Life is just not the same without a little Mystery.
So, while Greta is resolving the issues with her download links, here is a little Mystery for you to listen to in the meantime.
For those that may have been frustrated because they couldn't guess all the clips in previous rounds, it may encourage you that I have so far not managed to correctly guess clips A and B in Greta's Mystery Comparison myself.
But again, you don't even have to guess anything here. Just post whatever you want to share about this clip.
This time, it's the entire exposition of the first movement of Josef Anton Bruckner's 9th symphony (almost 10 minutes, 22MB):
Mystery Orchestra 17 A
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2etcnq
I may be adding more clips, as usual, depending on how much interest there is for that.
I grabbed the file so it's my duty to reply, although as I had expected I can contribute very little at all. This is IMO an impressive recording in a rather standard style, there doesn't seem to be the slowness of some Asahina, Celi or Gulini, no moments of roughness (that usage is not to be confused with sloppiness) as can be found in Jochum's EMI cycle - it's refined and powerful. And as to isolating the conductor or orchestra... no chance. I need a lot more experience. Although it being played so powerfully and (IMO) so well would indicate an orchestra most familiar with Bruckner, and that would be somewhere in central Europe.
(It's gonna be funny to see how wrong that last statement is when the orchestra is eventually revealed :))
Quote from: Lethe on July 04, 2007, 05:19:58 AM
I grabbed the file so it's my duty to reply, although as I had expected I can contribute very little at all.
Please, no apologies for not making any dramatically "important" and "deep" statements. We are not here to "play critic", to pronounce grandiose verdicts or earth shattering insights in inflated self-important rhetoric. People who want to read stuff like that can go and read "classicstoday".
We convene here to share impressions about the posted clips, like we do in many other threads in this forum, the only difference is that we don't know which recording it is we are listening to, and hence what we are "supposed" to hear.
Any "small" observation can lead to interesting discussions, as we have seen in the last threads. So there is really no need for anyone to "apologize" like that!!! Rather, I think, the people who make the most dramatic statements in other threads but don't have "guts" enough to come here and apply their "expertise" blindly should apologize for the nonsense they post elsewhere.
Quote from: Lethe on July 04, 2007, 05:19:58 AM
Although it being played so powerfully and (IMO) so well would indicate an orchestra most familiar with Bruckner, and that would be somewhere in central Europe.
(It's gonna be funny to see how wrong that last statement is when the orchestra is eventually revealed :))
Again, it's not about being right or wrong. How many more times will I have to repeat that? And why should that be wrong anyway? An orchestra not situated in central Europe can be very familiar with Bruckner, too. Or it could be one from that (very general) region. Or maybe not. We will see.
It doesn't matter what people think this or that orchestra should be familiar with. That's again for prophets of BS like Hurwitz ("the Vienna Philharmonic never wanted to play Mahler and still doesn't want to").
What matters here is what you and other people *hear*, nothing else. Once the Mystery Perfomers are revealed, we can discuss why we hear what we hear, or why not. So, it's basically the exact opposite from when people listen to a recording, form a preconception about what they are supposed to hear, then think they actually can "hear" that.
Quote from: M forever on July 04, 2007, 06:17:41 AM
Again, it's not about being right or wrong. How many more times will I have to repeat that?
Indeedie, I didn't think that it was. It was more a case of jokiesh self-deprecation, hehe (humour makes it easier for me to stick my neck out to post in threads like this)... I expect to learn some useful things from these threads.
Quote from: Lethe on July 04, 2007, 06:51:40 AM
Indeedie, I didn't think that it was. It was more a case of jokiesh self-deprecation, hehe (humour makes it easier for me to stick my neck out to post in threads like this)... I expect to learn some useful things from these threads.
See above.
Okay, I'll participate again - I did not so bad in MO 15... 8)
(French sound - though totally wrong choice in conclusion on orchestra, British Orchestra, and HvK - though not with the VPO but the BPO. Wide of the mark in the rest... ;D)
Clip A in Bruckner's IX:
I find the performance quite good, I'm not gaga but this is some seriously good Bruckner playing. In the beginning (after the quiet intro) the strings are dragging a bit - I'd wish I would be able to describe this in more accurate technical terms! :-\ The sound is very spacious without much acoustical reverb. The orchestra sounds "soft" - not meaning the opposite of loud, but the absence of hard edged sonorities. Very present and nice woodwinds. I'm inclined to go with a central European orchestra as well, lingered on the idea of the Czech SO, but dismissed it. I listened to it again - it definitely has a very flowing, lyrical, "uncomplicated" and "light" Bohemian feel to it - but a German orchestra could produce this too. This approach - a touch slow and stately but very lyrical Bruckner, reminds me of Rudolf Kempe - is it him? Maybe not, considering the recording sounds modern.
Q
Sounds quite like Munich PO to me.
One of the most important aspects for me in listening to a Bruckner performance is the balance and distinctiveness of the brass. In the 9th, the first subject is clearly where such distinctiveness is tested most, (just considering the exposition) and I would say that this recording is perhaps more blended than others. It is worth hearing the short brass figures that precede the tutti (at 2:01) which are recessed behind the string figurations, along with slightly weak trumpets (at 2:22-2:26).
The 2nd subject is rather interesting to compare the strings at different dynamics. They seem more articulate and together when quieter whereas when playing loudly there is no crispness to each note. I would add that the weaker playing of the pizzicati right at the end suggests to me an older recording, before 1990.
Well, I liked this reading a lot: fairly fast tempi yet never feeling hurried, some very characterful wind playing and the brass not standing out too much over the rest of the orchestra (at least that's how it sounded on cheap headphones off my laptop). Interpretatively-wise, this recording reminded me best of Walter and of superficially non-interventionist conductors such as Neumann--but someone with only six Bruckner 9s on CD isn't going to have the widest range of knowledge.
As for the orchestra, I'm going to have to pass: I can say a few I don't think it is (winds not quite characterful enough for the CzPO, brass too restrained for Chicago), but that's pretty much doing things by rote...and I'll probably be wrong anyway.
I'll give it a go, I'm not very familiar with this symphony (yet), great choice. Hopefully the too much July 4th wine won't be impairing. ;)
A - Sound is extremely good, I hear near the beginning clearly the basses tremoloing in my left ear. Wow, impressive brass. There is a great weight to this orchestra. Pizzicato defined, sensitive and musical playing. Cellos have much emotion and longing, in the lyrical string section in the middle. I like how it flows, not an extreme adherence to the metronome. Something kind of tangible and organic about the string sound. I have to say, in the 4th minute, it's so beautiful I almost want to cry. Maybe wine enhances Bruckner. Winds have a round, clear and yet transparent tone, which seems European. Strings are very present though, even when brass are playing.
Hard to say too much about the interpretation as I'm not familiar with "how this piece should go". The conductor does a fine job with the rise and fall of the music, lets it breathe in and out, which is gorgeous. Around 6 minutes a haunting distance to the wind "calls", and immediacy and dynamic contrast to the gently shifting minor-major repeated figures in the 7th minute that is quite affecting. Something rather forward looking about this music here, it reminds me curiously of Sibelius. For some reason, the Concertgebouw and Chailly come to mind. Not sure if a possibility, but this flexible interpretation makes me wonder if this is perhaps how he might conduct this. And often I associate vivid, earthy strings such as these with the Concertgebouw. I don't think that guess is actually close, but there is a reminiscence.
Quote from: Greta on July 04, 2007, 09:44:46 PM
I have to say, in the 4th minute, it's so beautiful I almost want to cry. Maybe wine enhances Bruckner.
Maybe. Or maybe not.
Quote from: Greta on July 04, 2007, 09:44:46 PM
Around 6 minutes a haunting distance to the wind "calls", and immediacy and dynamic contrast to the gently shifting minor-major repeated figures in the 7th minute that is quite affecting. Something rather forward looking about this music here, it reminds me curiously of Sibelius.
Interesting observation. That never occurred to me before.
Thanks for the interesting responses so far. Here is more Mystery for you (and what kind of piece could be more apt for that than one for which the first performance instruction is "Feierlich.Misterioso" ?):
MO 17 B
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3d7bnh
MO 17 C
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2p5z4k
MO 17 D
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2j6jn5
MO 17 E
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36hmus
17B - The woodwind in this one is much more promenant compared to 17A (eg at 1:30), which when I relistened to it did sound a little string-heavy. The trumpet at 2:24 sounds a little less restrained (resisting the urge to shout "OMG CSO" based on pure stereotyping) than 17A too, so the impression from this performance is it's a little less polished and buttoned-up. The recording also sounds a bit more powerful, so maybe a more recent one?
DLing the others now.
17C - A little slower at the start than the previous two, a more intentionally dramatic performance perhaps. The sound seems a little clearer than the first one.
17D - The first real slowcoach :) I don't know much Celibidache, so the nearest to this interpretation I have heard is Guilini, but I don't think it's the CSO one which I have a little experience with, as a few points I remember differently - maybe his WP remake? The sound quality of this one didn't seem as appealing to me as in the previous ones - the performance also seems a little slow, although not into ridiculous territory. At 9:30+ IMO the slow speed has a negative impact on the way this theme is played, it doesn't flow as well, any slower and it may almost sound a little "chuggy".
17E - Really clear/impactful sound, the clarity in the section with plucked strings at 3:00+ is better than 17D. The brass here reminded me a bit of Decca's "XTREME brass assault" tactics with Solti, it is a bit offputting for me... (although this will be in part due to the crappy speakers) Most noticable, as in other performances the timpani back the first theme at 2:20 on 17E, but in 17E the brass drown even the timpani out. There is also a noticable bright/raspy trumpet poking through the texture just before the 2:20 main theme. That slight harsh edge in the trumpets/brass reminds me of Jochum's EMI cycle, ditto the heavy brass balance (like the opposite of Karajan's stereotyped blending).
I'm finding it quite difficult to distinguish that much between the first 3, especially 17B and 17C, to be honest. They are both powerful performances IMO. The 17A seems a little over-refined.
I give it a try. I really love Bruckner, but I haven't listened too much to the 9th yet. These are my impressions from these recordings. I generally find all of these clips fascinating, and that's why I easily end up with plenty of recordings of this composer :).
A: This sounds like a historical recording, and the first one that comes to mind is Walter/Columbia SO. It hangs together very well, even if it can seem a bit restrained. I would love to hear the rest of this recording.
B: I wonder a lot about this one. It seems a bit rushed in the opening compared to the others. It has more dynamic contrast than clip A, but maybe it doesn't hang together as good. The strings seem to be quite characteristic. Could it be VPO? I must say I'm one of those who are not yet able to recognize them immediately. Maybe I would need some kind of a listening course.
C: This one I liked a lot, and I wonder very much who it could be. I hear more details here, like the interplay of the winds 2:50-3:20 and the last 30 seconds. This extra level of details together with the superb playing makes the listening experience more valuable to me; at least for this movement. My guess is Wand/BPO.
D: A slower approach. The intro almost seems too slow compared to the other clips, but the tuba playing has a nice organic feeling. I must say I like this recording very much as well. The playing sounds a bit operatic to me, and it has a nice flowing quality to it. I can wallow in these soundscapes. My guess is Giulini/CSO.
E: This one has more contrasts in the playing compared to the other clips and changes are more sudden. The brass section grabs the attention, and really massively blares out the sounds. I like it, and it reminds me of the brass of Staatskapelle Dresden. I haven't heard Jochum's 9th yet, and maybe this is it (but it could be a bit too slow for Jochum...).
In a way I liked all these clips for different reasons, but I think my favourites are C and D. Probably clip B is the one I connected least with.
Quote from: rubio on July 05, 2007, 11:27:04 AM
I give it a try. I really love Bruckner, but I haven't listened too much to the 9th yet.
Same here :o I like Bruckner a lot, but compared to a lot of his other symphonies I found his 9th quite "cold", but listening to these has made me enjoy it a lot more.
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 11:37:02 AM
Same here :o I like Bruckner a lot, but compared to a lot of his other symphonies I found his 9th quite "cold", but listening to these has made me enjoy it a lot more.
The reason I haven't listened to the 9th so much yet, is more that I have listened heavily to the 5th and the 8th (and also the 4th). It's quite coincidential, and I guess the 9th is among my favourite symphonies just a tad after the 5th and especially the 8th. The 7th is one I also really need to listen more to. So much fantastic music and so little time :).
Lethe - focusing on fine detail as well as on the overall impression is indeed very important for a good analysis - but aren't we just a little too obsessed with trumpets here, exactly where they stick out and where they don't? :)
rubio - have you actually heard Walter's recording of the 9th? Did you listen to these clips on your desktop speakers? ;)
Quote from: M forever on July 05, 2007, 12:47:43 PM
rubio - have you actually heard Walter's recording of the 9th? Did you listen to these clips on your desktop speakers? ;)
No, I haven't heard it. But I have heard part of his 4th and sound-quality wise it sounded OK to me (as I remember at least). I even have the CD, but I haven't heard it yet (and I don't want to cheat :)). If the sound is not really bad, I easily forget about it if the performance is good (like all the performances here). I guess I have missed by quite a margin. Well, anyway, this could lead to some nice purchases.
I have very good hi-fi equipment. But there is for sure a big difference listening to a downloaded file (through 10m of so-so signal cable to the pre-amplifier) compared to my hi-end CD player.
Quote from: M forever on July 05, 2007, 12:47:43 PM
Lethe - focusing on fine detail as well as on the overall impression is indeed very important for a good analysis - but aren't we just a little too obsessed with trumpets here, exactly where they stick out and where they don't? :)
Hehe, there's not much else I can do, they're loud and noticable 0:) I am hoping to do a lot better with practice, but trumpets are a start, maybe soon I'll advance onto horns (and god forbid, overall structure) :P
B - Brass are indeed powerful and rather brilliant. Near the very beginning of this clip, reminds me of Wagner a lot, with the chorale and Tristan moment. The winds have a rather narrow sound. Seems like the flowing part in the 4th minute moves more quickly here. Such incredibly gorgeous and affecting music. Horns are quite bright and powerful around 7 minutes, section following with the repeated theme that keeps shifting keys, also moves along. Nice build there, to a really brassy and slightly marcato peak. American maybe.
C - I like the burnished and kind of within sound of the brass, I feel this is mysterious here. Definite articulation, notes shorter, the opening becomes more pointillistic. The brass sound really fine, totally different than in B, with a darker hue. Elegant and graceful in the flowing section. Ah, I was missing that cello line in B, finely balanced and textured strings, so much detail. This isn't an overly romanticized view, more objective. Winds have almost no vibrato, which makes the mysterious section quite spooky. I think this Europe, could even be Vienna.
Quote from: Greta on July 06, 2007, 12:40:39 AM
B - Brass are indeed powerful and rather brilliant. Near the very beginning of this clip, reminds me of Wagner a lot, with the chorale and Tristan moment. The winds have a rather narrow sound. Seems like the flowing part in the 4th minute moves more quickly here. Such incredibly gorgeous and affecting music. Horns are quite bright and powerful around 7 minutes, section following with the repeated theme that keeps shifting keys, also moves along. Nice build there, to a really brassy and slightly marcato peak. American maybe.
C - I like the burnished and kind of within sound of the brass, I feel this is mysterious here. Definite articulation, notes shorter, the opening becomes more pointillistic. The brass sound really fine, totally different than in B, with a darker hue. Elegant and graceful in the flowing section. Ah, I was missing that cello line in B, finely balanced and textured strings, so much detail. This isn't an overly romanticized view, more objective. Winds have almost no vibrato, which makes the mysterious section quite spooky. I think this Europe, could even be Vienna.
^^^ That is what I am aiming for, hehe. Gotta listen to a lot more recordings to reach that level though. It would be nice if more people commented on these tracks, so I could listen for what they are noticing.
Okay let me give it a try. Sorry M I haven't had time lately, not because I am too chicken-shit to try it out ;)
Clip A) I like the timpani in the beginning, a soft, palpable sound that is felt rather than heard. The recording sounds a bit distant but a lot of modern recordings are made this way so if you have the right sound setup it would sound awesome. I like the wind details such as the almost chamber music like the flute entry at 4:38 and the flute, oboe and horn entries at 6:10. The brass sounds American with its rather bright wound. The athletic and lean strings with its golden sweet tone almost certainly points to an American orchestra. Overall a very nuanced, controlled, balanced and the least overbearing reading of all. The closest I can compare it to would be Skrowaczewski/Minnesota on Reference Recordings. Not my favorite Bruckner but does have its charms.
Clip B) A rather coarser and robust beginning. A more blender orchestral timbre and a huge string sound. Monstrous horns, nasal oboes and a rather meek timpany all point to an orchestra of the ilk of the Vienna Philharmonic. I especially like the huge brass sound a 7:11 but am lukewarm about the rather weak percussion at 8:20.
Clip C) I will say off the bat this reminds me of Harnoncourt. A rather strained horn at 1:00 and a nervous oboe vibrato also remind me of Harnoncourt. Every detail is emphasized, like he is trying to teach us something. Just listen to the dynamic shading in the opening string tremolo for example. Also the quirky tempo changes such as the race to the climax at 2:20 is perculiar. Some other rather odd things include the rather annoying dimmuendo at the end of almost every sustained string note and the spare vibrato in the strings. Maybe the lack of vibrato is the reason every phrase needs to be clipped off. Overall a rather odd presentation of the work.
Clip D) My guess is Celi, even Giulini is not THIS slow. Theme 2 doesn't arrive until 4:05, a full minute past almost every other performance. I like the woodwinds, very nice and detailed. Brasses could use some ooph, certainly not as powerful as in Clip B. The oboe solo at 7:20 is by far the best of all the clips with a true pp and amazing expressive and dynamic shading. One thing that annoys me is the need for a BIG ritard at the end of every phrase which kind of robs this performance of some forward momentum.
Clip E) Sounds Soviet, overbearing brass and dynamics that rarely falls below mezzo-forte. The tremolo in the beginning is way too loud and lacks any mystery. Do the horns have to do a sforando or crescendo at the end of every note?
D - Those brass could knock you over, but they handle it well and keep things in tune. Very fine dynamic contrast. I like what he does with the flowing sections, has some rubato and certain notes have more weight to shape the line. On subsequent repetitions he seems to take them slightly slower, and drinks in the wash of sound Bruckner has written. I actually don't think this is that slow, I guess because I'm not that familiar with the piece. No idea where this group is from. Leaning towards Europe based mostly on the winds. Wow, interesting, the shifting repeated figures at 8 move at a clip compared to the tempos he took previously. Nice for the horn line there.
E - This seems like an older recording, something about the quality of the strings, the sound of the brass,harsher. Very powerful brass, almost overblowing and losing control in parts. That cello as counterpoint in flowing section is a beautiful stand out. This seems to be a classic romantic reading, I'm wondering if this could be something like NYP and Bernstein. Really don't know about the location of the orchestra. The brass are well, ballsy, drowning out the other sections often. Maybe this is also CSO. Not bad at all, though I really didn't connect with it.
A and C are my favorites. :) I want to get to know Bruckner much better and got a hold of the Karajan set. I've listened to the whole movement, but don't like him as much as these clips. Man, A really gets to me, I listened to it again completely sober and it is so musical. C, the orchestra has a beautiful tone and a resonant recording, kind of a modern reading and a nice contrast to A.
Quote from: Greta on July 06, 2007, 11:51:43 AM
E - This seems like an older recording, something about the quality of the strings, the sound of the brass,harsher. Very powerful brass, almost overblowing and losing control in parts. That cello as counterpoint in flowing section is a beautiful stand out. This seems to be a classic romantic reading, I'm wondering if this could be something like NYP and Bernstein.
No way it is Bernstein. Bernstein always cultivated a very lean focused kind of sound. This is about as different from Bernstein as it can get.
Yeah, I really have no idea of the conductor or orchestra as you can tell. ;D Romantic interpretation, but a rather brash, loose sound.
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Greta on 05-07-2007, 00:44:46
Around 6 minutes a haunting distance to the wind "calls", and immediacy and dynamic contrast to the gently shifting minor-major repeated figures in the 7th minute that is quite affecting. Something rather forward looking about this music here, it reminds me curiously of Sibelius.
Interesting observation. That never occurred to me before.
I was browsing Amazon tonight looking at Kullervos, the new Davis recording (http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Kullervo-Peter-Mattei/dp/B000E42MQ2), and a reviewer there thought so too:
"...I hear in Kullervo, as the liner-note writer does, quite a strong influence of Bruckner. In all of Sibelius's later music that I can think of the style of Bruckner is as much an absentee as is the style of Brahms, and here in Kullervo the passages that most recall Bruckner tend to associate themselves most with the presages of late Sibelius that took a good many years to reappear."Apparently there is reference to it in the liner notes of that recording. Interesting, because I actually have been listening to Kullervo a lot lately.
What is also interesting, in reference to the 9th Symphony, it and Kullervo themselves are contemporaries, separated by maybe a couple years.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 06, 2007, 01:46:44 PM
Bernstein always cultivated a very lean focused kind of sound.
Huh? Which Bernstein are you talking about? Leonard?
Quote from: rubio on July 05, 2007, 01:56:19 PM
I guess I have missed by quite a margin. Well, anyway, this could lead to some nice purchases.
Who says you missed anything? I just asked you if you had heard Walter's recording. If you have it, it's not cheating if you listen to it for comparison. Nobody could say anything about any performance or recording if he didn't have some kind of background knowledge and reference points, and that may include knowing one or a number of recordings of the piece in question.
Quote from: rubio on July 05, 2007, 01:56:19 PM
I have very good hi-fi equipment. But there is for sure a big difference listening to a downloaded file (through 10m of so-so signal cable to the pre-amplifier) compared to my hi-end CD player.
An analog connection from the sound card to the receiver (which is, I guess, what you mean by "pre-amplifier"), or a digital (SPDIF)?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 06, 2007, 08:58:57 AM
Clip C) I will say off the bat this reminds me of Harnoncourt. A rather strained horn at 1:00 and a nervous oboe vibrato also remind me of Harnoncourt. Every detail is emphasized, like he is trying to teach us something. Just listen to the dynamic shading in the opening string tremolo for example. Also the quirky tempo changes such as the race to the climax at 2:20 is perculiar. Some other rather odd things include the rather annoying dimmuendo at the end of almost every sustained string note and the spare vibrato in the strings. Maybe the lack of vibrato is the reason every phrase needs to be clipped off. Overall a rather odd presentation of the work.
Does it remind you of Harnoncourt because you know his recording, or because of ideas you have about what an Harnoncourt interpretation of this symphony could sound like? He did actually record it, with the WP. Does the orchestra sound like the WP?
I am not "suggesting" it does or it doesn't. Not at all. Just asking.
OK, because you are having so much fun here, here is one more clip. But just one! I don't want to overfeed you with Bruckner here.
MO 17 F
http://preview.tinyurl.com/298rws
Quote from: M forever on July 07, 2007, 01:25:12 AM
Huh? Which Bernstein are you talking about? Leonard?
Yeah, that one. I don't know why there is this feeling that if it is wild and uncontrolled then it is probably Lenny's work. I listen to Bernstein and he is actually quite controlled, almost classical, at least the SONY years. Granted his later DG recordings are at times rather perculiar. His SONY Mahler, for example, is actually much less over-the-top than Mehta or his later DG readings. Maybe because there is less dynamic range on the SONY recordings so the sound doesn't sock you the same way as the DG readings.
Quote from: M forever on July 07, 2007, 01:35:09 AM
Does it remind you of Harnoncourt because you know his recording, or because of ideas you have about what an Harnoncourt interpretation of this symphony could sound like? He did actually record it, with the WP. Does the orchestra sound like the WP?
I am not "suggesting" it does or it doesn't. Not at all. Just asking.
I don't have the Harnoncourt Bruckner 9th. I have 7 and 8 (I may even have #4 but like you I can't remember).
And no, it doesn't sound like the VPO, but hey, Simon Rattle's Beethoven Cycle with the VPO doesn't sound like the VPO either so sometimes a recording doesn't always reveal the character of an orchestra.
QuoteYeah, that one. I don't know why there is this feeling that if it is wild and uncontrolled then it is probably Lenny's work.
Well, the brashness of the playing was not what made me think Lenny, actually it was the rather romantic, lyrical, extroverted reading. I'm often a Lenny fan.
QuoteAnd no, it doesn't sound like the VPO, but hey, Simon Rattle's Beethoven Cycle with the VPO doesn't sound like the VPO either so sometimes a recording doesn't always reveal the character of an orchestra.
And Rattle's Mahler 5th didn't necessarily sound like Berlin. Fooled M at first. ;D And those two have in common...
Seriously though, I've heard nothing but bad things so far about Rattle's Beethoven.
Is the way the orchestra sounds? Is it just too idiosyncratic? Wrong topic, but I'm curious.
Quote from: M forever on July 07, 2007, 01:31:02 AM
An analog connection from the sound card to the receiver (which is, I guess, what you mean by "pre-amplifier"), or a digital (SPDIF)?
A 10 m Mini jack - 5 pin DIN cable connect the Soundblaster soundcard of the PC to the Stereo Preamplifier (not a surround receiver) of my stereo rig (which consists of CD player - Preamplifier - Poweramplifier (so not an integrated amp) - speakers).
Clip F: I like this one a lot also. The opening seconds of the movement sounds the most mystical to me :). When I listen to clip D and F one more time, it seems more likely this last clip is Giulini and that clip D perhaps is Celibidache/Stuttgart. It's probably too slow for Giulini. I feel quite uncertain about this, though. Anyway, more important than my guesses is that I very much like this last clip. The whole movement is played in a softer, organically flowing way that really appeals to me. My favourite together with clip C. Maybe I like clip F the most.
I listened to Wand/NDRSO yesterday, and I would be surprised if clip C is Wand (like I originally guessed), even if BPO sounds different to NDRSO. It's transparent, quite detailed reading and thus it could be Chailly/RCO.
Quote from: M forever on July 07, 2007, 01:31:02 AM
If you have it, it's not cheating if you listen to it for comparison. Nobody could say anything about any performance or recording if he didn't have some kind of background knowledge and reference points, and that may include knowing one or a number of recordings of the piece in question.
I don't have a very good musical memory, even if I remember characteristics of the style. I hope this will improve though. I could of course do an A-B comparison between the recordings I own of this symphony and the clips, but I would feel that would be cheating anyway :). The only 9th's I have heard so far are Giulini/VPO (but it's one year ago now), Wand/NDRSO and one more which I don't remember.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 06, 2007, 08:58:57 AM
Clip E) Sounds Soviet, overbearing brass and dynamics that rarely falls below mezzo-forte. The tremolo in the beginning is way too loud and lacks any mystery. Do the horns have to do a sforando or crescendo at the end of every note?
I guess that could be possible with that brass playing. Maybe it is the Mravinsky/Leningrad PO (Melodiya) CD which I sadly have not listened to yet.
Quote from: Greta on July 07, 2007, 06:01:08 AM
Seriously though, I've heard nothing but bad things so far about Rattle's Beethoven.
Is the way the orchestra sounds? Is it just too idiosyncratic? Wrong topic, but I'm curious.
It is the way Rattle make the VPO sound almost like a periodic instrument ensemble. You usually associate the VPO with a lush, warm texture with an almost unlimited dynamic range and walls and walls of string sound. Under Rattle you don't hear that. A lot of people therefore don't like his take on Beethoven.
Quote from: Greta on July 07, 2007, 06:01:08 AM
And Rattle's Mahler 5th didn't necessarily sound like Berlin. Fooled M at first. ;D And those two have in common...
...nothing that matters in that context. Certainly nothing caused in a negative way by Mr Rattle.
I thought at first this could be the SOBR, and that's so close to the BP sound (very few people could reliably tell these two orchestras apart, I can't either, as we have seen) that that is really nothing one could "blame" Mr Rattle for at all.
M's confusion had to do with the fact that while it was audible from the playing that this was very likely an orchestra in the German tradition, the somewhat thinnish, slightly muffled and bass light sound and the traditional orchestral seating with the basses on the left suggested to me after a few moments of spotchecking here and there that this could be an older SOBR live recording, maybe something like the live Kubelik recording on Audite. But I wasn't sure about that either, and Mr Athletic revealed the clip before I could do more careful listening.
