
Thanks.
Who is the conductor/orchestra on the Seraphim LP?knotslip wrote:I just recently heard this and I really liked it and was wondering if someone here could recommend a real good performance/recording on SACD, LP or CD for me to pick up. I have it on Seraphim (I think that's the label) and it's okay. What can I expect for $2.97?
Thanks.
I understand that this is one of your favourite pieces by a composer with a hyphenated name.jbuck919 wrote:Lance's classic suggestions are probably about as good as it gets. Apparently you do have an acoustic problem with what you own (I'm not a CD jock, but I've known it to happen, too.) Go with any of those--you cannot miss if Lance is recommending them. Just don't go with all of them.
Stravinsky, his pupil, always called him Rimsky. Now you're telling me that this was not his given name?slofstra wrote:I understand that this is one of your favourite pieces by a composer with a hyphenated name.jbuck919 wrote:Lance's classic suggestions are probably about as good as it gets. Apparently you do have an acoustic problem with what you own (I'm not a CD jock, but I've known it to happen, too.) Go with any of those--you cannot miss if Lance is recommending them. Just don't go with all of them.
Mine too. We used to have a repertory movie house in DC that always used it as filler waiting for the movie to start. That's the first time I can remember paying attention to "the longest pedal point" - the violin note at the end of the last movement. Still think it's glorious.Barry Z wrote:This piece is a huge favorite of mine.
another vote for Reiner - a great recording -dirkronk wrote:Reiner/Chicago (RCA)--the controlled phrasing and pacing, the power of the interp and the virtuosity of the musicians must all be heard to be believed, and the sonics are clear and wideranging, impressive even after 40+ years. Classic and utterly superb.
knotslip wrote:Wow, thanks for all of the great replies. I'm going to the music store today and I'm taking all of these recommendations with me. It will most likely come down to which ones I can actually find.
Thanks again - I'll be sure to let you all know which one I end up getting.
My Dvorak symphonies 1-9 box set should be here any day so I'll have lot's of listening to do.
I understand that Rimsky was actually the town in which he was born, but Nikki's mother entered it into the wrong box on the birth form.jbuck919 wrote:Stravinsky, his pupil, always called him Rimsky. Now you're telling me that this was not his given name? :shock: Next, what about Vaughan?slofstra wrote:I understand that this is one of your favourite pieces by a composer with a hyphenated name.jbuck919 wrote:Lance's classic suggestions are probably about as good as it gets. Apparently you do have an acoustic problem with what you own (I'm not a CD jock, but I've known it to happen, too.) Go with any of those--you cannot miss if Lance is recommending them. Just don't go with all of them.
Avoid the Mackerras at all costs. While the Telarc sonics are just out of this world, I find the performance somewhat sterile and lacking in romance. My favourite is the already mentioned Stokowski/LSO but the Reiner is also exceptionally good. However, one that has not been mentioned is the Karajan/BPO with Michel Schwalbe's exquisite violin as the voice of Scheherazade. It's the antithesis of the Mackerras where the violinist (Loveday I think) is just unimaginitave.knotslip wrote:Thanks again for all of these suggestions...I think I'm leaning towards the Mackerras or Reiner CD. Adding them all to my ever-growing list of classical music to buy though.
The Karajan had been my favorite before hearing Stoki/LSO. The sound of the BPO, especially in the opening movement, is simply gorgeous; absolutely perfect for that music.Holden Fourth wrote: ...However, one that has not been mentioned is the Karajan/BPO with Michel Schwalbe's exquisite violin as the voice of Scheherazade. It's the antithesis of the Mackerras where the violinist (Loveday I think) is just unimaginitave.
Henry, I played Sheherezde again this week, you are dead right, it aint so great...slofstra wrote:I have the utmost respect for the various opinions expressed here, perhaps you all know better than I, and maybe it was the particular version I was listening to this afternoon (Karajan), but Scheherazade strikes me as dreck. The orchestration is magnificent, and the themes are grand, but I just don't hear enough invention going on in the music.
Perhaps we can just blame it on the version.
One of the local libraries has that version, which I'll hafta borrow--you're talking of the STEREO Mercury recording? It's Dorati 3: his first was in the 78 era with the LPO, the second in the first Mercury years during the mono-LP era. I've got THAT ONE: a jimdandy! Dorati's one of the only ones who keeps things percolating, especially in the "Kalendar Prince" movement with those ad-lib woodwind curlicues over an interminable vamp. Dorati knew the real secret to making this exciting. THis second recording was with the Minnesota Orchestra too.Yi-Peng wrote:I know my recommendation may be out of print, and I know it may not be one you've heard before, but I'd gladly like to recommend the Mercury Living Presence recording of the work with Antal Dorati conducting the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra. This propulsive recording still finds room for colour and nuance, and it is an exciting recording with white-hot intensity, similar to the Mercury recording of the 1812 overture.
Well, if you do like it, you are in good company, from what I see here. That is, there are individuals with far more experience than I have that do like it. It may also have been that particular recording, but I'm not going to be exploring whether that's true anytime soon.knotslip wrote:Henry-
I can see how someone who has listened to this music for a while might find it dreck, as you say...but to a newb like myself, it is refreshing, soothing and relaxing and not to mention, easy to follow. So much of the music is complex with very soft sounds barely audible followed by extremely loud sounds and so on and so forth. I am finding that I prefer music (classical) that has a melody throughout or a rhythm of sorts.
I think as one listens to this type of music more and more, you might get bored with what intially turned you on to it and want to move to the more obscure, more complex sounds it has to offer. I believe this happens in all genres. As someone who loved metal, I started by listening to black Sabbath, Judas Priest AC/DC and Iron Maiden...then moved on to Metallica, Pantera and Slayer...Then moved on to even more obscure and different sounding bands. I think this all results from boredom...You can't listen to the same thing all the time....Your brain craves more and as a result you seek it out in the form of a different type of sound within the same genre of music.
Eventually, I to, may bore of Scheherazade and The Planets and the other rather simple sounding, rather popular pieces - but for now, it is all new to me and my brain (or ears) haven't had the chance to grow tired or bored of any of it.
I do appreciate the comments and recommendations though :-)
You know, Henry, if I made such an absolute statement I would have to put a plexiglass bubble over my house because people would be sending missles of, er, dreck at me from every city in the world where anyone here lives You're a braver man than I, but since you ventured it, I do in fact agree. Crowd pleasers that have all of of orchestration and nothing of musical interest are not exactly unknown on the modern concert program, and Scheherezade is certainly a prime example.slofstra wrote: I, and maybe it was the particular version I was listening to this afternoon (Karajan), but Sheherazade strikes me as dreck..
I would ignore that disc...it is far from one of his best..rogch wrote:Jos van Immerseel and Anima Eterna have recorded Scheherazade on period instruments. Sounds like a crazy idea, if it was Gardiner or (God forbid) Norrington i wouldn't go near it. But van Immerseel is such a good musician i am a little tempted to check it out.
You have to tell the system administrator that you really like Buxtehude, actually like him a lot, and then any brickbats in your direction will be screened by the firewall.jbuck919 wrote:You know, Henry, if I made such an absolute statement I would have to put a plexiglass bubble over my house because people would be sending missles of, er, dreck at me from every city in the world where anyone here lives You're a braver man than I, but since you ventured it, I do in fact agree. Crowd pleasers that have all of of orchestration and nothing of musical interest are not exactly unknown on the modern concert program, and Scheherezade is certainly a prime example.slofstra wrote: I, and maybe it was the particular version I was listening to this afternoon (Karajan), but Sheherazade strikes me as dreck..
We had an eccentric but not entirely unlikeable poster here before your time you thought that Rimsky was the greatest Romantic composer. It is probably indeed the case that he wrote better things than the S work, but that just does rather make my point, doesn't it? I discussed this with Karl Henning when we met, and if you have to program Sheherezade, or the William Tell Overture, or whatever, because people expect to hear them and you have to draw in the cash, you are bumping aside many other important possibilities.
While I'm in the current episode of my recent series of rants, many people would name works like Beethoven's Fifth in the same breath with the two I just named. There is a cliche, and then there is a cliche. A timeless masterpiece has to be programmed regularly; a minor work that draws lthe lower percentile of the audience that also has money does not. I do encounter works that are outside my alleged sphere of preference, usually via radio broadcast, that do impress me, but while they may be represented in recording, they are probably never performed live anytime, anywhere in the world. Sheherezade is more important.
Users browsing this forum: Danny and 37 guests