Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Best classical recordings...ever!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best classical recordings...ever! - Page 18

post #256 of 2316

Kondrashin was a great conductor for Shostakovich - no question at all. But his set of symphonies, however great the interpretation on the podium, is seriously handicapped by lousy sound in some, strident playing from the brass, and orchestral sloppiness at times. It's an exciting set, but hardly state-of-the-art sound makes this a tough listen with headphones. For a solid, low cost, brilliant set, don't overlook the Barshai with the WDR. Great playing, conducting, sound...it has it all. And Barshai's credentials are as good as anyone's.

post #257 of 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Dutoit and Munch are normally my go to guys for Ravel. I'll check out Maazel in that though.


Martinon, Martinon,Martinon[/I]
post #258 of 2316

Barshai is pretty good and so is Jansons..Haitink I don't like, although I have great respect for the man..

post #259 of 2316

Haitink is a very straight laced and proper conductor. He rounds off all the edges and makes everything bland. Good orchestra though.

post #260 of 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Haitink is a very straight laced and proper conductor. He rounds off all the edges and makes everything bland. Good orchestra though.


Haitink has never been the most exciting conductor in the world, but certainly never bland either, unless you really crave superficial excitement. But what makes a lot of his interpretations so satisfying for me that very few conductors rival him when it comes to conveying the full architecture of a piece. Only Sawallisch and Böhm can equal him in this area.

post #261 of 2316

Sawallisch is pretty bland too. I like Bohm though.

 

My theory is that a conductor should add his own personality to the music, not just dot every i and cross every t


Edited by bigshot - 10/13/13 at 1:02pm
post #262 of 2316

CGO is a great orchestra, Haitink was a good conductor, his Shostakovich was boring though..it sounds un-Russian to me..I don't recognize his 'greater then most others' in conveying the architecture, lots of conductors/orchestras can do this, at times anyway..

 

I'm listening to Brahm's 1st symphonie by Celibidache now..talk about architecture...

 

Good thing we all hear different :p

post #263 of 2316
Celibidache was an out and out visionary conductor.
post #264 of 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhaub View Post
 

Kondrashin was a great conductor for Shostakovich - no question at all. But his set of symphonies, however great the interpretation on the podium, is seriously handicapped by lousy sound in some, strident playing from the brass, and orchestral sloppiness at times. It's an exciting set, but hardly state-of-the-art sound makes this a tough listen with headphones. For a solid, low cost, brilliant set, don't overlook the Barshai with the WDR. Great playing, conducting, sound...it has it all. And Barshai's credentials are as good as anyone's.

 

Again, I am struck by how much of a 'interpretation-only' listener I seem to be. While I may notice sloppy playing (and I often simply don't), I'm very selden bothered by it. (Although I very much appreciate precise and virtuosic orchestral playing.) I agree that the Barshai set is a very good general recommendation. But, although his credentials are impressive, his performances of especially the 'middle period' symphonies (say, 6 to 12) don't strike me as particularly insightful.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Sawallisch is pretty bland too. I like Bohm though.

 

My theory is that a conductor should add his own personality to the music, not just dot every i and cross every t

 

Hm, some conductors force their personality upon a performance, others simply allow it to shine through. :wink: (And then there are of course plenty that are bland, it's just that I don't count these two among them.)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinto View Post
 

CGO is a great orchestra, Haitink was a good conductor, his Shostakovich was boring though..it sounds un-Russian to me..I don't recognize his 'greater then most others' in conveying the architecture, lots of conductors/orchestras can do this, at times anyway..

 

I'm listening to Brahm's 1st symphonie by Celibidache now..talk about architecture...

 

Good thing we all hear different :p

 

They may be un-Russian in that they are different from the Russian performance tradition. But to me, that's their strenght rather than their weakness. Haitink let's me fully appreciate Shostakovich a symphonist because he approaches as abstract symphonies first. That approach brings me closer to the heart of these works than those of many others.

 

Of course, this experience of 'grasp on architecture' is a very personal thing. But just to illustrate, take both Sawallisch's and Haitink's Ring recordings. Neither of them may offer the most exciting interpretation, neither may be the performance I would go to most often, but when I want an interpretation that really makes me experience that the conductor sees every measure of that work in relationship to the whole, I turn to them.

 

Sometimes I think it would be a good thing if we all heard the same. Then we could simply agree on a handful of interpretations as being the best and just get on with listening. :D 


Edited by Drosera - 10/14/13 at 1:44am
post #265 of 2316

Getting through the Haitink and Sawallisch Rings was tough slogging for me. They seemed like run throughs, not performances.

post #266 of 2316

,


Edited by Quinto - 10/16/13 at 9:23am
post #267 of 2316


One of the best music ever written, played on a slightly bigger then usual 1701 Stradivarius Servais by the great Anner Bylsma.

 

He gives an excellent eloquent and rethorical interpretation, you can hear the music breath..

 

No other cellist I know of comes even close to this superb recording.

post #268 of 2316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinto View Post
 


One of the best music ever written, played on a slightly bigger then usual 1701 Stradivarius Servais by the great Anner Bylsma.

 

I don't think it's proven that a Stadivius can outdo modern instruments.

But I was looking for a good recording with C.P.E Bach as composer  ( son of J.S Bach),

and I found a recording with Bylsma too (they don't seem to precise it's a Stradivarius on the notes this time):

 


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 10/16/13 at 10:41am
post #269 of 2316

The Servais Stradivarius isn't Bylsma's but was loaned by its currently owner, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History, specificly for the before mentioned Bach cello suites recording

 

Of course one can't proof it to be the best cello, we're talking art here, not science ;)  there is no such thing, it is a marvelous sounding instrument though, which was my point..

 

I'm not familiar with the C.P.E Bach recording, I might give it a try, cheers..

post #270 of 2316

The person behind the fiddle is much more important than the fiddle itself.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Best classical recordings...ever!