Raff symphonies from Chandos

[JimL]

How about 1811-1886?

What about Liszt?

[eschiss1]

hrm... very sorry in retrospect and on much consideration I mentioned...

[Alan Howe]

No problem, Eric. Doubtless I didn't make myself very clear. I just meant that the mention of dates is often very useful - and that I'd be much more likely to pursue a nineteenth-century set of dates than a twentieth-century set...

[Gauk]

Well then - but consider the dates of someone like George Lloyd ...

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I've just been tickled by noticing a 'customer review' on Amazon of the new Chandos Raff 2 disc. It comes from a chap who boasts he has a pretty stupendous audio system (which he plays very loud!), and he tells all Amazon customers that, technically, this disc is "the best ever".

Bless him! I am now writing to the editor of The Guardian suggesting (when he is not practising his Chopin - anyone read that recent story?) that they appoint a new music critic in the present very shabby page of "classical reviews" that appears each Friday.

Actually this kind of comment must help to promote Raff surely? Maybe all the owners of high end hifi gear will be buying Raff to test out their systems. Hope so anyhow.

[Alan Howe]

Well then - but consider the dates of someone like George Lloyd ...

I didn't say I wouldn't pursue someone such as Lloyd. He just comes a long way down my list of priorities...

[Gauk]

Not my point ... I meant that you can have someone whose dates are entirely in the 20th century who is still writing music in an essentially romantic style. So dates alone are not a good guide.

[Gauk]

Bless him! I am now writing to the editor of The Guardian suggesting (when he is not practising his Chopin - anyone read that recent story?) that they appoint a new music critic in the present very shabby page of "classical reviews" that appears each Friday.

It's not Andrew Clements's fault that he is allocated such a small space compared to the pop music "reviews".

[Alan Howe]

Not my point ... I meant that you can have someone whose dates are entirely in the 20th century who is still writing music in an essentially romantic style. So dates alone are not a good guide.

And we cater for such composers. But Lloyd wouldn't come into that category, I'm afraid, whereas the much later Schmidt-Kowalski would. Dates may not tell you very much, but they are a good starting-point.

[FBerwald]

The Late Schmidt-Kowalski who unfortunately passed away the January of this year. Has his work been cataloged?

[Alan Howe]

S-K's works are listed here:
http://www.schmidt-kowalski.de/german/index_ger.htm

Meanwhile, back to Raff...

[Gauk]

Not my point ... I meant that you can have someone whose dates are entirely in the 20th century who is still writing music in an essentially romantic style. So dates alone are not a good guide.

And we cater for such composers. But Lloyd wouldn't come into that category, I'm afraid, whereas the much later Schmidt-Kowalski would. Dates may not tell you very much, but they are a good starting-point.

Maybe this is not the right thread, but I would be interested to know why Lloyd doesn't fit the bill. I would have said he fitted the site's definition of "romantic" if Mahler does.

[Alan Howe]

We've decided that Lloyd - like, say, Walton or Barber - is a writer of music that is tonal and may have tunes, but doesn't fit our general criteria owing to the admixture of dissonance involved. A comparison with Schmidt-Kowalski demonstrates the point: S-K qualifies, Lloyd doesn't.

Anyway, this was a debate that was pursued pretty well ad nauseam at the time of the re-launch of UC last August, and we don't intend to keep going over the same ground. So, back to Raff, please...

[eschiss1]

which is why I dropped, say, Liszt. The definition we gave "grandfathers" in 19th-century music- which is ridiculous and incoherent, considering- but- well... eh... whatever. Carry on!

[mbhaub]

Finally, after much anticipation, much reading this thread, yesterday my copy of the Chandos Raff 2 was delivered. I listened twice. This is a thrilling disk!
The recorded SACD sound is quite impressive -- the Tudor is really good, but SACD just opens everything up. Very natural reverb sound, too. Didn't listen to the CD layer.

The performance: this is what the 2nd needed. I know Mark has been very adamant about the greatness of this symphony, which I never could agree with. But having heard this new recording, my estimation of the 2nd has certainly risen. Jarvi, who can be brusque, impatient and superficial, here seems to really understand the work and makes it shine. Even the finale works. I still have a problem with Raff's coda: it just seems unprepared or hurried. If audiences could hear this music live, performed this way, they would be quite pleased with a concert. It's nice to have the Shakespeare works together, and so well played. I would defy anyone to "name that Shakespeare play from hearing the music alone. I've never found Jarvi compelling in Germanic literature (awful Brahms, so-so Beethoven, uninvolving Mahler) but he's really, really good with this.

The orchestra sure sounds great - balanced, in tune, warm. Is it as good as the Bamberg? Yes. Much better than anything Marco Polo used.

Dr. Avrohom Leichtling provides great notes that don't get mired down in technical mumbo jumbo but still provides great insight into the music that only a professional composer could.

I don't know how much Raff Jarvi is committed to, but given this great release I hope he does as much as he can, but 3 & 5 at least!

Great job, Chandos!