Penguin Guide - Classical

I'd be surprised if it's still published as a book, as things change so quickly these days.

I have a treasured copy from the early 1980s, by which time all the great classical recordings had been made, so I'll rely on that for general advice, even if it can't all be taken as gospel.

The age of great classical recordings started in the early 1950s, and was dying out by the mid-1980s.

Coincidentally or not, this was the time when the 33/3 RPM LP was king.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
The age of great classical recordings started in the early 1950s, and was dying out by the mid-1980s.

Nah... Great recordings are still being made.

EJ

Very, very few, compared to the great years.

Let me list a few conductors off the top of my head, who were recording in the late 50s/early 60s, limited to those with names starting with the letter B or K:

Barbirolli, Beecham, Boehm, Boult, Britten

Karajan, (Erich) Kleiber, Knappertsbusch, Kubelik, Krips

(I'm sure that I've missed a few).

Before we even get onto Furtwaengler or Toscanini or three starting with S: Szell, Stokowski or Solti. Or Monteux or Mravinsky.

And I could produce so many others.

Their like doesn't exist today.

Nevertheless, by the mid eighties, Zimerman still had to record his Liszt sonata, Karajan his final take on Bruckner's 8th, nobody had heard of Angela Gheorghiu, Alexandre Tharaud or Christian Thielemann, etc. Later this week, the fifth volume of Matthias Goerne's Schubert edition will be released, and I'm sure that will be a great album.

EJ

EJ, those that you mention are a few isolated instances.

I don't think that Zimerman is in the same league as Lipatti.

Gheorgiu doesn't compare to Callas, nor Goerne to Hotter.

The aged Karajan fighting to the death with his Berlin orchestra in the 1980s was not a patch on his younger self making his matchless recordings with the Philharmonia in the mid 1950s

But comparisons are invidious, so I won't go on.

Incidentally, I hope that we can expect great things of Thielemann, who I understand is recording the Beethoven symphonies with the Vienna PO. Although I doubt if he'll outmatch either of the Kleibers in those that they recorded.

Graham

Graham,

By embracing these clichés, you're in danger of closing your ears to some marvelous music. Karajan knew that he was dying, which probably is what charged his Bruckner 8 (with the Vienna Philharmonic, incidentally) to unprecedented levels. And I don't think Lipatti ever recorded Liszt's b-minor sonata.

Incidentally, Hotter and Lipatti and arguably Callas were in their prime before the advent of stereo recording, early 50s.

Best regards,
EJ

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:

The age of great classical recordings started in the early 1950s

EJ: Indeed, I never suggested that their great recordings were recorded in stereo, which they certainly weren't: the heyday of the LP record covered mono and stereo.

I don't think that Lipatti ever recorded Liszt's sonata, but I still think that he far outclasses Zimerman, as (in their way) do Richter and Gilels, before we even get to Michelangeli.

And I'm well aware that Karajan had to go to Vienna after falling out with 'his' Berlin orchestra.

But what I said earlier represents eternal truths, not cliches, try as you might to disprove them: they're on record, after all!

Regards, Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
I'd be surprised if it's still published as a book, as things change so quickly these days.

I have a treasured copy from the early 1980s, by which time all the great classical recordings had been made, so I'll rely on that for general advice, even if it can't all be taken as gospel.

The age of great classical recordings started in the early 1950s, and was dying out by the mid-1980s.

Coincidentally or not, this was the time when the 33/3 RPM LP was king.

A lot of great music is being made today. I can't imagine being content with the past. Music is a living art, and continues to approach understanding and perfection.

Nothing is more exciting than watching music's progress over time.

FWIW I share Rich27's opinion that the cPG is quite useful. Particularly after I became used to Ted's somewhat excessive penchant for Karajan. It is worth having at hand but is by no means a superlative reference. As some here will recall, there was a particularly vibrant banter about "must haves" and essential comparators on the original Naim forum. Perhaps we all become a bit prone to exalt the past.

In the olden days, I found the Penguin Guide very useful as a sort of index of recorded performances! Who had recorded what and its availability status, but I always found the reviews as personal [and by extension different from my own view], and highly "subjective" like all reviews I suppose, which meant that I never took any notice of them. I knew my favourite musicians, so if I saw that say Edwin Fischer had recorded the Emperor Concerto, I would order it even though the reviewer was rather sniffy about the recording! He complained that Fischer made a few mistakes and ignored the fact that he was an outsized musical genius, whose poetic phrasing, wonder keyboard touch, and architectural sense combined to make performances so compelling that a few slips along the way worried me not one bit. I seem to remember that one of the high recommendations for that used to be the Alexis Weissenberg recording with Karajan, which I was able to borrow. I was glad to find the music giant, Edwin Fischer, made a recording that pleased me - more than the reviewer at least!

ATB from George

I agree with you, George. I find myself agreeing less and less with reviews, sometimes I wonder if I have been listening to the same recording or the same concert performance as the reviewer. I think one must have the courage of one's conviction to make up one's own mind regardless of what other so called experts believe.

Sister xx

I'm afraid I've been a frequent buyer of the Penguin Guides, both classical and jazz. I frequently find myself referring to the jazz books, they represent a nice concise history of the genre. I currently have four copies of the Jazz book and three of the classical. I have run out of shelf space in my study and was just about to take the 1988 edition of the classical one to Oxfam. If anyone would like it, I'll happily send it for the cost of postage (provided, of course, you don't then go and sell it on e-bay!).

Regards, CB

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
I agree with you, George. I find myself agreeing less and less with reviews, sometimes I wonder if I have been listening to the same recording or the same concert performance as the reviewer. I think one must have the courage of one's conviction to make up one's own mind regardless of what other so called experts believe.

Sister xx

Dear Siss,

Let's not forget that an expert has been not in-accurately been described as a "former drip under pressure." Reviewers are a breed unto themselves, though I always wished that I had the "old boy" connections to become one myself, so as to bring a breath of fresh air to it!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Sister E.:
I find myself agreeing less and less with reviews.... I think one must have the courage of one's conviction to make up one's own mind regardless of what other so called experts believe.

I have never considered "professional" reviews to be other than a kind of entertainment. In my purchases I have always followed my own taste, or (in a significant number of instances) suggestions from friends, whose taste I know I share to a large degree.

to answer the OP, I think they come out every two years so there should be a 2012 ready for next Xmas. IMHO they're a useful pointer when you're unfamiliar with the music, the artist and/or can't afford to experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
I don't think that Zimerman is in the same league as Lipatti.

I agree completely with this. Zimerman is better than Lipatti in just about every way.

I reject the notion that there are no new great recordings being made; based on the recorded evidence, it's just not true.

Take Barenboim's Teldec recording of Schumann's symphonies. Nary a better set has ever been recorded. Ditto for Michael Endres' Mozart and Schubert sonatas, and I've heard a large chunk of what came before. Herbert Schuch's Ravel matches any pianist from the past. The Prazak, Panocha, Pavel Hass, Aron, Emerson, Danel, and Takacs quartets are in the same league as the best quartets of old. There are perhaps two areas where people can say the past was better, and that's in conductors and singers. But I'm not so sure in all cases here, either. Hell, I'd rather listen to Christine Schaffer or Juliane Banse than many older singers.

Part of the notion that the best is all in the past comes from the fact that time has filtered out the mediocre and mostly left the greats. The same will happen with music being made today.


--

What Todd said - especially the last sentence.

Todd, back on topic: I suspect that your bundled writings on Beethoven's sonatas on this forum would make a fun read. Sign me up if you ever get round to collecting and editing them.

EJ

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:

I reject the notion that there are no new great recordings being made; based on the recorded evidence, it's just not true.

Part of the notion that the best is all in the past comes from the fact that time has filtered out the mediocre and mostly left the greats. The same will happen with music being made today.


--

Todd, we'll have to agree to disagree, quite fundamentally, over this.

