Tafelmusik vs. Pinky
Alain Dagher
Results to be announced tomorrow.
I think this was unfair of the CBC. First Tafelmusik will win because
(1) they are from Toronto and will get more votes, and (2) people will
have been offended by Zukerman's comments. This might discourage the
National Arts Centre Orchestra musicians, who had nothing to do with
this battle.
Of course, I expect that, like true Canadians, most people will say "I
like them both but Zukerman is a meany".
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/takefive/wwwboard/
Alain
John H
<michaelsmith...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <38ECEFD1...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca>, Alain Dagher
><al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>people will
>>have been offended by Zukerman's comments.
>
>I'm intrigued to know what Mr Zukerman has said this time. I
>have fond recollections of an hilarious interview in Fanfare a
>few years ago, in which he dismissed all HIP performers as
>frauds. (I suspect he'd had an excessively lavish lunch).
>
>Michael
>
It's mostly the same shit he said in Fanfare
Lamon's response is at
Michael Smith
>people will
>have been offended by Zukerman's comments.
I'm intrigued to know what Mr Zukerman has said this time. I
have fond recollections of an hilarious interview in Fanfare a
few years ago, in which he dismissed all HIP performers as
frauds. (I suspect he'd had an excessively lavish lunch).
Michael
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Andrys D Basten
>It's mostly the same shit he said in Fanfare
>
>Lamon's response is at
>
>
>http://archives.theglobeandmail.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=%2Fchico2%2Fusr%2Flocal%2Fgam%2Fsearch%2Fhtml%2F20000403%2FTAARGU%2Ehtml&DocOffset=2&DocsFound=2&QueryZip=zukerman&Collection=TGAM&SortField=sortdate&ViewTemplate=GAMDocView%2Ehts&SearchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Farchives%2Etheglobeandmail%2Ecom%2Fsearch97cgi%2Fs97%5Fcgi%3FQueryZip%3Dzukerman%26ResultTemplate%3DGAMResults%252Ehts%26QueryText%3Dzukerman%26Collection%3DTGAM%26SortField%3Dsortdate%26ViewTemplate%3DGAMDocView%252Ehts%26ResultStart%3D1%26ResultCount%3D10&
Thanks, John!
For those whose newsreaders wrapped the incredible URL and who can't access
the article, I combined my copy into one line, so here's the text from
that article, since they keep them online for only 7 days usually:
=== Article ===
So, Mr. Zukerman, you want a fight? How about a battle of the bands?
JEANNE LAMON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Monday, April 3, 2000
Recently in these pages, the new maestro of the National Arts
Centre Orchestra, Pinchas Zukerman, uttered what I can only take
to be fighting words. If it's a fight he wants, I'm more than
happy to take him on. In an interview with The Globe's Robert
Everett-Green, the renowned violinist/conductor declaimed his
"disgust" for what is called the period-performance movement,
calling it, and most of the people who play it, "complete
rubbish." This is tantamount to calling computers disgusting and
their users rubbish when it is obvious to everyone that they
represent the accepted tool for doing business in today's world.
Likewise, period instruments and performance practices have
become today's standard for performing music of the 17th through
early 19th centuries.
After several generations of performing music from all eras as if
it were cut from the same cloth, many musicians have come to
understand the wisdom of simply taking music on its own terms.
This means that Bach is not Bruckner, Vivaldi is not Stravinsky
and Purcell is not Vaughan Williams. The music of Bach and
Vivaldi does not sound better performed with a huge orchestra
playing instruments the composers would never have known any more
than Brahms's piano works sound better on a harpsichord. Perhaps
these baroque composers would have adored the large symphonic
orchestras of today had they heard them, but they, in fact, did
not know their sound. They wrote for the forces they had at hand
and their music is best served by those same numbers of musicians
playing those same instruments. And it does not matter if Bach
would have preferred a piano to a harpsichord. It only matters
that he never saw or heard one and that he, in fact, wrote his
keyboard works for harpsichord or organ. It would be absurd to
suggest that his musical creativity suffered from this
deprivation.
When speaking of artistic things, one can speak only of
evolution, not of progress. Today's musical instruments are not
better or worse than those of previous times, just as acrylic
paints are not superior to oils. They are only different.
Aesthetic tastes change to reflect the times and societies. These
differences between centuries and musical styles are something to
celebrate as a sort of artistic multiculturalism. We do not wish
to make of 300 years of music one sound palette and one voice. To
celebrate the diversity of our musical heritage, we period
performers embrace as many aspects as possible of the composer's
uniqueness. We use the instruments he had at hand in the
appropriate numbers. We try to play in the sorts of concert
venues he had at his disposal. We study what sorts of performance
conventions were in vogue at the time and apply them to the
expression of the music, all in an effort to make the music come
to life.
This is a philosophy of music-making that has taken the world by
storm. In the almost 30 years that I have been performing
primarily baroque and classical music on period instruments, I
have witnessed a revolution. We early-music types have evolved
from being the beatniks of the musical scene to selling more CDs
than those made with modern instruments. We have won the respect
and love of audiences and critics around the world, with many of
the best-selling classical recording artists coming from our
midst. Conservatories everywhere are incorporating historical
performance as part of their required curriculum. Toronto's
Tafelmusik has performed on the best series in the best halls
world-wide, being one of the first Canadian orchestras, for
example, to play at the Musikverein in Vienna.
There are very exciting and creative cross-fertilizations of
modern and period performers taking place around the globe. YoYo
Ma has recorded Boccherini concertos on a baroque cello with the
Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra. Nikolaus Harnoncourt of Vienna's
Concentus Musicus has recorded Mozart Symphonies with the
Concertgebouw Orchestra. Sir Simon Rattle has conducted the Age
of Enlightenment Orchestra, one of Britain's foremost period
orchestras. Mr. Zukerman's predecessor Trevor Pinnock, who made
his fame in the baroque performance world, directed the NACO for
several years. Tafelmusik has shared the stage with the Toronto
Symphony in a very successful and interesting program which
alternated the two orchestras.
Where has Mr. Zukerman been for the past 30 years, if not hiding
his head in the sand? It would seem he'd rather not be confused
with too many ideas or thoughts about music. How else could he
make the outrageous statement that he had not changed his
interpretation of the Four Seasons in the past 25 years! Remember
T. S. Eliot's famous line about life being but a preparation for
the final, exquisite closing of one's mind. It would appear that
Mr. Zukerman's has closed prematurely.
Yes, I'm itching for a fight! As the music director of
Tafelmusik, Canada's baroque orchestra on original instruments, I
would like to challenge Mr. Zukerman and his NACO orchestra to a
musical duel. Why don't our orchestras share the stage,
alternately, play some baroque music in our respective ways and
let the audience judge for themselves? Wouldn't it be great fun,
and informative at the same time, for them to hear a Bach
orchestral suite or Handel's Watermusic played by these two
orchestras, one after the other? We could call the concert the
Battle of the Bands. How about it, Mr. Zukerman?
Jeanne Lamon is the music director of Tafelmusik.
Arts Argument is a weekly forum on cultural issues. Readers are
encouraged to respond to published pieces and to submit their own
essays, by mail, E-mail (art...@globeandmail.ca) or fax
(416-585-5699).
=== End of article ===
Even as one who prefers excellent period-performance groups to
excellent modern groups in earlier music, for the most part, I
differ with her re the statement about Bach/Vivaldi et al being
"best served" with the earlier approach. I think Bach, at
least, is 'best served' by any group doing his music in a way
that communicates its beauty and spirit to whatever listeners
and their hearing preferences.
I saw Lamon, Cunningham and Verbruggen do the most exciting
small-group concert I've ever seen. However, I got a listen to
some excerpts from Lamon's otherwise fine baroque orchestra in
their recording of the Brandenburgs and found the few samples
very out of tune, which is not normal for them at all. I'm
surprised they approved it. So, it's not a given which
performance I'll prefer though my preference is generally toward
period-performance forces.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Heck
with 'health food'.
you should like health food - soy, tofu, etc - it's good
for you, doesn't cause cancer, heart disease, kidney
disease, zits, or any other terminal malady.
Yeh, but it tastes like s--t!
*****
you should like HIP music - this is what the composer
heard, he experienced, what he wanted(???);
it's "authentic"?? -
yeh, but it sounds like s--t!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
David Grayshan
> > JEANNE LAMON
> > Special to The Globe and Mail
> > Monday, April 3, 2000
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > And it does not matter if Bach would have preferred a piano to a
> harpsichord. It > only matters that he never saw or heard one and that he,
> in fact, wrote his keyboard > works for harpsichord or organ. It would be
> absurd to suggest that his musical > creativity suffered from this
> deprivation.
>
> This sounds a bit dogmatic to me. We might say that:
>
> (Snip of some nice stuff with which it is difficult to disagree)
>
> 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
> to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
> performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
> tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
> playing?
Because this would be sacrilege! Against the most holy HIP gospel!
> Josh Klein
> Amherst College
I have a number of HIP recordings that I keep & like to hear - most of them
actually from the early recording period - as I can sense the claimed "joy
of rediscovery" in these recordings (e.g. Harnoncourt's first set of
Brandenburgs).
Most I have heard I have dismissed on the grounds that the pursuit of an
imagined "correct style" - whatever that might be - has obliterated the
musical experience along the way: the means has become an end in itself.
As an example: yesterday I heard the BIS recording of Mozart's EKN and
Divertimenti KV 136 - 8. I found it all to be pretty mechanical, all the
notes there..... but boring. And with what I suspect is a case of "urpraxis"
overkill (although I am prepared to stand corrected on this) - a harpsichord
continuo in the Divertimenti. Surely an example of the blind application of
a standard process to a musical performance? With silly results?
When I want to hear the *music* in EKN I have to go all the way back to WF's
1931 or 1932 recording on Polydor. Few have even approached this
graciousness, ease of style, relaxation, spaciousness..... and I can hear
*very* little vibrato, the lines all sing "cleanly".
Of course one example proves nothing. I like the Italian "authentic" string
players such as Fabio Biondi as they are not afraid to "sing" and do not
apply the kinds of overcharged tempi that I can find in so many other
"authentic" performances. These swift tempi are surely an anachronous
imposition from our insane and hectic present age? I think that our
forwfathers took it somewhat easier than we do.....
Regards,
David.
Josh Klein
> JEANNE LAMON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> Monday, April 3, 2000
[SNIP]
> And it does not matter if Bach
> would have preferred a piano to a harpsichord. It only matters
> that he never saw or heard one and that he, in fact, wrote his
> keyboard works for harpsichord or organ. It would be absurd to
> suggest that his musical creativity suffered from this
> deprivation.
This sounds a bit dogmatic to me. We might say that:
1) Whatever the instruments Bach wrote for, his music just sounds better
on modern pianos than on harpsichords. (This isn't necessarily
true, but it's at least arguable.)
2) Bach was extremely interested in developing keyboard technology.
It doesn't seem too reidiculous to think that he would have embraced
the piano. Why should this not matter at all? Why should a piano
performance of Bach be illegitimate?
3) A certain amount of Bach's music can be thought of somewhat more
abstractly than just how it would have sounded in a performance by
his contemporaries. (The fugues are impressive not only in
performance, but also on paper. And some works that were written
for solo instruments can have a very happy realization in orchestraed
form.
4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
playing?
--
Josh Klein
Amherst College
Simon Roberts
: This sounds a bit dogmatic to me. We might say that:
: 1) Whatever the instruments Bach wrote for, his music just sounds better
: on modern pianos than on harpsichords. (This isn't necessarily
: true, but it's at least arguable.)
Well, I think it's true....
[snip]
: 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
: to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
: performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
: tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
: playing?
Of course he can. The problem (for me, anyway) with Zukerman's comments
isn't the extent to which they express his taste for a certain sort of
performance, but the nasty, petty, sore-loser quality of his negative
comments about HIP. As for Lamon's comments, I think a lot of what she
says is rubbish, for reasons mentioned in other threads....
Simon
Josh Klein
> Josh Klein (jak...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
> : 1) Whatever the instruments Bach wrote for, his music just sounds better
> : on modern pianos than on harpsichords. (This isn't necessarily
> : true, but it's at least arguable.)
> Well, I think it's true....
I happen to agree with you, Simon. I prefer piano for Bach, Scarlatti,
etc... I did just get a kick out of hearing a couple of Mozart
concerti on fortepiano tonight (George Barth, fp) with th St. Lawrence
String Quartet accompanying a quattors; but all in all, my main
reaction was to realize the limitations of even the late 18th century
fortepiano.
[Incidentally, *very* few musicians seem to fetishistically hold to
this original instrument credo for post-Mozart performances.
Emmanuel Ax may have gotten interesting results in the Chopin
concerto recently, but who's gonna try to do LvB Emperor on anything
less than a full modern grand... you'd just lose too much. And yet,
Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin -- none of these composers had pianos
with anything like the power and tonal-consistency of the standard
modern concert grand]
> : 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
> : to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
> : performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
> : tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
> : playing?
> Of course he can. The problem (for me, anyway) with Zukerman's comments
> isn't the extent to which they express his taste for a certain sort of
> performance, but the nasty, petty, sore-loser quality of his negative
> comments about HIP. As for Lamon's comments, I think a lot of what she
> says is rubbish, for reasons mentioned in other threads....
You're right -- Zukerman's comments do seem a bit intemperate. And, whatever
else his career accomplishments have been, he's never been (in recordings,
at least) particularly interested in Baroque music, so it seems
especially unwarranted for him to so harshly attack HIP.
But others have spoken similarly harshly. (I seem to recall Menuhin
criticizing HIP in "Unfinished Journey", for example.) Maybe people's
reaction here is more a function of their general disrespect
for Zukerman at the moment -- which I'm not sure is completely
warranted. I've never heard him in concert, but some of his
recordings are certainly worthwhile. The few viola performances
I've heard him in (e.g., sinfonia concertante w/ Stern) are really
striking. He may always have been in Perlman's shadow on the violin,
but he's one mean violist. (Don't know enought to comment on his
conducting).
Raymond Hall
>
> : on modern pianos than on harpsichords. (This isn't necessarily
> : true, but it's at least arguable.)
>
> Well, I think it's true....
>
>
> : 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
> : to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
> : performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
> : tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
> : playing?
>
> Of course he can. The problem (for me, anyway) with Zukerman's comments
> isn't the extent to which they express his taste for a certain sort of
> performance, but the nasty, petty, sore-loser quality of his negative
> comments about HIP. As for Lamon's comments, I think a lot of what she
> says is rubbish, for reasons mentioned in other threads....
>
I don't think she talks rubbish. I do think she has gone over the mark
by issuing an utterly stupid idea of a duel between orchestras. However,
in my opinion, she should distance herself from Zukerman's remarks and
give him enough rope to hang himself. She is talking 'fighting talk',
and I thought women were more intelligent than to engage in a kind of
silly "macho" fightfest.
Other than what I have said, (of which you are also entitled to think is
rubbish), what particularly does Ms Lamon say that you believe is
rubbish. Just curious, as your comments are always perceptive in this
area.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Simon Roberts
: I don't think she talks rubbish. I do think she has gone over the mark
: by issuing an utterly stupid idea of a duel between orchestras. However,
: in my opinion, she should distance herself from Zukerman's remarks and
: give him enough rope to hang himself. She is talking 'fighting talk',
: and I thought women were more intelligent than to engage in a kind of
: silly "macho" fightfest.
: Other than what I have said, (of which you are also entitled to think is
: rubbish), what particularly does Ms Lamon say that you believe is
: rubbish. Just curious, as your comments are always perceptive in this
: area.
Not everything she says, of course, but (and of course "rubbish" is a bit
hyperbolic) I fail to see why a musician has an obligation to change his
playing style to respond to the latest trends, nor, for reasons we've
thrashed out earlier in Bach threads, do I think it's self-evidently true
(or just plain true) that baroque music must be played on the instruments
it was written for in the sorts halls it was written for in the style we
think it was performed in (I tend to prefer that sort of performance, but
that's all it is, a preference for the results). And while I agree with
her that it's wrong to assume that the evolution of instruments has
resulted in instruments that are inherently better than their prdecessors,
her bit of what looks like naive relativism -- the instruments aren't
better, just different -- is disingenuous: obviously she thinks that, for
baroque music, period instruments are better in some sense; that's why she
uses them, after all. Perhaps she would concede this. If so, she needs
to make her point, whatever it is, better.
Simon
Stan Szpakowicz
Simon Roberts wrote:
> [...] The problem (for me, anyway) with Zukerman's comments
> isn't the extent to which they express his taste for a certain sort of
> performance, but the nasty, petty, sore-loser quality of his negative
> comments about HIP. As for Lamon's comments, I think a lot of what she
> says is rubbish, for reasons mentioned in other threads....
This misses the reality of local music scene politics. Zukerman is not
only a nasty man. He is a downright disaster as a music director. I
know. I live in Ottawa. His first season, 1999-2000, was such a display
of tired warhorses that it hurt. The new program, for 2000-2001, is even
worse. Among twenty odd concerts I found one I may want to attend and
one I will, but for the soloist rather than the music. (This is my
opinion, and mine only, just in case someone need this disclaimer.) He
also makes himself a soloist way to often, and gives jobs to pals. His
piano sonata partner now appears to be a composer too, and sure enough
his opus will be played by Zukerman's orchestra.
Now, take all this in the context of the NAC orchestra perceived by some
as getting unfair advantage as the capital-city organization. Consider
that even Pinnock could not (or did not want to) get for this really
nice small orchestra any meaningful recording contracts. Consider that
Tafelmusik has been very successful abroad, but may feel unappreciated
at home. Lamon blew her top, sure, but in the commercialized world (and
with Zukerman's commercialized directorship) such duels are a good way
of gaining attention, and this once not for a bad reason. Presenting and
defending HIP may be a noble cause in Canada.
[For the record, I vastly prefer Bach and Scarlatti on the harpsichord.]
Raymond Hall wrote:
>I don't think she talks rubbish. I do think she has gone over the mark
>by issuing an utterly stupid idea of a duel between orchestras. However,
>in my opinion, she should distance herself from Zukerman's remarks and
>give him enough rope to hang himself. She is talking 'fighting talk',
>and I thought women were more intelligent than to engage in a kind of
>silly "macho" fightfest.
Be as it may, she won. Here it is (I would post the URL, but it is ten
lines long :>).
# Best strings for Vivaldi are Baroque
#
# The Globe and Mail, Saturday, April 8, 2000
#
# It was billed as The Battle of the Bands on CBC's Radio Two network.
# And by the time the violins and violas ceased on Thursday and the
# phone calls and e-mail votes were tabulated yesterday, the message was
# clear: "Gimme them ole-time instruments, Pinchas."
#
# Pinchas is Pinchas Zukerman, music director of the Ottawa-based
# National Arts Centre Orchestra. In an interview with The Globe and
# Mail last month, he described the period performance movement as being
# "complete rubbish." This movement involves artists playing pieces on
# instruments used at the time the pieces were composed and performed.
# Toronto's Tafelmusik has earned an international reputation for doing
# just that on material from the Baroque period (17th century to
# mid-18th century).
#
# When the group's music director, Jeanne Lamon, read Mr. Zukerman's
# remarks, she fired off a counter-argument to The Globe, calling his
# statements "outrageous" and challenging Mr. Zukerman's NACO to a
# compare-and-contrast duel with Tafelmusik.
#
# CBC Radio Two's weekday morning program Take Five picked up the
# gauntlet Thursday. With the theme to A Fistful of Dollars as its
# introduction, it played, back-to-back, a recorded version of the first
# movement of Spring from Vivaldi's The Four Seasons, played on
# conventional instruments by the NACO, and a version of same, played on
# period instruments, by Tafelmusik. Listeners were then invited to
# telephone or e-mail their votes and comments as to the "superior"
# version.
#
# A total of 2,128 CBC classical-music fans participated, with 1,430, or
# 67 per cent, declaring the Tafelmusik rendition the winner.
--
Dr. Stan Szpakowicz, Professor www.site.uottawa.ca/~szpak
School of Information Technology & Engineering sz...@site.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa tel +613-562-5800/6687 fax +613-562-5187
Stan Szpakowicz
Simon Roberts
: Simon Roberts wrote:
: > [...] The problem (for me, anyway) with Zukerman's comments
: > isn't the extent to which they express his taste for a certain sort of
: > performance, but the nasty, petty, sore-loser quality of his negative
: > comments about HIP. As for Lamon's comments, I think a lot of what she
: > says is rubbish, for reasons mentioned in other threads....
: This misses the reality of local music scene politics. Zukerman is not
: only a nasty man. He is a downright disaster as a music director.
[snip]
I'm sure you're right; but he's been saying this obnoxious stuff for at
least a decade -- i.e., it predates (I assume; maybe I'm wrong) his tenure
in Canada.
Simon
Hou Fang-Lin
for the soul, there are definitely signs of terminal malady in
post.
Fang-Lin
(who, like many from the east, has never been alienated
from nicely prepared soy/tofu food-wise)
Heck <dgallaghe...@mediaone.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1a8f734c...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
John H
<hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Raymond Hall (hallr...@bigpond.com) wrote:
>>
>> : I don't think she talks rubbish. I do think she has gone over the mark
>> : by issuing an utterly stupid idea of a duel between orchestras. However,
>> : in my opinion, she should distance herself from Zukerman's remarks and
>> : give him enough rope to hang himself. She is talking 'fighting talk',
>> : and I thought women were more intelligent than to engage in a kind of
>> : silly "macho" fightfest.
>> : Other than what I have said, (of which you are also entitled to think is
>> : rubbish), what particularly does Ms Lamon say that you believe is
>> : rubbish. Just curious, as your comments are always perceptive in this
>> : area.
>>
>> Not everything she says, of course, but (and of course "rubbish" is a bit
>> hyperbolic) I fail to see why a musician has an obligation to change his
>> playing style to respond to the latest trends, nor, for reasons we've
>> thrashed out earlier in Bach threads, do I think it's self-evidently true
>> (or just plain true) that baroque music must be played on the instruments
>> it was written for in the sorts halls it was written for in the style we
>> think it was performed in (I tend to prefer that sort of performance, but
>> that's all it is, a preference for the results). And while I agree with
>> her that it's wrong to assume that the evolution of instruments has
>> resulted in instruments that are inherently better than their prdecessors,
>> her bit of what looks like naive relativism -- the instruments aren't
>> better, just different -- is disingenuous: obviously she thinks that, for
>> baroque music, period instruments are better in some sense; that's why she
>> uses them, after all. Perhaps she would concede this. If so, she needs
>> to make her point, whatever it is, better.
>>
>Probably she could have expressed herself in a slightly more direct and
>less abstruse way. She is no GB Shaw for sure (which must be a relief to
>her), and I agree with what you say above. But I thought that deeming
>her comments as mostly rubbish (in your previous post), and to quote
>yourself, "I think a lot of what she says is rubbish, ...", isn't the
>sort of comment expected from a Monsieur Simon Roberts. I apologise if I
>am taking you too literally, but I genuinely wondered what you meant by
>the comment.
>I really do think, however, that Ms Lamon lapsed, when at the end of her
>statement (and thanks to Andrys for posting her article above), she
>talks about a "Battle of the Bands". Ms Lamon has everything to lose and
>nothing to gain by engaging in such thoughts. Her ensemble is widely
>known internationally, and perhaps she is simply over-reacting to
>Zukerman's comments, which have probably been widely well known for a
>considerable period of time.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ray Hall, Sydney
She has nothing to lose, because Zukerman would never accept the
challence.
John Harkness
Ryan Hare
: 2) Bach was extremely interested in developing keyboard technology.
: It doesn't seem too reidiculous to think that he would have embraced
: the piano. Why should this not matter at all? Why should a piano
: performance of Bach be illegitimate?
No one says this. Pointing out that Bach never wrote for the piano is not
equivalent to your illegitimate straw man.
: 3) A certain amount of Bach's music can be thought of somewhat more
: abstractly than just how it would have sounded in a performance by
: his contemporaries. (The fugues are impressive not only in
: performance, but also on paper. And some works that were written
: for solo instruments can have a very happy realization in orchestraed
: form.
Wow. Genius. No one ever realized this until now.
What you seem to be forgetting is that it's HIP that's currently under
fire, not performances on modern instruments. I've never heard a HIP
musician seriously make any of the kinds of illegitimate comments such as
those you are implicitly ascribing to them.
: 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
: to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
: performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
: tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
: playing?
More straw men. No one has stated that Zukerman shouldn't be
"permitted" to have those preferences (as if that were possible, or even
of interest to anyone at all).
Pinky went *a lot* further than saying he doesn't like it. He denigrated
the musicianship of every HIP musician in his typically arrogant, idiotic
way. Maybe you should check out the original interview again.
No has attacked Pinky for his preference. He has been criticized for how
he stated it, with his insults and ad hominem attacks. He is also being
criticized for being an arrogant, piggish malcontent.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
samir ghiocel golescu
> : 4) Why can't some listeners & musicians (Zukerman included) be allowed
> : to express the opinion that they simply don't *like* Most HIP
> : performances? Why shouldn't Zukerman be permitted to prefer A=440
> : tuning? Why shouldn't he be allowed to prefer vibrato in string
> : playing?
>
> More straw men. No one has stated that Zukerman shouldn't be
> "permitted" to have those preferences (as if that were possible, or even
> of interest to anyone at all).
It may be of great interest to me and, I dare presume I'm not unique, to
many others.
regards,
SG
Eric Schissel
as finding more reasons to play those warhorses you complain of rather
than seek out (and record) new repertoire, it sounds like the pot and the
kettle are having a nice good fight interest in which I might have little.
Though I think Tafelmusik has a good discography on the very grounds on
which I make my unfair and ungrounded complaint, anyway, so consider this
just another example of me griping... ;)
-Eric Schissel
--
http://www.lightlink.com/schissel ICQ#7279016
standard disclaimer
"The day is committed to error and floundering; success and achievement are matters of long range."-Goethe
M-T
<<Of course one example proves nothing. I like the Italian "authentic"
string players such as Fabio Biondi as they are not afraid to "sing" and
do not apply the kinds of overcharged tempi that I can find in so many
other "authentic" performances. These swift tempi are surely an
anachronous imposition from our insane and hectic present age? I think
that our forefathers took it somewhat easier than we do.....>>
I couldn't agree more. The HIP movement has made a lot of insane tampo
choices, especially in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. A few work, but
mostly it just sounds rushed. Ron Goodman's Beethoven and Schumann
cycles are exceptions: he gets everything right, but then he doesn't
really sound like a HIP guy; to my ears, these are reminiscent of the
best cycles of the past. What an irony!
Regards,
mt
M-T
<<you should like health food - soy, tofu, etc - it's good
for you, doesn't cause cancer, heart disease, kidney
disease, zits, or any other terminal malady.
Yeh, but it tastes like s--t!>>
It's the "educational syndrome" combined with the "specialist syndrome",
two tendencies that became real pests. Music is meant to entertain, not
to educate or, horror of horrors, teach history.
Personally, I like to judge each performance, HIP or not, individually.
For example, Malcolm Bilson has convinced me that the fortepiano is a
good vehicle for Mozart's music. But even then, it's because in Bilson I
hear an interesting interpreter. I am sure I would like his Mozart on a
concert grand, too!
Regards,
mt
Simon Roberts
: I couldn't agree more. The HIP movement has made a lot of insane tampo
: choices, especially in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.
It may be true that some HIP musicians choose tempi that seem "insane" to
some ears, but "movements" don't make choices and as it happens, and as
you acknowledge, HIP tempi are all over the map. If you want really
extreme tempi you have to look outside "the HIP movement" to the likes of
Coates and Scherchen (fast) and Celibidache, Scherchen (in some things),
the later Klemperer, Giulini, Knappersbusch et al. (slow). (To some of us
it's very slow tempi that are more likely to seem "insane", for all
that they can be made to work ....)
: mostly it just sounds rushed. Ron Goodman's Beethoven and Schumann
: cycles are exceptions: he gets everything right,
"Everything"? Do you mean only tempi? Surely not phrasing, balances,
accents and the like (in the Beethoven, not all of which, by the way, are
conducted by him).
Simon
Johan van Veen
Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> I really do think, however, that Ms Lamon lapsed, when at the end of her
> statement (and thanks to Andrys for posting her article above), she
> talks about a "Battle of the Bands". Ms Lamon has everything to lose and
> nothing to gain by engaging in such thoughts. Her ensemble is widely
> known internationally, and perhaps she is simply over-reacting to
> Zukerman's comments, which have probably been widely well known for a
> considerable period of time.
I think that the "Battle of the Bands" is indeed nonsense. If the majority of
the audience votes in favour of Tafelmusik, what does that prove? Whether
someone is right or not can't be decided by a majority of votes.
Maybe Ms Lamon hopes to convince Mr Zukerman that he is wrong. Given the
character of his comments I don't think he will ever be convinced that he could
be wrong on anything. It is a waste of time.
Ms Lamon has to learn a lesson some people in newsgroups also need to learn:
people who prove themselves to be morons should be ignored.
--
Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
jvv...@casema.net
ubi deus ibi pax
Johan van Veen
David Grayshan wrote:
>
>
> Of course one example proves nothing. I like the Italian "authentic" string
> players such as Fabio Biondi as they are not afraid to "sing" and do not
> apply the kinds of overcharged tempi that I can find in so many other
> "authentic" performances. These swift tempi are surely an anachronous
> imposition from our insane and hectic present age? I think that our
> forwfathers took it somewhat easier than we do.....
There is every reason to believe that you are wrong on this issue. I think it
was Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach who said that JSB used to play fast movements very
fast.
I think in many modern HIP-recordings fast tempi are too slow and slow tempi too
fast. That way the contrasts which are typical of the baroque period disappear.
The 'andante' is often played too slowly and treated as if it is a kind of slow
movement.
The performances of Musica antiqua Köln and Musica ad Rhenum come most close to
baroque performance habits.
By the way, it is funny that you like Fabio Biondi, who sometimes is accused of
putting virtuosity and speed in place of depth. I also think that his playing
technique is a compromise between 'baroque' and 'modern' - his recordings sound
often strangely 'modern'.
Josh Klein
> Josh Klein (jak...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
> : 2) Bach was extremely interested in developing keyboard technology.
> : It doesn't seem too reidiculous to think that he would have embraced
> : the piano. Why should this not matter at all? Why should a piano
> : performance of Bach be illegitimate?
> No one says this. Pointing out that Bach never wrote for the piano is not
> equivalent to your illegitimate straw man.
Actually, Lamon *did* say, basically, that it doesn't matter what Bach
would have written for, but only what he did write for.
> No has attacked Pinky for his preference. He has been criticized for how
> he stated it, with his insults and ad hominem attacks. He is also being
> criticized for being an arrogant, piggish malcontent.
You obviously dislike Mr. Zukerman. I suppose that's your right, but
you should realize that your intemperate remarks about him don't gain you
any more credibility than his intemperate remarks about HIP.
Alain
Eric Schissel wrote:
> Given that I have this - unfair, I grant you - image of the HIP movement
> as finding more reasons to play those warhorses you complain of rather
> than seek out (and record) new repertoire,
I think the exact opposite: that the greatest achievement of HIP has been the rediscovery of a huge amount of
neglected repertoire and instruments.
Alain
Jan Winter
Schissel) wrote:
>Given that I have this - unfair, I grant you - image of the HIP movement
>as finding more reasons to play those warhorses you complain of rather
>than seek out (and record) new repertoire, it sounds like the pot and the
>kettle are having a nice good fight interest in which I might have little.
>Though I think Tafelmusik has a good discography on the very grounds on
>which I make my unfair and ungrounded complaint, anyway, so consider this
>just another example of me griping... ;)
>-Eric Schissel
This is sharp! :-)
But there is always Stanley Hoogland playing Dussek sonatas on a 1792
Broadwood.
--
Regards, Jan Winter, Amsterdam
(j.wi...@xs4all.nl)
samir ghiocel golescu
I take the liberty of reproducing below two of my favorite past postings
on the HIP topic. The first one, written with inimitable and enjoyable
sarcasm, is Michael Abelson's (whom I wish to read more often...), while
the second was written by Henry Fogel the Wise.
<<<The fashion world has new ideas annually, and the in-crowd and the
papparazzi are _so_ warmed by their own importance. But making an
aesthetic judgment about the "works" so produced involves another set of
values.
We will come to see, I think, that the HIP movement has been a gigantic
make-work project. Back in the depression years, a number of "artistic"
types were assigned to things like film documentaries (Lorentz) and
scores (Virgil Thompson), as well as murals depicting the strength of the
American work ethic. This was all in addition to much work on improving
the infrastructure of the country. The resulting "art" was quaint and
maybe a little uplifting, but basically epehemeral and aesthetically
useless.
If we should ever get to the point that our economy has been Thatcherized
(Thatcherated?) as Great Britain's has been, I suppose a lot of
second-tier musicians will appreciate the extra work. Currently they are
all working in our public schools. Should the demand for HIP spread
(demand? the only demand is by the ones who practice it) then all
those folks currently playing in community orchestras will convert to
"authentic" ensembles where their deficiencies become virtues. That
arthritic wrist will not matter when you don't have to vibrate; and do
you remember that guy whose tone petered out the further he got from the
frog? He's the concertmaster now.
And, best of all, they are non-union and economically viable. Brave New
World.>>>
Michael Abelson
<<< Well put [.....] I don't find the HIP movement
appealing, and while I don't agree with all of the details of Mike
Abelson's post, I would personally be happier without the existence of
this movement. I, of course, don't object to people performing and
hearing music however they wish. That it doesn't appeal to me is
irrelevant. But the adherents of this movement, along with some of the
music critic establishment, have created an atmosphere where "old
fashioned" performances of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, not to mention
Bach, are frowned upon and treated with scorn.
The result is the gradual turning over of earlier music to specialist HIP
orchestras, and the removal of it from general orchestral life.
Take a look, if you can, at orchestra brochures from the 1940s and 50s,
for instance. I have actually done this, for US orchestras. You'll find
that prior to the 1960s, a great deal more baroque music was performed --
the Brandenburgs, the Bach Suites, Handel's Water Music and Fireworks
(yes, in the Harty arrangements), Corelli Concerti Grossi, Vivaldi
Concerti, etc. This was true of major orchestras and major conductors.
The late 1960s saw the beginning of the disappearance of that repertoire
from the "mainstream", and into the specialist groups. By the early 1980s
that was complete. Then started the shrinking of Haydn and Mozart . It
is harder and harder to find conductors (mainstream ones, that is)
willing to do this repertoire in the current climate. And you hear or
read stupid things, like "well, so-and-so hasn't learned anything from the
period performance practice movement, and still does Mozart with heavy
accents and too rich a sonority," or some such crap.
The truth is that while you can try to re-create what we think might have
been the correct authentic, historically informed performance practice,
there is always some speculation involved.
But more importantly, music is always involved in a relationship between
those who perform it and the audience -- and you cannot re-create the
"original audience." Today's audiences have unavoidably heard Mahler,
Bruckner, Stravinsky, car horns, airplane engines, and many other sounds
never dreamed of in 1750. You cannot ignore that important fact --
the sound of an HIP performance to a modern listener does not have the
same effect that the sound of an original performance had to an 18th
century listener. To the 18th century listener, that WAS the most modern
sound -- perhaps even the largest, richest, most varied musical sound he
had experieced to date. You can never re-establish that relationship,
period.
Please don't take this to mean that I think HIP performances shouldn't
exist. But to claim that that is the only way modern listeners should hear
this music is absurd, and many of the adherents of that practice do make
that claim -- or did in its earlier years. In doing so, I believe they
harmed the musical climate far more than they helped it. That is probably
why I reacted so positively to Mike Abelson's post.>>>
Henry Fogel
Simon Roberts
: I take the liberty of reproducing below two of my favorite past postings
: on the HIP topic. The first one, written with inimitable and enjoyable
: sarcasm, is Michael Abelson's (whom I wish to read more often...), while
: the second was written by Henry Fogel the Wise.
Too bad they're both completely wrong, as many of us pointed out at the
time....
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
> Too bad they're both completely wrong, as many of us pointed out at
> the time....
Oh, yes, I remember, you tried your best...
Eric Schissel
>This is sharp! :-)
>But there is always Stanley Hoogland playing Dussek sonatas on a 1792
>Broadwood.
As I said, I recognized I was being unfair :)
(And it's my misfortune that the underrecorded repertoire in which I'm
most interested, of the mid-to-late 19th century, is not helped by the HIP
movement, unless they take an interest say in Ritter's viola alta- just
joking, and yes I know I'm confusing instrument and performance... and I
.also. know that not bloody well much was being done for those composers
before the advent of HIP thought. To respond, not to you, but to Alain-
the essence of my gripelet (unbidden images of Mercedes Lackey "gryphlets"
coming to mind- back! back! ;)) was the point of view of the marketing
director who, from my point of view, .does. look for an excuse, on some
level, to release something that's the same (keep your market) but
different (find a niche), and performing the same works in a different
fashion certainly did that. That the desires of the marketers and the
desires of some HIP practitioners were to that degree congruent is not the
fault of HIP thought or of the better HIP practitioners. I am as happy as
can be that - for instance - CPE Bach's copious keyboard output is finally
getting the outing it deserves, if still not enough of an outing (only one
complete recording, and that not even finished yet? But one is so much
better than none. Maybe I can finally take down my CPE Bach midi page, for
goodness' sake, put up precisely .because. there were no recordings of
most of the works.)
Further thought on the matter... the relative profusion of small labels
(sometimes born from the mitosis of larger ones, sometimes not) offering
performances of older repertoire in historically-informed style, as
against a relative few (Marco Polo/Naxos, cpo to mention the two
best-known, the two Koches of course, Calig/Orfeo/Jecklin/Bayer/...)
releasing recordings of more recent repertoire (often combining them
in a catalog with HIP performances like cpo's Telemann and Naxos'
Charpentier, iirc) .is. a fact requiring explanation on my part if, as I
do, I wish to hold that the profusion of classical-and-earlier arcana (*)
is not a result in and of itself of the HIP movement...
(*) Not, of course, only on the .label. Arcana.
schi...@lightlink.com
Zuckerman's repertoire is quite accurate, he .has. recorded a work by
Per Norgard. That's the most minor of amendments, though (even though
Norgard's music is - in my, hopefully not too complacent opinion - weird.)
-Eric Schissel
Jeff Burton
Jan Winter <j.wi...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:38efce80...@news.xs4all.nl...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:15:59 -0500, samir ghiocel golescu
> <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >I take the liberty of reproducing below two of my favorite past postings
> >on the HIP topic.
>
>
> I don't care about the HIP topic and I don't want to insult anyone
> personally, but both the statements you quote sound like the utterings
> of frightened men.
> There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the use
> of old instruments or carefully build replicae of them, and anyone who
> don't want to listen to them cuts himself off from some enlightening
> experiences, soundwise and musicwise.
I agree completely.
Jeff
Jeff Burton
Stan Szpakowicz <sz...@csi.uottawa.ca> wrote in message
news:8cohtg$bdu$1...@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca...
>
> Alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >Eric Schissel wrote:
> >> Given that I have this - unfair, I grant you - image of the HIP
movement
> >> as finding more reasons to play those warhorses you complain of rather
> >> than seek out (and record) new repertoire,
> >been the rediscovery of a huge amount of neglected repertoire and
instruments.
>
> Lamon's ensemble has a repertoire whose richness far exceeds Zukerman's
> Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Mendelssohn, with a rare spot of Tchaikovsky.
> ....
Yes, of late, the rediscovery of earlier composers has been almost
exclusively by HIP performers. I was tempted to list some here but the list
could go into the hundreds of "world premier" recordings.
Raymond Hall
statement (and thanks to Andrys for posting her article above), she
talks about a "Battle of the Bands". Ms Lamon has everything to lose and
nothing to gain by engaging in such thoughts. Her ensemble is widely
known internationally, and perhaps she is simply over-reacting to
Zukerman's comments, which have probably been widely well known for a
considerable period of time.
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Raymond Hall
> challence.
>
Good bluffing tactics from Ms Lamon - maybe she is a poker player as
well ;-)
Regards,
Ray Hall, Sydney
Simon Roberts
: > Too bad they're both completely wrong, as many of us pointed out at
: > the time....
: Oh, yes, I remember, you tried your best...
Samir's just bored now that Hurwitz has left.
Simon
Stan Szpakowicz
Alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Eric Schissel wrote:
>> Given that I have this - unfair, I grant you - image of the HIP movement
>> as finding more reasons to play those warhorses you complain of rather
>> than seek out (and record) new repertoire,
>I think the exact opposite: that the greatest achievement of HIP has
>been the rediscovery of a huge amount of neglected repertoire and instruments.
My thinking, too! If we apply this point to the "battle of the bands":
Lamon's ensemble has a repertoire whose richness far exceeds Zukerman's
Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Mendelssohn, with a rare spot of Tchaikovsky.
It does not really "win" anything for anyone that the listeners of one
radio station preferred Lamon's Vivaldi to Zukerman's. It does not even
prove anything. But I think some of the posters overreacted. It was a
childish challenge, maybe, but issued in style: as a response to a pouty
Pinchas' little rant. To label Ms. Lamon a moron, as one gracious gent
did today, is to show a certain lack of smiley spirit, to say the least.
Jan Winter
M-T
<<There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the use
of old instruments...>>
I thought you were going to say "strikingly beautiful HIP babes", I
really did! And I got to thinking, and I couldn't come up with *that*
many, in fact I couldn't come up with *any*. I am sure this says
something about something, but I'll leave both somethings to be pondered
upon by the deepsters. Jeremy Cook, Samir, are you there?
Regards, and I've heard this discussion before, somewhere.
mt
Simon Roberts
: Jan Winter:
: <<There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the use
: of old instruments...>>
: I thought you were going to say "strikingly beautiful HIP babes", I
: really did! And I got to thinking, and I couldn't come up with *that*
: many, in fact I couldn't come up with *any*.
Poor MT; another reason to get Magdalena Kozena's (too few) recordings....
Simon
David Grayshan
> (Snip)
>
> There is every reason to believe that you are wrong on this issue. I think it was
> Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach who said that JSB used to play fast movements very fast.
Ah, Johan, no doubt you are able to tell me in absolute terms precisely what this
relativistic statement means? By what standard was CPH judging his dad's tempi?
I always thought that the human pulse might in some way have been used as a way of
setting a tempo in those days. If so this would be a quite different standard from
the one you seem to have in mind when making your point: and the term "fast" would
acquire a different reference-point, would it not?
> I think in many modern HIP-recordings fast tempi are too slow and slow tempi too
> fast. That way the contrasts which are typical of the baroque period disappear.
Forgive me, I am only trying to understand your logical reasoning, not to pick on
you, but; the above statement seems to say one thing, whilst the statement below:
> The 'andante' is often played too slowly and treated as if it is a kind of slow
> movement.
seems to contradict it, at least as I read it. Do you mean it to be a separate
statement?
> The performances of Musica antiqua Köln and Musica ad Rhenum come most close to
> baroque performance habits.
How do you *know* this? You don't, I think. It is logical extrapolation and may be
incorrect.
> By the way, it is funny that you like Fabio Biondi, who sometimes is accused of
> putting virtuosity and speed in place of depth. I also think that his playing
> technique is a compromise between 'baroque' and 'modern' - his recordings sound
> often strangely 'modern'.
I had not read the criticisms to which you refer. He is a virtuoso but then there
were such virtuosi in those days, too.....
> Johan van Veen
> Utrecht (Netherlands)
> jvv...@casema.net
>
> ubi deus ibi pax
David.
Inter caecos regnat Luscus.
Andrys D Basten
Jeff Burton <j-bu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Yes, of late, the rediscovery of earlier composers has been almost
>exclusively by HIP performers. I was tempted to list some here but the list
>could go into the hundreds of "world premier" recordings.
Absolutely, and as for audience 'support' (via purchases and
concert attendance) of early music performances and recordings,
especially of previoiusly 'unknown' 17th and 18th century
composers, there's little question over who would 'win' because
of who is bringing in the $$ today, and that's the HIP brigade
(to keep the flavor of battle) because those who are attracted
to early music TEND to prefer the sound and style of the period
performance forces. This is not the 'crossover' crowd but a
niche crowd.
There'll always the the detractors and those who just don't
cotton to it, but there's little doubt that period-performance
approach is now mainstream for earlier music, while the 'older'
(20th century) style has its strong adherents and always will.
As for the harpsichord vs piano re Bach, I still prefer Bach
on the piano. On the other hand I enjoy it quite a bit on the
harpsichord but the overtones of a harpsichord get to me after
awhile, so it is one of the instruments of early music that
don't always please me (the other one is early trumpets).
- A (a harpsichordist at that)
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Philip Peters
Simon Roberts wrote:
And then of course there is the strikingly beautiful Veronique Gens...
Philip
Andrys D Basten
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>I take the liberty of reproducing below two of my favorite past postings
>sarcasm, is Michael Abelson's (whom I wish to read more often...), while
>the second was written by Henry Fogel the Wise.
Both wishful and backward thinking, much as I respect Henry
otherwise. It just makes me sad to read more than anything else.
I've been at early music with intense interest since 1978. It
is now 22 years later and period-performance approach has only
become mainstream, as evidenced by the way this very newsgroup
has changed in only a few years.
Those who ignore the premises and attractions of the more
recent early music approaches 1980++ do so at their own peril.
They stay ignorant of WHY these approaches are taken and -why-
they attract so many of the people BORN TODAY with airplanes etc
mentioned, all around us, and yet our ears not only adjusted
they warmed to the sound almost immediately. I went from 8
years of being surrounded in symphonic sound which I loved and
still love to instant immersion in period performance, (learning
basics of figuring my own continuo on the fly etc.)
And I now have gone back to symphony chorus WHILE keeping my
intense love for early music played in HIP style. I can enjoy
modern performances of old music but I will not likely love them
the way I do the other style, which is based on things real that
were considered then and have no reason not to be considered
today, in ways of phrasing, in the very different sound of the
instruments for which those composers wrote and which performers
use, etc.
Conductors who don't program early music because they might be
criticized are either cowards and idiots or realize that the
bulk of their own audience hardly cares for early music OR are
those who do care and will tend to want to hear it in the
'newer' style (based on SOLID instructions and techniques taught
in the time those works were heard).
MY ears love those sounds, thank you very much -- the
incredibe argument that we cannot be those audiences ignores
that we are humans above all and that music fills both emotional
and intellectual needs and that these do not change that much in
a few hundred years and that things that pleased people then can
easily please many of us now (and that has already been proved,
so why this old wishful argument?)
><<<The fashion world has new ideas annually, and the in-crowd and the
>papparazzi are _so_ warmed by their own importance.
This actually fits more the kind of people who resisted and
derided the early music movement for the last quarter century and
is best exemplified by Zuckerman.
Henry said:
> But the adherents of this movement, along with some of the
>music critic establishment, have created an atmosphere where "old
>fashioned" performances of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, not to mention
>Bach, are frowned upon and treated with scorn.
And what would it matter if this were actually true of only
the early music crowd that doesn't go to the symphony? What
would it matter with the symphony's own audiences? -- UNLESS that
audience too has come to prefer the other approach?
With the San Francisco Symphony, for the last 20 years during
times I was with the chorus, they hired people to conduct who
were either period-perf conductors OR incredibly effective and
intelligent people like John Nelson who observed and took from
the best of that approach and had both the chorus and orchestra
adjust its playing and singing to pay attention to the way note
values were treated, according to writings/teachings, etc. We
loved it. The audience loved it.
If conductors get only scorn, you want to look at the reasons,
and it's not just because some early music light decided s/he
would say this or that. It's the *audience* that has made the
difference, and this is just a reality. Take into consideration
that many in the symphony audiences don't even relate to early
music so they won't be interested in that programming in any
event.
>willing to do this repertoire in the current climate. And you hear or
>read stupid things, like "well, so-and-so hasn't learned anything from the
>period performance practice movement, and still does Mozart with heavy
>accents and too rich a sonority," or some such crap.
Now Henry sounds like David Hurwitz. Honest emotion is a good
thing to see in forum discussions. But, fortunately, it isn't
"crap" but a perspective every bit as solid and well-based as an
anti-HIP person's view of how anything should be played.
>The truth is that while you can try to re-create what we think might have
>been the correct authentic, historically informed performance practice,
>there is always some speculation involved.
JUST as there is when you play early music as if it were
composed in the late 19th century. In fact, in that case
there's little thinking at all outside of the usual. All music
is treated alike. Now, that's good enough for you, but it is no
longer good enough for the $$ end of the business. This stand
is just as puritananical (we are 'fine' and never intend to
change anything according to what 'those' people might find and
try to tell US) as any from Lamon who reacted to more vicious
nonsense from Zuckerman. There is sa lack of respect shown
there and it will come back at symphony types. Please don't be
surprised and expect it should go only one way as it has done
for the last 20+ years.
>But more importantly, music is always involved in a relationship between
>those who perform it and the audience -- and you cannot re-create the
>"original audience." Today's audiences have unavoidably heard Mahler,
>Bruckner, Stravinsky, car horns, airplane engines, and many other sounds
This is the worst argument of all. I loved Mahler above any
music after Bach and yet I LOVE the sound of early music played
by HIP-groups. Mahler, Bruckner, Stravinsky, car horns,
airplanes, have *nothing* to do with the ability to Love that
sound they make.
>never dreamed of in 1750. You cannot ignore that important fact --
Yet you can ignore that it has not meant a thing to today's
audience, the very audience brought up in the sound atmosphere
you mention. You can't ignore that today's ears have become so
enraptured with those sounds that your conductors have a hard
time programming early music while you blame it on the HIP
leaders. No, it's the audience, who decided early on and in
droves, that they loved this sound and style. This started in
the late 70s and has not let up.
>the sound of an HIP performance to a modern listener does not have the
>same effect that the sound of an original performance had to an 18th
>century listener. To the 18th century listener, that WAS the most modern
> sound -- perhaps even the largest, richest, most varied musical sound he
>had experieced to date. You can never re-establish that relationship,
>period.
And, so? You would then want us to ignore our own reactions to
this sound and try to get back in tune with how your conductors
want to do early music for us? This makes absolutely no sense
at all. No 'relationship' of that type has to be made. This is
wishful thinking beyond belief. It's a done deal. All we had
to do, the bulk of us who enjoy the sound, is just hear it.
>Please don't take this to mean that I think HIP performances shouldn't
>exist. But to claim that that is the only way modern listeners should hear
>this music is absurd, and many of the adherents of that practice do make
>that claim
They're wrong. But where you're wrong is in blaming the
symphony conductor's unwillingness to program early music on
CRITICS when it's the audiences whose ears are, for the most
part (of those who like early music at all) NOT looking for the
symphonic conductors' sound anymore. I still love the symphony
and I will enjoy Beethoven and Brahms with that sound. I still
enjoy Haydn with symphony groups. However, I also love the
other sound and favor it for earlier music. And that's how it
is for most who like early music at all.
-- or did in its earlier years. In doing so, I believe they
>harmed the musical climate far more than they helped it.
What really poisoned it is the heaping disdain and extreme
resistance, for a quarter century, from people who would not go
an inch to see why it is attracting so many listeners who also
retain a love for symphony orchestra music. Zuckerman dares to
say what so many of you really think, and it's palpable and for
me it's a willing ignorance of what it is that makes early music
played this way so beautiful to people living today who don't
feel the way you do.
To constantly hear about 'pitch' problems when they are endemic
with symphony orchestras that carelessly vibrate so as to mask
the problems when early music players today tend to be far more
accurate without constant vibrato, is painful to me. IT was
true in the 60s and early 70s but leading early music players
today are technically very fine.
I'd like to see Zuckerman try to do what Manze can do with
17th C music. From what I've heard from him, it's not going to
happen. There are different approaches and very different
music. It's time to stop the dripping disdain toward early
music musicians before expecting to get much respect back from
them after all these years.
- A
Bob Stringer
>
> [snipped]
>
> Absolutely, and as for audience 'support' (via purchases and
> concert attendance) of early music performances and recordings,
> especially of previoiusly 'unknown' 17th and 18th century
> composers, there's little question over who would 'win' because
> of who is bringing in the $$ today, and that's the HIP brigade
> (to keep the flavor of battle) because those who are attracted
> to early music TEND to prefer the sound and style of the period
> performance forces. This is not the 'crossover' crowd but a
> niche crowd.
> [snipped]
You're probably right on your basic point. However, complicating the
issue are those of us consumers who only reluctantly buy HIP
performances because performances on modern instruments aren't
available. Or, sometimes, I'll buy a HIP performance even though I
already have a modern one, because I want to hear a different
interpretation, and a HIP alternative is all that's available.. In my
case this takes discipline, because except with certain exceptions, I
really don't like the "HIP sound" at all.
Bob Stringer
--
To reply by email, replace "DOODAH.com" with "pacbell.net" in my address
Ryan Hare
: Actually, Lamon *did* say, basically, that it doesn't matter what Bach
: would have written for, but only what he did write for.
That is a gross oversimplification of what she said and, again, she was
*defending* the validity of HIP, not attacking performance on modern
instruments.
: You obviously dislike Mr. Zukerman. I suppose that's your right, but
: you should realize that your intemperate remarks about him don't gain you
: any more credibility than his intemperate remarks about HIP.
Mr. Klein, you can dispute my credibility all you like; I hardly care what
you think of me. In any case, I was reporting what I heard from numerous
sources about Zukerman, many including first hand anecdotes from social
situations. Things like Zukerman abusing a waiter in a restaurant, being
insufferably condescending to anyone not in his priviliged circle, saying
nasty and stupid things about HIP performers in an interview, bullying
concert organizers, being rude to stage hands, etc., etc.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
Peter Paeffgen
> In article <xTUH4.801$Sz2.3...@news.pacbell.net>,
> Jeff Burton <j-bu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, of late, the rediscovery of earlier composers has been almost
> >exclusively by HIP performers. I was tempted to list some here but the list
> >could go into the hundreds of "world premier" recordings.
I'm following this discussion about early instruments and HIP since some time and
only now I dare to send a post into this round of highly informed and belligerent
people.And I do not know whether my opinion has been sent into this NG over and
over again before I began to read it. Anyway.
But did you ever see, how much the HIP performers and researchers changed the
interpretation of baroque and earlier music on the side of the established
conservative musicians? I remember hearing a recording of the "Brandenburgische
Konzerte" in earlier days with the Berlin Philharmonics and Herbert von Karajan.
Today nobody would even think about performing this sort of music with an big
philharmonic orchestra. Someone wrote the other day, that "Musica Antique Köln"
ist the ensemble today to come closest to the ideal of this music and this is my
opinion as well. But this has nothing to do with the fact that Reinhard Goebel
and his folks play the concertos on "authentic" instruments. But through these
instruments and their research into "tempos" articulation etc. they found the
clue to bring this pieces to vibrate and swing. And don't think that people in
Bach's times were far away from sensuality.
The HIP-guy Nikolaus Harnoncourt brought Monteverdi's Orfeo on stage with
everything a baroque opera offered. Pomp and circumstances. Panem et circenses!
And musicians after Goebel or Harnoncourt or Gustav Leonhardt or Frans Brueggen
learnt from them and the world of musical interpretation changed through their
knowledge and experience.
I fully agree that music of earlier times should be put into our time and that it
should be played on modern instruments. But are the orchestras of our times
modern ensembles? Aren't they the sort of orchestras of the postromantic time.
And isn't their way of interpreting a leftover of late 19th century manierism?
Does it make sense to play music of the 18th century on instruments of the 19th
century in the 20th century?
Peter
****************************
Peter Päffgen
Gitarre & Laute, Köln
Aachener Str. 1112a
D-50858 Köln
www.gitarre-und-laute.com
John H
wrote:
If we ignore composers like Veracini and Heinichen and CPE Bach, who
are, more or less, the exclusive property of the HIPsters, to what
music do you refer?
Haydn? Mozart? Handel? Bach? Vivaldi?
Just wondering
John Harkness
Hou Fang-Lin
Fang-lin
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100040...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu...
samir ghiocel golescu
> <<There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the use
> of old instruments...>>
>
> I thought you were going to say "strikingly beautiful HIP babes", I
> really did! And I got to thinking, and I couldn't come up with *that*
> something about something, but I'll leave both somethings to be pondered
> upon by the deepsters. Jeremy Cook, Samir, are you there?
I actually tend to believe Mr. Winter--nothing is perfect, so by digging
enough, probably you could find some worthwhile recs. made on old
instruments. Obviously a good/excellent musician will be able to transmit
his musicianship trough it doesn't matter what medium he chooses. I
heard once a former professor to Univ of IL, Drake, playing Beethoven
splendidly on an old instrument, but then HE WAS ABLE to play
Beethoven as well or better on a modern piano (his was on of the best
opus111 I've heard!)
Where I tend to respectfully disbelieve Mr. Winter is in the use of "a
lot". There couldn't be A LOT, as long as some of the most famous I've
listened to were really AWFUL (saying that, I believe I have enough
similarities in taste with Mr. Winter as to dare assume that he didn't
find strikingly beautiful the same recs. I've found awful.
You, Mr. Taboada, seem to have listened a lot more HIP stuff
than myself and you didn't like any or very few. Therefor, a
productive challenge would be a thread like "THE PREFERRED HIP RECS. OF
THE ANTI[/NON-]HIPSTERS", I am serious. Of course someone that leads a HIP
band or badly hammers a harpsichord will "love" any HIP crap so that is
not of any interest to me. It is preposterous to read that "Mr. Fogel
is wrong" -- as he, the sagacious, wouldn't be AT LEAST as entitled to
his opinion as any of us, even if that opinion were that ALL HIP recs.
suck (which I didn't say he claimed).
With this low IQ-titled "Bergamot sweeps the floor with Zuckermann"
thread, I remembered one of the strongest musical experiences I've
had--the famous video recording of a wondrous young team of musicians,
Perlman--Zuckermann-de Pre-Mehta-Barenboim in Schubert's Quintet--what a
genuine splendor. Silly polls apart [I guarantee you that if the poll had
a different result, the HIP-sters would have yelled "that does not
demonstrate anything"!!!], Zuckermann was, at his best, moved by the
spirit and he can talk whatever he wants about a music-making trend he,
and many others, consider, ON THE AVERAGE at least, a fraud!
What would interest me is to know which (IF any) are the favorite HIP
recs. of Mr. Fogel, Abelson, Maso, Taboada, Klein, Deas, Moses, Gable,
Graysham etc. etc. I would be willing to try some of their suggestions, is
any. I'll start with recommending the later (second???) Haefliger
*Winterreise* cycle, accompanied on fortepiano.
I generally respect (and I followed some of) Mr. Roberts' suggestions but
he obviously likes some HIP recordings I simply detested so I'll "pass
his", in this area only.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> And he won hands down.
B...
samir ghiocel golescu
> B...
I am told that that B -- from "bubbles" -- could be misconstrued so I
came back (-:.
What I meant is WHAT WAS ACTUALLY TO BE WON? Did Mr. Fogel start to love
Herreweghe, Harnoncourt and Co.? He gave up arguing after he was chastised
in all ways. This Lemon-Zuckermann cyber-war induced, it seems, a silly
way of tethering things together. Henry Fogel was "defeated"??? Ha-ha-ha!
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
On 9 Apr 2000, Simon Roberts wrote:
> samir ghiocel golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : > Too bad they're both completely wrong, as many of us pointed out at
> : > the time....
>
> : Oh, yes, I remember, you tried your best...
>
> Samir's just bored now that Hurwitz has left.
Not really, at least until now... (-:
Alain
M-T wrote:
> Jan Winter:
>
> <<There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the use
> of old instruments...>>
>
> I thought you were going to say "strikingly beautiful HIP babes", I
> really did! And I got to thinking, and I couldn't come up with *that*
> many, in fact I couldn't come up with *any*.
Last night I went to see the Coronation of Poppea in Montreal. The two main
singers, Daniel Taylor and Suzy Leblanc, both fit the definition of babes.
And it is a very sexy opera. So much more adult than anything written in the
19th century.The final duet is one of the most beautiful things I've ever
heard.
cheers,
Alain
Bob Stringer
These are a few right off the top of my head. Kozeluh piano sonatas --
I'm not aware of any recordings on a modern grand (except one, if memory
serves, that was thrown in on a three disk set of almost all Rossini),
J.C. Bach piano concerti, Schroeter piano concerti, Dussek sonatas
(available on both, and though I like Staier, I *much* prefer this music
performed on a modern grand -- the fortepiano just sounds too thin to my
modern ears). Also, it seems to especially be the case that
*collections* of 18th century piano music usually aren't on a modern
grand -- I'm thinking of some disks I have which include pieces by Abel,
Cramer, and other less well known types.
I'll admit that my mind's not completely closed to "HIP." For example,
my favorite recording of J.C.'s Sinfonia Concertante in A maj. for
violin and cello is by Collegium Aureum. I've never figured out whether
they're "HIP" or "just "HIP-like," but they seem to have that "scratchy"
HIP sound in the strings, which, for some reason, I think goes well with
this piece. Also, I like Immersel (sp?) playing Clementi sonatas. But
even there, I much much prefer the modern sound (Horowitz and Demidenko,
for example. And by the way, many thanks to those people on r.m.c.r.
who mentioned the latter -- wonderful playing).
If I spent time going through my collection, I'm sure I could come up
with more orchestral pieces. But the piano examples are the most
striking, and so they come to mind most readily.
Stephen McElroy
(Andrys D Basten) wrote:
> As for the harpsichord vs piano re Bach, I still prefer Bach
> on the piano. On the other hand I enjoy it quite a bit on the
> harpsichord but the overtones of a harpsichord get to me after
> awhile, so it is one of the instruments of early music that
> don't always please me (the other one is early trumpets).
Has anyone heard the Bach partitas on clavichord recording recently
reviewed, IIRC, in Fanfare?
Stephen
John H
wrote:
Aaah. So you're looking for "mainstream" performances of pieces that,
with the exceptions of Clementi and Scarlatti, which were never part
of modern mainstream performance. (I'm thinking "Koze-who?" I'm
guessing another Bohemian)
Indeed, if it weren't for HIP, most of these pieces would never be
performed at all.
John Harkness
W. J. McCutcheon
Stephen McElroy <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-0904...@dial-79-13.ots.utexas.edu...
I assume you're referring to Richard Troeger/Lyrichord. (?) I have them and
enjoy them. I can't compare them with others (piano or harpsichord) because
this is the only set I have of the partitas. Re the clavichord ... it's
gentler, more intimate, clearer, less "tinkly" (overtones?) than the
harpsichord. To me, it certainly seems well suited for JSB's partitas.
-- Bill McCutcheon
Jan Winter
<gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Where I tend to respectfully disbelieve Mr. Winter is in the use of "a
>lot". There couldn't be A LOT, as long as some of the most famous I've
>listened to were really AWFUL (saying that, I believe I have enough
>similarities in taste with Mr. Winter as to dare assume that he didn't
>find strikingly beautiful the same recs. I've found awful.
Savall's Eroica?
OK, what's a lot? I don't go for fame and I'm only part-time, so I
suppose there is a lot more I haven't even heard.
But I've prepared a list with 22 recordings from my collection, which
only for a relatively small part is PIR (period instrument recording),
that I find strikingly beautiful. As I'm not designated as contender
in your quest I keep it for myself for the time being, but I wonder
how many of them you know.
In my list is no JS Bach, no vocal music and there are four orchestral
ones.
M-T
HIPsters but that, when I do like a HIP performance, it's for the same
reasons that I like a HUP performance: my musical values and my criteria
for judging a performance are independent of the age of the instruments.
There are quite a few HIP recordings I like: many by Malcolm Bilson
(alone, or with Luca, Bylsma, or with Gardiner's Olde Bande of Musick).
I also like Luca's Bach solo violin music, Bylsma's cello suites (with
some reservations), some of the HIP string quartets such as the
Mosaiques (in *some* of their recordings), the groups that do Baroque
opera, such as McGegan's, many vocal groups -- I am a fan of Italian
madrigals, etc. etc.
I also like Bach, Scarlatti, Soler, etc. on the harpsichord. In the case
of Scarlatti, I have trouble listening to a piano in it.
So, I do not buy any of the hype that is offered ("authenticity",
"hearing the music as the composer would have heard it", and similar
idiotic claims), but I like what I like, regardless of hype.
Regards,
mt
Bob Stringer
>
> Aaah. So you're looking for "mainstream" performances of pieces that,
> with the exceptions of Clementi and Scarlatti, which were never part
> of modern mainstream performance. (I'm thinking "Koze-who?" I'm
> guessing another Bohemian)
It never occurred to me to think of it in terms of "mainstream" or not.
To me, it's a matter of whether the sound is full versus thin (or smooth
versus scratchy). [And yes, Kozeluh was a Bohunk.]
You're responding as though I was arguing that one way of performing a
piece was "better" than the other. I wasn't, and I believe that's
obvious from my choice of words. As is clear from my original post, I
was merely responding to Andrys' specific point that I quoted, and will
now quote again:
"as for audience 'support' (via purchases and concert
attendance) of early music performances and recordings,
especially of previoiusly 'unknown' 17th and 18th
century composers, . . . those who are attracted to
early music TEND to prefer the sound and style of the
period performance forces. This is not the 'crossover'
crowd but a niche crowd."
In response to this assertion I made the point that if a piece by
someone like Kozeluh is available only on a HIP CD, then if I want to
listen to that piece I *have to* buy the HIP CD. That does not
demonstrate that I "TEND to prefer the sound and style of the period
performance forces" or that I'm part of a "niche crowd." That is faulty
reasoning.
I don't think of such things in quantitative terms, but I prefer a
modern sound many, many time more than a HIP sound. When I buy a HIP
performance it's usually (though not always) because I have no choice,
other than not listen to the music at all.
> Indeed, if it weren't for HIP, most of these pieces would never be
> performed at all.
That's my point. There are pieces that simply aren't being performed on
modern instruments, and so consumers with my tastes are not able to
exercise a "vote" by buying such performances. Instead, we're stuck
with what's available -- the HIP performances. That's better than no
performance at all, but it certainly doesn't mean that my purchase of a
HIP performance proves that I really wanted a HIP performance.
samir ghiocel golescu
> OK, what's a lot? I don't go for fame and I'm only part-time, so I
> suppose there is a lot more I haven't even heard.
> But I've prepared a list with 22 recordings from my collection, which
> only for a relatively small part is PIR (period instrument recording),
> that I find strikingly beautiful. As I'm not designated as contender
> in your quest I keep it for myself for the time being, but I wonder
> how many of them you know.
> In my list is no JS Bach, no vocal music and there are four orchestral
> ones.
I thought you understood from the context that you *were* designated as
contender so please produce your list -- I may even find some of the recs.
in the library.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
Thanks for the suggestions--otherwise, I could have signed this posting
myself.
regards,
SG
John H
wrote:
>John H wrote:
But my point was, and we seem to be dancing around something or other
here, is that these composers were NEVER part of the modern repertoire
in the per-HIP era -- it's not as if Andres Staier and Bilson STOLE
Kozeluh or CPE Bach from Kissin and Argerich and Perahia.
It's not nearly the same as say, Haydn and Bach, who seem to have
receded from the modern symphonic repertoire.
John Harkness
Who would love to hear a big orchestra play Bach, even in a
transcription.
schi...@lightlink.com
Diane Andersen on Talent 291032 of Kozeluch piano sonatas on
pianoforte or fortepiano?
-Eric Schissel
samir ghiocel golescu
> John Harkness
> Who would love to hear a big orchestra play Bach, even in a
> transcription.
Of course you would. This Neo-Neo-Neo-Neo-Neo-Protestant idiocy of the
"original instrumentation" being alpha & omega says it all. Bach's unicity
in the Baroque context was also manifest in the strength of the music's
essence to come as well trough a wealth of different instrumental-vocal
incorporations.
I "offered" once a HIP-professing listener a recording of a Bach's Violin
Fugue (the G Minor, if I remember correctly) transcribed for organ. It was
beautiful and, as expectable, with all the rich harmonic implications
existent in nuce only in the violin version at once explicit and
eloquent. "That's a shame"--she said. "Who dared do such a thing to Bach?"
It was Bach himself...
I heard more of Bach's essence in the supposedly "outrageous" (actually
gorgeous orchestral recreations of the Romantic organ's Klangideal)
Stokowski transcriptions than in Herreweghe's badly disfigured --
supposedly "authentic" -- Matthaus Passion. It may be of some consolation
to Mr. Roberts to know that I'd have been as outraged by that rendition
even if a big orchestra would have been involved. The choice of tempi, the
phrasings and the obnubilation of the most important harmonic pillars in
Bach's music would have been the same. An hypothetical Klemperer, reduced
to small(er) forces because of EMI's budget restrictions, would have
brought, I dare say, the same musical spirit as his "grand style" recording.
regards,
SG
Hou Fang-Lin
when to stop. Some S... and co. didn't and it was them who gave me the
impression of a real loser there.
F-L
samir ghiocel golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100040...@ux13.cso.uiuc.edu...
samir ghiocel golescu
> Well, I don't recall Mr. Vogel doing most of the argument there--he knew
> when to stop.
That's Mr. Fogel!
I am not his speaker, but I noticed in time that he says what he has to
say and he doesn't argue endlessly over the matter, as some people with,
it seems, more time (me included) sometimes do.
regards,
SG
Bob Stringer
Leopold. The Anderson performance is on pianoforte. [The other K. I'm
aware of is Leo's cousin, Jan Antonin.]
Bob Stringer
>
> But my point was, and we seem to be dancing around something or other
> here, is that these composers were NEVER part of the modern repertoire
> in the per-HIP era -- it's not as if Andres Staier and Bilson STOLE
> Kozeluh or CPE Bach from Kissin and Argerich and Perahia.
>
> It's not nearly the same as say, Haydn and Bach, who seem to have
> receded from the modern symphonic repertoire.
>
> Who would love to hear a big orchestra play Bach, even in a
> transcription.
You probably right in general. In the case of Kozeluh, though, I can
remember 3 LP's from the '70's, and all of them were on modern
instruments: a set of symphonies, a bassoon concerto (coupled with one
by cousin Jan Antonin), and a piano concerto.
It used to be (or at least it appeared to me) that I could find
compositions of some of the more obscure composers on modern instruments
(usually on a budget label). Now, there are more recordings of those
composers' compositions, but virtually all of the recordings are HIP,
and as a consumer I'm simply stuck with buying those performances if I
want to hear that repertoire at all. [Caveat, again in the case of
Kozeluh -- Chandos does have a disk of his symphonies on modern
instruments. Hooray.]
Bob Stringer
>
> [snipped]
> You may or may not be
> right, up to a point, to blame this situation on HIP, but there's a
> paradox at work: In pre-HIP days this music, for the most part, simply
> wasn't performed at all. It's been revived by HIPsters who remain, for
> whatever reason, the only people who seem interested in playing it.
>
> Simon
Believe me, I'm grateful that they do play it. Although I'm not a fan
of HIP, it's not that I *hate* it. I just happen to like performances
on modern instruments even more.
Bob Stringer
> In article <38F0FEC8...@pacbell.net>,
> Bob Stringer <bob...@DOODAH.com> wrote:
>
> >obvious from my choice of words. As is clear from my original post, I
> >was merely responding to Andrys' specific point that I quoted, and will
> >now quote again:
> >
> > "as for audience 'support' (via purchases and concert
> > attendance) of early music performances and recordings,
> > especially of previoiusly 'unknown' 17th and 18th
> > century composers, . . . those who are attracted to
> > early music TEND to prefer the sound and style of the
> > period performance forces. This is not the 'crossover'
> > crowd but a niche crowd."
> >
> >In response to this assertion I made the point that if a piece by
> >someone like Kozeluh is available only on a HIP CD, then if I want to
> >listen to that piece I *have to* buy the HIP CD. That does not
> >demonstrate that I "TEND to prefer the sound and style of the period
> >performance forces" or that I'm part of a "niche crowd." That is faulty
> >reasoning.
>
> Mine wasn't. I said that "those who are attracted to early
> music TEND to prefer..." meaning that this crowd of people
> tends to --- meaning further that in that large pack, some
> won't. It's just a tendency as a group, but if they DID prefer
> as a group that would be a stronger statement.
Sorry. My last sentence was a poor choice of words, due do the fact that I
thought my original point (that whether it's a correct inference that music
"consumers" prefer HIP performances based on the fact that that's what they
buy, is complicated by the fact that people like me buy HIP only because we
have no choice) was being misconstrued by JH.
> >That's my point. There are pieces that simply aren't
> >being performed on modern instruments, and so consumers with my
> >tastes are not able to exercise a "vote" by buying such
> >performances.
>
> Without vault-digging HIPpos ;) you'd not even have anything
> to vote on. The pieces wouldn't exist on recording, as you more
> or less say.
True for the most part. However, it seems to me -- purely subjective here --
that whereas before the HIP era I occassionally was able to find performances
of obscure late 18th composers on modern instruments, there are fewer such
occassions now. There are more performances of those composers, but virually
all of them are HIP. [Example -- as I mentioned in another post, I'm aware
of several Kozeluh LP's, all on modern instruments. Now that we have HIP,
virtually none of his stuff is on modern instruments -- the Bamert set of
Symphonies on Chandos being the only exception that comes to mind.]
> However, pieces by the mainstream composers that the moderns
> tend to stick to will readily be found on more traditional
> recordings. The main thing is to encourage Zuckerman types to
> explore other composers more, on their own, with their approach
> so you have more of a choice. No one's tieing their hands.
Agree. Don't know that I especially want to hear Zuckerman conducting, but
yes, I really wish that the modern instruments types would quit playing the
same thing over and over again.
> > Instead, we're stuck with what's available --
> the HIP performances.
>
> Only if the traditional guys like Zuckerman are bent on not
> exploring the other composers. With enough of you to buy them,
> why shouldn't they. I'd think there'd be quite a market for
> this should they do it. At least it would seem so from threads
> like this. Not as big a market but one that's probably worth
> giving more attention.
I don't know why they don't. As was the main point of my original point,
there is an audience (at least of one -- myself) for such performances.
> > That's better than no performance at
> >all, but it certainly doesn't mean that my purchase of a >HIP
> >performance proves that I really wanted a HIP performance.
>
> No such thing was said, as explained above. However, if the
> symphony conductors, as Henry said, want to program their usual
> brand of early music composers, it's odd that their own
> audiences wouldn't appreciate it no matter what critics might
> say. Unless something is changing in the basic audience. I
> remember that in the 70s concerts would be opened with a Haydn
> and then they'd go on to the meatier fare.
I frankly don't understand where conductors get their ideas of what their
audiences want to hear. When I lived in Chicago (until '72) I don't think I
*ever* saw Vanhal, Dittersdorf, Kozeluh, Krommer, Stamitz, Vranicky, etc., on
any program. I don't know how a conductor could have any idea of what a
reception such programming would get, because it's never been given the
chance.
As to your last point, I remember a performance by Boulez with the NY Phil in
approx. 1972. Started out with a Haydn London symphony (95?), met with
polite applause (none of the standing ovation stuff that's routine now),
followed by Ives' Three Places in New England. At first there was dead
slience, because people didn't realize the piece had concluded. After that I
distinctly heard an audible "huh?" in unison. And this from a supposedly
sophisticated NY audience. How times have changed. Now they'd be standing
on their seats.
By the way -- OT -- thanks for the stuff you previously posted on SpamCop.
I've started using it, and now almost look forward to receiving spam so I can
report it.
Simon Roberts
: In article <8cpvgl$nmk$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, and...@netcom.com
: (Andrys D Basten) wrote:
: > As for the harpsichord vs piano re Bach, I still prefer Bach
: > on the piano. On the other hand I enjoy it quite a bit on the
: > harpsichord but the overtones of a harpsichord get to me after
: > awhile, so it is one of the instruments of early music that
: > don't always please me (the other one is early trumpets).
: Has anyone heard the Bach partitas on clavichord recording recently
: reviewed, IIRC, in Fanfare?
I don't know whether it was the way it was recorded, or the specific
instrument in question, but I found the sound of the thing so unpleasant
that it was as near impossible for me to judge the musicianship as makes
no difference (though I don't think I heard anything special on that
front); unable to bear the thought of listening to it again to find
out, I ditched it at the first opportunity. I would note that it's priced
as one disc, so if you like clavichords more than I seem to you might want
to find out for yourself -- and report back!
Simon
Simon Roberts
: These are a few right off the top of my head. Kozeluh piano sonatas --
: I'm not aware of any recordings on a modern grand (except one, if memory
: serves, that was thrown in on a three disk set of almost all Rossini),
: J.C. Bach piano concerti, Schroeter piano concerti, Dussek sonatas
: (available on both, and though I like Staier, I *much* prefer this music
: performed on a modern grand -- the fortepiano just sounds too thin to my
: modern ears). Also, it seems to especially be the case that
: *collections* of 18th century piano music usually aren't on a modern
: grand -- I'm thinking of some disks I have which include pieces by Abel,
: Cramer, and other less well known types.
[snip]
Fan though I am of things HIP, and for all that I like the sound of
fortepianos, I sympathize; I would love to hear recordings of even such
relatively familiar music as CPE Bach's sonatas and fantasies (etc.) on a
modern piano, but there's very little to be had (the Naxos disc of CPE
Bach on piano is very disappointing, I think). You may or may not be
Philip Peters
samir ghiocel golescu wrote:
> I'll start with recommending the later (second???) Haefliger
> *Winterreise* cycle, accompanied on fortepiano.
Third.
Philip
>
>
>
>
Andrys D Basten
Bob Stringer <bob...@DOODAH.com> wrote:
>obvious from my choice of words. As is clear from my original post, I
>was merely responding to Andrys' specific point that I quoted, and will
>now quote again:
>
> "as for audience 'support' (via purchases and concert
> attendance) of early music performances and recordings,
> especially of previoiusly 'unknown' 17th and 18th
> century composers, . . . those who are attracted to
> early music TEND to prefer the sound and style of the
> period performance forces. This is not the 'crossover'
> crowd but a niche crowd."
>
>In response to this assertion I made the point that if a piece by
>someone like Kozeluh is available only on a HIP CD, then if I want to
>listen to that piece I *have to* buy the HIP CD. That does not
>demonstrate that I "TEND to prefer the sound and style of the period
>performance forces" or that I'm part of a "niche crowd." That is faulty
>reasoning.
Mine wasn't. I said that "those who are attracted to early
music TEND to prefer..." meaning that this crowd of people
tends to --- meaning further that in that large pack, some
won't. It's just a tendency as a group, but if they DID prefer
as a group that would be a stronger statement.
>That's my point. There are pieces that simply aren't
>being performed on modern instruments, and so consumers with my
>tastes are not able to exercise a "vote" by buying such
>performances.
Without vault-digging HIPpos ;) you'd not even have anything
to vote on. The pieces wouldn't exist on recording, as you more
or less say.
However, pieces by the mainstream composers that the moderns
tend to stick to will readily be found on more traditional
recordings. The main thing is to encourage Zuckerman types to
explore other composers more, on their own, with their approach
so you have more of a choice. No one's tieing their hands.
> Instead, we're stuck with what's available --
the HIP performances.
Only if the traditional guys like Zuckerman are bent on not
exploring the other composers. With enough of you to buy them,
why shouldn't they. I'd think there'd be quite a market for
this should they do it. At least it would seem so from threads
like this. Not as big a market but one that's probably worth
giving more attention.
> That's better than no performance at
>all, but it certainly doesn't mean that my purchase of a >HIP
>performance proves that I really wanted a HIP performance.
No such thing was said, as explained above. However, if the
symphony conductors, as Henry said, want to program their usual
brand of early music composers, it's odd that their own
audiences wouldn't appreciate it no matter what critics might
say. Unless something is changing in the basic audience. I
remember that in the 70s concerts would be opened with a Haydn
and then they'd go on to the meatier fare.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Andrys D Basten
Stephen McElroy <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <8cpvgl$nmk$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, and...@netcom.com
>(Andrys D Basten) wrote:
>
>> As for the harpsichord vs piano re Bach, I still prefer Bach
>> on the piano. On the other hand I enjoy it quite a bit on the
>> harpsichord but the overtones of a harpsichord get to me after
>> awhile, so it is one of the instruments of early music that
>> don't always please me (the other one is early trumpets).
>
>Has anyone heard the Bach partitas on clavichord recording recently
>reviewed, IIRC, in Fanfare?
>
Not here, but I have an old curiosity - an LP by Thurston
Dart, of the French Suites by Bach, played on clavichord. I
wrote on it that it should be played with the volume control
down and the treble up...
It's very sweet, but not something to stir the blood :)
Andrys D Basten
>Samir: My point was not that I have an a priori strong dislike of
>HIPsters but that, when I do like a HIP performance, it's for the same
>reasons that I like a HUP performance: my musical values and my criteria
>for judging a performance are independent of the age of the instruments.
>
>There are quite a few HIP recordings I like: many by Malcolm Bilson
>(alone, or with Luca, Bylsma, or with Gardiner's Olde Bande of Musick).
>I also like Luca's Bach solo violin music, Bylsma's cello suites (with
>some reservations),
I have Luca's on LP. I also have reservations re Bylsma, but it
was mainly centered on pitch. I'm curious what modern players
you enjoy on Bach violin partitas or solo music if you like
Luca, who is rather a severe form of HIP, though I enjoyed his
set quite a bit for a sort of purity, even if the legato was
sometimes a bit lacking, relatively speaking.
>opera, such as McGegan's, many vocal groups -- I am a fan of Italian
McGegan's Philharmonia Baroque and his other band play with a
lot of zest and style. They're from my part of the world.
>madrigals, etc. etc.
Monteverdi and Gesualdo. I do have a preference for less
vibrato in these as the dissonances are delicious but masked by
the more opulent type of vibrato .
>I also like Bach, Scarlatti, Soler, etc. on the harpsichord. In the case
>of Scarlatti, I have trouble listening to a piano in it.
You are more HIP-prone than I. I prefer Bach and even Scarlatti
on a piano... I still have a hard time listening to fortepiano
with orchestra no matter the type of orchestra, though I've
enjoyed Bilson's stylistic touches and his ability to carry the
sound when I heard him in person. However, it's not an
instrument that appeals to me, as the sound just goes dead
before I like it to.
>So, I do not buy any of the hype that is offered ("authenticity",
>"hearing the music as the composer would have heard it", and similar
>idiotic claims), but I like what I like, regardless of hype.
But what you list as liking tends to be rather more like what
the composer would have heard. It's not a necessity but they
explain their choices when confronted by dimwits like Zuckerman
(dimwitted when speaking of early music musicianship).
Andrys D Basten
Alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Last night I went to see the Coronation of Poppea in Montreal. The two main
>singers, Daniel Taylor and Suzy Leblanc, both fit the definition of babes.
>And it is a very sexy opera. So much more adult than anything written in the
>19th century.The final duet is one of the most beautiful things I've ever
>heard.
I agree. And, ironically, this duet was almost surely written by, I
think, Cavalli, rather than Monteverdi. Anyway, by some other Italian.
I enjoy the version on Laser Disc by Harnoncourt who gussies up the
orchestral accompaniment.
Stephen McElroy
(Simon Roberts) wrote:
> : Has anyone heard the Bach partitas on clavichord recording recently
> : reviewed, IIRC, in Fanfare?
>
> I don't know whether it was the way it was recorded, or the specific
> instrument in question, but I found the sound of the thing so unpleasant
> that it was as near impossible for me to judge the musicianship as makes
> no difference (though I don't think I heard anything special on that
> front); unable to bear the thought of listening to it again to find
> out, I ditched it at the first opportunity. I would note that it's priced
> as one disc, so if you like clavichords more than I seem to you might want
> to find out for yourself -- and report back!
There's a thought! Clavichords sound worse when the playback level is too
high, but I've never heard one played, so I have no idea what "too high"
is. The review implied that the instrument in question is relatively
robust, which should solve some of the problem.
The should be "tangy" but not harsh, like the sound of the instrument
Hogwood plays. And OT for this group is the jazz duo of Joe Pass, guitar,
and Oscar Peterson, clavichord: "Summertime" with bebung.
Stephen
Stephen McElroy
McCutcheon" <wj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I assume you're referring to Richard Troeger/Lyrichord. (?) I have them and
> enjoy them. I can't compare them with others (piano or harpsichord) because
> this is the only set I have of the partitas. Re the clavichord ... it's
> gentler, more intimate, clearer, less "tinkly" (overtones?) than the
> harpsichord. To me, it certainly seems well suited for JSB's partitas.
Thanks, that's what I hoped to hear. I'll investigate.
Stephen
Georg Tintner
Stephen McElroy (smc...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: There's a thought! Clavichords sound worse when the playback level is too
: high, but I've never heard one played, so I have no idea what "too high"
: is. The review implied that the instrument in question is relatively
: robust, which should solve some of the problem.
I have played one, and I can report that the instrument is close to
inaudible even when playing it yourself. It is very delicate, the ultimate
"chamber" instrument. In difference to a harpsichord, where strings are
plucked, the clavichord strings are simply struck by little metal hammers;
and as the box itself is small there is little resonating space. The sound
is lovely, but tiny. So it is probably impossible to record it in any
reasonable way, and even more impossible to play it back at what most
people would call a reasonable lsitening level because that is *way* too
loud. With no technical expertise at all I would guess that the recording/
playback would pick up rather nasty metallic sounds and overtones that are
simply not audible when playing or listening to the real thing.
As to being a "robust" instrument, I woudln't have thought so.
Incidentally, in difference to a piano where hitting the key harder gives
a bigger, louder sound, if you do that to a clavichord key you change the
pitch of the note.
Tanya Tintner
M-T
<<So it is probably impossible to record it in any
reasonable way, and even more impossible to play it back at what most
people would call a reasonable lsitening level because that is *way* too
loud.>>
Colin Tilney plays book II of the WTC on a clavichord. The Hyperion
engineer was able to capture the sound quite nicely, although there is a
warning to play the recording at low volume, for the reasons that you
indicate. This is a fascinating recording (for me, the first time I had
heard this lovely instrument).
Regards,
mt
Simon Roberts
: What I meant is WHAT WAS ACTUALLY TO BE WON?
A moderate-size jar of authentic Marmite, of course.
Did Mr. Fogel start to love
: Herreweghe, Harnoncourt and Co.?
Of course not; just stop writing nonsense about it....
Simon
Stephen McElroy
<Clavichord description snipped>
> As to being a "robust" instrument, I woudln't have thought so.
> Incidentally, in difference to a piano where hitting the key harder gives
> a bigger, louder sound, if you do that to a clavichord key you change the
> pitch of the note.
Hence "relatively robust". The review suggested a bigger instrument than
the normal clavichord you describe.
There's also a "tangent piano" on BIS's C. P. E. Bach concerto series
which must be audible enough to balance other instruments.
Thanks for your description. You're quite right about the nasty sounds
that result from raising the volume. Unfortunately, for many pianists,
their only exposure to the clavichord is hearing a recording in a
classroom at volume levels that do not give a favorable impression of the
instrument.
I don't know how loud they are, but I do know they are not loud!
Thanks for your comments,
Stephen
Simon Roberts
: Where I tend to respectfully disbelieve Mr. Winter is in the use of "a
: lot". There couldn't be A LOT,
Of course they're could; it's simply a matter of taste. I think there are
"a lot" (just as I also think -- and often say so around here -- there are
a lot of boring, indifferent and just plain bad ones. You're quite free
to dislike all of them.
: It is preposterous to read that "Mr. Fogel
: is wrong" -- as he, the sagacious, wouldn't be AT LEAST as entitled to
: his opinion as any of us, even if that opinion were that ALL HIP recs.
: suck (which I didn't say he claimed).
No-one (unless my memory is faulty) has complained that his taste is
faulty and, thus, wrong, only his arguments against HIP (and his rather
surprising statement that he wishes it had never existed) are. The two
are, of course, quite different (as in my case: I like what many HIPsters
do but think many of the arguments advanced in its favor are wrong).
: What would interest me is to know which (IF any) are the favorite HIP
: recs. of Mr. Fogel, Abelson, Maso, Taboada, Klein, Deas, Moses, Gable,
: Graysham etc. etc. I would be willing to try some of their suggestions, is
: any. I'll start with recommending the later (second???) Haefliger
: *Winterreise* cycle, accompanied on fortepiano.
: I generally respect (and I followed some of) Mr. Roberts' suggestions but
: he obviously likes some HIP recordings I simply detested so I'll "pass
: his", in this area only.
But why "in this area only"? I don't like HIP peformances because they're
performances that qualify for the label "HIP" but for other reasons.
Surely I like non-HIP performances that you detest too (Toscanini, say).
I should have thought I'm equally unreliable across the board....
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
> But why "in this area only"? I don't like HIP peformances because they're
> performances that qualify for the label "HIP" but for other reasons.
> Surely I like non-HIP performances that you detest too (Toscanini, say).
> I should have thought I'm equally unreliable across the board....
I dislike Toscanini at a entirely different level. I dislike Toscanini as
a strong and genuine personality that clashes with my expectations
regarding the interpretation of the classics. It is a relation of
"amore-odio", if you wish.
I dislike P.H's SMP in the same way I dislike being in the vicinity of the
Emperor Vespasianus ultimate tax-collecting sources. There is a
difference.
regards,
SG
samir ghiocel golescu
> Did Mr. Fogel start to love
> : Herreweghe, Harnoncourt and Co.?
>
> Of course not; just stop writing nonsense about it....
Matter of interpretation: in Illinois we say "just stop answering silly
speculations".
regards,
SG
Matthew Westphal
> M-T (m...@nospam.com) wrote:
>
> : Jan Winter:
>
> : <<There are a lot of strikingly beautiful recordings made with the
use
> : of old instruments...>>
>
> : I thought you were going to say "strikingly beautiful HIP babes", I
> : really did! And I got to thinking, and I couldn't come up with
*that*
> : many, in fact I couldn't come up with *any*.
Simon replied:
>
> Poor MT; another reason to get Magdalena Kozena's (too few)
recordings....
And Rachel Podger's Bach violin sonatas & partitas.
Matthew Westphal
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simon Roberts
: > But why "in this area only"? I don't like HIP peformances because they're
What, exactly, except that A.T. isn't HIP and P.H. is? Is P.H. not a
"genuine personality" because he does HIP or vice versa (or something
else)? Otherwise it seems to me exactly the same: you don't like HIP
because it "clashes with [your] expectations regarding the interpretation
of the classics." Which is fine, of course, but surely not the sort of
stuff of which crusades are made.
Simon
samir ghiocel golescu
> : I dislike Toscanini at a entirely different level. I dislike Toscanini as
> : a strong and genuine personality that clashes with my expectations
> : regarding the interpretation of the classics. It is a relation of
> : "amore-odio", if you wish.
>
> : I dislike P.H's SMP in the same way I dislike being in the vicinity of the
> : Emperor Vespasianus ultimate tax-collecting sources. There is a
> : difference.
>
> What, exactly, except that A.T. isn't HIP and P.H. is? Is P.H. not a
> "genuine personality" because he does HIP or vice versa (or something
> else)? Otherwise it seems to me exactly the same: you don't like HIP
> because it "clashes with [your] expectations regarding the interpretation
> of the classics." Which is fine, of course, but surely not the sort of
> stuff of which crusades are made.
P.H. is not a "genuine personality" (IMO, of course) because he is not a
genuine personality, not because he happened to adopt the HIP flag.
Had he been the life-conductor of BPO, my opinion would have been the
same. The main difference between AT and him, in my universe, is that AT
is someone I dislike, but I recognize as genuine and powerful (at the very
least he was moved by recognizable vital fluids, if in what methinks to be,
at least sometimes, a wrong-headed direction) while the later seems to me
an artificial puppet distorting Bach's musical language beyond
recognition. What is that distortion? Very basically speaking, when
someone conducts a prolonged minor ninth dominant chord on a "tonic organ
point" with the VERY same color of sonority and expression as you do
conduct a major triad I call that "interpretive distortion by omission".
When I hear PH, I start regretting my harsh words on Toscanini or Gould.
Let's leave it at that.
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
: P.H. is not a "genuine personality" (IMO, of course) because he is not a
: genuine personality, not because he happened to adopt the HIP flag.
: Had he been the life-conductor of BPO, my opinion would have been the
: same. The main difference between AT and him, in my universe, is that AT
: is someone I dislike, but I recognize as genuine and powerful (at the very
: least he was moved by recognizable vital fluids, if in what methinks to be,
: at least sometimes, a wrong-headed direction) while the later seems to me
: an artificial puppet distorting Bach's musical language beyond
: recognition. What is that distortion? Very basically speaking, when
: someone conducts a prolonged minor ninth dominant chord on a "tonic organ
: point" with the VERY same color of sonority and expression as you do
: conduct a major triad I call that "interpretive distortion by omission".
: When I hear PH, I start regretting my harsh words on Toscanini or Gould.
: Let's leave it at that.
I.e, P.H. "clashes with [your] expectations regarding the
interpretation of the classics"....
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> What, exactly, except that A.T. isn't HIP and P.H. is? Is P.H. not a
> "genuine personality" because he does HIP or vice versa (or something
> else)? Otherwise it seems to me exactly the same: you don't like HIP
> because it "clashes with [your] expectations regarding the interpretation
> of the classics." Which is fine, of course, but surely not the sort of
> stuff of which crusades are made.
Since when has Samir needed anything but hot air to make a crusade?
Matty
Jan Winter
wrote:
>Dussek sonatas
>(available on both, and though I like Staier, I *much* prefer this music
>performed on a modern grand -- the fortepiano just sounds too thin to my
>modern ears).
I beg to differ on this. Your ears are your ears of course but the
problem as far as I can see it is not that they are 'modern' but that
they are different from mine :-)
If you play a fortepiano to the limit you can elicit from it a
richness of sound comparable to - say - Horowitz's playing a modern
grand to the limit in the "Russian church bells" passages from
Rachmaninov's 2nd piano sonata. But to apply this limits to the ff's
in 18th or early 19th c's (or even later) music distorts it. So, you
have to hold back which, in my ears at least, makes a performance of
this music on a modern grand sounding "thinner" than on a fortepiano
played to the full and much less 'elastic' or 'dynamic'.
Case in point: Dussek's sonatas played by Stanley Hoogland on a 1792
Broadwood (the Rolls Royce among the late 18th c. piano's!) and Rudolf
Firkusny on a modern grand. Both very exciting in performance, but
Hoogland adding a lot in sonoric sensations.
--
Regards, Jan Winter, Amsterdam
(j.wi...@xs4all.nl)
Jan Winter
<gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I thought you understood from the context that you *were* designated as
>contender so please produce your list -- I may even find some of the recs.
>in the library.
In random order:
1. Schola Cantorum Basiliensis: Das Chalumaeu, ein Portrait (lp);
2. American Brass Quintet: Music of the mid-1800's (lp);
3. Colin Tilney, clavichord: Fantasias, JS, CPE, WF Bach, Mozart (lp);
4. Leo Witoszynskyi -gtr, Rosario Marciano -p: Musik der
Biedermeierzeit (lp);
5. Stanley Hoogland -fp: JL Dussek, sonatas (lp);
6. Ulsamer-Collegium: Purcell, Fantasias for viols (lp);
7. Jorg Demus, Paul Badura-Skoda -p 4h: Schubert (lp);
8. Jan Panenka -p: Beethoven, Dussek, Weber (lp);
9. Malcolm Binns, -p: Liszt (lp);
10. Radoslav Kvapil -p: Dvorak (cd);
11. Jan Panenka -p: Liszt (cd)
12. Jos van Immerseel -p: Debussy (cd);
13. Pieter Wispelwey -vcl, Paul Komen -p: Brahms (cd);
14. Christophe Rousset -hps: WF Bach, div (cd);
15. same: WF Bach, 12 polonaises (cd);
16. JE Gardiner, Engl. Baroque Soloist: Gluck, Don Juan (cd);
17. Harnoncourt, CMW: Haydn, symph 6, 7, 8 (cd);
18. Savall, Conc des Nations: Beethoven (cd);
19. Savall, Ton Koopman, Hopk. Smith: Marin Marais (cd);
20. Jos van Immerseel, Anima Eterna: Schubert, symph 9 (cd);
21. Peter Bruns -vcl, Roglit Ishay -p: Fauré (cd);
22. Jacques Ogg -fp: Jiri Benda (cd).
samir ghiocel golescu
> Since when has Samir needed anything but hot air to make a crusade?
>
> Matty
Oh, hello, hoe are you, we missed you!
regards,
SG
Bob Stringer
> I beg to differ on this. Your ears are your ears of course but the
> problem as far as I can see it is not that they are 'modern' but that
> they are different from mine :-)
> If you play a fortepiano to the limit you can elicit from it a
> richness of sound comparable to - say - Horowitz's playing a modern
> grand to the limit in the "Russian church bells" passages from
> Rachmaninov's 2nd piano sonata. But to apply this limits to the ff's
> in 18th or early 19th c's (or even later) music distorts it. So, you
> have to hold back which, in my ears at least, makes a performance of
> this music on a modern grand sounding "thinner" than on a fortepiano
> played to the full and much less 'elastic' or 'dynamic'.
> Case in point: Dussek's sonatas played by Stanley Hoogland on a 1792
> Broadwood (the Rolls Royce among the late 18th c. piano's!) and Rudolf
> Firkusny on a modern grand. Both very exciting in performance, but
> Hoogland adding a lot in sonoric sensations.
Of course, all of our ears are modern, and there are plenty of people who
like HIP. I still think my use of the word is appropriate, though, because a
fortepiano sounds "pre-modern" to me in a way that (I assume) it never could
to an audience hearing a performance for the first time back in 1792. And
maybe "thin" isn't the right word either, but to me a fortepiano has a
"tinkle" that a modern grand does not.
But I am going to keep trying. After all, I'm the only one who loses if I
can't appreciate a certain kind of music. [I draw the line at country
western, though.] I therefore just checked out three different online stores
looking for the Hoogland performance, but none of them listed it. Don't tell
me it's oop -- is it?
Regards,
Margaret Mikulska
> There's a thought! Clavichords sound worse when the playback level is too
> high, but I've never heard one played, so I have no idea what "too high"
> is. The review implied that the instrument in question is relatively
> robust, which should solve some of the problem.
Robust or not, the loudest sounds you can get from a clavichord are what
most would call pianissimo. Clavichord was basically an instrument for
playing alone, i.e., for oneself, not for an audience. I have heard
clavichords on several occasions (live, not only recordings) and I know
that you have to sit right next to the instrument to hear anything. At
best you can have a few people sitting around the instrument. So the
playback level should be really very low. (When you think "that's about
right", I bet it's already too high.)
-Margaret
Matthew Silverstein
I'm well--hoe are you?
:-)
Matty