Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Has anyone heard the new Gardiner BS5 and BS7?
327 views
Skip to first unread message
William Sommerwerck
Nov 17, 2012, 2:38:05 PM11/17/12
to
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?
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?
basnperson
Nov 17, 2012, 2:43:38 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 2:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
I must be really stupid. I am a lot older than the 2 above and I dont
even know what BS means ( in music).
AB
wrote:
even know what BS means ( in music).
AB
Norman Schwartz
Nov 17, 2012, 3:01:39 PM11/17/12
to
Beethoven's Symphony 5 and 7.
> AB
RVG
Nov 17, 2012, 3:04:15 PM11/17/12
to
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
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/artist/336871/regis-v.-gronoff
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
jrsnfld
Nov 17, 2012, 3:34:22 PM11/17/12
to
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
Gerard
Nov 17, 2012, 3:51:00 PM11/17/12
to
Gerard
Nov 17, 2012, 3:52:01 PM11/17/12
to
RVG <not....@themoment.invalid.org> typed:
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a �crit :
> 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.
> > 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.
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 4:09:57 PM11/17/12
to
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.
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 4:17:13 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a crit :
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.
> 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
> > 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.
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.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 17, 2012, 5:31:36 PM11/17/12
to
> 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
> 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?
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
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
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
Your musical perception is completely superficial.
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...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/arts/music/orchestre-revolutionnaire-et-romantique-at-carnegie-hall-review.html
Notice such remarks as...
"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.
Mark S
Nov 17, 2012, 7:06:27 PM11/17/12
to
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.
John Wiser
Nov 17, 2012, 7:26:48 PM11/17/12
to
"jrsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote -
> 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.
just my two zlotys
jdw
> 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.
when you've finished listening
to whatever Sekles you've got.
just my two zlotys
jdw
RVG
Nov 17, 2012, 8:13:54 PM11/17/12
to
Le 17/11/2012 21:52, Gerard a �crit :
Nope, only Bach and Vivaldi so far.
--
�Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.�
Ren� Char
--
�Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.�
Ren� Char
RVG
Nov 17, 2012, 8:14:38 PM11/17/12
to
Le 17/11/2012 22:17, M forever a �crit :
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
--
�Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
Ren� Char
Sol L. Siegel
Nov 17, 2012, 8:18:40 PM11/17/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> man had learned."
Now believed to be apocryphal, or at least spoken in a
third-person context:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
news:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
> man had learned."
third-person context:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Norman Schwartz
Nov 17, 2012, 8:29:21 PM11/17/12
to
RVG <not....@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>> man had learned."
>>
>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
I suppose he also considers the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique as a baroque
> Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
>> Mark Twain famously said "When I was 18, my father was the stupidest
>> creature alive. When I reached 21, I was amazed at how much the old
>> man had learned."
>>
>> I heard the end of the Fifth yesterday on KING FM, and my reaction
>> was the opposite of Twain's: "I was right all along."
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> I suppose Gardiner considers LvB as a baroque composer, which is about
> as sensible as considering Monteverdi a post-romantic.
composition.
--
Norman
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 8:49:16 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 8:18 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote innews:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
and other famous writers which then turn out to be apocryphal. I guess
it is just human nature to attribute smart quotes to famous people so
the quote automatically gains more authority. I always keep that in
mind when I read what Jesus allegedly said, according to people who
wrote about him decades or centuries later...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote innews:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > 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:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
It's interesting how many smart quotes are attributed to Mark Twain
> > 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:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
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...
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 8:49:34 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 8:29 pm, Norman Schwartz <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
Not at all. See my earlier reply to RVG.
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 8:50:48 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 8:14 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
Good reply, but you also just said you hadn't heard any of his
Beethoven - so what was that remark based on?
Beethoven - so what was that remark based on?
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 9:03:02 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 5:31 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
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...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/arts/music/orchestre-revolutionnair...
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.
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.
That's OK, you already went on record with some astonishingly
> > 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.
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.)
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...
>
>
> Notice such remarks as...
>
> "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
> Notice such remarks as...
>
> "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.
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.
M forever
Nov 17, 2012, 9:20:58 PM11/17/12
to
>
> > Notice such remarks as...
>
> > "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
> > Notice such remarks as...
>
> > "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.
"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.
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.
Matthew Silverstein
Nov 17, 2012, 10:05:43 PM11/17/12
to
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.
Matty
M forever
Nov 18, 2012, 12:17:23 AM11/18/12
to
On Nov 17, 10:05 pm, Matthew Silverstein
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.
<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
> 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.
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.
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 4:34:59 AM11/18/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
> > 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.)
Only you can explain why.
> > 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.)
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 4:26:28 AM11/18/12
to
Norman Schwartz <nm...@optonline.net> typed:
> RVG <not....@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
> > Le 17/11/2012 20:38, William Sommerwerck a écrit :
> RVG <not....@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.
Like his Janacek and Rachmaninov?
> > > 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.
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 4:33:17 AM11/18/12
to
Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
>
> "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.
There's nothing wrong with being surprised by recordings or performances of
pieces that have been played thousands of times. Sometimes the so-called "depth"
is more artificial than a "surprise".
>
>
> "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.
pieces that have been played thousands of times. Sometimes the so-called "depth"
is more artificial than a "surprise".
William Sommerwerck
Nov 18, 2012, 7:24:41 AM11/18/12
to
>>> 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.
