferiority complex, which is why Oz excels in so many things, and why
anybody with any talent emigrates to the UK or the US.
Australia is still the best country in the world though.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 26/09/01
David Hurwitz
>I think that 1 and 2 are nearer the mark than 3.
>
>Jeffrey Smith.
Spoken with the same arrogant certainty and limited grasp of reality that
declared the Titanic "unsinkable."
Frank Berger
David Hurwitz wrote:
I was going to reply in polite disagreement to Jeffrey (pointing the
ludicrous over-representation of British recordings in the "Recommended
Recordings" section that appears in the back of Gramophone every month, but I
won't.
Instead, I'll ask you, David, how you could characterize a statement that
begins, "I think...." as being spoken with "arrogant certainty?"
David Wake
> On 20 Oct 2001 19:49:59 -0700, bal...@australia.edu wrote:
>
> >jrs...@beckman.demon.co.uk (Jeffrey Smith) wrote in message news:<3bd4440f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >Can I suggest, Jeffrey, that you look in the back of your latest
> >Gramophone and go to the 'Recommended Recordings' section. If you then
> >bother to count the number of recommended recordings that have a
> >British performer/orchestra/etc you would find that is well over 70%
> >of the nominees(I gave up after the 'N's.)
> >
> >This suggests three possible things to me.
> >
> >1 That British musicians make well over three quarters of all
> >classical music recordings
> > or
> >2 That British musicians are inexorably better than all other
> >nationalities when it comes to producing award winning performences
> > or
> >3 That British parochialism is as alive and well as ever!
> >
> >Judging by the reviews from British magazines and guides that I've
> >read, the third choice would have to be most favoured.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Baldric
>
> I think that 1 and 2 are nearer the mark than 3.
>
> Jeffrey Smith.
Go to your room and listen to your entire Academy of St
Martin-in-the-Fields collection, boy!
Actually it's interesting that Gramophone's "Collection" section
(where recordings of a specific work are compared and one is chosen)
is usually more "internationalist" in tone than the rest of the
publication. For example, I recall them choosing Monteux's Enigma
Variations over all the home-grown competition*. It seems that, when
the reviewers are actually *forced* to do A/B comparisons, they prefer
non-British recordings almost as much as anyone else. But when it
comes to choosing "Selected Comparisons" for a new release, or
"Recommended Recordings" at the end of the magazine, or voting for the
Gramophone awards, this brief acquaintance with "foreigners" fades to
the back of the mind and insularity takes over again.
David
* On the other hand, I also recall a "Collection" on Chopin piano
works recommending Solomon on the grounds that "he is a British
pianist"......
** I haven't read Gramophone for a couple of years now, so this may
** all be out of date.
vaneyes
>Australia is still the best country in the world though.
Best barbecue-maker anyway...the Aero Super 2001 model.
Regards
Matthew B. Tepper
news:9nhessx...@Turing.Stanford.EDU:
> For example, I recall them choosing Monteux's Enigma Variations over all
> the home-grown competition.
But, after all, it *was* the London Symphony Orchestra.
David Hurwitz
>
Rajeev Aloysius
I am glad that Gramophone occasionally puts us onto some gems from the
USA. However, I rely on this newsgroup more. I would never have found
the Boston SO/Munch 1954 SF in Gramophone. They are too taken up with
Sir Colin.
Regards
Rajeev Aloysius
raj...@starmail.com
Neil
wrote:
>and wasn't Rafe of Welsh extraction? so he's a Brit, not
>English...
??
Neil
>>But, after all, it *was* the London Symphony Orchestra.
>>
>On Decca...
which is owned by the Germans/Dutch ....innit ?
Matthew B. Tepper
Not at the time the recording was made.
John Durbin
with interest........
John Durbin
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g9PA7.1431$Sd.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Matthew B. Tepper
news:cWTA7.36155$uh1.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com:
> ......... so after all that, I can assume that my announcement was
> greeted with interest........
I'm sorry, did you say something?
Christopher Webber
>and wasn't Rafe of Welsh extraction? so he's a Brit, not
>English...
Like Parry, no Welsh blood at all, I'm afraid. Mainly Darwin and
Wedgwood, which makes RVW as English as they come.
(Welsh and Scots don't on the whole like to be called Brits. Northern
Ireland Protestants quite like it.)
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"
Andrew Clarke
> John Robicheau <pri...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >and wasn't Rafe of Welsh extraction? so he's a Brit, not
> >English...
