Recordings That You Are Considering

[Renfield]

I strongly recommend this one.

For the music, too. Excellent playing all around.

(Sonatas of Miaskovsky and Rachmaninov, plus shorter works by the other three MI mentions.)

You meant these ones?

Alright, I'll take the left one and-

Wait. Yes, the music. Interesting, actually, since I've not heard Rach's chamber work, and Miaskovsky is always fascinating.

[Brian]

Actually my old MusicWeb review of that CD mentioned the cover: "Warner's previous recital CDs for Cedille and Bridge did not seem to feature photographs as sexualized as these.... Is this the only way to sell Miaskovsky? I hope not."

[Lethevich]

Actually my old MusicWeb review of that CD mentioned the cover: "Warner’s previous recital CDs for Cedille and Bridge did not seem to feature photographs as sexualized as these.... Is this the only way to sell Miaskovsky? I hope not."

I agree, some discs scream "do not buy" and this is one of them, regardless of the musical content (it's a cool programme though).

[DavidW]

[asin]B003T68VKI[/asin]

Not to mention their beautiful shoulders, arms and hands. 

Caption: watch us play together.

[DavidRoss]

Actually my old MusicWeb review of that CD mentioned the cover: "Warner's previous recital CDs for Cedille and Bridge did not seem to feature photographs as sexualized as these.... Is this the only way to sell Miaskovsky? I hope not."

To me there is nothing sexualized about this photo.  The performers are tastefully dressed in appropriate concert performance attire, they are not made up to look like hookers, they are sitting upright and not lounging on a bed or sofa, and neither is eating a banana or smoking a cigar.

Warner and Nuzova just happen to be two women who are very attractive and whose direct gaze into the camera lens bespeaks confidence that some of us find sexually appealing.  In other words, they may be sexy, but this photo is not sexualized.

[Bulldog]

To me there is nothing sexualized about this photo.  The performers are tastefully dressed in appropriate concert performance attire, they are not made up to look like hookers, they are sitting upright and not lounging on a bed or sofa, and neither is eating a banana or smoking a cigar.

No fudge bar either.   

[Renfield]

To me there is nothing sexualized about this photo.  The performers are tastefully dressed in appropriate concert performance attire, they are not made up to look like hookers, they are sitting upright and not lounging on a bed or sofa, and neither is eating a banana or smoking a cigar.

Warner and Nuzova just happen to be two women who are very attractive and whose direct gaze into the camera lens bespeaks confidence that some of us find sexually appealing.  In other words, they may be sexy, but this photo is not sexualized.

I agree with David on this.

(Yes, it does happen! )


That said, I have to be honest: I will not boycott anything based solely on the means used to market it, as a rule (within reason).

However, even if I were to express distaste over the objectification of performers as an attempt to make their performances more appealing, when they are not inherently so, this surely doesn't apply here. They're just two women on an album cover.

Edit: That we make sexist comments about. I disagree that it's somehow inherent.

[Brian]

Warner and Nuzova just happen to be two women who are very attractive and whose direct gaze into the camera lens bespeaks confidence that some of us find sexually appealing.  In other words, they may be sexy, but this photo is not sexualized.

Oh, forgetting about the hair styling, the quarter-inch of makeup, the weirdly photoshopped lighting that makes them look like marble (albeit sexy marble). Compare to the other Warner CD I've reviewed:

[Renfield]

Oh, forgetting about the hair styling, the quarter-inch of makeup, the weirdly photoshopped lighting that makes them look like marble (albeit sexy marble). Compare to the other Warner CD I've reviewed:

As opposed to most artists, who are definitely not made-up or consciously photographed to look good in promo shots.

Purely from an aesthetic point of view (or as purely as anyone judging a kind of individual one is genetically programmed to appraise reproductively), the former cover is a good old let's-stick-someone's-face-there job. Fair enough: full emphasis on music, no nonsense. The latter is a conscious attempt to make a cover attractive without using historical artwork - again. I endorse this, to the extent it means the label cares about its product enough to want to sell it, but is not as desperate about it as in this infamous (ridiculous) case.


When the argument against objectification crosses over to being an argument against beautification, it's a step too far.

As is any argument for mandatory beautification, of course.


In short, why can't people choose (or agree) to look good in album covers to sell the album? Is it really the same as this?

I like the Warner/Nuzova cover; and I like the women on it, who are nonetheless not what's being sold, even if what's being sold is being also (inherently, surely, since they're playing) sold through them. I also like this cover, even though it's got no women.

And I rather dislike this cover, but I like the music. I still buy the CD based on my criteria, not the labels'.

[Lethevich]

It's not going too 'far', per-se, in my case it's a recognition that the musicians in question are intelligent individuals and know exactly what they are doing and are welcome to do it, but just as it succeeds in drawing plenty an eye to it (as intended), it just makes mine roll.

It's nothing like that Lara St John silliness, but it's all on the same sliding scale of music vs. glamour, and while you can have both, I find the latter to be an unneccessary distraction.

Good points btw.

[Renfield]

Fair enough, Sara. And I do apologise for potentially ruining people' daily reading of thread X or Y with those occasional walls of text, but some things I read are easier to be Zen about after I've offered my objections to them for the record.

(Which unfortunately tends to necessitate a lot of textually-inflating 'because's and 'therefore's and 'nonetheless'es, so I'm not misunderstood; and then I'm misunderstood anyway, often enough, but at least I've tried! [Academia in a nutshell? ])



On-topic, does anyone know if Mitropoulos' Cologne Mahler 3rd latterly on ICA Classics involves any cuts?


[asin]B004TWOXDU[/asin]


Edit: I really, really want the answer to be 'no'.

[Daverz]

And I rather dislike this cover, but I like the music. I still buy the CD based on my criteria, not the labels'.

I don't have anything against glamor shots on CD covers (but I have to say that Wendy Warner looks much more fetching on the Popper cover.)  It's not Shakira's ass.  But the most pathetic thing I've seen is a guy on the Audio Asylum music forum who only recommends classical recordings by "babe" artists.

[jlaurson]

On-topic, does anyone know if Mitropoulos' Cologne Mahler 3rd latterly on ICA Classics involves any cuts?


Edit: I really, really want the answer to be 'no'.

It does not involve any cuts (that i've noticed).

[Lethevich]

.[asin]B0055G0BI0[/asin]

It's nice to see all three on one disc, and Shelley has done great work with the early Romantics - any reviews yet?

[Renfield]

It does not involve any cuts (that i've noticed).

Hurray!

[The new erato]

[Renfield]

Hmm... (Where's the 'thoughtful' smiley when you need it?)


The Amazon.de listing doesn't grace us with a list of contents, sadly. But it does list it at a very attractive price.

Edit: I found a picture I'm an idiot - the Amazon.de picture is (also) large enough to read the letters on the side.

Beethoven
Berlioz
Debussy
Grofé
Holst
Mahler
Ravel
Respighi
Saint-Saëns
Sibelius
Strauss
Stravinsky
Tchaikovsky
Wagner


Edit 2: We need Sarge for this, methinks.

Edit 3: Got it! Took a bit of looking, and the format is not ideal, but here are the contents, for your perusal.

(You may want to use Google Translate! )

[The new erato]

Edit: I found a picture I'm an idiot - the Amazon.de picture is (also) large enough to read the letters on the side.

That's what I did too. But would have liked more information. The Japanese didn't help.

[Renfield]

Oh, what the hell: I'll recompile it.


Discs 1-5: Beethoven - Symphonies Nos. 1-9; Cleveland Orchestra.

Disc 6: Berlioz - 'Symphonie Fantastique; Cleveland Orchestra.

Disc 7: Debussy - 'Jeux', 'La Mer', Nocturnes; Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.

Disc 8: Grofé - 'Grand Canyon'; Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra.

Disc 9: Holst - 'The Planets'; Orchestre National de France.

Disc 10: Mahler - Symphony No. 1; Orchestre National de France[!].

Disc 11: Ravel - 'Bolero', 'Daphnis et Chloé', Spanish Rhapsody, 'La Valse'; Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.

Disc 12: Respighi - Roman Trilogy; Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra.

Disc 13: Saint-Saëns - 'Organ' Symphony, 'Dance Macabre', 'Phaéton', 'Danse Bacchanale''; Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra.

Discs 14-17:  Sibelius - Symphonies Nos. 1-7; Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra.

Disc 18: R. Strauss - 'Ein Heldenleben'; Cleveland Orchestra.

Discs 19-22: R. Strauss - 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', 'Ein Heldenleben' [again], 'Don Juan', 'Till Eulenspigels lustige Streiche', 'Eine Alpensinfonie', 'Der Rosenkavalier' [suite], [presumably also 'Tod und Verklärung']; Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.

Disc 23: Stravinsky - 'Pétrouchka', 'Le Chant du rossignol', 'Fireworks'; Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.

Disc 24: Stravinsky - Symphony in Three Movements, Symphony of Psalms, 'Histoire du Soltat'; Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.

Discs 25-27: Tchaikovsky - Symphonies [If I understand correctly, it's the 'Late' ones, i.e. 4-6; but three discs?!]; Cleveland Orchestra.

Disc 28: Wagner - Orchestral Works [detailed contents here]; Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra.

Disc 29: Wagner - [More] Orchestral Works [detailed contents here]; Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra.

Disc 30: Symphonic Battle Scenes[!!?]; Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.



Now we can properly discuss this! Don't think I wasn't being selfish in doing all this work.


For one, I am extremely inclined to invest in this edition, and overjoyed that they've not gone for duplicating the Mahler cycle.

Edit: Also, actually, it's that Japanese source I got all this info from. It was just buried in the text. (And I had free time.)

[Renfield]

So I spent all that time compiling that list from wonky Google-Japanese and Amazon searches to cross-reference for nothing?

Where's Sarge when you need him, as our resident Maazelian?