Are there symphonies so bad that you wish you could have the time you spent listening back again? Here is your opportunity to rant about music that is on your personal "never to be sung again" list.
I'll start.
I've half-way listened to Paderewski's Symphony in B minor a few times over the past couple of years, but never really paid much attention to it. But Sunday evening, during a long drive home in a rental car that had Sirius satellite radio service, this was played on the "Symphony Hall" channel. So I had the opportunity to give it attention.
I must say, this is the most unrelentingly bombastic, vapid and interminably tiresome composition I've sat through in a long time. A MusicWeb reviewer compared it to Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Tchaikovsky, Balakirev, Rachmaninoff and Strauss. I'm not sure if he was listening to the same symphony, because there is not a single melody in this symphony. It is just an endless sequence of episodic fanfares, marches, anthems and blustery riffs with occasional interludes in transition.
I enjoy Paderewski's piano concerto on rare occasions. It's so over the top that the fun outweighs the superficiality. But I'm really disappointed to have wasted an hour of my life on this tripe. I mean, I could have been listening to the "Classic Vinyl" channel instead, singing along with rock hits from the 60s and 70s. I fail to find any fun in the "Polonia" symphony. It is, for me, unbearably pompous and boring. And it will remain forevermore "unsung" through the remainder of my listening lifetime.
There -- I feel better now that I've gotten that out of my system.
Do any of you have music on your personal "Never to be Sung Again" list?
I think we had this thread and decided against it and it was locked? :)
I'm relaxed provided people remain civil, Eric.
This is not a rant against any particular recording or performer. I do not want to go in that direction. I'm just curious whether there is some piece of music that you just don't like -- dislike enough that you don't want to hear it again.
Now that I think of it, I do seem to remember that we had a thread about this not too long ago. My choice was Carmina Burana. I've heard that so much I'm very tired of it. But that thread got off track.
Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm curious about your choice of music that you don't want to hear anymore. It's not a condemnation of the composer, and fact is, others may love the piece. I'm sure a lot of people like Paderewski's Polonia symphony, and I'm okay with that ----- as long as they don't strap me in a chair and make me listen to it. ;D
I had exactly this feeling when I came across the old Marco Polo recording (now reissued on Naxos) of the Romantic Symphony by the Italian composer Carlo Giorgio Garofalo (1886—1962). Apparently, Tullio Serafin, Arturo Toscanini and Arthur Nikisch were admirers of his music, although it is hard to understand why. I have never encountered a less inspired, more flabby, more meandering and utterly unmemorable work as this (and I've encountered a few!). This is possibly the worst (and most pointless) symphony I wasted my time on. The Violin Concerto which accompanies the Symphony on the CD is barely (but only just) more listenable than the truly awful Romantic Symphony.
Ah, but you haven't heard any of my symphonies yet! :)
Quote from: Amphissa on Wednesday 27 October 2010, 15:48
I've half-way listened to Paderewski's Symphony in B minor a few times over the past couple of years, but never really paid much attention to it. But Sunday evening, during a long drive home in a rental car that had Sirius satellite radio service, this was played on the "Symphony Hall" channel. So I had the opportunity to give it attention.
I must say, this is the most unrelentingly bombastic, vapid and interminably tiresome composition I've sat through in a long time. A MusicWeb reviewer compared it to Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Tchaikovsky, Balakirev, Rachmaninoff and Strauss. I'm not sure if he was listening to the same symphony, because there is not a single melody in this symphony. It is just an endless sequence of episodic fanfares, marches, anthems and blustery riffs with occasional interludes in transition.
Hello Amphissa,
glad to hear that someone else feels the same about the "Polonia" as I do. Having read a number of positive reviews, I thought it was just me who felt that way about it...
Another example of music that I find completely boring is the music of Augusta Holmes - at least the symphonic poems that Marco Polo released a number of years ago. :(
not apropos to this forum- semi-modern really (not all that modern I think)- I received music by van Rossum as a gift awhile back and while I don't know about 'never again', my enthusiasm for it is really low. Likewise for a CD I bought at a booksale of the much more modern (though not automatically outside of my tastes) Marcel Landowski (symphonies 1,3,4 on Erato). ... well... was worth a go, and was cheap.
... still, that was one gift and one cheap music purchase... I don't complain too loudly, I just circumscribe them in my collection and consider turning on the switch in iTunes that says 'do not have these appear during shuffle', since i use album shuffle a whole lot with my much-beloved birthday-present iPod. (Or keep them in iTunes and remove them from the iPod folder altogether, since I do have things set up so that only a subfolder actually gets synched, but anyway.)
Eric
(there are quite a lot of works that if they appear on the radio or classical TV I will turn them off for now most of the time. Maybe Hamelin performing Tchaikovsky 1 might draw me in, or I might be curious about the new Hough performance, once. Lovely piece though it really is, and deserving (just not uniquely) of its fame. (Goodness, for awhile I was curious about Tchaikovsky concerto -2-. At least now, recordings of that are much more common, most of them in the uncut form.)
I agree. The Garofalo Symphony is absolutely dire. The VC is OK, but the Symphony is just awful.
The Paderewski "Polonia" is a truly great, epic piece of carefully worked out, motivically-developed music.
The Garafalo is under-served by a scatch orchestra's scrappy performance(on Marco Polo), and whilst it has its longeurs, has some memorable themes.
But then this is all subjective, except for the OBJECTIVE fact of the Garafalo performance; and I know, Amphissa you are recognising that its subjective; but I had to step in and defend the Paderewski.
I am not a great supporter of these kinds of threads, because they CAN, inadvertently(I stress) hurt people's feeling re works which they feel have undeserved unpopularity anyway; unless, olf course, the piece in question is just so bad its GOOD, ie.in Sontag's sense of "camp"... and that is altogether a different matter.