>
> Like Parry, no Welsh blood at all, I'm afraid. Mainly Darwin and
> Wedgwood, which makes RVW as English as they come.
>
> (Welsh and Scots don't on the whole like to be called Brits. Northern
> Ireland Protestants quite like it.)
One of the glories of the Internet is the unfailing supply of a
certain type of American -- by no means representative -- who, at the
drop of a hat, will deliver stern, moralising lectures on British
history and politics without being entirely clear on what Britain
actually is. You'd have thought that after recent events they might
have paused for thought on why this sort of thing can unfortunately
make the USA unpopular overseas, but no -- they just keep on hanging
in there.
Meanwhile, I'm sure the Gramophone judges all read Mr Hurwitz's
extraordinary outbursts in Classics Today, and my first impression,
after reading the list of this year's Gramophone awards, is that they
must have had some kind of competition to design the most
Hurwitz-busting results. Whoever won it really hit the jackpot this
time.
Of that stern critic's more choleric performances, I particularly
enjoyed the Hurwitz review of Haitink's recent Vaughan Williams Ninth,
I think, which he said stank. He then set about the British critics,
not for what they'd said -- in unison of course -- but for what they
were *going* to say -- in unison of course. They were going to *like*
it.
The above, of course, is a no-win situation. If the British Critics
had said it stank too, you can be sure that someone on Classics Today
would have launched another thunderbolt at those dreadful British
Critics who won't give a decent review to a non-British conductor,
etc., etc., etc.
But what is bizarre is that when a new recording comes up from a
British ensemble, Classics Today will usually review it perfectly
dispassionately and indeed enthusiastically, just as The Gramophone
always praises to the skies performances by the Kronos Quartet to take
just one example. The battlefield seems to be pitched somewhere in the
1950s/1960s, for some peculiar reason,as if the Halle was still
conducted by Barbirolli and the British musical press contained
nothing but Sir Thomas Beecham.
It just isn't rational ...
Jeffrey Smith
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Why don't you grasp your own fucking reality and shove it, mate?
Jeffrey Smith,
Jeffrey Smith
No, I'm afraid I don't.
Jeffrey Smith.
Matthew B. Tepper
Keep sending your clippings to Mr. Jolly and maybe he'll finally give in.
Brendan R. Wehrung
[snip]
>
> But what is bizarre is that when a new recording comes up from a
> British ensemble, Classics Today will usually review it perfectly
> dispassionately and indeed enthusiastically, just as The Gramophone
> always praises to the skies performances by the Kronos Quartet to take
> just one example. The battlefield seems to be pitched somewhere in the
> 1950s/1960s, for some peculiar reason,as if the Halle was still
> conducted by Barbirolli and the British musical press contained
> nothing but Sir Thomas Beecham.
>
> It just isn't rational ...
But don't we wish...
Brendan
Andrew Clarke
Jeffrey, I know it's difficult not to lose your temper with these
impossible people, but please don't descend to their level. It's what
they want you to do -- because the man who first loses his temper,
loses the argument.
I know it's hard to keep your cool with the kind of people who preach
snooty little sermons about British politics without having the
faintest clue what British (as distinct from Welsh, Scots and English)
actually means. I'm afraid that the same kind of people may have
influenced US policy in the Middle East, with results that are now too
tragically evident.
And of course there's never-varying round of attacks on the UK musical
press -- which keeps on shifting its ground. It used to be the reviews
that were biassed, but a search under "Kronos Quartet" or "Susan
Graham" or even "Bernstein" on The Gramophone database easily puts
paid to that one. So now it's the list of recommended recordings at
the back ...
Meanwhile, Classics Today keeps on fighting the wars of fifty years
ago -- did you read how Constantin Silvestri never got good reviews at
first because he wasn't British? (Makes you wonder how Klemperer and
Menuhin survived in Britain doesn't it?) Not to mention all those
overseas musicians invited to the Proms or Covent Garden or
Glyndebourne in the 50s and 60s to rapturous applause. And of course
there was that damning review of Haitink's Vaughan Williams
(Ninth?)where the famous Handel Festival Chorus of British Critics
were roundly condemned not for what they had written -- they hadn't
had time to write anything. No, our critic damned them for *what they
were going to say*. It was assumed that they might have the temerity
to *like* it! Needless to say if the Handel Festival Chorus of British
Critics had panned that performance too, somebody at Classics Today
would started screaming about the HFCBC's ridiculous bias against
non-British conductors like Haitink ... You can't win. It isn't
*rational*.
But funnily enough, whenever Classics Today reviews recent British
recordings, that animus isn't there. So we have to look for
non-musical explanations. Two interesting lines of inquiry here:
a) the stream of anti-British propaganda emerging from Hollywood. (If
that's how Uncle Sam treats his allies, no wonder he has so many
enemies!)
b) the need to keep those anti-British (which usually means
anti-English) elements in the American electorate voting the right way
at election time ... I note as possible evidence for this one, that
those who participate most frequently and most loudly in The Never
Ending Story about The Gramophone, Penguin Guide, etc. are also their
most vociferous in their uncritical defence of the last Democratic
president of the United States, and also the most vociferous critics
of the present Republican one.
Don't misunderstand me. When they haven't got bats in their belfries,
people like David Hurwitz write good criticism, as good as it gets, in
fact. But otherwise, they're embarrassing.
More in sorrow than in anger,
Andrew Clarke,
Canberra
Raymond Hall
No need to lose your cool unnecessarily Jeffrey. For one of the most
illiterate, numerately lacking and geographically unaware people on the face
of the planet earth, per head of population, just be grateful that there
might be a few Amurricans who are actually aware that Britain, Australia,
Austria, and similar, do in fact exist. It says so on many of their CD
notes - for those that can read them <g>
Gramophone, for want of actually mentioning it, is a much higher class rag
than their counterparts, and is the main reason they keep harping on about
it. Just think, man, think - and have pity on them. They are having a rough
time at present. If for years, all they can do is whine and whinge about a
few typos in Gramophone, then that says it all. For me.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/01
Simon Roberts
>
>And of course there's never-varying round of attacks on the UK musical
>press -- which keeps on shifting its ground. It used to be the reviews
>that were biassed, but a search under "Kronos Quartet" or "Susan
>Graham" or even "Bernstein" on The Gramophone database easily puts
>paid to that one. So now it's the list of recommended recordings at
>the back ...
[snip]
>
>a) the stream of anti-British propaganda emerging from Hollywood. (If
>that's how Uncle Sam treats his allies, no wonder he has so many
>enemies!)
>
>b) the need to keep those anti-British (which usually means
>anti-English) elements in the American electorate voting the right way
>at election time ... I note as possible evidence for this one, that
>those who participate most frequently and most loudly in The Never
>Ending Story about The Gramophone, Penguin Guide, etc. are also their
>most vociferous in their uncritical defence of the last Democratic
>president of the United States, and also the most vociferous critics
>of the present Republican one.
>
A few comments:
1. It's reassuring to see that ill-informed generalizations about
foreigners are made only by Americans.
2. It's not inconsistent with having a pro-British bias to admire
non-British musicians.
3. It's possible for someone growing up British to perceive said bias. At
school friends and I would often chuckle at its absurdities (whether
related or not to said bias or in some combination, such as one memorable
example: in his review of Karajan's Philharmonia Beethoven set, Richard
Osborne compared their playing to the perfection of the young blonds of
the BPO, preferring the "thankfully flawed" playing of the Philharmonia).
4. To perceive a bias in Gramophone is not necessarily to perceive a
similar bias in other British publications (I don't recall noticing it in
the EMG Monthly Newsletter, Records and Recordings, or Hi-Fi News and
Record Review) or among British concert goers and record buyers in
general.
5. The perceived pro-British bias in Gramophone, whether or not it's
there, is the least of that publication's flaws.
Simon
Lena
>>a) the stream of anti-British propaganda emerging from Hollywood. (If
>>that's how Uncle Sam treats his allies, no wonder he has so many
>>enemies!)
>>
>>b) the need to keep those anti-British (which usually means
>>anti-English) elements in the American electorate voting the right way
>>at election time ... I note as possible evidence for this one, that
>>those who participate most frequently and most loudly in The Never [...]
>>Ending Story about The Gramophone, Penguin Guide, etc. are also their
>>most vociferous in their uncritical defence of the last Democratic
>>president of the United States, and also the most vociferous critics
>>of the present Republican one.
>1. It's reassuring to see that ill-informed generalizations about
>foreigners are made only by Americans.
[...other reasonable points cut...]
Applause.
(And, as a really ill-informed foreigner who knows a couple of British
people (or are they English) I feel I'm by far the most qualified
person here to make rash generalizations and idle comments.)
Lena
mkperman
news:d7a4da7a.01102...@posting.google.com...
> I know it's hard to keep your cool with the kind of people who
preach
> snooty little sermons about British politics without having the
> faintest clue what British (as distinct from Welsh, Scots and
English)
> actually means. I'm afraid that the same kind of people may have
> influenced US policy in the Middle East, with results that are
now too
> tragically evident.
It's reassuring to know that it's all so clear, from a vantage
point halfway around the world and untouched by terrorism.
Marc Perman
Al Eisner
>
> No need to lose your cool unnecessarily Jeffrey. For one of the most
> illiterate, numerately lacking and geographically unaware people on the face
> of the planet earth, per head of population, just be grateful that there
> might be a few Amurricans who are actually aware that Britain, Australia,
> Austria, and similar, do in fact exist. It says so on many of their CD
> notes - for those that can read them <g>
As an Amurrican, I can affirm that I *have* heard of Britain. Isn't is some-
where near England?
But forgive me for asking - why do you mention Australia (aka Austria) twice?
--
Al (USA)
Matthew B. Tepper
I hope he enjoys going to concerts at the Queen's Hall. And maybe on
holiday he visits Coventry Cathedral.
Phil Wood
> "mkperman" <mkpe...@rcn.com> wrote in news:9r7rk9$s5q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
> > "Andrew Clarke" <a...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:d7a4da7a.01102...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> I know it's hard to keep your cool with the kind of people who preach
> >> snooty little sermons about British politics without having the
> >> faintest clue what British (as distinct from Welsh, Scots and English)
> >> actually means. I'm afraid that the same kind of people may have
> >> influenced US policy in the Middle East, with results that are now too
> >> tragically evident.
> >
> > It's reassuring to know that it's all so clear, from a vantage
> > point halfway around the world and untouched by terrorism.
> >
> > Marc Perman
>
> I hope he enjoys going to concerts at the Queen's Hall. And maybe on
> holiday he visits Coventry Cathedral.
>
They've got those in Australia as well?
Phil
Christopher Webber
>Richard Osborne compared their playing to the perfection
>of the young blonds of the BPO, preferring the
>"thankfully flawed" playing of the Philharmonia
Don't you think he had a point? Bias? Or perhaps (unusually for this
particular gentleman I admit) just astute criticism?
Simon Roberts
<mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Simon Roberts <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes:
> >Richard Osborne compared their playing to the perfection
> >of the young blonds of the BPO, preferring the
> >"thankfully flawed" playing of the Philharmonia
>
>Don't you think he had a point? Bias? Or perhaps (unusually for this
>particular gentleman I admit) just astute criticism?
I don't think it's unusual for Osborne to be astute, but biased or not,
why are flaws (technical, the sort he was referring to) something to be
grateful for?
Simon
Christopher Webber
>I don't think it's unusual for Osborne to be astute, but biased or not,
>why are flaws (technical, the sort he was referring to) something to be
>grateful for?
Gleaming efficiency, as we know, can be awfully uninteresting.
Fallibility and imperfect execution, equally, can sometimes humanise,
enrich and lend a sense of life.
For example, I feel (along with Tasmin Little for one) that Menuhin's
later, technically flawed performances are so much more moving than many
of his pristine earlier ones - precisely because of this same technical
fragility.
It's perhaps something to do with our need to feel a sense in the artist
(executive as much as creative) of striving for something unattainable -
remember Browning's lines in 'Andrea del Sarto, the faultless painter'?
"a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
or what's a Heaven for?"
I think Marianne Moore put this paradox very well in one of her poems,
when she talked about (if I recall the line correctly) the necessity of
the "Real toad in the imaginary garden" if art is to be fully alive.
Does that ring true for you?
Simon Roberts
Christopher Webber <mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Gleaming efficiency, as we know, can be awfully uninteresting.
>Fallibility and imperfect execution, equally, can sometimes humanise,
>enrich and lend a sense of life.
Is it the flaws that do that or the artistry that comes with it
(sometimes)?
>
>For example, I feel (along with Tasmin Little for one) that Menuhin's
>later, technically flawed performances are so much more moving than many
>of his pristine earlier ones - precisely because of this same technical
>fragility.
