What's happening to BAL?

[french frank]

It's bizarre - another example, seemingly, of R3 wanting to push new releases (cf The Charts Show in particular, but others pop up with 'a new CD') at the expense of back catalogue/classic recordings.

[DracoM]

And next week's BAL is yet ANOTHER discussion format on the Beethoven Violin concerto.

For new listeners such a format is particularly confusing. A straight evaluation > decision makes it actually more useful for new to Beethove's Violin Concerto listeners. The discussion cannot help but muddy waters more than considerable, where a straight presentation > choice does not. A conscious policy decision seems to have been taken to develop the studio chat, which means that AMcG's voice goes on and on and on and on for three hours - NOT good. He's a very, very fine broadcaster, but all programmes of three hours or so need greatervariety of voice and angle as well as musical quotes.

I am very surprised they have taken this editorial decision, and it has certainly deterred me from listening to something that used to be a rock solid centre to my Saturday mornings.

[ardcarp]

Today's BAL, however (Simon Heighes/St John Passion) was of the more traditional type, even if SH did restrict himself to just the 12 most recent releases.

[DoctorT]

Couldn't agree more, DracoM. Imagine a new listener coming to BaL, seeking a recording of the St John Passion. Today's offering, while interesting in its own way, almost implies that he/she should build his/her library only on recent recordings, ignoring classic recordings and anything other that period instruments. This may be an interesting review of recent recordings, but BaL it isn't. And I fear that next week will be the same. Why do the producers insist on tinkering with the format?

[PJPJ]

Yet the choice (Suzuki on BIS) is from 1999.

As for the two-hander BALs, there was some enthusiasm for this format in discussion on the old boards, unless I misremember.

[pilamenon]

I don't entirely agree with what seems to be the consensus here. With a couple of exceptions, where the guests were insufferable, doing it by discussion has been, for me, more educative and more reasonable. Surely there's some kind of recognition that, with so many recordings of well known works, the BaL format is now becoming hopelessly difficult to carry off. Even with the field narrowed down, as this morning, it wasn't a great listen. Although a fan of modern performance practice, I was disappointed not to hear the best (and worst) of the more traditional SJPs.

[Curalach]

And a good thing too. It would not be humanly possible to compare 30-odd versions of such a long work in the time available.

I agree with you rauschwerk. You only have to look at the extraordinary list of Beethoven VC recordings, posted by EA, to realise what a pointless task it would be to analyse all these. I am glad that the Beethoven BaL is to be in the discussion format, which I enjoy, and I hope that they concentrate on more recent issues as all this ground has been gone over before.

I am enjoying both formats and, for me, it has refreshed a segment which was becoming rather stale.
The truth is that BaL has no hope of ever satisfying everyone. For some, it will be the wrong format (read this thread), for others, the wrong reviewer, the reviewer's accent, the version chosen, the omission of the Poster's favoured version, the omission, or inclusion, of HIPP versions, the omission of Ida Haendel or any other reason you could think of, all of which have been rehearsed here and on the old boards.

It does however provide chattering material for the message board, and I am all for that.

[Caliban]

I agree with you rauschwerk. You only have to look at the extraordinary list of Beethoven VC recordings, posted by EA, to realise what a pointless task it would be to analyse all these. I am glad that the Beethoven BaL is to be in the discussion format, which I enjoy, and I hope that they concentrate on more recent issues as all this ground has been gone over before.

I am enjoying both formats and, for me, it has refreshed a segment which was becoming rather stale.
The truth is that BaL has no hope of ever satisfying everyone. For some, it will be the wrong format (read this thread), for others, the wrong reviewer, the reviewer's accent, the version chosen, the omission of the Poster's favoured version, the omission, or inclusion, of HIPP versions, the omission of Ida Haendel or any other reason you could think of, all of which have been rehearsed here and on the old boards.

It does however provide chattering material for the message board, and I am all for that.

I can certainly see the point that as time goes on and the recorded versions proliferate, it becomes more and more difficult to manage BAL. In a restricted time frame, the reviewer can't talk meaningfully about endless numbers of versions, when more-recorded works are under the spotlight like this week and next.

But the "ground has been gone over before" argument only holds water for listeners who have been round a while. I always think of how much I got from BAL when I was new to the classical world - none of the ground had been gone over for me, and I loved the sense of being given an overview of the whole recorded history. Then again "Building" a Library doesn't necessarily mean starting from scratch - I accept that the format has to accommodate all - not unduly repetitive for the 'old timers' but also reasonably comprehensive for newcomers.

The Bach StJP seemed quite a good blend in fact. OK it concentrated on recent releases, but as pointed out above, the 'winner' was from 1999 so there was some sense of overview. The ideal thing would perhaps have been for it to have been 15 minutes longer, with those 15 minutes given over to consideration of the earlier versions pre-HIPP...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Perhaps if the reviewer(s) stated from the outset what shortlist was being considered, it would make more sense to the listener. But I don't think that restricting a review to the most recently released recordings is acceptable. It presumes that either (a) earlier recordings are already known to the listeners, or (b) if they are new and HIPP they must be better .

[gurnemanz]

I can certainly see the point that as time goes on and the recorded versions proliferate, it becomes more and more difficult to manage BAL. In a restricted time frame, the reviewer can't talk meaningfully about endless numbers of versions, when more-recorded works are under the spotlight like this week and next.

There has been a proliferation of versions of popular works for many years. The task of a BAL reviewer is, of course difficult, and it has always necessarily involved pre-deselecting many recordings which don't even get mentioned. This was how a shortlist was arrived at. I agree with Eine Alpensinfonie that it is not acceptable to make a shortlist based on the assumption that it is the most recent recordings which are going to be the ones most worthy of consideration.