Discussing Critical Content (written reviews, YT vlogs, podcasts etc.)

[DavidW]

Okay here is the rule for this thread.  We are discussing his YT videos and CT articles ONLY and not the man.  What you think positive or negative about say his recent review of Grumiaux' Mozart set.  BUT... not HOW he says it, or what you think of him as a person.  Just agree or disagree like you would any poster here.

If DH riles you up, go to the David Hurwitz thread and vent your spleen.

I've done the same thing with the audiophile thread, and it has worked fairly well.  I know this can work too.  That means that ranting about Hurwitz in this thread is trolling.  This is not the thread for that.

But also I think a wider umbrella would also be nice.  He is not the only classical music critic.  Any review or YT video you wish to discuss, these would be a good place for it.

[Daverz]

There doesn't seem to be anyone doing reviews with anything close to Hurwitz's breadth, but perhaps The Algorithm has failed me here.  (I get a lot of classical vinyl channels coming into my feed, and I always mark those "Not Interested" sight unseen.  I mean, just get over it already.)

The only other music channel I'm subscribed to is Samuel Andreyev, who mostly does interviews and musical analysis, but he did recommend some late Stravinsky CDs:

CD recommendations are at about 31:40.  I also recommend his interviews with Julian Anderson, a really interesting guy.

[Karl Henning]

Berlioz's Te Deum is one of his largest works--not quite the extravaganza that he made of the Requiem, with its 4 brass bands and 16 timpanists, but big enough! It requires three choruses, an augmented orchestra, and solo organ. The opening measures, in which the orchestra and organ alternate in throwing huge chords out into space, were made for a cathedral acoustic such is offered here. Unfortunately, that's about the best part of this performance, which takes on a distinctly amateurish cast from there on. The various choruses are simply not up to the demands of the piece (they are utterly defeated by the warlike Judex crederis, just when they should sound strongest), and the conducting, which has to simply blaze with conviction, seems more concerned with simply getting through a tough job. Yet there are no other recordings of this work readily available in the domestic catalog, and this will give you a sense of what the piece is about--but certainly no more than that.

Hopefully, you, the reader, will have moved past the unfairly negative editorial review by David Hurwitz and on to this one, and to the one by urcrewer below mine, someone who participated in the performance captured in this recording. The performance, and the recording as well, are far, far better than Mr. Hurwitz would have you believe.

I have had the pleasure of attending many musical performances in "Big John" (an affectionate nickname for the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, and the world's largest Gothic cathedral). Even with a full crowd (which I believe is in excess of 3,000 not counting standees), its reverberation time is approximately seven seconds, which can be a challenge to not only musicians but to a recording crew as well. But the Delos crew - one of the finest in the industry - was more than up to the task of capturing not only this remarkable Berlioz work but a good deal of the natural Big John acoustic ambience in truly lifelike sound.

Hector Berlioz, a "sui generis" composer if ever there were one, wrote this Te Deum as an "occasion piece" with the idea in mind that it would (and should) be performed in a cathedral, not a concert hall. For its full impact, it fairly cries out for the antiphonal sounds of the full orchestra and the pipe organ to provide a "call and response" at various points in the work (most prominently at the beginning and end, but elsewhere as well). This antiphonal intent of Berlioz simply cannot be realized in a concert hall - no matter how fine the organ - if the organ itself is not antiphonally disposed, as it can only be in a proper cathedral.

The occasion for this performance, as is well spelled out in the booklet notes but totally ignored by Mr. Hurwitz, was the 100th anniversary celebration of the American Guild of Organists, which meets each year in Big John. In honor of that event, and to show off the musical and acoustical possibilities of Big John as a performance and recording venue for a work of this size, some person or persons had the foresight and the imagination to choose this Berlioz work as being perfect for the occasion. And perfect it is.

Largely because of its performance requirements, Berlioz' Te Deum is infrequently performed, and even more infrequently recorded. But the Te Deum is not minor Berlioz (whatever could be called "minor" Berlioz, anyway?) but a mature, fully thought-out work. All of the forces required - choruses, orchestra, brass bands, organ, and John Aler as the tenor soloist - are fully up to the task and acquit themselves very well in a work, had it been performed under less idea circumstances, and/or recorded with less skill, would likely have turned out to be sonic mush. But this is a recording to revel in. And a pretty fair test of your sound system.

A nice bonus on this disc is the illustrated discussion by Dennis Keene. It complements the performance and perfectly fills out the available time.

I have only one quibble, and it is a very minor one. For this performance, Maestro Keene - of course having every right to do so - elicited the services of an organist who, while excellent, was not the Big John organist, Dorothy Papadakos. Having heard Ms. Papadakos many times, and believing her to be more than up to the task, I wonder why not? Particularly since it has been on her watch that this very fine Aeolian-Skinner organ has been restored to its earlier glory.

[Daverz]

Were there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997?  The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.

Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:

BERLIOZ Te Deum, op. 22. • Dennis Keene, conductor; Mark Kruczek, organ; John Aler, tenor; Young Singers of Pennsylvania (Susan Ohrt and Joseph Ohrt, chorus director); Voices of Ascension Chorus & Orchestra; Bonus track: Spoken Commentary by Dennis Keene . • DELOS DE 3200 [DDD]; 49:26, commentary 22:55. Produced by Amelia S. Haygood, Carol Rosenberger (executive producers), and Ramiro Belgart (recording producer). LIVE performance: July 1996.

The main event of the American Guild of Organists' centennial celebration in July of last year, this splendid performance is radiant with a sense of occasion and animated by conductor Dennis Keene's loving divination—evident in his fine, extensive liner notes—which projects with equal assurance the work's hushed mystery and its colossal grandeur. Captured in Delos's "Virtual Reality" Dolby Surround Sound, the spaciousness of New York's Cathedral of St. John the Divine leaves the quieter moments and John Aler's fervent Te ergo quaesumus hovering—glowingly, transparently, movingly—in the distance, but a distance awesomely filled at climaxes and almost overflowing in the mounting tension of the Judex crederis. Magnificent. Overwhelming. Of the total disc time of 72:36, nearly twenty-three minutes are given over to Keene reading his notes with appropriate passages from the performance in the background, a smooth, illuminating, even inspiring presentation that brings to mind Bernard van Dieren's observation that "Our participation has been devitalized by the trouble that is taken for us. Personal zest disappears when we become too well informed." Moreover, in the music appreciation rush the Prelude and a concluding Call to the Colors have once again been ignored. Though not on the same exalted plane as the body of the Te Deum, they are an effective part of its ceremonial character, framing its sublimities, and, given the superb pacing of the present performance, which sweeps by like a visionary flicker, would have added a measure of perspective (as they do to the Inbal performance, the only recording to include them—Denon 81757 614 2, Fanfare 14:3). Enthusiastically recommended, anyway.

Adrian Corleonis

[Karl Henning]

Were there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997?  The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.

Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:

Excellent review! It was an early-ish Berlioz purchase of mine.

[Brian]

Were there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997?  The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.

Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:

Abbado on DG was recorded in the early 1980s - although it also uses not fully professional musicians and Nelson is my preference. I was just going through my collection today, thinking about donating or selling the Abbado performance.

[Mookalafalas]

Liked Dave's nice review of the David Zinman box set. Our old (and long gone) friend Ken really liked Zinman, and I saw his box set on sale for an insanely low sum and snapped it up. That was...several years ago. And, sad to say, I never played a disk from it. Not one. No one mentions Zinman, and it just disappeared into my stack of boxes.
   Anyway, Dave's "tempered-rave" of the set put it back on my radar. I think I'll start giving it a spin...
      He basically likes all of his core repertoire (and this box has a lot of core rep symphony cyles, with some cool exceptions) , except for the Mahler. His criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
   A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
    B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
  In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.

https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Liked Dave's nice review of the David Zinman box set. Our old (and long gone) friend Ken really liked Zinman, and I saw his box set on sale for an insanely low sum and snapped it up. That was...several years ago. And, sad to say, I never played a disk from it. Not one. No one mentions Zinman, and it just disappeared into my stack of boxes.
   Anyway, Dave's "tempered-rave" of the set put it back on my radar. I think I'll start giving it a spin...
      He basically likes all of his core repertoire (and this box has a lot of core rep symphony cyles, with some cool exceptions) , except for the Mahler. His criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
   A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
    B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
  In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.

https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV

Boy, I think that the only David Zinman CD that I own is a Barber one (with the Adagio, etc.) on Argo?  Actually, I'm fairly certain that I also own another Barber one (with Dawn Upshaw).

[Brian]

He argues that with Mahler you either have to
   A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
    B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
  In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.

Hmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.

[Luke]

Hmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.

Thanks for this, it captures my reactions well. I love those Czech readings a great deal, and this is exactly why.

[Karl Henning]

Hmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.

A good dissent to what on its face is rather a facile duality. 

[DavidW]

His criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
  A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
    B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
  In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.

https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV

But two of his favorite sets are Kubelik and Bertini which do neither of the two! 

For my money I think that Zinman's Mahler is underrated.  It has a lower volume level which I think made people (perhaps including DH) subconsciously equate that with dull.  But crank the volume, and you have something sumptuous and fairly unique.  If you like for example the Mandelring Quartet and their more harmonious, melodic approach to music playing... that is kind of like the feeling that Zinman's Mahler conveys, and as it is fairly unique, and I think it definitely has its place out there in the Mahler recording sphere.

Mahler doesn't need to be high octane or some kind of transparent lens on proto-modernism.  That is just overthinking it.  I think sometimes we forget that when Mahler was first performed Leonard Bernstein and Pierre Boulez were not even alive.  We've kind of allowed the history of recordings we have imprinted on to build a false narrative of what a correct or right or in good taste recording should sound like.  Especially in DH's case where he dismisses any attempts at PI Mahler out of turn (not Zinman, I'm just mentioning this).

[DavidW]

Boy, I think that the only David Zinman CD that I own is a Barber one (with the Adagio, etc.) on Argo?  Actually, I'm fairly certain that I also own another Barber one (with Dawn Upshaw).

Time to fix this!  Gorecki's third, Beethoven's symphonies, and Schumann's symphonies.  Get on it PD!!!!    

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Time to fix this!  Gorecki's third, Beethoven's symphonies, and Schumann's symphonies.  Get on it PD!!!!    

Ah!  Thank you!  I had forgotten that Gorecki symphony (also with Upshaw); I do own (and have played) that one! 

Don't have any of his Beethoven and Schumann though.  Are those also with Baltimore?  I do however have Schumann/Kubelik recordings. 

[Spotted Horses]

Ah!  Thank you!  I had forgotten that Gorecki symphony (also with Upshaw); I do own (and have played) that one! 

Don't have any of his Beethoven and Schumann though.  Are those also with Baltimore?  I do however have Schumann/Kubelik recordings. 

I recall liking his Schumann symphonies with Baltimore on Telarc.

[Roasted Swan]

Abbado on DG was recorded in the early 1980s - although it also uses not fully professional musicians and Nelson is my preference. I was just going through my collection today, thinking about donating or selling the Abbado performance.

To say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description.  The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers.  Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.

[Mookalafalas]

  Nice comments. Good thread 

[Brian]

To say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description.  The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers.  Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.

I'll be honest: I only said that because I forgot which orchestra it was and was too lazy to look   

No disrespect intended, but of course disrespect done by the negligence!

[Mookalafalas]

To say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description.  The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers.  Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.

I'm a bit confused. If some members are students, nominally or not, isn't it by definition "not fully professional"? Professional doesn't mean "excellent;" it means you earn your living by performing an activity...anyway, sorry to quibble   I'm an English teacher

[Roasted Swan]

I'm a bit confused. If some members are students, nominally or not, isn't it by definition "not fully professional"? Professional doesn't mean "excellent;" it means you earn your living by performing an activity...anyway, sorry to quibble   I'm an English teacher

To me there is an implication behind the use of that phrase which has to do with executional excellence.  You are of course correct - if somebody is paid £1 to play their kazoo on a street corner they could claim to be a professional kazoo player.  In this case I happen to know both the mentioned versions of the Berlioz Te Deum well and while there might be disagreements in terms of interpretative preferences I would challenge anyone to be able to choose between the two on grounds of the actual playing.....