Charles Rosen's Diabelli Variations
Max
digitized the LP for our benefit.
http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work. Rosen
may lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference. This is,
without a doubt, the most nuanced and spontaneous performance of Op.
120 I've heard.
Of the the 40+ I've listened to, it goes into my top 4.
The Variations usually come off ugly and boring. Enjoy this rare
exception!
-Max
(to reply by email, remove the year from my address)
Thornhill
"Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
mandryka
But what I am even more curious about is his first Hammerklavier --
the recording which so impressed Glen Gould.
Has anyone upleaded that? Is it really so special?
CharmNick
Less likable than... the Victory Symphony? Try John Browning (RCA).
Nick
td
Didn't Sony issue that.Epic version on CD, or only the one he recorded
later with the other late sonatas for CBS Records?
There is also one he recorded for MusicMasters which is later still.
All have the hectic first movement, of course, so you have to like
that approach to the piece.
TD
td
That's even less likable!
TD
Kip Williams
> On May 20, 3:41 am, Max<max1974is...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic blogger
>> digitized the LP for our benefit.
>>
>> http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>>
>> This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work.
>
I was thinking the same thing.
Kip W
David Oberman
<max197...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic blogger
>digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
>http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
Thanks for linking us to this. For some reason, I thought that his
Diabelli & lecture were still available somewhere, somehow. Didn't he
just pop the CD into the book itself?
>The Variations usually come off ugly and boring.
If only that old Rhinelander measured up to our expectations more
often!
RonanM
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 19:41:11 -0700 (PDT), Max
>
> >Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic blogger
> >digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> >http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
> Thanks for linking us to this. For some reason, I thought that his
> Diabelli & lecture were still available somewhere, somehow. Didn't he
> just pop the CD into the book itself?
>
r
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
cb1e66...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
"Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
long.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:7b9e9848-aad5-4089-9f3f-
c0f281...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic blogger
> digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
> This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work. Rosen may
> lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference. This is, without a
> doubt, the most nuanced and spontaneous performance of Op. 120 I've heard.
>
> Of the the 40+ I've listened to, it goes into my top 4.
>
> The Variations usually come off ugly and boring. Enjoy this rare
> exception!
Thanks for this link. There are some wonderful Blogspot sites carrying
digitizations of worthwhile unreissued material, but this one I hadn't seen.
Alan Cooper
news:Xns9D7E5ECC04B...@216.168.3.70:
> Max <max197...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:7b9e9848-aad5-4089-9f3f-
> c0f281...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic
>> blogger digitized the LP for our benefit.
>>
>> http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>>
>> This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work.
>> Rosen may lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference.
>> This is, without a doubt, the most nuanced and spontaneous
>> performance of Op. 120 I've heard.
>>
>> Of the the 40+ I've listened to, it goes into my top 4.
>>
>> The Variations usually come off ugly and boring. Enjoy this
>> rare exception!
>
> Thanks for this link. There are some wonderful Blogspot sites
> carrying digitizations of worthwhile unreissued material, but
> this one I hadn't seen.
Rosen's Diabellis, while currently op, are not "unreissued," however. Although
the blogger coyly comments, "The Peters recordings? Who knows?", in fact both the
Diabellis and the Concerti 2 & 4 w/Morris did appear on Carlton/IMP CD. Don't
know about the "Emperor" (which wasn't so hot anyway). I bet David Gable has 'em
all :-)
AC
td
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote innews:Xns9D7E5ECC04B...@216.168.3.70:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Max <max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
> > following letters to be typed in news:7b9e9848-aad5-4089-9f3f-
>
> >> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic
> >> blogger digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> >>http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
> >> This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work.
> >> Rosen may lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference.
> >> This is, without a doubt, the most nuanced and spontaneous
> >> performance of Op. 120 I've heard.
>
> >> Of the the 40+ I've listened to, it goes into my top 4.
>
> >> The Variations usually come off ugly and boring. Enjoy this
> >> rare exception!
>
> > Thanks for this link. There are some wonderful Blogspot sites
> > carrying digitizations of worthwhile unreissued material, but
> > this one I hadn't seen.
>
> Rosen's Diabellis, while currently op, are not "unreissued," however. Although
> the blogger coyly comments, "The Peters recordings? Who knows?", in fact both the
> Diabellis and the Concerti 2 & 4 w/Morris did appear on Carlton/IMP CD. Don't
> know about the "Emperor" (which wasn't so hot anyway). I bet David Gable has 'em
> all
If not, someone else.
TD
Alan Cooper
news:Xns9D7EA12B32E13am...@209.197.15.254:
Not meaning to be churlish, there *are* interesting unreissued items on the site.
I'd note especially the Renee Sandor recital. As the blogger rightly observes, it
includes some extraordinary late Mozart.
AC
Steve Emerson
<da6419c4-1d5f-4f8b...@a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
mandryka <howie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I thought the one reissued by Sony was his best; and very good, too. I
guess that is the second, can't remember.
SE.
Max
I'm guessing you appreciate Browning's exceptionally rounded sound,
but do you really find yourself craving the Diabellis now? I'm
doubting it.. With few exceptions he's one of the legion of
homogenizers. I'd compare his and Rosen's first 14 variations side-by-
side to illustrate how this music is chronically ruined by
undercharacterization (by my judgment, the score is 12-2).
-Max
Max
> Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
>
> > "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>
> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
> long.
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
-Max
CharmNick
> I'm guessing you appreciate Browning's exceptionally rounded sound,
> but do you really find yourself craving the Diabellis now? I'm
> doubting it.. With few exceptions he's one of the legion of
> homogenizers. I'd compare his and Rosen's first 14 variations side-by-
> side to illustrate how this music is chronically ruined by
> undercharacterization (by my judgment, the score is 12-2).
>
> -Max-
Sorry, I was lazy in my first post - it was Browning's RCA LP, from my
late father's shelves, that turned me, aged about 20-22 (I can't now
remember exactly), on to this work. I confess, I haven't heard it in
years. Maybe I would find it a bit bland now. But I still can't agree
with your assertion, 'The Variations usually come off ugly and
boring.'
Nick
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
31921e...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On May 20, 12:17�pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>>
>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." �There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
>> long.
>
> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
Bob Lombard
> Max<max197...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
> 31921e...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 20, 12:17 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
>>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>>>
>>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
>>> long.
>>
>> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
>> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
>> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>
> I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
> at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
> and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
> colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>
I may as well add my 2� worth. Classical music lovers who do not
appreciate Beethoven's Op. 120 only think they have a sense of humor.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
td
> On 5/20/2010 5:08 PM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
>
> >> On May 20, 12:17 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper"<oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> >>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
> >>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>
> >>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
> >>> long.
>
> >> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
> >> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
> >> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>
> > I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
> > at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
> > and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
> > colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>
> I may as well add my 2¢ worth. Classical music lovers who do not
When was the last time you laughed at the Diabelli Variations.
Do you still laugh at the re-runs of Seinfeld? Friends?
Assuming that you ever did, Bob. I never did.
TD
Bob Lombard
> On May 20, 6:02 pm, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2010 5:08 PM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Max<max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>>> to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
>>> 31921e9d0...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>> Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>>>>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
>>>>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>>
>>>>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
>>>>> long.
>>
>>>> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
>>>> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
>>>> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>>
>>> I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
>>> at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
>>> and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
>>> colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>>
>> I may as well add my 2� worth. Classical music lovers who do not
>> appreciate Beethoven's Op. 120 only think they have a sense of .
>
> When was the last time you laughed at the Diabelli Variations.
>
> Do you still laugh at the re-runs of Seinfeld? Friends?
>
> Assuming that you ever did, Bob. I never did.
>
> TD
But Tom, you don't claim to have a sense of humor.
td
> On 5/20/2010 7:21 PM, td wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 6:02 pm, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/2010 5:08 PM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>
> >>> Max<max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> >>> to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
> >>> 31921e9d0...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>>> Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> >>>>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
> >>>>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>>>> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>
> >>>>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
> >>>>> long.
>
> >>>> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
> >>>> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
> >>>> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>
> >>> I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
> >>> at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
> >>> and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
> >>> colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>
> >> I may as well add my 2¢ worth. Classical music lovers who do not
> >> appreciate Beethoven's Op. 120 only think they have a sense of .
>
> > When was the last time you laughed at the Diabelli Variations.
>
> > Do you still laugh at the re-runs of Seinfeld? Friends?
>
> > Assuming that you ever did, Bob. I never did.
>
> > TD
>
> But Tom, you don't claim to have a sense of humor.
And you do?
Where is it?
TD
Bob Lombard
> On May 20, 8:50 pm, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2010 7:21 PM, td wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 20, 6:02 pm, Bob Lombard<thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2010 5:08 PM, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>>
>>>>> Max<max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>>>>> to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
>>>>> 31921e9d0...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>> Thornhill<seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>>>>>>> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
>>>>>>> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>>
>>>>>>> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
>>>>>>> long.
>>
>>>>>> Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
>>>>>> disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
>>>>>> masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>>
>>>>> I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
>>>>> at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
>>>>> and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
>>>>> colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>>
>>>> I may as well add my 2� worth. Classical music lovers who do not
>>>> appreciate Beethoven's Op. 120 only think they have a sense of .
>>
>>> When was the last time you laughed at the Diabelli Variations.
>>
>>> Do you still laugh at the re-runs of Seinfeld? Friends?
>>
>>> Assuming that you ever did, Bob. I never did.
>>
>>> TD
>>
>> But Tom, you don't claim to have a sense of humor.
>
> And you do?
>
> Where is it?
>
> TD
>
Not having one of your own, you have no chance of recognizing it.
David Oberman
wrote:
>You're maybe thinking of Kinderman's book and CD on the Diabellis
You're right -- I think I am.
And then there's Pietr Andrwizs;lasdjeisssky's DVD & recording.
David Oberman
<oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
>long.
I think it's glorious -- but only for one brief moment.
David Oberman
<thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>I may as well add my 2� worth. Classical music lovers who do not
>appreciate Beethoven's Op. 120 only think they have a sense of humor.
I got your joke!
W.S. Gilbert similarly cracked about a performance of "Hamlet" by the
great Beerbohm Tree: "Funny but not vulgar."
Max
Well see, that makes sense. You just happened to encounter the
smoothest performance off all, the Chopin of the Diabellis (uh.. I'm
referring to the vodka of course), and your ear was already
impressively discriminating. Browning is not ugly for one instant.
-Max
Max
It's not exactly laugh-out-loud humor but it's as funny as Beethoven
gets when it's not this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazlqD4mLvw
For example in variation 13 the Commander barks obnoxiously and the
Private mumbles in response. But the timid subordinate becomes
increasingly emboldened until he transforms into... the barking
Commander (making a moebius strip incidentally). And now that he's
got the hang of it, the mischievous Private practically turns into
Bugs Bunny...
But the bottomless 20th variation is the least funny music Beethoven
ever wrote, and that includes his funeral marches and funereal
movements. Kierkegaard was only six years old, and existentialism was
already fully developed!
-Max
Max
> Max <max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:dba85478-ebdd-45e2-b229-
>
> > On May 20, 12:17 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> >> letters to be typed in news:6876b70e-b774-4775-a795-
> >> cb1e66e7d...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > "Beethoven's least likable work --" really?
>
> >> "Der Glorreiche Augenblick." There's a reason it went unrecorded for so
> >> long.
>
> > Good point. It may not be the least likable, but it is the most
> > disliked - ie. people listen to it at least once hoping to hear a
> > masterpiece and come away repulsed and disappointed.
>
> I wouldn't say I was expecting a masterpiece, but I was hoping for something
> at least mildly interesting, such as the two Emperor cantatas; or majestic
> and Handelesque, like the Mount of Olives oratorio; or at least silly and
> colorful, like "Wellington's Victory." Unfortunately, it's a piece of crap.
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Case in point..
Kip Williams
Blink and you miss it.
Kip W
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:2fa05368-07b0-4a92-9f26-
e64c73...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> It's not exactly laugh-out-loud humor but it's as funny as Beethoven gets
> when it's not this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazlqD4mLvw
>
> For example in variation 13 the Commander barks obnoxiously and the Private
> mumbles in response. But the timid subordinate becomes increasingly
> emboldened until he transforms into... the barking Commander (making a
> moebius strip incidentally). And now that he's got the hang of it, the
> mischievous Private practically turns into Bugs Bunny...
>
> But the bottomless 20th variation is the least funny music Beethoven ever
> wrote, and that includes his funeral marches and funereal movements.
> Kierkegaard was only six years old, and existentialism was already fully
> developed!
You had me at "bottomless."
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7dvJn.11605$HG1....@newsfe21.iad:
Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead.
The angels have the blue box.
Lena
> Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote innews:Xns9D7EA12B32E13am...@209.197.15.254:
>
>
>
> > "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >news:Xns9D7E5ECC04B...@216.168.3.70:
>
> >> Max <max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
> >> following letters to be typed in news:7b9e9848-aad5-4089-9f3f-
>
> >>> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic
> >>> blogger digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> >>>http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
>
> >> carrying digitizations of worthwhile unreissued material, but
> >> this one I hadn't seen.
>
> > Rosen's Diabellis, while currently op, are not "unreissued,"
> > however. Although the blogger coyly comments, "The Peters
> > recordings? Who knows?", in fact both the Diabellis and the
> > Concerti 2 & 4 w/Morris did appear on Carlton/IMP CD. Don't
> > know about the "Emperor" (which wasn't so hot anyway). I bet
> > David Gable has 'em all :-)
>
> > AC
>
> Not meaning to be churlish, there *are* interesting unreissued items on the site.
> I'd note especially the Renee Sandor recital. As the blogger rightly observes, it
> includes some extraordinary late Mozart.
>
Interesting, thanks. I got the Sandor from High Pony, but it got
stuck in the middle of an impossibly long to-listen-to queue -- so now
that there is a consensus on it, I have to nudge it up.
Not to discount the depth of recordings knowledge among some unnamed
people in rmcr (which I continue to be astonished at), but I think
that the Pony blog is also a pretty worthwhile thing to read. (That
despite the endemic bloggery problem = you can't dialogue with a blog,
and no refreshing group fights.) The writer is an interesting
person, has a sense of humor, has a bout of enthusiasm about Sciarrino
and Rameau simultaneously. What else should one ask for? :)
Lena
PS. Though once one starts thanking people, thanks have to be issued
also to all the other excellent persons here who transfer obscure or
impossible material (with or without blog)....
Lena
> In article
> <da6419c4-1d5f-4f8b-b32e-2b4b4d5f4...@a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I will download this because I'm curious.
>
> > But what I am even more curious about is his first Hammerklavier --
> > the recording which so impressed Glen Gould.
>
> > Has anyone upleaded that? Is it really so special?
>
> I thought the one reissued by Sony was his best; and very good, too. I
> guess that is the second, can't remember.
>
Only David G. knows all Rosen matters for certain :) -- but, yes, I
too think the Sony is his second (and best) HK take. The first one
is more unyielding in its hecticity, so it sounded mechanical to me.
(I don't perhaps mind 'mechanical' to the extent some people do, but
IIRC that HK seemed a bit too driven by silicon wafers.)
Lena
td
"hecticity". An interestesting creation. No doubt you will have Tepper
on your tail for lese-language!
Frankly, I like it, particularly in the context of Rosen's merciless
tempo for the first movement of the Hammerklavier. Could one call
Rosen a musical ideologue? A kind of musical Clarence Thomas? Or just
someone who got the wrong end of the musical stick?
TD
herman
>
> Frankly, I like it, particularly in the context of Rosen's merciless
> tempo for the first movement of the Hammerklavier. Could one call
> Rosen a musical ideologue? A kind of musical Clarence Thomas? Or just
> someone who got the wrong end of the musical stick?
>
> TD
Yes one could, why not?
I'd also like to say that every Rosen recording I have has been a
disappointment, with the Chopin 58 / Cello sonata as the utter
uncompetitive nadir. I can't help but think the guy wouldn't stand a
chance if he wasn't a music writer as well. And he wouldn't be such a
famous music writer if there was more competition in that field
either.
david...@aol.com
> I will download this because I'm curious.
>
> But what I am even more curious about is his first Hammerklavier --
> the recording which so impressed Glen Gould.
I believe it was the second recording. Gould was on the verge of
recording it, but he heard Rosen's recording during playback sessions
and decided that any effort on his part would be superfluous in the
face of Rosen's achievement. (His enthusiasm disconcerted Rosen:
despite Rosen's admiration for Gould, he considers some of Gould's
playing "weird," and he was uncertain what Gould liked about his
performance.)
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> Charles Rosen's Diabelli's are unavailable so this heroic blogger
> digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
> may lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference.
I love that performance, too --- very much -- but it dated from the
beginning of the period when when Rosen had increasing difficulty
summoning up a "polished cantabile." (Doesn't bother me at all.)
Originally released in 1977, Rosen's recording was reissued on CD in
1995 on IMP/Carlton Classics.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> Didn't Sony issue that.Epic version on CD, or only the one he recorded
> later with the other late sonatas for CBS Records?
Originally released in 1965, the Epic recording has never been
reissued on CD. Rosen recorded the last six Beethoven sonatas for CBS
during five sessions in 1968-1970. Sony reissued this set on CD in
1994.
> There is also one he recorded for MusicMasters which is later still.
Rosen's third recording of the Hammerklavier was recorded for Music
Masters in 1996.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote innews:Xns9D7E5ECC04B...@216.168.3.70:
>
>
>
> > Max <max1974is...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
> > following letters to be typed in news:7b9e9848-aad5-4089-9f3f-
> > c0f281b50...@e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> blogger digitized the LP for our benefit.
>
> >>http://highponytail.blogspot.com/search?q=diabelli+rosen
>
> >> This is a great performance of Beethoven's least likable work.
> >> Rosen may lack a polished cantabile but it makes no difference.
> >> performance of Op. 120 I've heard.
>
> >> Of the the 40+ I've listened to, it goes into my top 4.
>
> >> rare exception!
>
> > Thanks for this link. There are some wonderful Blogspot sites
> > carrying digitizations of worthwhile unreissued material, but
> > this one I hadn't seen.
>
> Rosen's Diabellis, while currently op, are not "unreissued," however. Although
> the blogger coyly comments, "The Peters recordings? Who knows?", in fact both the
> Diabellis and the Concerti 2 & 4 w/Morris did appear on Carlton/IMP CD. Don't
> know about the "Emperor" (which wasn't so hot anyway).
> I bet David Gable has 'em
> all :-)
You betcha!
Actually, the recording of the second piano concerto that was released
on CD had never been released on LP, although it was recorded at the
same time as the 4th in 1978. Rosen also recorded the Emperor in
1978, and that was issued on LP, but Rosen disliked the performance
and wouldn’t allow them to reissue it on CD. In all three recordings
the horn player in Wyn Morris’s pickup orchestra was Alan Civil.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> I'd also like to say that every Rosen recording I have has been a
> disappointment, with the Chopin 58 / Cello sonata as the utter
> uncompetitive nadir.
Which of his recordings from the 1950's and 1960's have you actually
heard? In the later recordings, force of will increasingly
recompenses for loss of polish.
> I can't help but think the guy wouldn't stand a
> chance if he wasn't a music writer as well.
He played for 20 years before he ever published a word -- The
Classical Style was published in 1971 -- and those years were the most
successful part of his career as a pianist: the part of his career
when Virgil Thomson predicted that he would be "the pianist of our
dreams," Stravinsky enlisted him to record the Movements for piano and
orchestra, David Hamilton raved for pages about his late Bach set,
etc. etc. etc. Then again, his musicality and fingers were up to
mastering Elliott Carter's Night Fantasies in the 1980's.
> And he wouldn't be such a
> famous music writer if there was more competition in that field
> either.
I don't think you have any idea what magnitude of mind, musicality,
knowledge, and intelligence were required to write The Classical Style
and The Romantic Generation. There's a reason why he hasn't got any
competition. (For the record, there are quantities of writing on
music published every year.)
-david gable
Lena
I like Rosen's Sony Hammerklavier hugely; it's one of my all-time
favorites, and it's not mechanical at all, IMO.
I don't even think that version is particularly hectic -- for one
thing, Rosen's tempo is not so outlandishly fast, anyway, and, for me,
a fast tempo in the outer movements works. All I meant by the
'mechanical' characterization of the other HK was that (IIRC) there
was less of the subtle rubato Rosen uses in the Sony version.
Lena
Lena
Lena
That's just silly. Maybe he wouldn't stand a chance with you, but I
don't think you're among the most perceptive Beethoven listeners
around.
Lena
td
It is also fair to say that CR always found GG "sweet", very kind,
when they would run into one another in the Steinway basement.
And indeed GG was a very sweet person when you met him. Polite,
considerate, and good humoured, and not at all the "wierdo" that some
might think he was. (although he did get very weird in the final years
when prescription drugs took over his life).
TD
td
> I don't think you have any idea what magnitude of mind, musicality,
> knowledge, and intelligence were required to write The Classical Style
> and The Romantic Generation. There's a reason why he hasn't got any
> competition.
These comments sound very much like hero worship, David, rather than
an objective assessment. Yes, the books are very good. But there are
many other writers (and not only in English but also German, French,
Dutch, Italian and Spanish, and, one also assumes, Russian) about
music who, although they may take a different way of considering
various musical topics also treated by Rosen, write with immense
knowledge and great style and polish.
I am assuming, of course, that you are also only speaking of the books
you mention and not the smart-ass pieces of journalism we have
discussed here before. CR can also play the Peck's Bad Boy of music,
which makes him seem like a frat-boy at a Princeton debating society
meeting. Those pieces do his reputation as a "musicologist" no
particular good in my opinion. I am, of course, thinking of, and
loathing, his gratuitous throw-away line about Walter Gieseking (the
stupidest pianist I ever met!). I guess Rosen doesn't like
butterflies? Or still thinks Gieseking was a Nazi? Or perhaps simple
jealousy? Such comments serve only to diminish Rosen's reputation, I
think. And we had best not linger too long on a comparison between
Gieseking and Rosen as pianists, of course.
TD
td
I never used the term "mechanical", but now that you have done so....
> I don't even think that version is particularly hectic -- for one
> thing, Rosen's tempo is not so outlandishly fast, anyway, and, for me,
> a fast tempo in the outer movements works. All I meant by the
> 'mechanical' characterization of the other HK was that (IIRC) there
> was less of the subtle rubato Rosen uses in the Sony version.
Would that mean that when he was younger he was more "mechanical", or
less flexible, perhaps, using less rubato? This goes against the
normal tendency of musicians to stiffen as age begins to hit their
physical abilities.
I will get out that Epic Lp again and listen to it. I remember
thinking at the time - this is 40 years ago, remember - that the tempo
was quite silly.
TD
td
No need to attack Herman personally, Lena. He was simply expressing an
opinion. That is fair enough, I think. You were doing the same thing.
I wouldn't attack you personally despite my disagreement with much of
what you have written here.
TD
Lena
Or maybe it had nothing to do with age-induced stiffness, and he just
changed his mind about the optimal approach...
> I will get out that Epic Lp again and listen to it. I remember
> thinking at the time - this is 40 years ago, remember - that the tempo
> was quite silly.
I've heard a private transfer of the LP, but I think I misplaced it
after I lost interest in this version, so I can't check. But I don't
think he's faster than Korstick, say.
Lena
>
> TD
Lena
> On May 22, 9:39 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 5:28 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 mai, 14:21, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Frankly, I like it, particularly in the context of Rosen's merciless
> > > > tempo for the first movement of the Hammerklavier. Could one call
> > > > Rosen a musical ideologue? A kind of musical Clarence Thomas? Or just
> > > > someone who got the wrong end of the musical stick?
>
> > > > TD
>
> > > Yes one could, why not?
>
> > > I'd also like to say that every Rosen recording I have has been a
> > > disappointment, with the Chopin 58 / Cello sonata as the utter
> > > uncompetitive nadir. I can't help but think the guy wouldn't stand a
> > > chance if he wasn't a music writer as well. And he wouldn't be such a
> > > famous music writer if there was more competition in that field
> > > either.
>
> > That's just silly. Maybe he wouldn't stand a chance with you, but I
> > don't think you're among the most perceptive Beethoven listeners
> > around.
>
> No need to attack Herman personally, Lena. He was simply expressing an
> opinion.
I wasn't attacking; I was expressing my sincere opinion about how much
basis I think he has for making such extremely dismissive statements.
Even if Rosen's success as a pianist is more of a taste matter, I
don't think Herman can make global assessments about *other people's*
reasons for having a high regard for Rosen's pianism. Especially
since his knowledge of some of the music Rosen plays is pretty
limited.
I'm not normally this blunt, and I may not be blunt later, but I'm not
immune to getting fed up with posters who're full of opinions about
things they know next to nothing about.
> That is fair enough, I think. You were doing the same thing.
> I wouldn't attack you personally despite my disagreement with much of
> what you have written here.
I don't think it has anything to do with disagreement -- minimal
acquaintance with one's topic might be an issue, however.
Lena
mandryka
> On May 22, 2:51 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 1:16 pm, Steve Emerson <eme...@n-n-nospamsonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <da6419c4-1d5f-4f8b-b32e-2b4b4d5f4...@a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > mandryka <howie.st...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I will download this because I'm curious.
>
> > > > But what I am even more curious about is his first Hammerklavier --
> > > > the recording which so impressed Glen Gould.
>
> > > > Has anyone upleaded that? Is it really so special?
>
> > > I thought the one reissued by Sony was his best; and very good, too. I
> > > guess that is the second, can't remember.
>
> > Only David G. knows all Rosen matters for certain :) -- but, yes, I
> > too think the Sony is his second (and best) HK take. The first one
> > is more unyielding in its hecticity, so it sounded mechanical to me.
> > (I don't perhaps mind 'mechanical' to the extent some people do, but
> > IIRC that HK seemed a bit too driven by silicon wafers.)
>
> "hecticity". An interestesting creation. No doubt you will have Tepper
> on your tail for lese-language!
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think it's her own creation -- it's a pukka word:
td
All he said that everything he had heard had left him disappointed.
And the implication was that since his piano playing is so "average",
perhaps nobody would be discussing it at all were he not also a writer
about music.
Fair enough, I think.
Frankly - and I happen to own all of Rosen's recordings, yes, all of
them - it has been a very long time since I was delighted by a Rosen
recording of any music I truly love. We argued a long time ago about
Virtuoso: a rather bad recording, I think, although one would wish it
were better, as he so much wanted to play like Josef Hofmann. He
failed, in fact. It is probably that Columbia's ungrateful piano sound
didn't help matters, of course, and may indeed have ruined the album
from the get-go.
> I'm not normally this blunt, and I may not be blunt later, but I'm not
> immune to getting fed up with posters who're full of opinions about
> things they know next to nothing about.
Indeed. And you may be talking to yourself, as I don't think you have
the foggiest idea how much Herman "knows" about Charles Rosen.
> > That is fair enough, I think. You were doing the same thing.
> > I wouldn't attack you personally despite my disagreement with much of
> > what you have written here.
>
> I don't think it has anything to do with disagreement -- minimal
> acquaintance with one's topic might be an issue, however.
Again, the attack on Herman for not knowing anything. I really think
you might engage him in a polite discussion before jumping to this
conclusion simply because you happen to like what you hear from CR.
You might even find out that he knows far more about the topic than
you initially thought?
At any rate, knowledge doesn't lead inevitably to wisdom or truth in
these matters, as you must acknowledge, if reluctantly. Taste is such
a dodgy standard in musical matters.
Chacun a son mauvais gout, as the Chinese saying goes.
TD
td
Well, I say!
Now we have "dictionaries" of urban slang.
I have never seen or heard the word hecticity, nor do I expect to
again in the near future. Perhaps this is part of the fallout from my
retreat from urban life into the glories of rural living, where my
local farmers would blanche at such words. Used the word "lugubrious"
the other day in conversation with a local and got a very strange
look. My interlocutor prefers "gloomy". Guess he's right; that's a
word everyone can understand. And language is about communication
after all, although some use it for intimidation or exclusion.
TD
Lena
That's not all he said.
> And the implication was that since his piano playing is so "average",
> perhaps nobody would be discussing it at all were he not also a writer
> about music.
>
> Fair enough, I think.
Of course it's not fair; whether fair enough or at all fair.
But in any case, I'm not interested in an argument with either of you,
because there are other things to do, so goodbye.
Lena
david...@aol.com
> On May 22, 9:36 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you have any idea what magnitude of mind, musicality,
> > knowledge, and intelligence were required to write The Classical Style
> > and The Romantic Generation. There's a reason why he hasn't got any
> > competition.
>
> These comments sound very much like hero worship, David, rather than
> an objective assessment.
Of course, “objective assessment” can lead to “hero worship”: anyone
who has regularly seen Rosen's mind in action will understand how this
could happen. The range of his knowledge of art, music, and
literature really is stupefying: Isaiah Berlin described him as the
best read man alive. Boulez has described him as possessing “une
culture vraiment intimidante.” Brian Ferneyhough described his
knowledge as “exhaustive and exhausting.” When Charles Mackerras
first met Rosen, he “had not expected that he would have an
encyclopedic knowledge, not only of Mozart’s and Handel’s operas, but
of the bel canto ottocento style of Donizetti, Bellini, and Verdi. I
was soon to discover that he was a specialist in just about
everything.” But it’s not only his knowledge that provoked
extravagant rave reviews of his books from Joseph Kerman, Robert
Craft, and George Steiner, to mention only names readers here are
likely to recognize. The depth of his feeling for and understanding
of just what makes a vast range of repertoire tick verges on the
terrifying. Which helps account for the longevity of The Classical
Style, when so much other 40-year scholarly writing has long since
disappeared into the shade. (And, yes, I do appreciate the wicked
humor in Ferneyhough’s remark.)
> Yes, the books are very good. But there are
> many other writers (and not only in English but also German, French,
> Dutch, Italian and Spanish, and, one also assumes, Russian) about
> music who, although they may take a different way of considering
> various musical topics also treated by Rosen, write with immense
> knowledge and great style and polish.
I never said otherwise. Nevertheless, I guarantee you there isn't a
Beethoven scholar active in any language since the publication of The
Classical Style who hasn't paid great attention to what Rosen has
written on the subject: Kerman, Alan Tyson, Lewis Lockwood, William
Kinderman, Barry Cooper, Scott Burnham, etc. At one point Carl
Dahlhaus actually intended to translate The Classical Style into
German, an extraordinary gesture for so distinguished a writer to
make. Dahlhaus was only dissuaded when he discovered that Traute
Marshall, wife of the distinguished Bach scholar, Robert Marshall, was
in the process of translating it. (Kerman on Rosen: “Rather than
another analysis of another Bach fugue by the present writer, the
world would be better off with a reprint of Charles Rosen’s 1997
review of Bach & The Patterns Of Invention by Laurence Dreyfus.”)
And then there are the distinguished writers in other fields -- Meyer
Schapiro and Geoffrey Hartman, for example -- who have expressed their
enthusiasm for Rosen’s writing on poetry and painting. Robert P.
Morgan, a distinguished Yale theorist and a Princeton grad, tells the
story that when Rosen was an undergrad at Princeton, the music,
philosophy, math, and French departments were all prepared to welcome
Rosen into their graduate programs. (In the end he earned his Ph.D.
in French literature.) The arguments in Rosen’s Romantic Generation
depend on a command of an extraordinary range of sometimes quite
obscure literature in Italian, English, French, and German as well as
music, and Morgan comments in a review that it would be hard to
imagine any other living writer being able to pull it off.
In short, this or that catty comment that Rosen may (or may not) have
made about some mere pianist doesn’t matter any more than the catty
comments of other great minds. Does it matter that Beethoven said of
Weber "what I sh-t is better than anything you ever thought"?
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> All he said that everything he had heard had left him disappointed.
> And the implication was that since his piano playing is so "average",
> perhaps nobody would be discussing it at all were he not also a writer
> about music.
>
> Fair enough, I think.
I don't know whether it's fair or not: I think it's absurd. The
average fan of classical music doesn't buy any record because the
author wrote a book of which he's unlikely even to be aware.
-david gable
Bob Lombard
Does it matter that Beethoven said of
> Weber "what I sh-t is better than anything you ever thought"?
>
> -david gable
Hey, I wonder why M hasn't appropriated that one. Or has he? I don't
follow his posts religiously.
bl
HvT
It finally dawns on me that I should buy those books ...
Henk
herman
> Even if Rosen's success as a pianist is more of a taste matter, I
> don't think Herman can make global assessments about *other people's*
> reasons for having a high regard for Rosen's pianism. Especially
> since his knowledge of some of the music Rosen plays is pretty
> limited.
>
>
I do my share of Beethoven listening. I have commented frequently that
Beethoven in my view is not the greatest composer ever, or the
greatest of the classical era, often in response to people who say
they have fifty complete sets of Beethoven symphonies and a hundred 32
piano sonatas, and what should be their next set of this uniquely
gifted composer. However I have listened to Beethoven's Hammerklavier
plenty, and I have had Rosen's CBS recording for something like twenty
years, and it is not a big favorite with me. If it is with you, good
for you.
Recently I listened to Rosen's Chopin op 58 and the Cello Sonata on
Globe (I think) and it wasn't even near competitive. Same goes for the
Carter Night pieces. Sorry if this is a shock, but it shouldn't be,
since Rosen is quite open about the fact that he doesn't like to
study. I don't know about his early years, but for the past three
decades it's all been flue de bouche.
And you bet Rosen's critical writings do make a big difference in his
reputation. There are maybe five music writers in the English language
with such a podium (NYRB and well-publicised books). His book 'Piano
Notes' cannot by any means be taken seriously; his diatribe against
'toucher' particularly stands out. Recently I checked his Romantic
Generation and chanced upon a rather egregious hatchet job against
Schumann's Op 11 - so necessary after 160 years.
> I'm not normally this blunt, and I may not be blunt later, but I'm not
> immune to getting fed up with posters who're full of opinions about
> things they know next to nothing about.
I don't think anyone would take you for a subtle person.
Gerard
He hasn't.
According to him other creatures don't think.
Steve Emerson
<95ce05dd-e131-4352...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
"david...@aol.com" <david...@aol.com> wrote:
I think it's absurd too. If anything, Rosen's stature as a writer and
musicologist would prejudice people against his piano playing. How could
anybody be good at both, he must be a dilettante, his playing is the
playing of an academician, etc. -- none of which happens to be true,
despite its attractiveness as common sense. The man just happens to go
counter to the mold.
To thoroughly appreciate Rosen-the-pianist, you have to hear him when he
excelled as a colorist, up through the 1960s; the Schoenberg and the
first Debussy Etudes are what I always suggest, places where you can
detect the Rosenthal student.
SE.
David Oberman
wrote:
>I do my share of Beethoven listening. I have commented frequently that
>Beethoven in my view is not the greatest composer ever, or the
>greatest of the classical era
I'M GONNA CLOCK YOU ONE!!!
David Oberman
<eme...@n-n-nospamsonic.net> wrote:
>I think it's absurd too. If anything, Rosen's stature as a writer and
>musicologist would prejudice people against his piano playing. How could
>anybody be good at both, he must be a dilettante, his playing is the
>playing of an academician, etc. -- none of which happens to be true,
>despite its attractiveness as common sense. The man just happens to go
>counter to the mold.
That's exactly what kept me from listening to his recordings for quite
some time.
td
wrote:
I am amused by the " some mere pianist" comment. Rosen has always
considered himself a pianist first and foremost. Now that he is no
longer even a "mere pianist", as you put it, his writing has assumed
the larger part of his activities. The pity is that this man did not
have the self-discipline of a Pollini or a Brendel, to pick two wildly
different musicians. If he had he might have been able to make that
catty comment about Walter Gieseking with impunity. As it is, one can
only wish he had less intelligence and better pianistic ability.
(I deleted the Beethoven-Weber comparison, David, as I haven't heard
Rosen's nine symphonies yet.)
TD
td
wrote:
I think Herman was thinking of this discussion, David, and the
attention being accorded CR, which in his eyes stemmed from his
reputation as a writer more than his ability as a pianist.
Fair point.
TD
td
>
> > Does it matter that Beethoven said of
> > > Weber "what I sh-t is better than anything you ever thought"?
>
> > > -david gable
>
> > Hey, I wonder why M hasn't appropriated that one. Or has he? I don't
> > follow his posts religiously.
>
> > bl
>
> He hasn't.
> According to him other creatures don't think.
Wrong, They don't exist. M is the ultimate egotist.
TD
td
Hmmmm.
The Debussy Etudes go back 60 years, Steve. Good for their day, but
they really have been bettered by others in recent years. Ditto the
Schoenberg, although not quite as old. 50 years, perhaps, or 45?
I have never detected the slightest Rosenthal touch in his playing.
Anyway, he was a student of Rosenthal's wife!!!
Just listen to "Virtuoso", for example. Charming repertoire minus the
charm which gives them a reason for being.
What I object to in all this hagiography is the exaggeration.
Rosen was a good pianist, but not a great one. He's a great writer
about music, a great thinker about all kinds of subjects, from art
history, which he learned through Henry, to the virtues of flank steak
and a great place to find a 1978 Châteauneuf du Pape in Paris. What I
particularly like about him is his modesty in person and his wit and
charm. There he wears his knowledge rather lightly. Much more lightly
than his acolytes would pretend here, in fact. They would make him
into some unapproachable egghead, which he most definitely is not.
Personally I just wish he had had more sitzfleisch at the keyboard,
but perhaps then he would have been a mere pianist!
TD
TareeDawg
The first HKlav I ever bought was Rosen's on LP. Intriguing notes too as
I recall. Accompanied by another shorter sonata. I remember being hugely
impressed at the time. Probably would be the version I would collect
first and foremost if I ever got to collect such music.
Simple fact is, I don't. But Rosen worked his magic on me. Few pianists
other than Rosen or Gould ever have, to be truthful.
Ray Hall, Taree
td
Goodness me.
So impervious to great piano playing!
How can this have happened to you?
TD
JohnGavin
Rosen for me is a cult pianist - a player whose art appeals to musical
intellectualism, whose primary approach is analytical rather than
intuitive. Again, for my taste, great pianists are like forces of
nature - their gifts are largely innate and instinctive.
You either like the fact that he thinks so analytically about the
music he plays, or else you see it as a detriment - the turning of too
many mental gears, rather than the spontaneous realization of a works'
underlying unity.
He tried and failed in his "Virtuoso!" record to emulate the Golden
Age pianists he so admired. So nobody can claim that he is too great
an intellect to condescend to this repertoire. He tried it and
failed. Even in Beethoven I'd prefer the more instinctive gifts of an
Argerich, Richter, Gilels, etc. They don't deliver lectures when they
play.
TareeDawg
I cannot honestly say I am a piano maven, but Gould's Bach is peerless.
Strong, pure, unaffected by what I perceive to be fake religiosity, and
overdone reverence. Just the ticket. Kempff is good too, in an impure way.
As for the HKlav, I don't listen to this stuff anymore. But Rosen
affected me at the time.
Ray Hall, Taree
td
Or Christoph Eschenbach, for that matter, whose Hammerk.lavier in CH
in the late 1970s was the greatest performance of that sonata I have
ever heard (his two recordings don't even come close). He held nothing
back, was lecturing nobody, but in arriving at the climax of the fugue
you really were convinced this was the end of everything. An
unforgettable experience.
The Hammerklavier as a think piece? Please. Spare me.
You, John, are the first and only member of this forum who has ever
agreed with me on the abject failure of "Virtuoso" to do what the
pianist set out to do. Indeed, it begged the question "Is this man a
virtuoso?"
This is not to belittle Rosen's many achievements in music, but only
to shave a tiny sliver off the reputation, I think. To put it in the
context of other pianists who have excelled in the "mereness" of their
pianism, as David Gable would have it.
TD
TD
JohnGavin
JohnGavin
I remember that LP. It was on DG and Eschenbach is shown wearing bell-
bottom pants (a fashion trend of the 70s).!
It's odd how that recording became so scarce once it went out of
print.
>
> The Hammerklavier as a think piece? Please. Spare me.
>
> You, John, are the first and only member of this forum who has ever
> agreed with me on the abject failure of "Virtuoso" to do what the
> pianist set out to do. Indeed, it begged the question "Is this man a
> virtuoso?"
>
It didn't help that he started the recording with the cruelly exposing
"Minute Waltz in Thirds" by Rosenthal performed with obvious motor-
technical deficiency. Why did he ever allow this to be published?
Was it wishful thinking on his part?
td
Perhaps it would have been better had he been a "mere pianist" like
Walter Gieseking.
Stupid, perhaps, although that comment was a gratuitous and probably
unwarranted boutade, but a fabulous pianist, which is what is needed
of a piano virtuoso playing virtuoso repertoire. Gieseking could
probably have played tgat double thirds version of the minute waltz in
any key! And much faster and smoother. Such were the gifts of this
"mere pianist".
TD.
TD
herman
What makes you think people who like classical music and buy records
are unaware of Charles Rosen's writings on classical music? And a
follow up question. If your assumption is they are unaware of it, for
whom is Rosen writing this stuff, and with what reader in mind is the
NYRB printing it? Just you and nobody else? In other words, are you
sure you aren't being disingenuous?
Anyway, I'm afraid I have to disagree, and I'm pretty sure Rosen's
brilliant and very pleasant journalism is read by many people who will
purchase a Rosen cd when they spot one. It happened to me, why should
I assume (like you apparently do) that I am an unique case in this?)
What I have found over the years is that these records are generally
okay, but really not very memorable if it weren't for the fact that
one's picturing this brilliant writer behind the piano, and that
brilliance should pour over in his music making. (Same but different
form of marketing as the video clips a lot of young classical
musicians are now required to make when there's a new cd, in order to
forge a bond with the audience.) Maybe at some point in time it did
pour over, maybe there wasn't that kind of competition in the music he
played way back (though there have always been tons of Hammerklavier
recordings), but times have changed. There are plenty of Debussy
Etudes on record, and Rosen's is not one of the great ones, no matter
how well he can talk about them.
I also mentioned that Rosen has said he doesn't like to study at the
piano. Of course he could be that one single case of a great pianist
who doesn't have to practice much even though his repertoire consists
almost exclusively of hard pieces. Or maybe Rosen thinks he can do
anything, because his reputation is fixed anyway, thanks to his
writings. That Chopin cd I mentioned is so mediocre it would not have
been made if Rosen had not been a famous wirter and wit.
About the books. The Classical Style is obviously a great book. My
copy is pretty much worn. I have doubts about a lot of stuff in The
Romantic Generation (I noted one point above, where he's just voicing
his distaste for the last movements of Schumann's sonatas with an
aplomb that would be quite allright for the dinnertable, but maybe not
for a book that may dominate the field for decades by sheer marketing
power). A lot in Piano Notes is just silly.
A person can have read a lot of books and have an excellent taste in
wine and have a lot of powerful friends and still be very silly at
times, especially in old age. In fact this is almost standard
procedure, psychologically.
So I don't see what's absurd here.
david...@aol.com
> (I deleted the Beethoven-Weber comparison, David, as I haven't heard
> Rosen's nine symphonies yet.)
>
> TD
His "nine symphonies" are two of the greatest books on music ever
written.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> Rosen for me is a cult pianist - a player whose art appeals to musical
> intellectualism, whose primary approach is analytical rather than
> intuitive. Again, for my taste, great pianists are like forces of
> nature - their gifts are largely innate and instinctive.
>
> You either like the fact that he thinks so analytically about the
> music he plays, or else you see it as a detriment - the turning of too
> many mental gears, rather than the spontaneous realization of a works'
> underlying unity.
There is no such thing as an "intellectual" performance. Doesn't
exist. Nature precedes physics, and immersion in the piece with ears,
minds, and fingers precedes discussion of the things that one learns
from immersion in the piece. Some HIP performers do indeed illustrate
some thesis about performance practice with certain choices that they
make, but Rosen has never given a performance to illustrate a thesis
about any piece. "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
first I try out different fingerings."
-david gable
herman
>
> His "nine symphonies" are two of the greatest books on music ever
> written.
>
> -david gable
you could not have put the absurdity of you POV any better, showcasing
the mixup of performer and critic that is the point in this case.
herman
> Rosen has never given a performance to illustrate a thesis
> about any piece. "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
> first I try out different fingerings."
>
> -david gable
Ahem. And how about the cd's sealed into his books, with musical
illustrations of his writing?
td
Can't believe you a tually swallow that boutade, David.
Clearly you have passed on into the altered state that hero-worshipers
tend to like, where they bask in the reflected glory of their hero,
luxuriate in the sense that they have found "truth", breathe the
refined and purified air they share with the object of their worship.
One can imagine many fighting for a favored seat next to him/her. God
and Jesus and the angels are an appropriate image, however absurd it
is in reality. But we are not talking reality here, of course.
The most astonishing statement you have made is the two books are
somehow the equal of Beethoven's 9 symphonies!
Ludicrous! Is this what academe has done to you? Or perhaps it's that
heavy Georgian air?
Time for a trip North to clear your head of such foggy notions.
TD
HvT
> There is no such thing as an "intellectual" performance. Doesn't
> exist. Nature precedes physics, and immersion in the piece with ears,
> minds, and fingers precedes discussion of the things that one learns
> from immersion in the piece. Some HIP performers do indeed illustrate
> some thesis about performance practice with certain choices that they
> make, but Rosen has never given a performance to illustrate a thesis
> about any piece. "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
> first I try out different fingerings."
Rosen's version of Carter's sonata certainly doesn't sound
"intellectual" compared with for example Oppens's. On the other hand, he
doesn't let the piano sing as some of his colleagues did or do and
that's a problem in the romantic repertoire - in particular in the
Davidsb�ndler.
Henk
Bob Lombard
There are plenty of Debussy
> Etudes on record, and Rosen's is not one of the great ones, no matter
> how well he can talk about them.
>
I chose this sentence to exemplify my understanding of your 'position'.
How Debussy's Etudes are performed is a good instance of what I think
of as 'the accepted take'. Everyone amongst the well-know musicians
who have recorded them plays them the same way, within what I consider
to be narrow 'guidelines'. That is, except for Rosen in 1950. (In the
later Epic recording he nearly made it into the 'acceptable path'.) I
haven't observed you while you are listening to the 1950 recording,
but can imagine you sitting there with teeth clenched, maybe muttering
" that Etude doesn't go that way". Actually, that LP made my teeth
ache too; SE 'repaired' the recording to a degree somewhat better than
humanly possible, saving me dental bills. The problem wasn't Rosen's
playing though, it was the Wollensak.
While I'm here, I may as well point out that nobody I know of
considers Rosen's playing after the mid-1970s or so to be anywhere
near as good as before then. The Globe recordings are (charitably
stated) not very good. The infamous 'Virtuoso' issue is considered a
Big Mistake by everybody I know of, including DG (and that _has_ been
mentioned in this ng, Tom).
Finally, I will add a :) , to indicate that this post is not an attack
on you, Herman. More of a finger-poke at lovers of 'the accepted take'
in general, whoever and wherever you are.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
Robert Marshall
>
> Lena wrote:
>> I like Rosen's Sony Hammerklavier hugely; it's one of my all-time
>> favorites, and it's not mechanical at all, IMO.
>
> The first HKlav I ever bought was Rosen's on LP. Intriguing notes too
> as I recall. Accompanied by another shorter sonata.
Op 90 - I still have the lp
Robert
--
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
John Wiser
[among other stuff deleted
in response to stuff
not worth responding to]
> How Debussy's Etudes are performed is a good instance of what I think
> of as 'the accepted take'. Everyone amongst the well-know musicians
> who have recorded them plays them the same way, within what I consider
> to be narrow 'guidelines'. That is, except for Rosen in 1950. (In the
> later Epic recording he nearly made it into the 'acceptable path'.) I
> haven't observed you while you are listening to the 1950 recording,
> but can imagine you sitting there with teeth clenched, maybe muttering
> " that Etude doesn't go that way". Actually, that LP made my teeth
> ache too; SE 'repaired' the recording to a degree somewhat better than
> humanly possible, saving me dental bills. The problem wasn't Rosen's
> playing though, it was the Wollensak.
>
--
John Wiser
Jicotea Used Books
Howells NY 10932 0136 USA
cee...@gmail.com
http://www.amazon.com/shops/ceeclef
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:610039e3-ada9-45b0-b425-
abe09b...@k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
It was a metaphor.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
david...@aol.com
> you could not have put the absurdity of you POV any better, showcasing
> the mixup of performer and critic that is the point in this case.
My position is not remotely absurd: I haven't mixed anything up. I
think he's arguably the greatest writer on music we've ever had,
bearing in mind that writing on music of that kind is a fairly recent
phenomenon. You do not find the kind of extraordinarily sophisticated
writing on music that you find in the 20th century much before that
(although there is sophisticated writing of another kind -- practical
and theoretical writing about harmony & counterpoint -- much earlier).
I also think that, at his best, Rosen is a great pianist. But great
pianists are a dime a dozen, and I'm not proposing that Rosen or
anybody else is the greatest pianist I've ever heard.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
> On May 23, 4:48 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
> > first I try out different fingerings."
>
> Can't believe you actually swallow that boutade, David.
I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise with Rosen or any other
pianist. Which is the point. How could anybody have a conception of
any piece without first becoming familiar with it?
Rosen has also repeatedly pointed out another fact that should be but
apparently isn't obvious: that the things he writes about would be
apparent from anybody's performance. And indeed they are. He's
writing about the fundamental shapes and sonorities that constitute
pieces of music as pieces of music.
-david gable
Bob Lombard
> "Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> [among other stuff deleted in response to stuff not worth responding to]
>>
>> How Debussy's Etudes are performed is a good instance of what I think
>> of as 'the accepted take'. Everyone amongst the well-know musicians
>> who have recorded them plays them the same way, within what I consider
>> to be narrow 'guidelines'. That is, except for Rosen in 1950. (In the
>> later Epic recording he nearly made it into the 'acceptable path'.) I
>> haven't observed you while you are listening to the 1950 recording,
>> but can imagine you sitting there with teeth clenched, maybe muttering
>> " that Etude doesn't go that way". Actually, that LP made my teeth
>> ache too; SE 'repaired' the recording to a degree somewhat better than
>> humanly possible, saving me dental bills. The problem wasn't Rosen's
>> playing though, it was the Wollensak.
>>
> Robert E. Blake did NOT use Wollensaks.
Hah. "It was a metaphor". Whatever he used, the sound reproduction was
no better than that produced by an early Wollensak. Hmm. Maybe he
_should_ have used that brand.
david...@aol.com
How does that contradict "first I try out fingerings"? Your reasoning
capacity seems to be fairly limited. The only book with short
illustrative music examples is the Beethoven Sonatas book, and that
book was written very late in a very long career. In other words, it
was the result of decades of immersion in a particular repertory. He
doesn't start with a prefabricated theory of the repertory. He has
ideas about a repertory after spending a lifetime living with it.
Folding recordings into The Romantic Generation or the reprint of The
Classical Style is a very different case and in part a marketing
ploy: "Let's fold a recording of some of the music discussed in the
book into the book."
-david gable
herman
> On May 23, 4:52 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 mai, 10:48, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rosen has never given a performance to illustrate a thesis
> > > about any piece. "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
> > > first I try out different fingerings."
>
> > > -david gable
>
> > Ahem. And how about the cd's sealed into his books, with musical
> > illustrations of his writing?
>
> How does that contradict "first I try out fingerings"? Your reasoning
> capacity seems to be fairly limited.
Your wriggle talent however is stunning. You know, you are entitled to
your own opinions (which are often quite interesting), but not to your
own facts.
The cd sealed in with The Romantic Generation is an example of Rosen
illustrating his talk at the piano, something which you said he never
does.
david...@aol.com
>Recently I checked his Romantic
> Generation and chanced upon a rather egregious hatchet job against
> Schumann's Op 11 - so necessary after 160 years.
It must be obvious even to you that Rosen is filled with admiration
for Schumann's achievement, and that Schumann is one of the central
figures in his book. Since the F# minor sonata is not one of the
pieces discussed in any detail in the book, there is only so much of
Rosen's opinion of the piece that you can deduce from it, but he does
refer to it as "the finest and most personal of [Schumann's] sonatas,"
which hardly sounds like a hatchet job to me. Expressing reservations
about aspects of the piece does not a hatchet job make.
There are plenty of substantial and fascinating things about
Schumann's music in The Romantic Generation that nobody else has
pointed out in the past 160 years.
-david gable
herman
>
> There are plenty of substantial and fascinating things about
> Schumann's music in The Romantic Generation that nobody else has
> pointed out in the past 160 years.
>
> -david gable
Are we to assume you're, like, 185 years old?
herman
Generation this evening. However, nothing will move me to relisten to
one of those cd's of his.
david...@aol.com
> What makes you think people who like classical music and buy records
> are unaware of Charles Rosen's writings on classical music?
Obviously, not all of them are. But the people who liked Rosen's
playing before 1971 and bought the recordings he made for various CBS
labels before 1971 could not have known about writings that did not
yet exist.
> And a
> follow up question. If your assumption is they are unaware of it, for
> whom is Rosen writing this stuff, and with what reader in mind is the
> NYRB printing it? Just you and nobody else? In other words, are you
> sure you aren't being disingenuous?
The NYRB has a comparatively small circulation and a fairly
sophisticated readership. The circulation of the NYRB can't remotely
compare to the circulations of, say, the New York Times or Newsweek,
at least before these publications were threatened by the decline of
the print media.
> That Chopin cd I mentioned is so mediocre it would not have
> been made if Rosen had not been a famous writer and wit.
That's simply not true. Sometimes producers are contractually obliged
to make records, so they make them. Moreover, they can't possibly
know in advance how they'll turn out. In the 1960's, Decca records
was obliged to continue cranking out complete recordings of operas
with Renata Tebaldi, Mario del Monaco, and Elena Suliotis because they
had signed contracts with those singers before they shot their voices.
-david gable
td
wrote:
> On May 23, 7:16 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 4:48 am, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > "How do you approach a piece, Mr. Rosen?" "Well,
> > > first I try out different fingerings."
>
> > Can't believe you actually swallow that boutade, David.
>
> I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise with Rosen or any other
> pianist. Which is the point. How could anybody have a conception of
> any piece without first becoming familiar with it?
You were speaking about fingering.
Moreover, that "mere" pianist of unutterable stupidity, Walter
Gieseking, only needed to look at the score and the piece was
memorized and ready for performance. He didn't even need to try out
the fingering.
Which is why I continue to take exception to that Princeton frat-boy
putdown.
> Rosen has also repeatedly pointed out another fact that should be but
> apparently isn't obvious: that the things he writes about would be
> apparent from anybody's performance. And indeed they are. He's
> writing about the fundamental shapes and sonorities that constitute
> pieces of music as pieces of music.
The pity is that writing about them is not even vaguely as difficult
as making them apparent in sound.
I agree with him about Davidsbundlertänze, but I do not heat what he
writes when he plays it.
Fernando Adria may have a cook book, but his food itself is 100 times
better, if totally ephemeral.
TD
td
wrote:
Obliged?
As Terry MacEwan used to point out, the Decca Record Company Limited
was "made" by Ansermet, Mantovani and Tebaldi, among others.
Decca was delighted to record them all.
TD
Lena
David, I'm very happy you're back.
I don't mean to add to the moronicity of some of this debate, so don't
consider this an argument against you, just a minor side correction.
> Rosen has also repeatedly pointed out another fact that should be
> but apparently isn't obvious: that the things he writes about would
> be apparent from anybody's performance.
Sorry, but that's just not correct...
As I may have said before, :) not all the interesting things that are
formally present in music are anywhere near apparent from everyone's
performances. There's a long, somewhat fragile mental computation
step happening between physical sounds and how they're perceived. The
exact details of the actual sounds (the details of what a performer
does) pretty critically affect the "shapes" a listener has any chance
of hearing.
This is very fundamental auditory perception stuff, and it's not
arguable by Rosen or by anyone.
(You only hear every performance "correctly" if you know every note of
the piece, so that you mentally correct any performer omissions and
distortions. But that's not at all the same as really hearing
everything the same way...)
(Basically there are a million things you are only making educated
guesses about when you listen. The ear can be deceived into thinking
that a wrong instrument is playing, tricked by the number of
instruments, tricked into not hearing dissonances, tricked into not
hearing melodies, into not hearing some patterns -- it's as if they
didn't exist -- or into really not hearing some of the physical sounds
at all. Even the most acute ear can be fooled. And that's even before
the more complicated problem of how one hears long musical segments in
the exact ways the composer might have had in mind.)
Lena
Gerard
I wonder if this all is true - or the same - when listening to recordings, that
can be heard repeatedly, in small or large fractions. One can be tricked or
fooled the first time, and the second time too; but recordings make it possible
to listen very close and accurately.
George Orwell
Rick
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it