Beethoven in Period Performances

Started by Que, April 07, 2007, 07:34:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

karlhenning

Quote from: Sforzando on July 09, 2008, 07:49:12 AM
He does not use one instrument per part. He uses one 1st violin, one 2nd, two violas, two celli, and a bass. What's the sense of that?

There's a little knowledge is a dangerous thing for you!

Rod Corkin

#361
Quote from: Sforzando on July 09, 2008, 07:49:12 AM
He does not use one instrument per part. He uses one 1st violin, one 2nd, two violas, two celli, and a bass. What's the sense of that?

The 2 violas and celli are divided. But this recording proves a 20/21 piece orchestra can do the job and do it very well.
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/classicalmusicmayhem/

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 09, 2008, 01:03:03 PM
The 2 violas and celli are divided. But this recording proves a 20/21 piece orchestra can do the job and do it very well.

Not if the first violin is inaudible. If you had studied the score, you'd know there is one passage in the finale of 4 where divided violas are required, and several passages that call for a solo cello accompanying the soloist - meaning (duh!) that at least 2 celli were expected. But that is not the point. There is no possible justification for having a single 1st violinist as well as a single 2nd, as the upper string lines have no chance of being heard against the rest of the ensemble. And this is precisely what happens on the Alpha recording. Even our Brechtian* friend above set his small ensemble as 4-4-3-3-2. Orchestras always have a larger number of violinists than lower string players, to ensure the important melodic upper lines carry. A disposition of 4-4-3-3-2 would be fine, as would 3-3-2-2-1, or even (if absolutely necessary) 2-2-2-2-1. But not 1-1-2-2-1. That's unbalanced.

-------------------------
*Und der Haifisch, der hat Zähne
Und die trägt er im Gesicht.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

Rod Corkin

Quote from: Sforzando on July 10, 2008, 10:31:35 AM
... But that is not the point. There is no possible justification for having a single 1st violinist as well as a single 2nd, as the upper string lines have no chance of being heard against the rest of the ensemble.

Well the point is that I believe there was only one violin per part in the premier of the 4th. On record at least it works, this CD proves that. The right acoustic is required of course. Maybe a few more fiddles would be more ideal, but this doesn't detract from the quality of the performance in question. And the sound quality is beyond superb.
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/classicalmusicmayhem/

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 02:30:44 AM
Well the point is that I believe there was only one violin per part in the premier of the 4th. On record at least it works, this CD proves that. The right acoustic is required of course. Maybe a few more fiddles would be more ideal, but this doesn't detract from the quality of the performance in question. And the sound quality is beyond superb.

Actually in many ways the performance is inadequate, mainly on the pianist's part. Worst of all is the finale of the Emperor, where his rhythms in the main theme are sloppy, thus compromising the intended effect of the syncopation on the highest note. (The orchestra's playing of this same material in their tutti puts him to shame.) He also fakes the difficult passages in broken octaves and (in the opening movement of 4) has trouble managing the 16th-note triplets as written. And what's with the arpeggios in the fortissimo recap in 4? Beethoven didn't write that, and Sch's emendation is no improvement. Overall too (and I subjected myself to his Emperor once more last night to be sure), I get the feeling that the whole performance is downbeat-heavy, as if he isn't shaping the performance in larger 4, 8, or 16-bar units. It's
really not a good job.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

Rod Corkin

Quote from: Sforzando on July 11, 2008, 03:19:43 AM
Actually in many ways the performance is inadequate, mainly on the pianist's part. Worst of all is the finale of the Emperor, where his rhythms in the main theme are sloppy, thus compromising the intended effect of the syncopation on the highest note. (The orchestra's playing of this same material in their tutti puts him to shame.) He also fakes the difficult passages in broken octaves and (in the opening movement of 4) has trouble managing the 16th-note triplets as written. And what's with the arpeggios in the fortissimo recap in 4? Beethoven didn't write that, and Sch's emendation is no improvement. Overall too (and I subjected myself to his Emperor once more last night to be sure), I get the feeling that the whole performance is downbeat-heavy, as if he isn't shaping the performance in larger 4, 8, or 16-bar units. It's
really not a good job.

Well the 4th plods a bit I have mentioned already, but this is not an issue of orchestral size. I don't really play Nr4 much from this disk but I still say the 5th is the best available. He uses an untypical approach in the finale of the 5th but I think it works. Everything else sounds rather tame to me after this recording.
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/classicalmusicmayhem/

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 06:23:19 AM
Well the 4th plods a bit I have mentioned already, but this is not an issue of orchestral size. I don't really play Nr4 much from this disk but I still say the 5th is the best available. He uses an untypical approach in the finale of the 5th but I think it works. Everything else sounds rather tame to me after this recording.

Whatever.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."


Sorin Eushayson

Doesn't surprise me there are some who don't like Schoonderwoerd's (radical) approach, but I personally think it's gorgeous.  One of the highlights of my Beethoven collection, that's for sure; I'm quite looking forward to hearing his newest release, the Third Piano Concerto and Op. 61a, the latter of which will be the first recording of this work on period instruments (that I know of). 

And 'hi,' Rod!  ;D

M forever

Quote from: Sorin Eushayson on July 11, 2008, 10:30:19 PM
Doesn't surprise me there are some who don't like Schoonderwoerd's (radical) approach, but I personally think it's gorgeous.

It's not "radical", it's just plain bad. That's the problem with that, pseudos can easily hide behind being "radical" and "challenging" even if they aren't, and any criticism can be deflected easily - after all, since the approach is so "radical" and "challenging" and "unusual", every criticism can be filed away as simply not understanding the new approach. Very convenient. That doesn't change the fact that there is a lot very wrong and very bad about these performances, and it should be obvious immediately, just as it should be obvious that what we have here is a mediocre pianist drawing attention to himself with gimmicky, pseudo-HIP performances. Sforzando has already pointed out some simply very bad passages, and many more could be listed. But then this subject isn't that interesting.

I am not suprised though that some people find that approach "interesting" and "exciting" and other interpretations "tame" in comparison. I can understand why some shallow listeners find that bang and slash fest "exciting", and Schoonderwoerd's interpretive "style" is so sledgehammer that even the most uninformed and inexperienced listener can actually hear big differences to more "conventional" interpretations, ao it gives them the feeling of "understanding" what's going on.

So all in all, this is not "HIP Beethoven", this is "pseudo-HIP Beethoven" for idiots and the hard-of-hearing.

FideLeo

Quote from: M forever on July 12, 2008, 02:55:34 PM
So all in all, this is not "HIP Beethoven", this is "pseudo-HIP Beethoven" for idiots and the hard-of-hearing.

Well, whatever. :D
HIP for all and all for HIP! Harpsichord for Bach, fortepiano for Beethoven and pianoforte for Brahms!

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: M forever on July 12, 2008, 02:55:34 PM
It's not "radical", it's just plain bad. That's the problem with that, pseudos can easily hide behind being "radical" and "challenging" even if they aren't, and any criticism can be deflected easily - after all, since the approach is so "radical" and "challenging" and "unusual", every criticism can be filed away as simply not understanding the new approach. Very convenient. That doesn't change the fact that there is a lot very wrong and very bad about these performances, and it should be obvious immediately, just as it should be obvious that what we have here is a mediocre pianist drawing attention to himself with gimmicky, pseudo-HIP performances. Sforzando has already pointed out some simply very bad passages, and many more could be listed. But then this subject isn't that interesting.

I am not suprised though that some people find that approach "interesting" and "exciting" and other interpretations "tame" in comparison. I can understand why some shallow listeners find that bang and slash fest "exciting", and Schoonderwoerd's interpretive "style" is so sledgehammer that even the most uninformed and inexperienced listener can actually hear big differences to more "conventional" interpretations, ao it gives them the feeling of "understanding" what's going on.

So all in all, this is not "HIP Beethoven", this is "pseudo-HIP Beethoven" for idiots and the hard-of-hearing.

It just makes me sort of sad that I've listened to and enjoyed music for most of my life and I had to wait this long to finally meet the one person who completely understands and could have explained it all to me. :-\  How could I have been such a fool? Actually enjoying something that is tepid, mediocre horseshit! And really, at this point in my life, it is way too late to go back and start over again, so I suppose I'll just have to shuffle along like a semideaf, deluded idiot right to the grave. And leave all that GOOD music for someone else to listen to. :'(

8)


----------------
Listening to:
Mozart - Academy of Ancient Music / Robert Levin - K 452 Quintet in Eb for Fortepiano & Winds 1st mvmt
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

M forever

Huh? Are you saying you actually like that? I don't understand your sarcasm there. What are you talking about? Pointing out some obviously very bad and musically nonsensical playing doesn't mean that one can "explain it all". Nobody completely "understands" the music and "knows" how it should be ideally played, but one doesn't need "absolute" knowledge to hear that someone can obviously not play it very well, but makes a lot of fuss about performance circumstances in order to style himself as a bold and daringly explorative performer when in reality, these performances, apart from many very basic and very drastic shortcomings, are just a freakshow of "HIP"-clichés. The phrasing, the accentuation, the note lengths, a lot of that is just grotesquely formulaic and often clouds rather than enhances the musical substance. Sforzando already pointed out how Schoonderwoerd completely distorts the rhythmic nature of the theme in the 5ths finale, a good example for how he tries to make things sound different with his sledgehammer approach, but just to sound different, not because there is any musical sense to it. Similarly, why does he play the last note of the 3rd first subject so long? Just to sound "different"? What is the musical sense behind that?

I can understand that someone who can not distinguish himself otherwise in an extremely crowded and dense field such as Beethoven interpretation tries to come up with something that sets him apart from the rest, but I am surprised that some people who I would have thought are more critical and informed listeners (that excludes Mr Corkin, I did not think that of him) buy into that so easily and uncritically.

FideLeo

#373
Quote from: M forever on July 12, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
musical substance.

That alone is just impossible to determine and define, and you built a lot of arguments on it as if you knew exactly what that is.

HIP for all and all for HIP! Harpsichord for Bach, fortepiano for Beethoven and pianoforte for Brahms!

Gurn Blanston

Being critical or uncritical isn't really the issue, is it? I mean, do I have to sit with a score like Sfz and then, only if it passes my critical inspection, can I allow myself to enjoy it somewhat? As it happens, I can hear the violins quite well in my recording, can't you? So even if Sfz is correct in his counting (and I really don't know if he is or isn't) as long as I can hear them OK, I'm not counting that against.

I agree with you that there is always a certain amount of slobbering fanaticism that accompanies various releases, especially when they have a different turn to them (right or wrong), but this is not an exclusive fault of the HIP market, it goes along with classical music in general. I have read tons of reviews of all sorts of recordings, and you know, I don't usually see what it is that they are all falling about so effusively over. I often like the ones they are tepid about, and don't go nuts over the ones that they do. I figure I'm just not a fanatic at heart. :-\

And another thing, Sfz is already on record a hundred times over as totally disliking period instrument recordings and the back to the past movement in general, so when I read his review of something that is purportedly HIP, I always take it with a grain of salt, because I expect him to dislike it before he has even heard it, and then if, and only if, it ranks with the greatest performances ever made, he will grudgingly admit that it is barely listenable. Which is fine, for him. But for me, I will need to listen to it myself and then decide if I like it. Which I did, and do. :)

8)


----------------
Listening to:
Academy of Ancient Music / Schröder  Hogwood - K 248b 250alt  Symphony in D 3rd mvmt - Andante
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

M forever

Quote from: traverso on July 12, 2008, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: M forever on Today at 09:40:44 PM
musical substance.


That alone is just impossible to determine and define, and you built a lot of arguments on it as if you knew exactly what that is.

Two words taken out of context indeed don't mean much, just as the expression "musical substance" on it own is a very vague term. What's decisive in any case is the context!

Quote from: M forever on July 12, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
The phrasing, the accentuation, the note lengths, a lot of that is just grotesquely formulaic and often clouds rather than enhances the musical substance. Sforzando already pointed out how Schoonderwoerd completely distorts the rhythmic nature of the theme in the 5ths finale, a good example for how he tries to make things sound different with his sledgehammer approach, but just to sound different, not because there is any musical sense to it.

Aha! That makes a whole lot more sense now. I hope I don't have to explain what "musical substance" means in this context? Or do I? I think I may have to after all. The rhythmic nature of the main theme of the 5th concerto's finale is syncopated, and to enhance that, the note lengths play a very important role. Now, there is a basic truism of "HIP" that when two notes are slurred, contrary to "conventional" performance practice, they don't necessarily have to have the same length, in given musical contexts, the first or the second may bo longer or shorter. But what Schoonderwoerd does here makes no sense and indeed clouds rather than enhances the rhythmical nature, just for a musical gimmicky effect, just to be different. And then the orchestra plays it different again, so on top of that, there doesn't seem to be much concept there. There are many, many different ways how this can be musically enhanced, and shaping this convincingly separates the really great pianists from the many others who can also more or less play the notes, but not bring the whole piece across. There is no one "right" or "best" way, that is why it is so interesting to compare performances. But - that doesn't mean that everything is musically right, and this is one very good example. It is also easy to understand why the soloist does that, but it comes from a HIP cliché rather than anything which makes musical sense. There is something like musical sense after all. It's not just random notes on paper. There is a context to them. The role of the interpreter is to enhance the context, not cloud and tear it apart.

M forever

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 12, 2008, 06:01:19 PM
And another thing, Sfz is already on record a hundred times over as totally disliking period instrument recordings and the back to the past movement in general, so when I read his review of something that is purportedly HIP, I always take it with a grain of salt, because I expect him to dislike it before he has even heard it, and then if, and only if, it ranks with the greatest performances ever made, he will grudgingly admit that it is barely listenable. Which is fine, for him.

I don't keep track of what he normally likes or doesn't like, in this case, the points he raises are very good points.

I personally come from the opposite direction. I am ***extremely*** interested in the subjects of period performance and musical performance style in general, and I have practical experience in that field. Therefore, it is immediately obvious to me that Schoonderwoerd is a total pseudo and a mediocre musicians hiding behind gimmicky effects.

I have to admit though that I was biased when I put those recordings on - but in favor of the idea and the performers. I actually expected them to be really interesting, in some way(s). So when I first listened to them and was a little shocked how bad they are, I listened to them again the next day. And then again. I wanted to like them because I thought the idea was interesting. But they are just too bad.

Gurn Blanston

Quote from: M forever on July 12, 2008, 06:18:20 PM
I don't keep track of what he normally likes or doesn't like, in this case, the points he raises are very good points.

I personally come from the opposite direction. I am ***extremely*** interested in the subjects of period performance and musical performance style in general, and I have practical experience in that field. Therefore, it is immediately obvious to me that Schoonderwoerd is a total pseudo and a mediocre musicians hiding behind gimmicky effects.

I have to admit though that I was biased when I put those recordings on - but in favor of the idea and the performers. I actually expected them to be really interesting, in some way(s). So when I first listened to them and was a little shocked how bad they are, I listened to them again the next day. And then again. I wanted to like them because I thought the idea was interesting. But they are just too bad.

Well, I'm sorry (seriously, I am) that you were disappointed. I agree, the idea is a good one. If the execution failed you, that's unfortunate.

I would say this about Schoonderwoerd though. This is not the only recording I have by him, I actually have several although they are mainly solo works. His execution of Classical Era sonatas is first rate. So I don't know if it is the concerto in particular, or Beethoven's music in general which caused him to play out of synch here, but he most generally is not. Something I learned at the feet of the M(aster) is that one shouldn't generally tar and feather a musician based on one recording which you don't like. :)

8)


----------------
Listening to:
Academy of Ancient Music / Schröder  Hogwood - K 319 Symphony #33 in Bb 4th mvmt - Allegro assai
Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)

Lilas Pastia

I'm ambivalent about HIP Beethoven, and most often come down on the wrong side of critical consensus. For example I love the Collegium Aureum versions of symphonies 3 and 7 (the only ones they recorded), but am totally immune to the 'revelations' of the various Gardiner and Hogwood ones. OTOH, although I love Brautigam's sonatas, I am rather tepid about his recordings of the concertos 1 (good) and 3 (ho-hum). Although he does NOT play a fortepiano in the latter, it's still a HIP conception. BTW it should be noted that the acronym HIP does NOT necessarily convey the use of period instruments (a very vague concept).

When it comes to musical persuasion, very few theoretical tenets hold sway. It all comes down to the proverbial pudding. I've heard a few fortepiano + HIP orchestra Beethoven concertos, and they never failed to annoy me (litterally - I couldn't wait for the disc to end). I just HATE it when I'm supposed to 'get' something and only hear tinny, unsubstantial sounds. In the case of Schoonderwoerd - Cristofori (I have the first disc), it's the other way around: I'm provoked and challenged left and right, but what I hear makes both musical and historical sense. I don't put much credence into pseudo 'historic circumstances' that should enlighten us on the proper context of a given period's performances - if one was to believe the HIP pontiffs, which I don't: they have to show their mettle in aural terms, not in booklet notes. In the case of the Schoonderwoerd Beethoven concertos 4 and 5, there are solid grounds for going the minimalist string complement way in the first decade of the 19th century.

Beethoven would probably have wished for a very large band to perform his concertos and symphonies. Vide Mozart and Haydn: they would have liked nothing more than hearing their works performed with a 60-80 orchestra, but most often had to be happy with a complement 1/4 of that  size - if that. Nobody will ever convince me there's only one way to perform these works. Having a very different alternative like the Schoonderwoerd- Cristofori is a boon. I'm grateful for having learned that 16th notes are not played as they should (thank you Sfz), but that will not change the real aural pleasure I derive from these colourful, vibrant, effusive readings, captured in vibrant, crystal-clear sonics.

I still cherish the Backhaus, Gilels, Pollini, Perlemuter, Rubinstein and Kovacevich Emperors, but Schoonderword & Co. will be on my shelves next to them. I have no idea if they are musically misconceived and badly executed. The first idea is subjective, whereas the second has to be weighed according to its place in the overall context. If in 2008 Gould-Stokowski still has fans, I can understand why Schoonderword-Cristofori titillate and provoke. Who is to tell which way bad taste lies?

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 12, 2008, 06:01:19 PM
And another thing, Sfz is already on record a hundred times over as totally disliking period instrument recordings and the back to the past movement in general, so when I read his review of something that is purportedly HIP, I always take it with a grain of salt, because I expect him to dislike it before he has even heard it, and then if, and only if, it ranks with the greatest performances ever made, he will grudgingly admit that it is barely listenable.

Smokescreen and distortion. By and large, I am disappointed with many of the HIP performances I have heard, and have rarely heard ones that rise to the level of the best modern performances I know. Some exceptions that come immediately to mind: Brüggen's Haydn symphonies, Christie's Lully and Rameau, Badura-Skoda's 101 and 106 on Astree, Harnoncourt's Rameau, some of his Bach cantatas, some of his Beethoven (the slow movement of his 9th has to be the most outstanding version I have ever heard - his Pastorale, no thanks). Nor do I pretend to have heard every possible recording, HIP or standard, especially in crowded fields. I try always to discuss only recordings I have heard, without pretending to encyclopedic knowledge of all possible recorded interpretations. I bought this Schoonderwoerd given all the rave reviews I have read here. I was expecting something transcendent. And I was shocked and dismayed by what I actually heard.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."