What were you listening to? (CLOSED)

[haydnguy]

On CD2 for my first listen:

[Coopmv]

On CD2 for my first listen:

How do you like this set?  I bought this set over a year ago and might have been the first one on the forum to own this set.  To be sure, this is not a very widely owned set since there are not that many on the forum who are into early music ...

[PaulR]

#9.

Good evening everyone.  Hope all is well.   

[Coopmv]

Now playing CD1 from this twofer from my Bach collection ...

[Sid]

What people are you referring to, Andre?

There was discussion of Xenakis' music here on this site a while back & there was a fair amount of negativity & even outright hostility towards him, if I remember correctly. I mean there's no right or wrong here. All I'm saying is that composers at the elite level of Xenakis were at the top of their game. So you're right, you don't have to like him, but it's kind of wise to at least respect him for his many achievements, just as with the other great masters of the ages.

I don't like Xenakis' music, but I respect the courage he had to break out on his own and do his own thing. I'm not dismissing Xenakis out-of-hand, because there are several of his generation whose music I enjoy like, for example, Ligeti whose attention to texture is just unbelievable. Ligeti, even though he's considered avant-garde (or whatever you want to call his music), he composed very accessible music. Now granted, his music is not "easy," but I'm attracted to the sonorities of his music. The Ligeti Project, on Teldec, opened my ears to this composer.

Yes, Ligeti seemed more of a traditionalist than Xenakis, he made old things new. Eg. the Requiem looks back to Renaissance polyphony, the piano etudes to many immortal composer's own great etudes (eg. Chopin, Scriabin, Debussy, Rachmaninov, etc. combined with the more avant-garde guys, especially Conlon Nancarrow), & the Horn Trio was much inspired by the template laid down by the great Brahms. But of course, Ligeti had many purely experimental works like the "Aventures" & "Nouvelles Aventures" which kind of mirror the spontaneous "happenings" of the 1960's. But even these more wierdish works have an element of traditonal practices, they kind of "set in stone" the spontaneity and experimental optimism of those times. They are like snapshots of the "swinging '60's," in a classical kind of way.

In short, both Xenakis and Ligeti were very different, but both of these me were very emotional & they were unique visionaries who took a lot of risks with what they did & most if not all of what they did "paid off" in artistic and other terms. & this is all still drawing people to their music, from all sides of the classical spectrum. They were very flexible geniuses who had many different sides to their talents...

[Mirror Image]

There was discussion of Xenakis' music here on this site a while back & there was some negativity towards him, if I remember correctly. I mean there's no right or wrong here. All I'm saying is that composers at the elite level of Xenakis were at the top of their game. So you're right, you don't have to like him, but it's kind of wise to at least respect him for his many achievements, just as with the other great masters of the ages.

Yes, Ligeti seemed more of a traditionalist than Xenakis, he made old things new. Eg. the Requiem looks back to Renaissance polyphony, the piano etudes to many immortal composer's own great etudes (eg. Chopin, Scriabin, Debussy, Rachmaninov, etc.), & the Horn Trio was much inspired by the template laid down by the great Brahms. But of course, Ligeti had many more experimental works like the "Aventures" which kind of mirror the spontaneous "happenings" of the 1960's.

In short, both Xenakis and Ligeti were very different, but both of these me were very emotional & they were unique visionaries who took a lot of risks with what they did & most if not all of what they did "paid off" in artistic and other terms. & this is all still drawing people to their music, from all sides of the classical spectrum. They were very flexible geniuses who had many different sides to their talents...

Agree on all points...

Now for some Corelli:

[asin]B0009IW8SK[/asin]

Corelli's series of Concerto Grossi were incredibly beautiful. This Brilliant Classics set is incredibly well performed.

[haydnguy]

How do you like this set?  I bought this set over a year ago and might have been the first one on the forum to own this set.  To be sure, this is not a very widely owned set since there are not that many on the forum who are into early music ...

I like it alot so far. I tend to have to listen to something a few times, but it's beautiful and has (for me) surprising variety in the music. 

[Coopmv]

I like it alot so far. I tend to have to listen to something a few times, but it's beautiful and has (for me) surprising variety in the music. 

It is just amazing there are now a wealth of early music recordings out there.  I recall when I first got into classical music some 30 years ago, Gregorian Chants were early music.  The likes of Tallis Scholars and early music specialist label such as Gimell were barely around.  These days, smaller labels such as HM and Hyperion have released a good number of excellent early music recordings, though the larger labels continue to put out warhorses.

[listener]

SCHUMANN Bunte Blätter, op. 90      BRAHMS  2 Intermezzi & Ballade in g from op.118
Sviatoslav Richter, piano
RUBINSTEIN Piano Concerto no.4, op. 70   LISZT Sonetto del Petrarca no.104, Valse Oubliée
Oscar Levant, piano      New York Philharmonic       Mitropoulos, cond.
VIVALDI Concerto for 3 Violins, ALBINONI Concerto a cinque op. 9/8
MARCELLO  Concerto in b for 2 oboes, strings & continuo
GALUPPI Concerto a quattro no.2 in G
I Musici       much vibrato on that oboe!
from an over-large stack that prevents me from getting to Mahler, Harris, Nielsen and Miaskovsky symphonies and others.

[Mirror Image]

Now:

[asin]B0006U6QKW[/asin]

I love Locatelli's Concerto Grossi. Too bad Locatelli didn't compose that much.

[Lethevich]

Symphony No.14 'Morning' - a work that I rarely listen to
Symphony No.8 'Memories at Amalienborg'
Symphony No.11 'Ixion'
Symphony No.12 'Hélsingeborg'
Sphynx

Edit: well, it's 4am, so I suppose that "Morning" does qualify. I'm hoping that I feel as waltzy as the third movement later, but certainly not yet.

[Mirror Image]

Now:

[asin]B0001KL4HW[/asin]

First listen of a not so new acquisition. I like it so far. I enjoy music that is driven like this where the orchestra just kind of gets catapulted through these bludgeoning rhythms.

[Mirror Image]

Now:

[asin]B000060O5H[/asin]

Listening to Glagolitic Mass. Excellent performance from Kubelik.

[Mirror Image]

The Kubelik recording of Janacek's Glagolitic Mass was good, but I still prefer MTT's performance with the LSO and Mackerras' CzPO performance on Supraphon.

Now:

[asin]http://B000095SL0[/asin]

I can't go one night without listening to Koechlin. I'm one sick man. Listening to Le buisson ardent.

[Sid]

@ coopmv - I agree with you, there's such a wealth of early music out there on CD, which I'm just beginning to kind of rediscover after more than a decade. The HM "musique d'abord" white label has some many good things, not only early music, but right up to our own times. The quality is top notch, and the price just right. Two days ago I got Sr Marie Keyrouz's disc of ancient Melchite chants. That just knocked me out & a work colleague even asked me to buy her a copy, she gave me the money, she was that impressed by my description. I love early music because it's kind of like the origins of classical music. It's not only boring church music, which is what some misguided souls out there erroneously think. It's just as exciting and fresh as things penned today by our current crop of great composers. But I admire the early masters even more, because they had less resources at their disposal, and the times they lived in were often nothing short of dreadful. These masters transcended all of that, and were able to put down their emotions and craftsmanship into works of genius that sound totally new and imaginative even to our more sophisticated and jaded ears...

@ MI - Mr Kubelik's rendition of the Janacek mass and song cycle on that disc is one of my all time favs from this great composer. Whether he's on the podium directing massive forces in the mass, or at the piano accompanying the small ensemble in the song cycle, Kubelik does it with flare, passion and professionalism. His talent to bring these masterworks to life is just amazing, I think Janacek would have applauded his efforts greatly. I have absolutely no doubt about that at all, these accounts are just great (I would've maybe liked the song cycle to be in the original Czech not German, but you can't have everything, and the great Ernest Helfiger in the title role sings with such emotion that one forgets the language it's in in seconds, he's simply that brilliant). I just love this recording, it's a coupling of two of Janacek's most immortal vocal masterworks...

[Mirror Image]

@ MI - Mr Kubelik's rendition of the Janacek mass and song cycle on that disc is one of my all time favs from this great composer. Whether he's on the podium directing massive forces in the mass, or at the piano accompanying the small ensemble in the song cycle, Kubelik does it with flare, passion and professionalism. His talent to bring these masterworks to life is just amazing, I think Janacek would have applauded his efforts greatly. I have absolutely no doubt about that at all, these accounts are just great (I would've maybe liked the song cycle to be in the original Czech not German, but you can't have everything, and the great Ernest Helfiger in the title role sings with such emotion that one forgets the language it's in in seconds, he's simply that brilliant). I just love this recording, it's a coupling of two of Janacek's most immortal vocal masterworks...

I like the Kubelik, but I prefer the clarity of MTT's performance. I know many prefer a wild performance of Glagolitic Mass, but this doesn't always translate from the conductor to the orchestra. What MTT does is bring forward more of the rhythmic elements of the score. His phrasing is much more to my liking, like, for example, the last movement Intrada the brass section just blasts through the orchestra with these manic, domineering outbursts that when I first heard it was quite alarming. I own many performances of this work, but the MTT is the one I continue to come back to time and time again, but we all have our favorites.

