Gergiev/LSO M3 coming out in early October

[barry guerrero]

Oh, please; let's get over this nonsense. It's like a bunch of children slinging mud in a sandbox.

Polarius,

I actually take your point regarding dynamics, Mahler, and Abbado. You're right, I'm making something of a double standard here. But I truly feel that Mahler sometimes outfoxed himself. In his time, he complained of everything being played too loudly (except for those moments where he wanted things to truly sound fortissimo - moments that have been very well documented). But playing something really soft shouldn't permit the tension or intensity to disappear; or, allow textures to completely lack the requisite color. In other words, if you're going to write soft notes for instruments that are basically lending a certain color or "mood" (i.e. soft gong notes, low harp plucks, sustained contrabassoon notes - you name it!), why would the composer add those if he didn't want them heard at all? The observation I make about Abbado being so literal with his pianissimos, was also observed by a friend of mine several decades ago, clear back in Chicago. He told me that he literally had to "strain to hear" the continued line of the music during Abbado's Mahler performances. I know what he meant, as I observed the same problem (it's a problem for me) in London. It sometimes sounds artificial rather than natural or inevitable, but that's beside the point.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that Abbado is "wrong" for doing this. But what I think bothers me more than the actual soft dynamics, is the just the loss of tension and coloration that seems to go along with it. Why is it that Boulez can equally observe soft dynamic markings, yet we don't lose all sense of tension at the same time? Or, at the very least, I don't feel that I'm losing the tension or, "sense of line" nearly so much.

Many knowledgeable folks claim that dynamic markings ARE intensity markings. That's a concept that I happen to strongly disagree with. To me, intensity and the continuation of the melodic line - as well as all of the trappings that go along with that, including coloration effects - shouldn't lose ANY intensity at ANY dynamic. In other words, for me, dynamics are greatly just a matter of turning the volume knob up and down, and little else. Right or wrong, that's how I feel about it. The performances I've liked best, regardless of who the composer is, are ones where matters of color, melodic line, and tension remain somewhat constant, regardless of the volume at any given moment. That's just me.

Barry

[Dave H]

Barry: Further to you point, there are many examples of the artificially soft pianissimos in Abbado's Mahler recordings. I remember quite vividly, even in his Chicago recordings (which I still believe represent some of his best efforts in Mahler), that when the Second Symphony came out it was almost impossible to hear the rute in the scherzo, the soft tam-tams in the first movement and elsewhere, and all kinds of colorful details that simply vanished into the disc surface (and DG had decent quality pressings). Later, on CD, the situation had hardly changed. Those details just aren't given the presence that they need to have. The loss of color, atmosphere, and (in the scherzo) rhythm was telling, despite a lot about the performance that I really liked--the fine ensemble, sensible pacing, big climaxes, etc.

I think that this illustrates exactly the point that you are trying to make, and MY point is simply that as time has gone on, this tendency has only become more pronounced. And it's a great shame, because Abbado was, for decades, one of the more exciting and talented guys out there, and he still can be now and again. I think his Bruckner Fifth is terrific; his Berlin Wagner recital of a few years ago was also excellent, and I enjoyed his recent Mozart violin concertos (though the symphonies were grotesque). I treasure many of his earlier recordings with the LSO--Stravinsky, Ravel, Prokofiev (a great Nevsky), and the Boston recordings too. But people change over time--he's not the only conductor to get eccentric as he aged, or to pick up a bad habit or two along the way. That's why each release has to be taken on its own merits. I do think, though, that the current habit of major labels recording him live, in "festival" situations, is not a recipe for getting the best results. Let's face it, on any given night your average concert will be, well, average, and the audible results only confirm this fact.

Dave H

[sperlsco]

As expected, Davey; a bunch of hot air and not much else.

You keep insinuating as if there was something to your vague claims, but when asked to substantiate you have nothing to show. So my advise to you would be: Put up, or shut up.

