Basic Beethoven Symphonies
mart...@my-deja.com
von karajan cycle on CD. I'm not happy with either now, and I want to
get good CD versions.
I considered another set, but really there's no reason to limit myself
to a particular performer for all of them. So I'd like to solicit
opinions: if you had to go to a desert island with only one version of
each symphony, would you take a cycle by a particular performer, or
would you take different performers for different symphonies? Anyone
care to piece together the "perfect" set of Beethoven symphonies?
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Simon Roberts
: I have a set of the Toscanini on LP, and in the mid-80s bought the last
: von karajan cycle on CD. I'm not happy with either now, and I want to
: get good CD versions.
Our responses might be more useful to you if you explained your
dissatisfaction with what you have or the sort of performances you're
looking for (or both).
Simon
mart...@my-deja.com
often sounds a little sludgy to me. Perhaps I've also become used to
the clarity of the digital era sound. Anyway, the Toscanini doesn't
have that kind of clarity, though that just might be because of the
sound quality. The von Karajan just seems bland.
Of course, I'd be interested to hear why anyone likes any particular
recording, what he or she feels it brings to them.
David7Gable
I wouldn't take a recording of the 1st to the desert island, in part so I'd
have room for more than one recording of the Eroica. I'd take the stunning
Kubelik 2nd with the Concertgebouw and at least four Eroica's:
E. Kleiber, Concertgebouw
E. Kleiber, Vienna
Munch, BSO
Bernstein, NY
and if there were still room in my suitcase I'd probably sneak in the Klemperer
mono and Von Matacic Eroica's as well. Might even have to bring the live
Stuttgart Eroica with Kleiber, pere. (This does not exhaust the list of
candidates I would like to take.)
My 4th and 8th would both be:
Toscanini, NBC
I have yet to hear another recording that does those short roller coaster or
accordion crescendo-decrescendo effects in the slow movement of the 4th even
half so well as Toscanini's, and Toscanini's temperament is close to the manic
humor of the 8th. I keep looking for other 4th's and 8th's that I will like at
least as much as these, but I don't seem to find them. Sometimes I think the
4th is my favorite Beethoven symphony, but it's actually tied in first place
with several others including 2, 3, and 8. 3 is my favorite odd-numbered
symphony. 2, 4, and 8 are my favorite even-numbered symphonies.
I would certainly "take the 5th" . . . I just don't know which one. (I know a
lot that I wouldn't take!) I like the 6th, and I appreciate how good it is
when I hear it, but there is a mountain of other Beethoven I like even better.
Don't know which recording of it I would take, if I took one at all. (You've
got to realize my suitcase is already full of Boulez and Carter recordings and
recordings of operas by Mozart and Donizetti with people who can't sing.)
The 7th is another symphony I might have to take more than one copy of.
Monteux/LSO I like a lot, and I just heard a rather good one with
Steinberg/Pittsburgh. I haven't heard the live Rosbaud 7th, but even without
having heard it, I imagine it will instantly become my favorite when I do.
There's a 7th with Erich Kleiber, and I like Erich Kleiber's recordings of
Beethoven symphonies other than 3 and 9, but for some reason not as much as his
3's and 9. For the 9th, Erich Kleiber and the Vienna Phil win hands down, but
I may have to smuggle the Munch into my suitcase for Munch's over the top
intensity and enthusiasm. I might even have to take the most intense of
Furtwa"ngler's 9th's along with me, but I'll have to listen to them all again
first to decide which one that is. For that matter, how could I leave Fricsay
behind?
I have a couple of CD's of Markevich conducting Beethoven symphonies that I've
had for months without finding the right opportunity to listen to them. I'm
going to take them along to the island, too, to see if they're as good as they
should be.
-david gable
B.T. O'Hara
taking all these favourite works of art, recordings, recipes and books to an
island with no stereo, electricity or shelter.
i've never been able to figure that out
Alain Dagher
Lani Spahr
B.T. O'Hara wrote in message <9479bs$o13$1...@news.gov.on.ca>...
OK, so that leaves out the recordings, art, recipes, but we can still have
our books! :-)
--
Cheers,
Lani Spahr
Bruckner Symphony Versions Discography
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/lspahr
him...@my-deja.com
I remember, quite a few years ago now, a man appeared on a programme on
the BBC who could take an LP (with the label covered, of course) and
tell you what the music was by just looking at the grooves. For some
reason, they got Georg Solti on to hand him a few LPs, and he would
just look at them and say "This is Ein Heldenleben" or "This is La Mer"
or whatever. How on earth did he develop these skills? And more to the
point, why?
This was back in the days before CDs, but I wouldn't be surprised if
this guy could do the same with CDs! It would certainly be handy on a
desert island without electricity.
Rgds, Himadri
him...@my-deja.com
There are far too many favourite recordings to list, but I'd certainly
take Monteux' Concertgebouw recording of the Eroica: clear lines and
textures, rhythmically precise, a fine mixture of fire and grace - it
is everything I could hope for from a performance of a Beethoven
symphony. His LSO 7th has similar virtues, as does his recording of the
9th, also with LSO.
My other favourite Eroicas are by Toscanini (many to choose from),
Erich Kleiber (the VPO version - I haven't heard the Concertgebouw),
the gaunt and poweful Klemperer recording from 55, and the live
recording by Gunter Wand.
My favourite 4th is Karajan's 62/3 recording - but you can only getthat
as part of a boxed set.
I got to know the symphonies through Bohn's cycle, and early
attachments are often lasting ones. The 6th is possibly the finest
performance of this cycle, and I've always liked it - although
Klemperer, Walter and Erich Kleiber are also very fine.
For the 5th, it's Kleiber again - Erich or Carlos - I'm not fussy!
I wouldn't know which 9th to choose - depending on mood, I listen
either to a fast, exciting performance (Toscanini, Monteux), or a slow,
brooding one (either of the Giulini recordings, or the admittedly
controversial digital recording by Bohm). Be warned though - the
digital Giulini recording is badly let down by a woeful contribution
from Simon Estes.
Rgds, Himadri
Steven Van Impe
<him...@my-deja.com> wrote in 947f53$lff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I remember, quite a few years ago now, a man appeared on a programme on
> the BBC who could take an LP (with the label covered, of course) and
> tell you what the music was by just looking at the grooves. For some
> reason, they got Georg Solti on to hand him a few LPs, and he would
> just look at them and say "This is Ein Heldenleben" or "This is La Mer"
> or whatever. How on earth did he develop these skills? And more to the
> point, why?
IIRC, he just memorized the matrix numbers which weren't covered.
Steven
Simon Roberts
: My main musical love is the Viennese/Classical era. Romantic music
: often sounds a little sludgy to me. Perhaps I've also become used to
: the clarity of the digital era sound. Anyway, the Toscanini doesn't
: have that kind of clarity, though that just might be because of the
: sound quality. The von Karajan just seems bland.
If this means you like crisp, clear-textured "classical" performances of
Beethoven, I would recommend an inexpensive (at least in the UK, but it's
easy enough to import it) set: Mackerras on Classics For Pleasure/EMI.
It's all of those things, tends towards fast tempi, is well recorded and
overall first rate (of its type; it won't appeal to those who require
misty landscapes, monsters rising out of the murk, etc.).
There are way too many recordings to narrow it down to one per symphony,
and which ones I prefer can vary from day to day, but here is a list
containing some (but by no means all) of my favorites (since you have and
don't care for Toscanini, I won't mention him):
1: Fey/Haenssler, Brueggen/Philips
2: Fey/Haenssler, Bernstein/Sony
3: Scherchen/Westminster, Savall/Astree, Bernstein/Sony, Abendroth/Tahra,
Furtwaengler/WWII/Tahra, Harnoncourt/Teldec
4: Bernstein/Sony, Zinman/Arte Nova
5: Szell/VPO/Orfeo
6: Mengelberg (Mackerras has the best storm)
7: Brueggen/Philips, Bernstein/Sony, Harnoncourt/Teldec
8: Brueggen/Philips, Casals/Sony, Scherchen/Westminster
9: Furtwaengler 1942 (Bernstein/Sony for the scherzo)
Simon
: Sent via Deja.com
: http://www.deja.com/
John Thomas
I'd have to agree with those who wouldn't take *all* the symphonies;
the 1st and 2nd are completely superfluous for me. Most of the others
would be Furtwanglers - his 12/5/52 3rd; his 5/24/47 5th and 6th, his
wartime and Lucerne 9ths. But I wouldn't mind Erich Kleiber's 3rd and
5th with the Concertgebouw as well, and Toscanini's or Klemperer's 9th.
I'd insist on taking Klemperer's 1965 Missa Solemnis also: a work wholly
in the spirit of the symphonies.
--
Regards,
John Thomas
David7Gable
>island with no stereo, electricity or shelter.
>
Hey. I don't know about you, but I'm talking about Manhattan Island.
-david gable
David7Gable
>textures, rhythmically precise, a fine mixture of fire and grace
Exactement.
-david gable
Jon A Conrad
1: Bernstein/NYPO
2: Norrington (definitely the best of his series)
3: Szell
5: C. Kleiber
6: Leinsdorf/Boston
7: C. Kleiber (if only for staying pizz. till the end of ii)
9: Still looking. I want it gloriously sung as well as magnificently
conducted (I could go to Schmidt-Isserstedt for the former, but that
wouldn't get me the latter).
Jon Alan Conrad
Department of Music
University of Delaware
con...@udel.edu
phlmaes...@my-deja.com
rarely listen to), my desert Island picks would be:
3: Furtwangler (12/8/52 performance)...runners-up would include
Furtwangler (wartime), Klemperer (mono), Scherchen (MCA)
4: Furtwangler (wartime)...followed by Zinman and Brueggen
5: Furtwangler (5/47)....various other Furtwangler, Reiner, Liebowitz
6: Furtwangler (various), Walter, Reiner, Bohm, Scherchen
7: Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin, Furtwangler (wartime), Liebowitz,
Toscanini (36 or 39)
8: Scherchen, Toscanini (39)
9: Furtwangler (1942)
I prefer 3, 5, 6 and 9 played in more of a romantic than classical
style. Furtwangler is the only one I'm aware of who successfully
romanticized 4.
samir golescu
On 18 Jan 2001, Simon Roberts wrote:
(...)
> 6: . . .(Mackerras has the best storm)
As the French would say: "cherche la belle-mere** de Mackerras"!
________
**an example of French irony--the way they call their mother-in-law!!
________
Happy with the off-topicity, Mr. Chung?
samir golescu
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Brian Rourke wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2001 17:19:10 GMT, david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> We are sad to report that the promising music
> historian David Gable was found drowned a few
> feet from shore off the coast of a small Pacific
> Island yesterday. The explanation for his failure
> to reach shore seems to be the large trunk full
> of CDs tied to his legs. Upon inspection, the trunk
> was revealed to contain no food, water, tools
> or clothing. Instead, his case was mysteriously
> full of compact disk recordings of Beethoven's
> 3rd Symphony and music by people supposedly
> named "Boulez," "Carter," and "Berio."
>
> An investigation is underway to determine the
> identity of the trunk-packer. Suspicion is reported
> to run high within the agency, as no one really
> believes some of the recordings contain music at
> all. "It's just random noise," complained one
> investigator. "The stuff that's actual music sounds all
> old and scratchy. Some of it is mono! No one
> would want to listen to that. Obviously, some
> bastard had it in for Gable. Even if he'd made
> it to shore his ears would have been permanently
> damaged." Suggestions that he might have packed
> his own case are brushed aside as "blaming the
> victim."
>
> The investigation is also focused on a small encampment
> of self-described "HIP" fans on shore, who apparently
> made no effort to rescue Gable, in spite of what
> must have been the horrible cries for help from a desperate,
> drowning man. Little progress has been made in this
> area. "They're a tough, smart bunch. I think one of them
> is a lawyer. But we'll get some to talk sooner or later.
> It's just a matter of getting them to turn on one
> another," said one investigator.
>
> Off-the-record comments reported to this newspaper
> suggest that the failure to rescue Gable was intentional
> and had to do with bizarre fears that his case might contain a dreaded
> collection of Mozart opera recordings. "We liked David and wanted to
> help him," said one HIPster, "but imagine listening to
> that awful stuff for the rest of our lives! The vibrato would
> have shaken all the coconuts off the trees, and the galumphing,
> Kapellmeisterish conducting might have attracted elephants."
>
> A memorial service in Gable's honor will be held at Chicago's new
> Institute for Research into the Definition of Music, fondly nicknamed
> the "IRCAM of the Midwest." Charles Rosen will play the vibraphone.
> If a bad enough singer can be found, there will be a performance of
> _Erwartung_ in Gable's honor. A special edition of his classic RMCR
> posts will be available for purchase.
>
> In lieu of flowers, please send donations to The Association for the
> Prolongation of the Careers of Over-the-Hill, Beefy Tenors and
> Squally Sopranos (a registered non-profit association).
I bring my modest homage to the memory of the great man, by quoting the
entire Rourke eulogy. Our orchestra might organize a commemorative concert
as well.
regards,
SG
heldensoloist of the Ellis Island Philharmonic
John Thomas
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
> 6: Mengelberg (Mackerras has the best storm)
I question that! Furtwangler 5/47 has the best storm (or at least the
best thunder.)
--
Regards,
John Thomas
MT
best thunder.)>>
And the best coughs... or am I confusing this with another Furtwaengler
performance? At this point, with so many of his live performances on
many labels, and sometimes reissued by the same label (think of Tahra,
Music and Arts I, and Music and Arts II), I can hardly keep the details
of things straight. I exit with a warning about the cacophony of "keep
the details of things straight", not to mention its intrinsic ambiguity.
Regards,
MrT
MT
about these things. There have already been deaths of participants in
this group. Don't tempt fate.
Regards,
MrT
phlmaes...@my-deja.com
(at least you pick up more of it on the Tahra transfer).
In article <3A6764...@yahoo.com>,
John Thomas
wrote:
The 5/47 live performance on Tahra Furt1016 has minimal audience noise
and maximal thundercracks.
--
Regards,
John Thomas
samir golescu
According to sibylline pronunciamentos of uncertain origin, it might be,
as unlikely as it seems today, that ALL rmcr participants will join the
choir invisible. Sooner or later.
Matthew Silverstein
> rarely listen to), my desert Island picks would be:
You rarely listen to 2? Wow. It's probably one of my favorites. Then again, I
think I could say that about any of the 9, except perhaps 1 (although what a
finale) . . .
This is a bit difficult, but here are my favorites (today):
1. Brüggen (Philips).
2. Gardiner (DG)
3. Klemperer (EMI-mono)
4. Furtwängler (M&A-wartime)
5. Kleiber (DG)
6. Böhm (DG)
7. Gardiner (DG)
8. Brüggen (Philips)
9. Gardiner (DG)
Of course I have many other favorites, and for many of the symphonies (1, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 9) it was a matter of choosing the best among equals, so to
speak. Nonetheless, if I could only have one of each, I would take the above.
Matty
samir golescu
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> > Without regard to modern sound (and skipping the first two, which I
> > rarely listen to), my desert Island picks would be:
>
> You rarely listen to 2? Wow. It's probably one of my favorites. Then again, I
> think I could say that about any of the 9,
I feel the same way....
> except perhaps 1 (although what a
> finale) . . .
Precisely.
> This is a bit difficult, but here are my favorites (today):
>
> 1. Brüggen (Philips).
> 2. Gardiner (DG)
> 3. Klemperer (EMI-mono)
> 4. Furtwängler (M&A-wartime)
> 5. Kleiber (DG)
> 6. Böhm (DG)
> 7. Gardiner (DG)
> 8. Brüggen (Philips)
> 9. Gardiner (DG)
Facing the list above, I submit two (and only two) hypotheses:
1) Matty Silverstein envisages a marriage in Gardiner's family
2) Matty Silverstein has a Deutsche G. stock
(the "Dan Koren paradigm" has been excluded from the field of
acceptable hypotheses).
regards,
SG
Thomas J Wood
Steven Van Impe <SVan...@SPAMBLOCK.antwerpen.be> wrote in message
news:947i8s$obu$1...@news1.skynet.be...
My memory is that he went by the evidence of the configuration (number and
thickness) of bands on the disk, an the visible loud-soft sections. He said
he could only do it with mainstream repertoire. At least that's my
recollection.
Tom Wood
Alain Dagher
2. Toscanini (Naxos)
3. Savall (Fontalis)
4. Harnoncourt (Teldec)
5. Fricsay (DG)
6. Walter (Sony)
7. Harnoncourt (Teldec)
8. Fricsay (DG)
9. Scherchen (MCA)
Alain
Tony Movshon
But our spissitude will live on, buried in dejanews.
