Here's the thing about editions - back in the day, if you wanted to do Ravel or Debussy, for example, you got parts printed on toilet paper that were full of misprints, or you got Kalmus reprints of the few things that were old enough to be public domain. Those were also full of misprints - wrong notes, wrong dynamics, wrong articulations - in some cases, it was drastic. Unless you had a world-class orchestra that played these things often, the conductor had to sort it all out him/herself because there was not a professional library staff. Now, there are resources like errata lists that are circulated, and you can get by. There is NO NEED whatsoever for most of the new critical editions that are being published. Their sole purpose is to BLACKMAIL orchestras and opera and ballet companies into paying royalties to use new editions. In the case of Tchaikovsky, it is a total joke that anybody would bother with a "critical edition". The handful of corrections you have to make to the parts and scores are well-documented and easy to fix. It's purely about money for publishers and pseudo-scholars getting papers published. It is disgusting.
Dave, you are so correct on every point made. In the late 19th century, orchestral forces were large. In college, I played 4th horn, and it is a great piece. The horn solo in the second movement is one of the top solos for that instrument in all of orchestral music. I would hate to hear it played with that orchestra! I do have one suggestion for you after viewing an earlier video that you made today. The writing of the coda of the last movement would be fantastic example of orchestration. Those chords that lead up to final accelerando are gorgeous, especially what I term the "splat" chord where the brass, especially play their lungs out. And BTW, I purchased the Honeck recording of the 5th on your recommendation, and it is glorious. It proves every point you made about how the work should sound.
Sounds like Mukus and Flemm needed more tissue to clear out their heads. Yeah, after almost a half century of imprinting these works as I know them, this dog is not interested in learning new tricks with some modified score/performance. The good doctors seem to be prescribing a cure for a non-existent condition.
Marvelous! Your use of the word "moron", and the juiciness with which you uttered it, is more powerful than any cuss word you could have used (however justified that would have been!). Postscript: I listened to the recordings in question since posting my initial comment... I think you went too easy on them. Sounds like a symphonic wind ensemble augmented by a few strings... and no concept of ebb-and-flow in the interpretations. Indeed, awful.
Thanks for the laugh Dave! Also a very informative video on what is wrong with this project... It's unique/challenged approach may earn it some special fans anyhow but I won't be buying.
Sounds like modern-day Schalk and Lowe bowdlerizing the greats. First principle of Brucknerizing: use a BIG orchestra! Second principle: don't circumcise the symphony! I agree with you, Dave. Tchaikovsky has his own, wonderful orchestral sound. Let that be.
I will dodge this disc like COVID. Now there are rare exceptions where a critical edition or performance might be appropriate when analyzing a piece. Keeping with Tchaikovsky, I've heard a recording of the first version of Romeo and Juliet and the Little Russian Symphony. Tchaikovsky used a different opening in the overture and somewhat grander section during the climax, but kept the famous love theme. No question the final product is superior, but the original version is solid. Albeit slightly choppy in certain spots. The original version of the symphony on the other hand, just seemed to be all over the place. With the orchestra struggling to get through it. Total disaster.
@@johnwalzer9187 You are not wrong to like the first version, but for me, while the work as it stands is my least favourite of the six numbered symphonies (I actually like the First and Third quite a lot), I'm not sure the original is better. It is, however, different in exactly the way you describe it. It is an instance where both versions are worth knowing, but Simon's fine recording is sufficient to satisfy my curiosity. I don't need to hear it often.
Holly Mravinsky! What a mess! I felt personally insulted by that thing! That’s what happens when pretentious people try to act terrific and just get terrible! Gross!
Here's the thing about editions - back in the day, if you wanted to do Ravel or Debussy, for example, you got parts printed on toilet paper that were full of misprints, or you got Kalmus reprints of the few things that were old enough to be public domain. Those were also full of misprints - wrong notes, wrong dynamics, wrong articulations - in some cases, it was drastic. Unless you had a world-class orchestra that played these things often, the conductor had to sort it all out him/herself because there was not a professional library staff.
Now, there are resources like errata lists that are circulated, and you can get by. There is NO NEED whatsoever for most of the new critical editions that are being published. Their sole purpose is to BLACKMAIL orchestras and opera and ballet companies into paying royalties to use new editions. In the case of Tchaikovsky, it is a total joke that anybody would bother with a "critical edition". The handful of corrections you have to make to the parts and scores are well-documented and easy to fix. It's purely about money for publishers and pseudo-scholars getting papers published. It is disgusting.
Dave, you are so correct on every point made. In the late 19th century, orchestral forces were large. In college, I played 4th horn, and it is a great piece. The horn solo in the second movement is one of the top solos for that instrument in all of orchestral music. I would hate to hear it played with that orchestra! I do have one suggestion for you after viewing an earlier video that you made today. The writing of the coda of the last movement would be fantastic example of orchestration. Those chords that lead up to final accelerando are gorgeous, especially what I term the "splat" chord where the brass, especially play their lungs out. And BTW, I purchased the Honeck recording of the 5th on your recommendation, and it is glorious. It proves every point you made about how the work should sound.
I wonder which scarf you'll wear for this disc in your year-end review. You hinted at one, but there are others to choose from...
Sounds like Mukus and Flemm needed more tissue to clear out their heads. Yeah, after almost a half century of imprinting these works as I know them, this dog is not interested in learning new tricks with some modified score/performance. The good doctors seem to be prescribing a cure for a non-existent condition.
Inept recordings of great works disgust me, but it’s a joy listening to Dave trash them. 🥳
You used a word I had forgotten about; PALID! Love it, and I think this is the best you've Hurwitzed something in awhile...
When I read the title, I was expecting one of the scarfs 😂. Thanks for the video,I will avoid these records for sure.
Dave, I understand and share your anger with all this bullshit. Thank you for calling out this crap.
I get your point, and will not buy this to verify for myself. So, are you going to keep this in your overflow room as an un-reference recording?
Marvelous! Your use of the word "moron", and the juiciness with which you uttered it, is more powerful than any cuss word you could have used (however justified that would have been!).
Postscript: I listened to the recordings in question since posting my initial comment... I think you went too easy on them. Sounds like a symphonic wind ensemble augmented by a few strings... and no concept of ebb-and-flow in the interpretations. Indeed, awful.
Mukus and Flemm's approach might appeal to some people, I suppose. After all, "de gustibus non est de sputum".
I just spit all over my computer screen. You made my day.
Sounds like a great candidate for the ALDA's 2024. Sounds like the hubris of these people is the only truly remarkable about this recording.
So... this will never be considered a "reference" recording?
At first, I honestly thought this was a Tinnitus Classics video. That it exists in the real world is kind of scary. And depressing.
Just downloaded it! Have to hear it now 🤣🤣🤣
I suspect that come the end of the year this disc is going to be presented with a very colorful scarf .
Thanks for the laugh Dave! Also a very informative video on what is wrong with this project... It's unique/challenged approach may earn it some special fans anyhow but I won't be buying.
Sounds like modern-day Schalk and Lowe bowdlerizing the greats. First principle of Brucknerizing: use a BIG orchestra! Second principle: don't circumcise the symphony! I agree with you, Dave. Tchaikovsky has his own, wonderful orchestral sound. Let that be.
So these scholars think that preparing a piece for performance is the same as composing?
“The Bruckner people” 😂
I will dodge this disc like COVID. Now there are rare exceptions where a critical edition or performance might be appropriate when analyzing a piece. Keeping with Tchaikovsky, I've heard a recording of the first version of Romeo and Juliet and the Little Russian Symphony. Tchaikovsky used a different opening in the overture and somewhat grander section during the climax, but kept the famous love theme. No question the final product is superior, but the original version is solid. Albeit slightly choppy in certain spots. The original version of the symphony on the other hand, just seemed to be all over the place. With the orchestra struggling to get through it. Total disaster.
@@johnwalzer9187 You are not wrong to like the first version, but for me, while the work as it stands is my least favourite of the six numbered symphonies (I actually like the First and Third quite a lot), I'm not sure the original is better. It is, however, different in exactly the way you describe it. It is an instance where both versions are worth knowing, but Simon's fine recording is sufficient to satisfy my curiosity. I don't need to hear it often.
Just take a few teaspoons of Guaifenesen. That should help.
Works for me.
Instead of a scarf of shame, perhaps a hospital gown....
Holly Mravinsky! What a mess! I felt personally insulted by that thing! That’s what happens when pretentious people try to act terrific and just get terrible! Gross!