# What's your favorite "Eroica" recording?



## Itullian

Beethoven that is


----------



## Hausmusik

Itullian, I find many Eroica recordings disappointing. It seems to be a hard one to get right. MTT's video performance with the SFF is a superb one. My favorite on CD so far is Bernstein: NYPO. Most others just don't bring the chills for me.


----------



## JCarmel

The best Eroica on disc I have heard was that conducted by Erich Kleiber with the Vienna Philharmonic. It was played to me regularly during my childhood by my Dad, on an Decca 'Ace of Clubs' LP....it bristled with energy.









So many of the 'Ace of Clubs' LPs were really memorable recordings ....and _most_ coincidentally tonight, I have been listening to a cd issue by Dutton of one of those very LP recordings from my youth. It is of a performance of the Mendelssohn Concerto by a violinist rarely mentioned today....Alfredo Campoli... but I liked his recording conducted by Eduard Van Beinum... very much when I was a child and I'm pleased to say, I still do.


----------



## rrudolph

I like the Hogwood/ Academy of Ancient Music recording. It has the sort of energy and edge that I think Beethoven would have liked.


----------



## KenOC

Just listened to six versions of the first movement. Last place, Klemperer (Beethoven as Bruckner). First place, Gardiner and maybe a tie with Chailly.

Also recommend the Ensemble 28 recording, which is very much in the same spirit as Gardiner.


----------



## ptr

I'm undecided, tonight it is Jordi Savall!










Tomorrow someone else...

/ptr


----------



## bigshot

That one belongs to Toscanini.


----------



## Manxfeeder

bigshot said:


> That one belongs to Toscanini.


Which one? Personally, I'm partial to 10/28/39.


----------



## bigshot

Is that the one with the BBC orchestra?


----------



## moody

JCarmel said:


> The best Eroica on disc I have heard was that conducted by Erich Kleiber with the Vienna Philharmonic. It was played to me regularly during my childhood by my Dad, on an Decca 'Ace of Clubs' LP....it bristled with energy.
> 
> View attachment 13233
> 
> 
> So many of the 'Ace of Clubs' LPs were really memorable recordings ....and _most_ coincidentally tonight, I have been listening to a cd issue by Dutton of one of those very LP recordings from my youth. It is of a performance of the Mendelssohn Concerto by a violinist rarely mentioned today....Alfredo Campoli... but I liked his recording conducted by Eduard Van Beinum, of the Concerto when I was a child and I'm pleased to say, I still do.
> 
> View attachment 13234


Let me assure you that I mention him often and I have most of his recordings.
He was even a member of my Bridge club in Thame,UK.
Have you noticed how many musicians play Bridge ?


----------



## DavidA

Toscanini is tremendous but the recording does vitiate his reading.

Klemperer (1957) has a tremendous Marcia Funabre.

Gardiner is good.

Chailly is swift. The recording is brilliant. I haven't yet decided on the performance.

For the best all round I would recommend Karajan. 63, 77, even '85. All good.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love Jordi Savall's version. 

I can't tolerate Erich Kleiber and VPO's version (from the late '50s methinks)


----------



## joen_cph

Hermann Scherchen.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I love Jordi Savall's version.
> 
> I can't tolerate Erich Kleiber and VPO's version (from the late '50s methinks)


Sorry to hear you can't tolerate him,just shows how poor my judgement must be.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> Sorry to hear you can't tolerate him,just shows how poor my judgement must be.


Nah. Shows that the bromide "It takes all kinds" is applicable to preferences in music - not exactly a revelation, eh?

I like both of those recordings. At present I prefer to hear the Savall; it 'freshens the music' for me.


----------



## JCarmel

I haven't heard the Jordi Savall interpretation, so I cannot judge between it and the Kleiber. Nor in truth, can I say categorically that I now prefer the Kleiber version to all other more recent recordings.....it may well show it's age and it is literally many decades since I have heard it. I was merely recording that as a child, I loved listening to the Kleiber and like so many things associated with our early years, have a vivid memory of it....and that is the spirit in which I responded to the thread.


----------



## Itullian

so far my favorites are
Klemperer emi, stereo
Bohm dgg


----------



## Guest

I like a broad variety of interpretations here.

Szell/Cleveland
Klemperer
Gardiner
Hogwood
Vanska
van Immerseel


----------



## Hausmusik

Dr. Mike, funny, I know only 4 of your 6, and of them, two are among my faves and two among my least faves! Szell and Vanska fail to give this listener the goosebumps at the right moments in the funeral march and especially the finale. Also, Vanska is recorded with an impractically wide dynamic range so can only be appreciated with headphones. But Hogwood and Gardiner are both near the top of my list.


----------



## Guest

Hausmusik said:


> Dr. Mike, funny, I know only 4 of your 6, and of them, two are among my faves and two among my least faves! Szell and Vanska fail to give this listener the goosebumps at the right moments in the funeral march and especially the finale. Also, Vanska is recorded with an impractically wide dynamic range so can only be appreciated with headphones. But Hogwood and Gardiner are both near the top of my list.


Hmmm, I listen to most of my music through headphones, so maybe that explains it. 
If you like Hogwood and Gardiner, you might like van Immerseel with Anima Eterna on the Zig Zag label. It is also a HIP recording, with perhaps the fastest tempo I have heard.


----------



## moody

i find it mystifying that "music lovers ?" appear to shun oldish,old and ancient recordings.
Of course if you only want to hear the tunes fine...buy last week's new release by William Havergesse (yes,he's back).
But how are you going to know how the great artists from the past "did it",by reading about it ?
Who cares whether a great performance is in hi-fi,who cares whether Caruso is in acoustic sound--you want Pavarotti and his two friends ? Good luck to you then,don't let it be said that I would ever be critical,as we know so well everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I think that both Toscanini and Szell give marvellous performances,just listen to their orchestras,i also find Giulini and the Los Angeles Orchestra interesting.
But i also like to listen to a very emotional occasion that was recorded live. A memorial concert for Toscanini was given at Carnegie Hall,February 3rd,1957.
The orchestra was his NBC Symphony now retitled Symphony of the Air and the conductor was Bruno Walter and they played the "Eroica".


The One-Eyed Man.


----------



## bigshot

The 1939 Toscanini/BBC Beethoven symphonies have fine sound quality. No problems with those.


----------



## realdealblues

I can only get it down to a "Top 10"

(No particular order)

Wilhelm Furtwangler/Berlin (1952)
George Szell/Cleveland
Pierre Monteux/Vienna
Otto Klemperer/Philharmonia
Herbert Von Karajan/Berlin (60's)
Leonard Bernstein/NYPO
Rafael Kubelik/Berlin
Karl Bohm/Vienna
Rudolph Kempe/Munich
Gunter Wand/NDR


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> i find it mystifying that "music lovers ?" appear to shun oldish,old and ancient recordings.
> Of course if you only want to hear the tunes fine...buy last week's new release by William Havergesse (yes,he's back).
> But how are you going to know how the great artists from the past "did it",by reading about it ?
> Who cares whether a great performance is in hi-fi,who cares whether Caruso is in acoustic sound--you want Pavarotti and his two friends ? Good luck to you then,don't let it be said that I would ever be critical,as we know so well everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> I think that both Toscanini and Szell give marvellous performances,just listen to their orchestras,i also find Giulini and the Los Angeles Orchestra interesting.
> But i also like to listen to a very emotional occasion that was recorded live. A memorial concert for Toscanini was given at Carnegie Hall,February 3rd,1957.
> The orchestra was his NBC Symphony now retitled Symphony of the Air and the conductor was Bruno Walter and they played the "Eroica".
> 
> The One-Eyed Man.


I must confess that it does matter to me that recordings are in good sound. I have some Toscanini recordings - quite a few in fact - but there are times when one has simply to take what he is doing on trust as the recordings are simply not hi-fi. You cannot hear too much of what is actually going on.
Now when you listen to the new Chailly recordings the sound knocks you off your feet. That is, to me, one of the pleasures of listening to music - to hear the thing in decent sound. This has no reflection on the interpretation but my enjoyment is limited if the sound is primitive.

BTW I think at least two out of the three tenors you mention with distain were every bit as good as Caruso.

I do have a problem with Guilini's Eroica as Beethoven marked the first movement 'Allegro con brio'!


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> i find it mystifying that "music lovers ?" appear to shun oldish,old and ancient recordings.
> Of course if you only want to hear the tunes fine...buy last week's new release by William Havergesse (yes,he's back).
> But how are you going to know how the great artists from the past "did it",by reading about it ?
> Who cares whether a great performance is in hi-fi,who cares whether Caruso is in acoustic sound--you want Pavarotti and his two friends ? Good luck to you then,don't let it be said that I would ever be critical,as we know so well everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> I think that both Toscanini and Szell give marvellous performances,just listen to their orchestras,i also find Giulini and the Los Angeles Orchestra interesting.
> But i also like to listen to a very emotional occasion that was recorded live. A memorial concert for Toscanini was given at Carnegie Hall,February 3rd,1957.
> The orchestra was his NBC Symphony now retitled Symphony of the Air and the conductor was Bruno Walter and they played the "Eroica".
> 
> The One-Eyed Man.


I agree to a point, but I think there are extremes on the other end as well, with people thinking that good music died with the advent of stereo recording. Many people seem to think that the better recording quality has somehow made the music "sterile" and devoid of emotion, which seemingly was only achieved by conductors that died before imparting to us recordings of wonderful clarity.

I find enjoyment in both old and new. And I don't view it as a zero sum game - I don't have to like one at the exclusion of the other. I can enjoy both for what they are. I can enjoy a fast-paced Beethoven 3 from Gardiner, Hogwood, and van Immerseel, as well as a slower one from Klemperer. It all depends on the mood in which I find myself when I go to make my selection.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I must confess that it does matter to me that recordings are in good sound. I have some Toscanini recordings - quite a few in fact - but there are times when one has simply to take what he is doing on trust as the recordings are simply not hi-fi. You cannot hear too much of what is actually going on.
> Now when you listen to the new Chailly recordings the sound knocks you off your feet. That is, to me, one of the pleasures of listening to music - to hear the thing in decent sound. This has no reflection on the interpretation but my enjoyment is limited if the sound is primitive.
> 
> BTW I think at least two out of the three tenors you mention with distain were every bit as good as Caruso.
> 
> I do have a problem with Guilini's Eroica as Beethoven marked the first movement 'Allegro con brio'!


The great tenor Lauri-Volpi was asked the usual question about tenors and said . " First you put Caruso on one side and then you may look at the others".
The two you mention come nowhere within shouting distance of Caruso and the only person who ever did was Gigli,but he was really different in any case.
i have never heard any disagreement regarding Caruso being the greatest and neither have you because there has been none ever, that is the one thing in the music world that is a constant.
You are right about Giulini,but i said he was interesting that's all.


----------



## bigshot

I have a theory on why some people think older recordings sound bad. I think it has a lot to do with headphones and satellite speaker systems that are designed with a frequency response to suit modern rock music.

I've spent a long time equalizing my speaker system, and I've found a stone flat response makes everything sound good. I've figured out a few things about what can go out of whack that can make historical recordings sound like mush. Specifically...

If historical recordings sound "boomy", odds are the headphones have a mid bass bump around 200 Hz. A lot of rock headphones do this to add extra body to the bass, especially if they have trouble reproducing the frequencies below that.

If historical recordings sound muffled, the frequencies between 3-8kHz are reduced. This is sometimes done in headphones that have extreme treble and bass for hip hop music, or with speaker systems goosed for home theater.

If historical recordings sound shrill and piercing, odds are the upper mids around 2-3kHz are boosted. Again, this is done with rock headphones to make the snare drum and electric guitar clearer. It's also common in satellite speaker systems with tiny little mains and inadequate subwoofers.

Along the same lines, if someone thinks digital sound has a high frequency "whistle" or "digital sheen", odds are their highs between 8-14kHz are boosted. Older recordings will start rolling off around here, so it wouldn't be a problem, but full range recordings will reveal the flaw.

I have the big boxes of Toscanini, Furtwangler and smaller boxes of Beecham, Walter and many others from the pre-hifi era. They all sound very good and totally listenable on my system. Flat response in the middle is critical to making historical recordings sound best.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> The great tenor Lauri-Volpi was asked the usual question about tenors and said . " First you put Caruso on one side and then you may look at the others".
> The two you mention come nowhere within shouting distance of Caruso and the only person who ever did was Gigli,but he was really different in any case.
> i have never heard any disagreement regarding Caruso being the greatest and neither have you because there has been none ever, that is the one thing in the music world that is a constant.
> You are right about Giulini,but i said he was interesting that's all.


I have also never heard anything but praise for Pavarotti's incredible instrument. He was an utter phenomenon as a singer of the mainly lighter roles in Italian opera. I can never imagine, for example, Rudolfo's music being sung any better. Or the butterfly duet.
That's not saying Caruso wasn't a great singer in his day. But we can only judge him through the means of exceedingly primitive recordings. 
As for Domingo, the sheer range of his roles mark him as achieving something Caruso never did. 
And because they are popular should not rule them out. Caruso would have been the first to sign up for a 'three tenors' night if he had had the chance!


----------



## davinci

Kleiber / Royal Concertgebouw 1950
Karajan / BPO 1960s
Karajan / VPO 1984
Furtwangler / VPO 1950s
Gardiner
Bernstein / VPO 1980 (chose this one from memory)


----------



## Guest

I still enjoy the first I bought - Haitink, LSO, 2002 (I think).

Mind you, I need to listen to the Toscanini more, and I also recorded Barenboim at the Proms last year.

Now I have new floorstanders (Tannoy Mercury V4) I hope to be better able to judge whether old or new recordings are 'better' (to _my _ears of course).


----------



## bigshot

I saw Pavarotti in recital, and I have an upright Victrola and stacks of original 78s of Caruso. Pavarotti was pretty special, but hearing Caruso is electrifying. On an acoustic phonograph it's entirely different than hearing him on CD. I've played Caruso records for people who have never heard him or an acoustic phonograph. Usually about a minute into the record, they get a dumbfounded look on their face and their eyes go wide. No one ever speaks while Caruso sings. After the record ends, they all say the same thing- wow. It's fun to watch.

It's not impossible to get an idea of what Caruso sounded like. He single handedly established the Victor Talking Machine company and sold millions of records, some of which cost the better part of an average worker's weekly paycheck for four minutes of Caruso. Those records are a pretty good sample of his incredible voice.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I have also never heard anything but praise for Pavarotti's incredible instrument. He was an utter phenomenon as a singer of the mainly lighter roles in Italian opera. I can never imagine, for example, Rudolfo's music being sung any better. Or the butterfly duet.
> That's not saying Caruso wasn't a great singer in his day. But we can only judge him through the means of exceedingly primitive recordings.
> As for Domingo, the sheer range of his roles mark him as achieving something Caruso never did.
> And because they are popular should not rule them out. Caruso would have been the first to sign up for a 'three tenors' night if he had had the chance!


Pavarotti was certainly a phenomenon :any observable occurence---but he was also a very good tenor.
In the realms of Puccini he is up agaist Gigli,Ferrucio Tagliavini, Jussi Bjorling and John McCormack,formidable competition indeed.
The first two and Bjorling can be heard in complete perfomances of course and I think that both Gigli and Tagliavini prove superior in their roles. 
Not to mention Caruso himself of course and he sung Boheme at La scala with Toscanini.
As for the primitive recordings you mention,this is not the fact as indicated by bigshot above.
The human voice always recorded well luckily for it was Caruso who was responsible for success of the phonograph through the "phenomenol" sales of his recordings.
But it depends on who was responsible for the transfers (unless you are listening to the original shellac,which is preferable ) and the equipment used.
But ignorance of the truth did not stop me when I was very young and I thought that Mario Lanza was the greatest !
I note that it was Lanza's film "the Great Caruso " that set Carreras and Domingo on their future paths. Me too,but i didn't become a famous tenor.
We could venture back even further to the last chance to hear what bel canto singing was and that is through the recordings of the tenor Fernando de lucia.
With him you may hear how a bel canto singer treated an aria as a frame and added from his own repertoire of ornaments,embellishments,graces,roulades,trills,portamenti,arpeggios,octave skips,melodic deviations and alterations,variations,cadences and so on.
His Puccini singing is very interesting and one can only feel sad that everything is now so plain.
These are the reasons for listening to old recordings,but as I've said if you only want the tunes in hi-hi and the rustling of the score as the singers turn the pages--well there is nothing wrong with that.
Caruso,by the way,sung all the popular songs of the day including some in English,that was farly common.
Lastly perhaps you would enlarge upon the sheer volume of Domingo's roles.
We are of course off the subject of this thread somewhat you know.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> Pavarotti was certainly a phenomenon :any observable occurence---but he was also a very good tenor.
> In the realms of Puccini he is up agaist Gigli,Ferrucio Tagliavini, Jussi Bjorling and John McCormack,formidable competition indeed.
> The first two and Bjorling can be heard in complete perfomances of course and I think that both Gigli and Tagliavini prove superior in their roles.
> Not to mention Caruso himself of course and he sung Boheme at La scala with Toscanini.
> As for the primitive recordings you mention,this is not the fact as indicated by bigshot above.
> The human voice always recorded well luckily for it was Caruso who was responsible for success of the phonograph through the "phenomenol" sales of his recordings.
> But it depends on who was responsible for the transfers (unless you are listening to the original shellac,which is preferable ) and the equipment used.
> But ignorance of the truth did not stop me when I was very young and I thought that Mario Lanza was the greatest !
> I note that it was Lanza's film "the Great Caruso " that set Carreras and Domingo on their future paths. Me too,but i didn't become a famous tenor.
> We could venture back even further to the last chance to hear what bel canto singing was and that is through the recordings of the tenor Fernando de lucia.
> With him you may hear how a bel canto singer treated an aria as a frame and added from his own repertoire of ornaments,embellishments,graces,roulades,trills,portamenti,arpeggios,octave skips,melodic deviations and alterations,variations,cadences and so on.
> His Puccini singing is very interesting and one can only feel sad that everything is now so plain.
> These are the reasons for listening to old recordings,but as I've said if you only want the tunes in hi-hi and the rustling of the score as the singers turn the pages--well there is nothing wrong with that.
> Caruso,by the way,sung all the popular songs of the day including some in English,that was farly common.
> Lastly perhaps you would enlarge upon the sheer volume of Domingo's roles.
> We are of course off the subject of this thread somewhat you know.


I don't think you are so ignorant as to be unaware of the sheer numbers of Domingo's different roles - quite phenomenal. 
I've no doubt that there were great singers in the past. No problem.
What does get me is the implication that they all happened in the dim and distant and no-one has since emerged since the days of stereo. It can become an inverse kind of snobbery.
As a lad when I used to watch cricket you'd find the old men saying that in W G Grace's day Ian Botham wouldn't even be in the second team.
Or talking to the afficianados of boxing, that Mohammed Ali wouldn't have gone a round with John L Sullivan.
Let's celelbrate the past, but don't try and kid me that all the great musicians lived back then.
In my own lifetime I have known such tenors as Vinay, Corelli, Vickers, Bergonzi, etc as well as 'the three' all who would have been celebrated in any age.
But as you say we are off the subject!


----------



## Hausmusik

DavidA said:


> I've no doubt that there were great singers in the past. No problem.
> What does get me is the implication that they all happened in the dim and distant and no-one has since emerged since the days of stereo. It can become an inverse kind of snobbery.


Well said.


----------



## Ukko

Originally Posted by DavidA 
"I've no doubt that there were great singers in the past. No problem.
What does get me is the implication that they all happened in the dim and distant and no-one has since emerged since the days of stereo. It can become an inverse kind of snobbery."



Hausmusik said:


> Well said.


Hmph. All I know fer sure is that a 'new' Ferrier hasn't shown up yet; and I really wish she would.


----------



## moody

You can't compare W.G.Grace but you compare singers--why don't you try listening and then you will see.
You mention some tenors but the only one of them to be taken seriously is Bergonzi.
Also you seem to have a fixation regarding snobbery that I've noticed before, I would drop it if i were you.


----------



## moody

W.G Grace was biggest in English cricket in the year 1878 so the guys you heard must have been pretty old !!


----------



## Itullian

the 3 cant touch Bjoerling, Gigli or DiStefano
to name a few.
mho


----------



## Manxfeeder

bigshot said:


> Is that the one with the BBC orchestra?


Sorry for the late reply. It's the NBC Symphony. But I got mine from the BBC Music Magazine.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You can't compare W.G.Grace but you compare singers--why don't you try listening and then you will see.
> You mention some tenors but the only one of them to be taken seriously is Bergonzi.
> Also you seem to have a fixation regarding snobbery that I've noticed before, I would drop it if i were you.


You do realise that you are not the only one who has been endowed with a pair of ears! One problem in discussing things with you is that you consider your opinion to be the only one that matters and that those who disagree with you are somehow deficient. To say 'the only one to be taken seriously is Bergonzi' is simply ridiculous! Don't you realise that Vinay was chaosen to sing Otello by Toscanini or perhaps he was also deficient in hearing!

As my remarks regarding snobbery, why get so defensive about it?

But we are well off the subject now so let's agree to differ.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> W.G Grace was biggest in English cricket in the year 1878 so the guys you heard must have been pretty old !!


They were - very old and I was very young. They also had a tendency to wallow in the glories of the past.


----------



## OldListener

Does anybody have anything to say about the 'Eroica' symphony?


----------



## DavidA

There is an extremely entertaining film called 'Eroica' where the symphony is played (in a gripping performance) by Gardiner and his band. I do know the film is not the last word in historical accuracy but it does give an idea of the shock the music must have given to the first hearers. Also a good portrait of what Beethoven may have been like - pretty impossible!


----------



## JCarmel

Yes! Last year on 'Sky Arts 2' Michael Tilson Thomas conducted a really good one! Worth catching if the series 'Keeping Score 'comes around again...(and from my experience of Sky Arts, that's a near certainty!)

http://skyarts.sky.com/keeping-score


----------



## Ukko

bigshot said:


> I saw Pavarotti in recital, and I have an upright Victrola and stacks of original 78s of Caruso. Pavarotti was pretty special, but hearing Caruso is electrifying. On an acoustic phonograph it's entirely different than hearing him on CD. I've played Caruso records for people who have never heard him or an acoustic phonograph. Usually about a minute into the record, they get a dumbfounded look on their face and their eyes go wide. No one ever speaks while Caruso sings. After the record ends, they all say the same thing- wow. It's fun to watch.
> 
> It's not impossible to get an idea of what Caruso sounded like. He single handedly established the Victor Talking Machine company and sold millions of records, some of which cost the better part of an average worker's weekly paycheck for four minutes of Caruso. Those records are a pretty good sample of his incredible voice.


Your acoustic-palyed-on-acoustic experience mirrors that of a onetime poster to rmcr. He used to haul his wind-up Victrola console to a local plaza to entertain the shoppers. When I was a pre-teen I had a console Graphanola. If I could have calibrated it's RPMs... .


----------



## TheVioletKing

Bernstein!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> There is an extremely entertaining film called 'Eroica' where the symphony is played (in a gripping performance) by Gardiner and his band. I do know the film is not the last word in historical accuracy but it does give an idea of the shock the music must have given to the first hearers. Also a good portrait of what Beethoven may have been like - pretty impossible!


Yes, it's a fun film. It's not so much historically inaccurate as it pulls together quite a few events and comments that didn't really take place at the first performance of the Eroica. And it has convinced many people that Haydn was actually there! Maybe because it would have been so great to hear what he would have said...


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> I've no doubt that there were great singers in the past. No problem. What does get me is the implication that they all happened in the dim and distant and no-one has since emerged since the days of stereo. It can become an inverse kind of snobbery.


The truth is, opera was MUCH more a part of the average person's everyday lives in Caruso's time than it is now. It shouldn't be surprising that the quality of singing in the operatic style was better back then. There's always a standout talent in any age. But for one of those once in a century talents to thrive, it takes a strong backing from culture and the appreciation of a wide audience to put the finishing edge on it. Truly great opera singers don't appear in a cultural vacuum.

Caruso was a superstar. His records represented his incredible talent to the entire world. Even the "Three Tenors" didn't reach the level of popular acceptance that Caruso did.

I think the same could be said of conductors and instrumentalists. Back in the day, Bugs Bunny did impressions of Leopold Stokowski and Heifetz made jokes about Jack Benny's violin playing. Classical music was a part of mainstream culture, not an obscure backwater populated by ephemerists.


----------



## Hausmusik

bigshot said:


> It shouldn't be surprising that the quality of singing in the operatic style was better back then. There's always a standout talent in any age. But for one of those once in a century talents to thrive, it takes a strong backing from culture and the appreciation of a wide audience to put the finishing edge on it. Truly great opera singers don't appear in a cultural vacuum.


Also well said.


----------



## bigshot

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your acoustic-palyed-on-acoustic experience mirrors that of a onetime poster to rmcr. He used to haul his wind-up Victrola console to a local plaza to entertain the shoppers.


I used to take my suitcase Victrola and my chihuahua dog out to the patio outside a local Starbucks. I had an old lady ask me if I had any Caruso records. I did. By the time the record was over, her face was covered in tears. In contrast, a high school kid once asked me "what kind of musical instrument is that?" He couldn't believe it didn't have a power plug!


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> The truth is, opera was MUCH more a part of the average person's everyday lives in Caruso's time than it is now. It shouldn't be surprising that the quality of singing in the operatic style was better back then. There's always a standout talent in any age. But for one of those once in a century talents to thrive, it takes a strong backing from culture and the appreciation of a wide audience to put the finishing edge on it. Truly great opera singers don't appear in a cultural vacuum.
> 
> Caruso was a superstar. His records represented his incredible talent to the entire world. Even the "Three Tenors" didn't reach the level of popular acceptance that Caruso did.
> 
> I think the same could be said of conductors and instrumentalists. Back in the day, Bugs Bunny did impressions of Leopold Stokowski and Heifetz made jokes about Jack Benny's violin playing. Classical music was a part of mainstream culture, not an obscure backwater populated by ephemerists.


But is this actually true? Perhaps many middle class people might have a piano and thump out the odd aria or two. But did ordinary people go to the opera any more than they do now? Interesting that the composer Howard Goodall has said recently that years ago one might only heAr your favourite symphony four or five times in your life. Of course broadcasting and the recording has changed all that. What it has also done is to make the public far more aware that a certain standard is of performance is required. Even in my time the standards of playing have risen tremendously. Whereas before players could get away with playing wrong notes and few people would notice, the merciless exposure of recording brings the inevitable raising of standards. Of course every generation throws up a standout performer such as Caruso or Heifetz. But I am in absolutely no doubt that the general standard of playing and singing has risen through the years and is higher today than it has ever been.


----------



## moody

Quotes On Caruso'

Richard Tauber. I treasure Caruso's records as the greatest lessons any singer could possibly have. None of us living tenors could possibly stand any comparison with that voice.

Rosa Ponselle. When you speak of tenors you have to divide them into two groups.Caruso is in the first group and all the rest are in the second group.

Tulio Serafin. I have encountered three miracles, Tita Ruffo.Rosa Ponselle and Caruso.

Giovanni Martinelli. Put Gigli,Lauri-Volpi and me together---make one tenor---and we would not be fit to kiss Caruso's shoes.

Puccini. Who sent you to me,God himself ?

Caruso had a repertoire of seventy operas,I have no idea of Domingo's but i doubt it was as big.

Pavarotti made a recording of a tribute song about Caruso I'm told.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> But is this actually true? Perhaps many middle class people might have a piano and thump out the odd aria or two. But did ordinary people go to the opera any more than they do now? Interesting that the composer Howard Goodall has said recently that years ago one might only heAr your favourite symphony four or five times in your life. Of course broadcasting and the recording has changed all that. What it has also done is to make the public far more aware that a certain standard is of performance is required. Even in my time the standards of playing have risen tremendously. Whereas before players could get away with playing wrong notes and few people would notice, the merciless exposure of recording brings the inevitable raising of standards. Of course every generation throws up a standout performer such as Caruso or Heifetz. But I am in absolutely no doubt that the general standard of playing and singing has risen through the years and is higher today than it has ever been.


You have listened to recordings made over the last 100 years and come to this conclusion have you ?


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> But is this actually true? Perhaps many middle class people might have a piano and thump out the odd aria or two. But did ordinary people go to the opera any more than they do now?


Well, I can tell you a bit of interesting trivia on Caruso... When I go to thrift stores, the most common acoustic classical records I find are the Lucia Sextet and the Rigoletto Quartet. Every stack of 78s I see has these two records in them. These records sold so many copies that even today, 100 years after they were originally sold, they are so common they sell for 50 cents to a buck. But when they were released, they sold for $4.50 apiece. Calculating for inflation, that comes out to over $100 in 2013 dollars. $100 for four minutes of Caruso- "Vesti la Giubba" cost $50 in current dollars, and "O Solo Mio" cost $25- and millions of people plunked it down willingly!

But that isn't all. Largely because of Caruso, nearly every family sold their piano and bought a Victrola. The entry level model (the one I own) cost $75. Factoring for inflation, that comes out to over $1,700. Caruso didn't own a phonograph himself, so Victor sent him a hand made gold plated one. With it came a note telling him that his records were responsible for selling Victor phonographs around the world. Every year, Victor published "The Victor Book of the Opera" with details on operas and singers and a catalog of available recordings. Year after year the Victor Book was a best seller.

That ought to give you an idea of how much value people in the pre-WW1 era had for opera.

As for overall quality of singers today, I don't even think we can match the level of quality in the 1950s, much less the teens and twenties. And listening to Stokowski's earliest acoustic recordings with the Philadelphia orchestra (performed live in one continuous take per side) will convince you that the quality of conductors and orchestras certainly hasn't risen. Consider the fact that the performance you hear of Stoki doing the Tannhauser overture on CD was performed a 3 to 4 minute side at a time. He precisely judged his tempi and dynamics so when the sides are joined, they line up and flow through perfectly. The precision in these old recordings is just as impressive as the expression.

The thing that has improved is sound reproduction technology.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> You have listened to recordings made over the last 100 years and come to this conclusion have you ?


You act like this is a strange thing, _moody_. Many people are 'in absolutely no doubt' about many things that are at best unverifiable and often patently ridiculous. Why should your fellow Brit (I say again, your fellow Brit) be immune to folly?


----------



## AClockworkOrange

As far as recordings of Eroica are concerned, I would find it difficult to pick just one.

I tend to favour Furtwangler's interpretations of Beethoven's Symphonies. So if I were limited to one, I would say *Furtwangler/VPO*

However, I also really like the Tennestedt/LPO (a surprisingly close second place for me) and the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin recordings.

I do have the Kempe/Munich Philharmonic to listen to (in his EMI icons set) as well as the Solti/LSO from the BBC Legends series to listen to. Neither Conductor has disappointed me yet and I love Kempe's Strauss (especially Richard) so I should think these two performances will impress.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You have listened to recordings made over the last 100 years and come to this conclusion have you ?


The general overall standard of playing is much superior to when I started buying classical discs 50 years ago. As many of them were recorded during the 50s I can say the general overall (note the words I use) standard has risen in the last 60 years.


----------



## moody

AClockworkOrange said:


> As far as recordings of Eroica are concerned, I would find it difficult to pick just one.
> 
> I tend to favour Furtwangler's interpretations of Beethoven's Symphonies. So if I were limited to one, I would say *Furtwangler/VPO*
> 
> However, I also really like the Tennestedt/LPO (a surprisingly close second place for me) and the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin recordings.
> 
> I do have the Kempe/Munich Philharmonic to listen to (in his EMI icons set) as well as the Solti/LSO from the BBC Legends series to listen to. Neither Conductor has disappointed me yet and I love Kempe's Strauss (especially Richard) so I should think these two performances will impress.


I exclude Barenboim from my like.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> You act like this is a strange thing, _moody_. Many people are 'in absolutely no doubt' about many things that are at best unverifiable and often patently ridiculous. Why should your fellow Brit (I say again, your fellow Brit) be immune to folly?


You obviously know what folly is by personal experience!


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> Well, I can tell you a bit of interesting trivia on Caruso... When I go to thrift stores, the most common acoustic classical records I find are the Lucia Sextet and the Rigoletto Quartet. Every stack of 78s I see has these two records in them. These records sold so many copies that even today, 100 years after they were originally sold, they are so common they sell for 50 cents to a buck. But when they were released, they sold for $4.50 apiece. Calculating for inflation, that comes out to over $100 in 2013 dollars. $100 for four minutes of Caruso- "Vesti la Giubba" cost $50 in current dollars, and "O Solo Mio" cost $25- and millions of people plunked it down willingly!
> 
> But that isn't all. Largely because of Caruso, nearly every family sold their piano and bought a Victrola. The entry level model (the one I own) cost $75. Factoring for inflation, that comes out to over $1,700. Caruso didn't own a phonograph himself, so Victor sent him a hand made gold plated one. With it came a note telling him that his records were responsible for selling Victor phonographs around the world. Every year, Victor published "The Victor Book of the Opera" with details on operas and singers and a catalog of available recordings. Year after year the Victor Book was a best seller.
> 
> That ought to give you an idea of how much value people in the pre-WW1 era had for opera.
> 
> As for overall quality of singers today, I don't even think we can match the level of quality in the 1950s, much less the teens and twenties. And listening to Stokowski's earliest acoustic recordings with the Philadelphia orchestra (performed live in one continuous take per side) will convince you that the quality of conductors and orchestras certainly hasn't risen. Consider the fact that the performance you hear of Stoki doing the Tannhauser overture on CD was performed a 3 to 4 minute side at a time. He precisely judged his tempi and dynamics so when the sides are joined, they line up and flow through perfectly. The precision in these old recordings is just as impressive as the expression.
> 
> The thing that has improved is sound reproduction technology.


Interesting what you say. I would say, however, that the Philly under Stoki represented the cream of orchestras in the world at that time. Lesser orchestras were not up to their standard whereas now the general standard has risen remarkably. You even see it with amateur orchestras.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Caruso was not a great artist and singer. He obviously was. I just don't believe in relegating all that is good in music to the past.


----------



## Ukko

DavidA said:


> You obviously know what folly is by personal experience!


I sure do! I've screwed up many times, and so far have been unable to forget some of them.


----------



## OldListener

I enjoy many performances of the Eroica symphony. Right now, I'm listening to Szell/ Cleveland Orchestra from the Original Jackets set. The Savall performance has been a frequent choice in the last few years.

I like the Toscanini/NBC Symphony performance on the RCA set but it's hard for me to listen past the poor sound.

I like the "Eroica Variations' theme in all its uses. When I listen to it as one of the the Contradances, I appreciate the simple beauty of the original and am struck by the thought of what a powerful thing it would become in the symphony.

Bill


----------



## Manxfeeder

bigshot said:


> The 1939 Toscanini/BBC Beethoven symphonies have fine sound quality. No problems with those.


I'd have to agree. It does take an adjustment to get used to the non-modern-recorded sound and very dry acoustic, but it fades quickly. As far as the piece, I don't hear a loss of detail. And what he does to the piece overall is so compelling, at least to my ears, that it makes up for any deficiencies in the audio quality.


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> Interesting what you say. I would say, however, that the Philly under Stoki represented the cream of orchestras in the world at that time. Lesser orchestras were not up to their standard whereas now the general standard has risen remarkably. You even see it with amateur orchestras.


Perhaps the cream has declined in quality over time, while the average has risen. That seems to make total sense.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> Interesting what you say. I would say, however, that the Philly under Stoki represented the cream of orchestras in the world at that time. Lesser orchestras were not up to their standard whereas now the general standard has risen remarkably. You even see it with amateur orchestras.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Caruso was not a great artist and singer. He obviously was. I just don't believe in relegating all that is good in music to the past.


You can't just relegate anything,it's either the best or it is not.
In the case of Caruso all the critics and experts have I presume been wrong since 1921 in your eyes ?


----------



## AClockworkOrange

moody said:


> I exclude Barenboim from my like.


Barenboim can be hit and miss. I really cannot get into his latest Beethoven cycle with the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. I used to rate him quite highly but whilst I still enjoy much of his work, as I listen to different conductors I find myself favouring other conductors.

I also forgot to list Harnoncourt/Chamber Orchestra of Europe with the Kempe and Solti. I've listened to half of the Harnoncourt cycle and despite the orchestra size (a mental barrier on my part as it was Furtwangler who introduced my to Beethoven so it his approach I gravitate towards rather than HIP influenced performances and/or interpretations), I have enjoyed it so far.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Paavo Järvi's is awesome.


----------



## starthrower

I haven't listened to Eroica in 30 years. I have one recording by Karl Bohm on a vinyl box set I bought for 10 dollars in the early 80s.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

starthrower said:


> I haven't listened to Eroica in 30 years. I have one recording by Karl Bohm on a vinyl box set I bought for 10 dollars in the early 80s.


I got Karajan's 1963 on vynil in the early 2010s for _$2_ ut:


----------



## starthrower

Karajan? You paid too much!


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> Perhaps the cream has declined in quality over time, while the average has risen. That seems to make total sense.


No, that is not true. The playing today may be different but it is generally of a higher technical standard.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> You can't just relegate anything,it's either the best or it is not.
> In the case of Caruso all the critics and experts have I presume been wrong since 1921 in your eyes ?


I see now why you are impossible to discuss anything with. First you do not read what people say. I said I was not disputing that Caruso was a great artist. Secondly you are one of these people who believes in black and white opinions in matters which are by nature subjective. The very fact you quote a line up of critics means these things are subjective. If they were scientifically objective you would not need the critics to try and prove your point.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I see now why you are impossible to discuss anything with. First you do not read what people say. I said I was not disputing that Caruso was a great artist. Secondly you are one of these people who believes in black and white opinions in matters which are by nature subjective. The very fact you quote a line up of critics means these things are subjective. If they were scientifically objective you would not need the critics to try and prove your point.


These "things" are not subjective at all. You appear not to understand that singing is a technical thing and there is a right way and a wrong way,we should not be thinking of the acting or mood being put across in the first instance.But rather ,is this being sung properly by the person handling the roll ?John Vickers is one example that you mentioned and although admirable as an actor on stage his singing is monstrously faulty.
As far as I'm concerned that is what comes first. You would not say, I presume, that you love this particular violinist although his playing is faultily throughout the piece in hand would you and that is not subjective.
Strangely enough I think it is impossible for us to discuss this particular subjest because I see no sign that you have the knowledge required. Perhaps you would like to list the historical singers that you hold in your collection,I am quite happy to do so and also what books you may have on the subject.
Making mention of someone not reading things properly--I quoted no line up of critics at all.
I was always taught not to give opinions without the knowledge and proof to back my claims.
All you have to do in the case of Caruso as bigshot ,who is an expert on old recordigs and their playing and transferal,has said is to listen.Have you done that and if not why are we in discussion on the subject? I must say that i find it quite laughable that of all people whose credentials you may be questioning it is Caruso.
I'm also tryng to remember where I said that nothing since stereo was any good,perhaps you would jog my memory ?


----------



## Hausmusik

moody said:


> These "things" are not subjective at all.


Come now, that's an overstatement.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Come now, that's an overstatement.


In the sense that _moody_ is applying, it is not an overstatement; he is addressing _technique_. If perhaps you are more familiar with that term as commonly applied to pianists, there is a significant difference for a singer: the piano is replaced by the human body; that is your instrument. "Technique" covers everything that is done with/to the body to produce music.

Clearly, if your instrument is the equivalent of a toy piano, there is no point in undergoing the training and practice required to optimize the use of it. On the other extreme, if your instrument is the equivalent of a fine grand piano - and you haven't done the work to optimize your playing of it - you are the Vickers in _moody_'s post.

Sorry for belaboring the obvious; there's something about TC that brings on belaboring, must be.


----------



## Hausmusik

Except for the obvious point that even the greatest pianists and vocalists and so on are going to differ as to what constitutes good technique, and moreover determinations as to what consitutes good technique develop over time.

Take the example of Broadway vocal performance. In the pre-microphone era of the 1920s and 30s the ability to belt a note so that it reached the ears of the people seated in the last row of the balcony was the desired technical ability. It was the Age or Merman. That is obviously no longer the case, and a performer like Merman would be unlikely to have much of a career these days. So how good technique is defined changes over time, and at any given time there are no doubt disagreements.

I would be extremely surprised if this did not apply also to classical vocal performance.

So I maintain that the view that judgments about technique are "not subjective at all" but are purely objective is an overstatement. Please do not mistake me for saying that judgements of technique are purely subjective, however.

PS: We are way off topic here. Suggest someone starts a new thread if they wish to continue this discussion.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Except for the obvious point that even the greatest pianists and vocalists and so on are going to differ as to what constitutes good technique. So the idea that judgments about technique are "not subjective at all" is an overstatement, I have to insist.


I think your logic is a bit tweaked there (your 1 + 1 does = 2, but your 37 + 23 maybe = 57). I certainly don't object to your insistence. The impasse won't affect my peace of mind, or my digestion.


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think your logic is a bit tweaked there (your 1 + 1 does = 2, but your 37 + 23 maybe = 57).....


As a rebuttal to the specific points raised in my post, hilltroll, that pretty much couldn't be more nebulous. I'll just assume, as one does when scoring debate, that unanswered arguments are conceded. 

Anyway as you yourself wrote above, "Many people are 'in absolutely no doubt' about many things that are at best unverifiable and often patently ridiculous," and so I would think you'd be more in sympathy with my nuanced position than a categorical proposition along the lines of "These 'things' [i.e. technique] are _not _subjective _at all_" (emphasis added).

*Back on topic,* an excellent _Eroica _that has not yet (I think) been mentioned is Zinman: Tonhalle, coupled with an equally fine 4th. An overlooked gem. More hair-raising excitement than some of the rather bland performances recommended on here, like Szell: Cleveland and Barenboim: Berlin.


----------



## kv466

Wow,...this one is rough for me and anyone I imagine. I immediately go toward my boy Rene Leibowitz and The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. One that always sticks out for me, although I've only ever heard the allegro con brio, is a recording Sir Georg Solti made with the London Symphony Orchestra for the Immortal Beloved soundtrack. It's been a while but I remember it being right on point.

Someone here posted a youtube clip of at least 30 different intros from different conductors and orchestras. It's interesting to hear how the spacing is interpreted so differently from group to group. That and the variance in key depending on the instruments whether they're period or not or whatever. Thanks for posting. I haven't heard this symphony in a while and just might on my way to my afternoon gig today.


----------



## bigshot

Hausmusik said:


> Except for the obvious point that even the greatest pianists and vocalists and so on are going to differ as to what constitutes good technique, and moreover determinations as to what consitutes good technique develop over time.


The attributes of good vocal technique in opera don't change very much. If Caruso was alive today, he would be recognized for his voice just the same. Generally, the main difference between then and now is that now singers can get away with sloppiness that would have been torn to shreds back in the day.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> These "things" are not subjective at all. You appear not to understand that singing is a technical thing and there is a right way and a wrong way,we should not be thinking of the acting or mood being put across in the first instance.But rather ,is this being sung properly by the person handling the roll ?John Vickers is one example that you mentioned and although admirable as an actor on stage his singing is monstrously faulty.
> As far as I'm concerned that is what comes first. You would not say, I presume, that you love this particular violinist although his playing is faultily throughout the piece in hand would you and that is not subjective.
> Strangely enough I think it is impossible for us to discuss this particular subjest because I see no sign that you have the knowledge required. Perhaps you would like to list the historical singers that you hold in your collection,I am quite happy to do so and also what books you may have on the subject.
> Making mention of someone not reading things properly--I quoted no line up of critics at all.
> I was always taught not to give opinions without the knowledge and proof to back my claims.
> All you have to do in the case of Caruso as bigshot ,who is an expert on old recordigs and their playing and transferal,has said is to listen.Have you done that and if not why are we in discussion on the subject? I must say that i find it quite laughable that of all people whose credentials you may be questioning it is Caruso.
> I'm also tryng to remember where I said that nothing since stereo was any good,perhaps you would jog my memory ?


Can you read? If you can you would find I have not questioned Caruso's credentials as a singer.

The fact is all criticism is somewhat subjective. To say it is not is laughable. Of course, there are some things that are objective such as playing or singing the right notes. But the wide range of opinion on music, musicians and singers is huge. Which critics are right? You, for one? What happens when two critics give opposite views of a performance? Were they at the same concert? Yes! They heard the same notes but it just so happens they had different reactions. These things, dear sir, are subjective.
Just take the said Jon Vickers, for example. Of his recital disc, the distinguished critic, Andrew Porter (quoted by you, I remember, as an oracle) said, "This is marvellous" and went on to talk about Vickers "Caruso-like singing." Porter also praised Vickers as "the most exciting tenor in the second half of the 20th century"
Opera writer John Steane said that Vickers, like Caruso, was so great that it's almost as if he dropped in from another planet.
Now who is right and who is wrong? 
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs. I'm just saying that if we are honest, criticism is subjective. Some people raved about Vickers' Grimes. Others (including the composer) could not abide it. It's not that there are rights and wrongs but opinions on a subjective subject. I'm afraid when we consider ourselves objective on such matters we are self-deceived. In fact, the very reason for this forum, giving opinions on music, is subjectivity. It musical performance were not subjective, as you suppose, then there would be no need for this forum as every opinion would be the same.


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> The attributes of good vocal technique in opera don't change very much. If Caruso was alive today, he would be recognized for his voice just the same. Generally, the main difference between then and now is that now singers can get away with sloppiness that would have been torn to shreds back in the day.


But what you say is not born out historically. Melchior, for example, was not torn to shreds in his day although I am informed by writers on the subject that he was sloppy about note values and even the notes themselves. The wrong notes played by Cortot did not cause him to be torn to shreds in his day.


----------



## DavidA

Hausmusik said:


> Except for the obvious point that even the greatest pianists and vocalists and so on are going to differ as to what constitutes good technique, and moreover determinations as to what consitutes good technique develop over time.
> 
> Take the example of Broadway vocal performance. In the pre-microphone era of the 1920s and 30s the ability to belt a note so that it reached the ears of the people seated in the last row of the balcony was the desired technical ability. It was the Age or Merman. That is obviously no longer the case, and a performer like Merman would be unlikely to have much of a career these days. So how good technique is defined changes over time, and at any given time there are no doubt disagreements.
> 
> I would be extremely surprised if this did not apply also to classical vocal performance.
> 
> So I maintain that the view that judgments about technique are "not subjective at all" but are purely objective is an overstatement. Please do not mistake me for saying that judgements of technique are purely subjective, however.
> 
> PS: We are way off topic here. Suggest someone starts a new thread if they wish to continue this discussion.


Agreed!

I also agree we should carry this on on a new thread if we desire to continue the discussion.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> But what you say is not born out historically. Melchior, for example, was not torn to shreds in his day although I am informed by writers on the subject that he was sloppy about note values and even the notes themselves. The wrong notes played by Cortot did not cause him to be torn to shreds in his day.


Two ways to deal with that:

1 - "Schnabel's playing is often sloppy, with whole handfuls of wrong notes."
2 - "Of course an artist of Schnabel's caliber doesn't aim at mere precision."

Take your pick!


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> I haven't listened to Eroica in 30 years..


Oh dear! You do deprive yourself of great music!

That is, of course, my subjective opinion on the matter. Yours may be different. (Yes, even on the Eroica opinions are subjective)

But why not give yourself a treat and give old Bohm a spin?


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> But what you say is not born out historically. Melchior, for example, was not torn to shreds in his day although I am informed by writers on the subject that he was sloppy about note values and even the notes themselves.


Here is my transfer of Melchior singing Siegmund in 1935. Have a listen and let me know which one of those notes are incorrect. Then let me know one current Heldentenor who can sing like this!

http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/walkureact1walter1935.mp3

By the way, listen to this on your best stereo system and see if you get an idea of what it sounded like back in 1935. Old records don't necessarily sound bad.


----------



## bigshot

KenOC said:


> "Schnabel's playing is often sloppy, with whole handfuls of wrong notes."


That one is easy to answer too! Here is Schnabel's Diabelli Variations in my own transfer. Take a listen and see if you think he's sloppy.

http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

The thing to remember is that these recordings were made in live 4 minute takes- no overdubbing to fix mistakes, only a few takes of each side, all performed in one day with starts and stops throughout. There aren't many current artists that could look as good with limitations like that.


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> The fact is all criticism is somewhat subjective. To say it is not is laughable.


Good criticism is discernment.


----------



## KenOC

bigshot said:


> Good criticism is discernment.


Well, _somebody's _discernment to be sure!


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> Good criticism is discernment.


Discenment which is by nature subjective. If not, why is one critic's discernment often different from another's?


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> Here is my transfer of Melchior singing Siegmund in 1935. Have a listen and let me know which one of those notes are incorrect. Then let me know one current Heldentenor who can sing like this!
> 
> http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/walkureact1walter1935.mp3
> 
> By the way, listen to this on your best stereo system and see if you get an idea of what it sounded like back in 1935. Old records don't necessarily sound bad.


I think that performance is tremendous but 
According to a biographer who no doubt knows more than me:

He (Melchior) had a reputation for rhythmical slackness and carelessness over note values.

John Culshaw also noted it too in this performance, that, 'despite the magnificence of the voice itself'


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> That one is easy to answer too! Here is Schnabel's Diabelli Variations in my own transfer. Take a listen and see if you think he's sloppy.
> 
> http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3
> 
> The thing to remember is that these recordings were made in live 4 minute takes- no overdubbing to fix mistakes, only a few takes of each side, all performed in one day with starts and stops throughout. There aren't many current artists that could look as good with limitations like that.


You are missing the point. It is what critics said about him. Go to the web and you find out!

BTW I have this performance and find it tremendous despite any wrong notes. That is my subjective opinion, however. I have read other people who dislike it because of the wrong notes.


----------



## bigshot

I've heard a lot of Siegmunds and I don't hear any wrong notes or rhythmic slackness in there, so I guess I figure the critics didn't know what they were talking about.


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> I've heard a lot of Siegmunds and I don't hear any wrong notes or rhythmic slackness in there, so I guess I figure the critics didn't know what they were talking about.


J.B Steane in "The Grand Tradition" checked out all his stage performances on record and found "only the most meagre collection" of innacuracies",
Some people appear to be talking about artists they really know little of--most strange in a recorded world !


----------



## moody

Hausmusik said:


> As a rebuttal to the specific points raised in my post, hilltroll, that pretty much couldn't be more nebulous. I'll just assume, as one does when scoring debate, that unanswered arguments are conceded.
> 
> Anyway as you yourself wrote above, "Many people are 'in absolutely no doubt' about many things that are at best unverifiable and often patently ridiculous," and so I would think you'd be more in sympathy with my nuanced position than a categorical proposition along the lines of "These 'things' [i.e. technique] are _not _subjective _at all_" (emphasis added).
> 
> *Back on topic,* an excellent _Eroica _that has not yet (I think) been mentioned is Zinman: Tonhalle, coupled with an equally fine 4th. An overlooked gem. More hair-raising excitement than some of the rather bland performances recommended on here, like Szell: Cleveland and Barenboim: Berlin.


The only criticism that could possibly be made of Szell's "Eroica" is some holding back in the scherzo the rest is brilliant.


----------



## Itullian

Hausmusik said:


> As a rebuttal to the specific points raised in my post, hilltroll, that pretty much couldn't be more nebulous. I'll just assume, as one does when scoring debate, that unanswered arguments are conceded.
> 
> Anyway as you yourself wrote above, "Many people are 'in absolutely no doubt' about many things that are at best unverifiable and often patently ridiculous," and so I would think you'd be more in sympathy with my nuanced position than a categorical proposition along the lines of "These 'things' [i.e. technique] are _not _subjective _at all_" (emphasis added).
> 
> *Back on topic,* an excellent _Eroica _that has not yet (I think) been mentioned is Zinman: Tonhalle, coupled with an equally fine 4th. An overlooked gem. More hair-raising excitement than some of the rather bland performances recommended on here, like Szell: Cleveland and Barenboim: Berlin.


Zinman? really?
i think Szell's is a great Eroica.


----------



## moody

Itullian said:


> Zinman? really?
> i think Szell's is a great Eroica.


Von Dohananyi who ended up at Cleveland stated apparently that Szell "wrote the book" on the Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## Hausmusik

Itullian said:


> Zinman? really?
> i think Szell's is a great Eroica.


Yes, I much prefer Zinman's to Szell. Have you listened to them both to compare? For me, it's the final movement where so many Eroica's go astray. It needs to transport the listener, and Szell's easy-going fourth movement utterly fails to do that. His Eroica is coupled with an even more bland, even flatfooted 8th. I like Szell, but not in these symphonies.

Be curious to hear your reasons for preferring one to the other--I can't make much out of two question marks and the adjective "great."


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> [...]
> Be curious to hear your reasons for preferring one to the other--I can't make much out of two question marks and the adjective "great."


Maybe he should have included !! after the 'great'?


----------



## Hausmusik

moody said:


> Von Dohananyi who ended up at Cleveland stated apparently that Szell "wrote the book" on the Beethoven symphonies.


Ha! As I would expect from the guy who inherited the Cleveland Orchestra from Szell and then did his own cycle with them! I'll trust my own ears.


----------



## moody

Hausmusik said:


> Ha! As I would expect from the guy who inherited the Cleveland Orchestra from Szell and then did his own cycle with them! I'll trust my own ears.


If your ears are responsible for the above decription it bears no relationship to the Cleveland Orchestra that I used to see and the recordings that I have.I have never,ever heard such comments and I would not think that anybody else has.
This is the man who was known as "mobile armoured warfare".I just read Allmusic's write up on these recordings,I don't know who they are but it rings true :"...clear,strong and direct with virtuosic ensemble and conducting. George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra's set of Beethoven symphonies was one of the great cycles of the 60's...their third symphony is grand and violent..."
This set has been on the market continuosly for fifty years.
As for Zinman,i would have raised an eyebrow myself but I have not heard his versionsm, however I note that the Penguin guide has given a good report.


----------



## Hausmusik

moody said:


> If your ears are responsible for the above decription it bears no relationship to the Cleveland Orchestra that I used to see and the recordings that I have.I have never,ever heard such comments and I would not think that anybody else has.
> This is the man who was known as "mobile armoured warfare".I just read Allmusic's write up on these recordings,I don't know who they are but it rings true :"...clear,strong and direct with virtuosic ensemble and conducting. George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra's set of Beethoven symphonies was one of the great cycles of the 60's...their third symphony is grand and violent..."
> This set has been on the market continuosly for fifty years.


moody, with respect, I don't see how quoting blurbs at me is supposed to change my direct experience of his recordings. I do my own thinking and my own listening. If you would like to mention particular strengths of Szell's Eroica, rather than quote blurbs, I'd be very interested to hear that. But generic encomiums or market statistics ("on the market continuously") do not change what I am hearing as I replay the Szell/Cleveland Eroica at my desk right now.

I have listened to literally dozens of Eroicas. I have listened to nearly all of Szell's commercially available recordings with Cleveland. I love his Beethoven and Brahms piano concertos with Fleisher, and much of his Mozart. I love his Prokofiev concertos with Graffman and his Brahms 1.

His Eroica lacks fire, for me, no matter what generations of critics have conditioned listeners to think.

Not just the "Eroica." Szell/Cleveland are also responsible for the most boring "Oxford" symphony I've heard on record. Compare the slow movement to that of just about any other recording. Szell and Cleveland sleepwalk through that movement.

I don't agree with your implication that Szell, and Cleveland under Szell, were never was less than their best. No one is. I make judgements on a case by case basis, not blurbs and brands.


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> I've heard a lot of Siegmunds and I don't hear any wrong notes or rhythmic slackness in there, so I guess I figure the critics didn't know what they were talking about.


I think you and the Moody are both missing the point. The point is that criticism is subjective. If what Steane says is true and other critics found rhythmic slackness it a proof of the fact that criticism is itself subjective.


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> Von Dohananyi who ended up at Cleveland stated apparently that Szell "wrote the book" on the Beethoven symphonies.


Sorry to disagree. Only one person ever 'wrote the book' on Beethoven symphonies. His name was Beethoven!


----------



## Itullian

Hausmusik said:


> Yes, I much prefer Zinman's to Szell. Have you listened to them both to compare? For me, it's the final movement where so many Eroica's go astray. It needs to transport the listener, and Szell's easy-going fourth movement utterly fails to do that. His Eroica is coupled with an even more bland, even flatfooted 8th. I like Szell, but not in these symphonies.
> 
> Be curious to hear your reasons for preferring one to the other--I can't make much out of two question marks and the adjective "great."


i like the Eroica to be monumental, not rushed through.
excitement comes from other things than just speed.
i dont care for Zinman or Gardiner, for that matter.
what's the hurry?


----------



## moody

Hausmusik said:


> moody, with respect, I don't see how quoting blurbs at me is supposed to change my direct experience of his recordings. I do my own thinking and my own listening. If you would like to mention particular strengths of Szell's Eroica, rather than quote blurbs, I'd be very interested to hear that. But generic encomiums or market statistics ("on the market continuously") do not change what I am hearing as I replay the Szell/Cleveland Eroica at my desk right now.
> 
> I have listened to literally dozens of Eroicas. I have listened to nearly all of Szell's commercially available recordings with Cleveland. I love his Beethoven and Brahms piano concertos with Fleisher, and much of his Mozart. I love his Prokofiev concertos with Graffman and his Brahms 1.
> 
> His Eroica lacks fire, for me.
> 
> Not just the "Eroica." Szell/Cleveland are also responsible for the most boring "Oxford" symphony on record. Compare the slow movement to that of just about any other recording. Szell and Cleveland sleepwalk through that movement.
> 
> I don't agree with your implication that Szell, and Cleveland under Szell, were never was less than their best. No one is. I make judgements on a case by case basis, not blurbs and brands.


I am not interested in changing your opinions,impossible probably anyway.Aiso i was careful regarding the blurb saying that it fitted my experience.
As for the rest of it,let me assure you that I do read critics if i know who they are and their reputation---who knows i might learn something. But if i found that I was swimming completely agaisnst the current as you are with Szell i would ask myself questions.
Also,going by your reasoning I am right because I've heard and seen far more than you I'm sure,but this is not the way to look at it at all.
if you think that I am going to run through the whole of Szell's recording so as to NOT to convince you anyway,I am not!
You will note my comment about Zinman.very reasonable i thought.
I don't imagine that Italliun was hoping for a huge battle when he opened this thread and i am withdrawing as it is a pointless exercise.


----------



## Hausmusik

Moody, I have tried my best to read your recent, unaccountably strongly-worded posts ("If your ears are responsible...," "probably impossible anyway," etc.) in the most generous spirit I can muster, but as best I can understand your point, it boils down to this: I am wrong in not admiring Szell's _Eroica _because my view is not shared by the majority.

I am, you say, "swimming against the current," and therefore need to "ask myself questions."

This is known in logic as the _argumentum ad populum_ fallacy.

I should think, moody, as lovers of a vanishingly unpopular genre of music, we should be the last to insist that matters of taste be submitted to the dictates of majority opinion.

Thank goodness men like Beethoven "swam against the current."

Cheers.


----------



## ptr

Itullian said:


> what's the hurry?


That's perfectly valid, as is the notion that one as interpreter should follow the metronome markings Beethoven adorned his autographs with (fx. Gardiner or Brüggen). The notion of very slow tempi in fx. Beethoven's symphonies is a thing that grew out of some early 20th century "Germanic" conductors need to control things like the orchestra in front of them.

I say; there's room for a multitude of tempi in Beethoven, the more tempi choices given, the less boring he gets! 

/ptr


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> I think you and the Moody are both missing the point. The point is that criticism is subjective. If what Steane says is true and other critics found rhythmic slackness it a proof of the fact that criticism is itself subjective.


Unbelievable,either these problems can be heard on the recordings,or they can't.
Also von Dohanyi made the "book" remark,I merely passed it on as conductors are not known for compliments to each other --but i thought your little quip uproarious.


----------



## Ukko

Itullian said:


> i like the Eroica to be monumental, not rushed through.
> excitement comes from other things than just speed.
> i dont care for Zinman or Gardiner, for that matter.
> what's the hurry?


Don't know what those guys thought the hurry was for; there are several possibilities, including (of course) using it as a means for generating excitement. There _is_ evidence that Beethoven intended the work to be 'monumental'. AFAIAC he succeeded, however fast the conductor makes it. I like the Gardiner _and_ the Szell.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Ha! As I would expect from the guy who inherited the Cleveland Orchestra from Szell and then did his own cycle with them! I'll trust my own ears.


If you 'trust your own ears', why are you so trusting of critics' opinions? I note that it's only the sour opinions that you quote; why _is_ that?


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> If you 'trust your own ears', why are you so trusting of critics' opinions? I note that it's only the sour opinions that you quote; why _is_ that?


Hilltroll, um, what on earth are you talking about?


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> I am not interested in changing your opinions,impossible probably anyway.Aiso i was careful regarding the blurb saying that it fitted my experience.
> As for the rest of it,let me assure you that I do read critics if i know who they are and their reputation---who knows i might learn something. But if i found that I was swimming completely agaisnst the current as you are with Szell i would ask myself questions.
> Also,going by your reasoning I am right because I've heard and seen far more than you I'm sure,but this is not the way to look at it at all.
> if you think that I am going to run through the whole of Szell's recording so as to NOT to convince you anyway,I am not!
> You will note my comment about Zinman.very reasonable i thought.
> I don't imagine that Italliun was hoping for a huge battle when he opened this thread and i am withdrawing as it is a pointless exercise.


The problem you have Moody is that you are overtly dogmatic in what is a subjective realm - musical taste. When Szell's cycle came out I remember one critic in the Gramophone denigrating it as 'workmanlike' and comparing it unfavourably to Karajan's. Now you would no doubt retort that the critic did not know what he was talking about (largely because he did not agree with your own conclusions) but the real fact is that, given a certain musical competence (which anyone but a fool would admit that Szell and Karajan both possessed in spades) the whole thing boils down to opinion. It is what the music does to you. For myself, I know that in the case of music many roads lead to Rome. Hence I enjoy the monumental Klemperer, the fiery Karajan, the HIP Gardiner and the recent Chailly. They each bring something to the Eroica. I cannot give my opinion on Szell because I don't know his performance. But I don't think that quoting critics who happen to agree with your view proves anything as a person's likes or dislikes will depend on their own subjective reaction to the performance in question. What you must realise is that you are one person with one opinion. If people disagree it's not that they are somehow musically incompetent - it's just that they disagree with you.


----------



## Hausmusik

DavidA said:


> The problem [is being] overtly dogmatic in what is a subjective realm - musical taste....I don't think that quoting critics who happen to agree with your view proves anything as a person's likes or dislikes will depend on their own subjective reaction to the performance in question. What you must realise is that you are one person with one opinion. If people disagree it's not that they are somehow musically incompetent - it's just that they disagree with you.


That was worth repeating.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Hilltroll, um, what on earth are you talking about?


I would be willing to assume that your memory is unusually short - but it's all right there, if you scroll back a little. Really it is. Since you and _DavidA_ are obviously 'of like minds', I feel obligated to concatenate your, ah, thinking.


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> I would be willing to assume that your memory is unusually short - but it's all right there, if you scroll back a little. Really it is.


Link or it didn't happen.


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> Since you and _DavidA_ are obviously 'of like minds', I feel obligated to concatenate your, ah, thinking.


Your recantation is accepted.


----------



## DavidA

ptr said:


> That's perfectly valid, as is the notion that one as interpreter should follow the metronome markings Beethoven adorned his autographs with (fx. Gardiner or Brüggen). The notion of very slow tempi in fx. Beethoven's symphonies is a thing that grew out of some early 20th century "Germanic" conductors need to control things like the orchestra in front of them.
> 
> I say; there's room for a multitude of tempi in Beethoven, the more tempi choices given, the less boring he gets!
> 
> /ptr


What is tempi? Interesting that people get so dogmatic about the composer's supposed metronome markings. I remember once Colin Davis saying he discussed his conducting of a piece by Stravinsky with the composer. When Stravinsky remarked that he thought Davis had chosen the wrong tempo for a certain part, Davis said it was at the composer's own metronome mark. To which Stravinsky said that the metronome mark was just there as guidance not a dogma.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> The problem you have Moody is that you are overtly dogmatic in what is a subjective realm - musical taste. When Szell's cycle came out I remember one critic in the Gramophone denigrating it as 'workmanlike' and comparing it unfavourably to Karajan's. Now you would no doubt retort that the critic did not know what he was talking about (largely because he did not agree with your own conclusions) but the real fact is that, given a certain musical competence (which anyone but a fool would admit that Szell and Karajan both possessed in spades) the whole thing boils down to opinion. It is what the music does to you. For myself, I know that in the case of music many roads lead to Rome. Hence I enjoy the monumental Klemperer, the fiery Karajan, the HIP Gardiner and the recent Chailly. They each bring something to the Eroica. I cannot give my opinion on Szell because I don't know his performance. But I don't think that quoting critics who happen to agree with your view proves anything as a person's likes or dislikes will depend on their own subjective reaction to the performance in question. What you must realise is that you are one person with one opinion. If people disagree it's not that they are somehow musically incompetent - it's just that they disagree with you.


What you say is entirely true,but also it is when you turn it around the other way.
i have quoted no critics to support me here,have I?
But as you 've just said,if I quote my opinion then you say,well that's merely your opinion.
So where does that leave the whole thing.
An opinion is an opinion but crass nonsense which appears all over the place is surely not to be accepted as just an opinion ?
As for Hausmusik's statements about majority opinions (love the Latin ,very impressed) this certainly is a problem.
How do you think an artist gets to the top of the bill,Pavarotti,Brendel,Toscanini, Caruso, Sir Laurence Olivier, Marlon Brando?
It's because the majority are voting with their pocket books for their performances more than other artists--it's called Box Office.
In this field of the arts the public appear to br trustworthy overall.


----------



## KenOC

moody said:


> It's because the majority are voting with their pocket books for their performances more than other artists--it's called Box Office.In this field of the arts the public appear to be trustworthy overall.


Well, at least the public always wins. And history is written by the winners, regardless of the underlying truths.


----------



## ptr

DavidA said:


> To which Stravinsky said that the metronome mark was just there as guidance not a dogma.


I'm sorry if it displeases that I'm somewhat allergic to slow pace in Classicist and Romantic repertoire, but at least I'm fully aware of my condition, which is as dogmatic as I'll ever be... Still I feel that my conclusion sentence quite mirrors Stravinsky's sentiment. I wholeheartedly agree with Stravinsky that music is all about giving the dogmas a thrashing and above, I was just reasoning around how *some* might look at metronome markings as pointer as of where and how to pace themselves. Right or wrong, for me it is a perfectly valid way of attacking music when You don't have the composer around to ask.

/ptr


----------



## bigshot

moody said:


> J.B Steane in "The Grand Tradition" checked out all his stage performances on record and found "only the most meagre collection" of innacuracies"


Some accused him of being a poor actor, but listening to the monologues in that Walkure I posted puts the lie to that one too.


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> I think you and the Moody are both missing the point. The point is that criticism is subjective. If what the Steane says is true and other critics found rhythmic slackness it a proof of the fact that criticism is itself subjective.


I think listening to Melchior's recorded performances prove more than that. They prove that the other critics were talking through their hats. All opinions are not created equal.

Opinions and criticism can be great and insightful, and can open new understanding into a work. But too often people criticize for other reasons that are less admirable, or take the words of critics without verifying the points for themselves. They repeat "common knowledge" that is pretty clearly untrue. It's human nature to try to classify things and rate them for quality. But too often people just repeat what they've heard other people say because they think that will make them appear more knowledgeable. I see that all the time on internet forums. I don't doubt that the same holds true for professional critics too.

Off the wall criticisms by other composers are totally understandable. Oscar Wilde said...

_Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected._

Usually criticisms by composers say more about the one doing the criticizing than the one being criticized.

My point is that criticism is more than "just another opinion", with the inevitable comparison of opinions and butt holes. Criticism when it's done well reflects some observable aspect of the work and uses that to illuminate it for good or bad. When someone criticizes Melchior for bad singing technique, it's as absurd as criticizing the Sears Tower in Chicago because it isn't tall enough.


----------



## moody

bigshot said:


> I think listening to Melchior's recorded performances prove more than that. They prove that Steane was talking through his hat.


I'm surprised to see you criticise Melchior--tell me more.
Or is there a misunderstanding here ?


----------



## bigshot

Speaking of Eroicas, Blomstedt's 3rd with the Staatskappel Dresden came up in rotation on my music server yesterday and this thread made me pay extra attention. It's a very good performance with a remarkable band. I think Dresden is one of my favorite orchestras, up there with the Czech, Vienna and Berlin POs.


----------



## bigshot

moody said:


> Or is there a misunderstanding here ?


Yep. Misread the quote I was responding to. Fixed it now.


----------



## DavidA

ptr said:


> I'm sorry if it displeases that I'm somewhat allergic to slow pace in Classicist and Romantic repertoire, but at least I'm fully aware of my condition, which is as dogmatic as I'll ever be... Still I feel that my conclusion sentence quite mirrors Stravinsky's sentiment. I wholeheartedly agree with Stravinsky that music is all about giving the dogmas a thrashing and above, I was just reasoning around how *some* might look at metronome markings as pointer as of where and how to pace themselves. Right or wrong, for me it is a perfectly valid way of attacking music when You don't have the composer around to ask.
> 
> /ptr


Stravinsky didn't say, of course, ignore the metronome. But it's the starting point. I think the metronome is a good place to start as is the composers marking - ie Allegro con brio for the Eroica first movement. Of course, that can mean different things to different people. The acid test is whether it comes off. For example, Richter's Rach 2 first movement 'moderato' is very slow - much slower than the composer. But it is so powerful in its effect you are just caught up in the playing.


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> I think listening to Melchior's recorded performances prove more than that. They prove that the other critics were talking through their hats. All opinions are not created equal.
> 
> Opinions and criticism can be great and insightful, and can open new understanding into a work. But too often people criticize for other reasons that are less admirable, or take the words of critics without verifying the points for themselves. They repeat "common knowledge" that is pretty clearly untrue. It's human nature to try to classify things and rate them for quality. But too often people just repeat what they've heard other people say because they think that will make them appear more knowledgeable. I see that all the time on internet forums. I don't doubt that the same holds true for professional critics too.
> 
> Off the wall criticisms by other composers are totally understandable. Oscar Wilde said...
> 
> _Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected._
> 
> Usually criticisms by composers say more about the one doing the criticizing than the one being criticized.
> 
> My point is that criticism is more than "just another opinion", with the inevitable comparison of opinions and butt holes. Criticism when it's done well reflects some observable aspect of the work and uses that to illuminate it for good or bad. When someone criticizes Melchior for bad singing technique, it's as absurd as criticizing the Sears Tower in Chicago because it isn't tall enough.


But you still don't get the point I am trying to make that criticism is by its nature subjective. If you're going to have criticism you will always have different opinions. It's no good calling some criticism good because it happens to coincide with your own opinions. Moody criticises Jon Vickers for his poor technique which I think is pretty rich as Vickers is generally reckoned to be one of the great singers of the century. But that is his opinion. Now I've no doubt he'll trot out some 'expert' to back his opinion up. But the problem is all these things are subjective not objective. As has already been expressed, even techniques vary widely. It is the end product and the effect the music has on the listener that is most important. 
The very fact we are discussing these things means they are by nature subjective.


----------



## ptr

DavidA said:


> Stravinsky didn't say, of course, ignore the metronome. But it's the starting point. I think the metronome is a good place to start as is the composers marking - ie Allegro con brio for the Eroica first movement. Of course, that can mean different things to different people.


We quite agree on that!



> The acid test is whether it comes off. For example, Richter's Rach 2 first movement 'moderato' is very slow - much slower than the composer. But it is so powerful in its effect you are just caught up in the playing.


In this case You have to take in account of how much time Rachmaninov was allotted for each side of music to fit on a 78', it is not unheard of that some recordings of classical music of this period was recklessly fast just because they had to fit a certain amount of music on each side to get the whole piece on the allotted number of discs.
I don't know how if this relates to Rachmaninov's own concerto recordings, but in general terms, I have also not read any accounts of his chosen tempi in the concert situation so I cant judge what were Rachmaninov's choices and what were pragmatic solutions at the recording situation.

Post WWII when tape recorders became more widely available, the choice of tempi became much more up to the performing artists..

/ptr


----------



## DavidA

Of course, Rach's own version of 3 has the awful cuts he sanctioned.


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> But you still don't get the point I am trying to make that criticism is by its nature subjective. If you're going to have criticism you will always have different opinions. It's no good calling some criticism good because it happens to coincide with your own opinions. Moody criticises Jon Vickers for his poor technique which I think is pretty rich as Vickers is generally reckoned to be one of the great singers of the century. But that is his opinion. Now I've no doubt he'll trot out some 'expert' to back his opinion up. But the problem is all these things are subjective not objective. As has already been expressed, even techniques vary widely. It is the end product and the effect the music has on the listener that is most important.
> The very fact we are discussing these things means they are by nature subjective.


You,unfortunately seem not to understand what is meant by technique,it is the way the voice is produced.
Vickers has been criticised often and i have not heard him described as one of the greatest singers of the century.
he was very histrionic on stage but not a great singer per se. i have an LP in front of me,Jon vickers/italian Arias and i tried but cannot listen to it'.
Another singer suffering from the same problem was Leonard Warren,very exciting but his voice started going soon.
I suppose the most obvious example was Callas.


----------



## Krummhorn

Temporarily closed for repairs ... 


Did everyone forget that this forum has rules and regulations?


----------

