BaL 27.12.14 - Schubert: Symphony no. 8 in B minor

[pastoralguy]

Don't forget that Holland's "Cheetananny" is actually recorded weeks in advance. Weeks. When he counts down to the New Year, with Big Ben bonging in the background, it is actually November. I watched it for years without knowing. So do many other people, apparently.
....

Mrs. PG and I genuinely believed it was live until a friend in the string section told us it was recorded in November. We really thought it could go wrong at any moment!

Oh well, we'll probably watch it anyway...

[Don Petter]

Don't forget that Holland's "Cheetananny" is actually recorded weeks in advance. Weeks. When he counts down to the New Year, with Big Ben bonging in the background, it is actually November. I watched it for years without knowing. So do many other people, apparently.

Shock-horror! I'm sure the White Heather Club doesn't cheat like that.

[teamsaint]

Mrs. PG and I genuinely believed it was live until a friend in the string section told us it was recorded in November. We really thought it could go wrong at any moment!

Oh well, we'll probably watch it anyway...

the tape could foul up...or the file corrupt....never know your luck.

Enjoy anyway, PG.

Last year he had the Hives, which was rather fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz1Jwyxd4tE

(the Swedish band, obviously, not the skin condition !!)

[jayne lee wilson]

...and now, back to the Schubert...

Listening to the Virgin Veritas issue as a WAVE 16/44.1 album (in Audirvana), my first impressions of no.8 were...hmm..., but certainly more positive than Jon Swain's... very drawn into the flowing tempo for the andante con moto...

So I thought I'd listen to 4,5, and 6 before returning to the 8th....what wonderful performances! Truly excellent sound (Abbey Road, of which I'm not always a fan...) - sweet, well-defined, spacious and dynamic. Musically, there's much wit and warmth here, lovely light-filled textures and feather-light articulation, but with fulfilling weight into climaxes. All with RN's characteristic rhythmical subtlety and bite.
I'd never have though so familiar a piece as Schubert's 5th could give me such unalloyed joy on a frosty morning! Back to the 8th later tonight, but it's not a disaster-area, and this VV set is a great buy on any account....

[jayne lee wilson]

It's well-known that Norrington set out to strip familiar classics of the stale accreted rhetoric of performance cliche, to try to make them live again the more freshly (he never claimed that actual "authenticity" was the aim, recognising the inherent conceptual difficulties; only that a historically-aware scaling-down, the use of period instruments and a revisionist study of tempi might revivify both performance and response).

But finally, all that matters is that the performance succeeds on its own musical and emotional terms. In this, his LCP recording of Schubert's 8th works outstandingly well.

It is a rather serious, sober account; the allegro is bleak and severe rather than overtly poignant or tragic. There is no obvious attempt to mould a phrase with any warmth of expression, or underpin a climax with exaggerated growls beyond that which the score itself provides. Norrington is evidently unwilling to offer that extramusical, visionary dimension which many earlier conductors intuited from the music and strive, like Shakespearian actors, to realise. But the purity of these instruments themselves - the light airy sweetness of flute and clarinet, the sudden contrast of brass, drums and basses, create dramatic contrasts of texture and dynamics which need no further pointing. The climaxes stand out with stark, chiselled clarity. Heard in the context of the three other symphonies in the Veritas set, the 8th is quite a contrast to the playful serenities of 4 and 5.
Personally, I loved the dry, spare tone of the double basses at the start. There's great presence and definition here, though it may need a fairly high replay level to reveal it. (As for system settings, this recording worked well enough with flat responses, but did benefit from a "pure impulse" rolled-off filter (i.e reduced high treble) which emphasised immediacy and dynamics).

Into the andante con moto, there's a lovely relaxed, flowing feel, contrasting well with that bleakness and spareness with which the allegro concludes. There's a wonderfully subtle, but entirely natural varying of pace and phrase, with flute and clarinet again outstanding, as throughout. But when the climaxes arrive, they are (sonically and texturally at least) very intense indeed, even recalling the baleful moods of late Bruckner. The drum salvos and trombone snarls really bring the room alive! But perhaps because of the swifter tempo for the 2nd movement, you're left with an impression of "2 movements of an unfinished symphony", rather than a complete "Symphony in Two Movements". Or at least, the question is left open for each listener.

It's a real grower, this one; after 4 hearings, I'm only the more impressed.
But as I've suggested, heard at lower levels, via a lossy broadcast codec or mp3, it's subtleties may easily be bleached out to leave an anonymous, underplayed impression. It needs to be heard off lossless or CD, preferably at a reasonably healthy volume. As with Symphonies 4,5 and 6 - all of which are wonderfully well- played and recorded - I listened to WAVE 16/44.1 files played in Audirvana (Integer 1).

Suitably revealed, this is a very fine Schubert 8th. And a good one to live with, if you could only have one!

[Roehre]

.... Norrington is evidently unwilling to offer that extramusical, visionary dimension which many earlier conductors intuited from the music and strive, like Shakespearian actors, to realise. ...

which IMVHO is THE great achievement of the HIP-movement: not adding to scores and performances extra grandiosity which the music itself already contains and consists of. Restoring a Rembrandt by removing the dark varnish and veneer restores the light caught in the painting, without the necessity to explain that there IS light to be seen.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

which IMVHO is THE great achievement of the HIP-movement: not adding to scores and performances extra grandiosity which the music itself already contains and consists of. Restoring a Rembrandt by removing the dark varnish and veneer restores the light caught in the painting, without the necessity to explain that there IS light to be seen.

I don't think comparisons with other art forms are necessarily appropriate. A score in its raw state is merely the beginning. Live musicians complete the process.
Think of RVW's speech to the LPO, following Boult's first recording of the 6th Symphony. He praised the musicians for making the piece sound better than he thought it was.

[Barbirollians]

which IMVHO is THE great achievement of the HIP-movement: not adding to scores and performances extra grandiosity which the music itself already contains and consists of. Restoring a Rembrandt by removing the dark varnish and veneer restores the light caught in the painting, without the necessity to explain that there IS light to be seen.

Or alternatively dogmatic insistence that their light is the only valid one .

For "unwilling" in your quote from JLW's excellent review ( albeit I don't agree with her about the performance ) one might substitute incapable in this piece .

I believe that in some cases Norrington succeeded far more than others with the LCP - the even numbered Beethoven symphonies and the Symphonie Fantastique for example compared to the ascetic Schubert and plain odd Brahms 1 .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't think comparisons with other art forms are necessarily appropriate.

Very true - wasn't there somebody on the Forum who suggested that taking Exposition repeats was akin to reading the first chapter of a novel twice?

A score in its raw state is merely the beginning.

"merely"???

Live musicians complete the process.

Yes - by playing what the composer wrote in the score.

Think of RVW's speech to the LPO, following Boult's first recording of the 6th Symphony. He praised the musicians for making the piece sound better than he thought it was.

Do you believe this, Alpie? Do you actually believe that RVW couldn't imagine the score as well as a performance could make it? Wasn't it just the composer's customary politeness?

A performance, no matter how good or bad*, is just that - a performance. The score is all possible performances - including those we hear without Live Musicians - when we read them.

* - In fact; how do we determine whether a performance is "good or bad" other than by reference to the score "in its raw state"?

[verismissimo]

Or alternatively dogmatic insistence that their light is the only valid one...

Barbie, this may well be true in the case of the restoration of a painting.

But dogmatic insistence with regard to recording? There are 135 (?) versions to choose from!

[gurnemanz]

Barbie, this may well be true in the case of the restoration of a painting.

But dogmatic insistence with regard to recording? There are 135 (?) versions to choose from!

Quite. Surely even the most arrogant of conductors is not so dogmatic as to insist that his or her interpretation is the only valid one. You pays your money ....

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Very true - wasn't there somebody on the Forum who suggested that taking Exposition repeats was akin to reading the first chapter of a novel twice?

I did say that, and stick to it, while acknowledging that some people may like to read the first chapter twice before moving on.

Yes - by playing what the composer wrote in the score.

If you want to stick religiously to that, delete all unwritten baroque ornamentation, double-dotting, etc. And play all jazz with straight quavers.

Do you believe this, Alpie? Do you actually believe that RVW couldn't imagine the score as well as a performance could make it? Wasn't it just the composer's customary politeness?

I can answer this from personal experience. I'm no composer, but I've done much orchestration that has sounded better in performance than I ever imagined on the page. (I'm not deluded enough to put myself on the same level as RVW though.)

A performance, no matter how good or bad*, is just that - a performance. The score is all possible performances - including those we hear without Live Musicians - when we read them.

So far, so good

* - In fact; how do we determine whether a performance is "good or bad" other than by reference to the score "in its raw state"?

By listening to it, and by allowing us to respond to what we hear, rather than by what we see.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

By listening to it, and by allowing us to respond to what we hear, rather than by what we see.

Apart from your first response (which doesn't merit comment) this is the only statement you make that seriously doesn't work, Alpie. Listening to what? If a performer adds a set of bagpipes and a a Wurlitzer organ to a performance of the "Unfinished", we may or may not enjoy the experience, but it isn't the enjoyment (or lack thereof) that defines whether it's a good or bad performance of the "Unfinished". A good performance is determined by the extent to which the performers present the score that Schubert gave them. This score in its raw state is better than any performance of it can be - Schubert a greater Musician than any of his performers; the closer the performance gets to the Music he imagined, the better it is. And the score in its raw state is the nearest evidence we have of what he imagined. Anything else is transcription.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Apart from your first response (which doesn't merit comment) this is the only statement you make that seriously doesn't work, Alpie. Listening to what? If a performer adds a set of bagpipes and a a Wurlitzer organ to a performance of the "Unfinished", we may or may not enjoy the experience, but it isn't the enjoyment (or lack thereof) that defines whether it's a good or bad performance of the "Unfinished". A good performance is determined by the extent to which the performers present the score that Schubert gave them. This score in its raw state is better than any performance of it can be - Schubert a greater Musician than any of his performers; the closer the performance gets to the Music he imagined, the better it is. And the score in its raw state is the nearest evidence we have of what he imagined. Anything else is transcription.

Some musicians have used this argument on Desert Island Discs to request scores rather than recordings. Interesting, but perhaps leaving rather too much to the imagination. As for the bagpipes, etc., no-one was advocating tinkering with the orchestration.

[LeMartinPecheur]

...it isn't the enjoyment (or lack thereof) that defines whether it's a good or bad performance of the "Unfinished". A good performance is determined by the extent to which the performers present the score that Schubert gave them.

This surely is the issue in a nutshell!

I fully concede that if I (or EA) like a performance that doesn't make it a good performance. But if I, EA and the whole of the RFH, Albert Hall or whatever audience, plus maybe all the wonderful music critics attending agree it is a good performance then surely it is a good performance? That's all the term can mean: a helluva lot of people rate it as a good performance.

Whether fhg agrees it's a good performance if he hears it on deferred relay or whatever is another question, but fhg's lone voice (if such it be) doesn't stop it being a good performance. The consensus view is what makes 'a good performance'.

Whether it exactly follows the score (whatever that means) is a completely different, independent question, even though we're probably justified in predicting that will have a big influence on fhg's own (personal and subjective) rating of it.

In short, fhg's attempt at forming a mathematical identity between 'good performance' and 'exact following of the score' just won't work, and seems the kind of ultra-objective, pseudo-scientific approach to matters of taste/ value-judgment that is so favoured today.

fhg: this isn't a personal attack - you're entitled to like whatever you like, but you really mustn't elevate your own tastes/ decisions, however right they seem to you, into a canon that others are wrong not to follow.