New Discoveries in Beethoven?

OK, thanks.

The samples linked above reflect the clarity of the recordings as transferred on EMI, but not the full quality of the CDs, for sure.

I had the old References set and these were better than the samples on Amazon.

Recently I got the contemporaneous Adolf Busch recordings of the Orchestral Suites and Brandenburg Concertos, and the newly remastered Great Recordings of the Century set is finer than the old References set.

I imagine that the GRotC issue of the "48" should be similarly better than the old Referenes issue in the same way as the Busch set is, and therefore significantly nicer than what is audible in the samples.

ATB from George

I ordered this one.

The boy done good!

Best wishes, Mike, from George

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
I ordered this one.

Very nice! I'm having a hard time stopping myself ordering a copy and I've already got the 1999 one!!

I don't think that Maurizio Pollini's recordings of Beethoven's last five piano sonatas will ever be matched. Quite astonishing piano playing, with an enormous intellectual force behind it. Available as a DG Originals 2CD set.

That said, I love the Gulda Amadeo set mentioned above and the 9CD set recorded by Emil Gilels for DG, who died with five of the sonatas (including the massive Op111) unrecorded.

Just my two cents' worth.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
I don't think that Maurizio Pollini's recordings of Beethoven's last five piano sonatas will ever be matched. Quite astonishing piano playing, with an enormous intellectual force behind it. Available as a DG Originals 2CD set.

That said, I love the Gulda Amadeo set mentioned above and the 9CD set recorded by Emil Gilels for DG, who died with five of the sonatas (including the massive Op111) unrecorded.

Just my two cents' worth.

Graham

That's 2 of us. I think the Pollini is the best Beethoven of any Beethoven I have heard to date, bar none (not just piano sonatas).

But I am hopeful he will be knocked off his perch in my listening lifetime :-)

I went to grab the Pollini DG Oringials set from the library the other day but some little varmint had hired it. I'll pick it up next time I'm there and have another listen. It's years since I've heard it but as I recall it left me cold.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

You'd need to be deaf not to love every note of Fischer's 48s.

Well, I probably need to have my hearing checked, because I cannot get on with Fischer's Bach recordings.

Admittedly, I had an old GRC Lp from the 60's ( and that of excerpts only) but to me, these are strange documents indeed, more like hearing Rachmaninoff than Bach. I suppose I am at fault, since anything recorded on 78's must be great,.. right ?

This was hit home to me years ago when I heard an old transfer of 78's of Willem Mengelberg mauling the Tchaikovsky 6th..

To get back to Beethoven's Sonatas. I still have fond memories of Charles Rosen's recordings of the Late Sonatas. An aqauintance of mine was a good friend of his and introduced me to his records (this chap was also good friends with Bolet, and being a concert promoter, managed to engage him for an all Liszt concert, very good, if my memory servs). And Rosen was good enough for Stravinsky, who chose him to record the neoclaclissical Piano Concerto.

And then of course there are those who deem that Beethoven couldn't write for the piano, that in effect, he wrote against it. Schumann , Chopin and Liszt (to name three) were the great masters of this instument....

Maybe GFFL is right, one recording will do,... then best to concentrate on the music and leave the performance comparisons to someone else... Any and all of the artists mentioned (that I've heard) are magnificent. I've reached the stage where the goal is to have less recordings and not more.


Noyes

OK, my better judgement continually chides me for sticking my neck out and voicing my opinion here but for better or worse, here we go. I had to learn many things the hard way and on my own so I'd like to offer my perspective especially to those who have been bitten by the music bug and aren't satisfied with a closed minded approach. Don't be a sheep or a follower! And most importantly, don't be afraid to use your own noggin. We're talking about a subject here that has no limit and is meant to speak to us and influence us through our heart and soul. But the obvious limitation here is with our own thinking and artificial barriers we build. For myself, this means that I must approach music (art, literature, whatever) with a childlike curiosity, fascination, and open mind; I come seeking answers (to questions in which their are no right or wrong answers). The contrary of this is the dogmatic approach which is to imply that "I know" and their is no other way. This is different than being "informed," or "knowledgeable," by the way.

To each his own, I suppose, but it saddens me when people try to influence others into believing that people who perform/interpret Beethoven, for instance, can be placed into tiers (winner, losers etc). What's more astounding is that they are judged simply by being "too slow," "too boring (what the heck?)," "not enough this," and "too much of that." The implicit message is that "I know" the way it should be. And don't dare question these people as they will bully you into the ground. What's worse is you are trashing another human being who has simply giving their opinion through action (a performance/recording). Would these critics be prepared to share their credentials (as to why they know more than any one else) and better yet, learn all 32 and get on stage and show us all the way to paradise?

I have nothing against Edwin Fischer....but, "no one is better" (or at least as good as this)????? If your world view is that limited and it's all been decided then I guess music isn't really that important to you anyway. Their is a lifetime and more of discover to be found in this music. Try taking one apart and learning it. Your view will and should change as you mature throughout your lifetime.

Why do we have to create a status and canonize musicians. I know sometimes people like to transfer their own insignificance by associating with a supposed or sure "winner." Sports teams are a prime example. If your team won and you are a big fan, somehow that makes many people believe they are winners too just by this association. But you've actually done nothing to have earned this position or mentality. In the same way, I just don't see the value in wearing a "teams jersey" and trashing all other conductors, performers etc as a valuable or beneficial attitude simply because they do something different or opposite of our liking.

That's why I like Mike's attitude with this thread. Let's learn something new and with some positive input from many we all have a chance to grow. If you are in the same position that you were in 10 or 20 years ago you are stagnant. You haven't grown or expanded your horizons. Your dead.

Apologies upfront for this little unwinding of a pet peeve. And yes, I did get up on the wrong side of the bed too, this morning : )

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
I have nothing against Edwin Fischer....but, "no one is better" (or at least as good as this)?????

None of the three people who recommended the Fischer/Bach recording said that - in fact, we all agree that it's a flawed but beautiful recording, that's all.

I actually agree with much of what you say. I have to smile to myself when a bunch of overenthusiastic record collectors go telling world-class artists where they're going wrong! I'm sure Alfred Brendel would be taking notes if he hadn't just retired so that he'd know how to improve himself!

Personally I like to have a number of different versions of my favourite pieces, each I admire in its own way. I like alternative views of the same thing. As I've got older I've tended to appreciate less perfect or central, library-type recordings in favour of those that take certain risks and show an obvious love for the piece on the part of the performer and really bring the piece convincingly to life. I have my preferences and prejudices just like anyone else so I listen to performers I like, basically, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend my favourites to others.

There it is. I've nothing against advocacy or passionate expressions of preference provided they avoid law-like sweeps. Pollini is lost on me, but I can see that he makes others happy.

Back to new LvB recording discoveries... Has anyone heard the Anima Eterna symphony set that came out a couple of years ago?

They are a period performance band, got rave reviews for the set, wondered how they compare to Norrington/LCP for example?

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
Why do we have to create a status and canonize musicians.

I’m not sure who is canonizing musicians, but the simple reality is that not all musicians are equally good. Just as not all painters, architects, writers, etc are equally good. Or composers. Using your approach, is it valid to conclude that Dittersdorf is the equal of Mozart, or Hummel the equal of Beethoven, or Dohnanyi the equal of Mahler? Can we learn as much from the lesser as opposed to the greater composers? Of course not. (Or is Tom Clancy as good as Leo Tolstoy – they are both responsible for fictional tales.) To make such claims is patently absurd.

When it comes to pianists or other artists in the classical realm, of course people talk and write of their favorites first and foremost, and that’s what this and every internet forum is all about. That doesn’t mean that every artist is equally good. I’d invite anyone on this forum to listen to Anne Oland and Abdel Rahman El Bacha and compare their Beethoven to the likes of Emil Gilels and Friedrich Gulda and then explain how the artists are all equal, or even close. I’m also interested in knowing how one can “grow” (whatever that means in this context) by listening to mediocre or worse talents.

The idea that somehow critics should share their credentials or “learn all 32 and get on stage and show us all the way to paradise” is a hollow argument if ever there was one. There are many academics and professionals who critique performances regularly and can pick apart a performance with forensic precision. If such a person cannot play a specific work, does that discredit his or her critique and somehow validate the wayward performer’s? Just because someone can’t play like Bang Bang doesn’t mean that he or she isn’t fully justified in savaging the Chinese phenom.

Now, I’m neither a performing musician nor a professional critic, and what I write reflects my opinion only and has no absolute, objective worth. But I don’t accept the ridiculous notion that all art and artists are equal, or even particularly valuable. That’s silly and is one of my pet peeves.



--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
But I don’t accept the ridiculous notion that all art and artists are equal, or even particularly valuable. That’s silly and is one of my pet peeves.

Yes, 'tis well spoken.

As Brendel said in an interview or one of his essays, the differences in opinion become fewer beyond a certain professional level. There aren't many major recordings these days that are "bad", but some are undoubtedly more successful than others. Someone I think in another thread described Gardiner's Missa solemnis as "awful", which is not really what it is, is it? I prefer Karajan as it happens, but that's me. But compare either of those to some 3rd rater and as you say, the idea that it's just a matter of opinion becomes a nonsense.

Between, say, Gilels, Brendel and Kovacevich and Pollini it's a matter of taste; Paul Lewis isn't in that league. I tend to listen to Kempff but for reasons that aren't particularly objective, although I would still argue it's of the highest order, all things considered.

EW

Alex and Todd have expressed views here which are entirely true in my opinion, though they open themselves to accusations of discrimination in favour of an elite of artists.

I happen to find it completely appropriate to show good judgement and discriminate in favour of that judgement.

There is absolutely no artistic equivalance between Telemann and Bach, Cimmarosa and Haydn, Cherubini and Beethoven ... and so on.

Why pretend otherwise, or pretend otherwise in other artistic fields?

ATB from George

Yep, George makes a good point in that if you only listen to the elite you'll miss out on some fabulous music, especially among composers. Hummel for one, and I adore Joachim's violin concerto "in the Hungarian manner" for e.g., and his concert overtures. As great as his mates Schumann and Brahms? Nah. But still excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:
Volume 6 of Brautigam's Beethoven sonatas on fortepiano, including the Waldstein and Appassionata, is now available, and it is superb. If you are interested in a good set on a modern piano, in superb sound, I recommend David Allen Wehr's set (4 volumes of double CDs) on Connossieur Society--available directly through the label a very good price.

Thanks for that I shall grab that and seek out the David Wehr. How silly of me to think thats was all there was going to be.



Dean...

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
Now, I’m neither a performing musician nor a professional critic, and what I write reflects my opinion only and has no absolute, objective worth. But I don’t accept the ridiculous notion that all art and artists are equal, or even particularly valuable. That’s silly and is one of my pet peeves.
--

Todd, you don't have the requisite knowledge to dismiss an entire set of Beethoven Sonatas in one sentence. That is what is at the root of all the inane descriptive phrases that ruin the reviews you write, and it's also why none of your reviews make any kind of musical sense.

It's like a paint by the numbers hobbyist writing judgments on Edward Hopper's paintings.

In short, you're to full of yourself. Spend some time learning something about music. You don't know what you're missing.

It's clear you know nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Someone I think in another thread described Gardiner's Missa solemnis as "awful", which is not really what it is, is it?

That was me. I didn't like it for a simple reason. It seemed as if the orchestra was always triple forte and the singers were always shouting.

But that's just my opinion. Others mileage may vary.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
Todd, you don't have the requisite knowledge to dismiss an entire set of Beethoven Sonatas in one sentence.

Actually, I do have the requisite knowledge to dismiss an entire cycle of Beethoven sonatas in one sentence. I could even do so in one word. You see, I don't write reviews. Professional reviewers do that. I'm writing about what I like and why, in non-technical terms. That's it. It seems that you and a few others have taken what I write too seriously, not me.

It is worth noting that one professional reviewer who works for Gramophone likes what I write, as well as the editor of another magazine, as well as some people on various forums, so just because you cannot understand or don't like what I write doesn't mean much.

Incidentally, I spent some time in my youth learning about music, and you know what, I'd rather spend my time listening to music and learning about other subjects. Music isn't important enough for me to take as seriously as you do.


--

I just want it to be clear that I'm all for enthusiasm and jumping up and down about ones favorite performer or discovery. We all do it, including myself. I just don't think it should come at the expense of tearing someone or something else down. This is about, for those who are interested, sharing views of interpretation based on what some great person has left us in their legacy. It isn't about me or you. It shouldn't be a revelation that anyone who tries is just merely an interpreter. So, for anyone to claim they have the answer is ludicrous and self-serving. None of us owns Bach or Beethoven but they are there to be shared and enjoyed. And it is much nicer when a group of like minded people can share that joy.

quote:

...views here which are entirely true in my opinion

Then it must be fact and I'll go home now. Seriously, truth and opinion are like comparing apples and oranges. An opinion may be true or it may not be true. But truth cannot sit on both sides of the same fence. In dealing with topics where the answers are beyond the capacity of man to answer then it is odd to me to claim something as true. It must remain an subjective opinion.

The few "dead" icons that some would claim are the only ones to walk on water must have overlooked the fact that they did not hear every performance of these people. You did not even hear them on their way up through the ranks. In fact, it is quite likely that many have never heard one live performance of these great and infallible people. My argument is not that they are not fine indeed but we have a current crop of living musicians that are fine in every way too and we should be supporting and promoting them equally too.

quote:

If such a person cannot play a specific work, does that discredit his or her critique and somehow validate the wayward performer’s?

It is easy to criticize - anyone may do it but is it really necessary? My point is that if you would have the guts to "put your money where your mouth is" as they say you might quickly realize you would be fair game suddenly too. As an acerbic writer you have placed yourself on a one way street. You've protected yourself by claiming it is your right to do so. I'm sure if you could experience your own harshness had you actually had to make a living as a performer, this would quickly change your attitude. If you believe that Brendel has missed the boat or that Oland has missed the boat etc. the logical response would be for you to set the record straight by demonstrating YOUR abilities and supposed correct way (not just talking about them or theorizing about them.) These people go to school for ever and devote their lives to music. Artists (especially living ones) need our full support and encouragement. They will grow and blossom but this doesn't happen overnight. When they have a bad performance no one needs to tell them that. They knew it long before you did. If you were a performer, then you might suddenly become a humbler person.

It shouldn't matter whether some musicians are better than others (at a given point in time). My only goal is to gain understanding, pleasure, and enjoyment from music. I cannot play any of the 48 WTC as well as Edwin Fischer can (and quite likely never will) but I do derive more pleasure from trying them and becoming creative and challenging myself than I do from listening to the best. This is equally true for those who can hum, sing, move their body, tap something etc along with music while you drive or cook dinner or whatever. The joy isn't from perfection (or someone else's perfection) but it comes from connecting to it in a personal way. Sorry, I don't know how to explain it any differently at the moment.

Cheers,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
Incidentally, I spent some time in my youth learning about music, and you know what, I'd rather spend my time listening to music and learning about other subjects. Music isn't important enough for me to take as seriously as you do.
--

Now that is well written and well put. You should include it as a disclaimer on each of your posts in bold face. It would keep you from doing harm to posters just beginning to build a collection.

And let me tell you something about intellectual dishonesty. To produce reams and reams of what are fundamentally judgmental reviews, week after week, with the attitude I quote you on here is the worst sort of egotism.

I think I'll jump into astronomy and write about it weekly on some blog. It would be too much trouble to learn the constellations, so I'll just make up my own. That would be exactly like what you are doing.

People with tin ears and over-sized egos suck.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
the logical response would be for you to set the record straight by demonstrating YOUR abilities and supposed correct way

This is a fundamentally hollow argument. Dismissing what I write since I am not a performer or professional reviewer, what about the people who actually study or write about music for a living but don't perform, and who come across a performer who plays the music “wrong” in a variety of ways? The notion that they (or anyone) needs to perform the works the correct way is just foolish.

First, there is of course no correct way to interpret a piece, as evidenced by the multitude of different interpretations of pieces of music. That does not mean all deviations from the score are equally good or bad. Playing something marked piano in a double forte fashion might end up making the piece sound bad. Second, when a performer records or performs a piece, they always invite criticism and comparison, especially in classical music where, for the most part, a relatively small body of works are played and recorded again and again and again. It is inherent in what they do; by playing music with up to centuries old traditions, a performer wants to be part of the tradition, and thus the performer should be compared and criticized. The performers are not, or ought not to be, wallflowers; they have to be big boys and girls and either take critiques or dismiss them. If they think they will not, or ought not to be compared to other performers, for whatever (no doubt profound) philosophical reasons, then they are simply self-absorbed and thin-skinned and should possibly think about another career.

More generally, criticism is necessary. For many listeners not particularly interested in hearing multiple versions of a given work, it allows them to find versions they may like based on a number of different criteria. It also makes for various exchanges on internet forums. Beyond that, the entire aversion to criticism unless the critic can do it too serves only to make classical music less relevant. Such ideas take an art form that already has a very limited audience, turns it more negatively elitist and exclusionary, shrinks it further, and makes it less important. And it’s not all that important to begin with, not really.

I must wonder if your line of reasoning applies to all artistic endeavors. For instance, how can anyone criticize a movie, for instance? Seemingly only producers, directors, or editors could do that. How about outside of art? Should someone not in a specific government agency not criticize the actions of that agency? Talk about limiting. And silly.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
And let me tell you something about intellectual dishonesty. To produce reams and reams of what are fundamentally judgmental reviews, week after week, with the attitude I quote you on here is the worst sort of egotism.

Hmm, what I’m doing is intellectually dishonest. How so? This is an internet forum, not a scholarly journal or edited periodical. Looks like you need to put things in perspective.

Also, you’re analogy regarding astronomy isn’t particularly apt.



--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
Hmm, what I’m doing is intellectually dishonest. How so? This is an internet forum, not a scholarly journal or edited periodical. Looks like you need to put things in perspective.

Also, you’re analogy regarding astronomy isn’t particularly apt.
--

People will assume you know of what you write. In your case, that's clearly a falsehood. Falsehood and dishonesty are bunk mates.

So you feel free to write tripe because it's an internet forum. Fair enough. Nice hobby.

What purpose does writing about what you don't know serve?

By your own admission, you don't know squat about music. I'm betting the same holds true for astronomy. I know something about both, acquired by years of study. It is an apt comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
People will assume you know of what you write.

Really, who does? When I visit various internet forums, I assume most people are writing their opinions, and almost certainly not expert opinions. When I want expert opinions, I go to the appropriate sources. I guess I may have a different outlook on the internet than some people.

Something you should keep in mind about the opinions you write is that they are just that - opinions. However well informed they are, when you deal with something fundamentally subjective like quality of musical performances (which is different from a scientific venture), then even the best qualified opinions are merely opinions. I've read heated and technical debates between people who have vast education in music, and yet the debating parties come to completely different conclusions about relative performance quality. So much for vaunted expertise.

I must say that the escalating personal nature of your learned comments is more than a little juvenile, but then again, this is the internet, so it is only to be expected.


--