Post by seth January 24, 2012 (191 of 234)
|
|
jdaniel said:
No doubt, just pointing out that Hurwitz' review (this time around at least) was as a sober and restrained as a grandma driving home on a Sunday afternoon.
Agreed. I criticized him over his reviews of the Brautigam Mozart Piano Concerts because it was so blatantly subjective.
|
|
|
Post by TerraEpon January 24, 2012 (192 of 234)
|
|
seth said:
That's part of the conductor's job description.
I don't see why someone would 'need' to find something new. IMO they should find what works for them, even if it's similar to someone else. Their 'job description' is to interpret the piece, but said interpretation doesn't necessarily need to revolutionize anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have purchased the 24bit download and will probably buy the SACD too when it arrives in the UK. I have only listened to the second symphony in detail, it being a piece I know quite well, have performed and have listened to many of the available recordings. A few thoughts:
On first hearing, I could sort of sympathise with the view that the performance might appear slightly "mannered" and that Vanska might be making too much effort to try to do something new and different. On a second listening however, it was possible to go beyond this and hear some new and exciting dimensions to this popular work. In particular, I find the unhurried approach allows for plenty of space in a piece where the moments of silence are so integral, and where some performances can get congested. The quality of the recorded sound also allows some orchestral textures come through which I'd never really noticed before. The orchestra is clearly well at ease with the work and the ensemble is superb. The trumpets sound a bit shrill on my set up, but I think I have a general preference for a more "European" brass sound.
I shall listen to the fifth properly in the next few days, but early indications suggest that I will be listening to this recording many times, and that for me it is a welcome and valuable addition to the catalogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdaniel said:
IMHO Hurwitz bends over backwards to remain respectful; some concerns about 2nd are subjective, others are backed up with the score. Hurwitz is one of the few critics who have more than a passing care about sound and one of the few who embraced SACD early, (while Gramophone and Music Web critics to this day routinely review from the CD layer of an SACD and imagine "that the SACD layer probably sounds even better." But heck, SACD's only been around for 10 years now, and an entry-level player would put them out $200!
I understand his frustration regarding multiple Sibelius cycles (but not Mahler interestingly), and to me it's a much larger issue: how in the world does a conductor find something new in Sibelius? Without getting fussy?
On David Hurwitz, I do not find him reliable at all and I do not trust his judgement, though he may be respectful, as you suggest. Having gotten a fair number of IMHO bum steers from him in my early days of SACD collecting, I just do not frequent his site. I much prefer the reviews here at sa-cd.net, which I generally, though not always, find on target.
As to concern for sound quality, I have never seen anything anywhere that indicates just how he listens to SACD. Are you certain he does does not listen to the CD layer? Where does he say this? He also never says whether he is listening in stereo or Mch, and has never spelled out his system, but then neither have most recording critics, as I believe they all should. I consider him not worth my time, and I will definitely be getting the Vanska Sibelius.
|
|
|
Post by seth January 25, 2012 (195 of 234)
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
As to concern for sound quality, I have never seen anything anywhere that indicates just how he listens to SACD. Are you certain he does does not listen to the CD layer? Where does he say this? He also never says whether he is listening in stereo or Mch, and has never spelled out his system, but then neither have most recording critics, as I believe they all should. I consider him not worth my time, and I will definitely be getting the Vanska Sibelius.
He does comment from time to time on the differences between the stereo and multichannel mixes, but in general he rarely devotes more than a sentence to SQ.
|
|
|
Post by hndhoward January 29, 2012 (196 of 234)
|
|
seth said:
...for most buyers, the fact that these recordings are in SACD and multichannel is meaningless.
=> You don't mean people buying the Sibelius/Vanska/BIS SACD do you?
...Most people primarily care about performance and the price of the recording. If you haven't noticed, the iTunes store has sold 16 billion songs and SACD remains is a niche format after over a decade.
=> Thank goodness for SA-CD.net!
wehecht said:
But it ought not to be meaningless to a professional reviewer who presumably does what he does for the purpose of providing guidance to others.
=> Exactly! "After over a decade" the number of reviews of SACDs that cover the finer points of the multi-channel sound are very few and far between. Even Mr. Hurwitz gave a nod to the "great sound" (Sound: 10) in his whining review of the Bruckner 4/Vanska SACD. For the Sibelius a Sound: 9 and no comments about the recorded sound at all? I expect more from music critics.
bissie said:
I am proud. So are the production team, the orchestra and the conductor. That's enough for me, with or without Dave Hurwitz's blessings.
=> Thank goodness for Robert von Bahr and BIS!
|
|
|
Post by SteelyTom January 30, 2012 (197 of 234)
|
|
Congratulations to Robert and the musicians on the rave review of the Sibelius in yesterday's New York Times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdaniel said:
I understand his frustration regarding multiple Sibelius cycles (but not Mahler interestingly), and to me it's a much larger issue: how in the world does a conductor find something new in Sibelius? Without getting fussy?
Frustration regarding multiple Sibelius cycles ? How many are there? How many in SACD with life-like multi-channel reproduction?
My gripe is that Mr. Hurwitz either does not think Sibelius is worthy of SACD or he thinks that SACD is not a reason for a conductor / record label to redo a cycle.
Obviously some of you agree with Hurwitz (either way) - but I do not and hence the substance of my email to him and my subsequent posts here.
As regards moral indignation, Seth, I don't know how to respond to that. I was already regretting the words "moral foundation" even as I was typing. But nothing close to what I wanted to communicate wanted to "bubble up". Shame, I know! In my 72nd year my mind is not so nimble as it was 40 or even 20-30 years ago.
We obviously come from different worlds you and I. I guess you think a thing only makes sense if it can make money. I think some things should be undertaken because they make artistic sense. Better sound quality, bringing the listener closer to "being transported into a good seat in the concert hall" does make artistic sense in my world at least, and deserves much better treatment from the (IMHO rather thick and self obsessed) critics, than Hurwitz accorded this album.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir January 30, 2012 (199 of 234)
|
|
I agree with you, Bruce. I also applaud those who can find a new way of looking at various works. Mahler is so rich with ideas, there is room for many interpretations of his symphonies. Likewise, I welcome different ways of looking at Sibelius. I have Ashkenazy, Blomstedt, and Oramo in complete sets. I wouldn't want to be without any of them. I've not been a fan of Jarvi, Karajan, Bernstein, or Davis in Sebalius in the past. And I have no problem with a conductor taking a second look for whatever reason-- Improved recording quaity being an important one.
Heck-- I wish Dorati were still alive to redo some knock 'em dead Brahms on SACD.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht January 30, 2012 (200 of 234)
|
|
I've been living with this recording for about a week and have listened to each symphony 4 times. I'd have to say that I understand some of Mr. Hurwitz' reservations about the 2nd, even if I don't agree with him about the end result. This is a VERY personal Sibelius 2, to the extent that Maestro Vanska and Mr von Bahr must have felt compelled to record it. To my ears it would fully justify the remake even if sonic advances were left aside; I think it's a great interpretation of a piece that has long since achieved warhorse status. The 5th, in a more mainstream interpretation, is just gorgeous. Mr. Hurwitz' views nothwithstanding, to me it's a sure 10/10.
|
|
