He certainly isn't a boring conductor. Many of his New York Philharmonic recordings (he was very shrewd in what he chose to make with them) are very dashing. I think his Scriabin is forgotten about. When I first heard Act II of his Tosca it bowled me over; I must have heard this hundreds of times and it still does. I can only say that about a handful of recordings.
His Elgar Second came in for a particular lashing. One might assume that he only did this symphony for the CD. This is not true. He took it on tour in 1987 throughout Europe (including to Vienna) and, if I recall, to Japan. So, I think his interpretation of the symphony is a more considered one than is assumed.
And then there is what he might have conducted: Prokofiev 5, Shostakovich 8, 13 & 14, Symphonie fantastique (oh yes!), Tristan. Perhaps Rach 2, though I'm inclined to think he would have avoided this composer entirely. He would have been very suited to Messiaen. Boulez as well. I'm in two minds about whether the Rite of Spring would have been a success or a disaster under Sinopoli.
Bravo Marc Brindle for such a detailed and fascinating article. I have always been a great admirer of Sinopoli - especially when he takes me down interpretative paths that I don't expect. This article has prompted me to revisit many favourite recordings.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb