Discussion:
Dohnanyi Ring: what happened?
(too old to reply)
Tom Deacon
2004-09-04 16:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Does anyone know what happened to the projected complete Ring cycle in
Cleveland that Dohnanyi embarked on in the 1990s?

Did Dohnanyi complete it in concert?

Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.

TD
Eric Nagamine
2004-09-04 17:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Does anyone know what happened to the projected complete Ring cycle in
Cleveland that Dohnanyi embarked on in the 1990s?
Did Dohnanyi complete it in concert?
Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.
TD
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,

Eric Nagamine
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/mahlerb/broadcaststartpage.html
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-04 18:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Nagamine
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason hated
the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Simon Roberts
2004-09-04 20:37:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@207.217.125.204>, Matthew B. Tepper
says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Eric Nagamine
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason hated
the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
I would have thought that it didn't sell because the competition is/was too
stiff (who on earth wants to listen to Gabriella Schnaut?). How well did it
sell outside the U.S.?

Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-05 01:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Tepper says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Eric Nagamine
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were
recorded by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which
hasn't happened to date).
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
I would have thought that it didn't sell because the competition is/was
too stiff (who on earth wants to listen to Gabriella Schnaut?). How
well did it sell outside the U.S.?
So the Sawallisch and Beepgladeep (or whatever the name is of that
conductor on the super-cheapie Label) Rings didn't sell either?
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Simon Roberts
2004-09-05 16:01:47 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@207.217.125.201>, Matthew B. Tepper
says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Tepper says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Eric Nagamine
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were
recorded by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which
hasn't happened to date).
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
I would have thought that it didn't sell because the competition is/was
too stiff (who on earth wants to listen to Gabriella Schnaut?). How
well did it sell outside the U.S.?
So the Sawallisch and Beepgladeep (or whatever the name is of that
conductor on the super-cheapie Label) Rings didn't sell either?
I have no idea what the sales figures are for either. But why don't you address
the saleability of Dohnanyi's? To assert plausibly that it failed because of
company sabotage, you would have to show that it had some chance of doing well
without said sabotage - e.g., that, based on good reviews (were there any? Those
I recall were all negative, and rightly so), there was demand for it which Decca
deliberately did not meet. I happened to be selling CDs when Rheingold and
Walkure were released, and the reaction of customers on seeing them was
derision. I had no trouble ordering them, and no trouble returning them when
they didn't sell.... The absurdity was recording them in the first place.

Simon
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 17:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
I have no idea what the sales figures are for either. But why don't you address
the saleability of Dohnanyi's? To assert plausibly that it failed because of
company sabotage, you would have to show that it had some chance of doing well
without said sabotage - e.g., that, based on good reviews (were there any?
Those I recall were all negative, and rightly so), there was demand for it
which Decca deliberately did not meet. I happened to be selling CDs when
Rheingold and Walkure were released, and the reaction of customers on seeing
them was derision. I had no trouble ordering them, and no trouble returning
them when they didn't sell.... The absurdity was recording them in the first
place.

Are you not being a trifle hard? Dohnanyi was not a third-rate conductor,
the CO is not a third-rate orchestra, the singers are not ALL that bad, just
not Melchior and Flagstad in their prime, even far from it.

I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we expect
from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.

Perhaps you're right, it should not have been recorded, but to call the
enterprise "absurd" has to have some rationale: it couldn't make money, the
recording was lousy, the participants incompetent, etc. All of which is not
the case, with the possible exception of the financial footing of the
undertaking, which is always a gamble with opera recordings, hence EMI's
decision not to make any more operatic recordings in studio.

TD
Simon Roberts
2004-09-05 19:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Are you not being a trifle hard? Dohnanyi was not a third-rate conductor,
the CO is not a third-rate orchestra, the singers are not ALL that bad, just
not Melchior and Flagstad in their prime, even far from it.
Decca already had a recording with an orchestra that was not third rate, a
conductor who was not third rate, recorded sound that was not third rate, and a
cast that was better across the board. No, the singers weren't all bad, but
without really good singers in the handful of "star" roles, it doesn't matter,
does it?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we expect
from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in question live
or on other recordings, and some had bought Rheingold and didn't need to bother
with the rest. Besides, if you can't sell a Ring to "the opera crowd" you might
as well not bother.

But this is all secondary. Charges of sabotage by the company responsible sound
to me like paranoid nonsense. My explanation may be wrong, but I think it's
more likely.

Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-05 21:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Tom Deacon
Are you not being a trifle hard? Dohnanyi was not a third-rate
conductor, the CO is not a third-rate orchestra, the singers are not ALL
that bad, just not Melchior and Flagstad in their prime, even far from
it.
Decca already had a recording with an orchestra that was not third rate,
a conductor who was not third rate, recorded sound that was not third
rate, and a cast that was better across the board. No, the singers
weren't all bad, but without really good singers in the handful of
"star" roles, it doesn't matter, does it?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we
expect from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in
question live or on other recordings, and some had bought Rheingold and
didn't need to bother with the rest. Besides, if you can't sell a Ring
to "the opera crowd" you might as well not bother.
But this is all secondary. Charges of sabotage by the company
responsible sound to me like paranoid nonsense. My explanation may be
wrong, but I think it's more likely.
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
That's a form of sabotage, albeit a much more passive one, and one that was
familiar indeed to the London Records crew in New York, more out of
indolence than actual ill-wishes.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Gerrit Stolte
2004-09-05 22:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Tom Deacon
Are you not being a trifle hard? Dohnanyi was not a third-rate
conductor, the CO is not a third-rate orchestra, the singers are not ALL
that bad, just not Melchior and Flagstad in their prime, even far from
it.
Decca already had a recording with an orchestra that was not third rate,
a conductor who was not third rate, recorded sound that was not third
rate, and a cast that was better across the board. No, the singers
weren't all bad, but without really good singers in the handful of
"star" roles, it doesn't matter, does it?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we
expect from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in
question live or on other recordings, and some had bought Rheingold and
didn't need to bother with the rest. Besides, if you can't sell a Ring
to "the opera crowd" you might as well not bother.
But this is all secondary. Charges of sabotage by the company
responsible sound to me like paranoid nonsense. My explanation may be
wrong, but I think it's more likely.
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
Actually it was a failure in the marketing steps preceding promtion and
placement (distribution). Product and Price should have been considered
prior to the recording project. Is there a reasonable demand for another
Ring at all? Is there a reasonable demand for a Ring with that cast (You
think so, most people don't)? What price do we have to ask in order not to
lose money? Answers to questions 1 and 2 probably would have led the
Universal crew to stop the project before the first session, but the answer
to question 3 most certainly should have. As I said earlier, your knowledge
about marketing is very limited, something you have in common with the
people that gave Dohnanyi the go-ahead for the Ring in the first place.

Gerrit
--
"In Deutschland gilt derjenige als viel gefährlicher, der auf den Schmutz
hinweist als der, der ihn gemacht hat." (Carl von Ossietzky, 1889-1938)
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 22:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
Actually it was a failure in the marketing steps preceding promtion and
placement (distribution). Product and Price should have been considered
prior to the recording project. Is there a reasonable demand for another
Ring at all? Is there a reasonable demand for a Ring with that cast (You
think so, most people don't)? What price do we have to ask in order not to
lose money? Answers to questions 1 and 2 probably would have led the
Universal crew to stop the project before the first session, but the answer
to question 3 most certainly should have. As I said earlier, your knowledge
about marketing is very limited, something you have in common with the
people that gave Dohnanyi the go-ahead for the Ring in the first place.
I have been contacted privately by a "lurker" in the know. Apparently
Dohnanyi insisted on each and every member of the cast over violent protests
from Decca, who probably signed a contract to proceed before they actually
were able to see the cast. Seems as though the seeds of this disaster were
sown by the maestro himself.

TD
Gerrit Stolte
2004-09-06 07:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
Actually it was a failure in the marketing steps preceding promtion and
placement (distribution). Product and Price should have been considered
prior to the recording project. Is there a reasonable demand for another
Ring at all? Is there a reasonable demand for a Ring with that cast (You
think so, most people don't)? What price do we have to ask in order not to
lose money? Answers to questions 1 and 2 probably would have led the
Universal crew to stop the project before the first session, but the answer
to question 3 most certainly should have. As I said earlier, your knowledge
about marketing is very limited, something you have in common with the
people that gave Dohnanyi the go-ahead for the Ring in the first place.
I have been contacted privately by a "lurker" in the know. Apparently
Dohnanyi insisted on each and every member of the cast over violent protests
from Decca, who probably signed a contract to proceed before they actually
were able to see the cast. Seems as though the seeds of this disaster were
sown by the maestro himself.
Wether or not the *lurker* has indeed the correct information, the
mistake as such was made by Decca when they agreed to this recording
project without all the necessary information you need to have for
making the decision in the first place.

Gerrit
--
"In Deutschland gilt derjenige als viel gefahrlicher, der auf den
Schmutz hinweist als der, der ihn gemacht hat."
(Carl von Ossietzky, 1889-1938)
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 09:49:14 UTC
Permalink
On 9/6/04 3:45 AM, in article
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
Actually it was a failure in the marketing steps preceding promtion and
placement (distribution). Product and Price should have been considered
prior to the recording project. Is there a reasonable demand for another
Ring at all? Is there a reasonable demand for a Ring with that cast (You
think so, most people don't)? What price do we have to ask in order not to
lose money? Answers to questions 1 and 2 probably would have led the
Universal crew to stop the project before the first session, but the answer
to question 3 most certainly should have. As I said earlier, your knowledge
about marketing is very limited, something you have in common with the
people that gave Dohnanyi the go-ahead for the Ring in the first place.
I have been contacted privately by a "lurker" in the know. Apparently
Dohnanyi insisted on each and every member of the cast over violent protests
from Decca, who probably signed a contract to proceed before they actually
were able to see the cast. Seems as though the seeds of this disaster were
sown by the maestro himself.
Wether or not the *lurker* has indeed the correct information, the
mistake as such was made by Decca when they agreed to this recording
project without all the necessary information you need to have for
making the decision in the first place.
Sometimes, in fact most times, the record companies "trust" the Maestro to
know best.

Often he doesn't.

Which is why we have had endless Beethoven Brahms and Mozart cycles over the
past twenty years to which nobody has wanted to say the magic word "no".

Strangely enough record companies rarely use that word with their artists.
The A&R people want to remain cozy with the artists, the marketing people
are told to shut up and sell the stuff, and the ball starts rolling down the
hill. I seem to remember a time when we were doing nothing at Philips but
recording Beethoven symphonies. Nobody wanted yet another one (with Ozawa),
after unsaleable ones with Masur and Davis and Haitink. In point of fact
they hadn't wanted any of the first three! And history has acted ruthlessly
with all of them. And supposedly we were not going to get another one.

Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!

DG and Decca were not different, just bigger. I am sure that nobody ever
said no to Zukerman. Or Maazel. Or MTT. At least until the big shakeup at
BMG. Sony? They're not in the classical music business.

TD
Gerrit Stolte
2004-09-06 16:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
On 9/6/04 3:45 AM, in article
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
I have been contacted privately by a "lurker" in the know. Apparently
Dohnanyi insisted on each and every member of the cast over violent protests
from Decca, who probably signed a contract to proceed before they actually
were able to see the cast. Seems as though the seeds of this disaster were
sown by the maestro himself.
Wether or not the *lurker* has indeed the correct information, the
mistake as such was made by Decca when they agreed to this recording
project without all the necessary information you need to have for
making the decision in the first place.
Sometimes, in fact most times, the record companies "trust" the Maestro to
know best.
Still their mistake.
Post by Tom Deacon
Which is why we have had endless Beethoven Brahms and Mozart cycles over the
past twenty years to which nobody has wanted to say the magic word "no".
I wouldn't generalize that. Rattle's Beethoven certainly sold.
Post by Tom Deacon
Strangely enough record companies rarely use that word with their artists.
The A&R people want to remain cozy with the artists, the marketing people
are told to shut up and sell the stuff, and the ball starts rolling down the
hill. I seem to remember a time when we were doing nothing at Philips but
recording Beethoven symphonies. Nobody wanted yet another one (with Ozawa),
after unsaleable ones with Masur and Davis and Haitink. In point of fact
they hadn't wanted any of the first three! And history has acted ruthlessly
with all of them. And supposedly we were not going to get another one.
Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!
Well, if it sells in Japan or Asia, and generates just one yen after taxes
it was a deserved undertaking - unless Universal Japan or the global
marketing organisation could have come up with some productions costing as
much but generating more. This, however, would be pure speculation, which,
unfortunately tends to influence too much comments on the
policies/decisions of record companies.

Gerrit
--
"In Deutschland gilt derjenige als viel gefährlicher, der auf den Schmutz
hinweist als der, der ihn gemacht hat." (Carl von Ossietzky, 1889-1938)
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 16:30:31 UTC
Permalink
On 9/6/04 12:14 PM, in article kb28yuh8o6rw$***@40tude.net,
"Gerrit Stolte" <***@web.de> wrote:

I seem to remember a time when we were doing nothing at Philips but
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
recording Beethoven symphonies. Nobody wanted yet another one (with Ozawa),
after unsaleable ones with Masur and Davis and Haitink. In point of fact
they hadn't wanted any of the first three! And history has acted ruthlessly
with all of them. And supposedly we were not going to get another one.
Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!
Well, if it sells in Japan or Asia, and generates just one yen after taxes
it was a deserved undertaking
Deserving of what, exactly? Certainly not profits. But perhaps you are
thinking of "artistic" merit. In which case, I await your evaluation of this
set of Beethoven.
Post by Gerrit Stolte
- unless Universal Japan or the global marketing organisation could have come
up with some productions costing as much but generating more.

They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Post by Gerrit Stolte
This, however, would be pure speculation, which, unfortunately tends to
influence too much comments on the policies/decisions of record companies.

Unless, that is, you have actually seen the world sales figures on some of
the expensive losers.

TD
Gerrit Stolte
2004-09-06 17:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
I seem to remember a time when we were doing nothing at Philips but
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
recording Beethoven symphonies. Nobody wanted yet another one (with Ozawa),
after unsaleable ones with Masur and Davis and Haitink. In point of fact
they hadn't wanted any of the first three! And history has acted ruthlessly
with all of them. And supposedly we were not going to get another one.
Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!
Well, if it sells in Japan or Asia, and generates just one yen after taxes
it was a deserved undertaking
Deserving of what, exactly? Certainly not profits. But perhaps you are
thinking of "artistic" merit. In which case, I await your evaluation of this
set of Beethoven.
Proofreading error on my part. What I meant to say is that if Ozawa's cycle
generated a yen after tax, it was the right decision to record and sell it.
As for evaluating his cycle - it would be interesting to listen to it (some
of his Saito Kinen Orchestra got good reviews here on rmcr and in the
press), before actually claiming that it shouldn't have been recorded. But
hmv.co.jp has shipping costs that would double the price of this set for
me.
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
- unless Universal Japan or the global marketing organisation could have come
up with some productions costing as much but generating more.
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
This, however, would be pure speculation, which, unfortunately tends to
influence too much comments on the policies/decisions of record companies.
Unless, that is, you have actually seen the world sales figures on some of
the expensive losers.
I was only talking about Ozawa, not the already decades old trend of just
recording another cycle of standard repertoire again and again - or
whatever repertoire at all.

Gerrit
--
"In Deutschland gilt derjenige als viel gefährlicher, der auf den Schmutz
hinweist als der, der ihn gemacht hat." (Carl von Ossietzky, 1889-1938)
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 17:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
I seem to remember a time when we were doing nothing at Philips but
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
recording Beethoven symphonies. Nobody wanted yet another one (with Ozawa),
after unsaleable ones with Masur and Davis and Haitink. In point of fact
they hadn't wanted any of the first three! And history has acted ruthlessly
with all of them. And supposedly we were not going to get another one.
Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!
Well, if it sells in Japan or Asia, and generates just one yen after taxes
it was a deserved undertaking
Deserving of what, exactly? Certainly not profits. But perhaps you are
thinking of "artistic" merit. In which case, I await your evaluation of this
set of Beethoven.
Proofreading error on my part. What I meant to say is that if Ozawa's cycle
generated a yen after tax, it was the right decision to record and sell it.
One yen as a profit target is not very interesting. ROI needs to be much,
much more. One yen profit would have made it the wrong business decision.
Decisions like that have helped to kill the classical music recording
industry as we knew it.
Post by Gerrit Stolte
As for evaluating his cycle - it would be interesting to listen to it (some
of his Saito Kinen Orchestra got good reviews here on rmcr and in the
press), before actually claiming that it shouldn't have been recorded. But
hmv.co.jp has shipping costs that would double the price of this set for
me.
They were all released worldwide, I think, according to company policy. You
must have missed the week when they were issued and then deleted.

Now, as you say, the only option you have is high shipping costs. But surely
curiosity will win out over such impediments.
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
- unless Universal Japan or the global marketing organisation could have come
up with some productions costing as much but generating more.
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.

It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".

Russell Watson is the current money-spinner for Decca Records.

There is NO accounting for taste, you know.
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
This, however, would be pure speculation, which, unfortunately tends to
influence too much comments on the policies/decisions of record companies.
Unless, that is, you have actually seen the world sales figures on some of
the expensive losers.
I was only talking about Ozawa, not the already decades old trend of just
recording another cycle of standard repertoire again and again - or
whatever repertoire at all.
Ozawa used his own form of pressure on the powers that be to allow him to
record his unsaleable Beethoven cycle. Lord only knows who figures in all
the dirty pictures he must have in his possession (nobody could figure any
other explanation for this lunatic A&R decision) , but the resulting set is,
in my opinion, far worse than any revelation he might have made about his
masters in London.

TD
David7Gable
2004-09-06 18:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.

-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-06 18:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
A pop singer with delusions of opera adequacy, who is being promoted, and
fawned over in the press, as though he actually were an opera singer.

It took Decca fifty years or more to give their names the cachet of being
associated with the finest recordings of opera ... and then it took this
Watson a year or two to piss it away.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 19:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
A pop singer with delusions of opera adequacy, who is being promoted, and
fawned over in the press, as though he actually were an opera singer.
And bring in buckets of money for Decca. So much so that they hardly even
think of themselves as a "classical music" company any more.

TD
Johannes Roehl
2004-09-06 18:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
He might have been mentioned in Matthew Tepper's sig (as UK export
along with Mad Cow Disease) once in a while. I have read about him, but
never heard a note of his singing. For all I know he is not really known
in continental Europe (we have Bocelli and André Rieu for the Aunties
and Grannies)

Johannes
Gareth Williams
2004-09-06 20:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David7Gable
Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
I have read about him, but never heard a note of his singing. <snip> We
have Bocelli and André Rieu
Bocelli has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Watson's. So
did Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin and Rin Tin Tin.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by David7Gable
Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
I have read about him, but never heard a note of his singing. <snip> We
have Bocelli and André Rieu
Bocelli has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Watson's. So
did Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin and Rin Tin Tin.
Does Rin Tin Tin do opera too?

