Recently I have been more into classical music. You may have noticed my activity on this forum. Now I am AGAIN facing the insanity of classical music in the form of abundance. I'm constantly on Amazon browsing CDs to buy! Damn! I'm listening to Spotify like there was no tomorrow! Damn. Classical music takes my life, my time, my money! It's insane!
Non-classical music is so easy in comparison. It is so "limited". Most of my favorite non-classical artists have released only a couple of albums or singles. Tangerine Dream is extremely prolific (100+ albums) among my other favorites and even it is somewhat manageable compared to classical music. Yes, there is A LOT of non-classical music, but what helps a lot is the fact that I find 99 % of it totally uninteresting. Classical music is another story. So much of it (perhaps 30 %) IS interesting.
All the talk about composers I haven't explored much makes me feel I should explore them, but exploring just one of them takes a lot of time and money. It's exhausting, but there's dozens and dozens of these composers! The list of obscure Russian composers alone has dozens of names! What about Poland? Turkey? Romania? Italy? Belgium? Chile? Canada? South-Africa? The list of obscure names contains hundreds if not thousands of names! Who can explore such abundance? You need to limit yourself radically to do any kind of exploration, but is the exploration even meaningful if it's done under radical limitation? Are we fans of classical music totally insane? I don't know.
How do you fans of classical music deal with the insane cornucopia that is classical music? Sometimes I am so scared of it! :o
Quote from: 71 dB on May 21, 2017, 10:31:22 AM
Recently I have been more into classical music. You may have noticed my activity on this forum. Now I am AGAIN facing the insanity of classical music in the form of abundance. I'm constantly on Amazon browsing CDs to buy! Damn! I'm listening to Spotify like there was no tomorrow! Damn. Classical music takes my life, my time, my money! It's insane!
Non-classical music is so easy in comparison. It is so "limited". Most of my favorite non-classical artists have released only a couple of albums or singles. Tangerine Dream is extremely prolific (100+ albums) among my other favorites and even it is somewhat manageable compared to classical music. Yes, there is A LOT of non-classical music, but what helps a lot is the fact that I find 99 % of it totally uninteresting. Classical music is another story. So much of it (perhaps 30 %) IS interesting.
All the talk about composers I haven't explored much makes me feel I should explore them, but exploring just one of them takes a lot of time and money. It's exhausting, but there's dozens and dozens of these composers! The list of obscure Russian composers alone has dozens of names! What about Poland? Turkey? Romania? Italy? Belgium? Chile? Canada? South-Africa? The list of obscure names contains hundreds if not thousands of names! Who can explore such abundance? You need to limit yourself radically to do any kind of exploration, but is the exploration even meaningful if it's done under radical limitation? Are we fans of classical music totally insane? I don't know.
How do you fans of classical music deal with the insane cornucopia that is classical music? Sometimes I am so scared of it! :o
I am not sure we do! I recognize the feelings you describe. I have hundreds of unheard discs still. So after 40 years I am still in that boat at least some of the time.
Quote from: Ken B on May 21, 2017, 11:19:25 AM
I am not sure we do! I recognize the feelings you describe. I have hundreds of unheard discs still. So after 40 years I am still in that boat at least some of the time.
I don't have much problems with unheard discs. I hardly ever have more than a few unheard discs waiting for my attention. For me it's about
considering buying and exploring this and that...
Just think about how "bad" it would be for you if you loved music of the present day! The abundance would never run out.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 21, 2017, 11:30:42 AM
I don't have much problems with unheard discs. I hardly ever have more than a few unheard discs waiting for my attention. For me it's about considering buying and exploring this and that...
Then I better not mention the complete Bach cantatas by Suzuki, or the Angeles Quartet complete Haydn cycle! ;)
My computer just went down and I lost all my installed apps and the databases from an earlier office program. The large collection of cds and lps will get played again, some for the first time in many years as I try to re-create my files. + and - for the situation.
When you have hundreds of recordings of the same works, it tends to get that way. :-X
Quote from: Mahlerian on May 21, 2017, 11:46:14 AM
Just think about how "bad" it would be for you if you loved music of the present day! The abundance would never run out.
Well, I love about 1 % of non-classical present day music. ;) If I loved the rest 99 % I would propably not be into classical music.
Quote from: Ken B on May 21, 2017, 11:47:56 AM
Then I better not mention the complete Bach cantatas by Suzuki, or the Angeles Quartet complete Haydn cycle! ;)
Well, I call tell you I have the Bach cantatas by Suzuki minus volumes 51-54. :D
(just waiting for the moment to get them as cheap as possible).
Quote from: greg on May 21, 2017, 02:00:32 PM
When you have hundreds of recordings of the same works, it tends to get that way. :-X
"Affirmative" would K9 say... :D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 21, 2017, 02:20:14 PM
Well, I love about 1 % of non-classical present day music. ;) If I loved the rest 99 % I would propably not be into classical music.
Well, I meant contemporary classical music. Plenty of us are still composing, you know?
Quote from: Mahlerian on May 21, 2017, 02:38:50 PM
Well, I meant contemporary classical music. Plenty of us are still composing, you know?
I like contemporary classical music too. I have been exploring it recently.
This is the beauty of classical. It is probably the most diverse musical genre. It is immense and it is impossible to know everything there is know about classical music.
There are over 200 CD's on my wish list and as a result of the more informative threads that list is growing. I am seventy years old and I am always discovering something new even if is an unfamiliar work of the one of the great masters. I recently discovered the Etudes symphoniques of Robert Schumann.
It is a journey that will engross you for the rest of your life. ;)
Quote from: arpeggio on May 21, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
This is the beauty of classical. It is probably the most diverse musical genre. It is immense and it is impossible to know everything there is know about classical music.
There are over 200 CD's on my wish list and as a result of the more informative threads that list is growing. I am seventy years old and I am always discovering something new even if is an unfamiliar work of the one of the great masters. I recently discovered the Etudes symphoniques of Robert Schumann.
It is a journey that will engross you for the rest of your life. ;)
Yes. People have been writing music for centuries. All the old stuff that survived is called classical. That's a huge, ever growing, amount of music!
There is a lot of stuff out there. I like to explore it a bit at a time, focussing on a particular genre or composer or few years at a time so I can get to know stuff well. There was a month I almost exclusively listened to orchestral music from the 1760s and 1770s excluding Haydn and Mozart. And there was also a period of time I listened to barely anything except for Michael Nyman. Sometimes I spend a week or two just listening to secular medieval music. I never feel like I 'should' explore anything, I just listen because I want to. If I discover something I particularly like then I'd go and buy it.
Quote from: jessop on May 21, 2017, 08:45:22 PM
I never feel like I 'should' explore anything, I just listen because I want to. If I discover something I particularly like then I'd go and buy it.
I wish it was that clear for me. Maybe it's an illusion that everyone here knows almost everything about classical music. Someone is perhaps an expert on Haydn, but has maybe hardly heard anything by Walton. I have listened to classical music for 20 years, but there have been many years when most of my listening have been non-classical. When I really discovered classical music in 1997, it was the most exciting thing in the world! The excitement has faded away since, and I never get the kind of kicks anymore I did back then. I have to say the most interesting area of classical music for me recently has been contemporary music. From James Aikman to Ellen Taaffe Zwilich I have found this stuff interesting to explore and it has been a revelation to me. I had always assumed that after Schoenberg 90 % of all classical music has been very dissonant, but it's almost the opposite. New classical music is often less dissonant than Wagner! I also like how colourful, fresh and dynamic this stuff is. Makes older classical music sound... ...well... old. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2017, 12:05:27 AM
I wish it was that clear for me. Maybe it's an illusion that everyone here knows almost everything about classical music. Someone is perhaps an expert on Haydn, but has maybe hardly heard anything by Walton. I have listened to classical music for 20 years, but there have been many years when most of my listening have been non-classical. When I really discovered classical music in 1997, it was the most exciting thing in the world! The excitement has faded away since, and I never get the kind of kicks anymore I did back then. I have to say the most interesting area of classical music for me recently has been contemporary music. From James Aikman to Ellen Taaffe Zwilich I have found this stuff interesting to explore and it has been a revelation to me. I had always assumed that after Schoenberg 90 % of all classical music has been very dissonant, but it's almost the opposite. New classical music is often less dissonant than Wagner! I also like how colourful, fresh and dynamic this stuff is. Makes older classical music sound... ...well... old. ;D
I think you're right, there is some kind of illusion I get about many of us knowing almost everything about classical music. I actually tend to just assume people know things rather than type any response I have to people making the assumption that they don't know certain repertoire i might be mentioning....
But then again, I know that I have spent very very little time with classical music compared to most people here and I've spent a lot of my own time learning about some repertoire in particular and not at other repertoire.....it wasn't until last year that I listened to every Brahms symphony, for example, but I had heard every Ferneyhough string quartet and the fifth and sixth books of Gesualdo madrigals before then.
I guess it's just being able to take things in in my own time that I truly enjoy discovering classical music.
And it's always interesting to read about other people's explorations too. I'd like to hear from you where I could start with Zwilich becuase i haven't heard much..... :)
Quote from: jessop on May 22, 2017, 12:53:39 AM
it wasn't until last year that I listened to every Brahms symphony, for example, but I had heard every Ferneyhough string quartet and the fifth and sixth books of Gesualdo madrigals before then.
Ha! That sounds familiar to me - the first time I heard
Messiah, I recognised the
Comfort ye aria from its mangled and parodied quotation in Davies's
Eight songs for a Mad King.
Quote from: jessop on May 22, 2017, 12:53:39 AM
I think you're right, there is some kind of illusion I get about many of us knowing almost everything about classical music. I actually tend to just assume people know things rather than type any response I have to people making the assumption that they don't know certain repertoire i might be mentioning....
It's good to remind ourself that someone who knows everything about Beethoven's Piano Sonatas might have never heard music by Vanhal.
Quote from: jessop on May 22, 2017, 12:53:39 AMBut then again, I know that I have spent very very little time with classical music compared to most people here and I've spent a lot of my own time learning about some repertoire in particular and not at other repertoire.....it wasn't until last year that I listened to every Brahms symphony, for example, but I had heard every Ferneyhough string quartet and the fifth and sixth books of Gesualdo madrigals before then.
Well, think for long I had more music by Johann Rosenmüller than Brahms. ;D I think I still have more music by Rosenmüller than Mahler or Bruckner and my Mahler and Bruckner collections together struggle to compete with my Fasch -collection. My Dvorak-collection can barely beat my Schieferdecker -collection despite of the fact the number of Schieferdecker-recordings is extremely low.
Quote from: jessop on May 22, 2017, 12:53:39 AMI guess it's just being able to take things in in my own time that I truly enjoy discovering classical music.
Yes, I enjoy exploring things on my own terms.
Quote from: jessop on May 22, 2017, 12:53:39 AMAnd it's always interesting to read about other people's explorations too. I'd like to hear from you where I could start with Zwilich becuase i haven't heard much..... :)
I am a total Zwilich-newbie and I have two Naxos discs of her music. I bought them at low price last year. Hard to say which one is the "better starting point". My problem is that I am parsimonious and it's difficult for me to pay much for CDs. So, it's possible most Zwilich-recordings are forever out of my price range...
...talking about female composers
Margaret Brouwer had even greater impact on me. She is perhaps my favorite female composer. Again, the two Naxos discs are what I have. 0:)
Anyway, don't
force yourself to explore stuff because people tell you to do so. Nobody has never recommended Margaret Brouwer, Rendine, Di Vittorio, Aikman, Bryars, Schwantner (Karl Henning's teacher!) and many more to me. I discovered these composers with my own "earwork". Ferneyhough has been recommended to me, but I'm not so sure he is my cup of tea (sorry about that). We have different tastes and it's ok. We may learn to like stuff we didn't like before, but it takes a lot of time.
The classical music is such a vast field that even if one limits itself to only one era, or to a handful of favorite composers, there is still plenty of music to keep one busy for the whole lifetime. There is nothing wrong with this approach, just as there is nothing wrong with trying to explore and absorb as much music as one can.
That being said, I could use a severe limitation myself. There are lots of things by my favorite composers to which I haven't yet given a complete and proper listening. :D
Quote from: Ken B on May 21, 2017, 11:47:56 AM
Then I better not mention the complete Bach cantatas by Suzuki, or the Angeles Quartet complete Haydn cycle! ;)
I have two Haydn Quartet cycles (almost entirely) unheard (skulks away in shame).
Festetics, Aeolian
Quote from: Scarpia on May 22, 2017, 10:59:55 AM
I have two Haydn Quartet cycles (almost entirely) unheard (skulks away in shame).
Festetics, Aeolian
The only Haydn String Quartets I have are:
Op. 64 (Kodály Quartet/Naxos)
Op. 76 (Quatuor Mosaïques/Astrée)
I don't think I need more. I enjoy the String Quartets of Beethoven and Mozart more. Even Dittersdorf's String Quartets seem more compatible with my taste. :o
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
The only Haydn String Quartets I have are:
Op. 64 (Kodály Quartet/Naxos)
Op. 76 (Quatuor Mosaïques/Astrée)
I don't think I need more. I enjoy the String Quartets of Beethoven and Mozart more. Even Dittersdorf's String Quartets seem more compatible with my taste. :o
It is a good experience for me. I am through about 3 discs on each set. I listen to the Aeolian set (old school performance) then the Festetics (period instrument, HIP). It is an interesting contrast. They were both "super bargain" so the total money laid out is not excessive, even if I never make to every disc.
I have a few discs of the Kodaly quartet on Naxos. They also do a good job.
I recognize that I am a complete lover of classical music. My first approach to this music was 12 years ago when I heard the first movements of Beethoven's symphonies 5th and 6th (hence Beethoven has been of my favorite ones, but lately I haven't listened to anything of him). Since then I knew this was true and exciting music, far from the banality of other genres. This music fills my soul entirely. Constantly I'm exploring new composers, new works and I have found plenty of stunning pieces, it's a very much satisfying experience. As other members have said here, I've spent much time listening to every composition; it's kind of difficult manage this affair since it's like an addiction, it's complex not to do it. I sometimes prefer to play different pieces when I can, discover new jewels and rescue them from darkness. For instance, currently I'm listening to orchestral pieces by some different composers (e.g. Noskowski, Granados, Taneyev, Schnittke, Casella) and their works are really interesting, without mention those that I lack for listening. Really it's an epic and almost endless voyage.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 22, 2017, 11:26:56 AM
It is a good experience for me. I am through about 3 discs on each set. I listen to the Aeolian set (old school performance) then the Festetics (period instrument, HIP). It is an interesting contrast. They were both "super bargain" so the total money laid out is not excessive, even if I never make to every disc.
I have a few discs of the Kodaly quartet on Naxos. They also do a good job.
I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward. Their Beethoven is much better, but still not top shelf.
Quote from: Ken B on May 22, 2017, 06:47:15 PM
I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward.
From what little I've heard of their
Haydn set, my impressions are markedly different than yours. Sound is certainly not ideal but not that bad either, while the first violin is very good. :laugh:
My other complete sets are Angeles, Buchberger and Kodaly. Needless to say, I haven't listened to any of it entirely. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 23, 2017, 05:01:16 AM
From what little I've heard of their Haydn set, my impressions are markedly different than yours. Sound is certainly not ideal but not that bad either, while the first violin is very good. :laugh:
My other complete sets are Angeles, Buchberger and Kodaly. Needless to say, I haven't listened to any of it entirely. ;D
You might like Florence Foster Jenkins. Not the movie -- her own recordings. 8)
Quote from: Ken B on May 23, 2017, 05:27:23 AM
You might like Florence Foster Jenkins. Not the movie -- her own recordings. 8)
Florence who?
Quote from: Florestan on May 23, 2017, 05:29:40 AM
Florence who?
I'm sorry. I was responding to Foster Jenkins on the travel thread. My bad.
Quote from: Ken B on May 22, 2017, 06:47:15 PM
I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward. Their Beethoven is much better, but still not top shelf.
I have no issue with the sound (typical early 70's Decca analog, a bit on the bright side) and generally I find the performances pleasing. If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with the Festetics set, but often I find the Aeolian brings out some detail that I miss in the other. I picked the Aeolian over the Angeles (which was similarly priced at the time, as I recall) because of some reviews I read which said that the Angeles quartet suffered from inappropriate dominance of the 1st violin. I haven't heard the Angeles recordings, so I can't say.
The Angeles is not ideal in balance but I think the dominance has been exaggerated by some reviewers. When I bought it it was basically the only option in a convenient box as Aeolian was oop (and had bad press) and the Tatrai or Kodaly were either far more expensive (without having much better press) and/or only as singles/doubles. I still think the Angeles holds up extremely well in the pieces I mostly need it for, namely op.1-op.17. For the later pieces they often tend a little to the "sprightly elegant" side but are still pretty good. As I have usually 2-4 alternative recordings for my favorite pieces among the quartets this does not bother me. Nowadays I'd probably recommend either the Buchberger if it is still so cheap (although the Angeles play more cleanly and elegantly) or getting separate recordings and fill up the gaps with the Kodaly (although I think the Angeles beat the Kodaly who tend to the staid side).
Quote from: Jo498 on May 23, 2017, 09:30:37 AM
... the Angeles holds up extremely well ... I'd probably recommend ... the Buchberger if it is still so cheap (although the Angeles play more cleanly and elegantly)... the Angeles beat the Kodaly
+1
I rank the Mosaiques first on the 50% or so they have recorded but of the *complete* sets I have heard (which alas does not include the Festetics) I put them
Angeles
Buchberger
Kodaly
I have heard only about 4 discs each of the Kodaly (I kept only two with the dubious op.3 and other early stuff) and the Buchberger (op.9 and 33). The Buchberger have quite a bit of energy but they are also scratchy at times and for some listeners the more refined Angeles would certainly be a better first contact (but again, when I bought the Angeles in the early 2000s the Buchberger recordings had not been out, so it was not an option).
Of the Festetics I have about 2/3 in the single (i.e. 2 disc sets) issues. They are often so different from others that they are hard to compare. When I have heard both I prefer the Mosaiques. Both tend to err sometimes to the slow and weighty side (which together with all the repeats can sometimes lead to slightly stodgy results. I have not yet tried any of the ongoing HIP series with the London Haydn quartet. Overall, I am reasonably satisfied with the Haydn quartet abundance I already have.
To be honest, much as I enjoy them, I don't find the Haydn quartets to be weighty and profound works that demand multiple interpretations. They are very skillfully written and and have not found that a difference of interpretation ever makes or breaks it for me. I find the main advantage of having two sets is that differences in balance sometimes bring out melodic lines in one that are obscure in the other.
I have all the Mosaïques recordings, supplemented with the London Haydn Quartet's Opp. 50, 54 & 55 (I'm not familiar with the Opp. 9 & 17 but I will probably get the LHQ sets of those too eventually). I like both ensembles enough not to bother with alternatives.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 23, 2017, 01:10:04 PM
To be honest, much as I enjoy them, I don't find the Haydn quartets to be weighty and profound works that demand multiple interpretations. They are very skillfully written and and have not found that a difference of interpretation ever makes or breaks it for me.
I think that a lot of them are profound but more importantly that they can really suffer from routine interpretations. I could easily understand if someone was bored by Haydn quartets if he had only heard the Kodaly...
This is a frequent danger with big recording projects, especially if the ensemble records all within a few years. Because there is a lot of them and Haydn is often not as obviously profound like Beethoven or melodically charming like Mozart, the pieces need both attention to detail and alertness and "conviction" from the side of the players.
(The same holds for Haydn's symphonies and other large bodies of works.)
Quote from: Jo498 on May 23, 2017, 11:20:58 PM
I could easily understand if someone was bored by Haydn quartets if he had only heard the Kodaly...
Haydn is often not as obviously profound like Beethoven or melodically charming like Mozart, the pieces need both attention to detail and alertness and "conviction" from the side of the players.
(The same holds for Haydn's symphonies and other large bodies of works.)
Naxos bashing again? Nobody has said the Naxos cycle it the best ever, but I believe it it considered good. The Op. 64 discs by Kodaly were I believe among the best of the cycle in it's early stage (Classic CD *****, PG ***, Gramophone Editors Choice, Répertoire recommended). That's why I selected it among the other String Quartets of Haydn some 20 years ago. A few years back I got the Op. 76 (Quatuor Mosaïques/Astrée) twofer, because it was told to be so damn great here in GMG and Op. 76 was told to be one of Haydn's best. Well, is it superior to Kodaly? No. Better? Perhaps just a little, but nothing dramatic. A bit bright and bass shy recording.
Maybe sometimes it's the composer to blame if you need a performance of the century to enjoy the music? Anyway, I do enjoy this music, it's quality chamber music. It's just that in my opinion Dittersdorf composed quality music too, at least enjoyable and Beethoven took the art of String Quartets to a whole new level... 0:)
I must say I do prefer chamber music with piano (Piano Trios, Piano Quartets, Piano Quintets) and I enjoy Haydn's Piano Trios a lot. I have the Beaux Arts Trio 9 CD set. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 12:40:45 AM
I enjoy Haydn's Piano Trios a lot. I have the Beaux Arts Trio 9 CD set. :)
That's a very poor choice, really. Get the
Van Swieten Trio set as soon as possible!
(Just kidding, man! The BAT is excellent and I don't think you need any other set unless you really want to have them in HIP as well.)
No, it's not Naxos-bashing. The Angeles and probably also the Buchberger cycles (don't know about the Aeolian) were recorded within fewer years than the Kodaly who took their time. In all cases, routine or a too uniform approach is a danger and I conceded this further above for the set I know best and actually recommended in spite of this, the Angeles. But the Angeles are not boring, their playing is more alert and elegant than the pedestrian Kodalys. The Buchberger is not boring either but they don't sound as good (scratchy at times) but they are also far more energetic than the Kodalys.
I am well aware that the Penguin/Gramophone praised the Kodaly Haydn. But first of all, the Penguin is dubious very often and Haydn is not really their core competence. Secondly, in the 1990s the Penguin had a thing for Naxos and admittedly there were *far* fewer options for Haydn quartets and symphonies and most of the Naxos Haydn was at least solid, so it was understandable that they recommended them. But almost everyone who knew his way around the alternative options was puzzled that the Naxos Haydn recordings became almost the standard Penguin recommendations.
I have not heard the op.64 with the Kodalys, only one disc each of op.17 and 20 and the early/not by Haydn op.3.
Now op.20 is by most lovers of string quartets considered to be one of the greatest collections of such works. The Kodaly do not manage to completely obscure that fact (they are solid, as I said) but I really found them lackluster and routine (I got rid of the disc ages ago - the op.17 was better but also lacked flair in my ears). At least some of the Kodaly recordings also suffer from too much reverb. Some people like that because a quartet tends to sound larger and less "scratchy".
Unlike you I really love and care for the Haydn quartets a lot and have usually heard/own around 3 recordings even of the lesser known pieces and typically 5-6 of the better known ones and the Kodalys are not more than solid. (Same holds for Drahos and Müller-Brühl in the symphonies.) Still I was more positive about them than Ken and even suggested using them to "fill the gaps" rather than getting one of the complete sets I (like Ken) prefer to the Kodalys. But another point was that unlike in the 1990s the Kodalys are not really competitive even in price because the Angeles and Buchberger are even cheaper, if one wants to get a whole set. And for those who don't care about the price there is now also the Auryn. So together with lots of other non-complete recordings of Haydn the situation is very different compared to 20 years ago and the Kodaly even less recommendable than it used to be.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2017, 01:26:39 AM
That's a very poor choice, really. Get the Van Swieten Trio set as soon as possible!
(Just kidding, man! The BAT is excellent and I don't think you need any other set unless you really want to have them in HIP as well.)
You are playing with your life! People has been killed for lesser reasons! ;D
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 01:38:11 AM
No, it's not Naxos-bashing. The Angeles and probably also the Buchberger cycles (don't know about the Aeolian) were recorded within fewer years than the Kodaly who took their time. In all cases, routine or a too uniform approach is a danger and I conceded this further above for the set I know best and actually recommended in spite of this, the Angeles. But the Angeles are not boring, their playing is more alert and elegant than the pedestrian Kodalys. The Buchberger is not boring either but they don't sound as good (scratchy at times) but they are also far more energetic than the Kodalys.
I am well aware that the Penguin/Gramophone praised the Kodaly Haydn. But first of all, the Penguin is dubious very often and Haydn is not really their core competence. Secondly, in the 1990s the Penguin had a thing for Naxos and admittedly there were *far* fewer options for Haydn quartets and symphonies and most of the Naxos Haydn was at least solid, so it was understandable that they recommended them. But almost everyone who knew his way around the alternative options was puzzled that the Naxos Haydn recordings became almost the standard Penguin recommendations.
I have not heard the op.64 with the Kodalys, only one disc each of op.17 and 20 and the early/not by Haydn op.3.
Now op.20 is by most lovers of string quartets considered to be one of the greatest collections of such works. The Kodaly do not manage to completely obscure that fact (they are solid, as I said) but I really found them lackluster and routine (I got rid of the disc ages ago - the op.17 was better but also lacked flair in my ears). At least some of the Kodaly recordings also suffer from too much reverb. Some people like that because a quartet tends to sound larger and less "scratchy".
Unlike you I really love and care for the Haydn quartets a lot and have usually heard/own around 3 recordings even of the lesser known pieces and typically 5-6 of the better known ones and the Kodalys are not more than solid. (Same holds for Drahos and Müller-Brühl in the symphonies.) Still I was more positive about them than Ken and even suggested using them to "fill the gaps" rather than getting one of the complete sets I (like Ken) prefer to the Kodalys. But another point was that unlike in the 1990s the Kodalys are not really competitive even in price because the Angeles and Buchberger are even cheaper, if one wants to get a whole set. And for those who don't care about the price there is now also the Auryn. So together with lots of other non-complete recordings of Haydn the situation is very different compared to 20 years ago and the Kodaly even less recommendable than it used to be.
What can I say? I bought the Naxos discs some 20 years ago when there, as you say, where far less competition and Kodaly used to be more recommendable it is today. How would I have known Penguin has a thing with Naxos? Klaus Heymann bribed them? Penguin is not the only one to have recommended Naxos, so Heymann must have bribed them all! Is it really a serious crime to buy Naxos? You don't need to listen to my crappy Naxos discs, do you? Enjoy your awesome Haydn collection. I am happy for you for having such a stunning performances, but do you really need to ruin the fun for me?
I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 03:13:30 AM
Is it really a serious crime to buy Naxos? You don't need to listen to my crappy Naxos discs, do you? Enjoy your awesome Haydn collection. I am happy for you for having such a stunning performances, but do you really need to ruin the fun for me?
I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.
Relax, man! You take things much too seriously and personally. Nobody forces you to buy, or throw away, anything. Why would your fun be ruined because somebody, somewhere dislikes what you like? Do you really need your taste to be validated by others? Do you enjoy Leaper's Nielsen less because Mirror Image dissed it? You like what you like, they like what they like, period. Why all the fuss about it?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 03:13:30 AM
I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones
On this forum it is completely inevitable.
Why are you offended? You write that you are happy with the Haydn discs you have and you are not sufficiently interested in the music to get more recordings anyway.
Why does it spoil your fun if someone points out that there are recordings out there they prefer? And I don't even know the particular Naxos discs you have, maybe the rather relaxed approach of the Kodaly works well there. If you compare them to the Mosaiques I think you will find that the latter are "more involved" and offer less generic interpretations (I think this should be noticeable even when listening to different pieces). And why did you get the premium prices Mosaiques instead of more Kodaly? NB: As the Mosaiques has almost only friends at this forum your claim that you always have the wrong recordings is also false.
I don't think that Penguin was bribed. I think they seriously wanted to support Naxos offering cheap and good (although often not great) quality recordings and I suspect they did not sufficiently care about Haydn to listen to all (or a large subset of) available recordings. And they probably were surprised that at Naxos prices the Kodaly recordings were as good as they are. I think this is a failure of such a guide book but of course it is impossible for only three authors to listen to everything.
I have also had the experience that some listeners have no problem to shell out for a dozen alternative recordings of a Mahler symphony but are unwilling to pay more than Naxos price for Haydn quartets. While I cannot quibble with such a preference, I think it is not an acceptable stance for a guide book because these pieces are to other listeners as important as Mahler symphonies and these listeners deserve a considered recommendation, not a pointer to a cheap and good enough recording (I don't need a guidebook for that!)
Still, it is not 1996 anymore and e.g. Kodaly's Haydn is not the cheapest out there anymore (that would be Buchberger) and I think that those of us who have heard a lot of different Haydn recordings should have the right to inform the rest of the world that the Kodaly Haydn recordings not particularly great. (I think both Ken and I agreed that they are serviceable.)
^^^^
71 dB and Florestan, I think you are both right.
As a person who has been accused of overreacting I can sympathize with 71dB's frustrations.
But Florestan is correct in that sometimes the best way to react to a troublesome post is to ignore it.
One problem that I have is that I do a poor job of expressing myself.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2017, 03:47:25 AM
Relax, man! You take things much too seriously and personally. Nobody forces you to buy, or throw away, anything. Why would your fun be ruined because somebody, somewhere dislikes what you like? Do you really need your taste to be validated by others? Do you enjoy Leaper's Nielsen less because Mirror Image dissed it? You like what you like, they like what they like, period. Why all the fuss about it?
It's my weakness, my self-esteem is fragile and I do take things too seriously and personally. I often have a pararoid feel that people on this forum take a lot of time to almost scientifically prove how badly I have done in my life. Especially my affection to Naxos label (who doesn't have their favorite label?) is often criticised. I don't expect other people to praise Naxos. I am just surprised how much effort people see to demonstrate how bad or mediocre Naxos is. How on Earth can Naxos be so big today, if it was so crappy? Because Klaus Heymann bribed everyone?
Even I have problems with Naxos. More often than not they concentrate on stuff I am not that interested of. Naxos' releases of Bach's cantatas for example are surprisingly few compared to the fanatism they show to Sor's guitar music. Too much competition? It took Naxos so long to start with Fauré's chamber music, and I want the Keith Burstein release on CD!!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 04:30:12 AM
Naxos' releases of Bach's cantatas for example are surprisingly few compared to the fanatism they show to Sor's guitar music.
Doesn't Naxos have so many guitar CDs because guitarists pay themselves the costs of recording a release on Naxos for publicity purposes? Anything that gets played a lot by solo guitarists or flautists might therefore be more widely represented on Naxos than larger ensemble projects.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 04:19:36 AM
Why are you offended?
I am not offended.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 04:19:36 AMYou write that you are happy with the Haydn discs you have and you are not sufficiently interested in the music to get more recordings anyway.
Yes, this is true.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 04:19:36 AMWhy does it spoil your fun if someone points out that there are recordings out there they prefer?
I hope it doesn't spoil my fun and probably it doesn't.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 04:19:36 AMAnd I don't even know the particular Naxos discs you have, maybe the rather relaxed approach of the Kodaly works well there. If you compare them to the Mosaiques I think you will find that the latter are "more involved" and offer less generic interpretations (I think this should be noticeable even when listening to different pieces). And why did you get the premium prices Mosaiques instead of more Kodaly? NB: As the Mosaiques has almost only friends at this forum your claim that you always have the wrong recordings is also false.
What's wrong with relaxed approach?
In fact to my surprise I may prefer Kodaly, the sound is more pleasing. :o
I bought Mosaiques used and it was pretty cheap I guess... ...of course it is supported, because it was recommended to me.
Quote from: CRCulver on May 24, 2017, 09:34:06 AM
Doesn't Naxos have so many guitar CDs because guitarists pay themselves the costs of recording a release on Naxos for publicity purposes? Anything that gets played a lot by solo guitarists or flautists might therefore be more widely represented on Naxos than larger ensemble projects.
I don't know about these things, but this would definitely explain the abundance of guitar music in Naxos Catalogue.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 03:13:30 AMI am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.
No matter what recording you mention, a majority of posters here will declare you've made a poor choice. It's simple statistics. I can say I like Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic Recording of Beethoven's 9th, it will start a fight over which of Karajan's recordings of Beethoven's 9th is the worst. :)
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 04:19:36 AMStill, it is not 1996 anymore and e.g. Kodaly's Haydn is not the cheapest out there anymore (that would be Buchberger) and I think that those of us who have heard a lot of different Haydn recordings should have the right to inform the rest of the world that the Kodaly Haydn recordings not particularly great. (I think both Ken and I agreed that they are serviceable.)
There are quite a few works that I first heard in the Kodaly quartet. This thing is, they recorded basically
everything (Haydn, Bartok, Beethoven's, Shostakovich) in a relatively short period of time. I've never heard a really bad recording from them, but rarely a superlative recording. In particular, I first heard the Shostakovich Quartets from the Kodaly and loved them. But after listening to other recordings of the Shostakovich quartets and returning to the Kodaly, they seemed quite nondescript by comparison.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 03:13:30 AM
I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.
You don't have the wrong ones! The wrong ones are the Aeolian. That's the only wrong one (but it's spectacularly wrong). The Kodaly is on the list of right ones (just not IMO at the top of the list).
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 09:53:16 AMIn particular, I first heard the Shostakovich Quartets from the Kodaly and loved them.
What label did they record Shostakovich for?
Quote from: Ken B on May 24, 2017, 09:54:28 AM
You don't have the wrong ones! The wrong ones are the Aeolian. That's the only wrong one (but it's spectacularly wrong).
Except "sound sucks" and "the first violin is wayward", which are both as subjective an opinion as it gets, what is wrong with them in an objectively, empirically verifiable by anyone, way? ;D
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 10:14:07 AM
What label did they record Shostakovich for?
Gasp, my memory failed again. It was the Eder that recorded the Shostakovich for Naxos!
Nevermind, nothing to see here...
It is probably the Eder Quartet on Naxos. They are IMO better than the Kodaly. They did a very good Haydn op.76 on Teldec of which unfortunately only half is easy to find, a good Mozart piano quartets with Ranki.
I don't think the Kodaly's Haydn is horrible. But because it was for quite a while by far the cheapest and easiest option (beyond the most famous pieces like op.76) and praised to the skies (which is a clear case of overrating, IMO) by Penguin, so it was probably many listeners first or only encounter with Haydn quartets. And I would not be all that surprised if at least some listeners reacted as "nice but no big deal". Which is of course also a possible reaction to the music. I tend to think that most of it is much better than that and better than the Kodaly play it.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 10:27:47 AM
Gasp, my memory failed again. It was the Eder that recorded the Shostakovich for Naxos!
Nevermind, nothing to see here...
I thought I could have missed something since they have recorded for other labels in their now 50+ year career. Your assessment of the Eder in this rep more or less matches mine.
I've always viewed the Kodaly as the string quartet equivalent of Jeno Jando: professional, reliable, good, sometimes very good, but almost always bettered by other artists.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2017, 10:16:08 AM
Except "sound sucks" and "the first violin is wayward", which are both as subjective an opinion as it gets, what is wrong with them in an objectively, empirically verifiable by anyone, way? ;D
I can give you a tip Andrei: ground raw toad is awful. But that's also as subjective an opinion as it gets. If you want to empirically test it though ... :laugh:
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 09:47:38 AM
No matter what recording you mention, a majority of posters here will declare you've made a poor choice. It's simple statistics. I can say I like Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic Recording of Beethoven's 9th, it will start a fight over which of Karajan's recordings of Beethoven's 9th is the worst. :)
Yes, but if you are paranoid you ignore statistics. :o
Quote from: Ken B on May 24, 2017, 09:54:28 AM
You don't have the wrong ones! The wrong ones are the Aeolian. That's the only wrong one (but it's spectacularly wrong). The Kodaly is on the list of right ones (just not IMO at the top of the list).
Okay, okay. ;)
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 10:32:52 AMI've always viewed the Kodaly as the string quartet equivalent of Jeno Jando: professional, reliable, good, sometimes very good, but almost always bettered by other artists.
It almost happened to me again. I was going to note that I liked Jando's recordings of the Bach English Suites and Partitas, but then realized that my brain was just remembering "the Naxos guy." Good thing I checked because this time "the Naxos guy" was Rubsam.
[asin]B000001430[/asin]
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 10:32:52 AM
I've always viewed the Kodaly as the string quartet equivalent of Jeno Jando: professional, reliable, good, sometimes very good, but almost always bettered by other artists.
Who the hell has the time to research who bettered Kodaly or Jeno Jando? The thing with Naxos is you buy it and you are happy with it and you save a lot of time, money and effort. Naxos makes life easy. I may want to explore several performances of my favorite composers (Elgar / Bach), but researching the best possible performances of ALL composers and works would be ridiculously time and money consuming! ???
Why isn't "professional, reliable, good, sometimes very good" good enough? There will always be a new artists who is better than and earlier ones, so it is endless run for the best.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:15:31 AMWho the hell has the time to research who bettered Kodaly or Jeno Jando?
Anyone with an internet connection.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:15:31 AMWhy isn't "professional, reliable, good, sometimes very good" good enough?
If you think it is, then it is for you.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 11:20:19 AM
Anyone with an internet connection.
Internet rarely offers consensus on these issues.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 11:20:19 AMIf you think it is, then it is for you.
I think it is for me.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:25:17 AMInternet rarely offers consensus on these issues.
I didn't say it offered consensus. There is no consensus. It is foolish to seek consensus on matters of taste. However, there is a lot of information available which, when combined with awareness of one's tastes, allows one to make an educated guess about what might be the best first, second, or third (or more) option out there. For instance, if I read comments that Composer X is very much like Allan Pettersson, or Pianist A is the new Glenn Gould, I'll pass.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:15:31 AM
Who the hell has the time to research who bettered Kodaly or Jeno Jando? The thing with Naxos is you buy it and you are happy with it and you save a lot of time, money and effort. Naxos makes life easy. I may want to explore several performances of my favorite composers (Elgar / Bach), but researching the best possible performances of ALL composers and works would be ridiculously time and money consuming! ???
Some people enjoy listening to different recordings of favorite works, not to find the
best one, but to enjoy the performances themselves. It makes little sense to condemn enjoyment as "time consuming." Being alive is time consuming.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 11:29:05 AM
I didn't say it offered consensus. There is no consensus. It is foolish to seek consensus on matters of taste. However, there is a lot of information available which, when combined with awareness of one's tastes, allows one to make an educated guess about what might be the best first, second, or third (or more) option out there. For instance, if I read comments that Composer X is very much like Allan Pettersson, or Pianist A is the new Glenn Gould, I'll pass.
I agree with you about the non-existence of consensus, but your conditional logic seems extremely simplistic. I thought only idiots would think like that. :P My head works on multiple level of abstractism and uses a large set of input information when available to come up with an opinion. For example, very much like Pettersson in what sense? Orchestration? Use of harmony? Development of thematic material? It makes a difference, because I might like Pettersson's orchestration but not his harmony. A new Glenn Gould? What is she/he playing? Is it something that calls for a Gould-like style of playing? There is so much variables and the result is a complex function of them. Therefor at least for
me, it takes time and effort to sort out these things, not to mention the time spent to gather the available information.
I think we had the Naxos discussion already several times.
Even 20-25 years ago one could pick up a review magazine. Or listen to CDs in some shops. Or listen to radio programs reviewing CDs. And even 20+ years ago one could buy a lot of music as cheap as Naxos or cheaper, but with more famous/more highly regarded artists.
Not with all music. The Kodaly Haydn op.20,4-6 was among the first 4 or so discs with Haydn quartets I bought. The very first was a similarly cheap live one with the Lindsay (scratchy but very enthusiastic and engaged), a Shosty disc with the Eder was probably the second disc of his quartets I got.
But this was 20 years ago. There are more options now and for music I am very interested in, I take some of these other options.
There is nothing wrong with it but nobody forces you to make Naxos your default. It's not a bad option but it is neither automatically the cheapest nor the best. As you are so used to thinking and evaluating things multi-dimensionally on many levels, I am somewhat surprised that you seem to stick to such a simplistic "if in doubt, buy Naxos" strategy.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:51:15 AMIs it something that calls for a Gould-like style of playing?
Nothing calls for Glenn Gould style playing. Your description of your thought processes reads more like a flow chart. If it works for you, super.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 12:05:34 PMAs you are so used to thinking and evaluating things multi-dimensionally on many levels, I am somewhat surprised that you seem to stick to such a simplistic "if in doubt, buy Naxos" strategy.
As I said, gathering the information takes a lot of time and most of the time I go the easy way. I am interested of what the composers wrote. The information who performs the music best is not interesting to me.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 12:05:34 PM
Nothing calls for Glenn Gould style playing.
Is that why he is legendary?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
As I said, gathering the information takes a lot of time and most of the time I go the easy way. I am interested of what the composers wrote. The information who performs the music best is not interesting to me.
You quoted the wrong person here somehow.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 12:41:30 PMIs that why he is legendary?
That's mostly due to marketing.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 12:46:14 PM
You quoted the wrong person here somehow.
Something strange happened... ???
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 12:46:14 PMThat's mostly due to marketing.
Thanks, I'll inform some people I know who love the playing of Gould that they have been tricked with marketing.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
As I said, gathering the information takes a lot of time and most of the time I go the easy way. I am interested of what the composers wrote. The information who performs the music best is not interesting to me.
You are not listening.
I think it is fair to say that those of us who have many recordings of the same work are not looking for
the best. We enjoy perceiving a work from different perspectives. I have what most people would consider an unreasonable number of recordings of the Bach Suites for Cello Unaccompanied. I can enjoy the way Heinrich Schiff brings out dance rhythms, the way Fournier imparts an aristocratic sentimentality, the way Rostropovich brings out romantic pathos and the way many other performers bring something different to the same notes. It is not about finding
the best, it is about finding another, previously overlooked layer in a fascinating work. That is one of the interesting things about Classical music where one person writes the piece and another performs it.
If you are not particularly interested in performance style then Naxos may well suit your taste best, since they typically find capable performers that do not impart a strong personal stamp on the performance. Do not interpret the fact that some of us are interested in something you are not interested in as an implicit rebuke.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 12:58:44 PM
I think it is fair to say that those of us who have many recordings of the same work are not looking for the best. We enjoy perceiving a work from different perspectives.
Amen.
I have a dozen different quartets in Haydn. I can't think of any that I don't enjoy, including the Kodaly (I love their op.77).
Sarge
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 12:55:25 PMThanks, I'll inform some people I know who love the playing of Gould that they have been tricked with marketing.
Not tricked, persuaded. That's what marketing is for. And it works. There is no reason to believe that the classical music recording industry, being merely a small portion of a much larger industry, is any different than, say, potato chips in that regard.
The reality is that some once "legendary" figures are fading in significance, and some have more or less disappeared. Based on discussions here and at other forums, Gould does not seem to have the same staying power of some other pianists (eg, Richter).
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 12:58:44 PMI think it is fair to say that those of us who have many recordings of the same work are not looking for the best. We enjoy perceiving a work from different perspectives.
True. I long ago gave up worrying about finding the best. After all, it's music, it's art, it's not a hundred meter dash.
Gould must still be a top-seller for Sony, otherwise they would not bring out some new kind of Gould edition/box/reissue every few years. Of course it helps that Sony has all of his recordings whereas the Richter bootlegs are spread over many labels.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 01:23:55 PM
Gould must still be a top-seller for Sony, otherwise they would not bring out some new kind of Gould edition/box/reissue every few years. Of course it helps that Sony has all of his recordings whereas the Richter bootlegs are spread over many labels.
Kempff and Arrau will never fade! (I've never been a Richterite or a Gouldie.)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 12:58:44 PM
If you are not particularly interested in performance style then Naxos may well suit your taste best, since they typically find capable performers that do not impart a strong personal stamp on the performance.
That's how I see it! I like the "neutral" approach of Naxos. It lets the music out uncoloured. Strong personal stamp can be bad for the music.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 01:05:58 PM
Not tricked, persuaded. That's what marketing is for. And it works. There is no reason to believe that the classical music recording industry, being merely a small portion of a much larger industry, is any different than, say, potato chips in that regard.
Let me guess: You haven't been persuaded by marketing, only people who disagree with you? ::)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 01:28:47 PM
Kempff and Arrau will never fade! (I've never been a Richterite or a Gouldie.)
Arrau's legacy has actually been rather poorly presented by Universal in the last ca. 20 years. (This is quite astonishing for me because Arrau was still alive when I got into classical and together with Horowitz the most famous of the "old pianists"). Quite a bit has been oop for more than a decade. And the messed up the most recent issue of the Beethoven sonatas by cutting a second or so from the beginning of the Eroica variations.
This is not at all comparable to Gould who gets a new box or edition every few years.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 01:32:44 PM
Let me guess: You haven't been persuaded by marketing, only people who disagree with you? ::)
You present yourself as a person with a scientific outlook. Let me make a statical argument. A person who owns a single CD classical music, and it is Glen Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations (perhaps the most hyped classical recording in history), has probably been influenced by marketing. A person who owns ~100 recordings of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas is probably not as much influenced by marketing.
Into which category do you place Todd?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 01:30:18 PM
That's how I see it! I like the "neutral" approach of Naxos. It lets the music out uncoloured. Strong personal stamp can be bad for the music.
