I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
If you have an AV-setup, the film Eroica is a must. You get the symphony as a seperate performance, and it's with ORR/Gardiner in a newer multi-ch. recording, not the one in their complete cycle on Archiv. The band is small, 5-4-3-2-2, if I remember correctly, and the reading is - dare I say badass?
Quote from: Erevos on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
Zinman/Gardiner/Hogwood/Ter Linden/Norrington, all have their merits.
Quote from: Valentino on July 04, 2007, 04:15:07 AM
If you have an AV-setup, the film Eroica is a must. You get the symphony as a seperate performance, and it's with ORR/Gardiner in a newer multi-ch. recording, not the one in their complete cycle on Archiv. The band is small, 5-4-3-2-2, if I remember correctly, and the reading is - dare I say badass?
If anyone's interested, I stripped the audio tracks from that DVD so it plays as four MP3 files. I could upload these at some point if requested to. ;)
What bitrate, Mark?
Quote from: Valentino on July 04, 2007, 04:34:36 AM
What bitrate, Mark?
I did them at 192kbps MP3, but I could always redo them at a higher bitrate. Though not today, as I'm off out shortly. :)
Valentino, try this: the first movement - http://rapidshare.com/files/40962942/01_Opus_Arte_Beethoven_Symphony_No_3.mp3.html
Compared to Haydn and Mozart (f.eg) there doesn't seem to be as many good choices for HIP Beethoven symphonies.
Norrington is nice, not consistent (I didn't enjoy his approach to 6 and 9) and sometimes a little odd, but engaging. M's thread reminded me, I must rebuy his cycle - one of the few things I regret giving away. IMO this is a good cycle to own as an alternative view, but not quite so much as a "middle ground" choice.
Gardiner seems more of a hybrid style, ditto Harnoncourt (as he often is), Goodman's apparently has poor recorded sound (a shame, as his Haydn is great). Hogwood is the one that seems to have most potential to me, but I am waiting for reviews to compare the incoming Immerseel cycle with it before I make a choice.
Edit: Although I may be impulsive and grab the Hogwood anyway if I run into more people advocating it. It seems that Hogwood can't do much wrong in anything, judging from critical and fan reception.
Quote from: Erevos on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
Keep in mind that Zinman does not use period instruments.
Quote from: Don on July 04, 2007, 05:49:33 AM
Keep in mind that Zinman does not use period instruments.
Nor does Harnoncourt but, strictly speaking, both are "Historically informed" although some would view this term as meaning "performed on period instruments."
Norrington, Gardiner and Bruggen have their moments and Hogwood turns in a magnificent 7th.
Norrington for the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th, perhaps.
There are good and bad points to all cycles but my personal favorites are:
For HIP on period instruments: Gardiner
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=2164
For HIP on modern instruments: Mackerras
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=858&name_role1=1&comp_id=3821&bcorder=15&name_id=56265&name_role=3
Quote from: hornteacher on July 04, 2007, 07:02:54 AM
There are good and bad points to all cycles but my personal favorites are:
For HIP on period instruments: Gardiner
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=2164
For HIP on modern instruments: Mackerras
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=858&name_role1=1&comp_id=3821&bcorder=15&name_id=56265&name_role=3
Those two are also my top choices.
Another yes from me on the Mackerras.
Quote from: hornteacher on July 04, 2007, 07:02:54 AM
There are good and bad points to all cycles but my personal favorites are:
For HIP on period instruments: Gardiner
For HIP on modern instruments: Mackerras
Those are the two sets that I own; also have Zinman (just a great bargin price!) - :)
Quote from: Mark on July 04, 2007, 07:38:49 AM
Another yes from me on the Mackerras.
and available for under a tenner for the set from Amazon UK!
Mark, the Mackerras set isn't really "HIP". Not just because it isn't on period instruments. That's not even the most decisive factor.
But to understand what is "historically informed performance" and inform others about it, one must first be informed about "historically informed". Which is, of course, theoretically anyone who knows a little about the history of the music and its historical context. But that's obviously not what is meant here.
"Historically informed performance" isn't just about smallish orchestras, quickish tempi, oldish instruments, or hardish timpani sticks either. Nor is it about using less or no vibrato. It's much more complex than that. There is a lot of "historical uninformedness" about that complex subject.
Too complex to go into it here in detail. Mackerras is one of the best "historically informed" conductors out there, and he has delivered many highly "historically informed" performances, on old instruments as well as on modern ones.
But this set isn't one of them. One could maybe call it "historically aware". But it's basically more a "modern classicist" view that he takes here rather than a "HIP" one.
Why that is, I don't know. Maybe he decided he was tired of superficially "HIP" readings which grew on every corner back then and he wanted to present a more timeless view of the music from the point of view of someone who is aware of the wide spectrum of interpretive approaches but decided it was time for him to leave all that aside and take a look at the compositional substance alone. But again, I don't know what he had in mind. But that is what it sounds like. What it doesn't sound like at all is "HIP".
Nor is Zinman a "HIP" cycle. He takes a very smilar approach but makes it look more "HIP" by tacking on a few superficial "HIP" elements here and there. If one likes that or not, is up to each listener. But it's not "HIP".
Nor would I call Gardiner particularly "HIP". Yes, he plays on old instruments and he does all the other things which superficially look "HIP". He choses quickish tempi, and he has the hard timpani sticks and all that. But what is almost completely missing from his cycle is the rhythmic flexibility, the rhetorically inflected phrasing, and other stylistic elements which are far more important to being "HIP" than the hard sticks. Why that comes from a conductor who has given us superb "HIP" readings of a lot of things, his outstanding recordings of Mozart symphonies, for instance, I am not sure either. My feeling is that Gardiner was looking for a way to set himself apart from all the other "HIPsters" who had sprung up everywhere in the meantime, all those people who felt that a few sets of gut strings were all you need to be "HIP". I suspect he wanted to create a "perfectly balanced" and "centered" "HIPpish" view, a kind of idealized, summarized, "timeless HIP" view.
I think he totally failed. What we have here is an astonishingly mechanical, sterilized and glossy run-through of the 9. Accident free and uncontroversial. One may like that, but it's not a real "HIP" performance, that's for sure.
Being "historically informed" means being aware of the vast spectrum of interpretive means which may or may not have been applied to the music at the time. Since we don't have recordings, we can't really decide "exactly" how they played back then, and that probably changed a lot depending on the given circumstances anyway.
Being "historically informed" means knowing about all that and, based on that knowledge, making *interpretive decisions*, not avoiding them, like Mackerras, Gardiner, and Zinman mostly do.
There are tons of superficially "HIPpish" contributions, but only very few truly "HIP" ones from people who have the vast background knowledge and artistic courage to make such decisions.
Among them is the ever provocative and happily controversial Sir Roger Norrington. His first traversal of the symphonies with the London Classical Players is a real trip of discovery both into the sonic world of period instruments and an large scale stylistic experiment based on what he felt was the real point of Beethoven's symphonic writing. Namely not to create timelessly esthetic masterpieces as the centerpiece of a classical canon, but to create highly dramatic, stirring, operatic musical declamations of *ideas* which transcend purelu esthetic musical values.
That was indeed what a lot of Beethoven's contemporaries felt, too, and so did the following generations of composers who felt that Beethoven had made it clear once and for all that music should not just sound good, but have a deeper content and meaning. Beethoven's music created shockwaves in the musical world which were felt even a century later and propelled a lot of other composers to seek deeper meanings in music themselves.
Now, all that is taken as a given and the Beethoven symphonies have collected a lot of dust, sitting in their place of honor in the middle of the musical pantheon. Some interpreters wipe of a little of that dust sometimes, but few bother to try to bring them really back to life and relase shockwaves like they once did.
Sir Roger explicitly set out to recreate those seismic events and remind the listener of the immense power of the music. In order to do so, he made a lot of very controversial, but bols interpretive decisions rather than playing it safe. Some of those decisions may make sense, some may be over the top, some may just be wrong, that is for everyone to decide, but at least he went out there and took the trip.
Which is why this cycle is, with all its quirks and faults, and some obviously wrong decisions, one of the few truly "HIP" cycles and something everybody should encounter at one time.
Christopher Hogwood didn't go quite that far, but his approach with the Academy of Ancient Music is just as valuable for different reasons. Or maybe more value, that is hard to decide.
Hogwood attempted more than anyone else, including Norrington, to actually go back to the sonic and stylistic substance of the music not as it may have been conceived ideally in Beethoven's mind, but as it may have actually sounded.
He doesn't postulate as much as Norrington what the music *should* sound like, his approach is more that of a competently manned workshop trying to piece the music together from carefully researched and prepared elements to see what it actually *did* sound like. He doesn't assume what it should be like, he doesn't decide to present the music from one perspective or another, he just goes ahead and investigates as much as possible what it really could have sounded like. That includes playing the symphonies in the orchestrations that are known to have been used for the first performances. That means that some of them are performed by a rather small contingent of players, some of them by a very large ensemble with doubled winds and very big string sections.
As such, his cycle is less one man's vision of historical Beethoven performance than a compendium of what we really know about instruments, playing practices, and performance conditions of the time.
As such, as refreshing as a dose of Norrington's theatralics or Gardiner's distancedly idealized classicism may be once in a while, I think that Hogwood's is by very far the best and most valuable of all cycles played on period instruments.
Maybe only until Immerseel comes around, I don't know yet. But he might be highly interesting, too.
Forget The "Hannover Band" or whatever they called themselves. There were just too many people with old instruments on the loose in London and too many buyers for "authentic" recordings back then.
Forget Brüggen. Somebody should tell him that applying baroque performance practice to Beethoven symphonies only makes the whole "HIP" thing as ridiculous as some say it is. Here it is.
Don't worry about Abbado and Haitink or all the other people in this context who suddenly completely "rethought" their ideas of Beethoven under the impression of the "HIP" movement. Their results are highly enjoyable but not at all "HIP" either.
Probably the "HIPpest" of them all is Harnoncourt, not at all surprisingly. His performances of the symphonies with the COE on modern instruments (and some "HIP" timpani and brass) but with a vast palette of truly "authentic" stylistic elements are probably among the stylistically most complex and multi-layered readings of anything I have ever heard. It is not even possible to sum up just how complex his approach his and from how many angles he reaches his interpretation at the same time, almost like a 3D version of these symphonies where almost everything else only happens in one or two dimensions.
Harnoncourt's readings reflect literally a lifetime of intensive study and practical performance of centuries of musical heritage leading up to these symphonies. But at the same time, his awareness of both the "before" and the "after" and his seamless blending of "old" and "new" make these truly "modern" readings, taken from the point of view who really understands where that music came from and what life it has led since the composer created it.
I know a lot of people don't "get" that at all. I don't either. I get parts of it, more and more, but I know there are many elemens that I haven't fully understood yet. But that's OK. That's why we have that on disc and can return to it again and again, and figure out a little more each time.
Unless you just want nice music to doodle in the background. Then all the above doesn't matter.
Just want to register my appreciation for this mammoth post, M. A fantastic and fascinating read, thank you :)
Have you actually read all that? :o
Sorry about the length of the post. That subject gets on my nerves a little since it comes up all the time but most people don't even have the slightest freaking clue about what "HIP" actually is. So the short version of my post would have been "People, why do you keep talking about "HIP" when you obviously don't even have the slightest freaking clue about what "HIP" actually is?".
But that would not have been very constructive. I felt it was more constructive at least to try to sum up a few of these things.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on July 04, 2007, 09:27:12 AM
Just want to register my appreciation for this mammoth post, M. A fantastic and fascinating read, thank you :)
Just finished
M's detailed post - agree w/ Luke and thanks for the extensive & provocative comments - enjoyed - :)
A very interesting read, M. I must say that I really enjoy Harnoncourt's Beethoven set.
A very good read, M. You write wisely.
As already stated I very much enjoy Gardiners remake of the third. From the olden days I enjoy a couple of Norrington disks and I also own a Brüggen turkey, nos. 4 & 6, where 6 is not too bad. From the Harnoncourt cycle i have 1 & 3. I like this Eroica very much. That's what I own of HIP LvB, using M's definition of HIP.
Bruggen's Beethoven recordings are no turkey for me at all, and particularly the 7th and 8th are OUTSTANDING. No idea why his approach to Beethoven was described as "baroque"-oriented. Any detail to prove that?
Very interesting replies! Even though the main point wasn't to determine what is and what is not historically informed ;)
I'll probably buy symphonies from various conductors, even though i always have a preference on Harnocourt. Not because he is more HIP than others, but because he always has something new or different to say with each one of his works.
Quote from: Erevos on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
First of all, Zinman's Beethoven is not HIP. It's modern instrument big band Beethoven, but it was the first cycle to use the newer Barenreiter editions of the scores. The tempos are fast and Zinman got great transparency from his orchestra, but it is not HIP Beethoven. It's not even hybrid because of the number of instruments per part.
Harnoncourt's Beethoven cycle with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe is not HIP either. Again, it's influenced by historically informed practices, but it's a modern instrument chamber orchestra. It's simlar to the Thomas Fey Beethoven symphonies (Symphonies 4&6 and 1&2 - not a complete cycle) or Thomas Dausgaard's ongoing cycle with the Swedish Chamber Orchestra Orebro because again, it's a smaller ensemble using faster tempos. Note: Both Fey and Dausgaard use the Barenreiter editions. Those were not available when Harnoncourt recorded his cycle. I also believe that Harnoncourt may have used some period instruments in certain passages, but without checking in the liner notes I can't really say this with any degree of reliability.
Here are the HIP cycles (performances on period instruments informed by the scholarship on period performance) that I am familiar with:
Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players: the first, but the least of the cycles. I tend to avoid this as it's just not well done. At that time Norrington was not a great Beethoven conductor -- or at least he didn't do the symphonies very well. His later cycle with a modern orchestra is much, much better.
Christopher Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music: this is a fine cycle, very straight forward with crisp tempos. It has really worn well. It is very well textured with great transparency. I would put it right on the transition between the classical and romantic traditions, taking a little of each school. I think it's probably due for reevaluation, and will probably benefit from the reexamination.
Frans Brüggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century: Excellent cycle, but more classical in feel than romantic. Brüggen's orchestra uses less vibrato than Hogwood's or Gardiner's, but it's one of the most interesting cycles around. This is the one that really has that "period" feel.
Sir John Eliot Gardiner and the Orchestre Romantique et Revolutionnaire: This is the cycle that sounds most like modern orchestra Beethoven. It's firmly into the more romantic camp but still has enough of the classical lightness of texture to remind everyone of just what tradition Beethoven grew out of. If you are new to HIP Beethoven, then this might be the best option because it's very
grand Beethoven
There are also some individual performances that are HIP of individual symphonies -- Jordi Savall has recorded the 3rd Symphony (Eroica) with Le Concerts des Nations for instance and Bruno Weil and Tafelmusik Orchestra have recently recorded Symphonies 4 &5. Also, Jos van Immerseel is in the process of recording a complete cycle with the Anima Eterna Orchestra which is scheduled for release in 2008.
Quote from: Erevos on July 04, 2007, 11:16:02 AM
Very interesting replies! Even though the main point wasn't to determine what is and what is not historically informed ;)
I'll probably buy symphonies from various conductors, even though i always have a preference on Harnocourt. Not because he is more HIP than others, but because he always has something new or different to say with each one of his works.
I love Harnoncourt, and this is probably going to be greeted as heresy, but I don't really care for Harnoncourt's Beethoven. In some places (most notably the Pastoral) he plays with tempo to an alarming degree. While the early symphonies are very good, his Beethoven just doesn't appeal to me. I've tried to analyze exactly why I am unsatisfied by his Beethoven performance, but I've never really been able to put my finger on it. I don't like his piano concertos with Laurent Aimard either. I much prefer Harnoncourt for Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, and even Dvorák and Bruckner. His Beethoven just is not as good as his other work.
Quote from: Bunny on July 04, 2007, 11:21:44 AM
I love Harnoncourt, and this is probably going to be greeted as heresy, but I don't really care for Harnoncourt's Beethoven. In some places (most notably the Pastoral) he plays with tempo to an alarming degree. While the early symphonies are very good, his Beethoven just doesn't appeal to me. I've tried to analyze exactly why I am unsatisfied by his Beethoven performance, but I've never really been able to put my finger on it.
Fortunately, I can help you with the answer: You simply don't get what he is trying to do here. That's not a problem at all. It's not "heresy" either. It's just you. And obviously, you, like the rest of us, are completely entitled to get or not get and like or not to like whatever you want. And we also appreciate that you share your personal preferences with us. To which you are also entitled. I know that's very important.
However, all that doesn't have much to do with the actual subject. You obviously don't understand at all what the whole "HIP" thing is really about ("obviously", because you illustrate that in great detail in the longer post above).
This kind of uninformed, superficial and clichéed nonsense about that subject is basically what I ranted about extensively on the previous page. Except that it may have looked out of place then since I didn't reply to anything anyone in particular had said. You have really nicely summed up what I had in mind though. Thanks for providing the context for my post.
Quote from: Erevos on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
Zinmann does not use period instruments unfortunately. You can buy the complete symphonies by Norrington and also the Hanover band set for next to nothing these days. I advise you get both, you can't lose. Gardiners was something of a let down and costs significantly more.
M,
Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "rhetorically inflected phrasing" in your long post?
I should mention I have the Norrington/LCP set, almost by accident. I was just looking for a cycle for my kids to play, and I wanted a cheap one so I wouldn't mind if they trashed it. Instead, I've spent a lot of time listening to it myself. I enjoy the energy and sense of surprise in these performances.
M, your long post, wow. It's those kind of reads that make me glad you are back.
"HIP" is something I need to become much more "HI" about. :) I agree that it is more complex than just what instruments you use. You can come at HIP from several angles, not necessarily old instruments.
I enjoyed the Norrington clip very much. I like controversial. But definitely not a first HIP!
Hogwood sounds excellent, and I would love to hear Mackerras, but then again, I didn't know he was even considered "HIP" for Beethoven? ??? Anyway, I rarely have found anything of his that is not interesting and conducted with sparkle and attention.
Harnoncourt, my only experience with him so far is in some of the London symphonies, I'm still coming to terms with him. Gorgeous, provocative, there is so much nuance there, it makes repeated listening very enjoyable. And the Concertgebouw, far from a HIP orchestra, but stylistically what he does is unique from anything I've heard. He feels rooted in the music and the time it comes from, but we have to remember Haydn (and Beethoven) had some "attitude", and it's definitely gutsy, and even defiant, in places. But he definitely has his own very specific views and somehow he is able to blend and reconcile those two things in a fascinating way.
What looks like so many systematic black and white 16th and 8th notes on a page in this kind of music becomes imbued with a vast array of colors and shades. He really makes the dialogue that is so important between the sections of the orchestra "speak". Even within one line of several bars, there is a great deal of insight going on. The musicality is just incredible. But some people don't get him. Someone once told me he thought his Haydn was too "serious". But Harnoncourt goes for much more than effervescent soda-pop Haydn. He's more like, a fine wine.
I also appreciate the massive post :)
Quote from: Shrunk on July 05, 2007, 06:44:02 AM
I should mention I have the Norrington/LCP set, almost by accident. I was just looking for a cycle for my kids to play, and I wanted a cheap one so I wouldn't mind if they trashed it. Instead, I've spent a lot of time listening to it myself. I enjoy the energy and sense of surprise in these performances.
It's fun indeed... I also picked it up due to the low price and after imprinting on that cycle, I then heard Klemperer's stereo one (which I bought deliberately for a different approach). And, damn, I knew that Klemperer was slow - and looking back, his tempi wasn't ridiculously slow - but it took a long time for me to come around to it being played in that way (the opening notes of the 5th are worlds apart in both cycles).
This IMO proves that Norrington's tempi (and therefore Beethoven's metronome markings) are not unpaletable or "wrong" at all. I probably had as much of a hard time appreciating Klemperer's Beethoven as many people had appreciating Norrington.
Btw, it's sad to see the Hanover Band being dissed in an earlier post :P Their Haydn on Hyperion's Helios label really is brilliant.
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 07:10:51 AM
I also appreciate the massive post :)
It's fun indeed... I also picked it up due to the low price and after imprinting on that cycle, I then heard Klemperer's stereo one (which I bought deliberately for a different approach). And, damn, I knew that Klemperer was slow - and looking back, his tempi wasn't ridiculously slow - but it took a long time for me to come around to it being played in that way (the opening notes of the 5th are worlds apart in both cycles).
This IMO proves that Norrington's tempi (and therefore Beethoven's metronome markings) are not unpaletable or "wrong" at all. I probably had as much of a hard time appreciating Klemperer's Beethoven as many people had appreciating Norrington.
Btw, it's sad to see the Hanover Band being dissed in an earlier post :P Their Haydn on Hyperion's Helios label really is brilliant.
I discussed the Hanover Band and Norrington earlier today. A general notice - buy the Hanover Band set and you will not regret it, especially if you can find the set which also includes the Missa Solemnis and overtures all at a bargain price. I am the world's No1 Period Instrument Beethoven fanatic and I never tire of these disks.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 07:26:52 AM
A general notice - buy the Hanover Band set and you will not regret it
A general notice - what I've heard of the Hanover Band makes it one of the most forgettable ensembles I've ever heard.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2007, 07:29:25 AM
A general notice - what I've heard of the Hanover Band makes it one of the most forgettable ensembles I've ever heard.
Their(Hanover Band) Beethoven and Schubert are really done in by the horribly dim and cavernous sonics that Nimbus served them. And no, you don't need sophisticated equipment to tell that sound is horrendous. Sounds like a tape of high school graduation. If you want to hear them at their best you can do so in their Schumann symphonies set.
Quote from: M forever on July 05, 2007, 01:33:42 AM
Fortunately, I can help you with the answer: You simply don't get what he is trying to do here. That's not a problem at all. It's not "heresy" either. It's just you. And obviously, you, like the rest of us, are completely entitled to get or not get and like or not to like whatever you want. And we also appreciate that you share your personal preferences with us. To which you are also entitled. I know that's very important.
However, all that doesn't have much to do with the actual subject. You obviously don't understand at all what the whole "HIP" thing is really about ("obviously", because you illustrate that in great detail in the longer post above).
This kind of uninformed, superficial and clichéed nonsense about that subject is basically what I ranted about extensively on the previous page. Except that it may have looked out of place then since I didn't reply to anything anyone in particular had said. You have really nicely summed up what I had in mind though. Thanks for providing the context for my post.
I actually think I do get what he's trying to do. I just don't enjoy it. It doesn't illuminate Beethoven's creative process for me as much as Harnoncourt's incisive, analytical, musical thought process. I find Harnoncourt's cycle far less interesting than Dausgaard's, which for me is the best modern instrument chamber ensemble Beethoven cycle around. That's exciting, refreshing Beethoven. Harnoncourt's cycle is weighty, and for lack of a better word, pedantic -- he's trying hard to make a point, but the music isn't flowing "trippingly" from the instruments. Rather than feeling as if the music is speaking to me naturally, I feel as if I'm being lectured from the podium by the music (perhaps that's what you mean by rhetorically inflected phrasing?). To me it sounds calculated, and it leaves me cold -- almost like your nasty little post up there in the quote box. For Haydn, such an approach lends weight and dignitas. For Mozart, it adds character and humanity to the almost inhumanly beautiful sound. That approach, however, makes me feel that something has been taken away from the music of Beethoven; a stirring, emotional connection is just not there. Insulting my intellect with words like "superficial" and "uninformed" isn't going to change my mind, or make me want to revisit it to see if perhaps I will feel differently. If that is what you would like, then perhaps you should have given a great explanation why I should listen again, and what I should look for. If you had only stirred my curiosity about it, you might have accomplished more. Insulting my intellect just creates a feeling of intransigence.
Btw, I understand what HIP is about. But you have to distinguish between true period performance (Historic Instrument Performance) and and what is often miscalled HIP (Historically Informed Practice). So, there! :P
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 05, 2007, 07:48:10 AM
Their(Hanover Band) Beethoven and Schubert are really done in by the horribly dim and cavernous sonics that Nimbus served them. And no, you don't need sophisticated equipment to tell that sound is horrendous. Sounds like a tape of high school graduation. If you want to hear them at their best you can do so in their Schumann symphonies set.
I had forgotten about Roy Goodman and the Hannover Band -- most probably because the s/q is really awful for the early recordings. Thankfully, their later recordings have benefited from improved sonics.
Quote from: Bunny on July 05, 2007, 07:52:40 AM
I had forgotten about Roy Goodman and the Hannover Band -- most probably because the s/q is really awful for the early recordings. Thankfully, their later recordings have benefited from improved sonics.
I forgot to mention that the Schumann set is on RCA (mercifully) and they employ REAL engineers and not high school apprentices.
Seems there's some division here over the Hanover Band...
I coincidentally have been in search of Goodman's HIP Holst Planets (on historical instruments), impossible to find. I don't particularly care if it's good or terrible, I think I've read it wasn't, I'm just very curious to hear the darn thing.
I'm not sure what is wrong with the Nimbus label, they horribly record solo instruments too, if a piano CD I heard a while ago is typical. Vocal is better, fortunately.
Quote from: Greta on July 05, 2007, 07:56:30 AM
Seems there's some division here over the Hanover Band...
I coincidentally have been in search of Goodman's HIP Holst Planets (on historical instruments), impossible to find. I don't particularly care if it's good or terrible, I think I've read it wasn't, I'm just very curious to hear the darn thing.
Really? You would think by Holst's time orchestral instruments are pretty much the same as today.
The No1 Beethoven Superfan in the world does not give bad advice about Beethoven. Ignore the negative comments above about the Hanover Band recordings of the Beethoven symphonies. Check out real reviews elsewhere which are on the whole very positive indeed. Not perfect interpretation thoughout (eg the first movment of the Eroica is about 2 minutes too long). But still eminently listenable. For teh best Eroica to date look to Jordi Savall's recording..
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Sinfonia-Symphony-Coriolan-Overture/dp/B000003IHX/ref=sr_1_3/104-3977417-1495913?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183651231&sr=1-3
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 08:01:48 AM
The No1 Beethoven Superfan in the world does not give bad advice about Beethoven. Ignore the negative comments above about the Hanover Band recordings of the Beethoven symphonies. Check out real reviews elsewhere which are on the whole very positive indeed. Not perfect interpretation thoughout (eg the first movment of the Eroica is about 2 minutes too long). But still eminently listenable. For teh best Eroica to date look to Jordi Savall's recording..
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Sinfonia-Symphony-Coriolan-Overture/dp/B000003IHX/ref=sr_1_3/104-3977417-1495913?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183651231&sr=1-3
This is a bit off topic but for a HIP ensemble the Goodman/Hanover combo sometimes make decisions that make you question their scholarship. It's been a while since I have heard their Beethoven so I am not going to try to recollect any moments but last night I was listening to their Schumann 4th and they skipped the exposition repeat in the opening movement ! Now even "old school" conductors like Klemperer and Bernstein take that repeat. How do you claim to be "HI" and not take that repeat makes you scratch your head.
I believe HIP should stand for "Horribly Irritating Performances". They're utter trash recorded only for the sake of being "different". And appealing only to those with emotionless souls.
I'm very happy with Toscanini, Karajan, Furtwaengler, Walter and Kleiber, leading the NYP, NBC, BPO, VPO, etal.
If Beethoven himself is capable of hearing any of those so called HIP performances, I'm sure he's turning over in his grave.
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 07:59:57 AM
I'm not sure what is wrong with the Nimbus label, they horribly record solo instruments too, if a piano CD I heard a while ago is typical. Vocal is better, fortunately.
I have many Nimbus piano recordings where I find the sound quality excellent, although I have to admit that majority opinion is along the lines expressed by Lethe.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 05, 2007, 08:10:28 AM
This is a bit off topic but for a HIP ensemble the Goodman/Hanover combo sometimes make decisions that make you question their scholarship. It's been a while since I have heard their Beethoven so I am not going to try to recollect any moments but last night I was listening to their Schumann 4th and they skipped the exposition repeat in the opening movement ! Now even "old school" conductors like Klemperer and Bernstein take that repeat. How do you claim to be "HI" and not take that repeat makes you scratch your head.
I agree repeats should NEVER be skipped, but everything is there with their Beethoven as far as I can remember. I remember my old Karajan recordings when they were missed out everywhere.
Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 08:15:13 AM
I have many Nimbus piano recordings where I find the sound quality excellent, although I have to admit that majority opinion is along the lines expressed by Lethe.
I respect your opinions, so I won't automatically pass by any seemingly interesting Nimbus release without giving it a listen first, as it may find me more receptive to the appeal of their recorded sound.
Edit: that was a mouthfull...
Quote from: Iago on July 05, 2007, 08:13:50 AM
I believe HIP should stand for "Horribly Irritating Performances". They're utter trash recorded only for the sake of being "different". And appealing only to those with emotionless souls.
I'm very happy with Toscanini, Karajan, Furtwaengler, Walter and Kleiber, leading the NYP, NBC, BPO, VPO, etal.
If Beethoven himself is capable of hearing any of those so called HIP performances, I'm sure he's turning over in his grave.
What are you talking about, whenever did Furtwaengler, to name but one , give a damn about Beethoven's tempo indications???
If Beethoven were to hear his symphonies performed by modern orchestras on modern instruments, he'd boggle at how off and cloudy and mushy they sounded and - if he wanted them performed by such orchestras - he'd re-write the works entirely. What he wrote was not for modern orchestras, so when performed by them, certainly doesn't sound very much like what he wrote. Besides which, if he did intend it to sound the way, say, Furtwängler made them sound, then he was just a mediocre or even bad orchestrator. The sound and power of the orchestra overclouds many of the subtleties and hidden treasures that take place below the melody line. I listen to HIP performances of virtually any orchestral work by any composer, then a non-HIP, and I'm amazed at how much less stuff you can "get" with the modern performances.
With Beethoven this was the most drastic leap of all, at least for me. I listened to Gardiner's set and went from "these symphonies are very good I guess but I don't see what the big deal is" to passionately loving them.
My only warning would be concerning the Hanover Band: they're way too horny! Literally! I haven't heard this Beethoven set, I have to admit that up front, but I've never heard anything they did where the horns at mezzo-forté and louder didn't cloud over everything. I think the value of HIP comes from the increased clarity, but the Hanover Band doesn't sound clear to me at all because of their horns.
QuoteThe No1 Beethoven Superfan in the world does not give bad advice about Beethoven.
Goodness, that really is the funniest thing I have ever read on the Internet.
No contest.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 08:25:05 AM
What are you talking about, whenever did Furtwaengler, to name but one , give a damn about Beethoven's tempo indications???
Slavish adherence to tempo indications often produces lifeless, limp wristed performances. For me that is true in most of the so called, "HIP" recordings.
I'll take the spirit of the music as evoked by Furtwaengler or Walter and the driving power provided by Karajan and Toscanini over the paralyzing slavish adherence to "tempo indications" as provided by Goodman. Gardiner or Harnoncourt. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!
QuoteGoodness, that really is the funniest thing I have ever read on the Internet.
No Karl, I think this wins:
QuoteMy only warning would be concerning the Hanover Band: they're way too horny!
Post of the week! ;D
We seem to be all over the place concerning what HIP means and what type of performances show Beethoven's symphonies in the best light. Perhaps that's the way it should be.
What's been on my mind in recent years about HIP performances revolves around the use of period instruments. I have noticed that an increasing number of period instrument recordings are HIP in name only and are really attempts to make the performances palatable to those who traditionally dislike HIP recordings - "HIP for those who hate HIP".
A good example of the above are the period instrument performances on Chandos of the Schumann Piano Quintet Op. 44 and the Piano Quartet Op. 47. If interested, my review can be found on MusicWeb International.
I'm very interested in this subject and would love to read your review. Would you mind passing a precise link to it, if you can get one? I did a bit of looking around the site and didn't seem able to find it (the site search is not so hot). It is musicweb.co.uk, right?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 05, 2007, 08:01:28 AM
Really? You would think by Holst's time orchestral instruments are pretty much the same as today.
That "pretty much" needs to be interepreted with a generous grain of salt. Hearing is believing! :)
Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 09:17:29 AM
A good example of the above are the period instrument performances on Chandos of the Schumann Piano Quintet Op. 44 and the Piano Quartet Op. 47. If interested, my review can be found on MusicWeb International.
No worries - the newer versions by Gaia Scienza (Winter&Winter) retain much of what I find invigorating about HIP as an approach to music. I have the Chandos (Michelangelo Qt) version and find it a bit disappointing as well. These performers simply have not rethought the music enough (in terms of period instruments and performing styles), even in comparison with the quite early AmonRa recording.
Quote from: JoshLilly on July 05, 2007, 09:29:59 AM
I'm very interested in this subject and would love to read your review. Would you mind passing a precise link to it, if you can get one? I did a bit of looking around the site and didn't seem able to find it (the site search is not so hot). It is musicweb.co.uk, right?
I'm not worth a damn in giving precise links. Anyways, go to www.musicweb-international.com/index/htm. Then click on search. Then type in schumann chandos - then it's the second item.
I have located it! Haven't read it yet, but here's a link for others' convenience:
http://tinyurl.com/22usyb
EDIT: Just read it. Thanks for that! I think you've already convinced me to get the AmonRa CD. I checked it out on amazon.com right after reading your article: very tempting. Goes to show there are more factors to consider than just the instruments and performers.
Quote from: masolino on July 05, 2007, 09:49:24 AM
That "pretty much" needs to be interepreted with a generous grain of salt. Hearing is believing! :)
Indeed, considering there have even been HIP
RAVEL recordings...
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 10:32:48 AM
Indeed, considering there have even been HIP RAVEL recordings...
HIP Debussy, HIP Rachmaninoff. I heard these, too, and believed... :)
That's the only true HIP Rachmaninoff record :P
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 08:25:05 AM
I respect your opinions, so I won't automatically pass by any seemingly interesting Nimbus release without giving it a listen first, as it may find me more receptive to the appeal of their recorded sound.
If you get the opportunity, give a listen to the Nimbus disc of Scriabin's Op. 11 Preludes and Shostakovich Op. 34 Preludes played by Marta Deyanova (Nimbus 5026) - fantastic performances and soundstage.
Quote from: JoshLilly on July 05, 2007, 08:44:39 AM
My only warning would be concerning the Hanover Band: they're way too horny! Literally! I haven't heard this Beethoven set, I have to admit that up front, but I've never heard anything they did where the horns at mezzo-forté and louder didn't cloud over everything. I think the value of HIP comes from the increased clarity, but the Hanover Band doesn't sound clear to me at all because of their horns.
A Beethoven symphony without French horns blaring is nothing. A Beethoven Symphony is not about 'clarity', it is music to scare, to shake the very Earth itself!!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 08:01:48 AM
the first movment of the Eroica is about 2 minutes too long
Who composed the extra bars of music?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 12:43:41 PM
A Beethoven symphony without French horns blaring is nothing. A Beethoven Symphony is not about 'clarity', it is music to scare, to shake the very Earth itself!!
I like horny orchestras! The hornier the better! ;D
Quote from: Erevos on July 05, 2007, 11:37:13 AM
That's the only true HIP Rachmaninoff record :P
Sorry but I don't think Rachmaninoff recorded these in 1890-1910 or did he? :)
Rachmaninoff played very different instruments in Russia (where the pieces in
question, i.e. the suites for two pianos, were composed and first performed)
than what he used later for recording.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 12:43:41 PM
A Beethoven symphony without French horns blaring is nothing. A Beethoven Symphony is not about 'clarity', it is music to scare, to shake the very Earth itself!!
And music can scare and shake the Earth while retaining clarity.
Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 04:54:06 PM
And music can scare and shake the Earth while retaining clarity.
What do you want to scare and shake the boy's platitudes for, anyway? ;D
QuoteHIP Debussy, HIP Rachmaninoff. I heard these, too, and believed...
HIP Mahler would be very interesting. Does such a thing exist? :)
Kind of. But not really. Norrington has already attacked 1,2,4, and 5 with the SWR orchestra employing what he calls his "pure tone technique", namely, vibratoless strings. That actually sounds pretty amazing from what I have heard so far. None of his Mahler recordings, but I heard the Tchaikovsky 6 which actually sounds great like that. At least it *sounds* great. The silvery sound and the crystalline clarity he achieves with the SWR strings and the extremely careful tuning and balancing of the winds, especially the brass, results in a very transparent, slender, and very well balanced sound picture and makes for some highly interesting listening. You can hear stuff there, fine detail, motivic interplay, that is rarely heard in performances of this symphony. There is a tendency though to overdo the phrasing in a very classicist rhetorical way which I am not sure is stylistically that well suited to the music.
This is more Sir Roger once again in experimentation mode, using a modern orchestra and postulating a "historically informed" performance practice that I am not sure how "correct" it really is. But as always, he does have some good points at least, and it is mot of the time worth listening to what he does, even though with his experiments, he drives some people totally crazy. Or maybe just because of that.
I will definitely listen to some of his Mahler at some point, but it's not really a high priority for me right now.
There is some late 19th/early 20th century repertoire on "period" instruments, like Wagner, Holst, some Vaughan Williams with the New Queens Hall Orchestra, Sir Roger himself struck at least once in this area with his "period" Wagner album, he also did the Brahms symphonies on "authentic" instruments but I didn't find that so interesting. Especially because he missed the historic chance to have all the horn parts played on natural horn instead of valve horns, as Brahms wished.
But Norrington said that that probably hardly ever happened during Brahms' time, so that's why he decided for valve horns instead. I find that totally lame and he kind of misses his own point there.
Then there are the Bruckner 4 and 7 with Herreweghe and the 1st with Haselböck, all on "period" instruments. And probably some more stuff.
While there is no actual "HIP" Mahler, it must be kept in mind that the Wiener Philharmoniker still basically play on the same kind of instruments that were used when Mahler himself stood in front of their forefathers.
True, the string instruments now all have steel instead of gut strings, and whether or not more or less vibrato was used in Mahler's time, they certainly use much more now. The overall sound of the orchestra has also changed somewhat in the past decades as can be heard on recordings, but mostly, it has become ever more refined and technically assured, like all other orchestras, and in the process maybe more "rounded off", or "polished".
Still, the wind instruments are more or less exactly the same, with the exception of the metal flutes, and so that all comes very close to the sounds that Mahler himself knew. In some cases, it is exactly the same. The Vienna F horns, for instance, are all based on Viennese horn models from around 1890, so when you hear that, you actually listen to a "period" instrument. That is exactly the sound Mahler, Strauss, or Bruckner heard back then.
Quote from: Don on July 05, 2007, 04:54:06 PM
And music can scare and shake the Earth while retaining clarity.
True you can have both things, clarity can be enhanced with the greater transparency offered by period instruments, used in smaller numbers than the typical philharmonic. Then remove the vibrato, then divide the violins, and Bob's you uncle. But we need the horns blaring and sharp accents and correct tempo too!
Looks like this thread is in full blabla mode now. A pity, it could have been interesting.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2007, 07:29:25 AM
A general notice - what I've heard of the Hanover Band makes it one of the most forgettable ensembles I've ever heard.
Then by all means my friend, you judge on limited knowledge.
For this is one of the best ensembles we have in Europe, and it is highly regarded as such.
But my ears and knowledge could be at fault here of course.......................
Quote from: Bunny on July 05, 2007, 07:52:40 AM
I had forgotten about Roy Goodman and the Hannover Band -- most probably because the s/q is really awful for the early recordings. Thankfully, their later recordings have benefited from improved sonics.
True, the sonics conception of Nimbus was to blame not the quality of the band.
Quote from: Lethe on July 05, 2007, 07:59:57 AM
I'm not sure what is wrong with the Nimbus label, they horribly record solo instruments too, if a piano CD I heard a while ago is typical. Vocal is better, fortunately.
Nimbus believed in not altering the acoustics of a venue, no matter how bad it sounds. If you would go to a live concert in this venue you would hear this acoustic anyway, was their reasoning, and that is the only reason why these recordings are mostly duds.
And the most important factor was that the playing was often as bad as some people say "HIP" ensembles are plus that the musical direction was totally one-dimensional, basically just warmed up "HIP" clichés.
The "Hanover Band" was really just an extra quick gig for all the musicians running around London with period instruments at that time when everybody recorded everything on anything that looked like a "period" instrument. But that actually sold records back then. At least a few.
Could you direct me to a link were I can find these Brahms Symphonies done by Norrington?
I am unable to find them.
Thanks.
Quote from: M forever on July 06, 2007, 02:00:38 AM
And the most important factor was that the playing was often as bad as some people say "HIP" ensembles are plus that the musical direction was totally one-dimensional, basically just warmed up "HIP" clichés.
The "Hanover Band" was really just an extra quick gig for all the musicians running around London with period instruments at that time when everybody recorded everything on anything that looked like a "period" instrument. But that actually sold records back then. At least a few.
I presume you are excluding yourself from the 'blabla...'. I've been listening to Beethoven to an almost unhealthy degree for 22 years now, I started buying all the usual recordings by Karajan, Bohm and the others, after a while I noticed something was not right with this sound. The truth of this situation dawned on me , but only after I'd bought virtually his complete works performed by these 'traditionalists'. Bit by bit I replaced all this stuff with period instrument versions, and now I have just about everything you can get performed this way and the music sound all the better for it - like having the mud wiped off your Ferrari. What? you don't have a Ferrari...?
If you guys had the balls for a 'music fight' I could present tracks that could easily demolish any equivalent rendition performed by the likes of Furtwangler et al, even for some of them using the Hanover Band!! The best way to expose any weakness in a performance it to play it directly alongside other performances, I have learned this for sure.
Looks like all of them are still available, for instance from amazon.de. But I would also check availability and pricing on amazon.co.uk, the shipping costs are probably more or less the same from Germany or the UK to the Netherlands (I would think).
http://www.amazon.de/Brahms-Symphony-Roger-Norrington-London/dp/B000BR2PVE/ref=sr_1_2/028-0694452-9469351?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183717179&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.de/Brahms-Symphony-Roger-Norrington-London/dp/B000BR2PVO/ref=sr_1_12/028-0694452-9469351?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183717179&sr=8-12
http://www.amazon.de/Brahms-Symphonies-No-3-4/dp/B000BR2PVY/ref=sr_1_5/028-0694452-9469351?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183717179&sr=8-5
There is also a video cycle with the SWR (on "modern" instruments):
http://www.amazon.de/Brahms-Johannes-Symphonie-Nr-1/dp/B000FMQSU4/ref=sr_11_1/028-0694452-9469351?ie=UTF8&qid=1183717408&sr=11-1
But I haven't watched any of those.
There is also Ein Deutsches Requiem (on "period" instruments):
http://www.amazon.de/Ein-Deutsches-Requiem-Norrington/dp/B00000JJRB/ref=sr_1_1/028-0694452-9469351?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183717179&sr=8-1
Let me see if I can find the CDs, then I can upload a sample movement.
Thanks for that, pricey they are, and JPC does not list them anymore, so they are not widely available anymore I guess.
Will asap order at least the period one, and think about the modern version.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 02:15:52 AM
If you guys had the balls for a 'music fight' I could present tracks that could easily demolish any equivalent rendition performed by the likes of Furtwangler et al, even for some of them using the Hanover Band!! The best way to expose any weakness in a performance it to play it directly alongside other performances, I have learned this for sure.
That's a total nonsensical idea. Comparing somebody like Furtwängler or Karajan or Böhm or Bernstein or whoever to a performance on period instruments or in a completely different style doesn't make sense at all.
There is no "true" or "authentic" Beethoven. Every performance is a proposition of style. Trying to "go back to the roots" is as much a stylistic *decision* as interpreting the music from the point of view of a "later" performance tradition.
In those 22 years, after you spent all that money, you don't seem to have learned anything. You may try to read my post on p.1 to get a better understanding of the complexity of the "HIP" question. Feel free to come back with questions.
In the meantime, let me donate you a few umlauts so you can spell Furtwängler and Böhm properly:
öööööööööööö
ääääääääääää
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 02:15:52 AM
like having the mud wiped off your Ferrari. What? you don't have a Ferrari...?
How did you come up with *that*?
No, I don't have one. I don't live in Miami.
I drive myself around in this much more practical and also very well crafted vehicle (and yes, that is my actual car, not a trader shot):
Quote from: Harry on July 06, 2007, 02:38:17 AM
Thanks for that, pricey they are, and JPC does not list them anymore, so they are not widely available anymore I guess.
Will asap order at least the period one, and think about the modern version.
Looks like these are Japan imports, and they aren't that expensive in Japan.
http://www.hmv.co.jp/search/index.asp?keyword=brahms+norrington
I found the discs, amazingly. Here is a preview, the first movement of the 4th with Sir Roger N and the LCP:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qzkv
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 02:15:52 AM
If you guys had the balls for a 'music fight'
You're definitely on the wrong forum, pal. This one is about music. If you want fighters with balls, you should register on a K1 forum.
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2007, 03:02:55 AM
You're definitely on the wrong forum, pal. This one is about music. If you want fighters with balls, you should register on a K1 forum.
Well I didn't really mean a real 'fight', I meant it figuratively, perhaps that was lost on you? I don't just talk music, I for one actually provide it here, lots of it!! So think before you type next time. On the other hand some of the responses in this chain and others here are indeed tinged with not a small amount of aggression, so perhaps a real fight would be appropriate in some cases.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 03:15:35 AM
Well I didn't really mean a real 'fight', I meant it figuratively, perhaps that was lost on you? I don't just talk music, I for one actually provide it here, lots of it!! So think before you type next time. On the other hand some of the responses in this chain and others here are indeed tinged with not a small amount of aggression, so perhaps a real fight would be appropriate in some cases.
Speaking of providing music, I do a lot of that, and if you want a real fair and unbiased discussion about interpretation, head over to my "Mystery Orchestra" or Greta's "Mystery Comparison" which will be back up with fresh links soon and post your unbiased, blind, but, according to yourself, highly expert opinion.
We actually discussed Beethoven 5 just recently and missed a real Beethoven expert like you.
Now it's Bruckner 9, but that's just as fascinating a piece and something I am sure you have much to say about, and about the interpretations.
We look forward to that.
Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?
Mr Corkin, what do you think? For your convenience, here is the link to the clip again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qzkv
and the moment in the score:
Quote from: M forever on July 05, 2007, 09:16:35 PM
While there is no actual "HIP" Mahler,
Herreweghe had made a recording of Mahler DKW with his OdCE. :)
Oh, great. I didn't know that. That might be very interesting. Herreweghe has done a lot of good stuff, a very serious musician. I was a little disappointed by his Bruckner 7, but the 4th came out really nice.
I actually just ordered that.
Quote from: Harry on July 06, 2007, 02:38:17 AM
Thanks for that, pricey they are, and JPC does not list them anymore, so they are not widely available anymore I guess.
Will asap order at least the period one, and think about the modern version.
All Norrington LCP Brahms are still in print in Japan - as Japanese issues - so all N's notes have been translated.
Quote from: M forever on July 06, 2007, 03:37:49 AM
Speaking of providing music, I do a lot of that, and if you want a real fair and unbiased discussion about interpretation, head over to my "Mystery Orchestra" or Greta's "Mystery Comparison" which will be back up with fresh links soon and post your unbiased, blind, but, according to yourself, highly expert opinion.
We actually discussed Beethoven 5 just recently and missed a real Beethoven expert like you.
Now it's Bruckner 9, but that's just as fascinating a piece and something I am sure you have much to say about, and about the interpretations.
We look forward to that.
Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?
Mr Corkin, what do you think? For your convenience, here is the link to the clip again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qzkv
and the moment in the score:
Well this is an interesting twist on the idea. To be honest I do not really care what the orchestra is or who the conductor is as long as I like what I hear from them. But I have a taste for period instruments so that would be essential.
But I am not really a fan of Brahms so I'm not sure my assessment would be of any value to you, with or without this horn 'anomaly', my specialism is Beethoven and Handel. I would be forced just to assess the music in itself and the result would from be undoubtedly negative re Brahms. Nevertheless my advice would always be to stick to the score unless there was substantial evidence of a copyists error.
Quote from: masolino on July 05, 2007, 04:45:21 PM
Sorry but I don't think Rachmaninoff recorded these in 1890-1910 or did he? :)
Rachmaninoff played very different instruments in Russia (where the pieces in
question, i.e. the suites for two pianos, were composed and first performed)
than what he used later for recording.
No, these recordings were made between 1930-1940. What i meant by HIP is that Rachmaninoff plays his music the way he wanted it to be.
I wasn't refering to authentic instruments. I will agree with M. on that HIP isn't only about authentic instruments.
What is said was mostly a joke... i meant that only the composer's own conducting or playing is 100% HIP :)
Quote from: Erevos on July 06, 2007, 03:50:31 AM
What is said was mostly a joke... i meant that only the composer's own conducting or playing is 100% HIP :)
Consider how much the conducting of someone like Bruno Walter had changed between 1930 and 1960, I am not sure that is necessarily true either. :)
Quote from: M forever on July 06, 2007, 02:51:19 AM
That's a total nonsensical idea.
Ah! I see you've met Rod!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 03:49:59 AM
But I have a taste for period instruments so that would be essential.
Good thing this particular clip is on "period" instruments then. I think you will find it interesting.
