WHAT ABOUT HARNONCOURT?
LUIS ALBERTO BERMEJO ASENSIO
I've read your opinions about Roger Norrington. There are people who
hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
Harnoncourt because I have some performances of him Haendel oratorios.
The first thing taht I heard was the mozart requiem and I think that is
superb. Also I've heard his Beethoven Missa Solemnis and I' think that
is good,..... well better than Gardiner's because this one is
inaudible..... it's too much boring for me,.... too dense and heavy I
can't hear its structure and the texture of the instruments and
voices....
LUIS
TENERIFE
CANARY ISLANDS
Simon Roberts
: HELLO I'M LUIS AGAIN....
I'm occasionally a bit disappointed by him, but overall he strikes me as
being one of the most consistently interesting, imaginative conductors
around, regardless of whether he's conducting period or modern orchestras
(though I usually prefer him in the former). For instance, he's one of
the few living conductors who realize that there's more to Mozart than
cutesy-poo charm and who are willing to bring out the drama in his music;
once you hear his Concertgebouw recordings of symphonies 25, 38, 39 and
40, and provided you're receptive, almost anything else can seem
frightfully bland. I won't list favorite recordings; were I to try that I
would be here for hours....
Simon
Jeremy Dimmick
news:37965090...@arrakis.es...
> HELLO I'M LUIS AGAIN....
>
> I've read your opinions about Roger Norrington. There are people who
> hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
> Harnoncourt because I have some performances of him Haendel oratorios.
> The first thing taht I heard was the mozart requiem and I think that is
> superb. Also I've heard his Beethoven Missa Solemnis and I' think that
> is good,..... well better than Gardiner's because this one is
> inaudible..... it's too much boring for me,.... too dense and heavy I
> can't hear its structure and the texture of the instruments and
> voices....
>
> TENERIFE
> CANARY ISLANDS
>
What I know best of Harnoncourt is his Beethoven symphony cycle, of which I
have all but the Ninth. Initially I was bowled over by it; now I find it
very patchy. There are still revelatory things - I feel I only started to
understand how the introduction to the first movement of the Second works
when I listened to this recording, and almost every symphony has at least an
individual movement that's just outstanding. But he keeps insisting on
nudging me in the ribs saying 'look at me do *this* to the phrasing, wow,
bet you never heard that before', so that from time to time I'm only
listening to the conductor, not the music. And that won't do. But I do
feel that he's a musician first, a scholar and ideologue second, and I'm not
sure that's true of Roger Norrington.
In the Missa Solemnis I prefer Gardner's soloists and choir to
Harnoncourt's, but I find some of JEG's tempi tiresome, and there's a
superficiality about his direction, a lack of true structural command or
intellectual seriousness (much mitigated by the quality of the singing and
playing) that seems deeply 'inauthentic' to me. I love the orchestral
sonorities at the opening of his Sanctus, though. It's true that it's not
ideally recorded; it works best in the sparer parts. When I was auditioning
new amps last year I was struck by the loss of focus in tuttis; it nearly
(but thankfully only nearly) put me off my Arcams.
As a performance of the Missa Solemnis, I don't think I've heard better than
Haitink at the Proms in London a couple of years ago. That really was
magnetic.
jd
Tony Movshon
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) writes:
> LUIS ALBERTO BERMEJO ASENSIO (kal...@arrakis.es) wrote:
> : hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
>
> I'm occasionally a bit disappointed by him, but overall he strikes me as
> being one of the most consistently interesting, imaginative conductors
> around, regardless of whether he's conducting period or modern orchestras
> (though I usually prefer him in the former). For instance, he's one of
> the few living conductors who realize that there's more to Mozart than
> cutesy-poo charm and who are willing to bring out the drama in his music;
> once you hear his Concertgebouw recordings of symphonies 25, 38, 39 and
> 40, and provided you're receptive, almost anything else can seem
> frightfully bland. I won't list favorite recordings; were I to try that I
> would be here for hours....
There's a very peculiar thing about Harnoncourt. As Simon says, he can
and does play Mozart and Haydn like the powerful and dramatic composers
that they were, pulling no punches, with potent brass and drums,
emphatic phrasing, and strong dynamic contrasts. But when you let him
loose on the 19th century, he develops a terminal case of reverent
pussyfooting. His Brahms cycle is a small-scaled and underplayed affair,
with everything seemingly held back in the big moments; his Bruckner 3
and 4 are not dissimilar; seemingly his Dvorak 7 is cut from the same
cloth (I've only heard part of it). Why can't he let loose with that
music the way he does with everyone up to Beethoven?
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Matthew B. Tepper
--
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?"
Paul Kintzele
Jeremy Dimmick wrote:
>
> In the Missa Solemnis I prefer Gardner's soloists and choir to
> Harnoncourt's,
Interesting. To these ears Harnoncourt has the more interesting and
more engaged soloists. Compare Robert Holl to Alistair Miles at the
beginning of the Agnus Dei, for example, or the singing leading up to
the war drums (Harnoncourt's derives from a live performance, which
might account for the greater emotional involvement). That said, I
still think that Gardiner's Kyrie is stunning--very different from (and
for me, preferable to) Harnoncourt's gentler way of easing into the
piece. But Harnoncourt seems to gain momentum in the later movements,
whereas Gardiner seems to lose it.
Paul
vbat...@my-deja.com
who
> hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
> LUIS
> TENERIFE
> CANARY ISLANDS
Although one ought to be tolerant and democratic in matters of musical
judgment, I find it difficult to understand how so many music lovers
can take seriously the "authentic" conducting gang - people whose ideas
about music verge on the esthetic of small appliance manufacturing:
neat, cheap, inoffensive and accessible in operation even to those who
can't read the instructions.
Vadim.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Florian Eichhorn
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> LUIS ALBERTO BERMEJO ASENSIO (kal...@arrakis.es) wrote:
> : HELLO I'M LUIS AGAIN....
>
> : I've read your opinions about Roger Norrington. There are people who
> : hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
> : Harnoncourt because I have some performances of him Haendel oratorios.
> : The first thing taht I heard was the mozart requiem and I think that is
> : superb. Also I've heard his Beethoven Missa Solemnis and I' think that
> : is good,..... well better than Gardiner's because this one is
> : inaudible..... it's too much boring for me,.... too dense and heavy I
> : can't hear its structure and the texture of the instruments and
> : voices....
>
> I'm occasionally a bit disappointed by him, but overall he strikes me as
> being one of the most consistently interesting, imaginative conductors
> around, regardless of whether he's conducting period or modern orchestras
> (though I usually prefer him in the former). For instance, he's one of
> the few living conductors who realize that there's more to Mozart than
> cutesy-poo charm and who are willing to bring out the drama in his music;
> once you hear his Concertgebouw recordings of symphonies 25, 38, 39 and
> 40, and provided you're receptive, almost anything else can seem
> frightfully bland. I won't list favorite recordings; were I to try that I
> would be here for hours....
>
> Simon
A man with merits, which can be hardly summed up. He and the
Leonhardt circle, they caused almost all of HIP movement. Everybody
with an interest in pre 19th century music should read his collected
articles, especially on musical language and rhetorics.
While he has deep insights into dramatic, emotional and metric values
of music - he has his obsessions, too. And for them, he disregards the
notes - for sake of dramatic honesty, he would claim, I think.
Sometimes it is unidiomatic, what he does with certain pieces of music.
His Missa Solemnis is top, his Mozart is the best one on modern
measured instruments,his Mozart operas very valuable, he does a lot
for Schubert - but in case of Handel, he often misses the point.
Handel (me biig fan...) is still underrated, and misunderstood. What
is so appealing, beside his deep knowings about human emotions, the
shear musical power (he does not need brass&timpani for that, he is
similiar like Beethoven, it is just in the score), and his humour,
this is his elegance, especially in the dance-like movements. And this
what I mostly miss with Harnoncourts Handel. In fact, there is few I
like, when recalling: op. 3 is striking, the best?, Daphne cantata
with Roberta Alexander beautifull.
What I also dislike, is the overstressed insisting on the metrum, what
Harnoncourt often did with his Bach cantatas. And did with Handel. His
watermusic is really "not the yellow of the egg" (german proverb).
Dont buy Harnoncours op. 6, avoid his Ode for St. Cecilias day (a key
work for Handels musical thought, full of power and inspiration, the
topos "pow'r of music" is really the center of this piece) -
Harnoncourts treatment of the tempo does quite some harm to the work.
Do not like his Handel operas, not his other oratorios - except may be
his Jephta. Even that has some problematic parts.
Recently he did Schumann, impressive results, a friend told me.
Now just waiting for his Jacques Offenbach.
Florian
:-D This is a 100% Apple Macintosh™ processed message.
Simon Roberts
: Although one ought to be tolerant and democratic in matters of musical
: judgment, I find it difficult to understand how so many music lovers
: can take seriously the "authentic" conducting gang - people whose ideas
: about music verge on the esthetic of small appliance manufacturing:
: neat, cheap, inoffensive and accessible in operation even to those who
: can't read the instructions.
What Harnoncourt have you heard? You don't have to like him, of course,
but whatever else they may be, his recordings of music by Beethoven and
earlier composers is anything but "neat ... inoffensive and accessible."
As for "cheap", I have no idea what that means in this context.
Simon
Marc Perman
>LUIS ALBERTO BERMEJO ASENSIO <kal...@arrakis.es> wrote in message
>news:37965090...@arrakis.es...
>> HELLO I'M LUIS AGAIN....
>>
>> I've read your opinions about Roger Norrington. There are people who
>> hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
>> Harnoncourt because I have some performances of him Haendel oratorios.
>> The first thing taht I heard was the mozart requiem and I think that is
>> superb. Also I've heard his Beethoven Missa Solemnis and I' think that
>> is good,..... well better than Gardiner's because this one is
>> inaudible..... it's too much boring for me,.... too dense and heavy I
>> can't hear its structure and the texture of the instruments and
>> voices....
>>
>> LUIS
>> TENERIFE
>> CANARY ISLANDS
>>
>
>What I know best of Harnoncourt is his Beethoven symphony cycle, of which I
>have all but the Ninth. Initially I was bowled over by it; now I find it
>very patchy. There are still revelatory things - I feel I only started to
>understand how the introduction to the first movement of the Second works
>when I listened to this recording, and almost every symphony has at least an
>individual movement that's just outstanding. But he keeps insisting on
>nudging me in the ribs saying 'look at me do *this* to the phrasing, wow,
>bet you never heard that before', so that from time to time I'm only
>listening to the conductor, not the music. And that won't do. But I do
>feel that he's a musician first, a scholar and ideologue second, and I'm not
>sure that's true of Roger Norrington.
>
Someone posted something similar about Gardiner's Schumann cycle,
which comments there as here struck me as inapt. Harnoncourt's
Beethoven, hard tympani sticks and valveless horns aside, is in fact a
mainstream, solidly recommendable cycle. It differs from much of his
work with earlier conductors in not being particularly idiosyncratic
or unorthodox. I would rank his Pastorale along with Walter's, my
favorite 6th, and his Eroica among my favorites as well. The Chamber
Orchestra of Europe is a superb ensemble and obviously responded well
to Harnoncourt.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a rehearsal by these
forces in NY when they performed the Beethoven cycle at Carnegie Hall.
Harnoncourt turned the rehearsal into an event for the small audience,
Lenny style, showing a great generosity of heart.
Marc Perman
John Carter
and he starts to reinterpret in rather a wilful fashion. even at hisworst
he is far better than Norrington or Goodman but I also have great
reservations now about HIP performances in general beyond the baroque. I
think that it is a fashion to extend this into the traditional classical
orchestra and a fad to extend it into the romantic. I feel that both are
wrong. modern instruments are far better and more reliable. It is the
direction of the orchestra that counts , not how out of tune the instruments
often are. Harnoncourt's band is far better than most but I suspect the
record companies are pushing him into later repertoire because of what they
see as a shortageof established name conductors there , and a market
interest in HIP performances.
I do not see the point of developing the modern symphony orchestra and its
tools for two hundred years to throw it out with the bathwater. In a way
Harnoncourt's later repertoire performances are "Baroque" in the true sense
with over emphasis on ornate detail rather than a "classical" overview of
the works. John Carter Barsoom.
Simon Roberts <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:7n60ob$6g1$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Dimitris Fotiadis
Marc Perman wrote:
> Someone posted something similar about Gardiner's Schumann cycle,
> which comments there as here struck me as inapt. Harnoncourt's
> Beethoven, hard tympani sticks and valveless horns aside, is in fact a
> mainstream, solidly recommendable cycle. It differs from much of his
> work with earlier conductors in not being particularly idiosyncratic
> or unorthodox. I would rank his Pastorale along with Walter's, my
> favorite 6th, and his Eroica among my favorites as well. The Chamber
> Orchestra of Europe is a superb ensemble and obviously responded well
> to Harnoncourt.
>
> A few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a rehearsal by these
> forces in NY when they performed the Beethoven cycle at Carnegie Hall.
> Harnoncourt turned the rehearsal into an event for the small audience,
> Lenny style, showing a great generosity of heart.
>
> Marc Perman
I will agree in most cases with Marc.
I also know of Harnonocourt from his full Beethoven cycle and I dare say he's
very good in most of the symphonies. He never pushes tempi too much, he uses
timpani in a unique manner (see for example the end of his Eroica at about 12'..)
and it seems overall a *natural* interpretation, I would say unforced.
His sense of long-line Beethoven is attracting to me (his 7th and 8th state this
clearly). His Pastoral although a little *loose* in the beginning, it just
impressed me towards the end.(...and I find his thunder intense enough for the
occasion).
Apart from all these praises I would stand also on the *minor* symphonies -let's
say of the 1,2,4- where he presents very balanced perfomances.
Therefore, my overall impression of Harnonocourt is of a very fine musician. A
man with a unique view on music, adapting always to the specific historical
context, keeping although a sound of a modern orchestra (which is preferable to
me)
Dimitris Fotiadis
El Eng AUTH
Thessaloniki
Greece
Vadim Batitsky
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
> What Harnoncourt have you heard? You don't have to like him, of
course,
> but whatever else they may be, his recordings of music by Beethoven
and
> earlier composers is anything but "neat ... inoffensive and
accessible."
> As for "cheap", I have no idea what that means in this context.
>
> Simon
I've heard virtually all of Harnocourt, from Bach to Bruckner. His
perky, small-band, fastish Beethoven, and his Concertgebouw
Haydn/Mozart is what I disliked most: everything he does there strikes
me as contrived (much as Michelangeli's playing of Chopin in a way). I
tried, but failed to find any motivation behind his interpretative
gestures beyond the desire to sound "different". Again, one doesn't
have to be a Furtwangler fan (which I admittedly am) in
Mozart/Beethoven to feel this way. Szell's Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven, for
all his meticulousness and control bordering on freakish, sound vastly
more justified than any of Harnocourt efforts.
As for "cheap", I meant that little (if any) investment is needed to
receive the immediate gratification of "difference" in "authentic"
sound/interpretations.
Alex Leach
absolutely superb. Not too keen on the Schumann cycle, and I haven't turned
to the Beethoven cycle for a year or so. Some of the RCO Mozart symphonies
are excellent also IMHO.
alex
--
alex....@bradford.gov.uk
Jeroen smits
> d his Concertgebouw
> Haydn/Mozart is what I disliked most: everything he does there strikes
> me as contrived (much as Michelangeli's playing of Chopin in a way).
> Vadim.
Couldn't agree more. These are pedantic performances with exaggerated
contrasts and too deliberately played. But I wouldn't use these
performances as an argument against authentic performances. He can hardly
be labeled authentic in the period he recorded these symphonies, around the
same time as his performances of Monteverdi with an eighteenth century
orchestra! Actually, I think the recordings from the time he was still
striving for authenticity are his best (by the way, this is not a defense
for the entire HIP movement. I love Furtwängler as well and am not
particularly in favour of or against HIP. I just think H's early recordings
are better). His phrasing still very natural and only flawed by the
imperfect instrumental playing and out of tune boy sopranos. But the
recordings after the mid seventies I find hard to bear. His second
recordings of the Monteverdi opera's from the late seventies are a good
example of his deterioration: very thick orchestration, wobbly voices and
no clarity at all, exaggerating everything as if he's trying to make it
clear even to the deaf. His recording from the late eighties of the Vespers
is possibly even worse.
I cherish his early Bach and Monteverdi recordings, but I avoid anything he
did the last two decades.
Jeroen Smits
Simon Roberts
: I've heard virtually all of Harnocourt, from Bach to Bruckner. His
: perky,
"perky"? What I found odd about your previous post was "neat ...
inoffensive and accessible"; and the reason I found it odd is that most of
his detractors find his conducting aggressive, abrasive, "exaggerated,"
brutal, etc. -- none of which qualities is compatible with neatness,
inoffensiveness and, perhaps, accessibility.
small-band, fastish Beethoven, and his Concertgebouw
: Haydn/Mozart is what I disliked most: everything he does there strikes
: me as contrived (much as Michelangeli's playing of Chopin in a way). I
: tried, but failed to find any motivation behind his interpretative
: gestures beyond the desire to sound "different".
If you find the musical results satisfying or not, why do you care about
an interpreters "motivation"? And if you do, if all you can come up with
is a desire to sound "different," I don't think you're trying very hard!
(Not that you have to, but then again you brought this strange topic up.)
Again, one doesn't
: have to be a Furtwangler fan (which I admittedly am) in
: Mozart/Beethoven to feel this way. Szell's Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven, for
: all his meticulousness and control bordering on freakish, sound vastly
: more justified than any of Harnocourt efforts.
What does "more justified" mean? To me Szell sounds merely conventional
most of the time; neat and clean and pretty empty.
: As for "cheap", I meant that little (if any) investment is needed to
: receive the immediate gratification of "difference" in "authentic"
: sound/interpretations.
One could reply that (a) given your dislike of what HIPsters do, and your
characterization of Harnoncourt's motives as merely wanting to sound
different, that perhaps rather more "investment" (if I know what you mean)
is required than you seem to think; and (b) that little (if any)
investment is required to appreciate Furtwaengler; while noting (c) that
it's possible -- as I do -- to admire both Harnoncourt and
Furtwaengler....
Simon
Tony Movshon
Vadim Batitsky <vbat...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I've heard virtually all of Harnocourt, from Bach to Bruckner.
> strikes me as contrived (much as Michelangeli's playing of Chopin in a
> way).
High praise! But while Harnoncourt's Mozart and Haydn are certainly
good. But probably not as good as Michelangeli's Chopin.
Simon Roberts
: I think it took the man 25 years to realize he really belongs to the Romantic
: repertoire and has no business to do with Mozart or Haydn.
: I enjoyed his Beethoven, Brahms and Schumann. He seems to have a certain
: flair for theater also (I especially love his Monteverdi and Freischuetz);
: I'd be curious to hear how he does in Wagner...
Hmmm. As Tony suggested earlier, I think he finds the romanticism in
Mozart and Haydn (and earlier) that usually gets omitted, and tends to
omit it from "romantic" music; thus I tend to like his performances of the
former more than his performances of the latter.
Simon
Keith Benson
away anything.
Anyone can enjoy a whole spectrum of performance styles if one so wishes.
Exclusivity in listening seem to me to be a form of sel-denial.
Harnoncourt switched me on (this is many years ago) to the music of Bach and
Monteverdi.
So I will always be grateful for that.
ManrayHawk
I won't make any general remarks about Harnoncourt, for whom I generally have
little use, but I must say his recording of Rameau's Castor et Pollux is
stunning. If you wonder where all the weird rhetoric in his performances of
other music comes from, it's from the French high baroque. It suits Rameau to
a T.
-david gable
gggg gggg
> HELLO I'M LUIS AGAIN....
> I've read your opinions about Roger Norrington. There are people who
> hate and people who love him. Now I ask your opinion about Nikolaus
> Harnoncourt because I have some performances of him Haendel oratorios.
> The first thing taht I heard was the mozart requiem and I think that is
> superb. Also I've heard his Beethoven Missa Solemnis and I' think that
> is good,..... well better than Gardiner's because this one is
> inaudible..... it's too much boring for me,.... too dense and heavy I
> can't hear its structure and the texture of the instruments and
> voices....
> LUIS
> TENERIFE
> CANARY ISLANDS
Review: The Art of Nikolaus Harnoncourt Indeed!