Then , by that "reasoning", any performance is as good as any other. Or to
>>> 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.
express it in its negative sense -- one has no right to question any
conductor's (or performer's) stylistic choices.
<remarks snipped>
>> 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.
It does matter, because I wanted to hear other reactions. Gardiner appears
to be "growing up" -- at least with respect to Beethoven.
There ARE "wrong" ways to perform music -- among which is the "inflexible"
manner that Gardiner conducted the earlier Beethoven cycle in.
I've occasionally remarked about performances that changed my mind about the
quality of a piece, because the conductor (or performer) found a way to
present it that mitigates or removes what I consider "bad". I recommended
two performances of Puccini operas that I liked because "they didn't sound
like Puccini". I was politely criticized for that -- but don't remember MF
defending me, or taking my part against my critics.
One of the problems with music is that familiarity breeds staleness. It
would be wonderful if we could hear, say, the Eroica, from the perspective
of an early-19th century listener. "Strange" (and "rasping") are definitely
the way I would like to hear Beethoven.
I'm proud to be of German extraction -- except when I meet people like you.
And I'm not the only person in this group you respond to with such pointless
bluntness.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 18, 2012, 7:28:22 AM11/18/12
to
>> 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.
Thank you for answering the question I asked.
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.
I'll hold off on a purchase until I've had a chance to hear the entire
recording.
PS: I like unbuttoned.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 18, 2012, 7:44:09 AM11/18/12
to
> 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
> 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
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've said it before, and I'll say it again. Why don't you write a book? You
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.
could pick up where Leonard Bernstein left off: "A Musical Education for the
Musically Ignorant Listener". I'm not joking, and I'm not trying to be
ironic or sarcastic.
You have something worthwhile to contribute. Why don't you do it? I'll even
be your editor -- for free.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 18, 2012, 7:47:12 AM11/18/12
to
> 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.
Does this have any connection with the "old" practice of playing the left
> 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.
hand slightly ahead of the right? Given the greater mass of the
lower-pitched piano strings, it might take longer for them to reach full
volume. Ergo...
Lena
Nov 18, 2012, 9:01:10 AM11/18/12
to
On Nov 17, 7:05 pm, Matthew Silverstein
Thanks! Your taking the time to do this is appreciated... I was
pretty curious, since I like some things about Gardiner a lot (and a
couple of other things quite a bit less, but that's the way it goes)
-- so I'm interested in how his takes evolve.
L.
<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.
[.... good remarks cut for space...]
> 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.
Thanks! Your taking the time to do this is appreciated... I was
pretty curious, since I like some things about Gardiner a lot (and a
couple of other things quite a bit less, but that's the way it goes)
-- so I'm interested in how his takes evolve.
L.
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 10:21:07 AM11/18/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
Can you please make a clear difference between what has been quoted (and written
by someone else) and what has been written by yourself?
by someone else) and what has been written by yourself?
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 10:26:36 AM11/18/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
This is getting unreadable, because it is not clear *that* you quoted what was
written by someone else, and you don't mention *who* you are wquoting.
It all appears like it was written by you only.
written by someone else, and you don't mention *who* you are wquoting.
It all appears like it was written by you only.
William Sommerwerck
Nov 18, 2012, 11:08:01 AM11/18/12
to
>>> 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've said it before, and I'll say it again. Why don't you write a
>> book? You could pick up where Leonard Bernstein left off: "A Musical
>> Education for the Musically Ignorant Listener". I'm not joking, and
>> I'm not trying to be ironic or sarcastic.
>> You have something worthwhile to contribute. Why don't you do it?
>> I'll even be your editor -- for free.
> Can you please make a clear difference between what has been quoted
> (and written by someone else) and what has been written by yourself?
The problem is that my editor doesn't always add angle brackets -- and
>>> 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've said it before, and I'll say it again. Why don't you write a
>> book? You could pick up where Leonard Bernstein left off: "A Musical
>> Education for the Musically Ignorant Listener". I'm not joking, and
>> I'm not trying to be ironic or sarcastic.
>> You have something worthwhile to contribute. Why don't you do it?
>> I'll even be your editor -- for free.
> Can you please make a clear difference between what has been quoted
> (and written by someone else) and what has been written by yourself?
inserting them can get really annoying. The double-spacing is supposed to
indicate a change in writer.
Gerard
Nov 18, 2012, 11:12:56 AM11/18/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> typed:
----------------------------------------------
I have that same editor (I suppose) on a Windows 7 PC. Is there still no fix for
that problem?
A line (see above) would be clear. Double spacing is not.
I have that same editor (I suppose) on a Windows 7 PC. Is there still no fix for
that problem?
A line (see above) would be clear. Double spacing is not.
M forever
Nov 18, 2012, 12:00:15 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 7:24 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
don't understand the parameters by which it makes sense to judge
musical performances.
> Or to
> express it in its negative sense -- one has no right to question any
> conductor's (or performer's) stylistic choices.
Nonsense. You have the right to express opinions about anything. It's
a free internet.
You also have the right to be told that you have no clue what you are
talking about and that your opinions are therefore irrelevant and
worthless. All the more so since they are so sweeping and dramatic
while you don't even have the most basic knowledge and understanding
of music.
> <remarks snipped>
>
> >> 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.
>
> At least you understood what I was getting at.
>
> It does matter, because I wanted to hear other reactions. Gardiner appears
> to be "growing up" -- at least with respect to Beethoven.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, you won't be able to tell who has
"grown up with respect to Beethoven".
> There ARE "wrong" ways to perform music -- among which is the "inflexible"
> manner that Gardiner conducted the earlier Beethoven cycle in.
>
> I've occasionally remarked about performances that changed my mind about the
> quality of a piece, because the conductor (or performer) found a way to
> present it that mitigates or removes what I consider "bad". I recommended
> two performances of Puccini operas that I liked because "they didn't sound
> like Puccini". I was politely criticized for that -- but don't remember MF
> defending me, or taking my part against my critics.
Like I said before, you really should learn some of the basics of
music first, like reading music and understanding what composers
actually write in their scores, before you make sweeping judgments
about what is "good" and "bad" music and what are "good" and "bad"
performances.
> One of the problems with music is that familiarity breeds staleness. It
> would be wonderful if we could hear, say, the Eroica, from the perspective
> of an early-19th century listener. "Strange" (and "rasping") are definitely
> the way I would like to hear Beethoven.
>
> I'm proud to be of German extraction -- except when I meet people like you.
> And I'm not the only person in this group you respond to with such pointless
> bluntness.
Ah, here we go again, now you are angling for supporters with passive-
aggresive whining - this time with a little dose of nationalist
insults thrown in.
wrote:
> >>> 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.
>
> Then , by that "reasoning", any performance is as good as any other.
No, that's not what that means. What that means is that you simply
> >>> 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.
>
> Then , by that "reasoning", any performance is as good as any other.
don't understand the parameters by which it makes sense to judge
musical performances.
> Or to
> express it in its negative sense -- one has no right to question any
> conductor's (or performer's) stylistic choices.
a free internet.
You also have the right to be told that you have no clue what you are
talking about and that your opinions are therefore irrelevant and
worthless. All the more so since they are so sweeping and dramatic
while you don't even have the most basic knowledge and understanding
of music.
> <remarks snipped>
>
> >> 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.
>
> At least you understood what I was getting at.
>
> It does matter, because I wanted to hear other reactions. Gardiner appears
> to be "growing up" -- at least with respect to Beethoven.
"grown up with respect to Beethoven".
> There ARE "wrong" ways to perform music -- among which is the "inflexible"
> manner that Gardiner conducted the earlier Beethoven cycle in.
>
> I've occasionally remarked about performances that changed my mind about the
> quality of a piece, because the conductor (or performer) found a way to
> present it that mitigates or removes what I consider "bad". I recommended
> two performances of Puccini operas that I liked because "they didn't sound
> like Puccini". I was politely criticized for that -- but don't remember MF
> defending me, or taking my part against my critics.
music first, like reading music and understanding what composers
actually write in their scores, before you make sweeping judgments
about what is "good" and "bad" music and what are "good" and "bad"
performances.
> One of the problems with music is that familiarity breeds staleness. It
> would be wonderful if we could hear, say, the Eroica, from the perspective
> of an early-19th century listener. "Strange" (and "rasping") are definitely
> the way I would like to hear Beethoven.
>
> I'm proud to be of German extraction -- except when I meet people like you.
> And I'm not the only person in this group you respond to with such pointless
> bluntness.
aggresive whining - this time with a little dose of nationalist
insults thrown in.
M forever
Nov 18, 2012, 12:01:23 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 7:47 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Basically, yes. Although it is a little different with string sections
and whole orchestras than with the piano.
wrote:
and whole orchestras than with the piano.
Mark S
Nov 18, 2012, 12:36:10 PM11/18/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:20:58 PM UTC-8, M forever wrote:
>
> > "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.
Do you think B expected the Eroica to shock a person after they had heard it, oh, a thousand times? Do you think B expected musicians to be as shocked by the Eroica as the layman?
>
> > "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.
> > 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.
> 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.
You wrote that as if there's something wrong with preferring what you call meat-and-potatoes Beethoven. You know, the Beethoven one hears from Karajan, Bernstein, Szell, Furtwangler, Abbado, Böhm...do I need to go on?
>
> 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.
Chailly's Beethoven shocking? I wouldn't use that term to describe it.
Matthew Silverstein
Nov 18, 2012, 1:19:27 PM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:17:23 -0800 (PST), M forever wrote:
>> 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.
I'm talking about the first tutti of the Vivace -- starting at measure 88
>> 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.
in my B�renreiter edition. As the first violins and horns play what I think
of as the main theme, the trumpets, timpani, and double basses power the
music forward with the dotted rhythm that dominates so much of this
movement.
I did some comparative listening this evening, and I largely stand by what
I wrote. You're correct that the timpani and trumpets make more of an
impression on Gardiner's studio recording than the double basses do, but
the basses on Norrington's LCP recording are no better (and the trumpets
and timpani are nowhere near as effective). Speaking in terms of textures
and dynamics, I think Gardiner balances these bars better than any other
conductor I've heard. Even though the natural horns bray thrillingly, the
driving dotted rhythm in the timpani and trumpets really propels the
music. It's one of my favorite Beethoven moments, and I don't hear
anything nearly as exciting in Norrington's take on this passage. (Even on
Kleiber's recording, which I love, the timpani and trumpets are an
incoherent blur in this passage.)
