Hey David! The story of Boulez with Cleveland is a great one. The morning of the session, the players were ready for lots of cuts, and recording section to section, as is quite common and easy with this cellular work. Well, Boulez began the session, and the great players of the Cleveland Orchestra quickly realized that he was not going to stop until the entire first and second parts were finished. What you hear is a practically "live" performance, and it sounds like that with its great excitement and the "on the edge of your seats" feel.
I like the Gergiev/Kirov on Philips very much. I watched them in Toronto playing all the 3 Stravinsky ballets in one concert...with 3 sets of Tympani!! I was sitting on row 5 and my chest and ears hurt after the concert, it was just a lifetime experience. I like the Chailly/Cleveland too and just to say their Rite was recorded by Stanley Goodall, the recording engineer who made the majority of the wonderful ASMF/Sir Neville Marriner recordings on Argo.
LOVE this review of the Rite of Spring recordings. THANK YOU!!! I too think both the Chailly/Cleveland and Multi/Philadelphia recordings are AWESOME!!!
In Charles Rosen 's book, Piano Notes, he covers quite a range of musical and pianistic matters from the inside out. One thing he noted was the eerie experience of heating Le Sacre ballet with the curtain down, rather than seeing the first set design. This could also enhance the experience of an opera overture. Some of the smaller Stravinsky works, Concerti in D, Apollo, etc. have cleaned the aural pallette a month of Wagner Götterdämmerung study. Anyone going to Dallas in October for the Ring?
The Rite of Spring is still an unnerving, even frightening work. I heard it live with the NYPO in the 1990s (can't recall the conductor) and was amazed by how revolutionary, innovative, and fresh it was a century after its infamous Parisian premiere. The music felt like a savage assault on the ears of the audience. It's the only classical piece that affects me this way. I'll never forget the collective sigh of relief from the audience when the piece ended - a sigh in a good way. Rite is riveting with the right conductor and orchestra. The Boulez/Cleveland recording is terrific in its vividness, terror, and how Boulez seamlessly changes the mood of each section.
Thank you for mentioning MTT. That was my first Rite recording and my favorite. I never hear anyone else mention this performance. Although Jim Svejda of KUSC did talk about the incredibly raw and exciting and youthful recordings MtT made with BSO in the early days. He seems to have softened up over the years.
The Salonen LA Phil is my absolute favourite. I know everyone loves the sacrificial dance but for me the Ritual Action of the Ancestors is where the real juice is and Salonen’s is both creepy and savage.
It's so refreshing to see someone comparing many versions of The Rite of Spring to one another I've seen people do comparisons to many things like movies and games but I've never seen someone do this before with classical music
One interesting version is the one by Neeme Järvi and the Orchestre de l Suisse Romande. Among other things, Järvi does an accelerando on the 11/4 measure! Maybe it’s a bit of a sacrilege, but I enjoyed it and it seemed to work. ☺️
A brilliant round up David, thank you! I am slightly biased to your recommendation of Chailly’s Cleveland orchestra recording, as back in 1990’s when I was a reviewer for Gramophone I made Chailly’s version my top recommendation in my round up of The Rite of Spring recordings in The Gramophone Collection, much to admonishment of some of my fellow reviewers I may add. It caused quite a stir but I stand my choice to this day. It really is a wonderful recording and interpretation. Incidentally, your overview of the John Ireland Piano Concerto was excellent!
Thank you for this! I haven't found "my" Rite of Spring yet, but I'm sure these will be worth checking out. Keep on doing these very welcome videos - you've been doing them at an astonishing pace!
A solid group of excellent recommendations. I like the Solti/CSO recording for its drive and the superbly disciplined playing. My current favorites are Chailly/Cleveland. Bernstein/NYPO, and Abbado/LSO.
Great list, and a good half that I look forward to hearing. I cut my teeth on Markevitch's stereo recording, before expanding to numerous others. A recent favorite is Salonen in LA on DG. One of my earliest live concert experiences was of him conducting this piece with the NY Phil and I remember him stopping conducting during a particularly furious (yet rhythmically stable) section of the piece as the orchestra continue playing with gusto-so thrilling.
