quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
I know it. It is not the only way.

No, but next best thing...!

Boult is one of, if not the most underrated English conductors of all time.

Dear EW,

Read the Texts! Boult was more qualified than anyone else. As a student of Nicshich he was the natural successor to Brahms, who first edited the Great C major for publication, Boult produced an ever wiser reading of this great work with the years. Bohem was a phenomenal Brukner interpreter but he never dislodged Boult, or Fuertwaengler as an intelligent reader of the texts.

Fredrik

Thanks Fredrik. Looks like the nice people at my local CD shop will be taking more of my money .

regards, Tam

Dear EW,
Not the next best thing! Go and listen, and then pontificate! Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Go and listen, and then pontificate!

Listen to what and pontificate?

quote:

Originally posted by Basil:
Boult is one of, if not the most underrated English conductors of all time.

Possibly, although I'd also enter a plea for Martyn Brabbins - a fine conductor who somehow doesn't seem to get a fair crack of the whip.

EW

.. by the way, I'm quite an admirer of Boult, although he was oddly flawed, often unperturbed by terrible lapses in ensemble etc. He produced some great Brahms, and his recordings of the Elgar symphonies are peerless. But then he could be very unEnglish with his Englishmen - hear his jerky slow movement to the Elgar violin concerto with Menuhin... ugh!

EW

Dear EW,

If you knew the problems associated with that Menuhin recording, I think you might understand why the recording shows a few lapses. You don't, obviously, though I do. Boult wanted it scrapped, among other things. But to ascribe an attitude to him of accepting poor things (when they were in that case at least forced upon him) is to ignore the wonderful performances he recorded of the Concerto with Alfredo Campoli, and Ida Heandel, where he provides the most exquisite and totally different from the interpretative stand-point readings, as differeing soloistss naturally demand, in accompanyments of the first rank. I think any recording artist, working in the commercial field, will find him or herself represented on disc by recordings they would prefer never saw the light of day. So to pick on one such, of Boult's, is indeed to misrepresent his greatness as a musician, by decontextualisation. A flaw all too common in this Forum. It is simply mot true to say he was often not perturbed by quite terrible lapses of ensembles ...etc. You do your credibility no favours by such ridiculous generalisations!

Fredrik

Fredrik,

Are you on heat?

EW

Dear EW,

Kepp the personal out of this! Argue the point, or, if you cannot, give it up! Advice from an old timer, who is in any case the wrong gender to be on heat.

No artist is perfect, and few are absolutley consistent, but to launch this rather silly, evidentially selective style of attack, and damnation with faint praise, in a style of artistic assisination, which you appear to be going in for, is puerile to say the least. Boult was one of top dozen conductors of the 20th century, who arguably did more than any other to raise the standards of orchestral playing in UK in the '30s, and also did more to spread an understanding of orchetral music in the English speaking world than any other conductor British or otherwise. That he had such a catholic repertoire, and also found time to advocate new music, British and otherwise, is then all the more remarkable. In some ways he is still without parallel, which would all count for nothing if was not also one the greatest musician conductors of the 20th century as well. Even Beecham cannot hold a candle to him in a great part of the repertoire. His natural peers were Furtwangler and Toscanini, though his musical interests ceratinly exceeded those of of either of these Paragons.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear EW,

Kepp the personal out of this! Argue the point, or, if you cannot, give it up! Advice from an old timer, who is in any case the wrong gender to be on heat.

You're being unusually tetchy that's all! And I largely agree about Boult, although I hardly think he was in Furtwangler and Toscanini league!

EW

Dear EW,

I am not being tetchy at all. It is you who are making a spectacle of yourself. Fancy asking an obviously male member of the Forum if he was on heat? The temptation to be rude is considerable, but I shall rise above your level of prep-school puerility and crudity, and stick to the debate, which I might observe you last post adds nothing to, substantively.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Fancy asking an obviously male member of the Forum if he was on heat?

It was meant in jest, but I can see you've left your sense of humour behind somewhere this evening!

Ah well, it's Sunday, they make me miserable too.

EW

Dear EW,

I have no problem saying that my sense of humour, with total strangers, does not extend to seeing the funny side of being asked if I am on heat.

I also note with some experience in debating (and public speaking) that when a debater runs out of points the or she will try to throw the line by introducing unrelated faux humour, which can be either insulting or humourous as they subsequntly choose, when pulled-up over it.

It is interesting to me that your last two posts include nothing substantive on the issue being debated, but chase after a red herring of your own invention, and introduction.

I am sure that anyone reading this will realise the paucity of your arguement in the debate proper, when you resort to such a transparent tactic.

Point closed I think.

All the best from Fredrik

Oooooo.

"Oooooo."

Impressive, Fredrik will think twice before crossing swords with you again!

EW

If I were you, I'd quit while you're behind. You are, after all, making an arse of yourself. And selective quoting from Basil's posting will fool no-one.

If you really must indulge in this nonsense, why not post a few responses on that effing onanist Berlin shite site?

Graham

Dear Friends, Interested In Schubert,

To get this back on line. I had cause to dig out the old HMV recording of Boult with the BBCSO done in 1934. It is a most startling reading, showing a remarkable degree of adrennalin coursing through the music, and in spite of the dim, noisy transfer, shows a reading which is most satisfying. I then replayed the 1969 Prom with the same artists, but at the other end of Boult's career. The reading is full of wisdom, subtlety and quite amazingly only a tad slower! You would hardly notice the realtively fast tempi so poised is the music making, and I had not noted them as such before, unless one considered the reading in the light of the early set. The consistencies are quite extra-ordinary.

Whilst I would not place Boult's contribution above that of Erich Kleiber, or Furtwangler, I would certainly place it alongside in its great unfolding of a masterpiece. 'Great is Great' in my book.

All the best from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

Prompted by this thread, I realised I have seriously neglected the Schubert Symphonies.

Digging around I found 5 recordings of the C major.

Walter - Columbia S.O - 1962

William Steinberg - Boston S.O 1969

Gunter Wand - Koln Radio Symphony Orchestra 1978

Klaus Tennstedt - Berlin P.O 1984

And HvK (Box complete) Berlin P.O 1978

I can't really make any comment, as Its been so long since I've listened. In my defence, it is easy to overlook the Schubert Symphonies due to the brilliance of his chamber works. Talking of which, whilst looking for C majors I found a copy of "The Wanderer" by Richter which I'd completely forgotten about.

As always, a pleasure to read your posts Fredrik.