I think recommending pieces we actually LIKE is more productive(unless its a "guilty pleasures" so bad-its-good thread is in progress:)
Steve
There's no shortage of classical forums with threads for those inclined to bash either particular classical composers or their consumers. This forum is different, and I'm most grateful for that. I've learned so much here. Thank you, Mark, Alan, and everyone.
I'll defend Paderewski's Symphony - despite its longueurs, it is an entertaining piece. But the Garofalo, badly presented though it is, is really third-rate stuff. However, there's plenty of third-rate stuff which I enjoy. Tolga Kashif anyone?
thanks, Alan; you have just said it all-so succintly! Steve
Allow me just to drop a name here: Perosi.
I thought I was the only one, Ilja. For me, sickly and excruciatingly boring all at the same time. However, I'll defend anyone's right....
No need to defend mine. I too find Perosi mind numbingly dull. I wouldn't mind him being sickly, but I don't even get that. My nomination for the critical drop? Any of the three Furtwängler symphonies. Others disagree I know, and I'm not going to defend my dislike. Just share it for the record!
Just to name a few:
Emil Tabakov Symphony no. 3. Utterly worthless.
Leif Segerstam. He's a fine conductor, but nothing of his I've heard was worth the paper it was written on.
Artur Schnabel Symphony no. 2. How could the pianist who gave us a monumental Beethoven cycle write something this dreadful?
Yes, the time listening to those (and the money spend acquiring them) was badly spent.
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 31 October 2010, 17:51Any of the three Furtwängler symphonies.
Well, I personally regard the 2nd as a great work. I used to enjoy the 1st, but I listened to again recently and thought that it was a waste of time. I seem to remember that his piano concerto is equally pointless.
On the subject of piano concertos, some of the works released by Hyperion in their Romantic Piano Concerto series have been duds. The two discs of Herz concertos spring to mind.
Opinions are always likely to be divided. Busoni's monumental piano concerto is a case in point. Many regard that as a failure. I happen to like it, but I wish Busoni had not used a choral finale.
I have a very high regard for Furtwängler 2, especially in the wonderful Barenboim/CSO recording. Nothing else of his that I've heard comes anywhere near.
It's obviously just me and my low boredom threshold then but I'm afraid that, even with the Barenboim performance, not matter how hard I start concentrating I'm soon picking up a book, magazine, breakfast cereal packet, anything to occupy my mind as that great flat featureless plain of Fürtwanglerisms traipses past me.
No, I understand entirely, Mark. I certainly don't venture forth into F2 very often!
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 01 November 2010, 16:11
No, I understand entirely, Mark. I certainly don't venture forth into F2 very often!
Which suggests maybe another thread for another reason entirely, since I don't venture forth into Prokofiev's Fiery Angel often at all - but because it's a painfully (subjectively speaking...) emotional experience, not because of any lack of quality there. Erm, anyway :)
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Sunday 31 October 2010, 17:51
No need to defend mine. I too find Perosi mind numbingly dull. I wouldn't mind him being sickly, but I don't even get that. My nomination for the critical drop? Any of the three Furtwängler symphonies. Others disagree I know, and I'm not going to defend my dislike. Just share it for the record!
I'm clearly more enamoured of the Furt 2 (and even 3) than you are, but you'll have to admit that if we consign Furtwängler's symphonies to Room 101, Bruno Walter's and Otto Klemperer's deserve the same fate.
Apologies to all for being obviously a sour faced puss lacking in a sense of humour. But is this really a worthwhile thread?
Someone proposes a symphony by Piotr Zak as deserving never to be sung again, and goes on to say some often astonishingly rude things (based on, in just about every case, their own subjective experience of listening to the music rather than objective qualities of the music itself).
Then another comes along and says, 'Well, actually I rather admire the piece' (and again usually fails to provide reasons to disarm a critic). And so it goes on.
There is a world of difference between music that you don't particularly want to listen to and that which really deserves the fate of never to be heard again. Maybe I'm just timid but I'd hesitate a hell of a lot before assigning something to the latter category (apart from Mr Tavener, Cliff Richard, Dusty Springfield and a few others).
To make a deeply embarrassing personal confession, and thus to horrify others and never to be taken seriously again, I just happen not to enjoy Mozart. If he were mentioned in this present thread I might well throw up my hands and mutter 'dapper little bugger' (and note that says a lot about me and absolutely nothing about Mozart and hence is of no interest to anyone else apart from my psychiatrist). But heck, I would never, ever, claim Mozart is someone who deserves never to be sung again. I know not getting along with Mozart is my fault, and I would never contemplate erecting from my own personal disinclination to listen to Mozart a supposedly objective claim recommending to others that he deserves never to be sung again.
Peter
PS
And Piotr Zak? Well, some old dogs like me may have been around in 1961.
I don't think there's a problem with the thread - as long as opinions are backed up with facts and the debate is conducted with civility - and with a willingness to re-listen and admit that one might perhaps have been wrong.
I do actually think that F2 is a better piece of music than the Walter Symphony, which surely sounds like a poor imitation of Mahler. So, room 101 for the Walter? Maybe - but I'm not giving away my copy. I might change my mind...
An another lifetime far far away I had as part of one of my post graduate assignments the duty of transcribing to score from photocopies of the parts of an 18th century symphony. I have mercifully forgotten the name of the composer but I vividly remember a score that was chock full of (in terms of the 18th century) formulaic music ineptly handled and uninteresting scored - truly a justly neglected non-masterpiece!.
I think back (not very fondly BTW) to that symphony as I read this thread, and after having listened to excerpts where available of some of the proposed "bad" scores, I would respectfully submit that as bad as some of you may think that your anointed choices for bad music are, there exists a vast trove of truly unworthy music moldering in the libraries of the world in MS that you have been spared from because the programmers of the new have better taste than you think.
SO be thankful and lets find something else to discuss! :D
I don't think we should avoid being critical; the crucial thing, as I said before, is to support whatever we might say with facts rather than bare assertions and to conduct the conversation with civility and respect - and a little humility.
I'm reminded by what oldman wrote - and picking up from a more modern end ... - PhD students generally have to, I gather, submit a piece of at least medium size- a symphony, say - along with an analytical work for their dissertation requirements. There have been, in the history of music, some excellent graduation pieces - Prokofiev's first piano concerto and Myaskovsky's first symphony do come to mind. It's fair to say, I'm told, that the typical graduation work falls rather short... of practically(?) anything in this thread in fact...
"I don't think we should avoid being critical; the crucial thing, as I said before, is to support whatever we might say with facts rather than bare assertions and to conduct the conversation with civility and respect - and a little humility. "
The intelligent criticism that takes place on this site is actually part of what I value. It just seems to me that there is no point to a thread that seems to exist solely to denigrate. The reality is that given the cost to bring any music performance to publication, were the music truly dreadful, you most likely wouldnt even be hearing it.
Quote from: oldman on Saturday 06 November 2010, 23:26
"The intelligent criticism that takes place on this site is actually part of what I value. It just seems to me that there is no point to a thread that seems to exist solely to denigrate. The reality is that given the cost to bring any music performance to publication, were the music truly dreadful, you most likely wouldnt even be hearing it.
Don't worry: mere, i.e. mindless, denigration has no place here...
QuoteI just happen not to enjoy Mozart.
Sviatoslav Richter, who loved Haydn, found Mozart's music unmemorable. He played a good bit of it nonetheless, perhaps out of a sense of duty.
Britten couldn't abide Brahms or Beethoven.
A conductor of my acquaintance once told me he detested the music of Sibelius. When asked why he conducted it, he replied that a bus driver doesn't get to choose his passengers.
As the Paderewski Symphony (Polonia) has been discussed (and condemned ;)) in this thread I would like to know which recording(s) you have heard. I grew up with the shortened version, Wodiczko conducting I think. I liked it; at least in parts. Last year I bought the hyperion/helios release to get the full symphony but I mussed confess I was quite bored with it. I think the Wodiczko much more energetic. There is another recording, Dux labe, Czepiel conducting. Any comments on that?
myself I like Paderewski's symphony. yes, it is long (perhaps too long) a little bit bombastic.
It is not so energetic, youthful as piano concerto, Polish Fantasy, not so melodious as many of his solo piano pieces composed earlier.
The symphony is his lats composition, at least last opused piece completed in 1907. ant its heroic, bombastic style was for sure the composer's true intention. The title indicates that intention - patriotic piece of large scale for the nation then under ocupation by three empires. Paderewski employs in the finale the melody of Polish national anthem.
anyhow the music is tuneful, good orchestrated. one can say that use of some uncommon instruments is a cheep trick but I don't mind.
everyone can name many pieces that are boring but despite of taht we often hear them just to know them.
Luigi Mancinelli's Musiche di scena per la tragedia Cleopatra. Pretty much fifty minutes of faceless bombast.
However, the Ouverture Romantica (on the same disc - Bongiovanni GB 5505-2) isn't bad at all.
I would rather have my teeth drilled without anesthetic than listen to John Rutter or John Tavener, of course I haven't opened my mind up enough yet to even try them again, and, gosh, don't think I even care if I'm missing something! Thank God for individual tastes, even if wars have been started for less than music preference differences.
Regarding the Paderewski symphony, I have the BBC Scottish SO under Maksymiuk. My response to this recording has been strongly colored by my particular past Paderewski exposure.
Some decades ago, knowing only the famous Minuet (which Hough plays so deliciously) I first tried out the Paderewski piano sonata and was astonished at how authoritatively it mixes an original late-19th-century keyboard technique with proto-Bartokian percussiveness and Tristan-like passion. Paderewski's subsequent keyboard work, the Variations and Fugue in E-flat minor, shows even greater compositional mastery. These should not, in my estimation, be peripheral works. For years it seemed too much to hope that some day we could hear the symphony, but of course now we can.
When I listen to the Maksymiuk recording, nicely nuanced as it is albeit a bit bland, I "hear" the savage directness of Paderewski's piano writing underlying the gentler timbres of orchestral strings and winds. As for the work's length, anyone who enjoys Bruckner will not find their attention taxed. Compared to, say, Mahler 7, written about the same time, the formal organization of the Paderewski is conservative and relatively simplistic--like Bruckner--but no less enjoyable (or profound) for having an easy-to-understand architecture. In sum, I much prefer to have the work as Paderewski wrote it, but can imagine a more forceful interpretation from a pianist/conductor who champions Paderewski's last two piano scores.
... well, the CDs I have of works by van Rossum and symphonies by Landowski come pretty close here. And for all I am glad to have and rather often play recordings of Pettersson's symphonies 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 15, I have not been storming to return to 5 and 6 which I keep finding boring and unvaried and repetitive (a reaction I once had with some of the others before noticing they were not any of those, so I suppose I still hold out hope and may well return to them and their inclusion may be irrelevant. Might even return to the Landowski.)
Philip Glass mostly edges close to here too (not Steve Reich though. A friend of a family member was good enough to gift me a lot of his music in the last few years well-played, and I find I take to at least some of it much more than I thought. Well, again, yes, that's taste... maybe fellow ASpie (and much more insightful music critic than I'll ever be if I ever were to work as one; which I won't :D -no, I don't know him, but he has written about this... ) Tim Page is onto something with that one, as he favors Reich also...
Works I wish I had never heard - everything by Philip Glass. His tedious meanderings drive me crazy - I'd rather listen to the speaking clock. And, one specific item which many in this group may feel differently about - Walton's Facade with speaking part. Why Walton was seduced into composing for the pseudo-intellectual, toffee-nosed Bloomsbury set, who had nothing to do but lounge around and pander to their own inflated egos, and why he mistook their ludicrous nonsense for high art, is completely beyond me.
OK I feel better now - that's my two most "never to be sung again" rants over with! Well, you did ask!
Quote from: semloh on Monday 26 September 2011, 14:26
Works I wish I had never heard - everything by Philip Glass. His tedious meanderings drive me crazy - I'd rather listen to the speaking clock.
Hear, hear! I always liken Glass's music to 'the emperor's new clothes'.
Quote from: semloh on Monday 26 September 2011, 14:26Why Walton was seduced into composing for the pseudo-intellectual, toffee-nosed Bloomsbury set, who had nothing to do but lounge around and pander to their own inflated egos, and why he mistook their ludicrous nonsense for high art, is completely beyond me.
Apart from the fact that it was a groundbreakingly innovative idea in 1922, I think a 19-year-old composer eager to find his way (and make a living) would have found it difficult to turn-down his first major commission, don't you?
I found the disc of van Gilse on cpo some of the emptiest music I've heard for a long,long time.
Well well, erato, how tastes can differ! I think Van Gilse's Symphonies 1 & 2 are both delightful.
I can see that almost everybody can name composers/compositions who/that do not make great and positive impression on them! All depands also on the listeners' mood, personality, the stage of their expertice in music, their musical experience. Myself, for example, I am not very mpressed now by composers/pieces who/that I liked years ago when starting listening to music. Shy on me but nowadays many pieces by Beethoven, Mozart, to anme only two sounds emptyt. I never had interest enough to like Schubert, Bruckner. I can fully understand those fans who love their music and dislike other.
I think there are two - to make the things easier - types of listeners: interested in broeadening their knowledge of beloved composers or compositions and collecting different performances, and those who prefere listening to lesser-well know music - the lesser the better. Not so often the forgotten pieces are masterpieces but always are a sort of discovery that might be surprisingly good or - as happens quite often - not so good. But we keep looking for them
Euroclassic Notturno sometimes played a piece or two by Gilse, I think- his string quartet and a trio among them. I think the trio was just on tonight (and perhaps archived for a week or so). (Also he wrote an opera, I noticed. ;) ) I don't recall if I've heard his symphonies though- I liked the chamber music and will have a listen to the opera soon.
(On an irrelevant if more positive note I've found lately(? well, not so lately- ever since discovering the Donemus LPs and all that, which was some time back...) that I have a liking for quite a bit of Dutch (and Belgian, too- yes, I know that there's as much a difference as there is or isn't in such things- I am skeptical about quite the extent of national differences in ... well, that's quite another topic.) music- that whole area... hrm. ... bother all, quite irrelephant to this thread anyway :D )
Quote from: fuhred on Thursday 29 September 2011, 09:33
Ravel's Bolero. I guess every composer was entitled to at least one shocker...
I don't know... the Bolero is certainly effective music; not everything is suited to enjoy from your lazy chair.
To be honest, I'm slightly disturbed by this entire thread, since it shows 'our' forum from its most disdainful and arrogant side; most of all since most appear to confuse personal taste and intrinsic musical quality. I passionately dislike Nielsen - but that's MY problem, not his; the reverse is true for my liking of Garofalo's symphony.
All music needs to be sung, or it doesn't really exist. Rather than harp on the negative of what to suppress, I'd prefer to tackle the issue from a more positive angle and talk about what to lift from the clutches of obscurity.
Ilja, I am sorry you feel this thread is somehow unacceptable. Personally, I don't see why we can't express our opinions; they are, after all, only opinions and you can agree or disagree. I love to hear about what music people truly hate - it's fascinating! As a lifelong lover of the bagpipes, fairground organs, and the piano accordion, I have had a lot of experience of such matters! ;D
Seriously, I think the positive thing that comes out of it - apart from the mild sense of relief one experiences at expressing one's feelings - is that we delight to discover that others agree, or disagree, and that - most importantly - it illustrates (as Peter1953 said) the highly individual nature of musical taste.... which is a truly marvellous thing.
I have no problem with negative criticism in our politically correct age. The points I would make are these:
1. All such criticism is acceptable as long as reasons are given. The mere expression of dislike is unhelpful; if it is followed by a reasoned justification (however brief), it suddenly becomes interesting. Thus "I can't understand why anyone can like X" is hardly worth posting and could easily give offence; however, "I really dislike X because..." is the beginning of an interesting debate.
2. All criticism should avoid at all costs attacks on the taste of another contributor. Ad hominem remarks get us nowhere and can lead to angry exchanges (which are not acceptable here). If an opinion cannot be aired without recourse to attacking another poster for holding a different point of view, then it should not be aired at all.
So: do continue - but remember: civility is the bottom line here...!
Words of wisdom, Ilja.
I'd like to point out that this entire thread is totally worth it if for nothing else than this poetic gem by Mark Thomas:
"that great flat featureless plain of Fürtwanglerisms traipses past me"
(Not because it involves Fürtwangler; I've never heard any of his music.)
I'd forgotten that I'd written that, Josh ;-)
(whereas for me the finale of the Furtwangler 2nd in Barenboim's recording, for reasons I shall not attempt to explain nor convince the irritated doubters of ;), is probably the most often played track on my iPod the last few years. Personal taste is what it is! )
Well said, Semloh. I've said this more than once before, but one of the real strengths of this forum is that I can express my deep seated dislike for the non-tonal offerings of the 20th century without half a dozen experts jumping me, pounding my body and limbs shouting, "You are truly some kind of old fashioned idiot.....If you can't understand the music of your time and age, you must be a true low life low brow.....etc. ad infinitum"
Like you, I find it interesting to see what others like and dislike. And sometimes I find something new out of the discussion that appeals to me that does not appeal to someone else. It's what makes life interesting.
Jerry
alan, can u please define what you mean by "our politically correct age"?
Politically correct, in its TRUE, originally PURPOSED meaning, meant equality for everyone, regardless of race, class, sexual orientation,gender, Hiv status, disability, religion(apologies if I have forgotten anyone!); it did NOT mean (parts of) the media's attack on what was seen as "politically correct"{note the quotation marks}, ie HERE politically correct was used perjoratively to indicate, eg, money being spent by the Greater London Council, on lesbian community centres; which were, in reality, just about re-dressing inequalities of access to services.
This phrase-"politically correct"/politically correct has now really lost its original meaning, unless it is given additional clarification. I am sure you are in support of equality for everyone; but it is a contentious way to start a posting and needs clarification. You probably just meant it in sense (correct me if I am wrong)of there being no SET, laid-down way of posting on a forum; or not inhibiting positive OR negative (musical) opinions/preferences, as long as they are made impersonally, with no personal attacks. But from a psycho-social and political point of view, the sense it is usually used, in its TRUE sense AND in its perjorative sense, has complex referrents.
If i didnt LIVE in a politically correct world, in the true intended sense of equality , i , as a gay man,in the UK, would never have received the same legal status/rights of any heterosexual or acting-as-heterosexual subject/citizen. i think, even though you might say this is a forum about music, the usage of the phrase needs to be explained and clarified; you have, presumably inadvertently,made a political point! And I should just like to point out, probably and hopefully unnecessarily, that homophobia is illegal now in this country(UK) and rightly so: what you call "political correctness" has achieved great benefits(for people from ethnic minorities, disabled people too, for example)
By the way Garafalo is awful but fun (thanks Ilja!:))but i like it; and , as regulars of yore might remember ,i revere Paderewski's epic Symphony:).As Markniew indicated, Paderewski TOO was fighting for equality for much-invaded Poland;so political correctness, in its true sense of equality for everyone, and integrity of nation-states borders, was a necessity to redress political(and therefore) personal inequalities.
Steve Benson
Quote from: Steve B on Friday 30 September 2011, 14:42
Politically correct, in its TRUE, originally PURPOSED meaning, meant equality for everyone, regardless of race, class, sexual orientation,gender, Hiv status, disability, religion(apologies if I have forgotten anyone!); it did NOT mean (parts of) the media's attack on what was seen as "politically correct"{note the quotation marks}, ie HERE politically correct was used perjoratively to indicate, eg, money being spent by the Greater London Council, on lesbian community centres; which were, in reality, just about re-dressing inequalities of access to services.
Sadly, it seems 'political correctness' has been hijacked by bleeding heart 'liberals' and faceless bureaucrats whose main task is to justify their own existence.
The sort of things that have turned me rabidly ANTI-PC are things like the supposition that non-Christians are somehow 'offended' by words like 'Christmas' and 'Easter'. I am not offended by 'Diwali', 'Ramadan' or 'Hannukah' and I don't know a single non-Christian person who spontaneously combusts at the mention of the religious festivals traditionally celebrated in ANY country (as an atheist, perhaps I should be offended by ALL of them!). I also hate the term 'older people'. Older than whom? Older than what? There is nothing derogatory in the proper, respectful use of the words 'elderly' or 'old'. My late father was both old and blind when he died and rigorously rejected any 'PC' labels that others might have tried to attach to him. And Americans really need to get to grips with how they refer to non-white-European-descended people in their country. And it is NOT racist to refer to a person's ethnic appearance (if used respectfully) or to disagree with Israel's actions in Palestine.
Who's to blame for all this nonsense?
My reference to 'political correctness' was made in the context of a widely-felt anxiety about expressing any form of negative criticism on some issue or other.
With reference to the forum, all I was saying was that there is no need to be afraid of posting negative criticism providing that it is done in a civil fashion and reasons are given.
Following the excursus represented by the two previous postings, let us now return to the subject of this thread - but let us do so in a spirit of mutual respect.
Quote from: Steve B on Friday 30 September 2011, 14:42
By the way Garafalo is awful but fun (thanks Ilja!:))but i like it;
Steve,
I'd like to know
why you think Garofalo is "awful, but fun"...
In light of the forthcoming release of Chailly's Beethoven symphonies cycle (which promises to take on board HIP - i.e. historically informed performance practice), I would like to know how many forum members share my dislike of wiry strings, breathless tempi, etc. in this repertoire (and much else besides). Having just discovered Christian Thielemann's very traditional set of Beethoven symphonies on Blu-ray with the Vienna Philharmonic and re-found my love for these pieces through them, am I actually a dinosaur, or has something gone missing in the rush to embrace HIP?
Speaking well beyond my portfolio but passing on others' opinions that make huge sense to me:
when HIP is a set of techniques, tools, and ideas applied with sense and knowledge and attention to detailed facts and to the sound, it can be and is wonderfully musical.
when HIP is an orthodoxy it is a shortcut for lazy minds. (even I can think of examples of both easily enough, despite the disclaimer above.)
That much is pretty obvious, Eric. The question I am posing is whether this 'HIP orthodoxy' has gone too far...
The problem with HIP is the premise that the creative part of music making rests largely, and sometimes solely, with the composer. It effectively ignores the performers' part, which in some cases stretches back for centuries. Music is heritage, and to only consider its origin and ignore its subsequent evolution takes away a big part of that. What doesn't help is that some (not all!) proponents of HIP tend to cast themselves as the exclusive torch-bearers of the composers, these poor vulnerable creative spirits that apparently are in need of protection.
Another problem with HIP is its inference that previous generations were NOT 'historically informed', which is blatant nonsense. There is a very good interview with Furtwängler, in which he talks about his reasons for not adhering to Beethoven's original orchestral dimensions; and Von Bülow wrote extensively on the subject. They made other choices, but they were certainly aware of the practices of previous generations.
Finally, if you're going to re-create an 'original' setting, go the whole way. My point is that the musical experience has two sides: players and audience. To have a HIP concert in a 2000+ seater hall takes away as much from the 'original' experience as playing it with a modern-sized orchestra. Use the venues and acoustics of the original period, with 100-200 listeners. But, of course, that wouldn't be commercially viable. In short: HIP doesn't exist. What is there is an amputated and very selective simulation.
Thanks, Ilja - that is extremely insightful. I agree 100%.
I agree, Ilja, if the champions of HIP make claims to "authenticity", and therefore to superiority. As eschiss1 suggested, HIP should never be regarded as laying down an orthodoxy. If it does this, IMHO it has certainly gone too far.
If, on the other hand, HIP simply claims to be suggestive of how the music might have sounded - for better or worse - and leaves musicians and listeners to their own preferences, then I don't see the harm. There's room for all shades of instrumentation and interpretation, provided we can pick and choose as we prefer, because - as we have concluded so many times in this forum - these preferences are marvellously individual!
Very well put, Colin. Thanks!
With Chailly's and Thielemann's Beethoven cycles at opposite ends of the musico-philosophical spectrum, it'll be interesting to see whether Thielemann is judged in terms of HIP (which he ignores) - or even merits a mention amidst the blaze of publicity accorded to Chailly...
Why not just go all out. If you REALLY want to be historically informed, why not take all the women out of the orchestra and require the men to wear powdered wigs and swords for 18th Century music and have them grow beards down to their navels and wear whatever those orchestral musicians wore for 19th Century music? ;D
Oh, and the shoes. Everybody has to wear period shoes.
One other small point, indebted to I.A. Richards: try as we might, we 21st-century music lovers will never be able to listen with early 19th-century horizons of expectation. That cat's long since out of the bag. No matter how much we like historically informed performance, we are not hearing it as historical audiences did.
but getting past (well, attempting to get past.) the name- which we, at least, all agree is a misnomer and a lure- to the best and worst of the particular insights and pratfalls its methods and techniques have brought with it as an idea, what then?
Oh, I think there is no problem with 'authentic' performances per se, so long as they don't make exclusive claim to the moral high ground. Live and let live, I say.
I agree, Ilja. However, it's becoming increasingly difficult for really good, non-HIP performances to justify their existence: as I said before, it'll be interesting to see whether Thielemann's Beethoven cycle is measured against the new orthodoxy of Chailly or whether the two cycles are assessed on their own merits. Similarly, I haven't yet come across a review which dares to tackle head-on the aburdities of phrasing in Norrington's new recording of Dvorak 7 and 8. I don't want to turn into David Hurwitz, but it seems to me that a conductor like Mackerras got things about right by being historically informed, but not in a doctrinaire way...
I thought I would add something to this discussion (on-topic for a change!). I have for a long time enjoyed HIP performances of music up to and including the time of Beethoven. This has been enhanced by having worked with one of the leading period-instrument orchestras some years ago. No matter how 'authentic' period-instrument musicians try to make a piece of music, it can only ever be a 'best guess'. Obviously, we have no sound recordings from before the 1890s and can only refer to written treatises. In addition, 21st-century musicians can only approach 17th/18th(/19th)-century music through their 20th/21st-century sensibilities, experiences and techniques. One cannot turn-back the clock to 1720s Köthen or 1780s Eszterháza, however much one tries. Therefore, however much I enjoy HIP performances by period-instrument musicians, I always need to remember that this is how it MIGHT have sounded to Bach or Haydn and not how it definitely DID sound.
I agree, Derek. However, as I said, what concerns me is the possible arrival of a new orthodoxy in which non-HIP performances are judged inadequate simply for being non-HIP...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 04 October 2011, 13:59
I agree, Derek. However, as I said, what concerns me is the possible arrival of a new orthodoxy in which non-HIP performances are judged inadequate simply for being non-HIP...
I think only the staunchest lentil-eating die-hards would feel this way. I think ANY musical and sincere performance is relevant, although its difficult now to find musicians who would totally ignore HIP. Gone are the days of Klemperer/Knapperstsbusch-style Beethoven, I think.
I don't think true, broad-minded music lovers would badly judge an non-HIP performance (if they could find one) unless it was fundamentally flawed in other ways as well.
Well, as I say, it'll be interesting to read the critical reception given to Thielemann's Beethoven cycle (which I have on Blu-ray, but is also to be released on CD). It's superb (a good more lively than the later Klemperer), but the full sound and expressive style are pretty unusual today in this repertoire. We'll see.
(BTW I do enjoy some HIP Beethoven, but not of the stripped-bare, wiry-stringed, sprint-to-the-finishing-post variety.)
Wasn't it Mahler who said, If you think you are losing the audience's attention, slow down ...
Quote from: chill319 on Wednesday 05 October 2011, 06:16
Wasn't it Mahler who said, If you think you are losing the audience's attention, slow down ...
Which prompts me to say that I would be tempted to add to my "never to be sung again"selections some otherwise acceptable symphonic music, when played under the soporific baton of Herr Klemperer - for whom Mahler's advice had the opposite effect IMHO.
Re Klemperer: agreed. However, he wasn't always slow, as his earlier recordings demonstrate. He simply became slow in his final years...
I'm glad to see that Thielemann's splendid new Beethoven cycle has been given a perceptive review at MusicWeb:
Ludwig van BEETHOVEN(1770-1827)
The Complete Symphonies
Symphonies 1-9 + Coriolan and Egmont overtures
Discovering Beethoven: a documentary about each symphony
Wiener Philharmoniker/Christian Thielemann
rec. 2-008-2010
Full details listed at end of review
UNITEL C MAJOR 705308 [9 DVDs: Music: 446:00; Documentaries: 510:00]
Decades ago, when classical music on record was emerging as a mass market product for the first time, Beethoven interpretation sounded big, bold, slow and muscular, like a pronouncement from Mount Olympus. Great interpreters of bygone days, such as Furtwängler, Klemperer or Walter, emphasised the monumental nature of Beethoven's symphonies with large-scale playing, big sound and often luxurious tempi. The standard benchmark for this style – often inaccurately, in my view – was Karajan's 1962 set with the Berlin Philharmonic, the first Beethoven series that was planned and recorded as a cycle. Hugely influential in its day, Karajan's Beethoven seemed to lay down a template that many other conductors followed. Then with the rise of the period performance movement, and especially in the 1990s, attitudes to Beethoven changed, and with the emergence of interpreters like Norrington, Harnoncourt, Mackerras and Zinman a new style of Beethoven playing emerged: lean, lithe, smaller-scale and more transparent. This then became the new orthodoxy, and even venerable institutions like the Vienna Philharmonic adopted it in their 2002 set with Simon Rattle. The achievement of Christian Thielemann, in this new Beethoven cycle, also with the Vienna Philharmonic, is to argue a convincing case that the older style of Beethoven playing is still relevant to the 21stcentury and that the muscular, broader approach to Beethoven even now has something to say.
Right from the start it is apparent that Thielemann is, for want of a better phrase, an old-school conductor in his approach to Beethoven, but that isn't to say that he hasn't learnt anything from the discoveries of period practitioners like Harnoncourt and Zinman: rather he has listened to their revelations and responded to them in his own unique way, producing a Beethoven approach that is distinctly his own. The booklet notes for these DVDs describe Thielemann as seeking "to restore to the Classical and Romantic repertory the sort of musical riches and unprecedented expressivity that we associate with a conductor like Wilhelm Furtwängler". It's a big claim, but it's not as simple as that. The critic and musicologist Joachim Kaiser, who presents all the extra documentaries, describes Thielemann as "an adventurous conservative", and that's a much better way to put it. Thielemann combines the best of the old with the best of the new, producing an organic, vitally alive Beethoven cycle with its roots in the old school but with some period influences too.
The first things I listened to in this set were the two overtures. Thielemann's slow, monumental approach to the opening of Egmont makes it much more powerful and accentuates the contrast with the Allegro, and this characterises his way with the symphonies too. His First begins slowly and with a monumental edge, but this enables him to keep something in reserve for later so that the Menuet has undeniable "oomph". Likewise, in the Second the introduction is unashamedly a slow one, and it is all the more effective for that. When it begins, the main section of the movement is really con brio, bristling with energy and crackling with style; judging from the musicians' faces they are clearly enjoying themselves. Thielemann takes the Larghetto at what is - for today - a daringly unhurried tempo, making it mellow and very beautiful, and here, as throughout this cycle, there is an incomparable blend to the Vienna string sound which really comes alive in DTS surround sound. I loved the way Thielemann obviously teases out every phrase, extracting every ounce of beauty and meaning. Some might call this ponderous, but it's all of a piece with his vision for Beethoven and, for me, it really worked. Real sharpness of attack cranks up the Scherzo to the nth degree and the finale goes off with the energy of a Catherine Wheel. In the accompanying documentary Thielemann denies entirely the idea of a great gulf between the Second and Third Symphonies: instead he sees one as a natural next step after the other and I, for one, was convinced. This big, ballsy approach works just as well for the Eighth, in no way a miniature symphony when performed like this. The first movement explodes off the page, and the menuet has as much swagger as the scherzo has delicacy. The finale is electric too.
The most important thing about Thielemann's Beethoven is that it is responsive and alive. For many this may also be the most controversial thing about it too, particularly in his approach to tempi, which is remarkably flexible. I doubt he has taken much heed of Beethoven's metronome markings, but even if he had then he disregards them freely as and when he needs to. With Coriolan, for example, he pulls the tempo around all over the place for dramatic effect, with an accelerando here and a rallentando there. It lends colour and drama to the pacing and, for me, it worked, but I can appreciate how it might infuriate others. This is true of his approach to the symphonies too, but it's more controversial. In the opening of the Eroica, for example, he adopts a myriad different tempi for the different sections of the movement: even in the first statement of the first subject there are plenty of ralls and hesitations before the subject unfolds fully. During the run-up to the crashing discords of the development the movement threatens to grind to a halt completely, before speeding up as the oboe theme enters. For me it's an effective – and quite exciting – depiction of the drama of chaos and renewal, but some will find it off-putting.
There are also times when I think Thielemann's approach to tempi seems too self-conscious, most damagingly in the opening burst of the finale of the Fifth. After what had been a very exciting and purposeful account of the symphony so far, Thielemann slows up dramatically for the first two bars of the finale with the entry of the extra brass, but then speeds up enormously for bar three onwards. He then adopts the same strategy for the exposition repeat and the recapitulation. To my ears this distends the music and distorts it to the point of wilfulness. It wrecks the sense of organic growth that had been present in the music thus far. In the Ninth it is much more successful though - particularly in the first and last movements. The first subject emerges from the opening like the sun from a gas cloud and builds up a titanic power that never lets up. Furthermore, the finale's contrasting moods seem almost to give Thielemann carte blancheto try out every technique in his armoury, which he does to scintillating effect. The opening paragraph is responsive and dynamic, like an operatic recitative, and an elongated pause before the first appearance of the Ode to Joy theme gives its unfolding a sense of cumulative power that builds steadily. The great double fugue after the "Turkish" section is a core piece of the architecture: he slows down in the lead up to it, making it burst onto the stage with electric power, and then slows down drastically in the lead-up to the joyous, full statement of the Ode, rendering it all the more ebullient. The ensuing sections are all very different, but Seid umschlungen seems to be, for him, the central core of the whole work. Soloists are all very good, though Zeppenfeld's bass doesn't have the clarion quality it needs. The choral singing is also excellent, and the DTS surround really comes into its own here.
In some ways it is the most rhythmically unstable symphonies that are the most successful. The Seventh presents Thielemann with a real challenge which he meets triumphantly, shaping a living, breathing organism from Beethoven's notes. I have seldom heard the bounce of the last two movements of the Fourth played so convincingly as here. Referring to the Fourth's finale, Thielemann says that the players and conductor must have absolutely rigorous control in order to evoke an atmosphere of the music spiralling out of control. This is done very successfully, but could just as easily apply to the whole of the Seventh too. The Pastoral is also a delight: warm and expansive with a real feeling of joy in its enjoyment of the natural and spiritual worlds, though the entry of the brass in the storm could have been more decisive.
In some ways this is a try-before-you-buy set, as Thielemann's interpretative decisions won't be to everyone's taste. However, the playing and the presentation surely will. The Vienna Philharmonic clearly enjoy a very close relationship with this conductor and they seem to relish the opportunity to play with him. The beauty of the string sound and the character of the wind playing are second to none, and they are captured brilliantly in the splendour of the Musikverein. Furthermore, the quality of the surround sound is excellent: the centre speaker is perhaps a little too prominent, but the immersive experience is most effective. Each director manages to capture the picture well too, putting the eye where the ear suggests it should be, though Agnes Méth's filming of the Eroica is the least successful, choppy and unsure of itself at times.
The other USP of this set is the series of accompanying documentaries. Each symphony has an individual film lasting between 50 and 60 minutes, analysing the background of the work and deconstructing Thielemann's interpretation. The presenter of each documentary is Joachim Kaiser, the grand old man of German music criticism. In each film he gives his own view of the symphony and then engages Thielemann in a conversation to tease out why Thielemann has come to the interpretations he has. I was quite excited about watching these, but they weren't as revelatory as I hoped they would be. The main problem is that too much of each film consists merely of repeating the footage of the symphony you have just watched. For the shorter symphonies more than half of the running time comprises simply repeating what you have already seen. The most successful documentary is the one on the Ninth, partly because of what is said about it but also because there is less space for mere repetition. Kaiser and Thielemann enjoy sparking ideas off one another and much of what they say is interesting and memorable. We also get some very interesting comparisons with other filmed Beethoven symphonies from Karajan, Bernstein and Paavo Järvi. In truth, though, while they may have been fairly interesting for understanding Thielemann's approach, I can't say they fundamentally altered my view of Beethoven's symphonies beyond a little insight here or there.
Still, even without these documentaries this set would demand the attention of most music-lovers. Thielemann's Beethoven is rigorous, intellectual and well considered, even if you don't always agree with him, and the playing is outstanding throughout. Unitel has given us an interpretation which won't replace the classics but is worthy to sit alongside them, a bold attempt to recapture and redefine Beethoven for the 21stcentury.
Simon Thompson
Full details:-
Ludwig van BEETHOVEN(1770-1827)
The Complete Symphonies (+Coriolan and Egmont overtures)
Symphony No. 1 [27:52]
Symphony No. 2 [34:07]
Symphony No. 3 [56:58]
Symphony No. 4 [37:33]
Symphony No. 5 [34:34]
Symphony No. 6 "Pastoral" [46:15]
Symphony No. 7 [37:11]
Symphony No. 8 [28:16]
Symphony No. 9 [72:31]
Coriolan Overture [10:28]
Egmont Overture [10:58]
Extras:Discovering Beethoven: a documentary about each symphony where Christian Thielemann discusses his interpretation with musicologist Joachim Kaiser (each documentary c. 55 minutes long)
Annette Dasch (soprano), Mihoko Fujimura (alto), Piotr Beczala (tenor), Georg Zeppenfeld (bass); Wiener Singverein; Wiener Philharmoniker/Christian Thielemann
rec. Nos. 1-2 and Coriolan: December 2008, directed by Brian Large; Nos. 3-4: March 2009, directed by Agnes Méth; Nos. 5-6: April 2010, directed by Karina Fibich; Nos. 7-8 and Egmont Overture: November 2009, directed by Michael Beyer; No. 9: April 2010, directed by Agnes Méth
Filmed in High Definition, Picture Format 16:9, Sound Formats PCM Stereo, DTS 5.0, Region Code 0
Full details listed at end of review
UNITEL C MAJOR 703508 [9 DVDs: Music: 446:00; Documentaries: 510:00]
[/color]
Actually, Chailly's Beethoven cycle turns out to be a good deal less controversial than I had imagined. What he has taken on board from HIP is the matter of tempi - which are pretty quick throughout, notably in slow movements (where I personally want more breathing space) - but the actual sound of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra is much smoother than any specialist HIP band. So, while I don't like the over-pressed slow movements (in the same way that I don't like Stadlmair's renditions of Raff's slow movements in his Tudor cycle), this set isn't going to frighten any horses...
Regarding Beethoven's metronome markings, I've always thought it interesting that at the premiere of the Ninth at the Kärntnertortheaterof, Beethoven was still conducting AFTER the music had concluded. Clearly, his real-world tempos were slower (or less metronomic, or both) than those of Michael Umlauf, whom the orchestra was following.