Prom 23 - 30.07.13: Mozart, Schumann & Sibelius

[slarty]

Excellent Post altogether, slarty, but (and I speak as one who praised Kubelik's Schumann on that - and many other - threads) I don't think he was correct here. Mendelssohn conducted the premieres of the First, Second and Fourth (revised version) Symphonies with the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, where standards were very high (as Schumann's own comments suggest). Schumann conducted the premieres of the (original) Fourth (a poor performance which partly led to the revisions) and the Rhenish - with his own orchestra in Dusseldorff (by which time, his experience and competence as a conductor had much improved). It is probably (I don't know - I wasn't there) fair to say that "the normal performance standard" at Dusseldorff didn't match that at Leipzig, but there are no comparable revisions to the Rhenish to suggest that what Schumann heard from that orchestra was so far from what he "heard perfectly in his head".

That is entirely the point that Kubelik made. Standards in Leipzig were very high in comparison to other orchestras in Germany at that time, which is not saying very much.
It is entirely subjective to try and decide just what was and was not an acceptable playing standard then. I tend to believe the writings of Wagner and Mahler about playing standards then. They knew a little bit about it.

However, I prefer to defer to a man(Kubelik) who knew a great deal more than myself and to conductors who had links back to the 19th century, either through parents or teachers or both, to tell us what was an acceptable playing standard.
I can understand and agree with conductors who prefer rotary valved instruments rather than piston instruments for specific pieces , but they are still modern instruments,
but not in any way this mish-mash of styles and instruments that was foisted upon us this week.
I doubt even Mendelssohn would have put up with that.

PS Düsseldorf has one F.

[Hornspieler]

..... Brass "original" 19th century trumpets and tenor trombone coupled with modern Horns - daft - why? they don't sound good together, so why not 19th century horns?
Woodwind - all playing the best quality modern instruments - complete section - 2-2-2-2 fine. So why not original instruments?
Strings were playing in that half "original instrument mode" with little or no vibrato and that very light side bow mode which produces less tone (I am a violinist).
The String section was 40 strong(or should I say 40 weak) 12-10-8-6-4 and they were very underpowered. (they also played in this manner in the Sibelius which is not great)
I can't see the point in mixing the styles of "original" with modern.
The overall balance in this performance was now the "other" way - too much woodwind and brass against too little string sound. This is not what the composer envisaged......
.

I quote only part of your original post, slarty:

Yes. 19th century trumpets and modern F/B flat wide bore double horns. Didn't we see the same anomalies with The Bamberg players recently?

It doesn't make sense, but it is possible to get away with it in those works of the first part of the concert. But why go only half way?

What concerns me more, in a broader sense, is the sight of modern woodwind instruments in those so-called HIPP performances - and yet, for that matter, modern violins and bows (but still no vibrato, except when the players occasionally forget themselves!)
As for the programme:

The Masonic Funeral Music was, to my mind, out of place. It set the wrong atmosphere for what was to follow.

I really enjoyed the concerto. I remember playing in it many years ago with Alfred Brendel as soloist and I recognised his cadenza in the first movement. I really couldn't understand the seating arrangements and I certainly would not have enjoyed playing the horn with a flute stuck in my left ear.
Weren't they talking to the brass section?

The Schumann was marred by the strings being overwhelmed in that fiendishly difficult scherzo.

Sibelius 7th? Why? It had no place in this quasi HIPP performance.

The poor balance between strings and wind was, I'm sure, not helped by the prominent positioning of the woodwind.

HS

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That is entirely the point that Kubelik made. Standards in Leipzig were very high in comparison to other orchestras in Germany at that time, which is not saying very much.

Ah! I misunderstood your juxtaposing Kubelik's comment about orchestral standards in the 1840s with his comments on the orchestral balance to suggest that Schumann miscalculated his orchestral effects because of the poor playing standards he heard - my apologies. So what Schumann "heard perfectly in his head" was based on the sounds that he heard from the Leipzig orchestra?

It is entirely subjective to try and decide just what was and was not an acceptable playing standard then.

I'm not sure what your point is in this statement.

I tend to believe the writings of Wagner and Mahler about playing standards then. They knew a little bit about it.

Mahler "knew a little bit about" "playing standards" of the 1840s? How? (And I wouldn't trust Wagner on such matters; like Bernstein claiming that the Danes didn't play Nielsen before he introduced them to his works, Wagner was quite prepared to twist historical fact in order to project to others the image he had of himself as the source of all that was good in Music practice.)

I can understand and agree with conductors who prefer rotary valved instruments rather than piston instruments for specific pieces , but they are still modern instruments,
but not in any way this mish-mash of styles and instruments that was foisted upon us this week.
I doubt even Mendelssohn would have put up with that.

Well, quite - my opening "Excellent post altogether" was intended to convey agreement with this very point: give us the instruments the composer expected or give us instruments we're used to today; not a grafting of the two.

PS Düsseldorf has one F.

Ah, yes - like those beautifully-designed Fjords . Like Solti's brass, I was too loud.

[amateur51]

Sibelius 7th? Why? It had no place in this quasi HIPP performance

The introductory commentary on the radio broadcast explained the way all the pieces in this programme fitted together (don't ask! ) but the one point not made was the one you raise, HS

[slarty]

What a composer hears in his head as he is composing has nothing to do with what may or may not end up being played. I doubt Beethoven heard very much during the last 10 years of his life, but he certainly knew what he was composing.
However as you seem to only want to knock down all my skittles on this, and as you obviously are the fount of all knowledge on the matter of all things Schumann / Wagner / Mahler - I shall defer to you.

[Barbirollians]

slarty - fhgl is a clever clogs and does like to post lengthy replies where he tries to undermine one's argument line by line . I admire his forensic skill but he quite often fails to see the wood for the trees in my opinion and I think he just enjoys the argument and intends no disrespect to others .

[amateur51]

Has slarty left us? He's now down as a guest.

I do hope that he comes back, I enjoyed his posts.

[edashtav]

slarty - fhgl is a clever clogs and does like to post lengthy replies where he tries to undermine one's argument line by line . I admire his forensic skill but he quite often fails to see the wood for the trees in my opinion and I think he just enjoys the argument and intends no disrespect to others .

and to be fair to the great curmudgeon, he did write "Excellent Post altogether, slarty"

the few who have received such praise are famous, by now.

[BBMmk2]

Fascinating slarty, thank you

Allowing for the possibility of something idiotic on the part of the sound engineers, I totally agree with your point about balance: the opening of the symphony was quite astonishing (not in a good way), all nasal brass and wind and virtually none of the wonderful caressing string music. Couldn't believe it

And yes - the odd bits of token 'period brass'...

Well, now having watched the televised broadcast on BBC4, I saw that a token period brass was used. I think, imo, that if conductors etc, are going to bring on these types, they should either do it properly, or not at all! Half measures, I never agree with.

But, having seen the concert(which I think, was a better idea, rather than an audio experience), I could see just how much the musicians were involved with the music and this, in turn, connects with the viewer. I was completely enthralled by the Schumann and Mozart works. DH and the Mahler CO, are certainly a world class combo!

[cloughie]

Well, now having watched the televised broadcast on BBC4, I saw that a token period brass was used. I think, imo, that if conductors etc, are going to bring on these types, they should either do it properly, or not at all! Half measures, I never agree with.

But, having seen the concert(which I think, was a better idea, rather than an audio experience), I could see just how much the musicians were involved with the music and this, in turn, connects with the viewer. I was completely enthralled by the Schumann and Mozart works. DH and the Mahler CO, are certainly a world class combo!

Who'd have thought it Bbm - I love Schumann 2nd but end up underwhelmed by this performance - you, not a Schumann fan end up enthralled - that's music for you!

[Barbirollians]

I am glad you were enthralled by K503 - I often think that the Piano Concertos are the best route in to Mozart they are so endlessly fascinating and varied .

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes, I think the Mozart PC was much the most successful part of the concert, having now heard and seen it all. Impressed by Paul Lewis, for whom I have not always shared the general enthusiasm. This was top drawer, I though. Far less convinced by the Schumann and the Sibelius.

[jayne lee wilson]

slarty - fhgl is a clever clogs and does like to post lengthy replies where he tries to undermine one's argument line by line . I admire his forensic skill but he quite often fails to see the wood for the trees in my opinion and I think he just enjoys the argument and intends no disrespect to others .

That's a little unfair - in my experience fhg seeks only to elucidate and to get at the truth, by looking more closely at the actual, contextual evidence for a given assertion about a musical work or its performance. Then he will often link such evidence to the listening experience itself, with very insightful & helpful results. See post no.20 about Lachenmann on the Bamberg SO Prom 5 thread for an excellent example.

Finally listening back to this Schumann 2nd, I heard: light, dry sonority, a balance slightly favouring the brass (but not in a way that would surprise anyone who knows the Harnoncourt/COE or Dausgaard/SCO recordings) but which still allowed the often vibrato-less strings to come through. The orchestra did lack some presence and weight in the RAH, but still punched hard into the climaxes. There was a problem however, in the bigger expressive picture; an apparent failure to build phrase into paragraph, and then into the larger symphonic structures, in any way which would create a sense of tension and release in a movement as a whole. So individual string phrases, whether in the exposition of (i) or the scherzo opening, sounded tonally thin and failed to lead into each other with any sense of a larger movement, through phrase, melody and section. All we really heard were changes of pulse and orchestration, reminding me of much earlier HIPPs performances from say, Pinnock or Gardiner where everything seemed reduced to energy and dynamics.

Dausgaard offers a similar balance with the Swedish CO, in a smaller, warmer acoustic of course but above all with a far more expressive building of the larger paragraphs. He leads, and compels you to go with him, as any good performance should.
Personally I do like the "revisionist" balance with winds/brass foregrounded; the string-dominated textures of earlier, famously more Romantic readings leave me feeling deprived of the music's inner life - wanting to see a few more trees and a bit less of the Great Wood. I rather enjoy inspecting the twigs and the birds perched upon them too.

[marvin]

You self-appointed 'experts' and musicologists are a hoot, you know. It is worth coming here just to read your insights and comparison into the music you have listened to and then hurriedly search the internet for all sorts of scholarly quotes etc.
Personally, I can't be bothered; I just listen to the music and think to myself "did I enjoy that or not?".

[amateur51]

That's a little unfair - in my experience fhg seeks only to elucidate and to get at the truth, by looking more closely at the actual, contextual evidence for a given assertion about a musical work or its performance. Then he will often link such evidence to the listening experience itself, with very insightful & helpful results. See post no.20 about Lachenmann on the Bamberg SO Prom 5 thread for an excellent example.

I think myself very fortunate to be a member of a message board that contains several people who are able to write lucidly, cogently and even excitingly about some of the music that I love. I have learned so much from reading the posts of ferneyhoughgeliebte, jlw, edashtav and MrGG. I simply don't have access (yet?) to the range and sort of intellectual and emotional links that they do. I can express myself but differently and possibly less communicatively and that is the key of it all for me - they are great communicators.

So - many thanks to all who communicate here and please come back, fhg - you are much loved and much missed