Maria João Pires's Bach savaged by Gramophone
Oscar
haven't heard the disc in question -- is this an accurate review?
Bach Partita No. 1 in B flat, BWV825. English Suite No. 3 in G minor,
BWV808. French Suite No. 2 in C minor, BWV813.
Maria-João Pires.
DG® CD 447 894-2GH (58 minutes: DDD).
I am quite sure that when, in his booklet-note, Jeremy Siepmann calls
Bach's keyboard suites "essentially players' music", what he meant was
that they were intended for players' own delectation rather than for
performance before an audience. What he did not mean, l am equally
sure, was they they were happy hunting-grounds for players to do what
they liked with. On the present disc, only in the French Suite does
Pires put Bach's spirit before her own unauthentic pianistic whims. (I
observe that it was recorded a whole year after the other two works,
in which time she seems, fortunately, to have had a change of heart.)
Her Partita nearly had me reaching for the brandy bottle. Its Prelude
is subjected to ceaseless surges and falls of dynamics at every
moment, as if one were uneasily standing on the swaying deck of a
ship: not a single phrase is allowed tonal steadiness. The Allemande
is taken absurdly fast, quite out of character, and the Gigue is a
race against the clock; romantic rubato perfumes the Sarabande.
There are more eccentricities in the English Suite (though at least
the Allemande here is played at the right speed). But the ritornellos
of the Prelude are heavily hammered Out, the Courante is begun
brutally, then repeated in a coy hush, the Musette of the Gavotte is
for some reason played sotto voce, and the Sarabande is so swooningly
ultra-sentimentalized that I felt like rushing up with the smelling-
salts. No, viewed purely as pianism, this is impressive playing -
crystal-clear lingerwork, total control of tonal nuance, firm rhythmic
pulse (when she is not surrendering to mannerisms); but as
interpretations of Bach they could scarcely be more anachronistic. LS
Prince Myshkin
Lionel Salter
Oscar
>
> Lionel Salter
Copy that! Thx.
Christopher Webber
One of the greatest of all 20th c. critics (as well as a practical
musician of the highest order himself) and a personal hero of mine.
Andrew Lamb wrote a short obit for ZARZUELA.NET when LS died:
http://www.zarzuela.net/ref/int/salter.htm
--
"THE ZARZUELA COMPANION" (Scarecrow Press)
Christopher Webber, Foreword by Placido Domingo
http://www.zarzuela.net
td
Sounds like someone who doesn't much care for Bach on the piano. Why
did Grammophone give this disc to him for review? The results would
have been predictable.
TD
MiNe 109
<25394e03-8ee3-45a5...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Oscar <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...way back in April 1996. Who is reviewer with initials 'LS'? I
> haven't heard the disc in question -- is this an accurate review?
>
> Bach Partita No. 1 in B flat, BWV825. English Suite No. 3 in G minor,
> BWV808. French Suite No. 2 in C minor, BWV813.
> Maria-João Pires.
> DG® CD 447 894-2GH (58 minutes: DDD).
The descriptions are apt, judging from the samples at Amazon. The French
Suite does sound cut from different cloth: accompanying eight-notes are
less pecked out and there's more legato in general.
Opinions of the worth and authenticity of the performance may differ.
Stephen
John Wiser
On Mar 12, 5:00 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...way back in April 1996. Who is reviewer with initials 'LS'? I
> haven't heard the disc in question -- is this an accurate review?
>
> Sounds like someone who doesn't much care for Bach on the piano. Why
> did Grammophone give this disc to him for review? The results would
> have been predictable.
Salter would have been in his early 80s at that point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/mar/06/guardianobituaries2
Definitely one of the better judgements at Gramophone.
Does anyone know when Pires recorded these?
She tended tio a certain floridity in her youth.
JDW
pianomaven
> In article
> <25394e03-8ee3-45a5-81aa-a57a43d22...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...way back in April 1996. Who is reviewer with initials 'LS'? I
> > haven't heard the disc in question -- is this an accurate review?
>
> > Bach Partita No. 1 in B flat, BWV825. English Suite No. 3 in G minor,
> > BWV808. French Suite No. 2 in C minor, BWV813.
> > DG CD 447 894-2GH (58 minutes: DDD).
>
> The descriptions are apt, judging from the samples at Amazon. The French
> Suite does sound cut from different cloth: accompanying eight-notes are
> less pecked out and there's more legato in general.
>
> Opinions of the worth and authenticity of the performance may differ.
Correct.
Bach's keyboard music is intended for the clavichord or the
harpsichord, not the piano. Performing his music on the piano is a
compromise in any event, as the strings are neither plucked nor rubbed
gently. The results are usually either romantic or pseudo-Baroque.
IF you accept Bach on the piano - it would appear that LS didn't - you
pretty much have to be prepared for some considerable romanticizing of
Bach's music. This has never bothered me - or Charles Rosen, I would
add - but it does strike some as inherently anachronistic.
Note his final sentence: "No, viewed purely as pianism, this is
impressive playing - crystal-clear lingerwork, total control of tonal
nuance, firm rhythmic
pulse (when she is not surrendering to mannerisms); but as
interpretations of Bach they could scarcely be more anachronistic".
Well, right. And so?
TD
Frank Lekens
From '95, hardly from her youth.
I tend to find her later recordings lusher than hear early ones,
actually. E.g. her DG Mozart is more 'florid', if that's what you want
to call it, than her Denon recordings (in as far as I remember those).
Is the review accurate? No doubt. I love this recording. Wouldn't mind
if she recorded some more Bach.
"As interpretations of Bach they could scarcely be more anachronistic."
Well yes, they're played on the piano...
--
Frank Lekens
Gerard
But ... what's your point?
Is the reviewer right, or not?
herman
> Oscar wrote:
> > ...way back in April 1996. Who is reviewer with initials 'LS'? I
> > haven't heard the disc in question -- is this an accurate review?
>
> > Bach Partita No. 1 in B flat, BWV825. English Suite No. 3 in G minor,
> > BWV808. French Suite No. 2 in C minor, BWV813.
If you agree with him, he's right; if you feel differently then he's
not.
In other words, wrong yoyo.
laraine
The previews of this sounded fine to me,
not even very much rubato except for
the Sarabande in the English Suite. She
is definitely very expressive with a lot of
volume changes and contrasts, but it makes
sense on a piano.
I think maybe this sounded very radical
15 years ago, and even today, Romantic
Baroque can sound overdone, but I'm
getting used to it. The percussive is
another idea, and that can sound
maybe even better on a harpsichord.
C.
M forever
So? What you don't get is that the criticism isn't about the choice of
the piano but about the musical and stylistic means she uses. That
doesn't mean that the reviewer is "right" or "wrong". What it means is
that you simply don't understand what he is talking about because he
is talking about stylistic things which are completely beyond your
very limited musical grasp. Which is also why you can't offer any
opinions about anything based on pure listening.
Christopher Howell
> Sounds like someone who doesn't much care for Bach on the piano. Why
> did Grammophone give this disc to him for review? The results would
> have been predictable.
>
>
> - Mostra testo citato -
Lionel Salter was a fine harpsichordist (his name will be found as a
continuo player in several LPs from the 50s) and a capable conductor,
working quite a bit for the BBC, mostly but not only in baroque music
(IIRC he was the conductor of a complete version of Algernon
Blackwood's play The Starlight Express with Elgar's incidental music,
some time in the 60s). As for Bach on the piano he was only lukewarm
even about Edwin Fischer. I don't know if his application of the
phrase "hunt the slipper" to describe the sort of fugue playing that
brings out the theme when it occurs in inner voices in a way that the
harpsichord can't do, and which LS detested on the piano (but which
for Fischer and his generation was normal), was his own invention but
he certainly used it often to dismiss such playing. So in truth,
asking him to review this disc was a bit like asking a bull to review
a red rag.
LS was also noted for the ferocity of his responses if anyone dared to
write in questioning his reviews, so it's just as well he's not around
to join this discussion.
Chris Howell
pianomaven
The review is completely undercut by your post.
As I said, the review was, then, completely predictable. So, why ask
him to review it. Like giving me Boulez to review. Silly.
TD
William Sommerwerck
for particular instruments. In other words, if Bach had the harpsichord in
mind when writing the WTC, they /cannot possibly/ "sound right" on a piano,
regardless of how they're played.
I don't buy this. A piano (or even a clavichord) allows for a wider range of
expression than a harpsichord. * The artist can choose to use this range to
educe what is inherent in the music, or indulge in stylistic perversion.
I happen to like the wooden/clunky sound of the fortepiano, and find that
some works sound more pleasing on it. The modern piano has too "refined" a
sound.
* The player can actually change pitch (a bit) by varying pressure on the
clavichord's keys.
Christopher Webber
>The review is completely undercut by your post.
Hardly. LS's review is a fine piece of work, not because it is
objectively "verifiable", but because (a) it is well informed and
specific as to what he's criticising and why, (b) clear about his own
stance on the matter of instrumentation, and (c) economically and
unaffectedly written, in an elegant and personal style.
After so much of the ill-digested, badly-written, long-winded and
rambling guff that passes for reviewing nowadays (especially online)
LS's work shines out as a beacon, an example we'd all do well to learn
from.
Whether or not we agree with him, or find him "predictable", is entirely
irrelevant. His review works to provide a secure sounding board against
which to measure our own opinions, and decide whether the disc in
question may appeal to our tastes.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Webber
http://www.zarzuela.net
John Wiser
[trimmed out]
100 per cent in agreement with you, Christopher. The ONLY
Gram. reviewer I never detected any factual error - no, I am wrong: In 1964
he misstated the performers in a 78 rpm set of
Hindemith chamber music, and I sent a duly published letter of correction.
JDW
JDW
M forever
Rather, like giving you *anything* to review. Silly.
M forever
wrote:
> pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >The review is completely undercut by your post.
>
> Hardly. LS's review is a fine piece of work, not because it is
> objectively "verifiable", but because (a) it is well informed and
> specific as to what he's criticising and why, (b) clear about his own
> stance on the matter of instrumentation, and (c) economically and
> unaffectedly written, in an elegant and personal style.
>
> After so much of the ill-digested, badly-written, long-winded and
> rambling guff that passes for reviewing nowadays (especially online)
> LS's work shines out as a beacon, an example we'd all do well to learn
> from.
>
> Whether or not we agree with him, or find him "predictable", is entirely
> irrelevant. His review works to provide a secure sounding board against
> which to measure our own opinions, and decide whether the disc in
> question may appeal to our tastes.
I agree the review is well written and gives the reader a fairly good
idea what one can actually hear on the disc. I think it would be a
better review still though if he had been less polemic. I don't think
it is the reviewer's task to criticize musical concepts. He should put
them into context, explain to us where in the performance/reception
tradition the interpreter stands, and describe how well it is done.
That's what I like about a lot of Osborne's reviews although they can
be a little flowery. Still, a reviewer needs to have a little more
respect for the artist's achievement than Salter shows here even if he
disagrees with the concept behind the performance.
Christopher Howell
> it is the reviewer's task to criticize musical concepts.
I think LS may have considered that it was, because he belonged to the
school of critics that believed they had a duty to educate the public.
He had a firm conviction that a certain type of Bach performance was
wrong because it was based on a misunderstanding of the music, and it
was therefore his duty to teach his readers why they should reject
such Bach playing even when it was offered by such luminaries as Edwin
Fischer. He based his ideas on wide historical knowledge and expressed
himself clearly and succinctly.
I think this attitude towards criticism was shared by the Gramophone
editorship at the time. The aim wasn't to send a disc to a critic who
might, a priori, be expected to like it, but to send Bach records to
an expert in Bach, who would then judge what he heard against his own
personal ideals as well as his knowledge.
This approach had its pros and cons. It meant for example, that for
decades, maybe until Osborne started writing for Gramophone,
Furtwangler records of Beethoven were automatically trashed because he
committed the unforgivable sin of deviating from his initial tempo
where Beethoven did not specifically indicate any change.
Amid much that has worsened in musical criticism, I must say critics
today are more likely to try to understand what an artist is trying to
do, possibly setting aside their own preconceived notions, rather than
to apply their own ideals to a performance willy-nilly, and this has
to be a change for the better. All the same, there is much to be
gained from reading the best critics of the "old" school, of whom
Salter was certainly one.
Chris Howell
Christopher Webber
>Still, a reviewer needs to have a little more respect for the artist's
>achievement than Salter shows here even if he disagrees with the
>concept behind the performance.
Chris Howell has already explained very lucidly the historical context
in which LS was writing, Michael.
I'd only add, as a footnote, that any artist worth their salt(er) is
going to learn a heck of a lot more from an informed deconstruction such
as this, than from the acres of respectful bilge-water about how
marvellous they are that most of them have to wade through today.
I don't know, of course; but I'd bet that Pires would have welcomed such
honesty from a knowledgeable colleague with an opposed view. We only
learn through dialectic debate.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> writes:
> >Still, a reviewer needs to have a little more respect for the artist's
> >achievement than Salter shows here even if he disagrees with the
> >concept behind the performance.
>
> Chris Howell has already explained very lucidly the historical context
> in which LS was writing, Michael.
>
> I'd only add, as a footnote, that any artist worth their salt(er) is
> going to learn a heck of a lot more from an informed deconstruction such
> as this, than from the acres of respectful bilge-water about how
> marvellous they are that most of them have to wade through today.
>
> I don't know, of course; but I'd bet that Pires would have welcomed such
> honesty from a knowledgeable colleague with an opposed view. We only
> learn through dialectic debate.
Being respectful doesn't necessarily mean being an uncritical
sycophant.
I don't see how Salter qualifies as a "colleague" of Pires either.
Christopher Webber
>I don't see how Salter qualifies as a "colleague" of Pires either.
Then you've missed what's been said about him, Michael. Read his biog.,
or the obit on zarzuela.net I linked to earlier in the thread. He was a
hugely respected professional keyboard player, conductor and Choral
trainer too, specialising in the baroque repertoire.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >I don't see how Salter qualifies as a "colleague" of Pires either.
>
> Then you've missed what's been said about him, Michael. Read his biog.,
> or the obit on zarzuela.net I linked to earlier in the thread. He was a
> hugely respected professional keyboard player, conductor and Choral
> trainer too, specialising in the baroque repertoire.
I would rather hear his recordings of the Bach partitas and suites or
other keyboard works so I can understand better how it really goes and
what Pires does so wrong. Where can I find those?
M forever
I agree that a good critic should educate his audiences, put things in
context, inform his readers where a particular performance fits into
the interpretive spectrum, make apt comparisons within that spectrum,
rather than just telling us what he likes or dislikes, for whatever
reasons. When we listen to a performance, we hear the performance in
its details as well as the stylistic framework the artist has chosen
for his interpretation (or not LOL), and it is very informative to
have that kind of contextual analysis.
But there is nor clear-cut "right" or "wrong" in musical performance.
Tastes and convictions change over time and the more they change, the
wider the spectrum becomes. That is true today more so than ever. Good
music making, like good music journalism, reflects the tastes and
ideas of its times, but really great playing or writing can also have
a timeless quality beyond that.
That is where I find this review sadly lacking. It is seriously out of
date in its schoolmasterly and dogmatic approach, rather more so
actually than the pianistic approach to the music it criticizes.
Christopher Webber
>But there is nor clear-cut "right" or "wrong" in musical performance.
>Tastes and convictions change over time and the more they change, the
>wider the spectrum becomes. That is true today more so than ever. Good
>music making, like good music journalism, reflects the tastes and ideas
>of its times, but really great playing or writing can also have a
>timeless quality beyond that.
Michael, everything you say is incontrovertible, and of course applies
to this LS review ... until your very last phrase.
CD and LP reviewers are not (should not be) attempting to be "timeless".
That is the business of music criticism, not a couple of paragraphs in a
magazine. Reviewers need to write vividly for "the moment", and their
writing will inevitably feel dated after a time. "Anna Karenina" or
Berlioz's "Memoirs" would not be appropriate sticks with which to beat
them.
Christopher Webber
>I would rather hear his recordings of the Bach partitas and suites or
>other keyboard works so I can understand better how it really goes and
>what Pires does so wrong.
As you wisely say in a parallel post:
>But there is nor clear-cut "right" or "wrong" in musical performance.
>Tastes and convictions change over time and the more they change, the
>wider the spectrum becomes.
LS had to believe in the way *he* did things, in order to do them
individually. You can't hear his Bach performances because they are not
available, even where they were recorded at the time. What matters is
the quality of the analysis he brings to bear to support his argument,
and you have accepted that as a strength of this review.
Your words again:
>I agree the review is well written and gives the reader a fairly good
>idea what one can actually hear on the disc.
Good. We're in total agreement.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> writes:
> >But there is nor clear-cut "right" or "wrong" in musical performance.
> >Tastes and convictions change over time and the more they change, the
> >wider the spectrum becomes. That is true today more so than ever. Good
> >music making, like good music journalism, reflects the tastes and ideas
> >of its times, but really great playing or writing can also have a
> >timeless quality beyond that.
>
> Michael, everything you say is incontrovertible, and of course applies
> to this LS review ... until your very last phrase.
>
> CD and LP reviewers are not (should not be) attempting to be "timeless".
> That is the business of music criticism, not a couple of paragraphs in a
> magazine. Reviewers need to write vividly for "the moment", and their
> writing will inevitably feel dated after a time. "Anna Karenina" or
> Berlioz's "Memoirs" would not be appropriate sticks with which to beat
> them.
That's a silly comparison. I did not say that music journalism should
*attempt* to be "timeless". Even though it necessarily will also
reflect the times in which it was written, good writing about music
and musicians just *is*.
This isn't. It's already way outdated, much more so than the musical
approach it criticizes.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> writes:
> >I would rather hear his recordings of the Bach partitas and suites or
> >other keyboard works so I can understand better how it really goes and
> >what Pires does so wrong.
>
> As you wisely say in a parallel post:
>
> >But there is nor clear-cut "right" or "wrong" in musical performance.
> >Tastes and convictions change over time and the more they change, the
> >wider the spectrum becomes.
>
> LS had to believe in the way *he* did things, in order to do them
> individually. You can't hear his Bach performances because they are not
> available, even where they were recorded at the time. What matters is
> the quality of the analysis he brings to bear to support his argument,
> and you have accepted that as a strength of this review.
You made me rethink. I was too lenient. I am not interested in the way
*he* did things. I am not listening to his performance, and I am not
interested in reading about him venting his frustration at not being
the caliber of performer that he wanted to be. A review should not be
about the reviewer and his prejudices and "beliefs". A good reviewer
who also performs music may have strong convictions about how *he*
wants to perform music, but that doesn't mean he has to apply those
beliefs to other performers and performance when he is reviewing them.
One can have such strong convictions and still see the musical value
of other approaches, and describe them fairly.
> Your words again:
>
> >I agree the review is well written and gives the reader a fairly good
> >idea what one can actually hear on the disc.
>
> Good. We're in total agreement.
Not really. Like I said, you made me rethink. I bought a few tracks
from the CD and listened to them, and what he wrote is actually not a
good description of that playing style. It has some of the elements he
mentioned, but the reviewer generalized and dismissed far too much
based on his narrow-minded preconceptions.
Christopher Webber
>It has some of the elements he mentioned, but the reviewer generalized
>and dismissed far too much based on his narrow-minded preconceptions.
I realise that you not in an ideal position to grasp LS's English
stylistic felicities; but that aside, it's good that his review has done
its job by getting you to evaluate what you've heard through the prism
of LS's words.
That, Michael, is all a reviewer needs to do. What he or she thinks
about the performance or the work itself is secondary, as you yourself
have said. We learn which reviewers we trust, which ones do or do not
match our taste, only by this process.
I may say that I find your strangely unkind remarks about LS as a
performer to be unworthy of you. You did not know his work. And I am
disappointed that, without knowledge of his music making, you have
chosen to conflate celebrity with achievement.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> writes:
> >It has some of the elements he mentioned, but the reviewer generalized
> >and dismissed far too much based on his narrow-minded preconceptions.
>
> I realise that you not in an ideal position to grasp LS's English
> stylistic felicities; but that aside, it's good that his review has done
> its job by getting you to evaluate what you've heard through the prism
> of LS's words.
I didn't. I just discarded his review as cranky after thinking about
it and listening to the performance itself a little.
BTW, there is no reason to become insulting because I dared to
criticize one of your pillar saints. My grasp of English, however
incomplete and improvable, is probably vastly better than your grasp
of my - and Bach's - language. Maybe I should dismiss you as
completely unqualified to judge products of German culture then. I
didn't think of doing so, but you seem to suggest that I should.
> That, Michael, is all a reviewer needs to do. What he or she thinks
> about the performance or the work itself is secondary, as you yourself
> have said. We learn which reviewers we trust, which ones do or do not
> match our taste, only by this process.
>
> I may say that I find your strangely unkind remarks about LS as a
> performer to be unworthy of you. You did not know his work. And I am
> disappointed that, without knowledge of his music making, you have
> chosen to conflate celebrity with achievement.
I didn't say anything "unkind" about LS as a performer. I said I am
not interested in his concepts as a performer when I am reading him as
a reviewer; apart from the fact that there are apparently no
recordings of him as a performer I could listen to. So all that is
irrelevant for me. A review should be about the music and the
performer. Not the critic. As this shows, for you, it is all about
this critic who apparently is, like I said, some kind of pillar saint
for. I find that, and your uncalled-for attacks against me, unworthy
of you, too.
Christopher Webber
>My grasp of English, however incomplete and improvable, is probably
>vastly better than your grasp of my - and Bach's - language.
I'm sure it is. I often feel very humble in the face of so many fine
contributors to this forum, for whom English is "only" a second
language.
Though in fairness to myself I should let you know that I worked in
Berlin professionally at one period about ten years ago, and got by
pretty well. I've also been paid to translate plays and operas from
German for performance here. Even so, I'd be loathe to judge an article
or book by a German on finer points of style beyond bare content.
As Alexander Pope almost said, it's not what you say but how you say it
that counts.... but I can only apologise if you felt insulted.
Now, LS is not some kind of "pillar saint" (quaint phrase!) to me - I
disagreed strongly with his characterisation of Gerhard and some other
Iberian composers about whom he wrote. But certainly he was a man and
musician I admired. However...
>I am not listening to his performance, and I am not interested in
>reading about him venting his frustration at not being the caliber of
>performer that he wanted to be.
I have to say that I would find this sentence of yours (quoted above) to
be "unkind" about anyone, whether or not it were true. But in this case,
I can assure you that it happens to be untrue as well as unkind.
I wish you could have heard or met LS, Michael. He was a man with whom I
feel you'd have had much in common, and you'd have admired his
performance style too. In Bach particularly, he had a un-showy strength
and simplicity which avoided the danger of sounding like virtuoso pap.
Bach playing is an unusually broad church, as I'm sure we'd agree, in
which many roads may lead to Rome.
csembalo
Salter's Gramophone reviews for decades. I do respect his writing; his
reviews were always informed by his expertise and he often provided
valuable insights, even for seasoned collectors. He was also a useful
critic in that after reading his reviews over a period of time, his
likes and dislikes became very clear. He seemed to have very narrow
parameters for what he considered a good performance. Anything that
fell outside those parameters was subject to his sometimes harsh
words. Needless to say, at least for harpsichord recordings, he gave
far more bad reviews than good. I almost considered it a "badge of
honor" for any harpsichordist to get a bad review from Salter - they
all got them, even the most respected performers. I'm not saying he
was right or wrong, but the consistency of his opinion made it easy
for the reader to determine whether a particular recording would be
one they might enjoy. At least for me, if Salter gave a recording a
bad review, I knew it was one I probably would want to hear - simply
because a bad review often meant there was something unique or
slightly off-beat about the interpretation under consideration. I do
remember reading his review of the Pires CD shortly after I had
received it as a gift. At the time, my biggest surprise was that he
was even given this CD to review. The review itself didn't surprise
me, since I already knew his tastes. But in hindsight, his criticism
seems harsher than warranted, given that the performances, by the
standards of some pianists recording Bach these days, is actually
quite tame and well-mannered.
Frank Lekens
> But in hindsight, his criticism
> seems harsher than warranted, given that the performances, by the
> standards of some pianists recording Bach these days, is actually
> quite tame and well-mannered.
I wouldn't call her Bach bad-mannered, but I did always think she makes
use of dynamic effects quite a bit more than most pianists -- at least
those I have recordings of.
What recent contemporary pianists are you thinking of, that play Bach in
a wilder or less well-mannered way?
I'm always interested in exploring new performers' take on Bach.
--
Frank Lekens
pianomaven
wrote:
> pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >The review is completely undercut by your post.
>
> Hardly. LS's review is a fine piece of work, not because it is
> objectively "verifiable", but because (a) it is well informed and
> specific as to what he's criticising and why, (b) clear about his own
> stance on the matter of instrumentation, and (c) economically and
> unaffectedly written, in an elegant and personal style.
I would have love to read a Rosen retort to this "well-informed"
criticism. GG might have also sent him back to his clavichord with his
tail between his legs. Not to speak of Rosalyn Tureck, of course.
> After so much of the ill-digested, badly-written, long-winded and
> rambling guff that passes for reviewing nowadays (especially online)
> LS's work shines out as a beacon, an example we'd all do well to learn
> from.
Hyperbole.
There may be a lot of such stuff around, but I don't read it, frankly.
Moreover, to say that LS's work is better than the rambling guff you
have been reading is not saying much, I would think. But again, I
haven't read that guff.
> Whether or not we agree with him, or find him "predictable", is entirely
> irrelevant.
Not to me. He sheds NO new light on either the music or the performer
who is playing it. He only reveals his prejudices and his
punctiliousness.
> His review works to provide a secure sounding board against
> which to measure our own opinions, and decide whether the disc in
> question may appeal to our tastes.
Hia position is hardly "secure", coming as it does from centuries of
Bach performance on the piano, not to mention a variety of keyboards.
I frankly could not tell from reading this review whether or not I
would like the CD.
So, it was quite useless to me, at least.
TD
Christopher Webber
>Moreover, to say that LS's work is better than the rambling guff you
>have been reading is not saying much, I would think. But again, I
>haven't read that guff.
Well ... (deep breath, blushes) quite a lot of the guff I had in mind
actually emanates from this Newsgroup.
I can't of course say whether you read any of it or not, Tom!
Maybe you aren't sufficiently attuned to the LS style as yet, to know
whether your tastes coincide with his, or not. But agreeing with him, as
several good posts have pointed out, is not really the point here.
[As a footnote, your mention of Rosalyn Tureck reminds me of one of the
worst lifes I ever spent in my night (sic.), trapped while she assayed
the Goldberg Variations in her own sweet way at the RFH in London some
decades ago. I positively swear that the "Black Pearl" felt as if it had
gone on for as long as Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum. Few concerts
in my life have made me positively angry, but that one managed to. It
was the hieratic, self-righteous smugness of the whole caboodle, I
think, that did it. Talk about giving music a bad name.... that's me off
my soapbox. All the negativity has got to me, beg pardon!]
John Wiser
> pianomaven <1pian...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Moreover, to say that LS's work is better than the rambling guff you
>>have been reading is not saying much, I would think. But again, I
>>haven't read that guff.
>
> Well ... (deep breath, blushes) quite a lot of the guff I had in mind
> actually emanates from this Newsgroup.
>
> I can't of course say whether you read any of it or not, Tom!
>
> Maybe you aren't sufficiently attuned to the LS style as yet, to know
> whether your tastes coincide with his, or not. But agreeing with him, as
> several good posts have pointed out, is not really the point here.
>
> [As a footnote, your mention of Rosalyn Tureck reminds me of one of the
> worst lifes I ever spent in my night (sic.), trapped while she assayed
> the Goldberg Variations in her own sweet way at the RFH in London some
> decades ago. I positively swear that the "Black Pearl" felt as if it had
> gone on for as long as Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum. Few concerts
> in my life have made me positively angry, but that one managed to. It
> was the hieratic, self-righteous smugness of the whole caboodle, I
> think, that did it. Talk about giving music a bad name.... that's me off
> my soapbox. All the negativity has got to me, beg pardon!]
> --
JDW
David O.
<c...@zarzuela.net.invalid> wrote:
>Even so, I'd be loathe to judge an article
>or book by a German on finer points of style beyond bare content.
Wait a sec, Christopher -- you'd be what?
:)
Gerard
> On Mar 14, 2:14 pm, Christopher Webber <c...@zarzuela.net.invalid>
> wrote:
> > M forever <mschaf...@gmx.net> writes:
> > > It has some of the elements he mentioned, but the reviewer
> > > generalized and dismissed far too much based on his narrow-minded
> > > preconceptions.
> >
> > I realise that you not in an ideal position to grasp LS's English
> > stylistic felicities; but that aside, it's good that his review has
> > done its job by getting you to evaluate what you've heard through
> > the prism of LS's words.
>
> I didn't. I just discarded his review as cranky after thinking about
> it and listening to the performance itself a little.
>
> BTW, there is no reason to become insulting because I dared to
> criticize one of your pillar saints. My grasp of English, however
> incomplete and improvable, is probably vastly better than your grasp
> of my - and Bach's - language. Maybe I should dismiss you as
> completely unqualified to judge products of German culture then. I
> didn't think of doing so, but you seem to suggest that I should.
Ah, the standard Misearable forever procedure.
When some one disagrees, feel insulted and attack! Point to the "fact" the the
other has no "cultural background" and/or does not know other languages. Above
all: act like being superior.
>
> > That, Michael, is all a reviewer needs to do. What he or she thinks
> > about the performance or the work itself is secondary, as you
> > yourself have said. We learn which reviewers we trust, which ones
> > do or do not match our taste, only by this process.
> >
> > I may say that I find your strangely unkind remarks about LS as a
> > performer to be unworthy of you. You did not know his work. And I am
> > disappointed that, without knowledge of his music making, you have
> > chosen to conflate celebrity with achievement.
>
> I didn't say anything "unkind" about LS as a performer. I said I am
> not interested in his concepts as a performer when I am reading him as
> a reviewer; apart from the fact that there are apparently no
> recordings of him as a performer I could listen to. So all that is
> irrelevant for me. A review should be about the music and the
> performer. Not the critic. As this shows, for you, it is all about
> this critic who apparently is, like I said, some kind of pillar saint
> for. I find that, and your uncalled-for attacks against me, unworthy
> of you, too.
See above.
pianomaven
wrote:
> pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Moreover, to say that LS's work is better than the rambling guff you
> >have been reading is not saying much, I would think. But again, I
> >haven't read that guff.
>
> Well ... (deep breath, blushes) quite a lot of the guff I had in mind
> actually emanates from this Newsgroup.
This Newsgroup is simply a chat forum.
Guff is to be taken for granted, given the venue.
The Gramophone magazine is different. Or should be.
> I can't of course say whether you read any of it or not, Tom!
Highly selective. I avoid the endless pontificating of our German
visitor. Have done for years now. You learn nothing from it except his
disdain for anyone who isn't himself.
> Maybe you aren't sufficiently attuned to the LS style as yet, to know
> whether your tastes coincide with his, or not. But agreeing with him, as
> several good posts have pointed out, is not really the point here.
Of course. I don't always expect to agree with a review. But I do
expect the prejudices to be placed neatly at the door. Here they were
not. They were, indeed. the subject of the review. Sooooo boring. And
soooo useless to the consumer.
> [As a footnote, your mention of Rosalyn Tureck reminds me of one of the
> worst lifes I ever spent in my night (sic.), trapped while she assayed
> the Goldberg Variations in her own sweet way at the RFH in London some
> decades ago. I positively swear that the "Black Pearl" felt as if it had
> gone on for as long as Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum. Few concerts
> in my life have made me positively angry, but that one managed to. It
> was the hieratic, self-righteous smugness of the whole caboodle, I
> think, that did it. Talk about giving music a bad name.... that's me off
> my soapbox. All the negativity has got to me, beg pardon!]
Funny. I would have killed to be there. How lucky you were. And yet it
clearly all went over your head.
TD
pianomaven
> Above all: act like being superior.
The operative word here being "act".
TD
Christopher Webber
>Funny. I would have killed to be there. How lucky you were. And yet it
>clearly all went over your head.
I didn't feel lucky at the time, Tom, I can tell you.
It (and she) were truly awful. As for "going over my head", the
snobbish, scented preciosity of the event would have been palpable to a
stuffed slug, let alone such a fiendishly keen sensitivo as myself aged
20-something.
How much more I knew then than I do now! But the perceptions of youth
are not always to be discounted ...
John Wiser
news:X7Co6GEQ...@217.169.1.80...
> pianomaven <1pian...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Funny. I would have killed to be there. How lucky you were. And yet it
>>clearly all went over your head.
>
> I didn't feel lucky at the time, Tom, I can tell you.
>
> It (and she) were truly awful. As for "going over my head", the snobbish,
> scented preciosity of the event would have been palpable to a stuffed
> slug, let alone such a fiendishly keen sensitivo as myself aged
> 20-something.
>
> How much more I knew then than I do now! But the perceptions of youth are
> not always to be discounted ...
> --
Forgivable temperament, unforgivable and vividly recalled pretentiousness,
and really not all that well-founded a pianist.
JDW
Bob Harper
> On Mar 14, 7:02 pm, Christopher Webber<c...@zarzuela.net.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> [As a footnote, your mention of Rosalyn Tureck reminds me of one of the
>> worst lifes I ever spent in my night (sic.), trapped while she assayed
>> the Goldberg Variations in her own sweet way at the RFH in London some
>> decades ago. I positively swear that the "Black Pearl" felt as if it had
>> gone on for as long as Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum. Few concerts
>> in my life have made me positively angry, but that one managed to. It
>> was the hieratic, self-righteous smugness of the whole caboodle, I
>> think, that did it. Talk about giving music a bad name.... that's me off
>> my soapbox. All the negativity has got to me, beg pardon!]
>
> Funny. I would have killed to be there. How lucky you were. And yet it
> clearly all went over your head.
>
> TD
>
have been with him rather than with you.
Bob Harper
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >My grasp of English, however incomplete and improvable, is probably
> >vastly better than your grasp of my - and Bach's - language.
>
> I'm sure it is. I often feel very humble in the face of so many fine
> contributors to this forum, for whom English is "only" a second
> language.
Do you? It doesn't look that way, judging from your uncalled-for
chauvinist response.
> Though in fairness to myself I should let you know that I worked in
> Berlin professionally at one period about ten years ago, and got by
> pretty well. I've also been paid to translate plays and operas from
> German for performance here. Even so, I'd be loathe to judge an article
> or book by a German on finer points of style beyond bare content.
Ah...another hidden insult. Thanks a lot. I do feel quite capable of
grasping the finer points of Salter's prose though - it's not really
the kind of high literature you seem to think it is. Yes, I got that
he didn't mean the "brandy bottle" and the "smelling-salts" quite
literally.
> As Alexander Pope almost said, it's not what you say but how you say it
> that counts.... but I can only apologise if you felt insulted.
Noted, but - too late. The damage is already done. I can only note
that every time one of your English pillar saints, be it Holst or now
Salter, only appears to be doubted, you freak out and even resort to
some pretty low insults. Sad, because that seems to be far below your
normal level of contributions. I do understand that it must be kind of
odd to be English and be interested in "classical music". It must give
you some serious cultural inferiority complexes. Maybe that is also
what we can read behind Salter's schoolmasterly dismissal here.
> Now, LS is not some kind of "pillar saint" (quaint phrase!) to me - I
> disagreed strongly with his characterisation of Gerhard and some other
> Iberian composers about whom he wrote. But certainly he was a man and
> musician I admired. However...
>
> >I am not listening to his performance, and I am not interested in
> >reading about him venting his frustration at not being the caliber of
> >performer that he wanted to be.
>
> I have to say that I would find this sentence of yours (quoted above) to
> be "unkind" about anyone, whether or not it were true. But in this case,
> I can assure you that it happens to be untrue as well as unkind.
>
> I wish you could have heard or met LS, Michael. He was a man with whom I
> feel you'd have had much in common, and you'd have admired his
> performance style too. In Bach particularly, he had a un-showy strength
> and simplicity which avoided the danger of sounding like virtuoso pap.
> Bach playing is an unusually broad church, as I'm sure we'd agree, in
> which many roads may lead to Rome.
Apparently not enough people valued him enough to allow him to make
recordings though, which is quite surprising given the enormous amount
of recording activity that went on in England during his lifetime.
I wonder if you can understand though that this isn't about Salter. It
is about Bach and the interpreter, in this case Joao Pires, not about
his pompous prose. Or at least, it should be.
M forever
That is why I said that this review, while calling the interpretation
outdated, is already outdated itself.
M forever
wrote:
> pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Moreover, to say that LS's work is better than the rambling guff you
> >have been reading is not saying much, I would think. But again, I
> >haven't read that guff.
>
> Well ... (deep breath, blushes) quite a lot of the guff I had in mind
> actually emanates from this Newsgroup.
Uh...hello? This is a chitchat forum on the internet, not one of the
(theoretically) most respected classical music magazines on he planet.
> I can't of course say whether you read any of it or not, Tom!
>
> Maybe you aren't sufficiently attuned to the LS style as yet, to know
> whether your tastes coincide with his, or not. But agreeing with him, as
> several good posts have pointed out, is not really the point here.
I wouldn't want to be "attuned to the LS style" in order to really
understand what he means. To put it carefully, I don't give a shit
about "the LS style". I am interested in the music and the performers,
not a pompous self-congratulating reviewer.
Gerard
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1835 times).
Mistake forever feels insulted (is loudly crying) by absolutely *nothing* !
Great!
And, of course, Deutschland über alles!
Christopher Webber
>Yes, I got that he didn't mean the "brandy bottle" and the
>"smelling-salts" quite literally.
Actually Michael, he probably *did* mean the former literally. The
virtue of English humour, as you're doubtless discovering, is that it's
sometimes difficult to tell whether we're being serious or not.
I find that true of your posts, too - the rest of your response was
choc-full of quiet humour and harmless fun. I hereby salute you as an
Honorary Englishman!
Gerard
>
> I wouldn't want to be "attuned to the LS style" in order to really
> understand what he means. To put it carefully, I don't give a shit
> about "the LS style". I am interested in the music and the performers,
> not a pompous self-congratulating reviewer.
Right. Many people will completely agree when this is applied to you.
Christopher Webber
>Apparently not enough people valued him enough to allow him to make
>recordings though, which is quite surprising given the enormous amount
>of recording activity that went on in England during his lifetime.
Oh, Micheal, dear me no! He made recordings both before and after World
War 2.
There's a super short biography of him here, by Martin Anderson, which
has some intriguing material on Salter's work with Korda and Muir
Matheson, Ansermet and others. I'm sure others besides yourself may find
it interesting:
http://www.lionelsalter.co.uk/biography.html
John Wiser
>M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Yes, I got that he didn't mean the "brandy bottle" and the
>>"smelling-salts" quite literally.
>
> Actually Michael, he probably *did* mean the former literally. The virtue
> of English humour, as you're doubtless discovering, is that it's sometimes
> difficult to tell whether we're being serious or not.
>
> I find that true of your posts, too - the rest of your response was
> choc-full of quiet humour and harmless fun. I hereby salute you as an
> Honorary Englishman!
I perceive that bear-baiting
is not quite as dead an English sport
as one might have thought.
JDW
Christopher Webber
>I perceive that bear-baiting
>is not quite as dead an English sport
>as one might have thought.
O tempora, o mores!
Today, John, we have to get by with poking hamsters to encourage them to
race round and round their wheels....
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Yes, I got that he didn't mean the "brandy bottle" and the
> >"smelling-salts" quite literally.
>
> Actually Michael, he probably *did* mean the former literally. The
> virtue of English humour, as you're doubtless discovering, is that it's
> sometimes difficult to tell whether we're being serious or not.
>
> I find that true of your posts, too - the rest of your response was
> choc-full of quiet humour and harmless fun. I hereby salute you as an
> Honorary Englishman!
How could I be an "Honorary Englishman" if I am only just "discovering
the virtue of English humor"? That doesn't make sense.
I have to say, you are getting more and more insulting. It is very
saddening to get nonsense like all that from somebody whose language
and culture I have respected and studied for over 3 decades. You don't
seem to be able to really respect that. It is more important for you
to score some cheap points. Sad. And not at all funny, in any language
or culture.
M forever
wrote:
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Apparently not enough people valued him enough to allow him to make
> >recordings though, which is quite surprising given the enormous amount
> >of recording activity that went on in England during his lifetime.
>
> Oh, Micheal, dear me no! He made recordings both before and after World
> War 2.
>
> There's a super short biography of him here, by Martin Anderson, which
> has some intriguing material on Salter's work with Korda and Muir
> Matheson, Ansermet and others. I'm sure others besides yourself may find
> it interesting:
Not at all. You have completely put me off the subject. But I am still
interested in Bach.
td
Whatever, Bob.
She's dead, so it's entirely irrelevant.
TD
JohnGavin
wrote:
>
>
> worst lifes I ever spent in my night (sic.), trapped while she assayed
> the Goldberg Variations in her own sweet way at the RFH in London some
> decades ago. I positively swear that the "Black Pearl" felt as if it had
> gone on for as long as Sorabji's Opus Clavicembalisticum. Few concerts
> in my life have made me positively angry, but that one managed to. It
> was the hieratic, self-righteous smugness of the whole caboodle, I
> think, that did it. Talk about giving music a bad name.... that's me off
> my soapbox. All the negativity has got to me, beg pardon!]
> --
> ___________________________
I know exactly what you're talking about. Well said!!
She became absolutely unbearable in her later years, musically and
personally.
Gerard
Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
Continue whining about it.
M. A.
>
> Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
What nationality are you, and what is your problem with Germans anyway
(besides M forever)?
M. A.
Gerard
> "Gerard" wrote...
> >
> > Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
>
> What nationality are you,
Irrelevant.
> and what is your problem with Germans anyway
> (besides M forever)?
>
> M. A.
No problems.
Mistake forever embodies all existing (negative) prejudices and clich�s about
Germans, and he cultivates that.
As you will have seen here.
td
As one who knew her for twenty of the last years, I take exception to
this statement. She was a thrilling person to be with, stimulating,
humorous, and so very human. Musically, her DG Goldbergs, not to
mention her many live VAI CDs, stand in contradiction to your opinion,
John. You may dislike them, but they are only unbearable to you and
perhaps a few other souls who resist a strong musical backbone. Tureck
was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you. And
that she did throughout her career, resolutely, sometimes even
doggedly, but with utter conviction. Would that most of the
contemporary musicians had a tenth of her strength of character and
musical insight.
TD
td
> M. A. wrote:
> > "Gerard" wrote...
>
> > > Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
>
> > What nationality are you,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> > and what is your problem with Germans anyway
> > (besides M forever)?
>
> > M. A.
>
> No problems.
> Germans, and he cultivates that.
> As you will have seen here.
Correct. He is literally the personification of everything we know as
German. My grandfather, who fought in WW I could have painted a
picture of a German which would have resembled this dude to a tee.
TD
M. A.
>
> M. A. wrote:
> >
> > "Gerard" wrote...
> > >
> > > Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
> >
> > What nationality are you,
>
> Irrelevant.
If your nationality is irrelevant, then why isn't everyone else's, too?
For all I know, you're also embodying all the existing (negative)
prejudices and clichés about your country, whichever that is.
M. A.
Christopher Webber
>Tureck was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you.
A curious phrase. It sounds grand, for sure; and seems to be suggesting
a holy religious revelation in some Temple of Art, far removed from
life, love and laughter.
On reflection, though, the sounding brass rings a tad hollow. Without
entertainment, taken broadly, there can be no engagement. And without
engagement, there can be no "revelation" (whatever that might be). One
reads such things in liner notes, of course, especially about Bach -
concerning whose music it is admittedly very hard to say anything
sensible at all! - but I'm not sure that it means much.
No. The greatest performing artists never lose sight of the fact that
they have to be entertainers before they are anything else. Perhaps this
is what Ms Tureck, at some point, forgot.
Gerard
Hm, there's no other possibility than this is nonsense.
Is that the right prejudice and cliché for your country?
Oscar
>
> Without
> entertainment, taken broadly, there can be no engagement. And without
> engagement, there can be no "revelation" (whatever that might be). One
> reads such things in liner notes, of course, especially about Bach -
> concerning whose music it is admittedly very hard to say anything
> sensible at all! - but I'm not sure that it means much.
>
> No. The greatest performing artists never lose sight of the fact that
> they have to be entertainers before they are anything else. Perhaps this
> is what Ms Tureck, at some point, forgot.
God forbid anyone be 'entertained' at a Bach recital!! Excellent
points, Mr. Webber.
ivanmaxim
From what I have read about Bach - the kind of "Holy Temple" recital
being discussed is something he would find preposterous. Wagner fan
Oscar
>
> they have to be entertainers before they are anything else. Perhaps this
> is what Ms Tureck, at some point, forgot.
Best Bach recital I've heard was in 2008, Anderszewski playing J.S.
through a Romantic prism of exquisite lyricism and dynamic contrasts
perhaps not in the score, but not at the expense of clean articulation
and total accuracy. His Steinway took on a ravishing incandescent
tone in the darkness of Disney Hall. Partitas Nos. 1 & 2 and English
Suite No. 6, along with a couple Preludes and Fugues of WTC II.
Thoroughly entertaining, illuminating, engaging, and revelatory! And
not 'correct'. Salter would have been halfway through his bottle
after the Chopin-esque Sarabande of No. 2.
M. A.
>
> M. A. wrote:
> >
> > "Gerard" wrote...
> > >
> > > M. A. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Gerard" wrote...
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
> > > >
> > > > What nationality are you,
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > If your nationality is irrelevant, then why isn't everyone else's,
> > too?
> >
> > For all I know, you're also embodying all the existing (negative)
> > prejudices and clichés about your country, whichever that is.
>
> Is that the right prejudice and cliché for your country?
You don't seem to understand what "for all I know" means.
Let me rephrase my sentence for you:
"You might also be embodying all the existing (negative) prejudices and
clichés about your country, whichever that is."
Care to comment about the point I'm trying to make?
M. A.
Gerard
> "Gerard" wrote...
> >
> > M. A. wrote:
> > >
> > > "Gerard" wrote...
> > > >
> > > > M. A. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gerard" wrote...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, prototype Germans like you do have a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > What nationality are you,
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > If your nationality is irrelevant, then why isn't everyone else's,
> > > too?
> > >
> > > For all I know, you're also embodying all the existing (negative)
> > > prejudices and clichés about your country, whichever that is.
> >
> > Hm, there's no other possibility than this is nonsense.
> > Is that the right prejudice and cliché for your country?
>
> You don't seem to understand what "for all I know" means.
I don't think so.
>
> Let me rephrase my sentence for you:
>
> "You might also be embodying all the existing (negative) prejudices
> and clichés about your country, whichever that is."
>
> Care to comment about the point I'm trying to make?
>
> M. A.
It's still nonsense.
Maybe you're not very handy with making points.
(Or is *that* a prejudice about your country?)
JohnGavin
> > > --
> > > ___________________________
>
> > I know exactly what you're talking about. Well said!!
> > She became absolutely unbearable in her later years, musically and
> > personally.
>
> was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you
These concepts - strong musical backbone - not there to entertain
you....
They sound typically holier than thou on paper, and worse, they
translate to sheer boredom in real time.
I know, Bach came to her in a dream, and conferred the title "high
priestess of Bach" on to her (according to Tureck).
She was a hard worker, but there was something cloyingly narrow and
self-centered about her. Not even 1/3 the sheer innate abilities of
Gould.
Kevin N
[snip]
>Tureck
> was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you. And
> that she did throughout her career, resolutely, sometimes even
> doggedly, but with utter conviction.
Sounds precisely how I do *NOT* want to hear Bach performed!
O
<fc0c8f16-7472-4e62...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
JohnGavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > --
> > > > ___________________________
> >
> > > I know exactly what you're talking about. Well said!!
> > > She became absolutely unbearable in her later years, musically and
> > > personally.
> >
> souls who resist a strong musical backbone................ Tureck
> > was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you
>
> These concepts - strong musical backbone - not there to entertain
> you....
>
> They sound typically holier than thou on paper, and worse, they
> translate to sheer boredom in real time.
>
> I know, Bach came to her in a dream, and conferred the title "high
> priestess of Bach" on to her (according to Tureck).
That wouldn't be so bad, it's just that when she played she used a
score chiseled on stone tablets.
-Owen
td
wrote:
> td <tomdedea...@mac.com> writes:
> >Tureck was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you.
>
> A curious phrase. It sounds grand, for sure; and seems to be suggesting
> a holy religious revelation in some Temple of Art, far removed from
> life, love and laughter.
>
> On reflection, though, the sounding brass rings a tad hollow. Without
> entertainment, taken broadly, there can be no engagement.
What a strange statement!
Perhaps your view of "entertainment" doesn't accord with mine?
I am never entertained by Michelangeli, for example, but I inevitably
learn from listening to him play.
Horowitz, on the other hand, was all about entertainment. You might
learn something, but it would usually be about him rather than about
the music.
Liberace had the same goal. He just used other tools.
> And without engagement, there can be no "revelation" (whatever that might be).
It is good you ask the question. You might be learning something you
didn't know before, which is a revelation of sorts, of course.
> One reads such things in liner notes, of course, especially about Bach -
> concerning whose music it is admittedly very hard to say anything
> sensible at all! - but I'm not sure that it means much.
> No. The greatest performing artists never lose sight of the fact that
> they have to be entertainers before they are anything else. Perhaps this
> is what Ms Tureck, at some point, forgot.
I think that you confuse pleasure with entertainment. The pleasure of
listening to Tureck play Bach is quite different from the pleasure of
listening to Rubinstein play Chopin, for example.
Rubinstein gave pleasure to his audience, but I have an idea that he
was not "entertaining" them in the manner of Morecamb and Wise or
Jonny Carson. He wanted to move them, to take them out of themselves
through the music, which is quite different from entertainment.
TD
td
I heard Anderszewski play Bach in Paris a few years ago now. I thought
it mannered, perfumed, rhythmically limp, a veritable distortion of
the music as Bach wrote it. Indeed, it sort of sealed my interest in
this player, at least for the time being.
I have no idea what Salter would have thought. Could care less, I
suppose. It is only possible to judge with one's own ears.
TD
td
You probably want to be "entertained". That's fine, of course.
Whatever.
TD
td
> > > > --
> > > > ___________________________
>
> > > I know exactly what you're talking about. Well said!!
> > > She became absolutely unbearable in her later years, musically and
> > > personally.
>
> souls who resist a strong musical backbone................ Tureck
>
> > was not there to entertain you, but to reveal the music to you
>
> These concepts - strong musical backbone - not there to entertain
> you....
>
> They sound typically holier than thou on paper, and worse, they
> translate to sheer boredom in real time.
I have never understood that one can be bored listening to Bach. The
music - however it is played - is automatically engaging, John.
> I know, Bach came to her in a dream, and conferred the title "high
> priestess of Bach" on to her (according to Tureck).
No need to mock, John. It's too easy. The title of "high priestess of
Bach" was not conferred on Tureck by herself. Someone came up with
that expression. She, herself, disliked it intensely.
> She was a hard worker, but there was something cloyingly narrow and
> self-centered about her. Not even 1/3 the sheer innate abilities of
> Gould.
Interesting. Gould went on record has having enormous admiration for
Tureck. The only influence on his view of Bach.
It is rather fortunate that she didn't share his "innate abilities",
as they would have led her to inane music-making. Try Gould's Mozart
sonatas. Or his Beethoven E flat concerto. Or his late Brahms. Or,
indeed, his Chopin. Perversity was his middle name. That, allied to a
skill at the stock market and an abilitity to market his
eccentricities made up for a fascinating entertainer. No doubt about
that.
Fortunately Tureck escaped all that stuff.
TD
td
> In article
> <fc0c8f16-7472-4e62-87da-6811645a1...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Proving, at the very least, that she could read music.
TD
M. A.
>
> M. A. wrote:
> >
> > Let me rephrase my sentence for you:
> >
> > "You might also be embodying all the existing (negative) prejudices
> > and clichés about your country, whichever that is."
> >
> > Care to comment about the point I'm trying to make?
>
> Maybe you're not very handy with making points.
Maybe you're just a little dense. My point is pretty simple: You keep
hammering away on German stereotypes, but you refuse to reveal your own
nationality, which would allow others to return the favor.
If you want to keep attacking people by using stereotypes, the principle
of fairness requires you to allow others to do likewise to you, which by
necessity requires you to disclose your own nationality.
Personally, I'd prefer if you just cut that crap and focus on contributing
to issues of music. As hard as evidence suggests this seems to be for
you.
M. A.
Gerard
> "Gerard" wrote...
> >
> > M. A. wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me rephrase my sentence for you:
> > >
> > > "You might also be embodying all the existing (negative)
> > > prejudices and clichés about your country, whichever that is."
> > >
> > > Care to comment about the point I'm trying to make?
> >
> > It's still nonsense.
> > Maybe you're not very handy with making points.
>
> Maybe you're just a little dense. My point is pretty simple: You keep
> hammering away on German stereotypes,
Wrong. Only in case of Mistake forever, who IS such a prototype.
>
> but you refuse to reveal your
> own nationality, which would allow others to return the favor.
Same nonsense.
>
> If you want to keep attacking people by using stereotypes, the
> principle of fairness requires you to allow others to do likewise to
> you, which by necessity requires you to disclose your own nationality.
Pure nonsense.
(BTW in the case of Mistake forever there IS no "principle of fairness" any
more.)
You keep driveling about my nationality, while that nationality never has been a
secret (ask types like Dufus or Tepper - they never got it right).
>
> Personally, I'd prefer if you just cut that crap and focus on
> contributing to issues of music. As hard as evidence suggests this
> seems to be for you.
>
> M. A.
Please, follow your own advise.
M. A.
>
> [nothing of value]
Why do I even bother? Keep enjoying yourself.
M. A.
Oscar
>
> I heard Anderszewski play Bach in Paris a few years ago now. I thought
> it mannered, perfumed, rhythmically limp, a veritable distortion of
> the music as Bach wrote it. Indeed, it sort of sealed my interest in
> this player, at least for the time being.
>
> I have no idea what Salter would have thought. Could care less, I
> suppose. It is only possible to judge with one's own ears.
Plainly, we heard two different recitals and two seemingly different
pianists. Rhythmically limp? Not what I heard, at all. Mannered and
perfumed, of course, is in the ear of the beholder, and I don't
discount your opinions. Distortion? Well, it /was/ played on a
Steinway Concert Grand -- right there, that qualifies as a distortion
for some -- Lionel Salter, to name one, the opinions of whom you claim
'no idea' what he would think of Anderszewski. Lookit, in light of
the no-holds-barred slam he penned for Pires, it is not a stretch to
conclude he would have the same thoughts about Anderszewski.
Kevin N
Absolutely. While music can (and should) be many things in addition to
entertainment, if it fails to entertain, it is worthless.
JohnGavin
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> I have never understood that one can be bored listening to Bach.
I didn't either, until I heard Tureck. Especially her later day
interpretations.
The
> music - however it is played - is automatically engaging, John.
True, I suppose that's why she had a career at all.
>
> > I know, Bach came to her in a dream, and conferred the title "high
> > priestess of Bach" on to her (according to Tureck).
>
> No need to mock, John. It's too easy. The title of "high priestess of
> Bach" was not conferred on Tureck by herself. Someone came up with
> that expression. She, herself, disliked it intensely.
Hmmmm. hard to believe. It was used in every little bio blurb on her
concert programs.
I would have thought she'd have a say in editing that out.
>
> > She was a hard worker, but there was something cloyingly narrow and
> > self-centered about her. Not even 1/3 the sheer innate abilities of
> > Gould.
>
> Interesting. Gould went on record has having enormous admiration for
> Tureck. The only influence on his view of Bach.
We went over this in a previous thread where I quoted Gould in an
interview, saying he had no particular influences.
>
> It is rather fortunate that she didn't share his "innate abilities",
> as they would have led her to inane music-making. Try Gould's Mozart
> sonatas. Or his Beethoven E flat concerto. Or his late Brahms. Or,
> indeed, his Chopin. Perversity was his middle name. That, allied to a
> skill at the stock market and an abilitity to market his
> eccentricities made up for a fascinating entertainer. No doubt about
> that.
>
> Fortunately Tureck escaped all that stuff.
She escaped any sense of spontaneity as well, therein lies the
problem.
Gould is a classical music legend - Tureck was a cult-musician.
Gould's name will be known long after Tureck's already fading
reputation will be history.
Whether you like Gould's playing or not, he was a force of nature.
Tureck played like a studious librarian. She' take her place in
history right next to Harold Samuel and Violet Gordon Woodhouse.
Edward Cowan
Last evening I listened to three recordings of Bach's Overture in the
French Manner:
Rosalyn Tureck (Philips GPC, 456 979-2)
Ralph Kirkpatrick (Haydn Society HSLP.3059, LP, in the set HSL-A, a
complete recording of the Klavierübung with Kirkpatrick in the
harpsichord works and Paul Callaway in the organ works. Seven LPs in
slipcase)
Ralph Kirkpatrick (in DG Archiv 477 013-2, eight CDs of recordings by
Kirkpatrick)
The Tureck, performed on piano, is slow and solemn. The first-listed
recording by Kirkpatrick (mono, rec. 1952) is slightly faster and more
"rhapsodic" than Tureck. His later stereo recording in the DG Archiv set
seems like the right way for this work to "go". I like particularly the
Ouvertüre, in which RK's faster tempo, faster than in the HS set, also
maintains the solemn tread of the music, and the "Echo", which is very
brilliantly performed.
In addition to the Beethoven "Emperor" concerto, mentioned in an earlier
message, I heard Tureck in an all-Bach piano recital in Austin around
the same time. I enjoyed it, but the performance was my introduction to
Bach's clavier works, and I had no basis for evaluating it. --E.A.C.
JohnGavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I know exactly what you're talking about. Well said!!
> She became absolutely unbearable in her later years, musically and
> personally.
--
hrabanus
Edward Cowan
"Emperor" concerto with the San Antonio SO, cond. Victor Alessandro. As
the crowd moved into the hall before the concert began, there was Tureck
at the piano with a piano tuner (!). She would complain "Hear that tone?
It's DEAD!" etc., etc. As it was, she played the concerto as though it
were by Bach. --E.A.C.