What's the best CD of Boris Godunov to buy???
Mrs T xx
weeks time and thought I ought to buy the CD to familiarise myself with
the music first. I understand there are a couple of different
versions so thought I'd ask for advice on what to get, so that I don't
accidentally end up buying the worst recording ever made starring
Andrea Bocelli or something.
I don't know any Russian opera apart from Eugene Onegin (something I
intend to rectify!!!) but as Boris generally seems to be regarded as a
"classic" then hopefully it'll appeal to me musically. Just hope there
aren't too many scenes involving repressed peasants singing about the
price of beetroot though..... :-)
Is there a particularly good version on DVD that anyone could recommend
as well pls?
Thanks in advance for the advice
Mrs T xx
P.S: If anyone else is going to the Saturday matinee on 29 July and
would like to meet up then please let me know
La Donna Mobile
DVD. It's still in the plastic packaging...
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
Mrs T xx
La Donna Mobile wrote:
> I've got a Kirov (as was) version with Gergiev; Lloyd, Borodina on 2
> DVD. It's still in the plastic packaging...
>
Yes, that one got excellent write-ups on Amazon....... when you get
round to taking it out of the plastic packaging and watching it then do
pls let me know what it's like
I also have about 4 brand new opera DVDs that are sitting on my shelf
waiting to be watched, including "Die Frau ohne Schatten" starring none
other than my favourite Welshman (in what seems to be a bit part) and
the dear, legendary Cheryl St*der. I'm trying to psyche myself up to
watching it as I do have a bit of a phobia about "modern" opera that
I'm trying to overcome. I've had this DVD for about 3 months now and
it's quite ridiculous that I still haven't unwrapped it yet.
Mrs T xx
tmori...@yahoo.com
Mrs T xx schrieb:
> La Donna Mobile wrote:
> > I've got a Kirov (as was) version with Gergiev; Lloyd, Borodina on 2
> > DVD. It's still in the plastic packaging...
> >
>
> Yes, that one got excellent write-ups on Amazon....... when you get
> round to taking it out of the plastic packaging and watching it then do
> pls let me know what it's like
>
I remember watching the Abbado/Kotscherga version on TV and enjoying it
.. I'm pretty sure it's been released on DVD.
As for CD's, I would recommend the version with the great Reizen ...
waiting for the Welshman to record it ;-)
Best,
th.
La Donna Mobile
partworks, which are nearly finished. I keep meaning to sit down and
watch a few, but stuff gets in the way. Like live operas, World Cup,
that sort of thing.
I had a Turandot with my favourite Spaniard that sat unwatched for a
long while. But that's because I have a phobia about Turandot.
I don't think DFoS counts as modern...
david...@aol.com
> I remember watching the Abbado/Kotscherga version on TV and enjoying it
> .. I'm pretty sure it's been released on DVD.
Would that be a film of a live performance . . . or an additional
run-through for the cameras? Abbado has a real thing for Mussorgsky,
and one of the most vivid operatic experiences of my life was a concert
performance of Boris with Ruggero Raimondi, Abbado, and the Chicago
Symphony in the mid- to late 80's. A friend of mine who is a real
Mussorgsky fanatic and I waited for years for Sony to release a
promised Boris with Abbado and were disappointed by the comparatively
tame Berlin Philharmonic performance that eventually appeared. One of
the problems is that the Sony recording was a studio recording: the
live Khovanschina with Abbado from Vienna on DG is nothing short of
magnificent. (So was the RCA recording of various Mussorgsky rarities
with Abbado and the LSO: I never heard the later DG recording of the
same material.)
Not that this will help anybody, but my favorite Boris by many
magnitudes is a heavily abridged English-language Boris recorded with
Met forces with Giorgio Tozzi and Dmitri Mitropoulos both in
overwhelming form. It was available on LP on RCA and through the Met
in the 1950's and is unlikely ever to resurface on CD.
When you're picking a Boris, avoid the grotesquely hammy Boris
Christoff in the title role and the ghastly tinselization of
Mussorgsky's original by Rimsky-Korsakoff like the plague. That being
said, none of the complete recordings of the original (or conflations
of the two originals) entirely knocks me out. Abbado is OK.
-david gable
alcindoro
Lucrezia) all for different reasons. You can spend a lifetime
comparing and contrasting, both from the performance and the edition
standpoint ... do you want Mussorgsky straight up?
And if so, which version of his? (I think this was, after all, the only
one of his operas the old dear managed to rouse himself out of his
stupor and orchestrate) or do you want what others made of it --
(Rimsky, Glazonov, Shostakovich, Rathaus ... there's probably even a
Mantovani version).
I recommend Rostropovich/Erato. Mussorgsky's final version. An
international affair, based on a scrupulously rehearsed concert
presentation with an American orchestra and chorus, superbly trained.
(I'm not a Russian speaker but it all sounds convincing.) Raimondi --
not the "typical" black Russian bass but deeply moving, very innig,
pulls back where others go for broke ... In a marvelously assembled
company which includes Gedda as the Simpleton (and he's fabulous), Mme.
Rostropovich plays two roles -- the Hostess (where she's a total
delight) and more controversially Marina ... it ain't pretty, but with
the text in front of you, I guarantee you will hang on her every word
-- this is one of recorded opera's great BITCHES! Beautifully
recorded. This is my first recommendation.
I enjoy Abbado/Sony and the Gerg's comprehensive edition. For Rimsky,
I am happy with the Christoff/Dobrowen -- cut, I know, and the doubling
and tripling (not only Christoff but others, including my beloved Kim
Borg) takes a bit of imagination on the part of the listener. The
chorus of actual emigrees is scrappy but I think quite flavorsome for
that.
david...@aol.com
alcindoro wrote:
> (Rimsky, Glazonov, Shostakovich, Rathaus ... there's probably even a
> Mantovani version).
Rathaus is an edition very close to Mussorgsky's original rather than
a thorough reorchestration like Rimsky's. It's what Mitropoulos used
at the Met in the 50's in an attempt to get as close as possible to the
original in the days before a thoroughly reliable edition was
available. All of the actual notes in the Rathaus edition are
Mussorgsky's. (Actually, there are long passages even Rimsky
didn't alter in any way.)
It's a total myth that Boris EVER needed reorchestration by hands other
than the composer's, and Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky regarded
Rimsky's revision with disdain. Boris is the only opera Mussorgsky
ever managed to complete, and he ended up revising it extensively after
the dismal reception of the stark original in 1869. Mussorgsky made it
more conventionally "operatic" in the process but also added yet
more remarkable music (and the entire Marina subplot). The myth of his
incompetence arose from the facts that he never succeeded in completing
any other opera and that he revised Boris itself. (Mussorgsky was not
incompetent at composition or orchestration but at life, his alcoholism
having derailed his completion of project after project, also causing
his comparatively early death. Four other Mussorgsky operas were left
in various stages of incompletion.)
Rimsky didn't think Mussorgsky was incompetent. He was in awe of what
Mussorgsky had accomplished in Boris, which he thought was a brilliant
and difficult work ahead of its time. He Rimsky-ized the opera as a
marketing ploy, fully convinced that his version would pave the way for
the triumphant ascendance of the original into the standard repertory.
It's hard for those brought up on Rimsky to give up their high glitz
and sugar diet, but if you like your whiskey straight and you want to
hear, not only Mussorgsky's brilliantly original orchestration, which
is vastly more subtle and original than Rimsky's, but also the actual
rhythms and harmonies that he wrote - Rimsky simplifies them at various
points - then you will avoid Rimsky.
There is the added problem that, if you want to hear, say, Kipnis or
Pinza or Reizen as Boris, you're stuck with Rimsky. (If you want to
hear Christoff, there's no hope for you.) At least Rimsky had the good
sense not to change a note in such passages as the death of Boris.
-david gable
Mrs T xx
A very nice man at the ROH box office did actually spend nearly 15
minutes explaining the entire history of the opera's composition to me
and it seems the version that the Bolshoi will be presenting is the one
that had extra bits by Rimsky-K and I think he said a couple of other
Russian composers too. He said it was the 4 Act version including the
extra Polish act. And 3 intervals!
Must admit that the thought of spending 4 hours inside the
air-conditioned comfort of the ROH on a swelteringly hot afternoon in
July is incredibly appealing.......
Mrs T xx
david...@aol.com
Mrs T xx wrote:
> Oh dear, this is starting to sound very complicated indeed!
Virtually any recording will be of one of these two versions:
1. Mussorgsky's second version, which includes the Polish act
2. Rimsky's orchestration of Mussorgsky's second version
Virtually any recording of 1 will include the bits that Mussorgsky cut
from the 1869 version when he revised so that you get every note from
either version. Any recording of 1 or 2 will prepare you for what
you're going to hear. Disregard my scruples and grab anything.
-david gable
Sam
wrote:
I think there are only 3 commercial DVDs of performances made in the
past 30 years. Gergiev has one with the original orchestration and
there are 2 Kultur DVDs of the Bolshoi production with the
Rimsky-Korsakov orchestration. The reviews on Amazon seem to be
correct to me so I refer you to them.
A bit of Russian history in connection with Boris is that 4 present
and future Russian Tsars appear in that opera. Boris was succeeded by
his son Fyodor who in turn was succeeded by the false Dimiti who gave
way to Prince Shuisky. After that tumultuous period, the "Time of
Troubles", Mikael Romanov started the long lasting dynasty. A story
dealing with the latter's accession to the throne is told in Glinka's
opera, Ivan Susanin also called "A Life for the Tsar", which is also
available on a Kultur DVD starring Evgeny Nesterenko who also plays
Boris in the aforementioned Bolshoi production.
By the way, Boris was a much better tsar than he is made out to be in
the opera.
david...@aol.com
Sam wrote:
>
> By the way, Boris was a much better tsar than he is made out to be in
> the opera.
I should have thought Mussorgsky and Pushkin portrayed him as a
magnificent tsar . . . in the opera from the first grave words of his
speech in the coronation scene. The point is that, although the role
of tsar brought out the greatness in Boris, the cost of becoming tsar -
child murder - was too great a price to pay, and he's wracked with a
guilt so severe it threatens his sanity.
-david gable
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
orchestrations. Christoff was a phenomenal 'Boris'...as he was a force of
nature on the stage (which is where his art was best appreciated). I don't
believe any video of his 'Boris' was ever made...more's the pity...so I can
understand why many don't like his very Russian sound. Having sung with
both Christoff and Ghiaurov...I can attest to the difference in
approaches...both were magnificent.
I'm very much on record as preferring the Rimsky orchestrations of 'Boris'.
IMHO, Mussorgsky was a genius composer...but a 2nd rate orchestrator. The
Rimsky version brings a magic to the opera's action...as opposed to the
really flat original version. Still...there are many knowledgeable people
who do prefer the original...personal taste must come into play here. To be
absolutely fair...I think it best for the individual to find one's
preference. By this I mean...save up your pennies and own a copy of both
versions. This would help make for a more complete opera library. Whatever
you decide upon...you can't really go wrong with this masterpiece. I agree
with David about the 'Khovanschina' selection.
Here's my personal favorite recording...which I first listened to while
still in grammar school-
Boris Christoff, Anton Diakov (bass); Dimitr Ouzounov, John Lanigan, Kiril
Dulguerov (tenor); Evelyn Lear (soprano); others Chorus of the National
Opera of Sofia, Orchestre de la Societé des Concerts du Conservatoire André
Cluytens conducting. CD- EMI 72435678812
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151719954.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I remember watching the Abbado/Kotscherga version on TV and enjoying it
>> .. I'm pretty sure it's been released on DVD.
> When you're picking a Boris, avoid the grotesquely hammy Boris
david...@aol.com
Jon E. Szostak, Sr. wrote:
> Christoff was a phenomenal 'Boris'...as he was a force of
> nature on the stage (which is where his art was best appreciated). I don't
> believe any video of his 'Boris' was ever made...more's the pity...so I can
> understand why many don't like his very Russian sound.
It's not his Russian sound I dislike: I have absolutely no problem
with his voice or sound. It's his hammy vocal acting and the cavalier
attitude toward the pitches and rhythms in the score that make me
shudder in revulsion. Seeing him on the stage wouldn't have helped.
> I'm very much on record as preferring the Rimsky orchestrations of 'Boris'.
> IMHO, Mussorgsky was a genius composer...but a 2nd rate orchestrator.
An opinion not shared by such master orchestrators and Mussorgsky
admirers as Ravel, Debussy, and Stravinsky, of course, composers deeply
interested in and knowledgeable about Mussorgsky. Indeed, they thought
Rimsky's orchestration was cheap tinsel.
-david gable
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
sparkle with life.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151767837.6...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Juan I. Cahis
Rathaus version characteristics?
Is there any available recording of it?
"david...@aol.com" <david...@aol.com> wrote:
Thanks
Juan I. Cahis
Santiago de Chile (South America)
Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it!
Juan I. Cahis
Moussorgski's 1869 version has a completely different Act II, which it
is very interesting too, don't think about this version as "a standard
version without the Polish Act" only.
Shostakovich used this version of the Act II in his one.
"david...@aol.com" <david...@aol.com> wrote:
Richard Loeb
news:naKdncXR-68VDTvZ...@comcast.com...
There is a video of him doing one of the monologues - incredible - the
recordings alone are pale reflections of his dramatic power Richard
>
Richard Loeb
It may not be better orchestration but the Rimsky is colorful, exciting and
dramatic - three qualities which I find pretty much necessary for effective
music drama - the original is interesting but I must say I find a lot of it
dull. Richard
Robert Storm
Rimsky orchestrations masterpieces in their own right.
My favorite Boris Godunov recording is the one conducted by Nikolai
Golovanov and featuring Mark Reizen as Boris. Unfortunately there are
many cuts. This recording mostly uses Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration.
My other favorite recording of the Rimsky version is the one conducted
by Alexander Melik-Pashayev and featuring George London. André
Cluytens's recording is very good as well. I like Boris Christoff as
Boris, Pimen and Varlaam though it's easy to understand why some people
loathe him.
Of the recordings of Mussorgsky's own orchestration I prefer Mstislav
Rostropovich's recording. There is also a film version that uses an
edited version of this recording as it's soundtrack. Great film but
unfortunately doesn't seem to be available on DVD. Valery Gergiev's
recording has Mussorgsky's both versions of the opera (not Rimsky). It
is a good choice as well.
My least favorite recordings are the ones conducted by Vladimir
Fedoseyev, Claudio Abbado and Jerzy Semkov though Semkov has some great
singers (Martti Talvela, Nikolai Gedda). I find these recordings quite
lifeless.
I've seen two DVD's of this opera. Both are recommended. One was
conducted by Lazarev, the other by Gergiev. Lazarev's DVD was staged in
the old, very bombastic USSR style. Looks wonderful to me, probably
awful to some. There are long cuts in this performance. The other DVD
has a staging by the famous film director Andrey Tarkovsky. It is a bit
more modern than the Lazarev version but still quite traditional.
david...@aol.com
Juan I. Cahis wrote:
> Moussorgski's 1869 version has a completely different Act II, which it
> is very interesting too, don't think about this version as "a standard
> version without the Polish Act" only.
Yes, I know. I also know of at least two recordings of the original
Mussorgsky that include every note of both versions, Abbado's Sony
recording being one. Abbado's solution is not ideal, though: he may
include every note, but he doesn't include every scene from both
versions intact. There was a recording that did, and you could
recreate either Mussorgsky version from it. (Can't remember which
recording it was.) The first recording of the original Mussorgsky was
an EMI recording with Talvela released in the mid-70's, but it was very
poorly conducted by Semkow. I had it on LP, but I can't remember
whether Semkow included every note from both Mussorgsky versions or
whether he simply recorded the revised 2nd version.
Somebody has even staged the 1869 version within the last decade or so.
Can't remember where I read about the production.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> There is a video of him doing one of the monologues - incredible - the
> recordings alone are pale reflections of his dramatic power Richard
I'll bet it doesn't disguise his vulgar and cavalier treatment of the
musical text. (I will give it a look later today.)
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> It may not be better orchestration but the Rimsky is colorful, exciting and
> dramatic - three qualities which I find pretty much necessary for effective
> music drama - the original is interesting but I must say I find a lot of it
> dull. Richard
The colorful is not a prerequisite for true drama, including true music
drama. As for excitement, it depends on what you mean by excitement.
For a flashy theatrical effect you may need these things, but they're
not remotely prerequisites for great drama or great music drama.
They're not necessarily barriers to true drama, either, but they aren't
remotely prerequisites for true drama. (Have you ever seen a play by
Samuel Beckett?)
Rimsky unequivocally shared the opinions of Debussy, Ravel, and
Stravinsky on the subject of the extraordinary quality of the
originals, and I'm staggered that these French and Russian masters of
dazzling orchestration, three of them working in the wake of
Mussorgsky, were so entirely bowled over by the originality of
Mussorgsky's instrumental conception and yet people here are describing
it as "flat." It may be that they grasped something Mussorgsky's
critics here don't. Apparently Rimsky was right: the original is just
too original for some people to take.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Robert Storm wrote:
> My favorite Boris Godunov recording is the one conducted by Nikolai
> Golovanov and featuring Mark Reizen as Boris.
Reizen may be the greatest Boris of them all.
> Of the recordings of Mussorgsky's own orchestration I prefer Mstislav
> Rostropovich's recording.
I haven't heard it: a friend of mine who's a Mussorgsky fanatic
thought it was fairly dull. One of these days I've got to check it
out.
>Valery Gergiev's
> recording has Mussorgsky's both versions of the opera (not Rimsky).
Is that the only one? I could have sworn the conductor of the "both
versions" issue was somebody else.
> My least favorite recordings are the ones conducted by Vladimir
> Fedoseyev, Claudio Abbado and Jerzy Semkov though Semkov has some great
> singers (Martti Talvela, Nikolai Gedda). I find these recordings quite
> lifeless.
The Semkow would be stunning if it weren't for Semkow. I like the
Abbado better than you do, but I wish you could have heard him do it
live. He's passionately interested in Mussorgsky and vastly more
lively and enthralling live than on the Sony recording. Just compare
the live Vienna Khovanschina with Abbado on DG to the Sony Boris.) I
heard Abbado do Boris in concert with Raimondi and the Chicago
Symphony, but I think there's a live La Scala performance on Myto. A
live Coronation scene with Abbado and the CSO is included in one of the
anthologies of live Chicago Symphony recordings sold by the orchestra.
I'm curious if you've heard Tozzi and Mitropoulos . . . in an abridged
English-language performance with Met forces from the mid-50's. I
still find this the best conducted performance I've ever heard on
records, and Tozzi is magnificent.
>The other DVD
> has a staging by the famous film director Andrey Tarkovsky.
I'd be extremely curious to see that.
-david gable
Robert Storm
> I haven't heard it: a friend of mine who's a Mussorgsky fanatic
> thought it was fairly dull. One of these days I've got to check it
> out.
I think it's quite good. Perhaps not as good as the best recordings of
the Rimsky version though. As I said, I like both Musorgsky's and
Rimsky's orchestration. However, I think the recordings of the Rimsky
version are usually better.
> >Valery Gergiev's
> > recording has Mussorgsky's both versions of the opera (not Rimsky).
> Is that the only one? I could have sworn the conductor of the "both
> versions" issue was somebody else.
That's the only one I've heard of. Do you remember who the conductor
could have been?
> I like the Abbado better than you do
I think Abbado is better than Fedoseyev and Semkow but still not one of
my favorites. Singing is ok. Yes, there is a live recording conducted
by Abbado and featuring Raimondi as Boris. I'd like to hear it. Maybe I
would like it better than the studio version. Raimondi is one of my
favorite singers.
> I'm curious if you've heard Tozzi and Mitropoulos . . . in an abridged
> English-language performance with Met forces from the mid-50's.
I haven't heard that one. Might be interesting.
There are also some interesting curiosities:
Panizza, Met 1939. An Italian-language live performance with such
greats as Pinza, Thorborg, Kullman and Warren.
Karajan, Salzburg 1966. Such interesting singers as Ghiaurov, Jurinac
and Stolze. I haven't heard Karajan's studio recording.
Jochum, studio 1957. This is the first recording of Mussorgsky's
orchestration. If it wasn't in German, it could be one of the most
recommended. Hotter as Boris, Mödl as Marina, Böhme as Varlaam. I
think Hans Hopf is usually quite bad but as the Pretender he is at his
best.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151777789.6...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Loeb wrote:
>
>> It may not be better orchestration but the Rimsky is colorful, exciting
>> and
>> dramatic - three qualities which I find pretty much necessary for
>> effective
>> music drama - the original is interesting but I must say I find a lot of
>> it
>> dull. Richard
>
> The colorful is not a prerequisite for true drama, including true music
> drama. As for excitement, it depends on what you mean by excitement.
> For a flashy theatrical effect you may need these things, but they're
> not remotely prerequisites for great drama or great music drama.
> They're not necessarily barriers to true drama, either, but they aren't
> remotely prerequisites for true drama. (Have you ever seen a play by
> Samuel Beckett?)
>
>
Yes yes - Ok - I'm talking about music drama not Beckett - and lets say then
that an opera that is not exciting, not colorful or not dramatic would have
to have some other pretty interesting qualities to be effective - which
music dramas that are not colorful, exciting and dramatic do you have in
mind???? Richard
Richard Loeb
Dobrowen - incredibly propulsive and dramatic. Richard
"Robert Storm" <roo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151780245.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Richard Loeb
.<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151776938....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But what matters to me is the theatrical effect it has on the audience and
the way his portrayal of this character moves and stirs the public. Of
course where one can cross the line and go too far is strictly a matter of
taste - I don't think I would have liked Chaliapins nose-picking Basilio but
the live portions of his Boris recorded at the end of career mean more to me
than any note perfect rendition sung by a lesser acting singer. Richard
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151726680....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
just sum up my thoughts: I suppose it is at least partly true that (though
exegis on the point generally fails to convince me) that Rimsky
misinterpretred Mussoursky's intent, and that he loaded the opera with
inappropriate colors. But Rimsky's version has about it an exhilirating
theatricality - it is exactly this that some people find objectionable - but
why????The Rimsky scoring glows with atmosphere- at point after point it
makes telling theatrical points just where the original is inanimate. For me
the Mussoursky is too dull, too untheatrical for MY taste. However there is
no question that the original should always be available for study and
comparison and for those who feel strongly that it is the only legitimate
Boris. Richard
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
sound...is completely negated by the visceral power of his onstage persona.
I have rarely seen a more gripping character representation in live
performance. He was totally riveting...like watching some kind of animal on
the prowl. Yet could be so sensually suave as well...e.g. his 'Khan
Konchak'. So different from the likes of Ghiaurov...but every bit as great
an artist.
Listening to Chaliapin's recordings of 'Boris' can raise the hairs on the
back of you neck.
Earlier, I wrote of Christoff's Russian sound...of course he was Bulgarian
by birth...but had that sound down pat.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r6qdneeprqqjTDvZ...@comcast.com...
alanwa...@aol.com
Jon E. Szostak, Sr. wrote:
Having done both the R-K edition and at least one edition of the
original (cannot remember which one) it was my impression that the
Rimsky worked better in the "house" than the original.
I understand Mr Gable's viewpoint and there is no doubt of Mr M's
innovation as a composer but as Mr Gable will know R-K orchestrated it
(for good or bad, depending upon your opinion) to save it: it was on
the point of dropping out of the Russian repertoire completely.
It could have been the performances but I seem to recall a decidedly
lukewarm response to the original quite possibly perhaps because the
audience might have been more familiar with the R-K but lukewarm
nonetheless.
In fairness to R-K, I should point out I think that on page 407 of "My
Musical Life" he wrote:
"Having arranged the new version of Boris Godunov I had not destroyed
its original form, had not painted out the old frescoes forever. If
ever the conclusion is arrived at that the original is better, worthier
than my revision, then mine will be discarded and Boris Godunov will be
performed according to the original score."
I would be genuinely interested to know whether this is in fact
happening in live opera performances or whether the R-K still holds
sway in those.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
strauss...@gmail.com
david...@aol.com wrote:
> Somebody has even staged the 1869 version within the last decade or so.
> Can't remember where I read about the production.
Staatsoper unter den Linden. I didn't see it, two friends did. One
liked the production, another hated it, but both liked the spare and
tight 1869 Boris.
-lms
makro...@gmail.com
orchestration of Boris. Please can you give me a source for this? - I'm
a little baffled as I can't imagine how Debussy could possibly have
known Musorgsky's original scoring.
And while Ravel and Stravinsky may have had hard words for R-K's
orchestrations (again I'd be genuinely interested to know of the
sources for this), they both were perfectly happy to attempt a
comprehensive reorchestration and even partial recomposition of
Khovanshchina...
I would agree that R-K's version is *not* Boris Godunov as we should
know it, but it is a superbly effective piece in its own right. So I'm
happy to live with both.
david...@aol.com
of the release of the live DG recording of Mussorgsky's Khovanschina
with Abbado conducting. He has a certain amount to say about Rimsky's
orchestrations of Boris and Khovanschina.
[Why didn't Abbado use the old established Rimsky?]
Abbado: Well, with all due respect to Rimsky, he didn't understand
Mussorgsky's music at all. Look what he did with Mussorgsky's
harmonies. He thought they were wrong but they weren't. They were
just amazingly modern for the time. I'll admit that what he did for
Boris was important at that time. In its original form, Boris would
never have caught on. It wouldn't have been understood. And to do
Rimsky justice, he did say that his Boris was only for his own day,
that there would come a time when the original would finally come into
its own.
[Those who know, say, the introduction to Khovanschina in that familiar
Rimsky version will find the original provides one or two jolts.]
Abbado: Yes, it's quite different in places. Rimsky couldn't
understand the bell motives at all. He changed them and took some of
them out. I must say I sympathize with those who will be making the
transition from Rimsky to original Mussorgsky. It will seem a lot
stranger, in places almost like learning a new piece. Certainly it was
a help for me to know the original pure-Mussorgsky Boris. By the time
I came to Khovanschina, I felt I understood Mussorgky a lot more."
***
For the record, Abbado used Shostakovitch's orchestration of
Khovanschina rather than Rimsky's: it's a straight orchestration;
unlike Rimsky, Shostakovitch didn't change a note. Abbado also
substituted Stravinsky's completion of the opera for the Shostakovitch
ending, and he reinserted passages orchestrated by Mussorgsky that had
surfaced since Shostakovitch completed his edition.
-david gable
donpaolo
We are in complete agreement here! Christoff, among many, many great
Borises that I have seen & heard, represents THE tortured, autocratic,
perfection in this particular role. His vocal qualities, charisma,
catharsis, make Christoff the greatest I have ever heard.
This is NOT to negate the very fine & outstanding qualities of others that I
have seen/heard in the role, such as Chaliapin, London, Tozzi, Hines,
Treigle, Talvela, Ghiaurov, Reizan, Kipnis, et. al. After much comparisons,
Christoff remains the model.
DonPaolo
"Jon E. Szostak, Sr." <jszostaks...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bIydnRmE1YjCczvZ...@comcast.com...
david...@aol.com
Before I answer M. Makropolus's questions, let me give a little
background.
There's a tremendous amount of influence flowing back and forth
between French and Russian composers in the 19th century and early
20th. Tchaikovsky, for example, was a great master the ballet, and his
ballet style was heavily indebted to Delibes, whom he greatly admired.
Mussorgsky once described Beethoven as the thinker, Berlioz as the
super-thinker, which will tell you something about his
idiosyncratically Russian priorities, and, indeed, his style was
heavily indebted to Berlioz. The Night on Bald Mountain was quite
obviously inspired by the Witches' Sabbath from the Symphonie
fantastique, while the extremely Russian-sounding opening of Boris
verges on plagiarism from a march in Berlioz's L'enfance du Christe
that is equally Russian sounding.
The young Debussy visited Russia and played in a piano trio the patron
of which was Mme von Meck, Tchaikovsky's patron and the woman who was
in love with Tchaikovsky although she never met him. Debussy was
extraordinarily interested in and profoundly familiar with music by
Mussorgsky few people know. Debussy was fascinated by the experiments
in prosody characteristic of Mussorgsky's incomplete opera, The
Wedding, for example. A song from Mussorgsky's great song cycle,
"Sunless" or "Without Sun," 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. Boulez
continued this attitude in the 1950's when he expressed a
characteristic preference for Boris over Tristan . . . specifically on
the grounds of its greater freshness, among other things. (The more
perfect Wagnerite would come many years later.)
Stravinsky's debt to Debussy is obvious enough, but the influence
flowed both ways. Debussy and Stravinsky played the two-piano version
of The Rite of Spring at the rehearsals for the first performance, and
one of the late Debussy Etudes (for piano), Pour les agréments, was
very obviously written under the influence of the Rite.
> A question and a comment. David: you've said that Debussy decried R-K's
> orchestration of Boris. Please can you give me a source for this? - I'm
> a little baffled as I can't imagine how Debussy could possibly have
> known Musorgsky's original scoring.
It's not necessarily a question of knowing the original. It's a
question of having it out for Rimsky. When Debussy first met
Stravinsky, 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.'"
Elsewhere Stravinsky is asked about his attitude toward Mussorgsky
during the period when he was Rimsky's student. "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 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."
As for who had seen or knew the original Boris scores, that's a
difficult question. They weren't published, the opera having
disappeared from view. But Rimsky obviously had access to the original
score, because there are entire movements that he didn't alter.
Stravinsky could very well have been shown them as a student of Rimsky,
but I don't know that he was. Debussy could have seen them in
Russia, too, but I doubt it.
> And while Ravel and Stravinsky may have had hard words for R-K's
> orchestrations (again I'd be genuinely interested to know of the
> sources for this), they both were perfectly happy to attempt a
> comprehensive reorchestration and even partial recomposition of
> Khovanshchina...
Ah, but that's a different matter! Unlike Boris, Khovanschina was
never completed and Mussorgsky never orchestrated it: it can only be
performed in somebody else's orchestration. In such a situation, and
no two are exactly alike, somebody else is always asked to finish it or
takes it upon himself to finish it . . . the Mozart Requiem, Turandot,
Lulu, etc. The two rival orchestrations of Khovanschina are Rimsky's
and Shostakovitch's. Stravinsky may have begun an orchestration, but
he never carried one out, although he did supply a version of the
ending.
You say that Ravel and Stravinsky discussed undertaking an
orchestration of Khovanschina. I thought it was Boris, but I could be
wrong, and Khovanschina makes more sense. (I've been flipping
through books for the past 45 minutes trying to find out which it was.)
Another thing needs to be said about orchestration. Assuming similar
conceptions of the orchestra, which is usually a safe assumption, there
are parts within any score that any orchestrator, the original
composer or any other composer, would almost certainly have scored for
the same instruments.
-david gable
makro...@gmail.com
Thanks for a tremendously interesting answer. I can add one small
detail to the vast amount you have already written. The first printing
of the piano vocal score of Boris is one of the rarest of all musical
first editions, but one of the very few copies in circulation belonged
to (and was often lent to friends by) Camille Saint-Saëns. So the
French connection with this work goes back long way indeed. That score
is now in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France where it is rightly
treasured.
One of Ravel's good friends was M.-D. Calvocoressi - who worked as
Diaghilev's secretary for a while, but was also a serious Mussorgsky
scholar (I know I don't need to tell you all this), but I'm sure he may
have had an influence of Ravel's interest in Mussorgsky's music as
well.
Allen
david...@aol.com wrote:
<snip a wonderful post>
Thank you for this post. It was one of the most interedting things that
I've encountered in the various newsgroups.
Allen
Robert Storm
> The best conducted for my taste is the first Christoff conducted by
> Dobrowen - incredibly propulsive and dramatic.
I'm listening to this recording now. This is the second time I hear it.
Singing is excellent. The first time I heard it, I thought I didn't
like the way Dobrowen conducted it. But listening to it again, I'm not
sure if it's the conducting that I don't like. It could be something
about the recorded sound, I'm just not sure what. Basically it's a good
50's mono sound, a lot better than on many recordings that I like. Hard
to say what's the problem. The CD I'm listening to is the Naxos
transfer.
In my opinion the best conducted is the Golovanov recording. And I
think Cluytens is a bit underrated. Apart from his Boris, I really like
his Pelléas and Tannhäuser.
I forgot to mention the Ermler/Nesterenko/Atlantov recording. I've
heard it only once or twice but thought it was pretty good.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Richard Loeb
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Who did the remastering?????? RichardWho did the remastering??????
Richard
Robert Storm
> Who did the remastering??????
Mark Obert-Thorn, one of the most famous reissue producers.
I've read several very positive reviews of this recording and the Naxos
reissue. I'm going to listen to it at least a couple of more times. Of
course it is possible that for some reason or another this recording
simply isn't my thing.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Richard Loeb
- <roo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151855891.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Yes Obert-Thorn is highly respected as is Ward Marston - some of the Naxos
transfers are execrable (the Decca 1950 Fledermaus) - thats why I was
concerned - perhaps its just where ones pain threshold lies regarding early
EMI sound. I have heard so much junk I guess I can tolerate just about
anything Richard
>
Robert Storm
> perhaps its just where ones pain threshold lies regarding early
> EMI sound. I have heard so much junk I guess I can tolerate just about
> anything
Maybe you are right. The funny thing is that usually I'm not at all
picky about the sound. I enjoy many old live recordings (for example
the Panizza Boris which I mentioned). But sometimes there's something
about the sound even on stereo/studio recordings. And it's often hard
for me to say what the actual problem is. Jochum's studio Meistersinger
is one example of this.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Richard Loeb
news:1151857567....@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes I had that problem with the DG Meistersinger as well - the sound is
rather flat - but one of the worst for me was the second Solti
Meistersinger - I know it was taken from live performances and the engineers
had to get rid of audience noise but in the process they sucked all the air
out of the perfomance- I literally cannot listen to the thing due to the
airless, unatmospheric sound, In that respect Solti 1 (with its own
problems) is far better - the Vienna Phil at the Sofiensaal!!! Richard
>
david...@aol.com
Robert Storm wrote:
> I forgot to mention the Ermler/Nesterenko/Atlantov recording. I've
> heard it only once or twice but thought it was pretty good.
I wish Sony would reissue a Mussorgsky song recital with Nesterenko I
heard many years ago. The recording of Sunless with Nesterenko may not
have been the last word, but it was the best performance of this
underrecorded masterpiece that I've heard. Or do you know of a good
recording?
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Robert Storm wrote:
> [The Gergiev is] the only [Boris recording] I've heard of [that includes every scene from
> either Mussorgsky version intact]. Do you remember who the conductor [of another
> comparable recording] could have been?
Could it have been the Sony recording with Tchakarov (which I've never
heard)? I'm not sure, but I vaguely recall the name Tchakarov. But it
could be that I read about the Gergiev and simply forgot that Gergiev
was the conductor of the set in question. (What makes that slightly
unlikely is that I normally have very little use for Gergiev: I detest
his performance of the original version of La forza del destino, an
opera I despair of ever hearing in a performance I really like.)
Have you heard Tchakarov?
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Yes yes - Ok - I'm talking about music drama not Beckett - and lets say then
> that an opera that is not exciting, not colorful or not dramatic would have
> to have some other pretty interesting qualities to be effective - which
> music dramas that are not colorful, exciting and dramatic do you have in
> mind????
I can't answer your question because you've thrown in the word
"dramatic." No opera that is not dramatic could be dramatic by
definition. But there are all sorts of ways of being dramatic, all
different kinds of drama. The interior drama of Tristan's delirium in
the 3rd act of Tristan is at the very heart of the great drama that is
that opera, but it's certainly not "colorful" or "exciting" in the
Rimsky's-orchestration-of-the-Coronation-scene sense of those words.
As for Boris, I happen to think the two Mussorgsky versions of Boris
are two of the most powerful and original music dramas in the entire
repertory and well nigh flawless. They successfully propose a kind of
music drama quite distinct from yet on the same exalted level as
Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, or Berg. But let's say I didn't find them
aesthetically successful or dramatically effective. If they weren't, I
don't think they could be redeemed or made more "dramatic" by applying
a layer of Rimskyan lacquer to their surfaces. They could only be made
more colorful in one very narrow sense of the word. As it is, their
musical interest is diminished everywhere that Rimsky has simplified
Mussorgsky's rhythms and harmonies.
-david gable
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151876114.3...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yes David - I know that you don't like the R-K version but others like
myself find it more effective theatrically - a matter of opinion really and
not sure we can go any further on the matter. Richard
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Yes David - I know that you don't like the R-K version but others like
> myself find it more effective theatrically - a matter of opinion really and
> not sure we can go any further on the matter. Richard
But I was answering YOUR question and asking you one. My question is,
if you had an inherently "undramatic" opera, could it be made more
dramatic simply by reorchestrating part of it? I don't see how it
could, since it wouldn't penetrate to the fundamental problem. It
would only alter the surface.
-david gable
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote infind moving in the poroginal message
news:1151883729.3...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't know why you don't seem to get the concept that theatrical
effectivess is solely in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. What you
find dramatically or theatrically moving in the original Boris, I find dull
and stagnant - there is no right or wrong here since viewers see things
differently with different emotional baggage so to speak. Its seems like you
are trying to say that because some conductors and composers find the Rimsky
version musically or dramatically ineffective, then that means I shouldn't
find it effective or moving - of course that's nonsense. What do I care what
Abbado says about the bell themes - it may be musically interesting but it
says nothing to the way the Rimsky version affects myself or another
listener. As to whether an "undramatic" opera could be made more dramatic by
re-orchestration, I have no idea since every listener is different. Back in
the old VOX Lp days there was a version of :L'incoranazione di Poppea played
with a small orchestra that I found incredibly dull - when I heard the
Leppard version, cut to pieces and re-orchestrated and later when I heard
the Harnoncourt I found it sexy and exciting. Now someone else may find the
more pristine sounding Vox version more interesting - it's very personal. I
don't know how else I can say it - for me the musical history of a piece
esp. the convoluted one that Boris has is fascinating to read (it really is)
however I find that it has little to do with the way the work can affect the
listener emotionally. There are many compnents to the theatre experience - I
should know I've been studying it for more than 25 years - for me there are
very few absolutes. I think awhile ago you took me to task for saying that
one of Lady Macbeths arias in the original version was in the worst kind of
showpiece tradition and you responded by correctly writing about the history
of such music and its place in the history of opera - you were correct of
course but that didn't mean it was anything more to these 2006 ears than it
was when I wrote it - its junk theatrically. The effect that drama (or music
dramas) have on audiences constantly changes - works revered 200 years ago
can be looked at today as mere curiosities - others still make us think and
feel - it always changes. David, you like your original Boris and thats
fine - I don't. Richard
Stephen Jay-Taylor
brought to London last year, in a weird show he knocked together with
Georges Tsypin, all fluorescent onion domes. No Polish act. Only St.
Basil's. Ended with Boris dying. All over in two hours. Excellent.
The Philips Kirov set, which has Borises both long and short to taste, is
probably your best bet to cover all the multifarious options.
SJT
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> David, you like your original Boris and thats
> fine - I don't.
I have no idea what you were on about in your recent long post. There
was not only the question of Rimsky's bowdlerization of Boris but the
abstract question of music drama that you raised and now decline to
discuss.
-david gable
Richard Loeb
sure you believe in economy of effort and I really think we are of just very
different minds here. Richard
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151891069.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
alcindoro
Very good, I think. This is Tchakarov's best opera recording -- very
restrained which I think is the best way to approach Muss. version.
Have you ever seen pictures of the jewelry, crowns, sceptres, etc. of
Boris' era? Beautiful, large, ragged uncut gemstones secured into
elaborate, rough golden settings and embroidery ... this is how I think
of Mussorgsky's orchestration. Rimsky is more like the Cartier
version. Beautiful and beguiling. Anyway, here Ghiaurov is superb --
the voice isn't what it was, but he is inside the character and he
still sounds like a king (or a czar). (How I wish Freni had attempted
Marina -- she never played a bitch and I'll bet she would have enjoyed
it.) Ghiaurov Death scene is devastating. (BTW, I always feel so
queazy after Boris' death -- I always imagined poor little Fyodor was
immediately slaughtered -- I guess it wasn't so historically.)
Ghiuselev is here too, sounding wonderful as Pimen. What a superb
artist. Everyone else is very good, I think. This is a very good
recording. Best of the Sony/Tchakarov bunch. Recommended.
david...@aol.com
Can you tell me what is meant by "the original version" in Tchakarov's
case? Do you get the second version, all the music from both versions
but without every scene from both versions intact (which is what you
get with Abbado), or every single scene from each version (which is
what you get with Gergiev).
-david gable
Robert Storm
> Have you heard Tchakarov?
I haven't. But after reading what Alcindoro wrote about it, I certainly
want to hear it.
So I want to hear these recordings:
Szell
Cooper
Golovanov (Pirogov)
Melik-Pashayev (Petrov)
Karajan (studio)
Abbado (live)
Kitaenko (Zednik could be an interesting Shuiski)
Several highlights recordings
Still many interesting Boris recordings to hear.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
CHSIII
> myself find it more effective theatrically -
And it's definitely prettier.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
be in the standard repertoire if it hadn't been for "Rimsky's
bowdlerization"? After all...as you've pointed out...his only reason was to
make sure that the opera survived the total dislike of the opera attendee of
the times. Then he succeeded most admirably. Yes?
So why can't we enjoy them both? I think the only reason we hear the
original versions at all is because of musicologists and some
conductors...certainly not the general public. And please don't be so
dismissive...dare I say contemptuous...of those of us who do prefer the
Rimsky. Why can't you simply give the devil his due...and let it go at
that?
By the way...I think this has been an excellent posting/discussion for the
most part.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151891069.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> But what matters to me is the theatrical effect it has on the audience and
> the way his portrayal of this character moves and stirs the public.
"The" audience? "The" public? Are you saying that no member of the
audience or the public could possibly not be moved and stirred by his
performance? The part of a singer's acting that matters the most to me
is not the visual side but the musical side, and nothing about
Christoff's barking and grunting and "emoting" and distortion of what
Mussorgsky wrote could possibly move or stir me.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Jon E. Szostak, Sr. wrote:
> David: One very serious question. Do you honestly think 'Boris' would even
> be in the standard repertoire if it hadn't been for "Rimsky's
> bowdlerization"?
There is no question that Boris would eventually have entered the
repertory. It's possible that Rimsky hastened the process, but that's
not clear. If Rimsky had died a year or two earlier, Diaghilev would
have mounted Boris without him. He'd have asked somebody else to
prepare an edition.
> So why can't we enjoy them both?
You can enjoy what you want.
> I think the only reason we hear the
> original versions at all is because of musicologists and some
> conductors...certainly not the general public.
The general public never decides what gets played. Musicians decide.
Among performing musicians, conductors are at the top of the food
chain. But the first critics of what Rimsky did were not performers
but composers of the next generation: Ravel, Stravinsky, and Debussy,
all of whom stemmed from the same Franco-Russian tradition as
Mussorgsky, all of whom were profoundly interested in orchestral color,
all of whom were profoundly interested in orchestral color, and all of
whom despised the Rimsky-ization of Boris. As early as the 1908
revival with Chaliapin mounted by Diaghilev, critics in France (no
doubt influenced by Ravel et al - reviewers virtually never have
anything original to say) started demanding the original.
As for the general public, the general public doesn't know what it
likes, it likes what it knows. For half a century all it knew (outside
of Russia where Mussorgsky's originals were published as early as the
1920's in the edition by Pavel Lamm) was Rimsky. As more and more
opera goers grow up on the originals, Rimsky will gradually disappear.
Rimsky disappeared from the Met with the advent of Rudolf Bing and
Dmitri Mitropoulos.
> Why can't you simply give the devil his due...and let it go at
> that?
You mean the way you questioned Mussorgsky's competence as an
orchestrator? A far stronger case for Rimsky's incompetence can be
made as it was by Abbado in the interview I quoted from.
In any case, do you think I should have refrained from posting what
Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, and Abbado said about Rimsky or should I
have posted what they said? For that matter, should I have refrained
from expressing my opinion and explaining my reasons for it?
-david gable
wkas...@comcast.net
Robert Storm wrote:
> Melik-Pashayev (Petrov)
Definitely worth hearing, and probably my favorite recording of the
Rimsky version.
> Karajan (studio)
Save you money - this one's a colossal bore, and not very well sung.
> Several highlights recordings
There are some interesting ones in German, with the Borises of Frick
(Eurodisc), Weber (Preiser), and Theo Adam (Berlin Classics - this is
the Shostakovich orchestration).
Bill
david...@aol.com
Have you heard Tchakarov on Sony?
-david gable
david...@aol.com
-david gable
wkas...@comcast.net
david...@aol.com wrote:
> Have you heard Tchakarov on Sony?
Once, a long time ago. I remember liking it (and finding Ghiaurov more
interesting than for Karajan), but I ended up culling it when I was
short of space (a chronic condition); the rest of the cast was only
so-so.
Bill
wkas...@comcast.net
david...@aol.com wrote:
> For that matter, Bill, have you heard Pinza/Panizza?
Again, a long while ago. Pinza is marvelous, if you don't mind hearing
the role sung in Italian - a real "singing" Boris, like Reizen. The
sound was, of course, problematic, so it was hard to evaluate Panizza's
conducting. Another victim of downsizing (I ended up keeping the Met
performance with Kipnis instead).
Bill
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151937448.6...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ummm yes I got that impression and that means we see performances
differently, very differently - not a matter of right or wrong is it???? And
do you think its proper to predict how you would react to Christoffs
performance since you never saw him live- very different from watching a
film or listening to a recording Richard
>
Richard Loeb
I assume therefore that you would dismiss Melchior since he often played
havoc with note values???? Richard
>
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
message and nor acknowledging the compliment I've paid you for the very
interesting knowledge you've show in this subject's posting.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151938991....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jon E. Szostak, Sr. wrote:
>> David: One very serious question. Do you honestly think 'Boris' would
>> even
>> be in the standard repertoire if it hadn't been for "Rimsky's
>> bowdlerization"?
>
> There is no question that Boris would eventually have entered the
> repertory. It's possible that Rimsky hastened the process, but that's
> not clear. If Rimsky had died a year or two earlier, Diaghilev would
> have mounted Boris without him. He'd have asked somebody else to
> prepare an edition.
>
>> So why can't we enjoy them both?
>
> You can enjoy what you want.
>
David Melnick
was in. All I can say is that Christoff seemed to be bigger
physically than the whole chorus taken together (sorry,
Jon!), not to mention bigger in voice. For a long time I
thought it was because the LOC stinted on its production
compared to the SFO productions I'd seen in the early '50s,
but in retrospect I realized that it was Christoff's doing.
He was all over that stage, and if he was all over the score
without attention to every pitch or note value, so be it. I
knew the Dobrowen recording at the time (as well as the
Pinza LP and the Chaliapin excerpts, plus the early Bolshoi
movie). I agree with Richard Loeb about the total perf
being what counts.
Didn't we go through this discussion at length in 2001, and
again a couple of years later? I guess it's always relevant,
or at least as relevant as many others on rmo, and D7G's
citations of opinions on the history of the bugger are fun.
vad
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
before like watching an animal on the prowl. Yes...thanks...you've made my
point exactly...he WAS larger than the chorus...the stage...than life. But
if you hadn't actually seen him in live performance...you simply cannot
understand what his art was about. Period!
Who is VAD?
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
"David Melnick" <dmel...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:fybqg.28727$cd2....@fe06.news.easynews.com...
david...@aol.com
wkas...@comcast.net wrote:
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > For that matter, Bill, have you heard Pinza/Panizza?
>
> Again, a long while ago. Pinza is marvelous, if you don't mind hearing
> the role sung in Italian - a real "singing" Boris, like Reizen.
OK, I'm sold. (I love the death scene with Pinza that was used in the
MGM movie about Sol Hurok, but I'm incapable of considering it with any
objectivity, since I played it to death as a kid. He should be in
fresher voice under Panizza.)
As you probably know, when Chaliapin did Boris at the Met, he sang in
Russian while everybody else sang in Italian!!!!!! Ah, the good old
days.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Ummm yes I got that impression and that means we see performances
> differently, very differently
I'm not sure. I do think that opera is drama, that, in opera, the
dramatist is the composer, that the drama is articulated by music, and
that the most important aspect of an opera singer's acting is
accomplished through phrasing the music he or she sings.
> And
> do you think its proper to predict how you would react to Christoffs
> performance since you never saw him live- very different from watching a
> film or listening to a recording Richard
There's a remote chance I might react differently hearing him live, but
only a remote one. I wouldn't fail to hear his phrasing just because I
could see him regardless of how differently his voice sounded.
The only singer whose live performance ever changed my opinion of him
was Ruggero Raimondi. He's the only singer who has ever sounded
significantly different to me live than on records. In person, his
voice is enormous, even his lower register sounding cavernous. On
records, his voice often sounds puny, his lower register almost
non-existent. Raimondi's recordings sound distant, muffled. On
records, it's difficult to hear what he's up to. Even hearing him
live, though, his voice wouldn't have mattered to me if he hadn't been
the most extraordinarily musical, sensitive, expressive, passionate,
and involved yet patrician Boris imaginable. The CSO performances were
presented sans costumes but the principals acted their parts rather
than standing at music stands, and it doesn't hurt that Raimondi's a
subtle and convincing actor, as, for example, during the clock scene.
Being a heretic, I'd call Raimondi the anti-Christoff. Long may he
flourish.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Jon E. Szostak, Sr. wrote:
> David: For Pete's sake don't even go there. Now you're neither reading my
> message and nor acknowledging the compliment I've paid you for the very
> interesting knowledge you've show in this subject's posting.
>
> Jon E. Szostak, Sr
My most abject apologies, Jon. Well, maybe not my very most abject
ones. I have one question for you? What the hell are you doing here?
Unlike me, you're far too sane, level-headed, and tolerant, and
insufficiently angry and defensive to post at rmo.
-david gable
Richard Loeb
Yes but I'm not just talking about the voice but the whole package - there
are a number of singers whose sound is, let's say, fairly awful sometimes on
CD but whose stage persona totally makes up for any vocal problems be they
phrasing, wobble, pitch, etc. Two obvious singers would be Gwyneth Jones and
Leonie Rysanek, both of whose recordings really do their whole art an
injustice - thats why I tend to be very wary about making judgements about
singers without having seen them live - of course sometimes I can only do so
much with singers long gone but even then I realize that my opinion is only
worth so much- the "live" experience is of the utmost importance to me and
all of my opinions should be grounded in that experience in order to make a
true judgement - thats only fair to the singer and myself Richard
>
wkas...@comcast.net
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Yes but I'm not just talking about the voice but the whole package - there
> are a number of singers whose sound is, let's say, fairly awful sometimes on
> CD but whose stage persona totally makes up for any vocal problems be they
> phrasing, wobble, pitch, etc.
That's a different matter entirely. Jones' and Rysanek's problems were
vocal, not interpretive. The flaws that David hears in Christoff (and
I happen to agree with him) interpretive and stylistic excesses, not
vocal flaws.
Bill
Richard Loeb
news:1151955607.1...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Thats fine then - since the objections are based on interpretive, stylistic
and not purely vocal concerns then the discussion really can have no
concrete conclusion - one mans stylistic excesses are anothers mans
intepretive brilliance, yes???? and one mans R-K orchestral cheapness is
anothers orchestral magnificence??? Richard
wkas...@comcast.net
Richard Loeb wrote:
> Thats fine then - since the objections are based on interpretive, stylistic
> and not purely vocal concerns then the discussion really can have no
> concrete conclusion - one mans stylistic excesses are anothers mans
> intepretive brilliance, yes????
No. David and I are right, and the rest of you are wrong.
;-)
Bill
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
whatever meager abject apologies you care to toss my way...unnecessary
though they may be. However, I am prone to flaunt my insufficiencies on
RMO. Or to quote Mr. Levant...my "Smattering of Ignorance!"
I do so enjoy a good post with many points of view...such as this one and GP
Dave's 'Turandot' post re. Berio's ending of that opera. The spice of life
for me...and it does shake up the old gray cells somewhat.
I said it long ago...I wear my heart on my sleeve for all to see. But I
also make mistakes...mostly of memory...or lack of complete knowledge on a
particular subject as I usually write without recourse to printed
materials...with the obvious exception of LOC casts. For as best I
can...when I post on RMO I try to write only the truth. But memory does
fail me at times...my health not being what it once was. So thanks to you
and others for bearing with me.
Jon E. Szostak, Sr.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151951193.3...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Loeb
news:FtqdnWkPa_C5OzTZ...@comcast.com...
rewarding members on this board - David for musical history and performance
practice among other things and you for your invaluable memories about
working with great singers. This board would be far less interesting without
the both of you!!!!! Richard
>
alanwa...@aol.com
Whichever edition of Godunov you are all discussing it's a hell of a
lot more interesting than anything by Verdi I have encountered, whoever
altered it.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
david...@aol.com
alanwa...@aol.com wrote:
> Whichever edition of Godunov you are all discussing it's a hell of a
> lot more interesting than anything by Verdi I have encountered, whoever
> altered it.
Mr. Watkins, you should set up your computer to send this message to
each new thread that appears at rmo or rmcr. It would save you the
trouble of retyping it. Sadly, Mussorgsky was much impressed by La
forza del destino when he heard it during the first run of performances
in St. Petersburg.
-david gable
tag gallagher
And what about Kipnis/Szell that was on "The Forties" CDs?
Anyone heard either of these?
alcindoro
case?<
Tchakarov conducts the complete 1871/72 score, Kromy scene uncut, and
also the complete St. Basil scene. This means the children harass the
Simpleton twice unless you skip St. Basil. Same as Rostropovich.
david...@aol.com
alcindoro wrote:
> Tchakarov conducts the complete 1871/72 score, Kromy scene uncut, and
> also the complete St. Basil scene. This means the children harass the
> Simpleton twice unless you skip St. Basil. Same as Rostropovich.
Thanks, Alcindoro.
-david gable
Andrew T. Kay
> > Have you heard Tchakarov?<
>
> Very good, I think. This is Tchakarov's best opera recording -- very
> restrained which I think is the best way to approach Muss. version.
> Have you ever seen pictures of the jewelry, crowns, sceptres, etc. of
> Boris' era? Beautiful, large, ragged uncut gemstones secured into
> elaborate, rough golden settings and embroidery ... this is how I think
> of Mussorgsky's orchestration. Rimsky is more like the Cartier
> version. Beautiful and beguiling. Anyway, here Ghiaurov is superb --
> the voice isn't what it was, but he is inside the character and he
> still sounds like a king (or a czar).
This has been near the top of the list of things I'd grab if I saw them
for a reasonable price. It was an unlucky set in its production and
release -- it was completed in 1986 but not released by Sony until
12/1991, and then when the same label put the higher-profile Abbado/BPO
performance on the market barely three years later, Tchakarov et al
seemed to get a one-way ticket to the phantom zone. I'm always on the
lookout for a second-hand copy that's in good shape.
> (How I wish Freni had attempted
> Marina -- she never played a bitch and I'll bet she would have enjoyed
> it.)
She did Norina/Sofronia in DON PASQUALE under Muti.
>Ghiaurov Death scene is devastating. (BTW, I always feel so
> queazy after Boris' death -- I always imagined poor little Fyodor was
> immediately slaughtered -- I guess it wasn't so historically.)
> Ghiuselev is here too, sounding wonderful as Pimen. What a superb
> artist. Everyone else is very good, I think. This is a very good
> recording. Best of the Sony/Tchakarov bunch. Recommended.
The Met guide critic agrees with almost everything you say about both
the singing and conducting (one of his few negatives is that he doesn't
think the Marina, who sings well, can compare to Galina Vishnevyskaya
as a vocal actress; GV is on at least three of the other sets under
discussion and so leaves big footprints on that part).
Todd K
Andrew T. Kay
> Oh dear, this is starting to sound very complicated indeed!
It seems that way, but it really isn't so bad. Now, when you get around
to "What's the best CD of TALES OF HOFFMANN to buy??" *that* will be
the one for which you'll want two aspirin and a hot water bottle nearby
before you try to sort through the morass of performing possibilities
dozens of recordings have presented us: recitatives vs. spoken
dialogue; the question of whether to include music Offenbach himself
certainly didn't write, if such music has become a beloved performance
practice; two extant possibilities for the conclusion of a crucial
scene (nothing less than the life or death of an important character is
determined); disagreement about the running order of two acts (with
different musicians passionately insisting that this or that one *must*
be heard before the other one); the arguments over whether four women
should sing Hoffmann's lovers or if one singer should do it all,
strengthening the concept that they're all sides of the same person;
and in which act should the sextet be heard? etc. And people keep
unearthing new score pages over 100 years after the composer's death.
(Haven't there been even *more* discoveries made since the supposedly
"last-word, up-to-the-minute" Alagna/Nagano/Erato recording of 1996?) I
still never really know what I'm getting to hear when I buy a new
HOFFMANN, and I have to pace myself -- for all the textual headaches
and left-turns it's thrown me, it's my favorite French opera.
Re: BORIS, I'd say start with the Abbado/Sony recording -- it's a bit
"cool," but it's a good reference-shelf edition that will both acquaint
you with Mussorgsky's opera as he conceived it, and will repeat well.
It is easy to find; it is largely free from eccentricity, and I cannot
recall anything about it that stands out as distractingly bad. If you
get bitten by the BORIS bug and want to hear more, then you can have
fun comparing this to one of the older recordings featuring
Rimsky-Korsakov's splashier reorchestration, and make up on your own
mind on that issue and on the merits of famous Borises like Ghiaurov
(whom I love in the part), Christoff (whose charm is mostly lost on
me), and others.
Todd K
wkas...@comcast.net
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> The Met guide critic agrees with almost everything you say about both
> the singing and conducting (one of his few negatives is that he doesn't
> think the Marina, who sings well, can compare to Galina Vishnevyskaya
> as a vocal actress; GV is on at least three of the other sets under
> discussion and so leaves big footprints on that part).
The problem, of course, is that Vishnevskaya sings quite badly, at
least on the Karajan and Rostropovich studio recordings (what's the
third one?). I have little doubt that she made a great impression on
stage in the part, but I can barely tolerate the sound that she makes.
I'm always surprised when reviewers fail to point that out, or downplay
her vocal limitations, particularly when some of the competition is so
good (e.g. Arkhipova, Borodina, Lipovsek, Zareska).
Bill
Andrew T. Kay
> Andrew T. Kay wrote:
>
> > The Met guide critic agrees with almost everything you say about both
> > the singing and conducting (one of his few negatives is that he doesn't
> > as a vocal actress; GV is on at least three of the other sets under
> > discussion and so leaves big footprints on that part).
>
> The problem, of course, is that Vishnevskaya sings quite badly, at
> least on the Karajan and Rostropovich studio recordings (what's the
> third one?).
My mistake. I could have sworn there was an older, low-fi, all-Russian
performance with the younger, pre-defection Vishnevskaya included in
that survey. I even thought I recalled the basic thrust of what the
critic had to say about her in it ("Vishnevskaya is heard here in her
freshest and easiest voice, although at this stage she has only begun
to explore the possibilities of this complex character," or something
like that). But on double-checking, I see that only the two studio
recordings you mention are discussed.
Todd K
Ken Meltzer
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> My mistake. I could have sworn there was an older, low-fi, all-Russian
> performance with the younger, pre-defection Vishnevskaya included in
> that survey. I even thought I recalled the basic thrust of what the
> critic had to say about her in it ("Vishnevskaya is heard here in her
> freshest and easiest voice, although at this stage she has only begun
> to explore the possibilities of this complex character," or something
> like that). But on double-checking, I see that only the two studio
> recordings you mention are discussed.
Is it possible that was a review of her early recording of Eugene
Onegin?
Best,
Ken
grndp...@aol.com
be one I found quite by accident.
It was issued by Lyrica (LRC 01092-2).
The Boris is a remarkable bass, Mark Reizen. The legendary Ivan
Kozlovsky appears as The Simpleton.
The conductor is Nikolay Golovanov. This was recorded in 1948 and
remastered in 1998.
Other than that there is the Dobowen recording with Christoff and
Gedda. The stereo remake with Cluytens conducting I find very weak
("schwach!).
I like the 5-cd Gergiev set for allowing us to hear the 1869 and 1871
versions in as nearly a faithful Mussorgsky edition as one can find. I
happen to enjoy both the original and Rimsky versions. Rimsky's
orchestration of the Kazan aria makes it appear as though the Tatars
won that battle.
Rimsky's Coronation Scene I find far more enjoyable than the somewhat
thuddy Mussorgsky original. (of course to hear that Russian theme at
its best, one needs Beethoven's Quartet #8 :>)).
==G/P Dave
david...@aol.com
I agree with Bill on the subject of Vishnevskaya. She sang better in
the 1950's. As early as the recording of the War Requiem with Britten,
Stravinsky was complaining about her intonation problems.
-david gable
alcindoro
> The problem, of course, is that Vishnevskaya sings quite badly (...)
I'm always surprised when reviewers fail to point that out, or downplay
her vocal limitations <
It isn't a problem for me. I did say about her performance "it ain't
pretty" ... for that you must turn to some of the ladies you mention.
GV's performance for Rostropovich is controversial (I have never heard
the Karajan) but it seems to me completely in line with Mussorgsky --
and it's fitting she be heard in the Mussorgsky "original", in itself a
spark for controversy. I don't think anyone could be deaf to the
problems of the voice, yet I think she actually exploits those problems
in the interest of character, and hearing her do so adds to the
fascination of her perfomance. Just her wicked laugh alone after her
aria summons up the character. I think it was a big mistake for her to
re-record Natasha in WAR & PEACE with Rostropovich -- her complete
understanding of the character cannot disguise the unsuitability of the
voice for the role at that point (and it had once been a very beautiful
if idiosyncratic one, as her Natasha for Melik-Pashayev proves). How I
wish Benackova or Popp had done the Erato W&P! But Marina is a very
different creature, GV has a very strong take on her and I find it
works. And it must be said that the Dmitri and Rangoni (Vyacheslav
Polosov & Nikita Strorojev) play off her superbly. The Polish act on
this set is unusually gripping -- which is interesting since Mussorgsky
seems to have added to it so that there could some semblance of a
conventional love duet, though of course it's nothing of the sort.
For what it's worth, I enjoy many late Vishnevskaya recordings, like
the 2-disk Erato
song recital, but I'm certainly not deaf to the vocal problems. I wish
some of her early
recitals were available on CD -- my LPs are quite worn out.
Andrew T. Kay
It could be, but it's not the one within the same book -- the
commentary on GV's performance in that Melodiya ONEGIN is unambiguously
favorable.
Todd K
Ken Meltzer
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
> Ken Meltzer wrote:
> > Is it possible that was a review of her early recording of Eugene
> > Onegin?
>
> It could be, but it's not the one within the same book -- the
> commentary on GV's performance in that Melodiya ONEGIN is unambiguously
> favorable.
>
> Todd K
I'm relieved to hear that. I really like Vishnevskaya in that
recording!
Best,
Ken
Andrew T. Kay
> But Marina is a very
> different creature, GV has a very strong take on her and I find it
> works. And it must be said that the Dmitri and Rangoni (Vyacheslav
> Polosov & Nikita Strorojev) play off her superbly. The Polish act on
> this set is unusually gripping -- which is interesting since Mussorgsky
> seems to have added to it so that there could some semblance of a
> conventional love duet, though of course it's nothing of the sort.
I generally agree with you about the artistic compensations to be found
in Vishnevskaya's later performances. Since you discussed the strengths
of the casting for Rostropovich's Polish act, I'll add that my biggest
reservation about the Karajan/Decca recording is the uneven supporting
cast in general, and the awful Dimitri in particular. I can't recall
what I think about the Rangoni of Kelemen.
Todd K
alcindoro
Andrew T. Kay wrote:
>Since you discussed the strengths of the casting for Rostropovich's Polish act, I'll add that my biggest reservation about the Karajan/Decca recording is the uneven supporting cast in general, and the awful Dimitri in particular.<
I think at this point I have some idea what to expect from Herbie's
recording ... I will absolutely listen to it some day. BTW, when I
was a little kid I use to love to fish discarded appliances out of the
garbage, take them apart, lovingly reassemble them, plug them in, and
watch the sparks fly. Almost burned the house down a couple of times!
This just touches on a post I will someday finalize -- what is dramatic
truth and what is "beautiful". GV's performance on the Rostropovich
BORIS provides much food for thought on this matter. And I love that
on the other side of the scales is Raimondi's
Boris -- inward and interior where others had been otherwise, and
always beautifully sung. My experience with the Rostropovich recording,
with what I think was a very carefully chosen cast, has been that it
really made me rethink the work all over again.
So best wishes to Mrs. T -- enjoy exploring this amazing opera in all
its many facets!
Richard Loeb
"alcindoro" <alci...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152157267.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think one critic wrote that listening to the Karajan recording was the
aural equivalent of examining a beautiful object held at arms length.
Richard
alcindoro
> I think one critic wrote that listening to the Karajan recording was the
aural equivalent of examining a beautiful object held at arms length.<
Well, to quote Rizzo from the musical GREASE,
"There are worse things I could do."
alcindoro
alcindoro wrote:
>This just touches on a post I will someday finalize -- what is dramatic
> truth and what is "beautiful". GV's performance on the Rostropovich
> BORIS provides much food for thought on this matter.<
As a result of this thread, I've just relistened to GV on Rostropovich,
whole Polish act, and I thank you all for this. The voice is craggy,
throaty, not conventionally beautiful, but if you allow yourself to be
drawn in to what she is doing (with text at hand if you need it) it is
absolutely fascinating. Again, I declare "it ain't pretty", but pitches
are hit and sustained, vibrato is used as an expressive device, the
strange back-of-the-throat-throat emission of tone and language is
beautifully exploited ... and, when there is a long lyrical line to
exploit, she knows exactly what to do with it ... when to sing and when
to declaim ... this is a wonderful recorded performance. Brava!
But I must stress, I think this whole recording is beautifully
conceptualized and executed.
Robert Storm
> I forgot to mention the Ermler/Nesterenko/Atlantov recording. I've
> heard it only once or twice but thought it was pretty good.
An update: After hearing the Ermler recording a couple of more times, I
think it may be one of the best. It is a vivd and dramatic recording
that I would recommend it to anybody who wants a good recording of the
Rimsky version of the opera. Nesterenko and Atlantov are the stars of
the recording but the rest of the cast is excellent as well.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html