-PT

Okay, I am just catching up to this thread, so hopefully we are well past the personal junk.  But please, PT, your previous post was fine, and everyone appreciates a challenge to another's thinking and reasoning.  However, you continue to turn toward the negative/personal attack, which is simply out of bounds.  For the most part, it is not "what" you are saying, but "how" you are saying it.  Let's keep it civilized. 

[Polarius T]

As expected, Davey; a bunch of hot air and not much else.

You keep insinuating as if there was something to your vague claims, but when asked to substantiate you have nothing to show. So my advise to you would be: Put up, or shut up.

-PT

Okay, I am just catching up to this thread, so hopefully we are well past the personal junk.  But please, PT, your previous post was fine, and everyone appreciates a challenge to another's thinking and reasoning.  However, you continue to turn toward the negative/personal attack, which is simply out of bounds.  For the most part, it is not "what" you are saying, but "how" you are saying it.  Let's keep it civilized. 

Scott, I accept your point made in your typically civil fashion; but just in case, please note that "hot air" is a perfectly normal expression for what we have been seeing here (vague, unsubstantiated insinuations) and "Put up or shut up" is likewise standard phrase for the advise given to those committing the former, at least in academic contexts. It simply means: show us the evidence or cut the crap.

Now I admit that the last point in that msg was aimed more personally.

 

-PT

[Polarius T]

Many knowledgeable folks claim that dynamic markings ARE intensity markings. That's a concept that I happen to strongly disagree with. To me, intensity and the continuation of the melodic line - as well as all of the trappings that go along with that, including coloration effects - shouldn't lose ANY intensity at ANY dynamic.... The performances I've liked best, regardless of who the composer is, are ones where matters of color, melodic line, and tension remain somewhat constant, regardless of the volume at any given moment. That's just me.

Barry, This just goes to show how our ears are affected by our minds (a point I think best exemplified by Davey H's "commentary" unless it's just purely ideologically motivated [a question which I'm leaving open for now]). For the very same you talk about is what steers me in my listening choices, too.

And I can't really comment on what Abbado did 20-30 years ago (your account of your friend's recollections from what he felt "several decades ago" etc.), apart from the recording context in some cases. I'm talking about what he is doing today, which is really something very different, no matter how you look at it. That I think where the extraordinary comes in; previously, he was "just" an excellent conductor sharing the ground with a number of others.

Added later: Barry, you left me thinking as a result of your ponderings. I think it's actually quite important to bring up the issue of tension. But I am not sure if melody (or line) is what we should emphasize here too much, nor color, given this is Mahler. Mahler's colors are always quite stark, somewhat oddly constructed, as it were not applied with a coloristic intent at all and not meant to have any priority in the scheme; instead it is the textures that ar more crucial. And similarly, as we discussed earlier in the context of M6/Finale in particular, tension in that movement is not premissed on the development of line at all but comes from the parts and how relate to one another (not least their proportions). So if we accepted your point as valid, you'd admittedly be right; Abbado is a master colorist (hear his Debussy/Ravel/Mussorgsky/Stravinsky/Ligeti...) but in Mahler color is not what he focuses on; instead -- and quite rightly, in my view -- he illuminates the textures and balances that make up the crucial elements in a Mahler performance, in my view (that is, if we accept the suggestion above that line and color are not essential for him; but I think research supports me on this point).  Anyway, maybe I'm misreading you a bit or not "hearing" you correctly.

-PT

[Polarius T]

there are many examples of the artificially soft pianissimos in Abbado's Mahler recordings.

Yes? Where? And what is "artificial" about these? And just out of curiosity, that would not be in comparison to your Reference Artiste, who by global agreement was perhaps the champion of artificial magnifications, would it? Or to Ancerl who, despite his many merits, seemed incapable of accomplishing a true ppp, even pp? If these are what your ears are conditioned to, I'm not surprised by your discomfort at real soft sounds balanced right. Or are you being merely rhetorical?

