Re: Survey: Favorite single recording of each Beethoven symphony?


jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Lena wrote:
> > jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Lena wrote:
> > > > jrsnfld@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > > > My favorite Beethoven has struggle and it has raw energy, tension,
> > > > > resolution. It does not hide and it does not prettify without reason,
> > > > > and sometimes it seems to careen nearly out of control (for I do love
> > > > > Scherchen!), but all of that falls under the human condition and if you
> > > > > can't phrase like a human, can't exude the warmth that comes with
> > > > > hard-earned experience, and can't project the powerful drive for
> > > > > dignity of the human existence in the face of great indignities, then
> > > > > you can't conduct Beethoven, regardless of what you do with dynamic
> > > > > contrasts and balances and tempi and force of attack.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree. For me this music has always stood on its extremely
> > > > sturdy abstract little legs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, yes! And no, for all the usual reasons. I was afraid of this,
> > > because it leads into those awful "LTMSFI" arguments.
> >
> > No, actually it has nothing to do with LTMSFI. I'm not talking about
> > performance vs. the score. The reference to "abstract" means that the
> > music can work without nebulous and subjectively used extra-musical
> > notions (like "dignity", "human", "struggle" ( :) ) etc.). I.e. I'm
> > somewhat objecting to your expressing an (awfully) general evaluation
> > of a conductor in terms of (awfully general) ideas which aren't
> > universally inherent to either the score or to the performance...
> >
>
> It is fair to generalize about a conductor on multiple recordings and
> performances, which is what I did. His possibility for redemption is in
> your hands, not mine, until I am handed the new Hanssler recordings.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "universally inherent." My ideas were
> broadbrush an "interpretation" of a composer's symphonies, hence by
> nature general and not specific and certainly neither universal nor
> inherent. But then I see both performance and writing about it as
> interpretive arts. If you don't, then it makes sense that interpretive
> language, no matter how specific, would be objectionable. Hence I can't
> spend the time on getting more specific at the moment--plus we were
> apparently talking about two different things: I about Norrington and
> Beethoven in general and you about Norrington in one series of
> recordings. In my pov you're wrong about the use of extramusical
> interpretive language: there's a time and place for it and this was one
> of them. I'll be happy to get to the musical language when possible.
>
> As for Beethoven, where do we draw the line? Certainly I feel
> comfortable generalizing Beethoven's music as "great" even though not
> every note was great. I follow exactly what you mean by abstract (I was
> merely warning us not to go down the LTMSFI road). To get anywhere in
> Music 101 and onward one must strive to speak about music in musical
> terms. I see plenty of room for enlightenment through extramusical
> language elsewhere (and rarely in rehearsal, mind you, lest you think
> I'm the rank amateur that I am (!)).
>
> > I understand you feel these associations strongly (Beethoven, dignity,
> > and so on) - but not everyone has the same associations, and some
> > people hear music without any such associations. I.e., let's talk
> > about "flexibility of phrasing", "metronomic tempo", instead.
> >
>
> I'd be happy to at another time. "Not everyone" is rarely enough reason
> not to try the colorful world of metaphor.
>
> > (Besides, I don't think there's much point in sort of railing against
> > Norrington here, in full-steam generalities, when we really started out
> > saying what a pleasant surprise Norrington's second B. cycle was,
> > compared to his first... :) )
> >
>
> I'm worried that it's all one big accident. What if the orchestra
> willfully improved the results by misreading Norrington's commands?
> Gosh, I am paranoid about this! It is time for my friends to get
> together and have a "Norrington" intervention on my behalf. Come to
> think of it, at least one has already tried.
>
> > > All we were
> > > discussing, earlier, was musicmaking, and whether or not Norrington was
> > > an appropriate "maker"--i.e. performer--of Beethoven's music.
> >
> > Actually, I was discussing Norrington's second Beethoven cycle, and
> > nothing else. :)
> >
>
> Yes, but the thread moved beyond that. Time reel it in again and pack
> it away. Time to listen to some music and store up some randomly
> inapplicable impressions!
>
> > > I'm sure
> > > he could lead a brilliant and sensitive discussion of the music. I was
> > > merely trying in my meekly (nonmusical) way to express what is wrong
> > > with his musicmaking, for Beethoven and many other composers of that
> > > era.
> >
> > You know, perhaps we'll postpone this until you've heard you know what.
> > :)
> >
> > I'm fond of the rmcr tradition of pontificating, and don't want to
> > discourage it. :) And actually, I do find your take on the music
> > interesting - not correct, from my pov, but interesting, just sort of
> > as your take.
> >
> > But I don't want to get into an exchange of entirely subjective views
> > of "what it takes to perform X's music" stated in falsely objective
> > guises.
>
> Again, openly interpretive language about the art of interpretation
> does not warrant phrases like "falsely objective guises". It's based on
> my own experience and the stated experience of others, that's all.
> Trying to distinguish between objective and subjective terms seems
> counterproductive when experience is turned into intepretation. You
> seem to want to stop me from jumping ahead from observation and
> analysis to interpretation, as if I am descending into some sort of
> irredeemable abyss. I am ignoring your warnings.
>
> >
> > > He can realize all the markings and still fail, in my opinion,
> > > because his phrasing (as I know it from past recordings and recent
> > > performances) is a failure. I think I could demonstrate this with
> > > examples but alas I have ruthlessly eradicated RN from my shelves and
> > > my memory as best as possible.
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
> > > But again, about musicmaking: The reality of performance in Beethoven
> > > or many other composers, as you know, is that you have to put something
> > > out "on the table" in order to get something in return from the
> > > audience. Perhaps that is what it is to be "human" in musicmaking.
> > > Without the vulnerability of performance, there is nothing to be
> > > dignified about in musicmaking and hence the music would, as you say,
> > > stand on its own dignified legs. That vulnerability comes with
> > > personality and with inflections of color or nuances of phrases and all
> > > it does is make music relevant for me. It involves conviction and risk
> > > (And yes, I'm saying that despite the glory of unperformed music, it is
> > > not particularly relevant to me.) I hear too little of that
> > > vulnerability, or personal risk, in RN's performances and consequently
> > > not the dignity or triumph that I think is essential in Beethoven (for
> > > pop-historical reasons cited elsewhere, but also for his own good as a
> > > composer, to be honest).
> >
> > What a paragraph; it manages to connect just about everything with
> > something else. :)
> >
>
> Hence the relevance of extramusical terminology in a mental morass like
> mine! If you can recraft the paragraph in purely musical terms than you
> are a heck of a musicological virtuoso. And don't forget to throw in
> Richard Nixon, Rousseau, and Napoleon (sticking with Rs and Ns).
>
> > Sorry, all that sounds sort of over-romanticized to me... I
> > understand that you find concepts like dignity and triump essential in
> > Beethoven. Not everyone does.
> >
> > I'd very much like to hear your opinion when you do listen to
> > Norrington II, since you're one of the persons in rmcr who can do a
> > good job analyzing and describing a performance. Until then...
> >
>
> Let's call it quits until then. I'll look for a library so that I don't
> have to send any royalties to Mr. Norrington quite yet. After this he
> probably doesn't want my money, anyway. I'm sure he doesn't want me
> reviewing his concerts, either, although the one time that happened I
> think I was extraordinarily fair. In falsely objective guises...err, in
> my point of view, of course.
>
> --Jeff

This may come a little too late as a reply since the discussion has
already moved on. But I wanted to say that I do not quite understand
why you said somewhere above, "Dignity in music starts with phrasing
that sounds human" and see that quality as absent from Norrington's
Beethoven interpretations. I find them actually extremely eloquently
phrased in the sense of "Klangrede", "music as speech" or however one
would want to try to translate the term (it doesn't really translate
properly anyway), and in that, very human and expressive. Just that it
may be a different kind of expressiveness from what we know from the
later romantic tradition. But certainly very telling and also touching.
The long and detailed phrases Beethoven writes are in their structure
very strongly influenced by the structure of the German language. I
feel that successful phrasing sounds as if you hear a meaningful spoken
phrase with side thoughts. That is what Harnoncourt is really great at,
and Norrington in his Beethoven set - I mean the earlier one, the later
I haven't heard yet - does that very nicely too.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Survey: Favorite single recording of each Beethoven symphony?
    ... language, no matter how specific, would be objectionable. ... Beethoven in general and you about Norrington in one series of ... >> discussing, earlier, was musicmaking, and whether or not Norrington was ... openly interpretive language about the art of interpretation ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Survey: Favorite single recording of each Beethoven symphony?
    ... >> language, no matter how specific, would be objectionable. ... >> apparently talking about two different things: I about Norrington and ... >> merely warning us not to go down the LTMSFI road). ... openly interpretive language about the art of interpretation ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Why an inconsistent ZF may be desirable, and should be welcome.
    ... is true under an interpretation M of L if, and only if, the interpreted ... individual, within a symbolic language (reasonably, these would include ... if we define a mathematical object and a set constructively as ... and without any loss of generality - I consider mathematics ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Enderton problem
    ... So A appears to have a descending chain. ... It's also not elementarily equivalent to N, ... have language with usual truths about N expressible in this ... It depends on the interpretation of "<". ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantors circular "proof" that evens = integers
    ... independently of any choice of axioms. ... side CALLS "a language" is completely IRrelevant to ... I KNOW what an interpretation is! ... predicates and term for term-functors) and -arity. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading