Buxtehude organ works

[Josquin des Prez]

It amazes me that so many folks don't care about sound quality. Why listen to pre-historical, noisy and distorted mono sound when just as good performances are available in crystal clean stereo DDD sound or even multichannel SACD sound?

Because sometimes the performances in those "pre-historical" recordings are superior to those in modern sound.

[Don]

Because sometimes the performances in those "pre-historical" recordings are superior to those in modern sound.

Also, it's very interesting to compare performance styles from one era to another.

[Que]

Any thoughts on Vernet?



Q

[71 dB]

Because sometimes the performances in those "pre-historical" recordings are superior to those in modern sound.

I don't believe this. The whole "this performance is superior to this performance" does not make much sense. It's a matter of personal references. Let's assume we have five "good/excellent" performances of a certain work. Let the recording years be 1947, 1955, 1969, 1983 and 1997. Now, if someone buys this work in 1975 he/she has three options to choose from. Let's assume 1955 is best performance of these even if 1969 recording has better sound. What happens is this 1955 becames the reference performance of the work for this person, the way it must be played. By now this person has tried the 1983 and 1997 versions too but he/she does not like them because they are different from 1955 version. This person is stuck in history.

Performers didn't lose their ability to play well the day digital recording started.

[FideLeo]

Any thoughts on Vernet?



Q

I haven't heard this set for a while now (and do not have it with me) but don't
think it's up to his integral Bach in terms of recorded sound (an important factor
to me as far as everything goes... but especially organ music).   The interpretations
don't seem to sparkle as much also.  I will not put down on the Vogel just based on
some other people's preferences, though.  His set has the right instruments which
Buxtehude knew and probably played, and Vogel apparently knows them well also,
considering the fact that he has studied them for decades and is often a "curator"
at their restoration.  In a word, Vogel is a specialist on what came down to us as
the most important physical evidence of seventeenth-century Northern German
organ music. 

[Que]

I haven't heard this set for a while now (and do not have it with me) but don't
think it's up to his integral Bach in terms of recorded sound (an important factor
to me as far as everything goes... but especially organ music).   The interpretations
don't seem to sparkle as much also.

Thanks for your comment. His Bach was rather nice BTW, but I remember it as a bit uneven interpretations that hadn't quite "settled" yet.

I had an interesting morning listening to Buxtehude's organ music.
First I re-listened to some of Vogel's set, sampled the Saorgin again, as well as Ablitzer and Bryndorf.
And Vogel came out of this pretty strong. I recognised in the Saorgin the style I knew from his Bach, it feels very reverential and it is undercharacterised and rather toned down for my taste. Bryndorf sounds energetic and quite nice. The Ablizter recordings still sound very attractive - I just like his style: strongly characterised and expressive but he can be very stilled and poetic as well. He certainly "has a sparkle". The latter goes less so for Koopman (Channel Classics), which is also strongly characterised, but with his customary "drive" and ornamentations. I rather liked it anyway.
What I like about Vogel is his balanced profundity in conceptualising a piece, but still combined with sufficient expression by the contrasts in rhythm and in the sound picture he provides. And he uses beautiful instruments in just-right recordings.

Q

[Harry]

I had an interesting morning listening to Buxtehude's organ music.
First I re-listened to some of Vogel's set, sampled the Saorgin again, as well as Ablitzer and Bryndorf.
And Vogel came out of this pretty strong. I recognised in the Saorgin the style I knew from his Bach, it feels very reverential and it is undercharacterised and rather toned down for my taste. Bryndorf sounds energetic but rather "big", the detailing doesn't always agree with me. The Ablizter recordings still sound very attractive - I just like his style: strongly characterised and expressive but he can be very stilled and poetic as well. He certainly "has a sparkle". The latter goes less so for Koopman (Channel Classics), which is also strongly characterised and expressive, but with his customary "drive" and ornamentations. I rather liked it anyway.
What I like about Vogel is his balanced profundity in conceptualising a piece, while still combined with sufficient characterisation/expression by the contrasts in rhythm and in the sound picture he provides. And he uses beautiful instruments in just-right recordings.

Q

That is rather conceptual characteristic to hear, and I am intrinsically happy about that!

[Que]

That is rather conceptual characteristic to hear, and I am intrinsically happy about that!

Organ music is deeeep stuff, Harry!

Q

[Harry]

Organ music is deeeep stuff, Harry!

Q

O, tell me, I am in Pomerania right now.......

[Josquin des Prez]

It's a matter of personal references.

Says who?

[71 dB]

Says who?

There is not always complete consensus over which performance is the best.

[Josquin des Prez]

There is not always complete consensus over which performance is the best.

That's because people have no taste. 

[71 dB]

That's because people have no taste. 

Oh right, only you have! 

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh right, only you have! 

It's not my fault if people aren't free-thinking enough.

[FideLeo]

It's not my fault if people aren't free-thinking enough.

That's a big "if" though. 

[Don]

There is not always complete consensus over which performance is the best.

I can't think of any reason why there would be complete consensus.  We're not a bunch of clones.

[Sarastro]

In my ears the best set you can buy, in sound and performance. Reviews are raving.

I didn't listen to the whole set, but the one CD from there was my last week discovery. After that I did a little step into organ music, really amazing!

[FideLeo]

His Bach was rather nice BTW, but I remember it as a bit uneven interpretations that hadn't quite "settled" yet.

After the extremely architetonic Walcha I actually prefer Bach organ music that doesn't sound "quite settled" - Bach wrote most of his organ music in his youth years, so it can't be all settled in perfection and maturity - and imo the stylus phantasticus can be interpreted as something uneven, the more so the better.     That said, I think the strongest point of Vernet's set (14 discs which I got for under $18!) is the recorded sound - consistently through the set it's ideally balanced so nothing sounds blurry or dry.  Considering over 10 instruments in various locations were used that's quite a feat.

[Que]

.. the stylus phantasticus can be interpreted as something uneven, the more so the better. 

But not at this side - I actually like my Bach a bit "rough". 

That said, I think the strongest point of Vernet's set (14 discs which I got for under $18!) is the recorded sound - consistently through the set it's ideally balanced so nothing sounds blurry or dry.  Considering over 10 instruments in various locations were used that's quite a feat.

Now, where do you find all those wonderful bargains?!   

Q

[FideLeo]

But not at this side - I actually like my Bach a bit "rough". 

"This side"?  Anyway, why should seventeenth-century baroque music sound 'rough'?  It should sound fluid, ever changing and a bit skewed where a taste for "fantasie" requires it.

Now, where do you find all those wonderful bargains?!   

Thanks to a mis-pricing from Barnes and Noble, but that was quite a few years ago....