Gramophone 100 Great Recordings list
Alex Leach
century's greatest recordings. With one or two exceptions the list is
entirely predictable, and for me rather depressing.
Does anyone feel as I do that some of these recordings are overrated and in
need of reassessment? For example, fine though it is, I have never
understood the cult of du Pre's Elgar Cello Concerto recording with
Barbirolli, which is at least equalled in my view by the Navarra/Barbirolli
and Lloyd-Webber/Menuhin versions. Having played it myself this work is not
so hard to perform well and many fine recordings exist.
Of course many recordings on the list will probably never be equalled, but
most are fairly old, and I can't help feeling that some were the best
available *when released*, but have now achieved some kind of sacred cow
status which prevents any objective assessment.
There are, I recall, only 2 digital recordings in the list: Karajan's live
Mahler 9, and a Hyperion CD of medieval music, i.e. music that has only been
recorded in recent years. Very few of the recordings were even made in the
stereo era: are we really saying that virtually no great recordings of
central repertoire has been made in the last 40 years? I'm not sure I
accept the view that a record has to be around for decades before it can be
called great: Kleiber's Beethoven (which si in the list) was hailed as such
almost immediately I think.
Does anyone have any other opinions on Great Recordings which they feel are
overrated?
Alex
--
alex....@bradford.gov.uk
kapel...@my-dejanews.com
highly predictable. When I made my own selection I thought
particularly of recordings I myself considered great - so I included
Pollini's recording of Boulez , by common consent one of the great
piano records. It did not make the top 75, though.
Some of those that are listed did appear in my own list - Klemperer's
1955 Eroica, Furtwangler's Tristan etc. It was disappointing to see no
Cantelli - his Brahms 3 is quite the finest ever made. Personally, I
think the Du Pre an overrated performance (although I can't play it!)
but I couldn't not own a copy of it. The HvK Mahler 9 is very fine,
but I prefer in someways the new live Mahler 9 with the Philharmonia
and Zander. That is very pure Mahler.
If I were honest I would say that many of the recordings I consider
definitvely great are invariably live performances on non-commercial
labels. It might have made for more exciting voting if these had been
included.
Marc
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Simon Roberts
: Gramophone's latest issue contains the result of their poll for the
: century's greatest recordings. With one or two exceptions the list is
: entirely predictable, and for me rather depressing.
: Does anyone feel as I do that some of these recordings are overrated and in
: need of reassessment? For example, fine though it is, I have never
: understood the cult of du Pre's Elgar Cello Concerto recording with
: Barbirolli, which is at least equalled in my view by the Navarra/Barbirolli
: and Lloyd-Webber/Menuhin versions. Having played it myself this work is not
: so hard to perform well and many fine recordings exist.
: Of course many recordings on the list will probably never be equalled, but
: most are fairly old, and I can't help feeling that some were the best
: available *when released*, but have now achieved some kind of sacred cow
: status which prevents any objective assessment.
: There are, I recall, only 2 digital recordings in the list: Karajan's live
: Mahler 9, and a Hyperion CD of medieval music, i.e. music that has only been
: recorded in recent years. Very few of the recordings were even made in the
: stereo era: are we really saying that virtually no great recordings of
: central repertoire has been made in the last 40 years? I'm not sure I
: accept the view that a record has to be around for decades before it can be
: called great: Kleiber's Beethoven (which si in the list) was hailed as such
: almost immediately I think.
: Does anyone have any other opinions on Great Recordings which they feel are
: overrated?
I'm sure I would, but I haven't seen the June Gramophone yet so I can't
comment on it. But a few general comments spring to mind. First, as you
imply, a lot of recordings seem to have "classic" status almost
reflexively; if enough critics say x is great, a lot of people believe it.
How many people have the time, inclination, or ability to sit down and
compare 100 recordings of Beethoven 5 and declare, based on that
comparison and nothing else, Kleiber's the best? Second, I imagine the
list reflects a taste for post-baroque music; I don't think I'm alone in
thinking that almost all the best (heck, listenable) recordings of earlier
music are unlistenable. Third, the whole idea of a list of 100 greatest
recordings is idiotic, mindless end-of-millennium bandwagon jumping on the
part of Gramophone. How does one compile such a list and what does it
achieve? Isn't this a weird way to go about evaluating recordings? There
are at least 20 recordings of Bach's B minor mass which I like to keep
because they are of musical interest in some way or another; why do I need
to call one of them "the best"? And if I did, how would I go about
determining whether the best recording of this work is better than the
best recording of Beethoven's op. 111 (should such a decision be necessary
to get one or other on "the list")?
Simon
Praetorius
Simon Roberts wrote in message...
>[snip]
>...Second, I imagine the list reflects a taste for post-baroque music; I
don't >think I'm alone in thinking that almost all the best (heck,
listenable) >recordings of earlier music are unlistenable. ...
>[snip]
>
>Simon
I'd like to comment, but I don't understand what you mean by "unlistenable."
Frank Decolvenaere
To reply by e-mail, replace NMBR with 1612
Simon Roberts
: Simon Roberts wrote in message...
: >[snip]
: >...Second, I imagine the list reflects a taste for post-baroque music; I
: don't >think I'm alone in thinking that almost all the best (heck,
: listenable) >recordings of earlier music are unlistenable. ...
: >[snip]
: >
: >Simon
: I'd like to comment, but I don't understand what you mean by "unlistenable."
Ooops; not even close to what I meant to write. I meant to say that most
of the best recordings of baroque and earlier music are fairly recent,
digital, even. Thus, if I were compiling such a list there would be far
more recent recordings than the few Alex refers to.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
breakdown, i.e., regarding preference towards British performers....
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Marc Perman
>comparison and nothing else, Kleiber's the best? Second, I imagine the
>list reflects a taste for post-baroque music; I don't think I'm alone in
>thinking that almost all the best (heck, listenable) recordings of earlier
>music are unlistenable. Third, the whole idea of a list of 100 greatest
>recordings is idiotic, mindless end-of-millennium bandwagon jumping on the
>part of Gramophone. How does one compile such a list and what does it
>achieve? Isn't this a weird way to go about evaluating recordings? There
>are at least 20 recordings of Bach's B minor mass which I like to keep
>because they are of musical interest in some way or another; why do I need
>to call one of them "the best"? And if I did, how would I go about
>determining whether the best recording of this work is better than the
>best recording of Beethoven's op. 111 (should such a decision be necessary
>to get one or other on "the list")?
Having not yet seen the June Gramophone either, I would guess that the
list serves two purposes: (1) it sells more CDs for Gramophone's most
important advertisers, the major labels, and (2) it provides a
shorthand, if predictable, shopping list for readers who can't be
bothered to form their own opinions and who need to told that
something they buy is "the best."
Marc Perman
VanSkybar
>list serves two purposes: (1) it sells more CDs for Gramophone's most
>important advertisers, the major labels, and (2) it provides a
>shorthand, if predictable, shopping list for readers who can't be
>bothered to form their own opinions and who need to told that
>something they buy is "the best."
>
>Marc Perman
>
on what is or isn't the "best" perfornce of a particular work. (Perhaps those
with more conscience offer a "range" of "bests." ) Given my druthers, I'd as
soon buy a good performance as a bad one. The issue with Gramophone is a
combination of bad taste (well, perhaps not bad, but akin to that of the
average headwaiter) and an attitude that any choice that the magazine proclaims
is "definitive."
Peter Van Skyler
Tony Movshon
per...@mindspring.com (Marc Perman) writes:
> Having not yet seen the June Gramophone either, I would guess that the
> list serves two purposes: (1) it sells more CDs for Gramophone's most
> important advertisers, the major labels, and (2) it provides a
> shorthand, if predictable, shopping list for readers who can't be
> bothered to form their own opinions and who need to told that
> something they buy is "the best."
But gosh, Marc. We -all- want to know what "the best" is ...
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Edward Jasiewicz
Simon Roberts wrote in message <7hjtta$bjq$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Alex Leach (alexand...@btinternet.com) wrote:
>: Gramophone's latest issue contains the result of their poll for the
>: century's greatest recordings. With one or two exceptions the list is
>: entirely predictable, and for me rather depressing.
[cuts]
>Third, the whole idea of a list of 100 greatest
>recordings is idiotic, mindless end-of-millennium bandwagon jumping on the
>part of Gramophone. How does one compile such a list and what does it
>achieve? Isn't this a weird way to go about evaluating recordings? There
>are at least 20 recordings of Bach's B minor mass which I like to keep
>because they are of musical interest in some way or another; why do I need
>to call one of them "the best"? And if I did, how would I go about
>determining whether the best recording of this work is better than the
>best recording of Beethoven's op. 111 (should such a decision be necessary
>to get one or other on "the list")?
It's nice to hear this reminder against the dangers of list-keeping. Still,
it's an easy trap. What else are (can) these guys going to write about??
;-)
Even so, I find that I tend to fall in love, so to speak, with different
versions of works at different times (and not always after I just
purchased/heard the performance, too), which really complicates a list. But
if I narrow the category to certain repertoire in the piano literature, I am
completely prejudiced towards my own experience with "concluding at the
piano." I can't feel as democratic about Goldberg Variations performances,
for example, as I do about Mahler 9s. (I wonder if this is good or bad???)
-ed
Jeffrey Smith
wrote:
>I'm waiting for somebody in this newsgroup to perform the inevitable
>breakdown, i.e., regarding preference towards British performers....
If we are talking about the same thing then the 'ten greatest
recordings of the 20th century' is, in fact, open to the readers of
Gramophone to pick their own top ten from the 75 recordings chosen in
the first round.
Of these 75 only 7 are by British composers (if you exclude Handel)
and 15 are by British artistes (if you exclude Solti). However, I
would not have chosen 4 of the 7 as being in this category, or most of
the rest either for that matter. To exclude any American composers
must be wrong, as must the original claim of 'preference towards
British performers'.
The more articles I read about music and musicians, whether in this ng
or Gramophone etc., and the more documentaries I see on TV, the more I
wonder whether there is any relevence in putting nationality labels on
music, composers or performers. We are becoming more and more like
this 'global village' we hear so much about.
Jeffrey Smith.
Peter Donnellan
from Simon Rattle. I recall reading the eulogy accorded this issue initially
upon its release and eagerly buying the discs. To my great surprise, I found
(and find) it one of the weakest recordings of this great work available
(indeed, it does not reflect the Rattle live performances of Mahler 2 which
I have heard).
PD.
Matthew B. Tepper <du...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:7hk3bv$8...@journal.concentric.net...
> I'm waiting for somebody in this newsgroup to perform the inevitable
> breakdown, i.e., regarding preference towards British performers....
>
Simon Roberts
: Surely the most overrated recording included in the list is the Mahler 2
: from Simon Rattle. I recall reading the eulogy accorded this issue initially
: upon its release and eagerly buying the discs. To my great surprise, I found
: (and find) it one of the weakest recordings of this great work available
: (indeed, it does not reflect the Rattle live performances of Mahler 2 which
: I have heard).
Me too. But I'm curious just how overrated it is outside the context of
Penguin/Gramophone. I suspect that quite a few things on their list that
I think are overrated, such as the Furtwaengler studio Tristan, are almost
universally acclaimed. Is that true of this Mahler 2?
Simon
VanSkybar
>Penguin/Gramophone. I suspect that quite a few things on their list that
>I think are overrated, such as the Furtwaengler studio Tristan, are almost
>universally acclaimed. Is that true of this Mahler 2?
>
>Simon
>
Yes, this Mahler 2 is generally overrated-- although one must remember that in
this case it was Gramophone that started the hype ball rolling in the first
place. (Not the case with the revered Furtwangler Tristan, which I sometimes
listen to for the cumulative power of those loooong orchestral climaxes but
generally avoid because of the Tristan and Isolde...)
Peter Van Skyler
Atoddk
going to have to wait for the June issue to show up around here before I can
see how "bad" -- or "good" -- their list is?
My own attitude about such lists (and they're all over the place, of course;
everything from films to travel destinations will be ranked by some magazine
before the year is out) is that I don't take them very seriously, but I do
enjoy looking them over and comparing reactions. Much the same reason I
continue to read new editions of the Penguin Guide.
Todd K
Sacqueboutier
>
> Surely the most overrated recording included in the list is the Mahler 2
> from Simon Rattle. I recall reading the eulogy accorded this issue initially
> upon its release and eagerly buying the discs. To my great surprise, I found
> (and find) it one of the weakest recordings of this great work available
> (indeed, it does not reflect the Rattle live performances of Mahler 2 which
> I have heard).
...and they placed Rattle's Mahler 2nd above that of Bernstein/NYP on
Sony, Walter on Sony, and Klemperer on EMI? Rattle does seem to be
Crapophone's (oops I misspelled...I guess I owe Ducky a dollar)
favourite boy.
--
Don Patterson
* DCP Music Printing
* Professional Computer Music Typeset
* Music Arrangements
* don...@erols.com
Paul Kintzele
Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> They mislead me on a much touted Rattle Sibelius 5th as well. I haven't
> gone near Rattle since ;-)
If you're talking about the Philharmonia Sibelius 5, I too was seduced
by Gramophone's acclaim; it's not a bad performance, but it's nothing
particularly special.
But you shouldn't forswear Rattle altogether; I just bought the recent
Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1 with Leif Ove Andsnes, and it is
*spectacular*; I don't think I've heard the CBSO sound so good--a truly
gripping performance.
Paul
Raymond Hall
<373F04...@erols.com>...
: Peter Donnellan wrote:
: >
: > Surely the most overrated recording included in the list is the Mahler
2
: > from Simon Rattle. I recall reading the eulogy accorded this issue
initially
: > upon its release and eagerly buying the discs. To my great surprise, I
found
: > (and find) it one of the weakest recordings of this great work
available
: > (indeed, it does not reflect the Rattle live performances of Mahler 2
which
: > I have heard).
:
: ...and they placed Rattle's Mahler 2nd above that of Bernstein/NYP on
: Sony, Walter on Sony, and Klemperer on EMI? Rattle does seem to be
: Crapophone's (oops I misspelled...I guess I owe Ducky a dollar)
: favourite boy.
They mislead me on a much touted Rattle Sibelius 5th as well. I haven't
gone near Rattle since ;-)
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com>
Tony Movshon
ato...@aol.com (Atoddk) writes:
> So is anyone going to actually scan this thing into a post for us, or am I
> going to have to wait for the June issue to show up around here before I can
> see how "bad" -- or "good" -- their list is?
Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the list, be aware
that it's *not* the Gramophone's "own" list -- it's a preliminary
summary of reader's votes. The top 75 vote-getters are listed, and
readers are invited to vote again to pick the final "top 10". So blame
for the inclusion of such questionable gems as the Rattle Mahler 2,
Kleiber Brahms 4, Munchinger Xmas Oratorio, and Karajan/VPO Bruckner 8
goes to the readership, not (directly, anyway) to the Gramophone staff.
Raymond Hall
<373F81E4...@english.upenn.edu>...
: Raymond Hall wrote:
: >
: > They mislead me on a much touted Rattle Sibelius 5th as well. I haven't
: > gone near Rattle since ;-)
: If you're talking about the Philharmonia Sibelius 5, I too was seduced
: by Gramophone's acclaim; it's not a bad performance, but it's nothing
: particularly special.
:
: But you shouldn't forswear Rattle altogether; I just bought the recent
: Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1 with Leif Ove Andsnes, and it is
: *spectacular*; I don't think I've heard the CBSO sound so good--a truly
: gripping performance.
My thoughts on the Sibelius exactly. A rather fussy performance in fact.
Leif Ove Andsnes (now if there ever was a name to get wrong), has acquired
a Rosette in Penguin for a miscellany of Grieg on Virgin, and has won
"golden opinions", [another gem for Simon]. Anyone know this disc, and is
it any good? The pieces include the Lyric pieces Op 43 and Op 54, and the
Sonata in E min Op 7.
You seem very ecstatic about this Brahm's 1st concerto, and obviously
Rattle / Andsnes seem to make a good partnership, and augurs well for 2nd
concerto (if it hasn't already been done).
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com>
c_pa...@hotmail.com
to...@cns.nyu.edu (Tony Movshon) wrote:
> Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the list, be
aware
> that it's *not* the Gramophone's "own" list -- it's a preliminary
> summary of reader's votes. The top 75 vote-getters are listed, and
> readers are invited to vote again to pick the final "top 10". So blame
> for the inclusion of such questionable gems as the Rattle Mahler 2,
> Kleiber Brahms 4, Munchinger Xmas Oratorio, and Karajan/VPO Bruckner 8
> goes to the readership, not (directly, anyway) to the Gramophone
staff.
Tony, I am curious to know what you dislike about Carlos's Brahms 4,
which to my ear is one of his great successes. (I feel that his only
outright failure to date is his graceless, tensionless Schubert 8.)
C. Pascal
Alan P Dawes
Tony Movshon <to...@cns.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the list, be aware
> that it's *not* the Gramophone's "own" list -- it's a preliminary
> summary of reader's votes. The top 75 vote-getters are listed, and
> readers are invited to vote again to pick the final "top 10". So blame
> for the inclusion of such questionable gems as the Rattle Mahler 2,
> Kleiber Brahms 4, Munchinger Xmas Oratorio, and Karajan/VPO Bruckner 8
> goes to the readership, not (directly, anyway) to the Gramophone staff.
The reason that the readers voted Rattle's Mahler 2 so high was almost
certainly due to sentiment. I'm sure they were thinking not of the CD with
Bournmouth SO but his last performances before leaving the CBSO last
summer. These were broadcast on BBC Radio 3 and also on one of the
commecial TV channels. I was bowled over by the performance and am very
sure that most others were, unfortunately his earlier recording is not a
patch on it. I hope these live performances are issued on CD.
I would assume that reader's were voting on their favourite performances
ie those which mean most to them sentimentally/psychologically not best
available performances. I doubt if many of the voters even bothered to
relisten to their chosen recordings - they new what was best for them.
Alan
--
--. --. --. --. : : --- --- ----------------------------
|_| |_| | _ | | | | |_ | alan....@argonet.co.uk
| | |\ | | | | |\| | |
| | | \ |_| |_| | | |__ | Using an Acorn RiscPC
Simon Roberts
: Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the list, be aware
: that it's *not* the Gramophone's "own" list -- it's a preliminary
: summary of reader's votes. The top 75 vote-getters are listed, and
: readers are invited to vote again to pick the final "top 10". So blame
: for the inclusion of such questionable gems as the Rattle Mahler 2,
: Kleiber Brahms 4, Munchinger Xmas Oratorio, and Karajan/VPO Bruckner 8
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although I still haven't seen the list, this is surely a strong candidate
for most bizarre entry; I've never seen more than luke-warm praise from
critics and never met anyone who actually likes it....
Simon
Tony Movshon
c_pa...@hotmail.com writes:
> Tony, I am curious to know what you dislike about Carlos's Brahms 4,
> which to my ear is one of his great successes. (I feel that his only
> outright failure to date is his graceless, tensionless Schubert 8.)
Lots of people admire this recording. I find it driven, harsh,
inflexible, and graceless. De gustibus ...
Vincent Ventrone
Alex Leach wrote:
>
> Gramophone's latest issue contains the result of their poll for the
> century's greatest recordings. With one or two exceptions the list is
> entirely predictable, and for me rather depressing.
(snip...snip...)
> called great: Kleiber's Beethoven (which si in the list) was hailed as such
> almost immediately I think.
>
> Does anyone have any other opinions on Great Recordings which they > feel are overrated?
Yup -- the Kleiber Beethoven 5th (& 7th). They strike me as better than
average, but no more than that. I just don't hear anything truly
distinctive in these two recordings that would qualify to be placed in a
Special category...
--
Vincent Ventrone
DBA, Dept. R101
v...@mitre.org
(781) 271-7048
The MITRE Corp. | "...In my opinion there's nothing
M/S C020 | in this world beats a '52 Vincent
202 Burlington Rd. | and a redheaded girl."
Bedford, MA 01730 | -- Richard Thompson
Atoddk
>
>
>c_pa...@hotmail.com writes:
>> Tony, I am curious to know what you dislike about Carlos's Brahms 4,
>> which to my ear is one of his great successes. (I feel that his only
>> outright failure to date is his graceless, tensionless Schubert 8.)
>
>Lots of people admire this recording. I find it driven, harsh,
>inflexible, and graceless. De gustibus ...
>
I don't like it very much either, but in my case it's because I find it
curiously faceless. There's little to make it stand out from the general run of
modern VPO/BPO Brahms 4ths I've heard; many competent conductors could have
obtained a similar result with that orchestra. I suppose it's just that with
Kleiber, I expect something more distinctive. This 4th certainly isn't
arrestingly "driven" to the extent that, to name one, Dorati's London recording
on Mercury is (in fact, to me it sounds rather mushy and domesticated by
comparison).
Todd K
Margaret Mikulska
>
> Alex Leach wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any other opinions on Great Recordings which they > feel are overrated?
>
> Yup -- the Kleiber Beethoven 5th (& 7th). They strike me as better than
> average, but no more than that. I just don't hear anything truly
> distinctive in these two recordings that would qualify to be placed in a
> Special category...
I find the 5th absolutely fantastic, next to Fritz Reiner's somewhat
older recording.
-Margaret
Audiophilia
>Sacqueboutier <don...@erols.com> wrote in article
><373F04...@erols.com>...
>: Peter Donnellan wrote:
>: >
>: > Surely the most overrated recording included in the list is the Mahler
>2
>: > from Simon Rattle. I recall reading the eulogy accorded this issue
>initially
>: > upon its release and eagerly buying the discs. To my great surprise, I
>found
>: > (and find) it one of the weakest recordings of this great work
>available
>: > (indeed, it does not reflect the Rattle live performances of Mahler 2
>which
>: > I have heard).
>:
>: ...and they placed Rattle's Mahler 2nd above that of Bernstein/NYP on
>: Sony, Walter on Sony, and Klemperer on EMI? Rattle does seem to be
>: Crapophone's (oops I misspelled...I guess I owe Ducky a dollar)
>: favourite boy.
>:
>
>gone near Rattle since ;-)
>
Much like his touted Sibelius "Second Symphony", Janacek "Sinfonietta", and
Shostakovich's "Tenth Symphony" did for me. Only his superb accompaniment to
Nige's Sibelius Concerto saved his graces after those three turkeys!
Kind regards,
Anthony Kershaw, Editor/Publisher
@udiophilia - The Online Journal for the Serious Audiophile
http://www.audiophilia.com
An electronic publication of Audiophilia, Inc.
Raymond Hall
<__L%2.21$iB3....@typhoon.nyu.edu>...
:
: > So is anyone going to actually scan this thing into a post for us, or
am I
: > going to have to wait for the June issue to show up around here before
I can
: > see how "bad" -- or "good" -- their list is?
: that it's *not* the Gramophone's "own" list -- it's a preliminary
: summary of reader's votes. The top 75 vote-getters are listed, and
: readers are invited to vote again to pick the final "top 10". So blame
: for the inclusion of such questionable gems as the Rattle Mahler 2,
: Kleiber Brahms 4, Munchinger Xmas Oratorio, and Karajan/VPO Bruckner 8
:
I find the HvK VPO Bruckner 8th quite superb, and well worthy of inclusion.
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com>
Raymond Hall
<7ht2ge$oe3$1...@news.interlog.com>...
: Raymond Hall wrote in message
<01be9ff3$cdb4cc80$LocalHost@hp-customer>...
: >
: >They mislead me on a much touted Rattle Sibelius 5th as well. I haven't
: >gone near Rattle since ;-)
:
: Much like his touted Sibelius "Second Symphony", Janacek "Sinfonietta",
and
: Shostakovich's "Tenth Symphony" did for me. Only his superb accompaniment
to
: Nige's Sibelius Concerto saved his graces after those three turkeys!
Maybe the "Nige" saved his bacon on this one, although it is often said
that the test of a great conductor is to be able to accompany well. Also
Paul Kintzele reports a good Brahm's 1st PC. Maybe he needs a soloist to
bring out the best in him, but I really believe the verdict is still
pending on him (Rattle), and hopefully his best work is yet to come.
Regards,
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com>
Simon Roberts
: Gramophone's latest issue contains the result of their poll for the
: century's greatest recordings. With one or two exceptions the list is
: entirely predictable, and for me rather depressing.
[snip]
: Does anyone have any other opinions on Great Recordings which they feel are
: overrated?
Well, of course, but that's exactly what I would expect of such a list,
the purpose of which seems to be for the Gramophone readership to show
what good students they are by subscribing to a standard list of industry
cliche recommendations. I think most of us, asked to predict what would
be on the list, could have come up with at least 80% of it pretty
accurately. It's interesting to note some of the biases: almost no
chamber music; nothing live on a small/"unofficial" label (thus just
about all the Furtwaengler recommendations are for the "wrong"
performances -- Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, DG Schubert 9th, EMI Tristan (I
know there's no live equivalent here, but...) -- and Schnabel's Beethoven
sonatas get the wrong transfers, EMI's not Pearl's); aside from one
Hyperion and one Supraphon, everything's from one of the "big" labels (the
Testament stuff is EMI); etc. Aside from the dearth of chamber music,
some of the repertoire is odd too: Mozart is represented only by four
operas and the horn concertos -- no piano concertos, symphonies, etc.,
Haydn only by Dorati's complete symphony series.
Oddest of all, though, and thus in their way rather endearing, are two
recordings which would surely never be called overrated because they're
scarcely rated at all -- Munchinger's Christmas Oratorio and Kubelik's
Water Music. How on earth did they find a place amongst all the other
cliches?
Simon
Olaf
Roberts) wrote:
Snipped
> (thus just about all the Furtwaengler recommendations are for the "wrong"
>performances -- Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, DG Schubert 9th, EMI Tristan (I
>know there's no live equivalent here, but...)
>
>Simon
About Tristan - at least there is a live recording of Acts 2 and 3,
from Berlin recorded in1947 with the same Ludwig Suthaus and with Erna
Schlüter as Isolde. The edition I have is on Fonit Cetra in quite good
sound. (But it probably wont fit onto the 100 Great Recordings list.)
Olaf