Brahms Double Concerto, again

[Matthew Silverstein]

Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in which the
first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16 minutes? The only one I
know of is the Pentatone recording with Julia Fischer and Daniel
Muller-Schott. They're terrific, but I find Kreizberg's conducting --
despite the fastish tempi -- terribly disappointing, with slack rhythms and
weak attacks. Compare the opening bars with say, Walter's recording (with
Fournier and Francescatti) -- which has a similar overall timing for the
firsth movement -- and it's a world a difference. Walter launches into the
music; Kreizberg moseys.

I have any number of oldish recordings that I love, but I'm looking for
something in modern sound (which is why I tried the Pentatone disc). Any
suggestions, or am I just out of luck?

Matty

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Matthew Silverstein
I have any number of oldish recordings that I love, but I'm looking for
something in modern sound (which is why I tried the Pentatone disc). Any
suggestions, or am I just out of luck?

I just downloaded the first movement of the Perlman/Ma/Barenboim/CSO
recording from Amazon. It's not quite as incisive as I would like, but
Barenboim and the CSO are miles better than Kreizberg and his band on the
Pentatone disc. What's more, Barenboim's two no-name soloists aren't bad
either!

I'd still like something with the drive of Walter's recording in modern
sound, but I'm starting to think no such thing exists.

Matty

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein
I have any number of oldish recordings that I love, but I'm looking for
something in modern sound (which is why I tried the Pentatone disc). Any
suggestions, or am I just out of luck?

I just downloaded the first movement of the Perlman/Ma/Barenboim/CSO
recording from Amazon. It's not quite as incisive as I would like, but
Barenboim and the CSO are miles better than Kreizberg and his band on the
Pentatone disc. What's more, Barenboim's two no-name soloists aren't bad
either!
I'd still like something with the drive of Walter's recording in modern
sound, but I'm starting to think no such thing exists.

This may be almost introuvable, but try to find
Kaplan/Geringas/Gielen/SWF on intercord, EMI, Accord (in a box with
Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9), maybe more issues, they are all the same
recording. You can get the cheapest used offer you find, amazon.de has
some used copies, but I don't know whether they will ship to the US.

ASIN: B000M25PNI

I haven't checked the incisiveness of the playing, but the 1st mvmt
lasts about 15 min.

[herman]

Post by Johannes Roehl
This may be almost introuvable, but try to find
Kaplan/Geringas/Gielen/SWF on intercord, EMI, Accord (in a box with
Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9), maybe more issues, they are all the same
recording. You can get the cheapest used offer you find, amazon.de has
some used copies, but I don't know whether they will ship to the US.

at 236 British pounds it's a steal.

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Johannes Roehl
This may be almost introuvable, but try to find
Kaplan/Geringas/Gielen/SWF on intercord, EMI, Accord (in a box with
Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9), maybe more issues, they are all the same
recording. You can get the cheapest used offer you find, amazon.de has
some used copies, but I don't know whether they will ship to the US.

A few minutes ago, there were two sellers on Amazon selling an Intercord
disc with the same performance for $5. Now there's only one!

Thanks for the recommendation!

Matty

[maready]

Post by Johannes Roehl

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein
I have any number of oldish recordings that I love, but I'm looking for
something in modern sound (which is why I tried the Pentatone disc). Any
suggestions, or am I just out of luck?

I just downloaded the first movement of the Perlman/Ma/Barenboim/CSO
recording from Amazon. It's not quite as incisive as I would like, but
Barenboim and the CSO are miles better than Kreizberg and his band on the
Pentatone disc. What's more, Barenboim's two no-name soloists aren't bad
either!
I'd still like something with the drive of Walter's recording in modern
sound, but I'm starting to think no such thing exists.

This may be almost introuvable, but try to find
Kaplan/Geringas/Gielen/SWF on intercord, EMI, Accord (in a box with
Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9), maybe more issues, they are all the same
recording. You can get the cheapest used offer you find, amazon.de has
some used copies, but I don't know whether they will ship to the US.
ASIN: B000M25PNI
I haven't checked the incisiveness of the playing, but the 1st mvmt
lasts about 15 min.

Thanks very much for this tip --- I just picked up the second used
copy selling for $5 on Amazon (US)!!! Very much want to hear Gielen's
earlier take on the Fourth Symphony as well. You can count me in as
another listener who prefers the Double Concerto to the Violin
Concerto --- an interesting observation has been made that the Double
Concerto, being a relatively late work, is closer in style
(rhetorically and contrapuntally) to Brahms' chamber music --- the
Piano Quartets and third Piano Trio in particular. (See 'The Cambridge
Brahms Companion', C.U.P--- this contains insightful articles on
Brahms' work across all the genres, it's much more consistently
worthwhle than most such multi-author anthologies tend to be.) The
Violin Concerto and First Piano Concerto (along with the piano
sonatas) are the only works that I would call 'profound' qua 'pseudo-
profound', i.e just a bit long-winded and overly concerned with
leaving an impression.

I count myself blessed to have somehow escaped Brahms in my younger
years, so when I finally 'discovered' the symphonies on my own in my
30s I hadn't already become sick of them and filed them away as
'warhorses'. I'll never forget the first time I heard the Second
Symphony (in the Jochum DGG performance). THIS was Brahms? The first
two movements seemed as shockingly individual and inexplicable as
Debussy, Schoenberg and the other early 20th-century masters that I
had paid attention to in school while avoiding 'stuffy old Brahms'. I
seem to be following the same direction David Fox describes, beginning
with the orchestral works and moving slowly through the chamber music
and songs over the decades. While it's obviously a matter of personal
taste, I just can't understand people (Benjamin Britten!) not liking
Brahms .... while there are composers I value just as much, even more,
if I could only live with one composer to explore for the rest of my
life, I'd take Brahms (even over JS Bach!); his music is inexhaustible.

[herman]

Post by maready
You can count me in as
another listener who prefers the Double Concerto to the Violin
Concerto --- an interesting observation has been made that the Double
Concerto, being a relatively late work, is closer in style
(rhetorically and contrapuntally) to Brahms' chamber music --- the
Piano Quartets and third Piano Trio in particular. (See 'The Cambridge
Brahms Companion', C.U.P--- this contains insightful articles on
Brahms' work across all the genres, it's much more consistently
worthwhle than most such multi-author anthologies tend to be.)  The
Violin Concerto and First Piano Concerto (along with the piano
sonatas) are the only works that I would call 'profound' qua 'pseudo-
profound', i.e just a bit long-winded and overly concerned with
leaving an impression.

Well, yes, the violin - cello duelling makes the DC partly akin to
chamber music. One might say the same thing happens in the 2nd Piano
Concerto, by means of the cello solo.

However, the piano quartets are relatively early Brahms, and as far as
I'm concerned, not averse to "making an impression". Although they
sound rather dense, they are relatively slow moving IMO in terms of
musical material and development. That the Violin Cto insists on
"leaving an impression", is almost a concerto genre requirement.

The VC is of a later date than even the 3d Piano Quartet (which was to
a significant degree based on much earlier material than the opus nr
indicates).

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by maready

Post by Johannes Roehl
This may be almost introuvable, but try to find
Kaplan/Geringas/Gielen/SWF on intercord, EMI, Accord (in a box with
Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9), maybe more issues, they are all the same
recording. You can get the cheapest used offer you find, amazon.de has
some used copies, but I don't know whether they will ship to the US.
ASIN: B000M25PNI
I haven't checked the incisiveness of the playing, but the 1st mvmt
lasts about 15 min.

Thanks very much for this tip --- I just picked up the second used
copy selling for $5 on Amazon (US)!!! Very much want to hear Gielen's
earlier take on the Fourth Symphony as well.

I will listen to this disk as well tonight, it must have been ages. It
may be not "romantic" enough for some listeners (like some of Gielen's
Mahler)

Post by maready
The
Violin Concerto and First Piano Concerto (along with the piano
sonatas) are the only works that I would call 'profound' qua 'pseudo-
profound', i.e just a bit long-winded and overly concerned with
leaving an impression.

I found the charge of demonstrative (pseudo)produndity against the DC
also hard to understand. IMO there are two aspects in many works of
Brahms': The first is indeed a striving for "musical depth" as defined
by his perspective on the tradition of "Serious German Music" from
Schütz through Schumann. That is, high level of craftsmanship,
counterpoint, thematic and motivic integration of details into a
coherent, organic whole etc. But often without showing it obviously on
the outside. The most demonstrative thing in this vein is probably the
finale of the 4th symphony (now compare this to Bruckner for showiness
and obvious demonstration of skillful polyphony!), but usually this is
much more covert, even if the writing is similarly dense.
And the second is a dislike of flashiness for its own sake. Of course a
concerto needs to have a certain amount of the latter.
So I agree that certain works like the early piano sonatas, the d minor
concerto, even the string quartets and the first symphony are somewhat
eager to show that Brahms has now deemed himself a worthy successor of
Bach and Beethoven, the aspect of "not showing off" is stronger in most
of his works. And I consider the Double Concerto a case of the latter.
It is obviously not very flashy, despite the big solos at the beginning,
but it is neither all that profound with the folksy, gruff finale, the
rather brief (but beautiful) 2nd movement. It's quite a unique piece,
but of course unmistakenly "Brahmsian", that's what I like about it.

Post by maready
While it's obviously a matter of personal
taste, I just can't understand people (Benjamin Britten!) not liking
Brahms ....

While Brahms is not one of my "top three" as he used to be when I was a
relative newcomer to classical music around 20 (years ago and years of
age), I still regard him very highly and am also puzzled that quite a
few, even smart and musical people (i.e. not only friends of italian
opera), don't like or even detest his music.

[Bastian Kubis]

[...] Very much want to hear Gielen's earlier take on the Fourth
Symphony as well.

"Earlier take": I was under the impression that there is just one
recording of Brahms' 4th by Gielen; the one in his Brahms cycle on
Haenssler is a re-issue of the Intercord recording from 1989, thus (as
the accompanying 3rd) significantly predating the 1st and 2nd (and some
think vastly more successful as an interpretation:
<http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=1692>).

Bastian

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by Bastian Kubis

[...] Very much want to hear Gielen's earlier take on the Fourth
Symphony as well.

"Earlier take": I was under the impression that there is just one
recording of Brahms' 4th by Gielen; the one in his Brahms cycle on
Haenssler is a re-issue of the Intercord recording from 1989, thus (as
the accompanying 3rd) significantly predating the 1st and 2nd (and some
<http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=1692>).

I also think there is only one recording. Many of tose '80ties SWF
recordings originally appearing on intercord, than for a very brief time
on EMI were then re-issued by Haenssler, together with a few newish or
never published recordings. Apart from the live Beethoven on DVD and
Mahler's 9th I believe Gielen re-recorded very little for Haenssler. Of
course the older issues are often hard to find and quite a bit has not
appeared on Haenssler, the Double Concerto being one such case. (Also
Bruckner's 9th and 4th which I haven't heard and a Haydn 99/104 I like a
lot.)

I think Simon Roberts used to recommend this DC as well; in any case I
got it almost by accident in one of two boxes with Accord re-issues of
the intercord discs.
I will check later today, in my recollection the sound is better than
the french review seems to find it

[MSW]

Post by maready
Thanks very much for this tip --- I just picked up the second used
copy selling for $5 on Amazon (US)!!!  Very much want to hear Gielen's
earlier take on the Fourth Symphony as well.

The Brahms 4 coupled with the Double on Intercord is the same one in
the Hanssler cycle. The Double-4 is a killer disc.

[maready]

Post by MSW

Post by maready
Thanks very much for this tip --- I just picked up the second used
copy selling for $5 on Amazon (US)!!!  Very much want to hear Gielen's
earlier take on the Fourth Symphony as well.

The Brahms 4 coupled with the Double on Intercord is the same one in
the Hanssler cycle. The Double-4 is a killer disc.

I didn't realize that --- I'm a big fan of the Hanssler cycle, in any
case (and Gielen in general.) Looking forward to hearing the Double
Concerto.

[Gerard]

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in which
the first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16 minutes?

Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Gerard

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in which
the first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16 minutes?

Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Matty

[Alan Cooper]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Gerard

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in
which the first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16
minutes?

Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Me too. A huge disappointment. So was the coupled VC, esp. since I had heard a
scintillating live performance by Repin with a different orchestra/conductor not long
before this recording was made. I know exactly what you mean and what you're looking
for in the Double Concerto. Try this one--not perfect but headed in the right
direction, I think (16:18 first movement): http://www.mediafire.com/?qzn31qb58pg01ca

AC

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Alan Cooper
Me too. A huge disappointment. So was the coupled VC, esp. since I had
heard a scintillating live performance by Repin with a different
orchestra/conductor not long before this recording was made. I know
exactly what you mean and what you're looking for in the Double
Concerto. Try this one--not perfect but headed in the right direction,
I think (16:18 first movement): http://www.mediafire.com/?qzn31qb58pg01ca

Not bad at all! I've only listened to the first movement, but this is
definitely the sort of performance I'm looking for. The soloists aren't as
well paired as some others I've heard, and sometimes it seems as if they're
holding the conductor back (with respect to tempo). Based on one listen,
I'd also say this falls short of "modern sound." Still, I very much enjoyed
this. Would you mind letting us know who's playing and conducting?

Thanks for sharing!

Matty

[Alan Cooper]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Alan Cooper
Me too. A huge disappointment. So was the coupled VC, esp.
since I had heard a scintillating live performance by Repin
with a different orchestra/conductor not long before this
recording was made. I know exactly what you mean and what
you're looking for in the Double Concerto. Try this one--not
perfect but headed in the right direction, I think (16:18 first
movement): http://www.mediafire.com/?qzn31qb58pg01ca

Not bad at all! I've only listened to the first movement, but
this is definitely the sort of performance I'm looking for. The
soloists aren't as well paired as some others I've heard, and
sometimes it seems as if they're holding the conductor back
(with respect to tempo). Based on one listen, I'd also say this
falls short of "modern sound." Still, I very much enjoyed this.
Would you mind letting us know who's playing and conducting?
Thanks for sharing!

I agree with you about the performance, including the way the soloists (esp. the
cellist) seem to want to hold back while the conductor pushes forward. A problem
in many performances (e.g. the Capucons, who play beautifully otherwise). In the
Heifetz recordings you get the opposite impression: the solists want to *motor*.

The performance I uploaded:

Barnabas Kelemen, vn; Miklos Perenyi, clo; Hungarian National Philharmonic
Orchestra, Zoltan Kocsis, cond. Live performance, Palace of Arts, Budapest, March
10, 2005. Kindly provided by a friend who recorded it from a digital broadcast.
Not "modern sound," but what the heck, I thought you'd enjoy it.

FWIW, I have no particular favorite among the many recent recordings that I have
heard (maybe Zimmermann/Schiff if I have to pick one). Among the older
recordings, I've been much taken lately with the first of Oistrakh's (1948),
w/Knushevitsky and Eliasberg. Crisp, alert, beautifully played, hand-in-glove
coordination of the soloists. 15:30 for the first movement. There's a nice
transfer on Vista Vera c/w a terrific Brahms 3rd conducted by Eliasberg.

AC

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Alan Cooper
Barnabas Kelemen, vn; Miklos Perenyi, clo; Hungarian National
Philharmonic Orchestra, Zoltan Kocsis, cond. Live performance, Palace
of Arts, Budapest, March 10, 2005. Kindly provided by a friend who
recorded it from a digital broadcast. Not "modern sound," but what the
heck, I thought you'd enjoy it.

Interesting. I've never heard (of) Kelemen before, but I'm a big fan of
Perenyi and Kocsis. Thanks again for sharing this!

Matty

[Alan Cooper]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Alan Cooper
Barnabas Kelemen, vn; Miklos Perenyi, clo; Hungarian National
Philharmonic Orchestra, Zoltan Kocsis, cond. Live performance,
Palace of Arts, Budapest, March 10, 2005. Kindly provided by a
friend who recorded it from a digital broadcast. Not "modern
sound," but what the heck, I thought you'd enjoy it.

Interesting. I've never heard (of) Kelemen before, but I'm a big
fan of Perenyi and Kocsis. Thanks again for sharing this!

Kelemen is an excellent young violinist (b. 1978) who studied with Perenyi's sister
Eszter. Looking through the archive, I see that I commended this performance in an
earlier thread on the Brahms Double, noting Heifetz/Feuermann (fast) and Suk/Navarra
(slow) as primary recommendations among commercial recordings. It's annoying that
I'm unable to recommend wholeheartedly any of the recent recordings with excellent
sound, but Matty and I (and probably others) are in the same boat.

AC

[Steve Emerson]

Post by Alan Cooper

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Alan Cooper
Barnabas Kelemen, vn; Miklos Perenyi, clo; Hungarian National
Philharmonic Orchestra, Zoltan Kocsis, cond. Live performance,
Palace of Arts, Budapest, March 10, 2005. Kindly provided by a
friend who recorded it from a digital broadcast. Not "modern
sound," but what the heck, I thought you'd enjoy it.

Interesting. I've never heard (of) Kelemen before, but I'm a big
fan of Perenyi and Kocsis. Thanks again for sharing this!

Kelemen is an excellent young violinist (b. 1978) who studied with
Perenyi's sister Eszter.

In Hungary at least, he's become an eminence. Interest piqued by
comments here and there, I looked around for his Bartok solo sonata
recently and found it at BRO. He plays the semitones, and I have to say
that at this point, he eclipses everybody else that I've heard.
Including Gitlis.

Post by Alan Cooper
Looking through the archive, I see that I
commended this performance in an earlier thread on the Brahms Double,
noting Heifetz/Feuermann (fast) and Suk/Navarra (slow) as primary
recommendations among commercial recordings.

