|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.192.111.143
This one's also for Chris from Lafayette, since the ugly topic of vibrato/non-vibrato has come up once again.
I think the performance on this LP, which has never been re-released on CD and probably will never be, is one of most exciting I've ever heard--right up there with Toscanini, Szell, and all the rest.
Salient features:
1. Correct tempo in the first movement--not the mad dash of so many HIP performances of late. The music retains its "heroic" quality as a result.
2. Ideal balance between strings and winds. In Beethoven's day the wind component roughly equaled the strings--it should be strong, especially the horns (see below) and--surprise--the trumpets, which have limited but important parts in this symphony. As Weingartner said, the trumpets have less to say in Classical scores than the other winds, but when they do speak, they must be heard. Often the trumpets are in dialog with the horns, or with the first violins (1st mvnt), and this effect is often lost.
3. Authentic overall tonality. The strings play with vibrato (Chris should like this), but that's really beside the point. Once you get used to the less massive sound of the group, there is a warmth and glow to the sound that to me is very "Viennese". The oboes solos are lovely; the wooden flute, while not as loud and penetrating as the modern flute, is appropriately "German". Modern-day French woodwind can be quite beautiful-sounding, but they are somehow out of place in Beethoven's music. One major fault: the Collegium Aureum in this recording only has two cellos; more "bottom end" is needed.
4. The three horns in the Eroica have an especially important role, and you won't hear better playing ANYWHERE, even considering that these are natural (hand) horns. The 3rd movement trio is done "balls to the wall", while the coda of the last movement, where the horns lead the charge, is brazen as hell.
The orchestra plays without a conductor, but my guess is that they're so steeped in the "tradition" of the piece that they don't need one. There is a corporate interpretation here, the product of generations of German music-making, that feels exactly right. It hardly matters that they're playing old instruments.
I wish I could say, order this recording on Amazon or ArchiveMusic, but unfortunately, that's not possible. If you see this in a garage or estate sale, snap it up immediately.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Follow Ups:
All of the CA recordings are worth having. IME the Pro Arte reissues on LP were a bit noisier, but still worth having if there wasn't a HMU one around. the best pressings were the BASF-HMU.
It always makes me laugh when I read the standard 'too reverberant' critique of the recordings made in the Cedernsaal of Schloss Kircheim.
I find it wonderful, and if your system/room can't cope, don't blame the recordings. Or drop pop for a good while, and start going to live acoustic concerts in good spaces.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
"Ideal balance between strings and winds. In Beethoven's day the wind component roughly equaled the strings".
That's not true.
In fact, there was no wind-string balance "ideal". That's a late 20th cent invention; specifically, a HIP one. During Beethoven's day, nobody - nobody - walked around saying anything such as "ve moost have de strings eqvalink de vinds, und no shtronger".
Reading through Carse, Khoury, and others, what emerges about the period is this:
1. Orchestras varied in size according to available musicians, and mostly available money. Money. That was then, as now, the key to whether an orchestra rounded up for a concert would have a lot of strings or a little.
2. There were no orchestral institutions such as there are today. What existed were court orchestras, supported by some prince, or duke, or some royal family. Obviously, they could only afford to pay for so many players, so, also obviously, these orchestras were small. The other orhestras which did exist were multipurpose, mostly used for operas, and had an ever shifting personel, growing larger or smaller depending on who the promoters for a given concert were and how much money - money! - they could raise for the event. The more money, the larger the orchestra.
3. Whenever composers could get a big orchestra, they were all over it, like HIPs on non-vibrato. Thus, Beethoven himself, heard mostly small orchestras before the 5th, and went along with it. But, once he heard a large orchestra, he never went back, and demanded that his promoters get as big an orchestra as possible.
4. Anyone who's studied voice leading knows [I'll assume that at least some HIP conductors have, just as I assume that they can actually read music, know what a V-I cadence is; understand tonic-dominant relationships; etc. But, you never know], you may easily determine the relative importance of any section of the orchestra by studying the voice leading of the score. Voice Leading.
And, gosh, big surprise, most of that's given to the strings. Here's a little test for every wind-happy HIPper - remove the string parts. Just cut them out. Just excise them. Completely. OK. Now, play the piece. What do you get? Just supporting parts, mostly. So much for the equivalence of wind parts to strings.
