Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
Sun, May 12 2013, 3:03AM
this comes from a previous conversation: exist certain versions what critics and public in general considers
"unsurpassables" or "definitives". For example: Beethoven's 9th symphony with Philharmonia
Orchestra (Lucerne Festival, 1954), conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler
(TAHRA); Beethoven's 5 and 7 symphonies with Carlos Kleiber-Vienna (DG);
Mahler's 5th symphonie with Rudolf Barshai-Deustche Junger Orchester
(Laurel/Brilliant); Ravel's piano concert in G with Arturo Benedetti
Michelangeli-Ettore Gracis; Mozart's Nº 23 piano concert with Ivan
Moravec-Czech Chamber Orchestra (Supraphon), and others. For me this is very relative, I think that in general one tends to confuse "final version", with a personal preference, at last the best version is which each one prefers. What do
you think about this? are there effectively "definitive" versions or not? can
you mention other versions that could be considered "definitive"
versions? Best regards. oscar.olavarria
Sun, May 12 2013, 7:59PM
#2
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
Mahler's 5th with Barshai is the ultimate example of an internet hype. One stoned critic liked it so much that he called it best 5th ever, and the rest of the cattle nodded approvingly. Enter Brilliant Classics which distributed it dirt cheap (coupled to Barshai's excercise in morbid bad taste: his "completion" of the 10th) and you've got a situation where every music lover has this particular record and is instructed by the press to love it. Same happened to his Shostakovich cycle: overhyped to the max.
Just listen to Barbirolli's 5th (EMI GROC), and then go back to Barshai. You'll like Barshai a lot less.
Sun, May 12 2013, 2:59PM
#3
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
I trust we have covered this, to some extent, in one of your previous threads (on Brahms' Piano Concertos, I recall).
As I have mentioned then, for most, if not all serious collectors, there are "great recordings", but not "definitive" ones. Even if most of the critics, reviewers, mavens, experts of any kind agree on a specific recording (very rare indeed), it does not mean that this particular one may work for any listener and there won't be another "great recording" in the future.
Finally, the recording comes in the form of a final product (CD, SACD, DVD, Blu Ray, etc.). So, a lot depends on the production team as well. To your surprise, my "best" (most beloved) recording of Franck's Violin Sonata comes from an obscure and marginal American label, called Pro Piano, with two "unsung" Japanese soloists. I guess the main reason is the close to perfect recording (and general production) that helps to follow this glorious Sonata to every possible detail, in the most realistic way (along with a safe and quite good performance).
Parla
Sun, May 12 2013, 5:14PM
#4
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
Most recordings are of a good level and you'll be able to enjoy each of them for this or that peculiar aspect, including the sonic one (what may be misleading sometimes). But our hobby also consists in gold prospecting so to speak. And I believe in exceptional readings due to several factors, among them I will cite two: the performer's affinity to certain composers or genre and those happy days when everything conspires for a remarkable, unique performance and the performers know very well that it won't happen again soon.
I would not say "definitive" recordings but rather a subset of the generally good set of recordings available for a specific work: the more a work is recorded the larger is that subset (obviously it can have no element as there are some works deprived of an outstanding recording).
Once the level is generally high, it is not difficult for the market to try to impose this or that recording: it's up to us to check its exceptional value. Of course, there is a lot of subjectivity in the process what makes many discussions about this selective process sterile.
For instance, from the recordings listed in the first post, I only agree w/ the outstanding LvB's 9th by Furtwangler (Lucerne).
Sun, May 12 2013, 5:16PM
#5
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
I think that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to pure personal choice. For example, since Horowitz and Michelangeli are two of my favourite pianists, I totally disagree with GrammarPhoney in the matter. But then it's only my opinion. I'm entitled to it, as GrammarPhoney may have his. And it's like that for professional critics as well. I remember an article in International Piano Quarterly (later renamed International Piano) which pitted Bryce Morrison against Lionel Salter in respect of Cortot's 30's recording of the Chopin Etudes: while the former loved it in spite of the many wrong notes ("spots in the sun", he called them), the latter couldn't take it exactly for the same reason. So, there it is. To each, his own choice.
Sun, May 12 2013, 6:46PM
#6
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
I hope someone pointed out to Bryce Morrison which pianist was which. He usually needs to see the album cover first.
Sun, May 12 2013, 10:10PM
#7
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
10:43 am Sunday. Good morning from a very wet Maui, Hawaii, where it has been raining, virtually non-stop since late Friday afternoon.
In my judgement, "definitive" versions of recorded performances, change gradually over the years, as new recordings are released by many different recording companies.
However, a few older recordings have been mentioned, in this thread, that I still consider to be, "definitive", and they include the Barbirolli, Mahler's 5th Symphony, and also the Ravel piano concerto in G, performed by Michelangeli. Coincidently both are EMI recordings.
In the next few days I shall have received the Bernstein 60 cd Symphony box ordered from Amazon US, and perhaps my feeling about the Barbirolli, Mahler 5th may change, after listening to the Bernstein recording, which I have on LP, and have not listened to for many years.
In conclusion, "definitive", recordings may change, as the years go by, and are also likely to be connected with an individuals personal mood that changes over time.
Thank you Oscar, for bringing up this very important aspect of listening. and enjoyment.
Everyone, enjoy the forthcoming new listening week. Irvine Shamrock
Mon, May 13 2013, 3:43AM
#8
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
I guess, Irvine, if "definitive" recordings "change gradually over the years"...and "they are connected with an individual personal mood" (!), they cannot be called "definitive" anyway, can they?
Parla
Mon, May 13 2013, 6:04AM
#9
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
There are no definitive versions: 1) Absolute perfection does not exist in this world; 2) People's tastes differ.
I agree with 50milliarden re hype and those Barshai recordings, though not sure I'd put Barbirolli at the v top for M5.
Mon, May 13 2013, 4:30PM
#10
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
"definitive" recordings "change gradually over the years" (Irvine said)
I also don't understand what Irvine tried to say with this, it could be seen like the best version would be the last recorded??.
"There are no definitive versions: 1) Absolute perfection does not exist in this world; 2) People's tastes differ" (eyeresist)
Dear eyeresit, I agree with you about that absolute perfection does not exist and people's tastes are different like you say, but you must recognize also that about beauty exists an universal conssensus, as demonstrates by the fact than we are ables to choose a Miss Universe each four years!!, of course someone could find his wife like the most beautiful...though it may be a monkey, but that's other thing, that would be because like we know "love is blind", if there is not stupid...
If that consenssus doens'nt exist, we should be living in a new Babel's tower, and everyone speaking his own lenguage, but reality shows the contrary.
Best regards. oscar.olavarria
Mon, May 13 2013, 4:52PM
#11
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
You are right Oscar. Greatness exists in recordings as it does in everything else. The consensus may change as the goalposts move, but if we can all say a recording is bad then we can all say a recording is good. Two legs bad - Bernstein. Four legs good - Oistrath and Richter. Simples. Nuff Sid.
Tue, May 14 2013, 3:18AM
#12
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
If that consensus doesn't exist, we should be living in a new Babel's tower, and everyone speaking his own language, but reality shows the contrary.
I think consensus proves nothing except that a number of people hold the same opinion. Opinions change with fashion, as people follow their neighbours fairly blindly. "This is good because many people say it is good" is to say "I can't think for myself", but plenty are happy to say it, because it helps them to make friends and fit in. In society this is necessary, but as an intellectual position it has no integrity.
If popular opinion is the gauge of value, shouldn't we all throw away our classical CDs and start downloading Justin Bieber songs? :)
Tue, May 14 2013, 5:01AM
#13
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
Eyeresist, you don't have to go that far to convince Oscar. There is a certain degree of not only opinion among individuals but about professionals, musicians, experts etc. which demonstrates a high degree of at least well-known recordings. However, few critics, experts etc. will call their perception of a performance as "definitive". Great recordings exist, though, and this is not simply a result of "a number of people holding the same opinion". If Elgar's First Symphony with Boult is a "great recording" is not a matter of common opinions or because people get happy about that or because we are going to make friends on account of that.
On the other hand, there is the "definitive" musical value of the composers' opus regardless of mere opinions of any individuals, but this subject we have already covered -quite extensively- in other threads.
Parla
Tue, May 14 2013, 7:14AM
#14
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
On the other hand, there is the "definitive" musical value of the composers' opus regardless of mere opinions of any individuals, but this subject we have already covered -quite extensively- in other threads.
Parla is correct, but "covered quite extensively" hardly does justice to the ding-dong surrounding it!
In summary, Parla's whole position on the issue is captured in the above statement. His detractors, of which I was (and am) one, think that "definitive" cannot qualify "value" because the former is an absolute and the latter subject to opinion. "Value" can only be assessed by "mere opinions". Nothing in the field of values is "regardless" of the assessment of it. Look at what "regardless" means: without regard. How can value be assessed without someone regarding it?
It was a great debate though. Probably worth new members looking back over it rather than re-running it perhaps?
Vic.
Tue, May 14 2013, 7:29AM
#15
RE: Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??
Great recordings exist, though, and this is not simply a result of "a number of people holding the same opinion". If Elgar's First Symphony with Boult is a "great recording" is not a matter of common opinions or because people get happy about that or because we are going to make friends on account of that.
Erm, yes it is. Not everyone thinks Boult's Elgar is great. Presumably you would say they are in error. But there is no way to demonstrate this error's existence, except to say that contrary opinions exist, and in this case they are a majority.
Group opinions change over time. The sea-changes in critical judgement of Bruckner and Mahler are easy examples. When opinion was against them, were they bad? Now they are widely admired, are they good?
The movement order of Mahler's 6th. Most of those defending the Ratz edition are older listeners who are used to that version. But they will die off, and the alternate order will become more widely accepted, perhaps even dominant. Will this make it more correct?
Artistic works are measured by technical aspects (adherence to a measurable standard, e.g. intonation, rhythmic accuracy), and by taste. Taste is infinitely variable and cannot be proved good or bad. Consensus is not proof. Divine revelation is not proof. Dogged insistence ("It's obvious!") is not proof. The moral character of the opinion-holder is not proof.
If your taste coincides with that of the majority, then popular opinion may be a useful guide to finding things you might like, and avoiding things you might dislike. But it is not a gateway to univeral truth.
Whist I would go along with the choice of the Furtwangler Beethoven 9th and maybe the Kleiber 7th, but certainly not the 5th it is coupled with, some of your other choices are laughable especially your obsession with the Michelangelli Ravel that seems to appear in every thread you post. It is technically very good, in the manner of Horowitz but lacking in any musical taste and direction. You need to put down you 1000 greatest everist recordings in the history of the world ever books and start using your own ears. Stop believing everyting you read from that most pathetic of marketing clans 'the professional music critic', after all you wouldn't want shelves filled with Joyce Hatto recordings would you.