Preferred version of Brahms Symphony #1

[DrakeBala513]

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

That's a useful model.

[Madiel]

There's nothing wrong with suggestions, it's only problematic if you accept the review at the cost of divergent thoughts, for whatever motivation.

It's pretty rare to meet anyone who, once actually experiencing stuff for themselves, doesn't express their own opinion on it rather than the opinion of the reviewer.

The bigger problem in my view is that some people falsely reason that if your opinion is the SAME as the reviewer's opinion, it can't be your own. Which is nonsense. Some people are so obsessed with the notion of independent thought that they reject the possibility that a lot of people can find the same thing good or bad.

Years ago I met a guy who would stop listening to any band that he liked as soon as it became popular. That's divergent thought for the sake of it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Certainly they can. I'm just indicating that I wouldn't engage further with him on the topic of critics, when the whole point of my original comment was that engaging with him on that would be fruitless.

And that's true too.

[DrakeBala513]

It's pretty rare to meet anyone who, once actually experiencing stuff for themselves, doesn't express their own opinion on it rather than the opinion of the reviewer.

The bigger problem in my view is that some people falsely reason that if your opinion is the SAME as the reviewer's opinion, it can't be your own. Which is nonsense. Some people are so obsessed with the notion of independent thought that they reject the possibility that a lot of people can find the same thing good or bad.

Years ago I met a guy who would stop listening to any band that he liked as soon as it became popular. That's divergent thought for the sake of it.

It's been my observation that many folks in mainstream culture, at least, cave to groupthink.

[DrakeBala513]

It's pretty rare to meet anyone who, once actually experiencing stuff for themselves, doesn't express their own opinion on it rather than the opinion of the reviewer.

The bigger problem in my view is that some people falsely reason that if your opinion is the SAME as the reviewer's opinion, it can't be your own. Which is nonsense. Some people are so obsessed with the notion of independent thought that they reject the possibility that a lot of people can find the same thing good or bad.

Years ago I met a guy who would stop listening to any band that he liked as soon as it became popular. That's divergent thought for the sake of it.

It's unlikely to share all the same bullet points of artistic evaluation.

[Belle]

I agree with those who state critics aren't as important as first personal evaluations.

Comparing your conclusions to others is far more intellectual than deriving your ideas from others, that's like sheep mentality.

Authoritative critics can teach us all what to look or listen for.  Most 'first personal evaluations' go something like this:  "I didn't like it;  it sucked".  Good criticism can provide us with the necessary tools to evaluate and to take it from there!!  Why else would "Literary Criticism" be included in an English degree?

[Madiel]

It's been my observation that many folks in mainstream culture, at least, cave to groupthink.

Well you are pretty much making my point for me by referencing "mainstream" culture. A lot of people in the "mainstream"... have similar opinions?

Did you truly think about what the word "mainstream" MEANS before writing that? What's next, observing that over 50% of people vote the same way as the majority?

While art is never wholly objective, I find the opposite proposition that it's wholly subjective to fly in the face of all the evidence that reactions and opinions tend to clump. Attributing that to "groupthink" is just an attempt to deny that things like bell curves tend to exist.

[Belle]

Today I was at the dentist and had a long appointment, so I continued reading my Max Steiner biography.  I came across the passage where Max was explaining his rationale for writing in a particular way his score for "They Died With Their Boots On" - the story of General Custer - in 1941.  Max observed that really intelligent people listen to film music and the same audience contains those who aren't intelligent.  He commented that there had to be something more for the former group to listen to after the film was finished.  An excellent example of critical analysis of what it takes to appeal to mass audiences. 

[Belle]

Is this Klemperer recording of the Brahms Symphony No. 1 too leaden and slow?

I finally had a chance to listen to the Levine/Vienna recording, and it's a real banger of a performance in the Toscanini mold, but with much better sonics.  I have not had a chance to compare it to the Chicago recording.

I couldn't find the name of the orchestra that Klemperer was conducting for the Brahms #1.  It is a tad slow for me, I have to say.  Klemperer confused slow tempi with magisterial outcomes, in my opinion.  I have his Deutsches Requiem and I'm afraid I just can't listen to it anymore.  Though it is a requiem I don't think it needs to lead to torpor with ultra dense textures, resulting in pomposity.  One can appeal to the worst excesses of Brahms by taking this approach, IMO.

[Philo]

My favorite version of this symphony is Barenboim on Erato:

[Mandryka]

I think I've endured too many anodyne performances of the Brahms #1 in the past, ergo this thread.  Those historic performances are often very enlightening, whilst our modern ones can often be the opposite - outstanding though some of the playing undoubtedly is!!

A good recent histrionic one is Adam Fischer /Danish

For a very satisfying and totally non-histrionic one, try Barbirolli with the VPO.

[prémont]

Reviews exist to save time.

Critics exist on the assumption that very few recordings are worth your time. Taking critics seriously you run the risk of missing valuable recordings that critics don't like. It also ignores the fact that most recordings, despite their flaws, large or small, contain something valuable. So rather than owning one or two critically acclaimed recordings which I listen to over and over again of the same work, I prefer to own and listen to many different recordings which allow me to see (and hear) the work in question from many different angles.

[Madiel]

Critics exist on the assumption that very few recordings are worth your time. Taking critics seriously you run the risk of missing valuable recordings that critics don't like. It also ignores the fact that most recordings, despite their flaws, large or small, contain something valuable. So rather than owning one or two critically acclaimed recordings which I listen to over and over again of the same work, I prefer to own and listen to many different recordings which allow me to see (and hear) the work in question from many different angles.

Great. And exactly what percentage of your waking day do you devote to listening to music?

Presto Classical has 553 listings for releases in the past month. Admittedly, a proportion of those will be reissues but I've no idea what the proportion is.

Classical is of course only a small percentage of the music market.

The assumption is not that very few recordings are worth your time. The assumption is that the available supply far exceeds that time.

If you devote large amounts of time to the project AND your focus is incredibly specific, that assumption might not hold. But as I said earlier, one of the reasons that I don't wish to listen to 57 different available recordings of a work is so that I have time to listen to other works, and I only have so much of my day to listen to music. I also have a curated queue of TV shows to watch, and movies I'm interested in. And I battle my podcast queue like you wouldn't believe.

Also, I have a job. Where I do listen to music, but most often I do the popular music stuff there.

I continue to find it fascinating how critics get this kind of response, yet amateur listeners don't. People here are regularly giving recommendations or asking for them (like this very thread), and in general I've yet to see responses along the line of "giving recommendations is based on an assumption that very few recordings are worth your time". You yourself listed just 4 recordings of the Brahms 1st. I would have assumed that was on the basis that you found those recordings more worthwhile than the myriad others. Maybe that doesn't mean you think the others are NOT worthwhile, but it does mean that, with limited time and in your case a more limited appetite for Brahms, these are the recordings you go to rather than making a random selection or deciding you must listen to every recording ever released.

[DrakeBala513]

Well you are pretty much making my point for me by referencing "mainstream" culture. A lot of people in the "mainstream"... have similar opinions?

Did you truly think about what the word "mainstream" MEANS before writing that? What's next, observing that over 50% of people vote the same way as the majority?

While art is never wholly objective, I find the opposite proposition that it's wholly subjective to fly in the face of all the evidence that reactions and opinions tend to clump. Attributing that to "groupthink" is just an attempt to deny that things like bell curves tend to exist.

I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make here.

[DrakeBala513]

It's wiser to just dive in and explore recordings blindly and develop your own opinions. 

No one says you have to listen to any specific number of interpretations.

Getting suggestions is ok.

[Belle]

My favorite version of this symphony is Barenboim on Erato:

Thank you, I'll check it out.

[prémont]

Great. And exactly what percentage of your waking day do you devote to listening to music?

Presto Classical has 553 listings for releases in the past month. Admittedly, a proportion of those will be reissues but I've no idea what the proportion is.

Classical is of course only a small percentage of the music market.

