Mozart Operas - Gardiner
Randy Lane
Opera recordings packed onto 18 CDs.
I'm certain there are no librettie given the price, which is fine as
I'd buy for the sounds only with libretti being available to me
elsewhere.
http://www.amazon.com/Operas-Mozart/dp/B004REXFRA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305831264&sr=8-1
I've never seriously listened to any of JEGs Mozart operas.
I recall printed reviews (Gramophone, ARG, Fanfare) being both
favorable and unfavorable.
How do some of you opera buffs regard this series?
Is it consitently good, bad, or so-so throughout or are the results
more variable (i.e., are some of the recordings more artistically
successful than others)?
I've been a fan of the Drottingholm Mozart HIP recordings since I
first heard the Figaro in that set, which is probably why I never
pursued JEG. But for this price it may very well be time to add JEG to
my Mozart library.
William Sommerwerck
black and white -- he's either superb or awful -- little in-between.
I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances, I would get
those first.
Oscar
I auditioned his Haydn Nelson Mass in the store last night, the entire
Kyrie and Gloria tracks. Great singing, vibrant orchestral playing,
but nothing added up. Soulless? You could say that. Will stay with
Willocks and Bernstein.
O
<0557f6c8-671f-4f78...@k17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Randy Lane <randy...@gmail.com> wrote:
My son had good things to say about Gardiner's Don Giovanni. Gardiner
seems to evoke passion, both for and against, on his recordings. I
tend to like his performances, they're usually spirited, and even if I
disagree with his interpretations, at least it's obvious that Gardiner
has thought things out to come to his conclusion, and I appreciate that
effort.
-Owen
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:4dd58937$0$30705$5fc...@news.tiscali.nl:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May 2011
> 12:49:37 -0700:
>
>> I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances, I would get
>> those first.
>
> Indeed.
"Così" and "Nozze" especially; I'm not really happy with the decision to use
the Vienna text for "Don Giovanni" with the Prague material as supplements.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
"I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable
than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical
change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free
society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get
to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors." Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" 15 May 2011
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Matthew B. Tepper
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May 2011
> 12:49:37 -0700:
>
> I seem to recall that someone called Gardiner the von Karajan of the
> historically informed performance approach.
Just as, years earlier, Sir Thomas Beecham had referred to Karajan as "a
sort of musical Malcolm Sargent."
jrsnfld
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May 2011
> 12:49:37 -0700:
>
> historically informed performance approach.
>
What did that mean? I can't imagine.
I have only La Clemenza and Idomeneo with Gardiner; I'm not excited
about getting more, but those recordings were fine. My main problem
with Gardiner is that he isn't subtle or sophisticated or anything
notable about phrasing. He's often very mechanical on disc. As such,
he's ruled out as a first- or second-choice conductor. But...he does
have a great choir, fine orchestra, good to superb singers, and
excellent recording quality in his favor.
--Jeff
wkasimer
> Is it consitently good, bad, or so-so throughout or are the results
> more variable (i.e., are some of the recordings more artistically
> successful than others)?
It is consistently so-so. I've owned all of the recordings at some
point, and the only one I've kept is the Entfuhrung, and that is
presumably for the cast (I like both Orgonasova and Olsen, and neither
of them has made many recordings). As I recall, none of the
recordings was actively awful, but they all seemed a little generic,
with too many not quite first-rank singers.
I much prefer the Drottningholm and Jacobs recordings, when given the
choice, as well as other non-HIP options.
Bill
William Sommerwerck
news:8ff58751-624c-42e7...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 5:11 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May 2011
> 12:49:37 -0700:
>> I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances,
>> I would get those first.
> I have only La Clemenza and Idomeneo with Gardiner; I'm not
> excited about getting more, but those recordings were fine.
For me, Gardiner is a highly inconsistent conductor -- sort of like what
Larry McMurtry is to novels.
The Jacobs "Nozze" is something very special and (I believe) you're denying
yourself a real treat. Jacobs treats the piece as if it were a stage play --
the singers actually /act/.
"Don Giovanni" is more problematical for me -- it seems too intense. But
it's a solid performance.
"Cosi" has always been a hard nut. It's not conventionally melodic, and I've
never warmed to it.
But get "Nozze". It is a truly great performance.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8ff58751-624c-42e7...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:11 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
>
> > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May 2011
> > 12:49:37 -0700:
> >> I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances,
> >> I would get those first.
> > I have only La Clemenza and Idomeneo with Gardiner; I'm not
> > excited about getting more, but those recordings were fine.
>
> For me, Gardiner is a highly inconsistent conductor -- sort of like what
> Larry McMurtry is to novels.
I see him very much as a highly consistent conductor, but as someone
with extreme limits (at least in "studio") whose default approach
works well enough in some piece and not well in others.
>
> The Jacobs "Nozze" is something very special and (I believe) you're denying
> yourself a real treat. Jacobs treats the piece as if it were a stage play --
> the singers actually /act/.
I thought we were talking about Gardiner. Anyway, I agree that Jacobs
is more interesting than Gardiner. I have the Jacobs Cosi, plus some
other Mozart of his. I probably will get his Nozze eventually but I'm
not in a big hurry. This opera is not lacking in excellent
performances.
>
> "Don Giovanni" is more problematical for me -- it seems too intense. But
> it's a solid performance.
Which Don Giovanni are you talking about...Gardiner or Jacobs (I don't
have either)?
For Don Giovanni I gravitate towards Furtwangler, Rosbaud,
Mitropoulos...I could benefit from a good period instrument
performance.
>
> "Cosi" has always been a hard nut. It's not conventionally melodic, and I've
> never warmed to it.
Now you're the one who's missing something! But to each his own. I've
always liked the music, but I agree it may not be as easy to warm to
as Le Nozze or Don Giovanni. I fell for Cosi when I had the
opportunity to play it (from the pit).
>
> But get "Nozze". It is a truly great performance.
Again, I'm not sure which one you mean.
--Jeff
Thornhill
> Universal is issuing a bargain box with John Elliot Gardiners Mozart
> Opera recordings packed onto 18 CDs.
> I'm certain there are no librettie given the price, which is fine as
> I'd buy for the sounds only with libretti being available to me
> elsewhere.
>
>
> I've never seriously listened to any of JEGs Mozart operas.
> I recall printed reviews (Gramophone, ARG, Fanfare) being both
> favorable and unfavorable.
> How do some of you opera buffs regard this series?
> Is it consitently good, bad, or so-so throughout or are the results
> more variable (i.e., are some of the recordings more artistically
> successful than others)?
> I've been a fan of the Drottingholm Mozart HIP recordings since I
> first heard the Figaro in that set, which is probably why I never
> pursued JEG. But for this price it may very well be time to add JEG to
> my Mozart library.
I've had them all for quite a while.
I think it's a uniformly good to great set. Gardiner doesn't take as
many risks as Jacobs (and while I love Jacobs' "Figaro" and "Cosi,"
his "Don Giovanni" was too micromanaged), but everything is well
played, sung and balanced.
While "Gramophone" went nuts for "Idomeneo," the best recording in the
set is "Don Giovanni," thanks in large part to Rodney Gilfry's
portrayal of the title character. "Figaro" is also quite good, again
thanks to Gilfry's Count. Gardiner's "Cosi" works better in video
format with a clever ambiguous ending. I enjoy Orgonosova in
"Abduction" and suspect some people will find Gardiner too hard driven
in Zauberflote.
MDT has the box on sale for $42. It's pretty hard to argue with that
price:
Gerard
> On May 20, 1:55 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8ff58751-624c-42e7...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 19, 5:11 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> - Thu, 19 May
> > > 2011 12:49:37 -0700:
> > > > I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances,
> > > > I would get those first.
> > > I have only La Clemenza and Idomeneo with Gardiner; I'm not
> > > excited about getting more, but those recordings were fine.
> >
> > For me, Gardiner is a highly inconsistent conductor -- sort of like
> > what Larry McMurtry is to novels.
>
> I see him very much as a highly consistent conductor,
I think you're right.
Recently someone wrote about him (at another place) that with Gardiner all
composers sound the same.
Maybe there's some truth in it. But I don't think that his Bach sounds like his
Janacek.
William Sommerwerck
news:b56be$4dd6e56d$53565cf2$21...@cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> jrsnfld wrote:
> > On May 20, 1:55 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> For me, Gardiner is a highly inconsistent conductor -- sort of like
>>> what Larry McMurtry is to novels.
>> I see him very much as a highly consistent conductor,
> I think you're right.
> Recently someone wrote about him (at another place) that with Gardiner all
> composers sound the same.
> Maybe there's some truth in it. But I don't think that his Bach sounds
like his
> Janacek.
I was talking about quality of performance -- not performance style.
M forever
wrote:
> "Gerard" <ghendriks_no_spam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Someone who can't even read music shouldn't judge and comment about
"quality of performance". Just like someone who can't fry an egg
shouldn't pontificate about cooking techniques.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> "Gerard" <ghendriks_no_spam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I understood that you were talking about quality (and I maintain that
he is not only stylistically relatively consistent, from a phrasing
point of view--but also from a quality point of view. But "quality"
only in the narrow sense that the notes are right, the textures and
balances usually clear, and the momentum reasonably maintained,
sometimes rather exciting too. You can count on Gardiner to deliver
quality, but also in an unfortunately limited way. Sometimes that
works just fine, but sometimes in comparison to other conductors,
Gardiner seems one-dimensional to me. This is apparent more in his
Mozart and Beethoven, perhaps, than his Bach and Handel (which work
ok, and sometimes very well, for me). I can't speak for his Brahms
recordings, so much--I was actually pleasantly surprised by one of the
live performances of the first symphony. His chorus is so good that I
liked Gardiner's Missa Solemnis very much, even though his symhony set
left me uninterested. And his Schumann I thought was actually very
worthwhile.
Very consistent, never really a paragon.
--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
news:ef13f902-3f3a-44ea...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
The overwhelming majority of classical-music listeners don't read music or
play an instrument. So I suppose hardly anyone's opinion in this group is
worth anything.
If you were trying to get my goat -- you did. What a rotten, stupid thing to
say.
What a maroon...
William Sommerwerck
> Very consistent, never really a paragon.
Never? Not one performance?
William Sommerwerck
that because he's anonymous, he can get away with saying anything. Well, I'm
not anonymous, and even if it means losing my Web access, I will say the
following...
If I could get away with smashing your mouth so you could never speak again,
I would.
If I could get away with crushing your hands so you couldn't operate a
keyboard, I would.
If I could get away with blinding you so you couldn'l use an eye-motion
sensor to operate your computer, I would.
Then none of us would have to put up with idiocy and utter rudeness.
GROW UP, you moron.
Gerard
That's right.
Almost everyone is inferior to him.
Two possibilities:
- he visits the wrong newsgroup because almost everyone is inferior to him;
- he likes this newsgroup *because*almost everyone is inferior to him (so he can
act superior and spit on almost everyone).
Allen
as quotes in other posts.
Allen
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:M_2dnTUR3OQ0WkrQ...@giganews.com:
> Just one of the many reasons why I never see posts from M_forever except
> as quotes in other posts.
> Allen
Moi aussi. The content is not sufficient to justify the irritation.
Matthew B. Tepper
Please, Bill, use a killfile. You'll feel much better. It's like simply
walking away from an obnoxious, doomsday-predicting, fire-and-brimstone
soapbox preacher. You'll never convince him, and he's not worth any effort
to try to counter him.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f70704c1-29f3-402b...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Very consistent, never really a paragon.
>
> Never? Not one performance?
I can't think of any yet. Which one is a paragon for you?
--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
>> Never? Not one performance?
The "Messiah". Would that all of Gardiner's performances were at the
inspired level.
William Sommerwerck
news:Xns9EEC5FDA79B...@216.168.3.70...
> [tiresome rant against "M Forever" deleted due to tedium]
>
> Please, Bill, use a killfile. You'll feel much better. It's like simply
> walking away from an obnoxious, doomsday-predicting, fire-and-brimstone
> soapbox preacher. You'll never convince him, and he's not worth any
effort
> to try to counter him.
Done.
Mark Stenroos
> On May 19, 5:11 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:
> > > I haven't heard any of Gardiner's Mozart. Gardiner is, for me, very much
> > > black and white -- he's either superb or awful -- little in-between.
>
> > > I would say that if you don't have the Jacobs performances, I would get
> > > those first.
>
> > I seem to recall that someone called Gardiner the von Karajan of the
> > historically informed performance approach.
Gardiner's recordings of vocal music seem aimed at those people who
dislike singing.
M forever
Why is that?
Mark Stenroos
I find Gardiner's choice in the singers he picks and the way in which
he asks them to sing to be very much devoid of much beyond basic
competency.
Put Gardiner's stable of Mozart singers - Margiono, Olsen, Gilfry, von
Otter, Rolfe-Johnson, Roocroft - up against the caliber of singers
you'll find in many rightly famous recordings, and it's a case of the
decent college singers v the stars. I mean, did Anthony Rolfe-Johnson
ever make a recording that one would prefer over the same repertoire
performed by Wunderlich, Gedda or even Schreier? Don't think so. Do
his sopranos rival great Mozart singers like Steber or - more recently
- Gruberova? No way.
I say this with full knowledge of the fact that occasionally, a great
singer does appear on a Gardiner recording, a Bryn Terfel or a Barbara
Bonney, for example. But that's just as much a function of who's at
the absolute top of the pack today ending up on recordings when those
artists have contracts with a certain label (DG) as it does the choice
of the conductor. I also realize that Gardiner is to some extent
limited n his choices by who is trodding the boards at a particular
time - you can't make recordings with people who are dead, after all
(wait! - Caruso 2000!). But even with that proviso, there are other
singers around today he could have featured in his recordings, singers
who sing with the kind of flexibility, range of vocal color and vocal
style that is in line with the greats of the past.
For me, the vocal points go unrealized and unscored when entrusted to
the type of singers Gardiner usually opts for. In short, it's boring -
a skeleton of the work without much personalized fleshing out of the
role/singing, beyond - as I said - basic competency.
And we're talking about recordings here, not the caliber of singers
one encounters if one heads down to the local opera house over the
weekend. With recordings, you're competing with everything that has
come before, so the comparison to older recordings and older singers
is both relative and natural.
At least Karajan had great singers at his disposal, even if one can
occasionally quibble about his approach (well, let's say his choice in
singers was a little better in the earlier recordings than his later
recordings). I don't really see any similarities between Gardiner &
Karajan beyond their both recording on DG/Archiv.
M forever
Isn't that a little apples and oranges? I mean, aren't those simply
different styles of singing, and does it really make so much sense to
compare them directly?
> I say this with full knowledge of the fact that occasionally, a great
> singer does appear on a Gardiner recording, a Bryn Terfel or a Barbara
> Bonney, for example. But that's just as much a function of who's at
> the absolute top of the pack today ending up on recordings when those
> artists have contracts with a certain label (DG) as it does the choice
> of the conductor. I also realize that Gardiner is to some extent
> limited n his choices by who is trodding the boards at a particular
> time - you can't make recordings with people who are dead, after all
> (wait! - Caruso 2000!). But even with that proviso, there are other
> singers around today he could have featured in his recordings, singers
> who sing with the kind of flexibility, range of vocal color and vocal
> style that is in line with the greats of the past.
>
> For me, the vocal points go unrealized and unscored when entrusted to
> the type of singers Gardiner usually opts for. In short, it's boring -
> a skeleton of the work without much personalized fleshing out of the
> role/singing, beyond - as I said - basic competency.
I only have Gardiner's Don G but I can't see what's so wrong with,
say, Gilfry as Don or D'Arcangelo as Leporello. I find them both
rather enjoyable in their roles.
> And we're talking about recordings here, not the caliber of singers
> one encounters if one heads down to the local opera house over the
> weekend. With recordings, you're competing with everything that has
> come before, so the comparison to older recordings and older singers
> is both relative and natural.
>
> At least Karajan had great singers at his disposal, even if one can
> occasionally quibble about his approach (well, let's say his choice in
> singers was a little better in the earlier recordings than his later
> recordings). I don't really see any similarities between Gardiner &
> Karajan beyond their both recording on DG/Archiv.
Same here. I have seen that comparison a number of times before
though. I think it is supposed to mean that both were/are masters of
superficial polish but no depth blablabla or something like that. In
fact, it is the comparison (and therefore those who make it) which is
very superficial.
wkasimer
> I mean, did Anthony Rolfe-Johnson
> ever make a recording that one would prefer over the same repertoire
> performed by Wunderlich, Gedda or even Schreier?
While I don't necessarily disagree with your basic criticism of
Gardiner's casting, you picked an odd example. Have you ever heard
Gedda's recording of the original, ornamented "Fuor del mar"? It is a
complete disaster, vastly inferior to Rolfe Johnson's recording of the
aria in the complete set. Gedda was an excellent singer in the right
repertoire, but where he and Rolfe Johnson cross paths, I invariably
prefer the latter. Gedda's Mozart and Bach, even when better than
that trainwreck Fuor del mar, always strike me as completely missing
the boat stylistically. I haven't heard Schreier's recording of
Idomeneo, but I would imagine that it's his usual intelligent
caterwauling.
Bill
M forever
Mark Stenroos
> > Put Gardiner's stable of Mozart singers - Margiono, Olsen, Gilfry, von
> > Otter, Rolfe-Johnson, Roocroft - up against the caliber of singers
> > you'll find in many rightly famous recordings, and it's a case of the
> > decent college singers v the stars. I mean, did Anthony Rolfe-Johnson
> > ever make a recording that one would prefer over the same repertoire
> > performed by Wunderlich, Gedda or even Schreier? Don't think so. Do
> > his sopranos rival great Mozart singers like Steber or - more recently
> > - Gruberova? No way.
>
> Isn't that a little apples and oranges? I mean, aren't those simply
> different styles of singing, and does it really make so much sense to
> compare them directly?
I don't think so. Are there different styles of violin or double bass
playing, for example, where a generally thin & wiry tone and a limited
expressive palette would be considered simply a style choice? What if
a thin and wiry tone was all that a particular player had at their
disposal? Would a violinist with such limits be considered to be
making a stylistic choice in their employing such a tone, or would one
be correct to aver that such a player just didn't have the technical
facility and - therefore - range of expression of a Grumiaux or
Perlman?
> I only have Gardiner's Don G but I can't see what's so wrong with,
> say, Gilfry as Don or D'Arcangelo as Leporello. I find them both
> rather enjoyable in their roles.
That would beg the question of "compared to who?" Siepi? Fi-Di? Walter
Berry? Wächter? I can't make such pronouncements in isolation of the
recorded canon. Heard in isolation, I imagine that Gardiner's
Beethoven Symphonies would be rather enjoyable. But can one make the
same claim when his cycle is stacked up against the competition?
So it goes with opera/oratorio, at least with me. Which is why I said
that Gardiner's vocal recordings are aimed at those who don't like
singing. There are people out there who feel that certain singers are
just showing off their techniques at times, and that doing so occurs
at the expense of the composer and the music. I'm not of that school.
When - for example - Leontyne Price and Franco Corelli take the
artistic initiative to bend the notes the composer penned to the will
of their vocal techniques, well, I find that that enhances the music,
rather than detracting from the same.
> > At least Karajan had great singers at his disposal, even if one can
> > occasionally quibble about his approach (well, let's say his choice in
> > singers was a little better in the earlier recordings than his later
> > recordings). I don't really see any similarities between Gardiner &
> > Karajan beyond their both recording on DG/Archiv.
>
> Same here. I have seen that comparison a number of times before
> though. I think it is supposed to mean that both were/are masters of
> superficial polish but no depth blablabla or something like that. In
> fact, it is the comparison (and therefore those who make it) which is
> very superficial.
Agreed.
Mark Stenroos
You make a good point about Gedda. I used to work in NYC with a vocal
coach who worked with Gedda a lot. Gedda was always very uncomfortable
in Mozart. In fact, he told this coach that he felt as if he had to
work out every singe note in Mozart's fioratura passages to get them
to sound right. Listening to the examples you cited, one can hear
this. The difference is that Gedda could work these things out to a
certain extent because his technique was so good. But I admit that my
example of Gedda in Mozart may not have been the best.
Having said that, it's apples and oranges to compare recordings
between Gedda - whose recordings were made at present day concert
pitch of A440 or higher - to most HIP recordings that are done at a
lowered pitch. Especially in Mozart, whose writing for the tenor voice
constantly straddles the passaggio. As a tenor myself, I can tell you
that the technical difficulties in much of Mozart's tenorial writing
evaporates if the music is sung down half a step or lower. I'm going
to guess that the ARJ recording of Fuor del mar falls into this
category of being sung at a lowered median (correct me if I'm wrong).
It begs the question of how Gedda's singing of Mozart would have
changed had he had the luxury of singing at the lowered pitch that has
become standardized in HIP performances, and how well ARJ would have
fared at standard concert pitch.
BTW - about Rolfe-Johnson: let's not forget that he had a major vocal
crisis well after his career was established. I read an interview with
him wherein he admitted that the first 15-16 years of his
international career were sung with a suspect technique that led to a
vocal breakdown (I think it was nodes). To his credit, he stopped
singing and relearned his technique, which is quite an undertaking for
any singer, let alone one with an established international career.
But then, necessity is the mother of invention. Sad that he died of
Alzheimer's last year.
Further BTW - a tenor friend of mine coached in NYC with James King.
He related that King could sing a really great Boheme aria...if it was
UP a half step, with a high C# at the end, rather than the written
High C. Go figure.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:337d7f5b-9a78-4ac6...@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 5:21 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f70704c1-29f3-402b...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Very consistent, never really a paragon.
> >> Never? Not one performance?
> > I can't think of any yet. Which one is a paragon for you?
>
> The "Messiah". Would that all of Gardiner's performances were at the
> inspired level.
What would you say he did better in that recording than in his others?
--Jeff
wkasimer
> Are you referring to this?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZqTJg1tfVs
I'm not sure if it's the same recording. The one I remember was a
studio recording, from an LP of Mozart arias on Angel, recorded in
1957 or so. The problems are certainly similar, but my recollection
is that the one on the Angel LP is even worse.
Bill
wkasimer
> Having said that, it's apples and oranges to compare recordings
> between Gedda - whose recordings were made at present day concert
> pitch of A440 or higher - to most HIP recordings that are done at a
> lowered pitch. Especially in Mozart, whose writing for the tenor voice
> constantly straddles the passaggio. As a tenor myself, I can tell you
> that the technical difficulties in much of Mozart's tenorial writing
> evaporates if the music is sung down half a step or lower. I'm going
> to guess that the ARJ recording of Fuor del mar falls into this
> category of being sung at a lowered median (correct me if I'm wrong).
I no longer own the Gardiner Idomeneo, so I can't say for sure. My
recollection is that it's not quite A440, but I don't think that it
was lowered as much as a half step.
> BTW - about Rolfe-Johnson: let's not forget that he had a major vocal
> crisis well after his career was established.
And unfortunately, that's when Gardiner chose to use him as the
Evangelist in his St. Matthew Passion recording.
Bill
William Sommerwerck
>> The "Messiah". Would that all of Gardiner's performances were
>> at the inspired level.
> What would you say he did better in that recording than in his others?
Freshness. Spontaneity. Simplicity. Lack of over-doing anything. It's the
only "Messiah" I've heard where everything following the "Hallelujah" chorus
isn't an anti-climax.
M forever
wrote:
"Grow up"? LOL. You can't handle it when I point out that you
pontificate about music, yet you have no real understanding of the
subject, and you freak out and post these violent fantasies, and you
think that is "grown up" behavior?
Your post here needs to be taken in an read carefully. There is a lot
of flaming and name-calling on the internet (and I say what I think
often in rather undiplomatic terms myself), but there is little like
the above, a sudden outburst of your violent fantasies triggered by
nothing more than me pointing out you have no background in music.
So you want to "smash the mouth", "crush the hands" and "blind" a
person who criticizes you? WOW. That you have some real psychological
problems is pretty obvious from your need to pontificate about stuff
that you have no clue about, and make dramatic judgments about music
you don't really understand and which therefore frustrates you, but
these violent fantasies are a completely different level of
disturbedness. Both patterns of behavior obviously come from the same
source, a deeply disturbed mind and a fundamentally insecure one which
can't handle the real world as it is and so it has to cut it down to
his small size.
But this outburst reveals more about you than we ever wanted to know
and probably more than you would ever want people to know about you.
But it's out there now.
So what happened to you? What is the deep trauma that is the only
explanation (though not excuse) for this kind of outburst? Were you
abused as a kid? Very likely. Let me guess. Sodomized? By a relative?
By a priest?
M forever
wrote:
I don't see it that way. Many people can potentially make interesting
comments and recommendations. One just has to know one's own
limitations in order to be taken seriously. You blabla about stuff
that you don't really understand in a way which suggests that you have
very deep background knowledge and understanding of music. But you
don't.
Mark Stenroos
wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
To each his own.
I found Gardiner's Messiah to be underwhelming. I bought it on LP,
gave it a listen and traded it in for something else. I then got a
promo CD of the thing, gave it a partial listen and decided it was a
waste of my listening time. Perhaps it would have been fairer to give
it more than one and a half tries. Don't now. I think he overdid it on
the simplicity you mentioned and lapsed into stilted. The soloists are
the worst, coming off as faceless at best, irritating at worst.
BTW - were you to put me in Gitmo with my choice of torture being
between Gardiner's Messiah v any number of the other HIP Messiahs out
there, I'd probably go with Gardiner as being the least-severe torture
on offer...but it would still be torture. Minkowski's Archiv version
may be THE most-annoying Messiah ever put on disc.
M forever
> On May 21, 11:27 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Put Gardiner's stable of Mozart singers - Margiono, Olsen, Gilfry, von
> > > Otter, Rolfe-Johnson, Roocroft - up against the caliber of singers
> > > you'll find in many rightly famous recordings, and it's a case of the
> > > decent college singers v the stars. I mean, did Anthony Rolfe-Johnson
> > > ever make a recording that one would prefer over the same repertoire
> > > performed by Wunderlich, Gedda or even Schreier? Don't think so. Do
> > > his sopranos rival great Mozart singers like Steber or - more recently
> > > - Gruberova? No way.
>
> > Isn't that a little apples and oranges? I mean, aren't those simply
> > different styles of singing, and does it really make so much sense to
> > compare them directly?
>
> I don't think so. Are there different styles of violin or double bass
> playing, for example, where a generally thin & wiry tone and a limited
> expressive palette would be considered simply a style choice? What if
> a thin and wiry tone was all that a particular player had at their
> disposal? Would a violinist with such limits be considered to be
> making a stylistic choice in their employing such a tone, or would one
> be correct to aver that such a player just didn't have the technical
> facility and - therefore - range of expression of a Grumiaux or
> Perlman?
Such a severely limited expressive palette as you describe it would
probably be considered a limitation in any musical field, but what I
hear from Gardiner's DG, it isn't that limited at all. It isn't
particularly "big opera", obviously, but that is for stylistic
reasons, and for good ones. I think these Mozart operas can also be
sung in a "bigger" style if it is done musically well and tasteful and
if it does the perfect balance of text and music that Mozart and da
Ponte achieved justice - which often it doesn't. But the more intimate
"chamber musical" style heard on Gardiner's recording of DG I think is
very appropriate. There is vocal and orchestral drama where it is
needed (in fact more so than in many bigger versions, e.g. when DG
goes to hell), but there is also plenty plenty of textual and musical
nuance which I think is very important.
BTW, I also like that Gardiner uses a fortepiano for the recitatives
although I think the recitative playing isn't done so well. It doesn't
really "say" much.
> > I only have Gardiner's Don G but I can't see what's so wrong with,
> > say, Gilfry as Don or D'Arcangelo as Leporello. I find them both
> > rather enjoyable in their roles.
>
> That would beg the question of "compared to who?" Siepi? Fi-Di? Walter
> Berry? Wächter? I can't make such pronouncements in isolation of the
> recorded canon. Heard in isolation, I imagine that Gardiner's
> Beethoven Symphonies would be rather enjoyable. But can one make the
> same claim when his cycle is stacked up against the competition?
Many comparisons can be made and that can be quite interesting, of
course. That's what we do here all the time. But a performance can
also be judged on its own merits, and the best judgments are reached
when one does that rather than judging different styles against each
other. Or rather, it can be highly interesting to compare and discuss
the different *styles*, but it can be misleading to directly compare
performance in different styles to each other. Then it can easily lead
to to narrow and skewed views, which I think is the mistake you are
making here. You are judging everything from your own preconception of
how people should sing in general rather than accept the validity of
different performances styles and then see how individual performances
are done in their own stylistic concept.
> So it goes with opera/oratorio, at least with me. Which is why I said
> that Gardiner's vocal recordings are aimed at those who don't like
> singing.
You know that's a ridiculous claim which makes you look a little silly
here. I wish you wouldn't do that. Remember the people singing in
these recordings are all far better singers than you are. I kind of
assume they all like singing just as much as you do.
> There are people out there who feel that certain singers are
> just showing off their techniques at times, and that doing so occurs
> at the expense of the composer and the music. I'm not of that school.
> When - for example - Leontyne Price and Franco Corelli take the
> artistic initiative to bend the notes the composer penned to the will
> of their vocal techniques, well, I find that that enhances the music,
> rather than detracting from the same.
That can be the case and I think it would be a mistake to rule out
such things. On the other hand, I think it is equally a mistake to do
the opposite, as you are doing here.
M forever
Is that clip really so bad? He sounds a little strained and the fast
scales don't come off as "pearly" as I guess they should, but it also
sounds like a really different aria, so maybe we should be less harsh
in judging this, shouldn't we?
wkasimer
> > > Are you referring to this?
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZqTJg1tfVs
>
> > I'm not sure if it's the same recording. The one I remember was a
> > studio recording, from an LP of Mozart arias on Angel, recorded in
> > 1957 or so. The problems are certainly similar, but my recollection
> > is that the one on the Angel LP is even worse.
>
> Is that clip really so bad? He sounds a little strained and the fast
> scales don't come off as "pearly" as I guess they should,
The florid work is horrible - inaccurate, out of tune, and without the
same singing tone that Gedda uses elsewhere.
> but it also
> sounds like a really different aria, so maybe we should be less harsh
> in judging this, shouldn't we?
No. I have heard this aria - and I'm talking about the florid version
- sung superbly. The most impressive was probably Heppner at the Met
in the early 90's. A truly heroic sound, all of the florid work
accurate, and he even ornamented the da capo. On records, there are
fine versions by Stuart Burrows and Rolfe Johnson, and probably a few
I'm forgetting. A technically sound singer ought to be able to sing
this much better than Gedda did.
Bill
Mark Stenroos
> > > Isn't that a little apples and oranges? I mean, aren't those simply
> > > different styles of singing, and does it really make so much sense to
> > > compare them directly?
>
> > I don't think so. Are there different styles of violin or double bass
> > playing, for example, where a generally thin & wiry tone and a limited
> > expressive palette would be considered simply a style choice? What if
> > a thin and wiry tone was all that a particular player had at their
> > disposal? Would a violinist with such limits be considered to be
> > making a stylistic choice in their employing such a tone, or would one
> > be correct to aver that such a player just didn't have the technical
> > facility and - therefore - range of expression of a Grumiaux or
> > Perlman?
>
> Such a severely limited expressive palette as you describe it would
> probably be considered a limitation in any musical field, but what I
> hear from Gardiner's DG, it isn't that limited at all. It isn't
> particularly "big opera", obviously, but that is for stylistic
> reasons, and for good ones. I think these Mozart operas can also be
> sung in a "bigger" style if it is done musically well and tasteful and
> if it does the perfect balance of text and music that Mozart and da
> Ponte achieved justice - which often it doesn't.