Not that we ever seem to get any exact information out of you when requesting a clarification.

in his Chicago recordings...when the Second Symphony came out it was almost impossible to hear the rute in the scherzo, the soft tam-tams in the first movement and elsewhere, and all kinds of colorful details that simply vanished into the disc surface (and DG had decent quality pressings).

That's because back in the mid-'70s your sound system was still nothing special. 

The performance itself is quite special still, in its sheer intensity (which to be sure is not just thrown on your face a la your Reference Artiste but allowed much better to unfold according to its own logic).

Later, on CD, the situation had hardly changed.

That's for two reasons, the 2nd being likely and the 1st obvious. No. 1, that was an early digital transfer and like all early digital transfers they were still busy learning the art, not really knowing how to do it. Same thing as in the transition from mastering and editing for mono to stereophonic all the sudden, nothing special about it per se. People learn but it tends to take a bit of time. I have a Japanese remaster of this and there is nothing wrong with the sound (see below). No. 2, by that time you had already damaged your hearing by blasting the artificial magnifications by your Reference Artiste with the volume knob way too high up, for excitement. 

Those details just aren't given the presence that they need to have. The loss of color, atmosphere, and (in the scherzo) rhythm was telling

This from the disturbing "micromanager who keeps fussing with details"?? You are contradicting yourself (or backtracking?).

Besides, what you are really talking about is the quality of the sound recording, not performance attributes. It's not a bad recording, but it's not on par with the best from the period (mid-'70s), and some aspects suffer accordingly -- but mostly in comparison to later, better recorded examples only. As I said I have a fine version of this particular recording and none of what you say is true about it outside of the engineering context.

You last point about "loss of rhythm" in the scherzo is very weird, to say the least, and would seem to need some additional elaboration to make sense. If anything this is a very sharply characterized interpretation, and not least when it comes to the rhythms which is the area where Abbado typically excels. Earlier on, he was frequently characterized as a hothead and as someone almost overdoing the dynamics (not just in loudness terms but in the intensity department that Barry so nicely drew our attention to).

Like I said, I have the recording, and anyone who'd like to hear it I can probably send over snippets or even whole movements one at a time if you wish. The sounds will not lie.

One additional point that could be made concerns auditive memory. It's been shown to be particularly volatile (unreliable and prone to falsifications) and have the duration of no more than 17 to 20 seconds at best. For these reasons alone anecdotes about experiences one had in one's youth should always be held suspect ("I remember that when I heard it 30 years ago I was not impressed..."). Not only do we not remember, remember imperfectly, and remember just plain wrong, but we also rewrite our memories in the light of later life to suit our current frames and interests. In addition we need to remember that the "audio codes" informing our perceptions and experience are malleable. They change over time, and so does the way we "hear" music as a result. Today we seldom enjoy, at least not in the same way, what moved us in our youth. Or at least hopefully that is the case.  So for all these reasons the power of anecdotal evidence is seldom taken to be something we need to really reckon with.

I think that this illustrates exactly the point that you are trying to make

Everyone knows the point you want to make, Davey H, and it's a bit of a tired cliche by now if I may say so.

I can understand why you find Abbado's musicianship so antithetical to you and what you would like to represent. First of all, it's a paradigm of music making that's already overtaken you and your stagnated view of texts and their interpretation. I admit there is a possibility you really may not be capable of understanding/hearing the point in it even when sincerely trying. But like all things novel and unknown, it does pose a threat to those who invested so much in the old. Second, you've staked too much of your professional credentials on Abbado (and some other musicians') bashing to be able to reverse your position now. Especially so after your disastrous embracement of the "Hatto Genius" which turned out to be a hoax. (By "you" I mean the website you are the founder and president of.) You have to have something to show why you are special (why else would anyone want to read you? There are many competing sites with trained music critics writing for them), and being the only one in the world who "has the guts to tell" Abbado he's "grotesque" and "see through" his "utter absurdity" is basically the only sales pitch you've got left. So I don't expect you to stop propagating this myth, although I do wish you would save your time and energy for more valuable pursuits (and don't you have a day job to attend to as well?) and at least be generous enough to save those reiterations for special occasions only so we don't need to read through the same empty phrases rehearsed over and over again at every available opportunity. And why not pick up a new young (or old and dying, if that's what you prefer) genius somewhere and start promoting him (somehow I don't think it'd be a "her" again)? That would be positive, which is always a better way of promoting one's business compared to campaigns premised on the negative. I think you'd see better results.

Let's face it, on any given night your average concert will be, well, average, and the audible results only confirm this fact.

And on any given night your extraordinary evening will be, well, extraordinary.

I think you are running out of things to say.

And as far as the "enjoyable" Mozart concertos vs. the "grotesque" symphonies, that too tells about two things. First, you're no friend of vibratoless playing, which we all knew already (what HIP recordings have you actually listened to?). Second, I think after bashing the symphonies you realized that just about everyone else thought they were splendid, so you had to mitigate your position a bit with the concertos. It's the exact same band of young players that you said can't play and shouldn't even be allowed, and it's basically the exact same music plus one extra violinist, recorded not long apart on the same home turf under similar conditions and the very same conductor with unchanged ideas about how to play this music. Now how radical a transformation can there be between the two recordings? I think you are just trying to save face, and probably for a good reason.

Now that's all I have to say about the subject. Abbado is not my "favorite artist" as you've claimed, nor do I consider myself "a fan," as you've tried to insinuate to relativize the points I've made; he just provides a good example of something that I think is symptomatic of a broader problem (among critics and especially CD reviewers, not the musicians or record labels).  There are other examples as well, of course, but what I particularly admire Abbado for is the sovereign manner in which he has brought orchestral music-making into the 21st century while at the same time carrying forward the spiritual impulse inspiring the greatest conductors of our past such as Mahler himself, Furtwaengler, Desormiere, Scherchen, Klemperer and maybe a few others -- if anything only rejuvenating that vital center in the process. What he certainly can't be said to be is "eccentric," a label I would, among the names I respect, rather apply to someone like Sinopoli (a true eccentric) or Boulez (not eccentric in the personal but in a historical perspective as someone who not tot long from now, I am afraid, will be seen as nothing but a brilliant exception in his era; he will have no [capable] disciples whereas Abbado may well have already affected the way music performance traditions will be carried forward in keeping with the spirit of great art).

-PT

[Dave H]

PT wrote:

Abbado is not my "favorite artist" as you've claimed, nor do I consider myself "a fan," as you've tried to insinuate to relativize the points I've made; he just provides a good example of something that I think is symptomatic of a broader problem (among critics and especially CD reviewers, not the musicians or record labels).  There are other examples as well, of course, but what I particularly admire Abbado for is the sovereign manner in which he has brought orchestral music-making into the 21st century while at the same time carrying forward the spiritual impulse inspiring the greatest conductors of our past such as Mahler himself, Furtwaengler, Desormiere, Scherchen, Klemperer and maybe a few others -- if anything only rejuvenating that vital center in the process.

I accept that Abbado is not your favorite artist and that you are not a fan; merely that you believe him to be an iconic example of (to paraphrase in brief) all that's great and good in 21st century music making. That's certainly your perogative, as is your right to claim unique insight into the broader problems that so often elude us poor critics and CD reviewers---except presumably the ones you are so fond of quoting when they happen to agree with you. I see Abbado as a very talented conductor of variable quality whose recent work often disappoints, and whose eccentricities sometime unbalance his musicality. I don't believe that there are any major recordings of his since the beginning of his career that I do not currently own or have not heard, and having also seen him many times in concert from the 1970s on, I am very certain that the audible evidence substantiates this view. I make no claim to be able to detect and measure the magnitude of any artist's "spiritual impulse", whatever that is, but I feel that his best work will endure thanks to its self-evident musical quality. This is how posterity will view him, and it will be interesting to see which opinion turns out to me the more accurate. We won't be around to see the outcome, but I'm very comfortable with my prediction.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

Well, including the liberties you take in paraphrasing my view and exaggerating it in the process, all this we've heard from you before, as already noted. But let's go down a little bit from that evasive "spiritual" stuff that makes you revert into parody, and stick to your own self-claimed territory where it seems like you feel much more assured of yourself, even claiming unique insight into the much more easily verifiable problems of the printed score. I note you keep evading my questions about the evidence to back up your by now several times repeated claims in being able to detect and measure (1) willful deviation at length from Mahler's text by this conductor and (2) his "fussing with details" to such an extent that the "big picture," or the work's architecture, seriously suffers in consequence.

Disclosing this apparent secret of yours could lead to a nice conversation in which also others could participate, don't you think? It might even be productive. People can read scores around here and you yourself have complimented their ability to listen.

So, to paraphrase myself once more, you've talked the talk; now walk the walk. Specific locations where and explanations of how such abominations actually occur would give us a good start in studying Mahler a little more closely. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to just take you by your word, as said already.

We can then have a separate thread on "the spiritual" in music and in music-making. It's interesting enough for that.

TIA!

That is, if you didn't just make that all up.

Keep up the good work. 

-PT

[achri-d]

Given the #posts and their sizes you obviously have a vast knowledge about the new Gergiev recording - can you enlighten a layman also, please?

you've talked the talk; now walk the walk.

Rgds.

[Dave H]

PT said: "you've talked the talk; now walk the walk. "

You can keep saying that forever. I find it laughable. The simple fact is I have been "walking the walk" for more than 20 years. Anyone who wants to know my views can read thousands of them, quite clear and detail-specific, in dozens of newspapers, magazines, CT.com, and at least nine books. If you choose not to, or wish to dismiss them, that's your perogative. I respect it, but I also see no point in wasting my time having any further discussions with you. This is a textbook case demonstrating the truth of the saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your abundant comments have already answered the only question I had of you, which concerned the depth of your own listening experience with respect to the Mahler discography (and that of other composers). I have been in this business a long time, and I have a LOT of experience with characters like you. There's absolutely nothing new here. So we're done.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

Indeed your "views" are known by now, but that's not what this was about. The question was of substance, about simply pointing out where you say the abominations occur that so disfigure the Mahler recordings in question. Surely you have an idea of that, since you found reason to bring them up in the first place! And what with all these years in business.

Or so we'd think. The bottom line is: no substance, only hot air.

To way it's turning out, this seems to be the case more broadly in fact, if that comforts you. Loads of talk, little of the walk, and having reality-based claims (as opposed to faith-based or desire-based) seems like a laughable proposition not just for you but to a number of people around. No wonder the journals went all out of business when people figured the so-called critics are but peddling prejudices just like all of us; not much more, and often even less. 

But what do you say about a new thread on spirituality in arts/music, if it is indeed that you don't want to keep questioning the kind of claims you've made? Would you participate? Or you're more of a numbers kind of guy more comfortable with counting the CDs people own?

 

Keep up the good work.

I had a pretty good idea for how to look more closely into your claims, as a matter of fact. We could take the recordings you claim perpetrate the travesty you claim they do (but now we never know which ones these are!), and post those or snippets of them along with, say, three to five alternative but comparable (e.g. in terms of time period) takes of the same on some website (not yours though...) where they can't be downloaded to check their identity on the net (you remember how "Joyce Hatto's" cover was blown, don't you...). Only one trusted person would know who these are by. Then we could openly and without prejudices and agendas discuss the performances vis-a-vis the score and the crippling travesties claimed to be there destroying one of them (which one?). You game? Maybe we could find the site person amongst us, if not I can look around outside. Could be SO instructive, don't you think!