[Sid]

@ MI - Interesting reading your analysis there. I haven't heard any recording's of this coupling of Janacek works, except for that Kubelik one, and I've also got the mass on vinyl record with Karel Ancerl at the helm with his Czech musicians. I've only heard that once, but it was memorable for being quite different from Kubelik's. Ancerl's singers, the solo parts especially, sound somewhat rougher than those in Kubelik's account. This may be because Kubelik's singers are international, whilst Ancerl's are Czech. Their pronunciation of their own native language may have a big bearing on this, I don't know, but that was my gut, off the cuff sort of feeling. I'm sure the other accounts you've heard are equal to the task of the two Czech conductors, anyone who tackles this complex work on the podium - especially the changing rhythms as you suggest - has to be at the very top of their game. The only mass that I've heard which is let's say many more times complex than Janacek's "Glagolitic" is c15th composer Antoine Brumel's Mass for 12 voices (which also has a compliment of brass & THREE ORGANS!!!; all 12 singers serve doubly as soloists as well as choir, it is just an amazing work, it's so complex that even more recent masters like Harry Partch and Eliot Carter would have doubtlessly admired this score, at some level anyway). That's not to say Brumel is better than Janacek, far from it, it's more to say that they were both masters who could tackle the largest forces of their time, and come out brilliantly - the latter most definitely working off the ancient traditions set down by the former...

[Antoine Marchand]

This set of organ and harpsichord toccatas leaves nothing to be desired. Two beautiful instruments, a luxurious recording and a perfect rendition by Leon Berben, both as an organist and as a harpsichordist. The whole thing is amazingly crystal clear and Berben always sounds fluent and natural even hidding to some extent the extremely virtuosistic traits of this music. It's not easy to recall a performance of the harpsichord toccatas more rhythmically compelling than this one. Without any doubt this set will occupy a place with my favorite performances of these pieces (Watchorn, van Asperen and Jaccottet), especially because they are not so frequently played as the organ toccatas. A great achievement of Mr. Berben, a keyboardist who for years I placed directly in the hell of the worse Baroque harpsichordists. A superb case of musical redemption!

Thanks (: premont and  ~ Que ~!

[Mirror Image]

@ MI - Interesting reading your analysis there. I haven't heard any recording's of this coupling of Janacek works, except for that Kubelik one, and I've also got the mass on vinyl record with Karel Ancerl at the helm with his Czech musicians. I've only heard that once, but it was memorable for being quite different from Kubelik's. Ancerl's singers, the solo parts especially, sound somewhat rougher than those in Kubelik's account. This may be because Kubelik's singers are international, whilst Ancerl's are Czech. Their pronunciation of their own native language may have a big bearing on this, I don't know, but that was my gut, off the cuff sort of feeling. I'm sure the other accounts you've heard are equal to the task of the two Czech conductors, anyone who tackles this complex work on the podium - especially the changing rhythms as you suggest - has to be at the very top of their game. The only mass that I've heard which is let's say many more times complex than Janacek's "Glagolitic" is c15th composer Antoine Brumel's Mass for 12 voices (which also has a compliment of brass & THREE ORGANS!!!; all 12 singers serve doubly as soloists as well as choir, it is just an amazing work, it's so complex that even more recent masters like Harry Partch and Eliot Carter would have doubtlessly admired this score, at some level anyway). That's not to say Brumel is better than Janacek, far from it, it's more to say that they were both masters who could tackle the largest forces of their time, and come out brilliantly - the latter most definitely working off the ancient traditions set down by the former...

Interesting. I'll have to take a listen to the Brumel Mass. Complexity has never been something I cared too much about. Some of the simplest things are sometimes more enjoyable than something that is complicated. I mean, for example, take one of my favorite works by Arvo Part like Cantus in Memoriam of Benjamin Britten. Some would say this work is deceptively simple as it requires a string orchestra that is completely in sync with each from start to finish. Here's a very interesting article I pulled from Wikipedia that talks about this work in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantus_In_Memoriam_Benjamin_Britten

This is one of my favorite works of all-time for string orchestra. There's something about this work that just hits me right in the gut.

[Que]

On CD2 for my first listen:

How do you like this set?  I bought this set over a year ago and might have been the first one on the forum to own this set.  To be sure, this is not a very widely owned set since there are not that many on the forum who are into early music ...

Good going David!   It is an amazing set, you'll see. My favourites would cover over half of the recordings in it...

I believe I named it my best purchase of 2010 - it caused a major break through for me in Early Music.

I belive other admirers and promotors of the set include Antoine and (new) Erato.
(Sid, this set has your name on it! )

Anyway, staying on topic and starting this morning with a rerun of this new purchase with music by the Flemish born but Italy based Cipriano de Rore:



Q