There seem to be a few recent trends in the performance of Mahler that strike me as somewhat dubious. For instance:
1. Performances of the 1st Symphony that include Blumine. These seem to have increased noticeably; they only prove to me that Mahler was right to exclude this movement.
2. Performing the 6th Symphony in Andante-Scherzo order. I think this is more defensible, but I prefer the opposite order.
3. Proliferating completions of the 10th Symphony. How many do we need, really? Having heard 3 or 4 of them, they just impress on me how close Mahler was to finishing the symphony himself.
Also - possibly more serious, though I don't really have the details here - some of the "scholarship" coming out of the Int'l Mahler Society. Apparently they would have us believe that the famous "Frere Jacques" solo in 1/iii should now be played by the entire bass section. How the hell they came to that conclusion, I don't know.
Anyway - this all strikes me as unnecessary mucking around with great music. So, some questions:
1. Why do you think this is going on?
2. Are you positive or negative toward these trends?
3. What further abominations against Mahler scores can you imagine? :)
I think the reason that these things happen is because the market is over-saturated with recordings of Mahler's work. New recordings do things differently to stand out. I never cared for the Blumine movement, and there never was a revelatory 10th symphony completion.
And of course Mahler nuts will buy recordings for major and minor, very minor differences. A few years back I was obsessed with an oboe glissando in a short passage in the massive third symphony. Thinking back it seems hilariously crazy that I was buying recordings just for a .1% difference! :D
I guess that's what it comes down to-- hearing a familiar work in a different light. And that's why it's done.
Quote from: DavidW on January 21, 2009, 02:11:03 AM
I think the reason that these things happen is because the market is over-saturated with recordings of Mahler's work. New recordings do things differently to stand out.
Bingo. :) I agree completely with your post. I think a contributing factor is that Mahler only wrote a small number of works, so there really isn't any unexplored territory.
QuoteA few years back I was obsessed with an oboe glissando in a short passage in the massive third symphony.
LOL I remember that ;) I was wondering what got into you...but I remember my own days of Mahler collecting mania
QuoteLOL I remember that ;) I was wondering what got into you...but I remember my own days of Mahler collecting mania
Haha yeah that was pretty funny! :D I think Karl called it Mahleria. ;D I've recovered, but I am still in danger of ending up like that for Bruckner. :o I must be extra vigilant. 8)
Quote from: DavidW on January 21, 2009, 02:40:03 AM
I am still in danger of ending up like that for Bruckner. :o
Jeez...with all the different Bruckner symphony editions, that is even worse a syndrome :o don't bankrupt yourself, man!
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 21, 2009, 01:07:55 AM
1. Performances of the 1st Symphony that include Blumine. These seem to have increased noticeably; they only prove to me that Mahler was right to exclude this movement.
This doesn't bother me; in fact, I approve. I love
Blumine and I think it works exceedingly well within the symphony, making a beautiful, quiet interlude between the explosive end of the first movement and the boisterous, galumphing dance of the second. And five movements instead of four seem more...well, Mahlerian to me ;)
Quote2. Performing the 6th Symphony in Andante-Scherzo order. I think this is more defensible, but I prefer the opposite order.
Me too. I think Andante-Scherzo is just wrong, with very little defensible about it. Yeah, I know, I'm second guessing genius here (and in my comment above about
Blumine) but I really do think he was wrong to change the original order.
Quote3. Proliferating completions of the 10th Symphony. How many do we need, really? Having heard 3 or 4 of them, they just impress on me how close Mahler was to finishing the symphony himself.
I buy them all but I still prefer Cooke I...which means the others are superfluous...to me anyway.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 25, 2009, 09:16:46 AM
Me too. I think Andante-Scherzo is just wrong, with very little defensible about it. Yeah, I know, I'm second guessing genius here (and in my comment above about Blumine) but I really do think he was wrong to change the original order.
Where do you stand on the hammer-blow question (i.e. 2 or 3)? I prefer to have all 3 whacks, regardless of what the official version says. As I understood it, Mahler only deleted the 3rd blow because he was superstitious (and it didn't save him anyway!).
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 25, 2009, 09:37:05 AM
As I understood it, Mahler only deleted the 3rd blow because he was superstitious (and it didn't save him anyway!).
I've heard that, but that's closer to urban legend than truth. I think that he had legitimate reasons. And even if it was true, it's still his work, his vision, and it should be respected by having it played as he wanted it to be played, instead of second guessing him.
If conductors want to be original and have their vision of the music played, they should write their own music instead of changing an existing work they didn't write.
Well I have another opinion which might be heretical >:D I like some of the Wunderhorn songs to be done as duets. I don't think that's in the score either.
(so sue me)
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 21, 2009, 01:07:55 AMWhy do you think this is going on?
As someone said earlier, too much Mahler goin' on.
QuoteAre you positive or negative toward these trends?
I like the
Blumine movement. I only have one version with it, by James Judd, but I'm happy to have it. I prefer Scherzo-Andante, but I'm not going to reprogram a disc or make a CD-R over it. I don't care much about "completed" M10s one way or the other.
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 25, 2009, 09:37:05 AM
Where do you stand on the hammer-blow question (i.e. 2 or 3)? I prefer to have all 3 whacks, regardless of what the official version says. As I understood it, Mahler only deleted the 3rd blow because he was superstitious (and it didn't save him anyway!).
Superstition could be part of the reason. His stated reason was because he thought the effect was too obvious and theatrical. But that begs the question: Why didn't he take out the other two then?
Me, I think Mahler's original concept was best: Scherzo-Andante, three hammerblows. He shouldn't have second guessed himself.
Quote from: DavidW on January 25, 2009, 09:46:22 AM
I've heard that, but that's closer to urban legend than truth. I think that he had legitimate reasons. And even if it was true, it's still his work, his vision, and it should be respected by having it played as he wanted it to be played, instead of second guessing him.
As I said, I don't think he should have second guessed himself. We've discussed many times why the original order of the movements makes more sense musically, technically and emotionally. Eliminating the last hammerblow makes the first two utterly pointless. What do they mean without the third and mortal blow? Le Grange makes a convincing argument that Mahler never came to a final decision about the Sixth. What we have today is the opportunity to hear it as originally conceived and as revised, and that gives us greater insight into Mahler and his music. Whether a conductor has the percussionist whack the block a third time really doesn't do a disservice to Mahler but does let us hear his first and (to my mind) best thoughts.
QuoteIf conductors want to be original and have their vision of the music played, they should write their own music instead of changing an existing work they didn't write.
But they aren't changing anything. They are simply playing Mahler's original score.
Sarge
Quote from: nicht schleppend on January 25, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
I prefer Scherzo-Andante, but I'm not going to reprogram a disc or make a CD-R over it. I don't care much about "completed" M10s one way or the other.
What he/she said.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 25, 2009, 10:51:48 AM
Eliminating the last hammerblow makes the first two utterly pointless. What do they mean without the third and mortal blow?
I'm actually going to disagree with this one. I think it's very psychologically true for the mortal blow to be much weaker than the two previous ones.
On the other hand, I do agree with your strong preference for Scherzo-Andante.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 25, 2009, 10:51:48 AM
What do they mean without the third and mortal blow?
But now you're not describing the music, but a story or program commonly given to the music. And that is one that I reject. Once rejecting extra-musical associations, I've never encountered an argument good enough for appending a third hammer blow. And whether the conductor feels that the third hammer blow is appropriate or not, going against the composer's final wishes (for whatever reason) shows a deep lack of respect for the composer and the work.
I don't much care about the Blumine movement. It's nice to have as a curiosity bonus track but for me Mahler was right to purge it from the symphony.
As for the Sixth symphony, I prefer the Andante - Scherzo order but I don't really care either way. The resulting order ambiguity could even turn out interesting in a live performance, anticipating what the conductor's going to do.
Considering the Tenth's state of completion at the time of Mahler's death and the gorgeous music contained in it, I consider the various reconstructions/performing versions (of which, I prefer Cooke's the most) not only legitimate but absolutely indispensable.
Concerning the three or two hammer blows in the Sixth symphony, I can see how three might be considered more psychologically compelling and find it equally legitimate as a performing practice without actually having a strong preference one way or the other.
Quote from: DavidW on January 25, 2009, 12:45:31 PM
But now you're not describing the music, but a story or program commonly given to the music. And that is one that I reject.
Then you're rejecting Mahler's own conception of the symphony:
"It is the hero, on whom fall three blows of fate, the last of which fells him as a tree is felled" was what Mahler himself said about the Finale. This was why he put the hammer blows there in the first place. If there was no extra-musical significance to them, why would he bother with them at all? Are you trying to say he simply liked the sound of a hammer hitting a large block of wood and decided to put it into his symphony without intending any sort of symbolic meaning whatsoever?
Quote from: DavidW on January 25, 2009, 12:45:31 PM
And whether the conductor feels that the third hammer blow is appropriate or not, going against the composer's final wishes (for whatever reason) shows a deep lack of respect for the composer and the work.
I disagree. Mahler himself is on record as saying that he expected conductors of the future to alter his scores if necessitated by circumstances.
And Mahler himself wasn't averse to "touching up" other composers' music (e.g. the Schumann symphonies).
As for the 3rd hammer - I have a suspicion that some conductors put it there because it looks neat visually in concert. On a recording, it hardly makes any difference.
Quote from: Symphonien on January 25, 2009, 07:36:54 PM
Then you're rejecting Mahler's own conception of the symphony:
"It is the hero, on whom fall three blows of fate, the last of which fells him as a tree is felled" was what Mahler himself said about the Finale.
But he also said (sorry I don't have a direct quote though) that he wanted his music to stand without needing programs to give them context. And all good music should be able to stand without a narrative. If it can't succeed on the abstract level, it doesn't matter what the program is anyway.
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 25, 2009, 09:33:42 PM
And Mahler himself wasn't averse to "touching up" other composers' music (e.g. the Schumann symphonies).
And when he did, and he did for Beethoven as well, he shows a lack of respect for composers far superior to him. And the result of Mahler's tampering is well... crap. He was not fit to lick the boots of composers like Beethoven and Schumann, yet he had the audacity to think that he could improve their music! :D
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 04:25:53 AM
He was not fit to lick the boots of composers like Beethoven and Schumann,
I don't agree with this at all...but hey, that's just a personal preference :)
The larger point is that Mahler was not against intelligent tampering with
his own music, which is after all what we're discussing here.
The even larger point is that in his time, tampering with scores was not regarded with the puristic horror that it evokes today.
The genius is not infallible, even when considering his own work. So second-guessing even by the creator can bring about mistakes in the coherent nature of an opus. :o
On the Sixth therefore: yes, original concept please! 0:)
Wile E. Coyote on being a "Super Genius": "Even a genius can have an off day." 8)
I am happy to have Deryck Cooke's completion of the Tenth.
Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2009, 05:43:13 AM
The genius is not infallible, even when considering his own work. So second-guessing even by the creator can bring about mistakes in the coherent nature of an opus. :o
Tying in nicely (again) with
Art is working on something until you like it, and then leaving it that way. ;)
Quote from: nicht schleppend on January 25, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
As someone said earlier, too much Mahler goin' on.
I like your nickname! :)
Nicht schleppend (not dragging) is what in the context of "worrying Mahler trends" every modern Mahler coductor should take to heart. ::) 8)
Q
Quote from: karlhenning on January 26, 2009, 05:46:41 AM
Art is working on something until you like it, and then leaving it that way. ;)
Who said that? (Google doesn't help.)