Two other moments where the lower strings really make an impression on
Gardiner's Archiv recording come to mind. The first is the coda of the
first movement, starting at measure 401 and continuing up to the return of
the dotted rhythm in the full orchestra at measure 423. The lower strings
are admittedly more well defined on Norrington's recording, thanks largely
to the better recorded sound. But the cellos and double basses make much
more an impact in Gardiner's take on this passage. Gardiner manages the
long crescendo magnificently, and by the end the lower strings are really
growling. It's wonderful. The other moment is in the coda of the finale,
starting at measure 367. Again on Gardiner's recording, the groaning
double basses (playing without the cellos here), though somewhat muddy,
are wonderfully prominent, even up to the fff climax. Norrington doesn't
come close, and he certainly doesn't manage the crescendo to the fff
nealry as deftly as Gardiner does.
As I said, I love Gardiner's take on this music. His 7 is the one I would
take to the proverbial desert island. My tastes and preferences with
respect to this music obviously line up quite closely with his!
Matty
RVG
Nov 18, 2012, 2:19:04 PM11/18/12
to
Le 18/11/2012 02:50, M forever a �crit :
See, I didn't know that Monteverdi had recorded Beethoven !!! :D
--
�Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.�
Ren� Char
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/artist/336871/regis-v.-gronoff
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
> On Nov 17, 8:14 pm, RVG <not.h...@themoment.invalid.org> wrote:
>> Le 17/11/2012 22:17, M forever a �crit :
--
�Les mots qui vont surgir savent de nous des choses que nous ignorons
d'eux.�
Ren� Char
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/artist/336871/regis-v.-gronoff
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
Bob Harper
Nov 18, 2012, 7:24:23 PM11/18/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 11/17/12 5:18 PM, Sol L. Siegel wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck"<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
I've heard the same (or a similar) remark attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
In any case, it does express a truth.
Bob Harper
> "William Sommerwerck"<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:k88p36$vnn$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> 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."
>
>> 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:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
>
>
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
> third-person context:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
>
>
I've heard the same (or a similar) remark attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
In any case, it does express a truth.
Bob Harper
Mark S
Nov 19, 2012, 12:27:52 AM11/19/12
to matthew.s...@ymail.com
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:19:30 AM UTC-8, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> As I said, I love Gardiner's take on this music. His 7 is the one I would
>
> take to the proverbial desert island. My tastes and preferences with
>
> respect to this music obviously line up quite closely with his!
Different strokes for different folks.
>
> As I said, I love Gardiner's take on this music. His 7 is the one I would
>
> take to the proverbial desert island. My tastes and preferences with
>
> respect to this music obviously line up quite closely with his!
I dumped Gardiner's B set off long ago, but I still own the 5 & 7 as part of one of those DG compilation sets. I gave that disc a listen last summer after not having listened to JEG's Beethoven in over a decade.
It sucked. Absolutely sucked. There's just so much wrong with what he has his players do. To me, it's tepid Beethoven that lacks any sense of harmonic tension.
I was so aggravated by the end of that disc that I felt I needed a beer to recover...and at 11 in the morning.
John Wiser
Nov 19, 2012, 12:58:24 AM11/19/12
to
"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b6dfbd8-468e-43cc...@googlegroups.com...
Don't blame a recording
for your drinking problem, Mark.
jdw
news:6b6dfbd8-468e-43cc...@googlegroups.com...
for your drinking problem, Mark.
jdw
Mark S
Nov 19, 2012, 1:35:06 AM11/19/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:58:25 PM UTC-8, John Wiser wrote:
>
> Don't blame a recording
>
> for your drinking problem, Mark.
I wish I had a drinking problem.
>
> Don't blame a recording
>
> for your drinking problem, Mark.
I used to enjoy drinking quite a bit. It just went with living in NYC.
But then the kids came along, we moved out of NYC and I became the responsible designated driver for the family.
Nowadays, I have trouble finishing a 12-oz bottle. Worse, months go by at a time without having a single drink. I've sort of lost my taste for alcohol. Shit.
It really isn't much fun, I can tell you that!
Norman Schwartz
Nov 19, 2012, 12:52:36 PM11/19/12
to
anything wrong with them, but as I indicated elsewhere, I know as much
about Beethoven as he probably knows about Genetics. (As is widely known, I
could be wrong there too, since after all it took a cleric working in his
pea garden to set Science straight.)
I intend listening to #7 first. (I have both beer and an already opened
bottled of wine in the frig.)
Do his performances of the LvB piano concerti with Levin produce the same
adverse effects? Is it correct to assume that JEG's other recordings e.g.
the Schumann Symphonies and the Symphonie Fantastique meet with your
approval?
--
Normans
Mark S
Nov 19, 2012, 1:47:14 PM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:52:37 AM UTC-8, Norman Schwartz wrote:
> Do his performances of the LvB piano concerti with Levin produce the same
>
> adverse effects? Is it correct to assume that JEG's other recordings e.g.
>
> the Schumann Symphonies and the Symphonie Fantastique meet with your
>
> approval?
JEG's way of music making is anathema to my musical sensibilities.
> Do his performances of the LvB piano concerti with Levin produce the same
>
> adverse effects? Is it correct to assume that JEG's other recordings e.g.
>
> the Schumann Symphonies and the Symphonie Fantastique meet with your
>
> approval?
