# Best Production of The ring? DVD or live?



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

What is the best production of the ring that you would recommend. I dont mean recording, but DVD or concert (i.e. visual)?

I only know of DNO directed by Pierre Audi


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Levine. It's the only "traditional" Ring on the market, strangely enough...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Which company is it with, theater? That is surprising.

The DNO (dutch opera) I highly recommend, the music (cond. Hartum Haenchen) is decent though nothing spectacular, i think that the staging and acting, lighting, effects and everything else are masterfully and artistically done.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Which company is it with, theater?


http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Nibelu...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1258368009&sr=8-1



> The DNO (dutch opera) I highly recommend, the music (cond. Hartum Haenchen) is decent though nothing spectacular, i think that the staging and acting, lighting, effects and everything else are masterfully and artistically done.


I've been reading pretty bad things about Haenchen's Ring, though considering that it's a rare one I don't take it seriously. I'd love to hear this version, but see it? Meh. I hate "modern" productions.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

nickgray said:


> Levine. It's the only "traditional" Ring on the market, strangely enough...


Here are some of my thoughts on the MET/Schenk _Ring_ production.

In addition, here are some of the thoughts of James Morris on the same topic.

Finally, here's a brief passage from J.K. Holman's book 'Wagner's Ring:'



> In the late 1980s, the Metropolitan Opera threw down a gauntlet of sorts by staging a _Ring_ that was called an expression of the New Romanticism by its set designer, Günther Schneider-Siemssen.
> 
> The Metropolitan _Ring_ was a huge success with the public. Audiences flocked to New York, perhaps relieved that somebody still saw value in staging the work more or less in the manner Wagner directed. A few commentators bravely suggested that the general public might have a point.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

That does sound interesting, im gonna take a look at that one

Rare? Here in the netherlands you can buy the DVDs almost anywhere!


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Levine. It's the only "traditional" Ring on the market, strangely enough...


I've only seen a performance of Hagen's Watch (Matt Salminem singing) from Twilight of the Gods in Levine's version. I'll be honest, I don't see what most people were complaining about. Obviously the singer is more prominent in this excerpt than the orchestra so maybe it is hard to judge Levine, but Salminem is absolutely fantastic. I sometimes wonder if people hate James Levine because he is popular.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Il Seraglio said:


> I'll be honest, I don't see what most people were complaining about.


Yeah, it's kinda a sign of good taste to bash Levine's Ring, unfortunately. It's a pretty good Ring, both the DVD and the studio record - the singing ranges from great to ok, the interpretation may be a bit more slow, but that doesn't make it bad (yet again, unfortunately, it is also popular to criticize most of the records where the tempo is "off"), the sound quality is gorgeous and is only matched by Haitink's Ring. All in all, it's... good. Definitely worth a listen, I'd say, and certainly a must-watch one.

Another problem with the Ring is that some fans tend to praise the pre-60s records, often well beyond what they deserve. Sure, Furtwangler and Krauss made marvelous Rings, but they are not without problems too, with the biggest problem being the sound - at best you'll hear a badly recorded string quartet-ish orchestra sound with less than adequate vocal sound quality.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Yeah, it's kinda a sign of good taste to bash Levine's Ring, unfortunately. It's a pretty good Ring, both the DVD and the studio record - the singing ranges from great to ok, the interpretation may be a bit more slow, but that doesn't make it bad (yet again, unfortunately, it is also popular to criticize most of the records where the tempo is "off"), the sound quality is gorgeous and is only matched by Haitink's Ring. All in all, it's... good. Definitely worth a listen, I'd say, and certainly a must-watch one.


I must hear how he handled the Rhinegold prelude (I confess, I don't like it to be played slow). It seems so easy for conductors that get that part horribly wrong. I blame George Solti for raising my expectations too high. I respect the opinions of Levine's detractors. I think it's crucial that people have the appropriate knowledge and sensitivity to understand the importance of these little differences that can make or break a performance. I think my next 'Ring' will be either Karajan's (audio) or Barenboim's (DVD) though.



> Another problem with the Ring is that some fans tend to praise the pre-60s records, often well beyond what they deserve. Sure, Furtwangler and Krauss made marvelous Rings, but they are not without problems too, with the biggest problem being the sound - at best you'll hear a badly recorded string quartet-ish orchestra sound with less than adequate vocal sound quality.


I can't say I have ever bothered with vintage Wagner recordings (or classical recordings at large) dating before 1960. Of course the real miracle of Solti's ring is how crisp and clear it sounds, despite the fact that recording began in 1958.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Il Seraglio said:


> I think my next 'Ring' will be either Karajan's (audio) or Barenboim's (DVD) though.


Try Janowski. It's probably the most well-balanced Ring in everything - performance, singers, interpretation and sound quality.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

I really think that Barenboim's Ring is the best, not just in terms of the staging but also in terms of the singing. Levine's is not bad but the singing of the cast is nothing special, Morris and Behrens easily loses to Tomlinson and Evans. Plus I think a strong case can be made that one should avoid anything from Levine when it comes to Wagner, cause he becomes a very different conductor doing Wanger, the same way Karajan does, he suddenly becomes the slowest conductor ever. It's not just a question of tempo, his Wagner is just boring to listen to. Unless you are a closed minded staging conservative who go "Lasers = suck" then I think Barenboim's ring is a must have. Even if you don't want to get the DVD you should get the CD, but since they come at the same price you might as well get the DVD.



Il Seraglio said:


> I can't say I have ever bothered with vintage Wagner recordings (or classical recordings at large) dating before 1960. Of course the real miracle of Solti's ring is how crisp and clear it sounds, despite the fact that recording began in 1958.


It's no miracle at all; the only way they could make that recording so crisp and clear is if they do a lot of noise removal and other processing and that's why I think Solti's recording has a very bad sound quality: it's overproduced garbage. Other rings like Bohm's might have more surface noise but it doesn't sound as compressed, overprocessed and lacking in details as Solti's. Although it is really expensive, I recommend checking out Keilberth's 1955 ring, although its sound quality isn't fantastic it is quite a miracle for something recorded at that time, what's more its in stereo. And more importantly it's before Hans Hotter and Wolfgang Windgassen started sucking.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

scytheavatar said:


> I really think that Barenboim's Ring is the best, not just in terms of the staging but also in terms of the singing. Levine's is not bad but the singing of the cast is nothing special, Morris and Behrens easily loses to Tomlinson and Evans. Plus I think a strong case can be made that one should avoid anything from Levine when it comes to Wagner, cause he becomes a very different conductor doing Wanger, the same way Karajan does, he suddenly becomes the slowest conductor ever. It's not just a question of tempo, his Wagner is just boring to listen to. Unless you are a closed minded staging conservative who go "Lasers = suck" then I think Barenboim's ring is a must have. Even if you don't want to get the DVD you should get the CD, but since they come at the same price you might as well get the DVD.


I have no problem with a modern Wagner performance so long as the costumes don't look like something out of Doctor Who, which often seems to be the case. Is Barenboim different?



> It's no miracle at all; the only way they could make that recording so crisp and clear is if they do a lot of noise removal and other processing and that's why I think Solti's recording has a very bad sound quality: it's overproduced garbage. Other rings like Bohm's might have more surface noise but it doesn't sound as compressed, overprocessed and lacking in details as Solti's. Although it is really expensive, I recommend checking out Keilberth's 1955 ring, although its sound quality isn't fantastic it is quite a miracle for something recorded at that time, what's more its in stereo. And more importantly it's before Hans Hotter and Wolfgang Windgassen started sucking.


I would say the individual sections of orchestra don't stand out as well as on other recordings, but for me, this is part of what lends the recording its visceral immediacy. Obviously, I haven't heard enough vintage classical recordings to compare and contrast, but I can see why it might not meet some people's expectations.

All the same, I would be interested in hearing the Keilberth version seen as you mention it. You have already dissuaded me from seeking out the Karajan version if it's as slow as you say it is.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> I have no problem with a modern Wagner performance so long as the costumes don't look like something out of Doctor Who, which often seems to be the case. Is Barenboim different?


The costumes belong to the "no time period" school of though, everyone is decked out in strange black leather and Wotan looks like a biker gang leader. The production is probably more radical than the Chereau production, which is tame by today's standards, so depending on your mileage they might look worse than something out of Dr Who. But it does work very well, the Ring is an opera that lends itself very well to these modern updates since as someone in this forum mentioned before the Gods were never meant to be taken seriously. The whole production spots some very lush sets and clever use of lasers.



Il Seraglio said:


> I would say the individual sections of orchestra don't stand out as well as on other recordings, but for me, this is part of what lends the recording its visceral immediacy. Obviously, I haven't heard enough vintage classical recordings to compare and contrast, but I can see why it might not meet some people's expectations.
> 
> All the same, I would be interested in hearing the Keilberth version seen as you mention it. You have already dissuaded me from seeking out the Karajan version if it's as slow as you say it is.


Karajan's ring isn't that slow, at least not as slow as his Tristan und Isolde. But Levine's is slow, it is 24 minutes longer than Karajan's, 34 minutes longer than Solti's, and 103 minutes longer than Bohm's. His approach to Wagner has always been interesting and unique, the chamber like, lyrical sound is an interesting alternative to the loud and crude Solti or the fast and exciting Bohm. And a lot of bad things has been said about his cast, but IMHO it's not as bad as what some people make it out to be. Still, it is very overpriced, so unless you have deep pockets or are able to get it on the cheap I think there are other Rings that you should check out first. Have you checked out Bohm's ring?


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

scytheavatar said:


> slow


Ever tried Goodall's interpretation? 



> I really think that Barenboim's Ring is the best, not just in terms of the staging but also in terms of the singing.


Dunno, Barenboim's conducting and piano playing always seemed to me... boring in some kind of way. Not that it's bad, but just sounds strange.

Imo, out of all the "live" Rings Bohm's is the best in terms of overall performance/sound quality, and as for the studio, like I said - Janowski, his Ring is amazingly good and amazingly little known, with Solti getting all the credit for the "best" studio Ring. Solti's an extremely good conductor, but it seems to me that in his "early" (pre-70s or so) years he was all too heavy and dramatic and didn't pay much attention to the little parts and the overall flow of the piece (which is how I'd describe his Ring).


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Dunno, Barenboim's conducting and piano playing always seemed to me... boring in some kind of way. Not that it's bad, but just sounds strange.
> 
> Imo, out of all the "live" Rings Bohm's is the best in terms of overall performance/sound quality, and as for the studio, like I said - Janowski, his Ring is amazingly good and amazingly little known, with Solti getting all the credit for the "best" studio Ring. Solti's an extremely good conductor, but it seems to me that in his "early" (pre-70s or so) years he was all too heavy and dramatic and didn't pay much attention to the little parts and the overall flow of the piece (which is how I'd describe his Ring).


Barenboim is at his best conducting Wagner, I am not a big fan of his non-Wagner works, but his Wagner conducting is very similar to Bohm's, quick and exhilarating, except that he doesn't rush as much as Bohm does at times. He's probably the most consistently good Wagner conductor in the stereo era.

I always wanted to try out Janowski's ring, but Theo Adam has got to be better in it than he was in Bohm's set, cause while I don't dislike him as much as others I think his delivery is indeed flat at times.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

scytheavatar said:


> Barenboim is at his best conducting Wagner, I am not a big fan of his non-Wagner works, but his Wagner conducting is very similar to Bohm's, quick and exhilarating, except that he doesn't rush as much as Bohm does at times. He's probably the most consistently good Wagner conductor in the stereo era.


Perhaps I should give Barenboim a second chance... virtually everyone speaks very highly of his ring, so it must be something I've missed


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Thank you both,
I was looking at the visual aspect as well as the audio. I think with opera they are equally important.
I will check out the Barenboim and Levine.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

Barenboims ring is best on DVD. Although do give the Copenhagen and Valencia rings a chance, particulary Copenhagen even if it does take some liberties with the libretto it gives it a strong female theme. I have seen the Keith Warner ring in person which is okay and where you see clips on Youtube.

I have also seen the awful Mariinsky ring conducted by Gergiev. This is a travelling Ring and if it turns up in your town make sure you avoid.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

jflatter said:


> I have also seen the awful Mariinsky ring conducted by Gergiev. This is a travelling Ring and if it turns up in your town make sure you avoid.


Is this making the rounds again??

From what I heard, the general comment was something like 
'why don't they abandon all pretense of stagecraft and just present it as an »in-concert« style event?'


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

On reflection, I think I'd have to go with Barenboim.


----------

