Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned."
I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had
> learned."
> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was the
> opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> Any comments?
I must be really stupid. I am a lot older than the 2 above and I dont
even know what BS means ( in music).
basnperson wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>> man had learned."
>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>> Any comments?
> I must be really stupid. I am a lot older than the 2 above and I dont
> even know what BS means ( in music).
Many times my stupidity amazes me. However I think the BS5 and BS7 means Beethoven's Symphony 5 and 7.
Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> man had learned."
> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> Any comments?
I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
--
«Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.»
René Char
> basnperson wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> >> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> >> man had learned."
> >> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> >> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> >> Any comments?
> > I must be really stupid. I am a lot older than the 2 above and I dont
> > even know what BS means ( in music).
> Many times my stupidity amazes me. However I think the BS5 and BS7 means
> Beethoven's Symphony 5 and 7.
In music, BS is usually Bedrich Smetana. However, his Opus 5 and 7 are
piano works, so I'm puzzled. There is also Bernhard Sekles (I just
bought my first CD of his music a couple weeks ago), but I don't know
what his Opus 5 and 7 are.
> On Nov 17, 12:01 pm, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > basnperson wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
> > > <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the
> > > > stupidest creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at
> > > > how much the old man had learned."
> > > > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my
> > > > reaction was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > > > Any comments?
> > > I must be really stupid. I am a lot older than the 2 above and I
> > > dont even know what BS means ( in music).
> > Many times my stupidity amazes me. However I think the BS5 and BS7
> > means Beethoven's Symphony 5 and 7.
> In music, BS is usually Bedrich Smetana. However, his Opus 5 and 7 are
> piano works, so I'm puzzled. There is also Bernhard Sekles (I just
> bought my first CD of his music a couple weeks ago), but I don't know
> what his Opus 5 and 7 are.
> --Jeff
Bill Schuman - curious that Gardiner performs his works.
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> > man had learned."
> > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> > was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > Any comments?
> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
You obviously didn't hear his earlier recordings of Beethoven symphonies.
On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had
> learned."
> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was the
> opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> Any comments?
Yes - I am not a big Gardiner fan at all, in fact, I do think that a
lot of his work is inflexible and somewhat dogmatic. I always thought
his Beethoven performances in particular lacked the lyrical nuances
and rhetoric power of the more insightful HIP efforts.
However, Gardiner still knows *infinitely* more about music and music
making in general and Beethoven in particular than you, a completely
ignorant and obtuse tin eared wannabee will ever hope to know. You
can't even read music. You can't process complex musical structures.
Your musical perception is completely superficial.
And - in the Twainian sense, you haven't reached 21 yet. You are more
like 14, maybe 15 at best.
On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> > man had learned."
> > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> > was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > Any comments?
> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
No, he doesn't. There is nothing in his work which suggests he
considers Beethoven "a baroque composer". The musical style he employs
in his Beethoven performances has little to do with the rhetoric style
he has based his performances of baroque music on. In fact, there is
also a marked difference between his performing styles for later 18th
century music and early 19th century repertoire. Which I personally
still am not really convinced by. I find his performances of the
baroque, and to a certain degree also the middle and later classical
period, more convincing than his work in the early romantic and later
19th century repertoire. But that is a different issue and discussion.
It is certainly clear that Gardiner does not see the music from all
these different periods all through just that one lense.
Besides, your comparison doesn't make sense because the baroque era
was long *before* Beethoven, while the post-romantic era was long
*after* Monteverdi.
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man
> had learned."
> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was
> the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> Any comments?
Yes -- I am not a big Gardiner fan at all, in fact, I do think that a
lot of his work is inflexible and somewhat dogmatic. I always thought
his Beethoven performances in particular lacked the lyrical nuances
and rhetoric power of the more insightful HIP efforts.
However, Gardiner still knows *infinitely* more about music and music
making in general and Beethoven in particular than you, a completely
ignorant and obtuse tin eared wannabe will ever hope to know. You
can't even read music. You can't process complex musical structures.
Your musical perception is completely superficial.
And -- in the Twainian sense, you haven't reached 21 yet. You are more
like 14, maybe 15 at best.
I would like to use some incredibly foul language, but will refrain.
If I'm so stupid -- musically -- why do I have a better understanding of how Beethoven "should" be performed than Gardiner? (That's not a rhetorical question.)
You're apparently not aware that Gardiner recently gave a New York performance of the 5th and 7th, which received outstanding reviews. Here's one...
"The demonic energy and heroic mien we associate with the Beethoven of legend was present and possessive."
"Fundamental to a gripping account of the Symphony No. 7 was Mr. Gardiner’s taut rhythmic conception, brilliantly negotiated by players light-years advanced over their forebears in the period-instrument revival in terms of security and style. The Allegretto was sinuous and haunting, the finale joyously visceral. And from fate’s knock at the onset of the Fifth Symphony — as close to a universally known gesture as anything in music history — Mr. Gardiner wrought Beethoven fresh and strange, with gutsy, brash and rasping instrumental voices united in triumph."
I interpret these remarks as a emphatic put-down of Gardiner's wretchedly perverse Beethoven cycle of 15+ years ago, that you correctly call "inflexible and ... dogmatic". The comments I was looking for -- which you cannot possibly provide, unless you've heard these performances (I've heard only part of one) -- concerned whether the new performances were a major improvement on the former. You have provided exactly zero useful data or opinion on that question.
> "The demonic energy and heroic mien we associate with the Beethoven of
> legend was present and possessive."
> "Fundamental to a gripping account of the Symphony No. 7 was Mr. Gardiner’s
> taut rhythmic conception, brilliantly negotiated by players light-years
> advanced over their forebears in the period-instrument revival in terms of
> security and style. The Allegretto was sinuous and haunting, the finale
> joyously visceral. And from fate’s knock at the onset of the Fifth
> Symphony — as close to a universally known gesture as anything in music
> history — Mr. Gardiner wrought Beethoven fresh and strange, with gutsy,
> brash and rasping instrumental voices united in triumph."
"Strange" and "rasping" are two descriptors I don't need to see applied to Beethoven performances.
I feel no need to be surprised by Beethoven to enjoy his music on a high level. The surprise happened years ago. One hopefully gets beyond needing to be surprised, and at a certain point in their listening career, starts looking for depth.
> In music, BS is usually Bedrich Smetana. However, his Opus 5 and 7 are
> piano works, so I'm puzzled. There is also Bernhard Sekles (I just
> bought my first CD of his music a couple weeks ago), but I don't know
> what his Opus 5 and 7 are.
I predict that you won't care when you've finished listening to whatever Sekles you've got.
> RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> typed:
>> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
>>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>>> man had learned."
>>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>>> Any comments?
>> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
>> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
> You obviously didn't hear his earlier recordings of Beethoven symphonies.
Nope, only Bach and Vivaldi so far.
--
Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons d'eux.
Ren Char
> On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
>> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
>>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>>> man had learned."
>>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>>> Any comments?
>> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
>> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
> No, he doesn't. There is nothing in his work which suggests he
> considers Beethoven "a baroque composer". The musical style he employs
> in his Beethoven performances has little to do with the rhetoric style
> he has based his performances of baroque music on. In fact, there is
> also a marked difference between his performing styles for later 18th
> century music and early 19th century repertoire. Which I personally
> still am not really convinced by. I find his performances of the
> baroque, and to a certain degree also the middle and later classical
> period, more convincing than his work in the early romantic and later
> 19th century repertoire. But that is a different issue and discussion.
> It is certainly clear that Gardiner does not see the music from all
> these different periods all through just that one lense.
> Besides, your comparison doesn't make sense because the baroque era
> was long *before* Beethoven, while the post-romantic era was long
> *after* Monteverdi.
Yes, but I think that Monteverdi was way ahead of his time. :)
--
Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons d'eux.
Ren Char
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> man had learned."
Now believed to be apocryphal, or at least spoken in a third-person context:
RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>> man had learned."
>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>> Any comments?
> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
I suppose he also considers the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique as a baroque
composition.
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> > man had learned."
> Now believed to be apocryphal, or at least spoken in a
> third-person context:
It's interesting how many smart quotes are attributed to Mark Twain
and other famous writers which then turn out to be apocryphal. I guess
it is just human nature to attribute smart quotes to famous people so
the quote automatically gains more authority. I always keep that in
mind when I read what Jesus allegedly said, according to people who
wrote about him decades or centuries later...
> RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> > Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
> >> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> >> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> >> man had learned."
> >> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> >> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> >> Any comments?
> > I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> > as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
> I suppose he also considers the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique as a baroque
> composition.
> > On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> >> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
> >>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> >>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> >>> man had learned."
> >>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> >>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> >>> Any comments?
> >> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> >> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
> > No, he doesn't. There is nothing in his work which suggests he
> > considers Beethoven "a baroque composer". The musical style he employs
> > in his Beethoven performances has little to do with the rhetoric style
> > he has based his performances of baroque music on. In fact, there is
> > also a marked difference between his performing styles for later 18th
> > century music and early 19th century repertoire. Which I personally
> > still am not really convinced by. I find his performances of the
> > baroque, and to a certain degree also the middle and later classical
> > period, more convincing than his work in the early romantic and later
> > 19th century repertoire. But that is a different issue and discussion.
> > It is certainly clear that Gardiner does not see the music from all
> > these different periods all through just that one lense.
> > Besides, your comparison doesn't make sense because the baroque era
> > was long *before* Beethoven, while the post-romantic era was long
> > *after* Monteverdi.
> Yes, but I think that Monteverdi was way ahead of his time. :)
Good reply, but you also just said you hadn't heard any of his
Beethoven - so what was that remark based on?
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man
> > had learned."
> > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was
> > the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > Any comments?
> Yes -- I am not a big Gardiner fan at all, in fact, I do think that a
> lot of his work is inflexible and somewhat dogmatic. I always thought
> his Beethoven performances in particular lacked the lyrical nuances
> and rhetoric power of the more insightful HIP efforts.
> However, Gardiner still knows *infinitely* more about music and music
> making in general and Beethoven in particular than you, a completely
> ignorant and obtuse tin eared wannabe will ever hope to know. You
> can't even read music. You can't process complex musical structures.
> Your musical perception is completely superficial.
> And -- in the Twainian sense, you haven't reached 21 yet. You are more
> like 14, maybe 15 at best.
> I would like to use some incredibly foul language, but will refrain.
That's OK, you already went on record with some astonishingly
psychotic outbursts about how you would like to blind me, smash in my
face, cripple my hands etc. What caused this newly found restraint?
Have you talked to a mental health professional in the meantime? Are
you making improvements?
> If I'm so stupid -- musically -- why do I have a better understanding of how
> Beethoven "should" be performed than Gardiner? (That's not a rhetorical
> question.)
You don't. You have no clue about how Beethoven "should" be performed.
That whole idea is nonsensical anyway. There is no "should" here. It's
a complex spectrum of stylistic and general musical choices none of
which you have even the most basic understanding of. I just asked if
you had gotten better, but I can see you are still completely
delusional. There is nothing about music that you even have the
potential of understanding better than Gardiner. You can't even read
music. You can't even read what Beethoven wrote. You have no idea
where what he wrote came from and how it fits in stylistically into
the development of music and musical performance practice.
> You're apparently not aware that Gardiner recently gave a New York
> performance of the 5th and 7th, which received outstanding reviews. Here's
> one...
> "The demonic energy and heroic mien we associate with the Beethoven of
> legend was present and possessive."
> "Fundamental to a gripping account of the Symphony No. 7 was Mr. Gardiner’s
> taut rhythmic conception, brilliantly negotiated by players light-years
> advanced over their forebears in the period-instrument revival in terms of
> security and style. The Allegretto was sinuous and haunting, the finale
> joyously visceral. And from fate’s knock at the onset of the Fifth
> Symphony — as close to a universally known gesture as anything in music
> history — Mr. Gardiner wrought Beethoven fresh and strange, with gutsy,
> brash and rasping instrumental voices united in triumph."
> I interpret these remarks as a emphatic put-down of Gardiner's wretchedly
> perverse Beethoven cycle of 15+ years ago, that you correctly call
> "inflexible and ... dogmatic". The comments I was looking for -- which you
> cannot possibly provide, unless you've heard these performances (I've heard
> only part of one) -- concerned whether the new performances were a major
> improvement on the former. You have provided exactly zero useful data or
> opinion on that question.
No, that's not what you talked about. You wanted confirmation that you
knew better than Gardiner all along, and it doesn't really matter in
this context what these new performances are really like. Nor does it
mean that he was utterly "wrong" before if he has changed his general
approach to the music. Which the above doesn't even necessarily imply.
I have seen many describe his DG cycle as "exciting" and "refreshing"
or similar things.
Still, people do develop, or simply change their mind about things,
sometimes just approach them from a different angle. This seems to be
something that is completely alien to you as a concept because you
come up with random ideas about things, decide that since you already
know everything about music, literature, art film etc there is nothing
you need or even can learn anymore, and that's why your "opinions"
never develop. And that's why I call you a mental 14-year old. Which
is kind of generous, I guess.
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:31:45 PM UTC-8, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man
> > > had learned."
> > > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was
> > > the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > > Any comments?
> > Yes -- I am not a big Gardiner fan at all, in fact, I do think that a
> > lot of his work is inflexible and somewhat dogmatic. I always thought
> > his Beethoven performances in particular lacked the lyrical nuances
> > and rhetoric power of the more insightful HIP efforts.
> > However, Gardiner still knows *infinitely* more about music and music
> > making in general and Beethoven in particular than you, a completely
> > ignorant and obtuse tin eared wannabe will ever hope to know. You
> > can't even read music. You can't process complex musical structures.
> > Your musical perception is completely superficial.
> > And -- in the Twainian sense, you haven't reached 21 yet. You are more
> > like 14, maybe 15 at best.
> > I would like to use some incredibly foul language, but will refrain.
> > If I'm so stupid -- musically -- why do I have a better understanding of how
> > Beethoven "should" be performed than Gardiner? (That's not a rhetorical
> > question.)
> > You're apparently not aware that Gardiner recently gave a New York
> > performance of the 5th and 7th, which received outstanding reviews. Here's
> > "The demonic energy and heroic mien we associate with the Beethoven of
> > legend was present and possessive."
> > "Fundamental to a gripping account of the Symphony No. 7 was Mr. Gardiner’s
> > taut rhythmic conception, brilliantly negotiated by players light-years
> > advanced over their forebears in the period-instrument revival in terms of
> > security and style. The Allegretto was sinuous and haunting, the finale
> > joyously visceral. And from fate’s knock at the onset of the Fifth
> > Symphony — as close to a universally known gesture as anything in music
> > history — Mr. Gardiner wrought Beethoven fresh and strange, with gutsy,
> > brash and rasping instrumental voices united in triumph."
> "Strange" and "rasping" are two descriptors I don't need to see applied to Beethoven performances.
Why not? A good case can be made that Beethoven wanted to "shock" and
"stir" his audiences, at least in some instances. The Eroica came as a
shock to many people, and many found it very strange and stirring. His
use of raw rhythmical forces, e.g. in the 7th symphony also challenged
many of his contemporaries and many conventional notions of what music
should be.
> I feel no need to be surprised by Beethoven to enjoy his music on a high level. The surprise happened years ago. One hopefully gets beyond needing to be surprised, and at a certain point in their listening career, starts looking for depth.
Very true, but then again, one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
But I think one should at least be ready to be "surprised", even
"shocked" - and sometimes, new insights into music may not come in the
form of "shocks" or "surprises". They may be much subtler but still
quite profound. In fact, some of the most profound "surprises" may be
the most subtle ones. As long as one is ready and willing to have
one's preconceived notions challenged or simply questioned.
To be honest, I don't see that to be the case with you as you don't
seem to be ready to accept musical challenges to your very
conventional "meat&potatoes" musicality, as we have recently seen in
the discussion of Chailly's Beethoven symphonies which seemed to shock
you a little, but you actually completely missed the subtle stylistic
insights offered by these.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:38:05 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had > learned."
> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was the > opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> Any comments?
Yes, I've heard the new disc. It's a recording of the Carnegie Hall
performance you mention elsewhere in this thread.
As many here know, I'm a huge fan of Gardiner's Beethoven cycle on Archiv,
and especially of the recordings of 5 and 7 in that cycle. So, readers who
generally dislike Gardiner may want to stop reading now.
The new recordings are quite similar in conception to the older ones. To my
ears, the biggest difference is that the outer movements of the newer 7 are
faster and somewhat more unbuttoned. (The new 7/i is among the fastest I've
ever heard.) Unfortunately, the recorded sound on the new disc is somewhat
muddy, especially in the lower frequencies. One of my favorite things of
Gardiner's first recording of 7 is the driving double basses and timpani
(with trumpets) underlying the main theme of the first movement. I have yet
to hear a recording that compares. The new Gardiner certainly doesn't.
Those instruments are basically inaudible here (though the natural horns do
bray wonderfully). The growling low strings in the coda of the finale are
also disappointing muddy. And speaking of the coda of the finale, I don't
think Gardiner manages the dynamics quite as well as he does on the studio
recording: the fff conclusion doesn't explode quite the way it should.
There are fewer differences between the two recordings of 5, although here
again I prefer the older one (also a live recording).
If I didn't already own and treasure the earlier Archiv recordings, these
new ones would almost certainly join my list of favorites. As it is, I'm
sure I'll keep them, but I don't know how frequently I'll listen to them.
<matthew.silverst...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:38:05 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had
> > learned."
> > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction was the
> > opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > Any comments?
> Yes, I've heard the new disc. It's a recording of the Carnegie Hall
> performance you mention elsewhere in this thread.
> As many here know, I'm a huge fan of Gardiner's Beethoven cycle on Archiv,
> and especially of the recordings of 5 and 7 in that cycle. So, readers who
> generally dislike Gardiner may want to stop reading now.
> The new recordings are quite similar in conception to the older ones. To my
> ears, the biggest difference is that the outer movements of the newer 7 are
> faster and somewhat more unbuttoned. (The new 7/i is among the fastest I've
> ever heard.) Unfortunately, the recorded sound on the new disc is somewhat
> muddy, especially in the lower frequencies. One of my favorite things of
> Gardiner's first recording of 7 is the driving double basses and timpani
> (with trumpets) underlying the main theme of the first movement.
Really? You are obviously talking about the allegro here - and while
the trumpets and timpani are certainly audible, I find the basses
seriously underpowered and underarticulated here - and in fact in most
of the cycle. That is a detail I maybe pay a little more attention to
than most since I used to play the bass myself. I can easily think of
a number of performances in which the basses have much more drive here
and throughout the whole movement, e.g. C.Kleiber or Wand - but these
are modern orchestras with modern, big string sections and big 5-
string basses, so the comparison isn't quite valid, I guess. C.Kleiber
is exemplary in the way he sustains the building up of the long
crescendi going through both the dotted rhythms and the held notes in
the development, not just in the basses, but in the whole string
section.
When it comes to period bands, Norrington's LCP recordings have much
more "bass power". And that has little to do with the players because
quite a few of them were the same people. It has more to do with
Gardiner's very stiff, very exact, metronomically "on the click" style
of conducting which makes it very hard for the period basses with gut
strings which don't speak easily to develop the full tone in time.
Which is why a lot of the time, they just play along in the Gardiner
cycle, while Norrington's more flexible way of conducting in which the
musicians played more by ear and the ensemble was allowed that little
delay in the "microtiming", the basses are able to develop their sound
much better.
> I have yet
> to hear a recording that compares. The new Gardiner certainly doesn't.
> Those instruments are basically inaudible here (though the natural horns do
> bray wonderfully). The growling low strings in the coda of the finale are
> also disappointing muddy. And speaking of the coda of the finale, I don't
> think Gardiner manages the dynamics quite as well as he does on the studio
> recording: the fff conclusion doesn't explode quite the way it should.
> There are fewer differences between the two recordings of 5, although here
> again I prefer the older one (also a live recording).
> If I didn't already own and treasure the earlier Archiv recordings, these
> new ones would almost certainly join my list of favorites. As it is, I'm
> sure I'll keep them, but I don't know how frequently I'll listen to them.
> > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> > creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> > man had learned."
> > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> > was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > Any comments?
> Yes -- I am not a big Gardiner fan at all, in fact, I do think that a
> lot of his work is inflexible and somewhat dogmatic. I always thought
> his Beethoven performances in particular lacked the lyrical nuances
> and rhetoric power of the more insightful HIP efforts.
> However, Gardiner still knows *infinitely* more about music and music
> making in general and Beethoven in particular than you, a completely
> ignorant and obtuse tin eared wannabe will ever hope to know. You
> can't even read music. You can't process complex musical structures.
> Your musical perception is completely superficial.
> And -- in the Twainian sense, you haven't reached 21 yet. You are more
> like 14, maybe 15 at best.
> I would like to use some incredibly foul language, but will refrain.
> If I'm so stupid -- musically -- why do I have a better understanding
> of how Beethoven "should" be performed than Gardiner? (That's not a
> rhetorical question.)
> RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> > Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
> > > Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the
> > > stupidest creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how
> > > much the old man had learned."
> > > I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
> > > was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
> > > Any comments?
> > I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is
> > about as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
> I suppose he also considers the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique as a
> baroque composition.
