Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Rubio,

There is no such thing as a reference recording. Not one I ever encountered lacked flaws!

The best performance is always in the future! Preferably live! {Smiley}. Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

In one sense you are right. However, the Kleiber 9th is a reference in the sense of if you wanted to show someone a classical reading you would probably play them that one.

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

I do this, of course, showing someone favourite music, but I choose performances that have personally moved me. and that in this very case of the Great C Major would most likely be the old Kleiber set, unless I had noted a response to more flexible readings in other things first.... The reference is really outside me, and is the Rosette Choice of the Penguin Guide or what ever, and my opinion of critics is such that I have rarely found myself able to much more than nod at their conclusions.

I would never say my opinion is the basis of a reference, but I know from personal experience that it is better than random. I think that is about as far as it is possible to go.

For example Graham55 and I probably would not share one single favourite recorded performance or view of what is briiliant live, but I would bet he thinks more of the Rosette winners are among his favourites than are among mine!

I personally think that when young, people should investigate even obviously poor performances, to guage the difference between the bad, the good, and the great!

Only at the very begining of someone's initiation into the classics will I be specific to any great degree about what they should try out. After that it is important for the range of possibilities to be encountered, at least in my view, or else big treats will be missed, on someone else's say so, which is a shame IMO.

So no, I really have no time for the concept of definative recordings at all! [Smiley]! Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

I agree with you.

And I suppose I would only ever use reference in a personal sense to demonstrate a particular thing rather than the absolute.

However, I would say to Rubio that I think the Kleiber 9th and Beethoven 6ths are discs everyone who loves that music should at least hear once.

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

That I absolutely endorse. Even to the point of saying buy the set! But don't then think one has the music represented. Sally forth and find Walter, Boehm, Boult, Furtwangelr, even perhaps Rattle [Jocular Smiley!], and even Gardiner, and Norrington, and form your own tastes.

The first encounter must be grand, and grand performances are easier to define, but really the fun starts with adventurous personal choices. As you get older, tastes settle, and one may even become boringly conservative, but the most boringly conservative of the lot is the hardened music critic.

I bet you know what I mean with Bach played by Helmut Walcha, which a great way, but hardly mainstream. I am glad I was shown this by Rodrigo de Sa, as he is HW is fairly old hat now, but Leonhardt, who is less my taste, is still very fashionable. Sometimes the adventure of investigating perforamances of great music involves the older styles, which often offer a lot more than modern critics give them credit for.

I am perverse this evening! Sorry Tam, from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

Perverse? I agree entirely.

Except save the first must be grand. It surely helps, but there have been works which haven't grabbed me that I have later come to via grand performances. I suspect what you mean is that a grand performance is needed to hook one into a work.

But, as an owner, say of 13 Beethoven symphony cycles: explore, explore, explore.

regards, Tam

Dear Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
That's the one I ordered (and when you click to enlarge the picture vol. 2 is clearly visible - toward the top left of the box).

I don´t see, why I didn´t notice this, - I certainly must be blind on both eyes.

Regards, Poul

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
There is no such thing as a reference recording. Not one I ever encountered lacked flaws!
The best performance is always in the future!

The term reference recording is in my opinion a rather useful concept, meaning an exceptional recording, and there are many of these (fortunately). This concept must be distinguished from the horrible term definitive recording which isn´t but nonsense.

Regards, Poul

Dear Poul,

In an e-mail to Fredrik last night I mooted the term 'key' as opposed to reference for what you are describing. I.e. really wonderful recordings that should be heard by everyone.

I think we had a thread recently where we also came up with a good term for composer readings of 'authoritative'.


regards, Tam

quote:

The term reference recording is in my opinion a rather useful concept, meaning an exceptional recording, and there are many of these (fortunately). This concept must be distinguished from the horrible term definitive recording which isn´t but nonsense.

Yes, I think I should have used the expression exceptional recording instead, or maybe a recording that you rate as one of your of your favourites. I listen to so many different types of music (black metal , country, soul, reggae, electronica, 60-70's music, jazz, pop and these days predominantly classical and world music) that I don't really have time to listen to many bad/unknown recordings. I prefer to try out something that at least one individual rate highly. Perhaps I will find out that my taste differs quite much from someone, but I guess I still would not have listened to a bad recording (just one that didn't suit my subjective taste at a certain stage in my listening process). Some conductors I can take more chances with when I have found out that I generally like their style; e.g. the Kleibers, Furtwangler, Sinopoli, Giulini, Jansons, Mackerras etc. Of course, I can see that my taste is more similar to some persons than others. Also at the moment I find it most exciting to listen to symphonies and piano concertos, but this probably changes with time.

Dear Rubio,

If you bought absolutley any of the recordings so far mentioned, you would get a great performance!

I think Poul - pe-zulu - puts it perfectly actually!

All the best from Fredrik

PS: I tend to mention things that are my favourites, and try to explain, as often as not, what it is I think is great about the music, and the music making. I try to avoid mentioning things I am not so pleased with, not least because in many cases other people rather like what I don't! [Smiley]!

Dear Friends and Fredrik (to whom this will be familiar),

I have been thinking a little about this issue of reference recordings, and, as I said, dislike the absolute use of the word. However, I think it can be good in the sense of this recording shows this particular point. E.g., I recently gave someone a copy of the Walcha Goldbergs in an effort to show them they could work on the harpsichord (sucessfully - however, I'm sure there are other recordings that would have done so).

I think, however, that there is a word I am chasing. I have a number of discs that I think people should at least hear (the Walcha goldbergs are there again, as are things like those Kleiber recordings I mentioned on your 'unfinished' thread and a great many more besides). I would never claim any of them was a definitive reading of a work, or anything close. Just a reading that ought to be heard. Perhaps, key recordings (in the sense of wonderful and well worth seeking out and listening to) would do.

On my c major thread, I mentioned tonight's prom. I don't know if you heard it or saw my comments but it was fascinating - the rushed speeds (especially in the first movements ruined it). Or so I thought. Interestingly, now I am listening to Kleiber and he doesn't hang about. And yet it doesn't seem rushed, it doesn't seem lacking in beauty, drama or tension. In a way it brings Walcha's Goldbergs to mind. After all, in comparison to many modern (piano) readings he is quick, yet he never feels it, indeed, his tempi (as I think we have discussed before) just seem oddly right. Somehow Noseda lost the beauty and the drama and even the excitement of Schubert's great symphony. In fact, the recording it reminded me of most was another work entirely - Zinman in Beethoven's eroica. He rushes through the first movement and ruins it. Interestinly, though Mackerras goes only a little slower, however, he knows when to slow up, when to hold something back, in short he finds the drama and
makes the chosen tempo feel right.

Anyway, I still couldn't think exactly what it was about Noseda had made it fail. Then I recalled the obituary of Giulini I found with google the other day (you'll find a link to it on my Giulini thread when the forum returns). I can't remember the exact wording, but it said something like he only conducted works he felt he really knew and loved (he did Figaro and Don Giovanni magnificently but never touched Cosi or Magic Flute, for example). As I have said on that thread - one of the magical things about his Verdi requiem is how obvious his love for the music is and it occured to me that I have seen the same thing in other great performer (Mackerras gives the impression, so does Bernstein or Davis or Walcha or.....). Indeed, it struck me that what is important (or one of the things) from a great performer is not simply that they love the music (I love the c major but doubt I could lead an orchestra to anything other than ignomony), but that they communicate that love - 'I
love this music and here's why', almost.

This brings me back to Zinman and Noseda. I've said before that problematic performances don't seem to have anything to say and this is it. I'm sure they both love the respective symphonies I've mentioned, but they don't communicate that to me. Mackerras, on other hand, knows how to slow down here or hold this or show that, because those are details that he loves. Ditto Kleiber or Furtwangler or.........

or maybe that's all nonsense (either way interested what you think).

And in reply... [Edited quotation from an email].

Dear Tam,

Tempo is weird isn't it? Often the greatest musicians make relatively fast tempi actually sound spacious. The most startling examples are probably Klemperer, and also Walcha. I know I will raise eyebrows at my thoughts on Klemperer, because there are performances, which are slow and sound it, and these are mostly from the sixties and not the fifties. But if one listens to his performances of the Choral Symphony for example it is the fastest reading of the lot!

I think when we discussed the old Kleiber set of the Great C Major in comparison to Mackerras, I asked if Mackerras kept a relatively steady pace throughout the first movement as Erich Kleiber almost uniquely does so successfully, because I think it is a quite risky idea, generally! Boult does not attempt it, and he is the second most stable conductor I have heard in this music. The marking is Allegro ma non troppo, which is on the steady side of a standard allegro, except of course that there is no such thing as a standard allegro! I think Kleiber does get the implied spaciousness into the music, partly by a style of phrasing that clearly comes close to predicting the practice now called HIP, where things are kept articulate, almost clipped at times, but never ferociously so in Kleiber's hands. It is a question of lightness.

In fact I think I have heard more poor performances of the Great C Major than really fine ones, and the problems seem to come in the first movement - how can it be paced? And the slow movement, where it is easy to squeeze a fractionally too fast a speed in to it, but not much slower and it can sit down and be miserable. The Scherzo and finale seem to almost play themselves by comparison!

For sure a strong grasp of the requirements and a clear interpretation is crucial. I wonder if it is actually a preserve of the truly great conductor musician to get it right. Interesting to note that Beecham hardly ever touched it, as he fully understood the problem, but was not sure that he had the solutions. "What can you do with it?" was his comment!

I did not listen to the Prom [with Noseda leading the Great C Major], partly because I started to listen to the Creation, but then a phone call interrupted, and I never even thought about it, but I am glad I did not as I care very much for the music, and would probably have been made angry with it if it had been rushed through. It does amaze me that there still seem to be performances planned and brought off by people who have not got the solutions. One wonders who at the BBC decided this would be a good idea?

For example, it might have been a nice idea to have Rattle do it with the BPO, or Mackerras, or indeed as they have in the past with people like Gunter Wand, found a veteran senior conductor to come in and lead it. I believe Boult's very last Prom was shared with Rattle, and involved the old man leading it, gloriously according the critics, or as Boult noted, 'with little intervention from me.' But in that case he certainly had rehearsed it and an orchestra can become virtually telepathic with a great and elderly maestro.

Yes, you observed that early Mozart is hard to bring off, but Mackerras and Boehm manage the trick. I would add that Haydn can be rather hard to do as well, as it looks deceptively easy! No one should think that the classics are easy. Furtwangler said that young conductors should cut their teeth on this music, so as to find out how bring subtlety to bear on seemingly simple, but eceedingly exposed ideas. He felt it was much easier to make a success of Romantic music where the greater volume of sound and heavier scoring made it easier to cover up an apparent emptiness of musical conception from interpreters.

This brings us back to Walcha, where there is nowhere to hide at all, with a harpsichord!

I know you know I find the idea of definitive recordings more or less repellent. I have no problem thinking that a great performance or recording is instantly recognisable, though for some the parameters will be different. For example Graham55 prefers a slicker more polished result such as the Carlos Kleiber studio recordings done for DG, which I actually find difficult to take to say the least. I don't blame young Kleiber, and remain convinced he was one of the great conductors, but it shows a style of recording where technical perfection takes precedence over the flow and swing in music. I think it is probable that you prefer slightly faster performances than me. For example I find the tempi Boult uses in the 1954 Brahms Cycle as being either nigh perfect or just a touch fierce. This I accept as part of the contrast, so much a part of the music, but for example I never quite understood why the very beginning of the Finale of the Third symphony needs come at a different tempo to the furious second subject group, which starts with the sharp forte chords after the soft legato string music at piano.

The problem is that structurally this sets up real problems in the development section. Boult makes a sharp increase in tempo here - just like Furtwangler - which I find disconcerting. My solution would be different. Not entirely an exactly steady tempo throughout and through the transition, but a relatively faster tempo in the first subject group, taken at an almost sotto voce piano dynamic, and a true dynamic contrast with a tiny injection of added forward movement at the very transition. In fact I have never heard it played without this gear change, but if I ever had the chance I would lead it according to my plan above. Klemperer almost manages it, even if his basic tempo is a tad slow at this very point!

[…].

Oh! And I do enjoy promoting Haydn and Schubert, rather than the more obvious Mozart and Beethoven for example. I don't mean to denigrate the more popular, but it is possible to under play the significance of Haydn in particular.

A study of the last movement of the Clock Symphony will show that Haydn's counterpoint is not inferior to Bach's, and like old Bach's is so often, it is so natural that you hardly notice it is there! The counterpoint in the Jupiter is great, but it is also obvious that Mozart is flexing his contrapuntal muscles. I prefer Haydn’s less demonstrative style, where the devices of counterpoint are employed so apparently effortlessly - as in so many Haydn Symphonic Finales. With him it becomes a way of compressing the music, and building tension, energy, and power, without actually showing its brilliance in obvious ways. Like Bach's counterpoint, it probably requires a study of the score to realise how artful it really is.

In that way the Jupiter is always going to appear the more impressive Symphonic Finale, compared to any by Haydn, because it sounds it from first acquaintance! The more you get to know the Symphonies from say 82 onwards of Haydn the more you get bitten by the realisation of his genius...

[Unquote].

An email written when the Forum was down… Apologies for its length, but it makes valid points, and that seems fair enough to me having obtained Tam’s permission to replicate it, slightly edited down.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

I don't have a record of La Mer, which I once had in a Toscanini performance, which I could not warm to at all.

Mr. Fiske this is interesting....for me the Toscannini is the only performance of this work that makes sense .. Maesto does not fare to well in these forums does he? If we all agreed on everything then I guess we would't learn anything. ..sincerely...Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have owned several Toscanini performances, and only one survives now. The Missa Solemnis. It sits next two two performances by Klemperer, and is almost as good as either in my view.

I have never had the slightest interest in fashion, and I suspect that Toscanini was the very first conductor to be thoroughly promoted by the recording industry. The next one to receive this sort of attention was Herbert von Karajan. I never have thought the the actual quite lived up to the legend in either case!

All the best Fredrik

PS: I ought to add that Toscanini's greatest performances certainly were of music which I don't find especially appealing in itself. His great expertise was in Verdi and the late romantic Italian operas, and I have never found that opera as a genre was as rewarding as pure instrumental music, and romantic music in general appeals less to me than the works of the classical and baroque masters.

I even struggle with Furtwangler's ideas, on occasion, in Beethoven! I don't struggle with Beethoven though!

All the best from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik Fiske, one thing I will agree with you on is that Toscannini did not live up to his legend, but then no one could have, for he was all but deified especially here.. Another point is that his best performaces were indeed in Italian opera especially Verdi, since this is an area of the repetoire that I especially love I can see how our views would differ.. As I get older I find myself more and more attracted to music that is simple direct and openly emotional (er..hope I aint gettin soft) also find I want to hear the sound of people singing so purely orchestral works leave me with a feeling of something missing..So you are right on both counts...regards...Big Brother ... PS. Since this thread is on Schubert's Unfinished I should also point out that Tocannini's is in my view most direct and to the point, the first performance to really hit an admitted musical heathen like myself, until I'd heard it the piece sounded like indistinct mush (the Furtwangler on an EMI Pathe Marconi is also very beautiful.) Incidentally, the CD remasters of the old man's stuff on RCA are an abomination..

[and my reply to your reply]

Dear Fredrik,

Rather shamefully, I will not raise an eyebrow at your words on Klemperer for the simple reason that he is woefully underrepresented in my library, indeed, I think he only appears on a recording of Mahler's Das Lied. However, his Beethoven (both the symphonies and that live Fidelio) is very much on my list of things I must get. Actually, I do have the concerti with Barenboim, but it's vinyl inherited from my uncle and I've never really had the chance to have a proper listen since it came at just the time I had to put my turntable into storage.

You're quite right that we discussed the Mackerras and Kleiber tempi in the C major and I think I said I didn't really know either reading quite well enough to comment. However, I've listened to them all a lot more since and Mackerras really isn't, even with the OAE in the Kleiber mould. Indeed, I don't think absolute rigidity of tempo has ever been a Mackerras hallmark. Indeed, one of the things that marks out his Brahms is some of the abrupt tempo changes he adopts - (going on the practice of a Brahms contemporary in the performance of these). It is also a hallmark of his Beethoven (as I mentioned in my previous e-mail with the way he seems to have a good idea of when to slow up or hold back). However, he isn't in the ultra romantic mould either - something of a middle ground. It is interesting what you say about 1st movements dragging down bad performance - and, had last night's not goofed the first, I suspect I would have been kinder to it. However, surely that is true
of almost anything - if you lose your audience at the outset getting them back is very hard indeed.

I suspect it was probably as well you didn't listen as I think you might have been cross. I think it is inevitable in a long music series that not everyone will have a winning vision - the same is true in Edinburgh (and has me wondering if all the Bruckner is a terrible mistake - certainly I expect great things from Runnicles in number 6 who, especially to judge from his rather slim discography and the many wonderful performances I've heard, knows what he wants to say - but others may be less outstanding).

I couldn't agree more that Haydn is difficult to do well - this is one of the things that slowed me in coming to his symphonies - I had heard several lackluster readings in concert which rather put me off. However, I now (for some reason) am wonderfully surprised by the sheer range of successful approaches - there is the grandeur of Jochum (where the minuet is king), the joy of Bernstein, the energy of Mackerras (I heard him give a dazzling 96th with the SCO recently - indeed I took along a relative who recently moved here and joined the SCO chorus but has not worked with or even heard Mackerras before and was greatly impressed and said to me afterwards he could see why they, orchestra and chorus, loved to work with him so much - actually the chorus are rather bitter, having been frozen out of the festival this year in favour of the inferior festival chorus - this is particularly galling to them since in one work they might genuinely have expected to be paired with the SCO)
and Davis (I'm not really sure how to describe what Davis does, I suppose it is partly the detail and the orchestral textures and a very disciplined playing - whatever it may be, it works).

I shall have to listen out of the counterpoint in Haydn's clock. It along with the 100th is probably my favourite of his symphonies (and I saw a fine performance from the SCO led by the leader). I think my love of the 100th is more down to the fact it was the first time Haydn symphonies really blew me away and made me wonder why I didn't own more - in a stunning reading from the Cleveland orchestra and Welser-Most which ranks as probably one of the finest evenings I have ever spent in the concert hall (and also managed to introduce me to Shostakovich's symphonic output). I was rather saddened that they got so badly reviewed at last year's proms and don't seem to be in the UK at all this year - one particularly mean example was criticism that they shouldn't have brought their own chorus as there were plenty available locally. Maybe so in london, but they were presumably touring round europe and it was surely easier - and why should they have been frozen out anyway.

As to Kleiber, I agree that he was a fine conductor, though I have heard too many examples that just don't come off. The Brahms 4 and Schubert 8 are good examples. Then again, his Beethoven 5&7 is sublime. I think part of this may come done to his somewhat excessive perfectionism (which nearly crippled his Tristan recording) and suspect that he would have been better just taped live. But, actually, I think that about virtually everything (I mean real live though, not patched live).

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,... I can't understand why this Kleiber has to interpret every semi-quaver of the score rather than just letting the music flow simply...His recordings of Beethoven 5 &7 are more about Kleiber than they are about Beethoven.. But really this business of obssesing about the same 50 pieces and and half dozen or so conductors is unhealthy... Why not open the window some if only to let some new air in.. Have you ever tried Schoenberg's String Quartets, lovely pieces , atonal and worth a listen.. I can recommend the Julliard recording...as far as Schubert goes... my favorite interpreter is Claudio Arrau in the late Sonatas... But don't let those old reactionary guys push you around Tam, in life you have to take chances, not to be rash or stupid but to be bold and courageous...Kindest regards.. Big Brother

Dear Fredrik,

Might I suggest you give Don Carlos a try (in the form of Giulini's wonderful reading - another disc to add to the list to bring). I don't know if WNO make it anywhere near you, but last season they toured the most wonderful production that thoroughly convinced me of the work's greatness.


Dear Big Brother,

I'm not sure I'd quite agree that the Kleiber Beethoven is more Kleiber than Beethoven - a really good example of that is the Solti cycle where his he dominates the music (mostly to its detriment though I actually rather enjoy the results in the 5th).

I'm also not sure that limited repertiore is a problem. After all, Giulini was that way and just look at (or rather listen to) the results. His love for, and obsession with, say the Verdi Requiem delivered some sublime readings.

I don't know Arrau at all, my guiding light in the sonatas is Kempff (his D960 is one of my favourite piano discs) but I shall certainly keep an eye out.

Schoenberg - I haven't tried his quartets (I'm very fond of Bartok's and Britten's though) - I might look out for them, he has always impressed in concert.

If you search out the record library thread you will see both Fredrik's and my record libraries (though mine is something of an edited highlights and needs a little updating when I have a moment).

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,Fredrik,Whomever ..I suppose I am out of my depth here, but it seems the record buying public has an unbalaced appetite for the same works recorded over and over..The record companies I suppose have to look out for the bottom line, no argument there.. I'm sure Giulini has performed any amount of varied repertoire esp. when he was in Los Angeles yet realizes he may only have something to say in pieces by Verdi ect..As listeners we are not bound by these constraints..Classical music (maybe serious music would be a better term) has become re-creative and not creative..Unfortunately the market has played itself out to the point that classical recorded music is in it's death throughs, hence the really great deals on Amazon... I don't want to stray from the thread and I have enjoyed yours and Fredriks posts immensely, I'm not going to pretend I'm Charlie musicologist cause I aint', but if the threads were a little broader, maybe more folks would contribute..you don't have to follow along with a pocket score to appreciate Schubert any more than if you were listenig to Pink Floyd...people shouldn't be intimidated by all this and feel free to jump in, so to speak....but that's enough from me, I'll stop.. as Sam Houston Johnson once said "If your talkin, you aint learning anything'. ...regards...Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

I take your point - however, if you look at the library thread, I don't think norrowness is a charge that can fairly be made of my musical tastes.

It is true, of course that many popular works get recorded more than the less so. But these days there tend to be several available recordings of all but the most obscure works (and I suspect many of those that are not recorded more - say Messiaen's opera St Francis - are down to the costs involved).

However, much as I love hearing new works, and am always listening out for new things, I also love exploring in greater depth those things I already know and love so that I may know them better.

That said, there have been a few threads here on more obscure works (but, perhaps inevitably, because they are less well known, there is perhaps slightly less scope for discussion as there will be fewer people who can knowledgeably do so).

regards, Tam

Dear Tam, I certainly wasn't suggesting your tastes were narrow (after viewing your generously offerd library sample lists) I was only commenting on the tone of some of the threads dealing with "classical" music....by the way regarding Claudio Arrau's Schubert I should point out that many of the Chilean's later recordings were very controversial,most especially the Schubert...In a word they are s l o w . Yet I don't think there was a pianist who could make every note felt ( as opposed to in one ear ot the other) as he did...hope I haven't put anyone off by being overly critical...I guess I'm like that guy in Monty Python who goes to a establishment in search of a good argument and windes up opening a door marked 'abuse' ...kind regards...Big Brother

Dear Big Brother,

On the classical threads, you do have a point. And given the big thread I've been working on most lately (my Mahler roundup) hardly goes against that, I think I am perhaps a little guilty of that. I shall try and make my next thread on something a little more obscure [smiley]

regards, Tam

Dear Big Brother,

I think it is quite a problem to be contributing to a Thread (especially one I start), and pretend that the detail is simpler than it is. In fact to do so is to patronise.

My sole purpose to make a thread in this Music Room is to spead enthusiasm for, and understanding and appreciation of music. I could not give a tinker's cuss, if anyone agrees with me! But I do care when someone takes a suggestion, and then finds that I was not wrong! This has on occasion happened, and I have often taken others' suggestions as well. It is a valuable place to learn for me. Perhaps the most valuable in the last twenty five years! But I do have some fair degree of enthusiasm to share my own muasical experiences as well.

In fact I try to almost evangelise for the great classics, but even more so, I try underline the less known works, which are often just as splendid!

I doubt if you will find, for example, I have started a Thread on Beethoven, but there are several from me on less well know composers. And sometimes I will try to highlight a great musician, in favourite repertoire on times as well. But beyond being positive and descriptive of this reading and music, I don't have any time for compare and contrast!

My greatest pleasure on a Thread like this one is to read what other readings have given other people great pleasure, such as Richard Dane's comments on Boehm's performances of Schubert. I completely agree with them! As I say these Threads can be an immense pleasure for me and a good few others I imagine, but if they are too narrow in your opinion, may I suggest that you start broader ones of your own! I'll try to join in if I think I have anythoing valid to say! As for my own, IMO they benefit from being specifically, tightly focussed. I always try to start one with a clear aim, and at least try steer it in roughly the intended direction. Sometimes the very best Threads go off on real tangent, but ususally a real focus to a Thread does nothing but allow for more fascinating detail to be examined. This Thread has wondered off, but usefully I am sure...

As I said above, not everyone would share my viewpoint, and I think it is one of the nicest things - to be disagreed with, and then read a reasoned point from a different position!

But what I might write is not idle. If I suggest that a score may help the listener get a deeper insight into the music, it is because I know it is true! Equally there is some music where the score is almost entirely unnecessay to get every detail very quickly, and some where a score is more or less eesntial while learning the music. This is particularly the case for music based on contrapuntal techniques. It still speaks as music on the emotional level in any case, and indeed counterpoint is one of the ways of intensifying the message of music, but to study the methods employed, can only make subsequent listenings even more satisfactory from every point of view including the emotional clout of the music.

For example as a very supericial example, which holds no use really, of what I am talking about, do you know why Bach's Organ Prelude and Fugue, often styled as the Wedge, is thus known? Listening to it will never give you the answer, but my comments about scores may hold a clue! There really is much pleasure to be had from studying the score in very many cases. But actually for non-readers of music, it is clearly possible to get a very great deal out a very great deal of the greatest music without any problem at all.


Kindest regards from Fredrik

Dear Big Brother,

I have reviewed the whole thread now, as I do!

I think you are right about Toscanini not quite living up to the legend in many cases at least! I may take it from you comments that you are based in the US?

As for Carlos Kleiber, I am sure he was much better live, and indeed, I only have live recordings from him, and at the moment just one concert!

I actually think that obsessing about any performaer in front of the music is wrong headed, and I agree with your comments on this, but there are examples where certain artists really do seem to get the music better than most others. I am not going to restate the posts of five years on that, but Tam has brought back my Library thread, so if youy are interested you may care to look through my (always changing) collection on page two, actually. I part with things with a merciless determination that some I know find shocking! You can have too many records!

I never had much enthusiasm for the high Romantic, and like you have gradually found that I love music that takes the simplest msuical means of excecution and makes a devastating emotional impact with the effect of the notes alone rather than a sophistcated sound world, or excessive volume of sound. I prefer the spare to the dense, though Bach makes the dense very clear!

The most overtly emotional music I know is from Handel!

Nice to read your thoughts.

ATB from Fredrik