The Last Great Year?
Vadim Batitsky
(given money, time and willingness to travel quite a bit) ALL of the
following musicians listed below in concert (my knuckles are white
with envy as I wrtie!). I chose '54 because a year later, some of the
biggest names in the list would no longer give concerts (due to death
and retirement). Of course, I'm sure I missed a few names here
(Abendroth's deliberately so, Richter because he wasn't yet the giant
he became later), but what immediately came to made me wander if that
year was indeed the beginning of the fairly short road that dead-ended
with Vanessa Mae, Three Tenors and Mozart-in-the-morning compilations.
Vadim.
Barbirolli
Beecham
Cortot
E. Fischer
Fricsay
Furtwangler
Gieseking
Klemperer
Mravinsky
Neuhaus
de Sabata
Sofronitsky
Stokowski
Szell
Toscanini
Walter
Aki Anton
But not Horowitz as he was a year into his second retirement IIRC.
--
Vadim Batitsky <vbat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86b5196a.02070...@posting.google.com...
Alain Dagher
Terrymelin
>Sofronitsky
Not if one was an American citizen; travel to Soviet Russia would have been
almost impossible.
Terry Ellsworth
Gene Frazier
(controversial) tenure at the New York Phil.
vbat...@yahoo.com (Vadim Batitsky) wrote in message news:<86b5196a.02070...@posting.google.com>...
Marc Perman
Add Cantelli, Haskil, Rubinstein, Bohm, Jochum, Schuricht,
Scherchen, Solomon, Talich,
Knappertsbusch, ABM, van Beinum, Reiner, Monteux, Munch, Nat,
Oistrakh, Heifetz,
Milstein, Ormandy, Kubelik, Collins, Casadesus, and Francescatti.
Marc Perman
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Marc Perman wrote:
[premise snipped]
> > Barbirolli
> > Beecham
> > Cortot
> > E. Fischer
> > Fricsay
> > Furtwangler
> > Gieseking
> > Klemperer
> > Mravinsky
> > Neuhaus
> > de Sabata
> > Sofronitsky
> > Stokowski
> > Szell
> > Toscanini
> > Walter
>
> Add Cantelli, Haskil, Rubinstein, Bohm, Jochum, Schuricht,
> Scherchen, Solomon, Talich, Knappertsbusch, ABM, van Beinum, Reiner,
> Monteux, Munch, Nat, Oistrakh, Heifetz, Milstein, Ormandy, Kubelik,
> Collins, Casadesus, and Francescatti.
And Mischa Elman!!
And to hear that acknowledging this strident discrepancy would only be
nostalgia mongering or idealization of the past -- what balderdash!
regards,
SG
benjo maso
"Marc Perman" <mper...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JrqW8.52493$Wi.15...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Our only consolation is that they didn't realize what they had and did
nothing but lamenting over the loss of Hofmann, Busoni, Kreisler,
Mengelberg, Paderewski, Fried, Lhevinne, Huberman, Rachmaninoff, Lipatti,
Schnabel, Tauber, Supervia, Caruso, etc., etc.
Benjo Maso
John Thomas
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L29F21731
--
-regards,
John Thomas
Matthew B. Tepper
@typhoon.sonic.net:
So what constitutes a healthy interest in history, then?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Heck51
> Barbirolli
> Beecham
> Cortot
> E. Fischer
> Fricsay
> Furtwangler
> Gieseking
> Klemperer
> Mravinsky
> Neuhaus
> de Sabata
> Sofronitsky
> Stokowski
> Szell
> Toscanini
> Walter
You forgot Reiner, who was just the 2nd year of his splendid tenure
with Chicago. Pierre Monteux, also, had yet to do some of his greatest
work, with LSO..
Thomas Wood
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020708...@ux7.cso.uiuc.edu...
, and Francescatti.
>
> And Mischa Elman!!
>
> And to hear that acknowledging this strident discrepancy would only be
> nostalgia mongering or idealization of the past -- what balderdash!
Isn't it remarkable how many great Baroque composers were active in 1720?
Isn't it remarkable how many Impressionist painters were active in 1880?
Isn't it remarkable how many musicians who interpreted music in the early
and mid 20th century manner were alive in the mid 20th century?
Tom Wood
Eric Nagamine
For most of the conductors on the list, I'd go for about 15-16 years
earlier when many of them were in peak form. Certainly, being able to
hear Stoky/Philly and Walter/Vienna would have been most intriguing.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Isn't it remarkable how many great Baroque composers were active in 1720?
>
> Isn't it remarkable how many Impressionist painters were active in 1880?
>
> Isn't it remarkable how many musicians who interpreted music in the early
> and mid 20th century manner were alive in the mid 20th century?
I understand your implication that it's all a matter of statistics &
perspective. I disagree quite strongly though. Putting things in
perspective, historically, is doubtlessly important but reducing
degrees in which art is blossoming to statistical probability and
historical perspective may be construed as even more naive. I'd rather go
for FD Roosevelt's <<Favor comes to a man because for a brief moment, in
the great space of human change and progress, some general human purpose
finds in him a satisfactory embodiment.>>
regards,
SG
Thomas Wood
I didn't say a thing about statistics, nor did I intend to. 1954 was a great
year for the type of musicians who were masters of their game in 1954. 1854
was a great year for the type of musicians who excelled in the interpretive
style of that period. Are musicians in 2002, as a whole, inferior to those
of 1954? I don't know. But for sure: they don't interpret music in the
favored style of 1954 as well as the musicians alive in 1954 did.
Tom Wood
Tom Wood
Ray Hall
news:bwLW8.89600$UT.59...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
And imo, nor would I want them to. Technically I believe present musicians
to be decidely superior, and waiting for music that really challenges them.
It is the listening public that really needs to shift their ass into gear
and get with it. Even from a classical viewpoint.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
"It is one of the great tragedies of our society
that from fear, poor teaching, or lack of motivation
the vast majority of people have shut themselves off
from the mathematical poetry and music of nature".
Prof Paul Davies
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 1/07/02
Frank Berger
Thomas Wood wrote:
Except that the artists wistfully listed didn't specialize in music of the
mid 20th century, did they? In fact they performed all sorts of music,
including Baroque, "Impressionist," and (what was then) modern. It seems
fair to compare that 1954 list with a current list of artists. Does anyone
think there is a comparison?
Simon Roberts
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:3D2BA434...@dal.frb.org...
>
> Except that the artists wistfully listed didn't specialize in music of
the
> mid 20th century, did they? In fact they performed all sorts of
music,
> including Baroque, "Impressionist," and (what was then) modern. It
seems
> fair to compare that 1954 list with a current list of artists. Does
anyone
> think there is a comparison?
Sure. Whether I would prefer performances by the 1954 list or today's
rather depends on the music. There was hardly any conductor alive in
1954 whose performances of baroque music I would want to listen to, for
instance. Conversely, there's hardly a conductor alive today whose
Brahms I want to hear.
Simon
Samir Golescu
> > including Baroque, "Impressionist," and (what was then) modern. It
> > It seems fair to compare that 1954 list with a current list of
> > artists. Does anyone think there is a comparison?
>
> Sure. Whether I would prefer performances by the 1954 list or today's
> rather depends on the music. There was hardly any conductor alive in
> 1954 whose performances of baroque music I would want to listen to, for
> instance. Conversely, there's hardly a conductor alive today whose
> Brahms I want to hear.
I think we can be pretty confident on one point only: none of the artists
from the 1954 list had performed Boulez or Stockhausen better than a 2002
roster of performers would.
regards,
SG
____________
<<A London newspaper says that Mr. Hadayet may have met with Osama bin
Laden's deputy on at least two occasions in Cairo. If last Thursday's
shooting is the spectacular Fourth of July massacre al-Qaeda have been
promising for months, then they're to be congratulated for a bloody
slaughter on an epic scale never before seen in America except from
incompetent grade-school psychos who steal Uncle Bud's hunting rifle but
forget to take any extra ammo.>> -- Mark STEYN
Samir Golescu
> I didn't say a thing about statistics, nor did I intend to. 1954 was a
> great year for the type of musicians who were masters of their game in
> 1954. 1954 was a great year for the type of musicians who excelled in
> the interpretive style of that period.
Yes, obviously, but, if not openly statistical, this is an inference of
statistical and historicist nature nevertheless. It substitutes immediate
judgment for the Hegelian identification between what happens and what
"has" to happen.
In other words, to the "Batitsky's List" there are three possible answers:
1) to agree with its purpose and with the author's argument (as I do);
2) to disagree with them, in a judgment of taste; i.e., <<no, Mr Batitsky,
Abbado, Ashkenasy, Barenboim, Dutoit, Eschenbach, Gardiner, Haitink,
Hogwood, Jansons, Jarvi, Levine, Marriner, Masur, Mehta, Norrington,
Ozawa, Previn, Rattle, Thielemann etc. DO represent, in my judgment of
value, an even worthier counterweight to your list>>. There are even
people who would say, not without naivete IMO, that the performers of
today are "better", perhaps because in emitting such judgments they are
confusing technique with the capacity of playing with average accuracy,
evenness, and an all-purpose, undifferentiated kind of "efficacy" -- which
in fact are some of the elementary bases of technique, not technique.
However, being a judgment of taste, it would be hard to "demonstrate" the
opposite, but one can be sure I and others would disagree.
3) to disagree based on the specious historicist argument that it's all
about perspective or about style. Judging a particular interpretive art as
subsumable to (and explainable through) a super-individual notion of
style. From this point of view, one should not dare see, say, Pericle's
Athens as an exceptional era in the history of Greece -- all being a
matter of style ("all generations are equal"), it "has" to be that Greece
produced art and architecture of the same historical significance in every
quarter of the, say, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th etc. centuries as
in that lousy 458-429 BC one. Was it only a matter of style? I don't think
so. "Style" is to an extent a circular argument. Did the "Baroque style"
really determine the ways Bach composed or did Bach determine through his
powerful individuality the ways posterity is going to perceive what is
today arbitrarily encompassed under the "Baroque style"? Both are probably
true to an extent, but I very much incline toward the second, as more
important.
regards,
SG
____________
<<speaking of the late Mr. bin Laden, whatever happened to that new video
we were promised any day now? Well, apparently, that's been pushed back to
the new fall season, too, and should be premiering the same week as the
new romantic comedy in which I star as the world's most eligible bachelor
unable to choose between Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz and so forced to
make love to both repeatedly. I offered Osama a small part, but he said,
"I've got one already." -- Mark STEYN
Simon Roberts
[snip]
I'm not sure what you mean in this paragraph. It starts out looking
like an attack on meta- or perhaps substantive relativism (or both) but
then seems to switch to an attack on the idea that Bach was what he was
merely because of his historical context. Or are you doing both? If
so, I at least disagree with the first bit. It's not inconsistent to
say "it's all about perspective" and that Pericles' Athens was better
than mediaeval London or that Brahms was conducted better in 1954 than
in 1994. What seems weird to me is the notion that there are
perspective-free evaluations. But perhaps that's not what you're
saying.
Simon
Samir Golescu
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > 3) to disagree based on the specious historicist argument that it's
> > all about perspective or about style. Judging a particular
> > interpretive art as subsumable to (and explainable through) a
> > super-individual notion of style. From this point of view, one should
> > not dare see, say, Pericle's Athens as an exceptional era in the
> > history of Greece -- all being a matter of style ("all generations are
> > equal"), it "has" to be that Greece produced art and architecture of
> > the same historical significance in every
> > quarter of the, say, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th etc. centuries
> > as in that lousy 458-429 BC one. Was it only a matter of style? I
> > don't think so. "Style" is to an extent a circular argument. Did the
> > "Baroque style" really determine the ways Bach composed or did Bach
> > determine through his powerful individuality the ways posterity is
> > going to perceive what is today arbitrarily encompassed under the
> > "Baroque style"? Both are probably true to an extent, but I very much
> > incline toward the second, as more important.
> I'm not sure what you mean in this paragraph.
Well, there goes the last reader who found my writing comprehensible. . .
> It starts out looking
> like an attack on meta- or perhaps substantive relativism (or both) but
> then seems to switch to an attack on the idea that Bach was what he was
> merely because of his historical context. Or are you doing both?
Yes. The two are not the same (composers vs interpreters etc.), but are
related. That "1954 performers were better in 1954-f(l)avored styles, the
2002 interpreters are better in their own styles" statement has a
commonality of perspective with those who think Bach was merely a
"necessary" product of the "Baroque era". It might be argued that
historicism was with Hegel and, in a vulgarized manner, with Marx, one of
the most influential intellectual antechambers of cultural relativisms.
[Ironically so, insofar "classical" historicism still implied "progress"
(history would have had direction and goals, which were to be reached with
inevitability)..... derived in fact, perhaps, from an undeliberate
secularization of the eschatology-climaxing Christian theologies.]
> If so, I at least disagree with the first bit. It's not inconsistent to
> say "it's all about perspective" and that Pericles' Athens was better
> than mediaeval London or that Brahms was conducted better in 1954 than
> in 1994.
I see what you mean. It is inconsistent, however, once one presumes that
pointing out the different historical placement of different interpretive
styles implies that those styles are not comparable. In the case of the
musical interpretation, which refers to an great extent to the same
compositional material (to be interpreted), the inconsistency is even
greater. Mr. Wood was basically saying: "the 1954 'list' wasn't 'better'
or 'worse' because the stylistical [historically conditioned] paradigm one
applied in judging it was different and therefore incomparable with any
other" (I hope I didn't badly distort the gentleman's take). This was what
I took issue with.
> What seems weird to me is the notion that there are perspective-free
> evaluations. But perhaps that's not what you're saying.
Indeed not. It would be weird to say such thing. What I'm saying is that
at least one should attempt to assume one's own perspective without hiding
behind historicist relativisms. You're right insofar implying that on
artistic matters (and beyond), assuming one is totally perspective-free is
little more than silly.
Simon Roberts
inconsistent to
> > say "it's all about perspective" and that Pericles' Athens was
better
> > than mediaeval London or that Brahms was conducted better in 1954
than
> > in 1994.
>
>
> I see what you mean. It is inconsistent, however, once one presumes
that
> pointing out the different historical placement of different
interpretive
> styles implies that those styles are not comparable.
True. But one can believe "it's all about perspective" without also
believing that different perspectives and styles etc. aren't comparable
(though perhaps not vice versa). (I note that those who do believe that
different perspectives aren't comparable seem quite willing, albeit
without realizing it, to drop that belief when it suits them....)
Simon
Max Schmeder
Point taken. Any theories on why musicians have gotten so generic?
-Max
Simon Roberts
"Max Schmeder" <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com...
>
> Point taken. Any theories on why musicians have gotten so generic?
You may not like all or any of them (I have no idea) but what's
*generic* about Minkowski, Harnoncourt, Brueggen, Fey, Thielemann,
Mustonen, Boulez, Anderszewski, Biondi, Fasolis, Alessandrini, Sokolov,
Cohen (Arnaldo), Il Giardino Armonico, Giocametti, Argerich, Rattle,
Bartoli, Kozena, Kirkby, Lesne, Hagen Qt, Petersen Qt, Mosaiques Qt,
Turner Qt, Takacs Qt, Lindsay Qt, Gidon Kremer, Carmignola, Afanassiev,
Martins, Schepkin....
Simon (who acknowledges that there are also numerous generic musicians
out there)
Ray Hall
Entropy.
Ypres
>-Max
The audience, for the greater part, has gotten generic.
Ypres
Max Schmeder
Nice list, Simon, and I'm tempted to say "point taken" again but that
would ruin my cred, and besides, I was thinking along different lines.
First of all, I wasn't thinking of the HIPsters you mention, for two
reasons. One, their repertoire doesn't overlap well with that of the
1954 list of musicians to merit comparison, and more importantly:
their individuality (non-genericness) comes from their unique guessing
at the *idioms* of the ancient composers rather than the personalizing
of each composer's emotional language, which is what I was thinking of
as constituting "non-genericness."
And of the mainstream repertoire musicians, I don't put self-conscious
eccentrics like Afanassiev, Mustonen and Kremer in the same category
as the natural "eccentrics" of the 1954 list who were not
self-consciously so. The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
whereas Mustonen has a finite number, in fact you can count them on
one hand. But you're right: there are a lot of non-generic mainstream
musicians today, but few of them are indigenously so as they were in
the past, and futhermore, where there used to be different national
schools, now there is this generic Solti paradigm that absorbs the
glut of mainstream musicians. Anyway, that's how I interpreted
Vadim's accusation.
-Max
Thomas Wood
>
>
> > I didn't say a thing about statistics, nor did I intend to. 1954 was a
> > great year for the type of musicians who were masters of their game in
> > 1954. 1954 was a great year for the type of musicians who excelled in
> > the interpretive style of that period.
>
>
> Yes, obviously, but, if not openly statistical, this is an inference of
> statistical and historicist nature nevertheless. It substitutes immediate
> judgment for the Hegelian identification between what happens and what
> "has" to happen.
My, what fine, fancy words you are putting in my mouth. (Un)fortunately, I
have no idea how you've arrived at your inferences from my comments. I don't
the see merest hint of statistical analysis in anything I've said so far.
And I certainly do NOT believe history is a mechanical process, independent
of human judgment or values. Just the opposite, in fact. This whole argument
is one of values -- of taste.
>
> In other words, to the "Batitsky's List" there are three possible answers:
>
> 1) to agree with its purpose and with the author's argument (as I do);
>
>
> 2) to disagree with them, in a judgment of taste; i.e., <<no, Mr Batitsky,
> Abbado, Ashkenasy, Barenboim, Dutoit, Eschenbach, Gardiner, Haitink,
> Hogwood, Jansons, Jarvi, Levine, Marriner, Masur, Mehta, Norrington,
> Ozawa, Previn, Rattle, Thielemann etc. DO represent, in my judgment of
> value, an even worthier counterweight to your list>>. There are even
> people who would say, not without naivete IMO, that the performers of
> today are "better", perhaps because in emitting such judgments they are
> confusing technique with the capacity of playing with average accuracy,
> evenness, and an all-purpose, undifferentiated kind of "efficacy" -- which
> in fact are some of the elementary bases of technique, not technique.
> However, being a judgment of taste, it would be hard to "demonstrate" the
> opposite, but one can be sure I and others would disagree.
>
In my opinion, the musicians on Batisky's list were true greats. Are they
"better" than a similar list of late-20th-century musicians? I don't know.
Better at what? Can they honestly be compared?
Here we agree completely: this is a judgment of taste. I think Batisky's
list contains many great musicians, but in my personal judgment, their
overall supremacy is not incontovertible. In the end, it boils down to
personal taste and bias. To my taste, the musicans of 1954 excelled at
playing some types of music -- but not others. Similar to Simon's comment. I
generally respond strongly to 1950s recordings of Brahms -- but NOT of Bach.
> 3) to disagree based on the specious historicist argument that it's all
> about perspective or about style. Judging a particular interpretive art as
> subsumable to (and explainable through) a super-individual notion of
> style. From this point of view, one should not dare see, say, Pericle's
> Athens as an exceptional era in the history of Greece -- all being a
> matter of style ("all generations are equal"), it "has" to be that Greece
> produced art and architecture of the same historical significance in every
> quarter of the, say, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th etc. centuries as
> in that lousy 458-429 BC one. Was it only a matter of style? I don't think
> so. "Style" is to an extent a circular argument. Did the "Baroque style"
> really determine the ways Bach composed or did Bach determine through his
> powerful individuality the ways posterity is going to perceive what is
> today arbitrarily encompassed under the "Baroque style"? Both are probably
> true to an extent, but I very much incline toward the second, as more
> important.