But that doesn't ean that you can't listen to and criticize non-period performances either, does it? After all, you called for a Furtwängler vs. "HIP" comparison. You never know what you will run into in "Mystery Orchestra".
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 06, 2007, 03:49:59 AM
But I am not really a fan of Brahms so I'm not sure my assessment would be of any value to you, with or without this horn 'anomaly', my specialism is Beethoven and Handel. Nevertheless my advice would always be to stick to the score unless there was substantial evidence of a copyists error.
Good thing that Brahms used the same notation system as Beethoven and Händel (BTW, you can use the äää I gave you for Furtwängler here as well!) so you can also read the score and point out which notes are actually transposed here from what Brahms wrote, can you? The argument here is much deeper than a "copyist's error" which is definitely not the case here. But the transposition makes much more sense, doesn't it?
As an eminent expert on Baroque music, this piece in which Brahms picks up a lot of very traditional techniques should be something you should be able to give us some very specific opinions about, especially the transposition in that context. Do you think it makes more sense?
Of course, others are welcome to give their opinion, too!
Wel, I am amused partly by the notions that (a) clips prove anything, and (b) furnishing links to clips counts as "discussion."
"I'll give you clips which prove that conductor x is superior to conductor y . . . ."
Quote from: M forever on July 06, 2007, 03:58:44 AM
Good thing this particular clip is on "period" instruments then. I think you will find it interesting.
But that doesn't ean that you can't listen to and criticize non-period performances either, does it? After all, you called for a Furtwängler vs. "HIP" comparison. You never know what you will run into in "Mystery Orchestra".
Good thing that Brahms used the same notation system as Beethoven and Händel (BTW, you can use the äää I gave you for Furtwängler here as well!) so you can also read the score and point out which notes are actually transposed here from what Brahms wrote, can you? The argument here is much deeper than a "copyist's error" which is definitely not the case here. But the transposition makes much more sense, doesn't it?
As an eminent expert on Baroque music, this piece in which Brahms picks up a lot of very traditional techniques should be something you should be able to give us some very specific opinions about, especially the transposition in that context. Do you think it makes more sense?
Of course, others are welcome to give their opinion, too!
You forget this chain is about Beethoven, if the subject matter was Brahms I wouldn't be here in the first place, I have no interest in music from this era. I'd be no good with your score, if you want my assessment of the quality of the music per se I can give it, but you can guess what kind of a response it would be! I will have a listen, but there must be some other hard-core Brahms fans here who can help you.
How can you "assess" the "quality" of music if you obviously can't even read music and figure out what it says there, and what is different in a recording you listen to, and if the changes make musical "sense" or not? Especially when it comes to a composer like Brahms who was deeply, deeply rooted in the musical past and whose composing reflects a deep understanding and admiration for the likes of Bach and Beethoven.
My impression here is that you can't, and after reading some of your completely nonsensical blabla posts in the Bach/Händel thread, that impression is confirmed with every post of yours I read. You apparently don't have the slightest, not even the most superficial understanding of either Bach or Händel, nor Beethoven. Your subjective emotional response to this or that composer's music may be interesting for some people to read, maybe once in a short post, but the way you are diarrhoeaing your inflated nonsense all over the place here certainly is not.
I have no idea what happened to you and why it is so important for you in order to deal with that trauma to pontificate about subjects you don't know the very first thing about, but whatever it is that was done to you, it's not our fault here and not the place to discuss either. Maybe you should seek therapy instead of spamming a classical music forum with your nonsense about composers.
Quote from: M forever on July 07, 2007, 01:59:10 AM
How can you "assess" the "quality" of music if you obviously can't even read music and figure out what it says there, and what is different in a recording you listen to, and if the changes make musical "sense" or not? Especially when it comes to a composer like Brahms who was deeply, deeply rooted in the musical past and whose composing reflects a deep understanding and admiration for the likes of Bach and Beethoven.
My impression here is that you can't, and after reading some of your completely nonsensical blabla posts in the Bach/Händel thread, that impression is confirmed with every post of yours I read. You apparently don't have the slightest, not even the most superficial understanding of either Bach or Händel, nor Beethoven. Your subjective emotional response to this or that composer's music may be interesting for some people to read, maybe once in a short post, but the way you are diarrhoeaing your inflated nonsense all over the place here certainly is not.
I have no idea what happened to you and why it is so important for you in order to deal with that trauma to pontificate about subjects you don't know the very first thing about, but whatever it is that was done to you, it's not our fault here and not the place to discuss either. Maybe you should seek therapy instead of spamming a classical music forum with your nonsense about composers.
If I were moderator here you'd be receiving a warning for posts like this, but never mind. This chain was asking for opinions relating to HIP recordings of the Beethoven symphonies - considering I have all of these recordings, in fact I have just about everything of Beethoven's on period instruments, I would say I am as qualified as anyone to participate. Concerning my wider musical preferences, I present my opinions here and people can take it or leave it without obligation...
Quote from: M forever on July 06, 2007, 03:37:49 AM
Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?
Interesting. I don't have too many recordings of this work but in addition to the Kleiber I checked Klemperer and Mackerras (I also have Walter but it's at the office and I don't remember the details of that particular moment) and Mackerras is the only one that plays that passage as written (he does it the same again about 10 bars later at bar 403. I can see how both ways works. By not transposing you get a natural emphasis on the accent that Brahms wrote on the "C" and the moment sort of just stands out more. Maybe a lot of horn players have trouble with the part so it got transposed?
That's a irrelevant question because it's not such an outrageous occurrence, and not so uncommon both for Brahms'time and earlier composers either. Beethoven writes high Bs and Cs in several places.
I don't quite understand what you mean by the reference to 403. I was talking about the (written) C in the first horn in the second last bar (which I marked with the arrow). That should logically be an octave higher.
Brahms *rarely* writes for the horns above G, but he writes a high C for the 3rd horn just 2 bars before. True, the 3rd horn is in low C, so transposed for F horn it would actually be a G, while the high C for the first horn (in E) would actually be a B on the F horn. But from a natural horn point of view (which is what Brahms allegedly wrote for, hence the notation in different keys, otherwise he could just have written eveything in F) a high C is a high C and equally hard to hit no matter how low it actually sounds.
And he writes a high Bflat (=A on the F horn), just a few bars later (see second pic) - and that is the second part of the same phrase, just a step lower, that should begin with the high C and the jump an octave down to the middle C - exactly paralleling what celli and basses play here (although you can't see that in the pic).
So that is puzzling and a little unlogical, especially for such a very craftsman like composer like Brahms. It looks like he had somehow made up his mind never to write above a certain pitch for the horn. Although that high C (=B on the F horn=E sounding) isn't all that uncommon at all. The same applies to his bass writing, BTW, Brahms hardly ever writes below the E which is the lowest note on the 4-string bass which had become more or less the standard by then, even if the melodic line suddenly leapes up an octave and the celli actually continue below E. I think there is actually a low C for the basses in Deutsches Requiem, but I don't think there are any notes below E anywhere in the symphonies, even in places where it would make more sense. And Beethoven and a lot of other composers had never worried about that and just written down to C if the context called for it. Whether or not basses with these low notes were available is a different question. But it is very common to transpose some of the notes down an octave when 5-string basses are available (which they are in every professional orchestra in Germany because they all play on 5-strings).
Oh, that's where you were referring to. I thought you were referring to measure 395...and I have a hard time telling the details through the computer speakers.
In your first red-inked bar, the 1st and 2nd horn parts DO follow what the celli and basses are doing: first horn play a (written) C (actually an E in concert pitch) and the 2nd horn follow with a C an octave lower. The net effect is two Cs played in consecutive beats an octave apart, just like the celli and basses. So whether you have a high C followed by a middle C played by the first horn or a middle C in the 1st horn followed by a low C in the second horn, the effect of a falling octave is the same. Maybe playing a (written) high C followed by one an octave lower is too demanding. Yes a few bars later Brahms writes B-flats octaves apart for the same 1st horn but that is two semitones lower and that makes all the difference in the world sometimes.
Sorry, you misunderstood. I didn't ask about whether or not the way Brahms wrote that to avoid the high C, since there is absolutely no doubt that that is the reason for what he did here, but whether people think it should be restored.
That what's in the score is not "correct" is not a matter of opinion, so please, no emotional discussion and upsetness. That's a matter of understanding the most basic aspects of musical analysis and theory. What you said there about the falling octave is wrong, not in my "opinion", it is just wrong. The melody line of the upper part counts, if there is octave doubling below it has very little importance. So no, the falling octave is not "covered" by the second horn, especially since the first stays in the same octave and then moves up a minor third. It is not a matter of having some of the notes somewhere in some parts, but of context. Even if it was, the passage is still unlogical because the second part of the phrase beginning on the high Bflat (D) in the first horn "echoes" the first phrase and it does in every single contributing part, second horn, celli, basses - just not in the first which isn't even sonical "padding", it can be heard very clearly.
Again, that's not my opinion, that's a very simple and basic fact very clear to anyone who knows musical theory a little (and musical theory is very objective), as is the fact that there is no reason at all that Brahms should have written the middle C with the single exception that he thought it may have been too high for the first horn. Which it isn't for any good horn player. As can be heard in those performances which "restore" the high C (E), like the one in the clip.
So the *question* and matter of opinion here is simply whether one shouldn't play the first note an octave higher because Brahms wrote something here which simply doesn't make sense and that is very strange for a very "correct" composer like him, or whether one should be "true" to the text. What is "authentic"?
My personal opinion is that the first C should be an octave higher, as Kleiber and Norrington have it played, and also that illogically diverted bass lines should be played an octave lower if 5-string basses are available.
An example for this occurs in the first symphony (see below).
But *that* is my opinion. The first point isn't.
I still don't get your point about 395. Please elaborate.
Okay, I see what you are saying. But that is what makes the job of the conductor so interesting right? You can restore that to a high C and be right and if you keep it as is you can say you are preserving Brahm's score as presented. As written the 1st horn part is certainly a bit awkward. But I (and that is just my opinion here) tend to think you keep it as is. I tend to like to go by what the composer wrote explicitly.
Regarding bar 395, when I first read your post I mistakenly thought you were saying how the high C in the 3rd horn part is ususally transposed DOWN an octave! When I listened to the Klemperer (computer CD rom drive through tiny computer speakers) I couldn't really hear the horn part at the bar very well so I thought Klemperer transposed it down an octave at 395. I did the same to Mackerras (whose natural horns are much more piercing) I heard it distinctly as written in 395. That lead me erroneously to conclude that you were referring to 395 and that some conductors transpose the 3rd horn part at that point down an octave. Norrington I heard as written though as the MP3 file somehow came through loud and clear through computer speakers.
So much for that as you'd most likely just laugh.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2007, 06:13:57 AM
Okay, I see what you are saying. But that is what makes the job of the conductor so interesting right? You can restore that to a high C and be right and if you keep it as is you can say you are preserving Brahm's score as presented. As written the 1st horn part is certainly a bit awkward. But I (and that is just my opinion here) tend to think you keep it as is. I tend to like to go by what the composer wrote explicitly.
And apparently most conductors agree with you here. Off the top of my head, I can actually only think of C.Kleiber and Norrington as two conductors that I know have the 1st horn play the high C (E).
Actually Mackerras does it, too. I just checked the recording with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra because I happen to have that on my hard disc. I have some more here, actually: Dohnányi does it, too, in two live recordings I have here, with the NDR and the LAP, and so does Fischer-Dieskau (yes, the singer) in his recording with the CP. I also have one of Kleiber's several live recordings here, the one with the Bayerisches Staatsorchester from 1996, not surprisingly, the horn plays the high C here as well, Kleiber actually has him totally hammer out the high C almost as if he wanted to make a statement there.
On the other hand, if we want to stick to what the composer explicitly wrote, then why doesn't everybody play these parts on natural horns as Brahms explicitly wished - he even went to the troble of writing out all the parts for natural horns in changing keys.
Hmm....
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2007, 06:13:57 AM
Regarding bar 395, when I first read your post I mistakenly thought you were saying how the high C in the 3rd horn part is ususally transposed DOWN an octave! When I listened to the Klemperer (computer CD rom drive through tiny computer speakers) I couldn't really hear the horn part at the bar very well so I thought Klemperer transposed it down an octave at 395. I did the same to Mackerras (whose natural horns are much more piercing) I heard it distinctly as written in 395. That lead me erroneously to conclude that you were referring to 395 and that some conductors transpose the 3rd horn part at that point down an octave. Norrington I heard as written though as the MP3 file somehow came through loud and clear through computer speakers.
That confusion was probably caused by Brahms writing for pairs in different keys here, the second pair is actually in low C, so the part "looks" much higher than it sounds, and if you don't quickly transpose in your head, it can easily "look" like what you are hearing is actually lower than what's written.
The high C for the horns in E makes more sense to me. But your comments don't explain why Brahms writes high Cs for the horns in C, both at 395 and 403. Would the C have been more manageable on the lower-pitched instrument? Curiously enough (especially as he was a hornist), in his analysis of many recorded performances of this symphony, Gunther Schuller does not address this problem in his book The Compleat Conductor.
I would always favor score emendation when a composer chooses something like an octave transposition because of obvious limitations in an instrument's range. Moving this back to Beethoven, there's an example in the 1st piano concerto where he clearly needed a high F#, and actually wrote F natural because the pianos at that time went no higher. Many scores (and the one in my pic looks like the old Breitkopf und Härtel edition) silently emend the F to F#, so even when one is referring to the score, one has to be aware of textual cruxes that may be obscured by editorial choices. The Eulenburg score I have of this concerto prints the F#, but doesn't even mention this in the Revisionsbericht, it's so clearly what the sense of the music requires. But every once in a while you'll hear of a pianist who pedantically insists on playing F natural.
A parallel case obtains in the first movement of the D major sonata, Op. 10/3. The Kalmus Urtext leaves out the upper F#, but many editions (such as the Casella I've captured) add it anyway, and it would be absurd not to.
Beethoven's piano only went up to F above the stave? Wow. I didn't know that.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 08, 2007, 07:38:36 AM
The high C for the horns in E makes more sense to me. But your comments don't explain why Brahms writes high Cs for the horns in C, both at 395 and 403. Would the C have been more manageable on the lower-pitched instrument?
I have no idea why Brahms wrote that. Basically, from what I can judge from when I played the horn myself many years ago, it isn't really easier to play that high C on a low C horn than on a higher pitched horn. It is still a very high and hard to hit harmonic.
It is easier to play the same sounding note transposed down to G on an F horn (sounding middle C), but then again, Brahms allegedly wrote for natural horns here, so that is not an explanation. He writes some high Cs for the 3rd horn in Eflat in the 1st symphony and that is basically the same as the high C for the E horn, the half tone makes no difference for the lip. Either you can play up there or not. Maybe he felt this was "safer" because the horn leapes up from the middle C, and in the 4th, the horn enters more or less feely on the high C. Or maybe he simply didn't give it that much thought.
But in any case, it certainly makes much more sense to have the high C here, and I think it also sounds much more "dramatic", very fitting in this critical moment. As I found out in the meantime, rather more conductors than I thought at first seem to think so too.
Larry,
I've read that Beethoven went back a few years later and revised some of his sonata scores to take into account the new capabilities of the continually evolving pianoforte. Would this be a case where he did exactly that, but some scores remain unrevised? My reference doesn't specify which ones he did that to, only that he did it to "some of his earlier sonatas".
8)
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 08:18:40 AM
Beethoven's piano only went up to F above the stave? Wow. I didn't know that.
At the time of the early sonatas and concertos, and at least through the time of the Appassionata. And his lowest bass note was the lowest F on today's piano. Near the end of his life the range of the piano expanded, so that one sees the C a fourth lower, as in the close of the first movement of Op. 111. The manuscript for Op. 101, the sonata in A, reads "Contra E!!!" to celebrate the increasing range. The upper range expanded too; the G-A trills in the second movement of Op. 111 would not have been possible on the pianos of his youth.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 08:18:40 AM
I have no idea why Brahms wrote that. Basically, from what I can judge from when I played the horn myself many years ago, it isn't really easier to play that high C on a low C horn than on a higher pitched horn. It is still a very high and hard to hit harmonic.
I don't know how difficult the high Bb would have been, but you'll see it written for the horn in C in the lyric opening theme from the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony.
And now I must really get a life and go outside on this beautiful warm day. . . . :D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2007, 08:19:13 AM
Larry,
I've read that Beethoven went back a few years later and revised some of his sonata scores to take into account the new capabilities of the continually evolving pianoforte. Would this be a case where he did exactly that, but some scores remain unrevised? My reference doesn't specify which ones he did that to, only that he did it to "some of his earlier sonatas".
8)
Could be, but I hadn't heard this before.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 08, 2007, 08:33:51 AM
I don't know how difficult the high Bb would have been, but you'll see it written for the horn in C in the lyric opening theme from the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony.
Cartainly not too difficult for a really good horn player of the day, such as you would expect in an orchestra of the level of quality Brahms had in mind when he wrote his orchestral works (like the Wiener Philharmoniker). It was certainly not his objective to write "easy" pieces.
Actually, that high Bflat would be much more difficult on a natural C horn than the C above it because the C is a natural harmonic and if the lip is strong enough, it speaks very clearly. The Bflat on the other hnd would have to be intonation corrected, a little bit with the hand, that is much more difficult.
It also has to be kept in mind that the nature of the horn sound is to be a little "strained" in the higher registers. That is an "expressive" color value. Otherwise, the same passage on a clarinet would sound nice and round, too, and be very easy to play.
And as we know, Brahms' orchestral writing is really centered on that "romantic" horn color. His symphones really are a little bit like concertos for horn quartet. Especially since he wrote a lot of very important parts for the 3rd and 4th horns, he basically treats them almost as equals to the 1st and 2nd.
So humor me for a second M if you don't mind. Nowadays the standard horn section would play the entire passage using horns in F right? You wouldn't even see horns in low C or in E right? By that I mean if you were to go to a Chicago Symphony or Boston Symphony concert you would just see 4 horns in F right? A high "C" pretty standard ammunition for a modern orchestral horn player I would think. So using a modern F horn the only reason you would keep it as written is you are following the score as presented. My opinion is that conductors keep it that way because it is "safe". If they get questioned they can always give the correct answer: that is what Brahms wrote.
Now if you want the melody line to be correct you can just double the cello part (starting where you red-inked it) with the 3rd or 4th horn in low C right? Granted the entire part would be an octave lower but I think the horn in low C CAN play octave B-flats and keep the melody line continuous in measure 400.
No, it still wouldn't make sense if you look at what comes in the 1st and 2nd horn parts later. And *that* would be a really massive alteration of the scoring, not a logical correction. Really the only way to make complete sense of this passage is to play the one C an octave higher. I have a hard time understanding what is so difficult to understand about that. That's basically like a mathematical equasion, there is a small "error" here, but it can be easily corrected. Which actually way more conductors than I had thought at first do.
Any half decent horn player in any half decent orchestra would be deeply insulted by your suggestion that it would be safer for them to play the lower C.
Nowadays, nearly all horn players come on stage equipped with a double horn which combines an F and a high Bflat horn. Basically, the Bflat horn is shorter and therefore easier to play in the high register. The player can switch between both horn segments with a thumb valve. You can also see that under the crooks for the three main valves, there is a shorter set of crooks which is for the Bflat horn.
(http://www.osmun.com/prod/Alex/alex103.jpg)
But the player "thinks" in F all the time, so he uses different fingerings for each note on the F and Bflat horn. When they play parts notated in other keys than F, they simply transpose to F no matter if they select the F or Bflat horn for the passage.
The big exception are the Wiener Philharmoniker who still play (almost) everything on the old single F horns which were the standard in the late 19th century. This is the true, undiluted romantic horn sound that Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss, Mahler knew and wrote for. It also comes very close to the sound of the natural horn. But it is much harder to play than the double horn, especially in the high register.
(http://www.svh.org.uk/svh.jpg)
Wow that's interesting. Nice second picture, looks like it ought to be on the cover for a recording of Strauss' An Alpine Symphony.
Maybe, but only if the WP are on the recording. Otherwise it would be false advertising.
Like this idiotic cover
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GBAEZ10WL._AA240_.jpg)
which is actually the only complete recording of Mozart's 4 horn concertos on the Vienna F horn, but it shows a double horn. To make it more silly, you can see a figure dressed in the style of Mozart's time mirrored in the bell. But in his time, there were no valve horns. Those were invented around 1814 but only came into use widely 20-30 years later. Schumann's Konzertstück was explicitly written for the valve horn. And the double horn was only invented in 1909.
BTW, Strauss actually wrote the Alpensinfonie for the Staatskapelle Dresden, but the area around Dresden isn't very "alpine" at all. More hilly. That wouldn't make such an impressive cover.
I thought that second picture looks familiar...it looks lot like this one (minus the horn of course):
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ZMY474PWL._AA180_.jpg)
While we are on the subject of horns, let me ask you this, on Beethoven's 9th symphony, 3rd movement, starting on where it is marked Adagio (see score below and ending a page later concluding on 12/8 tempo marking), Beethoven writes this solo for the 4th(!) horn that spans almost 4 octaves (from a written A-flat above the stave (treble clef) down to a low G below the stave (bass clef)). Can he reasonably expect a 4th horn player to execute this? I read somewhere that during the first performance the fourth horn player had a valve horn and said he could play anything and thus the demanding part Beethoven wrote for him. But still even with a modern horn that parts looks horrendously taxing. Is it usually played by the 4th horn player nowadays or is it played by the principle horn (who has no part during this time)?
(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/cab4188/sco30092.gif)(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/cab4188/sco30093.gif)
Quotethat spans almost 4 octaves (from a written A-flat above the stave (treble clef) down to a low G below the stave (bass clef))
Yes, that does look difficult in that short amount of time. Though for a very good horn player nowadays, I think a high Ab is quite manageable even so.
Edit: 4 octaves? I was looking at the treble clef low Gs and didn't see m. 89 at first. It's only that measure, there must be an error. C, G, and then m. 89, C, G, out of nowhere two octaves lower?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2007, 11:11:02 AM
While we are on the subject of horns, let me ask you this, on Beethoven's 9th symphony, 3rd movement, starting on where it is marked Adagio (see score below and ending a page later concluding on 12/8 tempo marking), Beethoven writes this solo for the 4th(!) horn that spans almost 4 octaves (from a written A-flat above the stave (treble clef) down to a low G below the stave (bass clef)). Can he reasonably expect a 4th horn player to execute this? I read somewhere that during the first performance the fourth horn player had a valve horn and said he could play anything and thus the demanding part Beethoven wrote for him. But still even with a modern horn that parts looks horrendously taxing. Is it usually played by the 4th horn player nowadays or is it played by the principle horn (who has no part during this time)?
No, that's typically played by the 4th horn player. 4th doesn't necessarily mean "only 4th best", especially not when it comes to horns. Sorry, but you really have some really strange ideas in your head. A 4th horn player in any reasonably good orchestra is still one of the best, one of the few select who made it into a good orchestra, better than many others who didn't. Nearly any player in any real "top" orchestra is a "star", one of the extremely few from among hundreds or thousands.
Because of the very large span of the horn which goes over 4+ octaves, it has traditionally been the custom for horn players to concentrate on the "lower" or "higher" register and indeed some people simply are more talented for one than the other. Why that is, I don't know, very fine physiological differences, I guess. Kind of like some singers are tenors, some of them baritones or basses.
The way it's been handled in orchestras since the 18th century is that there are one or several pairs of players, one high, one low. So the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th horn are typically "high" players, the even numbered ones low.
Because of the central role horns have played in orchestral music since the mid-18th century, all those parts are important. A 2nd or 4th horn player is not at all a worse player than a 1st or 3rd. They are typically specialists for their specific roles. Which doesn't mean that "high" players aren't expected to be able in the low register or the other way around. But most of the time, they stay in "their" typical register.
The 4th horn part is often just as important and demanding as the others, and difficult, too, because they often play the bass notes of the quartet, so a player with a really solid and secure low range is needed. For instance, when the BP need an extra 4th horn because of illness or somebody has time off, they don't just take any of the many good horn players in Berlin. They normally bring in a guy from the opera in Frankfurt who is known as an outstandingly good 4th horn with a huge low register sound.
Nothing "only 4th" about that.
Quote from: Greta on July 08, 2007, 11:20:28 AM
Edit: 4 octaves? I was looking at the treble clef low Gs and didn't see m. 89 at first. It's only that measure, there must be an error. C, G, and then m. 89, C, G, out of nowhere two octaves lower?
No, that's correct. For a reason I don't know, horns are written an octave lower in bass clef, so effectively, the notes here are not a major 6th lower than written (because it's an Eflat horn part), but a minor third higher. So the first note in bar 89 is the exact same pitch as the note in the celli. I know, it's confusing, but that's the way it is.
The lowest note also indicates clearly that this part was written for a valve horn because that note can not be played on a natural horn at all, there is no way to "stop" that. There are no natural tones between the C in 89 (which is the first harmonic) and the theoretically lowest note which would be an octave lower than that C. So that G can only be played on the second harmonic (C) with the 1st and 3rd valve. It is almost impossible to make the fundamental note speak properly, so that is about as low as horn can play (theoretically, you can also press the 2nd valve to go a semitone lower, and you can also let the note "sag" another semitone, but there is really not much else down there).
So this clearly shows that Beethoven wrote this for the characteristics of the new valve horn. All the chromatic notes higher up could be stopped, but just how many of them there are makes this a highly unusual horn part for the time. Obviously Beethoven really wanted to make good use of the new type of instrument. Plus the first valve horns were actually crooked in Eflat. F only became the standard much later.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 11:42:27 AM
No, that's correct. For a reason I don't know, horns are written an octave lower in bass clef, so effectively, the notes here are not a major 6th lower than written (because it's an Eflat horn part), but a minor third higher. So the first note in bar 89 is the exact same pitch as the note in the celli. I know, it's confusing, but that's the way it is.
My goodness ! What a tease!
So as a former horn player, when you get your parts for a piece (like Brahm's 4th for example), they come they way they are written in the score (for E and low-C horns) then? And you have to transpose them on the fly as you play? Sounds kinda difficult to me.
I am not a former horn player, I just played the horn for a few years as a teenager. I also took some lessons from a horn player in the BP, but I never really "seriously" pursued it since I was already totally into playing the bass, and it is hard to find the time and concentration to learn several instruments really well. But I liked playing the horn, too. It came to me rather easily, I never had much problems with "cracking" notes and I could always play fairly high without much practicing (which is again because some people are just better suited for the high parts, some more for the low parts). So I honked around a little bit in orchestras, too, but I never studied the instrument very seriously or systematically.
But to answer your question, the parts always come as written in the score and you just transpose them. That is actually fairly easy, especially because horn parts from the classical era don't have that many different notes. With transposing the parts and choosing the different fingerings between the F and Bflat horn, it gets just a little complicated, but that's just part of the "craft" and it's still much easier than all the different fingerings woodwind players have to learn. The main "problem" with the horn is really hitting the right notes completely freely, since you can only rely on "muscle memory" and good ears to hit the notes, there are no visual or tactile (other than the "memory" of your "grin muscles") reference points to rely on.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 12:15:16 PM
But to answer your question, the parts always come as written in the score and you just transpose them.
There is nothing that prevents you from taking the part home and red-inking the transposed notes on top of the actual part I guess or is that cheating?
I wish I can play the horn, or rather the trombone. After listening to Mahler's 3rd over and over I am kind of inspired to play the trombone. Would you rank that as more or less difficult than playing the French horn?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2007, 12:26:29 PM
There is nothing that prevents you from taking the part home and red-inking the transposed notes on top of the actual part I guess or is that cheating?
Except that it makes you look like an idiot when you smear around in the part because like I said, with a little practice,
it is not that difficultcertainly much, much easier than actually playing the horn.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2007, 12:26:29 PM
I wish I can play the horn, or rather the trombone. After listening to Mahler's 3rd over and over I am kind of inspired to play the trombone. Would you rank that as more or less difficult than playing the French horn?
All instruments are difficult to play well. Some people are more suited for one type than others. For me, playing the trombone would be really hard because somehow, my lips worked much better for the horn. You don't need to have bigger lips necessarily for bigger mouthpieces, but some people are simply better suited for some instruments than others. Some people lack the agility and coordination required to play a string instrument, but they are fantastic trumpet players while some can't squeeze two notes out of a trumpet.
Quotebut that's just part of the "craft" and it's still much easier than all the different fingerings woodwind players have to learn. The main "problem" with the horn is really hitting the right notes completely freely, since you can only rely on "muscle memory" and good ears to hit the notes, there are no visual or tactile (other than the "memory" of your "grin muscles") reference points to rely on.
I actually think that is harder than woodwinds, because we basically push down a bunch of keys. The tone and intonation is the hardest part.
Oh, I sucked at the horn. Really baaaad. It sure was fun though. I had to take basic classes in the various instruments in college, and I was bad news on the brass. Trumpet worst of all. Trombone I was half decent at, go figure, the bigger mouthpiece helped and I have a good ear so could hit the positions.
I was actually a really quick learner on violin because of a good ear and seriously regret that I didn't take it up as my parents suggested when I was young. Instead I was fascinated by the saxophone, oh well. :) We have an old violin around here, maybe I'll try it again sometime.
Quote from: Greta on July 08, 2007, 12:53:17 PM
I actually think that is harder than woodwinds, because we basically push down a bunch of keys. The tone and intonation is the hardest part.
I didn't mean playing the horn as such is easier. I meant that the transposing and different fingerings for F and Bflat horn are easier compared to the all the fingerings you have to learn on a woodwind instrument. On the horn, there are just 7 different combinations (x2 for the double horn) of the three valves, so that is really easy to learn and it leaves enough space in the brain for transposing and stuff. Plus you rarely play as many notes as woodwinds sometimes do, so the "thinking" and "fingering" part is fairly easy. It all comes down to the tone production which is indeed very difficult and tricky.
Cool clip with the penguins. Is that real?
I think the falling penguin is, but the "evil" penguin isn't. There is also this version:
(http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home5/pg04878518/images/lovely-penguin.gif)
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 01:20:18 PM
I think the falling penguin is, but the "evil" penguin isn't. There is also this version:
(http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home5/pg04878518/images/lovely-penguin.gif)
Funny, the left and right seem to be reversed (for the two main penguins that is) for the 2 clips. Somehow the background penguins are in the same place.
Yes, that's because the "evil" penguin is obviously pasted in while I think the rest is real. The one where he stretches out his foot is done a little more crudely, the evil penguin actually shifts for a moment and the foot looks a little blocky. But the other one (which is funnier anyway because it's even sneakier) looks so good, I stared at it trying to figure out if it is real for quite a while.
Quote from: M forever on July 04, 2007, 09:10:58 AM
Nor would I call Gardiner particularly "HIP". Yes, he plays on old instruments and he does all the other things which superficially look "HIP". He choses quickish tempi, and he has the hard timpani sticks and all that. But what is almost completely missing from his cycle is the rhythmic flexibility, the rhetorically inflected phrasing, and other stylistic elements which are far more important to being "HIP" than the hard sticks.... I think he totally failed. What we have here is an astonishingly mechanical, sterilized and glossy run-through of the 9. Accident free and uncontroversial. One may like that, but it's not a real "HIP" performance, that's for sure.
Thanks, Que, for indirectly directing me to this thread. Looks as if an interesting discussion started before it turned into a pissing contest.
Though I don't always agree with "M," he's one of the frequently more interesting and illuminating posters around. Sorry to see he's vanished again. I especially agree with his assessment of the Gardiner cycle, above. I'm astonished every time I hear someone praise this--it's as if led by a metronome. Utterly characterless. It is "pretty," however. A HIPish cycle for those who like Karajan's blenderized Beethoven.
HIP = Historically
Informed Performance. HIP ≠ slavishly imitating what some authority imagines a performance back then might have sounded like. HIP does not require period instruments. Neither do period instruments themselves make a performance HIP.
I'm still waiting for the ideal HIP Beethoven symphonies. The most enjoyable ostensibly HIP set I know is Brüggen's. I love the sprightlyness, the rhythmic and dynamic flexibility, the crunchy & piquant sonorities, the
liveliness of this set. It's a lovely contrast to the staid, ponderous, self-important performances that dominated the 20th Century. But Brüggen's not entirely successful, either. His approach calls just a bit too much attention to itself, as if the style is more important than the music...and maybe it was at the time.
I hope that the HIP movement today is no longer such a novelty, that its goals and methods have been accepted into the mainstream, and that we ought to expect some absolutely superb HIP recordings of the cycle soon, ones that hold their own against
any committed to 1s and 0s, past or present. It's only a matter of time.
David,
Have you heard Hogwood's take?
Quote from: longears on September 22, 2007, 09:17:34 AM
Thanks, Que, for indirectly directing me to this thread. Looks as if an interesting discussion started before it turned into a pissing contest.
And here is to other (general) thread:
HIP Beethoven (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,145.0.html). :)
Q
Quote from: Bogey on September 22, 2007, 09:19:38 AM
David,
Have you heard Hogwood's take?
Yes, Bill, but long ago and haven't revisited in some time. I've classified them as "staid, conservative"--perhaps reassessment is due? What do you think?
Quote from: longears on September 22, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
Yes, Bill, but long ago and haven't revisited in some time. I've classified them as "staid, conservative"--perhaps reassessment is due? What do you think?
Based on memory and only a handful of listens:
1-2 Excellent for me. Nice touch. Possibly too light for some.
3 Above average.
4 Excellent.
5 Below average....approaches struggling at times.
6-8 Excellent.
9 I am too frightened to buy this one....just cannot invision it with this tandem.
Do you see the same pattern that I do?
Quote from: longears on September 22, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
Yes, Bill, but long ago and haven't revisited in some time. I've classified them as "staid, conservative"--perhaps reassessment is due? What do you think?
Enjoyed your interesting assessment of HIP in general. Pretty much the same as my own, so of course I hold it in higher esteem than many. :)
Brüggen's is the only period instrument cycle that I don't have, and would very much like to put an ear to. As for Hogwood, I don't hear them as staid and conservative, rather, I find them fairly gung-ho, and a bit ragged in places, which feels right to me. If you find Gardiner too polished, you shouldn't have the same objection to Hogwood!
For modern instrument HIP, I have 1, 2, 4 & 6 by Heidelberg/Fey, and unlike some, I find them very interesting and well-played. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Clementi: Complete Symphonies (Disc 1) - Philharmonia Orchestra & Francesco D'avalos - Symphony No. 2 in D - 1st mvmt - Adagio - Allegro - 13/16 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/philharmonia+orchestra+%26+francesco+d'avalos/track/symphony+no.+2+in+d+-+1st+mvmt+-+adagio+-+allegro)
----------------
Now playing: Clementi: Complete Symphonies (Disc 1) - Philharmonia Orchestra & Francesco D'avalos - Symphony No. 2 in D - 2nd mvmt - Larghetto cantabile - 14/16 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/philharmonia+orchestra+%26+francesco+d'avalos/track/symphony+no.+2+in+d+-+2nd+mvmt+-+larghetto+cantabile)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 22, 2007, 09:37:59 AM
If you find Gardiner too polished, you shouldn't have the same objection to Hogwood!
jwinter enjoys both, but I believe agrees with this assessment Gurn. Gardiner has smmoth corners where Hogwood slices.
Quote from: Bogey on September 22, 2007, 09:39:45 AM
jwinter enjoys both, but I believe agrees with this assessment Gurn. Gardiner has smmoth corners where Hogwood slices.
By implication, does that make Beethoven's symphonies cheese? ;D
Hogwood and Gardiner are essential to me, they both represent a corner of the true genius of Beethoven. But honesty force me to say that I like the Karajans and Zinman also very much, and still have a sweet tooth for Sawalisch. Van Bruggen for me is the worst HIP set I ever heard, and more to the point the worst Beethoven I ever heard, rather would listen to Haitink, and that says a lot in my case.
Quote from: Harry on September 22, 2007, 09:50:49 AM
Van Bruggen for me is the worst HIP set I ever heard, and more to the point the worst Beethoven I ever heard, rather would listen to Haitink, and that says a lot in my case.[/i]
:D I think M hated Bruggen in Beethoven too, or was it Weil?
Quote from: DavidW on September 22, 2007, 09:45:47 AM
By implication, does that make Beethoven's symphonies cheese? ;D
:D
Okay, Hogwood, here I come!
Quote from: Lethe on September 22, 2007, 09:52:27 AM
:D I think M hated Bruggen in Beethoven too, or was it Weil?
Bruggen for sure. ::)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 22, 2007, 09:37:59 AM
For modern instrument HIP, I have 1, 2, 4 & 6 by Heidelberg/Fey, and unlike some, I find them very interesting and well-played. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Yeah, Fey is fabulous. Would like to see a complete cycle from him.
The only HIP cycle I don't have is Brueggen, but I have his 1st which doesn't bow me over at all.
Well my conclusion concerning LvB Synphony HIP recordings on period instruments:
Gardiner - don´t stand his smooth polished style
Norrington - used to own the complete set, have kept a few, he makes me yawn my jaw out of joint
Goodman & Huggett (Hanover Band) - too bad recorded sound
Hogwood - own it already, find it appealing and refreshing
Brüggen - doesn´t bow Wagnerite over and M hates it
Weil - far from complete
Others anyone??
So I shall have to wait for a new set to become released, van Immerseel maybe
Quote from: premont on September 22, 2007, 04:16:59 PM
So I shall have to wait for a new set to become released, van Immerseel maybe
I reached the same conclusion a while ago... For now it's Hogwood until Immerseel... and he'd better get a move on :)
Quote from: premont on September 22, 2007, 04:16:59 PM
Well my cionclusion concerning LvB Synphony HIP recordings:
Gardiner - don´t stand his smooth polished style Right
Norrington - used to own the complete set, have kept a few, he makes me yawn my jaw out of joint Right--Snorrington
Goodman & Huggett (Hanover Band) - too bad recorded sound Right
Hogwood - own it already, find it appealing and refreshing We'll see--I remember it as rather pedestrian but am trying again
Brüggen - doesn´t bow Wagnerite over and M hates it If PW doesn't like it that's a good recommendation and M's not infallible. I like it and my taste is pretty damn good!
Weil - far from complete
Others anyone??
So I shall have to wait for a new set to become released, van Immerseel maybe
You seem to have restricted yourself to original instrument recordings, meaning you've left out two rather good sets: Harnoncourt & Zinman
Quote from: longears on September 22, 2007, 05:25:15 PM
You seem to have restricted yourself to original instrument recordings, meaning you've left out two rather good sets: Harnoncourt & Zinman
No, I own some other sets too, among them Zinman. As well as all the five existing complete recordings of Liszt´s piano transcriptions.
Quote from: premont on September 22, 2007, 06:17:34 PM
As well as all the five existing complete recordings of Liszt´s piano transcriptions.
But no fortepiano set, huh? ;D
Quote from: premont on September 22, 2007, 06:17:34 PM
No, I own some other sets too, among them Zinman. As well as all the five existing complete recordings of Liszt´s piano transcriptions.
??? You said you were presenting your conclusions about HIP LVB Symphony cycles...wtf? Did the distinction between HIP and original instrument go over your head? Surely it wasn't
that subtle?
Quote from: longears on September 23, 2007, 05:01:55 AM
??? You said you were presenting your conclusions about HIP LVB Symphony cycles...wtf? Did the distinction between HIP and original instrument go over your head? Surely it wasn't that subtle?
No you're just misreading him, and he misread you too.
Look--
(a) you told him that he is excluding non-period instrument HIP recordings
from this discussion.(b) Premont misread you to mean that you think that he never bothered with non-period recordings
at all.(c) Premont replies "no bitch, I have it all, even those Liszt transcriptions." He means that he has heard a great many recordings, but was only restricting himself to period instrument recordings on this thread, which was your original point and criticism in the first place. ;D
(d) You misread Premont's post to think that he is saying that "I haven't mentioned these other recordings relevant for this thread yet but now I am", and you're like "but they're not relevant you stupid ho."
Those aren't exact quotes of course. ;D But you see it's just a communication breakdown.
David,
as usual, you are quite right.
Longears,
In my nomenclature "HIP" implies the use of period instruments. If I intend to describe an informed performance on modern instruments, I would call it HIP-style, thereby indicating that I don´t consider this to be strict HIP. I find this to be a useful distinction. In my former post I restricted myself, as Dawid points out, only to HIP on period instruments. I own, as told you the Zinman, and even with the outmost respect to him, I don´t think his performances in any way can take the place of a performance on period instruments, whatever his actual performing style.
Quote from: premont on September 23, 2007, 06:39:49 AM
David,
as usual, you are quite right.
Longears,
In my nomenclature "HIP" implies the use of period instruments. If I intend to describe an informed performance on modern instruments, I would call it HIP-style, thereby indicating that I don´t consider this to be strict HIP. I find this to be a useful distinction. In my former post I restricted myself, as Dawid points out, only to HIP on period instruments. I own, as told you the Zinman, and even with the outmost respect to him, I don´t think his performances in any way can take the place of a performance on period instruments, whatever his actual performing style.
Wow, you guys are both whack today. I must be, too, for taking offense at your off-target corrections and trying to straighten you out--as if it really mattered. What you say directly above relates to exactly what I was addressing, that HIP doesn't entail period instruments, though your original post implied (by omission) that it does, and your explanation above clarifies that when you use the term "HIP," you mean "period instrument," too. That, of course, is your prerogative. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
David, thanks for trying to help. The role of peacemaker is a new one, isn't it? Do you really think suggesting that I called premont a "stupid ho" furthers that goal?
(a) I told premont that
the list of HIP cycles he presented lacked non-period sets.
(b) He told me that
he owns other sets.
(c) I said
wtf does that have to do with it? (His ownership of other sets, automobiles, gardening gloves, or all the tea in China has nothing to do with excluding non-period instrument performances from the category of HIP.)
You are right that it's a communication breakdown, David--just not the one you think. ;D
Longears,
Excuse my imprecise usage above. I have edited the original post to avoid future misunderstandings.
Now concerning complete LvB Symphony sets played in HIP style on modern instruments:
1) Mackerras I. EMI: Of all the versions I have heard (quite a lot) this is the one which captures the spirit of the music in the most convincing way.
2) Mackerras II. Hyperion: Time will show.
3) Zinman: Much alike Mackerras, but not quite on the same artistic level, a kind of "the poor man´s Mackerras".
4) Harnoncourt: Controversial but never heard it. I have often before become very disappointed with his interpretations. But his Bach recordings from the 1960es are for the most part sublime.
5) Dausgård on Simax. Anyone knows it?
Others??
Well you got all bent out of shape longears. Think of it this way-- is your post written for our benefit or for your benefit? You seem to be pissed because you don't like that Premont doesn't agree with you about what constitutes HIP. Why should you care? Just have a beer, listen to some music and chill dude, it'll be alright. 8)
Quote from: DavidW on September 23, 2007, 12:41:03 PM
Well you got all bent out of shape longears. Think of it this way-- is your post written for our benefit or for your benefit? You seem to be pissed because you don't like that Premont doesn't agree with you about what constitutes HIP. Why should you care? Just have a beer, listen to some music and chill dude, it'll be alright. 8)
Bent out of shape? Pissed? You seem to be going out of your way to try to stir up trouble where none exists. Neither premont nor I seem upset (reread our posts). We"re just in the process of defining terms so we're speaking the same language, the aim being understanding--not
misunderstanding, whether inadvertent or intentional.
Edit by moderator:
Time to get back on topic.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: premont on September 23, 2007, 12:33:43 PM
5) Dausgård on Simax. Anyone knows it?
Listening to Vol. 4 from this series (7th sym and complete music for Egmont). Must agree with Simon Roberts at rmcr regarding the overall flat, finicky character interpretation-wise and strange recording balance, despite the good sound and small ensemble size. String-heavy since woodwinds, pronounced elsewhere, kind of disappear from the sound picture in tutti's.
Lately I get into the habit of amassing complete sets of Beethoven's symphonies. And preferably HIP, or played in this style.
Now there is a lot of division of what people like or not, regarding tempi, emotional content, size of orchestra, the sound those HIP instruments make, etc. I must admit that if the orchestra is brought back to reasonable proportion, and the playing is pointed towards authentic, it makes good listening for me too. But the crucial point is tempo and the size of the orchestra.
When I started with Gardiner, that was a relive for me, for allthough I loved my Karajan renditions, I always felt there was something missing, and that was tempo. The interpretation was good, but his tempi are to slow at times, allthough I can accept that with Karajan, all else is ruled out. I sampled dozens of Beethoven cycles, but nothing compared to Gardiner, and I had no need to go on, intill by chance I encountered David Zinman, seen by many as a unemotional conductor and ditto interpretation, for me what he did was nothing short of a revelation. Mind you, not all his tempi's are allright in my book, but most of it is. Plus I got a sense of discovery, Beethoven discovered anew, and I got a kick out of listening to those fabulous interpretations and ditto recordings made by Simon Eadon.
Then after that I went on, and bought the inexpensive set of Roger Norrington, also rejected by many people, but listening to it, it thrills me out of my chair. True Norrington, has a annoying habit to reign the tempi at places which he should not, but that does not detract from the sense of urgency and a deep insight into the emotional content. His use of wooden sticks is revelating, and makes for good sonics. This set has many advantages for me also, and I rank it next to Zinman as a very good set.
Today I received the Hogwood set, and yet again I notice that I get involved into the interpretation big time, a rugged and highly strung view, which gets to me very direct. Again funny tempi decisions like all others, but the sound of this orchestra is really thrilling, as I sampled through the box. He beats hell out of Beethoven, and I have the urge to applaud when Hogwood closes off the third symphony.
I sampled the Mackeras on Hyperion, but I don't think that will do for me, at the moment. Jordi Savall also dipped his fingers into Beethoven, and what I heard of that thrills me, so that will go on my list too.
Let me hear your thoughts in detail please, and add some recommendation in my Beethoven Symphonies list, for I will buy more of it, if it interest me.
Over to you.....
Harry, I'm coming around to 'HIP' or 'authentic' Beethoven, too. I used to love the slow, expansive interpretations that made of Beethoven's symphonies vast cathedrals of sound and might, but these days more lithe readings thrill me in ways I'd not anticipated.
Gardiner kicked started this for me with the one-off recording of the 'Eroica' for the BBC film of the same name (I've ripped this from the DVD and can upload it for anyone interested, as it can't be bought as an audio-only performance), so it heartens me that so many here - your good self included - enjoy his complete cycle. This has to be a must for me before Christmas. :)
Quote from: Mark on November 02, 2007, 01:48:12 AM
enjoy his complete cycle. This has to be a must for me before Christmas. :)
Love the entire cycle except for the finale of the 7th which in my humble opinion lacks drive and energy. Other than that, its fantastic all the way around.
Quote from: hornteacher on November 02, 2007, 03:31:06 AM
Love the entire cycle except for the finale of the 7th which in my humble opinion lacks drive and energy. Other than that, its fantastic all the way around.
I have problems with all the tempi of the seventh, but they are minor though.....
Hi Harry,
I can't boast to have such a Beethoven collection like you. I am grown up with the Beethoven symphonies of Krips with now certainly outdated sound ( something of the late 50 es or 60es). I liked these recordings very much. For example the funeral march of the 3rd is done in something about 14 minutes, which appeared to me completely apt, much quicker as for example Karajan, Solti and Blomstedt, but not that hurried as the newer ones like Zinman.
Later I bought the Kegel recordings, well a more conservative approach, but not bad. Then I bought the Blomstedt recordings now Brilliant which made me completely happy. Bruno Walter was to mellow for my ear. I got the Zinman through this big Sony box. I liked the 7th but the 3rd is too hurried for me.
Recently I got the 3rd and the 6th with Markewich. Mono from the mid 50es. I liked these recordings very much. The 6th is very lively and the 3rd has very reasonable tempi ( for example about 15 minutes for the funeral march). I have also the 4th and the 7th with Szell and always thinked about acquiring more of this cycle. I have also the 9th with Karajan and the 3rd with Solti.
Your apreciation for the Zinman should animate me to hear the Zinman again. I can't claim to have heard everything. It's a pity that the Krips never appeared on CD with reasonable prices, I would like to have this cycle again, as I am grown up with it.
Regards Martin
By all means Martin, try the Zinman again. The third is fast, but the organic connection between tempi and music is near perfect.
Norrington is even faster, and still I find it comprehendable.
Quote from: Harry on November 02, 2007, 01:29:33 AM
When I started with Gardiner, that was a relive for me, for allthough I loved my Karajan renditions, I always felt there was something missing, and that was tempo.
I
always knew you were one of us,
mijn vriend 8)
Just a announcment of a new recording:
(http://www1.analekta.com//media/analekta/album/t1600/PAL528.jpg)
I liked Bruno Weil's recording of the 5th & 6th very much indeed.
Will be curious about this one - anyone heard it yet? :)
It got trashed by Cristoph Huss on Classicstoday France. But I wasn't impresssed by the argumentation: it was too quick and there was far too litlle vibrato... He might just as wel copy-paste those comments for any HIP-recording... 8)
Q
Quote from: Que on November 16, 2008, 12:29:18 AM
Just a announcment of a new recording:
(http://www.analekta.com/data/images/9947anh.jpg)
I liked Bruno Weil's recording of the 5th & 6th very much indeed.
