Boulez and Mahler
David7Gable
this post following the last citation from Mr. Maroney.]
>I'm so happy that Mr. Gable already knows the musical aptitude of all
>future humans (or other beings) that will encounter the music of
>Gustav Mahler. Quite a claim!
Come on, Marcus. Give me a break. You obviously haven't read my discussion
(in this thread) of rhetorical statements that take the form "Nobody will ever
[insert verb of choice] as well as X." Do you pounce from your high horse
every time this very common locution is used?
>If he *does*, in fact, know Mahler so well, you'd think he'd know that
>the superficial French sheen that works so wonderfully in his Ravel,
>Debussy, and Stravinsky recordings just isn't convincing in Mahler.
I guess you also haven't read the post in which I made substantially this same
observation. Except that I'm not entirely enchanted with the high-sheen
seamless continuum approach to these French and Russian composers either. Not
in the absence of oomph. I'll take the New Philharmonia La mer over the
Cleveland Orchestra La mer any day.
>He seemed better at appropriately adapting his interpretive style to
>different musics early on in his career, as his BBC Mahler series and
>the Sony Klagende Lied show.
I said this, too! Actually, I've said it many times on this newsgroup.
Despite the fact that I've unwittingly pissed you off, we're substantially in
agreement.
> why is he being so SELFISH now that he has virtuoso
>orchestras and outstanding recording technologies to impart at least a
>minute amount of that understanding to the general public?
I find Boulez's DGG Mahler supremely disappointing myself, but, surely, on
reflection you'll find this accusation preposterous. It presumes that Boulez
is deliberately and selfishly failing to give performances of the kind that he
used to . . . for what reason? The question is how does the guy who recorded
Das Klagende Lied end up seemingly satisfied with the DGG recordings. The
answer is not "because he's selfish," which absurdly implies that he's
deliberately refusing to give the same kind of performances he used to. (He
doesn't give the same kind of performances of his own music that he used to!)
It is not unprecedented for an artist's career to follow a trajectory like
Boulez's. Wordsworth became increasingly conservative the older he got,
tinkering with The Prelude all his life until it was all but reconciled with
Christian orthodoxy. Schumann abandoned the fiercely original forms of his
first maturity--Carnaval, the Fantasy, Davidsbuendlertaenze--in favor of more
traditional forms, and he went back and revised the Davidsbuendlertaenze for
the worse, attempting to remove its eccentricities and make of it a more
orthodox work. Schoenberg abandoned the intense and concentrated expressionist
style of the period before World War I. Indeed, a surprising number of artists
from the first two generations of Romantics followed similar trajectories, as
did a great number of Schoenberg's contemporaries, the first generation of
modernists. After World War I, Stravinsky, Picasso, and Eliot all became
self-proclaimed "neoclassicists," while Kandinsky--quite analogously to
Schoenberg, who developed serialism as a means of controlling anarchic
chromaticism--developed geometric abstraction as a means of imposing order on
the marvelously fluent but frighteningly "free" abstractions of the period
before World War I. Cocteau issued a call to order, and Debussy's
impressionism came to be viewed with suspicion as too amorphous and formless.
As very young men, Boulez and Stockhausen had certain utopian goals. They were
confident that the music of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg would enter the
standard repertory as a matter of course, just as such exceedingly difficult
music as the Eroica and Tristan had. The reason their music had not yet
succeeded in entering the standard repertory, they felt (on considerable
evidence), was because it had been banned under Stalin and the Nazis at the
same time that two world wars had interrupted European cultural life. (One
reason that Boulez and Stockhausen rose so quickly to positions of prominence
in the 50's was that the previous generation, particularly in Germany, had been
wiped out. Stockhausen's mother had left this world a victim of Hitler's
euthenasia program.)
The extraordinarily ambitious works that Stockhausen and Boulez wrote in the
late 50's and the early 60's (not to mention the utopian works planned but
never realized) were essentially conceived as communal experiences, their
meditative dimension being made most explicit in Stockhausen's pronouncements
(and never revealed in Boulez's; Boulez really does believe his music should
speak for itself). But the community that came to the communal experience was
disappointingly small, however fervent it may have been. Stockhausen quickly
retreated to the role of guru and facile improvisatory Cage-influenced music.
Boulez retreated (much to the dismay of Klemperer and Stravinsky) . . . into
conducting, and the experience of working with professional musicians on a
daily basis had a chastening effect on his style. Boulez no longer feels that
his role as conductor is to whip the moneylenders out of the temple. But a
more depressing way of putting it is that the ardent Romantic of 20 who still
believed in Art with a capital A is no longer capable of the kind of faith and
conviction that 20-year-olds are capable of.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Analytical means "cold, and unemotional". (Like Mr Spock.) I think
>that is the accepted meaning of the word in this context.
>
>Rich
I couldn't agree with more. Boulez is viewed as an alien, not a normal feeling
person like other conductors.
-david gable
David7Gable
>understanding. The guy's deep?
>
Now Bob, don't you get started! I already feel as if I'm battling the
many-headed hydra. Cut off one of its heads and another one grows in its
place.
-dg
David7Gable
>Sound's okay, the problem's Boulez' too-lyrical Mahler and Bruckner readings.
Agreed (except I like the DGG Bruckner 8th). But you ought to hear some of his
live BBC SO Mahler from the 60's and 70's. Very different.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Good grief, does this mean that Boulez is metamorphosing into Karajan?
>
It's something about signing a long-term DGG contract late in life.
-david gable
Marcus Maroney
> [P.S. If you're sick of reading me repeat myself, skip to the last section of
> this post following the last citation from Mr. Maroney.]
<sarcasm> Why would we ever get sick of reading repetitions of PURE
TRUTH? </sarcasm>
> Come on, Marcus. Give me a break. You obviously haven't read my discussion
> (in this thread) of rhetorical statements that take the form "Nobody will ever
> [insert verb of choice] as well as X." Do you pounce from your high horse
> every time this very common locution is used?
This is why I typed "'as well' vs. 'better' aside". My comment was
ASIDE from the rhetorical statement you quote. Also, please cite
another instance where I "pounced" from my "high horse" (!) after such
a "common" (at least in YOUR posts) locution was used. The fact that
you compare any qualms with your admittedly very thorough knowledge of
Boulez and his career as a "hydra", while slightly amusing, only
strengthens the impression that you see any dissent from your opinion
as a monstrosity requiring extermination.
> I guess you also haven't read the post in which I made substantially this same
> observation. Except that I'm not entirely enchanted with the high-sheen
> seamless continuum approach to these French and Russian composers either.
Your immediate qualification of your comparison with an exception
belies the fact that your post was substantially the same.
> I said this, too! Actually, I've said it many times on this newsgroup.
> Despite the fact that I've unwittingly pissed you off, we're substantially in
> agreement.
I wasn't pissed off at all. Trrrrrrrrust me...GOOGLE is something
that I just wouldn't get pissed off about. I meant my post to convey
a certain amount of humour. Next time I'll be sure and include more
emoticons and HTML tags =^.^=
> I find Boulez's DGG Mahler supremely disappointing myself, but, surely, on
> reflection you'll find this accusation preposterous. It presumes that Boulez
> is deliberately and selfishly failing to give performances of the kind that he
> used to . . . for what reason?
I wasn't comparing present performances to the performances of the
kind that he used to give, I was comparing his uncanny ability to
appropriately apply different approaches to different musical styles
which seems to have disappeared now that he records for DG.
> The question is how does the guy who recorded
> Das Klagende Lied end up seemingly satisfied with the DGG recordings.
Mmhmm~.
> The answer is not "because he's selfish," which absurdly implies that he's
> deliberately refusing to give the same kind of performances he used to.
Again: I wasn't comparing present performances to the performances of
the kind that he used to give, I was comparing his uncanny ability to
appropriately apply different approaches to different musical styles
which seems to have disappeared now that he records for DG. If he
were to keep making those differences, the end result would not
necessarily be the same as the kind of performances he used to give.
Of course Bob Lombard might be right, I just might not "get" his depth
of understanding.
> Boulez no longer feels that
> his role as conductor is to whip the moneylenders out of the temple. But a
> more depressing way of putting it is that the ardent Romantic of 20 who still
> believed in Art with a capital A is no longer capable of the kind of faith and
> conviction that 20-year-olds are capable of.
I definitely wish I could have been alive when he was making waves
around the world. Do you know what his recording plans are after
completion of the Mahler cycle?
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
David7Gable
>ASIDE from the rhetorical statement you quote.
Couldn't have been. The rhetorical statement taking that form is the only
place I made the claim. Although my belief that Boulez has a fundamental
understanding of Mahler is implicit in my enthusiasm for a lot of Boulez's live
Mahler.
>please cite
>another instance where I "pounced" from my "high horse" (!) after such
>a "common" (at least in YOUR posts) locution was used.
I didn't say you pounced. I asked--rhetorically-- if you pounced. I in turn
might ask you to cite another instance where I've made a rhetorical statement
taking the form "Nobody [verb of your choice] better than X." Not that I have
the slightest problem with statements in this form. I'm not hostile to normal
language usage.
> only
>strengthens the impression that you see any dissent from your opinion
>as a monstrosity requiring extermination.
What nonsense. Although there is a difference between dissent from people who
don't know what they're talking about and from people who do. Not that I'm
claiming (or not claiming) there are any of the former contributing here. (In
my discussion of the rhetorical form already mentioned, I even supplied "the
enemy" with two unanswerable objections to my arguments.)
>Your immediate qualification of your comparison with an exception
>belies the fact that your post was substantially the same.
Not my post. My view of Boulez's Mahler. Your complaints about his DGG Mahler
and your reasons for preferring his earlier live recordings as expressed in
your words are EXACTLY the same as mine. The only reason I might qualify this
(by saying "substantially" the same rather than "exactly") is because no two
people are exactly alike. A more substantial qualification, that I don't like
Boulez's smooth approach as applied to his DGG Debussy and Ravel, is apparently
where we part company. But even here we agree that Boulez uses such an
approach: I just don't like it.
>Of course Bob Lombard might be right, I just might not "get" his depth
>of understanding.
I suspect Bob was joking.
>Again: I wasn't comparing present performances to the performances of
>the kind that he used to give, I was comparing his uncanny ability to
>appropriately apply different approaches to different musical styles
>which seems to have disappeared now that he records for DG.
So I thought. That still doesn't explain why you think his failures (as you
and I perceive them) are a result of selfishness. Do you really think he's
deliberately making bad records?
> Do you know what his recording plans are after
>completion of the Mahler cycle?
Not really. He's planning on recording all of his own music for DGG, and if
he's actually completed a new much expanded version of Figures, doubles,
prismes, he's supposed to record that for DGG. But if you really want to hear
him kick ass, you ought to hear him in 1964 conducting the world premiere of
that year's version of Figures, doubles, prismes. Trouble is he hadn't yet
written that marvelous "adagio for strings" section inspired by a section of
Berg's Violin Concerto.
-david gable
B. Smith
driving. Not a good thing to try. Avoid both.
Brian
Andante teneramente
> Boulez and Mahler. My best comparison is that of drinking and
> driving. Not a good thing to try. Avoid both.
"Both" meaning drinking and Boulez, I presume ;-) ?
God knows life would be harder without Mahler and driving.
Regards
Tansal Arnas
I've just heard some of it. I guess they are rather different from his
later recordings, but I can't say at all that they're much better than what
he has done since for DG. I can't really hear what it is that people would
love about early Boulez if they don't like current Boulez. So far, the
Arkadia 9 is a disappointment for me, and I truly prefer his DG 9. As for
his Arkadia 5, again I prefer his DG 5. Both BBCSO performances do have
moments of flair, or that fiery quality you speak of, but I feel at the
expense of many other qualities that I'm looking for simultaneously. It
ends up sounding uneven to me. His DG Mahler in these two cases is far more
cohesive and I have a much clearer idea of the work and of what is going on
in it. I've learned by now not to always trust reviewers about recordings
by artists that I've figured out that I actually like a great deal. Boulez
and his Mahler is one such match. I look forward to purchasing more of it.
(I will say this, however: Based on his recording of Totenfeier for DG, I'm
expecting a dull recording of 2. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.)
On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
I suspect those who don't like Boulez's Mahler may prefer Bernstein's or
Barbirolli's or Solti's, among others'. (I like these folks in some Mahler,
too, especially in 6 where they all four something interesting to say.)
Tansal
Bob Lombard
If I have to give up either Mahler or drinking, Mahler goes.
bl
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:B97C2BF5.11590%tan...@hotmail.com:
> On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
I didn't have a chance to mention here -- I went out to my local Fry's
and bought the Gatti. I heard it and was absolutely repelled by it. I
can't quite put into words why, except that he just throws away phrase
endings; if I can get up the courage to listen to it again, I might be
able to come up with something more articulate to say.
--
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
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
David7Gable
>love about early Boulez if they don't like current Boulez.
Too my ears they have palpably more oomph and their phrasing is far more
distinctive, more varied and incisive, much less smooth and slick and level.
>So far, the
>Arkadia 9 is a disappointment for me, and I truly prefer his DG 9. As for
>his Arkadia 5, again I prefer his DG 5.
I will admit to liking Boulez's DGG Mahler 9th better than any of his other DGG
Mahler that I've heard, while the two available live Boulez/BBC SO Mahler 9ths
are not very good. On the other hand I think both of the Mahler 5ths are
terrific. If I had to single out only one live Boulez/BBC SO performance from
among those I've heard, and I've heard a 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, two 5th's, and two
9th's, it would probably be the 8th. The 9th's are the weakest and especially
the slow first movement of the Arkadia 9th. The 2nd, 6th, and 5th's, though,
come very close to the 8th.
-david gable
Terrymelin
Try Horenstein's with the LSO and Margaret Price. It's far superior to either.
Terry Ellsworth
Brian Cantin
The Horenstein/Price and the Abravanel/Davrath are my favorite 4ths.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20020811165938...@mb-ms.aol.com:
>>> On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
>
> Try Horenstein's with the LSO and Margaret Price. It's far superior to
> either.
I've had that for years (since the LP was originally issued on Monitor,
when Angel declined to pick it up from the original Classics for Pleasure
issue); the 4th is by far my favorite Mahler, but this is my least
favorite of Horenstein's commercial stereo Mahler recordings. The
ensemble comes unglued toward the beginning of the first movement, and
it's just downhill from there. Sorry to hurwitz you like this.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:wkvg6hx...@earthlink.net:
> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) writes:
>
>> >> On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
>>
>> Try Horenstein's with the LSO and Margaret Price. It's far superior
>> to either.
>
> The Horenstein/Price and the Abravanel/Davrath are my favorite 4ths.
My favorites are von Stade/Abbado and Halban/Walter/BSO (1947, on Lys).
Brian Cantin
> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:20020811165938...@mb-ms.aol.com:
> > either.
> I've had that for years (since the LP was originally issued on
> Monitor, when Angel declined to pick it up from the original
> Classics for Pleasure issue); the 4th is by far my favorite Mahler,
> but this is my least favorite of Horenstein's commercial stereo
> Mahler recordings. The ensemble comes unglued toward the beginning
> of the first movement, and it's just downhill from there. Sorry to
> hurwitz you like this.
You did not claim that the unglueing was due to Horenstein's faulty
technique. As a hurwitz, you need to work on your own technique.
Terrymelin
>ensemble comes unglued toward the beginning of the first movement, and
>it's just downhill from there. Sorry to hurwitz you like this.
No problem. Technical perfection is something I have never cared about in
music. For my money Horenstein really gets it in a way that, of course, Boulez
never could or will.
Terry Ellsworth
Tansal Arnas
> Tansal Arnas <tan...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:B97C2BF5.11590%tan...@hotmail.com:
>
>> On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
>
> I didn't have a chance to mention here -- I went out to my local Fry's
> and bought the Gatti. I heard it and was absolutely repelled by it. I
> can't quite put into words why, except that he just throws away phrase
> endings; if I can get up the courage to listen to it again, I might be
> able to come up with something more articulate to say.
I already gave it away as a gift, and thus still have the possibility of
hearing it at some point in the future. Personally, I'm in no hurry.
I can't say I was repelled, but it didn't involve me a whole lot.
Funny... Boulez, that uninvolving calculator, readily involves me here.
Tansal
David7Gable
>music. For my money Horenstein really gets it in a way that, of course,
>Boulez
>never could or will.
>
>Terry Ellsworth
>
>
Which you know from your long familiarity with Boulez's live Mahler from the
60's and the 70's. But then you're the connoisseur who can't tell how woefully
out of tune Renata Tebaldi sang.
-david gable
David7Gable
My favorite is still Halban/Walter (despite having heard two of his live 4ths).
Then again, I haven't heard the live Boulez 4th available at Berkshire yet.
-david gable
Tansal Arnas
>> I can't really hear what it is that people would
>> love about early Boulez if they don't like current Boulez.
>
> Too my ears they have palpably more oomph and their phrasing is far more
> distinctive, more varied and incisive, much less smooth and slick and level.
I agree that these BBCSO recordings are far less smooth and slick and level,
but these seem to have more to do with the recordings themselves. I also
find them more "varied", though I might prefer to call them "haphazard" at
times. I can't tell that much about the phrasing from the Arkadia transfer,
but occasionally the timpani come out of no where and bang away quite
suddenly. I hope that is not all you're referring to about their incisive
quality. IMHO, the BBCSO recordings of the 5 & 9 on Arkadia are not
noticeably (to my ears) more incisive than his DG recordings. And on top of
this, the DG recordings are far better recorded, and more involving to me.
I just listened to the Arkadia 5 today, followed by the DG 5, and now have
even more respect for the DG 5 than I had before this comparison. Karajan
and Solti are at opposite extremes and both do some ugly things with this
music at times that Boulez seems to avoid. I'll have to listen to Kubelik
next, then maybe Mitropoulos - though I remember the playing being scrappy.
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> My favorites are von Stade/Abbado and Halban/Walter/BSO (1947, on Lys).
How's the Resurrection that's coupled with that Abbado 4? Abbado will
presumably release a live 4 as part of his new Mahler cycle with the BPO.
Tansal
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20020812015822...@mb-mp.aol.com:
Oh, well, if you like the studio Halban/Walter, you should really hear
the live one with the Boston Symphony Orchestra!
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:B97CCBA3.116A4%tan...@hotmail.com:
Pretty darn good, although a friend of mine who attended a live Abbado
performance of the 2nd in Boston 20 years ago has spoken of it as the
greatest musical experience of his life.
Tansal Arnas
>> The Horenstein/Price and the Abravanel/Davrath are my favorite 4ths.
>
> My favorite is still Halban/Walter (despite having heard two of his live 4s).
> Then again, I haven't heard the live Boulez 4th available at Berkshire yet.
Do let us know what you think of that Boulez 4, please.
Tansal
David7Gable
>Oh, well, if you like the studio Halban/Walter, you should really hear
>the live one with the Boston Symphony Orchestra!
That I have not heard!
-david gable
Clovis Lark
>>But there are a lot of people out there who heartily and defensively
>>detest Boulez and everything they think he stands for. So his performances
>>are
>>dismissed as cold and heartless when the real problem is that soft warm glow.
> Please don't count me among them and tar me with that charge. Because I love a
> great deal of what Boulez conducts both live and on records (his recent
> Stravinsky discs IMHO are terrific). I just don't think he has a clue when it
> comes to Mahler or Bruckner or Wagner for that matter. I think I've gone into
> my reasons elsewhere.
> But to give an example. Last fall he did the Mahler 2 with the CSO. There was
> nothing "technically" wrong with the piece. All the notes were there,
> beautifully played. He illuminated things in the score I hadn't heard before.
> But that was it. During the last two movements when the piece should soar into
> another world -- a world of pure emotion -- the piece just sat there and
> nothing happened. It left one feeling empty. It was heartless when the music
> calls for the heart to be worn on the sleeve.
Disagree.
> Terry Ellsworth
Clovis Lark
>>
>>>Boulez is great at trees but he never seems to find the forest.
>>
>>This is simply untrue. Boulez is always interested in the long line, and in
> I think you're missing the point I'm making. It's not about line or flexibility
> or anything else. It's about the fact that in some music, it is my opinion,
> that he sees details and not what the piece really means which to me is the
> real point of music. That's the analogy of the trees vs. the forest.
I'm going to step in here. Your trees forest imagery simply misses.
Boulez in rehearsal (and I've seen countless rehearsals-choral, chamber
and symphonic, as well as performances over more than 25 years) makes it
quite clear that he leaves your trees to the players. He corrects obvious
mistakes and tweaks tuning while working to free players from simply
playing notes. His end purpose through rehearsing is to give them the
security to play confidently and freely so that he can shape your
"forest", i.e. structure.
What Boulez is NOT interested in is conventional German romanticist
naturistic imagery, hence why trees and forests miss the point. There is a
famous comment by him regarding Messiaen's music being based upon bird
song and not seeing anything of interest in that source. Rather the
interest is that no matter what the source, it works. He looks for the
abstract structures, tries to forge their relatedness. This means that
you will never find those "in your face" moments where sheep bleat, cows
low and birds chirp. Instead, you will find a clear sonorous presentation
of the logical development of tonality, motives and rhythmic gestures.
Such approaches are, by their nature, not so dramatic, in the theatrical
sense. They impact you through their totality, sometimes a day later (as
I experienced in a recent Sacre). Boulez, for anyone interested in that
hyperemotional/depictive romantic picture, is the last person they should
approach.
But that does NOT mean his Mahler, Bruckner are bad. It means they are
different. Like appropriate spouses, beauty is not a universal absolute.
Were it so, we'd all be killing each other over a single idealized mate.
So too with art. Think about it. One final thought. You go hear Boulez.
You don't like what you hear. BUT, it compels you to address what you
found wanting, compels you to address why you choose otherwise and to
articulate this choice. Is THAT a bad thing? Being stimulated to
question (whether to affirm or second guess) your preferences? It is well
to remember that Boulez' ideal is to approach works from a new view, to
try and "forget" (remove) as many of the trappings of the past in order to
approach the work as a fresh new object open to new insight.
> Terry Ellsworth
Tansal Arnas
Thanks for stepping in. In your middle paragraph, you address what I think
I like most about Boulez as an interpreter. Much the same way the cinema of
Stanley Kubrick can be thoroughly captivating and emotional, but not
sentimental or hyperemotional like some other filmmakers, so too can Boulez
be captivating and emotional - but quite unlike how Bernstein achieves this.
A good example in my listening was with Mahler 6. I'd been very much into
Solti and Bernstein (especially Sony) with this work. After a long while, I
returned to Boulez's DG recording, and actually found it to be a more
emotional reading than the more extroverted performances of Solti and
Bernstein. And by emotional, I don't mean something abstract. It truly
moved me. But you can't approach Boulez as you would Bernstein.
For instance, I think a listener who approaches Bruckner the way he might
approach Beethoven may be sorely disappointed by the result, because
Bruckner does not have a linear rhythmic drive to keep one's attention. The
motion is not so much forward with Bruckner, I find, but upward. His music
requires a different way of listening to it in order to appreciate it more
fully. To use another analogy to film, it is like watching a film for the
plot versus watching it for the themes or subtext. Beethoven has both, of
course, but I think those who listen to Bruckner only for the plot can
easily find it repetitive, lugubrious, impenetrable, and a host of other
adjectives I've heard people use in describing his music.
And so with Boulez, I find that listening to his performances can be
extremely rewarding and emotional to me when I utilize this different
approach. I should add that sometimes I'm just in the mood for the
extrovert Bernstein, at which time no approach to Boulez will accomplish my
desired result. It's late, so I hope I was able to make sense of what I
actually mean.
Tansal
David7Gable
>but these seem to have more to do with the recordings themselves.
I'm absolutely NOT talking about the recordings qua recordings. I'm talking
about what Boulez gets the BBC SO to do. (I don't know how much experience
you've had with quasi-bootlegs preserved in less than adequate sound, but the
more you listen to such recordings, possibly pace Dave Hurwitz, the more you're
able to hear through the inadequacies of the recording itself. There are
limits, of course, but there are also far worse recordings than Boulez's live
Mahler.)
> I hope that [the manner in which the timpani, for example, are
suddenly way too loud and distorted because of the miking] is not all
> you're referring to about their incisive quality.
Again, I am absolutely not talking about the recordings qua recordings.
Ideally, I would provide specific examples with score and recording, but that's
not so readily done here. I'll give one example without as much specificity as
I'd like.
Before I heard it, I wondered how well Boulez would fare in the second movement
of the 6th, a scherzo with the character of a Ländler, but his performance
turns out to be a triumph. It's hard to single out what's most incredible:
his shaping by means of an extraordinarily varied dynamics, his constant
adjustments of tempo in phrasing at the most local level (adjustments made in
synch with the constantly readjusted local dynamics), or his constant
adjustments of tempo on the scale of the larger governing tempos. To some
extent, any conductor has to juggle all three kinds of shaping, but Boulez does
more with greater refinement and variety in all three dimensions. And Boulez's
juggling of these different kinds and levels of shaping is truly virtuosic
music making, the consequence of an extraordinary confidence and control, yet
his performance is almost playful in its responsiveness to Mahler's treatment
of time as something that can be stretched in and out like an accordion. The
result is very much in the spirit of a Ländler, although a coarser and broader
projection of the movement's Ländler character is certainly possible and
probably more idiomatic. But it hardly matters, because what's really most
remarkable about this performance is not its character in that sense but the
manner in which Boulez refuses to grant you a moment's respite. Unflappable,
Boulez capitalizes on Mahler's gear shifts both gradual and instantaneous with
a kind of serenely monomaniacal control, sustaining a kind of exhilarating
tension that depends on his virtuosic projection and poised maintenance of
Mahler's rhythmic unrest on a continuous basis. The result certainly keeps me
riveted on the edge of my seat.
-david gable
Anthony Kershaw
news:20020811231719...@mb-fr.aol.com...
Some old friends in the Beeb love to tell Boulez tales. He would never admit
to making a mistake (like most conductors, Boult notwithstanding). When
conducting a particularly difficult avant garde work, he screwed up a
pattern a couple of times. The leader finally had to correct him. After a
short think, he conducted the pattern, this time correctly. 'Zee, you are
wrong. It is perfect'.
Kind regards,
Anthony Kershaw, Editor/Publisher
AUDIOPHILIA -- The Online Journal for the Serious Audiophile
An electronic publication of Audiophilia, Inc.
Raymond Luxury Yacht
> >So many of the terms we're using to discuss conducting style are
> >utterly devoid of objective reference, but are necessary or
> >conventional just the same
>
> If a term is used conventionally, then it is not devoid of objective reference.
> It is a convention to use the sound "tree" to refer to trees, but that doesn't
> mean there is no objective reference.
That is a horrible example. I should say that I don't believe that
even the most straightforward terms have absolutelu objective
referants- we may agree on 99.9% of objects that we call trees, but
there may be certain plants that some think should be called trees and
others don't (likely a conflict between two types of experts with
their own system of classification).
Terms that are essentially metaphorical or theoritical ("warm" and
"musical" appearing as good examples of each) likely have a larger
halo of variant definitions around a central, more popular definition.
This relationship doesn't make the central one any more legit.
I'd love to hear your dtailed explanation of "warm and glowing." It
also seems to me that your disinterest/dislike in the idea of
"analytical" has led you to embrace/reject a very crude, unsuggestive
version of it.
However, since I usually trip over the word to a certain degree, I
usually try to see what people could be saying that has merit. But if
the vast majority of people use it in a superficial way, I have no
problem with your opinion on it.
Ray
Raymond Luxury Yacht
> And what do people with no technical knowledge of music mean whent they
> describe a Boulez performance as analytical? (Nobody who actually is involved
> with so-called "music analysis," that is to say, no music theorist, would ever
> describe anybody's performance as "analytical.")
>
> -david gable
Well, I've given you mine, which is more nuanced than what we started
with. However, I'm not in love with the word, and don't generally use
it at all.
Your latter point is excellent. I'd love a better set of terms to
describe the sounds we hear (not the notes- I see a theorist working
with scores- we're talking about how a conductor gets and orchestra to
behave in relation to the score. And not just that, since the
recording acoustic is essential in forming the impression the musical
sound.
Raymond Luxury Yacht
The proper analogy for Boulez's late conducting is not Giulini (who
became
> infinitely more flaccid and flabby than Boulez in his later years) but to the
> later Karajan. Late in life both Karajan and Boulez became obsessed with
> polish and prettiness to the detriment of energy, although the actual sound
> ideals of the two conductors are very different, in great part because Boulez
> is French, Karajan (whatever his actual ethnicity) German.
>
> -david gable
David- no need for me to reply point-by-point to a very stimulating
post, especially for what it suggests in what I can't hear. I take
everything you say- even what jives least with my previous experience-
as possible, and look forward to one day being able to have a better
ability to hear and judge along these lines. Not that I'm assuming it
will come- specialized training always leaves one changed, with new
abilities that seperate one from a casual practitioner. I haven't any
training now, and I don't see how I will get any later. Still, a very
interesting read. Any books you recommend to sharpen the ears? Oh,
and you've really made me curious about the Boulez Ring cycle.
David7Gable
It is not. It's a perfect example of a convention. There is no intrinsic
relationship between that sound and the objects it refers to. The sound only
refers to trees by convention. In any case, you claimed that conventional
language had no (as in zero) objective reference. But the sound of the word
"trees" is a perfect example of a convention, and it has an objective
reference.
>I should say that I don't believe that
>even the most straightforward terms have absolutelu objective
>referants
Fine. But you've changed your tune. Originally you said NO objective
reference or 100% non-reference. Now you've retreated to .1% non-reference.
>Terms that are essentially metaphorical or theoritical ("warm" and
>"musical" appearing as good examples of each) likely have a larger
>halo of variant definitions around a central, more popular definition.
> This relationship doesn't make the central one any more legit.
Once again, you've retreated from claiming there is zero reference for
metaphors. You're simply making the point that metaphors have some propensity
for ambiguity. You haven't refuted my point. (But in this context I should
have thought that the "theoretical" and "metaphorical" were opposites. The
theoretical is subject to precise formal definition. The metaphorical is more
purely suggestive and is not.)
.>I'd love to hear your dtailed explanation of "warm and glowing."
I haven't the slightest doubt that you have a very good idea of what the
metaphors "warm" and "glowing" are intended to convey. Your joking use of the
phrase "warm and fuzzy" in an earlier post makes me even more confident that
your grasp of these metaphors is very similar to mine and everybody else's.
Making that assumption, I'll simply confirm that your idea of these metaphors
is precisely what I intend to convey by them. It may be that you can't
reconcile your conception of Boulez with my use of these metaphors.
-david gable
David7Gable
>with.
Yes it is. Thank you.
> I'd love a better set of terms to
>describe the sounds we hear
>how a conductor gets and orchestra to
>behave in relation to the score.
Wouldn't we all. In one sense that's even harder, because the notated pitches
and rhythm are generally unambiguously clear. But in a performance each and
every note may change shape continuosly through time. Nor, if it were
available, would a precise measure of the ongoing change of shape be of much
use. "The note begins getting louder at xxx per second, but .07 of a second
into it, the rate at which it gets louder increases to xxx + 1 per second."
-david gable
Sacqueboutier
oy?@earthlink.net wrote on 8/11/02 7:46 PM:
> Brian Cantin <bca...@earthlink.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:wkvg6hx...@earthlink.net:
>
>> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) writes:
>>
>>>>> On a side note, having heard Gatti's 4, I prefer Boulez's 4 on DG.
>>>
>>> Try Horenstein's with the LSO and Margaret Price. It's far superior
>>> to either.
>>
>> The Horenstein/Price and the Abravanel/Davrath are my favorite 4ths.
>
> My favorites are von Stade/Abbado and Halban/Walter/BSO (1947, on Lys).
Agreed on Abbado/Flicka.
I'll add:
Mengelberg/ACO on Philips/Lys/Q-Disc/Anyothers?
Solti/Kanawa
Bernstein/ACO (until you get to the last movement)
--
Don Patterson
DCP Music Printing
Professional Music Copy
and Arrangements
don...@olg.com
"Sometimes I wonder. We are told that the little things
in life are what make life worth living. Then we are
told, "Don't sweat the small stuff". Does this mean that
if the little things in life don't happen, and we don't
'sweat it', life is not worth living?"
Sacqueboutier
tan...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/12/02 2:14 AM:
I think it's one of Abbado's most successful Mahler recordings...much
better than his BPO remake. The orchestra responds as one would
expect the CSO to respond and the soloists are great.
David7Gable
>to making a mistake (like most conductors, Boult notwithstanding).
Apparently Rosbaud appeared in front of an orchestra with the greatest
humility, unashamedly admitting mistakes and occasionally soliciting advice.
-david gable
Ray Hall
news:aj6fhh$ioi$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
| But that does NOT mean his Mahler, Bruckner are bad. It means they are
| different. Like appropriate spouses, beauty is not a universal absolute.
| Were it so, we'd all be killing each other over a single idealized mate.
| So too with art. Think about it. One final thought. You go hear Boulez.
| You don't like what you hear. BUT, it compels you to address what you
| found wanting, compels you to address why you choose otherwise and to
| articulate this choice. Is THAT a bad thing? Being stimulated to
| question (whether to affirm or second guess) your preferences? It is well
| to remember that Boulez' ideal is to approach works from a new view, to
| try and "forget" (remove) as many of the trappings of the past in order to
| approach the work as a fresh new object open to new insight.
He is a HIPster, to use a rmcr-ism <g>
Actually, excellent words above, and has made me anxious to sample some
Boulez Mahler.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN - troll killer supremo
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/02
Tansal Arnas
>> I agree that these BBCSO recordings are far less smooth and slick and level,
>> but these seem to have more to do with the recordings themselves.
>
> I'm absolutely NOT talking about the recordings qua recordings. I'm talking
> about what Boulez gets the BBC SO to do. (I don't know how much experience
> you've had with quasi-bootlegs preserved in less than adequate sound, but the
> more you listen to such recordings, possibly pace Dave Hurwitz, the more
> you're able to hear through the inadequacies of the recording itself. There
> are limits, of course, but there are also far worse recordings than Boulez's
> live Mahler.)
I have several bootlegs, and many more historic recordings. I find that the
bootlegs are generally not as good as nearly any historic recording. I'd
much rather listen to Furtwangler's 1937 Beethoven Ninth for instance. But
Arkadia in particular is a bootleg company that I have not been pleased
with. I will have to hear some significant raves from many sources before
buying another one of their discs. I guess if I listen to these bootlegs
enough, I'll be able to hear through them the same way I can hear through my
historical recordings, but in the case of latter there was something holding
my interest with regard to the performance that I could not find elsewhere
in any comparable way. However, with Boulez, from what I'm hearing, the DG
recording is preferably in every way. There may be isolated incidents, to
these ears, of bits that might be better in the bootleg, but not enough to
make me pick that off my shelf if I want to hear Boulez conduct Mahler 5.
>> I hope that [the manner in which the timpani, for example, are
>> suddenly way too loud and distorted because of the miking] is not all
>> you're referring to about their incisive quality.
>
> Again, I am absolutely not talking about the recordings qua recordings.
> Ideally, I would provide specific examples with score and recording, but
> that's not so readily done here. I'll give one example without as much
> specificity as I'd like.
I don't know how to specify my approach to sound. Sometimes, the sound of a
recording can really make the performance unlistenable, whatever its merits.
And sometimes, no matter what the distortion or noise or pitch fluctuation,
the performance manages to shine through in a way that makes me want to go
back to it again and again. I think the qualifier here must be subjective
on a level difficult to express in words, without referring to specifics.
> Before I heard it, I wondered how well Boulez would fare in the second
> movement of the 6th, a scherzo with the character of a Ländler, but his
> performance turns out to be a triumph.
Where is this 6th from?
Tansal
Clovis Lark
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:aj6fhh$ioi$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> | But that does NOT mean his Mahler, Bruckner are bad. It means they are
> | different. Like appropriate spouses, beauty is not a universal absolute.
> | Were it so, we'd all be killing each other over a single idealized mate.
> | So too with art. Think about it. One final thought. You go hear Boulez.
> | You don't like what you hear. BUT, it compels you to address what you
> | found wanting, compels you to address why you choose otherwise and to
> | articulate this choice. Is THAT a bad thing? Being stimulated to
> | question (whether to affirm or second guess) your preferences? It is well
> | to remember that Boulez' ideal is to approach works from a new view, to
> | try and "forget" (remove) as many of the trappings of the past in order to
> | approach the work as a fresh new object open to new insight.
> He is a HIPster, to use a rmcr-ism <g>
Actually, NOT. He is the antithesis of HIPster. He approaches the music
as an object existing in the present and sees little of value in going
back to a past that never was, that can never be heard with the ears that
might have confronted the artwork.
Samir Golescu
How in Heavens (or Hell, more appropriately to some) was it that Klemperer
praised Boulez's conducting to such an extent?
regards,
SG
Clovis Lark
> How in Heavens (or Hell, more appropriately to some) was it that Klemperer
> praised Boulez's conducting to such an extent?
He praised it after asking, to Boulez' astonishment ("I was
flabbergasted-direct quote), to observe his rehearsals.
> regards,
> SG
David7Gable
>praised Boulez's conducting to such an extent?
>
Klemperer thought Boulez was a brilliant musician and composer, and you don't
know how different Boulez's performances in the 60's were from the DGG
recordings of today.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Arkadia in particular is a bootleg company that I have not been pleased
>with.
Too bad, because Arkadia is one of the more reliable ones. And the BBC SO is
simply not going to hand the master tapes over to them. What you're buying is
based on a tape made from a radio broadcast. And what choice do you have if
you want to hear what they've got?
-david gable
David7Gable
>praised Boulez's conducting to such an extent?
Klemperer didn't share your anti-Boulez deaf spot, Samir.
-david gable
Samir Golescu
On 13 Aug 2002, David7Gable wrote:
> Klemperer thought Boulez was a brilliant musician and composer
Have you heard any composition by Klemperer? I have..... am still
recovering.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 13 Aug 2002, David7Gable wrote:
Wow! Two responses to my pale-modest-one-phrase-simply-wondering post. I
am sowing more than I reaped. Or reaping more than I sowed, I forgot which
is which.
regards,
SG ( :
____________
"There are only two kinds of music: German music and bad music."
-- H. L. Mencken
Ray Hall
But I should add in the defence of my statement, that HIP (pour MOI), has
always been an attempt to look anew at the score, (maybe deciding to use
original instruments, and why not in the case of early music?), wipe away
layers of encrusted performance tradition, (are these the 'accretions' DG is
always waffling about <g>), and with the standard, or even more, study of
historical musical knowledge, built upon a standard performance recognition
of the score to hand.
In the above sense, then Boulez would represent a HIPster of larger forms of
more modern music, and the antithesis of interpreters such as Fürtwängler,
or Kna, to name but one or two examples.
Maybe my logic is all wrong, but nobody has yet really defined HIP,
(notwithstanding that in essence I disregard the term, but use it for the
sake of commuication only). We all, in our different ways have our own
notions of what HIP is really all about, and nobody here, imo, really knows.
Period instruments for early music has always been my interpretation for
that particular period in question.
Correctly interpreted, the emotion of all music should ideally emanate from
the score, and NOT from the interpreter. Hence, why I would, like Alain
(hey, for a non-Wagnerite I seem to be agreeing with Alain too much), take
up the cause for conductors such as Berglund and Haitink. I have a distinct
feeling I am going to like Boulez in roughly the same way too.
Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and egg
conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
Clovis Lark
HIP is based upon, theoretically, rejecting any accretions brought onto a
piece after the period and culture that brought it into existance. It
tries to research the performance practices and compositional theories
that impacted upon the piece and to perform it as though it were possible
to re-enact the premiere. Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were a
product of today. I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
today. Our sensibilities are not those of the yesteryears of the
composers. Our musical assumptions are not those of his supposed
audience. Our sensibilities of tuning are different than those of the
composers. Our assumptions of instrumental timbres are different. Even
our perceptions of the place of music are different.
> In the above sense, then Boulez would represent a HIPster of larger forms of
> more modern music, and the antithesis of interpreters such as Fürtwängler,
> or Kna, to name but one or two examples.
I think you've got it backwards. Kna, Furtwangler AND Boulez all
performed/perform according to their own personal mores as they
understood/stand in their time. In Kna/Furtwangler's day, Bruckner,
Mussorgsky and Schumann even Beethoven needed updating and rewriting to
make them acceptable. Boulez takes the score at face value and tries to
render an interpretation consonant with his 21st c. reality. ALL were
reflecting the musical tastes of their time. Once, it as acceptable for
subsequent interpreters to monkey with prior scores. Now it isn't, but
that isn't the same as being HIP.
> Maybe my logic is all wrong, but nobody has yet really defined HIP,
> (notwithstanding that in essence I disregard the term, but use it for the
> sake of commuication only). We all, in our different ways have our own
> notions of what HIP is really all about, and nobody here, imo, really knows.
> Period instruments for early music has always been my interpretation for
> that particular period in question.
You should have been present for the Cleveland Orchestra's performances of
2 Brandenburgs, one on a part of course. Very current and certainly NOT
HIP.
> Correctly interpreted, the emotion of all music should ideally emanate from
> the score, and NOT from the interpreter. Hence, why I would, like Alain
> (hey, for a non-Wagnerite I seem to be agreeing with Alain too much), take
> up the cause for conductors such as Berglund and Haitink. I have a distinct
> feeling I am going to like Boulez in roughly the same way too.
You confuse me here...
> Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
> detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and egg
> conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
As a musician, the score is a vague plan. It gives pitches, rhythms and
general tempi, modulations of tempi. A score which denies performers the
space to place their "stamp" on the piece is moribund.
Simon Roberts
>
> HIP is based upon, theoretically, rejecting any accretions brought
onto a
> piece after the period and culture that brought it into existance. It
> tries to research the performance practices and compositional theories
> that impacted upon the piece and to perform it as though it were
possible
> to re-enact the premiere. Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
> assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were
a
> product of today. I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
> today. Our sensibilities are not those of the yesteryears of the
> composers. Our musical assumptions are not those of his supposed
> audience. Our sensibilities of tuning are different than those of the
> composers. Our assumptions of instrumental timbres are different.
Even
> our perceptions of the place of music are different.
Well, sure, but HIP is also part of (some of ) our sensibilities (it's
certainly not part of the sensibilities of earlier periods) and for some
of us the instumental timbres offered by HIPsters, who have changed our
"assumptions," are quite delightful. Your (Boulez's?) "our" (as is the
case with all those who make this argument) seems to assume a degree of
uniformity which doesn't exist.
Simon (who agrees with the rest of your disagreement with Mr. Hall)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Pine.GSO.4.31.0208131922001.28034-100000
@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu:
Oh, the "Merry Waltz" is quite charming.
--
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
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Ray Hall
But ... didn't I say exactly that, in not as many words?
| It
| tries to research the performance practices and compositional theories
| that impacted upon the piece and to perform it as though it were possible
| to re-enact the premiere.
But ... didn't I say something about looking at the score anew?
| Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
| assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were a
| product of today.
Well, that is highly debatable. I am sure Boulez is well aware when a piece
of music was written, and just because he might display a cool, detached,
emotionally less charged performance, doesn't necessarily indicate your
assumption above.
| I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
| today.
Well we agree, but I would have thought that obvious, but maybe I am missing
some point or other ....
| Our sensibilities are not those of the yesteryears of the
| composers. Our musical assumptions are not those of his supposed
| audience. Our sensibilities of tuning are different than those of the
| composers. Our assumptions of instrumental timbres are different. Even
| our perceptions of the place of music are different.
Of course, there is not much can dispute with the above, in terms of
reality. We might be better off trying to debate quantum physics, if the
search for truth and reality was the point in question. But reality is a
poor substitute for art. When listening to Haydn, doesn't the music, your
preparation for listening, or playing Haydn, prepare you for some form of
psychological escape/retreat into the times of Haydn himself?
| > In the above sense, then Boulez would represent a HIPster of larger
forms of
| > more modern music, and the antithesis of interpreters such as
Fürtwängler,
| > or Kna, to name but one or two examples.
|
| I think you've got it backwards. Kna, Furtwangler AND Boulez all
| performed/perform according to their own personal mores as they
| understood/stand in their time. In Kna/Furtwangler's day, Bruckner,
| Mussorgsky and Schumann even Beethoven needed updating and rewriting to
| make them acceptable. Boulez takes the score at face value and tries to
| render an interpretation consonant with his 21st c. reality. ALL were
| reflecting the musical tastes of their time. Once, it as acceptable for
| subsequent interpreters to monkey with prior scores. Now it isn't, but
| that isn't the same as being HIP.
To be honest, I have gotta think about the above a bit more. It is too
loaded a paragraph, and I am dashing off to a new home in a few days. But
I'll reply.
| > Maybe my logic is all wrong, but nobody has yet really defined HIP,
| > (notwithstanding that in essence I disregard the term, but use it for
the
| > sake of commuication only). We all, in our different ways have our own
| > notions of what HIP is really all about, and nobody here, imo, really
knows.
| > Period instruments for early music has always been my interpretation for
| > that particular period in question.
|
| You should have been present for the Cleveland Orchestra's performances of
| 2 Brandenburgs, one on a part of course. Very current and certainly NOT
| HIP.
Wish I could have been. Just about 8k miles apart for me though. I'd like
you to explain more about the above actually. Sounds very interesting.
| > Correctly interpreted, the emotion of all music should ideally emanate
from
| > the score, and NOT from the interpreter. Hence, why I would, like Alain
| > (hey, for a non-Wagnerite I seem to be agreeing with Alain too much),
take
| > up the cause for conductors such as Berglund and Haitink. I have a
distinct
| > feeling I am going to like Boulez in roughly the same way too.
|
| You confuse me here...
In short, and I literally have to be brief, I prefer the composer to emote,
rather than the artist, notwithstanding the fact that the artists produce
the actual sounds. Does that make sense?
<g>
| > Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
| > detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and egg
| > conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
|
| As a musician, the score is a vague plan. It gives pitches, rhythms and
| general tempi, modulations of tempi. A score which denies performers the
| space to place their "stamp" on the piece is moribund.
I disagree, because I believe it is the performers who should attempt to
place the "stamp" of the composer on the final product. That *doesn't* mean,
incidentally, that there shouldn't be room or space to move, because a score
is a very far from being precise means of notation, as you have indicated,
and everyone here knows, unless one gets into the microtonal stuff.
Good discussion, nonetheless, and I bow before all musicians, except a few.
Have to be brief for a few days and then a week. Amid boxes and stuff, and
awaiting calls.
Catchya
Boulez is a HIPster and DG doesn't know it. Hee hee. Gotta larf.
Tansal Arnas
Goodness, you've said this so many times in this thread that people are
going to think NONE of his DG recordings are any good at all! I just want
to point out that this is certainly not the case, and that even with Mahler
there may be many out there who may like his newest recordings of the
symphonies. They are certainly easier to locate than bootlegs, and sound a
helluvalot better, and I even think are stronger performances, IMHO.
But I find it interesting that Klemperer thought so highly of Boulez since I
think more highly of Boulez than I do of Klemperer. Maybe I've heard a lot
of wrong recordings, but I should also add that at least two of his
recordings are among my favorites ever: Brahms German Requiem, Mahler 2.
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
I agree that it's better than not having the option to hear them at all.
But having heard them, I won't miss them if I don't hear them again. There
are so many great recordings that sound so much better, and so many other
works that I'm just starting to become familiar with, that I've started
shifting my focus from comparative listening toward learning new pieces.
Just bought a new disc today: Boulez's Stravinsky Symphonies disc for DG.
Had a listening party for that (and Emerson String Quartet's Prokofiev disc)
and we all loved it. If I'm not mistaken, our reactions fly in the face of
ClassicsToday, and are more in agreement with Gramophone's excellent review.
Tansal
Ray Hall
news:B97F7DE7.118C1%tan...@hotmail.com...
I've gone off the later Klemperer also. I heard his Das Lied with Ludwig the
other night on ABC, and as great a singer as Ludwig is, the final "ewig" was
much too loud. No ehtereal fading away into the distance ... and I was only
listening on a cheap radio. Couldn't really see what all the fuss is about,
and as for his Bruckner 6th on EMI, maybe somebody can convince me why it is
held in such esteem. His Beethoven is basically "stodgy" which gets
transformed by avid Klemperites into adjectives such as "granitic".
Basically he recorded well past his used by date imo.
On the other hand, if one turns the clock back, one finds a completely
different conductor. A Fonit Cetra I have, recorded in the 50s (1956 from
memory) with the Turin RSO, shows him turn in the finest Shosty 9th I have
heard, a stupendously earthy Pulcinella and a Haydn symphony (forget which
one now) which was excellent.
I agree about his Mahler 2nd. Great first movement, not quite matched in the
rest of the symphony.
Clovis Lark
I'm certainly NOT assuming any uniformity. I'm not stating that "our"
means you, necessarily.
Clovis Lark
See below
> | It
> | tries to research the performance practices and compositional theories
> | that impacted upon the piece and to perform it as though it were possible
> | to re-enact the premiere.
> But ... didn't I say something about looking at the score anew?
There's looking at a score anew, and then there's looking at a score
anew...
> | Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
> | assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were a
> | product of today.
> Well, that is highly debatable. I am sure Boulez is well aware when a piece
> of music was written, and just because he might display a cool, detached,
> emotionally less charged performance, doesn't necessarily indicate your
> assumption above.
First and foremost, I've never advocated that Boulez is "cool, detached,
emotionally less charged". My assumption is the result of several
conversations with him. We both concluded similarly that the HIP movement
was not for us, and for the reasons I listed earlier.
> | I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
> | today.
> Well we agree, but I would have thought that obvious, but maybe I am missing
> some point or other ....
Most HIPsters will invoke the composer's intention and some will claim
that their research gives them a view from the composer's vantage point.
I believe that this is impossible to do. We can only see things from our
own vantage point.
> | Our sensibilities are not those of the yesteryears of the
> | composers. Our musical assumptions are not those of his supposed
> | audience. Our sensibilities of tuning are different than those of the
> | composers. Our assumptions of instrumental timbres are different. Even
> | our perceptions of the place of music are different.
> Of course, there is not much can dispute with the above, in terms of
> reality. We might be better off trying to debate quantum physics, if the
> search for truth and reality was the point in question. But reality is a
> poor substitute for art. When listening to Haydn, doesn't the music, your
> preparation for listening, or playing Haydn, prepare you for some form of
> psychological escape/retreat into the times of Haydn himself?
Not for me. When I listen to or play Haydn, I am experiencing something
from a 21st c. sensibility. This no different than going climbing in
wilderness. Just because I might find myself in a similar position as a
19th c. Ute on top of Uncompahgre Peak doesn't mean I've retreated or
escaped into the times of traditional Ute culture 150 years ago.
> | > In the above sense, then Boulez would represent a HIPster of larger
> forms of
> | > more modern music, and the antithesis of interpreters such as
> Fürtwängler,
> | > or Kna, to name but one or two examples.
> |
> | I think you've got it backwards. Kna, Furtwangler AND Boulez all
> | performed/perform according to their own personal mores as they
> | understood/stand in their time. In Kna/Furtwangler's day, Bruckner,
> | Mussorgsky and Schumann even Beethoven needed updating and rewriting to
> | make them acceptable. Boulez takes the score at face value and tries to
> | render an interpretation consonant with his 21st c. reality. ALL were
> | reflecting the musical tastes of their time. Once, it as acceptable for
> | subsequent interpreters to monkey with prior scores. Now it isn't, but
> | that isn't the same as being HIP.
> To be honest, I have gotta think about the above a bit more. It is too
> loaded a paragraph, and I am dashing off to a new home in a few days. But
> I'll reply.
No need, just something to consider...
In the cases mentioned, the composer ceased emoting years ago. There are
medical reports confirming this. Thank your lucky stars that there are
intelligent performers willing to emote using the compositions of the dead
as a platform, otherwise there would be no Bach, Haydn, Mahler in the
record stores. My confusion above was the mixing of haitink and Berglund
with Boulez.
> | > Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
> | > detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and egg
> | > conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
> |
> | As a musician, the score is a vague plan. It gives pitches, rhythms and
> | general tempi, modulations of tempi. A score which denies performers the
> | space to place their "stamp" on the piece is moribund.
> I disagree, because I believe it is the performers who should attempt to
> place the "stamp" of the composer on the final product. That *doesn't* mean,
> incidentally, that there shouldn't be room or space to move, because a score
> is a very far from being precise means of notation, as you have indicated,
> and everyone here knows, unless one gets into the microtonal stuff.
I think you have it backwards. The stamp of the composer is there in the
unique motivic development, the unique approach to
counterpoint/harmony/rhythm/meter. Bach will sound like Bach, no matter
how mangled, as will Bartok and Mahler and Schoenberg and Machaut. But
they will sound great when there is a stamp of a great performer all over
their work,
> Good discussion, nonetheless, and I bow before all musicians, except a few.
> Have to be brief for a few days and then a week. Amid boxes and stuff, and
> awaiting calls.
> Catchya
> Boulez is a HIPster and DG doesn't know it. Hee hee. Gotta larf.
Boulez would barf.
Alain Dagher
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:aj6fhh$ioi$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> | But that does NOT mean his Mahler, Bruckner are bad. It means they are
> | different. Like appropriate spouses, beauty is not a universal absolute.
> | Were it so, we'd all be killing each other over a single idealized mate.
> | So too with art. Think about it. One final thought. You go hear Boulez.
> | You don't like what you hear. BUT, it compels you to address what you
> | found wanting, compels you to address why you choose otherwise and to
> | articulate this choice. Is THAT a bad thing? Being stimulated to
> | question (whether to affirm or second guess) your preferences? It is well
> | to remember that Boulez' ideal is to approach works from a new view, to
> | try and "forget" (remove) as many of the trappings of the past in order to
> | approach the work as a fresh new object open to new insight.
>
> He is a HIPster, to use a rmcr-ism <g>
>
> Actually, excellent words above, and has made me anxious to sample some
> Boulez Mahler.
>
Hope you're listening to the proms today. Boulez conducting Varese,
Boulez, and Stravinsky, (but no Mahler)
Alain
Ray Hall
news:3D5AB863...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
In too much turmoil preparing for a move, for such luxuries. But it seems a
very interesting concert nonetheless. Anyone heard it, and what were the
actual works played?
ABC FM here, often re-broadcasts (several months later) quite a few of the
Prom concerts, so I may catch another opportunity to hear it.
Incidentally, in Sydney we have two cable networks, Foxtel and Optus,
whereas further up the coast, there is Austar. Much the same stuff as Foxtel
(Discovery, Nat Geo, etc.,), except they fit a dish. Mention was also made
of 20 audio channels being made available in the basic package. With any
luck this could include BBC 3, or whatever it is called now. I am hoping,
but we do very well here with ABC FM, and 2-MBS FM, both 24 hour classical
and some jazz stations.
Ray Hall
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
| [snip for brevity ....]
| > But ... didn't I say something about looking at the score anew?
|
| There's looking at a score anew, and then there's looking at a score
| anew...
Obviously, from the point of view of different perspectives. So, as I
understand you, if Monsieur Pierre Boulez were to conduct a Haydn symphony
today, he would look coldly and analytically at the score as if it would
have been written today. I find that quite astonishing really, in that in
effect, Boulez is really saying that all historical data, any performance
tradition, any prior knowledge is simply brushed aside, and becomes
effectively defunct. Of no use whatsoever? The bare score is all he needs?
How can he do that when the score, (especially a classical score) is a very
imprecise means of notation? Does he guess?Shouldn't there be some attempt
to analyse tradition, and ideally brush away any excesses or encrustations
that will have crept into performance practice, and attempt to produce a
sound picture of what the composer may have intended, might have thought?
| > | Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
| > | assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were
a
| > | product of today.
|
| > Well, that is highly debatable. I am sure Boulez is well aware when a
piece
| > of music was written, and just because he might display a cool,
detached,
| > emotionally less charged performance, doesn't necessarily indicate your
| > assumption above.
Well, obviously, you had already answered my questions above, n'est-ce pas?
Am still not certain I agree though, but then I am not the great Boulez.
<sigh>
| First and foremost, I've never advocated that Boulez is "cool, detached,
| emotionally less charged". My assumption is the result of several
| conversations with him. We both concluded similarly that the HIP movement
| was not for us, and for the reasons I listed earlier.
I'm getting a better idea now of what makes Boulez tick.
| > | I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
| > | today.
|
| > Well we agree, but I would have thought that obvious, but maybe I am
missing
| > some point or other ....
|
| Most HIPsters will invoke the composer's intention and some will claim
| that their research gives them a view from the composer's vantage point.
| I believe that this is impossible to do. We can only see things from our
| own vantage point.
Here I disagree completely. Whether the music is early, baroque, classical,
or contemporary, then surely it is an artist's duty to honour the composer's
intentions. Else why should the composer bother in the first place? Maybe
self-satisfaction perhaps.
| > | Our sensibilities are not those of the yesteryears of the
| > | composers. Our musical assumptions are not those of his supposed
| > | audience. Our sensibilities of tuning are different than those of the
| > | composers. Our assumptions of instrumental timbres are different.
Even
| > | our perceptions of the place of music are different.
|
| > Of course, there is not much can dispute with the above, in terms of
| > reality. We might be better off trying to debate quantum physics, if the
| > search for truth and reality was the point in question. But reality is a
| > poor substitute for art. When listening to Haydn, doesn't the music,
your
| > preparation for listening, or playing Haydn, prepare you for some form
of
| > psychological escape/retreat into the times of Haydn himself?
|
| Not for me. When I listen to or play Haydn, I am experiencing something
| from a 21st c. sensibility. This no different than going climbing in
| wilderness. Just because I might find myself in a similar position as a
| 19th c. Ute on top of Uncompahgre Peak doesn't mean I've retreated or
| escaped into the times of traditional Ute culture 150 years ago.
I'd agree with the obvious above, and especially from the realistic sense of
listening or playing Haydn from a 21st century sensibility, but *always*
with an 18th century awareness. You have admitted that on top of your Peak,
the thoughts, or awareness, of traditional Ute culture has crossed your
mind. Obviously one can't physically escape backwards in time, but mentally,
and psychologically we make adjustments.
| > In short, and I literally have to be brief, I prefer the composer to
emote,
| > rather than the artist, notwithstanding the fact that the artists
produce
| > the actual sounds. Does that make sense?
| > <g>
|
| In the cases mentioned, the composer ceased emoting years ago. There are
| medical reports confirming this. Thank your lucky stars that there are
| intelligent performers willing to emote using the compositions of the dead
| as a platform, otherwise there would be no Bach, Haydn, Mahler in the
| record stores. My confusion above was the mixing of haitink and Berglund
| with Boulez.
Give Berny the benefit of a capital H <g>
As I said above, I cannot really reconcile myself to the blanket dismissal
of the composer, as though all he has produced is a bunch of dots and lines
etc., on a piece of paper. In essence, this is what yourself and Monsieur
Boulez are saying. Musical history becomes as nothing in effect.
| > | > Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
| > | > detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and
egg
| > | > conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
| > |
| > | As a musician, the score is a vague plan. It gives pitches, rhythms
and
| > | general tempi, modulations of tempi. A score which denies performers
the
| > | space to place their "stamp" on the piece is moribund.
More precision doesn't necessarily mean less freedom. The ability to even
play the more complex scores, as written, is difficult enough surely. There
will always be some flexibility available to performers. What does Boulez
have to say about his own scores. Does he write them with the intention of
letting others play hard and loose with them? I wouldn't think so somehow.
| > I disagree, because I believe it is the performers who should attempt to
| > place the "stamp" of the composer on the final product. That *doesn't*
mean,
| > incidentally, that there shouldn't be room or space to move, because a
score
| > is a very far from being precise means of notation, as you have
indicated,
| > and everyone here knows, unless one gets into the microtonal stuff.
|
| I think you have it backwards. The stamp of the composer is there in the
| unique motivic development, the unique approach to
| counterpoint/harmony/rhythm/meter. Bach will sound like Bach, no matter
| how mangled, as will Bartok and Mahler and Schoenberg and Machaut. But
| they will sound great when there is a stamp of a great performer all over
| their work,
Great performers are great performers becuase they *are* great performers.
What has the score got to do with it?
| > Boulez is a HIPster and DG doesn't know it. Hee hee. Gotta larf.
|
| Boulez would barf.
BARF
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN - troll killer supremo
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 2/08/02
David7Gable
>Boulez, and Stravinsky, (but no Mahler)
What Boulez? And did you tape it for me?
-david gable
Clovis Lark
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:ajdrt6$jva$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> | Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> | [snip for brevity ....]
> | > But ... didn't I say something about looking at the score anew?
> |
> | There's looking at a score anew, and then there's looking at a score
> | anew...
> Obviously, from the point of view of different perspectives. So, as I
> understand you, if Monsieur Pierre Boulez were to conduct a Haydn symphony
> today, he would look coldly and analytically at the score as if it would
> have been written today. I find that quite astonishing really, in that in
> effect, Boulez is really saying that all historical data, any performance
> tradition, any prior knowledge is simply brushed aside, and becomes
> effectively defunct. Of no use whatsoever? The bare score is all he needs?
I think that now you are playing with words. Of course Boulez knows who
Haydn was and where he came from. He would know that the piece operates
under a different set of sensibilities than one by Stravinsky. He might
be taken by curiosity and read up a bit on aspects of Haydn's career (he
has done this with most composers). But when he takes on the score in
rehearsal, this added information will not be playing the same role that
it might for a period performance. He won't make any attempt to
approximate the style favored by various HIP interpretors.
By the way, he will be performing a Haydn Symphony this fall in Chicago.
Should be a curious event.
> How can he do that when the score, (especially a classical score) is a very
> imprecise means of notation? Does he guess?Shouldn't there be some attempt
> to analyse tradition, and ideally brush away any excesses or encrustations
> that will have crept into performance practice, and attempt to produce a
> sound picture of what the composer may have intended, might have thought?
The sound picture that a Haydn might have thought would be based upon
strings with gut, bows with one third the hair and less response, whiney
oboes, flutes with fuzzier intonation, etc. Tuning would be different. I
don't want to hear that today. I really don't care what Haydn thought (he
might have been thinking "this'll keep that Esterhazy pig off my back for
another week so I can carry on my affair with Madame Bla, the Italian
soprano I'm doing the dawg with.")
> | > | Boulez is contrary, he seeks to wipe away
> | > | assumptions of the past and simply examine the piece as though it were
> a
> | > | product of today.
> |
> | > Well, that is highly debatable. I am sure Boulez is well aware when a
> piece
> | > of music was written, and just because he might display a cool,
> detached,
> | > emotionally less charged performance, doesn't necessarily indicate your
> | > assumption above.
> Well, obviously, you had already answered my questions above, n'est-ce pas?
> Am still not certain I agree though, but then I am not the great Boulez.
> <sigh>
Who are you addressing here? The comment directly above is not mine.
> | First and foremost, I've never advocated that Boulez is "cool, detached,
> | emotionally less charged". My assumption is the result of several
> | conversations with him. We both concluded similarly that the HIP movement
> | was not for us, and for the reasons I listed earlier.
> I'm getting a better idea now of what makes Boulez tick.
> | > | I concur, it IS a product of today, when manefested
> | > | today.
> |
> | > Well we agree, but I would have thought that obvious, but maybe I am
> missing
> | > some point or other ....
> |
> | Most HIPsters will invoke the composer's intention and some will claim
> | that their research gives them a view from the composer's vantage point.
> | I believe that this is impossible to do. We can only see things from our
> | own vantage point.
> Here I disagree completely. Whether the music is early, baroque, classical,
> or contemporary, then surely it is an artist's duty to honour the composer's
> intentions. Else why should the composer bother in the first place? Maybe
> self-satisfaction perhaps.
Why indeed? No composer prior to Beethoven ever concerned himself with
the permanence of his intentions. It was assumed that new music would be
commisioned and that old music would fall out of favor. Permanence of
music was the domain of performers who saw value in keeping old pieces
around. In Mozart's day, it was assumed that a symphony would not be
performed intact. Movements were interposed with other works.
I admitted no such thing. I admit knowing the history of the San Juan
mountains and the use of Umcompahgre by the Ute nation. However, the
times I've summitted, I've had my mind on other things and only mulled
this history later over beers. In either case, I had no awareness, and
still don't of traditional Ute culture.
Musically, we make adjustments as pieces demand. It isn't necessary to
know details of Bach's life to render a Partita properly. A vague
understanding of baroque music will suffice. Indeed, I would challenge
you to demonstrate that a Josef Suk, Heifitz knew anything other than the
most superficial aspects of Bach's intentions and mores. Yet they seemed
to have played his music stunningly.
> | > In short, and I literally have to be brief, I prefer the composer to
> emote,
> | > rather than the artist, notwithstanding the fact that the artists
> produce
> | > the actual sounds. Does that make sense?
> | > <g>
> |
> | In the cases mentioned, the composer ceased emoting years ago. There are
> | medical reports confirming this. Thank your lucky stars that there are
> | intelligent performers willing to emote using the compositions of the dead
> | as a platform, otherwise there would be no Bach, Haydn, Mahler in the
> | record stores. My confusion above was the mixing of haitink and Berglund
> | with Boulez.
> Give Berny the benefit of a capital H <g>
> As I said above, I cannot really reconcile myself to the blanket dismissal
> of the composer, as though all he has produced is a bunch of dots and lines
> etc., on a piece of paper. In essence, this is what yourself and Monsieur
> Boulez are saying. Musical history becomes as nothing in effect.
Who is dismissing the composer. It is high praise indeed to a be able to
make sense of his product never having known him, his life or his culture.
It is high praise to recreate a version that carries meaning to a culture
with only the slimmest connections to his culture. Musical history can
provide certain knowledge. It will NOT play a piece. It may even ruie a
piece.
> | > | > Too much score (excuse pun) is given to interpreters and artists, in
> | > | > detriment to consideration of the composer. There is no chicken and
> egg
> | > | > conundrum to sort out here. My 2c worth.
> | > |
> | > | As a musician, the score is a vague plan. It gives pitches, rhythms
> and
> | > | general tempi, modulations of tempi. A score which denies performers
> the
> | > | space to place their "stamp" on the piece is moribund.
> More precision doesn't necessarily mean less freedom. The ability to even
Where did I state that?
> play the more complex scores, as written, is difficult enough surely. There
> will always be some flexibility available to performers. What does Boulez
> have to say about his own scores. Does he write them with the intention of
> letting others play hard and loose with them? I wouldn't think so somehow.
Boulez makes a point of saying very little about his pieces and keeping
out of other performer's ways when they are learning his music. He almost
seems to be leaving them to create what they will out of the text, as
long as they do play what is there.
> | > I disagree, because I believe it is the performers who should attempt to
> | > place the "stamp" of the composer on the final product. That *doesn't*
> mean,
> | > incidentally, that there shouldn't be room or space to move, because a
> score
> | > is a very far from being precise means of notation, as you have
> indicated,
> | > and everyone here knows, unless one gets into the microtonal stuff.
> |
> | I think you have it backwards. The stamp of the composer is there in the
> | unique motivic development, the unique approach to
> | counterpoint/harmony/rhythm/meter. Bach will sound like Bach, no matter
> | how mangled, as will Bartok and Mahler and Schoenberg and Machaut. But
> | they will sound great when there is a stamp of a great performer all over
> | their work,
> Great performers are great performers becuase they *are* great performers.
> What has the score got to do with it?
What are they going to play? Marbles?
> | > Boulez is a HIPster and DG doesn't know it. Hee hee. Gotta larf.
> |
> | Boulez would barf.
> BARF
zzzzz
Tansal Arnas
> I've gone off the later Klemperer also. I heard his Das Lied with Ludwig the
> other night on ABC, and as great a singer as Ludwig is, the final "ewig" was
> much too loud. No ehtereal fading away into the distance ... and I was only
> listening on a cheap radio. Couldn't really see what all the fuss is about,
> and as for his Bruckner 6th on EMI, maybe somebody can convince me why it is
> held in such esteem. His Beethoven is basically "stodgy" which gets
> transformed by avid Klemperites into adjectives such as "granitic".
> Basically he recorded well past his used by date imo.
His Beethoven for EMI was actually the first music of Klemperer's that I
heard, and boy did it turn me off to him. Seeing the clips of him in the
Great Conductors video only succeeded in turning me off even more. Hearing
his Bruckner further so!
> On the other hand, if one turns the clock back, one finds a completely
> different conductor. A Fonit Cetra I have, recorded in the 50s (1956 from
> memory) with the Turin RSO, shows him turn in the finest Shosty 9th I have
> heard, a stupendously earthy Pulcinella and a Haydn symphony (forget which
> one now) which was excellent.
I don't know much about early Klemperer, but I've become suspicious of raves
about his recordings because of my personal experiences so far. For
instance, how people turn "stodgy" into "granitic" as you put it. However,
the most I used to hear about his Beethoven was how he knew the
"architecture" better than anyone. At the expense of everything else? In
fact, given his portrayal in the Great Conductors video, one wonders what
exactly was great about him at all, besides his being flat out mean to the
orchestra. Barbirolli doesn't fare any better in his clips.
> I agree about his Mahler 2nd. Great first movement, not quite matched in the
> rest of the symphony.
I haven't heard anything to beat Klemperer's performance of the first
movement of that symphony. And the rest of it isn't too shabby either. In
all, one highly recommendable performance. And his Brahms German Requiem,
as I mentioned before.
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hope you're listening to the proms today. Boulez conducting Varese,
>> Boulez, and Stravinsky, (but no Mahler)
>
> In too much turmoil preparing for a move, for such luxuries. But it seems a
> very interesting concert nonetheless. Anyone heard it, and what were the
> actual works played?
>
> ABC FM here, often re-broadcasts (several months later) quite a few of the
> Prom concerts, so I may catch another opportunity to hear it.
>
> Incidentally, in Sydney we have two cable networks, Foxtel and Optus,
> whereas further up the coast, there is Austar. Much the same stuff as Foxtel
> (Discovery, Nat Geo, etc.,), except they fit a dish. Mention was also made
> of 20 audio channels being made available in the basic package. With any
> luck this could include BBC 3, or whatever it is called now. I am hoping,
> but we do very well here with ABC FM, and 2-MBS FM, both 24 hour classical
> and some jazz stations.
Anyone know if these concerts are ever broadcast in New York?
Tansal
Tansal Arnas
> I think that now you are playing with words. Of course Boulez knows who
> Haydn was and where he came from. He would know that the piece operates
> under a different set of sensibilities than one by Stravinsky. He might
> be taken by curiosity and read up a bit on aspects of Haydn's career (he
> has done this with most composers). But when he takes on the score in
> rehearsal, this added information will not be playing the same role that
> it might for a period performance. He won't make any attempt to
> approximate the style favored by various HIP interpretors.
>
> By the way, he will be performing a Haydn Symphony this fall in Chicago.
> Should be a curious event.
Goodness, I didn't think he conducted anything pre-Romantic period anymore!
I've heard that he found it quite distasteful that he had to program
Beethoven and Haydn, etc., when he was heading the NYPO. And these
composers are not represented well in recorded output. I don't think he's
recorded anything at all pre-Romantic for DG, has he?
Tansal
Ray Hall
| Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
| > "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
| > news:ajdrt6$jva$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
| > | Ray Hall <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|
| > | [snip for brevity ....]
| > | > But ... didn't I say something about looking at the score anew?
| > |
| > | There's looking at a score anew, and then there's looking at a score
| > | anew...
|
| > Obviously, from the point of view of different perspectives. So, as I
| > understand you, if Monsieur Pierre Boulez were to conduct a Haydn
symphony
| > today, he would look coldly and analytically at the score as if it would
| > have been written today. I find that quite astonishing really, in that
in
| > effect, Boulez is really saying that all historical data, any
performance
| > tradition, any prior knowledge is simply brushed aside, and becomes
| > effectively defunct. Of no use whatsoever? The bare score is all he
needs?
|
| I think that now you are playing with words.
No. I never play with words. Period. It is simply that things are not as
black and white (wrt Boulez, and his interpretative approach) as your very
words below indicate. Obviously, I have reached a better point of
understanding regarding Boulez and HIP, but as an aside, it is also evident
that from many (indeed numerous) reviews of his later recordings, that there
is a definite emotional detachment apparent, even when compared to non-HIP
artists. I am also saying that this quality, in itself, may even be
preferable to many listeners.
|--------------------------
| Of course Boulez knows who
| Haydn was and where he came from. He would know that the piece operates
| under a different set of sensibilities than one by Stravinsky. He might
| be taken by curiosity and read up a bit on aspects of Haydn's career (he
| has done this with most composers). But when he takes on the score in
| rehearsal, this added information will not be playing the same role that
| it might for a period performance. He won't make any attempt to
| approximate the style favored by various HIP interpretors.
|--------------------------
| By the way, he will be performing a Haydn Symphony this fall in Chicago.
| Should be a curious event.
I advise everyone to attend - if possible, out of curiosity.
| [ ... chop same old stuff ... ]
| > More precision doesn't necessarily mean less freedom. The ability to
even
|
| Where did I state that?
I didn't ever suggest you did. Actually.
| > Great performers are great performers becuase they *are* great
performers.
| > What has the score got to do with it?
|
| What are they going to play? Marbles?
Methinks you are merely playing with words here.
pallex
> "Alain Dagher" <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D5AB863...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca...
> | Ray Hall wrote:
> | Hope you're listening to the proms today. Boulez conducting Varese,
> | Boulez, and Stravinsky, (but no Mahler)
>
> In too much turmoil preparing for a move, for such luxuries. But it seems a
> very interesting concert nonetheless. Anyone heard it, and what were the
> actual works played?
Varese - Integrales
Boulez - Le visage nuptial; le soleil des eaux
Stravinsky - Petrushka (1911 version)
I attended it, and really enjoyed it. However, i`m not sure how much
use I am as a reviewer, given that it was pretty much the first
classical performance of Western music i`ve ever attended. Also, I`ve
only heard the Boulez pieces 2 or 3 times, as I only bought them in
the last few months. They were interesting, though - very good to hear
them live. And the Stravinsky was excellent. I`m about to listen to my
CDs of the pieces again now!
Alex.
pallex
Well, on this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/index.shtml
you can listen to a selection of the last weeks performances,
apparantly. I`ve not tried it out, however.
Alain Dagher
Le Soleil des Eaux (which I heard him conduct at the Proms in 1996 -
seems like last year!) and Le visage nuptial. He also did Petrushka.
I listen on the web:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/listen/
I don't know how to record it, but anyway the sound quality is awful.
Next Thursday (22 Aug) will be a must-listen.
Alain
Bob Harper
According to the website, this concert was broadcast live, but is not
one selected for listening 'on demand' with RealPlayer. Too bad.
Bob Harper
Samir Golescu
> In fact, given his portrayal in the Great Conductors video, one wonders
> what exactly was great about him at all, besides his being flat out mean
> to the orchestra.
Presence. Capacity of concentrating in a "shaky beat" musical information
and vibrant "message".
> Barbirolli doesn't fare any better in his clips.
Really! On the contrary, Barbirolli fares excellently in his few clips --
that is a lesson in rehearsal techniques through which a conductor can
determine a half-inert orchestra to play a rhythm correctly. (In that
case, if memory serves, it was about two eight-notes followed by two
quarter notes; the orchestra was performing the eight-notes "lazily"
(say, 0.6 or so of a quarter-note as opposed to 0.5) while Barbirolli,
with good reason, was trying to have them playing the rhythm in the right
way, communicating in the process that initial, bizarre "alertness" of
the Scherzo.
regards,
SG
Clovis Lark
I don't think I am painting a black and white image. Equating HIP with
any knowledge of the past is inaccurate.
> understanding regarding Boulez and HIP, but as an aside, it is also evident
> that from many (indeed numerous) reviews of his later recordings, that there
> is a definite emotional detachment apparent, even when compared to non-HIP
> artists. I am also saying that this quality, in itself, may even be
> preferable to many listeners.
You can rely on your reviewers and their comments. Boulez' own words show
NO emotional detachment. Neither does his work with ensembles. In fact,
players will attest to his commitment (even tears during the finale of
Mahler 2 last fall-not that such demonstrations need be evidence of
emotional commitment).
> |--------------------------
> | Of course Boulez knows who
> | Haydn was and where he came from. He would know that the piece operates
> | under a different set of sensibilities than one by Stravinsky. He might
> | be taken by curiosity and read up a bit on aspects of Haydn's career (he
> | has done this with most composers). But when he takes on the score in
> | rehearsal, this added information will not be playing the same role that
> | it might for a period performance. He won't make any attempt to
> | approximate the style favored by various HIP interpretors.
> |--------------------------
> | By the way, he will be performing a Haydn Symphony this fall in Chicago.
> | Should be a curious event.
> I advise everyone to attend - if possible, out of curiosity.
> | [ ... chop same old stuff ... ]
> | > More precision doesn't necessarily mean less freedom. The ability to
> even
> |
> | Where did I state that?
> I didn't ever suggest you did. Actually.
Just making sure.
> | > Great performers are great performers becuase they *are* great
> performers.
> | > What has the score got to do with it?
> |
> | What are they going to play? Marbles?
> Methinks you are merely playing with words here.
Actually, not. Give some great performers a stage and no music to play.
I'm waiting. Few maintain the lost art of improvisation.
Simon Roberts
>
>Really! On the contrary, Barbirolli fares excellently in his few clips --
>that is a lesson in rehearsal techniques through which a conductor can
>determine a half-inert orchestra to play a rhythm correctly. (In that
>case, if memory serves, it was about two eight-notes followed by two
>quarter notes; the orchestra was performing the eight-notes "lazily"
>(say, 0.6 or so of a quarter-note as opposed to 0.5) while Barbirolli,
>with good reason, was trying to have them playing the rhythm in the right
>way, communicating in the process that initial, bizarre "alertness" of
>the Scherzo.
Right (Bruckner 7/iii); but I evidently need to watch this again - my
memory of it is that the orchestra didn't ever really get it right (at
least, not in the clip shown). I am somewhat reminded of a ridiculous
documentary on PBS years ago related to Solti's "discovery" of the
metronome markings in Beethoven 5. Part of it involved a rehearsal
sequence in which he tried to get the orchestra to play fast and quiet
simultaneously, repeatedly failed and just gave up and moved on (as indeed the
poor man did trying to get Te Kanawa to get the rhythm right in the second
word of the first of Strauss's VLL - a remarkable display of deafness on
her part and of politeness/restraint on his).
Simon
Tansal Arnas
I was quite young at the time but I remember this Solti/Beethoven 5 docu.
This was actually responsible for my getting his recording of this symphony
(coupled with 4), as well as his 9 - my first "serious" classical music
purchases, as everything prior was purchased by my mom from budget labels.
I listened to both these CDs recently and gave them away. :o) (I think
Solti's performance 5 is remarkably better in a live VPO disc, coupled with
Shostakovich's 9 - frequently found among cutouts a few years ago.)
Tansal
Audiophilia
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020815...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu...
Glorious John wasn't even close to getting the rhythm right of the opening
of Bruckner 7 Scherzo. Still adore him, though! Note to self: when
conductors talk too much, orchestra fall asleep;-)
Kind regards,
Anthony Kershaw, Editor/Publisher
AUDIOPHILIA -- The Online Journal for the Serious Audiophile
http://www.audiophilia.com
An electronic publication of Audiophilia, Inc.
Samir Golescu
On 15 Aug 2002, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >Really! On the contrary, Barbirolli fares excellently in his few clips --
> >that is a lesson in rehearsal techniques through which a conductor can
> >determine a half-inert orchestra to play a rhythm correctly. (In that
> >case, if memory serves, it was about two eight-notes followed by two
> >quarter notes; the orchestra was performing the eight-notes "lazily"
> >(say, 0.6 or so of a quarter-note as opposed to 0.5) while Barbirolli,
> >with good reason, was trying to have them playing the rhythm in the right
> >way, communicating in the process that initial, bizarre "alertness" of
> >the Scherzo.
>
> Right (Bruckner 7/iii); but I evidently need to watch this again - my
> memory of it is that the orchestra didn't ever really get it right (at
> least, not in the clip shown).
Your memory is correct -- within the few minutes shown, the orchestra
improved, but did not played that correctly yet. My view of that was that
Sir John was quite right, precise, suggestive and helpful in the ways,
both vocal and gestural, he was trying to get the instrumentalists to play
it. I sensed an uncommon (or was it?....) degree of inertia (euphemism
for indolence) from the orchestra itself. Contrary to the myth, there are
bad orchestras as well, not only bad conductors. . .
regards,
SG
David7Gable
>instance, how people turn "stodgy" into "granitic" as you put it.
Klemperer is best represented by recordings made at the end of his life. For
much of his career there is nothing. When he was a younger man he was a
firebrand noted for his faster than average tempi and interest in contemporary
music. By the 60's he had earned a well deserved respect, and even from that
decade some recordings are a lot more wild than others. Personally, I share
the general admiration, although I really can't sit through his slowest
performances.
>However,
>the most I used to hear about his Beethoven was how he knew the
>"architecture" better than anyone.
Whatever that means.
-david gable
David7Gable
>the permanence of his intentions. It was assumed that new music would be
>commisioned and that old music would fall out of favor.
That's not quite right either. One may intellectually know that one is going
to die, but at the same time one doesn't quite believe the day will ever come.
Composers wrote for a present moment that, in that sense, they didn't expect
ever to end. They were not thinking of "planned obsolescence" in the sense of
certain modern manufacturers. Even the 20-year-old pop sensation of today,
riding the crest of the wave of his popularity, believes the moment will never
end.
And is it really true that things were not built to last before the age of
Beethoven? Tell that to the Chartres cathedral. Has there ever been a period
when Shakespeare's plays have not been disseminated and read? Did Michelangelo
really believe another painter was going to be called in to paint over the
Sistine ceiling after he died? Why were musicians any different? Why did
Monteverdi and Bach at the ends of their lives--shortly before their
"obsolescence"--go to so much trouble to have anthologies of their music
collected and printed? Why did Bach at the end of his life spend so much time
on compendious displays of counterpoint like The Art of the Fugue, the Von
Himmel Hoch Variations, the Goldberg Variations, the B minor Mass, and the
Musical Offering? He wasn't blithely of the belief that these were ephemeral
products soon to disappear forever. Nor was he entirely wrong.
-david gable
David7Gable
During Boulez's second season as Music Director of the NY Phil, there was a
season-long survey of the music of Haydn and Stravinsky--Season 1 it had been
Liszt and Berg--and Boulez even conducted an opera by Haydn. Knowing of
Boulez's enthusiasm for Haydn, Universal Edition once presented him with a
compete edition of Haydn's works as a birthday present.
Some of the strange views being attributed to Boulez in this thread I have
never seen before, not in any of his books, not in any of the dozens of
substantial and ephemeral interviews with him that I've read, not in any of the
many books and articles about him that I've read.
As for his indifference to the programmatic in music, how do you explain the
chirping birds and twinkling stars at the end of cummings ist der dichter?
-david gable
Clovis Lark
>> No composer prior to Beethoven ever concerned himself with
>>the permanence of his intentions. It was assumed that new music would be
>>commisioned and that old music would fall out of favor.
> That's not quite right either. One may intellectually know that one is going
> to die, but at the same time one doesn't quite believe the day will ever come.
> Composers wrote for a present moment that, in that sense, they didn't expect
> ever to end. They were not thinking of "planned obsolescence" in the sense of
> certain modern manufacturers. Even the 20-year-old pop sensation of today,
> riding the crest of the wave of his popularity, believes the moment will never
> end.
You are wrong here. Beethoven clearly took steps, unheard of before his
time, to assure the performance and availability of his music.
> And is it really true that things were not built to last before the age of
> Beethoven? Tell that to the Chartres cathedral. Has there ever been a period
> when Shakespeare's plays have not been disseminated and read? Did Michelangelo
> really believe another painter was going to be called in to paint over the
> Sistine ceiling after he died? Why were musicians any different? Why did
> Monteverdi and Bach at the ends of their lives--shortly before their
> "obsolescence"--go to so much trouble to have anthologies of their music
> collected and printed? Why did Bach at the end of his life spend so much time
> on compendious displays of counterpoint like The Art of the Fugue, the Von
> Himmel Hoch Variations, the Goldberg Variations, the B minor Mass, and the
> Musical Offering? He wasn't blithely of the belief that these were ephemeral
> products soon to disappear forever. Nor was he entirely wrong.
Perhaps you might take a proseminar in musicology before stepping into
this quagmire? No offence...
> -david gable
Ray Hall
news:20020816003725...@mb-fg.aol.com...
And referring to Mahler himself, (and Boulez as well no doubt, maybe),
didn't Mahler tell the world that his symphonies would be understood when
... (by effectively stating that "his time would come"?). I am sure he went
to the grave knowing he had left the world something for posterity.
Maybe a 20th century composer expects some permanence to exist. I am not so
sure about the earlier composers - their circumstances, and reasons for
composing were entirely different, even from the perspective that *the
future* didn't hold quite the same meaning or relevance to them as it does
to today's composers.
David7Gable
>time, to assure the performance and availability of his music.
>
I'm only now stumbling onto Clovis's remarks. Nothing I wrote about music
before Beethoven contradicts this statement of yours that I've quoted.
>Perhaps you might take a proseminar in musicology before stepping into
>this quagmire? No offence...
Precisely what I am arguing against, athough I did not say so explicitly, is
certain dogmatic beliefs of current politically correct musicology. For the
record, I have had many more seminars in musicology than I care to remember.
-david gable
Samir Golescu
On 19 Aug 2002, David7Gable wrote:
> >Perhaps you might take a proseminar in musicology before stepping into
> >this quagmire? No offence...
>
> Precisely what I am arguing against, athough I did not say so explicitly, is
> certain dogmatic beliefs of current politically correct musicology. For the
> record, I have had many more seminars in musicology than I care to remember.
For the record -- and no offense intended to Mr Lark -- I didn't get the
condescending tone either. To my money, you are a quite well-prepared and
reliable musicologist. (When you don't go into politics or on one of your
gratuitously defensive modes, that is. . . ( :)
regards,
SG