Oh lord, where will I find an adequate "eyeroll" emoticon?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 01:32:44 PM
Let me guess: You haven't been persuaded by marketing, only people who disagree with you? ::)
Oh, of course I have. I've picked up more than a few CDs because of well done glamour shots. This is a well known tool used by all record labels. UMG has been open that Helene Grimaud titles that feature full head shots of her sell better than her titles that do not. I don't particularly care for her recordings, but Naida Cole's two Decca titles are very fine, though she gave up her piano career. Early on, I fell for the Gould mystique. His Bach is entertaining, but not the best, but some of his other playing is dreadful (eg, Mozart). It quickly became clear that Gould the eccentric genius was a good marketing gimmick. That was what, ten reissue series ago?
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 01:23:55 PMOf course it helps that Sony has all of his recordings whereas the Richter bootlegs are spread over many labels.
Between UMG, Sony, and Warner, there are almost 100 major label Richter discs. That's more than Gould. Throw on top of that all the pirate editions, and there's much more Richter to be had. But then, Richter was a real, performing pianist. Gould became a studio-only artist, like The Beatles, only less enjoyable. Richter is variable, and I generally don't care much for his late career stuff, but at his best, he is arguably the best.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 01:45:33 PMArrau's legacy has actually been rather poorly presented by Universal in the last ca. 20 years.
True. I'm hoping this is rectified with a big box like Gould gets over and over.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 01:45:33 PM
Arrau's legacy has actually been rather poorly presented by Universal in the last ca. 20 years. (This is quite astonishing for me because Arrau was still alive when I got into classical and together with Horowitz the most famous of the "old pianists"). Quite a bit has been oop for more than a decade. And the messed up the most recent issue of the Beethoven sonatas by cutting a second or so from the beginning of the Eroica variations.
This is not at all comparable to Gould who gets a new box or edition every few years.
I won't argue that Universal has done a poor job of presenting his legacy. But there are these, probably his best work
[asin]B004HF0PEU[/asin]
[asin]B00UOFWT0K[/asin]
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 01:55:33 PM
....A person who owns ~100 recordings of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas is probably not very much influenced by marketing.
Into which category do you place Todd?
Easy: pianists. On the other hand, I have also met pianists who refuse to listen to their colleagues in fear this might influence their playing style.
Honestly, I feel like I'm watching someone discover the mechanics of GMG in slow motion.
Most of the regular posters here will have heard/owned multiple versions of a work (if it's one that has been recorded reasonably often). They will have views as to which versions are better. Sometimes these views will be highly developed and detailed. Sometimes, they'll manage to point out flaws and problems with recordings that, if you ask them directly, they'll tell you they really enjoy listening to.
If you're the kind of person who just wants to buy one recording of a work and be happy with it, then you simply have to learn how to deal with this. You have to learn how to gather information from here when you're looking to buy**, and how to filter out/downright ignore the stuff that isn't going to help you.
Personally, I'm far more interested in learning about new repertoire than I am about new performances, so I just don't get terribly engaged when people start offering me 3 alternative performances to the one I'm listening to, unless I don't find the performance I'm listening to satisfying or it's one of those cases where I'm genuinely interested in hearing an alternative approach.
[**Sometimes I'm asking direct questions (and sometimes being fascinated by the total silence when I ask about a less loved corner of a famous composer's repertoire, with people instead offering me 15 recordings that aren't relevant to my question), other times I'm just making my own notes about which recordings are commonly praised so I can make a shortlist of options.]
If you read everything here and take it to heart, it's inevitable that you will be feeling you ought to own a considerable number of versions of the same piece of music, because that's the typical line of thinking here. And it's important to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. People can spend their money on music in whatever way they choose. But if it's not how you would prefer to spend your money, then you just need to be conscious of that and not get worked up over the difference of approach.
You wanted to know how people cope with the insanity of abundance? This is how.
Oh, and Kodaly in op.76 remains a treasured possession.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 02:04:32 PM
A great box set.
Indeed, the 1941 recording of the Goldberg variations is a particular revelation.
Quote from: Spineur on May 24, 2017, 02:01:39 PMEasy: pianists.
Pianophile would be a better fit.
There is a factor that is related one of my pet peeves concerning the classical music community if the obsession some have over great music.
There are some who only follow the music of the great masters of the 18th and 19th century. There is one gentleman in another forum who states that he has over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven. It is challenging to be a student of classical music even if one specializes in just the music of Beethoven.
If one expands his horizons to include B level composers and post-19th century music it can be overwhelming.
There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers. For example Stamitz, Reicha, Raff, Bax and many, many others.
Quote from: arpeggio on May 24, 2017, 04:20:19 PM
There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers.
Ravel.
*runs for cover*
To be honest I found it odd that this thread started talking as if this was a uniquely classical problem. There are thousands upon thousands of releases in other genres. Anyone with an interest in any kind of music must pick and choose.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 01:57:47 PM
Oh, of course I have. I've picked up more than a few CDs because of well done glamour shots.
How often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs? Kodaly Quartet CDs? Or with Glenn Gould releases? Aren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing? How about
your favorite artists?
Quote from: ørfeo on May 24, 2017, 02:49:03 PM
Honestly, I feel like I'm watching someone discover the mechanics of GMG in slow motion.
Most of the regular posters here will have heard/owned multiple versions of a work (if it's one that has been recorded reasonably often). They will have views as to which versions are better. Sometimes these views will be highly developed and detailed. Sometimes, they'll manage to point out flaws and problems with recordings that, if you ask them directly, they'll tell you they really enjoy listening to.
If you're the kind of person who just wants to buy one recording of a work and be happy with it, then you simply have to learn how to deal with this. You have to learn how to gather information from here when you're looking to buy**, and how to filter out/downright ignore the stuff that isn't going to help you.
Personally, I'm far more interested in learning about new repertoire than I am about new performances, so I just don't get terribly engaged when people start offering me 3 alternative performances to the one I'm listening to, unless I don't find the performance I'm listening to satisfying or it's one of those cases where I'm genuinely interested in hearing an alternative approach.
[**Sometimes I'm asking direct questions (and sometimes being fascinated by the total silence when I ask about a less loved corner of a famous composer's repertoire, with people instead offering me 15 recordings that aren't relevant to my question), other times I'm just making my own notes about which recordings are commonly praised so I can make a shortlist of options.]
If you read everything here and take it to heart, it's inevitable that you will be feeling you ought to own a considerable number of versions of the same piece of music, because that's the typical line of thinking here. And it's important to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. People can spend their money on music in whatever way they choose. But if it's not how you would prefer to spend your money, then you just need to be conscious of that and not get worked up over the difference of approach.
You wanted to know how people cope with the insanity of abundance? This is how.
Oh, and Kodaly in op.76 remains a treasured possession.
I think this is the best post in this thread so far. Thanks!
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 01:55:33 PM
You present yourself as a person with a scientific outlook. Let me make a statical argument. A person who owns a single CD classical music, and it is Glen Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations (perhaps the most hyped classical recording in history), has probably been influenced by marketing. A person who owns ~100 recordings of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas is probably not as much influenced by marketing.
You'd have to ask the person. Gould has been marketed, but so has Beethoven. Even I have the 1955 performance of The Goldberg Variations, only as a form of Zenph re-performance. Stunning stuff if you ask me. :)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 01:55:33 PMInto which category do you place Todd?
Todd has weird and arrogant opinions, so I place him in the category of weird arrogant people. :-X
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 01:55:33 PMOh lord, where will I find an adequate "eyeroll" emoticon?
Are you saying that strong personal stamp
can't be bad for the music? Todd would say Glenn Gould's strong personal stamps is bad for music. ;D
Quote from: ørfeo on May 24, 2017, 08:29:32 PM
To be honest I found it odd that this thread started talking as if this was a uniquely classical problem. There are thousands upon thousands of releases in other genres. Anyone with an interest in any kind of music must pick and choose.
As I stated early on, I am interested of perhaps 30 % of all classical music, but only perhaps 1 % of all non-classical music. So, thousands of non-classical releases mean only dozens of interesting releases. So, for me at least abundance is not such a problem it is with classical music.
Quote from: arpeggio on May 24, 2017, 04:20:19 PM
There is a factor that is related one of my pet peeves concerning the classical music community if the obsession some have over great music.
There are some who only follow the music of the great masters of the 18th and 19th century. There is one gentleman in another forum who states that he has over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven. It is challenging to be a student of classical music even if one specializes in just the music of Beethoven.
If one expands his horizons to include B level composers and post-19th century music it can be overwhelming.
There is a huge body of great music that has been composed by non-great composers. For example Stamitz, Reicha, Raff, Bax and many, many others.
In my opinion the gap between so called great and non-great composers is made bigger than it is. I enjoy the Cello Concertos of Carl Stamitz quite a lot, so how much lesser can he be compared to the "great" composers of his time? Does it even matter if I enjoy the music? Kind of dismissive to call these composer "non-great". As if they didn't have remarkable careers as composers.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2017, 01:57:47 PM
His Bach is entertaining, but not the best, but some of his other playing is dreadful (eg, Mozart). It quickly became clear that Gould the eccentric genius was a good marketing gimmick.
Gould made his career before marketing became as important as it is today. He was also very successful in the 10? years he played concerts, especially considering his (for the late 1950s very) odd repertoire. I am also slightly disgusted at Sony's milking the Gould recordings over and over again while neglecting other great pianists. But it is historically not correct that Gould is a creature of or owed his career to marketing. He was among the very few who could actually pull off a studio-only career. And think of him what you want, he really was a neurotic excentric genius although this has been exaggerated later on, I believe. An acquaintance of mine who was a great Gould nut and had read most of the stuff (letters etc.) that was available in the early 2000s claimed that Gould was most likely asexual. There were also people who thought he had been gay. Only then it turned out (and it had never been such a secret!) that he basically lived with Lukas Foss' wife for several years
Quote from: Scarpia on May 24, 2017, 02:00:47 PM
I won't argue that Universal has done a poor job of presenting his legacy. But there are these, probably his best work
[asin]B00UOFWT0K[/asin]
Are these the "famous" Chopin Preludes? There is a late recording on Philips but I thought the "famous" one (from the 1950s or early 60s) was live? and/or on some odd label. Or is this still another (earlier?) recording of the Preludes.
I really wanted to cut back on historical recordings but I probably have to get this eventually anyway for the Goldberg Var. ...
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 10:30:13 PM
How often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs? Kodaly Quartet CDs? Or with Glenn Gould releases? Aren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing? How about your favorite artists?
(https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.559669.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573666.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.578317.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573489.gif)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 10:30:13 PM
Todd has weird and arrogant opinions, so I place him in the category of weird arrogant people. :-X
Todd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
Todd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.
Can we just agree that when it comes to GMG nobody's
perfect normal? We are a bunch of weirdos in everything: taste, preferences, opinions. And that's what makes GMG such a great place. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 10:30:13 PMHow often do you see "well done glamour shots" with Naxos CDs?
Looks like you are behind the times as it pertains to Naxos. Check out Brian's post for some samples of Naxos glamour shots. There are more. Since you obviously have an internet connection, you can look up more.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 10:30:13 PMAren't you a bit hypocrite to call the fans of Gould victims of marketing?
Interesting that you call me weird and then claim that people are
victims of marketing. I question your grasp of the meaning of the word "victim" (and "weird", for that matter), and on reality, quite frankly, if you believe that marketing does not persuade purchasing decisions. Perhaps you think that your self-professed sophistication in assessing which recordings to buy means you are immune to marketing, and maybe you are. I have my doubts.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 24, 2017, 11:49:36 PMGould made his career before marketing became as important as it is today. He was also very successful in the 10? years he played concerts, especially considering his (for the late 1950s very) odd repertoire. I am also slightly disgusted at Sony's milking the Gould recordings over and over again while neglecting other great pianists. But it is historically not correct that Gould is a creature of or owed his career to marketing. He was among the very few who could actually pull off a studio-only career. And think of him what you want, he really was a neurotic excentric genius although this has been exaggerated later on, I believe. An acquaintance of mine who was a great Gould nut and had read most of the stuff (letters etc.) that was available in the early 2000s claimed that Gould was most likely asexual. There were also people who thought he had been gay. Only then it turned out (and it had never been such a secret!) that he basically lived with Lukas Foss' wife for several years
I'm aware of Gould's short-lived public career, and that he was, generally speaking, eccentric. I don't care about his personal life. The eccentric genius angle has been part of the marketing gimmick for decades. Gould is not as discussed on forums as he was twenty years ago, though, indicating some fall off in interest by the more knowledgeable and devoted fans. Sony keeps on cranking out products. There's a market, to be sure, but it would be interesting to see sales figures. Perhaps I should shift to talking about the fading star of Horowitz as an example of "legendary" artists declining and disappearing. His devotees don't appear to be quite so defensive as Gould devotees.
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
(https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.559669.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573666.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.578317.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573489.gif)
I really dislike these. Naxos has done this only recently. I prefer the classic "white" covers. Anyway, these covers are a fraction of their Cataloque.
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 04:49:36 AMTodd is also one of the most knowledgeable and passionate people on this board. Sometimes deep engagement with music means being a little weird. You and I aren't too normal either.
I am perhaps 10 times weirder than Todd, but I understand my own weirdness. $:)
Quote from: Todd on May 25, 2017, 05:53:54 AM
Looks like you are behind the times as it pertains to Naxos. Check out Brian's post for some samples of Naxos glamour shots. There are more. Since you obviously have an internet connection, you can look up more.
My point was you see glamour shot on Naxos RARELY and in the past NEVER. I am against this kind of covers. I don't like them. I find them stupid. What next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots? ::)
Quote from: Todd on May 25, 2017, 05:53:54 AMInteresting that you call me weird and then claim that people are victims of marketing. I question your grasp of the meaning of the word "victim" (and "weird", for that matter), and on reality, quite frankly, if you believe that marketing does not persuade purchasing decisions. Perhaps you think that your self-professed sophistication in assessing which recordings to buy means you are immune to marketing, and maybe you are. I have my doubts.
You are the one introducing marketing here to explain why Glenn Gould has been succesful. Marketing is not enough. Nobody bothers to market a talentless person. Gould was marketed, because he was talented, had something to sell.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AMMy point was you see glamour shot on Naxos RARELY and in the past NEVER.
Times change. You should keep up with the facts on the ground when making claims. Naxos uses glamour shots because they help move product. Whether you, specifically, like them or not doesn't matter at all.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AMYou are the one introducing marketing here to explain why Glenn Gould has been succesful. Marketing is not enough. Nobody bothers to market a talentless person. Gould was marketed, because he was talented, had something to sell.
I introduced marketing because that is an essential aspect to Gould's success, and a critical component of what made him "legendary", to use the marketing buzzword you introduced.
Your contention that "[n]obody bothers to market a talentless person" is questionable, to say the least.
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
(https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.559669.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573666.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.578317.gif) (https://cdn.naxos.com/SharedFiles/images/cds/others/8.573489.gif)
I see nothing wrong with these, or with glamor covers in general. Away with the snobbery and priggishness that for so long have been, more rightly than wrongly, associated with classical music! Why should all the hot chicks make careers in pop music only? Classical could use them, too --- and Lord be praised, there is no dearth of them as of late:
Alice Sara Ott, Nino Gvetadze, Yuja Wang, Tianwa Yang to name but a few. Heck, even
Martha Argerich, Helene Grimaud or
Maria Tipo were red hot in their prime.
Think of it this way: a seasoned classical music lover will never buy a CD because of its glamor cover, while a novice might be won for the classical camp by doing just that.
Go, girls, go! :D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
Nobody bothers to market a talentless person.
That is one of the most counterfactual statements ever made on GMG.
Quote from: Todd on May 25, 2017, 08:29:06 AM
Times change. You should keep up with the facts on the ground when making claims. Naxos uses glamour shots because they help move product. Whether you, specifically, like them or not doesn't matter at all.
I asked how often you see a glamour shot? Is that a claim? I was after the fact that you even today rarely see a glamour shot. Unfortunately every one is too much for me!
To me it matters a lot what kind of image Naxos has.
I introduced marketing because that is an essential aspect to Gould's success, and a critical component of what made him "legendary", to use the marketing buzzword you introduced.
Your contention that "[n]obody bothers to market a talentless person" is questionable, to say the least.
[/quote]
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
What next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots? ::)
Yummy!....
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:33:57 AMI asked how often you see a glamour shot? Is that a claim?
To answer your question, almost every month when I peruse new releases. You claimed that Naxos uses glamour shots rarely. Clearly, you and I have different understandings of what the word "rarely" means.
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2017, 08:32:56 AM
That is one of the most counterfactual statements ever made on GMG.
I am done with this conversation. I don't care if Glenn Gould was talented or not. He is a legend nevertheless. End of story
Now I go out to get oxygene. I need it. Bye!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
Nobody bothers to market a talentless person.
(http://i.yai.bz/assets/GalleryImage/53/456/L_g0020645653.jpg)
QuoteWhat next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots?
(http://beauty-around.com/images/sampledata/Opera_singers/stevens_5.jpg)
(http://nokiacreative.com/images/elisabeth-schwarzkopf-05.jpg)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:42:04 AM
I am done with this conversation. I don't care if Glenn Gould was talented or not. He is a legend nevertheless. End of story
Now I go out to get oxygene. I need it. Bye!
Relax, man, I didn't mean
Gould. I meant in a general way. If you want an example, think
Justin Bieber.
Boy, do you take everything personally!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
What next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots? ::)
Admittedly, not often...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EF4m7ybYL.jpg)(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61iwEvBIifL.jpg)(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/21MY3TZBBBL.jpg)
I suppose it is fair to say Gould has been very hyped over the years. But so has Lang Lang and so has Martha Argerich.
The question is, whether he (and they) are worth the hype. My personal opinion is yes to Gould (and Argerich.....and jury still out on Lang Lang).
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:42:04 AM
I am done with this conversation. I don't care if Glenn Gould was talented or not. He is a legend nevertheless. End of story
Now I go out to get oxygene. I need it. Bye!
Going out for some air is almost always a good idea, though.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 25, 2017, 08:55:45 AM
Going out for some air is almost always a good idea, though.
Fresh air is not enough. Fresh ideas is what are needed more.
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2017, 08:57:22 AM
Fresh air is not enough. Fresh ideas is what are needed more.
Arguably, Scandinavia has too many fresh ideas right now:
(http://ecstatic.textalk.se/shop/thumbnails/shop/17115/art15/h3920/5003920-origpic-eca72c.jpg_0_0_100_100_1600_1600_0.jpg)
;D ;D
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Arguably, Scandinavia has too many fresh ideas right now:
(http://ecstatic.textalk.se/shop/thumbnails/shop/17115/art15/h3920/5003920-origpic-eca72c.jpg_0_0_100_100_1600_1600_0.jpg)
;D ;D
Excellent! ;D
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Arguably, Scandinavia has too many fresh ideas right now:
(http://ecstatic.textalk.se/shop/thumbnails/shop/17115/art15/h3920/5003920-origpic-eca72c.jpg_0_0_100_100_1600_1600_0.jpg)
;D ;D
I can't wait for the transcription for kazoo duo.
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Arguably, Scandinavia has too many fresh ideas right now:
(http://ecstatic.textalk.se/shop/thumbnails/shop/17115/art15/h3920/5003920-origpic-eca72c.jpg_0_0_100_100_1600_1600_0.jpg)
;D ;D
WOW!
I have said often
we live in the golden age of the accordion!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 08:17:06 AMWhat next? CPO starts to use cleavage shots? ::)
I claim I purchased these strictly for the music contained.
[asin]B001E2V8OK[/asin] [asin]B0002J9TSI[/asin] [asin]B00004Z3ZL[/asin] [asin] B000E0VO0G[/asin]
Draw whatever conclusions you wish from the last one... :)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 25, 2017, 09:10:27 AM
I claim I purchased these strictly for the music contained.
We've seen far more outlandish claims. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 11:51:15 AM
I agree with you about the non-existence of consensus, but your conditional logic seems extremely simplistic. I thought only idiots would think like that. :P
Wow, for someone whose feelings get hurt when somebody critiques a recording you bought, you're awfully quick to pull out "idiot."
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Arguably, Scandinavia has too many fresh ideas right now:
(http://ecstatic.textalk.se/shop/thumbnails/shop/17115/art15/h3920/5003920-origpic-eca72c.jpg_0_0_100_100_1600_1600_0.jpg)
;D ;D
At times likes these, I'm glad to say I don't live in Scandinavia. :P
Quote from: North Star on May 25, 2017, 09:31:30 AM
At times likes these, I'm glad to say I don't live in Scandinavia. :P
Oh yeah, that's like me saying I don't live in the Balkans: geographically accurate but culturally ambiguous. :laugh:
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 25, 2017, 08:54:44 AM
I suppose it is fair to say Gould has been very hyped over the years. But so has Lang Lang and so has Martha Argerich.
The question is, whether he (and they) are worth the hype. My personal opinion is yes to Gould (and Argerich.....and jury still out on Lang Lang).
Gould has also been dead for almost 35 years. I seriously doubt that Todd is old enough to remember Gould being created by the CBS marketing department in the early 1960s. Or if anyone here
does remember, I'd be grateful for data/anecdotes/whatever. Of course the marketing department was not idle but there is no comparison to the glamourized and "made" stars of the last decade or so.
Just look at the late 1970s covers where AS Mutter appears every bit the pudgy teenager she was at that time. Of course noone hesitated to employ her looks as soon as it made sense. But by then she was already very famous because of her playing.
Argerich also was a sensation before she was 20, had her first "breakdown" and then won the Chopin competition fair and square a few years later with 24 in 1965.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 25, 2017, 09:52:11 AMOr if anyone here does remember, I'd be grateful for data/anecdotes/whatever.
The Gramophone archive might come in handy here.
I know that everyone on this forum is far too informed and sophisticated to be influenced by marketing, but suckers elsewhere are not so shrewd.
To me art and glamour shots are completely different things.
Marketing isn't a bad word, every label and artist markets their work
And this:
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B001E2V8OK.01.L.jpg)
just reflects the program of Bischoff's Symphony no. 2, "Two Naked Chicks on a Seesaw"
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 10:45:11 AM
To me art and glamour shots are completely different things.
I posted glamour shots of famous sopranos. The Rise Stevens pic is from the 30s.
Schwarkzkopf was heavily marketed on her quite extraordinary good looks back in the 50s.
I checked the covers of Naxos CDs released so far this year (January-May):
60 releases and 5 of them "glamour shots". So even in 2017 hardly 10 % of Naxos covers are glamour shots.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2017, 10:49:03 PM
In my opinion the gap between so called great and non-great composers is made bigger than it is. I enjoy the Cello Concertos of Carl Stamitz quite a lot, so how much lesser can he be compared to the "great" composers of his time? Does it even matter if I enjoy the music? Kind of dismissive to call these composer "non-great". As if they didn't have remarkable careers as composers.
Please, I did not mean that one should think these composers were not "great". Stamitz may not be as good as Mozart but he is still an outstanding composer (I hope no one reads into this something different that what I am trying to say) As a matter of fact I used the Stamitz
Bassoon Concerto as my audition piece. I prefer it to the Mozart.
I am sorry if members thought that I was slamming composers like Stamitz.
Quote from: arpeggio on May 25, 2017, 11:33:13 AM
I am sorry if members thought that is was slamming composers like Stamitz.
I don't think anyone did, but feelings might be tender after the outbreak of Stamitz slammers we had here last year. Even worse were the Dittersdorf dissers, but that was ages ago.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 25, 2017, 10:47:21 AM
Marketing isn't a bad word, every label and artist markets their work
just reflects the program of Bischoff's Symphony no. 2, "Two Naked Chicks on a Seesaw"
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Todd on May 25, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
The Gramophone archive might come in handy here.
I know that everyone on this forum is far too informed and sophisticated to be influenced by marketing, but suckers elsewhere are not so shrewd.
You can hardly deny that Gould's playing was extraordinary in many respects. You may not like it and he might be hugely overrated but the reasons for his enormous influence and popularity are not mainly marketing. The marketing might be responsible that his status as a "cult figure" works even today.
But back then he served a unique mix of personal excentricity and brilliant interpretations of repertoire not well covered on disc (as the trend in the 1960s was to play Bach on the harpsichord) that was created by himself, not by some marketing department. That these features are still marketable today is also true.
Whatever the reasons, when I got into classical music in the late 1980s Gould had been dead for several years but according to my recollections his recordings completely dominated the market for Bach on the piano. Sure, his Mozart was excentric but for Bach Gould was the standard and even more importantly the only easily available artist for a broad range of pieces. Sure, there were other recordings but either niche (like Joao Carlos Martins) or only for a few of the best known pieces. That one can pick up a lot of Bach from fairly famous pianists, e.g. Schiff, Perahia, Hewitt etc. is a rather recent phenomenon. Very little Bach was available by the then active or recently deceased pianists around 1990. And I daresay that the popularity of Gould's Bach recordings in the 70s and 80s kept piano performances "in the ring" despite a strong harpsichord faction (as far as I remember several pianists, e.g. Brendel played very little Bach in concert because they seemed to be convinced that it should be done on the harpsichord).
To take the discussions by a few dozen people on internetfora over 10 years or so as indication of the waning status is about as reliable as counting the number of reissues by Sony, probably less.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 25, 2017, 12:31:29 PMYou can hardly deny that Gould's playing was extraordinary in many
Sure, it was extraordinary in that it was decidedly different, but so was Celibidache's late style. It really just comes down to which eccentrics one prefers. As to the Bach discography pre- or around 1990, you appear to be leaving out a lot - Kempff, Tureck, Weissenberg, Gulda, and Richter all come immediately to mind, for instance, and they were hardly alone. Bach was well represented on disc. Your recollections of Gould dominating the market appears to be an artifact of precisely the type of marketing I am referring to. Old Gramophones could help sort out discography claims, and if you wish to spend the time sorting that out, be my guest.
I don't place great weight on the relative decline of discussion of Gould, but mention it because it is obvious. So, too, is the inevitable decline in mentions of his recordings in publications, for obvious reasons. Perhaps Gould maintains a stronger hold on the imagination of some people to a greater extent than, say Van Cliburn, but Gould is now basically just a cult figure whose stardom peaked long ago and is in the long phase of disappearing. Even a big star like Elvis isn't immune to this. For some reason, as I mentioned before, some Gould fans tend to be especially defensive about the star. He's a long dead pianist, just one of hundreds, and maybe that realization is too much to bear for some reason.
Quote from: Ken B on May 25, 2017, 11:39:16 AM
I don't think anyone did, but feelings might be tender after the outbreak of Stamitz slammers we had here last year.
The bolded part sounds almost like the name of a summer blockbuster zombie movie. ;D
Quote from: Ken B on May 25, 2017, 11:39:16 AMEven worse were the Dittersdorf dissers, but that was ages ago.
Yes, yes! Dittersdorf dissers is the third most hideous group on this planet after ISIS and Al-Qaida. ???
Quote from: 71 dB on May 21, 2017, 10:31:22 AM
Recently I have been more into classical music. You may have noticed my activity on this forum. Now I am AGAIN facing the insanity of classical music in the form of abundance. I'm constantly on Amazon browsing CDs to buy! Damn! I'm listening to Spotify like there was no tomorrow! Damn. Classical music takes my life, my time, my money! It's insane!
Non-classical music is so easy in comparison. It is so "limited". Most of my favorite non-classical artists have released only a couple of albums or singles. Tangerine Dream is extremely prolific (100+ albums) among my other favorites and even it is somewhat manageable compared to classical music. Yes, there is A LOT of non-classical music, but what helps a lot is the fact that I find 99 % of it totally uninteresting. Classical music is another story. So much of it (perhaps 30 %) IS interesting.
All the talk about composers I haven't explored much makes me feel I should explore them, but exploring just one of them takes a lot of time and money. It's exhausting, but there's dozens and dozens of these composers! The list of obscure Russian composers alone has dozens of names! What about Poland? Turkey? Romania? Italy? Belgium? Chile? Canada? South-Africa? The list of obscure names contains hundreds if not thousands of names! Who can explore such abundance? You need to limit yourself radically to do any kind of exploration, but is the exploration even meaningful if it's done under radical limitation? Are we fans of classical music totally insane? I don't know.
How do you fans of classical music deal with the insane cornucopia that is classical music? Sometimes I am so scared of it! :o
Can't believe I didn't respond to this before. Actually I don't really deal with it. It is clearly a form of obsessive compulsive disorder ( but so what?). My wife, as I have mentioned before, has accused me of 'having an affair' with my CD collection whereas my daughter just thinks I'm mad. However, as I'm now 61 I've decided that things must change and am hanging on to the wise motto 'Less is More'. So, I have actually started (sort of) to reduce my CD collection by giving away Naxos duplicates, for example, to the charity shop. It is oddly therapeutic. In my 30's, 40's or 50's I would never have considered this but as a lifelong fan of Taoism I think that I should start putting into practice the wisdom of that great ancient Chinese philosopher to live a simpler life. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 11:25:23 AM
I checked the covers of Naxos CDs released so far this year (January-May):
60 releases and 5 of them "glamour shots". So even in 2017 hardly 10 % of Naxos covers are glamour shots.
You seem intent on proving that you dislike "marketing", but Naxos generally having a plain, no fuss look is every bit as much "marketing" as the glamour shots you are so against.
You're free to like whatever you like, but trying to turn it into some kind of objective standard of rightness is pushing you towards the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Only in your case it becomes the "no true Naxos album" fallacy.
My latest trick to curtail the rate at which I purchase new discs is to listen to every new disc (or box set) twice within the first month or so after purchase. Needless to say, I stay away from the big box sets.
Between sniffing around for promising new leads, sampling prospects before purchase, correcting and enhancing iTunes meta-data after purchase, and listening to new purchases twice, I've managed to make expanding my music collection quite a time-consuming chore!
8)
Despite this routine, I've still purchased more than 120 hours of new music so far in 2017.
:(
But hey downloads are cheap these days on eMusic (between $2.50 and $3.50 a pop after discounts) so I can splurge a bit.
I find it impossible to even come up with a criterion for whether a classical musician is more "in decline" than another, let alone how to measure it. In classical music there is a very, very small community of hard-core fanatics and a large segment of the population that has enough respect for classical music to have a Beethoven symphony or a recital of Verdi aria's on their shelf or iPod. Do we put more weight on the fact that a greater fraction of the population recognizes the name Glen Gould than the name Richter, that Sony releases more retrospectives of Glen Gould than are released for Richter, or that there are more lunatics searching the internet for out-of-print Richter bootleg recordings?
