the best by what standard? the performance, the recording, lp, cd, sacd, hdcd? |
Bernstein and Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, DGG.
Good day. |
My original post under "Basic Repertoire" mentioned that, for these pages, the emphasis should be placed on sound quality, but not at the cost of a sloppy performance. If more than one recording should be ex aequo, the one with the best sound quality should be chosen. I indicated lps and cds. At this stage I guess we can add whatever may be found on the other newer SACD format as well. Thanks. |
Well Pbb, I was watching your post with interest but I am totally unqualified to opine on a "basic repertoire" of orchestral music. I am interested in learning though. Reminds me a little of the late Mortimer Adler's Greatest Books project. No end to that debate but certainly worthy of discussion.
I'm certain there are educated "non-posters" out there but I've been hanging around here for a few months now and I can only think of a small handful of posters who seemed qualifed to even think about tackling the subject. Maybe it's a lack of expertise rather than a lack of interest.
It was a good try though. Thanks for that.
I remain, |
Pbb, I could be of some help in another catagory. I too would like to learn about some of the better orchestral music. I have been following the forums for some time also and rarely see recommendations for this type of music. Good luck and...
Happy listening,
Patrick |
Such a broad subject ! Anyway here a few of mine.
Chrismas in Leipzig
Dorian
TchaiKovsky: 1812 Overture
Telarc
Mousorgsky: Picture at an exhibition
Telarc
(be careful, don't want to blow your speakers with the digital canon)
Vivaldi: The Four Seasons
Beethoven: Piano concerto No. 5
Telarc
Chopin: Piano concerto No.2 in F minor, Op. 21
...to many to list !!! :-) |
the new zinman/baltimore symphony on the argo label is first rate for barber's "adagio for strings".it was also given *** stars by the penquin guide. give it a shot. |
pbb, in my experience posting my opinion of the best of anything when no one has inquired regarding a specific recording is a waste of time and bandwidth. when some one wants a specific piece they can post and i'll bet they get a good response. for example, on your bartok, concerto for orchestra, i would recommend fischer and the budapest festival orchestra on phillips or reiner and the cso on rca. if all you want is the best recordings just buy whatever you want in the basic repertoire from reference recordings, dorian, delos, chandos, bis, hyperion, telarc etc. i think you will find that most people who are seriously interested in music are interested in the quality of the performance not the quality of the recording (which if good is a plus). this is probably why you get such a limited response (IMHO). |
Newbee, I still think that my idea of a basic repertoire gathered from suggestions emanating from "audiophiles" is more topical and less of a waste of time and bandwidth than, let's say, "What is the best beer". I believed that providing a list of works would be sufficient to prompt people to respond. I believed that a semi-comprehensive approach was a good thing. I was under the impression that sorrowful performances would be weeded out, and that among the contenders left a winner, recording quality-wise, could be found. It seems that no matter how many equipment reviews one can find in printed media or elsewhere, participants in 'Agon find other participant's views on equipment to be worthwhile. Wish it was the same for the music. Maybe I could start a thread on what is the best champagne to accompany one's music listening... How do a subscribe to Fanfare?
Good day. |
Pbb, per harp we are music lovers and not performance reviewer? Some of us mostly me, lacks music education to be able to criticize/judge a performance. Secondly, when We/I go to the record store, we just pick the record, which is carry by the store (limited) at that particular time, and not necessary pick a same record with different label the next time. Fanfare is sometime a luxury, or troublesome, you know? Which is why I post, what I posted, last time. Good day. :-) |
Pbb: in my case, the tough part is yr request for "quality recording":) I usually go for the performance & hope for the sonic quality... which is rarely there, to be honest!
Coming to yr pieces.
The Antiqua Koln Orch. recording for Bach's Brandenburg & others (Archiv/DG -- CD).
Don't remember which Bartok is sonically pleasing-- will get back to you on that. (Don't know about Barber, sorry).
I could add to suggestions above:
Orff/Carmina Burana - Jochum -- DG (LP)
Mahler 2nd - Klemperer+Philarmonia (EMI, LP & cd)
Mahler 5th - Barbirolli (EMI "great recordings" or is it BBC classics? CD)
Scheherazade / Telarc (not a top-notch performance but powerful dynamics)
Berlioz /Symphonie Fantastique/ Munch (CD, japanese edition of Mercury, I think. I also have a CBS LP of this -- so, I may be quoting the wrong label s/where: cbs is Sony nowadays)
Cheers |
Most of my limited knowledge is from listening to PBS radio for years. OK, just like here, you will get different opinions. ----Regarding just about anything conducted by Lenny or Herbie; they are both to slow in the slow movements and to fast in the faster movements. (Lenny's Mahler excepted) There are versions of many pieces where one movement is great and another movement--not so great. Listen / watch -- On dvd no less:Beethoven's 9th by Cauadio Abbado. His 9th is the best by far I've ever heard. I have this by Herbie / Lenny/ and Fritzie(Riener)Non can touch this version. |
Back to Bartok's Concerto for Orch: to my knowledge, the better sounding one is w/ Chicago S. Orch/Boulez (DG -- CD).
I prefer Chicago/Reiner (RCA -- LP, probably CD too), but the sound is not audiophile quality! Cheers |
