Post by seth July 1, 2008 (11 of 18)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Having seen Mackerras perform Mozart (with the CBSO on modern instruments) in Birmingham's Symphony Hall, I doubt that very much on recent evidence!
I think a lot of it is dependent on the acoustics of the hall.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 1, 2008 (12 of 18)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
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?
Why?
1. What's "lovely" is subjective. When played a certain way, I think that gut strings can have a very nice sound.
2. You can achieve different balances with a thinner string sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
I think a lot of it is dependent on the acoustics of the hall.
Most conductors/orchestras tour and they usually present the same programme in vastly differing acoustics with the same numbers of personnel (platforms permitting) so whilst I agree that it could depend on the acoustics of the hall, most performers ride roughshod over that view; this leads me to conclude that this issue is largely one of the conductors opinion about performance practice and very little to do with the acoustical qualities of any particular venue.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht July 1, 2008 (14 of 18)
|
|
Chris said:
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!
I once owned many of the SQ matrixed "quadraphonic" recordings of which you speak, though admittedly on inferior American Angel pressings. The set that comes most readily to mind is the Karajan/BPO complete Schubert symphonies, very nice if you prefer Bruckner to Schubert (personally I like a little Schubert in my Bruckner, not so much the other way around). But since this thread seems to have become a referendum on performances influenced by the HIPsters, I'll go on record as saying I'll take Schubert 5,8,&9 by Mackerras and the OAE (Virgin/EMI period instruments) or 8&9 by Mackerras and the SCO (Telarc modern strings/winds, period brass)in preference to most large, modern orchestra performances I've heard whether recorded or live, especially the totally unidiomatic EMI/Karajan. That's just my opinion.
But frankly I don't understand why this needs to be such a black and white issue. Why can't I enjoy Fischer and Manze and Thorsen in the Mozart v/c's, or Brautigam and Hewitt and Tchetuev in the Beethoven sonatas, or Adam Fischer and Glover and Colin Davis in Haydn symphonies? Each of these artists brings something different to the pieces they play. Sometimes sonority is a significant component of their performances, but rarely is it the most important part. I may prefer the sound of Hewitt's Fazioli to Brautigam's reproduction Walther but I would not be without his interpretations, in which the specific instrument influences much more than just the sound.
Personally I would be very happy if my hometown Philadelphia Orchestra (modestly pared down) played a little more Mozart and Haydn and a little less Tchaikovsky (one memorable concert, during which Maestro Eschenbach played two Mozart concerti, conducting from the keyboard, would have made a better recording for Ondine than either the Tchaikovsky 4th or 5th), but I also enjoy the Philly Chamber Orchstra's Mozart, and their Beethoven too. I love my old recordings of Haydn by Bernstein and Jochum, but Charles Mackerras' recording of symphonies 31+45 with the Orchestra of St Luke's on Telarc, well, ne plus ultra. We are so blessed to enjoy and share this wonderful pursuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
wehecht said:
But frankly I don't understand why this needs to be such a black and white issue. Why can't I enjoy Fischer and Manze and Thorsen in the Mozart v/c's, or Brautigam and Hewitt and Tchetuev in the Beethoven sonatas, or Adam Fischer and Glover and Colin Davis in Haydn symphonies?
Perhaps it is human nature; the "new kids on the block" reacting against the "establishment" and vice versa. This type of dialogue seems to repeat itself endlessly in culture and doubtless the pendulum will swing in a different direction soon enough and at some point I will be the vanguard defending (for the next generation) the indefensible.
Of course, the less dogmatic listeners may well enjoy both approaches (and despite my relatively new found dogma will never willingly part company with my Rachmaninov, Busch Quartet or Schnabel recordings amongst many others) but as a player, some approaches simply work better. For instance the (usually) faster Beethoven tempos adopted these days allow the phrasing specified to be done in one bow and the "spring" in the rhythms come naturally...
|
|
|
Post by seth July 1, 2008 (16 of 18)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Most conductors/orchestras tour and they usually present the same programme in vastly differing acoustics with the same numbers of personnel (platforms permitting) so whilst I agree that it could depend on the acoustics of the hall, most performers ride roughshod over that view; this leads me to conclude that this issue is largely one of the conductors opinion about performance practice and very little to do with the acoustical qualities of any particular venue.
Conductors definitely adjust their interpretation to match the acoustics of concert halls -- acoustics greatly affect balance, tempo and dynamics.
I'm sure that in the course of the 20th century, touring orchestras, when moving between concert halls that seats 2500+ to 1500, have made changes to the number of strings.
A few years ago I saw Gardiner conducting the last three Mozart symphonies at Alice Tully Hall, which seats only 1100. He gave the same program in halls that seats 2500+. I'd be very surprised if there weren't one ore two more strings when he gave the same program at a place like Davies Symphony Hall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
Conductors definitely adjust their interpretation to match the acoustics of concert halls -- acoustics greatly affect balance, tempo and dynamics.
I'm sure that in the course of the 20th century, touring orchestras, when moving between concert halls that seats 2500+ to 1500, have made changes to the number of strings.
A few years ago I saw Gardiner conducting the last three Mozart symphonies at Alice Tully Hall, which seats only 1100. He gave the same program in halls that seats 2500+. I'd be very surprised if there weren't one ore two more strings when he gave the same program at a place like Davies Symphony Hall.
I wouldn't argue with your first comment; having not had the ability to pursue music professionally as a player I haven't had the (dubious if Trip To Asia is to be believed) privilege of touring with an orchestra.
I can't comment about Gardiner's practice but to steer towards Mackerras once more, I have seen him conduct Beethoven with the same orchestra (the wonderful OAE) in very different acoustics (in terms of age, shape and size). The smaller was St. George's Brandon Hill, Bristol; the larger was Symphony Hall, Birmingham. On both occasions, the number of strings was the same.
The practice posited seems a bit at odds to the well documented behaviours of numerous musicians. Many pianists tour with their own Steinway and even though I've had the delight of seeing Krystian Zimerman perform in Birmingham, London and Bristol perform (in 1 large, good acoustic; 1 large, not-so-good acoustic and 1 small but good acoustic) on the same instrument, by the acoustic-affects-size/number-of-instrument(s) argument, I should have seen him play on an upright in Bristol! An extreme (and facetious) example but I hope this makes the point...
|
|
|
Post by seth July 1, 2008 (18 of 18)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
The practice posited seems a bit at odds to the well documented behaviours of numerous musicians. Many pianists tour with their own Steinway and even though I've had the delight of seeing Krystian Zimerman perform in Birmingham, London and Bristol perform (in 1 large, good acoustic; 1 large, not-so-good acoustic and 1 small but good acoustic) on the same instrument, by the acoustic-affects-size/number-of-instrument(s) argument, I should have seen him play on an upright in Bristol! An extreme (and facetious) example but I hope this makes the point...
With an orchestra, the issue is that you achieve two very different sounds, texture, balance, etc, when you double the number of strings or remove half the strings, but play the music at the same loudness.
|
|
