Masses in Classical Era Austria

[Uncle Connie]

Gurn, there's one aspect of performing masses of that place and era that you haven't covered. I'm referring to the vexatious question of the proper latin pronunciation:alla tedesca or all'italiana ? The logical way would seem to be the german way (Aggnus Dei, kvi tollis peccata mundi). I have reservations about equating austrian and german in that regard. Austrians are Germany's southerners and share a border with Italy, on top of the obvious political interconnections within the Habsburg Empire. Could your 'dear friend'    tell us a thing or two on the subject? I'm really curious. Even though she hails from Augsburg, not Salzburg, I'll take her advice on the matter very seriously

In the absence of anything formally authoritative, I did a certain brief survey of my recordings, paying attention to where the musicians are based and which version of Latin they choose, "tedesca" (Osanna in ex-TSEL-sis) or "italiana" (-- ex-CHEL-sis).  Viz.:

The 'tedesca' include:  Everything I have from anywhere in Austria or Germany - and in the latter case I have examples from a wide range of regions, north (Berlin), east (Dresden and Halle), south (Munich and Ingolstadt), west (Freiburg/Breisgau, Neuss am Rhein, Köln, Saarbrücken);  Zürich (German Switzerland); Prague; and Bratislava.

The 'italiana' would include everywhere else, but specifically (so far) the USA and UK; Stockholm; Amsterdam; Bruxelles and Liege; France; Lausanne (French Switzerland); and obviously Italy.  Oh, and Japan.  Unless I am mistaken those are the only places from which I have recordings in Latin - oh wait, I've got one from Romania, just a moment  - yep, 'italiana,' but given that Romanian is a Romance language, that figures.

The one place where there is a "split decision" is Budapest.  I have recordings using 'tedesca' involving one German and three or four Hungarian conductors; but I have also two Hungarian conductors who use 'italiana' in the masses of Franz Liszt. 

So this is hardly definitive but I suspect it gives a hint of the way things go.     

UPDATE:  Remembered one more CD.  To 'italiana' add Mexico City.

[Lilas Pastia]

I have a recording of (I think) the Missa Solemnis where the soloists are split on the matter. I'm pretty sure it was from a german recording, but the soloists were of mixed origins. I was always surprised the conductor or recording producer didn't insist on uniformity in the matter. It could also be the Verdi Requiem, of which I have many versions.

[Uncle Connie]

I have a recording of (I think) the Missa Solemnis where the soloists are split on the matter. I'm pretty sure it was from a german recording, but the soloists were of mixed origins. I was always surprised the conductor or recording producer didn't insist on uniformity in the matter. It could also be the Verdi Requiem, of which I have many versions.

That should have been taken care of by the conductor - either the general conductor, or the choral director if there was one (and in a big work such as you're mentioning, there often is).  I do think it's a bit strange that such a mixed-bag version was allowed to slip through.  Perhaps they thought nobody would notice.  They apparently weren't aware that you existed!      (I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of listeners really did not notice - not that I can prove this statement, but I really believe it.  And frankly, until we got involved in all these Haydn-era mass discussions and I started focusing on every little thing, I'm not sure I'd have noticed either.)   

[kishnevi]

That should have been taken care of by the conductor - either the general conductor, or the choral director if there was one (and in a big work such as you're mentioning, there often is).  I do think it's a bit strange that such a mixed-bag version was allowed to slip through.  Perhaps they thought nobody would notice.  They apparently weren't aware that you existed!      (I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of listeners really did not notice - not that I can prove this statement, but I really believe it.  And frankly, until we got involved in all these Haydn-era mass discussions and I started focusing on every little thing, I'm not sure I'd have noticed either.)   

It may have been too late, or not possible.  I know that I learned "Italian" pronounciation when I joined choir in college, and have always sung/read/spoken Latin that way ever since.  It would take a great deal of work for me to learn any text using "German" pronounciation instead--especially if it was a text like that of the Mass, one with which I'm already familiar.  So perhaps the particular soloists were, in essence, stuck in a groove and couldn't unlearn it in time.  Moreover, as a possible audience member, if I did notice such a thing, I'd put it down to the individual singer,  just like I do the bad pronunciation of various singers working in a language they're not familiar with.  (For hilarious results, try Dietrich Fischer Dieskau trying to sing Haydn's Scottish songs with what he intended to be a Gaelic brogue.)

[mc ukrneal]

That should have been taken care of by the conductor - either the general conductor, or the choral director if there was one (and in a big work such as you're mentioning, there often is).  I do think it's a bit strange that such a mixed-bag version was allowed to slip through.  Perhaps they thought nobody would notice.  They apparently weren't aware that you existed!      (I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of listeners really did not notice - not that I can prove this statement, but I really believe it.  And frankly, until we got involved in all these Haydn-era mass discussions and I started focusing on every little thing, I'm not sure I'd have noticed either.)   

Keep in mind that sometimes, even with recordings, there are last minute changes and there is no way to merge everything together ideally. Sometimes, we can even find recordings/performances where the singers sing in different languages. Personally, I don't find this bothersome, since I usually have a hard time understanding what they are saying anyway.

[Lilas Pastia]

Much to my discomfiture I looked in vain for a Michael Haydn disc in my collection. I know I have something more than the puny andantino für trombone I unearthed. Maybe I'll manage to put my hands on it some day . I

I FOUND IT ! Unaccountedly wedged between two Beethoven piano sonata records . What I have is the Requiem performed by The King's Consort and Robert King. I'm listening to it as I write. The interpretation is sooooo HIP that I find it hard to find points of comparison with other works of the era I know. The orchestral playing, replete with glassy violin tone, swells on individual notes, explosive timpani and braying brass is hard to take. The sung parts seem very italianate: the shape of the melodies, the florid ornamentation, it all seems very different from both Joseph Haydn or Mozart. What I hear is music that seems to have much stature, very dedicated in feeling and quite bold in construction, but interpreted with insufferable prissiness.

What else is there that is not interpreted by the assembled Curators of Ye Olde Instruments Museum ?

[Gurn Blanston]

Actually, I couldn't agree with you less. I have listened to this interpretation a few dozen times to date, and liked it better each time. Perhaps it doesn't sound like a performance one would hear today, especially if one was brought up hearing more modern interpretations, but for music from 1773, I feel as though this is probably far closer to what it sounded like in Salzburg Cathedral at the actual funeral mass of Archbishop Schrattenbach. And very appealing to MY taste.

Conrad has every version of this (I have a couple more too, but this is my favorite) so perhaps he can recommend one that you might enjoy more.   

[Lilas Pastia]

Haha! I knew you would react strongly  . One of those cases where I can't get past an interpretation that blocks me from getting into the musical experience. While listening to it yesterday I was reading articles and reviews on the requiem. One reviewer commented on the superb performance of the alto Hilary Summers. Well, to me she sounded absolutely terrible, with a hooty tone of uncommon ugliness. This recording seems to have many friends. Reviews are universally laudatory. So maybe it's just me after all  .

[Gurn Blanston]

Haha! I knew you would react strongly  . One of those cases where I can't get past an interpretation that blocks me from getting into the musical experience. While listening to it yesterday I was reading articles and reviews on the requiem. One reviewer commented on the superb performance of the alto Hilary Summers. Well, to me she sounded absolutely terrible, with a hooty tone of uncommon ugliness. This recording seems to have many friends. Reviews are universally laudatory. So maybe it's just me after all  .

  Well, I'm not one of those foam at the mouth people when it comes to PI performance. It is clearly my preference because the instruments simply sound better to me, but some things I simply can't hear the same way someone else might do. Clearly we diverge here, despite that our tastes have been congruent for 10 years now.   Hooty? Well, yes, I can hear the wisdom coming out.

[Lilas Pastia]

Some PI performances are/have been for decades my benchmark for anything that came subsequently. But generally speaking they are more instrumental than choral/vocal works. When it comes to the latter, too many factors intrude  that are rarely understood properly by the conductor (a function that did not exist per se before the early 19th century).

Harnoncourt in his 1970s recordings of Bach's Christmas Oratorio, or Mozart Great Mass, K 427 is an example of how it should be done. It's all in the balance. I hear no such concern for balance in Robert King's Michael Haydn. Just like a traffic cop who'll let anyone who honks loudest pass first .
Not a reflection of my feelings for the music, au contraire. I just wish I could enjoy it at my level  . Maybe the Rillling or Zacharias versions supply that? Although I note with some alarm that Zacharias swifts through the Requiem in a zippy 34 minutes   

[Fafner]

  Well, I'm not one of those foam at the mouth people when it comes to PI performance. It is clearly my preference because the instruments simply sound better to me, but some things I simply can't hear the same way someone else might do. Clearly we diverge here, despite that our tastes have been congruent for 10 years now.   Hooty? Well, yes, I can hear the wisdom coming out.

As long as we are on the subject of Michael Haydn, what should be the first Michael Haydn recording a person purchases?  I saw that cpo set of symphonies and thought I'd play Berkshire Roulet by searching for "Warchal" but came up empty.  I like honking, but not screaming, Italianate or otherwise.

[Gurn Blanston]

As long as we are on the subject of Michael Haydn, what should be the first Michael Haydn recording a person purchases?  I saw that cpo set of symphonies and thought I'd play Berkshire Roulet by searching for "Warchal" but came up empty.  I like honking, but not screaming, Italianate or otherwise.

No, BRO don't have it, it's on Amazon Marketplace though. I had that set at one time and wasn't really enthusiastic about the playing or conducting. But the other series on CPO, these here;


[asin]B000001S0Z[/asin]

by Goritzki are reputed to be much more nicely done. I don't know for sure, since I have only recently ordered them, but not received them yet.

Don't know if you have an interest in masses, but this one here;

[asin]B0000060H1[/asin]

the Mass for St Jerome, also called The Oboe Mass for reasons that are obvious when you hear it, is one of the most interesting that I've ever run across. Like all Michael Haydn disks, it is hard to find, but there are 3 or 4 different recordings of this one because it is so cool, so probably one of them will be available somewhere. And of course, MP3's are generally available if you want to go that route.

[Gurn Blanston]

Some PI performances are/have been for decades my benchmark for anything that came subsequently. But generally speaking they are more instrumental than choral/vocal works. When it comes to the latter, too many factors intrude  that are rarely understood properly by the conductor (a function that did not exist per se before the early 19th century).

Harnoncourt in his 1970s recordings of Bach's Christmas Oratorio, or Mozart Great Mass, K 427 is an example of how it should be done. It's all in the balance. I hear no such concern for balance in Robert King's Michael Haydn. Just like a traffic cop who'll let anyone who honks loudest pass first .
Not a reflection of my feelings for the music, au contraire. I just wish I could enjoy it at my level  . Maybe the Rillling or Zacharias versions supply that? Although I note with some alarm that Zacharias swifts through the Requiem in a zippy 34 minutes   

Well, I agree, Harnoncourt's K 427 is a lovely recording. Don't know the Bach, but I happily take your word for it. But I also know (as do you) that a recording is merely a single-faceted representation of one view of a performance, so I don't necessarily base the quality of the performance on the POV of the recording. I also try to get past the limitations of the medium and get into the entire thing, even if the performance is NOT all I would like it to be. Frankly I found that to be a very easy task with this recording compared to some others I've heard, where it required superhuman effort to put myself into the event.

[Lilas Pastia]

I agree totally. It just so happens that this particular interpretation sounded so terrible in all its components that I found it actually prevented me from hearing the music behind. It must be a rare case of my usual openness of mind subjectively sidetracked by subliminal animosities I didn't even know existed  . No joke, I normally like - often love PI performances, especially of instrumental or chamber music. I don't like massed violins playing without vibrato. That's why I normally don't listen to HIP Mozart symphonies for example. With Haydn the PI playing simply sounds better. I don't know why but I'll venture to postulate that it's because Haydn's musical phrases are shorter, more varied, less melody-driven and less reliant on unison string playing - totally going out on a limb here   

[Gurn Blanston]

I agree totally. It just so happens that this particular interpretation sounded so terrible in all its components that I found it actually prevented me from hearing the music behind. It must be a rare case of my usual openness of mind subjectively sidetracked by subliminal animosities I didn't even know existed  . No joke, I normally like - often love PI performances, especially of instrumental or chamber music. I don't like massed violins playing without vibrato. That's why I normally don't listen to HIP Mozart symphonies for example. With Haydn the PI playing simply sounds better. I don't know why but I'll venture to postulate that it's because Haydn's musical phrases are shorter, more varied, less melody-driven and less reliant on unison string playing - totally going out on a limb here   

Pretty sure I agree with you insofar as your analysis of Mozart v Haydn goes. As much as I dislike to generalize, I think it is certainly fair to say that Haydn's phrasing differs from Mozart's to the point of being nearly a different language. Which is a wonderful thing, certainly, since the differences are what highlight the individual composers' voices.

OTOH, I don't believe that massed violins playing without vibrato actually exist other than as a concept. Nor do I believe that any modern (last 15 years?) PI group would try to do that anyway. The reduced vibrato people, as people will do, took that concept too far. The anti-reduced vibrato people simply went over the top with their anti-ness. Despite the fact there there never was an actual 'vibratoless' playing style, since it can't be done by anyone who doesn't have perfect intonation anyway, I believe that reality has claimed the no-vibrato people, and it will eventually claim those who still believe that there is such a thing used as an essential element of period style.

That's my opinion, I could be wrong. 

[kishnevi]

Pretty sure I agree with you insofar as your analysis of Mozart v Haydn goes. As much as I dislike to generalize, I think it is certainly fair to say that Haydn's phrasing differs from Mozart's to the point of being nearly a different language. Which is a wonderful thing, certainly, since the differences are what highlight the individual composers' voices.

OTOH, I don't believe that massed violins playing without vibrato actually exist other than as a concept. Nor do I believe that any modern (last 15 years?) PI group would try to do that anyway. The reduced vibrato people, as people will do, took that concept too far. The anti-reduced vibrato people simply went over the top with their anti-ness. Despite the fact there there never was an actual 'vibratoless' playing style, since it can't be done by anyone who doesn't have perfect intonation anyway, I believe that reality has claimed the no-vibrato people, and it will eventually claim those who still believe that there is such a thing used as an essential element of period style.

That's my opinion, I could be wrong. 

I think the actual point of the "no vibrato" was that (intentional) vibrato was used only as an effect, a departure from the norm meant to produce a specific result, rather than a general method in which vibrato-lessness was the departure from the norm.

There is of course the matter of gut strings vs. metal strings.  I would assume vibrato and non-vibrato don't produce the same identical results for gut as they do for metal (although I've never compared them, not having thought of this aspect until just now as I type this post   )

[Gurn Blanston]

I think the actual point of the "no vibrato" was that (intentional) vibrato was used only as an effect, a departure from the norm meant to produce a specific result, rather than a general method in which vibrato-lessness was the departure from the norm.

There is of course the matter of gut strings vs. metal strings.  I would assume vibrato and non-vibrato don't produce the same identical results for gut as they do for metal (although I've never compared them, not having thought of this aspect until just now as I type this post   )

In most respects you are correct. But the original aim was to reduce vibrato to a far lower level, not to eliminate it completely. Strings cannot play in unison without some vibrato to 'blend' them together.  And 18th century soloists, for example, never played without vibrato, so who would they be emulating to try and do it today?  But like all movements in all areas, the people involved in early 'HIP', once they became certain that they were the keepers of the Holy Grail, decided to go too far and just say that anyone who used vibrato on a stringed instrument was condemned to the Eternal Flames. Which is bullshit of course, complete and utter. They are only semi-Eternal Flames really....   No, but what I am saying is that no one believes this anymore, and while you will certainly hear vibrato used judiciously as opposed to end-to-end in a work, vibrato-free playing isn't really even attempted any more.

I realize that André wasn't really saying that this is done here, except maybe a little bit.

[Karl Henning]

. . . The anti-reduced vibrato people . . . .

My dear chap: you've found a diplomatic way of expressing wubba-wubba ; )

[Gurn Blanston]

My dear chap: you've found a diplomatic way of expressing wubba-wubba ; )

Hilary is my idol.... 0:)

[Uncle Connie]

As long as we are on the subject of Michael Haydn, what should be the first Michael Haydn recording a person purchases?  I saw that cpo set of symphonies and thought I'd play Berkshire Roulet by searching for "Warchal" but came up empty.  I like honking, but not screaming, Italianate or otherwise.

Hi, everybody, it's Mr. Michael Haydn Fanatic here, weighing in on the symphonies, which is admittedly out of place but so what, we're here now, let's do it.

To comment on CPO's choice of Bohdan Warchal to start their complete Michael Haydn series many years ago would cause my blood pressure to soar.  CPO does a fine job most of the time, but this was one major screw-up indeed.  Warchal was a perfectly decent conductor for many, many years in repertory that he was sympathetic to.  Give him, say, Janacek, or many of the Czech and Slovak modernists that came after, and he did nice things.  With Michael Haydn he was a bomb.  Ultimately CPO seems to have realized this (rotten reviews all over the place) so they suspended their series for a time, then resumed it with Johannes Goritzki and had much better luck.  Near the end though, something happened with Goritzki and he wasn't able to complete things, so there was another big lapse and then at long last the final 2-disc volume featuring Frank Beermann came out and wrapped it all up.  In sum CPO recorded 44 of the 46 symphonies or symphony-like things; one sinfonia concertante was skipped (MH 132) and the remaining work is lost. 

I have spent quite a few years now, and a fair amount of money, collecting Michael Haydn interpretations, for many reasons, but one was to collect as many symphonies as possible NOT conducted by Bohdan Warchal.  As of now, of the 44, I have just 5 in Warchal versions alone.  For these five works (all early and none really all that momentous except to fanatics, ahem) there is no competition.  Some day, maybe....

Goritzki is good and in quite a bit of his work he's as good as is really needed, but he can get perfunctory at times in his rush to (apparently) get as much done as possible and get the discs out the door.  An especially egregious example of this pops up on the disc Gurn showed us above, Symphonies 34-39 (a set of six little Italian-model things of about 10 minutes each, composed as a set - the only time MH ever did such a thing), with the Symphony 36 in B-Flat MH 475.  It's one of the very few fire and brimstone 'explosions' that Michael ever gave us, trumpets and drums blazing away all over the place, and Goritzki has to subdue them and rush it along?  I think not....  But, that said, in most of what he did Goritzki is fine.  The final conductor in CPO's set, Frank Beermann, only did four symphonies to finish it off (one of which was a repeat of one that Warchal had done!) but I consider them the best of all the CPO offerings.

Moving away from CPO, the Hungaroton company at one time had three volumes of symphonies done by conductor Pal Nemeth, using period instruments and style.  They appear to be discontinued now.  This kind of treatment of MH fans seeking top-level performances should be condemned, preferably with a firing squad at Hungaroton marketing HQ.  If you can find them for a rational price, BUY THEM.  I have no idea where to steer you.  (BRO doesn't have them.)

But for my money, for the best place of all to start, try this:

[asin]B00000E9JB[/asin]

Eight excellent performances by Harold Farberman and the Bournemouth Sinfonietta, DDD but originally on LPs at the very end of the LP era.  Not PI.  Just lovingly, energetically essayed.  Originally there was apparently a plan to do the complete symphonies at this time, but funding dried up and in the end they only managed to do 20, of which 18 can be had on this twofer and three other single discs also listed on Amazon.  (You'll see one shown with just one copy at an astronomical price, but the immediate following listing is the same disc for cheap.  The so-called "Graz" unnumbered symphony is MH 26, very early, very fine.) 

And apropos of MH 475 above, this is one place where Farberman really shines.  Admittedly he embellishes the trumpet and drum parts - what the hell, they did it in the 1700s too, after all! - but no more energy and intensity has ever been put into a symphony performance than here.  Wow! 

Final note:  The 'flaw' of this Vox set is that they stupidly published it as just one single track per symphony; the movements aren't separated.  Annoying.  Also note two different covers exist, the Amazon thumbnails show both.  And  last but not least the Amazon listing of contents has a couple of flubs:  In the first column the G Major shown as MH 26 is actually MH 334, and in the second column the one "formerly attributed to Mozart" is wrong, that one is the same G Major MH 334 that was once considered Mozart's No. 37 K.444.  Whew.  I'm done.  Go buy something.  Sorry to drift away from Masses, I'll be good from here on.