Russian operas by Tchakarov on Sony

[Oscar]

Anyone have these OOP opera sets, conducted by Emil Tchakarov, Sofia
Festival Orchestra and Sofia National Opera Chorus? How do they
fare? Only Eugene Onegin has been reissued in the Sony Opera House
series (2009).

Borodin: Prince Igor
Glinka: A Life For the Tsar
Mussorgsky: Boris Godunov (original version)
Mussorgsky: Khovanshchina
Tchaikovsky: Eugene Onegin
Tchaikovsky: Pique Dame

[wkasimer]

On Feb 14, 7:50 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mussorgsky: Boris Godunov (original version)

I like this one, mostly for Ghiaurov. He's past his best, but is much
more interesting here than he was in Karajan's straitjacketed
recording of the Rimsky version. Worth hearing if you can find it
cheap, but I think that the Abbado is probably a better choice if you
want the Musorgsky original.

> Mussorgsky: Khovanshchina

I haven't heard it, but the reviews I've read have been quite
positive.

> Tchaikovsky: Eugene Onegin

This one looks good on paper, but is simply awful. Here's what I
wrote on Amazon:

"These are all major singers who did excellent work in other roles, at
other times, but not here. Chernov is a rough, unsubtle Onegin; Tomowa-
Sintow is in good voice, but too mature. Worst is Gedda, who was in
horrible voice for these sessions - unsteady and nasal. He made some
gorgeous recordings of Lensky's aria, and I've heard a live recording
from around this time at the Met that was excellent, but this may be
his worst recording. Not that it matters much, but Tchakarov's
conducting is prosaic.

"In short, this may be the worst Onegin on records. Stick to Khaikin
if you can find it (the sound is monaural but fine, at least in the
better issues), or Bychkov, or (despite the lack of idiomatic Russian
singers) Levine."

> Tchaikovsky: Pique Dame

I heard it once and liked it, but don't remember why. I think that
it's in one of my piles of stuff waiting to be heard again...

Bill

[Mark S]

On Feb 14, 7:26 am, wkasimer <wkasi...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "In short, this may be the worst Onegin on records. Stick to Khaikin
> if you can find it (the sound is monaural but fine, at least in the
> better issues), or Bychkov, or (despite the lack of idiomatic Russian
> singers) Levine."
>

Have to agree about Gedda on this recording. I was at one of those Met
performances you mention. Gedda was in fabulous voice and brought the
house down with his "Kuda, kuda." The recording came as a major
disappointment.

I wonder why he was never asked to record the role in his prime.

[wkasimer]

On Feb 14, 1:38 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Have to agree about Gedda on this recording. I was at one of those Met
> performances you mention. Gedda was in fabulous voice and brought the
> house down with his "Kuda, kuda." The recording came as a major
> disappointment.

Gedda is one of those singers who is, I think, almost always better in
live recordings than in the studio.

Bill

[Tassilo]

> Mussorgsky: Boris Godunov (original version) [with Tchakarov]
> Mussorgsky: Khovanshchina [with Tchakarov]

I have these two Mussorgsky recordings and like them both immensely,
and especially the Khovanschina, which has less competition. The
Boris is not the original version, if by “original version” you mean
the 1869 version, which you probably don’t. It is something like the
original version of Mussorgsky’s 1872 revision as opposed to the
Rimsky edition: indeed, Tchakarov uses what everybody today
misleadingly refers to as Mussorgsky’s original, and the melodies,
rhythms, and orchestration in the edition Tchakarov uses are indeed by
Mussorgsky. As it turns out, though, when Pavel Lamm erected his
carefully edited edition of Mussorgsky’s 1872 revision, he included
passages present in 1869 that Mussorgsky had cut from 1872. In other
words, the “original version” that we hear today is Pavel Lamm’s
conflation rather than an edition of either version by the composer.
We still do not have critical editions of either Mussorgsky version,
but thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky. (Some time
ago I wrote a little essay on the editions of Boris here within a
discussion of the Gergiev recording and got this completely wrong.
For the record, the Gergiev recording includes complete performances
of both 1869 and Pavel Lamm’s version of 1872. In other words, it is
not what it is billed as: complete recordings of the two Mussorgsky
versions.)

