 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rbell96
Date: 2004-11-14 18:53
Hey guys,
I have just bought the recording of Harnoncourt conducting the Concertgebouw in Dvorak 9. Its a live recording on Teldec.
Has anyone heard it? ISn't incredibly fast almost to the point of rushing?
Rob
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-11-14 21:31
"No need to..."
Now there's someone who's really open to new ideas!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-11-14 22:43
GBK - while I agree the cycle isn't bad ... the string playing of the LSO in the cycle you refer to is not up to par. At least the Harnoncourt recording's string playing is in tune most of the time.
Step out of your comfort zone and listen to an alternate version!!
Also - IMHO - the cycle by Mackerras with the Czech Philharmonic is about as good as it gets.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-11-14 22:43
I've heard the Dvorak symphonies in all conceivable derivations - slow, fast, small orchestra, large orchestra, American orchestra and/or conductor, European orchestra and/or conductor, etc...
However, there are certain recordings where IMO the definitive statement of a work has been made (ex: Elgar concerto/du Pre, Goldberg Variations/Gould, Hary Janos Suite/Dorati, Bach Concerto for 2 Violins/David and Igor Oistrakh, etc...)
The Kertesz Dvorak cycle is (and has been for 40 years) the definitive statement.
Others, no matter how fine the conductor and/or orchestra, to me, pale in comparison.
With (I'm guessing) 30 or more current recorded versions available of Dvorak 9, do we really need another one? ..GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rbell96
Date: 2004-11-14 23:37
The whole point of my post was to remark on the speed. So far the interpretation of Harnoncourt has not been mentioned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-11-14 23:56
rbell ... yes - I own this CD too ... for me his tempi are just fine
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 13:34
I will always admire Kubelik in Dvorak..his 7, 8, and 9 with Berlin Phil are definitely the way I like the music to sound.
I will also always enjoy Szell in this repetoire too..his set of 7,8 and 9 on Sony with Cleveland is a truly satisfying set of readings...with great winds too.
As to Kerstez I agree with GBk on interpretitive matters, but at times I find the London Symphony very scrappy and abrasive...
As for cycles I find the first few Dvorak symphonies pretty dull..
as to Harnoncourt I have heard his version and find it exciting, but not as clean as it should be. I fear the orchestra and conductor are having trouble reading each other in the Finale...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-11-15 15:56
GBK, how can you possibly say that Glenn Gould made the definitive version of the Goldberg?
That is quite the most extraordinary statement I have read on this BB - from anyone well-informed, at any rate.
Apart from the fact that he made two extremely different recordings (yes, I have them both) - which one did you mean?
...quite apart from that, Gould's Bach was idiosyncratic to the n'th degree. That is not to say it is not interesting, illuminating, challenging, but in no way can it be claimed to be a definitive statement of what Bach wrote.
In fact, I rather suspect Gould would deny that was his intention in recording it.
...
And I rather think the same goes for the Oistrakhs, but I haven't heard that in many years.
I do like the Kertesz Dvorak, though.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-11-15 16:26
The June 1955 Gould recording of the Bach, for me (and for many others), brought a freshness to the highly structured Goldberg variations which had never before been heard. With his (at that time) youthful energy he basically brought this work (which is too often played tediously and stodgy) back to life. He played with abandon and without pretention. It was a performance (recorded over a 4 day period) which has never been matched.
Although we do not know how Bach would have performed it, my guess is that a rendition which is daring, spontaneous, and moving would have pleased the old master himself. Remember, Bach often had moments of not taking himself or the music too seriously. For me, Glenn Gould captures that spirit.
His second attempt, in 1981, I like less. It seems that his view and performance of the piece hardened and it became more mannered. It was far different than his early playful reading...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 16:37
Speaking of Gould..I saw him play the Well Tempered Clavier recently on TV which was excellent...
For me Gould is something of a bit of a nut in terms of the way he handles Bach...there are some moements of greatness, but sometimes I find it a bit mechanical if not downright tedious...at other times he is simply superb and does things no one ealse could do.
There is a video of him doing the Debussy Clarinet Rhapsodie with Jim Campbell which is excellent!!!
Regards..Happy clarineting~!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-11-15 16:45
GBK, my argument isn't with your liking for Gould's renditions of Bach. It's with your use of the word "definitive". I would understand the word definitive, in this context, to mean "bringing us as close as possible to what the composer intended". That probably means using a close approximation to the correct instrument, which would rule out a piano performance to start with. It certainly means, trying to adhere to the performance practice of the composer's own era. Gould most definitely doesn't do that.
You're quite entitled to think that Bach-played-by-Gould is more interesting than Bach-played-by-Leonhardt/Pinnock/Schiff/whoever. It might be that you'd even prefer it to Bach-played-by-Bach, if we had such a thing. More definitive it isn't. It doesn't even try to be.
This is more than just an argument about what we mean by "definitive". The real point is that we can argue, for example, that Kertesz plays Dvorak so well that his is the only recording we need. We can't argue the same of Gould's Bach. If you want to hear Bach's voice, what Bach imagined when he wrote the piece, then Gould does not give you that. Kertesz gives you Dvorak. Leonhardt gives you Bach. Gould gives you Gould.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-11-15 17:37
David Peacham wrote:
> That probably means using a close approximation to
> the correct instrument, which would rule out a piano
> performance to start with.
In that case you must dismiss all the monumental Bach recordings by Rosalyn Tureck because she played the works on piano.
I'm not ready to do that...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-11-15 17:44
"do we really need another one? ..GBK"
But of course! ....even if there is already a definitive one.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-11-15 17:49
BobD wrote:
> "do we really need another one? ..GBK"
>
> But of course! ....even if there is already a definitive one.
Now try convincing the record companies, who, with dwindling sales, are dropping major artists, and are very reluctant to record that 83rd "new" version of Beethoven 5...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-11-15 18:01
I don't know Tureck's recordings, and I'm not dismissing them. The point I was making is that we ALSO need to hear the works in some close approximation to their original form, in so far as we know what that is.
That means, first and foremost, they need to be played in a way that reflects what we know of authentic performance practice.
Secondly, it is at least highly desirable that the "right" instrument be used. For very old music or very obscure instruments that may be hard to achieve. For Bach it isn't, we have plenty of harpsichords and people who know how to play them.
With those ingredients, we can set about understanding what the composer wrote. Only once we have that does it make sense to look at other approaches.
I can enjoy hearing Bach played on the piano because it gives a fresh perspective, but it shouldn't be the only, "definitive" perspective. For that matter, I listen to recordings of the Art of Fugue played on modern brass, and on a viol consort whose sound was already archaic in Bach's day. I listen to the cello suites played on guitar and on bass. I have played the flute sonatas and some of the violin sonatas on the recorder. These are all valuable perspectives, and some of them would not have surprised Bach at all, but they should not be allowed to replace the originals.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 18:16
Bach would probably enjoyed the sound of the modern piano...i wonder if it would have affected the way he composed...?
As to recordings alot of this is subjective.
In some regards the Kerstez set is definitely the first and foremost overview of these works...he was a heckuva conductor to boot...
check his Brahms 4 in Vienna before he died in a swimming pool in Israel.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 18:20
My personal feeling IS:
Harnoncourt has always been something to me of an enigma..
I dislike his Brahms recoridings done in Berlin...I think they really miss the mark...
as to the Dvorak I feel the orchestra and him are not on the same wavelegnth...
I also find he is very choppy and this is not good for Bruckner either...
His Bruckner is among my least favorites...
However, I wonder how many BB members spend their free time listening to Bruckner, Dvorak. etc...its a great way to develop and learn alot.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-11-15 18:32
"Bach would probably enjoyed the sound of the modern piano...i wonder if it would have affected the way he composed...?"
There's a chicken-and-egg in that question. Depends whether you think instruments evolve to meet the needs of composers, or whether composers rise to meet the challenges of new instruments.
To put it another way, why are modern pianos different from eighteenth century pianos? Is it purely because the eighteenth century didn't have the technology to make modern metal frames and steel strings? Or is it also because the eighteenth century didn't want that sound?
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 18:38
Well, I am sure in the instance of Beethoven the modern orchestra with its richness and fullness of sonority would definitely have impressed Ludwig....
As to full sets of the Dvorak I think Kubelik and Kerstez are the only two sets...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 18:41
Personally I think the Kubelik is a bit better, but the interpretations in the early works by Kubelik are bit more mellow and relaxed than Kerstez...
I have performed 6, 7, 8, 9, and 5 by Dvorak...my favorite..defintely the 7th....check Szell here...wow!
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-15 19:06
Dear David P...
Actually as to the technology issue related to your piano theory...the 17th century did not possess the technical know how to make a steel framed metal stringed piano....thats all. That does not mean the composers of that era would have rejected our modern piano....and at that the modern piano has limitations as much as the forte piano or clavier or harpsichord has limitations....
I am not a purist however
especially when it comes to trying different things...the whole Original instrument music movement is based on what this movement 'THINKS' Baroque/Classical music would possibly have sounded like....and what is thought what manner it wouldhave been played IN> ...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-11-15 20:50
David Dow wrote:
"I am sure in the instance of Beethoven the modern orchestra with its richness and fullness of sonority would definitely have impressed Ludwig...."
I am quite convinced of the opposite. If Beethoven heard the storm from his 6th symphony played by rich sounding brass and boomy soft-sticked timpani I'm sure he would have been thoroughly disappointed.
(But come to think of it- did he actually hear it played on the piercing narrow-bored brass instruments and electrifying wooden sticks of his time, or was he already deaf by then??!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-11-15 20:55
"With (I'm guessing) 30 or more current recorded versions available of Dvorak 9, do we really need another one? ..GBK"
GBK- are you familiar with Harnoncourt's work? Whether you like him or not, the one thing that Harnoncourt certainly does is present a "new" and previously-unheard version of works that we already know. In a rehearsal of 'Die Fledermaus' he once said "90% of tradition is rubbish!" In my opinion he's the most exciting conductor by far in the last 30 years. If anyone deserves to bring out a new recording of standard repertoire it's Harnoncourt!
P.S. Has anyone heard Harnoncourt's recording of Moazrt's K.622 with Wolfgang Meyer and Concentus Musicus? It's like no version you've ever heard!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2004-11-15 22:15
I cannot add anything to this most interesting thread except to mention my favorite rendition of Dvorak #9 -- the old Jascha Horenstein recording with one of the London orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-11-16 02:49
Horestein was a good Mahler man too..
As to Beethoven he was deaf ...so he may have has a chance of hearing his works with the louder modern piano...read the book Beethoven's Hair...quite good. He suffered from lead and mercury poisioning...from the wine curing used in those days...this causes deafness..
By the way the Broadwood british pianos he played were pretty lousy. He felt they did not hold their pitch...
As to Harnoncourt I really love his Mozart..in Bruckner I feel he is just not as great...but very good never the less.
Kertez was a true giant...sadly he passed away before really making an imprint.
You gotta check Horenstein in Mahler 6th with the Stockholm Phil...great record that one.. Horenstein could be really on edge!
GBK is right in some regards...the newer Naxos set of Dvorak I find univolving with the Slovak Orchestra...its good but dull alot of the time..
Actually the Mozart 40th symphony in G minor was played with an incredibly huge orchestra during it's premiere...check the "Hutchings book "Mozart the Man and the Musician"...
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-11-16 13:39
"a steel framed ....piano" Sorry, I believe the frames are cast iron. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I like your purist comments,David.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-11-16 18:06
Bob -
http://www.steinway.com/factory/tour.shtml says "Here, a cast iron plate is being fit [sic] into a piano case. The 340 pound cast iron plate provides a rigid and stable foundation needed to hold approximately 40,000 pounds of string tension."
So I guess it's iron. I didn't know, that's why I wrote "modern metal frames and steel strings", without specifying the metal.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom J.
Date: 2004-11-16 19:29
Out of approx. 2500 CDs in my collection NONE of them include Harnoncourt's work, quite a feat. I find his readings banal and undistinguished.
While Szell's Dvorak 7,8 and 9 could be the last word, the complete cycle by Libor Pesek (brother of Johnny Pesek ??) and the RLPO/CPO on Virgin Classics may be the best recorded and are worth having. The Kertesz recordings are great interpretively, but the sound cannot compare.
As to Bach keyboard music, I've always felt Rafael Puyana's work is without peer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2004-11-17 01:32
David, thanks for enlightening me about Mahler 6 with Horenstein/Stockholm Phil. It's my orchestra and I didn't even know about it. It was recorded in 1989, a few years before I joined. I've never seen the record but I'm gonna look for it. Thanks again.
Alphie
Post Edited (2004-11-17 01:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2004-11-18 00:03
The Stockholm Phil is one of those great orchestras whose recordings unfortunately have not received wide distribution in the USA.
My favorite recording of the Sibelius Symphony #2 is the old one by Antal Dorati with the Stockhom Phil.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-11-18 05:12
"I find his readings banal and undistinguished"
Er... are we talking about the same Harnoncourt???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-11-18 20:35
Liquorice ... just remember "one man's treasure is another man's trash" ... and "beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone"
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2004-11-20 22:24
I thought that Kertesz drowned in the ocean, not in a swimming pool. Not that it matters.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-11-21 03:12
If I remember correctly, he drowned while swimming off the coast of Israel, after having been warned of the danger ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
