Rene Jacobs' Prague on HM - Sorry, But This Sucks
mark
(Freiburg Baroque Orchestra).
What piece of shit interpretation! Incessant banging without a shred
of nuance. This hardly qualifies as music.
I'm sorry, but never having heard this guy's Mozart before, I was
absolutely shocked at how crappy and unmusical it is.
What a joke.
wkasimer
De gustibus and all that...this is one of my favorite recordings of
the Prague.
Bill
Gerard
Right. I have that recording, but I don't remember anything of the
qualifications ("piece of shit", "crappy", "unmusical") by mark as appropriate.
(I will listen again soon.)
Matthew Silverstein
Which recordings of Mozart 38 are your favorites, Mark?
Matty
mark
wrote:
After this hearing, any recording not led by Rene Jacobs.
I like any number of approaches to Mozart. I like some of the big band
approaches as well as the chamber orchestra approaches.
I think my point is that Jacobs displays a lack of musicality in this
recording that would ill serve any other piece of music he cared to
butcher. I see that this is a recommended recording in some quarters.
No accounting for taste.
It's the kind of recording that an anarchist might approve of, sitting
around and giggling in delight as the norms of society come crashing
down.
But to what end?
jrsnfld
It's funny, but just last week the person who sits next to me in
orchestra turned to me and whispered. "Have you heard Jacobs' Mozart
symphonies? I just bought them, and I think they make every other
recording sound inadequate. Everything fits so well together,
stylistically. Is there anyone else who understands Mozart as well as
Jacobs?"
I've heard most of Jacobs' Mozart recordings, including this one I
think, and I must say I enjoy them for many reasons, but I was taken
aback by how completely sold my friend was by this new listening
experience. I'm not about to throw away Walter/Vienna, for example,
just because there's yet another way to approach Mozart.
--Jeff
mandryka
Hey -- it's Colonel Blimp!
I hate to think what he would say about really bad Pragues. Maag's
painfully slow one for example.
The Jacobs recording is one of my favourites in fact. It is elegant
and amusing comedy.
Ray Hall
I'm glad someone has finally said it. I thought it was me.
Ray Hall, Taree
Matthew Silverstein
> After this hearing, any recording not led by Rene Jacobs.
>
> I like any number of approaches to Mozart. I like some of the big band
> approaches as well as the chamber orchestra approaches.
Such as? What are you favorites?
> I think my point is that Jacobs displays a lack of musicality in this
> recording that would ill serve any other piece of music he cared to
> butcher.
I wonder what you'd think of his Cosi fan tutte.
> It's the kind of recording that an anarchist might approve of, sitting
> around and giggling in delight as the norms of society come crashing
> down.
What a silly thing to say. What sorts of recordings would, say, a Marxist
approve of? How about a libertarian?
Matty
Gerard
> On Nov 4, 9:01 pm, Matthew Silverstein <msilverz-l...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:01:32 -0700 (PDT), mark wrote:
> > > KUSC is playing Rene Jacobs HM recording of Mozart's Prague right
> > > now (Freiburg Baroque Orchestra).
> >
> > > What piece of shit interpretation! Incessant banging without a
> > > shred of nuance. This hardly qualifies as music.
> >
> > > I'm sorry, but never having heard this guy's Mozart before, I was
> > > absolutely shocked at how crappy and unmusical it is.
> >
> > Which recordings of Mozart 38 are your favorites, Mark?
> >
> > Matty
>
>
> After this hearing, any recording not led by Rene Jacobs.
I'm listening to it right now.
This is splendid stuff. How I would like to have more recordings of Mozart's
symphonies.
But Hurwitz agrees with you - on another recording (of # 39 and 40):
"Seldom has so much obvious talent and skill resulted in such unstylish, even
perverse results. The Freiburger Barockorchester continues to impress as the
ugliest ensemble, tonally speaking, on disc."
"It's played with little or no vibrato, all of its repeats, and is so
inexpressive and mechanically paced, so far removed from period style, heck,
from basic musicality, that it's shocking. Listening is a punishment."
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12644
>
> I like any number of approaches to Mozart. I like some of the big band
> approaches as well as the chamber orchestra approaches.
Obviously not "any number".
>
> I think my point is that Jacobs displays a lack of musicality
The fact that you don't like it, does not prove such a lack of musicality with
Jacobs.
> in this
> recording that would ill serve any other piece of music he cared to
> butcher. I see that this is a recommended recording in some quarters.
> No accounting for taste.
Just your taste, probably.
>
> It's the kind of recording that an anarchist might approve of, sitting
> around and giggling in delight as the norms of society come crashing
> down.
>
"The norms of society"? Which society?
Is that how Mozart symphonies should be played?
Christopher Webber
polarised lack of consensus as Jacobs/Mozart evokes, and that in itself
may be the most pertinent thing to be said about them. Perhaps they'll
be flashing meteors than long-term sources of heat and light.
I should admit that I'm firmly in the negative camp: these days I need
to take my Mozart in HIP form, but I find his performances of the
symphonies and operas pushy, mechanical, coarse and self-consciously
"interpreted" in a way which robs these particular pieces of the ease
and spontaneity - the sheer artistry - which makes this music so
compelling. Jacobs seems very neo-romantic to me, so stylistically
unfocused too.
BUT more important, I think, is the positive, refreshing experience
Jacobs's clearly provides for so many other Mozartians. I wish I could
hear what they do.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
http://www.zarzuela.net
William Sommerwerck
> polarised lack of consensus as Jacobs/Mozart evokes, and that in itself
> may be the most pertinent thing to be said about them. Perhaps they'll
> be flashing meteors than long-term sources of heat and light.
> I should admit that I'm firmly in the negative camp: these days I need
> to take my Mozart in HIP form, but I find his performances of the
> symphonies and operas pushy, mechanical, coarse and self-consciously
> "interpreted" in a way which robs these particular pieces of the ease
> and spontaneity - the sheer artistry - which makes this music so
> compelling. Jacobs seems very neo-romantic to me, so stylistically
> unfocused too.
> BUT more important, I think, is the positive, refreshing experience
> Jacobs's clearly provides for so many other Mozartians. I wish I could
> hear what they do.
I am firmly in the pro-Jacobs camp -- with respect to Mozart's operas. I
understand why some people feel Jacobs is "pushy" and "unmusical" in them --
he's getting away from what has become the convention of aria - recitative -
aria - recitative - aria, ad infinitum, to a /theatrical/ presentation, in
which the opera is performed in a "continuous" fashion (does anyone have a
better word?), as if it were a /play/.
This was a revelation when I heard "Figaro". (The terrific /acting/ from the
singers didn't hurt, either.) Listening to the other operas, including
"Clemenza", hasn't changed my mind.
Now, whether this approach works with the symphonies -- /if/ that's actually
what he's doing -- is another matter. I'm looking forward to hearing
them -- with an open mind. Mackerras butchered the Mozart symphonies in his
Telarc set, so if Jacobs does the same, he will hardly be the first.
Gerard
>
> Now, whether this approach works with the symphonies -- /if/ that's
> actually what he's doing -- is another matter. I'm looking forward
> to hearing
> them -- with an open mind. Mackerras butchered the Mozart symphonies
> in his Telarc set, so if Jacobs does the same, he will hardly be the
> first.
Compared to others (like Harnoncourt, Pinnock, Fey, Norrington etc.) Mackerras
did not "butcher" anything, not al all. Surely not in his Telarc set.
But maybe I don't understand your "butcher".
William Sommerwerck
>> /if/ that's actually what he's doing -- is another matter. I'm
>> looking forward to hearing them -- with an open mind.
>> Mackerras butchered the Mozart symphonies in his Telarc
>> set, so if Jacobs does the same, he will hardly be the first.
> Compared to others (like Harnoncourt, Pinnock, Fey, Norrington,
> etc) Mackerras did not "butcher" anything, not al all. Surely not
> in his Telarc set. But maybe I don't understand your "butcher".
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
Mackerras rushes through the works, as if he's try to finish one so he can
get to the next. They are charmless.
Back in the 70s, I remember one critic writing that we'd finally gotten past
the point of "Delft china" performances of Mozart. But it's possible to
perform Mozart in such a vigorous fashion that the subtlety is lost.
Mozart considered himself first and foremost an opera composer, and it seems
to me that that has to a major factor informing performances of all his
music.
Gerard
I've seen such visions before. (And sometimes it was about Mozart being a
composer of "music drama.)
But it did not convince me". Some of his music: yes. But not all.
I have those Telarc recordings by Mackerras since long. Never I got the
impression that he was charmless (on the contrary) or that he was rushing
something. And even if he did rush a little: in what way is that different from
opera, of from 'music drama'?
William Sommerwerck
>> it seems to me that that has to a major factor informing performances
>> of all his music.
> I've seen such visions before. (And sometimes it was about Mozart
> being a composer of "music drama".)
> But it did not convince me". Some of his music: yes. But not all.
The point is that it should be a consideration -- not an inviolable point of
interpretation.
> I have those Telarc recordings by Mackerras since long. Never I got the
> impression that he was charmless (on the contrary) or that he was rushing
> something. And even if he did rush a little: in what way is that different
from
> opera, of from 'music drama'?
I might pull some out later and listen again.
Andrej Kluge
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I should admit that I'm firmly in the negative camp: these days I
>> need to take my Mozart in HIP form, but I find his performances of
>> the symphonies and operas pushy, mechanical, coarse and
>> self-consciously "interpreted" in a way which robs these particular
>> pieces of the ease and spontaneity - the sheer artistry - which
>> makes this music so compelling. Jacobs seems very neo-romantic to
>> me, so stylistically unfocused too.
[..]
>
> I am firmly in the pro-Jacobs camp -- with respect to Mozart's
> operas. I understand why some people feel Jacobs is "pushy" and
> "unmusical" in them -- he's getting away from what has become the
> convention of aria - recitative - aria - recitative - aria, ad
> infinitum, to a /theatrical/ presentation, in which the opera is
> performed in a "continuous" fashion (does anyone have a better
> word?), as if it were a /play/.
Reading this thread I wonder what you folks thought of Hogwood's approach
back then -- his style is very similar to Jacob's (if not a tick more
extreme), but I can't remember any discussions of *his* Mozart symphonies
here.
Ciao
AK
Bob Lombard
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ib159d$h0r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Compared to others (like Harnoncourt, Pinnock, Fey, Norrington,
>> etc) Mackerras did not "butcher" anything, not al all. Surely not
>> in his Telarc set. But maybe I don't understand your "butcher".
>
> Perhaps I should have been more specific.
>
> Mackerras rushes through the works, as if he's try to finish one so he can
> get to the next. They are charmless.
YMMV
>
> Back in the 70s, I remember one critic writing that we'd finally gotten
> past
> the point of "Delft china" performances of Mozart. But it's possible to
> perform Mozart in such a vigorous fashion that the subtlety is lost.
>
> Mozart considered himself first and foremost an opera composer, and it
> seems
> to me that that has to a major factor informing performances of all his
> music.
>
That is an often useful guideline for many of his 'mature' works, and most
of the concerti after Kv.271. It doesn't work for me in his symphonies
though. Come to think on it, Mahler's are the earliest that come to mind
that could be said to contain instrumental arias.
bl
Gerard
>
> Reading this thread I wonder what you folks thought of Hogwood's
> approach back then -- his style is very similar to Jacob's (if not a
> tick more extreme), but I can't remember any discussions of *his*
> Mozart symphonies here.
>
Maybe not real discussions. But I remember having seen some appreciation
different times here.
I think of Hogwood's recordings as pioneer trials; he has made the first HIP
recordings of Mozart's symphonies, IIRC. But it has be done "better" by others
later.
Gerard
I don't think that William meant operas being just compilations of arias.
Bob Lombard
"Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7613e$4cd42245$53565cf2$31...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
bl
Gerard
I don't know (I'm not an opera expert at all). But aren't there operas without
arias?
Bob Lombard
> Bob Lombard wrote:
With 'recitatives' instead? Jeez, I hope not.
bl
weary flake
Judging a recording by what you hear on the radio, is
that the joke? Don't all radio shows suffer a completely
compressed dynamic range? You didn't really hear the
recording if you only heard it on radio.
Matthew Silverstein
> Reading this thread I wonder what you folks thought of Hogwood's approach
> back then -- his style is very similar to Jacob's (if not a tick more
> extreme), but I can't remember any discussions of *his* Mozart symphonies
> here.
Why do you think that Hogwood's style is like Jacobs'? Hogwood's
performances contain none of the rubato, sudden dynamic changes, strongly
characterized phrasing, and prominent horns and timpani that are found in
Jacobs' performances.
I don't always like what Jacobs' does in the symphonies. Some his
interpretive moves strike me as fussy, especially in 38. I love his Mozart
opera recordings, though. His *Cosi* is one of my desert island discs.
Matty
mandryka
Mackerras's Teldec set.
I have the Linn set -- but I haven't had it long. What do people think
of his symphonies with SCO?
William Sommerwerck
>> and most of the concerti after Kv.271. It doesn't work for me in his
>> symphonies though. Come to think on it, Mahler's are the earliest
>> that come to mind that could be said to contain instrumental arias.
> I don't think that William meant operas being just compilations of arias.
Exactly. We're talking in general terms.
Some years back I was given a binaural recording of Mozart piano concertos
from some unknown pianist. They weren't very good. I contrasted them with
the Perahia set (there are other good performances, of course), and the
difference was striking. Perahia caught the "singing" quality of the music,
which the other pianist missed.
William Sommerwerck
> there operas without arias?
The later works of He Who Must Not Be Named are largely aria-free.
mark
How silly.
Once one steps outside of an actual concert hall where music is being
performed live, one is dealing with a compressed dynamic range. In
fact, one is dealing with what can at best be called a representation
of a real musical experience.
The best-engineered recordings played back on the best sound system
can't match the live experience. Most people don't own the best sound
system possible, so they listen on their system and make an adjustment
in their perception of the listening experience. As one moves further
down the chain of less-than-best sound reproduction systems, they
continue to make adjustments. Are you saying that FM stereo radio is a
totally inadequate medium for judging sound recordings?
And apparently, one need not hear the particular recording under
discussion to have the experience that I had of Jacobs' Mozart. The
comments of David Hurwitz and Christopher Webber that are quoted/
offered in this thread are spot on when it comes to what I experienced
in Jacobs' Mozart. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Andrej Kluge
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:20:00 +0100, Andrej Kluge wrote:
>
>> Reading this thread I wonder what you folks thought of Hogwood's
>> approach back then -- his style is very similar to Jacob's (if not
>> a tick more extreme), but I can't remember any discussions of
>> *his* Mozart symphonies here.
>
> Why do you think that Hogwood's style is like Jacobs'? Hogwood's
> performances contain none of the rubato, sudden dynamic changes,
> strongly characterized phrasing, and prominent horns and timpani
> that are found in Jacobs' performances.
Well, yes, I don't have the Jacobs recording here, I was merely judging from
the online samples I found. No way to go into details here, but the overall
impression was fairly similar -- bold, lean, fast, no vibrato, bot not like,
say, Tafelmusik (Weill), Harnoncourt, G�bel, Pinnock or Norrington.
Ciao
AK
Greg
Excellent, certainly better (and much better recorded) than his Telarc
recordings, and better than Jacobs as well. (My reaction to the
Jacobs Mozart symphonies is pretty much the same as Matty's.)
Mackerras/SCO is not quite a first choice for me in any the later
symphonies (35-41), but a few of them would probably make my top 5 or
so (36,39,40). 35 is the only one I was a little disappointed by.
His 29 may be a first choice, or at least it would be a co-favorite
with one or two others. I need to listen to his 31 and 32 again
before I would rate them against the competition.
Greg
Andrej Kluge
And who would be "He"? (not thinking of Barry Trotter)
Ciao
AK
Matthew Silverstein
> Well, yes, I don't have the Jacobs recording here, I was merely judging from
> the online samples I found. No way to go into details here, but the overall
> impression was fairly similar -- bold, lean, fast, no vibrato, bot not like,
> say, Tafelmusik (Weill), Harnoncourt, Göbel, Pinnock or Norrington.
I don't recall much in the way of boldness in Hogwood's Mozart, but I admit
it's been years since I last heard any of it.
Matty
Christopher Webber
>> I don't know (I'm not an opera expert at all). But aren't there operas
>> without
>> arias?
>>
>With 'recitatives' instead? Jeez, I hope not.
It depends what you mean. *Symphonic* opera has a long and glorious
tradition, and Wagner certainly *aimed* to write opera which came as
close to a fair balance between words and music as possible - the
closest he got to that ideal was "Das Rheingold" after which he
back-pedaled considerably.
Although of course the early Florentines pursued a recitative-based
style, the Russians Dargomyzhsky and Rimsky pioneered free form,
"recitative" romantic opera. The former perhaps needs a knowledge of
Russian in the listener to make his full effect, but Rimsky's "Mozart
and Salieri" is a masterpiece, without an aria or arioso in sight.
Andrej Kluge
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> I don't recall much in the way of boldness in Hogwood's Mozart
Really? Maybe my conception of "boldness" differs from yours (not being an
english native)
Ciao
AK
weary flake
I made no claim that all compression is bad, but noted that radio
tends to EXTREME dynamic compression. I don't know the recordings
in reference, but I would gather from already partly dynamically
compressed sound samples from amazon that the music would suffer
from the extreme dynamic compression that radio stations like, re:
"Incessant banging without a shred of nuance" sounds an awfully lot
like a case of a dynamic recording compressed to lifelessness by
radio.
William Sommerwerck
> sound system can't match the live experience.
They can come close. Stop by some time.
KING FM used to compress their audio so severely that it was plainly
audible. They eventually stopped it -- or switched to some system that isn't
particularly audible.
mark
wrote:
Nobody said it couldn't come close. That's not the same as matching.
As long as we're on the subject, live performances and recordings are
very different things. There are some recordings that one could say
sound "better" than does music in a concert hall, but that's because
such recordings shift the goalposts in the discussion. They achieve a
different sound/perspective that has it's own charms, and that some
people may prefer to the live experience.
Case in point are some of the Beethoven symphonies. I've heard the 6th
a number of times live, once with Norrington and his period band at
Tangelwood, most recently with the Pacific Symphony here in OC (with
reduced strings), plus a few other performances here and there. To me,
the 6th sounds underpowered in the concert hall, especially when the
strings are reduced. It really sounds like a piece conceived as a
chamber music piece. I get the feeling that my ears are having to
travel to the stage to experience the piece, rather than the piece
projecting into the hall to come to me. In most cases, I much prefer
listening to the 6th on recordings where the sound has an overall
fullness that is hard to achieve in the concert hall (at least if my
own encounters with the 6th in the concert hall are any indicator).
Britten's War Requiem is a piece I can enjoy on record, but the 4
times I've encountered it in the concert hall have left me embarrassed
for its excesses.
I'd really like to come over and hear your sound system, Bill, but I
doubt that my 56-year-old ears would be able to do it justice.
mandryka
Well, I listened to Mackerras's Linn 38 last night and I really didn't
enjoy it. I want more brio! More sense of fun! More drama! After
Jacobs, Mackerras sounded too serious and emotionally empty.
But I've read your post now and I'll give him a try in the earlier
symphonies this weekend. You have made me look forward to hearing his
29.
I thought he became a very boring conductor towards the end of his
career. I remember seeing a Fidelio in London which was cold and dry
IMO. And some Brahms symphonies too. I know his acolytes adore this
late period, but I am convinced he deteriorated.
Christopher Webber
>I thought he became a very boring conductor towards the end of his
>career. I remember seeing a Fidelio in London which was cold and dry
>IMO. And some Brahms symphonies too. I know his acolytes adore this
>late period, but I am convinced he deteriorated.
I think you make a fair point. In some of his repertoire (for example,
Janacek and Sullivan) the fires certainly burned a little less brightly
in his final years, when he was struggling with ill health.
But other composers seemed to benefit from the mellowing - a performance
of Delius's "Song of the High Hills" at last year's Proms was amongst
the most magical experiences I've ever had in a concert hall; whilst the
"Planets" which followed had a chiseled beauty, weight and scope which
made it the finest I'd ever heard live.
William Sommerwerck
> very different things. There are some recordings that one could say
> sound "better" than does music in a concert hall, but that's because
> such recordings shift the goalposts in the discussion. They achieve a
> different sound/perspective that has it's own charms, and that some
> people may prefer to the live experience.
I'm of two minds on this. A recording can present an "idealized" version of
a work that also accurately represnts the sound of that orchestra in that
hall. On the other hand, attempts to present "ideal" performances too-often
result in recordings that bear little, if any, resemblance to live sound.
> I'd really like to come over and hear your sound system, Bill, but
> I doubt that my 56-year-old ears would be able to do it justice.
I have no trouble hearing its quality with my 63-year-old ears.
> Britten's War Requiem is a piece I can enjoy on record, but
> the four times I've encountered it in the concert hall have left
> me embarrassed for its excesses.
You mean... like Bernstein?
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Bastian Kubis
>> I actually rather thought that the Prague was the high point of
>> Mackerras's Teldec set.
>>
>> I have the Linn set -- but I haven't had it long. What do people think
>> of his symphonies with SCO?
>
> Excellent, certainly better (and much better recorded) than his Telarc
> recordings, and better than Jacobs as well. (My reaction to the
> Jacobs Mozart symphonies is pretty much the same as Matty's.)
> Mackerras/SCO is not quite a first choice for me in any the later
> symphonies (35-41), but a few of them would probably make my top 5 or
Wouldn't you like to name your first choices (or even the respective top
5...) for the later symphonies, just because I am very curious to see
that list?! ;-)
Bastian
Greg
Well, without thinking too hard about it, and no doubt biased by what
I have listened to recently, here are 5 favorites for each:
35: Szell, Abbado (2004, live via Symphonyshare?), Iona Brown,
Harnoncourt, Suitner
36: Bruggen, Guttler, Suitner, Mackerras/Linn, Klemperer
38: Maag/Decca, Maag/Arts, Cambreling, Chung, Vegh/Orfeo
39: Szell, Vegh/Orfeo, Mackerras/Linn, Casals, Minkowski/Verbier (live
via Medici.tv)
40: Kocsis, Harnoncourt, Bruggen (the 2 orchestras one), Mackerras/
Linn, Heinrich Schiff
41: Nelson, Szell, Norrington/Hanssler, Vegh/Orfeo, Feltz
Anyone else care to list theirs?
Greg
Andrej Kluge
Bob Harper wrote:
>>> The later works of He Who Must Not Be Named are largely aria-free.
>>
>> And who would be "He"? (not thinking of Barry Trotter)
>>
> RW, of course; He of Unendliche Melodie. No arias required.
Oh, thanks.
Ciao
AK
mandryka
> On Nov 6, 8:25 am, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
> 38: Maag/Decca, Maag/Arts,
Is there much difference?
I know the Decca one, and although I was rude about it above (well --
it is slow), I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it's a great
performance, even though it isn't one that I've learnt to love yet.
Does he just as expansive on the Arts recording?
Very interesting list. Apart from the Maag/Decca the only other ones
I know are the Mackerrases and the Szell and the Minkowski -- thanks,
I'll try to hear the stuff you like.
mark
wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to come over and hear your sound system, Bill, but
> > I doubt that my 56-year-old ears would be able to do it justice.
>
> I have no trouble hearing its quality with my 63-year-old ears.
>
Oh, I'm sure, but there's no use pretending that our hearing is that
of a 20- or 30-something. Nature takes its toll.
Gerard
Is this still about Mozart's symphony no. 38?
I don't remember ever having seen recordings by Szell (is that one available?)
and Minkowski (did he record other symphonies than #40 and 41?).
Greg
> On Nov 6, 4:53 pm, Greg <oneil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 8:25 am, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > 38: Maag/Decca, Maag/Arts,
>
> Is there much difference?
>
> I know the Decca one, and although I was rude about it above (well --
> it is slow), I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it's a great
> performance, even though it isn't one that I've learnt to love yet.
>
> Does he just as expansive on the Arts recording?
>
I don't think of Maag/Decca as being slow, especially the finale,
which is quite fast imo. Maag/Arts is slower, though, so you may not
care for it if you find the Decca one slow. The Arts one is more
obviously shaped, has more prominent horns, more distinctive phrasing,
and a less impressive orchestra. I'm not sure which one I prefer, but
I love both of them.
Greg
William Sommerwerck
Mackerras and the Prague Chamber Orchestra. My "charmless" evaluation was
not far from the truth.
Mackerras picks generally fast tempi -- which is not inherently wrong. The
problem is that he doesn't much vary the tempi. A good example is the first
movement of #38, which starts fast and stays fast. It doesn't /build/ to the
ending. Broadly speaking, Mackerras show little regard for the music's
emotional content.
I don't like the sound of the orchestra, either. For a chamber orchestra,
the PCO sounds awfully large, and the hall sounds even larger. I've long
complained that most Baroque and Classical works are performed by oversized
ensembles in too-large halls. This is a "good" example of such.
This is not a set of Mozart I would want to be forced to live with. I hope
Mackerras's later versions are more "insightful".
I gave Sir Neville a brief browse, and his approach is much more to my
taste. There's nothing "languid" about his performances, but there's no
rushing anything, and there's variety in tempo and phrasing.
CharlesSmith
but having listened to samples I have to join the anti-camp. The
interpretation seems to me to be excessively mannered, and I feel I'm
listening to the mannerisms rather than the music.
About a year ago I decided I wanted some lean and fast recordings of
late Mozart symphonies. After trying many samples I downloaded #40 and
#41 performed by Immerseel and Anima Eterna, and I'm very happy with
them. They meet my criteria, but are also well shaped, and avoid the
stylistic excesses I hear in Jacobs. The first mov of #40 is a
revelation for me - magical in its lightness.
During my search I checked out Mackerras and the Prague SO and was
very unimpressed. Apart from anything else the I don't like the
resonant sound, and the interpretation seemed quite wooden.
My other favoured recording of the final four symphonies is that by
Norrington with the LCP. They are lively, but what adds to the
attraction for me is the beauty of the orchestral sound. I suppose
it's this sound that originally won me over to HIP, and it's
disappointing for me that more recent recordings have lost this aura,
tending towards a meaner hard-edged sound.
Charles
Christopher Webber
>After trying many samples I downloaded #40 and #41 performed by
>Immerseel and Anima Eterna, and I'm very happy with them.
I'm very much enamoured of Anima Eterna too, for precisely the reasons
you've given.
Gerard
> I just listened to excerpts from some of the later symphonies, with
> Mackerras and the Prague Chamber Orchestra. My "charmless" evaluation
> was not far from the truth.
>
> Mackerras picks generally fast tempi -- which is not inherently
> wrong. The problem is that he doesn't much vary the tempi. A good
> example is the first movement of #38, which starts fast and stays
> fast. It doesn't /build/ to the ending. Broadly speaking, Mackerras
> show little regard for the music's emotional content.
Isn't that correct? Showing regard to (a possible) emotional content was not
fashionable those days (of Mozart) AFAIK.
>
> I don't like the sound of the orchestra, either. For a chamber
> orchestra, the PCO sounds awfully large, and the hall sounds even
> larger. I've long complained that most Baroque and Classical works
> are performed by oversized ensembles in too-large halls. This is a
> "good" example of such.
It's a well known fact that these Telarc recordings are way too reverberish. I
don't know if the ensemble was oversized, but the recordings halls (Telarc has
used diiferent ones) were not well chosen.
>
> This is not a set of Mozart I would want to be forced to live with. I
> hope Mackerras's later versions are more "insightful".
>
> I gave Sir Neville a brief browse, and his approach is much more to my
> taste. There's nothing "languid" about his performances, but there's
> no rushing anything, and there's variety in tempo and phrasing.
Yet they seem to be played in a more or less mechanical way.
Because you replied on my post with a few questions about Szell and Minkowski,
I'll repeat those here:
Gerard
> I knew nothing of the Jacobs recordings before this thread appeared,
> but having listened to samples I have to join the anti-camp. The
> interpretation seems to me to be excessively mannered, and I feel I'm
> listening to the mannerisms rather than the music.
Just curious:
Did you ever hear Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris symphonies by Haydn?
Do they fit this description too?
CharlesSmith
Yes, I have the box.
And no they don't.
I'll give it some thought (and listening).
Christopher Webber
>Did you ever hear Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris symphonies by
>Haydn? Do they fit this description too?
One of my "desert island" sets, as it happens - hugely powerful, but
with great precision of effect and leaving plenty of room for lightness
and wit too. Not "mannerist" at all, in my opinion.
William Sommerwerck
news:b07ea$4cd66b01$53565cf2$10...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I just listened to excerpts from some of the later symphonies, with
>> Mackerras and the Prague Chamber Orchestra. My "charmless"
>> evaluation was not far from the truth.
>> Mackerras picks generally fast tempi -- which is not inherently
>> wrong. The problem is that he doesn't much vary the tempi. A good
>> example is the first movement of #38, which starts fast and stays
>> fast. It doesn't /build/ to the ending. Broadly speaking, Mackerras
>> show little regard for the music's emotional content.
> Isn't that correct? Showing regard to (a possible) emotional content
> was not fashionable those days (of Mozart) AFAIK.
Quite the contrary. Classical music expressed emotion in different ways from
Romantic music. (Don't ask me to explain that. I can't explain it, and I
don't want to get into arguments about "reductionism".)
Listen, for example, to Marriner's treatment of the recognition scene from
"Figaro" in "Amadeus". It's extremely "emotional" (Marriner delivered a
performance that mirrored the fictional Salieri's reaction to the music) --
but is it un-Classical? I don't think so.
>> I don't like the sound of the orchestra, either. For a chamber
>> orchestra, the PCO sounds awfully large, and the hall sounds
>> even larger. I've long complained that most Baroque and Classical
>> works are performed by oversized ensembles in too-large halls.
>> This is a "good" example of such.
> It's a well known fact that these Telarc recordings are way too
> reverberish. I don't know if the ensemble was oversized, but the
> recordings halls (Telarc has used diiferent ones) were not well-
> chosen.
Telarc also used/uses spaced omnis, which exaggerate ambience.
I also listened to some of Jaap ter Linden's Mozart on Brilliant. It's more
like Mackerras than not, but not so extreme. The SACD multi-ch sound is also
a lot better. I will eventually get around to listening to all of this set.
As I get older, I find I more-often have to be in the "right" mood to listen
to music. I'm in a better mood in the morning, but as I have some respect
for my neighbors, this isn't usually the right time to listen. The late
afternoon / early evening is not a good time for "high tension" or "driven"
performances.
Gerard
> "Gerard" <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b07ea$4cd66b01$53565cf2$10...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > > I just listened to excerpts from some of the later symphonies,
> > > with Mackerras and the Prague Chamber Orchestra. My "charmless"
> > > evaluation was not far from the truth.
>
> > > Mackerras picks generally fast tempi -- which is not inherently
> > > wrong. The problem is that he doesn't much vary the tempi. A good
> > > example is the first movement of #38, which starts fast and stays
> > > fast. It doesn't /build/ to the ending. Broadly speaking,
> > > Mackerras show little regard for the music's emotional content.
>
> > Isn't that correct? Showing regard to (a possible) emotional content
> > was not fashionable those days (of Mozart) AFAIK.
>
> Quite the contrary. Classical music expressed emotion in different
> ways from Romantic music. (Don't ask me to explain that. I can't
> explain it, and I don't want to get into arguments about
> "reductionism".)
>
> Listen, for example, to Marriner's treatment of the recognition scene
> from "Figaro" in "Amadeus". It's extremely "emotional" (Marriner
> delivered a performance that mirrored the fictional Salieri's
> reaction to the music) -- but is it un-Classical? I don't think so.
I don't have such a recording.
Maybe it's not an example of what we're discussing here: symphonies.
>
>
> > > I don't like the sound of the orchestra, either. For a chamber
> > > orchestra, the PCO sounds awfully large, and the hall sounds
> > > even larger. I've long complained that most Baroque and Classical
> > > works are performed by oversized ensembles in too-large halls.
> > > This is a "good" example of such.
>
> > It's a well known fact that these Telarc recordings are way too
> > reverberish. I don't know if the ensemble was oversized, but the
> > recordings halls (Telarc has used diiferent ones) were not well-
> > chosen.
>
> Telarc also used/uses spaced omnis, which exaggerate ambience.
>
> I also listened to some of Jaap ter Linden's Mozart on Brilliant.
> It's more like Mackerras than not, but not so extreme. The SACD
> multi-ch sound is also a lot better. I will eventually get around to
> listening to all of this set.
The ('greater') symphonies by ter Linden are a disappointment imo.
Too careful, too safe performances.
>
> As I get older, I find I more-often have to be in the "right" mood to
> listen to music.
Same here.
Maybe because as one gets older, one knows better what music one likes (or does
not like) very much.
Also the consideration: why should I listen to something I (know that I) like
less? When listening to something you want to enjoy it, and the right mood helps
very much.
Sometimes I'm in the "mood" of some specific work while still half awake in the
morning; many times I'm not in the mood of listening to something I don't know.
That's how it happens ;-(
>
> I'm in a better mood in the morning, but as I have
> some respect for my neighbors, this isn't usually the right time to
> listen. The late afternoon / early evening is not a good time for
> "high tension" or "driven" performances.
So what rests is the early afternoon?
Matthew Silverstein
>> 38: Maag/Decca, Maag/Arts,
>
> Is there much difference?
>
> I know the Decca one, and although I was rude about it above (well --
> it is slow), I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it's a great
> performance, even though it isn't one that I've learnt to love yet.
>
> Does he just as expansive on the Arts recording?
The Decca recording is not slow at all. It's obviously not super-fast, but
it's also not remarkably slow. I certainly wouldn't call it expansive.
The Arts recording is slower, at least in the opening movement.
Matty
mandryka
wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm.
Maag takes 14mins 44secs in the Decca second movement
Contrast Mackerras SCO 11miin 18; Jacobs under 10 minutes; Britten
under 12 minutes and Kripps 7 minutes 43 seconds. I can't find
Klemperer and AFAIK there is no Furtwangler, but it looks as though
Maag takes the longest.
Gerard
> Gerard <ghen_nosp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Did you ever hear Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris symphonies by
> > Haydn? Do they fit this description too?
>
> One of my "desert island" sets, as it happens - hugely powerful, but
> with great precision of effect and leaving plenty of room for
> lightness and wit too. Not "mannerist" at all, in my opinion.
While I like HIP recordings in general (in many cases preferring them to non-HIP
versions) and Harnoncourt's recordings in many cases, in this case I dislike the
results, whether his approach can be called "mannerism" or not. I did not find
lightness or wit either. Regrettably so ;-(
Gerard
>
> Maag takes 14mins 44secs in the Decca second movement
A matter of repeats, I think.
>
> Contrast Mackerras SCO 11miin 18; Jacobs under 10 minutes; Britten
> under 12 minutes and Kripps 7 minutes 43 seconds. I can't find
> Klemperer and AFAIK there is no Furtwangler, but it looks as though
> Maag takes the longest.
For the second movement this migth be true.
In the 1st movement there's Harnoncourt with 2 recordings, both more than 19
minutes (is half the time of the complete piece).
mandryka
I'm curious about that now. I shall have to hear Harnoncourt.
Maag takes 13:40 for the first movement on DECCA -- presumably it's
partly a question of repeats.
Matthew Silverstein
> Anyone else care to list theirs?
Let's see. Off the top of my head:
35: Not sure.
36: Bruggen (nobody else comes even close), Klemperer
38: Maag/LSO, Harnoncourt/DVD, Pinnock (strangely), Bruggen
39: Immerseel, Gardiner, Mackerras (Linn), Klemperer
40: Bruggen/OAE+O18C, Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw
41: Minkowski, Gardiner (live)
I'm sure there are several I'm forgetting.
Matty
Christopher Webber
>35: Not sure.
>36: Bruggen (nobody else comes even close), Klemperer
>38: Maag/LSO, Harnoncourt/DVD, Pinnock (strangely), Bruggen
>39: Immerseel, Gardiner, Mackerras (Linn), Klemperer
>40: Bruggen/OAE+O18C, Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw
>41: Minkowski, Gardiner (live)
One thing's for sure: the Joyce Hatto recording of the Symphony No.37
(in Godowsky's stupendous transcription for solo piano) beats the field
hollow.
mandryka
Annoying because I haven't heard it and it's hard to find unless you
pay through the nose!
CharlesSmith
I've got round to listening. It's not an equivalent comparison, chalk
and cheese, Mozart and Haydn. There is some similarity in the
orchestral timbres - a brittleness to the sound. The big difference
for me is a matter of scale. Jacobs is either concerned with shaping
individual notes or, especially in faster passages, little shaping of
phrases at all. Harnoncourt shapes the music as though he's moulding
sentences and long paragraphhs of music thought. Each note just takes
its place in the longer scheme.
So to get some equivalence into this comparison I've sought out
samples of Jacobs conducting Haydn. The structural thinking is
actually much better; he obviously feels this (to me critical) element
of Haydn's music. But the note-by-note manipulation is still there,
although less intrusive.
So it's Jacobs' Mozart I'm anti because of the mannerisms, and no I
don't hear the same in Harnoncourt's Haydn.
Charles
Kip Williams
> One thing's for sure: the Joyce Hatto recording of the Symphony No.37
> (in Godowsky's stupendous transcription for solo piano) beats the field
> hollow.
What, both hands? Leopold, you've let me down.
I just picked up Katsaris playing Hummel's 2-hands version of #40. I
keep expecting someone to find a better way of rendering the opening
figure, but Hummel has done as well as anyone so far. There's also an
organ duet version for four hands and four feet. I'm indebted to the
artists for recording these pieces but sometimes wonder if someone would
like to have a whack at the available transcriptions of other symphonies
(as well as of pieces that don't have "kleine" or "Nachtmusik" in the
titles).
Kip W
Matthew B. Tepper
> Christopher Webber wrote:
>
> > One thing's for sure: the Joyce Hatto recording of the Symphony
> > No.37
> > (in Godowsky's stupendous transcription for solo piano) beats the
> > field
> > hollow.
>
> What, both hands? Leopold, you've let me down.
>
> I just picked up Katsaris playing Hummel's 2-hands version of #40. I
> keep expecting someone to find a better way of rendering the opening
> figure, but Hummel has done as well as anyone so far.
I assume this is on Katsaris' own label?
--
Posted via my iPhone. Hoo hah!
Bob Harper
the Serengeti have hearing as good or better than American 18-year-olds.
As I constantly tell high school students who walk into class with iPod
ear buds in, the ear is not a muscle.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
"Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cPGBo.409549$Is6.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
A stabbing spear is somewhat less noisy than a .30-06, or even a .223.
American ears can take a non-frivolous beating. Just one more in the tally
of sacrifices soldiers make.
bl
Kip Williams
I got it from emusic and didn't notice the label. (...) Says "Piano 21"
or perhaps "21 Piano." Is that his label? It also has a bunch of short
solo transcriptions fro The Magic Flute. If I hadn't recently downloaded
four-hands versions of pretty much the whole thing, I'd probably have
jumped for that already.
I may still go for the Nachtmusik. Then again, their new price scheme
may make the whole thing academic for me. I signed up for this whole
thing because I'm -not- rich, damn it, and buying mp3s shouldn't cost
nearly as much as buying the physical CD.
Kip W
Gerard
Thanks very much for your comment.
Bastian Kubis
> [...]
> Well, without thinking too hard about it, and no doubt biased by what
> I have listened to recently, here are 5 favorites for each:
>
> 35: Szell, Abbado (2004, live via Symphonyshare?), Iona Brown,
> Harnoncourt, Suitner
> 36: Bruggen, Guttler, Suitner, Mackerras/Linn, Klemperer
> 38: Maag/Decca, Maag/Arts, Cambreling, Chung, Vegh/Orfeo
> 39: Szell, Vegh/Orfeo, Mackerras/Linn, Casals, Minkowski/Verbier (live
> via Medici.tv)
> 40: Kocsis, Harnoncourt, Bruggen (the 2 orchestras one), Mackerras/
> Linn, Heinrich Schiff
> 41: Nelson, Szell, Norrington/Hanssler, Vegh/Orfeo, Feltz
>
> Anyone else care to list theirs?
Thanks very much for your list - as expected, a lot of stuff in there
that I have never heard... Actually, to somehow return to the beginning
of this thread, I very much liked Jacobs' first Mozart symphony disc
(38+41), with possibly the exception that 41/iv does not quite fulfil
what the preceding movements promised; I was far less convinced by the
successor 39+40. I would have to do a lot of re-listening before I
could come up with a list like yours above (and I haven't done
comparative listening to Mozart symphonies in ages), but favourites
would certainly include Harnoncourt in 35 (I don't think I have heard
anyone else's coming close, although I am happy to see Brown mentioned,
whom I also like), Brüggen and Klemperer in 36, Maag/Decca, Brüggen,
Harnoncourt, and Jacobs in 38, don't know right now for 39, Harnoncourt
and Brüggen II in 40, Klemperer/mono, Minkowski, and Jacobs in 41
(Brüggen's finale e.g. is excellent here, too, but the first movement
not quite on that level). In particular I cannot remember which ones
were /really/ favourites in Casals' set, which I very much liked
overall. It seems, though, that I have to listen to Mackerras at some
point...
Bastian
Al Eisner
> Matthew Silverstein <msilve...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> 35: Not sure.
>> 36: Bruggen (nobody else comes even close), Klemperer
>> 38: Maag/LSO, Harnoncourt/DVD, Pinnock (strangely), Bruggen
>> 39: Immerseel, Gardiner, Mackerras (Linn), Klemperer
>> 40: Bruggen/OAE+O18C, Harnoncourt/Concertgebouw
>> 41: Minkowski, Gardiner (live)
>
> One thing's for sure: the Joyce Hatto recording of the Symphony No.37 (in
> Godowsky's stupendous transcription for solo piano) beats the field hollow.
Yes, what about 37? I gather that what Mozart wrote was an "Introduction"
to a Michael Haydn symphony. How long is that Introduction,and does it
ever get recorded?
--
Al Eisner