You do? I personally think they are some of the worst HIP Beethoven I have ever heard. Tepid, lackluster and shrill and dimly recorded with very little detail. I never like this conductor/orchestra much but in Baroque music they were at least not as offensive. This is an example of what gives HIP a bad name. I guess the premise is that by using a tiny size orchestra of some 35-40 players you will bring out more detail, not that you couldn't hear pretty much every single detail in recordings by the likes of Wand and Szell. If you like Beethoven played like Bach and Handel this is just the right cup of tea for you.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 16, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
You do? I personally think they are some of the worst HIP Beethoven I have ever heard. Tepid, lackluster and shrill and dimly recorded with very little detail. I never like this conductor/orchestra much but in Baroque music they were at least not as offensive. This is an example of what gives HIP a bad name. I guess the premise is that by using a tiny size orchestra of some 35-40 players you will bring out more detail, not that you couldn't hear pretty much every single detail in recordings by the likes of Wand and Szell. If you like Beethoven played like Bach and Handel this is just the right cup of tea for you.
I also like Weil's recordings of syms. 5 and 6. I couldn't imagine anyone finding them disagreeable, but PerfectWagnerite proves me wrong.
Quote from: Sforzando on November 16, 2008, 04:47:59 PM
Intentions are never provable, and all interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. In context of the entire portrait, I would never associate the riding crop with anything phallic. However, the producers of this album made the association inevitable when they blew up that section and displayed it out of context.
Funny, but when I looked at the detail, I didn't focus on the whip at all. I saw the brass buttons on the buckskin breeches, and thought of the strange opposition of British aristocratic country style with a revolutionary cockade. Then I thought of how Beethoven, despite all of his talk about equality, passed himself off as an aristocrat by allowing all of of Viennese society to think that the "van" in his name was the equivalent of the aristocratic "von" in Austrian names.
As I said, it's all in the eye and mind of the beholder.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 16, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
You do? I personally think they are some of the worst HIP Beethoven I have ever heard. Tepid, lackluster and shrill and dimly recorded with very little detail. I never like this conductor/orchestra much but in Baroque music they were at least not as offensive. This is an example of what gives HIP a bad name. I guess the premise is that by using a tiny size orchestra of some 35-40 players you will bring out more detail, not that you couldn't hear pretty much every single detail in recordings by the likes of Wand and Szell. If you like Beethoven played like Bach and Handel this is just the right cup of tea for you.
Quote from: Bulldog on November 16, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
I also like Weil's recordings of syms. 5 and 6. I couldn't imagine anyone finding them disagreeable, but PerfectWagnerite proves me wrong.
I can't place the comment on the recording. I looked up what I wrote about it: "Recording leaves nothing to be desired - simply natural and perfect." I do hear a lot of detail, but certainly the recording does not artificially "highlight" specific instrumental parts as is often the case with recordings of larger orchestras. This is not necessary here because of the "tiny" orchestra.. ::), and the result is what I described as "natural".
Making Beethoven sound like Baroque seems quite impossible. But if you mean to say that Weil's conception of these symphonies is firmly rooted in the Classical era - sure. Which is - just stating the
very obvious - quite appropriate. (You could say he makes it sound like Haydn, if you like.. 8))
Well, time to give this recording a fresh spin this afternoon! :)
Q
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 16, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
You do? I personally think they are some of the worst HIP Beethoven I have ever heard. Tepid, lackluster and shrill and dimly recorded with very little detail. I never like this conductor/orchestra much but in Baroque music they were at least not as offensive. This is an example of what gives HIP a bad name. I guess the premise is that by using a tiny size orchestra of some 35-40 players you will bring out more detail, not that you couldn't hear pretty much every single detail in recordings by the likes of Wand and Szell. If you like Beethoven played like Bach and Handel this is just the right cup of tea for you.
I'm generally not too keen on Bruno Weil's work. But listening to this 7th's last two movements on my way to work last week was a big (musical) thrill. Either the conductor/orchestra/producer/engineers have found a way to record the 7th correctly (it's luminous, punchy, crystal clear) or my ears have come to accept that a good dose of ammonia was needed to clean up my ears to that kind of approach. In any case, here's a Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4-f6C0h3RE&feature=related) video of the 'traditional' way, Matacic whipping up the NHK Symphony into a frenzy. Although it's very brisk and exciting, it's top-heavy (tiring to the ear and obscuring inner voices) and slightly heavy-footed. In matters of balances and rythm I prefer Weil. Too bad this disc is paired with the 8th. It's my least favourite Beethoven symphony.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on November 18, 2008, 04:27:54 PM
I'm generally not too keen on Bruno Weil's work. But listening to this 7th's last two movements on my way to work last week was a big (musical) thrill. Either the conductor/orchestra/producer/engineers have found a way to record the 7th correctly (it's luminous, punchy, crystal clear) or my ears have come to accept that a good dose of ammonia was needed to clean up my ears to that kind of approach. In any case, here's a Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4-f6C0h3RE&feature=related) video of the 'traditional' way, Matacic whipping up the NHK Symphony into a frenzy. Although it's very brisk and exciting, it's top-heavy (tiring to the ear and obscuring inner voices) and slightly heavy-footed. In matters of balances and rythm I prefer Weil. Too bad this disc is paired with the 8th. It's my least favourite Beethoven symphony.
I saw Weil and Tafelmusik perfrom these Symphonies earlier this year, and it was one of the most exciting concerts I have attended recently. Even the 8th managed to grow on me. During the finale of #7, my 11 year old daughter repeatedly broke out into giggles of delight (Discreetly and quietly, of course).
Quote from: Harry on November 20, 2008, 04:04:06 AM
Sounds very good, but both movements are too slow for me.
Is that for real? Tempos seem quite brisk to me; who does them faster without sounding rushed?
Quote from: Bunny on December 02, 2008, 05:29:41 AM
Is that for real? Tempos seem quite brisk to me; who does them faster without sounding rushed?
I agree with Harry, they're both a tad off-pace. If I remember correctly, Norrington took them both at full-speed, though I thought his 5th lacked authority. I've become very fond of Immerseel's rendition as of late, the most successful I've heard; he moves very quickly yet still retains the piece's power and grandeur.
Quote from: Sorin Eushayson on December 02, 2008, 02:56:37 PM
I think Norrington took them both at full-speed. I've become very fond of Immerseel's rendition as of late, the most successful I've heard; he moves very quickly yet still retains the piece's power and grandeur.
I'll have to dust off the Immerseel and Norrington, although Norrington's first set (yes the HIP one) is not really one of my favorites. In any event, it's not always all about speed; just listen to the jumble of Norrington's 9th!
Quote from: Bunny on December 02, 2008, 03:06:21 PM
I'll have to dust off the Immerseel and Norrington, although Norrington's first set (yes the HIP one) is not really one of my favorites. In any event, it's not always all about speed; just listen to the jumble of Norrington's 9th!
Yes, his Ninth was terrible. For that there's Gardiner or the latest recording from Spering...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51g8vdikTIL._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Weihe-Hauses-Drei-Hymn/dp/B0017SETY2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1228263792&sr=1-1)
Quote from: Que on April 14, 2009, 12:46:48 PM
€15 at jpc (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Ludwig-van-Beethoven-Symphonien-Nr-1-9/hnum/7266553)
(http://www.jpc.de/image/w600/front/0/0028944215625.jpg)
Q
Let JPC keep it - these interpretations bored me to tears. ::)
(And hello to Elgarian - the same one I know from Talk Classical (http://www.talkclassical.com), I presume? Enjoying this old thread of mine? Not slinking away to cry too hard behind your CDs? Excellent! ;))
FK
Quote from: Kuhlau on April 17, 2009, 01:34:19 PM
Let JPC keep it - these interpretations bored me to tears. ::)
;D
Quote from: Que on April 17, 2009, 11:34:40 PM
(Bruggen Beethoven) ;D
Hmm I spent $$ (USD 45) on it years ago. In this age of slim packaging, I found the set's heavy-gauged slipcase and elaborate flip-fiver jewel case quaintly fascinating.
Quote from: Kuhlau on April 17, 2009, 01:34:19 PM
(And hello to Elgarian - the same one I know from Talk Classical (http://www.talkclassical.com), I presume?
The very same. Hello to you too, FK.
QuoteNot slinking away to cry too hard behind your CDs?
No, I seem to have got away with it very lightly ....
Quote from: traverso on April 17, 2009, 11:44:45 PM
Hmm I spent $$ (USD 45) on it years ago. In this age of slim packaging, I found the set's heavy-gauged slipcase and elaborate flip-fiver jewel case quaintly fascinating.
So did I, about 5 months ago. On your recommendation.
A purchase I regretted.
A nice and harmless Beethoven = not Beethoven at all.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 02:50:30 AM
So did I, about 5 months ago. On your recommendation.
A purchase I regretted.
A nice and harmless Beethoven = not Beethoven at all.
Although I posted it as a bargain - because many members
do like Brüggen's Beethoven or are interested in getting it. I have mixed feelings about it myself: see previous comment
HERE. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,145.msg85780.html#msg85780)
Q
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 02:50:30 AM
So did I, about 5 months ago. On your recommendation.
A purchase I regretted.
A nice and harmless Beethoven = not Beethoven at all.
MY recommendation = sales pitch ;D
But Bruggen's Beethoven is really more than nice and harmless -- it has a grand orchestral sound and fairly broad concepts (admittedly not exactly my idea of period Beethoven).
Quote from: Que on April 18, 2009, 04:00:01 AM
Although I posted it as a bargain - because many members do like Brüggen's Beethoven or are interested in getting it. I have mixed feelings about it myself: see previous comment HERE. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,145.msg85780.html#msg85780)
Thanks, Que. This IS my favorite period Beethoven cycle--which makes it my favorite Beethoven cycle, period. The 3rd was the first I heard from it, too, and based on that bought the whole set...and for a lot more than €15! I have never regretted it and over time have come to enjoy it more and more.
In general I agree with your praise for Brüggen's 3rd through 8th symphonies. As these comprise about 97% of my LVB symphony listening, that's all I need--though the 9th, as you said, is "serviceable" at the very least. Your comment about wanting "more instrumental HIP colouring" puzzles me, as this is one of the things I prize about this set. All the other period instrument cycles are disappointingly bland in this respect. I'm also a bit surprised by your comment about section balances. 9 each 1st & 2nd violins comprise scarcely more than half the "normal" complement in traditional post-Romantic orchestras and this does enhance the orchestral texture and color in a way I find very satisfying--especially in comparison to the string-heavy mush typical of a certain conductor who shall remain nameless but whom many all but worship.
The comparison with Weil in the 6th surprises me a bit, too. You said that Brüggen "achieves a very beautiful clear and softly edged orchestral sound, but in terms of tempi and phrasing it's quite ordinary"--yet Weil's tempi are mostly slower (but quicker in the slow movement) and his phrasing equally conventional. (Not that there's anything weird about Brüggen's phrasing--nor should there be!) I agree wholeheartedly about the superior recording quality of the recent Analekta disc, especially compared to the live performances in Brüggen's set from the early days of digital recording in the '80s, but the sound of the latter is perfectly adequate. I agree that Weil's 5 & 6 are well-played and I look forward to hearing others if they continue the cycle, but to me they're much like Gardiner's, a bit too refined and genteel for my preferences.
As for premont's comment calling Brüggen's cycle a "nice and harmless" Beethoven--I wonder if he wasn't listening to Gardiner's set by mistake...? Anyway, thanks, Que, for calling this bargain to our attention. Even though I already have it, I'm tempted to order a couple more while it's still available. In a few years everybody will be raving about this cycle as an overlooked treasure and then those sets will be worth a pretty penny on the resale market!
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 18, 2009, 05:46:22 AM
As for premont's comment calling Brüggen's cycle a "nice and harmless" Beethoven--I wonder if he wasn't listening to Gardiner's set by mistake...?
I agree with you, that Gardiners set is even worse in that respect, and this is why Gardiners set is the only period set of LvB´s Symphonies, that I have stayed away from. On the other hand, I doubt if you have heard the Hanover Band set or van Immerseel´s set. If you had, I think you would look at Brüggens set with other eyes. Still the problem is, that some modern instrument and informed interpretations like Harnoncourt´s and Mackerras´ sets -as to artistic statement- by far surpass any period set, - IMO.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 06:45:13 AM
I agree with you, that Gardiners set is even worse in that respect, and this is why Gardiners set is the only period set of LvB´s Symphonies, that I have stayed away from. On the other hand, I doubt if you have heard the Hanover Band set or van Immerseel´s set. If you had, I think you would look at Brüggens set with other eyes. Still the problem is, that some modern instrument and informed interpretations like Harnoncourt´s and Mackerras´ sets -as to artistic statement- by far surpass any period set, - IMO.
"Even worse?" It sounds as if you think I think (or
should think) that Brüggen's is the best of a bad lot. Not at all. I think it's good. Period. No apologies needed. My previous experience with Goodman was many years ago but didn't impress me favorably. I might feel differently today. I've not heard Immerseel's Beethoven and will keep my ears out for it. I do like Harnoncourt's Beethoven but MacKerras's hasn't caught fire with me yet--though I am due for another try and do like his Mozart so there is hope for me yet. ;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 18, 2009, 07:55:09 AM
MacKerras's hasn't caught fire with me yet--
Nor with me, though due to the respect that set gets I plan to revisit as well at a later date.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 06:45:13 AM
I agree with you, that Gardiners set is even worse in that respect, and this is why Gardiners set is the only period set of LvB´s Symphonies, that I have stayed away from. On the other hand, I doubt if you have heard the Hanover Band set or van Immerseel´s set. If you had, I think you would look at Brüggens set with other eyes. Still the problem is, that some modern instrument and informed interpretations like Harnoncourt´s and Mackerras´ sets -as to artistic statement- by far surpass any period set, - IMO.
What I do not understand is this hacking around on Gardiner.
I think his Beethoven marvelous, together with David Zinman's complete set.
The structural insight, Gardiner gives me, is not yet surpassed.
Quote from: Harry on April 18, 2009, 08:54:35 AM
What I do not understand is this hacking around on Gardiner.
I think his Beethoven marvelous, together with David Zinman's complete set.
The structural insight, Gardiner gives me, is not yet surpassed.
Well, I admit, that I know Gardiners set the least of the period LvB symphony sets, since I do not own it, and only have heard excerpts from it. Except that I have owned his Choral - which is said to be the best of the set - but I departed with it. I find his style well structured, but polished and cold - much like Blomstedts LvB set. Having acquired Brüggens set, one of the recent purchases I regret the most, I do not want to repeat the flop, and so far I have got lots of recenly acquired non period LvB symphony sets to listen to (Kletzki, Walter, Jochum, Toscanini, Wand, Scherchen et.c.).
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 18, 2009, 07:55:09 AM
It sounds as if you think I think (or should think) that Brüggen's is the best of a bad lot. Not at all. I think it's good. Period. No apologies needed.
But what do you think about the Gardiner set?
Quote from: Harry on April 18, 2009, 08:54:35 AM
What I do not understand is this hacking around on Gardiner.
I think his Beethoven marvelous, together with David Zinman's complete set.
The structural insight, Gardiner gives me, is not yet surpassed.
Hacking around on famous names can be very arousing, though. ;)
Or maybe it's only
a matter of taste? ;D
Heard 'his' 5th some years ago; a friend owned the recording. Personally, I didn't like the recording sound that much. Rathing pounding, to my ears. I have two HIP-sets (as far as I remember, I'm on beer right now :)): Norrington and Van Immerseel. There's more genuine music making to enjoy with the latter, IMO.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 09:44:55 AM
But what do you think about the Gardiner set?
If I heard it cold I might not guess that it's supposed to be a HIP period instrument performance. To me it seems
tame--scrunchy period sonorities smoothed out, tempos fast but metronomic, over-reliance on heavy-footed dynamics for "drama." It's well-played, of course, and well-recorded, but there's nothing to make me reach for it rather than any of a dozen or more similarly well-played but "safe" middle-of-the-road cycles. By the way, I listened to the funeral march from Immerseel's 3rd on zig zag's site, and though it's very slow and stately, it's not ponderous, and the textures are rich--definitely interests me in hearing more.
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 18, 2009, 10:12:54 AM
If I heard it cold I might not guess that it's supposed to be a HIP period instrument performance. To me it seems tame--scrunchy period sonorities smoothed out, tempos fast but metronomic, over-reliance on heavy-footed dynamics for "drama."
Cold, not in sound, but in expression, I meant.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 10:19:45 AM
Cold, not in sound, but in expression, I meant.
Sorry, "hearing it cold" is an idiomatic expression by which I meant "had I not known what to expect." Gardner doesn't seem cold to me in either respect.
Quote from: Marc on April 18, 2009, 09:56:22 AM
Hacking around on famous names can be very arousing, though. ;)
Or maybe it's only a matter of taste? ;D
Heard 'his' 5th some years ago; a friend owned the recording. Personally, I didn't like the recording sound that much. Rathing pounding, to my ears. I have two HIP-sets (as far as I remember, I'm on beer right now :)): Norrington and Van Immerseel. There's more genuine music making to enjoy with the latter, IMO.
Yeah, the first Norrington cycle is really off-putting.
(Count me as a big, big fan of Gardiner's Ninth, by the way, though my exploration of the rest of the cycle is incomplete.)
Quote from: Harry on April 18, 2009, 08:54:35 AM
What I do not understand is this hacking around on Gardiner.
Well, you like to 'hack around' on Wagner, yes? ;D
Quote from: O'Richter, son of "Kidney Sam" on April 18, 2009, 08:33:40 PM
Well, you like to 'hack around' on Wagner, yes? ;D
Nice new username there, O'Richter Kidsamson.
Quote from: premont on April 18, 2009, 06:45:13 AM
I agree with you, that Gardiners set is even worse in that respect, and this is why Gardiners set is the only period set of LvB´s Symphonies, that I have stayed away from. On the other hand, I doubt if you have heard the Hanover Band set or van Immerseel´s set. If you had, I think you would look at Brüggens set with other eyes. Still the problem is, that some modern instrument and informed interpretations like Harnoncourt´s and Mackerras´ sets -as to artistic statement- by far surpass any period set, - IMO.
Through the miracle of modern technology, I've been able to listen to some substantial portions of Immerseel's cycle. I think it's well recorded and I agree with you about the transparency due to not only recording quality but the balance of forces. However, in the faster movements especially there's a tendency to driven, extreme tempos and overall I'm disappointed by the rhythmic inflexibility which to me is also one of the major flaws of Gardiner's cycle (vs. the rhythmic flexibility that I regard as one of the strengths of Brüggen's set). Still I think it bears further exploration so I've added it to my wish list--thanks!
I also played a few selections from Mackerras's first cycle yesterday and rather liked them, though I'm not sure I'd consider them HIP. I think it was M who suggested that some approaches should be called "Historically Aware Performance" to distinguish them from the "Historically Informed" approach which some regard as synonymous with "Period Performance Practice" (and still others equate with "Period Instrument Performance!"). That would give us PPP, PIP, HIP, and HAP--sounds like a bunch of circus clowns, eh? ;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 19, 2009, 10:19:54 AM
I also played a few selections from Mackerras's first cycle yesterday and rather liked them, though I'm not sure I'd consider them HIP. I think it was M who suggested that some approaches should be called "Historically Aware Performance" to distinguish them from the "Historically Informed" approach which some regard as synonymous with "Period Performance Practice" (and still others equate with "Period Instrument Performance!"). That would give us PPP, PIP, HIP, and HAP--sounds like a bunch of circus clowns, eh? ;D
Circus clowns, yes, but on the other hand we would avoid a lot of misconceptions in this field, if these useful terms became generally accepted.
Concerning Immerseel´s LvB set it is very much the characteristics you mention, which make me like it. I am more in doubt whether I should acquire Gardiner´s set or not. Opinions are divided.
Quote from: traverso on April 18, 2009, 05:18:16 AM
MY recommendation = sales pitch ;D
But Bruggen's Beethoven is really more than nice and harmless -- it has a grand orchestral sound and fairly broad concepts (admittedly not exactly my idea of period Beethoven).
I was very impressed when I heard it for the first time. I thought: "This is not von Karajan. Thanks, My Lord!"
IMO, it is the most Mozartean Beethoven's cycle in existence.
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on April 20, 2009, 05:11:58 AM
IMO, it is the most Mozartean Beethoven's cycle in existence.
Not Immerseel? But then I have almost no idea of what you meant when you said "Mozartean Beethoven" :P
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 19, 2009, 10:19:54 AM
...sounds like a bunch of circus clowns, eh? ;D
How did you figure out what I do during the day??? ;D
About Norrington's: I loved it. Sure, he messed up the tempo in the Ninth, but other than that and a slightly forceless Fifth he nails'em!
About Immerseel's: I have that set. It's worth getting for the Fifth alone. Boy does he do a bang-up job on that! The other symphonies in his cycle seemed consistently off-tempo to me. I guess he could have been a little quicker in the last movement of the Fifth as well, but really it's such a magnificent performance there that you don't even notice.
I like what I've heard of Norrington's first cycle (2, 7, 8), and I think I also wanted 5 from that cycle in M's Mystery Orchestra on that piece. I should get it just to hear what's so horribly wrong with that mach in 9. BTW Gardiner is waaay to fast in the same march. But I love that recording, even if he's hidden the trumpets under a blanket or something. Superb vocals.
Edit: I read through the whole thread again. Not a single mention of my latest favourite Eroica: Jordi Savall's. Sounds rather HIP too...
Quote from: Valentino on April 20, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
Edit: I read through the whole thread again. Not a single mention of my latest favourite Eroica: Jordi Savall's. Sounds rather HIP too...
Also not a single mention of Daniel Grossmann's Ensemble 28 recording of
Eroica(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511O6ilrT4L._SS500_.jpg)
Unlike Savall's this one is currently still available :)
Quote from: traverso on April 20, 2009, 06:29:21 AM
Not Immerseel? But then I have almost no idea of what you meant when you said "Mozartean Beethoven" :P
Well, for me "a Mozartean Beethoven" is a denatured Beethoven. "Nice and harmless" has been said here about Brüggen. Played as if he were a pre-revolutionary composer, I would add.
On the other hand, that's not my impression about Immerseel. When I heard his Fifth, for instance, I saw Europe –excuse my basic metaphor- standing in front of me. The Old World transformed after the French Revolution, i.e., music played on a proper and distinctive Beethovenian way.
:)
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on April 20, 2009, 07:28:57 PM
Well, for me "a Mozartean Beethoven" is a denatured Beethoven. "Nice and harmless" has been said here about Brüggen. Played as if he were a pre-revolutionary composer, I would add.
Say what?! Did Brüggen record two completely different cycles?
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 20, 2009, 07:39:50 PM
Say what?!
This is what I said:
A Beethoven without teeth and nails;
although attractive for other reasons.
I ordered Grossmann. Thanks, traverso.
Quote from: Valentino on April 20, 2009, 01:58:45 PM...that march in 9. BTW Gardiner is waaay to fast in the same march. But I love that recording, even if he's hidden the trumpets under a blanket or something. Superb vocals.
Awwww, I
love the march in Gardiner's 9. Probably my favorite. Obviously tastes differ :)
A Beethoven red in tooth and claw . . . .
No lack of blood in Brüggen's Beethoven, nor of grace. Not only beauty but character, too, must rest in the ear of the behearer. 15 euros for the set is an extraordinary bargain. Thank you Que for calling it to our attention (I'm still considering buying extra sets as gifts. My boys' birthdays are coming up and in recent years I've given them Chailly's Mahler and Blomstedt's Sibelius. This would complete the trifecta. ;) )Those who admire period instrument performance and the Beethoven symphonies have been advised and are perfectly free to make up their own minds or to let others decide for them--or not to care at all one way or the other. [insert shoulder shrugging emoticon here]
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on April 20, 2009, 07:28:57 PM
a proper and distinctive Beethovenian way.
It sounds to me to be somewhat tautological to call one's own preferred way "proper and distinctive Beethovenian" without any sound record from the composer himself :-\
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 21, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
No lack of blood in Brüggen's Beethoven, nor of grace. Not only beauty but character, too, must rest in the ear of the behearer. 15 euros for the set is an extraordinary bargain. Thank you Que for calling it to our attention (I'm still considering buying extra sets as gifts. My boys' birthdays are coming up and in recent years I've given them Chailly's Mahler and Blomstedt's Sibelius. This would complete the trifecta. ;) )Those who admire period instrument performance and the Beethoven symphonies have been advised and are perfectly free to make up their own minds or to let others decide for them--or not to care at all one way or the other. [insert shoulder shrugging emoticon here]
Wow, you sound like an amazing dad.
Quote from: traverso on April 21, 2009, 08:47:23 AM
It sounds to me to be somewhat tautological to call one's own preferred way "proper and distinctive Beethovenian" without any sound record from the composer himself :-\
An interesting logical note from a HIP fan. :)
P.S.: After the first version of this message I changed the emoticon with "rolling eyes" for a "smiley", you know, as a proof of non-belligerence. ;D
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on April 21, 2009, 10:59:00 AM
P.S.: After the first version of this message I changed the emoticon with "rolling eyes" for a "smiley", you know, as a proof of non-belligerence. ;D
Thanks for the change-over. :D
One definitive advantage (speaking for myself) in the Immerseel set is the slightly higher pitch (A=440) he opted for. As a result his orchestra sounds brighter and more
distinctive than most other period instrument ones while retaining the same colours and transparent textures.
Quote from: traverso on April 20, 2009, 07:05:14 PM
Also not a single mention of Daniel Grossmann's Ensemble 28 recording of Eroica
Unlike Savall's this one is currently still available :)
From what I hear Grossmann's is on the same level. I'm a huge fan of Savall's work here, he really unleashes the full force of the Eroica (in my humble opinion ;))!
From what I hear, Savall's Alia Vox is planning to re-release the recording sometime in the future - keep your eyes peeled! :o
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 19, 2009, 10:19:54 AM
Through the miracle of modern technology, I've been able to listen to some substantial portions of Immerseel's cycle.
A source that is freely available?
Quote from: Sorin Eushayson on April 21, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
From what I hear Grossmann's is on the same level. I'm a huge fan of Savall's work here, he really unleashes the full force of the Eroica (in my humble opinion ;))!
From what I hear, Savall's Alia Vox is planning to re-release the recording sometime in the future - keep your eyes peeled! :o
I agree with you every bit here, having owned the Savall from around the time it was first released. ;D But I will also be happy to purchase the AV re-release, just to hear how the original's excellent sound can be bettered.
Quote from: Brian on April 21, 2009, 08:49:54 AM
Wow, you sound like an amazing dad.
Aw, shucks. The boys are more likely to agree today than when they were teenagers! What was it Mark Twain said about that?
Quote from: Mark Twain"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
(Another from him that bears remembering: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.")
Quote from: nut-job on April 21, 2009, 02:12:33 PM
A source that is freely available?
Zig Zag has clips on their site (including the full funeral march from the third) and downloads for sale here (http://www.zigzag-territoires.com/article.php3?id_article=1711&lang=en) (see the €15 credit link bottom right).
Interesting comments M Forever, but I'm afraid your comments about other people who disagree with you,such as myself not"understanding" HIP are extremely arrogant and presumptuous,with all due respect.
I still find the terms"historically informed" and "historically aware" loaded with baggage. And how do you knoe that I and others who disagree with you about HIP are"ignorant" of it ,and the truth(as you see it)? And I rather like the Gardiner recordings more than you do.
Quote from: Superhorn on April 23, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
Interesting comments M Forever,
How can we break this to you, Superhorn? :D
Quote from: Brian on April 23, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
How can we break this to you, Superhorn? :D
How about "nothing is forever?"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/PimpaliciousNerd/Emoticons/913224410-Yin_Yang_emoticon.gif)
Quote from: Brian on April 23, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
How can we break this to you, Superhorn? :D
Brian - read the post a while ago, but was reluctant to respond - :) I'll let you &
George handle the BAD (or the GOOD news - a yin/yang issue, I guess) - Dave :D
If you want to be disoriented, listen to Norrington's fast-paced slow movement in the 9th. I get dizzy and almost nauseous trying to slow it down a bit--I'm so used to the "romanticized" tempo. Even if Norrington is on Beethoven's wave length in this matter, I prefer Gardiner's more traditional reading.
Disorientation can also be found in Grossmann's Funeral March. Not for the sedate of ways:
http://www.grunin.com/eroica/media/Grossmann_2002_2_173-211.mp3
Quote from: Spitz on April 23, 2009, 05:59:05 PM
If you want to be disoriented, listen to Norrington's fast-paced slow movement in the 9th. I get dizzy and almost nauseous trying to slow it down a bit--I'm so used to the "romanticized" tempo. Even if Norrington is on Beethoven's wave length in this matter, I prefer Gardiner's more traditional reading.
But was Gardiner's interpretation of Beethoven 9th really that traditional?
Quote from: Coopmv on April 25, 2009, 04:25:47 PM
But was Gardiner's interpretation of Beethoven 9th really that traditional?
I certainly didn't think so - I love it for the way it busts down traditional walls, especially in that energetic, euphoric finale.
Quote from: Brian on April 25, 2009, 07:38:49 PM
I certainly didn't think so - I love it for the way it busts down traditional walls, especially in that energetic, euphoric finale.
Not only the 9th. I have his 5th (and 7th) and they sound different from the 5th (and 7th) found in all my other 16 cycles. Gardiner intended to break away from the traditional interpretations with a totally new approach ...
Quote from: Valentino on April 20, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
I like what I've heard of Norrington's first cycle (2, 7, 8), and I think I also wanted 5 from that cycle in M's Mystery Orchestra on that piece. I should get it just to hear what's so horribly wrong with that mach in 9.
There is nothing wrong with the tempo: it's perfectly paced at a military march tempo. It's one of the brilliant things about Norrington's Ninth. The entire Finale is superb.
Just ordered Brüggen's cycle from JPC. 15 Euro...they're
giving it away!
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 26, 2009, 05:56:08 AM
There is nothing wrong with the tempo: it's perfectly paced at a military march tempo. It's one of the brilliant things about Norrington's Ninth. The entire Finale is superb.
Just ordered Brüggen's cycle from JPC. 15 Euro...they're giving it away!
Sarge
If the set has the Philips label on it, that may explain why it's so cheap. Apparently at some time around June or July Universal no longer has the right to sell music under that label name, so all Philips cds that are unsold are to be returned to Universal, and destroyed. Many shops are discounting them as a result. If you look them up at many internet record stores, they are listed as "discontinued," "no longer available," etc. I'm sure that they will be re-released with new packaging -- eventually.
Quote from: Bunny on April 26, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
If the set has the Philips label on it, that may explain why it's so cheap. Apparently at some time around June or July Universal no longer has the right to sell music under that label name, so all Philips cds that are unsold are to be returned to Universal, and destroyed. Many shops are discounting them as a result. If you look them up at many internet record stores, they are listed as "discontinued," "no longer available," etc. I'm sure that they will be re-released with new packaging -- eventually.
When Polygram was sold to Vivendi back in the 90's, it was still a subsidiary of Philips of Eindhoven, was it not? Then Vivendi got into some financial jam due to overleverage and went into a deal with NBC and UniversalMusic somehow evolved from that financial arrangement. Perhaps Philips stipulated that the record label could no longer carry its name after so many years when it struck the deal with Vivendi back in the mid 90's ...
I'm posting in this thread with some trepidation. I have only the vaguest notion about HIP (and that's almost entirely confined to my Baroque indulgences), and I have a set of Beethoven symphonies (Mackerras, RLPO) not so much because I want one, but rather because you have to have a set of Beethoven symphonies, and play them now and then. I know it's a shocking thing to say, but I've never been much of a Beethoven person. The earth has never moved, for me.
A few days ago, realising I had to act fast, I bought the Immerseel set from PrestoClassical for £11.50. Even at that price I thought I might be wasting my money. Why buy another Beethoven cycle, when I hardly ever play the one I have already? Could the period approach really make so much difference, despite the ravings of the reviewer in Gramophone?
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/t_200/zigzagzzt0804026.jpg)
It arrived today, and I put on the 5th symphony while I ate my lunch. I felt quite uncomfortable for the first few minutes - the way they race through that first movement is quite disconcerting, as if they all had a train to catch and catching it was a close-run thing. But by halfway through the movement I was starting to get into it; the excitement of it; the rawness of it, the vitality of it.
By halfway through I'd abandoned my lunch and was just listening. The exhilaration of it was utterly gripping; and the sound of the orchestra was captivating in a very curious way: none of that silky smoothness of massed modern strings that (I now realise) sucks the life out of the music by over-polishing, over-smoothing. I know it sounds silly to say this, but it sounds as if the instruments are having a good time. They seem to revel in the music they're individually producing - it reminds me of Ruskin's idea of vital beauty: 'felicitous fulfilment of purpose'.
If this is Beethoven, then quite simply - I've never heard Beethoven before. Listening to this 5th, today, is entirely and without qualification one of the most exciting roller-coaster musical experiences I've had for some time. Roll over, Chuck Berry. You never knew what it was really like.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 21, 2009, 09:05:38 AM
I'm posting in this thread with some trepidation. I have only the vaguest notion about HIP (and that's almost entirely confined to my Baroque indulgences), and I have a set of Beethoven symphonies (Mackerras, RLPO) not so much because I want one, but rather because you have to have a set of Beethoven symphonies, and play them now and then. I know it's a shocking thing to say, but I've never been much of a Beethoven person. The earth has never moved, for me.
A few days ago, realising I had to act fast, I bought the Immerseel set from PrestoClassical for £11.50. Even at that price I thought I might be wasting my money. Why buy another Beethoven cycle, when I hardly ever play the one I have already? Could the period approach really make so much difference, despite the ravings of the reviewer in Gramophone?
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/t_200/zigzagzzt0804026.jpg)
It arrived today, and I put on the 5th symphony while I ate my lunch. I felt quite uncomfortable for the first few minutes - the way they race through that first movement is quite disconcerting, as if they all had a train to catch and catching it was a close-run thing. But by halfway through the movement I was starting to get into it; the excitement of it; the rawness of it, the vitality of it.
By halfway through I'd abandoned my lunch and was just listening. The exhilaration of it was utterly gripping; and the sound of the orchestra was captivating in a very curious way: none of that silky smoothness of massed modern strings that (I now realise) sucks the life out of the music by over-polishing, over-smoothing. I know it sounds silly to say this, but it sounds as if the instruments are having a good time. They seem to revel in the music they're individually producing - it reminds me of Ruskin's idea of vital beauty: 'felicitous fulfilment of purpose'.
If this is Beethoven, then quite simply - I've never heard Beethoven before. Listening to this 5th, today, is entirely and without qualification one of the most exciting roller-coaster musical experiences I've had for some time. Roll over, Chuck Berry. You never knew what it was really like.
Elgarian,
I'm jealous of you! You are reliving an experience I had about 10 years ago, and which changed me forever to a period instrument (with all that implies) fan. Which is not to say that I wasn't already a Beethoven fan, I was. But the realization, as you so aptly put it, that modern orchestral sound "sucks the life out of the music" was what put me over the top. There is a certain rough-and-readiness to Immerseel (and Hogwood for that matter, which was my beginning) that just absolutely appeals to my ear and my ability to get in touch with this music. In any case, your Mackerras set is one of the better modern instrument sets, and if it didn't sell you on the music to this degree, then likely no other would either. Welcome to the fold... :)
8)
Well you know alot of what banishes the smoothness of massed strings is simply to employ a chamber orchestra instead of say the entire Berlin Philharmonic! I say that the blenderized Beethoven is not something that only period instruments can defeat. Most of it is the size of the orchestra, and the microphone placement. :)
Get off my lawn HIPpies! ;D
Quote from: DavidW on July 21, 2009, 09:55:50 AM
Get off my lawn HIPpies! ;D
;D
At first, I read this as 'hirpies' (even though I know that is the incorrect spelling). 8) How about an in between, like Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe? Historially informed performance on modern instruments? 0:)
Quote from: DavidW on July 21, 2009, 09:55:50 AM
Well you know alot of what banishes the smoothness of massed strings is simply to employ a chamber orchestra instead of say the entire Berlin Philharmonic! I say that the blenderized Beethoven is not something that only period instruments can defeat. Most of it is the size of the orchestra, and the microphone placement. :)
Get off my lawn HIPpies! ;D
Hey, you kids!
(http://www.meanoldcoot.com/assets/images/db_images/db_old-man1.jpg)
No, you are quite right. And neither does using PI guarantee a total banishment of homogeneity (witness Gardiner et al). But it is a step in the right direction, since performance styles are often coupled with PI. :)
8)
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 21, 2009, 10:03:34 AM
;D
At first, I read this as 'hirpies' (even though I know that is the incorrect spelling). 8) How about an in between, like Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe? Historially informed performance on modern instruments? 0:)
HIP is the dumbest acronym ever. To some extent every performance is HIP. I will eschew such arrogance and call myself a PIon. :D I enjoy the sound of period instruments while lacking the Wagnerian meglomania of HIPsters. 8)
Hey Gurn found a picture of Newman! :D I think the problem with the Gardiner recording is that the placed the microphones in a different city! Hey what's that light tinkling sound? What do you mean that's a fortepiano, I can barely hear it! :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 21, 2009, 10:03:34 AM
;D
At first, I read this as 'hirpies' (even though I know that is the incorrect spelling). 8) How about an in between, like Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe? Historially informed performance on modern instruments? 0:)
Nice performances. I wish he had done them (with the various interpretive business) with Concentus Musicus Wien though... :-\
8)
Quote from: DavidW on July 21, 2009, 10:08:25 AM
Hey Gurn found a picture of Newman! :D I think the problem with the Gardiner recording is that the placed the microphones in a different city! Hey what's that light tinkling sound? What do you mean that's a fortepiano, I can barely hear it! :D
Well, and ORR is a
big band too. I have a DVD of them doing the 9th at Carnegie Hall. I think there is a critical mass that is reached and suddenly PI loses it's advantage.
Yes, that picture was on the London Music School website along with his classmate;
(http://brilliont.com/blogs/id/files/2008/07/old-man-laughing.jpg)
Quote from: DavidW on July 21, 2009, 10:06:17 AM
To some extent every performance is HIP. I will eschew such arrogance and call myself a PIon. :D I enjoy the sound of period instruments while lacking the Wagnerian meglomania of HIPsters. 8)
You seem to be neutral in this case. ;)
Quote from: DavidW on July 21, 2009, 09:55:50 AM
Well you know alot of what banishes the smoothness of massed strings is simply to employ a chamber orchestra instead of say the entire Berlin Philharmonic! I say that the blenderized Beethoven is not something that only period instruments can defeat. Most of it is the size of the orchestra, and the microphone placement. :)
But I don't care how they did it, David. If they can make Beethoven as exciting as this by using massed kazoos and banjos, then so be it. All I know is that whatever they did, it turned Beethoven from being nowhere in my list, even after decades of listening, to being an exhilarating palpable, pulsating presence, swooping up my personal hit parade. See? I'm out of control. I can't stop alliterating.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
Elgarian,
I'm jealous of you! You are reliving an experience I had about 10 years ago, and which changed me forever to a period instrument (with all that implies) fan. Which is not to say that I wasn't already a Beethoven fan, I was. But the realization, as you so aptly put it, that modern orchestral sound "sucks the life out of the music" was what put me over the top. There is a certain rough-and-readiness to Immerseel (and Hogwood for that matter, which was my beginning) that just absolutely appeals to my ear and my ability to get in touch with this music.
It's been quite a perplexing day since the lunchtime revelation, wondering whether I was fooling myself: 'can it
really make so much difference?' So I'm quite relieved to read this. Thanks.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 21, 2009, 09:05:38 AM
[Immerseel's LvB symphonies] arrived today, and I put on the 5th symphony while I ate my lunch. I felt quite uncomfortable for the first few minutes - the way they race through that first movement is quite disconcerting, as if they all had a train to catch and catching it was a close-run thing. But by halfway through the movement I was starting to get into it; the excitement of it; the rawness of it, the vitality of it.
By halfway through I'd abandoned my lunch and was just listening. The exhilaration of it was utterly gripping; and the sound of the orchestra was captivating in a very curious way: none of that silky smoothness of massed modern strings that (I now realise) sucks the life out of the music by over-polishing, over-smoothing. I know it sounds silly to say this, but it sounds as if the instruments are having a good time. They seem to revel in the music they're individually producing - it reminds me of Ruskin's idea of vital beauty: 'felicitous fulfilment of purpose'.
If this is Beethoven, then quite simply - I've never heard Beethoven before. Listening to this 5th, today, is entirely and without qualification one of the most exciting roller-coaster musical experiences I've had for some time. Roll over, Chuck Berry. You never knew what it was really like.
Let me join Gurn in congratulatin you, Alan--and in thanking you for this post. Those of us who love period instrument hip performances of baroque and classical music are always thrilled when another discovers how wonderful the music really is when not buried under Romantic excesses. I've grown so accustomed to the rich sounds of period instruments and the exhilarating joie de vivre of contemporary "historically informed performance" that I can hardly stand to hear Mozart or Beethoven or Handel or Bach any other way.
I was recently introduced to the Immerseel set by fellow GMGers (earlier on this thread, methinks ;) ) and quickly became a fan...though my heart still belongs to Brüggen, the spiciest cycle I know. jpc.de still has that set on sale for a mere €15. (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/lang/de/currency/EUR/art_hex/4c75647769672d76616e2d42656574686f76656e2d53796d70686f6e69656e2d4e722d312d39/hnum/7266553)
I know you're already a fan of Wm. Christie. Keep an ear out for Rene Jacobs's splendid Mozart (& Handel) operas, Rachel Podger's Bach Sonatas & Partitas, Il Giardino Armonico's Brandenburgs, and so on.
Welcome to the dark (timbre) side!
I just buy that Bruggen set DaveR, thanks for the link. 8)
Quote from: Elgarian on July 21, 2009, 09:05:38 AM
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/t_200/zigzagzzt0804026.jpg)
It arrived today, and I put on the 5th symphony while I ate my lunch. I felt quite uncomfortable for the first few minutes - the way they race through that first movement is quite disconcerting, as if they all had a train to catch and catching it was a close-run thing. But by halfway through the movement I was starting to get into it; the excitement of it; the rawness of it, the vitality of it.
Thanks for your post! It inspired me to sample the set over at itunes and I must say it sounds damn good! And I am not usually into HIP when it comes to Beethoven either. But that set sounds excellent and has an immediacy, a power and clarity I haven't heard before in Beethoven Symphonies. I agree about the speed too, at first I thought it was too fast (maybe I still think so in the Pastoral) but then the excitement generated convinced me.
I just got this:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aklXTW3xL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
And it's superb. Opening chords of the Eroica are perfect. Tempo is judged very well, with a nice dose of flexibility. Appropriately dark funeral march. Really outstanding clarinet playing throughout. Full review soon.
Quote from: George on July 21, 2009, 03:14:17 PM
Thanks for your post! It inspired me to sample the set over at itunes and I must say it sounds damn good! And I am not usually into HIP when it comes to Beethoven either. But that set sounds excellent and has an immediacy, a power and clarity I haven't heard before in Beethoven Symphonies. I agree about the speed too, at first I thought it was too fast (maybe I still think so in the Pastoral) but then the excitement generated convinced me.
Hello
George & others commenting on this
Immerseel Beethoven Symphony Cycle, and to
Elgarian for pushing me 'over the edge' - I've been eyeing this cycle for a while (now own 4 others, so do I need yet an additional one?), but as others have commented regarding 'historic' performances, I'm a HAPPY CAMPER - thus, put in an order today and plan to be thoroughly pleased! :D
This set arrived midweek last week and I hope to give it a spin this weekend. This is my second set of Beethoven Symphonies performed on period instruments (I bought the Hogwood's set a few years back). I am not dogmatic and believe good performance of Beethoven Symphonies is possible on modern instruments as well. Perhaps the set by Mackerras will be next ...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41R2997KCDL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Coopmv on July 21, 2009, 04:48:50 PM
This set arrived midweek last week and I hope to give it a spin this weekend. This is my second set of Beethoven Symphonies performed on period instruments (I bought the Hogwood's set a few years back). I am not dogmatic and believe good performance of Beethoven Symphonies is possible on modern instruments as well. Perhaps the set by Mackerras will be next ...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41R2997KCDL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Coop,
I (at least) am not saying otherwise. I have a dozen or so cycles in all, and among them there are some really nice performances that would hold their own with any. However, I will say that since you DO like the music, you couldn't have made a better choice than Gardiner. As I mentioned earlier, the ORR is a big band, and they play so well (seriously, they play great) that the "learning curve" for people who like modern instruments is a lot less steep than you may have found it with Hogwood. That set is dramatically different. It is perfect for people like me who wallow in PI... :D
I will be amazed if you come back here next week and say that you couldn't abide Gardiner. The only thing you will need to get accustomed to is the tempi. They are brisk. Beethoven would have been very comfortable with them, I believe. People who were brought up with "modern" performance style will need a couple of listens. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christoph Prégardien \ Andreas Staier - D 911 Song Cycle for Voice & Keyboard "Winterreise" Book 1 #06 - Wasserflut
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2009, 05:13:20 PM
Coop,
I (at least) am not saying otherwise. I have a dozen or so cycles in all, and among them there are some really nice performances that would hold their own with any. However, I will say that since you DO like the music, you couldn't have made a better choice than Gardiner. As I mentioned earlier, the ORR is a big band, and they play so well (seriously, they play great) that the "learning curve" for people who like modern instruments is a lot less steep than you may have found it with Hogwood. That set is dramatically different. It is perfect for people like me who wallow in PI... :D
I will be amazed if you come back here next week and say that you couldn't abide Gardiner. The only thing you will need to get accustomed to is the tempi. They are brisk. Beethoven would have been very comfortable with them, I believe. People who were brought up with "modern" performance style will need a couple of listens. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christoph Prégardien \ Andreas Staier - D 911 Song Cycle for Voice & Keyboard "Winterreise" Book 1 #06 - Wasserflut
This is actually the 17th or 18th Beethoven Symphonies cycles for me. I also have every Karajan cycle - with the 63 cycle on both redbook CD and SACD and the 77 cycle on LP. As for the Hogwood cycle, I think the 9th was a bit of a bust as the tempo in the last movement was chaotic IMO. I think the Karajan EMI set of 1955 is excellent and can easily rival his 63 cycle with the 77 cycle being the weakest. The Eugen Jochum 68 cycle with the RCO is also excellent. I also find the 9th by Bernstein and the VPO (1980) quite an exhilarating performance. The Harnoncourt cycle I got early this year also has an excellent 7th if I remember correctly after only one audition ...
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 21, 2009, 10:03:34 AM
;D
At first, I read this as 'hirpies' (even though I know that is the incorrect spelling). 8) How about an in between, like Harnoncourt and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe? Historially informed performance on modern instruments? 0:)
Yeah, this is an excellent performance. I still have about 4 or 5 CD's (piano and violin concertos) to go before I am done with the set ...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wniS-7pXL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Coopmv on July 21, 2009, 05:30:42 PM
This is actually the 17th or 18th Beethoven Symphonies cycles for me. I also have every Karajan cycle - with the 63 cycle on both redbook CD and SACD and the 77 cycle on LP. As for the Hogwood cycle, I think the 9th was a bit of a bust as the tempo in the last movement was chaotic IMO. I think the Karajan EMI set of 1955 is excellent and can easily rival his 63 cycle with the 77 cycle being the weakest. The Eugen Jochum 68 cycle with the RCO is also excellent. I also find the 9th by Bernstein and the VPO (1980) quite an exhilarating performance. The Harnoncourt cycle I got early this year also has an excellent 7th if I remember correctly after only one audition ...
That's what I'm saying, you can always find good performances in modern cycles (I happen to think that the '55 Karajan is
better than the '63). But anyway, the point is not how many you have, but whether any of them present the music in a way that grabs you and says "LISTEN TO ME!". If they do, then that's great. If not, they are a bust. Hogwood's 9th does have some unevenness. I felt that the Turkish section was unduly influenced by Norrington's major screwup from the previous year, OTOH, Hogwood does a nice job at the end of it holding back the (not written but usually played)
accelerando that leads into the fugue. Of course, cycles have the downside that no one set of interpretations is going to be exactly right for every symphony. Which is why I have that big pile of single disks too, with such as Czech PO / Matacic doing
Eroica. I have mixed emotions when it comes to box sets... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christoph Prégardien \ Andreas Staier - D 911 Song Cycle for Voice & Keyboard "Winterreise" Book 2 #04 - Letzte Hoffnung
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2009, 05:46:52 PM
That's what I'm saying, you can always find good performances in modern cycles (I happen to think that the '55 Karajan is better than the '63). But anyway, the point is not how many you have, but whether any of them present the music in a way that grabs you and says "LISTEN TO ME!". If they do, then that's great. If not, they are a bust. Hogwood's 9th does have some unevenness. I felt that the Turkish section was unduly influenced by Norrington's major screwup from the previous year, OTOH, Hogwood does a nice job at the end of it holding back the (not written but usually played) accelerando that leads into the fugue. Of course, cycles have the downside that no one set of interpretations is going to be exactly right for every symphony. Which is why I have that big pile of single disks too, with such as Czech PO / Matacic doing Eroica. I have mixed emotions when it comes to box sets... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christoph Prégardien \ Andreas Staier - D 911 Song Cycle for Voice & Keyboard "Winterreise" Book 2 #04 - Letzte Hoffnung
I hear you, though a box set does offer the following benefits.
1) You do not need to hunt down the individual CD's.
2) A box set almost always costs less than sum of the costs for the individual CD's.
The 2 obvious downsides are:
1) Often less than generous liner notes
2) Unattractive CD artworks
I bought the Karajan Symphony Edition in early spring, which I have yet to listen to. The motive was clearly economical since I did not have all the Bruckner and Haydn Symphonies and the cost of building out my collection with these individual CD's would have been a lot more costly ...
Quote from: Coopmv on July 21, 2009, 06:18:41 PM
I hear you, though a box set does offer the following benefits.
1) You do not need to hunt down the individual CD's.
2) A box set almost always costs less than sum of the costs for the individual CD's.
Yes, these are precisely the reasons that I buy some of them. Particularly #2.
QuoteThe 2 obvious downsides are:
1) Often less than generous liner notes
2) Unattractive CD artworks
Although for me, neither of those things makes a lot of difference. I have a ton of books about the music, and I don't really care that much about the performers (sorry about that :D ). And I gave up on artwork when LP's went away (for all practical purposes). No, for me the downside, such as it is, is that most big sets are uneven in quality, so a lot of times I listen to about half of it avidly and the remainder not so much. OTOH, the cost factor is usually enough to justify only liking half of it... :)
8)
QuoteI bought the Karajan Symphony Edition in early spring, which I have yet to listen to. The motive was clearly economical since I did not have all the Bruckner and Haydn Symphonies and the cost of building out my collection with these individual CD's would have been a lot more costly ...
A good example of how a box can justify its existence. You would have hunted for a long time to pick up those OOP singles, and then the cost would have been as much or more as the box costs. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christophe Rousset & William Christie - G 076 #3 Quartet in Eb for 2 Harpsichords 1st mvmt - Allegro vivace
Quote from: masolino on July 04, 2007, 10:49:55 AM
Bruggen's Beethoven recordings are no turkey for me at all, and particularly the 7th and 8th are OUTSTANDING. No idea why his approach to Beethoven was described as "baroque"-oriented. Any detail to prove that?
No turkey? Why don't I understand that phrase. I hope it means it's good so I can agree, I love Bruggen. The 6th 7th and 8th specially.
Quote from: Mozart on July 21, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
No turkey? Why don't I understand that phrase. I hope it means it's good so I can agree, I love Bruggen. The 6th 7th and 8th specially.
Yes, you understand him perfectly. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christophe Rousset & William Christie - G 076 #5 Quartet in F for 2 Harpsichords 1st mvmt - Allegretto
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2009, 06:48:51 PM
Yes, you understand him perfectly. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Christophe Rousset & William Christie - G 076 #5 Quartet in F for 2 Harpsichords 1st mvmt - Allegretto
I guess turkey is dry and makes you go to sleep, so not having turkey is good? Someone should add to that phrase, its no turkey but chicken.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 21, 2009, 02:16:23 PM
I know you're already a fan of Wm. Christie. Keep an ear out for Rene Jacobs's splendid Mozart (& Handel) operas, Rachel Podger's Bach Sonatas & Partitas, Il Giardino Armonico's Brandenburgs, and so on.
Interesting, this. I dismissed Handel, along with pretty much the whole of baroque, somewhere back in the 1970s (of course I now know why), and never bothered with him or them again until recently. When I began my recent revisiting, I didn't even know that what I was listening to was 'historically informed'; I just plunged in, and Christie's brand of HIP baroque happened to be what I got, and the walls fell down. I suppose on the basis of that, I should have known there were other pieces of demolition work ahead, but I was too busy gawping at the wonders of the unexplored baroque landscape (still am) to think much about it.
I have about 3 decades of catching up to do.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 21, 2009, 11:48:01 PM
Interesting, this. I dismissed Handel, along with pretty much the whole of baroque, somewhere back in the 1970s (of course I now know why), and never bothered with him or them again until recently. When I began my recent revisiting, I didn't even know that what I was listening to was 'historically informed'; I just plunged in, and Christie's brand of HIP baroque happened to be what I got, and the walls fell down. I suppose on the basis of that, I should have known there were other pieces of demolition work ahead, but I was too busy gawping at the wonders of the unexplored baroque landscape (still am) to think much about it.
I have about 3 decades of catching up to do.
Besides the Baroque, HIP recordings really opened the door for me in all pre-Beethoven Classical period composers. Naturally Mozart & Haydn being the most prominent - I never into them via other recordings, so revelatory is no too big a word. Another composer who does extremely well in HIP is ....
Schubert.
Anyway, my LvB/Van Immerseel set is on it's way - can't wait! 8)
Q :)
Quote from: Mozart on July 21, 2009, 06:55:21 PM
I guess turkey is dry and makes you go to sleep, so not having turkey is good? Someone should add to that phrase, its no turkey but chicken.
In American slang, a "turkey" is someone or something that is stupid or incompetent--the opposite of Kuijken's
Cosi or "Paris" Symphonies, for instance. ;)
Quote from: Que on July 22, 2009, 12:00:59 AM
Another composer who does extremely well in HIP is ....Schubert.
He'll have to wait his turn, but I believe you, and I've mentally registered that interesting statement for future reference..
Quote from: Elgarian on July 21, 2009, 11:48:01 PM
I have about 3 decades of catching up to do.
Well if you are going to explore Beethoven, let me rec my favorite work. While Eric has his Debussy P&M, I have Beethoven's Archduke Trio! It is magnificently sublime.
(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-5110.gif)(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-5110.gif)(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-5110.gif)(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-5110.gif)(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-5110.gif)
Cited for appropriateness to thread:Quote from: Norman LebrechtHearing an excess of Karajan is [...] a bloating, desensitising experience.
>:D 0:) 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 22, 2009, 07:52:58 AM
Cited for appropriateness to thread:
>:D 0:) 8)
Hearing an excess of Norman Lebrecht is... well, you know.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2009, 08:03:18 AM
Hearing an excess of Norman Lebrecht is... well, you know.
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
Elgarian,
I'm jealous of you! You are reliving an experience I had about 10 years ago, and which changed me forever to a period instrument (with all that implies) fan. Which is not to say that I wasn't already a Beethoven fan, I was. But the realization, as you so aptly put it, that modern orchestral sound "sucks the life out of the music" was what put me over the top. There is a certain rough-and-readiness to Immerseel (and Hogwood for that matter, which was my beginning) that just absolutely appeals to my ear and my ability to get in touch with this music. In any case, your Mackerras set is one of the better modern instrument sets, and if it didn't sell you on the music to this degree, then likely no other would either. Welcome to the fold... :)
8)
We dissected Immerseel's set at my site symphony by symphony. The consensus was not good, even amongst the HIP fanciers like myself.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 22, 2009, 08:07:13 AM
We dissected Immerseel's set at my site symphony by symphony. The consensus was not good, even amongst the HIP fanciers like myself.
Ask us if we care...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 22, 2009, 08:07:13 AM
We dissected Immerseel's set at my site symphony by symphony. The consensus was not good, even amongst the HIP fanciers like myself.
Which HIP recording is your favorite?
I've listened to samples of the Immerseel and it seemed impressive.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 22, 2009, 07:52:58 AM
Cited for appropriateness to thread:
QuoteHearing an excess of Karajan is [...] a bloating, desensitising experience.
>:D 0:) 8)
Now it's my turn to get the popcorn!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 22, 2009, 08:07:13 AM
We dissected Immerseel's set at my site symphony by symphony. The consensus was not good, even amongst the HIP fanciers like myself.
Even if I did not already know just how good Immerseel's cycle is (better than
all of the usual suspects), I would take this as the strongest possible recommendation in favor of the set.
Quote from: DavidW on July 22, 2009, 07:32:03 AMWell if you are going to explore Beethoven, let me rec my favorite work. While Eric has his Debussy P&M, I have Beethoven's Archduke Trio! It is magnificently sublime.
Love it, too, Dave! Haven't heard a period instrument performance to compare with my faves, however. Which do you suggest?
Quote from: DavidW on July 22, 2009, 07:32:03 AM
Well if you are going to explore Beethoven ...
... and Handel, and Vivaldi, and the whole of French baroque, (and, perhaps, Schubert), and ...
When I say I have a lot of catching up to do, I mean a
lot! [scribbles 'Archduke Trio' on notepad]
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2009, 08:27:53 AM
I've listened to samples of the Immerseel and it seemed impressive.
I can go on raving about the Immerseel 5th Symphony for as long as you like. It's the Voice that Spoke to Job from the Whirlwind. It's the Coming of Leviathan, from the Deep. (Stop me if I go over the top.)
Quote from: Elgarian on July 22, 2009, 08:54:16 AM
I can go on raving about the Immerseel 5th Symphony for as long as you like. It's the Voice that Spoke to Job from the Whirlwind. It's the Coming of Leviathan, from the Deep. (Stop me if I go over the top.)
You've really come along as a result of those Raving Lessons! Newman's sojourn among us shall not have been in vain.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 22, 2009, 08:54:16 AM
I can go on raving about the Immerseel 5th Symphony for as long as you like. It's the Voice that Spoke to Job from the Whirlwind. It's the Coming of Leviathan, from the Deep. (Stop me if I go over the top.)
Okay, we'll let you know if you go too far. ;) I also especially like the 3rd, 4th, and 6th from this set.
Do you really not yet know the Archduke? Here's a taste from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nSk2oNs9_c&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nSk2oNs9_c&feature=related)
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 08:42:53 AM
Love it, too, Dave! Haven't heard a period instrument performance to compare with my faves, however. Which do you suggest?
I am very pleased with L'Archibudelli on Sony/Vivarte. Coupled with "Ghost" of course... Wish it had been with the other Op 70 trio, but it isn't, and there you go... :( Anyway, Immerseel is playing the fortepiano in this version, so you can hear him doing what he does best. :)
8)
Gurn speaks for me too since he is my introduction to HIP anything. L'Archibudelli is my fav ensemble for classical chamber anything though. Their late Haydn PTs is a desert island recording for me. 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 09:21:39 AM
Do you really not yet know the Archduke? Here's a taste from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nSk2oNs9_c&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nSk2oNs9_c&feature=related)
No, I really don't. Eventually, after beavering away through the symphonies, several sonatas, and the late quartets, I just stopped, apart from occasional revisits to the symphonies. There was so much music I enjoyed so much more, that it seemed like beating my head against a wall. Believe me, I'm delighted to have made this symphonic breakthrough, but I know I'm running close to saturation when I take into account all the other discoveries I've been making.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 22, 2009, 11:25:42 AM
but I know I'm running close to saturation when I take into account all the other discoveries I've been making.
Yeah if you'll push yourself too hard you'll turn into Mr Snipper, and you wouldn't want that! :D
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2009, 08:27:53 AM
Which HIP recording is your favorite?
I've listened to samples of the Immerseel and it seemed impressive.
Immerseel's tempo is too safe throughout, he seems to consistantly just miss that edge you need with Beethoven, and this was the general opinion. The playing is good though, as is the sound quality. Immerseel himself is the weak link. There is no perfect set on its own in my opinion, but if you have Norrington's set and the Hanover Band set, and Savall's Eroica, then between them all you'll be able to pick out a decent compilation. Maybe throw in a couple from Gardiner's, Hogwood's you can leave out altogether really.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 22, 2009, 11:25:42 AM
No, I really don't. Eventually, after beavering away through the symphonies, several sonatas, and the late quartets, I just stopped, apart from occasional revisits to the symphonies. There was so much music I enjoyed so much more, that it seemed like beating my head against a wall. Believe me, I'm delighted to have made this symphonic breakthrough, but I know I'm running close to saturation when I take into account all the other discoveries I've been making.
Cool, put it on the back burner, but when it's time don't forget the Florestan Trio's
Archduke (or the Beaux Art's). [Much as I love period strings, drums, winds, & brass, I've never heard anything close to the richness of a modern piano].
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 22, 2009, 11:47:36 AM
Immerseel's tempo is too safe throughout, he seems to consistantly just miss that edge you need with Beethoven, and this was the general opinion. The playing is good though, as is the sound quality. Immerseel himself is the weak link. There is no perfect set on its own in my opinion, but if you have Norrington's set and the Hanover Band set, and Savall's Eroica, then between them all you'll be able to pick out a decent compilation. Maybe throw in a couple from Gardiner's, Hogwood's you can leave out altogether really.
Ha ha! I just
knew you'd be a Snorrington or Goodman fan! I love it--you're almost a perfect reverse-taste barometer! Do you by chance post reviews on Amazon under the name "Santa Fe Listener?"
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
Cool, put it on the back burner, but when it's time don't forget the Florestan Trio's Archduke (or the Beaux Art's).
+1
Florestan Trio is great, and I have both BAT recordings and they are sublime. :)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 22, 2009, 11:47:36 AM
Immerseel's tempo is too safe throughout, he seems to consistantly just miss that edge you need with Beethoven, and this was the general opinion. The playing is good though, as is the sound quality. Immerseel himself is the weak link. There is no perfect set on its own in my opinion, but if you have Norrington's set and the Hanover Band set, and Savall's Eroica, then between them all you'll be able to pick out a decent compilation. Maybe throw in a couple from Gardiner's, Hogwood's you can leave out altogether really.
Wow, we really do have opposite tastes, assuming you mean Norrington/London Classical Players, which I found rather dull. Norrington in Stuttgart is another matter. Nobody beats Hogwood's 2 and 4!
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2009, 03:07:44 PM
Wow, we really do have opposite tastes, assuming you mean Norrington/London Classical Players, which I found rather dull. Norrington in Stuttgart is another matter. Nobody beats Hogwood's 2 and 4!
I am still somewhat neutral on Norrington. I have his Beethoven 9th with the London Classical Players and his Purcell Fairy Queen ...
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 22, 2009, 05:26:03 PM
Wand is good, but much like everyone else's (maybe a bit better, but you know what I mean). Harnoncourt's is rather more unique.
Thanks for the tip.
I could do without the asskicking anyway, what with my girlfriend being on me 24/7 lately. ::)
What about Marriner? His cycle certainly seems to be the most complete.
And Blomstedt has a cycle, and he's one of my favorite conductors. :)
Quote from: DavidW on July 22, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
What about Marriner? His cycle certainly seems to be the most complete.
And Blomstedt has a cycle, and he's one of my favorite conductors. :)
Yeah, I have that cycle too and it is a pretty good set with a more traditional interpretation ...
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
when it's time don't forget the Florestan Trio's Archduke (or the Beaux Art's).
Duly noted. Thanks.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
Cool, put it on the back burner, but when it's time don't forget the Florestan Trio's Archduke (or the Beaux Art's). [Much as I love period strings, drums, winds, & brass, I've never heard anything close to the richness of a modern piano].
Ha ha! I just knew you'd be a Snorrington or Goodman fan! I love it--you're almost a perfect reverse-taste barometer! Do you by chance post reviews on Amazon under the name "Santa Fe Listener?"
No I have never reviewed at amazon, I review at my own site, and here on occasion. I can't say I've been impressed by the Florestan Trio's Beethoven from what I've heard.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2009, 03:07:44 PM
Wow, we really do have opposite tastes, assuming you mean Norrington/London Classical Players, which I found rather dull. Norrington in Stuttgart is another matter. Nobody beats Hogwood's 2 and 4!
Well I stated that you have to pick and chose from the sources I mentioned, but Norrington's (yes with the LCP) Nr2 is light years better that Hogwood's, really I don't know what you are thinking about here. For Nr4 I usually play the version by the Hanover Band. I don't even consider buying Beethoven on modern instruments any more, unless it is some very rare piece that has been recorded no other way. Anyway I've said all I have to say on these things too often already, so I bid this topic adieu.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
Ha ha! I just knew you'd be a Snorrington or Goodman fan! I love it--you're almost a perfect reverse-taste barometer! Do you by chance post reviews on Amazon under the name "Santa Fe Listener?"
I will add that I can safely say I have spent more hours listening to Beethoven, performed HIP and otherwise, than the rest of GMG put together. I recommend you do not concern yourself with my taste, if you find yourself disagreeing with me I suggest the problem lies closer to home...
Adieu once more..
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 01:43:01 AM
I will add that I can safely say I have spent more hours listening to Beethoven, performed HIP and otherwise, than the rest of GMG put together.
Slight exaggeration, anyone?
Quote from: erato on July 23, 2009, 02:15:06 AM
Slight exaggeration, anyone?
I think the silence answers your question...
They're probably busy, listening to Beethoven.
Quote from: erato on July 23, 2009, 02:15:06 AM
Slight exaggeration, anyone?
Probably not.
Although to add a bit of balance to it, if I only listened to 2 composers I would be forced to listen to a lot of the music more than a few times too. Not criticizing, just sayin'... :)
8)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 01:43:01 AM
I will add that I can safely say I have spent more hours listening to Beethoven, performed HIP and otherwise, than the rest of GMG put together. I recommend you do not concern yourself with my taste, if you find yourself disagreeing with me I suggest the problem lies closer to home...
I love your taste! It's execrable, but at least you're consistent so far, thus may prove more helpful than those who are all over the map. And your arrogance is a hoot! You're like a character in a Monty Python sketch...no wonder Karl gets such a kick out of your pompous inanities!
I will never forget once hearing a young trucker bragging about his ten years of experience driving on snow and ice, when an old timer snorted and said, "Sounds more like one year of experience ten times."
Note to self: Be sure to listen to one of the selections from Immerseel/Anima Eterna's delightful set of Beethoven symphonies today!
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 04:47:58 AM
I love your taste! It's execrable
Ah for these gems I keep coming back to GMG..
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 04:47:58 AM
And your arrogance is a hoot! You're like a character in a Monty Python sketch...no wonder Karl gets such a kick out of your pompous inanities!
It's a hoot because it's meant to be a hoot. The hootiness is an act, but the opinions amongst it all are real.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 04:47:58 AM
I will never forget once hearing a young trucker bragging about his ten years of experience driving on snow and ice, when an old timer snorted and said, "Sounds more like one year of experience ten times."
Hey I was moderating Beethoven forums more than ten years back, I fondly remember the war zone that was the Edepot Beethoven forum about 12 years ago. It was all relatively new in those days so everyone was totally 'unbound'. It's just not the same now.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 04:47:58 AM
Note to self: Be sure to listen to one of the selections from Immerseel/Anima Eterna's delightful set of Beethoven symphonies today!
Well that's the trouble with Immerseel's Beethoven symphonies, they are rather too easy listening, the spark of fire never quite ignites. I have many of his fortepiano CDs but his conducting here is a let down, certainly he has nothing new to say compared to the other period instrument sets on offer. If you are new to HIP Beethoven it may be worth considering, but if you are an old campaigner you can easily bypass this set.
I think that's everything clarified, so I can give the matter my third and final 'adieu'.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 23, 2009, 04:20:49 AM
Probably not.
Although to add a bit of balance to it, if I only listened to 2 composers I would be forced to listen to a lot of the music more than a few times too. Not criticizing, just sayin'... :)
8)
Well either way it's not quite accurate, I don't just listen to two composers. You should return to my site Gurn, I have posted 1000's of comments and reviews relating to all manner of music old and new, and not all bad comments either before you think anything along those lines. For example on my listening list tonight includes Brahms' reduction of his German Requiem for chorus and piano (4 hands) and also Boulez's 'Eclat'. I suppose it makes some people feel better about themselves to permeate these myths about me, but that's ok... 0:)
Anyway that is something else clarified, hopefully I can now lay this topic to rest...
To continue my derailment of this thread, back onto the Schubert cycle--
The much loved Immerseel recording is OOP, but Brüggen is easy to get. Is his recording of Schubert's symphonies good?
Quote from: DavidW on July 23, 2009, 05:53:50 AM
To continue my derailment of this thread, back onto the Schubert cycle--
Time for a bit of advice from the moderators here... 0:)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
Well either way it's not quite accurate, I don't just listen to two composers. You should return to my site Gurn, I have posted 1000's of comments and reviews relating to all manner of music old and new, and not all bad comments either before you think anything along those lines. For example on my listening list tonight includes Brahms' reduction of his German Requiem for chorus and piano (4 hands) and also Boulez's 'Eclat'. I suppose it makes some people feel better about themselves to permeate these myths about me, but that's ok... 0:)
Anyway that is something else clarified, hopefully I can now lay this topic to rest...
Fortunately for me, Rod, I have no need to feel better about myself. These 'myths' as you call them were all started by
you, so since I have no other reason to doubt them I take them at face value. It is very nice to hear that you are listening to other composers without having an axe to grind with them. This is the sort of positive 'turning-of-the-leaf' that I like to see happen to people. :)
8)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
Well either way it's not quite accurate, I don't just listen to two composers. You should return to my site Gurn, I have posted 1000's of comments and reviews relating to all manner of music old and new, and not all bad comments either before you think anything along those lines. For example on my listening list tonight includes Brahms' reduction of his German Requiem for chorus and piano (4 hands) and also Boulez's 'Eclat'. I suppose it makes some people feel better about themselves to permeate these myths about me, but that's ok... 0:)
Anyway that is something else clarified, hopefully I can now lay this topic to rest...
well I listened to Beethoven op 59 no 3, so it seems you are lagging.........
For some unaccountable reason I find myself thinking of Emerson:
"The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons."
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 23, 2009, 06:36:45 AM
Fortunately for me, Rod, I have no need to feel better about myself. These 'myths' as you call them were all started by you, so since I have no other reason to doubt them I take them at face value. It is very nice to hear that you are listening to other composers without having an axe to grind with them. This is the sort of positive 'turning-of-the-leaf' that I like to see happen to people. :)
8)
I started no myths, it was other people's presumptions. I have been passing comments for over a decade about Bach and Mozart and Schubert etc etc, often things that some people would prefer not to read. That is their decision but how do you think I came about these comments without hearing the music?
There is no leaf turning for me, I have always listened to every piece of music placed before me by whoever composer, as I have done at my site from day one. The reason why I keep coming back to Beethoven and Handel is that they are simply much better than the others as far as I am concerned, hardly a radical position given that they are two of the most respected composers. But I know people who are far more selective in their listening than me, who present themselves as being open to everything. A far worse crime sir!
Now I have put you straight nothing further needs to be said on the matter. I think we should go back on topic...
Quote from: DavidW on July 23, 2009, 05:53:50 AM
To continue my derailment of this thread, back onto the Schubert cycle--
The much loved Immerseel recording is OOP, but Brüggen is easy to get. Is his recording of Schubert's symphonies good?
Hate to be perverse, but somehow I acquired Immerseel's Fourth "Tragic" Symphony - maybe an upload to this very forum?? Anyhow, it's really peppy and a delight to the ears, although, like every other recording of the work, it totally fails to convince me that it's "Tragic." :D
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 04:47:58 AM
I love your taste! It's execrable, but at least you're consistent so far, thus may prove more helpful than those who are all over the map. And your arrogance is a hoot! You're like a character in a Monty Python sketch...no wonder Karl gets such a kick out of your pompous inanities!
We're lucky our resident oddballs have such thick skin...
I have noticed that my listening preferences have changed over the last few years. Whereas before I felt the need to buy recordings of new works by new composers, now I find myself seeking out new performances (some brand new, others historic, or some recommended by a reviewer I have come to trust) of the major works of a handful of composers.
I recently began buying different recordings of Beethoven Piano Sonatas, followed by various recordings of Mozart Piano Concertos. Now I am onto Mozart Operas. This thread has gotten me interested in expanding my Beethoven Symphonies beyond the Karajan, Bernstein, Waller and Blomstedt sets I have.
After hearing the Immerseel Mozart PC set, and not being entirely taken with the sound of the fortepiano, I may take a hard look at his Beethoven Symphonies, since the sound of the orchestra in the Mozart was very good.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 05:39:13 AM
The hootiness is an act, but the opinions amongst it all are real. No one doubts that your opinions are "real"--too bad you cannot grasp that just because your opinion is "real" does not mean that it's informed, meaningful, or coincides with objective reality.
Hey I was moderating Beethoven forums more than ten years back, I fondly remember the war zone that was the Edepot Beethoven forum about 12 years ago. It was all relatively new in those days so everyone was totally 'unbound'. It's just not the same now. This complete non-sequitor suggests that the point of my anecdote seems to have sailed right over your head...but given your posting history I should not be surprised. Let me restate it as simply as possible: even if your ludicrous claim were true, the "fact" that you've spent more hours listening to Beethoven than all of the members of GMG combined says nothing whatsoever about the validity of your judgments. Repeated exposure does not entail learning or understanding -- as you've demonstrated time and again.
Well that's the trouble with Immerseel's Beethoven symphonies, they are rather too easy listening, the spark of fire never quite ignites. I have many of his fortepiano CDs but his conducting here is a let down, certainly he has nothing new to say compared to the other period instrument sets on offer. If you are new to HIP Beethoven it may be worth considering, but if you are an old campaigner you can easily bypass this set. You may repeat your opinions as often as you like. Nevertheless, they remain nothing more than your opinions, and people with different tastes and greater understanding are not likely to substitute your superficial judgments for their own informed and considered ones. Furthermore, instead of compelling sympathetic agreement, your dismissive arrogance only encourages others to dismiss you right along with your beliefs.
I think that's everything clarified, so I can give the matter my third and final 'adieu'. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Quote from: DavidW on July 23, 2009, 05:53:50 AM
To continue my derailment of this thread, back onto the Schubert cycle--
;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2009, 07:45:08 AM
This complete non-sequitor suggests that the point of my anecdote seems to have sailed right over your head...but given your posting history I should not be surprised.
Oh I knew exactly what your point was David, which is why I made a mockery of it. It is an unfortunate trait amongst a number of GMG regulars that they think they are much cleverer than they actually are, and typically the 'discussion' here from said persons is probably the most banal you'll find at any CM forum and has been for years.
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2009, 07:24:42 AM
We're lucky our resident oddballs have such thick skin...
Lucky? Hmmm. The bona fide "oddballs" seem more pathological than "thick skinned." They all share an unquestioned faith in the validity of their laughably uninformed opinions, coupled with complete disdain for the usually far better informed and considered views of others. Debilitating as that may be for them personally, it is so lamentably common as to merit little if any comment. However, these "oddballs" also share a propensity to insult those who do not share their beliefs as either "stupid" or "too aesthetically insensitive" to appreciate, say, Debussy's
Pelleas et Melisande." ;D
It is this propensity to overtly insult other members to which some of us object and for which we sometimes call them to account...gently at first, but more pointedly as seems appropriate, depending on the nature, extent, and duration of such behavior. I don't believe we do them or the community any favors by permitting chronically offensive behavior to go without comment. And Rod offends not only by both direct and indirect insults, but also by chronic drumbeating for his own pathetic forum. Sure, most of us feel sorry for him...but compassion demands that we tell him the truth anyway.
Oh, does Rod have a forum of his own?
Quote from: Franco on July 23, 2009, 07:34:17 AM
I have noticed that my listening preferences have changed over the last few years. Whereas before I felt the need to buy recordings of new works by new composers, now I find myself seeking out new performances (some brand new, others historic, or some recommended by a reviewer I have come to trust) of the major works of a handful of composers.
I recently began buying different recordings of Beethoven Piano Sonatas, followed by various recordings of Mozart Piano Concertos. Now I am onto Mozart Operas. This thread has gotten me interested in expanding my Beethoven Symphonies beyond the Karajan, Bernstein, Waller and Blomstedt sets I have.
After hearing the Immerseel Mozart PC set, and not being entirely taken with the sound of the fortepiano, I may take a hard look at his Beethoven Symphonies, since the sound of the orchestra in the Mozart was very good.
My path has been much like the one you describe, Franco. You have much to look forward to in exploring other approaches to Beethoven's symphonies, especially those that take recent scholarship in period performance practice into account and that clean off the crud accumulated through decades of Romantic performance tradition. If you like the sound of Anima Eterna accompanying Immerseel's Mozart PCs, then you may well prefer not only HIP, but period instrument performances, of which Immerseel/Anima Eterna's recent cycle is a fine example. (By the way, I felt exactly the same about their Mozart PCs--try as I might, I still don't care for the thin, relatively inexpressive sound of the pianoforte--though I think Immerseel's about as good as it gets!)
My own favorite among period instrument symphony cycles is Brüggen's with The Orchestra of the 18th Century. In addition to the very saucy sound of the instruments (more characterful than any of the other period instrument cycles--and, yes, I have heard them all, even own most of them), Brüggen's liberal agogic and dynamic interventions are more daring than his colleagues' and more consistent with the approach I believe Beethoven himself actually took when conducting his music.
At the other end of the period instrument spectrum, Gardiner and his equally proficient band are much tamer in sound and more conventional in style, thus offer less radical a change from what you are accustomed to. But have no doubts, it's still a significant change and I would pick Gardiner's set for the desert island before I would take any of the traditional modern instrument/Romantic performance practice cycles.
There are also a growing number of modern instrument cycles that incorporate some fruits of the HIP movement (such as brisker tempos, smaller ensembles, greater transparency with balances more favorable to the winds, etc.) and which may even include some period instruments, but which take a middle path. Many of these cycles have received high marks from critics and are often mentioned among GMGers' favorites: Mackerras, Harnoncourt, Zinman, Vänskä, and my own most recent acquisition--rapidly becoming a favorite--Abbado/BP's newly released "Rome" cycle.
Have fun exploring...and be sure to let us know about your discoveries along the way!
Thanks, DavidRoss for your wonderful post. I have noticed that I find myself agreeing with you on a variety of topics, so your detailed description of the various HIP ensembles is valuable information, imo.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 23, 2009, 08:49:18 AM
Oh, does Rod have a forum of his own?
Do you really care? He is also not the only forum participant who has the propensity to launch personal attacks on other members. They all have one thing in common, they are all know-it-all and I have absolutely no use for these despicable individuals ...
Copy-and-pasting this over from the Classical Chat Thread...
BEETHOVEN | Symphony No 7
Did an audition of three recordings tonight. First I did back-to-back movement-by-movement plays of John Eliot Gardiner and [/b]Christopher Hogwood[/b], first playing Gardiner's take on each movement and then Hogwood's. Kind of an interesting experience having everything repeated. Gardiner's performance is with a bigger band in much more "present" sound, but I found that, when I cranked the volume up for Hogwood, it did indeed reveal a more individual, colorfully period-instrument sound. The problem was that I also felt in Hogwood as if there was a rather rustic, rough-and-ready touch: the orchestral details that get highlighted often seem to be accidental, as if the horn player just spontaneously decided to pipe up or the oboes just felt like getting their spunk on for a minute. Gardiner's orchestra is a polished, professional group, no doubt about it. But I think my previous inclination toward Gardiner was not really a product of his life-force really so much as the fact that the recording doesn't require a volume jolt.
Now, however, I've put on a third recording of the Seventh. It is one I have championed here before, but since have gone several months without listening to it. The big question: was it anything as good as I remembered?
The answer is, unequivocally, yes. Thomas Dausgaard's recording with the Swedish Chamber Orchestra is a "HIP Hybrid" - olden stylings on modern instruments. And it is stunning. The funny thing about this recording is that after I listened to it once, back in March, it instantly adopted a mythical status in my brain. Since then I have returned each time with some skepticism, as if it can't be so, or I must have just been in a particular mood. Why the doubt? Not sure. This listen has been just as riveting as the prior ones: music-making that totally bankrupts my ability to throw adjectives at it. It is big, bold, driven, powerful, propulsive, intimate, chamber-like, immediate, it's in my room here with me; it's charming, stern, eternal, mortal, alive, fantastical, earthy, and, if I can use the word again, mythical. That's a soup of contradictions. But this performance is no soup of contradictions.
When I first posted about it here, I used a phrase that may have hinted at what I'm trying and failing spectacularly to say. Here it is: listening to this Dausgaard recording of the Beethoven Seventh, I really feel not merely as if I am listening to this music for the first time - but as if it is being played for the first time.
The timpani is pounding out the big drum rolls in the third movement trio right now. And now the bass' last line before the scherzo explodes back onto the scene - strictly in tempo. This music is alive. Wow.
DISCLAIMER: This was written after midnight, so it may contain fancies and flights of purple prose.
Thanks, Brian, for your impassioned advocacy. I do enjoy Dausgaard's recording of Sibelius's pieces for violin and orchestra with Tetzlaff. I will give the 7th a try via Rhapsody and report back if I like it.
BTW, since some here have already mentioned Schubert, it might not be too far off topic to note that Dausgaard has also recorded Schumann symphonies with what sounds like a smaller ensemble, the Swedish Chamber Orchestra. Have you by chance heard any of those, and if so do they exhibit the same virtues you praise in relation to his Beethoven 7 recording?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 24, 2009, 05:59:32 AM
BTW, since some here have already mentioned Schubert, it might not be too far off topic to note that Dausgaard has also recorded Schumann symphonies with what sounds like a smaller ensemble, the Swedish Chamber Orchestra. Have you by chance heard any of those, and if so do they exhibit the same virtues you praise in relation to his Beethoven 7 recording?
Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of the Schumann symphonies, and as such not qualified to say anything about them. :(
I can tell you that the Beethoven 1, 2, 3, and 8 are associated in my head with pretty great performances, 5 was pretty good, but for some reason 4 and 6 let me down. Time to listen again, clearly...
I listened on Naxos Music Library 8) . Maybe this is for another thread, but how's Rhapsody for classicizing? Streaming free?
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2009, 07:16:46 AM
Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of the Schumann symphonies, and as such not qualified to say anything about them. :(
I can tell you that the Beethoven 1, 2, 3, and 8 are associated in my head with pretty great performances, 5 was pretty good, but for some reason 4 and 6 let me down. Time to listen again, clearly...
I listened on Naxos Music Library 8) . Maybe this is for another thread, but how's Rhapsody for classicizing? Streaming free?
Rhapsody's not great quality, but has an enormous catalog of classical music and allows you to stream 25 tracks per month free. For me it's proven a fine tool for previewing recordings. BTW, I just listened to the first movement of Dausgaard's Schumann 3rd on Naxos and liked it very much--light and lively, more like Mendelssohn than I'm accustomed to hearing it.
Continued my exploration of the Immerseel cycle with the 6th symphony, today.
Of course there was something of an 'expectation' problem. After my baptism-by-fire a few days ago with the 5th, I was expecting the ceiling to fall in at the very least, but on the whole the ceiling remained intact. However, the 'storm' was certainly the most exciting version of the storm movement I've heard. I notice the Gramophone critic describes it as 'a gentler thunderstorm than one normally encounters', but I can't really see why he'd say that. I suppose I haven't heard many versions, but even so this is scary stuff; scarier than Mackerras, that's for sure.
Overall, yes, this is a more enticing version of the 6th than any I've heard, but what worries me a bit is that I seem to be valuing these HIP symphonies most for their punchiest rock and roll moments. When Immerseel goes for it, he really goes for it and I'm there on the touchline cheering him on and waving flags. But I hope my response is going to develop into something less monodimensional than this.
It sounds like he takes the Toscanini approach of impatiently waiting for the storm. I don't care for storm-centric performances of the Pastoral symphony. I want warmth and lyricism from this symphony and not a race to the punchline, because the storm is not the punchline of the symphony. :-\
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:54:33 AM
It sounds like he takes the Toscanini approach of impatiently waiting for the storm. I don't care for storm-centric performances of the Pastoral symphony. I want warmth and lyricism from this symphony and not a race to the punchline, because the storm is not the punchline of the symphony. :-\
Totally agree David! :)
For me, personally, the heart of this symphony lies in the 1st and 2nd movements. I enjoy the entire symphony, but it's the first two movements that are the core for me.
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 08:01:24 AM
Totally agree David! :)
For me, personally, the heart of this symphony lies in the 1st and 2nd movements. I enjoy the entire symphony, but it's the first two movements that are the core for me.
Indeed! (http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:54:33 AM
It sounds like he takes the Toscanini approach of impatiently waiting for the storm. I don't care for storm-centric performances of the Pastoral symphony. I want warmth and lyricism from this symphony and not a race to the punchline, because the storm is not the punchline of the symphony. :-\
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 08:01:24 AM
Totally agree David! :)
For me, personally, the heart of this symphony lies in the 1st and 2nd movements. I enjoy the entire symphony, but it's the first two movements that are the core for me.
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 08:04:50 AM
Indeed! (http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
You guys must all love
Barenboim's Pastorale then!?! There's no more honeyed or darkly varnished 6th I've heard. The highlight from one of my favorite cycles.
Admittedly, there couldn't be a cycle that is further removed from the HIP topic of this thread...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513gbeiCbwL._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00076YOPY/goodmusicguide-20)
Actually I do love Barenboim's 6th! :) And in general his is IMO the best modern cycle. 0:)
Quote from: jlaurson on July 26, 2009, 08:11:05 AM
You guys must all love Barenboim's Pastorale then!?! There's no more honeyed or darkly varnished 6th I've heard.
YES!Barenboim's 6th is to die for. The HIPsters can't beat it 0:)
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 08:43:53 AM
And in general his is IMO the best modern cycle. 0:)
Yes sir; I haven't listened to Dausgaard's Ninth yet, and have only heard some of Vanska, but each of them would have a whole lot of work to do to even vie for that title. :)
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 08:46:45 AM
Yes sir; I haven't listened to Dausgaard's Ninth yet, and have only heard some of Vanska, but each of them would have a whole lot of work to do to even vie for that title. :)
I have not heard Dausgaard, but found a Vanska a little dry. As I'm typing this I'm listening to Norrington/Stuttgart on the ninth, and he has slowed down and not made a complete mess of things like in his previous cycle. :)
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 08:51:30 AM
I have not heard Dausgaard, but found a Vanska a little dry. As I'm typing this I'm listening to Norrington/Stuttgart on the ninth, and he has slowed down and not made a complete mess of things like in his previous cycle. :)
Ah, that's a good 'un. :)
Took the lid off Immerseel's 7th yesterday, continuing my exploration of his Beethoven box. I was aware that it was unlikely it would make the instant impact of the 5th, and the jury stayed out for about four minutes, at which point the motorbike revved up and started to travel in earnest.
I've never enjoyed the 7th symphony anything like so much as this, and the last movement had me on my feet, conducting the imaginary orchestra through the garden window. He really knows how to use the drums, and how to make them heard almost tangibly, so that I almost laugh with the pleasure of hearing them, and throughout it feels like real people playing real instruments. I am now understanding that this is a major reason for my pleasure in these Immerseel performances - I have a sense of real people, real individuals, each making a contribution to the whole, but without losing their individual character. I feel that all my life I've been listening to Beethoven played by some kind of 'smoothing-out' music machine. If it had been possible for me to hear this kind of playing when I was sixteen, I think the development of my musical tastes might have been very different.
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 08:51:30 AM
I have not heard Dausgaard, but found a Vanska a little dry. As I'm typing this I'm listening to Norrington/Stuttgart on the ninth, and he has slowed down and not made a complete mess of things like in his previous cycle. :)
Although I hate to repeat myself I must occasionally, especially now that M is no longer here to provide expert advocacy of the Norrington/LCP performances. Norrington's Finale is the best I've ever heard, played exactly the way I think it should go. Of all the HIP Beethoven cycles, his is the one that makes the music sound most radical and new. No need to say more since it's been said elsewhere.
This message brought to you in the spirit of balance and fair play ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Elgarian on August 03, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
Took the lid off Immerseel's 7th yesterday, continuing my exploration of his Beethoven box. I was aware that it was unlikely it would make the instant impact of the 5th, and the jury stayed out for about four minutes, at which point the motorbike revved up and started to travel in earnest.
I've never enjoyed the 7th symphony anything like so much as this, and the last movement had me on my feet, conducting the imaginary orchestra through the garden window. He really knows how to use the drums, and how to make them heard almost tangibly, so that I almost laugh with the pleasure of hearing them, and throughout it feels like real people playing real instruments. I am now understanding that this is a major reason for my pleasure in these Immerseel performances - I have a sense of real people, real individuals, each making a contribution to the whole, but without losing their individual character. I feel that all my life I've been listening to Beethoven played by some kind of 'smoothing-out' music machine. If it had been possible for me to hear this kind of playing when I was sixteen, I think the development of my musical tastes might have been very different.
That's excellent. It's interesting to me how, after we become experienced listeners, we get the feeling that there can be nothing new under the sun, especially with music that wasn't written yesterday. And then when we DO hear something different under the sun, it always comes as such a great surprise! I love surprises... ;)
8)
Quote from: Elgarian on August 03, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
Took the lid off Immerseel's 7th yesterday, continuing my exploration of his Beethoven box. I was aware that it was unlikely it would make the instant impact of the 5th, and the jury stayed out for about four minutes, at which point the motorbike revved up and started to travel in earnest.
I've never enjoyed the 7th symphony anything like so much as this, and the last movement had me on my feet, conducting the imaginary orchestra through the garden window. He really knows how to use the drums, and how to make them heard almost tangibly, so that I almost laugh with the pleasure of hearing them, and throughout it feels like real people playing real instruments. I am now understanding that this is a major reason for my pleasure in these Immerseel performances - I have a sense of real people, real individuals, each making a contribution to the whole, but without losing their individual character. I feel that all my life I've been listening to Beethoven played by some kind of 'smoothing-out' music machine. If it had been possible for me to hear this kind of playing when I was sixteen, I think the development of my musical tastes might have been very different.
Inspired by this, I put the Immerssel 7th in the player twice, this morning. Good stuff, indeed... although not quite doing for me--along the same lines of the effect this performance seems to have had on Elgerian--what, say, the 4th of Vanska or the 3rd of P.Jaervi have done for me. But so far I'm certainly more enamored with this cycle than Kletzki's, which is fine, too (apart from being TOTALLY different, of course), but a less "necessary" addition.
Well, I'm on a roll. Today I spent my lunchtime with the 6th, and was relieved to discover that I could enjoy the gentle pastorality of the second movement, as well as the rock&roll rumbustuousness of this new HIP Beethoven creature. I actually laughed out loud in the thunderstorm - in the same way as I might do if caught out in a sudden real thunderstorm - and nothing to do but laugh and give in to the rough and scary exhilaration of it.
Then later while making a meal I listened to the Eroica - and I only got as far as the end of the wonderful, wonderful slow movement, because at this point I was no longer doing anything except listen and stride about the kitchen conducting the pots and pans, and I had to switch it off, or get nothing done.
This Immerseel box is a revelation!
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:54:33 AM
It sounds like he takes the Toscanini approach of impatiently waiting for the storm. I don't care for storm-centric performances of the Pastoral symphony. I want warmth and lyricism from this symphony and not a race to the punchline, because the storm is not the punchline of the symphony. :-\
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 08:01:24 AM
Totally agree David! :)
For me, personally, the heart of this symphony lies in the 1st and 2nd movements. I enjoy the entire symphony, but it's the first two movements that are the core for me.
Then you might like Immerseel/anima Eterna -- it's hardly a storm-centric Pastoral and I think they get it
all right. 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 03, 2009, 10:14:16 AM
Then you might like Immerseel/anima Eterna -- it's hardly a storm-centric Pastoral and I think they get it all right. 8)
Looking back at my comments from June last year at the 'pathetic forum' I wrote this Nr6 was off the pace and not particularly joyful. Another guy said it was one of the most disappointing renditions in the Immerseel set. Really this is at best an average collection. Both Norrington/LCP and the Hanover Band's recordings for Nr6 are much better. Gardiner's Nr6 is heavy and dull.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 03, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
Looking back at my comments from June last year at the 'pathetic forum' I wrote this Nr6 was off the pace and not particularly joyful. Another guy said it was one of the most disappointing renditions in the Immerseel set. Really this is at best an average collection. Both Norrington/LCP and the Hanover Band's recordings for Nr6 are much better. Gardiner's Nr6 is heavy and dull.
Rod,
That's as may be, but you are missing the entire point here. We are not having a competition to see which PI symphonies cycle is the greatest. We are actually sharing the joy of discovery of a set which he bought and is now listening to for the first time, with someone who hasn't heard a PI set before. And he is not disappointed, he is delighted, as he should be. Like you, I own every PI cycle, and if I wanted to, I could sit and compile a wonderful cycle that is the best of each. But I don't want to here and now, maybe later on we can recreate your thread and argue intensely about it. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 03, 2009, 10:41:43 AM
But I don't want to here and now, maybe later on we can recreate your thread and argue intensely about it. :)
This is the thread to argue about it! But who is arguing in any case?? I merely presented the viewer with a counter assessment of Immerseel's Nr 6. If everyone has to bow to the lowest common denominator I will not waste any more of my time on this topic. I noticed when some of my recommendations earlier in the thread were casually written off you did nothing about it, nothing to them about creating a new topic for such arguments! Really if there is one consistant feature of GMG it is the double standards of the Moderators.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 03, 2009, 11:05:57 AM
This is the thread to argue about it! But who is arguing in any case?? I merely presented the viewer with a counter assessment of Immerseel's Nr 6. If everyone has to bow to the lowest common denominator I will not waste any more of my time on this topic. I noticed when some of my recommendations earlier in the thread were casually written off you did nothing about it, nothing to them about creating a new topic for such arguments! Really if there is one consistant feature of GMG it is the double standards of the Moderators.
Right:
Viewer: I really enjoy this symphony by X
Rod: Well, I (and my fellow forumites) have decided that version to be a total loser. You need to get Y or Z...
Viewer: Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was such an effing idiot... :-[
You think that's an exaggeration, I'm sure, but that's how it comes off, and I don't like it. I don't need to be told how to moderate a forum, thank you for that though. A great majority of us like this one precisely how it is. If we didn't, we would be over playing in YOUR forum instead.
8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 03, 2009, 10:14:16 AM
Then you might like Immerseel/anima Eterna -- it's hardly a storm-centric Pastoral and I think they get it all right.
This is bang on - it certainly isn't storm-centric. It's exciting when it comes, but it's in its place, and when it ends, despite the breathlessness, you
feel grateful. No kidding!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on August 03, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
Really this is at best an average collection.
There is of course a place for all tastes, and for a variety of opinions and responses. But if there is ever a time in my future when I come to regard this Immerseel set as 'at best an average collection', I shall be bitterly disappointed with myself; first, because it would demonstrate my ingratitude for the perception-changing insight that these performances have been giving me this last week. Secondly, and more importantly, because I would know that I've lost touch with that sense of vitality and essential humanity that lies at the core of all the greatest art; and without which, art becomes a sterile carcass to be picked over: mere critic-fodder.
Quote from: Elgarian on August 03, 2009, 01:09:27 PM
There is of course a place for all tastes, and for a variety of opinions and responses. But if there is ever a time in my future when I come to regard this Immerseel set as 'at best an average collection', I shall be bitterly disappointed with myself; first, because it would demonstrate my ingratitude for the perception-changing insight that these performances have been giving me this last week. Secondly, and more importantly, because I would know that I've lost touch with that sense of vitality and essential humanity that lies at the core of all the greatest art; and without which, art becomes a sterile carcass: mere critic-fodder.
Hats off! 8)
Q
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 03, 2009, 10:14:16 AM
Then you might like Immerseel/anima Eterna -- it's hardly a storm-centric Pastoral and I think they get it all right. 8)
Well someone has given me the opportunity to become acquainted with these recordings, and wonderfully enough #6 is next up (yes I've been OCD listening in numerical order! :D ) when I return back to it (probably tomorrow). 8)
What do you think of the Beethoven Symphony Cycle (http://tinyurl.com/ycb75uv) (so far released on individual disks with two each, except for the 9th, which is all by itself) by Paavo Jarvi and Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie (German Chamber Orchestra)?
Not sure if it is HIP enough for this thread - but, despite searching in several ways, I couldn't find a general Beethoven Symphony cycle thread. There must be one, right?
Quote from: Bulldog on November 16, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
I also like Weil's recordings of syms. 5 and 6. I couldn't imagine anyone finding them disagreeable, but PerfectWagnerite proves me wrong.
No. not disagreeable, but a bit dull. I want my LvB played with more balls.
It seems Jarvi is going for maximum impact, by any means necessary, which is entirely appropriate for Beethoven, in my opinion.
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2009, 09:26:22 PM
Copy-and-pasting this over from the Classical Chat Thread...
BEETHOVEN | Symphony No 7
Did an audition of three recordings tonight. First I did back-to-back movement-by-movement plays of John Eliot Gardiner and [/b]Christopher Hogwood[/b], first playing Gardiner's take on each movement and then Hogwood's. Kind of an interesting experience having everything repeated. Gardiner's performance is with a bigger band in much more "present" sound, but I found that, when I cranked the volume up for Hogwood, it did indeed reveal a more individual, colorfully period-instrument sound. The problem was that I also felt in Hogwood as if there was a rather rustic, rough-and-ready touch: the orchestral details that get highlighted often seem to be accidental, as if the horn player just spontaneously decided to pipe up or the oboes just felt like getting their spunk on for a minute. Gardiner's orchestra is a polished, professional group, no doubt about it. But I think my previous inclination toward Gardiner was not really a product of his life-force really so much as the fact that the recording doesn't require a volume jolt.
Now, however, I've put on a third recording of the Seventh. It is one I have championed here before, but since have gone several months without listening to it. The big question: was it anything as good as I remembered?
The answer is, unequivocally, yes. Thomas Dausgaard's recording with the Swedish Chamber Orchestra is a "HIP Hybrid" - olden stylings on modern instruments. And it is stunning. The funny thing about this recording is that after I listened to it once, back in March, it instantly adopted a mythical status in my brain. Since then I have returned each time with some skepticism, as if it can't be so, or I must have just been in a particular mood. Why the doubt? Not sure. This listen has been just as riveting as the prior ones: music-making that totally bankrupts my ability to throw adjectives at it. It is big, bold, driven, powerful, propulsive, intimate, chamber-like, immediate, it's in my room here with me; it's charming, stern, eternal, mortal, alive, fantastical, earthy, and, if I can use the word again, mythical. That's a soup of contradictions. But this performance is no soup of contradictions.
When I first posted about it here, I used a phrase that may have hinted at what I'm trying and failing spectacularly to say. Here it is: listening to this Dausgaard recording of the Beethoven Seventh, I really feel not merely as if I am listening to this music for the first time - but as if it is being played for the first time.
The timpani is pounding out the big drum rolls in the third movement trio right now. And now the bass' last line before the scherzo explodes back onto the scene - strictly in tempo. This music is alive. Wow.
DISCLAIMER: This was written after midnight, so it may contain fancies and flights of purple prose.
The
Dausgaard/Simax set is my very favorite HIP Beethoven set, but it is so expensive spread out over 10 Cds that I never usually mention it.........just recently completed with release of the 9th.
If there is ever a reduced price boxset released this will become top recommendation and the HIP set by which I measure all others.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PtNpnFvYL._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518UzBsBJcL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Two more excellent HIP sets have now been completed with the release of 9ths by Dausgaard/Simax and Jarvi/RCA........still have not purchased Jarvi 9th, but that will happen very soon
Since I have purchased all individual CDs I suspect chances are good I will now suffer the buyers remorse that occurs when reduced price boxset is eventually released for a fraction of the cost of my purchase price....... :(
I see Amazon now has many of the Dausgaard set in MP3 format for much less......
Quoting from the quote DA used 2 posts ago, "... but I found that, when I cranked the volume up for Hogwood, it did indeed reveal a more individual, colorfully period-instrument sound."
This observation is clearly not illusory, as the AAM under Hogwood that recorded the HIP Beethoven had some of the best period violinists such as Monica Huggett and Catherine MacKintosh in its rank. It probably had a higher level of virtuosity and more polished performance than Gardiner's Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique ...
BTW, I did enjoy that set, which I bought before I bought the following set by Sir Colin. The sets by Gunter Wand and Andre Cluytens will be next. One can never have too many Beethoven cycles by first-rate conductors, can he? ;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513XMPDT2GL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: premont on January 26, 2010, 10:43:41 AM
No. not disagreeable, but a bit dull. I want my LvB played with more balls.
If Beethoven's music reflects the essential character of the man, then one of the last things it should be is "polite."
From Coop's quote of DA's quote of Brian's post on another thread:
Quote...first playing Gardiner's take on each movement and then Hogwood's. Kind of an interesting experience having everything repeated. Gardiner's performance is with a bigger band in much more "present" sound, but I found that, when I cranked the volume up for Hogwood, it did indeed reveal a more individual, colorfully period-instrument sound. The problem was that I also felt in Hogwood as if there was a rather rustic, rough-and-ready touch: the orchestral details that get highlighted often seem to be accidental, as if the horn player just spontaneously decided to pipe up or the oboes just felt like getting their spunk on for a minute. Gardiner's orchestra is a polished, professional group, no doubt about it.
Consistent with my own impressions. Love of the "more individual, colorfully period-instrument sound" is but one of the reasons I especially enjoy Brüggen's cycle. Another is the sometimes "raucous" character I find missing in Gardiner's comparatively "polite" set.
Oboes getting their spunk on; I wonder why we're allowing it . . . .
Quote from: premont on January 26, 2010, 10:43:41 AM
No. not disagreeable, but a bit dull. I want my LvB played with more balls.
I fully agree and Beethoven had
the biggest balls of them all!
Quote from: Franco on January 26, 2010, 10:27:10 AM
What do you think of the Beethoven Symphony Cycle (http://tinyurl.com/ycb75uv) (so far released on individual disks with two each, except for the 9th, which is all by itself) by Paavo Jarvi and Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie (German Chamber Orchestra)?
Not sure if it is HIP enough for this thread - but, despite searching in several ways, I couldn't find a general Beethoven Symphony cycle thread. There must be one, right?
PJ's cycle now contains my favorite 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If any Beethoven ever justified use of the
un-word "impactfull" (
note: NO review
ever, ever, ever does. This is one of the most disgusting 'word'-creations ever to have soiled paper and computer monitors), it would be P.Jaervi's.
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754) - 2 & 6
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409) - 3 & 8
I've not yet listened to the 7th and 5th all that much... but I know I didn't dislike any of his... even if I would not immediately rank them among "the best I've heard".
Osmo Vanska's 4th remains unchallenged, ditto Abbado's 9th (BPh, Sony, Salzburg), ditto Barenboim's 6th (which in any case can't be compared to Jaervi's completely different take on the work.)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 07:49:31 AM
PJ's cycle now contains my favorite 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If any Beethoven ever justified use of the un-word "impactfull" (note: NO review ever, ever, ever does. This is one of the most disgusting 'word'-creations ever to have soiled paper and computer monitors), it would be P.Jaervi's.
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754) - 2 & 6
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409) - 3 & 8
I've not yet listened to the 7th and 5th all that much... but I know I didn't dislike any of his... even if I would not immediately rank them among "the best I've heard".
Osmo Vanska's 4th remains unchallenged, ditto Abbado's 9th (BPh, Sony, Salzburg), ditto Barenboim's 6th (which in any case can't be compared to Jaervi's completely different take on the work.)
Jens interesting that your favorite Beethoven performances include "both" new Pavo Jarvi and new Vanska, Barenboim since for me they are yin/yang.......opposing views
The Vanska, Barenboim being modern updated versions of the classic 1960s, 1970s elegant polished large tradtional orchestra sound while Jarvi's smaller forces with fleet clarified tones/textures are definitely in the hybrid HIP camp.........
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 08:08:34 AM
Jens interesting that your favorite Beethoven performances include "both" new Pavo Jarvi and new Vanska, Barenboim since for me they are yin/yang.......opposing views
The Vanska, Barenboim being modern updated versions of the classic 1960s, 1970s elegant polished large tradtional orchestra sound while Jarvi's smaller forces with fleet clarified tones/textures are definitely in the hybrid HIP camp.........
For obvious (well, to me, at least) reasons, I think Vanska & Jaervi are closer together than Vanska & Barenboim. Barenboim isn't, to my ears, an updated 60s, 70s sound but an updated 40s sound. Vanska is the modern version of a 60s Karajan (who is COMPLETELY mis-thought off by everyone who hasn't listened to it recently), which is tight, fast, clear, but 'symphonic'. Jaervi... well, as you say: smaller forces that rubs shoulders with SOME HIP-sters. (But not, for example, Brueggen, who is closer to Barenboim than Vanska (much less Jaervi) in many aspects.
Beethoven-greatness, in any case, is not, should not, cannot be limited to any particular style.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 08:18:37 AM
Beethoven-greatness, in any case, is not, should not, cannot be limited to any particular style.
Indeed.........as much as I love the HIP versions I will admit the traditional style performances (Vanska, Karajan etc) sometimes work better in symphonies 6,9 just because of the type of sound that serves them best
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 08:18:37 AM
Vanska is the modern version of a 60s Karajan (who is COMPLETELY mis-thought off by everyone who hasn't listened to it recently), which is tight, fast, clear, but 'symphonic'. Jaervi... well, as you say: smaller forces that rubs shoulders with SOME HIP-sters. (But not, for example, Brueggen, who is closer to Barenboim than Vanska (much less Jaervi) in many aspects.
That describes for me HVK's 1970's BPO/DG Beethoven set where he has noticeably faster leaner tempos in the outer movements compared to the 1960s set
Quote from: Coopmv on February 07, 2010, 04:37:14 AM
BTW, I did enjoy that set, which I bought before I bought the following set by Sir Colin. The sets by Gunter Wand and Andre Cluytens will be next. One can never have too many Beethoven cycles by first-rate conductors, can he? ;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513XMPDT2GL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Cluytens is remarkable if you don't mind older sound, you'll love it! He's very Monteux/Szell/Toscanini lean style and swift but not race to the punchline (like HIPsters). Just classical in approach.
I'm just curious when the "Beethoven Symphonies HIP" thread got hijacked by the traditionalists. Surely there are 50 or 60 threads available to post on traditional approaches? Seems like, any way.
That said, I think Hogwood is the HIPpest sound, the biggest PIon of all. I know many don't care for that cycle, but that's OK. Other than my (major) quibble with his 9th, the Turkish March being done just wrongly, ala Norrington 1, I am very find of it all. Possibly not the best in anything, but overall the most satisfactory to me. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Academy of Ancient Music/Hogwood - Op 125 Symphony in d #9 3rd mvmt - Adagio molto e cantabile - Andante moderato
Quote from: DavidW on February 07, 2010, 08:46:19 AM
Cluytens is remarkable if you don't mind older sound, you'll love it! He's very Monteux/Szell/Toscanini lean style and swift but not race to the punchline (like HIPsters). Just classical in approach.
Toscanini not HIP but still......Toscanini/RCA 1950s studio set to this day has some of the fastest recorded tempos of any Beethoven set, although not HIP in instruments or playing practice the swift lean tempos in some ways lay ground work for Hogwood & Norrington 30+ years later, the rest is history. I think any HIP Beethoven fan (like myself) should definitely own the Toscanini/RCA boxset for some historical perspective, unique style and fascinating stuff that was perhaps way ahead of its time
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51LZ5EyFhSL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2010, 09:16:12 AM
I'm just curious when the "Beethoven Symphonies HIP" thread got hijacked by the traditionalists. Surely there are 50 or 60 threads available to post on traditional approaches? Seems like, any way.
Yes, somewhat hijacked. We have members who consider P. Jarvi's cycle HIP, so it isn't a long distance to start talking about a Colin Davis cycle. It used to be that period instruments were a must for HIP to be cited; those days are long gone. Perhaps a better title for this thread would have been "Beethoven Symphonies on Period Instruments".
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2010, 09:16:12 AM
That said, I think Hogwood is the HIPpest sound, the biggest PIon of all. I know many don't care for that cycle, but that's OK. Other than my (major) quibble with his 9th, the Turkish March being done just wrongly, ala Norrington 1, I am very find of it all. Possibly not the best in anything, but overall the most satisfactory to me
The value of
Hogwood/Lyre (besides being very first true HIP set) is that AAM in mid 1980's was an incredible collection of individual talent (as Coop often mentions) and the string tone is unique and instantly recoginzable. Also brass and woodwinds are more HIP sounding than the later 1990's hybrid sets that followed like Gardiner etc which tended to slightly smooth out these tones and loose the unique character.
I love to listen to Hogwood from time to time, holds up a bit better over time than Norrington/EMI.......
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413RpU-OrKL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Bulldog on February 07, 2010, 09:34:15 AM
Yes, somewhat hijacked. We have members who consider P. Jarvi's cycle HIP, so it isn't a long distance to start talking about a Colin Davis cycle. It used to be that period instruments were a must for HIP to be cited; those days are long gone. Perhaps a better title for this thread would have been "Beethoven Symphonies on Period Instruments".
'fraid you're right, Bullguy. Back when I had that thread going on the 9th, I had broken things down into traditional, HIP/PI, and modern instruments with a HIP approach. As far as the 9th goes, you can go back to the mid-80's and there is a very nice version by the Northern Sinfonia / Hickox (which he did before Collegium Musicum 90 came along) that stands as more or less the progenitor of that third category. They did the whole cycle but I haven't heard the rest.
I still have a hard time bringing all these traditional guys into the HIP camp just because they played fast... ::)
8)
I think that HIP is so vague that it's nearly useless. If anything the type of "HIP" recordings mentioned here are anti-HIP. When you say the heck with how it's been played for fifty years we are going to play it differently, you are throwing away history to do something different. But if you say PI that is actually clear. Either you use period instruments (or replicas) or you use modern instruments. Not really confusing... except for ones that mix them up (use period instruments for part of the orchestra but not all)... oh drats! :D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2010, 09:49:04 AM
I still have a hard time bringing all these traditional guys into the HIP camp just because they played fast...
If you are still referring to new
Jarvi/RCA being HIP.......my thinking is
It is not just using fleet lifted tempos, it is using smaller scale orchestra and more transparent clarified tones in playing style which reveal hidden neuances and melodies that are obscured in the larger thicker sounds of polished traditional large band performances.
Hybrid HIP today often uses modern intruments but uses them as decribed above for Jarvi/RCA to achieve a unique different sound than traditional large orchestras versions like new Vanska or Barenboim
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 10:07:20 AM
If you are still referring to new Jarvi/RCA being HIP.......my thinking is
It is not just using fleet lifted tempos, it is using smaller scale orchestra and more transparent clarified tones in playing style which reveal hidden neuances and melodies that are obscured in the larger thicker sounds of polished traditional large band performances.
Hybrid HIP today often uses modern intruments but uses them as decribed above for Jarvi/RCA to achieve a unique different sound than traditional large orchestras versions like new Vanska or Barenboim
The
first real "hybrid" HIP set which took all the good ideas from original instrument movement and used modern intruments was the
1991 Harnoncourt/Teldec where he used fleet tempos and scaled down size orchestra of COE (chamber orchestra of Europe) the textures were more transparent with less vibrato etc revealing many obscured details, many have followed and improved upon this basic direction
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 10:07:20 AM
It is not just using fleet lifted tempos, it is using smaller scale orchestra and more transparent clarified tones in playing style which reveal hidden neuances and melodies that are obscured in the larger thicker sounds of polished traditional large band performances.
So how do you think Jaervi compares to f.i. Zinman and MacKerras, not to mention Harnoncourt and Dausgaard?
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 10:20:13 AM
So how do you think Jaervi compares to f.i. Zinman and MacKerras, not to mention Harnoncourt and Dausgaard?
My absolute favorite set cost no object is the
Dausgaard/Simax with Chamber Orchestra of Sweden, but extremely expensive spread out over 10 CDs with limited availability.......not really a practical recommendation unless a reduced priced boxset is released someday.
As someone else said here Dausgaard is so fresh and imaginative that you often feel like you are hearing these warhorses again for the very first time, excellent sound quality and the very best of hybrid HIP performance as I have described in several posts above, if I could keep only 1 set this is it
The
Zinman/Arte Nova and Harnoncourt/Teldec are similar performances and offer many unique features I prefer over your classic full size modern orchestra, quite exciting when first released but even more true to my Hybrid HIP ideals are
Jarvi/RCA and MacKerras/Hyperion which dig a little deeper and sound more authentic, hear more imaginative touches in these performances......MacKerras uses Philharmonia Orchestra for 9th which is a negative for me, I would have preferred SCO.
The
Immerseel/Zig Zag is very good but a few of the symphonies sound too relaxed in tempo for my taste, has many positive qualities but overall a mixed bag for me
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 10:20:13 AM
So how do you think Jaervi compares to f.i. Zinman and MacKerras, not to mention Harnoncourt and Dausgaard?
So, conductors like Järvi sr. and Georg Solti already used very swift tempi, combined with energetic playing.
Both talked very condescending about HIP.
Bernard Haitink did a 2nd Beethoven with the Concertgebouw (slightly HIP-influenced) and a 3rd with the London SO (more HIP-influenced).
He still grumbles sometimes about thos HIP-lads who ruined his Amsterdam career.
Is Haitink more or less HIP(-influenced) than Paavo Järvi?
I think Paavo Järvi, from what I've heard of him so far, is both influenced by his anti-HIP father's swift conducting and by the modern more historic approach towards classical compositions.
But he's definitely less 'strict' HIP [
I begin to hate this word] than f.i. Zinman and Mackerras, IMHO.
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 11:38:25 AM
I think Paavo Järvi, from what I've heard of him so far, is both influenced by his anti-HIP father's swift conducting and by the modern more historic approach towards classical compositions.
Two diametrical opposites!!
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 11:38:25 AM
But he's definitely less 'strict' HIP [I begin to hate this word] than f.i. Zinman and Mackerras, IMHO.
Yes, I am also beginning to hate this word, - it isn´t but an insufficiently defined relative concept.
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 11:31:57 AM
My absolute favorite set cost no object is the Dausgaard/Simax with Chamber Orchestra of Sweden, but extremely expensive .......not really a practical recommendation unless a reduced priced boxset is released someday.
Yes it is a bit too expensive, and my thought, when I asked you above, was if I could save some money by skipping Järvi. I already own Harnoncourt, Zinman and both MacKerras`, and your answer has not convinced me that Järvi is mandatory. Rather I should save up for Dausgaard.
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 08:08:34 AM
Jens interesting that your favorite Beethoven performances include "both" new Pavo Jarvi and new Vanska, Barenboim since for me they are yin/yang.......opposing views
That's what makes it so
impactful. 8)
Quote from: George on February 07, 2010, 01:02:48 PM
That's what makes it so impactful. 8)
Notes to self:
1.) Track down, torture, then kill George.
2.) Convince premont that P.Jaervi
is indeed mandatory.
3.) Milk.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 12:42:03 PM
Yes it is a bit too expensive, and my thought, when I asked you above, was if I could save some money by skipping Järvi. I already own Harnoncourt, Zinman and both MacKerras`, and your answer has not convinced me that Järvi is mandatory. Rather I should save up for Dausgaard.
If you don't mind compression, the Dausgaard cycle is available both from Itunes and Amazon. I think the Jarvi cycle is also available for download. Why don't you sample a few tracks and see how you like them?
I don't have the Jarvi, but I have and love the Dausgaard cycle. I imagine that I will be acquiring the Jarvi cycle as soon as it's in a box set, which I hope is very soon. Btw, Dausgaard also has the 4 of the piano concertos (Boris Berezovsky) and triple concerto and romances out as part of the series. The 5th piano concerto and violin concerto must also be in the works.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 01:04:56 PM
Notes to self:
1.) Track down, torture, then kill George.
2.) Convince premont that P.Jaervi is indeed mandatory.
3.) Milk.
Skim or regular?
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 11:38:25 AM
I think Paavo Järvi, from what I've heard of him so far, is both influenced by his anti-HIP father's swift conducting and by the modern more historic approach towards classical compositions.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 12:33:32 PM
Two diametrical opposites!!
Yep.
BUT: I did mention it on purpose. Because this paradox might lead to interesting performances!
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:17:44 PM
Yep.
BUT: I did mention it on purpose. Because this paradox might lead to interesting performances!
Interesting maybe, but mandatory?
So, HIP Beethoven is now so hip that anyone who plays fast with a smallish orchestra on modern instruments can be called HIP... ::) Never mind how orchestras in Beethoven's time were layed out, the kind of instruments that were played and how it all was supposed to sound... ::)
Now Toscaninni is mentioned in these pages! :o Well, Furtwängler played fast, after some slowing down... 8)
Q
I think Zinman is a bit superficial, and regardless, wouldn't compare him to Harnoncourt, whose set has so many layers/dimensions.
Mackerras on hyperion, which I only recently acquired, is also more complex, and so far the recordings seem to me to have great dexterity, feeling of occasion, and spirited humanity (as has been noted by many listeners). Harnoncourt, my favorite cycle, has more struggle and brooding, which is, I suppose, another side of Beethoven.
I do really like what I have of Jarvi, however, for his vigor and unrestrained approach. I think he sounds very modern, but kind of HIP in that he wants to deliver the score unadulterated and without romantic additions, and maybe achieve the impact (but not the sound) of the originals in their time--idealized, of course.
I am interested in the Dausgaard, but I only really want the symphonies.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 01:04:56 PM
2.) Convince premont that P.Jaervi is indeed mandatory.
Considering the number of my LvB symphony sets - some time ago I acquired even the mandatory :-X Barenboim set - a new set has got to be exceptional, if I am going to get it. I hear some posters say the Dausgaard set is exceptional, but the Järvi set, does it offer something quite new compared to MacKerras, Zinmann and Harnoncourt?
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 01:26:54 PM
So, HIP Beethoven is now so hip that anyone who plays fast with a smallish orchestra on modern instruments can be called HIP... ::) Never mind how orchestras in Beethoven's time were layed out, the kind of instruments that were played and how it all was supposed to sound... ::)
Now Toscaninni is mentioned in these pages! :o Well, Furtwängler played fast, after some slowing down... 8)
Q
Que, it all depends on whether you use the acronym HIP as Historically Informed Performance or Historic Instrument Performance.
As far as historically informed performance goes, it would be hard to find something that has not been influenced by the historic scholarship. And Toscanini's recordings are more than a half century away from us, and have become historic documents. It becomes increasingly difficult to separate these matters. I think perhaps we need a thread entitled Historic INSTRUMENT Performance for the strictest of the Hipsters. $:)
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:19:54 PM
Interesting maybe, but mandatory?
Mandatory?
That's not for me to decide.
Following Bulldog Don, I used the word
essential in another thread (Bach's organ works).
Mind you:
essential or
mandatory isn't the same as
favourite. So: if a person would like to know the history of classical music, Wagner's music is
essential.
If a person would like to know the development of Beethoven interpretation, some HIP-performances are
mandatory.
But this list might be very short.
Personally, I do not have a good enough survey to give such qualifications, when Beethoven symphonies are concerned.
But of the (semi-)HIP performers, I certainly would mention Harnoncourt, Brüggen and Van Immerseel.
Personally, I liked Zinman, but I doubt if he's
essential.
Come to think of it: maybe Zinman
is essential, because his integral eventually became part of a bargain Beethoven Very Large Box Set, and therefore reached a lot of Beethoven listeners and influenced their reception of and their view at this music.
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 07, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
I think Zinman is a bit superficial, and regardless, wouldn't compare him to Harnoncourt, whose set has so many layers/dimensions.
Quite agree.
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 07, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
I do really like what I have of Jarvi, however, for his vigor and unrestrained approach. I think he sounds very modern, but kind of HIP in that he wants to deliver the score unadulterated and without romantic additions, and maybe achieve the impact (but not the sound) of the originals in their time--idealized, of course.
This is in my opinion also true of MacKerras, and also in principle of Klemperer(!) and Kletzki(!) and others. Has Järvi really something new to offer?
My suggestion, Bunny, would be HIPP = Historically Informed Period Performance.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:28:28 PM
Considering the number of my LvB symphony sets - some time ago I acquired even the mandatory :-X Barenboim set - a new set has got to be exceptional, if I am going to get it. I hear some posters say the Dausgaard set is exceptional, but the Järvi set, does it offer something quite new compared to MacKerras, Zinmann and Harnoncourt?
To the smart ass (I mean that in a loving way) inquiring about the milk: regular. Min. 3.8% fat! "Skim Milk" is not milk... it's some form of diluted water. Yuck. I want whatever is closest to sucking cow-ti##*es.
Yes, yes... I understand that you want the "truly special". I do, too. And without getting into a "who's got more LvB cycles" discussion (it encourages the wrong sort of crowd), take it on good faith that our collections are probably not that far apart. And I wouldn't recommend Jaervi if I didn't think it really was that special.
You should be aware that I think the same of the Barenboim, which you apparently don't find entirely to your taste... but perhaps you see how that's a matter of subjective taste, rather than lack of specialness. At least Barenboim isn't just like any other ol' cycle. Neither is Jaervi. Jaervi smacks those Beethoven symphonies down like a wet bitch. (I have no idea what that even means... it just feels right. I'm not sure whether Jaervi would smack down a wet bitch or whether a wet bitch would smack down Beethoven, but I imagine something really smacky. Like so:
(http://www.kaseyscure.com/wp-content/photos/wet_dog.jpg)
Start with one disc... in Europe they're very reasonably priced SACDs, anyway.
If I only kept three cycles, Jaervi would be among them. Barenboim. And then I would have to think long and hard which third cycle to keep. Anima Eterna and Kletzki, two favorites around here, would not make the cut. Gardiner, Karajan 70s, Jochum-Concertgebouw, and Vanska would be among the candidates, I s'pose.
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 07, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
I think Zinman is a bit superficial, and regardless, wouldn't compare him to Harnoncourt, whose set has so many layers/dimensions.
Another agreement here.
After reading all those extremely positive reviews, I was eager to hear it .... and left a bit disappointed.
I should have listened to Zinman first, and after him to Brüggen, Van Immerseel and Harnoncourt. :)
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 07, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
I do really like what I have of Jarvi, however, for his vigor and unrestrained approach. I think he sounds very modern, but kind of HIP in that he wants to deliver the score unadulterated and without romantic additions, and maybe achieve the impact (but not the sound) of the originals in their time--idealized, of course.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:38:02 PM
This is in my opinion also true of MacKerras, and also in principle of Klemperer(!) and Kletzki(!) and others. Has Järvi really something new to offer?
Here's an advice: to find that out, listen to him! ;D
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 01:04:56 PM
Notes to self:
1.) Track down, torture, then kill George.
;D
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
Mind you: essential or mandatory isn't the same as favourite.
Spot on, and Jens just mentioned the Järvi set as his
favorite concerning Symphonies 1,2 & 3.
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
If a person would like to know the development of Beethoven interpretation, some HIP-performances are mandatory.
But this list might be very short.
I am afraid it would be very long, - this is my reason for trying to make it shorter.
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
But of the (semi-)HIP performers, I certainly would mention Harnoncourt, Brüggen and Van Immerseel.
And Hogwood and Goodman?
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
Come to think of it: maybe Zinman is essential, because his integral eventually became part of a bargain Beethoven Very Large Box Set, and therefore reached a lot of Beethoven listeners and influenced their reception of and their view at this music.
;D
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:49:56 PM
Spot on, and Jens just mentioned the Järvi set as his favorite concerning Symphonies 1,2 & 3.I am afraid it would be very long, - this is my reason for trying to make it shorter.
And Harnoncourt and Goodman? ;D
Dunno about Goodman. (Hence the earlier remark about my lack of survey.)
And Harnoncourt
did get a mention by yours truly. :)
Quote from: Marc on February 07, 2010, 01:52:46 PM
Dunno about Goodman. (Hence the earlier remark about my lack of survey.)
And Harnoncourt did get a mention by yours truly. :)
Sorry, I meant
Hogwood, not Harnoncourt, have edited the post.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
If I only kept three cycles, Jaervi would be among them. Barenboim. And then I would have to think long and hard which third cycle to keep. Anima Eterna and Kletzki, two favorites around here, would not make the cut. Gardiner, Karajan 70s, Jochum-Concertgebouw, and Vanska would be among the candidates, I s'pose.[/size][/font]
It is the fact that our tastes differ that much, which make me sceptical to your panegyrics about Järvi. The ones you mention would never be among my chosen three.
But if I should try Järvi, which of the Symphonies would you advise me to sample?
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 07, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
I think Zinman is a bit superficial, and regardless, wouldn't compare him to Harnoncourt, whose set has so many layers/dimensions.
I am interested in the Dausgaard, but I only really want the symphonies.
Zinman is still a good set especailly at the extremely low used prices, but like you given the choice between Harnoncourt and Zinman
I would not hesitate to take Harnoncourt.
Reminds me the very best
Beethoven Overtures collection is by
Harnoncourt followed by Zinman in a limited field, compared to famous the Karajan collection I had for long time these jump out of the speakers with great dramatic energy and clarity of textures. Zinman actually better in the overtures than the symphonies!
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41P7VJWNRZL._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519Z7PMV19L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 02:02:39 PM
It is the fact that our tastes differ that much, which make me sceptical to your panegyrics about Järvi. The ones you mention would never be among my chosen three.
But if I should try Järvi, which of the Symphonies would you advise me to sample?
You ain't kidding. No two members have exactly the same tastes for the same work. I like Barenboim much more as a pianist than as a conductor. I will pass on his Beethoven cycle.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:56:33 PM
Sorry, I meant Hogwood, not Harnoncourt, have edited the post.
I'm sorry Premont, but I dunno 'bout Hogwood either. Considering his efforts in Mozart, I think he could be very interesting.
At least more interesting than Norrington's first HIP-set. Which created a shock at the time .... but is relatively shallow compared to f.i. Harnoncourt and Van Immerseel, IMO.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 02:02:39 PM
It is the fact that our tastes differ that much, which make me sceptical to your panegyrics about Järvi. The ones you mention would never be among my chosen three.
But if I should try Järvi, which of the Symphonies would you advise me to sample?
Just one panegyric about Jaervi is enough.
Depends on your predilections. Generally I'd say: The Third (comes with the 8th): http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1409).
There is LOADS of competition in the Third, of course, but this one should kick down all doors. The Hurwitzer, Alex Ross, my boss at WETA all agree... pretty diverse crowd for a completely unanimous sentiment.
If you think you'd rather be surprised by a fantastic Second (comes with the 6th), go with that. http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1754)
Either of those two should either do the trick or tell you that you are immune to his Beethoven.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 02:11:02 PM
Either of those two should either do the trick or tell you that you are immune to his Beethoven.
Even if I turn up to like him, what I probably will, that does not make him special.
I shall try no.3, then.
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 02:17:16 PM
Even if I turn up to like him, what I probably will, that does not make him special.
I shall try no.3, then.
Good grief, you are a tough sell. I feel like I'm dealing used cars, here. Just listen to it, already. ;)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
To the smart ass (I mean that in a loving way) inquiring about the milk: regular. Min. 3.8% fat! "Skim Milk" is not milk... it's some form of diluted water. Yuck. I want whatever is closest to sucking cow-ti##*es.
I'll keep that picture in mind as I walk through the snowless streets to the completely stocked supermarkets of NYC... and I mean that in only the most affectionate way.
QuoteYes, yes... I understand that you want the "truly special". I do, too. And without getting into a "who's got more LvB cycles" discussion (it encourages the wrong sort of crowd), take it on good faith that our collections are probably not that far apart. And I wouldn't recommend Jaervi if I didn't think it really was that special.
I'm getting closer and closer to pulling the trigger on that set. If only the box set comes out soon!
QuoteYou should be aware that I think the same of the Barenboim, which you apparently don't find entirely to your taste... but perhaps you see how that's a matter of subjective taste, rather than lack of specialness. At least Barenboim isn't just like any other ol' cycle. Neither is Jaervi. Jaervi smacks those Beethoven symphonies down like a wet bitch. (I have no idea what that even means... it just feels right. I'm not sure whether Jaervi would smack down a wet bitch or whether a wet bitch would smack down Beethoven, but I imagine something really smacky. Like so:
Start with one disc... in Europe they're very reasonably priced SACDs, anyway.
If I only kept three cycles, Jaervi would be among them. Barenboim. And then I would have to think long and hard which third cycle to keep. Anima Eterna and Kletzki, two favorites around here, would not make the cut. Gardiner, Karajan 70s, Jochum-Concertgebouw, and Vanska would be among the candidates, I s'pose.
How about Dausgaard? He may not bitch-slap Beethoven, but his cycle is not lacking in impact.
Loving this thread--thanks, y'all! :-*
Jens, you have convinced me that I must hear (at least some) Järvi, whom I like well enough in other repertoire, even though I surely have no need for yet another cycle. Amidst all this discussion of Historically Informed Performance on Modern Instruments recordings, straying so far as to include much mention of Barenboim's decidedly anti-HIP cycle, I'd like to muddy the waters even further (or, perhaps, further promote my apparently very idiosyncratic and far-from-mainstream tastes ;) ) by noting that among recent modern instrument cycles I'm particularly fond of the Abbado/BP set recorded in Rome.
Choosing only three cycles would be tough. Brüggen would certainly be among them, and Abbado these days, but for a third...well, the more I think about it, the gladder I am that I don't have to make such a choice!
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 02:05:51 PM
Zinman is still a good set especailly at the extremely low used prices, but like you given the choice between Harnoncourt and Zinman I would not hesitate to take Harnoncourt.
Reminds me the very best Beethoven Overtures collection is by Harnoncourt followed by Zinman in a limited field, compared to famous the Karajan collection I had for long time these jump out of the speakers with great dramatic energy and clarity of textures. Zinman actually better in the overtures than the symphonies!
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41P7VJWNRZL._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519Z7PMV19L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Those overtures are also a part of the Dausgaard cycle, and they are done wonderfully.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 07, 2010, 02:24:07 PM
Jens, you have convinced me that I must hear (at least some) Järvi...
I'd like to muddy the waters even further by noting that among recent modern instrument cycles I'm particularly fond of the Abbado/BP set recorded in Rome.
1.) Check from Sony should be in the mail, by now.
2.) I've gotten the Abbado, too... I think as a gift (because the packaging, the names... it seemed appropriate as a gift). Then I listened to it and got a copy for myself, too. It really is quite something. Whzzzzzzing!
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
How about Dausgaard? He may not bitch-slap Beethoven, but his cycle is not lacking in impact.
Are you phrase-taunting me??? But seriously... I would LOVE to hear Dausgaard--from what I've heard about him, he's the LvB cycle I don't have and most want to have. I'm working on getting my greedy little hands on it. I've dispatched a desperate note to my cat.
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 02:27:42 PM
Those overtures are also a part of the Dausgaard cycle, and they are done wonderfully.
Indeed, if the
Dausgaard's Beethoven overtures were available on a special 2 CD set they would be best version available with Harnoncourt demoted to #2.........
Even though I complain about the cost of Dausgaard there is some great extras included throughout those current 10 Cds......and you are right that CD 11 is still needed for Emperor piano concerto #5!
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 02:40:29 PM
Indeed, if the Dausgaard's Beethoven overtures were available on a special 2 CD set they would be best version available with Harnoncourt demoted to #2.........
Even though I complain about the cost of Dausgaard there is some great extras included throughout those current 10 Cds......and you are right that CD 11 is still needed for Emperor piano concerto #5!
Don't forget the violin concerto played by a violin. Btw, what is to stop anyone from taking all of the overtures and making them into a playlist by themselves?
Quote from: premont on February 07, 2010, 01:38:02 PM
Quite agree.
This is in my opinion also true of MacKerras, and also in principle of Klemperer(!) and Kletzki(!) and others. Has Järvi really something new to offer?
I've just listened to the 3rd and 8th from Jarvi and now I can say YES! I have heard things that I have not heard anywhere else. And he finds these little moments with an outburst of ferocity or a tender moment of sweet indulgence that I have not heard any other conductor find. The Eroica has many jaw dropping moments... I've only heard two dozen or so recordings but out of them Jarvi is unique and perhaps superior, even if not definitely worth hearing. The eighth from Jarvi is also extraordinary, but it doesn't have quite as many moments as the third.
I think that what Jens has said is completely 100% dead on.
:)
Thanks, DavidW, the Third must be the right place to start.
Have you planned to acquire the complete set?
I don't know if I'll go for complete, but I will here more from that cycle for sure. :)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 02:31:43 PM
Are you phrase-taunting me??? But seriously... I would LOVE to hear Dausgaard--from what I've heard about him, he's the LvB cycle I don't have and most want to have. I'm working on getting my greedy little hands on it. I've dispatched a desperate note to my cat.
Absolutely not! I just wanted to avoid using the word "impactful" without resorting to obscenity. ;)
Oh that Järvi Cycle!! It just stays in my mind. I'm practically salivating at the thought of it.
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 03:50:13 PM
Absolutely not! I just wanted to avoid using the word "impactful" without resorting to obscenity. ;)
Oh that Järvi Cycle!! It just stays in my mind. I'm practically salivating at the thought of it.
OBSCENITY????
Context, my friend! Context.
For example -- do you know this children's fable:
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3741542-Die_Bremer_Stadtmusikanten-Bremen.jpg)
You will find, from top to bottom, a cock, a pussy, a bitch, an ass. And absolutely no obscenity.
(Bonus points for the first one to point out why posting this picture is
not off topic in this thread.)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 03:52:44 PM
OBSCENITY????
Context, my friend! Context.
For example -- do you know this children's fable:
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3741542-Die_Bremer_Stadtmusikanten-Bremen.jpg)
You will find, from top to bottom, a cock, a pussy, a bitch, an ass. And absolutely no obscenity.
(Bonus points for the first one to point out why posting this picture is not off topic in this thread.)
Ha ha. Even in the USA little children hear about the Town Musicians of Bremen. Tales Grimm, or not so grim...
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 03:56:41 PM
Ha ha. Even in the USA little children hear about the Town Musicians of Bremen. Tales Grimm, or not so grim...
Oh!
I thought it was about some self-appointed scholar who was to prove that the
Carnaval des Animaux was actually the lost 11th symphony by Beethoven?
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 03:14:02 PM
Don't forget the violin concerto played by a violin. Btw, what is to stop anyone from taking all of the overtures and making them into a playlist by themselves?
You read my mind, as I was sitting watching superbowl I thought later tonight I can make my own CDR of the
Dausgaard overtures for stereo system playback...........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never heard about that Bremen fairy tale till now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Musicians_of_Bremen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Musicians_of_Bremen)
Relevant since Jarvi's orchestra is
Bremen German Chamber Philharmonic
Quote from: DarkAngel on February 07, 2010, 04:05:41 PM
Relevant since Jarvi's orchestra is Bremen German Chamber Philharmonic
Duh ::) ;) 8)
Jarvi LvB 5 Movements 1 and 2, Live 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJWl4iX0krQ
Is this the same tempo as the performances that you guys have been discussing? Sounds fast.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 04:30:37 PM
Bingo. Your bonus points: . . . . . . . . .
I'm the one who identified them as the Bremen musicians. Do I have to also state the obvious?
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 04:30:37 PM
Bingo. Your bonus points: . . . . . . . . .
I'm the one who identified them as the Bremen musicians. Do I have to also state the obvious?
I was going to give them to you... but then Dark Angel stunned me by stating the obvious to such a degree that I thought that maybe you had in fact...
Consider them re-assigned.
Quote from: George on February 07, 2010, 04:28:20 PM
Jarvi LvB 5 Movements 1 and 2, Live 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJWl4iX0krQ
Is this the same tempo as the performances that you guys have been discussing? Sounds fast.
Yeah he's fast. :D Actually I think it's pretty common for the modern recordings to be fast. They are using those Del Mar editions. He's not always a fast conductor, when I heard his Tchaikovsky (years ago) on tv, he was slower than usual for that symphony. Jarvi approaches Beethoven from a classical perspective, but other composers from a romantic. I haven't heard his 20th century stuff, have a feeling that he specializes his approach based upon the era, possibly the composer.
Thanks David! :)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 07, 2010, 04:34:52 PM
I'm the one who identified them as the Bremen musicians. Do I have to also state the obvious?
I was going to give them to you... but then Dark Angel stunned me by stating the obvious to such a degree that I thought that maybe you had in fact...
Consider them re-assigned.
I used to read those tales to my daughters at bedtime. Or at least the ones not likely to keep them up longer. Apparently DA doesn't have kids yet.
Quote from: Bunny on February 07, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
Que, it all depends on whether you use the acronym HIP as Historically Informed Performance or Historic Instrument Performance.
(...) It becomes increasingly difficult to separate these matters. I think perhaps we need a thread entitled Historic INSTRUMENT Performance for the strictest of the Hipsters. $:)
I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does
not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual
very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does
not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may! :)
And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors
do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD. 8)
So the whole "lean & mean" category, so popular now but already dating back to Erich Kleiber is not HIP.
No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.
Q
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 07:15:54 PM
I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may! :)
And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD. 8)
Q
So does the I stands for "inspired" or "informed" in the acronym HIP?
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 07:15:54 PM
No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.
Setting aside that last bit (Barenboim is the antithesis of Dausgaard/Järvi), ... so what we need is a new label. We need a new name to assign to this school of transparency-based, fleet-footed interpreters of the Beethoven nine. What is it?
Quote from: DavidW on February 07, 2010, 03:16:43 PM
I've just listened to the 3rd and 8th from Jarvi and now I can say YES! I have heard things that I have not heard anywhere else. And he finds these little moments with an outburst of ferocity or a tender moment of sweet indulgence that I have not heard any other conductor find. The Eroica has many jaw dropping moments... I've only heard two dozen or so recordings but out of them Jarvi is unique and perhaps superior, even if not definitely worth hearing. The eighth from Jarvi is also extraordinary, but it doesn't have quite as many moments as the third.
I think that what Jens has said is completely 100% dead on.
:)
I have never, ever, ever heard another interpreter of 'Eroica' who makes the first variation of the theme (or the -2th, depending on what theme you have in mind) into a chamber music work for solo violinists, violist and cellist. A really striking effect, whether it's authentic or not (I genuinely don't know).
Quote from: Coopmv on February 07, 2010, 07:25:07 PM
So does the I stands for "inspired" or "informed" in the acronym HIP?
In New York it stands for "informed," and by informed it means that the performance is influenced by the period performance scholarship.
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 07:15:54 PM
I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may! :)
And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD. 8)
So the whole "lean & mean" category, so popular now but already dating back to Erich Kleiber is not HIP.
No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.
Q
Right on! I've been very surprised at the recent trend to call modern instrument performances HIP because they employ some HIP peformance elements. One of the basic aspects of HIP is the use of period instruments which create a very different sound world than their modern counterparts. So, if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2010, 08:17:04 PM
I have never, ever, ever heard another interpreter of 'Eroica' who makes the first variation of the theme (or the -2th, depending on what theme you have in mind) into a chamber music work for solo violinists, violist and cellist. A really striking effect, whether it's authentic or not (I genuinely don't know).
Yeah that was one of those jaw dropping moments for both shock and then awe, it completely works. :)
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2010, 08:14:11 PM
Setting aside that last bit (Barenboim is the antithesis of Dausgaard/Järvi), ... so what we need is a new label. We need a new name to assign to this school of transparency-based, fleet-footed interpreters of the Beethoven nine. What is it?
I like
classicist, since I've seen many times that label given to Toscanini, and he was one of the first (at least in recordings) of that school, an inspiration for many after him. 8)
Something worth considering is that the period instrument cycles so far may not really effect that much more of a historically accurate sound/context (in this sense of historically informed) than some of the other cycles which use modern instruments, but with similarly scaled down orchestras, etc.
For example, the Gardiner cycle, as has been pointed out, seems to many to have a very modern sound merely with period instruments. The tempos are basically right, but what about everything else? Beautiful singing in the 9th, but as a whole it's perhaps too straightforward and polished. Harnoncourt is much more flexible and uses the metronome markings as an authoritative starting point, as stated in the Teldec booklet. I think he actually offers more HIP insights than Gardiner does beyond those already gained by the previous Norrington (who closely adheres to the metronome markings), and Hogwood (who often deviates from the metronome markings, but has a nice curve in orchestra variety and an engagingly imperfect sound).
The Immerseel set has other HIP issues apparently, although I am not exactly qualified to confirm or deny the validity of what I am about to cite. Clive Brown, in Early Music vol 36, 4 (2008), "A New Beethoven Cycle," talks about the shortcomings of Immerseel's cycle from a HIP standpoint. To summarize:
In the 9th, the balance of the choir divided on either side of the orchestra produces a sound that is not authentic, as it would probably have been placed in front of the orchestra in Beethoven's Vienna. Brown also maintains that the singers still use too much vibrato (though less than on some other recordings) and no portamento, which isn't accurate. The issue of portamento in strings is more complicated, and concerns early 19th century taste arguments as well as trends.
In any case, Brown contests that the string players don't actually take much from Spohr's Violinschule bowing style, contradicting Immerseel's implication regarding Spohr in the notes. Moreover, there are other general issues in staccato mark notation, as they may have indicated slur and separation, but not detached notes, as we understand staccato today.
Finally, Brown observes the lack of tempo rubato and textual modification in Immerseel's and other period performances. Evidence suggests this manner may not be accurate. He gives some examples.
In the penultimate paragraph, he says: "Despite their musicianly qualities, which will undoubtedly delight many listeners, they remain firmly rooted in a post-20th-century aesthetic. If the knowledge we now possess about 19th-century performing practice were applied to Beethoven's music in a spirit of uninhibited experiment, it would result in style of performance that is radically different from anything we are familiar with in the present day."
I highly recommend this article in its entirety, if you have access to Oxford Journals.
Okay, so, here's my position, for what it's worth.
-I am a big fan of period instruments, exclusively in Bach (except a few piano recordings), and if possible in Haydn and Mozart. Nevertheless, I think Beethoven can work very well with both period instruments and modern instruments.
-I usually prefer Beethoven symphonies played at least in HIP style, at the proper tempos with a chamber orchestra.
-My impression, however, is that the period instrument recordings currently available are not that much more historically informed than the hybrid recordings which use modern instruments. As a result, I don't stress too much about the question of period instruments.
-Regardless, I will listen to the sets I find most visionary and best at achieving something of whatever is communicated in the score--as far as I can ascertain. I look forward to period instrument recordings that further enrich the possibilities of orchestration, timbres, and playing styles.
Quote from: DavidW on February 07, 2010, 04:35:54 PM
[Paavo Järvi's]not always a fast conductor, when I heard his Tchaikovsky (years ago) on tv, he was slower than usual for that symphony.
His recording of Kullervo is one of the slowest too. Interesting that Papa Järvi's is one of the swiftest.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 08, 2010, 04:15:50 AM
His recording of Kullervo is one of the slowest too. Interesting that Papa Järvi's is one of the swiftest.
Sarge
Aha! That makes me wonder if he's a true HIPster like Harnoncourt, trying to figure the appropriate style for the era. Late romanticism and early modernism were commonly played slowly, heavily with emphasis on melody and making great use of portamento and rubato. Beethoven certainly shouldn't be played that way, but Tchaikovsky and Sibelius would benefit from such performances. The youtube that was posted on that other thread had Jarvi explaining where he was coming from with Beethoven, and veering away from the lush hollywood sound really got me curious. Just when I have him pegged! :D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 07, 2010, 08:56:07 PM
Right on! I've been very surprised at the recent trend to call modern instrument performances HIP because they employ some HIP peformance elements. One of the basic aspects of HIP is the use of period instruments which create a very different sound world than their modern counterparts. So, if there aren't period instruments, it ain't HIP.
Well, I don't blame myself, as an enthousiastic listener and layman, that I sometimes 'abuse' the 'word' HIP. :)
Problem is, that f.i. Harnoncourt, Herreweghe and Gardiner are fine examples of 'true HIP', but are also known for trying to incorporate their HIP-ideas into the other 'conservative' world of modern instruments. Also Ton Koopman and Jos van Veldhoven have conducted Bach with orchestras like the Concertgebouw. In those cases, I sometimes try to use the word 'semi-HIP'. The conductors or leaders are HIP, and the instruments are not. ;)
(Mind you, I once read in an interview that Herreweghe stated that in his opinion
the Matthäus-Passion is better suited for modern than for authentic instruments!! Can this guy still be considered HIP?)
And what about people like Zinman and Mackerras? At a certain point in their career they somehow decided that HIP was right, and then decided to incorporate those HIP-ideas into their own 'conservative' world of modern instruments.
Are they semi-HIP? HIP-influenced? Or even HIP, but only really HIP if they perform with HIP instruments?
My own opinion about this all: I hate categorial thinking.
Even though I myself use those categories to make some of my postings more clear to the readers. But in the end, my opinion will always be: categorial thinking (HIP/not-HIP, black/white, good/bad) is just a distorted view at world, mankind and their behaviour, their tools & their instruments.
All of this
blabbering being just my tuppence worth, of course. :D
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 07:15:54 PM
I do not go along with this reason that seems to have become all the fashion here. The "I" in HIP does not stand for "inspired". Taking along a few ideas here and there, mainly about balance within the orchestra and transparency by reducing its size, in order to achieve an actual very new, modern ideal of articulation and transparency in orchestral playing does not make a performance HIP. Be it that that ideal has been developed under the influence of the HIP movement as it may! :)
And there lies the big difference between these two movements: all these "modernity" conductors do not aim for a historically accurate performance. They just use some techniques to achieve their own musical ideals. As for the issue of the instruments: truly a non-discussion as far as I'm concerned. In order to achieve historically accurate playing style & and techniques AND historically accurate instrumental sound, one needs historically accurate instruments, whether original or newly produced copies, PERIOD. 8)
So the whole "lean & mean" category, so popular now but already dating back to Erich Kleiber is not HIP.
No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.
Q
Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted, but it isn't my place to do it. You seem to have worked that out.
The philosophy seems to be "well, we can't be better than PI, so we should simply adopt them and then they become us". Something I see political parties do on a regular basis, I might add. ::)
8)
After recently listening to the Jaavi 4th and 7th and the Dausgaard 4th and 5th, I can say that despite any label people feel compelled to put on these recordings, they are very good indeed - IMHO.
To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato. It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.
The thing is that black and white distinctions can not be made anymore (as Marc illustrated exceedingly well). This is because the two types of music playing (modern and period style) are blending and merging. At the end of the day there will not be two camps, but one overall style of music playing and a spectrum from conservative to period style. Now we might even already be there, but I have feeling that we're half way there.
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2010, 05:51:32 AM
To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato. It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.
This whole discussion is purely semantic. HIP is Historically
Informed Performance. "Informed" could mean
anything. Like sniffing the metronome Beethoven used, mentioning it in an interview, then ignoring it, anyway.
If we want to use a term that can't be meant to include just about anything, perhaps "Period Performance" -- I recommend the abbreviation: "Per'd-Perf" or maybe just "PePe" -- would be more suitable. Which means: instruments / bows and bowing technique from the period of the work; approximation of historical style. And then concerts get played in a modern concert hall, anyway, with people sitting in chairs, all quiet, and afraid to clap when they like it. The whole thing is a farce because we ever only focus on one, or two, or three aspects of what a true period performance would actually mean... when there are in fact hundreds of aspects that would need to be considered. All PP performances are also 'only' HIP... and the boundaries are pretty blurry. Thankfully--because ideology has never made for good music.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2010, 05:37:51 AM
Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted, but it isn't my place to do it. You seem to have worked that out.
The philosophy seems to be "well, we can't be better than PI, so we should simply adopt them and then they become us". Something I see political parties do on a regular basis, I might add. ::)
8)
Some might say: those political parties have very smart and bright representatives. ;)
Sure, this thread isn't really 'Beethoven
HIP-and-only-HIP' anymore.
I've seen it happen with lots of threads and discussions, here and elsewhere.
If a person starts a thread called
Mozart HIP one can only wait for the first reaction like "why just HIP? Non-HIP is much better!" It also happens the other way 'round.
Sometimes it leads to a riot, sometimes it leads to interesting discussions, but in most cases it leads to nothing. (And that's what boards like this are for. :D)
In most cases, HIP-lovers will remain HIP-lovers, and HIP-haters will remain HIP-haters. It's not considered to be truly energetic and bold to consider other possibilities or options.
But I
dare (?) say: let's mingle! Let's blend those sopranos, altos, tenors and basses! Let's mix all those instruments and ideas and
make music!
Harnoncourt does it, Herreweghe does it, Mackerras does it! Who the [censored] cares how their approach is called, HIP, WIP or RIP, if the final results are effective?
Or should I, with my weak not-so-firm-and-strongly-in-favour-of-HIP-spine, leave this thread and join a political party? :P
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2010, 05:37:51 AM
Thank you, Que. I wanted to say all that but I hadn't figured out a way to avoid seriously insulting people who need to be seriously insulted
Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately and Hector saying on the first page:
Quote from: Hector on July 04, 2007, 06:11:12 AM
Nor does Harnoncourt [use period instruments] but, strictly speaking, both are "Historically informed" although some would view this term as meaning "performed on period instruments."
I'm with David Ross. I love the way this topic has evolved. If we'd banned cycles that don't meet the strict criteria of the forum's HIP police, this thread would have died years ago. As it is, it's become one of the liveliest and most interesting.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 08, 2010, 06:12:45 AM
Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately [....]
No surprise here:
I'm with you, Sarge!
Quote from: jlaurson on February 08, 2010, 06:01:05 AM[....]Thankfully--because ideology has never made for good music.
With this, I do not entirely agree.
Ideology in music has in the end to be performed by
living people. And they are simply not able to perform strictly by ideologic rules, because each and every person has their own personality which influences their performance (if only slightly). It's already a very special and gifted thing when all those different personalities are able to perform in
unison.
I'd say:
the combination of strict ideology and a mix of humans to interpret and perform that in a personal way can make for a terrific musical performance!
If you want some proof of that: check this thread (and of course the recordings that were recommended)! :D
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 06:28:03 AM
With this, I do not entirely agree...
I'd say: the combination of strict ideology and a mix of humans to interpret and perform that in a personal way can make for a terrific musical performance!
You will
never get ahead in the bumper-sticker industry. I hope you know that.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 08, 2010, 06:01:05 AM
And then concerts get played in a modern concert hall, anyway, with people sitting in chairs, all quiet, and afraid to clap when they like it. The whole thing is a farce because we ever only focus on one, or two, or three aspects of what a true period performance would actually mean... when there are in fact hundreds of aspects that would need to be considered.
Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly. And I would add that the most important aspect is forever lost on us; we may listen to "Eroica" played with period instruments and period performance pratice as much as we want --- what we are conspicuously missing is
period mindset.
I personally am neither pro-HIP nor anti-HIP. In this respect I'm a complete anarchist: if it sounds good, I don't care what it is. :D
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2010, 05:51:32 AM
To make it more confusing Bremen has been led by HIP conductors, they play with minimal vibrato. It seems as if they do everything but change the instruments.
The thing is that black and white distinctions can not be made anymore (as Marc illustrated exceedingly well). This is because the two types of music playing (modern and period style) are blending and merging. At the end of the day there will not be two camps, but one overall style of music playing and a spectrum from conservative to period style. Now we might even already be there, but I have feeling that we're half way there.
I don't agree. Period instrument performances are their own category and are not blending with any others. As I see it, we have three distinct categories: period instrument, traditional big band and modern instruments employing a HIP aesthetic. Each of the three is very easy to identify upon listening, and each has its advantages.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 08, 2010, 06:12:45 AM
Why does anyone need to be insulted??? This debate has been going on since the beginning of the thread (July 2007) with "semi-HIP" cycles mentioned immediately and Hector saying on the first page:
I'm with David Ross. I love the way this topic has evolved. If we'd banned cycles that don't meet the strict criteria of the forum's HIP police, this thread would have died years ago. As it is, it's become one of the liveliest and most interesting.
Sarge
Yes I don't see any value in trying to impose a strict narrow interpretation of the term
Historically Informed Performance or HIP on the forum.........."informed" is a general and inclusive word and does not imply any strict degree of accuracy or narrow focus only that there is prior knowledge or influence.
If someone specifically only wants to discuss original instrument performances it is easy enough to state that in original post
Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2010, 07:26:27 AM
Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly. And I would add that the most important aspect is forever lost on us; we may listen to "Eroica" played with period instruments and period performance pratice as much as we want --- what we are conspicuously missing is period mindset.
I personally am neither pro-HIP nor anti-HIP. In this respect I'm a complete anarchist: if it sounds good, I don't care what it is. :D
First of all, I am in total agreement with your last sentence.
Second, related to what you call a "period mindset", I looked at an interview with Jarvi regarding his recent Beethoven cycyle and he said something that made a lot of sense to me: his goal was to perform the symphonies as if he had not heard Brahms, Mahler, or any of the music that came after Beethoven.
That comment alone got me interested in hearing his interpretations, although I'm not sure how one does that.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 07:28:34 AM
I don't agree. Period instrument performances are their own category and are not blending with any others. As I see it, we have three distinct categories: period instrument, traditional big band and modern instruments employing a HIP aesthetic. Each of the three is very easy to identify upon listening, and each has its advantages.
I generally agree with Bulldog. And "Historically Informed Performance" for me means the conductor actually studied historical information, such as writings of the composer, descriptions of performances in in the composer's time, treatises on performance practice written by contemporaries of the composer, etc. Listening to a Harnoncourt record does not qualify for "historically informed."
Excluding things like the recently released Jarvi recordings from being labeled HIP should just be a matter of definition, rather than snobbery. I have no inclination to say that historically informed performance the only proper way to perform music. Just that it is important to have historically informed performance because it can give deep insight into what the composer was intending. Jarvi is in the business of applying some of that insight to modern performance. Since it is derivative of other HIP performance, it is not a source of much insight.
Just as I prefer to see Wagner staged as he envisioned it, with nymphs and dwarves and dragons, etc., rather than crack whores, capitalists, and drag queens, so I prefer to hear Beethoven as he imagined it, with the instrumental sonorities of his day, the size and balance of forces he intended, the shifting tempos and dynamics he sought, and so on.
Insofar as historical scholarship can inform us regarding such matters, and then such information can be applied to contemporary practice to arrive at a reasonable semblance of what Beethoven (Bach, Mozart, et al) probably had in mind, I'm all for it! In the first place because my respect for such masters commands interest in hearing what they were aiming for, insofar as that can be known. Beyond that, however, I simply love the delightfully scrunchy, squawky, blatty sounds of period instruments, I love the clarity of smaller forces that permits each voice to be heard, and I love the joyful enthusiasm I hear in the sprightly tempos, vigorous dynamics, and activist rubato of the Historically Informed Period Instrument Performances that really seem to get it right! HIPIP, hooray!
I grew up at a time when post-Romantic performance practice had all but killed the joyful spirit of much baroque and classical and even Romantic music, burying it in a heavy coffin lined with a thick padding of homogenous sound produced by enormous orchestras with overweighted strings and a stultifying sense of grave importance. Boring, ponderous mush! The HIP movement tore open the casket in which such music had long been buried and exposed it to the light of day, energizing it and letting in burst forth in a renewed spirit of playful joy. And this movement has in turn inspired many contemporary large orchestras and players on modern instruments to incorporate some historically informed practices in their performances. And thanks to all of this the performance of classical music today is far richer and more vital than it was 40 or 50 or 60 years ago--and my appreciation for and enjoyment of this music has grown as well...and sometimes in surprising ways.
For instance, growing up in an era in which Karajan was the 800 pound gorilla of orchestral classical music, I never cared much for Brahms's symphonies and thought him vastly overrated. Mackerras changed that, and what I've heard of Gardiner's cycle is changing it further. Bach's suites for solo cello and his sonatas & partitas for solo violin have been transformed from austere monuments to vital songs of joy. And the incorporation of HIP attributes such as brisk tempos, lean textures, and clarity of voices into contemporary mainstream practice has vitalized many an otherwise traditional "big band" performance--and not just of "bewigged" music, but of 20th Century music as well.
In short, the range of contemporary practice, whether narrowly HIP, broadly informed by HIP, or in reaction to HIP, appears to me as a tremendously exciting and revitalizing feature of the music we all love.
P.S. We've had some lengthy threads on this general topic before, including IIRC one specifically devoted to Beethoven--perhaps on the now-archived old forum, if anyone's interested enough to look it up.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 08, 2010, 06:31:20 AM
You will never get ahead in the bumper-sticker industry. I hope you know that.
I regard this as a compliment. :)
Besides that: yours truly also has a slight problem with the language now and then, because Engliesch iznot my mozzer tangue.
Gued möning!
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 08, 2010, 08:02:34 AM
Just as I prefer to see Wagner staged as he envisioned it, with nymphs and dwarves and dragons, etc., rather than crack whores, capitalists, and drag queens, so I prefer to hear Beethoven as he imagined it
I thought you hate Wagner.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 07:28:34 AM
I don't agree. Period instrument performances are their own category and are not blending with any others. As I see it, we have three distinct categories: period instrument, traditional big band and modern instruments employing a HIP aesthetic. Each of the three is very easy to identify upon listening, and each has its advantages.
I don't agree. Guys like Koopman and Herreweghe for instance have switched from the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt early-HIP style to a style of their own. Suzuki is another example. And sometimes Pinnock is sounding more like Marriner than like Reinhard Goebel.
One of the main differences (in Bach) between f.i. Leonhardt and Herreweghe: the latter decided to let the singers
sing in a less reciting way, because he (and Koopman) didn't agree that much anymore with the
Music as speech doctrine, lectured by the HIP-conventions.
(These less strict reciting ideas were also transported to performances of other composers. Check out the differences between Harnoncourt and Herreweghe in Beethoven.)
Leonhardt has been loyal to his early HIP-conventions during all his life. So: period instrument performers aren't
one united division anymore. Koopman & McCreesh are battling about Bach already for years! They surely don't want to be in the same division!
This dividing of divisions happens to each and every revolution, btw. ;)
But there is a solution!
What about a fourth division: performances from former strict HIP-ers, who changed their view a bit towards the (post)modern way of thinking, and using those thoughts on HIP-period instruments?
This would mean: Joshua Rifkin is real HIP .... no, darn, he's NOT: he's NOT using boy sopranos in Bach. Anyway, let's forget about those freaking boys ....
Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? ;D)
There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!
No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!
All right then, FIVE distinct categories!
This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be. :(
In My Humble Opinion, that is.
Somehow I get the idea, that strict labelling is an important issue around here. And I certainly don't want to disturb the urge to divide (.... et impera (?)).
So: let Admin label the labels!
Give definitions of various terms and words, and make divided threads for all of them.
Then we can exclude all the Järvi, Zinman and even Harnoncourt non-HIP nonsense of this thread.
Even though the thread starter mentioned Zinman himself, and wasn't insulted by some moderator. Still: beter a late lesson, than no lesson at all! ;D
Here's an idea: let's have Admin create 3 (or more?) Beethoven symphonies threads, according f.i. to the labels that Don has provided.
After that, some moderators may throw some messages in either one of those threads, and everyone who wants music to be divided in Black and White and Grey will be happy, and no one will feel the urge to insult ignorant persons again, because the definitions and the connected thread titles are clear. If someone begins to talk about Harnoncourt in a strictly-HIP thread, he can be pointed in a very friendly way at the Board Definitions and be led to the semi-HIP or whatever thread, and after that, his/her message can be transported to that whatever thread, too.
We can work it out! :P
Yes, we can!
Sometimes I wish that HIPpy times were here again, where all seperated divisions, at least for a year or two, were thrown into the dust-bin.
Yeah, I know, I know, I'm a silly and naive person.
Woodstock wasn't real, and of course I realize that Charles Manson and Altamont made those HIPpy's feel what real reality was again!
Oh, btw, about HIP: I do believe that persons like Siegfried Ochs, freaking Arturo Toscannini, Hans Brandt Buys, Paul Badura-Skoda, Anthon van der Horst et al were very important for HIP, preluding, beginning and development. So, IMO, they earn their place in a HIP-related thread any time.
I also believe that the HIP movement has been helped by non-HIPpers like freaking Colin Davis, who, in the sixties, diminished the forces for f.i. Handel and Mozart in a rather extreme way, and made more people realize that the romantic Big Band 'solution' wasn't the only one, and therefore was able to create a better understanding for the small 'authentic' movement.
So, IMO, he may have his place in a HIP-related thread any time, too.
But I'd better save that blabbering for a not-so-HIP-topic.
For the moment, I'd better leave this thread. :-X
At least I did some postings here about Beethoven symphony stuff .... HIP, WIP or RIP.
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 09:05:01 AM
I don't agree. Guys like Koopman and Herreweghe for instance have switched from the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt early-HIP style to a style of their own. Suzuki is another example. And sometimes Pinnock is sounding more like Marriner than like Reinhard Goebel.
One of the main differences (in Bach) between f.i. Leonhardt and Herreweghe: the latter decided to let the singers sing in a less reciting way, because he (and Koopman) didn't agree that much anymore with the Music as speech doctrine, lectured by the HIP-conventions.
(These less strict reciting ideas were also transported to performances of other composers. Check out the differences between Harnoncourt and Herreweghe in Beethoven.)
Leonhardt has been loyal to his early HIP-conventions during all his life. So: period instrument performers aren't one united division anymore. Koopman & McCreesh are battling about Bach already for years! They surely don't want to be in the same division!
This dividing of divisions happens to each and every revolution, btw. ;)
But there is a solution!
What about a fourth division: performances from former strict HIP-ers, who changed their view a bit towards the (post)modern way of thinking, and using those thoughts on HIP-period instruments?
This would mean: Joshua Rifkin is real HIP .... no, darn, he's NOT: he's NOT using boy sopranos in Bach. Anyway, let's forget about those freaking boys ....
Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? ;D)
There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!
No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!
All right then, FIVE distinct categories!
This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be. :(
In My Humble Opinion, that is.
What you've written strikes me as nonsense, which merely obscures the clear and sensible distinction that Bulldog has made. There is no need to stipulate that HIP is a clearly defined style, and that Koopman or whatnot is no longer HIP because doesn't hold to certain tenets that are "standard HIP." They are scholars as well as conductors and are using an authentically equipped ensemble, they are HIP. A conductor that gleens some elements from the HIP movement before conducting a piece (like Jarvi, or Rattle as you claim) is not HIP. That is
FP, fashionable performance. In HIP one of two things must be present (preferable both) and historically knowledgeable director and an ensemble knowledgeable in historical practices. In the Rattle example you give, neither is present.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 08, 2010, 09:20:57 AM
What you've written strikes me as nonsense, which merely obscures the clear and sensible distinction that Bulldog has made. There is no need to stipulate that HIP is a clearly defined style, and that Koopman or whatnot is no longer HIP because doesn't hold to certain tenets that are "standard HIP." They are scholars as well as conductors and are using an authentically equipped ensemble, they are HIP. A conductor that gleens some elements from the HIP movement before conducting a piece (like Jarvi, or Rattle as you claim) is not HIP. That is FP, fashionable performance. In HIP one of two things must be present (preferable both) and historically knowledgeable director and an ensemble knowledgeable in historical practices. In the Rattle example you give, neither is present.
As Haitink once stated in an interview (and this is used in one of those books by Lebrecht), the fact that his interest in HIP had been slowly growing was due to a certain Simon Rattle, who sent him loads of recordings of people like Gardiner and Harnoncourt, and also was reading a lot of 'scholarship' HIP-stuff.
So: most certainly mr. Rattle was inspired by the HIP conventions. Listen to his performances of Mozart operas for instance, with non-period instruments.
About the impossibility of PI and blending with 'any others': Harnoncourt has been blending period instruments (brass: trumpets) with modern instruments for decades, so has f.i. Mackerras.
In what division should we put such an approach?
HIP, 3/4HIP, 1/5PI, semi-HIP?
Adding this, just in case: Koopman (who is NOT a scholar, btw) is giving concerts with Broadcast orchestras in the Netherlands (non-period instruments), with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (non-period instruments) and has been playing on non-historic organs for decades. Herreweghe is first conductor of the Royal Flemish Philharmonic Orchestra (non-period instruments), Frans Brüggen has been conducting non-period instrumental orchestras (also Broadcast & Radio orchestras in the Lower Countries) already for decades and decades. He's been given concerts with Janine Jansen (like Järvi jr.) on non-period instruments.
Harnoncourt has been mentioned. Gardiner has 'done' modern orchestras, mixed with 'authentic' brass.
Et cetera et cetera.
All those HIP-musicians are not that interested anymore in all those strict divisions. Then: why the [censored] should we?
If they prove only one thing, it would be: strict dividing is nonsense and totally out-of-date, no matter how knowledgeable Donald Satz may be.
My point is, that 'words' like HIP can be a tool to make something more clear, but if it's used to ruin a thread, or to think about insulting board members, then I truly regret the absence of the 'puke' emoticon here.
On the other hand: it's in fact very stupid of me that I even seem to want to join these discussions. I should have been wiser, I guess.
Excuse me for saying, but I'm just not that good in
dividing. Especially if it leads to stupid quotes like
freaking Colin Davis, or implicit remarks about the need to insult some so-called ignorant music lovers.
Again: no matter how knowledgeable Que or Gurn may be.
(And also: no offense and insult meant here. 0:))
Quote from: Que on February 07, 2010, 07:15:54 PM
No matter what the title of this thread will be: Järvi is not HIP, Dausgaard is not HIP, and neither is Zinman. Nor is freaking Colin Davis, Arturo Toscanini or Daniel Barenboim.
Q
Having been reading the newer posts in this thread the past few days with some frustration, I have to whole-heartedly agree with this (freaking included). I am, it should be clear, no dedicated HIPster. But I would not describe, say, Immerseel, Brüggen and Norrington (EMI) in the same breath as Toscanini, Vänskä or even Harnoncourt (Teldec).
Though I agree it's more of a continuum than the Gurnian sort of approach might indicate (sorry
Gurn! ;)), the fact that brightness is a continuum doesn't mean we can't distinguish black (or mostly black) from white (or mostly white).
Pure historically informed performance, let's call it HIP-HIP (hurrah?), has very specific musical and artistic objectives, which come first. 'Modern' performance, HIP-inspired, or whatnot utilises various techniques to take performance in general
forward, it does not
explore them for the sake of exploring them, as HIP-HIP does. I thus consider it fundamentally misguided to put both under one label.
(Unless that label is 'Beethoven cycles'.)
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2010, 08:14:11 PM
... so what we need is a new label. We need a new name to assign to this school of transparency-based, fleet-footed interpreters of the Beethoven nine. What is it?
No, we do not!
We have too many labels, and it is very unclear why the transparency-based performers of
now should be labeled differently to the transparency-based performers of
then (e.g. Toscanini, Karajan), simply because the present day performers express a more sophisticated stage of the same process. That feels like saying low definition video is not video.
In fact, while I'm at it, I really do wonder whether this contrast between the awesome, 'modern' style, and the plodding, horrible 'old style' isn't really a distinction between a good performance and (indeed) a bad one.
Even the slowest performances, e.g. Klemperer's, were possessed of forward-looking qualities, by virtue of which (whether you agree with the speed or not) these performances gained acclaim. Is there really a need to group 'all but the modern' under one label ('old style', big-band,
whatever) in order to reject them, if the intended distinction (and rejection) is simply one of fast vs. slow?
Or 'big' sound' vs. 'small' sound?
It's not unlike saying I shouldn't talk too loud, and calling my 'kind of talking' the loud school, just to advocate talking softly. :P
My point being: why not
just advocate a method, rather than imagining - and thus bringing into being - all sorts of binary tensions? Once, when I was even younger than I am now, I was hoping the degree to which Nietzsche has permeated modern culture would assist in dispelling all these arbitrary notions of everything being binary. You don't
need to define everything
against something else.
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 09:05:01 AM
Rifkin is HIP, Herreweghe & Koopman are partly-abandoned HIP, and so is (perhaps) Harnoncourt (unless of course he conducts the Concentus Musicus Wien), and Zinman with his Tonhalle Band were former-modern but now HIP-related, and Barenboim is Big Band. (Or is he? ;D)
There you have it: FOUR distinct categories!
No, wait: what about Simon Rattle and his Berlin Philharmonic when they play Beethoven? He must be somewhere in between Zinman and Barenboim? Because Rattle is HIP-inspired, but using larger forces than Zinman!
All right then, FIVE distinct categories!
This was a very interesting thread, and the thread is threatened to be ruined by one-way-thinking, and useless discussions about which way that one way should be. :(
In My Humble Opinion, that is.
My preference for using three categories does not threaten to ruin the thread; it simply adds a view that might be commented on or discussed. And Marc, you did comment on it and came up with a larger group of categories. That is your right, and I do realize that you might be kidding about the larger group.
Also, the one-way thinking you mentioned is way off base. At no time did I indicate that all period instrument performances are essentially the same. As we all know, there are dozens of variables within each category; it's just a matter of how much one wants to micro-manage the categories. A plethora of categories might be good for the seasoned collector, but others would likely be very confused by all of them.
To me, the major problem with this thread is that we are using the same words but with different meanings. That makes for less than sterling communication. When a poster states that P. Jarvi is HIP and Gardiner is hybrid HIP, I know that we're not on the same page.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 08, 2010, 08:52:45 AM
I thought you hate Wagner.
That's because you read selectively, conditioned by preconception. There are many things I admire about Wagner's music and even his "music dramas." I am under no illusion, however, that they approach the heights of greatness claimed by his fanboys.
When I first appeared on forums like this several years ago, I was often attacked as a Mahler-hater, which I found rather amusing since Mahler has been one of my favorite composers since I first heard his music more than 40 years ago. The reason? I felt--and still feel--that his music suffers from long-windedness, and that he might have improved much of it substantially had he respected the blue pencil as much as he loved his creative muse.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
My preference for using three categories does not threaten to ruin the thread; it simply adds a view that might be commented on or discussed. And Marc, you did comment on it and came up with a larger group of categories. That is your right, and I do realize that you might be kidding about the larger group.
Also, the one-way thinking you mentioned is way off base. At no time did I indicate that all period instrument performances are essentially the same. As we all know, there are dozens of variables within each category; it's just a matter of how much one wants to micro-manage the categories. A plethora of categories might be good for the seasoned collector, but others would likely be very confused by all of them.
Understood. (And no offense meant, either.)
It has became a total mess, this HIP-related stuff, hasn't it?
But you can't blame board members for that.
Already in the eighties the Pope (declaired as such by others, btw) of HIP, mr. Harnoncourt, said many times things like
authenticity does not exist at all and
every period in art is romantic in its own way.
After that, loads of people already began to feel confused, I think. Way before our problems started here! ;D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
To me, the major problem with this thread is that we are using the same words but with different meanings. That makes for less than sterling communication. When a poster states that P. Jarvi is HIP and Gardiner is hybrid HIP, I know that we're not on the same page.
Sure, but to me this is not a real
big problem.
You already mentioned in 2007 to the thread-starter that Zinman isn't considered to be HIP in everyone's book. So let's be realistic: this thread was already a problem
in your book ;) from the very start!
I'd say: in a thread like this it's completely normal that these issues appear. What I didn't like were the
freaking and insulting quotes and thoughts. I admit though: I went a bit too
bananas about that.
Funny thing nevertheless: music loving board members (and musicians) were being treated by
moderators in almost the same way as a certain banned member did once, whose
adagium seemed to be: if I feel that some fool is talking nonsense, then I have the right to insult him, just because he's a plain ignorant, and I am not.
So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him
freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.
On a board like this, with very wise and knowledgeble people, with lesser wise (sometimes even ignorant) and/or interested laymen (AND women!) and with newbies and all other kinds of enthousiasts, I would say that at least the moderators might temper their voice a bit, when
punishing and
insulting is the case.
In another recent thread, the thread-starter wanted to know about Bach's keyboard partitas played on a piano. Now the harpsichord has been allowed, too. Richter, Leonhardt and Rousset have been mentioned and discussed. And I haven't seen any problems occur in that particular thread yet, apart from some hearing problems with and between one or two members. ;D
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 09:49:41 AM
Adding this, just in case: Koopman (who is NOT a scholar, btw) is giving concerts with Broadcast orchestras in the Netherlands (non-period instruments), with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (non-period instruments) and has been playing on non-historic organs for decades. Herreweghe is first conductor of the Royal Flemish Philharmonic Orchestra (non-period instruments), Frans Brüggen has been conducting non-period instrumental orchestras (also Broadcast & Radio orchestras in the Lower Countries) already for decades and decades. He's been given concerts with Janine Jansen (like Järvi jr.) on non-period instruments.
Harnoncourt has been mentioned. Gardiner has 'done' modern orchestras, mixed with 'authentic' brass.
Et cetera et cetera.
All those HIP-musicians are not that interested anymore in all those strict divisions. Then: why the [censored] should we?
If they prove only one thing, it would be: strict dividing is nonsense and totally out-of-date, no matter how knowledgeable Donald Satz may be.
You seem to have some axe to grind. I don't feel I'm into any strict division, just three broad categories that well serve my purposes for indentification.
As for the fact that many conductors primarily known for their period instrument performances also perform with modern instrument orchestras, so what? The fact remains that period instruments have a very different sound than their modern counterparts. That's why so many folks want nothing to do with, say, baroque orchestral music on modern instruments while many others can't stand the sound of period instruments.
Concerning the knowledge factor, I do not consider myself more or less knowledgeable than most others on the board. I have not advocated such a position nor have I advocated the notion that my musical preferences are superior. What I have been advocating is that we use terminology that is easily understood by most board members.
Marc,
I think you are making too much of Gurn and Que expressing their exasperation; their fully understandable exasperation, may I add.
Having a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.
Additionally, I think the 'freaking' bit was intended to indicate there is an obvious difference between Colin Davis and Franz Brüggen's styles, that's more than just about fast or slow, or lean, or medium-rare: a difference surreally ignored.
Assuming being PC is not an absolute directive, I think 'nor is freaking Colin Davis' was quite pithy.
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 10:35:02 AM
Understood. (And no offense meant, either.)
It has became a total mess, this HIP-related stuff, hasn't it?
So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.
Yes, it has become a mess, but I've tried to keep current. Once upon a time, I always referrred to period instrument performances as HIP. However, with the advent of modern instrument performances employing some of the HIP principles, I thought it best to convert to "period instrument performances".
FWIW, Colin Davis is one of my favorite conductors, and I love Bohm's Mozart. I'm not as rigid as you might think.
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 10:35:02 AM
Funny thing nevertheless: music loving board members (and musicians) were being treated by moderators in almost the same way as a certain banned member did once, whose adagium seemed to be: if I feel that some fool is talking nonsense, then I have the right to insult him, just because he's a plain ignorant, and I am not.
So: if a conductor is mentioned as HIP in a HIP-related thread, and I know he's certainly not, than I can call him freakin' Colin.
And if a member thinks that Toscannini, Davis and Zinman are HIP or maybe pre-HIP, then I certainly may feel the need to insult him, because he's plain ignorant, and I'm not.
On a board like this, with very wise and knowledgeble people, with lesser wise (sometimes even ignorant) and/or interested laymen (AND women!) and with newbies and all other kinds of enthousiasts, I would say that at least the moderators might temper their voice a bit, when punishing and insulting is the case.
Oh,
come on. ::) Marc, my friend, let's not get carried away here. :-*
I did not insult any board members and I did not call Colin Davis "freaking" just because he was mentioned here by someone, but because I do
not like him as a conductor.
Other than that I think everyone is very smart here! :) Because we all know very well what we are talking about and what was the intended scope of this thread. HIP is defined by what it stands for, the rest is all chit-chat and playing an eleborate semantics game. 8)
Q
QuoteHaving a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.
A week or so ago I posted about the P. Jarvi cycle in this thread, prefacing it with a caveat something like, I don't know if Jarvi is considered HIP - but the reason I posted about his set here was because I cound find no Beethoven symphony set thread other than this one.
I asked if there was one but no one pointed me to it, if it exists.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 10:37:22 AM
Concerning the knowledge factor, I do not consider myself more or less knowledgeable than most others on the board. I have not advocated such a position nor have I advocated the notion that my musical preferences are superior. What I have been advocating is that we use terminology that is easily understood by most board members.
Quite so. When I stumble upon one of the pseudo-profound discussions on this board that go on for page after page after page ("is there such a thing as absolute music, etc") it usually strikes me that the only substantial issue is that people don't agree on the definition of the words they are using.
Perhaps the thread could be split into PI and modern instrument recordings and leave it at that. A simple dichotomy that is not too confusing. Just check if the recordings are on period instruments, and then post accordingly. Seems simple enough.
Quote from: Renfield on February 08, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
Marc,
I think you are making too much of Gurn and Que expressing their exasperation; their fully understandable exasperation, may I add.
If a moderator is saying that he felt the need to insult board members, he might be scaring people away from his own forum. In the end though, I admit, that's should not be a problem to me.
And yes, I did went a bit too bananas about it (nasty memories, I guess).
About Que: I totally understood his point, and I agree with his points many times, and I prefer 'HIP' (sigh) too, but I didn't like the way he put it. I believe that it would have helped if he tried to explain the differences in a more relaxed way. Like Don did, actually (even though I did not entirely agree with him, either).
Let's just say:
c'est le ton qui fait la musique, or something like that. Especially if moderators are concerned, IMO.
Then again: I should have been more relaxed, too. My 'ton' wasn't all that beautiful, either. :-[
Apologies for that.
Quote from: Renfield on February 08, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
Having a thread made about something, then talking about something else, then insisting that this was the topic all along, is an interesting situation to say the least. I can't blame them. It's all rather Orwellian.
Not entirely. Check out the first post by the thread starter. Indeed non-HIPers were part of the topic all along.
Quote from: Renfield on February 08, 2010, 10:43:12 AM
Additionally, I think the 'freaking' bit was intended to indicate there is an obvious difference between Colin Davis and Franz Brüggen's styles, that's more than just about fast or slow, or lean, or medium-rare: a difference surreally ignored.
Sure, I would never 'categorize' Davis and Brüggen in the same group.
Having said that, it depends of course of the nature of the categories. In the end, when Beethoven is concerned, I would say that Davis is
interesting and Brüggen is
essential.
HIP or not HIP.
;D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 10:44:24 AM
FWIW, Colin Davis is one of my favorite conductors, and I love Bohm's Mozart. I'm not as rigid as you might think.
I know.
I've read some reviews, you know. ;)
And some contributions to the board, too.
AFAIK, the discussion we had was not about pre- or anti-HIP.
In fact: I was 'attacking' my
own people 0:). Because personally, in most cases I prefer HIP. Especially in 18th century music and all periods before that.
Quote from: M forever on July 04, 2007, 09:10:58 AM
Mark, the Mackerras set isn't really "HIP". Not just because it isn't on period instruments. That's not even the most decisive factor.
But to understand what is "historically informed performance" and inform others about it, one must first be informed about "historically informed". Which is, of course, theoretically anyone who knows a little about the history of the music and its historical context. But that's obviously not what is meant here.
"Historically informed performance" isn't just about smallish orchestras, quickish tempi, oldish instruments, or hardish timpani sticks either. Nor is it about using less or no vibrato. It's much more complex than that. There is a lot of "historical uninformedness" about that complex subject.
Too complex to go into it here in detail. Mackerras is one of the best "historically informed" conductors out there, and he has delivered many highly "historically informed" performances, on old instruments as well as on modern ones.
But this set isn't one of them. One could maybe call it "historically aware". But it's basically more a "modern classicist" view that he takes here rather than a "HIP" one.
Why that is, I don't know. Maybe he decided he was tired of superficially "HIP" readings which grew on every corner back then and he wanted to present a more timeless view of the music from the point of view of someone who is aware of the wide spectrum of interpretive approaches but decided it was time for him to leave all that aside and take a look at the compositional substance alone. But again, I don't know what he had in mind. But that is what it sounds like. What it doesn't sound like at all is "HIP".
Nor is Zinman a "HIP" cycle. He takes a very smilar approach but makes it look more "HIP" by tacking on a few superficial "HIP" elements here and there. If one likes that or not, is up to each listener. But it's not "HIP".
Nor would I call Gardiner particularly "HIP". Yes, he plays on old instruments and he does all the other things which superficially look "HIP". He choses quickish tempi, and he has the hard timpani sticks and all that. But what is almost completely missing from his cycle is the rhythmic flexibility, the rhetorically inflected phrasing, and other stylistic elements which are far more important to being "HIP" than the hard sticks. Why that comes from a conductor who has given us superb "HIP" readings of a lot of things, his outstanding recordings of Mozart symphonies, for instance, I am not sure either. My feeling is that Gardiner was looking for a way to set himself apart from all the other "HIPsters" who had sprung up everywhere in the meantime, all those people who felt that a few sets of gut strings were all you need to be "HIP". I suspect he wanted to create a "perfectly balanced" and "centered" "HIPpish" view, a kind of idealized, summarized, "timeless HIP" view.
I think he totally failed. What we have here is an astonishingly mechanical, sterilized and glossy run-through of the 9. Accident free and uncontroversial. One may like that, but it's not a real "HIP" performance, that's for sure.
Being "historically informed" means being aware of the vast spectrum of interpretive means which may or may not have been applied to the music at the time. Since we don't have recordings, we can't really decide "exactly" how they played back then, and that probably changed a lot depending on the given circumstances anyway.
Being "historically informed" means knowing about all that and, based on that knowledge, making *interpretive decisions*, not avoiding them, like Mackerras, Gardiner, and Zinman mostly do.
There are tons of superficially "HIPpish" contributions, but only very few truly "HIP" ones from people who have the vast background knowledge and artistic courage to make such decisions.
Among them is the ever provocative and happily controversial Sir Roger Norrington. His first traversal of the symphonies with the London Classical Players is a real trip of discovery both into the sonic world of period instruments and an large scale stylistic experiment based on what he felt was the real point of Beethoven's symphonic writing. Namely not to create timelessly esthetic masterpieces as the centerpiece of a classical canon, but to create highly dramatic, stirring, operatic musical declamations of *ideas* which transcend purelu esthetic musical values.
That was indeed what a lot of Beethoven's contemporaries felt, too, and so did the following generations of composers who felt that Beethoven had made it clear once and for all that music should not just sound good, but have a deeper content and meaning. Beethoven's music created shockwaves in the musical world which were felt even a century later and propelled a lot of other composers to seek deeper meanings in music themselves.
Now, all that is taken as a given and the Beethoven symphonies have collected a lot of dust, sitting in their place of honor in the middle of the musical pantheon. Some interpreters wipe of a little of that dust sometimes, but few bother to try to bring them really back to life and relase shockwaves like they once did.
Sir Roger explicitly set out to recreate those seismic events and remind the listener of the immense power of the music. In order to do so, he made a lot of very controversial, but bols interpretive decisions rather than playing it safe. Some of those decisions may make sense, some may be over the top, some may just be wrong, that is for everyone to decide, but at least he went out there and took the trip.
Which is why this cycle is, with all its quirks and faults, and some obviously wrong decisions, one of the few truly "HIP" cycles and something everybody should encounter at one time.
Christopher Hogwood didn't go quite that far, but his approach with the Academy of Ancient Music is just as valuable for different reasons. Or maybe more value, that is hard to decide.
Hogwood attempted more than anyone else, including Norrington, to actually go back to the sonic and stylistic substance of the music not as it may have been conceived ideally in Beethoven's mind, but as it may have actually sounded.
He doesn't postulate as much as Norrington what the music *should* sound like, his approach is more that of a competently manned workshop trying to piece the music together from carefully researched and prepared elements to see what it actually *did* sound like. He doesn't assume what it should be like, he doesn't decide to present the music from one perspective or another, he just goes ahead and investigates as much as possible what it really could have sounded like. That includes playing the symphonies in the orchestrations that are known to have been used for the first performances. That means that some of them are performed by a rather small contingent of players, some of them by a very large ensemble with doubled winds and very big string sections.
As such, his cycle is less one man's vision of historical Beethoven performance than a compendium of what we really know about instruments, playing practices, and performance conditions of the time.
As such, as refreshing as a dose of Norrington's theatralics or Gardiner's distancedly idealized classicism may be once in a while, I think that Hogwood's is by very far the best and most valuable of all cycles played on period instruments.
Maybe only until Immerseel comes around, I don't know yet. But he might be highly interesting, too.
Forget The "Hannover Band" or whatever they called themselves. There were just too many people with old instruments on the loose in London and too many buyers for "authentic" recordings back then.
Forget Brüggen. Somebody should tell him that applying baroque performance practice to Beethoven symphonies only makes the whole "HIP" thing as ridiculous as some say it is. Here it is.
Don't worry about Abbado and Haitink or all the other people in this context who suddenly completely "rethought" their ideas of Beethoven under the impression of the "HIP" movement. Their results are highly enjoyable but not at all "HIP" either.
Probably the "HIPpest" of them all is Harnoncourt, not at all surprisingly. His performances of the symphonies with the COE on modern instruments (and some "HIP" timpani and brass) but with a vast palette of truly "authentic" stylistic elements are probably among the stylistically most complex and multi-layered readings of anything I have ever heard. It is not even possible to sum up just how complex his approach his and from how many angles he reaches his interpretation at the same time, almost like a 3D version of these symphonies where almost everything else only happens in one or two dimensions.
Harnoncourt's readings reflect literally a lifetime of intensive study and practical performance of centuries of musical heritage leading up to these symphonies. But at the same time, his awareness of both the "before" and the "after" and his seamless blending of "old" and "new" make these truly "modern" readings, taken from the point of view who really understands where that music came from and what life it has led since the composer created it.
I know a lot of people don't "get" that at all. I don't either. I get parts of it, more and more, but I know there are many elemens that I haven't fully understood yet. But that's OK. That's why we have that on disc and can return to it again and again, and figure out a little more each time.
Unless you just want nice music to doodle in the background. Then all the above doesn't matter.
Just thought this post was worth bumping from the first page.
Quote from: Que on February 08, 2010, 10:46:07 AM
Oh, come on. ::) Marc, my friend, let's not get carried away here. :-*
I did not insult any board members and I did not call Colin Davis "freaking" just because he was mentioned here by someone, but because I do not like him as a conductor.
Other than that I think everyone is very smart here! :) Because we all know very well what we are talking about and what was the intended scope of this thread. HIP is defined by what it stands for, the rest is all chit-chat and playing an eleborate semantics game. 8)
Q
Points taken. Problem is: I tried to avoid mentioning names at first, because I understood your and Gurn's reaction. As I said, it was more the 'outside' than the 'inside'. And my disliking of strict divisions anyway. I admit: I think the HIP-revolution is calmed down, has been eating its own members already for sometime, and although I take HIP-conventions very seriously, I really do believe that the strong urge to 'divide' should be buried. Just my thought, though.
For what it's worth, about a certain conductor: Colin may be freakin' in your book, but in Handel, Mozart and Berlioz (to name but a few) I find him very appealing and interesting!
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
When a poster states that P. Jarvi is HIP and Gardiner is hybrid HIP, I know that we're not on the same page.
I wouldn't call Jarvi HIP per se, but I would definitely place him in the HIP tradition in the sense that he has explicitly stated that he wants to do what's in a score, and recreate a Beethoven (he actually phrases it this way with Beethoven as the subject) who hasn't heard Wagner, Liszt, etc.
Is Gardiner, conversely, really HIP anymore than Jarvi, aside from the period instruments? I doubt Beethoven was played so--perhaps inflexibly--back in the day and Bach cantatas with a large choir such as the Monterverdi, with a style as athletic as possible for a marathon tour.
First, if someone produces a set with the sonorities of early 19th century Vienna I will buy it immediately, but I don't think anyone has yet, including Immerseel (for reasons I posted earlier, but to which no one has yet responded). That said, I want those metronome markings taken at least as a baseline and no bloated orchestras. Second, while I still enjoy the period instrument sets I have, I would like to see one on the same level of interpretation and flexibility as Harnoncourt's, above all.
Quote from: Franco on February 08, 2010, 11:04:55 AM
Just thought this post was worth bumping from the first page.
Yes, I remember that one. Very informative, but also subjective in some ways. Take his opinion about Gardiner. I think that Que didn't mean his cycle to be non-HIP.
Anyway, in those good old times, with M posting many interesting things, one large problem could occur: if you didn't agree, insulting could be your well-deserved punishment! :(
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 10:56:54 AM
If a moderator is saying that he felt the need to insult board members, he might be scaring people away from his own forum. In the end though, I admit, that's should not be a problem to me.
And yes, I did went a bit too bananas about it (nasty memories, I guess).
About Que: I totally understood his point, and I agree with his points many times, and I prefer 'HIP' (sigh) too, but I didn't like the way he put it. I believe that it would have helped if he tried to explain the differences in a more relaxed way. Like Don did, actually (even though I did not entirely agree with him, either).
Let's just say: c'est le ton qui fait la musique, or something like that. Especially if moderators are concerned, IMO.
Then again: I should have been more relaxed, too. My 'ton' wasn't all that beautiful, either. :-[
Apologies for that.
Not entirely. Check out the first post by the thread starter. Indeed non-HIPers were part of the topic all along.
Sure, I would never 'categorize' Davis and Brüggen in the same group.
Having said that, it depends of course of the nature of the categories. In the end, when Beethoven is concerned, I would say that Davis is interesting and Brüggen is essential.
HIP or not HIP.
;D
So, by your standards, it's a bad thing if I even feel like insulting someone, not actually doing it. Damn, you must think I'm an angel! Thanks for that, but in fact I am far from it, I just have enough self-control (most of the time) to keep my feelings in check. I think you can probably count on 1 or 2 fingers the number of people that have been driven away from here by my attitude. :)
Certainly if you want to make a genealogy of HIPness, and even include every conductor who ever swung a baton, you are welcome to do so. I don't really do any of that stuff, nor even care about it. I just listen to what I like, and a surprising amount of it is performed on period instruments. Much of that is performed in a historically informed manner. All the other stuff I really don't care about.
Oh, I might just mention though that if you are splitting hairs on HIP as it stands today, then in addition to the German, Dutch and English factions, you
must have the Italians. Carmignola and Biondi and their relatives are not members of any of the above families stylistically. Just sayin'. :)
8)
Quote from: Clever Hans on February 08, 2010, 11:08:30 AM
Is Gardiner, conversely, really HIP anymore than Jarvi, aside from the period instruments?
For me, that's a huge aside. But I am aware that many on the board do not consider the difference in instrumentation a major consideration.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 11:26:18 AM
But I am aware that many on the board do not consider the difference in instrumentation a major consideration.
... when the instruments are modern.
Quote from: Scarpia on February 08, 2010, 10:53:49 AM
it usually strikes me that the only substantial issue is that people don't agree on the definition of the words they are using.
In some circles, this is known as the founding premise of analytic philosophy. ;D
(And is the reason I only post semi-cynical, mostly rather puerile quips in all those profound threads, myself.)
Still, we can all 'sort of agree' that there is an intuitive difference between Karl Böhm and Jos van Immerseel. In fact, has anyone actually done a thorough search for a general 'Beethoven cycles' thread, or is its absence a matter of theory?
Might as well just
make one, if it's needed; or indeed a 'non-HIP Beethoven' sister thread. Topic creation is free. :D
Quote from: Bulldog on February 08, 2010, 11:26:18 AM
For me, that's a huge aside. But I am aware that many on the board do not consider the difference in instrumentation a major consideration.
I agree. But I was just reiterating that Gardiner may be significantly lacking in areas that may be categorized as HIP, to the point where he may be considered no more HIP than someone who plays with strong elements of HIP--chamber orchestra, little vibrato, adhering to the metronome markings,
rhythmic and rhetorical flexibility, yada yada.
I think the suggestion of a period instruments Beethoven Symphonies thread is a helpful one.
I cannot imagine HIP as embracing any modern instrument performances. I once was in a Bach St Matthew Passion where Abbado inserted a viola da gamba into the middle of the LSO. Other than that concession, it was not in any detectable way HIP and the viola da gamba sounded out of place, an odd and I think pointless concession.
Halving the size of the choir also did little to instill HIP principles and we ended up with an orchestral heavy and rather slow performance.
So, I do think it a prerequisite that the instruments need to be 'right' before any discussion of HIP can really take place.
Mike
QuoteIn fact, has anyone actually done a thorough search for a general 'Beethoven cycles' thread, or is its absence a matter of theory?
Might as well just make one, if it's needed; or indeed a 'non-HIP Beethoven' sister thread. Topic creation is free. :D
Yes, I have searched and asked this question at least twice. There does not seem to be one.
Franco, You are of course at liberty to start one.
Mike
Quote from: Renfield on February 08, 2010, 11:32:27 AM
In some circles, this is known as the founding premise of analytic philosophy. ;D
I thought exactly the same, when I saw that reply: "It's just bad syntax". :)
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 11:36:11 AM
I cannot imagine HIP as embracing any modern instrument performances. I once was in a Bach St Matthew Passion where Abbado inserted a viola da gamba into the middle of the LSO. Other than that concession, it was not in any detectable way HIP and the viola da gamba sounded out of place, an odd and I think pointless concession.
Halving the size of the choir also did little to instill HIP principles and we ended up with an orchestral heavy and rather slow performance.
So, I do think it a prerequisite that the instruments need to be 'right' before any discussion of HIP can really take place.
Mike
I dunno. The thing is, Bach orchestrated on modern instruments sounds like garbage. This is not true of Beethoven. Viol da gamba is also the last instrument which would work in that situation. But valveless trumpets in a chamber orchestra using steel strings... that's a different question.
Quote from: Franco on February 08, 2010, 11:39:14 AM
Yes, I have searched and asked this question at least twice. There does not seem to be one.
As Mike says, you are, in fact,
urged to start one. Just please don't call it "non-HIP Beethoven Symphonies". :D
As for the suggestion by another that there could be a PI thread on Beethoven symphonies, please consider that there aren't more than half a dozen cycles out there and a few singles, so it would of necessity be a rather short one, eh? :)
8)
OK Hans, well, I was also in Rattle's very first attempt at the Beethoven 9th. He used modern instruments and I watched him ask for various 'older' practices. However, for one, we did nothing about altering the pitch, so the singers were still right at the top of their range. The sounds were light textured, the speeds quite fleet, but it was not a HIP performance in any meaningful way and all that apart, it was quite dull.
Mike
I hate starting things.
:)
Quote from: Franco on February 08, 2010, 11:45:53 AM
I hate starting things.
:)
Umm... you started
this... ;D
8)
Quote from: Franco on February 08, 2010, 07:42:32 AM
First of all, I am in total agreement with your last sentence.
Well, great minds etc. :)
Quote from: Franco on February 08, 2010, 07:42:32 AM
Second, related to what you call a "period mindset", I looked at an interview with Jarvi regarding his recent Beethoven cycyle and he said something that made a lot of sense to me: his goal was to perform the symphonies as if he had not heard Brahms, Mahler, or any of the music that came after Beethoven.
That's exactly my point: no matter how hard he would try to do that, he can't!
There's a great BBC movie: "Eroica --- The Day that Changed The Music Forever", which tells the story of the first performance of the Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, in the private concert hall of prince Lobkowitz. (The musicians of the orchestra are played by the members of the
Orchestre revolutionnaire et romantique in person). There is a character in the movie played excellently by Tim Piggot-Smith, one von Dietrichstein --- a Viennese nobleman, a typical representative of his caste: not a bad man
per se (he turns out to be a very knowledgeable music lover) but full of prejudices, including musical ones (when told by Lobkowitz he'd hear something very exciting, he replies:
Haydn?). Well, during the performance of Eroica he runs the whole range of emotions, from initial surprise and shock to being deeply impressed and literally having all his musical firm convictions shattered to the ground. Now, that is a response to this music that in all honesty none of us is able to replicate genuinely. For him, Eroica was indeed revolutionary to the point of bidding farewell to Classical era as a whole and ushering in something "quite new!" as another character of the movie, Joseph Haydn no less, tells the audience. For us, all this excitement is lost. We can be deeply moved by the music, but for us, children of modernity, genuinely revolutionary and new it is not...
