Dave Hurwitz disses (gasp!) Mengelberg!!
John Thomas
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
jwth...@sonic.net
samir golescu
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, John Thomas wrote:
> Read it and shriek ;-)
>
> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
I read and laughed. The Pocket-Hanslick gained already a broad Internet
reputation for his funny predictability and for the way he bites on the
shadows of the conductors the fans of whom regaled him back a bit of his
own rotten fish.
My favorite phrase was: <<if these were performances of a
significance comparable to say, Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas, where
you really can notice sometimes meaningful differences in tone and
touch depending on which transfer you get, that would be one thing.
Mengelberg's recordings, for the most part, have no such value.>>
Contesting in such terms Mengelberg's tonal individuality, *even when one
profoundly and strongly dislikes his interpretation and considers them
erratic or plainly bad*, grants one the certificate of deaf, if there were
any need for that anymore.
regards,
SG
P.S. Watch for future Ohnewitz reviews of Yudina, Cziffra, Huberman,
Elman, Levy and of other interpreters liked "in certain circles". I accept
10 to 1 bets.
JRsnfld
this?
--Jeff
David7Gable
Well, I read it, and it didn't make me shriek.
-david gable
Simon Roberts
>He mentions a Dvorak 9 with Szell/Czech Phil on Dutton. Has anyone else heard
>this?
Yes; I don't like it any more than his stereo Cleveland recording - to
these ears it never catches fire. My favorite mono recording is the
Kabasta that used to be attributed to Furtwaengler.
Simon
Simon Roberts
> Read it and shriek ;-)
>
>http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
There's one point on which I would comment. David H says that there's no
use comparing transfers because Bryan Crimp "knows his job". That's
true (though I've been disappointed by one or two). I haven't heard this
Mengelberg disc, but based on those that I have in this series, and
vaguely recalling reading that the work of the transfer engineers was
subsequently altered by Teldec, I wonder whether comparing transfers
mightn't be a bad idea after all. The other Teldec transfers I've heard
in this series have been bad, horribly overfiltered and thus sounding dull
and flat, the attacks blunted (as a comparison of Mengelberg's Heldenleben
with the earlier, if much noisier, Teldec Cd immediately reveals with the
very first note). Anyone else made the comparison?
Simon
samir golescu
On 12 Jun 2001, Simon Roberts wrote:
> I wonder whether comparing transfers mightn't be a bad idea after all.
I've done this for a while already....
> The other Teldec transfers I've heard
> in this series have been bad, horribly overfiltered and thus sounding dull
> and flat, the attacks blunted (as a comparison of Mengelberg's Heldenleben
> with the earlier, if much noisier, Teldec Cd immediately reveals with the
> very first note). Anyone else made the comparison?
You are right. I'll reiterate that the best to-date 1941 Ein Heldenleben
transfer is on the Wendel CD--the strength and realism of the signal has
to be heard to be believed.
regards,
SG
Tony Movshon
> Well, I read it, and it didn't make me shriek.
Me, either. I kind of liked casting the Franck as the "acme of
vulgar sentimantality".
--
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
David Hurwitz
>I read and laughed. The Pocket-Hanslick gained already a broad Internet
And speaking of funny predictability...
>
>Contesting in such terms Mengelberg's tonal individuality, [snip]
That's interesting. I've never heard Mengelberg utter a single individual tone.
As for the sound of the instruments themselves (such as it is and to the extent
the recorded sound does it justice), I'm inclined to give credit (and blame) for
that to the orchestra. They could probably have done a better job without him.
In fact, as soon as he was gone, they did. Fancy that!
Dave
Matthew B. Tepper
newsgroup?
--
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
Matthew B. Tepper
news:slrn49icln...@pobox.upenn.edu:
> My favorite mono recording is the
> Kabasta that used to be attributed to Furtwaengler.
Did conducting this work make Kabasta homesick for the Sudetenland?
Terrymelin
Terry Ellsworth
David Hurwitz
Actually, my favorite mono is Talich from the 50s, but that came rather later
than the period in quesiton, and was trying to be time specific.
Dave
Frank Berger
those who like to discuss Mr. Hurwitz's reviews.
samir golescu
> >Contesting in such terms Mengelberg's tonal individuality, [snip]
>
> That's interesting. I've never heard Mengelberg utter a single individual tone.
> As for the sound of the instruments themselves (such as it is and to the extent
> the recorded sound does it justice), I'm inclined to give credit (and blame) for
> that to the orchestra. They could probably have done a better job without him.
And you call yourself a professional. A conductor creates a sonority from
the way he blends and balances the sounds of individual instruments. The
old jibe that the baton does not produce sounds is as idiotic as it is
banal.
> In fact, as soon as he was gone, they did. Fancy that!
A new contribution to the aura of credibility your "professional opinion"
gains with every day passing. I didn't think there was place for more, but
I was wrong.
David Wake
What do you think of Stokowski/All American Youth Orchestra on Music
and Arts?
David
Paul Goldstein
>this?
Sure. I don't understand what the fuss is about, frankly. It's a good
performance, nothing more. Among historical New Worlds, I'd rank Erich
Kleiber's much higher than Szell's. Not to be controversial or anything ;-)
BTW I basically agree with Dave Hurwitz about these particular 2 Mengelberg
performances - they are far, far from his best.
Paul Goldstein
David Hurwitz
>And you call yourself a professional. A conductor creates a sonority from
>the way he blends and balances the sounds of individual instruments. The
>old jibe that the baton does not produce sounds is as idiotic as it is
>banal.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. It's just a pity Mengelberg wasn't better at
it, isn't it?
>
>> In fact, as soon as he was gone, they did. Fancy that!
>
>A new contribution to the aura of credibility your "professional opinion"
>gains with every day passing. I didn't think there was place for more, but
>I was wrong.
>
You usually are.
Dave
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>Why does anyone pay any attention to this idiot?
>
>Terry Ellsworth
You might want to consider listening to the disc in question (assuming haven't
heard it), and address specifically where you believe I have mischaracterized
the performances in my review. I believe you will find the facts are as I have
stated them, and the selected comparisons apt. Unless, of course, the above has
already exhausted your ability to contribute to discussion of a musical
performance.
Dave
Terrymelin
>I believe you will find the facts are as I have
>stated them, and the selected comparisons apt. Unless, of cour
Gosh, pardon my ignorance. I thought a review was an expression of a person's
opinion. Even a silly one.
Terry Ellsworth
MIFrost
find Mr. Hurwitz to be one of the more articulate posters here. And his
opinions are always expressed in a respectful and considerate way. Never one
to deliberate incite a riot by pissing one someone else.
MIFrost
Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:3B267745...@dal.frb.org...
REG
The other one you never hear about is Reichwein...he is all over that 36
some disc Vienna Opera set put out about ten years ago. A major conductor of
the time but a bigger Nazi, killed himself just about the time of Hitler's
last stand...I gather he didn't record much commercially, but the little you
pick up from the bios in the Vienna set gives you the sense he smells to
high heaven (which is quite a distance, I think, from....)
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZiuV6.268$Zt6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
David Hurwitz
says...
You are excused, but ignorant you certainly are. A review contains an opinion,
but that is not its principal purpose, particularly a record review where the
listener is confronted with either an abundance of choices of a familiar work,
or maybe one which he has not heard at all. A good review ought to be a
comparative description of the performance at hand (or the work if it's
unfamiliar or new to disc) providing enough factual detail regarding
interpretation and sound so that the prospective listener can decide whether or
not to buy the recording in question. Obviously, the critic wants to do more
than state facts: he wants to persuade and make a case for his evaluation of
what those facts mean. Ultimately, though, the critic's opinion however strongly
expressed is less important than a clear description of enough specifics about
the performance so that whether one agrees or disagrees, you will at least hear
those things that led the critic to arrive at his final evaluation if you listen
yourself.
I know you think I get some thrill in taking what you feel is a gratuitous swipe
at Mengelberg, but this is not the case at all. That review was based on a
tremendous amount of time spent both with scores and with numerous other
recordings of the same works, and it reflects first and foremost not my
"opinion", but rather easily audible facts that any listener can verify for
himself, and it is from these that my opinion derives. If you find such a
process "silly," then obviously you should not bother to read reviews. You
should also beware of venturing any opinions of your own, since your standard
for "silly" seems to be nothing more than whether or not you agree with the
opinion on offer (or whether my opinion conforms to that of some partisan group
to which you belong or feel sympathetic), a standard which is more than a little
hypocritical, and which by your own self-serving logic leaves you open to a
charge of "silliness" from anyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps, before
launching a personal attack, you should take a moment to review what I actually
wrote and make the effort to verify the accuracy of my observations. I assure
you, they are quite verifiable, and if having done so you reach opposite
conclusions from my own, I certainly respect that.