Thank you David! A very interesting survey. I agree completely with you for the "Stravinsky conducts Stravinsky": he's interesting but only on a historical point of view in my opinion. Boulez is overrated indeed...Robert Craft, for example, is much better. Muti's Rite with Philadelphians is really one of the best; Bernstein is probably the king of Rite of Spring: he deserves to stay at first place in the list. If I can suggest you a very thrilling performance, this is it: Yuri Simonov and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Absolutely terrific: raw, savage and, at the same time, with a care of details, colors, lyricism and so on. I really love this performance and I have never heard a Rite of Spring like this. I like also the two versions of Karajan - one of these Stravinsky once criticized - but I don't think they're so bad like most commentators said. In particularly the second for DG (1977) is really good; perhaps on the slower side, but very interesting. One of the worst ever Rite is Vladimir Fedoseyev with Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra (1984): too much slow, too much rhetoric, too much big in the worst sense...stay away from this! Stay safe and congratulations for your channel
Thank you for leading with the Ancerl. It was my "imprint" Sacre on an ancient Parliament L.P. when I was in junior high school. I was more recently taken by the EMI Muti/Philadelphia; but I'm not here to suggest recordings, being a lifelong musical illiterate.
I like the later Boulez recording of Sacre, though. I'm not really sure how to describe it, but to me, it feels so hyper-analytical and rational and machine-like as if being played by a high-tech computer of sorts that it feels like witnessing a heathens engaging in a sacrifice but more like a World War 1 tank, mercilessly destroying everything that is getting in its way. It kinda reminds you that this piece was written shortly before World War 1 and is, in a way, set in Stravinsky's day and age and not in this mystical heathen pagan Russia folk days if that makes sense now...
I've always thought this particular work, maybe more than any other, showed off the superior virtuosity of the George Szell-built Cleveland Orchestra, prior to 1990.......... During that time, the Cleveland Orchestra always performed it extraordinarily well, regardless of who conducted it.
Bernstein's NY recording remains my favourite, and I've loved the Tilson Thomas for decades; I first bough it on vinyl in the 1980s. My "sleeper" recommendation, which has a similar lyricism to Tilson Thomas,I feel, is Abbado with the London Symphony Orchestra.
I streamed the Muti a few months back and found it so powerful and dynamic that I immediately bought it on vinyl! And I listened to a Stravinsky version and found it dull, slow and absolutely plodding! I thought was THIS what caused a riot??!! I know that Stravinsky only attended the premiere, he didn't conduct, but was that the way he wanted it in 1913? I can't imagine.
Glad to hear you recommend two of my favorites: the bone chilling 1st Boulez/Cleveland recording and the punch-packing Muti performance. I have not heard the Chailly recording but he was supposed to first recording it with the Los Angeles Philharmonic in the early 80s. They performed it first before recording it but the performances were such a disaster that Giulini (then music director) had the recording sessions cancelled, much to the relief of the orchestra.
As I am sitting here, I pulled out, by chance, Karajan's recording. One of the most lifeless recordings of this work that I have in my collection. I may use it as a coaster under something that has more kick to it.
The LAPO seems to be particularly good with pieces that requires a lot of drums and savagery. They've also done a great Symphonie Fantasique with Dudamel.
Your recommendations for this are all terrificly good. I might add as a supplement Benjamin Zander's performance with the Boston Philharmonic. An exciting orchestral performance is coupled with a bizarre, brain blowing piano roll performance of the piece that was originally supervised by Stravinsky.
I haven't heard it in decades, because I don't think it was ever released on CD, but I'm surprised to read your dismissal of Boulez's first recording on Nonesuch. I had originally gotten to know the work through Bernstein's NY Phil recording, and even so, I found Boulez's take to be eye-opening, or rather ear-opening.
So? It still sucks. Such bad playing (and sound). Yech. Sometimes a rotten performance still does the trick, if only because it sounds so different. It's the contrast that matters, not the quality of the results.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I can't speak authoritatively about it, because I haven't heard it in something like 50 years, but what I remember about it what was I, at least at the time, considered some surprisingly savage-sounding sonorities. Perhaps that's the "contrast" you speak of.
Thanks for a very informative and enjoyable episode. I feel propitiated. On July 28, 1969, I flew into Cleveland for my theory-placement testing at the Institute of Music and walked past Severance Hall twice. I had NO idea that, at that very moment, Boulez was recording his phenomenal "Rite" onstage with the Cleveland Orchestra. It's still my FAVORITE: gutsy, brilliant, and powerful as heck. TWO INTERESTING FACTS: 1.) The Sacrificial Dance as heard in the recording was their SOUND CHECK..the first thing they recorded that morning!! Everyone agreed that they couldn't do it better, so why try?? 2.) The awesome Tam-Tam strokes during the "Spring Rounds" were played by percussionist Joe Adato, who would set up TWO great old Paiste tams facing him, stand between them and play BOTH simultaneously. I saw him do the same in the Mahler 4th (1st Mvt), Carmina Burana (10/72) and the Shostakovich 13th (4/71); during the latter two, I was sitting about 15 feet away from him in the chorus. Other favorite SACRES: 1.) DORATI/Minnesota..the SECOND (1959) version. Awesome precision (very fast), and stunning clarity. 2.) ANCERL/Czech..I agree, it's unique. Amazing clarity and detail, and thrilling. 3.) Markevitch/Philharmonia..the Mono (1951). Something indescribably cool about this performance, despite its congested sound. PLUS they use a GONG instead of a Tam-Tam (as does Kletzki in his Manfred Sym) and what sounds like a TUNED bass drum (check "Entrance of the Sage"); it's totally PRIMITIVE!! Monteux/Boston (mono) is wonderful, as are Bernstein/NY (his first recording as music director) and Markevtich #2 (1959), the session of which was apparently planned OVERNIGHT..thus much of the wildness in the playing, I suppose. I MUST HEAR Muti and Chailly, which I managed to miss. Thanks for the tip! LR
Chailly also gets my vote in first place! Followed by Boulez (who has left us a superb Petrushka in New York too). I would have liked to see a Dorati (Detroit) on your list, but you still have my vote and your choices are relevant!
I haven't heard all the recordings of this piece, so I'm in position to have a favorite. There could be a recording among all that I haven't heard and has the potential to be my favorite of them all.
For me it still has to be Lenny and the New York Philharmonic, despite (or maybe because of?) a few rough edges. I'm glad you included Karel Ancerl, one of the great conductors of 20th century music. One that I thought might get a mention is the Ferenc Fricsay from 1954, truly hair-raising.
Almost nobody mentions the superbly recorded Mehta and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Rite, one of the best I've heard. I'm also a huge fan of both Markevitch Rites.
In my experience, regardless of music genre, but especially classical music, the first version you heard, obviously, will be your favorite or standard in your mind. Even if it's unanimously considered the worst performance ever, it'll still be special to you. So my first Rite was Stravinsky's 1960 stereo version. I know it's not the best but it's the first I heard so it'll always be THE version to me (I mean, it conducted by the composer, that's gotta count for something. Even if for the novelty of it.) That being said I like the Bernstein NYPO version best because it rushes headlong and sounds like chaos yet still holds together. I also like Dorati/Detroit (maybe I'm influenced by his excellence Firebird and the fact this Rite won that French award. Ha!). Actually I'm still looking for my "dream" Rite... Basically one that is like a cross between a runaway train (or train wreck in waiting, maybe) and total trashing but still it all comes out great in the end. It doesn't have to be the "best" sonically or performance wise, just the most "savage". Any recommendations, or is it one that was already in the video?
Kent Nagano on Virgin...the best recording and also superior interpretation. And not to forget Sir Colin Davis and the Concertgebouw Orchestra on PHILIPS.
Yes! MUTI, BERNSTEIN and OZAWA. Brilliant. Bernstein is my favorite and you explained why. The Muti shocked me! I was delightfully blown away! Ozawa: a powerhouse performance. The sacrificial dance is terrifying. Unfortunately, I don't know the Chailly. What do you think about the Maazel/Cleveland on Telarc? Boring? Perverse? For some reason (I can't identify) I've always liked it. The orchestra plays the hell out of it.
Sounds like Monteux is out of the money! The performances coming out now, for me at any rate, are just too well played. My God, today even student orchestras can get through the Rite. The music should hold terror for the orchestra, and maybe it’s okay to be rough around the edges especially in the bassoon solo.
In my humble opinion (which along with $5.00 or so will get you breakfast at McDonald's), composers aren't always the best interpreters of their own music, nor do they always know the best tempos for bringing out the best in their music. But of course, that's all extremely, extremely subjective. I also learned a new word today - propitiate. And I have to second your Fantasia reference. I understand that Stravinsky's arrangement of the Star-Spangled Banner also caused some consternation. I heard it at Ravinia years ago, along with a performance of Mahler's 8th, and like it, although it's rather innocuous to modern ears. Thanks again for your enlightening reviews.
I Just listen to the Rite of Spring conducted by Fricsay. Wow.!! What is wrong with it that make it not to be on your list? I close my eyes, and I see dancing people.
I was surprised not to find even a slight mention of an excellent recording and I think, a classic, Antal Dorati and the Detroit Orchestra on Decca. All the mentioned ones are good but this one was missing. A shame.
I don't have too much versions although I've heard the Sacre many times in concert. My favorite is Simonov with The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in a cheap CD reissue. (Coupled with a great Firebird suite.) Maybe not the most imaginative version but the recorded sound is so smashing with huge percussion sound that every other recording seems powerless to me compared to this version. But I will give a try to your recommendations also.
I have many of the same recordings: Tilson-Thomas/Boston; Muti/Philly; Boulez/Cleveland; Chailly/Cleveland (excellent sound!); Ozawa/Chicago - I agree, those are all excellent picks. I think there are a few other really good American performances as well: Levi/Atlanta; Paavo Jarvi/Cincinnati; Dorati/Detroit (not great, but still fairly good); Slatkin/St. Louis (coupled with Ginastera's "Popol Vuh"). I was also pleasant surprised by Mehta/N.Y. Phil. It was better than I thought it would be. I also like Markevitch's faster one.
Hello. I'd like to thank you for all the videos and the recommendations on specific recordings. They 're really helpful for beginners like me. I have on cd the rite of spring by Yuri Simonov with the royal philharmonic orchestra. Any thoughts?
EDIT: The Classics Today review I mentioned in this comment was actually written by Victor Carr Jr., not you. Sorry! You talked about the Michael Tilson Thomas & Boston Symphony Orchestra recording in this video, so I'm curious why you didn't mention the same conductor's recording with San Francisco Symphony, which you reviewed about 19 years ago (also mentioning Yoel Levi & Atlanta Symphony Orchestra) and gave it 10s on both ratings. Maybe your taste has changed over the years?
@@DavesClassicalGuide Fair enough. I just realised that you upload quality videos daily, which is a lot of work indeed. Thanks anyway for the recommendations!
I would be curious to know what you think of the brand new Sacre on RCA with Paavo Jarvi conducting the NHK Symphony. I discovered it while looking for a recording of the newly-discovered Chant Funebre (Stravinsky's memorial piece to his teacher, Rimsky-Korsakov, found in a pile of dusty manuscripts in a Russian library in 2014 - I somehow missed that headline). It is visceral and fiery, although it is only available as an expensive import. Chailly also recorded the Chant and Le Sacre with the Lucerne Symphony on Decca.
I enjoyed the MTT SFS version, but can’t get my hands on the Boston one. What did you think MTT lost from the latter to the former? The SFS won a Grammy I think for theirs.
@@DavesClassicalGuide you usually mention other recordings of the same thing by the same artist. Just wondering if you found something you liked about Boston that you didn’t about SFS. Obviously not, I guess.
I have several recordings of the Rite and my longtime favorite is Chailly’s, too. That being said, I would recommend supplementing it with David Zinman’s Zürich Tonhalle recording on RCA (now Sony if still available) that came out a few years ago. It’s a 2-CD set containing a reconstruction of the 29 May 1913 version and Stravinsky’s final one. What makes it worthwhile are not the performances, which unfortunately are rather underwhelming, but Zinman’s interesting discussion of the differences between the versions with examples.
Dave, I am surprised that in your assessment of Muti's recording of the Rite of Spring with the Philadelphia Orchestra, you didn't mention that Stokowski and the Philadelphians gave the American premiere of this work in 1922. By the way I have the Muti recording (along with Bernstein/NYPO, Chailly, Monteux/BSO, Monteux/Paris, Ozawa, and Tilson Thomas/BSO,), and it is a thrilling performance.
Great video! I also am quite fond of Stravinsky's own recording with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra (coupled with Petroushka). What are your thoughts on that one?
I have a real fondness for Raphael Frühbeck de Burgos conducting the LSO on Collins (re-released on Alto). It has absolutely knockout sonics and I find it a very passionate and unbuttoned rendition. I also have Gergiev’s with the Kirov, which was much lauded when it came out. Meh. I don’t see it. At least, not yet. I like its primitivism and its darkness, but to my ears it doesn’t have the searing flame or the clear recording of de Burgos. If you don’t know this one, it’s worth checking out.
My first taste of the Rite - my absolute favorite savage piece of music!! - was Jascha Horenstein, Symphony Orchestra of the Southwest German Radio, Baden-Baden from 1962. Never really hear anything about that recording - any thoughts?
Here is Victor Carr, Jr's review at Classicstoday.com, with which I agree entirely. www.classicstoday.com/review/vasily-petrenkos-beguiling-spring-rites/?search=1
Where to start? My introduction to it was Abbado with the LSO on an LP record (good performance but one of DG's multi-miked monstrousities IMHO). Haitink's LPO version on Philips I think is admirable. Recently Litton's Bergen performance on BIS (fantastic in all respects, particularly in resisting the temptation just to play it as a showpiece); and last but not least, Currentzis on Sony which to me really seemed to reveal details I'd not heard before, is very well played, and again as a performance doesn't feel it's just marking time until the next loud climax. The only thing annoying about it is the migraine inducing front cover Sony has devised for the CD - don't stare too long at it is my advice!
Mr. Hurwitz, I beg to differ. The best Rite of Spring is the Columbia Symphony Orchestra version conducted by Stravinsky himself. How can one improve upon a composer's own interpretation, since he would know better than anyone how it should sound?
One is just as free to dislike the composer's interpretation as choosing to not like the work in the first place. And, of course, the composer being the conductor does not automatically make the engineering of the recording good.
@@robertromero8692 The engineering can have a lot to do with the enjoyment of the work, but a bad recording is not a deal-breaker for me. For instance, no one (IMHO) has ever topped Prokofiev's own interpretation of his Piano Concerto #3, even though the recording itself is extremely primitive. The only time I have ever not liked a composer's own interpretation is when he/she had to speed up the work in order to fit it into a radio time slot. This was the case with Gershwin performing Rhapsody in Blue, Paul Whiteman conducting. They had to shorten it to ten minutes (!!!) and it is painful to listen to -- no feeling whatsoever.
I agree with Mr. Felstein. The most authentic Rite is Stravinsky himself. You just have to hear the rhythm and the articulation that he presents in that recording and you will see that practically all conductors with exception of Boulez and Monteux exaggerate and I mean exaggerate. Solti is a disaster and Muti brutal. No the Stravinsky is wonderful so is the 1962 live Robert Craft performance.
Stravinsky made the Columbia recording late in his life, when his abilities as a conductor were not so great. I heard a talk in Detroit by a percussionist with the Detroit Symphony, who had been a freelancer in NY City in the late 1950's when the Columbia version was made--he played on that session. According to him, Stravinsky was simply not up to the challenge of keeping the orchestra together, so they resorted to signaling each other and keeping their own time regardless of what Stravinsky did. They had already played a live performance of the piece in Carnegie Hall, under the direction of Robert Craft, which preparation no doubt helped them in the recording session.
David, have you never seen a production of the ballet with the original staging? It didn't feature gauzy ballerinas at all, but dancers in heavy, blocky costumes performing anything but classical ballet moves. Part of the outrage at the performance was precisely that: they expected the usual revealing and sexy tutus but instead got what amounts to stylized overcoats.
I'm no music critic but I know what I like and The Rite is the one piece I try to collect as many recordings of as I can, it's my favourite piece bar none. I was happy to see your final 3 are also in my top 4 (which I find hard to separate but are a way ahead of the rest). The one missing from your list is the Levi/Atlanta recording from 1991 - did you consider that?. The first two you mention (Ancerl/Czech and ???/Dresden) are not in my collection, so I'll have to try to find those.