Oh, and 2 celli? How late 20th century can you get? Give me a break.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying regarding the string/wind relationship in Beethoven's time, but if you claim that the TYPICAL balance was equivalent to the 20th/21st century large orchestra, i.e., 60/30, or approx. 2 to 1 (with doubled woodwinds and single brass), I doubt if you'll find a single authority who will back you up. Maybe Carse does (I don’t have a copy), but that book is now rather out of date, and not considered authoritative.
Here are four sources that basically contradict what you seem to be saying, and more or less corroborate my assertion:
Orchestra article in New Grove: The Classical Orchestra (1740-1815)
N. Zaslaw: "Mozart's European Orchestras" in Musicology Australia, 1994.
E.K. Wolf: "On the Composition of the Mannheim Orchestra, c.1740-1778", 1993.
C.Brown, "The Orchestra in Beethoven's Vienna", Early Music, 1988.
There are many more.
While there were indeed large orchestras in England, France and Vienna (mostly for special occasions like festivals), these were the exception rather than the rule. Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies were routinely performed with ensembles of 30 to 40 players, and both composers were apparently satisfied with that. With a wind complement of 8 woodwinds and 4 brass, or 7 brass in Beethoven’s Fifth or a late Schubert, that’s a little less than 50-50--OK, so my math is off.
It's funny that you say, "Once Beethoven heard a big orchestra, he never went back", since by the time of the Second Symphony he was completely deaf! Sorry-just had to mention that.
BTW, I never said that the wind parts "were equivalent" to the string parts--that's putting words into my mouth. Of course the string parts are of primary importance to the music--only a simpleton would think otherwise. (BTW, you would be well advised to skip the lecturing next time--I happen to have a degree in music and know precisely what voice-leading is) The point is--and let me be very clear about this--the wind parts need to be heard, to be part of the orchestral fabric. In my ever so humble opinion, most modern-day performances fail to get this right, even some on period instruments. The clearest example of this, I feel, are the trumpet parts in the examples I've outlined in this thread, but there are plenty more examples involving the other winds.
We can argue about historicity all day, but my perspective is one of aesthetic. To me, a string-centered performance of Beethoven is less interesting that one that allows the winds parts to be heard, as I believe the composer intended.
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
interesting perspective on trumpet parts. But...
"Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies were routinely performed with ensembles of 30 to 40 players, and both composers were apparently satisfied with that."
This is simply false. There is a letter from Mozart written in the mid 1780s in which he states that his favored performance forces for orchestral works numbered about a hundred players. Smaller performance forces were dictated by economics and not by artistic intentions.
Once again, I fall back on my own artistic inclinations, as limited as they may be. History being what it is, I think a modern-day 100-piece band is simply wrong for Mozart, and I say that from the standpoint of a player, and also as a erstwhile conductor.
I'm not aware of a letter of Mozart in which he states that he prefers "about hundred players". Can you provide a reference?
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
citation, but the letter (which I believe was written to Haydn) dates from the mid 1780s and is quoted/cited in Rosen's "The Classical Style." If you have that book handy, you should be able to find it pretty easily.
I have no quibbles with your personal preference. I actually find the transparency that conductors such as Zinman and Maag have brought to Beethoven to be a welcome development. One major piece that I think suffers from cluttered orchestration is the 4th piano concerto (Beethoven's to be clear) and I am curious to hear that Bronfman/Zinman recording. Generally, I love many HIP and many non-HIP performances.
BUT if believe the position is supported by personal preference and not historical accuracy.
that nobody has mentioned. Even though all these composers had "pipe dreams" of mega-ensembles, their music (at least Mozart's and Haydn's) was almost always composed with the sound of smaller ensembles in mind. And at the world premieres, performed that way. Mozart's symphonies and piano concertos, for example, are replete with woodwind writing (solos) that can get lost in the context of a 100-piece orchestra. Thankfully, many conductors nowadays pare down the strings when performing these works. Benefits the balance of soloist to orchestra, too.
Obviously, this is a tenet of the period instrument crowd, but I think the concept is equally valid on modern instruments--from an artistic/musical perspective. I'm more interested in the musical results, rather than what pleases the historians.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
There's existing correspondence of Beethoven's, around and after the 5th Symphony, of him inquiring into the number of musicians [and quality] available for concerts of his symphonies, and demanding larger numbers. Goes flat against HIP conclusions, but, HIPpers would have to destroy the letters. Daniel Koury, a known authority, in his authoritative book on the development of the orchestra points this out.
I beleive that at the time of the 2nd, Beethoven wasn't completely deaf. I beleive that total, utter deafness came later. In any case, whether he heard or felt or was inspired in some way, he apparently was in the presence of a larger orchestra, and liked it enough to want it going forward.
But, even if he was utterly, insensibly deaf by the time of the 2nd sym, how can you, or anyone, conclude that his aural imagination was limited to some tiny orhestra? Especially when we're talking about a genius of Beethoven's calibre? Just knowing how he treated the pianos of his day tells us something about his desire for massive sonorities, when called upon.
Large orchestras weren't limited to festivals, although huge forces were assembled for such occations. But, as Koury points out, and as I stated, the size of ensemble was flexible, and dependent on the finances available - not on some artistic preference of the composer. To say that Mozart & Haydn were satisfied with smaller forces is to subtly distort history. If that's all they had available, then they were happy to get a performance off the ground. Certianly, the quality of ensemble would've been their first concern. But, the further distorsion of historic fact exists when we look at Haydn's reaction to the Paris orchestra. A large orchestra, as is well known. Did Haydn stamp his foot, throw a fit, and enraged, demand - demand! - that they cut their forces down [with no more thatn 2 celli] - because, otherwise, they were violating his principles of orhestral sound?
Instead, he delighted in the large orchestral forces. He loved it. Furthermore, while there are large quantities of books on various musical topics, especially theory, from the time of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, there's not one - not one - on orchestra size or proportions. Bottom line, there was no hard and fast rule governing orchestral proportions, and no such asthetic such as that developed by late 20th cent HIPs.
You may prefer a wind dominated sonority. That's fine. That doesn't make it historically accurate. It may or may not be. And surely, you mean winds dominating during tuttis, since every good orchestra plays all of the parts, and whenever the voice leading goes to the winds, they play, and you can hear them. It's not as though modern orchestras deny wind parts.
Finally, I didn't mean to lecture you, nor anyone. Indeed, I respect the many opinions and information you've posted here, including this one [thanks for the references; I'll be avidly seeking them and reading]. If there's any tone of sarcasm, it's directed rather at the HIP establishment and conductors such as Norrington, who always proclaim that they've conducted "research", yet neither published any such research, no provided any proof of their 'discoveries', other than to state that they've said it must be so. No disrespect toward you, nor anyone else here.
"I beleive that at the time of the 2nd, Beethoven wasn't completely deaf. I beleive that total, utter deafness came later. In any case, whether he heard or felt or was inspired in some way, he apparently was in the presence of a larger orchestra, and liked it enough to want it going forward."
That is correct, and is true of the 5th symphony as well. Beethoven would have been described as hard of hearing through the mid 1810s, at which time his functioning deteriorated.
Again, I don't wish to argue the historical aspect, because as you rightly point out, there is very little hard and fast evidence, and in any case, orchestral size varied considerably depending on location and occasion.
I never said there was a "rule" (at least I don't think I did), but I do think there are artistic considerations at work that many conductors seem to be missing.
You missed my point completely--I don't prefer a "wind dominated sonority"--what I want is for the winds to be heard as part of the orchestral fabric, with the parts coming to the fore or receding as the score dictates.
I've played in many amateur orchestras, and I'm always struck by how in larger groups, say 40+ strings, the conductor often has to go to great lengths to insure that the winds are not buried. This is usually not necessary with a smaller string complement.
I'm talking here about passages other than loud tuttis, although as I've tried to point out, even in those cases there can be wind parts that are MIA.
In large professional orchestras, the standard remedy is to double the woodwind, but this is only a partial solution, since the horns are usually left one on a part. Since the horns are often called on the fill out the woodwind, this can make for strange balances.
My own instrument, the bassoon, is another good example. Beethoven often asks the bassoon section to provide important harmonies, harmonic fill, if you will. But since bassoon sound is easily covered (by cellos and violas, among others), you really have to blow hard to make the notes heard.
So forget the historical aspect--I think a smaller string group (but not necessarily a chamber orchestra) does wonders for Beethoven. And Mozart and Haydn. And as a wind player, it's a lot more fun to play in a smaller group. As a record collector, I prefer those recordings that allow the winds to shine, where I'm not straining to hear them. Big Band Beethoven, such as Karajan and the BPO, or Bernstein and NYP, doesn't cut it for me.
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
C.B.: As I'm sure you know, from an acoustic point of view, doubling the number of instruments does not double the sound output in terms of decibels. I once attended a performance of Respighi's "Pines of Rome" given by our local Oakland East Bay Symphony combined with the Oakland Youth Orchestra - I would guess there were more than 80 strings on stage! The woodwinds and brass were doubled too. What a magnificent sound! And what made it magnificent was not the loudness, but rather the wonderful tone qualities achieved by the use of the additional instruments. I'm sure Respighi would have loved it! :-)
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
And it is indeed one of my favorites. Lovely horn playing. While some CA recordings have been reissued in recent years, this one seems to have been forgotten. Since the orignal was a quad recording, perhaps Pentatone could be convinced to license it for SACD.
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
was just licensing an original Deutsche Harmonia Mundi release.
Jordi Savall's version of Beethoven's Eroica.
IIRC, the tempos were on the fast side. As much as I admire Savall's work in general, I concluded that this particular CD was not for me.
See my remarks about fast tempos in the first post. I think that strict adherence to Beethoven's metronome markings robs the music of its grandeur and heroic qualities. Especially in the first movement.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
I never pass up a Collegium Aureum recording - or a Harmonia Mundi recording for that matter! Part of the reason your 4 "salient features" stand out is because of the Harmonia Mundi sound.
This is an important and good point, C.B., thanks for bringing it up. Although there were large orchestras before the 2nd half of the 19th century, in general they probably became larger and louder then as concert halls became larger. And larger meant more string instruments, and with steel rather than gut strings. Many wind and brass instruments were redesigned to make them louder, but not nearly enough to compensate.
A major benefit of the HIP movement for orchestral music is the restoration of that balance. Far more important than the use of original instruments (I also agree with you there), or even the degree of vibrato, IMO.
I remember Collegium Aureum, I think I have one or two of their LPs (Haydn, perhaps?), I'll look for more.
"Many wind and brass instruments were redesigned to make them louder, but not nearly enough to compensate [for the added strings]."I can't say this has happened with any Beethoven symphony performances I've been to, but I've attended a few Bruckner symphony performances where, when the whole orchestra is "orating", I can SEE that all the strings are playing, but all I can HEAR is the brass! :-)
BTW, there is a fairly recent chamber-orchestra cycle of the Beethoven symphonies underway that I never tire of recommending. It's the one on the Tacet label, with the Polish Chamber Orchestra, Wojciech Rajski conducting:
They've done all the symphonies except for the Ninth so far, and every one of the performances I've heard (all except the disc pictured above) is extremely vital and exciting. In multichannel, the orchestra surrounds you (that's probably not very HIP!), but I think the SACD versions have a 2-channel CD layer. (I have the DVD-Audio versions.)
Edits: 03/23/11
If I move my mouse wheel back and forth while your album photo is displayed, it looks like the Beethoven busts are moving in a circle. If I just move the screen up and down with the slider bar on the right, I don't get the same illusion.
rlindsa
His interpretation may not be for everyone, but he does a fine job of balancing the strings and winds. As for the brasses overwhelming the strings in live concerts, I suspect that's often because from many seats in many large halls you don't hear the same balance the conductor is hearing, but instead too much from the back of the stage, where the brasses and percussion usually are. Woodwinds seldom overwhelm anyone else.
Actually, although I haven't heard the Herreweghe recording, I don't find that the balance problem shows up on recordings - it only happened 2-3 times in live concerts in my experience, and your description could well explain the reason why. Regarding the woodwinds overwhelming everyone else, I agree, that just doesn't normally happen.
but I've been disappointed with the chamber orchestra versions of Beethoven I've heard.
Harnoncourt's with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe comes immediately to mind. In terms of wind/string balance, it's better than, say, Szell and the Clevelanders or Bernstein/NYP. The problem with Harnoncourt's brass players is that they slam and punch everything--their sound isn't sonorous like the Collegium Aureum brass. Also, I don't care at all for the sound of the COE's solo oboe.
Another disappointing chamber orchestra series, from the standpoint of brass sonority, is the Paavo Jarvi/Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie on RCA. More slam and punch, and the brass section isn't even as forward as on the Harnoncourt recordings. In fact, these are pretty much string-centered performances.
I keep coming back to the recent Beethoven series by Vanska/Minnesota on BIS. Even though it's Big Band Beethoven, the winds are fairly prominent. Vanska just doesn't understand the proper role of the trumpet in Beethoven, however--but then, I can't name a single conductor who does.
Admittedly, these considerations take a back seat to the overall interpretation, but they are things I do look for.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
"Vanska just doesn't understand the proper role of the trumpet in Beethoven, however--but then, I can't name a single conductor who does."
What is the proper role?
Complicated subject that's hard to cover in a short post, but basically the trumpet parts in Classical scores often have melodic content that's overlooked by most conductors. Trumpet parts in Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert are considered perfunctory and "rhythmic" by conductors (and players), and usually treated as such. Trumpet players refer to them as "thump and bump", which should give you some idea.
Case in point is the first movement of Mozart's Symphony 39. The first trumpet (along with the horn) actually has the initial statement of the main theme. It should be played out, boldly but in a legato fashion (with phrasing, not just a series of individual notes). In most recordings, however, the trumpet part is barely audible. Exception: Klemperer's second version with the old Philharmonia. Great performance, but it's only available on LP--EMI for some strange reason chose to release the first version on CD.
Another example is Beethoven's Seventh. In the coda to the first movement, the first trumpet has repeated high Es and As that dialog with the horns. The horn parts are also high-lying, and you can't help but hear these, provided the horn players are halfway decent. But the first trumpet? Only two recordings in my experience bring out the trumpet part to my satisfaction: Karajan's second, and John Eliot Gardiner's.
Admittedly, the trumpets are only one ingredient in the overall recipe, but they're still important. I once wrote an article about this whole subject for Continuo Magazine--maybe it's online, but I doubt it.
I should mention that period instrument orchestras are no better at this than modern ones. The prevailing style of trumpet playing is very hard-hitting and non-legato--cf. my statement about Harnoncourt earlier in this thread.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
but I don't see (hear) what you mean with regard to Mozart Symphony 39. I have the last six Mozart symphonies with Klemperer and the Philharmonia on stereo LPs, and I'm pretty sure they're the early 60s versions. But I've never found Klemperer's woodwinds and brasses especially inspiring, certainly not in those records. Their solo passages, which as you rightly point out are so important in the Mozart and Beethoven symphonies, are pushed forward in the mix, which is fine (and likely more due to the EMI engineers than the conductor). But they generally lack the sparkle and life I like to hear.
I agree, generally, that these recordings are not the most sparkling or liveliest – nor are they the least so.
Regarding Klempie's winds, I seem to have an almost diametrically opposed opinion, once again speaking generally. His Brahms symphonies and the "Das Lied von die Erde" he did with Wunderlich and Ludwig, for examples, have some of my favorite woodwind sounds and lines.
I've never heard the LPs of these Mozart performances. In my CDs, though, I'm not aware of any artifacts or indications that might cause you to suggest that the engineers had more to do with the balance of the winds and horns in the orchestra than did Klemperer. I have to say that my impression has long been that he tends to give them their due as a rule. The sectional balances here sound to me to be part of what I consider to be his overall approach to symphonic performance.
Yours,
-=- Charlie F.
First, thanks for your words about the trumpet in Classical period works.
You piqued my curiosity with the Mozart Nº 39 citation. I knew I had a Klemperer/Philharmonia recording, but not which one. “What ho!” says I, “I've got the one C.B. is talking about.”
And you are certainly correct on the nice trumpet/horn soli.
