# Sanctuary for Early music



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Baroque music is the serious music, while modernist music is not. So what is the seriousness about in music? People are confused if confronted with serious problems themself, because being reactional and inconsiderate is the norm for the majority. This is what is the seriousness about, people are confused about the concept all the time without knowing. 

I feel the seriousness of Baroque music and it is my work to clarify some basic ideas for people. The modernism in music is not serious. Yes, modernist music is not a part of serious music, why? because it had become a tool for many non-musical interests, for example, accoustical physics, monetic pursues, political propagndas, you can not call accoustical pieces that were conceived for various purely materialistic interests as serious music. Thing is serious because it is in its purity of its original purposes. You can not call a doctor whose obligation is to save life serious if he distracted himself in his own work and caused causualties. Right? 

Yes, I am very hostile to modern music, because it is the essential part of baroque spirit. It is necessary to creat a sanctuary for Baroque music to be studied and rediscovered, because the nature of it is not in touch with the rest of musical styles, and people are tended to confuse between the seriousness of music with parodies of it. Therefore, modernism is not compatible with baroque music, never, it is also very wrong to listen to modernist punk and baroque at the same time, being dedicated should be regarded as an ethical qualification in being an dedicated audience to the serious music. 

It is also very important to self-identify yourself whether being a curious listener to the baroque or a dedicated listener, because occasional people often leave very scathing comments and opinions that can harm the serious arts. For example serious math forums will ban posters who ever posted irrelevant topic once just in order to maintain the academic rigor. We need the similar rigor to Baroque music.

I may humbly beg people, who occasionally listen to baroque to decide him/herself being always occasional or dedicated/would-be dedecated to the Baroque, if always occasional, you should enjoy what you enjoy most and please be silent don`t pass crude judgement on the works and the artists. Even being peers in dedicated circle, not to incriminatingly criticize other artists or composers work is an well-respected ethical norm. Check Monteverdi and Artusi controversy. They never directly called each others name, only debating on ideas. 

Of course, Baroque music is open to all people, in fact I am very happy to find so many people do enjoy Baroque music, even many of you might be occasionally, it is also my motivation for posting this thread. The happiness in sharing is great, lets be generous and grateful, even if you are just an occasional listener, baroque music does add variety to your life. However, I do want to look further into future revival, and feel there are something need to be spoken out. I am not here to creat tension or anomosity, but to spread the correct ideas about choosing between what kind of music you like most, modernist or Baroque, sorry, but not to confuse between them.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Examples of mediocritism against Baroque:



> Ce volume est loin de faire partie de mes préférés parmi cette magistrale intégrale Froberger Aeolus par Bob van Asperen.
> 
> Peut-être à cause:
> 
> - du son du clavecin au premier abord un peu trop binaire dans une prise de son à la fois trop proche et agressive et réverbérée


This is a comment by a french buyer on my very cherished item in terms of recorded sound and artistry(Froberger Edition, Vol. 4 / Pour passer la mélancolie), while we may agree the players skill is excellent but he attacks on one of my favorite feature of this CD, the recorded sound. He says he is annoyed by the natural sound of the harpsichord Oh MY, if you find harpsichord annoying so why do you listen to baroque at all? What is worse is that, the company already compromised to this romantic taste and altered the original sound in Vol.1 of the latest issue of Froberger edition, OH MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!! I paid 30 euro for a recording of compromised sound quality beacuse of the half-baked opinion of romantic listeners!! unfortunately one of them is ranked among top 500 of amazon reviewers?

I have been collecting Bob Van Asperen`s Aeolus harpsichord recordings since 2005, these recordings are among my all time favorite, one of the most important reason is the natural ambient of the recorded sound, this is very important to me. I am very sensitive to badly edited sounds, for this reason I have stopped buying a lot of new recordings by avoiding some labels that do bad recordings with harpsichord. Aeolus is one of the few companies that dare to record the original sound of harpsichords, but many buyers started attacks on Mr Van Asperen recordings with the company on Amazon, check out amazon fr, how unjust Van Asperen`s CDs are given 3 stars, this particular reviewer ignored the artistic value always attacked the harpsichord sounds. He is sensitive to the sound too but not in a good way. I went to see this reviewer`s page, and finding he is more avid for romantic repertoir than baroque, yes, he seems to be a typical destroyer of baroque. Why he keeps hitting on harpsichord`s sound? I do not get it, it maybe a typical behavorial trait of the romantic destroyers, they feel the need to be invited like a king to be a baroque listener.

The first Aeolus harpsichord disc I got in 2005, the vol.2 of Froberger Ed, but the latest I got in 2014, is the very popular vol.1 which I could not get order untill 2014. However, the sound quality of the 2014 purchase is different from the 2005 purchase, which really upsets me. Yes, the 2014 sound quality is more docile, lacking harmonic edges, lacking reverbrations, totally lacking ambient implication, so the piano lovers may be happy now?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

The romantic attack on the Baroque also happens in the vocal field, but luckily so far I have heard enough positive voices to ignore the noises, also we have great conductors like Van Nevel brothers who keep rediscovering the forgotten spanish barqoue and other not-well-known Renaissance composers works. Thanks to their efforts and to all diligent musicologists for their works.:tiphat:


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

I'm sorry I can't comment on the ideas you've posted - partly because I don't understand them, partly because I listen to both Baroque and 20th century music and I wouldn't say my interest is "occasional" in either case.

Anyway, what intrigued me is your assessment of the Froberger edition sound. I just checked my own copy of Bob Van Asperen's Vol. 1 and compared the Gigue from Suite XIV (track 2 on the first CD) to the sound sample provided by Aeolus here: https://www.aeolus-music.com/ae_en/All-Discs/AE10024-Froberger-Johann-Jacob-Le-passage-du-Rhin - mine sounds exactly the same. I think it's a pretty good recording of the instrument, too. Do you mean to say that your copy sounds different? Obviously the different volumes sound differently, since the instruments are all different, and the acoustics of the halls, and so on. Somebody once told me harpsichords were incredibly difficult instruments to record, because of their acoustic properties.

Oh, and if you think an Amazon reviewer complaining is a "romantic attack on the Baroque", I wonder what you would say about Verlet's second recording of Froberger (the one titled "Froberger: ou l'intranquillité")...


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Myriadi said:


> I'm sorry I can't comment on the ideas you've posted - partly because I don't understand them, partly because I listen to both Baroque and 20th century music and I wouldn't say my interest is "occasional" in either case.
> 
> Anyway, what intrigued me is your assessment of the Froberger edition sound. I just checked my own copy of Bob Van Asperen's Vol. 1 and compared the Gigue from Suite XIV (track 2 on the first CD) to the sound sample provided by Aeolus here: https://www.aeolus-music.com/ae_en/All-Discs/AE10024-Froberger-Johann-Jacob-Le-passage-du-Rhin - mine sounds exactly the same. I think it's a pretty good recording of the instrument, too. Do you mean to say that your copy sounds different? Obviously the different volumes sound differently, since the instruments are all different, and the acoustics of the halls, and so on. Somebody once told me harpsichords were incredibly difficult instruments to record, because of their acoustic properties.
> 
> Oh, and if you think an Amazon reviewer complaining is a "romantic attack on the Baroque", I wonder what you would say about Verlet's second recording of Froberger (the one titled "Froberger: ou l'intranquillité")...


I have all Van Asperen`s Froberger Edition on harpsichords, the 2014 issue of Vol.1 is the only recording with disappointing sound out of the collection, it is not because of the instrument, the 1640 Westfalen Ruckers double. I have 3 more other recordings on the harpsichord but all of them are satisfying, 2 from DHM, one from MUSICOM. I know the true sound of the harpsichords under all possible tunings. I feel offended you even said that I can confuse between the bad sound editing and the natural sound of a musical instrument. I also bought the american issue in 2009, in fact I have two issues of Vol.1, they sound different also to each other, the 2009 american copy is probably a piracy so I did not mention. I even posted a question about the piracy on Aeolus site forum, my ID there is Alamos. But I checked lately the forum is already gone.

I am very fascinated with Naive, Astree, Opus 111 harpsichord recordings, without a doubt I am fully satisfied with all harpsichord recordings Blandine Verlet made with Naive company. I think the real difficulty of recording harpsichord is that some technicians want to appeal to people who would be annoyed by the instrument, it is why early recordings and cheap labels like Naxos do a great job with them. The emerging labels like Ambrosie, Satirino, and some re-issues might be trying to hard to make romantic ears listen to the harpsichord. I think it is a good idea but, the compromise has gotten its limits.

The labels which I found bad with harpsichord:

1-Ambrosie
2-Satirino
3-Re-issues of Erato recordings under *Warner Classics and Jazz *
4-Re-issues of Pierre Verany

Have been good but become worse recently:

1-HMF
2-Warner and Erato
3-Pierre Verany(Older recordings are better, the re-issues are bad)

Excellent:
1-Philips 
2-L'oiseau Lyre
3-Alpha/Ricercar
4-DHM
5-Vivarte Sony
6-Hyperion
7-Naxos (Cheap but excellent)
8-Metronome
9-Gaudeamus
10-EMI/Veritas 
11-Naive/Auvidis/Astree/Opus111
12-Musicom
13-Pierre Verany(Old issues made before 2004)
14-Aeolus( Generally good, except for the particular copy I talked about)
(More is left out to be concise)


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Myriadi said:


> I'm sorry I can't comment on the ideas you've posted - partly because I don't understand them, partly because I listen to both Baroque and 20th century music and I wouldn't say my interest is "occasional" in either case.
> 
> Anyway, what intrigued me is your assessment of the Froberger edition sound. I just checked my own copy of Bob Van Asperen's Vol. 1 and compared the Gigue from Suite XIV (track 2 on the first CD) to the sound sample provided by Aeolus here: https://www.aeolus-music.com/ae_en/All-Discs/AE10024-Froberger-Johann-Jacob-Le-passage-du-Rhin - mine sounds exactly the same. I think it's a pretty good recording of the instrument, too. Do you mean to say that your copy sounds different? Obviously the different volumes sound differently, since the instruments are all different, and the acoustics of the halls, and so on. Somebody once told me harpsichords were incredibly difficult instruments to record, because of their acoustic properties.
> 
> Oh, and if you think an Amazon reviewer complaining is a "romantic attack on the Baroque", I wonder what you would say about Verlet's second recording of Froberger (the one titled "Froberger: ou l'intranquillité")...


I avoid to cite the attack on vocal field because the attacker uses real name on his account, I am not happy with his comments as much as with the french user mentioned above. I want to be nice and polite, I thought citing the case of harpsichord will make people understand my point a little bit, I do know that people will have great difficulty in understanding my ideas, because my taste is as sophisticated as my other interests in metaphysisc. I would expect a long time discussion to elaborate.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> I feel offended you even said that I can confuse between the bad sound editing and the natural sound of a musical instrument.


I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't mean to - I just asked if your CD's track sounds different from the audio file at the Aeolus website. I mentioned that each volume sounds different because to me some of them are more preferable than others, that's all. Surely it's it's permissible to dislike an instrument and/or a hall?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Myriadi said:


> I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't mean to - I just asked if your CD's track sounds different from the audio file at the Aeolus website. I mentioned that each volume sounds different because to me some of them are more preferable than others, that's all. Surely it's it's permissible to dislike an instrument and/or a hall?


Each label has its own recording formula, the result is that every label sound distinct with all kind of music. You can try the bad recordings mentioned about, you will find out the difference. So far, I do not find any original instrument to be unfavorable, it is a part of the charm. The modern dialectical thinking make people more proned to debate than listening.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Re the harpsichord sound in Asperen's Froberger v. 4, I find it helps greatly to turn the volume down. I certainly find the CD listenable. I'm not sure if ever heard the instrument on other recordings. Where is it?

Re Nicholas's review on Amazon.fr, I was particularly interested in this comment



> - jeu qui, au moins dans la première moitié du programme manque de rythme, de densité donnant l'impression, probablement voulue de laisser-aller voire de s'écouter jouer. . . Et pourtant avec les dernières pièces de plus en plus tragiques et dramatiques, on voit où Asperen veux nous emmener, on doit admettre une certaine pertinence et une vraie efficacité dans ce parti pris d'abandon dans la douleur mélancolique, d'autant que les incursions déclamatoires descriptives se font plus rares et qu'Asperen finit par varier, avec goût, les registres de ce clavecin.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Myriadi said:


> Oh, and if you think an Amazon reviewer complaining is a "romantic attack on the Baroque", I wonder what you would say about Verlet's second recording of Froberger (the one titled "Froberger: ou l'intranquillité")...


That's her 3rd Froberger I believe - she released recordings in 1976, 1989 and 2000


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Re the harpsichord sound in Asperen's Froberger v. 4, I find it helps greatly to turn the volume down. I certainly find the CD listenable. I'm not sure if ever heard the instrument on other recordings. Where is it?
> 
> Re Nicholas's review on Amazon.fr, I was particularly interested in this comment


We (with Myriadi) were talking about is the vol.1(Le Passage du Rhin), Van Asperen plays a Ruckers double from Westfalen dated 1640.

This is a famous instrument which is frequently used, notably by Gustav Leonhardt. There are 4 more recordings with this instrument that I know, all of them I have in my collection: 2 from DHM, 1 from Vivarte, 1 from Musicom(I mistook about the correct number, in my previous post). I would like to recommend to you with images.







Above: Froberger Werke Für Cembalo.
Note: This is a 1962 recording, not to be mistaken for the 1989 recording of Froberger on a Mietke copy.








G. Leonhardt English Virginal Music, DHM








Bob V Asperen, Harpsichord In The Netherlands, Vivarte








Wolfgang Kostujak, Nordrheinische Musik des 17.Jahrhunderts, Musicom
I really recommend this CD, superlative performance and sound.

The recording I argued against the french commentator about is Vol.4(Pour passer la melancolie), 







where an antique anonymous german/french double is used, the sound of the instrument is very bright and poignent. I love the sound of the anonymous harpsichord, there is no second recording with that antique as far as I know. I think one has to love the poignancy of harpsichord , not just being spoiled by the weak and warm sound of a few select italian instruments.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> We (with Myriadi) were talking about is the vol.1(Le Passage du Rhin), Van Asperen plays a Ruckers double from Westfalen dated 1640.
> 
> This is a famous instrument which is frequently used, notably by Gustav Leonhardt. There are 4 more recordings with this instrument that I know, all of them I have in my collection: 2 from DHM, 1 from Vivarte, 1 from Musicom(I mistook about the correct number, in my previous post). I would like to recommend to you with images.
> View attachment 99726
> ...


Excellent choice of CD's.:tiphat:
Personally I am waiting for the fourth volume of the complete Louis Couperin recordings with van Asperen.
Why do we have to wait so long?
Now I start listening to the 1962 recording,Froberger / Leonhardt wich is a milestone a real jewel.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

You(not refering to any speific individual) will have to listen to more and more harpsichord recordings, and become more dedicated to the repertoir to get my points here. If you still try to bargain with the period tastes and the poignant antiques for your own steadfast romantic sympathies, you will never understand me.


In fact I avoid explaining everything in order to allow people`s natural experience development,I mean, all people should develop their own proper taste by their own experience, not by others literal opinions. All I can say at best is to listen more, be open-minded, or be more dedicated. 

G. Leonahardt did say that being enthusiastic is amateuristic, but he forgot to mention that, being dedicated is not at all equal to being enthusiastic. So, everyone does not need to feel ashamed for being more dedicated to something starting from enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is purely out of curiosity and naivity, but dedication is found upon carefully and meticulously maintained self-discipline, which can be developed from enthusiasm and will make one a welcomed, educated audience or reader to all kind of arts. Not just music, therefore, being amateuristic is not at all lower to the professionals from the start, there is a level to aspire for amateurs, to become a connoisseur. Being a connoisseur, is to be as educated as professionals without being a professional oneself.

I am dedicated, disciplined, not just naively enthusiatic. This is what I would reply to Late leonhardt`s opinion about the amateurs.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Traverso said:


> Excellent choice of CD's.:tiphat:
> Personally I am waiting for the fourth volume of the complete Louis Couperin recordings with van Asperen.
> Why do we have to wait so long?
> Now I start listening to the 1962 recording,Froberger / Leonhardt wich is a milestone a real jewel.


 Remember not to shy from turning up a bit sound volumn if not disturbing the neighbors, also not to use earphones as much as possible, earphones suck for classical music. :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Tell me, what do the harpsichord music people here make of Jane Chapman's Bauyn manuscript recordings? She was a Koopman student, and you can hear the influence quite strongly I think.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> Remember not to shy from turning up a bit sound volumn if not disturbing the neighbors, also not to use earphones as much as possible, earphones suck for classical music. :lol:


I am not agree sir,one has to listen to this delicate instrument in a volume that is correct,there is one exception that springs to my mind and that is a recording unique in its kind.
It is funny and robust and it may served loud as well.

I have a very good headphone but I rarely use it.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Traverso said:


> Personally I am waiting for the fourth volume of the complete Louis Couperin recordings with van Asperen.
> *Why do we have to wait so long?*


Because van Asperen is busy recording unimportant pieces among others by a certain Popma van Oevering. The booklet to this mentions a CD with an Art of the Fuga, maybe a new The Art of Fugue recording by van Asperen, but probably we will have to wait a long time for it to be released - as usual with Aeolus.



Traverso said:


> Now I start listening to the 1962 recording,Froberger / Leonhardt wich is a milestone a real jewel.


Yes, a desert island recording.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Tell me, what do the harpsichord music people here make of Jane Chapman's Bauyn manuscript recordings? *She was a Koopman student*, and you can hear the influence quite strongly I think.


Not an unconditional recommendation. Is this recording much known? At least not by me. Nonetheless, to correct the situation I have ordered it from an AMP dealer.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Tell me, what do the harpsichord music people here make of Jane Chapman's Bauyn manuscript recordings? She was a Koopman student, and you can hear the influence quite strongly I think.


I have bought Koopman`s complete works of Buxtehude(in fact, not truly complete yet), I am satisfied by his vocal and instrumental renditions. As for the new harpsichordists, I find Leon Berben, Pieter Jan Belder, Benjamin Alard are not disappointing and regularly produce solo recordings. Some others like Lars Mortensen, Jory Vinikour, Ottavio Dantone which have nice skills but do not produce much recordings, no more able young people seem to be as much engaged as Late Leonhardt with harpsichord anymore. Among the older generations, Bob Van Asperen is the closest in style to Leonhardt, Koopman is enjoyable but his rendition is not settling, making one seeking for more. I never heard Jane Chapman`s rendition so I can not say for sure.

As for the playing style, the passing of Gustav Leonhardt has left a great wound on the harpsichord revival, no more than 1-2 young artists comes close to his flair if not just less engaged in the art, so far I only find *Leon Berben *is somehow compensating the lost of Leonhardt in term of skill, I am enamored with his performance of well-tempered clavier with Brilliant label, even though the label is not ideal of recording technics, but not too bad. I am really looking forward to his rendition of Froberger, Bach suites, Couperin family`s music and more.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Traverso said:


> I am not agree sir,one has to listen to this delicate instrument in a volume that is correct,there is one exception that springs to my mind and that is a recording unique in its kind.
> It is funny and robust and it may served loud as well.
> 
> I have a very good headphone but I rarely use it.


Yes, I do not mean too laud, given the type of the speaker, the ideal volumne may be a bit different for each condition.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Anyone heard this, or know anything about the music? (Oh I just saw a negative comment from Premont!)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> Not an unconditional recommendation. Is this recording much known? At least not by me. Nonetheless, to correct the situation I have ordered it from an AMP dealer.


She has recorded three volumes of Bauyn Manuscript stuff, I think about 6 hours of music all in all, some of music rare and good. Her style is original really - but you can hear some of Koopman's energy and free spirit.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2017)

Where is the sad nobility and resignation in this pavane,compared with Leonhardt ? 
Leonhardt is the artist I most admire.
I am not a big admirer of François Couperin but when Leonhardt is playing it becomes a different matter,he is really the greatest sculptor and refined aristocrat.
Listening to Ton Koopman I hear to much Koopman.
Listening to Leonhardt it is like you listen to the composer itself.
I cherish his recordings,cembalo,organ and of course the Bach cantatas.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> View attachment 99739
> 
> 
> Anyone heard this, or know anything about the music? (Oh I just saw a negative comment from Premont!)


This was to me one of this years biggest disappointments, first an foremost because the music is utterly forgettable. Van Asperen can't be faulted, he does his best and the recorded sound is good. A pity though that some of the suites are played upon the equally tuned Müller organ in Leeuwarden (where Oevering once was resident organist). A magnificent organ except for the tuning.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> She has recorded three volumes of Bauyn Manuscript stuff, I think about 6 hours of music all in all, some of music rare and good. Her style is original really - but you can hear some of Koopman's energy and free spirit.


Thanks, I wasn't aware that there is three CDs. Need a bit detective work.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Traverso said:


> Where is the sad nobility and resignation in this pavane,compared with Leonhardt ?
> Leonhardt is the artist I most admire.
> I am not a big admirer of François Couperin but when Leonhardt is playing it becomes a different matter,he is really the greatest sculptor ans refined aristocrat.
> Listening to Ton Koopman I hear to much Koopman.
> ...


Agree very much with this. Chapman seems rightout prosaic and earthbound compared to Leonhardt - and many others.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> Agree very much with this. Chapman seems rightout prosaic and earthbound compared to Leonhardt - and many others.


The thing I appreciate about Jane Chapman in the Louis Couperin Pavan is that it presses forward. She makes the music into a metaphor for the unavoidable passage of time. Emotionally it's full of pain, especially towards the end. I think it's wonderful. It's like she's saying that time is _not_ something which heals.

Leonhardt's performance a different kettle of fish, he suspends time. He makes the music into a metaphor for eternity. Emotionally I think it's more consoling than Chapman's, as if he's saying Tiden læger alle sår.

I wouldn't say that Chapman is more or less poetic than Leonhardt, I would say that Leonhardt is more spiritual. Compared with Leonhardt, Chapman is indeed earthbound, deliberately I'm sure. But it's not necessarily a weakness, to be concerned with earthly pains, visceral emotions.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> *Baroque music is the serious music, while modernist music is not.* So what is the seriousness about in music? People are confused if confronted with serious problems themself, because being reactional and inconsiderate is the norm for the majority. This is what is the seriousness about, people are confused about the concept all the time without knowing.
> 
> I feel the seriousness of Baroque music and it is my work to clarify some basic ideas for people. The modernism in music is not serious. *Yes, modernist music is not a part of serious music, why? because it had become a tool for many non-musical interests, for example, accoustical physics, monetic pursues, political propagndas, you can not call accoustical pieces that were conceived for various purely materialistic interests as serious music. Thing is serious because it is in its purity of its original purposes. You can not call a doctor whose obligation is to save life serious if he distracted himself in his own work and caused causualties. Right? *
> 
> ...


I used to be in the same boat and couldn't take modern music (let alone postmodern, let's not go there) seriously. The reason it didn't sound serious was because the common practice tonal system was entrenched in me, and anything outside of it sounded alien, and it was hard to identify or take seriously that. But modern is a real attempt to expand musical boundaries. What we perceive as emotion in music is just the composer pulling your strings. I was a sucker for tuneful romantic themes for a long time, and felt there was really something there, that is missing in other music, which sounded dishonest to me, especially modern. But I learned a listener can "grow out" of the emotion, and not in a way that is dehumanizing, but rather less presumptuous of what emotion in music is.

Materialistic interest over serious music usually means just writing music for the masses, and modern music is I would say opposite in many cases. I know some people who think Baroque is artificial with its ornamentation and stateliness (I had that view myself previously).

It is easier to presume something about music that doesn't fit our perceptions than to find something in that music which could be totally against our background or nature to like.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I used to be in the same boat and couldn't take modern music (let alone postmodern, let's not go there) seriously. The reason it didn't sound serious was because the common practice tonal system was entrenched in me, and anything outside of it sounded alien, and it was hard to identify or take seriously that. But modern is a real attempt to expand musical boundaries. What we perceive as emotion in music is just the composer pulling your strings. I was a sucker for tuneful romantic themes for a long time, and felt there was really something there, that is missing in other music, which sounded dishonest to me, especially modern. But I learned a listener can "grow out" of the emotion, and not in a way that is dehumanizing, but rather less presumptuous of what emotion in music is.
> 
> *Materialistic interest over serious music usually means just writing music for the masses, and modern music is I would say opposite in many cases. I know some people who think Baroque is artificial with its ornamentation and stateliness (I had that view myself previously).*
> 
> It is easier to presume something about music that doesn't fit our perceptions than to find something in that music which could be totally against our background or nature to like.


In fact, I often take part in discussing about metaphysics, and such discussion is already sealed in clear answer to me. It is also a reason why I came in and dare to start such a thread. Yes, musical styles do implicate many profound metaphysical arguments. Ad hominem is not music but science. We never arrive in an age of the vulgarity untill modern days even Late Leonhardt had say that modern democracy is about vulgarity. Today I will elaborate his point as a part of my argument.

Many people mistake science as the ultimate tool against the long standing tradition of the mass mentality. How Karl Marx manipulated the uneducated workers to mass murder? He exploited the superfacial concepts of democracy and science, and the people would commit any possible crime for the names of democracy and science, however I do not think that people are always inevitably proned to be manipulated, but under certain circumstances especially when the vested-interest steps in and fabricates propagandas according to scientific methodology, people can be motivated. Science is a double blade, it has no offer of short cuts to the truth, but people are bound to think science is the truth for them against their perceived history of injustice.

When it comes to music, dialectical thinking as I have said, makes people proned to debate than carefully listening to other people`s ideas. Bad music will be made in the name of science, as a form of debate or attack against the tradition and such music would appeal to the kind of people who are ready to find a "short-cut" to their self-identity. Therefore, the revolt against the tradition is the true Ad hominem. Saying Baroque artificial is like many atheists saying religion is made from fear, but negelecting the truth how many people today are deterred from speaking the common senses. Late Leonhardt might be refering to the French Revolution as the vulgar democracy and its lasting influence on art untill today, not to the general democracy I believe.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> It is easier to presume something about music that doesn't fit our perceptions than to find something in that music which could be totally against our background or nature to like.


LOL, this is a very circumventing argument. I might have answered it but I may just offer clearer opinion. Society, not people is proned to go against individuals, and many, not majority people are clueless enough to be a slave to the society, and then debate will overtake everyone`s mind and thus dialectical thinking will overwhelm everything. It is how people would destroy themself in the name of something they have no ideas. It is easier for people to destroy things today than to appreciate them, even if it means self-destruction, people will even destroy something before assuming anything from it. Therefore, using music as an attack to the tradition is very easy to get along with the mass in stead of the true music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

We have to be careful with the word "vulgar" in English. It can mean "appertaining to ordinary people" - this is the sense in which The French Revolution was vulgar, and arguably some of its consequences. It's not at all pejorative, on the contrary, but to use the word like that is slightly old fashioned. 

It can also mean "bad taste" and unsophisticated. 


Leonhardt recorded an awful lot of Forqueray, and I've read that he dismissed Beethoven - including op 131 - as vulgar. I think it's not obvious what he meant, and I wonder which word he used (presumably Dutch.)


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> I was a sucker for tuneful romantic themes for a long time, and felt there was really something there, that is missing in other music, which sounded dishonest to me, especially modern. But I learned a listener can "grow out" of the emotion, and not in a way that is dehumanizing, but rather less presumptuous of what emotion in music is.


It is not necessary to be grown out of emotion, but to tame it and live with it and sharing it. Professionals can not be enthusiatic not because it is a shameful thing, but because they need to split their enthusiasm into small pieces and implant into their audiences. Just like comedians must not laugh themself, there is no great mystery behind it.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> We have to be careful with the word "vulgar" in English. It can mean "appertaining to ordinary people" - this is the sense in which The French Revolution was vulgar, and arguably some of its consequences. It's not at all pejorative, on the contrary, but to use the word like that is slightly old fashioned.
> 
> It can also mean "bad taste" and unsophisticated.
> 
> Leonhardt recorded an awful lot of Forqueray, and I've read that he dismissed Beethoven - including op 131 - as vulgar. I think it's not obvious what he meant, and I wonder which word he used (presumably Dutch.)


He spoke in French I believe, he did use "vulgaire", it is true that the French Rev was vulgaire, I found recently that all noble families were abolished and their collection of books and antiques were pillaged during the time. It is very clear that Modernism is the coronation of vulgarity, I can not deny that many new stuff and innovation can be born from it but it also destroys many of the old gems.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Leonhardt recorded an awful lot of Forqueray, and I've read that he dismissed Beethoven - including op 131 - as vulgar. I think it's not obvious what he meant, and I wonder which word he used (presumably Dutch.)


I absolutely love Forqueray`s music played either on harpsichord or on viol or in ensemble. So sad he destroyed all his music, only 1/10 of his work is left to us.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> The thing I appreciate about Jane Chapman in the Louis Couperin Pavan is that it presses forward. She makes the music into a metaphor for the unavoidable passage of time. Emotionally it's full of pain, especially towards the end. I think it's wonderful. It's like she's saying that time is _not_ something which heals.
> 
> Leonhardt's performance a different kettle of fish, he suspends time. He makes the music into a metaphor for eternity. Emotionally I think it's more consoling than Chapman's, as if he's saying Tiden læger alle sår.
> 
> I wouldn't say that Chapman is more or less poetic than Leonhardt, I would say that Leonhardt is more spiritual. Compared with Leonhardt, Chapman is indeed earthbound, deliberately I'm sure. But it's not necessarily a weakness, to be concerned with earthly pains, visceral emotions.


Time is what causes our pain and wounds. We lose our beloved ones with time and eventually we are going to die ourselves. But time is also the healer. Usually pain fades and wounds heal with time, when we learn to accept the circumstances. And no wound heals without leaving back a scar, but this does not mean that the wound isn't healed. Your interpretation of Chapman's approach may be correct, being meant to depict the mood in a person who can't accept the circumstances. If so I find her attitude very defaistic and depressing, and this is not, what I hear in this pavane. In a way she virtually denudes the music, an approach reminding me of Tilney's latest Byrd CD. But of course we cannot know if Couperin just meant it in that way.

On the other hand Leonhardt, as you say, suspends time. His music making depicts small bits of eternity. But when time stands still, there will be no wounds and no healing nor any need of healing. It is well known, that it is possible to get a similar feeling of "time standing still" in the course of meditation. This is a spiritual experience (even for agnostics like me) which may intensify our feeling of being alive. I do not know if this can act as a kind of consolation, but at least it can fill us with joy and gratitude to the creator - or if he does not exist - to his material counterpart. This is why I much prefer Leonhardt's spiritual interpretation.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2017)

Some thoughts About Gustav Leonhardt:

At the service in the church (funeral)

Pièce de résistance was the sermon, read by Leonhardt's colleague and confidant,
musicologist Dr Jan van Biezen. The text has not been released by the family until now, but the
sledgehammer impressed and still throb.
From the memory and in paraphrase: we are earthly
beings can contain little and have to die to become wise. Life is the work of
God, death is the work of man. All good is present in man, but also evil
comes from him (Auschwitz!). Egocentricity is the most detestable quality. The
immoral is up to now, we have to do it all with the human deficit, we are
all sinners (the deceased himself not least), but 'how terrible is the amoral
man.'
-
Leonhardt acted as a cultural pessimist. His 'Leichpredigt' was an indictment
against the filth and ugliness of the world and against man who thinks it is without God
can ask. Against the world in which the care for the neighbor does not get the attention that he
have to have. All good, all salvation comes from above and awaiting the final judgement.

the souls of the dead also wait for the arrival of the Savior on the last day.
Leonhardt professed the faith of an eighteenth-century man, not touched by the Enlightenment.
Perhaps he imagined himself in the good company of Bach and maybe even that
van Sweelinck. If the attendees condoning the human deficit
and had expected life here on earth, they were deceived. It was Leonhardt ten
feet out. He kept his followers, his lesson, until the end of the lesson.

He detested the electronic music
(because the execution did not matter at all), but certainly loved the 'last
Stravinsky '.

Leonhardt was a positivist, a Rankian, a disciple
by Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), who as historian was all about it 'bloss [zu]
they say who really wished '. Of course, Leonhardt knew deeply in his heart that the
'Authentic Bach' was an impossibility. That explains his increasing modesty
over the years. All reconstructions of the past are hypothetical in nature. What we can do and have to do over and over again is to replace bad hypotheses with something
less bad. Leonhardt nevertheless wanted Bach to be as close as possible with his ongoing study of Bach
approaching, so much so that if the composer hears his own music in Leonhardt's interpretation
he would not be frightened but would at least recognize something of it. But thinking like Bach and living more or less with and next to him in his world was an impossibility.
Moreover, as the musicologist Richard Taruskin pointed out in an essay about the old music movement after 1990, 'To the letter we are now better informed than ever, but also to the spirit'?
That domain was unreachable. Taruskin regarded the movement with its hunting for absolute certainty as a modernist phenomenon, a reaction to romanticism, and thus the movement was a typical twentieth-century phenomenon for him. If someone has been a twentieth century, then Leonhardt!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Interesting we have some suggesting Leonhardt takes a spiritual approach, yet Traverso revealing he was a positivist. Are those two things really compatible? 

Perhaps Leonhardt was able to bring this spirituality out from the Couperin composition regardless of his personal beliefs. 

In general his interpretations of Bach don't strike me as especially spiritual, reverential maybe is a better descriptor. Of course these things are to a certain extent subjective.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> He spoke in French I believe, he did use "vulgaire", it is true that the French Rev was vulgaire, I found recently that all noble families were abolished and their collection of books and antiques were pillaged during the time. It is very clear that Modernism is the coronation of vulgarity, I can not deny that many new stuff and innovation can be born from it but it also destroys many of the old gems.


Yes I remember now an article in Nouvel Obs.

Just wanted to say thank you for some of the posts in this thread, which are informative, provocative and inspiring. Traverso, thanks for those details about the funeral speeches, it can't have been easy to put them into English, I appreciate your work. And premont, those are some interesting ideas which I shall mull over and respond to.

I too enjoy Forqueray transcriptions, and I'd say that at the end of his life, in his final Forqueray, the CD called Bliss and Pain, Leonhardt even finds a spirituality in the music, and a sense of abandon - to use the word that Nicolas used of Asperen's Louis Couperin Vol 4.

Et voilà, that's brought the thread full circle!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Interesting we have some suggesting Leonhardt takes a spiritual approach, yet Traverso revealing he was a positivist. Are those two things really compatible?
> 
> In general his interpretations of Bach don't strike me as especially spiritual, reverential maybe is a better descriptor. Of course these things are to a certain extent subjective.


The way I used "spiritual" was a bit fast and loose, it was really only to make a point about time, about how Leonhardt and Chapman manage the listener's perception of time in the pavan - and maybe also to comment about the sort of emotions they make the music express. It's not a theological or even a metaphysical sense of "spiritual" - maybe I should have chosen a different concept (eternal, abstract . . . )

As far as reverential is concerned, I expect it is indeed true that Leonhardt both admired and respected Bach's music, and no doubt you can hear this in his playing.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2017)

Ik love the music of Bach and no other musician brings it so eloquently and soulful as Gustav Leonhardt. He was like a guru, I can 't think of no better intermedium, a true servant of the great Bach. There are many shortcomings in the cantatas but I favor them all the same. They asked him once who influenced him the most. There is one person he answered, Alfred Deller.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Taruskin regarded the movement with its hunting for absolute certainty as a modernist phenomenon, a reaction to romanticism, and thus the movement was a typical twentieth-century phenomenon for him. If someone has been a twentieth century, then Leonhardt!


I acknowledge the pursue for authentic period performance is 20th century thing so I promoted the idea of a musical sanctuary for Baroque/Early music. The santuary is more spiritual than physical, I mean, people if decided to dedicate themself to Baroque should learn to adopt some type of mindset and ethical stance regarding to various musical movements. (So what are the proper mindset and ethical standards are still to be formulated, I have not summed up yet) We can not ignored the fact that most modernists are hostile toward Baroque music, do not be fooled by official formalism saying everything is at peace, which is superfacial. But in reality, there are many people who act reactionally against Baroque. We do not need to ad hominem criticize them, but just take a firm stance so that not to be swayed by any kind of attacks. Thinking it is impossible to reproduce Bach and his time is also a kind of romanticism which I may allow, because, irreproducibility of the style is foremostly a form of high regard and Bach and his many contempraries do deserve such a regard.

We ourself are the incarnation of our age of romanticism if not modernism, to carry on the eternal art of the past is our job unique to our age, we should be proud of that.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> Leonhardt was a positivist, a Rankian, a disciple
> by Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), who as historian was all about it 'bloss [zu]
> they say who really wished '. Of course, Leonhardt knew deeply in his heart that the
> 'Authentic Bach' was an impossibility. That explains his increasing modesty
> over the years.


His lifestyle is a great inspiration to me and to my friends also. I shared my admiration for G.Leonhardt`s art and lifestyle with my friends and we are deeped moved by him. It is very difficult to find another man of our age who maintains such a high level of self-discipline and modesty. He did not only speak about the ideals but aactually live by the ideals. But I also would say that, even if his art and lifestyle are irreproducible, but to pursue his spirit should become an ethical standard to build within our musical life a sanctuary for the good music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> We have to be careful with the word "vulgar" in English. It can mean "appertaining to ordinary people" - this is the sense in which The French Revolution was vulgar, and arguably some of its consequences. It's not at all pejorative, on the contrary, but to use the word like that is slightly old fashioned.
> 
> It can also mean "bad taste" and unsophisticated.
> 
> Leonhardt recorded an awful lot of Forqueray, and I've read that he dismissed Beethoven - including op 131 - as vulgar. I think it's not obvious what he meant, and I wonder which word he used (presumably Dutch.)





Ariasexta said:


> In fact, I often take part in discussing about metaphysics, and such discussion is already sealed in clear answer to me. It is also a reason why I came in and dare to start such a thread. Yes, musical styles do implicate many profound metaphysical arguments. Ad hominem is not music but science. We never arrive in an age of the vulgarity untill modern days even Late Leonhardt had say that modern democracy is about vulgarity. Today I will elaborate his point as a part of my argument.
> 
> Many people mistake science as the ultimate tool against the long standing tradition of the mass mentality. How Karl Marx manipulated the uneducated workers to mass murder? He exploited the superfacial concepts of democracy and science, and the people would commit any possible crime for the names of democracy and science, however I do not think that people are always inevitably proned to be manipulated, but under certain circumstances especially when the vested-interest steps in and fabricates propagandas according to scientific methodology, people can be motivated. Science is a double blade, it has no offer of short cuts to the truth, but people are bound to think science is the truth for them against their perceived history of injustice.
> 
> When it comes to music, dialectical thinking as I have said, makes people proned to debate than carefully listening to other people`s ideas. Bad music will be made in the name of science, as a form of debate or attack against the tradition and such music would appeal to the kind of people who are ready to find a "short-cut" to their self-identity. Therefore, the revolt against the tradition is the true Ad hominem. *Saying Baroque artificial is like many atheists saying religion is made from fear, but negelecting the truth how many people today are deterred from speaking the common senses.* Late Leonhardt might be refering to the French Revolution as the vulgar democracy and its lasting influence on art untill today, not to the general democracy I believe.


Compared to Mozart, a lot of Beethoven's music is uncouth and vulgar, I don't doubt that. The Appassionata Sonata is horrific to dignified tastes. But there is something to gain in it than sticking with safer, more pleasant music. The same goes for modern music. Subjective "common sense" in music is an instinct, but not necessarily any truth to it. There is a lot of modern music that is quite beautiful, brilliant and inspiring when the mind is initiated. The reason a lot of contemporary pop music is popular over baroque is because young people are sticking with their instincts and "common sense" and going after what is immediately catchy. To like early music for these people could be against what they think is common sense (which applies to reason and life experiences more than to Art, is what I'm saying).


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Compared to Mozart, a lot of Beethoven's music is uncouth and vulgar, I don't doubt that. The Appassionata Sonata is horrific to dignified tastes. But there is something to gain in it than sticking with safer, more pleasant music. The same goes for modern music. Subjective "common sense" in music is an instinct, but not necessarily any truth to it. There is a lot of modern music that is quite beautiful, brilliant and inspiring when the mind is initiated. The reason a lot of contemporary pop music is popular over baroque is because young people are sticking with their instincts and "common sense" and going after what is immediately catchy. To like early music for these people could be against what they think is common sense (which applies to reason and life experiences more than to Art, is what I'm saying).


I never doubt that romantic and modernist music can be innovative, my point is to find a balance between the two movements: Revival VS Modernism. An overwhelmingly large portion of modernist music is a form of attack for the attack`s sake against the ancient music, the good modern music is thus born from a pool of vulgar examplars. So I choosed to generalize the modernism, I have to, otherwise my point can not be explained, my stance will become a mirage like what most people conceived about baroque music.

My methodology of attacking modernism exactly comes from modernist methodology, I do not care if my methodology makes me a part of modernism, even if I am an audience to modernist music, I would also become as picky as now, the nature of modernism is not unified itself, people just want to pretend that modernism is one smooth picture.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Maybe you can assume that the Revival is also a part of modernism, so that you can be more comfortable with whatever we are going to coming up with to reinterprete the ancient arts. :tiphat:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Compared to Mozart, a lot of Beethoven's music is uncouth and vulgar, I don't doubt that. The Appassionata Sonata is horrific to dignified tastes. But there is something to gain in it than sticking with safer, more pleasant music. The same goes for modern music. Subjective "common sense" in music is an instinct, but not necessarily any truth to it. There is a lot of modern music that is quite beautiful, brilliant and inspiring when the mind is initiated. The reason a lot of contemporary pop music is popular over baroque is because young people are sticking with their instincts and "common sense" and going after what is immediately catchy. To like early music for these people could be against what they think is common sense (which applies to reason and life experiences more than to Art, is what I'm saying).


Listening to Baroque is not just abot pleasant, my bitterness and perseverance maybe are a part of the modernism, because it is in our age, some people are enthusiatic after ancient arts. I know my stance is rooted in modernist education, however, I do not and will not try to evade from my primary stance all togather however being a modernist. I do not care for the caption from the start. If modernism is indded powerful, she should allow me and more people to form a character powerful enough to break the conceptual constraints about what a modernist should be like or not to be like.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ariasexta I have a hard time understanding you, but it sounds like you are basically blaming modern music for being too scientific on one hand and on the other holding up Leonhardt as the ideal role model as a person. Here is a review, Leonhardt was a positivist, therefore he believed in science above all else. His views would be quite far removed from the general thought of the Baroque period. 

Personally, I see the prevailing views in the Baroque era too dominated by religion, and Positivism as a system of thought going too far in the other direction ultimately creating a kind of spiritual retardation. However, that doesn't mean that individuals holding either views can't be very gifted composers or musicians.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Subjective "common sense" in music is an instinct, but not necessarily any truth to it. There is a lot of modern music that is quite beautiful, brilliant and inspiring when the mind is initiated. The reason a lot of contemporary pop music is popular over baroque is because young people are sticking with their instincts and "common sense" and going after what is immediately catchy. To like early music for these people could be against what they think is common sense (which applies to reason and life experiences more than to Art, is what I'm saying).


Common sense in our age is rather a luxury, the more common is the scientific authoritarianism, people do not share common world view or we just find out that democracy does fail to reconcile between different world views. This is the problem of modernism, we take scientists knowledges and legal enforcements as our own power. If you try to speak to professionals, you will understand that, in our most familiar case of the Leonhardt interview, most are shocked by his professional loftiness, because we always are tended to think we know each other. This is the face of democracy, communism is no better maybe worse.

Within the society without common senses, people`s instinct is destruction, we have witness in our history of revolutions. Therefore we have the music of pretension, pretending to be innovative, to be something that it is not. People`s instinct is not self-awareness, Plato`s said to be self-aware is the highest form of knowledge, we borrow other knowledge how can we know ourself? Of course the majority follow their instinct in the dark and keep following by their instinct. The nature of the mass never changed, if the light of human right has changed anything, it shall be shown in tolerance, this is not always the case, romantic reviewers come and attack first, they have no patience, this is also why they cherish bad music, Baroque for them is just a coarse luxurious antique, historical value>musical value, and such comment is many time found on product review already, last I remember is written by a columnist for the sole surviving play by Domenico Mazzocchi.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

tdc said:


> Ariasexta I have a hard time understanding you, but it sounds like you are basically blaming modern music for being too scientific on one hand and on the other holding up Leonhardt as the ideal role model as a person. Here is a review, Leonhardt was a positivist, therefore he believed in science above all else. His views would be quite far removed from the general thought of the Baroque period.
> 
> Personally, I see the prevailing views in the Baroque era too dominated by religion, and Positivism as a system of thought going too far in the other direction ultimately creating a kind of spiritual retardation. However, that doesn't mean that individuals holding either views can't be very gifted composers or musicians.


G.Leonhardt is a protestant this is all I care, I do not care about the myriad new-age stuff. I am a follower of Platonism or neo-Platonism, and Oscar Wilde is my secular bible writer. If you want to caption me more officially approved, call me a Wildean. In a sense, I am a staunch monist theist which reflects on my music critics as well. The dialectical thing is dispensible, non-serious, trivial to me, therefore both analytic philosophy and experimental music are simply low-class to me. So I may cherish the canonical classics, modern interpreters are not supposed to reinvent them but to reinterprete them.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Positivism, analytics, formalism are all subjects of dialectism, even science is also a part of dialectism, the art of argument, of assassination, the art of warfaring. If a person is confessed in God, then his participation in dialectism is neglegible and worthy of respect, so I totally repsect G. Leonhardt regardlessly to his positivist participation. I am a monist after all, I am lofty myself, so I must accept his lofty confession and ignore his earthly engagements.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Dialecticism is nothing new, it is a part of personality and his/her social attributes. We can consider dialecticism as everything earthly, desire, power, wealth, politics, science etc. However, sometimes, people would consider dialecticism as the ultimate truth, the totality of humanity, there comes dialectical materialism. I do not how much of G. Leonhardt`s artistic achievement has to do with his positivist participations, all I care is that his art and public speeches never disappoint me. I am not a marxist so I will not ad hominem attack people based on their dialectical personality. Dialecticism for me is everthing that is objective, the existing perceived environment, given premises, given society, given people etc, there is neither anything absolutely good nor evil in it, therefore it is nothing inherently bad for G. Leonhardt to participate in positivism, the outcome is all I care. His positivist knowledge might help him achieve his artistic success, but no one is going to reproduce his art, therefore his positivism is also irreproducible. It is his own secret world. So G. Leonhardt`s art is not a proof that positivism is right, just himself was being right, and nobody knows why. 

Since dialectical world is totally objective but it is not equal to nature, people are entitled to modify, to proprietize, to reinvent the dialectical world, it is people who define the dialecticism`s outcome not nature. The first outcome is that the dialectical world is not unified but forever in conflict, devided, and unpredictable based on human nature. So I feel completely comfortable to appreciate G. Leonhardt`s art out of his positivist background, let alone he is not an atheist.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

We do not really need to over-mystify or sanctify dialecticism, this is just everything that has been, is being, and can be, will be expected from human activities. It is a self-portrait of humanity.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2017)

When Leonhardt played - on harpsichord or on organ - his love for architecture played along. No one could better reflect the structure of a piece of music in sound than he did. And that with a complete self-evidence.
Leonhardt was a perfectionist. A statement from him was: "the difference between good and excellent is small, but essential".


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Traverso said:


> When Leonhardt played - on harpsichord or on organ - his love for architecture played along. No one could better reflect the structure of a piece of music in sound than he did. And that with a complete self-evidence.
> Leonhardt was a perfectionist. A statement from him was: "the difference between good and excellent is small, but essential".


Leonhardt`s keyboard rendition is very definitive for all the composers as far as I have listened to. I am not too sure about his conducting of vocal music, I have not try to make such a comparison. Ton Koopman is a formidable conductor for vocal music(I feel I made an incomplete and misleading comment on Koopman in an earlier post), however, his keyboard rendition is uneven among composers, his Sweelinck is prefect, this may explain why Leonhard did not make harpsichord recordings of Sweelinck, his Buxtehude is also uneven between different suites, I like his playing of the suites but not so much the Bergamasco capriccio and some variations, too florid to appreciate the inherent beauty.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I have a special penchant for the variation genre, Goldberg is the musical Khufu, of course, and Pachelbel`s Hex App is the Khafre, and Buxtehude`s variations plus his Bergamasco is the Menkaure. Therefore Mr Koopman`s rendition of the variations including the Bergamasco is particulary sensitive to me, so sensitive that I left an inadequate comment on him for forgetting about his excellence in conducting and performance of other genres of keyboard music.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I love Ton Koopman harpsichord, made by Willem Kroesbergen after Ruckers-Taskin(or something similar I am not sure),or a double from 18 century ravalement to be general. Leon Berben`s Welltempered Clavier from Brilliant is also not to be missed, also played on a Kroesbergen copy after a Couchet single. I think maybe Koopman`s Bergamasco(from Opera Omnia) is not bad at all, also his harpsichord is a huge plus, I would give him 4 star out of 5 in general. Maybe a personal taste, I find Glen Wilson`s Berga(Naxos) a bit better than Koopman`s.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

You people must get Leon Berben`s Well-tempered Clavier even if you had to buy the the whole keyboard box, the recorded sound is not the best but acceptable, it will be a safe invest, the rest of the repertoir is played by various artists on nice sounding modern copies, Pieter Jan Belder(Ruckers-Taskin by Cornelis Bom); Joseph Payne(1628 Ruckers double copy by W.Dowd), Pieter Dirksen(1638 Ruckers double copy by S.Nunnes); Menno Van Delft(Mietke double copy by M.Griewisch); Christiane Wuyts(Bad sound recording). Only 3 discs from 80s played by Christiane Wuyts have disappointing record-mastering, though played on 3 antiques(2 Hemsch, 1Goerman), very sad.

View attachment 99824


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Ton Koopman as a keyboard player has similar depth to G. Leonhardt, I feel people might misunderstand my comment if I do not say clear cut evaluation. I am not used to give clear cut evaluation of the artists or any art piece, and maybe it is a bit "vulgaire"to make such comparisons too, Koopman just has made impression strong enough on me to find one another better evaluations. But Mr Koopman concentrates on conducting than solo performance, people can not expect regular solo output from him.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> Ton Koopman as a keyboard player has similar depth to G. Leonhardt, I feel people might misunderstand my comment if I do not say clear cut evaluation.* I am not used to give clear cut evaluation of the artists or any art piece, and maybe it is a bit "vulgaire"to make such comparisons too*, Koopman just has made impression strong enough on me to find one another better evaluations. But Mr Koopman concentrates on conducting than solo performance, people can not expect regular solo output from him.


The (ludicrous) opening post of this thread and almost every subsequent post rather contradicts that claim.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> The (ludicrous) opening post of this thread and almost every subsequent post rather contradicts that claim.


You have not read, you are quicker to make assumption out of your instinct of arrogance and vulgarity than getting proper ideas from other people`s speech. You are not somehow different than the last nameless bypasser in a rural neighborhood, you kind are like pebbles of different shapes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I do not point at names does not mean I evade to speak out the fact that many people are vulgar. You see, some people just come in and attack, thinking adding some cliche replies can make them look more reasonable. As I point out earlier, it is the kind of seemingly harmless appendage of statement that tells their true nature.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I do think Ton Koopman`s keyboard rendition has both profoundity and satisfied all major technical criteria, some of his renditions are just too good to settle my comment with a few impressions. Just like I said before, his performance is unsettling(not always a bad thing), as much as I am now in commenting, his performance is too difficult to describe, well, cut it short, I love all his keyboard performance:tiphat:

My taste can not patronize anyone. I love Koopman`s Sweelinck, his suites, variations as well, the small preference does not make Koopman to be compared to Mr Wilson, if cannot explain, so it is ignorable. I paid the full price for the Boxes, I must say, they are remembered as among the best purchases in my life.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Have you heard Koopman's French Suites? They're pretty fine I think.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Koopman's French Suites? They're pretty fine I think.


Haha, I just ordered 2nd hand complete WT and assorted Bach keyboard works by Ton Koopman yesterday, they will arrive in a 2 weeks, all Erato reissues( I evade the WCJ /Warner Classics Jazz reissues, these orders are not WCJ reissues). I admit that I have not heard his F suites yet, too rare and too expensive. So far I have his Scarlatti, Bach Inventions, Fiztwilliam, Organ Voluntaries, English Organ music/Capriccio label, Buxtehude Op.Omnia, Sweelinck 4cd set/Philips. None disappoints me a bit, I think his Inventions are a bit better than G. Leonhardts( my personal taste again), yes, just Like I say Mr Koopman`s fault in my staggering comment is not his unique rendition of some variations, but some his too-good renditions that surpass my anticipation for the best.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> I do think Ton Koopman`s keyboard rendition has both profoundity and satisfied all major technical criteria, some of his renditions are just too good to settle my comment with a few impressions. Just like I said before, his performance is unsettling(not always a bad thing), as much as I am now in commenting, his performance is too difficult to describe, well, cut it short, I love all his keyboard performance:tiphat:
> 
> My taste can not patronize anyone. I love Koopman`s Sweelinck, his suites, variations as well, the small preference does not make Koopman to be compared to Mr Wilson, if cannot explain, so it is ignorable. I paid the full price for the Boxes, I must say, they are remembered as among the best purchases in my life.


One of the things you can recognize Koopmans playing are his beautiful crips thrillers.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Traverso said:


> One of the things you can recognize Koopmans playing are his beautiful crips thrillers.


Haha, well, if Leonhardt is the angel of clarity, Koopman must be the Siren of temptation


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> You have not read, you are quicker to make assumption out of your instinct of arrogance and vulgarity than getting proper ideas from other people`s speech. You are not somehow different than the last nameless bypasser in a rural neighborhood, you kind are like pebbles of different shapes.


You must be joking. If there was a prize for arrogance it would be won by you in this thread. Your opening post is nothing more than another empty personal denunciation of 'modern music': 


> "Baroque music is the serious music, while modernist music is not."


I suppose you imagine me telling you that: 


> "_You have not read, you are quicker to make assumption out of your instinct of arrogance and vulgarity than getting proper ideas from other people`s speech" [sic]_


...doesn't apply in your case?

What makes you think you are more than the latest nameless quack offering an opinion disguised as bargain basement "philosophical" observations?


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> You must be joking. If there was a prize for arrogance it would be won by you in this thread. Your opening post is nothing more than another empty personal denunciation of 'modern music':
> 
> I suppose you imagine me telling you that:
> 
> ...


I am nameless, that is true, now you have made a great discovery, you big astronomer? You come and and take an easy ground as a mob to attack ad hominem. All of your comments are reactionary cliches that is enough said.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Fresh bandages, please.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

From mob cliches to back yard innuendos, so what next? :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> I am nameless, that is true, now you have made a great discovery, you big astronomer? You come and and take an easy ground as a mob to attack ad hominem. All of your comments are reactionary cliches that is enough said.


Complete gibberish. You don't seem to be able to grasp the irony of accusing other people of being arrogant when making statements (and replies) containing enormous amounts of arrogance. If anything is a reactionary cliché it is the opening post of this ridiculous thread.

The end. I have enough infractions and anything more I say here will be catnip for itchy-fingered moderators.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Recently discovered Koopman's Handel organ concertos and they are special, yesterday Egarr sounded dull in comparison.

Early keyboard music is a minefield for me, but lately I've been tipping my toes here and there, trying to avoid too much brightness and glare...


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2017)

philoctetes said:


> Recently discovered Koopman's Handel organ concertos and they are special, yesterday Egarr sounded dull in comparison.
> 
> Early keyboard music is a minefield for me, but lately I've been tipping my toes here and there, trying to avoid too much brightness and glare...


You are right,the Handel organ concertos with Ton Koopman are great fun,don't look further than your feet and stumble happily forwards in the early keybord music.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I still profoundly detest modernism, it is wrong to be ashamed of speaking out.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ariasexta said:


> [
> 
> View attachment 99729
> 
> ...


This came today and I can hear that it is an excellent recording, with some rare music to boot. thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> This came today and I can hear that it is an excellent recording, with some rare music to boot. thanks for mentioning it.


Am glad you like it. For beginners of baroque, beware of bad record-masterings, they will seriously mis-represent the music and result in bad tastes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I totally give up Christophe Rousset`s French and English suites, because he recorded under Ambrosie, a label with serious problem in its recording-engineering. Their recordings are tended to dwarf the harpsichord into a digital keyboard, I almost puked when listened to its Royer album by Rousset 3 years ago. Bad mastering of the harpsichord sound is unbearably ugly.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

To be initiated with Baroque with good taste, it is very necessary to begin with good instruments(the harpsichords) and good record-masterings, that is saying to stick with good interpreters, good labels. Some average harpsichordists may use very excellent harpsichords like the antiques, so it becomes very important to follow a few top class interpreters.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

A label which prides itself on the truthfulness of their sound is MDG. You can read their sound engineering policy here

http://www.mdg.de/frame1.htm

I wonder what the harpsichord people here think of the sound quality of Siegbert Rampe's Froberger recordings for them, The Unknown Froberger. They don't sound like other harpsichord recordings. Are they truthful? Similarly for his Merula.

In fact I have more trouble with organ recordings than harpsichord recordings, especially organs with audible action and powerful bass. The Schnitger in the Martini Kerk Groningen can be a challenge I think to reproduce in an ordinary living room -- I have a pretty good system but still. I'm thinking of Nordstoga's Leipzig Chorales and Bert Matter's Bach there.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Organ and harpsichord recordings I find hit and miss in general. The sound can vary a lot between instruments and if I don't like the tone I find it hard to enjoy the music regardless of how good the performance is. 

I've been enjoying William Byrd's harpsichord works lately; if anyone has any recommendations on these pieces let me know.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

tdc said:


> Organ and harpsichord recordings I find hit and miss in general. The sound can vary a lot between instruments and if I don't like the tone I find it hard to enjoy the music regardless of how good the performance is.
> 
> I've been enjoying William Byrd's harpsichord works lately; if anyone has any recommendations on these pieces let me know.


There is a complete box from Hyperion, has nothing to regret. Davitt Moroney plays with discretion to details and the sound is perfect. I know the sound of the harpsichords, I can differentiate between the result of mastering or the truthful recorded sound of the harpsichord. You just need to listen to more good recordings which have truthful sounds.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> A label which prides itself on the truthfulness of their sound is MDG. You can read their sound engineering policy here
> 
> http://www.mdg.de/frame1.htm
> 
> ...


MDG is excellent too. I just forgot to list this one. I have the complete series of Tomkins keyboard music, and 2 boxes of Scheidt` keyboard music from this label, the mastering of harpsichord sound is excellent. I have Rampe`s Froberger 2 cd set from EMI/Veritas, where he uses diverse antiques, sounds great too.While I do not have the Unk Froberger yet, I read that Rampe uses one anonymous single German in Unk Froberger recordings, that harpsichord is also used in the Scheidt boxes, but the tuning is surely different. That is a nice sounding instrument, if there is an apparent difference in resulted sounds to you(it must be, though), that is from tuning, since the mastering is excellent. You can appreciate the tonal expressiveness of the harpsichord with MDG now, if you listen to both recordings.(the Scheidt and Unk Froberger)

I will expand the list of recommend label from now, it needs update. The bad mastering basically means the digital altering of harpsicord sound in recording in order to cater to the modern taste, but for seasoned listeners, such altering hinders musical harmony, and the appreciation of the sound of the instrument.

The organ must have historical functions what the composers themself used and required, these functions are not additions however, they vary greatly from one another in either antiques or modern constructions. I also have difficulty in listing all specifications of a single antique organ let alone comparing between them. The good labels I recommend must do good job in recording all possible kind of music. Originally, these good labels have excellent expertise in recording the romantic vocal music, they just fully apply their experience onto recording the harpsichord, treating harpsichord in the same manner as they treat romantic vocal music, thus the good sound. The bad labels treat harpsichord like a horrible monster, try to cripple the sound, in the end they would cripple all kinds of music they record.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Excellent:
1-Philips (*Their old recordings aregolden standard of sound mastering, but beware of piracies*)
2-L'oiseau Lyre
3-Alpha/Ricercar/*Aeon*
4-DHM
5-Vivarte Sony, *Seon Sony, DHM Sony*
6-Hyperion
7-Naxos (Cheap but excellent)
8-Metronome
9-Gaudeamus
10-EMI/Veritas 
11-Naive/Auvidis/Astree/Opus111
12-Musicom
13-Pierre Verany(Old issues made before 2004)
14-Aeolus( Generally good, except for the particular copy I talked about)
15-*MDG*
16-*Mirare*
17-*CPO*
18-*Teldec*(Beware of WCJ re-issues)
19-*Archiv*(Beware of budget sets)
20-*Glossa *

(Updates are shown in Bold)

It is not to say that good labels always guarantee good sounds, there is and will be a few exceptions from these labels, most of them are budget boxset re-issues somehow re-mastered into lower resolution of sound, in other case maybe re-issues under a new project or division. My advice is to be careful to invest in budget box sets especially if they are re-issues of earlier recordings. There is a trend in major recording companies to compromise earlier sound quality in their latest record publishings. I do not know why, it is not a technical problem, because club re-issues are even re-mastered into higher quality than the original issues, good examples are the Orf and Bertelsmann club re-issues. ERATO and HMF are left out because of most of their latest (after 2006) records sound bad.

DHM and SONY are a couple of wonderful companies, after the merging they always maintain highest quality of sound so far, there re-issues are no compromises, their 10cd boxes are must haves.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> Organ and harpsichord recordings I find hit and miss in general. The sound can vary a lot between instruments and if I don't like the tone I find it hard to enjoy the music regardless of how good the performance is.
> 
> I've been enjoying William Byrd's harpsichord works lately; if anyone has any recommendations on these pieces let me know.


My favourite Byrd harpsichord recordings are by Aapo Hakkinen, Gustav Leonhardt, Colin Tilney, Christopher Hogwood, Davit Moroney and Glen Wilson. Especially Hakkinen. I need to revisit Alina Rotaru's recording, which I found a bit too agressive and unsubtle but I could well have been unfair. Belder's Byrd is also perfectly OK.

One grouse I have with Moroney's box is that the Pavans and Galliards are scattered around over multiple discs. In his earlier Byrd recording for DHM he wrote an essay in the booklet eloquently arguing that the Pavans and Galliards form a wonderful cycle, and I'm convinced - it's very good to listen to all of them like you might listen to a whole book of WTC. It's hard to do this in the complete set, even using digital technology it's a labour to bring them all together. If you can find the first recording it's well worth picking up I'd argue.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Maybe people will say just write a letter of complaint to the company, but I do not think it will work, I know these modernist engineers are very obstinate, they will not listen to anyone unless you pay them, they do not care about music at all, they think they are leading a revolution of some kind as long as their ideas are getting them paid. 

I know the soul of modernism, stubborn, superfacial, crowd people, chic, egocentric, potentially violent, easily mistaken for being modest for not speaking their minds because they do not a mind. It is not a mystery of their behavorial trait if dare to see through them. In fact, their venture in classical arts is unfortunate for humanity. Because such people make up the majority of the modern middle class, the companies had to cater to them, bad music sells again. The bourgeosie taste are becoming artistic communism.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Koopman`s complete WT is here now, wonderful sound and performace, this is an original ERATO issue, therefore excellent quality of mastering.














Highly recommended, don`t miss if possible:tiphat:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Maybe I will turn this thread into a personal recommendation of harpsichord music, in terms of both sound mastering quality and performance. I will leave out the vocal music otherwise it will take too much time from me, how laborous it will be to comment on so many recordings, oh happy labor:angel:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Excellent:
1-Philips (Their old recordings aregolden standard of sound mastering, but beware of piracies)
2-L'oiseau Lyre
3-Alpha/Ricercar/Aeon
4-DHM
5-Vivarte Sony, Seon Sony, DHM Sony
6-Hyperion
7-Naxos (Cheap but excellent)
8-Metronome
9-Gaudeamus
10-EMI/Veritas 
11-Naive/Auvidis/Astree/Opus111
12-Musicom
13-Pierre Verany(Old issues made before 2004)
14-Aeolus( Generally good, except for the particular copy I talked about)
15-MDG
16-Mirare
17-CPO
18-Teldec(Beware of WCJ re-issues)
19-Archiv(Beware of budget sets)
20-Glossa 
21-*Accord*
22-*Arion*
23-*Etcetera*
24-*Chaconne*
25-*ZigZag*
26-*K617*

It seems majority of brands are well, in case of harpsichord recordings, small brands cover equally the size of market to that by major brands, it still needs to watch for the brands.


----------

