Post by Castor April 18, 2005 (1 of 17)
|
|
When I first read Brenda’s review of this SACD I confess I was very surprised by her comments on the performances. The more I listened to the disc and read Brenda’s comments the more they seemed to be those of someone who had given the disc a superficial listen before writing their review. Magazine reviewers have been guilty of this, as has been mentioned before on this site. Eventually I concluded that it was just an honest difference of opinion in our reactions to this recording. Last night, however, I came across a 1997 review in Gramophone of the long deleted RBCD on the Tring label and compared it with Brenda’s review.
Gramophone
Also sprach proves a mixed bag. The sunrise seems underplayed, although that may well be deliberate
Brenda
The disc starts with Also Sprach Z. (of course). It’s a curate’s egg of a performance. The opening few minutes is a little underplayed, but that’s okay,
Gramophone
The following segment, “Von den Hinterweltlern” does rather highlight the weakness of the RPO’s strings
Brenda
The RPO sounds a bit weak in the strings in some segments (like von den Hinterweltern)
Gramophone
Till comes off best, the delicately pointed horn solo near the beginning answered by scampering winds and strings.
Brenda
.. we get a better Till, with a lovely horn solo and piquant winds
Gramophone
Tempos tend to be brisk, but the orchestra’s evident care over phrasing and articulation avoids any hint of aggressiveness.
Brenda
Once again we get a fast tempo, but this time orchestral articulation is much better (i.e. than in Don J).
Gramophone
Don Juan is also fast (the opening semiquaver rush doesn’t quite register) and here I found the effect more brash than Mendelssohnian
Brenda
This Don is a pretty fast mover, and brash with it,
Gramophone
…(and, in their very different way, Karajan’s) reveal – qualities of tenderness and vulnerability easily crushed …
Brenda
Where is the tenderness, the humanity, the self-knowing irony which Karajan reveals?
Plagiarism? I rest my case, but I do feel that Brenda owes us an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by brenda April 18, 2005 (2 of 17)
|
|
Castor said: Last night, however, I came across a 1997 review in Gramophone of the long deleted RBCD on the Tring label and compared it with Brenda’s review.
Plagiarism? I rest my case, but I do feel that Brenda owes us an explanation.
dear castor, you are quite right, - i drew on the old gramophone review as the basis for my own. I had looked up the review before I bought, but felt that at the price, it was worth it to see for myself. The reason i then went back to the review was that I wanted to post reviews of the four RPO's I've played several times (no, not once), and cut corners by drawing on the Gram. review for help after inspiration started to fail (the Strauss was the last one I wrote). However, I wouldn't have done so had I not fundamentally ended up agreeing with it - e.g. the opening of Zar. failed to stir me on any occassion I played it, the sound is good but not rich (to my ears), and Karajan's Don is more seductive than Mackerras's "bull at a gate" lad. I would be happy with brisk performances and momentum but feel that these don't deliver anything new to make up for the straightforwardness. As I said above, I would only use other comments if I agreed with them, and so I stick by the review. However, you are quite right to tell me off though for not acknowledging the source of some of my comments, - shameful for a scientist, and I won't do that again. Best wishes, brenda
|
|
|
Post by sgb April 18, 2005 (3 of 17)
|
|
Plagiarism? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgy April 18, 2005 (4 of 17)
|
|
Castor why do you care? But you do so....
Don't you think it would have been more prudent to send her a PRIVATE email and ask her to ammend her post rather than calling her out in public in this manner.
|
|
|
Post by Castor April 18, 2005 (5 of 17)
|
|
brenda said:
dear castor, you are quite right, - i drew on the old gramophone review as the basis for my own. I had looked up the review before I bought, but felt that at the price, it was worth it to see for myself. As I said above, I would only use other comments if I agreed with them, and so I stick by the review. However, you are quite right to tell me off though for not acknowledging the source of some of my comments, - shameful for a scientist, and I won't do that again. Best wishes, brenda
Hi Brenda,
Please don't feel that you have been "told off". My point really was that you were using a review that I had no confidence in. If you are in agreement with it - fine.I have no problem with any of the other excellent detailed reviews you posted.
Thanks for your honest reply.
Best wishes,
Castor
|
|
|
Post by Castor April 18, 2005 (6 of 17)
|
|
sgb said:
Plagiarism? I think not.
See Brenda's reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda tends to use a lot of other's reviews and simply adds a few words of her own to either agree or disagree.
|
|
|
Post by ramesh April 18, 2005 (8 of 17)
|
|
Castor said:
See Brenda's reply.
I'm going to the crease to bat for Brenda, but with the recent shameful performances of NZ batting against the Aussies, this may not be such an asset. Brenda, remember TS Eliot wrote, 'the good poet borrows, the great one steals.' By the way, wasn't Tony Blair's Saddam-is-45-minutes-away essentially about who quoted, or didn't quote what to whom, and when? These reviews are not being conducted for pecuniary gain. More pertinent would be what are the listening guidelines before posting a review; one , two, three or four serious listens? How many comparisons to past performances? For a reader here, this would be more important than the reuse or not of past quotes. Apropos of the Gramophone, David Fanning once wrote of the original DG RBCD of the 1967 Karajan Shostakovich 10 that four bars were omitted; no other review I saw, including the Penguin guide, mentioned this, so many reviewers follow by rote, but not necessarily written note. What would be worth recycling is David Gutman's review of Maazel's Sony Mahler cycle, where he wrote one section was reminiscent of a Frank Sinatra song with the vocal line blotted out! Bearing in mind this thread, the review I've just posted on the Abbado Mahler 5 was not done with reference to any published commentary, so I have no idea on recent critical consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Castor said:
When I first read Brenda’s review of this SACD I confess I was very surprised by her comments on the performances. The more I listened to the disc and read Brenda’s comments the more they seemed to be those of someone who had given the disc a superficial listen before writing their review. Magazine reviewers have been guilty of this, as has been mentioned before on this site. Eventually I concluded that it was just an honest difference of opinion in our reactions to this recording. Last night, however, I came across a 1997 review in Gramophone of the long deleted RBCD on the Tring label and compared it with Brenda’s review.
Give me a break, it is clear that you are simply upset by Brenda's opinion on the material. What is important is that she is communicating her feelings on the performance, which I believe is the case even if she is leveraging some existing material to help her express those thoughts...
I think she deserves more respect than attacking her publicly like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ramesh said:
Apropos of the Gramophone, David Fanning once wrote of the original DG RBCD of the 1967 Karajan Shostakovich 10 that four bars were omitted; no other review I saw, including the Penguin guide, mentioned this, so many reviewers follow by rote, but not necessarily written note.
This is actually correct. The original Galleria release (which I have) has the first movement listed as running 21:47. The disc was reissued with the four bars reinstated and the first movement listed as running 22:05.
|
|
