Classical Corner Classical Music Corner (thread #49)

Got an e-mail about the Jonathan Biss course. We cover about 10 sonatas from No. 4 - 30. And we have homework projects!

I have the Goode cycle that Biss recommends (I saw the two of them play four handed a few years ago), so I will start listening carefully to that. I also plan to take advantage of MOG and Spotify to hear Kempff and Annie Fischer.

 

I have their Tchaikovsky coupled with a Mendelssohn Trio. I have never gotten into the Tchaikovsky. The last movement seems never to end. The Ravel is beautiful - it may be my favorite work of his. I have one recording of it on an SACD by the Florestan Trio.

 

One of the reasons I was eager to grab this CD was because of the Tchaikovsky trio, as I have never heard it. Wait - no, I have the Beaux Arts Trio playing it, but I don't recall much about it (only head it once, years ago.)

 

Agreed. The Ravel trio is a great work.

 

Gee, they've added --- ahh, John G. already noticed the difference to the original box. Correctly they don't market the new edition anymore as 2nd Viennese School box.

 

For those who wonder what will happen to the planned recordings of the MSO (espacially their Sibelius SACD cycle) due to the lock-out, here is a recent NYT article:

THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 20, 2013, 3:11 pm

THE ARTS BEAT

Minnesota Orchestra Postpones Sibelius Recordings
By MICHAEL COOPER
The bitter labor dispute that cost the Minnesota Orchestra its entire 2012-13 season has now forced the orchestra to postpone recording the next two symphonies in its critically acclaimed Sibelius cycle, orchestra officials said.
The orchestra earned a Grammy nomination last year for its Bis recording of Sibelius’s Second and Fifth symphonies. The orchestra, and its Finnish music director, Osmo Vanska, had planned to record Sibelius’s Third and Sixth symphonies next month, with recording sessions scheduled for the week of Sept. 16.
But with the orchestra’s musicians locked out since October, when the players rejected a proposal for a 32 percent cut in base pay and declined to offer a counterproposal, the orchestra and the record label agreed that the planned recording sessions should be postponed until the contract is settled.
Mr. Vanska wrote a letter to the orchestra’s board in April saying that he considered it “extremely important to make the recordings in September as planned,” in part as preparation for the orchestra’s highly-anticipated concerts at Carnegie Hall this November. He threatened to resign as music director if the labor dispute forced the cancellation of the Carnegie Hall concerts.
==================================
THE NEW YORK TIMES

August 20, 2013

 

Robert Schumann
The Complete Symphonies – Mahler Edition
CD1
Symphony No. 1 in B flat, Op. 38 “Spring”
Symphony No. 2 in C, Op. 61
CD2
Symphony No. 3 in E flat, Op. 97 “Rhenish”
Symphony No. 4 in D minor, Op. 120
Gewandhausorchester
Riccardo Chailly
(Gewandhaus zu Leipzig, 2006-2007)



Mahler greatly admired the Schumann symphonies, but it wasn’t until he was appointed chief conductor of the Vienna Philharmonic that he got a chance to conduct them. He performed the First Symphony in 1899, and the Fourth the following year. (The former concert also included Mahler’s arrangement of Beethoven’s Op. 95 quartet for string orchestra. Love to hear that!) It wasn’t until near the end of Mahler’s life that he conducted the other two in New York.

Robert Schumann has been saddled with the unfair reputation of being an incompetent orchestrator. He may not have been on the level of his peers such as Mendelssohn or Berlioz, but one need only to listen to the “Spring” symphony for an astonishing first symphony (save for a couple of earlier lesser efforts). Clearly this masterpiece conveys a multitude of musical ideas effectively enough. It may not be the most “intellectual” of symphonies, but its sheer charm makes it special in all of orchestral literature. Even so Mahler saw many “opportunities” with this work, beginning with the first four notes.

During the rehearsals for the new symphony, Schumann quickly discovered the valveless horns and trumpets could not play the G and A because those notes did not fall into those instrument’s natural harmonics. From Haydn on it was standard practice for players of straight brass to do a combination hand-bell “cupping” and “lipping” notes that weren’t natural. Imagine a bugle player trying to play taps in a different key than the normal notes. This is not an easy thing even for the most talented, and even then it isn’t pretty. Even so, all this worked reasonably well for valveless brass players of the day as long as they were asked to perform background support, but not so good when asked to step into a forte foreground, as was the case with Schumann’s new symphony. The resulting honks sounded to Schumann like “a bad cold in the head.” Mendelssohn – who was to conduct the premiere – suggested the opening fanfare be moved up a third solving the problem, and the young composer agreed. It’s a shame Schumann didn’t restore the original notes later when valved instruments became available not long after.

Mahler made a total of 830 revisions to the First Symphony, many more by far than the totals of the other three. The majority of these revisions concern dynamics. The rest usually involved either dropping a doubling part, or adding one. His intent was to make things clearer which involved omissions more often than adding voices to the mix. However, not all Mahler’s interventions were for the best. Deep into the Third’s first movement’s development is a fairly famous horn call of the main subject, marked f over the pp of strings, flutes and oboes. For whatever reason Mahler takes out the woodwinds for seven bars, marks the horns mf gestopft (mezzo-forte, full hand stopped mute) for four bars, then no-mute at ppp for the remaining sixteen bars of the passage. The effect sounds like a confined hive of buzzing bees, followed by their liberation into the deep woods. Or in other words, a tract lifted from one of Mahler’s own works.

I have compared this recording with my reference recording (for better or worse) of the Schumann symphonies, the mid-sixties Kubelik/Berlin set on DG. Generally, the much newer Chailly set benefits from better sound, not least due to the current Gewandhaus acoustics. Chailly’s band plays spiritedly under their conductor’s mostly brighter tempi. All this, along with Mahler’s “focusing” adds up to some happy and sometimes profound music making. My only disappointment with the Chailly is with the Third’s Feierlich movement. To me, this is Schumann at his best. This movement – mostly untouched by Mahler – is full of majestic tragedy, pathos, and contrapuntal wonderment. Kubelik’s stately (6 minute) tempo maintains the drama, while Chailly’s rather brisk (under 5 minute) tempo does not serve this movement well.

Over the past few days, this listening exercise has increased my love and respect for these symphonies, as well as Schumann’s legacy in music history. In particular, the Fourth Symphony has jumped to the top of these works, in my estimation. Any one else agree?

Anyone interested in a more detailed explanation of Mahler’s changes can find it here.
http://audaud.com/2009/01/robert-schumann-the-complete-symphonies-ed-gustav-mahler-gewandhausorchesterriccardo-chailly-decca-2-cds/

 

i understand the historical significance, but would be interested to hear about the performance, especially as it relates to other classic interpretations such as furtwangler & walter...

 

I like these Schumann interpretations too. I haven't had time to compare them to other sets of the Schumann. I have Gardiner, Szell, Barenboim, and Masur. Szell is said to have made some changes also. Masur recorded this with the same orchestra - the Gewandhaus.

 

Late to the party here but I have a copy of this on vinyl (used) and although the music and mastering is great my copy is beat up quite a bit, unfortunately (lots of crackles). I know there are a lot of classical vinylphiles out there but I'm going to stick with CD/SACD.

 

Yeah, I am quite happy listening to classical on CD, especially considering the fact that the mastering of classical music, for the most part, has been consistently great across the board.

 

I like all of Schumann's symphonies. I must admit I have a soft spot for the Adagio in the second symphony.
I like the Mahler interpretations also.

 

I believe you're right about Szell, though I haven't heard his versions. I know he chopped out a section of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.
And let's not forget the Gewandhausorchester was Mendelssohn's band.

 

My experience has been quite different. I have found the mastering to be all over the map.

 

Mahler might have been inspired by Schumann's beautiful oboe entrance in that great slow movement. I refer to M3's great Ruhevoll finale where the oboe's declaration at bar 50 (or rehearsal #5) is one of the most spine-tingling, goosebumpy moments in all of Mahler.

 

Just listened to this for the first and probably last time:







Saint-Saëns -
Symphony No. 3 ("Organ")
Danse Macabre
Bacchanale (from "Samson and Delilah")
Trois Rhapsodies sur des cantiques bretons, Op. 7


James DePriest, Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra
Hans Fagius, organ
Karl-Ove Mannberg, violin


BIS (CD-555)



While the recorded sound is nice, the performances of the Organ Symphony and Danse Macabre are very disappointing. Both sound very by-the-numbers to me and this is the most ponderous Danse Macabre I've ever heard. More like Walk Macabre, really. The Organ Symphony is similarly lacking - for most of the work, it seems like everyone's going through the motions. There's a hint of life at the very end, but it's too little, too late. The Bacchanale struck me as slightly better, though I have no others to compare it to. I really like this piece, and it seemed like an OK performance, but I get the feeling that there are more spirited ones out there. The best thing here is the "Trois Rhapsodies", a nice solo organ work which closes out the CD. Probably not enough for me to keep this, though.

 

You are on a roll with your Rubinstein experience ...

 

I have never been disappointed by any remastering/reconstruction done by Ward Marston or MOT and have many historical recordings in my collection ...

 

posting error

 

And there have been other instances of really good mastering. The wonderful remastering of the Mercury catalog back 1994 set a new bench mark for remastering in classical music. The RCA SACD series is pretty terrific too. But.....there have been as many failures as success stories IME if not more. I couldn't imagine having to settle for any of the CD versions of Ivan Moravec's catalog. Those old CS LPs, as noisy as they are, blow every CD version of that material away. There is a long list of good, bad and just plain ugly. I'm kind of surprised it has not received the kind of detailed OCD type of attention that rock and jazz have.

 

Really? I can't imagine someone needing better sound than the VAI, Nonesuch or Supraphon Moravec CDs.

 

Was it that bad?

 

Indeed, the Chopin Nocturnes by Moravec on Nonesuch is sufficiently good that I ignored its reissue on Supraphon ...

 

And the Pathetique sonata (VAI or Supraphon CD) is one of the best sounding recordings in my collection.

 

Well, "need?" I don't know if anyone needs anything better but if you want better the CS LPs cut at Sterling are in a completely different league than the VAI CDs. And better than the Nonesuch CDs Supraphon.....I'll have to do a shoot out someday.