I don't think that any comparison of today's orchestral heights with those of 50 years ago that relies on Schumann's symphonies is sensible: they're minor works, at best, in the symphonic canon.

I'll freely admit to not having heard all the new String Quartets that you mention. But the best-known, the Emersons and Takacs, are not (in my opinion, of course) in the same league as, say, the Italians, and certainly don't approach the humanity of the Vegh.

Opera is not much recorded in the studio any more, so you need to be grateful for the few 'live' accounts that the record companies see fit to release.

You must accept, though, that the volume of new recordings released is way, way down. Much that does get through is already "mediocre", so there won't be much "great" stuff to look back on 50 years' hence, not that I'll be around to make a judgment.

Regards, Graham.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
I don't think that any comparison of today's orchestral heights with those of 50 years ago that relies on Schumann's symphonies is sensible: they're minor works, at best, in the symphonic canon.

You must accept, though, that the volume of new recordings released is way, way down.

As to Schumann, I was using that as but one example. Now let's take Mahler or Bruckner. Half a century ago, both were routinely ignored. Mahler, in particular, only started being recorded with any regularity in the 60s, and there have been many great recordings of Mahler, and Bruckner, released over the last twenty years. The same holds true for Debussy (Boulez, say), Ravel, Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky (Temirkanov, Gatti), Bartok (Ivan Fischer is better than Fritz Reiner!), Schubert, Verdi, and most of the rest of the core repertoire. When I look at the symphonic canon, or the chamber canon, or the solo canon, I see the same thing: there are many modern recordings that stand up to, or surpass, recordings of the past. An old recording may be good, or it may be bad, or somewhere in between, and sometimes vaunted recordings of the past really don't stand up very well. Your mention of the Italian Quartet is a perfect example. Yes, they are excellent, but the Prazak are far superior in, say, Beethoven. The Vegh are different, and even they were quite uneven. (You should have mentioned the Budapest Quartet, then you'd have a stronger point, at least to my ears.)

I also disagree about the number of recordings, except for studio opera, which has dropped off sharply. The number from the "major" labels has dropped, but the overall number is still very high, though down from the late-80s and early-90s peak (not the 50s or 60s), but the overall number of recordings is still very high. Now, for modern opera, you have to look increasingly to DVDs of live productions. Some are stupendous, like Abbado or Muti leading Verdi from last decade. And with opera, many recordings throughout history have been live. Most Ring cycles are live rather than studio recordings, going all the way back to the 50s; the not so good Solti is an exception, not a rule, for instance.

I see no evidence that there was a golden age that cannot be matched and even surpassed.

--

As I say, we'll have to agree to disagree, strongly.

Abbado is probably the last of the great mainstream conductors (his recent Mahler and Beethoven are revelatory). Muti's still a lightweight.

And the thread is about sound recordings, surely? DVDs are a crap way to experience music.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
DVDs are a crap way to experience music.

In general, I'm not a big fan of DVDs, but opera makes sense on DVD. I saw nothing to indicate that this thread was only about sound recordings.

Also, how is Muti a lightweight? Have you heard/seen his early 21st Century takes on Otello or Falstaff? Nothing lightweight about them. (Well, the Falstaff does use a small orchestra, but that's part of the appeal.) His Scriabin is most decidedly not lightweight, nor is his Bellini or Mozart. No, he's not a lightweight at all.

Nor is Abbado the last of the great mainstream conductors. There are still a few other conductors who know how to waive a stick, and history will dub some of them 'great,' like it matters.



--

Something old, something new... why choose?

EJ

quote:

Originally posted by EJS:
Something old, something new... why choose?

Indeed. (Though budget concerns may require choices to be made at some point.)

--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:

Nor is Abbado the last of the great mainstream conductors. There are still a few other conductors who know how to waive a stick, and history will dub some of them 'great,' like it matters.



--

Well, on this we are agreed: there are a lot of present day conductors, Muti included, whom I'd like to see "waive their stick", indeed not even bother to stand in front of an orchestra at all!