5 comments about Bizet: Carmen.

1. Disregard all nay-sayers concerning this recording. It is splendid. The tempi are intelligent and stirring. Marilyln Horne, James McCracken and company are marvelous. I love the spoken dialogue. It just makes the story-telling that more real.
   
   Get this one!!



2. There are a ton of Carmen recordings out there. And why not? I imagine it is one of the most popular, if not THE most popular opera ever. This opera was also a favorite of composers. The music is just wonderful; pretty good for a French composer painting a musical portrait of a Spanish gypsy and those in her life.
   
   So, out of all available recordings, why should you buy this one? First, it was a Grammy award winner (1974 - Best Opera Recording). Second, for the incredible Marilyn Horne. Marilyn's voice probably isn't for everyone, but her power in this role is amazing. Wait until you hear the card scene, when she keeps turning over the Ace of Spades. Her singing of the phrase "la mort" will send chills up your spine. Nobody ever had low notes like Marilyn Horne. All of her arias are fabulous. Third reason, the extraordinary Met orchestra, playing at the top of their game.
   Fourth reason, some incredible singing from the rest of the cast. James McCracken is heard here before he got so pushissimo. Tom Krause is a very good Escamillo, reminiscent of a Sam Ramey. Adriana Maliponte has a very interesting vocal color for Micaela. She's more of a spinto, rather than the traditional light lyric or lyric. In any event, she sings the part well and has enough meat to her voice to balance out the big-voiced Horne.
   
   My only quibble is the tempo of the overture. It really drags, and makes me wish I could ask Bernstein what he was thinking.
   
   Highly recommended.



3. This CD brought back wonderful memories of great performances with the stellar voices from the Met's golden era. People will buy this CD for names like Bernstein and Horne, but it is the ensemble cast that makes this recording so rare and special. Thomas Mowrey's review said the great Mezzo-soprano Marcia Baldwin had died, but I am happy to report that a friend of mine's daughter is receiving voice lessons from the very talented and alive Ms. Baldwin in the Pacific Northwest. By the way, it is voices like Ms. Baldwin (who had twelve glorious seasons at the Met) - so rarely captured on recordings - that make this CD worth owning. It will transport you to a golden time in American Opera.



4. This is all about Marilyn. She has a mature and full-throated voice and is a terribly believable character. Listen to her mockery of Don Jose before the Flower Song, when she says "O Mon Dieu," it is hillarious, and when she goes looney in the last act. She fills the character as well as the vocal part very well. She is so naughty and yet you do sort of feel sorry for her at the end of the opera. The fault in this recording lies, first of all, in the casting, of the major characters. James McCraken has Don Jose written all over his face. He is nervous throughout the recording(if he were a baritone, his Wozzeck would be a benchmark)but he is less appealing vocally. Adriana Maliponte is as vulnerable as she can be but she is vocally unappealing as well. Bernstein's conducting is strange, the overture adds about ten extra minutes to the set. However, overall he has the right idea, listen to his opening to "La cloche a sonne." The rest of the cast is very well indeed. Dancaire and Remendado are a riot, Escamilio sounds marvellous. The dialogue and action are intoxicating and give an unbelievable stage presence. I would not recommend this for everyone especially those staring out listening to opera, but for those who understand Carmen, and can compromise beautiful singing for great characterization sometimes, this is the recording for you.



5. Many people don't praise Bernstein's recording of Carmen with Horne, and I don't know why? I remember the first time I heard this, it was great. Bernstein conducts with great emotion and lets one hear the music, rather than in a hurry as some conductors do. Horne is in a class all by herself in the title role. She is very different, she sounds snoty and gives Carmen yet another trait. The rest of the cast is right on target! This is a very powerful keep you listening again and again Carmen.

1 comments about Chabrier - L'Étoile / Alliot-Lugaz · Gautier · Bacquier · Raphanel · Damonte · Le Roux · David · Opera de Lyon · Gardiner.

1. What a loss that this Opera-bouffe never was and seems still not to be very popular. The music is beautiful, clever, witty, and just delightful. As you can expect from Chabrier it's full of delicous turns and twist that ensure that even if a melody is repeated, it's as though you're hearing it for the first time all over agian. Everything about this recording is wonderful. The preformance, the sound quality, and even the libretto and notes that come with it. All wonderful.
   If you can find it, don't let it slip by. You'll be glad once you hear it.

No comments about Mozart:The Marriage of Figaro, Sung in German.

5 comments about Wagner: Tristan und Isolde.

1. I have written reviews of performances by two divas whom I greatly admire, Callas and Sutherland, in which I argued that an opera is not just the soprano. For this recording I must take the other side. This "Tristan und Isolde" is all about a very great soprano, Kirsten Flagstad.
   
   Except for a truly wretched Young Sailor, I feel obliged to say that the supporting cast is fine on the recording. Janssen and Kalter are admirable. And Immanuel List is a great deal more than just admirable. But, when you come right down to it, who cares? "Tristan und Isolde" is first and always about the Tristan and the Isolde.
   
   This is the young Flagstad of 1936, still new to the opera. Of her Isolde, I am reduced to mere exclamations. What power! What delicacy! What purity! What line! What understanding! What sheer beauty! Not even the Flagstad who later recorded for Furtwaengler compares with this vocal goddess.
   
   At the time of this recording, Melchior was widely regarded as the premier heldentenor of the world and there are many who would bring that claim right down to today. I readily agree that he is the equal of Flagstad in power and endurance. But just as there are some who do not get Maria Callas, I do not get Lauritz Melchior. Contemporary accounts tell us that he was inclined to let both character and pitch go wandering unless someone gave him a good whack from time to time. From this recording, I assume that a stagehand stood nearby throughout the performances with a two-by-four in hand. Even so, his characterization was, at best, purest cardboard. And, sheesh, what an ugly, ugly sound that man often made! I knew people who had seen him perform, people whose judgment I respected. They held him to be a towering figure whose presence filled an opera house. Whatever it was he had, it most certainly did not record.
   
   This CD restoration is ultimately based on second-generation materials made well after 1936. It does not and could not measure up to the sonic standards of the digital era. That said, it is remarkable how good it actually is, far better, in fact, than the too-diffident Naxos notes would have you believe. Flagstad, in particular, comes through beautifully.
   
   The text is cut, as was the practice of the time. The conducting is brisk and intelligent. The orchestra sounds all right, better than anything recorded in 1936 by rights ought to sound. There are some clicks, some hiss and few spectacularly annoying coughs from a generally well-behaved audience. Forget all that. This is about Flagstad.



2. Four stars for the singing, especially of Flagstad. Hers was an unbelievable voice: steady, strong, and even from top to bottom, and with a warmth that Nilsson never quite approached. The big downside of this recording is the sound of the orchestra which is well back and not at all clear. Since Wagner, by the time he composed T&I, had come around to the belief that the music was more important than the words, this is a serious drawback. You have to listen to the Furtwangler recording to really hear what this opera is supposed to sound like. Which is just as well since, if you listen to the words, you'll discover that what Tristan and Isolde are really singing about in their big Act II love scene is METAPHYSICS! A romantic guy, that Wagner.



3. I admit that "Tristan und Isolde" was NOT an opera I came to enjoy quickly. In fact, it bored me beyond belief. Partly because the first recording I ever heard of it was the very long drawn out one by Bernstein with fairly unpleasing singers. Later when I hear Margaret Price in the role, I warmed to the opera, then was converted to it with the EMI recording of Flagstad. That recording really gripped me. And unlike many, I didn't find near as many flaws with the singing as I could find with the Bernstein recording. Then I found this one. Now I can figure out what all the fuss was about when people went to hear/see this opera in the theatre back in the "golden ages of singing." Of course, I didn't live then, so everything was a mass of "opinions from the papers" of the day. I am so glad that brilliant technical masters are remastering these old recordings of live performances so we can see what all the fuss really was about from this time of superb Wagner singing. No longer are these incredible performances just "words on the page." My mother and grandmother saw Flagstad often, and with Melchior, and I remember them telling me how glorious the sound of their voices was, that each was not just full of volume (loud as we would say today) but a wash of sound that rolled like a tidal wave over the orchestra and was never strained. Of course, I played this recording to my mother and her fine ear told me that though I was certainly hearing a great likeness of the sound, the real thrill of the voices was not captured. She put it bluntly: "Just as large voices today don't record well, and cannot be reflected with all their qualities, large voices of that day are only reflections of the grandeur that was truly theirs."

   Still, the recording is awesome. The singing is fabulous even to the smaller roles. One singer I had never heard of and that was the Brangane (Sabine Kalter). I was amazed at the quality of her voice, and the standard of her singing. She not only matched Flagstad, she held her own in an important but not showy role.
   The score has been cut, but that was common at the time, and actually Wagner himself authorized those cuts (and even more, if he could have persuaded the great Dramatic Colorature of his day, Therese Tietjens to sing it). In my view, the opera really doesn't improve without the cuts, it is just longer.

   The orchestra is playing truly well in this performance. It has been mentioned it isn't as good as the orchestra in this or that recording. Still, the playing is excellent, and again, we must stop comparing it to the sound of modern recordings. Those were studio recordings, this is live; those recordings had the microphones placed at an advantage for orchestral balance, this recording doesn't. The tempi are quicker than often heard these days (is that telling us something of that time frame verses ours where everything is scrutinized to death for detail ignoring the whole) yet I find the feeling and drama are never lost.

   Melchior's sound to me sometimes sounds "weird." I don't know how to describe it. The upper register is not strained, but seems at odds with the rest of his voice. No breaks, but not blended. That, according to my mother, is simply the limitations of the recording equipment of the day. His upper range was strong and clarion, nearly trumpet-like and filled the theatre with a very strong "ring." Yet, the warmth of the baritonal lower ranger was strongly present in that upper range. That, according to her remembrance, is what we are missing in his recordings. The "ring" sort of comes through, but the warmer balance doesn't always record.

   In spite of all that, this is by far the most exciting recording of "Tristan und Isolde" I have ever heard. I am actually really thrilled by the opera and because of the great singing, and orchestral excitement I hear. It is well worth the money (even if it were much more expensive). I wonder why more and more old recordings are being released, especially live performances. I hope it isn't just because there are no royalties to the artist to pay. I think it is because we can now remaster these recordings and bring to life the greatest of the great performances of these wonderful operas. Perhaps it is to bring sanity to our conductors and performers so they finally learn what real opera is all about. Whatever the reason, I am glad they are doing it.




4. This is an old recording (1936) but the singing is spectacular. I have never heard any recording that even comes close to the vocal perfection of these Wagnerian giants. This has become my absolutely favorite recording of Tristan. Even though the orchestra doesn't come through as well as on more modern recordings, I find that I can fill in mentally what is lacking. The result is profounding moving and beautiful music sung by one of the dream Wagnerian casts of all time. My only regret is that I was born to late to have attended this performance in person.



5. This is an old recording (1936) but the singing is spectacular. I have never heard any recording that even comes close to the vocal perfection of these Wagnerian giants. This has become my absolutely favorite recording of Tristan. Even though the orchestra doesn't come through as well as on more modern recordings, I find that I can fill in mentally what is lacking. The result is profounding moving and beautiful music sung by one of the dream Wagnerian casts of all time. My only regret is that I was born to late to have attended this performance in person.

3 comments about Steve Reich 1965-1995.

1. Steve Reich, unlike most classical composers, is well-known in the popular music world owing to his influence on many musicians of the "post rock" period.
   
   After having heard and been impressed by his Six Pianos and Four Organs, I was eager to hear a full collection of his material since he began composing in the 1960s. However, there is really little of note in the ten discs of "Steve Reich 1965-1995".
   
   Even the two pieces whose first two performances I initially liked are not performed as well here - and with hindsight they are nothing compared to, say, Messiaen's organ works in terms of emotion and depth. The rest of the work here is no better, for instance the acclamied "Music for 18 Musicians" certainly lacks the passion of the post-rock it is often claimed to have been a major influence on. It also is very boring because the many instruments are unable to show the subtle variations of texture that are often possible with a single instrument, especially one liek an organ. Some of Reich's works, even if prelude to the sampling era, are just annoying noise created by tape loops that seem out of place in a work devoted to classical music.
   
   His later work, though easier to listen to, approaches blandness and the orchestras seem to be playing something that has been played before.
   
   It's really good to be able to notice the mediocre music in the classical, as well as the popular field, and this is amongst them. you will not gain much by hearing this lengthy set. There is much better music amongst modern classical composers.



2. While a multi CD collection spanning 30 years does sound very promsing, Nonesuch cannot offer all of the best recordings of some of Reich's masterpieces (Music for 18 Musicians or Drumming), and some have been missed out completely (Music for a Large Ensemble), presumably because the piece was not recorded under the Nonesuch label. While the collection is formidable, a listener wanting to hear the best recordings of all the pieces might do better seeking out the older (or longer!) recordings of the pieces.



3. The term "essential" gets thrown about too much. And heck, the claim that certain words get thrown about too much gets thrown about too much. But here is a collection that really *is* essential to understanding the nature of a whole shift not just in classical music, but in popular music and indeed in popular culture. So many of Reich's ideas and concepts have become so deeply embedded in current classical music, film scoring (any number of examples, but think about Tangerine Dream's score for "Risky Business" and Hans Zimmer's score for "Thin Red Line," for starters), electronic music and even the visual arts.

   This box set gives the listener all of Reich's major works. I can't even attempt to describe them individually, but every one of these 10 CDs is compelling. For the totally uninitiated, take out "Music for 18 Musicians" (presented here in a crystalline new recording) to get an idea of what the core of this guy is all about. From there, you might want to listen to "Different Trains," "Electric Counterpoint" and "Six Marimbas" to get an idea of the pointillistic pulse minimalism that Reich contributed to the world. The earlier material is the more challenging, exploring the subtleties of rythym, phase relationships between sounds and shifting timings. Among these, the new recording of "Four Organs" is just outstanding.

   Reich's works, along with the early works of Terry Riley and Philip Glass, form the foundation of an enormous edifice that has grown of music that attempts to return to its essential and hypnotic roots. With this box set, one of those pylons becomes clear.

5 comments about Mahler: The Complete Symphonies & Orchestral Songs / Bernstein.

1. The obvious advantage of this collection lies in emphasise upon the wholeness and unity of Mahler's music. It is as if there existed no essential difference between the symphonies and the orchestral songs - text and music belong to one and the same universe. The drawback lies in the mixed quality of Bernstein's interpretations, where the vocal artists are simply outstanding. As for the symphonies, Bernstein, as usual, has made painstakingly beautiful interpretations of the purely orchestral numbers, like 1, 5, 6 (unfortunately keeping the old order of the 2d and 3d movements), 7 and 9. The eighth symphony (recorded in 1975, long before the other ones) is partly a catastrophe: Bernstein, the orchestra, the choirs and the soloists are running like a whole hunting-party through the whole first movement, pantingly slowing down in the second one into a sometimes extraordinary sluggish tempo. The third symphony is wrecked by the terrible children's choir in the fifth movement - they are not singning, they are screaming. I both like the collection and utterly dislike it.



2. Most buyers aren't in the market for a complete Mahler cycle from one conductor, but if they were, the two from Bernstein contain many great performances. I've reviewed the contents of the Sixties cycle on Sony and this later one from the Eighties (contianing many live performances) on DG, taking them one symphony at a time. But it's worthwhile to give a sense of the strongest and weakest parts of each set.
   
   Cycle #1:
   
   By general consensus the performance of Sym. #3 is one of the glories of this cycle and perhaps the most inspired Mahler condcuting Bernstein did on disc. It has all the freshness of discovery--LB was new to Mahler in 1961. Sony's 20-bit remastering makes the original analog sound quite good--in fact, there's no need to comment on the sound quality of these NY Phil. recordings, none of which are bad. Expect the deep sound stage and wide stereo separation that Columbia Records favored at the time.
   
   Bernstein also put his stamp on Sym. #7 in such a way that no one would ever hear it the same again. 'The Song of the Night,' as this work was dubbed, had almost no life either on disc or the concert stage (Mahler champions as prominent as Bruno Wlater never performed it). Not only did LB prove that this was coherent music, he made an unforgettable drama out of the Seventh. This is his signature recording of the work.
   
   Two other great performances stand out: Sym. #2 and #4, each rendered with amazing imagination and a huge range of emotions. The accusation that LB went over the top in the Second is unjustified--he is often tender and delicate--but there's no doubt that he takes an apocalyptic view of the finale. Whatever you think about his approach, he single-handedly revolutionized the way that the Resurrection Sym. was played. In Sym. #4 the classic recording was by Bruno Walter, but LB added more depth, imaginaiton, and excitement. Lyric soprano Reri Grist has come in for a good deal of criticism in the vocal finale, but I think she fits beautifully into LB's overall conception.
   
   In the middle of the pack, as it were, we get LB's readings of Sym. #1 and #9. He went on to conduct greater readings of both works, especially the Ninth. In person LB's First was a real showpiece, but somehow Sony's sonics are not up to the conductor's vision. In the cse of the Ninth, the NY version would qualify as an outstanding performance if there weren't so many truly great ones from Karajan, Bruno Walter, James Levine, and Barbirolli, among others. Bernstein himself would add two of the greatest, both on DG.
   
   I find a few problems wiht Sym. #5, #6, and #8 in the first cycle. For many critics all three are great recordings. For some reason, I have never warmed up to either of LB's versions of Sym. #5, where for once he does manipulate and exaggerate to the point that the spirit of the work seems lost in histrionics. Sym. #6 is too brisk in the first movement to let the music expand to its visionary potential, and in the other movements Bernstein seems less expressive than he could be. The Eighth is unmathced in the excitement and joyousness of Part 1, and for some listeners the whole symphony remains on that exalted level. I find that LB is too studied in Part 2, and my attention wasn't held. He does elicit very beautiful singing and playing, however. It should be noted that this performance is with the London Sym. and a host of fine English singers.
   
   To the end of his life Bernstein resisted Deryck Cooke's completion of the Tenth Sym., agreeing to conduct only the shattering Adagio. which Mahler had essentially finished in full score. Bernstein's reading with the NY Phil. is one of the most searing accounts this magnificent fragment has ever received, equaled by his later live reading with the incomparable Vienna Phil.
   
   Cycle #2:
   
   It should be said right off that DG's digital sonics are in a different league from what LB got in New York. Even though several venues were involved (Vienna, Amsterdam, New York), and many recordings were under live concert conditions, the DG engineers triumphed. They favor closer mike posiitons, solo highlighting, and a vivid sound stage compared to their predecessors in New York. As to the interprettions, with a few exceptions--the most prominent being Sym. #6--Bernstein did not drastically change his views from the first cycle, and in some cases the readings feel almost identical (Sym. #2 and #7, for example).
   
   The most interest centers on the works where LB clearly outdoes his younger self. At the top of the list I would put Sym. #6 and #9. In the former he achieved one of the classic Mahler reacordings of the modern era. His Sixth has slowed down by 2 min. in the first movement, giving the music room to expand properly. The Andante is heartbreaking and heartwarming at the same time. The finale is an explosion of genius on Mahler's part that LB resonates with perfectly. Almost the same can be said of the Ninth, where the conducting reaches deeply moving areas of expression. The finale is drastically slow (as is Levine's, to similar devastating effect), which some critics find excessive. But it's a truism that no tempo is right or wrong; everything depends upon being drawn into the world of the music. LB achieved a great Ninth but would surpass himself with a live performance from Berlin in 1979, also on DG.
   
   Almost as great is Sym. #1, which on DG receives a flawless performance packed with excitement. I'm not sure that LB's reading actually changed, but the superlative sonics and the spine-tingling playing of the Concertgebiuw weren't matched in New York.
   
   The next thing to ask is where Bernstein fell short of his earlier versions. The Sym. #2, #3, and #4 from New York were one of a kind, representing LB's early and most exciting explorations of Mahler's world. Their counterparts on DG are also strong, but I don't think they rise to the heights he achieved earlier. The only sharp criticism I have is with the use of a boy soprano in the finale of the Fourth; musical as he is, a boy is too undeveloped to capture what Mahler intended. It should be said, however, that if the earlier NY versions didn't exist, these would be outstanding performances.
   
   I feel much the same about Sym. #7, where LB's first recording set a standard that only two or three rivals have come close to, but his DG remake, which was a return to the NY Phil. in oncert from Lincoln Center(as are Sym. #2 and #3), feels fractionally less overwhelming. It's in better sound, however. The one symphony I can't compare is the Fifth, which doesn't satisfy me in either cycle. The DG version with the Vienna Phil. convinces many listeners, and some critics call in unsurpassable, but I am not on its wavelength.
   
   That leaves Sym. #8, which Bernstein didn't live to record for commercial release. DG reached into its vaults for a live 1975 radio tape from Vienna, and although it has flaws in execution, including some rough singing in Part 2, LB's conducting is superlative, more ocmpelling than his version from London. Paired with this symphony is a 1974 reading of the Adagio from Sym. #10, also with the Vienna Phil. As you'd expect, it's an inspired, searing reading, just like the NY version.
   
   How ot sum up? If money were no object, I'd own both cycles for the pleasure of Bernstein's unqiue inspiration. If I had to pick and choose, I'd take Sym. #2, #3, and #4 from New York, Sym. #8 from London, and the rest form the DG cycle.



3. Leonard Bernstein was indeed a great exponent of Mahler's music, especially during the sixties. But, I am sad to say, he was not always its best interpreter. Bernstein's presentations of Mahler are often big and bold - or, in other words, overloaded - and occasionally he even adds instrumental effects just to make the music to sound even more swollen (consider, for example, the addition of a bass drum stroke in the ultimate chord of symphony no. 1). Passages that require sophistication are often underlined with broad, syrup-sentimental strokes. This is especially the case with these late Mahler recordings, which Bernstein made for DG.
   
   In some people's taste, this is just wonderful. They want showpieces and nothing else. But other people might have other intuitions regarding Mahler's music. For example, they want orchestral balance and not too deliberate takes.
   
   Now this DG set is incredibly expensive - $191! My advice, if you want a set with Bernstein's Mahler, is to look for the set with his earlier recordings for CBS/SONY. You get it for a third of the price ($ 63), and the interpretations are usually far better in all respects (with the exception of No. 5).
   
   But if you just want the best box with the complete symphonies of Gustav Mahler, I would recommend Rafael Kubelik's set (DG collectors series) as the first choice. Kubelik's interpretations are far more balanced and presented without mannerism, and, overall, his set is more consistent than any of Bernstein's. For reference, you could then add the selected gems of Bernstein's early Mahler recordings: Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9.
   
   Thus I give two stars for this DG set, three stars for the earlier CBS/SONY set, and four stars for Kubelik's set.



4. Although I am a fan of Bernstein's Mahler, I would not recommend this set, especially at its price point. Why do I say this? First, during the last few years of his career (and also, his life), the period in which these recordings were made and where he became increasingly beset by health problems, is riddled by performances in which Bernstein's ability to take great romantic pieces, in this case, the Mahler symphonies, to their emotional and dramatic extremes has degenerated into a heavy handed, enervating self indulgence, marked by dragging tempos and mannered, pompous distentions of phrasing. Secondly, because for the price of two hundred dollars for the set and on DVD (or twenty nine dollars per disc if purchased separately), there are available from the Leonard Bernstein zShop at the amazon.com site live accounts from the early and middle 1970s by Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic (with the exception of the second symphony being with the London Symphony) of all of the symphonies (but not any of the song cycles). Those performances retain the energy, vigor and intensity of his groundbreaking 1960s cycle, but with added nuance and depth of expression, together with more beautiful and sensitive orchestral playing, and also, a warmer, more full bodied sound (all are in stereo) than one gets from the often dry sounding 1960s studio recordings. Two hundred is expensive, granted, but it is not that much more than the Mahler symphony sets at full price, and, moreover, you get to see as well as hear Bernstein conduct, which is a treat in itself (the videos are in quite decent color). Unfortunately, these recordings have not been issued domestically. The only drawback is that the notes for these recordings, which are imports from Japan, are only in Japanese. Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend that set, for the performances contained therein represent Bernstein at his apogee in this music.



5. Ten years ago, I would not have evaluated this set in the same way. At that time, I thought Bernstein's Mahler and Mahler's Mahler were one and the same. Now my perception is that while Lenny did Mahler a great service in the '60s with his pioneering complete set on CBS (now Sony), in the '80s Bernstein smothered the music with his own apparent agenda. Put another way: If Bernstein in the '60s was "selling" Mahler to a skeptical audience, in the '80s he seemed to be selling his own interpretive stamp as the ONLY way to play this composer's music, overshadowing the less interventionist viewpoints of any rival conductors. It takes an outsized musical personality to eradicate most of what is recognizably Mahlerian in these scores and turn the composer into a hybrid--Mahlerbernstein or even Bernsteinmahler--but Bernstein was just the man for the job.

   Compared to the more consistent (if in some ways outmoded) CBS series, the DG cycle is uneven in its successes, if quite uniform in its overall approach (less nervous energy, more world-weariness--even in the "young man's music" that is Mahler's First Symphony--and more spotlighting and underlining of details). The Sixth and (especially) Seventh Symphonies as presented here are among the most convincing available, while the First and Third Symphonies are also recommendable, even if both are marred by tempo and phrasing exaggerations and inflated sonorities. (The finale of the Third may be the slowest on disc, running for 28 minutes--not 25:01 as indicated on the original CD release and accepted without question by critics ever since.) As for the remainder, it's a very mixed bag, despite the (very high) level of commitment Bernstein gets from his orchestras. This performance of the "Resurrection" Symphony reminds me of William Shatner doing one of his indescribable spoken-word records, while the Fifth and Ninth Symphonies take an enervated, depressed, mannered view of these scores, forgetting all about such niceties as momentum. Yes, there is "intensity" here, but it's forced. Tempi, dynamics, expressive markings are either exaggerated and distorted, or else Bernstein blots them out and substitutes his own. The Fourth Symphony here never quite comes together as Bernstein's underrated 1960 version did, and it's worth noting that the Eighth (a 1975 concert from the archives that was pressed into service when Bernstein's death in 1990 prevented DG from completing the series with a newly-minted Eighth) sounds more tired as it goes, and from the outset there are patches where everybody goes off-key.

   The song cycles are also uneven. Thomas Hampson's contributions are fine, but the overblown set of "Wunderhorn" songs completely misses the rusticity and innocence inherent in even the most sardonic songs. (Soloists Andreas Schmidt and the late Lucia Popp have much better work in Mahler than this to their credit.) For "Das Lied von der Erde," DG borrows the 1966 Decca recording (also issued separately on that label) in which Bernstein took the less-common option of two male voices. Unfortunately, one of those voices is Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at his most histrionic (although his murmurs of "ewig" in the closing bars of "Der Abschied" are as spellbinding as the deathly hush Bernstein casts over the orchestra). However, the overall "sound-world" of this "Das Lied" is closer to Bernstein's CBS set, and unintentionally makes much of the latter-day cycle sound bloated by comparison.

   In and of themselves, these recordings are distinguished, and never, ever dull. Even at their most wrong-headed they make an undeniable impression that you're in the presence of a high-powered musical entity. But what is on display here is rarely the music of Mahler as he composed it.

5 comments about Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen (Wilhelm Furtwangler, Italian Radio 1953, EMI).

1. There is not really much that I can add on to what other reviewers have already said, but I can chime in regarding the different issues of this cycle. Considering the limitations of the source material the Gebhardt edition sounds amazing! I would advise you in a heartbeat to chose that one over this EMI issued set. Whatever remastering tricks they employed did the job, and did it well. There is a lot of transparency with the orchestra and splendid details of the score emerge that I have not heard before. this could also be due in part to his rather slow tempi, which by the by work quite well. And the RAI orchestra? Well, why they are slighted and ridiculed to the ends of the earth I do not know. But their playing is perfectly fine. Perhaps, not up to the caliber of other premier league orchestra's but they produce some wonderfully idiomatic playing that transports you to this world of Gods, Heroes, and cursed rings. Even if you own others, this should be on your shelf.



2. Okay, so we have the Furtwangler, Krauss, Solti, Bohm, Karajan, Goodall, Boulez, Janowski, Levine, Haitink, Sawallisch, and Barenboim Rings on the market (I haven't listened to the other Ring recordings yet, sorry to say). And all of these leave me to one conclusion: the many differences lead me to believe that all of these ring sets have their own authenticities and setbacks. And here they are:
   
   TIMING (Estimate):
   Furtwangler's Ring: 15 hours, 0 minutes
   Krauss's Ring: 14 hours, 10 minutes
   Solti's Ring: 14 hours, 30 minutes
   Bohm's Ring: 13 hours, 30 minutes
   Karajan's Ring: 14 hours, 50 minutes
   Goodall's Ring: 16 hours, 50 minutes
   Boulez's Ring: 13 hours, 40 minutes
   Janowski's Ring: 14 hours, 0 minutes
   Levine's Ring: 15 hours, 20 minutes
   Haitink's Ring: 14 hours, 10 minutes
   Sawallisch's Ring: 14 hours, 0 minutes
   Barenboim's Ring: 14 hours, 50 minutes
   
   YEAR(S) OF RECORDING
   Furtwangler: 1953
   Krauss: 1953
   Solti: 1958-1965
   Bohm: 1967
   Karajan: 1966-1970
   Goodall: 1973
   Boulez: 1980
   Janowski: 1980-1983
   Levine: 1987-1989
   Haitink: 1988-1991
   Sawallisch: 1991
   Barenboim: 1991-1992
   
   CONDUCTING:
   Furtwangler: The 1953 RAI Ring should be a must-have (even if you have another Ring on your shelf). Yes, it's true that Furtwangler favors slow tempi, but he makes even the slowest of his tempi intense and spine-tingling. Just listen to how he handles "Hagen's Night Watch" and "Descent/Ascent into/from Nibelheim". Now you can't call that atrocious, can you? I should remind you: there are two different box sets for this RAI Ring, one from EMI and one from Gebhardt. Best take the Gebhardt version because it has much better sound than EMI.
   
   Krauss: This is the first Bayreuth recording of the Ring, and it sure is one hell of an interpretation. Unlike Furtwangler, maestro Krauss goes for quicker tempi and greater suspense. Compare his "Siegfried vs. Fafner" and "Waltraute's Narrative" to later recordings and you'll see that he is a musical champion. There are about four different box sets that are out there right now, but you will only need one: the Opera D'oro release.
   
   Solti: Everyone knows that this is the first studio recording of the Ring. And everyone knows that Solti has become a famous name that's attributed to this. Solti's conducting is driven with sheer muscle, but sometimes he makes the Ring overemotional. His "Donner's Song" & Gotterdammerung Preludes are clear examples: they're annoyingly loud and bombastic. Nonetheless he almost seldom loses control with anything. His clear focus on the drama is astonishing.
   
   Bohm: I must say his live Bayreuth recording brings out some of the best. He puts more faith in the orchestral score, but he also gives it more intensity. His tempi are some of the quickest, but they still don't seem rushed at all (except maybe Rheingold Prelude). I especially like his "Flight of the Valkyries" & "Forging Scene"; both are the most energetic on disc.
   
   Karajan: Karajan's chamber approach is very interesting. Instead of going for the drama or the energy, the conductor goes for the beauty. Almost everything in his Ring sounds very ethereal because of his excessive use of lyricism. His orchestral preludes (except Walkure Act 1) sound more beautiful than others, and much of the soft parts (such as "Brunnhilde's Awakening") are controlled nicely. His "Entrance to Valhalla" and "Funeral March" are recommendable. Siegfried Act Three Scene Two could have improved with more tension.
   
   Goodall: Oh, boy. While I do praise Goodall with his amazing attention to detail, his ridiculously sluggish tempi will tick some Wagnerites off: nothing is faster than andante. But I did enjoy listening to the slow beauty of his "Immolation". This was recorded live and sung in English.
   
   Boulez: Here it is, folks - the controversial Centennial Ring. To fit the Ring Cycle in the industrial age, Boulez gives it a very Schoenbergian, Bartokian atmosphere. Much of his tempi are very quick, very Bohm-like, though they're still not as fast as Bohm. Keep in mind, though, this live Ring works better if you hear AND see it (the DVD's work best).
   
   Janowski: This is a very classical Ring. Instead of bombast, spacious, or lyrical passion, maestro Janowski gives us the straightforward approach. He goes straight for Wagner's original intentions (precise tempi, dynamics, flow of leitmotivs, etc.), which makes this another exquisite Ring. "Hagen Summons the Vassals" is probably the fastest I've ever heard (along with Boulez's). Rheingold Scene Four can be best described as "sensational".
   
   Levine: This conductor has his own fair share of lyricism, too. Only, his lyricism is softer and much slower than Karajan's. Sometimes you'll be annoyed at his plodding tempi in parts such as "Wotan confronts Siegfried" or "Loge confronts Alberich", but you'll be amazed by the stunning splendor of "Annunciation of Death" and "Forest Murmurs". Be on the sharp lookout, also, for Levine's perfect "Erda's Warning".
   
   Haitink: This might be seen as a disappointment. If you want great conducting, then this is for you. If you want a persuasive array of singers, look somewhere else. Haitink's conducting saves this work from being a total flop. There is nothing quite like his Rheingold & Gotterdammerung ("Siegfried's Rhine Journey" is a bit forced, but magnificent nonetheless).
   
   Sawallisch: I guess you can say that Sawallisch is half-Karajan, half-Janowski. While he does stay true to the orchestral score like Janowski, he also puts in a little Karajan-like lyricism. At some points he loses track with orchestra and singers (as does every live recording) but Bohm has more control. This was also recorded live.
   
   Barenboim: It's hard to describe Barenboim's Ring. I believe that he uses a little bit of everything: bombast, lyricism, intensity, beauty, fast tempi, slow tempi, measured phrasings, yada yada yada. And he uses all of them so well, that this Ring ranks with Furtwangler, Krauss, Bohm, and Janowski as one of the greats.
   
   ORCHESTRA:
   Furtwangler's RAI Rome: I think that much of the criticism that's been given to RAI are simply insensitive. Yes, it doesn't rank with other, more experienced orchestras, but what you get is the final result of what the great Furtwangler wanted. Woodwinds in "Wotan's Farewell" are marvelous, the brass in "Wotan Summons Erda" simply stunning. Maybe if people listened to the Gebhardt release instead of the EMI, then they would appreciate the orchestral playing a bit more.
   
   Krauss's Bayreuth Festival: Due to limited rehearsal time, the orchestra sounds robotic a few times. However, that's only a minor flaw: there's everything that you need for a 14-hour Wagner opera. From the thunderous brass to the smooth woodwinds, from the loud percussion to the saintly strings, it's [almost] everything that you need for a Bayreuth performance. "Magic Fire Music" in mono sounds even better than Barenboim's "Fire Music" in stereo.
   
   Solti's Vienna Philharmonic: The woodwinds aren't really the most beautiful in Solti's Ring, but they are still a plus. French horns and Wagner tubas make this a recommended listening. The strings could've added a bit more work, but they are strikingly spectacular everywhere else. The orchestra gives it their all in Siegfried Act Two & Three, but they are at their weakest in Walkure Act One & Three (Bohm's Bayreuth does it better). Overall, it's the loudest and certainly most bombastic out of all the Ring orchestras combined.
   
   Bohm's Bayreuth Festival: The ultimate Wagnerian orchestra gives it their all. The brass both high and low are the most powerful, while the woodwinds are some of the most delicate. The strings are muffled only a few times, otherwise the eighteen anvils are perfectly loud and clear. Scenes involving Erda and Three Norns aren't as effective as Janowski's, but the entire Walkure is more successful than Janowski's when it comes to tension. Overall, this orchestra is the most energetic.
   
   Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic: The entire orchestra sounds polished, not to say that it is bad. Indeed the drama is still there, but much of the suspense is lacking (the scenes with Fasolt and Fafner come to mind). The brass sometimes overpowers the strings, which can be a serious problem. Gotterdammerung Act Two Scene One sounds very mysterious, very eerie.
   
   Goodall's English National Opera: This orchestra sounds nice, even if the sluggishness can bring them down at times. "Forging Scene" doesn't sound too good in a slow tempo, but the entire orchestra does sound lucid here. Siegfried Act Two Prelude is the creepiest; Act Three Prelude is the dullest. All of the leitmotivs are heard loud and clear, just like in Janowski's version.
   
   Boulez's Bayreuth Festival: Boulez turns this orchestra into an almost chamber orchestra (like Karajan's). While it doesn't really pack the same punches as Bohm's Bayreuth, it still delivers a stunning performance. Orchestral interaction between characters (Ex. Siegfried's motifs mixed in with Rhinemaidens' motifs) fares better than Berlin's, but is crushed when compared to English National's. Rhine maiden motifs are given more wit, while the Dragon motifs are played with less eeriness.
   
   Janowski's Staatskapelle Dresden: This orchestra has only half the force & flair of Solti's Vienna, but Dresden sounds much clearer due to the fantastic digital sound. All the minor details that are found nowhere else are heard in this Ring. The strings imitate the Siegfried forest very well, while the woodwinds representing the songbird are wonderful (but not as wonderful as Karajan's songbird). Dresden's "Magic Fire Music" (along with Berlin's) is the most extravagant.
   
   Levine's Metropolitan Opera: The brass and woodwinds are the true stars. The strings sound a bit too tired to continue on in Siegfried & Gotterdammerung. The Finale to Rheingold is absolutely stunning (the trumpets and trombones will not disappoint), and the Second Act of Walkure is the most impressive, the most refined.
   
   Haitink's Bavarian Radio Symphony: This may very well be like Metropolitan, because it sounds just as poignant. While the woodwinds are not as good, the strings sound better and the percussion sound clearer. The leitmotivs are almost never screwed up. First scene of Rheingold will take one's breath away.
   
   Sawallisch's Bavarian State: Wrong notes in this live recording won't matter, as the entire orchestra gets everything going in all four nights at the opera. The strings never surrender to imperfection, and the winds are marvelously aligned. I just wish that some of the singers would keep up with the orchestra.
   
   Barenboim's Bayreuth Festival: Do I really have to tell you that Bayreuth in the really 90's still went strong after all these years? Do I really have to tell you that the brass and percussion are kept under control, and that the strings and woodwinds outstrip Berlin and Bavarian Radio? Do I really have to tell you that almost everything is as it should be? . . . Fine.
   
   SINGERS:
   -Wotan
   Furtwangler: Ferdinand Frantz has something that other Wotans can't touch. Maybe it's that when he sings "Abendlich strahlt der Sonne Auge" he makes people swoon (back in the day, of course). Maybe it's that when he sings "In eig'ner Fessel fing ich mich" he scares the hell out of people. I think it's that when he sings "Auf wolkigen Hoh'n wohnen die Gotter" amazement spreads like . . . I can't think of a perfect simile at the moment. So anyway, Frantz is a great Wotan.
   
   Krauss and Solti: Hans Hotter is the superior Wotan. He sounds powerful throughout the Ring (except Solti's Rheingold, in which a less stellar George London performs). It's true that he gives an utterly heartbreaking performance during "Der Augen Leuchtendes Paar", and it's true that he was well past his prime when he did Solti's Ring (but don't let that stop you from listening to his classic "Dir unweisen ruf' ich's in's Ohr"). Makes me wish I heard Keilberth and Knappertsbusch's Ring recordings sooner.
   
   Bohm and Janowski: Theo Adam in Bohm's live recording is another treat. While he is not as equally impressive as Hotter, he can certainly conjure up everlasting emotions. Adam sounds weaker in Janowski's studio recording ("Der Augen Leuchtendes Paar" is wobbly), but he still doesn't disappoint.
   
   Karajan: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau plays Wotan in Rheingold, while Thomas Stewart replaces Fischer-Dieskau in Walkure and Siegfried. I don't think Fischer-Dieskau was a good choice; he sounds too humane and too light. Stewart makes an astounding improvement in both Walkure and Siegfried.
   
   Goodall: Norman Bailey has that divine spark that Hotter used to cherish. He's heavy and unblemished, and he handles the English text with flair and sheen. I enjoyed his singing during Siegfried Act One.
   
   Boulez: If you watch Donald McIntyre on the Centennial Ring production, then you can tell that he's a fine "industrial" Wotan. If you just hear him on CD, then you'll be disappointed. His diction is weak, his emotions are forced, and his voice sounds robotic. The DVD's will do.
   
   Levine and Haitink: James Morris is a notch below Hotter, Adam, and Bailey, but he overpowers Fischer-Dieskau and McIntyre pretty much throughout both Rings. His multi-dimensional performances are compelling in Walkure. "Nicht send ich dich mehr aus Walhall" should not be missed.
   
   Sawallisch: I may be biased, but Robert Hale just didn't do it for me. He sounded dull and tedious, and his "Leb Wohl, du Kuhnes herrlisches Kind" wasn't enough to astound me.
   
   Barenboim: The rough, deep voice of John Tomlinson should keep people up during the night. You can tell right away after his entrance in Rheingold that he will be flawless later on in Walkure and Siegfried. No, he is not Hotter. And no, he is not horrible.
   
   -Brunnhilde
   Furtwangler: The only thing that Martha Modl's voice lacks is sensitivity. She's rough, she's sensuous, she's lyrical, and that's pretty much it. There seems to be no innocence or intelligence in the voice. But I could be wrong, since my ears are different than everyone else's.
   
   Krauss: Astrid Varnay matches Martha Modl, only that she is the one that has innocence in her voice. She gets five out of five stars from me.
   
   Solti and Bohm: Birgit Nilsson is the best Brunnhilde on the market. Her Valkyrie cry is delightful, and her "Soll fesselnder Schlaf fest mich binden" is brilliant beyond belief.
   
   Karajan: Regine Crespin is without a doubt one of the finest Brunnhildes after Nilsson. She's fantastic in Walkure Act Three. I just wish she stayed on as the Valkyrie later on in the Ring (Helga Dernesch is no good in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung, sorry to say).
   
   Goodall: Rita Hunter is at her strongest in Walkure and Siegfried. She is at her weakest in Gotterdammerung. What may have caused her downfall in the fourth installment? "The world may never know."
   
   Boulez: How can anyone not be impressed by the Brunnhilde of Gwyneth Jones? One can almost feel her excitement during Siegfried Act Three, and her fear in Walkure Act Three. Her weakest point is probably during her Gotterdammerung Prologue (a bit too stressed).
   
   Janowski: Jeannine Altmeyer is basically the most controversial Brunnhilde on CD. Some people say that she's too light and weak, while others say she sounds young and very enchanting. I'm with those who think Altmeyer was a good choice, but you yourself (the shopper) are going to have to decide whether she's good or not.
   
   Levine and Sawallisch: Hildegard Behrens is just like Nilsson and Crespin. While she's not the best, she is definitely another perfect Brunnhilde of choice. She's at her most dazzling when she performs Walkure (Levine) and Siegfried (Sawallisch).
   
   Haitink: Hmph. I was hoping that Eva Marton would do well here. I was seriously let down by her strained singing. She does okay in "Annunciation of Death", but she is at her worst in "Immolation".
   
   Barenboim: It sure feels like a cycle when Anne Evans sings as Wotan's favorite daughter. In Walkure, she sounds like a young girl, but as the story progresses, so does she. Her voice and personality changes dramatically during the Gotterdammerung Prologue and especially during the final days of the Gods. Absolutely striking.
   
   -Siegmund & Sieglinde
   Let's see. For the Siegmunds, we have Wolfgang Windgassen for Furtwangler, Ramon Vinay for Krauss, James King for Solti and Bohm, Jon Vickers for Karajan, Alberto Remedios for Goodall, Peter Hoffman for Boulez, Siegfried Jerusalem for Janowski, Gary Lakes for Levine, Reiner Goldberg for Haitink, Robert Schunk for Sawallisch, and for Poul Elming for Barenboim. For the Sieglindes, we have Hilde Konetzi for Furtwangler, Regina Resnik for Krauss, Regine Crespin for Solti, Leonie Rysanek for Bohm, Gundula Janowitz for Karajan, Margaret Curphy for Goodall, Jeanine Altmeyer for Boulez, Jessye Norman for both Janowski and Levine, Cheryl Studer for Haitink, Julia Varady for Sawallisch, and Nadine Secunde for Barenboim. Hmm . . . Jerusalem is good . . . and so is Vickers . . . Janowitz is charming, and so is . . . Oh, what the heck? All the singers for Siegmund and Sieglinde are fantastic. Two exceptions, though: Goldberg doesn't sound heroic enough, and Norman for Levine doesn't sound young and innocent enough.
   
   -Siegfried
   Furtwangler: I'll just describe the singing of Ludwig Suthaus in three words: Oh So Good!
   
   Krauss and Solti and Bohm: Wolfgang Windgassen may very well be the best Siegfried for the ages. His `Forging Scene" in the latter renditions are defiantly inspiring. His last scene in Gotterdammerung is celestial and overwhelming. Be careful, though: during Krauss's "Forging Scene" he makes tons of mistakes, but they'll get used to later on.
   
   Karajan: Jess Thomas (Siegfried) and Helge Brilioth (Gotterdammerung) may not be as ideal as Windgassen, but they do know how to be a magnificent heldentenor. Thomas pulls it off with Act One and Three.
   
   Goodall: Wow! What a singer that Alberto Remedios! He never drags in either of the last two installments, and he uses the correct emotions in every scene that he is in.
   
   Boulez: Is Manfred Jung a good tenor? Yes. Is he a good Heldentenor? NO. He doesn't have that heroic voice like Windgassen and Remedios. I like him better when he's performing as Mime in later Ring productions. Again, the DVD's are your safest bet.
   
   Janowski and Sawallisch: Rene Kollo's Siegfried is a poetically expressive one. In Janowski's version he sounds playful when he's in Mime's home, and he sounds willed when he's in the Gibich Hall. He is not good enough in Sawallisch's version, however. His tiresome "Forging Scene" is obvious evidence of that.
   
   Levine: Oh, Reiner Goldberg. At least you tried. Seriously, he sounds too tedious (especially in Gotterdammerung Act Three Scene Two) and too old. Levine should've chose Kollo or Jerusalem when he recorded his studio Ring.
   
   Haitink and Barenboim: Have you ever seen Siegfried Jerusalem on the Levine/Metropolitan DVD? Well, here he is again, and this time, he sings with more valor and enthusiasm in both renditions. Bravo!
   
   -Alberich
   Furtwangler and Krauss and Solti and Bohm: Gustav Niedlinger has a heaviness that overwhelms a few other baritones. When he sings his only sequence in Gotterdammerung Act Two Scene One, his emotion is so pure that his son Hagen would've drowned himself in tears (Too melodramatic? Sorry about that.). The only problem is that his character sounds too one-dimensional. Alberich isn't just some cardboard-cutout bad guy. He has a very good reason why he wants to take revenge on the world. Overall, Niedlinger is amazing throughout Wagner's Ring (He deserves many awards for "Bin ich nun frei?"). Reminder: In Furtwangler, Neidlinger is replaced by Alois Pernerstorfer in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung.
   
   Karajan: I guess you can say that Zoltan Kelemen tries his best throughout. He is not good in Rheingold, but he gets better in Siegfried and Gotterdammerung.
   
   Goodall: Derek Hammond-Stroud is three-dimensional, but not that much. Still, he can sound very demanding in Rheingold Scene One and Siegfried Act Two Scene One.
   
   Boulez: What we have here is the weak Alberich of Hermann Becht. When he's in Nibelheim, the authority isn't there. When he's in the Neid-Hohle forest, the creepiness isn't there. And when he's near the Gibich house, the misery isn't there. Even on DVD he's unsatisfactory.
   
   Janowski: Siegmund Nimsgern may be the most humane Alberich yet, but it's all good. He sings with more passion than Kelemen and more robustness than Hammond-Stroud. Niedlinger's ferociousness puts him below, however. "Schaf'st du, Hagen, mein sohn?" is noteworthy.
   
   Levine and Sawallisch: Ekkehard Wlaschiha is one hell of a vigorous Alberich. I praise him in Rheingold Scene One and Three. His performance in Siegfried (both versions) could've improved with more distrustfulness towards Mime and the Wanderer.
   
   Haitink: No offense, but Theo Adam as Alberich? Come on . . .
   
   Barenboim: Gunther von Kannen doesn't completely eclipse Neidlinger and Wlaschiha, but he joins in with Nimsgern and Hammond-Stroud for his humane performance. "Bin ich nun frei?" was good, but not great.
   
   -Mime
   Furtwangler and Krauss: What do Julius Patzak (F) and Paul Kuen (K) have in common? Why, they both sing their parts without any caricaturing in the way. They both sound luminous and painless in every way possible. Kuen is slightly below Patzak's level, but that's okay. They're both excellent Mimes.
   
   Solti and Karajan: Gerhard Stolze is the creepiest Mime ever known to humankind. This dwarf outsings other Mimes on the market. When he sings "Die stucken! Das Schwert!" his anger and fear is the most effective to almost all Ring listeners. But of course, Stolze's truly unsettling caricaturing of Alberich's brother will catch on after repeated listening.
   
   Bohm: Erwin Wohlfahrt wins second place. He gives a first-rate performance in Siegfried Act One, but loses some of his edge in Act Two. He is an exceptional Mime nonetheless. Look for him in Karajan's Rheingold, also.
   
   Goodall: Gregory Dempsey isn't emotional enough. He doesn't sound fearful or depressed at all, which makes him the dullest Mime for the Ring.
   
   Boulez and Levine: Heinz Zednik is yet another excellent Mime, VERY fun to listen to. There is much humor and eccentricity in his voice, and that's what makes his dwarf much more compelling than Dempsey's dwarf. His performance in Rheingold Scene Three is pure gold, while his performance in Siegfried (particularly "Willkommen, Siegfried!") is a stunning achievement.
   
   Janowski: Peter Schreier is for Siegfried, while Christian Vogel is for Rheingold. Vogel is just above average, while Schreier is way beyond outstanding. Schreier is less ghoulish and more benevolent, more three-dimensional than Stolze and Wohlfahrt. He is equal to Zednik when it comes to humaneness and lyricism. The only flaw I can find is his handling of "Die stucken! Das Schwert!" He could've added a bit more fear in that sequence.
   
   Haitink: Peter Haage sounds like he's entertaining young kids. His version of Mime is a bit childish, and the dark humor that the dwarf brings out sounds-over-the-top here. Nonetheless, he is still entertaining to listen to ("Wer halfe mir?" has never sounded better).
   
   Sawallisch: Helmut Pampuch is just like Schreier and Zednik: he's very VERY good. Nuff said.
   
   Barenboim: Graham Clark is also like Schreier and Zednik. he's very VERY good. Again, nuff said.
   
   -Loge
   Furtwangler and Bohm: Why the heck would the conductor have Wolfgang Windgassen play both Siegmund/Siegfried AND Loge? The demi-god needs to sound different from a Walsung, or a son of a Walsung. All in all, a Loge that's marred by lack of cunning.
   
   Krauss: When listening to Erich Witte's Loge, I kept thinking to myself, "why doesn't he sound like Windgassen, and not a Norse clown?" I don't know, maybe Loge (or Loki) isn't supposed to sound like a clown, but maybe he is. I guess it's all up to the conductor's casting choices.
   
   Solti: Set Svanholm may be the weakest Loge. He is not very ominous throughout all of his scenes, and his lack of a sinister atmosphere greatly affects the entire Rheingold. But he'll soon be forgotten later on during the Trilogy.
   
   Karajan: Gerhard Stolze is easily one of the most entertaining Loges to listen to. He has the wit, the craftiness, and the untrustworthiness that the character deserves. His scenes in Scene Three are delightful.
   
   Goodall: Emile Belcourt isn't as good as Stolze, but he certainly can make some of the best of an English-speaking Loge.
   
   Boulez and Haitink: I can summon Heinz Zednik's performance in just three words: Brilliant Beyond Belief! Scene Two is when he's at his finest.
   
   Janowski: Peter Schreier is the most eccentric out of all of them, and that's a fact. Much of his singing involves imagination, peril, vengeance, and deviousness. Belcourt and Zednik depend only on imagination and deviousness, Stolze only vengeance and deviousness, Windgassen and Witte only peril. His odd conversations with Alberich and the gods/goddesses are classic.
   
   Levine: Siegfried Jerusalem doesn't seem like a good choice for Loge. He's better off playing Siegmund or Siegfried, but not a demi-god.
   
   Sawallisch: Robert Tear is on par with Stolze and Zednik. Sometimes he takes things too low, but all is forgiven with his management of character development.
   
   Barenboim: Graham Clark? Well, he's no Gerhard Stolze, but he does stay in tune with most of the music in Rheingold. "Immer ist Undank Loge's Lohn" will certainly be somewhere in the top.
   
   -Everyone Else
   Uh-huh, what can I say? Everyone else does a good job in all Ring recordings. Matti Salminen is the perfect Hagen (Janowski, Levine, and Sawallisch), while Christa Ludwig is the most brilliant Fricka (Bohm and Levine). Levine contains the most memorable Gutrune of Cheryl Studer, while the most brilliant Valkries are found in Krauss, Bohm, Boulez, and Haitink. Goodall, Boulez, Janowski, and Sawallisch contain the best Freias, Frohs, and Donners. The Norns and Rheinmaidens do a splendid job in Furtwangler, Solti, Janowski, and Levine. The Vassals (male choir) are at their unsurpassed in Bohm, Boulez, and Barenboim. The only flawed Erda is Anne Collins (Goodall), maybe too light and too heavy at times. All in all, no one here is graded C or lower.
   
   CONCLUSION: I have yet to listen to Neuhold's Badische presentation, Haenchen's Netherlands version, and two more mono recordings (Keilberth and Knappertsbusch), but I'm pretty sure that have their advantages and disadvantages. So there you have it. We have the legendary Furtwangler, the undeniable Krauss, the histrionic Solti, the energetic Bohm, the otherworldly Karajan, the spacious Goodall, the industrialized Boulez, the truthful Janowski, the unhurried Levine, the abnormal Haitink, the serious Sawallisch, and the futuristic Barenboim Rings. They have their own authenticities and setbacks, and they certainly have their own significances for Ring listeners everywhere.



3. Other reviewers on this page have commented on the flat orchestral sound that results from EMI's excessive filtering. And perhaps that's one of the reasons why it has always been claimed that the RAI orchestra is inferior. The German label Gebhardt has released a 24-bit remastered version of this recording that simply explodes with sound, especially from the orchestra. It is now the version to own. (http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Ring-Nibelungen-Spoken-Word/dp/B000BUEGK4/sr=1-4/qid=1170558863/ref=sr_1_4/002-8222288-6929600?ie=UTF8&s=music)
   
   If you already own the EMI version you'll appreciate the difference. EMI's sound is smoother, with less hiss, but dull and flat - all a result of their filtering. Gebhardt's sound is more raw, but far more realistic and alive. Furtwangler was the greatest interpreter of the Ring and this performance, even more than the 1950 La Scala Ring (which has also been remastered by Gebhardt), is his greatest on records.



4. If you do not find this Furtwängler RAI Ring one of the most moving recordings you've ever heard, you are not a true Wagnerite. Yes, it would have been wonderful had the conductor lived long enough to complete the EMI studio Ring begun so well with Die Walküre, but we should be greatful for this RAI performance, recorded an act at a time. All participants are in marvelous vocal estate. Suthaus is a terrific Siegfried, Mödl a mvoing Brünnhilde and Frantz a magnificent Wotan. Furtwängler's way with the score is inspired, on a par with (if not surpassing) Keilberth's 1952, 1953 and 1955 Bayreuth performances. The sound is decent mono ... and the performance I consider essential. At this price, how can you pass it up?



5. Wagner the very first modern, a composer not in debt to Beethoven, except in the early operas, but certainly no influence of Beethoven in Parsifal, Tristan, Ring, now that we have that out of the way....
   I have Keilberth's 1952/Archipel, Keilberth's 1953/Andromeda and had at one time the Krauss 1953/Gala release, btw the Krauss I see has been just re-issued. I no longer own the Krauss, it was a damaged set I bought, and gave it away, I have no desire to re-purchase it.
   You can find a few comments I made on the 2 Keilberth recordings here on amazon. Both of which refer you to this recording, as my final comments on these 3 Ring recordings.
   How I came across the Keilberth 52, then the 53, is a long story, but luckily I choose both over the dozens of other highly recommended recordings.
   No one mentions the 2 Keilberth, and there is good reason why that puzzling situation is so. Very few folks have even heard the recordings, yet these same "experts" make bold and daring comments on all the other avaliable Rings, you know "The Popular Ones" (hyped-over)
   Now to return to this Furtwangler recording.
   I wish to make a few comments on the many reviews given here.
   
   Brown/Dec/02: On his preference for mono over stereo, I also agree. Always I have prefered Mozart's operas in mono, the 50's/Furtwangler, Bohm over modern stereo. Mono gives one a feeling of integrity and wholemess, as if the music and casting are all spun from a single fabric. I do not wish for clear high toned sound, but prefer the 360 degree image that mono provides.
   Though obviously poor mono sound like the 53 Krauss is totally unacceptable.
   Brown also correctly points out that this Furtwangler RIA/Italian orch is in fact not an inferior orch as some would have us believe. This RAI orch is on equal/surpassing at times the Keilberth 52 and even the ever-so- slightly better 1953/Keilberth Bayreuth.
   IOW this is a fabulous orch...and agin as I'm listeng its possible I prefer this to both Keilberth's....Furtwangler is for me genius here and in Mozart's operas.
   
   Adidaire/June/2000: "you actually hear phrases and sounds that other recordings fail to bring out" Correct. Furtwangler's genius comes alive.
   
   Alexksander/June 20/05: makes mention that though there is no libretto, one can be purchased online. I suggest you go to Able Used Books and look up Andrew Porter/english translation of the Ring.
   He also mentions that this mono is not satisfying, abit "dry". As I mentioned above I prefer mono much more over stereo in opera, and this mono is on par with both Keilberth, and far surpasses the Krauss 53/muddy sound there. The old mono recordings in opera give one a image of a 'complete" world, a rotundrum as Jung uses the idea. A mythical, mysrery sense enters in, as orch and voices blend close together.
   
   Queen Margo: "Krauss is my second choice". Well not for me, and you'll have to make up your own opinion if you care to. Though the Krauss is acclaimed by many as "simply and clearly the finest EVER", You'll just have to go and buy the newly re-released Krauss and decide for yourself. I',m not going to get in any argument with the die-hard Krauss fans (diehard , meaning they refuse to even consider the 2 Keilberth(at least Todd has heard the 52, but not the 53, and doubtful he has heard this Furtwangler), and Gramophone places the Krauss as "possible the finest". You will have to hear the 4 and make up your own mind.
   Obviously the Queen has not heard either Keilberth.
   
   Hadijimins/Feb 22/05: I agree with him that digital "remastering" of old classics can take the life out of a recording, as he correctly points out, "the depth is gone...flat". This is so true,a s remastering "Filters out the impurities" but in so doing filters out that sparkle of "life".
   He goes on to mention this EMI recording " instruments lack natural timbre"
   True it is abit flat, but I suggest you try a tube amp, which does help in cases like this.
   
   A Music Fan/Feb8/05: "In short this Furtwangler Ring lives due to its highly dramatic character...and isn't this what music is all about?" Nicely said, Furtwangler breathes life into Wagner's masterpiece. If you've heard Rings that caused you to lose interest in the "dull parts", not here, Furtwangler makes the Ring come alive throughout.
   
   
   I guess you would wish I go into more details in comparison between the Keilberth July/1953/ANdromeda and this Furtwangler/EMI/Oct-Nov/1953...how about that, both from the very same year, the Keilberth live and Furtwangler's studio.
   That is quite a surprise, as I always prefer live vs studio, if given the choice...
   I will not go further in details between the 2, thus bringing my comments to a place that I would seem to prefer one over the other.
   All I will say is that the Furtwangler/1953/EMI and Keilberth/1953/Andromeda are in my opinion, the 2 finest Rings on record.
   Now I am aware that statement does not go over very well with the devoted fans of other Ring recordings, so you will have to make your own research and thus search and discovery for a superior Der Ring Des Nibelungen.
   feel free to contact me for questions, if I can be of help.
   EDIT:
   I see in the notes the mention that this was a "Live" recording, IOW it was live as far as a audience was there at the recording, but not in the sense as a full stage production.
   So it would seem my belief that live is prefered over studio.
   In this case the casting was allowed to have movement on stage, and not as are PURE studio recordings where the cast just stands in front of a mic, here we have real action, which brings in that live feel. w/o all the coughing and audience noise.
   Also would like to add, tgough I'm sure every other Ring besides the 2 I mention, all have their merits, some stronger than others.
   However in these 2 recordings we witness the "most consistent" in craftmanship. "most consistent" is not an appropriate qualitative term for these 2 productions.
   If I may be allowed to use a word that fans of other recordings may gasp in horror, definitive(I did not say perfect) would be my final word on these 2 1953 recordings.
   
   You ask: How can everyone be right at the same time/as the fans of Bohm, Solti,Krauss,Knappertsbusch, EVEN! Levine all claim "this is one of the best/absolute" etc with high praises.
   Well if you can afford it then try their suggestions. But like most of us, its not easy to budget in a set that runs anywhere from $100-$250(KNA's/Melodram)
   It will not be an easy decision for you, as it was not for me.
   But I feel my diligent and timely research has been very very rewarding.
   
   Oh btw, go read the 30+ reviews on the Karajan set.
   Notice something, not one of the 30 make mention of either Keilberth and maybe 1 or 2 make slight mention of Furtwangler.
   Doesn't that raise a red flag?
   Does for me, when folks go spouting off high praises w/o considering other sets.
   Hype in ignore-ance.
   Besides ck out any review, Solti, Bohm, Levine etc etc, especially the Krauss/53 and see if anyone mentions the Furtwangler and Keilberth's.
   Doubtful. Which is always the case.
   99% of my cd collection was built by my hard work in research, might take me 1 to 20 hours of work before i decide which recording i'll take a chance on...
   
   btw you can read more comments on this finest of all Rings, on the Gramophone discussion forum, go to Recent Purchases topic, then look scroll down to the recent post of Furtwangler's 1953 Ring.
   
   As we know Wagner was the first modern composer, with his sonorities so beautiffuly expressed in his 3 best operas, The Ring, Parsifal, Tristan. His other operas are stuck in a rigid classical period, so not to my taste.
   Wagner's inspiration came first from the folklore of his land, next most importance was Mozart, third Beethoven.

5 comments about Verdi: Aida / Millo, Domingo, Zajick, Morris, Ramey; Levine.

1. If there were any Aida today that could compare with the greats of the past such as Tebaldi and Milanov, it would be the American soprano Aprile Millo. Most Verdi operas after Verdi's early phase were no longer centered around the main soprano, and of course one would need an excellent cast to make the opera ring with life. This recording does not disappoint the listener in any way, and while conductors like Abbado and Muti know how to better conduct the score, Levine was too an excellent Verdian and delivers the score with passion and spontaneity. I would wish that the pacing of Verdi's score were somewhat faster, but there is so much lyricism and beauty in Levine's conducting that one could forget his shortcomings.
   
   The cast is nothing short of amazing. Domingo, in his 4th recording of Radames, makes a most passionate captain of the guard. He has lost some of the luster of his voice, and while his recording with Muti and Gwyneth Jones may have found him more passionate, he is certainly very involved here. He sings a very beautiful Celeste Aida, in my opinion.
   
   Dolora Zajick as Amneris is probably one of the best interpretations of the mezzo role. She is the prototype of the Verdian soprano, as can be seen in her Azucena, and she understands the bitch from inside out. I certainly would compare this artist with the greats of the past such as Cossotto, Barbieri, and Simionato, the great three Italian mezzos of the past who made a specialty out of this role. Brava!
   
   James Morris was the greatest Wotan in the Met during the 80's and 90's. There is no doubt that this amazing bass-baritone made a great Amonasro as well. I believe that his control of legato, as well as his excellent voice and his dynamics, make his Amonasro one of the better interpretations of the recent times, although one could wish that he were Leonard Warren, Cornell MacNeill, or Tito Gobbi.
   
   This, of course, brings me to the Aida, Aprile Millo. With a voice as large and beautiful (albeit not as flexible) as Tebaldi, more sensitive than Milanov, and much more even and consistent than Callas, I would say that Aprile Millo is the definitive Aida of our generation. I would say that Callas was better as an interpreter and Nilsson perhaps made something of this Italian role better than most of the natives, but Millo holds her own among these greats, and I would say that I recommend this recording to anyone who wants to listen to an Aida sung with the true kind of voice required for the role.
   
   Recommended!



2. This 1990 Aida captures what it sounded like to have a seat in the fifth row at the Met when the house regulars--Domingo, Millo, Zajick, and Morris--were on stage. There was probably no better seat to be had anywhere, yet one is aware that nobody is trying extra hard. Levin'es conducting is proficient and clipped, setting the whole tone for the performance.
   
   Aprile Millo has a timbre reminiscent of Tebaldi but with half the passion and a constant wobble--this is a superstar role and Millo was just a local star. Morris has not the slightest evideence of Verdi style, though his sound is commanding (he can't get Wotan out of his voice). Domingo is the best of the lot and is in fine voice, but he's phoning in his emotions. Sony's 24-bit sonics are very clear, if distant and lacking in impact.
   
   The reviewer above who laments that this was probably the last time that we'll hear Aida sung with the proper voices might be right. What's lacking is the passionate, committed Verdi tradition those voices must express. If that drawback doesn't bother you, this is at least a 4-star recording.
   
   (By the way, the generous excerpts CD, at 75 min., provides about half the opera.)



3. I am going to admit I made a mistake when I purchased this recording when it was first released-I read the reviews. As is often the case, the reviews were mixed and compared the recording to great recordings of this opera, and when I listened to it, it lacked something. I now believe it is because I did not listen to it before reading the reviews. As a result, it has stayed on my shelf for many years, and the only action it ever got was when I dusted it. Not too long ago I was in an AIDA mood, so I put the first recording of the opera I could find in the CD player. It was this recording and I realized I let it sit on the shelf too long. It really is a great recording.

   This recording was one of the first Metropolitan Opera and James Levine recordings for Sony. Probably the greatest strength of the recording is Levine's masterful handling of the orchestra. It should come as no surprise that the Met orchestra handles this score so well since AIDA is one of the most performed works at the Met and an opera as grand and powerful as AIDA is at home in such a large house. Placido Domingo is wonderful in the role of Radames, one of his signature roles. While Aprile Millo is not as strong an Aida as Leontyne Price, or my favorite Renata Tebaldi, she does an adequate job. I enjoy Dolora Zajick's Amneris very much. She seems to be able to handle the dignity of her role in a manner that is not pompous. While listeners love to hate her, there are moments when her voice is tender and one can feel sorry for her as the woman scorned. Samuel Ramey and James Morris add to the cast as well. Though Hei Kyung Hong's role is relatively small, her role is one of the opera's most beautiful parts and she handles it well. Lovers of the Saturday afternoon broadcasts from the Met will be familiar with the name Charles Anthony, a tenor who has played a number of comprimario roles at the Met. He too is included in this recording as a messenger.

   My favorite AIDA is still the Tebaldi-Carlo Bergonzi recording conducted by Herbert von Karajan, but this recording is certainly worthwhile and a close second.




4. After a number of Aida recordings of the 70s and 80s that lacked a true spinto soprano Aida, Millo brings us back to the essence of the role. She does not always sound firm and stable but on the whole she is one of the finest Aidas I've heard. The voice has some qualities that remind me of Ricciarelli and Milanov, yet Millo is stronger than the former and less secure than the latter. Moreover, Millo understands the character and makes an interesting Aida.

   I expected an uninvolved and somewhat tired Domingo considering that this is his fourth studio recording of the role but he surprised me! He does something special with the ending of his big aria and generally sounds more relaxed than ever. I guess I belong to the ones who prefer the older Domingo. The rest of the cast is impressive, led by the famous Amneris of Zajik. Morris and Ramey are equally great.

   What I like most about this AIDA is the feeling of a live performance that it gives me. All artists do their best, and work as a team. They obviously benefited from their common stage experiences. Levine is grand and also cares about his soloists.

   Even if you own all the other famous Aida recordings, this one is certainly worth investigating. Instead of this expensive 3CD set, you can also consider the superb DVD of a MET performance with almost exactly the same cast.




5. If you want to experiece something great, you should have this recording. You can hear about Leontyne Price (great, of course), Milanov or even Caballé, but Millo is to die for. Besides her Dolora Zajick, amazing Amneris. Levine is extremely intense. Domingo not at his best (when he has been at his best? just a couple of times: Manon Lescaut live from the Met with Scotto on DVD).

2 comments about Wagner: Tristan und Isolde.

1. Having heard this recording within the last week or so, I cannot understand what the previous reviewer could be eluding to. To start with, he's basing his "review" on the sound samples provided by Amazon. Bad mistake!!! This is a live Bayreuth "Tristan and Isolde" with a very young Birgit Nilsson, who was already on the cusp of international divadom, and Wolfgang Windgassen, who was still in his prime. These two great artists would nine years later make the critically acclaimed "Tristan" with Karl Bohm on DGG. Nilsson was only three years away from making her first London/Decca recording of her Isolde under Georg Solti. What is heard here are two Wagnerian superstars in a youthfully blazing rendition of the great score. Audience noises? Perhaps a few, but after all, this is a live performance, and performances are seen by HUMAN BEINGS, who sometimes cough, and move around in their chairs. The chairs in Bayreuth happen to be made of wood. So what's the big deal???? It's an excellent performance, with Nilsson in superlative voice and Windgassen as well. True, Nilsson added much refinement and polish to her Isolde in the nine years that followed, but had she not, she'd still be acclaimed, on the basis of this performance alone, as the greatest Wagnerian soprano of her time. Truly, she, along with Kirsten Flagstad, was the greatest Wagnerian dramatic soprano of the twentieth century. End of story.



2. Samples sound great if and only if you like coughing and chair creaking.

1 comments about Rimsky-Korsakov: Sadko.

1. If the sound in this recording was just a bit better, it would be one of Bolshoi's greatest recordings ever made. All singers are wonderfull and the stage movement is not very distracting. It is unfortunate that the names of the performers are either incorect or just not shown. Liubava is sung by Larisa AVDEYEVA, not Andreyeva. The foreign mercheants, or guests are sung by Alexander Vedernikiov (Scandinavian guest), Alexey Maslennikov (Indian guest) and Yuriy Mazurok (Venetian guest). All three singers are very well known, so it would make sence to put their names on the package. In addition, the Spirit is sung by baritone Vladimir Valaitis. Svetlanov conducts very well, and the singers follow him. Sadko is not an easy opera to listen to, unless you speak Russian very well, and know ancient Slavic words and expressions. I personaly recomend you to start with such operas as The Tsar's Bride or May Night. However, if you are interested in the Bolshoi's greatest period 1940-1980, this is a recording that you need. Tenor Vladimir Petrov, in no relation to the great bass Ivan Petrov, is not the most famous tenor of his period. Maslennikov, Vladimir Atlantov and Vladislav Pyavko are much more famous, but he is one of the best Sadko's.