Recordings That You Are Considering

[Florestan]

To continue with the eating analogy, though, the fact is that no one just randomly chomps on food, either likes or dislikes it, and then moves on to the next thing.

People make choices of their food based on their previous food experiences. The purposes of those choices is to increase the chances that the next thing they eat will be pleasurable to eat.

And people cannot make use of the data they've gathered about which food experiences they liked without some kind of analysis of the patterns of what was nice to eat and what was not.

So too, Florestan, with your music choices. Whether you are conscious of it or not, you ARE making assessments of not only what music you liked, but why, and this is informing what you listen to next.

Otherwise you would be pressing shuffle on the world's entire music library, not choosing genres, not choosing time periods, not choosing composers. The fact that you have parameters and boundaries, WITHIN which you might be happy to try pretty much anything, is a creation of an intellectual process that set those parameters and boundaries.

I don't disagree with anything of the above. My point wasn't that I do not make choices (I do, all the time, and of course they are based on an intellectual process) or that I'm not interested in why I make them. My point was that in my assessing the merits, of lack thereof, of a recording, the rationale behind the performer's interpretive choice plays no role. I am not interested in why s/he plays the way s/he does, I am interested only in the net result, ie the performance itself. No amount of theoretical paragraphs in a scholarly essay will make me enjoy something that I don't, or dislike something that I like, and I'm not in the habit of reading such essays prior to listening. That is all.

[Mandryka]

I don't disagree with anything of the above. My point wasn't that I do not make choices (I do, all the time, and of course they are based on an intellectual process) or that I'm not interested in why I make them. My point was that in my assessing the merits, of lack thereof, of a recording, the rationale behind the performer's interpretive choice plays no role. I am not interested in why s/he plays the way s/he does, I am interested only in the net result, ie the performance itself. No amount of theoretical paragraphs in a scholarly essay will make me enjoy something that I don't, or dislike something that I like, and I'm not in the habit of reading such essays prior to listening. That is all.

There's a conflation here between assessing and enjoying.

You can't  "assess the merits, of lack thereof" unless you have understood what is happening in the performance and why the musician is doing it.

[Florestan]

There's a conflation here between assessing and enjoying.

You can't  "assess the merits, of lack thereof" unless you have understood what is happening in the performance and why the musician is doing it.

Yes, my bad, I chose my words carelessly. What I mean is that for me enjoyment is the only criterion.

For instance, just recently I've been listening to Paul Badura-Skoda's Hammerklavier played on a Conrad Graf fortepiano. I didn't like it, to my ears the sound was weak and unpleasant. Now, I'm sure that PB-S wrote extensively and scholarly about why he chose that instrument and why he played it the way he did, but even if I read his writings I still wouldn't enjoy the result. On the other hand, I greatly enjoyed his Pastoral played on a Caspar Schmidt fortepiano. He probably has a scholarly justification for this, too, but if I read it I wouldn't enjoy the result more.

There, I hope I made myself clear.

[prémont]

You can't  "assess the merits, of lack thereof" unless you have understood what is happening in the performance and why the musician is doing it.

I often feel that the reason for "special" performance styles is a wish from the musicians to stick out from the mass, and as such they can't always from a musical point of view be taken seriously in the usual sense of this word.

[San Antone]

There's a conflation here between assessing and enjoying.

You can't  "assess the merits, of lack thereof" unless you have understood what is happening in the performance and why the musician is doing it.

Can you enjoy a recording/performance without assessing the merits?

[Mandryka]

Can you enjoy a recording/performance without assessing the merits?

Yes

[Mandryka]

I often feel that the reason for "special" performance styles is a wish from the musicians to stick out from the mass, and as such they can't always from a musical point of view be taken seriously in the usual sense of this word.

And it could be that the only thing that we as listeners can say is that the musician was irrational, that his performance choices are inexplicable because they are not based on any form of reasoning at all.

It's the same with all actions, if someone speaks or behaves in a certain way, it could  be that it cannot be made sense of because it is nonsense.

But I would argue that we should only conclude this when all other lines of explanation are failing. There's a principle of charity - we should, if we can, be charitable enough to assume that the musician makes sense.

[San Antone]

And it could be that the only thing that we as listeners can say is that the musician was irrational, that his performance choices are inexplicable because they are not based on any form of reasoning at all.

It's the same with all actions, if someone speaks or behaves in a certain way, it could  be that it cannot be made sense of because it is nonsense.

But I would argue that we should only conclude this when all other lines of explanation are failing. There's a principle of charity - we should, if we can, be charitable enough to assume that the musician makes sense.

I'd agree with your statement about charity to the performer.  But on your underlying point, i.e. assessing the recording, I think we are coming to this from opposite places.  I have to work to "assess" a recording, and most often do not care to do that work.  My natural orientation is to listen to it uncritically and either I have an automatic liking or disliking of what I hear. But that does not mean I listen without any cerebral activity.

Just now I put on a recording of the Brahms op. 120 sonatas, written for clarinet but often played by viola, by Richard Goode and Michael Tree. 

Because the balance of piano and viola seemed to overly favor the piano, and the tone of the viola did not please me I turned it off after the first movement.  But because of the issue of the balance it got me thinking about how the work is not a "sonata for clarinet/viola" but a sonata for "piano and clarinet/viola", i.e. equal partners and should be equally prominent at various times - I thought something about the work which had not occurred to me before.

But still I did not like Tree's tone on the viola, and generally prefer these works played by a clarinet.  Although the Kim Kashkashian recording is very enjoyable.

[Florestan]

I have to work to "assess" a recording, and most often do not care to do that work.  My natural orientation is to listen to it uncritically and either I have an automatic liking or disliking of what I hear. But that does not mean I listen without any cerebral activity.

My thoughts exactly.

My example is this



The first mvt of the Op. 58 is marked Allegro passionato yet the best way I can describe the playing is Adagio placido. I'm sure they have an explanation for this discrepancy and they could probably lecture me about it (after all, they are professional musicians while I'm a layman who can't even read a score). Yet no amount of technical details will make me like this performance.

Conversely, a whole book could probably be written about why and how Anne-Sophie Mutter's performance of Mozart's violin sonatas is wrong from a HIP point of view, yet no such book will displace her set from being my favorite of all those I've listened to, hands down.

[Ken B]

I was going to comment, but then I kept reading about food and I got hungry and with chocolate croissants nearby, I will eat those first! Maybe after I am sated and energized, I will remember this is a thread about recordings you are considering and not Cato's Grammar thread. Perhaps further discussion of pudding could continue there to make this a non-caloric thread again!

You want to eat your cake, and pudding too. But remember, a bird in the hand is worth two in the pudding. And, what's sauce for the goose is pudding for the gander.

[Pat B]

Sure

I asked because your response to a criticism of Huggett's tempo fluctuations was: "This presumes that a string instrument should sing in long phrases, something which may be hard to justify when interrogated."

Just to be clear, my position is that one can play with a steadier (than Huggett) tempo without singing in long phrases. Or one can sing in long phrases while fluctuating tempo.

[Mandryka]

Regarding the second movement I don't mind either approach as long as it has that transcendental quality,

This is an interesting one to think about, the context of the discussion was Peter Serkin playing op 111/ii. The things that come to mind are

1. Is the "transcendental quality" a real feature of the thing that Beethoven made, or is it like an embellishment?

2. Is it a real feature of the performance, as real as the yellow of a banana, what philosophers used to call secondary properties?

3. Where a musician seems to avoid the transcendental route,, maybe Maria Grinberg is one, maybe Charles Rosen, maybe Paul Beghin,  what does that show about their understanding of Beethoven and his music, and in particular their understanding of what it means to present Beethoven now? Mutatis mutandis for the "transcendentalists"


Anyway grappling with these sorts of questions seems to me much more interesting than just filing the performance away under  "like" or "not like"

[San Antone]

This is an interesting one to think about, the context of the discussion was Peter Serkin playing op 111/ii. The things that come to mind are

1. Is the "transcendental quality" a real feature of the thing that Beethoven made, or is it like an embellishment?

2. Is it a real feature of the performance, as real as the yellow of a banana, what philosophers used to call secondary properties?

3. Where a musician seems to avoid the transcendental route,, maybe Maria Grinberg is one, maybe Charles Rosen, maybe Paul Beghin,  what does that show about their understanding of Beethoven and his music, and in particular their understanding of what it means to present Beethoven now? Mutatis mutandis for the "transcendentalists"


Anyway grappling with these sorts of questions seems to me much more interesting than just filing the performance away under  "like" or "not like"

And then there's this, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

[Ken B]

And then there's this, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

That's obsolete. "Writing about music is like pudding" is the new new thing.

[San Antone]

That's obsolete. "Writing about music is like pudding" is the new new thing.

[Mandryka]

Through the hush of air a voice sang to them, low, not rain, not leaves in murmur, like no voice of strings or reeds or whatdoyoucallthem dulcimers touching their still ears with words, still hearts of their each his remembered lives. Good, good to hear: sorrow from them each seemed to from both depart when first they heard. When first they saw, lost Richie Poldy, mercy of beauty, heard from a person wouldn't expect it in the least, her first merciful lovesoft oftloved word.

Love that is singing: love's old sweet song. Bloom unwound slowly the elastic band of his packet. Love's old sweet sonnez la gold. Bloom wound a skein round four forkfingers, stretched it, relaxed, and wound it round his troubled double, fourfold, in octave, gyved them fast.

—Full of hope and all delighted...

Tenors get women by the score. Increase their flow. Throw flower at his feet. When will we meet? My head it simply. Jingle all delighted. He can't sing for tall hats. Your head it simply swurls. Perfumed for him. What perfume does your wife? I want to know. Jing. Stop. Knock. Last look at mirror always before she answers the door. The hall. There? How do you? I do well. There? What? Or? Phial of cachous, kissing comfits, in her satchel. Yes? Hands felt for the opulent.

Alas the voice rose, sighing, changed: loud, full, shining, proud.

—But alas, 'twas idle dreaming...

Glorious tone he has still. Cork air softer also their brogue. Silly man! Could have made oceans of money. Singing wrong words. Wore out his wife: now sings. But hard to tell. Only the two themselves. If he doesn't break down. Keep a trot for the avenue. His hands and feet sing too. Drink. Nerves overstrung. Must be abstemious to sing. Jenny Lind soup: stock, sage, raw eggs, half pint of cream. For creamy dreamy.

Tenderness it welled: slow, swelling, full it throbbed. That's the chat. Ha, give! Take! Throb, a throb, a pulsing proud erect.

Words? Music? No: it's what's behind.

Bloom looped, unlooped, noded, disnoded.

Bloom. Flood of warm jamjam lickitup secretness flowed to flow in music out, in desire, dark to lick flow invading. Tipping her tepping her tapping her topping her. Tup. Pores to dilate dilating. Tup. The joy the feel the warm the. Tup. To pour o'er sluices pouring gushes. Flood, gush, flow, joygush, tupthrob. Now! Language of love.

—... ray of hope is...

Beaming. Lydia for Lidwell squeak scarcely hear so ladylike the muse unsqueaked a ray of hopk.

Martha it is. Coincidence. Just going to write. Lionel's song. Lovely name you have. Can't write. Accept my little pres. Play on her heartstrings pursestrings too. She's a. I called you naughty boy. Still the name: Martha. How strange! Today.

The voice of Lionel returned, weaker but unwearied. It sang again to Richie Poldy Lydia Lidwell also sang to Pat open mouth ear waiting to wait. How first he saw that form endearing, how sorrow seemed to part, how look, form, word charmed him Gould Lidwell, won Pat Bloom's heart.

Wish I could see his face, though. Explain better. Why the barber in Drago's always looked my face when I spoke his face in the glass. Still hear it better here than in the bar though farther.

—Each graceful look...

First night when first I saw her at Mat Dillon's in Terenure. Yellow, black lace she wore. Musical chairs. We two the last. Fate. After her. Fate. Round and round slow. Quick round. We two. All looked. Halt. Down she sat. All ousted looked. Lips laughing. Yellow knees.

—Charmed my eye...

Singing. Waiting she sang. I turned her music. Full voice of perfume of what perfume does your lilactrees. Bosom I saw, both full, throat warbling. First I saw. She thanked me. Why did she me? Fate. Spanishy eyes. Under a peartree alone patio this hour in old Madrid one side in shadow Dolores shedolores. At me. Luring. Ah, alluring.

—Martha! Ah, Martha!

Quitting all languor Lionel cried in grief, in cry of passion dominant to love to return with deepening yet with rising chords of harmony. In cry of lionel loneliness that she should know, must martha feel. For only her he waited. Where? Here there try there here all try where. Somewhere.

—Co-ome, thou lost one!
Co-ome, thou dear one!

Alone. One love. One hope. One comfort me. Martha, chestnote, return!

—Come!

It soared, a bird, it held its flight, a swift pure cry, soar silver orb it leaped serene, speeding, sustained, to come, don't spin it out too long long breath he breath long life, soaring high, high resplendent, aflame, crowned, high in the effulgence symbolistic, high, of the etherial bosom, high, of the high vast irradiation everywhere all soaring all around about the all, the endlessnessnessness...

—To me!

Siopold!

Consumed.

Come. Well sung. All clapped. She ought to. Come. To me, to him, to her, you too, me, us.

—Bravo! Clapclap. Good man, Simon. Clappyclapclap. Encore! Clapclipclap clap. Sound as a bell. Bravo, Simon! Clapclopclap. Encore, enclap, said, cried, clapped all, Ben Dollard, Lydia Douce, George Lidwell, Pat, Mina Kennedy, two gentlemen with two tankards, Cowley, first gent with tank and bronze Miss Douce and gold Miss Mina.

Blazes Boylan's smart tan shoes creaked on the barfloor, said before. Jingle by monuments of sir John Gray, Horatio onehandled Nelson, reverend father Theobald Mathew, jaunted, as said before just now. Atrot, in heat, heatseated. Cloche. Sonnez la. Cloche. Sonnez la. Slower the mare went up the hill by the Rotunda, Rutland square. Too slow for Boylan, blazes Boylan, impatience Boylan, joggled the mare.

An afterclang of Cowley's chords closed, died on the air made richer.

And Richie Goulding drank his Power and Leopold Bloom his cider drank, Lidwell his Guinness, second gentleman said they would partake of two more tankards if she did not mind. Miss Kennedy smirked, disserving, coral lips, at first, at second. She did not mind.

—Seven days in jail, Ben Dollard said, on bread and water. Then you'd sing, Simon, like a garden thrush.

[Florestan]

This is an interesting one to think about, the context of the discussion was Peter Serkin playing op 111/ii. The things that come to mind are

1. Is the "transcendental quality" a real feature of the thing that Beethoven made, or is it like an embellishment?

2. Is it a real feature of the performance, as real as the yellow of a banana, what philosophers used to call secondary properties?

3. Where a musician seems to avoid the transcendental route,, maybe Maria Grinberg is one, maybe Charles Rosen, maybe Paul Beghin,  what does that show about their understanding of Beethoven and his music, and in particular their understanding of what it means to present Beethoven now? Mutatis mutandis for the "transcendentalists"


Anyway grappling with these sorts of questions seems to me much more interesting than just filing the performance away under  "like" or "not like"

If I understand you correctly, for you a complete musical experience involves not only listening to a performance, but also philosophizing about it. In this case I must say that you are far more of a Romantic than I am.

Anyway, have you got any answers to those questions?

[Ken B]

If I understand you correctly, for you a complete musical experience involves not only listening to a performance, but also philosophizing about it. In this case I must say that you are far more of a Romantic than I am.

Anyway, have you got any answers to those questions?

I sent you astonishing answers but your mailbox was full!

[Florestan]

I sent you astonishing answers but your mailbox was full!

Send them again.

[Ken B]

Send them again.

Oops. Forgot em. But there were astounding!