# Are We Best Obsessed?



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

We love our "best" recording threads here at TC.

Let me ask then, how much difference, if any, is there really between the "best" and the rest?

I mean, list a dozen recordings of Beethoven's 5th. How much difference is there really between that and that one sacred recording that gets mentioned so prominently? A recording that I happen to like, but also like some others as well.

Is there even a best? And what is the best way to answer this question? What is the best way to pose this question. Do I even care if there is a best? What is the best way to ask what is best ... you get the idea.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The best is a matter of taste and time and circumstances. My wife was 'the best' until we separated.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

You gotta love Kenny Bania!

As to the best, it depends on how you define best, by engineering quality, orchestral quality, conducting skill, or some magic act that fell out of the sky when the engineer pushed Record. 

Personally, though there are definitive/benchmark recordings, as to what is "best," I think it's subjective. I define "best" as a recording that gets your blood pumping/makes you jump out of your chair/gets you air-conducting/turns your face to the stars in ecstasy. 

I'm a big Bruckner fan, and it's amazing how everyone has their personal favorites that leave me scratching my head. And sometimes I've returned to one of my "ultimate" recordings and asked, "Really?"

So I think we all have one thing we're looking for, and when we find it, it's tremendous. And sometimes that "thing" changes.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> it's amazing how everyone has their personal favorites that leave me scratching my head. And sometimes I've returned to one of my "ultimate" recordings and asked, "Really?"
> 
> So I think we all have one thing we're looking for, and when we find it, it's tremendous. And sometimes that "thing" changes.


Yes, my experience also. But at the same time, that's one of the great things about having these kinds of discussions among like-minded people. When I hear that someone else thinks a piece or a performance is so special, and when they explain why they like it and what they find great about it, it gives me the chance to go and listen again and try to hear it in a different way and gives me the opportunity to grow in my own understanding and experience of music. So yes, that "thing" does change, and that is often for the better.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> Yes, my experience also. But at the same time, that's one of the great things about having these kinds of discussions among like-minded people.


As a listener I agree, and we can talk about my favourite(s) and my preference(s). However, I'm also a composer and used to be a performer. There the demands of good/better/best never leave us. Some attribute such demands to the elitist society, the real world, the need to be up-to-date, or to be historically accurate, and so on. But there, such attributions are never enough, because good/better/best is in the musical air we breathe -- how this note is better than that, how I compose the foreground or background, the shape with which I play this phrase. As a composer or performer you can't avoid good/better/best. And you couldn't ever conduct or teach or record music without making musical judgements.

Many people wear more than one hat including me. For anyone wearing the listener hat, I support expressing opinions and ask only for fairness -- do not try to force an ideational agenda on us. For example, I have had to face off with a church warden who knew nothing about singing but wanted to change the way the choir sings. For composers and performers I support innovation, but please do not force a "beginning over again" or "blank slate" demand on listeners -- a Boulez _Structures_ or Cage _4'33._ Because, insistance on the absolute necessity of complete makeovers has alienated so many people from new classical music that survival is in doubt.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Some years back, I went through a phase of comparing lots of Mahler recordings, and I certainly heard enough differences to easily put them in distinct groups of "best", "good", and "meh". But that was because as I was listening I was comparing everything to some idealised version I had in my head. This isn't the natural way I listen to music. I suppose for any given new Mahler recording I could go through the whole process again and decide that this one is indeed The Best. But in practical terms I'd now consider that a meaningless distinction, and even a "meh" performance is still Mahler. 
For classical music generally, aside from basic issues like sound quality or personal preferences for particular singers' voices I see things as "different to" rather than "better than".


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sometimes it is easier to determine the best recording when there is only one recording of a particular work.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Sometimes it is easier to determine the best recording when there is only one recording of a particular work.


I remember an old ad for the Grateful Dead: "We're not the best at what we do, but we're the only ones who do what we do."


----------



## Taplow (Aug 13, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Sometimes it is easier to determine the best recording when there is only one recording of a particular work.


