Glad you like them!

The problem with Szell is that you might as well include him in just about any list of works that he recorded.

As I said below, I love the Honeck but I hesitate to add to the "permanent" pile until I listen some more to see how well it ages. I've been sitting on his "Eroica," which I think is one of the truly great ones, for almost a year now just to make sure I still hear what so impressed me on first listen. That's the problem with so much criticism--we have to listen and then write, but so often we feel differently later. With some titles, at least, I don't want to be rushed into making a decision.

David Hurwitz ...this should be a study for aesthetics, cognitive scientist, brain physiologist and psychologist etc. My colleague, who is one of the most important music critics in Poland, Oskar Łapeta (your subscriber also) makes very interesting and insightful guides to various works (recently Mahler's Symphony No. 2) and I know this problem from his example , although in his case, the sensations do not change that much (an issue to be examined by a brain physiologist maybe?) For me, who has lived with various works intensively for 25 years or more, changes in perception are happening with learning new approaches to selected music , it is a really complex process and I value the responsibility with which you approach your reviews process - cheers.Damian

Enjoy, and thank you!

I thought about Honeck and like it very much, but I just want to live with it a little longer to see how well it ages.

IMAO, they are primarily of historic interest, as Strauss was a curiously uninvolved performer of his own music, at least in his later years.

Damn right!

I don't know why anyone feels I don't "like" Furtwangler because I am critical of some of his recordings. In general, I think many of those that he actually authorized are superior. The problem is that there's a lot of unauthorized junk floating around that does not find him at his best, and that I strongly doubt he would have approved. To this extent, I feel that I am more respectful regarding his legacy, and a better defender of it, than many of his more rabid fans.

@@DavesClassicalGuide I understand, and agree. I got the sense of your dislike for him from your general praises for precision and literalism (specially for the likes of Szell and Toscanini). Furtwangler beign the greatest exponent against this type of interpretation, allied with some of your criticism towards him, made me think that you generally don't like his music.

@@juliodogpit Fair enough, but then I enjoy Beecham, Stokowski, Bernstein, and Scherchen, none of whom could be called "literalists" either. In general, I try to be open to a wide range of interpretive viewpoints, as long as they are realized successfully. Remember, it's not just the conductor's job to have ideas. Anyone can have ideas. He has to get the orchestra to implement them at the highest standard of which they are capable. That is a matter of professional competence, plain and simple.

Nothing special,

Sure!

Not impressed so far.

@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks...I completely agree, but I thought I might not have been appreciating what the the more glowing reviewers were getting from these cds...

Of course--a "grogger."

Very possibly!

@@DavesClassicalGuide I'd take it over Rosenkavalier...

The snares are muffled on purpose, and so indicated in the score. They are imitating something darker and more funereal for the judgment scene.

@@DavesClassicalGuide Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm glad Toscanini used snares, then - they heighten the tension.