Adam Fischer's Danish Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn

[Brian]

As if I didn't have enough listening projects underway already, I've decided to listen my way through what I'm calling New Era Adam Fischer: the time after he became eccentric, moved to Denmark, and started recording HIP-influenced, modern-instrument versions of basically every major classical and romantic symphony.

Since this is such an idiosyncratic interpreter, I hope we'll have some fun, lively discussion!



The Beethoven 1 is relatively straight-faced for a HIP-inspired, modern-orchestra version. As usual for this performing style, there are fairly fast tempi but also very high dynamic contrast between loud and quiet stuff, including sharp contrasts from one moment to the next. The first chords are very widely spaced. Fischer calls on the string section to use a dizzying variety of bowing tactics in the main first movement, sometimes attacking with Berliozian vigor, sometimes floating bows on strings as if asleep. The woodwinds are very prominent in the recorded balance.

No. 2 is a very conventional performance in this mold; if you know, say, Dausgaard or Paavo Järvi, you won't find many surprises. Fischer's orchestra gets more eccentric in No. 3. The first movement is full of unmarked/uncalled for diminuendos and crescendos to vary the material and "tickle" the contemporary ear, as well as slashing, fast string bowings. At times, on headphones, I also hear a distinct breathy hiss coming from the clarinet principal, who must be mic'd very closely. In the funeral march, the violins' lack of vibrato at times proves distracting. But in general, it's a nimble, surprisingly engaging performance. Light on its feet but still affecting and vibrant. Great horns in the trio. Sensitive, tasteful reduction to a string trio for two early (pre-big tune) variations in the finale. In the end, I didn't mind all the interventions. But this does feel like a "connoisseur's" version for those who have grown bored of the Eroica. And the listener who is tired of the Eroica is tired of life!

No. 4 is notable for the dramatic slowdown at the "mysterious" section of the first-movement development, when the strings break the theme down to just one or two notes at a time. This is played very quietly and very mysteriously indeed, before a convincing accelerando/crescendo to the recap. It's a good example of how Fischer feels that, since we're all used to Beethoven's music, the best way to recapture the magic of hearing Beethoven for the first time in 1810 (or whenever) is to exaggerate the music until it is slightly unrecognizable, until it is just as "weird" to us now as it was to audiences then. One serious issue with the movement is that the clarinetist's breathing hisses are back. The rest of the symphony goes well in the standard modern chamber orchestra mold previously trod by the likes of Järvi, Dausgaard, and Adès.

No. 5 is a bit of a problem because the Danish Chamber Orchestra's small size, and Fischer's minimal taste for vibrato, means that the big Fate beginning feels very light and unserious. It's not the doom and high drama we've been used to with bigger modern orchestras. In the final coda, Fischer again uses the device of not consistently blasting at forte, instead dialing the volume up and down so that when he does ask for a true forte, the orchestra sounds a little bit more impressive than it really is.

The variations are quick (under 9 minutes). I wouldn't say it's lacking lyricism - the cellos are quite lovely - but it does remind me that this so far has been a relatively staccato, unlyrical view of Beethoven. The orchestra is at its very best in bits like the scherzo's hushed recapitulation. In the finale, the ensemble's size makes it possible to hear the trombone and contrabassoon, though not the piccolo until its prominent coda solo (which is fine. I'm not a piccolo fan).

Overall, this interpretation is of a piece with the cycle, while not necessarily being great or poor. It's just...Fischery. He's not weird enough to break the grading scale entirely, but he is consistent in his idiosyncrasy, so that you can listen to this Fifth and think, "yup, he conducts this one just like he conducted the First." Some people are going to reply and say that you shouldn't conduct those two symphonies the same way. Well, I just report the facts, you choose what to do with them. 

The first thing that really bothers me about No. 6 is a needless rhythmic misstep in the forte statement of the main theme (around 00:40-:48). Right before one of the climactic notes, Fischer inserts a tiny hairpin pause to, I guess, make it sound...sorry, I don't understand why. It's a pointless distraction. Especially because the rest is so "normal," so you don't have warning that a weird choice is coming. They only do it at that moment, not in other statements of the theme (and less noticeably even in the repeat!). In other places in the movement, there are nice felicities of phrasing, though the general staccato attitude serves to make the piece look backward to the classical era, sounding like a successor to Mozart, rather than looking forward to the romantic picturesque or tone poem.

The slow movement is the same way: very classical and 18th century, rather than the warm gorgeousness of romantic-style interpreters. Most of the nature effects sound "dainty" or cute, like they're fairies dancing around or domesticated Alice in Wonderland animals having a tea party. This approach certainly fares better in the dance and thunderstorm (highlighted by driving timpani), while Fischer actually alights on my preferred tempo for the finale - faster than usual, but cantabile, as if the melody was being sung. Still, the phrasing is not exactly songlike, what with the vibrato and staccato tendencies. Soon, the inherent classicizing of the conductor and romantic warmth of the melodies are in a strange sort of dramatic tension, with Fischer trying to tamp down the loveliness. It's artistically distinctive, but a little bit unpleasant, like you've gone on a walk in nature with a floodlight and a megaphone.

No. 7 suits Fischer's sensibility fairly well: it's agile, nimble, athletic, fun. There are some definite oddities (a rhythmic slip-n-slide phrase in the first movement coda, the overloud timpani in the second movement) but also things I like (the decidedly staccato opening chords, the clearly articulated violin parts around 7:10 in the scherzo, the very clear division of first and second violins on left and right). A slightly imperfect track transition on Qobuz reveals that the scherzo and finale are meant to play without pause—some of the reverb from one spills over onto the other. The finale does not have strong enough French horns. In fact, honestly, it barely has them at all. In general, Fischer's obviously very careful attention to the strings, especially violins, means he devotes less micromanagerial detail to the other sections. Also, the inconsistent spotlighting of some instruments over others isn't ideal to my ears. It seems more like conductor/producer favoritism in the editing room than an accurate reflection of how the orchestra sounds in reality.

No. 8 has furious energy, and it's a little bit funny to hear such a small orchestra attempt to unleash such thunderous power. It's like an angry kid. This even spills over into the cute second movement, which is interrupted by thunderstorm-like string barrages at times. For better or worse, the third movement actually sounds mellower and softer than the second. In the finale, Fischer's style is perfectly suited to the wacky hijinks, intrusive "wrong" chords, and funky pauses, but the orchestra is not always fully together (00:15-:18). There's more good than bad, though. I do think in the coda he ladles on too many tempo changes and artificial diminuendos/crescendos.

Overall, this has been a singularly consistent—but inconsistently good—first eight. The problem with this consistency is that with time Fischer's choices become very predictable. He is trying to perk our ears up by making Beethoven sound new, but this effect deflates if you listen to his Beethoven all at once, because the mannerisms are the same in each symphony. Instead of surprise - "ooh! they did what?" - it's lack of surprise - "oh, of course they did that." I would say 2-4 come off best, with 5-7 coming off worst.

I'll save the Ninth for later. I wonder if Fischer bends his Brahms to conform to these same principles of fastness, athleticism, jocularity, constant rhythmic tweaking, slightly deficient rubato, and almost totally empty emotional expression. That might be where I turn next, to see if he is able to adapt his style when it is not suitable.

[Brian]

Man, you know what's annoying? When a recording has one really good underlying thing going for it, and you think maybe it will turn out to be a good recording because of that - but instead it's a total disaster. Adam Fischer's Brahms 1 is such a disaster. It's almost "flawed" in reverse - like it has a quality that brings it up, while making the rest of the awfulness more frustrating.

Here is what's good: the fleet tempos, which are passionate and propulsive, stripping the accumulated years of cludgy "autumnal" Brahms off the surface to reveal the midlife crisis Brahms underneath.

Here is what's bad: everything else. The phrasings that get softer and quieter at the end of lines/melodies, tapering off in the mannered classical style. They sap the music of its drama every time. The recording, spacing the chamber orchestra's sections so far apart that you become acutely conscious of all the empty air in between them. (This was recorded in early 2021.) The clarity so extreme/excessive that inner voices are just as loud as main melodic lines, creating harmonic confusion and imbalanced chords.

And, over everything else, the disgusting sound of the string section, which refuses to use vibrato at any time and seems intent on causing as much screeching as possible. This is obviously an aesthetic choice, not a historical one, since orchestras and soloists of Brahms' time used vibrato and his scores are frequently marked "dolce" and "espressivo." Also, we have recordings of conductors who grew up in Brahms' world (e.g. Monteux and Walter; Monteux played for Brahms). Fischer's choices are anti-lyrical even at moments like the introduction, where the scraping, wailing strings distract you from the pounding timpani. The slow movement sounds like a cross between a Haydn string quartet slow movement, an Italian serenade, and a slow-motion hoedown. (It doesn't help that the quiet parts are really quiet, or that the instruments seem so far apart.) At the climax of the scherzo, the ugly screeching violins and cellos aren't even playing in sync with each other. Better news: the winds use plenty of vibrato, and the French horns are the MVPs.

The chamber orchestra concept has been successfully executed by Mackerras, the "just play it fast" concept by Walter, and the "classicize Brahms and remove the sentimentality" approach was recently very well executed by Edward Gardner on Chandos. This is a complete train wreck. And if the string section sounds this ugly, I'm dreading the Second and Fourth Symphonies.

[Spotted Horses]

Man, you know what's annoying? When a recording has one really good underlying thing going for it, and you think maybe it will turn out to be a good recording because of that - but instead it's a total disaster. Adam Fischer's Brahms 1 is such a disaster. It's almost "flawed" in reverse - like it has a quality that brings it up, while making the rest of the awfulness more frustrating.

Seems like I have to get this set just to prove you wrong. 

[vers la flamme]

Seems like I have to get this set just to prove you wrong. 

I had the same thought 

[Spotted Horses]

I just hope he doesn't say anything bad about my favorite Fischer, Ivan.

[vers la flamme]

I've heard far too little from the Brothers Fischer. All I have from either of them is a Bartók boxed set from the younger, on Brilliant (licensed from Nimbus). It's good, but the sound is a bit weird.

[JBS]

I've heard far too little from the Brothers Fischer. All I have from either of them is a Bartók boxed set from the younger, on Brilliant (licensed from Nimbus). It's good, but the sound is a bit weird.

This one, I suppose

One of my first purchases when I started getting into buying CDs. I agree it is good. I have a cheap CD player so the sonics don't bother me: one of the good things about having cheap equipment.

[Mandryka]

https://static.qobuz.com/goodies/71/000151617.pdf

Here's the booklet to the Brahms. @Spotted Horses and @vers la flamme - every need to listen to the recording but no need to prove @Brian wrong, he IS wrong. Q E D.

[Brian]

Seems like I have to get this set just to prove you wrong. 

Hey, go for it 

I love Ivan Fischer's Brahms 1. It has the same fleetness but his vision otherwise is so distinctive and so interesting. Generally speaking although not every Ivan performance is great I love his work as a whole.

https://static.qobuz.com/goodies/71/000151617.pdf

Here's the booklet to the Brahms. @Spotted Horses and @vers la flamme - every need to listen to the recording but no need to prove @Brian wrong, he IS wrong. Q E D.

Wrong about what? Do you mean you have a different opinion, or wrong on a matter of fact? I read the booklet before listening, re-read now, and do not understand your comment.

[Mandryka]

Wrong about these two bits @Brian  I can't work out whether they're fact or opinion!

it's a total disaster.

harmonic confusion 

 

[Brian]

The first is clearly opinion! The second is an opinionated way of framing something I would assert as fact (that in certain passages, the orchestra is so transparent you can hear all voices almost equally and lose track of the main melodic line).

[Mandryka]

The first is clearly opinion! The second is an opinionated way of framing something I would assert as fact (that in certain passages, the orchestra is so transparent you can hear all voices almost equally and lose track of the main melodic line).

This discussion isn't fair. My ears have been corrupted because I've listened to too much baroque keyboard music played by Rubsam and Egarr.

[Spotted Horses]

The first is clearly opinion! The second is an opinionated way of framing something I would assert as fact (that in certain passages, the orchestra is so transparent you can hear all voices almost equally and lose track of the main melodic line).

In other words, it is a total disaster because it is fabulous. Where do I get this recording?

[Brian]

In other words, it is a total disaster because it is fabulous. Where do I get this recording?

Streaming anywhere or from Naxos 

This discussion isn't fair. My ears have been corrupted because I've listened to too much baroque keyboard music played by Rubsam and Egarr.

Well, I hope fairness or unfairness isn't an issue because I am not trying to argue with you (to my knowledge), just jot down my own impressions.

[Mandryka]

Even in this little discussion we may have got to the heart of the matter, which is to do with equal voices and phrasing and harmony. What happens if you bring out all the inner voices, phrase things in an incisive, jagged, non- lyrical way and set things up - with tuning, string tone, balances - for unexpected harmonies? One person's total disaster is another person's revelation - just like with Rübsam's WTC or Egarr's meantone Byrd and HJ Lim's Beethoven.

I love that feeling of something completely strange.  The slow movement of the first symphony is totally disorienting!  I'll try the second tomorrow, I have absolutely no idea what to expect!

[BWV 1080]

the intro on his Brahms 1 is too fast and the timpani is too loud, but the allegro part works for me

[Spotted Horses]

Streaming anywhere or from Naxos 

Based on the briefest exposure, that does sound a bit odd, doesn't it. I have to find time for it.

[BWV 1080]

Check out the third movement of the 4th symphony - it clocks in at 5:39, about a full minute shorter than typical

[Mandryka]

Listening to Brahms 2 now, I agree with @Brian . Someone was impersonating me last week.

[DavidW]

I've heard far too little from the Brothers Fischer. All I have from either of them is a Bartók boxed set from the younger, on Brilliant (licensed from Nimbus). It's good, but the sound is a bit weird.

Ivan Fischer's recording of the Mahler 3rd is my all time favorite recording of that symphony, even beating out Bernstein.