I'm going to be gone for a few days so you have time to think. Could be an opportunity for you to display all your accumulated knowledge and insights!

-PT

[Dave H]

I repeat, and for the last time, we're done. If you want to set up a "referrendum on Dave" site, knock yourself out. Frankly I find the notion rather creepy, not because I'm concerned about the outcome (if I haven't had a significant problem with "substance" in more than 20 years, you sure aren't going to cause one now), but because there's something that strikes me as unhealthy about your whole attitude--and I know I'm not the only one here who feels that way.

Blind listening and comparing recordings, on the other hand, is always fun and interesting. My friends and colleagues and I have done it for years. The problem with your method, however, is that it would entail some pretty substantial violation of copyright, and I don't see any way around that. You can't just go posting recordings for people to download at their convenience (at least not legally). If anyone here happens to live in the NY area, though, and wants to put together a listening group to meet regularly and audition performances "blind" in a controlled environment, I am happy to offer my place and collection (20,000+ CDs, or thereabouts), or we can find another spot and do it there. I'd even be happy to report the results in a regular CT.com feature. I think it could be very interesting to our readers. Just drop me an email and we can try to set it up (if we get enough participants--I think we'd need at least four or five). Sometimes the results can be very surprising. My good friend and colleague Christophe Huss, who used to run Repertoire Magazine in France and who now has CTFrance.com out of Montreal, used to sponsor blind listening parties with his critics in Paris. In one of the more interesting sessions they auditioned Mozart's Mass in C minor, and the recording that came out on top was---Bernstein's! Not exactly repertoire you'd associate with him, but there you have it.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Oh please, Polarius, just stop with the continued lecturing and general negativity towards what this site, hopefully, WAS trying to accomplish.

Doesn't it mean anything to you that there are others, besides Dave Hurwitz (yes, they DO exist), who don't feel that Abbado should be placed in the king's chair either? On the other hand, that doesn't mean that any of us think that he is awful . But here is somebody who has had the benefit of being given numerous opportunities to rerecord HIS repertoire with the biggest name orchestras on the planet, supported by the powerhouse that is the big yellow label. Shouldn't we expect the very, VERY highest from him then? Chicago; LSO; Vienna; Berlin - what more does he need handed to him ?   .    .    a superstar orchestra of the world's very best? I mean, talk about "put up or shut up"; or whatever it is that you keep repeating, Timo (and yes, that's how your messages to me are addressed).

The ugly part is that we keep fighting over Claudio Abbado. I mean, truthfully, who cares about Claudio Abbado?   .     .      .   He has plenty of fame, fortune, exposure - you name it. It's not going to harm him iin the least that not everybody is madly in love with the bulk of his work. Let's just get over this nonsense. Claudio Abbado will be fine - except for his health, I imagine - and there will always be plenty of people who love most everything that he has done. Is that really what music should be about? It's certainly not going to suffer because some people don't go along with that particular agenda or opinion.

[alpsman]

In praise of Claudio Abbado
Just kitting,i'm not crazy.
Come on all of you. Abbado is not a king and certainly not a cheater. And definitelly he is a great musician of our time. Like more others. Nothing more or less.You like him good for you and for him. You dont't like it's cool( he is rich and famous after all, as someone state, he has not need of our possitive opinion)).The same goes and for all other musicians dead or alive. Karajan, Klemperer, Toscanini, Kleiber, Gergiev, Muti...................No one is perfect. And everyone has the right to express his or her opinion pro or contra.
Neither PT( as he already said), not I and others are unconditioned supporters. And neither Dave H or Barry Guerrero are "enemies". But somehow we have boarder lines.
I have express my positive thesis for Abbado in some posts and maybe i will continue with some examples(it's the hard pressing time, for not post now). So Peace and not piss off.