If by that you meant tonal frailty, perhaps that could be expressive, but
surely it's not "*precisely* because of this same technical fragility" but
because of his superior (if one agrees) artistry. If it's "precisely"
because of technical frailty, then perhaps companies should stop recording
Miss Little and raid beginners' classes at a provincial high school.
Perhaps you're moved by Caroline Brown's cello playing in Goodman's first
recording of Haydn 95....
[snip]
>Does that ring true for you?
Depends on the flaw and the context. Osborne didn't explain. Note that
this is the same Osborne who repeatedly tells us (most recently in the
current Gramophone) that the Philharmonia was, in the early 1950s, the
best orchestra in the world, by which he appears to refer to its technical
superiority, not to its flaws.... So regardless of the validity of the
toad in the garden thing (a poor example, I think, based as it seems to be
on a dislike of toads and perhaps ignorance of the useful function they
would serve a gardener), I'm not sure it's what Osborne meant.
Simon
Christopher Webber
>>Gleaming efficiency, as we know, can be awfully uninteresting.
>>Fallibility and imperfect execution, equally, can sometimes humanise,
>>enrich and lend a sense of life.
>
>Is it the flaws that do that or the artistry that comes with it
>(sometimes)?
With the later Menuhin, and others I'm sure we could all bring to mind,
the two are inseparable. This desirable quality of human fallibility
(humility) can only register through the occasional falling away from
grace. Great artistry lies in the finesse of available resource. This
isn't so obviously true of orchestras, of course, but even there honest
journeymen can - in certain circumstances - be preferable to complacent
masters.
>If it's "precisely"
>because of technical frailty, then perhaps companies should stop recording
>Miss Little and raid beginners' classes at a provincial high school.
Of course not; although curiously enough, I recently made the point that
Little's recording of Bax's 2nd Sonata would have benefited from just
such an admixture of frailty!
The point here is far more subtle. This 'silver lining' to technical
failings can only apply to artists with years of experience and insight,
not beginners. Negatively, "great orchestras" who have lost the sense of
being on the edge of technical possibility are in danger - just in
danger - of falling into anodyne dullness. We can all think of examples
of that.
>Depends on the flaw and the context. Osborne didn't explain. Note that
>this is the same Osborne who repeatedly tells us (most recently in the
>current Gramophone) that the Philharmonia was, in the early 1950s, the
>best orchestra in the world, by which he appears to refer to its technical
>superiority, not to its flaws....
By your (perfectly defensible) definition it might, but Osborne's
paradox suggests that technical superiority wasn't top of his personal
check list. His comparison of two fine orchestras explains exactly what
he did mean by "greatest orchestra in the world" (a rhetorical flourish
anyway unless it's fleshed out some way or other). At root his point was
simple - that there's more to great playing than technical security,
however we might define it. Surely not so vague an assertion, after all?
> So regardless of the validity of the
>toad in the garden thing (a poor example, I think, based as it seems to be
>on a dislike of toads and perhaps ignorance of the useful function they
>would serve a gardener), I'm not sure it's what Osborne meant.
Poor toad! My fault for not explaining Marianne Moore's positive symbol
clearly enough. In her poem, the real toad is an unmitigated Good Thing;
illogical, imperfect - ugly even - but living, breathing and
paradoxically necessary in order to bring the perfect, logical but dead
symmetry of the Artistic Garden to life. The Garden cannot exist without
the toad.
[ Moorish and Persian architects and artists introduced just one flaw
into an otherwise perfect design or pattern, with very much the same
idea in mind ]
Thus, implies Osborne, technical flaws in music making can - just
sometimes, and only in the higher artistic echelons - add to the
experience, not diminish it. In their doubtless humble way, we might
agree after all that the Philharmonia - like the BPO - did make some
extraordinary music in the 1950's.
Simon Roberts
<mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Depends on the flaw and the context. Osborne didn't explain. Note that
>>this is the same Osborne who repeatedly tells us (most recently in the
>>current Gramophone) that the Philharmonia was, in the early 1950s, the
>>best orchestra in the world, by which he appears to refer to its technical
>>superiority, not to its flaws....
>
>By your (perfectly defensible) definition it might, but Osborne's
>paradox suggests that technical superiority wasn't top of his personal
>check list. His comparison of two fine orchestras explains exactly what
>he did mean by "greatest orchestra in the world" (a rhetorical flourish
>anyway unless it's fleshed out some way or other). At root his point was
>simple - that there's more to great playing than technical security,
>however we might define it. Surely not so vague an assertion, after all?
