Classical Corner Classical Music Corner (thread #48)

Now playing CD2 from the following set for a first listen ...

 

Very underrated composer, if a little inconsistent - you're the first person I've seen mention him on here! Try his Bartokian double concerto (for two string orchestras, piano and percussion), some of his symphonies (particularly the last two, which are masterpieces), and the 4th piano concerto. Like Prokofiev, he was very versatile and prolific, which results in inevitable lapses in quality, but throughout his fairly long career he explored a number of the 20th century's styles, while remaining his self and recognizably Czech, especially after his more cosmopolitan years after Paris as a permanent exile. More about him here:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mark_Morris/Czech_Republic.htm#martinu

 

I would like to get some recordings of Martinu by Christopher Hogwood.

 

Better recording engineers

 

Now playing CD4 from the following set for a first listen ...

 

While this may well be true, the recording equipments are also much better.

 

In all fairness to today's recording engineers. There are forces that go way beyond their talents in play. Budgets are an issue as well as approvals. No major label can record the way Decca used to do it back in the 60s. It just wouldn't fly in today's environment.

 

Blame it on the relentless corporate costs cutting. Back in the 60's, Decca was not part of a publicly traded company. There were no quarterly earning reports to be scrutinized by shareholders ...

 

How is this CD?

 

How did they record diffferently in the 1960s?

 

I don't think that conductors in the "golden age" were necessarily better than today's conductors. But they may have been more distinctive, orchestras were more distinctive and conductors and orchestras had longer spans of time together. So Szell and Cleveland had a sound readily recognized, as did Ormandy and Philadelphia, Bernstein and the NYPO, HvK and Berlin and so forth. It was easier to tell a French orchestra from a Russian orchestra from an American orchestra. The level of technical execution is exceptionally high today but there is an homogenization now that wasn't as prevalent 40 or 50 years ago.

My two cents.

 

In this case I think I have to blame it on the severe decline in sales of classical recordings.

 

Excellent question! Most recordings were much simpler and minimalistic in the mic techniques. They recorded on analogue tape.

 

I find today's orchestras and conductors quite distinctive still. And I think today's orchestras are substantially better musicians than the golden age orchestras

 

I agree on the orchestras being better musicians but not on the conductors. Too many molto generics.We will have to see if the youngest promising conductors on the current scene will change that balance. In addition many prominent conductors from the 60s and 70s have not enjoyed the autumnal splendor of past greats like Bruno Walter and Stokowski but have been trending downward from their best work of that era. I also don't think that national distinctions in orchestras have held up over the years e.g. French, Russian.

 

Twenty years ago I was recording the San Francisco Early Music Society workshops in the summer and Shira Kammen was a very frequent musical participant.​

​

Here she is, this year, another SFEMS summer workshop.​

​

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151581742582153​

 

There's a couple two-three elements that make the early stereo recordings such knock-outs compared to most of the recordings to come. One is that popular musical culture had not yet fully embraced distortion as a tonal element in production, everyone working as a recording engineer was working to reflect an acoustic sonic event, not distort it. Second, there were more good venues where one could record and the world was nowhere near as noisy as it has become since. Most important, the big record companies put their best foot forward with the early stereo releases.

I suppose the tide shifted dramatically once the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan. That may sound like a joke, where every thread is a Beatles thread here at the Hoffman Forums. But the Beatles brought new expectations for record sales, beyond what the majors had anticipated up to that point. And distorted sound became the common sonic benchmark for pop music, so everyone's ears adapted accordingly, a bit like how we all accepted Linn Drums on 1980's pop productions.

In any case, classical music recordings in the late fifties/early sixties mattered a lot more to the major labels than in any years since.

 

I see no lack of distinctiveness with today's conductors but....what is now gone is the extreme wild interpretations where conductors are trying to reinvent old war horses and make a strong personal statement. I don't think this is because the conductors are less distinctive. I think it's because they are less powerful. Orchestras have a big say so these days in how they play the music. The days of my way or the highway are gone....

 

Yes or no. IMO it's not that simple. Can you say Neumann M50 is much better than a B&K?

 

I like Martinu a lot. The Ancerl (Symphonie 5 & 6 as you mentioned, PC no 3) and Neumann (VCs, harpischord cto) recordings with the Czech PO for Supraphon are the best way to get to know this composer:




Also the cello sonatas:

 

IMO, we always have to stress that the conductor must *teach* the work to the musicians of the orchestra. What can e.g. Dudamel teach to the LAPO? This is the question. That he can lead them through a performance there is no doubt. But this the least a conductor does.

Also, there is no doubt that *technically* today's orchestras are way better than in the 40s/50s/60s. However, they do not provide *better* performances, if by *better* one means engaging, deep, spritual etc. and not necessarily highly virtuosic with musicians not missing an entry.

Christoph v. Dohnanyi once said that when the conductor asks the Cleveland O. to play an "A", he gets a perfect "A", while the Vienna PO would play something close to "A". However when it comes to the essence and heart of the work, then you have to explain everything to the Cleveland O while in Vienna everything comes naturally. And Vienna PO, of course, was and still is the best orchestra in the world and by long margin, not because they are 100% accurate or correct.

