Barenboim's Bad Bruckner in Berlin
mark
Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
back in the day (7 & 8), but hadn't heard the complete set. The price
was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
Big mistake.
OK, I've only listened to 1-4 & 7 so far, but the disappointment and
aggravation are tremendous. I used to have Barenboim's DG set which I
thought was pretty good if not outstanding. Well, his remake is just
plain bad, especially when he has what was essentially Karajan's
Berlin Phil at his disposal. Even through the less-than-demonstration
quality recorded sound, one is shocked at the poor voicing of the
orchestral choirs, the lack of detail and tension and the often
indifferent playing from the orchestra.
Comparing Karajan's 4 & 7 on EMI and his 1-3 on DG to what is offered
here is an exercise in remembering not only what a great Bruckner
conductor Karajan was, but what has been lost since his death.
Barenboim's performances come off as those of a person who knows the
music on the page but doesn't have the skills or imagination to bring
the music to life. Where Karajan always satisfies and scores points
where one would hope they would be scored, Barenboim treats the scores
as an undifferentiated mass of sound that has no purpose, no harmonic
tension, no dynamic direction and no reason for existing in the first
place.
It gets to the point where this listener is actually angry at
Barenboim for riding so roughshod over these magnificent scores.
Rarely have I had such an adverse reaction to a set of recordings. The
only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
I don't remember these recordings being discussed all that much in
this NG. If they were, I should have availed myself of the expected
warnings.
Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
Comments?
George Orwell
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Alex Brown
> Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
> Comments?
I think it's a mixed bag. I like the odd ones better: 1, 3, 5, 9 (all
live recordings) and 7 (a bit less). I notice 5 was recently the BBC
Radio 3 "building a library" choice [1] -- justified IMHO if one wants
a faster Bruckner 5. I particularly like the way in 3 and 5 Barenboim
seems to light a fire under the BPO at times bringing an almost angry,
impetuous feeling to proceedings (in 3i for example). For me the 9 is
very moving, with a real sense of bendiction achieved in iii.
On the other hand, I like the even-numbered ones a lot less. If I
wanted to illustrate to somebody what "dead in the studio" meant, I'd
play them the end of 4 iv ! In 6 ii Barenboim gets the BPO strings to
play with a sugar-water sweetness which is truly revoting. Other than
the the orchestra sounds great to me, and the recordings are fine.
The comparison with Karajan is interesting, and I can see how (if one
favoured Karajan's approach) these might seem harder to like. at his
best Barenboim gives us symphony-as-narrative (where Karajan ,
perhaps, gave us symphony-as-meditation). The orchestra under
Barenboim does not seem to have that self-overreaching abandon that it
had for Karajan at climaxes, and there is not that trademark Karajan
"nerve" in the string sound. As technical recordings, they're
generally a lot better than the sometimes congested, sometimes glassy,
DGG efforts from the 70s and early 80s. Unlike the OP I find one of
the interesting things about Karajan is that he "scores points" in
places *other* than where one would expect (so, not at the loudest
climaxes). I think Barenboim's moments of excitement are a bit less
exotic (more conventional) ...
- Alex.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/cdreview/composer/anton-bruckner/
wagnerfan
news:50707127-236e-438e...@j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
No comments on the Bruckner - a composer I am still trying to "get" but I
don't think its an old man syndrome - funny that I don't think of you as old
man at all - your writing sure isn't tired (grin!).
I don't know how long its been since you were at MHS but I find it
fascinating that you were - I grew up with thier issues - I guess you would
know but I suppose we'll never see any of their complete Haydn symphony
issue under Marzendorfer on CD - quite a few examples of the set were
uploaded elsewhere and many were really wonderful. Wagner Fan
Gerard
>
> The
> only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
It has been reissued recently for a few dollars.
Very good stuff BTW.
>
> Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
That's a possibility of course ;-(
The Historian
> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
> back in the day (7 & 8), but hadn't heard the complete set. The price
> was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
What was your impression of the 8th? I have it, and while I thought it
fine, I didn't see the need to get any more of the cycle.
Norman Schwartz
>
> Barenboim treats the scores
> as an undifferentiated mass of sound that has no purpose, no harmonic
> tension, no dynamic direction and no reason for existing in the first
> place.
>
The Barenboim hit the nail on the head. ;-)
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:50707127-236e-438e-a851-
fefdd1...@j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
> back in the day (7 & 8), but hadn't heard the complete set. The price
> was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
I wonder if that was the same copy that had been sitting on the rack divider
for the previous couple of years? I had much earlier bought Barenboim's
Beethoven symphony box there and was actually quite favorably impressed.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Patrick McGuire
wrote:
I have to largely agree with you here. I think his Teldec set suffered
from bad recordings vs. bad playing. Of this set, I think 6, 8, and 9
are pretty good, 9 most of all. But the rest suffer from muffled
sounding brass where they should shine like they do in his DG/Chicago
set, which I have in its entirety and I enjoy every symphony in that
cycle. The brass shines in the passages where it should. They really
got it right in that one, but with the Teldec set he should have
stopped with 9 :)
mark
> I don't know how long its been since you were at MHS but I find it
> fascinating that you were - I grew up with thier issues - I guess you would
> know but I suppose we'll never see any of their complete Haydn symphony
> issue under Marzendorfer on CD - quite a few examples of the set were
> uploaded elsewhere and many were really wonderful.
I looked into that when I was there. MHS no longer had rights to the
Marzendorfer recordings, which were supposedly controlled by his
estate or his widow or someone. Turns out they had no idea if THEY
owned the rights, so it would have been a huge process to try and
unravel if we wished to reissue the series. But a larger factor that
mitigated against MHS issuing these recordings was that before I got
there, MHS had purchased the rights to issue the Fischer recordings
that were being issued by Nimbus. There were a lot of problems with
that deal which I won't get into right now, but having advanced
considerable $ to Nimbus for those rights, MHS was committed to going
with those new recordings.
mark
I haven't gotten to that in the set yet, but I vaguely remember the
single disc. Doesn't he rush through the last bars of the finale with
no ritardano?
mark
>
> > Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> > Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
> > back in the day (7 & 8), but hadn't heard the complete set. The price
> > was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
>
> I wonder if that was the same copy that had been sitting on the rack divider
> for the previous couple of years? I had much earlier bought Barenboim's
> Beethoven symphony box there and was actually quite favorably impressed.
>
Could be. That's where I found it, right next to Bertini's Mahler set
(which I didn't pick up).
Gerard
> there, MHS had purchased the rights to issue the Fischer recordings
> that were being issued by Nimbus.
So did Brilliant Classics.
> There were a lot of problems with
> that deal which I won't get into right now, but having advanced
> considerable $ to Nimbus for those rights, MHS was committed to going
> with those new recordings.
It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal with
Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
of all Haydn symphonies.
Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
mark
>
> It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal with
> Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
> of all Haydn symphonies.
> Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from presenting
a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
MHS never claimed such a thing. In fact, MHS had advanced considerable
money to Nimbus for a number of recordings to secure rights in
perpetuity. This included the Haydn set, Weller's Beethoven series, a
Rachmaninoff series, Bowyens (sp?) Bach Organ Series and maybe a few
other things. MHS actually provided seed money to help get the
projects off the ground.
And, MHS got very nervous about all of this when Nimbus ran into big
financial problems around the turn of the century. There was great
concern that the Haydn Symphonies and Bach Organ series would not be
completed, and that those advances and been wasted and would never be
recouped.
So, there's every reason to believe that Brilliant's claims that their
$ allowed Fischer to complete the Haydn series may well be true. Makes
sense to me, but I don't know. You'd have to ask Nimbus.
mark
> On May 7, 8:39 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksenþ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal with
> > Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
> > of all Haydn symphonies.
> > Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
>
> Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from presenting
> a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
>
> MHS never claimed such a thing. In fact, MHS had advanced considerable
> money to Nimbus for a number of recordings to secure rights in
> perpetuity. This included the Haydn set, Weller's Beethoven series, a
> Rachmaninoff series, Bowyens (sp?) Bach Organ Series and maybe a few
> other things. MHS actually provided seed money to help get the
> projects off the ground.
>
A few corrections:
1. The Weller Beethoven series was on Chandos, not Nimbus, but MHS did
buy the rights to that set in perpetuity. In fact, they made a big,
one-time royalty payment for that Beethoven set with the proviso that
they'd never have to pay Chandos another dime in royalties on the
set...which is why that set was MHS's loss-leader for years in its
member acquisition campaigns. It was a thing of beauty - a self-
liquidating new member offer. MHS could give the CDs away for "free"
while the modest shipping and handling charges ($5.95) covered the
expense of manufacturing and mailing the set to the new member.
2. I said Gerard was being "snooty." I meant to write "snotty."
Gerard
> On May 7, 8:39 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that
> > their deal with Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam
> > Fischer to finish his cycle of all Haydn symphonies.
> > Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
>
> Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from presenting
> a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
Pardon?
What is "snooty" in:
""It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal
with
Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
of all Haydn symphonies.
Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?""
I don't see what you mean.
Gerard
wkasimer
> Could be. That's where I found it, right next to Bertini's Mahler set
> (which I didn't pick up).
You made the wrong choice, Mark.
Bill
mark
I had a few of Bertini's Mahlers, including DLVDE. They're good, I'm
just not into Mahler right now. I've been culling Mahler recordings,
not acquiring them.
I'm sure that set will still be at Record Surplus next time I'm there.
I've seen it sitting there since February.
mark
>
> > > It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that
> > > their deal with Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam
> > > Fischer to finish his cycle of all Haydn symphonies.
> > > Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
>
> > Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from presenting
> > a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
>
> Pardon?
> What is "snooty" in:
>
> ""It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal
> with
> Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
> of all Haydn symphonies.
> Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?""
>
> I don't see what you mean.
>
The snottiness comes in the quotation marks you put around the word
"claim." They are unnecessary in that sentence. By adding the quotes,
you imply that the claim is based on a lie, and that Brilliant, MHS
and I are telling a lie. That IS what you were implying, is it not?
Bob Lombard
> Pardon?
> What is "snooty" in:
>
> ""It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal
> with
> Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
> of all Haydn symphonies.
> Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?""
>
> I don't see what you mean.
>
:) Hah. As Mark explains, he meant to type 'snotty'. Of course your
question wasn't 'snotty' either; it's just that Mark is nearly always
in 'en garde' position.
bl
mark
it's just that Mark is nearly always
> in 'en garde' position.
>
Depends on the poster.
With Gerard, WF, Owen and most of the resident god squad, I've come to
expect a challenge to any- and everything I post here, so I tend to
respond in kind.
I'm OK with it as I'm researching a book on Pavlovian responses to
musical/religious/political discourse. :0
Gerard
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that
> > > > their deal with Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to
> > > > Adam Fischer to finish his cycle of all Haydn symphonies.
> > > > Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
> >
> > > Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from
> > > presenting a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
> >
> > Pardon?
> > What is "snooty" in:
> >
> > ""It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that
> > their deal with
> > Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to
> > finish his cycle of all Haydn symphonies.
> > Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?""
> >
> > I don't see what you mean.
> >
>
> The snottiness comes in the quotation marks you put around the word
> "claim." They are unnecessary in that sentence. By adding the quotes,
> you imply that the claim is based on a lie, and that Brilliant, MHS
> and I are telling a lie. That IS what you were implying, is it not?
Nonsens. It's you who implies - and invents - here things.
I wrote "claim" because Brilliant Classic's suggestion was not as strong as a
claim. It was something they told (but they did not do so on television and in
the newspapers).
If you want to read in those quotation marks that Brilliant Classics lied,
that's your problem.
If you read in it that MHS and you lied, you have a serious problem there.
Gerard
I've noticed that he often adds "just askin'" after a question.
It seems that he feels seriously attacked by a normal question when "just
askin'" is not added.
John Wiser
news:ttXEn.108368$iG7....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
was distinctly snotty, but that is only what
one has come to expect of this Flemish idiot.
JDW
Bob Lombard
Hey, sounds interesting. When it goes to paperback I'll get a copy.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Bob Lombard
:) Hah again. I was willing to give Gerard the benefit of ambiguity
there. Would the -snotty- reading have been less intense if he had
used single quotes? Um, just asking.
Gerard
What "ambiguity"?
Is using quoting marks "snotty", or implying that someone is lying? Do "marks"
and "wisers" (or should that be "Nebraskan idiots"?) have some problems with
quotation marks that "Flemish idiots" don't have?
Gerard
>
> What "ambiguity"?
> Is using quoting marks "snotty", or implying that someone is lying?
> Do "marks" and "wisers" (or should that be "Nebraskan idiots"?) have
> some problems with quotation marks that "Flemish idiots" don't have?
"Just askin'" of course.
mark
> I wrote "claim" because Brilliant Classic's suggestion was not as strong as a
> claim. It was something they told (but they did not do so on television and in
> the newspapers).
I can see your point. Thanks for clarifying. I stand corrupted, er,
corrected.
SG
> Hey, sounds interesting. When it goes to paperback I'll get a copy.
Let me know when you sell it used on Amazon.
regards,
SG
(sorry, Mark)
mark
> > I'm OK with it as I'm researching a book on Pavlovian responses to
> > musical/religious/political discourse. :0
>
> Hey, sounds interesting. When it goes to paperback I'll get a copy.
>
Hate to disappoint, but this is a direct-to-CD-ROM project. The
publisher wanted to print a book, but being a CD industry insider, I'd
have none of it. I insisted on the CD-ROM only format just to piss off
my buds in the "Whine: CD-ROMs instead of print" thread.
Gerard
In that case you should consider issuing only a synopsis.
(just kiddin')
mark
>
> > Hate to disappoint, but this is a direct-to-CD-ROM project. The
> > publisher wanted to print a book, but being a CD industry insider, I'd
> > have none of it. I insisted on the CD-ROM only format just to piss off
> > my buds in the "Whine: CD-ROMs instead of print" thread.
>
> In that case you should consider issuing only a synopsis.
> (just kiddin')
As long as I get paid a full royalty, I don't care what gets issued.
Like they say, you can't tell a book by its cover.
3Bs
not as particular with those. I found 7 and 8 forgettable, with 8 one
of the least satisfying performances I have heard. Have not heard 4.
I enjoy some K Bruckner, but he's not a reference for me in any of
them. His EMI 4 and 7 are very good performances, but I don't like the
sound. I am baffled that anyone can listen to his DG performances and
think they hear the work of someone who has mastered this idiom- he
manages to make some Bruckner sound angry and unnecessarily intense.
And the man never even performed 1 or 2 in concert!
3Bs
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
I'd be happy for DB to (im)prove his Bruckner chops with his own
Berlin orchestra.
3Bs
> Could be. That's where I found it, right next to Bertini's Mahler set
> (which I didn't pick up).
Ouch! That was your error- Bertini's Mahler is consistently excellent.
mark
If I
> wanted to illustrate to somebody what "dead in the studio" meant, I'd
> play them the end of 4 iv !
You're right, it's an absolute mess.
>Unlike the OP I find one of
the interesting things about Karajan is that he "scores points" in
places *other* than where one would expect (so, not at the loudest
climaxes).<
My OP's mention of scoring points had little to do with the loudest
climaxes. It had to do with building and maintaining tension, with
knowing how much to "lean" on a dissonance and to keep the tension
going through the resolution into a consonance.
