What is your best recorded standard CD?

[cse]

Chris

Well maybe its the Spotify version but there seems to be a lot of sibilance on track 3, others sound OK. Yes I don't like ancient instruments, rather have piano than harpsichord.

It's more than likely that you're not listening properly. This is usually the case when people are not familiar with particular reportoir. A recent comment at 'Peter Grimes' - "... I enjoyed it I think, but there's not much music in it, is there?". Obviously, they failed to hear the sea interludes, as they were approaching the music and possibly 'Britten' for the first time and their ears were literally unable to pick up on, what was for them, a foreign sound world. A lot of classical music is not meant to be 'easy listening', unlike the majority of popular music. It takes a while for you to be able anticipate what is coming next. Only when you have 'learnt' the music, can you realy be moved by it. Then of course, it becomes much more moving, and because of it's length and complexity, warrants repeated listening, usually for years, if not all of your life. Mahler and Beethoven, for example, I will probably listen to every week of my life as the profoundity of their music is so moving. But only when you have spent time with it.

 

[BigH]

Chris

Well maybe its the Spotify version but there seems to be a lot of sibilance on track 3, others sound OK. Yes I don't like ancient instruments, rather have piano than harpsichord.

It's more than likely that you're not listening properly. This is usually the case when people are not familiar with particular reportoir. A recent comment at 'Peter Grimes' - "... I enjoyed it I think, but there's not much music in it, is there?". Obviously, they failed to hear the sea interludes, as they were approaching the music and possibly 'Britten' for the first time and their ears were literally unable to pick up on, what was for them, a foreign sound world. A lot of classical music is not meant to be 'easy listening', unlike the majority of popular music. It takes a while for you to be able anticipate what is coming next. Only when you have 'learnt' the music, can you realy be moved by it. Then of course, it becomes much more moving, and because of it's length and complexity, warrants repeated listening, usually for years, if not all of your life. Mahler and Beethoven, for example, I will probably listen to every week of my life.

Not sure about that. As I said I enjoy some of her other recordings, I don't like period instruments, yes if I played them for years I may come round but I don't want to do that, I have other music I enjoy playing instead. As for this recording the problems on track 3 seem to be sibilance, this was pointed out to me by a classical music fan as I had not played that track, I just said I was listening to that album, he suggested other recordings of hers instead.

 

[BigH]

Got Ashes and Gold Big H, have you heard Fearless? very nice too.

Mac

No not heard it yet, only just discovered her when looking at some of Matt's suggestions. Good to have some non pop/rock music to try. The Von Otter Grieg was more to my taste than her Sogno Barocco.

FEarless is very good prob. better than Ashes and Gold.

 

[Macspur]

Got Ashes and Gold Big H, have you heard Fearless? very nice too.

Mac

No not heard it yet, only just discovered her when looking at some of Matt's suggestions. Good to have some non pop/rock music to try. The Von Otter Grieg was more to my taste than her Sogno Barocco.

FEarless is very good prob. better than Ashes and Gold.

I agree.

 

[Supreme]

On the other side of dub - Lone Ranger (Original Studio One Masters)

 

[matthewpiano]

Chris

Well maybe its the Spotify version but there seems to be a lot of sibilance on track 3, others sound OK. Yes I don't like ancient instruments, rather have piano than harpsichord.

It's more than likely that you're not listening properly. This is usually the case when people are not familiar with particular reportoir. A recent comment at 'Peter Grimes' - "... I enjoyed it I think, but there's not much music in it, is there?". Obviously, they failed to hear the sea interludes, as they were approaching the music and possibly 'Britten' for the first time and their ears were literally unable to pick up on, what was for them, a foreign sound world. A lot of classical music is not meant to be 'easy listening', unlike the majority of popular music. It takes a while for you to be able anticipate what is coming next. Only when you have 'learnt' the music, can you realy be moved by it. Then of course, it becomes much more moving, and because of it's length and complexity, warrants repeated listening, usually for years, if not all of your life. Mahler and Beethoven, for example, I will probably listen to every week of my life as the profoundity of their music is so moving. But only when you have spent time with it.

This could come over as being a little patronising cse, although I agree with the basic sentiment of your post - that a great deal of classical music rewards time and time again and offers a developing experience as you get to know a work better. However, this doesn't mean it can't move someone on first listen. In fact it is the ability of great music to move the listener that often attracts people to it and makes them want to explore more.

 

[cse]

This could come over as being a little patronising cse, although I agree with the basic sentiment of your post - that a great deal of classical music rewards time and time again and offers a developing experience as you get to know a work better. However, this doesn't mean it can't move someone on first listen. In fact it is the ability of great music to move the listener that often attracts people to it and makes them want to explore more.

[/quote]

I don't really see why it is at all patronising. It rarely moves people at first listen, who are not already into classical music. They may be interested and think it sounds 'nice', but that's liitle more than an attempt at being mature or bourgeous. 'Ways of seeing' and 'ways of listening' are what defines culture. To just pretend that everything is equally valid and important is to miss the point about culture and music in general. It was never meant to be democratic. The Voice and Cardiff singer of the World - hardly the same, are they? Although I suppose you think they are, being 'everyman'.

 

[matthewpiano]

This could come over as being a little patronising cse, although I agree with the basic sentiment of your post - that a great deal of classical music rewards time and time again and offers a developing experience as you get to know a work better. However, this doesn't mean it can't move someone on first listen. In fact it is the ability of great music to move the listener that often attracts people to it and makes them want to explore more.

I don't really see why it is at all patronising. It rarely moves people at first listen, who are not already into classical music. They may be interested and think it sounds 'nice', but that's liitle more than an attempt at being maturr or bourgeous. 'Ways of seeing' and 'ways of listening' are what defines culture. To just pretend that everything is equally valid and important is to miss the point about culture and music in general. It was never meant to be democratic. The Voice and Cardiff singer of the World - hardly the same, are they? Although I suppose you think they are, being 'everyman'.

I find your last comment pretty insulting cse. Whilst I certainly don't consider myself better than others (as you clearly do), I am musically educated to MMus standard and I've performed extensively as a recitalist, concerto soloist and accompanist. My listening experience is vast, both live and recorded, and I still read extensively about classical music. I'm certainly not going to be preached to by you, so keep your unfounded comments about me to yourself.

 

[DocG]

I don't really see why it is at all patronising. It rarely moves people at first listen, who are not already into classical music. They may be interested and think it sounds 'nice', but that's liitle more than an attempt at being mature or bourgeous. 'Ways of seeing' and 'ways of listening' are what defines culture. To just pretend that everything is equally valid and important is to miss the point about culture and music in general. It was never meant to be democratic. The Voice and Cardiff singer of the World - hardly the same, are they? Although I suppose you think they are, being 'everyman'.

It is 'bourgeois', Mr. cse, not 'bourgeous'. Then again, spelling might not be so valid and important...

And please excuse me for being patronising. Will not happen again.

 

[MakkaPakka]

I had an urge to play some Guns N' Roses yesterday so stuck on my Use Your Illusion 1 CD that hasn't seen the light of day in about ten years.

Superb sound quality - really bowled me over.

 

[Covenanter]

This may surprise many but thinking of this thread I pulled "Carpenters Gold" out of the CD rack and played it tonight. I remember a hifi mag (it may have been this one) saying how good it was many years ago and it is simply brilliant, that wonderful voice caught in a perfectly natural ambience. I saw them live at the London Palladium in 1976 and it was a most memorable performance (special to me for personal reasons) and this recording brings that occasion back to me very clearly. Whatever you think of the music (and I would hate most of it sung by anybody else) Karen Carpenter surely had one of the greatest voices of the 20th century and these are brilliant recordings. If she had lived maybe she would have gone on to more rewarding repertoire.

Chris

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Maverick a Strike, Finlay Quays.

Star Turtle, Harry Connick Junior

The10 year anniversary, I think, release of Graceland.

The original remastered releases of Queen Hits 1 and 2.

A cover disk of Hifi News featuring Chesky record label's tracks.

I am obviously a 90s kind of guy.

The original Prince Hits 1 and 2.

And for the interesting music and arrangements, anything by James Brown from 1969 to 1979; Jazz ensembles playing funk. Awesome test for any system.

Missy Elliott album from 2003.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Forgot to mention Simon and Garfunkel. 90s release of Bridge over troubled waters. Must have been 25th anniversary edition. The dynamic range is amazing. Not compressed at all. Really pushes CD technology.

 

[matt49]

OK, here's some stuff.

There hasn't been much reggae on this thread yet. Two beautiful and well produced albums are:

Steel Pulse -- Handsworth Revolution

Misty in Roots -- Earth

From the solo piano repertoire, two very different discs:

Haydn -- 11 Piano Sonatas / Alfred Brendel (Philips)

Ligeti Edition 3 / Pierre-Laurent Aimard (Sony) [This may seem a bit rebarbative, but try the 7th and 8th pieces of the Musica Ricercata for starters]

And a bit of opera:

Gluck -- Iphigenie en Tauride / John Eliot Gardiner (Philips)

Janacek -- From the House of the Dead / Mackerras (Decca)

This last pick is for me one of the very greatest pieces in the operatic repertoire. It's an ensemble piece and something of an anti-opera, but so dramatic, and the music is just extraordinary.

Cheers,

Matt

 

[Macspur]

This may surprise many but thinking of this thread I pulled "Carpenters Gold" out of the CD rack and played it tonight. I remember a hifi mag (it may have been this one) saying how good it was many years ago and it is simply brilliant, that wonderful voice caught in a perfectly natural ambience. I saw them live at the London Palladium in 1976 and it was a most memorable performance (special to me for personal reasons) and this recording brings that occasion back to me very clearly. Whatever you think of the music (and I would hate most of it sung by anybody else) Karen Carpenter surely had one of the greatest voices of the 20th century and these are brilliant recordings. If she had lived maybe she would have gone on to more rewarding repertoire.

Chris

Chris, not surprised at all.

Karen Carpenter, whatever anyone thinks of the musical content, had one of the most pure voices of all time and a tragically premature loss to the world of music.

Must have been a privelege to see them live.

Mac

 

[cse]

I find your last comment pretty insulting cse. Whilst I certainly don't consider myself better than others (as you clearly do), I am musically educated to MMus standard and I've performed extensively as a recitalist, concerto soloist and accompanist. My listening experience is vast, both live and recorded, and I still read extensively about classical music. I'm certainly not going to be preached to by you, so keep your unfounded comments about me to yourself.

I'm not sure what your ability to play instruments has got to do with it. I am playing the critic not the performer. Your views come across as those of an 'everyman'. My credentials, if I have any, remain unknown to you. Nevertheless, art (Music, Literature, painting, architecture etc) is not all of equal worth, to be applauded and valued however it is consumed. The most popular is not the best and classical music, whilst not particularly popular, is of the highest possible merit as an expression of mankind to the natural and physical world.

 

[cse]

[

[/quote]

It is 'bourgeois', Mr. cse, not 'bourgeous'. Then again, spelling might not be so valid and important...

And please excuse me for being patronising. Will not happen again.

[/quote]

You really should stop correcting peoples' spellings -it's very irritating. Some of the greatest writers of the 20th Century were unable to spell properly eg Scott Fitzgerald.

 

[chebby]

I am playing the critic not the performer.

Then do it better please.

A bit of wit, an engaging writing style and some genuine insight wouldn't go amiss.

You're no Jonathan Meades.

 

[DocG]

You really should stop correcting peoples' spellings -it's very irritating. Some of the greatest writers of the 20th Century were unable to spell properly eg Scott Fitzgerald.

It's "people's spellings", not "peoples' spellings". I'm playing the critic too! :^) (sorry, it's beyond my control) :cheers:

 

[Excitable Boy]

You're no Jonathan Meades.

:cheers: :rofl:

 

[matt49]

It's "people's spellings", not "peoples' spellings". I'm playing the critic too! :^) (sorry, it's beyond my control) :cheers:

Goethe was rubbish at punctuation.

:shifty:

 

[matthewpiano]

I find your last comment pretty insulting cse. Whilst I certainly don't consider myself better than others (as you clearly do), I am musically educated to MMus standard and I've performed extensively as a recitalist, concerto soloist and accompanist. My listening experience is vast, both live and recorded, and I still read extensively about classical music. I'm certainly not going to be preached to by you, so keep your unfounded comments about me to yourself.

I'm not sure what your ability to play instruments has got to do with it. I am playing the critic not the performer. Your views come across as those of an 'everyman'. My credentials, if I have any, remain unknown to you. Nevertheless, art (Music, Literature, painting, architecture etc) is not all of equal worth, to be applauded and valued however it is consumed. The most popular is not the best and classical music, whilst not particularly popular, is of the highest possible merit as an expression of mankind to the natural and physical world.

Well your views come across as conceited, pompous, and very self-obsessed. In a previous post you referred to the importance of getting to know a piece of music and really understanding it. A performer really has far more chance of that than a critic. The performer brings the music to life, whereas the critic could often be seen as a parasite trying to establish his opinions as fact. I might also add that you have chosen to completely ignore the fact that I have vast listening experience and a high level of classical musical education.

Again, I agree with much of your sentiment, but the way in which you put it across typifies the attitudes that have continued to put people off exploring the wonderful world of classical music. The true lover of great music isn't posessive of it and doesn't celebrate its exclusivity. Rather they wish to introduce more people to it's emotional and cerebral power, an act which requires only enthusiasm with absolutely no need for dumbing down. Classical music should never be abused as a vehicle for elitism and snobbery.

Anyway, I'm off to listen to Murray Perahia playing Bach Partitas.

 

[the record spot]

I don't really see why it is at all patronising. It rarely moves people at first listen, who are not already into classical music. They may be interested and think it sounds 'nice', but that's liitle more than an attempt at being mature or bourgeous. 'Ways of seeing' and 'ways of listening' are what defines culture. To just pretend that everything is equally valid and important is to miss the point about culture and music in general. It was never meant to be democratic. The Voice and Cardiff singer of the World - hardly the same, are they? Although I suppose you think they are, being 'everyman'.

This is what Matthew was getting at. Why wouldn't a piece of orchestral music move someone? I found exactly that, that it did and still does. The first time I heard several pieces - Adagio, Canon, popular sure, but great music. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos and Bruckner's 7th. The several performances of Wagner's Ring Cycle I sttended in the early 2000s were quite awe-inspiring in places.

And the rest.

I think it's an astonishing claim to make that people can't be moved by a musical piece on first listen, classical or otherwise. Misses the point of it all entirely, IMO.

 

[trj007]

Goethe may have been a great author/thinker but does "rubbish at punctuation" make him right?

 

[DocG]

Goethe was rubbish at punctuation.

:shifty:

I have a sticker on my fridge: "Zwei Dinge sollen Kinder von ihren Eltern bekommen: Wurtzeln und Flügel - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe". The punctuation is correct, though sparse. He might have had an excellent editor-in-chief, of course. :?