Bychkov/Czech Phil. M3 - I think this is a home run!

[John Kim]

Roland,

LOL!!^^

I hope I'm wrong about this, but it looks as though my reaction and his reaction to a new recording always seem - to borrow from Quantum Mechanics - 'entangled' each other. That is, if I like a recording I know immediately that he will dislike it, and vice versa. I am afraid hat's the feeling I had up until I saw his video review finally surfaced today. AND I was right!^

One really needs to turn the volume up to appreciate Bychkov's way with the score fairly and objectively. This is not only because Pentatone's recorded level is rather low (yes, you need to ramp the volume up!) but also there are so many subtleties and nuances in his reading as well as in the orchestra's execution that are worth paying extra attention. On a casual listening and at a low volume, these things won't come off well. I am surprised that a critic like DH who I thought were very keen on hearing small details and textural differences failed to capture them, notice them.

John

[Roland Flessner]

John, I just recall, as an example, DH making a survey of numerous recordings of the Prokofiev Fifth and declaring Neeme Järvi's to be his top choice. While I have a lot of respect for Järvi I find the SNO Chandos recordings hard to listen to: artificially reverberant, acidic, and sibilant. DH praised the tamtam toward the end of the first movement, but it's one of those shallow instruments that just sounds like a big cymbal, with no depth or complexity. Few recordings convey the power of that music but Slatkin/SLSO and Kitaenko/Gürzenich, for example, are so, so much better.

One could almost turn his recommendations upside down. If he doesn't like it, give it a fair chance; if he does, run away.

[John Kim]

Roland,

DH's top choice for Prokofiev 5th is Jarvi/SNO? I thought he really liked Karajan/BPO/DG? Yes, Chandos gave Jarvi sound that's way too artificially reverberant and echoey eschewing details.

John