I found his Schumann to be lacking, even as I praised the players in his orchestra for their virtuosity (there was a protracted rmcr discussion of his Schumann upon the release of the CDs).
I imagine I've heard his Berlioz and the Beethoven concerti at some point, but they don't stick in my mind.
Ray Hall
Nov 19, 2012, 2:02:23 PM11/19/12
to
Mark S wrote:
>
> JEG's way of music making is anathema to my musical sensibilities.
>
> I found his Schumann to be lacking, even as I praised the
players in his orchestra for their virtuosity (there was a
protracted rmcr discussion of his Schumann upon the release of the CDs).
>
> I imagine I've heard his Berlioz and the Beethoven concerti
at some point, but they don't stick in my mind.
>
Have you heard his Bach cantatas, and if so what is your impression of
>
> JEG's way of music making is anathema to my musical sensibilities.
>
> I found his Schumann to be lacking, even as I praised the
players in his orchestra for their virtuosity (there was a
protracted rmcr discussion of his Schumann upon the release of the CDs).
>
> I imagine I've heard his Berlioz and the Beethoven concerti
at some point, but they don't stick in my mind.
>
them?
Thx.
Ray Hall, Taree
Bob Harper
Nov 19, 2012, 2:39:26 PM11/19/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Bob Harper
Mark S
Nov 19, 2012, 3:10:08 PM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:02:26 AM UTC-8, Ray Hall wrote:
> Have you heard his Bach cantatas, and if so what is your impression of
>
> them?
I find JEG's Bach particularly sterile. His Mass in B Minor and St Matt are unlistenable to me.
> Have you heard his Bach cantatas, and if so what is your impression of
>
> them?
I have the complete Harnoncourt/Leonhardt cantata set as well as the 75 Cantata set by Richter on Archiv. I have to say that I feel no urge to explore Bach's cantatas beyond those holdings, at least in any sense of looking at other complete or extended sets. I do have the odd one-off here and there, like the cantatas Gedda recorded on EMI, which I own for Gedda's spectacular singing.
Mark S
Nov 19, 2012, 3:12:57 PM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:39:28 AM UTC-8, Bob Harper wrote:
>
> > Nowadays, I have trouble finishing a 12-oz bottle. Worse, months go by at a time without having a single drink. I've sort of lost my taste for alcohol. Shit.
>
> >
>
> > It really isn't much fun, I can tell you that!
>
>
>
> Hmmm. That explains a lot, Mark :)
I always thought that one of the best things about being brought up Lutheran was that they let you go back for seconds and even thirds on the communion wine. The church I attended was in the Ohio Synod, so they drew the line at installing bar stools at the altar...
>
> > Nowadays, I have trouble finishing a 12-oz bottle. Worse, months go by at a time without having a single drink. I've sort of lost my taste for alcohol. Shit.
>
> >
>
> > It really isn't much fun, I can tell you that!
>
>
>
> Hmmm. That explains a lot, Mark :)
M forever
Nov 19, 2012, 8:27:43 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 1:19 pm, Matthew Silverstein
I can hear them quite well, but you are right, they are not quite as
distinctive as in Gardiner's recording. It's always good if someone
offers a concrete example for discussion, so I - very randomly -
sampled a few recordings for this passage, and the one that I found
that brought out trumpets, timpani and basses best was - oh horror! -
Karajan's 1977 recording...
> Two other moments where the lower strings really make an impression on
> Gardiner's Archiv recording come to mind. The first is the coda of the
> first movement, starting at measure 401 and continuing up to the return of
> the dotted rhythm in the full orchestra at measure 423. The lower strings
> are admittedly more well defined on Norrington's recording, thanks largely
> to the better recorded sound. But the cellos and double basses make much
> more an impact in Gardiner's take on this passage. Gardiner manages the
> long crescendo magnificently, and by the end the lower strings are really
> growling. It's wonderful. The other moment is in the coda of the finale,
> starting at measure 367. Again on Gardiner's recording, the groaning
> double basses (playing without the cellos here), though somewhat muddy,
> are wonderfully prominent, even up to the fff climax. Norrington doesn't
> come close, and he certainly doesn't manage the crescendo to the fff
> nealry as deftly as Gardiner does.
I can't really follow you here in either example. I don't find the
lower strings in Gardiner particularly prominent or even "groaning" in
either of the passages you quote...The one in the finale (I think you
mean the chromatic passage which slowly works its way down to the low
D#) is cello and bass unisono, BTW. I the passage of the end of the
first movement, I can hardly hear the basses. And again, it's
something I tend to pay attention to because of my former life. In
Kleiber, for instance, the passage at the end of the first movement is
much "groanier" - but then these aren't only modern 5-strings with
steel strings, they also play the passage an octave lower than is
written, a very common practice these days.
distinctive as in Gardiner's recording. It's always good if someone
offers a concrete example for discussion, so I - very randomly -
sampled a few recordings for this passage, and the one that I found
that brought out trumpets, timpani and basses best was - oh horror! -
Karajan's 1977 recording...