Knee-jerk attacks based on mere disagreements over matters of unsubstantiated
opinion don't seem to me a very productive or constructive contribution to what
could have been, and might yet be, a stimulating discussion of the genuine
merits (or lack thereof) of this recording. I doubt it will happen because it's
easier and probably more fun for some people (such as yourself?) to simply
attack the critic rather than respond to the substantive musical issues raised
in the course of the review, but you never know, and hope springs eternal! One
thing I do know: I at least listened carefully to the recording in question and
wrote the review with the sound of it fresh in my ears. I sincerely doubt that
you or your fellow nay-sayers can honestly claim to have bothered to
(re-)familiarize yourself either with the recording itself, or those I cite as
comparisons, before attacking me. I suggest you consider that fact as well, and
reflect on what it says about you.
Dave
Hat NYC 62
tone.
As for the sound of the instruments themselves (such as it is and to the extent
the recorded sound does it justice), I'm inclined to give credit (and blame)
for
that to the orchestra. They could probably have done a better job without him.
In fact, as soon as he was gone, they did. Fancy that! >>
Practically every orchestra in the world improved dramatically (in a technical
sense) in the years following WW II. The reasons are amazingly obvious. . .the
chairs were no longer staffed by those too old to be drafted, etc.
The increased virtuosity of the Concertgebow (as you perceive) following
Mengelberg's departure is undoubtedly due to these factors far more than to his
absence. Perhaps you knew that, as you do have a habit of engaging in hyperbole
to make your points (and perhaps, to get people to your website).
But it seems unlikely (at least to me) that the Concertgebow orchestra would
have played with any proficiency at all had Mengelberg not spend 50 years
building it. Who do you think hired all of those players making the sound and
built the orchestra to the point where they could be professional musicians
rather than hobbyists?
Further, it does not explain the unique qualities of Mengelberg's superb NYPO
recordings.
I am not offended by your dislike of Mengelberg, and I haven't heard the
recording in question. I simply wonder why you don't value your credibility as
much as you value your commercial success.
Opinions are great. We all have them. Websites are great. Anyone can have one.
David Hattner, NYC
Frank Berger
David Hurwitz wrote:
Well said, but don't you think you could have omitted the references to "some
partisan group," and "fellow nay-sayers?" Sounds a bit paranoid. I don't think
too many people want to be grouped with Mr. Ellsworth! Am I wrong?
Brendan R. Wehrung
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, John Thomas wrote:
>
>> Read it and shriek ;-)
>>
>> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
>
Mr. Hurwitz has the objectivity and narrow predictability of the Supreme
Court, which he probably coniders himself to be. This means he will
surprise us once in a great while.
Brendan
Simon Roberts
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9g6ks...@drn.newsguy.com...
Right. Too bad such reviews are so rare (partly, no doubt,
because some publications don't seem to allow enough space for
it; could such a review ever appear in BBC Magazine?). But one
should beware of going too far in the opposite direction: the
critic's opinions can't always be omitted completely from even
the "merely" descriptive bits: the biases/taste of the reviewer
determine which facts to alight on and, often, how s/he describes
them. For instance, when I started collecting records of Haydn
symphonies, only two British reviewers (Anthony Hodgson and
Robert Dearling in Records and Recordings) could be relied on to
say *anything* about orchestral balances (especially with
relation to brass and timpani). Presumably other critics could
hear the differences, but had other priorities and don't care
much about colour etc. Do some critics not comment on out of
tune singing because they can't tell or don't notice it because
they don't think it matters, or notice it and don't think it's
worth mentioning (etc.)? A critic who cares about fidelity to
the score is more likely to note deviations than one who isn't.
And so on.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
>>
>>I read and laughed. The Pocket-Hanslick gained already a broad Internet
>>reputation for his funny predictability [snip]
>
> And speaking of funny predictability...
>
>>
>>Contesting in such terms Mengelberg's tonal individuality, [snip]
>
> That's interesting. I've never heard Mengelberg utter a single
> individual tone.
You didn't, but his orchestral musicians did. I understand he was quite
talkative at rehearsals. Hey, whatever works!
Brendan R. Wehrung
Perhaps its a limus test of taste, and skill. Isn't a rose part of the
cabbage family?
Brendan
Brendan R. Wehrung
Mengelberg's orchestra certainly was trained to perform as he wanted. He
had nearly at-will rehearsal time and instilled his personal preferences
in them. A friend once told Mengelberg he liked to have Bruno Walter as a
guess just before he returned from vacation, so that he would stand out in
contrast to Walter's more easy-going ways.
Brendan
David Hurwitz
>Well said, but don't you think you could have omitted the references to "some
>partisan group," and "fellow nay-sayers?" Sounds a bit paranoid. I don't
>think
>too many people want to be grouped with Mr. Ellsworth! Am I wrong?
>
don't have to say this twice, a fact which I'm sure will earn me some gratitude
from those who want to actually talk about music and recordings!
Dave
JRsnfld
>Kabasta that used to be attributed to Furtwaengler.
>
>Simon
Maybe my favorite too, though the De Sabata and the Talich from somewhat later
are very good too. Now we won't dredge up the Kleiber again, will we?
--Jeff
David Hurwitz
>Right. Too bad such reviews are so rare (partly, no doubt,
>because some publications don't seem to allow enough space for
>it; could such a review ever appear in BBC Magazine?). But one
>should beware of going too far in the opposite direction: the
>critic's opinions can't always be omitted completely from even
>the "merely" descriptive bits: the biases/taste of the reviewer
>determine which facts to alight on and, often, how s/he describes
>them.
I agree completely. A critic who has "no" opinion isn't being honest and he
inevitably characterizes by the mere act of description. But this doesn't change
the fact that the description itself (as least as regards specifics of the
performance under review) is either accurate or it isn't, however colored by
approval or disapproval along the way.
For instance, when I started collecting records of Haydn
>symphonies, only two British reviewers (Anthony Hodgson and
>Robert Dearling in Records and Recordings) could be relied on to
>say *anything* about orchestral balances (especially with
>relation to brass and timpani). Presumably other critics could
>hear the differences, but had other priorities and don't care
>much about colour etc. Do some critics not comment on out of
>tune singing because they can't tell or don't notice it because
>they don't think it matters, or notice it and don't think it's
>worth mentioning (etc.)? A critic who cares about fidelity to
>the score is more likely to note deviations than one who isn't.
>And so on.
You are correct, though I'm a little more dogmatic than some in this respect, as
you might have surmised. I think a critic should know the score wherever
possible (quite often it's simply impossible for any number of logistical
reasons) IF he wants to raise the issue of the interpretation vs. what the
composer wrote. There's really no other way. Of course, there are other angles
from which to approach a review in the first place. I'm actually a big fan of
scores in general because they interest me for completely non-professional
reasons. As soon as I heard two recordings of the same work that differed, even
way back when I was a kid, I wanted to know why they were different, how this
was possible, and what the composer really wanted. I'm just curious that way,
and always have been. I don't usually follow a performance or recording with a
score. It disturbs my concentration. I generally refer to them to spot check
points of interpretation that interest me while listening.
As to intonation, this really is a personal matter. I find too much harping on
intonation issues to be annoying, because they are often used as a sort of
critical "whipping boy" to condemn a performance in a general way, and I find
that people really do disagree about what constitutes intolerable or poor
intonation. For example, I found that theoretically lovely Engligh horn solo in
Mengelberg's Dvorak 9 Largo to be fine in timbre, but noticeably out of tune at
the opening of the solo (he centers his tone better later on). I could have said
something but didn't because it's a quality that some might notice, but the
majority of people (I think) will not, and there were more important and less
controversial issues to engage in this instance.
I notice that you have an acute sense of pitch, particularly with respect to
voices, and I have checked some of your criticisms of specific singers and
sometimes I can hear what you describe and sometimes I can't. I'm pretty "pitch
tolerant," on the whole, but this doesn't invalidate your observations at all
since they reflect what constitutes for you a personal level of comfort.
Professionally speaking, though, a critic should try to take into consideration
the ability of the reader to actually hear what is being described, and an
excessive discussion of pitch as the major (or even sole) criterion for
dismissing a performance is, for me, a cop-out, unless it's a really outrageous
case. Most musicians who can't play or sing in tune have other problems at least
as (if not more) serious as well.
Best,
Dave
David Hurwitz
says...
>
[snip]
Um, all I can say is that I think you're getting into this conversation rather
late. As to my valuing "credibility" over "commercial success," I don't think
you're in much of a position to tell me what my values are. And you are correct:
anyone can have a website. So go to it. I'm sure you'll do a splendid job.
Dave
David Hurwitz
>had nearly at-will rehearsal time and instilled his personal preferences
>in them. A friend once told Mengelberg he liked to have Bruno Walter as a
>guess just before he returned from vacation, so that he would stand out in
>contrast to Walter's more easy-going ways.
>
>Brendan
The literalists are out if force tonight, I see. Sigh.
Dave
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>samir golescu (gol...@students.uiuc.edu) writes:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, John Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> Read it and shriek ;-)
>>>
>>> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
>>
>
>Mr. Hurwitz has the objectivity and narrow predictability of the Supreme
>Court, which he probably coniders himself to be. This means he will
>surprise us once in a great while.
>
>Brendan
>
Dave
Matthew B. Tepper
> As to intonation, this really is a personal matter. I find too much
> harping on intonation issues to be annoying, because they are often
> used as a sort of critical "whipping boy" to condemn a performance in a
> general way, and I find that people really do disagree about what
> constitutes intolerable or poor intonation.
Wasn't this one of the points on which we disagreed, with regard to Sir
Anthony Collins' Sibelius cycle?
Eric Nagamine
>
> << That's interesting. I've never heard Mengelberg utter a single individual
> tone.
> As for the sound of the instruments themselves (such as it is and to the extent
> the recorded sound does it justice), I'm inclined to give credit (and blame)
> for
> that to the orchestra. They could probably have done a better job without him.
> In fact, as soon as he was gone, they did. Fancy that! >>
>
> Practically every orchestra in the world improved dramatically (in a technical
> sense) in the years following WW II. The reasons are amazingly obvious. . .the
> chairs were no longer staffed by those too old to be drafted, etc.
I don't know if that argument holds water. The VPO and BPO were staffed
with many people who survived the war for a number of years after the
war. If anything, the war probably killed off alot of talented musicians
and performance style changed between the mid 30's and the end of the
war. It's my feeling that "European" orchestras went through a bad patch
after the war, some taking until the late 60's to recover from the war's
effects. The "fabled" Walter/VPO Das lied I think suffers from sub par
playing from that orchestra. Even with the Concertgebouw O, I recalling
seeing some negatives comments from conductors during the 60's about the
poor level of playing. The one thing I keep seeing is the influence of
american musicians and instruments on the european scene during and
after the war. Their higher technical standards, both in performance and
instrument design probably had some effect on how european orchestra's
sounded after the war.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
horizon
> >Kabasta that used to be attributed to Furtwaengler.
>
later
> are very good too. Now we won't dredge up the Kleiber again, will we?
My favorites are Fricsay and Horenstein.
Matt C
Matthew Silverstein
> Why does anyone pay any attention to this idiot?
Heard Gardiner's recording of Falstaff yet?
Matty
Simon Roberts
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010613021141...@ng-ma1.aol.com...
I certainly won't....
Simon
Akira Allen
not heard the recording I can't comment on most of the points he raises.
Still, his observation on balances and sound levels in the Franck is
deserving of an explanation by Mengelberg enthusiasts, I think.
--
Alex
alex....@NOSPAMbradford.gov.uk
John Thomas <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:no-spam-8E171C...@news.sonic.net...
> Read it and shriek ;-)
>
> http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3431
>
> --
> -Regards,
> John Thomas
> jwth...@sonic.net
>
Michael Weston
Quite a while back, when Dave was a regular poster here, I found him
heavyhanded, unyielding, barely sensitive to others, brutal and a bit too
smart for his own good. I was offended by him more than once.
Now I find him perhaps the most interesting read on the net- ruthlessly
intelligent, demanding and thoroughly entertaining. Even worse, what he
says is consistent and credible.
I'm not naive enough to think that this will change anyone else's mind
about him. But congradulations, Dave, you've won me over.
mw
MIFrost (sfr...@nycap.rr.com) wrote:
: Going out on a limb here, for the record (if anyone is keeping a record) I
Massimo Nespolo
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010612154611...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> Why does anyone pay any attention to this idiot?
>
Hi Terry,
I'm surprised to read such an expression from you. Today I've read many
harsh and rude posts and email from people who are usually quite kind and
polite. A bad day, perhaps?
Cheers.
Massimo
--
===============================
Massimo Nespolo, Japan
for private replies, remove NOSPAM
Raymond Hall
news:tieo9tq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Quite a while back, when Dave was a regular poster here, I found him
> heavyhanded, unyielding, barely sensitive to others, brutal and a bit too
> smart for his own good. I was offended by him more than once.
>
> Now I find him perhaps the most interesting read on the net- ruthlessly
> intelligent, demanding and thoroughly entertaining. Even worse, what he
> says is consistent and credible.
>
> I'm not naive enough to think that this will change anyone else's mind
> about him. But congradulations, Dave, you've won me over.
I'll concur with most of the above, but I have named him the "Big Bad Wolf".
Actually been reading his cover notes for the Eloquence Decca Mehta/VPO/LAPO
Liszt tone poems. The notes are fully acceptable, (but aimed more at
newbies), which is far more than I can say for the music. And it isn't Mehta
either, or the VPO, or the LAPO. It is Liszt. Godawful stuff, and even worse
than I originally thought many years ago (Orpheus, Mazeppa, Battle of the
Huns, Les Preludes), and I am going to try and get it changed tomorrow. Have
seen a nice double album of the great jazz sax players, and intend to swap
the Liszt in part return for some real music.
Regards,
# RMCR WebSite Links :
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page : http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
David Hurwitz
>
>
>Quite a while back, when Dave was a regular poster here, I found him
>heavyhanded, unyielding, barely sensitive to others, brutal and a bit too
>smart for his own good. I was offended by him more than once.
>
>Now I find him perhaps the most interesting read on the net- ruthlessly
>intelligent, demanding and thoroughly entertaining. Even worse, what he
>says is consistent and credible.
>
>I'm not naive enough to think that this will change anyone else's mind
>about him. But congradulations, Dave, you've won me over.
>
>mw
>
Dave
David Hurwitz
>I'll concur with most of the above, but I have named him the "Big Bad Wolf".
>Actually been reading his cover notes for the Eloquence Decca Mehta/VPO/LAPO
>Liszt tone poems. The notes are fully acceptable, (but aimed more at
>newbies), which is far more than I can say for the music. And it isn't Mehta
>either, or the VPO, or the LAPO. It is Liszt. Godawful stuff, and even worse
>than I originally thought many years ago (Orpheus, Mazeppa, Battle of the
>Huns, Les Preludes), and I am going to try and get it changed tomorrow. Have
>seen a nice double album of the great jazz sax players, and intend to swap
>the Liszt in part return for some real music.
>
>Regards,
>
Perhaps Simon can speak to this point with greater specificity, but Tovey once
said that the job of the program note writer was one of "counsel for the
defence." That, I think, sums it up nicely. It would be a tad unhelpful to say
to the purchaser: "Ha ha! You bought a disc of worthless trash. This music is
dreadful: formally inept, harmonically repulsive, melodically polarized between
saccharine sweetness and bombastic vulgarity, and orchestrated as if the
trombones and piccolos were turned loose amidst a troop of mating baboons.
Better luck next time, sucker!" Not, of course, that I feel that way about
Liszt's tone poems...
Dave
Hat NYC 62
rather
late. As to my valuing "credibility" over "commercial success," I don't think
you're in much of a position to tell me what my values are. And you are
correct:
anyone can have a website. So go to it. I'm sure you'll do a splendid job. >>
You didn't post what I wrote, nor respond to it.
I didn't even attempt tell you what your values were. I was pointing out that
you were making it easy for a perception to take place which reflected
negatively on you. I thought it was rather courteous, actually. I am sorry you
see every comment as an attack.
It seems to me that your website is not for the likes of those who already know
what they want, such as those here. I wonder why you bother to respond to what
is posted here?
As to when I choose to enter a discussion. What difference does it make? It
certainly does not invalidate any points I might choose to make.
-David Hattner, NYC
Hat NYC 62
took much longer for European orchestras to recover from the war than the
Americans.
However, having just listened to some of Weingartner's pre-war Beethoven with
the VPO, I must say that there was plenty left to be desired from that
orchestra before the Anschluss in a technical sense. Certainly no more
accomplished that what you hear on Walter's Das Lied.
David Hattner, NYC
Simon Roberts
>>
>Ray:
>
>Perhaps Simon can speak to this point with greater specificity, but Tovey once
>said that the job of the program note writer was one of "counsel for the
>defence." That, I think, sums it up nicely. It would be a tad unhelpful to say
>to the purchaser: "Ha ha! You bought a disc of worthless trash. This music is
>dreadful: formally inept, harmonically repulsive, melodically polarized between
>saccharine sweetness and bombastic vulgarity, and orchestrated as if the
>trombones and piccolos were turned loose amidst a troop of mating baboons.
>Better luck next time, sucker!" Not, of course, that I feel that way about
>Liszt's tone poems...
Simon hasn't a clue re what Tovey says, but if that's what he said he's
surely right (though I'm occasionally amused to read liner notes which are
disparaging). Agreeing with Ray in this instance, and thus being squarely
in the prosecution camp (but if Ray thinks this stuff's bad, he should try
the opera paraphrases...), I would decline an offer to write liner notes
for a recording of Liszt tone poems - not, of course, that such an offer
would ever be extended....
