Discussion:
Do I really need to buy Vanska's Beethoven cycle?
(too old to reply)
JamesA
2009-11-05 21:38:21 UTC
Permalink
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-05 21:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
Given the terrific promotional price BIS is offering, I'd say "grab it".

Some of the performances are truly exceptional (such as 4, 7, and 8). Others
don't come up to that level. These performances are more appealing heard one
at a time, not in a marathon.

The only BS9 I've heard that I would say "stay away from" is the older Masur
on PentaTone. It's so odd that I've never gotten around to discussing it
here. Suffice it to say that he seems to be playing Beethoven as if it were
Haydn. The result is the finest "intro" to each symphony you've ever heard,
followed by what I can only call a tepid emasculation of Beethoven.
M forever
2009-11-05 21:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 01:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.


Bob Harper
td
2009-11-06 01:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Actually, Bob, his language is so vague - lacks personality, lacks
depth, no musical context, musical elements don't speak, and other
comments approaching jibberish - that they hardly expand on my own one
word comment: boring.

You need to be more critical and more demanding, Bob, before you bow
to the teutonic musical God amongst us.

TD
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 02:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Actually, Bob, his language is so vague - lacks personality, lacks
depth, no musical context, musical elements don't speak, and other
comments approaching jibberish - that they hardly expand on my own one
word comment: boring.
You need to be more critical and more demanding, Bob, before you bow
to the teutonic musical God amongst us.
TD
Bowing is something I do towards God, not to either one of you. But I
thought he expressed the Vänska cycle's shortcomings well, and said so.

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-06 03:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Actually, Bob, his language is so vague - lacks personality, lacks
depth, no musical context, musical elements don't speak, and other
comments approaching jibberish - that they hardly expand on my own one
word comment: boring.
Actually, I did explain a few of these comments, but that probably
went completely over your head.
I agree though that I could have gone more into musical detail and
maybe I could have given a few concrete examples, but then the post
would have been unnecessarily long, and the subject of Vänskä's
Beethoven simply doesn't interest me enough to spend more time on it.
Post by td
You need to be more critical and more demanding, Bob, before you bow
to the teutonic musical God amongst us.
Agreeing with someone is not "bowing" to him, particularly not when
that someone actually explains his views and the other guy finds
himself in agreement with the statements, not just the "opinion".

In any case, however little I said there, it is still much more
content than anything you have ever contributed here, beyond "it is
like molten toffee".
td
2009-11-06 10:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Actually, Bob, his language is so vague - lacks personality, lacks
depth, no musical context, musical elements don't speak, and other
comments approaching jibberish - that they hardly expand on my own one
word comment: boring.
Actually, I did explain a few of these comments, but that probably
went completely over your head.
I agree though that I could have gone more into musical detail and
maybe I could have given a few concrete examples, but then the post
would have been unnecessarily long, and the subject of Vänskä's
Beethoven simply doesn't interest me enough to spend more time on it.
And you accuse ME of not "explaining" sufficiently? Your explanations
were so generalized as to be fairly useless.

e.g. is Vanska quick? slow? or medium speed Beethoven?

That's a specific consideration you might have explored. But didn't.
And you could have done so in one or two words.

e.g. Clinical. Boring. Too fast.

Brevity is the soul of wit, something you lack utterly.

TD
M forever
2009-11-06 16:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by M forever
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Actually, Bob, his language is so vague - lacks personality, lacks
depth, no musical context, musical elements don't speak, and other
comments approaching jibberish - that they hardly expand on my own one
word comment: boring.
Actually, I did explain a few of these comments, but that probably
went completely over your head.
I agree though that I could have gone more into musical detail and
maybe I could have given a few concrete examples, but then the post
would have been unnecessarily long, and the subject of Vänskä's
Beethoven simply doesn't interest me enough to spend more time on it.
And you accuse ME of not "explaining" sufficiently? Your explanations
were so generalized as to be fairly useless.
I never accused you of not explaining "sufficiently". I accused you of
not explaining your very "strong" "opinions" *at all*.
Post by td
e.g. is Vanska quick? slow? or medium speed Beethoven?
That follows from my comparison to other known cycles and from the
classification of his basic approach ass "classicist". Obviously a
stylistic term you don't understand. No surprise there.
Post by td
That's a specific consideration you might have explored. But didn't.
And you could have done so in one or two words.
e.g. Clinical. Boring. Too fast.
That doesn't even attempt to explain anything. What does "clinical"
mean? "Boring"? That's extremely subjective. "Too fast"? Again, very
general. I explained why the set is musically unappealing (at least to
me, and apparently to a lot of other people as well, including you) in
a few words which should give someone with some musical knowledge a
fairly good idea what I am talking about.
Obviously not you. Again, no surprise there.

Besides, if someone reads a post and is interested in more details and
clarifications, he/she can always ask. Like I asked you to explain
your "opinion" about Gibson's Sibelius. With 0 results.
Post by td
Brevity is the soul of wit, something you lack utterly.
Being able to explain anything, particularly musical concepts in a few
words is indeed a rare gift, but something you don't possess either -
at all. Just throwing out a few words isn't "wit" at all either, even
though we know you like to think of yourself as particularly "witty".
But as we have seen, there is next to know substance behind that
"witty" facade.
O
2009-11-06 17:33:13 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Brevity is the soul of wit, something you lack utterly.
Then for the future, I'm hoping for increased wit from you.

-Owen
td
2009-11-06 21:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Brevity is the soul of wit, something you lack utterly.
Then for the future, I'm hoping for increased wit from you.
Done

TD
Simon Roberts
2009-11-06 20:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Perhaps, but as you repeatedly demonstrate, it's no guarantee.

Simon
J.Martin
2009-11-06 17:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Actually, I did explain a few of these comments, but that probably
went completely over your head.
I agree though that I could have gone more into musical detail and
maybe I could have given a few concrete examples, but then the post
would have been unnecessarily long, and the subject of Vänskä's
Beethoven simply doesn't interest me enough to spend more time on it.
Not to mention the fact that Vanska's Beethoven was the subject of a
very lengthy and contentious thread just a few months ago, and going
back over the specific points raised then would be beyond tedious.
Just for example, I remember discussion of the recitative in the
opening of 9iv, which is completely lacking in the vocal inflection.
But never mind...

I agree with your comments: Of the more recent LvB, I find the
Mackerras and live Abbado much more enjoyable and recommendable than
the Vanska.

JM
M forever
2009-11-06 17:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Actually, I did explain a few of these comments, but that probably
went completely over your head.
I agree though that I could have gone more into musical detail and
maybe I could have given a few concrete examples, but then the post
would have been unnecessarily long, and the subject of Vänskä's
Beethoven simply doesn't interest me enough to spend more time on it.
Not to mention the fact that Vanska's Beethoven was the subject of a
very lengthy and contentious thread just a few months ago, and going
back over the specific points raised then would be beyond tedious.
Just for example, I remember discussion of the recitative in the
opening of 9iv, which is completely lacking in the vocal inflection.
But never mind...
That's a very good example. Beethoven says in the score "in the
character of a recitative, but in tempo". What exactly that means is
hard to define, and many conductors have interpreted it in different
ways. To me, it suggests that it should be played with a degree of
flexibility and "vocal inflection", as you put it - it has to sound as
if someone is singing a text with a meaning, not just "lalala" -, but
that the tempi should also not be excessively dragged out - which a
lot of "traditional" interpretations do anyway, because it is more
"dramatic".
What Vänskä does here is basically to play the notes "as written"
without any kind of interpretation. Which is basically his approach
throughout the entire cycle. I can see how that might be appealing to
someone who is tired of all sorts of performances which distort and
stretch the music in all directions, in a "let's go back to the score"
way. But again, this has already been done many, many times, and there
are many performances which meticulously observe the scores but still
offer more musical flexibility and inflection.
Post by J.Martin
I agree with your comments:  Of the more recent LvB, I find the
Mackerras and live Abbado much more enjoyable and recommendable than
the Vanska.
JM
M forever
2009-11-06 03:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Bob Harper
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 03:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Bob Harper
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)

Bob Harper
td
2009-11-06 05:01:01 UTC
Permalink
SPAM
td
2009-11-06 10:42:09 UTC
Permalink
SPAM
FAKE POST.

TD
td
2009-11-06 10:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
What you don't have evidence for it GOD, however.

TD
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 15:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
What you don't have evidence for it GOD, however.
TD
Assuming you meant 'is' for 'it', I look about me.

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-06 16:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak". The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
Michael, we may differ about many things, but I agree completely with
what you have written here, and especially with your comments about
*why* Vänska's set is, as you say, 'completely superfluous'.
Bob Harper
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
M forever wrote:
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-06 23:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
td
2009-11-06 23:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And not comprehending a single thing.

Yes, miraculous, given the evolution of most of us.

TD
M forever
2009-11-06 23:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And not comprehending a single thing.
Well, I wasn't talking about you specifically, but yes, you are a
result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, too. Which just shows that
evolution really is random, trial and error. In your case, more the
latter, apparently.
Post by td
Yes, miraculous, given the evolution of most of us.
TD
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 23:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And you think that was by chance ?:)

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-07 00:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And you think that was by chance ?:)
Bob Harper
Hard to say. I guess it all depends on how one defines "chance", and
that in itself is an endless discussion with many possible scientific
and philosophical angles. It definitely is a process though which is
completely beyond our comprehension, no matter how far we have come to
understand the mechanisms at work there. The time spans alone are
something which we can't grasp, even though we can put rough numbers
to them.
That's something which I don't like about religions, BTW, everything
is so small, the mental worlds from which they originate are so tiny
and limited. Just about the size the people who invented them could
grasp, which was even smaller than what little we know today.
The universe we inhabit and the time frames in which it "ticks" are
unimaginably big, an anthropocentric universe with an anthropomorphic
creator is obviously a very small version downsized to be grasped by
our small minds.
The real time span it took our species to evolve, however long that
actually may be, alone is so much longer than the inventors of
religions ever dared to guess. Even the last stage of the journey
since our ancestors left Africa - which may have been as "recent" as
only 50,000 years ago - is already beyond our comprehension. Still,
what a trip!
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Bob Harper
2009-11-07 01:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Apparently, miracles do happen sometimes.
I have always believed they do. Now we have evidence :)
Bob Harper
It should make you think though when that evidence includes *me*.
In my economy, you *are* a miracle, as is mark, td, bl, and even my poor
self.
Bob Harper
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And you think that was by chance ?:)
Bob Harper
Hard to say. I guess it all depends on how one defines "chance", and
that in itself is an endless discussion with many possible scientific
and philosophical angles. It definitely is a process though which is
completely beyond our comprehension, no matter how far we have come to
understand the mechanisms at work there. The time spans alone are
something which we can't grasp, even though we can put rough numbers
to them.
That's something which I don't like about religions, BTW, everything
is so small, the mental worlds from which they originate are so tiny
and limited. Just about the size the people who invented them could
grasp, which was even smaller than what little we know today.
The universe we inhabit and the time frames in which it "ticks" are
unimaginably big, an anthropocentric universe with an anthropomorphic
creator is obviously a very small version downsized to be grasped by
our small minds.
The real time span it took our species to evolve, however long that
actually may be, alone is so much longer than the inventors of
religions ever dared to guess. Even the last stage of the journey
since our ancestors left Africa - which may have been as "recent" as
only 50,000 years ago - is already beyond our comprehension. Still,
what a trip!
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Re 'smallness':

Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Joe Gillis: You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You
used to be big.
Norma Desmond: I *am* big. It's the *pictures* that got small.