I'm surprised nobody mentions Tortelier/Ferras/Kletzki, although of
course it isn't recent. The first movement is fierce and scintillating
-- this is not exactly the urbane Tortelier we generally encounter.* The
track time for said movement is as long as 16:40 or so, but the way
these guys play, you're not going to notice that.

*See the hair:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00016ZKQW/

SE.

[jrsnfld]

On Jun 14, 7:42 am, Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Based on one listen,
I'd also say this falls short of "modern sound."

You mean, mp3 sound is *too* modern! Welcome to the post-CD era... :-)

--Jeff

[David Fox]

Post by Alan Cooper

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Gerard

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in
which the first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16
minutes?

Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Me too. A huge disappointment. So was the coupled VC, esp. since I had heard a
scintillating live performance by Repin with a different orchestra/conductor not long
before this recording was made. I know exactly what you mean and what you're looking
for in the Double Concerto. Try this one--not perfect but headed in the right
direction, I think (16:18 first movement): http://www.mediafire.com/?qzn31qb58pg01ca
AC

I attended a great live performance with the Capucon brothers and the LA
Phil. Their recent recording is good but it is not as good as my memory of
the performance.

DF

[Oscar]

Post by David Fox
I attended a great live performance with the Capucon brothers and the LA
Phil. Their recent recording is good but it is not as good as my memory of
the performance.

I was there, too, June 1, 2011. Their Handel Passacaglia (arr.
Halvorsen) encore was breathtaking, too.

[EM]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Gerard
Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31".
Good enough?

EM

[Peter H.]

Post by EM

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Gerard
Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31".
Good enough?
EM

More recent, but a bit slower: Repin/Mork/LGO/Chailly, 16:44
Can't speak for it first-hand.

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by EM

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Gerard
Is 16:43 close enough?
(Chailly / Repin / Mørk)

No, nor is it incisive enough. I bought and culled that CD.

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31".
Good enough?
EM

More recent, but a bit slower: Repin/Mork/LGO/Chailly, 16:44 Can't
speak for it first-hand.

Look at the top of the message.

Matty

[Matthew Silverstein]

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31". Good enough?

I'm not a fan of Stern's playing here.

Matty

[EM]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31". Good enough?

I'm not a fan of Stern's playing here.

It would help if you listed all recordings of this work you've heard
and don't like.

EM

[Gerard]

Post by EM

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Not very recent: Stern/Ma/CSO/Abbado, 16'31". Good enough?

I'm not a fan of Stern's playing here.

It would help if you listed all recordings of this work you've heard
and don't like.
EM

Indeed, that would help.

[Dufus]

Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about
14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably
not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

[Gerard]

Post by Dufus

On Jun 14, 1:13 am, Matthew Silverstein

Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about
14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably
not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

What do you think yourself?

[David Fox]

Post by Dufus
Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about
14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably
not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to consider. If
you want an even more incisive Walter recording, try the one with Stern
and Rose (1954). It's in mono but the sound is very good. The stereo
remake ten years later with Ormandy and the same soloists is pretty bad for
some reason. Even Rose sounds off - this may be the least successful of his
recordings. Must have been a bad day.

I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.


DF

[Mark S]

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.

I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.

The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

[hiker_rs]

Post by Mark S

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

Hey Mark,

Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as to
what parts of Brahms do you like?

Rich

[Mark S]

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as to
what parts of Brahms do you like?
Rich

I'd mention that Jochum's DG cycle of the symphonies is in my car
player this week. I've been exploring some of the older recorded
Brahms Symphony cycles. I started with Walter's NYPO cycle and will
probably finish up with AT's once the CAT shows up next month. So,
it's not like I avoid Brahms entirely, just the DC.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:04529569-b908-43a4-90e6-5fbb6a0e6a14

Post by Mark S

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as to
what parts of Brahms do you like?

I'd mention that Jochum's DG cycle of the symphonies is in my car
player this week. I've been exploring some of the older recorded
Brahms Symphony cycles. I started with Walter's NYPO cycle and will
probably finish up with AT's once the CAT shows up next month. So,
it's not like I avoid Brahms entirely, just the DC.

How does Jochum's DGG set compare with his EMI one? I remember the reviewer
from the San Francisco Chronicle disliked it intensely when it first came
out, calling it "a big bow-wow."

[Gerard]

letters to be typed in news:04529569-b908-43a4-90e6-5fbb6a0e6a14

Post by Mark S

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as
to what parts of Brahms do you like?

I'd mention that Jochum's DG cycle of the symphonies is in my car
player this week. I've been exploring some of the older recorded
Brahms Symphony cycles. I started with Walter's NYPO cycle and will
probably finish up with AT's once the CAT shows up next month. So,
it's not like I avoid Brahms entirely, just the DC.

How does Jochum's DGG set compare with his EMI one? I remember the
reviewer from the San Francisco Chronicle disliked it intensely when
it first came out, calling it "a big bow-wow."

But you don't remember that the answer to your question has been given here many
times?

[David Fox]

Post by Gerard

letters to be typed in news:04529569-b908-43a4-90e6-5fbb6a0e6a14

Post by Mark S

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as
to what parts of Brahms do you like?

I'd mention that Jochum's DG cycle of the symphonies is in my car
player this week. I've been exploring some of the older recorded
Brahms Symphony cycles. I started with Walter's NYPO cycle and will
probably finish up with AT's once the CAT shows up next month. So,
it's not like I avoid Brahms entirely, just the DC.

How does Jochum's DGG set compare with his EMI one?  I remember the
reviewer from the San Francisco Chronicle disliked it intensely when
it first came out, calling it "a big bow-wow."

But you don't remember that the answer to your question has been given here many
times?

The OP asked a slightly different, more direct question than had been
asked before. He was looking for a relatively recent "incisive"
recording. Yes, a number of the standard recordings were brought up
yet again as alternatives, but it led to an interesting discussion
about why exactly a recording that fit Matty's criteria was so
elusive. It also led to an interesting discussion of how some of us
have reacted to Brahms over the years. It hasn't thus far
degenerated into name-calling, personality conflicts, political square-
offs, or other such non-essential tangents that too many threads
succumb to.

This newsgroup has threads. If a thread isn't of interest to you feel
free to ignore it. If you participate in a thread only to blast it
for its existence, the problem isn't the thread. It makes much more
sense for you to ignore it than it does for everyone to stop
discussing a topic of mutual interest just because you find it
annoying.

Annoyance seems to be your default state of mind. What a sad (not to
mention annoying) way to go through life. Try letting go of it, not
just for everyone else's good, but for your own as well.

DF

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by David Fox
This newsgroup has threads. If a thread isn't of interest to you feel
free to ignore it. If you participate in a thread only to blast it for
its existence, the problem isn't the thread. It makes much more sense
for you to ignore it than it does for everyone to stop discussing a
topic of mutual interest just because you find it annoying.
Annoyance seems to be your default state of mind. What a sad (not to
mention annoying) way to go through life. Try letting go of it, not
just for everyone else's good, but for your own as well.

One thing that I've often said about trolls is that they just can't stand
being ignored, so they keep changing their screen names in order to try to
escape from killfiles. Their egos are so colossal, and yet so fragile,
that they absolutely *have* to communicate their golden words to
everybody, whether everybody wants to read those golden words or not.

I am the final arbiter of whose words I wish to read. That is why I use
killfiles. And while I admit having a colossal ego myself, for some reason
it isn't quite so fragile. Therefore, to anybody who doesn't like to read
what I write, I say: Use a killfile. Make a mighty effort and ignore me.
Because I will not change. I just won't, and that's just the way it is, so
deal with it. Your complaints will have no effect. If you don't like what
you read, it is not my fault, it is yours, and yours alone. And if you
don't like it, well, you can just cry like a baby, for all I care. WAHHH!

[Gerard]

Post by David Fox

Post by Gerard

following letters to be typed in
news:04529569-b908-43a4-90e6-5fbb6a0e6a14

Post by Mark S

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious
as to what parts of Brahms do you like?

I'd mention that Jochum's DG cycle of the symphonies is in my
car player this week. I've been exploring some of the older
recorded Brahms Symphony cycles. I started with Walter's NYPO
cycle and will probably finish up with AT's once the CAT shows
up next month. So, it's not like I avoid Brahms entirely, just
the DC.

How does Jochum's DGG set compare with his EMI one? I remember the
reviewer from the San Francisco Chronicle disliked it intensely
when it first came out, calling it "a big bow-wow."

But you don't remember that the answer to your question has been
given here many times?

The OP asked a slightly different, more direct question than had been
asked before. He was looking for a relatively recent "incisive"
recording. Yes, a number of the standard recordings were brought up
yet again as alternatives, but it led to an interesting discussion
about why exactly a recording that fit Matty's criteria was so
elusive. It also led to an interesting discussion of how some of us
have reacted to Brahms over the years. It hasn't thus far
degenerated into name-calling, personality conflicts, political square-
offs, or other such non-essential tangents that too many threads
succumb to.

Until your reply.

Post by David Fox
This newsgroup has threads. If a thread isn't of interest to you feel
free to ignore it. If you participate in a thread only to blast it
for its existence, the problem isn't the thread. It makes much more
sense for you to ignore it than it does for everyone to stop
discussing a topic of mutual interest just because you find it
annoying.
Annoyance seems to be your default state of mind. What a sad (not to
mention annoying) way to go through life. Try letting go of it, not
just for everyone else's good, but for your own as well.
DF

[Mark S]

How does Jochum's DGG set compare with his EMI one?  I remember the reviewer
from the San Francisco Chronicle disliked it intensely when it first came
out, calling it "a big bow-wow."

I'll let you know after I've listened to it.

I've always liked his EMI cycle.

[Mark S]

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as to
what parts of Brahms do you like?

I believe that Brahms did his best work in the smaller forms - chamber
music, piano music, lieder and especially choral music, which displays
his close association with the genre he enjoyed during his life.
That's still a lot of Brahms, certainly a larger percentage of his
works than those for orchestra or orchestra and chorus.

[hiker_rs]

Post by Mark S

Post by hiker_rs
Since I find your dislike of the DC a bit unusual I'm curious as to
what parts of Brahms do you like?

I believe that Brahms did his best work in the smaller forms - chamber
music, piano music, lieder and especially choral music, which displays
his close association with the genre he enjoyed during his life.

If I felt compelled to rate the works I would probably agree, but I
think that some of the bigger more extroverted works may be younger
person's works. Or at least for people less familiar with Brahms
style. When I was in high school there was no way you would get me to
listen to smaller scale Brahms but the DC was a sure hit.

Rich

[Bob Harper]

Post by Mark S

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

Wow, Mark, you're really in your B.H. Haggin mood today:) FWIW, while I don't listen to the DC very often, I always enjoy it when I do. I think the Capucon version is quite good.

Bob Harper

[David Fox]

Post by Mark S

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

Funny - I used to feel the same way. About five years ago my
reservations disappeared and I'm still not quite sure why. My
feelings about Brahms have evolved over the course of my life. As a
youngster and a teenager the only Brahms I cared for was his (very)
early piano music. I owned Volume One of his complete works and
enjoyed playing through his piano sonatas, the Handel Variations, and
the Waltzes. I didn't start to enjoy his symphonic music until I was
well into my twenties. His later piano music came next, then the
German Requiem and his later piano music. I started to explore his
chamber music in my thirties. I'm still not completely there with his
String Quartets and some of his later chamber music (e.g. the Op. 120
Viola sonatas). There are composers I like and those I don't like
but very few who's appeal has slowly evolved through the course of my
life as has Brahms.

DF

[Mark S]

Post by Mark S

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

Funny - I used to feel the same way.  About five years ago my
reservations disappeared and I'm still not quite sure why.  My
feelings about Brahms have evolved over the course of my life.  As a
youngster and a teenager the only Brahms I cared for was his (very)
early piano music.  I owned Volume One of his complete works and
enjoyed playing through his piano sonatas, the Handel Variations, and
the Waltzes.  I didn't start to enjoy his symphonic music until I was
well into my twenties.  His later piano music came next, then the
German Requiem and his later piano music.  I started to explore his
chamber music in my thirties.  I'm still not completely there with his
String Quartets and some of his later chamber music (e.g. the Op. 120
Viola sonatas).    There are composers I like and those I don't like
but very few who's appeal has slowly evolved through the course of my
life as has Brahms.
DF

Funny - my experience has been the opposite of yours. I started out in
high school loving his symphonies and the Requiem (which I sang in HS
in English!). As they years have gone by, his larger works seem to
leave me cold.

[Al Eisner]

Post by David Fox
Funny - I used to feel the same way. About five years ago my
reservations disappeared and I'm still not quite sure why. My
feelings about Brahms have evolved over the course of my life. As a
youngster and a teenager the only Brahms I cared for was his (very)
early piano music. I owned Volume One of his complete works and
enjoyed playing through his piano sonatas, the Handel Variations, and
the Waltzes. I didn't start to enjoy his symphonic music until I was
well into my twenties. His later piano music came next, then the
German Requiem and his later piano music. I started to explore his
chamber music in my thirties. I'm still not completely there with his
String Quartets and some of his later chamber music (e.g. the Op. 120
Viola sonatas).

Maybe the Op. 120 problem is that they should be heard with a clarinet,
rather than a viola. I know, Brhams aurhoized both, but they are
almost unbearably beautiful on clarinet. Just my prejudice. But
curious if you have the same reaction to those versions.

Post by David Fox
There are composers I like and those I don't like
but very few who's appeal has slowly evolved through the course of my
life as has Brahms.
DF

[Dumbarton Oaks]

Post by Mark S

Post by David Fox
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.

I really love the DC, sure more than the VC, it was the first Brahms
orchestal piece that hit me a lot, my first recording was Stern/Rose/
Ormandy on a reissue early in the 90s.

[Josquin]

Post by Mark S
This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

I'm one person who agrees - the word I've heard used is "lumbering"!
The thing is, I really love much of Brahms - the chamber and piano
works, and the songs. And for some reason I enjoy the first Serenade
much more than some of the symphonies, which often do seem to be
trying too hard, and tend to be thickly orchestrated. My feeling is
that Brahms was trying to be monumental, and that didn't always suit
him...

[jrsnfld]

Post by Josquin

Post by Mark S
This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first tier
of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the opening bars
of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a gesture one
would find in a student composition. The theme to the final sounds to
me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

I'm one person who agrees - the word I've heard used is "lumbering"!
The thing is, I really love much of Brahms - the chamber and piano
works, and the songs. And for some reason I enjoy the first Serenade
much more than some of the symphonies, which often do seem to be
trying too hard, and tend to be thickly orchestrated. My feeling is
that Brahms was trying to be monumental, and that didn't always suit
him...

I felt the lumbering aspect of the work for a long time. I thought it
was catchy but overbearing. But as time passes, not only have I been
more and more awed by the chamber music, but I also find the chamber
qualities in the Double concerto--a good performance gives you both
the monumentality and the intimacy.

I've never had a problem with the other orchestral works--perhaps I
need to age some more before I find fault with them.

--Jeff

[Gerard]

Post by Josquin

Post by Mark S
This piece totally escapes me. I find the thematic material
embarrassing, the development of the same turgid.
I generally like Brahms, though these days, he's not in my first
tier of great composers. I have a hard time getting past the
opening bars of the DC - the two against three rhythms sound like a
gesture one would find in a student composition. The theme to the
final sounds to me - for lack of a more-cogent term - stupid.
The whole piece reeks of Brahms in his most conspicuously "profound"
mode. Ugh!

I'm one person who agrees - the word I've heard used is "lumbering"!
The thing is, I really love much of Brahms - the chamber and piano
works, and the songs. And for some reason I enjoy the first Serenade
much more than some of the symphonies,

Maybe it "helped" that the first Serenade originally was a chamber work (a
nonet).

Post by Josquin
which often do seem to be
trying too hard, and tend to be thickly orchestrated. My feeling is
that Brahms was trying to be monumental, and that didn't always suit
him...

I think he succeeded very well in the opening of the first pianoconcerto and of
the first symphony. Those are very monumental statements.

[William Sommerwerck]

The thing is, I really love much of Brahms -- the chamber
and piano works, and the songs. And for some reason
I enjoy the first Serenade much more than some of the
symphonies, which often do seem to be trying too hard,
and tend to be thickly orchestrated.

A habit he no doubt picked up from Bob.

My feeling is that Brahms was trying to be
monumental, and that didn't always suit him...

The slender young Johannes became rather heavy-set in his later years -- he
was himself on the monumental side.

Brahms was not a happy person, and was aware of the darkness of a lot of his
music. * Should we ask any composer to write music more to our personal
tastes?

* The other day I heard a commentator remark about the over-all
"agreeability" (that wasn't the word he used, but it was the idea) of
Brahms' Fourth. Really? Brahms was worried that the audience would be
bothered by the overall darkness of the piece. (The audience loved it.)

[herman]

Post by William Sommerwerck
The slender young Johannes became rather heavy-set in his later years -- he
was himself on the monumental side.

Most of today's Americans would vastly out-monumentalize Brahms.

Post by William Sommerwerck
Brahms was not a happy person, and was aware of the darkness of a lot of his
music.

You seem to have met the composer.

It's not hard, however, to make the case that Brahms had a largely
happy, productive and fulfulling life, amassing a lot of power and
good friends, and managing to compartmentalize the dark stuff in his
music.

Some people just want artists to live unhappy and failed lives; it
makes them feel better.

[Oscar]

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
The slender young Johannes became rather heavy-set in his later years -- he
was himself on the monumental side.

Most of today's Americans would vastly out-monumentalize Brahms.
It's none of your business (as I keep saying to you).

Brahms

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
was not a happy person, and was aware of the darkness of a lot of his music.

You seem to have met the composer.
It's not hard, however, to make the case that Brahms had a largely
happy, productive and fulfulling life, amassing a lot of power and
good friends, and managing to compartmentalize the dark stuff in his
music.
Some people just want artists to live unhappy and failed lives; it
makes them feel better.