 

Concerning Martinu the recording of Fantaisies Symphonques (Symphony no 6) by the dedicatees Munch/Boston Symphony is a must:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._6_(Martinů)

 

I respectfully disagree and I think you are not giving today's musicians nearly enough credit. If a conductor has to "teach" the work to the musicians of the orchestra that simply means the musicians of the orchestra came unprepared. Such musicians in need of "teaching" would not last in any of today's major orchestras. Dudamel probably won't teach the members of the L.A. Phil all that much other than his ideas on how a piece should be played. Maybe he *could* in some specific instances but when would he do it? The members of the LA Phil have already been "taught" since they are already highly trained musicians who have dedicated their lives to the music. And the members of the L.A. Phil are expected to show up to the first rehearsal having studied the material and ready to play it.

As to which provides "better" performances, that is entirely subjective. Today's musicians and conductors know and understand the music every bit as well as those of the past. Well, no, they know and understand it even better by and large. They have that past to study and build on. I have been to any number of concerts where the performances were, for me, more engaging, deep, spiritual etc than any performances I have from the golden age of classical recordings. It goes both ways. It's also difficult to compare.


What is quite different is that conductors no longer get to be dictators. They have to collaborate with the orchestra. They can't fire a musician on the spot for not playing exactly the way they want them to play anymore. I don't see this as such a bad thing either. There are exceptions. I have sat in on rehearsals with Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra. When he says jump they do say how high? But that is out of total respect and admiration. Not fear.

 

Teaching is about revealing what is behind the notes. What the conductor thinks of the work and is not depicted on the sheets. Nothing to do with the musicians being prepared or not. If the musicians are ready play what are then the rehearsals for? The rehearsals are teaching sessions. And the conductor is their teacher.

A great orchestra is the one that can transmit its conductor's view of the work. Walter was teaching his orchestras Mahler. What Dudamel can teach? This is my question. Did he have the time to study Mahler well enough to offer his paying audience a complete Mahler cycle in a frame of 2 months? Carlos Kleiber knew every single note of all Mahler symphonies and never dared to conduct any (except of DLvdE once). S Richter never ever dared to play Beethoven's 5th PC because he never felt he understood it. I guess these artists had far more demands from themsleves, than any Dudamel could ever dream of. Of course this is the opposite to Dudamel's easiness.

I prefer to have Walter as my teacher than Dudamel who I like a lot by the way.

Toscanini used to say Democracy in life, dictatorship in Art. If I were an orchestra musician I would disagree no doubt. Of course he was a 19th century man. As the orchestra organizations we all know are, still. But his musicians loved him. Why? Because he was their leader and they recognized in his person their superior who deserves to stand and be their leader. He was teaching them. Of course he could be their pal. And make their life easier. But the results would not be the same. Are the LAPO musicians evolving as musicians and artists with Dudamel as they would have been evolved if Toscanini was leading them? This is where the issue is. Otherwise no doubt they have an agreable collaboration with a conductor they like. This is not my (the audience's) priority though. Angle of view I guess.

 

I understand that. So do the various world class institutions of music that are the training grounds of most of today's classical musicians. They have been taught. They have been taught in ways that their golden age predecessors were not taught and could not be taught.

That is not the way it works. No one can "teach" a score in one or a couple rehearsals. If the musicians are not ready to play then they are dead in the water. The rehearsals are not teaching sessions. They are rehearsals. They are the proverbial blocking sessions where the master plan is laid out and run through a few times so everyone walks into the performance on the same page. in modern times this is a more collaborative en devour and less dictatorial than in the past. but the musicians were always expected to come in to a first rehearsal having done their home work and prepared to play the piece. From there the direction is worked out in the rehearsal.

That is an interesting perspective from someone who favors the Vienna Phil, an orchestra that is famous for playing the music the way they want to for not responding to direction.

No he wasn't. He was dictating his vision of how Mahler should be played. The musicians, even then, knew the material going in.

He can "teach' his vision of how Mahler should be played just as Walter did. the difference, as I have mentioned before" is that the nature of the relationship between orchestra and conductor has changed to a more collaborative one. Of course one other distinct difference is that conductors and musicians now have the benefit of a vast library of recorded music and teachings of their predecessors to draw upon as well as the benefit of better training at a young age. Today's musicians and conductors simply have a wider and deeper palette of resources upon which to build.

yeah he did. I actually attended about half of that cycle. And he conducted the entire cycle from memory. He never had the score in front of him. You may or may not like his Mahler but there is no question that he knows Mahler.

Which is fine. I have no argument with anyone's preferences. But Dudamel knows what he is doing.

Not an entirely uncommon POV from someone in a position to direct. But I would say that 100 musicians may know a thing or two also and in many cases collaboration will wrought better work than militant dictatorship.

Honestly I think you are kind of cherry picking here to make your argument. Was Fritz Reiner loved by his orchestra? No. Do the LA Phil love Dudamel? Yes. The love/hate relationships between orchestras and conductors are all over the map throughout the history of classical music. Toscanini would have to change his approach in this day and age. I am of he opinion that 100 musical minds in collaboration will often surpass one mind in complete control.