Gramophone Hall of Fame
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 9:21PM
I have no quibbles with most of the musicians chosen for the Gramophone Hall of Fame. But I am shocked by the fact that Simon Rattle has been chosen whereas Gunter Wand has been omitted. I am sorry to say this but unfortunately tribalism is a part of human nature. I love classical music and have been collecting for many years but have consistently seen that British critics cannot be trusted to be unbiased as regards British musicians. I therefore read American critics too (Classics today mainly) and rely on my own judgement. Even so distinguished a critic such as Andrew Clements while reviewing Chailly's Beethoven cycle said it was comparable to that of Rattle.
I would like to start a discussion on this topic and would welcome others views. Anand
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 10:59PM
#2
RE: Gramophone is a sham.
I guess there is no way to make everybody happy.
....and only a fool would try. Bring on the Gramophone. I find it hard to believe that a publication that wants to be taken seriously has stooped to this sort of level.
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 11:11PM
#3
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
Well, we can't accuse them of favoring the British, but to leave Boult off boggles the mind. And, yes, Barbirolli too. Boult kept a low profile and distained attention, but did so much for new and established music that he seems an obvious choice. Maybe they are saving him (and Barbirolli and Weingartner and Levine and Mitropoulos and Koussevitzky, etc.) for next time. I don't think they should have started this Hall of Fame in the first place.
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 11:18PM
#4
RE: Gramophone is a sham.
I guess there is no way to make everybody happy.
....and only a fool would try. Bring on the Gramophone. I find it hard to believe that a publication that wants to be taken seriously has stooped to this sort of level.
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 11:27PM
#5
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
I apologize for my error,but I overlooked Barbirolli on the lists-he did make the HOF after all!For some reason I cannot edit my posting to correct,so I made an additional posting below correcting myself and adding additional rants(ha,ha).
Thu, Apr 12 2012, 11:38PM
#6
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
Of course, if you wanted your artiste of choice to enter the 'Hall of Fame' you could have voted for them.
On the other hand if you think that the Gramophone is stooping to the LCD you can ignore those readers that participated in the exercise and go find a magazine that is as intellectually superior as you, clearly, are.
I continue to view the wrangling with increasing exasperation.
Soon we will, no doubt, end up with a lengthy post on 'lists', again.
(Yawn).
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 11:12AM
#7
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
Szell and Stokowski are missing from the past and, from the present, Gergiev, Jansons and Muti - all worthier of a place than Barenboim and even more so than Gardiner, who is an excellent Kapellmeister but mediocre in the Romantics or with any symphony orchestra.
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 11:38AM
#8
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
As for leaving out the pianist Emil Gilels, well.... The whole enterprise lacks credibility on that omission alone.
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 1:35PM
#9
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
The problem with ALL polls of this nature is that they MUST be influenced by personal taste. BUT personal taste can sometimes be swayed by marketing and other PR techniques.
That said, my own choices of artists who have contributed to recorded music over the years, are coloured to some extent by the fact that I have been lucky enough to have worked with many of them, in my work as a (former) orchestral violinist.
To name but a few, Janet Baker, Barbara Bonney, Jessye Norman, Te Kanawa, Simon Rattle, Barbirolli, Previn, Gergiev, Elder, Menuhin, Tortelier (père et fils), Weller, Lill, Curzon, Ricci, and many, many more.
Just as in other arenas (football - also called soccer - athletics, boxing) lists of the great and good are SO subjective, and there cannot ever exist a DEFINITIVE catalogue of the best, simply because as they say: One man's meat is another’s poison.
Suffice to say I enjoyed so much, hearing and seeing in person, the artists I've listed, as well as numerous others I've not. It has been an experience that as a schoolboy just setting out on lessons, I would never have imagined in a million years that I would come to have.
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 6:03PM
#10
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
As for leaving out the pianist Emil Gilels, well.... The whole enterprise lacks credibility on that omission alone.
I haven't bothered to read the lists, the whole thing sounds like the X-factor. Emil Gilels has never been one of my favourite painists but not to include him seems totally incompetent. On that omission alone I would not count the Gramophone in a hall of fame of magazines devoted to music. How far must its standards slip before a team with some interest in classical music and less interest in marketing take over.
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 6:24PM
#11
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
Surprise about this HOF is
1. Dennis Brain is send to group of String. !^_^
2. Lang Lang is in the list.
That's all
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 11:25PM
#12
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
As for leaving out the pianist Emil Gilels, well.... The whole enterprise lacks credibility on that omission alone.
If you haven't bothered to read the lists then why are you so interested in them?
As a believer in this as a dumbing down exercise you seem to be increasingly interested in who is on and who is not on the list.
Who's the dummy?
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 11:42PM
#13
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
I haven't bothered to see the lists, since I detest all these artificial exercise, which, unfortunately, involve the unsuspected readers.
The whole operation will probably lead to confusion (why this one is in and not the other), misunderstandings (is Lang Lang at the same level as Richter) and eventual wrong perceptions...But, some like it this way. I hope they can find some justification in this frivolous exercise.
Parla
Sat, Apr 14 2012, 12:02AM
#14
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
I think it would be more interesting to have a HOF of the most pompous boors on the Gramophone Forum.My top two choices for the most deserving of being the charter members would be you and your fellow thread hijacker,Troyen1.
Sat, Apr 14 2012, 12:45AM
#15
RE: Gramophone Hall of Fame
[quote=BWells]
I think it would be more interesting to have a HOF of the most pompous boors on the Gramophone Forum.My top two choices for the most deserving of being the charter members would be you and your fellow thread hijacker,Troyen1.
[/
True in some cases, but I wish we could stop criticizing other people for making comments. Just don't read them if they irritate you and go on to the next one.
No Reiner,no Walter?But they have room for Barenboim as conductor(he is already in as a pianist)?Rattle,but no Haitink?!Every conductor listed is either great or near excellent,but there are several listed that should not have gone to the front of the line.I admit I have a musical blind spot when it comes to Harnoncourt.I don`t care for his recordings one bit.Monteux is another glaring omission.Beecham gets the nod,but Barbirolli and Boult get the boot(how do you like that alliteration?)!I am sure that there are legions of other forum members that have their favorites who did not make the conductors list.I guess there is no way to make everybody happy.