My dad gave me an album with Le Sacre and Revuelta's The Night of Mayas, by Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela and Dudamel, on Deutsche Gramophon... Have you listened to it? I'm not quite a Dudamel fan, but this is a astonishing performance. Best regards!
@@DavesClassicalGuide i heard salonen conduct an unforgettable Sacre in Paris with the orchestra of the Paris Opéra at the Palais Garnier in the Pina Bausch choreography a couple of years ago, it was an absolute knock out and one of the most exciting Sacres i've ever heard (maybe the hall played part of the experience). With some works, like the Sacre or the Mahler 8, i've come to the conclusion that it should be experienced live in a concert hall, home listening on your stereo just doesn't seem to work for me anymore i'm afraid, crazy thought isn't it?
Stravinsky and Bernstein - there's some interesting stories there from some of the players. Bernstein performed his interpretation in '57, with Stravinsky in the audience. The players remember (especially those who would later be part of the Columbia Stravinsky recordings supervised by Craft in the 60s, part of that great 24-cd set) that Stravinsky came back and complained about some parts of it, *especially* the tempos. That played that way, it was undance-able. There was no way the dancers could see the conducting and accomodate. So this '58 recording became better because Bernstein incorporated that criticism (which COULD have been received very poorly) and achieved what we all now hear - all of the energy that the work demands, but now tempered to staying within the tempos that a ballet also demands. Stravinsky, perhaps by accident, managed to ensure that this recording was always going to be better than what he and Craft produced a few years later.
now, in the criticism (and Bernstein found the PERFECT middle-ground) is a matter of where does interpretation lie. Bernstein's first take on it was absolutely a *Romantic* interpretation. Dynamics and tempos all over the place, everything on the table to get the note on the page to extract every ounce of what it could be. (and with that many notes...) Stravinsky at this point in his own career was rather subdued. Between the economic efficiencies of the depression and then the lack of finances during the war and after, he'd become very economical with how he approached his own work. He'd come to re-interpret his memories of the Rite with the constraints of the neo-classical he'd made the bulk of his career until Agon. What's interesting is that a few years later, Bernstein himself would come to face this dichotomy between the Romantic orchestra and the needs of the classical and the neo-classical, and presented that in his young persons concerts in a brilliant way, showing Haydn as played by a 105 piece Romantic orchestra with all the dynamics and tempo changes, vs Haydn played by a 65 piece classical orchestra with limited dynamics and rather straightforward tempos and how it was better in the latter. The wonder of Bernstein in the 60s is how much was still a learner as much as a teacher, all at the same time, and we have the proof of it in those young persons concerts now digitally preserved.
When it comes to Haydn's "London" symphonies, apparently Salomon (the impresario who brought him to London) provided Haydn with an unusually large orchestra for the time, roughly equivalent to modern symphony orchestras. Therefore, one can argue that the Haydn London symphonies should be played with the full, modern string complement, as that is equivalent to what Haydn himself wrote for in those particular works.
This is one piece, that at the age of 49, I've been putting off. I MAY now give it a go, maybe. I can always go and hide in Haydn if shizz gets too real.
The recording Of The Rite Of Spring I have in my collection is by Zubin Mehta And The Los Angeles Philharmonic. It's contained on a six CD compilation for the 70th birthday of Maestro Mehta on Decca 475 7470. Any opinions on this recording? I know nothing about music, all I know it sounds good.
@@FREDGARRISON You can search Mehta via thesearch feature on my channel home page, and there are also reviews of his Rite of Spring at ClassicsToday.com (but not the LA one--but it doesn't matter. He always did it well).
A small favour to request, if possible. Background; the household CD player blew up long ago (my wife testifies that she saw it generating large amounts of smoke before she hastened to dispose of it...), so for eons now i of limited budget have been content to listen to youtube videos on a smartphone--- with variable sonics as a result. Thus, it would be very instructive if you were to compare two available YT "Rites", namely, the Yoel Levi / Atlanta SO and the L. Bernstein NYPO. The consensus from most of the commentators is that the Levi is markedly superior, with many comments directing scorn at both Bernstein's tempi (lots of whining and lamentation about how slow it is) and his supposed rhythmic inaccuracies--- inaccuracies, it must be said, i personally do not detect while following the niftily-attached score provided (self-aggrandizement alert: while by no means claiming to be a great scholar of the work, i have encountered it many times, both as an audience member [E.g., MET orch / J. Levine / Roy Thomson Hall Toronto] and from the inside as a performer [three different occasions on a viola part--- principal, associate, and tutti--- yes, embarrassingly, in that descending order^^]). If you can sort through that long digression, a side-by-side contrast of merits / demerits of Leonard vs. Yoel might be informative. Admittedly, it is entirely possible you would reject the idea as excessive detail or nit-picking, but an insight into your thought process as you compare two different performances of a given work, and whether you give any credence to what other critics say, may well prove to be enlightening. Thank you for your consideration of this request, in any event... (^-_-^)
Thank you for your request. To be honest, I have never heard anyone characterize the Bernstein Rite (I assume you're talking about the NYPO Sony version) as you have, nor would I. I don't think the comparison would be instructive for that and many other reasons. Certainly the Levi, being more recent and a Telarc recordings besides, has better sonics, but as a performance, good though it may be? I think you yourself have pointed out the limited appeal of such an effort, even if I did have copyright permission to use the recordings in question (which would be very difficult if not impossible to obtain).
Dear David, thank you for another interesting and inspiring video! I’m very curious about your thoughts about The Rite that was recorded in Poland in 1967 by the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra under Bohdan Wodiczko, one of the most important (and now sadly neglected) Polish conductors of the 20th century. It may be completely forgotten, but for me it has punch, drama and blood that are so needed in this piece! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8rGVpnpij-Y.html
@@DavesClassicalGuide Say more. I bought his version because it's so highly praised. Even Jim Svada (sp) loved it and he doesn't like Gergiev. I find it incredibly exciting.
@@trevorpsy That's fine, but factually speaking, it's a dreadfully recorded, shipwreck of a performance. There are many other very exciting versions that are vastly better played, conducted and recorded. I'm just letting you know. You must do what pleases you, naturally, and I respect that.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I don't know why but we often disagree over recording quality. For instance, I find the Eugen Jochum Bruckner symphonies unlistenable, because of sonic problems. (The same goes for his Brahms. It's wonderful, but it sounds like it was recorded underwater.) Perhaps the fussiness of electrostatic speakers is the problem. Certainly, I haven't heard nearly as many recordings of the Rite as you. I have heard the Salonen, Stravinsky (which I happen to like), Tilson Thomas, Rattle, Boulez, and von Karajan versions. (The first Karajan is interesting, but terrible. The second is dead on arrival.) Of these, the Gergiev pulls me in and raises my blood pressure the most. The words "building intensity" come to mind, and my electrostats don't mind the sonics. I also love his Firebird, which to my ears, is simply gorgeous. So, oh well. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me. On another other topic. Which performance of the Sibelius 4th do you prefer? I think the mid-60's Karajan rendition life-changing. Can we agree on this to some extent?
This sort of “modern Classical” music once really offended my ears, not to mention my need for cognitive satisfaction, if you will. Not to mention wanting to hear melodious music. Most of what’s come out in this genre is just garbage, in my opinion. But I just listened to it again on the radio, and, for the most part, it had me entranced. I recall reacting to it eons ago and found it interesting. I think it could’ve been about 3-5 minutes shorter. But Stravinsky knew how to construct music, like him or not. I pretty much don’t, with exceptions. It’s barbaric, yet cerebral. I wish he’d recapitulated on the wonderful opening with the winds, rather than the unsatisfactory end that goes nowhere.
I agree with your assessment of Stravinsky's own recordings of Sacre. But I don't think the reason is an "interpretive" limitation -- after all, he wrote the damned thing! I think the real explanation is that he was a mediocre conductor, incapable of realizing his own musical objectives even with a good orchestra. See Phillipe Entremont's comments on recording the Piano Concerto with Stravinsky conducting. They are quite amusing, but the point is that Entremont said that the performance was good "in spite" of Stravinsky's limitations as a conductor.