I have no idea if Kempff is "in decline," I just know I'd rather listen to a Kempff recording than basically any other pianist. I already have his recordings, I don't care how many times DG re-releases them. :)
Quote from: ørfeo on May 25, 2017, 01:37:14 PM
You seem intent on proving that you dislike "marketing", but Naxos generally having a plain, no fuss look is every bit as much "marketing" as the glamour shots you are so against.
You're free to like whatever you like, but trying to turn it into some kind of objective standard of rightness is pushing you towards the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Only in your case it becomes the "no true Naxos album" fallacy.
I have the right to prefer a certain type of marketing.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 25, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
I find it impossible to even come up with a criterion for whether a classical musician is more "in decline" than another, let alone how to measure it.
I have no idea of Kempff is "in decline,"
Exactly, awhile ago someone posted a ludicrous assertion that somehow the likes of Solti, or HvK, or even Lenny, are in decline. They may be LESS popular with certain hardcore classical music fans but not by majority of the general public.
Quote from: Judge Fish on May 25, 2017, 03:27:17 PM
My latest trick to curtail the rate at which I purchase new discs is to listen to every new disc (or box set) twice within the first month or so after purchase. Needless to say, I stay away from the big box sets.
Right now my "trick" is that if it is available on YOUTUBE in somewhat good quality I will not buy that recording. This trick has had mixed success in 2017.
I recently took a voluntary early retirement. Which means until I get a new job, I need to severely curtail, if not completely stop, my purchasing habit.
First step I did was to delete my credit card info on Amazon. Meaning no impulse buys. As of now, I only buy sale items at Arkivmusic and some jazz at Barnes and Noble's retail store. I can always browse the used CD store if I need a fix.
It helps that there are only two big boxes out there I truly want--the complete Menuhin and the EMI Karajan--and even those two I am willing to live without.
But my Listen pile is rapidly dwindling, which means I will soon be able to 1) relisten to stuff long overdue for listening and 2)attack the Opera Pile, which includes stuff I have had for five years or more but not yet listened to.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 25, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Exactly, awhile ago someone posted a ludicrous assertion that somehow the likes of Solti, or HvK, or even Lenny, are in decline. They may be LESS popular with certain hardcore classical music fans but not by majority of the general public.
I'm not sure how you could claim that long dead classical musicians are popular at all with the general public in the US today. Classical music recordings make up a very small fraction of sales in the US, and I would hazard a guess that programs like Great Performances probably reach larger portions of the classical viewing and listening public than all but a few popular releases, such as from Yo-Yo Ma - whose Bach Trios is number three on the Billboard classical charts. I would think the best way to gauge overall popularity of specific artists would come from album sales, ticket sales, and television ratings.
This forum, and similar ones, are very insular and do not reflect views of the broader public at all. My assessment of the relative decline of Gould is based on informal observations of internet boards and publications, both of which cater to fans of the genre. Move into the general public, and recognition of names like Gould or Karajan or even Bernstein or Horowitz is exceptionally low.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 25, 2017, 03:32:24 PM
I have the right to prefer a certain type of marketing.
Which is exactly what I said. But you seem to be trying to suggest that your preferred kind is less "marketing-like" than other kinds.
Quote from: ørfeo on May 25, 2017, 07:44:45 PM
Which is exactly what I said. But you seem to be trying to suggest that your preferred kind is less "marketing-like" than other kinds.
To me it is and that's the reason why I prefer it in the first plece. 0:)
In the case of Gould you can see the Canadians working very hard to maintain the name recognition and the status, I'm thinking of the Glenn Gould Foundation, the Glenn Gould prize. It makes me think of how the German and Austrian establishment worked hard to develop Beethoven's media image after he died, and Haydn's.
The discussion is strange, and I'm not sure what it's really about. It seems obvious to me that a reputation with the general public is dependent on communications and marketing - Glenn Gould just as much as Homer.
Quote from: Mandryka on May 25, 2017, 10:23:15 PM
In the case of Gould you can see the Canadians working very hard to maintain the name recognition and the status, I'm thinking of the Glenn Gould Foundation, the Glenn Gould prize. It makes me think of how the German and Austrian establishment worked hard to develop Beethoven's media image after he died, and Haydn's.
The discussion is strange, and I'm not sure what it's really about. It seems obvious to me that a reputation with the general public is dependent on communications and marketing - Glenn Gould just as much as Homer.
With regard to Homer, it's called
education.
Quote from: vandermolen on May 25, 2017, 01:20:40 PM
Can't believe I didn't respond to this before. Actually I don't really deal with it. It is clearly a form of obsessive compulsive disorder ( but so what?). My wife, as I have mentioned before, has accused me of 'having an affair' with my CD collection whereas my daughter just thinks I'm mad. However, as I'm now 61 I've decided that things must change and am hanging on to the wise motto 'Less is More'. So, I have actually started (sort of) to reduce my CD collection by giving away Naxos duplicates, for example, to the charity shop. It is oddly therapeutic. In my 30's, 40's or 50's I would never have considered this but as a lifelong fan of Taoism I think that I should start putting into practice the wisdom of that great ancient Chinese philosopher to live a simpler life. 8)
It's possible the total appreciation we have of our property is pretty much constant, no matter how much we have. That would explain why even billionaires want to get richer - because we believe owning more increases the appreciation. Whenever I double my classical music collection, I feel I appreciate each CD half as much as before. So, I could have stopped after my first classical CD, but the problem is what am I supposed to do with my life if I don't explore classical music? So, I have kept collecting... :-\
Luckily there are ways to increase the appreciation of what you have and doing so fighting against the "waning problem". Perhaps those millionaires and billionaires who donate large amounts of their money away to good cause are masters of these mental tricks?
Quote from: Mandryka on May 25, 2017, 10:23:15 PM
It seems obvious to me that a reputation with the general public is dependent on communications and marketing - Glenn Gould just as much as Homer.
What Homer recordings would you recommend?
Quote from: Scarpia on May 25, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
I find it impossible to even come up with a criterion for whether a classical musician is more "in decline" than another, let alone how to measure it. In classical music there is a very, very small community of hard-core fanatics and a large segment of the population that has enough respect for classical music to have a Beethoven symphony or a recital of Verdi aria's on their shelf or iPod. Do we put more weight on the fact that a greater fraction of the population recognizes the name Glen Gould than the name Richter, that Sony releases more retrospectives of Glen Gould than are released for Richter, or that there are more lunatics searching the internet for out-of-print Richter bootleg recordings?
There are several criteria, all flawed but that does not mean that they are completely worthless.
I think that re-issues or the (almost) continuous presence in the catalogue is a criterion. Of course there are feedback loops but labels would not keep re-issuing stuff that does not sell. Although I am at a loss to understand why they so frequently re-issue stuff that is still in the catalogue. I was told that when he was alive CBS would have recorded anything Gould wanted to do because they were certain it would sell well enough. And apparently it is also worthwhile to dig out old broadcasts or live recordings because Gould fans will buy them. Similarly for Richter, Furtwängler, Callas and others.
So I think it is not completely unfair to state that e.g. Arrau's reputation has apparently declined somewhat because while his stuff was a core staple of the catalogue in the LP and early CD era and he was honored by some "Arrau collection" shortly after he died, the current state of availability of the Phlilips recordings is poor. (And before the fairly recent boxes of the EMI and other "historical" recordings it was not much better for his earlier stuff.) Now this might be just a neglection by the label (Philips as a label has been gone for several years) and his reputation among the connoisseurs might be still very high.
Gould is a special case because his recordings were divisive from the very beginning. Except for some of his Bach, they were hardly "standards" like a lot by Karajan, Solti, Arrau or Kempff. And for Bach there are now a lot more options, so this might have changed. And as Gould always tended to be a love him or hate him issue, it is hardly surprising that one will find very diverse opinions on the internet.
Still, while my estimation of Sony marketing guys is not very high, I trust that they are smart enough to figure out if the umpteenth Gould box/edition/collection will sell or collect dust in the warehouse.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 25, 2017, 12:31:29 PM
But back then he served a unique mix of personal excentricity and brilliant interpretations of repertoire not well covered on disc (as the trend in the 1960s was to play Bach on the harpsichord) that was created by himself, not by some marketing department. That these features are still marketable today is also true.
The broad Bach keyboard repertoire was not that well covered in the 1960es, neither on harpsichord nor on piano, but as far as I recall, there were more piano recordings than harpsichord recordings. I think, that one of the reasons why the harpsichord recordings did not displace the piano recordings, was that harpsichordists used ill-sounding revival harpsichords. This gave Gould an unmerited advantage.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2017, 01:03:27 AM
What Homer recordings would you recommend?
The Odyssey, easily compatible with the title of this thread (insanity of abundance).
Quote from: (: premont :) on May 26, 2017, 02:29:48 AM
The broad Bach keyboard repertoire was not that well covered in the 1960es, neither on harpsichord nor on piano, but as far as I recall, there were more piano recordings than harpsichord recordings. I think, that one of the reasons why the harpsichord recordings did not displace the piano recordings, was that harpsichordists used ill-sounding revival harpsichords. This gave Gould an unmerited advantage.
What would have been a merited advantage...?
This still does not explain Gould's status in the 1980s when there were good harpsichord recordings available.
There are many people older than me here who must remember that even in the 1990s distribution could be so important that marketing didn't really matter all that much. Mainly the big labels were easily avaibable locally and Bach on the piano was rather poorly served by them. DG had virtually nothing but a few scattered recitals with Argerich, Pogo or Weissenberg because their main keyboard Bach were harpsichord recordings on Archiv. Very little Bach from the Philips pianists like Brendel and Arrau. Decca had the Schiff recordings but they were very recent (made in the mid-1980s, I think) then. They would have been the main option besides Gould in a middle-sized record store in ca. 1990. And it would very probably have been worse in 1975 (I was too small to buy records then).
The only "official" and widely avaibable Bach by Sviatoslav Richter was the WTC (the suites are all live recordings that were only issued later, AFAIK). Nobody except Gould had recorded such a lot of Bach on a well-distributed major label. So for whatever reasons there was often the choice between harpsichord and Gould and one or two or no (depending on the piece) other recordings. And Gould was highly regarded by many and apparently a somewhat crazy but also pretty cool guy. That's why some people who might not have touched classical music otherwise might buy his recordings. It's to some extent a different audience than the one getting Richter or Horowitz bootlegs.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2017, 01:03:27 AM
What Homer recordings would you recommend?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71pfEmAVVjL._SX522_.jpg)
Quote from: Jo498 on May 26, 2017, 03:07:16 AMThere are many people older than me here who must remember that even in the 1990s distribution could be so important that marketing didn't really matter all that much.
I remember the 90s vividly, and I remember ease of acquisition due to efficient distribution and plenty of marketing. Perhaps things were different in Germany, but even in the Pacific Northwest, getting my hands on recordings was hardly an issue, particularly from major labels. I also remember plenty of ads in Gramophone when I used to read it, with hyperbolic copy and slick glamour shots, along with posters and the occasional cutout at Tower or Classical Millennium (a local store specializing in classical). In fact, I saw
more physical advertising in the 90s than today, but then, bricks and mortar stores are gone in this area now.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 26, 2017, 03:07:16 AMNobody except Gould had recorded such a lot of Bach on a well-distributed major label.
Recording most or all of Bach on piano is different from recording Bach. Even today, relatively few pianists have recorded all or substantially all Bach keyboard works on piano. Also, I suspect (meaning I know) there were more Bach recordings than your memory recalls.
Have you guys seen some of the shots on the Urania label? I would post some but it would likely be removed by the Moderators.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 26, 2017, 07:13:33 AM
Have you guys seen some of the shots on the Urania label? I would post some but it would likely be removed by the Moderators.
Yes. I like them.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2017, 07:18:15 AM
Yes. I like them.
THAT makes 2 of us then. I wonder how they sell? I wonder whether they share the same models as Victoria Secret.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 26, 2017, 07:23:32 AMI wonder whether they share the same models as Victoria Secret.
Let me do some research and get back to you.
Quote from: (: premont :) on May 26, 2017, 02:29:48 AM
The broad Bach keyboard repertoire was not that well covered in the 1960es, neither on harpsichord nor on piano, but as far as I recall, there were more piano recordings than harpsichord recordings. I think, that one of the reasons why the harpsichord recordings did not displace the piano recordings, was that harpsichordists used ill-sounding revival harpsichords. This gave Gould an unmerited advantage.
Even when he used an ill-sounding piano that was meant to sound like a harpsichord?
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2017, 05:59:22 AM
Recording most or all of Bach on piano is different from recording Bach. Even today, relatively few pianists have recorded all or substantially all Bach keyboard works on piano. Also, I suspect (meaning I know) there were more Bach recordings than your memory recalls.
So what is your claim? That there was plenty of Bach on the piano from the 1960s-early 1990s and people were buying Gould and being fond of Gould because he had been made a mad genius by CBS marketing department? Otherwise they would have mixed their Bach together from recordings by Gulda, Weissenberg and Tureck?
I am not denying that the "mad genius" was used for the umpteenth reissue after Gould had been dead for while. But I claim that there was a time when for Bach on piano Gould was close to default for several reasons, not only marketing, but mainly because there was not much else to chose from, unless one was already a very informed consumer who looked beyond the "standard recommendations".
Maybe my experiences were really different. But the point was not that there was absolutely no other Bach. Rather like e.g. Jochum would have been the typical Bruckner recordings one would get as first recommendations, would be easily available in every store or Böhm's and Marriner's Mozart, so would be Gould's Bach recordings.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 26, 2017, 12:06:34 PMSo what is your claim?
That Gould wasn't as special as you claim he was, and that there was a lot more Bach available than you state. I also claim that a major portion of his on-going success, the creation of his "legendary" status, is very heavily dependent on marketing.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 26, 2017, 12:06:34 PMBut I claim that there was a time when for Bach on piano Gould was close to default for several reasons...Maybe my experiences were really different.
Our experiences were indeed different. Gould was never close to the default Bach interpreter, though he was one of the big names. Neither your experience nor mine represents some objective truth.
What is intriguing is how you ultimately fall back to just his Bach. Gould's recorded repertoire was much larger, yet the defense of his greatness rests primarily on his interpretations of one composer. That makes him seem like a cult artist.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 26, 2017, 12:06:34 PM
So what is your claim? That there was plenty of Bach on the piano from the 1960s-early 1990s and people were buying Gould and being fond of Gould because he had been made a mad genius by CBS marketing department? Otherwise they would have mixed their Bach together from recordings by Gulda, Weissenberg and Tureck?
I am not denying that the "mad genius" was used for the umpteenth reissue after Gould had been dead for while. But I claim that there was a time when for Bach on piano Gould was close to default for several reasons, not only marketing, but mainly because there was not much else to chose from, unless one was already a very informed consumer who looked beyond the "standard recommendations".
Maybe my experiences were really different. But the point was not that there was absolutely no other Bach. Rather like e.g. Jochum would have been the typical Bruckner recordings one would get as first recommendations, would be easily available in every store or Böhm's and Marriner's Mozart, so would be Gould's Bach recordings.
My first WTC was Gulda, my first Italian Concerto was Brendel, my first Goldberg was Pinnock. I got some Kempff as well. I knew of Gould but was put off rather than attracted by the mad genius vibe and had no respect for Columbia vinyl. At one point I got Gould's French Suites on CD but was utterly repelled by it. I only got well into Bach keyboard music beyond the WTC and into the Suites and Partitas when I heard Pogorelich's recording. Then I stumbled upon Schiff on Decca ended up collecting all of his recordings. Later I began collecting Hewitt as well. Recently I was tempted by one of the Gould Editions and have come to appreciate his approach, although he is by no means my most preferred performer of any repertoire.
To sum up, I certainly got that Gould was regarded in some quarters as
the Bach pianist, but I always had the impression that this was a cult distinct from the classical music mainstream and thought there were better alternatives. A significant chunk of the classical music community regarded him as inauthentic since he did not perform live and his recordings were assumed to be manipulated.
For Schoenberg and Hindemith Gould has/had actually less competition than Bach. For the former it was basically Pollini or Gould, for the latter I don't know. But not that many listeners are interested in these composers and keyboard works are not such an important part of their oeuvre.
For Mozart, Gould's recordings were very controversial, for Beethoven it depended. At least some of the Beethoven was not mainly notorious (like the Appassionata) but also fairly highly regarded. Same for the late Haydn sonatas.
My first WTC was also Gulda (which is in some parts as odd and controversial as Gould's), but I came fairly late to solo Bach (and my first keyboard Bach slightly before the Gulda were Gould's Goldbergs, Partitas).
Of course Gould was controversial which worked as a recommendation for some people :) I guess I have two points:
One is that despite the controversial character at least in Bach on the piano Gould was, if not standard, a strong contender and a frequent recommendation because while there might have been alternative recordings, usually only for a few works and/or not by comparably well known pianists. And there was definitely a fraction who clearly preferred harpsichord.
The other one is that regardless of marketing, Gould's notoriety was well deserved. He was not merely behaving eccentrically but his playing and the very sound of his recordings was quite special and different from almost anyone else. Like it or hate it, there were lots of real differences, not flimsy or made up ones by some marketing department. That is, whatever marketing took place later on, latched on real and special features of his recordings.
I concede that shortly after becoming interested in classical music I had a pianist friend who liked Gould, so this might color my perception. OTOH I was not really interested in most solo piano for several years and when this came more into focus I should in theory have been aware of more options. But I was not. While I can recognize that Schiff's or Weissenberg's Bach recordings would have been available, I still don't remember anything (except maybe Gulda or Richter in the WTC) on piano that was remotely as "standard" or common as Gould (despite his excentricities).
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 05:57:13 AM
the very sound of his recordings was quite special and different from almost anyone else.
Well, one of the accusations frequently raised against him is that the sound is heavily engineered in his recordings, and that is why he didn't perform live.
It might ot might not be true, I'm just saying. I am of the opinion, though, that the true test of a performer is how s/he plays live --- think the very opposite of
Gould, namely
Celibidache. I'd rather have an imperfect, but
ipso facto fully humane performance /recording, than a cleverly engineered one --- and that is why I am not at all a fan of
Tom Beghin's
Haydn, which is as unnatural a recording as one can think of.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 05:57:13 AMLike it or hate it, there were lots of real differences, not flimsy or made up ones by some marketing department. That is, whatever marketing took place later on, latched on real and special features of his recordings.
No one is denying that there weren't differences. Indeed, many of those differences - mostly attributable to the whole eccentric genius angle - were marketing gold. And again, your personal experience and memories do not represent some objective truth. I mean, if you were serious about Bach, how could you not have heard of Tureck?
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 05:57:13 AM
For Schoenberg and Hindemith Gould has/had actually less competition than Bach. For the former it was basically Pollini or Gould, for the latter I don't know. But not that many listeners are interested in these composers and keyboard works are not such an important part of their oeuvre.
I don't know how important Hindemith considered Ludus Tonalis (which Gould didn't record anyway), but it's quite a substantial work in length. Also, Schoenberg didn't write much for keyboard, but all of what he wrote is significant and much of it marks out stages in his development.
Thankfully Gould is no longer one of only two or so options for Schoenberg's piano works. There is now an abundance of recordings. Pi-hsien Chen even recorded all of the fragments that were never developed into completed pieces.
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2017, 06:17:09 AM
It might ot might not be true, I'm just saying. I am of the opinion, though, that the true test of a performer is how s/he plays live
He performed live, and performed well, from 1938 to 1964 (during one concert in Cleveland, Szell made his famous assertion, "That nut's a genius"). He quit concertizing because he "was convinced that the institution of the public concert was not only an anachronism, but also a force of evil". I'd think, given your "unpopular opinion" objecting to modern professional concerts, you would appreciate that sentiment, and appreciate him quitting the concert hall.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 28, 2017, 08:18:03 AM
He performed live, and performed well, from 1938 to 1964 (during one concert in Cleveland, Szell made his famous assertion, "That nut's a genius"). He quit concertizing because he "was convinced that the institution of the public concert was not only an anachronism, but also a force of evil". I'd think, given your "unpopular opinion" objecting to modern professional concerts, you would appreciate that sentiment, and appreciate him quitting the concert hall.
An anachronism certainly it was / is not, as it is basically
the only way to hear music nowadays, recordings apart.
A force of evil is an overstatement. But then again, trading live concerts for recordings is not much of an improvement --- I'd rather take a live performance, albeit flawed and imperfect, over an over-engineered recording any day and night.
Quitting the concert hall is just half the step. Had he performed in private homes for an amateur audience, he'd have completed the step. ;D
And for the record:
I do not object to modern professional concerts offered in dedicated concert halls, I do object to composers writing exclusively for professional concerts.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2017, 06:45:09 AM
No one is denying that there weren't differences. Indeed, many of those differences - mostly attributable to the whole eccentric genius angle - were marketing gold. And again, your personal experience and memories do not represent some objective truth. I mean, if you were serious about Bach, how could you not have heard of Tureck?
My father even had a record by Tureck (Introduction to Bach or something like that, I think the one with the a minor variations) but it was a fairly bad pressing and I was rather bored by the music and the schoolmarmish liner notes.
You are missing the point and seem to have a very poor idea of the situation I (and almost everybody not living in a large city) was in 25-30 years ago. It is not about "being serious about Bach" (or anything else). It is about walking into a smallish or middle sized record store (German middle sized ones would have felt small to people used to having a whole Tower "Annex" only for classical and another one for popular around the corner) and looking for to buy some (here) Bach. I did not buy any Bach keyboard works in the late 1980s but for other music I remember very well that there were often only 2-3 options. (E.g. for a complete recording of Beethoven's string quartets there was Melos/DG, ABQ/EMI and another one, probably Hungarian on EMI mono. For Bruckner, there would be Jochum, Wand, Karajan, maybe Solti and a few single discs with other conductors. There would be more choices for stuff like Beethoven symphonies or Zauberflöte but not for Bach keyboard music. Several years later, in the early 90s I had to pay a deposit! when I ordered a mid-priced (should have been budget but the store ripped me off) CD of Schuricht's Bruckner 9th/EMI through the store.)
It did not even really matter much for a teenager who can afford to buy one disc a month (or maybe sometimes two) because he is not going to buy three recordings of the same piece anway. So according to someone buying discs at the scale you are now I was not "serious" about anything at 17 or 18 years old. And very few people are ever because "serious" about certain music does not only or mainly mean buying dozens of records of it.
And I would have had to be so "serious" to look for LPs (a medium that had just been announced to be obsolete and I could not really bother with) because according to the discography below virtually
nothing by Tureck was available on CD in the late 80s/early 1990s (and then on VAIA - who are they??!?) to encounter Tureck. All this at a time without any internet or other easily available resources, so one would have to get *really serious* and look into catalogues of discs one could order from abroad or whatever. Hardly anyone did that (that's way 71db just bought Naxos).
And I would probably not have bought Tureck if if had been available. Famous pianists then were Arrau, Ashkenazy, Horowitz, Gulda, Brendel, Argerich, Pogorelich, Zimerman, Pollini, Kempff, Gilels, Rubinstein, Michelangeli, Richter, Serkin, Gould. Schnabel, Backhaus, Solomon for conoisseurs of historical stuff. Schiff was a "youngster" (in his thirties) and I am pretty sure that in many stores his Bach recordings would have been the only ones available (because Decca was well distributed), together with Gould's, maybe another odd one and one or two on harpsichord (typically whatever Archiv and Das Alte Werk had in their catalogues)
http://www.tureckbach.com/discography
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 09:55:47 AMFamous pianists then were Arrau, Ashkenazy, Horowitz, Gulda, Brendel, Argerich, Pogorelich, Zimerman, Pollini, Kempff, Gilels, Rubinstein, Michelangeli, Richter, Serkin, Gould. Schnabel, Backhaus, Solomon for conoisseurs of historical stuff.
The thing is I don't understand why I should get automatically interested of "famous pianists". In general, I don't like "famous" things. Sometimes what I like happens to be famous, but I don't assume a strong correlation.
I have two performances of Bach's Partitas on Piano: Angela Hewitt on Hyperion and Wolfgang Rübsam on Naxos. Some people enjoy comparing performances, but for me it's dull work. I have to consentrate to remember how CD 1 was when I change it to CD 2. Ten seconds is a long time to remember. Also, it's not only the playing. It's the way it's recorded too. So many parameters to remember. Perhaps musicians can remember sounds forever, but I am not a musician, I don't have perfect pitch. When the music stops, the memory of the sounds fades away in seconds and the I can only remember how much I enjoyed the music. I guess many other CAN remember how Hewitt played bar 17 and it's easy to compare to how Rübsam plays it. I can't. I can rip the music on computer, cut a 10 seconds clip of two performances and play them one after another, but what's the point?
Hewitt on Hyperion is more reverberant and "distant". Naxos is more intimate and I prefer such approach on this music. However, Naxos has more spatial distortion. Because I am an acoustic engineer, I can compare the "sound quality", but comparing performances is hard. The Hewitt twofer was cheap and I bought it, but frankly Rübsam on Naxos was all I ever needed. :P
Quote from: 71 dB on May 28, 2017, 11:20:21 AM
I don't understand why I should get automatically interested of "famous pianists".
Nobody says you should.
QuoteSome people enjoy comparing performances, but for me it's dull work. I have to consentrate to remember how CD 1 was when I change it to CD 2. Ten seconds is a long time to remember.
You are the music while the music lasts. -
T. S. Eliot
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 09:55:47 AM
It did not even really matter much for a teenager who can afford to buy one disc a month (or maybe sometimes two) because he is not going to buy three recordings of the same piece anway. So according to someone buying discs at the scale you are now I was not "serious" about anything at 17 or 18 years old. And very few people are ever because "serious" about certain music does not only or mainly mean buying dozens of records of it.
Amen, brother!
There are abundant discographies at http://www.bach-cantatas.com/
But they can be highly misleading because they do not show when stuff actually came out on CD (in the case of BBC or Orfeo often decades after the recording) and they even list private issues and stuff hardly ever available internationally and not at all when and where it was actually available. Glancing through some of the listings I do not think that my recollections are completely off.
There are almost always far more recordings "out there" than one is aware of (before the age of two click internet searches, online catalogues and discographies) but the only other "Bach pianist" I might have been vaguely aware of before the mid/late 1990s or so was probably Nikolayeva (and her recordings were not well distributed in the West). There were more harpsichord recordings before the 1990s, there are quite a few one or two disc recitals by well known pianists on major labels (e.g. Delarrocha in the 70s, Pogorelich in the 1980s, Bunin and Pires in the 1990s etc.) but not so many complete sets.
I still think that it is correct that Gould's were the "major" (in the sense of well distributed, well known, influential) Bach recordings on piano between the 1960s and the late 1980s (from the late 1980s until the Bach Year 2000 and since then so many recordings appeared that it is not longer true) and that there is no other single pianist of whom this is true in that time period. I even think that there are very few single Bach recordings on piano from that time that are similarly "major" (in the above sense) as quite a few of Gould's are. Maybe the Richter WTC and the Lipatti recital. Certainly not stuff that was oop for many years or only issued decades after the production.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 28, 2017, 11:20:21 AM
The thing is I don't understand why I should get automatically interested of "famous pianists". In general, I don't like "famous" things. Sometimes what I like happens to be famous, but I don't assume a strong correlation.
You are again missing the point. I think I described the situation sufficiently clearly above. In former times one walked into a record store to buy stuff. It was a hassle to buy something that was not in stock (e.g. you had to pay a bloody deposit because the store wanted to make sure that you took the stuff they ordered for you).
Because major labels and well known artists were the best distributed (and had the best marketing, usually good reviews in magazines etc.) one tended to buy their recordings. If one was a poor teenager one might try other stuff if it was cheap. But precisely because one could not afford to buy a lot one wanted to get the good (= standard recommendations by magazines etc.) stuff and this was mostly stuff by well known artists on major labels.
Basically all the reasons why you were buying Naxos, only this was before Naxos became a major player.
I don't see the need of defending Gould any more than I see the need of dissing him. Art in general, and music in particcular, is not a competition. As a Romanian saying goes, one shouldn't shit on another one's tastes --- if you'll excuse my French. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 28, 2017, 11:20:21 AM
Perhaps musicians can remember sounds forever, but I am not a musician, I don't have perfect pitch. When the music stops, the memory of the sounds fades away in seconds and the I can only remember how much I enjoyed the music.
This is a different skill from perfect pitch. You're referring to pitch memory, the ability to retain the sound of music in one's mind without the immediate source. It's an important skill for musicians, to be sure (perfect pitch isn't really necessary at all), and it can be developed.
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2017, 01:01:56 PM
I don't see the need of defending Gould any more than I see the need of dissing him. Art in general, and music in particcular, is not a competition. As a Romanian saying goes, one shouldn't shit on another one's tastes --- if you'll excuse my French. ;D
As we knew Todd's dislike of Gould before (and I myself am by no means an unconditional fan of Gould) this is not really what I am debating now. I still think that Todd severely underestimates the importance, influence or maybe sheer marketing-generated presence of Gould's recordings. This may be "fading" but such fading is only possible from a fairly high level.
Quote from: Mahlerian on May 28, 2017, 07:34:12 AM
I don't know how important Hindemith considered Ludus Tonalis (which Gould didn't record anyway), but it's quite a substantial work in length. Also, Schoenberg didn't write much for keyboard, but all of what he wrote is significant and much of it marks out stages in his development.
I don't want to dispute that. My points were that very few pianists can build a reputation or career mainly on Schoenberg and Hindemith, so it is hardly surprising that Gould was not best known for these recordings. Although they were one of comparably few options for two decades or more.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 01:00:34 PM
You are again missing the point. I think I described the situation sufficiently clearly above. In former times one walked into a record store to buy stuff. It was a hassle to buy something that was not in stock (e.g. you had to pay a bloody deposit because the store wanted to make sure that you took the stuff they ordered for you).
Because major labels and well known artists were the best distributed (and had the best marketing, usually good reviews in magazines etc.) one tended to buy their recordings. If one was a poor teenager one might try other stuff if it was cheap. But precisely because one could not afford to buy a lot one wanted to get the good (= standard recommendations by magazines etc.) stuff and this was mostly stuff by well known artists on major labels.
Basically all the reasons why you were buying Naxos, only this was before Naxos became a major player.
I started buying LPs in the early 1980s in Romania, as an early teenager. The only options available to me were
Electrecord (the local Romanian label),
Polskie Nagranja (Polish),
Supraphon and
Opus (Czechoslovakian, at the time),
Melodyia(USSR) and
Deutsche Schallplatten (from the now extinct Deutsche Demokratische Republik). At the time, I had no idea about who was the best performer of what music --- I just bought whatever
Beethoven or
Mozart or
Haydn or
Tchaikovsky or
Schumann or
Scarlatti or [
whoever] disc I could get my hands on, usually in a batch of three, and God bless my parents for giving me pocket money specifically for that. And thus I bought recordings of
Richter, Karl Boehm, Benedetti-Michelangeli, Wolfgang Schneiderhan, Celibidache, Kurt Masur, Salvatore Accardo, Vaclav Neumann, Ivry Gitlis and so on,
und so weiter without even being aware who they were or how they were rated --- but the thrill and emotion of those years I still remember with goosebumps on my spine and tears on my eyes.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 01:19:46 PM
I don't want to dispute that. My points were that very few pianists can build a reputation or career mainly on Schoenberg and Hindemith, so it is hardly surprising that Gould was not best known for these recordings. Although they were one of comparably few options for two decades or more.
I agree with that.
I only got into classical music when Vinyl records were already fading and CDs while still often expensive had begun to take over. (So I never had to bother with the problem of "bad pressings" or sticking to certain labels because of vinyl quality. I bought a bunch of pre-recorded musiccassettes, though) And while there was certainly more to chose from in theory, in a provincial German town the choices were de facto also fairly limited.
The first CD I ever bought in late 1988 was Beethoven's piano concertos 3+4 with Ashkenazy/Solti. I think that with my "constraints", that is mid-price at most and stereo recording on a major label by well known artists I did not have more than 2-3 options locally. In fact, in retrospect I wonder why I got that one and not Brendel or Kempff. Because I had been told that they were the best for Beethoven ;) Maybe there were not locally available or I wanted to have a little variety (I had the old Vox? recording with Brendel on LP already.)
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 01:00:34 PM
You are again missing the point. I think I described the situation sufficiently clearly above. In former times one walked into a record store to buy stuff. It was a hassle to buy something that was not in stock (e.g. you had to pay a bloody deposit because the store wanted to make sure that you took the stuff they ordered for you).
Because major labels and well known artists were the best distributed (and had the best marketing, usually good reviews in magazines etc.) one tended to buy their recordings. If one was a poor teenager one might try other stuff if it was cheap. But precisely because one could not afford to buy a lot one wanted to get the good (= standard recommendations by magazines etc.) stuff and this was mostly stuff by well known artists on major labels.
Basically all the reasons why you were buying Naxos, only this was before Naxos became a major player.
Yes. Seraphim, Vox, cut-outs. Back in the days of vinyl only there were new issues (pricey), reissues (cheaper) and Vox(cheapest). Luckily the reissues included boatloads of Szell, Klemperer, Cluytens!
The big thing that Gould was well known for was the first The Goldberg Variations. It's a recording which changed the way people thought about the music radically, general public and musicians alike. Here's a comment Richard Egarr made about it
Quote from: Richard Egarr in BAch and Cantabile Heaven http://www.harmoniamundi.com/__media/document/4226/txt7425.pdfIt is perhaps time, before further analysis and remarks, to acknowledge
the influence that recording has had in our world's reception, perception and
performance of this work. Presently, we are faced with a conception by both players
and listeners alike that is absolutely and inescapably affected and effected by Glenn
Gould and his recorded performances on the piano. The only pre-Gould recorded
performances in common circulation today are the two made by Wanda Landowska
and that of Claudio Arrau. However, today's collective consciousness on the matter
seems not to trouble itself with these earlier approaches. Gould's first studio recording
of the variations from 1955 radically readjusted everyone's perception of what Bach
could sound like with its devastating speed, brilliance and Gouldian intellectual
deconstruction. From that point on, the performance and recording of Bach on any
keyboard, and the Variations in particular, was changed both for performers and
listeners alike. Love it or hate it, Gould's individual genius is impossible to ignore.
Apart from that I'm not convinced that the general public appreciated his Bach or his anything else, at least out of Canada. But they knew he was a Bach musician because of the Goldbergs.
The only recording I can think of which is similarly influential in the reception history of the music is Schnabel's 1st op 111 -- there are probably others I'm forgetting.
But I think among musicians he had a big impact in the USSR, and that's again something which makes him an important figure. More than just a marketing phenomenon, though marketing is an important part of his story.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 28, 2017, 09:55:47 AMYou are missing the point and seem to have a very poor idea of the situation I (and almost everybody not living in a large city) was in 25-30 years ago. It is not about "being serious about Bach" (or anything else).
This simply reinforces that your experience does not translate to anything even remotely close to universal. Living in a mid-sized, consumer product saturated American city, I've never had a problem finding recordings. Indeed, the local classical specialist routinely special ordered items otherwise not readily available. My problem has always been insufficient disposable income to buy everything I wanted to buy. Depending on when you were buying, LPs may still have been dominant. Where I live, the Tower Records outlets and local shops had large numbers of LPs of varying age until about the mid- to late-90s. I understand that my experience is not universal, outside of mid-size and large American cities.
None of this establishes Gould as a default for anything. Indeed, you wrote that even his Bach is divisive, which seems to be the opposite of a default recommendation. Generally, default recommendations are safer performances. Again, maybe in your experience, where you lived, that was the case. It was not where I live.
I understand why some people like or love Gould, and I also understand why others don't, and why some people, including some from this board, have called him a charlatan. I don't think he was a charlatan, just an eccentric who had a lot of marketing muscle behind him starting no later than the 60s. The decision to pair him with Bernstein was not made on accident, for instance.
Incidentally, VAI is an independent label that has done reissues for decades. Every once in a while, I buy a recording from them. Their reissue of Gieseking's 1930s Debussy is one of their better issues. (http://www.vaimusic.com/)
Quote from: Mandryka on May 28, 2017, 01:57:42 PM
The big thing that Gould was well known for was the first The Goldberg Variations. It's a recording which changed the way people thought about the music radically, general public and musicians alike. Here's a comment Richard Egarr made about it
Apart from that I'm not convinced that the general public appreciated his Bach or his anything else, at least out of Canada. But they knew he was a Bach musician because of the Goldbergs.
The only recording I can think of which is similarly influential in the reception history of the music is Schnabel's 1st op 111 -- there are probably others I'm forgetting.
But I think among musicians he had a big impact in the USSR, and that's again something which makes him an important figure. More than just a marketing phenomenon, though marketing is an important part of his story.
So basically, Richard Eggar and the Russians were dupes of Madison Avenue.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2017, 02:21:44 PM
I understand why some people like or love Gould, and I also understand why others don't, and why some people, including some from this board, have called him a charlatan. I don't think he was a charlatan, just an eccentric who had a lot of marketing muscle behind him starting no later than the 60s.
Going back and relistening to some Gould lately there is no way he is a charlatan. The fact that his recordings are dry, claustrophobic and manipulated does not make him a charlatan.
I didn't know the guy wrote a fugue, and a very funny one at that. Check this out it is a real screamer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZM4yxbE0ZE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZM4yxbE0ZE)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on June 09, 2017, 07:25:58 AMGoing back and relistening to some Gould lately there is no way he is a charlatan. The fact that his recordings are dry, claustrophobic and manipulated does not make him a charlatan.
I'm not of the opinion he was a charlatan. I'm generally not a fan of his playing, either. Why spend time listening to even his Bach when I can listen to Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda, just off the top of my head? Why listen to his Mozart or Beethoven at all?
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
I'm not of the opinion he was a charlatan. I'm generally not a fan of his playing, either. Why spend time listening to even his Bach when I can listen to Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda, just off the top of my head? Why listen to his Mozart or Beethoven at all?
Some people ARE fans of his playing. Simple as that.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 09, 2017, 08:58:50 AM
Some people ARE fans of his playing. Simple as that.
Yes, thank you for stating the obvious.
Yeah, and sorry for flogging a lame horse, none of your list but a little Gulda, Richter and Horszowski (so basically only options for WTC with Gulda being in some respects similarly excentric, and so was/is J C Martins) was recorded/available in Gould's heighday (or when he died in 1982). So it is not so surprising that many listeners formed their impression of Bach from Gould's recordings (for better or worse) and some actually liked what they heard.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 09, 2017, 12:17:31 PM
Yeah, and sorry for flogging a lame horse, none of your list but a little Gulda, Richter and Horszowski (so basically only options for WTC with Gulda being in some respects similarly excentric, and so was/is J C Martins) was recorded/available in Gould's heighday (or when he died in 1982).
Strictly speaking, that's factually inaccurate. Takahiro Sonoda was around and recording core rep, including his first batch of Bach, in the 60s and 70s. However, he was unknown outside Japan at the time except to an adventurous few.
That written, the other names I mentioned are around now, and they are better than Gould. There's no reason anymore to cling to a relic sustained at least as much by marketing, and probably more so, than underlying musical merits. It's not too late for people to breakaway from the imprint Gould may have left. But if they are happy enough to listen to Gould and believe in some great truth to be divined from his playing, that's fine, too.
And generally, it's "beat a dead horse" not "flog a lame horse" in English, though "flog a dead horse" is used as well. The horse must be dead, though. There's no reason not to flog a lame horse; it might get a little more work out of it before shipping it to the dog food factory.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 12:55:17 PM
That written, the other names I mentioned are around now, and they are better than Gould.
Them being "around now" does not automatically mean people have access to their recordings.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 12:55:17 PMThere's no reason anymore to cling to a relic sustained at least as much by marketing, and probably more so, than underlying musical merits. It's not too late for people to breakaway from the imprint Gould may have left. But if they are happy enough to listen to Gould and believe in some great truth to be divined from his playing, that's fine, too.
Maybe Gould is all some people have? I have (J.S. Bach on solo piano) one dics by Gould, Feltsman, Jeno Jando and Hewitt and several discs by Rübsam. That's what I have. It would be financially hard to get Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda as you suggest as the "better" options. :P
Quote from: 71 dB on June 09, 2017, 02:09:09 PMThem being "around now" does not automatically mean people have access to their recordings.
This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute. You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach,
right now on YouTube. Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted.
Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.
There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options. There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music. The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 02:19:44 PM
This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute. You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach, right now on YouTube. Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted.
Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.
There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options. There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music. The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.
Yes, almost anything, and I mean anything you want is on youtube now. Listening to Gould I really have a hard time believing that this was some kind of reference recording. The earlier Goldberg was driven, humorless, and pretty bow-wow of a performance. It was as if he was interested in getting through it as fast as he could. No repeats and quick tempo meant a lot of the variations last no more than 30 seconds or so and really detracts from the continuity of the piece. The later one is almost exactly the opposite - as slow as you can get, but with him doing his annoying humming all the time. Anyway really strange.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 02:19:44 PM
This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute. You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach, right now on YouTube. Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted.
Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.
There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options. There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music. The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.
Yes, streaming services provide almost unlimited sources of music (if one doesn't care about the sound quality limitations), but time is limited. I can't listen to Schiff on Youtube or Spotify
now, because I am starting to watch a Blu-ray. In fact I should be sleeping (2 am here)... :P
Quote from: 71 dB on June 09, 2017, 02:57:06 PMYes, streaming services provide almost unlimited sources of music (if one doesn't care about the sound quality limitations), but time is limited.
You're moving the goalposts. At least you recognize that you are actively limiting your own choices.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on June 09, 2017, 02:56:51 PMYes, almost anything, and I mean anything you want is on youtube now.
There have been times where I've bought a recording, not thought too highly of it, and then looked on YouTube only to discover it was there the whole time. For new repertoire, I often check YT first to see if it's worth exploring.
I've thought about starting my own YT channel to fill in the gaps of some recordings, especially of Japanese market LvB sonata cycles. I just have to find the time.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 03:12:53 PM
There have been times where I've bought a recording, not thought too highly of it, and then looked on YouTube only to discover it was there the whole time. For new repertoire, I often check YT first to see if it's worth exploring.
I've thought about starting my own YT channel to fill in the gaps of some recordings, especially of Japanese market LvB sonata cycles. I just have to find the time.
Good idea.
Hey your girl Claire Hangci's Chopin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on June 09, 2017, 03:20:03 PM
Good idea.
Hey your girl Claire Hangci's Chopin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K)
In her case, I had no problem plumping for the recording. I'll buy anything else she records sight unseen, sound unheard.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2017, 03:27:51 PM
In her case, I had no problem plumping for the recording. I'll buy anything else she records sight unseen, sound unheard.
What do you think of the youtube sound quality? I think it is pretty good.
Rather remarkable for a 27 yr old. Close your eyes you might think it is Cortot in good sound.
$25 for 2 cds is actually not a bad price.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on June 09, 2017, 03:55:07 PM
What do you think of the youtube sound quality? I think it is pretty good.
Rather remarkable for a 27 yr old. Close your eyes you might think it is Cortot in good sound.
$25 for 2 cds is actually not a bad price.
YouTube is fine for rock/pop most of the time, and it is sufficient for OOP classical and for making a buy/no-buy determination for in-print discs for me. In the case of this disc, the high-res download is $16, so that's the bargain I went for.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81oycCUQKKL._SX425_.jpg)
When I saw these 8 CDs I thought of the discussion about Gould here
Quote from: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XH58TSY/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnkThe recording industry of the 20th century saw stars become legends and albums become icons of popular culture. Completed in a total of only four days and released in January 1956, Glenn Gould s début recording of Bach s Goldberg Variations is without doubt one of the most significant and successful classical recordings in the history of the gramophone record.
Documenting with unprecedented completeness the events that unfolded in Columbia s 30th Street Studio during those four key days in June 1955, the present release allows listeners for the very first time to join Glenn Gould, his producer Howard Scott and sound engineer Fred Plaut as one of the greatest recordings of all time came into existence.
Glenn Gould: The Goldberg Variations The Complete Unreleased Recording Sessions is probably the most comprehensive special edition ever dedicated to a single classical music album. It features Glenn Gould s complete recording sessions of Bach s Goldberg Variations on 5 CDs (including the studio conversations between him and his producer), restored from the original ¼-inch analogue tapes and re mastered using 24 bit / 96 kHz technology, plus the final album on both CD and heavyweight 180g vinyl, as well as an extra CD Glenn Gould Discusses His Performances of the Goldberg Variations with Tim Page. The edition comes with a 90 x 60 cm (36 x 24 ) poster and a 280-page hard-cover coffee-table book, featuring 45 sensational, newly discovered photos from the recording sessions, the complete musical score, several essays and an extensive documentation including facsimiles of more than 20 archival documents detailing how an analogue vinyl LP was recorded in the mid-1950s.
There is a REASON it was unreleased.
The reason it's now being released is pure desperation on the part of a record company trying to find ways to continue making more money from the same thing, over and over. And I'm sure they'll make a little, which will comfort them that their creatively bankrupt business model is viable.