Debussy “Complete Works” Sets: Warner Vs. Deutsche Grammophon

[Mirror Image]

Let the battle begin!

[Brian]

I don't have either but I'd choose the Warner because it's considerably more complete and has better artwork on the sleeves.

[Mirror Image]

I don't have either but I'd choose the Warner because it's considerably more complete and has better artwork on the sleeves.

Yes, indeed. The presentation of the Warner set is quite simply gorgeous. I'd wager that the Deutsche Grammophon set has many, IMHO, 'better' performances of individual favorites, but you just can't beat the completeness of the Warner, which, ironically, was something I was kind of against initially.

[Jo498]

and has better artwork on the sleeves [than the DG].

That's a rather low bar to clear...

[Mirror Image]

That's a rather low bar to clear...

Indeed.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Yes, indeed. The presentation of the Warner set is quite simply gorgeous. I'd wager that the Deutsche Grammophon set has many, IMHO, 'better' performances of individual favorites, but you just can't beat the completeness of the Warner, which, ironically, was something I was kind of against initially.

Kind of against? I seem to remember thousands of posts about how you had no interest in the Warner set because of all of the superfluous stuff.

For the record, I have the Warner set but have spent more time with the earlier Sony set (which is not a "complete" edition). The main motivation for getting the Warner set was to have a complete collection of the Melodie from solid artists.

[asin]B006VKKAXU[/asin]

[Mirror Image]

I ended up voting for the Warner set just for it's completeness. What a remarkable achievement from Warner to compile this set and even though there are caveats to both sets, it's still a gorgeous package altogether.

[San Antone]

I have the earlier DG Debussy edition, and won't be purchasing the newer box. And the Warner box is available to stream, so I also won't be purchasing it.  But I enjoy listening to both sets since the performers are different and there are some works included with the Warner box not in the DG.

So I voted "both".

[Mirror Image]

Kind of against? I seem to remember thousands of posts about how you had no interest in the Warner set because of all of the superfluous stuff.

For the record, I have the Warner set but have spent more time with the earlier Sony set (which is not a "complete" edition). The main motivation for getting the Warner set was to have a complete collection of the Melodie from solid artists.

[asin]B006VKKAXU[/asin]

No need to overdramatize things, Scrapia. I had a change of heart. Anyway, I've come to appreciate, admire, and love all facets of Debussy's music and skill as a composer whether it be his orchestrations, his transcriptions of other composers' works, and his own compositional prowess. He really is my numero uno and it's taken me this long to realize this and just how important of an influence he has been on me. I can only think of a few composers where I enjoy almost everything they wrote. Stravinsky is certainly another one where I can enjoy almost everything I hear and gain some kind of pleasure from it.

[JBS]

I voted for both. I think overall they come out at the same level. Although 1) I am basing myself on the earlier DG box and 2) qualitywise I think the Sony box is just as good.

[Ken B]

I have the earlier DG box AND the Paul Jacobs piano stuff, plus lots of other recordings of the piano music, and the EMI melodies, so I am well set.

"Complete works" are usually a mistake I have found. There is a lot of deadwood even in Beethoven or Brahms.

[Mirror Image]

I voted for both. I think overall they come out at the same level. Although 1) I am basing myself on the earlier DG box and 2) qualitywise I think the Sony box is just as good.

Or do you mean the Warner box, which is what I based this poll from?

[Mirror Image]

I have the earlier DG box AND the Paul Jacobs piano stuff, plus lots of other recordings of the piano music, and the EMI melodies, so I am well set.

"Complete works" are usually a mistake I have found. There is a lot of deadwood even in Beethoven or Brahms.

That's an interesting viewpoint and one I don't really agree with. I have found no mistakes with either the Warner and DG sets and enjoy both immensely.

[Ken B]

That's an interesting viewpoint and one I don't really agree with. I have found no mistakes with either the Warner and DG sets

They leave out his orchestral music??

[JBS]

Or do you mean the Warner box, which is what I based this poll from?

I meant that I was taking the earlier DG box as the functional equivalent of the current one. And that the Sony box, while including less, was equal to the ones produced by the other labels.

[Mirror Image]

I meant that I was taking the earlier DG box as the functional equivalent of the current one. And that the Sony box, while including less, was equal to the ones produced by the other labels.

Ah, I see. I know many of the performances in the Sony set, but I don't know the Crossley nor do I know those two mélodies discs in the set. I wonder if Rafael owns the Sony set? Also, would love to hear his input in this thread.

[Mirror Image]

[Over supermarket intercom] Paging...Rafael...paging Rafael...your opinion on this topic would be welcomed on aisle 14.

[ritter]

[Over supermarket intercom] Paging...Rafael...paging Rafael...your opinion on this topic would be welcomed on aisle 14.

Reporting for duty!

My two-cents worth:

No, I don't own the Sony set, as it would imply too much duplication (I've owned all the Boulez recordings for decades, Casadesus, Upshaw, MTT's excellent Le martyre..., etc.), and then there's some discs I know I'd never listen to (those containing what IMHO seem like pointless arrangements—the piano pieces arranged for violin duo, or the pieces transcribed for solo harp  ).

I have the "old" DG set, and the Warner "complete". I'd agree with the notion that the former includes perhaps some more accomplished performances (although this is not always the case—e,g. Aldo Ciccolini in the piano pieces on Warner is top-notch), while the latter is more complete (and the arrangements it includes have far greater historical—and probably musical—value).

Still, I must confess I haven't listened to either of my sets in their entirety, but rather use them as a sort of repository for Debussy's music when looking for some obscure piece. When I listen to the music (which is often), I usually head to the (very many) single CDs in my collection, looking for specific performances.

In any case, I've voted both (but remember, in my case were talking of the "old", smaller DG set).

[JBS]

Reporting for duty!

My two-cents worth:

No, I don't own the Sony set, as it would imply too much duplication (I've owned all the Boulez recordings for decades, Casadesus, Upshaw, MTT's excellent Le martyre..., etc.), and then there's some discs I know I'd never listen to (those containing what IMHO seem like pointless arrangements—the piano pieces arranged for violin duo, or the pieces transcribed for solo harp  ).

I have the "old" DG set, and the Warner "complete". I'd agree with the notion that the former includes perhaps some more accomplished performances (although this is not always the case—e,g. Aldo Ciccolini in the piano pieces on Warner is top-notch), while the latter is more complete (and the arrangements it includes have far greater historical—and probably musical—value).

Still, I must confess I haven't listened to either of my sets in their entirety, but rather use them as a sort of repository for Debussy's music when looking for some obscure piece. When I listen to the music (which is often), I usually head to the (very many) single CDs in my collection, looking for specific performances.

In any case, I've voted both (but remember, in my case were talking of the "old", smaller DG set).

If it's the one I am thinking of*, the harp transcription CD is a nice one, different enough to warrant hearing, although not necessarily one for repeated listens .

*which it probably is, since there can't be that many Debussy for harp recordings.

[Mirror Image]

Reporting for duty!

My two-cents worth:

No, I don't own the Sony set, as it would imply too much duplication (I've owned all the Boulez recordings for decades, Casadesus, Upshaw, MTT's excellent Le martyre..., etc.), and then there's some discs I know I'd never listen to (those containing what IMHO seem like pointless arrangements—the piano pieces arranged for violin duo, or the pieces transcribed for solo harp  ).

I have the "old" DG set, and the Warner "complete". I'd agree with the notion that the former includes perhaps some more accomplished performances (although this is not always the case—e,g. Aldo Ciccolini in the piano pieces on Warner is top-notch), while the latter is more complete (and the arrangements it includes have far greater historical—and probably musical—value).

Still, I must confess I haven't listened to either of my sets in their entirety, but rather use them as a sort of repository for Debussy's music when looking for some obscure piece. When I listen to the music (which is often), I usually head to the (very many) single CDs in my collection, looking for specific performances.

In any case, I've voted both (but remember, in my case were talking of the "old", smaller DG set).

Thanks for the reply, Rafael. Your opinion was pretty much what I thought it was going to be: a vote for both sets. I do agree with you about the idea of the Warner set being great for more obscure works/arrangements/transcriptions/etc. Much of these rarer pieces you just can't find anywhere else.