gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on May 11, 2010, 04:03:11 PM
-
Believe it or not, here it goes:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12762
He and I must have VERY different ears on this one.
I find it utterly strange because I used to concur with most of his recommended recordings of this work, Lenny, Ozawa, Levine, and Ancerl.
Have my ears changed over the years? Or have his changed?
Wow....
John,
-
Maybe someone mixmatched the two babies -- the Alan Gilbert and the Jonathan Nott (Mahler 9). Didn't the same website give a glowing review to the Gilbert? (Not sure, I don't follow these things regularily, so it may have been on another website).
Anyway, John, wow indeed.
Nathaniel
Believe it or not, here it goes:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12762
He and I must have VERY different ears on this one.
I find it utterly strange because I used to concur with most of his recommended recordings of this work, Lenny, Ozawa, Levine, and Ancerl.
Have my ears changed over the years? Or have his changed?
Wow....
John,
O
-
It's all the more strange because most of the reviews of the recording I've read gave very good to excellent to rave reviews.
For instance, read the following two reviews posted on sa-cd.net (from the listeners):
http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/6043
John,
-
I suggest everyone who consider to look for a different not favorite review of Nott/M9 should read my posts from last August.
http://gustavmahlerboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=950.msg8100#msg8100.
-
Ang here
http://gustavmahlerboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=932.0
-
alpsman,
Yep. We're equally divided on this one.
That's what opinions are all for, aren't they? :-\ ;D :-*
Cheers.
John,
-
I'm taking back (for now...) everything I've said about the Nott Mahler 9, because after looking further into it I realized that...I haven't actually listened to the commercial release but to a live broadcast! It's a concert from July 23, 09 with the Bamberger Symphoniker plus the Bayerische Staatsphilharmonie which took place at the Sala Gustav Mahler in the Tyrolean town of Dobbiaco (Italy).
I wouldn't regularly make such a booboo, but I've listened to too many Mahler 9th lately. Sorry for the confusion! I'm now of course obligated to listen to the commercial release.
-
Yes John,
opinions are different for each individual, and this is the way it must be. If someone is moved by a certain music making good for him, that is music about.
I only want to say that for the last 30 years, and especialy the last decade, we take Mahler performances for granted, and my experience from a lot of live performances( because this is the way we can judge justly), is that there are a lot of mediocre and downright bad performances out there. I attend two of those in the past months with such luminaries like Salonen and Eschenbach.
The spirit is not there, the idiomatic sound-world, the fin-de-siecle decadance....I think is the penalty of too much exposure for audiences and musicians.
-
When it comes to arts any review is subject to subjective opinions. I for one am very happy that I am not dealing with arts.
I deal with numbers and scientific facts where there are scarcely such ambiguities.
I mean,
1+2=3, NOT 4!!! ;D :D ;D
Cheers.
John,
-
Hi John.
Re the subjectivity thing. That's a truism. Obviously opinions are subjective as regards personal taste (whether you like something or not), but a well-written review is just as factual as your equation. Either the horns are clearly audible, or they are not. Either one tempo is quicker than another, or it is not. Either the score says one thing and the artist follows it, or he does not. In the same way, scientific research is subjective as regards choice and application of methodology and interpretation of any results that go beyond mere quantitative reporting. Furthermore, knowledge and experience also matter, just as you would probably prefer to be operated on by a trained surgeon rather than a beginner. The fact that everyone has opinions does not render all such opinions equally valid--what is equally valid is the right of everyone to have them and express them. But there are qualitative differences nevertheless.
One of the saddest things that has happened to the critical profession over the years has been the gradual degradation of professinal standards and ethics, to be replaced by a sort of amateur free-for-all simply because anyone can buy a CD and post an opinion. The Internet is peppered with "reviews" by soi-disant "critics," and fun though this may be for the participants, it has been a two-edged sword for the industry and the performing arts community. There is a difference between professional criticism and mere opinion. Honest feedback from respected authorities with a wider perspective on performance has the potential to be a good way of maintaining high standards of quality (never mind a useful tool for a public inundated with entertainment choices). Now, however, where every arts organization and artist has a PR team of some kind working for it, it's always possible to find some inept "critic" enthusing about every performance ever issued, and it's obviously advantageous, PR-wise, to quote the good ones, ignore the bad ones, and to insist that "it's all just opinion." Well, my friend, it's not. Or should I say, it's NOTT! ;D
Best,
Dave H
-
Dave, I still haven't listened to the commercial Nott release, but the broadcast I mentioned was superb. I've now read your Gilbert review as well as the Norrington review. Your Gilbert arguments are just not convincing. On the other hand, I agree with you on Norrington and your Norrington comments are right on, funny and convincing. It's a hit or miss and it's all about insticts and articulating a good argument. So I think the analogy of a trained surgeon doesn't apply. Sometimes a novice with excellent instincts and good arguments has much more to say than a seasoned critic. Often critics with experience are too set in their ways. Often they have agendas or expectations or preferences etc. Of course two critics almost always disagree anyway. But if the instincts are sharp and the arguments convincing, it's a good read (for me), whether I agree or disagree.
Hi John.
Re the subjectivity thing. That's a truism. Obviously opinions are subjective as regards personal taste (whether you like something or not), but a well-written review is just as factual as your equation. Either the horns are clearly audible, or they are not. Either one tempo is quicker than another, or it is not. Either the score says one thing and the artist follows it, or he does not. In the same way, scientific research is subjective as regards choice and application of methodology and interpretation of any results that go beyond mere quantitative reporting. Furthermore, knowledge and experience also matter, just as you would probably prefer to be operated on by a trained surgeon rather than a beginner. The fact that everyone has opinions does not render all such opinions equally valid--what is equally valid is the right of everyone to have them and express them. But there are qualitative differences nevertheless.
One of the saddest things that has happened to the critical profession over the years has been the gradual degradation of professinal standards and ethics, to be replaced by a sort of amateur free-for-all simply because anyone can buy a CD and post an opinion. The Internet is peppered with "reviews" by soi-disant "critics," and fun though this may be for the participants, it has been a two-edged sword for the industry and the performing arts community. There is a difference between professional criticism and mere opinion. Honest feedback from respected authorities with a wider perspective on performance has the potential to be a good way of maintaining high standards of quality (never mind a useful tool for a public inundated with entertainment choices). Now, however, where every arts organization and artist has a PR team of some kind working for it, it's always possible to find some inept "critic" enthusing about every performance ever issued, and it's obviously advantageous, PR-wise, to quote the good ones, ignore the bad ones, and to insist that "it's all just opinion." Well, my friend, it's not. Or should I say, it's NOTT! ;D
Best,
Dave H
-
Dave,
Well said indeed.
Your points are all valid and well taken.
Bertrand Russell once wrote in his "Conquest of Happiness" something like (excuse me for not remembering the exact phrase),
"When public don't understand a painting that's displayed at an art museum, they normally say, 'this piece is bad because I can't understand it'. On the other hand, when they don't understand the theory of relativity they'll think it's because they are ignorant."
It's precisely in this context that I said I am happy that I am not dealing with the arts that are always subjected to certain degree of subjective opinions and ambiguities. You are right on the science; yes, even it is subjective. But it is much less so and such scientific subjectiveness is only known to the scientists, not the general public.
You know, even though the critics have dismissed most of Dohnanyi's Mahler I bet there are still folks out there who adore his Mahler recordings for reasons that cannot be explained rationally. Such is the nature of arts, isn't it?
Anyway, the Nott M9th is the ONLY second M9th recording that I cannot agree with you on (The live Karajan is the the other one). So, we both agree more than 80% on Mahler Ninth recordings :D ;).
Regards,
John,
-
Nathaniel and John:
First, John, we don't have to agree about anything (though of course I'm glad that we like some of the same performances--it's always nice to be in the company of good people!). Let's not confuse what people agree about with what a performance does, and how accurately it is described in the context of a review. One of the things that differentiates critics from normal people (and maybe that's not a good thing!) is the fact that critics write criticism, while everyone else writes autobiography. A review should not just be about whether a performance is good or bad, or whether the critic likes it or not (although that is the ultimate judgment to which it usually leads)--it is about what the composer requires, what the performers do, and how this version compares to others. As you very correctly point out, whether I like something or not is no more useful than whether anyone likes anything--it is mere personal preference. What matters is what we might call the "non-subjective" basis that determines that preference. Anyway, the fact that science has many subjective elements not known to the general public I find even scarier than those things that ARE known to be subjective by the general public. Don't you?
In any case, in 25 years of writing professional criticism, when someone dislikes one of my reviews then 99% of the time the reason isn't because there's something wrong with the review as criticism, it is almost invariably because the person disagrees with my ultimate liking or disliking of the performance. And they get pissed that a supposed authority does not support their own personal taste. That's the gist of it, because at heart most people aren't content with just enjoying what they enjoy. They want to be RIGHT, and they want their viewpoint validated by others.
Nathaniel: Of course there are amateurs who may have better insights or greater knowledge about specific pieces than some professionals, that doesn't make them better critics. It just means they have particular knowledge which could be useful in a conversation about particular works. Having a lot of such people in one place (like in this group) can very well produce excellent and informative results. But your contention that the Gilbert review is "unconvincing" won't wash. It didn't convince YOU because you didn't like the performance. But that is an entirely different question from whether or not that article accurately describes those aspects of the performance that determined my decision to recommend it. If you find those aspects unimportant, or feel that there are others not discussed that are more important, that's your perogative, but you still have much of the essential information you need to make that determination from reading the review.
Finally, I have to note that you did not even know which performance of the Nott Mahler 9 you had heard, and yet this did not stop you from weighing in on the merits of the version you had NOT heard with complete certainty and authority. To your credit, you had the consideration and conscience to double check and explain your initial error. However, if one of my writers did that, they would be out the door faster than the end of the Rondo: Burleske. That is just one example of what professionalism means (at its most basic level). How would you feel knowing that on the basis of hearing that live performance, which may well be every bit as good as you say, a bunch of people ran out and bought the commercial release, which sucks, because you got the two confused? In your world that's an innocent mistake. In mine, it's a crime, and rightly so.
Best,
Dave H
-
Dave -- I actaully agree with you that it's a crime to mix up a live concert with a commercial release and that's why -- as soon as I realized it -- I posted my error. So I guess I should count my blessings (that I'm not -- or nott -- working for you). On the other hand, if you were working for me, I would probably keep you at least for a while, BUT!! -- at the same time -- make darn sure I get another reviewer to ALSO cover the Gielen cycle for example. Because -- now that I've done my homework and checked out your 10/10's -- giving the Gielen cycle 10/10 is in my book kinda a major crime too, so I'd at least get another reviewer to balance off that crime. I'd do the same for the Barenboim M7 and Eschenbach M6 as well as Nagano M8. And of course the Gilbert M9.
I should add that all the above (as well as the previous posts) are said with fun and humor and on the light side. I generally do like reading your reviews and unlike most reviewers, I generally actually agree with you. I even like your nasty reviews (when they're to the point, not just for nastiness sake). It's also good to have you here in a dialogue.
All the best and keep up the good work, Nathaniel
-
I think there's a whole 'nother side to these kinds of disagreements. Let's face it, when it comes to Mahler, we live in age where we're now completely spoiled for choices. That just wasn't the case even 25 years ago (when it comes to Mahler). Obviously, if the Nott Mahler 9 had come out in the late '70s or early '80s, it would be right up there against the best of them (and to John and Nathaniel, it still is, I imagine). Therefore, it's pretty darn good in the absolute sense. It's only in the comparative sense that it doesn't fully hold water. For me, it leaves me kind of shrugging my shoulders: it's not bad; it just doesn't bowl me over as some of my favorite ones do. For all the supposed faults in minor details that the "live" Karajan one allegedly possesses, it's still among an elite few that keep up just an outrageous level of intensity from start to finish - that what I like about it. As I've said numerous times, for me, many performances of Mahler 9 sound as they should they have just stopped after the first movement. I wouldn't say that about the Nott performance, but I really don't like it as much a number of others. I don't think the somewhat dull Tudor sound helps either. But if we were back in 1978, I'd probably be jumping all up and down about it.
-
Ah Nathaniel--some people will never "get it." I rest my case.
Barry--you have put your finger on the point exactly. Record reviewing, in particular, is about comparisons, and both standards and relative merits of recordings change over time. That was what I was suggesting in the first sentence of my review. I might also point out that the title of this thread (DH "hammers on" etc) really is an exaggeration. I do not "hammer" on anything. I simply explain why the performance does not measure up to the best of the competition, but as I'm sure Nathaniel would agree, this review is by no means as harsh as, say, the Norrington Mahler 9 piece--because Nott is not a liar and a fraud.
Dave H
-
Barry, I DIDN'T HEAR the commercial Nott M9 and I'm not going to comment further on that Nott commercial release until I hear it. Fair enough? I can only repeat that the live concert I heard is s-u-p-e-r-b p-l-u-s and in 2010 standards not 1978. When I hear the CD, I'll be happy to report and I promise to tell you my absolute honest opinion. In the meantime I urge everyone to try and locate the live one I'm talking about.
And Dave, Indeed. I still don't "get" how on earth the lame Gielen got 10/10 and don't think I ever will and am pretty happy with my not "getting" this one (and the other examples I've cited). And re. Norrington -- he's not a liar nor a thief. I hated his M9 too, but I've heard plenty of good Norrington performances (mostly Baroque) and wouldn't rush to judgment. He's just not "a Mahler kinda guy". Not the end of the world.
-
I will try to be honest about the sound quality of the Nott M9th recording. Indeed, I recognize certain sonic glitch in loud passages of I. As the first climax approaches the dynamic range seems to reach its limit producing an unpleasant distortion in the high end. Did you notice it? Nott's fine effort is compromised by the limited sonics and this in turn may create a negative impression on the conducting overall. I have been aware of this problem but didn't make a big deal of it because I think other aspects of the recording far outweighs the defect.
However, almost all of reviews I read in music magazines including ARG and Musicweb gave excellent to rave reviews for both the performance and sound.
John,
-
Well let's just celebrate the obvious, which is that we're all spoiled for choices 8)
-
As Mr. Hurwitz wrote: "A review should not just be about whether a performance is good or bad, or whether the critic likes it or not (although that is the ultimate judgment to which it usually leads)--it is about what what the performers do, and how this version compares to others." Or, is it about what the critic thinks that the composer requires, what the critic thinks that the performers do, and how the critic thinks that this version compares to others?
M2
Yvonne Kenny (soprano); Jard van Nes (mezzo-soprano)
London Philharmonic Orchestra & Choir
Klaus Tennstedt
Mr. Hurwitz: 10/8
Reference Recording - Bernstein (DG); Fischer (Channel Classics); This One
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12756
Mr. Huss: 6/8
Référence: Tennstedt (EMI); Mehta (Decca)
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3522
M1
Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra
Manfred Honeck
Mr. Hurwitz: 10/10
Reference Recording - Bernstein (DG); Boulez (DG); Gielen (Hänssler); Kubelik (DG)
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12514
Mr. Huss: 7/7
Référence: Ancerl (Supraphon); Boulez (DG); Solti-LSO (Decca)
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3294
M4
Christine Schäfer (soprano)
Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
Bernard Haitink
Mr. Hurwitz: 7/9
Reference Recording - Bernstein (Sony); Levi (Telarc)
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11227
Mr. Huss: 10/10
Référence: Levi (Telarc); Davis (RCA); Van Beinum (Decca)
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2388
M2
Simona Saturová (soprano); Yvonne Naef (mezzo-soprano)
The Philadelphia Orchestra & Singers Chorale
Christoph Eschenbach
Mr. Hurwitz: 9/8
Reference Recording - Bernstein (DG); Fischer (Channel Classics); Levi (Telarc)
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12044
Mr. Huss: 5/8 (at least he agrees on sound quality)
Référence: SACD: Fischer (Channel Classics); Kaplan (DG)
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3013
M6/Piano quartet
Christoph Eschenbach (piano); David Kim (violin); Choong-Jin Chang (viola); Efe Baltacigil (cello)
The Philadelphia Orchestra
Christoph Eschenbach
Mr. Hurwitz: 10/10
Reference Recording - Bernstein (Sony or DG); Gielen (Hänssler); Chailly (Decca); Levi (Telarc)
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=10408
Mr. Huss: 7/7
Référence: Barbirolli (EMI); Bernstein-Vienne (DG); Boulez (DG)
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=1826
Luca
-
Luca:
Wow, thanks for the attention. I think my readers, and the participants here, are more than capable of understanding the difference between fact and opinion, assessing in any piece of critical writing the balance between them, and deciding whether a critic (or anyone) has chosen examples in such a way as to characterize a work or an interpretation fairly. Again, let's not be condescending to intelligent music lovers. Your point is just another version of that generic, "everything is just opinion" relativism. I thought we were past that tired bit of sophistry. For you a meal may be too spicy, for another diner not spicy enough--never mind whether either diner "likes" the result--but we can (and should) all agree on what the ingredients are.
Dave H
-
Hello Luca,
This is really interesting but cool ??? ::) 8). Two classicsmusic.com critics with two different views for the same recording...uhm.... This is exactly what I meant when I wrote "....isn't it the nature of art?"
John,
-
John:
It is the nature of perception. Art has nothing to do with it. And since we only know what we perceive, either the fact that different people have different perception means there are no facts, which is a silly (and hypocritical) position because as a practical matter unless we agreed about most things there could be no possibility of communication at all, or there is a reasonable standard that determines what the facts are. Again, the point is not to focus on the end result (that I may give a recording a 10 and Christophe a 7) but on the observations that get us there. For example, Tennstedt's LPO live Mahler 2 has a very slow first movement. I like it, so it's a 10. Christophe may not like it, so it's a 7, but there is no disagreement that the reason for our conclusion stems from the fact that it is slow. A difference in taste is not the same as a disagreement about the facts. A good review describes facts so that readers can make informed decisions, whether they agree or not with the taste of the critic. And THAT, of course, is just my opinion!
Dave H
-
Let’s face it, all reviews are a combination of fact and opinion – regardless of how detailed one writes a review. In an 80+ minute Mahler symphony, you can ALWAYS find several factual items about which to complain. The opinion part comes into play when the reviewer determines how much of a detriment those factual faults are to the overall performance of the symphony, and whether to mention those faults as part of a short review.
As an example, I share many peoples’ enthusiasm for the Fischer M2. If I wrote a review I could rightfully complain about the recessed trumpets in the March of the Souls Section. I could probably point out one or two other factual deficiencies (i.e. if I had listened to it recently). However, those deficiencies pale in comparison to the overall performance and my overall enjoyment. Conversely, in Lennie’s NYPO Sony M2 the cymbals are basically absent from the March of the Souls section (the cymbals in my mind symbolize the whipping of the marching souls), which detracts enough from my overall enjoyment of the symphony to keep me from recommending it. So my point is that I can factually demonstrate a fault with the March of the Souls section in either performance and in a short review, I would probably stress the deficiency in the Lennie/NYPO. Conversely, I would probably focus on all of the positives in the Fischer one and ignore any mention of the recessed trumpets.
I probably agree with DH’s “opinions” (or ratings) more than those of most other reviewers. When DH puts detailed criticisms in his reviews, I can generally go back and hear exactly what he is criticizing. However, I may differ in terms of how much those mentioned items detract from my overall enjoyment of the performances. I’ll use the Rattle/BPO M9 final seconds of the ending as another example. DH was very turned off by the fact that the cellos died out after the violins, which gave the ending a totally different meaning to him. Someone else may hear the same thing but react completely differently.
-
Thank you Luca! I really enjoyed reading the French reviewer -- I didn't even know this site existed. He is elegant and stimulating in his writing. For example, he talks a lot about trends and that's refreshing, like calling the Tennstedt M2 decadent and old, or the Honeck M1 bourgeois and theatrical. I really like the Honeck a lot (unlike the reviewer), but it's a fresh perspective about the performance. I'd much rather read an intelligent review I disagree with than look for someone to echo my view. It's more challenging. I think I'll go back to the French site a lot more.
-
"Someone else may hear the same thing but react completely differently"
Man, is that ever true.
-
John,
I've now scanned through the French review of the Nott M9 recording. He gives it 7/7 but like it better than the Gilbert (which he hasn't reviewed yet, I guess). But I really like his terminology. He talks about the "cold", "detached" Gilbert as opposed to the "warm" and "human" Nott. In his reviews he seems to discuss ambiance and philosophy and seems to use his instincts a lot more. I have really enjoyed reading his reviews so far. Worth checking out if you can read French.
Nathaniel
Hello Luca,
This is really interesting but cool ??? ::) 8). Two classicsmusic.com critics with two different views for the same recording...uhm.... This is exactly what I meant when I wrote "....isn't it the nature of art?"
John,
-
Yes, Christophe is a wonderful critic, and very different from me in his approach. I hope you enjoy his work, and the French site!
Dave H
-
I've now noticed that Huss (the French Classic Today reviewer) has the Brahms Sonatas and Trio for clarinet with my friend Sharon Kam (and Martin Helmchen and Gustav Rivinus) as one of his choices for the year's top CD's. Now I like him even more!
-
Nope! - now we have to endlessly debate the pluses and minuses of numerous recordings of the Brahms clarinet sonatas (I'd sooner kill myself). I think Ms. Kam sucks! By that, I mean it sounds as though she's sucking on her reed. The Karajan Brahms clarinet sonatas - with Karajan being the page turner - is vastly superior! It sounds as though his clarinetist, Karl Leister, is blowing on the reed as opposed to sucking on it. Of course, that's only my perception because the program notes make it perfectly clear that Herr Leister uses the sucking technique as well (but I don't read program notes prior to listening to a recording because - well - it's like looking at a set of plans BEFORE admiring a newly constructed office building). In those notes, herr Leister makes it clear that one can only obtain a high degree of expressive possibilities, as well as capturing those subtle nuances, through sucking as opposed to blowing. Also, in the second sonata; third movement; bar 132; beat 3, Ms. Kam played an appaggiatura as a grupetto (but as if to compensate, her cabalettas and barcaroles are exquisitely executed). In the future, while I can not make this one a first choice, I will be looking forward to more gauche gauteaux from Ms. Kam's future endeavours into the clarinet sonatas of Magnard and Rubbra.
-
I'm a clarinetist myself but haven't heard Ms. Kam's version.
When it comes down to it though, we all are going to have different opinions. This conversation could go on forever!
-
I'll tell her your thoughts.
I think Ms. Kam sucks! By that, I mean it sounds as though she's sucking on her reed.
-
Also worth mentioning: sometimes critics agree completely, and/or arrive at the same conclusions in their own different ways. This actually happens rather more frequently than you might suppose:
http://www.classicstodayfrance.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3577
Best,
Dave H
-
Here she is (sorry for the blah-blah over the music)
http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/3517136?documentId=3051824
I'm a clarinetist myself but haven't heard Ms. Kam's version.
When it comes down to it though, we all are going to have different opinions. This conversation could go on forever!
-
"I'll tell her your thoughts"
Just tell her that I'm looking forward to new recordings of clarinet sonatas by Magnard and Rubbra. Persichetti and Linstead would be most welcome too (by somebody).
-
Of course. I was just kiddin' anyway. But to be honest with you, the technical lingo doesn't mean anything to me. That's why I hardly ever read notes, or reviews. That's why Huss, the Frenchman, appeals to me I guess (he calls Sharon Kam "classy", admires her "great flexibility", "range of shades" and total lack of "gueulard" -- how to translate gueulard??). I suppose some suck, some blow and some puff. If she sucks and it works, that's fine with me. It's like saying that Louis Armstrong is "throaty". It works? That's all that matters. The only thing that is always a complete turn off for me is "fake" playing (or singing or conducting).
Regards, Nathaniel
"I'll tell her your thoughts"
Just tell her that I'm looking forward to new recordings of clarinet sonatas by Magnard and Rubbra. Persichetti and Linstead would be most welcome too (by somebody).
-
Let’s face it, all reviews are a combination of fact and opinion – regardless of how detailed one writes a review. In an 80+ minute Mahler symphony, you can ALWAYS find several factual items about which to complain. The opinion part comes into play when the reviewer determines how much of a detriment those factual faults are to the overall performance of the symphony, and whether to mention those faults as part of a short review.
As an example, I share many peoples’ enthusiasm for the Fischer M2. If I wrote a review I could rightfully complain about the recessed trumpets in the March of the Souls Section. I could probably point out one or two other factual deficiencies (i.e. if I had listened to it recently). However, those deficiencies pale in comparison to the overall performance and my overall enjoyment. Conversely, in Lennie’s NYPO Sony M2 the cymbals are basically absent from the March of the Souls section (the cymbals in my mind symbolize the whipping of the marching souls), which detracts enough from my overall enjoyment of the symphony to keep me from recommending it. So my point is that I can factually demonstrate a fault with the March of the Souls section in either performance and in a short review, I would probably stress the deficiency in the Lennie/NYPO. Conversely, I would probably focus on all of the positives in the Fischer one and ignore any mention of the recessed trumpets.
I probably agree with DH’s “opinions” (or ratings) more than those of most other reviewers. When DH puts detailed criticisms in his reviews, I can generally go back and hear exactly what he is criticizing. However, I may differ in terms of how much those mentioned items detract from my overall enjoyment of the performances. I’ll use the Rattle/BPO M9 final seconds of the ending as another example. DH was very turned off by the fact that the cellos died out after the violins, which gave the ending a totally different meaning to him. Someone else may hear the same thing but react completely differently.
Right you are!!! :o :o ;D :D
I've always found that in EVERY recording/concert there are ups and downs both musically (performance) and technically (sound). But as Scott put, whether you give thumbs up or down ultimately depends on what you're looking for, what you cannot tolerate, and eventually which aspects of the recording/concert outweigh or wear down the others. In the case of the Nott M9th, I already said I have a concern about the sound quality in I. but it didn't matter much because I liked all the other elements so much. And I gave my thumbs up. Let's face it. This recording is VERY faithful to the score as far as I know (has there been a version that captures as many details as this one?), and objectively speaking it deserves more than 6 or 7 rating. Ditto the Gilbert M9th. But the way we perceived each recording came out very differently because of the reason Scott has carefully elaborated on.
John,
-
I couldn't really tell because of the German talking over the music unfortunately, but what I heard sounded good. My stand partner at town band enjoys her playing and has lent me some of her CD's in the past. Sabine Meyer is one of my favorite clarinetists but she plays on the Oehler system.
Also, "sucking" isn't very clear; what do you mean exactly?
-
"Sucking isn't very clear; what do mean exactly?"
Think of whistling. Many people can whistle while blowing out air, or they can whistle while sucking in air. I happen to whistle better while sucking in air (that part IS true). The sucking technique works on the complete clarinet family, with the exception of the Eb contra-alto clarinet. It also works on Cor Anglais; Heckelphone (bass oboe), Sarrousaphone (but not Sousaphone - that's entirely different), and some French makes of the bassoon. In the brass family, "sucking" is more a manner of expression. For example, "that new third horn they hired sure sucks - also not great looking either". However, the sucking technique does seem to work for some trumpet players. Here's a photo of sucking in action.
(http://www.jean-philippe-vidal.com/histoire_du_jazz/jazz_dizzy_gillespie.jpg)
Here's a photo of sucking in the other sense of the word
(http://legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/diversions/060212/botti1A.jpg)
-
Here's a photo of sucking in the other sense of the word
;D. LOL, that couldn't have been any more perfect. The picture was just below the scroll line, so I could see the above comment but had to hit the page down button to see the picture. Thanks for the good laugh.
-
I'm getting my sexist pig-dog on here. I think I'd gladly pay Ms. Williamson's monthly bill for clarinet reeds. Maybe for those pumps too.
http://www.sarah-williamson.co.uk/gallery.php
-
LOL :D Agreed, Barry!
I love where this thread is going... Scott, Maybe it's time to put a lock on this one, before things get out of hand ;)
-
I listened to the Nott M9 again last night and it still made an impact...I think this performance has to be heard numerous times to hear it's secrets...
I was comparing the Nott with the new Maazel M9 and I was surprised to find the Nott more rewarding in terms of emotional effect...I still love the Maazel for the virtuosity but Nott's M9 highlights those devastating contrasts between power and gentleness, especially in the 1st movement. Somehow Nott really gets those contrasts across. Rest assured the "vehemence" is there in spades. I also hear huge timpani fanfares and each climax is powerful and shattering. I swear I hear it! (Must be my subjectivity running rampant! :-X) Actually I think Mr. Hurwitz's review was fair and honest.
On my relisten last night I didn't think the sonics were troublesome at all. The lows are rich and the highs didn't hurt my ear like the Gilbert BIS release does. I'm going to relisten to the Gilbert today. Perhaps this one has grown in my inner ear as well.
I have to agree with John that this is one of the great M9's.
--Todd
-
Leo,
Thanks for the heads up!! :D ;D
The main reason I rate this recording so highly is that whether intentional or not Nott seems to have gathered all the elements of great recordings - Lenny, Chailly, Levine, and even Karajan - and put them across with his personal stamp. You mentioned the prominent timpani. What about the tam tam at the main climax? Has there been a recording that caught it (and the timpani) as vividly and powerfully as this one? What about the mighty brass at the same spot uttered twice with fff followed by ff marking? These are just a few examplesthat make Nott's M9th so extraordinary.
I'll stop here, otherwise it will bring on ..... :-X
John,
-
Leo,
Thanks for the heads up!! :D ;D
The main reason I rate this recording so highly is that whether intentional or not Nott seems to have gathered all the elements of great recordings - Lenny, Chailly, Levine, and even Karajan - and put them across with his personal stamp. You mentioned the prominent timpani. What about the tam tam at the main climax? Has there been a recording that caught it (and the timpani) as vividly and powerfully as this one? What about the mighty brass at the same spot uttered twice with fff followed by ff marking? These are just a few examplesthat make Nott's M9th so extraordinary.
I'll stop here, otherwise it will bring on ..... :-X
John,
John,
You are right one about the 3rd climax in I. The tam tam, timpani, and lower brass are all here in their glory! I love hearing that fff to ff too...it is so clear and devastating in ferocity.
--Todd
-
I completely agree with John Kim here, the 1st time i listened to the Nott M9 it didnt really affect me at all, but with each listen it seems to grow to an outstanding performance of the work and i really cant go back to the Karajan anymore of which i prefered the studio to the live one. But as we are all saying its opinions of what each persons regards their favourite performance and the Nott for me is very much the one i will listen to when i want my M9 fix. I did also get the Gilbert of which i enjoyed the 3rd and and 4th movements, but i find much more to get into in the Nott.