> Two other moments where the lower strings really make an impression on
> Gardiner's Archiv recording come to mind. The first is the coda of the
> first movement, starting at measure 401 and continuing up to the return of
> the dotted rhythm in the full orchestra at measure 423. The lower strings
> are admittedly more well defined on Norrington's recording, thanks largely
> to the better recorded sound. But the cellos and double basses make much
> more an impact in Gardiner's take on this passage. Gardiner manages the
> long crescendo magnificently, and by the end the lower strings are really
> growling. It's wonderful. The other moment is in the coda of the finale,
> starting at measure 367. Again on Gardiner's recording, the groaning
> double basses (playing without the cellos here), though somewhat muddy,
> are wonderfully prominent, even up to the fff climax. Norrington doesn't
> come close, and he certainly doesn't manage the crescendo to the fff
> nealry as deftly as Gardiner does.
lower strings in Gardiner particularly prominent or even "groaning" in
either of the passages you quote...The one in the finale (I think you
mean the chromatic passage which slowly works its way down to the low
D#) is cello and bass unisono, BTW. I the passage of the end of the
first movement, I can hardly hear the basses. And again, it's
something I tend to pay attention to because of my former life. In
Kleiber, for instance, the passage at the end of the first movement is
much "groanier" - but then these aren't only modern 5-strings with
steel strings, they also play the passage an octave lower than is
written, a very common practice these days.
Matthew Silverstein
Nov 19, 2012, 10:41:59 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:27:43 -0800 (PST), M forever wrote:
> I can hear them quite well, but you are right, they are not quite as
> distinctive as in Gardiner's recording. It's always good if someone
> offers a concrete example for discussion, so I - very randomly -
> sampled a few recordings for this passage, and the one that I found
> that brought out trumpets, timpani and basses best was - oh horror! -
> Karajan's 1977 recording...
That's interesting. I listened to Karajan '63, and I was somewhat
> I can hear them quite well, but you are right, they are not quite as
> distinctive as in Gardiner's recording. It's always good if someone
> offers a concrete example for discussion, so I - very randomly -
> sampled a few recordings for this passage, and the one that I found
> that brought out trumpets, timpani and basses best was - oh horror! -
> Karajan's 1977 recording...
disappointed by this passage. (I like the performance overall. I also like
the video from the 60s, although the strange layout of the orchestra takes
some getting used to!) The only recording from the 70s cycle I have is the
famous 9. Spotify has several Karajan Beethoven 7s, but I couldn't figure
out which (if any) is from that cycle.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
Nov 19, 2012, 10:56:50 PM11/19/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:41:59 +0400, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> That's interesting. I listened to Karajan '63, and I was somewhat
> disappointed by this passage. (I like the performance overall. I also like
> the video from the 60s, although the strange layout of the orchestra takes
> some getting used to!) The only recording from the 70s cycle I have is the
> famous 9. Spotify has several Karajan Beethoven 7s, but I couldn't figure
> out which (if any) is from that cycle.
Never mind. I found the 70s cycle on Spotify and just listened to the
> That's interesting. I listened to Karajan '63, and I was somewhat
> disappointed by this passage. (I like the performance overall. I also like
> the video from the 60s, although the strange layout of the orchestra takes
> some getting used to!) The only recording from the 70s cycle I have is the
> famous 9. Spotify has several Karajan Beethoven 7s, but I couldn't figure
> out which (if any) is from that cycle.
relevant passage in 7/i. The trumpets are certainly more prominent here
than on any other recording I sampled, and the timpani are plenty audible
as well. If it weren't for the bright trumpets cutting through the wall of
sound, though, the dotted rhythm would be rather difficult to pick out in
the drums and basses, perhaps because of the modern timpani playing in this
reverberent acoustic. What Gardiner achieves in this passage (and what I
enjoy so much) is the combination of presence and clarity. One other
disappointing feature of the Karajan is the backward balance of the horns.
The violins dominate the texture here, with the horns providing just a bit
of background color. (The 60s performance is no better in this respect.
Kleiber, on the other hand, is terrific.)
Now that I know that the whole 70s cycle is on Spotify, I'll have to set
aside some time to listen to it properly.
Matty
M forever
Nov 20, 2012, 10:05:39 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 10:42 pm, Matthew Silverstein
You should be able to tell the difference between the 63 and the two
later ones which themselves are harder to tell apart from each other
because they are musically very similar. The 80s one sounds quite a
bit brighter and "bangier" though. For instance, the high horn notes
in the first tutti in the finale are much more aggressive than in the
77 recording. The easiest way to tell though is to check the first
tutti in the first movement allegro that we talked about earlier. In
the 80s recording, one of the horns actually cracks the first note and
they left that unedited.
later ones which themselves are harder to tell apart from each other
because they are musically very similar. The 80s one sounds quite a
bit brighter and "bangier" though. For instance, the high horn notes
in the first tutti in the finale are much more aggressive than in the
77 recording. The easiest way to tell though is to check the first
tutti in the first movement allegro that we talked about earlier. In
the 80s recording, one of the horns actually cracks the first note and
they left that unedited.
M forever
Nov 20, 2012, 10:10:11 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 10:56 pm, Matthew Silverstein
How good is the sound quality on Spotify? Is it streaming audio like
Youtube?
BTW have you ever heard the 7th recorded by Jeffrey Tate and the
Staatskapelle Dresden? Tate had a brief recording career with EMI but
left a number of nice recordings. That 7th is a fairly stoic,
klemperian performance but one which I remember to have a lot of sonic
substance derived from very well balanced textures and a really
driving bass. But it's been a long time since I heard it and I don't
have access to the disc right now - so I have no idea exactly how he
handles those passages. But it is definitely a performance worth
checking out.
Youtube?
BTW have you ever heard the 7th recorded by Jeffrey Tate and the
Staatskapelle Dresden? Tate had a brief recording career with EMI but
left a number of nice recordings. That 7th is a fairly stoic,
klemperian performance but one which I remember to have a lot of sonic
substance derived from very well balanced textures and a really
driving bass. But it's been a long time since I heard it and I don't
have access to the disc right now - so I have no idea exactly how he
handles those passages. But it is definitely a performance worth
checking out.
Lena
Nov 20, 2012, 11:42:24 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 12:10 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:02:26 AM UTC-8, Ray Hall wrote:
> > Have you heard his Bach cantatas, and if so what is your impression of
>
> > them?
>
> I find JEG's Bach particularly sterile. His Mass in B Minor and St Matt are unlistenable to me.
(St. Matt? :) I won't ask. :) )
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:02:26 AM UTC-8, Ray Hall wrote:
> > Have you heard his Bach cantatas, and if so what is your impression of
>
> > them?
>
> I find JEG's Bach particularly sterile. His Mass in B Minor and St Matt are unlistenable to me.
Have you heard this?
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-BWV-225-231-Cantatas/dp/B000005E9X
Or:
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-J-S/dp/B007NUP6GS
Lena
Lena
Nov 20, 2012, 11:44:52 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 9:52 am, Norman Schwartz <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
the opinions?)
Lena (I think I've sometimes gotten fairly enebriated from Gardiner's
Bach BWV 50)
> Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:19:30 AM UTC-8, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> >> As I said, I love Gardiner's take on this music. His 7 is the one I would
>
> >> take to the proverbial desert island. My tastes and preferences with
>
> >> respect to this music obviously line up quite closely with his!
>
> > Different strokes for different folks.
>
> > I dumped Gardiner's B set off long ago, but I still own the 5 & 7 as part
> > of one of those DG compilation sets. I gave that disc a listen last
> > summer after not having listened to JEG's Beethoven in over a decade.
>
> > It sucked. Absolutely sucked. There's just so much wrong with what he has
> > his players do. To me, it's tepid Beethoven that lacks any sense of harmonic tension.
>
> > I was so aggravated by the end of that disc that I felt I needed a beer
> > to recover...and at 11 in the morning.
>
> I have all of the original Gardiner Beethoven Symphonies and never found
> anything wrong with them, but as I indicated elsewhere, I know as much
> about Beethoven as he probably knows about Genetics. (As is widely known, I
> could be wrong there too, since after all it took a cleric working in his
> pea garden to set Science straight.)
>
> I intend listening to #7 first. (I have both beer and an already opened
> bottled of wine in the frig.)
>
Let us know how it goes. :) (Do we need to be fortified to read
> > On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:19:30 AM UTC-8, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> >> As I said, I love Gardiner's take on this music. His 7 is the one I would
>
> >> take to the proverbial desert island. My tastes and preferences with
>
> >> respect to this music obviously line up quite closely with his!
>
> > Different strokes for different folks.
>
> > I dumped Gardiner's B set off long ago, but I still own the 5 & 7 as part
> > of one of those DG compilation sets. I gave that disc a listen last
> > summer after not having listened to JEG's Beethoven in over a decade.
>
> > It sucked. Absolutely sucked. There's just so much wrong with what he has
> > his players do. To me, it's tepid Beethoven that lacks any sense of harmonic tension.
>
> > I was so aggravated by the end of that disc that I felt I needed a beer
> > to recover...and at 11 in the morning.
>
> I have all of the original Gardiner Beethoven Symphonies and never found
> anything wrong with them, but as I indicated elsewhere, I know as much
> about Beethoven as he probably knows about Genetics. (As is widely known, I
> could be wrong there too, since after all it took a cleric working in his
> pea garden to set Science straight.)
>
> I intend listening to #7 first. (I have both beer and an already opened
> bottled of wine in the frig.)
>
the opinions?)
Lena (I think I've sometimes gotten fairly enebriated from Gardiner's
Bach BWV 50)
Mark S
Nov 20, 2012, 12:54:24 PM11/20/12
to
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:42:25 AM UTC-8, Lena wrote:
>
> Have you heard this?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-BWV-225-231-Cantatas/dp/B000005E9X
> Or:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-J-S/dp/B007NUP6GS
No. Haven't heard either of those JEG stabs at the motets.
>
> Have you heard this?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-BWV-225-231-Cantatas/dp/B000005E9X
> Or:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-J-S/dp/B007NUP6GS
I have Harnoncourt (very good), Schneidt (pretty good) and Ericson (not so good) in this rep.
BTW - I trained the chorus & small orchestra and conducted "Jesu, meine Freude" in my senior year at college. The second half of the concert was "Christ lag in Todesbanden." I also conducted "Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen" when my then-girlfriend sang it on her senior voice recital.
My biggest college "adventure" in Bach was when I was asked by Vance George (who was my conducting teacher/mentor at university) if I could muddle my way through the timpani part for a read-through he was doing of the Mass in B Minor. I agreed. There was a tremendous snow storm the evening of the read through, and his tenor soloist couldn't get down from Cleveland. I ended up singing the tenor solos and duets in addition to playing the timpani that night (I was NOT so good on the timpani!). Then, the alto wanted to leave early to deal with the snow, so I sang the "Angus Dei" in falsetto.