Interviewer: Is Ringo Starr the best drummer in the world?
Paul McCartnery: He isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles.

It is often such a shame when there is only one recording of a work that you can just hear could be great when realized by more competent hands. There are very few recordings I own where I think, "This is the only recording worth buying/owning/listening to." ... The reason we often collect many different recordings of a work is that we appreciate different aspects of each of them. Each has something wonderful to offer. Often there just _isn't_ a _best_.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

In my experience, going back a long way to when I first heard performances of the great symphonies, piano and violin concertos and there were few alternative options, the ‘best’ recording was the first one I ever heard and played over and over again. It became imprinted in my brain and any other performance just didn’t measure up. That doesn’t occur quite as much now because it is easier to hear multiple recordings of an unfamiliar work before any individual one gets imprinted.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

A best account of a great piece of music is a contradiction. Different accounts of great music tells us different things but all those things are in the music. For sure there are poor accounts, failed accounts and there are also accounts that are just OK. But there will also either be several great accounts or, in less performed works, the potential for those. 

At the same time, I find that at different times I value different recordings differently. One day I might think that x, y and z are all I need of a certain piece but at another time it might be m, n, o and x.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

When I look for the recordings that people call the best or their favorite, I am looking for a recording that will offer something distinct and/or a baseline level of quality. It helps to avoid the worst recordings, and it highlights recordings that have connected strongly with at least one person.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I guess we are, but it only seems natural to look for the "best", whatever that means. It comes down to personal preference and all the things you grow attached to while getting to know a piece of music.
Yes, there can be a lot of difference between various performances/recordings of a work, both in interpretation and in sound. Sometimes there are very specific details during key moments of a work that can make or break a recording to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I see a lot of introductory books on Classical Music that like to rank and elevate above others like the 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Works, and others like the NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection, which I own when I started out building my collection. My view is these works are no doubt worthwhile to listen, some even "essential", but there are some included that are inferior to lesser known and less accessible composers. An ok/pretty good work will make it up there while a great, but divisive work will not. In particular, atonal and chromatic works will just not appeal to the general audience, not even their greatest works, while a 3rd rate work by a better known composer will. That's just the nature of the beast.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see a lot of introductory books on Classical Music that like to rank and elevate above others like the 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Works, and others like the NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection, which I own when I started out building my collection. My view is these works are no doubt worthwhile to listen, some even "essential", but there are some included that are inferior to lesser known and less accessible composers.


I have 1,000 Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die. I'm pretty disappointed in many of its classical selections. But to be fair, the author admits he doesn't know much about classical.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's like the Oscars or the Grammys or the Country Music Awards. We all like to think we have taste, and that it matches that of everyone else -- who presumably also have taste (except those who disagree with us) . . .


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I did do the fanatical comparison thing for a while but no more. Once I hear one or two I like I stop there. Mahler 5, I hear Shipway and that was enough. Later on I heard Boulez on the radio and liked that one too. Don't need to hear any more.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

With the passing of time, I've been realising that I shouldn't give advantage to a particular approach instead of the other in a recording of a symphony. It's in Richard Strauss' Orchestral works recordings where I mainly agree with most people. I still don't know which kind of Mahler I like best but for now I stand with Bernstein DG recordings until I challenge them with Tennstedt, Boulez, Solti, etc. And Bruckner has become a lottery once I thought that a single Berliner approach wasn't necessarily the best. Still revising almost all my reviews.

I still think it's safe to own different recordings and ways of approaching the score or the sound. In Beethoven, the only recordings that I've reviewed with huge success have been Tennstedt No.5 and Furtwängler's No.9 in 1942. I thought that Giulini's Bruckner No.9 was a very safe and clearly unbeatable approach, but my Lübeck No.9 by Günter Wand was like a new dimension for me.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I own many recordings of various works and never feel that I'm looking for the best. It's just that there can be something special about each particular version. My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It is the nature of listening to and collecting classical music recordings to compare and it is the nature of critics to declare their determination, their taste, as the best. Therefore, if someone declares so-and-so's recording of a Dvorak symphony the best, they are actually declaring something about themselves.

