Haydn 100 & 102 - Klemperer
Bob Lombard
orchestra is the New Philharmonia, so this listing at ArchivMusic may
contain these recordings:
Album Details: Triples - Haydn: Symphonies / Klemperer, New
Philharmonia Orchestra, Et Al
Release Date: 09/16/2008
Label: Emi Classics Catalog #: 15300 Spars Code: n/a
Composer: Franz Joseph Haydn
Conductor: Otto Klemperer
Orchestra/Ensemble: New Philharmonia Orchestra, Philharmonia Orchestra
Number of Discs: 3
Recorded in: Stereo
Length: 3 Hours 35 Mins.
Well recorded, very well performed examples from the era immediately
prior to the HIP revolution; I love 'em. I read a comment somewhere that
102 is a bit glum in this performance; doesn't sound that way to me.
bl
Greg Arkadin
I found some of the symphonies sluggish but certainly not 100 and 102.
I believe there was one other I thought highly of but can't remember
which. You can pay $45 for the three-CD set through ArkivCD or $18 for
the recent reissue on EMI. Bizarre.
tomdeacon
A bargain, I think.
Sluggish? Well, yes, I suppose so. But tempo is not everything.
Klemperer's fantastic transparency is a distinct plus that more than
makes up for the slower than usual tempos.
TD
Greg
> I found some of the symphonies sluggish but certainly not 100 and 102.
> I believe there was one other I thought highly of but can't remember
> which.
If your taste is anything like mine, it was #88 that you also thought
highly of
Greg
Dontait...@aol.com
It's been years since I played these recordings, but I recall 100
and 102 as being very animated. Unlike some of Klemperer's other late
recordings. In fact, I recall 100 as being rather fast. It all was
part of the enigma that Klemperer was: even toward the end some things
could be very slow and others from the same time could be as fast as
his performances and recordings from the early 1950s. (Think of the
way he zipped through the Mozart "Linz" on Vox.) A strange,
unpredictable conductor.
Anyway, I must play them again. Thanks for the stimulus.
Don Tait
Greg
> It's been years since I played these recordings, but I recall 100
> and 102 as being very animated. Unlike some of Klemperer's other late
> recordings. In fact, I recall 100 as being rather fast. It all was
> part of the enigma that Klemperer was: even toward the end some things
> could be very slow and others from the same time could be as fast as
> his performances and recordings from the early 1950s. (Think of the
> way he zipped through the Mozart "Linz" on Vox.) A strange,
> unpredictable conductor.
>
> Anyway, I must play them again. Thanks for the stimulus.
>
> Don Tait
His Haydn was certainly unpredictable. The first pair (98/101,
recorded ~1960) are rather dull - not slow exactly, but not
particularly animated. The last pair (92/95, recorded ~1970)) are
just plain slow, and to be avoided I think. The ones in the middle
(88/100/102/104, recorded ~1965) are moderately paced, but quite
lively and dynamic, some of the best big band Haydn around.
Greg
Roger Kulp
handful of European EMI stereos from the 50s,and 60s.Since I have been
on eBay,I have bought every one I could get cheap.I dunno,maybe three
dozen or so.These are a mix of German,Australian,French,and one Danish
pressing (The Klemperer Wagner orchestral music.)
The majority of my EMI stereos,from 1957-70,are US pressed red and
blue Angels,and I have most of these.They were cheap,and they were
plentiful.Moreso than the European originals.Since I have been buying
classical vinyl,I have always used tube amplification,and a moving
coil cartridge.I got a severe trouncing,a couple of years ago,over on
the ARSClist, for suggesting the 1957-70 Angels were 90+% as good as
the European pressings.
I have done A to B testings of the original Angels,and EMI
Greensleeves pressings from the 80s,as well as with the 1990s
"audiophile" reissue of the 1960 Oistrakh Beethoven Concerto.I always
found the original Angels to be superior to these.
Roger
Firmo Jakl
>
>
> To my mind, that Klemperer 102 is the best one, my absolute favorite.
> He was great in Haydn.
>
> jpj
Yes indeed. But also extremely fine are #98 and 101. 104 is good also,
but I don't much like the piece. 95 was recorded last, I think, and it
is a very weighty and slow performance, at least in the first movement.
An extra bonus is that Klemperer did not use the Robbins-Landon
editions. Especially in 98, the phrasing is much more staccato and
interesting than Landon's relentless legato slurs.
Not even Walter beats Klemperer in #102, and that's saying a lot.
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>Transferred the Angel LP (S 36364 from 1965 or 1966) today. The
>orchestra is the New Philharmonia, so this listing at ArchivMusic may
>contain these recordings:
[snip]
>Well recorded, very well performed examples from the era immediately
>prior to the HIP revolution; I love 'em. I read a comment somewhere that
> 102 is a bit glum in this performance; doesn't sound that way to me.
The Penguin chaps were very dismissive of the LP containing 100/102 and
presumably remain that way. I'm not wild about all his Haydn, but as I mention
every time 102 comes up, this is still my favorite recording of the piece (he
makes it sound grander, more powerful than anyone else) and, for my money, one
of the best recordings of any Haydn symphony.
Simon
The Historian
> In article <pdNEl.145436$UQ6.5...@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>, Bob Lombard
I agree. BTW, this is another recording I purchased on Simon's
recommendation.
Elgarian
I couldn't agree more. I purchased this set a couple of months ago
after listening once again to my LP version of 104. Yes, the tempi
(sometimes) are on the slow side, but the utter concentration and
conviction of the playing and interpretations are fabulous. Moreover,
there's that clarity of sound that was a Klemperer specialty; the
woodwinds in particular are splendid. Yes, Klemperer's Haydn is large-
scale, grand, & Beethovenian. (Klemperer makes No. 95 in C minor
sound like a direct precursor of LvB's 5th; and the slow movement of
the Military does sound heavy handed.) But don't be scared off by the
dismissive reviews in the old Penguin Guides.
In short: HIPsters will howl. But I love these unique and
irreplaceable performances.
Regards,
John
Greg
> The Penguin chaps were very dismissive of the LP containing 100/102 and
> presumably remain that way. I'm not wild about all his Haydn, but as I mention
> every time 102 comes up, this is still my favorite recording of the piece (he
> makes it sound grander, more powerful than anyone else) and, for my money, one
> of the best recordings of any Haydn symphony.
>
> Simon
While I agree that Klemperer's 102 is a great recording, to my ears
Sandor Vegh on Orfeo has him beat. Have you heard that one? As for
power, Vegh uses a chamber orchestra, but they play big and are
closely recorded, so there isn't as big a difference as you might
think. In i, Klemperer is at his best, with strong, forceful accents
and great contributions from the lower strings. But Vegh matches him
blow for blow, other than the timpani roll, where Klemperer is a bit
better. Vegh's leaner string sound allows winds to shine through more
in a few places as well. In ii, Vegh is broader and more flexible, to
the music's benefit I think. In iii, Klemperer is good, but the extra
lilt Vegh gives the main theme works very well, and if anything his
orchestra plays even more forcefully. And then there is the finale.
Here, Vegh really shines with a tremendously thrilling account that
makes Klemperer seem a bit earthbound. Vegh does much more with loud/
soft dynamics and his orchestra plays with great enthusiasm, sounding
as if they are barely being restrained from leaping from their seats.
A great, great performance. Don't get me wrong - there is less of a
gap between Klemperer and Vegh than there is between those two and
whoever is 3rd best (Bernstein?), but I'd choose Vegh if allowed only
one.
Greg
Bastian Kubis
> [rave about Vegh's 102 snipped]
> A great, great performance. Don't get me wrong - there is less of a
> gap between Klemperer and Vegh than there is between those two and
> whoever is 3rd best (Bernstein?), but I'd choose Vegh if allowed only
> one.
I haven't heard any of Vegh's Haydn ever (am hardly familiar with the
work of this conductor at all) - what you wrote above sounds awfully
tempting! [I agree dead on with what you said about the individual
Haydn/Klemperer performances, so we seem to have a common ground there.]
Do you by chance also know the other Haydn/Vegh discs on Orfeo? In
particular the one containing 103/104, maybe?
Bastian
Greg
> I haven't heard any of Vegh's Haydn ever (am hardly familiar with the
> work of this conductor at all) - what you wrote above sounds awfully
> tempting! [I agree dead on with what you said about the individual
> Haydn/Klemperer performances, so we seem to have a common ground there.]
> Do you by chance also know the other Haydn/Vegh discs on Orfeo? In
> particular the one containing 103/104, maybe?