Florestan, I agree that we cannot un-hear all that came afterwards. I found that film tremendously exciting, I loved the performance Gardiner drew from the orchestra. It did open my ears and I caught the edge of that revolution in a way I had not before. It did sound new and fresh, despite me have been steeped in what came afterwards.
Mike
Quote from: Florestan on February 08, 2010, 11:47:43 AM
There is a character in the movie played excellently by Tim Piggot-Smith, one von Dietrichstein --- a Viennese nobleman, a typical representative of his caste: not a bad man per se (he turns out to be a very knowledgeable music lover) but full of prejudices, including musical ones (when told by Lobkowitz he'd hear something very exciting, he replies: Haydn[/i]?).
I'm sorry, but I really like this guy. ;) 8)
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 11:45:27 AM
OK Hans, well, I was also in Rattle's very first attempt at the Beethoven 9th. He used modern instruments and I watched him ask for various 'older' practices. However, for one, we did nothing about altering the pitch, so the singers were still right at the top of their range. The sounds were light textured, the speeds quite fleet, but it was not a HIP performance in any meaningful way and all that apart, it was quite dull.
Mike
That's interesting. But what about more thorough--in that sense--conductors who use modern instruments and sometimes mix in period style and valveless trumpets, etc? Do you have an opinion on Harnoncourt's Beethoven, for example?
I don't know those performances. As someone has suggested, it is a spectrum and I know Mackerras uses a lot of practices, but modern instruments. I like his work a great deal, so I am not trying to make out there is only one way to do this. I also love Toscanini....but really may main point is that I cannot see how HIP might embrace the use of modern instruments. I can't quite see the point of using a modern band with one or two old instruments, or hard timp sticks.
That was the point I was making when I referenced the Bach St M.
Mike
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 11:54:00 AM
Florestan, I agree that we cannot un-hear all that came afterwards. I found that film tremendously exciting, I loved the performance Gardiner drew from the orchestra. It did open my ears and I caught the edge of that revolution in a way I had not before. It did sound new and fresh, despite me have been steeped in what came afterwards.
Well, I had the same feeling: it was new and fresh for sure --- but, and this is the crux of the matter, new and fresh as compared to a whole tradition of performing Eroica in the last century. But I asked myself: was it new and fresh as if I heard it
for the very, very first time in my life and furthermore, as if I heard it
before anything that came after it? The answer of course was a resounding "No!".
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 08, 2010, 11:54:41 AM
I'm sorry, but I really like this guy. ;) 8)
I don't dislike him either. He might appear as a bad boy at first sight, but actually he's not. :)
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 12:03:33 PM
I don't know those performances. As someone has suggested, it is a spectrum and I know Mackerras uses a lot of practices, but modern instruments. I like his work a great deal, so I am not trying to make out there is only one way to do this. I also love Toscanini....but really may main point is that I cannot see how HIP might embrace the use of modern instruments. I can't quite see the point of using a modern band with one or two old instruments, or hard timp sticks.
That was the point I was making when I referenced the Bach St M.
Mike
Ah, I think I understand what you're saying.
This is such a good thread the way it is. Why not just amend the title to read, "Beethoven Symphonies HIP and Others"? That way we can keep the discussion going about the symphonies without trying to figure out just which recordings fit in.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2010, 11:44:32 AM
As Mike says, you are, in fact, urged to start one. Just please don't call it "non-HIP Beethoven Symphonies". :D
As for the suggestion by another that there could be a PI thread on Beethoven symphonies, please consider that there aren't more than half a dozen cycles out there and a few singles, so it would of necessity be a rather short one, eh? :)
8)
Wait... so we are splitting an interesting thread into two boring ones... because some people can't stop making inane comments about either HIP or non-HIP "intrusion" into their purified world? That's segregation (at best it's "separate but equal") that I won't stand for. Minus the bickering (which for a while I really thought was just done for comedic effect), this has been an extraordinary fun thread.
Bunny, That sounds like perfect sense to me; but as a Johnny come lately to the thread, I had better see how many don't like the idea before I act.
Mike
Quote from: Bunny on February 08, 2010, 12:22:12 PM
This is such a good thread the way it is. Why not just amend the title to read, "Beethoven Symphonies HIP and Others"? That way we can keep the discussion going about the symphonies without trying to figure out just which recordings fit in.
Or simply "Beethoven Symphonies."
Quote from: Bunny on February 08, 2010, 12:22:12 PM
This is such a good thread the way it is. Why not just amend the title to read, "Beethoven Symphonies HIP and Others"? That way we can keep the discussion going about the symphonies without trying to figure out just which recordings fit in.
That solution has the beauty of the simple things, Bunny. :)
If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change (Il Gattopardo).
I think an issue to consider is that some people really might want to only discuss the HIP-HIP (see my post above) Beethoven, which certainly is more than worth discussing on its own; and presently isn't being discussed in this thread, at all.
In that case, I could certainly see a point for not alternating between two different discussions, one just about HIP-HIP, and one about everything around HIP, including examples of other approaches as opposed to it.
The latter being a very interesting topic for discussion, of course; but maybe also on its own. Exciting as this thread might be, there's a question to be asked on whether it fulfills its purpose. As well as what that purpose is. :)
Hey Eugene! If people discuss the music and performance, as against the thread itself, I think things will take care of themselves. I for one will not be drawn into an abstruse, philosophical discussion of the meaning of the thread.
You probably have a lot more years in front of you than I do.
Anyway, as pointed out. People are at liberty to start a thread on any sub-sub section of the topic, but I for one won't be splitting it up any time soon. But renaming may be on the cards.
Mike
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
You probably have a lot more years in front of you than I do.
Everytime Mike reads a thread like this, a hair on his head turns gray! :D
That makes all seven of them gray now.
Mike
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2010, 12:52:23 PM
Everytime Mike reads a thread like this, a hair on his head turns gray! :D
Or an angel gets its wings... 0:)
Well, Master Renfield has spoken my piece for me. If there is a big push to take over the Beethoven symphony thread and crown Toscanini as the new progenitor of HIP, then by all means, if Jens can stand for it, then go ahead. Meanwhile, the PIon's will likely be elsewhere, clearly HIP is no longer ours. ::)
8)
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 12:55:18 PM
That makes all seven of them gray now.
Mike
Doh! ;D
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/7/7d/Homer_doh.jpg)
Well it can't go anymore downhill from there. :)
Quote from: knight on February 08, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
Hey Eugene! If people discuss the music and performance, as against the thread itself, I think things will take care of themselves. I for one will not be drawn into an abstruse, philosophical discussion of the meaning of the thread.
You probably have a lot more years in front of you than I do.
Anyway, as pointed out. People are at liberty to start a thread on any sub-sub section of the topic, but I for one won't be splitting it up any time soon. But renaming may be on the cards.
Mike
Hey Mike. :)
I never said it's necessarily worth pursuing the semantics. Just that they might be an issue!
That is a philosopher's trick I have already learnt, towards making the most of the years ahead, however many they turn out to be. ;)
More seriously, my main concern was/is that broadening the discussion too much in
this thread might be stepping on the toes of people who really only want to discuss HIP. Maybe they might be secured a thread of their own, topic-wise?
(In which case it feels counter-productive that a new thread be started for that, when there's already a HIP-related thread right here. Though obviously,
ceteris paribus, I'm all for a general Beethoven thread .)
Edit: That said, 'Beethoven for PIons' is a great name for a thread.
Quote from: Expresso on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2010, 12:56:17 PM
Or an angel gets its wings... 0:)
Well, Master Renfield has spoken my piece for me. If there is a big push to take over the Beethoven symphony thread and crown Toscanini as the new progenitor of HIP, then by all means, if Jens can stand for it, then go ahead. Meanwhile, the PIon's will likely be elsewhere, clearly HIP is no longer ours. ::)
8)
If you look at the OP's first post, you will see that it never was supposed to be an exclusively HIP = Historic Instrument Performance thread. Had Zinman and Harnoncourt not been cited in the opening post it would have developed in a much different manner. And yes, I do think that we also need a thread that only covers period performance as it is done today. (Until Stewie's time machine is operable, we can never do more than hope that we can approximate a historic performance.)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2010, 11:15:26 AM
So, by your standards, it's a bad thing if I even feel like insulting someone, not actually doing it. Damn, you must think I'm an angel! Thanks for that, but in fact I am far from it, I just have enough self-control (most of the time) to keep my feelings in check. I think you can probably count on 1 or 2 fingers the number of people that have been driven away from here by my attitude. :)
Gurn, nobody's an angel. I'm aware of that.
0:)
Nevertheless: writing down that you feel like to insult some board members isn't a smart move for a moderator, IMHO.
But hey, you're the mod, so I'll remain silent 'bout that. ;D
I will
only feel like writing down that's it's not a smart move, OK?
For the rest: I'm not sure if I really made my HIP-point. If I read your post, I'm almost sure I didn't make it clear to you. Which could be my mistake, btw, because of my clumsy English sometimes.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston
Certainly if you want to make a genealogy of HIPness, and even include every conductor who ever swung a baton, you are welcome to do so. I don't really do any of that stuff, nor even care about it. I just listen to what I like, and a surprising amount of it is performed on period instruments. Much of that is performed in a historically informed manner. All the other stuff I really don't care about.
This is exactly how I experience things myself.
Hence I'm not that fond of categorizing.
Hence I understand when a topic is getting out of hand, because various definitions are used by various members.
Hence I don't like that members are treated as ignorant, because they use different or other definitions.
Hence my (somewhat agressive, apologies again) reactions to that.
For the rest, I think I'm a rather relaxed guy.
:-*
Maybe it wasn't a wise idea to watch the entire
Twin Peaks tv-series again in about a week time. :P
I love it, but it also irritates me in a way: why did all those bad things had to happen to such a nice town?!
Next time, I'd better watch
The Sound of Music eight days a week.
Looking at this thread, it can be seen most of the discussion has revolved around HIP, at the very least. All the way from the beginning, which was a question about HIP Beethoven, regardless of what its answer entailed or did not entail.
(Namely which cycles are or aren't HIP, or what HIP is. This is all still about HIP!)
I have thus taken the liberty of starting this general thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15789.0.html), to include more than just 'whatever doesn't fit in this one'. Clearly, there's no rule saying anyone needs to use it, but I think that is the most needed other option, thread-wise.
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 01:18:20 PM
Maybe it wasn't a wise idea to watch the entire Twin Peaks tv-series again in about a week time. :P
I love it, but it also irritates me in a way: why did all those bad things had to happen to such a nice town?!
Next time, I'd better watch The Sound of Music eight days a week.
And then you wonder why you are rewatching those weird episodes after the murder is wrapped up, just to get pissed off at that unsatisfying end. And then you remember that it's self-consistent with the beginning and relax. :)
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2010, 01:23:28 PM
And then you wonder why you are rewatching those weird episodes after the murder is wrapped up, just to get pissed off at that unsatisfying end. And then you remember that it's self-consistent with the beginning and relax. :)
That sounds awfully like describing a discussion on what historically-informed performance precisely entails. :o ;D
hahaha! It really does, doesn't it? Perfect! ;D
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 01:18:20 PM
Gurn, nobody's an angel. I'm aware of that.
0:)
Nevertheless: writing down that you feel like to insult some board members isn't a smart move for a moderator, IMHO.
But hey, you're the mod, so I'll remain silent 'bout that. ;D
I will only feel like writing down that's it's not a smart move, OK?
For the rest: I'm not sure if I really made my HIP-point. If I read your post, I'm almost sure I didn't make it clear to you. Which could be my mistake, btw, because of my clumsy English sometimes.
This is exactly how I experience things myself.
Hence I'm not that fond of categorizing.
Hence I understand when a topic is getting out of hand, because various definitions are used by various members.
Hence I don't like that members are treated as ignorant, because they use different or other definitions.
Hence my (somewhat agressive, apologies again) reactions to that.
For the rest, I think I'm a rather relaxed guy.
:-*
Maybe it wasn't a wise idea to watch the entire Twin Peaks tv-series again in about a week time. :P
I love it, but it also irritates me in a way: why did all those bad things had to happen to such a nice town?!
Next time, I'd better watch The Sound of Music eight days a week.
Well, Marc, I wouldn't want you to come away from this feeling as though I was particularly, or even generally, singling you out for abuse. At the time that I first became irritated with this thread, you hadn't even begun posting in it yet. You were merely following and expanding a well-trodden path. Well, OK,
really expanding it... ;D Anyway, I'm feeling kinda like Don (Bulldog-person) was talking about: just because I like (and even prefer) a certain performance style, doesn't mean I don't like others too. I don't necessarily want to force them into one lump and discuss them as though they were merely variations on a theme. :)
"Beethoven for PIon's" sounds like the perfect place for me. If Jens will stand for it, of course... :)
8)
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2010, 01:23:28 PM
And then you wonder why you are rewatching those weird episodes after the murder is wrapped up, just to get pissed off at that unsatisfying end. And then you remember that it's self-consistent with the beginning and relax. :)
Yeah!
Relaxation is slowly coming.
I remember, when it was televized, I was shocked by the way sweet Audrey Horne was killed (exploding with the entire bank!) and of course I was also shocked what happened to Annie the former Nun and to her lover Dale Cooper :
how's Annie?
how's Annie?
how's Annie?(horrible 'killer Bob' grin)
I must admit: I still feel it's unfair.
Quote from: Renfield on February 08, 2010, 01:26:55 PM
That sounds awfully like describing a discussion on what historically-informed performance precisely entails. :o ;D
Yeah!
I finally listened to some of those Amazon clips of Paavo Järvi's cycle and liked what I heard--and was surprised by what is obviously a relatively small, properly Classical-era-sized orchestra. A youtube search turned up this performance of the German Chamber Philharmonic of Bremen under Järvi performing the Eroica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w) --a properly sized orchestra, indeed, and a performance that further piques my interest in their recording of the cycle.
I also found this interview with Järvi in which he discusses the orchestra, historically informed performance, understanding Beethoven as a classicist first but with Romantic expressiveness, the correctness of Beethoven's metronome markings, and other items that some here may find of interest: http://paavoproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/paavo-jrvis-reasons-for-recording.html .
Already I foresee acquiring yet another cycle once this one is released as a discounted box set. ;D
Quote from: Marc on February 08, 2010, 01:46:34 PM
I remember, when it was televized, I was shocked by the way sweet Audrey Horne was killed (exploding with the entire bank!)
Sherilyn Fenn has said in interviews that her character survived the explosion. That would have been revealed in the third season had the series been extended. So, relax, Marc, our favorite Twin Peaks' girl is alive and well ;)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/oct2009/audrey.jpg)
And now back to our regularly scheduled Beethoven discussion.
Sarge
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2010, 06:20:35 AM
I finally listened to some of those Amazon clips of Paavo Järvi's cycle and liked what I heard--and was surprised by what is obviously a relatively small, properly Classical-era-sized orchestra. A youtube search turned up this performance of the German Chamber Philharmonic of Bremen under Järvi performing the Eroica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w) --a properly sized orchestra, indeed, and a performance that further piques my interest in their recording of the cycle.
I also found this interview with Järvi in which he discusses the orchestra, historically informed performance, understanding Beethoven as a classicist first but with Romantic expressiveness, the correctness of Beethoven's metronome markings, and other items that some here may find of interest: http://paavoproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/paavo-jrvis-reasons-for-recording.html (http://paavoproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/paavo-jrvis-reasons-for-recording.html) .
Already I foresee acquiring yet another cycle once this one is released as a discounted box set. ;D
Très intéressant.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 10, 2010, 07:26:46 AM
Sherilyn Fenn has said in interviews that her character survived the explosion. That would have been revealed in the third season had the series been extended. So, relax, Marc, our favorite Twin Peaks' girl is alive and well ;)
Sarge, thanks a lot for posting this!
This is such a relief. I
did have some bad nights again lately, after watching the
Finale. Now I dare to breathe and sleep again. ;)
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2010, 06:20:35 AM
I finally listened to some of those Amazon clips of Paavo Järvi's cycle and liked what I heard--and was surprised by what is obviously a relatively small, properly Classical-era-sized orchestra. A youtube search turned up this performance of the German Chamber Philharmonic of Bremen under Järvi performing the Eroica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w) --a properly sized orchestra, indeed, and a performance that further piques my interest in their recording of the cycle.
I also found this interview with Järvi in which he discusses the orchestra, historically informed performance, understanding Beethoven as a classicist first but with Romantic expressiveness, the correctness of Beethoven's metronome markings, and other items that some here may find of interest: http://paavoproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/paavo-jrvis-reasons-for-recording.html.
David, thanks for posting this, too!
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2010, 06:20:35 AM
I finally listened to some of those Amazon clips of Paavo Järvi's cycle and liked what I heard--and was surprised by what is obviously a relatively small, properly Classical-era-sized orchestra. A youtube search turned up this performance of the German Chamber Philharmonic of Bremen under Järvi performing the Eroica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w) --a properly sized orchestra, indeed, and a performance that further piques my interest in their recording of the cycle.
I also found this interview with Järvi in which he discusses the orchestra, historically informed performance, understanding Beethoven as a classicist first but with Romantic expressiveness, the correctness of Beethoven's metronome markings, and other items that some here may find of interest: http://paavoproject.blogspot.com/2008/03/paavo-jrvis-reasons-for-recording.html .
Already I foresee acquiring yet another cycle once this one is released as a discounted box set. ;D
Yes, I've been posting about this set since hearing #s 4 & 7 a week or so ago, and since getting #s 3 & 8. I possibly also saw the same interview you refer to and was impressed by his perspective - and have been very impressed with the recordings themselves - but may download them all before the box set comes out.
I am shocked - shocked, I say - that a thread merely including the qualifier "HIP" would have generated so much controversy? ???
But, I recently read about the Krivine cycle (which is described as performed on period instruments, so it technically belongs in this thread) but wondered if anyone here had heard works from it and might care to offer an opinion:
[asin]B004H6P2QA[/asin]
The Fanfare reviews I read were generally complimentary, and it is very reasonably priced, so I am going to buy it in any event. Still, I'd appreciate hearing what some GMG members have to say.
:)
I have this, Arnold;
[asin]B002YEQRFW[/asin]
I have found it quite enjoyable, actually. I haven't heard anything else from the cycle, but if they are all at this level, hard to be disappointed. France seems to have developed a pretty good culture of PI players in recent years. Maybe where it will cause me to evaluate my opinion of them... :D
8)
This thread has been inactive for almost a year ... :o
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 10, 2010, 06:20:35 AM
Already I foresee acquiring yet another cycle once this one is released as a discounted box set. ;D
No need/time to wait until it is discounted. (Not any time soon, I reckon.) It is stupendous. Best
Third, in my book, overtaking - at last - Gardiner/ORR in that slot. And all the rest is right up there... making it
http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=1409 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=1409) 3 & 8
http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=1754 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=1754) 2 & 6
http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=212 (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=212)
QuoteBeethoven is always considered and thought of as a, maybe even the, "great composer". If forced to choose the 'greatest' composer (while not trying to be excessively smart by insisting on Orlando Gibbons), the majority of votes would be cast for either Beethoven or Bach. That's fairly obvious and uncontroversial: both are what we think of as geniuses. Notable only the absence of Mozart, who in this imaginary study (based on informed conjecture, not research) came in a distant third. But ask who the most popular composer was, Mozart would win hands down. And for all I know, Tchaikovsky might beat Bach for third place. Stab at this discrepancy between how Mozart and Beethoven are perceived, thought of, and differently appreciated and you poke at the very fundamental assumptions, pretensions, misunderstanding, controversies, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and contradictions that classical music (quotation marks optional) is embroiled in...
I read through this thread over the past few days and it had some real gems in it. M's post on the meaning of HIP on the first page before he got into the inevitable pissing match resulting from people disagreeing with him is an obvious one. Another is Elgarian's enthusiasm upon discovering the Immerseel set and discovering that he can, in fact, enjoy Beethoven's work.
Among the gems is this quote that apparently gave Karl a good, hearty laugh, and with good reason!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 05, 2007, 08:01:48 AM
The No1 Beethoven Superfan in the world does not give bad advice about Beethoven.
And another one from Rod that resulted from DavidRoss asking him if he reviews as Santa Fe Listener on Amazon (In Rod's defense, SFL hates everything that is even remotely related to HIP so I suspect that's not the case :D):
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 23, 2009, 01:43:01 AM
I will add that I can safely say I have spent more hours listening to Beethoven, performed HIP and otherwise, than the rest of GMG put together. I recommend you do not concern yourself with my taste, if you find yourself disagreeing with me I suggest the problem lies closer to home...
I also appreciated this beautiful testament to the joy and importance of HIP written by DavidRoss. The third paragraph is particularly well done:
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 08, 2010, 08:02:34 AM
Just as I prefer to see Wagner staged as he envisioned it, with nymphs and dwarves and dragons, etc., rather than crack whores, capitalists, and drag queens, so I prefer to hear Beethoven as he imagined it, with the instrumental sonorities of his day, the size and balance of forces he intended, the shifting tempos and dynamics he sought, and so on.
Insofar as historical scholarship can inform us regarding such matters, and then such information can be applied to contemporary practice to arrive at a reasonable semblance of what Beethoven (Bach, Mozart, et al) probably had in mind, I'm all for it! In the first place because my respect for such masters commands interest in hearing what they were aiming for, insofar as that can be known. Beyond that, however, I simply love the delightfully scrunchy, squawky, blatty sounds of period instruments, I love the clarity of smaller forces that permits each voice to be heard, and I love the joyful enthusiasm I hear in the sprightly tempos, vigorous dynamics, and activist rubato of the Historically Informed Period Instrument Performances that really seem to get it right! HIPIP, hooray!
I grew up at a time when post-Romantic performance practice had all but killed the joyful spirit of much baroque and classical and even Romantic music, burying it in a heavy coffin lined with a thick padding of homogenous sound produced by enormous orchestras with overweighted strings and a stultifying sense of grave importance. Boring, ponderous mush! The HIP movement tore open the casket in which such music had long been buried and exposed it to the light of day, energizing it and letting in burst forth in a renewed spirit of playful joy. And this movement has in turn inspired many contemporary large orchestras and players on modern instruments to incorporate some historically informed practices in their performances. And thanks to all of this the performance of classical music today is far richer and more vital than it was 40 or 50 or 60 years ago--and my appreciation for and enjoyment of this music has grown as well...and sometimes in surprising ways.
For instance, growing up in an era in which Karajan was the 800 pound gorilla of orchestral classical music, I never cared much for Brahms's symphonies and thought him vastly overrated. Mackerras changed that, and what I've heard of Gardiner's cycle is changing it further. Bach's suites for solo cello and his sonatas & partitas for solo violin have been transformed from austere monuments to vital songs of joy. And the incorporation of HIP attributes such as brisk tempos, lean textures, and clarity of voices into contemporary mainstream practice has vitalized many an otherwise traditional "big band" performance--and not just of "bewigged" music, but of 20th Century music as well.
In short, the range of contemporary practice, whether narrowly HIP, broadly informed by HIP, or in reaction to HIP, appears to me as a tremendously exciting and revitalizing feature of the music we all love.
And then there was this gem from Antoine (though I think it rightly should have been delivered by Gurn ;)):
Quote from: Antoine Marchand on February 08, 2010, 11:54:41 AMQuote from: Florestan on February 08, 2010, 11:47:43 AM
There is a character in the movie played excellently by Tim Piggot-Smith, one von Dietrichstein --- a Viennese nobleman, a typical representative of his caste: not a bad man per se (he turns out to be a very knowledgeable music lover) but full of prejudices, including musical ones (when told by Lobkowitz he'd hear something very exciting, he replies: Haydn?).
I'm sorry, but I really like this guy. ;) 8)
Oh, and the thread was even useful from a musical perspective and managed to save me money at the same time. Well, sort of. I was originally going to get Goodman's set to supplement Immerseel and Abbado's Rome set but decided to hold off on that one for now and get Hogwood's set instead, which cuts roughly a quarter off the price. On the other hand, this thread made me hell-bent on trying Jarvi's Eroica which pretty much balances out the price, but I doubt I'll mind. 8)
Also, I'll give in and throw my hat in the ring in the 'what constitutes HIP and what do we call related stuff' argument that has ruled the last five pages of this thread. I refer to modern instrument, chamber orchestra performances that use interpretations similar to HIP period performances as....HIP influenced. And yes, I would personally happily discuss such performances in this thread alongside period instrument recordings as long as we don't end up banging our collective heads against the wall again over whether Toscanini should be discussed here because he employed quick tempos. ;)
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 26, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
I read through this thread over the past few days and it had some real gems in it. M's post on the meaning of HIP on the first page before he got into the inevitable pissing match resulting from people disagreeing with him is an obvious one. Another is Elgarian's enthusiasm upon discovering the Immerseel set and discovering that he can, in fact, enjoy Beethoven's work.
Among the gems is this quote that apparently gave Karl a good, hearty laugh, and with good reason!
And another one from Rod that resulted from DavidRoss asking him if he reviews as Santa Fe Listener on Amazon (In Rod's defense, SFL hates everything that is even remotely related to HIP so I suspect that's not the case :D):
I also appreciated this beautiful testament to the joy and importance of HIP written by DavidRoss. The third paragraph is particularly well done:
And then there was this gem from Antoine (though I think it rightly should have been delivered by Gurn ;)):
I'm sorry, but I really like this guy. ;) 8)
Oh, and the thread was even useful from a musical perspective and managed to save me money at the same time. Well, sort of. I was originally going to get Goodman's set to supplement Immerseel and Abbado's Rome set but decided to hold off on that one for now and get Hogwood's set instead, which cuts roughly a third off the price. On the other hand, this thread made me hell-bent on trying Jarvi's Eroica which pretty much balances out the price, but I doubt I'll mind. 8)
Also, I'll give in and throw my hat in the ring in the 'what constitutes HIP and what do we call related stuff' argument that has ruled the last five pages of this thread. I refer to modern instrument, chamber orchestra performances that use interpretations similar to HIP period performances as....HIP influenced. And yes, I would personally happily discuss such performances in this thread alongside period instrument recordings as long as we don't end up banging our collective heads against the wall again over whether Toscanini should be discussed here because he employed quick tempos. ;)
Yes, lots to like here and lots to chortle over. I miss Corkin's self-aggrandising, although that's probably because;
a) I've known him longer than I've known any of you here and
b) He's the one who turned me on to PI performance 12 years ago.
I'm glad that his taste in performance is the only thing that took with me.... :D
I think that your takeaway of getting Hogwood is an excellent choice. No one cycle has all the best interpretations, but Hogwood's is all around very fine.
I could take just my 3 little boxes, with Hogwood, Immerseel and Gardiner, add in my Savall
Eroica, and a 9th or two for good measure like Krivine and Herreweghe, and not need any more Beethoven symphonies ever again. But hey, that's just me. 0:)
8)
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 26, 2013, 12:22:28 PMOn the other hand, this thread made me hell-bent on trying Jarvi's Eroica which pretty much balances out the price, but I doubt I'll mind. 8)
Jarvi's Eroica is just like Dausgaard's or Chailly's, but with the energy level turned one notch down. But then, I've been making that claim on every page of this thread. ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 26, 2013, 12:33:41 PM
Yes, lots to like here and lots to chortle over. I miss Corkin's self-aggrandising, although that's probably because;
a) I've known him longer than I've known any of you here and
b) He's the one who turned me on to PI performance 12 years ago.
I'm glad that his taste in performance is the only thing that took with me.... :D
Now to be fair I didn't mind him
too much until he started going on about how the Immerseel set was terrible. Anyone who does that loses my allegiance. ;) That said, I can understand how he got compared to Santa Fe Listener; that fellow is also...very confident in his opinions, shall we say?
Rod, like M, had some interesting and intelligent contributions to make but often let his mouth bypass his brain (Something I, of course, know
nothing about... ::)) so I can see how he ended up disappearing. Personally, I liked many of the contributions M had to make, but it feels nice to be able to freely discuss music and recordings without being accused of being a philistine because I happen to inadvertently trip one of an irritable members' switches.
QuoteI think that your takeaway of getting Hogwood is an excellent choice. No one cycle has all the best interpretations, but Hogwood's is all around very fine.
I could take just my 3 little boxes, with Hogwood, Immerseel and Gardiner, add in my Savall Eroica, and a 9th or two for good measure like Krivine and Herreweghe, and not need any more Beethoven symphonies ever again. But hey, that's just me. 0:)
Sounds reasonable to me; not everyone needs twenty boxes of Beethoven symphonies. :P On the other hand that Savall Eroica is quite hard to find now, running about $35 for a copy at minimum on Amazon.
Quote from: Brian on April 26, 2013, 12:47:21 PM
Jarvi's Eroica is just like Dausgaard's or Chailly's, but with the energy level turned one notch down. But then, I've been making that claim on every page of this thread. ;D
Well, I may just have to learn the hard way. If it makes you feel any better I will be happy to report back that you're correct if I find myself feeling that way. :D
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 26, 2013, 01:04:26 PM
Well, I may just have to learn the hard way. If it makes you feel any better I will be happy to report back that you're correct if I find myself feeling that way. :D
That's fine by me! :)
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 26, 2013, 01:04:26 PM
Now to be fair I didn't mind him too much until he started going on about how the Immerseel set was terrible. Anyone who does that loses my allegiance. ;) That said, I can understand how he got compared to Santa Fe Listener; that fellow is also...very confident in his opinions, shall we say?
I think that a real (I call it a problem, I'm sure he doesn't) issue for Rod is that there is only 1 version that is the right one. Every other one is shit. Of course this can't possibly be true, but there it is. He's the one who turned me on to the Castle Trio, BTW... every other trio is shit.... :D
QuoteRod, like M, had some interesting and intelligent contributions to make but often let his mouth bypass his brain (Something I, of course, know nothing about... ::)) so I can see how he ended up disappearing. Personally, I liked many of the contributions M had to make, but it feels nice to be able to freely discuss music and recordings without being accused of being a philistine because I happen to inadvertently trip one of an irritable members' switches.
And of course, this is a long-standing issue. Without getting deeply into it, there are those who felt that it simply didn't matter
how rude some members got, their contributions outweighed that. In the long run, it just couldn't work. Dozens of good solid members left and never returned on both sides of the issue. :-\
QuoteSounds reasonable to me; not everyone needs twenty boxes of Beethoven symphonies. :P On the other hand that Savall Eroica is quite hard to find now, running about $35 for a copy at minimum on Amazon.
To demonstrate my patience, I first discovered that disk in 2005 (from Rod!!) and a friend sent me the MP3's of it. At the time it was between $65 and $100 on AMP. I actually bought the disk itself
within the last 6 months, for $21 "Like New" on the AMP. All things come to he who waits. :)
8)
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 26, 2013, 01:04:26 PM
Now to be fair I didn't mind him too much until he started going on about how the Immerseel set was terrible. Anyone who does that loses my allegiance. ;) That said, I can understand how he got compared to Santa Fe Listener; that fellow is also...very confident in his opinions, shall we say?
Rod, like M, had some interesting and intelligent contributions to make but often let his mouth bypass his brain (Something I, of course, know nothing about... ::)) so I can see how he ended up disappearing. Personally, I liked many of the contributions M had to make, but it feels nice to be able to freely discuss music and recordings without being accused of being a philistine because I happen to inadvertently trip one of an irritable members' switches.
LoL there is nothing wrong with my mouth, but if you think so highly of Immerseel's set you still have some way to go understanding Beethoven. FYI I dissappeared because of the poor management here (at the time at least), to the degree I felt compelled to create my own properly moderated forum, which alas I have barely any time for at the moment...
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 12:25:49 AM
LoL there is nothing wrong with my mouth, but if you think so highly of Imerseel's set you still have some way to go understanding Beethoven. FYI I dissappeared because of the poor management here (at the time at least), to the degree I felt compelled to create my own properly moderated forum, which alas I have barely any time for at the moment...
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org
UNLEASH CLASSICAL MUSIC IN YOUR LIFE. UNLEASH IT! NEVER BUY THE WRONG GEAR.
YOU KNOW WHO TO CALL. (http://www.gapnap.com/wp-content/uploads/Feb%202009/Yngwie-Malmsteen-Perpetual-Flame.jpg)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 12:25:49 AM
if you think so highly of Immerseel's set you still have some way to go understanding Beethoven.
Speaking as someone who
does think so highly of Immerseel's set, and has said so repeatedly, I can't recall ever
claiming that I understood Beethoven, or that I ever hoped to. I merely expressed (and still delight in) my joy in discovering that he could rock my socks off better than Chuck Berry.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
Speaking as someone who does think so highly of Immerseel's set, and has said so repeatedly, I can't recall ever claiming that I understood Beethoven, or that I ever hoped to. I merely expressed (and still delight in) my joy in discovering that he could rock my socks off better than Chuck Berry.
That set wa a revelation to me as well.
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
UNLEASH CLASSICAL MUSIC IN YOUR LIFE. UNLEASH IT! NEVER BUY THE WRONG GEAR.
YOU KNOW WHO TO CALL.
(http://www.gapnap.com/wp-content/uploads/Feb%202009/Yngwie-Malmsteen-Perpetual-Flame.jpg)
:D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 12:25:49 AM
FYI I dissappeared because of the poor management here (at the time at least), to the degree I felt compelled to create my own properly moderated forum, which alas I have barely any time for at the moment...
I detect some irony here.
(No disrespect, of course....some of my best friends are Yngwie fans. Maybe not Fat Yngwie fans. He does have the Elvis In Las Vegas thing kind of going, no?)
Quote from: The new erato on April 27, 2013, 04:08:18 AM
I detect some irony here.
(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/lmao.gif)
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
Speaking as someone who does think so highly of Immerseel's set, and has said so repeatedly, I can't recall ever claiming that I understood Beethoven, or that I ever hoped to. I merely expressed (and still delight in) my joy in discovering that he could rock my socks off better than Chuck Berry.
Now I have no choice but to listen to Immerseel's Beethoven today. :)
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 02:30:29 AM
Speaking as someone who does think so highly of Immerseel's set, and has said so repeatedly, I can't recall ever claiming that I understood Beethoven, or that I ever hoped to. I merely expressed (and still delight in) my joy in discovering that he could rock my socks off better than Chuck Berry.
There is no single interpretive POV that is the correct one. No matter how adamant the opposition on that subject, you are well able to resist it, as long as you don't fall into the same trap yourself. Thus my own tiny list (Hogwood, Immerseel, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe and Krivine) which is more noticeable for its diversity than for its sameness (despite being 100% PI). What I hoped for when I first delighted in your revelatory moment is that a door is now open to allow you to explore new takes on old subjects, so to say. You absolutely can and should revel in what you've discovered, and also use it as a springboard to discover more. As near as I can tell since then, you have done just that. ¡Bueno! :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 06:19:42 AM
There is no single interpretive POV that is the correct one. No matter how adamant the opposition on that subject, you are well able to resist it, as long as you don't fall into the same trap yourself. Thus my own tiny list (Hogwood, Immerseel, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe and Krivine) which is more noticeable for its diversity than for its sameness (despite being 100% PI). What I hoped for when I first delighted in your revelatory moment is that a door is now open to allow you to explore new takes on old subjects, so to say. You absolutely can and should revel in what you've discovered, and also use it as a springboard to discover more. As near as I can tell since then, you have done just that. ¡Bueno! :)
This. This is the ethic.
Also the Chuck Berry Test! That's also a big plus.
In fact, I ordered the Immerseel set ten minutes ago thanks to this and previous discussion. I owe several of you thanks for all the conversation about the options; but I only thanked Rod Corkin in the Purchases thread.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 12:25:49 AM
LoL there is nothing wrong with my mouth, but if you think so highly of Immerseel's set you still have some way to go understanding Beethoven. FYI I dissappeared because of the poor management here (at the time at least), to the degree I felt compelled to create my own properly moderated forum, which alas I have barely any time for at the moment...
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org
Hello, Rod, you old rascal. I've warned the folks here about prising about in the wainscoting, but to no avail. Nice to see that you have maintained your Mayhem Central for the duration. I've always thought that having your own place was the best solution and see? It has done well just as I predicted.
It is especially pleasurable to see that we have provided you with brain fodder all along, maybe one day we will make you universal.... nah! :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 06:19:42 AM
There is no single interpretive POV that is the correct one. No matter how adamant the opposition on that subject, you are well able to resist it, as long as you don't fall into the same trap yourself. Thus my own tiny list (Hogwood, Immerseel, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe and Krivine) which is more noticeable for its diversity than for its sameness (despite being 100% PI). What I hoped for when I first delighted in your revelatory moment is that a door is now open to allow you to explore new takes on old subjects, so to say. You absolutely can and should revel in what you've discovered, and also use it as a springboard to discover more. As near as I can tell since then, you have done just that. ¡Bueno! :)
8)
Surely you're not trying to suggest that our opinions are not facts, Gurn? ;D
Also, I'll second Octave's comment on your post.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 06:26:32 AM
...It is especially pleasurable to see that we have provided you with brain fodder all along, maybe one day we will make you universal.... nah! :D
8)
My friend has it not always
me doing the providing? At least you were wise enough to take some of that advice on board at at time when everyone else was bitching.. ;)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 09:01:29 AM
My friend has it not always me doing the providing? At least you were wise enough to take some of that advice on board at at time when everyone else was bitching.. ;)
On that note, do you have any updated views on the best Beethoven interpretations? I believe you mentioned Goodman some years ago as an example, do you still feel that's the best option?
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 06:22:20 AM
This. This is the an ethic.
I mean: in order to be consistent. ;D ;)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 09:01:29 AM
My friend has it not always me doing the providing? At least you were wise enough to take some of that advice on board at at time when everyone else was bitching.. ;)
Rod shouldn't be simply "Jove the Mighty Thunderer", but Jove the "Almighty", the "Omniscient" Thunderer. Just yesterday his name was written here and today he's present delivering musical wisdom. Supernatural. :o
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 09:01:29 AM
My friend has it not always me doing the providing? At least you were wise enough to take some of that advice on board at at time when everyone else was bitching.. ;)
But to be fair, that's because you never listened to what anyone else had to say. This makes it always a one-way street then, doesn't it? It isn't the things that you said were good, since yes, they always were. Lots of my favorites came from you. It's the things that you said were bad where, IMO, you erred. Most of them weren't/aren't bad at all. They are just a different take on things. If everyone played the same music (Beethoven & Handel only, of course) and played it in the identically same way, then we would only need 3 sets of instrumentalists: the current, the retired and the apprentices, all learning one from the next. If you can't imagine how badly that would suck, well, there's no help for it then. :)
8)
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 27, 2013, 09:05:13 AM
On that note, do you have any updated views on the best Beethoven interpretations? I believe you mentioned Goodman some years ago as an example, do you still feel that's the best option?
This is the best option for me (I haven't heard Krivine yet). It is hated for the sound, I suppose. I have no problem with the reverb, listen to it with pleasure and really think so.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 06:19:42 AM
There is no single interpretive POV that is the correct one. No matter how adamant the opposition on that subject, you are well able to resist it, as long as you don't fall into the same trap yourself. Thus my own tiny list (Hogwood, Immerseel, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe and Krivine) which is more noticeable for its diversity than for its sameness (despite being 100% PI). What I hoped for when I first delighted in your revelatory moment is that a door is now open to allow you to explore new takes on old subjects, so to say. You absolutely can and should revel in what you've discovered, and also use it as a springboard to discover more. As near as I can tell since then, you have done just that. ¡Bueno! :)
+1
Good lord, Roddy is back? What next -- Saul? The halfwit who thinks he's the world's foremost expert on Wagner? The one who thinks paying for sex with underage girls sold into slavery as prostitutes in Thailand equals true love? Or, perhaps topping them all, the one who calls himself ...
Newman!The horror! The horror!
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 27, 2013, 10:32:45 AM
+1
Good lord, Roddy is back? What next -- Saul? The halfwit who thinks he's the world's foremost expert on Wagner? The one who thinks paying for sex with underage girls sold into slavery as prostitutes in Thailand equals true love? Or, perhaps topping them all, the one who calls himself ... Newman!
The horror! The horror!
Ross you're a buffoon. Lucky for you this is an unmoderated forum.
PS I'm not 'back', just noticed my name get a few new mentions in this thread. This time tomorrow it will be as if I never were here..
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 10:57:29 AM
Ross you're a buffoon.
Yes. But when I'm playing the buffoon I'm aware of it and intend it. ;)
If I may, Rod, I'll repeat my (serious) question:
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 27, 2013, 09:05:13 AM
On that note, do you have any updated views on the best Beethoven interpretations? I believe you mentioned Goodman some years ago as an example, do you still feel that's the best option?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 06:19:42 AM
There is no single interpretive POV that is the correct one. No matter how adamant the opposition on that subject, you are well able to resist it, as long as you don't fall into the same trap yourself. Thus my own tiny list (Hogwood, Immerseel, Gardiner, Savall, Herreweghe and Krivine) which is more noticeable for its diversity than for its sameness (despite being 100% PI). What I hoped for when I first delighted in your revelatory moment is that a door is now open to allow you to explore new takes on old subjects, so to say. You absolutely can and should revel in what you've discovered, and also use it as a springboard to discover more. As near as I can tell since then, you have done just that. ¡Bueno! :)
I haven't exactly gone Beethoven mad since those wonderful Immerseel Discovery Days, Gurn - but it was indeed a springboard event. I now have
two Beethoven symphony sets that rock my socks off:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51b1PdSylCL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qxqFCFnoL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
It's true that although I love it to bits, I think the Haitink is unlikely to displace Immerseel from my personal number 1 spot; and it'll be a good while before I'm tempted to try another set of any kind; but what's interesting is that Immerseel's period rock&roll approach actually made it possible
at all for me to become open to another, modern instrument set of performances. That rare kind of perception-clearing change is what I most hope for in the arts. The most exciting new windows are the ones that open onto a view that includes other new windows.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on April 27, 2013, 10:57:29 AM
PS I'm not 'back', just noticed my name get a few new mentions in this thread. This time tomorrow it will be as if I never were here..
How did you notice? Do you search for your own name? Do you still read GMG daily?
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 12:41:12 PMThe most exciting new windows are the ones that open onto a view that includes other new windows.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a sentence posted on GMG that I've ever liked better.
Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2013, 05:49:58 AM
Now I have no choice but to listen to Immerseel's Beethoven today. :)
Brian, finding this comment of yours warmed the very cockles of my heart. In consequence, I'm listening to the 5th myself as we speak, and it comes up just as fresh, just as bedazzling, just as air-punchingly strutworthy, just as fifties hillbilly-cat Elvis, as it did on Day One.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 12:41:12 PM
I haven't exactly gone Beethoven mad since those wonderful Immerseel Discovery Days, Gurn - but it was indeed a springboard event. I now have two Beethoven symphony sets that rock my socks off:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51b1PdSylCL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qxqFCFnoL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
It's true that although I love it to bits, I think the Haitink is unlikely to displace Immerseel from my personal number 1 spot; and it'll be a good while before I'm tempted to try another set of any kind; but what's interesting is that Immerseel's period rock&roll approach actually made it possible at all for me to become open to another, modern instrument set of performances. That rare kind of perception-clearing change is what I most hope for in the arts. The most exciting new windows are the ones that open onto a view that includes other new windows.
Well, Alan, that is what I was referring to when speaking of being pleased for you. Actually, when it comes to
which cycle did it, I have no dog in that fight. It is the mere fact that the door was opened that I am pleased about. FWIW, I like that Haitink cycle too. :)
8)
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 06:22:20 AM
In fact, I ordered the Immerseel set ten minutes ago thanks to this and previous discussion.
To quote Julia Roberts (in
Notting Hill): 'Good decision.'
Punching the air is not obligatory while listening to it, but my best advice is to give in to the impulse if (as seems likely) you feel tempted.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 12:54:24 PM
Well, Alan, that is what I was referring to when speaking of being pleased for you.
Yes, I know, Gurn. I was so pleased to read you were pleased that I couldn't resist adding a bit more embroidery to the Immerseel Appreciation Society Presentation Tea Towel.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 01:05:44 PM
Yes, I know, Gurn. I was so pleased to read you were pleased that I couldn't resist adding a bit more embroidery to the Immerseel Appreciation Society Presentation Tea Towel.
Well, it ain't Brüggen, but then nothing else is, either. Otherwise it's my favorite HIP PI set (don't know Krivine, nor the new Brüggen cycle) and this thread suggests it's time to slip it back into rotation. Thanks!
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2013, 12:56:38 PM
Punching the air is not obligatory while listening to it, but my best advice is to give in to the impulse if (as seems likely) you feel tempted.
I knew there was a Metal Maniac in you just waiting to get out. Maybe I knew this when I saw your reference iirc to Segerstam's Sibelius as 'built on ice caverns'...something Nordic Metal about that. Though I think I saw a subsequent comment about Rozhdestvensky that praised it for its 'blue skies'...so I shouldn't typecast you. I'm going to have to buy both of those now. :(
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 27, 2013, 10:32:45 AM
+1
Good lord, Roddy is back? What next -- Saul? The halfwit who thinks he's the world's foremost expert on Wagner? The one who thinks paying for sex with underage girls sold into slavery as prostitutes in Thailand equals true love? Or, perhaps topping them all, the one who calls himself ... Newman!
The horror! The horror!
I think you are conflating Saul and Sean, or just possibly Pink Harp. Saul was the Mendelssohn nut, composer, artist and ultra Zionist. To also attract Newman back would be over egging the pudding.
No mystery about Rod, speak of the devil and his tail appeareth. As we see, he is as he was and will trundle off again very shortly. He likes to pop back and advertise his site.
Right, now, how about Beethoven? I was surprised to see Immerseel so praised. I have his Berlioz Symphony and I think the pacing sluggish and lacking flexibility. But I take it his Beethoven can't be like that. Can someone tell me where he scores well?
Mike
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
I knew there was a Metal Maniac in you just waiting to get out. Maybe I knew this when I saw your reference iirc to Segerstam's Sibelius as 'built on ice caverns'...something Nordic Metal about that. Though I think I saw a subsequent comment about Rozhdestvensky that praised it for its 'blue skies'...so I shouldn't typecast you. I'm going to have to buy both of those now. :(
I have to admit, this post put a grin on my face.
Quote from: knight66 on April 27, 2013, 02:06:19 PM
I think you are conflating Saul and Sean, or just possibly Pink Harp. Saul was the Mendelssohn nut, composer, artist and ultra Zionist. To also attract Newman back would be over egging the pudding.
No mystery about Rod, speak of the devil and his tail appeareth. As we see, he is as he was and will trundle off again very shortly. He likes to pop back and advertise his site.
Right, now, how about Beethoven? I was surprised to see Immerseel so praised. I have his Berlioz Symphony and I think the pacing sluggish and lacking flexibility. But I take it his Beethoven can't be like that. Can someone tell me where he scores well?
Mike
His 5th is probably the best of the lot; in fact, it is as good as the best of anyone else's lot too. I don't listen to much newer than Schubert, so his Berlioz will have escaped me. Too modern.... :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 27, 2013, 02:32:42 PM
... so his Berlioz will have escaped me. Too modern.... :)
... too many instruments; too much noisy. :P
On Immerseel: I agree, his Fifth is the best of the cycle and my favorite interpretation of this symphony. Fresh, and evocative, and like premonitory... all an achievement. :)
I am off for a look then. Thanks both.
Mike
For me the best Anima Eterna recordings are Mozart concertos and Debussy, especially Debussy is absolutely magic. Especially Rondes des Printemps and Gigues.
But Beethoven? It's nice. Is it good to play Beethoven nicely? Almost like the septets nos 2-10. Probably better than Hogwood or Gardiner or even than old Bruggen. But nothing as electrifying as Goodman/Huggett.
re: Goodman/Huggett's Beethoven:
Quote from: mszczuj on April 27, 2013, 10:07:14 AM
This is the best option for me (I haven't heard Krivine yet). It is hated for the sound, I suppose. I have no problem with the reverb, listen to it with pleasure and really think so.
Quote from: mszczuj on April 27, 2013, 03:18:57 PM
[...]But Beethoven? It's [Immerseel] nice. Is it good to play Beethoven nicely? Almost like the septets nos 2-10. Probably better than Hogwood or Gardiner or even than old Bruggen. But nothing as electrifying as Goodman/Huggett.
I am drawn by these comments as well as by the Hurwitzer hate; I virtually never hear this cycle discussed, by the by.
I'm interested enough to buy this, but I see it's a Nimbus issue, therefore possibly an unannounced CDR set....has anyone purchased a new copy of this from Amazon directly in the past couple years? I could believe that copies of an earlier (real CD) pressing are still being sold...
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 03:32:39 PM
re: Goodman/Huggett's Beethoven:
I am drawn by these comments as well as by the Hurwitzer hate; I virtually never hear this cycle discussed, by the by.
