GMG Classical Music Forum

I know you are all thirsting for new Mystery clips. Yes, that includes you lurkers who download the clips but don't "dare" to voice your opinions publically. No, I can not track who downloaded the clips, and I don't care anyway. I can only see *how many times* they have been downloaded.

The first round is still going on, and there is still room for discussion of the many Zarathustra clips as I reveal them one by one, but I don't want to torture you, so here is your new Mystery clip.

This time, we are going to listen to the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony. I would have given you the entire movement as it is not that long, but I know half of you would waste a lot of time comparing timings and listening to amazon clips, so to save you that trouble, I had to snip off a little at the beginning, but the clip begins just before the expostion of the first movement gets repeated, so you are not missing any music.

I will add more clips later for comparison, and from now on, to avoid confusion, I will just give them letters.

How about we start with "A"?

OK, here is clip A:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2lem87

14.5MB

Quote from: M forever on June 27, 2007, 11:49:55 AM
I know you are all thirsting for new Mystery clips. Yes, that includes you lurkers who download the clips but don't "dare" to voice your opinions publically.

Hey!  ;D

Downloading right now... Er... May I suggest we don't have so many clips this time? Maybe just two or three? The reason I ask is 'cause I'm, well, really slow and it takes me a lot of time to do all the listening and put three more or less coherent sentences together with my rudimentary writing skills... On the other hand, I understand you don't have to alter the game in any way because of me so, if everybody is OK with more clips, so be it.

BTW, this is a wonderful initiative of yours, M. Keep them coming.

OK. Here are my thoughts on clip A (This is useless, 'cause I know nothing. It's like Joe SixPack voicing his opinion on some very fine red wine. But I regret not having my copy of the Inbal/OSR Zarathustra for not participating in the other thread and I do want this Fifth!)

First thing I noticed is that I started my first listen in full "critic" mode, so I would be able to amaze everybody with my acute observations on intonation, tempo, phrasing, conductor's humming, recording quality or how German/French/American/Whatever the Orchestra sounds... Next thing I know, close to the end of the clip, is that I did nothing except enjoying the Music like a child with a candy... Two more listens later nothing changed... So my guess is that either I'm a very forgiving (and/or ignorant and/or halfway deaf) listener or this is a wonderful version, the sound is great, the playing is superb, the tempos (tempi?) are perfect and the players and the conductor are beautiful and good people... In any case, I guess I win! :)

Quote from: Iconito on June 27, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
Downloading right now... Er... May I suggest we don’t have so many clips this time? Maybe just two or three? The reason I ask is ‘cause I’m, well, really slow and it takes me a lot of time to do all the listening and put three more or less coherent sentences together with my rudimentary writing skills... On the other hand, I understand you don’t have to alter the game in any way because of me so, if everybody is OK with more clips, so be it.

I have the same problem with the Mystery Pianist threads, they go way too fast for me, so I asked them to slow down, but they want to play at a quicker pace - it's less a long clip reviewing and discussing thread, more a rapid fire clip guessing game - so why should they wait for old people like you or me?

But MO is much "slower". The first thread has been running for a week or so. So you have plenty of time. I will post more bonus clips, although they won't be "bonus" anymore but simply B,C,D...because a lot of people said that the clip comparison format is the most fun.

And I am here to please y'all, am I not?

Quote from: Iconito on June 27, 2007, 05:02:44 PM
OK. Here are my thoughts on clip A (This is useless, ‘cause I know nothing. It’s like Joe SixPack voicing his opinion on some very fine red wine. But I regret not having my copy of the Inbal/OSR Zarathustra for not participating in the other thread and I do want this Fifth!)

Hey! No self-denouncing. If you even post here, you are already part of the "elite". The last clips were downloaded by dozes of people, no doubt some of them the same people who have to most "outspoken" opinions - but only when they know who they are listening to and what preconceptions they can apply to the listening experience. Here, they remain strangely silent. But again, I can only see how many times the file gets downloaded, not who downloads it (see above), and it doesn't matter anyway.

Maybe I will upload the Inbal recording anyway because I think it is much better than many's first impressions seemed to be. I learned a lot from that discussion about how people perceive music and which elements trigger positive reactions in them and which not.

Quote from: Iconito on June 27, 2007, 05:02:44 PM
First thing I noticed is that I started my first listen in full “critic” mode, so I would be able to amaze everybody with my acute observations on intonation, tempo, phrasing, conductor’s humming, recording quality or how German/French/American/Whatever the Orchestra sounds... Next thing I know, close to the end of the clip, is that I did nothing except enjoying the Music like a child with a candy... Two more listens later nothing changed... So my guess is that either I’m a very forgiving (and/or ignorant and/or halfway deaf) listener or this is a wonderful version, the sound is great, the playing is superb, the tempos (tempi?) are perfect and the players and the conductor are beautiful and good people... In any case, I guess I win! :)

We all win here. There are no losers. Except those who listen and don't post, but we don't know who they are.

You don't have to be in "full critic" mode. In fact, I noticed that as an interesting effect in earlier Mystery threads. Once somebody makes negative comments about *technical* aspects, for instance of the playing, a number of other posters quickly follow and point out just how bad it all is. Very interesting. There seems to be a fear there that one might not be "critical" enough. But who even says the negative opinions are "correct"? Maybe they are, maybe they are not.

If we have learned one thing from MO threads so far is that all the endless discussions about which are the "best orchestras in the world" are pretty much all total nonsense. Not that there aren't a number (who knows how many?) orchestras which are really outstanding and which probably can rise a little or somewhat above many others. But it has been shown that most people can not identify these "celebrated" "top bands" in blind listening tests. That shows once again that while there are some truly outstanding ensembles, most of what people think they hear when they listen ot this or that orchestras is hype and preconceptions.

So, back to your review and thanks for that. No need to apologize for liking the clip and not finding anything to nitpick. I think even a clip with clearly audible blemishes can still be an outstanding listening experience. Your assessment of the quality of the music making seems to suggest you think this is a "top shelf" orchestra. Would you like to try to guess which or "which kind of" orchestra this is, maybe try to describe the nature of its ensemble sound and make a guess what playing style this appears to reflect? Again, you don't have to, and my questions aren't meant to "steer" you. I am just asking for more specific points if you are willing to share any.

Quote from: M forever on June 27, 2007, 06:25:04 PM
You don't have to be in "full critic" mode. In fact, I noticed that as an interesting effect in earlier Mystery threads. Once somebody makes negative comments about *technical* aspects, for instance of the playing, a number of other posters quickly follow and point out just how bad it all is. Very interesting. There seems to be a fear there that one might not be "critical" enough. But who even says the negative opinions are "correct"? Maybe they are, maybe they are not.

I don't know about that. My negative comments about what turned out to be the OSR obviously didn't prevent some people from thinking it was the CSO or even the VPO.

As to MO 16:

Just preliminary comments right now as I have had too much wine for detailed analysis. Very warm sound. very reverberant hall. That's actually the first thing I noticed. The hall sounds very unique. Slight tendency of the orchestra to turn the very first three notes into a triplet (e.g. at 0:08), i.e. accenting the first note - but that is a common problem. Unique oboe sound. That should tell me something, but I am not placing it right now. He/she seems to breathe more than other oboists. There is a Luftpause where there is normally a seamless transition from the tutti to the solo. Somewhat meek bassoons, but otherwise a rather big-boned orchestra. Strings in particular. Brass is rather in the background as well.

Quote from: M forever on June 27, 2007, 06:25:04 PM

[Long post. Just scroll up! :)]

First of all, M, if you upload the Inbal recording "anyway", I'll be enormously thankful!

"We all win here", sure, I know. When I said "In any case, I guess I win" I didn't mean the MO game, but as a listener (i.e. I like the recording, so I win, whether the recording is superb or I'm just unable to spot its flaws. Ja?)

There was some irony intended in that "full critic mode" bit, of course... But the main thing I wanted to convey was how my intention of paying extra attention to every detail very soon went away as I was just enjoying the Music. The orchestra kind of became transparent, invisible. It was just the Music... happening. I think that's one hell of an achievement (or.... keep reading :))

I didn't apologize for liking the clip, actually. Let's see how I can say this...... Let's picture a child attending a Magic show. The magician floats his assistant up and into the air. The child cheers. Well, I am (surprise!) the child. I didn't see any wires, so I have no much to say, except that I loved it. Now, if I knew a lot about Illusionism I surely could give a lengthy lecture about the act but, again, I know nothing... What the heck is "the nature of an ensemble sound"? :) Playing style? Are there many, apart from "good" and "bad"? :) Of course, I don't expect you to explain these things to me (it would be way out of topic, anyway), but you get my point... Is this a "top shelf" orchestra? I don't know... Is Bernstein/WP "top shelf"? I like this one better. And if it happens to be Juan Carlos Gonzalez conducting the Orquesta del Sindicato de Carniceros de la Ciudad de Río Seco - Ecuador, you won't see me blushing :)

Oh! I have one specific point, actually, since I just mentioned Bernstein... He drags the tempo at some times (in addition to taking it slower in general), like "wait, let's be really expressive here!". Not so in our clip`, where the pace is kept [cool adjective here to express exactly what I mean, i.e., the opposite of Bernstein's :)] kind of Karajan/BP (I have the '80 version... Or was it '79? Well... That one...) Now, I don't know what Beethoven actually asked for. I just like it better that way...

OK. Let's call it a post already! :)

PS.: I've just seen O's post... See what I mean?

No. What about O's post?

Quote from: O Mensch on June 27, 2007, 07:24:33 PM
I don't know about that. My negative comments about what turned out to be the OSR obviously didn't prevent some people from thinking it was the CSO or even the VPO.

Indeed. But these orchestras make mistakes as well. Yes, even the CSO. That was my whole point when I said "y'all, don't get too hung up on minor booboos".

I think it was actually more on RMCR that someone pointed out there was a trumpet intonation problem, and then all the following posts were "oh man, what horrible brass playing". Or something like that. I don't remember. The discussion really went nowhere anyway and I let it die. I did't even bother to post the bonus clips anymore. The discussion here is much better.

Quote from: O Mensch on June 27, 2007, 07:24:33 PM
Unique oboe sound. That should tell me something, but I am not placing it right now. He/she seems to breathe more than other oboists. There is a Luftpause where there is normally a seamless transition from the tutti to the solo.

Indeed there is, a detail that immediately caught my ear, too. I don't think I am giving away anything when I confirm that. But what does it tell us? Maybe it's because the conductor wanted that break there? Or maybe not.

Quote from: O Mensch on June 27, 2007, 07:24:33 PM
Brass is rather in the background as well.

Like at 0'51, for instance?

First impressions:

I think it is a wonderful performance, one any orchestra I should think would be happy to call their own. The clarinet has a distinctive tone to me, round, clear, dulcet. Superb balance in the orchestra. They have a very full sound on the tuttis and a nice weight in the bottom end.  I like that the brass are a bit lean, they fit well into the ensemble sound. The strings are very impressive. Lush, extremely full sound, great playing and style. The hall seems quite resonant which also helps the orchestra's sound.

The interpretation, pretty straightforward. I am used to Kleiber/VPO, who is faster with more bite and swagger. I like this clip just as much. It's dignified, and also graceful, a little more relaxed. Though not without a great deal of fervor. I really like the tempo, it feels just about right, no sprinting. After the oboe solo, nice drive into the long note and weight there, it propels things into the next section. The tempo is measured and constant throughout, in the more lyrical chamber sections and at the end, in the coda. The dynamic contrast between the light and lyrical and dark, powerful sections is really nice, especially in the development section. The playing and interpretation don't evoke a particular stamp of anyone, it's just all very well-done.

Luftpause - referring to the breath the oboist takes after the first held-over note that begins his solo. It doesn't tell me much, but it shouldn't be a problem for the oboist to play the phrase with no break. If it was intentional interpretationally, it could be to designate the fermata note as belonging to the section preceding, and seeing the oboe solo as a pickup to the section following. If you listen very closely, I think the oboist tongues the last note of the solo twice which is also interesting.

Being used to C. Kleiber this is a different take all together. I don't think I ever heard a mellower sounding 5th! That's not necessarily bad, but I want hammers in that first mvt!
A great bloom to the sound makes me think of the Concertgebouw from other recordings I have that are done there.
Violins left, basses right. I prefer split violins. Oboe solo "in two parts" is new.

Good to have you back, M!

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 01:21:24 AM
I don't think I ever heard a mellower sounding 5th! That's not necessarily bad, but I want hammers in that first mvt!

How many versions have you heard?

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 01:21:24 AM
A great bloom to the sound makes me think of the Concertgebouw from other recordings I have that are done there.

The Concertgebouw is probably not the only concert hall in the world with warm, resonant acoustics, though. Or maybe it is. I am not saying it isn't recorded in this hall. Maybe it is. Or maybe not.
Were you just thinking of that hall, or also of the orchestra residing there?


Very positive reactions so far across the board. I am surprised. That happens rarely.

Every Mystery thread seems to have one point that people get totally fixated on. In a former one on RMCR, it was a humming conductor. They spent a lot of time trying to figure out which conductor is "known" for humming audibly on recordings instead of really listening to the recording. IRCC, they thought it must be Barenboim even though the interpretation couldn't be "matched" to his. It turned out to be a conductor rarely heard humming on disc, namely Mehta. In the last thread, there was this fixation on the "ensemble problems" of the orchestra, I still haven't figured out where that comes from. Now it is the oboe cadenza. Interesting.

Quote from: Greta on June 28, 2007, 12:52:26 AM
If it was intentional interpretationally, it could be to designate the fermata note as belonging to the section preceding, and seeing the oboe solo as a pickup to the section following. If you listen very closely, I think the oboist tongues the last note of the solo twice which is also interesting.

Does he/she/it? Let me ask you this: could it be that the cadenza here isn't interpreted as belonging to either the preceding nor the following section, but as an interlude, suspended outside of time? Just a question. I don't have an opinion here.

Let's see what Beethoven wrote:

I really like this one, a lot.
Shouldn't strings hold on for touch longer at 0:25 or is that matter of interpretation?

Quote from: M forever on June 28, 2007, 02:31:02 AM
How many versions have you heard?

I think I know four reasonably well: Toscanini '39, HvK '63 and '77, and C. Kleiber. Difficult not to have heard others, though.

As for the Concertgebouw, I was thinking of the hall acoustics, but how many other symphony orchestras have recorded there?

Quote from: Drasko on June 28, 2007, 03:12:24 AM
I really like this one, a lot.
Shouldn't strings hold on for touch longer at 0:25 or is that matter of interpretation?

Maybe. Or maybe not. My opinion does not count here. Yours does. All I can tell you is that Beethoven writes a fermata, not a defined note length here.

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 03:21:44 AM
As for the Concertgebouw, I was thinking of the hall acoustics, but how many other symphony orchestras have recorded there?

Hard to say. Who knows? This could be a recording of a different orchestra on tour there. Or maybe not. Maybe it isn't the Concertgebouw at all? Or maybe it is. Does it sound like the Concertgebouworkest to you? Or maybe not?

Maybe it sounds a bit like the Concertgebouworkest with Haitink for Perahia in the LvB PCs, M. I don't dare say it's that venue, orchestra or conductor, because that's a too long shot.

Another idea I have discarded VPO and Böhm in the Grosser Saal, but I don't know if they've done the 5th, so that's a very uneducated guess.

That Luftpause seems like an option the way the music is written.

A Luftpause is actually more something inserted in a musical passage which otherwise goes more or less in tempo, typically to give more emphasis to what follows. This here is not really that kind of situation, the tempo is completely suspended anyway. I would call that here more a "Zäsur". Dunno what the correct English term is. But that about the terminology only as an aside.

But please don't get too fixated on that detail decision here. Let us know if you think it "works" or not, if it is "right" or "wrong", but let's not spend the entire thread discussing just that. It is indeed rather rare, but not unique, so unless you happen to have that recording, it won't tell you much about the identity of the performers. Rather concentrate on the performance overall.

I have 4 more great clips ready for you which I will upload tomorrow, so you can chew on that a little bit before more Beethoven 5 gets served.

Quote from: M forever on June 28, 2007, 04:24:40 AM
Maybe. Or maybe not. My opinion does not count here. Yours does. All I can tell you is that Beethoven writes a fermata, not a defined note length here.

Then we have a non wallower on the podium.

First of all let me state that I don't listen to this piece very much, the last time I did should be well over a year ago, and I own only two versions: Masur with Leipzig Gewandhaus and a VPO with Hans Schmidt. And when I do, I listen to Masur.

The Pros: Good tempo choice, not dragging and pushing forward. I like that

The Cons: Too polished and flowing for my taste. The attacks are not sharp enough which is cutting into the urgency of the piece. It might be unreasonable to expect to be stunned by yet another performance of this too familiar piece, but it at least has to keep my attention throughout, and I don't know if four movements in this format could do that.

This recording puts me in mind of Charles Munch's 1955 BSO record on RCA. I can say that it is not, in all probability, Munch (BSO '55); however, it seems to me that it has an elegance and smoothness that really does remind me of it. Not overpowered or overpowering, and seemingly well-controlled. I'll take a guess, though it's no more better informed than my guess as to what any of you had for dinner last night: one of the regional German radio orchestras. Maybe SWR Baden-Baden und Freiburg.

QuoteDoes he/she/it? Let me ask you this: could it be that the cadenza here isn't interpreted as belonging to either the preceding nor the following section, but as an interlude, suspended outside of time? Just a question. I don't have an opinion here.

I am fairly certain the last note is articulated twice, and also the last note goes continually into the next tutti with no break, although there is a rest there. That section has always struck me as a surprise in the midst of such stormy music, it doesn't seem to belong, but I think Beethoven's choice to write this suddenly calm, placid solo drives greater impact into the next section.

Quote from: PSmith08 on June 28, 2007, 09:25:19 AM
I'll take a guess, though it's no more better informed than my guess as to what any of you had for dinner last night: one of the regional German radio orchestras. Maybe SWR Baden-Baden und Freiburg.

Indeed, you have no information at all about what people had for dinner unless they told you or you were there. But here, you actually have the object of study itself "in front of you". So *something* must be the basis for your guess. Why not a British orchestra? A French? An American? Or maybe a Russian? Or Czech? Or maybe not. I am not suggesting you should consider these options. I am just asking what gave you that impression. If you think German, why "regional"? And what does "regional" mean?

Thanks for the replies so far. But 22 downloads already and not more posts? Hello lurkers?

Here are your bonus clips. Only, to avoid confusion with the numbers, I don't call them "bonus" anymore. They are just B,C,D,E. "Only" 5 in total this time. But I think that's enough! Overkill can easily set in.

MO16 B
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yu6yme

MO16 C
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2a2sn9

MO16 D
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2frhdw

MO 16 E
http://preview.tinyurl.com/22zs7h

Quote from: M forever on June 28, 2007, 07:56:28 PM
Indeed, you have no information at all about what people had for dinner unless they told you or you were there. But here, you actually have the object of study itself "in front of you". So *something* must be the basis for your guess. Why not a British orchestra? A French? An American? Or maybe a Russian? Or Czech? Or maybe not. I am not suggesting you should consider these options. I am just asking what gave you that impression. If you think German, why "regional"? And what does "regional" mean?

The ARD members serve a specific region, so their orchestras - if they have them - would be "regional," as they are part of a regional organization. Why German? Well, it certainly isn't because there is a specific "German" sound - as the orchestral diversity in Germany shows; rather, it's just a guess based on my first impression. As that brings me to my rationale, there is no terribly specific algorithm that I used, other than feel and sense.

It could be British, French, American, Russian, Czech, or - for all I know - Japanese. I would be wrong in my "guess" in that case. Ultimately, who played it is of appreciably less consequence than how they played it. I'll iterate my point: it has, to my ears, an elegant and well-controlled sound. Beyond that, I'm just watching the hand play itself along.

Quote from: PSmith08 on June 28, 2007, 09:27:50 PM
Ultimately, who played it is of appreciably less consequence than how they played it.

I completely agree. That is the main idea of these Mystery threads. The question *who* is obviously very interesting, but while we are listening, it should be more or less irrelevant since we should just listen to the musical substance, not think about who we think we are listening to and what we think we are "supposed" to hear.

But you know how extremely fixated a lot of people are on a lot of rankings and gradings, the best this, the greatest that, and how *specific* they are in their "opinions" - but only as long as they *know* who they are listening to. These Mystery threads have proven that beyond doubt. They have also proven that all these "greatest orchestras" lists are completely nonsensical. How can they be "the greatest" when the same people who "decide" that can't even tell them all apart (I don't mean you, I mean in general)? And not even "dare" to voice and opinion blindly?
Remember, both you and me just replied to yet another of these "the best" posts over in the other forum.

Quote from: PSmith08 on June 28, 2007, 09:27:50 PM
The ARD members serve a specific region, so their orchestras - if they have them - would be "regional," as they are part of a regional organization.

I see. But, from that point of view, aren't *all* orchestras "regional"? Sure, they travel, they make recordings, but most of the time they stay in and "serve" their home region, actually only their home city. The ARD orchestras travel and make recordings, too, which are internationally known (obviously, otherwise you wouldn't know about them since you are not "in the region"). That they, due to their nature as radio orchestras, get broadcast more and more regularly than other orchestras actually makes them less regional. Especially since in Germany, they can not only be heard on their regional stations - all of them get broadcast on the superregional ARD services as well. But that only as an aside. I see what you mean in this context.

Quote from: PSmith08 on June 28, 2007, 09:27:50 PM
Why German? Well, it certainly isn't because there is a specific "German" sound - as the orchestral diversity in Germany shows;

Very true. Like I have said myself several times, there is no easily defineable German orchestral sound. It is a spectrum rather than a single set of sonic values. One could then say because of the diversity, it should actually be *easier* to place an orchestra somewhere within that spectrum, easier than if they had all the exact same sound. But that may go too far in this context, so we note your guess as what it is and for your reasons.

That PSmith08 and me discuss these points here in detail does not mean I am saying he is right or very close. Maybe he is. Or maybe not. Please keep that in mind. I am replying to and discussing *his observations* here. I am not discussing the clip. Discussing the clip is entirely the players' priviledge.

MO 16 B:
Not a lot of dynamics in the recording, and it also is in want of transparency. The performance is closer to what I prefer than the previous one, more emphasis on drama, but not quite there. Trowing all fiddles to the left is still bad practice in this music.
As for the suspended in time oboe, here's another take! Works for me, a bit sad and lonely.

MO 16 C:
Tempo! is the first impression. Prominent trumpets, allowed to play loud. Small drums. The oboe candenza is a marvellous contrast to the general proceedings. I haven't heard the celebrated Gardiner or Harnoncourt cycles, but I guess it's from one of those.

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 11:55:26 PM
As for the suspended in time oboe, here's another take! Works for me, a bit sad and lonely.

That's very poetic, Valentino! Would you like to dare venture a guess as to the orchestra's identity or provenance? Or maybe even which conductor this interpretation might fit with?

Let us know your thoughts about the other clips as well.

Oh, but thanks M! Too many orchestras in the world, but I think we're in Europe. What about the Philharmonia and Klemperer (if they ever did this together)?

For MO 16 C, see above. Must go shopping for food and our new home. Maybe I can get to D and E late this evening.

You could also just stay in, order a pizza, and continue listening to the clips while you wait for it.

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 11:55:26 PM
MO 16 B:
Not a lot of dynamics in the recording, and it also is in want of transparency. The performance is closer to what I prefer than the previous one, more emphasis on drama, but not quite there. Trowing all fiddles to the left is still bad practice in this music.
As for the suspended in time oboe, here's another take! Works for me, a bit sad and lonely.

You are saying less dynamic, yet more dramatic. Isn't that a contradiction?

Quote from: Valentino on June 28, 2007, 11:55:26 PM
MO 16 C:
Tempo! is the first impression. Prominent trumpets, allowed to play loud. Small drums. The oboe candenza is a marvellous contrast to the general proceedings. I haven't heard the celebrated Gardiner or Harnoncourt cycles, but I guess it's from one of those.

What makes you think so? The texture of the sound, or the fast tempo, or both? If you want to guess either Harnoncourt or Gardiner, you have to know that the former uses mostly modern istruments but with some "period" techniques applied, the latter period instruments. Since you haven't heard either, you may not have a clear idea how the Harnoncourt cycle actually sounds. But do the instruments here sound like modern or period instruments to you, regardess of how they are used? That is a relevant question because the style alone is not necessarily telling you what kind of instruments are used. Some "modern" orchestra interpretations play this with a decidedly "HIP" flavor, some "period" instrument performances just play on old instruments, but in a style which is really not much different from that of modern orchestras.

Which doesn't mean it is either Gardiner or Harnoncourt. Maybe it is one of them. Or maybe not.

It's definitely not the Concertgebouw orch, as the clarinet is way too strident and the oboe is way too dark and inarticulate, and i am doubtful whether there has been any commercial recording issued of a mediocre orchestra performing in the Concertgebouw. It's probably not one of the big German orchestras too, because there is no unity in style among the sections. An American orchestra is out of the question because American orchestras are extremely tight when it comes to hiring American style oboists. A Vienese orchestra would never hire an oboist like that! (So much that one tell from the soloists alone)

I suspect that the resonance of the hall is fake, an engineering surplus, because when the accoustics help, the orchestra becomes alive, not in this case.

It's also not possible that it was made with neither Gardiner or Harnoncourt, because all the trademarks of their performances are non existent - no absolute orchestral precision here, no transparency, with sharp flutes and uncanny orchestral entrances, and considering that Harnoncourt always wants unusual surprises, there is almost non here and this performance is very much in accordance to the so called 'traditional' way of performing the 5th in terms of tempi choices and dynamic relationships. Although, after a 2nd listening, i noticed a lot of small bits never much exposed very well brought out here. Still, the performance does not come alive, and is a bit dull, and with the addition of a dark and heavy quality, says something about its possible region and even record label. A Naxos recording?  ;) The recording sounds too digital to be Klemperer and the Philharmonia. My final guess would be that it is a Russian orchestra with a rather strong conductor, possibly on Naxos (because it is so dry and they try to make it not)! I can't be more specific than that i suppose.

Gardiner and Harnoncourt were actually mentioned in connection with another clip, not the first one which someone said sounded like it may have been recorded in the Concertgebouw. We have 5 clips on the loose now, A-E, please rephrase your post, or better, just reply again to reflect which one(s) you are talking about, so there are no misunderstandings. Best is if you head your comments with "MO16 A" or similar, like Valentino did.

If you are talking about A, the original clip, you are the first one who reviews it negatively. That brings stimulating new elements into the discussion, but you are not very clear about what you don't like, or rather, why you raise these points. What is the problem with the oboe? Why do you think the orchestra is "mediocre" and such an orchestra would never be recorded in the Concertgebouw? You think of Klemperer with the Philharmonia but you said the sound is too modern to be that  - so you think the Philharmonia of Klemperer's era was a "mediocre orchestra with inarticulate oboes"? One which would never be "allowed" to be recorded in the Concertgebouw? And why is the resonance fake? And, what puzzled me the most, what has "dark and heavy" have to do with Naxos? Please clarify.

Again, all the above are just questions for more clarification, not disagreement or agreement from me.

MO 16 C again.

Old drums with hard sticks, and natural horns and trumpets, i.e. HIP, but still not right in a way I cannot explain (In very deep waters here). Something with the strings. Apart for the high tempo pretty straightforward and not very inspired. So I drop Gardiner and Harnoncourt and say Brüggen with his Orch of the 18th Century.

Quote from: M forever on June 29, 2007, 12:36:16 AM
You could also just stay in, order a pizza, and continue listening to the clips while you wait for it.

You are saying less dynamic, yet more dramatic. Isn't that a contradiction?

Shopping done. I'm doing this while I should be playing with my boys. Not quite LvB vs nephew Carl style. They're here, and not at a boarding school or in the army.

MO 16 B: Less dynamic technically (Than A), but a more dramatic interpretation. No contradiction there.

By "technically", do you mean technical quality of the playing, or the dynamic range of the recorded sound (or both)?

By "dramatic" do you mean that in the sense of "more contrasted" in the sense the word drama originally had (as in, the individual sections are contrasted more as far as tempi or other parameters are concerned, there is a "drama" unfolding in the way contrasting elements or arguments are set in relationship with each other) or more in the sense the word is now often used, meaning, "exciting, a lot of action, fast and furious"?

I mean the dynamic range of the recorded sound and drama in the old fashioned way, M.

Thanks for the clarification. Apart from the interpretation and overall effect, which orchestra do you like better, as far as playing and orchestral sound are concerned - *if* you prefer one to the other one -?

Quote from: M forever on June 29, 2007, 03:32:21 AM
Gardiner and Harnoncourt were actually mentioned in connection with another clip, not the first one which someone said sounded like it may have been recorded in the Concertgebouw. We have 5 clips on the loose now, A-E, please rephrase your post, or better, just reply again to reflect which one(s) you are talking about, so there are no misunderstandings. Best is if you head your comments with "MO16 A" or similar, like Valentino did.

If you are talking about A, the original clip, you are the first one who reviews it negatively. That brings stimulating new elements into the discussion, but you are not very clear about what you don't like, or rather, why you raise these points. What is the problem with the oboe? Why do you think the orchestra is "mediocre" and such an orchestra would never be recorded in the Concertgebouw? You think of Klemperer with the Philharmonia but you said the sound is too modern to be that  - so you think the Philharmonia of Klemperer's era was a "mediocre orchestra with inarticulate oboes"? One which would never be "allowed" to be recorded in the Concertgebouw? And why is the resonance fake? And, what puzzled me the most, what has "dark and heavy" have to do with Naxos? Please clarify.

Again, all the above are just questions for more clarification, not disagreement or agreement from me.

I refer to only clip A as my download speed is limited and it is taking me too hell long to download the other 3, but anyhow...

All my references are towards what the others have said. Someone posted that it may be Klemperer with the Philharmonia but obviously this record sounds too digital to be that. I love the Philharmonia oboes from that era, do not misunderstand me. Sorry if my poor english is not conveying my message but instead creating more misunderstandings, i certainly didn't mean to and i am sorry. (It's not my first language by the way.)

To answer your questions, or rather to re-interpret my poorly written post:

There is no problem with the oboe! I was simply trying to point out that it is unlikely the Concertgebouw because i know how Dutch oboe sounds like (very articulated and light in sound) and the Concertgebouw has not have a non-Dutch oboist before Jansons and Jansons did not record a Beethoven 5th in my knowledge, if he did, the clarinet was definitely not Dutch either. Inarticulate does not necessarily mean bad, just not Dutch. (In wind player language, which i am sure you have plenty of knowledge, articulation is defined the same as in normal English language usage, with the exception that we often say that a person does not articulate well enough because he does not clearly attack a note, or does not present his ideas well enough, etc.)

Why i relate dark and heavy with Naxos is simply because, many Naxos recordings, especially those recorded before 1990 with the Slovakian orchestras are dry in tone quality, yet there is an abundance of echo behind it, giving me an impression that they have done a great deal of post-recording editing. This is in fact still present in their recently issued recordings, one i remember well being the Peabody Conservatory Winds Anniversary cd, which was made obviously in a hefty dry accoustic. To make it clearer, these orchestras that made recordings with Naxos during that period, including the Russian ochestras had a very distinct dark quality to it, and heavy in the way they articulated (the clarinet), and why i sound so negative is because i have never been used to that way of playing. The thing i find difficult to distinguish is that the clarinetist and the oboist plays so differently in terms of style, it is hard to guess which region this orchestra is from, and that is rare among the German scene, thus my hypothesis that it is not a German orchestra.

The orchestra is mediocre because many entrances are not together, coupled with that awful sharp woodwind secion (most noticeably flutes) above the strings during tutti passages.

p.s. the Klemperer days Philharmonia has one of the most articulate oboe sections of all time. They really dare play out and they often sounded fascinating.

Thanks for the clarifications. I can now understand many of your points better. I don't have so many pre-1990 Naxos recordings with Slovakian orchestras, so I don't have a clear idea of what you mean (which is not your "fault" obviously). I think I have one, so I have to dig that up and listen to it.

Quote from: hautbois on June 29, 2007, 07:14:06 AM
The orchestra is mediocre because many entrances are not together, coupled with that awful sharp woodwind secion (most noticeably flutes) above the strings during tutti passages.

Can you give examples for sharp woodwinds and not-together entrances?


It's a pity you can't download the other clips. I believe you would find them very interesting and contrasting.

Unfortunately, owing to my very own stupidity, i deleted my copy of clip A.  :( And it takes years to get it back.

To put it as clear as possible, the tutti forte passages show just how sharp the flute section is, and the so called bad entrances include the beginning of the clip, where the recap does not sound convincing at all. (How ignorant of me to say that the orchestra is mediocre because of that, we all know who to blame when we hear something like that on a recording  ::))

Will download the next 3 clips today.

If you deleted the clip by accident, it may till be in your recycle bin. What do you mean by "ages"? Are you on dialup?

I guess by "recap" at the beginning you mean the repeat of the exposition? There is nothing not together there (I am not giving away anything here, I think, since that is a technical aspect, not a matter of opinion). It would be nice if you can retrieve the clip and point us to which passages you mean (best by giving the timing in the clip, mins-secs). There must be many such passages for you to arrive at such a broad conclusion about the general quality of th orchestra. Please also point out which of the forte passages have sharp flutes. Then other listeners can reply to that. No one pointed out such things yet.
What do you mean by "who to blame"?

I hope you enjoy the next clips. I believe you will find the comparison interesting and stimulating. Or maybe not. We will see what your impressions are.


Hello, lurkers!

Already 43 downloads of clip A and only a handful opinions?

I just listened to these 5 clips, and here are my impressions:

A: This is the most warm, lush sounding 5th I've heard so far. There are beautiful sounds from the trumpets and winds, and I imagine that Colin Davis' Beethoven sounds like this. I guess it's him and Staatskapelle Dresden.

B: A bit speedier approach, and it reminds me of Mackerras cycle with RLPO. In a way it sounds English to me, but I don't know how to explain why.

C: Even brisker. Could this be the HIP cycle from Bruggen? It is exciting to hear the music this way, even if I prefer the classical approach for this symphony.

D: Back to a more classical approach and it sounds more dramatic than clip A. I guess it's one of the old masters - Boehm/BPO.

E: Also a classical approach. My initial impression is that the movement doesn't flow like clip A and D (or maybe it is more dynamic), and I have problems coming up with a suggestion for who this could be.

I liked clip A and D the most. I have never played any instrument, so I don't have a lot of insight when it comes to characterizing different aspects of instrumental sound. Maybe I can learn a few things.

D is good. The beautiful sounds of A and the drama of B combined, with the loneliest oboe thus far. Modern big orchestra, all fiddles left.

E is the one I'd buy. I like the way the orchestra set up. The tempo is just right. The oboe is sort of fragmented, but hey! its just one bar. Here's the drama I want. Finally a c minor that is played like c minor! Who? No idea, but I hope there's a fasit to this little game?

Hi, everyone. I'd like to give this a try, though I have to admit right off the bat that I don't have a very wide knowledge of different orchestras or even probably of the stereotypes of American vs. European, etc.  I've only heard about four or five different recordings of Beethoven's 5th. And I'm certainly not a musician. Mostly  I am fascinated by the way not knowing exactly what I'm listening to forces me to concentrate. Hopefully I'll learn something new.  I know I did by lurking on the Mystery Orchestra 15 thread.
  So, I have listened to clip A twice, and I'm posting this without looking at what anyone else has written.
  First of all, this is BIG band Beethoven on modern instruments. Really BIG—the sound just seems massively huge and it is sensationally well recorded, with very wide range.  There is especially a lot of bass information—almost too much for my (quite decent) headphones in places.  I can hear the hall.  This is a very pleasing effect. I am close, but there is a also some sense of space too. Is this one of Telarc's better efforts?
  That massiveness of foundation in the bass, especially in the strings, is really impressive.  I'm not sure I've heard anything quite like it before.  I don't know the new(ish) Barenboim recording with the Berlin Staatskapelle, but this is what I imagine it might sound like from descriptions I've read.  I can hear a page being turned.  The tempo feels nice to me. I don't think it is being manipulated very much.  It seems pretty steady. It is not rushed, but there is still enough tension and propulsion.  Compared to Carlos Kleiber's famous recording, the brass don't bray as much (so maybe we are to the west of Vienna?), and I think it's slower than Kleiber's. This sounds to me more like something Bruno Walter might do if he were still alive. Whoever this is, I have the impression that the playing is on a very high level technically (and I don't think I'm just being influenced by the high quality of the recording).  Attacks and entrances seem very very clean.  I could perhaps ask for a bit more dramatic contrast between the louds and the softs.  At 3:15 there is quite a magical effect where the winds are coming in behind the strings—what a gorgeous rich sound.  At 3:30 the exposed wind solo (an oboe?) is gorgeous too, although there is a bit of a loss of momentum here.  I don't think this is the Czech Philharmonic, based on those winds. They don't seem quite as idiosyncratic and as full of character as I think of the Czechs' as being.  They are beautiful, but playing fairly straight.  Geez—everything just sounds so BIG and so massively supported, especially in the strings—I keep coming back to that. But I don't really know what orchestra that would point to. A top tier German orchestra?  I don't really have enough knowledge to say.

Well, like I said, you don't have to "guess the band". And you already made a lot of detailed observations and interpreted these as pointing to a general geographic direction, you ruled out a few areas based on the characteristics you perceived, naming a specific orchestra isn't really necessary, your observations and tentative conclusion are quite specific in themselves.

Anyway, welcome to "Mystery Orchestra" and thanks for your detailed review.

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 05:50:26 PM
Hopefully I’ll learn something new.  I know I did by lurking on the Mystery Orchestra 15 thread.

Aha!!! An ex-lurker  :D Well, there are *a lot* of lurkers here. Maybe some of these will come forward and "dare" to post their opinions.

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 05:50:26 PM
Really BIG—the sound just seems massively huge and it is sensationally well recorded, with very wide range.  There is especially a lot of bass information—almost too much for my (quite decent) headphones in places.  I can hear the hall.  This is a very pleasing effect. I am close, but there is a also some sense of space too. Is this one of Telarc’s better efforts?

Maybe. Or maybe not. Obviously, at this point I can't say yet . Several other players commented positively about the sound quality, too. One poster said it sounds like a really dry recording with a lot of fake reverb though. Looks like you wouldn't agree.

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 05:50:26 PM
I can hear a page being turned.

Do you find that good or bad? Some people hate hearing stuff like that on recordings, some find it adds a degree of authenticity because it gives you a feeling of "being there" because when you go to a live concert and sit close to the orchestra, you can sometimes hear such sounds, too.


We look forward to your comments about the other clips. Well, I do, and I am sure the other players, do, too.

Quote from: rubio on June 30, 2007, 10:30:35 AM
I just listened to these 5 clips, and here are my impressions:

A: This is the most warm, lush sounding 5th I've heard so far. There are beautiful sounds from the trumpets and winds, and I imagine that Colin Davis' Beethoven sounds like this. I guess it's him and Staatskapelle Dresden.

B: A bit speedier approach, and it reminds me of Mackerras cycle with RLPO. In a way it sounds English to me, but I don't know how to explain why.

C: Even brisker. Could this be the HIP cycle from Bruggen? It is exciting to hear the music this way, even if I prefer the classical approach for this symphony.

D: Back to a more classical approach and it sounds more dramatic than clip A. I guess it's one of the old masters - Boehm/BPO.

E: Also a classical approach. My initial impression is that the movement doesn't flow like clip A and D (or maybe it is more dynamic), and I have problems coming up with a suggestion for who this could be.

I liked clip A and D the most. I have never played any instrument, so I don't have a lot of insight when it comes to characterizing different aspects of instrumental sound. Maybe I can learn a few things.

I think your concise but eloquent descriptions are interesting to read "even" without "technical" terms. It would be nice though if you could try anyway to explain why B sounds English to you. But if it's simply a very hunchy hunch, I don't want to "force" you to explain it more concretely.

Quote from: Valentino on June 30, 2007, 11:19:37 AM
the loneliest oboe thus far

That is so poetic again!

Quote from: Valentino on June 30, 2007, 11:19:37 AM
Who? No idea, but I hope there's a fasit to this little game?

What do you mean by that?

Clip B
This tempo is a bit faster than A. It is still within the range of what sounds plausible to me. Attacks don't sound quite as precisely together with this band as they do with the one in A. The recording quality is also dull by comparison with A (though perfectly listenable and enjoyable).  At 0:45 there is more keening in the strings here than in A (a point in favor of B for me). At 3:00 the sudden increase in volume lacks impact—there is a missed opportunity to surprise.  It doesn't get as loud as it could, and the attack is just slightly ragged I think. The oboe solo sounds thinner and more nasal than that in A.  Perhaps this is a pretty good French orchestra on a bad outing. At 4:45 something sounds slightly odd to me. Are they all together or are the bass and treble lines not completely cohering? The soft passages in this version don't seem to create as much tension as in A.  They are just soft, not expectant. All in all I prefer A by a fair margin.

Clip C
Oh boy, this is probably going to be too fast for me, but let's see.  I think these are period instruments and an "historically informed"  tempo.  At 1:00-1:10 (to pick one spot of many) it just sounds too staccato for me.  I realize I've been conditioned by hearing traditional performances, but this just sounds superficial and glib when it goes so fast and when everything is so clipped. It ends up being dull rather than exciting. I'm going to guess this is Roger Norrington, based on one hearing of part of his 9th. The drums are making dull thuds—where's the skin? At 3:05 things are starting to sound a bit muddled, like they are playing too fast for their own good. At 4:10 the brass just sounds flat (and I don't mean the pitch). At 5:00 this conductor completely misses the chance for a big climax. And the oboe solo sounded completely pallid—another missed opportunity to actually do something instead of just going along like the dickens.  So, a pretty big thumbs down from me on this one. Disappointing.

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 06:40:51 PM
Anyway, welcome to "Mystery Orchestra" and thanks for your detailed review.

Thanks...I look forward to playing.

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 06:40:51 PM
One poster said it sounds like a really dry recording with a lot of fake reverb though. Looks like you wouldn't agree.

Correct.

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 06:40:51 PM
Do you find that good or bad? Some people hate hearing stuff like that on recordings, some find it adds a degree of authenticity because it gives you a feeling of "being there" because when you go to a live concert and sit close to the orchestra, you can sometimes hear such sounds, too.

As long as I'm not hearing things that I couldn't possibly hear in the hall (like breathing noises or clarinet keys being depressed) I don't mind it. 


Comments on B and C above. So far I like A best.

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 08:08:06 PM
Clip B
At 0:45 there is more keening in the strings here than in A (a point in favor of B for me).

What does "keening" mean? Something like "digging in"? Not questioning the comment, just asking since I don't know that word in that context.

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 08:08:06 PM
Clip B
At 4:45 something sounds slightly odd to me. Are they all together or are the bass and treble lines not completely cohering?

Maybe. Or maybe not. I am not allowed to say. What do others think?

Quote from: Nipper on June 30, 2007, 08:08:06 PM
Clip C
At 4:10 the brass just sounds flat (and I don’t mean the pitch).

Do you mean the trumpets or the stopped horn notes a few moments later?

Clip D
The main thing I notice in this one is that the last note of the "fate" motif is drawn out to great length every time it comes around. At 6:25 it seems even longer than ever, and the effect becomes almost comic, because I find myself wondering how much longer it can possibly be held. I think I remember reading that Monteux did this in his recordings for Decca, and I know some of those were with the VPO, so I'll go out on a limb here and say this is Monteux/VPO.  I am also basing this on that solo oboe, which sounds quintessentially Viennese to me—a little thin in body, but very expressive, with a bit of a waver in it. I think I am picking up a bit of the braying sound in the brass that I remember from C. Kleiber/VPO as well.  Apart from the oddity of that long-held "fate" note, this seems well paced and properly propulsive, with a nice sense of tension in the piano passages. I think this latter is achieved by use of a quick decrescendo to make the transitions into the piano passages (as opposed to a complete and abrupt change of volume from loud to soft).

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 06:53:12 PM
What do you mean by that?

Sorry for being imprescise, M. You will reveal who's playing what at some time?

Thanks, Nipper - one more to go!

I will leave it at 5 clips for this round because I think it can get too much at some point. I think the 6 long clips of Zarathustra were almost a little bit of an overkill. I have many more great recordings of both pieces, but it may be better to return to them at a later time rather than flooding you with tons of clips.

Valentino - of course, it wouldn't make sense if I didn't, would it? I always reveal the clips at the end and say what I think about them, although my comments are obviously not "blind".

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 06:49:51 PM
I think your concise but eloquent descriptions are interesting to read "even" without "technical" terms. It would be nice though if you could try anyway to explain why B sounds English to you. But if it's simply a very hunchy hunch, I don't want to "force" you to explain it more concretely.

So I did relisten to clip A and clip B, as I have guessed C. Davis/Staatskapelle Dresden for the first one, and Mackerras/RLPO for the 2nd one. Generally, the playing of clip A brings out the broad textures of this music, and the sound of the instruments (strings, brass, winds) are darker than clip A. It's more serious-sounding and more Viennese sounding than clip B. In a way the orchestral sound is bottom-heavy (like Karajan's BPO), and I think it suits this symphony.

What struck me as English sounding is how these dance-like rhythms bounces along after 1.25-1.40 and is repeated after 4.40-4.50. It kind of sounds like I remember Mackerras and one of the things I didn't like with his approach to this symphony. It's just a bit too light, happy-sounding for me. In comparison clip A maintains the grandeur and a darker atmosphere in these passages.

Clip B is probably a bit too flowing and lush, but I do like this alternative approach. I think I would like to invest.

Invest or investigate?


The question here is whether these qualities you associate with Mackerras are generally "English" somehow or maybe just Mackerras (although he is really Australian, but that doesn't hav much to do with your point) or maybe he is just one of a number of interpreters who have that quality, English or Australian or whatever else.

Which doesn't mean I confirm or deny we are hearing Mackerras here. Again, just general remarks.

Quote from: rubio on July 01, 2007, 03:49:26 AM
I have guessed C. Davis/Staatskapelle Dresden for the first one, and Mackerras/RLPO for the 2nd one. Generally, the playing of clip A brings out the broad textures of this music, and the sound of the instruments (strings, brass, winds) are darker than clip A. It's more serious-sounding and more Viennese sounding than clip B.

You probably meant "are darker than clip B" in the second sentence. So you would say B lacks a "Viennese quality" better represented by A? If I understand you correctly, you mean that in a general way, not necessarily as in "from Vienna" (since you suspect Dresden as the origin of the recording), in a way meaning, "serious, heavy, with grandeur" or something like that?

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 04:17:15 AM
Invest or investigate?

When I know who it is I probably would like to buy this CD, as long as it seems like the rest of the symphony is as good. So I guess I will need to investigate a bit as well.

Clip D could be Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin. I didn't remember this recording earlier on. I think I read he chose the old classicist approach.

Clip E
A large ensemble of modern instruments, but the tempo is pretty brisk. Maybe this is from Harnoncourt's cycle.  I much prefer this tempo to that in clip C. The sonority is rich, quite reminiscent of orchestra A's. But the hall sound is different in this recording.  There is more reverberation here—a little too much for my taste, and I wonder if the sound engineers have fiddled a bit. The dynamic range is very wide, though there is not quite as much bass information as A had—I think that has both to do with the recording and with the actual orchestral balances. High, loud massed strings sound a bit glassy in places (4:50-5:30). The miking is close.  This is what I think of as typical modern digital sound.

I'm having a little trouble coming up with more to say about this one, and I'm not sure whether that's because five clips is one too many, or because the performance itself is not especially distinctive, competent but a bit faceless.  The oboe doing the solo sounds woodier to me than the others we have heard. I like the ones in A and D better, and if I had to pick two recordings out of this bunch to live with, those would be my choices.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 04:36:09 AM
Clip E
I’m having a little trouble coming up with more to say about this one, and I’m not sure whether that’s because five clips is one too many

Could be. I don't know how easily you overdose on Beethoven. But I think the thread will continue for a little while longer before I reveal the performers. So if you have any more comments later, there will probably still be time to post them. But please just reply again, don't edit your older posts, otherwise we might miss them.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 04:36:09 AM
I like the ones in A and D better, and if I had to pick two recordings out of this bunch to live with, those would be my choices.

It seems like we have the same taste here  :).

Ah, a conspiracy!  :D

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 08:56:03 PM
What does "keening" mean? Something like "digging in"? Not questioning the comment, just asking since I don't know that word in that context.

"Keening" is "wailing," but it might not be such a good word choice here anyway. The effect I'm talking about is at 0:42-0:45 in clip B, and in 0:35-0:40 in clip A. Listening again more closely, I guess it's really nothing more than a crescendo and decrescendo in the strings (I think it must be in the score, since everyone does it to some extent.) In clip B it is handled a little bit differently than in A, though I can't say exactly how, and upon listening to A again I realize that the difference is quite subtle indeed--so subtle that I feel slightly embarrassed at having drawn attention to it.  Aural memory is very frail, isn't it?

Quote from: M forever on June 30, 2007, 08:56:03 PM
Do you mean the trumpets or the stopped horn notes a few moments later?

The horns (actually at 4:07 rather than 4:10).  I'm only vaguely familiar with the idea of "stopping" a horn, but maybe that's much  of what I'm hearing.  The notes just sound very clipped and lacking in impact to me--if they are literally being "stopped," and that's in the score, then perhaps I shouldn't be complaining about it. But these period horns seem to get "choked" rather than just "stopped" (!).

I am actually quite curious about period performances and would like to hear more of them and keep an open mind. I just think it must be possible to find more expressiveness (yes, of course, a post-Romantic notion) in the playing than I hear in this excerpt.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 05:08:33 AM
upon listening to A again I realize that the difference is quite subtle indeed--so subtle that I feel slightly embarrassed at having drawn attention to it.

Not at all. It is very important to listen to details and note them. How important they are in the larger context is a different question. But that is actually fairly irrlevant. A musical performance consists out of countless (hopefully interesting) details. Anyone can decide which ones they find worth pointing out.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 05:08:33 AM
The horns (actually at 4:07 rather than 4:10).  I'm only vaguely familiar with the idea of "stopping" a horn, but maybe that's much  of what I'm hearing.  The notes just sound very clipped and lacking in impact to me--if they are literally being "stopped," and that's in the score, then perhaps I shouldn't be complaining about it. But these period horns seem to get "choked" rather than just "stopped" (!).

Stopping isn't expressedly written in the score, but certain notes could only be obtained with stopping or half-stopping anyway. The question is whether or not sometimes the composer wrote these notes *intending* the slightly muffled (or "choked") but at the same time "metallic" sound of the stopped notes.
For instance, the long f (sounding a flat) in the first horn at 4'04-4'06 is indeed half-stopped, and so are the first notes of the "sighing" motif heard in the horns twice at 4'14-4'17 and the "screaming" motif at 4'46 - Beethoven indeed writes sf here, and he must have had something like that in mind, I guess. The question is if one finds that the "scream of terror" the Mystery Performers produce at 4'46 is over the top or just "right".
The attack of the natural horn is indeed very round ("booo" instead of "taaa") and can be slightly brittle ("pfooo") in soft dynamics, and it is rather darker or rounder sounding than more or less all modern horns (only the Vienna horns come very close) - but that is the way these instruments sounded.
Right at 4'07, that's just piano with horns mixed with clarinets and bassoons though. I wouldn't expect them to be any "brighter" here.

And yes, it is a performance on period instruments. That much I can "admit" since several players have positively identified that, and there is no point in making too big a mystery out of something that several people have already figured out. But I won't tell you which of the many period recordings it is until the bitter end.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 05:08:33 AM
I am actually quite curious about period performances and would like to hear more of them and keep an open mind. I just think it must be possible to find more expressiveness (yes, of course, a post-Romantic notion) in the playing than I hear in this excerpt.

A post-romantic notion, maybe, or maybe it is just a *different kind* of expressiveness, a different expressive vocabulary than what you are used to and expect. But that is actually a complete separate discussion in itself.

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 04:17:15 AM
The question here is whether these qualities you associate with Mackerras are generally "English" somehow or maybe just Mackerras (although he is really Australian, but that doesn't hav much to do with your point) or maybe he is just one of a number of interpreters who have that quality, English or Australian or whatever else.

Yes, I have been thinking about that. It could be that I associate music more with conductors than with the orchestras themselves. Still I would be a bit surprised if clip B turns out to be one of the classical Central European orchestras like BPO, SD, RCO or VPO.

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 04:17:15 AM
You probably meant "are darker than clip B" in the second sentence. So you would say B lacks a "Viennese quality" better represented by A? If I understand you correctly, you mean that in a general way, not necessarily as in "from Vienna" (since you suspect Dresden as the origin of the recording), in a way meaning, "serious, heavy, with grandeur" or something like that?

Yes, I meant darker than clip B. Clip D has some of the same darker sonorities which I like for this symphony. I mean Viennese (or more correctly Central-European/German/Austrian) quality which I find lacking in clip B. I don't find this quality to be mandatory for a succesful Beethoven perfomance, but for symphony no. 5 I guess I look for this particular sound.

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 05:38:22 AM
Stopping isn't expressedly written in the score, but certain notes could only be obtained with stopping or half-stopping anyway. The question is whether or not sometimes the composer wrote these notes *intending* the slightly muffled (or "choked") but at the same time "metallic" sound of the stopped notes.
For instance, the long f (sounding a flat) in the first horn at 4'04-4'06 is indeed half-stopped, and so are the first notes of the "sighing" motif heard in the horns twice at 4'14-4'17 and the "screaming" motif at 4'46 - Beethoven indeed writes sf here, and he must have had something like that in mind, I guess. The question is if one finds that the "scream of terror" the Mystery Performers produce at 4'46 is over the top or just "right".
The attack of the natural horn is indeed very round ("booo" instead of "taaa") and can be slightly brittle ("pfooo") in soft dynamics, and it is rather darker or rounder sounding than more or less all modern horns (only the Vienna horns come very close) - but that is the way these instruments sounded.
Right at 4'07, that's just piano with horns mixed with clarinets and bassoons though. I wouldn't expect them to be any "brighter" here.

Thank you so much for these very informative comments. (I knew I'd learn something by participating.) This whole thread is just terrific reading, especially now that I've gone back to see what other people said. One minor observation--I guess our track timers must be slightly out of synch, because precisely at 4:07 in clip C I have what I'm pretty sure is a lone horn (definitely no clarinets or bassoons) sounding "ta ta ta ta-."  A pity, since it is so handy to use those timings in discussion.

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 05:38:22 AM
A post-romantic notion, maybe, or maybe it is just a *different kind* of expressiveness, a different expressive vocabulary than what you are used to and expect. But that is actually a complete separate discussion in itself.

Yes, it would be, wouldn't it. Your observation here about different expressive vocabularies is sharp.

I was gratified to notice that other people concurred with my observation that the weightiness (or bottom-heaviness) of the strings in clip A was distinctive, and that we seem to have at least partial agreement that the tempo in A is measured but effective, given that weightiness. Someone guessed Colin Davis and the Dresden for A, and I think that is a real possibility, though I don't know the recording. I'm basing this partly on the sound of the hall and the orchestra (known to me from Kurt Sanderling's early 1970s Brahms cycle), and partly on the reputation of Davis's Dresden cycle for being rather staid. And maybe one could call Clip A staid--this was what I meant by comparing it to Walter (by which I meant Walter's Indian Summer CSO cycle). But what nobility and monumentality! And what a pleasure to the ear! 

And one other minor note...I don't know German, but my guess at an English equivalent for "Zasur" is "caesura." 

Thanks again for a most interesting and entertaining game.  I look forward to learning the identities of the performers.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 06:38:12 AM
One minor observation--I guess our track timers must be slightly out of synch, because precisely at 4:07 in clip C I have what I'm pretty sure is a lone horn (definitely no clarinets or bassoons) sounding "ta ta ta ta-."

It is very unlikely that we have different timings. We both have the exact same clip (I also opened it with several different media players to doublecheck, but not surprisingly, they all have the exact same timings).

See attached pic, bar 387ff. But the clarinets and bassoons can also be very clearly heard.

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 06:38:12 AM
Yes, it would be, wouldn't it. Your observation here about different expressive vocabularies is sharp.

Although it is not my observation, really. That's what HIP proponents like Harnoncourt and many others have said for *decades* now. Especially Harnoncourt with his highly interesting essays about rhetorical elements in earlier music, but many others as well, have time and time again pointed out that the main point of the exercise is not to find out what is "authentic" or "correct" in  dogmatic-scholarly sense, but what differences in musical vocabulary and styles existed.

It is completely nonsensical to assume that music always "worked" the same way and that performance styles haven't changed at all.

If you look at old pictures, you can see how the way the portrayed persons and elements are arranged changes drastically over time, and many pictures contain very explicit "rhetorical" elements. For instance, in baroque art the people in the pictures are often posed very explicitly, with highly expressive and dramatic gestures. It is therefore not at all too far-fetched to assume that similar elements were used in other arts. And we don't just have to assume. There is actually *a lot* of contemporary literature and other evidence. Yes, people back then theoreticized a lot about their arts and esthetics, too, and if you start reading some of that stuff, it is actually pretty amazing how big the difference between "conventional" interpretive styles which "just play the notes" or which play them with a, say, late romantic", set of techniques and expressive elements, and however little or much we know about the period performance practice is.

At the same time, all this music has been interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, and that interpretation and reception history has created a large body of traditions which are valid in themselves. So it's not "HIP vs romantic" or anything like that, it's all just about being aware of and understanding these styles. Not all "HIP" efforts are automatically "right" or good, but we can learn a lot from many of them.

I think one actually enjoy particular styles, like a "conventional" or "late romantic" style, much more if one is aware of these things.

So all the people which lead these endless discussions about how "authentic" or "right" HIP is, or how totally "inauthentic" it allegedly really is ("we can't listen to that because no matter what they do, we still have 'modern' ears" - one of the most idiotic and very common arguments in the history of music reception) basically don't understand what they are talking about at all.



Back to the subject, Beethoven can definitely be approached in many different ways. You or me or anyone may find this or that approach more interesting, stimulating, and that probably also changes over time, but I think what really counts is how well and convincing it is done, no matter what the basic approach is.

Yes, okay, you've convinced me the track timers are in synchronization after all. I do have what I think must be measure 387 precisely at 4:07.  Phew, that's a relief.

That said, I must say it is extremely difficult for me to detect more than one instrument playing in the recording at that measure! I would never have believed it could be possible if you hadn't produced the score and confirmed for me that the clarinetist and the basoonist are not asleep at that entrance in the recorded performance. I don't think this is an issue of playback equipment quality, but rather one of my shallow knowledge of the sound of different instrument blends, and especially my lack of familiarity with period instruments.  And of course the notes in question are very short. Perhaps it is precisely the fact that I thought it was just a lone horn there that made me expect a to hear a different sound.

Anyway, I'll admit that the tempo for this clip starts to sound more plausible now that I have listened to it a few more times. The first time through I thought they had to be kidding. But with this ensemble, at least, I still feel that I'm losing more than I'm gaining by taking it so fast.

Well, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast. They do show that it is generally possible to play that tempo, especially with a smaller orchestra and the lighter, more lucid sound of the instruments, particularly the strings. There are a few passages which may be underarticulated, or one might think that it doesn't all have to be very staccato, that's where "interpretation" begins.

That still doesn't mean one has to accept this reading as a whole. It may be technically mostly successful, but that doesn't mean one has to find it convincing. Or you one can. That is mostly up to the individual listener.

One thing that one can "check" though is if they do apply musical means. Do they just race through the piece, or are there variations in inflection and nuances of expression? Do they work with color and different articulations? Stuff like that. But then one has to keep in mind that the stylistic vocabulary employed may not be the same as in more "standard" performances, so one can not necessarily "demand" the same means of expression, e.g. a lot of rubato or tempo changes to "make points". Rather than changing the tempo, many HIP performances strive for flexibility between the bar lines, by lengthening or shortening values, letting the notes fall off between the barlines (in other words, the first beat is often noticeably heavier than 2,3,4, if the bar has that many beats) or between bars or even groups of bars.

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 08:14:20 AM
Well, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast. They do show that it is generally possible to play that tempo, especially with a smaller orchestra and the lighter, more lucid sound of the instruments, particularly the strings.

I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place? (Feel free to point me to a relevant link on the web if you don't feel up to another lecture!)

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 08:14:20 AM
Rather than changing the tempo, many HIP performances strive for flexibility between the bar lines, by lengthening or shortening values, letting the notes fall off between the barlines (in other words, the first beat is often noticeably heavier than 2,3,4, if the bar has that many beats) or between bars or even groups of bars.

That's interesting. When you give us your own commentary on these clips, I would be very curious to know whether there are examples of this technique being used in Clip C.  (In the meantime I will listen for myself and see whether I can hear any.)

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 08:25:08 AM
I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place? (Feel free to point me to a relevant link on the web if you don't feel up to another lecture!)

I don't really have a link with any articles on the web specifically about that. Maybe someone else does.
But basically, that's a very common phenomenon. Almost all music tends to get played slower and slower, probably as people discover more and more "meaning" in the music. Then sometimes there are tendencies to go back. If you listen to some Bruckner recordings from the first half of the century, for instance, many of them are very fast by modern standards. But you will find a similar development in almost every part of the repertoire.

Plus orchestras got bigger, the romantic style in general got more and more expansive, different schools of interpretation developed, those that emphasized the "classical" element, those that searched for more and more "meaning" and the "bigger gestures" in music - again, just as the stylistic vocabulary of the romantic era got more and more expansive, people felt the need to apply these new ways of expression to oder music. They wanted the "big" Beethoven symphonies to sound as "impressive" as Wagner. But at the same time, there have always been schools of interpretation that placed more emphasis on the "classical" proportions.
And other factors. As orchestras got bigger, instruments changed, got louder, and the typical concert halls got bigger and bigger.
These are just a few basic factors, though. But that's what makes it so interesting to listen to different interpretations. Not only are they, well, different, they also have a lot of connections and stylistic associations to developments in interpretation and reception. You can analyze which playing style, tempo choices, styles of phrasing, etcetc belong to which stylistic environment, and that makes it doubly interesting. Because these things are typically not just completely random, but there are very complex ideas and stylistic environments which are reflected in good musical interpretation. 

Now we are fairly deep in detail discussion.

I see the additional clips have been downloaded numerous times, too. Those that have listened to them, or are about to, do you need a little more time to formulate your reviews? Otherwise, I will soon start to reveal he Mystery Performers.

Finally back for the others.  :) I say probably, give everybody another day? Downloading and sitting down listening to don't always get to happen at the same time...

QuoteNow we are fairly deep in detail discussion.

This is fun! I must say Nipper's comments, what I read of, are so detailed and well-described. Do you play an instrument Nipper? Cool to see articulation talk, I notice stuff like that too as a wind player.

I'll try my best with these, this movement is kind of hard to describe what and where you're hearing something without going with timings, a lot of repeated figures. When I'm done I'm will to go back and listen for what you guys have described, very specific!  :D

Clip A - I listened to this again in juxtaposition with B and I like it better, on headphones this time. Noticing divided strings, and especially when the whole orchestra plays the Fate motif tutti w/ the timpani and with a rest following, that ring reminds me so much of Telarc. I have several Levi and Previn recordings that this sound is reminiscent of. But here it's too expansive actually, Beethoven seems to be enveloped by the acoustic, his directness kind of dissipates. Wish I could place that clarinet. Winds seem European to me. I like the weight on the first note of the slurred and staccato downward 8th notes (1:17)

Clip B - Similar tempo as A. Nice weight in beginning on long note Fate motif. (0:42) The last of the 3 eighth notes there, is shorter, dah-dah-dee-daah, actually throughout I notice this, to give more emphasis to the long note? Well, I can hear the hall a lot here too (2:22) This orchestra has a bigger sound, coming from the orchestra, not so much the recording. Oboe has a prominent bright tone, thinnish. I hear a lot of detail in this recording. Call and answer between the strings nice later on. Bassoons sound stuffy. This seems like a British orchestra for some reason. Strings lush and kind of silky. Brass are pretty brazen (5:29), makes me think of like LSO or Royal Phil. Recorded sound fine for me, better than A, it has more oomph, rings but doesn't mush together. The strings are recorded fairly forward, nice.

Clip C - So much interesting stuff here to talk about! Without getting my metronome out he feels closer to like 120 (march tempo) than 108, the others are very close to the marked tempo, it seems. This orchestra is tuned at a slightly higher pitch. No idea if this has anything to do with period instruments, but the horns at 1:25 sound very distinctive and different, hey, great sounding recording, the location of the instruments feels odd though, rather than a semicircle in front of me, it seems like a group of trumpets directly to my right, and horns on the opposite. Bruggen or Gardiner comes to mind. Latter maybe. Focused performance.

Interpretation - Huge amount of detail. Notes very clipped. 1:24 is what a "stopped" horn sounds like pretty much, natural horns don't sound even on every note, different quality of timbre on different notes. Stopped horns on scores written + over note. This dynamic very interesting on the long notes <>! (esp. 2:38) 4:46 even sounds like they have a mute in, which I'm sure they don't. Really drives in and attacks after the oboe solo, pushing the tempo. The "military" section, coda, very marcato. Lively and full of character. This conductor has specific things to say about Beethoven. Man that <> is grating though. Wouldn't recommend for a first 5th, but it's unique, I like it, but I like idiosyncrasy anyway.

OKay, back for other two after lunch. :)

QuoteAt the same time, all this music has been interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries, and that interpretation and reception history has created a large body of traditions which are valid in themselves. So it's not "HIP vs romantic" or anything like that, it's all just about being aware of and understanding these styles. Not all "HIP" efforts are automatically "right" or good, but we can learn a lot from many of them.

I think one actually enjoy particular styles, like a "conventional" or "late romantic" style, much more if one is aware of these things.

So all the people which lead these endless discussions about how "authentic" or "right" HIP is, or how totally "inauthentic" it allegedly really is ("we can't listen to that because no matter what they do, we still have 'modern' ears" - one of the most idiotic and very common arguments in the history of music reception) basically don't understand what they are talking about at all.

Back to the subject, Beethoven can definitely be approached in many different ways. You or me or anyone may find this or that approach more interesting, stimulating, and that probably also changes over time, but I think what really counts is how well and convincing it is done, no matter what the basic approach is.

Great post! Wholeheartedly agree. Before recordings existed, we can only find out what past performers did by extensive research. Playing styles have even changed over only the last fifty years. A case could be made for HIP Mahler for example, replicating performance practices of 100 years ago. (Maybe it exists, I don't know.) Which would be different than we're used to hearing, but more recent so not as much as say HIP Haydn and Beethoven. HIP is not something mystical or strange. HIP can even be just being very faithful to the composer's intentions based on research, timings of performances if he conducted it, firsthand accounts.

QuoteStopping isn't expressedly written in the score, but certain notes could only be obtained with stopping or half-stopping anyway. The question is whether or not sometimes the composer wrote these notes *intending* the slightly muffled (or "choked") but at the same time "metallic" sound of the stopped notes.

Yes, that why they have the different timbres, I couldn't think how to explain it! There are no keys so, lip and hand movement controls the pitch. The hand inside the horn bell is laid flat and tilted to stop/half-stop, this, in a sense I think, lengthens or shortens the pipe, lowering or raising the pitch (horn players feel free to add and correct!) The part about which specific pitches are stopped was also very interesting, I'd like to learn more about period instruments.

QuoteRight at 4'07, that's just piano with horns mixed with clarinets and bassoons though. I wouldn't expect them to be any "brighter" here.

It's a beautiful color LvB wrote there, in that recording Nipper, the horn is just *barely* audible, mostly bassoon with a touch of clarinet but the combined color, sounds almost like a different instrument.

QuoteBut that's what makes it so interesting to listen to different interpretations. Not only are they, well, different, they also have a lot of connections and stylistic associations to developments in interpretation and reception. You can analyze which playing style, tempo choices, styles of phrasing, etcetc belong to which stylistic environment, and that makes it doubly interesting. Because these things are typically not just completely random, but there are very complex ideas and stylistic environments which are reflected in good musical interpretation.

This is exactly why I collect multiple recordings of a work I like nowdays, they are actually more tempting than unheard things sometimes. Because that moment when you hear something new interpretationally, that I-wouldn't-have-thought-that-worked-that-way but wow, really makes it worth it. And the better you get to know a work, the more you can appreciate the finer details of different recordings! It is fun if you have many recordings of something to trace when along the timeline a certain affectation or trend set in, discovering hallmarks of past interpreters and how younger conductors have learned from and synthesized these elements also is interesting.

Last two:

Clip D - Another good performance. Nice orchestral balance, no section sticks out too much. Another conductor that has really studied the score. He illuminates the little permutations of the Fate theme traveling across the orchestra. The sections dovetail off of each other well. Bassoons sound a little funny still. At 2 minutes, also this one is graceful. Lovely oboe solo that takes its time, it sounds very mournful. Expansive sound. Perhaps American.

Clip E - Nice quicker tempo. I like the energy here. They seem more "into" the piece than D, I feel urgency. The string attacks are very together, they seem to dig in with bow a little. Also nice oboe solo, very little vibrato. Good bassoons. Actually the winds are gorgeous here, pearly sounding. This is really an attractive performance too. I think this is European, Berlin maybe. Karajan even. Beautiful tone all around. Very musical playing and some intensity.

Thanks for these detailed observations. I will reply a little later and then maybe start revealing the Mystery Performers. Doesn't look like any of the lurkersdare to come "out of the shadows".

But we had a lot of highly interesting posts anyway, and very constructive discussions focusing on musical detail and context. Maybe that will encourage some of the lurkers to participate in future rounds. As has been seen here, nobody gets "ridiculed" for asking questions or making observations which may or may not be "correct". But a lot of detail observations and questions got cleared up in the discussions.

I have to go and get some pizza now, so there is still time to post comments and/or guesses.

Original clip:
Heavier than I initially thought
Big boned string section with rather soft attack
Lots of Dresden mentions but brass sound bit bright for Dresden to me
Very reverberant acoustics, me generally no like
But do like that oboe cadenza

Quote from: M forever on July 01, 2007, 09:03:41 PM
Thanks for these detailed observations. I will reply a little later and then maybe start revealing the Mystery Performers. Doesn't look like any of the lurkersdare to come "out of the shadows".

But we had a lot of highly interesting posts anyway, and very constructive discussions focusing on musical detail and context. Maybe that will encourage some of the lurkers to participate in future rounds. As has been seen here, nobody gets "ridiculed" for asking questions or making observations which may or may not be "correct". But a lot of detail observations and questions got cleared up in the discussions.

I have to go and get some pizza now, so there is still time to post comments and/or guesses.

As one of the lurkers, I thought I would put my own thoughts down. Firstly, some mention of the Davis Dresden recording. Since I have it, I would say clip B is far closer than the others, particularly in the sound. Though it is played in a similar vein, the second subject seems a little too pushed along. Clip A to me seems less well controlled, and the brass seem to have less impact than they should. I would also say the strings are a little muddy, in that they are not as articulate as other string sections. In comparison, clip C is so transparent and obvious. The only recording that I can think of that goes so fast is the Norrington Stuttgart recording. I am sure there are others, but I am not going to go looking for them.

Yes, this is fun. I especially like listening again for what other people have noticed, and I have to say that I've probably done well over an hour of listening, all told, just to this one section of the symphony. But you know what?  It really is such fantastic music that I don't feel I am anywhere near getting tired of it. There are so many wonderful different blends of instruments in this score. I don't usually think of Beethoven as a composer who is full of different colors and inventive effects, probably because I am so used to his sound that I take it for granted, and because we have other later composers like Ravel and Strauss and even Mahler who at times seem to be much more fascinated with blends and colors than with an overarching structure or a musical argument. But Beethoven has wonderful colors, too--something that I appreciated more as a result of focusing just on that one bit at measure 287 where I naively thought I was hearing pure horn in Clip C.

My new favorite bit of the movement is at 3:20 in B, leading into the oboe solo. There is a quiet part there where the wind lines are weaving in and out of each other and the blends are just magical. I don't think I ever really noticed how magical before.

By the way--I noticed one thing in Clip B the last time I listened to it that no one has mentioned, which is that there is an emphasis and I think a slowdown  (at 3:28) just before the oboe solo that I didn't really notice in the other clips.  I have the impression that the conductor in B is the one out of all 5 who is most willing to change tempo in order to emphasize certain points. I also would like to retract what I said about lack of togetherness on some of the attacks in B. I may be talking through my hat here, but I think what I was noticing was maybe a different style of attack.  On the chords at 0:27-0:29 in B, for example, I think not all the string instruments are starting the note at exactly the same moment in the way they seem to in A. But the effect is not really "ragged." It's just softer.  I have rattling around in my brain the sentence "This is Vienna--it's together, but not exactly!" But my memory of just where I heard this is sketchy.  It could have been video footage of a youth musicians' workshop of some kind conducted by members of the Vienna Philharmonic. Anyway, as I remember it the person delivering this admonition was talking about the orchestra's philosophy of how to take an attack (at least in the particular music they were playing), and I thought it was a wonderful soundbite, so it stuck in my mind, and I was reminded of that in listening to B. So now I've got two possibilities for the VPO, both B and D, though I don't know how to square that with my feeling that the winds in B sounded nasal and therefore French. (Talk about stereotypes!) 

Anyway, I am looking forward to learning the identities of the performers, though in some ways that almost seems beside the point. I guess what I'm really looking forward to is M's meta-commentary.

P.S. I'm not a musician, Greta, but I'm tickled that you thought I might be! I do love going to concerts and (obviously) listening to recordings and reading about music. I have a lot to learn, though.

Emerging lurker here.  (http://www.epa.state.il.us/small-business/hazardous-waste/alarm-bell.gif)

Quote from: Nipper on July 01, 2007, 08:25:08 AM

QuoteWell, it's very close to Beethovens metronome mark (1/4=108) which is pretty fast.

I'm curious: why is it that the tradition of playing much slower than Beethoven's metronome mark got so firmly entrenched in the first place?

Quote from: M foreverBut basically, that's a very common phenomenon. Almost all music tends to get played slower and slower, probably as people discover more and more "meaning" in the music. Then sometimes there are tendencies to go back. If you listen to some Bruckner recordings from the first half of the century, for instance, many of them are very fast by modern standards. But you will find a similar development in almost every part of the repertoire.

For a consistent period of time I had the impression some performers reduced their tempi as an attempt to be able to cover more expressive facets of the works they play. Not only because it's somehow easier to handle expression following slower metronome marks but also because it tends to sound more serious and grand. (On the subject, you hardly hear a Hammerklavier at 1/2=138, alla breve as it is. Even the fabulous Gilels plays it slower: it sounds massive and eloquent, but it's not the impulsive introduction Beethoven wrote).
I don't have much experience on purely orchestral works, but I did notice while starting to cover repertoire that a 38 minute Toscanini's Brahms first was about 11 minutes shorter than Sanderling.
Other piano example is Pogorelich, whose slow readings are an allowance to speak clearly all the voices and articulate each idea with ease.

Quote from: Nipper on July 02, 2007, 04:30:34 PMP.S. I'm not a musician, Greta, but I'm tickled that you thought I might be! I do love going to concerts and (obviously) listening to recordings and reading about music. I have a lot to learn, though.

You are a precise listener and do a great job of describing interpretative details.

I think you will find the next Mystery game quite fun, I will be leading it and it is a very interesting work. :)

Nice to see the lurkers here, it's actually the process of this game I think is so fun, and how it makes you really get to know a piece well!

We have had a lot of very interesting comments here, and now I think it is time to reveal the Mystery Performers.

Several of you guessed the general stylistic direction of the orchestral playing heard in A fairly correctly but found it hard to positively identify the actual orchestra. And that is understandable since there are so many top level orchestras in Germany and their playing style is more a spectrum than a narrowly defined "sound ideal", and the actual results can vary quite a bit depending on the actual orchestra and conductor. The kind of very rich and deep sound heard in clip A can be produced by a number of orchestras, depending of what the conductor wants from them.

Several of you pointed at the Staatskapelle Dresden because that orchestra is known for it's very rich and at the same time well defined sound. I think their general sound has some brighter and elements and a slightly firmer core than what you hear in A, but that's speaking from the perspective of someone who kows what he is listening to - and there are so many variables such as the acoustics of the hall and the recording itself that these impressions can not be dismissed as "wrong", especially not under the conditions of total blind testing.

However, some of you have stepped into the "trap" of following hearsay. Several of you said "I hear that's what Davis' Dresden cycle is like, so maybe that's it". I wouldn't do that unless I actually know the recording. As you will be able to hear, Davis' Beethoven 5 is actually quite different sonically and musically from what "you heard about it".

Personally, I think it's an interesting combination of superb, highly refined orchestral playing in great, colorful and clear sound and an actually pretty lame interpretation. Some of the other symphonies in the cycle fare better, but I feel Davis' 5th is really way too "tame" and "reined in". He really just relies on the great playing, but I also have a feeling that he keeps the orchestra held back all the time. That's not just a matter of the slowish tempo. Other conductors, such as Furtwängler, Böhm, or Bernstein, are even slower yet at the same time much more "dramatic" and "compelling".
Davis' reading is very nice to listen to, you can hear everything, every note is shaped very carefully. It's not a "high voltage" performance but one which takes a somewhat distanced view at the musical substance and the orchestral playing which has some merits, too.
But for me, it's definitely over at 6'36 when he doesn't even allow the little charge accumulated up to that point to propel the orchestra on. I can literally hear him step on the brakes there, jerk the leash back, and I don't find that very good at all. The rest of the performance is very "nice", too, with a very beautiful and lyrical 2nd movement, but I think all that is not quite enough.

Anyway, judge for yourselves. Since that recording was mentioned so often, I have uploaded the complete first movement for you as a little bonus:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2um5zt

Back to our Mystery Orchestras.

These are the recordings you heard in this round:


Clip A

Günter Wand and the NDR Sinfonieorchester live at the Musikhalle Hamburg in 1992 (and yes, that hall really sounds like that, it is roughly from the same period as the Concertgebouw and not all that different from it in some respects; you can see some pics here (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musikhalle_Hamburg) - one of the few old halls in Germany which survived the war).

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/4161VT7ENGL._AA240_.jpg)



Clip B

Claudio Abbado and the Wiener Philharmoniker in a live recording from 1987, part of this complete cycle.

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/512ZYYXZ1YL._AA240_.jpg)



Clip C

Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players on period instruments in their highly controversial but very stimulating complete cycle from the mid-80s (no exact date for this recording in the booklet).

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/411DV3B4M4L._AA240_.jpg)



Clip D

(Sir!) Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in their second complete cycle, a studio recording from the late 80s (again no exact date).

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QG5CZ027L._AA240_.jpg)



Clip E

Günter Wand and the NDR again, this time in their studio recording from 1988. I believe the recording was made in the same hall as the live one.

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T7fcBidUL._AA240_.jpg)

Wow, I really liked Wand, but I like the one from the set (E) the most of all the clips. Not counting Norrington (C), I guess, a thing unto itself. I loved it though.

I'm actually getting better with this game, I at least got the region right for the Wand and Solti.  ;D

Fun game. Educational game. I'll be in for the next round (if I'm not on the beach that is).

So C was Norrington. I did not fall for it. I have 2, 7 and 8 from that cycle and did find them quite stimulating the last time I had a listen. Time for a relisten.

So I liked the earlier Wand (E) the most. Interesting!

Interesting to see the answers. Maybe I manage to learn something if I relisten to some of the clips  :).

Is the below Wand recording the live or the studio one? I think I would like to have that lush and mellow No. 5. I also like the sound of the Wand Bruckner live recordings (No. 5 and No. 9) from the same Musikhalle Hamburg.

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/09026640002.jpg)

I am pretty sure it's the studio recording (E). That's the way the original releases were coupled, and also the way they are coupled in the complete cycle box although these have different cover designs. The box contains 5 individual CDs all with the same blue-silver cover design I showed in my post, but they are all coupled like the earlier releases, like that one with a pic of Hamburg on the cover.

I haven't see the live recording (A) in any other incarnation than the one I showed. I don't know if I prefer the studio or live recording. Conceptually, they are very similar, not surprisingly, since Wand didn't conduct pieces "spontaneously" and made up interpretations as he went along. His interpretations were obviously based on many years of study and reflection, and very careful preparation and often lengthy, detailed rehearsals. His work is best summed up in the title of a biography of him in German: "Günter Wand: So und nicht anders" which basically means "like this and no other way".

He wouldn't conduct pieces he felt he didn't "understand" and couldn't "make sense of". For him, all the musical detail had to fit into a larger, seamless concept.

He was about to retire from his post in Cologne and take his pension and hadn't much lined up for the future when in 1974, the phone rang and the program director of the WDR (West German Radio) invited him to conduct a recording of Bruckner's 5th they were planning to make. Amazingly, Wand had never conducted the 5th because he felt he didn't understand the piece well enough. So he declined but then spent a sleepless night wondering if he would ever get a chance to conduct it. The next morning, he called back and asked if they had already found another conductor. The program director told him "no, you know, that doesn't go that quickly", and so Wand agreed to make the recording and spent several months studying the score. And that recording launched his late second career which made him famous.

The main differences here between the live and studio recording may be a certain "sense of occasion" and the more immediate, slightly warmer sound which puts you very close to the orchestra, almost envelops you, while still letting you feel the ambience of the hall. The studio recording is a little more "distanced", both sonically and musically, but equally well structured and played, and a little brighter in sound.

If you like the live recording of the 5th (which is coupled with the 6th), there is also a live recording of the 4th which you can get for next to nothing from amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphony-No-Mozart-Posthornserenade/dp/B00005U8U1/ref=sr_1_37/105-4388704-4006820?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183450244&sr=8-37) which I would highly recommend. It is coupled with a nice performance of the Posthornserenade with a posthorn which actually sounds like a posthorn, not a trumpet.

Thanks for that interesting info about Wand. A conductor I knew practically nothing about and do not own any of his work. A great MO discovery!  :D

Since I like most (as I liked A very much too) the one from the set, I will defnitely put it on my wish list to buy at some point. I expect his other symphonies would also be high-quality, interesting interpretations as the 5th.

Wow, and the Norrington is a set, I'll have to think about that. It's a fun reading, focused and full of detail, but I'd like to check out the other HIP options before going for his set.

I guess I liked the Abbado the least, though still a good performance, it didn't connect with me as much.

To get to the Solti, I thought that clip was quite fine indeed, I thought the playing showed more character in Wand's but you could tell Solti had paid very close attention to the score with the interplay between sections done well. Also the orchestra balance I had remarked was "nice, no section really stuck out" which is true, it's very good there, but not normally a comment you would associate with a Solti/CSO recording. Just goes to show how the "stereotypes" about what certain orchestras "sound" like (and under certain conductors) just don't hold up, especially in varying repertoire.

Quote from: Greta on July 03, 2007, 04:09:49 AM
(on Solti)
I thought the playing showed more character in Wand's but you could tell Solti had paid very close attention to the score with the interplay between sections done well. Also the orchestra balance I had remarked was "nice, no section really stuck out" which is true

I had the same impression. I could only listen to clips A, B and D. And while in A the strings take the lead with the brass a bit hidden (I don't know if it is director's choice, or technical/recording reasons), in clip D each section when requested.

I didn't like clip A too much for its tendence to put an accent in the beginning of every phrase. The sound is great and in general the reading is moderated (I think, without excesses), but I find those initial accents distracting and reducing the cohesion of the work.

I enjoyed the wider vibrato in clip D (at 00:27 and the oboe solo, for example); and I thought this would come from an european orchestra.
The attack of the strings in this clip is quite impressive, as sometimes you can hear the violas scratching a bit the strings, and the hit of the bows can also be noticed (00:13).
On the strings also (but I don't remember when) I found the shifting more attracting on this clip than in the others.

Anyway. I'm late.

Indeed you are, but there will be more MO in the future and Greta will also host a blind listening thread, and we all look forward to your blind comments here and there in the future. It doesn't make too much sense in this context if you add comments here *now*, although you are certainly welcome to, but that kind of defies the purpose of this thread, as you will no doubt understand.

Quote from: Greta on July 03, 2007, 04:09:49 AM
Thanks for that interesting info about Wand. A conductor I knew practically nothing about and do not own any of his work.

:o :o :o

Quote from: Greta on July 03, 2007, 04:09:49 AM
Since I like most (as I liked A very much too) the one from the set, I will defnitely put it on my wish list to buy at some point. I expect his other symphonies would also be high-quality, interesting interpretations as the 5th.

Wow, and the Norrington is a set, I'll have to think about that. It's a fun reading, focused and full of detail, but I'd like to check out the other HIP options before going for his set.

I guess I liked the Abbado the least, though still a good performance, it didn't connect with me as much.

To get to the Solti, I thought that clip was quite fine indeed, I thought the playing showed more character in Wand's but you could tell Solti had paid very close attention to the score with the interplay between sections done well. Also the orchestra balance I had remarked was "nice, no section really stuck out" which is true, it's very good there, but not normally a comment you would associate with a Solti/CSO recording. Just goes to show how the "stereotypes" about what certain orchestras "sound" like (and under certain conductors) just don't hold up, especially in varying repertoire.

I think your views pretty much perfectly mirror the majority of views, including mine. I may, or may not, prefer E to A, I really don't know. But I also like D a lot, and yes, Solti is often good for surprises, especially in the "classical" repertoire. He did a fantastic "Le Nozze di Figaro" which may be hard to imagine when you hear how he bulldozed through some other repertoire - I was totally surprised when I first heard that recording.
But Solti is also a good interpreter of Beethoven whom he presents "big", but still definitely "classical" - not at all unlike Wand, although Wand (or, for that matter, Kleiber) is more consequently "thought through", there are some elements in Solti's reading which I find a little out of place in the stylistic context he chose - the overdramatically long and often at the end melodramatically torn off fermatas, the slowing down here and there in the "usual places". Still, a very well done reading which bears repeated listening and I like the great degree of clarity and balance he achieves.

The Norrington reading, as almost everything Sir Roger does, is interesting, provocative, sometimes maybe over the top, sometimes maybe misguided - hard to say and not that important at the end of the day. It certainly is interesting and stimulating listening and much better than a lot of people who just somehow wade through the music.

Which brings us to Abbado's somehow not really very distinguished first complete cycle with the WP from which this clip is taken. Here, as in many of the other symphonies in the set, it is not entirely clear what he is actually trying to do. There is generally very good and stylish playing from the WP, with a high degree of spontaneity but also some unevenness which points to Abbado's rather vague interpretive concept, made up "on the go". Very "live", not necessarily always very "great".
But it is somewhat puzzling that a conductor who had brought a classicist and at the same time modernist quality to many of his readings of romantic music in the past decided for this somehow vaguely late- or post-romantic approach. Maybe that was because he was deep in his Mahler cycle back then, maybe he wanted to present a somehow "Mahlerian" view of the music, hard to say. In any case, he completely rethought his approach to Beethoven later in Berlin, as those who have heard his later DG cycle or watched the concert DVDs know.
There are still some rather enjoyable individual performances in this set, like a very lyrical but also dramatic 6th, and maybe I will "rediscover" and finally figure out his interpretations of the other symphonies later, but the WP can really be better heard in this repertoire in the Böhm and Bernstein cycles and in many great individual recordings, like Kleiber's famous 5th and 7th.


The one thing that did suprise me most in this round though was that no one identified the WP as the orchestra in this clip. I think that orchestra with its characteristic style is quite easy to identify, especially when you get a "good look" at the unique oboes and horns - because of the oboe cadenza I thought this was actually "too easy" when I stumbled across the recording. But I decided to use it anyway because it is not my concept to chose particularly difficult performances, to "fool" listeners.

Yes, these clips were mostly randomly chosen. The live Wand disc just happened to be on my desk because I had just ordered it, and all the other recordings were simply the first 4 which I came across when I dug through the chaotic piles of CDs that my collection is currently "organized" in.

Quotewere simply the first 4 which I came across when I dug through the chaotic piles of CDs that my collection is currently "organized" in.

I moved up from boxes on the floor to handsome shelves last week, proud of myself.

You mentioned Mahler, which is coincidentally the subject in my new blind review thread called "Mystery Comparison"! Everyone invited, it's a fun piece and worth delving into. Don't worry about hurrying to post, it'll move a bit slower. :)

See ya'll there.

Quote from: Greta on July 03, 2007, 07:36:56 AM
I moved up from boxes on the floor to handsome shelves last week, proud of myself.

Can we have a picture of those handsome shelves? It might be inspirational for those of us whose collection crawls around on the floor or sits on ugly IKEA shelves. I was never too happy with the shelves I have and which I packed up for the move. Maybe I will never unpack them again.

In my opinion some of those IKEA shelves are rather nice, like the Bestå. No competition to www.Montana.dk though.

To topic: It never crossed my mind that A and E were the same hall, band and conductor. Uha.

See, and I thought everybody would *jump* at that, because the oboe cadenza is handled the same, rarely heard way in both.

And actually, if you look at the music and see there is no slur between the long held g with the fermata (see attachment to reply #9) and the following Adagio cadenza. Nearly everyone plays it as one phrase. But that's not what it says there. And it actually makes more sense. We discussed this at length one time in the old forum. We are in the recapitulation here. This is the parallel passage to the opening, bar 20 or so, when the orchestra plays three tutti chords and the violins hold the same long g with a fermata before the tutti comes in with the main motif in ff.

Here, Beethoven builds up the same passage, the orchestra again plays three tutti chords, but this time, instead of the shrieking long g in the violins, just a lonely oboe. What a big surprise. And then, instead of the dadadadaaaa, a lyrical, soft cadenza instead of the "fate" motif.

If we assume that the main motif is somehow the merciless power of fate or something like that (never mind what Beethoven allegedly said about the knocking on the door, I don't think we will ever know if that is authentic or Schindler's poetic invention), this passage has a lot of meaning. It is a rare moment of "calm" and "hope". But fate is not easily halted, and it comes back soon. But not in the crashing tutti form, in the haunting echo like soft entries of the strings after the cadenza.

Nearly everybody plays the passage with a big ritardando leading up to the oboe solo, and most play the tutti chords rather soft and broad, nicely preparing the oboe solo. But that's really not what I think should happen there. I think the orchestra should crash into those chords in such a way that you expect the same outcry and tutti entry as at the beginning. But - instead - this brief fleeting moment of respite and hope. What a genius idea from LvB. But nearly everybody softens this down and takes the element of surprise and the contrast out of it.

I believe the way Wand plays it here makes more sense, and it appears to me to be what the score says. Most other interpreters just play it the way "it's always done".