It sounds like you're assuming that the "bigger style" is what held
sway through most of the 20th century until Gardiner et al came along
and resurrected a more-intimate style of performing classical era
opera. Not true. Listen to the early Fritz Busch recordings. Listen to
Karajan's EMI recordings from the 50s. These are hardly big-style
Mozart recordings. Listen to John McCormick's never-equaled recording
of "Il mio tesoro" from 1916 to hear what style and vocal
distinctiveness can be achieved with a great technique put to service
in a voice that no one would consider to be "big" (here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSHnxlf2DPs&feature=related ). And yet,
the vocal style is indeed, for lack of a better word, "big" in every
sense of the word.
> > That would beg the question of "compared to who?" Siepi? Fi-Di? Walter
> > Berry? Wächter? I can't make such pronouncements in isolation of the
> > recorded canon. Heard in isolation, I imagine that Gardiner's
> > Beethoven Symphonies would be rather enjoyable. But can one make the
> > same claim when his cycle is stacked up against the competition?
>
> It can easily lead
> to to narrow and skewed views, which I think is the mistake you are
> making here. You are judging everything from your own preconception of
> how people should sing in general rather than accept the validity of
> different performances styles and then see how individual performances
> are done in their own stylistic concept.
I'm judging from the perspective of singers having a sound vocal
technique, and to the trained ear, it's easy to distinguish a sound
technique from a so-so technique. it's even easier to distinguish
between a great technique and a so-so technique. When I hear singers
failing to engage the music in the strictly vocal sense of what IS
possible, it signals either a lack of imagination or an inability to
do so. Or, perhaps they have the ability to engage the music in a
"big" or traditional way but make a different choice. I tend to think
that to be the least-likely scenario as any singer who has the
technical ability at their fingertips is loathe to not put the same on
display during their performances. It's the kind of thing that singers
with a big technique tend to quit over when a stage director or
conductor tells them that their wide palette won't be needed.
Perhaps I have a different perspective because of my past as a
professional singer. Moving in such circles, I never encountered a
singer who found much to talk about when it came to Mozart a la
Gardiner and his singers. There were no role models there to emulate.
Maybe that's a particularly American view that goes with our cowboy
mentality. Could be. I'd say it's on the same level as a trained
violinist imagining that Linda Brava isn't on the same level as Anne-
Sophie Mutter, even while the generalized, non-violin-playing public
can't hear the difference between the musical capabilities of the two.
>You know that's a ridiculous claim which makes you look a little silly
here. I wish you wouldn't do that. Remember the people singing in
these recordings are all far better singers than you are.<
Well, that's just a cheap shot on your part, and it's really not
germane to the conversation. You seem to be averring that no one is
allowed to express an opinion on the ability of any musician of any
kind if one's own superiority on a particular instrument doesn't
exceed that of the musician under discussion. You may as well aver
that based on their recordings of the Beethoven 9th, JE Gardiner is a
better conductor than was Carlos Kleiber by virtue of the fact that
Gardiner recorded Beethoven's 9th while Kleiber didn't. Perhaps
Gardiner is a better conductor than was Kleiber simply by virtue of
the fact that the sheer volume of his recorded output far exceeds
Kleiber's.
And the term "better singers" is a relative term. There are better
singers to be found on recordings of choral groups than may be found
doing solo roles on Gardiner's recordings. There are better singers
around who never end up on major labels like DG, and whose recorded
repertoire may be found only on indie and out-of-the way labels. Not
because they weren't better singers than those used by JEG, but
because of any number of factors that had nothing at all to do with
their vocal abilities. There are "better singers" doing small roles on
Klemperer's opera recordings than those doing major roles on JEG's
recordings.
You know that, so I'm surprised to hear you making this argument.
Mark Stenroos
>
> No. I have heard this aria - and I'm talking about the florid version
> - sung superbly. The most impressive was probably Heppner at the Met
> in the early 90's. A truly heroic sound, all of the florid work
> accurate, and he even ornamented the da capo.
Agreed. Too bad Heppner didn't stick with Mozart and the lighter works
for which his voice was truly suited. I never bought the idea that he
was a dramatic tenor of any stretch. His voice has been ruined by his
attempts at the heavier roles. More's the pity.
William Sommerwerck
news:d43f88dc-bce5-454d...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 2:25 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4426c09e-ab51-4d64...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 9:44 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>> The "Messiah". Would that all of Gardiner's performances were
>>> at the inspired level.
> > What would you say he did better in that recording than in his others?
> Freshness. Spontaneity. Simplicity. Lack of over-doing anything. It's the
> only "Messiah" I've heard where everything following the "Hallelujah"
chorus
> isn't an anti-climax.
To each his own.
I found Gardiner's Messiah to be underwhelming. I bought it on LP,
gave it a listen and traded it in for something else. I then got a
promo CD of the thing, gave it a partial listen and decided it was a
waste of my listening time. Perhaps it would have been fairer to give
it more than one and a half tries. Don't now. I think he overdid it on
the simplicity you mentioned and lapsed into stilted. The soloists are
the worst, coming off as faceless at best, irritating at worst.
Forgive me, but it might be that you're accustomed to what I would consider
"overblown" performances.
Mark Stenroos
wrote:
> "Mark Stenroos" <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d43f88dc-bce5-454d...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 21, 2:25 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "jrsnfld" <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4426c09e-ab51-4d64...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 21, 9:44 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >>> The "Messiah". Would that all of Gardiner's performances were
> >>> at the inspired level.
> > > What would you say he did better in that recording than in his others?
> > Freshness. Spontaneity. Simplicity. Lack of over-doing anything. It's the
> > only "Messiah" I've heard where everything following the "Hallelujah"
> chorus
> > isn't an anti-climax.
>
> To each his own.
>
> I found Gardiner's Messiah to be underwhelming.
>
> "overblown" performances.
Could be.
The Messiah recordings I return to most often would be:
1. Marriner - Argo/Decca
2. Karl Richter - DG
3. Somary - Vanguard
4. Shaw - RCA
5. Pinnock - Archiv
If those are overblown versions, so be it.
jrsnfld
But...I thought you said you would choose Gardiner over any other HIP
recording if forced to. I rate Pinnock relatively highly--nice group
of soloists, decent orchestra and chorus, definitely not overblown,
maybe a little underdone, but not bad at all....
My only other HIP version is Harnoncourt, so maybe I'm missing
something here.
--Jeff
Mark Stenroos
I guess Pinnock is a HIP version. I stand corrupted...er, corrected.
Matthew B. Tepper
the following letters to be typed in news:ir8qal$9ud$1...@dont-email.me:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote in message
My sincere thanks.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
"I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable
than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical
change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free
society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get
to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors." Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" 15 May 2011
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
jrsnfld
I'd like to know, however, if Koopman's is any good. I have heard so
many excellent concerts from him, including a Messiah (with the
NYPO...is that HIP?).
Then there are two others that look very good on paper: Christie's
(with Piau and Scholl among the soloists) and the DVD conducted by
Fasolis (Lynne Dawson being perhaps the most famous of the soloists).
--Jeff
M forever
Yes and no. His stuff is usually so polished and rounded-off, it may
be played on "period instruments", but it's not really "HIP". Not
because "HIP" can't be polished, but because Pinnock's interpretations
often lack the essentials of "HIPness" - rhetoric phrasing, for
instance. They are basically modern mainstream interpretations which
happen to be played on "period" instruments. But they don't explore
historical performance styles.
M forever
> the vocal style is indeed, for lack of a better word, "big" in every
> sense of the word.
Dunno, is that really not a "big" voice? It's really hard to tell from
this very historical recording. But McCormack filled huge halls, so
his voice must have been rather "big". I like that he sings with very
little vibrato though - I hate that in a lot of singers. Not because
"HIP" clichés say there should be no vibrato - a controversial topic,
as you are no doubt aware of - simply because many singers overdo it
so every note sounds like a trill.
I think your background as a singer actually makes you more narrow-
minded about this as you could be. You seem to have some conceptions
about how "real" singers should sing and you dismiss everybody who
doesn't conform to that. So your background here is, unfortunately, a
limiting factor for you. It doesn't have to be that way. Take a look
at Jeff, for instance. His background as an oboe player obviously
gives him some deeper technical and stylistic insights into woodwind
playing, but his attitude is the opposite of yours: he finds good and
interesting elements in almost every style of wind playing.
> >You know that's a ridiculous claim which makes you look a little silly
>
> here. I wish you wouldn't do that. Remember the people singing in
> these recordings are all far better singers than you are.<
>
> Well, that's just a cheap shot on your part, and it's really not
> germane to the conversation.
I think it is an apt comment because what you are doing is basically
taking a cheap shot at a vast group of professional singers,
dismissing their work summarily based on some vague theories you have
about singing - while they are out there doing it. Does it get any
cheaper than that?
> You seem to be averring that no one is
> allowed to express an opinion on the ability of any musician of any
> kind if one's own superiority on a particular instrument doesn't
> exceed that of the musician under discussion. You may as well aver
> that based on their recordings of the Beethoven 9th, JE Gardiner is a
> better conductor than was Carlos Kleiber by virtue of the fact that
> Gardiner recorded Beethoven's 9th while Kleiber didn't. Perhaps
> Gardiner is a better conductor than was Kleiber simply by virtue of
> the fact that the sheer volume of his recorded output far exceeds
> Kleiber's.
I think that's a silly comparison. I don't think either that one has
to be able to conduct or play better than the artists one criticizes.
But perspective, context and respect for the artists under review are
very important. You are often lacking that respect and the
perspective.
M forever
I forgot: I totally forgot you have these biases against "HIP"
performance. I don't think it has anything to do with an "American
cowboy" mentality, but I have noticed that many Americans really don't
"get" what "HIP" is actually about. Because it's about more than just
a few performance clichés, hard timpani sticks, fastish tempi and
"small" voices. It's a much more complex subject, and a lot of it has
to do with cultural context. Which Americans are generally lacking,
and that probably explains why period performance is so little
understood and done in America. American orchestras mostly missed the
boat on that, too.
Gerard
As always: forever "spending" 24 hours posting in a newsgroup, resulting in
thousands and thousands of wasted words.
Gerard
Really?
It seems that only *you* understands HIP, because you're always bashing European
recordings too. Nobody is good enough to you.
Christopher Webber
>> I guess Pinnock is a HIP version. I stand corrupted...er, corrected.
> Yes and no. His stuff is usually so polished and rounded-off, it may
> be played on "period instruments", but it's not really "HIP". Not
> because "HIP" can't be polished, but because Pinnock's interpretations
> often lack the essentials of "HIPness" - rhetoric phrasing, for
> instance. They are basically modern mainstream interpretations which
> happen to be played on "period" instruments. But they don't explore
> historical performance styles.
Michael, I don't think you and I know the same Pinnock.
As an academic, and as a practitioner, his work has been based precisely
around the detailed rediscovery of "historical performance styles". Just
because it does not major on what you describe as "rhetoric phrasing"
(or what I guess you intend to convey by that) does not mean that he is
not historically informed. His whole modus operandi is based on going
intuitively and practically with what the period instruments naturally
do, not forcing them into any theoretical "essentials".
That is why his (and his players') performances have been so
consistently musical, and alive, over several decades. Not to all tastes
of course, especially to more polemical or academical minds...
--
Christopher Webber
London, UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
Christopher Webber
> and it's a case of the
> decent college singers v the stars. I mean, did Anthony Rolfe-Johnson
> ever make a recording that one would prefer over the same repertoire
> performed by Wunderlich, Gedda or even Schreier? Don't think so.
Apples and oranges indeed. We don't have to "prefer" anything.
Personally, I would not want to be without A R-J's Mozart any more than
I'd want to be without Wunderlich's. I listen to him in a different way,
not to be wowed by the liquidity of the singing, but by the subtlety of
the music. There is room for both. Your words, with respect, seem to me
to be a put-down of one great singer by referencing another.
Kip Williams
as a term. "Well, he's not exactly HIP, but he's kind of HEP."
Kip W
hep, hep!
Gerard
> I think it's time we also allowed "Historically Evocative Performance"
> as a term. "Well, he's not exactly HIP, but he's kind of HEP."
>
It's still too early for that.
BTW Hep is jazz record label.
William Sommerwerck
> Forgive me, but it might be that you're accustomed to what I would
consider
> "overblown" performances.
Could be.
The Messiah recordings I return to most often would be:
1. Marriner - Argo/Decca
2. Karl Richter - DG
3. Somary - Vanguard
4. Shaw - RCA
5. Pinnock - Archiv
> If those are overblown versions, so be it.
I've never heard Marrinor or Pinnock pointlessly overdo anything. Nor would
I expect that from Somary or Shaw.
"I like A and B. You like A and B. So why do we disagree on C?"
Mark Stenroos
>Listen to John McCormick's never-equaled recording
> > of "Il mio tesoro" from 1916 to hear what style and vocal
> > distinctiveness can be achieved with a great technique put to service
> > in a voice that no one would consider to be "big" (here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSHnxlf2DPs&feature=related). And yet,
> > the vocal style is indeed, for lack of a better word, "big" in every
> > sense of the word.
>
> Dunno, is that really not a "big" voice? It's really hard to tell from
> this very historical recording. But McCormack filled huge halls, so
> his voice must have been rather "big".
This statement displays a basic misunderstanding of how a voice
functions technically. A well-produced voice fills a hall no matter
what its size and no matter what dynamic it is singing. That's a
result of the vocal registers being used in equilibrium, which results
in what we call "presence." Pavarotti, for instance, had incredible
presence in the Met, whereas Domingo - whose voice is intrinsically
"bigger" than was Pav's - doesn't have the same presence.
A pianissimo has just as much presence in a hall as does a fortissimo.
Note - I'm talking about the way solo singers use their voices, not
the way chorus singers generally use their voices. Often times when a
choir sings softly, they lose presence, and you get the feeling that
your ear is having to travel to the stage to pick up their sound. That
can also happen with a soloist, but it never happens with soloists
whose voices have presence.
So, McCormack's voice was "big" in the presence department, while it
was not basically a big voice timbre-wise or dynamically. He reminds
me of Fi-Di, whose light baritone voice was very much dominated by the
head register. I well remember Fi-Di in the Brahms Requiem at
Carnegie, where his light, almost blousey sound filled the hall, even
when singing very softly. His voice actually lost presence when he
tried to load it up with the chest register to sing loudly. In his
case, it had an opposite effect.
>I like that he sings with very
> little vibrato though - I hate that in a lot of singers. Not because
> "HIP" clichés say there should be no vibrato - a controversial topic,
> as you are no doubt aware of - simply because many singers overdo it
> so every note sounds like a trill.
I know what you mean to say, but in vocal pedagogy, there's no such
thing as overdone vibrato, as vibrato is a term that is used to
signify a normal and health oscillation of the tone around the median.
The kind of "vibrato" you're describing is called a flutter or
tremolo. It's a sign of an unhealthy vocal technique, usually
tenseness somewhere in the throat. The opposite problem is the wobble,
which is a too-slow oscillation, often caused by forcing too much air
through the vocal folds.
>
> > > It can easily lead
> > > to to narrow and skewed views, which I think is the mistake you are
> > > making here. You are judging everything from your own preconception of
> > > how people should sing in general rather than accept the validity of
> > > different performances styles and then see how individual performances
> > > are done in their own stylistic concept.
One needs to make the distinction between styles of singing and
singing technique. There is only one correct singing technique, and
that is the technique that works the best and the most-efficiently for
a particular singer. That may seem to imply that there are as many
techniques as singers, but not really, as all good singing techniques
share the same principles. Were I forced to pick a school of technical
training for singers, then I would pick the Italian school as being
the most in tune with the natural functions of the voice.
>
> > I'm judging from the perspective of singers having a sound vocal
> > technique, and to the trained ear, it's easy to distinguish a sound
>
> I think your background as a singer actually makes you more narrow-
> minded about this as you could be.
Agreed.
>You seem to have some conceptions
> about how "real" singers should sing and you dismiss everybody who
> doesn't conform to that.
I have concepts about what constitutes good singing technique.
M forever
ODD, OCD. QED.
M forever
ODD, OCD. QED.
David O.
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know what you mean to say, but in vocal pedagogy, there's no such
>thing as overdone vibrato, as vibrato is a term that is used to
>signify a normal and health oscillation of the tone around the median.
>The kind of "vibrato" you're describing is called a flutter or
>tremolo.
You mean like Judy Garland?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYD6n65L6GE&feature=related
M forever
You are correct, I don't have a very thorough understanding of vocal
technique. Nor did I ever say I did. What you are explaining here
isn't quite the revelation you think it is though: it's just basic
acoustics and applies to any "instrument" or ensemble. You seem to
think that you have some deep and esoteric insights into he art of
singing which hardly anyone else has, including people such as Domingo
or Norman and all the people who sing with Gardiner who you summarily
dismissed.
I think you are mistaken about that.
I think you could put the knowledge that you doubtlessly have about
singing better critical use and be much more informative for the rest
of us if you realized that.
> >I like that he sings with very
> > little vibrato though - I hate that in a lot of singers. Not because
> > "HIP" clichés say there should be no vibrato - a controversial topic,
> > as you are no doubt aware of - simply because many singers overdo it
> > so every note sounds like a trill.
>
> I know what you mean to say, but in vocal pedagogy, there's no such
> thing as overdone vibrato, as vibrato is a term that is used to
> signify a normal and health oscillation of the tone around the median.
> The kind of "vibrato" you're describing is called a flutter or
> tremolo. It's a sign of an unhealthy vocal technique, usually
> tenseness somewhere in the throat. The opposite problem is the wobble,
> which is a too-slow oscillation, often caused by forcing too much air
> through the vocal folds.
Vibrato, shmibrato - you know what I meant.
> > > > It can easily lead
> > > > to to narrow and skewed views, which I think is the mistake you are
> > > > making here. You are judging everything from your own preconception of
> > > > how people should sing in general rather than accept the validity of
> > > > different performances styles and then see how individual performances
> > > > are done in their own stylistic concept.
>
> One needs to make the distinction between styles of singing and
> singing technique. There is only one correct singing technique, and
> that is the technique that works the best and the most-efficiently for
> a particular singer. That may seem to imply that there are as many
> techniques as singers, but not really, as all good singing techniques
> share the same principles. Were I forced to pick a school of technical
> training for singers, then I would pick the Italian school as being
> the most in tune with the natural functions of the voice.
>
>
>
> > > I'm judging from the perspective of singers having a sound vocal
> > > technique, and to the trained ear, it's easy to distinguish a sound
>
> > I think your background as a singer actually makes you more narrow-
> > minded about this as you could be.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >You seem to have some conceptions
> > about how "real" singers should sing and you dismiss everybody who
> > doesn't conform to that.
>
> I have concepts about what constitutes good singing technique.
Here you are contradicting yourself. You said good technique is making
good use of the singer's natural talents, not forcing a general
conception and esthetic on them. I think that is correct, and that is
why some of the singers you criticize don't sound the way you want
them to. Because they simply don't sound that way.
Oscar
>
> But this outburst reveals more about you than we ever wanted to know
> and probably more than you would ever want people to know about you.
> But it's out there now.
> So what happened to you? What is the deep trauma that is the only
> explanation (though not excuse) for this kind of outburst? Were you
> abused as a kid? Very likely. Let me guess. Sodomized? By a relative?
> By a priest?
Visualizing sexual abuse on a child and putting it out there as some
kind of 'one-upping' is right up your alley. More than we ever wanted
to know, indeed. But we know this: First World immigrant 'stuck' in a
country so ass-backwards that he stays for years on end, putting up
with clumsy restraints on personal freedom ('those are things many
modern countries in the western world actually already have, plus way
more personal freedom than you have here in the US'), funding immoral
wars for years on end (your personal Department of Defense and War on
Terror bills combined have exceeded $40,000 http://tiny.cc/jdj93 since
2003), surrounding yourself with cultural illiterates ('It's a much
more complex subject, and a lot of it has to do with cultural context,
which Americans are generally lacking'), lacking for any kind of love
or touch -- we already know what you think of our food ('nothing in
America tastes like the real thing'), can't wait for your bottled-up
rant on American women -- having to deal with such inferiority and
affronts to liberty on a daily basis...goddamn, how do you do it?
More importantly, why??
M forever
My motivations are hardly your business, are they? Besides, I already
answered this burning question of yours. Apparently, that's something
a little too complex to understand for someone who never amounted up
to more than pushing road cases for other people though. You yourself
don't have any such choices to make since you would never be in the
position to make them. Being the underachiever you are, there is
really no point in you trying to understand why some people go to
foreign countries and manage to make a career which is far beyond your
own reach.
That must be terribly frustrating for someone like you though.
So we already been over all this, but the more interesting question
remains: what motivates someone to such an exceptional outburst of
violent fantasies as Sommerwerck's, exceptional even by the
unrestrained standards of flaming and name-calling that we all
sometimes indulge in here. Including yourself, you little
sanctimonious asshole.
But even calling you that is still very, very far away from spouting
such ultra-violent fantasies.
Funny only that didn't seem to grate with you at all.
Mark Stenroos
> You are correct, I don't have a very thorough understanding of vocal
> technique. Nor did I ever say I did. What you are explaining here
> isn't quite the revelation you think it is though: it's just basic
> acoustics and applies to any "instrument" or ensemble.
You are exactly right. I didn't think I was necessarily revealing
anything, just pointing out that the objective fact that the human
voice operates under the same acoustic properties as any other
instrument. The confusion comes when people use terms like "big"
because they are subjective terms. When it comes to building a sound
vocal technique, every singer deals with the exact same physical
properties that make up the human body, just like every violin has the
same basic physical properties. The difference comes in the fact that
a Heifetz could make an assembly line violin sound great while a
beginning violinist doesn't benefit from playing on a Strad. The human
voice is the same kind of instrument.
>You seem to
> think that you have some deep and esoteric insights into he art of
> singing which hardly anyone else has, including people such as Domingo
> or Norman and all the people who sing with Gardiner who you summarily
> dismissed.
What you term as insights are general operating knowledge among
singers and vocal coaches. I'm not revealing any mysteries or guarded
secrets that singers aren't aware of. But rmcr is another matter -
rmcr isn't exactly populated with singers or all that many opera fans.
Ergo, I assume that any insight on things vocal that I may offer is
probably new info to most rmcr posters. I could be wrong making such
an assumption.
Allen
said re singing also applies to speaking. Consider how a good,
well-trained actor can make an almost-whispered aside fill an auditorium.
Allen
Oscar
>
> My motivations are hardly your business, are they? Besides, I already
> answered this burning question of yours. Apparently, that's something
> a little too complex to understand for someone who never amounted up
> to more than pushing road cases for other people though. You yourself
> don't have any such choices to make since you would never be in the
> position to make them. Being the underachiever you are, there is
> really no point in you trying to understand why some people go to
> foreign countries and manage to make a career which is far beyond your
> own reach.
Lame answer. First, you have no idea what my job entails, you have
never bothered to ask. Second, motivations and intentions mean /
nothing/. Action is everything. Back up your constant shit-talking
about this Land of the feeble-minded and Home of the culturally
illiterate with some action, Michael. The slow slippage of time, 1
year, 5 years, 8 years, an ocean and four time zones from home has had
a maddening effect on you. You have admitted in past posts that you
are overweight and need to lose some pounds, obviously this 21st
century America of 67% overweight or obese population has you tightly
in her bosom and isn't letting go, you are becoming like the rest of
them. Take pride in your appearance and well-being, like me.
Speaking of bosoms, is this really the country you move to to meet a
mate and pass on your genes? American women, you sure?? And you know
your offspring will be pie-eating, video game-droning, Glee-watching,
hip-hop Facebook kids like the rest. You down with that? So much to
think about: you are entering middle age, you are alone, you are stuck
in a crumbling, foreign, impersonal purgatory with shitty food that
you detest and which does nothing for you, intellectually or
emotionally. And yet you choose to stay, roots long since planted and
growing deeper every day. How sad and pitiable. It's not too late,
though. You can always take positive action to change what needs
fixing. Do something.