This post is a big sea container of worthless.

[herman]

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
The slender young Johannes became rather heavy-set in his later years -- he
was himself on the monumental side.

Most of today's Americans would vastly out-monumentalize Brahms.

Please post of picture of yourself.

I'm 1,80 m and my weight is 75 kg.

Brahms

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
was not a happy person, and was aware of the darkness of a lot of his music.

You seem to have met the composer.
It's not hard, however, to make the case that Brahms had a largely
happy, productive and fulfulling life, amassing a lot of power and
good friends, and managing to compartmentalize the dark stuff in his
music.
Some people just want artists to live unhappy and failed lives; it
makes them feel better.

This post is a big sea container of worthless.

I think it is important to reject the standard idea of the artist as a
miserable man. Apart from the fact that Brahms lived nicely in the
city of his dreams, had a lot of good friends and was pretty healthy
until his last years, try to imagine how it must have felt to Brahms
to have composed such challenging and infinitely sophisticated works,
which enjoyed a lot of success, too.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by herman
I'm 1,80 m and my weight is 75 kg.

In the US, that would be 6' and 165#. That's on the thin side for that
height.

Post by herman
I think it is important to reject the standard idea of the artist as a
miserable man. Apart from the fact that Brahms lived nicely in the
city of his dreams, had a lot of good friends and was pretty healthy
until his last years, try to imagine how it must have felt to Brahms
to have composed such challenging and infinitely sophisticated
works, which enjoyed a lot of success, too.

I agree that Great Artists aren't necessarily Tortured Souls.

But many composers have had serious personal and medical problems --
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Smetana, Sullivan, Mahler, etc. Koechlin said his
life was a tragedy punctuated by moments of great happiness. (That's not an
exact quote, but it conveys the idea.) And Koechlin was an admired and
respected teacher of other composers, who had interests and accomplishments
not limited to music.

It has long been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn never wrote any
truly great music because he never really suffered. How one defines "great"
is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no Mendelssohn work expressing
any noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

[herman]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by herman
I'm 1,80 m and my weight is 75 kg.

In the US, that would be 6' and 165#. That's on the thin side for that
height.

My American driver's license used to say 5'11". I'm not thin, I just
don't happen to be overweight, which has pretty much become the norm
in the US.

Post by William Sommerwerck
It has long been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn never wrote any
truly great music because he never really suffered. How one defines "great"
is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no Mendelssohn work expressing
any noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

His sister Fanny died, and F.M. never got over this.His string quartet
in F minor, op. 80 is, at times, almost hysterically tragic.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by William Sommerwerck
It has long been said that the aptly-named Felix
Mendelssohn never wrote any truly great music
because he never really suffered. How one defines
"great" is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no
Mendelssohn work expressing any noticeable amount
of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

His sister Fanny died, and F.M. never got over this. His
string quartet in F minor, op. 80 is, at times, almost
hysterically tragic.

I stand corrected. I'll have to listen to it.

[Bob Harper]

On 6/15/12 10:59 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
(snip)

Post by William Sommerwerck
It has long been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn never wrote any
truly great music because he never really suffered. How one defines "great"
is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no Mendelssohn work expressing
any noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

I offer the String Quartets. Opp. 12 & 13, the Octet, and the Overture
to MSND as examples of 'truly great music', and if the Quartet, Op 80
does not have a 'noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness' then
nothing does.

Bob Harper

[Matthew Silverstein]

I offer the String Quartets. Opp. 12 & 13, the Octet, and the Overture to
MSND as examples of 'truly great music', and if the Quartet, Op 80 does
not have a 'noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness' then nothing
does.

I'd add the two piano trios, the first of which is one of my favorites in
the genre.

Matty

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by herman
I'm 1,80 m and my weight is 75 kg.

In the US, that would be 6' and 165#. That's on the thin side for that
height.

Post by herman
I think it is important to reject the standard idea of the artist as a
miserable man. Apart from the fact that Brahms lived nicely in the
city of his dreams, had a lot of good friends and was pretty healthy
until his last years, try to imagine how it must have felt to Brahms
to have composed such challenging and infinitely sophisticated
works, which enjoyed a lot of success, too.

I agree that Great Artists aren't necessarily Tortured Souls.
But many composers have had serious personal and medical problems --
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Smetana, Sullivan, Mahler, etc. Koechlin said
his life was a tragedy punctuated by moments of great happiness. (That's
not an exact quote, but it conveys the idea.) And Koechlin was an
admired and respected teacher of other composers, who had interests and
accomplishments not limited to music.
any truly great music because he never really suffered. How one defines
"great" is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no Mendelssohn work
expressing any noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

All right, then, what about Haydn, who seems to have had a sunny life and a
disposition to match? I wouldn't call any of his music "profound"
(although a case could be made for "Die sieben letzten Worte..."), but many
of the symphonies and string quartets are at least tinged with greatness.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

It has been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn
never wrote any truly great music because he never really
suffered.

All right, then, what about Haydn, who seems to have had
a sunny life and a disposition to match? I wouldn't call any
of his music "profound" (although a case could be made for
"Die sieben letzten Worte...")

How about "The Creation"?

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
...but many of the symphonies and string quartets are at
least tinged with greatness.

Haydn's music is at such an unbelievably high level of consistent quality,
that suggesting it rarely achieves "profundity" is the worst sort of
carping.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

It has been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn never wrote any
truly great music because he never really suffered.

All right, then, what about Haydn, who seems to have had a sunny life
and a disposition to match? I wouldn't call any of his music "profound"
(although a case could be made for "Die sieben letzten Worte...")

How about "The Creation"?

Yes, I hadn't thought of it, but I think I would agree.

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
...but many of the symphonies and string quartets are at least tinged
with greatness.

Haydn's music is at such an unbelievably high level of consistent
quality, that suggesting it rarely achieves "profundity" is the worst
sort of carping.

Is my praise too faint, then?

[John Wiser]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

It has been said that the aptly-named Felix Mendelssohn never wrote any
truly great music because he never really suffered.

All right, then, what about Haydn, who seems to have had a sunny life
and a disposition to match? I wouldn't call any of his music "profound"
(although a case could be made for "Die sieben letzten Worte...")

How about "The Creation"?

Yes, I hadn't thought of it, but I think I would agree.

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
...but many of the symphonies and string quartets are at least tinged
with greatness.

Haydn's music is at such an unbelievably high level of consistent
quality, that suggesting it rarely achieves "profundity" is the worst
sort of carping.

Is my praise too faint, then?

Neither your praise
nor your dispraise
has the faintest value,
now or ever.

JDW

[herman]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by herman
I'm 1,80 m and my weight is 75 kg.

In the US, that would be 6' and 165#. That's on the thin side for that
height.

Post by herman
I think it is important to reject the standard idea of the artist as a
miserable man. Apart from the fact that Brahms lived nicely in the
city of his dreams, had a lot of good friends and was pretty healthy
until his last years, try to imagine how it must have felt to Brahms
to have composed such challenging and infinitely sophisticated
works, which enjoyed a lot of success, too.

I agree that Great Artists aren't necessarily Tortured Souls.
But many composers have had serious personal and medical problems --
Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Smetana, Sullivan, Mahler, etc. Koechlin said
his life was a tragedy punctuated by moments of great happiness. (That's
not an exact quote, but it conveys the idea.) And Koechlin was an
admired and respected teacher of other composers, who had interests and
accomplishments not limited to music.
any truly great music because he never really suffered. How one defines
"great" is debatable, but as far as I know, there is no Mendelssohn work
expressing any noticeable amount of anguish or unhappiness. (CMIIW)

All right, then, what about Haydn, who seems to have had a sunny life and a
disposition to match?  I wouldn't call any of his music "profound"
(although a case could be made for "Die sieben letzten Worte..."), but many
of the symphonies and string quartets are at least tinged with greatness.

This is really embarrassing. Haydn wrote an enormous amount of music,
very much very very good, and there is plenty of profundity in the
string quartets and symphonies, and not just in the slow movements,
but in the seriousness of the 1st movements, too.

It does presuppose some kind of receptivity on the part of the
listener.

If you think in cliches like "papa Haydn had a pretty happy life, and
he just kept on writing" you may not notice what's going on in the
music.

[John Wiser]

Post by Oscar
This post is a big sea container of worthless.

Oh! you're just so judgemental, Oscar!

JDW

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
Brahms was not a happy person, and was aware
of the darkness of a lot of his music.

You seem to have met the composer.

I've heard his music. *

Uh... It's in books. Brahms was quoted as saying that he often sensed dark
wings flappying above him.

Post by herman
It's not hard, however, to make the case that Brahms had
a largely happy, productive, and fulfulling life, amassing a
lot of power and good friends, and managing to
compartmentalize the dark stuff in his music.

NOW who seems to have met the composer?

A productive and fulfilling musical life, yes. Happy? I doubt it.

I don't think most people know how happy they //could// be.

Post by herman
Some people just want artists to live unhappy and failed lives;
it makes them feel better.

