# I love Gardiner



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

His tempo choice of LVB's symphonies, faithful to Beethoven's true intentions, made me even more hooked on Ludwig. They are so much powerful now!
YAY for the HIP movement!


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I love the allegretto of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at its rightful tempo.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think of Gardiner as a very modern phenomenon. He has his finger on the commercial pulse, has a talent for marketing and mass produces products to satisfy a demand that sometimes he was the first to see. I cannot think of a single recording of his that has not been bettered by someone else. His Beethoven symphonies were intended to present and realise a concept and he raced to the studio before him interpretations had settled down into musical realisations (just listen to his later live recordings of two of the symphonies to hear how good his set could have been). There was, of course, nothing revolutionary about his speeds but treating slow music roughly was an innovation. I do acknowledge that he has had a big and beneficial influence on his field.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> His tempo choice of LVB's symphonies, faithful to Beethoven's true intentions, made me even more hooked on Ludwig. They are so much powerful now!
> YAY for the HIP movement!


"Faithful to Beethoven's true intentions"? What does this even mean? No one knows what Beethoven's true intentions were except for Beethoven himself. Everything else is guess work.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Gardiner is one of the best of the HIPsters. At least he played musically if needlessly fast. But the main thing is HIP Beethoven just sounds wimpy. I miss the powerful chords.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> His tempo choice of LVB's symphonies, faithful to Beethoven's true intentions, made me even more hooked on Ludwig. They are so much powerful now!
> YAY for the HIP movement!


I also love Gardiner's celebratory Bach recordings. Famous for decades now, he's a fixture of the period instrument movement.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Neo Romanza said:


> "Faithful to Beethoven's true intentions"? What does this even mean? No one knows what Beethoven's true intentions were except for Beethoven himself. Everything else is guess work.


search for metronome, there's a nice site called Google for it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

aioriacont said:


> His tempo choice of LVB's symphonies, faithful to Beethoven's true intentions, made me even more hooked on Ludwig. They are so much powerful now!
> YAY for the HIP movement!


One of the best Beethoven Third Symphony recordings available is Gardiner's.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

From the article:

Was Beethoven's Metronome Wrong?
Mathematic and musical detectives have discovered that perhaps Beethoven's tempo was so strange because his metronome was broken

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-beethovens-metronome-wrong-9140958/ (The article includes a link to the fuller paper on the subject)

And an alternate view:

https://thebeethovenproject.com/how-fast-shall-we-play/


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Gardiner fans would do well to check out the excellent series of videos currently being posted on YouTube, in which he explains his approaches to each LVB symphony.






On the tempi issue, it's far from settled scholarship, and there is room for a wide range of interpretations, especially in material as great as Beethoven's 9.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I've been pacing myself through Gardiner's Bach Cantatas pilgrimage from 2020, and it is uniformly excellent, a superb achievement.

Also, I think his Bach B Minor mass from 1985 has never been surpassed.

His Beethoven never completely worked for me, although I do understand why it was so highly praised. I do like Gardiner's Schumann cycle, the best using period instruments.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

David Hurwitz gives an interesting argument from the Schuricht Beethoven cycle recorded with the Paris Conservatorie Orchestra, saying that they were formed within a few years of Beethoven's death to play his symphonies, and he draws on their tradition to opine that their sound is authentic to that time. He also looks at French organs from that time, how that they have orchestral stops (called voix celeste) that have vibrato, indicating that they orchestras used vibrato at that time. 

I don't know really what to think about all this, but it is interesting regardless. 

I generally like Gardiner's Beethoven cycle because of its precision, except the slow movements are too fast and have no soul. I need to hear his live recordings.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Don't make the mistake of thinking David Hurwitz is a scholar or reputable musicologist _in any way_. He is not.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Knorf said:


> Don't make the mistake of thinking David Hurwitz is a scholar or reputable musicologist _in any way_. He is not.


Of course. It's just an interesting thought. And, of course, I'm sure the French orchestra has updated their instruments over time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SixFootScowl said:


> One of the best Beethoven Third Symphony recordings available is Gardiner's.


Disagreee entirely. I was most disappointed with it.pennyplain. Gardiner actually does a much better job conducting it in the film Eroica. I've got the Gardiner set of Beethoven symphonies and it is very variable imo. Some great moments but he rowans the slow movement of the 9th with too fast a tempo.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I think of Gardiner as a very modern phenomenon. He has his finger on the commercial pulse, has a talent for marketing and mass produces products to satisfy a demand that sometimes he was the first to see. I cannot think of a single recording of his that has not been bettered by someone else. His Beethoven symphonies were intended to present and realise a concept and he raced to the studio before him interpretations had settled down into musical realisations (just listen to his later live recordings of two of the symphonies to hear how good his set could have been). There was, of course, nothing revolutionary about his speeds but treating slow music roughly was an innovation. I do acknowledge that he has had a big and beneficial influence on his field.


Bit of a scathing denunciation or dismissal of an illustrious career and recorded legacy, but I do understand where you're coming from. He does seem to have quite a keen mind for business. I suspect he's done pretty well for himself, financially speaking.

Anyway, he has recordings I really like and recordings I don't care for. Some of the good ones include his Bach B minor Mass, his Brahms German Requiem, his Mozart Requiem (though I can see this one being a bit of a polarizing choice), and both Beethoven Masses. He really excels in choral music and his Monteverdi Choir is very good. I won't comment on his Beethoven symphonies cycle as I've not heard all of it, but it remains the most popular HIP cycle some three decades down the line, so I suppose that's gotta mean something.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Manxfeeder said:


> David Hurwitz gives an interesting argument from the Schuricht Beethoven cycle recorded with the Paris Conservatorie Orchestra, saying that they were formed within a few years of Beethoven's death to play his symphonies, and he draws on their tradition to opine that their sound is authentic to that time.....
> 
> I don't know really what to think about all this, but it is interesting regardless. .


Its a ridiculous argument and inaccurate. Its like saying that every conductor, since the orchestra began, played the symphonies at exactly the same pace and in exactly the same way. Yeah, and football is still being played the in the same way as it was in the 19th century, Mr. H.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Merl said:


> Its a ridiculous argument and inaccurate. Its like saying that every conductor, since the orchestra began, played the symphonies at exactly the same pace and in exactly the same way. Yeah, and football is still being played the in the same way as it was in the 19th century, Mr. H.


But that very uncertainty and an apparently tenuous grasp on what's supposed to be some musicologist-and-Harnoncourt-approved "authenticity" undercuts the whole HIP dogmatic stuff. I like some HIP performances, but the way some fans carry on as if that's the only legit approach is ridiculous as well. It's speculative. Gardiner's take on Beethoven is an interesting one for a moment before I go back to Klemperer or Solti or others.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> search for metronome, there's a nice site called Google for it.


No need to be condescending. I was asking you a legitimate question. But since you can't be kind enough to oblige me, I'll take your comment as no one knows what Beethoven was thinking not even you.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

consuono said:


> I like some HIP performances, but the way some fans carry on as if that's the only legit approach is ridiculous as well. It's speculative..


I agree. I was just pointing out that that particular argument is pretty rubbish.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Oops, double post


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

People need to let go of the (toxic) idea of seeking objective truth/meaning in music.

Yes, musicians should respect the score, and scholarly study of music history and performance practices are important. This is so obvious that there should be no argument about this.

But when "seeking real intention of a composer" becomes an extreme dogma, it stifles musical discussion and put the wrong idea into average listeners' head by presupposing there is so-called "real intention", or that such "real intention" matters in the first place. 

I admire Gardiner, especially his exhaustive Bach cantata project. His Beethoven cycle is exciting and fine (so do many other cycles). But people need to stop using superficial features like HIP or "correct tempo" as justification for enforcing "objective" interpretative standard. You need to do better than that to have a point. Music is meant to be open-ended and that's the beauty of it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

He has what I consider the best Bach Christmas Oratorio, and Monteverdi Vespers I've listened to, that is enough for me to consider him a mighty fine conductor.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'll say this: I see scathing dismissals of HIP recordings and performers at least 50 times more often than the opposite.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> People need to let go of the (toxic) idea of seeking objective truth/meaning in music.
> 
> Yes, musicians should respect the score, and scholarly study of music history and performance practices are important. This is so obvious that there should be no argument about this.
> 
> ...


I think HIP took us away from finding objective truth in music by turning it into a pedantic academic exercise when it chiefly is about heart, soul, and spirit.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

For example:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think HIP took us away from finding objective truth in music by turning it into a pedantic academic exercise when it chiefly is about heart, soul, and spirit.


"Objective truth in music."


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2020)

Have you read J.E. Gardiner's book on JS Bach: "*Music in the Castle of Heaven*"? A good read.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Knorf said:


> I've been pacing myself through Gardiner's Bach Cantatas pilgrimage from 2020, and it is uniformly excellent, a superb achievement.
> 
> Also, I think his Bach B Minor mass from 1985 has never been surpassed.
> 
> His Beethoven never completely worked for me, although I do understand why it was so highly praised. I do like Gardiner's Schumann cycle, the best using period instruments.


Everything you type here indicates a belief in objective truth in music. So what's the problem?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Sometime yes, sometimes no, it's as easy as that .


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Explain fascination with Gardiner


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Everything you type here indicates a belief in objective truth in music. So what's the problem?


Well that isn't quite fair since Knorf was giving his own opinion of some of Gardiner's recordings, whereas the "objective musical truth" I think you may be referring to has to do with performance practice, the finest details of which we really can never know. Our lack of knowledge in that area isn't the fault of the HIP movement. What I fault the more obnoxious HIP fanatics for is not recognizing that there is a lack of knowledge in the first place. They're often the ones online who go around tearing down Karl Richter or Helmuth Rilling or whoever else doesn't meet HIP regulations.

(edit) By the way I think it's the Richter and Corboz recordings of the B Minor Mass that are unsurpassed, and that's objective truth.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I liked his Eroica in the TV film, and many years ago heard his Schumann Third on the radio and really liked his more relaxed tempo in the scherzo.

I never understood the Beethoven's metronome was broken argument. Physics says the only determinant of a metronome's tempo is the placement of the weight on the swing arm. Unless the markings were misplaced, nothing else could have affected it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

consuono said:


> Well that isn't quite fair since Knorf was giving his own opinion of some of Gardiner's recordings, whereas the "objective musical truth" I think you may be referring to has to do with performance practice, the finest details of which we really can never know. Our lack of knowledge in that area isn't the fault of the HIP movement. What I fault the more obnoxious HIP fanatics for is not recognizing that there is a lack of knowledge in the first place. They're often the ones online who go around tearing down Karl Richter or Helmuth Rilling or whoever else doesn't meet HIP regulations.
> 
> (edit) By the way I think it's the Richter and Corboz recordings of the B Minor Mass that are unsurpassed, and that's objective truth.


No, I think think objective musical truth exists in the abstract, and therefore runs counter to the HIP movement. Knorf's opinion, and therefore anyone's, represents objective musical truth. Or, more precisely, someone's perception of objective musical truth, which is the only way it can be known.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I think think objective musical truth exists in the abstract, and therefore runs counter to the HIP movement. Knorf's opinion, and therefore anyone's, represents objective musical truth. Or, more precisely, someone's perception of objective musical truth, which is the only way it can be known.


Which seems to be another way of saying: it's subjective.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I think think objective musical truth exists in the abstract, and therefore runs counter to the HIP movement. Knorf's opinion, and therefore anyone's, represents objective musical truth. Or, more precisely, someone's perception of objective musical truth, which is the only way it can be known.


People seem to be hostile to Platonism nowadays but personally I think there is a transcendent quaility of music for sure. The subject-object dualism is however, not helpful in understanding this. Since not everyone can grasp the idea of music as pure mathematical structure that is compatible with our intuition (not just the language/logic/rational faculty of the brain), or a microcosm of the compututaional universe whose first principles are always elusive to the human intellect, they have different reactions to the music, and hence deduce that music must be subjective. But in fact, it is their experience of music that is subjective not the music itself.

But the music itself is a concept even harder to grasp, the musical text is just a representation of the actual music to be reproduced. The actual music, like geometry, does not exist in the "observable real world", since all reproduction of music is not exact just as you can't reproduce a perfect circle, but it is the form through which the brain make sense of the "unobservable real world" (just like you don't actually observe the quantum oscillation of the real world but some aggregate representation of them such as materials). If language/logic can describe everything for information communication between humans, then there would be no place for music. But to transcend language is to transcend logic and experience because language is transcendental and logic/mathematics are formal language. In this sense, music do reflect some deep truth about the human consciousness as well as the "unobservable real world".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> Bit of a scathing denunciation or dismissal of an illustrious career and recorded legacy, but I do understand where you're coming from. He does seem to have quite a keen mind for business. I suspect he's done pretty well for himself, financially speaking.
> 
> Anyway, he has recordings I really like and recordings I don't care for. Some of the good ones include his Bach B minor Mass, his Brahms German Requiem, his Mozart Requiem (though I can see this one being a bit of a polarizing choice), and both Beethoven Masses. He really excels in choral music and his Monteverdi Choir is very good. I won't comment on his Beethoven symphonies cycle as I've not heard all of it, but it remains the most popular HIP cycle some three decades down the line, so I suppose that's gotta mean something.


Yes, he does quite well in some of the works you mention but, for me, doesn't reach my most preferred recordings for those works. I often find him reliable in less recorded works but he tends to focus his energy and time on crowded fields. He has something interesting to say but, oh, if only he could be a bit more musical and thoughtful (and less of a machine) he could be so great. These days I avoid him after too many disappointments or, perhaps more often, recordings that are just lacking in personality (unless a provocative theory is personality).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MarkW said:


> I liked his Eroica in the TV film, and many years ago heard his Schumann Third on the radio and really liked his more relaxed tempo in the scherzo.


That _was _a good film!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

consuono said:


> But that very uncertainty and an apparently tenuous grasp on what's supposed to be some musicologist*-and-Harnoncourt-approved "authenticity" *undercuts the whole HIP dogmatic stuff. I like some HIP performances, but the way some fans carry on as if that's the only legit approach is ridiculous as well. It's speculative. Gardiner's take on Beethoven is an interesting one for a moment before I go back to Klemperer or Solti or others.


I didn't get your point about Harnoncourt's approval. Was it a reference to the Paris orchestra's credentials that were being discussed? Or does it just relate to speed? Harnoncourt, of course, did not buy into the very fast Beethoven method judging by his recordings and has often showed himself to be more than willing to play music that HIP bands often play very fast much more slowly.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Knorf said:


> I'll say this: I see scathing dismissals of HIP recordings and performers at least 50 times more often than the opposite.


Really? Still? The trouble is there is no single HIP approach. The best HIP performers have always sounded quite individual. Some people hear one or two and think "I don't like HIP" but what they probably mean is "I don't like that performer or interpretation". HIP started off varied, looked like it was becoming all the same for a while and then branched out into lots of variation.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I didn't get your point about Harnoncourt's approval. Was it a reference to the Paris orchestra's credentials that were being discussed? Or does it just relate to speed? Harnoncourt, of course, did not buy into the very fast Beethoven method judging by his recordings and has often showed himself to be more than willing to play music that HIP bands often play very fast much more slowly.


It's a facetious reference to the Harnoncourt-Leonhardt HIP duo. They sort of represent the movement to me, at least in the form that I've become aware of over the past couple of decades or so.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Knorf said:


> I'll say this: I see scathing dismissals of HIP recordings and performers at least 50 times more often than the opposite.


As it should be! 

V


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

consuono said:


> (edit) By the way I think it's the Richter and Corboz recordings of the B Minor Mass that are unsurpassed, and that's objective truth.


AMEN!!!! Although I am unfamiliar with Corboz. I take it it's worth pursuing given your obvious FANTASTIC taste in Richter's B Minor Mass?

V


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Varick said:


> AMEN!!!! Although I am unfamiliar with Corboz. I take it it's worth pursuing given your obvious FANTASTIC taste in Richter's B Minor Mass?
> 
> V


Yes, it's most definitely worth a listen. I regret that I don't have my old two-LP copy anymore. That was the first recording of the Mass that I ever heard...waaaay back when. It's this one:







(edit) I do need to add that Corboz recorded the Mass 3 times and each time it got worse imo. The recording I referred to is his first and is from '72 or '73 I believe. I would also recommend the Rilling '77 recording. I haven't heard any HIP recording that comes close to those or to Richter.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

consuono said:


> Yes, it's most definitely worth a listen. I regret that I don't have my old two-LP copy anymore. That was the first recording of the Mass that I ever heard...waaaay back when. It's this one:
> View attachment 139168
> 
> (edit) I do need to add that Corboz recorded the Mass 3 times and each time it got worse imo. The recording I referred to is his first and is from '72 or '73 I believe. I would also recommend the Rilling '77 recording. I haven't heard any HIP recording that comes close to those or to Richter.


Thanks for that. I have Rilling on my list to acquire, but I am wary. I've never believed his abilities as a great conductor, but will definitely look into the Corboz recording. Thx

V


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The trouble with negative criticisms (including my own in some cases) is that they tend to be based on limited knowledge. If you don't like something (or _think _you don't like something) you are unlikely to explore it. When that "it" is HIP performances - a field that is these days filled with variety - I feel it is only worth being critical if you can also be specific as to which examples you dislike so much. Returning to Gardiner, I don't think he exemplifies the best of HIP and, yes, I have heard (and even own) lots of his recordings. One day, perhaps, I will find one that blows my socks off.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think HIP took us away from finding objective truth in music by turning it into a pedantic academic exercise when it chiefly is about heart, soul, and spirit.


Total rubbish! Totally disproved by listening to HIP performances. How on earth can you say that eg Rene Jacobs is a 'pedantic academic exercise' - whether you agree with him or not his performances are anything but that. Your extreme generalisations do not help people to take you seriously.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *No, I think think objective musical truth exists in the abstract, and therefore runs counter to the HIP movement.* Knorf's opinion, and therefore anyone's, represents objective musical truth. Or, more precisely, someone's perception of objective musical truth, which is the only way it can be known.


A totally meaningless statement. I don't suppose you even know what it means yourself.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

For those who like Gardiner's studio Beethoven, check these live recordings out ... they are the two Gardiner records that I do greatly care for.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Just the sheer, lush sound of the Gardiner Beethoven set was what convinced me. Am I too shallow? I don't care about tempo, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm just here for the ride!


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Varick said:


> Thanks for that. I have Rilling on my list to acquire, but I am wary. I've never believed his abilities as a great conductor, but will definitely look into the Corboz recording. Thx
> 
> V


I'm a Rilling fan, and the '77 recording of the Mass is great in my opinion...as is his *first* recording of the St Matthew Passion (although I think he should've used a boys' chorus). His early recording of the Magnificat -- the 1733 D major version but with the "Christmas interpolations" added -- I think is excellent as well. I've always thought he's a good "compromise" between HIP smaller scale and overblown Romanticized approach. (Modern instruments are just more beautiful, sorry.) AND I think the Hänssler box set of the complete Bach cantatas was a steal at ~$60.

Still, sometimes Rilling's choices of tempo leave me scratching my head, I have to admit.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I knew Gardiner's music long ago, then tried a lot of it in the 1990s and 2000s, and renewed acquaintance with him recently after one of his acolytes wrote in New York Times how he revolutionized Beethoven playing. I find him more an acquired taste than a steady diet. I've liked some of his recordings, not others.

I don't find his way with Beethoven better than Roger Norrington and I don't think his band is better. He recorded the big 6 Haydn masses, a favorite of mine. I was excited by them when new but, over time, found some were OK but none were as good as other recordings I know. I can't say his Bach cantatas caught on with me although the second iteration seemed better to me than the first. I generally did not like his other Bach recordings. I generally liked his Beethoven Missa Solemnis but not as much as some others. I would say his Mozart keyboard concertos with Malcolm Bilson were not as good as any other set using a period keyboard. They were in fact extraordinarily bland.

None of the recordings I cite had staying power for me. Even though I liked some at first, I own none of them now. In addition it continues to be a great surprise to me how a conductor like him can grow to such stature and never have recorded a Mozart or Haydn symphony.

Gardiner and his orchestra toured New York last year and played the Beethoven symphonies. I read several reviews; everyone said they were exciting but not everyone liked them. His style with Beethoven is more aggressive now than in the past; he wants to focus on the revolutionary aspect of his music and the fact that, in Gardiner's opinion, it was meant to shake up audiences, not necessarily please them. He thinks Beethoven is perhaps too much a beloved figure now and certainly too familiar insofar as people have forgotten what he did to music. He wants to remind them.

His orchestra's history director (yes, they have one) wrote in NYT how a passage near the end of the fifth symphony played by two bassoons has been smoothed over in recordings; he said many conductors substitute brass in that passage. Beethoven wrote it that way, he said, because it was ugly and revolutionary. You can hear it in this YouTube performance from 2016 at about 31:10






I think of Gardiner's recent Beethoven as being akin to the James Bond of Shakespearean actor Timothy Dalton. The first James Bond, Sean Connery, was macho and heroic but also suave, sophisticated and subtle. The second, Roger Moore, was suave and sophisticated but not very manly or macho. When it came to Dalton he was macho and driven but never showed any humor or subtlety. To me that is Gardiner's current Beethoven. In my opinion some of its qualities are there but others are not.

My favorite Gardiner recording -- and the only one I like as well as other recordings I have known in the years since I made its acquaintance -- goes back to the 1970s before he became famous: *Gluck's Don Juan*. I've not heard another Gardiner recording since then I liked as much that stayed with me over time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I remember hearing Gardiner and his choir many years ago when he was a young man and we weren’t yet used to crack course. They started with ‘Zack the Priest’ and I still remember the electricity generated by the entry of the choir


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I'll be honest. The only Gardiner recording I've cared much for is of Bach's Easter Oratorio, and even that wasn't completely to my liking. There are some others who take the HIP approach that I enjoy hearing more.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I’m not a huge fan of Gardiner in Bach except for his B Minor Mass which I think is about as well-realized an HIP version as you can get. My favorite recordings of his are all choral - Brahms’s German Requiem, Monteverdi’s Vespers (1989), Haydn masses. He definitely has one of the most virtuosic choirs around, they handle even his craziest tempi with perfect clarity and finesse.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Still, sometimes Rilling's choices of tempo leave me scratching my head, I have to admit._

I'm with you -- a fan of his but wondering sometimes ... never more than in the Mendelssohn Lobgesang symphony when he beat to death the first subject.

His Bach cantata BWV 71, Gott ist mein konig, is magnificent. It was used in a video about Bach. He recorded it twice -- early and late. The earlier one, last seen on MHS, is better of the two.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm not a huge fan of Gardiner in Bach except for his B Minor Mass which I think is about as well-realized an HIP version as you can get. My favorite recordings of his are all choral - Brahms's German Requiem, Monteverdi's Vespers (1989), Haydn masses. He definitely has one of the most virtuosic choirs around, they handle even his craziest tempi with perfect clarity and finesse.


What do you think of his recordings of Bach cantatas if you've listened to some of them? They seem to be generally well-regarded but I've only heard a few.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

annaw said:


> What do you think of his recordings of Bach cantatas if you've listened to some of them? They seem to be generally well-regarded but I've only heard a few.


I find them rather emotionally sterile and uninvolving, with formal and straightforward soloists though the choir is of course very good. In my Bach cantata listening journey thus far, I keep telling myself I'm going to try a variety of recordings, but I come back to Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan again and again for the best combination of dedicated singing, sound quality, sensible tempi, and emotional involvement. Koopman and Herreweghe also have unique takes that IMO are more convincing than Gardiner.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Just the sheer, lush sound of the Gardiner Beethoven set was what convinced me. Am I too shallow? I don't care about tempo, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm just here for the ride!


Hey, at least you are not as shallow as those who like Karajan's 60s cycle 

But seriously, I don't see what's so shallow about Gardiner's set. It sounds exuberant, the plays are tight, the tempi are exciting. It's a great cycle.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find them rather emotionally sterile and uninvolving, with formal and straightforward soloists though the choir is of course very good. In my Bach cantata listening journey thus far, I keep telling myself I'm going to try a variety of recordings, but I come back to Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan again and again for the best combination of dedicated singing, sound quality, sensible tempi, and emotional involvement. Koopman and Herreweghe also have unique takes that IMO are more convincing than Gardiner.


Thank you for great recommendations! I have to check them out as I've been trying to get better acquainted with Bach cantatas at the moment.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find them rather emotionally sterile and uninvolving, with formal and straightforward soloists though the choir is of course very good. In my Bach cantata listening journey thus far, I keep telling myself I'm going to try a variety of recordings, but I come back to Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan again and again for the best combination of dedicated singing, sound quality, sensible tempi, and emotional involvement. Koopman and Herreweghe also have unique takes that IMO are more convincing than Gardiner.


Agreed and, in my book, the above comments apply to his recordings of the major choral works as well. Many on here and elsewhere whose opinions I respect rate Gardiner's Bach highly, but it's never appealed to me.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find them rather emotionally sterile and uninvolving, with formal and straightforward soloists though the choir is of course very good. In my Bach cantata listening journey thus far, I keep telling myself I'm going to try a variety of recordings, but I come back to Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan again and again for the best combination of dedicated singing, sound quality, sensible tempi, and emotional involvement. Koopman and Herreweghe also have unique takes that IMO are more convincing than Gardiner.


I fully agree, Gardiner's recordings generally leave me totally cold, for example the Bach's Mass in B Minor, Handel's Messiah and the Monteverdi Vespri. I got them all, as they somehow were universally praised by each and every reviewer (and still are). But I sold/traded them all. Bach for Koopman mainly, Monteverdi for Garrido/Jacobs and Handel for Harnoncourt/Pinnock/Koopman. Each of them adds spirituality/devotion/fun to the music, unlike Gardiner.

However, I came to listen to his recent recording of Bach's Motets and this one actually is great. But of course Bach's Motets are benefiting from a somewhat mathematical approach by the choir and the Monteverdi Choir delivers this clarity. So, to me this one is the exception to the rule:


----------



## jackpoint188 (3 mo ago)

Knorf said:


> Don't make the mistake of thinking David Hurwitz is a scholar or reputable musicologist _in any way_. He is not.


 He knows what he likes about performances and can explain why in a very logical manner. His listening experience is quite comprehensive. Being a critic, his talents for communication and persuasion based on his tastes are what we enjoy musing over.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

jackpoint188 said:


> He knows what he likes about performances and can explain why in a very logical manner. His listening experience is quite comprehensive. Being a critic, his talents for communication and persuasion based on his tastes are what we enjoy musing over.


He is a total dilettante and a musical hack, and should be exposed as such. His outsized influence on the world of classical music recording collectors is absurdly outsized, a deplorable state of affairs to say the least. His writing literally defines the word pretentious.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

jackpoint188 said:


> He knows what he likes about performances and can explain why in a very logical manner. His listening experience is quite comprehensive. Being a critic, his talents for communication and persuasion based on his tastes are what we enjoy musing over.


I enjoyed Hurwitz' early musings and gained some insight from several of his videos. Unfortunately, he's turned into, or perhaps he always was, a wisened old hack, churning out predictable and sometimes vicious nonsense, most notably in his crusade against HIP. I stopped subscribing some time ago, and that was several months too late.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The problem with arguing over metronome tempi is this : composers change their minds . When conducting their own music, they have been known to play them at different tempi at different times . Just look at Stravinsky's different recordings of Le Scare Du Printemps he made at different points in his life . He does not take exactly the same tempi in these recordings . 
This is why Brahms, for example, rejected the idea of metronome markings . He felt. that his works could be played at different tempi , and did so when conducting his own symphonies . 
This is because he felt. differently about which tempi to use depending on his mood at the time . Sometimes he felt like faster ones , sometimes he felt. like slower ones .
Beethoven himself declared " The metronome is a ridiculous thing . One has to FEEL the tempi" ( or words to that effect. translated from German , a language with which I'm quite familiar ) .


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

"Le Scare du Printemps" indeed. Please tell us you meant that. 

On the subject of Gardiner, a cellist I knew years back who had played under Gardiner's baton expressed the view that "Gardiner has two tempi: too fast and too ***** fast".


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Knorf said:


> He is a total dilettante and a musical hack, and should be exposed as such. His outsized influence on the world of classical music recording collectors is absurdly outsized, a deplorable state of affairs to say the least. His writing literally defines the word pretentious.


In his reviews, he often stresses those are his personal opinions so that is fair, but his strongly opinionated preferences and use of irrational words are not what a professional critic will do. But then he is not a critic. He is a celebrity.

People in general like to be entertained, and that is what celebrities are for. There are many ways to entertain people. To play circus clown is one way. To infuriate people to induce scorns is another. The important thing is, a successful celebrity always makes people talk about him. I think that is essentially what he is.

Do record collectors take his words seriously? I do not know the full picture, but from what I have read across different media including TC, some do and some don't and it is certainly not one-sided. But then, people are free to believe what they want to believe after all.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I can't say I've heard much by Gardiner I thought better than anyone else. He has a shtick and is beloved by many but not me. I liked his Gluck Don Juan, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and a little of his Haydn but not much more. I thought Roger Norrington's 1985 Beethoven symphonies twice as good as Gardiner though his Ninth took some getting used to.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_He is a total dilettante and a musical hack, and should be exposed as such. His outsized influence on the world of classical music recording collectors is absurdly outsized, a deplorable state of affairs to say the least. His writing literally defines the word pretentious. _

that may be a bit over the top but Hurwitz has little or no influence on most classical music collectors. Most people that accept his conclusions then try them out for themselves soon learn he has individual tastes far from the mainstream. I once heard him say Georg Solti's Chicago recording was the best of Bruckner's Second Symphony. This was as absurd a statement as I've ever heard about a conductor totally out of sync and sympathy with that composer.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There is a lot of Gardiner I have not heard but I think he is now sometimes treated a bit unfairly, maybe because his recordings dominated unduly for some time. 
Gardiner made quite a few recordings from the 70s to the 90s that were about the best back then and some still hold up quite well. Naturally, for Bach or Mozart there is a lot of competition but his Purcell (King Arthur, odes, incidental music, Fairy Queen...) and a lot of Handel (Saul, Solomon, Alexander's Feast, L'allegro...) from that time, also Gluck (both Iphigenie operas) and probably some others are often still competitive with the best, I'd say.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Animal the Drummer said:


> "Le Scare du Printemps" indeed. Please tell us you meant that.
> 
> On the subject of Gardiner, a cellist I knew years back who had played under Gardiner's baton expressed the view that "Gardiner has two tempi: too fast and too ***** fast".


 Nope ! Finger slip ! But I played it at Queens college, New York under Joann Faletta years ago before she became really famous , and it IS a real scare to play . Even more than a century after the legendary Paris premiere under Pierre Monteux , it's. a huge challenge to play rhythmically . But we in the orchestra , a pickup group called the "Queens Philharmonic " got through it without any disasters , and the audience was very enthusiastic !


----------

