Beethoven's Nine Symphonies
AndyfromVA
but I'm still no closer to finding out the answer.
I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
purchase for me? I'm interested in versions that are performed well,
are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
inexpensive. The early 1960's Von Karajan version and the George
Szell version are at Amazon. The Norrington, Hanover Band, Hogwood,
Muti and Kegel versions are at Tower.com. All are within my price
range. Would any of these fit my criteria? Is there another version
that would be better?
Thank you for your help.
David Hurwitz
Andyf...@volcanomail.com says...
Blomstedt/Staatskapelle Dresden on Brilliant Classics--the cheapest of the lot
and better than any of those listed above. Also a good value if you can find it
from a European source: Gunter Wand/NDR. If you can't find any of these, then
take Szell before Karajan.
Dave Hurwitz
Jon Bell
AndyfromVA <Andyf...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> [...] I'm interested in versions that are performed well,
>are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
>inexpensive. The early 1960's Von Karajan version and the George
>Szell version are at Amazon. The Norrington, Hanover Band, Hogwood,
>Muti and Kegel versions are at Tower.com.
I'm a Szell fan so I "grew up" on Szell's set. It's a good example of the
brisk, high-energy version of traditional Beethoven style. The main
problem you might have with it is the sound, which is generally OK, but
not state of the art even for its time (late 1950s and early 1960s).
You might consider Klemperer's set, available in an EMI slimline box
together with the piano concertos (with Barenboim as the soloist). Nine
discs for around $50. Doesn't Amazon have it? Surely it's not out of
print yet. It's also from the 1960s, but the sound is very good to my
ears. These performances are definitely in the "broad and majestic" camp.
I bought this set last summer specifically as a contrast to my other
Beethoven sets, most of which are of the "brisk" type. I wasn't sure I'd
like them, but I've enjoyed them a lot.
For what it's worth, my other Beethoven cycles are Maazel and Dohnanyi
(which I got only because I'm a Cleveland Orchestra buff; they're OK but
nothing special), Furtwaengler (an EMI box set, great performances but
very dated mono sound from c. 1950), and Gardiner (a very brisk "original
instruments" set; interesting but I wouldn't make it my only Beethoven
set).
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Margaret Mikulska
>
> I know this has been asked many times and I've read all the threads,
> but I'm still no closer to finding out the answer.
>
> I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
> couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
Get the best set ever: Gardiner on Archiv. The Karajan from 1962/1963
is also very good, but completely different.
-Margaret
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: AndyfromVA wrote:
:> I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
:> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
:> couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
:> good boxed set of the nine symphonies. [...]
:
: Get the best set ever: Gardiner on Archiv. The Karajan from 1962/1963
: is also very good, but completely different.
Be warned that anyone who thinks that any Karajan/Beethoven performance
is "very good" is speaking from a point of view that, while widely shared,
is not at all universal. If you're looking for cheap, I'd opine that you
may not do too badly with the Bruno Walter/Columbia SO set that Berkshire
sells with "minimal" packaging for an acceptably low price. Although, to
be perfectly honest, I'm not a big fan of single sets -- for not too much
more, you can get different conductors' views of different symphonies. And
while one conductor may be "better" in one symphony than another, I don't
think that there's a single set where *every* performance is the "best"
available.
Best of luck and happy listening.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
A. Brain
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:asck41$kou$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <3DE9C2A0...@europe.com>, Margaret Mikulska
<miku...@europe.com> wrote:
> : AndyfromVA wrote:
>
> :> I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
> :> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
> :> couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
> :> good boxed set of the nine symphonies. [...]
> :
> : Get the best set ever: Gardiner on Archiv. The Karajan from 1962/1963
> : is also very good, but completely different.
>
> Be warned that anyone who thinks that any Karajan/Beethoven performance
> is "very good" is speaking from a point of view that, while widely shared,
> is not at all universal. If you're looking for cheap, I'd opine that you
> may not do too badly with the Bruno Walter/Columbia SO set that Berkshire
> sells with "minimal" packaging for an acceptably low price. Although, to
> be perfectly honest, I'm not a big fan of single sets -- for not too much
> more, you can get different conductors' views of different symphonies.
And
> while one conductor may be "better" in one symphony than another, I don't
> think that there's a single set where *every* performance is the "best"
> available.
>
I think one can do better than get a box set, but the cheapest is Zinman's
and it is quite good. As for others, get Bernstein Sony for 1,2, and 3,
Kleiber for 5 and 7 on DGG, Vaenska for 6 and 8 on BBC, or Boehm for 6 on
DGG, and Bernstein for 9 on DGG. I also like the Gardiner set. I also like
Walter on Sony
for 6 and 7 and Bernstein for 6 on Sony.
A. Brain
Ray Hall
news:842fca73.02113...@posting.google.com...
Get Karajan's 63 set. Or Schmidt-Isserstedt/VPO (if available) for a more
spacious view. Avoid Szell (I got bored easily with his Beethoven, rather
robotic, and the sound is not brilliant), and like myself, make intentions
to investigate Gardiner.
And don't forget Walter's 1,2,3,4, 6 on Sony.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, and "Never look at the brass - it only encourages them"
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
Thomas Muething
>Be warned that anyone who thinks that any Karajan/Beethoven performance
>is "very good" is speaking from a point of view that, while widely shared,
>is not at all universal.
>
So, same logic applied, if you don't think that the Karajan set is "very
good" - you are speaking from a point of view that, while not shared by
many, is universal?
As for the original posting:
The 62/63 Karajan set is indeed "very good" (stay clear of his later
cycles, except maybe the 70s 9th), but I agee with David Hurwitz that
the Blomstedt/Staatskapelle is a very fine set (beautifully played and
recorded), and unbeatable value for money.
If you want a HIP (historically informed performance) approach, meaning
one recorded on old instruments, the Gradiner set beats the rest of the
lot (certainly Norrington and Goodman).
Thomas
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
:>Be warned that anyone who thinks that any Karajan/Beethoven performance
:>is "very good" is speaking from a point of view that, while widely shared,
:>is not at all universal.
:>
: So, same logic applied, if you don't think that the Karajan set is "very
: good" - you are speaking from a point of view that, while not shared by
: many, is universal?
Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that there
is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's Beethoven is
equalled or excelled in overall awfulness only by Karajan's Mozart. And
since the original poster expressed a liking for Beethoven's 9th, some of
us think that sending him to von Karajan is little short of sadism.
Larry Rinkel
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:RYkG9.923$bf5.77...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
light, clear textures; but you might not care for his occasional habit of in
troducing ornaments not written in the score (I know I don't). Blomstedt is
certainly an excellent choice that at www.broinc.com will set you back a
whopping $10. For a sampling of other interpretive approaches, I would
suggest Bernstein's 1960's NY Phil. Eroica, Jordi Savall's very different
HIP version of the same work, and (for something completely different, but
well worth hearing despite the poor sound) the 4-CD Furtwaengler set of 6
symphonies and other Beethoven works on Music and Arts.
Simon Roberts
"AndyfromVA" <Andyf...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:842fca73.02113...@posting.google.com...
> but I'm still no closer to finding out the answer.
Nor will you be after reading this thread....
>
> I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
> couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
> good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
> purchase for me? I'm interested in versions that are performed well,
> are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
> inexpensive. The early 1960's Von Karajan version and the George
> Szell version are at Amazon. The Norrington, Hanover Band, Hogwood,
> Muti and Kegel versions are at Tower.com. All are within my price
> range. Would any of these fit my criteria? Is there another version
> that would be better?
Absolutely not the Hanover Band (some of the performances sound like
cautious read-throughs and the sound is consistently overresonant and
often too distant for my taste); if you want period instruments, Hogwood
and Norrington are better, as are Gardiner (but his is more expensive)
and my favorite HIP set, Brueggen's (which isn't expensive but you'll
have to import it). Of the HIP sets Gardiner probably has the best 9th
(though Hogwood's, with its huge orchestra, more immediately recorded,
at times makes more exciting sounds).
As for the rest, I wouldn't bother with Muti or Kegel. Between Szell
and Karajan I would toss a coin; I prefer Karajan at his best to Szell
at his best, but think Szell is preferable to Karajan at less than his
best (with regard to your interest in the 9th, even there it's a
toss-up: I prefer Karajan in i and iii, but Szell is more incisive in
ii, while in the finale Karajan has better soloists - Szell's are
tonally unpleasant and far too closely recorded - but an inferior choir
that's recorded too distantly).
But you can get an even cheaper set - $10 at Berkshire - that's more
consistent overall, and better recorded and played, on Brilliant
Classics, conducted by Blomstedt, a moderately paced, "central" set of
performances that aren't always the most thrilling around, but always at
least good (I don't think Karajan and Szell are) and often quite
exciting (the finale of 7 is magnificent). Given your particular
interest in the 9th, Blomstedt's may well impress you more than the
others you mention, with a particularly good finale, which starts off
with a more effective shriek than most and never lets up (great choir,
too, perhaps Europe's best - miles better, and miles better recorded,
than Karajan's). Also, consider Mackerras's leaner, faster set on
Classics for Pleasure (you may have to import it, but if so I think it's
worth the effort), Bernstein on Sony (one or two misses, and the finale
of 9 is crudely sung, but his performances are often thrilling).
Klemperer's box is cheap and may prove attractive if you like your
Beethoven slow and grand, but the sound in some of them is a trifledim
and you'll need a supplement to his awful studio 9th (such as his much
superior live performance on Testament); at the opposite end of the
interpretative spectrum, also cheap (J&R in NY had it for c. $15 the
last time I was there) and with a few ornaments tossed in for good
measure, I'm very taken with most of Zinman's HIP-influenced set on Arte
Nova; the one big blot in that set is the 9th, which sounds far too
small scale to me (nothing to do with the number of musicians involved).
I'll stop now before I confuse you with more....
Simon
MIFrost
MIFrost
MIFrost
Simon Roberts <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:asd10i$ooa$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> and my favorite HIP set, Brueggen's (which isn't expensive but you'll
> have to import it). >
> Simon
>
>
Bloom
wrote:
Well, as you can see, you're going to get as many responses to your
query as people that respond to it. My recommendation would be the
Szell box set. It was the first I heard, so maybe I'm just
sentimental, but Szell is still the conductor I turn to whenever I
want to hear a Beethoven symphony. And as I recently found out in
another thread, even Wacko Jacko likes Szell's Beethoven! ;-)
-Bloom
Alan Cooper
Berkshire, but here's a slightly oddball suggestion. Get the two Decca
twofers with Monteux conducting ##1-8 (about $30 for the pair), and then
supplement those with one of the incomparable Furtwangler recordings of #9.
AC
Jeremy Dimmick
> consistent overall, and better recorded and played, on Brilliant
> Classics, conducted by Blomstedt, a moderately paced, "central" set of
> performances that aren't always the most thrilling around, but always at
> least good (I don't think Karajan and Szell are) and often quite
> exciting (the finale of 7 is magnificent). Given your particular
> interest in the 9th, Blomstedt's may well impress you more than the
> others you mention, with a particularly good finale, which starts off
> with a more effective shriek than most and never lets up (great choir,
> too, perhaps Europe's best - miles better, and miles better recorded,
> than Karajan's).
Yes, I think for a cheap box set that will then leave you with some budget
to get other, perhaps more "special" recordings later, Blomstedt is a good
choice. Very good Pastoral, I thought; it's a work that suits the
relatively spacious, old-fashioned conception of Beethoven in this cycle.
And there's nothing "budget" about either the orchestral playing from the
Staatskapelle Dresden or the sound quality. But I have to say, I'd been
buying CDs of Beethoven symphonies for a good decade before I bought a box
set - I preferred to get single disks of performances that I'd read had
something special in them, and take my time getting to know them. I only
bought the Blomstedt because it was spectacularly cheap, and I thought I
could give it away to one of my students if I decided it wasn't a keeper.
Haven't decided yet whether my generosity extends so far!
Jeremy
Simon Roberts
>Mind saying where I can get this set?
Kuijper, probably.
Simon
Nicolai P. Zwar
> In article <3DE9ED43...@t-online.de>, Thomas Muething <tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
> : sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
>
> :>Be warned that anyone who thinks that any Karajan/Beethoven performance
> :>is "very good" is speaking from a point of view that, while widely shared,
> :>is not at all universal.
> :>
> : So, same logic applied, if you don't think that the Karajan set is "very
> : good" - you are speaking from a point of view that, while not shared by
> : many, is universal?
>
> Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that there
> is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's Beethoven is
> equalled or excelled in overall awfulness only by Karajan's Mozart. And
> since the original poster expressed a liking for Beethoven's 9th, some of
> us think that sending him to von Karajan is little short of sadism.
If there's any Beethoven set that's "universally acclaimed", that's
beyond all reasonable doubt _the_ best set available, that's the one no
one has any objections to, I'm not familiar with it and would like to
hear the recommendation. But a universal one.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"Billions of dollars have been spent to make these nuclear plants safe.
Fail-safe! The odds against anything going wrong are astronomical, Doctor!"
"I appreciate that, Doctor. But let me ask you: In all your fail-safe
techniques, is there a provision for an attack by killer bees?!"
(From Irvin Allen's "The Swarm")
Paul Goldstein
better than the very fine Blomstedt that others have recommended.
Paul Goldstein
Rodger Whitlock
(AndyfromVA) wrote:
> I'm a classical music novice who loves Beethoven (especially the 9th
> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
> couple of other Beethoven works. I would really like to have one,
> good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
> purchase for me? I'm interested in versions that are performed well,
> are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
> inexpensive. The early 1960's Von Karajan version and the George
> Szell version are at Amazon. The Norrington, Hanover Band, Hogwood,
> Muti and Kegel versions are at Tower.com. All are within my price
> range. Would any of these fit my criteria? Is there another version
> that would be better?
Go ahead, get the Karajan 1962 set for starters, and pay no
attention to its critics. It's widely and readily available and
can be had extremely cheaply if you look around. Check
mymusic.com and hmv.com, both Canadian based; it may be cheaper
from Canada than from Amazon.
The sound is pretty good and the performances are absolutely top
flight. I won't say that this set is "the best" -- no single
recording is "the best" in this repertory -- but you won't be
disappointed. This set makes a good cornerstone for a Beethoven
collection.
Note that I'm no Karajan fanatic, myself. I was exposed to way
too much gush about him in the Gramophone in my formative years
and developed an allergy (as I also did to Klemperer for the same
reason). But this is one recording of his that I would not be
without. Say what you will, Karajan was a very great conductor
and the Berlin Philharmonic a great orchestra under his baton.
For the record, I also have Beethoven sets by Bruno Walter (the
stereo one with the "Columbia Symphony") and George Szell, plus
endless recordings of single Beethoven symphonies.
As a footnote, let me point out that in some sense, it hardly
matters whose Beethoven you buy at the first: it's all
recognizably Beethoven. The subtle nuances of difference from one
recording of, say, Beethoven's fifth symphony to another pale
into insignificance compared to the difference between Beethoven
and nearly any other composer. Indeed, the differences from one
Beethoven symphony to another are far, far greater and far, far
more obvious than the differences from one conductor to another.
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Lucifer
who claim - or sometimes even believe I guess - and they can swear on it - that
they love Classical Music so much, and that they love beautiful things so much.
But the only thing they actually do with their energy all the time, is
to destroy exactly that what they claim that they love so much.
Mr. Scrivener
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poison, Meatslaughters, and surrounded by mythomanian psychopath-parasiteswines.
The perfect formula to a comfortable and healthy life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:ascr2f$r6a$1...@news.iucc.ac.il:
> Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that
> there is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's
> Beethoven is equalled or excelled in overall awfulness only by
> Karajan's Mozart.
*cough*(Karajan's Bach)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:g7oG9.130248$Em.39197857
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> Try this:
>
> http://turing.cs.camosun.bc.ca:8080/Beethoven
>
> MIFrost
If I knew the author's name, I would tell him or her that the Horenstein
has in fact been issued in a much better transfer. And I would box his
ears for dismissing Weingartner/VPO with a mere "interesting"!
allankohrman
great orchestral achievements of the twentieth century.
Allan Kohrman
Newton, MA
Riccardo
I would really like to have one,
> good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
> purchase for me?
Harnoncourt, Hogwood or Norrington.
Greetings,
Riccardo.
Thomas Muething
>Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that there
>is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's Beethoven is
>equalled or excelled in overall awfulness
>
I have indeed rarely, if ever, encountered such militant opposition
against Karajan's Beethoven (I sincerely hope this has nothing to do
with the ".il"). Agreed about the Mozart (and the Bach), though. His
Brahms is also less than convincing.
Thomas
Nicolai P. Zwar
> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:ascr2f$r6a$1...@news.iucc.ac.il:
>
>
>>Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that
>>there is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's
>>Beethoven is equalled or excelled in overall awfulness only by
>>Karajan's Mozart.
>
>
> *cough*(Karajan's Bach)
Karajan's Mozart is, well, uneven. There are a some hits and quite a few
misses. Karajan's Bach is all misses. One wonders why he even bothered
to record Bach.
Bob Harper
32.95 Euros plus shipping. ÿGo to the site and search on Beethoven, then look at
Dutch Master Serites; new titles and special offers (special prices valid as long as stocks last) 2
Bob Harper
Rodger Whitlock
(AndyfromVA) wrote:
> I know this has been asked many times and I've read all the threads,
> but I'm still no closer to finding out the answer.
I'm laughing because so far the replies to this heart-felt pleas
for help predictably don't help at all. There is no consensus,
you see. Betcha you're still as confused as ever. Ah, well, with
time you will make up your own mind and then come back and
astonish us with recommendations of Beethoven recordings we've
never even heard of. <g>
> ...I would really like to have one,
> good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
> purchase for me?...
This suggests a more interesting question for the collective to
consider; namely, of all the complete sets of Beethoven
symphonies, which ones are the indubitable dogs? I seem to recall
some pretty dire music making coming out of Eastern Europe in the
earliest days of Naxos when it was still Enigma-Naxos. Did
Abravanel do a set in Utah? What about the Krips set? And so on?
Tansal Arnas
<tmuethingBUGGE...@t-online.de> wrote:
> If you want a HIP (historically informed performance) approach, meaning
> one recorded on old instruments, the Gradiner set beats the rest of the
> lot (certainly Norrington and Goodman).
Perhaps among those that are easily found in the U.S. However, I think
Bruggen trumps Gardiner in many ways with his set. That said, Gardiner
would be my second choice for HIP. And I rather like Mackerras's set for
non-HIP. Supplements are then necessary here and there. If I were just
starting out, I'd investigate the Blomstedt set for price and
recommendations, but given the ground I've covered (and not mentioned) I
can't justify yet another Beethoven set, even at that price.
Tansal
Simon Roberts
>
>Karajan's Mozart is, well, uneven. There are a some hits and quite a few
>misses. Karajan's Bach is all misses. One wonders why he even bothered
>to record Bach.
Some time in the late 1970s I was rather taken aback to hear Basil Lamb -
he of Mackerras Messiah/EMI edition - of all people recommend Karajan's DG B
Minor Mass ahead of all the competition on BBC Radio 3's comparative
listening show (I forget its name; used to be on Saturdays 9:00 am). The
competition back then was hardly stellar, but still....
Simon
Paul Kintzele
AndyfromVA wrote:
>
> I'm interested in versions that are performed well,
> are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
> inexpensive.
Definitely Blomstedt/Staatskapelle Dresden/Brilliant Classics. There
are, of course, many fine sets out there, and many great recordings that
are not part of any set, but Blomstedt's is not only excellent (a robust
orchestra, great sound, always engaging performances) but also extremely
budget-friendly.
Paul
MIFrost
http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~dbarker/music.html
I'll bet you even have his site bookmarked.
MIFrost
Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92D766735D...@129.250.170.99...
MIFrost
Rodger Whitlock <totototo...@mail.pacificcoast.invalid> wrote in
message >
> Go ahead, get the Karajan 1962 set for starters, and pay no
> attention to its critics. It's widely and readily available and
> can be had extremely cheaply if you look around. Check
> mymusic.com and hmv.com, both Canadian based; it may be cheaper
> from Canada than from Amazon.
It's $18.90 here. Lowest price I've seen:
http://www.mymusic.com/promotions/Classical/default.asp?curr=0&
>
> As a footnote, let me point out that in some sense, it hardly
> matters whose Beethoven you buy at the first: it's all
> recognizably Beethoven. The subtle nuances of difference from one
> recording of, say, Beethoven's fifth symphony to another pale
> into insignificance compared to the difference between Beethoven
> and nearly any other composer. Indeed, the differences from one
> Beethoven symphony to another are far, far greater and far, far
> more obvious than the differences from one conductor to another.
>
I agree to some extent however that presupposes the listener limits
him/herself to any of the first-rank recordings only. Being introduced to
the symphonies through Gardiner, Kegel, Karajan, Blomstedt, Wand, Klemperer,
et. al. will be more than satisfactory regardless of which one is selected.
MIFrost
Paul Goldstein
Some of HvK's Brahms is quite good, e.g. the digital 4th and the Philharmonia
2nd.
Paul Goldstein
Paul Goldstein
totototo...@mail.pacificcoast.invalid says...
No Abravanel LvB AFAIK. The Krips set is excellent of its kind (Central
European - kapellmeisterisch). The parts of the Naxos Drahos set that I heard
were dreadful.
Paul Goldstein
David Hurwitz
his 1963 cycle may be the best overall, there are better performances of
individual works both before and after. For example, he disliked the Sixth and
never did much more than rush through it, but he always offered an excellent
Ninth (aside from his seeming hatred and consequent backward balancing of the
chorus in the finale), and the '77 is superior to the '63. His very last
recording of the Fifth is also better than '63 (more rugged, a touch less
timbraly monochrome).
I also fail to understand the frequent hostility towards Karajan musically, who
was a very great conductor, and which seems to often take the form of vapid
"Yech! Icky-Pooh!" expressions of generalized distaste rather than meaningful
commentary on the performances themselves. I also continue to believe that until
his last decade, Karajan did his best work (on disc especially) in opera, and
there's no question in my mind that his work in this respect raised standards of
quality of execution internationally in music (particularly Puccini and Verdi)
previously often treated shabbily or at best as mere "accompaniment."
Karajan had a fantastic ear for sonority, an amazing ability to make the players
give him what he wanted (the hallmark of any great conductor), a welcome
dedication for most of his career to his Berlin players (until they decided they
were famous enough to do better artistically without him--how wrong that theory
has turned out to be!), and a generally excellent ability to see works "whole"
and project them structurally. His weaknesses, as we all will probably agree,
were also his strengths, depending on the repertoire: an overbearing, "if a
little is nice then tons is better" string-based legato, and a dislike of
counterpoint leading to a consequent supression of inner voices, a blending of
what should be independent wind and brass timbres into a blandly homogenous
lump, total elimination of much percussion save timpani, and a preoccupation
with musical 'surface' at the expense of important bass lines.
This, of course, could be (but wasn't always) a major liability in music of the
classical period (witness his superb Haydn "Paris" Symphonies), or things like
Schumann symphonies which require careful adjustments of string dynamics to
allow important wind parts to be heard at all. On the other hand, he could
remake works such as Prokofiev's Fifth Symphony in his own image, with
revelatory and highly personal results. The great irony here is that he wanted
to be dominant in the standard German repertoire, which was precisely the music
most unsuited to his particular sonic preferences. But even if his effort to
re-imagine this music was only partially successful, there's no question that he
got exactly the sound he wanted and that like Stokowski in this sense, the
performances were remarkably successful at least to that extent. To maintain
otherwise, as to dismiss his real and by no means infrequent successes in this
repertoire (as others here have noted), is simple laziness.
Dave Hurwitz
RX-01
"AndyfromVA" <Andyf...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:842fca73.02113...@posting.google.com...
> I know this has been asked many times and I've read all the threads,
> but I'm still no closer to finding out the answer.
>
> symphony). I have an old cheapo CD of that symphony and CD's of a
> good boxed set of the nine syphonies. What boxed set would be a good
> are readily available, are recorded well, and are relatively
> Szell version are at Amazon. The Norrington, Hanover Band, Hogwood,
> Muti and Kegel versions are at Tower.com. All are within my price
> range. Would any of these fit my criteria? Is there another version
> that would be better?
>
For a budget-priced set my first choice would be Wand on RCA (available from
Europe - in fact Amazon.fr has it very cheaply). Alternatively, Blomstedt on
Brilliant Classics.
However, if you finally decide to go for a full-price set then definitely go
for Barenboim on Teldec. It's simply in a class of its own (and IMO has the
best 9th I've heard)!
RX-01
--
To reply be e-mail, please add the word kons before the number.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:3DEA63BF...@bigfoot.com:
> Matthew B. Tepper schrieb:
>> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:ascr2f$r6a$1...@news.iucc.ac.il:
>>
>>> Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned
>>> that there is a significant number of listeners who feel that
>>> Karajan's Beethoven is equalled or excelled in overall awfulness only
>>> by Karajan's Mozart.
>>
>> *cough*(Karajan's Bach)
>
> Karajan's Mozart is, well, uneven. There are a some hits and quite a
> few misses.
The hits probably include his first _Zauberflöte_; the misses likely
include his second _Zauberflöte_!
> Karajan's Bach is all misses. One wonders why he even bothered
> to record Bach.
Obviously, somebody thought it was a good idea. But who? The conductor,
or his business managers, or his record labels?
Matthew B. Tepper
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> It's Deryk Barker. And here's a link to some more stuff he's written:
>
> http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~dbarker/music.html
>
> I'll bet you even have his site bookmarked.
I thought I did, but evidently I had missed doing so all these years.
> MIFrost
>
> Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns92D766735D...@129.250.170.99...
>> "MIFrost" <sfr...@nycap.rr.com> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:g7oG9.130248$Em.39197857
>> @twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>>
>> > Try this:
>> >
>> > http://turing.cs.camosun.bc.ca:8080/Beethoven
>> >
>> > MIFrost
>>
>> If I knew the author's name, I would tell him or her that the
>> Horenstein has in fact been issued in a much better transfer. And I
>> would box his ears for dismissing Weingartner/VPO with a mere
>> "interesting"!
--
AndyfromVA
After reading all the interesting replies to my post, I decided to get
the Blomstedt, which I ordered from Barnes @ Noble this morning.
Later in the day I was in a shopping mall browsing the Sam Goody's,
where I found a set of the 9 symphonies for $7.99. At that price, I
could hardly pass it up. It's the one by Amadis/Naxos, the Zagreb
Philharmonic conducted by Richard Edlinger. I'm not crazy about it so
far (I've heard 4, 6, 7 and 9) but it will tide me over until
Blomstedt arrives.
Thanks everyone for your help.
Paul Kintzele
AndyfromVA wrote:
>
> After reading all the interesting replies to my post, I decided to get
> the Blomstedt, which I ordered from Barnes @ Noble this morning.
> Later in the day I was in a shopping mall browsing the Sam Goody's,
> where I found a set of the 9 symphonies for $7.99. At that price, I
> could hardly pass it up. It's the one by Amadis/Naxos, the Zagreb
> Philharmonic conducted by Richard Edlinger. I'm not crazy about it so
> far (I've heard 4, 6, 7 and 9) but it will tide me over until
> Blomstedt arrives.
I dare say you will find Blomstedt's cycle far more exhilarating and
enjoyable.
Paul
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
:>Yes. But I felt that the original poster should have been warned that there
:>is a significant number of listeners who feel that Karajan's Beethoven is
:>equalled or excelled in overall awfulness
:>
: I have indeed rarely, if ever, encountered such militant opposition
: against Karajan's Beethoven (I sincerely hope this has nothing to do
: with the ".il").
Actually, Jim Svejda, who has a knack for being right for the wrong reasons,
is, if anything, more militant in his anti-Karajan Beethoven stance.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
VBland309483
>
>>Some of HvK's Brahms is quite good, e.g. the digital 4th and the
>Philharmonia
>>2nd.
>>
>>Paul Goldstein
>>
>So is some of his Beethoven; the problem is that he was inconsistent, and
>while
>his 1963 cycle may be the best overall, there are better performances of
>individual works both before and after. For example, he disliked the Sixth
>and
>never did much more than rush through it,
to be the case with the Philharmonia recording. It's a bit generalized, but
there are qualities of warmth and affection, as well as glorious solo playing.
>but he always offered an excellent
>Ninth (aside from his seeming hatred and consequent backward balancing of the
>chorus in the finale), and the '77 is superior to the '63. His very last
>recording of the Fifth is also better than '63 (more rugged, a touch less
>timbraly monochrome).
>
>I also fail to understand the frequent hostility towards Karajan musically,
>who
>was a very great conductor, and which seems to often take the form of vapid
>"Yech! Icky-Pooh!" expressions of generalized distaste rather than meaningful
>commentary on the performances themselves. I also continue to believe that
>until
>his last decade, Karajan did his best work (on disc especially) in opera, and
>there's no question in my mind that his work in this respect raised standards
>of
>quality of execution internationally in music (particularly Puccini and
>Verdi)
>previously often treated shabbily or at best as mere "accompaniment."
I agree. Many of his symphonic and concerto recordings, especially those for
the Yellow Label, today sound like catalog filler. Could there have been any
other than commercial reasons for him to record the Saint-Saens 3rd symphony or
the first and second symphonies in the complete Mendelssohn set? Is there
evidence that he had anything personal to say about that music, any interest in
it whatever? The man soaked up scores like a sponge, had a phenomenal mind and
a brilliant technique, but at his worst he could be facile and frankly dull.
That is rarely the case with his opera recordings, which are never less than
distinctive and represent quite an impressive body of work. The more I study
them, the more I find to admire.
Victor
A. Brain
"Rodger Whitlock" <totototo...@mail.pacificcoast.invalid> wrote in
> As a footnote, let me point out that in some sense, it hardly
> matters whose Beethoven you buy at the first: it's all
> recognizably Beethoven. The subtle nuances of difference from one
> recording of, say, Beethoven's fifth symphony to another pale
> into insignificance compared to the difference between Beethoven
> and nearly any other composer. Indeed, the differences from one
> Beethoven symphony to another are far, far greater and far, far
> more obvious than the differences from one conductor to another.
This is a refreshing reminder of how much more important it is
to discover new music rather than different performances of the
same music--especially when it comes to "warhorses"
(mainstream works). Put another way, I would urge the novice to
get one of the recommended sets--probably the Blomstedt, as it
is even cheaper than Zinman, and branch out not to more Beethoven
symphony recordings, but to other composers and to other forms, like
chamber music and Lieder.
And I sometimes wonder if the differences in moods, feelings, etc.
one has between and among listening experiences may also factor into the
reaction one has to hearing a given work or recording.
A. Brain
Thomas Wood
David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:48790664.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
His weaknesses, as we all will probably agree,
> were also his strengths, depending on the repertoire: an overbearing, "if
a
> little is nice then tons is better" string-based legato, and a dislike of
> counterpoint leading to a consequent supression of inner voices, a
blending of
> what should be independent wind and brass timbres into a blandly
homogenous
> lump, total elimination of much percussion save timpani, and a
preoccupation
> with musical 'surface' at the expense of important bass lines.
>
That's an excellent synopsis of HvK's weaknesses. But those weakness are
fatal in Beethoven. And frankly, I can't think of much orchestral music
where those qualities could be strengths.
Tom Wood
VBland309483
>>>
>>> *cough*(Karajan's Bach)
>>
>> Karajan's Mozart is, well, uneven. There are a some hits and quite a
>> few misses.
>
>The hits probably include his first _Zauberflöte_; the misses likely
>include his second _Zauberflöte_!
I suppose, but I have a hard time listening to the first one because of the
omission of the dialogue. Knowing what I'm missing, I feel I'm being jerked and
pushed from happening to happening without adequate respite or preparation. In
short, it sounds like a very long highlights disc, albeit highlights of a
performance with some good singing.
I prefer the EMI Cosi to all of the rest of his Mozart opera recordings. I
would go anywhere in the world to hear a performance like that one in the
theater today. For my money, the male trio on that recording has never been
exceeded.
Victor
Your Pal Brian
> This suggests a more interesting question for the collective to
> consider; namely, of all the complete sets of Beethoven
> symphonies, which ones are the indubitable dogs? I seem to recall
> some pretty dire music making coming out of Eastern Europe in the
> earliest days of Naxos when it was still Enigma-Naxos. Did
> Abravanel do a set in Utah? What about the Krips set? And so on?
I find it amusing that Abravenel and Krips came up a priori like this.
Krips is mighty dull. Kapellmeisterisch, as Paul said, but with a
vengeance.
Schmidt-Isserschedt is well recorded and played, and unsurpassed singing in
9. I could see how people would like it, even though I don't.
Kegel is dull too, but every so often he comes up with an interpretive idea
or reveals an inner voice that repays even a veteran's attention. 2, 3,
and 5 were fairly goodish in his set.
Steinberg is another "straightforward" interpreter, with the balance far
too violiny to do the heavy odd numbers justice. (I have it on LP, so this
may have changed.) Still, 2 and 7 have a light, dance-like rhythmic
quality that I really like. 7 is supposed to be the "apotheosis of the
dance" after all, but most recordings sound like dancing rhinos. And the
finally of 2 usually gets quite vulgar, but Steinberg makes it swing, if
swing is the word I'm looking for. 8 is similarly light and airy and
rather nice.
Leinsdorf came up in another thread.
I have an old LP of Beethoven's fifth played by Karl Stein; anyone heard of
him?
Brian
SanV
label, order it at berkshirerecordoutlet.com, it's cheaper still.
On 1 Dec 2002 19:50:11 -0800, Andyf...@volcanomail.com (AndyfromVA)
wrote:
Matthew B. Tepper
news:3DEB7EAE...@iFreedom.com:
> I have an old LP of Beethoven's fifth played by Karl Stein; anyone
> heard of him?
No, but I'll bet you don't have any earlier recording than the one by
Friedrich Kark! ;--)
Matthew B. Tepper
news:g08nuughm56q72ol4...@4ax.com:
> David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef op 1 Dec 2002
> 16:57:44 -0800:
>
>> (...) I also fail to understand the frequent hostility towards Karajan
>> musically, who was a very great conductor, and which seems to often take
>> the form of vapid "Yech! Icky-Pooh!" expressions of generalized distaste
>> rather than meaningful commentary on the performances themselves. (...)
>> (...) I also continue to believe that until his last decade, Karajan did
>> his best work (on disc especially) in opera, and there's no question in
>> my mind that his work in this respect raised standards of quality of
>> execution internationally in music (particularly Puccini and Verdi)
>> previously often treated shabbily or at best as mere "accompaniment."
>> (...)
>
> Hear, hear! I often suspect that a substantial proportion of people who
> express that hostility have not heard (many or most of) his best
> recordings.
I believe that I have, at least during my formative years in the late 1960s
(when I began collecting) through about the mid-1980s (when I began
replacing my CDs, though evidently not quickly enough to satisfy the
cokeheads who have killed the industry). And it is with that knowledge of
Karajan that I have re-evaluated his art and found him less interesting.
Tansal Arnas
>So is some of his Beethoven; the problem is that he was inconsistent, and while
> his 1963 cycle may be the best overall, there are better performances of
> individual works both before and after. For example, he disliked the Sixth and
> never did much more than rush through it, but he always offered an excellent
> Ninth (aside from his seeming hatred and consequent backward balancing of the
> chorus in the finale), and the '77 is superior to the '63. His very last
> recording of the Fifth is also better than '63 (more rugged, a touch less
> timbraly monochrome).
This was an interesting and well-rounded estimation of Karajan's talents, I
think. Also, I agree with you about the '77 Ninth; it is one of my very
favorites. There is in particular one detail that I've never heard anyone
else do quite the same way: the baritone's first entrance comes as an
INTERRUPTION of the second orchestral outburst in the finale. Most
recordings have the baritone wait a good bit until the sound of the outburst
dies out, and one can imagine the baritone clearing his throat and taking a
step forward to begin his "work". Karajan's '77 account brings to this
moment (and others throughout this performance) a wonderful spontaneity.
Tansal
Thomas Muething
>That's an excellent synopsis of HvK's weaknesses. But those weakness are
>fatal in Beethoven.
>
Not really.
>And frankly, I can't think of much orchestral music
>where those qualities could be strengths.
>
Besides the operas, Karajan was also a splendid interpreter of
Silbelius. Unfortunately, he never recorded the full symphony cycle (he
felt that anything short of a masterpiece was beneath him), and his
reading of Shostakovich's 10th is also great.
Incidentally, when he was once asked if he had not been a conductor,
which composer he would have liked to be, he said: Shostakovich.
Thomas
Thomas Muething
>I actively dislike all of the Berlin recordings of it, but I do *not* find that
>to be the case with the Philharmonia recording. It's a bit generalized, but
>there are qualities of warmth and affection, as well as glorious solo playing.
>
OTOH, his Berlin recordings feature glorious ensemble playing (not even
touched by any other conductor who worked with the Philharmonic after
that), while this is not so in his Philharmonia recordings.
>The man soaked up scores like a sponge, had a phenomenal mind and
>a brilliant technique, but at his worst he could be facile and frankly dull.
>
Facile and dull? Never.
Over-polished, glossy. Maybe.
Thomas
Andy Evans
I don't like his Sibelius much though I grudgingly agree it's high voltage
stuff. But Fluffy was by no means good at all opera. I find his Boris a
travesty and a farce. Wagner is another story entirely. At his best he could be
mesmerising, at worst completely unidiomatic, which I think is his worst
failing of all.
.
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> Besides the operas, Karajan was also a splendid interpreter of Silbelius.>>
>
> I don't like his Sibelius much though I grudgingly agree it's high voltage
> stuff. But Fluffy was by no means good at all opera. I find his Boris a
> travesty and a farce. Wagner is another story entirely. At his best he could be
> mesmerising, at worst completely unidiomatic, which I think is his worst
> failing of all.
He was unidiomatic because he was always, no matter what, true to his
very own idiom, no matter whether that approach worked well (e.g.
Wagner, Strauss) or not (e.g. Bach, Haydn).
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"Billions of dollars have been spent to make these nuclear plants safe.
Fail-safe! The odds against anything going wrong are astronomical, Doctor!"
"I appreciate that, Doctor. But let me ask you: In all your fail-safe
techniques, is there a provision for an attack by killer bees?!"
(From Irvin Allen's "The Swarm")
Simon Roberts
>
>He was unidiomatic because he was always, no matter what, true to his
>very own idiom, no matter whether that approach worked well (e.g.
>Wagner, Strauss) or not (e.g. Bach, Haydn).
That, coupled with the distinctiveness of his idiom (the main reason), is
why I admire him. But how many conductors vary[ied] "their idiom" with
the music?
Simon
Andy Evans
Since Karajan's "idiom" was apparently so easily recognised and distinctive, it
surely would not be difficult to find conductors that brought out more of the
score and less of their own desire to shape it. The first name that comes to
mind is Ansermet. I like practically all he recorded, but I wouldn't know how
to describe how he achieved such clarity and 'rightness' in differing
repertoire. His Debussy sounds like Debussy, his Stravinsky like Stravinsky.
Maybe it's a Gallic thing, because I think Boulez and Monteux had the same
clarity of conception without that compulsive need for 'shaping' that Karajan
seems to have had.
Simon Roberts
"Andy Evans" <aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote in message
news:20021205163748...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> But how many conductors vary[ied] "their idiom" with the music? >>
>
> Since Karajan's "idiom" was apparently so easily recognised and
distinctive, it
> surely would not be difficult to find conductors that brought out more
of the
> score and less of their own desire to shape it. The first name that
comes to
> mind is Ansermet. I like practically all he recorded, but I wouldn't
know how
> to describe how he achieved such clarity and 'rightness' in differing
> repertoire. His Debussy sounds like Debussy, his Stravinsky like
Stravinsky.
> Maybe it's a Gallic thing, because I think Boulez and Monteux had the
same
> clarity of conception without that compulsive need for 'shaping' that
Karajan
> seems to have had.
The fact that Karajan's style was distinctive and tended to be applied
in much the same way to all music doesn't mean that other conductors,
with a less obviously distinctive style, varied their styles with the
music they conducted (which is the point I was trying to make).
Marriner and Dohnanyi don't "go all romantic" when conducting "romantic"
music. I think the problem many have with Karajan isn't so much that
his style is distinctive and applied to most of what he conducted but
that they don't like his style.
Simon
Paul Goldstein
aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker says...
>
>But how many conductors vary[ied] "their idiom" with the music? >>
>
>Since Karajan's "idiom" was apparently so easily recognised and distinctive, it
>surely would not be difficult to find conductors that brought out more of the
>score and less of their own desire to shape it. The first name that comes to
>mind is Ansermet. I like practically all he recorded, but I wouldn't know how
>to describe how he achieved such clarity and 'rightness' in differing
>repertoire. His Debussy sounds like Debussy, his Stravinsky like Stravinsky.
But does his Beethoven sound like Beethoven?
(I like Ansermet's Beethoven.)
Paul Goldstein
Andy Evans
Well that's a good question - I don't know the answer because I haven't heard
it. Ansermet may be a special case because he conducted a lot of contemporary
music and knew a number of the composers such as Stravinsky. This doesn't of
itself imply that he would mould his interpretations with reference to the
composer's wishes, though I would have thought he and Monteux did in practice
discuss interpretations to some degree with contemporary composers such as
Stravinsky, and I believe that they had broad approval from such as Stravinsky
(correct me if I'm wrong here). This was not true in the case of Karajan and
Stravinsky as far as I know. So with reference to Simon, I think it's probably
true to say both that Karajan did more 'shaping' of the music to his own idiom,
and as Simon says, that the idiom he used was disliked by some for purely
aesthetic reasons. As a pianist Rachmaninov 'shaped' a lot of his repertoire to
his own creative concepts but in his case he was great enough to inspire a
greater degree of approval. I realise I'm on shaky ground here, since so much
of this is subjective, and a pianist like Horowitz who 'shaped' the music he
played a good deal can be as infuriating to some listeners as he is inspiring
to others (or a mixture of both to the same listener!)
Marc Perman
"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:asolf...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> (I like Ansermet's Beethoven.)
Me too. His Beethoven cycle is one of the best things I've
acquired this year.
Marc Perman
Simon Roberts
"Andy Evans" <aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote in message
> But does his Beethoven sound like Beethoven?
>
>
> Well that's a good question - I don't know the answer because I
haven't heard
> it. Ansermet may be a special case because he conducted a lot of
contemporary
> music and knew a number of the composers such as Stravinsky. This
doesn't of
> itself imply that he would mould his interpretations with reference to
the
> composer's wishes, though I would have thought he and Monteux did in
practice
> discuss interpretations to some degree with contemporary composers
such as
> Stravinsky, and I believe that they had broad approval from such as
Stravinsky
> (correct me if I'm wrong here). This was not true in the case of
Karajan and
> Stravinsky as far as I know. So with reference to Simon, I think it's
probably
> true to say both that Karajan did more 'shaping' of the music to his
own idiom,
> and as Simon says, that the idiom he used was disliked by some for
purely
> aesthetic reasons.
If the criterion is "the composer's wishes," and if we infer the
composer's wishes from the score, then I don't think it's right to say
that Karajan "did more shaping of the music to his own idiom" than other
conductors, is it? (In the case of, say, Beethoven, it could be said
that the playing he got from the BPO is nothing like what Beethoven is
likely to have imagined, let alone heard; but it hardly follows that
Beethoven wouldn't have liked it or would have wished Karajan had done
otherwise.) The distinctive Karajan traits are a matter of sonority,
rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned expressly
in scores at all. True, he's often not what would be regarded as
idiomatic (and in the case of Stravinsky it can plausibly be said that
he didn't do what the composer wanted), but then neither (I would
suggest) are many others whose performances aren't similarly dismissed.
Simon
Brian Cantin
What I have heard of Ansermet's Beethoven I have liked quite
a bit. Where is the Beethoven cycle available?
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
David Hurwitz
>rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned expressly
>in scores at all.>
That, Simon, must be the silliest thing I've every seen you assert.
Dave Hurwitz
Ray Hall
| But how many conductors vary[ied] "their idiom" with the music? >>
|
| Since Karajan's "idiom" was apparently so easily recognised and
distinctive, it
| surely would not be difficult to find conductors that brought out more of
the
| score and less of their own desire to shape it. The first name that comes
to
| mind is Ansermet. I like practically all he recorded, but I wouldn't know
how
| to describe how he achieved such clarity and 'rightness' in differing
| repertoire. His Debussy sounds like Debussy, his Stravinsky like
Stravinsky.
| Maybe it's a Gallic thing, because I think Boulez and Monteux had the same
| clarity of conception without that compulsive need for 'shaping' that
Karajan
| seems to have had.
This is because Ansermet brought out more detail, and in addition was a
Ravel and Stravinsky specialist. In my opinion Karajan was not that good at
illuminating the more contrapuntal aspects (but then neither did he strive
to do so either), and hence wasn't at home with Haydn or Bach, or much of
the classics apart from Mozart. Notably, he gave a few performances as
soloist in a few Mozart piano concertos in Ulm in his early years.
Basically, HvK's penchant was to perceive, as perhaps was "his" idiom, a
more linear and overall view of a passage, and work. Either hate him or not,
his overall vision was one of his finest qualities.
But with the more sweeping passages of Richard Strauss, Sibelius and
Shostakovich, and many operatic scores, (than is the case in classical
period), he came into his own as the conductor myself and others admire. His
concern for opulence of sound was another factor in this also, combined with
a concern for a "streamlined approach". Bachmann, in his book on HvK
discusses this factor in Fluffy's psychological makeup. His 63 Beethoven is
just about ideal according to my ears.
Just listen to his Honegger 2 and 3. No more needs to be said. As for Haydn,
then I am quite content to avoid HvK, perhaps a subtle hint to say my
Fischer/Haydn complete set has arrived pretty quickly from Zweitausendeins
(and a kudo to them for such efficient service and e-mailing). My Christmas
is almost complete, apart from the dastardly bush fires sweeping NSW at
present.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, and "Never look at the brass - it only encourages them"
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> But does his Beethoven sound like Beethoven?
Whose Beethoven does?
Andy Evans
Stravinsky it can plausibly be said that he didn't do what the composer
wanted),>>
That's my main problem with HvK, and why I find his Boris unlistenable and his
Sibelius 'interesting' (and very clever in many ways) but not something I'd
turn to repeatedly. Do you think we can infer from literature on him (none of
which I've read, hence the question) that he prioritised his own idiom DESPITE
the character of the music he played - as others have said, he seems to have
had little sympathy for contrapuntal music and he 'applied' his sonority to
music which, say, required a more detailed approach from individual parts of
the orchestra. Or that his motivation was to bring out the best in the score
(not unlike other conductors, surely) and he just didn't 'get' some composers
(again, other conductors have similar failings). I think we can use an
either-or to some extent because some performers study the intentions of the
composer in some detail (isn't that what Early Music is about?) and others -
I'm notably thinking of pianists - make cuts, add octaves and even 're-arrange'
works (my Feinberg Partita 1 has added octaves - it wasn't just romantic
composers).
but then neither (I would suggest) are many others whose performances aren't
similarly dismissed.>>
Could it be that his style - maybe partly his 'grand gesture' which dramatised
music that (in the case of Stravinsky and I'd also say Sibelius and Mussorgsky)
sounded better with a more detailed analytic approach, is no longer very
fashionable? Could it be that drama is better in the concert hall, as people
have said of Liszt, than with repeated listening on CDs? I would have thought
that a more detailed analytical approach (e.g. Dutoit) would survive repeated
listening (more details to attract attention, less of a one-trick-pony effect)
more than a 'grand gesture'. This is how I react to his Sibelius. Interesting
to hear once. I regret not seeing him in concert - I'm sure this is the arena
where he excelled.
Simon Roberts
Surely not. How many scores tell you how to shape all phrases, what
sonority to get from the orchestra (by which I don't mean which
instruments are playing but matters of attack, vibrato, balance, etc.),
precisely how to inflect rhythm? More recent scores do some of that,
older ones none of it. Or do you mean that you don't think there's
anything distinctive about Karajan's sonority, phrasing and rhythms?
Simon
Robert Briggs
> David Hurwitz wrote:
> > Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > The distinctive Karajan traits are a matter of sonority,
> > > rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned
> > > expressly in scores at all.
> >
> > That, Simon, must be the silliest thing I've every seen you assert.
>
> Surely not. How many scores tell you how to shape all phrases,
> what sonority to get from the orchestra (by which I don't mean
> which instruments are playing but matters of attack, vibrato,
> balance, etc.), precisely how to inflect rhythm?
Ah!
What you wrote was that such things "don't get mentioned expressly in
scores at all."
Now, had you left off the "at all" and simply claimed that many of the
*details* of these things are missing from the scores ...
LastRedLeafFalls
Wasn't that implied via the modifier "expressly"? "Express" in that context
means "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated; exact, precise." I took the
point, particularly with regard to sonority and phrasing (less so, but
nevertheless, with regard to rhythm)...enough to be a bit surprised at the
astringency of Hurwitz's rebuke.
TK
Robert Briggs
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > > Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The distinctive Karajan traits are a matter of sonority,
> > > > > rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned
> > > > > expressly in scores at all.
> > Now, had you left off the "at all" and simply claimed that many of the
> > *details* of these things are missing from the scores ...
>
> Wasn't that implied via the modifier "expressly"? "Express" in that context
> means "directly, firmly, and explicitly stated; exact, precise."
Hmm ... my Concise Oxford gives "definitely stated, not merely implied"
as the relevant meaning of "express", so I'd expect to see some ink on
paper for anything that *is* "mentioned expressly in scores".
All the aspects that Simon lists *are* represented, to *some extent* at
least, by the ink marks. Consequently, it seems bizarre to suggest that
they "don't get mentioned ... at all".
I stand by my belief that Simon's *words* constitute an assertion that
the aspects listed are *totally absent* from scores.
Such an assertion is, of course, incorrect, and may induce some readers
to study the text, thinking, "Now, what does he *really* mean?" Such
readers may come up with something along the lines of Simon's
clarification, but it just isn't there in the original text.
Rodger Whitlock
<sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
> ...The distinctive Karajan traits are a matter of sonority,
> rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned expressly
> in scores at all.
Can we re-write that as "...a matter of ~a~ ~particular~
sonority, rhythm, and phrasing..."? Note the emphasis.
I was just listening the other day to "Beecham in Rehearsal" and
make no mistake, Beecham didn't just get up in front of his men
and wave the baton hither and thither. He had a very clear idea
of the sonority, rhythm, and phrasing *he* wanted, and went to
considerable lengths to achieve it. Aren't there legendary
stories of Sir Thomas burning a lot of midnight oil marking up
the orchestral parts with accents?
I doubt any great conductor is any less concerned with these
matters than K-Fluffy & B-Sir-Tom
Perhaps, though, we can fault K-Fluffy, not so much for having a
rather single-minded preference for a *particular* sonority,
rhythm, and phrasing as for applying this willy-nilly to all
music he conducted. It worked very well in some music and not
very well in other music, and just so-so in yet other music.
In contrast, other (dare I say greater?) conductors varied their
concepts of sonority, rhythm, and phrasing to suit the music at
hand. Perhaps in B-Sir-Tom's case, one could argue as strongly
for particular preferences in s, r, and p as strong as
K-Fluffy's, but if so Beecham had the good sense and taste to
stay away from music for which his concept was inappropriate.
> True, he's often not what would be regarded as
> idiomatic (and in the case of Stravinsky it can plausibly be said that
> he didn't do what the composer wanted), but then neither (I would
> suggest) are many others whose performances aren't similarly dismissed.
Of course, there's the fundamental issue that no composer fully
understands the potential of what he has written. Even Mahler,
who had a masterly grasp of the conductor's art and (from what I
have read) was very explicit in his score markings, only had his
own conception of his music; it will bear up quite well under
other conceptions by other conductors.
It's rather like the composer is really just a channel by which
some platonic ideal composition is captured in approximate terms
on the score's pages. Conductors attempt to recreate the platonic
ideal sketched (or suggested) by the score, but each has a
different concept of that unrealizable entity.
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
David Hurwitz
>
>
>"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:49148581.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> The distinctive Karajan traits are a matter of sonority,
>> >rhythm, phrasing, the sort of thing that don't get mentioned
>expressly
>> >in scores at all.>
>>
>> That, Simon, must be the silliest thing I've every seen you assert.
>
>Surely not. How many scores tell you how to shape all phrases, what
>sonority to get from the orchestra (by which I don't mean which
>instruments are playing but matters of attack, vibrato, balance, etc.),
>precisely how to inflect rhythm?
Well now, Simon, that isn't quite what you originally wrote, is it? Coming from
someone who is often the first to pounce on such imprecision of language in the
postings of others, I'm surprised at you.
Of course, you've only expanded your original, pithy nonsense into a slightly
longer, more qualified but equally nonsensical statement (really Simon, "ALL
phrases?" "...PRECISELY how to inflect rhythm?"). I'd quit now if I were you.
Dave
Simon Roberts
>
> Of course, you've only expanded your original, pithy nonsense into a
slightly
> longer, more qualified but equally nonsensical statement (really
Simon, "ALL
> phrases?" "...PRECISELY how to inflect rhythm?"). I'd quit now if I
were you.
Where does Beethoven, say, tell a performer precisely how to shape a
phrase (in the sense of telling the performer what to do at every stage
of executing the phrase), precisely how to inflect rhythms, precisely
what colours to make? He doesn't.
Simon
David Hurwitz
>Such an assertion is, of course, incorrect, and may induce some readers
>to study the text, thinking, "Now, what does he *really* mean?" Such
>readers may come up with something along the lines of Simon's
>clarification, but it just isn't there in the original text.
Nor is Simon's "clarification" much better, as it merely takes his original
incorrect assertion and replaces it with a truism (i.e. not all details of
phrasing, sonority, and rhythm are present in all scores).
In fact, the entire basis for BOTH assertions is specious, because in reality we
do not recognize the uniqueness of Karajan's interpretations (or anyone's, for
that matter) because they deviate from or otherwise "inflect" the printed text
(we may take it as given that all interpretations do that), but rather because
we have in mind a certain standard, or norm, for how that text should sound
based on knowledge gleaned over time of other performances of the same music
that do NOT sound like Karajan's.
So the score is pretty much irrelevant in this context; our perception of
"uniqueness" is not a function of what the score says, but rather depends on
what performers actually DO. In some cases, differences may result from an
extremely literal adherence to the printed text, while other cases may entail a
departure from it. No blanket generalization is possible, nor does it matter.
As evidence for this, consider the fact that most here recognize that Karajan
has his own "sound" without ever having to open a score to determine whether or
not that sound results from an idiomatic understanding and faithful rendering of
each and every detail of the composer's writen text. Nor, to return to Simon's
framing of the issue, is it necessary to ascertain (or otherwise take any
position at all) regarding the degree to which these details may or may not
exist in the score, in order to be able to hear and understand the extent to
which Karajan's personal take on the work in question displays elements not
found elsewhere.
Dave Hurwitz
Simon Roberts
>
> Nor is Simon's "clarification" much better, as it merely takes his
original
> incorrect assertion and replaces it with a truism (i.e. not all
details of
> phrasing, sonority, and rhythm are present in all scores).
>
> In fact, the entire basis for BOTH assertions is specious, because in
reality we
> do not recognize the uniqueness of Karajan's interpretations (or
anyone's, for
> that matter) because they deviate from or otherwise "inflect" the
printed text
> (we may take it as given that all interpretations do that),
Exactly right, which is the point I was trying to make. The comments I
was responding to were to the effect that Karajan was interested in
being Karajan rather than faithful to the score. What I thought I was
saying, but perhaps was not, is that what Karajan does distinctively is
not deviate from the score more than others but fill in the blanks and
interpret what the score says differently. I thought I was saying that
the Karajan sound that so many dislike can't be criticized on grounds of
infidelity to the text.
but rather because
> we have in mind a certain standard, or norm, for how that text should
sound
> based on knowledge gleaned over time of other performances of the same
music
> that do NOT sound like Karajan's.
Quite so.
[snip]
> As evidence for this, consider the fact that most here recognize that
Karajan
> has his own "sound" without ever having to open a score to determine
whether or
> not that sound results from an idiomatic understanding and faithful
rendering of
> each and every detail of the composer's writen text. Nor, to return to
Simon's
> framing of the issue, is it necessary to ascertain (or otherwise take
any
> position at all) regarding the degree to which these details may or
may not
> exist in the score, in order to be able to hear and understand the
extent to
> which Karajan's personal take on the work in question displays
elements not
> found elsewhere.
Again, I quite agree. But I was responding to a different point, the
contention that Karajan's style wasn't merely unique but unfaithful to
the composer, "unidiomatic" etc.
Simon
David Hurwitz
As I say elsewhere, Simon, this is a truism: all performance involved
interpretation. However, this does not mean that scores are silent on the
subject of rhythm, sonority, and phrasing as you originally maintained, nor does
it mean that what make's Karajan unique is the extent to which he addresses
issues NOT contained in scores. What you believe Beethoven does or does not say
in his scores is your problem. Believe whatever your like.
Dave
David Hurwitz
>
>Exactly right, which is the point I was trying to make. The comments I
>was responding to were to the effect that Karajan was interested in
>being Karajan rather than faithful to the score. What I thought I was
>saying, but perhaps was not, is that what Karajan does distinctively is
>not deviate from the score more than others but fill in the blanks and
>interpret what the score says differently. I thought I was saying that
>the Karajan sound that so many dislike can't be criticized on grounds of
>infidelity to the text.
Well, if that's the case then I agree with you--both as regard Karajan and also
as regards the fact that you didn't say what you thought you said.
Again, I agree also. I'm glad.
Dave
Andy Evans
his own, I should maybe come in here and say that I still, having read all the
preceding arguments, find Karajan 'unidiomatic'. I don't think it's fanciful to
say that some interpretations are recognisably more idiomatic than others - in
the case of Chopin I'd be surprised if anyone maintained that Glenn Gould was
not less idiomatic than Artur Rubinstein, and I can think of quite a few other
examples, starting with how a Viennese orchestra plays a Strauss waltz. And as
I said earlier, isn't the Early Music movement essentially an attempt to be
more idiomatic? If you agree that 'idiomatic' is a valid term in music
criticism (maybe you don't, it's certainly one of the least tangible qualities
to define, and I regularly get into differences of opinion on this newsgroup
for referring to it), isn't it a relatively small step to say that Karajan's
Stravinsky and his Boris Godunov is a lot less idiomatic than performances by
Stravinsky himself and such as Ansermet and Monteux who were deeply immersed in
that particular culture, and in the case of Boris, conductors like
Melik-Pashaev in the Russian operatic tradition?
David Hurwitz
>criticism (maybe you don't, it's certainly one of the least tangible qualities
>to define, and I regularly get into differences of opinion on this newsgroup
>for referring to it), isn't it a relatively small step to say that Karajan's
>Stravinsky and his Boris Godunov is a lot less idiomatic than performances by
>Stravinsky himself and such as Ansermet and Monteux who were deeply immersed in
>that particular culture, and in the case of Boris, conductors like
>Melik-Pashaev in the Russian operatic tradition?
A few perhaps obvious observations:
It's pointless to call something "unidiomatic" without specifying WHICH idiom
you refer to. For example, I don't think you can maintain that Karajan was
"unidiomatic" in Richard Strauss, Wagner, Shostakovich, the Second Viennese
School, Tchaikovsky, and many other composers from Honegger to Verdi, Puccini,
Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Sibelius and Brahms. You may dislike his interpretations,
but to lump together everything you don't like and simply call it "unidiomatic"
is pretty meaningless and really a misuse (or "undiomatic!") use of the term.
As regards Stravinsky, yes, HvK was unidiomatic, but then the question arises if
this is a bad thing or not. Karajan's Prokofiev 5th is one of his greatest
performances, and one of the greatest recordings of the piece, largely by virtue
of it's being "unidiomatic." After all, some works depend more on "idiom" to
make their points (Strauss Waltzes, for example, which Karajan also did very
well and quite idiomatically) while others tolerate a wide range of approaches
(Mahler symphonies, which are themselves "mixed" in idiom). There is also also a
very fine line between that which is "idiomatic" and simple laziness or lack of
ideas: Mahler's dictum that "Tradition is slovenliness." I would also take care
in claiming to be a judge of what constitutes "idiomatic" interpretation and
what does not, particularly over the huge range of music that Karajan conducted.
Anyone with such a Catholic repertoire is bound to have hits and misses.
Take your Boris example: Karajan's is a very fine performance (with great
singers, let us not forget, even though in this forum it's common to ignore the
fact that in opera the conductor (even one with as strong a personality as
Karjan) is at most first among equals--anyway, it's important to remember that
Karajan's performance is itself based on Rimsky-Korsakov's "unidiomatic"
rescoring of the opera. So at another level, you might just as well say that
even the "idiomatic" versions coming from the Bolshoi do scant justice to
Mussorgsky's true "idiom", and to the extent that Karajan's is the most purely
beautiful and refined performance orchestrally it's certainly an "idiomatic"
realization of the aesthetic stance of Rimsky-Korsakov's edition vis-a-vis the
original. If you told Galina Vishnevskaya, for example, (who certainly ought to
know) that Karajan's performance was "unidiomatic," she would bite your head
off.
In other words, I think the term "unidiomatic" should be reserved for those
instances where it's clear (and these are very few and far between) that the
conductor truly misunderstands what the composer was up and doesn't know what to
do about it. Karajan misunderstood very little; where he is "unidiomatic" he's
almost always deliberately so and acting with a full awareness of what the
composer intended, and so in his case I see rather a clash of "idioms", where on
occasion his own personal idiom trumps the composer's (sometimes wonderfully so,
and other times not). So while you are perfectly free to describe Karajan
however you wish, I don't think it will advance the dialog to persist in using
such "unidiomatic" terminology--this is, actually, exactly what you claim
Karajan is doing!
Dave
Simon Roberts
"Andy Evans" <aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker> wrote in message
> Since Simon was initially disagreeing with me rather than stating a
point of
> his own, I should maybe come in here and say that I still, having read
all the
> preceding arguments, find Karajan 'unidiomatic'.
Always, in everything and to the same degree?
I don't think it's fanciful to
> say that some interpretations are recognisably more idiomatic than
others - in
> the case of Chopin I'd be surprised if anyone maintained that Glenn
Gould was
> not less idiomatic than Artur Rubinstein,
Well, yes, but I don't think Gould, a professed iconoclast with express
scepticism of this music and whose recorded performance of sonata 3 was
deliberately weird (I've read that he sometimes performed the piece
privately in a fairly standard, "idiomatic" way), is a useful example
to explain what "idiomatic" means.
But then what does it mean? Faithful to the composer, to the score, or
to a tradition, or to someone's specific ideas about how the music
should go, or...? I'm reminded of Richard Osborne's review in
Gramophone of the LP of Fischer-Dieskau's Czech P.O. recording of Brahms
4 on Supraphon (a favorite performance of many of us, not that that
matters). He was not taken with it, partly because of the unidiomatic
sound of the orchestra; his model for "authentic" Brahmsian orchestral
sonority was, if memory serves, the BPO under Furtwaengler and Karajan.
I can understand readily enough how someone might prefer that sound, but
why is *that* sound idiomatic? Given what we know about differences in
orchestral size and playing style and orchestral sound (not to mention
Brahms' preference for valveless horns), it seems odd to dismiss the
Czech Philharmonic's sound c. 1976 as wrong; it may be closer to what
Brahms expected than Karajan's BPO. (I don't think Osborne just meant
that he thought the sound of the BPO suited the music, as he understands
it, better.)
and I can think of quite a few other
> examples, starting with how a Viennese orchestra plays a Strauss
waltz. And as
> I said earlier, isn't the Early Music movement essentially an attempt
to be
> more idiomatic?
That's one way to put it, though I don't think it would be very helpful
if that's the only description one offered of "HIP."
If you agree that 'idiomatic' is a valid term in music
> criticism (maybe you don't, it's certainly one of the least tangible
qualities
> to define, and I regularly get into differences of opinion on this
newsgroup
> for referring to it),
Well, it's certainly useful shorthand when one can't be bothered to be
more precise (I'm often "guilty," using it re the soloists in Giulini's
and Fricsay's first recordings of Verdi's Requiem, say) and expects the
reader/listener to know more-or-less what one means.
isn't it a relatively small step to say that Karajan's
> Stravinsky and his Boris Godunov is a lot less idiomatic than
performances by
> Stravinsky himself and such as Ansermet and Monteux who were deeply
immersed in
> that particular culture, and in the case of Boris, conductors like
> Melik-Pashaev in the Russian operatic tradition?
Sure, you can say it; and we might even know what you mean (I think I
know what you mean even though the repertoire you refer to is largely
foreign to me). But as someone interested in your opinions of the
recordings in question, I would prefer it if you explained what it is
about Karajan's (or whosever) recordings of this music that make it
unidiomatic and why you think they're bad. (Or should we take it you
think all idiomatic performances bad or worthy of censure (or however
you want to put it) per se? If you do, I don't agree, though I suppose
enthusiasm for such performances should come with a warning.)
Simon
Andy Evans
It's pointless to call something unidiomatic" without specifying WHICH idiom
you refer to. For example, I don't think you can maintain that Karajan was
No - I never said he was unidiomatic in everything - I like his interpretations
of the composers you mention a lot, with the exception of Sibelius which I
admire but don't find suits my idea of how the music should be played.
As regards Stravinsky, yes, HvK was unidiomatic, but then the question arises
if
this is a bad thing or not.>>
I agree completely - for instance I love Rachmaninov's arrangement of Bach's
Prelude from Partita 3, which is about as 'unidiomatic' as you could get. In
this respect I agree with Simon that ultimately you like the interpretation or
you don't. Nevertheless, I don't like his Boris because not only is it
unidiomatic (to me), but it adds absolutely nothing of value (to my ears -
others seem to like it) which might redeem it from simply sounding very out of
touch with the 'sense' of the musical argument (as I hear it). In the
Rachmaninov above, he 'recomposes' the original, if you like, and there is
cogency, sense and beauty in the way he does it.
Karajan's Prokofiev 5th is one of his greatest performances, and one of the
greatest recordings of the piece, largely by virtue of it's being
"unidiomatic.">>
I don't know it, but that's similar to what I'm saying about Rachmaninov - if
you think that he adds something of real value, that's fine and a perfectly
good reason for liking a performance.
After all, some works depend more on "idiom" to make their points>>
I'd put Boris and Sibelius in this group, though I know that I'm in the
minority in regard to Sibelius which many seem to like in Karajan's
interpretations.
There is also also a very fine line between that which is "idiomatic" and
simple laziness or lack of ideas:>>
That's a good point, well expressed.
I would also take care in claiming to be a judge of what constitutes
"idiomatic" interpretation and what does not >>
Yes, it's difficult but not entirely impossible - I do it in the case of
Sibelius because I lived for 6 years in Scandinavia and other conductors come
much closer to what I personally feel that culture to be. In the case of Boris,
I studied Russian for a few years and visited there, besides being married to a
Serb for 12 years, so again I have some residual idea of what I believe to be
the idiom. If you were to talk about Takamitsu, I wouldn't have a clue.
Take your Boris example: Karajan's is a very fine performance>>
Well, we differ there. I'd put it at the bottom of my pile of versions. I find
it alien stuff.
So at another level, you might just as well say that even the "idiomatic"
versions coming from the Bolshoi do scant justice to
Mussorgsky's true "idiom">>
I think that's overstating the case for the sake of making a point about the
Rimsky version of the score.
In other words, I think the term "unidiomatic" should be reserved for those
instances where it's clear (and these are very few and far between) that the
conductor truly misunderstands what the composer was up to>>
That would be a safe thing to do, but somewhat restrictive.
in his case I see rather a clash of "idioms", where on occasion his own
personal idiom trumps the composer's (sometimes wonderfully so, and other times
not).>>
This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying.
Andy Evans
be
more precise (I'm often "guilty," using it re the soloists in Giulini's and
Fricsay's first recordings of Verdi's Requiem, say) and expects the
reader/listener to know more-or-less what one means.>>
I think that's a fair way of putting it! I'm not a musicologist, and it's some
time since I studied orchestral scores, so it would take me some time and
effort to be more precise.
I would prefer it if you explained what it is about Karajan's (or whosever)
recordings of this music that make it unidiomatic>>
I tried in some previous threads on Sibelius, but not with precise reference to
points in the score (all my scores are in storage anyway).
should we take it you think all idiomatic performances bad>>
Not necessarily - see my other post. I think it's valid to substitute a good
musical argument of a different kind. If it adds nothing and is also out of
sympathy with the music I would have no reason for liking it. The cases where I
don't like Karajan are cases where I feel he adds nothing of value, and
substitutes his own 'idiom' for the original, with a consequent loss of aspects
of the score I cherish in other performances which don't 'trump the original'
as David puts it.
AndyfromVA
> Good choice. Next time you order anything on the Brilliant Classics
> label, order it at berkshirerecordoutlet.com, it's cheaper still.
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2002 19:50:11 -0800, Andyf...@volcanomail.com (AndyfromVA)
> wrote:
>
> >After reading all the interesting replies to my post, I decided to get
> >the Blomstedt, which I ordered from Barnes @ Noble this morning.
> >Later in the day I was in a shopping mall browsing the Sam Goody's,
> >where I found a set of the 9 symphonies for $7.99. At that price, I
> >could hardly pass it up. It's the one by Amadis/Naxos, the Zagreb
> >Philharmonic conducted by Richard Edlinger. I'm not crazy about it so
> >far (I've heard 4, 6, 7 and 9) but it will tide me over until
> >Blomstedt arrives.
> >
> >Thanks everyone for your help.
Thank you rec.music.classical.recordings for your advice.
I received the Blomstedt/Dresden version of Beethoven's 9 symphonies
for Christmas and have been listening to it constantly since.
It's been an exhilarating experience. The symphonies come alive under
Blomstedt. The sound quality is excellent, especially considering
it's an ADD rather than DDD recording. It's hard for me to believe
that the Beethoven symphonies could sound any better. The Fifth is so
awesome and the Ninth is breathtaking. I could go on and on.