The assumption is not that very few recordings are worth your time. The assumption is that the available supply far exceeds that time.

If you devote large amounts of time to the project AND your focus is incredibly specific, that assumption might not hold. But as I said earlier, one of the reasons that I don't wish to listen to 57 different available recordings of a work is so that I have time to listen to other works, and I only have so much of my day to listen to music. I also have a curated queue of TV shows to watch, and movies I'm interested in. And I battle my podcast queue like you wouldn't believe.

Also, I have a job. Where I do listen to music, but most often I do the popular music stuff there.

I continue to find it fascinating how critics get this kind of response, yet amateur listeners don't. People here are regularly giving recommendations or asking for them (like this very thread), and in general I've yet to see responses along the line of "giving recommendations is based on an assumption that very few recordings are worth your time". You yourself listed just 4 recordings of the Brahms 1st. I would have assumed that was on the basis that you found those recordings more worthwhile than the myriad others. Maybe that doesn't mean you think the others are NOT worthwhile, but it does mean that, with limited time and in your case a more limited appetite for Brahms, these are the recordings you go to rather than making a random selection or deciding you must listen to every recording ever released.

Professional critics have a greater responsibility to make solid and more objective recommendations than amateurs who have only heard a few recordings and only mention a few recordings that they like. But in actually professional critics are no different. They are largely guided by their subjective taste and have often only heard relatively few different recordings of the works they are discussing. Some of them admit this in their reviews. But many of them appear far too authoritarian in relation to their amount of listening. You can't be omniscient in all areas, but that's how they want to appear. But the truth is that a large number of recordings of every work are worthy of recommendation. That's why I think professional reviewers simplify things.

I limit myself to listening to as much as possible of everything within a relatively few musical genres that particularly interest me. This is of course due to the time factor, but then I also get a more thorough knowledge in these areas. As you know, I am particularly interested in early music, to which I count the Baroque. I have not been particularly interested in Brahms, and the four recordings I mentioned are just four recordings that are to my taste, and I'm not claiming that there are no others that could be just as good - or better. Just like when it's about the critics, taste is a pivotal factor.

[Madiel]

I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make here.

That by definition, people in the mainstream have the same views as a lot of other people. If they didn't think the same as other people in the mainstream... they wouldn't be in the mainstream.

Groupthink is what happens in cults.

[Madiel]

Professional critics have a greater responsibility to make solid and more objective recommendations than amateurs who have only heard a few recordings and only mention a few recordings that they like. But in actually professional critics are no different. They are largely guided by their subjective taste and have often only heard relatively few different recordings of the works they are discussing. Some of them admit this in their reviews. But many of them appear far too authoritarian in relation to their amount of listening. You can't be omniscient in all areas, but that's how they want to appear. But the truth is that a large number of recordings of every work are worthy of recommendation. That's why I think professional reviewers simplify things.

I limit myself to listening to as much as possible of everything within a relatively few musical genres that particularly interest me. This is of course due to the time factor, but then I also get a more thorough knowledge in these areas. As you know, I am particularly interested in early music, to which I count the Baroque. I have not been particularly interested in Brahms, and the four recordings I mentioned are just four recordings that are to my taste, and I'm not claiming that there are no others that could be just as good - or better. Just like when it's about the critics, taste is a pivotal factor.

Critics are different, precisely because they (1) spend more time, and (2) are not just catering for you personally and your particular interests. Of course you can know more than a critic about the particular sub-sub-niche that you care about the most. But they know more than you about all the other things you're not interested in and don't care about much.

I am so tired of having the exact same conversations on this forum's particular variation of the modern rejection of expertise. So I'm done here.

[prémont]

Critics are different, precisely because they (1) spend more time, and (2) are not just catering for you personally and your particular interests. Of course you can know more than a critic about the particular sub-sub-niche that you care about the most. But they know more than you about all the other things you're not interested in and don't care about much.

You nicely sum up the reasons why I don't listen to critics much.
They ought to specialize more, making them able to give more informed advises.