What were you listening to? (CLOSED)

[Coco]

Messiaen - Petite essquises d'Oiseaux, 8 Preludes, 4 Rhythmic Studies (Yvonne Loriod, piano)

[Mirror Image]

Interestingly, the Barbirolli box set from EMI has Andre Navarra's version of the Elgar Cello.

Perhaps the new reissued Barbriolli set does, but mine contains the classic Du Pre performance.

[Coopmv]

Yes - EMI have issued this performance in a number of boxes - the Elgar edition and the du Pre complete recordings for example.  Interestingly, the Barbirolli box set from EMI has Andre Navarra's version of the Elgar Cello.

There is another du Pre/Barbirolli edition of the Elgar concerto - a BBC version (released on Testament) of a later, live performance in Prague with the BBC Symphony Orchestra.

I have noticed some CD's by du Pre in the box but so far have only listened to CD4, as posted a number of posts back.

[springrite]

Bach Goldberg Variation (MARTINS)

This one is a keeper!!!

[KeithW]

Perhaps the new reissued Barbriolli set does, but mine contains the classic Du Pre performance.

My box is the new one issued last year:
[asin]B0031IHBCS[/asin]

The Elgar concerto is a 1957 performance.

[Brian]

Listening to all of this except for the Symphony. I've never heard any of it before. Really looking forward to the concerto...

[Brian]

I relunctantly (only because I think Szell and Cleveland are inimitable in Haydn) agree with Daverz. It's more "big band" than Szell (Szell was a pioneer in playing classical era works with a reduced orchestra) but there is a similarity in approach, a similarity in tempos.

The conductor who has impressed me the most in Haydn (after Szell) is Norrington...but I assume you followed the debate we had about his Stuttgart performances. You should know by now if Norrington appeals.

Sarge

Not agreeing with jwinter on Jochum? (Scherchen seems hard to find at a good price, except in MP3 form.) The Bernstein is a target of mine already, in the gigantic Symphony Edition box, if I ever manage to hunt that down... I need a (legal) copy of his Sibelius cycle too, and some of the American stuff (Harris et al), so the giant box it likely shall be.

[Mirror Image]

My box is the new one issued last year:
[asin]B0031IHBCS[/asin]

The Elgar concerto is a 1957 performance.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I forgot about this set.

[Mirror Image]

Listening to all of this except for the Symphony. I've never heard any of it before. Really looking forward to the concerto...

Lutoslawski's Concerto for Orchestra is a masterpiece, but I'm less enthralled with his later work to be honest. I guess I'm just a sucker for folk-like music.

[Brian]

Lutoslawski's Concerto for Orchestra is a masterpiece, but I'm less enthralled with his later work to be honest. I guess I'm just a sucker for folk-like music.

I whole-heartedly agree on the CfO. The 'Little Suite' (c. 1950) is ten very charming minutes of folksy music in four dance movements, just so you know.

Curious: what would you say are some works that resemble the Lutoslawski Concerto for Orchestra in style, or tone, or emotional/narrative thrust? I absolutely can't get enough of the piece and want to hear more music like it.

[Mirror Image]

I whole-heartedly agree on the CfO. The 'Little Suite' (c. 1950) is ten very charming minutes of folksy music in four dance movements, just so you know.

Curious: what would you say are some works that resemble the Lutoslawski Concerto for Orchestra in style, or tone, or emotional/narrative thrust? I absolutely can't get enough of the piece and want to hear more music like it.

Oh, goodness, Brian I haven't listened to Lutoslawski in quite some time. I can't recall any works prior to the Concerto for Orchestra that have this Bartok-like folksy sound-world. You might have a better chance of reading up on Lutoslawski and find out about his early music. He lost me when his music started to use chance techniques where the performer(s) can play pretty much anything they want within the number of given measures. Sorry, but there's a reason why improvisation and classical music are separate. I'm sure there will be some GMGer that reads this post and will start in on me about how I should listen more to the music and let it speak for itself. In all honesty, Lutoslawski's direction in music pisses me off. I don't mind music getting outside, but, man, to let a performer play whatever the hell they want to just doesn't jive with me at all.

[Mirror Image]

Now:

[asin]B000001SH1[/asin]

Listening to Evocations. This is one of my favorite works by Bloch.

[Brian]

I don't mind music getting outside, but, man, to let a performer play whatever the hell they want to just doesn't jive with me at all.

Ever heard of cadenzas?
Just kidding. I had no idea Lutoslawski ever used that technique; as far as I know nothing on the above CD uses it. The Piano Concerto turned out to be pretty cool.

People compare the Concerto for Orchestra to Bartok. So why does Bartok so often leave me cold? The Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, especially, is a work which does not engage me. Maybe I just don't get it yet.

[Mirror Image]

Ever heard of cadenzas?
Just kidding. I had no idea Lutoslawski ever used that technique; as far as I know nothing on the above CD uses it. The Piano Concerto turned out to be pretty cool.

People compare the Concerto for Orchestra to Bartok. So why does Bartok so often leave me cold? The Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, especially, is a work which does not engage me. Maybe I just don't get it yet.

I'm actually not one of the biggest fans of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. I mainly prefer his earlier to mid period works. I consider The Wooden Prince, Bluebeard's Castle, Violin Concerto No. 2, Piano Concerto No. 2, and The Miraculous Mandarin to be masterpieces, but almost everything I've heard from these two periods of his life. The thing with Lutoslawski's Concerto is it was inspired by Bartok's, but it is still Lutoslawski's compositional voice coming through in the music.

[Que]

Q

[PaulSC]

the performer(s) can play pretty much anything they want within the number of given measures. Sorry, but there's a reason why improvisation and classical music are separate.

That never happens in Lutoslawski. His aleatory techniques are much more controlled. He typically gives each player (in some section of the orchestra) specific figures to play repetitively, and an approximate speed. The result is a kind of shimmering animation of the pitch content of the given figures. A comparable degree of improvisatory freedom is seen in classical music of nearly every historical period. Consider the Baroque/early Classical continuo, the cadenza in a Classical concerto, the performance practice of 19th-century virtuoso pianists...

I'm sure there will be some GMGer that reads this post and will start in on me about how I should listen more to the music and let it speak for itself. In all honesty, Lutoslawski's direction in music pisses me off. I don't mind music getting outside, but, man, to let a performer play whatever the hell they want to just doesn't jive with me at all.

I'm not going to be that GMGer. On the contrary, you might find it helpful to read Steven Stuckey's book on the music of Lutoslawski. if nothing else, it's a good guide to the early works that you already find accessible. But please, if you haven't already, give the Livre pour Orchestre a shot. It uses his aleatory methods but also has clearly audible links to Bartok.

[Mirror Image]

That never happens in Lutoslawski. His aleatory techniques are much more controlled. He typically gives each player (in some section of the orchestra) specific figures to play repetitively, and an approximate speed. The result is a kind of shimmering animation of the pitch content of the given figures. A comparable degree of improvisatory freedom is seen in classical music of nearly every historical period. Consider the Baroque/early Classical continuo, the cadenza in a Classical concerto, the performance practice of 19th-century virtuoso pianists...

I'm not going to be that GMGer. On the contrary, you might find it helpful to read Steven Stuckey's book on the music of Lutoslawski. if nothing else, it's a good guide to the early works that you already find accessible. But please, if you haven't already, give the Livre pour Orchestre a shot. It uses his aleatory methods but also has clearly audible links to Bartok.

The keywords are "improvisatory freedom." The notes are still on the paper, but they can be played however the performers feels. This is correct, but the point I made is that Lutoslawski's later music actually allows the performer to improvise freely without any idea of what to play. Is this correct?

[PaulSC]

No, it's a misunderstanding of Lutoslawski's methods. In his later works, players are given the notes but allowed some freedom in the timing of longer notes or the pacing of repeated rapid figures. A major goal of these methods was to reduce the performance difficulty while retaining statistical control over complex textures. (In contrast, in most of the examples I mentioned from earlier times, the performer is not given the notes, but chooses them in a relatively free way based on the local context and a knowledge of style.)

Do give the Livre a chance; I think it's Lutoslawski's masterpiece. It might even open the door for you to appreciate more of the later works. Or maybe not, but you won't know until you try.

=========
I don't want to appear rude, but it's late and I'm signing off for the night.

Paul

[Lethevich]

Ohhh....me likey.

I was surprised at how good these Previn/Strauss recordings are. He was confident enough to take the opening of Zarathustra a little slower than usual, and the interior sections didn't turn to mush as the sometimes do.

[Willoughby earl of Itacarius]

Starting this morning with this fine box, CD 7, containing the Canciones y Danzas de Espana 1547-1616. Peaceful and well performed music, makes the soul slowly awake from the slumbers of the night.