Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2nd
MarkZimmerman
a 10/10 rating. Just wondering if anyone has heard this and how you would rate
it or what comments you would make on it. I already have Rattle's and Gielen's
versions and am more than happy with those 2, howvever if this were
sufficiently different I could see myself doing it.
Best,
Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago
Simon Roberts
I pretty much agree with him (as do friends of mine who kept pestering me
to buy it). I don't care for Natalie Stutzmann, and prefer a touch more
vehemence in i (such as Solti's recordings convey), and there are a couple
of places where I wish all concerned would let rip a bit more, but in most
respects this strikes me as an exemplary performance. I much prefer it to
Rattle's, though if you've imprinted on Rattle's quirks you may find Ozawa
a bit plain (Ozawa's never seems to be trying to be *different,* is never
eccentric or weird). I've only listened to Gielen's once, so I'm probably
not in a position to compare them, but if my memory is right Ozawa's
tauter, quicker and more gripping in the first movement.
Simon
Ratwood19
there is no way I would ever part with my good money on the off chance that he
could actually hack his way through a Mahler symphony.
Only now, with this new season, is he finally no longer holding the Boston
Symphony hostage. Buy one of his recordings at this point? Hilarious idea.
I can't imagine that after decades of low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired work
he can suddenly rate a 10/10 at Classics Today. I'd sooner believe that Jackie
Collins could win a Pulizer.
Stick a fork in him. He's done.
Kalman Rubinson
>I can't imagine that after decades of low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired work...
I don't like him either but I certainly would not characterise his
Mahler as low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired.....
I find it wayward, perverse and annoying.
Kal
Matthew Silverstein
I agree with David and Simon--this is an excellent performance, though there
may be one or two that I prefer (Bernstein I, and perhaps Mehta I). The
playing and recording are superb throughout (the trombones are especially
powerful), and Ozawa's interpretation--while relatively straightforward,
compared to Bernstein--is quite taut and exciting (much more so than Gielen,
who--in my opinion--lowers the tension at all the wrong moments--the build-up
to the first movement development's climax, for example). Natalie Stutzmann is
a bit too earth-motherish for Urlicht, but that may be my only real complaint.
I enjoy Rattle's recording (especially the finale), though some of the quirks
in the first movement that bother Simon also bother me. If you're looking for
an Apollonian-ish but exciting recording is spectacular sound, Ozawa is the
way to go.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> eccentric or weird). I've only listened to Gielen's once, so I'm probably
> not in a position to compare them, but if my memory is right Ozawa's
> tauter, quicker and more gripping in the first movement.
And everywhere else. The only movement in which I prefer Gielen is the fourth
(where his soloist is superb--miles better than Stutzmann.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> I don't like him either but I certainly would not characterise his
> Mahler as low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired.....
>
> I find it wayward, perverse and annoying.
Have you heard the recent Mahler 2 on Sony. It is none of those things, at
least to my ears.
Matty
P.S. Anyone heard Slatkin's Mahler 2 on Telarc? I've never really heard a
Slatkin recording that I like, but I heard snippets of this recording in a
store and was thoroughly impressed.
Kalman Rubinson
<msil...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Kal wrote:
>
>> I don't like him either but I certainly would not characterise his
>> Mahler as low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired.....
>>
>> I find it wayward, perverse and annoying.
>
>Have you heard the recent Mahler 2 on Sony. It is none of those things, at
>least to my ears.
Nope. Hard to get the motivation to do so but mebbe.........
Kal
MIFrost
Solti/Chicago and the Klemp/BRSO, I can safely assume I don't "need" the
Ozawa. I'm long past running out of shelf space.
MIFrost
Matthew Silverstein <msil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:EySd9.156$PD3....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> I agree with David and Simon--this is an excellent performance, though
there
> may be one or two that I prefer (Bernstein I, and perhaps Mehta I). >
> Matty
>
>
>
horizon
"Kalman Rubinson" <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:n2sfnu4frvtpv4dhe...@4ax.com...
Not me. I wish I had heard a perverse Ozawa recording, but they typically
strike me as often competently executed and interpretatively vapid. I'm
sure that David is correct about the merits of this performance, assuming
there's a market for yet another apollonian Mahler 2. Kind of reminds me of
Tolstoy's opening of Anna Karenina (and I'm going from memory here) --
"Happy families are all alike." Give me Lenny's willfull approach any
day...
Matt C
horizon
"Matthew Silverstein" <msil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:EySd9.156$PD3....@news.itd.umich.edu...
quirks
> in the first movement that bother Simon also bother me. If you're looking
for
> an Apollonian-ish but exciting recording is spectacular sound, Ozawa is
the
> way to go.
It's that horse race thing again. I recently heard the Rattle and love the
stylish playing and quirks. Hell, I wish Rattle would take more risks with
music, not less.
Matt C
Matthew Silverstein
> Ahhh .... Thank you for that comment. Since I have these two plus the
> Solti/Chicago and the Klemp/BRSO, I can safely assume I don't "need" the
> Ozawa. I'm long past running out of shelf space.
I can't stand the sound on either Solti/CSO or Klemperer/BRSO (absurdly loud
soloists during the finale). I don't really understand the fuss about the
Klemperer performance either (though the third movement is wonderfully done) .
. .
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Not me. I wish I had heard a perverse Ozawa recording, but they typically
> strike me as often competently executed and interpretatively vapid.
His new Mahler 2 does not sound at all vapid (at least to my ears), though
he's not nearly as willful as Bernstein . . .
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> It's that horse race thing again. I recently heard the Rattle and love the
> stylish playing and quirks. Hell, I wish Rattle would take more risks with
> music, not less.
My problem with Rattle is not that he takes risks (I love "risky"
Mahler--Bernstein I is my favorite recording of Mahler 2); my problem is
that--to these ears--Rattle's risks fail miserably. To mention just one (that
Simon also complains about), his account of the last few bars of the first
movement is bizarre--way too slow and mushy. (Bernstein I is perfect
here--loud and fast, with a satisfying kettledrum whack on the final note of
that falling-down-the-stairs bit.)
A few other annoying features of Rattle's recording: his mushy opening of the
first movement, the nearly inaudible ruthe (or whatever it's called) in the
third movement, the characterless playing of the cellos (compared to, say,
Mehta I) in the center of the slow movement, the soggy final chord of the
finale . . . . Of course, there are also many things I love about Rattle's
recording (most of them in the finale).
Matty
Fabulutz
recording it.
:-)
-Kevbo
Sacqueboutier
msil...@umich.edu wrote on 9/5/02 9:20 PM:
> Kal wrote:
>
>> I don't like him either but I certainly would not characterise his
>> Mahler as low-voltage, pedestrian, uninspired.....
>>
>> I find it wayward, perverse and annoying.
>
> Have you heard the recent Mahler 2 on Sony. It is none of those things, at
> least to my ears.
>
> Matty
>
> P.S. Anyone heard Slatkin's Mahler 2 on Telarc?
Yes. Don't go there. It's pretty much like every other Slatkin recording
you've heard.
--
Don Patterson
DCP Music Printing
Professional Music Copy
and Arrangements
don...@olg.com
"Sometimes I wonder. We are told that the little things
in life are what make life worth living. Then we are
told, "Don't sweat the small stuff". Does this mean that
if the little things in life don't happen, and we don't
'sweat it', life is not worth living?"
Simon Roberts
If you're in New York, pay a visit to Academy; they've had lots of
copies of it since it was released, and the price keeps going down. I
finally gave in to the Movshon/Silverstein et al. pressure when it
dropped below $10....
Simon
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
> Methinks I'll wait until San Francisco Symphony/MTT get around to
>recording it.
Yup. His 6 is one of my favorites but 1 only OK. The quality of the
recordings is remarkable, though.
Kal
Kalman Rubinson
<sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
>"Kalman Rubinson" <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>> Nope. Hard to get the motivation to do so but mebbe.........
>
>If you're in New York, pay a visit to Academy; they've had lots of
>copies of it since it was released, and the price keeps going down. I
>finally gave in to the Movshon/Silverstein et al. pressure when it
>dropped below $10....
Mebbe I'll just borrow Tony's in return for my audio consultations.
;-)
Kal
Paul Kintzele
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> (Bernstein I is perfect
> here--loud and fast, with a satisfying kettledrum whack on the final note of
> that falling-down-the-stairs bit.)
The way it's played here, it's more like falling out the window.... Very
startling and effective.
A brief word about Slatkin: he did make some good recordings--the
Rachmaninov symphonies (cheap on Vox) and the EMI Barber disc, for
example. But I agree, he can be lethally bland quite often.
Paul
JRsnfld
copies of it since it was released, and the price keeps going down. I
finally gave in to the Movshon/Silverstein et al. pressure when it
dropped below $10... >>
I also buckled in to the little voices in my head when it dropped below $10. I
find Gielen more interesting in places, but Ozawa's M2 is darn good, very
exciting, with superb sound and playing. Nor was I all that surprised--his M9
with the Saito Kinen Orchestra in concert a couple of years ago was equally
good. I think he benefits from having an orchestra truly committed to
him--perhaps the BSO had gotten tired of Ozawa and didn't produce good Mahler
for him later on. But I will attest to a fine Ozawa/BSO Mahler 5 in Washington
DC a number of years ago. He's much better than adequate in this music, with
the right players.
--Jeff
Ratwood19
>him
An interesting theory, but in that BSO relationship I don't think the lack of
commitment came from the orchestra.
>He's much better than adequate in this music, with
>the right players.
You are very uncharitable to the BSO. They play beautifully for many other
conductors and not for Ozawa. It is interesting that you prefer to blame the
orchestra and not Ozawa. If he can lead a group for decades and still fail to
manage decent performances, I think that says much more about him than them.
Especially if other conductors like Haitink, Rattle, and Levine (to name but
three) can make them magnificent.
Rationalize Ozawa's appeal to you all you want, but I think your logic is
backward with this particular argument.
Ratwood19
>Solti/Chicago and the Klemp/BRSO, I can safely assume I don't "need" the
>Ozawa. I'm long past running out of shelf space.
Indeed. And this brings up another concern about the inflation of ratings. I
think Classics Today is a great website -- I read it frequently and have
directed friends there --- but I have noticed some peculiarity in the way the
actual text of the reviews for those 10/10 recordings map to the rating
numbers.
For me, 10/10 denotes perfection. Now, maybe that's not how David Hurwitz views
it, but if that's the case then I'd enjoy an explanation of the rating system.
This is because when I read the 10/10 reviews there is often a mention of
problems with the recorded sound or the performance that the reviewer ends up
glossing over in order to award that 10/10 rating.
Regarding Ozawa's most recent Mahler 2nd, I would think that *any* recording of
the 2nd that wins a 10/10 would be a "must have" for any Mahlerian. My sense
of Ozawa (and my love for Mahler) has taught me that in no way could any 2nd
from him rate a place on the shelf next to the Bernstein/NYP, Solti/LSO (which
I much prefer to the Chicago remake), Rattle, Klemp, Walter, Mehta and
Sinopoli. If Ozawa now comes along and earns a 10/10, then what does that say
of these performances? There is a tremendous glut of great, average, and
substandard Mahler 2nds available, especially when you consider those currently
in the catalog and those out of print but available in used-CD stores. Are we
to really think that amongst all those candidates, great and small, that this
new Ozawa truly rates a stupendous 10/10 -- that he goes to the head of the
class? I really have to chuckle at the thought of it. In fact to me it's a
downright absurd proposition.
Granted, I am in a tough position because I haven't actually *heard* this new
Ozawa 2nd. (Blush.) And there is no way I will, unless I somehow obtain a copy
for free or happen upon a listening station at a store (both unlikely.) Still,
given Ozawa's horrible track record in recordings and live performances, I hope
I'll be allowed my skepticism for the sake of debate. I mean, come on. Any
10/10 recording should be an *event*. We should be salivating at the thought of
obtaining it.
There is much talk of grade inflation in the schools. I worry that some
classical critics might be getting carried away as well. It is one thing to
promote the industry but I hope we're not getting into too much hype for the
sake of attracting readers and listeners.
Ray Hall
For me, I find the Klemperer first movement quite exceptional in it's
intensity. Pity that the other movements don't really match the opening. The
Mehta/VPO is fairly satisfactory to my ears, but essentially, it doesn't do
much for me.
I still believe the Walter recordings of the 1st coupled to the 2nd on a CBS
Maestro twofer are unmatched (haven't heard the re-incarnation on the Walter
series), even by Kubelik (DG box), although I must listen to the Kubelik
more closely. The orchestra for Walter is given as the Col SO, with Emilia
Cundari and Maureen Forrester, and the Westminster College Choir, but I
believe it to be essentially the NYPO for the 2nd symphony.
The main drawback is that the sound is not exactly state of the art (but not
exactly bad either), but Walter's way with Mahler overcomes any drawback. I
haven't heard Ozawa, but there is no reason why he shouldn't produce a good
recording of the Resurrection.
Basically I am not convinced that anyone has surpassed Walter in the 2nd,
and the work has been over-recorded and done to death imo. One of the
reasons I cannot tolerate Rattle. Always has to jump on the bandwagon, and
should have had the sense to realise he ain't never going to effectively
challenge Walter. My 2c worth.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, as endorsed by El Toro de Taree
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 2/08/02
Simon Roberts
[snip]
>For me, 10/10 denotes perfection. Now, maybe that's not how David Hurwitz views
>it, but if that's the case then I'd enjoy an explanation of the rating system.
>This is because when I read the 10/10 reviews there is often a mention of
>problems with the recorded sound or the performance that the reviewer ends up
>glossing over in order to award that 10/10 rating.
You may not find it entirely satisfactory, but there's an explanation on
their website:
http://www.classicstoday.com/about1010.asp
>
>Regarding Ozawa's most recent Mahler 2nd, I would think that *any* recording of
>the 2nd that wins a 10/10 would be a "must have" for any Mahlerian. My sense
>of Ozawa (and my love for Mahler) has taught me that in no way could any 2nd
>from him rate a place on the shelf next to the Bernstein/NYP, Solti/LSO (which
>I much prefer to the Chicago remake), Rattle, Klemp, Walter, Mehta and
>Sinopoli. If Ozawa now comes along and earns a 10/10, then what does that say
>of these performances? There is a tremendous glut of great, average, and
>substandard Mahler 2nds available, especially when you consider those currently
>in the catalog and those out of print but available in used-CD stores. Are we
>to really think that amongst all those candidates, great and small, that this
>new Ozawa truly rates a stupendous 10/10 -- that he goes to the head of the
>class? I really have to chuckle at the thought of it. In fact to me it's a
>downright absurd proposition.
Maybe; but I have no hesitation preferring it to Rattle, Klemperer's two
EMI recordings (but not the two I have from the 1950s), and Walter, and
may prefer it to Mehta/Decca (aside from the soloistst) and Sinopoli - but not
to Bernstein/NYPO or Solti/LSO.
>
>Granted, I am in a tough position because I haven't actually *heard* this new
Ozawa 2nd. (Blush.)
Nor, it seems, has anyone else who has dismissed this recording....
Simon (*not* an Ozawa fan)
Matthew Silverstein
> A brief word about Slatkin: he did make some good recordings--the
> Rachmaninov symphonies (cheap on Vox) and the EMI Barber disc, for
> example. But I agree, he can be lethally bland quite often.
Not familiar with those, but I may go ahead and try to find the Telarc Mahler
2, just out of curiosity (and despite Don's warning) . . .
Matty
Simon Roberts
wrote:
Here's another warning. I bought his M2 based on Dettmer's lengthy rave
review in Fanfare (I seem to remember the phrase "thank you God and
Telarc" at some point in it). To these ears it's a pallid, if well
performed (in its decorous way) performance, every bit as uneventful as
his M10 on RCA.
Simon
Alan Cooper
news:7v%d9.26205$g9.7...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>The orchestra for Walter is given as the Col SO, with Emilia
> Cundari and Maureen Forrester, and the Westminster College Choir, but I
> believe it to be essentially the NYPO for the 2nd symphony.
It was the New York Philharmonic, not the Columbia Symphony (with whom
Walter recorded his stereo 9th). The original LP issue, in the unusual
format of 2 records in individual cardboard sleeves inside a slipcase, had
interesting notes on the symphony by Walter himself. Are they reproduced in
the CD issue? This was one of the first two recordings that I owned of the
work. The other was Scherchen's, and it would be hard to imagine two more
different performances--both of them woderful, IMO.
AC
Paul Kintzele
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> >Granted, I am in a tough position because I haven't actually *heard* this new
> Ozawa 2nd. (Blush.)
>
> Nor, it seems, has anyone else who has dismissed this recording....
I heard the first movement at a listening station (not ideal, I know,
but in my experience these stations have allowed me to make fairly
accurate predictions of what will go over well on my home system) and
thought it was neatly, cleanly played but not viscerally exciting.
Matty has assured me that the rest of the performance is better, but not
being vivid enough in the opening movement is already a fairly
considerable strike against any Mahler 2nd.
Paul
Paul Kintzele
I haven't heard it myself, but I would only buy it if you can find it
cheaply; I tend to believe Simon's assessment. I was just pointing out
that earlier in his career, Slatkin did make some interesting
recordings.
Paul
JRsnfld
>him
An interesting theory, but in that BSO relationship I don't think the lack of
commitment came from the orchestra.>>
I think you misread my point. I don't mean commitment to music; I mean
commitment to Ozawa. I'm saying they probably were tired of him, bored with
him, and had seen everything he had to offer. They didn't play their best for
him, not that they didn't play extraordinarily well anyway.
<<You are very uncharitable to the BSO. They play beautifully for many other
conductors and not for Ozawa. It is interesting that you prefer to blame the
orchestra and not Ozawa.>>
I think that proves my point. Ozawa was no longer able to motivate a great
orchestra to play its best. This isn't such a shock--it happens all the time to
good conductors who stay a long time in one place.
Nor do I consider this uncharitable to the orchestra. They're still a great
orchestra. Nor was I "blaming" the orchestra. I was just observing that other
orchestras responded better to Ozawa recently. You could say that perhaps the
BSO "knew" Ozawa better-saw through him, so to speak.
<<If he can lead a group for decades and still fail to
manage decent performances, I think that says much more about him than them.
Especially if other conductors like Haitink, Rattle, and Levine (to name but
three) can make them magnificent.>>
It's alot easier being a guest than being a day-to-day manager of musicians.
Not that Haitink or Rattle or Levine can't do the job, but how many people
honestly don't get tired of having one boss for 30 years? I don't think my
observations say more about the orchestra or Ozawa, they just suggest the
relationship between the two soured, and a relationship is a two-sided thing,
especially when an orchestra supposedly plays better for guests than for the
music director. Also, you seem to have a sour view of Ozawa's work in the 70s
as well--that he "still" doesn't get good results as if he never did in Boston.
I cherish many of the early Ozawa/BSO collaborations and heard many great
performances of theirs on the radio in the 1970s and 1980s. It does not
surprise me to hear people report that the frequency of great performances
began to diminish later on, but I'm mortified to hear your revisionist history.
I was very skeptical of Ozawa because of this supposed decline in his work, and
had begun to write him off as well, but hearing him on record and in concert
with his Saito Kinen Orchestra makes clear to me that he simply stayed too long
in Boston, for his sake and for the orchestra's sake.
<<Rationalize Ozawa's appeal to you all you want, but I think your logic is
backward with this particular argument.
>>
My logic isn't backward, but your perspective is very unfair to characterize
Ozawa as a lousy conductor when he obviously got great results early on in
Boston and still can get great results with some orchestras. The problem was
the conductor-orchestra relationship, not the conductor alone or the orchestra
alone. Your view of Ozawa seems to me to be very "Boston-centric", an
unfortunate sampling of his current capabilities. He's far from my favorite
conductor, but he can still do very good work with an orchestra committed to
his approach.
--Jeff
David Hurwitz
>You are very uncharitable to the BSO. They play beautifully for many other
>conductors and not for Ozawa. It is interesting that you prefer to blame the
>orchestra and not Ozawa. If he can lead a group for decades and still fail to
>manage decent performances, I think that says much more about him than them.
>Especially if other conductors like Haitink, Rattle, and Levine (to name but
>three) can make them magnificent.
>
>Rationalize Ozawa's appeal to you all you want, but I think your logic is
>backward with this particular argument.
>
>
then merely musical issues. I have heard the BSO for more than two decades both
in Boston and in Carnegie Hall under numerous conductors, including Haitink,
Rattle, and Levine, and by far the best concerts I attended (and there were
dozens) were conducted by Ozawa. Like the conductors you list, he has had his
ups and downs, but he has made many superb recordings and leaves an orchestra in
pretty damn good shape; and if your position is "it's all the conductor's fault"
then surely this fact, on which you insist, accrues to his credit.
Dave
Andre Yew
[re. MTT's Mahler series]
> Yup. His 6 is one of my favorites but 1 only OK. The quality of the
> recordings is remarkable, though.
Kal,
Funny, but it's the opposite for me. What do you find lacking in his 1?
--Andre
Kalman Rubinson
Hard to say. I enjoyed it but there were no unanticipated moments of
elation or impact. Perhaps I am getting jaded but I get more of a boot
from Kubelik, Bernstein and, even, Judd!
Kal
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020906122729...@mb-ff.aol.com:
> I think that proves my point. Ozawa was no longer able to motivate a
> great orchestra to play its best. This isn't such a shock--it happens
> all the time to good conductors who stay a long time in one place.
Do you include, say, Mengelberg and Koussevitzky in that?
--
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
Nick X Sun
though I might not put it ahead of either Bernstein/NYP on Sony or Mehta/VPO
one on Decca. But I have to agree with some of the concerns (if not
complains) on some of David's wayward (if not always) ratings at CT site. I
am still missing the days when folks here bashing him on some of his
comments (reviews). We were so diversified then. What has happened since? Is
that because Simon has teamed up with David now? ^_^. Hey, folks, please
stand up on your beliefs! :-). By the way, no offense, David, I have to say
that I am one of earliest guys who bought the new Levi M2 after saw your
10/10 review. Well, the performance leaves me more or less a disappointment.
There's much left to be desired if it is THAT 10/10!
Nick
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn3vsanh9...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Ray Hall
news:Jw2e9.3535$rU2....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Only the notes by Uwe Kraemer are given on my CBS Maestro twofer (M2YK
45674) in English, German and a translation into French. One of the
advantages of the CDs on this CBS Maestro is the coupling of the Mahler 1st.
Recording-wise this fares better than the 2nd (much more vivid as sound),
and is a superb M1 to boot.
As you say, they are difficult to beat. I am interested in the Scherchen
now, if only to see how different he is to Walter.
JRsnfld
> great orchestra to play its best. This isn't such a shock--it happens
> all the time to good conductors who stay a long time in one place.
Do you include, say, Mengelberg and Koussevitzky in that? >>
I knew someone would ask this. I thought about qualifying this statement, but
it seems to happen often enough anyway. I remember hearing plenty of grousing
about Solti, Ormandy, in their final years in Philadelphia and Chicago, for
instance. Not all of this complaining was well founded, in my opinion.
Mengelberg? I don't know, I never heard any evidence of how much more
"exciting" the Concertgebouw was early in his tenure v. late in his tenure. :-)
--Jeff
Ratwood19
>then merely musical issues.
Gee, thanks for not giving my musical sense even the slightest pinch of
credibility. "I disagree with Dave" = "I must have an irrational, non-musical
reason for doing so."
I could as easily say that the constant stream of 10/10 ratings at Classics
Today is due more to economic concerns than artistic judgements, so as to stay
on the good side of distributors and retailers. Or that your rave about the
Ozawa recording was based on the fact that you initially had low expectations
and were surprised that he was actually able to conduct a coherent performance.
(See, I can do bad psychoanalysis just as well as you.)
>Like the conductors you list, he has had his
>ups and downs, but he has made many superb recordings and leaves an orchestra
>in
>pretty damn good shape;
You must be kidding. The BSO needs serious rebuilding. That's one reason Levine
was such a good choice to succeed Ozawa. The "ups" that you mention were so
rare that my friends with season tickets would go out of their way to report
when Ozawa actually managed to make an individual statement in a work.
And what are Ozawa's "superb" recordings? Can you list even three that aren't
seriously outclassed by at least a half-dozen others in the same pieces?
>by far the best concerts I attended (and there were
>dozens) were conducted by Ozawa.
Dave, this statement is so amazing to me that I don't know what to say. I have
to assume you just got carried away there. Nobody that I know (or read) in
Boston agrees with this. Maybe your listening preferences are far more
conservative than you usually let on.
Mark my words -- ten years after Ozawa quits the business, not a single
recording by him in any repertoire will be a top choice for that piece. He will
be reissued only in bargain compilations aimed at first-time buyers, since
experienced listeners will know what he brings (and doesn't bring) to a piece.
In fact that is already starting now.
Nobody much wanted to record Ozawa with the BSO since he really had nothing to
say. We'll have to see if things change with Levine. My bet is that a lot of
things will indeed change -- all for the better.
Ratwood19
>their website:
Interesting -- the rating system is deemed "simple" at the start, followed by
hundreds of words devoted to wiggle room.
It reminds me of the movie "Spinal Tap," where the highest volume on the amps
was "11" -- clearly more powerful than the typical "10" on other amplifiers.
;-)
David Wake
> "I disagree with Dave" = "I must have an irrational, non-musical
> reason for doing so."
Ahh -- you've seen the light!
Dave (W) :)
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>>And it looks to me like your personal antipathy towards Ozawa stems from more
>>then merely musical issues.
>
>Gee, thanks for not giving my musical sense even the slightest pinch of
>credibility. "I disagree with Dave" = "I must have an irrational, non-musical
>reason for doing so."
>
>I could as easily say that the constant stream of 10/10 ratings at Classics
>Today is due more to economic concerns than artistic judgements, so as to stay
>on the good side of distributors and retailers. Or that your rave about the
>Ozawa recording was based on the fact that you initially had low expectations
>and were surprised that he was actually able to conduct a coherent performance.
>(See, I can do bad psychoanalysis just as well as you.)
>
you like regarding my personal motives (and those of others in this thread) who
have praised the performance in question, but there is no getting around one
FACT, which is that my view (and those of the others here) is based on careful
comparative listing to the actual recording, whereas yours is based, by your own
admission, on sheer ignorance--in which you take a certain petulant pride ("I
haven't heard it and I'm not going to...etc."). To condemn a recording that one
has not heard because one has already decided it must be bad is prejudice in its
purest form; to question the motives of others who enjoy it based on this
prejudice is the kind of foolish, intellectual cowardice that forums such as
this unfortunately encourage.
To claim to speak for "Boston" regarding the general perception of the career of
Ozawa is stupid, lazy, and false on its face. If you had the decency or prudence
to talk less and listen more, we would not be having this discussion. As for
Ozawa's "actually being able to conduct a coherent performance," (whatever that
means) I would question rather whether you are prepared to offer a coherent
argument based on actual listening rather than a series of bitter and
generalized condemnations based on your admitted non-experience.
I want to stress in this connection that this discussion is not about who is
"right" or "wrong" about the recording in question. Everyone is entitled to
listen and arrive at their own determination. But the question that began this
thread asks the opinion of those who have actually heard the recording in
question; your contribution therefore adds nothing constructive to the
conversation, does not address the question at hand, and merely defines you as
someone who I strongly doubt could even arrive at a fair assessment of the
performance given the extremes of antipathy that you express. In short, you
should ask yourself what it is of value that you think that you are
contributing. Everyone else here took the opportunity to discuss their reaction
to a recording of Mahler 2; you took it as chance to vent your spleen against
Ozawa (in which you offer not a squib of evidence to support your accusations),
which says everything about you, and nothing about anyone or anything else.
As to your silly statement about the future value of Ozawa's recordings, I list
a few in addition to the Sony Mahler 2 (and there are certainly more) that are
as good in the repertoire at hand as anyone's and that I strongly suspect will
continue to offer enjoyment to music lovers, just as many already have, for
several decades:
Stravinsky: Rite of Spring/Petrushka (RCA)
Orff: Carmina Burana (RCA)
Mahler 1 (DG)
Mahler 3 (Philips)
Mahler 9 (Philips or Sony)
Messiaen: Turangalila Symphony (RCA)
Berlioz: Damnation of Faust (DG)
Respighi: "Roman Trilogy" (DG)
Ravel: Orchestral Music (DG)
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 5 (BSO/DG)
Tchaikovsky: Nutcracker (DG)
Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake (DG)
Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet (DG)
Falla: Three-Cornered Hat (DG)
Respighi: Ancient Airs and Dances (DG)
Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra (EMI)
Stravinsky: Oedipus Rex (Philips)
Strauss: Elektra (Philips)
Strauss: Also Sprach Zarathustra (Philips)
Janacek: Sinfonietta (EMI)
Bartok: The Miraculous Mandarin--complete (Philips)
Bartok: Violin Concerto (DG)
Berg/Stravinsky: Violin Concertos
Ravel/Britten: Works for Piano Left Hand (Sony)
Dvorak: Cello Concerto (Erato)
Shostakovich: Cello Concerto No. 2 (DG)
Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique
Berlioz: Romeo and Juliet
Poulenc: Gloria; Stabat Mater (DG)
Poulenc: Organ Concerto/Concert Champetre (DG)
Franck: Symphony (DG)
Ravel: Sheherazade etc. (Sony)
Strauss: Alpine Symphony (Philips)
Are these "the best"? Stupid notion. Are they excellent? Indeed they are. And on
that note, I leave you to wallow in your antipathy, and wish you the joy of it.
Dave
David Hurwitz
You neglect the other possibilities: that he has an irrational musical reason,
or that he has a rational non-musical reason. Take your pick. :-)
Dave H
Samir Golescu
> Mengelberg? I don't know, I never heard any evidence of how much more
> "exciting" the Concertgebouw was early in his tenure v. late in his
> tenure. :-)
One hopes that Mr Zwart's biography (did the second volume come out yet)
will be translated sooner or later in a couple of languages that
would ensure it world circulation -- like, say, Romanian and English.
Meantime, in Carl Flesch's memoirs the interested researcher can find some
interesting references about Mengelberg's "early wars" for supremacy in
Concertgebouw. Politics, little opposing parties in the orchestra,
instrumentalists plotting against the "supreme commander" -- nihil novi
sub sole.
regards,
SG
____________________________
The amount of energy used by the 45,000 delegates to the Earth Summit in
Johannesburg was enough to power one billion kettles or a town of 55,000
Africans *for a year*. The summit produced 331 tons of solid waste, of
which a mere 24 per cent was recycled.
Hot...@yahoo.com
news:20020905192253...@mb-fm.aol.com:
> To be honest, I have such an aversion to Ozawa that even with Hurwitz's
> rave there is no way I would ever part with my good money on the off
> chance that he could actually hack his way through a Mahler symphony.
>
> Only now, with this new season, is he finally no longer holding the
> Boston Symphony hostage. Buy one of his recordings at this point?
> Hilarious idea.
>
> I can't imagine that after decades of low-voltage, pedestrian,
> uninspired work he can suddenly rate a 10/10 at Classics Today. I'd
> sooner believe that Jackie Collins could win a Pulizer.
>
> Stick a fork in him. He's done.
>
I dont hear any low voltage in his Guerrelider (Phillips 50).
David Hurwitz
>
>I have to say that the Ozawa/Saito Kinen Mahler 2 is really a good one,
>though I might not put it ahead of either Bernstein/NYP on Sony or Mehta/VPO
>one on Decca. But I have to agree with some of the concerns (if not
>complains) on some of David's wayward (if not always) ratings at CT site. I
>am still missing the days when folks here bashing him on some of his
>comments (reviews). We were so diversified then. What has happened since? Is
>that because Simon has teamed up with David now? ^_^. Hey, folks, please
>stand up on your beliefs! :-). By the way, no offense, David, I have to say
>that I am one of earliest guys who bought the new Levi M2 after saw your
>10/10 review. Well, the performance leaves me more or less a disappointment.
>There's much left to be desired if it is THAT 10/10!
>
>Nick
>
It may surprise you, but I too miss the range of the opinion formerly offered,
if not perhaps always the manner of its offering, and one of the reasons I spend
much less time here (to be perfectly frank) is because of the proliferation of
trolls, the tiresome repetition of the same subjects, and the real dearth of
listening as a percentage of verbiage purportedly discussing recordings of
classical music (Mr. Ratwood in this thread being a prime example).
Keep listening to that Levi disc, Nick. It will grow on you, or simply remain a
conception not to your taste. I was very, very careful in writing that review to
describe the performance as among the very best of a specific type that I knew
would not appeal to all, particularly those accumstomed to a more
interventionist interpretive approach, and so it is. To criticize Levi for not
being (for example) Bernstein or Mehta seems to me specious: we already have
Bernstein and Mehta. His approach is completely different, valid, and within the
parameters he establishes--which are at all times musical and respectful of
Mahler's intentions--superbly realized and recorded. And that, my friend, is a
10/10.
Dave H
David Wake
>
> Good to see you back getting more in the group, David.
>
Hmm -- I think I meant to say "more INVOLVED in the group" :)
David
David Wake
> Ah, to return to the good old days, when men were men and Hurwitz
> was THE ENEMY! It may surprise you, but I too miss the range of the
> opinion formerly offered, if not perhaps always the manner of its
> offering, and one of the reasons I spend much less time here (to be
> perfectly frank) is because of the proliferation of trolls, the
> tiresome repetition of the same subjects, and the real dearth of
> listening as a percentage of verbiage purportedly discussing
> recordings of classical music (Mr. Ratwood in this thread being a
> prime example).
I'm wondering whether RMCR is suffering from the same problem as the
classical CD market as a whole: who is going to start a new thread on,
for example, a Beethoven symphony when so much discussion is available
in the Google archives?
Good to see you back getting more in the group, David.
David
MIFrost
David Wake <dwake....@alumni.stanford.org> wrote in message
news:9nptvpy...@Turing.Stanford.EDU...
>
> Good to see you back getting more in the group, David.
>
> David
Ditto.
MIFrost
Ratwood19
>listening as a percentage of verbiage purportedly discussing recordings of
>classical music (Mr. Ratwood in this thread being a prime example).
Ironically enough, as much as I have inflamed your dislike, I am a big fan of
your site and read it often. I have also felt supportive of you in prior
dust-ups here and was sorry when you disappeared for a while. It is rather a
curious thing for me to be suddenly in the middle of a disagreement with you,
but such is the world of musical opinion I suppose.
I really believe my feelings about Ozawa are based on experience with his
performances, both live and on record. I am convinced that he is a capable,
average conductor but not a great one. You have attended concerts and listened
to CDs and come away with a different opinion. So be it. Please, though, don't
dismiss my opinion as coming from irrational feelings or ill will. I am happy
to heap on the praise when I believe I have been proved wrong (e.g.,
Celibidache.) I have over 20 years of Ozawa disappointment behind what I've
said here.
This is why I stated early on that no matter what rating a new recording from
Ozawa would earn, I would never personally hand over any money for it. This
also led me to question why so many recordings can earn 10/10 at Classics
Today. Judging from your site it would appear we are in a golden age of
performance and recorded sound. I hope I can be allowed some skepticism about
this.
Awarding a recording a 9 or an 8 is not to dishonor it. If I am a fan of a
particular genre or composer and a new recording earns a 9/8 or such, I will
likely be as eager to buy it as if it were a 10/10. Reading the text of your
Ozawa review without seeing the number ratings, I'd expect it to come out with
something like an 8 for performance. Now, a Mahler recording that earns an 8 is
certainly a wonderful one, worth hearing at least once, and what's great is
that you can say this without having to raise everyone's expectations by giving
it a 10.
Put another way, I just wonder what you will do, Dave, when a new Mahler Second
comes along that truly blows you away and you find yourself wanting to
recommend it head and shoulders over this Ozawa one. (And in my opinion that
day will most certainly come. :-) You've already bestowed the 10/10, so now you
will likely have to resort to distracting rhetoric in the text of the new
review to explain why this latest "10" is more of a "10" than the earlier one.
When even an above-average recording is suddenly pronounced as "great", what
distinction is left for the truly great that might come along later?
>[Levi's] approach is completely different, valid, and within the
>parameters he establishes--which are at all times musical and respectful of
>Mahler's intentions--superbly realized and recorded. And that, my friend, is
>a
>10/10.
Given this statement, I am just curious how you would rate the Gilbert Kalpan
recording?
Whether you feel Ozawa is a great conductor or not, taken on its own I think
that review you wrote was not about a 10/10 recording. I know that your first
allegiance at your site is to your readers, the people whose trust you want to
win and build upon. I fear that if you continue to throw out the 10/10's
willy-nilly (and then reassure disappointed buyers who loyally followed your
recommendation that they just need to "keep listening" so that the performance
will grow on them) then you run the risk of alienating your audience. Nick's
reply to you was along these lines, but based on your reply to him (and to me)
I wonder if you are even picking up on the message that both he and I, as your
customers, are trying to send to you.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>>the real dearth of
>>listening as a percentage of verbiage purportedly discussing recordings of
>>classical music (Mr. Ratwood in this thread being a prime example).
>
>Ironically enough, as much as I have inflamed your dislike, I am a big fan of
>your site and read it often. I have also felt supportive of you in prior
>dust-ups here and was sorry when you disappeared for a while. It is rather a
>curious thing for me to be suddenly in the middle of a disagreement with you,
>but such is the world of musical opinion I suppose.
>
>I really believe my feelings about Ozawa are based on experience with his
>performances, both live and on record. I am convinced that he is a capable,
>average conductor but not a great one. You have attended concerts and listened
>to CDs and come away with a different opinion. So be it. Please, though, don't
>dismiss my opinion as coming from irrational feelings or ill will. I am happy
>to heap on the praise when I believe I have been proved wrong (e.g.,
>Celibidache.) I have over 20 years of Ozawa disappointment behind what I've
>said here.
That may all be true, but you should keep in mind what it is that you did. You
come blasting in here condemning the man in the strongest (even wildest)
possible terms as a total incompentent in general, when what we are discussing
is a specific performance that you admit you have not heard. That is the
substance of my disagreement with you. I accept that you do not like Ozawa; this
does not "prove" his incompetence and says nothing about his stature as an
artist, particularly when you give no concrete musical reasons for your
distaste, merely toss it into the pot. If you want to discuss the virtues (or
lack thereof) of specific recordings, I am always game, but how curious that
now, all of a sudden, you attempt to sound more reasonable than your original
posts, which were purely spiteful. Surely you can see the difference.
>
>This is why I stated early on that no matter what rating a new recording from
>Ozawa would earn, I would never personally hand over any money for it. This
>also led me to question why so many recordings can earn 10/10 at Classics
>Today. Judging from your site it would appear we are in a golden age of
>performance and recorded sound. I hope I can be allowed some skepticism about
>this.
You can have all the skepticism you want, but not when you make specious
accusations (such as we are patsies of the recording industry) and silly
assertions such as that above. We had this discussion in this forum years ago.
For your benefit, here it is again: in total we award our highest rating to
approximately 10-15 discs per month out of more than 150 reviewed. The reason we
give even that many is simple:
1. We review many reissues of "classic" recordings of proven quality over time;
2. We do not select discs for review so as to achieve a random statistical
sample of all new releases per month; they are chosen by the critics based on
the likelihood that they will enjoy them, so the selection process itself tends
to encourage higher ratings. This is as it should be; we want most of all to
make positive recommendations and encourage people to listen.
3. I refer to our ratings philosophy previously posted by Simon. You may like it
or not, but it's we want to do things, understanding that no rating system is
perfect and will appeal to all people all of the time.
4. We are indeed in a "golden age" with respect to certain repertoire, and I
submit that Mahler is one of those composers. There is very little "bad" Mahler
being played today, and lots of superb Mahler. Fifty years ago, I could have
said the same about Brahms. The same is true, say, of Baroque opera, a
repertoire which did not even exist as much as two decades ago, and it's also
true for Mozart opera, but not Verdi and Wagner (whose "golden" ages ended more
or less in the late 60s). More to the point, our reviews reflect these facts, so
for you to claim because of a couple of 10/10 Mahler reviews that the site as a
whole asserts that we live in a "golden age" of recordings and sound betrays a
total ignorance of what "the site" really contains and says. There is more to
the world of classical music than your particular repertoire or artist
preferences, and the fact that you may not agree with us in this respect does
not taint everything we do with vast majority of music and repertoire that you
don't care about at all.
>
>Put another way, I just wonder what you will do, Dave, when a new Mahler Second
>comes along that truly blows you away and you find yourself wanting to
>recommend it head and shoulders over this Ozawa one. (And in my opinion that
>day will most certainly come. :-) You've already bestowed the 10/10, so now you
>will likely have to resort to distracting rhetoric in the text of the new
>review to explain why this latest "10" is more of a "10" than the earlier one.
>When even an above-average recording is suddenly pronounced as "great", what
>distinction is left for the truly great that might come along later?
A meaningless challenge. What is "truly great" vs. "almost truly great"? Ratings
are not absolute; they are simply out short-hand indications of how good we
believe a recording is. The fact that I may enjoy a future recording more than
one I have already given a 10/10 to doesn't make the earlier recording less
good. Past a certain level of excellence, all we are left with is personal
preference. If you truly read ratings as you state above, then you really don't
understand what they are and how they should be used. However, I suspect that
you are simply making generic observations in an attempt to look "reasonable"
after finding yourself in a distinct minority regarding the subject of this
thread, which is the excellence of Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2.
>
>>[Levi's] approach is completely different, valid, and within the
>>parameters he establishes--which are at all times musical and respectful of
>>Mahler's intentions--superbly realized and recorded. And that, my friend, is
>>a
>>10/10.
>
>Given this statement, I am just curious how you would rate the Gilbert Kalpan
>recording?
It's mediocre, because the playing and sound are inferior, nor is his much
vaunted conception, which is to play "exactly as written" anywhere near as
successful as, for example, Levi.
>
>Whether you feel Ozawa is a great conductor or not, taken on its own I think
>that review you wrote was not about a 10/10 recording. I know that your first
>allegiance at your site is to your readers, the people whose trust you want to
>win and build upon. I fear that if you continue to throw out the 10/10's
>willy-nilly (and then reassure disappointed buyers who loyally followed your
>recommendation that they just need to "keep listening" so that the performance
>will grow on them) then you run the risk of alienating your audience. Nick's
>reply to you was along these lines, but based on your reply to him (and to me)
>I wonder if you are even picking up on the message that both he and I, as your
>customers, are trying to send to you.
>
You have no idea how silly unpersuasive this argument is, or how arrogant it
sounds for you to be assuming the mantel of "barometer" by which we should
mesure that reaction of our "customers." Do you really think that we are not
aware, by the dozens of messages we receive from our "customers" every day
exactly what it is that they think about what we are doing, and that we do not
take their suggestions into account accordingly? If your comments were in any
way typical of what they were telling us, I might care, but the implication that
I should seriously take advice from someone who has the nerve to opine blindly
with respect to recordings he cannot be bothered to listen to is simply
ridiculous.
If you or Nick decide that we are not trustworthy because we continue to
recommend recordings by artists you detest, then you are perfectly within your
rights to seek information elsewhere, and I encourage you do to so. Your attempt
to shift the topic of conversation, from your ignorance of the recording being
discussed to whether we are correct to give certain ratings to recordings that
you have not heard, strikes me as silly.
And until you see the value of listening carefully and sympathetically to a
recording that I and virtually every other contributor to this thread who has
heard it have praised enthusiastically, I have nothing further to say to you on
this topic. Because until you do listen, you have no basis for criticizing me,
classicstoday.com, Ozawa, or any of the other objects of disdain you wish to
implicate to cover the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of your position with
respect to the subject at hand. If you regard yourself as a "fan" of
ClassicsToday.com, then you should know that above all we encourage our readers
to listen to recordings with open ears and no preconceptions. If Ozawa is a
subject beyond the pale of discussion as far as you are concerned, then that's
your problem; it is not our responsibility to take into account your prejudices
when we listen to and evaluate recordings.
Dave
Ratwood19
> more reasonable than your original posts, which were purely spiteful.
What I said was that my experience with Ozawa had left me such that I would
never again spend money to buy one of his recordings. The "pure spite," as you
would have it, would therefore have to be that I dislike
Ozawa's conducting and think him inconsequential as a musician. Well, my
experience tells me that this is the case. I also won't ever buy another
Chrysler car due to the mechanical problems I had with two different
ones that I owned, contrasted with my Honda now. Am I "purely spiteful"
for that decision too? To me it's just a matter of avoiding bad
investments.
I cannot give indepth, granular analysis of why I dislike Ozawa. I do
think he is burnt out as a musician, but aside from saying that this is
the conclusion I have reached based on listening to him live and on
record, I really am not in a position to get into a detailed
deconstruction of his work. That might be the only way that you yourself
could ever consider an opposing opinion about Ozawa in general. So be
it. But is interesting how personal you make the argument.
I do know when I feel ripped off, though. Which brings me back to my
experiences with Ozawa. Maybe you can get into concerts for free in
addition to getting all those reviewer-copy CDs. Me, I have to shell out
money for these matters.
> However, I suspect that you are simply making generic
> observations in an attempt to look "reasonable"
> after finding yourself in a distinct minority regarding
> the subject of this thread, which is the excellence of
> Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2.
No, you can be sure -- if I'm in a minority here I don't care. I have a
little more trust in my musical instincts than that.
I moderated my tone because I sensed that I had offended you. I hadn't
intended to get you angry. You're being so classy about it now though
that I must say I don't know if I should have bothered.
> You can have all the skepticism you want, but not when you
> make specious accusations (such as we are patsies of the
> recording industry)
You should work on your reading comprehension. What you're referring to
was my response to your attributing non-musical reasons for my dislike
for Ozawa. I said that was the same as me attributing non-musical
reasons for your raving about him, and I gave that as an example. I
agree with you that it isn't pleasant for someone to do that to you when
you're talking about music. That was my point.
> You have no idea ... how arrogant it sounds for you to be
> assuming the mantel of "barometer" by which we should
> measure that reaction of our "customers."
I'm the one being arrogant? Again, while your ad hominem attack is
telling, you should work on your reading comprehension. I describe
myself as a single customer of yours, one (just possibly representative,
or just possibly prophetic) opinion. I do not state in the slightest
that I represent all of your customers. Who is being silly now.
> Do you really think that we are not aware, by the dozens
> of messages we receive from our "customers" every day
> exactly what it is that they think about what we are doing,
> and that we do not take their suggestions into account
> accordingly?
Based on your reaction, I do wonder.
> the implication that I should seriously take advice from
> someone who has the nerve to opine blindly with respect to
> recordings he cannot be bothered to listen to is
> simply ridiculous.
So nobody else has ever raised a concern with you about your rating
system. My apologies. I guess this is another area where I am in the
distinct minority.
> Your attempt to shift the topic of conversation, from your
> ignorance of the recording being discussed to whether we
> are correct to give certain ratings to recordings that
> you have not heard, strikes me as silly.
I was upfront about saying I have never heard the CD. In fact, my whole
point was that I would never bother to hear it because I have such a low
opinion of Ozawa as a conductor. For some reason you insist on
representing that I judged this particular CD without hearing it. No --
I judged *Ozawa* -- and this I did after hearing him many, many times.
As for the shifting topics, maybe I should have started a separate
thread on your ratings system rather than let this one evolve into one,
but the topics here do drift sometimes.
> Because until you do listen, you have no basis for
> criticizing me, classicstoday.com, Ozawa, or any of the
> other objects of disdain you wish to implicate to
> cover the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of your
> position with respect to the subject at hand.
Do I read you correctly: All of my other Ozawa listening experiences are
off the table? I must listen to this very Sony Ozawa Mahler 2nd before I
can state that I think Ozawa is finished as a conductor of consequence?
Well, since I won't be holding my breath for your hand-me-down free
copy, I guess I'm just doomed to both that opinion and my intellectual
dishonesty. Not to forget that in the categories of arrogance,
speciousness, and spite I earn a 10/10/10.
Maestro Ozawa would be pleased to know he has such a level-headed,
knowledgeable advocate to balance this cruel and clueless detractor.
Andre Yew
[re. MTT's Mahler 1]
> Hard to say. I enjoyed it but there were no unanticipated moments of
> elation or impact. Perhaps I am getting jaded but I get more of a boot
> from Kubelik, Bernstein and, even, Judd!
Interesting. Perhaps I'm just smitten with the great recording and hi-res
media, and it's bringing all the little details into clearer light. In
this recording, I love all the little turns of phrases found everywhere,
even the big pause MTT inserts near the end of the first movement. Despite
the sprinkling of these mannerisms everywhere, the performance still holds
together, and it all makes sense. The third movement is the musical highlight
for me. The brass also also well recorded.
--Andre
Kalman Rubinson
>Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<9dvhnugjpthq8ep3m...@4ax.com>...
>[re. MTT's Mahler 1]
>> Hard to say. I enjoyed it but there were no unanticipated moments of
>> elation or impact. Perhaps I am getting jaded but I get more of a boot
>> from Kubelik, Bernstein and, even, Judd!
>
>Interesting. Perhaps I'm just smitten with the great recording and hi-res
>media, and it's bringing all the little details into clearer light.
Oh, it's a dandy recording, all right, and I do like it. Just not as
much as others.
Kal
Nick X Sun
chance (whether borrow a copy from a friend, or monitor it at your local CD
store) to listen to THIS Ozawa's new M2. What is even better, do a blind
comparison with some of your favorites. And then, if you want to further
trash it, it will total depend on your own. We all respect your judgment.
But to me it is extremely unreasonable to trash something before one has not
yet even heard. For this matter, I think David is right, and your argument
seems too weak to me. See, I challenge David with regarding to Levi's M2,
because I have heard it, and I question BBC's choice on Abbado's B6, also
because I have heard it. "Since most of Y's A are bad, then its new one
should also be bad." I don't think this is a valid conclusion though.
Nick
"Ratwood19" <ratw...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20020909164814...@mb-mj.aol.com...
David Hurwitz
>
>Allow me to speak a word or two for David. I think it's better you take a
>chance (whether borrow a copy from a friend, or monitor it at your local CD
>store) to listen to THIS Ozawa's new M2. What is even better, do a blind
>comparison with some of your favorites. And then, if you want to further
>trash it, it will total depend on your own. We all respect your judgment.
>But to me it is extremely unreasonable to trash something before one has not
>yet even heard. For this matter, I think David is right, and your argument
>seems too weak to me. See, I challenge David with regarding to Levi's M2,
>because I have heard it, and I question BBC's choice on Abbado's B6, also
>because I have heard it. "Since most of Y's A are bad, then its new one
>should also be bad." I don't think this is a valid conclusion though.
>
>Nick
>
disagreeing with it, and I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it as much as I did. I
don't think it's wrong of me, as Ratwood seems to think, to express the hope
that on closer acquaintance you may come to like it more. Perhaps sometime we'll
be able to sit together with a pile of Mahler 2s and do some real comparative
listening. No doubt we'd both be surprised.
Dave H
David Hurwitz
to reason as to Ozawa's genuine qualities as a conductor.
>Do I read you correctly: All of my other Ozawa listening experiences are
>off the table?
I have no idea. You haven't described a single one of them so we have no basis
on which to judge the depth of your knowledge or your fairness in arriving at
your conclusions. You might at least have deigned to mention a single
performance or recording of a single work in which you found Ozawa's artistry
wanting. But really, who cares about your listening experiences? Someone asked
about Ozawa's Mahler 2, you replied with "I hate his guts and wouldn't listen
for love or money." Then you questioned the judgment of those who HAD listened,
something I contend that you, in your ignorance, really had no business doing.
And then, to put the icing on the cake, you take offense at being told "If you
haven't listened to it, then shut up." So don't shut up. The more you talk, the
sillier you sound.
I must listen to this very Sony Ozawa Mahler 2nd before I
>can state that I think Ozawa is finished as a conductor of consequence?
If that is your considered opinion, then yes, you do, unless you want us to take
you for the fool you sound like by claiming you can utter such nonsense without
ever bothering to listen to the work of the artist you are condemning. I'm sure
the Vienna Staatsoper will be delighted to learn that they have just hired a
conductor who is as inconsequential as you contend.
>Well, since I won't be holding my breath for your hand-me-down free
>copy, I guess I'm just doomed to both that opinion and my intellectual
>dishonesty.
Oh dear, not THAT old saw again--the flipside of the "you're in the pockets of
the major labels" argument. In fact, at the time that I reviewed the Ozawa
Mahler 2, I had no idea that it would ever be released domestically. In fact, I
ordered my copy from HMV Japan and paid top dollar for it, and only wrote the
review because I was so impressed with its quality. I was later delighted to see
that it had been scheduled for domestic release.
Not to forget that in the categories of arrogance,
>speciousness, and spite I earn a 10/10/10.
>
>Maestro Ozawa would be pleased to know he has such a level-headed,
>knowledgeable advocate to balance this cruel and clueless detractor.
>
You know, I never said that Ozawa was a "great" conductor. That's not the point.
The point, I repeat, was a discussion of the quality of his Mahler 2. I just
find it amazing that you object to anyone questioning the objective validity of
your theoretically vast experience of disappointment with this conductor, while
feeling perfectly justified in questioning the judgment of those giving their
thoughts on a specific recording that they have listened to and enjoyed, and
that you have not heard and never will. This, I think, sums up the situation
nicely, and I am content to let our positions speak for themselves at this point
and for readers to draw their own conclusions.
Dave H
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: OK, one last attempt to get through to you, though you seem about as
Well, he does manage to come off as a good deal less self-righteous than
you. If you really had the ability to be honest with yourself about what
it is that you do, you might give serious thought to the essential issue
that he raised: why do you find the notion that you *might* have subjective
or extra-musical reasons for preferring one performance over another to
be so insulting?
-----
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
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Matthew Silverstein
> Well, he does manage to come off as a good deal less self-righteous than
> you. If you really had the ability to be honest with yourself about what
> it is that you do, you might give serious thought to the essential issue
> that he raised: why do you find the notion that you *might* have subjective
> or extra-musical reasons for preferring one performance over another to
> be so insulting?
To my knowledge, DH has never denied that his preferences are based on
"subjective" reasons . . .
Matty
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: RS wrote:
: To my knowledge, DH has never denied that his preferences are based on
: "subjective" reasons . . .
denying that they are based on subjective criteria? (You're the philosopher
and hence better equipped to answer that question than I am.) Or to put it
another way: read his review of Horenstein's recording of Mahler's 9th and
then ask him whether the criteria by which he judges the performance should
also apply to his judgement of, say, Barbirolli's recording of Mahler's 5th.
And watch him froth at the mouth and claim that I'm obsessed with the issue
(when in fact it's just the one that I can think of without too much effort).
-----
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
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Ratwood19
> Mahler 2.
Almost -- what happened originally was that someone mentioned seeing your 10/10
rating for this
CD on Classics Today and this prompted him to ask if the performance was
really worth checking out. My original reply addressed only the question
of Ozawa himself, and what my prior experience with his work would seem
to promise for any new CD from him (which wasn't much.)
I was clear in stating that I had never heard the CD, nor would I want
to unless I could somehow do so for free. I guess I will never know if
it was this that made you so indignant, or if it was just the fact that
in my case your positive review didn't have the effect you'd intended.
Whatever the case, you proceeded to take the approach of pointing out
how silly and ridiculous I am for supposedly criticizing a CD that I've
never heard. The point, though, was that I was criticizing *Ozawa*.
As a resident of Boston area for the past 20+ years and a record-buyer
for a decade or so before that, you can be sure that I have heard Ozawa
a great deal, thank you. As I've already mentioned, I think he's burnt
out. I don't object at all to you disagreeing -- you just decide to attack my
"rude" assessment of Ozawa's musicianship with rude remarks about me personally
(while ironically lamenting
how newsgroups only seem to give license to people like *me* to express my
opinions in so reckless a manner.)
True, this did evolve into a discussion of what exactly a 10/10 rating
means at Classics Today. And, given the circumstances of the original
question, I think that is fair game. Your 10/10 rating was what spurred
the entire discussion.
Matthew Silverstein
> To my knowledge, DH has never denied that his preferences are based on
> "subjective" reasons . . .
RS replied:
> Is claiming that his reviews are based on objective criteria equivalent to
> denying that they are based on subjective criteria? (You're the philosopher
> and hence better equipped to answer that question than I am.)
They may be based on both objective and subjective criteria. Perhaps I am
wildly mistaken, but I can't imagine that DH would refuse to acknowledge that
subjective criteria enter into his reviews and (numerical) evaluations of
performance.
Matty
MIFrost
as well as subjective ones into consideration. A restaurant critic who
criticizes a chef's entree must know just how that entree is **supposed** to
be prepared. He won't say simply that it tastes bad because that's what I
think. He should know how it's supposed to be mixed and cooked and which
ingredients belong in it and which do not. If the chef is unashamedly
iconoclastic he can be evaluated using somewhat altered criteria. "It's not
'right' but it's good in its own way." When I read reviews I look for
indications that the reviewer seems grounded in his subject. He's not just
talking through his hat. I find David's writing informative and
intelligently written.
MIFrost
Matthew Silverstein <msil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:QEuf9.331$PD3....@news.itd.umich.edu...
David Hurwitz
>
>IMO a "valid" opinion in these sort of matters must take objective factors
>as well as subjective ones into consideration. A restaurant critic who
>criticizes a chef's entree must know just how that entree is **supposed** to
>be prepared. He won't say simply that it tastes bad because that's what I
>think. He should know how it's supposed to be mixed and cooked and which
>ingredients belong in it and which do not. If the chef is unashamedly
>iconoclastic he can be evaluated using somewhat altered criteria. "It's not
>'right' but it's good in its own way." When I read reviews I look for
>indications that the reviewer seems grounded in his subject. He's not just
>talking through his hat. I find David's writing informative and
>intelligently written.
>
>MIFrost
>
wonder if it makes sense to even engage someone like Richard who really is
interested in nothing other than venting his spleen. Of course, all criticism is
a combination of "objective" and "subjective" elements. I have never said
otherwise. I believe you lay out the issue very succinctly and well, and your
example is entirely appropriate. Thank you.
Dave Hurwitz
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I wonder if it makes sense to even engage someone like Richard who really is
: interested in nothing other than venting his spleen.
I wonder why you are so interested in the motives of people who happen to
disagree with you. That is, I am "venting my spleen" (as opposed to the
obvious other explanation for my motives), and elsewhere in the thread
you made analogous comments about someone whose only crime was to question
the circumstances under which you give ratings of "10."
: Of course, all criticism is
: a combination of "objective" and "subjective" elements. I have never said
: otherwise. I believe you lay out the issue very succinctly and well, and your
: example is entirely appropriate. Thank you.
Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties with
the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing? In fact, as I'm sure that
you are aware, "fidelity to the score" is a very modern concept, at least
as far as performers are concerned -- composers have been complaining about
performers' unwillingness to play what is written for centuries. That is,
it seems to me that a review that criticizes a performer for taking liberties
with the score should also explain why those liberties do not serve the
purpose of the music. Frequently they don't, and are just a performer's
excuse to do something "new" and "original" (as opposed to "good"). One
example that comes to mind is that a couple of weeks ago, I was subjected to
Maazel's recording of "Valse Triste," which he takes at a tempo so rapid that
the impression is of fire trucks rushing to a burning building because it
would be really sad if the building burned down -- which isn't, I think, what
Sibelius had in mind.
On the other hand, lack of fidelity to the score is not necessarily
detrimental -- for example, Penderecki's performance of his own "Threnody"
deliberately ignores explicit instructions in the score, and is effective
nonetheless. And of course, there is a grey area: in Toscanini's recording
of Beethoven's 2d, he plays the scherzo as if it were in 3/2 rather than
3/4. I personally can't stand it, but Toscanini certainly has plenty of fans.
-----
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
-----
Gabriel Jackson
>the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
Because it is!
> In fact, as I'm sure that
>you are aware, "fidelity to the score" is a very modern concept, at least
>as far as performers are concerned -- composers have been complaining about
>performers' unwillingness to play what is written for centuries.
Then the concept of fidelity to the score is not modern at all.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties with
:>the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
:
: Because it is!
Why is it necessarily a bad thing? Why is it a priori impossible for a
performer to have a better notion of how to convey the composer's intentions
than by slavishly following what is written in the score?
:> In fact, as I'm sure that
:>you are aware, "fidelity to the score" is a very modern concept, at least
:>as far as performers are concerned -- composers have been complaining about
:>performers' unwillingness to play what is written for centuries.
:
: Then the concept of fidelity to the score is not modern at all.
Do you know anything about the history of performance practice, or is it
that English is not your mother tongue?
-----
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
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Gabriel Jackson
>Subject: Re: Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2nd
>From: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
>Date: 11/09/02 12:33 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <aln9lt$33d$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020911065631...@mb-ct.aol.com>, Gabriel Jackson
><gbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>:>Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties
>with
>:>the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
>:
>: Because it is!
>
>Why is it necessarily a bad thing? Why is it a priori impossible for a
>performer to have a better notion of how to convey the composer's intentions
>than by slavishly following what is written in the score?
Because what is written in the score are the composer's intentions.
>
>:> In fact, as I'm sure that
>:>you are aware, "fidelity to the score" is a very modern concept, at least
>:>as far as performers are concerned -- composers have been complaining about
>:>performers' unwillingness to play what is written for centuries.
>:
>: Then the concept of fidelity to the score is not modern at all.
>
>Do you know anything about the history of performance practice, or is it
>that English is not your mother tongue?
>
>
Indeed I know plenty about the history of performance practice and English is
my mother tongue.Given that composers have been compaining about performers'
unwillingness to play what's written for centuries then the concept of fidelity
to the score certainly isn't "modern" - by your own assertion, it's something
composers have always wanted. The willingness of (many) performers to
acknowledge the primacy of the score may be a more recent concept.
Matthew Silverstein
> Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties with
> the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
Read his recent review of MTT's Mahler 1. There he applauds some of MTT's
liberties. His problem is with liberties that don't make any sense, that
destroy the flow of the music, that . . .
Matty
David Wake
> >Subject: Re: Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2nd
> >From: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
> >Date: 11/09/02 12:33 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <aln9lt$33d$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
> >
> >In article <20020911065631...@mb-ct.aol.com>, Gabriel Jackson
> ><gbr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >:>Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties
> >with
> >:>the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
> >:
> >: Because it is!
> >
> >Why is it necessarily a bad thing? Why is it a priori impossible for a
> >performer to have a better notion of how to convey the composer's intentions
> >than by slavishly following what is written in the score?
>
> Because what is written in the score are the composer's intentions.
And what do you say about a composer who disregards his own score in
performing his own music?
David
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>Why is it necessarily a bad thing? Why is it a priori impossible for a
:>performer to have a better notion of how to convey the composer's intentions
:>than by slavishly following what is written in the score?
:
: Because what is written in the score are the composer's intentions.
And here we go again. The score for Penderecki's Threnody indicates quite
explicitly that the total length of the piece is 8'40". Penderecki's own
recording takes nearly 10 minutes. Are you saying that Penderecki didn't
know what the composer's intentions were?
There are also descriptions of Beethoven playing his own music (from the
time in his life when he could still hear). He also frequently added things
that weren't in the printed score -- additional pedalling, for example,
and much more rubato (e.g. ritards at the ends of phrases, which was, AIUI,
pretty much the standard way of playing back then). Are you saying that
Beethoven didn't know what the composer's intentions were?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Gabriel Jackson
>Message-id: <alnmfv$e80$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020911091234...@mb-cl.aol.com>, Gabriel Jackson
><gbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>:>Why is it necessarily a bad thing? Why is it a priori impossible for a
>:>performer to have a better notion of how to convey the composer's
>intentions
>:>than by slavishly following what is written in the score?
>:
>: Because what is written in the score are the composer's intentions.
>
>And here we go again. The score for Penderecki's Threnody indicates quite
>explicitly that the total length of the piece is 8'40". Penderecki's own
>recording takes nearly 10 minutes. Are you saying that Penderecki didn't
>know what the composer's intentions were?
And here I go again. If the score isn't a set of instructions from the composer
then what is it? I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is notated. Is it
notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly callibrated, thus
placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score? In which case, no, he
was not faithful to his intentions. If, as is common, this duration is found in
the preface pages, then there are all sorts of reasons for the discrepancy.
>
>There are also descriptions of Beethoven playing his own music (from the
>time in his life when he could still hear). He also frequently added things
>that weren't in the printed score -- additional pedalling, for example,
>and much more rubato (e.g. ritards at the ends of phrases, which was, AIUI,
>pretty much the standard way of playing back then). Are you saying that
>Beethoven didn't know what the composer's intentions were?
>
We all know that there is a lot of information that isn't/cannot be notated in
a score, and that all sorts of unnotated performing conventions were taken for
granted by composers as being understood by their performing contemporaries,
but that doesn't mean that what is in a score should be ignored.
It's very easy to triumphantly cite examples of composers not reproducing
exactly what they have written, but that doesn't vindicate your assertion that
a performer may have a better notion of what the composer wanted than what is
in the score. How could they know except from the score? By some kind of
divination?
Samir Golescu
> >Then why in your reviews do you criticize performers who take liberties with
> >the score as if that were ipso facto a bad thing?
>
> Because it is!
Yes, isn't it self-evident?, and God created the world from Monday to
Saturday and then took some rest on Sunday. Lucky him that "in the
beginning there was the Calendar".
regards,
SG
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>And here we go again. The score for Penderecki's Threnody indicates quite
:>explicitly that the total length of the piece is 8'40". Penderecki's own
:>recording takes nearly 10 minutes. Are you saying that Penderecki didn't
:>know what the composer's intentions were?
: And here I go again. If the score isn't a set of instructions from the
: composer then what is it?
It's a set of instructions. But it's a set of instructions that assumes the
existence of a performer who has the job of realizing the work. Just as
a script is a "set of instructions" from the playwright. Or do you object
to having Shakespeare performed indoors in a modern-style theater with the
stage at the front?
: I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is notated. Is it
: notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly callibrated, thus
: placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score? In which case,
: no, he was not faithful to his intentions.
The score has a list of timings in seconds: the opening set of entrances
are staggered over 15 seconds, followed by 11 seconds during which various
instruments start playing trills, followed by another 4 seconds of trills;
at this point, the violas are instructed to play "subito ppp," followed by
a similar indication to the rest of the instruments 6 seconds later, with
more trills coming in over the 13 seconds following, and so on for 19 more
pages. How do you know that he did not decide, between the composition of
the piece and his performing it, that what he originally set down in the
score isn't really what he wanted, and that his performance represents his
true intentions? (Just as Mahler reorchestrated his symphonies to varying
degrees after hearing the first performance.)
:>There are also descriptions of Beethoven playing his own music (from the
:>time in his life when he could still hear). He also frequently added things
:>that weren't in the printed score -- additional pedalling, for example,
:>and much more rubato (e.g. ritards at the ends of phrases, which was, AIUI,
:>pretty much the standard way of playing back then). Are you saying that
:>Beethoven didn't know what the composer's intentions were?
: We all know that there is a lot of information that isn't/cannot be notated
: in a score,
"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
: and that all sorts of unnotated performing conventions were taken for
: granted by composers as being understood by their performing contemporaries,
: but that doesn't mean that what is in a score should be ignored.
If I can pedal in places where Beethoven doesn't indicate it without violating
his intentions, why can't I *not* pedal in places where he does?
: It's very easy to triumphantly cite examples of composers not reproducing
: exactly what they have written, but that doesn't vindicate your assertion
: that a performer may have a better notion of what the composer wanted than
: what is in the score. How could they know except from the score? By some
: kind of divination?
By using their musical intelligence. Many times, the composer would sanction
the changes (of course, there were many times when he wouldn't). You should
look at Percy Grainger's edition of the Grieg piano concerto sometime. But
the operative issue is whether the performer's choices make musical sense.
Only a good artist can take liberties with the score and have much chance of
getting away with it. Which was the point that I was making originally --
the question should not necessarily be "did he play exactly what was written
in the score," but "are his musical choices persuasive in the context of
his performance and of the work itself".
-----
Simon Smith
gbr...@aol.com (Gabriel Jackson) wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Ozawa's Sony Mahler 2nd From: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
> > Date: 11/09/02 16:11 GMT Daylight Time Message-id:
> > <alnmfv$e80$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
> > And here we go again. The score for Penderecki's Threnody indicates
> > quite explicitly that the total length of the piece is 8'40".
> > Penderecki's own recording takes nearly 10 minutes. Are you saying that
> > Penderecki didn't know what the composer's intentions were?
>
> And here I go again. If the score isn't a set of instructions from the
> composer then what is it? I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is
> notated. Is it notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly
> callibrated, thus placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score?
> In which case, no, he was not faithful to his intentions. If, as is common,
> this duration is found in the preface pages, then there are all sorts of
> reasons for the discrepancy.
The Penderecki is notated in large 'bars' (i.e. separated by barlines), with
the duration of each indicated at the bottom of each 'bar'. Within these bars
events are positioned spatially, sometimes with lines from one to the next to
indicate the exact sequence.
The 8'40" (or 8'37" IIRC) figure is indicated at the beginning, but comes
from adding up the durations of the 'bars' in the score.
Simon
--
http://www.fourthconcerto.free-online.co.uk/ [temporarily]
- "Schatten zu werfen, beide erwählt, beide in prüfenden Flammen gestählt!"
('Die Frau ohne Schatten', Act III)
Gabriel Jackson
>: composer then what is it?
>
>It's a set of instructions. But it's a set of instructions that assumes the
>existence of a performer who has the job of realizing the work. Just as
>a script is a "set of instructions" from the playwright. Or do you object
>to having Shakespeare performed indoors in a modern-style theater with the
>stage at the front?
Not at all, but I do object to tampering with the text and still presenting it
as "Shakespeare". I am not aware that Shakespeare's stage directions specify an
the use of an stage and auditorium of the kind he was used to.
>
>: I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is notated. Is it
>: notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly callibrated, thus
>: placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score? In which case,
>: no, he was not faithful to his intentions.
>
>The score has a list of timings in seconds: the opening set of entrances
>are staggered over 15 seconds, followed by 11 seconds during which various
>instruments start playing trills, followed by another 4 seconds of trills;
>at this point, the violas are instructed to play "subito ppp," followed by
>a similar indication to the rest of the instruments 6 seconds later, with
>more trills coming in over the 13 seconds following, and so on for 19 more
>pages. How do you know that he did not decide, between the composition of
>the piece and his performing it, that what he originally set down in the
>score isn't really what he wanted, and that his performance represents his
>true intentions? (Just as Mahler reorchestrated his symphonies to varying
>degrees after hearing the first performance.)
>
Without knowing exactly in what precise way Penderecki's recording deviates
from the letter of the score it is impossible to say what his reasons were. If
indeed there were any thought-out reasons. (I don't know how skilful a
conductor he is, for example - there are/were plenty of composers who
conduct(ed) their works despite not being very good at it.)
>:>There are also descriptions of Beethoven playing his own music (from the
>:>time in his life when he could still hear). He also frequently added
>things
>:>that weren't in the printed score -- additional pedalling, for example,
>:>and much more rubato (e.g. ritards at the ends of phrases, which was, AIUI,
>:>pretty much the standard way of playing back then). Are you saying that
>:>Beethoven didn't know what the composer's intentions were?
>
>: We all know that there is a lot of information that isn't/cannot be notated
>
>: in a score,
>
>"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
Precise indications of the myriad possibilities of pedalling are impossible to
notate.
>
>: and that all sorts of unnotated performing conventions were taken for
>: granted by composers as being understood by their performing
>contemporaries,
>: but that doesn't mean that what is in a score should be ignored.
>
>If I can pedal in places where Beethoven doesn't indicate it without
>violating
>his intentions, why can't I *not* pedal in places where he does?
>
We're discussing something at several removes here, since neither you nor I
actually heard the performance thus described. But the existence of specific
pedal directions are just that - instructions for a particular use of the pedal
that is not implicit within the notation - and doesn't preclude the use of the
pedal, in a way consistent with performance/notation conventions of the time,
when not specifically indicated.
>: It's very easy to triumphantly cite examples of composers not reproducing
>: exactly what they have written, but that doesn't vindicate your assertion
>: that a performer may have a better notion of what the composer wanted than
>: what is in the score. How could they know except from the score? By some
>: kind of divination?
>
>By using their musical intelligence. Many times, the composer would sanction
>the changes (of course, there were many times when he wouldn't). You should
>look at Percy Grainger's edition of the Grieg piano concerto sometime. But
>the operative issue is whether the performer's choices make musical sense.
>Only a good artist can take liberties with the score and have much chance of
>getting away with it. Which was the point that I was making originally --
>the question should not necessarily be "did he play exactly what was written
>in the score," but "are his musical choices persuasive in the context of
>his performance and of the work itself".
>
Fortunately the primacy of the score is far more widely accepted now than once
was the case. There is a dangerous assumption lurking within your comments that
performers (can) know better than the composer how the music should be.
Mengelberg (I think it was) when rehearsing one of Stravinsky's concertante
piano works with Stravinsky as soloist actually told him that he, as the
conductor, knew best what a particular tempo should be.
Mahler's re-orchestrations of Schumann, Rimsky-Korsakov's reo-rchestrations,
and "corrections" of Mussorgsky, numerous alterations (again, "corrections")
made to several Janacek scores are three examples of other people thinking they
knew better than the composer, and are rightly pretty much discredited by
modern scholarship and a more respectful attitude to what is in the score.
Simon Roberts
>
>And here I go again. If the score isn't a set of instructions from the composer
>then what is it?
On the rather important question of what "intention" means in this
context, and the related question of whether scores contain instructions
or something else (as well as whether such intentions/intentions ought to
be followed) you might want to take a look at Peter Kivy's book
"Authenticities," especially chapters 2 and 6.
I forget whether Kivy brings this up, but two rather obvious questions
are: even assuming scores are instructions, is everything in a score to be
obeyed equally (e.g., is a metronome marking as important an
instruction as the melodies and chords? Repeat signs?) and do we treat the
absence of an instruction as an instruction not to add anything?
I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is notated. Is it
>notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly callibrated, thus
>placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score? In which case, no, he
>was not faithful to his intentions.
Why reach that conclusion? Why not reach a different one: the score
contains suggestions on how to realize the music. Or his intentions
changed. Or the score didn't accurately reflect his intentions in the
first place (Paul Badura Skoda argues that metronome markings are often a
bit faster than the composer "really" wants because we hear tempos faster
in our heads than when performing). Or he had several ideas about how fast
the music could go and merely notated one of them. Or....
>We all know that there is a lot of information that isn't/cannot be notated in
>a score, and that all sorts of unnotated performing conventions were taken for
>granted by composers as being understood by their performing contemporaries,
>but that doesn't mean that what is in a score should be ignored.
It's not necessarily a matter of "ignoring" it, is it? Sometimes it's a
matter of making better sense of the music (arrogant though that may
seem). It's not that difficult to play Eroica i or Hammerklavier i at the
tempo marked in the score, but the effect is quite different from a more
conventional tempo. I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that those who
follow the latter are being lazy or negligent etc.
>
>It's very easy to triumphantly cite examples of composers not reproducing
>exactly what they have written, but that doesn't vindicate your assertion that
>a performer may have a better notion of what the composer wanted than what is
>in the score.
Is *that* the point, or is it a matter of better realizing what the
composer seems to have wanted (e.g. the familiar rescoring of Eroica i
and Beethoven 9/ii)? (One might even more subversively suggest that a
performer can violate the letter of a score and come up with a musically
more satisfying result than a faithful rendition.) And while composers'
infidelity to their scores doesn't ipso facto support the notion that some
other interpreter are justified in doing so, it surely tells us something
about the relationship between a composer and the marks he puts on a page.
Simon
David Wake
Since you aren't impressed by any of Mr Schultz's examples, I'm going
to bring up one that I've talked about before.
In his 1929 recording of his Second Piano Concerto with Stokowski,
second movement cadenza, Rachmaninov plays a series of slow chords as
a gradual diminuendo to piano. The score indicates a gradual
crescendo to forte.
The passage is technically easy. Rachmaninov was one of the greatest
pianists of the century. The limitations of recording 78 sides do not
come into play here. There is no possible reason for the discrepancy
except that Rachmaninov the performer *consciously* decided to reverse
the dynamics that Rachmaninov the composer wrote into the score some
30 years earlier.
Bear in mind that this movement of the concerto was written over a
short period of time during the summer of 1900. Rachmaninov had since
performed the concerto in public countless times. The dynamics used
in the 1929 recording were thus the product of far more experience
with the work than the dynamics in the original score.
Do you still insist on saying that Rachmaninov's decision to depart
from his score is "ipso facto a bad thing"?
If you do, then would your answer be any different if Rachmaninov had
published a revised edition of his Second Concerto in 1928 with the
dynamics changed as in the 1929 recording?
Would your answer be any different if Rachmaninov had published such a
revised edition in 1930, *after* the recording was made?
David
Paul Kintzele
Gabriel Jackson wrote:
>
> Not at all, but I do object to tampering with the text and still presenting it
> as "Shakespeare". I am not aware that Shakespeare's stage directions specify an
> the use of an stage and auditorium of the kind he was used to.
Practically every performance of _Hamlet_ (including--if the "bad"
Quarto of 1603 is understood as the memorial reconstruction of a
performing text--performances during Shakespeare's lifetime) has
contained a sizable number of cuts. As for the kind of stage called for
in his plays, there are some actions that seem to require the kind of
stage particular to the time; the Ghost in _Hamlet_ 1.5 "Cries under the
stage" (the original stage direction), which would not be feasible with
many stages or theaters. Mind you, I take that stage direction not as
an indication of a limit to the venues where _Hamlet_ can be performed
but rather as a challenge to the ingenuity and sensitivity of producers
and performers. For me, questions of literalness and fidelity always
take a second place to considerations of artistic effect. Not all
changes are for the good, of course; Nahum Tate's happy ending to _King
Lear_, which held the English stage for over a century, is a case in
point.
Paul
Gabriel Jackson
I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this either. If anyone at all is entitled to
take liberties with a score then that must be its composer, but the origins of
this debate lie with the suggestion that David Hurwitz was somehow wrong to
criticise a performance for playing fast and loose with the score. If a
performer has so little faith in what the composer wrote (as some did/do), why
bother to play the piece at all?
David Wake
> David,
>
> I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this [my Rachmaninov example, see
> previous posting] either. If anyone at all is entitled to take
> liberties with a score then that must be its composer, but the
> origins of this debate lie with the suggestion that David Hurwitz
> was somehow wrong to criticise a performance for playing fast and
> loose with the score.
I don't follow you here. Do you, or do you not, concede that it is OK
for a composer to take liberties in performing his own compositions?
If you do concede this, as your second sentence suggests, then why
should it not be OK for others to take liberties?
> If a performer has so little faith in what the composer wrote (as
> some did/do), why bother to play the piece at all?
Are you trying to say that, because Rachmaninov made one tiny
modification to his score in his recording of his Second Piano
Concerto, no one should bother to play the work?
David
Samir Golescu
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Paul Kintzele wrote:
[interesting insights snipped]
> For me, questions of literalness and fidelity always
> take a second place to considerations of artistic effect. Not all
> changes are for the good, of course; Nahum Tate's happy ending to _King
> Lear_, which held the English stage for over a century, is a case in
> point.
A case in point as a "change for the good" or the opposite?
I have never even heard of this. Any details or -- if the OT-ness is
upsetting to others -- pointers to possible enlightening websites?
regards,
SG
Matthew Silverstein
> Fortunately the primacy of the score is far more widely accepted now than
once
> was the case. There is a dangerous assumption lurking within your comments
that
> performers (can) know better than the composer how the music should be.
How is this assumption "dangerous"?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
Perhaps the performer thinks that it is a tremendously beautiful or moving
composition with one or two small problems or mistakes. That is, perhaps the
performer loves the piece but thinks it would sound even better with one or
two minor changes.
More to the point, perhaps the performer is at least occasionally correct to
think this way.
Matty
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: David,
:
: I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this either. If anyone at all is entitled to
Then why did you say that Penderecki was violating his own intentions when
he did so?
-----
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
-----
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Not at all, but I do object to tampering with the text and still presenting
: specify an the use of an stage and auditorium of the kind he was used to.
He basically did not write any stage directions at all, but it's clear from
those that he did write (why do you think they carry off all the dead bodies
at the end of Hamlet), from the texts themselves (why do you think they spend
so much time at the beginning of Hamlet telling you that it's midnight), as
well as from the cultural context in which the plays were written, that he
intended that they be played in the kind of theater in which they actually
were played.
:>: I'm not familiar with how the Penderecki is notated. Is it
:>: notated spatially, so that the passing of time is exactly callibrated, thus
:>: placing this figure of 8' 40'' in the body of the score? In which case,
:>: no, he was not faithful to his intentions.
:>
:>The score has a list of timings in seconds. . .
: Without knowing exactly in what precise way Penderecki's recording deviates
: from the letter of the score it is impossible to say what his reasons were.
: If indeed there were any thought-out reasons. (I don't know how skilful a
: conductor he is, for example - there are/were plenty of composers who
: conduct(ed) their works despite not being very good at it.)
In other words, even though you have never seen the score, or heard the
performance, you are willing to say that everyone who considers it a
standard performance is wrong because Penderecki was such a poor conductor
that he couldn't measure the length of time it took for the orchestra to
play the score. Note that when other conductors conducted their music badly,
there are other ways of telling that the performance is not very good --
e.g. missed or sloppy entrances, poor ensemble. As far as I can tell from
following Penderecki's score while listening to the performance, the
ensemble does everything that is in the score *except* obey the timings.
:>"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
:
: Precise indications of the myriad possibilities of pedalling are impossible
: to notate.
Do you know anything about how piano music is notated, or are you just making
this up as you go along? Keeping the pedal down for an entire movement (which
Beethoven supposedly did while performing one of his piano concerti) is not
hard to notate, as anyone who has seen the score to the "Moonlight" Sonata
can attest.
:>If I can pedal in places where Beethoven doesn't indicate it without
:>violating>his intentions, why can't I *not* pedal in places where he does?
: We're discussing something at several removes here, since neither you nor I
: actually heard the performance thus described. But the existence of specific
: pedal directions are just that - instructions for a particular use of the
: pedal that is not implicit within the notation - and doesn't preclude the
: use of the pedal, in a way consistent with performance/notation conventions
: of the time, when not specifically indicated.
Are you aware that not only have you contradicted yourself, you also have
failed to answer the question that I asked?
: Fortunately the primacy of the score is far more widely accepted now than
: once was the case. There is a dangerous assumption lurking within your
: comments that performers (can) know better than the composer how the
: music should be.
And so far, you have not provided any evidence that this assumption is
necessarily untrue except to jump up and down and shout "I'm right and
you're wrong." You'll pardon me if I fail to find that a compelling argument.
-----
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
-----
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: The 8'40" (or 8'37" IIRC) figure is indicated at the beginning, but comes
: from adding up the durations of the 'bars' in the score.
As I add the numbers in the score, I get 8'36".
-----
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
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Paul Kintzele
Samir Golescu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Paul Kintzele wrote:
>
> [interesting insights snipped]
> > For me, questions of literalness and fidelity always
> > take a second place to considerations of artistic effect. Not all
> > changes are for the good, of course; Nahum Tate's happy ending to _King
> > Lear_, which held the English stage for over a century, is a case in
> > point.
>
> A case in point as a "change for the good" or the opposite?
I said *not* all changes are for the good, and Tate's revision is a case
in point.
> I have never even heard of this. Any details or -- if the OT-ness is
> upsetting to others -- pointers to possible enlightening websites?
I don't know any websites, but any decent paperback version of _Lear_
will give some details (e.g. Bevington/Bantam). Tate's revision dates
from the 1680s; not only does his version of the play save Cordelia at
the end, it also gives her a love interest in Edgar (France and Burgundy
are omitted). The role of the Fool is also cut. And even when the
death of Cordelia, beginning in the 1820s, was finally restored in some
performances, the love story between her and Edgar was maintained and
the Fool was still left out. Many performances have also had a hard
time with the gruesome blinding of Gloucester, some moving it offstage
and others omitting it altogether. It was only in the twentieth century
that the full text was, after three centuries, again performed in all
its bleakness and agony.
Paul
Gabriel Jackson
>Date: 12/09/02 01:49 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9nptvk5...@Turing.Stanford.EDU>
>
>gbr...@aol.com (Gabriel Jackson) writes:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this [my Rachmaninov example, see
>> previous posting] either. If anyone at all is entitled to take
>> liberties with a score then that must be its composer, but the
>> origins of this debate lie with the suggestion that David Hurwitz
>> was somehow wrong to criticise a performance for playing fast and
>> loose with the score.
>
>I don't follow you here. Do you, or do you not, concede that it is OK
>for a composer to take liberties in performing his own compositions?
It is of course OK, in the sense that the composer knows what he/she wants
better than anyone else, & may have changed their mind about what he/she wants
at any given point, but if they do, then that gives rise to just the kind of
claims to legitimacy
that are being made for others doing the same.
>If you do concede this, as your second sentence suggests, then why
>should it not be OK for others to take liberties?
>
Answered above.
>> If a performer has so little faith in what the composer wrote (as
>> some did/do), why bother to play the piece at all?
>
>Are you trying to say that, because Rachmaninov made one tiny
>modification to his score in his recording of his Second Piano
>Concerto, no one should bother to play the work?
Of course that's not what I'm saying.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gabriel Jackson
>Date: 12/09/02 03:38 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <xeSf9.382$PD3....@news.itd.umich.edu>
>Perhaps the performer thinks that it is a tremendously beautiful or moving
>composition with one or two small problems or mistakes. That is, perhaps the
>performer loves the piece but thinks it would sound even better with one or
>two minor changes.
>
Isn't that rather presumtuous? If there are one or two small problems, why not
just put up with them? Otherwise where do the re-writes end?
>More to the point, perhaps the performer is at least occasionally correct to
>think this way.
>
Indeed they may often be correct to think that, but to act upon it is quite
another thing.
>Matty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gabriel Jackson
>Date: 12/09/02 05:45 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <alp65g$hd8$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020911200659...@mb-mm.aol.com>, Gabriel Jackson
><gbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>: David,
>:
>: I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this either. If anyone at all is entitled
>to
>: take liberties with a score then that must be its composer. . .
>
>Then why did you say that Penderecki was violating his own intentions when
>he did so?
>
he was right to do so is another question.
Gabriel Jackson
>Message-id: <alp631$hd8$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>: Without knowing exactly in what precise way Penderecki's recording deviates
>: from the letter of the score it is impossible to say what his reasons were.
>
>: If indeed there were any thought-out reasons. (I don't know how skilful a
>: conductor he is, for example - there are/were plenty of composers who
>: conduct(ed) their works despite not being very good at it.)
>
>In other words, even though you have never seen the score, or heard the
>performance, you are willing to say that everyone who considers it a
>standard performance is wrong because Penderecki was such a poor conductor
>that he couldn't measure the length of time it took for the orchestra to
>play the score. Note that when other conductors conducted their music badly,
>there are other ways of telling that the performance is not very good --
>e.g. missed or sloppy entrances, poor ensemble. As far as I can tell from
>following Penderecki's score while listening to the performance, the
>ensemble does everything that is in the score *except* obey the timings.
>
I did not say everyone who considers it a "standard performance" is wrong. What
is a "standard performance" anyway. I also did not say that Penderecki was a
poor conductor. All I said was that he might be.
Since the timing of the piece is the issue here, without knowing in the precise
ways his performance deviates from the timing of events given in the score it
is impossible to comment further. I have only your description of this
performance to go on, and that description is partial.
>:>"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
>:
>: Precise indications of the myriad possibilities of pedalling are impossible
>
>: to notate.
>
>Do you know anything about how piano music is notated, or are you just making
>this up as you go along? Keeping the pedal down for an entire movement
>(which
>Beethoven supposedly did while performing one of his piano concerti) is not
>hard to notate, as anyone who has seen the score to the "Moonlight" Sonata
>can attest.
Are you a professional musician? Keeping the pedal down throughout a piece is,
of course, easy to notate, but that it just one of "the myriad possibilities of
pedalling". If you knew anything about the notation of piano music you would
know that.
>
>:>If I can pedal in places where Beethoven doesn't indicate it without
>:>violating>his intentions, why can't I *not* pedal in places where he does?
>
>: We're discussing something at several removes here, since neither you nor I
>: actually heard the performance thus described. But the existence of
>specific
>: pedal directions are just that - instructions for a particular use of the
>: pedal that is not implicit within the notation - and doesn't preclude the
>: use of the pedal, in a way consistent with performance/notation conventions
>
>: of the time, when not specifically indicated.
>
>Are you aware that not only have you contradicted yourself, you also have
>failed to answer the question that I asked?
>
I have not only not contradicted myself, but I have answered the question.
>: Fortunately the primacy of the score is far more widely accepted now than
>: once was the case. There is a dangerous assumption lurking within your
>: comments that performers (can) know better than the composer how the
>: music should be.
>
>And so far, you have not provided any evidence that this assumption is
>necessarily untrue except to jump up and down and shout "I'm right and
>you're wrong." You'll pardon me if I fail to find that a compelling
>argument.
And you have provided nothing to support that assumption except a partial
description of a recording by Penderecki of one of his own pieces, and a
partial description, by one of his contemporaries, of a performance by
Beethoven. Since they were/are both composer and performer their position is
rather different, but if you believe that the performer knows better than the
composer what tempi, dynamics, articulation etc., even what pitches and
durations are appropriate that is up to you. It cannot be proved or not proved
to be right,
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>: I'm afraid I'm not impressed by this either. If anyone at all is entitled
:>: to take liberties with a score then that must be its composer. . .
:>Then why did you say that Penderecki was violating his own intentions when
:>he did so?
: Because he was, judging from what you have said about this performance.
: Whether he was right to do so is another question.
Are you aware that no matter how one interprets your last statement, you have
now contradicted yourself?
-----
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
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I did not say everyone who considers it a "standard performance" is wrong.
If deviation from the score is ipso facto a bad thing, then any performance
that deviates from the score ipso facto cannot be the standard performance.
: What is a "standard performance" anyway.
A performance that most informed listeners agree best presents the music.
Note that there can be several "standard performances" of a work, that they
can differ, and that not every listener will like a "standard performance."
: I also did not say that Penderecki was a poor conductor. All I said was
: that he might be.
All you did was to grasp at straws as your position becomes increasingly
untenable, since you are trying to continue to hold two positions that are
mutually contradictory.
:>:>"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
:>: Precise indications of the myriad possibilities of pedalling are impossible
:>: to notate.
:> Do you know anything about how piano music is notated, or are you just
:> making this up as you go along? Keeping the pedal down for an entire
:> movement (which Beethoven supposedly did while performing one of his piano
:> concerti) is not hard to notate, as anyone who has seen the score to
:> the "Moonlight" Sonata can attest.
: Are you a professional musician? Keeping the pedal down throughout a piece
: is, of course, easy to notate, but that it just one of "the myriad
: possibilities of pedalling". If you knew anything about the notation of
: piano music you would know that.
The issue at hand is whether pedalling in places not indicated in the score
constitutes a violation of the composer's intentions, and conversely, whether
*not* pedalling in a place that *is* indicated is a violation of the
composer's intentions. I am not a professional pianist, but I have been
playing the piano long enough to know that "put the pedal down here" and "lift
the pedal here" are much easier to notate exactly than, say, a ritardando.
On a modern piano, pedalling is a binary process -- it's either down or it's
up -- while "ritardando" only tells you at best the *average* change in tempo,
the actual rate of change of tempo (which might not be constant) is much
more difficult to indicate.
If the composer intends a specific method of pedalling, then he can very
easily indicate that in the score. If more than one possibility exists for
pedalling a piece, then your contention that the score is a specific set of
instructions from the composer on how to perform the piece is immediately
falsified. If one can change the pedalling without violating the composer's
intention, as you appear to believe from your refusal to answer my question
about Beethoven, then why not the dynamics? You have already been presented
with an example from Rachmaninov; another might be Chopin's Op. 48/1 nocturne,
in which at one point Chopin indicated to soften the dynamic, while Mikuli's
edition (Mikuli was a student of Chopin, and was certainly a direct link to
Chopin's own performance style) has "ff" at the same place.
And if one can change dynamics without violating the composer's intention,
why not the notes?
:>:>If I can pedal in places where Beethoven doesn't indicate it without
:>:>violating>his intentions, why can't I *not* pedal in places where he does?
:>: . . .But the existence of specific pedal directions are just that -
:>: instructions for a particular use of the pedal that is not implicit within
:>: the notation - and doesn't preclude the use of the pedal, in a way
:>: consistent with performance/notation conventions of the time, when not
:>: specifically indicated.
:>Are you aware that not only have you contradicted yourself, you also have
:>failed to answer the question that I asked?
: I have not only not contradicted myself, but I have answered the question.
Apparently, you have a different definition of "answering a question" than I
do. I specifically asked about the case where the score indicates to
depress the pedal and the performer fails to depress it. That is not
addressed at any point in your comment above.
:> And so far, you have not provided any evidence that this assumption is
:> necessarily untrue except to jump up and down and shout "I'm right and
:> you're wrong." You'll pardon me if I fail to find that a compelling
:> argument.
: And you have provided nothing to support that assumption except a partial
: description of a recording by Penderecki of one of his own pieces, and a
: partial description, by one of his contemporaries, of a performance by
: Beethoven. Since they were/are both composer and performer their position is
: rather different, but if you believe that the performer knows better than the
: composer what tempi, dynamics, articulation etc., even what pitches and
: durations are appropriate that is up to you. It cannot be proved or not
: proved to be right[.]
Are you even aware of what you said that started the discussion? I claimed
that not playing according to the score is not ipso facto a reason to
believe that a performance is poor or misrepresents the composer's intentions.
Most of the time, in my experience, it will be -- but since it is not always
so, it seems to me that "this performance ignores the score, and is therefore
bad" must be accompanied by a discussion of how the changes to the score
detract musically from the performance, if the critic wants his criticism to
be taken seriously.
You then claimed that not playing according to the score is ipso facto a
violation of the composer's intentions. The simplest test of that hypothesis
is to observe how composers played their own works, which was the reason
that I brought up Penderecki and Beethoven (and that someone else brought
up Rachmaninov). You further claimed that the composer *always* has
primacy of the performer. I pointed out that the existence of composers who
revised their scores, or accepted revisions of their scores, based on
comments by performers indicates that the composers themselves don't always
seem to agree with you. Perhaps you are unaware that a single counterexample
is sufficient to disprove a statement that something is *always* true.
-----
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
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Himadri
Here's a complete version of the Nahum Tate text:
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/tatelear.html
You are likely to find this version quite outrageous. Cordelia
survives, and marries Edgar. There is a scene where Lear bravely
fights off an attempt on Cordelia's life. And Lear is restored to the
throne at the end.
Yet, this is the version of Lear that held the stage for nigh on two
centuries. Dr Johnson preferred it to Shakespeare's original; and it
is this version, not Shakespeare's, that was performed by David
Garrick.
Regards, Himadri
Simon Smith
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> In article <711e62744b.Simon@simon_smith.lineone.net>, Simon Smith
> <simon...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> : The 8'40" (or 8'37" IIRC) figure is indicated at the beginning, but comes
> : from adding up the durations of the 'bars' in the score.
>
> As I add the numbers in the score, I get 8'36".
My apologies :)
Matthew Silverstein
>Perhaps the performer thinks that it is a tremendously beautiful or moving
>composition with one or two small problems or mistakes. That is, perhaps the
>performer loves the piece but thinks it would sound even better with one or
>two minor changes.
GJ replied:
> Isn't that rather presumtuous? If there are one or two small problems, why
not
> just put up with them? Otherwise where do the re-writes end?
I don't see what's so presumptuous about it. Sure, many of the great composers
are (were) geniuses. But so are (were) many of the great performers. And I
don't see a "slippery slope" sort of problem here. The "re-writes" end where
musical thoughtfulness and taste ends--the "re-writes" end when the audience
no longer puts up with them.
> Indeed they may often be correct to think that, but to act upon it is quite
> another thing.
It is another thing--a good thing, in my mind. You seem to assume that a
performance of a piece of music has only one purpose: to relate the composer's
intentions to the audience as carefully as possible. This is certainly one
purpose, but it seems to me that there are others, one of which is to create
as moving a performance as possible. If these two goals come into conflict (as
you admit they can), I would *always* rather attend the more moving, less
authentic performance.
Matty
Gabriel Jackson
>Message-id: <alprko$31i$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020912055017...@mb-mb.aol.com>, Gabriel Jackson
><gbr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: I did not say everyone who considers it a "standard performance" is wrong.
>
>If deviation from the score is ipso facto a bad thing, then any performance
>that deviates from the score ipso facto cannot be the standard performance.
>
>: What is a "standard performance" anyway.
>
>A performance that most informed listeners agree best presents the music.
>Note that there can be several "standard performances" of a work, that they
>can differ, and that not every listener will like a "standard performance"
This definition is so vague as to be meaningless. How does one determine who
most informed listeners are and how they have reached their conclusions? A
performance that "best" presents the music must, by definition, be better than
any other, so there cannot be more than one "standard performance" I did not
say everyone who considers this Penderecki recording a "standard performance"
is wrong but if it deviates from the score in the way that you suggest - and,
as you say, I haven't heard it, or seen the score, so am reliant on your
description of both - it clearly is not an accurate representation of what the
composer wrote, whether he is the conductor or not.
.
>
>: I also did not say that Penderecki was a poor conductor. All I said was
>: that he might be.
>
>All you did was to grasp at straws as your position becomes increasingly
>untenable, since you are trying to continue to hold two positions that are
>mutually contradictory.
I am not "grasping at straws". Trying to comment on a performance one has not
heard is probably foolish, but that it what you invited me to do.
>
>:>:>"Pedal," "release pedal," and "ritardando," are all easily notated.
>
>:>: Precise indications of the myriad possibilities of pedalling are
>impossible
>:>: to notate.
>
>:> Do you know anything about how piano music is notated, or are you just
>:> making this up as you go along? Keeping the pedal down for an entire
>:> movement (which Beethoven supposedly did while performing one of his piano
>
>:> concerti) is not hard to notate, as anyone who has seen the score to
>:> the "Moonlight" Sonata can attest.
>
>: Are you a professional musician? Keeping the pedal down throughout a piece
>: is, of course, easy to notate, but that it just one of "the myriad
>: possibilities of pedalling". If you knew anything about the notation of
>: piano music you would know that.
>
>The issue at hand is whether pedalling in places not indicated in the score
>constitutes a violation of the composer's intentions, and conversely, whether
>*not* pedalling in a place that *is* indicated is a violation of the
>composer's intentions. I am not a professional pianist, but I have been
>playing the piano long enough to know that "put the pedal down here" and
>"lift
>the pedal here" are much easier to notate exactly than, say, a ritardando.
You seem to think that pedalling consists of simply "put the pedal down here"
or "lift the pedal here". Any pianist will tell you that what one does with the
pedal is infinitely more complex, subtle, and impossible to notate than this.
>On a modern piano, pedalling is a binary process -- it's either down or it's
>up -- while "ritardando" only tells you at best the *average* change in
>tempo,
>the actual rate of change of tempo (which might not be constant) is much
>more difficult to indicate.
As I said above, it is not either "down" or "up", pedalling is much more
complex than that. How far down? How far up? How quickly or slowly is it to be
released? How do you indicate precisely the action of flutter pedalling, for
example?
>
>If the composer intends a specific method of pedalling, then he can very
>easily indicate that in the score.
That is exactly what I said, although there are limits to how precisely that
can be notated. Beethoven's pedal indications tend to be for quite specific
effects which are not implicit within the notation of the pitches and durations
- for example detached chords, separated by rests, where what is actually
wanted is for those rests to be pedalled through.
If more than one possibility exists for
>pedalling a piece, then your contention that the score is a specific set of
>instructions from the composer on how to perform the piece is immediately
>falsified.
A score is a set of instructions but because of the nature of musical notation
it is not a perfect one. Not to pedal in way that has been expressly indicated
by the composer is, I contend, not the right thing to do - but that doesn't
mean the opposite is true. The absence of specific pedalling directions doesn't
mean the pedal should not be used - other aspects of the notation will help
determine whether that is so.
OK, again, in simple terms: in my view, not to use the pedal in a way that has
been specifically indicated in the score violates the composer's intentions.
>
>:> And so far, you have not provided any evidence that this assumption is
>:> necessarily untrue except to jump up and down and shout "I'm right and
>:> you're wrong." You'll pardon me if I fail to find that a compelling
>:> argument.
>
>: And you have provided nothing to support that assumption except a partial
>: description of a recording by Penderecki of one of his own pieces, and a
>: partial description, by one of his contemporaries, of a performance by
>: Beethoven. Since they were/are both composer and performer their position
>is
>: rather different, but if you believe that the performer knows better than
>the
>: composer what tempi, dynamics, articulation etc., even what pitches and
>: durations are appropriate that is up to you. It cannot be proved or not
>: proved to be right[.]
>
>Are you even aware of what you said that started the discussion? I claimed
>that not playing according to the score is not ipso facto a reason to
>believe that a performance is poor or misrepresents the composer's
>intentions.
>Most of the time, in my experience, it will be -- but since it is not always
>so, it seems to me that "this performance ignores the score, and is therefore
>bad" must be accompanied by a discussion of how the changes to the score
>detract musically from the performance, if the critic wants his criticism to
>be taken seriously.
I would agree with you that it sensible to cite chapter and verse when
condemning departures from the letter of the score, and, broadly, it seems, you
agree with me! A performance that deviates from the score does misrepresent the
composer's wishes, as expressed by them in the score. Whether you think that is
a good or bad thing is up to you, and it seems that, more often than not, you
think it a bad thing. It is my belief that, whilst all sorts of instances can
cited of composer/performers who have themselves departed, to a greater or
lesser extent, from the letter of what they have written, it is dangerous to go
on from there to suggest that it is OK for performers to do what they like with
a piece.That has produced all sorts of disastrous results in the past, some of
which I referred to previously, and the greater respect for the score that is
feature of modern musical life can only be a good thing.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:
: It is another thing--a good thing, in my mind. You seem to assume that a
: performance of a piece of music has only one purpose: to relate the
: composer's intentions to the audience as carefully as possible. This is
: certainly one purpose, but it seems to me that there are others, one of
: which is to create as moving a performance as possible. If these two goals
: come into conflict (as you admit they can), I would *always* rather attend
: the more moving, less authentic performance.
I think that the very issue of what a composer's "inention" is not all that
clear. If by "intention," we mean "he wants a set of notes played in a
particular order, at a particular tempo, and at a particular dynamic," then
on can by definition only match his intention by playing *exactly* what
appears on the page -- or rather, by playing *exactly* what the best text
we can obtain says. I don't think that anyone (except maybe Gunther
Schuller) actually would go to such an extreme -- certainly not for music
written before the Romantic period (although when you get to aleatoric music,
that kind of implies that the composer had no intention). The reason that
Baroque composers didn't put in lots of expression marks wasn't that they
didn't want the music played expressively, but that they assumed that any
decent performer would know how to express the music tastefully. (IIRC,
people at the time were rather ticked at J.S. Bach because he had the
chutzpa actually to *write out* the ornaments rather than leaving them to
the discretion of the performer.)
To my way of thinking (not that I have developed a theory or philosophy of
esthetics, nor would I expect any such theory to be taken seriously), when
any artist creates something, a motivation is to take his or her personal
experience and somehow to universalize it, to relate it to the general
experience of humankind. (It probably won't come as a surprise when I say
that I think that there is a great similarity between the artistic, religious,
and scientific impulses -- all three are IMO manifestations of the apparently
innate human desire to find or impose order on seemingly formless and
chaotic data.) In any case, if we assume that the composer's "motivation"
is to express a personal experience in universal terms, then we can ask,
how can the performer best enable the audience to share his understanding of
the composer's experience? Obviously, complete lack of fidelity to the
score will not be effective -- it might be effective as music, but it won't
be effective as a presentation of the composer's ideas. But it's not clear
that complete fidelity to the score is *necessarily* the ideal either.
Certainly through much of music history, even the composers assumed that the
performers would add something of their own (cf. jazz in our day in which the
performer is expected to improvise something new and different every time
he or she plays). And performers were judged on how successfully they made
those additions. While it's true that there have been times when performers
tended to be excessive in their tinkering, that doesn't mean that the
tinkering itself is always without merit, if it can better enable the
audience to understand what the composer had in mind.
Thus, if you accept that it is possible in principle to realize the
"Moonlight" Sonata on a modern piano (i.e. transmit Beethoven's emotional
message), then you have to accept that following Beethoven's pedalling
directions will only detract from the performance. And if Mahler could
reason (not a direct quote) "if Schumann hadn't been such a klutz, he would
have orchestrated his symphonies differently," why can't *we* reason "if
Mahler hadn't been such a klutz, he would have orchestrated *his* symphonies
differently" -- especially since Mahler spent a *lot* of time tinkering with
the orchestration of his own symphonies after they were nominally done (and,
in the case of the 5th symphony, even made some comment to the effect that
he really hadn't known what he was doing when he first wrote it)?
-----
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
-----
Gabriel Jackson
>Date: 12/09/02 14:05 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <eq%f9.394$PD3....@news.itd.umich.edu>
I'm not sure I'd agree that that is a sensible intention. How do you determine
what will move a disparate collection of people i.e. the audience? Who decides
what is moving? Each individual member of the audience, surely, not the
performer. If a performance is about trying to manipulate the emotions of the
audience, that is not, in my view, a good thing.
When berating the strings of an orchestra he was rehearsing for a particularly
distasteful portemento (or some other such "expressive" device) - distasteful
to the Stravinskyan mind that is - the concertmaster said "but Maestro, the
music here is so beautiful" to which Stravinsky replied to the effect of "if
it's so beautiful, then just play what;s written". This is a view with which I
have some sympathy.