Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Sun, Dec 12 2010, 8:03AM
#2
Too many recording will only
Too many recording will only dilute if we individually buy them all and have too much of a good thing.
Classical music is a living thing being performed live constantly. It would be a bit strange if Beethoven's 5th continued to be played regularly in concert but the only recording you could get was a Toscanini, Karajan or whoever, on the grounds that all had been said that needs to be said on record.
I'm sure some of these cycles, in the eyes of the conductor/orchestra at least, are aimed at the audiences who come to see them live rather than being a major pitch at posterity. The growth in orchestra controlled labels, online broadcasts etc seems to reflect this.
Sun, Dec 12 2010, 8:26PM
#3
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Uhm...How am I measuring artistic and cultural value? The value is strictly the value that the we/I assign to them. For example, the value that society as a whole assigns to a given work is a function of the listening pleasure we/I procure from listening to the works.
Which raises the issue of how you would measure "listening pleasure", of course :-)
And how is any such value is "assigned" to a work. Is it based on what critics think about it? Is it based on sales?
I suppose that when I made the assertion that flooding the market with the same works devalues them was made based on economic reasons. For example, when a company issues too many shares it diminishes the value of the initial shares. They are worth less.
I think you're confusing - or at least conflating - economic value and artistic value. The former may be reduced if the commodity is mass-produced or mass-reproduced. The latter, however, won't be.
For example, just because Shakespeare's plays have been printed many millions of times over doesn't mean that they've become any less good as plays as a result.
Another example is when products that were initially rare go mass market. That makes the products less expensive but also less desirable since they become easily accessible and therefore easily disposable.
Again, I think that's confusing economic value with artistic value. Scarcity may increase how much something costs - assuming there's demand for the item - but it doesn't affect the item's artistic value.
So, a first edition of a novel may be worth more than a paperback of the same work, because the first edition is scarce. The artistic value of the two versions, however, is identical.
Mon, Dec 13 2010, 1:04PM
#4
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Although we are discussing the artistic versus commercial argument, we haven't yet considered in this thread the question of interpretation. Isn't that what we have come to expect from conductors? Variations in tempi, mood, colour, overview of structure etc...etc...
I suppose if I had spent years in a conservatoire training to be a concert pianist I would want to get out there and play the standard repertoire and record it.
Personally I think it is easier to 'feel' the difference in pianists than it is in conductors but that is just a personal opinion. For example, I like Brendel playing Bethoven where my dad likes Pollini, who I find just a touch 'cold'. On the Sibelius thread, someone said he didn't like the Philarmonia/Askenazy set of Sibelius because the sound was artificial, whereas I have always thought the sound rich and full. So interpretation brings into play subjective opinion. Two sides of the same coin (to use the economic metaphor!)
On the question of what makes us assign artistic value, do we assign it, or is there something inherently great in a work that we all recognize?
Fri, Jan 7 2011, 7:10PM
#5
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
A very interesting thread. One can never have sufficient Beethoven symphony cycles provided each has something distinctive and authoritative to say. There is, even now, no such thing as a perfect Beethoven cycle. One can choose a best #1 from conductor 'x' and a best #2 from conductor 'y'. I leave everyone to fill in their preferred choice for 'x' and 'y'. I look forward to many more new recordings in the hope of learning more from familiar works. The record companies are often at fault for issuing routine cycles - of those we don't need any more. However, whilst the major labels continue to issue more Beethoven, they are increasingly losing out to the imaginative smaller and specialist labels who continue to provide a wealth of new recordings of non-mainstream works often exceptionally well recorded (some in SACD sound) and performed - I think of BIS, Hyperion, Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi, etc.
Mon, Jan 17 2011, 10:11AM
#6
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
As a CM newbie the choice of cycles for both is mindboggling. At least Brahms only wrote 4 so it doesn't burn a hole in the pocket to have half a dozen sets - which I do. I'd like to see the CM industry get a little bit more adventurous and put out more versions of Bruch's 3 symphonies, Saint Saens 12,4 & 5 and Rimsky's 3.
Mon, Jan 17 2011, 4:37PM
#7
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
I have to say I disagree with the notion that too many recordings makes one over familiar with the music, supposedly diluting its greatness.
Fully agree. Nor does it interfere or in any way vitiate our culture. Beethoven's nine have been and always will be a center piece of western classical music. Bring on the recordings I say.
Tue, Jan 18 2011, 8:02AM
#8
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
I have no problem at all with the idea of new Beethoven recordings. The Symphonies are wonderful both in their basic musical ingredients and in the way they embody the development of orchestral and symphonic writing. To hear the interpretation of another great conductor, with an excellent orchestra, is nothing but a pleasure and I completely agree with the point made earlier that it would be very strange (and sad, might I add) if recorded interpretation were to stop with the currently available sets. Like other contributors to this thread, I greatly admire Chailly. His recordings demonstrate a wonderful understanding of the over-arching structure of a work. Take his recordings of the Brahms Piano Concertos with Friere. These are big, heavy works that can sound cumbersome and unwieldy in the wrong hands. Chailly (aided, of course, by Friere's superb playing) makes perfect sense of them. I'd love to hear him bring his approach to Beethoven.
There are some excellent points made here regarding the relationship between the commercial and musical elements of this kind of project. Of course a new Beethoven cycle conducted by a highly regarded conductor is going to attract big sales and make money for the record company. This absolutely does not have any negative effect on the artistic value of the music or the recorded performances, and neither does the abundance of recordings of any particular work. Interpretation is an important strand in keeping good music alive and any number of interesting and different interpretations can help us to hear new things in even the most frequently played and recorded repertoire. Sometimes there will be a new recording which doesn't do this and there can be an element of ticking the Beethoven box - the conductor being able to say 'I've recorded a Beethoven cycle'. This is inevitable but I don't think, for one minute, that this lessens the value of new recordings and interpretations that do bring something different/interesting to the table.
Tue, Feb 28 2012, 3:50AM
#9
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Why do we need energy efficiant appliances? Why do we need faster computers? The answers to these and to the question of another Brahms/Beethoven cycle is the same. It can always be done better. Whenever someone believes they can improve something, they typically try to. If our society focused around being "good enough" or "ok", we wouldn't get very far. As a musician, I can say that no matter how many times I've played the same piece, there is always room to get better. After listening to over a dozen recordings of Brahms Fourth, I can say that no two recordings are alike. Each one has something done better than the other. The reason to keep making more cycles is the hope that we can get a recording that has a lot of things that make it "good" in order to make it "great". I keep searching for what I believe to be the best recording of Brahms fourth and although I have found some great recordings such as Kempe, Celibidache, and Solti, I still have not found one that I felt to be the best all the way through.
Tue, Feb 28 2012, 11:52AM
#10
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Because we do and we always will.
It is inevitable and one may not like it but it is true.
Whether ther sets have anything to offer outside of state of the art sound is another matter.
My heart sank, for example, when I heard that Barenboim was to record the Beethoven symphonies again. Why, wasn't the first set bad enough?
Also, if the companies can shift shedloads of this stuff then maybe, just maybe, we will get something less likely to sell in five minutes and as worthwhile.
How many cycles have you got? I've got one of each but a great pile of individual discs that range from Furtwangler, through Klemperer and Norrington to the lovely Rudolf Kempe (my favourite conductor in my teens).
Tue, Mar 6 2012, 3:47PM
#11
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
One reason not really mentioned here as far as I know, is the improvement in te audio which makes it much easier as to what is going on from moment to moment. For instance, the new Chailly set of Beethoven symphonies. I ca hear what is going on in the bass, woodwinds, brass, strings separately. Most of the time even at a live concert I am unable to do this. All I have to do is concentrate on whatever section of the orchestra I choose and listen. I find it amazing I am able to do this. Of course, I have dozens of recordings of the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies and have heard them over and over so I guess I am looking for something to concentrate on. I do have great audio equipment which also helps to really hear what is being played. This is not really comparing live vs. recordings but it sure does make everything more interesting.
Thu, Mar 8 2012, 10:19PM
#12
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
This last post has won me over to the other side of the argument. Yes, indeed, improvement in the audio is a vary valid reason for more Beethoven and/or Brahms cycles.
Thu, Mar 8 2012, 10:28PM
#13
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
However, at the end of the day, you choose your favourite recording(s), based either on the audiophile or the actual performance features and the rest stay as mere competitors who never reach the actual target.
In the meantime, you may keep buying new recordings promising more (see for example, Thielemann or de Vriend), but offering simply a different perspective and contributing to the futility of collecting till you drop dead!
Parla
Fri, Mar 9 2012, 11:08PM
#14
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Well, with Spotify, we can now stop collecting. They seem to have everything - even the rarities. What is your opinion on Spotify, Parla?
Sat, Mar 10 2012, 6:57PM
#15
RE: Why do we need another Brahms and/or Beethoven cycle?
Spotify, like any other internet source for having access to music, is a virtual collection. It cannot replace the real thing. However, if, for the time being, it can be your main source for having access to Classical Music, you may pursue it.
However, one day, you have to experience to build your own collection with an appropriate high quality equipment in the best possible environment. Just keep the picture: if "live" is the optimum target, how close to this end is (or can be) Spotify?
Parla
Hi
I must admit I am not too bothered by this news. Chailly is a conductor I respect and his time in Leipzig is, according to much of the press I have read, proving fruitful. While he has recorded Brahms before (with the Concertgebouw) he has never tackled Beethoven on record. His fans in Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and beyond will all eagerly await the recordings.
Yes indeed the Decca are going to make spme money out of these recordings, but I don't begrudge them that either. In return I get Varese's complete works, Hindemith's Kammermusik, Berio's Sinfonia and Zemlinsky, all conducted by Chailly. In addition I am looking forward to Braunfel's 'Jenna D'Arc', which is an incredible rarity.
We all chose what we want to purchase and listen to. Looking at the CDs I have bought in the last year I cannot remember a time when the variety was so great.
I have to say I disagree with the notion that too many recordings makes one over familiar with the music, supposedly diluting its greatness. The problem in this case is either the recording or the listener. Beethoven's 5th may be extremely familiar to us all but wonderful performances only illuminate the greatness of the work. I did follow Paavo Jarvi's recent Beethoven cycle on RCA (which I think is something like the tenth I have collected over the last 25 years) and found it wonderfully invigorating and thought provoking. So much so that it sent me back to other recordings than had gathered dust. For that I am grateful to Maestro Jarvi.
Naupilus