Discussion:
Beecham is best stereo Scheherezade
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2008-12-01 01:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So proclaims this article:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
Royke
2008-12-01 05:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But the writer does not seem to have heard Kondrashin, Concertgebouw Orkest,
and Krebbers ...
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
j***@aol.com
2008-12-01 05:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Royke
But the writer does not seem to have heard Kondrashin, Concertgebouw Orkest,
and Krebbers ...
There does seem to be a dearth of modern recordings on this survey,
but I wouldn't bet on his not having heard Kondrashin. He seems to
have heard a fair number and probably has heard some others he didn't
mention.

Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery, but no more mysterious than this comment like

"Golovanov constantly varies the textures with emphatic gestures of
huge crashing cymbals, boiling tympani, pounding bass pizzicato, and
outrageously commanding harp punctuation – and since this is a studio
recording, these embellishments can't be shrugged off as inadvertent
flukes of microphone placement in a concert hall setting."

--Jeff
Gerard
2008-12-01 07:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery,
One Ormandy recording he did mention ("his 1962 Philadelphia Orchestra
recording, which remains a top choice for those seeking a Scheherazade of sheer
beauty").
But no Svetlanov, or Markevitch.
j***@aol.com
2008-12-01 08:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by j***@aol.com
Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery,
One Ormandy recording he did mention ("his 1962 Philadelphia Orchestra
recording, which remains a top choice for those seeking a Scheherazade of sheer
beauty").
But no Svetlanov, or Markevitch.
Yes...unfortunate, too, because the Svetlanov on BBC is perhaps the
best of the whole lot.

--Jeff
j***@hotmail.com
2008-12-02 04:27:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by j***@aol.com
Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery,
One Ormandy recording he did mention ("his 1962 Philadelphia Orchestra
recording, which remains a top choice for those seeking a Scheherazade of sheer
beauty").
But no Svetlanov, or Markevitch.
And even more regrettably, no Silvestri.
u***@yahoo.com
2008-12-01 08:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by Royke
But the writer does not seem to have heard Kondrashin, Concertgebouw Orkest,
and Krebbers ...
There does seem to be a dearth of modern recordings on this survey,
but I wouldn't bet on his not having heard Kondrashin. He seems to
have heard a fair number and probably has heard some others he didn't
mention.
Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery, but no more mysterious than this comment like
"Golovanov constantly varies the textures with emphatic gestures of
huge crashing cymbals, boiling tympani, pounding bass pizzicato, and
outrageously commanding harp punctuation – and since this is a studio
recording, these embellishments can't be shrugged off as inadvertent
flukes of microphone placement in a concert hall setting."
--Jeff
You had me at "...is a mystery..." There are so many good version of
this, but he does not include discussion of them. He does seem to be
stuck mostly in a certain era. I remember that cover though - very
cool.
g***@gmail.com
2008-12-02 15:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Why he didn't mention Kondrashin, or Mackerras, Spano, Barenboim,
Ozawa, Muti, Ormandy, Masur, Chailly, Karajan, or Dutoit, is a
mystery
You can always send Peter an email and ask for an explanation as to
why he did not specifically mention your favorites instead of his.


Dil.
3Bs
2008-12-03 12:46:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Royke
But the writer does not seem to have heard Kondrashin, Concertgebouw Orkest,
and Krebbers ...
or Kempe, Silvestri, Tjeknoviorian, and so on.
Dawg
2008-12-03 12:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 3Bs
Post by Royke
But the writer does not seem to have heard Kondrashin, Concertgebouw Orkest,
and Krebbers ...
or Kempe, Silvestri, Tjeknoviorian, and so on.
Loris Tjeknavorian's version is magical.

Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
William Sommerwerck
2008-12-03 12:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...

Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's rather
like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance that's
convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
Dawg
2008-12-03 13:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's rather
like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance that's
convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I could, as well as others here, ask the question as to why people
listen to certain pieces. I think Scheherezade a masterpiece of its
type, and enjoyable to boot. It possesses colour, and an exotic feel,
and some magic, which is more than I could say about some music people
listen to.

Please don't ask me to list these pieces either.

Try Tjeknavorian before passing final judgement. Not for everyday of
course, but a treat to be enjoyed at least once in a while. Rimsky,
imho, was a far better composer than many give credit to.

Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
William Sommerwerck
2008-12-03 14:03:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dawg
Post by William Sommerwerck
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical
ideas repeated over and over, with little variation or development.
It's rather like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a
performance that's convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I could, as well as others here, ask the question as to why people
listen to certain pieces. I think Scheherezade a masterpiece of its
type, and enjoyable to boot. It possesses colour, and an exotic feel,
and some magic, which is more than I could say about some music
people listen to.
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it has -- an
appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
Post by Dawg
Try Tjeknavorian before passing final judgement. Not for everyday of
course, but a treat to be enjoyed at least once in a while. Rimsky,
imho, was a far better composer than many give credit to.
I will, if I can. I have nothing against R-K -- just "Scheherazade".
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-03 18:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Dawg
Post by William Sommerwerck
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical
ideas repeated over and over, with little variation or development.
It's rather like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a
performance that's convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I could, as well as others here, ask the question as to why people
listen to certain pieces. I think Scheherezade a masterpiece of its
type, and enjoyable to boot. It possesses colour, and an exotic feel,
and some magic, which is more than I could say about some music
people listen to.
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it has -- an
appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and the
athmospherical musical sceneries R-K creates. Not very piece of music
has to be a deep "philosophical" statement. Although the level of
craftsmanship displayed in this piece could be seen as a form of a
statement in itself. He may "milk" the material a little bit too much,
and I am not a big fan of this work either, but I do enjoy listening
to it once in a while. Last time I listened to it it struck me that
the repetition of small elements foreshadows minimalism in a rather
interesting way.
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Dawg
Try Tjeknavorian before passing final judgement. Not for everyday of
course, but a treat to be enjoyed at least once in a while. Rimsky,
imho, was a far better composer than many give credit to.
I will, if I can. I have nothing against R-K -- just "Scheherazade".
William Sommerwerck
2008-12-03 21:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it has
-- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and the
athmospherical musical sceneries R-K creates. Not very piece of
music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Gerard
2008-12-03 22:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it
has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and the
athmospherical musical sceneries R-K creates. Not very piece of
music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
William Sommerwerck
2008-12-04 00:35:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that
it has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and
the athmospherical [sic] musical sceneries R-K creates. Not every
piece of music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
Yes. It is for good music. You don't just keep repeating things, unchanged.

Note Bernard Herrmann's film scores. He rarely, if ever, exactly repeats a
musical idea (something JW could learn). Ideas are varied in tempo,
phrasing, key, harmonization, etc.
Gerard
2008-12-04 07:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that
it has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and
the athmospherical [sic] musical sceneries R-K creates. Not
every piece of music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
Yes. It is for good music.
No, I think this is just your definition (of "good music").
Post by William Sommerwerck
You don't just keep repeating things,
unchanged.
Does Rimsky-Korsakow?
Post by William Sommerwerck
Note Bernard Herrmann's film scores. He rarely, if ever, exactly
repeats a musical idea (something JW could learn). Ideas are varied
in tempo, phrasing, key, harmonization, etc.
Varying is "development"?

I think you simply don't like the music and have tried hard to find some
'reasons'.
Many people do like the music, and have no problem with your 'reasons'.
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-04 16:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that
it has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and
the athmospherical [sic] musical sceneries R-K creates. Not
every piece of music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
Yes. It is for good music.
No, I think this is just your definition (of "good music").
Post by William Sommerwerck
You don't just keep repeating things,
unchanged.
Does Rimsky-Korsakow?
Post by William Sommerwerck
Note Bernard Herrmann's film scores. He rarely, if ever, exactly
repeats a musical idea (something JW could learn). Ideas are varied
in tempo, phrasing, key, harmonization, etc.
Varying is "development"?
I think you simply don't like the music and have tried hard to find some
'reasons'.
Many people do like the music, and have no problem with your 'reasons'.
My impression is actually that William does try to "understand" the
music or at least why other people like the music, not that he is just
looking for reasons to "dismiss" it. However, it looks to me like he
simply doesn't notice the many subtle changes and variations of the
musical material in this score, hence his above remarks.
Gerard
2008-12-04 19:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all
that it has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging
substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra
and the athmospherical [sic] musical sceneries R-K creates.
Not every piece of music has to be a deep "philosophical"
statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
Yes. It is for good music.
No, I think this is just your definition (of "good music").
Post by William Sommerwerck
You don't just keep repeating things,
unchanged.
Does Rimsky-Korsakow?
Post by William Sommerwerck
Note Bernard Herrmann's film scores. He rarely, if ever, exactly
repeats a musical idea (something JW could learn). Ideas are
varied in tempo, phrasing, key, harmonization, etc.
Varying is "development"?
I think you simply don't like the music and have tried hard to find
some 'reasons'.
Many people do like the music, and have no problem with your
'reasons'.
My impression is actually that William does try to "understand" the
music or at least why other people like the music,
That's not my impression since he wrote:
"Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas repeated
over and over".
Post by Michael Schaffer
not that he is just
looking for reasons to "dismiss" it. However, it looks to me like he
simply doesn't notice the many subtle changes and variations of the
musical material in this score, hence his above remarks.
That's more my impression ;-)
I've never noticed that Scheherazade is without subtle changes and variations
etcetera.
I will give this aspect some attention next time I listen to a recording of it.

BTW recently I was at a concert at which this music was played (not really very
good, but quite good for a real youth orchestra). Maybe seeing it in concert
makes the variations more 'visible' and hearable.
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-05 01:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all
that it has -- an appealing surface, but no engaging
substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra
and the athmospherical [sic] musical sceneries R-K creates.
Not every piece of music has to be a deep "philosophical"
statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
Is that a requirement?
Yes. It is for good music.
No, I think this is just your definition (of "good music").
Post by William Sommerwerck
You don't just keep repeating things,
unchanged.
Does Rimsky-Korsakow?
Post by William Sommerwerck
Note Bernard Herrmann's film scores. He rarely, if ever, exactly
repeats a musical idea (something JW could learn). Ideas are
varied in tempo, phrasing, key, harmonization, etc.
Varying is "development"?
I think you simply don't like the music and have tried hard to find
some 'reasons'.
Many people do like the music, and have no problem with your 'reasons'.
My impression is actually that William does try to "understand" the
music or at least why other people like the music,
"Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas repeated
over and over".
Post by Michael Schaffer
not that he is just
looking for reasons to "dismiss" it. However, it looks to me like he
simply doesn't notice the many subtle changes and variations of the
musical material in this score, hence his above remarks.
That's more my impression ;-)
I've never noticed that Scheherazade is without subtle changes and variations
etcetera.
I will give this aspect some attention next time I listen to a recording of it.
BTW recently I was at a concert at which this music was played (not really very
good, but quite good for a real youth orchestra). Maybe seeing it in concert
makes the variations more 'visible' and hearable.
The last time I heard it live was with the BP conducted by Sakari
Oramo 2 1/3 years ago. It was the only program that was on while I was
in Berlin, and I remember being a little disappointed that it was
Scheherazade because I am not a big fan of the piece either. But the
concert was great with the orchestra in real top form, so I enjoyed
the concert a lot. I don't think I have listened to a recording of it
since then, but this discussion inspired me to order the Previn
recording with the WP and also Tjeknavorian's, since that was so
highly recommended.
Gerard
2008-12-05 08:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
BTW recently I was at a concert at which this music was played (not
really very good, but quite good for a real youth orchestra). Maybe
seeing it in concert makes the variations more 'visible' and
hearable.
The last time I heard it live was with the BP conducted by Sakari
Oramo 2 1/3 years ago. It was the only program that was on while I was
in Berlin, and I remember being a little disappointed that it was
Scheherazade because I am not a big fan of the piece either. But the
concert was great with the orchestra in real top form, so I enjoyed
the concert a lot. I don't think I have listened to a recording of it
since then, but this discussion inspired me to order the Previn
recording with the WP and also Tjeknavorian's, since that was so
highly recommended.
I have a recording by Tjeknavorian on Brilliant Classics, but I have never
understood that recommendation.
It will be the first Scheherazade recording I will listen to, next time ..
I do like the piece, but not on a weekly base.

I also enjoyed that concert, with a local youth (under 20 years) orchestra. Not
because of the 'top form' - but maybe this actually was their topform. But
because they played with fire and flair. And their violin soliste was playing
marvellously (like she did more recently with the Tchaikovsky concerto).
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-05 16:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
BTW recently I was at a concert at which this music was played (not
really very good, but quite good for a real youth orchestra). Maybe
seeing it in concert makes the variations more 'visible' and
hearable.
The last time I heard it live was with the BP conducted by Sakari
Oramo 2 1/3 years ago. It was the only program that was on while I was
in Berlin, and I remember being a little disappointed that it was
Scheherazade because I am not a big fan of the piece either. But the
concert was great with the orchestra in real top form, so I enjoyed
the concert a lot. I don't think I have listened to a recording of it
since then, but this discussion inspired me to order the Previn
recording with the WP and also Tjeknavorian's, since that was so
highly recommended.
I have a recording by Tjeknavorian on Brilliant Classics, but I have never
understood that recommendation.
It will be the first Scheherazade recording I will listen to, next time ..
I do like the piece, but not on a weekly base.
I also enjoyed that concert, with a local youth (under 20 years) orchestra. Not
because of the 'top form' - but maybe this actually was their topform. But
because they played with fire and flair. And their violin soliste was playing
marvellously (like she did more recently with the Tchaikovsky concerto).
What youth orchestra was that?
Gerard
2008-12-05 18:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
I also enjoyed that concert, with a local youth (under 20 years)
orchestra. Not because of the 'top form' - but maybe this actually
was their topform. But because they played with fire and flair. And
their violin soliste was playing marvellously (like she did more
recently with the Tchaikovsky concerto).
What youth orchestra was that?
The Viotta Youth Orchestra.
See http://www.viotta.nl/
and (in English) http://www.viotta.nl/English.htm

They are doing quite good, as you can see on that English page:

"Last year it competed in the Summa Cum Laude International Youth Festival in
Vienna where it performed in the famous Golden Hall of the Wiener Musikverein.
The jury awarded the orchestra first place “with excellent success” in the
category Symphony Orchestras."

About their conductor Dick van Gasteren:
http://www.dickvangasteren.nl/startgb.html
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-07 03:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
I also enjoyed that concert, with a local youth (under 20 years)
orchestra. Not because of the 'top form' - but maybe this actually
was their topform. But because they played with fire and flair. And
their violin soliste was playing marvellously (like she did more
recently with the Tchaikovsky concerto).
What youth orchestra was that?
The Viotta Youth Orchestra.
Seehttp://www.viotta.nl/
and (in English)http://www.viotta.nl/English.htm
"Last year it competed in the Summa Cum Laude International Youth Festival in
Vienna where it performed in the famous Golden Hall of the Wiener Musikverein.
The jury awarded the orchestra first place “with excellent success” in the
category Symphony Orchestras."
About their conductor Dick van Gasteren:http://www.dickvangasteren.nl/startgb.html
Aha!

In the meantime, I got the CD with Previn's WP recording which I
ordered after reading here about it. I think this is the first time I
have listened to the piece in 2 1/2 years or so since I heard it live
in Berlin with BP/Oramo.
I have to say it is a rather good recording. Actually the *recording*
is extremely good, very clear and smooth but still warm and full and
very "realistic". The presence and natural quality of the sound is
very impressive. There are some instances of slightly exaggerated spot
miking, but overall, the sound is very "natural" and true to the sound
of the orchestra. And yes, it is an "early digital" recording which
once again demonstrates that the harsh and glaring quality of many
"early digital" recordings is to be attributed to the way the
engineers used the new technology, not the technology itself.
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings. Very solid, but not much more (in other words,
a typical Previn product).
Gerard
2008-12-07 08:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).

Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.
m***@gmail.com
2008-12-07 11:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Michael, please post your comments on the Tjek recordings, as I'm sure
you'll have something to say about the (to my ears) exotic sound of
the orchestra. I don't listen to the piece frequently, but I found
the Tjek recording a delight. But my recommendation shouldn't carry a
lot of weight.
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-07 23:00:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Gerard
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Michael, please post your comments on the Tjek recordings, as I'm sure
you'll have something to say about the (to my ears) exotic sound of
the orchestra. I don't listen to the piece frequently, but I found
the Tjek recording a delight. But my recommendation shouldn't carry a
lot of weight.
I ordered that, too (the whole Brilliant box which I think also
contains contibutions by other artists) and I look forward to getting
it - I have never heard an Armenian orchestra. Just looked at their
website. Looks like everybody's name really ends in -yan!
Brendan R. Wehrung
2008-12-08 06:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, a=
nd in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magi=
c'
either.
Michael, please post your comments on the Tjek recordings, as I'm sure
you'll have something to say about the (to my ears) exotic sound of
the orchestra. I don't listen to the piece frequently, but I found
the Tjek recording a delight. But my recommendation shouldn't carry a
lot of weight.
Considering there are 5 versions or so, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned
Stokowski in this thread. at least not that I noticed. Talk about
Technicolor!

Brendan
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-07 23:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).
Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.
Terry
2008-12-08 14:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:10:58 +1100, Michael Schaffer wrote
(in article
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).
Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.
The Mackerras is fine, and well recorded. Others I like are those by Neeme
Jarvi with the Scottish National Orchestra on Chandos, Ansermet/l'Orchestre
de la Suisse Romande on Decca, and Haitink with the Concertgebouw Orchestra
Amsterdam on Philips. The famous Beecham seems a bit mannered to me, and
Stokowski a bit overdone.
--
Cheers!

Terry
Gerard
2008-12-08 16:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable.
I think they are. Even if I don't agree with them. But they always have some
extra information.
Post by Michael Schaffer
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I've seen several of those rehearsel clips with Gergiev.
I remember one with the Symphonie Fantastique (in Rotterdam), and I had high
expectations of the recording. But that came with the Wiener Philharmoniker, and
it was not "the same thing".
bpnjensen
2008-12-08 16:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable.
I think they are. Even if I don't agree with them. But they always have some
extra information.
Post by Michael Schaffer
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I've seen several of those rehearsel clips with Gergiev.
I remember one with the Symphonie Fantastique (in Rotterdam), and I had high
expectations of the recording. But that came with the Wiener Philharmoniker, and
it was not "the same thing".
FWIW, at the concert we saw in Berkeley, CA, Gergiev conducted with
what appeared to be a toothpick. For me, that was most intriguing
part of the show!

Bruce
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-12-08 20:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
bpnjensen <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:84c95c9d-5624-4ee9-bf71-8b7a31b4f018
Post by bpnjensen
FWIW, at the concert we saw in Berkeley, CA, Gergiev conducted with
what appeared to be a toothpick. For me, that was most intriguing
part of the show!
I once saw a concert in Berkeley where the conductor used a stalk of celery!
It was some amateur chorus, I forget which, doing P.D.Q. Bach's "Seasonings."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
bpnjensen
2008-12-08 16:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).
Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We heard Gergiev play it live with his orchestra about 2 years ago (?)
here in Berkeley, CA. We enjoyed the concert (mostly - for me, the
first two movements went so slowly and they made me so sleepy that I
did not notice the first end and the second begin), and he included
his two usual add-ons, Islamey and Steppes plus Sleeping Beauty Waltz
as the encore. If the recording is like the concert, it is certainly
colorful (even if the first two movements tempi are slow), with but I
cannot say it like it better than Kondrashin or Mackerras on Telarc.
For me, Kondrashin's Concertgebouw recording *is* magic, and Mackerras
is excitement being born. Based on that concert, I decided not to get
the CD.

I also really like Dutoit/Montreal, a wonderful romantic performance,
but the recording is somewhat mellow and not as detailed as Kondrashin
or especially Mackerras, which is spine-tingling in its clarity.
Still, I would not be without it. I also have Ormandy's Sony, and it
is pleasant, but not in the same league.

~ Bruce
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-08 19:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bpnjensen
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).
Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We heard Gergiev play it live with his orchestra about 2 years ago (?)
here in Berkeley, CA.  We enjoyed the concert (mostly - for me, the
first two movements went so slowly and they made me so sleepy that I
did not notice the first end and the second begin), and he included
his two usual add-ons, Islamey and Steppes plus Sleeping Beauty Waltz
as the encore.  If the recording is like the concert, it is certainly
colorful (even if the first two movements tempi are slow), with but I
cannot say it like it better than Kondrashin or Mackerras on Telarc.
For me, Kondrashin's Concertgebouw recording *is* magic, and Mackerras
is excitement being born.  Based on that concert, I decided not to get
the CD.
I also really like Dutoit/Montreal, a wonderful romantic performance,
but the recording is somewhat mellow and not as detailed as Kondrashin
or especially Mackerras, which is spine-tingling in its clarity.
Still, I would not be without it.  I also have Ormandy's Sony, and it
is pleasant, but not in the same league.
~ Bruce- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I might be tempted to try the Mackerras recording, too. What he does
is usually very good and musically interesting.
g***@gmail.com
2018-05-16 23:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra)...
Recent Youtube upload:

Rimsky Korsakov - Scheherazade, Op. 35 (reference recording : Kirill Kondrashin)
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-05 05:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bpnjensen
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Gerard
Post by Michael Schaffer
Anyway, the performance itself is very good, but rather prosaic and
not very inspired. There is no fairy tale "magic" here. The playing of
the orchestra is predictably highly cultivated, polished and sonorous.
I have relistened to Tjeknavorian's ASV (Brilliant Classics) recording, and in
many ways that one is the opposite of your description here. But no 'magic'
either.
Post by Michael Schaffer
But Previn just waves the orchestra through the piece in somewhat slow
and unspringy tempi without really making any interesting musical
points. I have heard many more "exciting" and musically more
interesting recordings.
I'ld like to know which recordings these are.
I am not exactly an expert when it comes to this piece which I like
but am not really that much into, so I don't know if my
recommendations would be really valuable. I never did any comparative
listening of this piece. A few recordings which come to mind and which
I would recommend though are Temirkanov's with the NYP which is rather
weighty, too, but musically more interesting and extremely well played
- I think the bassoon solos in the second movement are the best
bassoon playing I have ever heard! -, then I also like the recording
with Spano and the ASO, it is very meticulously prepared and has a lot
of drive, and I also liked Immerseel'recording on "period
instruments". I am not sure how "authentic" that all is, but the
orchestra sounds good and it is a very musical performance. No big HIP
"revelations" here, but a very well done performance. I think I also
liked Karajan's BP recording, but it has been ages since I last
listened to it. Maazel's with the BP is very good, too, but totally
spoilt by DG's eaxtremely bright and dry "early digital" recording -
exactly the kind of recording I talked about earlier -, so it can not
really be recommended. Good sound is very important for this kind of
piece.
I would actually like to hear Gergiev's recording. I watched a
documentary about him the other day which contained rehearsal clips
with him and his former orchestra in Rotterdam. Yes, I know, it is
hard to picture Gergiev actually rehearse, but he did, and he had some
interesting musical points to make.
I have the other recording with the WP, with Ozawa, and wouldn't mind
relistening to it but it is packed up and out of reach right now.
Post by Gerard
I think my favorite remains Kondrashin with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (his
only 'studio' recording with this orchestra). But I have never really compared
things (and never heard Markevitch - my "imprinting" in this piece - and Monteux
since the LP era).
Recently I've heard two movements on radio of Gergiev's recording. That is one I
really would like to have, once. And maybe Mackerras (on Telarc), based on
reviews - I've never heard it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We heard Gergiev play it live with his orchestra about 2 years ago (?)
here in Berkeley, CA. We enjoyed the concert (mostly - for me, the
first two movements went so slowly and they made me so sleepy that I
did not notice the first end and the second begin), and he included
his two usual add-ons, Islamey and Steppes plus Sleeping Beauty Waltz
as the encore. If the recording is like the concert, it is certainly
colorful (even if the first two movements tempi are slow), with but I
cannot say it like it better than Kondrashin or Mackerras on Telarc.
For me, Kondrashin's Concertgebouw recording *is* magic...
It was recently uploaded on Youtube:

Rimsky Korsakov - Scheherazade, Op. 35 (reference recording : Kirill Kondrashin)
r***@gmail.com
2018-09-05 08:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have several Scheherezades, including Tjeknavorian, Kondrashin, but they all yield in most respects to Schwarz/Seattle, and coupled to an equally good Tsar Saltan. Schwarz and orchestra are riveting, bar by bar. Imho of course.

Ray Hall, Taree
Kerrison
2018-09-05 22:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
I have several Scheherezades, including Tjeknavorian, Kondrashin, but they all yield in most respects to Schwarz/Seattle, and coupled to an equally good Tsar Saltan. Schwarz and orchestra are riveting, bar by bar. Imho of course.
Ray Hall, Taree
Does anyone have the early 'Living Stereo' version recorded in 1955 by Morton Gould and his Symphony Orchestra, Max Pollikoff, violin? It had rave reviews at the time, not only for the performance and the playing but also the sonics. I don't think it was ever officially released on CD and in any case was superseded by RCA's 1960 Reiner / Chicago version. I wonder if the Morton Gould 'Symphony Orchestra' was similar to Stokowski's - ie: a mixture of NYPO and NBC players along with session men and freelancers?
Frank Berger
2018-09-05 23:30:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by r***@gmail.com
I have several Scheherezades, including Tjeknavorian, Kondrashin, but they all yield in most respects to Schwarz/Seattle, and coupled to an equally good Tsar Saltan. Schwarz and orchestra are riveting, bar by bar. Imho of course.
Ray Hall, Taree
Does anyone have the early 'Living Stereo' version recorded in 1955 by Morton Gould and his Symphony Orchestra, Max Pollikoff, violin? It had rave reviews at the time, not only for the performance and the playing but also the sonics. I don't think it was ever officially released on CD and in any case was superseded by RCA's 1960 Reiner / Chicago version. I wonder if the Morton Gould 'Symphony Orchestra' was similar to Stokowski's - ie: a mixture of NYPO and NBC players along with session men and freelancers?
The stereo (it was released on vinyl in mono and stereo versions) is
available for download from rediscover.us. A review says the orchestra
was a reduced-strength pickup orchestra.
D***@aol.com
2008-12-03 23:56:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it has
-- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and the
athmospherical musical sceneries R-K creates. Not very piece of
music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
But it's a four-movement orchestral suite. It was evidently never
intended to be something developed in the symphonic sense. It's four
descriptive pieces tied together by a story and a thematic idee fixe a
la Berlioz, not something that had to "develop" into something as
closely reasoned and put together as a unit as a Beethoven or Brahms
symphony. Four descriptive pieces. And, frankly, for me, fun. Nothing
more. I love Scheherazade; but I understand that many don't.

Don Tait
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-03 06:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by William Sommerwerck
No argument -- it's just that those things seem to be all that it has
-- an appealing surface, but no engaging substance.
The "substance" is the masterful treatment of the orchestra and the
athmospherical musical sceneries R-K creates. Not very piece of
music has to be a deep "philosophical" statement.
Of course not. But R-K doesn't really "develop" anything.
R-K was no Beethoven:

- ...{Beethoven's] way of building large structures from the obsessive development of curt motifs—that made the repertory culture of classical music possible.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-03 05:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dawg
Post by William Sommerwerck
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's rather
like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance that's
convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I could, as well as others here, ask the question as to why people
listen to certain pieces. I think Scheherezade a masterpiece of its
type, and enjoyable to boot. It possesses colour, and an exotic feel,
and some magic, which is more than I could say about some music people
listen to.
Please don't ask me to list these pieces either.
Try Tjeknavorian before passing final judgement. Not for everyday of
course, but a treat to be enjoyed at least once in a while. Rimsky,
imho, was a far better composer than many give credit to.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
A live performance of his was posted on Youtube 2 years ago:

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade Symphonic Suite, Op 35
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-12-03 15:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's rather
like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance that's
convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I listened to Stoki's out-of-Phase-4 recording last night. There are some
ravishing orchestral passages, and if the fiddler can scent his endless solos
with some originality and variety, you can have a winner.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
3Bs
2008-12-03 17:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's rather
like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance that's
convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I don't have to decide if it is good or not to know that I enjoy
listening to it every once in a while, especially from an orchestra
and conductor that is willing to put some oomph into it. Taking it too
seriously is perhaps a mistake.
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-12-03 21:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 3Bs
Post by William Sommerwerck
At the risk of seeming unduly cranky...
Why does anyone listen to "Scheherezade"? It's the same musical ideas
repeated over and over, with little variation or development. It's
rather like a crescendo-less "Bolero". I've never heard a performance
that's convinced me this is a "good" piece of music.
I don't have to decide if it is good or not to know that I enjoy
listening to it every once in a while, especially from an orchestra
and conductor that is willing to put some oomph into it. Taking it too
seriously is perhaps a mistake.
Yep. And it's a better piece than "Antar"; I was just listening to
Beecham's of that one (in the Great Conductors set) the other day, and it
did nothing for me. The 1,000-story lady, on the other hand, does.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Kip Williams
2008-12-03 23:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Yep. And it's a better piece than "Antar"; I was just listening to
Beecham's of that one (in the Great Conductors set) the other day, and it
did nothing for me. The 1,000-story lady, on the other hand, does.
Well, it's yummy, and spiced with some beautiful melodies that we get to
hear different times in different guises, starting the same and leading
to different places. The use of Scheherazade's motif, if that's what we
can call the solo that comes near the beginning and end and other
places, puts me in mind of the Promenade theme from Mussorgsky's
Pictures. The repeats of that and of other themes that come and go
throughout the piece make it appealing on a first listen, and the
aforementioned yumminess (expecially of the orchestration) make it
durable as well.

Obviously, mileage varies.


Kip W
D***@aol.com
2008-12-04 00:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Dec 3, 3:07�pm, "Matthew�B.�Tepper" <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:

[snip]
Post by 3Bs
I don't have to decide if it is good or not to know that I enjoy
listening to it every once in a while, especially from an orchestra
and conductor that is willing to put some oomph into it. Taking it too
seriously is perhaps a mistake.
Yep. �And it's a better piece than "Antar"; I was just listening to
Beecham's of that one (in the Great Conductors set) the other day, and it
did nothing for me. �The 1,000-story lady, on the other hand, does.
The live Beecham "Antar" in the GROC CD set is a rare Beecham
failure, especially with him and Russian music. Bad news. A Beecham
flop. Sad. There's been better news earlier.

Don Tait
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-12-04 02:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D***@aol.com
[snip]
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by 3Bs
I don't have to decide if it is good or not to know that I enjoy
listening to it every once in a while, especially from an orchestra
and conductor that is willing to put some oomph into it. Taking it
too seriously is perhaps a mistake.
Yep. And it's a better piece than "Antar"; I was just listening to
Beecham's of that one (in the Great Conductors set) the other day, and
it did nothing for me. The 1,000-story lady, on the other hand, does.
The live Beecham "Antar" in the GROC CD set is a rare Beecham failure,
especially with him and Russian music. Bad news. A Beecham flop. Sad.
There's been better news earlier.
At the same time I'm sorry to hear it, but relieved that it isn't me.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Neil
2008-12-01 05:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I remember critics in the 1960s judging it the best.

Neil Miller, author: The Piano Lessons Book & Piano Classics Analyzed
Methods and theory for confident memorized performances.
To buy, or view pages, search at Amazon.com and books.google.com –
Neil Miller Piano Lessons Book or Neil Miller Piano Analyzed
c***@ckhowell.com
2008-12-01 13:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Neil
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I remember critics in the 1960s judging it the best.
To be fair to the writer, he actually says that Beecham is "the
runaway favorite among most critics" (certainly true if "most critics"
means those that wrote for Gramophone in the 60s and 70s) without
specifically saying it's his own favorite. It's clear he admires it,
but it's equally clear he admires a lot of others. I think it's good
that he DOESN'T try to make a top choice, just describes the qualities
of the different versions.

The trouble is, how useful is a survey like this if it doesn't include
every recording (tall order though that may be)?

By the way, my introduction to Scheherazade was the LSO/Goossens on
World Record Club (probably Everest originally). I've never heard it
since my schooldays but it seemed good enough then. Anyone know it?

Chris Howell
Alan P Dawes
2008-12-02 10:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@ckhowell.com
By the way, my introduction to Scheherazade was the LSO/Goossens on
World Record Club (probably Everest originally). I've never heard it
since my schooldays but it seemed good enough then. Anyone know it?
My intro too, got it as one of the 7 free introductory records from WRC
when I joined in 1964. It's mono and I'm sure I've still got it in a box
in the attic, will have a look later.

Alan
--
***@argonet.co.uk
***@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
Kip Williams
2008-12-02 13:36:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
Post by c***@ckhowell.com
By the way, my introduction to Scheherazade was the LSO/Goossens on
World Record Club (probably Everest originally). I've never heard it
since my schooldays but it seemed good enough then. Anyone know it?
My intro too, got it as one of the 7 free introductory records from WRC
when I joined in 1964. It's mono and I'm sure I've still got it in a box
in the attic, will have a look later.
I was looking at some of the recordings available at emusic. They have
the Russian whose offbeat, passionate recording was highly rated by the
guy who looked at all those records and offered his suggestions. They
also have Goossens in a single track, which is always kind of appealing.
Scheherazade for thirty cents!


Kip W
Dan Fowler
2008-12-02 14:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks, Kip! I had two emusic downloads left for the month and was
wondering what to do with them. The Goossens Scheherazade and Cappriccio
Espagnole filled out the month's selections perfectly! (I also
downloaded the recently-discussed Hickox recording of Vaughan Williams
London Symphony)

Dan
Post by Kip Williams
I was looking at some of the recordings available at emusic. They have
the Russian whose offbeat, passionate recording was highly rated by the
guy who looked at all those records and offered his suggestions. They
also have Goossens in a single track, which is always kind of appealing.
Scheherazade for thirty cents!
Kip Williams
2008-12-02 15:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Fowler
Thanks, Kip! I had two emusic downloads left for the month and was
wondering what to do with them. The Goossens Scheherazade and Cappriccio
Espagnole filled out the month's selections perfectly! (I also
downloaded the recently-discussed Hickox recording of Vaughan Williams
London Symphony)
Well, that worked out nicely! I'll add (now that it's too late anyway)
that they have a Mozart Requiem in just two tracks there. Naturally,
I've mentally misplaced who the performers are, but it's findable. It
had a dark cover with a portrait of Mozart on it. (Hmmm, when I say
that, I remind myself of the fireman in the Kliban cartoon, holding a
ladder under his arm and explaining to helpful bystanders, "Well, it was
big and red and had other firemen all over it.")

Kip W
Richard Schultz
2008-12-01 05:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <ebfdfbdd-c2f8-43a6-96e5-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com wrote:

: So proclaims this article:
:
: http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html

I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed "best"
by so-called critics -- to be overrated. Frankly, I prefer Previn/LSO.
Yes, you read that right.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
rkhalona
2008-12-01 07:09:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
:http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed "best"
by so-called critics -- to be overrated.  Frankly, I prefer Previn/LSO.
Yes, you read that right.
Indeed, Previn's is a spectacular recording with great stars as
soloists (I recall Tuckwell as first horn being especially memorable).
I love my Scheherazades and I own more of them than I can count
(counting them only spoils the pleasure :-),
but as much as I love the Beecham, there is no such thing as best.
I even derived great pleasure from Celi's Scheherazade, which I found
positively Brucknerian :-)

RK
j***@aol.com
2008-12-01 07:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rkhalona
:http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed "best"
by so-called critics -- to be overrated. Frankly, I prefer Previn/LSO.
Yes, you read that right.
Indeed, Previn's is a spectacular recording with great stars as
soloists (I recall Tuckwell as first horn being especially memorable).
I love my Scheherazades and I own more of them than I can count
(counting them only spoils the pleasure :-),
but as much as I love the Beecham, there is no such thing as best.
I even derived great pleasure from Celi's Scheherazade, which I found
positively Brucknerian :-)
RK
Indeed the Celi Munich performance is marvelously Celicious.

--Jeff
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-12-01 07:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by rkhalona
but as much as I love the Beecham, there is no such thing as best.
I even derived great pleasure from Celi's Scheherazade, which I found
positively Brucknerian :-)
Indeed the Celi Munich performance is marvelously Celicious.
Is there a filler on CD2?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
j***@aol.com
2008-12-01 08:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by rkhalona
but as much as I love the Beecham, there is no such thing as best.
I even derived great pleasure from Celi's Scheherazade, which I found
positively Brucknerian :-)
Indeed the Celi Munich performance is marvelously Celicious.
Is there a filler on CD2?
Yes...on EMI the second disc has a 40-minute rehearsal excerpt
focusing exclusively on the first three chords.

--Jeff
Thomas Liebert
2008-12-01 17:33:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed "best"
by so-called critics -- to be overrated. Frankly, I prefer Previn/LSO.
Yes, you read that right.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Previn's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic is also very nice.