After Mr. Henning replies, it will be back to our regularly scheduled programming. Thank you. ;)
Another disturbing trend is that of applying HIP to Mahler, which almost inevitably brings results that are questionable at best. Roger Norrington has been recording the symphonies live with his Stuttgart Radio symphony for Hanssler. And without string vibrato. I have heard the 4th symphony only on the radio recently, and it sounded weird.
But as David Hurwits pointed out recently at classicalstoday.com, there are stories about Mahler rehearsing his symphonies with the New York Philharmonic a century ago and asking for more and more vibrato ! So much for Norrington's"authenticity ! And I've heard that Philippe Herreweghe is plannning to do the Mahler symphonies,complete with gut strings and all ! The results might be interesting, but will they be"authentic"?
:( :o ??? ::)
Quote from: Superhorn on January 26, 2009, 06:54:03 AM
Another disturbing trend is that of applying HIP to Mahler, which almost inevitably brings results that are questionable at best. Roger Norrington has been recording the symphonies live with his Stuttgart Radio symphony for Hanssler. And without string vibrato.
Weird, forsooth!
Quote from: opus67 on January 26, 2009, 06:25:47 AM
Who said that? (Google doesn't help.)
After Mr. Henning replies, it will be back to our regularly scheduled programming. Thank you. ;)
Check this curious outpost of civilization:
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
:o
And you will find your answer, along with another
Cato comment! 0:)
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 04:25:53 AM
And when he did, and he did for Beethoven as well, he shows a lack of respect for composers far superior to him. And the result of Mahler's tampering is well... crap. He was not fit to lick the boots of composers like Beethoven and Schumann, yet he had the audacity to think that he could improve their music! :D
Like Schumann's tampering with works of Bach?
Or Mendelssohn (Matthäus-Passion)?
Or Mozart's tampering with Händel's
Messiah?
Or Bach's tampering with works of Vivaldi?
(etc.)
Now, let's lick some boots!
(Or not.) :D
Main question in this, I think: what were the reasons of Mahler's (and all other) tampering?
I read once that Mahler used more woodwind and brassed instruments in Beethoven symphonies, not because he thought that Beethoven's work had to be improved, but because of the fact that the size of the orchestra had increased in Mahler's days, especially in favour of the string sections.
So the wind instruments weren't that audible anymore.
So he doubled their parts. (And he used a lot more wind instruments in his own music, too.)
Not such a bad decision, because not only the orchestras, but also the newly built concert halls were - in general - larger in size, compared to Beethoven's times.
Apart from that: Mahler was both a conductor and a composer, and very much interested in compositions of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann (etc) and how to recreate them for a modern audience. (Like Stokowski a.o. did in the 20th century.)
Also, in Mahler's days, lots of works (beforehand not that well-known) of the old masters were published for the first time.
I think he felt challenged to 'romp' with their compositions, maybe also to improve his own composition skills. Who knows??
Quote from: nicht schleppend on January 25, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
As someone said earlier, too much Mahler goin' on.
I feel this way, too. Even though I like his music very very much.
But in general: there seems to be too much on the market. And because of that people start searching for
anything else.
Well, let them have their fun with it!
Instead I will buy my 128th version of Bach's Matthäus-Passion! ;D
Quote from: nicht schleppend on January 25, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
I like the Blumine movement. I only have one version with it, by James Judd, but I'm happy to have it. I prefer Scherzo-Andante, but I'm not going to reprogram a disc or make a CD-R over it. I don't care much about "completed" M10s one way or the other.
Again: me, too. I think the
Blumine part is beautiful. If there's one movement of Mahler's First that I'm not that crazy about, it would be the Finale. Too long, and too much of a
Signboard finale. :D
Let's add something then, to the worrying Mahler Mania: a four-part version of the first,
with Blumine and
without the Finale. Let the 'hero' have his rest after
Frère Jacques, and let's not wake him until .... (rather thunderous) .... the
Totenfeier of the Second! >:D ;)
Quote from: Que on January 26, 2009, 06:05:46 AM
I like your nickname! :)
Nicht schleppend (not dragging) is what in the context of "worrying Mahler trends" every modern Mahler conductor should take to heart. ::) 8)
Q
Thank you.
I would have liked a little more schleppend, however, in the very modern Gergiev M7, Movement 2.
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 04:25:53 AMHe was not fit to lick the boots of composers like Beethoven and Schumann, yet he had the audacity to think that he could improve their music! :D
Well, I like Mahler's music more than that of either Beethoven or Schumann. Much, much more. I probably don't like Schumann at all, as I have failed to play anything I have by him a second time (well, except for the Piano Trios, though I doubt I'd be able to recognize one of them if it started to play). I have spent hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars looking for just the right versions of Beethoven this and Beethoven that, and I have yet to find definitive versions of anything except a single-CD of the Piano Sonatas by Paul Lewis. After 20 years, I still don't have favorite versions of even his symphonies.
Whereas I can listen to favorites of Mahler's nine-plus symphonies endlessly, and many of my less-favorite versions, too. And each has something to tell me.
Do I yammer on about Beethoven licking Mahler's boots? Hell, no. What a silly thing for composers to do, especially ones who didn't live in the same temporal neighborhoods. De gustibus, y'all.
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 26, 2009, 04:59:04 AM
The even larger point is that in his time, tampering with scores was not regarded with the puristic horror that it evokes today.
That's because composers were not treated with the respect that they now have earned. They were seen as entertainers and servants and not as artists.
Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2009, 05:43:13 AM
The genius is not infallible, even when considering his own work.
Disagree, there's no right or wrong with music, and one can't label a composer as fallible or not. How would you define what is correct and what is incorrect? To categorize one work as correct and another as incorrect doesn't make sense. And before you pounce on that, I never said that the third hammer blow choice was incorrect, I said it was disrespectful.
Quote from: Superhorn on January 26, 2009, 06:54:03 AM
Another disturbing trend is that of applying HIP to Mahler, which almost inevitably brings results that are questionable at best. Roger Norrington has been recording the symphonies live with his Stuttgart Radio symphony for Hanssler. And without string vibrato. I have heard the 4th symphony only on the radio recently, and it sounded weird.
But as David Hurwits pointed out recently at classicalstoday.com, there are stories about Mahler rehearsing his symphonies with the New York Philharmonic a century ago and asking for more and more vibrato ! So much for Norrington's"authenticity ! And I've heard that Philippe Herreweghe is plannning to do the Mahler symphonies,complete with gut strings and all ! The results might be interesting, but will they be"authentic"?
:( :o ??? ::)
Stuttgart is not a HIP ensemble, and this is NOT a case of applying HIP to Mahler, it's of Norrington making a choice regarding vibrato. I know you've decided that Norrington must be one of "them" since he's done decidedly HIP recordings, but he's also done not so HIP recordings, it's just not as simple of an issue as you make it out to be. If you have a statement of Norrington saying that he produced "authentic" recordings, then I can see why you'd be pissed and start throwing that label around.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on January 26, 2009, 01:53:39 PM
Well, I like Mahler's music more than that of either Beethoven or Schumann.
Fine, but they still are greater than Mahler.
QuoteDo I yammer on about Beethoven licking Mahler's boots? Hell, no. What a silly thing for composers to do, especially ones who didn't live in the same temporal neighborhoods.
It's a commonly used expression. Sheesh some people! ::)
You know what they could do in the future to make Mahler recordings stand out?
They could make custom symphonies by combining movements from different symphonies...
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 04:20:40 AM
But he also said (sorry I don't have a direct quote though) that he wanted his music to stand without needing programs to give them context. And all good music should be able to stand without a narrative. If it can't succeed on the abstract level, it doesn't matter what the program is anyway.
But then what do hammer blows really convey at an abstract level at all? They're just dull thuds that often can't be heard over the timpani and tam-tam anyway. (The visual impact of them in a performance, and what that signifies is extra-musical.) So at a purely abstract level, what makes two hammer blows musically more convincing than three?
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 02:27:21 PM
That's because composers were not treated with the respect that they now have earned. They were seen as entertainers and servants and not as artists.
On the contrary, Mahler had less of today's veneration for the score because he was a practical musician, as opposed to later composers (and critics) who deign to transmit their holy writ from remote ivory towers. In the trenches, you fiddle with the score to make the performance as effective as possible, all things considered. Also, in Mahler's day, music was still a living thing, not a carefully curated museum exhibit.
Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2009, 02:33:36 PM
Disagree, there's no right or wrong with music, and one can't label a composer as fallible or not. How would you define what is correct and what is incorrect?
I may be taking this in a sphere you did not intend (but I think it does relate to
Cato's point). I agree that
definition is problematic here; but what do
Beethoven's painstaking work-throughs in his sketches
mean, if not that he was aiming for (let's say) 'greater musical correctitude'?
Quote from: DavidWTo categorize one work as correct and another as incorrect doesn't make sense.
All right. But . . . if we take a
Beethoven symphony, and re-order the interior movements, have we made the piece somehow 'less correct'? The fact that
Mahler was 'searching for certainty' regarding the order of the movements in his own symphony, for instance . . . this is a difference in method worth reflecting on, and a certain reading of the adjective
correct is probably involved.
Quote from: eyeresist on January 26, 2009, 09:38:34 PM
On the contrary, Mahler had less of today's veneration for the score because he was a practical musician, as opposed to later composers (and critics) who deign to transmit their holy writ from remote ivory towers. In the trenches, you fiddle with the score to make the performance as effective as possible, all things considered. Also, in Mahler's day, music was still a living thing, not a carefully curated museum exhibit.
There has got to be a degree of respect for the composer, which does not exaggerate into considering them 'transmitters of holy writ' (and we note that ridicule is not argument). There must also be some point at which fiddling becomes artistic interference; recall that
Berlioz had to argue for honoring
Beethoven's documents, as Parisian conductors were routinely 'correcting'
Beethoven's harmony at the time.
Quote from: eyeresist on January 26, 2009, 09:38:34 PM
On the contrary, Mahler had less of today's veneration for the score because he was a practical musician, as opposed to later composers (and critics) who deign to transmit their holy writ from remote ivory towers. In the trenches, you fiddle with the score to make the performance as effective as possible, all things considered.
Your post presumes that the composer is incapable of writing a score that will lead to a good performance, and there scores
need the interference of the conductor. I strongly disagree, especially since we are talking about great composers and not say mediocre fops like Dittersdorf.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2009, 04:13:05 AM
I may be taking this in a sphere you did not intend (but I think it does relate to Cato's point). I agree that definition is problematic here; but what do Beethoven's painstaking work-throughs in his sketches mean, if not that he was aiming for (let's say) 'greater musical correctitude'?
He was aiming to make the music be what he wanted it to be. Obsessive rewritings don't indicate that the music will be more 'correct'. After all Bach wrote a cantata, what, every week? Despite not fussing with his music to the extent that Beethoven he did, he still wrote what are considered some of the greatest masterpieces ever. I don't see any kind of meaningful label of correctness here. The quality of Beethoven's music might have suffered if he spent less time with it, but quality is not the same as correctness.
QuoteAll right. But . . . if we take a Beethoven symphony, and re-order the interior movements, have we made the piece somehow 'less correct'? The fact that Mahler was 'searching for certainty' regarding the order of the movements in his own symphony, for instance . . . this is a difference in method worth reflecting on, and a certain reading of the adjective correct is probably involved.
Well that's exactly one of the issues that we have been discussing, in Mahler's 6th some conductors re-order the movements! If there was some obvious sense of correctness, they wouldn't do that would they? So no again there's no concept of correctness. Authenticity perhaps, but not correctness.
I think you're insisting on a narrow reading of correct, but really, that's not important IMHO.
Separately, Mahler's no longer with us; but if he were, I know I should certainly trend towards worrying him 8)
Quote from: Cato on January 26, 2009, 10:16:49 AM
Check this curious outpost of civilization:
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
:o
And you will find your answer, along with another Cato comment! 0:)
Thank you. :)
DavidW, I know that the Stuttgart RSO is not a period instrument orchestra, but Norrington has been applying HIP beliefs about performance practice at their concerts, as well as with other non-period orchestras.
Norrington has deluded himself into believing that any vibrato before well into the 20th century is inauthentic, but it's known that vibrato has been used for centuries,if probably less than our time.
In his treatise on violin playing,Leopold Mozart actually criticized some violinists and other string players of his day for using EXCESSIVE vibrato !
So much for Norrington's pet theories.
I'm a child of my time. I grew up from the 60s on listening to strings use vibrato. Hearing vibratoless string playing sounds unnatural to me,whether it's "inauthentic" or not. It's the sonic equivalent of flat champagne to me.
I find Norrington to be at his best when being provocative. From the many negative things said all across the net regarding his vibrato theories, I would venture to suggest that his intention to throw a cat amongst the pidgeons has worked out fine... Whether I believe him to be "correct" or not (a person of his stature wouldn't just pluck a theory like this out of the air), I will be glad to be able to actually hear the results.
Quote from: Superhorn on January 28, 2009, 08:12:11 AM
I'm a child of my time. I grew up from the 60s on listening to strings use vibrato. Hearing vibratoless string playing sounds unnatural to me,whether it's "inauthentic" or not. It's the sonic equivalent of flat champagne to me.
I also grew up listening to much string vibrato. But in my case, the on-coming flood of minimal to no vibrato recordings was a god-send. Now, when I'm hearing extensive vibrato I grit my teeth and feel a surge of toxin racing through my body (a slight exaggeration).
Quote from: Superhorn on January 28, 2009, 08:12:11 AM
DavidW, I know that the Stuttgart RSO is not a period instrument orchestra, but Norrington has been applying HIP beliefs about performance practice at their concerts, as well as with other non-period orchestras.
Norrington has deluded himself into believing that any vibrato before well into the 20th century is inauthentic, but it's known that vibrato has been used for centuries,if probably less than our time.
In his treatise on violin playing,Leopold Mozart actually criticized some violinists and other string players of his day for using EXCESSIVE vibrato !
So much for Norrington's pet theories.
I'm a child of my time. I grew up from the 60s on listening to strings use vibrato. Hearing vibratoless string playing sounds unnatural to me,whether it's "inauthentic" or not. It's the sonic equivalent of flat champagne to me.
Norr is probably incorrect to say there was NO vibrato, but from what I've read it used to be much more contentious, and was generally saved for special moments. Incidentally, in the famous story of Mahler asking for more vibrato, isn't it more likely he was asking for it at a particular moment, rather than throughout the whole symphony? I don't know the original anecdote, so don't know exactly what he's supposed to have said.
In Norrington's Stuttgart Brahms cycle (DVD only, AFAIA) the lack of vibrato is usually not very noticable, but there is a violin solo where he did permit vibrato, and either the soloist went over the top with it, or it just sounded garish in a "pure" tone context.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 28, 2009, 11:25:49 AM
Now, when I'm hearing extensive vibrato I grit my teeth and feel a surge of toxin racing through my body (a slight exaggeration).
;D
If only some singers would stop singing with excessive vibrato... $:)