Another "confusing" factor was the very flexible and expressive trumpet playing which is something I missed from the BP for a long time. I basically grew up listening to the BP trumpets with principals Groth and Kretzer, both of which are phenomenal trumpet players, technically as "perfect" as anyone can be, with extremely powerful, very solid sound, exactly what Karajan needed for "his" massive BP sound, but I always missed a cartain degree of freedom and lyrical style in their playing. Groth, for instance, didn't "play", he executed his parts coolly, his playing sounded like something crafted from stainless steel. Very impressive, but not my personal "ideal".
The kind of playing heard from the two new principal trumpets (both Hungarian, interestingly but not so surprisingly - I have heard and met a lot of very good Hungarian trumpet players - they seem to have a trumpet player factory somewhere there) is something which I personally prefer by far and which I welcomed very much when I heard it on newer recordings (e.g., Abbado's Mahler 6). But it still isn't something which I easily associate with the BP, but much more with, for instance, the SOBR - where both these Hungarian gentlemen actually played before they came to Berlin.
But again, that has nothing to do with anything Mr Rattle "did". That was more *my* superficial listening and jumping to conclusions.
And the WP in his cycle does sound rather like the WP. The idea that that orchestra necessarily has to sound like "walls" of string sound is both a cliché and also wrong.
While their string sound is indeed fabulously rich, it also has a fairly firm, sinewy core, and it is highly articulated, and what's more important than that, that orchestra is incredibly flexible in what kind of sound blend they can give conductors. Probably even more flexible than any other orchestra, while usually still retaining their typical Viennese characteristics.
That vast spectrum of sound is demonstrated on a lot of recordings, they were extremely creamy and rich for Giulini or Karajan, velvety and compact for Muti, steely and edgy for Kleiber, impeccably together and disciplined for Maazel or Solti, a flowing, vibrant mass of string sound for Bernstein.
They don't sound all *that* different in Rattle's Beethoven cycle from the lean, articulated kind of sound they produced, in varying degrees, for, say, Levine, Kleiber, Harnoncourt or Böhm.
Yes, less vibrato, they sound a little like on a diet, but especially the wind colors are as characteristic as ever.
That big "wall" of string sound is really more something that is associated with the old BP under Karajan, and many, though not all, German orchestras (remember the Beethoven 5 clip with Wand/NDR)?
Musically, I have no opinion about Rattle's Beethoven. I have it, but haven't really listened to it that much.
Clip F - This is really nice playing. Very powerful brass, whose balance comes from the bottom end. Which makes for a strong, yet not overly bright sound. The winds sound a bit European, beautiful dulcet tones. Lyrical, musical playing. On the slower side, but more relaxed, rather than slow. I must say, this one affects me in the same "way" that A did. Nice delicacy here in the flowing section. I like the way they build slightly and seamlessly go into the 2nd half of it (with the cello counterpoint), and then float a touch on the upward interval into the super-romantic high violin line there...giving room to put weight on the highest point of that melody at 5:13, gorgeous. 6:38 lingers, before the oboe solo, very nice. Haunting winds, this approach makes their calls sound natural and free. Nice tension when the horns come in. I love how this conductor structures the rise and fall. Very big and slightly separated sound at the last peak. Don't know who the conductor is, but I would also call this one a favorite.
I fixed my links and now have up the Trauermarsch of Mahler's 5th in my Mystery Comparison (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1945.0.html) if anyone wants to come over. Some great clips there to listen to! :)
Quote from: Greta on July 07, 2007, 11:57:01 PM
Clip F - This is really nice playing. Very powerful brass, whose balance comes from the bottom end. Which makes for a strong, yet not overly bright sound. The winds sound a bit European, beautiful dulcet tones. Lyrical, musical playing. On the slower side, but more relaxed, rather than slow. I must say, this one affects me in the same "way" that A did. Nice delicacy here in the flowing section. I like the way they build slightly and seamlessly go into the 2nd half of it (with the cello counterpoint), and then float a touch on the upward interval into the super-romantic high violin line there...giving room to put weight on the highest point of that melody at 5:13, gorgeous. 6:38 lingers, before the oboe solo, very nice. Haunting winds, this approach makes their calls sound natural and free. Nice tension when the horns come in. I love how this conductor structures the rise and fall. Very big and slightly separated sound at the last peak. Don't know who the conductor is, but I would also call this one a favorite.
Interesting observations.
rubio also pointed out an "appealing, organically flowing" quality in this performance. He also made this interesting statement:
Quote from: rubio on July 07, 2007, 06:52:13 AM
Clip F: I like this one a lot also. The opening seconds of the movement sounds the most mystical to me :).
What is it that makes this opening sound so "mystical" to you?
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 12:07:45 AM
What is it that makes this opening sound so "mystical" to you?
I love the opening of this symphony. First the fragile blanket of strings in the background and then the repeated call and response between the tubas and the brass/timpani. Also, when the intensity rises with the strings and the tuba straight afterwards. This first minute or so, it helps me building my expectation for this symphony/"journey".
I relistened to this part for all the clips. For me what is it important is the pace used for the call and response section (tuba and brass/timpani) and how the build-up of the strings/tuba is carried out afterwards (how fast it builds and the intensity used). Also the sonorities of the instruments play an important role for me. I like them on the dark/deep-sounding side (tuba, brass).
For this part clip A and Clip F hits my spot, and especially clip F. It's kind of perfect for me, as it's slower paced than clip A. Both clips have the right, dark sonorities. Clip C is also very nice, but it does sound a bit less mystical to me. I guess it's the sound of the intruments, and it get's a bit of a lighter feel. Clip E is good also, but when it starts to rise in intensity it's a bit too much brass attack for me here (but I do like it for the rest of the movement). Clip B just is too fast for me, and rob the sense of mystic feeling. This is the one I like the least for the intro to the movement. Clip D feel a bit too slow in the start with a bit of lack in dynamic contrasts, but on the other hand it gives a very interesting alternative. I'm a bit struck by the slowness of the start here, but I quickly get used to it for the rest of the movement.
Anyway, this is the just the start of the movement, nice though it is :).
rubio, we seem to have similar tastes... :D
Thanks for elaborating on that. I would actually like to say something about that opening passage, too, but according to the rules, I have to wait until the end :(
Just for clarification, the opening calls rising from the "mist" aren't played by the tuba, but by all 8 horns unisono (which is a really great sound and which shows that Bruckner was a great orchestrator, even though his orchestration isn't as "rich" as some other composers', but he apparently had a very fine sense of sound - he could have had that play just by 4 or 2 or even 1 horn, it would still have been the same notes, and it would still come through, but the character of the sound would be different), the "responses", if we want to call them that, are played by trumpets and timpani.
This "response" sound is something I think he took directly from Beethoven's 9th. In several places, most notably in the development, Beethoven uses that exact same sound with two trumpets in low register and timpani in piano (or even pp) as a very subtle, but striking way to reaffirm the root of the key - I am sure Bruckner thought of that when he wrote his own 9th in d minor.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 07:03:27 AM
Just for clarification, the opening calls rising from the "mist" aren't played by the tuba, but by all 8 horns unisono (which is a really great sound and which shows that Bruckner was a great orchestrator, even though his orchestration isn't as "rich" as some other composers', but he apparently had a very fine sense of sound - he could have had that play just by 4 or 2 or even 1 horn, it would still have been the same notes, and it would still come through, but the character of the sound would be different), the "responses", if we want to call them that, are played by trumpets and timpani.
I was not very surprised to see that I had written something wrong about the instruments. Actually, I had to visit this super-amateur site to listen to some individual instruments before I answered ;D (but I guess the site was not very nuanced - any good web sites somewhere?):
http://www.dsokids.com/2001/instrumentchart.htm
Anyway, I think I can gradually learn a bit more, but I wonder how to proceed. I liked the road map Greta made for her Mahler 5th discussion. Maybe the best way would be to watch DVD's of different symphonies so I can see which parts of the orchestras that are "in action" mode. Or maybe some good instructive literature?
The Dallas Symphony site is a good one! Very cute. :)
The Philharmonia site The Sound Exchange is one of the best I have seen in this respect. They even go into orchestration a little bit, and how instruments sound combined with excerpts from their recordings, it is fantastic.
http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/thesoundexchange/home_page/
And rubio, you did really well for being kind of a beginner!
Quote from: rubio on July 08, 2007, 07:47:19 AM
Or maybe some good instructive literature?
Yes, *scores* which you can view online (for instance, here (http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/) - that website doesn't have very many, but better than nothing) or maybe check out from a local library. Even though you may not be able to read the notes as quickly as they race by, scores can work as a great graphical "listening guide". With time, you will get quicker and discover more and more in the score.
The score of Bruckner 9 there which I used for the screenshot is very practical because it doesn't "collapse" when instruments don't play on a particular page. It always displays the full score, so you can get used easier to where each instrument group is located in the score.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 08:26:53 AM
Yes, *scores* which you can view online (for instance, here (http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/) - that website doesn't have very many, but better than nothing) or maybe check out from a local library. Even though you may not be able to read the notes as quickly as they race by, scores can work as a great graphical "listening guide". With time, you will get quicker and discover more and more in the score.
The score of Bruckner 9 there which I used for the screenshot is very practical because it doesn't "collapse" when instruments don't play on a particular page. It always displays the full score, so you can get used easier to where each instrument group is located in the score.
Even if I cannot read notes, these scores surely will be very be helpful identifying instruments so I can participate more actively in these Mystery Orchestra/Conductor discussions. Very nice link. I will also check out Greta's link. It would also be helpful with such easy road map Greta provided. Can these be found in some books for different symphonies?
rubio, too high praise! :D I have the score and went by that, and helped know what the sections were (exposition, development etc) using this book:
Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies by Constantin Floros (http://www.amazon.com/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonies-Constantin-Floros/dp/1574670255/ref=ed_oe_p/105-4265650-7614832?ie=UTF8&qid=1183915627&sr=1-1)
He breaks each movement of each Mahler symphony down by sections (w/ measure numbers) and describes them. Though maybe not in such a colorful way. ;) My description just came from off the top of my head, things that come to mind while listening.
For many composers symphonies there are such books, look at Amazon - the Masters series by David Hurwitz (http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphonies-Owners-Manual-CD/dp/1574670999/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-4265650-7614832?ie=UTF8&qid=1183915627&sr=1-1) is also good too, books on several composers, and even comes with CDs.
Quote from: Greta on July 08, 2007, 09:30:00 AM
rubio, too high praise! :D I have the score and went by that, and helped know what the sections were (exposition, development etc) using this book:
Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies by Constantin Floros (http://www.amazon.com/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonies-Constantin-Floros/dp/1574670255/ref=ed_oe_p/105-4265650-7614832?ie=UTF8&qid=1183915627&sr=1-1)
He breaks each movement of each Mahler symphony down by sections (w/ measure numbers) and describes them. Though maybe not in such a colorful way. ;) My description just came from off the top of my head, things that come to mind while listening.
For many composers symphonies there are such books, look at Amazon - the Masters series by David Hurwitz (http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphonies-Owners-Manual-CD/dp/1574670999/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-4265650-7614832?ie=UTF8&qid=1183915627&sr=1-1) is also good too, books on several composers, and even comes with CDs.
These books seem interesting, and I would really like to check at least one of them out (though they will have to compete with ordinary literature :)). Any similar kind of book (this level) for Bruckner.
M and Greta, would either one of you mind if do a Mystery Orchestra on Schumann's 4th?
That sounds like a good idea. I think I will do that next. It will be time to reveal MO17 soon anyway.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 10:06:13 AM
That sounds like a good idea. I think I will do that next. It will be time to reveal MO17 soon anyway.
I can't wait !
Well, I may as well dive right into it. Here's my reading on your selections.
A
The foreboding of the piece, its potential for building anticipation comes through from the very opening. And I like the fact that the conductor has resisted being flashy with the Pauken. This is not the best recording of the lot, it muddles up a bit when they go at it, and that's a shame. I think the quality of the recording is responsible for the Hollywood Orchestra associations I get once we are past the introduction - the playing goes too smooth for me ... maybe they didn't have time to work on the telling details and just played it through?
B
This one reminds me of a recording I had of this symphony, with Karajan and the BP, from the mid/late 70s. Wouldn't want to wager that it's that particular version, though.
B handles the potential for drama and foreboding of this opening better than A to my ears; the instruments come through with more distinction, and the strings have none of the Hollywood smoothness in A (my reference is to movie soundtrack orchestrations). The music swells across the orchestra, with the strings cutting through the mellow flow of the woodwinds and brass. I will wager that this conductor has better ears, and a better orchestra, than the one in A. (How's that for a newbie putting his head (or ears) on the block?
C
Here, the Wagner associations I always get around bar 18 of this symphony kick in full blast. Was this a conscious quote by Bruckner? Or have I been hearing things? Here the conductor can't resist having the timpanni bang out at their entrance - they're way too prominent in the balance of the sound. I do, however, like how this conductor deals with the brass section - they're not mellowed out as in A, instead going from strident to insistent, maintaining the sense of foreboding and momentum. Again, a very good orchestra to my ears, I love how they play together, working the sound with tight control.
D
Romantic - drawn out, and somehow too right to really grab me. Maybe it's my personal taste, but I want this opening movement to have me worried about what's going to happen next, not sit back and hum along. That's what I like about B, it's always just ahead of me, without ever giving the sense that it's going too fast. Here I'm humming along - how sweet it is. By the time we're nearing the conclusion I've actually forgotten the opening and am wondering whether I'm in a symphony by Brahms. Strange this, because in C you never get that feeling. I suspect this orchestra has a very good handle on Brahms, judging by their sound as they move into the conclusion of this excerpt.
E
Wonderful dynamics, even as they're blasting out from bar 63 you feel this orchestra can kick in an extra level or two without effort. The conductor pulls a few tricks, keeping sections of the orchestra out of commission until this point, to be able to have this sense of energy on tap. He (I'm being a chauvinist here) cheats in parts - the crescendo at 20 starts early, and that's nice, because it gets ahead of me. I think this is something that good orchestras and conductors need to do with well known music - stay within the known, while reëxamining the work and its potential. It could be my sound system, but I do feel that the bass strings are allowed to be too prominent after the string plucks, almost a jazzy twang to them. That is outweighed by the strident brass keeping Hollywood far-far away where A coated them in syrup. Curiously - no Wagner association and no sense of Brahms in this one, and I keep wondering where we're going. This is very poetic to my ears. I like this version as much as I like B.
F
Technically, this is a spectacular recording. With width, height and depth to the soundstage that outdoes the others. Lots of detail - but I'm not getting scared, I'm not wondering where we're going with this. The pizz. section, for instance, is metronomic, as is most things that follow, as I understand what I'm hearing. Extremely accomplished playing, but my take on this symphony is that I'm supposed to experience loss and separation - here we're marching off to war and bidding the people adieu as flowers and garlands are scattered gleefully about while smartly dressed soldiers wink at the cheering girls. And we fade out as the army goes over the hill, leaving the folks back home cheerful that there's a war on.
My favourite is E.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 08, 2007, 01:54:43 PM
How's that for a newbie putting his head (or ears) on the block?
There is no block here, no winners or losers. You are free to write what and how you want. There will be no points given or subtracted later either. It's really just about creating this blind listening and testing environment. And what is being tested is not the people who post, only the Mystery Performances.
Thanks for these detailed reviews. I can't quite relate to some of those colorful images, but that's only because I don't think about music in such terms. It looks like those creative writing classes paid off, didn't they ;)
But you also make a number of very good observations to which I can relate better. But this is not about my reading enjoyment either. All that counts here really is y'all's opinions, no matter how you want to put them.
And since y'all seem to be having so much fun, here is one more! But that's it - M has to take a nap now, later tonight I will reveal all the performances. So go ahead and check out this clip, too, if you want, I just thought I'd toss that in for reasons that will become apparent later.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2rufxg
F: Very nicely done. Those horns suggest the Staatskapelle Dresden with their sort of rustic and grainy sound. So it could be Jochum/SD on EMI. The sort of fuzzy flute sound (at times) also sort of remind me of the SD (as in the Blomstedt Beethoven cycle). An absolute incomparable climax at 9:00 but the sound while overwhelming is not coarse. Probably my favorite of them all.
G: This one is a bit strange to digest. Obviously the conductor chooses to play this music very freely, but it has a kind of nice flow to it, a bit different from the stop and go nature of clip C for example. The granite nature of the presentation suggests Wand but I don't think Wand would take such liberty of tempo. It is certainly not anything I own. If I were to imagine who would play it like that it would be Furtwaengler but sine it is a stereo recording that pretty much rules Furtwaengler out. I can also see Sinopoli playing it that way as he often takes some vast liberty regarding tempo. But this one overall makes me scratch my head.
G: Now at the opening this does feel slow. Sometimes the trumpets stick out on the brassy parts. Pizzicati following are quicker, flowing section is fairly slow, what's nice is this part is actually still mysterious. This one is tender here, the strings have a light touch. This actually is quite slow, especially in the "nature" call section. He doesn't get as "big" as some others in the brassy sections, maybe its the lower "oomph" I'm missing, but the brass, namely the trumpets are rather bright in sound. This could be the Philharmonia and I guess Sinopoli, really hard to say. I don't dislike it, but it doesn't grab me.
Thanks to y'all for playing and the many interesting comments.
I didn't leave much time to post comments on the last clip G, but I just spontaneously thought I'd throw that in for you as well because I got the recording from Operashare yesterday and I thought it might be interesting to have recordings of Bruckner 9 of all three of Munich's top orchestras in one thread. It is also interesting because it is Jochum's last statement of Bruckner's music (that I know of) with which he is rightfully often closely associated with. Also because it is fascinating to hear how completely different the MP played this symphony here from the way they did with their then principal conductor Celibidache.
I will post my own thoughts about these recordings and discuss some of your interesting comments later. In the meantime, since I don't give points, you can all give yourself points, especially those of of you who correctly guessed the recording with Jochum and the SD. But some of the other guesses were also very close. But in the end, it's the discussion which matters, not so much the guesses.
MO17 A
Bayerisches Staatsorchester
Wolfgang Sawallisch
(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/4121EN0H04L._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded by Orfeo in 1984. The BStO is the orchestra of the Bayerische Staatsoper (Bavarian State Opera) in Munich where Sawallisch was GMD for many years.
MO17 B
Gewandhausorchester Leipzig
Kurt Masur
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VA5KC07BL._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded in 1975 by Eterna, from the complete cycle reissued by RCA.
MO17 C
Cleveland Orchestra
Christoph von Dohnányi
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/91/be/2dfb7220eca0ee3bb3a82010._AA240_.L.jpg)
Recorded by Decca in 1988.
MO 17 D
Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks
Rafael Kubelík
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JYTAD1CXL._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded live by Orfeo in 1985.
MO 17 E
Staatskapelle Dresden
Eugen Jochum
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZG24AFA9L._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded in 1978 by EMI, from the complete cycle.
MO 17 F
Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester
Günter Wand
(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41A0SD6HD2L._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded by the WDR and harmonia mundi in 1979, from the complete cycle reissued by RCA. In case you wondered, the Kölner (Cologne) RSO is the same as the WDR (West German Radio) Sinfonieorchester, they just renamed it a few years ago.
MO17 G
Münchner Philharmoniker
Eugen Jochum
(http://www.klassika.info/Dirigenten/Jochum/Bild.jpg)(http://www.baviera-turismo.com/mucphilh1.jpg)
No "official" pic here since this is from a live recording made in 1987, just two months before Jochum's death.
Quote from: M forever on July 09, 2007, 03:38:53 AM
MO 17 D
Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks
Rafael Kubelík
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JYTAD1CXL._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded live by Orfeo in 1985.
MO 17 E
Staatskapelle Dresden
Eugen Jochum
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZG24AFA9L._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded in 1978 by EMI, from the complete cycle.
MO 17 F
Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester
Günter Wand
(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41A0SD6HD2L._AA240_.jpg)
Recorded by the WDR and harmonia mundi in 1979, from the complete cycle reissued by RCA. In case you wondered, the Kölner (Cologne) RSO is the same as the WDR (West German Radio) Sinfonieorchester, they just renamed it a few years ago.
MO17D and MO17E I have in my collection already. I haven't listened to Kubelik's 9th yet (but I have heard his 8th). I't a bit different (slower-feeling) than I would have thought (or remember from the 8th, but that's too long time since). I'm only half-way through the Jochum EMI set yet, so I haven't heard his 9th.
I'm not very surprised I liked Wand the most. He is definately a conductor I like very, very much for Bruckner (together with Jochum, Karajan, Giulini ++). So far I only have his 5th and 9th (a bit different from this performance I would think) with NDRSO, and his 8th from the Lubeck Cathedral. Maybe I would need a new box set after a while. I would guess this set is of very consistent quality, and at least on par with Karajan/Jochum. Why are their sets more often recommended? Is this more expensive? Does the 9th from this set exist as a single CD?
I also found von Dohnányi very interesting. I have just received his 5th with the same orchestra, but haven't had time to listen to it yet.
Quote from: rubio on July 09, 2007, 06:39:22 AM
I also found von Dohnányi very interesting. I have just received his 5th with the same orchestra, but haven't had time to listen to it yet.
Thought the control of the orchestra was tight here - but wondered about the "Full Stop at the Red Light!" conducting. Those pauses at 76 and 96 almost feel like edit points ...
Do you mean bars 76 and 96? There are no pauses there. Please clarify.
(Some weirdness. Responded here, and ended up over in the Media Players thread!)
Certainly feels and sounds like pauses. Looks it, too. Sound as if Dohnanyi is sipping tea before going on.
(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/acg4636/sco10010.gif)
(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/acg4636/sco10013.gif)
There are no pauses in either place. The timpani is still playing, in the second place the violas, too. You can't hear them on your high-end equipment? :-X ;) :P
Regardless of that, I don't understand your musical point. "Full stop" and "sipping" tea seem to me to be directly opposite things. Please clarify.
At 76, there is no "full stop" other than the full orchestra comes to a conclusion after a rit., but there is no "full stopping here", the half note is played out full, not torn off, and the brass also faded out just a little bit at the end so you can hear the woodwinds very clearly (a neat effect, very tasteful), then it goes on in Tempo I as indicated, without any "tea sipping" (or cutting the 1 1/2 bars of pp timpani only short, as some impatient conductors do).
Before 96, there is a slight, but not overdone rit. (as it says in the score), the string pizz. is faded out dynamically, but each note can still be heard until the last one, there is a full bar at the tempo last arrived at (with timpani and violas still playing), and then the second theme comes in quietly without an audible break (which I personally like a lot because some conductors take a huge breath here as if there had been a pause before - but there isn't one. The first d minor theme and the second A major are connected with the long D in timpani and violas - unlike in many earlier Bruckner symphonies where theme groups are often separated by general pauses.
Hey, don't diss my equipment! ;D
Good points - yes, there is sound there, but the climb-down and the bounce-up feels contrived, extended. But then this is me, right? Interesting that you point out other conductors take an even greater breath here, because I felt that out of your selections, the pause was the most pronounced here, in spite of there not being total silence.
BTW - I have far too little knowledge of the tradition of conducting this piece, but found it interesting that your selection B, which reminded me of a Karajan/BP version from 1976 (found the recording on the net) is by Masur, and from that same time. Is my memory completely out to lunch here, or did they conduct the piece in a similar fashion?
Hi M
I was wondering how you rate the Karajan (only one digital recording on DG?): this was among my first LPs and my second Bruckner after K's early EMI Eighth, and was among the recordings that really changed my life and got me into music. (I remember I bought a second copy because I'd damaged it a bit; I also bought it on CD.) The mystery in the first movement particularly and the re-entries of the strings after the tuttis are heard as in ideal imagination; the slow movement climax also is both slightly understated and fabulously well prepared and measured, and the scherzo demonic and mercurial. A work and a performance that open up realms of meaning and understanding, entirely transcending ordinary life.
Are you talking about Karajan's recording(s) of #8 or #9?
I really like a lot Sawallisch and Wand. Both had the most emotional impact for me. Looks like the Wand set would be one I'd be interested in.
I also liked Dohnányi as an alternative, kind of modern view. Will definitely have to pick up that last Jochum from Operashare, some very fine things in there as well.
If anyone wants to take on another "Mystery", my Mahler 5th Mystery Comparison is still on! Adding two more clips soon, to make A-D and two Bonuses. Hope to see all of you over there. :)
Quote from: M forever on July 09, 2007, 11:27:58 AM
Are you talking about Karajan's recording(s) of #8 or #9?
#9. Also I'd like to hear the Bruno Walter that the Penguiners rate so highly.
I was confused by the "digital" because there is no digital recording of the 9th with Karajan. He recorded it in 1966 and 1975 in Berlin. He conducted it in Berlin in 1985, but even though DG recorded more or less everything he did in Berlin at that time, they did not record that. I was in the concert which was extemely impressive. It was filmed but I never saw that available anywhere until I discovered Sony Japan has a DVD out which I will order during my next raid on hmv.co.jp. There is also a concert film with the WP from 1978 which I already have. And of course, there are a number of unauthorized live recordings floating around.
But I haven't listened to the DG recording from 1975 in a long time, so I can't really give an opinion about that...sorry. I just bought the complex box but it may be a while before I get to that. I don't think I ever heard the 1966 one, actually. Maybe I should go ahead and order that.
Do share your thoughts on these clips, M, when ya get a chance. ;)
Curious what you think of that Sawallisch, I'd love to hear that whole performance.
I will eventually, when I am done posting nonsense in other peoples' threads.
Quote from: Greta on July 10, 2007, 06:44:33 AM
Do share your thoughts on these clips, M, when ya get a chance. ;)
Curious what you think of that Sawallisch, I'd love to hear that whole performance.
I have also been cosidering sampling some of Sawallisch Bruckner, and this 1st movement of the 9th seemed very fine indeed. Before it has been the 5th I have been targeting for purchase, but I have got some mixed comments about it. It's one of the reference recording for www.classicstoday.com, even if that does not tell us too much :).
M, what do you think about the rest of Masur's Bruckner cycle. That was a pretty good 9th. After searching classicstoday.com it turns out to be the only one they think is worth anything. Is the rest of the cycle really nasty or what?
Quote from: M forever on July 10, 2007, 06:20:13 AM
I was confused by the "digital" because there is no digital recording of the 9th with Karajan. He recorded it in 1966 and 1975 in Berlin. He conducted it in Berlin in 1985, but even though DG recorded more or less everything he did in Berlin at that time, they did not record that. I was in the concert which was extemely impressive. It was filmed but I never saw that available anywhere until I discovered Sony Japan has a DVD out which I will order during my next raid on hmv.co.jp. There is also a concert film with the WP from 1978 which I already have. And of course, there are a number of unauthorized live recordings floating around.
But I haven't listened to the DG recording from 1975 in a long time, so I can't really give an opinion about that...sorry. I just bought the complex box but it may be a while before I get to that. I don't think I ever heard the 1966 one, actually. Maybe I should go ahead and order that.
Oh right, my mistake. The recording I had in mind I think came out on the 'Accolade' series, and became part of his set with the strange bird's wing in flour or whatever it was on the covers; very interesting about the other two recordings you mention- obviously an important work to Karajan.
Quote from: rubio on July 10, 2007, 06:59:12 AM
I have also been cosidering sampling some of Sawallisch Bruckner, and this 1st movement of the 9th seemed very fine indeed. Before it has been the 5th I have been targeting for purchase, but I have got some mixed comments about it. It's one of the reference recording for www.classicstoday.com, even if that does not tell us too much :).
It is? I am surprised to hear that. But with "classicstoday" you never know. I would say it doesn't not tell you very much. I would say that tells you *nothing* at all. Those people are embarassing clowns who write "provocative" reviews partially because they are biased ignorants, partially because that unfortunately helps them get attention. You know, when you hammer out aggressive biased bullshit like especially Mr Hurwitz likes to do, you get more attention than when you voice differentiated, unspectacular, maybe more difficult to understand opinions. It also puts people into a defensive position because they don't want to appear "less critical".
Anyway, I don't have the 5th yet because it is currently not available on these shores, but I ordered it among a ton of other stuff from amazon.de, and I am waiting for the package right now. I usually have the stuff from amazon.de sent to my mother in Berlin to save shipping costs, and once every half year or so, she sends me a package.
The reasons why I listen to specific recordings are often different from those other people may have. Which I guess applies to most of us.
