New releases

[Bryn]

Probably a minority report on the Hough Beethoven: it takes something to get me to open my virtual wallet and actually buy something these days - Qobuz meets the vast majority of my needs, and usually at high res. But I read Geoff Brown’s 5 star review in The Times a couple of weeks ago, and decided that for once I’d splash out, on the 24/96 download. I just thought this would be THE issue of the Beethoven year. I’m afraid I’m rather disappointed with my decision, and the performances (the 3rd is the best, as is becoming consensus). Hough is terrific, no complaints - but the orchestra is competent, no more, and I don’t hear this great rapport and character that others are finding (and by the way, I’ve like Hannu Lintu in lots of other stuff). I just wished that Hyperion had sprung for, say, LSO and Rattle in such an important issue. But the worst element is the recording. In and for itself, the piano sounds fine, though too forward and somewhat obscuring the orchestra, which may contribute to my feelings above. Hardly unusual for a concerto recording, though. But the piano is as wide as the orchestra - literally, the right hand end of Hough’s piano is coming out in front of the rear desk of first violins. It’s an absurd effect, which has been confirmed to me by a friend who has bought the set on CD.

So, RO is wrong about the recording quality (not for the first time), but broadly right about the performances. I’ve been reading him in G for nearly half a century, and he’s not often wrong.

I concur re the stretched piano sound. I noted that from the Record Review broadcast of the opening movement of the 5th. Not a set for me, I think. For a modern set using modern instrument I am more than happy with Brautigam and Parrott (open-lidded Steinway with the orchestra gathered round it - contrary to the cover photographs). Superb BIS SACD sound.

[jayne lee wilson]

Probably a minority report on the Hough Beethoven: it takes something to get me to open my virtual wallet and actually buy something these days - Qobuz meets the vast majority of my needs, and usually at high res. But I read Geoff Brown’s 5 star review in The Times a couple of weeks ago, and decided that for once I’d splash out, on the 24/96 download. I just thought this would be THE issue of the Beethoven year. I’m afraid I’m rather disappointed with my decision, and the performances (the 3rd is the best, as is becoming consensus). Hough is terrific, no complaints - but the orchestra is competent, no more, and I don’t hear this great rapport and character that others are finding (and by the way, I’ve like Hannu Lintu in lots of other stuff). I just wished that Hyperion had sprung for, say, LSO and Rattle in such an important issue. But the worst element is the recording. In and for itself, the piano sounds fine, though too forward and somewhat obscuring the orchestra, which may contribute to my feelings above. Hardly unusual for a concerto recording, though. But the piano is as wide as the orchestra - literally, the right hand end of Hough’s piano is coming out in front of the rear desk of first violins. It’s an absurd effect, which has been confirmed to me by a friend who has bought the set on CD.

So, RO is wrong about the recording quality (not for the first time), but broadly right about the performances. I’ve been reading him in G for nearly half a century, and he’s not often wrong.

Gosh, it doesn't balance out like that here at all (on any of my main CD replay systems/transports/dac...I have several options here)....

The tonally gorgeous piano is with the orchestra, just in front, not forward of it (focussed just centre-left, resonance expanding its presence as the levels rise, a nice tonal blend with the orchestra), and the orchestra is a lovely flexible instrument in itself; warm and immediate in a sizeable soundstage, the one beautifully balanced against the other with none (I do mean none) of that olde-worlde wide piano effect. In the big climaxes they have a magnificent dynamic impact but you can always hear the piano clearly with them...... see my Beethoven blog for more...

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?21728-Beethoven-listening-blog-2020

(BTW - I took the free lossless download of 1(i) and that was fine too....so...)
AS for RO's comments on the performances - he says almost nothing about 1 ("tiny details"), 2, 4 and 5...a mere dismissive phrase or two...an odd review, it really is...

4...playing now... can't anyone else hear how heavenly this is...? Shame I can't beam you all up...)


Another glowing review here, with high praise for the sound......

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Apr/Beethoven_PCs_CDA68291.htm

[Goon525]

Yes, Jayne, but that MusicWeb review refers to divided violins - is that how you hear them?

[Barbirollians]

Yes, Jayne, but that MusicWeb review refers to divided violins - is that how you hear them?

Diverging a little I have just taken delivery of the record of Beethoven PC 1 and 4 from Helmchen and Manze . I enjoyed their 2 and 5 a great deal and am looking forward to this.

[teamsaint]

Gramophone have reviewed a new CD of music by Erkki-Sven Tuur, including his 9th symphony, performed by the Estonia Symphony Orchestra under Paavo Jarvi.

It gets a great review, but I'll make my own mind up , and report back soon.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, Jayne, but that MusicWeb review refers to divided violins - is that how you hear them?

Of course not - the photos in the gramophone show the layout clearly themselves....MW's review got that wrong.
(In the days when I owned systems with less-than-precise imagery (not many systems get imagery right, its a delicate, easily disrupted quality and the room can wreak havoc...) I frequently got this perception of string layout wrong myself....)

They do go on to say:
"The performances have been captured in lovely clean and clear sound with just the right amount of hall ambience. The balance between the Bösendorfer piano and the orchestra is excellent as, indeed, is the internal orchestral balance."

But when you say:
"...the piano is as wide as the orchestra - literally, the right hand end of Hough’s piano is coming out in front of the rear desk of first violins."
It seems just as clearly, on the evidence of my own systems and ears, another significant misapprehension.

I took up some of RO's comments thus (in#2346 above):

"If you take RO's critique of the initial 4-note phrase in 1 (i).... the diminuendo isn't "dabbed" on the last note, it flows through the whole phrase; and it isn't played that way throughout the movement, far from it.... so there is a thought-through "method-in-the-madness"...which is a surely (merely!) very subtle freedom in the interpretive approach....putting this on earlier to check this detail, I had to continue through the whole movement: it would have been a self-abnegation of musical hedonism not to....
(...and complaining of "unmarked espressivo phrasing" is surely taking reverence into the realms of pedantry).

Again, just to pick out a supposedly unwritten silence in 4 (ii) cause by the piano's "etiolation" (a delicately sustained fade, a moment, and a movement, I marvelled at, breath bated, never hearing anything overextended), is to overlook the many beauties in the whole performance, not least that continuously responsive exchange between soloist/orchesta (i.e. conductor)....the very fact that Lintu isn't a "well-schooled kapellmeister" let alone a Klemperer or a Haitink, is a main reason why this cycle is so fresh and revitalising... all the performers are coming to the music with a sense of excitement and discovery..."....

[Goon525]

Well, I'm glad a friend of mine 100 miles away hears the over-stretched piano just as I do. You and I both have decent kit, as we've discussed previously, and I'm really surprised we hear this so differently.

I think the MusicWeb review is worthless. Why refer to divided violins as if you've listened properly - when they aren't there! But thanks for pointing me at the photos in G that prove the point.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well, I'm glad a friend of mine 100 miles away hears the over-stretched piano just as I do. You and I both have decent kit, as we've discussed previously, and I'm really surprised we hear this so differently.

I think the MusicWeb review is worthless. Why refer to divided violins as if you've listened properly - when they aren't there! But thanks for pointing me at the photos in G that prove the point.

Well, their comment above piano/orchestra balance I quoted above is accurate, pretty much the way I (and apparently Richard Osborne, despite his lack of elaboration) hear it.

And as I've often said, I feel differences in serious listeners' perception are more usually down to system/room differences; especially midrange reproduction which can significantly affect imagery, presence and scale (both of solo instruments and orchestra).
So given the fullness, warmth and immediate character of the recording, any system anomalies (or lossy codecs as used on R3RR) may exaggerate the piano’s presence. (The Harbeth speakers I use, close relatives of their studio monitors, are famous for their broad, deep midrange - it is exceptional, bit of a revelation when you first encounter it).

Which is a system in itself more likely to do? Improve imagery (location, depth etc) or defocus (spread or smear) it? It took me ages to get really good imagery, and as I said its an easily degraded quality. (I guess the supertweeters I use might enhance focus slightly, but its a subtle and natural effect...)

And I always disliked over-present pianos!
But this had the great benefit of leading me towards fortepianos, which I now tend to prefer in this repertoire, as my blog describes re. the wonderful Wallisch/Haselbock cycle. Not much chance of anyone finding the piano overdominant in that one, where the spacious, resonant acoustic is almost an instrument, a contributing musical personality, in itself ....

Yet as I said in those reviews, Hough's Bösendorfer "has a sparking tunefulness that would keep any Graf-lover happy".
(**Anyone who wants to hear it for themselves can download the lossless Hyperion May 2020 Sampler - track 1 is Concerto 1(i), with a terrific orchestral contribution of fiery control from Lintu...

https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_HYP202005A

The piano should appear just slightly left of centre at the start, its presence expanding as the levels rise and lower registers come in. In truth, I get an even better focus in the bass from the CD, the download is slightly spread here, but still pretty good. I've just played this movement three times! It really is hard to stop...perhaps I should play the rest of this concerto backwards...).

[MrGongGong]

Looking forward to this arriving

https://lietava.greedbag.com/buy/lietava-1/

[Goon525]

A last comment from me on Hough's Beethoven. I had a second listen to No 1 this morning, I think it's one of the better recordings in the set, and I should accentuate the positives: Hough's wonderful playing, his ability to float pianissimos, the rather gorgeous gruff bass sounds from his Bosendorfer (a good choice), nothing much to complain about from the orchestra. But then, on a whim, I checked on Qobuz to see if they had the set I learned these works from - Ashkenazy/CSO/Solti, released 1973, and bought by me when it was newly out. (I was an early convert to CD, and later bought Ashkenazy's remake with Mehta: not as good.) I haven't listened to this set in probably 40 years, and was delighted to see that not only did Qobuz have it, they had a fairly recent 24/96 remastering. So I decided to sample the first movement of No 1. It's really good (so I stayed to the end), big bold orchestral playing with lots of forward momentum, and plenty of character in the woodwind playing (I know, I know, hold the front page - Chicago 1970s winds better than a Finnish radio orchestra. But still, it's true.) Ashkenazy? Well, he was at his peak at the time, and you can hear why he was (arguably, like everything) maybe the number one Beethoven player in the world at that moment. Unfortunately, once he started conducting, he lost it a bit as a pianist. Oh, and the recording? Well, it would be lèse majesté to criticise it, as it was made by the legendary Kenneth Wilkinson. The hall, of which one can hear plenty, is rather reverberant, but this all contributes to a big beefy Beethoven sound which I find still appeals - to me, anyway, and the balance is fine between piano and orchestra. I actually prefer Hough's Bösendorfer to Ashkenazy's Steinway, but as a package, I think this is a case where the best is the enemy of the good.

[silvestrione]

A last comment from me on Hough's Beethoven. I had a second listen to No 1 this morning, I think it's one of the better recordings in the set, and I should accentuate the positives: Hough's wonderful playing, his ability to float pianissimos, the rather gorgeous gruff bass sounds from his Bosendorfer (a good choice), nothing much to complain about from the orchestra. But then, on a whim, I checked on Qobuz to see if they had the set I learned these works from - Ashkenazy/CSO/Solti, released 1973, and bought by me when it was newly out. (I was an early convert to CD, and later bought Ashkenazy's remake with Mehta: not as good.) I haven't listened to this set in probably 40 years, and was delighted to see that not only did Qobuz have it, they had a fairly recent 24/96 remastering. So I decided to sample the first movement of No 1. It's really good (so I stayed to the end), big bold orchestral playing with lots of forward momentum, and plenty of character in the woodwind playing (I know, I know, hold the front page - Chicago 1970s winds better than a Finnish radio orchestra. But still, it's true.) Ashkenazy? Well, he was at his peak at the time, and you can hear why he was (arguably, like everything) maybe the number one Beethoven player in the world at that moment. Unfortunately, once he started conducting, he lost it a bit as a pianist. Oh, and the recording? Well, it would be lèse majesté to criticise it, as it was made by the legendary Kenneth Wilkinson. The hall, of which one can hear plenty, is rather reverberant, but this all contributes to a big beefy Beethoven sound which I find still appeals - to me, anyway, and the balance is fine between piano and orchestra. I actually prefer Hough's Bösendorfer to Ashkenazy's Steinway, but as a package, I think this is a case where the best is the enemy of the good.

Ah, Ashkenazy/Solti? Their 4th Concerto was the recommendation in a BAL once upon a time, so i bought it and loved it. An LP I no longer have. And yes, you're right, he was so good at that time, though looking back, unreconstructed, as it were: would have a Debussyian wash of sound in the op. 31 no. 2 sonata, and have a barn-storming finish to the Appassionata, etc. But his playing, live, of the last movement of the early A Major sonata was exquisite.

[Barbirollians]

A last comment from me on Hough's Beethoven. I had a second listen to No 1 this morning, I think it's one of the better recordings in the set, and I should accentuate the positives: Hough's wonderful playing, his ability to float pianissimos, the rather gorgeous gruff bass sounds from his Bosendorfer (a good choice), nothing much to complain about from the orchestra. But then, on a whim, I checked on Qobuz to see if they had the set I learned these works from - Ashkenazy/CSO/Solti, released 1973, and bought by me when it was newly out. (I was an early convert to CD, and later bought Ashkenazy's remake with Mehta: not as good.) I haven't listened to this set in probably 40 years, and was delighted to see that not only did Qobuz have it, they had a fairly recent 24/96 remastering. So I decided to sample the first movement of No 1. It's really good (so I stayed to the end), big bold orchestral playing with lots of forward momentum, and plenty of character in the woodwind playing (I know, I know, hold the front page - Chicago 1970s winds better than a Finnish radio orchestra. But still, it's true.) Ashkenazy? Well, he was at his peak at the time, and you can hear why he was (arguably, like everything) maybe the number one Beethoven player in the world at that moment. Unfortunately, once he started conducting, he lost it a bit as a pianist. Oh, and the recording? Well, it would be lèse majesté to criticise it, as it was made by the legendary Kenneth Wilkinson. The hall, of which one can hear plenty, is rather reverberant, but this all contributes to a big beefy Beethoven sound which I find still appeals - to me, anyway, and the balance is fine between piano and orchestra. I actually prefer Hough's Bösendorfer to Ashkenazy's Steinway, but as a package, I think this is a case where the best is the enemy of the good.

Have you heard the set Ashkenazy made conducting the Cleveland Orchestra from the piano ? I prefer that to the set with Solti ( I have not heard the Mehta) - and I see RO liked it too

[Goon525]

Have you heard the set Ashkenazy made conducting the Cleveland Orchestra from the piano ? I prefer that to the set with Solti ( I have not heard the Mehta) - and I see RO liked it too

No, I haven’t - and actually had forgotten about it.

[Barbirollians]

Was prompted to listen to the Ashkenazy/Solti No 5 - it has the true measure of the piece - very fine indeed.

[Bryn]

A last comment from me on Hough's Beethoven. I had a second listen to No 1 this morning, I think it's one of the better recordings in the set, and I should accentuate the positives: Hough's wonderful playing, his ability to float pianissimos, the rather gorgeous gruff bass sounds from his Bosendorfer (a good choice), nothing much to complain about from the orchestra. But then, on a whim, I checked on Qobuz to see if they had the set I learned these works from - Ashkenazy/CSO/Solti, released 1973, and bought by me when it was newly out. (I was an early convert to CD, and later bought Ashkenazy's remake with Mehta: not as good.) I haven't listened to this set in probably 40 years, and was delighted to see that not only did Qobuz have it, they had a fairly recent 24/96 remastering. So I decided to sample the first movement of No 1. It's really good (so I stayed to the end), big bold orchestral playing with lots of forward momentum, and plenty of character in the woodwind playing (I know, I know, hold the front page - Chicago 1970s winds better than a Finnish radio orchestra. But still, it's true.) Ashkenazy? Well, he was at his peak at the time, and you can hear why he was (arguably, like everything) maybe the number one Beethoven player in the world at that moment. Unfortunately, once he started conducting, he lost it a bit as a pianist. Oh, and the recording? Well, it would be lèse majesté to criticise it, as it was made by the legendary Kenneth Wilkinson. The hall, of which one can hear plenty, is rather reverberant, but this all contributes to a big beefy Beethoven sound which I find still appeals - to me, anyway, and the balance is fine between piano and orchestra. I actually prefer Hough's Bösendorfer to Ashkenazy's Steinway, but as a package, I think this is a case where the best is the enemy of the good.

Cassettes of the Ashkenazy/Solti set were my main musical succour while holed up in Cardiff in 1974. That was long before I was made aware of the major printing error regarding the tempo in the full score of the 'slow' movement of the 5th. Much later, in less pecuniary circumstances, I got the CDs. Fine performances and recording, indeed, given the understanding of the tempo marking on offer at the time. No such excuse obtains today.