>
> Bastian
Yes, I have and enjoy them all. An overview (brief because I have to
go to work now):
39/60/Sinfonia Concertante - the worst of the 4 discs, but still
pretty good. The 39 (one of my favorite earlier Haydn symphonies)
isn't as sturm-and-drangy as it could be - see Fischer. 60 doesn't
match Blum.
85/88/96 - Excellent 85, ok 88, excellent 96. The slow movement of 85
is sublime. Not as much fire in 85i as Marriner, but still very
good. The slow movement of 88 is just too slow. 96i is one of the
few aside from Hogwood to let the brass play more or less forcefully
enough.
101/102 - My favorite Haydn disc. I've commented on 102 above. 101
is also excellent, the best version I know. Check out the "clock"
movement - taken at the proper clock speed with tremendous swagger and
charm.
103/104 - ok 103, great 104. In 103, like most conductors Vegh
doesn't bring enough fire to i for my taste, and ii is really slow.
104 is perhaps the luckiest Haydn symphony on disc, but Vegh is right
at the top of the list for me with a few others.
Generally, Vegh is very good at minuets and usually brings a lot of
energy and drama to the outer movements. He takes a broad, romantic
view of slow movements, which sometimes works well, and sometimes
draws the music out too much for me. He is excellent at phrasing and
is careful about wind/brass/strings balances. The timpani are audible
if a bit muffled in places. These are all live recordings, so there
is some audience noise. All are highly recommended if you like lively
modern instrument Haydn as I do.
Greg
Bastian Kubis
>> [...] Do you by chance also know the other Haydn/Vegh discs on
>> Orfeo? In particular the one containing 103/104, maybe?
>
So that's what you call a brief overview? ;-) Thanks very much for your
very useful descriptions, Greg, the two discs with 101-104 went straight
to my wish list.
Bastian
Simon Roberts
Greg says...
>
>On Apr 14, 10:07=A0am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The Penguin chaps were very dismissive of the LP containing 100/102 and
> mention
>> every time 102 comes up, this is still my favorite recording of the piece=
> (he
>> makes it sound grander, more powerful than anyone else) and, for my money=
>, one
>> of the best recordings of any Haydn symphony.
>>
>> Simon
>
>While I agree that Klemperer's 102 is a great recording, to my ears
>Sandor Vegh on Orfeo has him beat. Have you heard that one?
Yes, and like it for all the reasons you give. I still slightly prefer
Klemperer, though.
As for
>power, Vegh uses a chamber orchestra, but they play big and are
>closely recorded, so there isn't as big a difference as you might
>think. In i, Klemperer is at his best, with strong, forceful accents
>and great contributions from the lower strings. But Vegh matches him
>blow for blow, other than the timpani roll, where Klemperer is a bit
>better. Vegh's leaner string sound allows winds to shine through more
>in a few places as well. In ii, Vegh is broader and more flexible, to
>the music's benefit I think. In iii, Klemperer is good, but the extra
>lilt Vegh gives the main theme works very well, and if anything his
>orchestra plays even more forcefully. And then there is the finale.
>Here, Vegh really shines with a tremendously thrilling account that
>makes Klemperer seem a bit earthbound. Vegh does much more with loud/
>soft dynamics and his orchestra plays with great enthusiasm, sounding
>as if they are barely being restrained from leaping from their seats.
>A great, great performance. Don't get me wrong - there is less of a
>gap between Klemperer and Vegh than there is between those two and
>whoever is 3rd best (Bernstein?), but I'd choose Vegh if allowed only
>one.
Yes, Bernstein's is near the top. I would like it much more if the recorded
sound were better - while I like the in-your-face presence of the cellos/basses,
the winds/brass/timpani sound as though they were seated out in a hallway....
At the other end of the spectrum (light, fast, lean, HIP) I quite like Goodman's
recording on Hyperion, even though it's not quite as good as the performance I
attended around the same time they recorded it. I hope Fey gets around to it.
Simon
Greg
> At the other end of the spectrum (light, fast, lean, HIP) I quite like Goodman's
> recording on Hyperion, even though it's not quite as good as the performance I
> attended around the same time they recorded it. I hope Fey gets around to it.
>
> Simon
102 wouldn't be high on my priority list for Fey - there have already
been at least 2 great recordings of that one. I'd prioritize some of
the ones where I can't find anything good enough - 89/90/91 would be a
nice disc. Or more of the ones from 71-81, say. Anyway, as I posted
a few days ago, the next 2 Fey discs are apparently 48/56 and
93/96/97, both of which strike me as something to look forward to.
Greg
pga...@my-deja.com
>
> 102 wouldn't be high on my priority list for Fey - there have already
> been at least 2 great recordings of that one. I'd prioritize some of
> the ones where I can't find anything good enough - 89/90/91 would be a
> nice disc. Or more of the ones from 71-81, say. Anyway, as I posted
> a few days ago, the next 2 Fey discs are apparently 48/56 and
> 93/96/97, both of which strike me as something to look forward to.
This is Dave Hurwitz's laudatory review of Fey's new (?) CD featuring
Syms. #57, 59 and 65:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12178
pgaron
wagnerfan
news:9be43182-31f0-45b1...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12178
pgaron
And that is supposed to be important????? Hurwitz has been debunked here
more than once. Wagner fan
Simon Roberts
Important or not, debunked or not, I agree with him about this disc (not that my
agreement is important either...). Electrifying from start to finish.
Simon
Bob Harper
Debunked? Disagreed with, to be sure, but in this case he's absolutely
right: this is a fabulous disc. Listen, for example, to the Menuetto of
65. Haydn turns three into four, and Fey plays it to perfection. As the
notes put it, "anyone trying to dance to it would be flat on the floor
by the eighth bar."
I've looked forward to every volume in this series, and have yet to be
disappointed. I just hope Fey's of the George Szell school of
contrabassoon tooting in 93 :)
Bob Harper
wagnerfan
news:gs66e...@drn.newsguy.com...
Oh he is spot on about the CD alright - the Fey series is wonderful. But my
point is that one shouldn't make it a habit to trust his opinions
considering his history. Wagner Fan
Firmo Jakl
Superficially exciting, badly balanced, brutal forte passages, slow
movements mincing instead of tenderly affected. An esthetic more related
to Stravinsky than to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Totally fraudulent,
in my opinion.
Old Listener
I value Simon's recommendations so I kept trying Fey's Haydn for far
too long. I haven't found a single symphony performed by Fey that I
liked.
I agree with Simon that Goodman is quite good for 102. 101 on the
same CD is also good. The Windsor castle Overture is really good and
there aren't many choices there.
Klemperer is unmatched in 100 and 102. I like Klemperer in 95 and 98
too.
Bill
Gerard
If only important things would be posted, it would be quite empty here.
Anyway, Hurwitz's opinion is no less important than yours.
Gerard
>
> Superficially exciting, badly balanced, brutal forte passages, slow
> movements mincing instead of tenderly affected. An esthetic more
> related to Stravinsky than to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Totally
> fraudulent, in my opinion.
I didn't hear this recording, but some other by Fey.
There's a tendency to appreciate an aggressive style of playing (of Haydn) much
more graceful and elegant playing.
(Like the way Il Giardino Armonico used to play Vivaldi for a while.)
I cannot imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music - has
been played during his life.
Bastian Kubis
> 102 wouldn't be high on my priority list for Fey - there have already
> been at least 2 great recordings of that one. I'd prioritize some of
> the ones where I can't find anything good enough - 89/90/91 would be a
> nice disc. Or more of the ones from 71-81, say.
As far as I can see (from the homepage of the Heidelberger Sinfoniker,
e.g.), they still plan to do the whole cycle; they just have given up
the original goal (or so I understood) to complete it in 2009, but
rather continue with "2-3 discs per year". So you just have to be
patient! [They /do/ plan to finish the Mendelssohn cycle in 2009.]
> Anyway, as I posted
> a few days ago, the next 2 Fey discs are apparently 48/56 and
> 93/96/97, both of which strike me as something to look forward to.
Yes, thanks very much for that information - I had only seen some of
those on their concert schedule. 93/96/97 all strike me as not ideally
served by recordings so far, so if Fey turns out to be as good as in 95,
that would be great.
Bastian
The Historian
wrote:
Once was enough for me. I sold off the one disc I had.
her...@yahoo.com
here. It's way too motoric, driven and brutal. A charicature of
Harnoncourt (whose Haydn I like very much).
There are a lot of these Harnoncourt disciples leading provincial
orchestras and they're terrible.
Herman
her...@yahoo.com
their absurd logic:
"Fey's use of the harpsichord continuo, a habit that has no basis in
historical fact and sounds just plain vile most of the time, is a
model for how it should be done."
One would think the way it should be done is to not to do it.
Herman
Gerard
> I have two Fey Haydn discs and agree with the negative assesments
> here. It's way too motoric, driven and brutal. A charicature of
> Harnoncourt (whose Haydn I like very much).
>
Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris Symphonies is not very different (from the
way Fey conducts).
Bob Lombard
bl
Bob Harper
obviously for some it does--drastically), but I'll buy--and, I suspect,
enjoy--Fey's upcoming discs just as much as I have those already out.
Bob Harper
Simon Roberts
says...
Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't played a la Klemperer
either - but I'm not going to stop enjoying Klemperer's 102 based on that
trivial fact....
Simon
Simon Roberts
says...
>Superficially exciting, badly balanced, brutal forte passages, slow
>movements mincing instead of tenderly affected. An esthetic more related
>to Stravinsky than to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Totally fraudulent,
>in my opinion.
I can understand why someone mightn't like the performances, but what's the
"fraud"? Who's being deceived about what?
Simon
Gerard
>
> Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't played a la
> Klemperer either - but I'm not going to stop enjoying Klemperer's 102
> based on that trivial fact....
>
> Simon
I should not know why.
(The talking was about Fey.)
Simon Roberts
says...
Right, about whose performances you wrote, inter alia: "I cannot imagine that
this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music - has been played during his
life." My point is simply that if *that* is a criterion (maybe you didn't mean
it to be; but if not, so what?) for rejecting Fey - his is not a style Haydn
would have heard - we have to reject Klemperer (and Karajan and Davis and on and
on) too.
Simon
maready
I'm not sure who is replying to who at this point, but I'd like to
state that 1) I've enjoyed the Fey recordings I've heard so far 2) I
found the recent Harnoncourt recordings of the Paris symphonies
incredibly boring and cannot figure out why (that certainly not my
reaction to his early Teldec Haydn) and 3) I'd like to thank the
originator of this thread for motivating me to pull out the Klemperers
and try 100 and 102 specifically --- they really are excellent, with
the usual woodwinds-up-front Klemp/Philharmonia sound and sprightly
tempos.
I have an Italian EMI LP of a pair of Klemperer/New Philharmonia
London symphonies which has a fantastic cover photo of an (Italian?)
long-haired motorcyle gang "rollin' down the highway ... ",
presumably with the sound of Otto's Haydn in their ears.
Gerard
It is a criterion if someone pretends to play "authentically", or HIP.
Klemperer did not.
pga...@my-deja.com
Personally, I think he's a savvy and informative music reviewer.
Different strokes...
pgaron
Johannes Roehl
> On Apr 16, 2:20 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <e1a$49e7539c$5ed13ae8$14...@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Gerard
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>> Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't played a la
>>>> Klemperer either - but I'm not going to stop enjoying Klemperer's 102
>>>> based on that trivial fact....
>>>> Simon
>>> I should not know why.
>>> (The talking was about Fey.)
>> Right, about whose performances you wrote, inter alia: "I cannot imagine that
>> this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music - has been played during his
>> life." My point is simply that if *that* is a criterion (maybe you didn't mean
>> it to be; but if not, so what?) for rejecting Fey - his is not a style Haydn
>> would have heard - we have to reject Klemperer (and Karajan and Davis and on and
>> on) too.
>>
>> Simon
>
> I'm not sure who is replying to who at this point, but I'd like to
> state that 1) I've enjoyed the Fey recordings I've heard so far 2) I
> found the recent Harnoncourt recordings of the Paris symphonies
> incredibly boring and cannot figure out why (that certainly not my
> reaction to his early Teldec Haydn) and
They are not all that different. Harnoncourt's Paris set is (sometimes)
slightly more extreme than the 4 earlier discs, but can also be quite
exciting and the sound is fabulous. I am not as enthusiastic as some
here about Fey, but I admittedly haven't listened to the 4 or 5 discs I
own as closely as I maybe should have. On the surface he can be (because
usually faster) more exciting than e.g. NH, but for some reason, NHs
mannerisms make more sense to me than Fey's. For instance, I loved Fey's
85, prefer the 1st mvtmt to about anyone, but then, he has some odd
rubati in the variations that make no sense to me. And Harnoncourts
period orchestra sounds more colorful as well. Or while I like the fast
tempo in the Menuet of 104, I think Fey's pushing it over the edge and
his extremely slow trio doesn't go well with me either.
Anyway, I will probably get more of Fey's discs, but I wish he would
play it a little straighter sometimes (Overall I probably still liked
83-85 best of Fey's, 84 and 85 certainly among the best I have heard,
but in 83 Harnoncourt rules, it's the best of his Paris set, IMO.)
Johannes
wagnerfan
news:4275a195-805f-4dfd...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
pgaron
Really - you should check the archives here to read how "savvy" he is
Wagner fan
Bob Lombard
> <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> And that is supposed to be important????? Hurwitz has been debunked here
>> more than once. Wagner fan
>
> Personally, I think he's a savvy and informative music reviewer.
> Different strokes...
>
> pgaron
>
> Really - you should check the archives here to read how "savvy" he is
> Wagner fan
DH has his prejudices, you have yours. Or do you deny having any?
bl
neil97232
Let's have a heads-up to the EMI officially -released - set of Solomon
late -Beethoven sonatas EMI's wonderful transfer for the ages
Greg
Fey's 95 is good, and revelatory in places, but I have a pretty strong
preference for faster, spicier minuets in this one, with a contrasting
slower speed for the trio. This may just be my personal quirk - if
you ever chance upon an Antony Hodgson review of any Haydn 95, he
always points out that he has exactly the opposite preference.
Anyway, for this and other reasons, my favorite 95 is Szell's. I
think it is his best studio Haydn recording (there is a live 99 that
is even better), and one of the only ones where he provides enough
energy for my taste. Goodman is another who has the right idea in the
minuet.
I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance. 97 is ruled
by Bernstein for me, but if someone would come along and combine a
faster, more agressive i with Bernstein's rude brass and swagger in
the finale and elsewhere, they would have my undying devotion.
Greg
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Fey's 95 is good, and revelatory in places, but I have a pretty strong
> preference for faster, spicier minuets in this one, with a contrasting
> slower speed for the trio. This may just be my personal quirk - if
> you ever chance upon an Antony Hodgson review of any Haydn 95, he
> always points out that he has exactly the opposite preference.
> Anyway, for this and other reasons, my favorite 95 is Szell's. I
> think it is his best studio Haydn recording (there is a live 99 that
> is even better), and one of the only ones where he provides enough
> energy for my taste. Goodman is another who has the right idea in the
> minuet.
>
> I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
> and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
> probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
> he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance. 97 is ruled
> by Bernstein for me, but if someone would come along and combine a
> faster, more agressive i with Bernstein's rude brass and swagger in
> the finale and elsewhere, they would have my undying devotion.
>
> Greg
What do you think of Szell's (later) 97? I've always thought it one of
the best. I'm looking forward to hearing it in improved sound (if,
indeed, the new issue is given the same treatment as the more successful
Sony reissues of recent years).
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:374946f6-85fa-4fcb-8988-
2dbd70...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> i always appreciate Tom Deacon's contributions to RMCR.
Your opinion is not shared by everyone.
> Let's have a heads-up to the EMI officially -released - set of Solomon
> late -Beethoven sonatas EMI's wonderful transfer for the ages
Do they name the transfer engineer?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.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
Greg
> What do you think of Szell's (later) 97? I've always thought it one of
> the best. I'm looking forward to hearing it in improved sound (if,
> indeed, the new issue is given the same treatment as the more successful
> Sony reissues of recent years).
>
> Bob Harper
I like it a lot and think it is one of the better ones, but I prefer
Bernstein. Overall, Bernstein brings a little more zest, humor,
etc... than Szell does to this one. One little detail which may not
matter to you, but is one of the things I look for in 97 - near the
beginning of the finale, maybe ~25 seconds in, when the horns come in
- listen to how Bernstein has them blast away rudely while Szell's are
much more polite. This is the sort of thing I find missing in Szell's
(and most others, for that matter). Of course, there are other things
Szell does better, but overall it's Lenny for me.
Greg
Bob Harper
I'll grant you those horns, but I like Szell's trumpets better. I have a
feeling that this will be right up Fey's alley, and that both will cut
through the texture quite brazenly :)
Bob Harper
Greg
> I'm not sure who is replying to who at this point, but I'd like to
> state that 1) I've enjoyed the Fey recordings I've heard so far 2) I
> found the recent Harnoncourt recordings of the Paris symphonies
> incredibly boring and cannot figure out why (that certainly not my
> reaction to his early Teldec Haydn)
I generally find Fey's Haydn to be more convincing than
Harnoncourt's. I thought I was the only one who found Harnoncourt's
Paris set overrated. I wouldn't go so far as to call it boring, but
other than 83, I prefer Fey across the board, as well as the likes of
Marriner and Bernstein in most of them. Without stopping to think
very hard about it, where Fey and Harnoncourt have both recorded the
same work, I think the only ones I would take Harnoncourt in may be 83
and 94. (But the best Harnoncourt may be 31, which Fey hasn't gotten
to yet.) I think both these conductors are at their best when they
are in aggressive, pin-your-ears-back-and-charge mode, and Fey does
this more often. When either of them is in let's-go-slow-and-play-
with-weird-legato-phrasing mode, they just sound eccentric to me, and
Harnoncourt does this much more often. Where I sometimes have
problems with Fey is in the more lyrical sections, where he can be
pretty chilly. There are some slow movements where I wish he would
sweeten up the strings a bit and realize some of the potential for
romantic sentiment.
Greg
Greg
> I'll grant you those horns, but I like Szell's trumpets better. I have a
> feeling that this will be right up Fey's alley, and that both will cut
> through the texture quite brazenly :)
>
> Bob Harper
We can only hope. While on the subject of Bernstein's Haydn 97, has
everyone seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN4wMvA5nlA
Looks like a video made about the same time as the recording. Does
anyone know the origin?
Greg
Steve Emerson
<6c7458db-95ee-4d51...@z5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <onei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
> and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
> probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
> he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance. 97 is ruled
> by Bernstein for me, but if someone would come along and combine a
> faster, more agressive i with Bernstein's rude brass and swagger in
> the finale and elsewhere, they would have my undying devotion.
You ever run into the Paul Paray #96? Unsurprisingly, it is
one-of-a-kind.
97 and for that matter 102 were both splendidly done by the languishing
Ernst Maerzendorfer's Vienna Chamber Orchestra. Whether the brass is
rude or not, I'll have to check.
SE.
Gerard
Agreed.
There's no need to say "And that is supposed to be important?????" in a
newsgroup that is filled with opinions and prejudices.
By no means if the "name" is 'wagnerfan'.
Gerard
> to yet.) I think both these conductors are at their best when they
> are in aggressive, pin-your-ears-back-and-charge mode, and Fey does
> this more often.
That's what I am asking about: does this fit in the style of that period?
When I first heard Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris symphonies, I thought:
he should have recorded the Beethoven symphonies this way, with these forces.
But I don't think that playing 'the Beethoven way' fits the music of Haydn. It's
aggressive, over driven, lacking charm and grace.
Bastian Kubis
>>>> Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't played
>>>> a la Klemperer either - but I'm not going to stop enjoying
>>>> Klemperer's 102 based on that trivial fact....
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>> I should not know why.
>>> (The talking was about Fey.)
>> Right, about whose performances you wrote, inter alia: "I cannot
>> imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music - has
>> been played during his life." My point is simply that if *that* is a
>> criterion (maybe you didn't mean it to be; but if not, so what?) for
>> rejecting Fey - his is not a style Haydn would have heard - we have
>> to reject Klemperer (and Karajan and Davis and on and on) too.
>
> It is a criterion if someone pretends to play "authentically", or HIP.
> Klemperer did not.
So if you had thrown away the booklets, never heard the performers'
names before, or just had listened to these performances on the radio
after missing the initial announcement who was playing - you would judge
these recordings differently?
[Frankly, I don't even know whether Fey and/or Harnoncourt (still) claim
any such things concerning the "authenticity" of their Haydn recordings.
I just couldn't care less whether they do or not.]
Bastian
Bastian Kubis
> Fey's 95 is good, and revelatory in places, but I have a pretty strong
> preference for faster, spicier minuets in this one, with a contrasting
> slower speed for the trio. This may just be my personal quirk - if
> you ever chance upon an Antony Hodgson review of any Haydn 95, he
> always points out that he has exactly the opposite preference.
> Anyway, for this and other reasons, my favorite 95 is Szell's. I
> think it is his best studio Haydn recording (there is a live 99 that
> is even better), and one of the only ones where he provides enough
> energy for my taste. Goodman is another who has the right idea in the
> minuet.
I don't remember details about different conductors' 95/iii, but I think
I enjoyed several recordings of 95 (more than of 96/97, certainly);
certainly Goodman, but also Brüggen, Jochum/Dresden, even Dorati and
Davis. Haven't heard Szell's.
> I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
> and Vegh are both in the ballpark.
As I said earlier, I don't know Vegh; but Hogwood is my favourite in 96.
For a non-HIP one, I thought Bernstein was good here, too.
> For 93, my working favorite is
> probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
> he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance.
Yes; there are other "good" ones, too, like Dorati, Abbado, Goodman,
maybe Brüggen (although he is not as good as in some of the other London
ones), but maybe none that strikes me as absolutely outstanding.
> 97 is ruled
> by Bernstein for me, but if someone would come along and combine a
> faster, more agressive i with Bernstein's rude brass and swagger in
> the finale and elsewhere, they would have my undying devotion.
... and this is also my favourite 97. I would really like to hear a
good HIP or HIP-influenced version; neither Brüggen nor Harnoncourt are
at their very best here, I think.
Bastian
Gerard
> Gerard wrote:
> > > > > Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't
> > > > > played a la Klemperer either - but I'm not going to stop
> > > > > enjoying Klemperer's 102 based on that trivial fact....
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > I should not know why.
> > > > (The talking was about Fey.)
> > > Right, about whose performances you wrote, inter alia: "I cannot
> > > imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music -
> > > has been played during his life." My point is simply that if
> > > *that* is a criterion (maybe you didn't mean it to be; but if
> > > not, so what?) for rejecting Fey - his is not a style Haydn would
> > > have heard - we have to reject Klemperer (and Karajan and Davis
> > > and on and on) too.
> >
> > It is a criterion if someone pretends to play "authentically", or
> > HIP. Klemperer did not.
>
> So if you had thrown away the booklets, never heard the performers'
> names before, or just had listened to these performances on the radio
> after missing the initial announcement who was playing - you would
> judge these recordings differently?
Why?
Do you always listen to recordings without knowing anything about performers and
their motives?
BTW Klemperer does not show the aggressiveness of Harnoncourt in the Paris
symphonies. He did not record them.
>
> [Frankly, I don't even know whether Fey and/or Harnoncourt (still)
> claim any such things concerning the "authenticity" of their Haydn
> recordings. I just couldn't care less whether they do or not.]
>
> Bastian
That's your opinion. *If* they make such claims or pretensions (are you denying
so?) their performances should be in a style that was common is Haydn's time.
Bastian Kubis
>>> It is a criterion if someone pretends to play "authentically", or
>>> HIP. Klemperer did not.
>> So if you had thrown away the booklets, never heard the performers'
>> names before, or just had listened to these performances on the radio
>> after missing the initial announcement who was playing - you would
>> judge these recordings differently?
>
> Why?
Assuming Simon is right that Haydn wouldn't have heard either
Klemperer's or Fey's way with his symphonies in his time, you said that
matters in Fey's case, but not in Klemperer's. So if you had never
heard about the HIP movement or anything like that, it shouldn't matter
to you any more for Fey than for Klemperer.
> Do you always listen to recordings without knowing anything about performers and
> their motives?
No. But it changes little about whether or not I like the results.
> BTW Klemperer does not show the aggressiveness of Harnoncourt in the Paris
> symphonies. He did not record them.
I know that. But your remarks were about style in Haydn symphonies in
general (or so it seemed to me), not in very specific ones.
>> [Frankly, I don't even know whether Fey and/or Harnoncourt (still)
>> claim any such things concerning the "authenticity" of their Haydn
>> recordings. I just couldn't care less whether they do or not.]
>
> That's your opinion.
What else should it be?
> *If* they make such claims or pretensions (are you denying so?)
As I said, this is not a question I am very interested in, so I don't
know really; but I think Matthew Silverstein has repeatedly written
here, having talked to him in person, that e.g. Harnoncourt does not
"justify" his performance style that way any more.
> their performances should be in a style that was common is Haydn's time.
I don't want to repeat myself... I like great recordings (or what I
perceive as such) of Haydn both HIP and non-HIP; but if I listen to an
early symphony I don't really know well, for some reason I have found
that there is a larger chance I will like a Fey-style performance of it
than a Dorati-style performance. That's just my taste, and has nothing
to do with how Haydn should or shouldn't be played and/or heard.
Bastian
Greg
wrote:
> You ever run into the Paul Paray #96? Unsurprisingly, it is
> one-of-a-kind.
>
> 97 and for that matter 102 were both splendidly done by the languishing
> Ernst Maerzendorfer's Vienna Chamber Orchestra. Whether the brass is
> rude or not, I'll have to check.
>
> SE.
You've got me there. I haven't heard any of these.
Greg
Gerard
> Gerard wrote:
> > > > It is a criterion if someone pretends to play "authentically",
> > > > or HIP. Klemperer did not.
> > > So if you had thrown away the booklets, never heard the
> > > performers' names before, or just had listened to these
> > > performances on the radio after missing the initial announcement
> > > who was playing - you would judge these recordings differently?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Assuming Simon is right that Haydn wouldn't have heard either
> Klemperer's or Fey's way with his symphonies in his time, you said
> that matters in Fey's case, but not in Klemperer's. So if you had
> never heard about the HIP movement or anything like that, it
> shouldn't matter to you any more for Fey than for Klemperer.
That's too hypothetical.
In Fey's case one might expect some playing in Haydn's style or the style of
that epoc.
>
> > Do you always listen to recordings without knowing anything about
> > performers and their motives?
>
> No. But it changes little about whether or not I like the results.
And if you do not like the results?
>
> > BTW Klemperer does not show the aggressiveness of Harnoncourt in
> > the Paris symphonies. He did not record them.
>
> I know that. But your remarks were about style in Haydn symphonies in
> general (or so it seemed to me), not in very specific ones.
Not in general.
>
> > *If* they make such claims or pretensions (are you denying so?)
>
> As I said, this is not a question I am very interested in,
But I am.
> so I don't
> know really; but I think Matthew Silverstein has repeatedly written
> here, having talked to him in person, that e.g. Harnoncourt does not
> "justify" his performance style that way any more.
But if he plays Haydn like it's Beethoven's Fifth, I feel free not to like his
new "style".
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> [Frankly, I don't even know whether Fey and/or Harnoncourt (still)
> claim any such things concerning the "authenticity" of their Haydn
> recordings. I just couldn't care less whether they do or not.]
>
And in a later post:
> I don't want to repeat myself... I like great recordings (or what I
> perceive as such) of Haydn both HIP and non-HIP; but if I listen to
> an early symphony I don't really know well, for some reason I have
> found that there is a larger chance I will like a Fey-style
> performance of it than a Dorati-style performance. That's just my
> taste, and has nothing to do with how Haydn should or shouldn't be
> played and/or heard.
>
> Bastian
Agreed completely. A great performance (to me!) is a great performance,
and I could care less whether it purports to be HIP, non-HIP, or
somewhere in between. Haydn transcends those categories.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
conduct a symphony in the Fey manner, he would be told to hit the road.
Why is that opinion objectionable?
bl
Greg
> Perhaps the supposition is that if Haydn's patron/employer heard him
> conduct a symphony in the Fey manner, he would be told to hit the road.
> Why is that opinion objectionable?
>
> bl
It's not objectionable, just irrelevant. Even if the opinion were
true, why should that stop anyone from enjoying Fey's Haydn in 2009?
It seems to me that people who are rabidly anti-HIP start from the
supposition that people who listen to HIP performances only do so
because they think they are "authentic" or whatever. There may be
some of that, but I think the vast majority of HIP listeners like such
performances on their own merits, i.e., they genuinely like how they
sound. I don't listen to Haydn in order to try and re-create 1795, I
listen to enjoy the music.
Greg
Bob Harper
Fair enough, but I would also argue that those who are rabidly *pro*-HIP
start from the supposition that people who listen to, and even prefer,
performances 'in the grand manner' do so only because they don't know
any better.
As I said, I like species of both. If that bothers anybody, too bad.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
Perhaps the objection to Fey's Haydn isn't that it is HIP, but that it
is poor musicianship? What chimes does that ring?
bl
Greg
> Perhaps the objection to Fey's Haydn isn't that it is HIP, but that it
> is poor musicianship? What chimes does that ring?
>
> bl
Much better! Now that's an argument I can accept. Not agree with,
but accept...
Greg
> Fair enough, but I would also argue that those who are rabidly *pro*-HIP
> start from the supposition that people who listen to, and even prefer,
> performances 'in the grand manner' do so only because they don't know
> any better.
Perhaps, but this is less obvious to me. I guess I have seen many
more rabidly anti-HIP people than rabidly pro-HIP.
> As I said, I like species of both. If that bothers anybody, too bad.
>
> Bob Harper
Me too. In fact, I prefer the sound of modern strings to period
strings - so, all other things being equal, I would rather hear a
modern instrument performance. Of course, all other things often
aren't equal, so to find the kind of energetic performance with
prominent brass/winds/timpani I favor, the best option is often HIP.
My absolute favorite recordings are those rare ones that combine the
best (as I see it) of both worlds - modern strings, lively/energetic
playing, strong accents, and attention to instrumental balances.
Vegh's 101/102 are a good example of this, as I wrote earlier.
Greg
TareeDawg
Entirely the way I look at. Doesn't matter to me this hip or non-hip
business. It is the vitality and musicality that counts, besides which,
many of the hip orchestral textures bring a fresh perspective to more
conventional textures. I have yet to see a CD stating hip or non-hip,
but no doubt one could find a couple in 1000.
Harnoncourt has said many times that strict historical observance is for
the birds. Especially those here that squawk the most about hip.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
Bob Harper
timps--that's one of the things I like about Fey. Does he overdo it?
Perhaps (though not for my taste), but I'd rather have that than
'polite'. Haydn strikes me as among the most 'masculine' of composers,
and should be played that way, regardless of HIP or not. For me, Fey,
Harnoncourt, Klemperer, Bernstein, Jochum (with the SD), and
Guschlbauer, to name only some, achieve that, and I like them all.
Bob Harper
Gerard
I do like HIP and non-HIP performances of this music.
But an important thing to me is that they are not played in a charmless and
graceless manner. I think that charm and grace is an essential part of this
music, and probably of the epoch of Haydn. If somebody pretends to play music in
an HIP way, this really should not be left out (as it should not be left out in
a non-HIP performance). If the Paris symphonies sound like 6 military
symphonies, there's something wrong, HIP or non-HIP.
When buying a recording one can have some expectations depending on the
performers. If they are "HIP" performers, one expectation is that the style of
playing is not so hard driven and aggressive in a way that the music is hardly
recognizable as music from that epoch.
Or am I completely wrong, and is a hard driven and aggressive way of playing
music the way music written between 1770 and 1790 should be played (if it is
played in an "historical correct" way)?
Dan Amodeo
> There's a tendency to appreciate an aggressive style of playing (of Haydn)
> much
> more graceful and elegant playing.
> (Like the way Il Giardino Armonico used to play Vivaldi for a while.)
> I cannot imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music -
> has
> been played during his life.
"Used to play"? Has Il Giardino Armonico stopped playing Vivaldi that way?
Dan
Gerard
I hope so.
(I vagely remember someone said so, in this ng.)
I did not hear them play Vivaldi since (I suppose that they did not get the
opportunity to record it all over again.)
Steve Emerson
<2b0f575d-75e7-4c7b...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <onei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Our man Simon Roberts has championed eight or so of the London
Symphonies from Maerzendorfer's complete symphony cycle on MHS. I don't
think he singles out either 97 or 102, but I would. The Klemperer 102
has many virtues but it feels a little heavy on its feet to me.
I wish Reiner had recorded 102.
Paray's 96 is in print -- coupled with some Mendelssohn. Don't know if
they'll tell you anything, but you can hear audio samples at the
following:
SE.
Simon Roberts
Emerson says...
>
>In article
><2b0f575d-75e7-4c7b...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg <onei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 17, 12:12 am, Steve Emerson <eme...@n-n-n-nospamsonic.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You ever run into the Paul Paray #96? Unsurprisingly, it is
>> > one-of-a-kind.
>> >
>> > 97 and for that matter 102 were both splendidly done by the languishing
>> > Ernst Maerzendorfer's Vienna Chamber Orchestra. Whether the brass is
>> > rude or not, I'll have to check.
>> >
>> > SE.
>>
>> You've got me there. I haven't heard any of these.
>
>Our man Simon Roberts has championed eight or so of the London
>Symphonies from Maerzendorfer's complete symphony cycle on MHS. I don't
>think he singles out either 97 or 102, but I would. The Klemperer 102
>has many virtues but it feels a little heavy on its feet to me.
I'm particularly keen on Maerzendorfer's 93, in part because he's one of the few
who take the first movement up to speed.
One conductor whose Haydn has been a pleasant surprise is Gunther Herbig, who
recorded the London symphonies with the Dresden Philharmonic for Edel in the
1970s; they're now in a cheap box from Berlin Classics (did he record others?).
Fastish tempi (but not, unfortunately, in 93/i) coupled with remarkable
rhythmical alertness, characterful (but not weird) phrasing and generally
excellent balances (winds marvelously present, though at times the trumpets seem
too loud vis a vis the horns and I wish the timpanist used the hard sticks his
colleague in a certain other Dresden orchestra tended to use around that time,
and generated a bit more noise) combine to exhilarating effect - nowhere more so
than the first movement of 102. Not without its flaws (which sets aren't?) but
they're different from others' flaws and he tends to avoid those of his rivals
(e.g. one can actually hear the rather odd trumpet-horn exchanges near the end
of 96/i); overall an interesting bargain. Anyone else heard these?
Simon
Simon Roberts
says...
>I do like HIP and non-HIP performances of this music.
>But an important thing to me is that they are not played in a charmless and
>graceless manner. I think that charm and grace is an essential part of this
>music, and probably of the epoch of Haydn. If somebody pretends to play music in
>an HIP way, this really should not be left out (as it should not be left out in
>a non-HIP performance). If the Paris symphonies sound like 6 military
>symphonies, there's something wrong, HIP or non-HIP.
>
>When buying a recording one can have some expectations depending on the
>performers. If they are "HIP" performers, one expectation is that the style of
>playing is not so hard driven and aggressive in a way that the music is hardly
>recognizable as music from that epoch.
>
>Or am I completely wrong, and is a hard driven and aggressive way of playing
>music the way music written between 1770 and 1790 should be played (if it is
>played in an "historical correct" way)?
Your mistakes lie in assuming that we know enough about late 18th century
playing/interpretative styles to make firm pronouncements on the matter, that we
all mean the same things by "charm" and "grace", that we want (or should, based
on "the evidence") them in the same places, that we all agree (or should, based
on "the evidence") on the appropriate style for any given piece; etc.
Simon
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>> In article <e1a$49e7539c$5ed13ae8$14...@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
>> Gerard says...
>> >
>> > Simon Roberts wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Who knows? But it seems virtually certain that it wasn't played
>> > > a la Klemperer either - but I'm not going to stop enjoying
>> > > Klemperer's 102 based on that trivial fact....
>> > >
>> > > Simon
>> >
>> > I should not know why.
>> > (The talking was about Fey.)
>>
>> imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music - has
>> criterion (maybe you didn't mean it to be; but if not, so what?) for
>> rejecting Fey - his is not a style Haydn would have heard - we have
>> to reject Klemperer (and Karajan and Davis and on and on) too.
>>
>
Do Fey and Harnoncourt make that claim? Assuming arguendo that they do, and
that we know what they mean by that, sure, it's an added consideration - and we
can judge, to the extent we have enough information, whether we think they
succeed in being "authentic" (but we need to recognize just how little we know
and realize that often we're judging by our taste, not by our knowledge of
historically relevant stuff). But we don't have to, and it has little to do
with evaluating the performance on musical terms.
>Klemperer did not.
Does that mean the criterion doesn't apply?
Simon
Greg
> One conductor whose Haydn has been a pleasant surprise is Gunther Herbig, who
> recorded the London symphonies with the Dresden Philharmonic for Edel in the
> 1970s; they're now in a cheap box from Berlin Classics (did he record others?).
> Fastish tempi (but not, unfortunately, in 93/i) coupled with remarkable
> rhythmical alertness, characterful (but not weird) phrasing and generally
> excellent balances (winds marvelously present, though at times the trumpets seem
> too loud vis a vis the horns and I wish the timpanist used the hard sticks his
> colleague in a certain other Dresden orchestra tended to use around that time,
> and generated a bit more noise) combine to exhilarating effect - nowhere more so
> than the first movement of 102. Not without its flaws (which sets aren't?) but
> they're different from others' flaws and he tends to avoid those of his rivals
> (e.g. one can actually hear the rather odd trumpet-horn exchanges near the end
> of 96/i); overall an interesting bargain. Anyone else heard these?
>
> Simon
Yes, I have Herbig's set. Pretty good, I would say. In fact, it is
probably the best complete London set on modern instruments, at least
that I've heard. There are several that I like (97,99,103 come to
mind), but I don't think there are any first choices. Interesting
that you would point out 102i - that was one of the ones I was
somewhat disappointed in, mostly because I found the string balances
skewed too far to the violins. Overall, I find the set's virtues to
be the wonderful sound, the very good string and wind playing, and the
generally fast tempos. The horns don't stick out as much as I would
like, and I find his timpani to be a bit polite. Also, although the
energy level is high, it could be a bit earthier. Herbig's 97i and
103i are rare examples of recordings that go close to fast enough for
my taste.
Another set I was interested in is Shelley's new one on Hyperion. I
just ordered it from MDT the other day - around $30. Have you heard
it? There are 1 minute sound samples of each movement on Hyperion's
website which sounded promising.
Greg
Gerard
Maybe you're right. But I don't think it's very probable. If I understand your
sentence above well enough.
What we don't know is what effect this modern (21th century) hard driven and
aggressive style would have on an audience in around 1780.
But I thought it is well known that artists and musicians were more or less
obliged to _please_ their patrons and their public/audiences. This being more
important than anything else.
BTW Harnoncourt's style in the London symphonies (with the Concertgebouw
Orchestra, non-HIP actually) is very different from his style in the Paris
symphonies with Concentus Musicus.
Do you know if he has talked (given some expalnation) about this kind of change
somewhere?
Gerard
Sorry, but your way of writing is not very clear to me.
I don't know if Fey and Harnoncourt make that claim explicitely. But if
Harnoncourt makes a recording with Concentus Musicus, one could expect something
like that.
I'm not so sure we know so little about the historically relevant stuff.
I expect that this way of performing Haydn's music is an "interim" trend. It
will be over soon.
>
> > Klemperer did not.
>
> Does that mean the criterion doesn't apply?
>
> Simon
(I'm a little lost here.)
Klemperer - like many others - did not pretend to perform in an historically
"correct" way, or in a way this music was played during Haydn's time. He played
it just "his way" (and the way of his generation), and was very convincing in
doing so. And so was Szell, for example.
A. Brain
news:gs4q3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <357b5fbc-7828-4e26...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Greg says...
>>
>>On Apr 14, 10:07=A0am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Penguin chaps were very dismissive of the LP containing 100/102
>>> and
>>> presumably remain that way. =A0I'm not wild about all his Haydn, but
>>> as I=
>> mention
>>> every time 102 comes up, this is still my favorite recording of the
>>> piece=
>> (he
>>> makes it sound grander, more powerful than anyone else) and, for my
>>> money=
>>, one
>>> of the best recordings of any Haydn symphony.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>
>>While I agree that Klemperer's 102 is a great recording, to my ears
>>Sandor Vegh on Orfeo has him beat. Have you heard that one?
>
> Yes, and like it for all the reasons you give. I still slightly
> prefer
> Klemperer, though.
>
> As for
>>power, Vegh uses a chamber orchestra, but they play big and are
>>closely recorded, so there isn't as big a difference as you might
>>think. In i, Klemperer is at his best, with strong, forceful accents
>>and great contributions from the lower strings. But Vegh matches him
>>blow for blow, other than the timpani roll, where Klemperer is a bit
>>better. Vegh's leaner string sound allows winds to shine through more
>>in a few places as well. In ii, Vegh is broader and more flexible, to
>>the music's benefit I think. In iii, Klemperer is good, but the extra
>>lilt Vegh gives the main theme works very well, and if anything his
>>orchestra plays even more forcefully. And then there is the finale.
>>Here, Vegh really shines with a tremendously thrilling account that
>>makes Klemperer seem a bit earthbound. Vegh does much more with loud/
>>soft dynamics and his orchestra plays with great enthusiasm, sounding
>>as if they are barely being restrained from leaping from their seats.
>>A great, great performance. Don't get me wrong - there is less of a
>>gap between Klemperer and Vegh than there is between those two and
>>whoever is 3rd best (Bernstein?), but I'd choose Vegh if allowed only
>>one.
>
> Yes, Bernstein's is near the top. I would like it much more if the
> recorded
> sound were better - while I like the in-your-face presence of the
> cellos/basses,
> the winds/brass/timpani sound as though they were seated out in a
> hallway....
>
> At the other end of the spectrum (light, fast, lean, HIP) I quite like
> Goodman's
> recording on Hyperion, even though it's not quite as good as the
> performance I
> attended around the same time they recorded it. I hope Fey gets
> around to it.
I'm disinclined to buy the Klemperer set just for
one symphony. And how much "better" can it
be than the Bernstein? And since I've been listening
to the Bernstein "London" recordings lately, and
also skimmed over some old Penguin Guides, I
find that some of the same remarks are made about
the Klemperer, and, surprisingly, Brueggen
recordings of these works. Inconsistent style.
Isn't that the complaint about Bernstein?
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Johannes Roehl
>
> One conductor whose Haydn has been a pleasant surprise is Gunther Herbig, who
> recorded the London symphonies with the Dresden Philharmonic for Edel in the
> 1970s; they're now in a cheap box from Berlin Classics (did he record others?).
> Fastish tempi (but not, unfortunately, in 93/i) coupled with remarkable
> rhythmical alertness, characterful (but not weird) phrasing and generally
> excellent balances (winds marvelously present, though at times the trumpets seem
> too loud vis a vis the horns and I wish the timpanist used the hard sticks his
> colleague in a certain other Dresden orchestra tended to use around that time,
> and generated a bit more noise) combine to exhilarating effect - nowhere more so
> than the first movement of 102. Not without its flaws (which sets aren't?) but
> they're different from others' flaws and he tends to avoid those of his rivals
> (e.g. one can actually hear the rather odd trumpet-horn exchanges near the end
> of 96/i); overall an interesting bargain. Anyone else heard these?
No. I saw at least parts of it on several cheap discs, but completely
ignored it, not expecting much from that source... but your remarks do
sound tempting. (What's the use of a Haydn anniversary if one doesn't
spend money on cheap boxes with the umpteenth recordings of his music?)
Herbig apparently recorded at least #4-10 as well, this time with
Staatskapelle Berlin (there might be more in the vaults of Eterna/Berlin
Classics?):
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Joseph-Haydn-Symphonien-Nr-4-59-10/hnum/7477098
I guess, I prefer HIP for these early pieces...
Johannes
Dan Amodeo
> I cannot imagine that this was a style Haydn's music - or whatever music -
> has
> been played during his life.
Gerard,
Which CDs (especially CDs in print) of Haydn's symphonies, especially, #
202, do you think do sound like what Hadn would have heard or wanted to
hear?
Dan Amodeo
Dan Amodeo
> That's what I am asking about: does this fit in the style of that period?
> When I first heard Harnoncourt's recording of the Paris symphonies, I
> thought:
> he should have recorded the Beethoven symphonies this way, with these
> forces.
> But I don't think that playing 'the Beethoven way' fits the music of
> Haydn. It's
> aggressive, over driven, lacking charm and grace.
Gerard,
Which recordings (especially in-print recordings) of Haydn's symphonies,
especially # 202, do you like? Which ones do you think have the appropriate
charm and grace and are not overly agressive or driven?
Dan Amodeo
Simon Roberts
says...
We also don't know what effect our previous styles of playing Haydn's (etc.)
music would have had on an audience around 1780. Nor do we know how Haydn et
al. played their music.
>But I thought it is well known that artists and musicians were more or less
>obliged to _please_ their patrons and their public/audiences. This being more
>important than anything else.
I dare say. But we don't know what pleased them (and we do know that much of
what did please them in other aspects of their lives, notably hygiene, would
have horrified us). Why do you assume that what displeases you would have
displeased them?
>BTW Harnoncourt's style in the London symphonies (with the Concertgebouw
>Orchestra, non-HIP actually) is very different from his style in the Paris
>symphonies with Concentus Musicus.
Indeed it is. I much prefer what he does with Concentus Musicus.
>Do you know if he has talked (given some expalnation) about this kind of change
>somewhere?
Sorry, I don't know.
Simon
Simon Roberts
Brain says...
>I'm disinclined to buy the Klemperer set just for
>one symphony. And how much "better" can it
>be than the Bernstein?
You may not think it's better at all! I think it's worth the price of the set,
and then some. But that's me (and one or two others).
And since I've been listening
>to the Bernstein "London" recordings lately, and
>also skimmed over some old Penguin Guides, I
>find that some of the same remarks are made about
>the Klemperer, and, surprisingly, Brueggen
>recordings of these works. Inconsistent style.
>
>Isn't that the complaint about Bernstein?
It's certainly one complaint, reflecting in part the fact that they were
recorded over a fairly long period and in different venues (none of which had a
very appealing acoustic or, if it did, was recorded well by the engineers). He
tended to slow down as the series progressed, the last performances to be
released (97/98) being the slowest of the lot, 98/i almost absurdly so.
Simon
Steve Emerson
<4eqGl.134085$4m1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
> I'm disinclined to buy the Klemperer set just for
> one symphony. And how much "better" can it
> be than the Bernstein? And since I've been listening
> to the Bernstein "London" recordings lately, and
> also skimmed over some old Penguin Guides, I
> find that some of the same remarks are made about
> the Klemperer, and, surprisingly, Brueggen
> recordings of these works. Inconsistent style.
>
> Isn't that the complaint about Bernstein?
Just to say that I think the Klemperers are all of interest, the 102 not
necessarily standing out more than the rest. The only problem for me is
that an additional #88 and #92 are extremely low priorities here.
I might point out that if you get this set from MDT, it is ridiculously
cheap, at present around $12 for the 3 discs.
BTW it doesn't remind me at all of Bernstein. Big orchestra, that's
about all -- so reading anything whatever into the Penguin Guide might
be a worse idea here than ever. But if your comments above are merely a
way to impose sanity on the acquisitive impulse, then well, I hope it
works.
SE.
Simon Roberts
Greg says...
>I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
>and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
>probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
>he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance.
and isn't really fast enough in i (Adam Fischer almost is, but there's nothing
else to recommend it). Have you heard Maerzendorfer?
97 is ruled
>by Bernstein for me, but if someone would come along and combine a
>faster, more agressive i with Bernstein's rude brass and swagger in
>the finale and elsewhere, they would have my undying devotion.
I'm with you there; no other recording I've heard of this symphony comes close.
This is a symphony where Dorati compares quite well - his sonorities are all
wrong, but at least in the first movement there's a degree of swagger and flair
missing in most. (A couple of years ago I compared as many 97s as I could round
up and found few that were really pleasing. Davis fared especially badly.)
I would also suggest that 99 has not fared well. Bernstein, Bruggen, Berglund
and Maerzendorfer all have points in their favor, but....
Simon
Simon Roberts
Greg says...
>Yes, I have Herbig's set. Pretty good, I would say. In fact, it is
>probably the best complete London set on modern instruments, at least
>that I've heard. There are several that I like (97,99,103 come to
>mind), but I don't think there are any first choices. Interesting
>that you would point out 102i - that was one of the ones I was
>somewhat disappointed in, mostly because I found the string balances
>skewed too far to the violins. Overall, I find the set's virtues to
>be the wonderful sound, the very good string and wind playing, and the
>generally fast tempos. The horns don't stick out as much as I would
>like, and I find his timpani to be a bit polite. Also, although the
>energy level is high, it could be a bit earthier. Herbig's 97i and
>103i are rare examples of recordings that go close to fast enough for
>my taste.
>
>Another set I was interested in is Shelley's new one on Hyperion. I
>just ordered it from MDT the other day - around $30. Have you heard
>it? There are 1 minute sound samples of each movement on Hyperion's
>website which sounded promising.
No, I've not heard it and was half tempted to order it. Since your taste in
Haydn is in many respects very similar to mine (I agree with most of what you
say re Herbig too) I look forward to reading any comments you may care to make
(if you're so inclined)!
Simon
Greg
> I would also suggest that 99 has not fared well. Bernstein, Bruggen, Berglund
> and Maerzendorfer all have points in their favor, but....
>
> Simon
I haven't heard any Maerzendorfer and find Berglund somewhat
disappointing, partly because of rather cloudy sound. Yes to
Bernstein and Bruggen; and Herbig, Szell, and Marriner aren't bad
either. But, I agree that no studio recording really nails 99. Which
brings me to my favorite recording of the piece, by far...
There is a live Szell recording from February of 1966 when Cleveland
was on tour in Boston, which has the virtues of (1) having been
recorded in Boston and not Severance Hall, and (2) being bolder and
more alive than any of Szell's studio Haydn. It has been kindly
uploaded to both the major concert sharing groups, and comes with a
Dvorak 8 that is also in a different class than the 3 studio Szell
efforts. It reminds me of the Klemperer 102 in the sense that it is
not really fast, but big, bold, aggressive, and highly involving.