I'm interested enough to buy this, but I see it's a Nimbus issue, therefore possibly an unannounced CDR set....has anyone purchased a new copy of this from Amazon directly in the past couple years? I could believe that copies of an earlier (real CD) pressing are still being sold...
It's an interesting set, Octo. I am on board with those who say it is a very nice performance indeed. I don't have real issues with the sound the way many do. Maybe I am just more adaptable?!? :) I have a few quibbles with tempo here and there, but that's about all.
There are many copies on the market, I highly doubt that Nimbus have had to make any new ones since they have begun their 'on-demand' CD-R campaign. As for acquiring it, I bought it brand new in shrinkwrap in a version including the
Missa Solemnis for under $15 back on 2005. I would be surprised if you couldn't do the same thing.
8)
Quote from: Octave on April 27, 2013, 03:32:39 PM
re: Goodman/Huggett's Beethoven:
I am drawn by these comments as well as by the Hurwitzer hate; I virtually never hear this cycle discussed, by the by.
I'm interested enough to buy this, but I see it's a Nimbus issue, therefore possibly an unannounced CDR set....has anyone purchased a new copy of this from Amazon directly in the past couple years? I could believe that copies of an earlier (real CD) pressing are still being sold...
That was my first PI Beethoven cycle. My main complaint was what seemed to be with the Ninth, in which the choral forces were rather thin on the ground (it sounded almost as if Goodman was reaching for OVPP but couldn't bring himself to go all the way) and both they and the soloists were recorded very recessed, almost as if the mikes were in the front of the church and they were in the back. Beyond that i wouldn't criticize the set, and if you can find it at a price similar to what Gurn paid, I'd say go for it.
Quote from: knight66 on April 27, 2013, 02:06:19 PM
Right, now, how about Beethoven? I was surprised to see Immerseel so praised. I have his Berlioz Symphony and I think the pacing sluggish and lacking flexibility. But I take it his Beethoven can't be like that. Can someone tell me where he scores well?
The first thing I heard of Immerseel was this Beethoven set. After that ecstatic revelation I went through a period where I wanted to seek out everything by Immerseel that I could lay my hands on, prepared to be overwhelmed, but while I tried hard to give everything the benefit of the doubt, overall the experiment left me disappointed. His Berlioz seemed a bit ordinary and lacking in weight; his
Scheherazade was worthy but a bit dull; his Mozart concertos were just too damn polite.
No matter; as someone once said, we shouldn't judge an artist by his worst performances, or even by some sort of concocted average, but by his best. And I remain in awe of Immerseel's Beethoven symphonies - and if I had to choose just one, it would be the revelatory, taking-no-prisoners fifth. (Someone hereabouts has described his Beethoven as 'nice'. I can't see that, not at all. Rather, think Beatles first album, fifties Elvis: blood-pulsing rhythmic energy applied with an intensity of precision.)
Alan, I listened to the Fifth this morning on Spotify, they have the complete cycle. I did enjoy it and agree your take on it. He leaps on the piece. It is quite savage. I enjoyed the orchestral sound. I have not gone in for a lot of HIP LvB, but i did watch John Elliot Gardiner's TV reconstruction of the Eroica and i thought that was thrilling and ear opening.
Mike
Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2013, 01:23:38 AM
The first thing I heard of Immerseel was this Beethoven set. After that ecstatic revelation I went through a period where I wanted to seek out everything by Immerseel that I could lay my hands on, prepared to be overwhelmed, but while I tried hard to give everything the benefit of the doubt, overall the experiment left me disappointed. His Berlioz seemed a bit ordinary and lacking in weight; his Scheherazade was worthy but a bit dull; his Mozart concertos were just too damn polite.
But his disc of Poulenc concertoes is great. Just saying, as this is a Beethoven thread.
Quote from: knight66 on April 28, 2013, 03:35:43 AM
Alan, I listened to the Fifth this morning on Spotify, they have the complete cycle. I did enjoy it and agree your take on it. He leaps on the piece. It is quite savage. I enjoyed the orchestral sound. I have not gone in for a lot of HIP LvB, but i did watch John Elliot Gardiner's TV reconstruction of the Eroica and i thought that was thrilling and ear opening.
Good to know it can be previewed thus, enabling prospective purchasers to use their own judgment rather than rely on others'. I just checked and Mog has it now, too.
Hearing the funeral march of the 3rd via Zig Zag's site a few years ago compelled my purchase of the set ... after someone
here called my attention to it. I doubt I'd have bought it on his recommendation alone, but without his recommendation I probably wouldn't have troubled myself to hear it.
All this talk of their 5th commands me to spin it
now. ;) 8)
...........................................................................
Okay, just played it and agree that it's very good. I especially like the drive of the outer movements. But ... it's a bit tame compared to Brüggen on Philips, a bit thin-sounding and well-mannered, more along the lines of Gardiner's (but with gusto!), rather than bristling with the balls-out enthusiasm and raucous period instrument sonorities that I love about Brüggen's ground-breaking cycle.
Happy spinning David. Right now for me, BBC Radio 4, a Thatcher tribute, so a musical sorbet will shortly be needed.
Mike
i, too just heard immerseel's 5th after all the hype and found it very good but not as intense as bruggen
Quote from: xochitl on April 28, 2013, 02:44:28 PM
i, too just heard immerseel's 5th after all the hype and found it very good but not as intense as bruggen
Which Bruggen recording, the first or second?
i havent heard the second one
really want to tho
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 28, 2013, 06:39:14 PM
Which Bruggen recording, the first or second?
The first Brüggen is more intense than the recent second, which sounds a bit "tired" to me.
The second one can be heard now via Mog (and Spotify?). I haven't listened to it all, but so far have not heard anything prompting purchase. "Tired" isn't the adjective that comes to mind for me, but I can see how it might be appropriate in comparison to the first cycle.
To me it sounds pretty conventional, lacking the exuberant enthusiasm that pervades their first go starting nearly 30 years ago, when historically informed performance of Beethoven symphonies on period instruments was new and fresh and exciting and adventurous. Brüggen and his band weren't just giving their all to great music they loved, they were throwing down the gauntlet to a century of calcified, Wagnerized performance that buried Beethoven's revolutionary in-your-face explosion of genius under a stifling blanket of romanticized reverence.
Beethoven was a Lotus Elan SE, not a Lincoln Town Car, and Brüggen drove his orchestra like Jimmy Clark, not like Morgan Freeman driving Miss Daisy.
P.S. The dullest, most ill-played, and worst-recorded HIP cycle I know is Goodman's. If Brüggen I is a Lotus, and Barenboim is a Town Car, then Gardiner is a Mazda Miata, Abbado/Rome is a BMW 320i, and Goodman is a rusted-out 1972 Ford Galaxie.
Quote from: knight66 on April 27, 2013, 02:06:19 PM
I think you are conflating Saul and Sean, or just possibly Pink Harp. Saul was the Mendelssohn nut, composer, artist and ultra Zionist.
Not conflating them, Mike, but thinking of several different ax-grinding narcissists whose limited entertainment value depended on being laughed at, not with. Couldn't think of their names, and Pinkie didn't even come to mind else I'd certainly have added older-women's-panties-sniffing fetishist to the list. ;) ;D
Ahhh ... the good old days!
No, there isn't anyone here to match Pink's refined taste . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2013, 10:45:45 AM
No, there isn't anyone here to match Pink's refined taste . . . .
As far as we know... ;)
8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 29, 2013, 07:34:24 AM
Beethoven was a Lotus Elan SE, not a Lincoln Town Car, and Brüggen drove his orchestra like Jimmy Clark, not like Morgan Freeman driving Miss Daisy.
I agree about the Town Car Barenboim analogy... although I'd like to think of it as Bentley instead, I guess [because I don't like Towncars, get the analogy, but love Barenboim]. And certainly Bruggen drives very differently than Dannyboi. But if you take the Eroica, you'll find that he is actually as slow as Barenboim, and considerably slower than almost every other standard interpretation, including the 60s and 70s Karajan and any Abbado ever recorded. (And yes, that's taking into account the repeats.)
Quote from: jlaurson on April 29, 2013, 11:38:41 AM
I agree about the Town Car Barenboim analogy... although I'd like to think of it as Bentley instead, I guess [because I don't like Towncars, get the analogy, but love Barenboim]. And certainly Bruggen drives very differently than Dannyboi. But if you take the Eroica, you'll find that he is actually as slow as Barenboim, and considerably slower than almost every other standard interpretation, including the 60s and 70s Karajan and any Abbado ever recorded. (And yes, that's taking into account the repeats.)
Bentley it is! (I love Franny's Eroica, BTW.) I wasn't even thinking about speed, but rather the feel of the thing: a light and nimble roadster transmitting every bump and ripple through the steering wheel and chassis to the seat of your pants, versus a big, plush sedan with power to spare meant for cruising the autobahn in the lap of luxury. 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 29, 2013, 01:24:09 PM
Bentley it is! (I love Franny's Eroica, BTW.) I wasn't even thinking about speed, but rather the feel of the thing: a light and nimble roadster transmitting every bump and ripple through the steering wheel and chassis to the seat of your pants, versus a big, plush sedan with power to spare meant for cruising the autobahn in the lap of luxury. 8)
That's true. A plush sedan on the Autobahn at 100 mph will seem slooooow and comfy. Take a Sunbeam Alpine on a countryside road and 90 mph will seem downright reckless.
I've always supposed Immerseel rode a Harley-Davidson.
this might sound silly, but the automobile comparisons are really enlightening
i would add: lenny's 60s cycle is a same vintage corvette 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 29, 2013, 10:18:50 AM
Not conflating them, Mike, but thinking of several different ax-grinding narcissists whose limited entertainment value depended on being laughed at, not with. Couldn't think of their names, and Pinkie didn't even come to mind else I'd certainly have added older-women's-panties-sniffing fetishist to the list. ;) ;D
Ahhh ... the good old days!
Heck, I had clearly suppressed that last eccentricity and you have triggered a lot of bizarre detail that will haunt me. I promise, I will forgive you, but not today!
Mike
Quote from: karlhenning on April 29, 2013, 10:45:45 AM
No, there isn't anyone here to match Pink's refined taste . . . .
Ah, that brings back memories. In our defense, though, he admitted once that Debussy himself would not match his refined taste if he wanted his works conducted in a method that did not match the Harp's preference; how then, can we expect to match his taste? :P Come to think of it, I think Sarge had a related photoshop lying around somewhere...
Quote from: knight66 on April 30, 2013, 03:36:38 AM
. . . I promise, I will forgive you, but not today!
Mike
One day at a time . . . .
Quote from: Geo Dude on April 30, 2013, 06:22:24 AM
Ah, that brings back memories. In our defense, though, he admitted once that Debussy himself would not match his refined taste if he wanted his works conducted in a method that did not match the Harp's preference; how then, can we expect to match his taste? :P Come to think of it, I think Sarge had a related photoshop lying around somewhere...
This one?
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/guidewr3.png)
But I didn't do it. I can't remember who did now, but it's a stroke of genius. Hopefully the creator will step forward and take credit. It captures the essence of Eric/Pink Harp (or as I liked to call him, Mr. Pink) perfectly.
Sarge
ROTFLMARAO
(rolling on the floor laughing my æsthetically refined arse off)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 30, 2013, 06:36:08 AM
This one?
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/asheville/guidewr3.png)
But I didn't do it. I can't remember who did now, but it's a stroke of genius. Hopefully the creator will step forward and take credit. It captures the essence of Eric/Pink Harp (or as I liked to call him, Mr. Pink) perfectly.
Sarge
Short of having a pair of cougar briefs pulled down over his head.... *sigh*
8)
Quote from: Elgarian on April 29, 2013, 11:38:38 PM
I've always supposed Immerseel rode a Harley-Davidson.
Motorcycle analogies! Barenboim is a six-cylinder BMW 1600 GT sport-tourer. Dausgaard, a Husqvarna TR650 Strada. Bernstein, a Harley Electra Glide. Immerseel, a Kawasaki Ninja 650. Brüggen is a classic Triumph Bonneville. And Goodman is an old Honda Rebel 250.
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 30, 2013, 08:43:02 AM
Motorcycle analogies! Barenboim is a six-cylinder BMW 1600 GT sport-tourer. Dausgaard, a Husqvarna TR650 Strada. Bernstein, a Harley Electra Glide. Immerseel, a Kawasaki Ninja 650. Brüggen is a classic Triumph Bonneville. And Goodman is an old Honda Rebel 250.
I am amazed by your comprehensive mastery of motorcycle lore, so you must be right.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 30, 2013, 11:44:24 AM
... you must be right.
Where have I heard that before?
Not around here! ;)
Next up: Comparing Beethoven symphony cycles to Squaw Valley ski runs! Purebred dog breeds! And smelly cheeses of the world!
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 30, 2013, 11:53:16 AM
Where have I heard that before?
Not around here! ;)
Maybe that's because others are not as easily amazed as I am.
David, a new analogy needed for Barenboim, he is ill and has cancelled his performances for at least a month.
Mike
He caught Jimmie's case of bad back (who knew that was catching?)
Quote from: knight66 on April 30, 2013, 12:45:54 PM
David, a new analogy needed for Barenboim, he is ill and has cancelled his performances for at least a month.
Guess Dannyboi will be riding a La-Z-Boy instead of a Beemer scooter!
Anyone interested in a period video of a period performance?
http://www.youtube.com/v/l4SMxPjQJp8
I'm new here and somewhat new to classical music (compared to people here, I'm an infant in that regard :) ), so I'm seeking some help and advice to guide me through the many choices we have for Beethoven's symphonies. I'm looking for a HIP set of Beethoven's symphonies on period instruments, and after some reading and searching, I've narrowed down my choices to either Hogwood, Gardiner or possible Immersel, with maybe Hogwood having a small edge at this moment. Which one would you recommend? Which is "more HIP", or more in the spirit of Beethoven's time, if that's even possible to determine? Or should I simply get the Hogwood set? And how does Immersel's set compare? Also, I believe I read on another site that Gardiner mixed period and modern instruments in his cycle, while Hogwood and some others are all on period instruments, is that true?
Thank you in advance.
How familiar are you with the symphonies? If you are decently familiar with them already through non-HIP sets or otherwise, I would recommend the Immerseel. If you're relatively new, I'd recommend the Gardiner. I personally do not care much for the Hogwood.
For a secondary set of HIP symphonies, I'd like to plug the less well-known Bruggen.
I have not heard anything about the Gardiner/ORR being mixed instruments, and it doesn't sound like mixed instruments to me. HIP ensembles can sound quite different from one another though, and there is no one single "HIP sound" if that's what you're after.
Quote from: Carnivorous Sheep on June 25, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
For a secondary set of HIP symphonies, I'd like to plug the less well-known Bruggen.
Bruggen has the disadvantage of being out-of-print and almost impossible to find. It has the advantage of being awesome.
I did not know that Gardiner mixed instruments. His cycle is very very good, with a great Ninth, so you won't go wrong, but Immerseel's is also fantastic, with a great Fifth. Unlike some recent re-issues of the Gardiner set in budget price lines, Immerseel's set has a big booklet with essays and even photos of the instruments. (I think...it's been a while since I looked.)
Just to make matters more confusing, Hogwood has my favorite Fourth, but the Ninth is not that great and the recorded sound is older than the other two.
EDIT: You can sample before you buy on YouTube. Immerseel 5th (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ktiUrergls), Gardiner 3rd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6JtVCYIPYw). The others are around if you search for them.
Quote from: mark7 on June 25, 2014, 03:07:56 PM
I'm new here and somewhat new to classical music (compared to people here, I'm an infant in that regard :) ), so I'm seeking some help and advice to guide me through the many choices we have for Beethoven's symphonies. I'm looking for a HIP set of Beethoven's symphonies on period instruments, and after some reading and searching, I've narrowed down my choices to either Hogwood, Gardiner or possible Immerseel, with maybe Hogwood having a small edge at this moment. Which one would you recommend? Which is "more HIP", or more in the spirit of Beethoven's time, if that's even possible to determine? Or should I simply get the Hogwood set? And how does Immersel's set compare? Also, I believe I read on another site that Gardiner mixed period and modern instruments in his cycle, while Hogwood and some others are all on period instruments, is that true?
Thank you in advance.
IMO, Hogwood is 'more HIP'. I wouldn't be without any of them, to tell you the truth. They each have their merits. One of the special things about PI bands is that each one has its own characteristic sound and playing style. This makes them far more like old time bands, which totally varied from town to town. Modern instruments and equal temperament have tended to make a more homogenous sound (that's not a criticism, merely an observation).
No, Gardiner did not mix modern instruments in with period ones, unless you are counting modern reproductions, which ALL PI bands use. There simply aren't enough actual old ones in playable condition to go around. I don't know any PI enthusiast who holds that against a band. I have listened to nothing but PI in this millennium, so I suspect I would have run across one by now. :D
As they present themselves, consider getting all three. I took a while and got them all at great prices, and I mix them up for my enjoyment regularly. :)
8)
Quote from: Carnivorous Sheep on June 25, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
How familiar are you with the symphonies? If you are decently familiar with them already through non-HIP sets or otherwise, I would recommend the Immerseel. If you're relatively new, I'd recommend the Gardiner. I personally do not care much for the Hogwood.
For a secondary set of HIP symphonies, I'd like to plug the less well-known Bruggen.
I have not heard anything about the Gardiner/ORR being mixed instruments, and it doesn't sound like mixed instruments to me. HIP ensembles can sound quite different from one another though, and there is no one single "HIP sound" if that's what you're after.
Maybe there is a set sitting for sale on the shelf in a back alley shop in Singapore or Timbuktu... :D
8)
OK, thank you for your quick and helpful suggestions. But I guess, as usual in music, everyone will have their own preferences and there's no single answer. Judging by the samples that I've heard so far, there isn't that big of a difference between the Hogwood and the Immerseel sets in terms of the general sound and presentation, but maybe I haven't heard enough. I am very familiar with some of the symphonies (like 9th), and much less familiar with some others. I'll try to hear some more samples then and see where that gets me.
Gurn, what would you say in general are the main upsides and downsides of each of these sets? That would help me sort it out. Thanks.
And no, I wouldn't hold using modern reproductions of period instruments against a PI band, especially for 18th century (or earlier) music.
I just did a spot comparison of the 5th symphony, 1st movement, between Bruggen, Hogwood, Immerseel, and Gardiner.
Gardiner sounds the most modern. In fact, if you turn it off after the famous opening chords, you won't have a clue if it's a period- or modern-instrument orchestra. I think he might also be using the biggest orchestra.
Hogwood, by contrast, sounds the most HIP, just like Gurn says. In those famous opening chords, you can really hear a strong dose of the sour-sounding oboe. The horns ring out as if they're on the steps of a Greek temple. The glorious woodwinds are why Hogwood's is my favorite Fourth.
Immerseel is conducted the most boldly. I mean, if you discount the seconds of silence before they start playing, the first movement takes only about 6:15! That's nutso. (And oh so exciting... mmmmm. :) )
With Bruggen I found the incredibly slow "Fate" motif + much faster everything else off-putting and distracting. Almost like the symphony has an adagio introduction.
I like Norrington/LCP the best, but you'll probably want to sample that one before you buy it. Hogwood is also v solid, but I heard lots of AAM concerts as an undergraduate and they probably conditioned me a little.
Gardiner's ORR is a period-instrument group, period. I believe Harnoncourt's COE set is the one that's hybrid in terms of instruments.
I have Gardiner's and Immerseel's cycles. Immerseel's 5th is great (for once, we all seem to agree on that!) but the cycle is inconsistent. Gardiner's only weak link is the 9th -- which is also one of Immerseel's.
My recommendation is: get the Gardiner cycle and supplement it with a separate 9th. For readily-available period-instrument 9ths, Herreweghe on Harmonia Mundi is a great choice (his later cycle on PentaTone is with a non-PI orchestra). Since you're in Europe, and if you're willing to buy used, also consider Immerseel's outstanding earlier 9th on Sony, the one with the pale green cover. It's tough to find in the States but available for cheap on amazon.de.
All judgements are IMO and YMMV of course.
I have not heard Hogwood, either of Brüggen's cycles, or Norrington.
ETA: Having been in your shoes before, I know that this deluge of contradictory opinions probably isn't what you were looking for. It's good that you figured out that opinions vary widely. :) I started listening and buying about 20 years ago and for the first few years, I was under the (severely wrong) impression that the Penguin Guide was authoritative.
OK, thanks for the recommendations. Going by what Brian said (and also based on the samples I've heard so far), seems like I might indeed like Hogwood's set the best, so I think I'll pull the trigger on that one (first). Obviously each set has its strong and weak spots. I guess it's just a matter of compromise and win-some-lose-some then, right?
Hogwood does have the advantage of being one of the only PI cycles that nails the 9th, as well (nb I haven't heard Brüggen and only sampled Immy, though what I heard didn't make me rave about it the way the rest of you seem to) so I suppose it would be my beginners' recommendation. You don't want a dud 9th in your first cycle.
Quote from: mark7 on June 26, 2014, 06:31:24 AM
OK, thanks for the recommendations. Going by what Brian said (and also based on the samples I've heard so far), seems like I might indeed like Hogwood's set the best, so I think I'll pull the trigger on that one (first). Obviously each set has its strong and weak spots. I guess it's just a matter of compromise and win-some-lose-some then, right?
Mark,
Sorry I didn't get back in time to answer your post, but you got some solid info without me.
I agree with the things that Brian, Pat and AMW say, they don't sound contradictory to me! Your plan of starting with Hogwood seems just right. If I was going to supplement that cycle without buying an entire other one, by using interesting singles, it would be Herreweghe's 9th and Savall's 3rd, my personal favorite. The only way to get a nicer 5th is by buying the Immerseel box, but I gotta tell you, Hogwood's 5th is no slouch! Hope you enjoy these, let us know!
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 26, 2014, 07:28:04 AMthey don't sound contradictory to me!
Well, they're a
little contradictory (e.g. Brian likes Gardiner's 9th whereas Pat dislikes it, I like Hogwood's 9th whereas Brian dislikes it... presumably Pat likes some other 9th I dislike to complete the cycle)
Quote from: amw on June 26, 2014, 07:34:19 AM
Well, they're a little contradictory (e.g. Brian likes Gardiner's 9th whereas Pat dislikes it, I like Hogwood's 9th whereas Brian dislikes it... presumably Pat likes some other 9th I dislike to complete the cycle)
And I like Norrington's Ninth--which contradicts nearly everyone.
Sarge
Quote from: amw on June 26, 2014, 07:34:19 AM
Well, they're a little contradictory (e.g. Brian likes Gardiner's 9th whereas Pat dislikes it, I like Hogwood's 9th whereas Brian dislikes it... presumably Pat likes some other 9th I dislike to complete the cycle)
That's just a healthy difference of opinion. I like all of them, so that is the bridge that connects everything together. 0:)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 26, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
And I like Norrington's Ninth--which contradicts nearly everyone.
Sarge
...almost everything together... ::)
8)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 26, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
And I like Norrington's Ninth--which contradicts nearly everyone.
I like the first 45 minutes of Norrington's Ninth >.>
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 26, 2014, 07:28:04 AM
Mark,
Sorry I didn't get back in time to answer your post, but you got some solid info without me.
I agree with the things that Brian, Pat and AMW say, they don't sound contradictory to me! Your plan of starting with Hogwood seems just right. If I was going to supplement that cycle without buying an entire other one, by using interesting singles, it would be Herreweghe's 9th and Savall's 3rd, my personal favorite. The only way to get a nicer 5th is by buying the Immerseel box, but I gotta tell you, Hogwood's 5th is no slouch! Hope you enjoy these, let us know!
8)
Thank you and thank everyone here, your suggestions have been very helpful. Sounds like a plan, and I'll definitely let you know how I feel about the Hogwood set once I've had a good listen to it.
Next month. It's back.
(http://i.prs.to/t_200/decca4787436.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2014, 08:27:17 AM
Next month. It's back.
(http://i.prs.to/t_200/decca4787436.jpg)
Good, hope it's available/affordable this time around. Last time it was neither... :-\
Thanks B....
8)
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2014, 08:27:17 AM
Next month. It's back.
(http://i.prs.to/t_200/decca4787436.jpg)
And the bonuses, the violin concerto and particularly the Prometheus incidental music, are considerable! :)
Q
Quote from: Que on July 22, 2014, 09:26:40 AM
And the bonuses, the violin concerto and particularly the Prometheus incidental music, are considerable! :)
Q
Yes indeed. I've had the VC for several years, one of my favorites. The Prometheus music will be a treat!
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 22, 2014, 10:27:05 AM
The Prometheus music will be a treat!
8)
It is in the Anniversary box...... 8)
Q
Quote from: Que on July 22, 2014, 12:12:52 PM
It is in the Anniversary box...... 8)
Q
Guess I better dig deeper then. I haven't made it to the turn of the century yet... :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 22, 2014, 12:24:32 PM
Guess I better dig deeper then. I haven't made it to the turn of the century yet... :D
8)
Definitely give it a try, I found it a hugely pleasant surprise! :) Blows Harnoncourt's effort right out of the water.
Q
Quote from: Que on July 22, 2014, 10:36:14 PM
Definitely give it a try, I found it a hugely pleasant surprise! :) Blows Harnoncourt's effort right out of the water.
Q
Haven't heard that one either; I usually listen to MacKerras' on Hyperion. Quite fond of it. MI, of course, but it's Mackerras, so that balances out. :)
[asin]B0007XTNZ8[/asin]
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 23, 2014, 04:22:01 AM
Haven't heard that one either; I usually listen to MacKerras' on Hyperion. Quite fond of it. MI, of course, but it's Mackerras, so that balances out. :)
[asin]B0007XTNZ8[/asin]
8)
One of my favourite purchases from 2013!
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100516054254/uncyclopedia/images/a/a4/Beavis_%26_Butthead_-_Head_Banging.gif)
I wonder if most composers of the 18th & 19th century wouldn't in fact have preferred more modern performances had it been available. I can, for example, easily imagine Beethoven preferring Klemperer's version of the Eroica to what would only amount to an "emulation" of what he would have heard. We can call it an HIP but even that can be somewhat removed from what it sounded like in the original. In short an HIP may not have all that much HIP about it. If not true why are there so many styles rampant in that genre?
Quote from: max on July 24, 2014, 11:26:50 PM
I wonder if most composers of the 18th & 19th century wouldn't in fact have preferred more modern performances had it been available. I can, for example, easily imagine Beethoven preferring Klemperer's version of the Eroica to what would only amount to an "emulation" of what he would have heard.
Well, we're both being sepculative, of course. But I can as easily imagine
Beethoven thinking "
Gott im Himmel, what does that poncey git think he's
doing to my music??!!" on hearing syrupified textures and wilful bunny-hops of tempo.
I can easily imagine Beethoven in purple stockings, bending over while wearing bunny ear-muffs, scrubbing the kitchen floor with two massive potatoes, furiously breaking wind while complaining about the shambles that the Danish Navy was in and their ineptitude at the Battle of Anholt and suggesting that "Mathilde von Guise" and "La Cambiale di Matrimonio" were dreck and that he didn't, in any case, give a damn about Athens and it might as well fall into ruins, as far he was concerned.
Then again, that might be just because of my peculiar imagination.
You can imagine that. But it cannot be easy.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 07:50:40 AM
You can imagine that. But it cannot be easy.
You gotta admit, it does seem authentic. :)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 04:24:33 AM
Well, we're both being sepculative, of course. But I can as easily imagine Beethoven thinking "Gott im Himmel, what does that poncey git think he's doing to my music??!!" on hearing syrupified textures and wilful bunny-hops of tempo.
I never thought of Klemperer as a pancake mix kind of guy as was more in the nature of late Karajan. All I'm saying is THEN they wouldn't have heard the kind of performances available today and so we can't really say what they would have preferred. Even if Beethoven had retained perfect hearing I'm reasonably sure he would have preferred a modern concert grand for the piano concertos & sonatas.
Regardless of HIP or not, it's the performance that counts.
Also Beethoven would not have said
Gott im Himmel. He would have used a few choice five and six letter words instead because everything in Deutsch is longer including insults.
Quote from: max on July 25, 2014, 08:57:36 AM
Regardless of HIP or not, it's the performance that counts.
Certainly.
And
Beethoven might not have said
Gott im Himmel. But it's easy for me to imagine he might have 8)
Oh good, this argument again.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 09:05:30 AM
Certainly.
And Beethoven might not have said Gott im Himmel. But it's easy for me to imagine he might have 8)
Yes! It is easier to imagine but in reality it would have sounded more like one of the last days of Hitler rant.
You see, I want to imagine LvB's personality milder than it probably was.
Quote from: Pat B on July 25, 2014, 09:16:30 AM
Oh good, this argument again.
All I can say is; listen to Klemp if you want, don't make yourself feel better by imagining Beethoven would have agreed with you. ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 25, 2014, 09:28:46 AM
All I can say is; listen to Klemp if you want, don't make yourself feel better by imagining Beethoven would have agreed with you. ::)
8)
Because, after all, that is the path which, irresponsibly trod, leads to abominations like The Pink Harp fondly imagining that he knows what music of our day
Debussy would and would not like ::) 8) 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 09:27:56 AM
You see, I want to imagine LvB's personality milder than it probably was.
But then I remember the story in Maynard Solomon, about how his friend bribed a waitress to flirt with LvB, and LvB punched her in the face.
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
But then I remember the story in Maynard Solomon, about how his friend bribed a waitress to flirt with LvB, and LvB punched her in the face.
The story is confirmed by Schindler to have happened just so... except, however, that he suggests it wasn't a punch, and it wasn't her face.
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
But then I remember the story in Maynard Solomon, about how his friend bribed a waitress to flirt with LvB, and LvB punched her in the face.
Quote from: jlaurson on July 25, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
The story is confirmed by Schindler to have happened just so... except, however, that he suggests it wasn't a punch, and it wasn't her face.
I know there are limits 8)
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2014, 09:38:03 AM
But then I remember the story in Maynard Solomon, about how his friend bribed a waitress to flirt with LvB, and LvB punched her in the face.
Maybe the "piano lessons" didn't go well >:D
Quote from: max on July 25, 2014, 08:57:36 AM
I never thought of Klemperer as a pancake mix kind of guy as was more in the nature of late Karajan.
I personally think Ludwig loved hearty, thick, buckwheat pancakes. Well, I do. :D
Quote from: jlaurson on July 25, 2014, 06:24:11 AM
I can easily imagine Beethoven in purple stockings, bending over while wearing bunny ear-muffs, scrubbing the kitchen floor with two massive potatoes, furiously breaking wind while complaining about the shambles that the Danish Navy was in and their ineptitude at the Battle of Anholt and suggesting that "Mathilde von Guise" and "La Cambiale di Matrimonio" were dreck and that he didn't, in any case, give a damn about Athens and it might as well fall into ruins, as far he was concerned.
Then again, that might be just because of my peculiar imagination.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 07:50:40 AM
You can imagine that. But it cannot be easy.
Easy no. Hot, yes.
:D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 25, 2014, 10:09:23 AM
I personally think Ludwig loved hearty, thick, buckwheat pancakes. Well, I do. :D
I personally thnk that Ludwig loved raw P.E.I. oysters with a dash of tabasco, purple cow frozen yoghurt, and grilled Portuguese sweetbread.
But I doubt he liked them all together . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 10:37:08 AM
I personally thnk that Ludwig loved raw P.E.I. oysters with a dash of tabasco, purple cow frozen yoghurt, and grilled Portuguese sweetbread.
But I doubt he liked them all together . . . .
...and if he didn't like it, the waiter got it re-served to him in a manner where he could immediately taste it's short comings.
Quote from: max on July 25, 2014, 11:12:58 AM
...and if he didn't like it, the waiter got it re-served to him in a manner where he could immediately taste it's short comings.
Okay, now you're just speculating.
Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 11:43:37 AM
Okay, now you're just speculating.
Actually I'm not. Evidently in a restaurant LvB threw what was served directly into the waiter's face. When tasting what was boomeranged he said "rather good" or something to that effect. Beethoven then, not being completely without humor especially at someone else's expense broke out into one big belly laugh. By all accounts this was something he was completely capable of.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 25, 2014, 09:28:46 AM
All I can say is; listen to Klemp if you want, don't make yourself feel better by imagining Beethoven would have agreed with you. ::)
+1, and I'd add: please don't come onto a HIP thread to rehash strawmen about HIP.
FWIW I do enjoy Klemperer's set, and many other conventional performances, along with many PI ones.
Quote from: Pat B on June 25, 2014, 08:45:43 PM
I was under the (severely wrong) impression that the Penguin Guide was authoritative.
If you wanted a recommendation for a British performer, preferably in a British work, on a British label, or Karajan, then the Penguin Guide was perfect. I learned to trust it for comments on sound quality mostly.
Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
If you wanted a recommendation for a British performer, preferably in a British work, on a British label, or Karajan, then the Penguin Guide was perfect. I learned to trust it for comments on sound quality mostly.
In my defense, I figured it out about 15 years ago.
Quote from: Pat B on July 25, 2014, 03:51:44 PM
In my defense, I figured it out about 15 years ago.
Back in the early 80s they hated Walcha, Harnoncourt, Leonhardt. I learned fast that for Baroque music they were almost perfect south-facing compasses. So I relied on them :)
Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
If you wanted a recommendation for a British performer, preferably in a British work, on a British label, or Karajan, then the Penguin Guide was perfect. I learned to trust it for comments on sound quality mostly.
This is just not true.
Here are their recs for Beethoven 6:
Sony/Columbia SO/Walter
DG/VPO/Boehm
Naxos/BBC SO/Toscanini
Cala/City SO/Stokowski
Testament/BPO/Klemperer
EMI/Philharmonic O./Klemperer
Warner/COE/Harnoncourt
EMI/Philadelphia O/Muti
Sony/RPO/Beecham
EMI/New PO/Giulini
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 26, 2014, 12:10:26 AM
This is just not true.
Here are their recs for Beethoven 6:
Sony/Columbia SO/Walter
DG/VPO/Boehm
Naxos/BBC SO/Toscanini
Cala/City SO/Stokowski
Testament/BPO/Klemperer
EMI/Philharmonic O./Klemperer
Warner/COE/Harnoncourt
EMI/Philadelphia O/Muti
Sony/RPO/Beecham
EMI/New PO/Giulini
Far more Germans than Brits.
Klemperer had been adopted, courtesy Legge. New PO makes that recording English with Giulini... ditto BBC SO... ;)
Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 06:14:55 PM
Back in the early 80s they hated Walcha, Harnoncourt, Leonhardt. I learned fast that for Baroque music they were almost perfect south-facing compasses. So I relied on them :)
Strange to see Walcha and Leonhardt mentioned in the same breath. What do they have in common?
Whatever British bias they have doesn't bother me much since it is a British publication. My bigger problem is that their reviews were unreliable to the extent that I think I'd do about as well to pick recordings at random. Unlike Ken I never found any "south-facing compass" effect.
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 26, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
Strange to see Walcha and Leonhardt mentioned in the same breath. What do they have in common?
I'll take a stab at that: What Walcha and Leonhardt had in common is that Penguin didn't like them nearly as much as Ken does.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 26, 2014, 12:10:26 AM
This is just not true.
Here are their recs for Beethoven 6:
Sony/Columbia SO/Walter
DG/VPO/Boehm
Naxos/BBC SO/Toscanini
Cala/City SO/Stokowski
Testament/BPO/Klemperer
EMI/Philharmonic O./Klemperer
Warner/COE/Harnoncourt
EMI/Philadelphia O/Muti
Sony/RPO/Beecham
EMI/New PO/Giulini
Nearly all old time dead guys. Why am I not surprised? Great list for 1970 wit ha couple of oldies tossed in... ::)
I'll take the Harnoncourt. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2014, 06:03:48 AM
Nearly all old time dead guys. Why am I not surprised? Great list for 1970 wit ha couple of oldies tossed in... ::)
I'll take the Harnoncourt. :-
8)
Or
Immerseel.
Quote from: (: premont :) on July 26, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
Strange to see Walcha and Leonhardt mentioned in the same breath. What do they have in common?
Walcha's WTC on the harpsichord on Archiv. So, original instruments is the answer to your question.
Quote from: Pat B on July 26, 2014, 03:35:17 AM
I'll take a stab at that: What Walcha and Leonhardt had in common is that Penguin didn't like them nearly as much as Ken does.
Could be. There doesn't really have to be a simple unifying explanation does there? Back when period performance was still a bit fringe I found them to be a south facing compass on all things baroque. They gushed over Klemp"s Matthew, which I think the worst commercial recording ever made ( and yes I include The Monkees and The Archies). They liked Sargent's Messiah. They liked Karajan's Bach orchestral suites I recall. So, they were a reliable source 8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2014, 06:03:48 AM
Nearly all old time dead guys. Why am I not surprised? Great list for 1970 wit ha couple of oldies tossed in... ::)
I'll take the Harnoncourt. :-\
8)
Oldies, but goodies! :) In fairness, the book is from 2006 I think, so it would not have the rash of new releases, but still, only one from the 90's. It's the only one in that Harnoncourt box that I think is well done. At least he got my favorite Beethoven symphony right! :)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2014, 06:03:48 AM
Nearly all old time dead guys. Why am I not surprised? Great list for 1970 wit ha couple of oldies tossed in... ::)
I'll take the Harnoncourt. :-\
8)
Inside that Tibetan Book of the Dead, it wasn't too much hard to choose Harnoncourt, as Muti is the only another one alive. ;D
Quote from: Gordo on July 26, 2014, 11:52:43 AM
Inside that Tibetan Book of the Dead, it wasn't too much hard to choose Harnoncourt, as Muti is the only another one alive. ;D
:D Yeah, so I guess I don't need to subscribe to Penguin, eh? Unless it is in replacement of the obituary section of my newspaper (about which, I saw the obit of my newspaper recently: online!). >:D
8)
Quote from: Expresso on July 04, 2007, 04:07:15 AM
I've just noticed that i don't have any HIP Beethoven symphonies :(
Which ones should i try? Harnoncourt, Zinman, Norrington or someone else?
I'm not interested solely on box sets, i might pick single CD's from many conductors.
I'd recommend these HIP sets (in order):
1. Immerseel (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Overtures-Ludwig-van/dp/B0014WSWTY)(http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae102/peterpowerpop/Beethoven-SymphoniesImmerseel.jpg)
2. Brüggen (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-9-Symphonies-Ludwig-van/dp/B00000418Z) (his first set from 1995)
(http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae102/peterpowerpop/Beethoven-SymphoniesBruggen1995.jpg)
3. Gardiner (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Ludwig-van/dp/B0033QC0WE)(http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae102/peterpowerpop/Beethoven-SymphoniesGardiner.jpg)
And for modern instruments with an HIP influence, I'd recommend
Harnoncourt (http://www.amazon.com/Symphonies-1-9-L-V-Beethoven/dp/B000095IUM).
(http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae102/peterpowerpop/Beethoven-SymphoniesHarnoncourt.jpg~original)
Quote from: Peter Power Pop on September 27, 2014, 07:11:17 PM
I'd recommend these HIP sets (in order):
[....]
Brüggen 1 re-released in Europe last summer ... and this autumn elsewhere:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguid-21
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguideco
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2014, 10:03:21 AM
Brüggen 1 re-released in Europe last summer ... and this autumn elsewhere:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguid-21
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguideco
I am waiting for Spotify to put this on their system so I can make a decision as to whether I should buy it.
Quote from: Holden on September 28, 2014, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2014, 10:03:21 AM
Brüggen 1 re-released in Europe last summer ... and this autumn elsewhere:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguid-21
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Orchestra-Century-Ludwig-Br%C3%BCggen/dp/B00KNTLZ5W/?tag=goodmusicguideco
I am waiting for Spotify to put this on their system so I can make a decision as to whether I should buy it.
In the meantime, here are some excerpts on YouTube:
Symphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68 "Pastoral"Orchestra of the 18th Cerntury / Frans Brüggen (1995)
I. Erwachen heiterer Empfindungen bei der Ankunft auf dem Lande (Awakening of cheerful feelings upon arrival in the countryside): Allegro ma non troppo
http://www.youtube.com/v/v50XkRrp5x8
II. Szene am Bach (Scene by the brook): Andante molto mosso
http://www.youtube.com/v/C3wJzecTJQY
III. Lustiges Zusammensein der Landleute (Merry gathering of country folk): Allegro
http://www.youtube.com/v/yvBz4YQUsKA
IV. Gewitter, Sturm (Thunder. Storm): Allegro
http://www.youtube.com/v/ANRCCBtNYE4
V. Hirtengesang. Frohe und dankbare Gefühle nach dem Sturm (Shepherd's song; cheerful and thankful feelings after the storm): Allegretto
http://www.youtube.com/v/o2_n3i17s1U
Symphony No. 7 in A major, Op. 92Orchestra of the 18th Cerntury / Frans Brüggen (1995)
http://www.youtube.com/v/L9wcQDuOuhY&list=PL72DECAAEAF813742
Symphony No. 8 in F major, Op. 93Orchestra of the 18th Cerntury / Frans Brüggen (1995)
I. Allegro vivace e con brio
http://www.youtube.com/v/F6-NwOOCASs
II. Allegretto scherzando;
III. Tempo di Menuetto;
IV. Allegro vivace
http://www.youtube.com/v/XiUCjC6dKH4
Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125 "Choral"Orchestra of the 18th Cerntury / Frans Brüggen (1995)
I. Allegro ma non troppo, un poco maestoso
http://www.youtube.com/v/Sdh2B-p_pTI
II. Scherzo: Molto vivace - Presto
http://www.youtube.com/v/ML3bCwE-650
III. Adagio molto e cantabile - Andante moderato - Tempo primo - Andante moderato - Adagio - Lo stesso tempo
http://www.youtube.com/v/FSLaw-Ztfws
IV. (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/v/UlZik8_3bR0
IV. (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/v/uk1_BC0j110
I'm in luck, they've just been added but thank you for your post.
Quote from: Holden on September 29, 2014, 10:34:06 PM
I'm in luck, they've just been added ...
Excellent.
(I just found it: Beethoven Symphonies / Frans Brüggen on Spotify (https://play.spotify.com/album/1T4Zv9I6ejhB9pTIeX0a4s).)
Quote... but thank you for your post.
No problem.
Sorry to bump two Beethoven symphonies threads in relatively quick succession but...it's Beethoven.
Last night I spent a frustrating-but-enjoyable (in equal measures) few hours listening to 10 HIP (what constitutes HIP is an argument which utterly bores me so I won't get into it) recordings of the Seventh and made a not-entirely-successful effort and a blind test, movement by movement by using shuffled Spotify playlists. It wasn't entirely blind and therefore wasn't entirely scientific, so rather than give scores on the doors I'll roughly group them how I scored them. A note on my general preferences - I can handle hyper-HIP is Savall's timpani-fest but with something as perfect as the Seventh I find that often just playing it pretty straight and letting the music do the talking does the trick, and I'm not dogmatic about anything.
Top tier: Gardiner/ORR (studio), Gardiner/ORR (live at Carnegie Hall), Weil/Tafelmusik, Bruggen/O18C
Gardiner (studio): a brisk start but the Vivace is absolutely spot on - brimming with energy and emotion. This is easily my favourite version of the first movement. Second movement has exquisite phrasing and a a lovely second subject, with beautiful woodwind playing. Third movement has a majestic Trio section and the transition back to the main subject is spot on. Plenty of excitement. Finale gets going straight away and although few risks are taken and it doesn't really go into orbit but the movement works well. Superb recording quality. Highly recommended.
Gardiner (live): Terrific energy in the first movement (like the studio recording). The slow movement is lush and very grand. Listener's attention is kept on board with some nice phrasing. (Overall, most of the interpretations of this movement are pretty straightforward: let the music do the talking). The Scherzo makes an instant statement - loads of energy and humour - borderline OTT but just stays on the right side. There's nothing outrageously idiosyncratic in the finale, but it gets straight to the point and the balance and musicality are spot on. Recording is a touch woolly but nothing terrible (not once did I say "aha! That must be the live recording"). Whisper it, but this might just be the best of the whole lot.
Weil: First movement is somewhat restrained but beautifully played and you can tell a lot of thought has gone into it. NEver comes out of third gear but it subtly dances without being histrionic. The Allegretto is stunning although it does feel somewhat like Couperin. But the string sounds are to die for. The Scherzo is a little oblique but it has a lovely clean sound, wonderful strings, perhaps a little Mozart-like and lightweight overall. The finale goes off at a gallop and could be cleaner in the faster sections, lacks a little air. It's solid and builds up massively towards the end. Overall Weil's version is very, very good.
Bruggen: first movement is rather ponderous and heavy, a bit humourless but the transition from intro to the main subject is stunning - time stands still. Vivace is a little slow and it doesn't dance particularly but despite its seriousness this is really very good. The allegretto I don't think I was listening all that carefully as I've only noted "recording is a little thin" and given it 3.5/5 which is average. Third movement is full of dancing with lots of crisp energy. Some nice combinations of textures with a bit of spice and aggression from time to time but nothing overdone. One of the best scherzos. The last movement really motors and although it feels a touch rushed, it has loads of intensity and grabs your attention and sweeps you along. Probably the best finale, although I found the way it slows up for the last couple of notes frustrating.
Middle tier: Savall, Harnoncourt, Herreweghe
Savall: as I posted in the other thread, I love Savall's Beethoven set like rice but with the Seventh my overall impression is that he's just trying a bit too hard. After a slow, serious start, the Vivace has plenty of drama but it feels a little forced. The Allegretto really works: solid and conservative like most of the other recordings, but with a lot of thought going into it and it pays off. The Scherzo swings nicely; the trio section is a little rapid for my tastes, sounds grand but too Haydnesque for me. The finale tries far too hard, it dances but the dancing is 18th century court dancing rather than a "we've just won the World Cup" jamboree. Every note is discernible but this is one where you within seconds you know it's Savall - I wish he would just let the roof come off and let things flow. A good alternative version, but not one for every day.
Harnoncourt: a rather measured intro leads into a sprightly Vivace. The modern instruments add a bit of power which is no bad thing. A nice touch towards the end with prominent cellos. The slow movement is solid. Scherzo is also a pretty traditional reading with energy in the right places, and the transition from the development back to the main subject is wonderful. Balance in the final movement is all wrong: the strings are virtually inaudible at times. This is a shame, because the movement is trying to make a statement, builds to furious climaxes and whilst a touch contrived, it works really hard to get every drop out of the music, but the recording quality and balance lets things down. Overall this is a decent reading.
Herreweghe: my reaction to each movement was similar - this is a conservative approach with modern instruments and sounds fine without really doing anything extraordinary. The finale has a laid-back tempo and there is some air in there. It feels triumphant but there's no fun. Warms up towards the end. Acceptable overall, but I'd probably file this amongst the traditional recordings.
Third tier: Norrington, Hogwood, Immerseel
Norrington: this is patchy. A stunning start which crackles with tension, then we go into a Vivace where everything's a bit ordinary and a slightly muddy sound. The Allegretto is good: a sprightly pace, with nice string textures and it flows nicely - a good reading. The Scherzo I found was pretty ordinary with nothing memorable, which was rather a surprise given this movement's potential and this being Norrington! Then the final movement was a real let-down, sounded like a school band going through the motions, too pedestrian, this is background music. The climaxes are good but there's no tension leading up to them and some loud brass doesn't turn a piece around. Finishes well. A shame as the first two movements were really pretty good.
Hogwood: this reading is consistent throughout - it's straightforward, relying on the music to speak for itself and the orchestra's playing is beautiful throughout but I just wished for more. The first movement is flawless but unexciting, I wanted more risks - there is gravitas but no drama in the opening - it's all too safe. Second movement is also conservative but beautiful, works better. The third movement is rather traditional but fleet of foot and has a nice flow. Trio is brisk but restrained. This movement works well. Finale blares too much - it's exciting the way being repeatedly hit on the head with a hammer is exciting. Little subtlety. With hindsight I marked the first movement very harshly and perhaps this belongs in the middle tier.
Immerseel: I consider myself a huge fan of Immerseel's Beethoven so I was really surprised when I listened blind how little it did for me. First movement is out of the blocks and is light and airy. Second movement is fine but nothing special. The Scherzo is all wrong: it sprints rather than dances. Tight but feels rushed. The Trio has exaggerated phrasing which makes it sound a bit drunk. Overall terrific energy and I added half a point for effort but it's all a bit much. Finale is decent.
Conclusions - I'd never heard the Weil and this is a very interesting reading with a wonderful slow movement. I was surprised at how good the Bruggen was and also by how much I didn't enjoy the Immerseel. Most consistent of all throughout though was Gardiner who just gets the balance right of power and lightness, musicality, crispness and drama without histrionics. The live and studio versions have their differences but are recognisably the same conductor and I'd recommend either.
Gardiner is probably my favorite HIP cycle, except for Bruggen's second (Glossa) cycle, which is my favorite for 8 3/4ths of the symphonies. [The male soloists ruin the finale of the Ninth.]
But which one did you listen to? Both of his cycles were with the OotEC.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51BkXh-dePL._AC_SX296_SY426_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71joK9q3cDL._AC_SX296_SY426_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg)