e-mail I sent to David Hurwitz re: Gardiner Brahms Sym. No.4
Thornhill
--------------------------
Dear Mr. Hurwitz:
With all due respect, I found your review of John Eliot Gardiner's
recording of Brahms: Symphony No.4 to be hypocritical.
You write:
"Gardiner makes the usual obeisance to period-performance orthodoxy:
Brahms preferred a smallish orchestra (false) and valveless horns
(questionable). Gardiner claims to take note of the Meiningen Court
Orchestra performance tradition, but then, why so often that dead,
vibratoless string sound? The very source Gardiner cites as evidence
of that tradition, Walter Blume's typescript of conductor Fritz
Steinbach's performance notes, reveals that a warm, basic vibrato
timbre was standard at Meiningen."
When Charles Mackerras recorded the Brahms Symphonies for Telarc in
the late 1990s with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, Mackerras made all
the same claims in his liner notes as well as in the audio interview
that came with the box set. Like Gardiner, he used a smallish
orchestra, his strings played without vibrato, and the orchestra used
period brass. The only difference was that Mackerras did not use
period strings and woodwinds.
In your review of the Mackerras recordings posted on Amazon.com, you
praised the recording for these characteristics:
"This fascinating set of the complete Brahms symphonies reflects
Charles Mackerras' researches into late Romantic performance
techniques. Using contemporary letters from the composer and his close
associates, Mackerras makes a convincing case that conductors of the
late 19th century typically preferred very wide variations in tempo
within a movement, and a flexible sense of rhythm. This, of course, is
something that many conductors have always done, but Mackerras
combines the technique with an orchestra similar in size to the one
that premiered many of these symphonies, and which Brahms himself
preferred. The result is fresh and exciting, with many passages of
Brahms' thick orchestration marvelously clarified."
You say in your review of the Mackerras recordings that Brahms
preferred a smaller orchestra, and then in your review of the Gardiner
recording claim that this is false. You have no qualms about
Mackerras' lack of vibrato -- at least none that prevent you from
concluding that the performances are "fresh and exciting" -- and yet
you tear into Gardiner for it.
I believe that you owe your reader's an explanation about why you
embraced Mackerras' very similar approach, and then bashed Gardiner
for doing almost all the same things, and especially accusing Gardiner
of making a false claim about Brahms' preference for a small orchestra
which you previously endorsed.
Thornhill
> Enjoy:
>
> --------------------------
Hurwitz wrote back pretty quickly with a long and detailed response.
I still think he should have said something in his review about why he
praised Mackerras, but I still give him credit for responding to my
criticism of his review.
Greg
For what it's worth (not much...), I found Gardiner's Brahms 4 to be
really good, easily my favorite thing in his cycle, and better than
anything in the Mackerras cycle. I am surprised Hurwitz responded so
negatively. And I am not really much of a Gardiner fan in general.
Now on to the Norrington cycle, which I received today.
Greg
Oscar
>
> Hurwitz wrote back pretty quickly with a long and detailed response.
>
> I still think he should have said something in his review about why he
> praised Mackerras, but I still give him credit for responding to my
> criticism of his review.
Pray tell what he said. Btw, I've noticed the same Hurwitz
discrepancy as you. Good on ya for putting pen to paper and going to
the source to find out why some he lets slide and others he gives no
quarter.
Oscar
wait to read what Hurwitz has to say about Norrington's forthcoming
complete Brahms Symphonies cycle on Haenssler Classic SACD, scheduled
for release in a couple weeks.
herman
Maybe you shouldn't attach that much importance to music reviews.
Also, those Mackerras recordings are ten, fifteen years old? Maybe
Hurwitz changed his mind in the meantime. But anyway, why don't you
enjoy the music you enjoy without close reading those reviews?
Matthew Silverstein
> For what it's worth (not much...), I found Gardiner's Brahms 4 to be
> really good, easily my favorite thing in his cycle, and better than
> anything in the Mackerras cycle. I am surprised Hurwitz responded so
> negatively. And I am not really much of a Gardiner fan in general.
I like the cycle (and Gardiner in general) more than you do, but I agree
that the 4 is one of the highlights. (1/i may be my favorite movement from
Gardiner's cycle.)
> Now on to the Norrington cycle, which I received today.
Let us know what you think. I culled Norrington's LCP set on EMI years ago.
Matty
William Sommerwerck
> Let us know what you think.
Me, too. I've been eyeing it, but holding off.
Ördög
wrote:
> >> Now on to the Norrington cycle, which I received today.
> > Let us know what you think.
>
> Me, too. I've been eyeing it, but holding off.
I will hold off till hell freezes over. Mainly because I am wary of
Mr. Norrington's views on vibrato. He asserts that 19th century
composers/audiences would never have heard music played with vibrato,
but how does he know? I once had a score (in manuscript) of an
unfinished clarinet quintet by Alexander Fesca. In the unfinished
second movement, he marks the strings "senza vibrato". If this was not
the practice at the time, why would he insert such a direction? No
date is given, but I guess it was late 1840 or thereabouts.
Christopher Webber
>Mainly because I am wary of Mr. Norrington's views on vibrato. He
>asserts that 19th century composers/audiences would never have heard
>music played with vibrato, but how does he know?
That's not quite what he asserts - at least I have not heard him assert
such a blanket view.
His contention is that pre-Kreisler *continuous* vibrato was not used,
either in solo or orchestral playing: and that although Baroque, Rococo
and 19th century string players employed it, vibrato was a *special*
effect (mainly on sustained notes).
Certainly composers at latest from Mozart onwards have written
prominently complaining about its overuse, a fact of which Norrington
must be well aware.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
http://www.zarzuela.net
Ördög
wrote:
> rd g <jansfarr...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Mainly because I am wary of Mr. Norrington's views on vibrato. He
> >asserts that 19th century composers/audiences would never have heard
> >music played with vibrato, but how does he know?
>
> That's not quite what he asserts - at least I have not heard him assert
> such a blanket view.
Actually, I *did* hear him assert such a view - I think he was
discussing Mahler at the time. As I see it, if his view applies to
Mahler, then it must apply to those who came before him. But yes, I
agree that vibrato was employed as a sort of decorative or "special
effect" during the baroque era and after - but mainly by singers, I
would suggest.
patterbear
Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you would award Norrington the same points as I would - plus
or minus zero:)
M forever
Norrington overdoes it a little bit with his strictly no vibrato
"policy", both in his statements and in his performances. I think he
also tends to overdo the "rhetoric" phrasing and he applies the same
basic kind of highly declamatory and detailed phrasing to everything
he conducts.
HOWEVER - I have to say that most I what I have heard from what he did
with the RSO Stuttgart was exceptionally well prepared and played.
Obviously, very great care was taken with regard to phrasing,
articulation, balancing, clarity of textures and intonation. By which
I mean not just playing "in tune" which is a little more difficult
without vibrato, but also non-equalized thirds to bring out the
character of some chords better, e.g. at the end of the first movement
of Tchaikovsky 6, the brass chorale sounds amazing - I have never
heard it sound that good and so colorful. There is a lot of inner
detail which I have never before heard in such relief.
The whole performance is highly interesting. Somewhat odd, in the
complete lack of vibrato and the in some places overdone "baroqeuish"
rhetoric phrasing, but from a technical and musical point of view
extremely well done and therefore an interesting "concept"
performance, an interesting "what if" experiment and therefore
definitely worth hearing.
Oh yes, and Norrington's placement of the violins separated left and
right brings out the interesting antiphonal writing in the 4th
movement. You can hear the main theme "sway" from left to right and
back. That effect is lost in all performances which put the violins
all on one side.
BTW, Norrington apparently did not use a smallish orchestra for his
Brahms symphonies. In fact, in some Youtube videos you can even see
that he used doubled woodwinds.
Christopher Webber
>There is a lot of inner detail which I have never before heard in such
>relief.
My experience of his best concerts and recordings also.
In not smothering everything in a string wash, Norrington's conceptual
presentation of the romantic repertoire can be revelatory in just the
way you describe. For me, neither Smetana nor Berlioz have sounded
completely satisfying under other hands since I heard him "wipe the
varnish off" "Ma Vlast" and "Benvenuto Cellini" respectively.
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't doubt Norrington's technical abiltities, but his "no vib" (as
he sometimes marks string player's parts) does get on my nerves
sometimes, but I am indeed in favour of the left - right placing of
1st & 2nd violins, no matter what the piece. l shall try to finish
this when I can figure out why my keyboard won't behave itself!
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
c01748...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
> are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
Okay, so please point me at other recordings of the following Berlioz works:
"Hymne à la France," "Le Menace des Francs," "Le Temple Universel," and the
choral version of "Le chant des Bretons."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Ördög
> patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
>
> > Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
> > are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
>
> Okay, so please point me at other recordings of the following Berlioz works:
> "Hymne à la France," "Le Menace des Francs," "Le Temple Universel," and the
> choral version of "Le chant des Bretons."
(Hanging my head in shame) As I am completely unfamiliar with these
pieces, I guess it's Norrington or nothing. Oh well, such is life's
rich tapestry (as my grandfather used to say).
patterbear
> patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
>
> > Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
> > are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
>
> Okay, so please point me at other recordings of the following Berlioz works:
> "Hymne à la France," "Le Menace des Francs," "Le Temple Universel," and the
> choral version of "Le chant des Bretons."
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Fine-let him stick to saving that which has been neglected-If I'm
going to listen to Brahms 1 or Schubert 9 am I really picking him off
the shelf or Walter,Klemperer,Furtwangler,Giulini,Szell,etc.?
Christopher Webber
>I don't doubt Norrington's technical abiltities, but his "no vib" (as
>he sometimes marks string player's parts) does get on my nerves
>sometimes, but I am indeed in favour of the left - right placing of 1st
>I can figure out why my keyboard won't behave itself!
Extreme left - extreme right placing of 1st and 2nd violins is indeed
crucial.
Another conductor who always adopted the layout was the late and very
much lamented Vernon Handley, who followed his teacher Adrian Boult in
moving heaven and earth to persuade or coerce orchestras into adopting
this seating plan.
I remember him once telling me that the only time he ever saw Boult
seriously depressed was when for one set of recording sessions (with
Lyrita for Elgar with the LPO if I remember rightly, but I'm open to
correction) he was persuaded by the recording engineer to spread the
string section in the conventional way, for technical reasons. The
results did not please him at all.
Handley made it clear that it is the usually the orchestral musicians
themselves who dig their heels in for the "modern" seating plan - as he
put it, they prefer to be able to audit themselves for balance, rather
than trusting the idiot with the stick! Well, they trusted Tod enough to
let him seat them the correct, musically sensible way.
I can't speak for earlier symphonists, but so many antiphonal effects
written in by composers from Schumann to Elgar at least are lost when
the left-right placing of the violins (which they had in mind) is so
stupidly thrown away. And for what?
Good on Norrington.
M forever
You just did. You agreed with patterbear that he is "not a real
conductor". And if you don't listen to his recordings out of
principle, how do you know what his technical abilities are?
> but his "no vib" (as
> he sometimes marks string player's parts) does get on my nerves
> sometimes,
Again, my impression is that you won't listen to his performances at
all, or at least not before "hell freezes over" because of his "no
vib" attitude. So is that only sometimes, based on listening to
particular performances, or just a general prejudice against the man
and his work? Looks a lot like the latter.
> but I am indeed in favour of the left - right placing of
> 1st & 2nd violins, no matter what the piece. l shall try to finish
> this when I can figure out why my keyboard won't behave itself!
Is it a wireless keyboard? Sometimes you have to reconnect/reinitiate
those. There is usually a small button on the underside.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >There is a lot of inner detail which I have never before heard in such
> >relief.
>
> My experience of his best concerts and recordings also.
>
> In not smothering everything in a string wash, Norrington's conceptual
> presentation of the romantic repertoire can be revelatory in just the
> way you describe. For me, neither Smetana nor Berlioz have sounded
> completely satisfying under other hands since I heard him "wipe the
> varnish off" "Ma Vlast" and "Benvenuto Cellini" respectively.
I wouldn't go that far. There are plenty of good performances of Ma
Vlast. I don't need a conductor to "wipe the varnish" off to realize
if a piece is good music or not.
M forever
As I pointed out in a previous post, however odd and controversial
come of his ideas are, and however annoying the man himself can be
when you hear or read him lecturing about all his unique insights and
all that, there is no doubt that what he does is technically excellent
and very professional. His performances are obviously very
meticulously prepared and rehearsed. He is also very good at leading
an orchestra in live concerts in a flexible and spirited way.
So unfortunately, your comment means that you have no clue about all
these things. I don't completely agree with most of what Norrington
does and I disagree strongly with quite a few of his musical ideas and
choices, but I can see that he is "a real conductor" so I can listen
to his performances without such silly prejudices and discover for
myself the good, the bad and the ugly in them.
M forever
Who are you to decide what repertoire Norrington can conduct? That's a
silly idea. Your comparison with the above conductors is equally
silly. Those are all completely different stylistic approaches. If you
insist on comparing, in Schubert Norrington may actually be more
interesting and stylistically aware than some of the above. I actually
heard a both very nuanced and wild Schubert 9 live with him and the
RSO Stuttgart in Berlin. The performance was so good that people
started applauding between the movements. That is extremely rare in
Berlin where the audience is very sophisticated. They also played
Berg's violin concerto with Kavakos where Norrington allowed the
orchestra judiciously applied vibrato in some places, none in others.
The tonal palette so created really illuminated the inner structures
of the piece very well.
Kerrison
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since the Norrington Pathetique is also on You Tube I checked out the
finale with its divided strings and found the phrasing to be choppy
and pretentious and unalluring, while the vibrato-less string playing
sounds just as miserable and whining and colourless as it usually
does, regardless of the music being played. Still, each to his own, as
they say, but it was interesting to read the comments underneath by
other viewers, including: "Bloody awful .. the conductor should be
shot" ...
patterbear
Wow. Good for you. To me he's a
hack,boring,bloodless,dispassionate,fussy, and full of pretense. You
can have him. I don't need to listen to his noodling.
Christopher Webber
I must have been unclear. I was speaking metaphorically, Michael. Mr
Norrington wasn't carrying a rag and a bottle of turpentine down to the
Vltava with him. There was no physical varnish.
May I correct your misapprehension on another point? I did not need Mr
Norrington to let me know this was good music, as you seem to imply. "Ma
Vlast" has been amongst my favourite works for upwards of forty years. I
major on Smetana, have studied him in depth, and consider this work one
of the most underrated of symphonic masterpieces.
I have at least ten complete versions besides Norrington's in my current
collection, and a complete set of full size conductors' scores. I won't
be throwing any of these out yet, but Norrington's "concept" made me
feel as if I was hearing it anew - I don't always want to hear it his
way, but it was a useful corrective to the varnish of the Czech
tradition.
I hope that explains my metaphor sufficiently.
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
M. I think you are reading me too literally. I don't mean to say that
Norrington is a good or bad conductor, he's just not to my taste. I
have attended only two of his concerts and I was disappointed on both
occasions. That wasn't his fault, it was mine; I just didn't like the
way he performed music from the classical era without vibrato and my
ears couldn't adjust to the sound. Chrisopher Webber has already
mentioned "Ma Vlast", and I heard Norrington perform parts of this
with the NYO of GB at the Royal Albert Hall Proms. I didn't enjoy it
very much and I suppose this has influenced my opinion. But let us at
least recognise and be grateful that not all conductors perform
everything in exactly the same way. What a boring world it would be,
nicht wahr?
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >There are plenty of good performances of Ma Vlast. I don't need a
> >conductor to "wipe the varnish" off to realize if a piece is good music
> >or not.
>
> I must have been unclear. I was speaking metaphorically, Michael. Mr
> Norrington wasn't carrying a rag and a bottle of turpentine down to the
> Vltava with him. There was no physical varnish.
I know what you meant. It is a very common metaphor for this kind of
"restorative" performance. And it is a good metaphor because it is
similar to the restoration of old works of art which often come out in
very vivid and fresh, sometimes bold colors when the dirt of centuries
is removed, not at all as dim and brownish as we often knew them.
> May I correct your misapprehension on another point? I did not need Mr
> Norrington to let me know this was good music, as you seem to imply. "Ma
> Vlast" has been amongst my favourite works for upwards of forty years. I
> major on Smetana, have studied him in depth, and consider this work one
> of the most underrated of symphonic masterpieces.
>
> I have at least ten complete versions besides Norrington's in my current
> collection, and a complete set of full size conductors' scores. I won't
> be throwing any of these out yet, but Norrington's "concept" made me
> feel as if I was hearing it anew - I don't always want to hear it his
> way, but it was a useful corrective to the varnish of the Czech
> tradition.
>
> I hope that explains my metaphor sufficiently.
Well, you said the music never sounded "completely satisfying" for you
and that sounded to me like you meant to say you think there is a
problem with the music itself. It is now clearer what you meant. So
which performances of Ma Vlast apart from Norrington do you find
particularly good, even if not "completely satisfying"? Do you know
Harnoncourt's?
M forever
You are watching a Youtube video with its heavily compressed and
distorted audio to judge the quality of the sound of the string
playing? Remember to remind me not to take you seriously on matters of
sound quality ever again if I do so by accident in the future.
BTW, I find the phrasing pretentious, too, and also too choppy, but I
can separate that from other musical elements like the sound (which is
great on well done recordings and live), the balances and textures
etc. So it is not simply a matter of "to each his own", it is more a
matter of being able to perceive and judge in a balanced, unprejudiced
way in order to arrive at a nuanced and fair criticism. Somebody who
says "the conductor should be shot is obviously not able to do that".
If you are not able to hear and judge yourself in such a nuanced way,
that's fine, but please don't waste other people's time with your
silly prejudices then.
M forever
wrote:
> Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> writes:
> >I don't doubt Norrington's technical abiltities, but his "no vib" (as
> >he sometimes marks string player's parts) does get on my nerves
> >sometimes, but I am indeed in favour of the left - right placing of 1st
> >2nd violins, no matter what the piece. l shall try to finish this when
> >I can figure out why my keyboard won't behave itself!
>
> Extreme left - extreme right placing of 1st and 2nd violins is indeed
> crucial.
>
> Another conductor who always adopted the layout was the late and very
> much lamented Vernon Handley, who followed his teacher Adrian Boult in
> moving heaven and earth to persuade or coerce orchestras into adopting
> this seating plan.
>
> I remember him once telling me that the only time he ever saw Boult
> seriously depressed was when for one set of recording sessions (with
> Lyrita for Elgar with the LPO if I remember rightly, but I'm open to
> correction) he was persuaded by the recording engineer to spread the
> string section in the conventional way, for technical reasons. The
> results did not please him at all.
Interesting. I know few Boult recordings, so I was not aware that that
was his general preference. I did notice the other day when I listened
to his recording of "The Wasps" overture that it used the old seating.
I will probably hear more of that then as I seem to be in the
beginnings of a Vaughan Williams discover phase and Boult's are often
said to be among the best recordings.
> Handley made it clear that it is the usually the orchestral musicians
> themselves who dig their heels in for the "modern" seating plan - as he
> put it, they prefer to be able to audit themselves for balance, rather
> than trusting the idiot with the stick! Well, they trusted Tod enough to
> let him seat them the correct, musically sensible way.
That's an odd comment from Mr Handley there. I have never witnessed or
heard of musicians "digging in their heels" for the modern seating
plan. I don't see why it would allow individual musicians to judge
balances any better than the old one.
M forever
Dunno - your world does sound pretty boring to me when you completely
dismiss the work of someone based on just two concert experiences
because what you heard was different from what you are used to hear
and then vow never to listen to him again "until hell freezes over".
Which is fine - obviously only you can decide what you want to listen
to and what not. The question remains then why you feel the need to
bore us with your uninformed and snide dismissal of all of his work -
most of which you apparently never even heard - just based on your
very limited knowledge of it and your obvious inability to judge
performances which do not meet your preconceived expectations in a
nuanced way? And why do you feel the need to join patterbear in
dismissing Norrington as "not a real conductor" when you obviously
don't have the knowledge to judge what "a real conductor" is? Just
because it makes you feel better to have "strong opinions"?
M forever
I don't need to either "have" or "not have" Norrington's performances.
I can pick and choose based on actually listening and judging them in
a fair and nuanced way. You can't do that, obviously, because you are
just guided by prejudices and very superficial listening.
As for the "hack" part - that was my point. One doesn't have to like
or accept everything - or anything - he does. I don't either. In fact,
there are few of his performances that I have heard so far that fully
or mostly convinced me. But it is clear to me that he knows exactly
what he is doing and knows how to get his results. Technically, he is
a very good rehearser and conductor. That you don't understand that is
the reason you can't come to a more nuanced and balanced view, and
also the reason we shouldn't take any of your comments seriously. The
limitations of your ear and your understanding are really of no
interest to anyone, no matter how loudly and colorfully you proclaim
them.
Greg
Norrington's Stuttgart Schubert 9 is one of my favorites. Oh well.
Greg
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I bore you, why respond? And I didn't say that Norrington wasn't a
"real conductor" as you very well know. Why do you misquote me?
Perhaps, as I said, you are reading me too literally. Music expert I
am not, but I appreciate a little irony now and then. Perhaps when
learn how to acquire a sense of humour/irony, we might just get along
a bit better.
Christopher Webber
>Well, you said the music never sounded "completely satisfying" for you
>and that sounded to me like you meant to say you think there is a
>problem with the music itself. It is now clearer what you meant. So
>which performances of Ma Vlast apart from Norrington do you find
>particularly good, even if not "completely satisfying"? Do you know
>Harnoncourt's?
Not quite Michael. I said that "Ma Vlast" hasn't sounded "completely
satisfying" to me in other versions *since* I heard Norrington's. In a
way, I wish I hadn't heard it!!
We're going OT now, but Norrington aside, I'd require [1] Ancerl [1963 -
1993 issue, not the 2002 Ancerl Edition mastering which although less
hissy makes the strings sound synthetic] and [2] on DVD live from 1968
[with a revealing documentary on the conductor's life and work, focusing
on the prejudice he encountered *after* Auschwitz].
I'd add [3] Kubelik in Prague 1990 for its specially moving sense of
occasion; and [4] Talich 1954 [Naxos Historical transfer]. There are
several others which are also "keepers" in my collection for various
reasons - every one of them, apart from Neumann's limpid 1967 Leipzig
version and the Norrington, are all-Czech.
As a cheap and lively modern recording I've time for Kuchar and the
Janacek PO on Brilliant; but Harnoncourt and the VPO ... well, as you
can tell I've rather put off having to mention it!
Nothing he does is without interest, and there's plenty of admirable
detail to be found even here. But his Achilles heel - a low priority for
the sense of drama - is fatal here. It's as if he were desperately
trying to shoehorn Smetana into another symphonic tradition, and
momentum fails in the attempt. It's not so much slow as sluggish. I find
his turgid Viennese traversal lacking in Apollonian as much as Dionysian
virtue.
The extraordinary quality of Norrington's way, is to hear the work
effectively *led* much of the time by the woodwind and brass. The
strings provide poetic support, detail and commentary along the way -
but the rich palette of combined woodwind timbres is at the heart of the
piece. It's absolutely there in the score once you've heard it realised
this way. Marvellously subtle, and not to be forgotten once heard.
M forever
I just don't like pseudos who shoot their mouth off but who don't know
what they are talking about. Taking them down amuses m.
> And I didn't say that Norrington wasn't a
> "real conductor" as you very well know. Why do you misquote me?
> Perhaps, as I said, you are reading me too literally. Music expert I
> am not, but I appreciate a little irony now and then. Perhaps when
> learn how to acquire a sense of humour/irony, we might just get along
> a bit better.
That has nothing to do with my lack of a sense of humor. There wasn't
anything funny in your silly posts. This has more to do with your lack
of self-criticism. If you don't think you are a "music expert", then
why do you need to proclaim such broadly dismissive statements about
someone whose work you. as it turns out, hardly know?
Patterbear:
Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
Ördög
I guess you would award Norrington the same points as I would - plus
or minus zero:)
So obviously agreed with Patterbear when he said Norrington wasn't "a
real conductor", even though you didn't use these same words yourself.
Christopher Webber
> I don't see why it would allow individual musicians to judge balances
>any better than the old one.
I agree with you. But when I've asked violinists about this they claim
that the 1sts can't hear the 2nds properly in a large hall when they are
at a distance, which makes co-ordination very difficult. You'd think
when they were facing one another it ought to *easier*, but who are we
to know?
Some conductors who prefer the "modern" seating have said to me that the
body of string tone comes across more strongly when the violins are
massed to one side.
Confidence must play a part, augmented by the fact that orchestras
(certainly here in England) rarely play with one conductor to the
exclusion of others for long enough to trust him or her absolutely.
One element of truth might be in the fact that the modern orchestra
produces an appreciably larger volume of physical sound than their
pre-war equivalents, which *does* make it more difficult for them to
hear one another.
[ As a rather important side-issue to this, deafness amongst orchestral
musicians is (so I'm informed) on the increase, and our Musicians Union
are monitoring this diligently in the UK. ]
--
___________________________
Norman Schwartz
"Christopher Webber" <c...@zarzuela.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:q3QnZOCj...@217.169.1.80...
>M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
>>There are plenty of good performances of Ma Vlast. I don't need a
>>conductor to "wipe the varnish" off to realize if a piece is good music or
>>not.
>
> I must have been unclear. I was speaking metaphorically, Michael. Mr
> Norrington wasn't carrying a rag and a bottle of turpentine down to the
> Vltava with him. There was no physical varnish.
>
> May I correct your misapprehension on another point? I did not need Mr
> Norrington to let me know this was good music, as you seem to imply.
That's Sir Norrington to you! :-)
(you are British, right?)
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said - irony is lost on you. And as I'm so "silly", perhaps you
should ignore me from now on - just as I, and many others prefer to
ignore you, as you might have noticed. Then again, you probably
haven't.
Gute Nacht.
Ördög
>
> That's Sir Norrington to you! :-)
> (you are British, right?)
I think you mean "Sir Roger", but it really doesn't matter a helluva
lot:)
Christopher Webber
>I will probably hear more of that then as I seem to be in the
>beginnings of a Vaughan Williams discover phase and Boult's are often
>said to be among the best recordings.
Indeed they are, though it's his first (largely mono) set which is the
one to hear first. Of course Mr Handley's set makes a good (and
pleasantly inexpensive) starting point too.
Without getting into an RVW discussion, do you know the
Brandenburgisches Staatsorchester Frankfurt's recording of the 5th
Symphony under Walter Hilgers, on Genuin? I've recommended it to many
people, and most of them have found it a specially rewarding version...
enough said.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber
>That's Sir Norrington to you! :-)
Rather oddly, he prefers Mr Norrington to Sir Roger (which I think is
what you meant!)
>(you are British, right?)
I am English first. British (as my Scots friends remind me) only second.
European third (and proud of that too!)
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Well, you said the music never sounded "completely satisfying" for you
> >and that sounded to me like you meant to say you think there is a
> >problem with the music itself. It is now clearer what you meant. So
> >which performances of Ma Vlast apart from Norrington do you find
> >particularly good, even if not "completely satisfying"? Do you know
> >Harnoncourt's?
>
> Not quite Michael. I said that "Ma Vlast" hasn't sounded "completely
> satisfying" to me in other versions *since* I heard Norrington's. In a
> way, I wish I hadn't heard it!!
I see.
> We're going OT now, but Norrington aside, I'd require [1] Ancerl [1963 -
> 1993 issue, not the 2002 Ancerl Edition mastering which although less
> hissy makes the strings sound synthetic]
I don't know this particular recording, but in general, I also found
the releases of the golden Ancerl edition too aggressively treated
with noise reduction at the expense of the actual sound quality. I
usually look for the earlier CD releases when I want an Ancerl
recording.
> and [2] on DVD live from 1968
> [with a revealing documentary on the conductor's life and work, focusing
> on the prejudice he encountered *after* Auschwitz].
That sounds like an interesting documentary. What kind of prejudice?
> I'd add [3] Kubelik in Prague 1990 for its specially moving sense of
> occasion; and [4] Talich 1954 [Naxos Historical transfer]. There are
> several others which are also "keepers" in my collection for various
> reasons - every one of them, apart from Neumann's limpid 1967 Leipzig
> version and the Norrington, are all-Czech.
Why is that? Don't you think the music is strong enough to cross into
other musical cultures? Do you think it is more a local Czech
curiosity? What about Mackerras? Does he suck, too, or is that
balanced out by the presence of the Czech Philharmonic?
> As a cheap and lively modern recording I've time for Kuchar and the
> Janacek PO on Brilliant;
I was wondering whether Wit's recording on Naxos might not be
interesting. I like a lot of what I have heard from him and the Polish
RSO on Naxos, including the Dvorak tone poems.
I am not familiar with many recordings of these pieces, but among the
best ones - that I know - I think is the one with Berglund/
Staatskapelle Dresden on EMI which also sounds fabulous. It is
actually one of the best (meaning most "natural" sounding recordings I
know). Or are these also wrong because they aren't Czech?
> but Harnoncourt and the VPO ... well, as you
> can tell I've rather put off having to mention it!
>
> Nothing he does is without interest, and there's plenty of admirable
> detail to be found even here. But his Achilles heel - a low priority for
> the sense of drama - is fatal here. It's as if he were desperately
> trying to shoehorn Smetana into another symphonic tradition, and
> momentum fails in the attempt. It's not so much slow as sluggish. I find
> his turgid Viennese traversal lacking in Apollonian as much as Dionysian
> virtue.
I am afraid I don't understand what you mean here. I wasn't aware that
there is a special Viennese tradition of "turgidness" and Harnoncourt
is about the last person I would suspect of wanting to "shoehorn"
anything in such a "tradition". Maybe I don't understand properly what
the word "turgid" means. I thought it meant something like "overdone,
bombastic, swollen". I don't hear much of that in this recording at
all. I think it is extremely subtle and highly nuanced. It is
different from many others in that it has a generally "darker"
atmosphere, I think, it actually sounds more "legendary" where other
versions often sound more "postcardy". In any case, I was completely
hooked from the first seconds on. The way the harps seem to be calling
memories from the past awake and how those memories slowly waken up
and emerge from the dark (the extremely subtle and nuanced brass
playing here is just incredible, even by this orchestra's standards)
is just fascinating (I think).
When I got the disc, I just wanted to sample it and set it aside for
complete listening later, but I was so fascinated by the beginning and
how everything then led to the next element and eventually next piece
that I listened to the entire performance straight through.
> The extraordinary quality of Norrington's way, is to hear the work
> effectively *led* much of the time by the woodwind and brass. The
> strings provide poetic support, detail and commentary along the way -
> but the rich palette of combined woodwind timbres is at the heart of the
> piece. It's absolutely there in the score once you've heard it realised
> this way. Marvellously subtle, and not to be forgotten once heard.
I have to check that out. There are actually two recordings, one with
the London Classical Players and one with the National Youth
Orchestra. Which one do you mean (or both)?
Norman Schwartz
"Ördög" <jansf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdc56f6f-c245-45a5...@s2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Sure I meant "Sir Roger", but it was "Mr. Norrington" that was used. Are
there other "Sir Rogers", in addition to Mr. Norrington? Best I suppose
would be "Sir Roger Norrington", anyway I was introduced to him through his
EMI LCP Symphonie Fantastique, and have generally liked nearly all the
recordings I've heard from him. Regrettably I'll probably never get to him
perform live, IAE never with the LCP. The LCP recordings grab me more those
with his Stuttgart group. In accord with Mforever, there's a lot to like in
their recording of the PIT Sym. 6. I liked it well enough to also purchase
their DVD-Video.
M forever
I can see that you try to hide your nonsense behind some allegedly
profound and tragically misunderstood "irony" which I can not grasp (I
get it, I am from Germany so I don't have a sense of humor, hahaha)
rather than simply admitting that you shot your mouth off about
something you don't really understand and about the work of someone
which you don't really know.
My pointing this out was not a personal attack as such. You even
eventually admitted your ignorance. Maybe you should have realized
that before you shot your mouth off. Your response is nothing but a
personal attack. And a pretty lame one on top of that.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >I will probably hear more of that then as I seem to be in the
> >beginnings of a Vaughan Williams discover phase and Boult's are often
> >said to be among the best recordings.
>
> Indeed they are, though it's his first (largely mono) set which is the
> one to hear first.
Why?
> Of course Mr Handley's set makes a good (and
> pleasantly inexpensive) starting point too.
I also have a recording of the Sinfonia Antarctica - the one symphony
I know best and which was my entry point to Vaughan Williams, so I got
a number of different recordings - with Thompson which I think is
rather good (and the sound and orchestral playing are, too).
> Without getting into an RVW discussion, do you know the
> Brandenburgisches Staatsorchester Frankfurt's recording of the 5th
> Symphony under Walter Hilgers, on Genuin? I've recommended it to many
> people, and most of them have found it a specially rewarding version...
> enough said.
No. I know he also recorded the tuba concerto but I haven't heard
either recording. Do you have a preference for a recording of the tuba
concerto?
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever you say, Michael; whatever you say.You will always be right
and I will always be wrong. Happy now?
patterbear
Ass.
M forever
That's even more lame, and very childish, too. This really has nothing
to do with me vs. you, it's just that I pointed out that you shot your
mouth off about something you neither know very well nor understand at
all. I realize that is embarrassing for you but maybe you should just
learn to be a little more self-critical and blabla less about stuff
you don't understand. How about that?
Ördög
Whatever you say Michael; whatever you say. You are right and I am
wrong. So, there you have it.
Michael
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I don't see why it would allow individual musicians to judge balances
> >any better than the old one.
>
> I agree with you. But when I've asked violinists about this they claim
> that the 1sts can't hear the 2nds properly in a large hall when they are
> at a distance, which makes co-ordination very difficult. You'd think
> when they were facing one another it ought to *easier*, but who are we
> to know?
Well, I do actually know even though I don't play the violin, but the
bass but I have played in various setups where we were not close to
the celli but in a row behind the orchestra and that is a similar
situation. It is different but no big deal getting used to. All the
sections in the orchestra have to coordinate with other sections
anyway, so that is not really an argument. The relationship between
first and second violins is not quite the same as between, say, first
and second clarinets, and the many examples of antiphonal writing
underline this.
> Some conductors who prefer the "modern" seating have said to me that the
> body of string tone comes across more strongly when the violins are
> massed to one side.
Maybe it does, and that was probably the reason it as introduced plus
it was easier to record in the early days of recording and
broadcasting. It certainly is a more organized, more "compact" sound.
Which is actually one of the reasons I think it's not so good. I
prefer the opened up sound resulting from spreading the violin
sections and letting the sound of various string registers come from a
more fanned out sonic stage.
> Confidence must play a part, augmented by the fact that orchestras
> (certainly here in England) rarely play with one conductor to the
> exclusion of others for long enough to trust him or her absolutely.
No conductor should ever be trusted absolutely! LOL
But orchestral musicians have no choice about that anyway. Judging
balances and adjusting them is one of the main functions of the
conductor. That's one of the reasons he is there. Musicians in the
orchestra can't really judge that so well, no matter where they are
sitting.
> One element of truth might be in the fact that the modern orchestra
> produces an appreciably larger volume of physical sound than their
> pre-war equivalents, which *does* make it more difficult for them to
> hear one another.
No, not really, I think. Top levels may be a little higher, but
orchestras don't play really loud all the time anyway. Whether or not
you can hear yourself and others in the orchestra well has nothing to
do with dynamics or seating, it is solely a function of the hall or
venue you play in. Some really good halls like the Philharmonie in
Berlin allow you to hear yourself very well while you can also hear
the other members of your section and other sections clearly. On some
stages, you can't hear yourself or part of the rest of the orchestra
well at all.
Ördög
> "Ördög" <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hey, think positively! I'm sure Norrrington - oops! "Sir Roger" tours
as widely as any other conductor. Not being a Brit, I really don't
know how many Sir Rogers are in existence - unless you count "Sir
Roger de Coverley" (was that Britten or Bridge? I forget)
The only PIT sym 6 I have on DVD is Karajan and the BPO, but my
personal favourite remains Mravinsky/Leningrad PO/DGG (1960) - what a
marvellous performance that is! And I'm sure the Brits have room for
at least one "Sir Norman de Schwartz":)
Michael
That's even lamer, and even more childish. Is it so hard to admit that
you just blablaed about stuff you don't understand? Do you really
think this limp passive-aggressive attack against me changes anything
about that?
Ördög
Michael - I'll tell you this - I don't give a fuck what you say or
think. Get the message? You stay out of my way and I will stay out of
yours.
M forever
You mean "please don't point it out when I blabla nonsense about stuff
I don't understand"? Is that your message?
Ördög
It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I honestly don't care.
M forever
You do seem to care a lot. You made a huge fuss over this instead of
just admitting your ignorance.
Kip Williams
> Hey, think positively! I'm sure Norrrington - oops! "Sir Roger" tours
> as widely as any other conductor. Not being a Brit, I really don't
> know how many Sir Rogers are in existence - unless you count "Sir
> Roger de Coverley" (was that Britten or Bridge? I forget)
Beats me. I just know the prose version from _The Spectator_ that it's
based upon. I should think, though, that unless one is suddenly changing
the subject, it would be enough to say "Sir Roger" and have it
understood that the reference is to the same person that was just being
discussed.
Kip W
Ördög
Ok - I'm ignorant.
M forever
That sounds even more childishly passive-aggressive. As if I had said
that you were generally ignorant. Which I didn't. Can you be a little
more specific? That would greatly add to your credibility.
Ördög
More specific? Why does it bother you so much? Anyway - Alright, I
know nothing about anything at all.
"Discussion" closed.
M forever
> More specific? Why does it bother you so much? Anyway - Alright, I
> know nothing about anything at all.
That's not more specific. That's more passive-aggressive. More
childish, too.
> "Discussion" closed.
There was no discussion here. You have nothing of interest to
contribute about this subject because you know next to nothing about
it. That was my point. You tried to hide that behind your snide broad
dismissal of this conductor and his work - which you hardly know. I
just unmasked your ignorance.
Ray Hall
Sir Roger Norrington. Rarely should one use the Sir title with just the
surname, if ever.
Ray Hall, Taree
Gerard
Where did Christopher say that not-Czech is WRONG?
Gerard
> "Ördög" <jansf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bdc56f6f-c245-45a5...@s2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 12:24 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > That's Sir Norrington to you! :-)
> > (you are British, right?)
>
> I think you mean "Sir Roger", but it really doesn't matter a helluva
> lot:)
>
> Sure I meant "Sir Roger", but it was "Mr. Norrington" that was used.
> Are there other "Sir Rogers", in addition to Mr. Norrington?
Moore come sin mind immediately.
There are more:
Penrose
Bannister
Tichborne
Singleton
Newdigate
Carr
Jones
Douglas
etcetera
Christopher Webber
>No. I know he also recorded the tuba concerto but I haven't heard
>either recording. Do you have a preference for a recording of the tuba
>concerto?
Walter Hilgers will do very well for this too; though John Fletcher's
classic recording with Andre Previn conveys more of the wit in the outer
movements, and he calls upon a greater range of tonal colourings.
Hilger's tone is more homogeneous, and nothing wrong with that. He
conveys the warmth of the central movement most beautifully.
Altogether the Genuin disc is one I'd always want to have to hand.
Christopher Webber
>> and [2] on DVD live from 1968
>> [with a revealing documentary on the conductor's life and work, focusing
>> on the prejudice he encountered *after* Auschwitz].
>
>That sounds like an interesting documentary. What kind of prejudice?
Anti-semitic prejudice from elements within the CPO itself, after the
war and Ancerl's release from Auschwitz. And suspicion from the
Communist authorities, even when he'd won over the CPO and turned them
into an internationally acclaimed orchestra. His final need to leave the
country, and the effect of this on his spirit, is movingly recounted.
Here's a link to the DVD, on Amazon.de:
http://tinyurl.com/4rwkwsy
>I was wondering whether Wit's recording on Naxos might not be
>interesting. I like a lot of what I have heard from him and the Polish
>RSO on Naxos, including the Dvorak tone poems.
I haven't heard it, and would be interested to know how he fares.
>I am afraid I don't understand what you mean here. I wasn't aware that
>there is a special Viennese tradition of "turgidness" and Harnoncourt
>is about the last person I would suspect of wanting to "shoehorn"
>anything in such a "tradition". Maybe I don't understand properly what
>the word "turgid" means.
"Turgid" in the precise sense of "swollen and congested". I agree with
your comments on its "subtle, highly nuanced" felicities. He certainly
aspires to the "seriousness" you define, and that's appropriate: but to
my ears what he achieves in the round is actually the "solemnity" we'd
associate with a minor Liszt tone poem.
My feeling is that Harnoncourt misses the flexible, kaleidoscopic
dramatic-political sweep which moves us increasingly in the best
performances of "Ma Vlast": "Tabor" and "Blanik" are the touchstones
here, not the earlier more descriptive pieces. And Harnoncourt's
"Tabor/Blanik" is stiff, rock-like and faintly pompous.
I look for a "legendary" feeling too in "Ma Vlast", but it has to have a
tangible physicality about it, a sense of the earth which has little or
nothing to do with picture postcard views of the castle or the river
(how right to are not to want an excess of that!)
Please don't think I'm trying to dilute the stimulation you've had from
the recording: these impacts are largely about *when* we hear a
particular version, relative to others. For me, the 1990 live Kubelik
performance I've recommended has the Harnoncourt virtues without running
into the difficulties.
>I have to check that out. There are actually two recordings, one with
>the London Classical Players and one with the National Youth
>Orchestra. Which one do you mean (or both)?
Oh, the London Classical Players, of course. That's the ear-shaker!
Gerard
> to and what not. The question remains then why you feel the need to
> bore us with your uninformed and snide dismissal of all of his work -
This is a very interesting question.
Could be applied on you, who bores us with your repetitive
thousands-words-is-not-enough syndrom.
Why do you feel the need to do so, endlessly?
> most of which you apparently never even heard - just based on your
> very limited knowledge of it and your obvious inability to judge
> performances which do not meet your preconceived expectations in a
> nuanced way? And why do you feel the need to join patterbear in
> dismissing Norrington as "not a real conductor" when you obviously
> don't have the knowledge to judge what "a real conductor" is? Just
> because it makes you feel better to have "strong opinions"?
Maybe he is just inferior, inferior to you, the one and only who knows what a
real conductor is?
Gerard
> On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 11:51 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 29, 6:20 pm, Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 29, 10:31 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > On Jan 29, 7:21 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jan 29, 1:55 pm, Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > <c...@zarzuela.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > rd g <jansfarr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > > > Mainly because I am wary of Mr. Norrington's views
> > > > > > > > > > on vibrato. He asserts that 19th century
> > > > > > > > > > composers/audiences would never have heard music
> > > > > > > > > > played with vibrato, but how does he know?
> >
> > > > > > > > > That's not quite what he asserts - at least I have
> > > > > > > > > not heard him assert such a blanket view.
> >
> > > > > > > > Actually, I *did* hear him assert such a view - I think
> > > > > > > > he was discussing Mahler at the time. As I see it, if
> > > > > > > > his view applies to Mahler, then it must apply to those
> > > > > > > > who came before him. But yes, I agree that vibrato was
> > > > > > > > employed as a sort of decorative or "special effect"
> > > > > > > > during the baroque era and after - but mainly by
> > > > > > > > singers, I would suggest.
> >
> > > > > > > Norrington overdoes it a little bit with his strictly no
> > > > > > > vibrato "policy", both in his statements and in his
> > > > > > > performances. I think he also tends to overdo the
> > > > > > > "rhetoric" phrasing and he applies the same basic kind of
> > > > > > > highly declamatory and detailed phrasing to everything he
> > > > > > > conducts.
> >
> > > to
> > > bore us with your uninformed and snide dismissal of all of his
> > > work -
> > > very limited knowledge of it and your obvious inability to judge
> > > performances which do not meet your preconceived expectations in a
> > > nuanced way? And why do you feel the need to join patterbear in
> > > dismissing Norrington as "not a real conductor" when you obviously
> > > don't have the knowledge to judge what "a real conductor" is? Just
> > > quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > If I bore you, why respond?
>
> I just don't like pseudos who shoot their mouth off but who don't know
> what they are talking about. Taking them down amuses m.
>
> > And I didn't say that Norrington wasn't a
> > "real conductor" as you very well know. Why do you misquote me?
> > Perhaps, as I said, you are reading me too literally. Music expert I
> > am not, but I appreciate a little irony now and then. Perhaps when
> > learn how to acquire a sense of humour/irony, we might just get
> > along a bit better.
>
> That has nothing to do with my lack of a sense of humor.
How could you know?
You're very good in confirming al prejudices about people from some country who
don't have a sense of humor.
You're the prototype.
> There wasn't
> anything funny in your silly posts. This has more to do with your lack
> of self-criticism.
Hm, now this is almost funny.
Because self-criticism is another thing you don't have.
> If you don't think you are a "music expert", then
> why do you need to proclaim such broadly dismissive statements about
> someone whose work you. as it turns out, hardly know?
>
> Patterbear:
> Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
> are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
>
> Ördög
> I guess you would award Norrington the same points as I would - plus
> or minus zero:)
>
> So obviously agreed with Patterbear when he said Norrington wasn't "a
> real conductor", even though you didn't use these same words yourself.
Why do you bore us with this again?
Gerard
Don't laugh.
It's a miserable fact, at least in your case.
> rather than simply admitting that you shot your mouth off about
> something you don't really understand and about the work of someone
> which you don't really know.
>
> My pointing this out was not a personal attack as such.
Liar.
"Taking them down amuses m." you wrote.
Personal attacks is all your life.
> You even
> eventually admitted your ignorance. Maybe you should have realized
> that before you shot your mouth off. Your response is nothing but a
> personal attack. And a pretty lame one on top of that.
BS forever.
Gerard
> On Jan 29, 9:08 pm, 锟絩d锟絞 <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 2:03 am, M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > On Jan 30, 1:55 am, Michael <mschaf...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > On Jan 30, 1:20 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 1:03 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 12:13 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 11:51 pm, M forever
> > > > > > > > > > > > <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 10:31 pm, M forever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <jansfarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 7:21 pm, M forever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
Nonsense forever.
Look at this thread and see WHO is making "a huge fuss", without ending as
always, childish as always.
Gerard
QED.
Same BS forever.
Gerard
> > the finale with its divided strings and found the phrasing to be
> > choppy and pretentious and unalluring, while the vibrato-less
> > string playing sounds just as miserable and whining and colourless
> > as it usually does, regardless of the music being played. Still,
> > each to his own, as they say, but it was interesting to read the
> > comments underneath by other viewers, including: "Bloody awful ..
> > the conductor should be shot" ...
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDsgPU3xfYo&feature=related
>
> You are watching a Youtube video with its heavily compressed and
> distorted audio to judge the quality of the sound of the string
> playing? Remember to remind me not to take you seriously on matters of
> sound quality ever again if I do so by accident in the future.
>
> BTW, I find the phrasing pretentious, too, and also too choppy, but I
> can separate that from other musical elements like the sound (which is
> great on well done recordings and live), the balances and textures
> etc. So it is not simply a matter of "to each his own", it is more a
> matter of being able to perceive and judge in a balanced, unprejudiced
> way in order to arrive at a nuanced and fair criticism. Somebody who
> says "the conductor should be shot is obviously not able to do that".
> If you are not able to hear and judge yourself in such a nuanced way,
> that's fine, but please don't waste other people's time with your
> silly prejudices then.
That is the same nonsense as ever.
Nobody is wasting your time, since you obviously have way too much of it; so
much that your thousands-words-is-not-enough approach has become the usual and
most time wasting time here.
Gerard
> On Jan 29, 6:08 pm, patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2:54 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 29, 4:38 pm, patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 29, 12:06 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > patterbear <patterb...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused
> > > > > the following letters to be typed in
> > > > > news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
> > > > > c017484b8...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > > > Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything
> > > > > > when there are recordings by real conductors of the same
> > > > > > music available?
> >
> > > > > Berlioz works: "Hymne à la France," "Le Menace des Francs,"
> > > > > "Le Temple Universel," and the choral version of "Le chant
> > > > > des Bretons."
> >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music,
> > > > > ducks!
> > > > > Read about "Proty"
> > > > > here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> > > > > To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the
> > > > > lion
> > > > > Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my
> > > > > employers
> >
> > > > Fine-let him stick to saving that which has been neglected-If
> > > > I'm going to listen to Brahms 1 or Schubert 9 am I really
> > > > picking him off the shelf or
> > > > Walter,Klemperer,Furtwangler,Giulini,Szell,etc.?
> >
> > > Who are you to decide what repertoire Norrington can conduct?
> > > That's a silly idea. Your comparison with the above conductors is
> > > equally silly. Those are all completely different stylistic
> > > approaches. If you insist on comparing, in Schubert Norrington
> > > may actually be more interesting and stylistically aware than
> > > some of the above. I actually heard a both very nuanced and wild
> > > Schubert 9 live with him and the RSO Stuttgart in Berlin. The
> > > performance was so good that people started applauding between
> > > the movements. That is extremely rare in Berlin where the
> > > audience is very sophisticated. They also played Berg's violin
> > > concerto with Kavakos where Norrington allowed the orchestra
> > > judiciously applied vibrato in some places, none in others. The
> > > tonal palette so created really illuminated the inner structures
> > > of the piece very well.
> >
> > Wow. Good for you. To me he's a
> > hack,boring,bloodless,dispassionate,fussy, and full of pretense. You
> > can have him. I don't need to listen to his noodling.
>
> I don't need to either "have" or "not have" Norrington's performances.
> I can pick and choose based on actually listening and judging them in
> a fair and nuanced way. You can't do that, obviously, because you are
> just guided by prejudices and very superficial listening.
>
> As for the "hack" part - that was my point. One doesn't have to like
> or accept everything - or anything - he does. I don't either. In fact,
> there are few of his performances that I have heard so far that fully
> or mostly convinced me. But it is clear to me that he knows exactly
> what he is doing and knows how to get his results. Technically, he is
> a very good rehearser and conductor. That you don't understand that is
> the reason you can't come to a more nuanced and balanced view, and
> also the reason we shouldn't take any of your comments seriously. The
> limitations of your ear and your understanding are really of no
> interest to anyone, no matter how loudly and colorfully you proclaim
> them.
Why don't you simply add him to your list of inferiors and leave it?
Why do you bore us again with:
"you don't understand this"
"you don't understand that"
Endlessly.
Why is that?
Ördög
>
> There was no discussion here. You have nothing of interest to
> contribute about this subject because you know next to nothing about
> it. That was my point. You tried to hide that behind your snide broad
> dismissal of this conductor and his work - which you hardly know. I
> just unmasked your ignorance.
If I have nothing of interest to contribute, I ask you again: Why do
you respond to me? Yes, I agree that my comments were ill-considered,
and that I shouldn't base my opinion on two concert performances in
London + various interviews and broadcasts by Sir Roger. I think it
was a combination of these which discouraged me from trying out his
recordings. So yes, I am indeed ignorant with regard to Norrington. To
those who enjoy his work I say: Good luck and enjoy yourselves. I have
no plans to purchase any more CDs at present, by Norrington or anyone
else. Not even Karajan.
Gerard
Maybe that will not be to Miserable forever's satisfaction.
The (his) idea is that you disappear from this ng. You and all the other
inferior time wasters.
Only his "equals" should post here.
And his parrot of course.
Ördög
Yes, I am indeed inferior to M fornever. Best to leave it at that, I
think.
Gerard
More or less.
He must be a new race. Or more probably: the next step in the evolution of what
we still call "mankind" - "foreverkind" it should be (something between man and
god, angels maybe - the start of michaelism).
Christopher Webber
>Musicians in the orchestra can't really judge that so well, no matter
>where they are sitting.
True. Though as you'll know there are occasions when it *is* left to the
orchestra leader to judge balance, in private notes after rehearsals
when conductors have proved specially impenetrable and/or impossible to
follow.
For example, I've heard from seasoned players that Gergiev regularly
brings out the best in his bands in this negative sense - its sink or
swim, and if the players don't listen to one another very hard indeed,
the boat will go down. Got to admire the man's business sense and work
rate, though!
> Some really good halls like the Philharmonie in Berlin allow you to
>hear yourself very well while you can also hear the other members of
>your section and other sections clearly. On some stages, you can't hear
>yourself or part of the rest of the orchestra well at all.
That is the bedrock of the problem, yes. I only wish we had a hall as
perfectly subtle dynamically as the Berlin Philharmonie *anywhere* here
in Britain. In my experience, Manchester's new Bridgewater Hall (shared
by the Halle and BBC Philharmonic) comes closest in certain spots, but
without that rare feeling one gets in the Berlin hall that one's in the
best seat - wherever one is sitting!
Norman Schwartz
> And I'm sure the Brits have room for
> at least one "Sir Norman de Schwartz":)
I'd accept. (It wouldn't cost me anything, right?)
Gerard
You will have to buy a sword, an armour and a castle yourself.
Ördög
That's right, it's completely free, as far as I know. Her Majesty
might even pay your air fare. I'm not quite sure if you would be
entitled to the "Sir" prefix. Some American citizens (Caspar
Weinberger, for example) were awarded honorary knighthoods but can't
be called "Sir" - unless they're pompous twits and insist on it.
Christopher Webber
>Some American citizens (Caspar Weinberger, for example) were awarded
>honorary knighthoods but can't be called "Sir" - unless they're pompous
>twits and insist on it.
Even pompous twits *can't* insist, unless they are citizens of the
Commonwealth countries.
It's Honorary only for foreigners outside the old Empire lands - thus,
no "Sir Andre Previn", despite his well-merited honorary Knighthood and
full permission to put "KBE" after his name.
If Caspar Weinberger tried to call himself "Sir Caspar" he'd be
extradited and sent to the Tower for the crime of Lese-majeste.
I'm afraid the same would apply to "Sir Norman".
Ördög
wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they can send sonofabitch Weinberger to the
chopping block (if he's still alive), but let us hope and pray that
"Sir Norman" won't be a victim of the executioner's axe :-)
Bob Harper
>
> Whatever you say Michael; whatever you say. You are right and I am
> wrong. So, there you have it.
It won't work.
Re the Berglund Ma Vlast, I agree with Michael; an outstanding
recording, and no, it's not 'wrong'. Smetana may have been a
'nationalist' composer, but that doesn't mean the music is somehow
second-rate or untranslatable. And a bargain; Amazon has a used copy for
$0.85!
Re Norrington, I only heard him live once--in 1987. I was in London for
a week and had bought a ticket to hear the LPO under Eugen Jochum.
Unfortunately, between my ticket purchase and the concert, Jochum had
died and Norrington had taken over his concerts. I remember the program:
Beethoven. Egmont Overture, 4th Piano Concerto (Annie Fischer), Eroica.
Violins were divided, basses and celli were on the left. Egmont was
tremendous--intense and exciting. I don't remember much about the 4th
Concerto, though I imagine that Fischer and Norrington were not as
compatible as Fischer and Jochum would have been. The Eroica was OK, but
I had (and still have) trouble accepting the slow movement as fast as he
played it. Since then I've been skeptical of him, but the Ma Vlast
sounds interesting. I'll try to hear it.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> On Jan 29, 7:22 pm, Christopher Webber<c...@zarzuela.net.invalid>
> wrote:
(snip)
>> Some conductors who prefer the "modern" seating have said to me that the
>> body of string tone comes across more strongly when the violins are
>> massed to one side.
>
> Maybe it does, and that was probably the reason it as introduced plus
> it was easier to record in the early days of recording and
> broadcasting. It certainly is a more organized, more "compact" sound.
> Which is actually one of the reasons I think it's not so good. I
> prefer the opened up sound resulting from spreading the violin
> sections and letting the sound of various string registers come from a
> more fanned out sonic stage.
(snip)
I have read that the direction of the 'f'-holes of the violin play a
role, i.e., that the sound from the firsts on the left (from the
audience perspective) is projected more towards the audience than that
of seconds located on the right. Is that correct, and if so how much
difference does it make? (FWIW, I prefer divided violins for most music.)
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Isner/Mahut 5th set at Wimbledon in length)
> That's even lamer, and even more childish. Is it so hard to admit that
> you just blablaed about stuff you don't understand? Do you really
> think this limp passive-aggressive attack against me changes anything
> about that?
How many children are there in this group?
Bob Harper
Thornhill
> On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hurwitz wrote back pretty quickly with a long and detailed response.
>
> > I still think he should have said something in his review about why he
> > praised Mackerras, but I still give him credit for responding to my
> > criticism of his review.
>
> Pray tell what he said. Btw, I've noticed the same Hurwitz
> discrepancy as you. Good on ya for putting pen to paper and going to
> the source to find out why some he lets slide and others he gives no
> quarter.
I don't feel comfortable posting our e-mail exchange, but in short, he
said that in the first paragraph he was criticizing Gardiner's
orthodoxy, that Gardiner's interpretation is reversed engineered to
fit a "pre-established formula or recipe." I suppose that's a fair
enough point, but I think what he said in our exchange much more
clearly expressed his views on the performance than his review did.
Personally, I've liked the Gardiner cycle. Their certainly unusual and
unconventional, but I find them to be enjoyable and thought provoking.
And with the 4th specifically, I think Gardiner really nailed the
final movement.
Ördög
3. Me; Gerard [allegedly] and Assholemaniac
Gerard
Is that Me forever?
(You've forgotten wagner fen and all others fens and -philes. Together 32.)
Ördög
No, I mean that it's M fornever's view of every "inferior" being:
meaning myself and others, not you.
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:bbcd5417-c258-439c-afaf-
8807ba...@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
What about the Deac?
Gerard
> �rd�g <jansf...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:bbcd5417-c258-439c-afaf-
> 8807ba...@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:24 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On 1/29/11 5:55 PM, Michael wrote:(snip an exchange which
> > > approaches the Isner/Mahut 5th set at Wimbledon in length)
> > >
> > > > That's even lamer, and even more childish. Is it so hard to
> > > > admit that you just blablaed about stuff you don't understand?
> > > > Do you really think this limp passive-aggressive attack against
> > > > me changes anything about that?
> > >
> > > How many children are there in this group?
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> >
> > 3. Me; Gerard [allegedly] and Assholemaniac
>
> What about the Deac?
Or your new girlfriend-of-the-day?
Ördög
> Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:bbcd5417-c258-439c-afaf-
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:24 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/29/11 5:55 PM, Michael wrote:(snip an exchange which approaches the
> >> Isner/Mahut 5th set at Wimbledon in length)
>
> >> > That's even lamer, and even more childish. Is it so hard to admit that
> >> > you just blablaed about stuff you don't understand? Do you really
> >> > think this limp passive-aggressive attack against me changes anything
> >> > about that?
>
> >> How many children are there in this group?
>
> >> Bob Harper
>
> > 3. Me; Gerard [allegedly] and Assholemaniac
>
> What about the Deac?
At least TD has left a good legacy (GPOC) so all credit to him for
that. But I really don't want to place myself in "no mans' land" and
take sides in this. I know you disagree with him, but as long as he's
reasonably decent to me, I shall return the favour.
weary flake
> patterbear <patte...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
> c01748...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
> > are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
>
> Okay, so please point me at other recordings of the following Berlioz works:
> "Hymne � la France," "Le Menace des Francs," "Le Temple Universel," and the
> choral version of "Le chant des Bretons."
"Le Temple Universel" I find in the 5 CD Decca Ultimate Berlioz
box, but where are recordings of these other pieces located?
Bob Harper
Surely I'm a charter member of the Club, at least according to the Master.
Bob Harper
Ördög
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I'd almost forgotten about that. "The Master" must have one
helluva bee in his bonnet, especially where Christianity is concerned.
But why he feels it necessary to bang on about it so often is quite
beyond me. Why can't he simply live and let live? Yes, I have a dig
and Jeffrey now and then, but at least there is no malice involved,
despite what he chooses to believe.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> patterbear <patte...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed in news:27ed3a06-244b-4240-9eec-
>> c01748...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Why would anyone buy Norrington's recordings of anything when there
>> > are recordings by real conductors of the same music available?
>>
>> Okay, so please point me at other recordings of the following Berlioz
>> works: "Hymne à la France," "Le Menace des Francs," "Le Temple
>> Universel," and the choral version of "Le chant des Bretons."
>
> "Le Temple Universel" I find in the 5 CD Decca Ultimate Berlioz
> box, but where are recordings of these other pieces located?
One of the fillers for an earlier reissue of Maazel's Grande Messe des
morts.
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in
news:207c2b3a-e2b4-4b0c...@t8g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 31, 3:26 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Ördög <jansfarr...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:bbcd5417-c258-439c-afaf-
>> 8807ba786...@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 2:24 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 1/29/11 5:55 PM, Michael wrote:(snip an exchange which approaches
>> >> the Isner/Mahut 5th set at Wimbledon in length)
>>
>> >> > That's even lamer, and even more childish. Is it so hard to admit
>> >> > that you just blablaed about stuff you don't understand? Do you
>> >> > really think this limp passive-aggressive attack against me
>> >> > changes anything about that?
>>
>> >> How many children are there in this group?
>>
>> >> Bob Harper
>>
>> > 3. Me; Gerard [allegedly] and Assholemaniac
>>
>> What about the Deac?
>
> At least TD has left a good legacy (GPOC) so all credit to him for that.
No, I decline to do so.
> But I really don't want to place myself in "no mans' land" and take sides
> in this.
Fair enough
> I know you disagree with him,
Not just that, but let's not go into it now.
> but as long as he's reasonably decent to me, I shall return the favour.
Let's see how long that lasts. Or at least, you'll see.