Here you REALLY have lost me. I never said, or meant to say, that the
accomplishments of all generations are equal. I will present a possibly
relativist argument, however, that different times/places/peoples excel in a
variety of fields of endeavor that are not always susceptible to direct or
meaningful comparison. And likewise, I feel that different generations of
musicians excel (and are deficient) at different aspects of musical
expression. But these aspects are so complex and mutifarious that direct
comparison is difficult to be based on any sort of objective logic -- it
must be based on personal taste, in the end. So this isn't Hegelian
historicism at all; again, it's a judgment based on my personal taste. Just
as your judgments in this matter is based on YOUR personal taste.
And here I shall close my mouth, for fear that you will put more words into
it....
Tom Wood
Wayne Reimer
as a speculative temporary positive. Or maybe it's a perspective that
shifts with circumstance. And let's not forget about how consistency and
mental hobgoblins go together so nicely...
wr
Alain Dagher
Max Schmeder wrote:
> "Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<agidjf$ged$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>>"Max Schmeder" <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Point taken. Any theories on why musicians have gotten so generic?
>>>
>>You may not like all or any of them (I have no idea) but what's
>>*generic* about Minkowski, Harnoncourt, Brueggen, Fey, Thielemann,
>>Mustonen, Boulez, Anderszewski, Biondi, Fasolis, Alessandrini, Sokolov,
>>Cohen (Arnaldo), Il Giardino Armonico, Giocametti, Argerich, Rattle,
>>Bartoli, Kozena, Kirkby, Lesne, Hagen Qt, Petersen Qt, Mosaiques Qt,
>>Turner Qt, Takacs Qt, Lindsay Qt, Gidon Kremer, Carmignola, Afanassiev,
>>Martins, Schepkin....
>>
>>Simon (who acknowledges that there are also numerous generic musicians
>>out there)
>>
>
> Nice list, Simon, and I'm tempted to say "point taken" again but that
> would ruin my cred, and besides, I was thinking along different lines.
> First of all, I wasn't thinking of the HIPsters you mention, for two
> reasons. One, their repertoire doesn't overlap well with that of the
> 1954 list of musicians to merit comparison, and more importantly:
> their individuality (non-genericness) comes from their unique guessing
> at the *idioms* of the ancient composers rather than the personalizing
> of each composer's emotional language, which is what I was thinking of
> as constituting "non-genericness."
How do you know? You're implying that contemporary musicians have an
exclusively intellectual approach to music, while 50 years ago they were
all intuitive artists. I've read a few interviews with Heifets,
Horowitz, and of course Gould, which contradicts that assumption.
>
> And of the mainstream repertoire musicians, I don't put self-conscious
> eccentrics like Afanassiev, Mustonen and Kremer in the same category
> as the natural "eccentrics" of the 1954 list who were not
> self-consciously so.
Are you saying they had no self-consciousess? They just sat at the
keyboard and music happened?
> The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
> Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
> whereas Mustonen has a finite number, in fact you can count them on
> one hand. But you're right: there are a lot of non-generic mainstream
> musicians today, but few of them are indigenously so as they were in
> the past, and futhermore, where there used to be different national
> schools, now there is this generic Solti paradigm that absorbs the
> glut of mainstream musicians. Anyway, that's how I interpreted
> Vadim's accusation.
So another blow against globalization!
Alain
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Thomas Wood wrote:
> > > I didn't say a thing about statistics, nor did I intend to. 1954 was a
> > > great year for the type of musicians who were masters of their game in
> > > 1954. 1954 was a great year for the type of musicians who excelled in
> > > the interpretive style of that period.
> >
> >
> > Yes, obviously, but, if not openly statistical, this is an inference of
> > statistical and historicist nature nevertheless. It substitutes immediate
> > judgment for the Hegelian identification between what happens and what
> > "has" to happen.
>
> My, what fine, fancy words you are putting in my mouth. (Un)fortunately, I
> have no idea how you've arrived at your inferences from my comments. I don't
> the see merest hint of statistical analysis in anything I've said so far.
Isn't the alleged (obvious) probability of "1954 being good for 1954
styles etc." an argument of a statistical or historicist nature?
> And I certainly do NOT believe history is a mechanical process, independent
> of human judgment or values. Just the opposite, in fact. This whole argument
> is one of values -- of taste.
Right -- here we meet.
> Here you REALLY have lost me. I never said, or meant to say, that the
> accomplishments of all generations are equal. I will present a possibly
> relativist argument, however, that different times/places/peoples excel in a
> variety of fields of endeavor that are not always susceptible to direct or
> meaningful comparison.
Yes, comparing American independent movies to Chinese sculpture in a grain
of rice is not always susceptible to direct comparison, but when people
born at 60 years distance perform Matthaus-Passion, that certainly *is*
susceptible to direct (and, on occasion, meaningful....) comparison.
> And likewise, I feel that different generations of
> musicians excel (and are deficient) at different aspects of musical
> expression. But these aspects are so complex and mutifarious that direct
> comparison is difficult to be based on any sort of objective logic -- it
> must be based on personal taste, in the end. So this isn't Hegelian
> historicism at all; again, it's a judgment based on my personal taste. Just
> as your judgments in this matter is based on YOUR personal taste.
Well, it's hard to argue with that.
> And here I shall close my mouth, for fear that you will put more words
> into it....
Fear ye not!( : Most of what I wrote (and snipped now) in my last posting
was not supposed to represent what you have said.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Alain Dagher wrote:
> > First of all, I wasn't thinking of the HIPsters you mention, for two
> > reasons. One, their repertoire doesn't overlap well with that of the
> > 1954 list of musicians to merit comparison, and more importantly:
> > their individuality (non-genericness) comes from their unique guessing
> > at the *idioms* of the ancient composers rather than the personalizing
> > of each composer's emotional language, which is what I was thinking of
> > as constituting "non-genericness."
>
>
> How do you know?
It is almost obvious to anybody who bothers to study in depth history of
interpretation, preferably starting with the history of singing.
> You're implying that contemporary musicians have an
> exclusively intellectual approach to music, while 50 years ago they were
> all intuitive artists.
That was implied nowhere. Personalizing the composer's emotional language
does most emphatically not entail a prior lobotomy.
> > And of the mainstream repertoire musicians, I don't put self-conscious
> > eccentrics like Afanassiev, Mustonen and Kremer in the same category
> > as the natural "eccentrics" of the 1954 list who were not
> > self-consciously so.
>
>
> Are you saying they had no self-consciousess? They just sat at the
> keyboard and music happened?
Perhaps he is saying that there are different degrees of
self-consciousness. One can most certainly not presume on Weingartner to
*having wanted* to be an eccentric. One can presume that more safely
when thinking of Gould.
> > The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
> > Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
> > whereas Mustonen has a finite number, in fact you can count them on
> > one hand. But you're right: there are a lot of non-generic mainstream
> > musicians today, but few of them are indigenously so as they were in
> > the past, and futhermore, where there used to be different national
> > schools, now there is this generic Solti paradigm that absorbs the
> > glut of mainstream musicians. Anyway, that's how I interpreted
> > Vadim's accusation.
>
> So another blow against globalization!
"Globalization" is a complex phenomenon (ensemble of phenomena), with
innumerable positive consequences which, in my opinion, vastly outnumber
the negative ones. However, the particular combination of unforced variety
and "rootedness" past musical cultures still offered are definitely not
among the effects of the globalization.
Max Schmeder
damn! someone shut me up! too much drink last night..
-M
Simon Roberts
>
>Nice list, Simon, and I'm tempted to say "point taken" again but that
>would ruin my cred, and besides, I was thinking along different lines.
> First of all, I wasn't thinking of the HIPsters you mention, for two
>reasons. One, their repertoire doesn't overlap well with that of the
>1954 list of musicians to merit comparison,
Indeed not, but that has nothing at all to do with whether present
musicians are generic.
and more importantly:
>their individuality (non-genericness) comes from their unique guessing
>at the *idioms* of the ancient composers rather than the personalizing
>of each composer's emotional language, which is what I was thinking of
>as constituting "non-genericness."
>
I see - so you agree they're not generic but assert they don't count
because the causes/motives (or whatever the right word is) are
different.... But I think you're suggesting a false dichotomy: HIPsters
aren't emotion-free investigators, coldly analyzing "the facts" and
serving up the results in some neutral way (some have liked to
pretend they are, but that doesn't matter); they're interpretative
musicians like anyone else, and they bring to their investigations their own
interpretative baggage. Minkowski's Handel sounds vastly different from
Hogwood's not because his research has led to different conclusions but
because he's a different/more interesting/better musician. Anyway, why
can't we say that Minkowski (or whoever you like) has "personalized
Handel's emotional language"?
>And of the mainstream repertoire musicians, I don't put self-conscious
>eccentrics like Afanassiev, Mustonen and Kremer in the same category
>as the natural "eccentrics" of the 1954 list who were not
>self-consciously so.
You don't have to. But again, why does motive (etc.) matter if the
inquiry is whether musicians are generic? But, OK, let's assume you're
right and that they are self-consiously different and ignore them. What
about Andras Schiff? His Mozart (which I can't stand) doesn't
sound like Brendel's or Goode's or Uchida's (nor do these three sound like each
other, nor, I think, is their Mozart generic, whatever other flaws it may
have).
The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
>Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
It did? There seem to me to be quite a few that it omits (notably at the
aggressive end of the scale); that's partly why it's distinctive and
appealing.
Simon
Simon Roberts
[snip]
>But you're right: there are a lot of non-generic mainstream
>musicians today, but few of them are indigenously so as they were in
>the past, and futhermore, where there used to be different national
>schools, now there is this generic Solti paradigm that absorbs the
>glut of mainstream musicians. Anyway, that's how I interpreted
>Vadim's accusation.
Maybe; either way, given Vadim's distinctive taste I would love to see
the expression on his face at some of the names others suggested should
be added to his list....
Simon
Alain Dagher
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Alain Dagher wrote:
>
>
>
>>> First of all, I wasn't thinking of the HIPsters you mention, for two
>>>reasons. One, their repertoire doesn't overlap well with that of the
>>>1954 list of musicians to merit comparison, and more importantly:
>>>their individuality (non-genericness) comes from their unique guessing
>>>at the *idioms* of the ancient composers rather than the personalizing
>>>of each composer's emotional language, which is what I was thinking of
>>>as constituting "non-genericness."
>>
>>
>>How do you know?
>
>
> It is almost obvious to anybody who bothers to study in depth history of
> interpretation, preferably starting with the history of singing.
"It's obvious" is not a very satisfying answer.
>
>
>
>>You're implying that contemporary musicians have an
>>exclusively intellectual approach to music, while 50 years ago they were
>>all intuitive artists.
>
>
> That was implied nowhere. Personalizing the composer's emotional language
> does most emphatically not entail a prior lobotomy.
WHat was implied was there were two different pathways to personal
differences. In any case, it is irrelevant. The original point, that all
contemporary musicians are "generic", was ably refuted by Simon. What
are you (and/or Max) saying? That contemporary musicians arrive at their
individuality by the "wrong method"?
>
>
>>> The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
>>>Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
>>>whereas Mustonen has a finite number, in fact you can count them on
>>>one hand. But you're right: there are a lot of non-generic mainstream
>>>musicians today, but few of them are indigenously so as they were in
>>>the past, and futhermore, where there used to be different national
>>>schools, now there is this generic Solti paradigm that absorbs the
>>>glut of mainstream musicians. Anyway, that's how I interpreted
>>>Vadim's accusation.
>>
>>So another blow against globalization!
>
>
> "Globalization" is a complex phenomenon (ensemble of phenomena), with
> innumerable positive consequences which, in my opinion, vastly outnumber
> the negative ones. However, the particular combination of unforced variety
> and "rootedness" past musical cultures still offered are definitely not
> among the effects of the globalization.
I suppose I meant that a certain amount of homogenization in performance
styles is an inevitable result of the increased communication and ease
of travel for musicians. But it's also led to some fusion of styles. I
wonder how much of the HIP movement is slightly influenced by popular
music of the 60's and 70's.
>
> regards,
> SG
>
>
> ____________
>
> <<snip>>." -- Mark STEYN
Please refrain from quoting from Mr Foul-Steyn here. This is a man who
is happy there's a war the same way football fans are happy there is a
World Cup. I will have to killfile you to avoid unwittingly reading his
nonsense. The Canadian govt. should draft him into the army (waiving
age, weight, and intellegence restrictions) and send him to Afghanistan,
the little rat.
Mark K. Ehlert
news:slrn3vsairk...@pobox.upenn.edu:
> I see - so you agree they're not generic but assert they don't
> count because the causes/motives (or whatever the right word is)
> are different.... But I think you're suggesting a false
> dichotomy: HIPsters aren't emotion-free investigators, coldly
> analyzing "the facts" and serving up the results in some neutral
> way (some have liked to pretend they are, but that doesn't
> matter)...
I like to think that these are called "musicologists who happen to
know an instrument." (Sarcasm, by the way, but with some grain of
truth for me)
> ...they're interpretative musicians like anyone else, and
> they bring to their investigations their own interpretative
> baggage. Minkowski's Handel sounds vastly different from
> Hogwood's not because his research has led to different
> conclusions but because he's a different/more interesting/better
> musician. Anyway, why can't we say that Minkowski (or whoever
> you like) has "personalized Handel's emotional language"?
--
Mark K. Ehlert
To reply via e-mail, X = 3
Samir Golescu
> > It is almost obvious to anybody who bothers to study in depth history of
> > interpretation, preferably starting with the history of singing.
>
> "It's obvious" is not a very satisfying answer.
Well, pardon me for not (re)writing a five-hundred pages history of
singing for you or even attempting to synthesize what listening to
literally hundreds of different singers born in the 19th century taught
me. It is not arrogance, but rmcr is not a full-time job, you know.
I can recommend for starters: "Great singers on the art of singing",
Steane's "The great tradition" (or the more expanded, multi-volumed
"Singers of the century"), the very well written and expanded
booklets (a real book in fact) to the EMI great LP anthologies devoted
to singers, Celletti's "A history of bel-canto" and Rogers' book on famous
19th century singers.
> >>You're implying that contemporary musicians have an
> >>exclusively intellectual approach to music, while 50 years ago they were
> >>all intuitive artists.
> >
> >
> > That was implied nowhere. Personalizing the composer's emotional language
> > does most emphatically not entail a prior lobotomy.
>
> WHat was implied was there were two different pathways to personal
> differences. In any case, it is irrelevant. The original point, that all
> contemporary musicians are "generic", was ably refuted by Simon. What
> are you (and/or Max) saying? That contemporary musicians arrive at their
> individuality by the "wrong method"?
I won't speak for anybody else but myself. I don't know about the "wrong
method", but I am afraid that what some might be taking for variety is in
fact little more than the variety of those absolutely awful American
gelatine deserts, colored differently -- you have green, blue, and
red -- isn't that a great field of choice, what more variety does one
want?
> >>So another blow against globalization!
> >
> >
> > "Globalization" is a complex phenomenon (ensemble of phenomena), with
> > innumerable positive consequences which, in my opinion, vastly outnumber
> > the negative ones. However, the particular combination of unforced variety
> > and "rootedness" past musical cultures still offered are definitely not
> > among the effects of the globalization.
>
>
> I suppose I meant that a certain amount of homogenization in performance
> styles is an inevitable result of the increased communication and ease
> of travel for musicians. But it's also led to some fusion of styles. I
> wonder how much of the HIP movement is slightly influenced by popular
> music of the 60's and 70's.
I think this is a pretty perceptive observation. I have noticed in some of
the *better* HIP performances a type of (cheap) "swing" assimilable with
the James Last orchestra's. HIP performances of "Baroque music" sound
to me, in the rare instances when lively, crossover interpretive
transcriptions of great music.
> Please refrain from quoting from Mr Foul-Steyn here. This is a man who
> is happy there's a war the same way football fans are happy there is a
> World Cup.
I think that's balderdash. But if really you want to discuss it, feel free
to email me. No politics here, I've been told (Steyn, in my sig-file,
counts as a humorist(-:).
> I will have to killfile you to avoid unwittingly reading his
> nonsense.
If that's a reason good enough for you. . . . .
Samir Golescu
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > If so, I at least disagree with the first bit. It's not
> > > inconsistent to
> > > say "it's all about perspective" and that Pericles' Athens was
> > > better than mediaeval London or that Brahms was conducted better in
> > > 1954 than in 1994.
> > I see what you mean. It is inconsistent, however, once one presumes
> > that pointing out the different historical placement of different
> > interpretive styles implies that those styles are not comparable.
> True. But one can believe "it's all about perspective" without also
> believing that different perspectives and styles etc. aren't comparable
> (though perhaps not vice versa). (I note that those who do believe that
> different perspectives aren't comparable seem quite willing, albeit
> without realizing it, to drop that belief when it suits them....)
Actually there are instances in which perspectives are comparable and
instances when they are not. There's this thing called historical
causality which, while not to be absolutized either, can create pretty
funny situations when its elementary logic is turned upside down. I will
give you a (hopefully) funny example.
On one Internet list, one of Matthew B Tepper's best friends from the
executive industry -- let's call him Tom.... D. er, Thumb -- attacked
Josef Hofmann for having performed Kreisleriana with some cuts and two
numbers missing. People tried to point out that Josef Hofmann's [and the
entire generation's] perspective was different and that criteria of
integrity from 1900 were not the same with the criteria of 2000. Tom Thumb
continued to claim that Josef Hofmann "butchered" and "massacred"
Schumann's Kreisleriana.
At that moment, Farhan Malik (who has the nasty habit of being a quite
informed and thorough historian), produced a letter from Robert Schumann
himself, dated 4 Dec 1838, in which the composer suggested to Clara that
it would be advisable that she performed..... only the first and the last
movements from Kreisleriana!! At that moment, Tom Thumb, with infallible
logic, pointed out that Schumann's perspective has no bearing on how we
see things today. The fact that Hofmann was born in 1876 seemed to have no
place either in the stubborn conviction of Tom Thumb that he is logically
entitled to judge (and condemn) Josef Hofmann for not adequating his
choices to the integrity criteria of A. D. 2002 (or 1990 or so).
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> I like to think that these [HIP] are called "musicologists who happen
> to know an instrument."
Or poor instrumentalists who, unlike the great ones, can read a book
better than they can read notes.... (-:
regards,
SG
____________
<<The first law of political indiscretion: always have a drink before you
leak.>> -- from "Yes, Minister" (sig changed at ami Alain's request ( :)
Ray Hall
news:86b5196a.02070...@posting.google.com...
| It just occured to me that a music lover in 1954 could have heard
| (given money, time and willingness to travel quite a bit) ALL of the
| following musicians listed below in concert (my knuckles are white
| with envy as I wrtie!). I chose '54 because a year later, some of the
| biggest names in the list would no longer give concerts (due to death
| and retirement). Of course, I'm sure I missed a few names here
| (Abendroth's deliberately so, Richter because he wasn't yet the giant
| he became later), but what immediately came to made me wander if that
| year was indeed the beginning of the fairly short road that dead-ended
| with Vanessa Mae, Three Tenors and Mozart-in-the-morning compilations.
| Vadim.
|[impressive list snipped ....]
The last great year is always the present year. But if historical agendas
and fan worship of dead conductors are so important to many, then 1989/1990
saw the loss of Karajan and then Bernstein, and even more recently Georg
Tintner.
Roland van Gaalen
> [...] I have noticed in some of
> the *better* HIP performances a type of (cheap) "swing" assimilable with
> the James Last orchestra's. HIP performances of "Baroque music" sound
> to me, in the rare instances when lively, crossover interpretive
> transcriptions of great music.
Serious question (no sarcasm intended): do you think you would like Bach's
own performance style?
That is: suppose that HIP artists with all the necessary inspiration and
talent were to get it right; is there a chance that you (and I) would
dislike their music anyway?
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Samir Golescu
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> Serious question (no sarcasm intended): do you think you would like
> Bach's own performance style?
It is hard to know, insofar we'll never HEAR it but, if you just ask me to
advance a guess: sheer intuition makes me think I'd be bowled over, I'd
love it etc. etc. etc. It *might* be that some of the material conditions
Bach was limited by, when performing his larger-scale works, would be an
impediment in appreciating his interpretive conceptions but in, say, organ
playing, I very much doubt I could not adore his playing. My intuition is
corroborated by the fact that I can't think of one single major composer
to have been recorded -- from R Strauss to Prokofiev, Enescu, Shostakovich
and beyond -- whom I did not like as an interpreter. The presence of
creative genius is a guarantee, rather, of precious interpretive qualities
(if not technical excellence, I mean not always) *being* there.
> That is: suppose that HIP artists with all the necessary inspiration and
> talent were to get it right;
If by that you mean a faithful reproduction of Bach's style, I don't think
that is possible at all. We know more about Chopin's own playing than we
know about Bach's playing. We have hundreds of pages written by Chopin's
own students, writing in detail about how the master did this or did that,
we have recordings of a notable number of students of Chopin's students,
we have Chopin manuscripts (including numerous fingerings written in) that
describe in magnified detail (especially when compared to Bach!) how
Chopin wanted his music performed, we have Liszt himself's florid and
passionate descriptions (um, Mme d'Agoult might have contributed some) of
Chopin's art. Bref, the body of evidence describing Chopin the interpreter
is incomparably more consistent, more detailed, more suggestive than
anything we have on Bach the interpreter. The knowledge of this body of
evidence is important for any Chopin player worth his salt. However,
nobody who attempted to incorporate today everything we know about
Chopin's playing (and again we know so much more than in Bach's case)
could claim in honesty to be performing "like Chopin".
> is there a chance that you (and I) would dislike their music anyway?
Again, intuition tells me "no". However, an interpretation of genius is so
much connected to the uniqueness of a musician's personality (rather than
to whether (s)he is getting it "right" or "wrong", to be judged by
extrinsical criteria) that I think we can fairly assume that such
occurrence will never take place.
Mark K. Ehlert
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
>
>> I like to think that these [HIP] are called "musicologists who
>> happen to know an instrument."
>
> Or poor instrumentalists who, unlike the great ones, can read a
> book better than they can read notes.... (-:
I just want to clarify to the greater public that I was referring to
bad HIP performers only (Samir's smiley notwithstanding) - I've got a
reputation among colleagues at work to uphold. :)
Roland van Gaalen
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
>
> > Serious question (no sarcasm intended): do you think you would like
> > Bach's own performance style?
>
> It is hard to know, insofar we'll never HEAR it but, if you just ask me to
> advance a guess: sheer intuition makes me think I'd be bowled over, I'd
> love it etc. etc. etc. It *might* be that some of the material conditions
> Bach was limited by, when performing his larger-scale works, would be an
> impediment in appreciating his interpretive conceptions but in, say, organ
> playing, I very much doubt I could not adore his playing. My intuition is
> corroborated by the fact that I can't think of one single major composer
> to have been recorded -- from R Strauss to Prokofiev, Enescu, Shostakovich
> and beyond -- whom I did not like as an interpreter. The presence of
> creative genius is a guarantee, rather, of precious interpretive qualities
> (if not technical excellence, I mean not always) *being* there.
>
>
> > That is: suppose that HIP artists with all the necessary inspiration and
> > talent were to get it right;
Come to think of it, I meant "right" between at least one pair of quotation
marks!
>
> If by that you mean a faithful reproduction of Bach's style,
Exactly -- a criterion which denies the poetic richness of his music
> I don't think
> that is possible at all. We know more about Chopin's own playing than we
> know about Bach's playing. We have hundreds of pages written by Chopin's
> own students, writing in detail about how the master did this or did that,
> we have recordings of a notable number of students of Chopin's students,
> we have Chopin manuscripts (including numerous fingerings written in) that
> describe in magnified detail (especially when compared to Bach!) how
> Chopin wanted his music performed, we have Liszt himself's florid and
> passionate descriptions (um, Mme d'Agoult might have contributed some) of
> Chopin's art. Bref, the body of evidence describing Chopin the interpreter
> is incomparably more consistent, more detailed, more suggestive than
> anything we have on Bach the interpreter. The knowledge of this body of
> evidence is important for any Chopin player worth his salt. However,
> nobody who attempted to incorporate today everything we know about
> Chopin's playing (and again we know so much more than in Bach's case)
> could claim in honesty to be performing "like Chopin".
>
>
> > is there a chance that you (and I) would dislike their music anyway?
>
> Again, intuition tells me "no". However, an interpretation of genius is
so
> much connected to the uniqueness of a musician's personality (rather than
> to whether (s)he is getting it "right" or "wrong", to be judged by
> extrinsical criteria) that I think we can fairly assume that such
> occurrence will never take place.
Your observation about uniqueness is right on the mark, I believe.
This leaves us with
(a) Bach performance style, which was no doubt unique in some important
respects
(b) Bach's music, which is great and therefore lends itself to multiple
interpretations, like good poetry
so what would it mean to get it (1) right, (2) "right", or (3) " 'right' "?
Simon Roberts
"Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:agl7lj$n0e4a$1...@ID-78439.news.dfncis.de...
> Samir Golescu wrote
> > If by that you mean a faithful reproduction of Bach's style,
>
> Exactly -- a criterion which denies the poetic richness of his music
It's a good thing we all agree what "poetic richness" means and how it
should manifest itself in interpretations....
>
> so what would it mean to get it (1) right, (2) "right", or (3) "
'right' "?
There is no '"'right'"' 'answer' to that "question"
Simon
Samir Golescu
> > > It is almost obvious to anybody who bothers to study in depth history
> > > of interpretation, preferably starting with the history of singing.
> >
> > "It's obvious" is not a very satisfying answer.
>
> Well, pardon me for not (re)writing a five-hundred pages history of
> singing for you or even attempting to synthesize what listening to
> literally hundreds of different singers born in the 19th century taught
> me. It is not arrogance, but rmcr is not a full-time job, you know.
>
> I can recommend for starters: "Great singers on the art of singing",
> Steane's "The great tradition" (or the more expanded, multi-volumed
> "Singers of the century"), the very well written and expanded
> booklets (a real book in fact) to the EMI great LP anthologies devoted
> to singers, Celletti's "A history of bel-canto" and Rogers' book on famous
> 19th century singers.
Apologies to Alain Dagher for the impatient and somewhat superior (now
that I read it again) tone of my answer. I'd be the last one to risk to
drive away from rmcr a man who shows enough style as to be an example in
this respect.
Regarding the past variety art of operatic singing, I should have simply
pointed out that, e.g. (among VERY many), today it became an exercise for
the finest ears to distinguish between a Spanish and an Italian tenor,
while such distinction was obvious (and "productive") among any tenors
active in the '20s-'30s. However, minus the "tone" of the recommendation,
I still think that the named books make for quite good reading. I'd
also add Nigel Douglas' two books on "legendary singers" -- while not
really comprehensive, they discuss "from singer to singer" some of the
greatest singers on record and they are written in a language which is
both competent and eloquent, giving the lie to the well-spread hypothesis
that tenors have brains of smaller dimensions -- a theory M. Dagher has to
be pretty familiar with.(:
Edward A. Cowan
>
> It is hard to know, insofar we'll never HEAR it but, if you just ask me to
> advance a guess: sheer intuition makes me think I'd be bowled over, I'd
> love it etc. etc. etc. It *might* be that some of the material conditions
> Bach was limited by, when performing his larger-scale works, would be an
> impediment in appreciating his interpretive conceptions but in, say, organ
> playing, I very much doubt I could not adore his playing.
About 75 years ago, there was a theory floating around that alleged that
Bach was really handicapped and thwarted by the limitations of the
instruments he had had at his disposal. That was why there was a need,
ca. 1920-1940, for Leopold Stokowski and his Philadelphia Orchestra to
play Bach's music in the manner in which Bach had actually imagined it
but was simply unable to realize it in his time.
(No, I don't buy that argument, either, but such an argument was
advanced to support Stoki's alleged "tampering" with Bach. Myself, I can
take Bach's music "straight" and also with the rescorings of Stokowski,
taking them *separately* at their face value.)
--E.A.C.
Wayne Reimer
wr...@pacbell.net says...
wr
Max Schmeder
He has to some extent, but so much HIP energy goes into speculating
and groping for performance practice that there is necessarily less
possibility for an interpreter to set aside preoccupation with the
externals and simply meditate on his/her personal reaction to a
composition.
I'm not arguing that HIP musicians are inferior to the 1954 roster,
only that their instinct to personalize music is necessarily
handicapped because they're still coming to terms with the idioms.
So, I think we have to wait another twenty years or so before there is
a HIP culture where Minkowski-like facility is the norm rather than
the exception, and it's their generation of standouts that I'm waiting
for. Right now, there are HIP musicians that are "Great", but there
simply aren't enough of them to make HIP commensurate with what was
happening mid-century.
To give an example.. I got tremendously excited by Laurent Stewart's
Frescobaldi. It was the first Frescobaldi that I'd heard that managed
to convey the music behind the notes, and every single note at that.
For that reason, I rank him high in my book, high enough that he'd
displace a pianist and make my list of 20 favorite keyboardists. But
to compare.. in looking for a good Kinderszenen recording, there are
probably at least thirty or forty available recorded performances that
"work" in the sense of Stewart's accomplishment: they convey enough
emotion that a new listener could fall in love with the music. Among
those thirty or forty recordings are a few that stand out as
exceptional or miraculous. That's a different level of success.
HIP's current success as far as Frescobaldi and my opinion is
concerned is limited to a single recording that for once adequately
services the music. But it won't be for another generation, when
harpsichordists have universally assimilated Frescobaldi's idiom with
at least the same facility as Stewart that they'll start churning out
decent performances, and that the occasional equivalent of a deeply
personal Horowitz Kinderszenen will appear.
> >And of the mainstream repertoire musicians, I don't put self-conscious
> >eccentrics like Afanassiev, Mustonen and Kremer in the same category
> >as the natural "eccentrics" of the 1954 list who were not
> >self-consciously so.
>
> You don't have to. But again, why does motive (etc.) matter if the
> inquiry is whether musicians are generic? But, OK, let's assume you're
> right and that they are self-consiously different and ignore them. What
> about Andras Schiff? His Mozart (which I can't stand) doesn't
> sound like Brendel's or Goode's or Uchida's (nor do these three sound like each
> other, nor, I think, is their Mozart generic, whatever other flaws it may
> have).
I might call them "generic" because their emotional/intellectual
projection of the music is not distinctive. It's a different
definition of "generic" - or a at least a more removed application of
the term.
> The difference is seen in that an eccentric like
> >Edwin Fischer's Beethoven had infinitely many modes of expression,
>
> It did? There seem to me to be quite a few that it omits (notably at the
> aggressive end of the scale); that's partly why it's distinctive and
> appealing.
I'm not saying that his range of expression covered all bases. What I
mean is that within his range there are infinitely many inflections
and gradations of mood and personality.
-Max
> Simon
Max Schmeder
> I suppose I meant that a certain amount of homogenization in performance
> styles is an inevitable result of the increased communication and ease
> of travel for musicians. But it's also led to some fusion of styles. I
> wonder how much of the HIP movement is slightly influenced by popular
> music of the 60's and 70's.
Certainly the willingness to experiment and the revived interest in
improvisation. But in the longer run, I think of an invasive
non-native plant. At first, there may be some synnergetic "fusions" -
a few lucky native species will actually flourish under the invasion,
but in the end we'll have a single monoculture.
Even as regards HIP - even once they find their "voice" (aka settle
their performance practice as I was writing about in the other
posting), I expect it will be only one voice, one language that they
will speak in, and you won't have anything like the variety of tongues
that you found among the indigenous classical traditions of Europe in
the early 20th-century. Every modern orchestra will start with
Solti's almost impossible-to-argue-with robust sound and go from
there, and similarly the HIP orchestras will take as a given
Minkowski's style of tapering string swells. At least that's what I
expect. (Actually, I expect something unexpected to happen to upset
this course, since that's what always happens, but if nothing
unexpected happens, this is what I next expect..)
-Max
Simon Roberts
>
>Even as regards HIP - even once they find their "voice" (aka settle
>their performance practice as I was writing about in the other
>posting), I expect it will be only one voice, one language that they
>will speak in,
What is the basis for this expectation? One might argue that British
HIPsters have done that - British HIP recordings of the Brandenburgs, say,
all sound much the same, and they tend to perform with a degree of
stiff-upper-lip avoidance of what they doubtless regard as vulgar displays
of emotion - but their style isn't much like that of Netherlands HIP, let
alone the better Italian, German or Austrian HIPsters. Listen to the
Brilliant Classics set of Haydn sonatas or the Claves Beethoven sonatas set.
There's no one voice there. But if you're right, please let that voice
not be that of the virtuously restrained.
Simon
Bob Lombard
wrote:
[snip]
>Certainly the willingness to experiment and the revived interest in
>improvisation. But in the longer run, I think of an invasive
>non-native plant. At first, there may be some synnergetic "fusions" -
>a few lucky native species will actually flourish under the invasion,
>but in the end we'll have a single monoculture.
[snip]
It's not clear to me whether your 'in the end' prediction is for a
fusion or a homogenization. Just to sort out terms, I think of
'fusion' music (e.g. 'newgrass') as a joining together;
'homogenization' (e.g. what happened to 'country' > balladeer 'pop' in
the US) as a blending from which the original parts can't be
separated.
Using a 'classical' example, there was some fusion of jazz to
classical music in the 20s and 30s, but the elements of each genre
were discernable in the result. This would not be an indication of
'monoculture', right?
bl
Roland van Gaalen
>
> "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:agl7lj$n0e4a$1...@ID-78439.news.dfncis.de...
> > Samir Golescu wrote
>
> > > If by that you mean a faithful reproduction of Bach's style,
> >
> > Exactly -- a criterion which denies the poetic richness of his music
>
> It's a good thing we all agree what "poetic richness" means and how it
> should manifest itself in interpretations....
But why would or should that be a good thing?
> >
> > so what would it mean to get it (1) right, (2) "right", or (3) "
> 'right' "?
>
> There is no '"'right'"' 'answer' to that "question"
Right, "Simon"!
Simon Roberts
<SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>"Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>news:agl8q1$f3a$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>>
>> "Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:agl7lj$n0e4a$1...@ID-78439.news.dfncis.de...
>> > Samir Golescu wrote
>>
>> > > If by that you mean a faithful reproduction of Bach's style,
>> >
>> > Exactly -- a criterion which denies the poetic richness of his music
>>
>> It's a good thing we all agree what "poetic richness" means and how it
>> should manifest itself in interpretations....
>
>But why would or should that be a good thing?
Ummm... I was being sarcastic.
Simon
Alain Dagher
>
>>>>It is almost obvious to anybody who bothers to study in depth history
>>>>of interpretation, preferably starting with the history of singing.
>>>
>>>"It's obvious" is not a very satisfying answer.
>>
>>Well, pardon me for not (re)writing a five-hundred pages history of
>>singing for you or even attempting to synthesize what listening to
>>literally hundreds of different singers born in the 19th century taught
>>me. It is not arrogance, but rmcr is not a full-time job, you know.
>>
>>I can recommend for starters: "Great singers on the art of singing",
>>Steane's "The great tradition" (or the more expanded, multi-volumed
>>"Singers of the century"), the very well written and expanded
>>booklets (a real book in fact) to the EMI great LP anthologies devoted
>>to singers, Celletti's "A history of bel-canto" and Rogers' book on famous
>>19th century singers.
>
>
> Apologies to Alain Dagher for the impatient and somewhat superior (now
> that I read it again) tone of my answer. I'd be the last one to risk to
> drive away from rmcr a man who shows enough style as to be an example in
> this respect.
Well, I shouldn't tell you what to put in your sig. But "Yes, Minister"
is fabulous. I love the show about the most efficient hospital in
Britain that had no patients. I bring it up at meetings all the time.
>
> Regarding the past variety art of operatic singing, I should have simply
> pointed out that, e.g. (among VERY many), today it became an exercise for
> the finest ears to distinguish between a Spanish and an Italian tenor,
> while such distinction was obvious (and "productive") among any tenors
> active in the '20s-'30s. However, minus the "tone" of the recommendation,
> I still think that the named books make for quite good reading. I'd
> also add Nigel Douglas' two books on "legendary singers" -- while not
> really comprehensive, they discuss "from singer to singer" some of the
> greatest singers on record and they are written in a language which is
> both competent and eloquent, giving the lie to the well-spread hypothesis
> that tenors have brains of smaller dimensions -- a theory M. Dagher has to
> be pretty familiar with.(:
I think the argument is certainly more applicable to singing styles than
to conducting symphony orchestras, which is what the original post was
about (almost all the 1954 musicians listed were conductors).
I only butted in because I supect that part of the argument is nothing
but parade-raining. One gets the same in Jazz: if you claim to enjoy a
contemporary Jazz musician, certain kinds of Jazz lovers will give you a
pained and pitying look and say either "that's not Jazz" (a commonly
heard complaint that I'd equate with "HIP musicians aren't really
musicians") or "He/she isn't as good as Miles Davis, Bill Evans, etc
..." (the equivalent of "Haitink, Abbado etc... can't hold a candle to
Munch, Reiner, etc ..."). The fact is they said the same things about
Miles Davis when he was alive.
I've heard Abbado and Haitink live a few times (the studio records
admittedly tend to be homogenized, but that may not be entirely their
fault) and I am sure they are wonderful musicians and equal in their way
to Munch and Reiner. Furtwangler, well that's another issue. He was very
special. There are no conductors like him, just like there are no Jazz
musicians like Miles. But there is lots of enjoyment to be had listening
to music.
Alain
PS: Funnily enough, one heard the same thing in the World Cup: so many
ex-stars (Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona) and journalists said: there are
no great teams anymore, and no great players, and Brazil are really
mediocre, etc ... even Ronaldo isn't as good as he was four years ago
(despite scoring twice as many goals).
PPS: One English sports journalist was so wound up about everything he
even criticized Japanese food. Compared to what mate? Bangers and mash?
Simon Roberts
>
>PS: Funnily enough, one heard the same thing in the World Cup: so many
>ex-stars (Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona) and journalists said: there are
>no great teams anymore, and no great players, and Brazil are really
>mediocre, etc ... even Ronaldo isn't as good as he was four years ago
>(despite scoring twice as many goals).
They probably say it about tennis, too, which is my excuse for quoting
this from the "Colemanballs" section of the current Private Eye:
"I do sympathise with the problem of the net when youre hitting a volley.
Its a real obstacle in the middle of the court."
VIRGINIA WADE, BBC
>
>PPS: One English sports journalist was so wound up about everything he
>even criticized Japanese food. Compared to what mate? Bangers and mash?
>
A nice chip butty.
Simon
Roland van Gaalen
That was clear, but I was calling your bluff -- I didn't understand what you
you were driving at.
Simon Roberts
>
>That was clear, but I was calling your bluff -- I didn't understand what you
>you were driving at.
Simple - that HIP doesn't "deny the poetic richness of the music", merely
realizes it (or understands its poetry differently, or both) in different
ways from the sorts of performances you prefer. (This isn't to say, of course,
that there aren't unpoetic HIP performances (or at least HIP performances I
wouldn't call poetic); equally, there are unpoetic non-HIP performances.)
Simon
Roland van Gaalen
No argument there, except that if HIP insists on a faithful production of
the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write poetry in
the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain it.
As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
Simon Roberts
>the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
>interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
>
>What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
>meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write poetry in
>the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
>
Sorry, I completely missed your point. I agree with you - but then so do
most HIPters. I don't think any of the prominent HIPsters - certainly not
any of the good ones - accepts the premise you attribute to all of them
(I'm not sure that any of them does, actually, though publicists and ad
writers sometimes seem to come close.) I would note, though, that even if
they did, the fact that they have bad ideas about the nature of
interpretation, the role of historical investigation, etc., that wouldn't
make their performances any worse (or better).
Simon
Thomas Wood
Roland van Gaalen <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:agnb4b$na1st$1@ID-> No argument there, except that if HIP insists on a
faithful production of
> the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
> interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
But if the composer's style of performance was "poetic" wouldn't a faithful
HIP interpretation of it be poetic also?
> What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
> meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write poetry
in
> the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
>
> In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain
it.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
You seem to think non-HIP performances are all moonlight-on-water wispy
inspiration, while HIP is flourescent-lit, clinical intellectual dissection.
It's just not that simple.
Tom Wood
Alain Dagher
>
> No argument there, except that if HIP insists on a faithful production of
> the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
> interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
>
> What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
> meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write poetry in
> the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
Suppose a scholar came along with proof that an existing translation of
a famous poem was actually riddled with errors, would you say that
insisting on a more accurate translation would (1) deny, or (2) enhance
the poetic nature of the poem?
>
> In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain it.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
>
Do you think understanding compositional processes, instrumental
technique, or the biography of the composer ruin the experience of
listening to a piece of music?
Alain
Samir Golescu
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Alain Dagher wrote:
> > No argument there, except that if HIP insists on a faithful production
> > of the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
> > interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
> >
> > What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
> > meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write poetry in
> > the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
>
> Suppose a scholar came along with proof that an existing translation of
> a famous poem was actually riddled with errors, would you say that
> insisting on a more accurate translation would (1) deny, or (2) enhance
> the poetic nature of the poem?
The analogy is clever, M. Dagher, but it simply is not working. (Remember
our discussion on translations sometime ago?) It is true that some
researchers (before HIP, within HIP and outside HIP) have shown that the
understanding of some elements of musical notation has changed over
centuries (e.g., the famous matter of dotted rhythms) but that is far from
being assimilable to a translation "riddled with errors".
> > In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain it.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
> >
>
> Do you think understanding compositional processes, instrumental
> technique, or the biography of the composer ruin the experience of
> listening to a piece of music?
Of course not, but which of the above has been dicovered/invented by HIP?
regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
I was not talking about HIP, but pointing out that explaining how a
piece of music works is different than explaining a joke.
Alain
PS (OT): here's a joke that has me rolling on the floor:
It is 2006, just before England v Brazil at the World Cup in Germany.
Ronaldo goes into the Brazilian changing room to find all his team mates
looking a bit glum.
"What's up?" he asks. "Well, we're having trouble getting motivated for
this game. We know it's important but it's only England. They're
terrible and we can't get excited." Ronaldo looks at them and says
"Well, I reckon I can beat these guys by myself, you guys go down to the
pub." So Ronaldo goes out to play England by himself and the rest of the
Brazilian team go off for a few drinks. After a while they wonder how
the game is going, so get the landlord to put the teletext on. A big
cheer goes up as the screen reads "Brazil 1 England 0 (Ronaldo 10
minutes)" He is beating England all by himself!
Anyway, a few more pints later and the game is forgotten until someone
remembers "It must be full time now, let's see how he got on" They put
the teletext on. "Final Result: Brazil 1 (Ronaldo 10 minutes) - England
1 (Beckham 89 minutes). They can't believe it, he has single handedly
got a draw against England!! They rush back to the Stadium to
congratulate him. They find him in the dressing room, still in his gear,
sitting with his head in his hands. He refuses to look at them. "I've
let you down, I've let you down" "Don't be crazy you got a draw against
England, all by yourself. And they only scored at the very very end!"
"No, No, I have, I've let you down!. I got sent off after 12 minutes."
Ray Hall
Hee hee hee. Velly funny Alain. Really !!!!
Coming second to Brazil is always a pleasure in my book.
Actually, Ronaldhino destroyed England this time.
He would do it on his own - far better than Ronaldo.
And he DID get sent off.
<g>
Presumably we (hmmm - I'd better address my true nationality here) beat
Germany 9-1 in the process of getting to the final, and saw off France with
a mere 4-0 drubbing.
Back to music, as K used to say.
Wot was yer talkin' abaht? Music?
1989 and 1990.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
"It is one of the great tragedies of our society
that from fear, poor teaching, or lack of motivation
the vast majority of people have shut themselves off
from the mathematical poetry and music of nature".
Prof Paul Davies
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 10/07/02
Ray Hall
| special. There are no conductors like him, just like there are no Jazz
| musicians like Miles. But there is lots of enjoyment to be had listening
| to music.
Agreed, but when talking jazz Alain, stick to Parker or Evans. Now they were
actually musicians.
Roland van Gaalen
> Roland van Gaalen wrote:
>
> >
> > No argument there, except that if HIP insists on a faithful production
of
> > the composer's style of performance as the one and only valid
> > interpretation, it denies the poetic nature of the music.
> >
> > What I mean is this: if a poem is just a cryptic message with a unique
> > meaning to be detected by literary scholars, why would poets write
poetry in
> > the first place? Isn't great poetry supposed to transcend all this?
>
> Suppose a scholar came along with proof that an existing translation of
> a famous poem was actually riddled with errors, would you say that
> insisting on a more accurate translation would (1) deny, or (2) enhance
> the poetic nature of the poem?
Misunderstandings and distortions are all in the game.
I see nothing wrong with trying to find a better translation (according to
your own criteria)
But I recommend against ruling out Chapman's Homer.
>
>
>
> >
> > In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain
it.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
> >
>
> Do you think understanding compositional processes, instrumental
> technique, or the biography of the composer ruin the experience of
> listening to a piece of music?
It might, yes -- if familiarity breeds contempt. But the opposite is
possible, too, of course.
Roland van Gaalen
> Samir Golescu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Alain Dagher wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >>>In a similar vein, the best way of ruining a joke forever is to explain
it.
> >>>
> >>>As far as I am concerned, the same ultimately applies to music.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you think understanding compositional processes, instrumental
> >>technique, or the biography of the composer ruin the experience of
> >>listening to a piece of music?
> >
> >
> > Of course not, but which of the above has been dicovered/invented by
HIP?
>
>
> I was not talking about HIP, but pointing out that explaining how a
> piece of music works is different than explaining a joke.
Quite. I overheard a conversation between to HIPsters:
"After laughing at a joke it is horrible for one to discover that one has
laughed for the wrong reason."
"Yes, I think one should insist on receiving better explanations, so that
from then on one knows what to laugh about, and for how long!!!"
Max Schmeder
> On 11 Jul 2002 20:54:18 -0700, Max Schmeder <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Even as regards HIP - even once they find their "voice" (aka settle
> >their performance practice as I was writing about in the other
> >posting), I expect it will be only one voice, one language that they
> >will speak in,
>
> What is the basis for this expectation?
Childhood experiences with bullies, and also globalization would seem
to make it inevitable and has similar precedents.
Here, you can listen to a lullaby in the now-extinct "ku|khassi"
language:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/elr/extinct.html
..and another 3,000 lullabies will join up in the next 50 years.
> One might argue that British
> HIPsters have done that - British HIP recordings of the Brandenburgs, say,
> all sound much the same, and they tend to perform with a degree of
> stiff-upper-lip avoidance of what they doubtless regard as vulgar displays
> of emotion - but their style isn't much like that of Netherlands HIP, let
> alone the better Italian, German or Austrian HIPsters.
Right, well, we'll have to see - I think the diversity is because
they're still experimenting with performance practice.
> Listen to the
> Brilliant Classics set of Haydn sonatas or the Claves Beethoven sonatas set.
> There's no one voice there.
But the Claves set doesn't nearly encompass the interpretive distances
you find between Schanbel, Arrau and Hoffman in their Beethoven.
Perhaps that's not a good example as Claves is loaded with Malcom
Bilson's students.
> But if you're right, please let that voice
> not be that of the virtuously restrained.
Probably not, but whatever the British do is guaranteed to survive, as
well, if only because of their protectionist policy for their own
musicians.
Max
> Simon
Simon Roberts
"Max Schmeder" <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com...
[me]
> > What is the basis for this expectation?
>
> Childhood experiences with bullies, and also globalization would seem
> to make it inevitable and has similar precedents.
Since HIP is relatively recent, has been rather limited in terms of the
number of participants, is concentrated in Europe and developed during
the period when "globalization" has been developing fastest, the
diversity within it strikes me as remarkable.
> Right, well, we'll have to see - I think the diversity is because
> they're still experimenting with performance practice.
I think experimentation with practice (if by that you mean
technique/style qua style rather than interpretation) has little to do
with it (though I may be wrong). I suspect that one reason why so many
British HIP performers sound similar (aside from the fact that the same
musicians are shared by groups with different names) is that they
operate within a British tradition of relative emotional restraint and
elegance. Their immediate predecessors and influences are Marriner,
Mackerras and Leppard, but you hear the same sort of restraint in
Solomon, Boult, Sargeant, any number of singers, and on and on (there
are exceptions, of course, such as Barbirolli, sometimes, and Du Pre).
The allegedly wild Manze may seem so compared to, say, Huggett, Standage
and Wallfisch, but he sounds quite tame besides the more extrovert
continental HIPsters in Bach and Handel and, especially, Vivaldi. The
tradition affects the experiments. I simply can't imagine an
"experiment" which would result in Hogwood producing Vivaldi
performances that sound like those of Il Giardino Armonico or Norrington
producing Bach that sounds like MAK's.
>
> > Listen to the
> > Brilliant Classics set of Haydn sonatas or the Claves Beethoven
sonatas set.
> > There's no one voice there.
>
> But the Claves set doesn't nearly encompass the interpretive distances
> you find between Schanbel, Arrau and Hoffman in their Beethoven.
Perhaps not; but why should it? The HIP world is a lot smaller than the
world that Schnabel, Arrau and Hoffman came from, and as you note below,
its participants are all students of the same teacher.
> Perhaps that's not a good example as Claves is loaded with Malcom
> Bilson's students.
Who, despite that, are interpretatively quite different from each
other....
>
> > But if you're right, please let that voice
> > not be that of the virtuously restrained.
>
> Probably not, but whatever the British do is guaranteed to survive, as
> well, if only because of their protectionist policy for their own
> musicians.
Marmite.
Simon
Ypres
>possible, too, of course.
>--
>Roland van Gaalen
That's why Twain said that familiarity breeds contempt and children.
Ypres :-D
Dan Koren
> It just occured to me that a music lover in 1954 could have heard
> (given money, time and willingness to travel quite a bit) ALL of the
> following musicians listed below in concert (my knuckles are white
> with envy as I wrtie!). I chose '54 because a year later, some of the
> biggest names in the list would no longer give concerts (due to death
> and retirement). Of course, I'm sure I missed a few names here
> (Abendroth's deliberately so, Richter because he wasn't yet the giant
> he became later), but what immediately came to made me wander if that
> year was indeed the beginning of the fairly short road that dead-ended
> with Vanessa Mae, Three Tenors and Mozart-in-the-morning compilations.
> Vadim.
>
> Barbirolli
> Beecham
> Cortot
> E. Fischer
> Fricsay
> Furtwangler
> Gieseking
> Klemperer
> Mravinsky
> Neuhaus
> de Sabata
> Sofronitsky
> Stokowski
> Szell
> Toscanini
> Walter
Welcome to Monseigneur Golesco's
Dead Musician Appreciation Society! :)
dk
Dan Koren
>
> At that moment, Farhan Malik (who has the nasty habit of being a quite
> informed and thorough historian), produced a letter from Robert Schumann
> himself, dated 4 Dec 1838, in which the composer suggested to Clara that
> it would be advisable that she performed..... only the first and the last
> movements from Kreisleriana!!
>
You are aware, arent' you, that Mrs.
Schumann enjoyed certain privileges
and was allowed to make cuts anywhere
she saw fit :)
dk
Dan Koren
> piece of music works is different than explaining a joke.
>
No, it is exactly the same thing. If
you need an explanation -- forget it!
dk
Max Schmeder
> "Max Schmeder" <maxsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Listen to the
> > > Brilliant Classics set of Haydn sonatas or the Claves Beethoven
> sonatas set.
> > > There's no one voice there.
>
> > But the Claves set doesn't nearly encompass the interpretive distances
> > you find between Schanbel, Arrau and Hoffman in their Beethoven.
>
> Perhaps not; but why should it? The HIP world is a lot smaller than the
> world that Schnabel, Arrau and Hoffman came from,
But in fact I can't think of *any* three or even two Beethoven
interpreters from that era who don't incidentally circumsbribe a
greater range of style than found on the Claves, for another example,
Backhaus and Kempff.
I think it's safe to say that today's musicians are more preoccupied
with technique, and in the modern non-HIP world (let's call them
*RIP*) there's a much narrower view of what constitutes a desireable
sound than in the past. Just as modern orchestras model their sound
after the equivalent of George Clooney's looks (generic robust
handsomeness), so will HIP once a style with the broadest appeal is
found. And just wait until we start cloning musicians...
> > > But if you're right, please let that voice
> > > not be that of the virtuously restrained.
> >
> > Probably not, but whatever the British do is guaranteed to survive, as
> > well, if only because of their protectionist policy for their own
> > musicians.
>
> Marmite.
Touche'.
-Max
> Simon
Dan Koren
The understanding is only useful following the experience.
Does your understanding of how one makes crème brulée add
or subtract anything to/from the experience of eating it?
dk
Dan Koren
Not to mention the appropriate pitch and intonation :)
dk
Dan Koren
>
>
> > I like to think that these [HIP] are called "musicologists who happen
> > to know an instrument."
>
> Or poor instrumentalists who, unlike the great ones, can read a book
> better than they can read notes.... (-:
>
Or between....
dk
Dan Koren
>
> > I see - so you agree they're not generic but assert they don't count
> > because the causes/motives (or whatever the right word is) are
> > different.... But I think you're suggesting a false dichotomy: HIPsters
> > aren't emotion-free investigators, coldly analyzing "the facts" and
> > serving up the results in some neutral way (some have liked to
> > pretend they are, but that doesn't matter); they're interpretative
> > musicians like anyone else, and they bring to their investigations their own
> > interpretative baggage. Minkowski's Handel sounds vastly different from
> > Hogwood's not because his research has led to different conclusions but
> > because he's a different/more interesting/better musician. Anyway, why
> > can't we say that Minkowski (or whoever you like) has "personalized
> > Handel's emotional language"?
>
> He has to some extent, but so much HIP energy goes into speculating
> and groping for performance practice that there is necessarily less
> possibility for an interpreter to set aside preoccupation with the
> externals and simply meditate on his/her personal reaction to a
> composition.
Don't hipsters usually bring their therapists on
stage with them to turn the pages of theire scores? :)
> I'm not arguing that HIP musicians are inferior to the 1954 roster,
> only that their instinct to personalize music is necessarily
> handicapped because they're still coming to terms with the idioms.
Or perhaps handicapped -- period?
> So, I think we have to wait another twenty years or so before there is
> a HIP culture where Minkowski-like facility is the norm rather than
> the exception, and it's their generation of standouts that I'm waiting
> for. Right now, there are HIP musicians that are "Great", but there
> simply aren't enough of them to make HIP commensurate with what was
> happening mid-century.
>
> To give an example.. I got tremendously excited by Laurent Stewart's
> Frescobaldi. It was the first Frescobaldi that I'd heard that managed
> to convey the music behind the notes, and every single note at that.
> For that reason, I rank him high in my book, high enough that he'd
> displace a pianist and make my list of 20 favorite keyboardists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Blasphemy :)
> But to compare.. in looking for a good Kinderszenen recording,
Yes, Jonas, Horowitz, Argerich, Cortot. Maybe even Afanassiev.
Or are you looking for one on the harpshichord? If that's the
case you could probably take just about any piano version and
throw it into a frying pan! :)
> there are
> probably at least thirty or forty available recorded performances that
> "work" in the sense of Stewart's accomplishment: they convey enough
> emotion that a new listener could fall in love with the music.
Are you counting on the fingers of all the harpsichordists
in the world?
dk
Max Schmeder
> Are you counting on the fingers of all the harpsichordists
> in the world?
I was counting on your having common sense.. :)
>
> dk
Max Schmeder
shoot the harpsichordist day, huh? (-:
dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote in message news:<c1c5ead9.02071...@posting.google.com>...
Dan Koren
>
> your law passed making every day
> shoot the harpsichordist day, huh? (-:
>
No, not at all. I believe harpsichordists
should be suppressed through judicious
genetic engineering.... :)
dk
PS. In any case, the appropriate term
is "grill the harpsichordist". Just as
the holy book says -- an eye for an eye
and an ear for an ear! :)
Max Schmeder
> maxsc...@hotmail.com (Max Schmeder) wrote in message news:<3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > So it looks like you finally got
> > your law passed making every day
> > shoot the harpsichordist day, huh? (-:
> >
>
>
> No, not at all. I believe harpsichordists
> should be suppressed through judicious
> genetic engineering.... :)
>
>
> dk
Harpsichordists haven't traditionally been breeders, but I'm adopting anyway.
-Max
Dan Koren
> dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote in message news:<c1c5ead9.0207...@posting.google.com>...
> > maxsc...@hotmail.com (Max Schmeder) wrote in message news:<3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > So it looks like you finally got
> > > your law passed making every day
> > > shoot the harpsichordist day, huh? (-:
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, not at all. I believe harpsichordists
> > should be suppressed through judicious
> > genetic engineering.... :)
>
> breeders, but I'm adopting anyway.
>
But the solution is simple and would be quite
easy to enforce.
Harpsichordists should only be allowed to marry
violists.... :)
dk
PS. We should have this on the next ballot :)
Max Schmeder
Not good enough - if you want your precious weakling pianists to stand
a chance you'll have to water us down with tambourine players. :-)
-Max
Dan Koren
> dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote in message news:<c1c5ead9.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > maxsc...@hotmail.com (Max Schmeder) wrote in message news:<3045101c.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > dank...@yahoo.com (Dan Koren) wrote in message news:<c1c5ead9.0207...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > maxsc...@hotmail.com (Max Schmeder) wrote in message news:<3045101c.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > So it looks like you finally got
> > > > > your law passed making every day
> > > > > shoot the harpsichordist day, huh? (-:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, not at all. I believe harpsichordists
> > > > should be suppressed through judicious
> > > > genetic engineering.... :)
> > >
> > > Harpsichordists haven't traditionally been
> > > breeders, but I'm adopting anyway.
> > >
> >
> > But the solution is simple and would be quite
> > easy to enforce.
> >
> > Harpsichordists should only be allowed to marry
> > violists.... :)
>
> Not good enough - if you want your precious
> weakling pianists to stand a chance you'll
> have to water us down with tambourine players. :-)
Such inbreeding would be akin to incest :)
dk
Max Schmeder
dk: obsession with sex, impulsive need to eliminate rival harpsichord
diagnosis: Oedipleyel complex
cause: Dan read Freud and thought it said "pianist envy"
( :
Simon Roberts
>dk: obsession with sex, impulsive need to eliminate rival harpsichord
>diagnosis: Oedipleyel complex
>cause: Dan read Freud and thought it said "pianist envy"
>
>( :
Sir Les Patterson, Australian cultural attache, comes unavoidably to
mind....
Simon
Dan Koren
?!? Where did you get such an idea ?!?
I'll take ice cream over sex any time! :)
> impulsive need to eliminate rival harpsichord
You're giving yourself (and your race) way
too much credit! :)
> diagnosis: Oedipleyel complex
Yes indeed -- the Pleyel instruments sound a
lot nicer than your plucked string beasts.
> cause: Dan read Freud and thought it said
> "pianist envy"
Wasn't that precisely Landowska's problem?
dk