One thing about Karajan that eludes Barenboim is that Karajan always
insisted that notes be given their full value. This had the effect in
the brass of adding something of a halo effect to the music. A good
example of this is this effect occurs at the end of 4 iii where the
trumpets are playing triplets moving to a high climactic note. Under
Karajan, that note receives full value and stays around just long
enough to say firmly that the climax has arrived. In Barenboim's
rendition, the same note is shorted and tossed off like a pop gun.
Another difference is that with Karajan, you sense that he's more
interested in the quieter and more-contrapuntal parts of the scores,
being sure to properly weight the voices to make the maximum effect.
Barenboim seems to be gearing up for the loud parts...which he
promptly bulls his way through, making no effect at all. Having
watched Karajan conduct Bruckner on film and in the concert hall, it's
as if he gets out of the way of the orchestra when they are in full
cry. Yes, he's often very involved building to a climax, but once it
arrives, he just sort of sits back, provides the minimum beat
necessary to keep things together and lets the orchestra do what they
are predisposed to do.
mark
And just how many conductors have performed the early Bruckners in the
concert hall? Not many, I would guess, even among those who have
recorded complete Bruckner cycles. Baremboim is one who has - I
believe most of his cycle is live, including 1 & 2.
If we're going to not allow conductors to record music they haven't
done in the concert hall, then we're going to have to throw out a lot
of recordings.
I happen to be one who loves Karajan's intensity in Bruckner. I don't
hear anger, but then I don't listen to absolute music and assign
emotional labels to performances of the same.
I disagree with you - Karajan was a total master of Bruckner. In fact,
I think that Karajan took to Bruckner the way Bernstein took to
Mahler, ie: personally and professionally. Karajan's way with Bruckner
speaks to me. To each his own.
mark
But I will always err on the side of preferring Bruckner to Mahler, so
the error was in picking the lousy renditions, not the choice of rep.
SG
I agree with Mark's assessment of Barenboim's Bruckner vs. Karajan's.
Ironically, the +- same could be said about Karajan's Bruckner vs.
Furtwaengler's. Also about Rattle's Bruckner's vs. Barenboim's.
No matter. Things are just getting better. Nothing to see here.
Everything's fine and getting finer.
regards,
SG
Matthew�B.�Tepper
to be typed in news:7d473a28-b437-4892-ad42-
291536...@d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
Bertini mangles the end of the Lacrimosa in the Berlioz Requiem, but on the
other hand he did a fairly good job with the Weber-Mahler "Die Drei Pintos."
I don't view him in a particularly exceptional light, however. What would
you say are his strengths?
--
mark
> > The
> > only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> > cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
>
> It has been reissued recently for a few dollars.
> Very good stuff BTW.
I noticed that nobody has jumped in to second your opinion of the
Gardiner set.
Gerard
> On May 7, 6:27 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The
> > > only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> > > cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
> >
> > It has been reissued recently for a few dollars.
> > Very good stuff BTW.
>
> I noticed that nobody has jumped in to second your opinion of the
> Gardiner set.
Of course not.
The set has been discussed here often before. And this is a thread about
Bruckner recordings by Barenboim - maybe others did not notice you already
changed of subject in the first post.
But what do you want to say with this?
Gerard
> And the man never even performed 1 or 2 in concert!
Nor #3 or #6.
Gerard
> On May 7, 12:29 pm, 3Bs <threebs...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I think 5 and 9 are among the best, and enjoyed 1, 3 and 6, though
> > I'm not as particular with those. I found 7 and 8 forgettable, with
> > 8 one of the least satisfying performances I have heard. Have not
> > heard 4.
> >
> > I enjoy some K Bruckner, but he's not a reference for me in any of
> > them. His EMI 4 and 7 are very good performances, but I don't like
> > the sound. I am baffled that anyone can listen to his DG
> > performances and think they hear the work of someone who has
> > mastered this idiom- he manages to make some Bruckner sound angry
> > and unnecessarily intense. And the man never even performed 1 or 2
> > in concert!
>
> And just how many conductors have performed the early Bruckners in the
> concert hall? Not many, I would guess, even among those who have
> recorded complete Bruckner cycles. Baremboim is one who has - I
> believe most of his cycle is live, including 1 & 2.
>
> If we're going to not allow conductors to record music they haven't
> done in the concert hall, then we're going to have to throw out a lot
> of recordings.
I did not read anything about allowing.
He was pointing to some fact.
But do you know more examples (other conductors than Karajan) who recorded works
they never performed in concert?
I think Karajan was a little alone in this (but I'm not sure). Some pieces he
has recorded 2 or 3 times without performing them once in concert.
It's not the "usual way", I think.
td
> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
> back in the day (7 & 8), but hadn't heard the complete set. The price
> was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
>
> Big mistake.
>
> OK, I've only listened to 1-4 & 7 so far, but the disappointment and
> aggravation are tremendous. I used to have Barenboim's DG set which I
> thought was pretty good if not outstanding. Well, his remake is just
> plain bad, especially when he has what was essentially Karajan's
> Berlin Phil at his disposal. Even through the less-than-demonstration
> quality recorded sound, one is shocked at the poor voicing of the
> orchestral choirs, the lack of detail and tension and the often
> indifferent playing from the orchestra.
>
> Comparing Karajan's 4 & 7 on EMI and his 1-3 on DG to what is offered
> here is an exercise in remembering not only what a great Bruckner
> conductor Karajan was, but what has been lost since his death.
> Barenboim's performances come off as those of a person who knows the
> music on the page but doesn't have the skills or imagination to bring
> the music to life. Where Karajan always satisfies and scores points
> where one would hope they would be scored, Barenboim treats the scores
> as an undifferentiated mass of sound that has no purpose, no harmonic
> tension, no dynamic direction and no reason for existing in the first
> place.
>
> It gets to the point where this listener is actually angry at
> Barenboim for riding so roughshod over these magnificent scores.
> Rarely have I had such an adverse reaction to a set of recordings. The
> only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
>
> this NG. If they were, I should have availed myself of the expected
> warnings.
>
> Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
> Comments?
Bad Bruckner?
You mean there is actually "good" Bruckner?
TD
mark
> But do you know more examples (other conductors than Karajan) who recorded works
> they never performed in concert?
> I think Karajan was a little alone in this (but I'm not sure). Some pieces he
> has recorded 2 or 3 times without performing them once in concert.
> It's not the "usual way", I think.
Solti had never conducted Gotterdammerung before he made his Decca
recording. Many orchestral conductors who record complete ballet
scores have never performed them in concert or in the theater. Karajan
recorded Scheherazade once, but I don't think he ever did it in
concert. Did he ever perform any of the Schoenberg in concert that he
recorded for DG?
Maazel performed Proko's complete R&J in concert with the CO
immediately before making his complete recording, but those were used
as warm-up sessions for the recording. His earlier DG recording was
not a complete recording.
I've heard that early in his career, Giulini was asked to record
Tchaik 5 for EMI. He recorded the first 3 movements and then announced
that he didn't understand the piece and stopped the recording in its
tracks (can anyone confirm this?).
Then, there's all of those sopranos who have recorded Carmen without
ever performing it onstage.
Anybody know any other examples?
Gerard
>
> You mean there is actually "good" Bruckner?
>
> TD
Plenty.
String quartet.
String quintet.