TD
Gareth Williams
2004-09-06 22:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by David7Gable
Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
I have read about him, but never heard a note of his singing. <snip> We
have Bocelli and André Rieu
Bocelli has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Watson's. So
did Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin and Rin Tin Tin.
Does Rin Tin Tin do opera too?
Not really - only Bach and Wolff.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Jon Bell
2004-09-07 02:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Does Rin Tin Tin do opera too?
His specialty role is Lapak in Janacek's "Cunning Little Visen." :-)
--
Jon Bell <***@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-07 00:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by David7Gable
Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
I have read about him, but never heard a note of his singing. <snip> We
have Bocelli and André Rieu
Bocelli has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Watson's.
So did Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin and Rin Tin Tin.
Clint Eastwood is conspicuously missing from your list.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
David7Gable
2004-09-07 04:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth Williams
Bocelli has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Watson's. So
did Rex Harrison, Lee Marvin and Rin Tin Tin
Yes, but Bocelli even has a singing voice of infinitely better quality than Rex
Harrison, Lee Marvin, and Rin Tin Tin. He comes the very closest of all these
crossover clowns to being the real thing. I've never heard him live and
probably never will, but on the basis of what little recorded singing I've
heard from him he's more like the Mario Lanza of our time than the Charlotte
Church.

-david gable

Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 18:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
Oh dear. You know Boulez but not Russell Watson.

Do you know who Elvis Presley is?

TD
Gareth Williams
2004-09-06 20:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by David7Gable
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
Oh dear. You know Boulez but not Russell Watson.
That criticism - if such it be - is on a par with "You know fillet steak
but you haven't heard of corned beef".
Post by Tom Deacon
Do you know who Elvis Presley is?
A singer, whose rendition of O Sole Mio was infinitely better than
Russell Watson's. Ironically, I suspect that Watson's attempts at
covering Elvis songs would probably work reasonably well compared
to his forays into opera. Which proves another point.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 21:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by David7Gable
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
Oh dear. You know Boulez but not Russell Watson.
That criticism - if such it be - is on a par with "You know fillet steak
but you haven't heard of corned beef".
It was not a criticism. Just a comparison. And an interesting one for the
classical music industry to contemplate. Perhaps they have not marketed Mr.
Watson sufficiently?
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by Tom Deacon
Do you know who Elvis Presley is?
A singer, whose rendition of O Sole Mio was infinitely better than
Russell Watson's.
Thankfully I have managed to avoid both.
Post by Gareth Williams
Ironically, I suspect that Watson's attempts at covering Elvis songs would
probably work reasonably well compared to his forays into opera. Which proves
another point.

I wonder if that point includes the money he and Decca are making?

It reminds me of the Liberace story, laughing all the way to the bank.

In the meantime some of us can quietly cringe.

TD
Gareth Williams
2004-09-06 22:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by Tom Deacon
Oh dear. You know Boulez but not Russell Watson.
That criticism - if such it be - is on a par with "You know fillet steak
but you haven't heard of corned beef".
It was not a criticism. Just a comparison. And an interesting one for the
classical music industry to contemplate. Perhaps they have not marketed Mr.
Watson sufficiently?
One way or another I find that depressingly hard to contemplate.
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gareth Williams
Ironically, I suspect that Watson's attempts at covering Elvis songs would
probably work reasonably well compared to his forays into opera. Which proves
another point.
I wonder if that point includes the money he and Decca are making?
No - simply that opera requires more technique to sing than rock'n'roll.
Post by Tom Deacon
It reminds me of the Liberace story, laughing all the way to the bank.
I'm reminded of the other Liberace story, when all his publicity said he
became ill through eating melons whilst all but his most blinkered fans
knew the awful truth. Likewise Watson, except for "melons" substitute
"voice" and for "awful truth" substitute "marketing".
Post by Tom Deacon
In the meantime some of us can quietly cringe.
And we do, Tom, we do. At least I have the advantage over Watson of being
able to produce more attractive sounds in the bath, with the added bonus
of counting the bubbles thus produced as they rise between my thighs.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Gareth Williams
2004-09-06 19:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
And - God be with you - may you never hear of him again. Two octaves,
three registers and none of them joined up.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Tom Deacon
2004-09-06 19:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gareth Williams
Post by David7Gable
Post by Tom Deacon
Post by Gerrit Stolte
Post by Tom Deacon
They have. It's called Russell Watson.
Who him?
I am speechless.
It is a bit like asking "Who is Luciano Pavarotti".
I know who Pavarotti is. Never heard of Russell Watson until this thread.
And - God be with you - may you never hear of him again. Two octaves,
three registers and none of them joined up.
All leading him to the bank.

TD
Bob Harper
2004-09-06 17:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Tom Deacon wrote:
(snip)
Post by Tom Deacon
Surprise, surprise. It's done and in the shops. Ozawa has completed "his"
Beethoven cycle. In Japan. With the Saito Kinen Orchestra. Now, try and sell
that in London!
(snip)
Post by Tom Deacon
TD
If it's as good as his Mahler 2 and 9 with that orchestra, it would be
worth hearing. I've never been an Ozawa fan, but those two recordings
are excellent.

Bob Harper
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 22:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Tom Deacon
Are you not being a trifle hard? Dohnanyi was not a third-rate
conductor, the CO is not a third-rate orchestra, the singers are not ALL
that bad, just not Melchior and Flagstad in their prime, even far from
it.
Decca already had a recording with an orchestra that was not third rate,
a conductor who was not third rate, recorded sound that was not third
rate, and a cast that was better across the board. No, the singers
weren't all bad, but without really good singers in the handful of
"star" roles, it doesn't matter, does it?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we
expect from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in
question live or on other recordings, and some had bought Rheingold and
didn't need to bother with the rest. Besides, if you can't sell a Ring
to "the opera crowd" you might as well not bother.
But this is all secondary. Charges of sabotage by the company
responsible sound to me like paranoid nonsense. My explanation may be
wrong, but I think it's more likely.
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
That's a form of sabotage, albeit a much more passive one, and one that was
familiar indeed to the London Records crew in New York, more out of
indolence than actual ill-wishes.
I thought that Tepper had nothing but disdain for "marketing".

And now marketing would have saved the Decca Ring cycle with Dohnanyi!

I don't think so. If the cast really "sucks", no amount of money would have
been able to convince the opera buyers to shell out their cash.

TD
Simon Roberts
2004-09-06 01:32:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@207.217.125.203>, Matthew B. Tepper
says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to promote,
publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of the matter.
But there was no failure to distribute it; it was perfectly easy to order copies
when they were released, and they duly showed up. No-one wanted to buy them.
Failure to promote? They were advertised in the major record review magazines.
Even if they hadn't been, I doubt it would have made any difference. In my
experience (which may not be worth much), what sells recordings aren't ads
telling us how wonderful the recording is but favorable reviews, word of mouth,
tips from store employees you trust and first-hand experience. Have studies
been done on the effectiveness of various forms of marketing with regard to
classical music?

Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-06 03:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Tepper says...
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
"Sabotage" may indeed be far too harsh a word; "total failure to
promote, publicize and distribute" might be much closer to the truth of
the matter.
But there was no failure to distribute it; it was perfectly easy to order
copies when they were released, and they duly showed up. No-one wanted
to buy them. Failure to promote? They were advertised in the major
record review magazines. Even if they hadn't been, I doubt it would have
made any difference. In my experience (which may not be worth much),
what sells recordings aren't ads telling us how wonderful the recording
is but favorable reviews, word of mouth, tips from store employees you
trust and first-hand experience. Have studies been done on the
effectiveness of various forms of marketing with regard to classical
music?
When a record company wants to sell something, it will make an effort.
This is why I sometimes walk into Tower Records and see many multiple
copies of something on an endcap. I imagine Universal Music still has a
release book wherein they state which items they're pushing. If they don't
want to bother with something, they won't try to push it.

Mind you, I'm not saying that *I* was interested in buying it, or even that
I wouldn't have rolled my eyes if they had given it a big push; what I *am*
saying is that the New York office decided what they were going to do, and
they did exactly that.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 21:26:54 UTC
Permalink
No, the singers weren't all bad, but without really good singers in the
handful of "star" roles, it doesn't matter, does it?

What does that do to all the Ring Cycles currently being presented around
the world. There is Bayreuth, of course. And Seattle.(Are they still doing
it on a yearly basis). Toronto has one scheduled to open with the new opera
house in a couple of years. And in Germany the Ring is a opera staple? And
what about the Met? Anybody care about their Wagner operas either?

Are they all irrelevant as well without "stars" in the major roles. Indeed,
are there any Wagner stars today?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we expect
from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in question live
or on other recordings,
Making up their minds without hearing the results.
and some had bought Rheingold and didn't need to
bother with the rest.
What about those who hadn't heard either?
Besides, if you can't sell a Ring to "the opera crowd" you might as well not
bother.
You can say the same about Beethoven symphonies, Chopin Preludes, etc. A
good argument for Naxos, I would say: buy the mess for less.
But this is all secondary. Charges of sabotage by the company responsible
sound to me like paranoid nonsense.
Bingo!

In other words, typical Tepper tripe.

