| JANDL100 wrote:|
| Have you got around to the Nanut Bruckner 8 yet, Romy? Love it or hate it, I'm sure you'll have a strong opinion! |
I have listened it a few times and I still do not know. I like the performance but it did not develop yet my “personal attachment” with Sound of this orchestra. This orchestra works for me VERY nicely with Mahler 6, but Mahler is kind of more “soundable” music. Bruckner is very different animal; it is more meditative and introverted. Nanut and his Slovakians folks play it a little too “overly-musical” for my taster. My problem is that I do not know how I would play it. Still, so far this Bruckner 8 did not become one of those “that was it” performances, I do not have better, but this one did not make me stop looking.
| JANDL100 wrote:|
| I must confess that I really enjoy Asahina's OTT rendering of the Shosty 5th - I can listen thru the fairly poor (at times) playing - I much prefer it to Masur's effort that Romy sent me - that just sounds bland to me! It takes all sorts, huh? |
Bland (blānd) adj. bland·er, bland·est
1. Characterized by amoderate, unperturbed, or tranquil quality, especially:
a. Pleasant in manner; smooth: a bland smile.
b. Not irritating or stimulating; soothing: a bland diet.
c. Exhibiting no personal worry, embarrassment, or concern: told a series of bland lies.
d. Dull and insipid: a bland little drama.
e. Having little or no distinctive flavor: bland cooking.
a. Dull and insipid: a bland little drama.
b. Having little or no distinctive flavor: bland cooking.
Well, whatever it is the Masur/Chocago 1987 is not bland. Even if we say that it is then what Asahina demonstrated? Asahina care the same basic tempos as Masur does, in fact they are surprisingly; the same at time. But Masur holds poses to the very end and do not flood them. Asahina, does not care about the presentation of thyme and he rushed to introduce a new exiting phrase. Asahina is like a hungry man who is sitting at the table with a appetizer, main course and ice cream and he is mixing all together juts because he can’t control own sense of hunger. Asahina dose ornaments the play with some “different moves” but the irony is that I for whatever reasons feel that those “different moves” are just the accidents of badly played as most of those “different moves” are not bind into the fabric of the whole piece. When I sent to you the Nanut’s Mahler I will put a couple of other Asahina play from 60s and you will see that even in very deferent music his orchestra does same: shoring out of music some random sonic inventions, completely not supported by anything else and with any pointer for rational of their actions. It more reminds me the Japanese Jazz from 60x then Shostakovich.
Jerry, make an experiment. Listen Asahina and then listen Arturo Michelangeli’s play 9any recording!!!). Pay attention when Michelangeli introduce any of his “from himself” element. The entire texture and presentation of the played peaces is very-very deeply reasoned with Michelangeli’s own “mistakes”. Asahina does not have it. What he and his orchestra will be playing it second time it will be absolutely different “reading” because that dams orchestra plays it literally randomly. At least it is that way how I perceive it.Rgs, Romy the caT
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche