# Simon Rattle



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

In light of the thread on Gergiev, I though it might be a good idea to have one on a man who's been one of the most prominent conductors of the last several decades. I suppose Mahler is his calling card. I saw him a few times with the CBSO. How do others rate his tenure in Berlin? I thought the return to London would have marked a triumphant return to his homeland and resulted in a de facto lifetime appointment there. I was wrong. Perhaps his greatest achievement was in Birmingham, and he might have been considered a George Szell-type icon had he stayed there. How do the English judge him? Gramophone magazine has been one of his biggest cheerleaders over the years, and even wrote an embarrassingly fawning article on him when he was named Abbado's successor in Berlin, including details about his religious beliefs and similarities to Karajan (really?), while slightly denigrating Abbado. Then again, that was an old article, and I might not be remembering it correctly. 

Having said all that, I did bump into him in Europe and spoke to him a while about music. I must say that he was one of the two nicest musicians I ever met. The other was Robin Trower!


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

SearsPoncho said:


> I must say that he was one of the two nicest musicians I ever met. The other was Robin Trower!


That's great to hear! I love when famous musicians are nice. I would LOVE to meet Trower and talk guitar-playing. And it would be even more fun to jam with him.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Musical opinion in the UK isn't uniform any more than it is elsewhere, and Rattle in particular has both his supporters and his critics here. I'm generally in the latter category and, having followed his career more or less from the beginning, have never climbed aboard the Rattle bandwagon, finding his interpretations regularly over-fussy and intent on "doing something with" music which simply doesn't need that kind of interventionism. When he restrains this side of himself (e.g.the Beethoven concertos with Brendel or his take on Schubert's "Great C major") he can do good work, but as a general rule his is not the kind of musicmaking I would choose to listen to.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

SearsPoncho said:


> I did bump into him in Europe and spoke to him a while about music. I must say that he was one of the two nicest musicians I ever met.


That may be the case, but the recording he made of Haydn symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic is appalling.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

AndorFoldes said:


> That may be the case, but the recording he made of Haydn symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic is appalling.


In what way do you think it is appalling?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

He said some disgraceful things about Sinopoli when the great maestro took over the Philharmonia - Rattle should have kept his stupid gob shut. Also, in my opinion, he said some moronic things about Karajan - I think the bloke just thinks too much of himself. 

I would question his faculty of loyalty, whether it's marriage or the LSO. I also attended a couple of quite bad BPO performances of Bruckner, conducted by him.

On the plus side I was lucky to catch his CBSO Nielsen cycle at the London Barbican, back in the day and what performances they were - truly remarkable. I adore his EMI Mahler 2 and the Mahler 9 is a firm favourite. I also remember a superb performance of Vaughan Williams' Flos Campi.

I'm indebted to him (as many are) for giving us a recording Nicholas Maw's Odyssy and his Szymanowski is first rate.

He did a good job of maintaining the sad decline of the BPO, originally set on course by Claudio Abbado. These days I find him irrelevant and a bore, save for the fact that he now looks like a Spitting Image puppet of himself.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Rattle is supposed to be a wonderful man in person but his conducting is questionable. A question of getting a premier gig (BPO) too early and staying there as long as he did belies belief. He's never left his mark on any recording he made. An also ran who I think will quickly be forgotten by everyone - except the English, like Vaughan Williams.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I have spent most of my life as someone who found Rattle too fussy. I can't think of a single Mahler performance of his that makes my top 5 for the work in question and I found his Beethoven dull. His 
Szymanowski convinced me that I didn't like Szymanowski - but it turns out I do. But some of what he did with the Berlin Phil was excellent - his Brahms is great, for example - and it may be that he is maturing into a great conductor. I didn't catch much of what he did during his short tenure with the London Symphony Orchestra but now he is back in Germany am expecting great things of him.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

HenryPenfold said:


> I would question his faculty of loyalty, whether it's marriage or the LSO.


Is there a story behind that?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Is there a story behind that?


yes


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

HenryPenfold said:


> He said some disgraceful things about Sinopoli when the great maestro took over the Philharmonia - Rattle should have kept his stupid gob shut. Also, in my opinion, he said some moronic things about Karajan - I think the bloke just thinks too much of himself.
> 
> I would question his faculty of loyalty, whether it's marriage or the LSO. I also attended a couple of quite bad BPO performances of Bruckner, conducted by him.
> 
> ...


...and has behaved like one in his time. Many moons ago the CBSO used to give concerts now and then in Worcester Cathedral which were real occasions looked forward to by many. Young Master Rattle stopped them because he was annoyed that the place would fill for conventional programmes but not when he insisted on programming "squeaky gate music".


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I saw him quite a few times in LA. A badly played Mahler 7 and a meandering Rachmaninoff 2. There were some good concerts. But the guest conductors, like Sanderling, always showed why Rattle wasn't the Golden Boy the philharmonic said he was. He's a control freak and it really gets annoying. His interference with every phrase gets in the way of the natural flow of the music. There are some excellent recordings: In a Nutshell by Grainger was a terrific disk. Some people find his Sibelius wrong headed but I think it's ok. The Vienna Beethoven set though was for my taste one of the worst I ever bought. That's about the time I stopped getting any more Rattle disks: there are just too many better conductors out there. Like many other young "sensations" he was given the reins to great orchestras too early. Did it go to his head? I don't know. He was a percussionist, and it shows - when he does Copland, Bernstein, Stravinsky and others where rhythmic precision is essential he does a great job. Where flowing lines and beautiful textures are needed he's often out to lunch.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> In what way do you think it is appalling?


Well, he made an excellent choice of repertoire, the less frequently recorded Symphonies Nos. 88-92. He had one of the greatest orchestras in the world, the Berlin Philharmonic. And then he made recordings so anemic they could have been made by any pick-up ensemble. What a shame.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I have not researched his life and do not know about his personality. But frequently, the recordings of his I own (Sibelius cycle, Beethoven piano concertos) sound thin, boring and lifeless compared to their alternatives.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Le yawn. Here come the "micro-management" stereotypes! He's no different from many other conductors. He's done some excellent stuff and some crap . He's been lauded by Gramophone in the past and lambasted by Hurwitz but I have none of these pathetic and ridiculous biases. *I just listen to the recordings.* If you avoid these annoying stereotypes you will find things you love (for me that's his Dvorak Tone Poems) and things that really don't work (so personally that's his first Sibelius cycle) .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I have tried and tried but until most recent recordings I found few that I liked. You may be tired of how people describe their reasons for not liking ... or you could respect that they are describing how they feel and may have sampled just as widely as you.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

HenryPenfold said:


> yes


Can't you tell us? I did hear that in his younger days he enjoyed liaisons with several members of his orchestras but nothing more.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Merl said:


> Le yawn. Here come the "micro-management" stereotypes! He's no different from many other conductors. He's done some excellent stuff and some crap . He's been lauded by Gramophone in the past and lambasted by Hurwitz but I have none of these pathetic and ridiculous biases. *I just listen to the recordings.* If you avoid these annoying stereotypes you will find things you love (for me that's his Dvorak Tone Poems) and things that really don't work (so personally that's his first Sibelius cycle) .


The "biases" accusation might stand up if people were commenting without having listened to his work. Why would you assume that's the case? For decades now I for one have attended numerous live concerts and listened to numerous recordings which had Rattle at the helm, and I've given him credit for some of the latter which IMO do work, but based on my own direct experience I stand absolutely by the micromanagement charge in all too many cases.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The fascinating part of all this is that on the occasions when I have put a Rattle performance in one of my 'Blind comparison' threads, they have been generally well received, even by those who normally claim to dislike him, to the point that when the names were revealed, those folks were surprised that their preconceptions were not upheld. This was not just true of Rattle so it just goes to show that many people have preconceived notions and then look for reasons to support them.

I should note that I attended many of Rattle's LAPO concerts and remember they were as much a mixture of good and not so good as were many other conductors. The same has been true of watching BPO concerts on the Digital Concert Hall.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Can't you tell us? I did hear that in his younger days he enjoyed liaisons with several members of his orchestras but nothing more.


He dumped his first wife and ran off with Candace Allen. Then cheated on her and dumped her for Magdalena Kozena. Took job at LSO, then dumped them. Just google it

For example ...https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/sir-simon-rattle-admits-affair-with-soprano-6982358.html


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

If you want to hear a good example of his micromanaging, get his first recording of the Mahler 2nd on EMI (now Warner). The first movement will suffice. Listen with a score in hand. The constant manipulation of dynamics; the irritating hair-pins all over the place; tempo shifts. It's all glaringly there for all to hear.

It should also be added about Rattle: his Berlin recording of the Mahler 10th Cooke edition is a knockout and likely the best ever done. His four-movement version of the Bruckner 9th was also damn fine.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Merl said:


> Le yawn. Here come the "micro-management" stereotypes! He's no different from many other conductors. He's done some excellent stuff and some crap . He's been lauded by Gramophone in the past and lambasted by Hurwitz but I have none of these pathetic and ridiculous biases. *I just listen to the recordings.* If you avoid these annoying stereotypes you will find things you love (for me that's his Dvorak Tone Poems) and things that really don't work (so personally that's his first Sibelius cycle) .


You're right about the Dvorak, it's quite nice. I believe he has a John Adams collection that is pretty good as well.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> . He's a control freak


Haven't all the great conductors been that, though? I would think that's one of the requirements for the job, along with a huge helping of ego.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

consuono said:


> Haven't all the great conductors been that, though? I would think that's one of the requirements for the job, along with a huge helping of ego.


All conductors have a big ego...you must have it to get in front of 85 or so virtuoso wannabes who all have their own ideas on how the music should go...if you lack the power of personality, you aren't going to make it as a big-time conductor.

and yes, the conductor must control things...
But the smart ones give their orchestra principal soloists considerable expressive leeway....even recognized tyrants like Reiner, Toscanini encouraged (demanded!!) expressive playing from their musicians...
There are notorious control-freaks - von Karajan and Szell are 2 well-known ones....with Szell, for any major orchestra solo, the musician had to receive special coaching from Maestro on how he wanted it played...however, at times, Szell would really cut loose, and let the orchestra roar away...the result is usually quite thrilling.
von Karajan was a real control freak...kept things buttoned down pretty tight, wouldn't even look at soloists before a big important entrance...the famous "eyes closed" technique which is quite inhibiting to musicians....the range of expression tonally and dynamically was pretty narrow.
Other conductors - Mitropoulos, Stokowski, Bernstein, gave their musicians lots of expressive liberty....they still keep things together, of course, but the freedom of expression was considerable, even kind of wild at times!!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> The "biases" accusation might stand up if people were commenting without having listened to his work. Why would you assume that's the case? For decades now I for one have attended numerous live concerts and listened to numerous recordings which had Rattle at the helm, and I've given him credit for some of the latter which IMO do work, but based on my own direct experience I stand absolutely by the micromanagement charge in all too many cases.


Apologies if my original post seemed a bit terse. I wasnt trying to wind anyone up. What I was driving at is that I believe a lot of people have already made their mind up about Rattle recordings before they even hear them (see Becca's post). Becca used a lot of Rattle recordings in her blind comparisons and it was remarkable how many times he was voted the best or near the top and at no time did anyone say his performances were overtly controlled. In fact, many of them were the most organic sounding recordings reviewed. I just dont like these conductor stereotypes (Bernstein = OTT emotional, Karajan = slick & smooth, etc).



mbhaub said:


> If you want to hear a good example of his micromanaging, get his first recording of the Mahler 2nd on EMI (now Warner). The first movement will suffice. Listen with a score in hand. The constant manipulation of dynamics; the irritating hair-pins all over the place; tempo shifts. It's all glaringly there for all to hear.........


Id probably agree about this particular recording, mbhaub. Its never been one of my favourite 2nds and ive never quite got the fuss over it (but i always loved the cover). I just find it a bit disjointed in places (I cant read scores, im afraid) but its still a decent recording. I think Gramophone did Rattle no favours in constantly championing everything he did . Ive only seen Rattle once live and it was a good Mahler 1st performance that was marred by an overly-deliberate first movement. He made up for it with a fine finale later. It will be interesting to see how his next recordings fare with the critics. Hes had mixed press about his departure from the LSO, in the British press.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

A number of fair points there and the outcome of Becca's comparisons is interesting. I'd reserve judgment on how much weight to give such comparisons alongside listening to complete recordings or attending concerts, and IMHO Rattle deserves some of the blame if some listeners approach his recordings with preconceived ideas, but I do agree that those ideas should be subject to modification according to what one actually hears. :tiphat:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

consuono said:


> Haven't all the great conductors been that, though? I would think that's one of the requirements for the job, along with a huge helping of ego.


No, not all great conductors were micromanagers. For my taste I find I like conductors who just let the music play itself - what's on the page and not insert themselves or their opinions into the score. These are un-fussy, natural sounding guys. Not that they couldn't get what they wanted, but they didn't try to impose their vision on every single bar. I've played with a couple of micromanagers who got little done in rehearsal and the concerts were disjointed because we never played completely through a piece because they constantly stop to impose their desire on every player it seems. Some of the non-micromanagers: Monteux, Paray, Walter, Munch. Some of the micromanagers: Rattle, Maazel, Silvestri.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> .....*What I was driving at is that I believe a lot of people have already made their mind up about Rattle recordings before they even hear them (see Becca's post). *Becca used a lot of Rattle recordings in her blind comparisons and it was remarkable how many times he was voted the best or near the top and at no time did anyone say his performances were overtly controlled. In fact, many of them were the most organic sounding recordings reviewed. I just dont like these conductor stereotypes (Bernstein = OTT emotional, Karajan = slick & smooth, etc).


I don't know but the highlighted sentence seems to put people down for not liking a conductor as much as you do by saying that they must have made up their minds before listening. I wonder if many members do that?

Becca's blind comparisons are very interesting and often good fun. But they make for very strange listening experiences and I for one am fairly sure that the impressions I form listening to them are not reliable as far as my tastes are concerned. I do not subscribe to the view that they demonstrate a more objective measure of what we like than listening when knowing who the performers are. Isn't there a sense of superiority (that most of us don't know our own minds and tend to listen to music for its reputation rather than for any pleasure in the hearing) visible in that view?

I do agree, though, that people (any of us) can form a view about a performer that is little more than a caricature and bears little relationship to the range that great performers are capable of. Such prejudices are easy to lose - you just need to listen to some of the performers' recordings! Of course, though, time is limited and performances (especially when we spend our time with relatively familiar music) often very many. We might need to apply judgments on some performers that are too arbitrary just to stay sane. Or we might need to jump to a quick conclusion. It takes me a matter of years to really know which performances of much performed music I really value above the others.

As for Rattle, as I've said, he's not a favourite of mine. I can think of many of his records that seem good to me but cannot think of too many of his records that I have come to value _especially _highly. I remain open to that changing so if you can name a few of his recordings that seem especially good to you I will give them a try or a second try.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> If you want to hear a good example of his micromanaging, get his first recording of the Mahler 2nd on EMI (now Warner). The first movement will suffice. Listen with a score in hand. The constant manipulation of dynamics; the irritating hair-pins all over the place; tempo shifts. It's all glaringly there for all to hear.
> 
> It should also be added about Rattle: his Berlin recording of the Mahler 10th Cooke edition is a knockout and likely the best ever done. His four-movement version of the Bruckner 9th was also damn fine.


Was about to say exactly the same. Go for his best recordings and avoid all the rest - it works for almost every other conductor as well.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> .... I've played with a couple of micromanagers who got little done in rehearsal and the concerts were disjointed because we never played completely through a piece because they constantly stop to impose their desire on every player it seems.


Those types are really annoying....one guy I remember- 2 measures and stop, and yak....2 measures...stop...blabber...awful....at rehearsal break we had barely covered 60 measures of one piece (4 works on the program!!)....of course, these guys are always the ones who want to run overtime at rehearsal, because their use of time is so inefficient...the musicians end up almost sight-reading the program at concert time.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Becca's blind comparisons are very interesting and often good fun. But they make for very strange listening experiences and I for one am fairly sure that the impressions I form listening to them are not reliable as far as my tastes are concerned. I do not subscribe to the view that they demonstrate a more objective measure of what we like than listening when knowing who the performers are. Isn't there a sense of superiority (that most of us don't know our own minds and tend to listen to music for its reputation rather than for any pleasure in the hearing) visible in that view?


How is it possible to be less biased when you know the performers? Being prejudiced is a very natural quality and no matter how much we try, I think that very few can fully avoid that when it comes to aesthetics (or maybe I'm just too cynical?). Take drug trials for example - placebo effect is a very valid and legitimate thing. I think a similar placebo effect is there when we listen to recordings as well. We approach them in a certain way, because we _expect_ to hear certain things. I notice myself doing it rather often - I'm more likely to notice legato in Karajan's recordings, rubato in Furtwängler's and Bernstein's recording, slow tempos in Klemperer's recordings, and brass in CSO's recordings. I'm a lot more likely to notice certain qualities, both positive and negative, in a recording when I know who is performing.



> I do agree, though, that people (any of us) can form a view about a performer that is little more than a caricature and bears little relationship to the range that great performers are capable of. Such prejudices are easy to lose - you just need to listen to some of the performers' recordings! Of course, though, time is limited and performances (especially when we spend our time with relatively familiar music) often very many. We might need to apply judgments on some performers that are too arbitrary just to stay sane. Or we might need to jump to a quick conclusion. It takes me a matter of years to really know which performances of much performed music I really value above the others.


This might be my personal experience, but I don't think that you can always avoid these prejudices altogether. I totally agree with you that they shouldn't be formed based on a couple of recordings or on what other people say, but just listening to a lot of recordings doesn't always make them disappear. That's because sometimes these prejudices are almost universally correct - I might think that "maybe this it the one time that Furtwängler doesn't use extreme rubato" but whenever he does, my prejudice (or a preconceived opinion) will be confirmed once again. It would be insensible of me to start listening to all Furtwängler's recordings in hope that maybe there's one where he maintains a metronomic tempo when I can listen to Karajan's instead. While I _definitely_ do not support making conclusions based on our biases or disregarding performers based on prejudices, I know that it's natural to prefer the performer who, based on one's experience, is _more likely_ to match with one's aesthetic taste. Without preconceived opinions, I'd probably spend a lot more time listening to recordings that I don't end up enjoying.

Many famous performers have their own unique style and there's a point where it's more logical to admit that I don't like their style than to listen in vain hope that this time they won't utilise it. This is problematical only if our opinion of the performer is _not_ based on our own sincere experience but I think that's similar to what you noted yourself as well.

Anyway, I still think that Becca's listening threads are a perfectly valid way to minimise the influence of our prejudices. At least I approach them fearfully - who knows what terrible things I might end up admitting .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I don't think I said that we would be _less _biased when we know who the performer is, did I? I was just saying that to arrive at a considered opinion I don't think it helps much to know who the performer is (if you hadn't already guessed). You listen and describe to yourself how you hear it. But even then ... I am often surprised by disappointment with a performance that I had previously enjoyed greatly. Much (for me, anyway) depends on mood - am I in the mood to hear a favourite piece played that way? But as I get to know a performance I get a more nuanced feel for how it works for me.

BTW, I don't think your comparison with placebo (or indeed nocebo) effects works, here. We don't know a lot about how placebo effects work but I don't think _expectation _comes close to explaining it. For example, you still get an effect even when you know the pill is just sugar!

On to blind tests. Firstly, I must say again that I greatly enjoy them. I also think that Becca's have all been excellent. I can understand approaching them with fear of what they would uncover! But isn't that more to do with the claims that are made (not by Becca but by others, I think) for what they are testing than what they actually tell us?

There is a distortion, I think, that comes from listening to several different performances of the same piece back to back (even if this is over a few days). The first one, if it works for you, tends to set the scene for the ones you listen to later. This is particularly obvious with speed but applies to many other interpretive decisions, too. For example, I revere many of the recordings that Celibidache made in Munich. I have listened to them so many times and know that what I hear and enjoy is a reliable measure of my feel for what he does with a work. I can almost always get in the mood to go on one of his journeys with him! But I learned a long time ago that it is hard to listen to them soon after another performance ... Celibidache's often slower speeds can seem to drag in comparison and, although he can still win me over to his way once I am into the piece, this is partly because I already know the performances well and know to persevere. If I hadn't known my feeling for the approach he takes (and my intuitive understanding of how it works) and was blind testing one of his recordings next to others that use more conventional speeds it is very possible that I would be so turned off by the surprise that I would not engage well with what followed.

I do agree that we can hold prejudices about some performers but I think this may have less to do with the name - for example, approaching a Rattle performance actively looking for his fussiness - than a failure to get into how their performances work over the arc of the movement or the whole work (which is, for me, the key to how much I get out of a performance). It can often be - it has happened to me many times - that I can suddenly click with a performer or performance after previously feeling lukewarm about it/them. For that reason I do often try many times with performers who are widely praised but who have yet to excite my interest. It is for that reason that I feel fairly confident that much that I have heard of Rattle's work will never please me as much as many other exponents do. But you never know ... .


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

I'll leave the deep philosophical debate over the effects and influences of pre-conceived prejudices to others. I do believe there may be a tendency for many to feel that they aren't conforming when they hear a work/conductor/soloist that they have enjoyed yet the perceived concensus is the opposite of their thoughts. 
It isn't easy to put reputations, deserved or otherwise, out of your mind when listening but I do believe it wise to try to do so, listen with your ears and like what you enjoy - not what your are told to like by whoever.
With regard to Rattle some recordings I like fine, others I don't, like some others I never understood why his Mahler 2 was held in high regard, in fact his Mahler in general is not to my taste. His Mahler 10 with the Bournemouth SO is very good imo and I prefer his Berlin Mahler 2 to the Philharmonia recording. A general statement I would make is maybe he is more comfortable in 20th century works - but as I frequently state I can't read music, I can't follow a score and have never succesfully played an instrument so my opinions on anything is only based on how things sound to me, not how accurate they are to a standard what ever that may mean.

One other little thought crosses my mind - how much these days does reading about the lives and utterances of high profile performers affect perceptions of listeners before listening.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't think I said that we would be _less _biased when we know who the performer is, did I? [...] BTW, I don't think your comparison with placebo (or indeed nocebo) effects works, here. We don't know a lot about how placebo effects work but I don't think _expectation _comes close to explaining it. For example, you still get an effect even when you know the pill is just sugar!


Then it was my bad. Not knowing the performers simply seems to guarantee that there's no personal bias, thus making it more universally objective. Placebo was supposed to be an example of a situation where your preconceived opinion affects the outcome but maybe it was a bit unsuccessful example. I know I have a strong bias towards certain conductors whom I like - a bad recording by Karajan can function similarly to a sugar pill; I think it works while it actually doesn't.



> On to blind tests. Firstly, I must say again that I greatly enjoy them. I also think that Becca's have all been excellent. I can understand approaching them with fear of what they would uncover! But isn't that more to do with the claims that are made (not by Becca but by others, I think) for what they are testing than what they actually tell us?


I know that I don't listen to recordings the same way when I have an opinion of the performers. This is pretty similar to what you wrote about Celibidache. If I don't know the performers, my own aesthetic taste is forced to be as objective as it can. Suddenly, I'm not able to forgive my favourite conductors their flaws anymore and I'm also less likely to notice things that annoy about the conductors I'm not too fond of. The results of comparative listening force me to face my own biases, because I'm unable to project my opinion of the performers onto the recordings. With some widely praised artists, I find myself feeling almost obliged to like them; consequently, I actually manage to convince myself that I like them. Not knowing the artists, removes such obligation - it reveals my own personal aesthetic sense more purely.



> I do agree that we can hold prejudices about some performers but I think this may have less to do with the name - for example, approaching a Rattle performance actively looking for his fussiness - than a failure to get into how their performances work over the arc of the movement or the whole work (which is, for me, the key to how much I get out of a performance). It can often be - it has happened to me many times - that I can suddenly click with a performer or performance after previously feeling lukewarm about it/them. For that reason I do often try many times with performers who are widely praised but who have yet to excite my interest. It is for that reason that I feel fairly confident that much that I have heard of Rattle's work will never please me as much as many other exponents do. But you never know ... .


Yeah, I totally agree with the point you are making here. I sometimes spend a lot of time with highly esteemed recordings which I don't initially like because I know that there must be a good reason why they are praised. Often repeated listening ends up being extremely rewarding. However, with some performers, it's evident that what others like about them simply doesn't align with what I like. For example, I know that I'm not a huge fan of conductors who are famous for very slow tempos - most of the time, they don't manage to keep me focused for long enough. While I definitely think it's useful to visit the performances from time to time, I know that, for the time being, it's wiser to just listen to other conductors.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ OK, I won't argue! We have both stated quite clearly how we see these things. But you missed my point about placebos - that their effect is not really dependent on believing they will work. There is something more subtle and mysterious going on with them.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know but the highlighted sentence seems to put people down for not liking a conductor as much as you do by saying that they must have made up their minds before listening. I wonder if many members do that?
> 
> Becca's blind comparisons are very interesting and often good fun. But they make for very strange listening experiences and I for one am fairly sure that the impressions I form listening to them are not reliable as far as my tastes are concerned. I do not subscribe to the view that they demonstrate a more objective measure of what we like than listening when knowing who the performers are. Isn't there a sense of superiority (that most of us don't know our own minds and tend to listen to music for its reputation rather than for any pleasure in the hearing) visible in that view?
> ..
> ...


I think objective listeners don't have preconceived ideas but none of us are perfect. I think we have certain expectations when we come to recordings by artists we either like a lot or, inversely, think less of. For example, if the Takacs Quartet bring a new recording out I would expect it to be as high quality as much of their previous work. If its not I'd be much more disappointed than I would if it was by a quartet who had not impressed me as much in the past. I know we shouldn't do that but there's a certain weight of expectation on certain performers, that we put on them ourselves.

As far as Becca's comparisons are concerned I don't find them strange at all but understand others might feel that way. I suppose i'm used to listening to multiple versions of one work over an extended period (lol) and get that it isn't comfortable for many others (or normal). I do like the fact I don't know who it is as it doesn't distract me in any way. I certainly don't feel 'superior' (?) in any way from liking that approach. I just enjoy the mystery of not knowing. Its almost like a musical Cluedo for me. I also appreciate the effort it took Becca to do them (after doing a few of my own years ago).

I would definitely agree with the "musical caricature" comment. I was a bit like that with Celi, for example. I first heard his Beethoven and it coloured my opinion of him for a while but thankfully I kept listening to his other recordings and found I really enjoyed his Brahms, for example. I'm still not a huge admirer of many of his recordings but I stopped making assumptions they were all the same.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ OK, I won't argue! We have both stated quite clearly how we see these things. But you missed my point about placebos - that their effect is not really dependent on believing they will work. *There is something more subtle and mysterious going on with them.*


Possibly . Anyway, I need time to think about the whole matter a bit - your Celibidache example was interesting.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> I think objective listeners don't have preconceived ideas but none of us are perfect. I think we have certain expectations when we come to recordings by artists we either like a lot or, inversely, think less of. For example, if the Takacs Quartet bring a new recording out I would expect it to be as high quality as much of their previous work. If its not I'd be much more disappointed than I would if it was by a quartet who had not impressed me as much in the past. I know we shouldn't do that but there's a certain weight of expectation on certain performers, that we put on them ourselves.


Absolutely. We have expectations but I am not sure they influence my listening too much. Listening puts those expectations to the test.



Merl said:


> As far as Becca's comparisons are concerned I don't find them strange at all but understand others might feel that way. I suppose i'm used to listening to multiple versions of one work over an extended period (lol) and get that it isn't comfortable for many others (or normal). I do like the fact I don't know who it is as it doesn't distract me in any way. I certainly don't feel 'superior' (?) in any way from liking that approach. I just enjoy the mystery of not knowing. Its almost like a musical Cluedo for me. I also appreciate the effort it took Becca to do them (after doing a few of my own years ago).


I also certainly enjoy them. I'm just not sure I trust my choices when made in that way. I have sometimes kept the files and played some of them again another time and found quite different perceptions (even those that I have not filled in the blank space for artist). I would love for Becca to do more of them but would not still not view the experience as removing the reputation from my ears.



Merl said:


> I would definitely agree with the "musical caricature" comment. I was a bit like that with Celi, for example. I first heard his Beethoven and it coloured my opinion of him for a while but thankfully I kept listening to his other recordings and found I really enjoyed his Brahms, for example. I'm still not a huge admirer of many of his recordings but I stopped making assumptions they were all the same.


Exactly. There are plenty of artists who I feel lukewarm about but have not yet really tried them out to see if I am wrong about them. But, for Rattle, I do think I've given many of his recordings a good spin and there are only a few that I actually like enough to include in my regular listening.

I think, way back, I did ask you to name the Rattle discs that you really truly value. I'll happily give them a deep hearing if I don't already know them.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I think, way back, I did ask you to name the Rattle discs that you really truly value. I'll happily give them a deep hearing if I don't already know them.


I will give you mine however note that while I believe they are all available in one place or another, they aren't all commercial/studio performances

- Berlioz - Damnation of Faust - LSO (not sure where it is)
- Janacek - Glagolitic Mass (original version) - BPO (Digital Concert Hall)
- Mahler - Symphony #4 - BPO/Christine Shafer (Digital Concert Hall)
- Mahler - Symphony #8 - NYOGB/Proms (YouTube)
- Mahler - Symphony #10 - either Bournemouth or Berlin but I lean slightly towards the former.
- Vaughan Williams - Symphony #5 LSO (YouTube)
- Wagner - Das Rheingold - Bavarian RSO (commercial)


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I think, way back, I did ask you to name the Rattle discs that you really truly value. I'll happily give them a deep hearing if I don't already know them.


As *mbhaub* posted earlier,



mbhaub said:


> It should also be added about Rattle: his Berlin recording of the Mahler 10th Cooke edition is a knockout and likely the best ever done. His four-movement version of the Bruckner 9th was also damn fine


so if you haven't heard these two yet you have much to discover.

I'll join in the chorus of those puzzled by high praise his Mahler 2 (EMI one, with CBSO) has received. I accumulated quite a collection of M2s but after reading all the positive reviews for Rattle I was quite underwhelmed. To be honest, I followed mostly the same reviews back in the day in purchasing B9 and M10 though - so sometimes the idea gets through.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'd probably agree with a previous poster that I tend to avoid some of his standard repertoire stuff. I'm not over-fond of his Mahler (but rate some of his later Mahler) but it's not bad, his Beethoven cycles are good but not special, I like his Brahms set but prefer others and I'm not a fan of his first Sibelius cycle at all but I need to give his 2nd attempt another try as I've not listened to it much. I like his Szymanowski a lot, his Dvorak Tone Poems (he might be someone who would do a decent Dvorak symphony cycle, who knows?), his, Bruckner 9 and a decent Carmina Burana and Carmen (I'm not a fan of opera but even I thought it sounded good). It'll be interesting to see what stuff he records in his new residency. Personally I think he should have a crack at some Martinu, etc and get away from the 'standards'. 

Yeah, I too would have welcomed more of Becca's blind comparisons at the time but there really wasn't enough uptake for her to continue doing them. It was just the same people involved me, you (Enthusiast), Kiki, etc. Its a lot of work when there's so little coming back. Tbh, I'd probably not have the time at the moment anyway due to my heavy involvement with another thread on the site / my blog and some stuff I'm listening to elsewhere (with a view to reviewing later).


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Becca said:


> I will give you mine however note that while I believe they are all available in one place or another, they aren't all commercial/studio performances
> 
> - Berlioz - Damnation of Faust - LSO (not sure where it is)
> - Janacek - Glagolitic Mass (original version) - BPO (Digital Concert Hall)
> ...


Good call Becca - I think that Rheingold has been overlooked by many.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I have always had a love-hate relationship with Rattle's records.

I think in general he has been maintaining a high quality in his recordings.

On the other hand, I sometimes got annoyed by little things that he did (or did not do) in the dynamics/tempi/balance that I found unnatural.

I also have mixed feelings about how he sometimes tended to "pace" a piece. Hold hold hold hold hold hold hold and then finally bang. To be fair he did not do this all the time, but the beginning of a piece is almost always underwhelming. On the other hand, a less full-blooded beginning in a piece is probably a more sensible way, otherwise I would complain it sounds too uniform throughout.

These little things tend to stay in my mind; but to be fair, apart from those *little* things, his recordings are often *excellent* performances.

I think he did have cultivated a very beautiful Rattlesque sound in Berlin. Creamy like Karajan, but it does not scream like Karajan, in fact I found his strings sounding a bit too thin at times; and he was definitely less obsessed with blending the sound of different instruments into an, ahem, homogeneous sound. I found all these quite admirable.

Perhaps I have always wanted his records to be perfect. You see, the Liverpudlian boy who rose to the top of the world was a great story to root for, but at the same time I have also become extra critical of anything that was "not perfect" (translation: "different from expectation"). Expecting too much while wanting to believe? Probably.

These are feelings I often had when listening to his le Sacre, early Mahler, Berlin Sibelius/Schumann/Beethoven/Rachmaninov recordings.

On the other hand, there is one recording that I wholeheartedly enjoy/admire without reservation - his last (2018) Berlin Mahler 6. 

I am also very grateful that he insisted to EMI to give us Nicholas Maw's Odyssey.

I'm not really interested in his personal life; and as long as he does not do a Levine or a Gatti, I'm happy to continue to buy his records. (But they have to be released first - his LSO Mahler 10 has been listed in mahlerfoundation.org's discography list for a long time but it still has not been released.)


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

By the way, Becca's Rattle selections in blindcoms, often non-commercial recordings, were often nice surprises.

Unfortunately, few were interested in participating in those blindcoms. The listening/comparing bit did require a lot of time and effort. The real reward was in what one discovered when listening *really* attentively. I also enjoyed very much the surprise when the performers were revealed. Whether I was able to correctly identified a performer was irrelevant. Discovering something that I didn't know/expect those performers would do was the real reward.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

AndorFoldes said:


> Well, he made an excellent choice of repertoire, the less frequently recorded Symphonies Nos. 88-92. He had one of the greatest orchestras in the world, the Berlin Philharmonic. And then he made recordings so anemic they could have been made by any pick-up ensemble. What a shame.


I think these recordings are quite good. Maybe not quite as one could hope for; but I certainly didn't find them anemic and the concertante (and passages of others) showed the Berlin woodwinds very nicely. Tbh I have heard very little Rattle. His old Haydn disc (60/70/90) with Birmingham has been a favorite for 25 years with me but it was my first encounter with these pieces. I also estimate highly that he did a completed Bruckner 9th with a top orchestra like Berlin. I've yet to listen to a highly lauded early Mahler 6 live with Berlin from the 1980s.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Malx said:


> Good call Becca - I think that Rheingold has been overlooked by many.


I attended an excellent Parsifal that he gave in London some years ago. His attention to detail and a passion for stories and things extra-musical certainly help with Wagner .....


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Merl said:


> I think objective listeners don't have preconceived ideas but none of us are perfect.


There's no such thing as an "objective listener". Everyone listens subjectively.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> There's no such thing as an "objective listener". Everyone listens subjectively.


Oh no - dons the anti objective/subjective debate hard hat and runs for cover


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Malx said:


> Oh no - dons the anti objective/subjective debate hard hat and runs for cover


:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Merl said:


> I'd probably agree with a previous poster that I tend to avoid some of his standard repertoire stuff. I'm not over-fond of his Mahler (but rate some of his later Mahler) but it's not bad, his Beethoven cycles are good but not special, I like his Brahms set but prefer others and I'm not a fan of his first Sibelius cycle at all but I need to give his 2nd attempt another try as I've not listened to it much. I like his Szymanowski a lot, his Dvorak Tone Poems (he might be someone who would do a decent Dvorak symphony cycle, who knows?), his, Bruckner 9 and a decent Carmina Burana and Carmen (I'm not a fan of opera but even I thought it sounded good). It'll be interesting to see what stuff he records in his new residency. Personally I think he should have a crack at some Martinu, etc and get away from the 'standards'.
> 
> Yeah, I too would have welcomed more of Becca's blind comparisons at the time but there really wasn't enough uptake for her to continue doing them. It was just the same people involved me, you (Enthusiast), Kiki, etc. Its a lot of work when there's so little coming back. Tbh, I'd probably not have the time at the moment anyway due to my heavy involvement with another thread on the site / my blog and some stuff I'm listening to elsewhere (with a view to reviewing later).


Thanks, Merl, I'll try his Dvorak. But I have never liked his Szymanowski (so far).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

cybernaut said:


> There's no such thing as an "objective listener". Everyone listens subjectively.


Yes, but don't get confused. What we are talking of here is whether one can be open to an experience that one expects to be disappointing! Objectivity in Merl's argument is being objective enough to be open. The opposite would be to not like something because you weren't expecting to like it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> I will give you mine however note that while I believe they are all available in one place or another, they aren't all commercial/studio performances
> 
> - Berlioz - Damnation of Faust - LSO (not sure where it is)
> - Janacek - Glagolitic Mass (original version) - BPO (Digital Concert Hall)
> ...


Thanks for this, Becca. It looks like I'm missing something on the Digital Concert Hall and perhaps even YouTube - I will explore some of these.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, but don't get confused. What we are talking of here is whether one can be open to an experience that one expects to be disappointing! Objectivity in Merl's argument is being objective enough to be open. The opposite would be to not like something because you weren't expecting to like it.


Nope. You cannot be objective. You are a subject.

Philosophers realized this.
Scientists have proved it many times.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I haven't had a chance to attend any of Rattel's live performances unfortunately , but I haven't heard a single bad or dull recording of anything from him . Whatever his interpretive quirks, his performances have never struck me as dull .
Interestingly, Rattle has recently been appointed to succeed the late, lamented Mariss Jansons at the Bavarian RSO , and Antonio Pappano has been appointed to succeed Rattle with the LSO . 
I think these are very promising appointments . 
Rattle is on the process of doing a new Ring cycle in Munich , I don't recall the label , and I believe Das Rheingold and Die Walkure have been released ; I really want to hear this .
Apparently, Rattle and the Bavarians get along very well .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

cybernaut said:


> Nope. You cannot be objective. You are a subject.
> 
> Philosophers realized this.
> Scientists have proved it many times.


I explained how the word was being used because I felt you may be misreading Merl's post. And I'm not stupid. I know what objectivity means but I also know that the word can be used in a variety of ways depending on the context.


----------