Very strong accents, razor sharp rhythms, and brass playing that is
almost overwhelming in its power in some places - I'm sure some would
find it un-Haydnesque (or something), but I love it. The whole thing
is great, but I am especially fond of the minuet. A slow, swaggering,
powerful performance - the gruff brass pound their accents like a ton
of bricks and Szell creates a cumulative momentum that I find
intoxicating. I have been known to listen to the minuet multiple
times back to back... At any rate, it is a radio broadcast, and there
is some compression in louder passages, audience noise, etc..., but
the performance is easily good enough to overcome all that.
Greg
Gerard
Most of the recordings I know. But I seldom have a real favorite.
Like Harnoncourt, Brüggen, Davis, Beecham for the London symphonies.
I didn't listen for a long time to them, but I think Jochum as well.
Several recordings by Marriner.
Szell of course.
Dorati does no "do" it for me.
I should relisten to the recordings by Fey I have (and the Klemperer set I will
buy without doubt).
I don't know the London Symphonies by Bernstein.
For the Paris symphonies the picture is a little different.
Gerard
This I cannot answer.
Think about the difference between 'fun' and 'imposing'.
My opinion is that Haydn was more inclined to the first, Beethoven more the
second.
Haydn was a brilliant "serial" composer, bringing "non-stop" entertainment at
court (and elsewhere, e.g. London).
Bastian Kubis
>> I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
>> and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
>> probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
>> he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance.
>
> and isn't really fast enough in i (Adam Fischer almost is, but there's nothing
> else to recommend it). Have you heard Maerzendorfer?
I'm sorry to ask this again (probably), but... there is no easy way to
obtain any of Maerzendorfer's, or is there?
> I would also suggest that 99 has not fared well. Bernstein, Bruggen, Berglund
> and Maerzendorfer all have points in their favor, but....
I agree, at least I don't think I have heard one that really stands out;
however, if I had to name a favourite for 99, I think this is one of the
successes in Harnoncourt's somewhat variable London set. I particularly
like the way he brings out the trumpets during the first theme in 99/i.
Bastian
Bastian Kubis
>> I'm disinclined to buy the Klemperer set just for
>> one symphony. And how much "better" can it
>> be than the Bernstein?
>
> You may not think it's better at all! I think it's worth the price of the set,
> and then some. But that's me (and one or two others).
I think Greg has described the merits of the different symphonies in
Klemperer's set very well somewhere above; for me, it is rather four
successes (88/100/102/104) out of eight. And while 102 may be the only
"absolute favourite" in there, 100 e.g. is probably my favourite non-HIP
performance (if Harnoncourt is rather HIP despite the Concertgebouw).
And then, as Steve points out, this set is so ridiculously cheap now...
Bastian
Johannes Roehl
> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>> I agree about 93/96/97 not being well served. 96 fares best - Hogwood
>>> and Vegh are both in the ballpark. For 93, my working favorite is
>>> probably Jochum/Dresden, but it wouldn't take much to displace him -
>>> he's awfully polite with the basson joke, for instance.
>>
>> and isn't really fast enough in i (Adam Fischer almost is, but there's
>> nothing
>> else to recommend it). Have you heard Maerzendorfer?
>
> I'm sorry to ask this again (probably), but... there is no easy way to
> obtain any of Maerzendorfer's, or is there?
I have never seen any on CD (nor heard any). But while I think that e.g.
Szell and Brueggen are way too slow in 93, i, I am quite satisfied with
the tempi of Harnoncourt, Jochum/Dresden or even Dorati.
>> I would also suggest that 99 has not fared well. Bernstein, Bruggen,
>> Berglund
>> and Maerzendorfer all have points in their favor, but....
>
> I agree, at least I don't think I have heard one that really stands out;
> however, if I had to name a favourite for 99, I think this is one of the
> successes in Harnoncourt's somewhat variable London set. I particularly
> like the way he brings out the trumpets during the first theme in 99/i.
Harnoncourt is extremely slow in the adagio of 99 (which may be my
favorite slow movement from the London set), IMO too slow. The rest is
quite good. I also like the probably unobtainable Gielen (intercord)
with a rather flowing adagio. He could be a little faster in the other
movements, though.
My problem with most traditional recordings by now are the often slow to
sluggish menuets. And the one in 99 is supposed to be quite fast (other
than e.g. 96 or 100)
Judging from the snatches from Herbig's that are online available, he is
not as slow as many others in the menuets, but still mostly too slow for me.
As for the finali, Harnoncourt may be surprisingly slow in some of them
(93 and especially 101), but I actually think that the standard way of
playing all of them in a relentless presto, mostly ignoring differing
characters is not the answer either.
Johannes
Greg
> My problem with most traditional recordings by now are the often slow to
> sluggish menuets. And the one in 99 is supposed to be quite fast (other
> than e.g. 96 or 100)
<snip>
I think this particular minuet (99) can work very well when taken
slowly, but if it's fast you want, there are several - Berglund,
Bruggen, Harnoncourt, Marriner to name a few.
Greg
Johannes Roehl
Yes, Bruggen and Harnoncourt are fast enough. It seems to be a personal
thing, but often, once I have heard a fast version, I really dislike the
slow ones (101 is another case for this). I am more liberal in 102-104,
for example. And I don't expect anyone to share the preference, of
course, but a sluggish menuet can almost ruin an otherwise decent
performance for me.
Johannes
Greg
> I think Greg has described the merits of the different symphonies in
> Klemperer's set very well somewhere above; for me, it is rather four
> successes (88/100/102/104) out of eight. And while 102 may be the only
> "absolute favourite" in there, 100 e.g. is probably my favourite non-HIP
> performance (if Harnoncourt is rather HIP despite the Concertgebouw).
> And then, as Steve points out, this set is so ridiculously cheap now...
>
> Bastian
Out of curiosity, which 88 do you prefer to Klemperer's? I was doing
a comparison a few weeks ago of 88's and concluded that Klemperer,
Bruggen, Jochum, and Szell were the top contenders, and I think I
might pick Klemperer's if forced to pick one, despite the slowish
finale. (One famous one I have not heard, but would like to, is
Reiner's.) I find many performances are spoiled for me by taking the
second movement too slowly, which tends to chop up the main theme -
Bernstein, Fey, Walter, Scherchen (!) for instance. Klemperer gets
just the right flow here for my taste, and is also very good
elsewhere. I love Jochum in the outer movements, but dislike his
minuet. Bruggen is also a bit slow in the finale, and Szell has the
limitation of being mono. Any other strong contenders?
Greg
Old Listener
> Any other strong contenders?
Jane Glover/ London Mozart Players is my top favorite. The original
ASV CDs bronzed and became unreadable in a few years. Replacements
have been fine. Reissues on the ASV mid-price label are OK too.
I also like Hans-Peter Frank / Helsingsborgs Symfoniorekester on Big
Ben.
There are a number of good recordings of symphony No. 88. Furtwangler
on DG and Bohm on DG are the exceptions for me.
Bill
Steve Emerson
<b6d32ede-5bec-4fdc...@f20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <onei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 3:40 am, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > I think Greg has described the merits of the different symphonies in
> > Klemperer's set very well somewhere above; for me, it is rather four
> > successes (88/100/102/104) out of eight. And while 102 may be the only
> > "absolute favourite" in there, 100 e.g. is probably my favourite non-HIP
> > performance (if Harnoncourt is rather HIP despite the Concertgebouw).
> > And then, as Steve points out, this set is so ridiculously cheap now...
> >
> > Bastian
>
> Out of curiosity, which 88 do you prefer to Klemperer's? I was doing
> a comparison a few weeks ago of 88's and concluded that Klemperer,
> Bruggen, Jochum, and Szell were the top contenders, and I think I
> might pick Klemperer's if forced to pick one, despite the slowish
> finale. (One famous one I have not heard, but would like to, is
> Reiner's.)
You should remedy that, I think, as the CD is back in print. His tempo
in the finale isn't greatly different from Klemperer's, but it is played
with a lot more bite.
> I find many performances are spoiled for me by taking the
> second movement
The Largo ;-)
> too slowly, which tends to chop up the main theme -
> Bernstein, Fey, Walter, Scherchen (!) for instance. Klemperer gets
> just the right flow here for my taste, and is also very good
> elsewhere.
Reiner's tempo is, again, similar to K's, although the feeling is
different; the attractive laconic aspect in Klemperer's strings is not
what you're going to get from these guys. You're right about Scherchen;
some dirges sound upbeat by comparison.
> I love Jochum in the outer movements, but dislike his
> minuet. Bruggen is also a bit slow in the finale, and Szell has the
> limitation of being mono. Any other strong contenders?
I am not Bastian, but -- did you not like Furtwangler (DG)? Gorgeous
orchestral playing as expected, and I would think you'd be happy with
tempi in the finale and the largo, where he's somewhat quicker than
Klemperer.
SE.