On 6 December 1273 Aquinas was celebrating the Mass of St Nicholas when
he unexpectedly abandoned his routine and refused to dictate [the Summa
Theologica] to his socius Reginald of Piperno. When Reginald begged him
to get back to work, Aquinas replied: "Reginald, I cannot, because
compared to what I have seen all that I have written seems like straw to
me."

Bob Harper
Norman Schwartz
2009-11-07 14:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle
if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
Bob Lombard
2009-11-07 15:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by M forever
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle
if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
According to the emails I receive, I win a lottery without buying a
ticket fairly often.

bl
M forever
2009-11-07 20:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Lombard
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by M forever
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle
if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
According to the emails I receive, I win a lottery without buying a
ticket fairly often.
It's a miracle!!!

:-)
Bob Harper
2009-11-07 22:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by M forever
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle
if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
Perhaps that's what the Rabbi in the story was looking for. :)

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-07 22:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by M forever
One could say though that the greatest miracle is that we do have the
ability to somehow figure out these things, or at least work in that
direction.
Anything without an explanation is a 'miracle'; it would even be a miracle
if I won the lottery, and particularly so if I didn't have a ticket.
Perhaps that's what the Rabbi in the story was looking for. :)
Bob Harper
What Rabbi?
Kip Williams
2009-11-07 02:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Evolution is indeed a miracle. 3.5 billion years ago, our ancestors
were single cell thingies, and now we are sitting in front of highly
complex electronic machines and type in messages, among other strange
activities.
And you think that was by chance ?:)
From the evidence, it appears to be the result of natural processes,
but I don't pretend to have the answer.


Kip W
Lena
2009-11-06 08:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak".
I think all this depends on what's (actually) meant. I've only heard
the 1+6 disc, and it's not that bad at all. Vanska is cold and clear,
and as implied by everyone, expressively somewhat restricted, but some
musical depth/brains are certainly present - so perhaps you don't get
emotional depth, but at least there are some pretty judicious balance
choices. :) The sound is fantastically clear. So this might well be
good for hearing a lot of score detail (which is a useful alternative
way to listen, sometimes).

(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)

So IMO this set is not at all as mediocre as claimed here. But
unfortunately, I can't really help the OP, since I don't know if I
think the rest of the Vanska is worth getting or not, even for me. I
rather doubt it. (But then, I'm looking for perfection, this
time. :) ) Compared to what Abbado I've heard, Vanska is quite
competitive. It's a different sort of 'musicality'.

Lena
Post by M forever
The orchestra sounds good, but not particularly colorful or
vibrant either. Since there are so many Beethoven cycles that are well
played and recorded, and/or offer more musical insights and character,
I think it's really superfluous. For a set which is similarly
"classicist" in its basic approach, but musically much more dense and
also played more vibrant and with more color and substance to the
orchestral sound, I would recommend Wand/NDR or Blomstedt/
Staatskapelle Dresden, and for one which is more "HIP" influenced, you
definitely should have Harnoncourt/COE which I think is stylistically
among the most complex and interesting out there.
Something rather similar in its basic "non-interventionist" approach
but better played and much more musical than Vänskä would also be one
of Abbado's newer sets, either the one on DG or the video cycle from
Rome (which I understand is also available as audio-only discs from
DG, to make things more confusing).
td
2009-11-06 10:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak".
I think all this depends on what's (actually) meant.  I've only heard
the 1+6 disc, and it's not that bad at all.  Vanska is cold and clear,
and as implied by everyone, expressively somewhat restricted, but some
musical depth/brains are certainly present - so perhaps you don't get
emotional depth, but at least there are some pretty judicious balance
choices. :)
I would want to know what you actually mean by "some musical depth/
brains".

This is precisely the kind of language which does absolutely nothing
to illuminate the subject. It is, indeed, a very shallow concept.

TD
Lena
2009-11-06 13:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak".
I think all this depends on what's (actually) meant.  I've only heard
the 1+6 disc, and it's not that bad at all.  Vanska is cold and clear,
and as implied by everyone, expressively somewhat restricted, but some
musical depth/brains are certainly present - so perhaps you don't get
emotional depth, but at least there are some pretty judicious balance
choices. :)
I would want to know what you actually mean by "some musical depth/
brains".
This is precisely  the kind of language which does absolutely nothing
to illuminate the subject. It is, indeed, a very shallow concept.
Pardon me, but I gave an example of musical brains in about the next
paragraph. What's more, it was in language that anyone should be able
to understand. Otherwise, I'm not interested in protracted
conversations with you.

Lena
M forever
2009-11-06 16:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak".
I think all this depends on what's (actually) meant.  I've only heard
the 1+6 disc, and it's not that bad at all.  Vanska is cold and clear,
and as implied by everyone, expressively somewhat restricted, but some
musical depth/brains are certainly present - so perhaps you don't get
emotional depth, but at least there are some pretty judicious balance
choices. :)   The sound is fantastically clear.  So this might well be
good for hearing a lot of score detail (which is a useful alternative
way to listen, sometimes).
That's basically what I said, too. Except that I don't think that's
quite enough in a field as dense as complete sets of Beethoven
symphonies. The above mentioned positive qualities are found in a
number of other cycles as well, and more, in some cases much more,
including several the poster already has.
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium.  While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
So IMO this set is not at all as mediocre as claimed here.  But
unfortunately, I can't really help the OP, since I don't know if I
think the rest of the Vanska is worth getting or not, even for me.  I
rather doubt it.  (But then, I'm looking for perfection, this
time. :) )   Compared to what Abbado I've heard, Vanska is quite
competitive.  It's a different sort of 'musicality'.
I don't think anyone has specifically called this set "mediocre".
There is no doubt that it is very well played and recorded, and
whatever one thinks of Vänskä's musical concepts, it is obvious that
it is also well prepared. But again, so are many good Beethoven cycles
out there, and many offer more. I guess you could say that makes it
"mediocre" but to me, that term also implies technical shortcomings.
That is not the case here, and I don't think anyone has much to
criticize about the technical qualities of this set.
Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in
their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both
employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent
orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet,
generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by
artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main
difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more
expressive and musically detailed.
BTW, I am not a big fan of Abbado's sets either which I find very
"middle of the road", but the sheer quality and expressiveness of the
playing and music making impresses me every time I listen to these
performances or watch the videos.
I think that whatever stylistic approach(es) we may prefer for the
Beethoven symphonies, we all agree that this music is very "loaded"
with musical potential, and that's why we continue to listen to it in
many different versions, because even the best of them can only
fulfill that potential to a certain degree. The music is never
"exhausted". So if we listen to other performances, they have to give
us either something new or something very specific. And Vänskä does
neither. Again, not much "wrong" about it, but in a very crowded
field, superfluous.
herman
2009-11-06 18:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
I think that whatever stylistic approach(es) we may prefer for the
Beethoven symphonies, we all agree that this music is very "loaded"
with musical potential, and that's why we continue to listen to it in
many different versions, because even the best of them can only
fulfill that potential to a certain degree. The music is never
"exhausted".
That may be so, but I think many people go way overboard on this,
thinking you have to penetrate ever deeply into Beethoven's symphonies
(and some of his piano stuff, too), whereas there is so much equally
interesting and inexhaustible music out there. For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance, even though Haydn wrote more great
symphonies than LvB.

At home I listen to LvB nr 4 maybe every couple of years, and that's
the only symphony that gets played here. I don't miss any of the other
ones.

So my answer to the OP would be: quit the Beethoven habit.
Gerard
2009-11-06 18:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by herman
For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance,
Is this true? Do you have some information (a website e.g.) that confirms this?
pgaron
2009-11-06 19:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by herman
For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance,
Is this true? Do you have some information (a website e.g.) that confirms this?
If a statement appears in an RMCR posting, then it must be taken on
faith as absolute truth.

pgaron
Gerard
2009-11-06 22:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by pgaron
Post by Gerard
Post by herman
For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance,
Is this true? Do you have some information (a website e.g.) that confirms this?
If a statement appears in an RMCR posting, then it must be taken on
faith as absolute truth.
Only if this is true.
M forever
2009-11-06 21:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by M forever
I think that whatever stylistic approach(es) we may prefer for the
Beethoven symphonies, we all agree that this music is very "loaded"
with musical potential, and that's why we continue to listen to it in
many different versions, because even the best of them can only
fulfill that potential to a certain degree. The music is never
"exhausted".
That may be so, but I think many people go way overboard on this,
thinking you have to penetrate ever deeply into Beethoven's symphonies
(and some of his piano stuff, too), whereas there is so much equally
interesting and inexhaustible music out there. For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance, even though Haydn wrote more great
symphonies than LvB.
At home I listen to LvB nr 4 maybe every couple of years, and that's
the only symphony that gets played here. I don't miss any of the other
ones.
So my answer to the OP would be: quit the Beethoven habit.
I like both Haydn and Beethoven. I think Haydn liked Beethoven's
music, too, at least the pieces he got to know before he died
(according to some people's beliefs, Haydn is probably in heaven now
and I guess he should have been able to have heard the rest in the
meantime; actually, since Beethoven is likely there, too, they
probably went through the pieces together).
I sometimes wonder what Haydn would have thought (or actually thinks,
if the heaven theory is correct) about Beethoven's 9th symphony which
is such a masterful fusion of advanced symphonic form, the form to
which Haydn itself contributed so much to and basically defined, and
the oratorio style which Haydn himself also contributed to such
masterpieces as The Creation, and The Seasons. I think it is often
overlooked how much Beethoven's 9th owes to these works, too.
Lena
2009-11-07 14:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by herman
Post by M forever
I think that whatever stylistic approach(es) we may prefer for the
Beethoven symphonies, we all agree that this music is very "loaded"
with musical potential, and that's why we continue to listen to it in
many different versions, because even the best of them can only
fulfill that potential to a certain degree. The music is never
"exhausted".
That may be so, but I think many people go way overboard on this,
thinking you have to penetrate ever deeply into Beethoven's symphonies
(and some of his piano stuff, too), whereas there is so much equally
interesting and inexhaustible music out there. For instance many of
these people who have a dozen or more Beethoven symphony sets have
very little Haydn, for instance, even though Haydn wrote more great
symphonies than LvB.
At home I listen to LvB nr 4 maybe every couple of years, and that's
the only symphony that gets played here. I don't miss any of the other
ones.
(laugh) To all of the above...

Lena
Post by herman
So my answer to the OP would be: quit the Beethoven habit.
Lena
2009-11-07 13:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by M forever
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
In my humble opinion, no, you don't need that set at all. I think it's
completely superfluous. Yes, it's very well played and nicely
recorded, but it is also pretty mechanical and lacking personality and
musical "depth". By which I mean that the notes are all played very
well, but the musical context isn't really there. Musical elements and
lines are "correctly" articulated and executed, but they don't really
"speak".
I think all this depends on what's (actually) meant.  I've only heard
the 1+6 disc, and it's not that bad at all.  Vanska is cold and clear,
and as implied by everyone, expressively somewhat restricted, but some
musical depth/brains are certainly present - so perhaps you don't get
emotional depth, but at least there are some pretty judicious balance
choices. :)   The sound is fantastically clear.  So this might well be
good for hearing a lot of score detail (which is a useful alternative
way to listen, sometimes).
That's basically what I said, too.
Sure.
Post by M forever
Except that I don't think that's
quite enough in a field as dense as complete sets of Beethoven
symphonies. The above mentioned positive qualities are found in a
number of other cycles as well, and more, in some cases much more,
including several the poster already has.
Some of them are not found in the same way in other sets, though. I'll
say a bit more about the balancing that I commented on. Of course,
this is modulo not having heard all of the competition (Mackerras II,
Jarvi most notably), and some of it I've heard in individual discs
only, but it's probably enough to make a few comments.

(For those reasons, I'm sort of unhappy about commenting, but at this
point, someone should. Because, though there were considered opinions
from a couple of posters (for example, you), the level of this and the
previous discussion has been pretty bad. I don't think dismissals
should be done *that* casually, on any subject. (It's also a little
strange to see one or two reasonably thoughtful opinions expressing
the superfluousness idea, and then a dozen accompanying "I agree with
you, I think it sucks"s, without indication that the latter guys have
processed much anything of what's in the performance. Harper, shape
up. :):) I think it's possible. :) )
Post by M forever
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium.  While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
Sorry :) - it was a slightly whimsical way of saying that Vanska has a
pretty good take on the multiple quasi-independent "streams" in 6/
ii. If I'm unclear, listen to a lengthy bit of the beginning of this
movement in Harnoncourt, who's hard to beat at this sort of thing, and
whose take explains it better than anyone's words can. (Abbado otoh
emphasizes the main melody too much as soon as it comes in, and stream
#2, the one the movement begins with, becomes too weak to give this
effect.)
Post by M forever
  Compared to what Abbado I've heard, Vanska is quite
competitive.  It's a different sort of 'musicality'.
I don't think anyone has specifically called this set "mediocre".
Perhaps not; but it's not quite superfluous either, most likely.
(Well, it may be superfluous for you, and perhaps for me - for
entirely different reasons - but I really doubt it's superfluous more
objectively speaking.)

[I'll snip a few things I very much agree with]
Post by M forever
Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in
their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both
employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent
orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet,
generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by
artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main
difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more
expressive and musically detailed.
That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty
significant differences. Actually, based on the individual CDs I've
heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to
seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the
qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who
like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected
interpretations, etc.). I'd add that this is not for people who like
a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to
want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.

There's also certainly something to what you say about lack of color
and flexibility in Vanska, but I'm guessing it's on purpose (because I
think he aims to do something that color is not necessarily so good
for). Perhaps there's also a lack of expressive variety within
movements. And, Abbado's orchestra has a very nice rhythmic
flexibility, which Vanska's quite doesn't. (Also, for some reason,
few conductors do a lively, distinct articulation of small phrases,
which is pretty apropos for some of the Beethoven - actually, you
generally hear more of this in Haydn, although a lack of phrasing
imagination seems to be some general conductor 'problem'. :) Vanska
could do much more of this, and Abbado isn't much better... But at
least Vanska is pretty sprightly.)

But I think Vanska beats Abbado on several fairly important fronts,
and, also, there are quite a few interesting things here, one of them
quite possibly unique (at least I haven't heard it before in symphonic
Beethoven).

The unique in Vanska is the sound world in a few of these movements:
in, say, slow ones, and similar segments elsewhere, Vanska's
instruments are balanced into a sort of a web, with the main melody
weaving in and out of a network of other sounds. The note attacks
are soft and indistinct - that and the comparative lack of color help
get this feeling of interleaved sounds. Makes sense? The restraint
in dynamic inflection helps, too. (Elsewhere, like in the scherzos,
the attacks become quite different, and dynamics can be more
pronounced.)

That web of sound is a characteristic I don't hear in any other
recording I know to this degree, and that alone is attractive to me. I
like this sound, because Beethoven does fluid, changing counterpoint,
frequently departing from the "fully independent lines" style; not
only are there consonant meeting points, but even in more traditional
episodes, Beethoven may interleave voices. (Not just cross them, and
expect, like in Mahler, to have orchestral color separate them - but
merge the voices.) So the writing itself supports both the weaving
concept and a refined treatment of texture. (This textural business
is even more pronounced in the string quartets, where I first sort of
fell in love with it.)

Harnoncourt is somewhat similar to Vanska in that he has fantastic,
dynamically changing balancing, but, saying this kind of nebulously,
he's perhaps more about instruments answering other instruments where
Vanska weaves. That's not a very good description, but you can hear
it... I must say I really like both approaches; they're not the same
sound at all to me. Harnoncourt is otherwise hard to beat, but I
wouldn't scoff at the overall effect V. achieves - and there are
things in Harnoncourt one might want to occasionally get away from.
(Not objectionable things, really, but you can't just listen to one
set. :) )

Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and
while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done
that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska,
working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices
subordinated (though very nicely audible). All beautifully played
though. Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I
remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear
conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions. So on
various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than
Abbado's. (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are
two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the
Pastoral/ii example. Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right
thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)

There are other differences that seem rather big to me, too, but I'll
skip the various other dimensions... I agree with everyone that,
expressively, V. is kind of subdued, but to me it doesn't sound
unpleasant, and a lot of expression may not be V.'s idea, anyway.
(And, finally, the quality of the Vanska recording is just great.)

I acknowledge that some of those might be points where people can
disagree; what might sound "correct" to someone, can sound hackneyed
and numbingly thoughtless to me, and what to me sounds like melodic
inflection subordinated to something more important or more fun, might
come across as plain and mechanical to someone else. That probably
means we're listening for different things in those places.

The people who insist on hearing well differentiated, "vocal" melodies
and listen mainly from culmination to culmination may not get the
qualities I find interesting here. (I'm not saying this is you, or
anyone in particular, but some of the other commentary here points in
that direction.) The people who do want to look for something else in
this music (something that actually does exist there - sorry,
Herman :) ), may well like Vanska, actually.

At any rate, Vanska has been reading the score, and he acts on it much
of the time in what I heard, so it's not devoid of depth, in that
sense, as we I guess agree on. So perhaps the less well-grounded
dismissals, which I think are fine, subjectively speaking, can exhibit
a little more understanding of the conductor's potential ideas...
(Again, not speaking about your posts.)

This applies to a lot of posting. (There's a bit of a culmination
point, here as well, in slight dismay at the things written... :) Not
to be taken very hard.)

Lena
Post by M forever
BTW, I am not a big fan of Abbado's sets either which I find very
"middle of the road", but the sheer quality and expressiveness of the
playing and music making impresses me every time I listen to these
performances or watch the videos.
I think that whatever stylistic approach(es) we may prefer for the
Beethoven symphonies, we all agree that this music is very "loaded"
with musical potential, and that's why we continue to listen to it in
many different versions, because even the best of them can only
fulfill that potential to a certain degree. The music is never
"exhausted". So if we listen to other performances, they have to give
us either something new or something very specific. And Vänskä does
neither. Again, not much "wrong" about it, but in a very crowded
field, superfluous.
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-07 14:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only
react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I had
a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read
music, you miss so much.
Norman Schwartz
2009-11-07 14:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only
react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I had
a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read
music, you miss so much.
It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs. one of
the crew on a ship outing.
Lena
2009-11-07 14:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only
react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I had
a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read
music, you miss so much.
It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a  passenger vs. one of
the crew on a ship outing.
I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a
passenger as anyone else. It's just that, in addition to listening
without thinking, they sometimes think.

Lena
Gerard
2009-11-07 15:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lena
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I
can only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong"
-- how I wish I had
a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and
can't read music, you miss so much.
It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs.
one of the crew on a ship outing.
I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a
passenger as anyone else.
On a ship (or plane) this is also the case.

Is there any analogy with cooking (and enjoying a meal)?
Maybe you recognize what's in the dish, but you don't know everything about how
to prepare it.
Bob Lombard
2009-11-07 15:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lena
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can only
react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I wish I had
a proper musical education. If you don't play an instrument and can't read
music, you miss so much.
It could easily be the reverse, as in the case of a passenger vs. one of
the crew on a ship outing.
I don't agree with this analogy, btw - in music, the crew is as much a
passenger as anyone else. It's just that, in addition to listening
without thinking, they sometimes think.
Lena
I am not a musician, nor have I played the role of a musician on TV. I
*have* discussed music with musicians, and know that they hear and
process the music while performing their part in it. Apparently, a
necessary attention to details does not prevent them from processing the
music as an ensemble. The balances are usually different, and there may
be occasions when the tam-tam has temporarily affected the hearing, but
in general....

bl
Gerard
2009-11-07 14:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can
only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I
wish I had a proper musical education. If you don't play an
instrument and can't read music, you miss so much.
Not always. It seems to me that the more people (at least some people) know
about all details of playing and performing and how it /should/ be done (well,
about how they think that it should be done), the more they worry about
everything - and to a degree the less they enjoy the quality as given by
recordings and perfomances.
It seems that for some it *never* is good, or good enough, and there is *always*
very much reason for a great lot of nitpicking - mainly (as it seems) about the
things that you are missing so much.
In such cases it might happen that I think: I'm glad that I can miss *that* .
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-07 15:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations,
I can only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong"
-- how I wish I had a proper musical education. If you don't play
an instrument and can't read music, you miss so much.
Not always. It seems to me that the more people (at least some people)
know about all details of playing and performing and how it /should/ be
done (well, about how they think that it should be done), the more they
worry about everything - and to a degree the less they enjoy the quality
as given by recordings and perfomances.
It seems that for some it *never* is good, or good enough, and there is
*always* very much reason for a great lot of nitpicking - mainly (as it
seems) about the things that you are missing so much.
In such cases it might happen that I think: I'm glad that I can miss
*that*.

I don't know. Just because I understand "stretch and squash" doesn't mean I
enjoy an animated film any the less. Or that knowing how special effects are
done reduces my pleasure in an action or SF film. Indeed, I remain startled
and amazed at Ray Harryhausen's artistry. (If you have never seen "Jason and
the Argonauts", do so. The film has one of the greatest stop-motion
sequences ever filmed almost immediately followed by /the/ greatest
stop-motion sequence.)

Mozart famously wrote to his father that he put things in his piano
concertos to please listeners who did not know a lot about music.