I'm sure ol JS was turning in his grave...
jrsnfld
Nov 20, 2012, 11:14:40 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 17, 4:30 pm, "John Wiser" <ceec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote -
>
> > 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.
>
> just my two zlotys
You're right! Pedestrian stuff, all the more so because some of the
themes are borrowed from or modeled on other sources. The music is
pleasant enough, but I'm not itching for any more Sekles.
--Jeff
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote -
>
> > 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.
>
> just my two zlotys
You're right! Pedestrian stuff, all the more so because some of the
themes are borrowed from or modeled on other sources. The music is
pleasant enough, but I'm not itching for any more Sekles.
--Jeff
Lena
Nov 21, 2012, 6:38:10 AM11/21/12
to
On Nov 20, 9:54 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:42:25 AM UTC-8, Lena wrote:
>
> > Have you heard this?
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-BWV-225-231-Cantatas/dp/B000005E9X
> > Or:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-J-S/dp/B007NUP6GS
>
> No. Haven't heard either of those JEG stabs at the motets.
OK. Though Gardiner has been working so arduously and long at Bach
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:42:25 AM UTC-8, Lena wrote:
>
> > Have you heard this?
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-BWV-225-231-Cantatas/dp/B000005E9X
> > Or:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Motets-J-S/dp/B007NUP6GS
>
> No. Haven't heard either of those JEG stabs at the motets.
that calling his recordings just "stabs" at the motets seems a little
disrespectful ( :) ) -- maybe you can call them the JEG "thorough
bludgeoning" of the motets, instead. :):)
> I have Harnoncourt (very good), Schneidt (pretty good) and Ericson (not so good) in this rep.
>
> BTW - I trained the chorus & small orchestra and conducted "Jesu, meine Freude" in my senior year at college. The second half of the concert was "Christ lag in Todesbanden." I also conducted "Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen" when my then-girlfriend sang it on her senior voice recital.
you're a singer (etc.). The idea here is not to convert anyone :) but
it's just a possibility that the motets might give you a more
palatable side of Gardiner. (Of the two discs, the new one -- the
one just decorated with Diapasons d'or :) -- is more 'refined'.)
>
> My biggest college "adventure" in Bach was when I was asked by Vance George
> I'm sure ol JS was turning in his grave...
Lena
Mark S
Nov 21, 2012, 9:51:36 AM11/21/12
to
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:38:11 AM UTC-8, Lena wrote:
>
> > No. Haven't heard either of those JEG stabs at the motets.
> OK. Though Gardiner has been working so arduously and long at Bach
>
> that calling his recordings just "stabs" at the motets seems a little
>
> disrespectful ( :) ) -- maybe you can call them the JEG "thorough
>
> bludgeoning" of the motets, instead. :):)
My use of the word "stab" was no accident. I hoped to convey my feeling that JEG sticks a dagger through what I consider to be the heart of Bach's music.
>
> > No. Haven't heard either of those JEG stabs at the motets.
> OK. Though Gardiner has been working so arduously and long at Bach
>
> that calling his recordings just "stabs" at the motets seems a little
>
> disrespectful ( :) ) -- maybe you can call them the JEG "thorough
>
> bludgeoning" of the motets, instead. :):)
As far as working long and arduously, so do washing machines.
M forever
Nov 21, 2012, 12:19:39 PM11/21/12
to
On Nov 18, 12:36 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:20:58 PM UTC-8, M forever wrote:
>
> > > "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.
>
> Do you think B expected the Eroica to shock a person after they had heard it, oh, a thousand times? Do you think B expected musicians to be as shocked by the Eroica as the layman?
>
I don't really know what Beethoven thought. Do you? I do suspect
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:20:58 PM UTC-8, M forever wrote:
>
> > > "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.
>
> Do you think B expected the Eroica to shock a person after they had heard it, oh, a thousand times? Do you think B expected musicians to be as shocked by the Eroica as the layman?
>
though that he wanted people to be somewhat shocked and stirred by the
music. After all, he was heavily influenced by the ideas and the music
of the French revolution. And those were shocking ideas for many at
the time. I still feel myself shocked by the intensity of the music,
when I am listening to an interpretation that doesn't dial down those
aspects of the score too much.
> > > 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.
> > 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.
>
> You wrote that as if there's something wrong with preferring what you call meat-and-potatoes Beethoven. You know, the Beethoven one hears from Karajan, Bernstein, Szell, Furtwangler, Abbado, Böhm...do I need to go on?
>
comes to Beethoven. But there is much more, Mark, much more...
> Chailly's Beethoven shocking? I wouldn't use that term to describe it.
that you had to process the experience by immediately posting long
reviews here and on Amazon, probably typing before you had even
finished listening to all of it. There is *a lot* of good stuff in
those recordings, so I think it's sad that your immediate allergic
reaction prevented you from processing it better. It showed that yes,
Beethoven can still be shocking and challenging even today.
Mark S
Nov 21, 2012, 12:48:16 PM11/21/12
to
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:19:39 AM UTC-8, M forever wrote:
> It showed that yes,
>
> Beethoven can still be shocking and challenging even today.
There's a distinction between Beethoven being shocking and a Beethoven *performance* being shocking.
> It showed that yes,
>
> Beethoven can still be shocking and challenging even today.
0 new messages