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


Michael Schaffer wrote:
> 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.

Michael, that is an extraordinary and interesting take on Norrington's
conducting, which I wouldn't equate with Harnoncourt's at all. That
alone should indicate a small gap in our communication, though it is
probably rather small. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough about what
I'm looking for in phrasing, but I will most certainly with an ear for
German phraseology the Norrington Beethoven again with undeniable
strain on my delicate yet honed sensibilities listen attempt.

--Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Survey: Favorite single recording of each Beethoven symphony?
    ... >> somewhat objecting to your expressing an general evaluation ... > broadbrush an "interpretation" of a composer's symphonies, ... > language, no matter how specific, would be objectionable. ... > apparently talking about two different things: I about Norrington and ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • 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: 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)