Discussion:
"Daphnis et Chloe"
Add Reply
aesthete8
2012-04-07 04:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Do you have a favorite?

According to a fan on Monteux's recording:

- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.

http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/product-reviews/B000E6EGZA
Thornhill
2012-04-07 04:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
td
2012-04-07 10:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
Unfortunately I am way, way, way behind in getting to some of Gielen's
recent recordings. Many thanks for pointing it out.

TD
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-07 18:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
td
2012-04-07 18:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?

TD
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-07 19:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Oscar
2012-04-07 21:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too. Here's a link:
http://tiny.cc/exyecw I also want to check out Inghelbrecht. Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-07 21:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwI also want to check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.

Anyone here heard Levine's with the BSO? Heard mixed things about that
recording.
td
2012-04-07 23:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwIalso want to check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.
Actually, I prefer the later version Munch made in stereo.

TD
aesthete8
2012-04-07 23:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwIalsowant to check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.
Actually, I prefer the later version Munch made in stereo.
TD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So do I. The later version Munch made is stereo has more energy and
vitality--more 3D than the Living S. recording which comes across as
2D lacking vibrancy.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-08 01:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwIalsowant to check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.
Actually, I prefer the later version Munch made in stereo.
TD
I haven't heard that one. But I've heard from many people that the
1962 version is their preferred choice. What do you find about that
recording that makes it preferable to the 1954 version?
Ed Presson
2012-04-08 15:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Oscar
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too. Here's a
link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwIalsowant to check out Inghelbrecht. Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.
Actually, I prefer the later version Munch made in stereo.
TD
I haven't heard that one. But I've heard from many people that the
1962 version is their preferred choice. What do you find about that
recording that makes it preferable to the 1954 version?
Not only is the 1962 performance a bit more exciting, but the sound (which
has better bass and more dynamic range) gives a better
sonic picture of a large symphony orchestra than the 1954 recording.

I had previously owned the Dorati/Mercury and, then, Monteux/Decca
recordings
before I acquired the 1962 Munch. I thought it blew the others away. I've
heard
and/or bought many other versions since then. It remains my very favorite.

Ed Presson
td
2012-04-08 17:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Presson
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a
link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwIalsowantto check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
Haven't heard the Classic Records LP. But the SACD is indeed
fantastic.
Actually, I prefer the later version Munch made in stereo.
TD
I haven't heard that one. But I've heard from many people that the
1962 version is their preferred choice. What do you find about that
recording that makes it preferable to the 1954 version?
Not only is the 1962 performance a bit more exciting, but the sound (which
has better bass and more dynamic range) gives a better
sonic picture of a large symphony orchestra than the 1954 recording.
I had previously owned the Dorati/Mercury and, then, Monteux/Decca
recordings
before I acquired the 1962 Munch.  I thought it blew the others away.  I've
heard
and/or bought many other versions since then.  It remains my very favorite.
Agreed.

TD
herman
2012-04-07 21:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
I've been wanting to hear that recording, too.  Here's a link:http://tiny.cc/exyecwI also want to check out Inghelbrecht.  Years
later, I am still enamored with Munch's famous recording on RCA Living
Stereo SACD, and also the Classic Records 45 RPM 4LP.
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.

Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
herman
2012-04-08 08:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.

The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 16:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable. I don't know what went wrong with
the engineering of Haitink's Daphnis; I don't feel that way about the
other Ravel discs Philips did in Boston.

--Jeff
M forever
2012-04-08 16:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
Post by jrsnfld
I don't know what went wrong with
the engineering of Haitink's Daphnis; I don't feel that way about the
other Ravel discs Philips did in Boston.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 17:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)

--Jeff
herman
2012-04-08 18:24:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
--Jeff
It's hard not to think Daphnis is just not an easy piece to perform,
as an orchestra / chorus piece; it may be one of Ravel's largest
pieces, but somehow it strikes me as a somewhat problematic piece of
music.

As a ballet it's not much performed either.
M forever
2012-04-08 18:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
--Jeff
It's hard not to think Daphnis is just not an easy piece to perform,
as an orchestra / chorus piece; it may be one of Ravel's largest
pieces, but somehow it strikes me as a somewhat problematic piece of
music.
How so?
Post by herman
As a ballet it's not much performed either.
herman
2012-04-09 08:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by herman
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
--Jeff
It's hard not to think Daphnis is just not an easy piece to perform,
as an orchestra / chorus piece; it may be one of Ravel's largest
pieces, but somehow it strikes me as a somewhat problematic piece of
music.
How so?
In a way it's one of Ravel's not so characteristic works, in that it
lacks Ravel's typical pastiche framework.

D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
herman
2012-04-09 09:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
td
2012-04-09 11:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
The article by Charles Rosen in the NYRB fairly trashes L'Enfant,
frankly.

TD
Mark S
2012-04-09 14:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
The article by Charles Rosen in the NYRB fairly trashes L'Enfant,
frankly.
TD
Well, one can't be right all the time.

