PSmith08
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Posts
- 1,422
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
There's more than a little truth to that. Of course, one might think that there would be some sort of resurrection of what works he did record after the sort of prudish conspiracy of silence types joined the choir eternal. There are a handful of works modern recordings of which still have to measure up to his mark.
Quote:
In a way, though you're completely right, that sort of spares Mahler and many conductors who were deeply involved in his work, since his resurgence coincides nicely with the stereo age (at least the biggest part of his adoption into the canon). Except for stuff like Fried's M2, even the mono stuff was of an age that guaranteed it a decent reproduction.
Quote:
Ah, the Järvi set. After scraping the soil to get the Fabio Luisi/MDR recording from 2004, Chandos drops one in my lap. The choral work on this one is really splendid, especially in the big moments (e.g., the opening of the first seal). The recording on that one is, indeed, really splendid. While I am still deciding whether or not I like some of Järvi's decisions, I think this record has a solid shot at being the new reference set.
Still, the work is unjustly neglected. Nine recordings against the legions of, say, a Shostakovich symphony? Come on. Vox populi..., I suppose. What makes it weirder is that it seems to have gained currency in German-speaking areas in a way that would almost imply equal success here.
It's a shame, too, since Schmidt was a rough contemporary of Mahler - the latter's favored cellist at the Hofoper, even - and they operated with the same influences, but drew different conclusions.
| Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think there's an explanation, but one that makes some people uncomfortable: he was gay, and not too shy about it. But in the 50's, that was just unacceptable in WASP America. Bernstein hid it carefully. The other thing working against DM was that he died too early, and didn't leave enough of a stereo legacy. |
There's more than a little truth to that. Of course, one might think that there would be some sort of resurrection of what works he did record after the sort of prudish conspiracy of silence types joined the choir eternal. There are a handful of works modern recordings of which still have to measure up to his mark.
Quote:
| There were many superb conductors before stereo, but modern listeners don't want mono and won't buy it. Those of us who are more interested in music than sound can listen through the older mono sound. The likes of Mitropoulos, Rodzinski, Furtwangler, E. Kleiber, and many others will be forgotten in not too many more years as fewer and fewer music lovers are interested in ancient sound. Who wants to put dim, distorted mono on their iPod? |
In a way, though you're completely right, that sort of spares Mahler and many conductors who were deeply involved in his work, since his resurgence coincides nicely with the stereo age (at least the biggest part of his adoption into the canon). Except for stuff like Fried's M2, even the mono stuff was of an age that guaranteed it a decent reproduction.
Quote:
| As to the Mitropoulos Schmidt Das Buch, yes that is a searing reading. Someday, I'm sure it will reappear. I have the Sony version and the Melodram. The former sounds better. But then there's a new one, on Chandos, that is simply a knockout. Sacd surrround sound and all. Very powerful reading, and in my mind blows all the competitors out of the water. It's what Welser-Most's should have been. Harnoncourt is no match. It's hard to believe that this work is so obscure in the US, yet there are now NINE CD versions. |
Ah, the Järvi set. After scraping the soil to get the Fabio Luisi/MDR recording from 2004, Chandos drops one in my lap. The choral work on this one is really splendid, especially in the big moments (e.g., the opening of the first seal). The recording on that one is, indeed, really splendid. While I am still deciding whether or not I like some of Järvi's decisions, I think this record has a solid shot at being the new reference set.
Still, the work is unjustly neglected. Nine recordings against the legions of, say, a Shostakovich symphony? Come on. Vox populi..., I suppose. What makes it weirder is that it seems to have gained currency in German-speaking areas in a way that would almost imply equal success here.
It's a shame, too, since Schmidt was a rough contemporary of Mahler - the latter's favored cellist at the Hofoper, even - and they operated with the same influences, but drew different conclusions.
