A Lark Ascending

I read a bit of Amis many years back, which I greatly enjoyed. Believe he turned into a crusty old man but those early books are spirited. Ah! well I too am a working/lower middle class lad by origin - had my own experience on arrival at university of those with a conviction that they'd inherited the earth as a result of their breeding. Maybe I should read Larkin!

For the first few episodes I thought I wasn't going to like this - seemed to have all the common set pieces of war films was a hefty dollop of sentimentality. But it darkened in episode 4 on the hospital island and the beach landing in episode 5 was harrowing.

Those sort of Olympian pronouncements are still around but, in general, I think much 'criticism' is far less dogmatic these days. The magazine I've read more or less constantly for the longest, Gramophone, has changed immeasurably. It used to read as if it was being written from a lofty, crenellated tower above Magdelan College. Much more polite and sensitive now. I know some prefer the 'strong opinions' approach of the likes of Larkin. I prefer to see a bit more open mindedness to the possibility that what the reviewer doesn't care for might hold attractions to others. I've never read Larkin but have often seen him bracketed with Kingsley Amis as an example of the post-WWII lower-middle class grammar school boy making his way noisily and disruptively into the 'arts' world dominated by the upper classes in Britain. Strange that the sort of dismissiveness that you see in MG's quote could have come straight off the pen of one of the elite he'd been annoying.

I'm all in favour of pay ahead.

There's also a Hermeto Pascoal disc from the same source. Largish band of Australian musicians. They are available on e-music.

Sounds to me like the sort of thing that might attract some audiophiles; but it isn't different enough to jump-start the next platform for recorded music. 78s, LPs, CDs, downloads all did something dramatically different to draw in a wider audience. Direct Disc, gold CDs, SACD etc didn't.

Busman's holiday. Fly on the wall look at a standard British state school serving a working class area. This is what it's really like!

I've been playing this for a while now and I'm afraid I find it rather dissappointing. Although it has it's moments, particularly when Kenny and Mark Lockhart are playing, overall I find the vocals of the London Vocal Project far too overpowering and, dare I say it, not very interesting. Looking forward to "Six for Six" though. The vocals are a bit twee. But after a few listens I found myself enjoying it. Not a Wheeler classic, though.

Couldn't agree more. It's why I'm troubled by the term 'art'. Creates unnecessary segregation into 'classical music' (or my real pet hate phrase, 'serious music') and everything else; art and not-art. With the 'artificiality' of importance that goes along with that. 'Classical music' is a useful term for finding things in a record shop (or on a website) but like 'world music' or 'jazz' it can mean many things; and the definition overlooks all the interesting interconnections that take place across the genre boundaries.

I said I'd shut up but I'm incapable of that. I know I use hyperbole in my case against version-obsession. Of course there are differences, of course people have preferences and I'm sure, if your mind works that way, there's plenty to be learnt by comparing versions. My issue is the way that discussions - not just on this site but in general - so quickly become just about versions when there's so much else to talk about. It's actually not the preference for one version over another that bothers me; it is the way that some listeners seem to focus on interpretations they've decided to dislike (all that Pollini/Uchida is rubbish nonsense [Yes, I know, freedom of speech, strong opinions etc...it's not what you have a right to say but what it's wise to say]). Especially when I see newer listeners voicing those same prejudices as if they've come up with them themselves (and believe me, I've seen that for decades). I noticed you posted that you were listening to the Emerson Quartet's Bartok cycle - apparently, according to orthodoxies here, the Emerson Quartet are beyond the pale because they are 'cold'. When love of music degenerates into bun fights like that I think it's sad. (I've never heard the Emerson Quartet version but those quartets are well worth pursuing - I've been at them 25 years plus and still only partly get them, but they keep pulling me back, Good lord, I've even got two versions of them!). Yes, versions can affect your enjoyment of music. But I'd say a much more powerful factor is the context from where you are listening. That makes a lot of early 20thC English music a shoe-in for me where it might sound quaint, conservative or bland to others. Being aware of how your context can limit your enjoyment can also be instructive - it can empower you to try and get past those prejudices. Being aware that others hear differently can avoid you feeling ever so pleased with yourself about what you despise, inadvertently annoying those who really do enjoy those things. Side comment: That Beethoven Nine app has apparently sold 500 000 copies. Whether it's because people want to understand the differences between the versions or the nature of the 9th would be interesting to know. I hope someone does one on the the quartets.

You are showing your age! What my history teacher years ago used to refer to as a Habsburg Chin.

WWI novel (give away cover!) but centred on two Australian nurses. I've just reached the arrival at Gallipoli. Very impressive - I recall being overwhelmed by 'Confederates' thirty odd years back.

A live, hard boppish date with familiar tunes. Definitely busy but not as 'modern' as Metheny. Lots of other great Stewart dates out there. An Irishman who doesn't seem that well known outside of guitar circles. But George Shearing valued him enough to use him for years.

Just to clarify. Beethoven String Quartets. Generally regarded by those in the know as one of the peaks of 'classical' music. I never approached those until ten or so years back. I've listened through maybe four times, sometimes becoming absorbed, at other times not getting it. But slowly the fog lifts, I'll keep going back and I'll not be at all surprised to find ten years from now that they are at the centre of my listening. I'm intrigued, want to know what is going on etc. However, I'd be reluctant to start a thread on them. Because I know that very quickly it would become about versions - how many posts before someone would tell me I really ought to be listening to the Busch version. I just feel there's so much more to this music than comparing versions; online classical discussions (not just here, you should read the Gramophone site!) rarely venture much further. But that's my way of seeing things. I'll shut up now. Edit: There's an app doing the sort of thing I alluded to above with Liszt's Piano Sonata in B Minor - http://www.touchpress.com/titles/lisztsonata/ .

Apologies for a double quote. I understand this totally. You are expressing the very particular experience you had with a particular recording at a particular point in your musical exploration. We all experience music differently - different recordings, different contexts etc. The issue I have with the 'versions' bun fights is that the 'for me' is so often left out. When someone makes a post, I assume that it's their opinion - unless it's a discographical fact or something similar. It would be redundant for each post to include something like "for me" in each post. Can't recall seeing "for me" in many of the opinions in your posts. I actually try very hard to express my preferences as subjective. I strongly believe that our musical preferences are very personal and derived from a very individual line of development. Many posts here don't even try. Schnabel is the dog's bollocks rather than I rather like Schnabel's way of doing things. Think you're beating a dead horse - or a dead pianist. If someone says Schnabels is their favorite playing a certain composer, that's all it means. At least that's how I take it. If I trust that poster's taste, I probably would take the post into consideration. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been led to some good music that way and sometimes to some music that didn't suit my tastes. For me, and I hope for some others here, that's how recommendations work. I think you have a problem with a certain poster and you carry those problems to an extreme. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. If you are referring to Mr Nessa, I have a problem with his imperiousness on this site; but at the same time enormous admiration for the way he has stuck his neck out over the years for music that would otherwise have found no outlet. And the latter, in my mind, outweighs any boorishness here. I'm more suspicious about the Schnabel idolatry. Mr Nessa has been living with that music for decades and I have no problem understanding his love of it. You strike me as someone with a lot of listening experience and I don't doubt the honesty of your response. Elsewhere... But wellnow wait but - if the emphasis is to be, as has been posited earlier, on the composition itself, would not letting the recording ambiances take precedence over performance preferences be shifting the emphasis elsewhere? If you really want to hear the composition played to your preference, then I'd think that the adjustment to a different recording ambiance would be but a monetary concern, and then you're back into it. I mean, 21st Century Hearing = Never Having To Say You're Always In One Place At The Same Time, as does some of Beethoven's harmonic choices. so, it's tight like that. You're talking Texan. Please translate.

No. Do so if it does something you personally feel needs doing for your satisfaction. ******************************** I was thinking about this today. I bought Mahler 9 in the Kubelik version in the early 70s. When CD came about I bought the Karajan CD version - purely to have a CD version without vinyl clicks and pops. Very happy with it except in one of the inner movements where Karajan seemed to speed up the tempo of one section (he may well have been honouring the score to the letter). It grated on me, based on my previous experience. At a later stage I bought a DG Kubelik box. That's what I play now (because it relates to my experience of Mahler, not because I think it is a superior version) and I'm happy. But maybe I should have taken the 3 movements I'm happy with in the Karajan and done an insert of the Kubelik movement I'm troubled by. Wouldn't work, I'm pretty sure, because the whole ambiance of the two recordings would be so different. Apologies for a double quote. I understand this totally. You are expressing the very particular experience you had with a particular recording at a particular point in your musical exploration. We all experience music differently - different recordings, different contexts etc. The issue I have with the 'versions' bun fights is that the 'for me' is so often left out. When someone makes a post, I assume that it's their opinion - unless it's a discographical fact or something similar. It would be redundant for each post to include something like "for me" in each post. Can't recall seeing "for me" in many of the opinions in your posts. I actually try very hard to express my preferences as subjective. I strongly believe that our musical preferences are very personal and derived from a very individual line of development. Many posts here don't even try. Schnabel is the dog's bollocks rather than I rather like Schnabel's way of doing things.

Great series. Just finished watching the BBC dramatisation of Spies of Warsaw last night - they did it well. If you don't know them you might enjoy this series: They start in Germany in the 30s. I have his most recent paperback in the to read pile which moves to post-1945.

Apologies for a double quote. I understand this totally. You are expressing the very particular experience you had with a particular recording at a particular point in your musical exploration. We all experience music differently - different recordings, different contexts etc. The issue I have with the 'versions' bun fights is that the 'for me' is so often left out.

Lots of folks have disagreed with you on this position; my turn! Your analogy is wrong. It's like touring Chartres with different tour guides. Imagine that you have a guide who doesn't turn on all the lights, hurries you past the Belle Verrière as if it's just another window, and doesn't seem to have much knowledge of the history and symbolism of the carvings of the Portail Royal. I would prefer a guide with deep, broad knowledge of the Cathedral, and with the taste and instinct to know just how long to linger at every window, tomb, and statue. In both cases, you've seen Chartres, but the experiences aren't equally satisfying. I agree that the quest for the perfect interpretation can become an obsession, but.... Here's a personal story. Some years ago I was shopping in Tower Records in Atlanta. I already had two or three different recordings of Barber's Adagio for Strings - not that I had sought them out; it just worked out that way. I walked into the classical room just as the Adagio started playing over the sound system. It was the Thomas Schippers/NY Phil. version, recorded for Columbia in 1965. I had an immediate, visceral reaction to the music, stronger than on past hearings of the piece. I didn't know who it was, and I wasn't analyzing the performance in any intellectual way. I was just standing there dumbstruck, with a lump in my throat, and (I'll admit) brushing away tears. Needless to say, they sold a CD that day. The Schippers Adagio remains a different, and more powerful, experience for me that any other version I've heard. And the Furtwangler 1951 is my favorite Beethoven 9 as well - not that I've heard as many as some folks here. I don't doubt that people of long listening experience will develop preferences; there is one poster here who often comments on different performances of baroque music who I read with real interest because he is talking from depth of experience rather than parroting what he's read elsewhere about a particular performer. I don't doubt that people who grew up with these 'classic' performances when they were new or recent (or with them played round the house as kids) will have had their way of hearing the music shaped that way. The one composer I've gone through more versions than I can remember is Sibelius. I heard him first in some cheapo reissues in the early 70s of 50s recordings. By the late 70s I was dissatisfied with the technical limitations of the recordings and so tried some newer versions. I got better sounding versions but none satisfied because Collins' way with the music was etched on my brain. It's not that I think Collins had a unique vision (I suspect he was just one of the first to get a full cycle to LP) - it's just the way I heard it first (for the same reason I play Kubelik's Mahler, Boult's RVW etc). I think that some who proclaim the objective superiority of X's interpretations are often overlooking the fact that the power of that interpretation comes from where it fell in their listening experience rather than anything inherently superior in the interpretation. I certainly don't doubt the brilliance of the musicians in question in their time - as musicians, pioneer interpreters of new music and of the recording of music. What I do disagree with is the idea that these recordings possess some objective special quality that we must go back to listen to. I think that's pure Romanticism (some one a while back asserted that the best way to appreciate Bruckner was through the classic accounts; nonsense - the same can be achieved through modern recordings). Listening to older recordings is an option, not an imperative. Yet when I read the classical threads here they constantly default into a highly conservative deification of old masters. And this sadly leads to some newer listeners thinking that this is the way you have to listen to classical music. Hoovering up ten Beethoven cycles in five minutes and then pontificating on which versions are fine. Part of the problem is record company propaganda - nothing suits them finer than a belief that we all need ten Beethoven cycles. That way they can recycle their catalogues endlessly. In the end I just find it tiresome to see a thread appear on, say, Bartok, get excited that I might learn some things about the music itself and then see the whole thread rapidly degenerate into 'I've got this version' or 'you ought to hear this version'. I lack the expertise to be able to comment beyond the impact the music itself makes on me personally; but after 35 years listening I'm pretty sure that most of those 'whose best?' discussions are pretty superficial.

And another...

This sort of thing always seems like going to Chatres Cathedral and then obsessing on the different interpretations of the ten guide books you've got. No doubt each guidebook can help, the differences between them can be interesting. But the point is Chartres Cathedral, not the guidebooks.

I've read some very good reviews of it (and David Owen Norris can be trusted to comment in an unstuffy manner; he's a regular on UK radio and TV programmes that try to explain classical music). I'd like to think it would use technology to help the listener unskilled in the mechanics of music through things like musical structure, how the composer develops and transforms themes, where Beethoven was breaking the rules, where building on tradition etc. That might all be obvious to those who can read music and can see inversions etc but to the unschooled listener, we miss a lot without having it pointed out (Anthony Hopkins book on Beethoven's symphonies does this brilliantly and unpretentiously). I'd have thought modern technology could do an excellent job of, say, following the transformations of a cell or theme and explaining exactly what the composer does with it. I'd love to see something like Sibelius 7 or one of Schoenberg's serial works unpacked this way. I suspect the 'different versions' selling point is just there to suck people in. So much musical chatter seems to be about that vaguer, fluffier side of things because its easier to talk about. As for the specific question, 'COULD you make up a mix tape of your favourite interpretations of each movement from different sources?' Yes you could. Not sure why you'd want to.

This is selling by the bucket load, apparently (app-arently, ho! ho!): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-app-reviews/10075579/Beethovens-9th-Symphony-app-review.html I believe there's a glossary of profound things to say while listening if you want to impress the neighbours like 'such touch! such tone!', 'Fricsay saved my soul' and 'The way Bernstein blends the strings is simply sublime, darling.'

We could do with some in a few of Britain's bathing places: (this is not a political comment, merely a reference to the absurd fashion sense of the British)

Fooled me too. I thought Bruce Springsteen owned Hyde Park.