I already have the Sawallisch/BStO Bruckner 1, 6, and 9, and what interests me most about these recordings is not if they are the "greatest" Bruckner recordings ever. I am interested in the great and very stylish orchestral playing and Sawallisch's straightforward and unfussy direction has more value than it may appear at first, too.
The BStO is a great orchestra and one which unfortunately is not recorded that often, although they have some great recordings and videos with Kleiber out and even a complete Ring with Sawallisch. They have a very deep, rich sound, dark but with many colors, very traditional and very representative of one part of the fairly wide spectrum of German orchestral styles. Which you can illustrate for yourself by comparing it to the SOBR clip - very similar, basically the same style - and the SD one which sounds very different. But what all these orchestras have in common is a special way of playing, of sounding the notes, playing together not in a metronomic way, but mostly by ear and feel. That's a way of playing which can't be learned by following instructions, one can only grow into it. This is what is called "idiomatic" and it is preserved in these orchestras. And that's what most interests me in these recordings.
I wouldn't say that Sawallisch's interpretation is secondary for me, but there are so many different ways to read these pieces, and many of them allow you to discover new and different aspects of the music. Sure, I have my favorites, too, but that can also change and I really don't waste much time anymore thinking about that. I rather enjoy all these different performances. Just as long as they are stylish and simply good music making.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 10, 2007, 07:05:48 AM
M, what do you think about the rest of Masur's Bruckner cycle. That was a pretty good 9th. After searching classicstoday.com it turns out to be the only one they think is worth anything. Is the rest of the cycle really nasty or what?
See my post above for what I think about "classicstoday". I am disappointed you even read that nonsense.
Similar things like the ones which I said about Sawallisch and the BStO above also apply here. My main interest in Masur's cycle is the orchestral culture documented there. Masur's interpretations have their good and maybe not so good elements like those of many other interpreters.
It is true he takes a very different overall approach from a lot of other conductors and the cycle is not exactly one of the most "spectacular" ones. He does often hold the brass back quite a bit and tries to achieve a deep, blended and dark sound which at times seems "underpowered" and the slightly muffled quality of some of the recordings doesn't help to make these "demo" discs either.
But his approach has other merits and there is a lot of fine musicianship at work which I enjoy listening to once in a while. I find it all the more intriguing to listen to this very "lyrical" approach, if one wants to call it that, since at around the same time they made these recordings in Leipzig, only two hours east in Dresden, Jochum was working on blasting the roof off the hall with the Staatskapelle, an orchestra with pretty much the same traditional background, and to hear how very different their results were.
Yes, I find Jochum ultimately more compelling and interesting musically, and the playing of the Staatskapelle Dresden has all the lyrical qualities of the GOL plus they have a dynamic range and can have a bite few other orchestras even approach, so these recordings are definitely more "exciting". But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Masur's readings, too, for their specific qualities.
Quote from: M forever on July 10, 2007, 08:14:47 AM
See my post above for what I think about "classicstoday". I am disappointed you even read that nonsense.
It is true he takes a very different overall approach from a lot of other conductors and the cycle is not exactly one of the most "spectacular" ones. He does often hold the brass back quite a bit and tries to achieve a deep, blended and dark sound which at times seems "underpowered" and the slightly muffled quality of some of the recordings doesn't help to make these "demo" discs either.
Yes, I find Jochum ultimately more compelling and interesting musically, and the playing of the Staatskapelle Dresden has all the lyrical qualities of the GOL plus they have a dynamic range and can have a bite few other orchestras even approach, so these recordings are definitely more "exciting". But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Masur's readings, too, for their specific qualities.
Well I read it to check new recordings that get released plus older ones that might get reissued.
The sorted of blended sound of the LG on the Masur sort of lead me to think it might have been the VPO and the way the brass blast away on the Jochum recording lead me to think it might be the Leningrad Philharmonic for example. It's also funny how when you listen blindly with no preconceived notions about a performance you hear things differently. For example after you revealed the clips I went back and listen to my EMI Jochum 9th and it no longer sounded like the brass is blasting away...Oh well.
But they still are. The recording hasn't changed since I revealed the performers. This should tell you a lot about your own preconceptions and how these almost automatically kick in as soon as you "know" what you "think" you should "expect".
One of the things which made Jochum such a truly "great" conductor is how flexibly and sensitively he shaped his interpretations from the material he was given to work with, in other words, what the orchestras offered him. It is incredibly to hear his Bruckner 5 and 7 (the latter, especially) with the Orchestre National de France.
At that time, French orchestras rarely ever played Bruckner. In fact, incredible as it sounds, the 8th symphony was *premiered* in France only in 1961 (!) by Karajan and the WP. Barenboim introduced a lot of Bruckner with the Orchestre de Paris in the 70s, but it was still music that the traditional French orchestral style was not very adequate for, especially the brass playing. But they had highly refined woodwinds and very silky strings. So Jochum built very lyrical, "soft spoken" interpretations around he string body and woodwinds and more "colored" them with the brass than let the brass "lead". The result is rather unusual but sounds great and is still very musical.
At the same time, when he worked in Dresden, he knew he could demand much more from the brass, in fact, Dresden had a very long tradition of brass playing excellence schooled the hard way on Strauss' very demanding orchestral works and operas with which the orchestra has always been very closely associated, so he let them go totally ape in his EMI recordings. What's so great about these is not simply how "loud" they play, but with what tonal and musical flexibility at the same time. Otherwise, it would just be loud. And that in itself isn't so great.
M, could you comment a bit on the Wand performance of MO17F, and the set this is taken from. I wonder if I need another set to complement Jochum and Karajan, or if I only should go for more individual recordings. Another set that tempts me is the Skrowaczewski, but that seems to be rather expensive. How does he fare compared to other Bruckner interpreters (like the above mentioned)?
It would also be nice to have some comments on the von Dohnányi recording (where I have his 5th).
I think Masur is the only clip here I found moderatly interesting.
This is one of the most fascinating threads I've read. Of course it helps that it discusses one of my favourite works, a pinnacle of western art. And another really intriguing feature was the variety of responses elicited by those clips. I mean, objectively we all hear the same excerpt, but subjectively we don't respond to them in the same way. Even what for me are objective facts are not necessarily heard by others as I hear them (like the Cleveland oboe sound for example).
I only have tinny earphones on my computer, so I didn't have much interest in listening to the clips (my listening room is downstairs, the computer room upstairs :-\). But I was drawn in and in any event, they were all listened to on the same crappy equipment, so they all got out of the gates at the same time.
One feature of the thread (or similar ones at that) that I don't really like is the temptation to peg names onto those sound clips. It makes very little sense. I have close to 30 versions of this symphony, and only one of them was featured in the MO17. It would be foolhardy to think that, out of the many dozens available, I could identify them correctly. Even the one I own - Kubelik - didn't really sound all that familiar when I listened to it (even after reading the answers - I listened to all the clips only today). I love this version of the symphony, but it's in other places that I would have been able to guess its identity. So much for familiarity with my own collection!
In any case, listening to the clips after reading the answers didn't prevent me from exercizing due diligence and objectivity. I was actually surprised to hear in Sawallisch and his bavarian orchestra (clip A) a reading I really connected with. I had always found Sawallisch a bit too cool and uninflected in his conducting. I'm now quite eager to hear the whole disc. Ditto with the Wand (clip F). I found this one almost like a guided tour of that first movement excerpt: extremely vivid and painstaking detailing of all the instrumental strands of the score. At the same time it's done with such an expert hand that it's always involving, never perfunctory. Objectively speaking, if I had to direct someone new to this work to a good phonographic representation of the work, that might well be it. I have two other Wands and as best as I recall them, they don't sound like that. For my money, the Masur (clip B) is notable mostly for superb orchestral playing. that in itself is certainly a very important quality. It remains to be heard if the whole thing adds up to more than that. I didn't sense a distinguishing profile here, but cumulatively it might work very well.
The single clip that struck me the most (by far) is the last, Jochum's MP one. I've read once that Jochum had lost his Bruckner scores a long time ago, meaning that this music is so much inside him that he almost recreates it every time he stepped onto the podium. This one is amazing for the liberties it takes, but also for the illuminating details that come out: the pecking winds at 1:45 to 2:02 are like nothing else I've heard and create a really frightening sense of anticipation. And that giant ritard when the main theme explodes in the full orchestra is jaw dropping, and yet it sounds theatrical, not cheap. These touches give an unusual shape and lighting to that familiar music. That's one I'm really interested in hearing in full. I don't want to read too much between the lines here, but there may well be a sense of the valedictory in this interpretation. Very moving (I'm listening to it again as I write).
After that, I clicked most with the Wand and Sawallisch readings. The latter reminds me a lot of the beloved Walter, but the orchestral sound is vastly different.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
And another really intriguing feature was the variety of responses elicited by those clips. I mean, objectively we all hear the same excerpt, but subjectively we don't respond to them in the same way. Even what for me are objective facts are not necessarily heard by others as I hear them (...)
I really enjoyed your post! As to the variance in opinions. You know the saying:
Writing about music is like trying to dance architecture. I think people's use of and understanding of language, when trying to express something as individual as musical perception, makes it a pretty tricky proposition. If we all agreed, I would be really worried!
Again, thanks for the informative and insightful commentaries.
By the way M, I've checked and the Accolade/ Galleria LPs of Karajan's Ninth I admired so much were the 1966 performance; I then bought the 1975 CD, which reveals little interpretive shift. Penguin hold that the earlier has 'natural gravity and profound contemplation in greater measure, with manners a degree more affectionate' with the later recording inevitably emphasizing strength, but they're both absolutely vintage Karajan, noble and direct, letting the music speak.
I admire all you Bruckner enthusiasts, especially as he is a somewhat acquired taste (the Bruckner abbey thread was extraordinary). Here's my modest exposure to the symphonies on disc-
00- Rozhdestvensky (& a radio recording before that)
0- Barenboim LP & Rozhdestvensky (Rozhdestvensky's 00 & 0 were in a double CD set and I strongly recommend the slightly lightweight Russian tinge he brings- the recording's also a landmark in realism)
1- Karajan (ruthless)
2- Haitink LP (Haas) & Karajan (Nowak) (Haitink very beautiful, this piece suiting his temperament well)
3- Haitink (1877) LP & Karajan (Nowak)
4- Karajan's EMI LP (both rustic charm and architecture)
5- Haitink LP & Karajan (Haitink's timid bevelling of edges annoys)
6- Baremboim LP & Karajan (Karajan doesn't quite succeed in finding the same gravity, if indeed it's in the piece)
7- Boehm LP (lacks magic, becoming turgid) & Karajan (magnificent). Also heard Masur live with Leipzig orchestra in Birmingham ~1989- v. fine and committed, from memory and batonless)
8- Karajan EMI LPs (Haas) & CD (Nowak) & VPO CD (Haas) (EMI is very strong with perhaps the finest slow movement, with the extended Haas sections, ever recorded; the VPO is a curious late disc, tempos and phrasing judged to absolute perfection but with controversial overbearing control at the same time).
9- Karajan LP (1966) & CD (sheer seriousness and grip over the whole canvass hard to match). Also the Samale, Phillips and Mazzuca completion of the last movement- very interesting towards the end, building up to a height of angry passion heard nowhere else in Bruckner.
Sean, this belongs in the Bruckner Abbey, not here.
Duly moved, or copied across anyway: I wasn't quite aware it still existed.
Quote from: rubio on July 10, 2007, 02:30:56 PM
M, could you comment a bit on the Wand performance of MO17F, and the set this is taken from. I wonder if I need another set to complement Jochum and Karajan, or if I only should go for more individual recordings.
Probably both. Most people who are really interested in Bruckner's music end up with half a truckload of recordings sooner or later. The music is just so fascinating and complex and hard to "fathom". It is a never ending quest. Which is why it's so much fun.
If you should buy that Wand set or Scrowaczewski, I can't say. Maybe. Or maybe not. I actually don't know the latter but I have heard good things about it. I am thinking about buying it. But I am also thinking that I should maybe listen to ome of the many CDs I already have but never listened to, or listened to completely.
For instance, I also have acquired the BP/Barenboim and CA/Haitink sets in recent months, but only listened to small portions of them. I also finally bought the complete BP/Karajan box finally, although I have known the individual recordings for years. But then I just "discovered" I never heard Karajan's 1966 recording, so I "had" to order that, too. Plus I want to have the DVD of the 1985 Berlin live performance of the 9th with him because I was in the concert...
You see, it never ends.
Whatever you do, you will probably "have" to buy some individual recordings sooner or later. As far as the 9th is concerned, I think you "must" have the Giulini recording with the WP because I think that is just beyond awesome. Rather slow and "grand", but musically outstanding and orchestrally phenomenal. The playing of the WP here is just beyond description, especially the trombones in the scherzo are totally apocalyptical. Those few bars alone are worth the price of admission.
I also think the SOBR/Kubelik recording is fabulous in ever respect, and very interesting because he is fairly slow and lyrically intense in some parts, rather quickly moving forward and highly "dramatic" in others. Plus the orchestral playing and recorded sound are also top.
But you specifically asked about Wand and the recording from which MO17F is taken.
This is from Wand's first complete cycle with the Kölner RSO which was was recorded in the 70s and kicked off his unplanned "second" career which brought him international attention.
Wand was actually fairly well known for his work in Cologne where he was GMD of the opera and the Gürzenich Orchester for many years, although not so much internationally. He had made a number of recordings with the GO for a French record club (many of which have been reissued on CD by Testament), had appeared in England, France, Italy and the USSR and guested with the BP regularly in the 60s. He was also known as a champion of modern music such as Messiaen and Fortner. His unfussy, deeply reflected, "honest" interpretations had gained him a lot of respect, but he was never interested in building a big international career or working on his public image as a "podium star". He had a reputation as being very demanding and uncompromising, and he had also withdrawn more and more from the opera during his last years there because he was dissatisifed with some aspects of the daily opera routine. He concentrated mostly on the GO symphony concerts and had already announced his retirement when he was invited by the WDR to conduct a recording of Bruckner's 5th in 1974.
Like I said in a recent thread elsewhere, he turned down the invitation at first because the 5th was the one Bruckner symphony he felt he didn't understand enough and he had never actually conducted it. Then he reconsidered because he realized there might be no other opportunity for him to tackle this work.
