Author Topic: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)  (Read 63612 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline k a rl h e nn i ng

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 51096
  • Et quid amabo nisi quod ænigma est?
    • Henningmusick
  • Location: Boston, Mass.
  • Currently Listening to:
    Shostakovich, Frescobaldi, Stravinsky, JS Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Haydn, Henning
Re: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)
« Reply #680 on: August 07, 2018, 03:52:13 AM »
I give La méditation de Purun Bhagat an A+, and to Les Bandar-log and La course de printemps, an A each.  While I am sure I shall enjoy the Op.18 poems (one reason why I was predisposed to the Zinman rather than the Segerstam), it was especially my eagerness to hear La loi de la jungle which drove my urgency for a complete Jungle Book.

One thing I am finding of immediate interest:  the Zinman timings for the Opp. 95, 159 & 176 are quicker than Holliger’s—in the case of the Opp. 159 & 176, significantly quicker:

Op. 95
Zinman
— 31:54
Holliger — 33:11

Op. 159
Zinman — 13:45
Holliger — 16:00

Op. 176
Zinman
— 16:31
Holliger — 20:24

I do not find any of the Holliger performances at all languorous, so I am curious about the effect of Zinman’s tempi.

Another reflection of my having combed through the entire thread yesterday:  ’tis a mild pity, that the timing of my enthusiasm for the Jungle Book is out of joint with John’s.  I suppose (and this is general, nothing specific to John, of course) historically I have found that the enthusiasm of another does not reliably translate to myself.

Anyway, could just be my own musical biorhythms:  this is the season for my bungle in the Jungle Book.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Online André

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6311
  • Location: Laval, QC
Re: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)
« Reply #681 on: August 07, 2018, 05:02:43 AM »
Because of the current Jungle Book discussion, my curiosity was piqued, so I played this CD:



My first reactions: extremely singular and fantastic music in there. Where had these works been all my life? I already knew his string quartets (btw, wonderful), but these works exceeded my expectations by far. The orchestration and the atmosphere Koechlin created in these works are with no equal. I'll have to give them more listens to get their secrets.

Zinman (or the disc producer) lays out the works chronologically, thus chronicling the composer’s evolution over a period of 50 years. Koechlin, however, had other ideas. Being a natural born original, he decided on a different playing order when the cycle was finished: opus 175, 176, 18, 95 and 159. There is a logic to this madness. In doing so, Koechlin was simply following Kipling’s order in Jungle Book. Thus we move freely from ivesian spareness to canteloubesque lushness, and everything in-between.

I had a friend burn the Zinman performances in the right order, so I can listen to the work in logical or chronological order. I haven’t made up my mind about which one is the most musically effective. Bedford’s set is the only one to have the poems in the composer’s stated order. I have yet to hear it. Anyone did ?

Note on opus 18: Zinman’s tenor is horrible, and Segerstam didn’t record it.

Offline Biffo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 998
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)
« Reply #682 on: August 07, 2018, 05:53:55 AM »
Zinman (or the disc producer) lays out the works chronologically, thus chronicling the composer’s evolution over a period of 50 years. Koechlin, however, had other ideas. Being a natural born original, he decided on a different playing order when the cycle was finished: opus 175, 176, 18, 95 and 159. There is a logic to this madness. In doing so, Koechlin was simply following Kipling’s order in Jungle Book. Thus we move freely from ivesian spareness to canteloubesque lushness, and everything in-between.

I had a friend burn the Zinman performances in the right order, so I can listen to the work in logical or chronological order. I haven’t made up my mind about which one is the most musically effective. Bedford’s set is the only one to have the poems in the composer’s stated order. I have yet to hear it. Anyone did ?

Note on opus 18: Zinman’s tenor is horrible, and Segerstam didn’t record it.

Someone, possibly you, posted Koechlin's order before. The Bedford recording is no longer available (unless it has been recently reissued) so I ordered a copy from zoverstocks (I think). I received a disc of Brahms First Symphony. I returned it and got a refund.  I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to upload the Zinman set to my PC and play it in the correct order, just haven't got round to it yet.

Online André

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 6311
  • Location: Laval, QC
Re: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)
« Reply #683 on: August 07, 2018, 07:19:46 AM »
I put Bedford’s account in my cart. It’s new, so presumably it won’t morph into a Brahms symphony:



Asin number: B0013FDTOA

Offline Iota

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Location: UK
Re: Charles Koechlin(1867-1950)
« Reply #684 on: March 03, 2019, 11:46:00 AM »


Koechlin Piano Quintet

Quintette Syntonia


Not quite sure how he does it, but Koechlin seems to conjure up extraplanetary harmony and timbres all his own. I think sometimes the refinement of the timbre makes the harmony seem even more exotic than it already is. Be that as it may, the consequence is some pretty rarefied moods. If you've ever felt life has offered you too few opportunities to abseil dreamily down existential chasms for example, there are moments in this quintet that may offer you the chance to address that lacuna.

He seems pretty free in his approach to form in this piece. The structure of the third movt seems almost arbitrary, like mist lifting when it's done, rather than being shaped by any formal influence. In this case, that meant it felt a bit long to me. But it contains some ecstatically beautiful music, which I sort of never wanted want to end. But then as I say, it sort of never did. It's only about 10 minutes long, but towards the end, it felt to me like the exotic-harmony equivalent of 3 minutes worth of the closing bars of Sibelius 5. The also-extremely-lovely last movt, though only a minute and a half shorter, seemed a model of concision by comparison.

Anyway despite that, extraordinary and transfixing music, that I greatly enjoyed.