Post by M foreverPost by M foreverPost by JamesAI 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 foreverExcept 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 foreverActually, 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 foreverBTW, 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.