Could a better recording save it?
KARL F. KOOPMANN | midwest | 05/03/2006
(2 out of 5 stars)
"for starters, the performance was recorded in a large cathedral, and it sounds as if it was miked about halfway back; there is a lack of clarity throughout and no stereo spectrum to speak of. if there are any significant dynamic contours in the piece(s), they are not evident in this recording. many sounds get all but washed out by the huge room; only the most deliberate articulations are not hopelessly lost in reverberation. these recording-quality factors probably somewhat taint my impression of the piece, but for what it's worth, i thought it was directionless, uninteresting, in some moments badly executed, and overall largely silly. i don't know if it is intended as a 'serious' work --the title itself could certainly suggest a tongue-in-cheek hyperbole that would be consistent with the sort of eccentricity chambers' works are known for-- but it certainly has the scale, personnel, and presentation of one, and as such, it falls quite short. it's probably worth a second listen, though, to make sure i didn't miss something remarkable that got sucked up into the... er, 'mix'. or maybe the joke is just lost on me?"