Who were Berlioz's Influences
ansermetniac
1) Harold
2) Racokzy March
3) Secret Judges Ov
4) R & J Love Scene
I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
It always bugs me out that the Symphonie Fantastique was written
before the Beethoven 9
And on the reverse who did Berlioz influence the most. I think the
Overture to The Fliegen Max Hollander could have been by Berlioz.
BTW the CD gets an A in denoiseing and aq Z in eq. "Hifi" to the max.
An audiophools delight. Now I can finally enjoy these important
performances.
Berlioz needs a conductor of the highest quality. And to listen to his
genius without any bass and peaked mids is a waste of time.
With the proper EQ 8-H ain't so bad. But we rarely get to hear its
true ambience.
Abbedd
________________
Go To Abbedd's Place For the MP3S of the Week
Raymond Hall
news:pabf50l8bsdoju8ro...@4ax.com...
| I just finsihed remastering the M & A 2003 release of Toscanini doing
|
| 1) Harold
| 2) Racokzy March
| 3) Secret Judges Ov
| 4) R & J Love Scene
|
|
| I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
| examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
|
| It always bugs me out that the Symphonie Fantastique was written
| before the Beethoven 9
I don't know why you should say that. So was Bach's Matthew Passion, and
Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli, and hundreds of other great works I could
name. The Beethoven 9 is a molehill anyway compared to most music, and that
has always been my opinion (ad naus).
| And on the reverse who did Berlioz influence the most. I think the
| Overture to The Fliegen Max Hollander could have been by Berlioz.
I think Liszt was a greater innovator even than Berlioz, great as Berlioz's
orchestration was. Not so sure about influences as far as Berlioz is
concerned, but I bet a pound to a penny that Rimsky was part influenced, as
well as many operatic composers. There is a definite dramatic quality about
the music of Berlioz that couldn't have passed for nought.
| Berlioz needs a conductor of the highest quality. And to listen to his
| genius without any bass and peaked mids is a waste of time.
I have been recently listening to parts of the Berlioz Edition (Brilliant
Classics and originally on Denon), by Inbal and his Frankfurt forces. Some
of the best Berlioz I have ever heard. His Te Deum, Requiem, Damnation of
Faust, and Romeo and Juliet. Last night I even discovered what a great work
L'Enfance du Christ is too. I'd say Inbal is much under-rated on the basis
of what I am listening to. I previously was much acquainted with some rather
odd versions (original) of Bruckner symphonies that didn't really gell
mainly because of the versions used. But Inbal's Berlioz is really very good
indeed.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
Larry Rinkel
>
>
> before the Beethoven 9
>
It might bug you less to learn that the Symphonie Fantastique (1830) was
written after the Beethoven 9 (1824).
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:pabf50l8bsdoju8ro...@4ax.com:
> I just finsihed remastering the M & A 2003 release of Toscanini doing
>
> 1) Harold
> 2) Racokzy March
> 3) Secret Judges Ov
> 4) R & J Love Scene
>
>
> I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
> examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
Gluck, Méhul, Le Sueur (his nominal teacher at the Conservatoire), Mozart,
and Beethoven, primarily.
> It always bugs me out that the Symphonie Fantastique was written
> before the Beethoven 9
Sorry, it's the other way around.
> And on the reverse who did Berlioz influence the most. I think the
> Overture to The Fliegen Max Hollander could have been by Berlioz.
Wagner, in a rare moment of ass-kissing, once said something to the effect
that he could never have written _Tristan_ without "Roméo et Juliette."
The closest thing to a Berlioz disciple was probably Ernest Reyer. The most
amazing Berlioz-copying job is some of the short orchestral works of the
Dutch composer Johan Wagenaar, particularly the "Cyrano de Bergerac" Overture
(which seems to owe about as much to Richard Strauss). I can't believe that
Berlioz' two trips to Russia didn't have some influence on the composers he
met there, Rimsky-Korsakov for example, and you know I'm referring to their
(dissimilar, but brilliant) orchestrational techniques.
If there ever was a Berlioz protegé, and I mean this as totally distinct from
a disciple, it must have been -- are you ready for this? -- Saint-Saëns.
> BTW the CD gets an A in denoiseing and aq Z in eq. "Hifi" to the max.
> An audiophools delight. Now I can finally enjoy these important
> performances.
>
> Berlioz needs a conductor of the highest quality.
I agree completely!
> And to listen to his genius without any bass and peaked mids is a waste of
> time.
>
> With the proper EQ 8-H ain't so bad. But we rarely get to hear its true
> ambience.
And we'll never hear it again; only crap gets performed there nowadays.
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Rick Cavalla
> I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
> examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
Some that jump to my mind: Gluck, Spontini, Beethoven, and Mehul. Other
than Beethoven, most of the stuff that influenced Berlioz has not received
good recordings, if any recordings, until recently. I would particularly
recommend John Eliot Gardiner's recording of Gluck's Alceste with Anne Sofie
von Otter, or the Mehul symphonies on Nimbus, to get a feel for some of the
roots of Berlioz. In a way, Berlioz is part of an evolutionary track very
much outside the normal Italian-German path. He might very well be the
earliest composer to emerge from outside the Italian-German path and enter
the standard repertoire. This makes him seem like he came from out of
nowhere. You can, however, wind your way to him through such musical
fringes as the Franco-Flemish Renaissance composers, the French Baroque of
Lully and Rameau, onward to Gluck and eventually contemporaries of Beethoven
like the early French symphonists, Mehul and Gossec.
> It always bugs me out that the Symphonie Fantastique was written
> before the Beethoven 9
Actually, the Symphonie fantastique is from six years after Beethoven 9 and
three years after Schubert's 'Great C Major'.
> And on the reverse who did Berlioz influence the most. I think the
> Overture to The Fliegen Max Hollander could have been by Berlioz.
I would definitely consider Wagner the most significant composer to be
strongly influenced by Berlioz. I always thought the Tannhauser overture
was very Berlioz-like, especially the central section. And the opening of
Tristan sounds a lot like the "Romeo Alone" scene in Berlioz' Romeo et
Juliette.
--
Rick Cavalla
ra...@NO.erols.SPAM.com
==========================
"Don't let a suitcase filled with cheese be your big fork and spoon"
David7Gable
Anybody heard any of Felicien David's music? I gather his style is close to
Berlioz's as well.
-david gable
David7Gable
>fringes as the Franco-Flemish Renaissance composers,
Nice post, Rick. But the Franco-Flemish tradition was no fringe. It was the
mainstream from 1400-1600, during which time Germany's musical traditions were
the provincial ones. Franco-Flemish composers: Dufay, Binchois, Ockeghem,
Busnois, Josquin, Lassus, etc. Most of the big names between 1400 and 1600.
-david gable
Rick Cavalla
I love the Franco-Flemish composers, especially Ockeghem. My "fringe"
comment was referring to their, sadly, being outside the scope of most
modern listeners.
Steven Van Impe
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:Xns94AECD76EA5...@207.217.125.201...
> I can't believe that Berlioz' two trips to Russia didn't have some
> influence on the composers he met there, Rimsky-Korsakov for
> example, and you know I'm referring to their (dissimilar, but brilliant)
> orchestrational techniques.
Night on the Bare Mountain wouldn't have existed if Berlioz hadn't visited
Russia. Rimsky-Korsakov owes a lot to Berlioz, particularly to his Roméo et
Juliette I think. And even if not a note of Berlioz would have been played,
seeing Berlioz conduct the Eroica would have had a profound influence on the
young composers' ideas of the orchestra.
Steven
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:20040317010100...@mb-m24.aol.com:
>>The closest thing to a Berlioz disciple was probably Ernest Reyer.
>
> Anybody heard any of Felicien David's music? I gather his style is
> close to Berlioz's as well.
Recommend me some works, recordings?
David7Gable
>> close to Berlioz's as well.
>
>Recommend me some works, recordings?
That's what I want somebody to do for me.
-david gable
David7Gable
You are brave! He wrote the most difficult music of them all.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Russia.
You got that right. I never tire of quoting this from Mussorgsky: "Beethoven
the thinker, Berlioz the super thinker." And Boris owes a lot to L'enfance du
Christe. Herod and Boris are similar insomniac monarchs wracked with guilt
because of the infanticides they're responsible for, while the opening of Boris
is so close to the overture to La fuite en Egypte from L'enfance as to verge on
plagiarism.
-david gable
Dick Grayson
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
>examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
I believe Paganini was a great influence on him. Harold en Italie,
was composed at the prompt of Paganini in 1834 for a chance to show
off his new Stradivari viola. Also, in 1838 four years later when
Paganini returned from Italy to Paris, he got the chance to see the
performance which he refused to play because it hadn't demanded enough
of the soloist, and brought about that famous scene of him praising
the composer, declaring him Beethoven's successor.
Then two days later Paganini's son had delivered a "letter that
requires no response" encompassing a bank draft for 20,000 francs,
which enabled him (financially) to compose Roméo et Juliette.
'My one idea was to put it to a musical purpose. I would give up
everything else and write a really important work, something splendid
on a grand and original plan, full of passion and imagination, worthy
to be dedicated to the glorious artist to whom I owed so much.'
-DG
Steven Van Impe
> I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
> examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
Apart from the already mentioned major influences (Gluck, Spontini, ...)
Berlioz was also much influenced by the music he heard during his youth in
the country: religious music, farmers party music, and simple songs.
Regards,
Steven
Alan Watkins
>
> 1) Harold
> 2) Racokzy March
> 3) Secret Judges Ov
> 4) R & J Love Scene
>
>
> I could not figure out who could have influenced Berlioz. Maybe the
> examples in his treatise on Instrumentation would give a clue.
>
> It always bugs me out that the Symphonie Fantastique was written
> before the Beethoven 9
>
> And on the reverse who did Berlioz influence the most. I think the
> Overture to The Fliegen Max Hollander could have been by Berlioz.
>
> BTW the CD gets an A in denoiseing and aq Z in eq. "Hifi" to the max.
> An audiophools delight. Now I can finally enjoy these important
> performances.
>
> Berlioz needs a conductor of the highest quality. And to listen to his
> genius without any bass and peaked mids is a waste of time.
>
> With the proper EQ 8-H ain't so bad. But we rarely get to hear its
> true ambience.
>
>
> Abbedd
A major influence was Gluck. Berlioz adored Gluck's music, frequently
promoted wherever he could (including Russia) and claimed to know all
of it by heart.
In 1858 Berlioz wrote to his sister:
I assure you, dear sister, that the music in Les Troyens is something
noble and elevated; it is also compelling and truthful, and if I am
not much mistaken there are a number of novelties which will arrest
the ears of musicians throughout Europe and perhaps make their hair
stand on end. It seems to me that were Gluck to come back to life, he
would say of me on hearing the work: "Here in truth is my son." Hardly
modest, you will say. But at least I am modest enough to admit to be
lacking in modesty.
Based entirely upon my humble instrument, there are (I think) also
influences by both Beethoven, Haydn (certainly the last symphonies)
and Weber and possibly also Spontini. For the kettledrums, Beethoven
first smashed the barriers in timpani technique (having been led into
it, in my view, by Haydn). It is interesting to Old Chap that two of
the toughest parts in the standard repertoire for the instrument
remain the Scherzo of Beethoven's Symphony 9 and the finale of
Symphonie Fantastique and, for that reason, both are often found in
timpani auditions across the world in 2004. Gluck, it should be
remembered, was also among the first "opera" composers of the period
to regularly use the small percussion that we now take for granted in
symphonic orchestras.
There are countless Gluck extracts also in Treatise of Orchestration
and although I cannot say for certain he was THE influence, the
tributes Berlioz pays to him (he wrote out some of Gluck's scores
in his own hand) would seem to indicate that he played a decent part.
As someone has commented further on in the thread, Mr Berlioz wrote
music which remains a challenge to a conductor. A great deal of it
also remains a challenge to the orchestra playing it and puts players
at full stretch. Of recordings that spring to mind on LP, Mr Ansermet
in Roman Carnival and Sir Adrian Boult in Le Corsaire demonstrate what
phenomenal music this is.
And two tambourines in Roman Carnival please. That is what he asked
for but managements often try and save money. "Can't you just hit it
louder" does not quite work in the thickness of texture.
Some years ago I played a concert that started with Roman Carnival and
followed with Beethoven 8. Although I can only offer an opinion about
"influences" I was struck by the fact that we were playing two
percussion "revolutionaries"....two tambourines in the Berlioz and
tricky cross hand work for the timpanist in Beethoven 8. Both played
a very major role in liberating the so-called "kitchen" department
although, for the timpani, Haydn got there before Beethoven in his
wonderful liberating writing for the instrument in Symphony 102 and in
The Creation.
Again, a very personal opinion, but it was left to Bizet to truly set
free the small percussion into having something which passes for
"expression." Bizet's Danse Boheme is not, I accept, a "major
piece" of music but I can say that if either the tambourine or
triangle player have any deficiencies (God forbid) they will be
ruthlessly exposed by either part.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Ian Pace
"Alan Watkins" <alanwa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:62c8649c.0403...@posting.google.com...
> >
> A major influence was Gluck. Berlioz adored Gluck's music, frequently
> promoted wherever he could (including Russia) and claimed to know all
> of it by heart.
>
> In 1858 Berlioz wrote to his sister:
>
> I assure you, dear sister, that the music in Les Troyens is something
> noble and elevated; it is also compelling and truthful, and if I am
> not much mistaken there are a number of novelties which will arrest
> the ears of musicians throughout Europe and perhaps make their hair
> stand on end. It seems to me that were Gluck to come back to life, he
> would say of me on hearing the work: "Here in truth is my son." Hardly
> modest, you will say. But at least I am modest enough to admit to be
> lacking in modesty.
>
in the recent Gardiner performances of the work that alas it wasn't recorded
for CD, but was filmed, and hopefully should be available on video/DVD at
some point.
I've been holding back from buying a recording of Les Troyens until a period
instrument version is available - seems like the DVD might be the closest
I'll get for now!
Best,
Ian
David7Gable
He had a great influence on Berlioz's career, commissioning Harold and then
paying so handsomely for it that Berlioz had time to compose Roméo. But the
sytlistic influence of Paganini strikes me as nil.
-david gable
David7Gable
>instrument version [of Troyens]
What a horrifying thought!
-david gable
Ian Pace
"David7Gable" <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040317190917...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >a period
> >instrument version [of Troyens]
>
> What a horrifying thought!
>
heard.
Ian
Alan Watkins
There's not much super thinking for the orchestra in L'enfance du
Christ or have I missed something? I seem to remember cracking most
of those harmonies in grade six.
Rick Cavalla
> >I love the Franco-Flemish composers, especially Ockeghem.
>
> You are brave! He wrote the most difficult music of them all.
I have heard that from a number of people. I don't know enough music theory
to do more than take people's word for it. However, if he is a difficult
composer, I think he had a great sense of melody. The Missa Prolationum and
the motet, Intemerata Dei mater, took me quite a number of listens to
appreciate. However, the Requiem, the Missa Au travail suis, the Missa Sine
nomine a 3, and the Missa Fors seulement, all strike me as engaging and
memorable almost immediately.
David7Gable
>> >instrument version [of Troyens]
>Can't have been totally horrifying to Berlioz, as that's what he would have
>heard.
So HIP propaganda would have us believe. Music is so many billion other more
important things than the mere literal physical material quality of sound
itself.
-david gable
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
says...
live performance many years ago. I thought the piece was a knock-out, in great
part because of its date, 1844. Although it's apparently David's one and only
big hit out of a fair amount of work, it is no "lost masterpiece". It's just
thoroughly enjoyable in a dreamy way and full of "exotic" sounds that must have
been extraordinary at the time.
wr
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
Ian Pace
disagree that there is much much else as or more important than
physical quality of sound.. The physical quality of sound is
nonetheless important as well.
How is it 'propaganda' to say that in Berlioz's time, he heard the
music played on the instruments of his time? Seems pretty
tautological to me.
Ian
Steven Van Impe
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> schreef in bericht
news:5c1c8892.0403...@posting.google.com...
> How is it 'propaganda' to say that in Berlioz's time, he heard the
> music played on the instruments of his time? Seems pretty
> tautological to me.
Yes, but is that how Berlioz himself wanted to hear it? We know he was very
progressive in the use of new instruments, advertising for example for
Adolphe Sax's instruments. Berlioz would probably choose for our modern
instruments, and perhaps even for digital synthesizers or electric bass
guitars.
Steven
Alan Watkins
Berlioz was very forward looking, I would have said. His memoirs are
full of comparisons between what he thought were developing
"improvements" both in sound and technique. The development of
"sponge headed" timpani sticks got him positively excited and he used
to carry a pair or two with him in case this little revolution had not
reached wherever his next engagement was.
Raymond Hall
message news:40599309$0$318$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
The extension to this ridiculous anti-HIP argument, is, of course, that had
Beethoven had recourse to a Casio, Roland or Yamaha keyboard, then he might
well have composed his piano sonatas for them. Bach of course,
(naturellement), would have used all the resources that Pink Floyd have had
at their disposal, rather than some silly old church organ for his Chorales
and Praeludium and Fugues.
But how many here would prefer Bach's organ works on other than what he
wrote for? Ry Cooder slide guitar maybe? Yeah, pull the other leg - it has
different bells on it.
There will be people here who will next be saying that Berlioz didn't write
for the instruments of his time, and was equipped with the miraculous vision
of knowing what was available in 2004. What utter rubbish.
If anything, the use of original instruments is a natural and obvious effort
to create what the composer heard, and nothing else. The fact that many here
prefer modern instruments, is neither here nor there.
Case closed.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
See You Tamara (Ozzy Osbourne)
Ray, Taree, NSW
David7Gable
>music played on the instruments of his time?
First of all, because it misleadingly lays more stress on the importance of
"authentic" sound qua sound than at any previous point in the history of
Western Classical music: the quest for "authenticity" is a radically new quest
and entails the imposition of a radically new system of values that to some
extent overrides the very aesthetic that gave rise to the artworks in question.
Second, because the sound is the Trojan horse used by the HIPsters to impose
an absolutely new and unprecedented late 20th-century style of performance and
phrasing. (I have nothing whatsoever against the SOUND of period instruments.)
Since nothing makes me more nauseous than the HIP movement, which I consider in
no uncertain terms to be the mortal enemy of precisely the values that matter
the most to me in classical performance, I will not contribute any further to
this dialogue. HIP is not what I come to rmcr to talk about. Talking about it
simply makes me apoplectic, so don't expect any further response. I only
respond from time to time because if nobody does, it might convey the
impression that HIP positions are straightforwardly unobjectionable and
universally accepted as valid.
-david gable
David7Gable
>full of comparisons between what he thought were developing
>"improvements" both in sound and technique. The development of
>"sponge headed" timpani sticks got him positively excited
Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his lifetime.
And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
proportions.
-david gable
Ian Pace
> >Berlioz was very forward looking, I would have said. His memoirs are
> >full of comparisons between what he thought were developing
> >"improvements" both in sound and technique. The development of
> >"sponge headed" timpani sticks got him positively excited
>
> Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his
lifetime.
That's highly debatable - Newman comes to the conclusion (based on a lot of
research) that Beethoven consistently preferred the lighter-toned Viennese
instruments throughout his life. Even if Beethoven had preferred the
'louder' pianos he encountered, to extrapolate from that to say that he
would have definitely preferred a Steinway D requires a huge and ultimately
speculative leap of the imagination.
> And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
> proportions.
>
With the same numbers of winds as he wrote for, or with doublings as well?
At least HIP people have looked more closely at the balance between strings
and winds more closely?
Ian
Ian Pace
> >How is it 'propaganda' to say that in Berlioz's time, he heard the
> >music played on the instruments of his time?
>
> First of all, because it misleadingly lays more stress on the importance
of
> "authentic" sound qua sound than at any previous point in the history of
> Western Classical music: the quest for "authenticity" is a radically new
quest
> and entails the imposition of a radically new system of values that to
some
> extent overrides the very aesthetic that gave rise to the artworks in
question.
> Second, because the sound is the Trojan horse used by the HIPsters to
impose
> an absolutely new and unprecedented late 20th-century style of performance
and
> phrasing. (I have nothing whatsoever against the SOUND of period
instruments.)
So why then do you think, when presented by the prospect of Les Troyens
played on period instruments, that it is a 'horrifying thought'? Hardly
anyone talks about 'authenticity' any more other than the detractors, and
HIP is by no means a monolithic field.
>
> Since nothing makes me more nauseous than the HIP movement,
Surely global poverty, the prospect of nuclear annihilation, etc., are more
worth getting angry about?
which I consider in
> no uncertain terms to be the mortal enemy of precisely the values that
matter
> the most to me in classical performance, I will not contribute any further
to
> this dialogue. HIP is not what I come to rmcr to talk about. Talking
about it
> simply makes me apoplectic, so don't expect any further response. I only
> respond from time to time because if nobody does, it might convey the
> impression that HIP positions are straightforwardly unobjectionable and
> universally accepted as valid.
>
HIP positions, as I said before, are by no means singular in nature, nor is
there some cosy consensus; let alone that they go unchallenged. But there
are many people who have responded most positively to the achievements of
HIP performances, finding new illuminations to do with subtletly of
orchestration, attitude to line and phrasing, a more pronounced sense of the
grotesque through the use of unusual instrumental timbres (especially in
Berlioz), etc., etc., in the music being performed - no-one's forcing you to
listen to them, why is your reaction so apoplectic? Is this really so much
of a threat?
Ian
Mark Melson
musical presence in the Paris of Berlioz' formative years.
Listen to Cherubini's Ali-Baba Overture (Toscanini made an
electrifying recording of it), which sounds almost more like Berlioz
than Berlioz!
Mark Melson
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:57:46 -0000, " Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com>
wrote:
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
> >Berlioz was very forward looking, I would have said. His memoirs are
> >full of comparisons between what he thought were developing
> >"improvements" both in sound and technique. The development of
> >"sponge headed" timpani sticks got him positively excited
>
> Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his lifetime.
You don't suppose that had anything to do with going deaf?
On the other hand, maybe not....it seems that the mega-bass car stereo lovers
always want louder speakers, too. Don't know what that proves, though, other
than that some people (maybe including lvb) just can't tell when loud is loud
enough. Until it actually kills them, which a loud enough sound will do.
> And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
> proportions.
He did? Wow, I didn't know he even knew about Mahler.
wr
Steven Van Impe
"Raymond Hall" <raytoby...@bigpond.com> schreef in bericht
news:Ipp6c.109977$Wa.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Bach of course, (naturellement), would have used all the resources
> that Pink Floyd have had at their disposal, rather than some silly old
> church organ for his Chorales and Praeludium and Fugues.
You are pulling my argument into the absurde - if Berlioz were alive today,
he wouldn't write what he wrote in 1830. The simple fact is that anyone who
is really historically informed can see that Berlioz always strove to use
the best instruments he could find, and in his ears, the best instruments
were the more powerful.
What bothers me about for example JEG's Fantastique, is that he is trying to
recreate a performance that Berlioz heard in the 1830s, a performance that
was out of his hands, when the composer was still young, inexperienced, and
couldn't force his way. A much better base for a HIP Fantastique would be
trying to reconstruct a performance of the Symphonie of the 1850's or early
1860's in Germany or Russia. There Berlioz was revered, and his every wish
was granted. Those were the performances where it sounded like he wanted it
to sound. If I could choose to go back in time to witness a Berlioz concert,
I wouldn't hesitate to choose for one of those concerts.
> If anything, the use of original instruments is a natural and obvious
effort
> to create what the composer heard, and nothing else.
So, to hear Beethoven's late string quartets as the composer heard them we
should wear earplugs? The natural and obvious effort should be to create
what the composer _intended_.
Steven
Matthew B. Tepper
have caused the following letters to be typed in
news:405b3f71$0$779$ba62...@news.skynet.be:
> So, to hear Beethoven's late string quartets as the composer heard them
> we should wear earplugs? The natural and obvious effort should be to
> create what the composer _intended_.
I have drawn an analogy from an imaginary extremist faction of the HIP
movement -- upon entering a gallery of antiquities, the guards snatch the
glasses off the faces of anybody caught wearing them and dash them to the
ground, because these artworks weren't MEANT to be seen by anything but the
naked eye. (I'd hate to think of what they do to people with contacts.)
In truth I don't think anybody is being quite that extreme. On the other
hand I deplore opera directors who have decided that his audiences are too
dumb to consider historical context, so that everything must be blatantly
"translated" into modern terms for the dum-dums to "get it." Thus we have
the infamous _Figaro_ at Trump Tower, _Ballo_ in the toilets, etc.
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Raymond Hall
|
| "Raymond Hall" <raytoby...@bigpond.com> schreef in bericht
| news:Ipp6c.109977$Wa.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| > Bach of course, (naturellement), would have used all the resources
| > that Pink Floyd have had at their disposal, rather than some silly old
| > church organ for his Chorales and Praeludium and Fugues.
|
| You are pulling my argument into the absurde - if Berlioz were alive
today,
| he wouldn't write what he wrote in 1830. The simple fact is that anyone
who
| is really historically informed can see that Berlioz always strove to use
| the best instruments he could find, and in his ears, the best instruments
| were the more powerful.
I am merely extending the argument further than some here might not like,
because it detracts from what they want. It appears as though the
anti-Hipsters, (and I don't and never have really agreed with the term HIP
for many reasons), only want the argument to go SO FAR. Just far enough to
suit what they, individually, think is far enough. As regards the statement
that "Berlioz thought the best instruments were the powerful", then this
represents a ludicrous suggestion anyhow, and even if Berlioz were proved to
have said as much, indicates a failure of musical logic and reason on his
part.
| What bothers me about for example JEG's Fantastique, is that he is trying
to
| recreate a performance that Berlioz heard in the 1830s, a performance that
| was out of his hands, when the composer was still young, inexperienced,
and
| couldn't force his way.
If Berlioz was young and inexperienced, then why try to recreate a
performance as though he were fully mature and fully experienced? Perhaps if
Berlioz weren't Berlioz then this hypothetical dual creature might have
composed what some here might want. Which would be essentially totally
meaningless as far as classical music is concerned. For some, the composer i
s merely an adjunct to a performance on CD or LP. For others, like myself,
the composer is everything. He/she is the source of it all. And no
over-hyped mere perfomer is going to detract me from acknowledging that they
are the real minions, and that the composer is ALL.
| A much better base for a HIP Fantastique would be
| trying to reconstruct a performance of the Symphonie of the 1850's or
early
| 1860's in Germany or Russia. There Berlioz was revered, and his every wish
| was granted. Those were the performances where it sounded like he wanted
it
| to sound. If I could choose to go back in time to witness a Berlioz
concert,
| I wouldn't hesitate to choose for one of those concerts.
Maybe you would, but then there might be those that would want a fully
panoply of amplified power a la Pink Floyd. How many MWatts of raw rms power
would they need? As if we really need to know. Your suggestion, while
fulfilling your hypothetical wishes, basically only goes as far as you want
it to go. Basically, the whole idea of using original instruments, is
because the composer composed with them in mind, even if he might not have
heard a performance in his/her time.
| > If anything, the use of original instruments is a natural and obvious
| effort
| > to create what the composer heard, and nothing else.
|
| So, to hear Beethoven's late string quartets as the composer heard them we
| should wear earplugs? The natural and obvious effort should be to create
| what the composer _intended_.
An absurd conclusion to my argument. What the composer "intended" is up for
grabs for any group of people to imagine what they want to imagine. The
Urtext, or original score, is the best we have, along with historical
knowledge of the times. And a string quartet is a string quartet.
Rodger Whitlock
> If Berlioz was young and inexperienced, then why try to recreate a
> performance as though he were fully mature and fully experienced?
I suggest that "inexperienced" in this context means
"inexperienced in the small-p politicking necessary to get the
performance he really wanted."
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]
David7Gable
>
Really, nobody who isn't deaf should be allowed to listen to the music that
Beethoven wrote after he went deaf. We're not really getting the "authentic"
experience.
-david gable
David7Gable
>electrifying recording of it), which sounds almost more like Berlioz
>than Berlioz!
Same goes for Spontini. I love Berlioz's marvelous remark about being Gluck's
son, but he was actually Spontini's son and Gluck's grandson. (Genetics works
differently for artists than for other people.) Can't tell you the number of
friends who have gasped in recognition when hearing Spontini only after knowing
Troyens.
-david gable
Raymond Hall
I agree fully. Only deaf people should be allowed to hear Beethoven's music
after he went deaf. My dear Monsieur Gable, I do believe we have a chance of
converting you into the *compleat master of the musicks", and a legend in
your own time.
<g>
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
something.
Anyway, it happens that I've been reading through lots of lvb on my modern
grand in the last few weeks, and it's just so completely obvious that the music
was written for a different instrument that it's sometimes almost painful to
play it. The modern piano is not capable of the sonic agility of the pianos
the lvb used, particularly in the bass, and it's quite clear that he was
writing for a different instrument when one is actually playing the stuff. Or,
I should say it's quite clear to anyone who has had any experience with playing
on fortepianos designed like the ones lvb used.
The problem with your stance is that the modern piano is not only louder, which
lvb may well have liked, but it also is fatter and slower and less incisive all
around than the pianos of his day. If lvb had indeed had my piano to work
with, most of his piano music never would have been written the way it was.
The classic example is the Waldstein sonata, which has some very noticeable
issues for modern pianos and which simply would have been written completely
differently if lvb had had my piano in mind. It should be remembered that lvb
didn't write impossible stuff for his pianos, but he did write impossible stuff
for our modern pianos, and that should be enough to convince you. The opening
of the Waldstein has never been played as written on a modern piano, for
example. Why? Because it can't be done - the hammers on a modern piano are
too heavy. The famous long-held pedal effects are not possible to reproduce on
a modern piano, either. Sure, you can hold the pedal down and create a gloppy
sound-soup, but lvb never heard such a sound in his life from a piano, and
certainly couldn't have thought he was notating such a sound. There's no way
I'll ever believe that he would have just loved the modern sound and left the
music as is, because it just doesn't work very well. He would have written
something else, and we don't know what that would have been. Examples of this
sort go on and on and on, and they are quite real and are not just some wacko
conspiracy designed to make you unhappy.
wr
David7Gable
>was written for a different instrument that it's sometimes almost painful to
>play it.
It is not completely obvious to me. And Rosen has demonstrated at great length
that there is no musical challenge posed by Beethoven that can't be met on a
modern grand. Or as he put it, just as in the case of period instruments, "the
modern piano is quite inadequate enough."
-david gable
Steven Van Impe
"Rodger Whitlock" <toto...@atlanticcoast.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:405b9f59...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:58:19 GMT, Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> > If Berlioz was young and inexperienced, then why try to recreate a
> > performance as though he were fully mature and fully experienced?
>
> I suggest that "inexperienced" in this context means
> "inexperienced in the small-p politicking necessary to get the
> performance he really wanted."
Thanks for clarifying that Rodger, that is indeed what I meant. I didn't
want it to sound like I'm criticising Berlioz - heaven forbid ;-)
Regards,
Steven
Steven Van Impe
> For others, like myself, the composer is everything. He/she is
> the source of it all. And no over-hyped mere perfomer is going
> to detract me from acknowledging that they are the real
> minions, and that the composer is ALL.
I can perfectly find myself in that statement.
> Basically, the whole idea of using original instruments, is
> because the composer composed with them in mind, even
> if he might not have heard a performance in his/her time.
I honestly think that Berlioz, knowing better than anyone else the full
range of the instruments for which he composed, did compose starting from a
sound he wanted to be heard, and then tried to achieve it with the
instruments at his disposal, with all their limitations. Of course, this
doesn't mean that we should put a real electric bass guitar in the Marche au
Supplice, but it does mean that, when we get the chance to use instruments
that are definitely *better* than those used in Berlioz' days, we should.
> The Urtext, or original score, is the best we have, along with
> historical knowledge of the times. And a string quartet is a
> string quartet.
But Berlioz continually changed his original score, going as far as
rearranging movements and rewriting entire pieces. A truly interesting
document would be a recording of the Fantastique as it was performed for the
first time in 1830, before all the later additions, rewritings and
reorchestrations, some of which date from as late as the 1850s. I don't know
if scores of the older versions have survived, and I would be very
interested to find out if they did. That would be a real recreation of the
Urtext. When Berlioz rewrote the symphony, he had a lot of experience with
all sorts of new instruments used all over Europe, and he probably used that
knowledge for his new version.
Regards,
Steven
Alan Watkins
least the same as Berlioz except a few centuries before. I suspect
the truth of the matter is that there were many influences upon
Berlioz but that he managed to pull them all together in a way that
people did/do like as Mr Beethoven pulled together the late symphonies
of Mr Haydn.
David7Gable
>least the same as Berlioz except a few centuries before.
Actually less than a century before! But there is one phrase in Rameau's
Castor et Pollux that, every time I hear it, reminds of the Royal Hunt and
Storm in Troyens. Moreover, I seriously doubt that Berlioz ever heard a note
of Castor: it's a question of a similar passage arising in the work of a later
composer in the same tradition. (Wish I could remember exactly where the
phrase in Rameau. I could tell you exactly where the Berlioz occurs.)
-david gable
Dick Grayson
wrote:
>Then two days later Paganini's son had delivered a "letter that
>requires no response" encompassing a bank draft for 20,000 francs,
>which enabled him (financially) to compose Roméo et Juliette.
Well, it may appear that I was wrong about this instance. I cited
the above from at least two sources, one being a Grove article on
the subject. But a third source, claims that Armand Bertin was
the secret donator of Berlioz's small fortune. This would certainly
not be unheard of, as Paganini was quite a miserly fellow. And
the Bertin family who owned the newspaper Berlioz was a reviewer
in 'Journal des débats', apparently were advocates of his work.
But I don't have any references for this, so I've emailed the author
of the article who suggested it was Bertin, but no reply yet.
Any thoughts on where to find information about this? Maybe a
Berlioz biography?
David7Gable
>But a third source, claims that Armand Bertin was
>the secret donator of Berlioz's small fortune. This would certainly
>not be unheard of, as Paganini was quite a miserly fellow.
In his Memoirs Berlioz describes the occasion on which Paganini offered him the
money following a performance (the first?) of Harold, which had been written
for Paganini although he declined to play it because it was not much of a
showpiece for the violist.
-david gable
Dick Grayson
Yes, great idea, think I'll pick up the Everyman's edition of his
Memoirs. I haven't had the chance to get Cairn's biography of
him yet either, though it's on my list.
Steven Van Impe
"Dick Grayson" <nos...@thanks.you> schreef in bericht
news:738u50dgk9j3sp1po...@4ax.com...
> Yes, great idea, think I'll pick up the Everyman's edition of his
> Memoirs.
Yes! Do so! You will _not_ regret this!