Having performed "L'Enfant" in concert, I can assure you that it is a
really wonderful piece. There's nothing else like it. It is what it
is. It doesn't strive to be a Beethoven symphony.
operafan
2012-04-09 15:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Having performed "L'Enfant" in concert, I can assure you that it is a
really wonderful piece. There's nothing else like it. It is what it
is. It doesn't strive to be a Beethoven symphony.
I think it's a great, enjoyable piece. My favorite performances are
the 1947 Ingelbrecht and the 1955 Ansermet (which was recorded in
stereo and still sounds good). Maazel's is also good. All of these
have characterful singers with good voices, excellent orchestral
playing.

The Previn is D.O.A. in every way (dull vocal performances, lack of
energy in the conducting), the Rattle has some inferior singers (e.g.,
coloratura soprano with a wide vibrato, van Dam way past his prime).
Am I leaving any out?
ronwhit
2012-04-09 16:11:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by operafan
I think it's a great, enjoyable piece. My favorite performances are
the 1947 Ingelbrecht and the 1955 Ansermet (which was recorded in
stereo and still sounds good). Maazel's is also good. All of these
have characterful singers with good voices, excellent orchestral
playing.
The Previn is D.O.A. in every way (dull vocal performances, lack of
energy in the conducting), the Rattle has some inferior singers (e.g.,
coloratura soprano with a wide vibrato, van Dam way past his prime).
Am I leaving any out?
Which Previn are you referring to — the EMI or DG? I don't know the DG
recording at all, but rather like the EMI.

More importantly, are you mistaking the 1947 recording conducted by
Ernest Bour (my favorite by a large margin) for your stated
Inghelbrecht recording, which I have never heard of, but would
certainly be interested in if one actually exists.

Ron Whitaker
td
2012-04-09 20:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by td
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
The article by Charles Rosen in the NYRB fairly trashes L'Enfant,
frankly.
TD
Well, one can't be right all the time.
Having performed "L'Enfant" in concert, I can assure you that it is a
really wonderful piece. There's nothing else like it. It is what it
is. It doesn't strive to be a Beethoven symphony.
This is true. And CR is nothing if not opinionated about almost
everything, not just music. Talk to him about the best cut of steak
and you'll get a lecture on the subject. (He prefers the skirt). His
point is that it is not ground-breaking, like Scarbo, in his opinion.

TD
herman
2012-04-09 20:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Mark S
Post by td
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
The article by Charles Rosen in the NYRB fairly trashes L'Enfant,
frankly.
TD
Well, one can't be right all the time.
Having performed "L'Enfant" in concert, I can assure you that it is a
really wonderful piece. There's nothing else like it. It is what it
is. It doesn't strive to be a Beethoven symphony.
This is true. And CR is nothing if not opinionated about almost
everything, not just music. Talk to him about the best cut of steak
and you'll get a lecture on the subject. (He prefers the skirt). His
point is that it is not ground-breaking, like Scarbo, in his opinion.
TD
Somehow I didn't read Rosen's NYRB piece, but I would say that Ravel
is the modernist who first broke with the notion that art should
always go forward. Stravinsky did, too, and Balanchine used to say
"Forward to Petipa!"

So Rosen has to dump a lot of modernist giants just to save Eliott
Carter.
herman
2012-04-09 16:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by td
The article by Charles Rosen in the NYRB fairly trashes L'Enfant,
frankly.
Big deal
jrsnfld
2012-04-09 17:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
Pretty much everything that's in Siegfried Idyll is in Siegfried, too,
and then some.

--Jeff
John Wiser
2012-04-09 17:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
Pretty much everything that's in Siegfried Idyll is in Siegfried, too,
and then some.
Guess which one I'd rather be caught dead listening to.

JDW
William Sommerwerck
2012-04-09 17:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant,
too, and then some.
What does abortion have to do with ballet, anyway?
Kip Williams
2012-04-09 19:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by herman
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant,
too, and then some.
What does abortion have to do with ballet, anyway?
D&C precludes l'enfant.


Kip W
jrsnfld
2012-04-09 17:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Wiser
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
Pretty much everything that's in D&C can be heard in L'Enfant, too,
and then some.
Pretty much everything that's in Siegfried Idyll is in Siegfried, too,
and then some.
Guess which one I'd rather be caught dead listening to.
JDW
The fire in which your sword is forged?

--Jeff
M forever
2012-04-09 16:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by M forever
Post by herman
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
--Jeff
It's hard not to think Daphnis is just not an easy piece to perform,
as an orchestra / chorus piece; it may be one of Ravel's largest
pieces, but somehow it strikes me as a somewhat problematic piece of
music.
How so?
In a way it's one of Ravel's not so characteristic works, in that it
lacks Ravel's typical pastiche framework.
Doesn't make it rather special then?
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
I don't understand the comparison. Those are two quite different works
in different genres.
herman
2012-04-09 17:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by herman
Post by M forever
Post by herman
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better. I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
--Jeff
It's hard not to think Daphnis is just not an easy piece to perform,
as an orchestra / chorus piece; it may be one of Ravel's largest
pieces, but somehow it strikes me as a somewhat problematic piece of
music.
How so?
In a way it's one of Ravel's not so characteristic works, in that it
lacks Ravel's typical pastiche framework.
Doesn't make it rather special then?
Post by herman
D&C is a great work, of course, but I rather prefer L'Enfant.
I don't understand the comparison. Those are two quite different works
in different genres.
Well, two things. They are by the same composer, that's one. And D&C
and L'Enfant share a lot of thematic and harmonic material.

For instance, it's rather interesting that the "Maman" interval occurs
in D&C too, with the same urgency, when Chloe is rescued from the
pirates.
M forever
2012-04-08 18:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better.
It's maybe not much better from a technical point of view, but the
playing is certainly much more engaged and what makes a big
difference, too, is that the Amsterdam string section has a so much
richer and deeper sound while still being highly refined.
Post by jrsnfld
I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
Yes, I wanted to bring that up, too. I listened to that about 200
years ago, I think that was still on LP, and I have no recollection of
it a all but Ozawa used to be really quite good in that kind of
repertoire, so I would like to listen to it again sometime.

Another really good version in every respect - conducting, playing,
sound - that I am almost embarrassed that I forgot about is the LSO/
Abbado one. In fact, I now want to dig out that set and listen to it.
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 20:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better.
It's maybe not much better from a technical point of view, but the
playing is certainly much more engaged and what makes a big
difference, too, is that the Amsterdam string section has a so much
richer and deeper sound while still being highly refined.
Post by jrsnfld
I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
Yes, I wanted to bring that up, too. I listened to that about 200
years ago, I think that was still on LP, and I have no recollection of
it a all but Ozawa used to be really quite good in that kind of
repertoire, so I would like to listen to it again sometime.
Another really good version in every respect - conducting, playing,
sound - that I am almost embarrassed that I forgot about is the LSO/
Abbado one. In fact, I now want to dig out that set and listen to it.
I share your embarrassment. I bought the LSO set about 3 years ago and
forgot. I've heard only parts of it, but not the Daphnis, so that's
another project. I also thought Levi/Atlanta was pretty good
(certainly from a sound point of view). For older French recordings,
there's Rosenthal and Cluytens. For many years Ozawa and Dutoit were
my only CD recordings (Maazel the only one I had on LP) and I think
Dutoit got the most playtime and still feels like a great recording.

--Jeff
M forever
2012-04-08 22:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better.
It's maybe not much better from a technical point of view, but the
playing is certainly much more engaged and what makes a big
difference, too, is that the Amsterdam string section has a so much
richer and deeper sound while still being highly refined.
Post by jrsnfld
I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
Yes, I wanted to bring that up, too. I listened to that about 200
years ago, I think that was still on LP, and I have no recollection of
it a all but Ozawa used to be really quite good in that kind of
repertoire, so I would like to listen to it again sometime.
Another really good version in every respect - conducting, playing,
sound - that I am almost embarrassed that I forgot about is the LSO/
Abbado one. In fact, I now want to dig out that set and listen to it.
I share your embarrassment. I bought the LSO set about 3 years ago and
forgot. I've heard only parts  of it, but not the Daphnis, so that's
another project. I also thought Levi/Atlanta was pretty good
(certainly from a sound point of view). For older French recordings,
there's Rosenthal and Cluytens. For many years Ozawa and Dutoit were
my only CD recordings (Maazel the only one I had on LP) and I think
Dutoit got the most playtime and still feels like a great recording.
Man, I also forgot about the Cluytens recordings - there is even a
complete set on EMI of which I unfortunately only have one, not the
one with D+C. But I just listened to Tombeau and that performance is
really good. The playing of the Conservatoire orchestra is quite rough
in places but extremely stylish and characterful and the sonorities
are echos of sonic worlds that are, unfortunately, long gone.
The sound is also annoyingly good for the time - annoyingly because
they sound really good for the time they were made (late 50s, early
60s I think), so much better than so many other contemporary
recordings or indeed ones that were made decades later. The sound is
more or less completely umonkeyed-with, so you hear the orchestra
right in front of you, with god presence and transparency and no
artificial glossing of the sound. That's the way it should be.

Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-08 23:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better.
It's maybe not much better from a technical point of view, but the
playing is certainly much more engaged and what makes a big
difference, too, is that the Amsterdam string section has a so much
richer and deeper sound while still being highly refined.
Post by jrsnfld
I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
Yes, I wanted to bring that up, too. I listened to that about 200
years ago, I think that was still on LP, and I have no recollection of
it a all but Ozawa used to be really quite good in that kind of
repertoire, so I would like to listen to it again sometime.
Another really good version in every respect - conducting, playing,
sound - that I am almost embarrassed that I forgot about is the LSO/
Abbado one. In fact, I now want to dig out that set and listen to it.
I share your embarrassment. I bought the LSO set about 3 years ago and
forgot. I've heard only parts  of it, but not the Daphnis, so that's
another project. I also thought Levi/Atlanta was pretty good
(certainly from a sound point of view). For older French recordings,
there's Rosenthal and Cluytens. For many years Ozawa and Dutoit were
my only CD recordings (Maazel the only one I had on LP) and I think
Dutoit got the most playtime and still feels like a great recording.
Man, I also forgot about the Cluytens recordings - there is even a
complete set on EMI of which I unfortunately only have one, not the
one with D+C. But I just listened to Tombeau and that performance is
really good. The playing of the Conservatoire orchestra is quite rough
in places but extremely stylish and characterful and the sonorities
are echos of sonic worlds that are, unfortunately, long gone.
The sound is also annoyingly good for the time - annoyingly because
they sound really good for the time they were made (late 50s, early
60s I think), so much better than so many other contemporary
recordings or indeed ones that were made decades later. The sound is
more or less completely umonkeyed-with, so you hear the orchestra
right in front of you, with god presence and transparency and no
artificial glossing of the sound. That's the way it should be.
Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
The Clutens Daphnis in my collection is on Testament; bought it back
in 2000 or 2001. It may still be available from that label.
td
2012-04-09 00:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by herman
Post by herman
I have Haitink's Boston D&C. I should give it another listen soon, but
in my memory the Chailly D&C with the Concertgebouw was more exciting.
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
I listened to both Haitink's Boston D&C and Chailly's Concertgebouw.
The latter is, in my view, vastly preferable. It's more urgent, driven
and sensuous, has way better production values (the Philips recording
seems shrouded in some gray cloth); the orchestral playing is better,
plus it's got Debussy's 20 minute 'Khamma' as an extra.
I agree that on account of better sound and, particularly, better
urgency, the Chailly is preferable.
But not on account of the better orchestral playing?
I don't remember the playing being better.
It's maybe not much better from a technical point of view, but the
playing is certainly much more engaged and what makes a big
difference, too, is that the Amsterdam string section has a so much
richer and deeper sound while still being highly refined.
Post by jrsnfld
I definitely remember the
sound and the interpretation being preferable. I found myself losing
patience with Haitink's Daphnis in both the BSO and CSO versions, and
I attributed that to Haitink. I'll listen again on that account
sometime, perhaps. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I didn't keep
the BSO recording, or that I borrowed it from a library. (I was
happier with the Ozawa recording.)
Yes, I wanted to bring that up, too. I listened to that about 200
years ago, I think that was still on LP, and I have no recollection of
it a all but Ozawa used to be really quite good in that kind of
repertoire, so I would like to listen to it again sometime.
Another really good version in every respect - conducting, playing,
sound - that I am almost embarrassed that I forgot about is the LSO/
Abbado one. In fact, I now want to dig out that set and listen to it.
I share your embarrassment. I bought the LSO set about 3 years ago and
forgot. I've heard only parts  of it, but not the Daphnis, so that's
another project. I also thought Levi/Atlanta was pretty good
(certainly from a sound point of view). For older French recordings,
there's Rosenthal and Cluytens. For many years Ozawa and Dutoit were
my only CD recordings (Maazel the only one I had on LP) and I think
Dutoit got the most playtime and still feels like a great recording.
Man, I also forgot about the Cluytens recordings - there is even a
complete set on EMI of which I unfortunately only have one, not the
one with D+C. But I just listened to Tombeau and that performance is
really good. The playing of the Conservatoire orchestra is quite rough
in places but extremely stylish and characterful and the sonorities
are echos of sonic worlds that are, unfortunately, long gone.
The sound is also annoyingly good for the time - annoyingly because
they sound really good for the time they were made (late 50s, early
60s I think), so much better than so many other contemporary
recordings or indeed ones that were made decades later. The sound is
more or less completely umonkeyed-with, so you hear the orchestra
right in front of you, with god presence and transparency and no
artificial glossing of the sound. That's the way it should be.
Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
The Clutens Daphnis in my collection is on Testament; bought it back
in 2000 or 2001. It may still be available from that label.
I believe I even have it on LP from Testament. And on CD from French
EMI, I seem to recall..

TD
herman
2012-04-09 00:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
the Cluytens D&C is readily available on EMI 'Great Artists of the
Century' isn't it?
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-09 00:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by M forever
Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
the Cluytens D&C is readily available on EMI 'Great Artists of the
Century' isn't it?
It was never reissued on that series, to the best of my knowledge.
M forever
2012-04-09 04:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by herman
Post by M forever
Looks like these recordings are currently only available as fairly
expensive Japanese imports but I would really like to hear the D+C
from that series now.
the Cluytens D&C is readily available on EMI 'Great Artists of the
Century' isn't it?
It was never reissued on that series, to the best of my knowledge.
There was a D+C with Cluytens in that EMI series, so I wonder is it
the same recording as the one on Testament?
herman
2012-04-09 06:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by herman
the Cluytens D&C is readily available on EMI 'Great Artists of the
Century' isn't it?
It was never reissued on that series, to the best of my knowledge.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debussy-Jeux-Ravel-Daphnis-Chlo%C3%A9/dp/B0009VYPBU/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1333954222&sr=1-4

Admittedly the Japanese EMI series looks very pretty.
jrsnfld
2012-04-09 06:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by herman
the Cluytens D&C is readily available on EMI 'Great Artists of the
Century' isn't it?
It was never reissued on that series, to the best of my knowledge.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debussy-Jeux-Ravel-Daphnis-Chlo%C3%A9/dp/B000...
Admittedly the Japanese EMI series looks very pretty.
It is, though the capbox seems less stout than I'd like.

--Jeff
Steve de Mena
2012-04-10 09:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Hatink's 2nd D&C Suite was with the Concertgebouw. It's now available
via Newton.
It is on a PentaTone "Quadro" SACD also. http://amzn.to/HxU7zL

Steve
Paul Goodman
2012-04-07 22:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Haitink also recorded the complete ballet with the CSO on their Resound label.
--
Paul Goodman
td
2012-04-07 23:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Goodman
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Haitink also recorded the complete ballet with the CSO on their Resound label.
I was going to say. Yet another Haitink reading of the whole ballet.

TD
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 02:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Actually there are three complete Daphnis's with Haitink conducting.
The BSO recording on Philips (which I've heard a couple times, but I
didn't buy it: seemed fine but not what I was looking for at the time--
a bit of a disappointment); the CSO recording, and the London
Philiharmonic recording (the latter two both on their own house
labels).

The Suite with the BSO was indeed recorded later, but was initially
issued on a single disc, not a 2-disc set.

--Jeff
ronwhit
2012-04-08 05:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Actually there are three complete Daphnis's with Haitink conducting.
The BSO recording on Philips (which I've heard a couple times, but I
didn't buy it: seemed fine but not what I was looking for at the time--
a bit of a disappointment); the CSO recording, and the London
Philiharmonic recording (the latter two both on their own house
labels).
The Suite with the BSO was indeed recorded later, but was initially
issued on a single disc, not a 2-disc set.
--Jeff
Highly unlikely that the BSO would record the second suite with
Haitink a few years after they had done the complete ballet.

And in fact, the James North discography of the Boston Symphony, which
includes all recording sessions up through 2003 (anything issued after
that were live performances), lists only one Haitink Daphnis, that
being the complete ballet recorded on May 1 & 2, 1989.

If there is a separate second suite (and the discography does not list
one), it would be extracted from the complete ballet recording, which
is easily done.

Ron Whitaker
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 07:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ronwhit
Post by jrsnfld
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Actually there are three complete Daphnis's with Haitink conducting.
The BSO recording on Philips (which I've heard a couple times, but I
didn't buy it: seemed fine but not what I was looking for at the time--
a bit of a disappointment); the CSO recording, and the London
Philiharmonic recording (the latter two both on their own house
labels).
The Suite with the BSO was indeed recorded later, but was initially
issued on a single disc, not a 2-disc set.
--Jeff
Highly unlikely that the BSO would record the second suite with
Haitink a few years after they had done the complete ballet.
And in fact, the James North discography of the Boston Symphony, which
includes all recording sessions up through 2003 (anything issued after
that were live performances), lists only one Haitink Daphnis, that
being the complete ballet recorded on May 1 & 2, 1989.
If there is a separate second suite (and the discography does not list
one), it would be extracted from the complete ballet recording, which
is easily done.
Ron Whitaker
Thanks for clarifying.

--Jeff
td
2012-04-08 11:10:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ronwhit
Post by jrsnfld
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by td
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
Didn't Haitink also record the whole ballet with the Boston Symphony
Orchestra?
TD
Yes, he did! On Philips. I've always wanted to hear that version, but
have yet to do so. He also re-recorded the 2nd Suite with the BSO on a
2-disc Ravel set issued by Philips in the late 1990s. Haven't heard
that one in awhile, but I remember liking it very much.
Actually there are three complete Daphnis's with Haitink conducting.
The BSO recording on Philips (which I've heard a couple times, but I
didn't buy it: seemed fine but not what I was looking for at the time--
a bit of a disappointment); the CSO recording, and the London
Philiharmonic recording (the latter two both on their own house
labels).
The Suite with the BSO was indeed recorded later, but was initially
issued on a single disc, not a 2-disc set.
--Jeff
Highly unlikely that the BSO would record the second suite with
Haitink a few years after they had done the complete ballet.
And in fact, the James North discography of the Boston Symphony, which
includes all recording sessions up through 2003 (anything issued after
that were live performances), lists only one Haitink Daphnis, that
being the complete ballet recorded on May 1 & 2, 1989.
If there is a separate second suite (and the discography does not list
one), it would be extracted from the complete ballet recording, which
is easily done.
Of course.

TD
M forever
2012-04-08 01:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb.
Is that the one on Arte Nova or the one on Hänssler?
Thornhill
2012-04-08 14:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb.
Is that the one on Arte Nova or the one on Hänssler?
It's the same recording.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-08 17:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb.
Is that the one on Arte Nova or the one on Hänssler?
Arte Nova. A terrific bargain.
M forever
2012-04-08 18:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb.
Is that the one on Arte Nova or the one on Hänssler?
Arte Nova. A terrific bargain.
Yes I can see one can get it on amazon for less than $3 but Thornhill
said it was the same recording on both and they have the Hänssler at
the library, so I will check that out. I have high expectations, based
on what was said here, and based on what I have heard from Gielen and
that orchestra!
Thornhill
2012-04-08 19:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb.
Is that the one on Arte Nova or the one on Hänssler?
Arte Nova. A terrific bargain.
Yes I can see one can get it on amazon for less than $3 but Thornhill
said it was the same recording on both and they have the Hänssler at
the library, so I will check that out. I have high expectations, based
on what was said here, and based on what I have heard from Gielen and
that orchestra!
The Hänssler version has track breaks; Arte Nova is one single track.
If that matters to you, just something to consider if you decide to
buy.
mandryka
2012-04-08 09:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
But not Furtwangler?