Simon
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Simon hasn't a clue re what Tovey says, but if that's what he said he's
: surely right (though I'm occasionally amused to read liner notes which are
: disparaging).
So what are your favorite disparaging liner notes? When I was in college,
I saw a record of a symphony (I can't remember if it was by Ireland or
Stanford) the liner notes of which said something to the effect that "this
symphony would probably be more popular if it didn't sound so much like
Brahms's Fourth." Needless to say, that was a record that went back on
the shelf -- I already had a record of Brahms's Fourth, and for the cost of
one full price EMI record, I could get three kewl Nonesuches.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"[Horenstein] couldn't control an orchestra if his reputation depended on it,
which it didn't."
-- spoken by an anonymous "fan"
vaneyes
>
>"Michael Weston" <rush...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
>news:tieo9tq...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Quite a while back, when Dave was a regular poster here, I found him
>> heavyhanded, unyielding, barely sensitive to others, brutal and a bit too
>> smart for his own good. I was offended by him more than once.
>>
>> Now I find him perhaps the most interesting read on the net- ruthlessly
>> intelligent, demanding and thoroughly entertaining. Even worse, what he
>> says is consistent and credible.
>>
>> I'm not naive enough to think that this will change anyone else's mind
>> about him. But congradulations, Dave, you've won me over.
>
>I'll concur with most of the above, but I have named him the "Big Bad Wolf".
>Actually been reading his cover notes for the Eloquence Decca Mehta/VPO/LAPO
>Liszt tone poems. The notes are fully acceptable, (but aimed more at
>newbies), which is far more than I can say for the music. And it isn't Mehta
>either, or the VPO, or the LAPO. It is Liszt. Godawful stuff, and even worse
>than I originally thought many years ago (Orpheus, Mazeppa, Battle of the
>Huns, Les Preludes), and I am going to try and get it changed tomorrow. Have
>seen a nice double album of the great jazz sax players, and intend to swap
>the Liszt in part return for some real music.
Michael should wear a cap, for he's now a target for Wonderboy.
Re Liszt, a lotta "godawful stuff" is not far off the mark...mostly in his
hallowed piano music IMO.
With a second chance given for orchestral via CD swapping, I've found a few good
things in Faust Symphony, and Piano Cti. 1 & 2. He's now been elevated to minor
composer. <:-]
Regards
samir golescu
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Akira Allen wrote:
> I actually found it an informative and well written review, although having
> not heard the recording I can't comment on most of the points he raises.
> Still, his observation on balances and sound levels in the Franck is
> deserving of an explanation by Mengelberg enthusiasts, I think.
I heard these performances many times, in different transfers. These are
two of the greatest interpretations on record imo. Only one detail
example: the main theme in Franck (ii) is shaped with exquisite rubato,
pointing out the overall arching of the theme with incomparable skill,
playing out the intervallic structure of the melody in an unforgettable
way (listen to the way "sol fa si la fa" is followed by a "sol fa--*re*--
do la fa", with rubato contributing to the quasi-vocal eloquence of the
theme.... than compare how various degrees of rubato are employed with
each reiteration of this theme, testifying on the magical "time has
passed" feeling, epical quality of the form.
I didn't hear this Teldec cd so I cannot comment on this particular transfer.
However, given the excellence of Mr Crimp's average work, I doubt it could
be SO different from the best transfers I have heard -- Mark O-T in
Franck, Hubert Wendel in Dvorak. Based on those, I find the comments on
the balances of the original recordings (good quality Telefunkens) grossly
exaggerated (especially for Dvorak, where the dynamic range of the
original recording is impressive, and certainly NOT inferior to any of the
contemporary or previous recordings of the work, moreover, superior from
this point of view to recordings like Stokowski's early Philadelphia,
Kleiber's Berlin or Szell's first recording). The comment that <<the
effect is comparable to listening over a small transistor radio, which is
of course what so many people like about historical orchestral recordings,
*especially if you listen on lousy equipment to begin with*>> is
undoubtedly of a nature to corroborate the credibility of the review, as
well as the veracity of the opinion that the reviewer's <<opinions are
always expressed in a respectful and considerate way. Never one to
deliberate incite a riot by pissing on someone else>>, as some rmcr poster
confidently asserted. One could wonder who is that (of course, completely
hypothetical) listener about whom the reviewer knows is listening on lousy
equipment and addresses so personally within the review but it wouldn't
be worth the time. This phrase corroborates though my strong impression
that such a review was listened not with love for the music, but like a
prosecutor would look into a defendant's file, trying to find every bit of
"evidence" interpretable, in bad faith or at the very least with manifest
hostility, as attackable weakness.
About the recordings themselves: Franck is a good recording but, if I had
to choose one of Mengelberg's two, it would be the live one on Philips --
it has more organicity, more fluency. However the interpretation is
largely similar in both the Philips-published live recording and in this
Telefunken. The imaginary flaws pointed out in the review are far from
being objective facts, except for some, VERY few, instrumental
less-than-perfect intonation instances.
Adding the adjective "soupy" to "string
portamentos" is a matter of taste, not a fact. That Mengelberg chooses to
sometime underplay the timpani is not a fact objectively definable as
a flaw, but part of acceptable interpretive leverage. (E.g.: compare,
toward the end of Brahms' Fourth Symphony [SECOND movement], Furtwangler's
and Mengelberg's renditions of the climactic passage "SI DO RE MI RE DO SI
SOL LA SI DO RE MI RE DO SI etc" passage -- Furtwangler asks for a timpani
storm, Mengelberg underplays them -- each choice throws light on different
details of the score, with equally legitimate effect).
Characterizing masterfully conducted rubato as "tempos pulled about as
taffy" is not a fact, but a matter of taste and, possibly, of lack of
familiarity with 19-century based interpretive aesthetics.
"A general lack of structural cohesion" is a comment testifying on one
person's idea of what structural cohesion is supposed to mean, not at all
a "factual" lack of cohesion.
That the second time the introduction in Franck (i) is faster is a fact,
but it is nowhere engraved in stone that this entails it not being
"logically related" to the ensuing Allegro. Mengelberg's choice is related
to the more general interpretive aesthetics of the time, which prescribe
that the interpreter is not supposed to play anything in the same way the
second time around, even if the composer did not give explicit indications
for interpretive variation (compare Josef Hofmann's two identical [in the
score] expositions in Waldstein [i] -- they are played *very*
differently).
That the Scherzo [in Dvorak] lacks some of the speed and obvious rhythmic
impulse coloring other versions only bears witness to Mengelberg's
choice to bring out, in all four movements, the songful grand line of the
whole symphony in pre-eminence to the dance elements. There is plenty
of recorded evidence that whenever Mengelberg wanted, he was able to
project rhythmic impetus to a thrilling effect.
All-in-all, the review is factually informative only in a way that reminds
me that story:
the older woman with her four old-years grandson on the beach: the kid
goes into the water..... a big wave takes him under. "GOD -- she cries --
please, please save him.... I will not ask you anything else for the rest
of my life!" God hears her invocation, throws a bridge of light over the
waters on which the child comes safely to his grandmother.... she embraces
him and, then, pointing to the sky, cries: "but, God, when he went into
the water he had a beach-hat on his head!".
It was factually correct that the boy had a hat and now he was missing it.
regards,
SG
JRsnfld
Music and Arts' Knappertsbusch Ring Cycle has a lengthy essay by William
Youngren that takes a dim view of Kna's work in general and of at least half of
these performances in particular, scene by scene. I can't believe that M&A
couldn't have found counsel for the defense in this case.
--Jeff
Nicolai P. Zwar
> I'll concur with most of the above, but I have named him the "Big Bad Wolf".
Personally, I thought David Hurwitz has always been one of the more
interesting posters in this forum.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"Quite frankly, I'd much rather be David Lee Roth with a blonde on his
arm than a damp and dumpy water fowl with a zit on his nose!! But then
that pretty much goes without saying."
(Opus)
Nicolai P. Zwar
> Perhaps Simon can speak to this point with greater specificity, but Tovey once
> said that the job of the program note writer was one of "counsel for the
> defence." That, I think, sums it up nicely. It would be a tad unhelpful to say
> to the purchaser: "Ha ha! You bought a disc of worthless trash. This music is
> dreadful: formally inept, harmonically repulsive, melodically polarized between
> saccharine sweetness and bombastic vulgarity, and orchestrated as if the
> trombones and piccolos were turned loose amidst a troop of mating baboons.
> Better luck next time, sucker!"
Gee, I dunno. In certain cases -- especially for newbies -- liner notes
like that could be very helpful. :)
David Hurwitz
>It seems to me that your website is not for the likes of those who already know
>what they want, such as those here.
Shrewd observation. I've said the same thing many times in this forum.
I wonder why you bother to respond to what
>is posted here?
Because I like to. Do I need another reason?
>
>As to when I choose to enter a discussion. What difference does it make? It
>certainly does not invalidate any points I might choose to make.
It does if you evidently haven't carefully read or absorbed the previous ones
and so aren't speaking to the context of the discussion.
Dave
Sacqueboutier
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm...you say that as though it were a *bad* thing.
:-)
--
AAAAAHHHHH! The atmosphere! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Don Patterson
* DCP Music Printing
* Professional Computer Music Typeset
* Music Arrangements
* don...@olg.com
* Trombonist
* "The President's Own"
* United States Marine Band
Matthew B. Tepper
news:PCGV6.12803$QO5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
Talich's final recording, and Toscanini (both the commerical one and a 1939
broadcast) for me. In stereo, Kondrashin on London/Decca.
Terrymelin
>harsh and rude posts and email from people who are usually quite kind and
>polite. A bad day, perhaps?
>Cheers.
Yes, I think so. But I also think some people like to take pot shots at the
certain conductors just for the fun of it and that's how I took Mr. Hurwitz's
"review." And I really find it hard to take seriously anyone who claims a
review as an expression of fact rather than an expression of opinion.
Terry Ellsworth
Simon Roberts
They're both. The fact that there's a subjective component to reviews
doesn't mean they're entirely subjective. Whether someone takes a repeat,
plays at a particular pitch, uses a particular edition, makes specific
mistakes, etc., are not matters of subjective opinion/taste, and it's
possible (but may be boring to read) to make such factual observations in
a neutral manner.
Simon
Raymond Hall
news:3B279B49...@bigfoot.com...
> Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> > I'll concur with most of the above, but I have named him the "Big Bad
Wolf".
>
> Personally, I thought David Hurwitz has always been one of the more
> interesting posters in this forum.
Just my nick-name for him. Along with Samir's posts, I have to agree with
you. But a certain amount of "polarisation" exists between them which makes
life even more interesting.
Just don't mention Mengelberg <g>
David7Gable
>Why does anyone pay any attention to this idiot?
>
>Terry Ellsworth
>
Because he can tell Tebaldi sang out of tune.
-david gable
David7Gable
I'd like to write one for Wagner's Love Feast of the Apostles (ok, Liebesmahl
der Apostel). Charles Rosen said that he started writing his own liner notes
after reading the one provided for his Epic Chopin recital. The liner notes
describe one of Chopin's pieces "staggering, drunk" on the fumes from I can't
remember what flowers.
-david gable
David7Gable
>Youngren that takes a dim view of Kna's work in general and of at least half
>of
>these performances in particular
Jeff,
I'm not one to doubt you, but surely Youngren says interesting things about
these performances. I also could have sworn that I read Fanfare's other Wagner
reviewer, Henry Fogel, remarking that Youngren had come around to Kna with this
set.
-david gable
David7Gable
Dave,
Don't fall into the trap of defending yourself. Not that I disagree with what
you said about reviewing.
-dg
David7Gable
>tune singing because they can't tell or don't notice it because
>they don't think it matters, or notice it and don't think it's
>worth mentioning (etc.)?
I can only believe they can't tell the singer's out of tune. But then
Tebaldi's relatively weak ear never hindered her career. A lot of people just
can't tell.
-david gable
David Hurwitz
David7Gable
In an entirely justified and scathing blast at the reviewers, Stravinsky
remarked their willingness to snap judge scores they had never heard before and
at the same time to display--unfailingly--their utter confidence in the
performances of these same scores generall expressed in such terms as "Maestro
X and his marvelous musicians, who cannot be faulted, did all they could with
the piece."
-david gable
David7Gable
Yeah, but there are limits. And there are in fact lots of people out there who
can't tell the difference.
-david gable
David7Gable
>the way he blends and balances the sounds of individual instruments. The
>old jibe that the baton does not produce sounds is as idiotic as it is
>banal.
No, only literally true, Samir. You can't possibly believe that Dave Hurwitz
doesn't already know what you inform him of in the first sentence quoted here.
Therefore, his remark about sound not actually being produced by the conductor
does not do damage to his credibility.
-david gable
Simon Roberts
Aside from that, I don't see why it's any more personal than caring about
vibrato, orchestral balances, precision, etc.
Simon
David Hurwitz
oy兀earthlink.net says...
>
>"horizon" <mcarn...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>news:PCGV6.12803$QO5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
>
>>> << My favorite mono recording is the
>>> >Kabasta that used to be attributed to Furtwaengler.
>>>
>>> Maybe my favorite too, though the De Sabata and the Talich from somewhat
>>> later are very good too. Now we won't dredge up the Kleiber again, will
>>> we?
>>
>> My favorites are Fricsay and Horenstein.
>
>Talich's final recording, and Toscanini (both the commerical one and a 1939
>broadcast) for me. In stereo, Kondrashin on London/Decca.
Well, if we're doing the favorite New World thing, here are my current top
dozen:
Bernstein (Sony)
Talich (Supraphon)
Fricsay (DG)
Harnoncourt (Teldec)
Masur (Teldec)
Toscanini (RCA)
Szell (Sony)
Dorati (Philips)
Kertesz/Vienna (Decca)
Keilberth (Teldec)
Stokowski (RCA)
Kondrashin (Decca)
Also really good and candidates for the list at any given time:
Levine/Chicago (RCA)
Ancerl (Supraphon)
Kubelik (DG)
Neumann (Supraphon)
Rowicki (Philips)
Colin Davis (Philips)
Suitner (Berlin Classics)
Mackerras (EMI)
Giulini/Chicago (DG)
Stokowski/Philadelphia (Biddulph)
Versions that pretty much suck:
Karajan (EMI or DG)
Mengelberg
Abbado (DG)
As to Erich Kleiber, I still don't quite understand what all that hysteria was
about. I gave the performance a "7" out of "10," and still think, on the whole,
that it's pretty good. Just not great, especially given the competition, and
certainly not very good sounding, irrespective of the transfer. It was the
couplings that were more or less unlistenable. But let's not go there...
Dave
Simon Roberts
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9g8pa...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Well, if we're doing the favorite New World thing, here are my
current top
> dozen:
[snip]
Oh, what the hell. Here's a baker's dozen (in no particular
order, but overlapping somewhat with yours):
Kabasta/M&A
Kertesz/VPO/Decca (not the LSO remake)
Paray/Mercury
Dorati/Philips
Toscanini live 1953 (mine's on Virtuoso, but presumably there are
releases of this)
Ancerl live 1958/Ermitage
Talich/Supraphon
Harnoncourt/Teldec
Fricsay/DG
Kondrashin/Decca
Suitner/Berlin Classics
Levine/RCA (too bad it's early RCA digital at its worst)
Paita/Lodia (if only for cheap thrills)
> As to Erich Kleiber, I still don't quite understand what all
that hysteria was
> about. I gave the performance a "7" out of "10," and still
think, on the whole,
> that it's pretty good. Just not great, especially given the
competition, and
> certainly not very good sounding, irrespective of the transfer.
It was the
> couplings that were more or less unlistenable. But let's not go
there...
Well, at the risk of tempting fate - wondering what all the fuss
was about I finally bought it. I think your rating is
generous.... (I've not heard Mengelberg's yet - or, if I have, I
don't remember anything about it.)
Simon
Terrymelin
>
>Dave
See what I mean?
Rick Cavalla
>Well, if we're doing the favorite New World thing, here are my current top
>dozen:
>Also really good and candidates for the list at any given time:
>Versions that pretty much suck:
Klemperer/PO does not merit mention on any of these lists? I rather like
it, but I am a Klemperer fan. I also like Kertesz/VPO(Decca) for the New
World.
Rick Cavalla
ra...@NO.erols.SPAM.com
==============
Currently listening to: Mehul - Symphony No. 2
==============
Simon Roberts
"Rick Cavalla" <ra...@NO.erols.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9g8tqj$fjs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> David Hurwitz wrote:
> >Well, if we're doing the favorite New World thing, here are my
current top
> >dozen:
> [snip]
> >Also really good and candidates for the list at any given
time:
> [snip]
> >Versions that pretty much suck:
> [snip]
>
> Klemperer/PO does not merit mention on any of these lists? I
rather like
> it, but I am a Klemperer fan.
I usually am too, but found this a bit disappointing. I wouldn't
add it to any of his three lists.
Simon
Roland van Gaalen
How can anyone in his right mind listen to all those recordings! I think
they *all* suck, because this so-called symphony is a phoney, sentimental,
dreadful piece of junk music. No insult intended to any professional critics
or other new-world bohemians.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
David Wake
>
>[list of recordings snipped]
>
> How can anyone in his right mind listen to all those recordings! I think
> they *all* suck, because this so-called symphony is a phoney, sentimental,
> dreadful piece of junk music. No insult intended to any professional critics
> or other new-world bohemians.
>
Out of interest, which recordings have you heard, on which to base
that opinion?
David
David Hurwitz
distinction here which Samir has, no doubt unwittingly, raised. This is the
difference between a REVIEW and an APPRECIATION.
It's perfectly possible, of course, to take any performance, go through it
minute by minute, note everything about it that you feel is unique and assert
that as a result it's perfectly fabulous in all respects. This Samir does. It is
"appreciation," and he's welcome to it.
I note, however, that as usual in leaping to the defence of one of his heros,
Samir misses the point of the review, which is not just the quality of
performance itself, but summarizing this on the way to answering the larger
question: "Can you, the consumer, do better in this particular repertoire."
Samir ignores this issue for a variety of reasons, first because he's already
made up his mind, and second, I suspect, because he has not heard the
comparisons listed and doesn't especially care to.
The problem, of course, with "appreciation" is that it often flies in the face
of the facts. Here's a particularly amusing example:
">That the Scherzo [in Dvorak] lacks some of the speed and obvious rhythmic
>impulse coloring other versions only bears witness to Mengelberg's
>choice to bring out, in all four movements, the songful grand line of the
>whole symphony in pre-eminence to the dance elements. There is plenty
>of recorded evidence that whenever Mengelberg wanted, he was able to
>project rhythmic impetus to a thrilling effect."
In other words, Mengelberg could have done it if he wanted to. But he didn't,
which is exactly my point, and I think a singularly apt criticism when directed
at a movement embodying, first and foremost, the rhythm and aesthetic of the
dance. I never said Mengelberg was unable to project rhythmic impetus, merely
that he does not do so here, where the music clearly requires it, and where the
lack of same prevents precisely the "songful grand line" from manifesting itself
properly. Nor is music a zero-sum game, as Samir would have us believe, where
emphasis of one quality inherently entails supression of another. A great
recording will, of course, have both invigorating rhythm AND the songful grand
line, and as Mengelberg has one and not the other, as Samir concedes, his
interpretation is deficient.
Or take this little quip:
">Characterizing masterfully conducted rubato as "tempos pulled about as
>taffy" is not a fact, but a matter of taste and, possibly, of lack of
>familiarity with 19-century based interpretive aesthetics.
But my point is that the rubato is NOT masterfully conducted. For that, try
Stokowski, either his Philadelphia version from 1935, vastly better played and
recorded, or his later one. Or Bernstein's. Mengerberg's rubato is a grotesque
caricature of what the word means. It's obvious, disruptive of the long line,
excessive to the point of mannerism, and basically rather clumsy. It sounds
silly, and makes the music sound that way too, particularly when compared to
other conductors equally fond of rubato, but far more intelligent in applying
it. Again, the proof is in the comparisons. As to "19th century" aesthetics,
there are plenty of recordings of this symphony by older conductors that do NOT
partake of Mengelberg's philosophy in this regard. Besides, I thought the reason
he's so "special" is because no one else does what he does. And this, actually,
is one of the great contradictions inherent in Samir's "appreciation." More on
this anon.
">That the second time the introduction in Franck (i) is faster is a fact,
>but it is nowhere engraved in stone that this entails it not being
>"logically related" to the ensuing Allegro. Mengelberg's choice is related
>to the more general interpretive aesthetics of the time which prescribe
>that the interpreter is not supposed to play anything in the same way the
>second time around, even if the composer did not give explicit indications
>for interpretive variation.."
As if Mengelberg cared. The reason the tempo is not logically related is because
this relationship is specified in the score, it is mathematically proportional,
and Mengelberg ruins it by taking the introduction too fast the second time
around. How interesting that no other performance of the period commits this
basic error. How even more interesting that Franck's score is perfectly clear
with respect to the tempo in what is already an abreviated, rescored, varied
repetition of the opening introduction. In other words, Franck provides his own
variation, which is why he writes the whole thing out in the first place rather
than signaling for a simple da capo. Has Mengelberg failed to notice this
obvious application of Samir's basic rule of 19th century aesthetics? Evidently
so.
When a composer writes out his own repeats in this fashion, carefully detailing
changes in scoring, shortening passages, and specifying the tempo, he expects to
be obeyed. Why bother otherwise? Franck clearly thought it important enough to
ask that the tempo be the same when the music of the introduction returns, even
though that which is being played is in fact a variation. Samir may call
Mengelberg's way "insight." I call it "bad conducting." Whatever you call it,
19th century aesthetics has much less to do with it than the clear instructions
in Franck's score. It's possible to play something differently the second time
around without screwing up the formal structure of a movement, and there is
absolutely no evidence that Mengelberg's decision to play the music this way
resulted from a self-conscious desire to "not repeat without varying."
Here, though, is the clincher:
"These are
>two of the greatest interpretations on record imo."
and
">About the recordings themselves: Franck is a good recording but, if I had
>to choose one of Mengelberg's two, it would be the live one on Philips --
>it has more organicity, more fluency.
Hmmm. So maybe the one under review isn't quite to perfect after all.
"However the interpretation is
>largely similar in both the Philips-published live recording and in this
>Telefunken. The imaginary flaws pointed out in the review are far from
>being objective facts, except for some, VERY few, instrumental
>less-than-perfect intonation instances."
So, it becomes clear, obviously, the the only thing greater than a Mengelberg
interpretation is another Mengelberg interpretation. Samir's logic is circular:
Mengelberg was great, therefore everything he does is great, and good, and
justified by the tenets of 19th century aesthetics. The flaws that I point out
are not imaginary, they are quite real. Samir simply refuses to acknowledge them
as such, which of course is his privilege. Primitive man believed the earth was
flat in the face of all evidence to the contrary, so I see no reason why Samir
should be any different. Curiously, the flaw the he DOES concede--intonation
problems--I don't mention at all, because I didn't think it was important enough
in the face of the mess Mengelberg otherwise makes of the symphony.
The difference between us, therefore, can be summed up basically as follows. In
order to assert the imperishable greatness of Mengelberg's Franck and Dvorak,
Samir must (a) disregard all comparisons to other versions of the same works,
both contemporary or later, that essentially offer similar interpretive insights
to Mengelberg but simply do it better, either as playing or conducting; (b)
claim for his hero a unique, incomparable, unsurpassed knowledge of 19th century
aesthetics to justify his personal mannerisms. As if Pierre Monteux, Leopold
Stokowski, Paul Paray, Arturo Toscanini, or Otto Klemperer were all deficient in
that regard. This argument becomes even weaker when one considers that
Mengelberg's mannerisms appear (on evidence of his recordings) to get worse as
he got older. In short, he had a 20th century attack of 19th century aesthetics,
perhaps a sort of conductor's version of Alzheimer's disease. Again, the facts
belie Samir's contention, as anyone interested in the question can clearly hear
for himself.
I maintain simply that in oft-recorded works played by virtually all of the
great conductors of the century, such as those under consideration, the chances
that there have been no great recordings since 1940 are slim. This is borne out
by the experience of extensive listening to a wide range of available recordings
both new and old and comparing them to each other and to the composer's score, a
process which is a legitimate way of assessing the comparative value of these
recordings for today's listener. Samir irrationally regards this process as a
vendetta aimed at artists he loves, rather as the Church regarded Darwin's
theory of evolution as heresy.
Ultimately, of course, everyone should simply listen to that which pleases them.
That's what recordings are for. We are fortunate that so many choices exist
today, and that people can sit down and make comparisons such as those noted in
my review in their own home, and judge for themselves. The important thing is
that people DO listen, and if my review encourages this, irrespective of whether
it's adjudged "right," "wrong," or otherwise, I would call it a success.
Dave
Frank Berger
Roland van Gaalen wrote:
While I don't agree in the least, I can see where you're coming from. Try
Rosbaud for something quite different. I wonder what Golovanov would have done
with it.
samir golescu
On 13 Jun 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
(...)
> Samir ignores this issue for a variety of reasons, first because he's already
> made up his mind, and second, I suspect, because he has not heard the
> comparisons listed and doesn't especially care to.
You are certainly obsessed with me. I heard enough "New Worlds", most of
the ones on your list, as to make up my mind on which I like and on which
I don't. Your "suspicions" are arrogant and presumptuous like your entire
being. How free my mind is or not is not to you to decide.
> The problem, of course, with "appreciation" is that it often flies in the face
> of the facts. Here's a particularly amusing example:
>
> ">That the Scherzo [in Dvorak] lacks some of the speed and obvious rhythmic
> >impulse coloring other versions only bears witness to Mengelberg's
> >choice to bring out, in all four movements, the songful grand line of the
> >whole symphony in pre-eminence to the dance elements. There is plenty
> >of recorded evidence that whenever Mengelberg wanted, he was able to
> >project rhythmic impetus to a thrilling effect."
>
> In other words, Mengelberg could have done it if he wanted to. But he didn't,
> which is exactly my point, and I think a singularly apt criticism when directed
> at a movement embodying, first and foremost, the rhythm and aesthetic of the
> dance. I never said Mengelberg was unable to project rhythmic impetus, merely
> that he does not do so here, where the music clearly requires it, and where the
> lack of same prevents precisely the "songful grand line" from manifesting itself
> properly. Nor is music a zero-sum game, as Samir would have us believe, where
> emphasis of one quality inherently entails supression of another. A great
> recording will, of course, have both invigorating rhythm AND the songful grand
> line, and as Mengelberg has one and not the other, as Samir concedes, his
> interpretation is deficient.
HEY, MISTER!!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!! I don't need you to come
and tell me that "rhythm does not exclude melody" or vice versa. I never
said that. I did say though that emphasis can be given to one or to
another and one does definitely not need David Hurwitz to come and to
decide which is essential. "Pure song" and "pure rhythm" do not exist, of
course, in Dvorak and Mengelberg gave *more emphasis* to what he thought
it deserved it. You can spit on his grave with all the force of your lungs
and with all the poison secreted by your overactive fingers: there is
nothing you can "prove".
> Or take this little quip:
>
> ">Characterizing masterfully conducted rubato as "tempos pulled about as
> >taffy" is not a fact, but a matter of taste and, possibly, of lack of
> >familiarity with 19-century based interpretive aesthetics.
>
> But my point is that the rubato is NOT masterfully conducted [more on
this point].
This belies NOTHING more than either difference of opinion or a priori
hostility or both. Do you really think your opinion is so authoritative
that once you have asserted: "MENGELBERG'S RUBATO IS NOT MASTERFULLY
CONDUCTED", even developing on the point ad nauseam, the stars will stop
on their orbit, and the Creation will murmur: "yes, David Hurwitz is right
-- Mengelberg was an inept rubato conductor". Believe so, if you wish.
> ">That the second time the introduction in Franck (i) is faster is a fact,
> >but it is nowhere engraved in stone that this entails it not being
> >"logically related" to the ensuing Allegro. Mengelberg's choice is related
> >to the more general interpretive aesthetics of the time which prescribe
> >that the interpreter is not supposed to play anything in the same way the
> >second time around, even if the composer did not give explicit indications
> >for interpretive variation.."
>
> As if Mengelberg cared. The reason the tempo is not logically related is because
> this relationship is specified in the score, it is mathematically proportional,
> and Mengelberg ruins it by taking the introduction too fast the second time
> around.
You have this obsession with mathematical proportions specified in the
scores. EVEN IF A COMPOSER SPECIFIES A TEMPO RELATION IN A SCORE, YOU
CANNOT COME AND SAY THAT THE CONDUCTOR X GOT IT "OBJECTIVELY" WRONG
BECAUSE HE DOESN'T READ THE SAME "mathematical proportion" IN THE SCORE.
IN THIS -- TELLING RMCR MEMBERS THAT YOU KNOW ALL THE "CORRECT" TEMPO
RELATIONSHIPS (you wrote something similar about Erich Kleiber getting
tempo relationships "wrong" in Beethoven in another "review") IN A SCORE
-- you are selling illusions with pretensions of scientific evidence.
Kleiber was "wrong", Mengelberg was "wrong", Furtwangler was "wrong", what
a luck David Hurwitz comes and enlightens everybody on what are the
"correct tempo relationships" in a score. I wonder why people in music
keep arguing about the "correct tempo relationships" if they are so
self-evident. Oh, but I bet that every music lover will find a
performance much more exciting or touching when they will be assured, by
David Hurwitz, that the recording got the "right" tempo relationships.
> How interesting that no other performance of the period commits this
> basic error.
Another example of Hurwitzian shining logic. Because nobody else does
something, it means that the one that did it was wrong.
> How even more interesting that Franck's score is perfectly clear
> with respect to the tempo in what is already an abreviated, rescored, varied
> repetition of the opening introduction. In other words, Franck provides his own
> variation, which is why he writes the whole thing out in the first place rather
> than signaling for a simple da capo.
There is no opposition nor exclusion between a composer assuring variety
through the composer's means, and the interpreter adding variety through
the interpreter's means.
> Has Mengelberg failed to notice this obvious application of Samir's
> basic rule of 19th century aesthetics? Evidently so.
It is evident in your dreams. Mengelberg should have known that David
Hurwitz thinks that compositional variety (what Schoenberg called
"developing variation" even within an exposition) somehow would forbid
the interpreter from adding some of his own, specific to concrete
music-making. Because Mengelberg did bring something different on an
interpretive level, Mengelberg would have failed (?) to notice the
compositional variety. Why? Because David Hurwitz believes so.
> When a composer writes out his own repeats in this fashion, carefully detailing
> changes in scoring, shortening passages, and specifying the tempo, he expects to
> be obeyed.
Really? Did you talk to Franck the other night? Your faith in the
omnipotence, completeness, and infallibleness of the score is too
ridiculous to deserve of comments. You would make for a great Newly-Born
Christian, believing he is the first one to read the Bible correctly.
> Why bother otherwise? Franck clearly thought it important enough to
> ask that the tempo be the same when the music of the introduction returns,
> even though that which is being played is in fact a variation.
Franck "clearly thought"? I see.....
> Samir may call Mengelberg's way "insight." I call it "bad conducting."
Call it whatever the borders of your musical universe lead you to call
it.
> there is
> absolutely no evidence that Mengelberg's decision to play the music this way
> resulted from a self-conscious desire to "not repeat without varying."
Nobody -- except for you -- needs courtroom evidence for that. I might
give Mengelberg a call and ask him to send you a signed and
authenticated piece of paper: "Mr Hurwitz, I confess, I screwed up the
formal structure revealed by you, and I used a fluctuating tempo to piss
off tuppence reviewers coached in the pauper "score, all the score and
nothing by the score"" 1960s mania.
> Samir's logic is circular:
> Mengelberg was great, therefore everything he does is great, and good, and
> justified by the tenets of 19th century aesthetics.
Well, your logic is circular too: David Hurwitz is the one who knows how
to read correctly the "minds" of the masters, David Hurwitz knows when an
interpretation is "wrong", therefore he knows that everything Mengelberg
does is small, and bad, and wrong, and unjustified by what the composers
had in their mind, mind which -- guess what? -- David Hurwitz knows how to
read correctly.
> The flaws that I point out are not imaginary, they are quite real.
Oh, sure. We are lucky to have one unsleeping mind to point them out.
> Samir simply refuses to acknowledge them as such, which of course is his
> privilege. Primitive man believed the earth was flat in the face of all
> evidence to the contrary, so I see no reason why Samir should be any
> different.
There are forms of self-sufficient, self-centered materialist vulgarity
in front of which "primitive man", with their "wrong", magical thinking,
have nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
In an older Gramophone issue I browsed by chance (and--I verified--it
is to be found on Gramophile), Richard Osborne comments on this very
performance:
<<<Another performance I greatly enjoyed, despite a slightly recessed
recording, is the 1941 account of Dvorak's New World Symphony. It is worth
recalling that when Mengelberg took over direction of the Concertgebouw
Orchestra in 1895, this symphony was barely a year old.
Yet here, within a few days of his 70th birthday, Mengelberg directs it
with a zest and lyricism that bring it up newly minted in a manner few
German-born conductors could emulate. The slow movement is played with a
great sense of longing, expressive but never maudlin, and [capitals mine
in what follows--SG ] IN THE SCHERZO, MENGELBERG ENSURES THAT THE MUSIC'S
STRONG DANCE IMPULSE ALSO EMBRACED THE SYMPHONY'S CONTINUING SONG. No
wonder Monteux admired Mengelberg in this repertory.>>>
N.B. I am NOT presenting Richard Osborne as an "ultimate authority". It is
only his opinion. I myself sometimes agree with his review, other times I
don't. The reasons I am quoting it are:
--to have another opinion known -- from somebody with in no way lesser
professional credentials than David Hurwitz
--because the sentence I used capitals for shows that there are a couple
of reviewers left who would be able to comprehend what I meant in an
(inadvertently) almost similar phrase.
regards,
SG
David7Gable
Samir,
While we're on the subject of Richard Osborne, go track down his review of the
CD reissue of Rosen's Late Beethoven set on Sony Essential Classics.
-david gable
David Hurwitz
>it, but I am a Klemperer fan. I also like Kertesz/VPO(Decca) for the New
>World.
>
>Rick Cavalla
>ra...@NO.erols.SPAM.com
>==============
>
Dave
David Hurwitz
>they *all* suck, because this so-called symphony is a phoney, sentimental,
>dreadful piece of junk music. No insult intended to any professional critics
>or other new-world bohemians.
>--
>Roland van Gaalen
>Amsterdam
Those were only the highlights.
Dave
JRsnfld
conductor
does not do damage to his credibility.>>
Such a weak endorsement? Can we do no better?
Let me see if I understand: The orchestra makes the sounds, and the orchestra
sounds different under different conductors, and sounds different in different
music, but not so different as to sound like a different orchestra.
Of course that's a truism: the sound an orchestra makes, no matter how it
sounds, is the orchestra's sound.
I hope that does no harm to my credibility. I hope it doesn't dissuade future
scholars from revisiting this question of what role a conductor might have in
the sound of a performance.
--Jeff
JRsnfld
Rosbaud for something quite different.>>
What Rosbaud Dvorak recording are you thinking of?
--Jeff
Brendan R. Wehrung
Mengelberg's is quite straightforward, rather like Toscanini's commercial
recording. Not his best effort. How is the live Toscanini in comparison
with the BMG?
Brendan
Simon Roberts
wrote:
>"Simon Roberts" (sd...@pobox.upenn.edu) writes:
>
>Mengelberg's is quite straightforward, rather like Toscanini's commercial
>recording. Not his best effort. How is the live Toscanini in comparison
>with the BMG?
Sounds more spontaneous/livelier/more exciting. I don't much care for the
BMG performance.
Simon
David7Gable
C'mon, Jeff, give me a break. (1) The sounds are literally produced by the
members of the orchestra. (2) Nevertheless, what they sound like is affected
to varying degrees by the conductor. Samir seemed to believe that Dave denied
the second of these two statements. But whatever Dave said in a give context,
I can only imagine that he would not deny (2).
-david gable
David7Gable
>vibrato, orchestral balances, precision, etc.
>
Pitch is a little different in that it depends on an objective fact about the
listener: how good his or her own ears are. If you can tell Tebaldi's
intonation is frequently a little suspect, much of her singing will seem
intolerable. And no singer who couldn't carry a tune could ever have had a
career, no matter how stunning the actual voice, although sheer voice is what
normally creates superstars.
-david gable
Edward A. Cowan
> So what are your favorite disparaging liner notes?
My (un)favorites are not really liner notes but whole books that came
with two boxed sets of LPs: the volumes accompanying vols.1 and 2 of
"The Record of Singing" (EMI) written by Michael Scott, who carefully
told purchasers of these LPs (ca. 25 LPs in all) the reasons why they
should not have bought these sets.
--
E.A.C.
samir golescu
On 14 Jun 2001, JRsnfld wrote:
> <<Therefore, his remark about sound not actually being produced by the
> conductor does not do damage to his credibility.>>
>
> Such a weak endorsement? Can we do no better?
>
> Let me see if I understand: The orchestra makes the sounds, and the orchestra
> sounds different under different conductors, and sounds different in different
> music, but not so different as to sound like a different orchestra.
Yes, but even this leaves place for important nuance. Two orchestras (at
a certain individual professional level of each member given) under
Stokowski will sound more Stokowski-like than "that generic
orchestra-like" and that even before the era of famous "recording
manipulations" Stokowski indulged now and then in. F.i. the Hollywood Bowl
S.O., in Stoki's 1945 mono recordings, sounds not identical but
recognizably close to the earlier Philadelphia masters. The orchestra's
participation in the sound production is evidently more important, more
"alive" than, say, the "participation" of a Stradivarius in the hands of a
master (what I mean, the conductor and the orchestra "meet" somewhere
half-way) but nevertheless saying that the sonority in a great recording
is "made by the orchestra" and the conductor has nothing to do with it is
silly.
> Of course that's a truism: the sound an orchestra makes, no matter how it
> sounds, is the orchestra's sound.
Of course, from a material point of view. And it is a truism, as you say.
The view on musical sonority in orchestral performance is, nowadays,
dangerously reduced to a materialist vulgate -- the sound is supposed to
be accurate, "properly" articulate according to stylistic received notions
etc. However, one has to remember the enormous weight the CONDUCTOR'S
"VOICE" bears on the very way any three sounds are connected
together in the music-making. "Conductor's voice? Is there such a thing?"
Yes, or at least it used to be. Wagner, in his little
'Uber das Dirigieren', talks at length about the conductor's duty to
*incorporate the "melos"* of the music and to translate it into orchestral
sonority according to quasi-vocal precepts. He also talks about how
difficult this is, and how Habeneck offered him a revelation in Paris,
when he [Wagner] heard for the first time Beethoven's Ninth with the melos
"played out".
A truly great conductor, even when his vocal organ is far from being that
of a Caruso or Gedda, possesses a strong "inner vocal propensity" and,
through the adequate expressive gesture, is able to communicate that
"voice" in every phrase he conducts, with differences pertaining to the
musical diversity of the compositions. This is what one CAN hear
particularly in most of the great conductors of the past's recordings. You
hear it even in the recordings of conductors who are not my daily bread --
like with Toscanini (quite beautiful at his best) or and (more constantly
but perhaps less appealing) with Karajan. Their "voice" is engraved in the
old or less old recordings, even when the recording itself has flaws. It
cannot be faked, it has little to do with sheer competence, and it gives
the lie to the arrogantly utilitarian point of view on the function of
interpreter -- "I pay him so he gives me a quality product and on a free
market I will choose the best polished product my money can buy". There
are plenty of abysmally trite recordings made by the best individual
professionals grouped in an orchestra, in the best recording venues, and
with conductors who are nothing less than competent.
There is something which I fancy as being *the* most debasing
attitude an "art appreciator" could assume: watching the history of art(s)
as a history of some thousands skilled but no special in any other
way people the only purpose of whom was to entertain ME, the 20th -- now
the 21st -- century consumer. In the day I will reveal in Myself like
an old (retarded) kid surrounded by a pile of recordings, feeling that by
owning them I do "own" music and I do "own" ultimate knowledge about
music, recordings which I shall treat as simple toys created for my
delight ("I'll play today with this puppet, it is so luscious, shiny, but,
what the heck, I'll throw in this other toy too"), in that sad day I will
give up listening to music altogether.
The mythology of "the consumer is entitled to the best" is today behind a
plethora of products, polished at surface, vapid in their substance, that
trick the pseudo-intellectual barbarians of our age, in a way not
different from the natives from different continents being tricked in the
past with shining cheap jewelry.
regards,
SG
Frank Berger
JRsnfld wrote:
I thought we were discussing Mahler 4. I get confused easily. Sorry.
JRsnfld
> Rosbaud for something quite different.>>>>
<<>
> What Rosbaud Dvorak recording are you thinking of?
>>>
<<I thought we were discussing Mahler 4. I get confused easily. Sorry.
>>
Easy mistake to make. When Mengelberg comes up, Mahler 4 comes to mind
immediately. I know many people who diss Mengelberg's Mahler 4; a critic could
easily make a (unsavory) name for himself by dissing Rosbaud's--but to diss
both would be a surprise.
--Jeff
David Hurwitz
>
>David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef
> op 13 Jun 2001 15:26:38 -0700:
>
>> (Long list)
>
>> Versions that pretty much suck:
>>
>> Karajan (EMI or DG)
>> Mengelberg
>> Abbado (DG)
>
>Pleasantly surpised that you mentioned Keilberth's recording among
>your favourites.
>
>What does the learned panel think of Ormandy's 1976 (?) recording on
>RCA?
>
An excellent "slow" version. The largo is absolutely gorgeous, and the scherzo
has an amazing transparency and balance between strings and winds at all dynamic
levels. Let's face it, there are a huge number of really good recordings of this
music.
Dave
>Eltjo Meijer
>4m4ij4r#w4b.d4
>(4 = e, replace #)
JRsnfld
I give you a break, David, since I was only half serious with that post. I know
that Dave has, separately, endorsed (2) on occasion, even after seemingly
having argued against it.
I think what Samir is reacting to, quite rightly, is that some posts (not
necessarily Dave's) state (1) but don't add (2).
Posting (1) by itself contributes little to a discussion about conductors and
orchestras, because it is a truism. It is perhaps a condescending thing to do.
It's far below Dave's (and Samir's) usual level of discourse.
As Samir points out, to say (1) without (2) is terribly trite. (1) doesn't
require a ringing endorsement; the question is (always) whether someone really
understands (2).
By contrast, if someone states (2), it should be obvious that he understands
(1). One shouldn't lambaste a writer simply because he argues the merits of (2)
and leaves out the obvious (1).
--Jeff
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>In an older Gramophone issue I browsed by chance (and--I verified--it
>is to be found on Gramophile), Richard Osborne comments on this very
And they say that POLITICS makes strange bedfellows! Really, I'm SO glad that
you and Richard agree on this point, and I'm delighted to know where you get
your opinions. Unconsciously, of course.
Dave
samir golescu
On 14 Jun 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >In an older Gramophone issue I browsed by chance (and--I verified--it
> >is to be found on Gramophile), Richard Osborne comments on this very
> >performance [snip]
>
> And they say that POLITICS makes strange bedfellows! Really, I'm SO glad that
> you and Richard agree on this point, and I'm delighted to know where you get
> your opinions. Unconsciously, of course.
It took you so long to come with this sorry piece of impotent wit, like
the happy hen from an Aleichem story which made a lot of noise and then
produced a microscopic egg.
P.S. I do not have unconditional respect for Osborne's reviews, but he
does know some music beyond numbers, and his writing style, while
occasionally precious, does not give the impression of a deserted
landscape, which not even all the manure produced at your website could
save from sterility.