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
samir golescu
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Tony Movshon wrote:
> samir golescu wrote:
> > > Guys, I know the Kije thing is a classic joke, but I'm supersticious
> > > about these things. There have already been deaths of participants in
> > > this group. Don't tempt fate.
> >
> > According to sibylline pronunciamentos of uncertain origin, it might be,
> > as unlikely as it seems today, that ALL rmcr participants will join the
> > choir invisible. Sooner or later.
>
> But our spissitude will live on, buried in dejanews.
I actually hope to outlive the frail amount of "immortality" granted by
Dejanews archives.
regards,
SG
MT
Hell, in Amurrica, death is optional. Do not rearrange commas.
MrT
Simon Roberts
Simon Roberts
: You rarely listen to 2? Wow. It's probably one of my favorites. Then again, I
: think I could say that about any of the 9, except perhaps 1 (although what a
: finale) . . .
And what a scherzo (done right)!
Simon
John Thomas
Wood" <WOO...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Perhaps what you mean to say is that *he said* that's how he did it.
Fiercely applying Ockham's Razor, Steven's explanation appears simpler
and more believable. As to why he did it... Why do people post on this
newsgroup?
--
Regards,
John Thomas
Alain Dagher
Simon Roberts wrote:
The dark horse pick. Don't you like it?
(Now I'll have listen to it when I get home!)
Alain
Alain Dagher
I don't think it's all that hard, with a bit of effort. Certainly easier than
train spotting.
Alain
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
> According to sibylline pronunciamentos of uncertain origin, it might be,
> as unlikely as it seems today, that ALL rmcr participants will join the
> choir invisible. Sooner or later.
Haven't you read the papers? They are very close to curing all diseases
including aging. This means that soon the only cause of death will be
accidents. So risk-seekers, bungee jumpers, motorcycle riders, and other
reckless types will gradually die off, leaving only classical music-loving
internet-surfing record collectors.
cheers,
Alain
samir golescu
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Brian Rourke wrote:
> An inveterate salt-spiller, mirror-breaker and all-around
> fate-tempter, I lack the common sense to be supersticious.
> Thanks for the warning. Of course, now it's too late, and if
> anything ever happens to David you all know who to
> blame. Making an old joke takes only a second, guilt
> lasts forever.
>
> Actually, my more immediate worry right now is Mr. Gable's
> frame of mind when he next logs on...
Especially if he watched "The Sixth Sense"....
samir golescu
Ever heard about modern Alkans being lethally hit by Philip's GPOC
falling from the highest shelf? Ever read about veins being cut with the
edge of the jewel-boxes? Ever analysed your blood composition after
prolonged contact with the toxic "bronzed" CDs? Ever confronted a strong
and healthy mother-in-law (like, for the sake of an example, Mr. Smith's)
when the mailman had rang, groaning under the burden of many (and
suspiciously familiar long and square) parcels?
No, Mo. Dagher, we shall be the first to carry a CD under the tongue, when
passing the Styx.....
regards,
SG
W. J. McCutcheon
John Thomas wrote:
>[Snip] As to why he did it... Why do people post on this newsgroup?
>
Because it's here?! -- Bill McCutcheon
thebarnman
John Thomas <jwt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jwthom-B74A1F....@news.earthlink.net...
i need to be put in my place once in a while
David Standifer
> I have a set of the Toscanini on LP, and in the mid-80s bought the last
> von karajan cycle on CD. I'm not happy with either now, and I want to
> get good CD versions.
>
> I considered another set, but really there's no reason to limit myself
> to a particular performer for all of them. So I'd like to solicit
> opinions: if you had to go to a desert island with only one version of
> each symphony, would you take a cycle by a particular performer, or
> would you take different performers for different symphonies? Anyone
> care to piece together the "perfect" set of Beethoven symphonies?
A few I wouldn't want to be without:
Szell and Savall - 3rd (Szell w/8th)
Szell and Kleiber - 4th (Szell w/7th)
Kleiber - 5th (w/7th)
Bruggen - 7/8 (Szell's too)
Karajan 70s - 9th (and Mackerras, and Szell for us unwashed masses)
Obviously I think a lot of Szell in this music; his set would be a very
fine and inexpensive start, with supplements like Savall's 3rd (at
berkshire last I checked) and the others I listed.
Mackerras is more or less Szell in DDD; brisk, robust, uneccentric
performances, not HIP but with a pretty sharp, "chamber"-like edge.
Sketchily available at stores in the US apart from the 9th; better luck
online...
For something completely different, try Klemperer.
David
Stephen McElroy
<al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
I like this one! Add Klemperer for 3.
Stephen
Paul Kintzele
samir golescu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> > This is a bit difficult, but here are my favorites (today):
> >
> > 1. Brüggen (Philips).
> > 2. Gardiner (DG)
> > 3. Klemperer (EMI-mono)
> > 4. Furtwängler (M&A-wartime)
> > 5. Kleiber (DG)
> > 6. Böhm (DG)
> > 7. Gardiner (DG)
> > 8. Brüggen (Philips)
> > 9. Gardiner (DG)
>
> Facing the list above, I submit two (and only two) hypotheses:
>
> 1) Matty Silverstein envisages a marriage in Gardiner's family
>
> 2) Matty Silverstein has a Deutsche G. stock
I like and agree with every one of Matty's choices. And the only stock
I have I use to make soup.
I'll add Savall for 3, Monteux/VPO for 6, and even Gardiner (again!) for
5.
Paul
Margaret Mikulska
Without doubt: Gardiner's set, although I would cheat and smuggle Carlos
Kleiber's and Reiner's Fifths. Maybe Furt's Ninth, too.
-Margaret
mart...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I have a set of the Toscanini on LP, and in the mid-80s bought the last
> von karajan cycle on CD. I'm not happy with either now, and I want to
> get good CD versions.
>
> I considered another set, but really there's no reason to limit myself
> to a particular performer for all of them. So I'd like to solicit
> opinions: if you had to go to a desert island with only one version of
> each symphony, would you take a cycle by a particular performer, or
> would you take different performers for different symphonies? Anyone
> care to piece together the "perfect" set of Beethoven symphonies?
>
> Thanks.
Margaret Mikulska
mart...@my-deja.com wrote:
> My main musical love is the Viennese/Classical era. Romantic music
> often sounds a little sludgy to me. Perhaps I've also become used to
> the clarity of the digital era sound. Anyway, the Toscanini doesn't
> have that kind of clarity, though that just might be because of the
> sound quality. The von Karajan just seems bland.
Nobody comes even close to the unbelievable clarity of Gardiner's
performance. It's like washing off the gunk accumulated over the
years. If you like Viennese Classicism, then that's exactly what you'll
hear on his recording.
-Margaret
Simon Roberts
: Simon Roberts wrote:
: > Alain Dagher (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: >
: > : 9. Scherchen (MCA)
: >
: > ?
: >
: The dark horse pick. Don't you like it?
I had no idea MCA had released a Scherchen 9th, that's all.
Simon
Simon Roberts
: Mackerras is more or less Szell in DDD; brisk, robust, uneccentric
: performances, not HIP but with a pretty sharp, "chamber"-like edge.
: Sketchily available at stores in the US apart from the 9th; better luck
: online...
Anyone who wants Mackerras's should forget about the individual discs and
get the box set; the whole thing costs about 22 pounds in the UK.
Simon
Margaret Mikulska
Brian Rourke wrote:
>
> Dear M. Heldensolist:
>
> Ah, yes, the great Ellis Island Philharmonic. Is that
> an entirely Romainian ensemble? The entire world
> awaits your concert.
>
> Brian (after 5:00pm the jokes get cheaper)
Ah, a Happy Hour at the Rourke's.
-Margaret
Matthew B. Tepper
<3A67A0FF...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca>:
>
>Haven't you read the papers? They are very close to curing all diseases
>including aging. This means that soon the only cause of death will be
>accidents. So risk-seekers, bungee jumpers, motorcycle riders, and other
>reckless types will gradually die off, leaving only classical music-loving
>internet-surfing record collectors.
They intend to send a wire to the Moon. And they'll set the Thames on
fire, very soon.
--
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
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Matthew B. Tepper
CA325E.144...@news.earthlink.net>:
>In article <947ihm$5c1$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
>
>> 6: Mengelberg (Mackerras has the best storm)
>
> I question that! Furtwangler 5/47 has the best storm (or at least the
>best thunder.)
There's an incomplete Toscanini/VPO that has the fiercest thunderstorm
*I've* ever heard in this work!
Tripletz
Eroica--Furtwangler, Vienna, 1944
#4--Solti, CSO, mid 70s
#5-Kleiber/VPO or Klemperer/Vienna SO
#6--Walter, Szell, Toscanini, or Hogwood
#7-Solti/CSO (70s) or Monteux/LSO
#8--Szell--the best ever
#9-Jochum, Concertgebouw or Furtwangler (Berlin 1942)
Tony Movshon
And tell us a little more about it. I've never heard of or seen it
(nor, I suspect, has Simon, hence the "?"). Are you sure you're not
thinking of Monteux (the only MCA 9th I know of)?
There is a Scherchen 9th from Lugano 1965, on Accord. It's pretty
messy.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Tony Movshon
I find it hard to believe that Gardiner's harsh, cold, inflexible,
heartless precision is what Viennese Classicism is all about. His
cycle is easy to admire for its technical excellence, but impossible
to like -- it has no soul.
For a clean, crisp, cool approach to Beethoven, I find Mackerras or
Szell or Gielen vastly more satisfying. For a cycle with a more
Romantic soul that is as well executed and as well recorded as
Gardiner's, Barenboim is the choice. And for my desert island, the
one and only is Klemperer.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Margaret Mikulska
Tony Movshon wrote:
>
> Margaret Mikulska wrote:
> > mart...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > My main musical love is the Viennese/Classical era. Romantic music
> > > often sounds a little sludgy to me. Perhaps I've also become used to
> > > the clarity of the digital era sound. Anyway, the Toscanini doesn't
> > > have that kind of clarity, though that just might be because of the
> > > sound quality. The von Karajan just seems bland.
> >
> > Nobody comes even close to the unbelievable clarity of Gardiner's
> > performance. It's like washing off the gunk accumulated over the
> > years. If you like Viennese Classicism, then that's exactly what you'll
> > hear on his recording.
>
> I find it hard to believe that Gardiner's harsh, cold, inflexible,
> heartless precision is what Viennese Classicism is all about. His
> cycle is easy to admire for its technical excellence, but impossible
> to like -- it has no soul.
I find his performances very warm and elegant, which is very much
Viennese-Classical. They have more soul (whatever that means) than many
recordings with hysterical gestures which are mistaken for passion and
emotions. In other words, Gardiner is very subtle in his approach. His
cycle is not only not impossible to like - it is easy to adore it
ardently. I was astonished when I heard it for the first time.
Frankly, LvB's symphonies are not works I listen to every day, and when
a friend of mine put Gardiner's 2nd on the platter, I continued chatting
with him, but in no time I was completely engrossed in the sheer beauty
and transparency of this performance, compelling and fascinating beyond
words. I didn't expect I would ever hear a performance so refreshing
and so extraordinarily beautiful. And there is so much in these scores
that was never audible in other performances. Finally you hear what
Beethoven wrote, instead of some orchestral mush and gravy. But the
beauty, the sensuous beauty of sound - if there is something that can be
called soul, this is it.
-Margaret
David7Gable
>> years.
That's the theory. I don't buy it.
>I find it hard to believe that Gardiner's harsh, cold, inflexible,
>heartless precision is what Viennese Classicism is all about.
I find it equally hard to believe.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Beethoven wrote, instead of some orchestral mush and gravy.
That's the theory and the rhetoric used to express it. I don't buy it.
-david gable
David7Gable
>frame of mind when he next logs on...
Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The heat down here is unbearable. These little red
creatures with horns and tails and eyes like glowing coals keep poking me with
their pitchforks whenever I try to nod off. There's a superb stereo system,
but they've got it set to play nothing but Philip Glass and HIP recordings of
Albinoni throughout all eternity. There's an opera house, but the only tenors
that sing down here are Caruso, Wunderlich, Bjoerling, and Melchior, so you can
imagine the infernal racket I have to put up with. Not a sign of Walther
Ludwig anywhere. They tell me he's sitting up on a cloud playing a harp with
the fresh new voice he's been rewarded for his superb interpretive instincts in
singing Mozart. So far the only composer I've noticed down here is Wagner, but
neither one of us is allowed to listen to his music.
-david gable
David7Gable
Do you mean Monteux? Or is this on another label?
-david gable
Baldric
Alain Dagher <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 1. Gardiner (DG)
> 2. Toscanini (Naxos)
> 3. Savall (Fontalis)
> 4. Harnoncourt (Teldec)
> 5. Fricsay (DG)
> 6. Walter (Sony)
> 7. Harnoncourt (Teldec)
> 8. Fricsay (DG)
> 9. Scherchen (MCA)
>
>
>
I can't believe you've gone for the Fricsay 5th? I'm a diehard Fricsay
fan and was just so disappointed with his 5th when I got it. The 8th is
OK but the 9th is top drawer and for me the top of my list.
My discs are:
1 Walter - in the absence of anything else.
2 Cluytens/BPO
3 Toscanini/NBCSO about 1949 I believe. Klemperer for an alternative.
4 Walter
5 HvK and also Furtwangler
6 Walter with Cluytens a close second
7 this recording has yet to be made!
8 Toscanini
9 Fricsay/Furtwangler (either Bayreuth '51 or Lucerne '54)
Some other recommendations
9th Scherzo - Leibowitz
Best storm in the Pastoral - Hogwood
Best ever 8th - Katsaris in the Liszt transcription for piano
--
Cheers
Baldric
I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as
they go flying by.
David7Gable
Simon,
I would agree with you about Bernstein's 2nd if only the long opening paragraph
of his slow movement weren't a complete blank. For some reason, conductors in
general tend to do absolutely zilch here, making Beethoven sound boring. But
it isn't boring. (Have to go back and listen to the ancient E. Kleiber
recording and see what he does.)
-david gable
David7Gable
>fan and was just so disappointed with his 5th when I got it. The 8th is
>OK but the 9th is top drawer and for me the top of my list.
I love Fricsay's 9th and his Fidelio is one of my favorite performances of
anything, but I've got to admit his other recordings of Beethoven symphonies
are disappointing.
-david gable
ghu...@debis.hu
#1: Sawallisch (EMI)
#2: Norrington (EMI)
#3: Toscanini ('39 live on Music&Arts)
Szell (Cleveland O.- CBS/Sony)
#4: Norrington (EMI)
#5: Szell (Cocertgebouw - Philips)
#6: Koussevitzky (Biddulph) - THE BEST !!! Everyone should hear
this one !!!
Giulini (both LAPO/DG and Scala/Sony)
#7: Now here needs some real charismatic wit, provided by:
Monteux (LSO/Decca)
Beecham (RPO live on Music&Arts)
#8: Steinberg (Pittsburgh SO - EMI/Capitol)
Norrington (EMI)
#9: Solti (earlier CSO/Decca)
Furtwangler ('54 Lucerne on Music&Arts or TAHRA)
Gyula
Alain Dagher
Simon Roberts wrote:
> Alain Dagher (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>
> : Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> : > Alain Dagher (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
> : >
> : > : 9. Scherchen (MCA)
> : >
> : > ?
> : >
>
> : The dark horse pick. Don't you like it?
>
> I had no idea MCA had released a Scherchen 9th, that's all.
It's actually not MCA but Westminster, the label that originally
released the other MCA recordings. The whole Scherchen Beethoven cycle
has been re-issued on Westminster, but released only in Japan I think. I
should have picked him for the eighth symphony as well, come to think of
it.
Alain
Alain Dagher
David7Gable wrote:
You know, that is quite impolite. You're saying that Margaret (and,
implicitly, other fans of HIP performances) isn't conveying her true
experience of these recordings but repeating some advertising slogan.
Alain
Matthew Silverstein
> 5. Fricsay (DG)
> 8. Fricsay (DG)
Can someone say a bit more about Fricsay's Beethoven? I've never heard any of
it. How would one describe it? Is it currently available?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> 1. Brüggen (Philips).
> 2. Gardiner (DG)
> 3. Klemperer (EMI-mono)
> 4. Furtwängler (M&A-wartime)
> 5. Kleiber (DG)
> 6. Böhm (DG)
> 7. Gardiner (DG)
> 8. Brüggen (Philips)
> 9. Gardiner (DG)
Paul commented:
> I like and agree with every one of Matty's choices. And the only stock
> I have I use to make soup.
>
> I'll add Savall for 3, Monteux/VPO for 6, and even Gardiner (again!) for
> 5.
Well, I was trying just to list my top choice for each. If I could supplement
them, I would probably add:
2. Norrington (EMI), Bernstein (Sony).
3. Furtwängler (M&A-wartime), Savall (Fontalis), Toscanini (RCA-1939), Brüggen
(Philips)
4. Gardiner (DG), Mackerras (EMI), Klemperer (EMI), Hogwood (Decca)
5. Szell (Orfeo-VPO), Gielen (EMI), Reiner (RCA), Gardiner (DG), Klemperer
(EMI-mono), Brüggen (Philips)
6. Monteux (Decca), Mackerras (EMI), Gardiner (DG)
7. Barenboim (Teldec), Harnoncourt (Teldec), Brüggen (Philips), Toscanini
(RCA-1936), Blomstedt (Berlin Classics), Mengelberg (Philips)
8. Barenboim (Teldec), Gardiner (DG)
9. Giulini (DG), Furtwängler (M&A-wartime), Furtwängler (Tahara-Lucerne),
Blomstedt (Laserlight), Wand (RCA), Klemperer (Testament)
I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting . . .
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> I find it hard to believe that Gardiner's harsh, cold, inflexible,
> heartless precision is what Viennese Classicism is all about. His
> cycle is easy to admire for its technical excellence, but impossible
> to like -- it has no soul.
Well, it is not at all impossible to like: it's almost certainly my favorite.
Certainly the technical excellence is admirable, but I do not hear a lack of
soul anywhere (except perhaps in the Eroica--the weakest performance in the
set). To my ears, Gardiner's Beethoven is incredibly dramatic, intense,
powerful, and often gorgeous. I think his performances of the slow movements
to 4, 5, 6, and 7 are easily my favorites. Part of that may be the sounds of
the instruments in his orchestra. After hearing his woodwinds in 5/ii,
everyone else's (even other HIPsters') sound just a trifle bland or
unpleasant.
But Gardiner has an unerring sense of orchestral balance and sonority, and he
is able to realise those all-important climaxes in Beethoven's music better
than anyone else I've heard. A great example is the coda to 2/i, where
Gardiner's trumpet comes soaring in over the rest of the orchestra. Or 7/iv,
where the 'fff' marking really registers--a perfect sense of arrival, so to
speak. His soloists in 9 are superb, and his choir is the best I've heard.
I also admire Szell, Mackerras, and Gielen, but--with a few exceptions (such
as Gielen's tremendous 5, Szell's 3, or Mackerras' 4 and 6)--I don't think
that they match Gardiner's intensity.
Of course it really is a matter of taste, but Gardiner's Beethoven symphonies
sound exactly like I want them to sound--like I think Beethoven should sound.
(This is where Samir enters to let me know that my "taste" is shallow . . .")
Matty
Tony Movshon
There's a French DG 2fer with 3, 5, 7 in stereo, and a mono 8th. The stereo
recordings are forceful, gutsy performances, sort of like Furtwanger with
the wild fringe tamed. Mainstream tempos, in the main, and traditional
balances, but done with great attention to line, structure, and balance.
The mono 8th is quite lithe and quick -- Fricsay's style became quite a bit
weightier in the late 50s than he had been earlier.
There's also a big, meaty 9th that has been available on CD in the Dokumente
series, but I don't know if it can be had new now.
All are well worth hearing.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Tony Movshon
> Tony wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that Gardiner's harsh, cold, inflexible,
> > heartless precision is what Viennese Classicism is all about. His
> > cycle is easy to admire for its technical excellence, but impossible
> > to like -- it has no soul.
>
> Well, it is not at all impossible to like
I assumed the implicit "for me" was understood ...
> Of course it really is a matter of taste, but Gardiner's Beethoven symphonies
> sound exactly like I want them to sound--like I think Beethoven should sound.
> (This is where Samir enters to let me know that my "taste" is shallow . . .")
No sign of Samir, so: your taste is shallow. Nor dk, so: get new ears.
I once sat down some friends, musical but without wide experience. First I
played them the transition from iii to iv of Gardiner's 5th. Pretty good,
we agreed. Nice sound, etc. Then I put on that same passage in Furtwanger's
1943 recording. Jaws dropped. Put Gardiner back on, and someone said "now it
sounds completely trivial".
It's an interesting experiment, which you can repeat with many passages in
the Gardiner set. Heard in isolation, they sound nice and crisp and bouncy
and clear and clean. Compared with the work of someone who knows how to
convey what Beethoven is all about, they tend to sound ... trivial. The
result isn't always the same, and sometimes Gardiner comes up nicely,
especially in the "lighter" pieces and movements. But if you miss all the
big moments in a Beethoven cycle, it seems to me you should be playing
something else.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
slimjim
"Tony Movshon" <mov...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3A684242...@nyu.edu...
(on Fricsay)
> There's also a big, meaty 9th that has been available on CD in the
Dokumente
> series, but I don't know if it can be had new now.
I've seen it recently in London. It has Fischer-Dieskau - nice to hear the
vocal entry sung by someone who doesn't sound like a Monty Python idiot.
MT
<<I once sat down some friends, musical but without wide experience.
First I played them the transition from iii to iv of Gardiner's 5th.
Pretty good, we agreed. Nice sound, etc. Then I put on that same passage
in Furtwangler's 1943 recording. Jaws dropped. Put Gardiner back on, and
someone said "now it sounds completely trivial".>>
You've nailed exactly what's wrong with so many HIP performances. While
the most outspoken hipsters accuse the old-timers of willfully blurring,
obscuring, and encrusting, they themselves blur and obscure the score by
lacking the right artistic sensibility.
I think Kuijken's Haydn is an egregious example of butchering in the
name of HIPpism. I mention this as a minority opinion against Dame
Margaret's standard 5 votes. Gardiner doesn't butcher things so often or
so badly, but still, he seems best suited to modern works. Yes, that's
it: he should conduct 20th century music. A HIP Ozawa, now that's a
comparison that hadn't occurred to me before.
Regards,
MrT
Simon Roberts
: >I can't believe you've gone for the Fricsay 5th? I'm a diehard Fricsay
I quite like his 7 and 8, but was very disappointed the 3 and 5 that came
with them on a French DG twofer I recently bought; perhaps it would have
helped if he had recorded them a decade earlier.
Simon
Simon Roberts
: David7Gable wrote:
You may be right with regard to Margaret, but not all HIP-fans. Not all
of us like HIP performances (when we do) because they allow us to hear
"what Beethoven wrote, instead of some orchestral mush and gravy."
Anyway, to state the obvious (perhaps): "What Beethoven wrote" is a
complicated matter. If this is merely a question of allowing us to hear
clearly every mark on every page of every score, including requested
tempi, perhaps, but it's hardly a case of "finally" (nor is Gardiner's
success in this regard complete - such a thing is probably not possible).
But is that all there is to "what Beethoven wrote"? The first Gardiner
Beethoven symphony I heard was 3, which was released ahead of the rest to
stores as a promo. I found it very disappointing, the first movement
offering nothing more than a lot of technically accomplished, fast playing
(barely different from Norrington's), with none of the drama conjured up
by Scherchen and Harnoncourt at a similar tempo (or, subsequently by
Savall at a similar tempo) or Brueggen at a much slower tempo; the
grinding dissonances at the climax of the development, so thrillingly and
painfully brought out by Brueggen, speed by like another milepost on a
highway; blink and they're gone. Where's the adventure, the pain, the
exaltation, the "struggle" and "victory"?
I generally agree with Tony here re this set. I like some aspects of what
Gardiner achieves (my favorite movement is 9/i, where his radically fast
tempo and greater than usual attention on the second half of the movement
yield often revelatory results, poor timpani balances notwithstanding),
but I find other HIPsters (not to mention other non-HIPsters) far more
interesting musically/dramatically most of time. To cite Tony's example:
why isn't what Furtwaengler does at the transition from iii to iv in 5
"what Beethoven wrote"?
Simon
Simon Roberts
: But Gardiner has an unerring sense of orchestral balance and sonority, and he
: is able to realise those all-important climaxes in Beethoven's music better
: than anyone else I've heard. A great example is the coda to 2/i, where
: Gardiner's trumpet comes soaring in over the rest of the orchestra.
? How many conductors *don't* do that? And why aren't his horns more
prominent there?
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> It's an interesting experiment, which you can repeat with many passages in
> the Gardiner set. Heard in isolation, they sound nice and crisp and bouncy
> and clear and clean. Compared with the work of someone who knows how to
> convey what Beethoven is all about, they tend to sound ... trivial. The
> result isn't always the same, and sometimes Gardiner comes up nicely,
> especially in the "lighter" pieces and movements. But if you miss all the
> big moments in a Beethoven cycle, it seems to me you should be playing
> something else.
That's funny, because I think it is the "big" moments where Gadiner delivers
in spades. When I listen to them (in isolation or in comparison with others),
they do not sound merely crips and bouncy and clear and clean. They sound
powerful, dramatic, and--above all--intense. I think that Gardiner does know
how to convey "what Beethoven is all about." He does it better than anyone
else in my mind, and thus I suppose we just disagree about "what Beethoven is
all about."
As I hope you'll realise from my other list, his recordings are not the only
ones I love. The range of performances and styles that I appreciate and enjoy
in this music is quite wide. I have done plenty of comparative listening,
especially in symphonies 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. My three favorite recordings of
9 are probably Gardiner, Giulini, and Furtwängler (1942)--three dramatically
different performances. I love Furtwängler, Gielen, Szell, Toscanini,
Barenboim, Klemperer, and others. It's just that Gardiner remains my favorite.
Matty
P.S. The only recordings of 5 that I have with me now are Gardiner, Gielen,
Kleiber, and Szell (VPO). (There are only so many CDs one can bring overseas).
I'll listen to the transition between iii and iv (and some other parts) and
report back soon.
Jeremy Dimmick
> >as unlikely as it seems today, that ALL rmcr participants will join the
> >choir invisible. Sooner or later.
>
>
> Choir invisible? But I can't sing. I guess it's
> Janitorial Staff invisible for me.
>
> Brian
>
Is there a Choir Inaudible?
Jeremy
David7Gable
>Fricsay
>I quite like his 7 and 8, but was very disappointed the 3 and 5
I've never heard the 8, but agree about 3 and 5. I'll have to listen to 7
again. (I got 3, 5, and 7 from Japanese sources before the 2-fer with 8 came
out.)
-david gable
David7Gable
>experience of these recordings
I don't doubt that she likes the recordings. But this is the usual theory used
to explain the supposed superiority of HIP performances couched in the usual
rhetoric:
>> >Finally you hear what
>> >Beethoven wrote, instead of some orchestral mush and gravy.
This is not a description of her experience. It is a claim as to what the
recordings actually represent. And I consider the claim to be nonsense.
Should I pretend that I don't? As for my being impolite, I am not being any
less polite to HIPsters than Margaret is being to those who don't like HIP
recordings when we are told, implicitly, by her that the recordings we like are
not even Beethoven but only mush and gravy. Whose rhetoric is more impolite?
-david gable
Tony Movshon
> Tony:
> <<I once sat down some friends, musical but without wide experience.
> First I played them the transition from iii to iv of Gardiner's 5th.
> Pretty good, we agreed. Nice sound, etc. Then I put on that same passage
> in Furtwangler's 1943 recording. Jaws dropped. Put Gardiner back on, and
> someone said "now it sounds completely trivial".>>
>
> You've nailed exactly what's wrong with so many HIP performances. While
> the most outspoken hipsters accuse the old-timers of willfully blurring,
> obscuring, and encrusting, they themselves blur and obscure the score by
> lacking the right artistic sensibility.
I tend to agree, but the problem here is, I think, specific to Gardiner.
Brueggen, for example, is a fully-paid-up HIPster, but I find much more
character and a much deeper understanding in his Beethoven cycle than in
Gardiner's. It -is- possible to be both HIP and musically interesting.
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Matthew Silverstein
> But Gardiner has an unerring sense of orchestral balance and sonority, and
he
> is able to realise those all-important climaxes in Beethoven's music better
> than anyone else I've heard. A great example is the coda to 2/i, where
> Gardiner's trumpet comes soaring in over the rest of the orchestra.
Simon replied:
> ? How many conductors *don't* do that?
None of the conductors on any of my other recordings do that, at least to my
satisfaction. Off the top of my head, this includes Bernstein (Sony),
Norrington, Blomstedt, Wand, Mackerras, Gielen, Szell, Karajan (60s),
Barenboim, Hogwood, Klemperer, Monteux, Brüggen, Reiner, Harnoncourt,
Mengelberg (Philips), and Cluytens.
Perhaps it's a matter of dynamics, but none of the above seem to me to nail
the climax to 2/i as well as Gardiner does.
> And why aren't his horns more prominent there?
I just listened to it again, and perhaps a tad more prominence would make it
all even more exciting. Nonetheless, it seems that the trumpets have the
crucial part here, and Gardiner's just sound better (to my ears) than any of
the others'. He seems to have a knack for balancing his orchestra at climactic
moments.
Who do you think nails the climax just right? I know that Bernstein is one of
your favorites, but I find most of his Sony Beethoven to be disturbing
string-heavy when it comes to balance. I suspect that this has more to do with
the recording than anything else, but there it is. Every time I listen to his
Beethoven 2 and 4, I can't help being disappointed by the submerged winds,
brass, and timpani. The performances are definitely full of energy, but too
much of what I love about this music is covered up.
Sadly, the only two recordings I have with me are Gardiner and Mengelberg, but
I'll listen to (or seek out) your suggestions next time I'm at home.
Matty
rkha...@adnc.com
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
>
> Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The heat down here is unbearable.
>There's an opera house, but the
only tenors
> that sing down here are Caruso, Wunderlich, Bjoerling, and Melchior,
so you can
> imagine the infernal racket I have to put up with.
Count your blessings that there is no infernal crossover. You could
have gotten the Bocelli-Church duet for all eternity.
Ramon Khalona
Brian Cantin
Brian Rourke <bro...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Oh no, this is much worse than anyone could have imagined. Don't
> worry, David, discussions are underway with the Pope to arrange
> round-the-clock performances of Orlando de Lassus and Laborintus 2 to
> try to get you out of there. If you see Virgil or Beatrice (some say
> she looks like Lisa della Casa), grab onto their legs.
Wait a second, didn't he end up down there in the first place for
grabbing Beatrice's legs?
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
samir golescu
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Of course it really is a matter of taste, but Gardiner's Beethoven symphonies
> sound exactly like I want them to sound--like I think Beethoven should sound.
> (This is where Samir enters to let me know that my "taste" is shallow . . .)
And this in the non-rated version.....
samir golescu
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Tony Movshon wrote:
> No sign of Samir, so: your taste is shallow. Nor dk, so: get new ears.
>
> I once sat down some friends, musical but without wide experience. First I
> played them the transition from iii to iv of Gardiner's 5th. Pretty good,
> we agreed. Nice sound, etc. Then I put on that same passage in Furtwanger's
> 1943 recording. Jaws dropped. Put Gardiner back on, and someone said "now it
> sounds completely trivial".
You're doing pretty well--I risk to remain unemployed, it seems.
The trouble today is that many people (less wise than the undersigned,
obviously! (-:) loose from their attention the fact that a musical
interpretation is an intersection of what the musician does and who the
musician is. (Not the name, but who (s)he verily is, at the innermost
level of the Being.) Neither element has (musical) meaning in itself. A
great human being and a musical genius unable to move his fingers, or to
keep an orchestra together, in other words a musician not able
to do what he dreams of, it's a rather sad case of unaccomplishment. Many
of us know such wonderful "passive" musicians. On the other hand, even if
a musician expresses himself by *doing* something, who-he-is informs and
colors his "professional gestures", so to speak. In our democratic times,
we are hardly eager to accept that people might be equal in front of
Law, of Death, and of God (if any), but they are not all created equal
in what regards capacity of creating beauty. Gardiner might be a good
professional, who knows what he is doing. Everything he does, in the
Seventh for instance (his Ninth is, I believe, utterly atrocious), is
"correct", even shallowly brilliant, and reasonable. The essence of
Furtwangler's Beethoven (better said, of Beethoven as envisioned by
Furtwangler) is uncontainable in words, in reason, in professional
excellence. "Jaws-dropping" (modern equivalent of ancient "awe") is the
proper reaction.
Beethoven would have approved of Furtwangler's, not of Gardiner's
Beethoven. That is a FACT! (-:
The following Beethoven quote corresponds to both Furtwangler's
expressed-in-words conception on music-making and to the impression his
recordings (still) make on thousands of listeners:
"Music is truly the mediator between intellectual and sensuous life...the
one incorporeal ingress into the higher world of knowledge which
comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
regards,
SG
samir golescu
On 19 Jan 2001, Simon Roberts wrote:
> (...) To cite Tony's example:
> why isn't what Furtwaengler does at the transition from iii to iv in 5
> "what Beethoven wrote"?
Perhaps because in all known Furtwangler recordings (except the third and
last studio recording for HMV), the conductor prolongs the dominant chord
way beyond what Beethoven indicated?
regards,
SG
(Devil's Advocate)
David7Gable
>have gotten the Bocelli-Church duet for all eternity.
They only spin crossover material in the 9th circle. (Shudder)
-david gable
Matthew B. Tepper
<20010119153555...@ng-mh1.aol.com>:
>>Count your blessings that there is no infernal crossover. You could
>>have gotten the Bocelli-Church duet for all eternity.
>
>
>They only spin crossover material in the 9th circle. (Shudder)
Well, the 9th circle IS the one devoted to traitors, isn't it?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
"Compassionate Conservatism?" * "Tight Slacks?" * "Jumbo Shrimp?"
Raymond Hall
news:20010119034300...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> >2: Fey/Haenssler, Bernstein/Sony
>
> Simon,
>
> I would agree with you about Bernstein's 2nd if only the long opening
paragraph
> of his slow movement weren't a complete blank. For some reason,
conductors in
> general tend to do absolutely zilch here, making Beethoven sound boring.
But
> it isn't boring. (Have to go back and listen to the ancient E. Kleiber
> recording and see what he does.)
>
>
If you mean by the Larghetto movement (second movement) of the 2nd, I
checked out Erich Kleiber's Jan 31 1938 performance with the Orchestre
National de Belgique, and made a few comparisons with Walter/Col SO,
especially of this movement.
Generally faster than Walter, Kleiber is far more characterful with this
seemingly simple movement. Kleiber uses greater dynamic and more subtle
nuances, pauses, and seems to *want* us to listen, to what is a very
pastoral theme (reminiscences of the 6th to come). Actually I find this
movement a very beautiful one, especially in Kleiber's hands. Walter
meanders more gently (quite slowly) through the opening bars, only beautiful
in it's inherent ability to be so. Walter is wonderful in the final movement
here though, but listening to this second movement by Erich Kleiber, made me
realise, perhaps for the first time, the incredible scope for nuance (used
more effectively by the older conductor) in a movement such as this.
Anyway, I didn't find it boring at all, but then I listen to Beethoven
perhaps less than some others. Beethoven is always much fresher and more
appealing that way I find.
Just my 2c worth. Waiting for David's comments. For those interested in
timings, Walter takes 14' 31" whilst Kleiber takes 11' 26" for the
Larghetto.
Regards,
# Classical Music WebSite Links :
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page, To Conductors, Jazz Songstresses :
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
# Ormandy page and New Furtwängler link
Ray, Sydney
lord_e...@my-deja.com
>Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The heat down here is unbearable [...]
>So far the only composer I've noticed down here is Wagner, but
>neither one of us is allowed to listen to his music.
Are you sure the powers that be didn't deposit you in Israel by
mistake? (Not that I think there'd be anything hellish about it.)
But I'm glad they give you an internet connection in the hereafter
these days... the old communication methods seemed a little
unreliable.
Lena
samir golescu
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Raymond Hall wrote:
> If you mean by the Larghetto movement (second movement) of the 2nd, I
> checked out Erich Kleiber's Jan 31 1938 performance with the Orchestre
> National de Belgique, and made a few comparisons with Walter/Col SO,
> especially of this movement.
>
> Generally faster than Walter, Kleiber is far more characterful with this
> seemingly simple movement. Kleiber uses greater dynamic and more subtle
> nuances, pauses, and seems to *want* us to listen, to what is a very
> pastoral theme (reminiscences of the 6th to come). Actually I find this
> movement a very beautiful one, especially in Kleiber's hands. Walter
> meanders more gently (quite slowly) through the opening bars, only beautiful
> in it's inherent ability to be so. Walter is wonderful in the final movement
> here though, but listening to this second movement by Erich Kleiber, made me
> realise, perhaps for the first time, the incredible scope for nuance (used
> more effectively by the older conductor) in a movement such as this.
Not to be picky, but Walter only *outlived* Erich Kleiber--Kleiber was
still younger, not older (by 14 years or so) than Walter.
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> In our democratic times,
> we are hardly eager to accept that people might be equal in front of
> Law, of Death, and of God (if any), but they are not all created equal
> in what regards capacity of creating beauty.
I absolutely agree. It's a shame that a nice man like Furtwängler lost in the
"creating beauty" department to an ass like Gardiner.
> Gardiner might be a good
> professional, who knows what he is doing. Everything he does, in the
> Seventh for instance (his Ninth is, I believe, utterly atrocious), is
> "correct", even shallowly brilliant, and reasonable. The essence of
> Furtwangler's Beethoven (better said, of Beethoven as envisioned by
> Furtwangler) is uncontainable in words, in reason, in professional
> excellence. "Jaws-dropping" (modern equivalent of ancient "awe") is the
> proper reaction.
You sound more and more like a zealot every time we have this conversation . .
.
> Beethoven would have approved of Furtwangler's, not of Gardiner's
> Beethoven. That is a FACT! (-:
You can divine Beethoven's thoughts even with your head so far up your
<censored>?
> The following Beethoven quote corresponds to both Furtwangler's
> expressed-in-words conception on music-making and to the impression his
> recordings (still) make on thousands of listeners:
>
> "Music is truly the mediator between intellectual and sensuous life...the
> one incorporeal ingress into the higher world of knowledge which
> comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
Amazingly enough, this quote also corresponds to the impression that
Gardiner's recordings leave on a least one listener.
Matty
samir golescu
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Matthew Silverstein wrote:
> Samir pontificated:
That's my job, you know...
> > In our democratic times,
> > we are hardly eager to accept that people might be equal in front of
> > Law, of Death, and of God (if any), but they are not all created equal
> > in what regards capacity of creating beauty.
>
> I absolutely agree. It's a shame that a nice man like Furtwängler lost in the
> "creating beauty" department to an ass like Gardiner.
Oy, oy, young lads of 21st century, educated to express everything in
"losses" and "winnings". About "Furtwangler loosing to Gardiner", this is
your best joke since you compared that Canadian HIP lady unable to play a
clean scale to Jascha Heifetz.
> > Beethoven would have approved of Furtwangler's, not of Gardiner's
> > Beethoven. That is a FACT! (-:
>
> You can divine Beethoven's thoughts even with your head so far up your
> <censored>?
Such a big difference between mine and yours <<Gardiner's Beethoven
symphonies sound exactly like I want them to sound--like I think Beethoven
should sound>>. . .?
BTW, if you read a bit more about Beethoven's own way of performing music
(as a pianist, reportedly he wasn't a terrific conductor), as well as
testimonies on other interpreters Beethoven liked and what he liked in
them, you might understand why, jokes apart, Furtwangler's music-making is
very likely to be closer to Beethoven's than Gardiner's shall ever be.
BUt, obviously, not that is why I like Furtwangler (e.g., Rachmaninov is
not my favorite Rachmaninov interpreter), hence the smiley you chose to
answer with a [censored] wit.
> > The following Beethoven quote corresponds to both Furtwangler's
> > expressed-in-words conception on music-making and to the impression his
> > recordings (still) make on thousands of listeners:
> >
> > "Music is truly the mediator between intellectual and sensuous life...the
> > one incorporeal ingress into the higher world of knowledge which
> > comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
>
> Amazingly enough, this quote also corresponds to the impression that
> Gardiner's recordings leave on a least one listener.
Be at peace, citizen Silverstein--not so amazing, after all. You can find
people who believe that Isaiah's prophecies referred to Elvis Presley.
regardus massimus,
Samirus Summi Pontificatus
Alain Dagher
samir golescu wrote:
> The following Beethoven quote corresponds to both Furtwangler's
> expressed-in-words conception on music-making and to the impression his
> recordings (still) make on thousands of listeners:
>
> "Music is truly the mediator between intellectual and sensuous life...the
> one incorporeal ingress into the higher world of knowledge which
> comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
It's a good thing Beethoven spent more time writing music than writing words.
Alain
Simon Roberts
I hardly need say this to this particular advocate (heavens, are you now
calling Margaret "the devil"?), but it all depends what Beethoven "wrote"
and "indicated". If he merely wrote black marks on a page, and if we are
to treat them literally, doing only what he says and not doing anything he
doesn't say, and apply the marked tempo consistently throughout the
movement without any variation (none of these manifestations of literalism
themselves being written by Beethoven here or anywhere else, of course),
well, perhaps Furtwaengler fails that particular test. But that's not the
only sense of "write" and "indicate". Beethoven also wrote a transition
from dark to light (or however you want to characterize the transition
from iii to iv); and that being the case, and given in addition that
Beethoven says nothing in the score about how and when to very the
tempo/pulse once iv begins, if what Furtwaengler does is an effective
realization of the transition from dark to light (or whatever), then it
seems reasonable to say that in one important sense Furtwaengler conveys
what Beethoven wrote. (Dozens of other examples could be given, of
course: should the start of 9/i be clear and distinct, or should it be a
fog from which monsters loom? Which did Beethoven "write"?)
Back to the devil....
Simon
lord_e...@my-deja.com
samir golescu <gol...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Beethoven would have approved of Furtwangler's, not of Gardiner's
>Beethoven. That is a FACT! (-:
>
>The following Beethoven quote corresponds to both Furtwangler's
>expressed-in-words conception on music-making and to the impression
>his recordings (still) make on thousands of listeners:
>
>"Music is truly the mediator between intellectual and sensuous
>life...the one incorporeal ingress into the higher world of knowledge
>which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
And Beethoven also said (confidentially): "Furtwangler's tempo
fluctuations in the 2nd are truly a mediator between intellectual life
and the experience of being out in a small boat in big waves after a
good lunch." (This is more than a fact: I heard it on election night
on CNN.)
Samir, I like Furtwangler a lot... but the quote you have above is not
by Beethoven; this is Bettina Brentano in a letter to Goethe, claiming
Beethoven said it. She - like Schindler - is known to have fabricated
a lot, and her writing is totally over-humidified. (Beethoven's
contemporaries seem to have had a tendency to flip, occasionally, and
not in private, either.)
For example, it appears Bettina Brentano directly forged two letters
from Beethoven, to go with one which Beethoven actually did write to
her. The difference in style is telling: the forged letters are
extremely florid and develop the above type of subject; the genuine
letter is friendly, has one or two semi-confiding sentences, but
doesn't dwell on any subject for long, and says nothing on music.
Beethoven himself romanticizes very seldom, actually - at least in
writing. He was relatively laconic about music, and 98 % of what he
says about it is matter of fact.
Of course, it's not like music - a lot of music - has nothing to do
with the senses or with "intellectual life" (as we know it :) ).
Also, I'm quite convinced Beethoven knew what effects he was after -
but if he ever said that (and the other things in Bettina Brentano's
letters), I bet the party must have been pretty good.
After all this, I of course don't have time to list my favorite
symphony versions. (Not really entirely sure which ones to list,
either...) Next time.
Lena (likes Furtwangler, Gardiner is still on the scales)
lord_e...@my-deja.com
All well and good, otherwise, but those are not words by Beethoven.
Lena
lord_e...@my-deja.com
Tony Movshon <mov...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> I once sat down some friends, musical but without wide
> experience. First I played them the transition from iii to iv of
> Gardiner's 5th. Pretty good, we agreed. Nice sound, etc. Then I put
> on that same passage in Furtwanger's 1943 recording. Jaws
> dropped. Put Gardiner back on, and someone said "now it sounds
> completely trivial".
> It's an interesting experiment, which you can repeat with many
> passages in the Gardiner set.
I'm not saying anything about the conclusions (I don't know Gardiner's
set well - and both like and don't like various aspects of what I've
heard by him).
But comparing *passages* sounds to me like an unreliable way to decide
which performance works better... I'd have to hear at least a whole
exposition or something to make any judgment at all.
You could easily find a very nice sounding tree in a pretty awful
sounding forest.
Simon Roberts
: Matty wrote:
: > But Gardiner has an unerring sense of orchestral balance and sonority, and
: he
: > is able to realise those all-important climaxes in Beethoven's music better
: > than anyone else I've heard. A great example is the coda to 2/i, where
: > Gardiner's trumpet comes soaring in over the rest of the orchestra.
: Simon replied:
: > ? How many conductors *don't* do that?
: None of the conductors on any of my other recordings do that, at least to my
: satisfaction. Off the top of my head, this includes Bernstein (Sony),
: Norrington, Blomstedt, Wand, Mackerras, Gielen, Szell, Karajan (60s),
: Barenboim, Hogwood, Klemperer, Monteux, Brüggen, Reiner, Harnoncourt,
: Mengelberg (Philips), and Cluytens.
: Perhaps it's a matter of dynamics, but none of the above seem to me to nail
: the climax to 2/i as well as Gardiner does.
: > And why aren't his horns more prominent there?
: I just listened to it again, and perhaps a tad more prominence would make it
: all even more exciting. Nonetheless, it seems that the trumpets have the
: crucial part here, and Gardiner's just sound better (to my ears) than any of
: the others'. He seems to have a knack for balancing his orchestra at climactic
: moments.
: Sadly, the only two recordings I have with me are Gardiner and Mengelberg, but
: I'll listen to (or seek out) your suggestions next time I'm at home.
Sadly? Well, try Mengelberg (we'll get to him later...). As for Gardiner,
I just listened to his coda and the same passage on a handful of other
recordings. I hadn't heard Gardiner's in a while but vaguely remembered
being disappointed by this moment in his recording and, on hearing it
again, remain so. In the sense at hand, it seems to me that Gardiner does
NOT let us hear what Beethoven wrote. I say that because I don't think
the trumpets have "the crucial part" here. In the passage in question (I
assume you're referring to the chain of suspensions at bars 336-340) the
trumpets and horns are both fortissimo and they effectively have a sort of
duet, the horns "answering" the trumpets, following the trumpets with a
slight delay. (This isn't entirely dissimilar to the build-up to the
climactic point of Haydn 96/i, where the trumpets and horns call to each
other across the stage (as it were) - or at least they do if the conductor
notices the effect; usually all one hears, if anything, are the trumpets -
a ridiculous series of questions with no answers.)
Not only that, the trumpet line doesn't just appear out of nowhere; the
mounting tension that's released by the trumpet outburst is to some extent
led by ascending horns. To highlight the trumpets at the expense of the
rest (Gardiner's horns are weak leading up to the trumpet outburst, and
barely audible in exchange with the trumpets) is, to these ears, to
seriously misconstrue "what Beethoven wrote", not merely because the horns
are written to be as loud as the trumpets, but because the drama of this
climactic moment turns in part on how the two brass voices interact; his
climax is weakened as a result (indeed, I find this a flaw throughout his
set). This also explains the prominence of Gardiner's trumpets relative
to other performances as you hear them. They're not actually playing very
loud; rather, there's not much else going on around them to compete for
your attention. In other recordings the trumpets are just as loud (or
louder) but are balanced better with the horns.
Staying with HIPsters, although there are other things wrong with his
performance, Norrington gets these aspects of this movement right, the
horns properly given not only their important role in the build up to the
trumpet fortissimo but their equal billing with the trumpets thereafter; I
find the effect far more exciting (though it could do with a slightly
quicker tempo and greater tension). Want *really* noisy trumpets? Try
the new Fey recording, where his valveless brass bray out to far greater
effect than Gardiner's (indeed, the whole passage, complete with properly
assertive timpani, is far more effective than Gardiner's) - but not
merely the trumpets, the horns also. Want to try horns - shock horror -
given greater prominence than the trumpets? Try Mackerras and see what
you think. And despite its being 60 years old, and a live recording to
boot, listen to how the Mengelberg recording achieves better
trumpets/horns/timpani balances than Gardiner does. (And try
Scherchen/Lugano and....)
I'll stop there. But, no, sorry, I don't think Gardiner gets this
particular bit right. (Which isn't of course to say you should stop liking
what he does, or prefer any of these other performances, or even that I
think that they're all superior performances of the symphony overall to
Gardiner's.)
Simon
samir golescu
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 lord_e...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Samir, I like Furtwangler a lot... but the quote you have above is not
> by Beethoven; this is Bettina Brentano in a letter to Goethe, claiming
> Beethoven said it. She - like Schindler - is known to have fabricated
> a lot, and her writing is totally over-humidified. (Beethoven's
> contemporaries seem to have had a tendency to flip, occasionally, and
> not in private, either.)
Thanks for the gentle correction.
Samir