Wagner's Valhalla

Started by Greta, April 07, 2007, 08:09:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

marvinbrown

Quote from: paulb on January 12, 2008, 08:01:15 AM

In my rather limited experience of the various recordings of the Ring, only 3 have made a  impression enough to fork out close to $100 on each.
Bohm is not among the 3. If you read the reviews on amazon of Bohm's , most all agree the tempos are "TOO FAST" "WHY?" So that closes that possiblity for me. Not sure why i would add a  4th recording, but if there was one to at least come close to the 3 I have, I'd seriously considering getting it off amzon's used list.
And also the Kraus, which has  a  extremely devoted fan base, "oh man its the one, the finest ever in history, no doubt about it", is not among the 3 I have. I had the Kraus, the casting was close to pemier class, though at times overall slightly less than the three I have. Kraus conducting is just too sloshy to make the Ring come alive and its not just the recessed sound factor.

I also own none from  Kna, though i am sure among his many recordings , there may be some of value.

Wagner 's ring should not be appraiched ina   finely chisled manner, as some here suggest, the mythical story telling of the work should have this mystical mysteroius mood, but at times of climaxes and cresendos, then is the time to leave the brooding undefined mode and break the clouds to allow bright beams of sunlight.
Takes both modalites of testures.
But Kraus is too sludge like. Not easy to make the low tonal parts to come off as not being cold ,frozen, dragging, takes a   special conductor to do this feat of bringing warmth. Furtwangler was able to bring a  orch such as the Italian to such a   level of effects, no other conductor could manage sucha   challenge. The Italians in Wagner? Yes, and with stunning results, A true magician!
So now you know one of the 3 I have found most successful in this most challenging of operatic music.

Obviously the other 2 are from the Bayreuth.
I made some comments on the 3 rings over at amazon.

Strange how if just one cast member is slightly off in form my interest correspondingly falls off.
There's hardly a  weak part in these 3 Rings, as yet as least I;ve not discovered any, and doubt there is any.

Relatively new to Wagner and will scan the interesting posts in the topic that I;'ve missed since away.,.



  Paulb are you referring to the Furtwangler Ring with RAI or the La Scala? 

The RAI Ring was the first complete Ring Cycle I ever bought and despite its less than stellar sound I believe Furtwangler was able to produce a recording well worth listening to.  In my opinion that RAI recording is more an achievement in conducting than anything else (singing, orchestra playing etc.) Still I do believe it is not ideal for a first timer to the Ring and I do support AC Douglas' recommendation (in his article) that the Solti Ring is the one to get for newbes to Wagner. I still have not reached a conclusion on my end as to which interpretation is most suited to Wagner's music dramas and I am still studying the articles posted by David Zalman (thanks David) from AC Douglas.

  marvin     

paulb

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 12, 2008, 08:58:37 AM
  Paulb are you referring to the Furtwangler Ring with RAI or the La Scala? 

The RAI Ring was the first complete Ring Cycle I ever bought and despite its less than stellar sound I believe Furtwangler was able to produce a recording well worth listening to.  In my opinion that RAI recording is more an achievement in conducting than anything else (singing, orchestra playing etc.) Still I do believe it is not ideal for a first timer to the Ring and I do support AC Douglas' recommendation (in his article) that the Solti Ring is the one to get for newbes to Wagner. I still have not reached a conclusion on my end as to which interpretation is most suited to Wagner's music dramas and I am still studying the articles posted by David Zalman (thanks David) from AC Douglas.

  marvin     

Nice post Marvin

yes the RAI, I believe there are others who feel Furtwangler conducts close to ideal, and witha  stunning cast in every role. hard to argue against as being "one of the finest ever Rings".
The other 2 I will hold off mention. You can go to me amazon review. I had to work long and hard to find these, but welll worth the efforts.
Solti for beginners to the Ring? Thats  first.
Either a  recording captures all the nuances of this masterwork or falls short.
Why even consider a   second rate Ring. If for no reason than they are so expensive to waste money on.
Thankfully I avoided the decision of  sinking money in either the Solti of the Bohm,. In spite of all the "you absoluetly must get both paul" I've been advised over the past 5 yrs on various forums.

The Kraus could never work for me as a  Ring experience.

Paul

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 05, 2008, 09:48:07 AM
An excellent choice with that Karajan Meistersinger Sarge...   

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 05, 2008, 10:07:23 AM
Karajan's Meistersinger is the reference recording of the work.

Quote from: Haffner on January 06, 2008, 12:37:25 PM
I don't think it's entirely misleading to expect Karajan's Holländer to supercede each.

Hey, guys, I just ordered Karajan's Meistersinger and Holländer. Total price: €8.40  :o  They are part of this collection  8)

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/1815685?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist


Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Haffner

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 19, 2008, 06:52:53 AM
Hey, guys, I just ordered Karajan's Meistersinger and Holländer. Total price: €8.40  :o  They are part of this collection  8)

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/hnum/1815685?rk=classic&rsk=hitlist


Sarge



Sarge, my envy deepens...

marvinbrown


marvinbrown



  To all Wagner fans:

  I just bought this:

 

  It's the Knappertsbusch 1962 Live recording from Bayreuth.  I have been looking for an alternative to the Karajan Parsifal which I have owned for many years.  The reviews I read of this Knappertsbusch really impressed me.  They made it sound like it is the "definitive" Parsifal on the market.  I just couldn't resist buying it.  I still haven't opened it yet, which means I can still return for a full refund. 

  Question: is it really as outstanding as the reviews say it is?
 
  marvin

PSmith08

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 21, 2008, 11:40:20 AM
It's the Knappertsbusch 1962 Live recording from Bayreuth.  I have been looking for an alternative to the Karajan Parsifal which I have owned for many years.  The reviews I read of this Knappertsbusch really impressed me.  They made it sound like it is the "definitive" Parsifal on the market.  I just couldn't resist buying it.  I still haven't opened it yet, which means I can still return for a full refund. 

Question: is it really as outstanding as the reviews say it is?

Short answer: Yes. The 1962 recording of Parsifal is, probably, the finest widely available version. Knappertsbusch had a way with Parsifal that is almost unmatched.

Long answer: I am increasingly of the opinion that, if you want a Knappertsbusch Parsifal, then you need to give the 1964 recording (13 August 1964) some serious consideration. It is Jon Vickers' sole (to my knowledge) recording as Parsifal - N.B., it was out on Melodram before its current, "official" Orfeo incarnation. I find Vickers to be a better Parsifal than Jess Thomas, but there is one still greater - of the modern tenors - but that will come in a bit. The sound is better on the Philips release, and Knappertsbusch's Parsifal did not undergo a radical transformation between 1962 and 1964. That's not entirely fair: 1964 was Knappertsbusch's last season on the Green Hill, and this recording shows a fullness and completeness that comes from a man at the end of his life having devoted much of that life to Wagner's greatest score. The choice between the two is a choice of casting and whether you can deal with good, but still live on-site, mid-1960s mono. I think Vickers was a better Heldentenor than Thomas, and I think Vickers conveyed the role with more nuance and subtlety, but that's a subjective judgment.

There is, as I mentioned, one tenor better suited to Parsifal than either Thomas or Vickers, and that is James King. There are two recordings of King as Parsifal: one with Pierre Boulez from 1970 and one with Rafael Kubelík and the SOBR from 1980. The former is, if you like Boulez, essential listening as it is his best-recorded outing in Parsifal. There is an earlier one on Melodram, but its sound is variable and not worth the trouble. Boulez' Parsifal is not for everyone, and - now as then - his Wagner is pretty controversial in general. I would not recommend it if you're not (1) a Boulez completist, or (2) enamored with his Wagner. I would, however, say that Kubelík's Parsifal is the finest on record. It's a shame that the Arts Archive set is not widely available, except on-line. Kubelík has much the same sense of time and motion as Knappertsbusch, and has a way with the score that seems to suspend time and let the music unfold in its own way. Kubelík seemed willing to let Wagner do, through the music, what Wagner wanted to do. That is to say that his tempo, dynamics, and overall sense of the architecture are so well-considered and so respectful of Wagner that its natural luminosity makes other, more conductor-centric interpretations look like, pace Karajan, gaslight. Kubelík "got" Wagner and he "got" Parsifal. His Lohengrin, also with James King, is another sensitive, intelligent, and unobtrusive approach to the score. The sound, Bayerischen Rundfunks in Munich, is better than good. This is the best studio Parsifal, and it demands consideration for the overall prize.

If Thielemann hadn't had Domingo as the eponymous holy fool, I might discuss that work at length. Orchestrally, it's great. Domingo? Parsifal?

Does not compute.

So, Knappertsbusch '62 is great, I prefer Knappertsbusch '64, but recognize that Kubelík is king of the modern recordings. Open the set, listen to it, and revisit frequently. If you can only have one, make that it. If you can have two, get the Kubelík.

marvinbrown

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 21, 2008, 12:19:26 PM
Short answer: Yes. The 1962 recording of Parsifal is, probably, the finest widely available version. Knappertsbusch had a way with Parsifal that is almost unmatched.

Long answer: I am increasingly of the opinion that, if you want a Knappertsbusch Parsifal, then you need to give the 1964 recording (13 August 1964) some serious consideration. It is Jon Vickers' sole (to my knowledge) recording as Parsifal - N.B., it was out on Melodram before its current, "official" Orfeo incarnation. I find Vickers to be a better Parsifal than Jess Thomas, but there is one still greater - of the modern tenors - but that will come in a bit. The sound is better on the Philips release, and Knappertsbusch's Parsifal did not undergo a radical transformation between 1962 and 1964. That's not entirely fair: 1964 was Knappertsbusch's last season on the Green Hill, and this recording shows a fullness and completeness that comes from a man at the end of his life having devoted much of that life to Wagner's greatest score. The choice between the two is a choice of casting and whether you can deal with good, but still live on-site, mid-1960s mono. I think Vickers was a better Heldentenor than Thomas, and I think Vickers conveyed the role with more nuance and subtlety, but that's a subjective judgment.

There is, as I mentioned, one tenor better suited to Parsifal than either Thomas or Vickers, and that is James King. There are two recordings of King as Parsifal: one with Pierre Boulez from 1970 and one with Rafael Kubelík and the SOBR from 1980. The former is, if you like Boulez, essential listening as it is his best-recorded outing in Parsifal. There is an earlier one on Melodram, but its sound is variable and not worth the trouble. Boulez' Parsifal is not for everyone, and - now as then - his Wagner is pretty controversial in general. I would not recommend it if you're not (1) a Boulez completist, or (2) enamored with his Wagner. I would, however, say that Kubelík's Parsifal is the finest on record. It's a shame that the Arts Archive set is not widely available, except on-line. Kubelík has much the same sense of time and motion as Knappertsbusch, and has a way with the score that seems to suspend time and let the music unfold in its own way. Kubelík seemed willing to let Wagner do, through the music, what Wagner wanted to do. That is to say that his tempo, dynamics, and overall sense of the architecture are so well-considered and so respectful of Wagner that its natural luminosity makes other, more conductor-centric interpretations look like, pace Karajan, gaslight. Kubelík "got" Wagner and he "got" Parsifal. His Lohengrin, also with James King, is another sensitive, intelligent, and unobtrusive approach to the score. The sound, Bayerischen Rundfunks in Munich, is better than good. This is the best studio Parsifal, and it demands consideration for the overall prize.

If Thielemann hadn't had Domingo as the eponymous holy fool, I might discuss that work at length. Orchestrally, it's great. Domingo? Parsifal?

Does not compute.

So, Knappertsbusch '62 is great, I prefer Knappertsbusch '64, but recognize that Kubelík is king of the modern recordings. Open the set, listen to it, and revisit frequently. If you can only have one, make that it. If you can have two, get the Kubelík.

  WOW PSmith08, thank you for that very informative post. You certainly know your Wagner and I am impressed with your exposure to all these recordings.  I will admit that I had not heard of Kubelik's Parsifal.  But seeing as how you rate it so highly I will have to go looking for it (its not amazon that I am sure of!)
  Based on your post I will go ahead and give the Knappertsbusch a listen and see what comes of it, keeping in mind the '64 and Kubelik for the future.

  marvin

PSmith08

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 21, 2008, 12:53:28 PM
  WOW PSmith08, thank you for that very informative post. You certainly know your Wagner and I am impressed with your exposure to all these recordings.  I will admit that I had not heard of Kubelik's Parsifal.  But seeing as how you rate it so highly I will have to go looking for it (its not amazon that I am sure of!)
  Based on your post I will go ahead and give the Knappertsbusch a listen and see what comes of it, keeping in mind the '64 and Kubelik for the future.

Parsifal and Der fliegende Holländer are my non-Ring obsessions in the Wagner oeuvre.

Spend some time with the 1962 Knappertsbusch record. It is one of the great Wagner records, of any score. Indeed, I would say that Knappertsbusch's 1962 Parsifal, Solti's Der Ring des Nibelungen, and Furtwängler's Tristan und Isolde are in a class unto themselves. They are landmarks of the Wagner discography, and among the greatest records produced for various reasons. I forgot to mention his 1951 set, which has Windgassen in the title role. There are those who rate the 1951 record as his best, but - despite the great sense of occasion and its indisputable quality - I really have to go where the sound is good. That means 1962 or 1964, depending on what you mean by "good sound." There are a lot of Knappertsbusch recordings of Parsifal on the market, and - I'll say this - if you get Hans Knappertsbusch in Parsifal at Bayreuth, then you really don't have to worry too much about the product. Sound quality and singer-debate are about all that's left.

Another one, but one I've never warmed as much toward (I prefer Thielemann's to it, but my Thielemann-antipathy, as I noted, has more to do with Domingo) is Barenboim's on Teldec. It is well regarded, but I just haven't fallen in love with it.

Haffner

Quote from: marvinbrown on January 21, 2008, 11:40:20 AM

  To all Wagner fans:

  I just bought this:

 

  It's the Knappertsbusch 1962 Live recording from Bayreuth.  I have been looking for an alternative to the Karajan Parsifal which I have owned for many years.  The reviews I read of this Knappertsbusch really impressed me.  They made it sound like it is the "definitive" Parsifal on the market.  I just couldn't resist buying it.  I still haven't opened it yet, which means I can still return for a full refund. 

  Question: is it really as outstanding as the reviews say it is?
 
  marvin





My fiancee was in the other room saying her Rosary when she heard me making ooOOOoooOOOoooooOOOOOooo sounds. She came out, saying I interrupted her. She was weirded-out that I might be ogling some pretty girl on the internet. But no, I couldn't help but be reduced to drooling when I saw Marvin's Parsifal acquisition. Marvin, that is one extremely cool recording I'm dying to have.

Haffner

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 21, 2008, 01:11:04 PM
Parsifal and Der fliegende Holländer are my non-Ring obsessions in the Wagner oeuvre.






Hey, what's your preferred Der fliegende Holländer cd and dvd? Forgive me if you've been asked one too many times.

PSmith08

Quote from: Haffner on January 21, 2008, 02:29:16 PM
Hey, what's your preferred Der fliegende Holländer cd and dvd? Forgive me if you've been asked one too many times.

I'll go to the DVD options first, since those are - shall we say - less complicated. There are two versions available, one from Bayreuth using Harry Kupfer's 1978 production, though I think it was filmed in 1985. This is an unconventional version, since - rather than playing it straight - Senta is the main character and the story unfolds from her point-of-view. The production is strange, though it isn't as far-out as Kupfer's Ring. Some clips are about on the mighty Interweb if you're so inclined. Another, which I haven't seen, is a production conducted by Leif Segerstam. I can't comment, but it's an option. The Kupfer version would seem to be your best bet, if you can deal with Harry Kupfer.

As to CDs, this is a bit thornier. The long-time reference is Otto Klemperer's EMI set (1968). It has Theo Adam as the Holländer, Anja Silja as Senta, Martti Talvela as Daland, and Ernst Kozub as Erik. It is a standard recommendation for a reason. This set (and Klemperer's overtures-and-preludes set) show that Klemperer did have some affinity for Wagner. It is somewhat deliberate as far as the style goes, running probably fifteen minutes longer than some of his competitors, but it's Klemperer in 1968. You're not going to get Pierre Boulez' speed, but you do get a sort of grandeur and power to the score that other recordings don't necessarily have.

Karl Böhm's 1971 is back on the market at budget price. If you like Böhm's Wagner and can deal with Gwyneth Jones, then you're probably safe plunking down fifteen or twenty bucks and giving it a spin. It has that same sort of nervous tension and speed that Böhm's Ring and Tristan have. It also has the orchestral and architectural transparency that Böhm could bring to the table. Holländer is rarely a conductor's experimenting ground, and Böhm does what one would expect him to do with Wagner. The balances, though, strike me as a little weird with this one. The choruses - especially the Norwegian sailors' chorus - seem a little thin. I almost want to say that the mikes are too close, but it doesn't seem like that. That could just be me. The Böhm set has been another well-regarded and highly recommended version, like his Ring and Tristan. It's a matter of choice.

Speaking of the choruses - there are several in Holländer of which I am very fond - Georg Solti's 1976 recording is one that gets short shrift, but has really stellar choral work and an orchestral contribution that is as powerful and muscular as one could want. Indeed, Solti's Holländer holds a special spot with me, as it was my first Wagner record. I don't think it's even on the market anymore, though a used recording could be found at a reasonable price. Amazon's sellers don't have it at anything approaching that, but other options might be available. It doesn't have the greatest cast, and I am not entirely sure how well the Chicago Symphony Orchestra handles the early Wagnerian idiom - though they bring power in spades. Solti is a good second or third choice, if you want to track it down, for the choral contribution, but I don't know how well it would serve as one's only recording.

I'll skip Levine and Barenboim, and say that they are reasonable choices, but there are better.

Like the two I would recommend equally and interchangeably, depending on what you want. Testament has just rereleased Joseph Keilberth's 1955 Bayreuth recording, which had been put out before in mono sound, in pretty good stereo. Apparently Decca recorded more than just that Ring at the '55 Festspiele. Keilberth and Knappertsbusch switched off the Holländer shows that year, and Melodram has the Knappertsbusch recording available, though I've never listened to it. Keilberth has the best Holländer of the age in Hermann Uhde, Astrid Varnay as Senta, and Ludwig Weber as Daland. That is the dream cast. Uhde is the only bass-baritone I have heard in the role (with perhaps one exception) that manages to convey the angst and torment of the Holländer effectively. Others come off as flat, boring, or even - and this a problem - almost genial. Uhde really conveyed that part, and was a generally great Wagnerian bass-baritone. His Gunther for Knappertsbusch in Götterdämmerung (1956) is a reference performance. Astrid Varnay was, really, one of the great Wagnerian sopranos. She had the bad luck to have to compete with Flagstad and Nilsson, but she was really fine. This recording is, in my mind, the one to get if you can only have just one.

Now, there is a modern competitor in Woldemar Nelsson's 1985 recording, back out as part of Philips' "Classic Opera" series. This is the record to go with the Kupfer video I mentioned above. The sound is better than Keilberth's, though thirty years of stereo technology should make that an assumed quantity. Simon Estes' Holländer comes very close, to my ears, to Uhde's supremely tormented portrayal. This is not James Morris. There is a lot of angst and torment there. Estes' voice can be very bleak, too, but I think Uhde has the slight edge in broadcasting gloom. Lisbeth Balslev's Senta is not Astrid Varnay's version, but it is miles ahead of Gwyneth's for Böhm. Matti Salminen's Daland is not without its charms. Indeed, of the modern recordings, Nelsson's is really the first recourse. Of them all, I have to give it to Keilberth. His style, his cast, and his general approach to Wagner make that set (Testament, mind you, not the Teldec release of some years back) without equal and only few competitors.

That is far more than I had intended to say.

uffeviking

Does Parsifal have to be a CD or can you accept a DVD?

Of the many Parsifals I have listened to and watched, one has worked it's way to the top, the one performed at the Baden-Baden opera house and conducted by Kent Nagano. The stunning direction is by Nikolaus Lehnhoff, a director who believes in stark, unembellished sets. No, no concept advocate, don't frown. Matti Salminen is for me the best Gurnemanz and of course Waltraud Meier owns the Kundry role. Lehnhoff gives Amfortas a chance to get off his usual stretcher, an opportunity Thomas Hampson uses to move about while singing as only he can.

Give it a try!

PSmith08

Quote from: uffeviking on January 21, 2008, 06:38:56 PM
Does Parsifal have to be a CD or can you accept a DVD?

Of the many Parsifals I have listened to and watched, one has worked it's way to the top, the one performed at the Baden-Baden opera house and conducted by Kent Nagano. The stunning direction is by Nikolaus Lehnhoff, a director who believes in stark, unembellished sets. No, no concept advocate, don't frown. Matti Salminen is for me the best Gurnemanz and of course Waltraud Meier owns the Kundry role. Lehnhoff gives Amfortas a chance to get off his usual stretcher, an opportunity Thomas Hampson uses to move about while singing as only he can.

Give it a try!

I recall Angela Merkel noted to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that she preferred Lehnhoff's Parsifal to the concurrent joke by Christoph Schlingensief at Bayreuth. For obvious reasons, some folks in the United States rebroadcast her remarks.

M forever

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 21, 2008, 12:19:26 PM
If Thielemann hadn't had Domingo as the eponymous holy fool, I might discuss that work at length. Orchestrally, it's great. Domingo? Parsifal?

Does not compute.

Really not? Or could that be a foregone conclusion: "Italian singer=can't sing Wagner"? Just asking, I haven't heard the recording.

PSmith08

Quote from: M forever on January 21, 2008, 07:18:18 PM
Really not? Or could that be a foregone conclusion: "Italian singer=can't sing Wagner"? Just asking, I haven't heard the recording.

I don't think that a Spanish singer who has made quite a name for himself in the major Italian repertoire (though he has a pretty big set of roles) is necessarily precluded from singing Wagner. I believe he did Lohengrin in 1968, so he was doing Wagner forty years ago. My issues with Domingo in Parsifal are really two-fold. First, he was 65 years old when he did those Vienna shows. I am sorry, but hearing the Flower-Maidens try to seduce Parsifal, singing "Komm, holder Knabe" strikes me as supremely silly when the "holder Knabe" is pushing 70 years old. I can suspend my disbelief, but only so far before I have to say, "This ain't right." Domingo's voice has held up pretty well, but this isn't the Domingo of Giulini's Rigoletto or Muti's Aida. As to my second issue, I don't think that Domingo is now or ever was a Heldentenor. I would say that he was probably a strong contender for the greatest lyric tenor of his generation. I personally prefer Peter Schreier, but that's more of an interpretation thing. It seems to me that, as he ages and his tone darkens a little bit, he's moving into the high-power Heldentenor roles, like Siegmund and Parsifal; that does not, however, mean that he is entirely suited to them. Indeed, I would say that he would make a fine Lohengrin or Tannhäuser, in the former role likely giving Sándor Kónya a very serious run for his money. For the Ring roles and Parsifal, though, a slightly darkened lyric voice won't cut it.

M forever

Thanks for elaborating! BTW, I always thought that Domingo was Mexican, but I looked it up and found he was actually born in Spain. We learn new things every day. But I think you understood that I meant someone who is mostly associated with Italian repertoire and singing style.

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 21, 2008, 07:46:01 PM
My issues with Domingo in Parsifal are really two-fold. First, he was 65 years old when he did those Vienna shows. I am sorry, but hearing the Flower-Maidens try to seduce Parsifal, singing "Komm, holder Knabe" strikes me as supremely silly when the "holder Knabe" is pushing 70 years old.

Yes, that is a little silly. Maybe they should have sung "holder Knacker"* instead.




*"Knacker", literally "cracker", is a common demeaning expression for old people in German, probably on account of their joints cracking.

PSmith08

Quote from: M forever on January 21, 2008, 07:58:49 PM
Thanks for elaborating! BTW, I always thought that Domingo was Mexican, but I looked it up and found he was actually born in Spain. We learn new things every day. But I think you understood that I meant someone who is mostly associated with Italian repertoire and singing style.

I think he had some family in Mexico, who died in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.

QuoteYes, that is a little silly. Maybe they should have sung "holder Knacker"* instead.

The recording was made over a live run at the Staatsoper in 2005, which would make him only 64 when he appeared. My mistake. In the booklet, there are some production photos, and it is a bit strange to see an obviously middle-aged man with gray hair in the part. That is a little strange for a young hero. A concert performance, maybe even with the Münchner Philharmoniker, would have made more sense. Still, given Domingo's voice, I think that there are more profitable Wagner roles available. Some, even, with less competition.

Quote*"Knacker", literally "cracker", is a common demeaning expression for old people in German, probably on account of their joints cracking.

I didn't know that. I learned something new today.

M forever

Quote from: PSmith08 on January 21, 2008, 08:32:19 PM
A concert performance, maybe even with the Münchner Philharmoniker, would have made more sense.

Why "even"?

PSmith08

Quote from: M forever on January 21, 2008, 08:40:57 PM
Why "even"?

I probably used "even" in the sense of the OED definition 9(b), "Attached to a word or clause expressing time, manner, place, or any attendant circumstance." Definition 9 is, in full, "Intimating that the sentence expresses an extreme case of a more general proposition implied (= Fr. même). Prefixed (in later use often parenthetically postfixed) to the particular word, phrase, or clause, on which the extreme character of the statement or supposition depends." So, then, the concert performance would be the general proposition, and the concert performance with the MP would be the manner in which the general proposition would be executed.

I could get really slippery and say that I was using an archaism pursuant to OED def. 8, "Prefixed to a subject, object, or predicate, or to the expression of a qualifying circumstance, to emphasize its identity. Obs. exc. arch. Also in 16-17th c. (hence still arch. after Bible use) serving to introduce an epexegesis; = 'namely', 'that is to say'."

Or, we could just agree that I used "even" in the sense that such an arrangement would be highly non-trivial, and pursuant to OED def. 9(c).