What are you listening to now?

[aligreto]

Prokofiev: Symphony No. 4, 1930 version [Kitajenko]





I really like this version of this work for its musical language and the textures resulting from its scoring as well as its wonderful harmony and counterpoint. The second movement is particularly appealing with its wood winds initially singing out with those disconcerting lower register strings; all making for wonderful, atmospheric music. The harmonies in this movement are particularly intriguing and absorbing; a really wonderful movement. The second movement also benefits from those beguiling wood winds; the third movement scherzo like movement flits about in a very appealingly refined way. The two outer, more assertive and dramatic movements contrast very well with the magical like inner movements and this leads to great balance to my ear. This is a very compelling work.

[Karl Henning]

Gandolfi
The Garden of Cosmic Speculation
Part III
xiii. Fractal Terrace
xiv. The Jumping Bridge
xv. The Quark Walk
xvi. The Nonsense
ASO
Spano

[Zeus]

Sances: Dialoghi Amorosi
Scherzi Musicali
Ricercar

[asin] B076LF4HND[/asin]


also...

Scott: Chamber Works
Gould Piano Trio, et al.
Chandos

[asin] B002VFCE8I[/asin]

[aligreto]

Playing,now. The Wyn Morris Beethoven cycle continues. Dubbed the "Welsh Furtwangler". There was a time when you seemed to find these IMP cd's in places like Woolworths and WH Smiths. I like André's description of Wyn Morris'  conducting. "A potent mix of big, bold playing, allied to interpretive gruffness. Splendidly recorded, too". Very fiery. Yet,I like the more serene passages in the Sixth symphony. I think Wyn Morris could have been a much more famous conductor? (We'll never know!) His biographies and obituaries make very interesting reading. His personality seems to have been as gruff and fiery as his Beethoven. He seems to have destroyed his own career by rubbing everyone up the wrong way. He also got some publicity,I remember,for getting Margaret Thatcher to narrate a recording of Copland's Lincoln Portrait. I don't want to get into politics here,but I think I will give that one a miss! Some of the Beethoven cd's can be found very cheaply,indeed. I'd recommend trying,say,the cd of 4 & 5 or 7 & 8,first (you get two for your money) but No 3 is often very cheap. Leave No 6,to last,maybe? Collect that one if you warm to his approach? You can also get a box set,I believe? I've got the original cd's. There does seem to be a renewal of interest in his work,recently. His conducting got rave reviews and critical acclaim at the time. It was all downhill,then! The only Mahler recording I have by him is of No 5. I like that very much. I remember the s/h cd I bought had scratches and scuff marks all over it,but always seems to play! There does seem to be a bit of a renewal of interest in his conducting,lately. Most of the comments I've read are very positive. I have read that he used modern orchestras,but had a HIP approach. I wouldn't know about that;but I like what I'm hearing!

I was intrigued enough by Cilgwyn's recent posts on Beethoven to enter this particular realm. Contrary to Cilgwyn's advice my personal preference is to opt for Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony first when I encounter a new [to me] interpreter. The reason is that I have been listening to this work since my [distant] early teens and I still love every minute of it. I had mentioned that I have a few works by Mahler under Morris which I enjoy so I thought that I would give his Beethoven a go starting with this one. On first listen I am very pleased with what I have heard. Yes it is assertive and buoyant music making but it is also very lyrical and captures the essence of the work for me; the key points in it [for me] stand up very well indeed. The question now is do I really need another Beethoven Symphonic cycle? Based on what I have heard here the answer is yes I think that I just might. I will certainly investigate further.

[Malx]

Kancheli Styx - Yuri Bashmet, Orchestra of the Mariinsky Theatre, Valery Gergiev.

This work is growing on me - its possible my earlier apathetic response to the piece was due to some degree to the lack of quality of the sound from Spotify (free). I now have the disc and listening now I feel the entire piece sounds as if it has a greater coherence than on previous occasions.
The choral lines and orchestral parts are much easier to follow and form a better whole.

[prémont]

An extremely impressive performance of JSB's 6th cello suite by Rocco Filippini, original and inspired. The lean, taut, grey-shaded, muscular sound is extraordinary. Magisterial, restrained, engaged. Discovered this morning, I've been bowled over by it all day.

Sounds promising. Unfortunately I have to wait a week for the item I ordered to arrive.

[Kontrapunctus]

A stunning live recording (December 25, 1957) of a Bach-Busoni recital by Grigory Ginzberg, which was the first half of the concert. I have no idea why they didn't include the second half and make it a 2-CD set. The sound is not great--rather distant and in mono--but the playing is incredible. The main downside is the horrific coughing! I hope the one gentleman who chose quiet spots in which to erupt sought medical attention after the concert.

[Mahlerian]

So in short: YOU select one quote to put in your signature, and when I refer to it, you declare it's not a good representation of Schoenberg's views?

That's....not what I said.  I think it represents Schoenberg's views just fine.

See the problem there? If I'd lifted something it would be legitimate to argue it was out of context or not representative. But I am simply using the text that YOU chose, and now you tell me the text is no good.

I didn't say that either.  I explained the purpose for the use of this particular quote, and also the context in which I thought it should be interpreted.

See also: http://fallacyfiles.org/existent.html

I think we should end it there.

It would have helped if you read what I wrote before you responded to it, especially seeing as this conversation started with you ridiculing me for not understanding a quote I chose.  You still haven't explained how it contradicts any view I hold or have ever held.

[Mahlerian]

Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor, Piano Concerto No. 4 in G
Murray Perahia, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, cond. Haitink


Machaut: Motets (Disc 1)
Musica Nova
[asin]B004V4GXY8[/asin]

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Brahms, Paik. Quality combo.

[Daverz]

24/96 FLACs from chandos.net:

[asin] B01LXZUHOE[/asin]

I don't believe I've heard Panambi with a choral contribution before.  PC #2 is not as exciting as PC #1, but it may hold more interest over time.

On a Rawsthorne jag:

Symphony No. 1:

[asin] B000025ZJW[/asin]

Cello Concerto, probably my single favorite Rawsthorne work.

[asin] B000050XA3[/asin]

And now the Violin Concerto No. 1:

[asin] B000009CJN[/asin]

Clarinet Concerto:

[asin] B06XT5D4SN[/asin]

[Que]

Morning listening:

[asin]B0072A4HIW[/asin]
First Book of Psalms (1604)

Q

[Que]

More Dutch music:

[asin]B004QRUJGI[/asin]
Q

PS I was wondering about Alessandro Simonetto and whether Brilliant Classics had any plans with him.

This what I found:
Mattheson, J.: 12 Suites (Complete Harpsichord Works) - Brilliant Classics BC95588 [2CD] (to be released in May 2018)
Paradies, D.: 12 Sonatas (Complete Harpsichord Works) - Brilliant Classics (to be released in 2019)

[cilgwyn]

I know some people can't stand Peter Pears' singing;but I quite like him in Britten or in those old recordings of folk songs. He's also okay in that old recording of The Fairy Queen;which is a favourite of mine,even though it's not exactly HIP! I'm not so keen on him in other composers,though!! And he has got a wierd (strangled?!) way of singing! It's always hard not to recall Dudley Moore's very funny impersonation! Incidentally,when I was watching Dudley Moore on Youtube a few months ago,"doing" Peter Pears,I came across videos of Victor Borge. I'd forgotten just how good he was!! A very funny man. The piano stool safety belt is still funny. A pity there isn't a really good dvd compilation! Anyway,I digress!! I like Facade. Peter Pears is a poor substitute for Constant Lambert here;but Dame Edith Sitwell more than makes up for his failings here! I noticed a review on Amazon which dismissed Pears' renditions of folk songs as being ridiculously posh,and,presumably,not authentic enough?!! Well,there I was thinking poor,country people sang like that?!!

[cilgwyn]

I was intrigued enough by Cilgwyn's recent posts on Beethoven to enter this particular realm. Contrary to Cilgwyn's advice my personal preference is to opt for Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony first when I encounter a new [to me] interpreter. The reason is that I have been listening to this work since my [distant] early teens and I still love every minute of it. I had mentioned that I have a few works by Mahler under Morris which I enjoy so I thought that I would give his Beethoven a go starting with this one. On first listen I am very pleased with what I have heard. Yes it is assertive and buoyant music making but it is also very lyrical and captures the essence of the work for me; the key points in it [for me] stand up very well indeed. The question now is do I really need another Beethoven Symphonic cycle? Based on what I have heard here the answer is yes I think that I just might. I will certainly investigate further.

Yes,I should have just said,pick your favourite symphony! It's pretty obvious,really! If you don't like that,you won't like the others!!! I'm glad you've enjoyed listening to it!   And they're usually very cheap s/h!!

[cilgwyn]

Oh dear,three posts in a row......but here goes!!! On,now! This 2 cd set arrived this morning! The finale of Walton conducting his First,at the moment. I also enjoyed the,equally thrilling,imho, performance of Belshazzar's Feast. I've only recently really got into Walton. I did know his music before;it just hadn't really "clicked" with me. Not that I hated it; I was just more into some other British composers. I'm hooked now!

[Madiel]

You still haven't explained how it contradicts any view I hold or have ever held.

The reason I said we should end it there is because I've quite frankly given up on/lost interest in understanding exactly what views you hold. Conversations with you on these topics are not enlightening in my experience.

Apart from having appointed yourself Defender of Schoenberg. Which is why I reacted the way I did initially to your response on the op.25 Suite. Your previous incarnations of "Defender of Schoenberg" have left me wary, because (among other things) you've convinced yourself that atonal is a perjorative term and I was one of the people who had to explain some time ago that I don't use it as a perjorative term. That when I use it, there isn't the invisible word "crap" hovering after it.

When I expressed that I was nonplussed after listening to the Rosen recording of op.25, it felt inevitable that it was you, of all members, who felt the need to tell me that the Suite was a great piece. I note that what you did not do was offer any suggestion as to a better recording to listen to so that I could hear for myself what the piece sounded like when well-performed. It felt as if I was supposed to accept that the Suite was great because Thou, Defender of Schoenberg (and marked as such by the quote you added to your signature) had declared it so.

Whereas other people did offer alternative suggestions. In case you missed it, I listened to Pollini's recording and found myself appreciating the piece quite a bit more.

Schoenberg doesn't need defending from me. I wouldn't be steadily working my way through all the opus numbers if I wasn't genuinely interested in his music. And maybe you aren't aware of the effect that you have, but past conversations have left me with the impression that not responding positively to a Schoenberg work or performance carries a risk of censure.

THREAD DUTY: Shostakovich, Symphony No.8

[asin]B003DQWPEM[/asin]

[Florestan]

maybe you aren't aware of the effect that you have

One such effect is that I can't stand a certain photo of Mahler. 

[Mahlerian]

The reason I said we should end it there is because I've quite frankly given up on/lost interest in understanding exactly what views you hold. Conversations with you on these topics are not enlightening in my experience.

Apart from having appointed yourself Defender of Schoenberg.

This was never my intent.  I am fascinated by some of the issues surrounding Schoenberg, in addition to his music, and others frequently bring these things up.  I don't routinely start these discussions, you notice.  You specifically started this back-and-forth about atonality.  Like I said, the word means nothing to me, and I would just as soon never have a discussion about it again, because it's not nearly as interesting as other things, like the harmonic and melodic properties of Schoenberg's music, for instance.

Which is why I reacted the way I did initially to your response on the op.25 Suite. Your previous incarnations of "Defender of Schoenberg" have left me wary, because (among other things) you've convinced yourself that atonal is a perjorative term and I was one of the people who had to explain some time ago that I don't use it as a perjorative term. That when I use it, there isn't the invisible word "crap" hovering after it.

When I expressed that I was nonplussed after listening to the Rosen recording of op.25, it felt inevitable that it was you, of all members, who felt the need to tell me that the Suite was a great piece. I note that what you did not do was offer any suggestion as to a better recording to listen to so that I could hear for myself what the piece sounded like when well-performed. It felt as if I was supposed to accept that the Suite was great because Thou, Defender of Schoenberg (and marked as such by the quote you added to your signature) had declared it so.

Whereas other people did offer alternative suggestions. In case you missed it, I listened to Pollini's recording and found myself appreciating the piece quite a bit more.

You didn't ask for alternative versions.  You simply said "meh," and I pointed out that I disagreed and thought that, if you wanted to return to the piece, you could find a lot more there to enjoy.  I did not intend to criticize your reaction or declare by fiat that you could not dislike the Suite, and if I implied that in any way, it is my own fault, I am sure.

I don't generally like offering other people alternative versions for things, because I feel that preferences for given interpretations tend to be more subjective than discussions about a composition.  I couldn't presume to know what you would react most positively to, and I would feel personally responsible if I directed you to something you ended up not enjoying.

Schoenberg doesn't need defending from me. I wouldn't be steadily working my way through all the opus numbers if I wasn't genuinely interested in his music. And maybe you aren't aware of the effect that you have, but past conversations have left me with the impression that not responding positively to a Schoenberg work or performance carries a risk of censure.

I hold no power over others here.  If I say that I disagree and ask others to defend their views, it is a sign of respect for another person's rationality and humanity, in the faith that other posters here are mature adults who are able to understand and talk through differences, who think that music is meaningful as I do.  If I did not have respect for others, I might simply declare my own opinions as law and find a way to enforce them, but I would never do any such thing.  I recognize that my perspective is limited, and it is better for me to learn from others than to imagine my knowledge complete.

[Karl Henning]

One such effect is that I can't stand a certain photo of Mahler. 

Uh-oh: the Poju/Elgar Effect all over again??!!  0:)