DH hammers on Nott M9th

[Dave H]

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

[Nathaniel]

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.

[John Kim]

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,

[barry guerrero]

Well let's just celebrate the obvious, which is that we're all spoiled for choices   

[GL]

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

[Dave H]

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

[John Kim]

Hello Luca,

This is really interesting but cool   . 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,

[Dave H]

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

[sperlsco]

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. 

[Nathaniel]

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.

[barry guerrero]

"Someone else may hear the same thing but react completely differently"

Man, is that ever true.

[Nathaniel]

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   . 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,

[Dave H]

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

[Nathaniel]

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!

[barry guerrero]

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.