I don't mean to say people's egos are bigger than music but I never met anyone in these circles that admitted they are looking for or are gleefully willing to accept mediocrity. When they find something they like better than anything they've heard before, they declare it the best.

In a bigger picture any form of art, where a winner can't be declared like it can in sports, has some form of competition. Young pianists can't wait to win the Gilmore or Tchaikovsky competitions, for example. Just about every classical music magazine has some format for its critics to declare their best recordings of the year -- or the magazine's best. 

So, yes, we are best obsessed in classical music, no doubt about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I own many recordings of various works and never feel that I'm looking for the best. It's just that there can be something special about each particular version. My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


And assuming 16 hours a day of listening and an average of 1 hr 20 min for each complete GV, it will take you about 13 days to listen to all of them.


----------



## Urban Strata (Jun 15, 2018)

Yes, obsessed -- guilty as charged! :wave:

I'm currently on week 7 of a 16-week Beethoven string quartet cycle, listening to each quartet for 1 week and 2 interpretations every day (for 14 performances per quartet per week). Thanks to all-you-can-stream services, I'm including cycles from Alban Berg, Artemis, Amadeus, Borodin, Budapest, Cleveland, Emerson, Guarneri, Italiano, Juilliard, Kodály, Takács, Tokyo, and Végh.

In parallel, I'm listening to all 32 piano sonatas, 2 sonatas per week matched with each string quartet and 3 interpretations per sonata: Barenboim, Goode, and Kempff.

In further parallel, I'm listening to all 9 symphonies, each symphony matched to the approximate chronological order of each string quartet, 1 symphony per week and 7 interpretations per symphony (1 per day) including: Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer, Muti, Szell, Vänskä, and Walter.

I'm doing all of this while reading Maynard Solomon's biography of Beethoven, William Kinderman's book "The String Quartets of Beethoven," and studying my Dover score of the quartets.

So, yes, obsessed!


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I'm going to go on record as thinking there are probably many bests. In fact there might be some stinkers of a recording that only a mother could love. The rest are best. If one strikes me I'll go for it.

Happy best hunting!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There is no such thing as the best. I know recordings where the conductor and orchestra follow the indications on the score: tempo, phrasing, articulation, dynamics to the letter and yet the recording is lifeless. Other recordings ignore or don't pay that much attention and they are riveting. So which one is better? When it comes down to it, music is supposed to be an emotional thing so I guess that's what matters: does the performance (live or on disk) make an emotional connection with the listener? That cannot be quantified or marked in a score.

Here's where I sound like an old fart: there's no denying that today's recording processes are far superior to the old, analog days. There are many orchestras today that play faultlessly whereas in earlier generations only a handful did. Conductors today have technical skills that some venerated old conductors never had. And yet, today's recordings and a lot of concerts are missing something vital - that incredible emotional connection that the old boys knew instinctively how to do. To be sure, there are many performers today who are great and convey deep feeling. But what I would give to have the likes of Heifetz, Oistrakh, Gieseking, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Casals and Rostropovich. The older conductors like Koussevitsky, Walter, Paray, Barbirolli, Beecham, Monteux and many more - everything just seemed so "right". 

When it comes to my list of the "best" recordings, I have to admit that the vast majority of them come from the early stereo era and even some monos. Bruno Walter's Brahms 2nd from NY in the early 50's is a tour-de-force that has never been equaled, much less surpassed. Karajan's Hansel und Gretel in glorious mono will never be bettered. Gliere's 3rd with Scherchen is a stupendous achievement, wrong notes, mono sound and all. With the dearth of great singing, the best ever opera recordings have been made and will never be replaced. Callas doing Tosca is THE BEST!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Granate said:


> . . . still revising almost all my reviews.


Considering all the labor you've put in in comparing recordings, that's saying something. We all need to continually keep our ears open.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DaveM said:


> And assuming 16 hours a day of listening and an average of 1 hr 20 min for each complete GV, it will take you about 13 days to listen to all of them.


I've already listened to each of them multiple times. As for 1 hr 20 min, most of them come in under 80 minutes, especially the versions that don't honor all the repeats. I think Gould '55' is under 40 minutes!!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sometimes it is just a matter of wanting to have all the recordings because you love the particular opera (or other work) so much. For example, I have 16 CD sets of Bellini's La Sonnambula, one of my favorite operas and I think the second one I approached after Fidelio. I have 2 more Sonnambula sets in shipping. One thing about a wide assortment of recordings for a favorite work that you tend to play a lot, you will appreciate the variety. It could get boring listing to the same exact recording too many times. 

Other times, having many recordings can be frustrating if you can't figure out a favorite and want to pare down the amount of recordings on you MP3 player. I have that trouble with Flotow's Martha, also a favorite and my third opera. I have 7 recording and 1 more in shipping. I am hoping the new one will trump the rest.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Times past I relied more on the reviews and guides. In the eighties the Penguin Guide was my go to book, I doubt I bought anything that was not a 3 star or a rosette recording. Mind you a CD then was £10-15 so I felt the need to choose carefully and so somewhat best obsessed.
Now I have streaming services and can sample many versions if I wish. Am I still best obsessed, yes I think I am but the difference now is it is more likely a more personal opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

There is only one _best_ of anything, and that is the _best *music critic*_ who is actually a fella that goes by the moniker Discophage on amazon.

He also has a website.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

Nereffid said:


> I see things as "different to" rather than "better than".





Taplow said:


> The reason we often collect many different recordings of a work is that we appreciate different aspects of each of them.


Yes. Comparing the umpteen versions of Shostakovich's 11th I've acquired, the best, according to one reviewer, is Wigglesworth, with an oddly controlled tempo in the fast sections of the second movement, but very good recording quality. When I came across Bychkov on Youtube, I found it 'just right'...except one section taken peculiarly fast in the same movement. I have come to accept the variations and choose the version according to mood.



DaveM said:


> In my experience, [...], the 'best' recording was the first one I ever heard and played over and over again. It became imprinted in my brain and any other performance just didn't measure up.


Yes. Sargent's recording with the LSO of The Planets is still the only one my brain will accept, imprinted from when I was 7. Imprinting happens less now than it did when I was just starting out.



bharbeke said:


> When I look for the recordings that people call the best or their favorite, I am looking for a recording that will offer something distinct and/or a baseline level of quality. It helps to avoid the worst recordings, and it highlights recordings that have connected strongly with at least one person.


Exactly so. BBC Radio 3's Building A Library programmes are helpful in explaining the differences between recordings and although they always make a final choice, there's no suggestion that it is a definitive 'best'.



MarkW said:


> It's like the Oscars or the Grammys or the Country Music Awards. We all like to think we have taste, and that it matches that of everyone else -- who presumably also have taste (except those who disagree with us) . . .


Music as social identification. I worry about this less now, but perhaps that's because the only perosn I know who listens to classical is my older brother and we only meet up twice a year. It's chat with you guys (and assert my cred) or nothing!



mbhaub said:


> music is supposed to be an emotional thing so I guess that's what matters


Well, music is an emotional thing for me - but is it _supposed _to be, for everyone? Subject for another thread...(oh...just heard there've been several threads on this already - can anyone point me to the best?)


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

You know what? I am kinda glad I don't often have to think of interpretation as whether they are the 'best' or not. Considering the repertoire I most often listen to, there's rarely more than one recording of any given piece. Sometimes, like the three (that I know of) CD releases of the complete Lachenmann string quartets, it's fun to make a comparison (and I do have my preferences between them) but ultimately each one has its own strengths by simply taking a slightly different interpretative approach to bring out different aspects of each piece.

But when it comes to something like the Beethoven symphonies.......well! I just feel like I don't have enough time in my life to compare 30 different cycles. I just like to try to find things I like in each performance I hear. 

On rare occasions, I come across a performance that has almost no redeeming qualities, (such as recordings Thielemann has made with the Wieners), so I use these examples as a quick reminder of what I personally don't like when it comes to interpretation.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


..........


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Taplow said:


> Interviewer: Is Ringo Starr the best drummer in the world?
> Paul McCartnery: He isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles.
> 
> It is often such a shame when there is only one recording of a work that you can just hear could be great when realized by more competent hands. There are very few recordings I own where I think, "This is the only recording worth buying/owning/listening to." ... The reason we often collect many different recordings of a work is that we appreciate different aspects of each of them. Each has something wonderful to offer. Often there just _isn't_ a _best_.


Ringo was the best drummer FOR the Beatles at that time though.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I have 1,000 Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die. I'm pretty disappointed in many of its classical selections. But to be fair, the author admits he doesn't know much about classical.


And what is an author doing writing a book about something he knows little about?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It is a shame that programmes like BBC Record Review have traditionally picked out 'the best' recording and sometimes given the impression it's the only one worth listening to. I am grateful for multiple performances of the same work that can be accessed over the CD player. Of course, we have our own favourites and there are recordings generally acknowledged as classics (eg Klveiber's Beethoven 5th). But that doesn't mean to say there aren't dozens of other recordings with something to say.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> It is a shame that programmes like BBC Record Review have traditionally picked out 'the best' recording and sometimes given the impression it's the only one worth listening to. I am grateful for multiple performances of the same work that can be accessed over the CD player. Of course, we have our own favourites and there are recordings generally acknowledged as classics (eg Klveiber's Beethoven 5th). But that doesn't mean to say there aren't dozens of other recordings with something to say.


I agree. But they have stopped being so crude. They still choose a "best" but they now usually nominate a number of others as good alternatives.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> We love our "best" recording threads here at TC.
> 
> Let me ask then, how much difference, if any, is there really between the "best" and the rest?
> 
> ...


As someone who owns probably around 200 Beethoven 5ths I'd say there's a big difference between 'the best (which is Honeck for me) and just 10 random 5ths. I listen to what I feel is the best recordings far more often than the others.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

DavidA said:


> And what is an author doing writing a book about something he knows little about?


I guess he needs the money.  He was probably thinking, "Hey, people are only reading this book for the rock songs anway."


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Merl said:


> I listen to what I feel is the best recordings far more often than the others.


Just thinking about it, I tend to be the opposite. If I have an "ultimate" recording, I don't listen to it a whole lot, probably because I don't need to; it's already where it's supposed to be.

I find myself listening more to less-than-ultimate recordings trying to figure out what I'm not hearing, why it doesn't score with me, or why others think it's good. In fact, if I listen to a recording several times in a row, it's more of a red flag that something is lacking.

I guess it's our personality quirks that make the world go around.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I guess he needs the money.  He was probably thinking, "Hey, people are only reading this book for the rock songs anway."


The problem is the book is about classical recordings.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Yes! Oh God yes TC is best obsessed!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I own many recordings of various works and never feel that I'm looking for the best. It's just that there can be something special about each particular version. My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


And I thought I was in excess with some 50 Beethoven Ninths. And yet Fricsay's Ninth, which is the first one I ever experienced back in the vinyl days, stays at the top of the pile.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

shirime said:


> There is only one _best_ of anything, and that is the _best *music critic*_ who is actually a fella that goes by the moniker Discophage on amazon.
> 
> He also has a website.


Wow, that looks like it could be quite interesting to browse around. Here goes more hours on the web. I'll have to look it over in detail later when I have some spare time.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

DavidA said:


> The problem is the book is about classical recordings.


No it's about ALL types of music, not just classical.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No it's about ALL types of music, not just classical.


Not the edition I saw. That was purely classical


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

DavidA said:


> Not the edition I saw. That was purely classical


Well here's the one I was looking at. Show me yours...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,000_Recordings_to_Hear_Before_You_Die


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

"Best" just means "favourite" although there are certain recordings of certain works that a significant number nominate as such. A little hobby of mine is collecting recordings of well-known works but performed by lesser-known conductors and orchestras. I've definitely had some pleasant surprises.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> I have 1,000 Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die. I'm pretty disappointed in many of its classical selections. But to be fair, the author admits he doesn't know much about classical.


Ha-ha-ha! :lol: And thanks for letting me know, I'll make sure the unqualified author never gains Power of Attorney over my palliative care music stream.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2018)

chill782002 said:


> "Best" just means "favourite" although there are certain recordings of certain works that a significant number nominate as such. A little hobby of mine is collecting recordings of well-known works but performed by lesser-known conductors and orchestras. I've definitely had some pleasant surprises.


"Best" might mean "favourite" in your dictionary, but not in mine or Oxford's.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> We love our "best" recording threads here at TC.
> 
> Let me ask then, how much difference, if any, is there really between the "best" and the rest?
> 
> ...


Beethovens Kreutzer sonata by Perlman and Ashkenazy........it's the best, Jerry, THE BEST!






I'm not at all best-obsessed because besides this recording of the Kreutzer I only know a few others. But for me that's at least enough to realize that there can be a HUGE difference. Perfect timing is everything with chamber music and even more so with Beethoven. I have 3 sets of recordings of the Beethoven string quartets, Endellion quartet, Alban Berg quartet and Budapest quartet. The Endellion recording is ok, all very professional sounding and all very good musicians no doubt but compared to Budapest quartet and Alban Berg quartet they sound like amateurs at their first (ok, maybe second) rehearsal.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I own many recordings of various works and never feel that I'm looking for the best. It's just that there can be something special about each particular version. My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


150??? That's just obscene!!


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> "Best" might mean "favourite" in your dictionary, but not in mine or Oxford's.


Agreed but that is not how it is generally interpreted here. The version of any work that people like the most is generally the one they consider to be the "best".


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I own many recordings of various works and never feel that I'm looking for the best. It's just that there can be something special about each particular version. My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


That's precisely my point of view too. My collection of multiple recordings does not aim to find the "best", but to enjoy the individual interpretations on their own prerequisites. So I do not make really active comparisons between performers, even if may be interesting to compare the same performers different recordings- concerning the Goldberg variations Leonhardt, Belder, Hantäi and Richter e.g..


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> 150??? That's just obscene!!


There's a dude on TC sometimes who has reviewed almost every recording of Holst's The Planets. They are posted on his website. I believe he purchases all of them. And I thought my 10 Beethoven Symphony cycles and my 10 Chopin Nocturnes was a bit much!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2018)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> There's a dude on TC sometimes who has reviewed almost every recording of Holst's The Planets. They are posted on his website. I believe he purchases all of them. And I thought my 10 Beethoven Symphony cycles and my 10 Chopin Nocturnes was a bit much!


How many are there of _The Planets_?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I for one am worst obsessed


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2018)

chill782002 said:


> Agreed but that is not how it is generally interpreted here. The version of any work that people like the most is generally the one they consider to be the "best".


Ah, but is it their favourite _because _they believe it to be the best?


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Ah, but is it their favourite _because _they believe it to be the best?


Yes, because that it is the version they enjoy the most. Until they find another one that supersedes it anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> Beethovens Kreutzer sonata by Perlman and Ashkenazy........it's the best, Jerry, THE BEST!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There can certainly be a huge difference ... between good and less good _and_ between two equally good accounts. As for the Kreutzer Sonata, I wonder how many recordings you have heard of this is much recorded work? Off the top of my head I suggest that it may be worth listening to the following. I'm not saying they are better but only asking: can one performance show you everything wonderful that is in that work?

- The extraordinary live performance by Patricia Kopatchinskaja and Fazil Say
- In a similar vein: Szigeti with Bela Bartok
- Kremer and Argerich
- Grumiaux and Haskil
- Faust and Melnikov
- Francescatti and Casadesus

I could go on - there are a lot of recordings I love of this sonata. Equally I'm certain that there are many great ones that I have yet to hear.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> My Goldberg Variations collection is over 150 versions, and every one of them has a unique quality that I either admire or totally love.


Awesome collection and quote!


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

I am not "best" obsessed since I am primarily interested in the work not rating performances. 

It is my opinion that the level of training and musicianship among the professional classical community is high, and just about any recording will offer me a satisfactory version of a work I wish to hear.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I for one am worst obsessed


Leberworst
Weissworst
Blutworst
Knochworst
Oktoberfest-Worst

Great to have a chance to take my Wurst pun-group out for a spin! (Actually I like Wurst, except for the Blut . . .)

But seriously, we do need to attend to the "worst." But not all the time! Perhaps you are reacting to being surrounded by trite usage of "best?"


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> There can certainly be a huge difference ... between good and less good _and_ between two equally good accounts. As for the Kreutzer Sonata, I wonder how many recordings you have heard of this is much recorded work? Off the top of my head I suggest that it may be worth listening to the following. I'm not saying they are better but only asking: can one performance show you everything wonderful that is in that work?
> 
> - The extraordinary live performance by Patricia Kopatchinskaja and Fazil Say
> - In a similar vein: Szigeti with Bela Bartok
> ...


Thanks for the recommendations! I only have 2 recordings (Faust-Melnikov and Perlman/Ashkenazy). The first one I had (heard) was the Perlman and after seeing a performance of Beethovens 3 first piano trio's by Faust-Queyras-Melnikov, I bought the Faust-Melnikov cycle. I was charmed by Fausts subtle violin sound but found it lacking power (and precision/timing) in the Kreutzer. After that I went looking for other versions on youtube but didn't find a version as powerful as Perlman/Ashkenazy. They're so powerful from the opening chord through the end. Of course one could say subtlety is important too but I like my Beethoven powerful. Generally I agree that a performance's strong points can be at the same time it's weak points but there's just so much to like about the power of the Perlman/Ashkenazy that it's hard to trade it for a potential gain in subtlety.

But I'll definitely check out your recommendations, maybe I'll find en even BETTER BEST!!


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

San Antone said:


> I am not "best" obsessed since I am primarily interested in the work not rating performances.
> 
> It is my opinion that the level of training and musicianship among the professional classical community is high, and just about any recording will offer me a satisfactory version of a work I wish to hear.


The general standard of musicianship and technical ability is higher than it's ever been. No doubt about it. Of course whether modern musicians have the personality of those of a bygone generation is open to question.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

San Antone said:


> I am not "best" obsessed since I am primarily interested in the work not rating performances.
> 
> It is my opinion that the level of training and musicianship among the professional classical community is high, and just about any recording will offer me a satisfactory version of a work I wish to hear.


I find some truth in that. I find that the cheap downloads often are completely satisfactory and usually done by lesser known artists /Orchestras.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Sometimes I come across a recording that just becomes definitive in my mind and makes all others seem ordinary.

Some examples:

Furtwangler’s 1942 Beethoven 9th

Mengelberg’s St Matthew Passion

Callas/De Sabata’s Tosca

Casals’ Bach cello suites

Schnabel’s Beethoven & Schubert

Ignaz Friedman’s Chopin

Furtwangler’s Bruckner

Busch Quartet’s Beethoven

Horowitz’s Rach 3rd (esp with Barbirolli)


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sometimes I come across a recording that just becomes definitive in my mind and makes all others seem ordinary.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...


Fricsay's Beethoven Ninth


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"What is the best way to ask what is best?"

It's a recording that has a magnetic draw that can't exactly be explained. But every time you go back to it—and you wanna go back to it—it reveals something new—a gift that keeps giving that pushes the other performances out of one's mind, such as the Mahler 2nd by Otto Klemperer and the Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks. Gooble gobble.


----------

