In Reply to: Boulez slow, precise, weighty, clear . . . posted by Pat D on May 14, 2007 at 18:27:38:
I would agree with most of what you say. It's hard to get terribly worked up about the 5th, for all the obvious reasons. Upon first impression my reaction to Boulez was however fascination - he really can impart a sense of inevitability in everything, probably due to his understanding of all the structural elements involved - but nowadays I simply enjoy it as a clear and succint analysis of the work, so to speak. Everything is under control and laid out with absolute clarity and assurance, so it's a bit like reading the music.But the sound isn't absolutely clear at all. The PCM transfer that I have is a bit muffled and lacks in openness and as it were in dynamics, too (a bit dull, undeniably). But I don't really care. It's OK enough, and in great music making you simply forget to listen to the sound.
Interesting if you think of Kleiber's interpretation here as willful; I always considered it hyperreactive but I can see your point. There is an element of forcedness in it that even in a strictly disciplinarian approach like Boulez' you don't sense as being there.
The coupling in my copy is the same. I actually didn't even know that Boulez had ventured into recording this kind of repertoire until I stumbled upon this Sony CD (before his Bruckner event in Vienna, that is).
TL
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Boulez slow, precise, weighty, clear . . . - tlyyra 02:04:53 05/16/07 (1)
- Re: Boulez slow, precise, weighty, clear . . . - Pat D 16:09:23 05/17/07 (0)