TD
Simon Roberts
2004-09-06 01:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
No, the singers weren't all bad, but without really good singers in the
handful of "star" roles, it doesn't matter, does it?
What does that do to all the Ring Cycles currently being presented around
the world. There is Bayreuth, of course. And Seattle.(Are they still doing
it on a yearly basis). Toronto has one scheduled to open with the new opera
house in a couple of years. And in Germany the Ring is a opera staple? And
what about the Met? Anybody care about their Wagner operas either?
Not me, but the comparison isn't apt. If you want to go and see the Ring,
there's no choice but to hear it with a cast who are active. Recordings are
different: Schnaut has to compete against Dernesch, Nilsson, Leider et al.
Solti's Walkure was every bit as available as Dohnanyi's....
Post by Tom Deacon
Are they all irrelevant as well without "stars" in the major roles. Indeed,
are there any Wagner stars today?
Post by Tom Deacon
I can hear the hoots of derision from the opera crowd; it is what we expect
from them, particularly when they haven't heard anything at all.
Of course they had; they had likely heard most of the singers in question live
or on other recordings,
Making up their minds without hearing the results.
and some had bought Rheingold and didn't need to
bother with the rest.
What about those who hadn't heard either?
But it doesn't matter. The question isn't "were their judgments uninformed by
the proper experiences" but "why couldn't opera buyers be persuaded to buy
Dohnanyi's Rheingold and Walkure?" or "why should they have bought them?"
Post by Tom Deacon
Besides, if you can't sell a Ring to "the opera crowd" you might as well not
bother.
You can say the same about Beethoven symphonies, Chopin Preludes, etc.
Of course!

Simon
william kasimer
2004-09-05 00:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason hated
the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
If that were true, they wouldn't have recorded it in the first place.
It didn't sell because the singing was largely atrocious. It's a
pity, because the Siegfried was considerably better, based on the
broadcast I heard.

Bill
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-05 01:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by william kasimer
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
If that were true, they wouldn't have recorded it in the first place.
It didn't sell because the singing was largely atrocious. It's a pity,
because the Siegfried was considerably better, based on the broadcast I
heard.
The real shame about the problems at Polygram/Universal were that there
were some people who believed in projects, and were able to get them
greenlighted, and others (who may have had personal professional grudges
against the first lot) who wanted them to fail and sabotaged matters.

The question then becomes, why did the people in charge allow this to
happen? The two most convincing responses are: 1) They were too blind or
stupid to see what was going on, in which case they were incompetent to
hold their jobs and ought to have been removed; and 2) They were in on the
sabotage in the first place, or else condoned it after the fact, in which
case tey ought to have been removed from their jobs and perhaps subjected
to criminal investigations.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 03:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by william kasimer
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
If that were true, they wouldn't have recorded it in the first place.
It didn't sell because the singing was largely atrocious. It's a pity,
because the Siegfried was considerably better, based on the broadcast I
heard.
The real shame about the problems at Polygram/Universal were that there
were some people who believed in projects, and were able to get them
greenlighted, and others (who may have had personal professional grudges
against the first lot) who wanted them to fail and sabotaged matters.
The question then becomes, why did the people in charge allow this to
happen? The two most convincing responses are: 1) They were too blind or
stupid to see what was going on, in which case they were incompetent to
hold their jobs and ought to have been removed; and 2) They were in on the
sabotage in the first place, or else condoned it after the fact, in which
case tey ought to have been removed from their jobs and perhaps subjected
to criminal investigations.
As usual, Tepper has no information and tries to parlay it into various
exclusive hypotheses.

What a dork!

TD
Terry Simmons
2004-09-05 08:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by william kasimer
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
If that were true, they wouldn't have recorded it in the first place.
It didn't sell because the singing was largely atrocious. It's a pity,
because the Siegfried was considerably better, based on the broadcast I
heard.
The real shame about the problems at Polygram/Universal were that there
were some people who believed in projects, and were able to get them
greenlighted, and others (who may have had personal professional grudges
against the first lot) who wanted them to fail and sabotaged matters.
The question then becomes, why did the people in charge allow this to
happen? The two most convincing responses are: 1) They were too blind or
stupid to see what was going on, in which case they were incompetent to
hold their jobs and ought to have been removed; and 2) They were in on the
sabotage in the first place, or else condoned it after the fact, in which
case tey ought to have been removed from their jobs and perhaps subjected
to criminal investigations.
Hey, how do you know all this stuff?
--
Cheers!

Terry
Matthew B. Tepper
2004-09-05 15:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Simmons
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by william kasimer
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
They didn't sell because the powers-that-be at Decca for some reason
hated the Cleveland Orchestra and sabotaged their US issue program.
If that were true, they wouldn't have recorded it in the first place.
It didn't sell because the singing was largely atrocious. It's a
pity, because the Siegfried was considerably better, based on the
broadcast I heard.
The real shame about the problems at Polygram/Universal were that there
were some people who believed in projects, and were able to get them
greenlighted, and others (who may have had personal professional grudges
against the first lot) who wanted them to fail and sabotaged matters.
The question then becomes, why did the people in charge allow this to
happen? The two most convincing responses are: 1) They were too
blind or stupid to see what was going on, in which case they were
incompetent to hold their jobs and ought to have been removed; and 2)
They were in on the sabotage in the first place, or else condoned it
after the fact, in which case tey ought to have been removed from their
jobs and perhaps subjected to criminal investigations.
Hey, how do you know all this stuff?
That would be telling.

Actually, it was fairly easy to see what was going on at Polygram years
ago, from observing the results. Apply the Peter Principle, and you can
make a pretty good guess, albeit without being able to assign actual names
to the mistakes.
--
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
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Tom Deacon
2004-09-04 18:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Nagamine
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
I know, of course, that they "didn't sell". But the cast is hardly "stellar"
to begin with. And then Wagner is so costly to record, making profitability
difficult.

Good to hear that the concert series was completed, however.

I have been listening to the Rheingold. The orchestra is really wonderful.

TD
Alan Watkins
2004-09-05 21:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
I know, of course, that they "didn't sell". But the cast is hardly "stellar"
to begin with. And then Wagner is so costly to record, making profitability
difficult.
Good to hear that the concert series was completed, however.
I have been listening to the Rheingold. The orchestra is really wonderful.
TD
On behalf of whichever orchestra it was, thank you. Same thing
happens in the Zagreb recording of Rusalka...wonderful playing by the
orchestra but not so good elsewhere.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 22:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On 9/5/04 5:52 PM, in article
Post by Alan Watkins
Post by Tom Deacon
I know, of course, that they "didn't sell". But the cast is hardly "stellar"
to begin with. And then Wagner is so costly to record, making profitability
difficult.
Good to hear that the concert series was completed, however.
I have been listening to the Rheingold. The orchestra is really wonderful.
TD
On behalf of whichever orchestra it was, thank you. Same thing
happens in the Zagreb recording of Rusalka...wonderful playing by the
orchestra but not so good elsewhere.
The orchestra? The Cleveland Orchestra.

TD
Paul Kimoto
2004-09-05 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Nagamine
Post by Tom Deacon
Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
No. Siegfried was performed in CvD's last series of concerts as MD. At
the time it was suggested that he would return for Götterdämmerung, but
as it turns out he has yet to return to conduct the CO, perhaps still
unhappy about the Ring project.

Also reportedly the CO suggested that these two operas could be recorded
mainly in concert (i.e., with brief touchups) for CDs, but CvD didn't go
for that.
--
Paul Kimoto
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text. Any images,
hyperlinks, or the like shown here have been added without my consent,
and may be a violation of international copyright law.
Eric Nagamine
2004-09-05 08:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Kimoto
Post by Eric Nagamine
Post by Tom Deacon
Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
No. Siegfried was performed in CvD's last series of concerts as MD. At
the time it was suggested that he would return for Götterdämmerung, but
as it turns out he has yet to return to conduct the CO, perhaps still
unhappy about the Ring project.
Also reportedly the CO suggested that these two operas could be recorded
mainly in concert (i.e., with brief touchups) for CDs, but CvD didn't go
for that.
Thanks for the correction. Do you know how many copies of Die Walkure
sold. I seem to recall reading that only a few hundred copies had sold
world wide.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,

Eric Nagamine
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/mahlerb/broadcaststartpage.html
Tom Deacon
2004-09-05 12:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Nagamine
Post by Paul Kimoto
Post by Eric Nagamine
Post by Tom Deacon
Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.
Reports were that it didn't sell and Decca cancelled the remainder. I
believe that they did complete the concert series and they were recorded
by the orchestra in hopes of an eventual release (which hasn't happened
to date).
No. Siegfried was performed in CvD's last series of concerts as MD. At
the time it was suggested that he would return for Götterdämmerung, but
as it turns out he has yet to return to conduct the CO, perhaps still
unhappy about the Ring project.
Also reportedly the CO suggested that these two operas could be recorded
mainly in concert (i.e., with brief touchups) for CDs, but CvD didn't go
for that.
Thanks for the correction. Do you know how many copies of Die Walkure
sold. I seem to recall reading that only a few hundred copies had sold
world wide.
If that is true, it was an instant collector's item.

TD
Paul Kimoto
2004-09-06 22:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Nagamine
Do you know how many copies of Die Walkure
sold. I seem to recall reading that only a few hundred copies had sold
world wide.
I think that this was reported in the Cleveland press (or perhaps it was
about the Rheingold).
--
Paul Kimoto
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text. Any images,
hyperlinks, or the like shown here have been added without my consent,
and may be a violation of international copyright law.
Peter Schenkman
2004-09-05 18:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Deacon
Does anyone know what happened to the projected complete Ring cycle in
Cleveland that Dohnanyi embarked on in the 1990s?
Did Dohnanyi complete it in concert?
Only the Rheingold and Walkure were released on Decca, I believe.
TD
Great orchestra, good conductor, poor cast and I would imagine poor sales.

Peter Schenkman
Loading...