Re: Minkowski's Haydn symphonies?
wkasimer
wrote:
> Haydn: 12 London Symphonies: Marc Minkowski (Conductor), Les Musiciens
> du Louvre.http://en.naive.fr/#/work/haydn-london-symphonies
>
> The fragments sound quite interesting. Has anyone heard the lot? Any
> comments?
I've been listening to the download version for a couple of months.
Absolutely fabulous.
Bill
Bastian Kubis
>> Haydn: 12 London Symphonies: Marc Minkowski (Conductor), Les Musiciens
>> du Louvre.http://en.naive.fr/#/work/haydn-london-symphonies
>>
>> The fragments sound quite interesting. Has anyone heard the lot? Any
>> comments?
>
> I've been listening to the download version for a couple of months.
> Absolutely fabulous.
I agree. (I have the CDs though.) I would go so far as to say that if
you define the quality of a set like this by its least desirable
performance, this is the best set of London symphonies I've heard.
There may be individual performances I like even better, in particular
in Brüggen's set, but Minkowski may be the more consistent of the two.
You'll probably not find any of the slightly erratic tempi that make me
somewhat ambiguous about Norrington's set either.
[I still haven't made the direct comparison to figure out whether
Minkowski finally beats Märzendorfer in 93/i, as far as speed is
concerned; but he may very well do so.]
Bastian
Philip Peters
From where did you download it, Bill?
Philip
wkasimer
> From where did you download it, Bill?
Amazon.com. Not ideal, but cheap - a useful stopgap until I can lay
my hands on a copy of the "real thing".
Bill
Bastian Kubis
>>> Haydn: 12 London Symphonies: Marc Minkowski (Conductor), Les Musiciens
>>> du Louvre.http://en.naive.fr/#/work/haydn-london-symphonies
>>>
>>> The fragments sound quite interesting. Has anyone heard the lot? Any
>>> comments?
>>
>> I've been listening to the download version for a couple of months.
>> Absolutely fabulous.
>
>
You didn't ask *that*, but if you want the thing on CD at some point...
For some reason, the release of this set (on CD) in the UK is deferred
and deferred and deferred, and it's still not available there, but if
you pre-order it from amazon.co.uk, it is (resp. will be) quite cheap,
Lb 17.99 (4 discs). [It doesn't help you any more that I got it from
amazon.de for 19.99 Euros when it was new...]
Bastian
richard...@gmail.com
If you want CD quality a French site has the set for 14.99 Euros. See
http://www.qobuz.com/telechargement-album-mp3/Franz-Joseph-Haydn-Haydn-12-London-Symphonies/Classique/Marc-Minkowski/Naive/default/fiche_produit/id_produit-0822189015152.html?qref=sre_1_2
I have not ordered from them, but would like to hear from anyone
outside France who has.
Richard
Steve Emerson
<f9be12cc-4ac8-402a...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
"richard...@gmail.com" <richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
I did, after checking here and getting the nod from Philip, who
coincidentally is quoted above.
All went well. There was a Qobuz downloader-app that had to come first,
but no associated liabilities.
The download was really fast, at least by my own sluggish standards --
which you'll be glad to know in light of the 4 discs' worth of data at
hand. (Mine was a two-fer.)
SE.
Dave Cook
> Lb 17.99 (4 discs).
JPC has it for about the same price (or slightly less after VAT is
deducted), but Amazon UK probably has cheaper shipping.
MDT is having a Naive sale until July 27, so hopefully they'll get
this in during their sale.
Dave Cook
Philip Peters
Thanks. I am very interested in Minkowski's Haydn. I think I'll buy it.
Philip
Philip Peters
Ah....this might actually be a very good idea. Thanks for the info.
Philip
Bastian Kubis
> Haydn: 12 London Symphonies: Marc Minkowski (Conductor), Les Musiciens
> du Louvre.
> http://en.naive.fr/#/work/haydn-london-symphonies
>
> The fragments sound quite interesting. Has anyone heard the lot? Any
> comments?
Just in case you are still reading, you might want to know that Bill and
I and some others (maybe) are all wrong:
<http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12848>
I have to admit I find DH's comment on Minkowski's 94/ii, well, "amusing".
Bastian
Gerard
His opinion about the Haydn recordings is not far from that about the Mozart
symphonies 40 & 41 by Minkowski.
See http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=10235
I remember there was not much enthousiasm here about the Mozart recording.
Do you know that Mozart recording?
If so: do you think that the Minkowski performed the Haydn symphonies remarkably
better?
Frank Berger
Care to share the cause of your amusement for those of us to whom it is not
intuitively obvious?
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:E4-dnZ_QJsuGXLXR...@supernews.com:
I am given to understand that that movement of that symphony has, well, a
surprise in it.
--
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
Gerard
You don't *have to* miss this point. You can read the review.
Ricky Jimenez
seems to get universally high praise for those composers' music.
wkasimer
> Does Hurwitz also pan Minkowski's Rameau, Gluck and Offenbach? He
> seems to get universally high praise for those composers' music.
Hurwitz doesn't usually review opera on his website; that's usually
the province of Robert Levine. But DH did review Minkowski's
recording of the Offenbach Concerto Militaire quite favorably.
Bill
Bastian Kubis
Yes, DH describes in detail what Minkowski does there - that may be a
bit like giving away the final twist of a novel in a review, but never
mind... It seems to me that Haydn's 94/ii might be one of the most
popular/best-known pieces by this composer; I guess the original
"surprise" hardly ever really works for modern audiences. I thought
Minkowski's take to "recreate" the original effect was daring, but also
plain funny; certainly traditionalists will find it revolting. It may
be a bit like different people's reactions to modern staging of theatre
plays or operas ("Regietheater", anyone?).
I was amused by DH being so annoyed by this; calling what he does within
the first couple of minutes of one out of 48 symphonic movements
"Minkowski's big idea" seems somewhat grotesque. The apotheosis of this
review is the following sentence:
"There's something very, very wrong with this schizoid combination of a
purportedly authentic approach to orchestral playing with a profound
incomprehension of Haydn's personal idiom."
/Purportedly authentic/, I see. The booklet of the set in question
contains an (interesting) article by one Marc Vignal, entitled "The
interpretation of Haydn's symphonies today", from which I hope I am
allowed to quote just a couple of sentences:
"[...] As in the time of Haydn, it all depends a great deal on
circumstances. One must shun all dogmatism. We are not people of the
late eighteenth century, and it is impossible to disregard the two
hundred years which have gone by since the composer's death. [...]"
It seems to me that even if you are determined to keep beating a dead
horse, you sometimes can still choose the wrong horse.
Bastian
Bastian Kubis
>> Just in case you are still reading, you might want to know that Bill
>> and I and some others (maybe) are all wrong:
>> <http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12848>
>> I have to admit I find DH's comment on Minkowski's 94/ii, well,
>> "amusing".
>
> symphonies 40 & 41 by Minkowski.
> See http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=10235
>
> I remember there was not much enthousiasm here about the Mozart recording.
> Do you know that Mozart recording?
> If so: do you think that the Minkowski performed the Haydn symphonies remarkably
> better?
I would have to go back and listen to that Mozart 40+41 disc again
before being able to answer your question... (although I thought that,
around here, at least Matty Silverstein was a fan of that disc; but I'm
too lazy now to search the archives for that).
As for the Haydn, I thought that, e.g. compared to Norrington's recent
release (and with the exception of that joke in 94/ii on which DH spends
half his review...), it was relatively "ungimmicky" and rather
straightforward; but, for my taste, very far from the "dull" that DH
finds it. I'm surprised about this sentence in the review: "Playing the
slow movements quickly and the finales (frequently) slowly will only get
you so far." Nothing like that (concerning the tempi) struck me as
evident when listening to the set. In that sense, isn't DH's issue with
the Mozart disc rather that it tries too hard to be "different" as an
end in itself?
[It's a pity that the real Haydn cognoscenti around here seem to have
fallen silent... Greg? Simon??]
Bastian
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:4c28d4a4$0$30705$5fc...@news.tiscali.nl:
> Bastian Kubis <Bastia...@gmx.net> - Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:05:56
> +0200:
>
>> Just in case you are still reading, you might want to know that Bill and
>> I and some others (maybe) are all wrong:
>> <http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12848>
>> I have to admit I find DH's comment on Minkowski's 94/ii, well, "amusing".
>
> Indeed, you are all wrong. Prof. Hurwitz gave it 4 out of 10...
That's because Hurwitz, like Kay Kyser before him, has his own College of
Musical Knowledge. Although actually he's more like Ish Kabibble.
ivanmaxim
> EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> appears to have caused the following letters> > Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> - Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:05:56
> > +0200:
>
> >> Just in case you are still reading, you might want to know that Bill and
> >> I and some others (maybe) are all wrong:
> >> <http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12848>
> >> I have to admit I find DH's comment on Minkowski's 94/ii, well, "amusing".
>
> > Indeed, you are all wrong. Prof. Hurwitz gave it 4 out of 10...
>
> That's because Hurwitz, like Kay Kyser before him, has his own College of
> Musical Knowledge. Although actually he's more like Ish Kabibble.
>
> --
> 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
Yes I had forgotten about Hurwitz - I think his name came up here some
time ago regarding some nonsense he wrote - should check that out
later. Ah Ish Kabibble - he was about as funny as Lebrecht is
trustworthy! Wagner fan
Gerard
> Does Hurwitz also pan Minkowski's Rameau, Gluck and Offenbach? He
> seems to get universally high praise for those composers' music.
The Rameau and Gluck recordings have been reviewed by someone else (Robert
Levine).
But the Offenbach Concerto militaire got a 9/9 by Hurwitz:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11082
The wunderful Bizet recording even got a 10/10 by Hurwitz:
Gerard
Of course. After 'finishing' Lebrecht you will need another one for your little
games.
Gerard
Thanks.
I really would like to see their opinions too.
Bastian Kubis
All true (and it's not for nothing that I keep reading ct.com all the
time); but I still wonder whether it is a good start for a supposedly
unbiased review to write "Since his atrocious recording of Bach's B
minor Mass, it's been difficult to take Marc Minkowski seriously, ...".
Bastian
Gerard
Well, it's a good start for someone who seriously want to show off that he does
not like HIP performances very much, and specially not those by Minkowski.
Nevertheless his review of Minkowski's Symphonie Fantastique is not really
unfavourable:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=7515
Probably the "system" in this hate/love affair with Minkowski is that Hurwitz
hates Minkowski's approach to pre-romantic repertoire.
mark
Thanks for that.
Why is it that people automatically assume that a bad review of a
recording they enjoyed means that the reviewer must have an ax to
grind against the artist? It's quite common for reviewers to like a
musician in one piece and not another.
It's obvious to me that Hurwitz doesn't like Minkowski's way with the
specific Haydn symphonies under review. He's raved about other MM
recordings. He's being honest. Why all the Hurwitz bashing?
Gerard
Where's all the Hurwitz bashing?
mark
1. Bastian
2. Matthew
3. Wagner Fan
Greg
<snip>
> As for the Haydn, I thought that, e.g. compared to Norrington's recent
> release (and with the exception of that joke in 94/ii on which DH spends
> half his review...), it was relatively "ungimmicky" and rather
> straightforward; but, for my taste, very far from the "dull" that DH
> finds it. I'm surprised about this sentence in the review: "Playing the
> slow movements quickly and the finales (frequently) slowly will only get
> you so far." Nothing like that (concerning the tempi) struck me as
> evident when listening to the set. In that sense, isn't DH's issue with
> the Mozart disc rather that it tries too hard to be "different" as an
> end in itself?
>
> [It's a pity that the real Haydn cognoscenti around here seem to have
> fallen silent... Greg? Simon??]
>
> Bastian
While it's an honor to be mentioned with the estimable Mr. Roberts
regarding Haydn (or any other music for that matter), I think you may
be overrating my knowledge a bit here...
I must have missed this thread when it first appeared, but I am quite
impressed by Minkowski's London set, and wonder just how carefully DH
listened to it. I certainly don't think his review will give readers
a good idea of what the set is like, regardless of his personal
opinions. Perhaps these performances are a bit short on polish, but
for my money they more than make up for it with sheer enthusiasm and
spontaneity. I don't think they are ideal - there are times when the
horns and trumpets don't quite cut through like they could (one
instance is 104/i, right after the slow opening - compare to
Norrington for instance), but let's be honest here - overall they are
still well above average in this regard.
The comment about "profound incomprehension of Haydn's personal idiom"
strikes me as bizarre. I think one could very convincingly argue
exactly the opposite - the fun, joyous, "in the moment" spirit of this
set is likely exactly what Haydn had in mind. And that goes for the
unique take on 94/ii, which is obviously not one for the text books,
but is certainly fun and surprising.
At the very least, I think several of Minkowski's performances here
are very good (93, 96, 98, 100 come to mind), none are below average,
and at least one (103) is excellent, easily one of the best I have
heard. I would really want to do a little more comparative listening
before ranking the set first among the prime competition (Bruggen,
Shelley, Norrington), but it is certainly a contender and deserves
anything but an "avoid" recommendation.
Greg
ivanmaxim
Greg - I notice your prime sets are all HIP - do you feel HIP, how can
I say, serves Haydn better than let's say Beecham or Szell or
Bernstein??? Wagner fan
Greg
<snip>
>
> Greg - I notice your prime sets are all HIP - do you feel HIP, how can
> I say, serves Haydn better than let's say Beecham or Szell or
> Bernstein??? Wagner fan
I suppose I do (and my reference sets do all have some HIP influence),
but I also quite enjoy Szell and Bernstein.
For me, the ideal Haydn sound is probably a smallish or lean modern
orchestra with strong bass lines and prominent contributions from non-
strings. Norrington's general sound is probably closest to this among
the names mentioned here, but occasionally his interpretive decisions
sound wrong to me. Sandor Vegh is another who comes pretty close in
his live recordings. If you remember the live 93 video from Keller
that I posted a link to here a while back, it is another good example.
Bernstein's sound is all wrong (strings too thick and often dominating
the other instruments), but there is more to a good Haydn performance
than the sound of the orchestra, which is why I love some of his Haydn
regardless - Bernstein's best Haydn (83, 86, 87, 88, 97 at least) is
really outstanding and gets the spirit right for my taste. Szell's
lean, detailed sound isn't that far off from what I want, but the
timpani are often too recessed. He also didn't complete a London set,
so isn't in the running, and his studio Haydn is often a bit short on
fun. What I like about his best recordings (88, 95, 97, 99, 104) is
that he portrays a kind of purposeful linear drive that can be
thrilling, if very different from Bernstein. His live 99 is one of my
favorite Haydn performances by anyone, both thrilling and fun, with
better balances than the studio recordings.
Beecham is a non-contender for me, for the string-dominated textures
as well as the narrow emotional range (smooth, polite geniality).
Greg
ivanmaxim
Thanks for the info and advice Wagner fan
Bastian Kubis
>>>>> Does Hurwitz also pan Minkowski's Rameau, Gluck and Offenbach? He
>>>>> seems to get universally high praise for those composers' music.
>>>> The Rameau and Gluck recordings have been reviewed by someone else
>>>> (Robert Levine).
>>>> But the Offenbach Concerto militaire got a 9/9 by Hurwitz:
>>>> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11082
>>>> The wunderful Bizet recording even got a 10/10 by Hurwitz:
>>>> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11675
>>> Thanks for that.
>>> Why is it that people automatically assume that a bad review of a
>>> recording they enjoyed means that the reviewer must have an ax to
>>> grind against the artist? It's quite common for reviewers to like a
>>> musician in one piece and not another.
>>> It's obvious to me that Hurwitz doesn't like Minkowski's way with the
>>> specific Haydn symphonies under review. He's raved about other MM
>>> recordings. He's being honest. Why all the Hurwitz bashing?
>> Where's all the Hurwitz bashing?
>
> 1. Bastian
Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. I have stated in the course of this
thread that I am a very regular reader of DH's site (if I may call it
like that); and I am not the kind of person that "likes" to read stuff
just to get angry about it. As a rule of thumb, I find the reviews
there more useful than those anywhere else, specifically because of
their habit to compare to "reference recordings", and, yes, also because
the reviews tend to be a bit more often either "hot" or "cold", not just
"lukewarm" all of the time. I certainly can deal with someone
disagreeing with my opinion very well; and actually what I like about
DH's best reviews is that they try to describe performances (the
"facts"...) in a way that allow me to get an idea of what the
performance is like beyond pure "opinion". I just don't think that this
is one of his better reviews, and I think I said rather specifically
why; as Greg says, it does not give a very good idea of what the
performances are like, and there is some prejudice mixed in that
undermines the credibility of the review to some extent (in my opinion).
Doesn't "Since his atrocious recording of Bach's B minor Mass, it's
been difficult to take Marc Minkowski seriously, ..." or "There's
something very, very wrong with this schizoid combination of a
purportedly authentic approach to orchestral playing with a profound
incomprehension of Haydn's personal idiom." sound a bit like the author
has an ax to grind?
If that's "Hurwitz bashing" on my part, then I don't know what "bashing"
is (which may well be the case, as I am not a native speaker).
Bastian
Bastian Kubis
> While it's an honor to be mentioned with the estimable Mr. Roberts
> regarding Haydn (or any other music for that matter), I think you may
> be overrating my knowledge a bit here...
Well, as I only rate other people's opinions for my own use, let that be
my problem... ;-) Thanks for chiming in, Greg, I always very much enjoy
reading your thoughts.
[I forgot if you said before: is this live 99 by Szell available anywhere?]
Bastian
Gerard
I don't think that Bastian is bashing Hurwitz.
He has a strong opinion about what Hurwitz wrote in his review, and probably for
very good reasons - after all Bastian has heard these Minkowski recordings.
After all: Hurwitz's statements in some of his reviews ask for this.
Hurwitz may no have been bashing Minkowski consequently, because there are a few
exceptions. But some of his statements seem to be (to me, and to some others
maybe) quite ridiculous; he uses strong exaggerations to make Minkowski
completely laughable (or whatever the rigth expression is) - that is his
purpose; not an objective view on what Minkowski is doing.
Matthew and "Wagner fan" cannot help it. They do this for a 'living'.
Gerard
> On Jun 28, 2:40 pm, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > As for the Haydn, I thought that, e.g. compared to Norrington's
> > recent release (and with the exception of that joke in 94/ii on
> > which DH spends half his review...), it was relatively "ungimmicky"
> > and rather straightforward; but, for my taste, very far from the
> > "dull" that DH finds it. I'm surprised about this sentence in the
> > review: "Playing the slow movements quickly and the finales
> > (frequently) slowly will only get you so far." Nothing like that
> > (concerning the tempi) struck me as evident when listening to the
> > set. In that sense, isn't DH's issue with the Mozart disc rather
> > that it tries too hard to be "different" as an end in itself?
> >
> > [It's a pity that the real Haydn cognoscenti around here seem to
> > have fallen silent... Greg? Simon??]
> >
> > Bastian
>
> While it's an honor to be mentioned with the estimable Mr. Roberts
> regarding Haydn (or any other music for that matter), I think you may
> be overrating my knowledge a bit here...
I don't think it's a matter of overrating. It's a matter of appreciation of your
very detailed views, and the way you formulate a foundation for them.
>
> I must have missed this thread when it first appeared, but I am quite
> impressed by Minkowski's London set, and wonder just how carefully DH
> listened to it. I certainly don't think his review will give readers
> a good idea of what the set is like, regardless of his personal
> opinions. Perhaps these performances are a bit short on polish, but
> for my money they more than make up for it with sheer enthusiasm and
> spontaneity. I don't think they are ideal - there are times when the
> horns and trumpets don't quite cut through like they could (one
> instance is 104/i, right after the slow opening - compare to
> Norrington for instance), but let's be honest here - overall they are
> still well above average in this regard.
>
> The comment about "profound incomprehension of Haydn's personal idiom"
> strikes me as bizarre. I think one could very convincingly argue
> exactly the opposite - the fun, joyous, "in the moment" spirit of this
> set is likely exactly what Haydn had in mind. And that goes for the
> unique take on 94/ii, which is obviously not one for the text books,
> but is certainly fun and surprising.
>
> At the very least, I think several of Minkowski's performances here
> are very good (93, 96, 98, 100 come to mind), none are below average,
> and at least one (103) is excellent, easily one of the best I have
> heard. I would really want to do a little more comparative listening
> before ranking the set first among the prime competition (Bruggen,
> Shelley, Norrington), but it is certainly a contender and deserves
> anything but an "avoid" recommendation.
>
>
Thanks.
Greg
>
> [I forgot if you said before: is this live 99 by Szell available anywhere?]
>
> Bastian
It was posted at Operashare and Symphonyshare a year or more ago. I
don't know whether the links are still active.
Greg
richard...@gmail.com
Thanks for the interesting point of view. I enjoy Bernstein's Paris
symphonies, where he may even have less than the authentic number of
strings, but the older accounts of Haydn London symphonies I really
enjoy are Klemperer (who would seem to meet your criteria for non-
domination by strings) and Jochum. I'd be interested in your views on
Klemperer in particular, as I am unfamiliar with your preferred HIP
recordings. What would I notice in transparency, . . .
Richard
Gerard
> domination by strings) and Jochum. I'd be interested in your views on
> Klemperer in particular, as I am unfamiliar with your preferred HIP
> recordings.
I'm quite sure that Greg has discussed his views on the Klemperer recordings in
this newsgroup, "assisted" by Simon Roberts, less then a year ago (after an EMI
"Triple" box with Klemperer's recordings had been issued).
You might be able to find that discussion in the Google archives.
David Hurwitz
Hi gang. It's been a while since I've posted here, but I saw this
thread and I thought I'd send my regards and a couple of observations.
First, I don't feel 'bashed" at all. I think, for what it's worth,
that this has been a very even-handed and fair discussion, relatively
speaking. The Minkowski review was short because I intended that it be
dismissive; I didn't believe he deserved any more time and attention--
but any reader is perfectly free to take issue with that approach. As
some of you have pointed out, I certainly have not been uniformly
disparaging of his work--indeed, I enjoy a lot of it, but like a lot
of early music specialists he seems not to be rising to the occasion
when tackling major masterpieces of the standard repertoire. I'd be
very interested to get your views on this.
Is it because in unusual repertoire there's less of a basis for
comparison? Or perhaps (and I think there's some truth to this) it's
because so much early music is basically accompanimental in character--
that is, an opera or concerto doesn't give a conductor as much chance
to impose his will on the performers and shape a performance,
particularly if he belongs to the HIP school? So when they take on
music that requires them to step up, we see that they bring little to
the party beyond the standard "period practice." Does anyone else hear
a certain generic sameness creeping into these performances, which
used to sound so fresh and different? Certainly I'm not opposed to the
approach in principle (my reference recording is Brueggen's, you may
have noticed) but I'd be curious to have your thoughts.
Thanks very much, and all the best,
Dave H
Greg
<richard.simn...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Thanks for the interesting point of view. I enjoy Bernstein's Paris
> symphonies, where he may even have less than the authentic number of
> strings, but the older accounts of Haydn London symphonies I really
> enjoy are Klemperer (who would seem to meet your criteria for non-
> domination by strings) and Jochum. I'd be interested in your views on
> Klemperer in particular, as I am unfamiliar with your preferred HIP
> recordings. What would I notice in transparency, . . .
> Richard
Klemperer and Jochum are both pretty high on my list of Haydn
conductors, at least among the older school. Klemperer's 88, 100, and
102 are all excellent - even though they aren't as quick as I would
generally like, they are, as you say, not string-dominated at all.
Colorful, transparent (divided violins helps), interesting, exciting,
etc... Really only his 92 and 95 are disappointing, but they were
recorded when he was nearing the end and I suppose he deserves some
allowance for that. I like Jochum's general spirit in Haydn, but he
seems to have been cursed with poor engineering in his string-heavy
LPO set. The 4 symphonies recorded in Dresden are much better,
including what is still probably my favorite 98.
Greg
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Klemperer and Jochum are both pretty high on my list of Haydn
> conductors, at least among the older school. Klemperer's 88, 100, and
> 102 are all excellent - even though they aren't as quick as I would
> generally like, they are, as you say, not string-dominated at all.
> Colorful, transparent (divided violins helps), interesting, exciting,
> etc... Really only his 92 and 95 are disappointing, but they were
> recorded when he was nearing the end and I suppose he deserves some
> allowance for that. I like Jochum's general spirit in Haydn, but he
> seems to have been cursed with poor engineering in his string-heavy
> LPO set. The 4 symphonies recorded in Dresden are much better,
> including what is still probably my favorite 98.
>
> Greg
I agree about the Dresden recordings' superiority to the LPO set, but
the fifth disc in the box contains the BPO 88 and 98, which are not to
be missed.
Bob Harper
ivanmaxim
I also agree about the Klemperer Haydn - the triple CD box that came
out about a year ago - liked quite a bit of it. Wagner fan
Greg
<snip>
First of all, I will say that a contribution from Dave Hurwitz himself
was just about the last thing I was expecting here. I wonder if we can
anticipate a return from all the other circa-2001 contributors as
well...
As far as early music specialists not rising to the occasion in later
music, can you give more examples? I don't really agree regarding
Minkowski's Haydn, and the names that pop into my mind immediately as
counter-examples are Savall and Antonini, both of whom recorded
fantastic versions of Beethoven 3, which is pretty central in the
"major masterpieces of the standard repertoire" category. And
Bruggen's Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Schubert are all
highly regarded I believe. That said, I wouldn't necessarily expect
Savall to do a really great Bruckner 8. But would you expect a noted
Bruckner conductor like Haitink to produce really notable Rameau?
Different conductors have their different areas of strength and it is
a rare conductor that can convincingly span the distance from Handel
to Shostakovich.
Also, your premise seems to be that earlier music is easier to conduct
well. Personally I tend to think it is easier to come up with a
reasonably good Mahler performance than it is to do the same with Bach
or even Haydn or Mozart. Given a good orchestra, a mediocre conductor
can fake his way through Mahler 2 well enough, but his Haydn is likely
to be deadly dull.
Greg
mark
Given a good orchestra, a mediocre conductor
> can fake his way through Mahler 2 well enough, but his Haydn is likely
> to be deadly dull.
>
I wish orchestras programmed more Haydn. His music is always a delight
and never fails to sound in the concert hall.
I'm not a fan of the HIPsters in Haydn as their performances generally
lack a sense of grandeur and occasion to my ears. Haydn comes across
as bit ordinary to me when in the hands of the hipsters. Still,
Haydn's music is so wonderful on its face that a performance has to be
really, really bad for me to avoid it.
Bob Harper
> On Jun 29, 3:34 pm, Greg<oneil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Given a good orchestra, a mediocre conductor
>> can fake his way through Mahler 2 well enough, but his Haydn is likely
>> to be deadly dull.
>>
> Agreed. Or worse, horribly out of tune and sloppy.
>
> I wish orchestras programmed more Haydn. His music is always a delight
> and never fails to sound in the concert hall.
Agreed in spades! I fear the Zeitgeist has caused non-HIP conductors to
be leery of performing Haydn for fear that they will be chastised by
critics and the HIP crowd for poaching. Nonsense, of course, but I do
believe it happens.
With respect to your observation and my agreement, have you (or has
anyone else) heard this set of VPO Haydn performances:
http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//WPHLH2009.htm
Could be interesting, wonderful, or terrible. Anybody know?
Bob Harper
mark
> On 6/29/10 3:50 PM, mark wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 3:34 pm, Greg<oneil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Given a good orchestra, a mediocre conductor
> >> can fake his way through Mahler 2 well enough, but his Haydn is likely
> >> to be deadly dull.
>
> > Agreed. Or worse, horribly out of tune and sloppy.
>
> > I wish orchestras programmed more Haydn. His music is always a delight
> > and never fails to sound in the concert hall.
>
> Agreed in spades! I fear the Zeitgeist has caused non-HIP conductors to
> be leery of performing Haydn for fear that they will be chastised by
> critics and the HIP crowd for poaching. Nonsense, of course, but I do
> believe it happens.
You may be right in this respect, but I think more on recordings than
in concert halls. Every respectable orchestra is going to play Haydn
every once in a while. It's just that they seem to play such a limited
amount of music considering how much great music he penned.
I could go without hearing as much Mozart as is typically programmed
if it meant playing Haydn instead (of course, one then hears a great
piece by Mozart and doesn't feel ill used). Haydn may be one of those
composers who suffers because many of his "smaller" pieces don't make
it on to the typical program. It's like, "if we're going to program
Haydn, it better be late Haydn - symphonies or oratorios." Our local
band (Pacific Symphony) played Mozart 32 on a recent concert, a piece
that's not much more than an extended overture. But there it was in
all it's small-scale glory. I can't imagine a Haydn piece of similar
dimensions making it as a filler on an orchestral concert.
>
> With respect to your observation and my agreement, have you (or has
> anyone else) heard this set of VPO Haydn performances:
>
> http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//WPHLH2009.htm
>
Looks interesting to me.
Bob Harper
>
> You may be right in this respect, but I think more on recordings than
> in concert halls. Every respectable orchestra is going to play Haydn
> every once in a while. It's just that they seem to play such a limited
> amount of music considering how much great music he penned.
Yes. How often is it #94? I'd bet there are more performances of it than
of the next 5 in numbers of performances combined.
>
> I could go without hearing as much Mozart as is typically programmed
> if it meant playing Haydn instead (of course, one then hears a great
> piece by Mozart and doesn't feel ill used). Haydn may be one of those
> composers who suffers because many of his "smaller" pieces don't make
> it on to the typical program. It's like, "if we're going to program
> Haydn, it better be late Haydn - symphonies or oratorios." Our local
> band (Pacific Symphony) played Mozart 32 on a recent concert, a piece
> that's not much more than an extended overture. But there it was in
> all it's small-scale glory. I can't imagine a Haydn piece of similar
> dimensions making it as a filler on an orchestral concert.
I can't either, but #64 (a personal favorite) or #77 would be wonderful
to hear live--as would several score others.
Bob Harper
Steve Emerson
<4f4b7647-49ee-4d29...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Greg <onei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also, your premise seems to be that earlier music is easier to conduct
> well. Personally I tend to think it is easier to come up with a
> reasonably good Mahler performance than it is to do the same with Bach
> or even Haydn or Mozart. Given a good orchestra, a mediocre conductor
> can fake his way through Mahler 2 well enough, but his Haydn is likely
> to be deadly dull.
Agree. And reintroduce Mozart for that last sentence.
But I also wouldn't want to hear this mediocre conductor's Bruckner, btw.
SE.
Gerard
>
>
> First of all, I will say that a contribution from Dave Hurwitz himself
> was just about the last thing I was expecting here.
Actually I was expecting this (a little). There is a possibility that David has
used some provoking terms in his review with the purpose to shock "the old
ladies" in the newsgroup and to see what will happen (t)here.
Bastian Kubis
> I'm not a fan of the HIPsters in Haydn as their performances generally
> lack a sense of grandeur and occasion to my ears. Haydn comes across
> as bit ordinary to me when in the hands of the hipsters. Still,
> Haydn's music is so wonderful on its face that a performance has to be
> really, really bad for me to avoid it.
I don't want to speak for others, and of course there is no accounting
for taste, but... What I (as someone who may, as a rule of thumb,
prefer HIP in Haydn) like about the best of HIP performances of Haydn
symphonies is precisely that they seem to take the music in all its
grandeur more seriously than many traditional performances. The
orchestra may be smaller; but it *sounds* bigger, more intense, more
exciting to me. I really don't think I have heard any interpretation of
any Haydn symphony that sounds "grander", more "extraordinary" than
Brüggen's 104. Do you know that one by chance? I would be curious to
know what you think of it!
Bastian
Bastian Kubis
now I'm patting myself on the back for reanimating this thread, if only
for making you post here again... ;-)
Greg already wrote a lot of what came to my mind, too, when reading your
question. Do you have more examples for your hypothesis in mind? I
have to admit I simply do not know enough of Minkowski's other work (his
recordings of, say, Rameau operas are the only ones I know, so I have no
comparison). But as for other early-music specialists, one that came to
my mind is Rene Jacobs: okay, you somewhat excluded opera from "standard
repertoire", althouth maybe Mozart operas shouldn't be; and while I
don't dare to judge whether there is less opportunity in general for a
conductor "to impose his will on the performers and shape a performance"
in Don Giovanni than in the Jupiter symphony, say, you may agree (or
not?) that Jacobs does so much in those opera recordings that is
individual and unusual and even revelatory that it almost becomes a
conductor's opera, in a sense. And going to symphonic repertoire, you
may again not like what he does to Mozart (or a couple of Haydn)
symphonies, but it is surely highly individual and doesn't show any
"generic sameness".
As for the music at hand, Haydn's London symphonies - isn't it so that
we just haven't had enough of those to talk about "generic sameness"
already? I could understand if someone complained about the deluge of
HIP-influenced modern instruments Beethoven cycles; but am I forgetting
something, or is Minkowski's only the second HIP London cycle, after
Br�ggen's? After that, Harnoncourt (with the Concertgebouw) and
Norrington (with Stuttgart - ha! how I would love to read your review of
*that*! ;-) ) come closest, both of which I think are also rather highly
individual and somewhat uneven than generic.
[I guess Harnoncourt doesn't count as an early-music specialist any more
to provide another counterexample; but I know how much you like at least
some of his Bruckner, or even Bartok.]
Bastian
Dave Hurwitz
> Hi Dave,
>
> now I'm patting myself on the back for reanimating this thread, if only
> for making you post here again... ;-)
>
>
Hello, Bastian. First, I want to respond to one point very clearly
(Gerard's)--I never write anything to see what kind of reaction I will
get from a newsgroup. That would be a real disservice to our readers,
the vast majority of whom do not participate in any newsgroup (as far
as we know), as well as pointlessly limiting in scope. Of course,
sometimes criticism is provocative; that is one of its legitimate
purposes, like it or not, but it is not targeted as Gerard suggests.
Rene Jacobs is actually an interesting case, because I agree
completely with your view of his recordings of Mozart operas, which
are pretty wonderful despite his having possibly the ugliest period
instrument orchestra ever at his disposal. But would his ideas about
tempo and timbre work as well if he didn't also subordinate all of
them to his mostly superb singers (which is what inevitably happens,
however interesting his ideas may be)? I don't think so, because his
recordings of orchestral music have not turned out nearly as well.
They strike me, with a few exceptions, as representing a scruffy
period instrument ensemble led by a conductor who feels a deep need to
impose himself on music that would do much better without him.
The point I was making is not that these conductors have no ideas--it
was that aside from the generic sameness of the "period" approach, the
ideas that they do have are quite often bad ones. As you have noted,
Norrington and Harnoncourt have many ideas, but they are "uneven" (in
my view, often just plain weird). Indeed, it seems that period
instrument conductors will indulge willy-nilly in antics that their
supposedly inauthentic brethren would never have tolerated, and what
is more, doing so is wholly "inauthentic" to the extent that the music
that they are playing was conceived to be performed essentially
without any conductor at all in the modern sense. Yet here they are,
mucking about in a way that would make Stokowski blush. It is
precisely this strange combination of sameness of approach from the
players, combined with random interpretive mannerisms from the
conductor, that we find in Minkowski's "Surprise" Symphony, with its
dull finale and demented second movement.
The comment I have also seen that Mahler is easier than Mozart [or
words to that effect] also suggests that we are talking about much the
same phenomenon, though perhaps in a slightly different way. Of
course, for the conductor in a purely technical sense, this assertion
is nonsense. But interpretively speaking there's some truth to it when
we consider the problem of inserting a single defining point of view
into music that was written (a) to basically "play itself" for the
most part, and (b) where it does not, to require the imaginative
collaboration of the individual players more than any urging from the
conductor. If you would like an example of conductors who seem to me
to find an ideal balance between authenticity of approach musically
(that is, ignoring for the moment the purely technical issue of
instrument construction) and interpretive intervention, I would again
mention Sandor Vegh, who I believe has already been cited here, and
Charles Mackerras. Anyway, in asking the question and speaking in
generalities I understand that everyone will have a list of
exceptions, and I was not proposing a "rule," just a sort of trend
that I am seeing, and I was curious to find out if a group of
experienced listeners noticed it too, or in the same way. It's not a
question of right or wrong; merely one of perspective.
Anyway, thank you for sharing your opinions.
Dave H
Bob Lombard
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:06:58 +1000, Bastian Kubis wrote
> (in article<i0etv4$gr4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> Norrington (with Stuttgart - ha! how I would love to read your review of
>> *that*! ;-) ) come closest, both of which I think are also rather highly
>> individual and somewhat uneven than generic.
>>
>> [I guess Harnoncourt doesn't count as an early-music specialist any more
>> to provide another counterexample; but I know how much you like at least
>> some of his Bruckner, or even Bartok.]
>>
>> Bastian
>
> Hanover Band. I own most of them and find them as enjoyable as Bruggen's
> which also I own. Very robust and energetic and, yes, grand.
>
And scrappy?
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Bastian Kubis
> Roy Goodman has recorded a very large number of the Haydn symphonies with The
> Hanover Band. I own most of them and find them as enjoyable as Bruggen's
> which also I own. Very robust and energetic and, yes, grand.
I own the two discs with London symphonies (93-95, 101+102) and agree
they are very good of their kind (there is the harpsichord issue...).
There is also a disc by Haselböck of 101+102 which I actually find
"grander" than Goodman - the tempi in 102 are more comparable to
Klemperer, say. And then there is Hogwood's 96, Kuijken's 104, Fey's
few nearly-HIP ones... I didn't say there was nothing. But if you want
post-Bernstein, Jochum, Davis Haydn, you have a totally different order
of magnitude of choices from what you have in, say, Beethoven symphonies.
Bastian
Gerard
> On Jun 30, 4:06 am, Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > now I'm patting myself on the back for reanimating this thread, if
> > only for making you post here again... ;-)
> >
> >
> > Bastian
>
> Hello, Bastian. First, I want to respond to one point very clearly
> (Gerard's)--I never write anything to see what kind of reaction I will
> get from a newsgroup. That would be a real disservice to our readers,
> the vast majority of whom do not participate in any newsgroup (as far
> as we know), as well as pointlessly limiting in scope. Of course,
> sometimes criticism is provocative; that is one of its legitimate
> purposes, like it or not, but it is not targeted as Gerard suggests.
I did not acually suggest so, but I wrote about a _possibility_ (supposing that
this is a different thing than suggesting something).
I suppose also that you write for a public, knowing that some (or many)
participants in this newsgroup are part of that public. I don't think that
writing with that part of the public in mind would be a disservice to the rest
of the public.
Anyway, if criticism sometimes is provocative, you will not see many reactions
on "provocations" coming from you, with the exception of newsgroups and forums.
As you wrote, you don't write anything "to see what kind of reaction I will get
from a newsgroup". Such a newsgroup however is a place where some kind of
reaction might be expected.
But even if this all is guessed wrong, may I ask what caused you to have a look
in this newsgroup?
Was it just incidentally, or are you still a "regular" reader?
fl.traverso
> Bruggen's?
Nope. Kuijken has done them all on record as well. With his Petite
Bande, of course. I have them on a Japanese set, and don't think
they have been rereleased together in the West. Very pleasant
interpretations, very good sound (Japanese remastered), and
wear well even after repeated listenings.
I am in UK and will be receiving the Minkowski set, which is just
being released here today, in a few days. Expect a good time
listening to them in comparison.
FangLin