BaL 19.02.11 Ravel: Alborada del gracioso

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I thought it was one of the better BALs, perhaps because the reviewer could go into greater detail because it was such a short work. I don't anticipate as much from next week's Bruckner offering.
Rob Cowan certainly revealed the relative inadequacies of my Dutoit CD.

[Caliban]

It may have been my frazzled powers of concentration but I didn't find this BaL very interesting. Is it that, as earlier posters suggested, there just isn't enough in an 8-minute work to fill up 45 minutes? Rob Cowan's focus seemed to be on minutiae of instrumental solos and recording balances rather than with interpretative 'big ideas', but maybe that's all he could do?

Still, Giulini was a good strong 2nd choice and this may save my credit card leaping into the Amazon

No I don't think it's you LeMartin... RC sounded to be struggling to extract sufficient of interest to fill 50 minutes, other than the (still somewhat interesting) different approaches to certain colouristic elements in the orchestration. Didn't like Giulini's ending (perfunctory trombone glissandi)... and I thought the conclusion was rather a surprise - Boulez was played early in the programme and rather dismissed for being (as I interpreted RC's comments) too finicky-precise, not earthy and Spanish enough. And so it seemed to my ears. But then Boulez re-emerged from nowhere at the end to win the race.

[Black Swan]

I agree with almost all the posts. The work is short and a transcription. It is overplayed on Breakfast which I tend to not listen too as much anymore. And also the most heretical reason, I'm not a huge fan of Rob Cowan.

J

[Tony.Haywood]

[QUOTE=Black Swan;33058 And also the most heretical reason, I'm not a huge fan of Rob Cowan.

J[/QUOTE]

Not at all heretical; knowledgeable as he is, he's only a record buff like the rest of us, and the amount of airtime he gets strikes me as being a bit out of proportion with what he has to say - IMO.

[Ferretfancy]

I gave up listening after 15 minutes or so, although I like the work in both its forms, and I usually enjoy Rob in BAL. The problem once again for me was the incredibly variable relationship between Rob's voice level and the level of the musical examples, with the mono ones at very low level in relation to everything else. It really doesn't do for the reviewer to discuss tiny differences in orchestral colour when at times they were almost inaudible. On my good system in the "best seat in the house" I had to listen to Rob at too high a volume for the quieter passages in the music to register. I'm also puzzled at the length of the slot for this item, longer than is sometimes given to much more substantial works.
All in all, I"ll stick with Cluytens ( stereo version), Ansermet ( Stereo) and Paray. I'm surprised that Ansermet is only available as a download these days, I thought that it was on Australian Eloquence, I'll have to check.

[StephenO]

Not at all heretical; knowledgeable as he is, he's only a record buff like the rest of us, and the amount of airtime he gets strikes me as being a bit out of proportion with what he has to say - IMO.

Rob comes into his own IMO on things like BAL and CDR as a whole where his contributions are reminiscent of the good old days of the Cowan Collection. His talents are wasted on Breakfast.

I agree wholeheatedly with his assessents of both the Boulez and the Dutoit recordings. I used to have the Dutoit but donated it to Oxfam after buying the far more convincing Boulez.

[makropulos]

I agree wholeheatedly with his assessents of both the Boulez and the Dutoit recordings. I used to have the Dutoit but donated it to Oxfam after buying the far more convincing Boulez.

Maybe. I liked his detailed approach, though some of his judgements I thought - to put it no stronger - rather odd (Paray "not earthy enough?" - but then he picks Boulez who isn't even remotely "earthy". And Martinon "short of subtlety"? Please!) Still, it's a piece that's been recorded successfully by quite a lot of people, and Giulini was a very good second choice. Boulez was a curious first choice, I thought - but that's not really the point. I thought it was a good BAL in that there were plenty of interesting excerpts and RC's forthright comments have conviction (even if I don't always agree with them).

[Bryn]

I was only listening with half an ear this morning. Did Rob haver anything to say about the earlier Boulez recording with the Clevelanders?

[Alf-Prufrock]

I was unable to listen to this morning's programme though I shall listen to it on Listen Again tomorrow.

But I have to register my amazement that Boulez was the victor. I never found his version Spanish-sounding enough - in fact I thought he was fighting against the Spanish elements all the way through. Interesting, perhaps, but hardly to be expected.

I shall be listening with eager ears - perhaps my views will be overturned.

[Caliban]

But I have to register my amazement that Boulez was the victor. I never found his version Spanish-sounding enough - in fact I thought he was fighting against the Spanish elements all the way through.

I was amazed having listened to the programme, and I just re-listened to the start of RC's survey again - he plays an early extract from the Boulez, then afterwards asks "but doesn't it need something more pungent, more Spanish?" (in a way which clearly implies the answer is 'yes' or so I thought) and goes on to play a different version, Paray I think.

I'm not sure he mentions Boulez again till the end, when he pronounces it the winner...