Steven
ansermetniac
The letter to his Father explaining why he wants to be a Composer is
worth the price of admission alone
Abbedd
________________
Go To Abbedd's Place For the MP3S of the Week
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:d24u509u1mq4jt3e8...@4ax.com:
Cairns deals with it in detail, even specifying how Berlioz went about
settling various debts with the Paganini gift.
Bertin certainly had other, less mysterious ways of getting money to Berlioz
when he wished: paying for the composer to polish an opera by the
publisher's daughter Louise for performance at the Opéra, for instance.
Ian Pace
often when discussing period instruments relies on idle conjecture and
assertion (which all his thoughts on articulation and other aspects of
performance practice would suggest he might be more favourably
disposed to than seems to be the case). I`ve read most of what he`s
written on these subjects, and it certainly doesn`t amount to a
demonstration at great length. In Bilson`s recent article for
International Piano on the subject, he points out the contradictions
between Rosen´s claims in his recent Beethoven book and the inevitable
choppiness that results when he tries to apply those articulative
practices on a modern instrument (as evidenced on the CD that is
included with the book).
The modern piano may be `inadequate enough` in some senses, but I have
never heard anyone achieve the sort of immense tension that is
provided by a Viennese fortepiano in the second movement of Op. 111 as
the melody soars upwards to a high Bb - on the older instrument the
more rapid decay gives an acute sense of the instrument being pushed
to its limits.
This argument really rests upon what one defines as a `musical
challenge`. Are questions of tempo, pedalling, sustaining power,
phrasing, articulation, `musical challenges`? I think so. Are these
parameters affected by the instrument being used? Most definitely.
If one is arguing that it`s possible to rewrite Beethoven`s phrasing
so as to make it idiomatic on a modern instrument (which in reality is
what most pianists do, maybe sometimes without realizing so), then
fair enough, but it would be hard to deny that this constitutes a
palpable divergence from the composer´s intentions. Is that a bad
thing? Not necessarily. Is it a bad thing to consider these factors,
or a bad thing to conclude that many such attributes are facilitated
by a period instrument? Why should it be?
I´m typing this at the end of a day of recording and rehearsing a work
for choir and piano of Schumann, and considering Schumann´s pedal
markings and accents in particular, most of which the nature of the
modern instrument I´m using (by necessity not by choice) force big
compromises. So it´s on my mind very acutely, and once more I`m quite
bemused to see how even the very fact of trying to address these
questions provokes such intense hostility from some quarters.
Ian
sam6...@earthlink.net
David7Gable wrote:
Indeed. Which puts in even brighter light the self-serving idiocy of the
contemporary racket of bunched-up wannabes which equates recreating the
historical limitations of certain instruments/instrumental ensembles
with a means of getting to the authentic heart of the music itself.
regards,
SG
William Quentin (bloom)
I suppose some of the problems I have with the HIP movement are the
same problems I have with Historicism. (Let me also say that while I
have big problems with both HIP and Historicism, I don't dismiss
either of them.)
It seems to me that part and parcel of the HIP movement is the idea
that we can somehow perform music in the "spirit" that the composer
intended (or in the same "spirit" that contemporaries of the composer
would have performed it). This seems to me to be somewhat
Coleridgean, and reminds me of what STC has to say about the task of
criticism: "The word was not to convey merely what a certain thing
is, but the very passion and all the circumstances which were
conceived as constituting the perception of the thing by the person
who used the word." It also reminds me of Schleiermacher's view of
criticism. Here's Hans Gadamer on Schleiermacher:
"Schleiermacher . . . is wholly concerned to reconstruct the work, in
the understanding, as originally constituted. . . ."
Of course, the question is whether or not that is possible. Gadamer
continues with this:
"Ultimately, this view of hermeneutics is as nonsensical as all
restitution and restoration of past life. Reconstructing the original
circumstances, like all restoration, is a futile undertaking in view
of the historicity of our being. What is reconstructed, a life
brought back from the past, is not the original. In its continuance
in an estranged state it acquires only a derivative, cultural
existence. The recent tendency to take works out of museums and put
them back in the place for which they were originally intended, or to
restore architectural monuments to their original form, merely
confirms this judgment. Even a painting taken from the museum and
replaced in a church or building restored to its original condition
are not what they once were - they become simply tourist attractions.
Similarly, a hermeneutics that regarded understanding as
reconstructing the original would be no more than handing on a dead
meaning. . . . The essential nature of the historical spirit consists
not in the restoration of the past but in thoughtful mediation with
contemporary life. . . . Every age has to understand a transmitted
text in its own way, for the text belongs to the whole tradition whose
CONTENT interests the age and in which it seeks to understand itself."
- Hans Gadamer, _Truth and Method_
This makes me ask whether the ideology underlying the HIP movement is
fundamentally flawed. From Gadamer's point of view, a performance
style brought back from the past is not the original performance
style, but an "estranged" and "derivative" one. In other words, to
try to seize the past while doing "objective" reconstruction is to kid
ourselves about what we are seizing. As David often points out, and
as I think Gadamer's argument makes clear, HIP is not reconstructing
"original circumstances." Rather, it is a performance style of its
historical moment - the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
Btw, if that's all that HIPsters claimed, I wouldn't have any problem
with them (in fact, I like a lot of HIP recordings). However, when
they start to make claims about "authenticity," that's when I become
very wary (and yes, I know that increasingly fewer HIPsters make those
sorts of claims nowadays, which is of course a good thing).
-Billy
---
You are the music while the music lasts.
Matthew Silverstein
> Indeed. Which puts in even brighter light the self-serving idiocy of the
> contemporary racket of bunched-up wannabes which equates recreating the
> historical limitations of certain instruments/instrumental ensembles
> with a means of getting to the authentic heart of the music itself.
Whatever. The fact that Beethoven desperately wanted pianos that were louder
than the ones at his disposal does imply that he wrote his music for such
pianos. He may have wished for a Steinway, but he certainly didn't write for
one.
Matty
sam6...@earthlink.net
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> The fact that Beethoven desperately wanted pianos that were louder
> than the ones at his disposal does imply that he wrote his music for such
> pianos. He may have wished for a Steinway, but he certainly didn't write for
> one.
So am I giving you any argument?
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> The fact that Beethoven desperately wanted pianos that were louder
> than the ones at his disposal does imply that he wrote his music for such
> pianos. He may have wished for a Steinway, but he certainly didn't write
for
> one.
Sorry--there should be a "not" there. Let me try again:
The fact that Beethoven desperately wanted pianos that were louder
than the ones at his disposal does *not* imply that he wrote his music for
such pianos. He may have wished for a Steinway, but he certainly didn't
write for one.
Are we arguing now?
Matty
Dick Grayson
Did he "polish" it enough for it to be a significant work? I hadn't
known about this, très intéressant. I really have to get the Cairns
books, I wish the hardback would come down in price though..$60 per
volume is a bit steep!
Personally, I'd like to believe it was Paganini. He's already
an exalted figure in my little world and this only adds to his
stature. Also, both Paganini & Berlioz played the guitar.
Whether one or the other influenced the style of composition
or playing for that instrument I'm not sure, someone more
knowledgeable about this subject could speak to that. I do
think that Berlioz wrote most of his compositions with guitar
before he actually met Paganini.
Here's the program notes that suggest Bertin's generosity;
http://www.nmso.org/cpn030402.htm
"Berlioz -- indeed, all of Paris -- was stunned by this unprecedented
generosity. Who could imagine giving away 20,000 francs -- and to a
composer! Berlioz, who had been scraping a living as a music critic
and essayist for various periodicals, realized that he was now free to
devote himself completely to composition, a luxury still unattainable
by most composers. This is such a good story; it's a shame to relate
that Paganini, a notoriously greedy skinflint, never gave Berlioz a
dime. The money actually came from Berlioz' friend Armand Bertin, who
knew Berlioz wouldn't accept it unless he disguised the source."
sam6...@earthlink.net
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
Not really, unless you are in the mood. ( :
regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
sam6...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
>David7Gable wrote:
>
>>>Berlioz was very forward looking, I would have said. His memoirs are
>>>full of comparisons between what he thought were developing
>>>"improvements" both in sound and technique. The development of
>>>"sponge headed" timpani sticks got him positively excited
>>
>>
>> Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his lifetime.
>> And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
>> proportions.
>
>Indeed.
Indeed? He wanted all those instruments that Mahler wrote for? How very
clairvoyant of him.... (Why isn't it enough to say that Mozart liked big
orchestras like the one he encountered (and wrote for) in Paris?)
Which puts in even brighter light the self-serving idiocy of the
>contemporary racket of bunched-up wannabes which equates recreating the
>historical limitations of certain instruments/instrumental ensembles
>with a means of getting to the authentic heart of the music itself.
Happily it's possible to enjoy the contemporary racket of bunched-up wannabes
without subscribing to the ideology espoused by some of them.
Simon
Simon Roberts
Silverstein says...
Moreover, the fact that he wanted louder pianos hardly supports the contention
that what he was after was the sound of a modern Steinway; he may have just
wanted a louder version of what he was familiar with (or something completely
different from either).
Simon
Simon Roberts
[snip]
>This makes me ask whether the ideology underlying the HIP movement is
>fundamentally flawed.
But there isn't just *one* ideology underlying it.
From Gadamer's point of view, a performance
>style brought back from the past is not the original performance
>style, but an "estranged" and "derivative" one. In other words, to
>try to seize the past while doing "objective" reconstruction is to kid
>ourselves about what we are seizing. As David often points out, and
>as I think Gadamer's argument makes clear, HIP is not reconstructing
>"original circumstances." Rather, it is a performance style of its
>historical moment - the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
>
>Btw, if that's all that HIPsters claimed, I wouldn't have any problem
>with them (in fact, I like a lot of HIP recordings). However, when
>they start to make claims about "authenticity," that's when I become
>very wary (and yes, I know that increasingly fewer HIPsters make those
>sorts of claims nowadays, which is of course a good thing).
Indeed; which is why it's a mistake to refer to *the* ideology underlying HIP.
(One of the chief (and probably the funniest) critics of the ideology you seem
to have in mind is Richard Taruskin (he too makes the point that what HIPsters
do is modern, not ancient), who is an enthusiastic HIPster himself (among other
things).)
Simon
Alan Watkins
That is very interesting. I do not know Castor very well so I had not
noticed it but of the Rameau I do know I find myself often astonished
by how "forward" his writing is. Zais interests me for the way in
which Rameau uses rests to increase the drama of some passages.
sam6...@earthlink.net
Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his lifetime.
>>>And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
>>>proportions.
>>
>>Indeed.
>
>
> Indeed? He wanted all those instruments that Mahler wrote for? How very
> clairvoyant of him.... (Why isn't it enough to say that Mozart liked big
> orchestras like the one he encountered (and wrote for) in Paris?)
Oy, Mr Roberts. Mahlerian *proportions* t'was said, not Mahlerian
instrumental inventory.
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Simon Roberts wrote:
> the fact that he wanted louder pianos hardly supports the contention
> that what he was after was the sound of a modern Steinway; he may have just
> wanted a louder version of what he was familiar with (or something completely
> different from either).
There was no such "contention". For all I know, poor Beethoven may have
liked a $300 electric keyboard . . . or not.
The "contention" was that acknowledging the existence of certain
instrumental possibilities in a given historical moment would not imply
that the reiteration of the same instrumental possibilities is
necessarily a laudable desideratum.
Did we have this discussion before or am I getting old? Or is rmcr? ( :
regards,
SG
sam6...@earthlink.net
Simon Roberts wrote:
> But there isn't just *one* ideology underlying it.
Not that would perfectly apply here but, to the extent it does, quench
my feline-murdering curiosity: would you also say that, because
Leninism, Trotskyism, Bucharinism, Stalinism and Maoism (among other
monstrosities) are known to exist, that would be an argument against the
claim that there is an ideology underlying all that stuff?
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
news:S3P7c.34715$%06.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Aren't they the same?
One cannot blow 16 horns
unless one has 16 horns.
dk
Simon Roberts
sam6...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>
>> the fact that he wanted louder pianos hardly supports the contention
>> that what he was after was the sound of a modern Steinway; he may have just
>> wanted a louder version of what he was familiar with (or something completely
>> different from either).
>
>There was no such "contention". For all I know, poor Beethoven may have
>liked a $300 electric keyboard . . . or not.
Such a contention is frequently made; Matty's post, to which I was responding,
implied it had been made. Trying to catch up on more than two weeks of threads,
I'm not scrutinizing every post carefully....
>
>The "contention" was that acknowledging the existence of certain
>instrumental possibilities in a given historical moment would not imply
>that the reiteration of the same instrumental possibilities is
>necessarily a laudable desideratum.
Has anyone said it's *necessarily" laudable?
>Did we have this discussion before or am I getting old? Or is rmcr? ( :
It's all just part of the general futility of life.
Simon
Simon Roberts
sam6...@earthlink.net says...
You can't have Mahlerian *proportions* without Mahlerian inventory.
Simon
sam6...@earthlink.net
Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>>>Just as Beethoven preferred the louder pianos developed during his lifetime.
>>>>>And just as Mozart said he'd like to have an orchestra of Mahlerian
>>>>>proportions.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Indeed? He wanted all those instruments that Mahler wrote for? How very
>>>clairvoyant of him.... (Why isn't it enough to say that Mozart liked big
>>>orchestras like the one he encountered (and wrote for) in Paris?)
>>
>>Oy, Mr Roberts. Mahlerian *proportions* t'was said, not Mahlerian
>>instrumental inventory.
>
>
> You can't have Mahlerian *proportions* without Mahlerian inventory.
Hey, Mr. Gable, what the heck did you mean with Mahlerian proportions?
You got me into trouble and now you sign off, nu?
regards,
SG
William Quentin (bloom)
Would we want it any other way? As Keats says:
"Ay, in the very temple of Delight
Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine,
Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue
Can burst Joy's grape against his palate fine;
His soul shall taste the sadness of her might,
And be among her cloudy trophies hung."
