Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:10:58 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hugh Canning writes:
>even though one would think it obvious to any musician that Rattle is
>without question Barenboim's superior as a symphonic conductor.
My naive question is, Is this really so? (And it's a genuine question,
i.e., there is no insinuation that the claim is false.) A word about
where I'm coming from. Rattle is a black box as far as I'm concerned:
I've never heard any of his performances, and I will admit to a certain
prejudice: I tend to discount British reviews of British artists, as I,
rightly or wrongly, suspect that they are inflated. And since I have
not encountered many reviews of Rattle's conducting outside of British
publications, I really don't know what to think. Barenboim I know a
bit better: I think I have overcome early negative ideas implanted by
unsympathetic reviewers, and I have heard him live and on recordings. I
know he is not uniformly well thought of, but he has engendered a certain
amount of respect for some of his conducting work. Since some of that work
is in the conducting of Wagner's operas (his TRISTAN and RING are pretty
well regarded), I am assuming that Canning's specification of "symphonic
conductor" is intended to grant that Rattle is not so obviously a superior
opera conductor. But some of Barenboim's work-- I am thinking of his
Bruckner, Brahms, and Beethoven 7th--has received very favorable (but
admittedly not uniformly favorable) attention. So I ask, is Rattle's
superiority to Barenboim really without question?
Nick
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|