After studying the score for a few months, he made the recording which was a phenomenal success. That prompted the WDR to record all the Bruckner and Schubert symphonies. Invitations from everywhere started pouring in, in 1982 he accepted the post as principal conductor of the NDR SO with which he recorded the complete Brahms and Beethoven in the studio and made many live recordings. He also appeared often in London as principal guest conductor of the BBC SO. In the late 80s and 90s, his relationship with the BP intensified again and he made a number of great live recordings with them, too. In 1989, at the age of 77 (!), he made his USA debut with the CSO. But he conducted them only twice. He did not get along well with the orchestra. They thought they were already the very greatest in the universe and couldn't handle Wand's detailed and very critical rehearsing. Wand in turn was unhappy because he had a hard time getting the natural and idiomatic phrasing and timing from the CSO that he was used to from the orchestras he normally worked with. So that was that.
Their loss, our gain. Instead of jetting around the globe, he concentrated on appearing with the NDR, BP, RSO Berlin, BBC SO and a select few other orchestras. I fortunately saw him often with the NDR, BP, and RSO Berlin. Wand concerts were always events because the natural tension and flow of the music making under his direction drew the audience in and you could feel how concentrated the orchestras played and the audience listened. Like with only a few other conductors, you had that rare but distinct feeling that what you were experiencing was "the real thing", not some kind of show, however good or bad, just "the real thing".
Wand never systematically re-recorded the Bruckner symphonies after his first studio cycle in Cologne. But many of his conerts with the NDR and BP were recorded and released by EMI/deutsche harmonia mundi and then RCA after they had taken over the dhm catalog from EMI. That got a little confusing because of some of the symphonies, there are several live recordings, such as the 9th which was recorded with the NDR in the great cathedral in Lübeck (with about 2 minutes of reverb), then again in Hamburg, then once again with the BP. Plus there is a video with the NDR from yet another concert. Plus there is a live recording with the SWR on Hännsler Profil and a number of "pirates", of course.
The Cologne studio cycle was among the first Bruckner recordings I had, along with Haitink and Karajan, on LP! Because of the "flood" of later live recordings with the NDR and BP which are "generally considered to be better" orchestrally and sonically, I hadn't listened to most of them in many, many years after I got rid of my LPs a long time ago.
But I had wanted to revisit them for a long time and remembered some of them as particularly good, especially the 5th and the 9th featured here, plus Wand never re-recorded the 1st and 2nd which he felt were "disturbed" pieces, meaning that he thought they clearly showed how Bruckner did not always follow his artistic inspiration there but tried to "cater" to external expectations.
Still, I like the 1st and 2nd, too, and since Wand out of principle always conducted the last versions, his 1st is one of the few recordings of the reworked later Vienna version which is very rarely performed and even less often recorded. I think only Rozhdestvensky and Chailly recorded it apart from Wand.
The later NDR and BP recordings are somewhat "smoother" and "richer" and maybe more polished in playing and sound. The playing of the Kölner RSO was technically maybe not always quite on the same level and sounded noticeably "rougher" and "edgier" but that actually has some attractiveness, too, and it results in very clear and transparent textures with "bite".
The recorded sound quality also leans towards the bright and sometimes cavernous, but it's actually much better than I had remembered it. And it is fairly detailed and "natural".
Musically, the earlier recordings are not very different in concept, they already show Wand's unique deep understanding of the "mechanisms" of the music and his ability to develop his readings naturally from the substance of the score, without the "need" for "special ideas" or what he called "Firlefanz". That basically means empty, vain, pretentious ornamentation and "ado".
I find it very interesting that in this and the MO round with Beethoven 5, several people specifically commented on how "naturally flowing" and "well paced" and "organic" the Wand interpretations sounded to them.
Particularly interesting for me was rubio's remark that the opening of this Bruckner 9 sounded most "mystical" to him.
Because that's exactly what I think, too, in fact, that's one of the hallmarks of this recording that I remembered over many years. And it still grips me as the most "misterioso" opening of the symphony I know.
Why that is, I also find very, very hard to explain in words. But it has deeply fascinated me ever since I first heard that recording.
What I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes, with accents everywhere, bith the common > and his favorite, the "expressive marcato" upside down V? There is even one of these on the first entry of the woodwind which is marked p, a step above the strings' pp.
Also note that all strings are playing tremolo, except for the basses. Bruckner obviously didn't want the warm, rich blanket of tremolo sound he created at the beginning of the 4th or the weightlessly floating sound he opened the 7th with. He wanted a "cold", "material" sound here, not some kind of primeval soup with stuff floating around in it. With the long zzzz in the basses and the very quiet, but hard and fast string tremolo, it sounds to me like "slowly shifting tectonic plates" or something like that.
The horn calls also sound particularly "misterioso here", well accented like Bruckner wrote, but very soft and dark, and the upwards slur to the C (sounding F) which first tells us this is d minor is very smooth and slightly softer than the first note, and I think that's what makes it sound so "misterioso" here. It has both an organic and material quality, like something or some supernatural force calling with a soft, but strong voice, from very far but well audible in the clear cold air. The trumpet and timpani also sound like they come from far away but at the same time, the sound is hard and clear, like an anvil being struck far in the distance. Very interesting effect.
This beginning of this recording is one of the few cases in which I actually "see" an image while listening to the music. I "see" a wide valley between tall mountain peaks half lit by early light, with patches of mist hanging in it and a broad river with shoals of ice floating on it in the middle, and I "hear" these calls and anvil strokes echo through that scenery. Very strange.
But I don't want to get too poetic here, I better leave that to our friend soundproof ;D ;)
M
QuoteWhat I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes
Indeed: I wasn't going to listen to much of that clip after the rather literal opening but admittedly I thought an odd Brucknerian logic emerged.
Quote from: M forever on July 11, 2007, 03:33:20 AM
What I find particularly fascinating is how Wand achieves that "misterioso" effect here not by being particularly "mysterious" or "nebulous" but the exact opposite, by sketching this primeval soundscape in clearly outlined, "icy" detail. And is that not "exactly" what Bruckner writes, with accents everywhere, bith the common > and his favorite, the "expressive marcato" upside down V? There is even one of these on the first entry of the woodwind which is marked p, a step above the strings' pp.
But I don't want to get too poetic here, I better leave that to our friend soundproof ;D ;)
This is interesting, though, M. I think it's precisely this "icy" detail which made me find the performance "metronomic" in its regularity, particularly as compared to
my favourite, which was E. Which isn't to say that E is better than F, just that it spoke to my predilections, and premonitions, about this symphony.
The 9th has been a favourite of mine since forever, due to the immense degree of invention in it, particularly in the subsequent movements. With the drive of the pizzicato attacks opening the Scherzo (foreshadowed in the first movement) simply ineradicable from my mind. (I find a similar drive in the 3rd movement of Shostakovich's 8th).
Yet - I don't think Feierlich, Misterioso is necessarily arrived at through a clinical ("icy" detail) approach, and find the Wand lacking in comparison with Jochum's reading together with Staatskapelle Dresden.
Consider, if you will, the different treatment of air between the two performances. As an airpuffer yourself I can understand why you might appreciate the clarity of the Obo part starting at 32; or the prominence ("icy" detail?) lent to the winds from 79 onwards, over the pizz.
Unfortunately, to my ears, this leads one's mind more towards a martial tone and build-up in this interpretation. Further strengthened by the Turkish Marching Band quality of the sound expelled by the brass.
Which is why I, in my initial assessment of the Wand version, spoke of soldiers strolling off to war with a smile on their faces, while bidding adieu to cheering villagers.
In contrast, Jochen's reading in E puts a veil over the wind and brass, keeping them back, which I think accounts for that versions more true adherence to the Feierlich transforming into Misterioso elemental quality of this opening.
Interestingly, in version G which you supplied, Jochen again repeats his trick of commencing the crescendo earlier than marked (even earlier than E), and while the brass get slightly more prominence here from 55 onwards, he pulls the whole thing home again at 76.
I won't go through the whole selection in this manner, but this is only to indicate what I hear and feel, and why, relative to what I consider are deliberate choices from two great interpreters.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
This is one of the most fascinating threads I've read. Of course it helps that it discusses one of my favourite works, a pinnacle of western art. And another really intriguing feature was the variety of responses elicited by those clips. I mean, objectively we all hear the same excerpt, but subjectively we don't respond to them in the same way. Even what for me are objective facts are not necessarily heard by others as I hear them (like the Cleveland oboe sound for example).
I only have tinny earphones on my computer, so I didn't have much interest in listening to the clips (my listening room is downstairs, the computer room upstairs :-\). But I was drawn in and in any event, they were all listened to on the same crappy equipment, so they all got out of the gates at the same time.
One feature of the thread (or similar ones at that) that I don't really like is the temptation to peg names onto those sound clips. It makes very little sense. I have close to 30 versions of this symphony, and only one of them was featured in the MO17. It would be foolhardy to think that, out of the many dozens available, I could identify them correctly. Even the one I own - Kubelik - didn't really sound all that familiar when I listened to it (even after reading the answers - I listened to all the clips only today). I love this version of the symphony, but it's in other places that I would have been able to guess its identity. So much for familiarity with my own collection!
It would have been interesting to read what you had to say about those Clevleland oboes.
You make some interesting observations in your post, but frankly, I find it a little disappointing that you didn't make any before I revealed the clips, especially if you find this such a "fascinating" discussion. Or did I overlook that?
I don't know if you missed that, I only said it about 237 times or so, but you really don't have to "peg names" on anything to participate. Some do, some don't. For some, the guessing part is fun, too. For some, it's not. Anybody can say whatever they want or not say whatever they don't want.
It is not the point at all of these Mystery threads either to "test" people or their familiarity with their collection. It is not about "recognizing" known recordings. If you do, OK, if not, it doesn't matter. There are way too many recordings of these pieces around anyway to "know" and "memorize" them all. As you can see, I don't specifically select "obscure" or "hard to guess" recordings.
I figured few would know the Masur and Sawallisch recordings, I had no idea how many would know the Wand given that Wand is an eminently well known Bruckner conductor but this recording may be less well known than other ones, or the Dohnányi, I figured some people would recognize the Kubelik or Jochum recordings since these are very well known and often discussed. But that doesn't matter because I don't select recordings based on how hard or easy they are to "guess".
The original idea for the game came to me when over on RMCR, everybody got so excited about the Hatto scandal, and some of the people who had celebrated "Hatto" recordings but dissed the exact same recordings under the true artists' names (oops!) got the most upset and couldn't even admit their mistake. For obvious reasons, I guess.
Plus I have taken part in blind comparisons a lot myself and find it a lot of fun.
Plus we used to have all these discussions here about "the best orchestra in the world", and I believe I have killed those because it has been shown that some of the people with the most desperate opinions can't keep most of them apart or even recognize their favorite "best orchestra in the world" (oops again).
Plus it is eminently good listening training.
Plus you get results which you rarely get in other discussions when people spend most of the time imagining to hear things based on their biases.
Plus it's fun for me to select the recordings and very interesting to read the "blind" comments and reconsider my own "unblind" impressions.
Plus I have a lot of recordings of some parts of the repertoire which I like to share and let people know about, and in this way, they can discover themselves if they really like them instead of me telling them they should like them.
If your listening environment is too far away from the computer, why don't you just burn a CD then. With 5,6,7 clips you don't even "waste" the CD and they cost next to nothing these days anyway.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
In any case, listening to the clips after reading the answers didn't prevent me from exercizing due diligence and objectivity.
Maybe. Or maybe not. We will never know.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
I was actually surprised to hear in Sawallisch and his bavarian orchestra (clip A) a reading I really connected with. I had always found Sawallisch a bit too cool and uninflected in his conducting. I'm now quite eager to hear the whole disc.
Looks like you did indeed not let yourself be influenced by your idea about Sawallisch. He does come across as rather "cool" in general, he reminds me of my Latin teacher in school. But some of the stuff he did is indeed really good and not at all "uninvolved". I actually don't have too many recordings of his (he made more than one would think), but who knows, maybe I will slip in one of those I have in one of the future Mystery threads. Or maybe not. We will see.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
Ditto with the Wand (clip F). I found this one almost like a guided tour of that first movement excerpt: extremely vivid and painstaking detailing of all the instrumental strands of the score. At the same time it's done with such an expert hand that it's always involving, never perfunctory. Objectively speaking, if I had to direct someone new to this work to a good phonographic representation of the work, that might well be it. I have two other Wands and as best as I recall them, they don't sound like that.
See my way too long post above about that.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
For my money, the Masur (clip B) is notable mostly for superb orchestral playing. that in itself is certainly a very important quality. It remains to be heard if the whole thing adds up to more than that. I didn't sense a distinguishing profile here, but cumulatively it might work very well.
That is basically my opinion, too. Highly interesting listening because of the orchestral culture and the great music making. But the most "compelling" and "coherent" Bruckner interpretations? Most likely not. But still interesting to listen to.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
The single clip that struck me the most (by far) is the last, Jochum's MP one. I've read once that Jochum had lost his Bruckner scores a long time ago, meaning that this music is so much inside him that he almost recreates it every time he stepped onto the podium.
A nice story, but Jochum actually always conducted with a score in front of him (at least in every picture or film that I have seen and the one time I saw him live). He probably didn't "need" them. But it fits his "style" which was very down to earth, workmanlike, working with musical material directly from the score like a craftsman, basically the "Kapellmeister" thing.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on July 10, 2007, 05:05:34 PM
The single clip that struck me the most (by far) is the last, Jochum's MP one. I've read once that Jochum had lost his Bruckner scores a long time ago, meaning that this music is so much inside him that he almost recreates it every time he stepped onto the podium. This one is amazing for the liberties it takes, but also for the illuminating details that come out: the pecking winds at 1:45 to 2:02 are like nothing else I've heard and create a really frightening sense of anticipation. And that giant ritard when the main theme explodes in the full orchestra is jaw dropping, and yet it sounds theatrical, not cheap. These touches give an unusual shape and lighting to that familiar music. That's one I'm really interested in hearing in full.
Do you like it better than his SD recording (MO17E)?
The MP recording was posted on Operashare a few days ago (which is where I got it):
Superb performance of Bruckner's Ninth with the Munich Philharmonic and Eugen
Jochum
from January 1987.
From OOP Meteor CD.
http://rapidshare.com/files/40076406/01_Track01.mp3
http://rapidshare.com/files/40077414/02_Track02.mp3
http://rapidshare.com/files/40080066/03_Track03.mp3
You didn't say anything about Dohnányi's recording.
We look forward to seeing you in MO18. Hopefully *before* I reveal the clips.
Cheers for the Jochum 9 M- I'm going to give that a run through now.
What piece will MO.19 be?
Dunno yet.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 04:30:18 AM
This is interesting, though, M. I think it's precisely this "icy" detail which made me find the performance "metronomic" in its regularity, particularly as compared to my favourite, which was E. Which isn't to say that E is better than F, just that it spoke to my predilections, and premonitions, about this symphony.
The 9th has been a favourite of mine since forever, due to the immense degree of invention in it, particularly in the subsequent movements. With the drive of the pizzicato attacks opening the Scherzo (foreshadowed in the first movement) simply ineradicable from my mind. (I find a similar drive in the 3rd movement of Shostakovich's 8th).
Yet - I don't think Feierlich, Misterioso is necessarily arrived at through a clinical ("icy" detail) approach, and find the Wand lacking in comparison with Jochum's reading together with Staatskapelle Dresden.
Consider, if you will, the different treatment of air between the two performances. As an airpuffer yourself I can understand why you might appreciate the clarity of the Obo part starting at 32; or the prominence ("icy" detail?) lent to the winds from 79 onwards, over the pizz.
Unfortunately, to my ears, this leads one's mind more towards a martial tone and build-up in this interpretation. Further strengthened by the Turkish Marching Band quality of the sound expelled by the brass.
Which is why I, in my initial assessment of the Wand version, spoke of soldiers strolling off to war with a smile on their faces, while bidding adieu to cheering villagers.
In contrast, Jochen's reading in E puts a veil over the wind and brass, keeping them back, which I think accounts for that versions more true adherence to the Feierlich transforming into Misterioso elemental quality of this opening.
Interestingly, in version G which you supplied, Jochen again repeats his trick of commencing the crescendo earlier than marked (even earlier than E), and while the brass get slightly more prominence here from 55 onwards, he pulls the whole thing home again at 76.
I won't go through the whole selection in this manner, but this is only to indicate what I hear and feel, and why, relative to what I consider are deliberate choices from two great interpreters.
Fortunately, we are in the "open discussion phase" now in which I am also "allowed" to say what I think, and since I have already typed for a long time now and my impression from your posts is that you can "handle" opposing viewpoints without much sugarcoating and tiptoeing around (or maybe you will prove me wrong now), let me tell you that I think the above is pretty much total nonsense.
I am apalled to read about "Turkish marching band quality" (not that there is anything wrong with Turkish marching bands as such, but that has nothing to do with what we hear in any of the clips here) and puzzled that you find Jochum "puts a veil over the wind and brass and holds them back".
Huh?
I have wondered about the quality of your high end listening setup before, not to diss or pisscontest it, but simply because of the strange remarks like this you made about such things here and there.
The one thing that could potentially be criticized most about Jochum's SD recordings (which I think are fantastic, too, but some have that objection to them) is that he totally lets the brass off the leash in many places and they blast away without reserve.
Very puzzling.
You didn't get what I meant by "icy" which mostly applied to the beginning and the sound quality and athmoshere. That may be my fault because I am not such a talented poet as you are.
But that has nothing to do with "metronomic" anyway. And neither is the Wand recording metronomic. Not at all. Fairly steady outer tempi don't have anything to do with metronomic. Nor is the tempo that steady everywhere. In fact, it is very subtly adjusted almost all the time, as is the rhythm or what I call "microtiming".
I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above. Ad that's OK. Maybe you will later. Or maybe not. But my impression here is that your listening is far more superficial than I had initially thought. I know you don't share that opinion and your very colorful images illustrate that you are very much in love with your superficial impressions. And I don't want to take that away from you. I am just trying to give you a few tips, for your own enhanced listening enjoyment, and to widen your horizon.
Which, again, is not to put you down or prove you "wrong" - obviously, it is completely up to you what you "hear" and "feel" and that is neither "right" nor "wrong" - but just to point out to you that there is definitely more there than met your ear. And not just for me, as you can see by some of the other responses.
I totally dig the Wand. If the rest of that set is that involving as that performance, wow.
And it was beautiful what you wrote earlier about the recording, M. 0:)
Do the participaters still get a prize? :D
(*eyeing the Sawallisch*)
QuotePlus I have taken part in blind comparisons a lot myself and find it a lot of fun.
Plus we used to have all these discussions here about "the best orchestra in the world", and I believe I have killed those because it has been shown that some of the people with the most desperate opinions can't keep most of them apart or even recognize their favorite "best orchestra in the world" (oops again).
Plus it is eminently good listening training.
Plus you get results which you rarely get in other discussions when people spend most of the time imagining to hear things based on their biases.
Plus it's fun for me to select the recordings and very interesting to read the "blind" comments and reconsider my own "unblind" impressions.
Yes, this is just why I enjoy hosting them too. The selecting really is fun. And so interesting to see the associations people make, and also what they "think" a certain conductor's style is like, that a clip is him...and it turns out not to be, or that a certain orchestra from a certain country "sounds like this", and often, they don't.
And is more interesting for all when there is such good participation as in this Bruckner thread.
I do hope some of you bring your very perceptive ears over to my Mahler 5th thread. :D Many interesting (and some, extremely fine) clips to hear.
I guess, Mahler's 5th isn't such a good work for this? But was the first thing that came to mind that I had many recordings of, that others also seemed to like around here... :)
Feedback welcome. And let me right away indicate that I appreciate the effort you are going to in assembling and making available these listening samples under the rules you have stated.
I love going blind into these and therefore not having my mind coloured by preconceptions. I am otherwise hugely skeptical of people who wish to turn the senses into exact organs of measurement and qualification, whether wine tasting, music or other areas -- and I applaud your effort.
I would, however, caution against these statements: "I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above."
They're not that far removed from 71dB's claims of a higher evolved mind with better developed "vibrational fields" allowing for a more attuned appreciation of the music.
Hey - you love the Wand. I don't - I get it, but I'm not blown away (or rather, maybe I am, when I shouldn't be). And the fact that the movement is "subtly adjusted" and "therefore not metronomic" is because, fortunately, Wand was not an automaton, but a human being.
Please don't stop doing these. They are brilliant!
You'll have to suffer my input, though. And stop questioning my sound system. If anything is wrong, it's my ears and ability to retain musical lines, and discern differences.
If it's any consolation to you, I got a 97,2 score on this test on first run-through. Maybe that will allow for a suitably Teutonic independent measurement of the acuity of my hearing! ;D
Scroll down, use cans. It's a very good test (and I'm really pissed off about not making 100!):
http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/ (http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/)
M etc, I'm listening to the Jochum 9 file with the Munich orchestra. It's really quite rushed and urged on under a fundamentally mistaken aesthetic approach: I greatly admire Jochum in Meistersinger and Beethoven 1,2,4,8 & 9 but he's simply on the wrong footing here. The first movement section two thirds through where the harmonies collide, along with the concluding peroration are insufficiently prepared and lack the insight and power Karajan sees. For many years I thought Karajan set such standards that other attempts at this repertory could only be made with the greatest caution and the present unwittingly blatant and unsophisticated recording only confirms this.
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 05:24:49 AM
M etc, I'm listening to the Jochum 9 file with the Munich orchestra. It's really quite rushed and urged on under a fundamentally mistaken aesthetic approach: I greatly admire Jochum in Meistersinger and Beethoven 1,2,4,8 & 9 but he's simply on the wrong footing here. The first movement section two thirds through where the harmonies collide, along with the concluding peroration are insufficiently prepared and lack the insight and power Karajan sees. For many years I thought Karajan set such standards that other attempts at this repertory could only be made with the greatest caution and the present unwittingly blatant and unsophisticated recording only confirms this.
Sean, you know we all love you, but please shut up with crap like that. Jochum knew a million times better than you what the "right esthetic approach" to Bruckner is. You don't. And Karajan did not set any standards. He was a great Bruckner conductor, too, but in a very different way.
M, I can't get movs 2 or 3 working from that damn Rapidshare site- I had the same stupid trouble once before. You click on FREE and instead of the download the idiot thing gives you upload details- any thoughts?
Shhhhhh. M is taking a test, and shouldn't be disturbed, Sean.
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 05:32:30 AM
M, I can't get movs 2 or 3 working from that damn Rapidshare site- I had the same stupid trouble once before. You click on FREE and instead of the download the idiot thing gives you upload details- any thoughts?
Scroll down a bit: it will tell you how long you have to wait before being allowed to download again (seems you have to wait about 2-3 minutes for every Mb in the previous file).
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 05:14:31 AM
I would, however, caution against these statements: "I think it's pretty safe to say without wanting to "put you down" that you simply don't "get" the Wand performance. It appears to me that its qualities are too subtle for you since you didn't get all of the above."
They're not that far removed from 71dB's claims of a higher evolved mind with better developed "vibrational fields" allowing for a more attuned appreciation of the music.
OK, so I was wrong above about your ability to take well meant criticism even if directly put. Well, I am wrong all he time, but I won't make that mistake again.
That is an extreme personal insult which goes far beyond verbal sparring or directed, unsugarcoated exchange of opposing opinions. There is no need for you to stoop to that level. You may not understand that since you have only been here for a few days and have only seen a tiny fraction of the demented crap he is dropping here sometimes. So I forgive you. But only this one time. Some things are not funny anymore.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 05:14:31 AM
Hey - you love the Wand. I don't - I get it, but I'm not blown away (or rather, maybe I am, when I shouldn't be). And the fact that the movement is "subtly adjusted" and "therefore not metronomic" is because, fortunately, Wand was not an automaton, but a human being.
This has nothing to do with "not being an automaton" or with what I "like" or not. It has nothing to do with a "higher developed mind" or "vibrational" fields either. I never said anything like that. But I did sit my ass down and write about what I actually meant in very great detail. That was all lost on you, OK, but I hope it wasn't lost on others, then I would have completely wasted my time. It certainly doesn't look like that.
What I am talking about here is none of the above. I am talking about subtleties of music making and musical language, the things which people sometimes call "idiomatic" for want of a better term, things which have to do with how you play, time, phrase, articulate, group, color, stuff like that. Some people hear that, consciously or subconsciously, some don't, or only to a lesser degree. Some people just hear music just in broad, fuzzy emotional images. Which is fine, too. I just happen to be very interested in and familiar with the many subtleties of the "idiomatic" styles of music making for this and maybe some other kinds of repertoire because I grew up in and studied the musical culture which they come from.
I am not interested in arguing about emotional responses, we can exchange that, too, but there is nothing to argue or discuss there. When I talk about things like these, I am talking about "idiomatic" details of the craft of music making. I now know you don't hear these, OK, or maybe you hear but don't "understand" them, that doesn't make you a worse person and I am not trying to put you down. It doesn't detract anything from your enjoyment of music either, and it shouldn't.
But whn we discuss musical performance and your contributions are "Hollywood strings" or "Turkish Marching Band", then you have to understand that isn't much basis for you to claim an "informed" opinion. You can still have your opinion, but we know it's more an eloquently glorified emotional response and it doesn't offer any basis for musical discussion.
In any case, what I had wanted to point out is that there is a lot about that that you don't perceive but that you could learn, for instance from that recording. Because that has all that in abundance.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 05:14:31 AM
If it's any consolation to you, I got a 97,2 score on this test on first run-through. Maybe that will allow for a suitably Teutonic independent measurement of the acuity of my hearing! ;D
I know the test and I know you didn't score 97,2%. There is probably not more truth behind that than behind those "world class musicians blind test".
Please, your contributions here are often very funny and sometimes interesting, don't turn out to be a total bullshitter.
Besides, that test has *nothing* to do with what I am talking about. The suitably Teutonic measurement system for that is to analyze your responses to clips of Teutonic music like the present ones.
Thanks for the detailed reply, M. You will have to take my word that I exercised 'due diligence and objectivity' after reading the answers. ;). It shouldn't be hard to believe since I've often stated that there is no correct, or best way of conducting Bruckner (among others of course). My favourite versions cover an extremely wide range of interpretive ground, orchestral and conducting cultures and traditions. And I keep discovering new and very valuable ways of intepreting this magnificent music. As you rightly say, the quest is endless. Closing the options by zeroing on a specific disc/conductor is a big mistake.
Notwithstanding the very good reasons you give for the genuine usefulness and pleasure of such threads, I didn't come to MO 17 before seeing the answers to the clips. The reasons for my late entry on the thread are quite simple. That's because:
A - my participation to the forum is very limited. I spend *some* time on the computer, but I prefer to be in my listening/reading room. Actually I almost never check the new threads (my loss, of course, but it helps in leaving me time for my main pursuit).
B - the first MO thread was of Strauss' Zarathustra, and because of my really poor computer audio I didn't bother to listen to the clips. Really too much would have been lost, and the usefulness of the exercise would have been lost on me.
C - as you have mentioned 237 times, it's not a guessing game. But still, when those guesses are made, it taints the judgment somewhat, especially for those (like me) who don't have the musical training to figure out if the reasoning and conclusions have any validity. Example: one of my top choices for the 9th is Leitner with the SWR Stuttgart orchestra. Now, who could possibly recognize the SWR Stuttgart band? Probably nobody. They're excellent, but recognizable? So there: this is fabulous music making that very little people would ever be able to recognize. The real interest here is not 'who', but what do I hear in it, and why do I like it so much. So, because of what I saw in that Strauss MO thread I was not really interested in participating. Note, too, that MO 17 had fewer such entries.
D - my interest was really aroused when I saw the pictures of the discs you chose, because out of them I only have the Kubelik. So, I fell out of curiosity for all those new versions I could sample :D.
Briefly:
- what I hear in the Cleveland oboes is a straight, pure and powerful sound, totally different from that in clips A and B for example, where the sound is slender, insinuating, and somewhat nasal. I don't know how I would have analysed that 'blind', but the prior knowledge of the orchestras confirmed my longstanding opinion that the american and english oboe sound is totally different from the german or french one. Not better or worse, just very noticeably from a different school of playing.
- besides that Cleveland oboe sound, the conductor's rather clinical 'mapping out' of the music didn't draw me in. It's obviously a great orchestra, but the conductor doesn't seem willing to let it rip where we know they could. That's a lost occasion if you ask me. Just compare to Jochum SD or even Wand Cologne. Here you sense the conductors trust their orchestra and let them 'go for it'. In fairness, it could be that Dohnanyi is saving himself and the orchestra for the movement's coda. So, no real conclusion can be drawn, only impressions.
- I can't say I 'prefer' the MPO Jochum to the SD one. I've had the latter on lp, but it's too long ago to really remember everything from it. What I do recall however is that I didn't like Jochum's liberties with tempi. Since then I've come a long way and I wouldn't trust my own opinion of 15 years ago on that. I still have Jochum SD 3, 5-7 on cd, and the whole DG cycle as well. That's why I never felt the urge to buy the Jochum Brilliant cycle (therefore missing that 9th). So, what I can compare right now are those two excerpts and they sound very different. I was captivated from beginning to end by the MPO one (and their playing is just as good IMO, if totally different). I sense a kind of 'liberation' on the podium and that's what makes me reallly eager to hear the whole thing (for which many thanks, BTW - I'm downloading it right now :D)
M - you write:
What I am talking about here is none of the above. I am talking about subtleties of music making and musical language, the things which people sometimes call "idiomatic" for want of a better term, things which have to do with how you play, time, phrase, articulate, group, color, stuff like that. Some people hear that, consciously or subconsciously, some don't, or only to a lesser degree. Some people just hear music just in broad, fuzzy emotional images. Which is fine, too. I just happen to be very interested in and familiar with the many subtleties of the "idiomatic" styles of music making for this and maybe some other kinds of repertoire because I grew up in and studied the musical culture which they come from.
I am not interested in arguing about emotional responses, we can exchange that, too, but there is nothing to argue or discuss there. When I talk about things like these, I am talking about "idiomatic" details of the craft of music making. I now know you don't hear these, OK, or maybe you hear but don't "understand" them, that doesn't make you a worse person and I am not trying to put you down. It doesn't detract anything from your enjoyment of music either, and it shouldn't.
Mr. M - yes, I have but been here a very few days, and am probably making too much noise already. Yet I am not unfamiliar with the nuances of musical idiom, and probably take umbrage at your disparaging put downs. I must confess I find it difficult to accept the law as laid down by you on how one is supposed to listen to and understand these pieces. Nor do I consider our "differences" here to be a result of ratio vs. emotio in music. I hear what I hear, according to your initial invite to participate in the thread I then reported on my findings. You are absolutely free to smack down my opinions, though who's the poorer for that? It kind of defeats the purpose of your investigation, doesn't it? Unless the thread is intended as a showcase for your likes and dislikes - I'll go along with that, but this is somewhat at variance with the premise.
I was not equating you with 71dB, just pointing out that -- from an analytical point of view -- there was little difference between the two statements. I'm grateful that you are willing to extend a courtesy to me in that respect, and that you understood I was not attacking you as a person, but rather the implicit, underlying meaning of that statement.
That said. I never lie. If I say something, that holds. My acquaintances, clients and associates are both appalled and impressed by my forthrightness. They have long since learned they had better not ask my opinion on anything unless they are willing to hear an unembellished expression of how I understand the issue.
Therefore - and this is final - do not ever question the truth of what I write here again.
You write: I know the test and I know you didn't score 97,2%. There is probably not more truth behind that than behind those "world class musicians blind test".
World class musicians holds.
As does the rather astonishing fact that the score indicated above would stand a Doric inquiry. I have simply amazing tonal retention abilities. Why do you think I have that avatar?
When we meet, over a good glass of wine, you can administer the test to me and be the equivalent of the "Bocca de Leone" that I place my hand inside, to suffer the consequences.
You write: Please, your contributions here are often very funny and sometimes interesting, don't turn out to be a total bullshitter.
Again, I am going to enjoy perusing your previous Mystery Orchestras, in order to understand the intention behind the threads. I enjoy the format, I will keep reporting what I hear, to the extent that I find the music interesting.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 06:30:39 AM
I must confess I find it difficult to accept the law as laid down by you on how one is supposed to listen to and understand these pieces.
I didn't say that. In fact, I extremely explicitly and several times over said the exact opposite. I don't have to repeat that again.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 06:30:39 AM
I was not equating you with 71dB, just pointing out that -- from an analytical point of view -- there was little difference between the two statements.
From an analytical point of view, 71dB makes broad generalized BS statements and claims with nothing to back them up while I sit my ass down and type for half an hour to offer detailed explanations and points, differentiate between my personal opinions and other points of view and offer contextual facts. If you think that is the *same*, then you don't *have* any analytical abilities.
Quote from: Soundproof on July 11, 2007, 06:30:39 AM
Again, I am going to enjoy perusing your previous Mystery Orchestras, in order to understand the intention behind the threads. I enjoy the format, I will keep reporting what I hear, to the extent that I find the music interesting.
When you do said perusing, you will find that another forum member who, not at all completely different from you, but then again not that similar in all details either (and I don't like to throw people into one pot with other people for cheap rhetorical attacks), but vaguely similar in that he did have some very good points and some interesting things to say but lacked the self-criticism to accept contrary statements because he thought he already knew it all (very similar in that respect), nearly destroyed the game because he brought an unwanted aggressive element in there, forced me to lock one thread and which, if it occurs again, will force me to end all these games. Which I think quite a few enthusiastic participants would regret. But it's not worth the effort it takes just to have another BS flinging contest thread.
Quote from: M forever on July 11, 2007, 03:33:20 AM
In 1989, at the age of 77 (!), he made his USA debut with the CSO. But he conducted them only twice. He did not get along well with the orchestra. They thought they were already the very greatest in the universe and couldn't handle Wand's detailed and very critical rehearsing. Wand in turn was unhappy because he had a hard time getting the natural and idiomatic phrasing and timing from the CSO that he was used to from the orchestras he normally worked with. So that was that.
Nice try, but that was not the reason. Rather the issue was Wand's insistence on up to eight rehearsals, even for standard repertoire. The CSO was simply unwilling and unable to accomodate that in their schedules, as indeed were most European orchestras. Only the radio orchestras had that sort of luxury of time on a regular basis. At any rate, Wand and the CSO made a very fine live recording of Brahms's 1st on RCA which is hardly "unidiomatic". If you don't have a copy of that, you should try to find it. I think it may be OOP these days unfortunately. I know the CSO has in its broadcast archives tapes of their performance of Bruckner's 5th as well. It would be interesting if they were to issue that on one of their future "from the Archives" releases.
But that is my basic issue with Wand: what he does just sounds a bit too prepared. I love the detail, the meticulous attention to the tiniest instruction in the score. But in the end I prefer my Bruckner with a little more organic development (a la Böhm) or more forward momentum (a la Schuricht or Jochum or Barenboim, each in his own way) or more mysterious (take Giulini, Klemperer, Celi or Barenboim again). Wand is indeed a master-craftsman, and as a textbook guide to Bruckner's symphonies one could hardly do better than to start with any of Wand's cycles (I actually find his video performances with the NDR by far the best). But music is more than just that. You keep chastising people for "emotional responses" to music. But the craft of musicmaking is useless if it is not capable of eliciting an emotional response where the repertoire calls for it. Think of it this way: stage acting is unquestionably a craft. But the audience is still pulled into the performance by way of an emotional response. There must be an emotional logic to each performance. E.g. Macbeth cannot go from being fairly normal in Act I to stark raving mad in Act III without some compelling and convicing character development in between. The absence of a concrete narrative in music does not mean that one can do away that. Emotion is not the same as absence of logic or structure. It is not irrationality. Bernstein used to say that in an ideal performance each note should sound such that you don't know what is coming next, but once you've heard the next note you know it couldn't have come any other way. Music isn't a purely cerebral sport.
Quote from: M forever on July 11, 2007, 06:49:32 AM
When you do said perusing, you will find that another forum member who, not at all completely different from you, but then again not that similar in all details either (and I don't like to throw people into one pot with other people for cheap rhetorical attacks), but vaguely similar in that he did have some very good points and some interesting things to say but lacked the self-criticism to accept contrary statements because he thought he already knew it all (very similar in that respect), nearly destroyed the game because he brought an unwanted aggressive element in there, forced me to lock one thread and which, if it occurs again, will force me to end all these games. Which I think quite a few enthusiastic participants would regret. But it's not worth the effort it takes just to have another BS flinging contest thread.
Nice innuendo. But I didn't destroy anything. It's totally up to you whether you can deal with different views on the music you post and whether you can restrain yourself from attacking people who disagree like you just did with soundproof. There is no need for any childish locking of threads or igniring of members where the participants are emotionally mature enough to handle diversity of opinion.
To all: please ignore the above post and don't reply.
I have asked "O Mensch" nicely several times over to stay away from my Mystery threads because he has attacked me time and time again in the past so that I had to ignore him before (when we still had the "ignore" button). And we don't want that here.
Whatever he said above (I didn't read it), he is not welcome here, and I think he should respect that when asked nicely. For about the 5th time now.
No, I don't "own" the forum, and I don't "own" the Mystery Orchestra threads either, but I create and supply them with clips and all that, and I am not doing that to have another thread with nonsense flying around and personal attacks, especially not from "O Mensch".
So if you allow him to infiltrate and poison the athmosphere here, I have to lock this and other Mystery threads, and then there will be no more of that, no more clips, no more prize recordings to download.
Thanks for your understanding.
But I allow anyone in my Comparison threads as long as people treat each other with respect.
Though if there is misbehaving or rudeness in my threads, I will not permit it. But right now, everyone has a clean slate.
So everyone please feel welcome, even if you are not welcome here. ;)
It was the same here before "O Mensch". You are welcome to have and keep him.
You haven't posted in MO18 yet :'(
M,
Save yourself the ammo. I'm not participating in your games anymore anyway. I prefer more civilized discussion.
It must be the extreme heat we are having here making it difficult for me to grasp certain posts on this topic that have nothing whatsoever to do with the intent and purpose: Discussions of the classical work, not arguments about merits or talents or views of various conductors.
Can you all please keep it as interesting and educational as it has been, without dragging in personalities?
Thank you kindly,
uffeviking
Hey guys, I wouldn't usually give a damn but Uffe has a point. Why don't you get on with the next thread and give Mensch an amnesty: I don't agree with him either!
By the way movs 2-3 still don't work for me when you put the four digit code in.
But despite its architecture Jochum's first movement completely fails to find the music's unique idiom and let it breathe, and sounds like he's conducting any other regular romantic symphonist...
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 08:14:11 AM
By the way movs 2-3 still don't work for me when you put the four digit code in.
Sometimes the codes are ambiguous: O, Q and 0 can look almost identical, for example. Just go back a page until you can guess right--that's what I do.
Sean, you have absolutely no clue what Bruckner's idiom actually is. I remember I spent a very, very, very, very, very, long time explaining that subject and how complex it is to you in the old forum. And it looked a little, little, little bit like you were beginning to understand that. Just a little bit, but there seemed to be hope.
You pontificating here about Bruckner's idiom is like you giving dating tips for how to meet shy girls.
And no, the stuff I said about "idiomatic" playing earlier has nothing to do with that subject either, so no stupid and cheap comebacks, please. I understand your desire to pick up a tiny fragment of knowledge and act like you have it all figured out, the sun, the moon, the universe, but you really have no clue about this subject.
OK, now we know what your cliché idea of what Bruckner should sound is like, thank you very much, now sit down, listen and learn. Jochum knew much more about Bruckner than you ever will. You can also learn a lot from the intelligent and differentiated observations of some of the posters here.
Don't spoil the thread with your nonsense, please?
If I can get the rest of Mr Jochum to play I'll tell you whether he better succeeds in finding the right interpretive idiom- because it does exist independently of the mind of the beholder. Bruckner's a very unusual figure, revealing a musical logic no one else saw, and its obviously a mistake to dash it off as routine Brahmsian sonata form, missing the Wagnerian inner space and sense that slower tempos reveal. Jochum holds the first movement together in a way that it doesn't need holding.
I'd been looking forward to hearing some of his famous Bruckner though so thanks anyway.
I'm particularly interested in Bruckner, and Wagner, in connection with his repetition of motifs and the logic that emerges out of the placing of related material over time- a logic depending on the listener's awareness as well perspicuous architecture that can be pointed to in the score- and which Jochum seems more interested in at least on this occasion. Ideas emerge and submerge in some kind of parallel with how consciousness naturally processes material. A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 09:02:30 AM
If I can get the rest of Mr Jochum to play I'll tell you whether he better succeeds in finding the right interpretive idiom.
Yes, please, I really look forward to that. I personally don't know how "successful" he is, I am dying to know, so please let me know when you find out. ::)
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 09:02:30 AM
Bruckner's a very unusual figure, revealing a musical logic no one else saw
Well, good that you see it now, but can you take that nonsense and all the consciousness stuff to the Bruckner Abbey, please? Thanks.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 11, 2007, 07:43:37 AM
M,
Save yourself the ammo. I'm not participating in your games anymore anyway. I prefer more civilized discussion.
Hahaha, I made that word popular ;D
Active MO players who would be interested in hearing more of the Sawallisch and Wand recordings please PM me.
And a little bonus treat for everybody. Here is the coda of the first movement in the Wand/Kölner RSO recording. What I find absolutely stunning here is that you can really hear the massive minor second Eflat/D clashes between the trumpets and trombones, to great (and rather "modernistic") effect (at 1'34, 1'42, 1'47 etc).
No, that's not a mistake or bad intonation, that's what Bruckner actually wrote. Except it gets smoothed over by many conductors.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvnwhz
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 09:02:30 AM
Ideas emerge and submerge in some kind of parallel with how consciousness naturally processes material. A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?
(http://www.wam.umd.edu/~esimons1/pictures/virtual_reality.jpg)
Quote from: Sean on July 11, 2007, 09:02:30 AM
A visual parallel, if you're still unsure about what I mean, might be Bridgit Riley's geometrical paintings that clearly involve the human awareness process... Mmm?
Is this what Bruckner means to you, Sean?
(http://www.thelondonseason.com/images/highsky2_lg.jpg)
Quote from: Dm on January 15, 2008, 03:46:51 AM
Is this what Bruckner means to you, Sean?
(http://www.thelondonseason.com/images/highsky2_lg.jpg)
If you can't tell that one is Schumann there is no helping you. ::)