Perhaps; but he didn't claim in the review in which he claimed that their
playing was "thankfully fallible" that they were the greatest orchestra in
the world. He may simply be inconsistent....
>[ Moorish and Persian architects and artists introduced just one flaw
>into an otherwise perfect design or pattern, with very much the same
>idea in mind ]
Right; the bugs in all those Dutch flower paintings presumably serve a
similar purpose. But there's a difference between intentional
"imperfections" deliberately making a point and mistakes that result from
mere incompetence/accidents.
Simon
Dave Cooper
"news.ntlworld.com" <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Just heard that this is the Vaughan Williams 'original' London Symphony
> (LSO/Hickox) on Chandos.........
>
> John
>
>
With the Mag came two CD's- one with the 'Awards 2001' samples and a second
Naim Classical Sampler CD.
I have enjoyed listening to the Naim CD far more than the Awards CD.
Regards, Dave C.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /StrongArm RiscPc (RISCOS4) PcCard ZFC & MAUG
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ |/RINGS:- RISC OS, SF Review & Classical Music
280+ Backdrops & Photos http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dac/index.html
Christopher Webber
> He may simply be inconsistent....
Nothing wrong with that. Another day, another take on things, good. Why
should a reviewer's opinions be enshrined in stone? But that's another
question .....
>
>>[ Moorish and Persian architects and artists introduced just one flaw
>>into an otherwise perfect design or pattern, with very much the same
>>idea in mind ]
>
>Right; the bugs in all those Dutch flower paintings presumably serve a
>similar purpose. But there's a difference between intentional
>"imperfections" deliberately making a point and mistakes that result from
>mere incompetence/accidents.
Indeed, the Dutch Bugs is a brilliant example. But different? In cause,
yes, but not I think in effect - which is to enhance the work and raise
it to a different level. Felix culpa?
A last example, which happens to bring us back to Vaughan Williams. I
recently did a transfer of Vernon Handley's early Classics For Pleasure
version of Vaughan Williams 6th Symphony with the LPO. The Liverpool
players for his digital remake were far less fallible; those LPO cellos,
for example, had a distinctly off day in the 1st movement. And yet ...
this fragility of execution adds to the sense of danger; they play the
piece as if their lives depended on it; all of which produces a raw,
nervy and utterly gripping performance by the side of which the
admirable remake sounds distinctly tame.
Far from diminishing the performance, the technical imperfections help
augment its power. Though I don't suppose the LSO cellists consciously
thought of themselves as Real Toads!
Simon Roberts
<mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Far from diminishing the performance, the technical imperfections help
>augment its power. Though I don't suppose the LSO cellists consciously
>thought of themselves as Real Toads!
Probably not. I certainly agree that, in the right context, what might
otherwise count as flaws can enhance the effectiveness of a performance
(as I keep saying every time Scherchen's stereo Westminster Eroica comes
up). In Osborne's case we'll never know what was meant (unless we ask
him, I suppose); he didn't specify the flaws or why we should be grateful
for them....
Simon
Rodger Whitlock
<mu...@nashwan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Gleaming efficiency, as we know, can be awfully uninteresting.
> Fallibility and imperfect execution, equally, can sometimes humanise,
> enrich and lend a sense of life.
I don't think it's gleaming efficiency, per se, that is
uninteresting. The problem is: when the conductor & orchestra
achieve g.e., they usually have squeezed all the life and
spontaneity out of the music during rehearsal.
When the players' marked up music captures *exactly* what's going
to happen -- little retard here, momentary rubato there, slight
accelerando somewhere else, slight accent on *this* note, and so
on--when it's marked up in such detail, the listener might as
well go buy a CD instead of going to the performance.
It's not the fallible and imperfect execution that humanises,
it's the spontaneity, the willingness to do things not preplanned
during rehearsal.
--
Rodger "dim and vacuous" Whitlock
Victoria, BC, Canada
bal...@australia.edu
> jrs...@beckman.demon.co.uk (Jeffrey Smith) writes:
>
> > On 20 Oct 2001 19:49:59 -0700, bal...@australia.edu wrote:
> >
> > >jrs...@beckman.demon.co.uk (Jeffrey Smith) wrote in message news:<3bd4440f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > >
> > >Can I suggest, Jeffrey, that you look in the back of your latest
> > >Gramophone and go to the 'Recommended Recordings' section. If you then
> > >bother to count the number of recommended recordings that have a
> > >British performer/orchestra/etc you would find that is well over 70%
> > >of the nominees(I gave up after the 'N's.)
> > >
> > >This suggests three possible things to me.
> > >
> > >1 That British musicians make well over three quarters of all
> > >classical music recordings
> > > or
> > >2 That British musicians are inexorably better than all other
> > >nationalities when it comes to producing award winning performences
> > > or
> > >3 That British parochialism is as alive and well as ever!
> > >
> > >Judging by the reviews from British magazines and guides that I've
> > >read, the third choice would have to be most favoured.
> > >
> > >Cheers
> > >
> > >Baldric
> >
> > I think that 1 and 2 are nearer the mark than 3.
> >
> > Jeffrey Smith.
>
> Martin-in-the-Fields collection, boy!
>
> Actually it's interesting that Gramophone's "Collection" section
> (where recordings of a specific work are compared and one is chosen)
> is usually more "internationalist" in tone than the rest of the
> publication. For example, I recall them choosing Monteux's Enigma
> Variations over all the home-grown competition*. It seems that, when
> the reviewers are actually *forced* to do A/B comparisons, they prefer
> non-British recordings almost as much as anyone else. But when it
> comes to choosing "Selected Comparisons" for a new release, or
> "Recommended Recordings" at the end of the magazine, or voting for the
> Gramophone awards, this brief acquaintance with "foreigners" fades to
> the back of the mind and insularity takes over again.
>
> David
>
>
> * On the other hand, I also recall a "Collection" on Chopin piano
> works recommending Solomon on the grounds that "he is a British
> pianist"......
>
> ** I haven't read Gramophone for a couple of years now, so this may
> ** all be out of date.
It's the randomness of it all that baffles me. The number of times a
new release (or re-release) is suddenly elevated to the top spot
without apparent comparison to previous recordngs (some admired as
'great' by many) suggests that the compiler of this section at the
back of Gramophone can't really be bothered to do his/her homework.
While I admire many British performers, groups and orchestras I just
can't countenance how Gramophone puts such an inordinately large
number of them at the top of the heap. Being an Aussie, (I'm not
Amurrican thank you) it's nice to see Mackerras and one or two other
antipodeans get a mention occasionally but I certainly don't expect
them to share the major places.
And can I remind Jeffery et al of one other thing - Gramophone is an
international publication that covers just about every classical label
in the world - so maybe this section of their magazine needs to be a
bit more reflective of this policy.
Cheers
Baldric
Phil Wood
<bal...@australia.edu> wrote in message
news:afe35cfd.01102...@posting.google.com...
SNIP>
> And can I remind Jeffery et al of one other thing - Gramophone is an
> international publication that covers just about every classical label
> in the world - so maybe this section of their magazine needs to be a
> bit more reflective of this policy.
>
Whilst I am sure that the editors of Gramophone would agree with this
"international" label, the tone of this thread seems to suggest that it is,
in fact, a British publication that is sold worldwide - which is precisely
what it is.
Phil
Rodger Whitlock
> It's the randomness of it all that baffles me. The number of times a
> new release (or re-release) is suddenly elevated to the top spot
> without apparent comparison to previous recordngs (some admired as
> 'great' by many) suggests that the compiler of this section at the
> back of Gramophone can't really be bothered to do his/her homework.
Somewhere along the line, before I stopped reading the Gram
five-plus years ago, I saw a picture of shelf after shelf filled
with CDs. Evidently the Gram keeps an extensive CD archive of
nearly everything they've reviewed (but that impression may be
wrong), so there's absolutely no excuse for their reviewers not
doing serious comparative listening. Certainly it appeared that
availability was not the issue.
It's also as though they don't bother to summarize their own past
reviews so when Erastus Q. Stifflip reviews the N-th Beethoven
ninth, he at least has in front of him a crib sheet saying who
has written what about which in the past, and which earlier
recordings have been singled out as top of the heap. It's as
though the reviewers don't even read one another's work.
Not that I want a party line; far from it; but you'd think that
where there is the pretense of consensus, there would be some
effort made to determine the consensus.
> While I admire many British performers, groups and orchestras I just
> can't countenance how Gramophone puts such an inordinately large
> number of them at the top of the heap. Being an Aussie, (I'm not
> Amurrican thank you) it's nice to see Mackerras and one or two other
> antipodeans get a mention occasionally but I certainly don't expect
> them to share the major places.
Mackerras is an honorary Brit these days, so passes muster.
> And can I remind Jeffery et al of one other thing - Gramophone is an
> international publication that covers just about every classical label
> in the world - so maybe this section of their magazine needs to be a
> bit more reflective of this policy.
The Gram makes grandiose claims of globality but the reality is
that they are a British magazine in every sense of the word. They
don't review anything not distributed in Britain, afaik. Their
circulation is probably mainly in Britain, with only a minority
portion going out to the wogs across the channel and the
colonists overseas.
The Gram is *not* an "international publication." It is a British
publication with some international circulation. That their
marketing department has turned blue in the face holding its
breath and insisting otherwise does not change this fact.
There are many, many labels not covered by the Gram. When is the
last time you saw coverage of a CBC disk from Canada? Or a Col
legno one from Italy? Or even one of the Koch Scwann ones from
Germany that are so widely distributed.
If the Gram would give up its ludicrous "we're the best, we're
the best" posturing and say simply "the best in Britain", they'd
recover some of the credibility they've lost. At least then their
silly biases would be more acceptable.
PS: But at the end of the day, what matters isn't the puffery on
the masthead or the choice of CDs to review, or even the
incredible pro-Brit bias, but the emptiness of the reviews
themselves, filled with cliches and phrases that leave you
wondering "what the fuck does *that* mean?" It's the emptiness of
the reviews that made me give up on the Gram. The rest of it was
nothing new and nothing I couldn't live with.
PPS: And lest someone think I have an anti-Brit bias, I will say
that no, I don't. In fact, if anything, I am rather pro-Brit.
PPPS: And I announce a contest for the best imitation of an
meaning-free Gram review. Pick a CD of your choice, write away,
and post here. There will be a prize--not a grand one, but at
least equivalent to a jelly donut.
Christopher Webber
>Evidently the Gram keeps an extensive CD archive of
>nearly everything they've reviewed (but that impression may be
>wrong), so there's absolutely no excuse for their reviewers not
>doing serious comparative listening. Certainly it appeared that
>availability was not the issue.
Yes indeed, they keep everything. The frustration of Gramophone
reviewing (aside from the negligible fee!) is the lack of a freebie at
the end of it, unless the recording company chooses to send a
complimentary copy.
>It's also as though they don't bother to summarize their own past
>reviews so when Erastus Q. Stifflip reviews the N-th Beethoven
>ninth, he at least has in front of him a crib sheet saying who
>has written what about which in the past, and which earlier
>recordings have been singled out as top of the heap. It's as
>though the reviewers don't even read one another's work.
It depends on the reviewer. Some do, some don't - surely a matter of
style.
>
>Not that I want a party line; far from it; but you'd think that
>where there is the pretense of consensus, there would be some
>effort made to determine the consensus.
There's no Party Line, and no such pretence in the individual reviews;
only in that silly section at the back, which has nothing to do with
anything or anybody except the yearbook. Like the wretched and
irritating "executive summaries" it seems to be aimed at people who have
neither the time nor the interest to read the magazine in the first
place. Nobody who actually buys the thing either needs or wants these
stupid 'features'. They're a misguided marketing gambit to try and keep
the thing afloat.
>Gramophone is an
>> international publication that covers just about every classical label
>> in the world - so maybe this section of their magazine needs to be a
>> bit more reflective of this policy.
"Just about every classical label in the world"? Rodger has replied
cogently to this - and to be fair to Gramophone, I don't think it would
even pretend to do that. Look at the huge list of UK releases at the
back of the magazine; my impression is that not more than one third even
of the issues listed get looked at, if that. Even International Record
Review doesn't claim completeness - and its selling point was supposed
to be that it would reach the parts that Gramophone doesn't touch.
>but the emptiness of the reviews
>themselves, filled with cliches and phrases that leave you
>wondering "what the fuck does *that* mean?" It's the emptiness of
>the reviews that made me give up on the Gram.
Sour, and manifestly unfair. If you're only given 200 words to write
about an unknown 3-CD opera, say, or a complete set of Mendelssohn
Quartets, what the hell are you supposed to do? Given these impossible
constraints of space and the pressures to be even more dumbed-down than
they are, I think that most of the reviewers do a pretty good job. [
It's worth buying for J.B.S. alone, a great writer as well as percipient
reviewer. I would miss him, at least.]