Post by M forever Post by Mark S
I'm curious what people think of the Maazel/Cleveland version on
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
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
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