Bal 8.02.20/13.6.20 - Mozart: Symphony no. 39 in E flat K.543

[johnb]

I've been listening to the Ivan Fischer/OAE concert over the last few days and have greatly enjoyed the performances, especially once I had cut out the inter-movement applause and reconnected the two halves of Symphony No 40.

The concert might have thrown a new light on the symphonies but, to an ignoramus like myself, splitting No 40 and being asked to regard the three symphonies as twelve individual movements (with applause for each movement) verged on the idiosyncratic. I found splitting No 40 after the Andante deeply unsatisfying - I found myself yearning for the release that the third movement gives.

I've read the liner notes for Harnoncourt's recording of 39, 40 and 41 and am not convinced by his argument that they constitute an "Instrumental Oratorio" (an odd concept in itself).

Apologies for another stuffy, retrogressive, ill-considered, ill-researched post.

[David P]

I had turned off this BAL originally so I am sorry I'm only commenting on it now. I did listen to the end this time. My initial annoyance was due to what I perceived to be a recurring tactic of some contributors to the segment over the years and wondered if anyone else had noticed.

The tactic is that when you want to dismiss a specific approach or a particular conductor or a tradition of music-making you play the worst example of said conductor/approach/tradition in order to persuade the listeners that it is just not very good. Then you use the resulting mis-perception as a way for pushing your own partial and subjective view on the listeners.

I notice Kenyon did this within 2 minutes when seeking to dismiss the pre-HIPP, full orchestral approach to Mozart by playing the most marmoreal example he could find (from Bohm's studio-bound symphony cycle). I seem to remember conductors like Szell (for example) producing at least some decent recordings of 'full-orchestral' non-HIPP Mozart in the past.

[mikealdren]

And much earlier, it was a favourite of Toscanini and he got the speed for the introduction right too. Shame about the recording quality!

The tactic was used to dismiss all non-HIPP versions of the Bach E major violin concerto recently using Perlman's astonishingly bad ECO version that has been heavily criticised ever since it was first released.

[verismissimo]

And much earlier, it was a favourite of Toscanini and he got the speed for the introduction right too. Shame about the recording quality!

The tactic was used to dismiss all non-HIPP versions of the Bach E major violin concerto recently using Perlman's astonishingly bad ECO version that has been heavily criticised ever since it was first released.

And Beethoven 1.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I had turned off this BAL originally so I am sorry I'm only commenting on it now. I did listen to the end this time. My initial annoyance was due to what I perceived to be a recurring tactic of some contributors to the segment over the years and wondered if anyone else had noticed.

The tactic is that when you want to dismiss a specific approach or a particular conductor or a tradition of music-making you play the worst example of said conductor/approach/tradition in order to persuade the listeners that it is just not very good. Then you use the resulting mis-perception as a way for pushing your own partial and subjective view on the listeners.

I notice Kenyon did this within 2 minutes when seeking to dismiss the pre-HIPP, full orchestral approach to Mozart by playing the most marmoreal example he could find (from Bohm's studio-bound symphony cycle). I seem to remember conductors like Szell (for example) producing at least some decent recordings of 'full-orchestral' non-HIPP Mozart in the past.

I don't think this is fair to Kenyon. Yes, he put Bohm's recording up as a prime example of what he didn't like, but IIRC he then said that after some careful listening he'd come to the conclusion, i.e. his own subjective one admittedly, that what the piece needed was a chamber orchestra rather than a full SO. It seemed implied that one reason for this was the importance of the winds.

It's always a personal choice and he was clear surely that this was his, giving his reasons sufficiently in the time available.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I had turned off this BAL originally so I am sorry I'm only commenting on it now. I did listen to the end this time. My initial annoyance was due to what I perceived to be a recurring tactic of some contributors to the segment over the years and wondered if anyone else had noticed.

The tactic is that when you want to dismiss a specific approach or a particular conductor or a tradition of music-making you play the worst example of said conductor/approach/tradition in order to persuade the listeners that it is just not very good. Then you use the resulting mis-perception as a way for pushing your own partial and subjective view on the listeners.

I notice Kenyon did this within 2 minutes when seeking to dismiss the pre-HIPP, full orchestral approach to Mozart by playing the most marmoreal example he could find (from Bohm's studio-bound symphony cycle). I seem to remember conductors like Szell (for example) producing at least some decent recordings of 'full-orchestral' non-HIPP Mozart in the past.

Reiner / CSO Jupiter IMV has never been bettered. Dare I say that sometimes large bands like the CSO / BPO/ VPO might desk for desk have better players than some HIPP bands? Not that I have a problem with the latter . As a fiddle playing musician friend once wistfully remarked to me when I clocked the top of the range sports car a baroque oboe player drove away in - "Yep thats the sort of car you own if you can play the baroque oboe..."

[cloughie]

I had turned off this BAL originally so I am sorry I'm only commenting on it now. I did listen to the end this time. My initial annoyance was due to what I perceived to be a recurring tactic of some contributors to the segment over the years and wondered if anyone else had noticed.

The tactic is that when you want to dismiss a specific approach or a particular conductor or a tradition of music-making you play the worst example of said conductor/approach/tradition in order to persuade the listeners that it is just not very good. Then you use the resulting mis-perception as a way for pushing your own partial and subjective view on the listeners.

I notice Kenyon did this within 2 minutes when seeking to dismiss the pre-HIPP, full orchestral approach to Mozart by playing the most marmoreal example he could find (from Bohm's studio-bound symphony cycle). I seem to remember conductors like Szell (for example) producing at least some decent recordings of 'full-orchestral' non-HIPP Mozart in the past.

Looks like the pre-hipp recordings are being ripped down like statues...

[visualnickmos]

Looks like the pre-hipp recordings are being ripped down like statues...

I listened first time round; not one of the more-informed BaLs, by a long chalk. Apart from the obvious shackling that the two-hander format produces, the sheer range and number of available recordings (of most stuff) these days, must surely make the necessity of two recommendations advantageous; a HIPP version, and a 'traditional' or 'modern' version (even though the letter may include recordings of 50 years ago, or more !

[jayne lee wilson]

Some serious misrepresentation of Kenyon's excellent survey (full of knowledge lightly worn, both of music and recorded catalogue) in some of the posts above: his final two (he made clear that a given listener might choose either) were SCO/Mackerras (modern instrument) and Freiburg Baroque/Jacobs (period instrument). He also had high praise for both Harnoncourt recordings: RCOA (SO, modern instrument) and the CMW (CO, Period instrument).

That does indeed cover a range of HIPP, "modern" (however loosely defined) and "traditional" approaches (including one SO among the COs; and the SCO as recorded by Linn also have a fairly large-scale sound themselves).
Or is it to be proposed that Harnoncourt in Amsterdam, or Mackerras in Glasgow, are by some definitional creed less "traditional" than, say, Bohm, Szell or Reiner...?
Nor should a listener loosely categorise SCO/Mackerras or RCOA/Harnoncourt as in some easily narrowed-down HIPPs category. Their differences are far more striking and interesting than any supposed stylistic or performance-traditional similarity. And however you try to define "traditional", these two recordings (from 1984 and 2008) are clearly related to, and respectful of, earlier performance styles .

And as LMP said above, his preference for the Chamber Orchestral sound was carefully expressed.

[jayne lee wilson]

In Kenyon's defence and to encourage further close listening, some of my earlier comments from February...

Excellent BaL survey, where I was pleased to note Kenyon’s preference for Chamber Orchestras (ancien or moderne) and his very open approach to freely interventionist or more strictly measured readings. He’s ready to enjoy both done well, just as I’ve been appealing for on here for some time. How I loved his remark about Jacobs, that his 39th had “added spice and imagination”.
Well, exactly……(so does Tognetti in a very different way…).

Of course I was sorry not to hear his views on Bruggen, but perhaps he felt that with Harnoncourt, Jacobs and Immerseel, he’d covered that angle. But there’s another striking reason why it would have been better to include the later Bruggen especially. Why? Because Jacobs' sudden reduction of the dynamic in the final phrase of the finale is very similar to Bruggen’s own diminuendo conclusion, as I reported above in #95. What a shame this connection wasn’t made, as (to say the least) it can hardly be a frequent feature in performances of this work. I never came across it elsewhere (yet…).

That conclusion to No.39, in Jacobs and late Bruggen, show great conducting minds feeling the music alike, in the sheer moment, and I can only emphasise again how wonderful the later Bruggen is: almost a blend of the characteristics Kenyon so admired in Mackerras and Harnoncourt, but in his own so distinctive way…

***

Jacobs gives us a remarkable 39th, more challenging and confrontational than I'd recalled, especially in the andante, whose darker outbursts are startling - threatening, even.
Among many subtle and imaginative touches of phrase, rubato and micro-dynamics (always alive, rising and falling with the musical ebb and flow), the rhythmic schwung and buoyancy, the physically emphatic brass, that finale detail I noted above goes further: remember how Jacobs reduces the level for the final phrase at the very end? Well, when the conclusion is played for the first time (around 5'30) this is reversed, with the last phrase a good deal louder. If that isn't micro-management nothing is, and how wonderfully thought-through in its creativity.

[BBMmk2]

Thank for those posts, JLW, rather enlightening indeed!

[gurnemanz]

Surveying my CD collection, I see I have a preponderance of unfashionable dinosaur versions: ToscaniniKarajanBernsteinWalter + the Pinnock 11CD complete box. I may need to do some work on Spotify to get myself up to date.

[Barbirollians]

Dinosaur versions ? Bernstein and Walter - I think not .

Meanwhile, yesterday on Saturday Kitchen an actor who had a radio play on yesterday said they had been sent disinfected equipment to record their pieces on at home - amazing this seems impossible for BAL - it is all about maintaining the blasted twofer format.

[gurnemanz]

Dinosaur versions ? Bernstein and Walter - I think not .

Meanwhile, yesterday on Saturday Kitchen an actor who had a radio play on yesterday said they had been sent disinfected equipment to record their pieces on at home - amazing this seems impossible for BAL - it is all about maintaining the blasted twofer format.

Tongue was in cheek

[cloughie]

Surveying my CD collection, I see I have a preponderance of unfashionable dinosaur versions: ToscaniniKarajanBernsteinWalter + the Pinnock 11CD complete box. I may need to do some work on Spotify to get myself up to date.

Or you you could stick with the ones you know and love!