I had written:
>>To believe that is always the fact one also must believe John Mauceris
>>father was a baboon.
My intriguing reply to him causes Peter Lundin
<[log in to unmask]> to articulate:
>I'm bewildered: Dear Mr Zehm can You substantiate that he is not? (myself
>trying to be rhetorical, I hereby confess not being well versed in the case
>of John Mauceris father.. but I do like several of his sons recordings in
>Deccas "entartete" series.. and becuse I belive that all beings on this
>planet are equal, no matter, gender, age ore surface quality of ones skin,
>and if Mr Mauceris father is a baboon, or even only percives himself a
>such, he should not be ridiculed, I support his efforts of coming to terms
>with himself!)
I haven't ridiculed John the Chimp Mauceri yet, but I have heard some of
his. The other week I heard yet another one; Die Dreigrosschenoper, and
the criminal was named John Mauceri. This guy is so stupid and so jammed
into himself so there are no superlatives enough to describe him. Imagine
they had a real chimp to conduct Dreigrosschenoper, and the result might
have been better!
>>You lucky devil who have heard so much Sjostakovitj - I wished I had
>>too!!...If I only were richer! But what I have heard I don't think
>>Sjostakovitjs Sjostakovitj is so bad, but I can agree that there are other
>>that does him better, i.e. Rozhdestvensky. That unconventional Mravinsky,
>>with his splendid 1948 Sjosty 8, I don't dare to bring up.
>
>FWIW; I'm neither lucky nor a devil, but determined, and economics has
>little or nothing to do with this, determined people make sure that they
>get to indulge in their objects of desire, in my case (as one who also
>lives on small means) I have learnt to use all the official institutions
>where one can hear music, like libraries, friends and radio.
I didn't mean to label you "devil", but in the saying in English has not
the literal meaning it has in Swedish. Though I'd like to chime in that
to me it is a question of economics. Radio is not enough for me, though
this is the most fluent source of hearing so far unknown pieces or
recordings...but I mostly feel I need to hear a piece/recording, what we
now are talking about, manyt times to be able to form a definite opinion on
it. Libraries do good as most Swedish libraries has a fine and extensive
set of Classical Music. After all I prefer buying the CDs I want to
discover; that allowes me, who have justa little spare time, to sink how
deep into a work I want; so a question of time and money. Friends; I
haven't any.
>I did not say that Maxims DSCH conducting was bad [...]
Sounds fine enough causing me not to bark on you anymore.
>Rozhdestvensky does fine, especially his Melodiya symphonies are among the
>better
Agreed.
>his ballet's on Chandos with The Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra are
>at best interesting, unfortuantly the orchestra is a bit unidiomatic.
Often the case with the Stockholm Philarmonics?
>To call Mravinsky "unconventional" is perhaps showing a small misunderstanding
>of conventions in Shostakovich interpretation, to me and I dare say the
>larger part of the Shostakovian world, Mravinsky is perhaps the main
>interpretative convention of DSCH's non choral symphonies, only perhaps
>beeing challenged to this by Kirill Kondrashin, to me; both are essential
>for the serious Shostakovian.
And I agree completely...when I called Mravinsky "unconventional" it wasn't
my honest opinion, just a little kick to the list, to see if it provoked
any reactions (Mravinsky was shoot by the list before).
I'd say Mravinsky, Kondrashin, *and* Rozhdestvensky are the essential.
Both Mravinsky and Rozhdestvensky were close friends to Sjostakovitj, so
they had the chance to discuss Sjostakovitj symphonies with the composer in
person. Just therefore Rozhdestvensky could come up with his also splendid
1943 Sjosty 7 (Leningrad Philarmonics). This recording is *the* Sjosty 7,
but his late 7 is also very fine indeed. Anyone knows on which label this
one can be found (the old one)?
James Zehm
[log in to unmask]
|
