Record Review 2/1/16

[ardcarp]

this "pre-design" (isn't that a tautology?)

Can't believe I wrote that. 'Pre-ordered' and 'pre-booked' are on my hate list, so straight to the naughty step for me.
What I meant, of course, was that their roles (ear and mind) were pre-arranged....is that OK?...as indicated by the opening remarks of the item.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Can't believe I wrote that. 'Pre-odered' and 'pre-booked' are on my hate list, so straight to the naughty step for me.
What I meant, of course, was that their roles (ear and mind) were pre-arranged....is that OK?...as indicated by the opening remarks of the item.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Interesting the two mutually exclusive impressions: SMP the 'innocent ear' v. SMP the established enthusiast.

I think it's important to remember that SM-P didn't herself use the expression "innocent ear" (nor a "guilty" one for that matter) - she was asked to describe how she listened to a piece of New Music for the first time, and she replied "rather facetiously" (her words) "with [my] ears" and then went on to describe the ways in which she meant this took place. Just as someone with an "established enthusiasm" for the Music of Beethoven can hear a work of his that they've not heard before, their listening process is not entirely "innocent" - it is based on (or, at least, "coloured by") their previous experience. Using your ears on first acquaintance with a work (paying attention to the process of the sonic events) actually isn't that different from DON's seeking a "narrative", for all that he said that it was "completely different". (The main difference, I would suppose, is that SM-P's more specific way cannot be done whilst driving a car - or doing anything else that detracts from total attention to the Music.)

I suppose the most important point for a broadcast is that both established experts and intelligent generalists have a valuable dialogue, from which the listener can derive interest.

- and I think that this was successfully achieved yesterday morning.

[Nevilevelis]

Does anyone have views about JEG's latest B Minor Mass, of which the Credo was played at the end of the programme? It displayed the usual technical clarity from his players, but I will not be rushing out to buy it. The acoustic of the recording was quite 'dry' which meant that the exaggerated articulation of string playing (short and choppy) was not rounded off by any sort of natural bloom. The choir (deft and accurate as ever) sounded even stranger. The tenors were very straight (even a bit harsh-sounding at times) whilst the basses sang more soloistically making the blend , especially of the loud bits, rather odd. In general, the ensemble sounded very lovely in the slow and quiet sections, and while tempo and dynamic contrasts are very necessary in the Credo, Jeggers made some very over-hyped gestures. Our Lord was blasted off to the higher realms via a space-rocket at the 'et resurrexit', and if my words sound a tad blasphemous, the effect was too. Jeggers is usually a stickler for strict tempi but it was my impression that having started off the lovely, 'et in spiritum' at a fair old lick, he allowed it to slow down (to a more reasonable pace, IMO) as the bass soloist got going.

I do like proper choral versions of the B Minor...I was amused by JEG's reported comment that he did not like the 'B Minor Madgrigal' which results from OVPP performances.....but I'll stick with my Herreweghe one. (Can't remember which without going to look.)

Well, I heard from the inside that this was the case, so I was very interested to hear a sample. I don't want to overstate it, but I agree with your view in general.

It was the oddest sound picture - the choir a long way back, T&B sounding a little like caged animals and rather uncultured for my taste. The fine soloists sounded a little badgered and hemmed in in the mix, but these sections were less problematic for me.

JEG is very passionate and all his decisions are well thought out - nothing is left to chance, ever! - but it sounded like too many ideas and not enough Bach. Yes,

it's an interpretation based on huge experience with the work, but a step too far, for me. A great deal of what I heard seemed very exaggerated.

Apparently his wife produced it.

I'd be very interested to hear from people who enjoyed it.

NVV.

[Nick Armstrong]

DON is a breath, nay a blast, of fresh air

Haven't heard any of the first Record Review what with a houseful etc... But hadn't picked up that DON had been given a New Year's outing round the New Music paddock

Love his contributions, and am looking forward to listening to the bedside recording when normality returns!

Quite surreal - DON talking about Brian Ferneyhough: a bit like Thora Hird explaining Quantum Mechanics on Songs of Praise!

In fact - I can't wait !!

[french frank]

I think it's important to remember that SM-P didn't herself use the expression "innocent ear"

No, I was referring to the differing listener impressions - ardcarp's and yours; ardcarp used the term 'innocent ear'.

A few people have thought SMP deserved something better than 'Breakfast' and 'The Choir' (RW style).

[antongould]

No, I was referring to the differing listener impressions - ardcarp's and yours; ardcarp used the term 'innocent ear'.

A few people have thought SMP deserved something better than 'Breakfast' and 'The Choir' (RW style).

I count myself among the few ....

[french frank]

I count myself among the few ....

I realise now that my use of 'a few' could be read as 'not very many', 'only a small number': I meant it positively in the sense 'quite a few', 'a fair number' …

[jayne lee wilson]

Well, I heard from the inside that this was the case, so I was very interested to hear a sample. I don't want to overstate it, but I agree with your view in general.

It was the oddest sound picture - the choir a long way back, T&B sounding a little like caged animals and rather uncultured for my taste. The fine soloists sounded a little badgered and hemmed in in the mix, but these sections were less problematic for me.

JEG is very passionate and all his decisions are well thought out - nothing is left to chance, ever! - but it sounded like too many ideas and not enough Bach. Yes,

it's an interpretation based on huge experience with the work, but a step too far, for me. A great deal of what I heard seemed very exaggerated.

Apparently his wife produced it.

I'd be very interested to hear from people who enjoyed it.

NVV.

Sampling this recording extensively via Qobuz and eClassical, I heard a very pleasing warmth to the ambience, with good balance of blend & clarity, and notably immediate. Singers and instumentalists vividly present. No, not the most spacious ambience, but not excessively dry to my ears. The choir sounded well-placed too, neither too close nor too distant, soloists just a little foregrounded - so no real problems. As Mike Hatch was one of the engineers (in LSO St.Luke's) this didn't surprise me.

I wasn't happy with the sound quality of excerpts on the recent BaL on Nielsen 6th (the Oramo almost unrecognisable compared to its 24/96 incarnation) so if you found this Bach B minor sonically unrewarding or odd on Record Review, do try to listen, preferably in lossless mode, on Qobuz or eClassical. It did sound very enjoyable there and may give you a more accurate technical impression. (Lossy codecs can exaggerate sonic characteristics and mislead, especially with poor production values or transcoding).
Remember, you can hear whole movements on eclassical if you're happy to keep clicking every 30 seconds...! Radio 3 may go out at 320kbps aac but much depends on how they produce those excerpts...

Jonathan Freeman-Attwood, in a very positive and finely detailed review in Gramophone, 12/2015, commented that "some might find [the credo] a touch too articluated" and that compared to the recent Jonathan Cohen, "we have a further vision here with Gardiner's extraordinary, single-minded, quasi-mathematical proof".... "perhaps over-curated for some, if so the softer hues of Cohen may be preferred. But in the grip of its conceits and its virtuoso executancy, captured in strikingly immediate recorded sound.... this High Mass joins a distinguished discography at high table".

I pretend to no expertise in classical choral repertoire, but as someone who usually finds large choral works hard on the ears and the musical digestion, JEG's versions of the Brahms Requiem, the Beethoven Missa Solemnis, and - the Bach B minor, have been a revelatory way in... AND this new one is available in 24/96! (I've not bought it yet - priority No.1 is Dutilleux...)

Gramophone for 1/2016 features a letter from Andrew Parrott, too long to quote in depth but fascinating...
"A hypothetical largescale performance of the B minor in Bach's Germany could well have involved as many as 33 or so instrumentalists (as in Gardiner's recording) yet the associated vocal forces are certain to have been considerably smaller, even for the grandest of occasions: at Wittemberg in 1755 a band of exactly 33 was paired with a total of 8 singers, and a similar one in Stadtilm in 1742 with 12 (grouped as quartets). These, moreover, are the very highest reliable and relevant figures we have - compared to which Gardiner's 35-strong choir appears positively gargantuan."

It's an excellent very detailed letter, generous in its acceptance of the "Oratorio" Tradition (and fascinating as to how this developed) but making the case strongly for the earliest, smallest scale ones ("the old 'B minor madrigal jibe', always good for a snigger", he remarks...)

[Nevilevelis]

Sampling this recording extensively via Qobuz and eClassical, I heard a very pleasing warmth to the ambience, with good balance of blend & clarity, and notably immediate. Singers and instumentalists vividly present. No, not the most spacious ambience, but not excessively dry to my ears. The choir sounded well-placed too, neither too close nor too distant, soloists just a little foregrounded - so no real problems. As Mike Hatch was one of the engineers (in LSO St.Luke's) this didn't surprise me.

I wasn't happy with the sound quality of excerpts on the recent BaL on Nielsen 6th (the Oramo almost unrecognisable compared to its 24/96 incarnation) so if you found this Bach B minor sonically unrewarding or odd on Record Review, do try to listen, preferably in lossless mode, on Qobuz or eClassical. It did sound very enjoyable there and may give you a more accurate technical impression. (Lossy codecs can exaggerate sonic characteristics and mislead, especially with poor production values or transcoding).
Remember, you can hear whole movements on eclassical if you're happy to keep clicking every 30 seconds...! Radio 3 may go out at 320kbps aac but much depends on how they produce those excerpts...

Jonathan Freeman-Attwood, in a very positive and finely detailed review in G.12/2015, commented that "some might find [the credo] a touch too articluated" and that compared to the recent Jonathan Cohen, "we have a further vision here with Gardiner's extraordinary, single-minded, quasi-mathematical proof".... "perhaps over-curated for some, if so the softer hues of Cohen may be preferred. But in the grip of its conceits and its virtuoso executancy, captured in strikingly immediate recorded sound.... this High Mass joins a distinguished discography at high table".

I pretend to no expertise in classical choral repertoire, but as someone who usually finds large choral works hard on the ears and the musical digestion, JEG's versions of the Brahms Requiem, the Beethoven Missa Solemnis, and - the Bach B minor, have been a revelatory way in... AND this new one is available in 24/96! (I've not bought it yet - priority No.1 is Dutilleux...)

Gramophone for 1/2016 features a letter from Andrew Parrott, too long to quote in depth but fascinating...
"A hypothetical largescale performance of the B minor in Bach's Germany could well have involved as many as 33 or so instrumentalists (as in Gardiner's recording) yet the associated vocal forces are certain to have been considerably smaller, even for the grandest of occasions: at Wittemberg in 1755 a band of exactly 33 was paired with a total of 8 singers, and a similar one in Stadtilm in 1742 with 12 (grouped as quartets). These, moreover, are the very highest reliable and relevant figures we have - compared to which Gardiner's 35-strong choir appears positively gargantuan."

It's an excellent very detailed letter, generous in its acceptance of the "Oratorio" Tradition (and fascinating as to how this developed) but making the case strongly for the earliest, smallest scale ones ("the old 'B minor madrigal jibe', always good for a snigger", he remarks...)

Thanks Jayne. I will try again via the wizardry you suggest, but I must say I am not attracted to the coarseness I heard here. It seems to me that when JEG revisits these masterworks, there is ever more exaggeration in the approach, a kind of intellectual thrusting that doesn't let the music speak. e.g. Monteverdi Vepsers and Versailles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBSVFTQYG_8 Is that Scarpia singing the intonation?! Terrific voice, but the sheer volume and vowel distortion is distressing to me. This is an invitation to a Marian Vespers not an opera. Yes, I am aware that Monteverdi wrote something that was probably never meant to be rendered in its liturgical context (it hardly can be in its entirety!) and was more keen to impress his prospective employers with its publication by combining old and new styles in a dramatic and potent mix, but... I digress!

Back to the B-minor. I must apologize for not recognizing in your description that which I heard. It sounded interrogative and rather angry to me (the recording!). One [wo]man's meat is another man's poison, certainly. I do, however, agree that the solo work was very fine and the instrumental playing exemplary. I still struggle with the LSO St. Luke's acoustic. Not a fan of it for choral rep.

I am well aware of Parrott's expert opinions on forces and find them very interesting indeed - I have his book on the matter - but I cannot advocate a slavish adherence to them. I know you are not suggesting that either.

It sounds like I am bashing JEG (mea culpa!), but I must temper that and say that I do enjoy his Beethoven and nineteenth-century rep. recordings - Berlioz in particular. Revelatory, as you say.

Happy New Year!

[Daniel]

Does anyone have views about JEG's latest B Minor Mass [....] but I'll stick with my Herreweghe one. (Can't remember which without going to look.)

I listened to this last night as far as Laudamus te, and apart from some inexplicably arch slurs in the Kyrie (after the first instrumental section) I much enjoyed what I heard. The acoustic sounded fine streamed, and am looking forward to the rest, hoping for no further distracting phrasing cameos.
Generally though I think the articulate direction felt like it came from an ear against beating heart of the music, and one able to conjure fine transparency in its weaving lines.

(I have the third Herreweghe one, which I like very much.)

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks Jayne. I will try again via the wizardry you suggest, but I must say I am not attracted to the coarseness I heard here. It seems to me that when JEG revisits these masterworks, there is ever more exaggeration in the approach, a kind of intellectual thrusting that doesn't let the music speak. e.g. Monteverdi Vepsers and Versailles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBSVFTQYG_8 Is that Scarpia singing the intonation?! Terrific voice, but the sheer volume and vowel distortion is distressing to me. This is an invitation to a Marian Vespers not an opera. Yes, I am aware that Monteverdi wrote something that was probably never meant to be rendered in its liturgical context (it hardly can be in its entirety!) and was more keen to impress his prospective employers with its publication by combining old and new styles in a dramatic and potent mix, but... I digress!

Back to the B-minor. I must apologize for not recognizing in your description that which I heard. It sounded interrogative and rather angry to me (the recording!). One [wo]man's meat is another man's poison, certainly. I do, however, agree that the solo work was very fine and the instrumental playing exemplary. I still struggle with the LSO St. Luke's acoustic. Not a fan of it for choral rep.

I am well aware of Parrott's expert opinions on forces and find them very interesting indeed - I have his book on the matter - but I cannot advocate a slavish adherence to them. I know you are not suggesting that either.

It sounds like I am bashing JEG (mea culpa!), but I must temper that and say that I do enjoy his Beethoven and nineteenth-century rep. recordings - Berlioz in particular. Revelatory, as you say.

Happy New Year!

Shame so few people read Gramophone anymore! Because...

Parrott's letter was in response to the long article/interview with JEG in G. for 11/2015, a propos of the B minor (with many striking comments on interpretative detail), in particular JEG's comment about "OVPP" - "I don't believe in the B minor madrigal"..."I don't think there's any evidence for it, and I don't think there's any great merit in doing it that way" Parrott says there is indeed plentiful evidence, and wondered if JEG hadn't relaxed a little too much in his approach to the work's scale & presentation: "[JEG]'s recent comments invite the innocent Bach-lover to rest content with the impression that today's conventional choral set-up is just as "historically-informed" as its associated period-instrument orchestra is expected to be. Unfortunately, it isn't."
Then he gives the details I quoted above...

It matters to me because I was put off such repertoire for years, hating the vast, foggy, aurally-overwhelming choruses so often used...

[BBMmk2]

Jayne Lee Wilson. do you listen on Spotify, at all? Because, before I buy a recording, that's how I do these things nowadays, how do you get along with this?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I am well aware of Parrott's expert opinions on forces and find them very interesting indeed - I have his book on the matter - but I cannot advocate a slavish adherence to them. I know you are not suggesting that either.

Nor does Parrott - in both the Introduction and the final chapter of The Essential Bach Choir he makes very clear his admiration of "big choir" Bach and his express wish that choral societies should continue performing this repertoire. His book is a presentation of the copious evidence showing that Bach and his German contemporaries used only solo voices in the majority of of their choral works. If JEGgers has stated that he "doesn't think there's any evidence for" this, then he deserves "bashing"!

[ardcarp]

hating the vast, foggy, aurally-overwhelming choruses so often used..

The alternative to OVPP isn't The Huddersfield Choral Society. Notwithstanding Parrott's known views, I would suggest that pragmatism played a more important part in Bach's use of performers, pitch, temperaments, etc, etc, than modern scholarship would allow. I dare say he would have loved a 16 - 20 sized choir if it sang with expertise and could be fitted into his performing space.