The Greatest Recording Ever Made: Nominations for the Poll

[Ken B]

There is this concept, called a joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

I'm sorry but Mahler's 6th is not a joke! Not even the way Karajan tells it.

[San Antone]

Please go into that thread and explain how his changes to the score improve the work, then.

Scarpia (nor any of us) does not need to "explain how his changes to the score improve the work".  Karajan is the one to ask.  All I need to explain is that Karajan has the right to play the music as he sees fit.

[Mahlerian]

Scarpia (nor any of us) does not need to "explain how his changes to the score improve the work".  Karajan is the one to ask.  All I need to explain is that Karajan has the right to play the music as he sees fit.

When have I said that Karajan should not have that right?

Karajan had a right to do whatever he wanted.  He could have arranged Mahler's work for a chorus of 40 kazoos for all I care.


SurprisedbyBeauty: I'm sorry I butted in on your thread, and I wish I could contribute, but I just don't feel like I have a meaningful way of judging what the greatest recordings of all time are beyond what I like, and that would be limited by what I've listened to.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

SurprisedbyBeauty: ... I just don't feel like I have a meaningful way of judging what the greatest recordings of all time are beyond what I like, and that would be limited by what I've listened to.

It should well be limited to what you've listened to. A recording can't be "great" by any stretch of my imagination, if only very few people have heard it. (Not in a reasonably free, functioning market.) So our limitations of exposure are already a meaningful contribution.

[Baron Scarpia]

When have I said that Karajan should not have that right?

Karajan had a right to do whatever he wanted.  He could have arranged Mahler's work for a chorus of 40 kazoos for all I care.

Please, aukhawk mentioned that Karajan's M6 allowed him to enjoy the work more than he had in the past and you brought out you back-handed put-down, "but just realize that it's not the music Mahler wrote." Effectively, "you may think you enjoy Mahler, but you only enjoy Karajan's corrupted Mahler, with the counterpoint suppressed, simplified for half-wits."

You may call yourself Mahlerian, you may have Mahler's picture as your avatar, but you don't speak for Mahler. For all you know, if Mahler had heard Karajan's performance, he might have broke down, weeping, "finally someone understands my music!" I don't claim it's true, but you have no valid argument that it's not true.

Now I'm having a warm feeling, imaging Mahler begging to kiss Karajan's feet. Karajan would have loved that.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Please, aukhawk mentioned that Karajan's M6 allowed him to enjoy the work more than he had in the past and you brought out you back-handed put-down, "but just realize that it's not the music Mahler wrote." Effectively, "you may think you enjoy Mahler, but you only enjoy Karajan's corrupted Mahler, with the counterpoint suppressed, simplified for half-wits."

You may call yourself Mahlerian, you may have Mahler's picture as your avatar, but you don't speak for Mahler. For all you know, if Mahler had heard Karajan's performance, he might have broke down, weeping, "finally someone understands my music!" I don't claim it's true, but you have no valid argument that it's not true.

Now I'm having a warm feeling, imaging Mahler begging to kiss Karajan's feet. Karajan would have loved that.

This is probably a good conversation to have in the Silly Karajan thread that was formed for, among other things, that purpose, no?

[Mahlerian]

Please, aukhawk mentioned that Karajan's M6 allowed him to enjoy the work more than he had in the past and you brought out you back-handed put-down, "but just realize that it's not the music Mahler wrote." Effectively, "you may think you enjoy Mahler, but you only enjoy Karajan's corrupted Mahler, with the counterpoint suppressed, simplified for half-wits."

That's not what I said, nor is it what I meant.  I didn't intend any insult, and I was merely agreeing with Aukhawk that Karajan's Sixth may have something to offer people who don't like Mahler's text when rendered faithfully.

You may call yourself Mahlerian, you may have Mahler's picture as your avatar, but you don't speak for Mahler.

I don't claim to, and I agree that I don't personally speak for Mahler.  That's why I refer to Mahler's words and his scores in order to make any argument rather than relying on my personal perceptions, to allow him to speak for himself.

[Baron Scarpia]

This is probably a good conversation to have in the Silly Karajan thread that was formed for, among other things, that purpose, no?

No argument here.

[Mandryka]

I've long thought of it as Mahler's Sixth for people who don't like Mahler's Sixth.  If that's your thing, go for it, and I have no intention of saying you can't enjoy it all you want, but just realize that it's not the music Mahler wrote.

I wonder if it's helpful to explore the identity of a work of art. When is a performance a performance of Mahler 6 and when is it something else? (I remember thinking the same thing about  Lucas Foss's Art of Fugue)

[Mandryka]

SurprisedbyBeauty: I'm sorry I butted in on your thread, and I wish I could contribute, but I just don't feel like I have a meaningful way of judging what the greatest recordings of all time are beyond what I like, and that would be limited by what I've listened to.

It's as if there's a concept here which people bandy around as if they're succeeding in saying something meaningful, but they probably aren't saying anything at all, or just mouthing nonsense. Like talking about Mumbo Jumbo. Basically Jens' whole thing is based on meaningless hot air. It's not primarily that the procedure is useless, it's that the concepts are vacuous.

(I like these things which look as though they express a thought, an idea, but analysis reveals that they don't. )

[Baron Scarpia]

It's as if there's a concept here which people bandy around as if they're succeeding in saying something meaningful, but they probably aren't saying anything at all, or just mouthing nonsense. Like talking about Mumbo Jumbo. Basically Jens' whole thing is based on meaningless hot air. It's not primarily that the procedure is useless, it's that the concepts are vacuous.

(I like these things which look as though they express a thought, an idea, but analysis reveals that they don't. )

I would say that "greatest recording" is difficult to adress without a clear criteria: quality of the performance, impact on the public, impact on classical music community, etc.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

It's as if there's a concept here which people bandy around as if they're succeeding in saying something meaningful, but they probably aren't saying anything at all, or just mouthing nonsense. Like talking about Mumbo Jumbo. Basically Jens' whole thing is based on meaningless hot air. It's not primarily that the procedure is useless, it's that the concepts are vacuous.

(I like these things which look as though they express a thought, an idea, but analysis reveals that they don't. )

You're always most welcome to stop by here and take a dump on the thread. Don't worry a bit about it! I'm just surprised you're spending your time engaging here at all, though.

Incidentally I disgaree with you: We all know that the concept of "Greatest" this-or-that exists. Heck, there's even a whole line of recordings named after that concept. It is most unlikely that a concept is at once both "vacuous" and "real". And if there is an inherent tension between the one approach and the other fact, well, I happen to think that's of interest.

[Cato]

As with similar topics, I use these things as an impetus to check Great Recording X or Y or Z of which I am ignorant! 

"Hmmm, so GMG Member #17* says this version of Poulenc's Concerto for Organ, Strings, and Timpani is THE GREATEST thing ever!" 

"I guess I should give that a listen!"  0:)

* And just WHO is GMG Member #17 ?     0:)

[vandermolen]

From the list I'd choose Holst's The Planets, EMI, Boult.

In addition I'd add:

Bruckner: Symphony 9, Furtwangler

Honegger: Symphonie Liturgique, Karajan

Vaughan Williams: Symphony 6 LPO, Boult (Decca)

Hanson: Symphony 3, Koussevitsky

[André]

Martin, Messiaen, Mompou & Mussorgsky?

Hey ! 1 out of 4 ain't bad at all !! 

Mahler

Barbirolli's 6th has already been mentioned, and deservedly so. An excellent Das Lied, 1st and 4th symphony too. My choices:

- Symphony 3: Horenstein, LSO (Unicorn)
- Symphony 9: Karajan II, BP (DGG). My personal favourite is Maderna's BBC recording, but it's a radio broadcast transcript, not a commercial release. A 9th has already been selected, but I can't find much to commend it, except maybe sentimental/historical circumstances. Musically it's fallible and sonically it's a non-starter.
- Orchestral 5 Rückert lieder: Forrester, Fricsay RIAS Orchestra (DGG).

Monteverdi. There is NONE in the list !! 

- This 1958 recital by Deller and Marriner:

- This other recital:


Mozart

- Don Giovanni: Siepi, Krips (Decca)
- Requiem: Karl Richter, Munich Bach Orchestra, Telefunken
- Violin sonatas, Boskowsky, Kraus (EMI)

Mussorgsky

- Boris Godunov: Christoff, Dobrowen (EMI)

[vandermolen]

Hey ! 1 out of 4 ain't bad at all !! 

Mahler

Barbirolli's 6th has already been mentioned, and deservedly so. An excellent Das Lied, 1st and 4th symphony too. My choices:

- Symphony 3: Horenstein, LSO (Unicorn)
- Symphony 9: Karajan II, BP (DGG). My personal favourite is Maderna's BBC recording, but it's a radio broadcast transcript, not a commercial release. A 9th has already been selected, but I can't find much to commend it, except maybe sentimental/historical circumstances. Musically it's fallible and sonically it's a non-starter.
- Orchestral 5 Rückert lieder: Forrester, Fricsay RIAS Orchestra (DGG).

Monteverdi. There is NONE in the list !! 

- This 1958 recital by Deller and Marriner:

- This other recital:


Mozart

- Don Giovanni: Siepi, Krips (Decca)
- Requiem: Karl Richter, Munich Bach Orchestra, Telefunken
- Violin sonatas, Boskowsky, Kraus (EMI)

Mussorgsky

- Boris Godunov: Christoff, Dobrowen (EMI)

+1 for Dobrowen/Mussorgsky from me.

For Mahler I'd choose Klemperer's EMI recording of Symphony 9.

[prémont]

Everyone gets to nominate 10 Recordings off the list or add their own. Whatever you think "great" is. Most meaningful. Changed recording history. Changed listening-history. Changed MY life. Sounds best. Greatest performance of most important work at the time...

To me the problem is, that quite a lot of the old venerated recordings, you list, have been surpassed several times. So I would pass most of these by, if I should name the recordings, I favor the most and for that reason think are the "greatest". The fact that eg. Casals' Bach cello suites set at the time of release (not facing any competition),  was considered great and changed the history has only historical interest to day, when we are supplied with about 200 recordings of these works, a considerable part of these being more artistically satisfying than the Casals recordings..

[SurprisedByBeauty]

To me the problem is, that quite a lot of the old venerated recordings, you list, have been surpassed several times. So I would pass most of these by, if I should name the recordings, I favor the most and for that reason think are the "greatest". The fact that eg. Casals' Bach cello suites set at the time of release (not facing any competition),  was considered great and changed the history has only historical interest to day, when we are supplied with about 200 recordings of these works, a considerable part of these being more artistically satisfying than the Casals recordings..

I feel the same way -- and how does one compare Casals to Fournier to Wispelwey to Arnau Tomàs, for example? We always circle around the question of what "great" really means. "Great in its time" "Greaty beyond its time" "Subjectively Best"...

Is it possible to find a recording the "Greatest", but not the "best"?

I think if I trim this list and bring it in order, I shall list a contender for golden-timey 'greatness' next to a viable modern candidate.

And maybe we can then play "brackets" within groups.

Someone mentioned Deller; I'd been waiting for a mention. Clearly someone who pushed music-appreciation a good few steps forward with his recordings. I'll add the most recent suggestions to a new list tomorrow.

[aukhawk]

In addition I would say that 'a recording' is an integral of three parts - the music, the interpretation/performance, the technical recording element - and personally I don't separate them.

So to be a 'great' recording IMHO it must satisfy at least 2 of the following, and the 3rd only a notch behind at most:
* the music itself is 'great' or very nearly so (and in my book 'great' is a very big word, most composers only manage 'great' once or twice)
* the interpretation/performance is 'great' or very nearly so (by the standards of the recording date)
* the technical recording quality is 'great' or very nearly so (by the standards of the recording date)

So for example DSCH Cello Concerto (1) Rostropovich/Ormandy/CBS easily qualifies by those criteria, plus there is added historical significance. 
Casals/Bach too, but in that case there is clearly a big problem in that the recording has been superseded many times since.  Here the history trumps almost everything.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

In addition I would say that 'a recording' is an integral of three parts - the music, the interpretation/performance, the technical recording element - and personally I don't separate them.

So to be a 'great' recording IMHO it must satisfy at least 2 of the following, and the 3rd only a notch behind at most:
* the music itself is 'great' or very nearly so (and in my book 'great' is a very big word, most composers only manage 'great' once or twice)
* the interpretation/performance is 'great' or very nearly so (by the standards of the recording date)
* the technical recording quality is 'great' or very nearly so (by the standards of the recording date)

So for example DSCH Cello Concerto (1) Rostropovich/Ormandy/CBS easily qualifies by those criteria, plus there is added historical significance. 
Casals/Bach too, but in that case there is clearly a big problem in that the recording has been superseded many times since.  Here the history trumps almost everything.

I think that's an excellent codification of what makes a great recording.

Also: Did the recording make people talk about 'around the water cooler'? Did it have a cultural impact? (I really don't like that word but is there a more fitting one? Are, were, will people still talk(ing) about it ten, twenty, thirty, fifty years after its making? Did it change the perception of a composer? Did it change the interpretative history? Or the reception of the same repertoire? (I.e. did it become the recording 'to measure all others against'?)