It would make me feel better if you would stop arguing for the sake of
arguing, and limit your comments to something useful or insightful.


* Tchaikovsky said that (at least in his case) writing sad music didn't mean
the composer was sad at the time.

[herman]

Post by William Sommerwerck
It would make me feel better if you would stop arguing for the sake of
arguing, and limit your comments to something useful or insightful.

This from the man who said only people with a predisposition for lung
cancer will get it; otherwise one can smoke as much as one likes.

Or, if it's about music: there are no dynamic contrasts in Schubert
9th.

Or, right here, there is something wrong with Brahms orchestration,
just as with Schumann (or, since you seem to be really close, "Bob").

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by herman

Post by William Sommerwerck
It would make me feel better if you would stop arguing for the sake of
arguing, and limit your comments to something useful or insightful.

This from the man who said only people with a predisposition for lung
cancer will get it; otherwise one can smoke as much as one likes.

I didn't say that.

Post by herman
Or, if it's about music: there are no dynamic contrasts in Schubert
9th.

I did say that.

Post by herman
Or, right here, there is something wrong with Brahms orchestration,
just as with Schumann (or, since you seem to be really close, "Bob").

I said nothing of the sort.

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by William Sommerwerck

The thing is, I really love much of Brahms -- the chamber
and piano works, and the songs. And for some reason
I enjoy the first Serenade much more than some of the
symphonies, which often do seem to be trying too hard,
and tend to be thickly orchestrated.

A habit he no doubt picked up from Bob.

Will you ever drop the annoying habit of referring to non-anglophone
Dead White Males by ridiculous American nicknames? They didn't go by
these names during their lifetimes nor ever after before anglophone
usenet denizens apparently thought this kind of pseudo-familiarization
funny. It is not. It's silly and annoying.

There is plenty of doubt that Brahms picked up "bad orchestration" from
Schumann. First of all there is doubt that either orchestrated badly
rather than "non-flashy" or "traditionally". And although Schumann's
scoring has been re-touched by many conductors this has not been as
extensively the case with Brahms' music.

Post by William Sommerwerck

My feeling is that Brahms was trying to be
monumental, and that didn't always suit him...

The slender young Johannes became rather heavy-set in his later years -- he
was himself on the monumental side.

As he was rather short he certainly could hardly qualify as monumental
even after getting somewhat stocky in his later years. The still
unbearded Brahms in his early fourties does not look fat to me at all.

Post by William Sommerwerck
* The other day I heard a commentator remark about the over-all
"agreeability" (that wasn't the word he used, but it was the idea) of
Brahms' Fourth. Really? Brahms was worried that the audience would be
bothered by the overall darkness of the piece. (The audience loved it.)

Hugo Wolf didn't love it.
Brahms was so famous by then that the general reception of a new piece
would usually be favorable. But in the case of the 4th symphony there is
a quote from some friend of Brahms who heard a pre-premiere (probably
piano 4 hand playing from the score) and said something like that in the
first movement s/he felt like being beaten up by two very learned people.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Johannes Roehl

Post by William Sommerwerck

The thing is, I really love much of Brahms -- the chamber
and piano works, and the songs. And for some reason
I enjoy the first Serenade much more than some of the
symphonies, which often do seem to be trying too hard,
and tend to be thickly orchestrated.

A habit he no doubt picked up from Bob.

Will you ever drop the annoying habit of referring to non-anglophone
Dead White Males by ridiculous American nicknames? They didn't go
by these names during their lifetimes nor ever after before anglophone
usenet denizens apparently thought this kind of pseudo-familiarization
funny. It is not. It's silly and annoying.

To you. My father, Robert, was the son of a German immigrant and never
objected to being called "Bob".

Am I supposed to address you as "Johannes" or "John"?

Post by Johannes Roehl
There is plenty of doubt that Brahms picked up "bad orchestration"
from Schumann. First of all there is doubt that either orchestrated
badly rather than "non-flashy" or "traditionally". And although
Schumann's scoring has been re-touched by many conductors
this has not been as extensively the case with Brahms' music.

It was meant as a joke. I've never considered Brahms' or Schumann's
orchestration to be "bad". In all honesty -- not being able to read music --
I'm not sure what "good" or "bad" orchestration is.

Is it not reasonable to assume that /any/ composer, on hearing his music
performed, would receive a prompt, practical lesson in whether the
orchestration "worked" the way he wanted it to? The composer's intentions
are what really what define "correct" orchestration, aren't they?

I really don't care whether others like or dislike my sense of humor. You
know that scene in "Amadeus" where Mozart imitates Salieri's style, twisting
his face into a caricature of pompous seriousness? Well, that's the way I
feel about most people's senses of humor -- they have none.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Johannes Roehl

Post by William Sommerwerck

The thing is, I really love much of Brahms -- the chamber and piano
works, and the songs. And for some reason I enjoy the first Serenade
much more than some of the symphonies, which often do seem to be
trying too hard, and tend to be thickly orchestrated.

A habit he no doubt picked up from Bob.

Will you ever drop the annoying habit of referring to non-anglophone
Dead White Males by ridiculous American nicknames? They didn't go by
these names during their lifetimes nor ever after before anglophone
usenet denizens apparently thought this kind of pseudo-familiarization
funny. It is not. It's silly and annoying.

To you. My father, Robert, was the son of a German immigrant and never
objected to being called "Bob".
Am I supposed to address you as "Johannes" or "John"?

My grad school advisor was one Johannes Riedel. He had left Germany in the
'30s more or less for the usual reasons (he wasn't Jewish, but his wife
was), and they went to the only place where he was able to get an academic
appointment, which was in Quito, Ecuador. Thenceforward, he rejoiced in
being called "Juan Riedel," although he used his original given name
professionally. And don't forget the Finnish composer who decided he
preferred the French form of his first name.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Brahms was not a happy person, and was aware of the darkness of a lot of
his music. * Should we ask any composer to write music more to our
personal tastes?

Only if we're paying them to write to order.

[Dufus]

Post by David Fox
. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

See, Jeremy Denk on the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto getting longer,
too : http://jeremydenk.net/blog/2009/12/18/whose-brahms/

[D***@aol.com]

Post by David Fox

Post by Dufus
Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about
14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably
not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to consider. If
you want an even more incisive Walter recording,  try the one with Stern
and Rose (1954). It's in mono but the sound is very good.  The stereo
remake ten years later with Ormandy and the same soloists is pretty bad for
some reason. Even Rose sounds off - this may be the least successful of his
recordings. Must have been a bad day.
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
DF

I agree totally about the 1954 Walter/Stern/Rose/NYPSO recording.
It's like all of Walter's recordings from before his serious heart
attack in early 1957: more incisive and intense, with faster tempi too
than the stereo remake.

There is also the 1948 Toscanini/NBC SO broadcast performance with
Mischa Mischakoff and Frank Miller as soloists. The timing for the
first movement is 14:25. But you might well find the sound limited by
age and the Studio 8-H acoustics.

I ought to look up the timings of the Thibaud/Casals/Cortot
(conducting)/Casals Orchestra of Barcelona recording. But that is
antique sound for sure (1929), although not totally bad. I'd guess
that the first movement isn't that slow either. Less than 35 years
after Brahms's death.

Don Tait

[David Fox]

Post by David Fox

Post by Dufus
Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about
14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably
not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to consider. If
you want an even more incisive Walter recording,  try the one with Stern
and Rose (1954). It's in mono but the sound is very good.  The stereo
remake ten years later with Ormandy and the same soloists is pretty bad for
some reason. Even Rose sounds off - this may be the least successful of his
recordings. Must have been a bad day.
I have lots of Brahms Doubles and plenty of recent ones too. The trend in
Brahms Concerti in general over the past few decades has been "slower and
more reverent.". I think it's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
DF

  I agree totally about the 1954 Walter/Stern/Rose/NYPSO recording.
It's like all of Walter's recordings from before his serious heart
attack in early 1957: more incisive and intense, with faster tempi too
than the stereo remake.
  There is also the 1948 Toscanini/NBC SO broadcast performance with
Mischa Mischakoff and Frank Miller as soloists. The timing for the
first movement is 14:25. But you might well find the sound limited by
age and the Studio 8-H acoustics.
  I ought to look up the timings of the Thibaud/Casals/Cortot
(conducting)/Casals Orchestra of Barcelona recording. But that is
antique sound for sure (1929), although not totally bad. I'd guess
that the first movement isn't that slow either. Less than 35 years
after Brahms's death.
  Don Tait

The timing of the 1st movement of the Casals/Thibaud/Cortot Brahms
Double is 15:13

DF

[D***@aol.com]

On Jun 14, 3:08 pm, David Fox <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by David Fox
The timing of the 1st movement of the Casals/Thibaud/Cortot Brahms
Double is 15:13
DF

Thanks.

Don Tait

[Matthew Silverstein]

There is also the 1948 Toscanini/NBC SO broadcast performance with Mischa
Mischakoff and Frank Miller as soloists. The timing for the first
movement is 14:25. But you might well find the sound limited by age and
the Studio 8-H acoustics.

I have (and enjoy) this, as well as the earlier recording (1939) with the
same forces.

Matty

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by David Fox

Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about 14:45
, but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably not
meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to consider.
If you want an even more incisive Walter recording, try the one with
Stern and Rose (1954).

I have all three of those. I should probably have mentioned that there are
plenty of performances of this piece I love. I'm just looking for one in
modern sound.

Matty

[Gerard]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by David Fox

Post by Dufus
Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at
about 14:45 , but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd
would probably not meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to
consider. If you want an even more incisive Walter recording, try
the one with Stern and Rose (1954).

I have all three of those. I should probably have mentioned that
there are plenty of performances of this piece I love. I'm just
looking for one in modern sound.

Both things you said in your first post.
Some people just come with their favorites, no matter what is asked for.

[Dufus]

Post by Gerard
Both things you said in your first post.
Some people just come with their favorites, no matter what is asked for.

And some come with a 16:43 when the OP wanted 16 ; and then a
reccomendation the OP had already bought but culled !

Others suggested a 14:45 , 2004 "remastered " cd that clearly met the
time requirement of the OP , and as remastered in 2004 , may have been
"modern" enough sound , posing the reccomendation as a question.

But then, some people criticize no matter what.

Dufus

[Gerard]

Post by Dufus

wrote: Both things you said in your first post.
Some people just come with their favorites, no matter what is asked for.

And some come with a 16:43 when the OP wanted 16 ;

He wrote "to approach, say, 16 minutes". That's different from asking 16.
16:43 is much closer to 16 than 17, you know maybe. A lot of recordings are over
17.
And: I _asked_ if 16:43 is close enough.
So you have no point here at all.

Post by Dufus
and then a
reccomendation the OP had already bought but culled !

This is nonsense. He didn't say what he had culled.

Post by Dufus
Others suggested a 14:45 , 2004 "remastered " cd that clearly met the
time requirement of the OP , and as remastered in 2004 , may have been
"modern" enough sound , posing the reccomendation as a question.

The date of remastering has no relation to a "modern sound". Recordings made in
1929 don't get a modern sound when remastered in 2012.

Post by Dufus
But then, some people criticize no matter what.
Dufus

Some people just write nonsense.

[Angelotti]

Post by Gerard

Post by Dufus

wrote: Both things you said in your first post.
Some people just come with their favorites, no matter what is asked for.

And some come with a 16:43 when the OP wanted 16 ;

He wrote "to approach, say, 16 minutes". That's different from asking 16.
16:43 is much closer to 16 than 17, you know maybe. A lot of recordings are over
17.
And: I _asked_ if 16:43 is close enough.
So you have no point here at all.

Post by Dufus
and then a
reccomendation the OP had already bought but culled !

This is nonsense. He didn't say what he had culled.

Post by Dufus
Others suggested a 14:45 , 2004  "remastered " cd that clearly met the
time requirement of the OP , and as remastered in 2004 , may have been
"modern" enough sound , posing the reccomendation as a question.

The date of remastering has no relation to a "modern sound". Recordings made in
1929 don't get a modern sound when remastered in 2012.

Post by Dufus
But then, some people criticize no matter what.
Dufus

Some people just write nonsense.

Once again you appear to have the brain of an amoeba, 16:43 is 16 min
and 43 sec.
Is 16:43 closer to 16:00 or to 16:60 (=17 min)?
Hvdlinden

[Gerard]

Post by Angelotti

Post by Gerard

Post by Dufus

wrote: Both things you said in your first post.
Some people just come with their favorites, no matter what is asked for.

And some come with a 16:43 when the OP wanted 16 ;

He wrote "to approach, say, 16 minutes". That's different from
asking 16. 16:43 is much closer to 16 than 17, you know maybe. A
lot of recordings are over
17.
And: I _asked_ if 16:43 is close enough.
So you have no point here at all.

Post by Dufus
and then a
reccomendation the OP had already bought but culled !

This is nonsense. He didn't say what he had culled.

Post by Dufus
Others suggested a 14:45 , 2004 "remastered " cd that clearly met
the time requirement of the OP , and as remastered in 2004 , may
have been "modern" enough sound , posing the reccomendation as a
question.

The date of remastering has no relation to a "modern sound".
Recordings made in 1929 don't get a modern sound when remastered in
2012.

Post by Dufus
But then, some people criticize no matter what.
Dufus

Some people just write nonsense.

Once again you appear to have the brain of an amoeba, 16:43 is 16 min
and 43 sec.
Is 16:43 closer to 16:00 or to 16:60 (=17 min)?
Hvdlinden

See, the stalker is there again.
He does not know that 16:43 is closer to 16:00 than 17:00 is.

[Bastian Kubis]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by David Fox

Heifetz / Piatogorsky / Wallenstein first mov. apparently at about 14:45
, but the " original recording remastered" RCA cd would probably not
meet your "modern sound" needs ?

In the same vein, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (1956) is one to consider.
If you want an even more incisive Walter recording, try the one with
Stern and Rose (1954).

I have all three of those. I should probably have mentioned that there are
plenty of performances of this piece I love. I'm just looking for one in
modern sound.

Matty, would you mind giving your favourites among those earlier,
not-so-modern sounding recordings? I am curious... I don't know very
many recordings of this piece; if I have (and like)
Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein and Milstein/Piatigorsky/Reiner, say,
should I get Walter's recording (that you seem to like a lot), too?

I am one of those who have just increased the turnover of used copies of
Gielen's on amazon, based on Johannes' recommendation... so I can't help
you with your original request. But it is indeed curious, isn't it,
that some excellent modern recordings of the *violin* concerto that
eschew the trend of ever-slowing tempi (Shaham/Abbado, or
Kremer/Bernstein) are accompanied by double concertos that almost
collapse under their own weight.

Bastian

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Bastian Kubis
Matty, would you mind giving your favourites among those earlier,
not-so-modern sounding recordings? I am curious... I don't know very
many recordings of this piece; if I have (and like)
Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein and Milstein/Piatigorsky/Reiner, say,
should I get Walter's recording (that you seem to like a lot), too?

Well, the Living Stereo recording with Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein is
probably my favorite. I found the Reiner conducted performance you mention
to be ever so slightly disappointing -- too smooth and gray. You should
probably give Heifetz/Feuermann a try, if you haven't heard it. It's
wonderfully intense.

What I like so much about the stereo Walter performance is that it's
somewhat slower than the Heifetz recording -- thus giving the music a bit
more room in which to breathe -- while still retaining sharpness and
urgency. That probably doesn't make much sense. There's no sense of rounded
corners or plush textures in the Walter performance, and Fournier and
Francescatti are perfectly matched.

Off the top of my head, other older performances I enjoy are
Oistrakh/Fournier/Galleria (EMI) and both of the Toscanini-led recordings.

Post by Bastian Kubis
I am one of those who have just increased the turnover of used copies of
Gielen's on amazon, based on Johannes' recommendation... so I can't help
you with your original request. But it is indeed curious, isn't it,
that some excellent modern recordings of the *violin* concerto that
eschew the trend of ever-slowing tempi (Shaham/Abbado, or
Kremer/Bernstein) are accompanied by double concertos that almost
collapse under their own weight.

Yes, it's frustrating. For me, the Shaham/Abbado case is especially
annoying, since Shaham and Wang build up quite a head of steam leading up
to the full orchestral exposition. But when Abbado enters he pulls back the
tempo noticeably, sapping all of the energy the soloists have produced.

Matty

[peter gutmann]

Post by Bastian Kubis
Matty, would you mind giving your favourites among those earlier,
not-so-modern sounding recordings?  I am curious...

You might find of interest a fairly lengthy article on the Brahms
Double Concerto that I posted about two years ago on my classicalnotes
website:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics4/brahmsdouble.html

It contains some of my personal recommendations (although mostly of
older recordings), with which, of course, you're welcome to disagree.

[Dufus]

Many thanks !!

Do you have a listing of links to all your varied , and extraordianry,
Classical Notes sites ? Thanks again.

From your site, the late and legendary Irvin Kolodin , in his succinct
style, about the Brahms Double Concerto :

" Irving Kolodin agrees that the Double Concerto is a reversion to the
classical concerto ideal – “the culmination of Brahms’s life-long
struggle to evolve a treatment of the concerto in which neither solo
instrument nor orchestra would dominate the other” – the very ideal
which Mozart had perfected. “The solo instruments are wedded to each
other and to the orchestra in a musical matrimony that lacks but an
attribute of the ideal marriage – offspring to perpetuate the line.”

Dufus

[Dufus]

Post by Dufus
Do you have a listing of links to all your varied , and extraordianry,
Classical Notes sites ? Thanks again.

Sorry ; here I believe (? ) : http://www.classicalnotes.net/contents.html#classics

[peter gutmann]

Post by Dufus
Do you have a listing of links to all your varied , and extraordianry,
Classical Notes sites ? Thanks again.

Sorry ; here I believe (? ) :http://www.classicalnotes.net/contents.html#classics

That's it!

[Bastian Kubis]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply!

