Mystery Orchestra 18 - Schumann Symphony No.4 - one more

[Sean]

M

Well there's plenty of milage in a discussion like how well music can be accessed by going beyond the barlines, as you say: surely in Karajan's best work he's both in the spirit and the letter...

I don't have it to hand any longer but if we compare this Dresden orchestra with the BPO recording I'm sure we'll find a decidedly more carefully thought out Fourth, yet carried forward at the same time with aesthetic insights of the first rank: his Schumann BPO symphonies needless to say are widely regarded among his finest achievements.

By the way M you don't have the Furtwangler Fourth to share I suppose?

[M forever]

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Wow, I was so off on C  

That happens to the best of us. Just wait until Greta reveals her clips, then you can laugh at me for a change. Not that I am laughing at you. I am laughing with you.

Even though you explained it a little bit, I have no idea what possessed you to guess COE/Harnoncourt for C. That was, BTW, the one recording that I actually "rejected" when I went through the candidates for this round.

Like I said, the choices for the clips are often more or less random, dictated by the total chaos my collection is in now, and unlike Greta, I am not conscsiously trying to make it as hard as possible for you guys (just kidding here, of course, everyone who frequents these pages knows that Greta is good, and I am evil; therefore please note the smileys >>>  ).
But the COE/Harnoncourt recording of the original 1841 version is just too characteristic, too obvious. Everyone (except Sean probably) would have *immediately* guessed that. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but if it's "too easy", then there is no blind discussion. And the COE/Harnoncourt recording would really have been "too easy", as everyone who had heard just a few seconds of it would immediately agree.
In fact, since I am your favorite Mystery Host, I have it right here for you:

Schumann 4 I COE/Harnoncourt
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fb9xl


But I think no one can blame me because I think I threw in a really easy bone with the Zinman recording.

Speaking of Harnoncourt again, the one recording I *wanted* to feature but couldn't find because of said chaos  was the phenomenal live recording he made made of the "normal" version of the 4th with the BP. I looked really hard but couldn't find it 
That is one of my favorites, great and very alive music making. I was there for both concerts when this was recorded, the air was on fire.

Question: does Zinman use period horns?

Nope.

[M forever]

I didn't listen to E and F yet...

Ooops, sorry 

Special nod to Zinman with D. I was amazed when I finally read all the other comments and saw how "on" most everyone was! Many people got them mostly all right.

Apparently I'm a HIPster and didn't even know it thanks to these games. Now I have to start visiting the HIP threads more! I loved the Zinman, the energy, the clean textures, what a nice surprise. Does Tonhalle do HIP often, is Zinman a HIP specialist? Or does that one classify as hybrid HIP?

I really have no idea what that could be classified as. It is definitely not "HIP" at all, although it has become very fashionable to attach that label to everything which remotely seems to have something to do with period instruments, less vibrato, smallish string sections, or hard timpani sticks.

The whole "HIP" thing is an extremely complex subject. I tried to outline a little bit what I think about it in that recent "Beethoven Symphonies HIP" or whatever that was exactly called thread, but I am pretty sure nobody actually read that because it was way too long for a forum post. I tried to make it shorter, but since the subject is so complicated, I thought all that needed to be in here. My bad.

Whatever "HIP" is, I don't think Zinman's Beethoven and Schumann recordings have much to do with it, as much as it may look like that from some superficial elements, such as smallish string sections, fast tempi, hard timpani sticks and all that.

I have no idea what one could call or classify that. I would just call it "Zinman". Apart from describing what I hear, I don't really have much of an opinion about what he does with that repertoire. Or at least I try not to.

My initial reaction to this and his other Schumann recordings was uncommonly (for me) negative, to an extent which surprised me. I do not react very well to this superficial tacking of "HIP" elements onto what appears to me a very conventional, if rather sped up, playing style. I also don't like the embellishment thing at all. Embellishments are very important in "HIP" in general, but here they feel artificially glued on and out of style to me.

However, since his approach is rather unusual in general and I am in a phase in which the whole "HIP" thing, or rather it's many pseudo forms, gets on my nerves a lot, I am very cautious. Maybe I am not "getting" what he is trying to do and "overreacting" for reasons which aren't Zinman's fault at all?
Very possible. And since I do not want to block myself from what could potentially be an enrichening musical experience, I have basically set the whole "Zinman question" aside for me at this time and will revisit it some time later.
Or maybe not.
No, I think I will because these very positive and enthusiastic remarks here made me think.

[Sean]

M, you psycho

And since I do not want to block myself from what could potentially be an enrichening musical experience, I have basically set the whole "Zinman question" aside for me at this time and will revisit it some time later.
Or maybe not.
No, I think I will because these very positive and enthusiastic remarks here made me think.

I'm not right on exactly everything, but I am right on the period performance thing: forget it, it's all little more than a product of postmodern leveling and raising or lowering all things past and present to the same anonymous blur: there is such a thing as increasing quality of instrument production over time, and conveying of music in objectively optimum terms as understood by a genuinely sensitive mind, and the whole jolly bouncy superficial performance idiom is a reflection of the false raising of the mindless masses to the level of high culture, and the determined lowering of high culture to them.

[Drasko]

Even though you explained it a little bit, I have no idea what possessed you to guess COE/Harnoncourt for C. That was, BTW, the one recording that I actually "rejected" when I went through the candidates for this round.

But the COE/Harnoncourt recording of the original 1841 version is just too characteristic, too obvious.

Yeah, as I said already, for some reason drew a complete blank on that one initially and from that point one's imagination can take one pretty much anywhere.

I haven't heard it before and didn't even know what version he recorded, thanks for the extra clip.

Yes, the performance was on CD at one time (or did you think I photoshopped the cover myself, with the SG logo and all that). But it is OOP an very rare now.

I think he is at his extramegaspecialultrabest here. Live, "unbottened", "unpolished", extremely flexible and spontaneous, "taking risks", leting the orchestra play freely but at the same time his long line control and natural impluse giving is also feelable.

There is hardly any fun in seconding your opinion against Sean's but I think as well that that one is supercalifragilistic ...
Did a search and there is one 'dodgy' copy at amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0000012WS

Can someone elucidate for me what does mean missing a 'jewel insert'? Is that the back cover? 

[PerfectWagnerite]

Hmmm, in my comments I called clip C "the best by a healthy margin". Everyone raves about the Sawallisch and now I see why. I have 2 and 3 but don't have 1 and 4 by him so I'll make it my business to pick up the second half of his cycle.

In reply #31 I said B has that Karajan quality of extreme dynamic contrast and string heavy. I also accused it earlier of being a bit sticky. I have never heard the Karajan/BPO Schumann nor the one presented in Clip B.

I am still ambivalent about Zinman. I didn't love it (looking back at my comments) for lack of dynamics contrast and some strange ornamentations. I didn't love his Beethoven either and that was much less "HIP" sounding than this one. His Strauss actually sounds normal, nothing fantastic but very well-played and presented.

I'm surprised that E is Sinopoli, he usually doesn't blatantly miss something in the score like where the stringendo in the intro starts. By all accounts he is an extremely careful and detailed conductor.

Anyway I'd say the only must have here is Sawallisch.

[M forever]

In reply #31 I said B has that Karajan quality of extreme dynamic contrast and string heavy. I also accused it earlier of being a bit sticky. I have never heard the Karajan/BPO Schumann nor the one presented in Clip B.

Yes, we noted that! But since I don't give or subtract points, unfortunately, I can't give you any points for recognizing Karajan's style (neither can I subtract you points for the "sticky", whatever that means  ).

But we can give you an extra round of applause if you want. Let me start:

Applaaauuuuuse!

I'm surprised that E is Sinopoli, he usually doesn't blatantly miss something in the score like where the stringendo in the intro starts. By all accounts he is an extremely careful and detailed conductor.

Speaking of careful and detailed, it is a very good approach when you take the score and "inform" yourself about what it says there, and if you analzye a performance in detail.

But you also have to be careful - having these informations available doesn't mean you suddenly "know" everything about the music, what's "right" and what's "wrong". It does not make you the keeper of the true secrets. Musical interpretation has many, many, many aspects and variables, and it can easily be argued that a lot of what we hear in many interpretations is not exactly sanctioned by what's in the score. If that was completely "clear", then there would be no interpretations. And even composers who theoretically should know exactly what they "meant" in the score often change their mind about musical details, tempi, a lot of things. Which is good because complex works like these are more than a set of precise instructions for tone production. They are meant to be interpreted.

So one can't speak of something "blatantly" wrong because it says otherwise in the score, unless we talk about very basic parameters such as the right notes. If you take that approach, then a lot of what you hear would be all "wrong" because it doesn't say so or otherwise in the score. What it actually says in the score is an endless subject anyway.

So, you may find a tempo decision such as this one unjustified, or the execution unconvincing, but simple because you have he score and it says something different there doesn't mean you are "right" and the interpreter is "wrong". If it was just a question of right and wrong, it wouldn't be so much fun - or at all.

[M forever]

Did a search and there is one 'dodgy' copy at amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0000012WS

Can someone elucidate for me what does mean missing a 'jewel insert'? Is that the back cover? 

Dunno, but don't worry about that "dodgy copy". We may be able to work out a solution for you to get a chance to hear this complete performance. 

[PerfectWagnerite]

So, you may find a tempo decision such as this one unjustified, or the execution unconvincing, but simple because you have he score and it says something different there doesn't mean you are "right" and the interpreter is "wrong". If it was just a question of right and wrong, it wouldn't be so much fun - or at all.

I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't be shocked if another conductor takes that stringendo a few bars ahead but Sinopoli just surprises me a bit. I don't have too many scores so it's hard for me to say most of the times whether someone is following the score or not so to speak. Even if you follow everything in the score there are still many many instances where you have to decide how to play the notes. For example if you see a piano indicated then many bars later you see forte. DOes that mean it's piano up to the forte? Or is it something else.

The only other performance by Sinopoli that I have followed with a score is his Dresden Bruckner 5th. That one he absolutely tries to make every indication stands out.

Speaking of applause, I think Drasko deserves one for pointing out right away that Clip A might be the Mahler reorchestration. And Sean DID guess that D was Zinman/Tonhalle.

[Sean]

Perfect, this was Sinopoli's flaw- he wasn't a great conductor but was meticulous enough to cover over a distinct lack of depth in his work: certainly his Salome is a good example of carefully coaxed colour, phrasing and pacing without ever approaching real distinction.

The only other performance by Sinopoli that I have followed with a score is his Dresden Bruckner 5th. That one he absolutely tries to make every indication stands out.

[M forever]

Sean, don't you notice with all your philosophical deoth that you are making a total fool out of yourself? We are discussing music and interpretations in great detail here, among grownups, we really have no need for your empty blablabla.

[Drasko]

But the COE/Harnoncourt recording of the original 1841 version is just too characteristic, too obvious. Everyone (except Sean probably) would have *immediately* guessed that. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but if it's "too easy", then there is no blind discussion. And the COE/Harnoncourt recording would really have been "too easy", as everyone who had heard just a few seconds of it would immediately agree.

Schumann 4 I COE/Harnoncourt
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fb9xl

Yes I see now, even after desktop speakers listening I would tend to immediately agree.
I do like it, sounds refreshing after all the others above.

http://www.warnerclassics.com/release.php?release=4782
Warner seems released it in convenient package, don't see it at any of the internet vendors but I'll probably get it as soon as appears.

Dunno, but don't worry about that "dodgy copy". We may be able to work out a solution for you to get a chance to hear this complete performance. 

Will be appreciated.

[M forever]

http://www.warnerclassics.com/release.php?release=4782
Warner seems released it in convenient package, don't see it at any of the internet vendors but I'll probably get it as soon as appears.

That looks good. In the meantime, I would grab this sensational live recording which I mentioned above. It is usually available cheaply from many sellers. I would upload a sample, but I can't find the disc right now...

[PerfectWagnerite]

That looks good. In the meantime, I would grab this sensational live recording which I mentioned above. It is usually available cheaply from many sellers. I would upload a sample, but I can't find the disc right now...

I just ordered that, thanks ! WOw, costs less than $5 including shipping at Amazon.

Great clips BTW. I also like the Inbal/New Philharmonia on Philips and the Goodman/Hanover Band on RCA (using the 1841 version like the Harnoncourt/COE) but somehow now as weird. The Inbal is a very lucid and transparent reading with amazing detailed and some really fabulous brass playing. Kind of make you scratch your head why it went OOP faster than you can say hey.

If there is interest I will provide some sample clips.

[M forever]

Dunno for how long the Inbal recordings were in print. I think they were actually around for quite a while. They were made in the 70s, predating his many recordings for Denon and Teldec. Especially Denon made a ton of recordings with him. Not surprisingly, they also recorded the Schumann symphonies with him in Frankfurt, ambitiously coupled with work of the Second Viennese School.

but somehow now as weird

I don't understand what you mean by that.


Anybody interested in hearing more of the Karajan and Chailly recordings PM me.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I don't understand what you mean by that.


Anybody interested in hearing more of the Karajan and Chailly recordings PM me.

Oops, typo. I meant the Goodman is "not" as weird as Harnoncourt. I accidentally typed "now" instead of "not".

Harnoncourt's COE recording is a strange bird for me to swallow. At times he underplays a lot of the dynamics markings and you think: this is forte, sounds like mezzo-piano. But then once in a while he'll hit you with a forte that just wakes you up. Those E-flats starting the development section in the opening of #4 are the most underwhelming of anything I know. Not sure whether he had access to some other version of the 1841 version. He takes the third movement quite fast but then takes the finale at a rather leisurely pace. It also seems like almost every phrase gets a little extra "juice" at the beginning but the end sort of just wiggles away. Anyway it is rather distinctive.

Interestingly Harnoncourt and Zinman/Tonhalle and Goodman are the only ones I know that takes the intro at the indicated temp of quarter note = mm 52. Seems like the rest take it almost twice as slow. I am not sure what the contraversy is regarding Schumann's metronome markings so maybe somebody can elaborate. Even Goodman indicated in his liner notes that he thinks some of Schumann's indicated tempi are too fast and you hardly ever hear a HIPster say something like that.

[M forever]

Oops, typo. I meant the Goodman is "not" as weird as Harnoncourt. I accidentally typed "now" instead of "not".

That's because the Goodman stuff is just musically totally conventional playing, only on old instruments and a little faster. Easy to digest pseudo-HIP for people like you who are not willing to confront themselves with an expressive vocabulary they are not used to. That's what Harnoncourt does. But it's not randomly chosen, it's based on a lot of musical experience and insights into the stylistical background of the music and it's rhetoric structure. You don't have to like that, and you don't have to listen to it. But you should, if you are really interested in the music. There are many things you don't understand about it at all. You can definitely learn a few things from listening to Harnoncourt. I find it sad that you call that "weird".

[PerfectWagnerite]

That's because the Goodman stuff is just musically totally conventional playing, only on old instruments and a little faster. Easy to digest pseudo-HIP for people like you who are not willing to confront themselves with an expressive vocabulary they are not used to. That's what Harnoncourt does. But it's not randomly chosen, it's based on a lot of musical experience and insights into the stylistical background of the music and it's rhetoric structure. You don't have to like that, and you don't have to listen to it. But you should, if you are really interested in the music. There are many things you don't understand about it at all. You can definitely learn a few things from listening to Harnoncourt. I find it sad that you call that "weird".

I DO listen to Harnoncourt. I have many Harnoncourt recordings many I enjoy very much. I try to buy everything he recorded (well those in print in the US and don't cost an arm and a leg anyway). In fact he is one of these conductors I go out of my way to acquire recordings of. I even have the CD in question. I listen to him because he is so different. I say "weird' in the sense of strange and unconventional. I didn't mean to sound I like am condeming him somehow.

[M forever]

Thanks for he clarification. I think "weird" is a totally inappropriate word in this context and it does not do the apparent seriousness with which you have investigated the subject so far any justice. I would avoid vocabulary like that unless there is really something "weird" or "strange" going on, not just something "unusual" or "unused to". Any serious criticism, and it can be extremely critical and even harsh, condeming, must be based on solid understanding of the subject and first of all, respect for the artists.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Thanks for he clarification. I think "weird" is a totally inappropriate word in this context and it does not do the apparent seriousness with which you have investigated the subject so far any justice. I would avoid vocabulary like that unless there is really something "weird" or "strange" going on, not just something "unusual" or "unused to". Any serious criticism, and it can be extremely critical and even harsh, condeming, must be based on solid understanding of the subject and first of all, respect for the artists.

I just meant "weird" in the strict sense that it is unusual. I don't know why in recent years that word has taken such a negative connotation. Probably due to the proliferation of the word "weirdo' which has no positive connotation whatsoever. I guess same with the word "gay" as in gay=happy. You would never say something like I feel so  gay today to mean I feel so happy.