I like Gielen too.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-08 17:41:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mandryka
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
But not Furtwangler?
I like Gielen too.
No, not Furtwangler. To me his interpretation always sounded lumpy;
unidiomatic.
g***@gmail.com
2017-03-27 10:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by Thornhill
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/produc...
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
I agree with you. Gielen is superb. For recordings of the complete
ballet, my favorites are Inghelbrecht, Cluytens, Munch, and Bernstein.
For recordings of the 2nd Suite, my preferences run to Mengelberg,
Koussevitzky (both of his versions), Haitink (Concertgebouw),
Martinon, and van Beinum.
What about Reiner?:

- ...The intense sensuousness of the Reiner sound pours forth, with astonishing interior voices in the Lever de jour section that rival our “traditional” interpreters Munch, Monteux, and Martinon...

https://www.audaud.com/reiner-rarities-vol-3-works-of-debussy-ravel-berlioz-honegger-pristine-audio/
Mark S
2012-04-08 06:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
M forever
2012-04-08 17:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
T. Esteban Ayala
2012-04-08 17:48:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
M forever
2012-04-08 18:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
Indeed, and there is also a Debussy disc from the same period which is
equally "luxurious" and enormously refined. Have you ever heard
Levine's complete Daphnis with the Wiener Philharmoniker in DG?
Mark S
2012-04-08 18:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
ArchivMusik has the Maazel as one of their in-house reissues (
http://tinyurl.com/7jjqbgo ). This is the Decca reissue that preceded
the Eloquence reissue. The coupling is the Maazel/Cleveland "Jeux."
g***@gmail.com
2019-03-11 04:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
Indeed, and there is also a Debussy disc from the same period which is
equally "luxurious" and enormously refined. Have you ever heard
Levine's complete Daphnis with the Wiener Philharmoniker in DG?
The one Levine did with the BSO received an AMAZON'S CHOICE designation.
Joel Henderson
2019-03-18 13:46:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Call me old fashioned but I always find myself gravitating towards Munch's old RCA Living Presence recording.
Ed Presson
2019-03-18 16:12:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joel Henderson
Call me old fashioned but I always find myself gravitating towards Munch's
old RCA Living Presence recording.
Yes, Munch's two stereo recordings are my favorites. I like the one from
the early 60's a bit better than
the first from the mid-50's. (I think you mean "Living Stereo").

Ed Presson
g***@gmail.com
2019-03-18 16:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Presson
Post by Joel Henderson
Call me old fashioned but I always find myself gravitating towards Munch's
old RCA Living Presence recording.
Yes, Munch's two stereo recordings are my favorites. I like the one from
the early 60's a bit better than
the first from the mid-50's. (I think you mean "Living Stereo").
Ed Presson
I also like the sixties version better because it has more energy and vigor.

However, according to this:

- Munch and his Boston forces rerecorded Daphnis in 1961, but the effort hardly seemed worthwhile, as the two versions are barely distinguishable (and in fact all the CD reissues so far are of the earlier one, as if to suggest that the successor was superflouous).

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html
Ed Presson
2019-03-19 02:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Presson
Post by Joel Henderson
Call me old fashioned but I always find myself gravitating towards Munch's
old RCA Living Presence recording.
Yes, Munch's two stereo recordings are my favorites. I like the one from
the early 60's a bit better than
the first from the mid-50's. (I think you mean "Living Stereo").
Ed Presson
I also like the sixties version better because it has more energy and vigor.
- Munch and his Boston forces rerecorded Daphnis in 1961, but the effort
hardly seemed worthwhile, as the two versions are barely distinguishable
(and in fact all the CD reissues so far are of the earlier one, >as if to
suggest that the successor was superflouous).
http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/daphnis.html
I strongly disagree with the reference (which is out-of-date). The 1961
recording differs greatly in sound compared to the mid-50's recording;
it conveys the largeness of a great symphony orchestra in a spacious
acoustic setting and has much better bass. The performances have a
family resemblance, but Munch makes subtle changes in phrasing and pacing
throughout. I couldn't say which is the best performance.

The 1961 recording is available as a single CD (at least on Arkiv, I didn't
check Amazon), and in the Munch Box.

Ed Presson
Joel Henderson
2019-03-19 00:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Presson
Post by Joel Henderson
Call me old fashioned but I always find myself gravitating towards Munch's
old RCA Living Presence recording.
Yes, Munch's two stereo recordings are my favorites. I like the one from
the early 60's a bit better than
the first from the mid-50's. (I think you mean "Living Stereo").
Ed Presson
Yeah my bad. Got my Mercury/RCA wires crossed.
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 20:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
I wasn't so happy with the Petrushka; some of the articulations put me
off, for some reason, leaving me the impression that the style was
rather misconceived. But that was a detail amidst many good things.
I'd have to listen again to remember exactly what it was.

--Jeff
M forever
2012-04-08 22:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
I wasn't so happy with the Petrushka; some of the articulations put me
off, for some reason, leaving me the impression that the style was
rather misconceived. But that was a detail amidst many good things.
I'd have to listen again to remember exactly what it was.
Did you ever listen to Levine's D+C from Vienna?
jrsnfld
2012-04-09 07:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by T. Esteban Ayala
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I haven't heard Maazel in the complete ballet. But that VPO Ravel disc
he made over a decade ago was one of the best things he ever did.
"Luxurious" is right on. His Stravinsky disc he made with the VPO
around the same time is also wonderful.
I wasn't so happy with the Petrushka; some of the articulations put me
off, for some reason, leaving me the impression that the style was
rather misconceived. But that was a detail amidst many good things.
I'd have to listen again to remember exactly what it was.
Did you ever listen to Levine's D+C from Vienna?
Not in a while. I re-listened to Part 3 again today. It's extremely
well played and a lot of Ravel's effective combinations of orchestral
colors, including percussion, come off as well as I've heard. The
recording captures dynamic contrast nicely without overdoing it--maybe
a little bright. By contrast the more recent Petitgirard recording has
more forwardness (presence) and more pleasing sound in some ways but
actually doesn't have as much dynamic range as it should. And frankly,
despite some lovely expressive playing here and there, it can't out do
the Vienna Phil for orchestral splendor.

Another recording that I don't think was mentioned is the Kondrashin/
Concertgebouw on Philips. I find myself drawn to it more than to
Levine's scrupulous success. Despite the relatively poor sonics,
Kondrashin's performance seems more seductive, more energized, than
Levine's. But on account of sound (and some less than perfect moments)
it can't really be considered a replacement for a recording like
Levine's.

-Jeff
Mark S
2012-04-08 18:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
Decca.
I don't think you will get any fair appraisals of that, given how
fashionable it is to dislike Maazel. I would like to hear that though.
Maazel made a very luxurious recording of the two suites later with
the WP for RCA, and he is generally very good in that kind of
repertoire.
I've always liked that recording. In fact, it's the recording that I
imprinted on back in my college days...which was natural for me as
Cleveland was the local band and I bought everything by them that I
could afford on a student budget.

IIRC, Jon Culshaw wrote an article lambasting the recording for having
a "flat" perspective. I don't know how much of that was tied up with
his not being involved with Decca at that point. Could have been self-
serving (ie: "When I was at Decca, their recordings sounded better..."
etc). No problem with the sound on the CD versions I've owned. It was
available on one of those Eloquence reissues - a few people are
selling it on Amazon ( http://tinyurl.com/7fm9lnp ).

The only glaring problem I had with the interpretation is that the 7/4
"Vif" section (Pg 24, rehearsal #17 in the full score) is a bit too
fast for my taste. I can't imagine dancers dancing to that tempo. That
brings up the question of whether or not recordings of ballets need to
reflect dance tempi when they are presented as purely orchestral
versions of the music. The tempo here is "Vif," so Maazel could easily
make a case for his tempo. it's just a bit jarring compared to what
others do.

I think it's worth exploring. After all, it is a Cleveland/Decca
production, and as you say, Maazel does have a real feel for this
music.
JohnGavin
2012-04-09 17:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark S
The only glaring problem I had with the interpretation is that the 7/4
"Vif" section (Pg 24, rehearsal #17 in the full score) is a bit too
fast for my taste. I can't imagine dancers dancing to that tempo.
Daphnis has a reputation as being very difficult to choreograph -
hence very rarely is it done as a ballet (as far as I know).
Has anyone else seen Daphnis with dancers?

I saw it done about 35 years ago as part of a Ravel Festival at
Lincoln Centre with the NYC Ballet - presided over by Balanchine.
herman
2012-04-09 18:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Post by Mark S
The only glaring problem I had with the interpretation is that the 7/4
"Vif" section (Pg 24, rehearsal #17 in the full score) is a bit too
fast for my taste. I can't imagine dancers dancing to that tempo.
Daphnis has a reputation as being very difficult to choreograph -
hence very rarely is it done as a ballet (as far as I know).
Has anyone else seen Daphnis with dancers?
All ballets are difficult to choreograph, but you are right. I have
not seen a performance of Daphnis since 1970, nor have I heard of one.

Originally the ballet was choreographed by Fokine. After WWII Ashton
created the classic version on Somes and Fonteyn.

One would say a ballet with a beautiful gril and pirates would be a
sure thing, but no one is doing it.
3Bs
2012-04-12 18:44:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thornhill
Rather than state the usual suspects, I enjoy Gielen's recording quite
a bit.
Are the Arte Nova and Hanssler discs the identical recording? I'm
guessing you are praising the Arte Nova one.
Terry
2012-04-07 13:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 14:37:03 +1000, aesthete8 wrote
(in article
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/product-
reviews
Post by aesthete8
/B000E6EGZA
I like both Monteux/LSO and Dutoit/Montreal. Both very, very refined. No glib
sophistication as far as I can hear.
--
Cheers!

Terry
M forever
2012-04-08 01:52:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
I don't hear any "glib" sophistication in Dutoit's recording. It
certainly is very refined, but it doesn't lack forcefulness and that
"certain toughness" either. Boulez' NYP recording may be somewhat "x-
ray" but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's an
interesting alternative approach to the piece, and since the score is
so complex, also one which does it justice. His later Berlin recording
has many of the same qualities but is played much better and the
orchestra has a richer sound, so all that makes it one of my favorite
versions.
There is also a very nice version with the Orchestra National de
France and Inbal which is also musically very refined but which
doesn't lack theatrical qualities either and it features some
exquisite playing by the wind soloists.
At the risk of being predictable, I also like Martinon's Orchestre de
Paris recording a lot. The playing may be somewhat rough at times, but
it is no doubt highly stylish.
Paul Goldstein
2012-04-08 02:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <6daa88b4-7986-4a01-afc6-***@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
aesthete8 says...
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
The Inghelbrecht is a recent discovery for me - magnificent.

Bernstein's NYP recording is rarely mentioned. I think it is one of his best
recordings of anything. (The coupled Sheherazade with Marilyn Horne is fabulous
as well.)
jrsnfld
2012-04-08 03:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
I don't think it's totally at odds with Dutoit or Boulez. All three
lay it all out there for you. Dutoit and Boulez glitter as much as
anyone, as far as I can tell.

Monteux seems particularly "tough" in part, I feel, because the
engineering lays it all bare and not necessarily to the advantage of
the music. And frankly (am I the only one?) the orchestra seems to
lack lushness and sexiness because of the engineering and maybe
because the playing itself isn't really all that fine. If I want
Monteux, I'll always reach for his characterful, but also sexy,
sweeping, atmospheric, and fervent Daphnis with the Concertgebouw,
imperfections and all. It's one of my favorites, whereas the several
times I've tried his LSO recording I've wondered what all the fuss was
about.

--Jeff
aesthete8
2012-04-12 08:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
By the way, isn't 2012 the 100th anniversary of "Daphnis et Chloe"?
herman
2012-04-12 09:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aesthete8
By the way, isn't 2012 the 100th anniversary of "Daphnis et Chloe"?
indeed. June 8 and June 10, 1912 were the first performances of the
Ballet Russe 'D&C'.

There was a lot of fuss between Diaghilev and choreographer Fokine.
That same season Nijinsky's notorious 'L'apres midi d'un Faune' was
premiered, and this piece was given precedence because Diaghilev
sensed it would create an uproar.

DIaghilev had commissioned the Ravel ballet in 1908 and by the time
the composer was done Diaghilev had already lost interest. 'D&C' was
an old-fashioned, almost Czarist ballet in his view, and he tucked the
performances away in inconspicuous corners so as to get rid of it as
soon as he could. When they put in a series of shows in London, later
that summer, they didn't even do the Ravel, apparently.

Ashton's postwar choreography was really the classic version.
M forever
2012-04-12 18:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by aesthete8
By the way, isn't 2012 the 100th anniversary of "Daphnis et Chloe"?
indeed. June 8 and June 10, 1912 were the first performances of the
Ballet Russe 'D&C'.
I wonder if any of the Titanic survivors went to the premiere!
Post by herman
There was a lot of fuss between Diaghilev and choreographer Fokine.
That same season Nijinsky's notorious 'L'apres midi d'un Faune' was
premiered, and this piece was given precedence because Diaghilev
sensed it would create an uproar.
DIaghilev had commissioned the Ravel ballet in 1908 and by the time
the composer was done Diaghilev had already lost interest. 'D&C' was
an old-fashioned, almost Czarist ballet in his view, and he tucked the
performances away in inconspicuous corners so as to get rid of it as
soon as he could. When they put in a series of shows in London, later
that summer, they didn't even do the Ravel, apparently.
Apparently he did take it to London two years later though, according
to Wiki:

"When Diaghilev took the ballet to London in 1914, he omitted the
chorus, which prompted Ravel to send an angry letter to The Times
newspaper."
Post by herman
Ashton's postwar choreography was really the classic version.
gggg gggg
2021-11-17 07:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aesthete8
Do you have a favorite?
- If you like Daphnis to be ultra lush, sexy, sweeping, or fervent,
this isn't the recording for you. Monteux's Ravel is glittering but a
bit brisk. There's a certain toughness that I like; it's totally at
odds with the glib sophistication of Dutoit or the x-ray vision of
Boulez.
http://www.amazon.com/Ravel-Daphnis-Rapsodie-espagnole-Monteux/product-reviews/B000E6EGZA
(Recent Y. upload):

Repertoire: The BEST and WORST Ravel--Daphnis et Chloé (the complete ballet)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...