Post by sgb April 30, 2005 (1 of 6)
|
|
As an occasional visitor to Stephen's terrific site - I visit here about once or twice every week - I begin by checking the reviews that have been written since my last visit. It is here that one can get a sense of how these performances stack up to the standards in the case of new classical releases, and for well-known reissues such as Jazz at the Pawnshop, one can get others' opinions on how a new SA-CD remaster compares with its antecedents. I especially enjoy reading reviews in which members who are as equally devout audiophiles as I am take the time to tell others why it is that they come to the conclusions they do. I also appreciate it when someone takes a moment or two to introduce something like Pawnshop to those who have never heard it.
I am somewhat perplexed and often amused by the number of reviews that get unhelpful votes by members who read them. Yes, it's true that some of these that say only, "good music and sound" aren't very helpful, but there are often terse little reviews that say much in the space the authors have allotted them. These often have negative votes, suggesting to me that the reviewer has been graded on the number of words in the review and not the content. Such is the case, IMHO, of KHorn's Pawnshop review, yet only 1 of 5 deemed it a worthy review. I also found it strange that someone's recent review of the Bernstein Gershwin Rhapsody would have received any negative votes.
I am reminded then of those 500 word essays that I had to write in Grammar school. If my assignment were a subject that didn't interest me much, I found myself agonizing over and counting my words, often adding unneeded modifiers and other embellishments to meet the minimum.
So I ask, how many of you rate a member's review unhelpful because it is short? How many words do you require for it to deserve a helpful rating?
|
|
Post by sgb May 1, 2005 (4 of 6)
|
|
Khorn said:
Would I blaspheme in your eyes were I to say that I don’t find the Bernstein Gershwin Rhapsody “emotionally invovolving” to the degree that I would desire?
Blasphemy? No. There are any number of emotionally involving Rhapsody recordings, not all of which will appeal to, or provoke in, every listener the same response. While off topic, the following review I wrote of two recordings (both of which are now well-received SACD reissues) appeared in print about 15 years ago.
TWO GERSHWIN RHAPSODIES ON COMPACT DISK
A recent note from a friend asking whether I had tried any of the "Papillon Collection" Compact Disks from RCA elicited a quick response, noting that I had purchased a few, and that I had been mildly disappointed in their sonics. A day or two later, I decided to take another listen to one of the few I had purchased. Earl Wild's performance of Gershwin's universally-loved Rhapsody in Blue, with Fiedler and The Boston Pops, is no stranger to audiophiles. To many readers, the reputation of the sonics on early pressings is legend. First appearing on RCA's Red Seal label in 1958, the original "Shaded Dog" pressings are, for good reason, highly prized by audiophiles. Chessky Records recently reissued this recording in the analog disk format as part of their series of RCA masterpieces. It has, over the many years since its initial release, seen many incarnations in RCA's various budget series, the last of these, until recently, on analog disk appearing in the digitally re-mastered "Gold Seal" series in 1984, and, then in 1987, on compact disk (RCA 6519-2-RG).
Readers may be less familiar with another recording of the Rhapsody I wish to discuss here, yet it has, over its long life and many packagings, actually proven to be the more popular of the two. In fact, the First Edition of The Penguin Stereo Record Guide, published in 1975, lists this recording as one of its top three recommendations, based on its performance. Of course, I am referring to Leonard Bernstein's 1959 version with the New York Philharmonic, in which Mr. Bernstein both conducts and plays the piano. This recording was also reissued on compact disk in 1987 (CBS MK42264).
I welcomed the release of the Wild CD, in part because I have always been one of his most ardent fans. KWN and I share the view that his Rachmaninov Second Piano Concerto (now available on CD from Chandos) is one of the best ever to be released, and much of the magic of that performance is also present in the Rhapsody. Mr. Wild's technique might be best described as straightforward and precise. At times he can seem a bit rushed, but this quality never appears to deter from one's enjoyment of his finely-polished craft. But more than for Wild's stylistically competent performance of the Gershwin, my joy at this disk's release centered on the potential that it might approach the sonic perfection one hears from the early, much revered, Shaded Dogs. It does not. While it is true that this disk is closer to the sound of the original record than is the Chessky reissue, it falls short in that its sound is much drier than the 1958 original. I would recommend this recording, nonetheless, because much of the ambience and spatiality that has made it legendary on the original phonograph record has been preserved. I would be remiss if I did not mention that this is one of Arthur Fiedler's finest performances; indeed, it is his contribution to this work which makes it one of the better standard recordings available. (Sound: C, Perfor-mance: B)
Bernstein's is an altogether different matter. Despite its popularity, I found it difficult to listen to my copy of the analog record since it was of the typically poor sonic quality CBS has been known to produce. My guess is that it has not been played more than a few times in the many years I have owned it. To say that I was pleasantly surprised at the sound of the CD would be an understatement. Despite its many distractions, this is a competently engineered disk. It is not what audiophiles would call reference quality, but its sound is engagingly smooth, and remarkably transparent. Indeed, Bernstein's piano is more realistically sized within the sound stage, than is Wild's, but the orchestral staging is less precise than what one hears on the RCA compact disk.
Bernstein is, here, the deciding factor. This must be one of his finest performances ever committed to tape. So overwhelmingly obvious are his panache and flamboyance--trademarks of his which have often been the objects of scorn by the conventional music lover--that it sheds new light and meaning on this Gershwin masterpiece. This is American music in the most American musical idiom, Jazz, and it is precisely Bernstein's tongue-in-cheek references to Jazz which make this the definitive recording of the work for me. So flagrant are Bernstein's departures from a conventional reading, that many might consider this outrageous sacrilege, or at least, the cantankerous musings of a fool who purports to be a pianist. Rather, it demonstrates Bernstein's artistic genius; it is vicariously imbued with what Gershwin himself must have hoped for from any performance of this work. Bernstein's reading stands as triumphant homage to one of America's greatest composers, and to its uniquely indigenous music. (Sound: B-, Performance: Unequalled) SGB
|
|