One can approach any work of art on multiple levels simultaneously. That
/should/ only increase one's enjoyment.
Gerard
2009-11-07 15:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
One can approach any work of art on multiple levels simultaneously.
Some people can. But I don't see it happening very often. Those who can analyze
everything (upto the level of atoms, or even smaller details), see reasons for
not enjoying everywhere.
Post by William Sommerwerck
That /should/ only increase one's enjoyment.
Sometimes maybe, because the contrary could happen.
Bob Lombard
2009-11-07 15:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by William Sommerwerck
Reading Lena's comments on various Beethoven interpretations, I can
only react by saying that, whether she is "right" or "wrong" -- how I
wish I had a proper musical education. If you don't play an
instrument and can't read music, you miss so much.
Not always. It seems to me that the more people (at least some people) know
about all details of playing and performing and how it /should/ be done (well,
about how they think that it should be done), the more they worry about
everything - and to a degree the less they enjoy the quality as given by
recordings and perfomances.
It seems that for some it *never* is good, or good enough, and there is *always*
very much reason for a great lot of nitpicking - mainly (as it seems) about the
things that you are missing so much.
In such cases it might happen that I think: I'm glad that I can miss *that* .
I think you are describing a 'special case' of the common difficulty
known as 'getting lost in the details'. Musicians and musicologists
don't *of necessity* lose sight of the forest because of all those
trees, though they are certainly more apt to notice the mistimed
entrances, wrong notes, and instances of a woodwind losing control of
those columns. Well, one of those squawks might distract even me for a
second or so.

bl
Simon Roberts
2009-11-07 14:33:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <9115d488-44dd-43e7-a9d7-***@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Lena says...
Post by Lena
(For those reasons, I'm sort of unhappy about commenting, but at this
point, someone should. Because, though there were considered opinions
from a couple of posters (for example, you), the level of this and the
previous discussion has been pretty bad. I don't think dismissals
should be done *that* casually, on any subject. (It's also a little
strange to see one or two reasonably thoughtful opinions expressing
the superfluousness idea, and then a dozen accompanying "I agree with
you, I think it sucks"s, without indication that the latter guys have
processed much anything of what's in the performance. Harper, shape
up. :):) I think it's possible. :) )
Well, yes, but (1) this isn't The Proceedings of the Musicological Society; (2)
there are other reasons to post besides enlightening others (or even oneself);
(3) given the extreme difficulty of writing intelligently and descriptively
about music, writing which satisfies (1) isn't necessarily enlightening anyway;
(4) Vanska's Beethoven has been discussed here on-and-off for several years and
those who have commented before may not be inclined to repeat more
thoughtful-seeming responses; and most important, perhaps,(5) no amount of
verbiage, however thoughtful, is as useful in addressing the question "do I need
this?" as actually listening for oneself, which can now be done astonishingly
cheaply and easily online.
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
I don't think anyone has specifically called this set "mediocre".
Perhaps not; but it's not quite superfluous either, most likely.
(Well, it may be superfluous for you, and perhaps for me - for
entirely different reasons - but I really doubt it's superfluous more
objectively speaking.)
But there's no such thing as "objectively speaking" about whether a set is
"superfluous" unless all it takes to prevent a set from being "superfluous" is
some objective difference from every other set. It may be objectively the case
that Vanska does certain things a bit differently from how others do them, but
whether that prevents it from being superfluous depends entirely on whether one
cares about those things. Since no two sets are exactly the same, would your
answer to the OP's question "do I need this?" always be "yes" regardless of what
"this" refers to?

Simon
Lena
2009-11-07 14:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Lena says...
Post by Lena
Perhaps not; but it's not quite superfluous either, most likely.
(Well, it may be superfluous for you, and perhaps for me - for
entirely different reasons - but I really doubt it's superfluous more
objectively speaking.)
But there's no such thing as "objectively speaking" about whether a set is
"superfluous" unless all it takes to prevent a set from being "superfluous" is
some objective difference from every other set.  
Some objective difference that means a lot to some people. Objective
enough?

It may be objectively the case
Post by Simon Roberts
that Vanska does certain things a bit differently from how others do them, but
whether that prevents it from being superfluous depends entirely on whether one
cares about those things.  
Of course, that's what I said. But the point is not that; it's that
the things I mention are relatively important to many people, because
they correspond to important things in the composition that are
generally somewhat neglected. You can always say that what's
important in a composition is a matter of subjective interpretation,
but I don't think it is.
Post by Simon Roberts
Since no two sets are exactly the same, would your
answer to the OP's question "do I need this?" always be "yes" regardless of what "this" refers to?
I don't need to answer that. I hope that's obvious. See above.

Lena
Lena
2009-11-07 14:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Lena says...
Post by Lena
Perhaps not; but it's not quite superfluous either, most likely.
(Well, it may be superfluous for you, and perhaps for me - for
entirely different reasons - but I really doubt it's superfluous more
objectively speaking.)
But there's no such thing as "objectively speaking" about whether a set is
"superfluous" unless all it takes to prevent a set from being "superfluous" is
some objective difference from every other set.  
Some objective difference that means a lot to some people.  Objective
enough?
It may be objectively the case
Post by Simon Roberts
that Vanska does certain things a bit differently from how others do them, but
whether that prevents it from being superfluous depends entirely on whether one
cares about those things.  
Of course, that's what I said.  But the point is not that; it's that
the things I mention are relatively important to many people, because
they correspond to important things in the composition that are
generally somewhat neglected.   You can always say that what's
important in a composition is a matter of subjective interpretation,
but I don't think it is.
I mean, I don't think it's only a matter of subjective interpretation.

It's I think better to not try to, sort of, extremize other people's
positions...

Lena
Lena
2009-11-07 14:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Lena says...
Post by Lena
(For those reasons, I'm sort of unhappy about commenting, but at this
point, someone should.  Because, though there were considered opinions
from a couple of posters (for example, you), the level of this and the
previous discussion has been pretty bad. I don't think dismissals
should be done *that* casually, on any subject.  (It's also a little
strange to see one or two reasonably thoughtful opinions expressing
the superfluousness idea, and then a dozen accompanying "I agree with
you, I think it sucks"s, without indication that the latter guys have
processed much anything of what's in the performance.  Harper, shape
up. :):)  I think it's possible. :) )
Well, yes, but (1) this isn't The Proceedings of the Musicological Society;
I'm not asking for that. Most people talk about this (and other
similar cases) with complete subjective blinders on - they don't get
what the conductor is doing, but neither can they acknowledge that
their own narrow personal requirements aren't the only possible ones.
(This most certainly doesn't apply to you.)

That's all well enough for one's personal listening (though it's not
even subjectively all that educating or fun to keep going in circles,
as it were), but it's not at all a basis for strong dismissing
recommendations. For one thing - I'm afraid the conductor/performer
has usually thought a lot more about the music than most of the people
commenting here. So highly critical persons might want to present
some validish grounds for their statements, at least once or twice, in
some thread somewhere. Why should anyone else bother with what they
say, otherwise?

Btw, I'm not talking about jokes, short coded messages to one's
friends, or the hurried post, and I'm not against subjective
judgments. But from some guys, I've *never* seen anything that
inspires confidence that they hear what's there.

[...]
Post by Simon Roberts
(4) Vanska's Beethoven has been discussed here on-and-off for several years and
those who have commented before may not be inclined to repeat more
thoughtful-seeming responses;
That's fine. I wasn't referring to your posts either. (A little
surprised that that's not obvious.) That's because I have quite a bit
of confidence in the thought part, vis a vis you, from elsewhere. Of
course, no one, including you, has to really care about what I
think.

Lena
Simon Roberts
2009-11-07 16:37:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <a04eb6a2-d848-4d58-9b4b-***@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Lena says...

[snip]
Post by Lena
Of
course, no one, including you, has to really care about what I
think.
Yikes; I hope what I wrote didn't imply that I don't care about what you think!

Simon
Lena
2009-11-08 00:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Lena says...
[snip]
Post by Lena
Of
course, no one, including you, has to really care about what I
think.
Yikes; I hope what I wrote didn't imply that I don't care about what you think!
Do you think I care what I think? :)

(I actually meant, in context: I know I said some rather harsh things,
and they perhaps verged on the rude. Anyone should feel free to
ignore those.)

Lena
jrsnfld
2009-11-07 18:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lena
That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty
significant differences.  Actually, based on the individual CDs I've
heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to
seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the
qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who
like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected
interpretations, etc.).   I'd add that this is not for people who like
a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to
want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
All is a matter of degree, but I think Vanska's live performances, due
to sound or the moment, seem more able to balance his other virtues
with sufficient melodic continuity.
Post by Lena
Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and
while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done
that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska,
working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices
subordinated (though very nicely audible).  All beautifully played
though.    Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I
remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear
conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions.  So on
various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than
Abbado's.  (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are
two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the
Pastoral/ii example.  Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right
thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
This sounds true to memory, but I think Abbado also handles the inner
voices quite well--the interactions are there but not quite as "in
your face" as in Vanska. I wouldn't say anything important is missing
in the Abbado, rather that his agenda is less to surprise you than, as
you say, to fit the old-fashioned conception with a slightly more
modern approach.

Also, I think it is ironic that Abbado is normally a conductor I
associate with very wide dynamics--very careful distinctions between
pp and p, etc.--and Vanska is cut from the same mold, perhaps even
outdoing Abbado in this area in the Beethoven.

--Jeff
Simon Roberts
2009-11-07 20:25:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <9115d488-44dd-43e7-a9d7-***@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Lena says...
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Post by Lena
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. =A0While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
Sorry :) - it was a slightly whimsical way of saying that Vanska has a
pretty good take on the multiple quasi-independent "streams" in 6/
ii. If I'm unclear, listen to a lengthy bit of the beginning of this
movement in Harnoncourt, who's hard to beat at this sort of thing, and
whose take explains it better than anyone's words can. (Abbado otoh
emphasizes the main melody too much as soon as it comes in, and stream
#2, the one the movement begins with, becomes too weak to give this
effect.)
This isn't to disagree with your basic description, but: in Vanska's, when the
first clarinet and first bassoon play "the tune" (starting at c. 40 secs into
the movement; it's a couple of seconds sooner in Harnoncourt's) they're given
the prominence of soloists, far more so than in Harnoncourt or Abbado/BPO (or
Abbado VPO, for that matter, though that performance is so utterly different it
sounds conducted by a different person). This sounds less like weaving in and
out than stepping forward and taking over.... I'm also not sure what you mean
when you say Abbado emphasizes the main melody too much. Do you mean in terms
of volume vis a vis what else is going on? If so, I don't hear that at all. Or
do you mean in terms of phrasing? Harnoncourt's first stream, as you call it (I
trust we're talking about the same thing), is distinguished by his unusual
short-term phrasing, articulation and voicing (you can really hear that the
cellos are divided, the horns are given something to do that's more than to
provide a gentle background blur, etc.), which prevent it from sounding like the
standard accompaniment it's often treated as; and while Vanska does something
fairly similar, Harnoncourt strikes me as more articulate and more distinctively
phrased.

But his approach does, despite its fastish tempo, create a fairly static,
small-scale effect. With Norrington/Stuttgart, by contrast, you get - or so it
seems to me - the independent streams conveyed at least as well (perhaps even
better) as with Harnoncourt (and Vanska and, I suspect, others), but you also
get a sense of surging motion, of ebb and flow, of being carried aloft by waves
on a rustic adventure; the whole thing is uniquely alive and compelling - a
remarkable performance. (Scherchen/Westminster/DG is in some ways similar, if a
bit too first-violin-dependent.)

At any rate, here, at least, I don't hear anything that Vanska does that others
don't do better (either because they have much the same idea but execute it
better (e.g. Harnoncourt) or couple that idea with better ideas and fly with it
(e.g. Norrington II); i.e., he's superfluous....

(Of course, that leaves rather a lot of other movements....)

Simon
Lena
2009-11-07 23:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Lena says...
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Post by Lena
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium. =A0While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't get what you mean by the country references here.
Sorry :) - it was a slightly whimsical way of saying that Vanska has a
pretty good take on the multiple quasi-independent "streams" in 6/
ii. If I'm unclear, listen to a lengthy bit of the beginning of this
movement in Harnoncourt, who's hard to beat at this sort of thing, and
whose take explains it better than anyone's words can. (Abbado otoh
emphasizes the main melody too much as soon as it comes in, and stream
#2, the one the movement begins with, becomes too weak to give this
effect.)
This isn't to disagree with your basic description, but: in Vanska's, when the
first clarinet and first bassoon play "the tune" (starting at c. 40 secs into
the movement; it's a couple of seconds sooner in Harnoncourt's) they're given
the prominence of soloists, far more so than in Harnoncourt or Abbado/BPO (or
Abbado VPO, for that matter, though that performance is so utterly different it
sounds conducted by a different person). This sounds less like weaving in and
out than stepping forward and taking over....
First: no, you can perhaps hold the argumentation down a bit here,
since the "weaving" comment doesn't apply to this movement at all...

Here, one is trying to separate the sound "streams," or make some of
them exist, in the first place.

(Stream is actually a technical term; I used it for the word
association, but it also applies here, since it's a term for what one
perceives as a single coherent unit in time...) I think I said a few
times that I think Harnoncourt is better than Vanska at this spot. I
was also not talking about an overall conception for this movement,
but the initial effect, during the first minute or so.

Finally, this was not the place where any arguments about
superfluousness rested (just a place to demonstrate that the guy is
competent enough). In any case, if we're actually going to argue
about a word, like two newsgroup dudes, :) maybe we should begin by
demanding exact definitions of what it means, in this situation,
before we even start. :) (Of course, if it's Jeff's definition, no
recording is superfluous.... :) )

It's quite possible that Norrington II (I haven't heard this
particular symphony from that set) is better in the first minute of 6/
ii than Vanska. (Scherchen I'll have to leave out of this comparison
because I think he's not in the generally prescribed scope (newer
recordings, I thought?).) Norrington certainly sounds interesting,
from your description.
Post by Simon Roberts
I'm also not sure what you mean
when you say Abbado emphasizes the main melody too much. Do you mean in terms
of volume vis a vis what else is going on? If so, I don't hear that at all.
I'm doing this from memory; I did mean, in part, volume, though also
other things: I think Abbado turns down the volume somewhere in a way
that's not quite salutary; I'll have to recheck where. However, it
will unfortunately have to be, right now, checking from a disreputable
partial source. :) I'll do it a bit later.

This was, in any case, a part of that side branch of the discussion
where Abbado was mentioned as a better Vanska. So, to go back to
arguing about those bits, I don't really think the two are quite
comparable enough, though in some grand outlines they're not
dissimilar, as MS/Jeff talk about. (Here I'll just offer myself as an
example - besides the melodic bent that I remember Abbado having, I'm
a little - and now for a very subjective judgment - turned off by some
things with his phrasing. It's not to dispute that Abbado is
competent, but I'd rather take someone to whom I have more of a
neutral reaction. :) )
Post by Simon Roberts
Or
do you mean in terms of phrasing? Harnoncourt's first stream, as you call it (I
trust we're talking about the same thing), is distinguished by his unusual
short-term phrasing, articulation and voicing (you can really hear that the
cellos are divided, the horns are given something to do that's more than to
provide a gentle background blur, etc.), which prevent it from sounding like the
standard accompaniment it's often treated as; and while Vanska does something
fairly similar, Harnoncourt strikes me as more articulate and more distinctively
phrased.
He is. All I was using this example for was to say that Vanska
demonstrates some 'depth' here.

(Also, this is a side remark, but when people are talking about
"balancing" for sound streams, they're obviously actually talking
about a very large number of things that can be done to distinguish or
merge streams, both by performer/composer. It's not just loudness.
Articulation, timbre, consonance/intonation, denseness of notes (or
appearance of denseness), accents, patterns, rhythm, tempo choice, the
way you sound individual notes, everything like that has an effect on
how one perceives texture. As a jumble, as separate lines, as one
line, as something that oscillates between those things.)

(A complete, total aside: the tempo effect is pretty striking, btw,
for those who are interested in such things. You very distinctly
switch from hearing one to two (or more) melodies, as the tempo of a
suitably patterned melody changes, and you can't really help it...)
Post by Simon Roberts
But his approach does, despite its fastish tempo, create a fairly static,
small-scale effect. [...]
At any rate, here, at least, I don't hear anything that Vanska does that others
don't do better (either because they have much the same idea but execute it
better (e.g. Harnoncourt) or couple that idea with better ideas and fly with it
(e.g. Norrington II); i.e., he's superfluous....
Are you talking, btw, about the entire movement right now? I was
mainly talking about the initial minute or so, and using it as an
example of something that Vanska does reasonably right; questions of
small scale (or not) don't quite enter into what I meant.
Post by Simon Roberts
(Of course, that leaves rather a lot of other movements....)
(Yes. :) Just so you know, in general, I'm unable to access Rhapsody,
and don't have most of my own CDs around, so the data available can be
a bit limited.)

Lena
M forever
2009-11-07 23:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in
their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both
employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent
orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet,
generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by
artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main
difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more
expressive and musically detailed.
That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty
significant differences.  Actually, based on the individual CDs I've
heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to
seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the
qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who
like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected
interpretations, etc.).   I'd add that this is not for people who like
a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to
want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
There's also certainly something to what you say about lack of color
and flexibility in Vanska, but I'm guessing it's on purpose (because I
think he aims to do something that color is not necessarily so good
for).  Perhaps there's also a lack of expressive variety within
movements.  And, Abbado's orchestra has a very nice rhythmic
flexibility, which Vanska's quite doesn't.   (Also, for some reason,
few conductors do a lively, distinct articulation of small phrases,
which is pretty apropos for some of the Beethoven - actually, you
generally hear more of this in Haydn, although a lack of phrasing
imagination seems to be some general conductor 'problem'. :)  Vanska
could do much more of this, and Abbado isn't much better...  But at
least Vanska is pretty sprightly.)
But I think Vanska beats Abbado on several fairly important fronts,
and, also, there are quite a few interesting things here, one of them
quite possibly unique (at least I haven't heard it before in symphonic
Beethoven).
in, say, slow ones, and similar segments elsewhere, Vanska's
instruments are balanced into a sort of a web, with the main melody
weaving in and out of a network of other sounds.   The note attacks
are soft and indistinct - that and the comparative lack of color help
get this feeling of interleaved sounds.   Makes sense?   The restraint
in dynamic inflection helps, too.  (Elsewhere, like in the scherzos,
the attacks become quite different, and dynamics can be more
pronounced.)
That web of sound is a characteristic I don't hear in any other
recording I know to this degree, and that alone is attractive to me. I
like this sound, because Beethoven does fluid, changing counterpoint,
frequently departing from the "fully independent lines" style; not
only are there consonant meeting points, but even in more traditional
episodes, Beethoven may interleave voices.  (Not just cross them, and
expect, like in Mahler, to have orchestral color separate them - but
merge the voices.)  So the writing itself supports both the weaving
concept and a refined treatment of texture.  (This textural business
is even more pronounced in the string quartets, where I first sort of
fell in love with it.)
Harnoncourt is somewhat similar to Vanska in that he has fantastic,
dynamically changing balancing, but, saying this kind of nebulously,
he's perhaps more about instruments answering other instruments where
Vanska weaves.  That's not a very good description, but you can hear
it...  I must say I really like both approaches; they're not the same
sound at all to me.   Harnoncourt is otherwise hard to beat, but I
wouldn't scoff at the overall effect V. achieves - and there are
things in Harnoncourt one might want to occasionally get away from.
(Not objectionable things, really, but you can't just listen to one
set. :) )
Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and
while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done
that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska,
working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices
subordinated (though very nicely audible).  All beautifully played
though.    Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I
remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear
conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions.  So on
various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than
Abbado's.  (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are
two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the
Pastoral/ii example.  Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right
thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
There are other differences that seem rather big to me, too, but I'll
skip the various other dimensions...  I agree with everyone that,
expressively, V. is kind of subdued, but to me it doesn't sound
unpleasant, and a lot of expression may not be V.'s idea, anyway.
(And, finally, the quality of the Vanska recording is just great.)
I acknowledge that some of those might be points where people can
disagree; what might sound "correct" to someone, can sound hackneyed
and numbingly thoughtless to me, and what to me sounds like melodic
inflection subordinated to something more important or more fun, might
come across as plain and mechanical to someone else.  That probably
means we're listening for different things in those places.
The people who insist on hearing well differentiated, "vocal" melodies
and listen mainly from culmination to culmination may not get the
qualities I find interesting here.  (I'm not saying this is you, or
anyone in particular, but some of the other commentary here points in
that direction.) The people who do want to look for something else in
this music (something that actually does exist there - sorry,
Herman :) ), may well like Vanska, actually.
At any rate, Vanska has been reading the score, and he acts on it much
of the time in what I heard, so it's not devoid of depth, in that
sense, as we I guess agree on.  So perhaps the less well-grounded
dismissals, which I think are fine, subjectively speaking, can exhibit
a little more understanding of the conductor's potential ideas...
(Again, not speaking about your posts.)
This applies to a lot of posting.  (There's a bit of a culmination
point, here as well, in slight dismay at the things written... :)  Not
to be taken very hard.)
Lena
Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply. It's
actually a little bit too long and detailed for my to reply to every
single point even though I sometimes write similarly long posts but
the subject really doesn't interest me that much, sorry.

Yes, I agree it is better if we at least try to explain our opinions
rather than just throwing out brief judgment which has next to no
value for other readers, especially when we don't know what kind of
background and what degree of reflection that statement comes from -
and even more so when we know it comes from someone who just throws
out random judgments without much behind it.
Sometimes though, when we simply agree with what someone said, it is
OK to just say so rather than repeating the same points again. Harper,
for instance, who rarely agrees with me on anything, can hardly be
accused of just jumping on my bandwagon.

I also agree that, yes, of course, you can find some musically
valuable elements in Vänskä's set, too. You can find something of
interest in *almost any* performance if you look hard enough. Jeff is
an expert at that ;-)

It's just that whatever can be found in these performances is simply
not interesting enough for me when there are so many, many more
performances available which offer me more. I don't quite agree with
Harman that one should "kick the Beethoven habit" completely and only
listen to Haydn instead, but he has a point. There is so much other
good music out there, I don't see any reason to OD on Beethoven just
for the sake of it, as great as the music is and as fascinating the
vast spectrum of Beethoven interpretations is, too.

Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly
interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out
there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive
versions.

Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important
for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that
this set simply doesn't quite have. There are certain things that I
listen for, not predefined elements that have to be exactly the way I
want them, but essential, basic qualities, like "eloquent" phrasing
which can be be quite subtle or dramatically rhetoric, that doesn't
really matter as long as it "says" something. That is particularly
important in Beethoven's music because it is built from small elements
which he then elaborates on like a speaker who presents an basic idea
and then expands on it. No matter how technically "perfect" a
performance is or not, I also look for some flexibility in rhythm and
pulse, which is of course directly related to the other elements I
described.

All these things are not distinct enough for me in Vänskä's Beethoven
and in the playing of his orchestra, as respectable as the overall
achievement no doubt is.
It all sounds to me somewhat like the speaking machine Hawking uses.
Lena
2009-11-08 00:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Actually, I don't think that Vänskä and Abbado are really different in
their "musicality". Both work in a "classicist" framework and both
employ the same basic stylistic means, slender and transparent
orchestral sound, well balanced, classical proportions, fleet,
generally steady tempi. They don't try to make "points" by
artificially highlighting details or pulling tempi about. The main
difference is that in Abbado's sets, the playing is much more
expressive and musically detailed.
That's I think partly quite true, but there are some (to me) pretty
significant differences.  Actually, based on the individual CDs I've
heard, I think Vanska is sufficiently different from all of them to
seem like it could be a reasonable choice on its own (with all the
qualifications you and others have mentioned - this is for people who
like straight, clear-sounding, not traditionally inflected
interpretations, etc.).   I'd add that this is not for people who like
a very clear-cut melodic emphasis, because the effect Vanska seems to
want to get is inimical to melodic emphasis.
There's also certainly something to what you say about lack of color
and flexibility in Vanska, but I'm guessing it's on purpose (because I
think he aims to do something that color is not necessarily so good
for).  Perhaps there's also a lack of expressive variety within
movements.  And, Abbado's orchestra has a very nice rhythmic
flexibility, which Vanska's quite doesn't.   (Also, for some reason,
few conductors do a lively, distinct articulation of small phrases,
which is pretty apropos for some of the Beethoven - actually, you
generally hear more of this in Haydn, although a lack of phrasing
imagination seems to be some general conductor 'problem'. :)  Vanska
could do much more of this, and Abbado isn't much better...  But at
least Vanska is pretty sprightly.)
But I think Vanska beats Abbado on several fairly important fronts,
and, also, there are quite a few interesting things here, one of them
quite possibly unique (at least I haven't heard it before in symphonic
Beethoven).
in, say, slow ones, and similar segments elsewhere, Vanska's
instruments are balanced into a sort of a web, with the main melody
weaving in and out of a network of other sounds.   The note attacks
are soft and indistinct - that and the comparative lack of color help
get this feeling of interleaved sounds.   Makes sense?   The restraint
in dynamic inflection helps, too.  (Elsewhere, like in the scherzos,
the attacks become quite different, and dynamics can be more
pronounced.)
That web of sound is a characteristic I don't hear in any other
recording I know to this degree, and that alone is attractive to me. I
like this sound, because Beethoven does fluid, changing counterpoint,
frequently departing from the "fully independent lines" style; not
only are there consonant meeting points, but even in more traditional
episodes, Beethoven may interleave voices.  (Not just cross them, and
expect, like in Mahler, to have orchestral color separate them - but
merge the voices.)  So the writing itself supports both the weaving
concept and a refined treatment of texture.  (This textural business
is even more pronounced in the string quartets, where I first sort of
fell in love with it.)
Harnoncourt is somewhat similar to Vanska in that he has fantastic,
dynamically changing balancing, but, saying this kind of nebulously,
he's perhaps more about instruments answering other instruments where
Vanska weaves.  That's not a very good description, but you can hear
it...  I must say I really like both approaches; they're not the same
sound at all to me.   Harnoncourt is otherwise hard to beat, but I
wouldn't scoff at the overall effect V. achieves - and there are
things in Harnoncourt one might want to occasionally get away from.
(Not objectionable things, really, but you can't just listen to one
set. :) )
Abbado otoh goes for a much more traditional sort of concept, and
while some of that may be elective, some can't be intended to be done
that way... Abbado is more old-fashionedly melodic than Vanska,
working primarily with a principal voice with the other voices
subordinated (though very nicely audible).  All beautifully played
though.    Of course, some of this is a little subject to what I
remember he does, but I think Abbado's more steadfastly linear
conception doesn't quite deal with the voice interactions.  So on
various scales, Vanska's handling of voices seems more insightful than
Abbado's.  (On a larger level, the same thing occurs when there are
two or more simultaneous interacting streams of music, as in the
Pastoral/ii example.  Vanska, like Harnoncourt, does the 'right
thing', more or less; Abbado doesn't.)
There are other differences that seem rather big to me, too, but I'll
skip the various other dimensions...  I agree with everyone that,
expressively, V. is kind of subdued, but to me it doesn't sound
unpleasant, and a lot of expression may not be V.'s idea, anyway.
(And, finally, the quality of the Vanska recording is just great.)
I acknowledge that some of those might be points where people can
disagree; what might sound "correct" to someone, can sound hackneyed
and numbingly thoughtless to me, and what to me sounds like melodic
inflection subordinated to something more important or more fun, might
come across as plain and mechanical to someone else.  That probably
means we're listening for different things in those places.
The people who insist on hearing well differentiated, "vocal" melodies
and listen mainly from culmination to culmination may not get the
qualities I find interesting here.  (I'm not saying this is you, or
anyone in particular, but some of the other commentary here points in
that direction.) The people who do want to look for something else in
this music (something that actually does exist there - sorry,
Herman :) ), may well like Vanska, actually.
At any rate, Vanska has been reading the score, and he acts on it much
of the time in what I heard, so it's not devoid of depth, in that
sense, as we I guess agree on.  So perhaps the less well-grounded
dismissals, which I think are fine, subjectively speaking, can exhibit
a little more understanding of the conductor's potential ideas...
(Again, not speaking about your posts.)
This applies to a lot of posting.  (There's a bit of a culmination
point, here as well, in slight dismay at the things written... :)  Not
to be taken very hard.)
Lena
Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply. It's
actually a little bit too long and detailed for my to reply to every
single point even though I sometimes write similarly long posts but
the subject really doesn't interest me that much, sorry.
That's fine - I'm really slightly in the same situation. It's not
that Beethoven (or Haydn, ehm - two of my most favored composers)
doesn't interest me, but I'm listening to entirely different music
right now, and also pretty busy otherwise.
Post by M forever
Yes, I agree it is better if we at least try to explain our opinions
rather than just throwing out brief judgment which has next to no
value for other readers, especially when we don't know what kind of
background and what degree of reflection that statement comes from -
and even more so when we know it comes from someone who just throws
out random judgments without much behind it.
Sometimes though, when we simply agree with what someone said, it is
OK to just say so rather than repeating the same points again. Harper,
for instance, who rarely agrees with me on anything, can hardly be
accused of just jumping on my bandwagon.
I don't really accuse Bob H. of anything... I hoped he has a
sufficient sense of humor, which he's often had (I've agreed with him
on some quartetry; otherwise, on general subjects, maybe not, but
those subjects are not something I deal with in newsgroups).
Post by M forever
I also agree that, yes, of course, you can find some musically
valuable elements in Vänskä's set, too. You can find something of
interest in *almost any* performance if you look hard enough. Jeff is
an expert at that ;-)
[...]
Post by M forever
Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly
interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out
there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive
versions.
Well, I'll leave it at that. I think we do listen for slightly
different things, just based on your posts, in general.
Post by M forever
Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important
for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that
this set simply doesn't quite have.
That's true, it isn't that.
Post by M forever
There are certain things that I
listen for, not predefined elements that have to be exactly the way I
want them, but essential, basic qualities, like "eloquent" phrasing
which can be be quite subtle or dramatically rhetoric, that doesn't
really matter as long as it "says" something.
I realize you like that, but I don't, very much, actually.
Post by M forever
That is particularly
important in Beethoven's music because it is built from small elements
which he then elaborates on like a speaker who presents an basic idea
and then expands on it.
Well, we can talk about this another day, but one small remark. Yes,
the music is (generally) built out of small elements, but it has a
huge number of other complications added in. *How* music like this is
built is just about as important, or more, as what it's built out
of...

What's more, the speach analogy is not terribly good for this music.
It's cute, and I know it's been used, but it functions more as a peg
for an individual's imagination. It's not a really adequate
description for how the music is constructed, nor is it a prescription
for performance...
Post by M forever
No matter how technically "perfect" a
performance is or not, I also look for some flexibility in rhythm and
pulse, which is of course directly related to the other elements I
described.
All these things are not distinct enough for me in Vänskä's Beethoven
and in the playing of his orchestra, as respectable as the overall
achievement no doubt is.
Again, different individuals put weight on different things.

Thanks for the reply... I'm in a slightly awkward position
throughout, here, because I don't really want to defend Vanska to this
degree. It feels a bit as if I'm defending, because nobody else
bothered to.

But maybe I achieved what I wanted = a decent discussion on the
subject, instead of throwaway dismissing remarks...
Post by M forever
It all sounds to me somewhat like the speaking machine Hawking uses.
(laugh)

Lena
Lena
2009-11-08 00:34:04 UTC
Permalink
I wrote some stuff too fast - so I'll just amend for some clarity.

[MS]
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Thanks for the long and detailed, and very reflected reply.
Actually, it was rather fast and sloppy, but whatever. :) Thank you.
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
Whatever the basic approach and concept, it is decisively important
for me though that the music making is alive and flexible in ways that
this set simply doesn't quite have.
That's true, it isn't that.
Here I mean in particular rhythmic flexibility, which I do like.
(Though, in some cases, I don't mind some lack of it.) Vanska is not
that rhythmically flexible, that's what the "true" here meant. Sorry,
I wasn't clear.
Post by Lena
Post by M forever
No matter how technically "perfect" a
performance is or not, I also look for some flexibility in rhythm and
pulse, which is of course directly related to the other elements I
described.
All these things are not distinct enough for me in Vänskä's Beethoven
and in the playing of his orchestra, as respectable as the overall
achievement no doubt is.
Again, different individuals put weight on different things.
Here I should just say I slightly misread - I like flexibility in
rhythm and pulse, too. Although, there really are places it's better
to not have it (some scherzo situations, for example), and there are
also expressive purposes that go very much counter to lively rhythm.
You can't, for instance, aim to give the impression of steady
implacability and play like a little songbird (I imagine they're
flexible :) ). So I can't give a flexibility-is-always-better recipe
on this point.

(In some Beethoven movements, flexibility certainly doesn't hurt - the
Pastoral is pretty much a case in point, but this is, perhaps, not
music that can't handle its absence, since so many other things can be
done.)

Lena
Lena
2009-11-08 00:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Neither do I find the "web of sound concept" you detected particularly
interesting either. There is already lots of "blended Beethoven" out
there, too, and also in musically more gratifying and expressive
versions.
Well, I'll leave it at that.  I think we do listen for slightly
different things, just based on your posts, in general.
(I also don't think you quite get what I mean, but then I perhaps
haven't explained it too well right now...)
Post by M forever
also in musically more gratifying and expressive versions.
That statement has an implicit "to my taste" attached to it?

I do hope it's really very clear in this ng that there are several
different ways in which music is gratifying and expressive... I know
people sometimes have trouble seeing this, because they're extremely
hung up on what they prefer themselves, and see it as "correct." This
is the main reason I got into this discussion in the first place.

Lena
jrsnfld
2009-11-08 01:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lena
I do hope it's really very clear in this ng that there are several
different ways in which music is gratifying and expressive...   I know
people sometimes have trouble seeing this, because they're extremely
hung up on what they prefer themselves, and see it as "correct."  This
is the main reason I got into this discussion in the first place.
And thanks for that discussion...all in all an interesting day in
RMCR, difficult to follow with a day that started with a charmed
recording of Beethoven (Kubelik/SOBR in the 1st and 2nd) and has now
devolved into uncharted territories of Francesconi and Berio. I can
barely remember what Beethoven 6ii sounds like.

--Jeff

number_six
2009-11-07 21:13:21 UTC
Permalink
snip <
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium.  While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't fully understand this, but I see you have already written more
about it later in the thread.

This was particularly interesting to me as Harnoncourt's Beethoven --
specifically 6/ii -- was the triggering event for the "Beethoven's
Grandest Gesture" thread I started many weeks ago. Some posters
thought the thread was silly (I'm not unaccustomed to that); others
could see the wavelength from which my comments were made. Either way,
Beethoven endures.
Lena
2009-11-08 00:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by number_six
snip <
(For instance, Vanska is second only to Harnoncourt with the idea of
the crisscrossing "waves" in 6/ii, where this is the kind of brook
where part of the orchestra is going to France, another to England,
and the rest are rowing in circles near Belgium.  While it's a small
travel-related detail, it's not unrepresentative, and coming close to
Harnoncourt in these areas is not such a mean feat.)
I don't fully understand this, but I see you have already written more
about it later in the thread.
This was particularly interesting to me as Harnoncourt's Beethoven --
specifically 6/ii -- was the triggering event for the "Beethoven's
Grandest Gesture" thread I started many weeks ago.  Some posters
thought the thread was silly (I'm not unaccustomed to that); others
could see the wavelength from which my comments were made. Either way,
Beethoven endures.
Sorry; I think I missed that thread... I don't remember it at all.
I'll try the malfunctioning archives.

Lena
td
2009-11-05 22:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
No.

It's boring.

TD
Mike
2009-11-05 23:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
I succumbed to the hype and bought all the CDs individually even
though I have many complete sets and countless separate symphony
recordings. Vanska is highly overrated, in my opinion. The
performances are pretty mechanical with no memorable performance
practice insights. I suspect I'll put all of them in my trade or sell
stack and not miss any of them.
wkasimer
2009-11-05 23:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
I can think of a few sets that you might want to buy to supplement
what you have (Barenboim, for one) - but Vanska isn't one of them.

Bill
Randy Lane
2009-11-06 02:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
If you don't, you'll have to live with the disappointing though that
you didn't own/buy EVERY Beethoven Sym. cycle.
After all, shouldn't you accomplish that before you even think about
buying the forthcoming BIS 6 CD Schnittke bargain?
Shouldn't you own every possilbe Beethoven 9 in the catalog before
buying any OTHER music?

If you own a few of the "classic" cycles, and some of the "classic"
recordings that are not part of integrated cycles, I'd suggest that
you pass on the Vanska and get some music you don't already own.
I'd only consider the Vanska if I was building a new collection, and
then only with a few other cycles before it.
Thread-Mender
2009-11-06 06:34:14 UTC
Permalink
[original thread subject restored]
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 19:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
Don't listen to the killjoy sentiments here from jaded collectors and
erstwhile Haydn enthusiasts. You need not apologize for having lots of
Beethoven sets and wanting to hear more, regardless of what you think
of Schnittke or Haydn or whomever. If your interest is in Beethoven,
so be it.

Given so many contenders for your next purchase, you have some
serious thinking to do. Vanska's virtues have been well described. Do
you want something maddening but sometimes remarkably fresh? Get
Pletnev. Do you want something very traditional with minimal modern
touches? Get Mackerras--very satisfying and well played. Do you want
to replace your creaky, rigid old Norrington set with something better
sounding, better played, and better conceived? Then don't hesitate to
get the new Norrington. Need something with early instruments? Get
Brueggen. Etc. Or get them all and don't worry about which one you get
first.

--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-06 20:06:44 UTC
Permalink
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.

But if you don't have the Bernstein NYPO set, or (especially) the
Harnoncourt, those should come ahead of the Vanska.
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 20:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
But if you don't have the Bernstein NYPO set, or (especially) the
Harnoncourt, those should come ahead of the Vanska.
I suspect the OP has many more than 8 sets...and probably has at least
one of the Bernstein sets, and Harnoncourt. Just a hunch, judging from
his shopping list.

I don't have the Gardiner set...I've heard about half and decided I
didn't want it much--to metronomic for me. That's also one reason I
hesitate to recommend Vanska wholeheartedly--the playing is neat as a
pin on 4 and 5 (the only disc I've heard so far), but too much of the
rhythm and phrasing lack subtlety and shape. The live performance
broadcasts (of which I've heard the whole cycle) were much better,
often among the finest Beethoven you can hear anywhere.

--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-06 21:57:41 UTC
Permalink
I don't have the Gardiner set... I've heard about half and decided
I didn't want it much--to metronomic for me.
Broadly speaking, yes.
That's also one reason I
hesitate to recommend Vanska wholeheartedly--the playing is neat as a
pin on 4 and 5 (the only disc I've heard so far), but too much of the
rhythm and phrasing lack subtlety and shape. The live performance
broadcasts (of which I've heard the whole cycle) were much better,
often among the finest Beethoven you can hear anywhere.

Isn't it funny how conductors go from Jekyll to Hyde (or vice-versa) in
front of a mic?
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 22:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
I don't have the Gardiner set... I've heard about half and decided
I didn't want it much--to metronomic for me.
Broadly speaking, yes.
That's also one reason I
hesitate to recommend Vanska wholeheartedly--the playing is neat as a
pin on 4 and 5 (the only disc I've heard so far), but too much of the
rhythm and phrasing lack subtlety and shape. The live performance
broadcasts (of which I've heard the whole cycle) were much better,
often among the finest Beethoven you can hear anywhere.
Isn't it funny how conductors go from Jekyll to Hyde (or vice-versa) in
front of a mic?
I can't tell why, though... is it the conductor, the person choosing
takes, or the musicians themselves. I suspect it's the last, more than
anything.

--Jeff
M forever
2009-11-06 20:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
Post by William Sommerwerck
But if you don't have the Bernstein NYPO set, or (especially) the
Harnoncourt, those should come ahead of the Vanska.
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 20:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.

--Jeff
M forever
2009-11-06 21:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.
--Jeff
Did you also listen to some of his recent broadcasts of the whole
cycle with the ONF?
I know I have the old set (on Pentatone), but I can't figure out if I
have the new one. I can't check either because part of my collection
is still in storage. That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage. That does confirm a bit what Herman said...
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 21:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.
--Jeff
Did you also listen to some of his recent broadcasts of the whole
cycle with the ONF?
Oh yes--I think at least two go-rounds were broadcast, one from Paris
and one from a festival in Germany. That was the reason I bought the
old set on Pentatone. Previously I had been very negative about
Masur's Beethoven because of said radio experiences. The ONF cycle has
lots of virtues, but of course I don't have copies of it in the best
sound.
Post by M forever
I know I have the old set (on Pentatone), but I can't figure out if I
have the new one. I can't check either because part of my collection
is still in storage. That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage. That does confirm a bit what Herman said...
I have the same problem. It's due to two things, in my case: rapid
expansion of the collection makes it hard to distinguish between
having seen and having bought discs. The other is the shear volume of
other things in life that no longer make it possible to obsess over
what I have. A good development, all in all, but one that calls for an
iPod-Touch or some other device with which to carry around a catalog,
access web sites, etc., while shopping.

--Jeff
M forever
2009-11-06 21:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.
--Jeff
Did you also listen to some of his recent broadcasts of the whole
cycle with the ONF?
Oh yes--I think at least two go-rounds were broadcast, one from Paris
and one from a festival in Germany. That was the reason I bought the
old set on Pentatone. Previously I had been very negative about
Masur's Beethoven because of said radio experiences. The ONF cycle has
lots of virtues, but of course I don't have copies of it in the best
sound.
Post by M forever
I know I have the old set (on Pentatone), but I can't figure out if I
have the new one. I can't check either because part of my collection
is still in storage. That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage. That does confirm a bit what Herman said...
I have the same problem. It's due to two things, in my case: rapid
expansion of the collection makes it hard to distinguish between
having seen and having bought discs. The other is the shear volume of
other things in life that no longer make it possible to obsess over
what I have. A good development, all in all, but one that calls for an
iPod-Touch or some other device with which to carry around a catalog,
access web sites, etc., while shopping.
--Jeff
I have actually stopped shopping almost completely - with the very
occasional impulse buy - for that very reason. When I surf around and
see something that I think I "must" have, I put it on my wishlist.
Unless it is something really rare that may be difficult to find
later. If I really "must" have it, I can get it later.

BTW, not to feed your habit, but I came across this CD which might
interest you:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BK53OM/ref=dm_dp_cdp?ie=UTF8&s=music
jrsnfld
2009-11-06 21:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.
--Jeff
Did you also listen to some of his recent broadcasts of the whole
cycle with the ONF?
Oh yes--I think at least two go-rounds were broadcast, one from Paris
and one from a festival in Germany. That was the reason I bought the
old set on Pentatone. Previously I had been very negative about
Masur's Beethoven because of said radio experiences. The ONF cycle has
lots of virtues, but of course I don't have copies of it in the best
sound.
Post by M forever
I know I have the old set (on Pentatone), but I can't figure out if I
have the new one. I can't check either because part of my collection
is still in storage. That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage. That does confirm a bit what Herman said...
I have the same problem. It's due to two things, in my case: rapid
expansion of the collection makes it hard to distinguish between
having seen and having bought discs. The other is the shear volume of
other things in life that no longer make it possible to obsess over
what I have. A good development, all in all, but one that calls for an
iPod-Touch or some other device with which to carry around a catalog,
access web sites, etc., while shopping.
--Jeff
I have actually stopped shopping almost completely - with the very
occasional impulse buy - for that very reason. When I surf around and
see something that I think I "must" have, I put it on my wishlist.
Unless it is something really rare that may be difficult to find
later. If I really "must" have it, I can get it later.
BTW, not to feed your habit, but I came across this CD which might
interest you:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BK53OM/ref=dm_dp_cdp?ie=UTF8&s=m...
Yes...it's on my "list" but I'm not in a big hurry until I find it a
little cheaper. I have heard him do concerti by Strauss, Bach, and
Vivaldi, but not sure about the Mozart. Anyway...it'll happen
eventually; he's one of the best.

--Jeff
M forever
2009-11-06 22:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by jrsnfld
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the awful
Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing. Except possibly Gardiner.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.
--Jeff
Did you also listen to some of his recent broadcasts of the whole
cycle with the ONF?
Oh yes--I think at least two go-rounds were broadcast, one from Paris
and one from a festival in Germany. That was the reason I bought the
old set on Pentatone. Previously I had been very negative about
Masur's Beethoven because of said radio experiences. The ONF cycle has
lots of virtues, but of course I don't have copies of it in the best
sound.
Post by M forever
I know I have the old set (on Pentatone), but I can't figure out if I
have the new one. I can't check either because part of my collection
is still in storage. That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage. That does confirm a bit what Herman said...
I have the same problem. It's due to two things, in my case: rapid
expansion of the collection makes it hard to distinguish between
having seen and having bought discs. The other is the shear volume of
other things in life that no longer make it possible to obsess over
what I have. A good development, all in all, but one that calls for an
iPod-Touch or some other device with which to carry around a catalog,
access web sites, etc., while shopping.
--Jeff
I have actually stopped shopping almost completely - with the very
occasional impulse buy - for that very reason. When I surf around and
see something that I think I "must" have, I put it on my wishlist.
Unless it is something really rare that may be difficult to find
later. If I really "must" have it, I can get it later.
BTW, not to feed your habit, but I came across this CD which might
interest you:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BK53OM/ref=dm_dp_cdp?ie=UTF8&s=m...
Yes...it's on my "list" but I'm not in a big hurry until I find it a
little cheaper. I have heard him do concerti by Strauss, Bach, and
Vivaldi, but not sure about the Mozart.
Don't worry: the Mozart concerto is a really nice piece, too.
;-)
Post by jrsnfld
Anyway...it'll happen
eventually; he's one of the best.
My main interest in this CD is actually the horn concerto which is
really interesting. Slagter plays with a very bright, brassy sound. I
think he gets the hunting horn character of the finale just right, not
too soft, not too much. This is after all "second generation" hunting
horn music, not the "real thing" transported into the orchestra, but
rather a stylistic memory of the horn's heritage. Or at least that's
the way it appears to me.
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 22:43:41 UTC
Permalink
M forever wrote:
(snip)

That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean
Post by M forever
that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
in storage.
(snip)

It only confirms that you have attained true 'collector' status, prima
facie evidence for which is arriving home with a new purchase, only to
discover that you already have, and had forgot that you have, it.

Bob Harper
M forever
2009-11-06 22:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
  That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean> that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
Post by M forever
in storage.
(snip)
It only confirms that you have attained true 'collector' status, prima
facie evidence for which is arriving home with a new purchase, only to
discover that you already have, and had forgot that you have, it.
Bob Harper
That has happened quite a few times, too, and that also made me think
and put a stop to buying more recordings. Sometime soon, I am planning
to get all of the CDs out of storage and start at least organizing
them so that I can go through and see what I actually have.
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-07 00:29:56 UTC
Permalink
That has happened quite a few times, too, and that also made me think
and put a stop to buying more recordings. Sometime soon, I am planning
to get all of the CDs out of storage and start at least organizing
them so that I can go through and see what I actually have.

Good luck. I'm looking into an "easy" solution for this. I'll let you guys
know if I get any results.
td
2009-11-06 23:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
  That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean> that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
Post by M forever
in storage.
(snip)
It only confirms that you have attained true 'collector' status, prima
facie evidence for which is arriving home with a new purchase, only to
discover that you already have, and had forgot that you have, it.
Has happened many times, Bob. In the LP era I always justified such
purchases. Who could tell how soon the item would be deleted,
unavailable or be needed to replace a scratched copy. With CDs it has
happened more often when the packaging has been altered in the middle
of a run of CDs, memory being in part visual. Moreover, sometimes CDs
are misfiled, or otherwise mislaid, and cannot be located,
particularly in a very large collection.

But I take your point: only the seasoned collector falls prey to such
mishaps.

TD
Bob Harper
2009-11-06 23:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean> that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
Post by M forever
in storage.
(snip)
It only confirms that you have attained true 'collector' status, prima
facie evidence for which is arriving home with a new purchase, only to
discover that you already have, and had forgot that you have, it.
Has happened many times, Bob. In the LP era I always justified such
purchases. Who could tell how soon the item would be deleted,
unavailable or be needed to replace a scratched copy. With CDs it has
happened more often when the packaging has been altered in the middle
of a run of CDs, memory being in part visual. Moreover, sometimes CDs
are misfiled, or otherwise mislaid, and cannot be located,
particularly in a very large collection.
But I take your point: only the seasoned collector falls prey to such
mishaps.
TD
Well, as they say, been there, done that.

Bob Harper
jrsnfld
2009-11-07 05:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
(snip)
  That's pretty sad, if you think about it. I mean> that I don't know if I own the recordings, not that some of my CDs are
Post by M forever
in storage.
(snip)
It only confirms that you have attained true 'collector' status, prima
facie evidence for which is arriving home with a new purchase, only to
discover that you already have, and had forgot that you have, it.
I disagree. True collectors are people who focus on what they have;
they aim to have things so single-mindedly that "having" is
unforgettable. I forget I have things sometimes, but it's because I
buy on impulse, and buy without a strategy or plan other than
curiosity about hearing things, but buy too much to hear everything
right away.

--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-06 21:55:47 UTC
Permalink
A long time ago the later Masur set got a lot of play on the radio and
I hated every minute of it. I imagine I might like it better now, but
at the time it seemed too aloof and unimaginative and undramatic. The
earlier set has almost none of these problems, so I'm hoping,
expecting, that William is talking about the later set.

Nope, the earlier one.
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-06 21:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the
awful Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
The earlier one, now on PentaTone.

The wonderful thing is the way he plays the Hayndesque first-movement
introductions. Nobody I've heard has ever done it nearly as well.

The awful stuff is -- to my ear -- that he tries to play the rest of the
movements as if Beethoven were Haydn. It's been about nine months since I
listened. Perhaps I should listen again before saying anything else --
because, no matter what I say, I'll be attacked.
M forever
2009-11-06 22:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
I have at least eight sets, and I've never heard one -- including the
awful Masur -- that didn't have something worth hearing.
What is it that you find "awful" about Masur's Beethoven (there are
two sets, BTW), and what do you find "worth hearing" in it?
The earlier one, now on PentaTone.
The wonderful thing is the way he plays the Hayndesque first-movement
introductions. Nobody I've heard has ever done it nearly as well.
The awful stuff is -- to my ear -- that he tries to play the rest of the
movements as if Beethoven were Haydn. It's been about nine months since I
listened. Perhaps I should listen again before saying anything else --
because, no matter what I say, I'll be attacked.
Probably not, as I think there are very few, if any "diehard Masur
fans" on the loose. I am certainly not one of them. I am just curious
what you mean by "as if Beethoven were Haydn". I am also confused
that you think the introductions are so well done, but the rest isn't.
Is that because you think the introductions are "haydnesque"? Like I
said, I am a little confused by that.
William Sommerwerck
2009-11-07 00:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
The awful stuff is -- to my ear -- that he tries to play the rest of the
movements as if Beethoven were Haydn. It's been about nine months
since I listened. Perhaps I should listen again before saying anything
else -- because, no matter what I say, I'll be attacked.
Probably not, as I think there are very few, if any "diehard Masur
fans" on the loose. I am certainly not one of them. I am just curious
what you mean by "as if Beethoven were Haydn". I am also confused
that you think the introductions are so well done, but the rest isn't.
Is that because you think the introductions are "Haydnesque"? Like I
said, I am a little confused by that.
Some of the Beethoven symphonies -- particularly the first and second, but I
think the fourth and seventh as well -- have a slow intro on the first
movement that is very much like a Haydn symphony. (This shouldn't be a
surprise to anyone.)

Bear with me a day or two. Let me listen to some of them a second time, and
see if I can give a clearer explanation.
M forever
2009-11-07 00:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by M forever
Post by William Sommerwerck
The awful stuff is -- to my ear -- that he tries to play the rest of the
movements as if Beethoven were Haydn. It's been about nine months
since I listened. Perhaps I should listen again before saying anything
else -- because, no matter what I say, I'll be attacked.
Probably not, as I think there are very few, if any "diehard Masur
fans" on the loose. I am certainly not one of them. I am just curious
what you mean by "as if Beethoven were Haydn". I am also confused
that you think the introductions are so well done, but the rest isn't.
Is that because you think the introductions are "Haydnesque"? Like I
said, I am a little confused by that.
Some of the Beethoven symphonies -- particularly the first and second, but I
think the fourth and seventh as well -- have a slow intro on the first
movement that is very much like a Haydn symphony. (This shouldn't be a
surprise to anyone.)
Bear with me a day or two. Let me listen to some of them a second time, and
see if I can give a clearer explanation.
Well, I think we all know about the slow introductions and where they
come from, but I didn't understand the comparisons you made, why you
think Masur does them justice, but not the rest of the pieces. I look
forward to more contributions about this. Take your time. We don't
want you to OD on Beethoven!
EM
2009-11-07 23:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jrsnfld
Do you want something very traditional with minimal modern
touches? Get Mackerras--very satisfying and well played.
The Liverpool or the Edingburgh one?

EM
Simon Roberts
2009-11-06 20:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JamesA
I have many sets of Beethoven symphonies. Just to mention those in
immediate contention with Vanska, there's Immerseel, Bruggen, Pletnev,
Mackerras's recent one, Norrington and (almost complete) Paavo Jarvi.
All the reviews of Vanska have been so positive that I can't think of
a reason (except for the perennial financial) not to acquire it. But
does it really offer anything I can't get from the others? Is it even
superior?
Depends on your taste. To these ears it's largely an excercise in blandly
efficient execution, not nearly as engaging as most of the sets you list.
It's easy enough to sample online, though, so you can judge for yourself;
I'm pretty sure they have it at rhapsody, where you can hear the whole
thing; if not, try BIS's site.

Simon
Loading...