beethoven
Posted by: TerryFranks on 27 October 2008
can some one suggest a good recording of beethoven symphonies all please
Posted on: 01 November 2008 by mikeeschman
quote:Originally posted by Noye's Fludde:
I wonder which of these you consider 'on time and in tune'. Szell, of course. Toscanini was certainly on time and he had a great orchestra (NBC). What about Stokowski ? Not so much, I would think.
Noyes[/QUOTE]
on time and in tune
reiner/chicago (partial)
szell/cleveland (partial)
in addition to the period instrument set.
and this is a little harsh. these few are ALWAYS on time and in tune, whereas the others are USUALLY on time and in tune.
i think the way it works is that most orchestras are SOMETIMES on time and in tune, many orchestras are USUALLY on time and in tune, and SOME orchestras are always on time and in tune.
another thing i noticed is that orchestras keep getting better.
the problem is on older recordings you can't always discern intonation, especially in loud passages where the sound tends to clump up.
so i suspect toscanini/nbc are in tune always
by reputation of the conductor and the orchestra but you can't really hear if that is so, at least on my system.
if i could make a change in my system that would fix this i would do so immediately, finances permitting. sadly, i think there are limits un-breachable if the recording is of a certain age.
final note : the stokowski are wonderful.
Posted on: 01 November 2008 by pe-zulu
Mikeeschman, you seem to stress the technical side of Gardiners recordings very much, but do you forget the artistical aspect? My impression of Gardiners Beethoven (have not heard but the Choral), which you maybe unintentionally confirm, is, that it is perfect and polished not unlike Karajans Beethoven, which I find rather superficial and boring.
Posted on: 01 November 2008 by mikeeschman
quote:Originally posted by pe-zulu:
Mikeeschman, you seem to stress the technical side of Gardiners recordings very much, but do you forget the artistical aspect? My impression of Gardiners Beethoven (have not heard but the Choral), which you maybe unintentionally confirm, is, that it is perfect and polished not unlike Karajans Beethoven, which I find rather superficial and boring.
i find that gardiner's interpretations illuminate the musical meaning of all the beethoven symphonies to an extent unequaled
by any recordings of these symphonies that i have ever heard.
i attribute this to four things :
1 - the tempos ideally realize the music.
2- the playing is flawless.
3- the instrumentation improves the transparency of inner voices.
4- the recording is excellent.
it is an impossibility for bad intonation, missed notes, or muddy recording to improve the artistic content of a performance. in fact, they are a horrible distraction.
what qualities of performance do you find bring meaning to these works?
Posted on: 02 November 2008 by u5227470736789439
The Spiritual side.
Before the modern phenonemenon of editing recordings till no recorded flaw [in the playing] remains on the published version, artists performaned as imperfect humans do, in an occasionally imperfect way, but doing their level best technically, and no live performance even now is entirely perfect, but complete perfection is possible if you edit together parts from many takes.
For me nothing ruins a recording faster in the musical sense than it being based on edits. It spoils the sense of continuity and the sense of the inner life behind the performance which presents the music with Spirit, as having a reason for existing beyond simple technical perfection. Why can a work like Handel's Messiaf be such an emotionally uplifting work, one where on times the hairs on the back on the neck stand up when one senses the inspiration behind its composition!
For the Spiritual side there are many recordings that manage both this Spiritual side and also a very high degree off technical perfection.
Live performances and recordings of them [unedited hopefully] can have the greatest amount of Spiritual impact possible, either in the the concert room or on records. Some studio recordings seem to manage something of this quality from time to time.
ATB from George
Before the modern phenonemenon of editing recordings till no recorded flaw [in the playing] remains on the published version, artists performaned as imperfect humans do, in an occasionally imperfect way, but doing their level best technically, and no live performance even now is entirely perfect, but complete perfection is possible if you edit together parts from many takes.
For me nothing ruins a recording faster in the musical sense than it being based on edits. It spoils the sense of continuity and the sense of the inner life behind the performance which presents the music with Spirit, as having a reason for existing beyond simple technical perfection. Why can a work like Handel's Messiaf be such an emotionally uplifting work, one where on times the hairs on the back on the neck stand up when one senses the inspiration behind its composition!
For the Spiritual side there are many recordings that manage both this Spiritual side and also a very high degree off technical perfection.
Live performances and recordings of them [unedited hopefully] can have the greatest amount of Spiritual impact possible, either in the the concert room or on records. Some studio recordings seem to manage something of this quality from time to time.
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 November 2008 by KenM
quote:Live performances and recordings of them [unedited hopefully] can have the greatest amount of Spiritual impact possible, either in the the concert room or on records. Some studio recordings seem to manage something of this quality from time to time.
The problem for me with many live performances is audience noise. A loud cough can disturb my concentraion for a few seconds, sometimes just in time for the next disturbance.
I have tried listening to some of the much-praised Klemperer Beethoven symphonies, recorded live in the Festival Hall in the mid-1950's and reissued on Testament. I very much prefer the studio versions, I know that many, if not most may disagree, but that's life.
Regards,
Ken
Posted on: 02 November 2008 by pe-zulu
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
The Spiritual side.
Before the modern phenonemenon of editing recordings till no recorded flaw [in the playing] remains on the published version, artists performaned as imperfect humans do, in an occasionally imperfect way, but doing their level best technically, and no live performance even now is entirely perfect, but complete perfection is possible if you edit together parts from many takes.
Precisely. And in writing "artistical" above I implied the spiritual side.
Of course the ideal is great spirituality combined with technical perfection, but only a few artists are able to live up to these demands (Helmut Walcha being one of them). Well there are recordings, which are so bad from a technical point of view (too distorted sound or to many wrong notes), but given the choice I definitely prefer the spiritually telling performance to the technically perfect. IMO it boarders concentrated waste of time to listen to recordings which are technically perfect and nothing else.
And what is perfection after all. To much stress is put upon the "right" tempo. But what is the right tempo? I does not exist. Choice of tempo must depend upon circumstances, mood and acoustical surroundings among other things. Composers tempo markings are to be seen as rough guidelines.
And what is the right balance? Certainly also subject to personal preference. Some want the winds more prominent, some want them less prominent. Of course the inner parts should be heard, but to which extent?
And as to "perfect tuning" : To some the nowadays predominant equal temperature is very much out of tune.
And so on.
Posted on: 02 November 2008 by mikeeschman
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
The Spiritual side.
Before the modern phenonemenon of editing recordings till no recorded flaw [in the playing] remains on the published version, artists performaned as imperfect humans do, in an occasionally imperfect way, but doing their level best technically, and no live performance even now is entirely perfect, but complete perfection is possible if you edit together parts from many takes.
For me nothing ruins a recording faster in the musical sense than it being based on edits. It spoils the sense of continuity and the sense of the inner life behind the performance which presents the music with Spirit, as having a reason for existing beyond simple technical perfection. Why can a work like Handel's Messiaf be such an emotionally uplifting work, one where on times the hairs on the back on the neck stand up when one senses the inspiration behind its composition!
For the Spiritual side there are many recordings that manage both this Spiritual side and also a very high degree off technical perfection.
Live performances and recordings of them [unedited hopefully] can have the greatest amount of Spiritual impact possible, either in the the concert room or on records. Some studio recordings seem to manage something of this quality from time to time.
ATB from George
i do not think there are many edits in contemporary orchestral recordings, its just too expensive. back in the 60s-70s-80s editing had gotten completely out of control, but i don't think that's true today.
another thing is that orchestras are simply better today. they don't miss as many notes.
i've heard plenty of evidence of this over the last 10 years,