M forever
You really are obsessed with what I am doing here and why. That's both
funny and really sad. The funny part is how you tell me to "do
something". I have already done much more than you, that's why I have
a much better job than you have. I know that really bothers you, but
it has nothing to do with me or anybody except for yourself, it is
simply in the nature of underachievers like you to envy more
accomplished people. If that is such a big problem for you, I think it
is rather time that you "do something" to improve your situation. It's
never too late. You can always take positive action to change what
needs fixing.
Or can you? There is usually a reason for why people get to where they
get, and not any further. You really haven't come far yet at all. So
maybe there isn't much potential there. You can still "do something" -
try to learn to accept and live with who and what you are rather than
going on rants like the above about what other people do or don't do.
I am afraid that's all you can do at this point. There doesn't seem to
be much potential there. You are obviously not very bright (duh! why
else would you be pushing road cases at your age), which is also why
you simply don't get what I am saying about various subjects which you
incessantly quote me but which you invariably distort to extremes. Not
that what I said about any of these subjects was ever particularly
complicated to understand. Far from it. Yet for you, everything I ever
said about anything is all just black&white. That does not imply you
have much brain power at your disposal at all.
So that all fits together. Your limited potential, your debilitating
inferiority complexes, your sad attempts to preach to people on the
internet what they should do with their lives.
It should be beneath me to even reply to a little douchebag like you,
but I can see you have some very big problems, otherwise you wouldn't
spend so much time preaching and ranting to people (in this case me)
who obviously don't give a shit about what an underachiever like you
has to say about their lives. What a bizarre idea to begin with.
So I hope the above helps you a little.
So what do you think about Sommerwerck's little outbreak of violent
fantasies there? And why did you lie about how I replied to it? I did
not "wish violence on a child" as you misrepresented it, I wondered
what happened to this person to make him so loaded with anger and
violent fantasies. He, however, did wish violence on me very
explicitly. So you don't have a problem with that?
Which brings us back to the very beginning. Remember how I
deconstructed you when you jumped out preaching and acting all holy?
Of course you do. That was all the more painful because I didn't even
have to put you down. I just used your own standards on yourself. I
thought you had learned something from that.
Gerard
QED
Thousands of words, again and again, the same words again and again.
This guy really "spends" 20 hours a day on his PC, and he really loves to write
such crap.
David O.
>You have admitted in past posts that you
>are overweight and need to lose some pounds
Michael is overweight?
:O
Michael, if I were your friend in Boston, I would force you to go out
jogging with me every morning before work. I would have you trimmed
down in short order.
William Sommerwerck
> trimmed down in short order.
I doubt you are Spencer Tracy or he is Katherine Hepburn.
Oscar
>
> You really are obsessed with what I am doing here and why.
You are a fascinating person. Why you remain here, paying taxes to
fund immoral, illegal wars (you moved here just in time for the start
of the Iraq War), knowing that your children, should you choose to
have any -- and you really should, in order to continue your proud
(very) lineage and hard-earned, unique sophistication,
otherwise...what a waste of it all -- will be full-on Americans,
entering the world through a US-bred womb...I'll stop now and perish
the thought, it's too much for you to handle.
That's both
> funny and really sad. The funny part is how you tell me to "do
> something". I have already done much more than you, that's why I have
> a much better job than you have.
You do? You don't even know what I do, or what I have done in the
past. Never asked, just assumed. But really, Michael: the old 'I
have a better job than you' line (you really did just say that). Can
your daddy beat up mine, too?
I know that really bothers you, but
> it has nothing to do with me or anybody except for yourself, it is
> simply in the nature of underachievers like you to envy more
> accomplished people. If that is such a big problem for you, I think it
> is rather time that you "do something" to improve your situation. It's
> never too late. You can always take positive action to change what
> needs fixing.
I am not in a country that I detest, lonely and without affection,
eating shitty food ('nothing in America tastes like the real thing'),
and in general just bitter and hating life, picking fights on an
Internet chat group. I have made a nice life for myself, totally on
my own, without anyone's help, thank you. I am not from California,
not even close, and I knew one person when I arrived. I travel widely
all over the world, have many friends, go to parties and concerts and
restaurants, have good, functioning relationship with my big family
and a beautiful girlfriend. The pathetic dissing and putting-down of
everything American (never any positives, it's all just a big
crumbling overhyped and unjust shithole to you) is really an acute
reflection of your own pathetic existence. How can you function, let
alone thrive, living here, knowing your daily misery, surrounded by
women who reject you and processed food everywhere and where things
you cherish so are diminished every day more and more as the USA
diversifies culturally and demographically away from Eurocentrism?
> Or can you? There is usually a reason for why people get to where they
> get, and not any further. You really haven't come far yet at all.
You have no idea what I have done. You have never asked. Just
assuming and projecting and attacking. No facts, all in your head.
Delusions.
So
> maybe there isn't much potential there. You can still "do something" -
> try to learn to accept and live with who and what you are rather than
> going on rants like the above about what other people do or don't do.
> I am afraid that's all you can do at this point. There doesn't seem to
> be much potential there. You are obviously not very bright (duh! why
> else would you be pushing road cases at your age), which is also why
> you simply don't get what I am saying about various subjects which you
> incessantly quote me but which you invariably distort to extremes.
Pushing road cases. So funny. Being Alice Cooper's personal
assistant and being part of the show (decapitating him, putting him in
straitjackets, coming on stage with a huge oversized syringe and
nailing him) is really not pushing road cases. But that was last
year. This year a new adventure. Yeah, pushing road cases...I did
some of that on Bon Jovi in Europe when I had to load the production
truck instead of the stage manager, but I worked in the production
office then (Lost Highway Tour 2007/2008, biggest tour in the world
that year) and was instructing the stagehands where to push the road
cases. I do stagehand work on the side when I'm at home and want to
make some extra cash, though, and have some down time. It is very
revealing how you characterize these men and women, though, the
stereotype as dim, dull, not bright, this kind of work as beneath
you. The IATSE hands working at the Met are making more than you,
absolutely. Fact. Average roadie out with a major tour such as Bon
Jovi is making more than you, absolutely. Fact.
Not
> that what I said about any of these subjects was ever particularly
> complicated to understand. Far from it. Yet for you, everything I ever
> said about anything is all just black&white. That does not imply you
> have much brain power at your disposal at all.
> So that all fits together. Your limited potential, your debilitating
> inferiority complexes, your sad attempts to preach to people on the
> internet what they should do with their lives.
Preach? I'm just trying to figure our this complex person that is M
Forever and why you stay when your continued rantings about the crappy
food and the unjustness and the limited personal freedoms and the
immoral wars and the cultural illiteracy (of course, European culture)
and, oh my God, there is very little HIPP here either. No preaching,
just wanna figure you out. You are fascinating.
> It should be beneath me to even reply to a little douchebag like you,
> but I can see you have some very big problems, otherwise you wouldn't
> spend so much time preaching and ranting to people (in this case me)
> who obviously don't give a shit about what an underachiever like you
> has to say about their lives. What a bizarre idea to begin with.
> So I hope the above helps you a little.
You are fascinating.
David O.
I thought you were going to say Alfred Lunt & Lynn Fontanne!
Terry
Good posting. Well done!
--
Cheers, Terry
Matthew Silverstein
> I can't think of any yet. Which one is a paragon for you?
That Missa Solemnis you mentioned. Some others off the top of my head:
Schumann 2
Beethoven Piano Concerto 4 (with Levin)
Brahms 1 and 3
Mozart, Le Nozze (DVD)
Beethoven 9
Matty
M forever
wrote:
Seriously?I found those Brahms symphonies pretty bizarre. And very
mechanical and entriely unidiomatic, too. And mind you, I am very open
to HIP and small ensemble performances of these symphonies.
Matthew Silverstein
> Seriously?I found those Brahms symphonies pretty bizarre. And very
> mechanical and entriely unidiomatic, too. And mind you, I am very open
> to HIP and small ensemble performances of these symphonies.
Seriously.
Matty