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Bastian Kubis
Matty, would you mind giving your favourites among those earlier,
not-so-modern sounding recordings? I am curious... I don't know very
many recordings of this piece; if I have (and like)
Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein and Milstein/Piatigorsky/Reiner, say,
should I get Walter's recording (that you seem to like a lot), too?

Well, the Living Stereo recording with Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein is
probably my favorite. I found the Reiner conducted performance you mention
to be ever so slightly disappointing -- too smooth and gray. You should
probably give Heifetz/Feuermann a try, if you haven't heard it. It's
wonderfully intense.

I haven't heard it, and as it is on Naxos, it went straight onto my wish
list. The Walter, unfortunately, seems to be oop and rather difficult
to find at a moderate price...

Post by Matthew Silverstein
What I like so much about the stereo Walter performance is that it's
somewhat slower than the Heifetz recording -- thus giving the music a bit
more room in which to breathe -- while still retaining sharpness and
urgency. That probably doesn't make much sense. There's no sense of rounded
corners or plush textures in the Walter performance, and Fournier and
Francescatti are perfectly matched.
Off the top of my head, other older performances I enjoy are
Oistrakh/Fournier/Galleria (EMI) and both of the Toscanini-led recordings.

The Galliera performance is one that I was totally ignorant of so far.
Does that also fall within your parameters concerning timing etc.?

The Gielen, on the other hand, arrived in my mail box super-fast, and on
a very first and rather superficial listening, sounds fabulous to me.
Many thanks to Johannes for pointing this one out! And, Matty, if I
have learnt anything about your taste in the years of reading your posts
around here, I am quite optimistic that you will like it, too...

Bastian

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Bastian Kubis
I haven't heard it, and as it is on Naxos, it went straight onto my wish
list. The Walter, unfortunately, seems to be oop and rather difficult
to find at a moderate price...

Yes, I haven't been able to find the earlier Walter recording either. Even
if Walter is in better form on the earlier recording, though, I doubt I'll
like Stern and Rose as much as Franescatti and Fournier.

Post by Bastian Kubis

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Off the top of my head, other older performances I enjoy are
Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera (EMI) and both of the Toscanini-led
recordings.

The Galliera performance is one that I was totally ignorant of so far.
Does that also fall within your parameters concerning timing etc.?

Yes -- 16:12 in the first movement, I believe.

Post by Bastian Kubis
The Gielen, on the other hand, arrived in my mail box super-fast, and on
a very first and rather superficial listening, sounds fabulous to me.
Many thanks to Johannes for pointing this one out! And, Matty, if I
have learnt anything about your taste in the years of reading your posts
around here, I am quite optimistic that you will like it, too...

Sounds great. It will take my purchase a bit longer to reach me (I live in
Abu Dhabi), but I'm sure it will get here at some point!

Matty

[hiker_rs]

On Jun 15, 11:54 pm, Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by Bastian Kubis
I haven't heard it, and as it is on Naxos, it went straight onto my wish
list.  The Walter, unfortunately, seems to be oop and rather difficult
to find at a moderate price...

Yes, I haven't been able to find the earlier Walter recording either. Even
if Walter is in better form on the earlier recording, though, I doubt I'll
like Stern and Rose as much as Franescatti and Fournier.

The earlier Walter recording of the DC (with Stern & Rose, recorded
1954) may be had as part of Isaac Stern: The Early Concerto Recordings
Vol.1. A used copy presently goes for $9 on Amazon US - that's for 3
CDs:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-Concerto-Recordings-Vol/dp/B000002715

The later Walter recording (with Francescatti & Fournier, recorded
1959) is also available on Amazon US in a couple of ways.

- in the BW Edition mastering from Archiv music (probably a CD-ROM)
for $17:

http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Double-Concerto-Beethoven-Tripile/dp/B000002A85

- in an earlier mastering in the CBS series that is made to look like
newspaper covers (currently $7 used):

http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Double-Concerto-Overture-Performances/dp/B0000025

I don't find any of these to be cost-prohibitive, but that's a
personal decision. For the latter recording the BWE mastering is
almost certainly better.

-Rich

[Josquin]

Thanks, everyone, for an uncommonly interesting thread! RMCR at its
best.

Now to continue my issue with Brahms' orchestration in the Double
Concerto, note the following:

"Brahms string parts are spread over a large vertical compass, the
middle being closely filled up with double-stopping, sub-divided
parts, or by a busy figurated polyphony. Low lying parts for violas
and violoncellos, active or sustained, and both frequently
sub-divided, are largely responsible for a Schumannesque thickness of
tone, which, combined with the ever-present horn parts covering the
lower tenor register, has caused Brahms' orchestration to be described
as "thick and muddy." Individually, the string parts are often
strangely ungrateful in effect, rather more awkward than difficult.
They abound in large skips and uncomfortable intervals across the
strings. Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes, and are rarely
left to display their own particular tone-quality without the
partnership of some other instrument of equal range, but dissimilar
tone-colour. The violoncellos wander about the string texture
expansively, independently, and often very expressively, but are
usually hedged around with much detailed motion by other parts.

In the matter of grouping and contrasting the main sections of the
orchestra, Brahms seems to have adopted one of the least attractive
features from Schumann's orchestration. A sort of semi-tutti,
comprised of strings, wood-wind and horns, is his favourite and almost
constant combination. The groups rarely appear in unmixed form.
Brahms' first symphony in C minor (1876) does not contain a single
complete bar of music for woodwind alone, and, if he did not quite
achieve Schumann's feat of orchestrating an entire symphony without
letting pure string-tone be heard for a singe bar, Brahms certainly
came very near to it in more than one of his works.

He apparently disdained purely orchestral
effect, and never relied solely on the mere attractiveness of
instrumental colour. His love for a full, dense harmony led him to
constantly duplicate parts and combine instrumental voices, thus
preventing the possibility of instruments and groups acting in clear
contrast to one another. While always dignified and sonorous, his
orchestration lacked the lighter touch and charm so often found in the
work of many an inferior composer.

A famous conductor aptly said, apropos of Brahms' orchestration: "The
sun never shines in it."

So there!

From a book on instrumentation by Adam Carse published in 1925 -
imagine what he could have accomplished if he had lived to participate
in RMCR! And proof that despite a suspicion that has been raised,
nastiness was not invented here...

http://archive.org/details/historyoforchest007544mbp

[herman]

Post by Josquin
Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes, and are rarely
left to display their own particular tone-quality without the
partnership of some other instrument of equal range, but dissimilar
tone-colour.

Ah, like the cello - oboe theme in LvB Eroica - very bad writing! In
fact it's prettu hard to think of a composer who's any good, by
Carse's standards.

Brahms studied orchestration for some decades before he started
composing in earnest for the orchestra.

The idea that there are no beautiful orchestral colors in Brahms's
symphonies is just silly. It depends, obviously, on the conductor and
the orchestra, but it's there.

Post by Josquin
A famous conductor aptly said, apropos of Brahms' orchestration: "The
sun never shines in it."

And here's the kind of music Mr. Carse wrote:

[herman]

I believe concert goers in Britain, even after WOII, used to tell each
other jokes about you had to watch out for the themes in Brahms's
symphonies (hilarious wit!), and I guess this Mr Carse is a proponent
of that mentality.

[Johannes Roehl]

Post by herman
I believe concert goers in Britain, even after WOII, used to tell each
other jokes about you had to watch out for the themes in Brahms's
symphonies (hilarious wit!), and I guess this Mr Carse is a proponent
of that mentality.

Tovey has som scathing remarks on the average British concertgoers (and
critics), in the first third of the 20th century, of course.
This excerpt of Carse's was actually posted and discussed in this group
at a similar occasion.
IMO it is very simple: melodies and orchestration are "on the surface"
of the music. If Brahms were as bad there as sometimes claimed, it would
be extremely odd that his music is so popular (and basically has been
since his lifetime) with ordinary, unsophisticated listeners. One might
have to be an expert to appreciate motivic development, counterpoint
etc., but everybody notices dull sound and lack of melodies. So in any
case Brahms is melodic and colorful enough for me.

[Dufus]

Post by Johannes Roehl
. So in any
case Brahms is melodic and colorful enough for me.

Indeed ! The fact Liszt and Wagner did not like Brahms much is
recommendation enough !

Dufus

[herman]

It took a while but I finally managed to locate my copy of the Suk -
Navarra DC with Ancerl; exemplarily remastered in Ancerl Gold vol 31.
The first mvt is 16:42.

I believe I have four or five DCs, but this is my favorite one, though
I like Julia Fischer and Muller-Schott on youtube, too, with another
orchestra and conductor than the pentatone record.

[whiskynsplash]

On Jun 14, 1:13 am, Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Are there any even remotely recent recordings of this piece in which the
first movement is fast enough to approach, say, 16 minutes?
Matty

Speaking of Brahms and DynoMight, the Hans Rott Symphony on Arte Nova
has dropped to an irresistible $2.93 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Hans-Rott-Symphony-Orchestral-Works/dp/B00096S2U0