Post by Chris June 29, 2008 (1 of 18)
|
|
Hello there everybody ,
I just have to add some of my views on a couple of recent releases.
Let me first of all comment on the IMHO , possibly very best and MOST REALISTIC RECORDING so far released on SACD!
The Sony BMG Strauss Alpine symphony is exactly the kind of recording I have been pushing for in many of my earlier posts!
Yeah,this is still Chris under a new name .
Couldn´t log in with my old one.
This is very natural and realistic recording , with no bloody spotlighting, zooming, cut and paste,compression or any other of all those obvious nasties done to far too many recordings to please the crowds who have never been to a real live concert of orchestral classical music in a good venue!
Or happen to listen to their music via a Mid-Fi system.
This splendid recording presents the truth and nothing but he whole thruth in all its glory!
Thanks producer Neubronner!
At least as much of it as DSD as it is used for SACD , allows .
I could rave about the music and the performance, but it has already been done very well in reviews here , so let me just stress again that this is
ABSOLUTELY COMPULSORY LISTENING for anybody who loves good music
and with RECORDING QUALITY TO MATCH IT !
This is exactly what High Rez and HI FI is all about!
And SACD is able to deliver when done right!
My only concern would be that the otherwise excellent soloist, is miked too close for comfort.
And yes, I have both the Schartzkopf and Janowitz on LP for musical comparisons.
In every other respect this is a recording just as I would make it, if I had the means to make it!
Full marks from me!
Another controversial release according to many here , is the recent set of Linn Mozart late symphonies discs.
Musically I like the first two,the Prague and nr 39 more and more on each listening.
But I still find both the G -Minor and Jupiter underwhelming.
To me they are BIG symphonies and should be played that way.
My references may seem old fashioned with admittedly somewhat heavy handling from Karajan on my early 70s LP set.
But there is also a lot more drama and sheer beauty captured in those performances.
The recordings are, good quality analogue, EMI by the recording engineer who almost always gave Karajan and his Berliners the best possible sound,Wolfgang Gulich, who used far fewer microphones than his college Gunther Hermanns at DGG.
In my opinion many of the recordings Karajan recorded for EMI in the seventies ought to be released on SACD, so that a new generation without LPs at hand can hear these wonderful recordings in all their glory.
Many of them are also recorded in surround!
Just a dream.
Back to Mozart ,
under Karajan the minutest demi- semi quaver is taken care of, and phrases are allowed to breathe and SING, just as under Bruno Walter ,my other reference.
A listen to both of them rehearsing Mozart is revealing indeed.
Something you get for free if you buy the LP sets from EMI or Columbia.
And although Karajan is all too often blamed for smoothing things out, there is also plenty of drama on display here.
Ok , the menuettos are a bit heavy-footed to say the least.
But on the other hand those gorgeous Berlin winds soar beautifully over a deep, firm and powerful bassline in all of the slow movements, and Heavenly so in the G-minor.
And that brings me to my main concern here with the SCO.
Although I do like the sprightly, very rythmic playing with clear winds and tympani ,the strings are just too weak,and far too few, to really make any impact compared to the Berliners.
Or any other full size orchestra for that matter.
The important ”dialogues ” between first and second violins are both much clearer and more beautifully played by the Berliners than the handful of violins employed here.
I have heard these symphonies live many times with orchestras ranging from the smallish Mozarteum orchestra in Salzburg ,the Czech Philharmonic,to the mighty Concertgebouw.
And what I have almost always admired,is the sweet wonderful string sound that seems to be part and parcel of Mozart´s compositions for orchestra.
Not only are the strings far too few in the SCO,but they also play without vibrato which sometimes make them sound at bit thin and lifeless compared to my old favourites.
I can agree with many of the things resulting from the so called HIP movement.
And I really do like the extra clarity sometimes achieved,
But I absolutely hate it when someone like Norrington for example , butchers masterworks like the Eroica which he did in Salzburg a few years ago .
He made an absolute travesty of the Marcia funebre.
Luckily,there is no risk of anything like that happening under Mackerras.
He is far to experienced a Mozartian,but I do wish he had employed ,just a wee bit of vibrato, and some more strings, both violins and basses! There are only two basses!
No wonder there is no real bassline.
That way would have kept me in heaven more than with the Prague symphony.
Wasn´t it Mozart himself who jubilantly wrote back to his father when he, for once, actually got all the players he wanted for a performance of one of his symphonies?
Was it in Mannheim?
Just because circumstances often didn´t allow for more than a handful of first violins back then ,doesn´t necessarily mean that that is how Mozart really wanted his symphonies to be played!
What about the sound quality then?
Well, these recordings from Linn follow their usual,quite close,from the conductor´s perspective point of view.
And I have basically got nothing against that approach if done without too much spotmiking.
But apart from the generally thin string sound I can´t help wondering if pure DSD wouldn´t have made things even clearer and more realistic.
But for some reason LINN sticks with PCM 24/96.
Download-friendly?
Yes ,but Ultimate Fidelity?
I wonder?
One company on the other hand ,that has actually gone from PCM to DSD on some recent releases is Chandos.
And their Elgar discs are almost as good and realistically recorded as the Sony Strauss disc.
I have their Elgar-Payne 3rd on order.
And I absolutely love the other two in that series.
I ´m also a bit tempted to buy one of the recent Sibelius recordings from Exton.
But having seen the astronomic number of microphones they employed for their Mahler 4th in the Rudolfinum two years ago , and also reading Geohominid´s reviews make me sit on the fence a while ,although I would like the 4th and 5th on SACD as well.
Karajan rules musically on DGG LPs, but soundwise I wish for more.
I also have the Heldenleben- Metamorphosen Sony Dresden disc on order.I Can hardly wait to hear how it compares to Karajan´s EMI 70s or 59 DGG ones on LP .
Or for that matter the still very good Reiner Living Stereo SACD with its admittedly limited dynamic range , but clear natural sound.
This is a crazy hobby, but all for the love of good music.
All the best to all you guys who give me ideas of new SACDs to buy.
Chris, from now on known as Chrille
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrille said:
Mackerras...is far too experienced a Mozartian,but I do wish he had employed ,just a wee bit of vibrato, and some more strings, both violins and basses! There are only two basses!
No wonder there is no real bassline.
That way would have kept me in heaven more than with the Prague symphony.
Wasn´t it Mozart himself who jubilantly wrote back to his father when he, for once, actually got all the players he wanted for a performance of one of his symphonies?
Was it in Mannheim?
Just because circumstances often didn´t allow for more than a handful of first violins back then ,doesn´t necessarily mean that that is how Mozart really wanted his symphonies to be played!
I don't know what Mozart's expectations or desires might have been, but by golly I am right with you on this issue of the size of the body of strings and especially regarding the use of vibrato!
Twice I have heard Levine conduct Mozart with the Boston Symphony in Symphony Hall (seating capacity is about 2600). Both times, if I recall correctly, he used a SLIGHTLY reduced body of strings (five basses) and a judicious amount of vibrato. The sound was gorgeous! Then I received and auditioned my Mackerras set. What a disappointment!
Yet I admit to hearing positive attributes and being somewhat beguiled by the nature of the sound MacKerras produces - it's just that what Levine does with the same music in Symphony Hall with probably twice the orchestra, is so much finer to my ears.
One of the conductors I admire highly in Rachmaninov and Prokofiev is Andre Previn. But his Mozart is another kettle of fish altogether. Tepid, not sonorous and hardly exciting like Mackerras. Far far from lovely like Levine. Strange...when I first heard Andre's Mozart a few years ago, I was afraid age had caught up to him. Then I heard him do the Rachmaninov 2nd Symphony. You would have thought he was 30 years younger!
|
|
|
Post by Daland June 30, 2008 (3 of 18)
|
|
Here is an extract from the "Classical Music Glossary" of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra:
There's evidence, in fact, that eighteenth-century composers were very happy with big orchestras when they could get them. In April 1781, for example, Mozart wrote a letter to his father telling of a recent performance of one of his symphonies. The orchestra, especially for those days, had been huge — forty violins, ten violas, eight cellos, ten double basses, and twice the normal number of winds (including six bassoons) — and Mozart described the performance as “magnifique.”
Given these facts it is hard to understand why "big band" Mozart is used as a disparaging term by critics nowadays.
It seems that "political correctness" now pervades musical life, telling us what is "authentic", however spurious such claims are. Using period instruments may be a good idea. But does it make sense to use flutes of the type current in Mozart's day when we know that Mozart disliked their sound and probably would have welcomed an improved version of the instrument.
I think the character of the music should determine the way it is played rather than metronome markings or musicological studies.
|
|
|
Post by seth June 30, 2008 (4 of 18)
|
|
Daland said:
Here is an extract from the "Classical Music Glossary" of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra:
There's evidence, in fact, that eighteenth-century composers were very happy with big orchestras when they could get them. In April 1781, for example, Mozart wrote a letter to his father telling of a recent performance of one of his symphonies. The orchestra, especially for those days, had been huge — forty violins, ten violas, eight cellos, ten double basses, and twice the normal number of winds (including six bassoons) — and Mozart described the performance as “magnifique.”
Given these facts it is hard to understand why "big band" Mozart is used as a disparaging term by critics nowadays.
It seems that "political correctness" now pervades musical life, telling us what is "authentic", however spurious such claims are. Using period instruments may be a good idea. But does it make sense to use flutes of the type current in Mozart's day when we know that Mozart disliked their sound and probably would have welcomed an improved version of the instrument.
I think the character of the music should determine the way it is played rather than metronome markings or musicological studies.
That one letter hardly counts as an endorsement of a large orchestra size. Brahms, for instance, conducted his music with orchestras of any size during his time (at max some where over 85), but he preferred working with an orchestra no larger than 50 musicians. Some composers were extremely specific about the kind of instruments used. Berlioz, for instance, scored for instruments that were considered antiquated or soon to be replaced by more modern versions.
The problem with "big band" Mozart is very simple: too many strings drown out woodwinds. You can fix this in a recording but playing around with the levels, but live in-concert, it's a disaster.
The reason big band was so popular up until the 60s, was because the major selling point of city's orchestras was its size -- you weren't a first tier orchestra unless you had 100 musicians. At all times you wanted to show off the numbers of musicians you had. But by the 60s, the mark of a first tier orchestra became sound and quality of playing. And so, even back then, conductors begun to reduce the number of strings for Mozart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
That one letter hardly counts as an endorsement of a large orchestra size.
On the other hand it would indicate that something larger than today's small chamber orchestra is entirely appropriate. I am not, and I doubt Daland is talking about an orchestra sized for Mahler.
As I said, I recently heard two concerts where Levine reduced the size of the BSO only slightly, for the 29th and the Praque, and (you will have to take this on faith since you were not there) we did her the winds quite well. The reduction of strings, judging by the number of basses, was something on the order of 37% - hmmm maybe that is not properly described as "only slightly"! Still it was a bit larger than the typical HIP orchestra for Mozart.
What stood out to me was that the strings had body and a lovely quality (they used vibrato!) not approached by a total of 20 or so musicians playing in the "historically correct" style.
Still, I admit that Mackerras' recent Linn recording certainly does have its virtues, though I personally find it ultimately disturbing knowing what can be done with that music and I would much rather have an SACD of those Levine Boston accounts that I just mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by seth June 30, 2008 (6 of 18)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
As I said, I recently heard two concerts where Levine reduced the size of the BSO only slightly, for the 29th and the Praque, and (you will have to take this on faith since you were not there) we did her the winds quite well. The reduction of strings, judging by the number of basses, was something on the order of 37% - hmmm maybe that is not properly described as "only slightly"! Still it was a bit larger than the typical HIP orchestra for Mozart.
You're comparing apples and oranges with your BSO example.
One of the points of the HIP movement, is to contextualize where the music was performed. As the liner notes say, "The theaters, halls, music rooms and salons in which Mozart performed his symphonies were small compared to most modern concert halls. His orchestras were correspondingly smaller than a full symphony orchestra as well, and his listeners were positioned correspondingly closer to the musicians."
The difference, is that the BSO is performing in a huge concert hall that seats 2000+ with some patrons hundreds of feet away from the orchestra.
Mackerras' forces have been reduced for a chamber hall that seats 200 to 500.
If the reduced BSO forces you heard performed in such a small hall, it still would be too many instruments.
And if Mackerras and the SCO were to perform in Boston's hall, I'd imagine he'd increase the size of the orchestra.
As for the violin sound, specifically the vibrato, it's a HIP recording. And Mackerras clearly wants a thin string sound so that the balance favors the brass. You don't have to like it, or even respect it, but you're acting like Mackerras isn't getting the results he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
And if Mackerras and the SCO were to perform in Boston's hall, I'd imagine he'd increase the size of the orchestra.
Having seen Mackerras perform Mozart (with the CBSO on modern instruments) in Birmingham's Symphony Hall, I doubt that very much on recent evidence!
In many ways, why would he? I mean, Brendel (up until the end of the year anyway) plays to very large audiences with only one instrument and I don't think anyone would suggest that someone else should partner him in solo piano music!
Most of the rest of your points I agree with fully - the whole idea behind HIP is that one takes account of the performance practices of the day (as best we can understand them from historical documents) and this precludes a large orchestra with modern instruments. If one were to adopt the Parisian fashion that Mozart refers to in his correspondence, there is a world of difference in the relative volumes and timbres produced by a modern double bass and violin compared to the older versions to which Mozart would have been familiar. Thus, a much smaller number of double basses cf violins is required for a modern orchestra in this repertoire.
Those in Boston may well have heard a beautiful sound but probably one that is more appropriate for Brahms onwards...
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
As for the violin sound, you're acting like Mackerras isn't getting the results he wants.
I didn't mean to convey that notion.
I just wanted to agree with Chris and Daland in saying that I (basically) don't like it. I also said that I find it (the Mackerras in particular) interesting, compelling even, but that in the final analysis I prefer what I have heard Levine do in Boston.
BTW the Troy Music Hall seats something like one thousand and we have had full orchestras here - most recently the Czech Philharmonic playing Dvorak. It was loud, but most patrons seemed to enjoy it - More than I did - and I with reservations, did enjoy it. I think the BSO sized as it was for Levine's Symphony Hall Mozart performances would have sounded perfect in the TMH.
To put it in context, regarding size, Hilary Hahn and pianist Valentina Lisitsa filled the hall with wondrous sound last fall, as did the cellist Johannes Moser in recital. We also heard the Academy of St Martin in the Fields (very small chamber orchestra) with Joshua Bell playing the Four Seasons there last year and it was plenty loud enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Those in Boston may well have heard a beautiful sound but probably one that is more appropriate for Brahms onwards...
John,
At the risk of coming off as "a bit cranky", my observation here is that the attitude you display is somewhat pedantic.
To paraphrase, because Mozart could not possibly have heard anything so lovely, neither should we! Where do you get off declaring what is "appropriate"? Now I know that sounds like my back is really up, but it really isn't! (not at you) but I do have some distaste for the entire "HIP" movement. So also, I gather, though I cannot directly quote him, does James Levine. It is with him that I throw my lot, not with Mackerras.
I am surprised and a bit amused that you found Herreweghe's Beethoven so distasteful given your comments above.
Funny, in Mozart's day they didn't have high speed water cooled drills in the dentist's office - did they even have dentists? But we don't need to suffer treadle operated dentistry equipment, or a lack of dentists do we?
Why should we not enjoy the most lovely sound Levine and the BSO can conjure for Mozart? Other than as a curiosity why should we flagellate ourselves with sour thin string sound because that was what Mozart had to endure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
John,
At the risk of coming off as "a bit cranky", my observation here is that the attitude you display is somewhat pedantic.
To paraphrase, because Mozart could not possibly have heard anything so lovely, neither should we! Where do you get off declaring what is "appropriate"? Now I know that sounds like my back is really up, but it really isn't! (not at you) but I do have some distaste for the entire "HIP" movement. So also, I gather, though I cannot directly quote him, does James Levine. It is with him that I throw my lot, not with Mackerras.
I am surprised and a bit amused that you found Herreweghe's Beethoven so distasteful given your comments above.
Funny, in Mozart's day they didn't have high speed water cooled drills in the dentist's office - did they even have dentists? But we don't need to suffer treadle operated dentistry equipment, or a lack of dentists do we?
Why should we not enjoy the most lovely sound Levine and the BSO can conjure for Mozart? Other than as a curiosity why should we flagellate ourselves with sour thin string sound because that was what Mozart had to endure?
Fair enough! Fortunately, the world is a place where different opinions are respected - I have my take (and side with Mackerras), you have yours (and side with Levine); I imagine I'm marginally happier than yourself from the SACD perspective because Levine's thought's on Mozart aren't currently available on the medium...
The sound that Levine (and many others, largely in the past) pursues in Mozart is highly polished and I would agree that it can, if that is your cup of tea, sound quite beautiful. Many composers (and I'm not for a minute suggesting that Mozart would necessarily share the same opinion) like Stravinsky have openly complained when conductors/orchestras "perfume" their music into polished civility (as he famously derided Karajan's first RoS recording). For me though, I love the sweet purity of a vibrato-less string sound (so much more difficult to get in tune but wonderful when done well) as well as the more rounded, natural balance of the instruments. It makes Mozart less "easy on the ear" certainly but I'd never compare it with dental treatment or flagellation!
You are quite right that we don't have to listen to Mozart in the same style that he may have been accustomed (not that we'll ever really know). It is interesting, perhaps, to listen to the many transcriptions of past masters from composers in later centuries to see just how different they can be made to sound. One could well imagine that Bach might thrill to the idea of Stokowski's Philadelphia players serving up lush torrents of sound; it is of course equally possible that Bach might have found the experience repellent! [I'm not equating the use of vibrato and medium size string sections to Stokowski's treatment of Bach BTW] More recent transcriptions have tended to be more austere in outlook than in the past and in future (perhaps even now on a different forum) someone is arguing that the richness of, say, Mahler isn't adequately served by the more lithe textures of composer X!
As for Herreweghe, well let's just say that it's an academic reading - there is no "fire in his belly", so even though it's done well in theory the practical experience is frustrating. And in exactly the same way, something done "badly" in theory can be very rewarding in concert/on disc - it's all about the approach that one prefers.
Regards
PN
|
|
