On Nov 7, 6:33 am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <9115d488-44dd-43e7-a9d7-391a5d152...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > Lena says...
> >(For those reasons, I'm sort of unhappy about commenting, but at this > >point, someone should. Because, though there were considered opinions > >from a couple of posters (for example, you), the level of this and the > >previous discussion has been pretty bad. I don't think dismissals > >should be done *that* casually, on any subject. (It's also a little > >strange to see one or two reasonably thoughtful opinions expressing > >the superfluousness idea, and then a dozen accompanying "I agree with > >you, I think it sucks"s, without indication that the latter guys have > >processed much anything of what's in the performance. Harper, shape > >up. :):) I think it's possible. :) )
> Well, yes, but (1) this isn't The Proceedings of the Musicological Society;
I'm not asking for that. Most people talk about this (and other similar cases) with complete subjective blinders on - they don't get what the conductor is doing, but neither can they acknowledge that their own narrow personal requirements aren't the only possible ones. (This most certainly doesn't apply to you.)
That's all well enough for one's personal listening (though it's not even subjectively all that educating or fun to keep going in circles, as it were), but it's not at all a basis for strong dismissing recommendations. For one thing - I'm afraid the conductor/performer has usually thought a lot more about the music than most of the people commenting here. So highly critical persons might want to present some validish grounds for their statements, at least once or twice, in some thread somewhere. Why should anyone else bother with what they say, otherwise?
Btw, I'm not talking about jokes, short coded messages to one's friends, or the hurried post, and I'm not against subjective judgments. But from some guys, I've *never* seen anything that inspires confidence that they hear what's there.
[...]
> (4) Vanska's Beethoven has been discussed here on-and-off for several years and > those who have commented before may not be inclined to repeat more > thoughtful-seeming responses;
That's fine. I wasn't referring to your posts either. (A little surprised that that's not obvious.) That's because I have quite a bit of confidence in the thought part, vis a vis you, from elsewhere. Of course, no one, including you, has to really care about what I think.
> > Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only > > react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I > > had > > a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read > > music, you miss so much.
> It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs. one of > the crew on a ship outing.
I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a passenger as anyone else. It's just that, in addition to listening without thinking, they sometimes think.
M forever wrote: > One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the > ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that > direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
> > > Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I > > > can only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" > > > -- how I wish I had > > > a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and > > > can't read music, you miss so much.
> > It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs. > > one of the crew on a ship outing.
> I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a > passenger as anyone else.
On a ship (or plane) this is also the case.
Is there any analogy with cooking (and enjoying a meal)? Maybe you recognize what's in the dish, but you don't know everything about how to prepare it.
>> Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, >> I can only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" >> -- how I wish I had a proper musical education. If you don't play >> an instrument and can't read music, you miss so much. > Not always. It seems to me that the more people (at least some people) > know about all details of playing and performing and how it /should/ be > done (well, about how they think that it should be done), the more they > worry about everything - and to a degree the less they enjoy the quality > as given by recordings and perfomances. > It seems that for some it *never* is good, or good enough, and there is > *always* very much reason for a great lot of nitpicking - mainly (as it > seems) about the things that you are missing so much. > In such cases it might happen that I think: I'm glad that I can miss
*that*.
I don't know. Just because I understand "stretch and squash" doesn't mean I enjoy an animated film any the less. Or that knowing how special effects are done reduces my pleasure in an action or SF film. Indeed, I remain startled and amazed at Ray Harryhausen's artistry. (If you have never seen "Jason and the Argonauts", do so. The film has one of the greatest stop-motion sequences ever filmed almost immediately followed by /the/ greatest stop-motion sequence.)
Mozart famously wrote to his father that he put things in his piano concertos to please listeners who did not know a lot about music.
One can approach any work of art on multiple levels simultaneously. That /should/ only increase one's enjoyment.
>>> Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only >>> react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I >>> had >>> a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read >>> music, you miss so much. >> It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs. one of >> the crew on a ship outing.
> I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a > passenger as anyone else. It's just that, in addition to listening > without thinking, they sometimes think.
> Lena
I am not a musician, nor have I played the role of a musician on TV. I *have* discussed music with musicians, and know that they hear and process the music while performing their part in it. Apparently, a necessary attention to details does not prevent them from processing the music as an ensemble. The balances are usually different, and there may be occasions when the tam-tam has temporarily affected the hearing, but in general....
Gerard wrote: > William Sommerwerck wrote: >> Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can >> only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I >> wish I had a proper musical education. If you don't play an >> instrument and can't read music, you miss so much.
> Not always. It seems to me that the more people (at least some people) know > about all details of playing and performing and how it /should/ be done (well, > about how they think that it should be done), the more they worry about > everything - and to a degree the less they enjoy the quality as given by > recordings and perfomances. > It seems that for some it *never* is good, or good enough, and there is *always* > very much reason for a great lot of nitpicking - mainly (as it seems) about the > things that you are missing so much. > In such cases it might happen that I think: I'm glad that I can miss *that* .
I think you are describing a 'special case' of the common difficulty known as 'getting lost in the details'. Musicians and musicologists don't *of necessity* lose sight of the forest because of all those trees, though they are certainly more apt to notice the mistimed entrances, wrong notes, and instances of a woodwind losing control of those columns. Well, one of those squawks might distract even me for a second or so.
>> One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the >> ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that >> direction.
> Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle > if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
According to the emails I receive, I win a lottery without buying a ticket fairly often.
> One can approach any work of art on multiple levels simultaneously.
Some people can. But I don't see it happening very often. Those who can analyze everything (upto the level of atoms, or even smaller details), see reasons for not enjoying everywhere.
> That /should/ only increase one's enjoyment.
Sometimes maybe, because the contrary could happen.
On Nov 7, 8:59 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:04 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty > significant differences. Actually, based on the individual CDs I've > heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to > seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the > qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who > like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected > interpretations, etc.). I'd add that this is not for people who like > a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to > want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
All is a matter of degree, but I think Vanska's live performances, due to sound or the moment, seem more able to balance his other virtues with sufficient melodic continuity.
> Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and > while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done > that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska, > working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices > subordinated (though very nicely audible). All beautifully played > though. Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I > remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear > conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions. So on > various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than > Abbado's. (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are > two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the > Pastoral/ii example. Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right > thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
This sounds true to memory, but I think Abbado also handles the inner voices quite well--the interactions are there but not quite as "in your face" as in Vanska. I wouldn't say anything important is missing in the Abbado, rather that his agenda is less to surprise you than, as you say, to fit the old-fashioned conception with a slightly more modern approach.
Also, I think it is ironic that Abbado is normally a conductor I associate with very wide dynamics--very careful distinctions between pp and p, etc.--and Vanska is cut from the same mold, perhaps even outdoing Abbado in this area in the Beethoven.
>> > (For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of >> > the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook >> > where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England, >> > and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. =A0While it's a small >> > travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to >> > Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
>> I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
>Sorry :) - it was a slightly whimsical way of saying that Vanska has a >pretty good take on the multiple quasi-independent "streams" in 6/ >ii. If I'm unclear, listen to a lengthy bit of the beginning of this >movement in Harnoncourt, who's hard to beat at this sort of thing, and >whose take explains it better than anyone's words can. (Abbado otoh >emphasizes the main melody too much as soon as it comes in, and stream >#2, the one the movement begins with, becomes too weak to give this >effect.)
This isn't to disagree with your basic description, but: in Vanska's, when the first clarinet and first bassoon play "the tune" (starting at c. 40 secs into the movement; it's a couple of seconds sooner in Harnoncourt's) they're given the prominence of soloists, far more so than in Harnoncourt or Abbado/BPO (or Abbado VPO, for that matter, though that performance is so utterly different it sounds conducted by a different person). This sounds less like weaving in and out than stepping forward and taking over.... I'm also not sure what you mean when you say Abbado emphasizes the main melody too much. Do you mean in terms of volume vis a vis what else is going on? If so, I don't hear that at all. Or do you mean in terms of phrasing? Harnoncourt's first stream, as you call it (I trust we're talking about the same thing), is distinguished by his unusual short-term phrasing, articulation and voicing (you can really hear that the cellos are divided, the horns are given something to do that's more than to provide a gentle background blur, etc.), which prevent it from sounding like the standard accompaniment it's often treated as; and while Vanska does something fairly similar, Harnoncourt strikes me as more articulate and more distinctively phrased.
But his approach does, despite its fastish tempo, create a fairly static, small-scale effect. With Norrington/Stuttgart, by contrast, you get - or so it seems to me - the independent streams conveyed at least as well (perhaps even better) as with Harnoncourt (and Vanska and, I suspect, others), but you also get a sense of surging motion, of ebb and flow, of being carried aloft by waves on a rustic adventure; the whole thing is uniquely alive and compelling - a remarkable performance. (Scherchen/Westminster/DG is in some ways similar, if a bit too first-violin-dependent.)
At any rate, here, at least, I don't hear anything that Vanska does that others don't do better (either because they have much the same idea but execute it better (e.g. Harnoncourt) or couple that idea with better ideas and fly with it (e.g. Norrington II); i.e., he's superfluous....
(Of course, that leaves rather a lot of other movements....)
On Nov 7, 10:43 am, Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> Norman Schwartz wrote: > > M forever wrote:
> >> One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the > >> ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that > >> direction.
> > Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle > > if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
> According to the emails I receive, I win a lottery without buying a > ticket fairly often.
On Nov 6, 12:04 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip < > (For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of > the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook > where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England, > and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. While it's a small > travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to > Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't fully understand this, but I see you have already written more about it later in the thread.
This was particularly interesting to me as Harnoncourt's Beethoven -- specifically 6/ii -- was the triggering event for the "Beethoven's Grandest Gesture" thread I started many weeks ago. Some posters thought the thread was silly (I'm not unaccustomed to that); others could see the wavelength from which my comments were made. Either way, Beethoven endures.
>> One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the >> ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that >> direction.
> Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle > if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
Perhaps that's what the Rabbi in the story was looking for. :)
On Nov 7, 5:43 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Norman Schwartz wrote: > > M forever wrote:
> >> One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the > >> ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that > >> direction.
> > Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle > > if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
> Perhaps that's what the Rabbi in the story was looking for. :)
> > On Nov 6, 8:43 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in > > their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both > > employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent > > orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet, > > generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by > > artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main > > difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more > > expressive and musically detailed.
> That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty > significant differences. Actually, based on the individual CDs I've > heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to > seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the > qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who > like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected > interpretations, etc.). I'd add that this is not for people who like > a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to > want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
> There's also certainly something to what you say about lack of color > and flexibility in Vanska, but I'm guessing it's on purpose (because I > think he aims to do something that color is not necessarily so good > for). Perhaps there's also a lack of expressive variety within > movements. And, Abbado's orchestra has a very nice rhythmic > flexibility, which Vanska's quite doesn't. (Also, for some reason, > few conductors do a lively, distinct articulation of small phrases, > which is pretty apropos for some of the Beethoven - actually, you > generally hear more of this in Haydn, although a lack of phrasing > imagination seems to be some general conductor 'problem'. :) Vanska > could do much more of this, and Abbado isn't much better... But at > least Vanska is pretty sprightly.)
> But I think Vanska beats Abbado on several fairly important fronts, > and, also, there are quite a few interesting things here, one of them > quite possibly unique (at least I haven't heard it before in symphonic > Beethoven).
> The unique in Vanska is the sound world in a few of these movements: > in, say, slow ones, and similar segments elsewhere, Vanska's > instruments are balanced into a sort of a web, with the main melody > weaving in and out of a network of other sounds. The note attacks > are soft and indistinct - that and the comparative lack of color help > get this feeling of interleaved sounds. Makes sense? The restraint > in dynamic inflection helps, too. (Elsewhere, like in the scherzos, > the attacks become quite different, and dynamics can be more > pronounced.)
> That web of sound is a characteristic I don't hear in any other > recording I know to this degree, and that alone is attractive to me. I > like this sound, because Beethoven does fluid, changing counterpoint, > frequently departing from the "fully independent lines" style; not > only are there consonant meeting points, but even in more traditional > episodes, Beethoven may interleave voices. (Not just cross them, and > expect, like in Mahler, to have orchestral color separate them - but > merge the voices.) So the writing itself supports both the weaving > concept and a refined treatment of texture. (This textural business > is even more pronounced in the string quartets, where I first sort of > fell in love with it.)
> Harnoncourt is somewhat similar to Vanska in that he has fantastic, > dynamically changing balancing, but, saying this kind of nebulously, > he's perhaps more about instruments answering other instruments where > Vanska weaves. That's not a very good description, but you can hear > it... I must say I really like both approaches; they're not the same > sound at all to me. Harnoncourt is otherwise hard to beat, but I > wouldn't scoff at the overall effect V. achieves - and there are > things in Harnoncourt one might want to occasionally get away from. > (Not objectionable things, really, but you can't just listen to one > set. :) )
> Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and > while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done > that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska, > working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices > subordinated (though very nicely audible). All beautifully played > though. Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I > remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear > conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions. So on > various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than > Abbado's. (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are > two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the > Pastoral/ii example. Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right > thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
> There are other differences that seem rather big to me, too, but I'll > skip the various other dimensions... I agree with everyone that, > expressively, V. is kind of subdued, but to me it doesn't sound > unpleasant, and a lot of expression may not be V.'s idea, anyway. > (And, finally, the quality of the Vanska recording is just great.)
> I acknowledge that some of those might be points where people can > disagree; what might sound "correct" to someone, can sound hackneyed > and numbingly thoughtless to me, and what to me sounds like melodic > inflection subordinated to something more important or more fun, might > come across as plain and mechanical to someone else. That probably > means we're listening for different things in those places.
> The people who insist on hearing well differentiated, "vocal" melodies > and listen mainly from culmination to culmination may not get the > qualities I find interesting here. (I'm not saying this is you, or > anyone in particular, but some of the other commentary here points in > that direction.) The people who do want to look for something else in > this music (something that actually does exist there - sorry, > Herman :) ), may well like Vanska, actually.
> At any rate, Vanska has been reading the score, and he acts on it much > of the time in what I heard, so it's not devoid of depth, in that > sense, as we I guess agree on. So perhaps the less well-grounded > dismissals, which I think are fine, subjectively speaking, can exhibit > a little more understanding of the conductor's potential ideas... > (Again, not speaking about your posts.)
> This applies to a lot of posting. (There's a bit of a culmination > point, here as well, in slight dismay at the things written... :) Not > to be taken very hard.)
> Lena
Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply. It's actually a little bit too long and detailed for my to reply to every single point even though I sometimes write similarly long posts but the subject really doesn't interest me that much, sorry.
Yes, I agree it is better if we at least try to explain our opinions rather than just throwing out brief judgment which has next to no value for other readers, especially when we don't know what kind of background and what degree of reflection that statement comes from - and even more so when we know it comes from someone who just throws out random judgments without much behind it. Sometimes though, when we simply agree with what someone said, it is OK to just say so rather than repeating the same points again. Harper, for instance, who rarely agrees with me on anything, can hardly be accused of just jumping on my bandwagon.
I also agree that, yes, of course, you can find some musically valuable elements in Vänskä's set, too. You can find something of interest in *almost any* performance if you look hard enough. Jeff is an expert at that ;-)
It's just that whatever can be found in these performances is simply not interesting enough for me when there are so many, many more performances available which offer me more. I don't quite agree with Harman that one should "kick the Beethoven habit" completely and only listen to Haydn instead, but he has a point. There is so much other good music out there, I don't see any reason to OD on Beethoven just for the sake of it, as great as the music is and as fascinating the vast spectrum of Beethoven interpretations is, too.
Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive versions.
Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that this set simply doesn't quite have. There are certain things that I listen for, not predefined elements that have to be exactly the way I want them, but essential, basic qualities, like "eloquent" phrasing which can be be quite subtle or dramatically rhetoric, that doesn't really matter as long as it "says" something. That is particularly important in Beethoven's music because it is built from small elements which he then elaborates on like a speaker who presents an basic idea and then expands on it. No matter how technically "perfect" a performance is or not, I also look for some flexibility in rhythm and pulse, which is of course directly related to the other elements I described.
All these things are not distinct enough for me in Vänskä's Beethoven and in the playing of his orchestra, as respectable as the overall achievement no doubt is. It all sounds to me somewhat like the speaking machine Hawking uses.
> In article <9115d488-44dd-43e7-a9d7-391a5d152...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > Lena says...
> >> > (For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of > >> > the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook > >> > where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England, > >> > and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. =A0While it's a small > >> > travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to > >> > Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
> >> I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
> >Sorry :) - it was a slightly whimsical way of saying that Vanska has a > >pretty good take on the multiple quasi-independent "streams" in 6/ > >ii. If I'm unclear, listen to a lengthy bit of the beginning of this > >movement in Harnoncourt, who's hard to beat at this sort of thing, and > >whose take explains it better than anyone's words can. (Abbado otoh > >emphasizes the main melody too much as soon as it comes in, and stream > >#2, the one the movement begins with, becomes too weak to give this > >effect.)
> This isn't to disagree with your basic description, but: in Vanska's, when the > first clarinet and first bassoon play "the tune" (starting at c. 40 secs into > the movement; it's a couple of seconds sooner in Harnoncourt's) they're given > the prominence of soloists, far more so than in Harnoncourt or Abbado/BPO (or > Abbado VPO, for that matter, though that performance is so utterly different it > sounds conducted by a different person). This sounds less like weaving in and > out than stepping forward and taking over....
First: no, you can perhaps hold the argumentation down a bit here, since the "weaving" comment doesn't apply to this movement at all...
Here, one is trying to separate the sound "streams," or make some of them exist, in the first place.
(Stream is actually a technical term; I used it for the word association, but it also applies here, since it's a term for what one perceives as a single coherent unit in time...) I think I said a few times that I think Harnoncourt is better than Vanska at this spot. I was also not talking about an overall conception for this movement, but the initial effect, during the first minute or so.
Finally, this was not the place where any arguments about superfluousness rested (just a place to demonstrate that the guy is competent enough). In any case, if we're actually going to argue about a word, like two newsgroup dudes, :) maybe we should begin by demanding exact definitions of what it means, in this situation, before we even start. :) (Of course, if it's Jeff's definition, no recording is superfluous.... :) )
It's quite possible that Norrington II (I haven't heard this particular symphony from that set) is better in the first minute of 6/ ii than Vanska. (Scherchen I'll have to leave out of this comparison because I think he's not in the generally prescribed scope (newer recordings, I thought?).) Norrington certainly sounds interesting, from your description.
> I'm also not sure what you mean > when you say Abbado emphasizes the main melody too much. Do you mean in terms > of volume vis a vis what else is going on? If so, I don't hear that at all.
I'm doing this from memory; I did mean, in part, volume, though also other things: I think Abbado turns down the volume somewhere in a way that's not quite salutary; I'll have to recheck where. However, it will unfortunately have to be, right now, checking from a disreputable partial source. :) I'll do it a bit later.
This was, in any case, a part of that side branch of the discussion where Abbado was mentioned as a better Vanska. So, to go back to arguing about those bits, I don't really think the two are quite comparable enough, though in some grand outlines they're not dissimilar, as MS/Jeff talk about. (Here I'll just offer myself as an example - besides the melodic bent that I remember Abbado having, I'm a little - and now for a very subjective judgment - turned off by some things with his phrasing. It's not to dispute that Abbado is competent, but I'd rather take someone to whom I have more of a neutral reaction. :) )
> Or > do you mean in terms of phrasing? Harnoncourt's first stream, as you call it (I > trust we're talking about the same thing), is distinguished by his unusual > short-term phrasing, articulation and voicing (you can really hear that the > cellos are divided, the horns are given something to do that's more than to > provide a gentle background blur, etc.), which prevent it from sounding like the > standard accompaniment it's often treated as; and while Vanska does something > fairly similar, Harnoncourt strikes me as more articulate and more distinctively > phrased.
He is. All I was using this example for was to say that Vanska demonstrates some 'depth' here.
(Also, this is a side remark, but when people are talking about "balancing" for sound streams, they're obviously actually talking about a very large number of things that can be done to distinguish or merge streams, both by performer/composer. It's not just loudness. Articulation, timbre, consonance/intonation, denseness of notes (or appearance of denseness), accents, patterns, rhythm, tempo choice, the way you sound individual notes, everything like that has an effect on how one perceives texture. As a jumble, as separate lines, as one line, as something that oscillates between those things.)
(A complete, total aside: the tempo effect is pretty striking, btw, for those who are interested in such things. You very distinctly switch from hearing one to two (or more) melodies, as the tempo of a suitably patterned melody changes, and you can't really help it...)
> But his approach does, despite its fastish tempo, create a fairly static, > small-scale effect. [...] > At any rate, here, at least, I don't hear anything that Vanska does that others > don't do better (either because they have much the same idea but execute it > better (e.g. Harnoncourt) or couple that idea with better ideas and fly with it > (e.g. Norrington II); i.e., he's superfluous....
Are you talking, btw, about the entire movement right now? I was mainly talking about the initial minute or so, and using it as an example of something that Vanska does reasonably right; questions of small scale (or not) don't quite enter into what I meant.
> (Of course, that leaves rather a lot of other movements....)
(Yes. :) Just so you know, in general, I'm unable to access Rhapsody, and don't have most of my own CDs around, so the data available can be a bit limited.)
> On Nov 7, 8:59 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 8:43 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in > > > their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both > > > employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent > > > orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet, > > > generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by > > > artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main > > > difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more > > > expressive and musically detailed.
> > That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty > > significant differences. Actually, based on the individual CDs I've > > heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to > > seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the > > qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who > > like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected > > interpretations, etc.). I'd add that this is not for people who like > > a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to > > want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
> > There's also certainly something to what you say about lack of color > > and flexibility in Vanska, but I'm guessing it's on purpose (because I > > think he aims to do something that color is not necessarily so good > > for). Perhaps there's also a lack of expressive variety within > > movements. And, Abbado's orchestra has a very nice rhythmic > > flexibility, which Vanska's quite doesn't. (Also, for some reason, > > few conductors do a lively, distinct articulation of small phrases, > > which is pretty apropos for some of the Beethoven - actually, you > > generally hear more of this in Haydn, although a lack of phrasing > > imagination seems to be some general conductor 'problem'. :) Vanska > > could do much more of this, and Abbado isn't much better... But at > > least Vanska is pretty sprightly.)
> > But I think Vanska beats Abbado on several fairly important fronts, > > and, also, there are quite a few interesting things here, one of them > > quite possibly unique (at least I haven't heard it before in symphonic > > Beethoven).
> > The unique in Vanska is the sound world in a few of these movements: > > in, say, slow ones, and similar segments elsewhere, Vanska's > > instruments are balanced into a sort of a web, with the main melody > > weaving in and out of a network of other sounds. The note attacks > > are soft and indistinct - that and the comparative lack of color help > > get this feeling of interleaved sounds. Makes sense? The restraint > > in dynamic inflection helps, too. (Elsewhere, like in the scherzos, > > the attacks become quite different, and dynamics can be more > > pronounced.)
> > That web of sound is a characteristic I don't hear in any other > > recording I know to this degree, and that alone is attractive to me. I > > like this sound, because Beethoven does fluid, changing counterpoint, > > frequently departing from the "fully independent lines" style; not > > only are there consonant meeting points, but even in more traditional > > episodes, Beethoven may interleave voices. (Not just cross them, and > > expect, like in Mahler, to have orchestral color separate them - but > > merge the voices.) So the writing itself supports both the weaving > > concept and a refined treatment of texture. (This textural business > > is even more pronounced in the string quartets, where I first sort of > > fell in love with it.)
> > Harnoncourt is somewhat similar to Vanska in that he has fantastic, > > dynamically changing balancing, but, saying this kind of nebulously, > > he's perhaps more about instruments answering other instruments where > > Vanska weaves. That's not a very good description, but you can hear > > it... I must say I really like both approaches; they're not the same > > sound at all to me. Harnoncourt is otherwise hard to beat, but I > > wouldn't scoff at the overall effect V. achieves - and there are > > things in Harnoncourt one might want to occasionally get away from. > > (Not objectionable things, really, but you can't just listen to one > > set. :) )
> > Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and > > while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done > > that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska, > > working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices > > subordinated (though very nicely audible). All beautifully played > > though. Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I > > remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear > > conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions. So on > > various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than > > Abbado's. (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are > > two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the > > Pastoral/ii example. Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right > > thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
> > There are other differences that seem rather big to me, too, but I'll > > skip the various other dimensions... I agree with everyone that, > > expressively, V. is kind of subdued, but to me it doesn't sound > > unpleasant, and a lot of expression may not be V.'s idea, anyway. > > (And, finally, the quality of the Vanska recording is just great.)
> > I acknowledge that some of those might be points where people can > > disagree; what might sound "correct" to someone, can sound hackneyed > > and numbingly thoughtless to me, and what to me sounds like melodic > > inflection subordinated to something more important or more fun, might > > come across as plain and mechanical to someone else. That probably > > means we're listening for different things in those places.
> > The people who insist on hearing well differentiated, "vocal" melodies > > and listen mainly from culmination to culmination may not get the > > qualities I find interesting here. (I'm not saying this is you, or > > anyone in particular, but some of the other commentary here points in > > that direction.) The people who do want to look for something else in > > this music (something that actually does exist there - sorry, > > Herman :) ), may well like Vanska, actually.
> > At any rate, Vanska has been reading the score, and he acts on it much > > of the time in what I heard, so it's not devoid of depth, in that > > sense, as we I guess agree on. So perhaps the less well-grounded > > dismissals, which I think are fine, subjectively speaking, can exhibit > > a little more understanding of the conductor's potential ideas... > > (Again, not speaking about your posts.)
> > This applies to a lot of posting. (There's a bit of a culmination > > point, here as well, in slight dismay at the things written... :) Not > > to be taken very hard.)
> > Lena
> Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply. It's > actually a little bit too long and detailed for my to reply to every > single point even though I sometimes write similarly long posts but > the subject really doesn't interest me that much, sorry.
That's fine - I'm really slightly in the same situation. It's not that Beethoven (or Haydn, ehm - two of my most favored composers) doesn't interest me, but I'm listening to entirely different music right now, and also pretty busy otherwise.
> Yes, I agree it is better if we at least try to explain our opinions > rather than just throwing out brief judgment which has next to no > value for other readers, especially when we don't know what kind of > background and what degree of reflection that statement comes from - > and even more so when we know it comes from someone who just throws > out random judgments without much behind it. > Sometimes though, when we simply agree with what someone said, it is > OK to just say so rather than repeating the same points again. Harper, > for instance, who rarely agrees with me on anything, can hardly be > accused of just jumping on my bandwagon.
I don't really accuse Bob H. of anything... I hoped he has a sufficient sense of humor, which he's often had (I've agreed with him on some quartetry; otherwise, on general subjects, maybe not, but those subjects are not something I deal with in newsgroups).
> I also agree that, yes, of course, you can find some musically > valuable elements in Vänskä's set, too. You can find something of > interest in *almost any* performance if you look hard enough. Jeff is > an expert at that ;-)
[...]
> Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly > interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out > there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive > versions.
Well, I'll leave it at that. I think we do listen for slightly different things, just based on your posts, in general.
> Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important > for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that > this set simply doesn't quite have.
That's true, it isn't that.
> There are certain things that I > listen for, not predefined elements that have to be exactly the way I > want them, but essential, basic qualities, like "eloquent" phrasing > which can be be quite subtle or dramatically rhetoric, that doesn't > really matter as long as it "says" something.
I realize you like that, but I don't, very much, actually.
> That is particularly > important in Beethoven's music because it is built from small elements > which he then elaborates on like a speaker who presents an basic idea > and then expands on it.
> On Nov 6, 12:04 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > snip < > > (For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of > > the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook > > where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England, > > and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. While it's a small > > travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to > > Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
> I don't fully understand this, but I see you have already written more > about it later in the thread.
> This was particularly interesting to me as Harnoncourt's Beethoven -- > specifically 6/ii -- was the triggering event for the "Beethoven's > Grandest Gesture" thread I started many weeks ago. Some posters > thought the thread was silly (I'm not unaccustomed to that); others > could see the wavelength from which my comments were made. Either way, > Beethoven endures.
Sorry; I think I missed that thread... I don't remember it at all. I'll try the malfunctioning archives.
I wrote some stuff too fast - so I'll just amend for some clarity.
[MS]
> > Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply.
Actually, it was rather fast and sloppy, but whatever. :) Thank you.
> > Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important > > for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that > > this set simply doesn't quite have.
> That's true, it isn't that.
Here I mean in particular rhythmic flexibility, which I do like. (Though, in some cases, I don't mind some lack of it.) Vanska is not that rhythmically flexible, that's what the "true" here meant. Sorry, I wasn't clear.
> > No matter how technically "perfect" a > > performance is or not, I also look for some flexibility in rhythm and > > pulse, which is of course directly related to the other elements I > > described.
> > All these things are not distinct enough for me in Vänskä's Beethoven > > and in the playing of his orchestra, as respectable as the overall > > achievement no doubt is.
> Again, different individuals put weight on different things.
Here I should just say I slightly misread - I like flexibility in rhythm and pulse, too. Although, there really are places it's better to not have it (some scherzo situations, for example), and there are also expressive purposes that go very much counter to lively rhythm. You can't, for instance, aim to give the impression of steady implacability and play like a little songbird (I imagine they're flexible :) ). So I can't give a flexibility-is-always-better recipe on this point.
(In some Beethoven movements, flexibility certainly doesn't hurt - the Pastoral is pretty much a case in point, but this is, perhaps, not music that can't handle its absence, since so many other things can be done.)
On Nov 7, 4:16 pm, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 3:50 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly > > interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out > > there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive > > versions.
> Well, I'll leave it at that. I think we do listen for slightly > different things, just based on your posts, in general.
(I also don't think you quite get what I mean, but then I perhaps haven't explained it too well right now...)
About this, though:
>> also in musically more gratifying and expressive versions.
That statement has an implicit "to my taste" attached to it?
I do hope it's really very clear in this ng that there are several different ways in which music is gratifying and expressive... I know people sometimes have trouble seeing this, because they're extremely hung up on what they prefer themselves, and see it as "correct." This is the main reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
On Nov 7, 4:59 pm, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do hope it's really very clear in this ng that there are several > different ways in which music is gratifying and expressive... I know > people sometimes have trouble seeing this, because they're extremely > hung up on what they prefer themselves, and see it as "correct." This > is the main reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
And thanks for that discussion...all in all an interesting day in RMCR, difficult to follow with a day that started with a charmed recording of Beethoven (Kubelik/SOBR in the 1st and 2nd) and has now devolved into uncharted territories of Francesconi and Berio. I can barely remember what Beethoven 6ii sounds like.
Lena wrote: > (I actually meant, in context: I know I said some rather harsh things, > and they perhaps verged on the rude. Anyone should feel free to > ignore those.)
> Lena
Hmmph. Rudeness cannot be ignored; it can be forgiven or consciously disregarded....
|