As for Tchakarov’s performances, they are both wonderfully spirited
and what can only seem idiomatically Slavic to a poor Westerner like
me. Just compare Abbado’s crisp and vital recording of Khovanschina
to Tchakarov’s recording of essentially the same edition—both
conductors use the Shostakovich orchestration rather than Rimsky—and
you’ll see what I mean: Tchakarov takes us back in time and far
northeast of Abbado’s modern Vienna. (For the record, Mussorgsky left
Khovanschina near complete but mostly unorchestrated. There are
editions orchestrated by both Rimsky and Shostakovich. Rimsky rewrote
extensively when he orchestrated the opera, but Shostakovich left
Mussorgsky’s original melodies, harmonies, and rhythms alone. Abbado
and Tchakarov both use Shostakovich.)

Tchakarov’s Boris is a little more laid back than the Khovanschina, to
its slight detriment, but I completely agree with Bill Kasimer’s
comments about Ghiaurov’s assumption of the title role. Ghiaurov’s
instrument was no longer quite what it once was when he recorded Boris
for Tchakarov, but his musicianship and expressivity had grown by
leaps and bounds: Ghiaurov turns in a great Boris here.

-david gable

[T. Esteban Ayala]

I'll try to be brief. I have both Mussorgsky sets. As noted above the
Boris Godunov set is worth hearing for Ghiaurov, but is otherwise a
pretty drab affair. The Khovanschina recording (employing
Shostakovich's edition) is better, but if you have Abbado's set then
you're not missing anything.

[Mark S]

On Feb 14, 6:49 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:

>thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky.

Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
Boris over Mussorgsky's own.

[M forever]

Because it sounds more disney?

[wagnerfan]

I know its not PC but I agree---- for me its more colorful, dramatic
and exciting - not bad attributes for an opera. As a matter of fact I
have a sneaking suspicion that the original sounds dull in comparison
because Mussoursky just wasn't that good an orchestrator. I have heard
the original and it does have a kind of grim power but I just don't
find it all that interesting or involving. Wagner Fabn

[Mark S]

What would lead you to opine that Rimsky's version sounds like a
Disney score/soundtrack?

BTW - I agree with what Wagnerfan wrote above. In addition, Rimsky's
version is tighter. I think it flows much better. I've seen both
versions in the theater where the differences are more glaring than
they are on records.

[Tassilo]

On Feb 14, 11:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:


> As a matter of fact I
> have a sneaking suspicion that the original sounds dull in comparison
> because Mussoursky just wasn't that good an orchestrator.

Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, and Boulez most certainly would not agree
with you . . . in other words, colorful master orchestrators in the
Mussorgsky line.

-dg

[Mark S]

How did you come up with that particular list? What is their
connection to Mussorgsky?

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 11:17 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:48:56 -0800 (PST), Mark S
>

> <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 6:49 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky.
>
> >Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> >Boris over Mussorgsky's own.
>
> I know its not PC but I agree---- for me its more colorful, dramatic
> and exciting - not bad attributes for an opera. As a matter of fact I
> have a sneaking suspicion that the original sounds dull in comparison
> because Mussoursky just wasn't that good an orchestrator.

You need to listen to his original orchestral and choral versions of
Night on the Bare Mountain, or St.John's Night on the Bare Mountain,
as I believe the original versions were called!

[Tassilo]

On Feb 15, I wrote:

> > Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, and Boulez most certainly would not agree
> > with you . . . in other words, colorful master orchestrators in the
> > Mussorgsky line.

And on Feb 15, 12:31 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> responded:

> How did you come up with that particular list? What is their
> connection to Mussorgsky?

You really don't know? For one thing, they’re all part of the same
Franco-Russian tradition, and Debussy in particular was profoundly
influenced by Mussorgsky’s music, which he discovered when he was in
Russia playing chamber music for his (and Tchaikovsky’s) patron, Mme.
von Meck: while there he spent a lot of time seeking out all of the
music by Mussorgsky he could lay his hands on. And, of course,
Debussy, Stravinsky, and Ravel all knew one another, Debussy and
Stravinsky playing the 2-piano version of Rite of Spring during
rehearsals for the first performance of the ballet. I don’t have time
to write anything new, but here, slightly revised, is something I
posted on this newsgroup some time ago:

Among the direct heirs to Mussorgsky’s style were the French and
Russian composers who most admired his music, including Debussy,
Ravel, and Stravinsky, and also -- a couple of generations later --
Boulez, a composer deeply influenced by Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky
who has always claimed that Boris is one of his two favorite operas,
the other being Meistersinger. (In the 1950’s before he was the more
perfect Wagnerite that he later became, Boulez wrote, “As far as I’m
concerned Mussorgsky’s poetics, which come close to Debussy’s, explode
the inflated Romanticism of [Wagner’s] self-excitement.”)

Fascinated by the experiments in prosody characteristic of
Mussorgsky’s incomplete opera, The Wedding -- experiments that
anticipate Stravinsky’s approach to Russian prosody in his own wedding
ballet, Les noces -- Debussy was profoundly familiar with music by
Mussorgsky that few people know. Mussorgsky’s conversational approach
to text setting in The Wedding -- Mussorgsky’s radical attempt at
fidelity to the accentual patterns of Russian speech -- influenced
Debussy’s approach to Maeterlinck’s verse in Pélléas, while a song
from Mussorgsky’s great song cycle, “Sunless,” was the source of the
oscillating chord progression that opens Debussy’s Nocturnes, a
progression further exploited in the opening of Part II of
Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring. Ravel, of course, orchestrated
Mussorgsky’s collection of character pieces for the piano, Pictures at
an Exhibition: Ravel used the Rimsky edition as the basis for his
orchestration, but only after seeking in vain for more than a year to
get his hands on a copy of the original. In any case, this entire
Franco-Russian school rejected Rimsky’s well intentioned (at best)
reorchestration of Boris. (Ravel and Stravinsky were supposed to
complete and orchestrate Khovanschina for Diaghilev, although it’s not
clear how much of their realization was ever finished. In any case,
all that survives, as far as anyone knows, is Stravinsky’s version of
the final chorus, which Abbado incorporated in his recording of
Khovanschina.)

When Stravinsky first met Debussy, they talked about Mussorgsky’s
songs, which, according to Stravinsky, “Debussy thought contained the
best music of the whole Russian school. [...] He did not like Rimsky,
whom he called ‘a voluntary academic, the worst kind.’”

Asked about his own attitude toward Mussorgsky during the period when
he was Rimsky’s student, Stravinsky replied:

At that time, being influenced by the master who had recomposed almost
the whole work of Mussorgsky, I repeated what was usually said about
his “big talent” and “poor musicianship” and about the “important
services” rendered by Rimsky to his “embarrassing” and “unpresentable”
scores. Very soon I realized the partiality of this kind of mind,
however, and I changed my attitude toward Mussorgsky. This was even
before my contact with the French composers, who, of course, were all
fiercely opposed to Rimsky’s “transcriptions.” It was too obvious,
even to an influenced mind [like my own] that Rimsky’s
Meyerbeerization of Mussorgsky’s “technically imperfect” music could
no longer be tolerated. [Mussorgsky’s] original scores always show
infinitely more true musical interest and genuine intuition than the
“perfection” of Rimsky’s arrangements. [END QUOTATION]

-dg

[Ray Hall]

Whilst Mussorgsky was an original, it seems to me rather sad that in
praising him that Rimsky gets slated above in various ways. In many
ways, Rimsky urbanised Russian colour and its sense of the exotic, and
his 'perfection' is not something that should be sneered at. Just my
opinion.

Ray Hall, Taree

[T. Esteban Ayala]

Ravel's fascination with Mussorgsky went well beyond Pictures at an
Exhibition. He had been a devoted enthusiast of the Russian's work
since at least the first decade of the 20th century. Ravel closely
modeled L'heure espagnole and Histoires naturelles on Mussorgsky's
mode of word setting in The Wedding and The Nursery.

Honegger's vocal music was also deeply informed by Mussorgsky.

[wagnerfan]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:07:43 -0800 (PST), M forever <ms1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Will do Wagner Fan

[wagnerfan]

Yes but its the actual orchestration I have a problem with in
Mussoursky's origonal settings - none of the composers you mention
(all of whom I love for different reasons) even approximate the
prevailing grayness or should I even say drabness of the original
"sound" in Mussourskys own Boris orchestration. That atmosphere may
work well for the more intimate scenes but sounds just "not enough" in
either of the Polish scenes or even the Coronation scene, just how I
hear it of course. Wagner fan

[wkasimer]

On Feb 14, 10:48 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> Boris over Mussorgsky's own.

That said, if I have to listen to someone else's Musorgsky, give me
Shostakovich's.

Bill

[Christopher Webber]

On 15/02/2012 06:19, Tassilo wrote:
> “Debussy thought contained the
> best music of the whole Russian school. [...] He did not like Rimsky,
> whom he called ‘a voluntary academic, the worst kind.’”

Having just been moved to the core by a production of "The Legend of the
Invisible City of Kitezh", which I had the privilege of seeing last
night in Amsterdam, I can only wish that Debussy had enjoyed the same
experience. If he'd known anything much about one or two of Rimsky's own
operas, we'd have been spared such nonsense. This sort of crass rubbish
about Rimsky's "academicism" has been received wisdom in the West for
far too long.

Rimsky remains the most under-prized and little-known of the great
Russian composers, partly because he devoted so much of his middle life
to getting the best of his contemporaries' work finished and established
in the repertoire, and so little time to pushing his own.

As for Stravinsky, he was understandably keen to distance himself and
his achievement from the master from whom he learned so much: we should
listen to "Mlada" and "Kashchei the Immortal" for starters, if we're
interested in knowing where much of the orchestration, rhythmic
complexities and harmonies of "The Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring"
emanated from.

The whirligig of time has brought about its revenges on Rimsky's
excellent reworkings of Mussorgsky (who *was* technically a shocking
orchestrator, even according to Shostakovich - and as anyone with half
an ear can hear for themselves.) Yet that same whirligig may well be
about to bring around an upward revaluation of Rimsky's work, especially
the operas.

As far as opera houses are concerned, Rimsky could be the Handel of the
early 21st century: restored, apparently against the odds, to his
rightful place in the pantheon.

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:39:08 +0000, Christopher Webber
<zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:

>On 15/02/2012 06:19, Tassilo wrote:

>> 泥ebussy thought contained the

>> best music of the whole Russian school. [...] He did not like Rimsky,

>> whom he called 疎 voluntary academic, the worst kind.樗

A wonderful opera composer with works full of exoticism and color -
I saw Kitezh at the MET and was bowled over. Sometimes it can go on a
bit long - the long twittering birdy sequence at the beginning of Snow
Maiden overstays its welcome but for the most part exhilirating to
hear - where oh where is a good stereo recording of Tsar Saltan!!!!!!
Wagner fan

[Mark S]

On Feb 15, 7:39 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

Hear, hear!

Let's face it, Mussorgsky could well be forgotten had it not been for
Rimsky.

As far as Stravinsky - Rimsky's influence is writ large in IS's three
great ballets, while any influence Mussorgsky may have had in those
works is - to my ears - less than the influence of Glazunov.

I had high hopes that there might be a Rimsky revival afoot when
Philips began their opera series with Gergiev, but it didn't
materialize into much at all. NRK is hardly an acquired taste. He's
very accessible. But he's not a Beethoven or a Mozart or a Handel or
even a Stravinsky who one can return to regularly to find new depths
of meaning. That doesn't mean his works are third-rate.

[M forever]

On Feb 14, 11:21 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:15 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 10:48 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 6:49 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky.
>
> > > Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> > > Boris over Mussorgsky's own.
>
> > Because it sounds more disney?
>
> What would lead you to opine that Rimsky's version sounds like a
> Disney score/soundtrack?

I am sure it does to people who had the ill fortune to be brought up
with "Fantasia".

> BTW - I agree with what Wagnerfan wrote above. In addition, Rimsky's
> version is tighter. I think it flows much better. I've seen both
> versions in the theater where the differences are more glaring than
> they are on records.

What does that mean, "it flows much better"? Why do you need it to
"flow"?

[Oscar]

On Feb 15, 7:54 am, M forever wrote:
>
> > > > Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> > > > Boris over Mussorgsky's own.
>
> > > Because it sounds more disney?
>
> > What would lead you to opine that Rimsky's version sounds like a
> > Disney score/soundtrack?
>
> I am sure it does to people who had the ill fortune to be brought up
> with "Fantasia".

Keen insight. Very erudite.

[Mark S]

On Feb 15, 7:54 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:21 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 8:15 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 10:48 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 6:49 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky.
>
> > > > Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> > > > Boris over Mussorgsky's own.
>
> > > Because it sounds more disney?
>
> > What would lead you to opine that Rimsky's version sounds like a
> > Disney score/soundtrack?
>
> I am sure it does to people who had the ill fortune to be brought up
> with "Fantasia".

I didn't realize that Rimsky was present in Fantasia in any way, shape
or form. The orchestration for the "Bald Mountain" sequence was done
by Stoki, not that there's not a bit of Rimsky in Stoki's version.

The Le sacre sequence in Fantasia sounds as "Rimsky" as anything else
in the film, maybe even more so.

> > BTW - I agree with what Wagnerfan wrote above. In addition, Rimsky's
> > version is tighter. I think it flows much better. I've seen both
> > versions in the theater where the differences are more glaring than
> > they are on records.
>
> What does that mean, "it flows much better"? Why do you need it to
> "flow"?

It will be difficult for me to provide an explanation to your question
that wouldn't have me coming off as a modern-day Beckmesser. :)

[M forever]

On Feb 15, 11:44 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:54 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 11:21 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 8:15 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 10:48 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 14, 6:49 pm, Tassilo <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >thank God for Pavel Lamm, who rescued us from Rimsky.
>
> > > > > Words cannot express how much more I prefer the Rimsky version of
> > > > > Boris over Mussorgsky's own.
>
> > > > Because it sounds more disney?
>
> > > What would lead you to opine that Rimsky's version sounds like a
> > > Disney score/soundtrack?
>
> > I am sure it does to people who had the ill fortune to be brought up
> > with "Fantasia".
>
> I didn't realize that Rimsky was present in Fantasia in any way, shape
> or form. The orchestration for the "Bald Mountain" sequence was done
> by Stoki, not that there's not a bit of Rimsky in Stoki's version.

There is a lot of that there. Stokowski's version was obviously based
on Rimsky-K's, not on Mussorgsky's version(s), he just spiced up the
orchestration a little more. But it's the same underlying esthetic,
the concentration on a few endlessly repeated and slightly varied
motifs rather than Mussorgsky's more free and wild development of the
musical material.

> The Le sacre sequence in Fantasia sounds as "Rimsky" as anything else
> in the film, maybe even more so.

It does indeed.

So I think you understand what I meant.

> > > BTW - I agree with what Wagnerfan wrote above. In addition, Rimsky's
> > > version is tighter. I think it flows much better. I've seen both
> > > versions in the theater where the differences are more glaring than
> > > they are on records.
>
> > What does that mean, "it flows much better"? Why do you need it to
> > "flow"?
>
> It will be difficult for me to provide an explanation to your question
> that wouldn't have me coming off as a modern-day Beckmesser.  :)

That doesn't mean it can't be interesting!

[M forever]

No, he wouldn't. All the composers from his circle are still
remembered, it's just that none of the other ones wrote as original
music as Mussorgsky did. He was a musical genius of epic proportions,
probably too epic for himself. It's a pity he drank himself to death
at 42.

> As far as Stravinsky - Rimsky's influence is writ large in IS's three
> great ballets, while any influence Mussorgsky may have had in those
> works is - to my ears - less than the influence of Glazunov.

So?

> I had high hopes that there might be a Rimsky revival afoot when
> Philips began their opera series with Gergiev, but it didn't
> materialize into much at all. NRK is hardly an acquired taste. He's
> very accessible. But he's not a Beethoven or a Mozart or a Handel or
> even a Stravinsky who one can return to regularly to find new depths
> of meaning. That doesn't mean his works are third-rate.

So why compare him to the above? What's the point?

[M forever]

Abbado recorded the choral version in Berlin for Sony which is the
only recording of that version I know. He also recorded the orchestral
version twice, with the LSO for RCA and the BP for DG, but my top
recommendation for this version is Cleveland/Dohnányi (Teldec).

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:44:29 -0800 (PST), M forever <ms1...@gmail.com>

Fascinating - thanks for the recommendation!!! Wagner fan

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:9q21t1...@mid.individual.net:

> "The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh", which I had the privilege of
> seeing last night in Amsterdam,

Oh, how tempting....

--
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.

[Tassilo]

On Feb 15, 4:37 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Yes but its the actual orchestration I have a problem with in
> Mussoursky's origonal settings

By now I'm well aware of that, Ivan.

>- none of the composers you mention
> (all of whom I love for different reasons) even approximate the
> prevailing grayness or should I even say drabness of the original
> "sound" in Mussourskys own Boris orchestration.

Be that as it may, what sounds "drab" to you sounded "stark" to them,
and by no means inappropriately so. Not only did they not agree with
your negative assessment of Mussorgsky's orchestration: they
considered Mussorgsky's instrumentation original and inventive, vastly
preferring it to Rimsky's, of which they were downright contemptuous.
There really is no question about that.

-dg

[M forever]

That is nonsense. Ravel in particular was heavily influenced by Rimsky-
Korsakov's music and style of orchestration. That doesn't mean that he
didn't appreciate Mussorgsky's style, too - he obviously did - but to
say that he was "downright contemptuous" of Rimsky-Korsakov is
downright wrong.

[Mark S]

On Feb 15, 5:58 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Be that as it may, what sounds "drab" to you sounded "stark" to them,
> > and by no means inappropriately so.  Not only did they not agree with
> > your negative assessment of Mussorgsky's orchestration: they
> > considered Mussorgsky's instrumentation original and inventive, vastly
> > preferring it to Rimsky's, of which they were downright contemptuous.
> > There really is no question about that.
>
> That is nonsense. Ravel in particular was heavily influenced by Rimsky-
> Korsakov's music and style of orchestration. That doesn't mean that he
> didn't appreciate Mussorgsky's style, too - he obviously did - but to
> say that he was "downright contemptuous" of Rimsky-Korsakov is
> downright wrong.

Exactly. And there would be no Firebird, Petroushka or Le sacre were
it not for Rimsky's influence on Stravinsky.

The bigger issue here is David's apparent belief that one must like
Mussorgsky's version of Boris over Rimsky's because 1. Mussorgsky was
the composer, so it must be better on those grounds, and 2. because
other composers felt that Rimsky was inferior.

Isn't the point that people are allowed to like what they want when it
comes to music? If I like NRK's version of Boris more than I like
Mussorgsky's original, no amount of admonition that I should like the
composer's version better simply because it's the composer's version
aren't going to mean a damn. What my ears tell me I like isn't going
to be overruled by an appeal to my intellect, especially when that
appeal is made entirely on the grounds of fidelity to the composer.

If one wants to take that tact, then we should admonish composers for
ever revising their works once they've been released to the public.
After all, those first versions represent their original thoughts. Who
are the composers to go back and redo their original thoughts?

[wagnerfan]

I always go back to the drama and all I can say is if Marina gave
parties as dull sounding as those in Mussorgsky's orchestration, no
one important would have shown up, least of all Dimitri. Wagner fan

[Mark S]

On Feb 15, 7:36 pm, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  I always go back to the drama and all I can say is if Marina gave
> parties as dull sounding as those in Mussorgsky's orchestration, no
> one important would have shown up, least of all Dimitri. Wagner fan

BTW - did you see the NYT review of City Opera's recent Traviata?
Apparently, the director had Violetta lie on her deathbed for all of
Act 4. He wouldn't allow her to rise for her final last gasp of life -
as it's traditionally staged - because, according to the review: "as a
physician himself, Mr Miller knows that people dying of tuberculosis
don't rise up out of their deathbeds."

Hmm? And neither do people dying of tuberculosis sing opera.

The point is that that last gasp that Verdi wrote into the end of
Traviata is based - in part - on the kind of Deus ex machina, happy
ending that was common in opera of his time. Verdi gives the audience
the hope that Violetta HAS somehow miraculously recovered, only to
dash their hopes as she falls dead. It makes the ending just that
extra bit tragic.

Those who are physicians themselves apparently know better. They have
no problem extending the suspension of disbelief to the fact that
everybody on stage is singing their way through life, while feeling
the need to draw the line at allowing a person dying of consumption to
rise out of their deathbed.

[wagnerfan]

Ridiculous - one of the greatest scenic effects was in the 1955
Visconti Traviata where he had her (Callas) trying to get dressed in
Act 4 but the clothes just fall off of her and the hat is askew on top
of her head. He also (physicians may disagree) had her last breaths
come out of her while she was standing up and thats how the curtain
came down. Don't get me started on much of what passes for direction
in opera today. inept is a nice way of putting it. Wagner fan

[Sol L. Siegel]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:351271b2-b6af-400a-a329-
94c96c...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> Hmm? And neither do people dying of tuberculosis sing opera.

",,,sopranos dying double-fortissimo from tuberculosis."


- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA