RE: MUCH better...

Posted by Bob Neill (D) on January 30, 2012 at 13:58:05

In Reply to: MUCH better... posted by Kas on January 30, 2012 at 13:22:21:

OK, I'll give him another shot. I thought Krivine was a step better than Van Immerseel, but you have a point. I think Beethoven needs more oomph than most period instrument emsembles can provide and you likely don't. But I agree that Krivine (and Van Immerseel) are exciting on the even numbered symphoinies. Just not persuaded by 1,3,5,7, and9.

Here's what I wrote about Gardiner:

Beethoven, The Symphonies. Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique. John Eliot Gardiner. Deutsche Gramophone. DG Archive 477-869359. (5 cd's)

Half a dozen or so period instrument orchestras (that I know of) have attempted the near impossible feat of capturing a version of what Beethoven's symphonies may have sounded like in the early nineteenth century, without losing what we have come to feel is essential to their enduring power to move us—the physical weight which modern instruments provide. We have come to believe that this weight represents spiritual and aesthetic substance. Without this weight, especially in Symphonies 1, 3, 5 , 7, and 9, the clarity and instrumental separation period orchestras achieve can sometimes cause Beethoven to sound trivial to us.

Of the ones I've heard—Norrington's first version, Hogwood, Brüggen, Van Immerseel, and (lately) Emmanual Krivine—none quite pulls it off, though Krivine and Brüggen come the closest. They all sound appropriately light, lively, crisp, fleet, and full of instrumental flavor on Symphonies 2, 4, 6, and 8, while the odd numbered symphonies sound like music written for a chamber orchestra. But now, seventeen years after they were first recorded (seventeen years after I totally missed the occasion), John Eliot Gardiner, most recently master of the Bach cantatas, arrives in a re-released edition of his 1994 edition of the symphonies. And he's done it! Deutsche Gramophone appears to agree (or possibly wanted to capitalize on the success of the cantata series) and has not only re-released the set but at a huge bargain price of around $20, depending where you shop.

Part of this recording's success is the size of the orchestral force. In Symphony No. 5, for example, the orchestra numbers just over sixty musicians. So along with the stunning clarity and brilliance of period instruments, we get a lot of the weight we crave. Six cellos and five double basses 'weigh' a lot. But obviously it takes more than numbers to marry the clarity of the old with the weight of the new (Krivine has 85 musicians!). It takes a recording engineer who understands the challenge and the goal; and Gardiner's engineer captures the venue, providing a wonderful sense of fullness and resonance. And it takes the great musical intelligence of a major conductor, who Gardiner surely is. Time after time we are struck with the effective musical judgments he makes in pace, rhythm, timing, changes in relative loudness. It all feels absolutely right. The sheer energy that bursts from this music is extraordinary.

Gardiner's is the first recording of this music I've heard that can finally make a persuasive case that this is how this music must be heard. From the album notes: Period instruments, Gardiner argues, allow us to hear more in these symphonies: the edge is not taken off as it can be with instruments of a later period and sophistication. The instruments also help underwrite the revolutionary nature of Beethoven's genius. Without the 'traffic jams' of sonorities modern instruments can induce, Gardiner can press forward with tempo and dynamics that drive home the sense of Beethoven pushing players and listeners to its limits. This can be a shock to players and to listeners, but is a shock, says Gardiner, which is mitigated by the music's energy and humanity.

This has all been said before, but this is the first time it rings true to me. We miss nothing in listening to Gardiner's orchestra and we hear more of everything.

But don't we miss something from our first Beethoven symphony experience years ago with say, Van Karajan's mighty Berlin Philharmonic of the late 1950s and early 1960's? I do, or did at first. And it does seem to have something to do with weight. But it's weight, as Gardiner and his album commentator suggest with the image of the traffic jam, that results from modern instruments being so thoroughly blended that they yield a denser texture. It's not weight I miss but density. Because the musical molecules are not so close together in Gardiner's orchestra, there is less density. But now that I've heard what is possible when the density is broken down and clarified, I am finally happier with Gardiner's sound. It is interesting and exciting, not just sonically powerful. There is plenty of weight here but also more than weight. There is Gardiner's great musical intelligence: I can sense musical minds at work, both the composer's and the conductors. See Sibelius and Segerstam above.

Okay, time for the final exam, Symphony No. 9, the work that tests the period instrument approach most severely. Doesn't this work in particular depend on the density of a modern orchestra for its grandeur? All previous attempts by period instrument orchestras suggest this is true. But again, with Gardiner what comes through is not the absence of density but the presence of weight—large forces—and Gardiner uses nearly seventy musicians for the work. Gardiner's Ninth has all the grandeur we could ask for but, as with the earlier symphonies, it is not an opaque grandeur but a highly transparent one. We are moved by both weight and clarity. Lots of slashing lightning, not just thunder. I would concede that Gardiner takes a more classical than romantic view of symphony, that there is more beauty than intensity in his Ninth. But weight? No problem.

So for me, Gardiner passes the final just fine. But then, I like his Brahms too, which has fewer supporters. Folks just seem to like their Brahms mixed thick. But do try both Norrington's and Gardiner's Brahms someday for fun. I am not a believer that the period instrument movement necessarily takes us closer to the past and that it should be honored for that. What I believe is that it sometimes give us better (and more exciting, more satisfying) performances of early music than modern instruments do. This time!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - Bob Neill 06:06:48 01/30/12 (30)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - ahendler 17:19:15 01/31/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - Russell 08:37:14 01/31/12 (2)

And among the live Met broadcasts issued by Sony... - Kas 09:19:58 01/31/12 (1)

RE: And among the live Met broadcasts issued by Sony... - Russell 09:40:32 01/31/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - srl1 08:27:20 01/31/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - nairb 03:11:33 01/31/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - Bob Neill 18:23:33 01/30/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - Kas 11:11:00 01/30/12 (14)

Now we're getting into the "Best of 2011" Spirit - Chris from Lafayette 19:23:40 01/30/12 (7)

RE: Now we're getting into the "Best of 2011" Spirit - DemSpinner 12:52:25 02/1/12 (4)

I thought the SQ on the Gergiev Tchaikovsky Blu-Ray was very good - Chris from Lafayette 13:04:55 02/1/12 (3)

RE: I thought the SQ on the Gergiev Tchaikovsky Blu-Ray was very good - srl1 14:35:19 02/1/12 (0)

RE: I thought the SQ on the Gergiev Tchaikovsky Blu-Ray was very good - Analog Scott 13:47:54 02/1/12 (1)

Yeah - that's why I say that listeners may not agree with everything he does - Chris from Lafayette 15:55:21 02/1/12 (0)

RE: Now we're getting into the "Best of 2011" Spirit - Bill the K 23:22:45 01/30/12 (1)

LOL! - I'll make a note of that for future reference! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 08:38:29 01/31/12 (0)

RE: Favorite Classical CD's for 2011 - Bob Neill 11:13:12 01/30/12 (5)

MUCH better... - Kas 13:22:21 01/30/12 (4)

What does HIP mean? - Rockethead26 14:46:13 02/1/12 (0)

RE: MUCH better... - Bob Neill 01/30/1213:58:05 01/30/12 (2)

I hear it somewhat differently.... - Kas 07:10:06 01/31/12 (1)

RE: I hear it somewhat differently.... - Bob Neill 08:19:34 01/31/12 (0)

I raved about the Lera Auerbach CD when it first came out - John Marks 08:34:48 01/30/12 (3)

RE: I raved about the Lera Auerbach CD when it first came out - Bob Neill 08:44:05 01/30/12 (1)

RE: I raved about the Lera Auerbach CD when it first came out - Bob Neill 09:34:36 01/30/12 (0)

So she is! - I like your new category too! [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 08:36:14 01/30/12 (0)

Thanks, Bob! - I see a couple of my favs on your list too. . . - Chris from Lafayette 08:32:15 01/30/12 (0)

Thanks a million! - jazz1 06:57:50 01/30/12 (2)

+1. nt - rbolaw 08:30:20 01/30/12 (0)

RE: Thanks a million! - Bob Neill 07:32:30 01/30/12 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: MUCH better... - Bob Neill 01/30/1213:58:05 01/30/12 (2)

I hear it somewhat differently.... - Kas 07:10:06 01/31/12 (1)

RE: I hear it somewhat differently.... - Bob Neill 08:19:34 01/31/12 (0)

RE: MUCH better...

Post a Message!