On the Glass thread I lamented the dearth of recordings of his fine Violin Concerto and wished there were something more completely satisfying available. Another fine VC in the same circumstance sprang to mind: William Schuman's (a couple of years ago I heard Gil Shaham play this with Tilson Thomas and the SFSO and if that performance were on record I'd buy it in a heartbeat!) Next I found myself wishing for a good recording of Dahl's Saxophone Concerto, and then the idea for this thread was born.
Most of us, I presume, are introduced to music overwhelmingly via recordings. (Bruce is a notable and very blessed exception--why else would an expatriate Texan stay in New York? ;) ) Sometimes we hear a piece in performance that we'd love to have on record not just for ourselves but also to share with others, but the few recordings available don't measure up. I've listed 3 such pieces above and wonder whether others feel the same way about some works, and if so, whether you would care to share some of your choices with us.
No rules, no poll...no phone, no pool, no pets--just have at it if you wish, and if anyone here is a record company exec, maybe they'll take notice and fulfill our hearts' desires!
I might be bending the rules a bit, but I'd like a complete recording of Penderecki's first opera, The Devils of Loudun. The original recording, excellent though it was, lopped off several minutes of choral music from the very end of the piece, and Penderecki has since revised the opera, adding two scenes. I think my only hope is that Wit records it for Naxos, but the chances are pretty slim.
The Requiem of Antonio Rosetti (born Anton Rössler), a work performed at Mozart's memorial in December 1791.
AFAIK, this has never been recorded. :'(
Gavriil Popov - Symphony No.1
Massive, expresionistic, gnarly dissonant behemot of a piece in dire need of first class orchestra and conductor. Two recordings exist so far: one with barely adequate orchestra - Moscow State Symphony/Gennady Provatorov (Olympia), out of print as well and one with barely adequate conductor LSO/Leon Botstein (Telarc).
Igor Markevitch - Icare
Brilliant ballet in thorny french neoclassical vein. Wouldn't like to deride efforts of Christopher Lyndon-Gee and his Arnhem Philharmonic (http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2003/Dec03/Markevitch_piano_concerto.htm) but they simply aren't top flight outfit. There is supposedly excellent recording by Bernstein/New York Philharmonic (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2001/Jan01/Bernstein_Live.htm) but it is unfortunately tucked into big expensive box. Wouldn't mind single disc release (with same coupling - Prokofiev's 2nd Concerto with young Ashkenazy)
Most desperate in my view:
Kopylov: Symphony in C minor
Only one recording has been made commercially available (on ASV), and it is awful. Which stinks, because Kopylov's is one of the most wonderful of the "Russian" symphonies, right in the same vein as Borodin and Friends. A lively, lovely piece desperately in search of convincing performers.
Also in need:
Rimsky-Korsakov: Night on Mount Triglav
A thirty-minute orchestral extravaganza in need of a great performance.
Gliere: Symphony No 3 "Ilya Murometz" (or Muromets)
Johanos/Naxos: Great conducting, non-great orchestra. Downes/Chandos: non-great conducting, good orchestra. Botstein/Telarc: haven't heard it, but I don't have my hopes up. All others: cut heavily.
Dvorak: Slavonic Rhapsodies
Sejna's version is in mono, leaving the (quite good!) Naxos recording the best option.
Wieniawski: Violin Concerto No 2
There are already great recordings of this work, by Shaham and especially (but slightly cut) Heifetz, but there oughta be more. This concerto is a masterpiece, probably on the same level as Bruch's First, so why the comparative neglect?
Johann Strauss jr: Ritter Pasman Waltz
One of the greatest of all Strauss waltzes, if you can get past the meandering introduction and its playful false starts. How come the Marco Polo complete edition is the only place this gem is available?
Beethoven: Symphony No 9
Okay, so there are a LOT of great recordings of this symphony. But there are no great recordings which attempt to match the tempi which Beethoven directed for the symphony. Several witnesses of the Symphony's premiere claimed that it took only 45 minutes to play, and was marvelous. I suspect that a 45-minute Beethoven Ninth would not be particularly marvelous, but there is only one way to find out - and nobody has really tried too hard yet. We need a great recording of this symphony that tries its darnedest to match the performing style at the premiere - perhaps just for curiosity's sake. :)
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
Several witnesses of the Symphony's premiere claimed that it took only 45 minutes to play, and was marvelous.
Who says that?
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
We need a great recording of this symphony that tries its darnedest to match the performing style at the premiere
Absolute tempi don't have that much to do with performance style as such. They are just one of several important elements.
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 04:29:15 PM
Who says that?
Absolute tempi don't have that much to do with performance style as such. They are just one of several important elements.
In the book "Beethoven: Impressions by his Contemporaries" (page 195), Sonneck quotes Sir George Smart, who was visiting Beethoven in 1825. Smart was the conductor of the Philharmonic Society of London, who were the owners and dedicatees of the 9th, and he had questions to ask B about tempos and timings. He said that B played out each of the themes for him on the piano, and told him that the premiere in Vienna took "3/4 of an hour". Smart didn't believe it, and asked the others that were there who were Karl Holz, Karl Beethoven, and Ries, and they all agreed that it was 45 minutes.
So, that's where that comes from. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
German Chamber Symphony / Saraste Olli Mustonen - Bia 441 Op 61a Concerto in D for Piano (after Violin Concerto) 2nd mvmt - Larghetto -
attacca
So Beethoven was completely wrong when he wrote down the metronome markings?
Quote from: M forever on June 07, 2008, 04:40:32 PM
So Beethoven was completely wrong when he wrote down the metronome markings?
Hell, I don't know. I'm only telling you where that comes from. I think 45 minutes is a bit too brisk for MY taste too. The performances I prefer hover right around 60 minutes. And thousands think THAT is too fast! But you know, 180 years is a lot of weight to overcome when it comes to what we expect to hear in a work of music. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
German Chamber Symphony / Saraste Olli Mustonen - Bia 441 Op 61a Concerto in D for Piano (after Violin Concerto) 3rd mvmt - Rondo
Sadly I am still waiting for a GREAT recording of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde on DVD! I have seen so many DVD recordings of this music drama and have always felt that they were wanting in one way or another :-\.
marvin
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
Gliere: Symphony No 3 "Ilya Murometz" (or Muromets)
Johanos/Naxos: Great conducting, non-great orchestra. Downes/Chandos: non-great conducting, good orchestra. Botstein/Telarc: haven't heard it, but I don't have my hopes up. All others: cut heavily.
I gave the Farberman/RPO recording (Are you aware of it?) three or four listens before chucking it; I can't possibly believe it was "cut heavily" since I found it to be
the most monotonous music in my classical music experience -- unless one likes nearly half-hour intervals of constant Wagnerian swells and ebbs. :P Sure, it could've just been the performance. I thereafter believed there simply must be more to this work (as in "less is more") than what I heard and had been meaning to get another "more compact" performance.
(edit)
I just found this survey of recordings, probably outdated (http://classicalcdreview.com/ilyafinal.html), which you might find interesting. It seems I'm not alone in my disdain for the Farberman recording. FWIW, it is indeed of the complete symphony (93 minutes!) and has been re-released on the Regis label, available at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/GLIERE-Symphony-Farberman-Cello-Concerto/dp/B0009AGE42/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1212930425&sr=1-1). You're right, Brian, a "great recording" is indeed needed.
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PMBeethoven: Symphony No 9
Okay, so there are a LOT of great recordings of this symphony. But there are no great recordings which attempt to match the tempi which Beethoven directed for the symphony. Several witnesses of the Symphony's premiere claimed that it took only 45 minutes to play, and was marvelous. I suspect that a 45-minute Beethoven Ninth would not be particularly marvelous, but there is only one way to find out - and nobody has really tried too hard yet. We need a great recording of this symphony that tries its darnedest to match the performing style at the premiere - perhaps just for curiosity's sake.
Anything faster than Zinman/Tonhalle might make me barf :P...even if just for curiosity's sake.
Brian Havergal. So much composed, so little performed (some not at all!), and so good too. Other than recordings of the gargantuan first symphony, the rest of his works just get tickled at here and there, if at all. Havergal deserves much more respect, more concert time and more airplay - of that I am certain.
I don't know if it's wonderful, almost nobody has even seen the score, but there is apparently a cello concerto by Robert Simpson which I would love to hear. Sadly it won't be recorded by Hyperion, which seems to be against the idea of expanding its Simpson series - which sucks, as with just a few more recordings it could've become a Simpson edition. (I totally failed the criteria for the thread with that btw, but it bugs me a lot :P)
It would also be nice to hear Truscott's music played by a halfway decent orchestra.
Quote from: moldyoldie on June 08, 2008, 05:18:56 AM
I gave the Farberman/RPO recording (Are you aware of it?) three or four listens before chucking it; I can't possibly believe it was "cut heavily" since I found it to be the most monotonous music in my classical music experience -- unless one likes nearly half-hour intervals of constant Wagnerian swells and ebbs.
Oh, sorry, forgot about that one; don't think I could stand Ilya dragged out to 90+ minutes when it's already pushing the envelope at 78 (http://paradoxbackup.invisionplus.net/style_images/IP_English_Gray/icon8.gif)
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 07, 2008, 07:07:19 AM
William Schuman's (a couple of years ago I heard Gil Shaham play this with Tilson Thomas and the SFSO and if that performance were on record I'd buy it in a heartbeat!)
You've heard Zukofsky and MTT on DG? A very fine record (which I have on LP somewhere I think).
I would like to see a good complete recording in the original German of Spontini's Agnes von Hohenstaufen. And a recording of Méhul's Ariodant, which some consider his masterpiece.
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
Beethoven: Symphony No 9
Okay, so there are a LOT of great recordings of this symphony. But there are no great recordings which attempt to match the tempi which Beethoven directed for the symphony. Several witnesses of the Symphony's premiere claimed that it took only 45 minutes to play, and was marvelous.
No matter how many witnesses said this, I have trouble believing it. Just try to imagine: the Allegro at 11 minutes*, scherzo at 9 (maybe a repeat was cut?), and the slow variations zipping along at 12. You've got 13 minutes left for the choral finale. Good luck. And we're supposed to think an orchestra and chorus in 1824 barely familiar with this music was "marvelous"? I don't know how hard B's orchestral parts are, but I doubt they're easy to master for performers who might have been doing little more than sight-reading. I
have sung bass in the choral finale (it's a killer) and have played most of his piano music. The late music especially is very awkward to play. I can believe 60-65 minutes, not 45.
--
* Leaving aside the controversy about B's metronome mark for the trio of the scherzo, if the Allegro is played at B's quite fast mark of quarter = 88, the 547 bars alone would take about 12.5 minutes.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 09, 2008, 08:55:55 AM
No matter how many witnesses said this, I have trouble believing it. Just try to imagine: the Allegro at 11 minutes*, scherzo at 9 (maybe a repeat was cut?), and the slow variations zipping along at 12. You've got 13 minutes left for the choral finale. Good luck. And we're supposed to think an orchestra and chorus in 1824 barely familiar with this music was "marvelous"? I don't know how hard B's orchestral parts are, but I doubt they're easy to master for performers who might have been doing little more than sight-reading. I have sung bass in the choral finale (it's a killer) and have played most of his piano music. The late music especially is very awkward to play. I can believe 60-65 minutes, not 45.
--
* Leaving aside the controversy about B's metronome mark for the trio of the scherzo, if the Allegro is played at B's quite fast mark of quarter = 88, the 547 bars alone would take about 12.5 minutes.
Has anyone investigated the theory that, just as pitch was lower in Beethoven's day, so their hours were longer too? ;D
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 09, 2008, 09:11:52 AM
Has anyone investigated the theory that, just as pitch was lower in Beethoven's day, so their hours were longer too? ;D
Well, seeing people were generally smaller, their mass would have been lower, and since time passes more quickly in weaker gravitational fields, one could well see them thinking the symphony was over in 45 minutes whereas in out spacetime fram of reference it really lasted 60 mminutes!
There, another mystery solved. Why do people have to make such a big deal out of it all, it's so simple really...
Quote from: lukeottevanger on June 09, 2008, 09:24:24 AM
There, another mystery solved. Why do people have to make such a big deal out of it all, it's so simple really...
I suppose if (all together now, from Porgy + Bess) "Methusaleh lived 900 years ... "
Finn Mortensen: Symph op 5, probably the best symphony written by a Norwegian composer.
Quote from: Drasko on June 07, 2008, 08:20:04 AM
Gavriil Popov - Symphony No.1
Massive, expresionistic, gnarly dissonant behemot of a piece in dire need of first class orchestra and conductor. Two recordings exist so far: one with barely adequate orchestra - Moscow State Symphony/Gennady Provatorov (Olympia)
I found the recording on Olympia very intense, a hell of a lot more gripping than the Botstein (whose Hartmann is poor too). I think it'll take quite a while to find a conductor who can do credit to this work -- someone who loves (and can handle) big sprawling symphonies and who has an intense character, at least on the podium. Rozhdestvensky might have conducted it well, alas...
Quote from: Sforzando on June 09, 2008, 08:55:55 AM
No matter how many witnesses said this, I have trouble believing it. Just try to imagine: the Allegro at 11 minutes*, scherzo at 9 (maybe a repeat was cut?), and the slow variations zipping along at 12. You've got 13 minutes left for the choral finale. Good luck. And we're supposed to think an orchestra and chorus in 1824 barely familiar with this music was "marvelous"? I don't know how hard B's orchestral parts are, but I doubt they're easy to master for performers who might have been doing little more than sight-reading. I have sung bass in the choral finale (it's a killer) and have played most of his piano music. The late music especially is very awkward to play. I can believe 60-65 minutes, not 45.
--
* Leaving aside the controversy about B's metronome mark for the trio of the scherzo, if the Allegro is played at B's quite fast mark of quarter = 88, the 547 bars alone would take about 12.5 minutes.
The slow variations can be done quite nicely up to about 10 and a half minutes, ish. That leaves a little under 15 minutes for the finale - still absurd.
Quote from: Brian on June 07, 2008, 03:51:11 PM
Beethoven: Symphony No 9
Okay, so there are a LOT of great recordings of this symphony. But there are no great recordings which attempt to match the tempi which Beethoven directed for the symphony. Several witnesses of the Symphony's premiere claimed that it took only 45 minutes to play, and was marvelous.
Sure there are a number of very good recordings which try to follow the tempi Beethoven "directed" for it - in the score, through the metronome markings. As interesting and somewhat puzzling as Smart's remark is, you shouldn't get too hung up about it. It is just one guy who reports that these other people said that. And even if these people include Beethoven and some of his friends, Beethoven gave very explicit metronome markings in the score and that, the printed performance instructions contradict what he
allegedly said, even if there may be one or two metronome markings which may be errors. These still don't sum up to such a massive difference in timing.
I read up on that and find it interesting that Smart himself doubted that that was true, and said so, so there is no reason to assume would have made that up (and if he had, why?). But maybe, if Beethoven and his friends really said that, they had a reason: a few sentences later Smart mentions that Beethoven voiced strong interest in coming to London, and obviously he looked to Smart for local support.
Maybe he and his friends said that because Beethoven had many times been criticized by contemporaries because many felt his symphonies were too long and too difficult to play, so
maybe they just said that to disperse fears that the new symphony might be too long and too hard too perform.
Smart mentions that there were only 2 rehearsals for the symphony, and given how challenging the piece still is for musicians and singers who have had endless opportunity to practice it, to this day, it probably wasn't that "marvelous" from a technical point of view. It was probably pretty chaotic in places. Interestingly, Smart also mentions that the recitative was only played by 4 celli and 2 basses - I can easily see how they may have given up on that for the moment since it would have taken a lot of time to rehearse that properly. But apparently, the premiere still a great success and the music swept a lot of people away.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 09, 2008, 08:55:55 AM
I don't know how hard B's orchestral parts are, but I doubt they're easy to master for performers who might have been doing little more than sight-reading.
A lot of it is
extremely difficult to play well, for various sections in the orchestra, and I am told that a lot of the choral parts are also very hard to sing. Some of the string writing is at the very limits of what physically playable - if you are very good. Most people still can't play it that well, but mercifully, the tutti and the chorus cover that up. There is absolutely no way this could have been played that fast.
Besides, a lot of the music makes a lot of sense from a text enunciation point of view. The tempi indicated in the score make sense because they result in, for the most part, rather natural tempi which aren't too different from how fast you would recite the text if it was spoken, not sung. And that natural ness was something Beethoven always aimed for (and very often achieved).
So it all makes sense, except that single remark, relayed to us only through a third person who himself wasn't too convinced of the truth behind. Whether or not Beethoven really said that, or whether or not he may have said that to disperse concerns his music might be too long and difficult, we will never know, but it is fairly irrelevant anyway, because what matters is not single, disconnected pieces of "evidence", what counts is *context* and the evidence we draw upon to reassemble a hopefully "authentic" overall picture of the music as it originally was has to fit in a context in which it makes sense.
That whole subject, as I never tire of repeating, is way more complex than a lot of people think.
Quote from: Brian on June 09, 2008, 02:44:22 PM
The slow variations can be done quite nicely up to about 10 and a half minutes, ish.
Actually you've got me there in a sense, because if played at B's metronome settings, there are 157 bars in the movement - 121 bars of Adagio in 4/4 (later 12/8) at q or dq=60, and 36 bars of Andante in 3/4 at q=63, which believe it or not come to just under 10 minutes! I have certainly never heard a performance that fast. The strings would have to play sixteenth-note triplets in some of the more ornate variations, meaning they'd have to articulate nine notes per second at times. I don't think even Norrington, who made a point of following Beethoven's metronome marks, went quite
that fast. Gardiner needs 12:05, and Harnoncourt, in a performance that alone would make his COE set worth keeping, feels pretty fast at 13:34. But one's sense of speed is not governed alone by the clock. The players' articulation, the conductor's shaping of the whole design, the acoustic characteristics of the hall they're playing in - all these have an effect on one's perception of tempo.
So much for "ish."
Quote from: M forever on June 09, 2008, 06:50:08 PM
A lot of it is extremely difficult to play well, for various sections in the orchestra, and I am told that a lot of the choral parts are also very hard to sing. Some of the string writing is at the very limits of what physically playable - if you are very good. Most people still can't play it that well, but mercifully, the tutti and the chorus cover that up. There is absolutely no way this could have been played that fast.
Hardly surprising. As stated above, I've sung in the chorus to the finale; B's demands on the basses' vocal range (up to the F just above middle C) are extreme. It's perhaps worse for the choral sopranos, having to sustain a high A over several bars at one spot.
As a pianist, I also know Beethoven's demands on players are considerable. The earlier music is often very difficult, but it tends to fit fairly well under the hand at a time when B. himself was still a performing musician. In the later work, after he had ceased performing and playing, the pianistic demands become far greater - awkward shifts in hand position, difficult leaps, passages where the two hands are so close together as to collide more often than not, passages almost impossible to finger. So it's hardly surprising his orchestral parts as just as hard.
Quote from: Sforzando on June 09, 2008, 08:04:44 PM
Hardly surprising. As stated above, I've sung in the chorus to the finale; B's demands on the basses' vocal range (up to the F just above middle C) are extreme. It's perhaps worse for the choral sopranos, having to sustain a high A over several bars at one spot.
....although here's where my earlier flippancy becomes more relevant, because, as is often pointed out, that high becomes something like a much more manageable A flat at Beethoven's pitch.
Quote from: mahler10th on June 09, 2008, 03:12:29 AM
Brian Havergal. So much composed, so little performed (some not at all!), and so good too. Other than recordings of the gargantuan first symphony, the rest of his works just get tickled at here and there, if at all. Havergal deserves much more respect, more concert time and more airplay - of that I am certain.
As resident Brianite I share this sentiment entirely, of course! Havergal Brian has only got a few of his symphonies performed and recorded to a standard that does them justice (especially 6, 16 (Lyrita) and 7, 8, 9 (EMI); I don't like the acoustics of the Maida Vale studio in the Third on Hyperion).
I know I'll have to become as old as Brian himself (96) to see this sorry state of affairs change, if at all. :(