Remember, only beauty that must die is beauty. Don't fall into the
trap of building "a bark of dead men's bones" or suffering "thy pale
forehead to be kiss'd by nightshade, ruby grape of Proserpine." We
must never try to drown the "wakeful anguish of the soul"!
Anyway, the futility of life, and the repetitiveness of RMCR, must be
savored, and, umm... well, something like that. ;-)
sam6...@earthlink.net
William Quentin (bloom) wrote:
>>>Did we have this discussion before or am I getting old? Or is rmcr? ( :
>>
>>It's all just part of the general futility of life.
>
> Would we want it any other way? As Keats says:
>
> "Ay, in the very temple of Delight
> Veil'd Melancholy has her sovran shrine,
> Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue
> Can burst Joy's grape against his palate fine;
> His soul shall taste the sadness of her might,
> And be among her cloudy trophies hung."
>
> Remember, only beauty that must die is beauty. Don't fall into the
> trap of building "a bark of dead men's bones" or suffering "thy pale
> forehead to be kiss'd by nightshade, ruby grape of Proserpine." We
> must never try to drown the "wakeful anguish of the soul"!
>
> Anyway, the futility of life, and the repetitiveness of RMCR, must be
> savored, and, umm... well, something like that. ;-)
I can envision, in a future not far away, a few skeletal rmcr survivors
on the ruins of a destroyed world, with no electricity to play their
then useless CDs, fighting passionately about the merits of Toscanini vs
Furtwaengler as they are able to remember them, or whether whistling
Wagner should be allowed in the nuclear aftermath, or any other such
subjects of tremendous consequence to a glorious humanity. Not to
forget, which wood makes for a better fire, a Steinway's or a Broadwood's.
regards,
SG
Richard Schultz
: Simon Roberts wrote:
:>>Oy, Mr Roberts. Mahlerian *proportions* t'was said, not Mahlerian
:>>instrumental inventory.
:> You can't have Mahlerian *proportions* without Mahlerian inventory.
: Hey, Mr. Gable, what the heck did you mean with Mahlerian proportions?
Maybe he meant *Alma* Mahler's proportions? Hubba hubba.
-----
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
-----
"We cannot see how any of his music can long survive him."
-- From the New York Daily Tribune obituary of Gustav Mahler
Dan Koren
news:%t_7c.35230$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
No reason to worry.
You should read "The Physics of Immortality" by
Frank Tiler. We will all be reinstantiated when
the Universe reaches the Omega Point ;-)
dk
PS. The best fires are made by Boesendorfers.
They have more wood.
Dan Koren
news:c3psp8$pil$2...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <qDZ7c.35188$%06.3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
sam6...@earthlink.net wrote:
> : Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> :>>Oy, Mr Roberts. Mahlerian *proportions* t'was said, not Mahlerian
> :>>instrumental inventory.
>
> :> You can't have Mahlerian *proportions* without Mahlerian inventory.
>
> : Hey, Mr. Gable, what the heck did you mean with Mahlerian proportions?
>
> Maybe he meant *Alma* Mahler's proportions? Hubba hubba.
>
I wonder what Mahler saw in her....
De gustibus....
dk
Johannes Roehl
probably similiar qualities as Messrs Kokoschka, Gropius, Werfel, Krenek
etc...
Johannes
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:c3qa80$2bac1l$1...@ID-138609.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Dan Koren schrieb:
>>
>> I wonder what Mahler saw in her....
>
> probably similiar qualities as Messrs Kokoschka, Gropius, Werfel, Krenek
> etc...
Krenek too? Are you serious?
--
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
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
> In article <i5mu50h3cro4lnask...@4ax.com>, bloom says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >This makes me ask whether the ideology underlying the HIP movement is
> >fundamentally flawed.
>
> But there isn't just *one* ideology underlying it.
>
even make the characterization that such a "movement" exists.
> From Gadamer's point of view, a performance
> >style brought back from the past is not the original performance
> >style, but an "estranged" and "derivative" one. In other words, to
> >try to seize the past while doing "objective" reconstruction is to kid
> >ourselves about what we are seizing. As David often points out, and
> >as I think Gadamer's argument makes clear, HIP is not reconstructing
> >"original circumstances." Rather, it is a performance style of its
> >historical moment - the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
> >
> >Btw, if that's all that HIPsters claimed, I wouldn't have any problem
> >with them (in fact, I like a lot of HIP recordings). However, when
> >they start to make claims about "authenticity," that's when I become
> >very wary (and yes, I know that increasingly fewer HIPsters make those
> >sorts of claims nowadays, which is of course a good thing).
>
> Indeed; which is why it's a mistake to refer to *the* ideology underlying HIP.
> (One of the chief (and probably the funniest) critics of the ideology you seem
> to have in mind is Richard Taruskin (he too makes the point that what HIPsters
> do is modern, not ancient), who is an enthusiastic HIPster himself (among other
> things).)
>
> Simon
>
>
I remember hearing an interview long, long ago with Harnoncourt - I think
around the time that Concentus Musicus Wien released their Vivaldi op. 8
shocker - in which he was adamant that what they were doing was contemporary,
modern music-making of a speculative and experimental kind and it should not be
construed as anything else. His explanation made me feel much more open-minded
towards HIP in the long run than I otherwise might have been, not that I
thought others necessarily shared that point of view. But I think many did,
and many still do.
wr
Wayne Reimer <wrdsl
> >and it's just so completely obvious that the music
> >was written for a different instrument that it's sometimes almost painful to
> >play it.
>
> It is not completely obvious to me. And Rosen has demonstrated at great length
> that there is no musical challenge posed by Beethoven that can't be met on a
> modern grand. Or as he put it, just as in the case of period instruments, "the
> modern piano is quite inadequate enough."
>
>
Right. I wasn't speaking for you. I was speaking in the context of playing a
bunch of Beethoven myself on my modern grand, and having also had some
experience in the past of playing a fortepiano, for comparison.
Rosen, in my opinion, is often excellent at being provocative and at making
assertions, but he's far less talented when it comes to being convincing (in
spite of his oft-demonstrated ability to come up with a smart-alecky and
punchy, but ultimately rather empty, phrase).
wr
Johannes Roehl
> Johannes Roehl <parr...@web.de> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:c3qa80$2bac1l$1...@ID-138609.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>>Dan Koren schrieb:
>>
>>>I wonder what Mahler saw in her....
>>
>>probably similiar qualities as Messrs Kokoschka, Gropius, Werfel, Krenek
>>etc...
>
> Krenek too? Are you serious?
I am not sure (and can't name sources), maybe I am confusing something.
But AFAIK Klimt and a few other guys were also rather interested before
her marriage wih Mahler.
Johannes
David7Gable
>even make the characterization that such a "movement" exists.
If one applied this generally, the word movement couldn't be applied to
anything. No impressionist movement, for example. But Eco has solved the
problem of describing such things. No impressionist painter agrees entirely
with any other, but there is a constellation of issues defining it nonetheless.
Monet believes a, b, c, and d; Renoir a, c, d, and e; Pissaro b, c, d, and
e; etc. No impressionist subscribes to every letter, but every letter is
subscribed to by more than one impressionist.
-david gable