Dmitri's Dacha

Started by karlhenning, April 09, 2007, 08:13:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulR

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 10:15:40 AM
Everybody talks about how great Oistrakh's performance was and honestly I don't think much of it. I'm beginning to dislike Vengerov's approach altogether to the violin. I haven't heard Hope/M. Shostakovich yet, but I didn't like Hope's recording of Berg/Britten concerti. His tone just isn't there. Khachatryan is one of my favorites. Outstanding performance IMHO. Josefowicz/Oramo was awful. I'm beginning to dislike Mullova/Previn. Steinbacher/Nelsons, aside from the Khachatryan/Masur, is another top choice of mine. I also just listened to Batiashvili/Salonen and was incredibly impressed with it. I'll be listening to this one a lot as well.
You're hard to please :P

Mirror Image

Quote from: PaulR on July 10, 2012, 10:17:47 AM
You're hard to please :P

Well, you're probably right. I am pretty hard to please, but let's bear in mind that all of the violinists who are well-known who tackle Shosty's VCs are top-notch musicians. I may disagree with his/her interpretation, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as great musicians. They wouldn't be where they are today had they not put in the necessary work to be recognized. Like, for example, Josefowicz is a good musician, but I don't care for her style, especially in Shosty's VC No. 1. I think she's too edgy and I don't care for her tone on violin at all. The same with Mordkovitch, which is another performance I listened to recently and found distasteful. It all comes down to what you admire most in a performance. I look for 1. a collaborative effort from the soloist/conductor (i. e. both are on the same page interpretatively), 2. a warm tone from the violinist, 3. all the technical demands of the concerto to be met, and 4. both the soloist's and conductor's attention to the subtleties and details of the music.

PaulR

#842
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 10:56:38 AM
Well, you're probably right. I am pretty hard to please, but let's bear in mind that all of the violinists who are well-known who tackle Shosty's VCs are top-notch musicians. I may disagree with his/her interpretation, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as great musicians. They wouldn't be where they are today had they not put in the necessary work to be recognized. Like, for example, Josefowicz is a good musician, but I don't care for her style, especially in Shosty's VC No. 1. I think she's too edgy and I don't care for her tone on violin at all. The same with Mordkovitch, which is another performance I listened to recently and found distasteful. It all comes down to what you admire most in a performance. I look for 1. a collaborative effort from the soloist/conductor (i. e. both are on the same page interpretatively), 2. a warm tone from the violinist, 3. all the technical demands of the concerto to be met, and 4. both the soloist's and conductor's attention to the subtleties and details of the music.
I'm currently listening to the Khachatryan/Masur, enjoying his playing, but I am not totally convinced of Masur leading the orchestra. 

EDIT:  Not sure I care for the opening of the Passacaglia.  Seems far too quiet, far too polished to my ears.

Mirror Image

Quote from: PaulR on July 10, 2012, 10:59:12 AM
I'm currently listening to the Khachatryan/Masur, enjoying his playing, but I am not totally convinced of Masur leading the orchestra.

I understand this as I feel this way as well. I thought more energy from Masur from the podium could have been beneficial to the performance, but I suppose we have to take what we get. I do find it a bit strange Khachatryan picked Masur as his collaborator, but I do think both of them saw eye-to-eye. What Masur may lack in energy, he makes up for in providing an eerie backdrop. I like the way Masur let Khachatryan shine and be heard. I admire that kind of egoless generosity.

Mirror Image

Quote from: PaulR on July 10, 2012, 10:59:12 AMEDIT:  Not sure I care for the opening of the Passacaglia.  Seems far too quiet, far too polished to my ears.

I thought this Passacaglia was handled beautifully. It's not as heart-wrenching as say Vengerov/Rostropovich, but I just don't like Vengerov's tone and approach to the violin, which, for me, is a deal-breaker.

PaulR

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 11:05:24 AM
I understand this as I feel this way as well. I thought more energy from Masur from the podium could have been beneficial to the performance, but I suppose we have to take what we get. I do find it a bit strange Khachatryan picked Masur as his collaborator, but I do think both of them saw eye-to-eye. What Masur may lack in energy, he makes up for in providing an eerie backdrop. I like the way Masur let Khachatryan shine and be heard. I admire that kind of egoless generosity.
It seems to me that Masur takes this up as a typical violin concerto, with bursts of energy when the Khachatryan isn't doing much, but, as I said in the WAYLT thread, I find this to be more of a symphonic concerto than usual in how it is constructed, and Masur makes too much of an effort to lo let Khachatryan shine that hinders the performance.   

PaulR

#846
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 11:07:54 AM
I thought this Passacaglia was handled beautifully. It's not as heart-wrenching as say Vengerov/Rostropovich, but I just don't like Vengerov's tone and approach to the violin, which, for me, is a deal-breaker.
I was merely talking about the opening of the movement, I loved Rostropovich's handling of the opening.

EDIT:  He makes up for the opening of the Passacaglia with a superb opening of the Burlesca, with a great ending.  I still prefer Venegrov/Rostropovich/LSO, though, as I like Venegrov's tone for this piece. 

TheGSMoeller

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 10:56:38 AM
Well, you're probably right. I am pretty hard to please, but let's bear in mind that all of the violinists who are well-known who tackle Shosty's VCs are top-notch musicians. I may disagree with his/her interpretation, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as great musicians. They wouldn't be where they are today had they not put in the necessary work to be recognized. Like, for example, Josefowicz is a good musician, but I don't care for her style, especially in Shosty's VC No. 1. I think she's too edgy and I don't care for her tone on violin at all. The same with Mordkovitch, which is another performance I listened to recently and found distasteful. It all comes down to what you admire most in a performance. I look for 1. a collaborative effort from the soloist/conductor (i. e. both are on the same page interpretatively), 2. a warm tone from the violinist, 3. all the technical demands of the concerto to be met, and 4. both the soloist's and conductor's attention to the subtleties and details of the music.

Then you're obviously not a fan of Gould/Berstein's version of Brahms piano concerto.

Here's an interesting article on concerto conducting...

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/arts/music-view-special-gift-of-concerto-conducting.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Mirror Image

Quote from: PaulR on July 10, 2012, 11:10:43 AM
It seems to me that Masur takes this up as a typical violin concerto, with bursts of energy when the Khachatryan isn't doing much, but, as I said in the WAYLT thread, I find this to be more of a symphonic concerto than usual in how it is constructed, and Masur makes too much of an effort to lo let Khachatryan shine that hinders the performance.

I completely disagree. The violin is the voice in this music. It, in my opinion, is supposed to lead the way. Doesn't matter how it's structured, it's still a concerto. The same applies to all of Shosty's concerti. You or I don't know what Masur truly thinks about this work, but his interpretation is to follow Khachatryan who guides the music forward. They're both on the same page and I find this an admirable quality and for this reason it easily is a top choice for me.

Mirror Image

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 10, 2012, 11:15:40 AM
Then you're obviously not a fan of Gould/Berstein's version of Brahms piano concerto.

Here's an interesting article on concerto conducting...

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/10/arts/music-view-special-gift-of-concerto-conducting.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Not sure what this has to do with Shostakovich's Violin Concerto Nos. 1 & 2, but I haven't heard and don't want to hear the Gould/Bernstein performance of Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 1.

TheGSMoeller

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 11:23:14 AM
Not sure what this has to do with Shostakovich's Violin Concerto Nos. 1 & 2, but I haven't heard and don't want to hear the Gould/Bernstein performance of Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 1.

The first part was a joke that must have not been understood.

And the link is an interesting article on concerto conducting, which you and PaulR have filled a page here discussing, it doesn't directly reference DSCH's VCs, but it focuses on areas of soloist/conductor.

Karl Henning

I actually think Masur does very well accompanying the concerti, whether live (he was here in Boston's Symphony Hall) or on the disc with Khatchatryan.
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

PaulR

Quote from: karlhenning on July 10, 2012, 11:59:02 AM
I actually think Masur does very well accompanying the concerti, whether live (he was here in Boston's Symphony Hall) or on the disc with Khatchatryan.
I don't want to make it seem that I think he doesn't, it  was merely my own thinking of what the first VC is, and some minor quibbles about the interpretation. 

Mirror Image

#853
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 10, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
The first part was a joke that must have not been understood.

And the link is an interesting article on concerto conducting, which you and PaulR have filled a page here discussing, it doesn't directly reference DSCH's VCs, but it focuses on areas of soloist/conductor.

I didn't know you were joking and didn't understand or get the joke.

Edit: A smiley face (:)) should always be at the end of a joke, otherwise, how am I or anyone else to know you're joking?

Mirror Image

Quote from: PaulR on July 10, 2012, 12:04:32 PM
I don't want to make it seem that I think he doesn't, it  was merely my own thinking of what the first VC is, and some minor quibbles about the interpretation.

All is well, Paul. No worries. We all like and admire different things in performances. A difference of opinion makes the world turn.

Mirror Image

I'm own my second listen to Lisa Batishvili's performance of Shostakovich's Violin Concerto No. 1 and I'm still highly impressed with her playing and the accompaniment from Salonen. This is a performance worth getting to know.

eyeresist

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 10:15:40 AMEverybody talks about how great Oistrakh's performance was and honestly I don't think much of it. I'm beginning to dislike Vengerov's approach altogether to the violin. I haven't heard Hope/M. Shostakovich yet, but I didn't like Hope's recording of Berg/Britten concerti. His tone just isn't there. Khachatryan is one of my favorites. Outstanding performance IMHO. Josefowicz/Oramo was awful. I'm beginning to dislike Mullova/Previn. Steinbacher/Nelsons, aside from the Khachatryan/Masur, is another top choice of mine. I also just listened to Batiashvili/Salonen and was incredibly impressed with it. I'll be listening to this one a lot as well.

This is interesting, thanks. I agree about Oistrakh and Vengerov - Oistrakh has a lot of cred but I've never heard him really dig into the music. Vengerov's vibrato and timbre nauseate me - I don't know how anyone else can stand it! The little I've heard of Mullova I didn't like either - too hard-toned and insensitive. I don't know if you have the Sitkovetsky set of Shost and Prok violin concertos - he's okay but too reticent and lacklustre. I do appreciate that he's not trying to overpower the music, but he goes too far the other way.

So I think I will have to look into Khachatryan, Steinbacher, and Batiashvili.

*Lopes off to Amazon.*

Mirror Image

Quote from: eyeresist on July 11, 2012, 02:24:44 AM
This is interesting, thanks. I agree about Oistrakh and Vengerov - Oistrakh has a lot of cred but I've never heard him really dig into the music. Vengerov's vibrato and timbre nauseate me - I don't know how anyone else can stand it! The little I've heard of Mullova I didn't like either - too hard-toned and insensitive. I don't know if you have the Sitkovetsky set of Shost and Prok violin concertos - he's okay but too reticent and lacklustre. I do appreciate that he's not trying to overpower the music, but he goes too far the other way.

So I think I will have to look into Khachatryan, Steinbacher, and Batiashvili.

*Lopes off to Amazon.*

I have a recording of Sitkovetsky performing Bartok's VCs and I didn't enjoy his playing at all. I've pretty avoided anything recorded by him ever since. Try out Khachatryan, Steinbacher, and Batiashvili. I'm sure you'll enjoy at least one of these performances.

Karl Henning

Quote from: Mirror Image on July 10, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Very good ear. Shostakovich's 2nd and 3rd are generally regarded as his weakest symphonies. They're almost nothing in the world but propaganda works. Like of today's radio jingle for example. They're trying to sell something [....]

As to the statement that "Shostakovich's 2nd and 3rd are [...] almost nothing in the world but propaganda works":  The obvious fact about them is that they conclude with a chorus singing propagandic texts.

Does the fact that a symphony contains an element of propaganda mean that it's "nothing in the world but propaganda works"?  Obviously not.  It could be argued that Schiller's "Ode to Joy" is pantheistic, warm-&-fuzzy claptrap propaganda.  (It would be a hostile view of the matter, but it can be argued;  one might alternatively view the poem as not particularly good poetry, and yet regard the content of the poem with some tolerance.)  Certainly the setting of the poem is the driver for the musical structure of the fourth movement.  In framing that argument, is one justified in detracting the entire Op.125 as "almost nothing in the world but propaganda works"? Is that a rhetorical question, or what?

Another obvious fact about the two symphonies is that they were commissions as 'public works', and (to be sure) the final choral fooferaw was in both cases the raison d'être for the commission.  Does the fact of the public commission invalidate the entire artistic endeavor?

I do not think it can.  The question of artistic worth has to rest in the resulting work, not in the source of a commission.  There are great works of art which have been commissioned for The Public; and there is piffle which has been thus commissioned.

Of course, it is possible to take distaste for the Communist propaganda texts as a driver for prejudice against the entire piece.  That is neither subtle, nor even fair.

There is the fact that the composer himself had his son promise that he would never conduct those works.  (A promise which Maksim Dmitriyevich has obviously broken, in the interests of keeping deeper artistic faith with his dad.)  On the face of it, this appears like the composer "disowning" the musical objects.  I think the sounder argument is, that long experience had embittered him to the Party, that this experience made all of his (necessary, to at least some reasonable degree) apparent compromises over the years loathsome to him.  He may well have been sharply critical, at that later date, of his apparent naïveté in 'playing along' in that earlier epoch;  and if I remember the timing correctly, at the time of that conversation with his son, he may well have rued his apparent 'cave-in' in the 60s, when he at last actually joined the Party.

For my ears personally, the flaws of the choral texts (mediocrity of both style and content . . . third-pressing Mayakovsky, if you like) are of less import than the panache of the choral writing.  (I could even consider the texts of a certain type of interest, as historical artifacts, but set that aside at present.) There is a musical élan in the execution of both these symphonies which, on its own merit, I find worthwhile.

Even if we allowed (for argument's sake) that the lousy texts meant that the choral finales of both symphonies are therefore somehow worthless – how could the instrumental portion of the works be propagandic?  They're just notes, in a real sense.  If we excised the choral finale, and played the rest of the Second Symphony to a 'blind' audience, and told them the name of the piece was Mercury, the Winged Messenger – how many in the group would cry, "No! This is no heavenly body – it is The Spectre of Communism!" –?

The other aspect of the Second and Third Symphonies which my ears treasure are, they are an important part of the limited view we have of the precocious talent to which Shostakovich gave rein before the necessity of self-policing came into force, after the notorious Pravda editorial.

In my opinion (spelled out, no acronym), if anyone tosses these symphonies into the dustbin just by virtue of their compromised origins, he is certainly acting within his own æsthetic rights, but he's also losing out on some of the century's genuinely fascinating (and exhilarating) music.
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

kishnevi

Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2012, 07:16:56 AM

There is the fact that the composer himself had his son promise that he would never conduct those works.  (A promise which Maksim Dmitriyevich has obviously broken, in the interests of keeping deeper artistic faith with his dad.)  On the face of it, this appears like the composer "disowning" the musical objects.  I think the sounder argument is, that long experience had embittered him to the Party, that this experience made all of his (necessary, to at least some reasonable degree) apparent compromises over the years loathsome to him.  He may well have been sharply critical, at that later date, of his apparent naïveté in 'playing along' in that earlier epoch;  and if I remember the timing correctly, at the time of that conversation with his son, he may well have rued his apparent 'cave-in' in the 60s, when he at last actually joined the Party.


The other aspect of the Second and Third Symphonies which my ears treasure are, they are an important part of the limited view we have of the precocious talent to which Shostakovich gave rein before the necessity of self-policing came into force, after the notorious Pravda editorial.


I've isolated those two paragraphs to give context to my own speculation.
Perhaps DSCH's apparent dislike was not a musical judgment, but based on psychological/personal circumstance--they may have been too-painful reminders of what he might have otherwise done, and reminders of an era when musical experimentation was not only tolerated, but to some degree encouraged.  And DSCH might have also been reflecting on what was then his political naivete, in willingly providing music for the regime.  (Though aren't there stories of DSCH making fun of the texts and of the scenario for The Bolt?)

Myself, I'm not too enamored of the Second and Third--musically they are not my cup of tea (or, since this is a Russian context, my samovar of tea).    Seemingly disjointed,  too modernistic, etc.    Interesting documents more than interesting music, so to speak.