IIRC, this was the first recording of Scheherazade that the Vienna
Philharmonic ever made (December 1981).

--Thomas
Tom Deacon
2008-12-01 21:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
: http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed
"best"
Post by Richard Schultz
by so-called critics -- to be overrated. Frankly, I prefer
Previn/LSO.
Post by Richard Schultz
Yes, you read that right.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan
University
Post by Richard Schultz
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Previn's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic is also very nice.
IIRC, this was the first recording of Scheherazade that the Vienna
Philharmonic ever made (December 1981).
--Thomas
Perhaps I am wrong but if memory serves Monteux recorded this with the
VPO. Victrola via Decca, perhaps?
--
TD
D***@aol.com
2008-12-01 21:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Richard Schultz
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
:http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed
"best"
Post by Richard Schultz
by so-called critics -- to be overrated. �Frankly, I prefer
Previn/LSO.
Post by Richard Schultz
Yes, you read that right.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan
University
Post by Richard Schultz
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Previn's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic is also very nice.
IIRC, this was the first recording of Scheherazade that the Vienna
Philharmonic ever made (December 1981).
--Thomas
Perhaps I am wrong but if memory serves Monteux recorded this with the
VPO. Victrola via Decca, perhaps?
--
TD
It was the LSO, circa 1958. RCA Victor Red Seal to start. Then
perhaps on Victrola, surely later on Decca.

Don Tait
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-03 18:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Liebert
:http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
I personally find it -- as I do with almost every recording deemed "best"
by so-called critics -- to be overrated.  Frankly, I prefer Previn/LSO.
Yes, you read that right.
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Previn's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic is also very nice.
IIRC, this was the first recording of Scheherazade that the Vienna
Philharmonic ever made (December 1981).
There is also a recording with them and Ozawa (also on Philps), but I
think that was made later.
Post by Thomas Liebert
--Thomas- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tom Deacon
2008-12-01 11:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
Mr. Gutman is a Washington lawyer with strong interests and knowledge of
music. His comments on the GPE were among the more expert I read on the
subject. Ditto his comments on EMI's Great Cobductors series.

Naturally he does not mention ALL recordings of R-K's work. But he hits
most of the highlights and really doesn't go far off the track in any of
his advice.

A nice piece, I think.
--
TD
Paul Goldstein
2008-12-01 23:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites: Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label). Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Paul Goldstein
2008-12-01 23:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites: Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label). Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Correction - the article does mention Fried, and I agree with Gutman's
assessment of the recording. It is probably the most sultry of Scheherazades
this side of Stoki.
3Bs
2008-12-03 17:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites:  Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label).  Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Correction - the article does mention Fried, and I agree with Gutman's
assessment of the recording.  It is probably the most sultry of Scheherazades
this side of Stoki.
The Maazel/Cleveland recording sounds interesting, but I can't find
any evidence that it exists. Was this ever out on CD?
Michael Schaffer
2008-12-03 18:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 3Bs
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites:  Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label).  Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Correction - the article does mention Fried, and I agree with Gutman's
assessment of the recording.  It is probably the most sultry of Scheherazades
this side of Stoki.
The Maazel/Cleveland recording sounds interesting, but I can't find
any evidence that it exists.  Was this ever out on CD?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It was, but apparently never in the US:

http://tinyurl.com/6l3ztq

http://tinyurl.com/63frg4
g***@gmail.com
2018-09-03 06:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 3Bs
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites:  Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label).  Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Correction - the article does mention Fried, and I agree with Gutman's
assessment of the recording.  It is probably the most sultry of Scheherazades
this side of Stoki.
The Maazel/Cleveland recording sounds interesting, but I can't find
any evidence that it exists. Was this ever out on CD?
That was put on Youtube 4 years ago:

Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov) - Maazel; Cleveland O.
j***@aol.com
2008-12-01 23:58:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
The article is OK, but it doesn't mention a few of my favorites: Semkow/St.
Louis on Vox (probably my single favorite Scheherazade); Maazel/Cleveland on
London/Decca (probably the most spectacularly played Scheherazade I've ever
heard; the interpretation is pretty neutral, but what an orchestra!); and, in
the historical division, Oskar Fried (once available on the Koch Historical
label). Another top-tier one is with the Royal PO/James Walker (who?) on the
Readers Digest label - dramatic, well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Paul, I think he did praise the Fried, which I agree is quite worthy
(along with the Golvoanov).

I can't remember ever seeing the Semkow (there's a picture of it at
Amazon)...if it's as good as his other St. Louis recordings, I can see
why it is a favorite.

--Jeff
JAC
2008-12-02 03:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's interesting that the third Ansermet, which used to be as
reflexive an early-stereo recommendation as Beecham and Reiner, has
rather fallen from sight. (I know the article mentions it, but mostly
as a sidebar to the conductor having made the first recording of the
work.)

The one that I'm surprised to see unmentioned is the Haitink/London
Philharmonic version. I've always found this one of his finest
achievements, the beauty of the playing and the unpushy "rightness" of
the interpretation adding up very satisfyingly.

JAC
Nils-Eivind Naas
2008-12-02 20:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Another top-tier one is with the Royal
PO/James Walker (who?) on the Readers Digest label - dramatic,
well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Not having the Gospel of St. John (Culshaw) handy, I believe James
Walker was a recording producer for Decca, who did sterling work in
(mostly) Victoria Hall, Geneva.

He was also an excellent conductor, who apparently left Decca for a
conducting career. I seem to remember that Culshaw thought highly of
him.
--
nen
Thomas Liebert
2008-12-03 00:16:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nils-Eivind Naas
Post by Paul Goldstein
Another top-tier one is with the Royal
PO/James Walker (who?) on the Readers Digest label - dramatic,
well-played, and superbly recorded in the usual
Gerhardt/Wilkinson manner.
Not having the Gospel of St. John (Culshaw) handy, I believe James
Walker was a recording producer for Decca, who did sterling work in
(mostly) Victoria Hall, Geneva.
He was also an excellent conductor, who apparently left Decca for a
conducting career. I seem to remember that Culshaw thought highly of
him.
FWIW, James Walker was Producer of the Monteux/LSO recording of
Scheherazade, which Decca recorded for RCA around 1957/58. Decca now
owns the rights to it.
--Thomas
a***@gmail.com
2008-12-04 03:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
Am I the only one who noticed that the Beecham lp was very easy to
find but I only saw the Reiner lp once in a record store?
Curtis Croulet
2008-12-04 05:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I saw the Reiner LP far more often than Beecham's.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
g***@gmail.com
2019-07-15 04:16:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
According to this:

- Gergiev’s recording (with the Kirov Orchestra) is more violent, Reiner’s (with the Chicago Symphony) is richer sounding. But this performance, from 1958 (sound is good), feels right for the music. Beecham understood that “Scheherazade” was possibly the most expertly made crowd-pleaser ever written (Rimsky write it in six weeks, which makes one wonder why he didn’t write five other pieces like it). The phrasing is relaxed but not indulgent; glamorous but not swamped in unfocussed luxuriance in the Ormandy manner. It’s a very sophisticated, knowing performance, elegant and then muscular, with a great shipwreck at the end.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings
Kerrison
2019-07-15 20:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
- Gergiev’s recording (with the Kirov Orchestra) is more violent, Reiner’s (with the Chicago Symphony) is richer sounding. But this performance, from 1958 (sound is good), feels right for the music. Beecham understood that “Scheherazade” was possibly the most expertly made crowd-pleaser ever written (Rimsky write it in six weeks, which makes one wonder why he didn’t write five other pieces like it). The phrasing is relaxed but not indulgent; glamorous but not swamped in unfocussed luxuriance in the Ormandy manner. It’s a very sophisticated, knowing performance, elegant and then muscular, with a great shipwreck at the end.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings
Just been listening to the splendid Beecham / RPO "Scheherazade" on You Tube, one of several uploads thereon, and this one shows the recording date as 1957/03/17-19, 28, Stereo, Kingsway Hall, London. However, the Beecham discography in John Hunt's "Musical Knights" states "London March 1957 and Paris October 1957." Was this another occasion when he made a mono recording of a work and then re-recorded it in stereo a few months later, as happened in Paris with the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"?
Frank Berger
2019-07-15 22:23:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
- Gergiev’s recording (with the Kirov Orchestra) is more violent, Reiner’s (with the Chicago Symphony) is richer sounding. But this performance, from 1958 (sound is good), feels right for the music. Beecham understood that “Scheherazade” was possibly the most expertly made crowd-pleaser ever written (Rimsky write it in six weeks, which makes one wonder why he didn’t write five other pieces like it). The phrasing is relaxed but not indulgent; glamorous but not swamped in unfocussed luxuriance in the Ormandy manner. It’s a very sophisticated, knowing performance, elegant and then muscular, with a great shipwreck at the end.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings
Just been listening to the splendid Beecham / RPO "Scheherazade" on You Tube, one of several uploads thereon, and this one shows the recording date as 1957/03/17-19, 28, Stereo, Kingsway Hall, London. However, the Beecham discography in John Hunt's "Musical Knights" states "London March 1957 and Paris October 1957." Was this another occasion when he made a mono recording of a work and then re-recorded it in stereo a few months later, as happened in Paris with the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"?
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO. Amazing that the
classicalnotes.net reviewer didn't even mention it.
g***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 05:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Kerrison
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
- Gergiev’s recording (with the Kirov Orchestra) is more violent, Reiner’s (with the Chicago Symphony) is richer sounding. But this performance, from 1958 (sound is good), feels right for the music. Beecham understood that “Scheherazade” was possibly the most expertly made crowd-pleaser ever written (Rimsky write it in six weeks, which makes one wonder why he didn’t write five other pieces like it). The phrasing is relaxed but not indulgent; glamorous but not swamped in unfocussed luxuriance in the Ormandy manner. It’s a very sophisticated, knowing performance, elegant and then muscular, with a great shipwreck at the end.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings
Just been listening to the splendid Beecham / RPO "Scheherazade" on You Tube, one of several uploads thereon, and this one shows the recording date as 1957/03/17-19, 28, Stereo, Kingsway Hall, London. However, the Beecham discography in John Hunt's "Musical Knights" states "London March 1957 and Paris October 1957." Was this another occasion when he made a mono recording of a work and then re-recorded it in stereo a few months later, as happened in Paris with the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"?
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO. Amazing that the
classicalnotes.net reviewer didn't even mention it.
According to this:

- Kondrashin's way with the work is big, robust, and energetic, yet even-tempered, too, the conductor filling out all the varied contrasts in the work from soft to loud, serene to bombastic, in equal measure. It is probably the best all-around interpretation one can find, even if it doesn't score high in any single area...

https://classicalcandor.blogspot.com/2010/12/rimsky-korsakov-scheherazade-cd-review.html
Alex Brown
2019-07-16 14:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO.
Yes!

And am I the only person who like Previn/Vienna? (The Penguin Guide, as
I recall, gave this one star).

- Alex.
Frank Berger
2019-07-16 14:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Frank Berger
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO.
Yes!
And am I the only person who like Previn/Vienna? (The Penguin Guide, as
I recall, gave this one star).
- Alex.
Ho hum, IMO. His 1968 version with the LSO is much better. There are
many, many fine Scheherezades. A few good ones not mentioned unless I
missed it, are Goossens and van Beinum. Opinions seem to vary widely.
Some can't stand a version where you can't hear the triangle.
Kerrison
2019-07-16 20:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Frank Berger
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO.
Yes!
And am I the only person who like Previn/Vienna? (The Penguin Guide, as
I recall, gave this one star).
- Alex.
Ho hum, IMO. His 1968 version with the LSO is much better. There are
many, many fine Scheherezades. A few good ones not mentioned unless I
missed it, are Goossens and van Beinum. Opinions seem to vary widely.
Some can't stand a version where you can't hear the triangle.
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
Frank Berger
2019-07-16 20:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Alex Brown
Post by Frank Berger
Beecham is second to Kondrashin, IMO.
Yes!
And am I the only person who like Previn/Vienna? (The Penguin Guide, as
I recall, gave this one star).
- Alex.
Ho hum, IMO. His 1968 version with the LSO is much better. There are
many, many fine Scheherezades. A few good ones not mentioned unless I
missed it, are Goossens and van Beinum. Opinions seem to vary widely.
Some can't stand a version where you can't hear the triangle.
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
"Need" is a word barely in my vocabulary. Needs are always qualified.
One "needs" food to stay alive. One may "need" another Scheherazade to
quell a compulsion.
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 20:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/ Not even Golovanov? (Yeah, I know it's not in stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist and the performance is sui generis.) I'm also partial to Chalabala (not Russian either), but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of Kondrashin.

AC
Frank Berger
2019-07-16 21:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/ Not even Golovanov? (Yeah, I know it's not in stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist
David Oistrakh?

and the performance is sui generis.) I'm also partial to Chalabala
(not Russian either), but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of
Kondrashin.
Post by c***@gmail.com
AC
I've made a point of identifying the violinists in the various
Scheherazades and have been unable to id the violinists for Chalabala,
Celibidache (Munich), Kempe, Leinsdorf, Matacic, Monteux (1966) and
Svetlanov (1978).
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 13:34:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling
guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski
/ Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra;
(5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8)
Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/  Not even Golovanov?  (Yeah, I know it's not in
stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist
David Oistrakh?
 and the performance is sui generis.)  I'm also partial to Chalabala
(not Russian either), but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of
Kondrashin.
AC
I've made a point of identifying the violinists in the various
Scheherazades and have been unable to id the violinists for Chalabala,
Celibidache (Munich), Kempe, Leinsdorf, Matacic, Monteux (1966) and
Svetlanov (1978).
I've since IDs the soloists for Kempe, Leinsdorf, Svetlanov; leaving
Celibidache (1984, Munich) and Matacic (1958, Philhamonia). Since Pierre
Monteux died in 1964, the 1966 date attributed to his recording by Decca
is obviously wrong. I'm guessing its his 1957 recording.
r***@gmail.com
2019-07-17 14:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Has anybody mentioned Schwarz/Seattle on Naxos?

In every way this blows away Kondrashin/RCO, for sound and a tight but very involving performance. Tsar Saltan is a superb bonus to this disc.

Ray Hall, Taree
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 14:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Has anybody mentioned Schwarz/Seattle on Naxos?
In every way this blows away Kondrashin/RCO, for sound and a tight but very involving performance. Tsar Saltan is a superb bonus to this disc.
Ray Hall, Taree
Will listen. But I just listened to Celibdache (Munich 1984). Packs an
emotional wallop I've not exerienced from any other version. Extremely
slow, of course, but it is beautiful.
Alex Brown
2019-07-17 14:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Has anybody mentioned Schwarz/Seattle on Naxos?
In every way this blows away Kondrashin/RCO, for sound and a tight but
very involving performance. Tsar Saltan is a superb bonus to this disc.
Ray Hall, Taree
Will listen.  But I just listened to Celibdache (Munich 1984).  Packs an
emotional wallop I've not exerienced from any other version. Extremely
slow, of course, but it is beautiful.
I listened to that recently. As I recall, his 1982 Stuttgart one on DGG
is even better (less slow, more colour). There's a video of This (or is
it a different performance from that year?) on YT.
--
- Alex Brown
s***@gmail.com
2019-07-17 15:21:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Celibidache on DG is the same as the video. I’ve liked this version very much, it is different in a way that made me listen vs just hearing the recording.

Stan Punzel (who has waaay too many Scheherazades)
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 15:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
The Celibidache on DG is the same as the video. I’ve liked this version very much, it is different in a way that made me listen vs just hearing the recording.
Stan Punzel (who has waaay too many Scheherazades)
Me too, but if I could find Kletzki, Ivanov and Anosov on CD, I'd buy
them, too.

Kerrison
2019-07-17 11:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/ Not even Golovanov? (Yeah, I know it's not in stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist and the performance is sui generis.) I'm also partial to Chalabala (not Russian either), but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of Kondrashin.
AC
I know there are collectors who turn their noses up at YouTube but I have a woofer and couple of tweeters plugged into the back of my computer and the sound is just great. I only mention this because it's usually the case that you can find anything you want on YouTube and so it is with your recommendations.

There are several uploads of the Golovanov performance and this one is dated 1946, features David Oistrakh, and is played by the Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra ...



Here is Chalabala with the Czech Philharmonic c. 1957 (it says) ...



And here is Kondrashin and the Concertgebouw from 1979 ...



Previn was mentioned earlier so here is his first recording with the LSO ...



And here's his later version with the Vienna Phil ...



Any more suggestions?!
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 11:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2) Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski / LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/ Not even Golovanov? (Yeah, I know it's not in stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist and the performance is sui generis.) I'm also partial to Chalabala (not Russian either), but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of Kondrashin.
AC
I know there are collectors who turn their noses up at YouTube but I have a woofer and couple of tweeters plugged into the back of my computer and the sound is just great. I only mention this because it's usually the case that you can find anything you want on YouTube and so it is with your recommendations.
There are several uploads of the Golovanov performance and this one is dated 1946, features David Oistrakh, and is played by the Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra ...
http://youtu.be/EaWQcpu2CDA
Here is Chalabala with the Czech Philharmonic c. 1957 (it says) ...
http://youtu.be/IMTCa-njq-Y
And here is Kondrashin and the Concertgebouw from 1979 ...
http://youtu.be/y9lQnW0IqbE
Previn was mentioned earlier so here is his first recording with the LSO ...
http://youtu.be/7dSh2iDreA0
And here's his later version with the Vienna Phil ...
http://youtu.be/rnBg9Kp9trU
Any more suggestions?!
I have the Bolshoi Golovanov on Boeheme. They and others attribute the
recording to 1950. According to one source, Golovanov recorded
Scheherazade twice, the other time with the USSSR SO. That source
provides no recording dates.
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 11:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by Kerrison
Oh dear. I've got far more versions than I really need, so am
feeling guilty about listing them: (1) Steinberg / Pittsburgh; (2)
Stokowski / Philharmonia; (3) Beecham / RPO; (4) Gould / Symphony
Orchestra; (5) Reiner / Chicago; (6) Goossens / LSO; (7) Stokowski /
LSO; (8) Silvestri / Bournemouth SO. No need for any others, I think!
No Russians? :-/  Not even Golovanov?  (Yeah, I know it's not in
stereo, but there's a pretty good violinist and the performance is
sui generis.)  I'm also partial to Chalabala (not Russian either),
but overall I agree with Frank's recommendation of Kondrashin.
AC
I know there are collectors who turn their noses up at YouTube but I
have a woofer and couple of tweeters plugged into the back of my
computer and the sound is just great. I only mention this because it's
usually the case that you can find anything you want on YouTube and so
it is with your recommendations.
There are several uploads of the Golovanov performance and this one is
dated 1946, features David Oistrakh, and is played by the Bolshoi
Theatre Orchestra ...
http://youtu.be/EaWQcpu2CDA
Here is Chalabala with the Czech Philharmonic c. 1957 (it says) ...
http://youtu.be/IMTCa-njq-Y
And here is Kondrashin and the Concertgebouw from 1979 ...
http://youtu.be/y9lQnW0IqbE
Previn was mentioned earlier so here is his first recording with the LSO ...
http://youtu.be/7dSh2iDreA0
And here's his later version with the Vienna Phil ...
http://youtu.be/rnBg9Kp9trU
Any more suggestions?!
I have the Bolshoi Golovanov on Boeheme.  They and others attribute the
recording to 1950.  According to one source, Golovanov recorded
Scheherazade twice, the other time with the USSSR SO.  That source
provides no recording dates.
Golovanov's Scheherazade is often packaged with one or more other works
that were recorded in 1946. I'm going to guess that someone
misattributed the 1946 date because of that. There is a Melodiya
release that gave the date as 1951-52, though, so who really knows?
s***@nycap.rr.com
2019-07-17 12:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Ho hum, IMO. His 1968 version with the LSO is much better.
Is this available anywhere on CD? I can't find it on Amazon. Previn and LSO, I mean.

MIFrost
Frank Berger
2019-07-17 12:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@nycap.rr.com
Post by Frank Berger
Ho hum, IMO. His 1968 version with the LSO is much better.
Is this available anywhere on CD? I can't find it on Amazon. Previn and LSO, I mean.
MIFrost
Come on. Just search "scheherazade previn london" on Amazon and you'll
see one used copy. There are a bunch on E-bay. It's also in the Previn
Complete RCA and Columbia Album Collection.
drh8h
2019-07-16 11:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerrison
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics2/rimsky.html
- Gergiev’s recording (with the Kirov Orchestra) is more violent, Reiner’s (with the Chicago Symphony) is richer sounding. But this performance, from 1958 (sound is good), feels right for the music. Beecham understood that “Scheherazade” was possibly the most expertly made crowd-pleaser ever written (Rimsky write it in six weeks, which makes one wonder why he didn’t write five other pieces like it). The phrasing is relaxed but not indulgent; glamorous but not swamped in unfocussed luxuriance in the Ormandy manner. It’s a very sophisticated, knowing performance, elegant and then muscular, with a great shipwreck at the end.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/ten-perfect-orchestral-recordings
Just been listening to the splendid Beecham / RPO "Scheherazade" on You Tube, one of several uploads thereon, and this one shows the recording date as 1957/03/17-19, 28, Stereo, Kingsway Hall, London. However, the Beecham discography in John Hunt's "Musical Knights" states "London March 1957 and Paris October 1957." Was this another occasion when he made a mono recording of a work and then re-recorded it in stereo a few months later, as happened in Paris with the Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"?
I can't claim to be a big fan of this piece, but I did have the lp issue and somewhere the most recent CD release. I do recall back in the 60s/70s there was some question whether this recording was really stereo. EMI issued the Paris-based recordings of the first set of Haydn Salomon Symphonies initially on Capitol as simulated stereo, which somehow morphed into becoming real stereo on Angel.

DH
Jerry
2019-07-16 12:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The same thing is mentioned in Michael Gray’s more detailed Beecham discography
with the additional detail that the later Paris session was mono. Otherwise there
is no explanation of whether the Paris was a full run-through or patching session.

I recall that there were, at the time, many comments on the narrower imaging of the
Beecham stereo disc but, again if I recall correctly, attributed to EMI’s alleged
experimentation with binaural microphone placements.

Jerry
Loading...