Reynier Bordes wrote:

>Some time ago I read a review of Boulez conducting Bruckner 8.  If I
>remember well, the opinions on this recording were not so spectacular.

Obviously this is not the review I posted here on this performance a couple
of months ago.  I always find that many a reviewer seem to have written
their review of a Boulez performance long before they have heard the
performance.

>Now I have bought this CD, and to me it seems an extraordinary
>interpretation.

I am thrilled that someone else agrees with my conclusion.

>Beautiful playing of the VPO, very well recorded sound, and as an overall
>performance between the best.  And who are for me the best? Celibidache
>with the Munchers, Sinopoli with the Dresdeners, von Karajan, and van
>Beinum .. and now also Boulez.  Why do I not find in Horenstein or
>Furtwangler the same concentration as in Celibidache and Boulez?

As for Furtwaengler it really depends on which performance we are talking
about. For me at end of the day the 1944 Vienna Phil Furtwaengler recording
is the gold standard to which I compare all others. Even if the outer
movements have less dramatic power than other interpretations (including
from Furtwaengler conducting the Berlin Phil) it has a profound Innigkeit
no other performance can match.

>Do the list members disagree often with the standard critics? I think
>that Horenstein, Furtwangler, Knapp and Jochum should be the best...  Are
>they not or am I wrong? I hope that the list members can help me, I am
>confused...

Boulez is a man with many enemies. That is why there is deep prejudice
against his interpretations. Yet whoever approaches his performances
(and dare I say it his music) with an open mind will find a musician of
the utmost profundity, and heartfelt sincerity.  I say: ignore the usual
stereotypes of him being cold and intellectual, because once you REALLY
understand his way of approaching music you will see that nothing more
could possibly be further than the truth.

Satoshi Akima
Sydney, Australia
[log in to unmask]