Review: Wilson's Worst Ever Daphnis et Chloë

Ravel: Daphnis et Chloë. Sinfonia of London, Sinfonia of London Chorus, John Wilson (cond.) Chandos

[robertclark]

Note to Simon Rattle and all future conductors: If you can't afford a chorus for Daphnis and Chloe, then don't schedule it! Its not worth it

[Listenerandlearner]

Boulez always did it wonderfully, utterly beautifully.

[herbiestrainsbands]

Wow Dave, another hilarious comedy act - if ever I feel down I turn to your chanel and your nonsense always give my day a lift!!! Keep it up!

[danielenot]

And the funny thing is that if you read Gramophone, literally every release is like the second coming of Jesus. I tried one of their most celebrated cd's and it was promptly discarded..

[matthewbbenton]

I can’t stop replaying 6:45. We don’t deserve you!

[ScottCulclasure]

Here’s what confuses me—sometimes there seems to be two camps of music reviews, those who are drawn to what Dave has to say, and those who like Gramophone, which often at odds with each other. How can David Gutman conclude in Gramophone that this is the best Daphnis in a generation, and Dave decide it’s a waste of plastic?! For me, a listener without a deep musical background, such extreme divergence is unsettling.

[gardenphoto]

Well, Dave, yet another critic - one Stephen Barber, by name, from MWI - mentioned your name (without mentioning it!) in regards to your dismissal of this thoroughly dismal and unlistenable rendition of Ravel's Daphnis. He concludes his frivolous and sophomoric review thusly: "This recording has been greeted with plaudits on many sides and brickbats from at least one. I am with the first group." Dave, when your "brickbat" shows signs of irreversible wear, I will personally buy you a new one! Your reviews have changed my listening-life BECAUSE you have chosen to beat the stuffing out of irrelevant recordings that richly deserve it. All the best! Mike D.

[garygary-tphc]

I have listened to this performance twice now and I don't know what to think of it. It certainly is different and I'll need some time with it. Wilson prepared a new edition of the score during the covid lockdown and I only have a copy of the Dover score so I am unable to listen and follow the score.

[OuterGalaxyLounge]

"Sounds like some sort of digestive problem, " is one of the greatest kiss-off review statements ever, lol.

[Jasper_the_Cat]

Haha Dave, someday in your honor I'll try to compose a little guitar piece called "Pancreas and Cilia"...lol.

[ME-qrhs]

I still enjoy my old RCA - Boston - Munch. Must have recorded this in the late 50’s.

[zevnikov]

Hahahaha. I 1000% agree. Dave as always sharp and honest.

[wappingbpy]

Just to note that John Wilson prepared his own edition of the score for this recording (doing so was his "Lockdown project") to correct numerous discrepancies between the published score, the manuscript score and the orchestral parts. This might explain some of the differences with what's in the Dover score (even the dynamics, as Wilson said some of those are different), although it certainly wouldn't explain all the problems Dave identifies with the performance (and is part of the problem that Mr Wilson just churns out too many recordings too quickly?). The November 2023 issue of The Magazine That No-one Likes has an interview with Wilson on his amendments to the published score and the reasons behind them.

[sdebacker]

This Album received a Gramophone this month so I had to listen to it after seeing this review on youtube. Well I couldn’t listen until the end. This has nothing to do with Ravel (I am French from Pays Basque). I immediately put Dutoit’s version on, but my preferences are still Monteux and Martinon. A fundamental question I have is how is it possible that professionals are getting it so wrong? I am talking about Wilson, but also the Gramophone person…

[richardwiley]

I heard this talked about on BBC's Record Review. They played some extracts, even from that I realised it's awful. It's a chorus of middle class dilettantes and an orchestra no better than a fine amateur band. I wonder what sort of ears these reviewers have.

[bernardley]

He's pretty good with English music, particularly of a lighter vein. Nothing wrong with sticking to that!

[robhaynes]

Daphnis has been one of my very favorite pieces for decades. I've listened to them all. Despite Wilson's extremely mixed output, I was rather excited to hear this one. I needn't have been. The sound is, as Dave mentioned, pretty lousy, unusually for Chandos. Ridiculous spot miking of, especially, the winds, showcasing the dry playing. The solo horn cracks multiple times. The ensemble playing is generally indifferent & lacking in the sensuousness & excitement the piece generates almost by default. It sounds like a runthrough by an orchestra unfamiliar with the work. After listening through once, I did A-B comparisons of the various sections the whole way through. My comparison was Abbado, whose recording is in my top ten, but not at my very peak. In literally every aspect, at every step of the way, Abbado was immeasurably superior, and the DG engineering was just right. I haven't listened to it yet since hearing Wilson's, but my recollection is that Tortelier, also on Chandos, was vastly better. So why did Chandos feel the need to duplicate their catalog? I don't know if this is the absolute worst Daphnis, but it's certainly in the running. A huge letdown.

[tatoarg]

I have to say, nothing captures my curiosity more than David destroying an album in a review. I automatically download and listen the record with some sort of malignity. And man he never got it wrong so far!

[berndbo]

Dave and the other: somebody knows about the son of Sanderling, Thomas Sanderling, which seems to have recorded al 4 symphonies around 1996 with the Philarmonia Orchestra ? Think it came out in Italy.

[MrJdaniel]

The dying, embarrassing Classical Court (courtesy Audio Asylum) is panning your review having clearly not watched it. One would think that Objectivity would be kryptonite to their Head-Patter in Chief, but no. And his sycophants are too weak to think for themselves.