My 4CD set (titled simply “Klemperer: Mozart Symphonien 25 • 29 • 31 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41”) is EMI CMS 7 63272 2 and dates from 1989.
Again, thank you.
-=- Charlie F.
my CD set has the SECOND one, and as I said, it's not as good. But I still have my LP of the first version!
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
C.B.,
Your earlier post says “Exception: Klemperer's second version with the old Philharmonia. Great performance , but it's only available on LP -- EMI for some strange reason chose to release the first version on CD .”
I read that as saying that the BETTER example of the trumpet/horn balance is found on the 1962, not the 1956.
While I have not knowingly heard the first performance and thus cannot make a comparison, I can say that the ’62 has a very nicely present trumpet voice in that theme statement (and later in the movement, as well).
Additionally, I have to say that I love Klemperer's treatment of the woodwinds generally. This is also apparent in the ’62 Mozart Nº 39.
Yours,
-=- Charlie F.
I just checked, and my CD set has the earlier (1956) version, not as good from the standpoint of that trumpet theme as the 1962. The 1962 is just a better all round performance, IMO.
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Thank you!
I was beginning to think that I might need to start looking for the ’56 Klempie – which isn't really on my radar right now. As you said initially, C.B., the’62 recording is very nice. And I appreciate your having pointed out the trumpet balance issue in general. I will be looking for that in my future Classical-period listening.
Yours,
-=- Charlie F.
... is available on Testament:
and it might just be on this set (see link) -
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
It's the one I included in my first post above: EMI CMS 7 63272 2. I bought it used back in the early ’90s.
And I've really enjoyed focusing on the first movement's brass balance that C.B. first mentioned in this thread.Thanks again.
-=- Charlie F.
I'm almost certain that every time EMI issues Klemperer's #39, it's the stereo (i.e. 1962) version. They licensed the 1956 version, which is monaural, to Testament, because EMI presumably didn't have any interest in issuing it themselves. The 4 CD set that you mention presumably contains 1962, as does the 2CD GROC set, as does this one:
The "Great Recordings of the Century" set I have (EMI 3 45815 2--released 2006) has the 1956 version--as a matter of fact, it even says "first release in stereo" on it! I believe EMI recorded Klemp's early stuff (after 1955 or so) in stereo, but originally released a lot of it on mono LPs only.But thanks for the link! I going to order that version (or maybe the 4-CD set that Charlie has) just to have the 1962 version on CD.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Edits: 03/25/11
I had a couple of the Paavo Jarvi discs for awhile, but I just couldn't live with them - unlike you, I loved the way he let the strings dominate the texture, but then, when they use so little vibrato, it's all for naught IMHO. :-)
I kind of like the Vänskä/Minnesota performances - they're maybe just a touch on the bland side however, and I would have liked the microphones to be closer to give the performances more of a cutting edge.
Haven't heard the Harnoncourt/COE performances but your description of the way he lets the brass slam and punch everything seems consistent with other performances of his that I've heard. (I do like his performances of Dvorak with the Concertgebouw Orchestra however, as well as his Johann Strauss disc with the BPO on a Teldec/Warner DVD-Audio.)
I'd forgotten to mention the Collegium Aureum - a very interesting case indeed! Yes, I had many of the Collegium Aureum recordings and I liked them a lot! But here's the interesting thing: near the end of their recorded history, they too started playing without vibrato in the stings! I don't remember exactly when this occurred (late 70's, early 80's?), but I remember being very exasperated by this. It just seemed as if they too had to fall in line with the other HIP groups. I remember seeing that Erioca for sale in the shops, but I don't believe I ever heard it. Your description makes me want to hear this recording, even though I feel very uneasy about the two cellos!
I listened to it again (after typing my post), and this recording gets my pulse going unlike any other. Hey--I grew up listening to the 1939 Toscanini, so that should tell you something.
News flash--it was in fact re-released some time ago on CD. I discovered a few (used) CDs still available on Amazon. Not cheap, though.
Like I said, the vibrato/non-vibrato "controversy" is not the point here. It's really about how these conductor-less musicians get to the the heart of the score better than all the Big Boys. Almost as if they were playing chamber music, but a lot louder.
-
"You weren't afraid of being born--why would you be afraid of dying?" Alan Watts
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: