Beethoven's 9th

Dear Tom Alves
You are certainly allowed to say what you
want.
Without starting a Klempererthread I think, he is a wery kontroversial subject, and not everything he made turned into gold. Even if he is said to have led a solistic version of the 6.th Brandenburg i the 1920-ies from a harpsichord with Hindemith on viola, I find his Bach intolerable conservative, romantic and heavy. Especially his recordings of the h-minor mass and the Mattheuspassion. As to Klemperers late romantic recordings he tends to be unsurpassable (e.g. Brahms 4th symphony) but in Mozart and Beethoven his "heavy" style may understandably not be to everybodys taste. With Beethoven I think he is greatest in the "great" symphonies and especially nr 9, but also nr 3,5, and 7.
But it would be a pity if we had not had the informed performances on period instruments
for reference. Of the "period" conductors I find
Hogwood the most enjoyable,Gardiner a little boring, and Norrington too heavy.
Venlig hilsen

Dear Tom Alves
Yes, you are right. Too many "modern" musicians who regard informed performance style as a matter for specialists are unaware of how much they may learn from it. But on the other hand: You cannot just transform all the tecnique of period instruments to modern instruments. So it will tend to be either - or. Fortunately the share of modern musicians who prefer period-ensembles, when the perform old music, is growing, but it is a slow proces.
Venlig hilsen

Dear Fredrik Fiske

Good to see you here again.

I grew up with Klemperers Beethovensymphonies,
and as much as I find his rendering of nr 3,5,7 and 9 marvelous, his monumental style adding substiantially to the impact of these works, as much do I think that the "lighter" symphonies
1,2,4,6, and 8 suffer from that heavy approach.
But I think I shall aquire the live Choral at least to compare it to the studio recording.


As to Klemperers Bach I wrote that I find especially the choral works intolerably heavy. Think of the chorals of the Matthaeus-passion
as an example.

But I know his Bach-suites and Brandenburgs too.
His approach is heavily influenced by the movement called Neue Sachlichkeit in Germany,
derived from the organ-movement (Jahn, Schweitzer as leading figures). This was a sort of "back to the score" movement, regarding the score as the primary source of the music, and the text indisputable. The problem was that they read the scores with modern eyes, and misinterpreted many things. This gave rise to some rather pedantic interpretations, I could besides Klemperer mention Karl M�nchinger.
As a whole this approach suites(!) the Brandenburgs better than the Suites, because the suites are lighter in character.
Well, Klemperers suites ar not heavy in comparation with M�nchingers or Karajans,
but if you compare with M�ller-Br�hl(Naxos) (modern instruments too) you will hear what I think of. And that apply to Klemperers both recordings of the suites. Even more obvious is the difference if you compare with the recordings of Hogwood (Oiseau Lyre) or Malloch
(Koch) on period instruments.
In short: Klemperers ensemble is too large, the harpsichord continuo drowned, tempi too slow and heavy with too many accents in every bar. These are the general problems, but there are problems with the details too: No cadential trillers, no doubledotting fx. But I have to add that there are many beautyful performances from the instrumentalists, as a whole the same who shined through in Klemperers Beethovensymphonies.

Venlig hilsen

Dear Fredrik

As starting point I too have to stress that I only express my personal view , and that it is very subjective.

As to Klemperer I must say that my veneration and respect for him is very great, who fx could do a more subtile rendering of the Brahmssymphonies and ouvertures than he? And -I freely admit -the Choralsymphony and Eroica and so on? But I still think that the "lighter" Beethovensymphonies (light in spirit - not in content) need renderings a little more relaxed. Compare the Beethoven pianosonatas nr.9 and 10 (opus 14) with the Appasionata-sonata. You would surely not want them played in the same way, but it seems to me that Klemperer plays the light numbers in the same "serious" way as the heavy numbers. It is not only a question of tempo, but rather a question of overall conception. You mention the Pastorale, and I agree with you, that this is the worst of his "light" Beethovensymphonies.

My references to Klemperer in childhood were Kleiber, Fricsay, Bruno Walther(New-york-set as well as Colombia-set) and Toscanini. I admit, that none of these stands fully up to the Klemperer standard, though Kleiber the most. I also have heard Furtwaengler, Karajan and so on without being deeply moved.

In the last decades we have had the period performances, and even if they cant compete with Klemperers exquisite monumental style in the heavy symphonies, they stand well up in the lighter symphonies. I have had much pleasure in listening to especially Hogwood in the light numbers, the sound of the ensemble seducing me.
Whereas I find Gardiner and to some degree Norrington boring, they are in my opinion not great musicians (I almost dont dare to write so in an english forum).
I agree with you fully when you write that Klemperers later stereo-recording of the Eroica is much inferior to the first mono-recording.
Testament has recently released a live recording of Eroica (DoubleCD)from 1957 with the Royal Danish Orchester containing the Brahms no 4 and some Mozart as well. A fine performance, but just a little inferior to the mono Eroica, but much better than the stereo Eroica. I remember the concert vaguely,- it was sent live by the Danish Radio. Klemperers first mono no 5 was also much better than his later stereo recording, and this applies to the two recordings of nr 7 as well, not to talk about his totally absurde late third recording of
nr 7. Klemperer recorded no 5 and 6 for Vox in the early 1950-ties with the Wienersymphoniker, nr.6 a little more relaxed and nr 5 very exiting. But you miss the exellent english woodwindplayers of the Philharmonia Orchester,London, you know whom I think of.

Venlig hilsen

Dear Fredrik

The historic movement is relatively young, and has so far mainly been occupied with music written before 1750. And the leaders of the performances have been active musicians,
trained in playing historical instruments.
We have now seen quite a lot of great
performers in that category (e.g. Gustav Leonhardt, Hans-Martin Linde). Moreover many performers of baroque music on modern instruments take historic performances into consideration, resulting in more stylish performances from their side. But even if I think that all music ought to be played on the instrument it was written for, and this implies consequent use of period instruments, I agree completely with you that the performer is
more important than the instrument. Period instuments do not guarantee a good performance.
As late as yesterday I listened to a newly aquired CD with the Brandenburgs 1,2,3 and 4,
The Prague Chambersolists (1993) playing one player to a part in the ripieno too on modern instruments (though recorders in nr. 2 and 4).The trumpet in this recording is a modern common orchestral trumpet in B,playing an octave lower than the "Hohe Bachtrompete in F" or piccolotrumpet other modern performers use.Most unusual, and not used on recordings since the beginning of the 1950ties (Karl Haas).But the result is exellent,quite simply because the playing is so competent and in high spirit, and then the nature of the instruments becomes less important.

Now the historic movement has not yet had the same intense interest in music after 1750, and the performers do not have the corresponding
training, and so their results are not sufficiently good to convince the "great" conductors that this field is well worth investigating. I think it will come with time, but it is a slow proces.

As to Gardiner I find him by the way most uninteresting, even when conducting baroque music.You have e.g. to look a long time to find a more superficial polished bland version of the h-minor mass.

I agree completely with you that no composer
since 1900 has had any significant stature, compared to the great composers of the past.
Personally I consider Beethovens pianosonatas
to be the most important music written between 1750 and to day. After 1900 only Bartok can compel a qualified interest from my part.

As to my name: I dont think this forum has a possibility for private massages, if I am wrong, then tell me. My cristian name is Poul, though.

Venlig hilsen

Point of order, sir.

I thought 'mvh' stood for

'med venlige hilsner' ?

jon

Dear Fredrik
Not "private massages" of course, but private messages.

Dear Jon

MVH is an abbreviation of
Med Venlig Hilsen

which directly translated is:
With Friendly Regard

The "Med" is optional.

VH (Venlig Hilsen)

Thanks Poul.

I stand corrected.

jon

Apologies for Jumping in for a brief moment.

Fredrik how nice to "hear" your voice, though I gather you have to be very selective in your use of time on the internet at the moment

regards GEOFF

quote:

---

As to my name: I dont think this forum has a possibility for private massages, if I am wrong, then tell me. My cristian name is Poul, though.

---

The forum DOES have the possibility for what we call Personal Topics which are really private messages. If you click on the name of the person beside a message you get a small menu with an item: "Invite ..... to a private topic". Clicking on that allows you to mail a PT to them only.
You can access PT's by going to the pull down menu "My space" at the top left of the display window. One of the items in there is "Private Topics". Clicking on that will bring up a listing and allow you to access any PT replies you have.


regards
GEOFF

"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"

Dear Geoff

Thank you very much for the useful tips.

Venlig hilsen
Poul

Dear Fredrik

Regrettably I dont know the Adolf Busch set of H�ndels op.6. As you may guess, I know his Brandenburgs, Bachsuites, Bach-Pianoconcerto
d-minor (with E Istomin) and the Double-violinconcerto. I think that the playing from a stylistic point of view is far ahead of its time (most 1935), but comparing these recordings with e.g. the recordings of La Petite Bande reveals very clearly that the Busch ensemble still lived in an overall romantic world a little foreign to Bach, whose expressivity is much more subtle. It is not just a question of the general sound of the instruments,but also their style.
I am willing to accept modern instruments, if the musicians try to recreate the spiritual world of the composer as good as possible, but I think the A Busch ensemble falls a little short of this, they were too uninformed. Have you heard the Pinnock-version of the H�ndel opus 6? To me it is almost a definite version. On modern instruments I prefer Menuhin, this very underrated musician.

But I would not call Klemperers Beethoven unduely romantic, rather timeless. His Brahms is romantic, but Brahms IS romantic. With Beethoven I think his overall artistic statement would be the same, whether he had used period instruments or not.
Klemperers musicianship so to say tower above
the instruments. Like Helmut Walcha or Emil Gilels.
And I dont think Adolf Busch was in the same league.
And even if I prefer period instruments, I cannot but find a deep musical statement in Klemperers renderings, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms and so on.
Except his Bach, where I find that his uninformed
style hamper the musical statement.

I have never been really concerned about Haydn, maybe I never heard him properly played, dont know.

Venlig hilsem
Poul

Dear Fredrik

I have just read your words about the Busch recording in the thread you referred to.
Certainly you make me curious about it.
But in some way I feel, that listening to uninformed interpretations of baroque music is like reading poetry in translation. OK, if you dont understand the original language, you have to read a translation, and congenial re-creations does exist, but most often the content is crucially altered. The result may be a subtile artistic expression still, but somewhat different from the original. This is why I in principle prefer informed interpretations, but as I wrote before , an informed interpretation is not on its own a gurantee for quality, and there are still many unsolved problems in period performance.

Venlig hilsen
Poul

Tom,

I appreciate that you don't get on with Klemperer but his recording of the Mozart Horn Concertos with Alan Civil and the Philharmonia, I think, knocks the Brain one into a cocked hat. Civil plays with the utter authority of a performer at the height of his powers, and also with a hint of playfulness which, I think, brings some of the jokiness Mozart intended with Lietgeb's natural horn to a valve horn performance.

This isn't to say I don't also appreciate the natural horn perfomances (Halstead is unbelievable - I saw him play the Weber Concertino once WOW!) but, for me, the Civil recording is King.

Kevin

Erich Kleiber/VPO from 1952 on Decca is pretty special, although recorded (in mono) in an over-reverberant acoustic.

It's just been re-released in a 6CD set, but if anyone wants the single disc for about three or four English pounds, I have one. But I think that the forum rules require that we set that up as a private topic.

G

Dear Fredrik

You can easily make me believe that the instruments of english symfoniorchestra
(and of die Wiener Symphoniker too, I think) had undergone less change than say the french orchesterinstruments. But dont forget that even the english instruments underwent considerable change from 1730 to 1950. The string-instuments
were enforced, got new necks and bow, not to talk about the new way of holding the violin under the chin and not resting on the shoulder.The woodwind got keys fx, the brass got valves. And did they use wooden traversos before 1960?? In my ears the sound of en english orchester or chamberorchester from 1950 does not sound baroque at all. It all depends on what you use for comparation.
Tecnically you cannot play in true baroque style on modern instruments, but you can play in baroque spirit even on synthetizer, and I agree with you, that in the end it is the spirit that matters.This is why I shall aquire the Busch-set, in respect for your recommandation.

Venlig hilsen
Poul

Sorry Fredrik, I still prefer Karajan to Klemperer.

I've never thought RFH was as bad as the critics made out.

Sorry Basil
I prefer profound musianship to superficial polish, and consequently I prefer Klemperer to Karajan.
Venlig hilsen

Dear Fredrik
Klemperers studiorecording of the Choral-symphony is by far the most profound interpretration I have heard. I know it almost by heart.
Is the Testament live recording that much better, that it "pays" to aquire it?
Excuse my awkward formulation, but you surely understand the meaning.
Venlig hilsen

pe-zulu, which of Karajan's recordings of the ninth symphony do you, find to be the most "superficially polished”? Why do I get the impression you are judging Karajan’s entire Beethoven by his last recorded cycle of the work? He recorded the complete symphonies 4 times from the fifties through to the eighties. Plus, in 1946/7 he recorded the eighth and ninth with the Vienna Philharmonic. Having spent 6 years behind the counter in a small, specialist Classical record shop I met many people who steadfastly stuck to familiar recordings of core repertory, never once straying outside their "chosen" orchestras and conductors.

Dear Basil

Please remember: The customer is always right.

But joke aside. I am far from being a person who sticks to the same interpretation because of stubbornness. As an example I own quite a lot complete as well as incomplete recordings of Beethovens pianosonatas and his pianoconcertos, and I worship the virtues of everyone.

I havent made the same investigation of his symphonies, because I have heard them too much as a child and young, and I am so to say tired of them. I have heard many different recordings of the symphonies, and as to Karajan nr. 5,6,
and 7 of the mono recordings with The Philharmoniaorchester from the 1950ies.
They have some "Wienerisch" charm, nr.6 almost hinting J.Strauss-mood in the "Scene am Bach", like "An der Schönen blauen Donau", but to say they are deeply thought out, is I my opinion to overrate von Karajan.
I have also heard his first recording with the Berliners (from 1962 if I am not mistaken).
I find them more heavy, but cant find much deep insight, the heaviness relating more to the general soundscape than to the interpretation. Well it sounds very beatifull
but that is not enough. I have had no inclination to listen to his two later recordings.

I find deep indsight with Klemperer, perhaps
he sometimes is a bit overloaded with thoughtfulness, but not in the Choral.
Otherwise I prefer e.g. Kleiber and Fricsay in the Choral. I find Hogwood very enjoyable, not because of much deep indsight from his part, but because of the period soundscape.

Nowadays I listen more to Beethovens symphonies in Liszts pianotranscriptions, if I listen to them at all. There are a few good recordings
(Leslie Howard on Hyperion, and the French Harmonia Mundi set with among others Paul Badura-Skoda and Alan Planes).

Venlig hilsen