And a lot of piano pieces of course:
Lancier-Quadrille aus beliebten Opernmelodien zusammengestellt c. 1850 WAB 120
Steierm�rker c. 1850 WAB 122
Quadrille c. 1854 WAB 121
Three short pieces for children 1855 WAB 124
Klavierst�cke in E-flat major c. 1856 WAB 119
Erinnerung c. 1868 WAB 117
Fantasie in G major 1868 WAB 118
Stille Betrachtung an einem Herbstabend 1863 WAB 123
And organ:
Four Preludes c. 1836 WAB 128
Prelude in E-flat major c. 1837 WAB 127
Prelude c. 1846 WAB 130
Prelude and Fugue in C minor 1847 WAB 131
Postlude 1852 WAB 126
Fugue in D minor 1861 WAB 125
Prelude in C major 1884 WAB 129
mark
>
> Bad Bruckner?
>
> You mean there is actually "good" Bruckner?
>
> TD
Oh, it's pretty much all good to me.
I know you're not a fan, but I certainly am.
mark
>Karajan
> recorded Scheherazade once, but I don't think he ever did it in
> concert.
BTW - Maazel told me that he had recorded a complete Scheherazade with
the Philharmonia on EMI that was never released. He was trying to buy
the rights to the recording from EMI. I wonder if he ever succeeded in
that.
Gerard
> On May 7, 2:21 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But do you know more examples (other conductors than Karajan) who
> > recorded works they never performed in concert?
> > I think Karajan was a little alone in this (but I'm not sure). Some
> > pieces he has recorded 2 or 3 times without performing them once in
> > concert.
> > It's not the "usual way", I think.
>
> Solti had never conducted Gotterdammerung before he made his Decca
> recording. Many orchestral conductors who record complete ballet
> scores have never performed them in concert or in the theater.
I can imagine that. Possibly more conductors did so.
> Karajan
> recorded Scheherazade once, but I don't think he ever did it in
> concert. Did he ever perform any of the Schoenberg in concert that he
> recorded for DG?
I don't know.
But about Tchaikovsky ballets I know that Karajan recorded the Nutcracker suite
at least twice, and a suite from Swanlake (also at least twice), and a suite
from Sleeping Beauty, without ever having performed thoese suites.
Tchaikovsky's Serenade for string and Overture 1812: recorded by Karajan at
least twice - never performed.
Tchaikovsky symphonies 1, 2 and 3: recorded once, never performed (while he
performed the symphonies 4, 5 and 6 almost "daily"). Capriccio Italien: idem.
>
> Maazel performed Proko's complete R&J in concert with the CO
> immediately before making his complete recording, but those were used
> as warm-up sessions for the recording. His earlier DG recording was
> not a complete recording.
>
> I've heard that early in his career, Giulini was asked to record
> Tchaik 5 for EMI. He recorded the first 3 movements and then announced
> that he didn't understand the piece and stopped the recording in its
> tracks (can anyone confirm this?).
>
> Then, there's all of those sopranos who have recorded Carmen without
> ever performing it onstage.
>
> Anybody know any other examples?
I'm curious too.
O
<5a54dd03-c1bf-45be...@q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Comments?
>
> Bad Bruckner?
>
> You mean there is actually "good" Bruckner?
Apparently, not from Barenboim.
-Owen
Gerard
> On May 7, 2:21 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But do you know more examples (other conductors than Karajan) who
> > recorded works they never performed in concert?
> > I think Karajan was a little alone in this (but I'm not sure). Some
> > pieces he has recorded 2 or 3 times without performing them once in
> > concert.
> > It's not the "usual way", I think.
>
> Solti had never conducted Gotterdammerung before he made his Decca
> recording. Many orchestral conductors who record complete ballet
> scores have never performed them in concert or in the theater. Karajan
> recorded Scheherazade once, but I don't think he ever did it in
> concert. Did he ever perform any of the Schoenberg in concert that he
> recorded for DG?
>
He never performed anything by Schoenberg.
mark
>
> > Anybody know any other examples?
>
> I'm curious too.
Maazel's Porgy & Bess recording was preceded by concerts at the
Blossom Music Center. Again, these were used to prepare for the
recording. I doubt that Maazel had conducted the full score or even
excerpts before then.
Should we consider such performances that exist only to prepare for a
recording to qualify as the conductor having performed the piece in
concert before making a recording? That's a little different than a
conductor having experience with a piece and showing an affinity for
it, resulting in a record label asking him to set his version down for
posterity.
Gerard
Sorry, this was not correct. The 'search function' did not work as expected.
He has performed:
- Variationen f�r Orchester op. 31
- Pelleas und Melisande
- Verkl�rte Nacht
- Gurrelieder
Gerard
We could, but recording without any performing is more peculiar.
I think that Karajan here is a strong example. Was he pressed by DG to do some
cycles complete for the record?
rkhalona
Hello Mark,
You could have asked me. I would have saved you time AND money.
RK
wagnerfan
news:e372de6f-1e00-4640...@k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Sometimes you have both - Leinsdorf had conducted Lohengrin quite a few
times before the Tanglewood concert performances in 1965 which were in fact
a rehearsal for the complete recording which followed directly thereafter.
Wagner Fan
mark
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > But do you know more examples (other conductors than Karajan) who
> > > > recorded works they never performed in concert?
> > > > I think Karajan was a little alone in this (but I'm not sure).
> > > > Some pieces he has recorded 2 or 3 times without performing them
> > > > once in concert.
> > > > It's not the "usual way", I think.
>
> > > Solti had never conducted Gotterdammerung before he made his Decca
> > > recording. Many orchestral conductors who record complete ballet
> > > scores have never performed them in concert or in the theater.
> > > Karajan recorded Scheherazade once, but I don't think he ever did
> > > it in concert. Did he ever perform any of the Schoenberg in concert
> > > that he recorded for DG?
>
> > He never performed anything by Schoenberg.
>
> > See:
> >http://www.karajan.org/
>
> Sorry, this was not correct. The 'search function' did not work as expected.
>
> He has performed:
> - Pelleas und Melisande
> - Verklärte Nacht
>
> - Gurrelieder
I knew that he had performed Gurre-Lieder at some point . I also know
that he said that he didn't feel that some of those New Vienna School
pieces worked in the concert hall. A lot was made of the fact that HvK
re-seated the orchestra in different configurations for each variation
to record (IIRC) the Variations op 31. Why they couldn't accomplish
the same thing with mic placement eludes me.
mark
I'm sure DG asked him to do complete cycles of the Bruckner and Tchaik
symphonies, just as EMI had him do the Schubert.
Too bad no one could convince him to do Sibelius 3.
mark
>
> > I don't remember these recordings being discussed all that much in
> > this NG. If they were, I should have availed myself of the expected
> > warnings.
>
> > Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> > overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
> > Comments?
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> You could have asked me. I would have saved you time AND money.
>
> RK
That's the problem with the impulse buy.
Just listened to the first movement of the 5th. Way too fast and
totally lacking in weight.
Bob Harper
> On May 7, 7:45 am, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
>>> Warner (formerly Teldec). I had a couple of these discs as singles
>>> was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
>>
>> for the previous couple of years? I had much earlier bought Barenboim's
>> Beethoven symphony box there and was actually quite favorably impressed.
>>
> Could be. That's where I found it, right next to Bertini's Mahler set
> (which I didn't pick up).
But should have! :)
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> On May 7, 8:39 am, "Gerard"<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It has been suggested by Brilliant Classics (Joan Records) that their deal with
>> Nimbus has made it - financially - possible to Adam Fischer to finish his cycle
>> of all Haydn symphonies.
>> Did MHS "claim" such a thing too?
>
> Just for the record, I note your inability to refrain from presenting
> a snooty attitude when you respond to my posts - again.
Mark, to expect Gerard not to be snooty/prissy/grumpy/accusatory/snippy,
is to expect that which won't happen. His amour propre will not permit
otherwise. I know this analysis will draw outrage from him, but if the
shoe fits, wear it.
Bob Harper
(snip)
Bob Harper
might try a snappy comeback, but given this, it's doomed.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Hello Mark,
>
> You could have asked me. I would have saved you time AND money.
>
> RK
Since no one else has said it, allow me to say, 'Welcome back, Ramon!
Wherever you've you been, it's good to see you here again.'
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> I knew that (Karajan) performed Gurre-Lieder at some point . I also know
> that he said that he didn't feel that some of those New Vienna School
> pieces worked in the concert hall. A lot was made of the fact that HvK
> re-seated the orchestra in different configurations for each variation
> to record (IIRC) the Variations op 31. Why they couldn't accomplish
> the same thing with mic placement eludes me.
I wonder. Would the effect have been the same? Somehow I don't think so.
Bob Harper
td
He might just get it for a song today.
TD
td
> On 5/7/10 2:42 PM, Gerard wrote:
>
>
>
> > td wrote:
>
> >> You mean there is actually "good" Bruckner?
>
> >> TD
>
> > Plenty.
> > String quartet.
> > String quintet.
> > And a lot of piano pieces of course:
>
> > Lancier-Quadrille aus beliebten Opernmelodien zusammengestellt c. 1850 WAB 120
> > Quadrille c. 1854 WAB 121
> > Three short pieces for children 1855 WAB 124
> > Erinnerung c. 1868 WAB 117
> > Fantasie in G major 1868 WAB 118
> > Stille Betrachtung an einem Herbstabend 1863 WAB 123
>
> > And organ:
>
> > Four Preludes c. 1836 WAB 128
> > Prelude in E-flat major c. 1837 WAB 127
> > Prelude c. 1846 WAB 130
> > Prelude and Fugue in C minor 1847 WAB 131
> > Postlude 1852 WAB 126
> > Fugue in D minor 1861 WAB 125
> > Prelude in C major 1884 WAB 129
>
> I'm tempted to withdraw my earlier post, Gerard. This is *funny*! Tom
> might try a snappy comeback, but given this, it's doomed.
I am prepared to stand corrected. Bruckner may have written something
good after all.
TD
TareeDawg
>>
>>>>> Anybody know any other examples?
>>
>>>> I'm curious too.
>>
>>> Blossom Music Center. Again, these were used to prepare for the
>>> recording. I doubt that Maazel had conducted the full score or even
>>> excerpts before then.
>>
>>> Should we consider such performances that exist only to prepare for a
>>> recording to qualify as the conductor having performed the piece in
>>> concert before making a recording? That's a little different than a
>>> conductor having experience with a piece and showing an affinity for
>>> it, resulting in a record label asking him to set his version down for
>>> posterity.
>>
>> We could, but recording without any performing is more peculiar.
>> I think that Karajan here is a strong example. Was he pressed by DG to do some
>> cycles complete for the record?
>
> I'm sure DG asked him to do complete cycles of the Bruckner and Tchaik
> symphonies, just as EMI had him do the Schubert.
>
> Too bad no one could convince him to do Sibelius 3.
HvK obviously felt at odds with the piece. He got his assistant Okku
Kamu to record it.
Ray Hall, Taree
TareeDawg
Well it 'is' a Bruckner thread after all ;)
Ray Hall, Taree
Sol L. Siegel
fefdd1...@j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> Warner (formerly Teldec)...
>
> Big mistake...
>
> Comparing Karajan's 4 & 7 on EMI and his 1-3 on DG to what is offered
> here is an exercise in remembering not only what a great Bruckner
> conductor Karajan was, but what has been lost since his death.
> Barenboim's performances come off as those of a person who knows the
> music on the page but doesn't have the skills or imagination to bring
> the music to life. Where Karajan always satisfies and scores points
> where one would hope they would be scored, Barenboim treats the scores
> as an undifferentiated mass of sound that has no purpose, no harmonic
> tension, no dynamic direction and no reason for existing in the first
> place.
>
> It gets to the point where this listener is actually angry at
> Barenboim for riding so roughshod over these magnificent scores.
> Rarely have I had such an adverse reaction to a set of recordings. The
> only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
>
> I don't remember these recordings being discussed all that much in
> this NG. If they were, I should have availed myself of the expected
> warnings.
>
> Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
> Comments?
The only recording I know from the Barenboim/Berlin set is the 9th -
and, believe it or not, it's one of my favorite versions, one of the few
in which the Adagio builds to its climax and then finishes, leaving us
standing at the gate, as it were, instead of as a finale in violation of
the composer's intent. I simply cannot explain why I feel this way
about this recording (and I've felt this way every time I've heard it).
Barenboim just gets it, or perhaps it just gets me.
In the rest, comparisons to Herbie the K may truly be unfair, especially
in the EMI 4th, a true cathedral in sound.
BTW, re Gardiner: I think his B4 is one of the best versions, spry and
vivid. You can have the rest. Oh, wait a minute: you don't want them,
either, do you?
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Anne Onime
Francisco Morales
Karajan's recording of the 5th with the same orchestra blows
Barenboim's recording away in every aspect. It's the high point of
the Karajan DG cycle.
Francisco Morales
mark
The Finale in HvK's recording is unbelievable. Definitely the most-
satisfying version I've heard. Leave it to K to have two timpani
players at the very end, producing a timpani roll that is completely
over the top.
Another thing about K - he doubled the winds in performance and even
recordings. That makes a big difference in the sound. I remember when
DG released his Mass in b-minor. There was a recording session shot in
the LP booklet - if you looked closely at the violin section, you
noticed that there was an oboe player sitting at each desk in the
fiddle section. How's that for colla parte?
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:c2c04db3-81f5-4c25-b543-
9a029a...@k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On May 7, 10:37�pm, Francisco Morales <fmfut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Karajan's recording of the 5th with the same orchestra blows
>> Barenboim's recording away in every aspect. �It's the high point of
>> the Karajan DG cycle.
>
> The Finale in HvK's recording is unbelievable. Definitely the most-
> satisfying version I've heard. Leave it to K to have two timpani players at
> the very end, producing a timpani roll that is completely over the top.
That certainly seems interesting. How does it compare with the live 1969
Vienna Philharmonic performance that was included in a Salzburg Festival box
issued by Andante?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Harper
> mark<markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:c2c04db3-81f5-4c25-b543-
> 9a029a...@k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 7, 10:37 pm, Francisco Morales<fmfut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Karajan's recording of the 5th with the same orchestra blows
>>> Barenboim's recording away in every aspect. It's the high point of
>>> the Karajan DG cycle.
>>
>> The Finale in HvK's recording is unbelievable. Definitely the most-
>> satisfying version I've heard. Leave it to K to have two timpani players at
>> the very end, producing a timpani roll that is completely over the top.
>
> That certainly seems interesting. How does it compare with the live 1969
> Vienna Philharmonic performance that was included in a Salzburg Festival box
> issued by Andante?
>
tympanists to good effect at climactic points.
Bob Harper
mark
> mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:c2c04db3-81f5-4c25-b543-
>
> > On May 7, 10:37 pm, Francisco Morales <fmfut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Karajan's recording of the 5th with the same orchestra blows
> >> Barenboim's recording away in every aspect. It's the high point of
> >> the Karajan DG cycle.
>
> > The Finale in HvK's recording is unbelievable. Definitely the most-
> > satisfying version I've heard. Leave it to K to have two timpani players at
> > the very end, producing a timpani roll that is completely over the top.
>
> That certainly seems interesting. How does it compare with the live 1969
> Vienna Philharmonic performance that was included in a Salzburg Festival box
> issued by Andante?
>
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in
news:22ac768f-e372-4acc...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
Well, I'm sure there are others here who have heard both of them (and
doubtless at least dozens of other recordings of #5).
wkasimer
> Bertini mangles the end of the Lacrimosa in the Berlioz Requiem, but on the
> other hand he did a fairly good job with the Weber-Mahler "Die Drei Pintos."
> I don't view him in a particularly exceptional light, however. What would
> you say are his strengths?
Except for the Mahler, I'm not familiar with him. His Mahler is
marked by excellent orchestral execution, balance, and a lack of
perversity or histrionics. And the sonics are superb.
Bill
M forever
> Back in March, I made an impulse buy of Barenboim's Bruckner set on
> was right and the copy was sealed (Record Surplus), so I jumped.
>
>
> OK, I've only listened to 1-4 & 7 so far, but the disappointment and
> aggravation are tremendous. I used to have Barenboim's DG set which I
> thought was pretty good if not outstanding. Well, his remake is just
> plain bad, especially when he has what was essentially Karajan's
> Berlin Phil at his disposal. Even through the less-than-demonstration
> quality recorded sound, one is shocked at the poor voicing of the
> orchestral choirs, the lack of detail and tension and the often
> indifferent playing from the orchestra.
>
> here is an exercise in remembering not only what a great Bruckner
> conductor Karajan was, but what has been lost since his death.
> Barenboim's performances come off as those of a person who knows the
> music on the page but doesn't have the skills or imagination to bring
> the music to life. Where Karajan always satisfies and scores points
> where one would hope they would be scored, Barenboim treats the scores
> as an undifferentiated mass of sound that has no purpose, no harmonic
> tension, no dynamic direction and no reason for existing in the first
> place.
>
> It gets to the point where this listener is actually angry at
> Barenboim for riding so roughshod over these magnificent scores.
> Rarely have I had such an adverse reaction to a set of recordings. The
> only comparison I can make is to JE Gardiner's god-awful Beethoven
> cycle on Archiv (is that turkey still in print?).
>
> this NG. If they were, I should have availed myself of the expected
> warnings.
>
> Or am I way off base here and suffering from a case of sensory
> overload/grumpy old man syndrome?
>
> Comments?
Pretty harsh, but overall, I have to agree with you. I sat through
some of these performances when the recordings were made, e.g. #9, and
it was equally unimpressive live as it is on disc. Actually I remember
the concert with #9 rather well as it was such a big disappointment.
OK, at that point I had heard the 9th live with Giulini, Karajan,
Chailly, Wand, among others, so you could say I was maybe a little
spoilt but I didn't expect anything less than a really solid
performance by a conductor who had at that time already recorded a
completely cycle and who also often portrayed himself as a Bruckner
expert.
To be fair, he seems to have done a lot to promote Bruckner when he
was in Paris, at a time when Bruckner was apparently played quite
rarely in France. As an interesting side note, the 8th was apparently
*premiered* in France by the WP and Karajan in 1965 (!) when the music
of "Brückner" (sic!) apparently struck the critic as beautiful but way
too long LOL. OTOH, it seems to have left a much better impression on
many music lovers there because Karajan and the WP returned the
following year to play the 8th again in the cathedral in Chartres.
Anyway, back to the Barenboim cycle. Yes, from the performances I have
listened to so far and which I heard live, it is rather disappointing
and it does not appear that Barenboim has much to "say" about the
music at all. I remember him standing on a very high podium and waving
his outstretched arms with grotesquely large white cuffs at the
orchestra which kind of crawled through the music half on autopilot,
half trying to follow Barenboim's indistinct directions. At around the
same time I read an interview with him in which he let the readers
know that the reason he conducted like that, with outstretched arms
flapping around, was that he thought his "technique" was inspired by
Furtwängler and that he would somehow get similar results from the
orchestra as WF did. Well, obviously it doesn't work like that, so
that didn't work out at all. The reason WF conducted like that was
simply because he was so tall and had such long arms. There isn't much
of a "technique" in that.
Barenboim is obviously an extremely talented and very competent
musician, but my impression is that he did not only overstretch his
short arms here, but his talent as a conductor as well. He seems to
have tried to achieve a kind of transcendental grandiosity that is
simply not in his reach. He is a very solid conductor who has done a
great job building the Orchestre de Paris into a very good ensemble
and he also did a lot of good work with the Staatskapelle Berlin in
very difficult and turbulent times hen the orchestra (and the
Staatsoper as a whole, too, of course) had to find a new direction in
the post-wall era. He is a good craftsman who can achieve very nice
results when he concentrates on his actual qualities, but in may of
his Berlin Bruckner, he failed quite spectacularly at trying to be
more than he really is. Why that is remains elusive but there are
obviously qualities in conductors that can not be simply acquired or
imitated.
What further confirms this is that some of the Bruckner cycle is
actually quite good, in those pieces in which he concentrates on
shaping the music as a coherent whole rather than trying to reach for
transcendental glory. E.g. the 6th from the cycle is really good and
actually among the best versions of the piece I know. Barenboim can be
really good when he does what he is really good at and works on a
basis of solid craftsmanship. It is interesting that he also did a
really outstanding Mahler 7 with the SB, another piece which is rather
rarely performed. Maybe that made it more necessary for him to
actually work on these pieces rather than just trying to piggyback on
what better conductors had achieved before him, as seems to be the
case with his Bruckner 8 and 9. I also remember seeing him with a
rather unimpressive Bruckner 8 with the CSO in Berlin in the mid-90s.
td
"transcendental grandiosity" is a contradiction in terms.
If something is grandiose it cannot be transcendental. If something is
transcendental, it cannot be grandiose.
TD
mark
> What further confirms this is that some of the Bruckner cycle is
> actually quite good, in those pieces in which he concentrates on
> shaping the music as a coherent whole rather than trying to reach for
> transcendental glory. E.g. the 6th from the cycle is really good and
> actually among the best versions of the piece I know.
Interesting you say that, as I just finished listening to this 6th for
the first time today as I'm making my way through the cycle. I was
surprised - maybe "relieved" is the word - that finally, finally there
was a performance in this set that I could live with. That said, I
wouldn't call it among the best versions, not because of the playing,
but because once again, Barenboim fails to voice the choirs properly,
the tension lags when one would least expect it, and the recording
again lacks clarity. But having just listened to his 5th - which is an
unmitigated disaster - the 6th came off well.
About that 5th - Barenboim's tempi are so fast throughout this piece
that Bruckner's characteristic rhythmic patterns and motifs come off
as being, well, trite. There is nothing grand in Barenboim's approach
to this composer. I don't know if he's consciously trying to evoke an
anti-traditional approach. Whatever he's doing, it doesn't work, at
least for me.
mark
> On May 7, 11:31 am, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Could be. That's where I found it, right next to Bertini's Mahler set
> > (which I didn't pick up).
>
>
> Bill
Wrong choice corrected - I went by Record Surplus today and picked up
the Bertini Mahler set. Haven't started listening, but I notice that
EMI did a pretty poor job with some symphonies broken over 2 CDs that
didn't need to be so, like the 4th.
M forever
Obviously not. But even though I am basically as critical of his
Bruckner as you are, I think you are really exaggerating a little
here. The 5th is not an "unmitigated disaster". It is still a very
professionally executed performance. Let's not hurwitz or rosenberg
this discussion.
Nor did I remember it as extravagantly fast, so I had to sample the
performance and didn't find that it is that extremely fast at all. In
fact, the intro to I is extremely slow (too slow in my humble
opinion). Yes, the finale is quite fast but not extremely so. Jochum
only takes half a minute less. In some places he takes his time when
appropriate, e.g. after 8 minutes into the finale. The only somewhat
"unusual" tempo choice is the Adagio which is indeed on the fast side.
I suspect Barenboim chose this tempo because of the 2/2 marking -
other conductors take that same view, e.g. Harnoncourt in his
outstanding recording. Actually what I heard while sampling was much
better than my recollection of the one time I listened to this
recording, many years ago. Maybe I will listen to the whole recording
again.
Remember that many early Bruckner recordings evidence much faster
tempi than are usual today (e.g. Böhm's 5th with the SD or the 9th
with MP/Hausegger from the 30s)!
M forever
Yes, but remember that nearly a billion people in this world today are
starving. There are bigger problems one can have than having to change
a CD once in a while. Besides, how much did you pay for the whole set?
mark
>
> Yes, but remember that nearly a billion people in this world today are
> starving. There are bigger problems one can have than having to change
> a CD once in a while. Besides, how much did you pay for the whole set?
My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
forgetting about the hungry.
Were it not for music and the opportunity to gripe about CD changes,
I'd probably sink into a morass of depression, so I hope you'll
indulge me on this one.
I paid $20 for the set as I traded in a few used discs as well. Not a
bad deal for a sealed copy.
Matthew B. Tepper
@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> On May 8, 7:49�pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but remember that nearly a billion people in this world today are
>> starving. There are bigger problems one can have than having to change
>> a CD once in a while. Besides, how much did you pay for the whole set?
>
> My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
> shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
> forgetting about the hungry.
You nailed him there!
mark
>The 5th is not an "unmitigated disaster". It is still a very
> professionally executed performance. Let's not hurwitz or rosenberg
> this discussion.
>
> Nor did I remember it as extravagantly fast, so I had to sample the
> performance and didn't find that it is that extremely fast at all. In
> fact, the intro to I is extremely slow (too slow in my humble
> opinion). Yes, the finale is quite fast but not extremely so.
Yes, the intro to 5i is extremely slow. It's the main tempo after the
intro that takes off like a ruptured duck.
I recently sold off my Jochum DG set while keeping his EMI set. I
don't remember his tempi in 5iv being that fast. One can't judge on
timings alone. Much of it comes down to phrasing and articulation.
Just as a well-articulated phrase at a sower tempo can have more sense
of forward motion than a messy and rushed phrase, so a well-
articulated fast tempo can seem to breathe. But you know that.
BTW - a friend of mine once saw Jochum conduct Bruckner 6. He took a
very slow tempo in the first movement, and controlled the 4 against 6
in the orchestra by simultaneously beating 4 in his left hand and 6 in
his right hand. The same friend also heard Jochum in Bruckner 5 once -
he brought in a new brass section to play the finale.
Gerard
So what's your business here?
td
> mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:fd057517-2bf9-41fd-94b6-68e883718cd5
> @h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 8, 7:49 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but remember that nearly a billion people in this world today are
> >> starving. There are bigger problems one can have than having to change
> >> a CD once in a while. Besides, how much did you pay for the whole set?
>
> > My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
> > shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
> > forgetting about the hungry.
>
> You nailed him there!
There's Tepper. Everything is seen as male rivalry.
Why don't you slap your dick on the table, Tepper and we'll check it
for size.
What a dork!
Literally.
TD
M forever
> On May 8, 7:49 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, but remember that nearly a billion people in this world today are
> > starving. There are bigger problems one can have than having to change
> > a CD once in a while. Besides, how much did you pay for the whole set?
>
> My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
> shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
> forgetting about the hungry.
I thought you were some kind of marketing guy?
M forever
> On May 8, 7:46 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The 5th is not an "unmitigated disaster". It is still a very
> > professionally executed performance. Let's not hurwitz or rosenberg
> > this discussion.
>
> > Nor did I remember it as extravagantly fast, so I had to sample the
> > performance and didn't find that it is that extremely fast at all. In
> > fact, the intro to I is extremely slow (too slow in my humble
> > opinion). Yes, the finale is quite fast but not extremely so.
>
> Yes, the intro to 5i is extremely slow. It's the main tempo after the
> intro that takes off like a ruptured duck.
>
> I recently sold off my Jochum DG set while keeping his EMI set. I
> don't remember his tempi in 5iv being that fast. One can't judge on
> timings alone. Much of it comes down to phrasing and articulation.
> Just as a well-articulated phrase at a sower tempo can have more sense
> of forward motion than a messy and rushed phrase, so a well-
> articulated fast tempo can seem to breathe. But you know that.
Indeed, and that's why I actually like this performance more and more.
It can be somewhat "breathless" at times, especially in the
development and some parts of the coda of I, and in some sections of
4, but these are also very dramatic moments and the playing is overall
still very articulated, although there are moments when things get a
little less than ideally "clean", but remember, this is a live
recording and enunciating every printed note cleanly is not always the
highest priority.
I also like the rather quickish tempo of the 2nd movement. It is not
the only possible tempo choice, of course, but the composer's 2/2
marking suggests that it may not have been meant to be quite as slow
as it usually taken. I also like the highly intense string playing in
the second subject, there is some great ensemble music making going on
there.
Overall, I am beginning to re-evaluate this performance and I like it
more and more, and that even though I came to it with a generally
negative opinion about the cycle which I realize may have more to do
with the last two symphonies which I still think are not very good
performances. But I really like this 5th, even though it may not be an
"ideal" performance, so maybe step by step I will also revisit the
other symphonies in this set.
Another thing which I noted positively is the sound. Yes, it is a
little too bright an a little too hazy in some places, but overall,
Teldec did a much better job of capturing what the BP sounded like in
the Philharmonie in those days than DG usually did (there are
exceptions though, such as the Organ Symphony with Levine), especially
how huge and deep the sound was. That may no come across completely in
these recordings either but it is there sufficiently enough for me to
trigger sonic memories, so to speak.
I think this discussion is a good example for why it can be good to
discuss interpretations and also revisit and challenge one's own
opinions about them.
> BTW - a friend of mine once saw Jochum conduct Bruckner 6. He took a
> very slow tempo in the first movement, and controlled the 4 against 6
> in the orchestra by simultaneously beating 4 in his left hand and 6 in
> his right hand.
I have an extremely hard time picturing that. Not because I don't
think Jochum could have done that. He no doubt could. But that is so
completely opposite from the way he normally conducted which wasn't
beating time at all but rather giving impulses and outlining the music
for the musicians, guiding them rather than beating time and giving
"instructions". He was very "old school" in that respect, and also in
that he conducted very far ahead and let the musicians usually play by
ear rather than following his beat like a traffic cop. That's more an
American thing, it has no place in the traditional German orchestra
style which Jochum epitomized.
> The same friend also heard Jochum in Bruckner 5 once -
> he brought in a new brass section to play the finale.
He usually brought in extra players to relieve the brass a little and
then so that he could have the chorale played by a doubled section.
BUt that doesn't mean that the original section left and was
completely replaced.
mark
> > My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
> > shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
> > forgetting about the hungry.
>
> I thought you were some kind of marketing guy?
>
I was and am.
I've made the transition from the non-profit arts world to the non-
profits "needs" world. I work as the director of marketing and fund
raising for a homeless shelter foundation in CA. My job right before
this job was in arts marketing and fund raising. I've been in non-
profit marketing and fund raising for the past 8 years. Before that, I
worked in the classical record biz, and before that I was a classical
performer.
Interesting enough, in my current position, I work with artists - both
visual and musical - to plan and schedule performances and events, the
profits from which go to benefit the shelter foundation I work with.
I don't say that I'll be with the shelter forever. No job seems long
term these days in the non-profit community, be it in the arts or the
needs area. But for right now, I'm trying something new that has a
very tangible and direct impact on people's lives, especially for
those who are less fortunate. I felt that might be a better use of my
time and talents in this day and age. I must say that for me, one of
the things that I didn't like about fund raising in the arts was the
realization that I was spending my efforts raising $ so that the well-
heeled patrons of the arts could have the BEST champagne at their
functions, rather than just any old champagne.
As you pointed out, a billion people a night go hungry in this world,
and 99.99999% of them aren't worrying about the quality of the
champagne they'll be drinking that evening. They're worried about
having something, anything to eat for themselves and their kids.
I thought I might be able to make a difference in those people's
lives, so, here I am.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:ce539a94-0972-478f-8106-
fbcb44...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 9, 10:02�am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > My day job helps homeless people get back on their feet by providing
>> > shelter and meals, as well as counseling, so I am never in danger of
>> > forgetting about the hungry.
>>
>> I thought you were some kind of marketing guy?
>
> I was and am.
>
> I've made the transition from the non-profit arts world to the non-profits
> "needs" world. I work as the director of marketing and fund raising for a
> homeless shelter foundation in CA. My job right before this job was in arts
> marketing and fund raising. I've been in non-profit marketing and fund
> raising for the past 8 years. Before that, I worked in the classical record
> biz, and before that I was a classical performer.
>
> Interesting enough, in my current position, I work with artists - both
> visual and musical - to plan and schedule performances and events, the
> profits from which go to benefit the shelter foundation I work with.
>
> I don't say that I'll be with the shelter forever. No job seems long term
> these days in the non-profit community, be it in the arts or the needs
> area.
It can last for a while, though. Next month I'll have been at my present
position for thirteen years. My previous place of employment was one of
those dotcoms that flourished for a while and then disappeared from sight
(though the owner eventually seems to have revived it in another form).
> But for right now, I'm trying something new that has a very tangible and
> direct impact on people's lives, especially for those who are less
> fortunate. I felt that might be a better use of my time and talents in this
> day and age. I must say that for me, one of the things that I didn't like
> about fund raising in the arts was the realization that I was spending my
> efforts raising $ so that the well-heeled patrons of the arts could have
> the BEST champagne at their functions, rather than just any old champagne.
>
> As you pointed out, a billion people a night go hungry in this world, and
> 99.99999% of them aren't worrying about the quality of the champagne
> they'll be drinking that evening. They're worried about having something,
> anything to eat for themselves and their kids.
>
> I thought I might be able to make a difference in those people's lives, so,
> here I am.
I like your attitude.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> BTW - a friend of mine once saw Jochum conduct Bruckner 6. He took a
> very slow tempo in the first movement, and controlled the 4 against 6
> in the orchestra by simultaneously beating 4 in his left hand and 6 in
> his right hand. The same friend also heard Jochum in Bruckner 5 once -
> he brought in a new brass section to play the finale.
New players, or additional players? In the fascinating article included
in the DG box (Eugen Jochum: The Interpretation of Bruckner's
Symphonies), he speaks of bringing in 11 additional players (the 'Eleven
Apostles') to spell the regular players on occasion, then to reinforce
the brass at the very end of the work.
The article is most interesting on the subject of tempo in the Fifth.
Jochum writes:
"The generously proportioned tensions in Bruckner's symphonies, which
need to evolve and be resolved, call for the *correct* fundamental
tempo, which may be slightly varied from time to time."
He then spends the next two columns of small print describing in minute
detail numerous tempo changes he takes in the first movement, before
concluding:
"As a general rule, however, I must caution against sujecting Bruckner
to the excessive *accelerandi* and *ritardandi* that the sensual music
of the late Romantic era demands."
He was able to be firm *and* flexible, and Bruckner comes off better for it.
Bob Harper
mark
Jochum was able to be firm *and* flexible, and Bruckner comes off
better for it.
>
I've always liked Jochum's way with music in general (his Xmas
Oratorio on Philips is a particular fav), but over the years I have
become less forgiving of the many, many tempo changes he employs in
Bruckner. I think it can be done more subtly than was Jochum's way.
Maybe that's why I tend to enjoy Karajan's Bruckner so much. He seems
to find a basic tempo that doesn't need a lot of changes, that in
fact, wouldn't suffer such extreme changes well.
It wasn't an easy decision to cull Jochum's DG set from collection a
few months ago, especially when I ended up with the raw end of the
stick known as the Barenboim set on Warner! But I know that DG set so
well from the LP era forward, and I realized it had been at least 7
years since I had bothered giving a listen, so, out it went.
Good thing I can always repurchase it sometime down the road!
M forever
> On May 9, 2:26 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Jochum was able to be firm *and* flexible, and Bruckner comes off
> better for it.
>
>
>
> I've always liked Jochum's way with music in general (his Xmas
> Oratorio on Philips is a particular fav), but over the years I have
> become less forgiving of the many, many tempo changes he employs in
> Bruckner. I think it can be done more subtly than was Jochum's way.
Maybe, but it's a certain style and Jochum did it extremely well and
not in a mannered, calculated but in a very natural and organic way
which came from really understanding the music, its inner "logic" and
its "idiom" (whatever exactly that may be...). It's not the only
"valid" style of Bruckner interpretation, but Jochum had mastered it
thoroughly.
For me, what is actually more important than tempi and tempo
fluctuations, however subtly employed (or not), is the music making,
how alive and flexible the playing is. Which is why I particularly
treasure Jochum's cycle with the SD, because of the extremely flexible
and idiomatic way the orchestra plays and how Jochum uses the
substance offered by the orchestra to shape his interpretations.
There is a recording of the 7th with him conducting the Orchestre
National de France from the 70s which IMO impressively demonstrates
just how good a conductor he was. As you know, his recordings made in
Dresden at the same time feature the at times extremely aggressive and
sharply outlined playing of the brass section (a "craggy yet richly
warm sonority that lends a stark grandeur to the performances" as one
classicstoday reviewer called it even though I am a little ashamed to
quote from that website - at least it wasn't Hurwitz LOL). The French
brass playing at that time was simply not geared to that kind of
playing style, so what Jochum does there is build his interpretation
on the warm and velvety string sound and the subtly colored woodwinds
and he integrates the bass into that round and blended sound and
produces a very lyrical and sensitively colored reading rather than
trying to force the ONF to play like their Dresden colleagues. The
result is a completely different, but musically still highly rewarding
performance. The way he knows how best to work with the substance
offered to him by the orchestra is testimony to just how good a
conductor he was.
> Maybe that's why I tend to enjoy Karajan's Bruckner so much. He seems
> to find a basic tempo that doesn't need a lot of changes, that in
> fact, wouldn't suffer such extreme changes well.
In that case, you must also like Wand's Bruckner a lot. Wand dug into
the inner structures and the inner logic of the music like few others.
He really understood Bruckner's musical language extremely well and
was able to communicate it to the listeners.
mark
> For me, what is actually more important than tempi and tempo
> fluctuations, however subtly employed (or not), is the music making,
> how alive and flexible the playing is. Which is why I particularly
> treasure Jochum's cycle with the SD, because of the extremely flexible
> and idiomatic way the orchestra plays and how Jochum uses the
> substance offered by the orchestra to shape his interpretations.
Which is why I kept his EMI cycle with the SD. I think it's a more
successful cycle overall than the DG, the fluctuations are less
pronounced. He strikes just the right balance here. Of course, this is
one instance where the recorded sound was better for DG than EMI.
EMI's sound varies quite a bit from symphony to symphony, even in the
remastering that was done around 199 or so. For me, the 8th is the
least-successful recording in the EMI cycle.
> > Maybe that's why I tend to enjoy Karajan's Bruckner so much. He seems
> > to find a basic tempo that doesn't need a lot of changes, that in
> > fact, wouldn't suffer such extreme changes well.
>
> In that case, you must also like Wand's Bruckner a lot.
Not really. I no longer have the Wand cycle(s). I agree with your
assessment of his ability to dig into the structure, but I was never
too taken with the orchestral sound. Maybe I need to look into these
again, a good 15 years down the road.
Have you ever seen the videos of Celibidache doing a few Bruckner
symphonies in Munich (Sony)? I had those on laser disc and thought
they were great.