TLS Guy: Thoughts on Beethoven/Zinman?

[jostenmeat]

My older, retired friend lent me a disc last night, and I really enjoyed it. While he worked for IBM for a long time, he used to be a very fine conductor, and he received his doctoral way back when at Cincinnati. They used modern instruments, but performed according to the Barenreiter edition, which I presume must be an urtext.

The 7th symphony performance had the most rhythmically interesting rendition I've ever heard.

The recording does not have that high-end air, so to speak, that some of my other resolving recordings might. OTOH, the midbass seemed to be as clear as I've ever heard on an orchestral recording.

Anyhoo, I was quite fascinated. Do you have any knowledge about these performances and/or the recording techniques used? I have 7th/8th in possession, atm.

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-The-Nine-Symphonies/dp/B00000IFP6

 

[TLS Guy]

My older, retired friend lent me a disc last night, and I really enjoyed it. While he worked for IBM for a long time, he used to be a very fine conductor, and he received his doctoral way back when at Cincinnati. They used modern instruments, but performed according to the Barenreiter edition, which I presume must be an urtext.

The 7th symphony performance had the most rhythmically interesting rendition I've ever heard.

The recording does not have that high-end air, so to speak, that some of my other resolving recordings might. OTOH, the midbass seemed to be as clear as I've ever heard on an orchestral recording.

Anyhoo, I was quite fascinated. Do you have any knowledge about these performances and/or the recording techniques used? I have 7th/8th in possession, atm.

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-The-Nine-Symphonies/dp/B00000IFP6

I don't have the recording, it is on the Arte Nova label. I think this is the recording you mean. It had a reasonable review in Gramophone, although the reviewer preferred No. 8. The reviewer did comment on the excellence of the recordings.

Those smaller labels almost always use minimalist microphone techniques, which favor speakers that do not play loose and fast with time and phase, as well as having a very smooth mid band response.

You might want to know, that reviewers for the gramophone, use almost exclusively equipment by Quad, especially the current dumping amplifiers, as I do for amplification. Most also use Quad electrostatic loudspeakers.

 

[jostenmeat]

I don't have the recording, it is on the Arte Nova label. I think this is the recording you mean. It had a reasonable review in Gramophone, although the reviewer preferred No. 8. The reviewer did comment on the excellence of the recordings.

Those smaller labels almost always use minimalist microphone techniques, which favor speakers that do not play loose and fast with time and phase, as well as having a very smooth mid band response.

You might want to know, that reviewers for the gramophone, use almost exclusively equipment by Quad, especially the current dumping amplifiers, as I do for amplification. Most also use Quad electrostatic loudspeakers.

Thanks TLS. It must be the same, though the cover is different. The complete cycle is pretty darn affordable! It's sitting in my "cart" as we speak.

FWIW, my friend preferred the 7th to the 8th. I've only listened to the very opening of the 8th, and just the 7th in its entirety.

From the bit I've picked up from you regarding basic philosophies in recording technique, I was guessing this one was minimal. I really did enjoy that the secondary lines were transparent as they are. I'm decently familiar with the 7th, having performed it in orchestra on my fiddle. My very first recording that I owned was Kleiber/DG, and I thought the mix had the primary lines as too prominent, and the secondary lines as lost. However, I was using pretty low-fi equipment!

That is most interesting they choose Quad. I badly wanted to hear some of those, but the nearby dealer just don't carry the stats anymore. I even asked at a Quad thread 1.5 years ago if anyone would be willing to have me as a guest. Still no takers at that thread. There's been 44 posts since I've asked . . .

Cheers and thanks.

 

[Pat D]

I haven't heard the Zinman set, yet. I have several sets of the Beethoven symphonies and so getting another is not very high on my list of priorities. Since everyone seems to like it a lot, if I do get another set, it will probably be that one.

The Penguin Guide for 2008 gives the Zinman set *** and a key (along with six other sets), so that's a high recommendation. The customer reviews at Amazon.com are generally quite favorable. Some of the guys at Audio Asylum and Audio Review have it and like it, too, so you could ask them about it.

Before someone asks, I may as well say that I have the following sets (well, some are not box sets but cover all 9 on separate discs):

Leibowitz, RPO, on Chesky
Karajan, BPO, 1962, on DG
Ansermet, SRO on London LPs
Suitner, Staatskapelle Berlin on Denon

 

[jostenmeat]

Thanks Pat D. What are your personal impressions and/or comparisons between the sets that you already own?

The only complete cycle I own is with Gardiner. I think it's great, but it's very interesting to see just how really different it is from the Zinman.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks Pat D. What are your personal impressions and/or comparisons between the sets that you already own?

The only complete cycle I own is with Gardiner. I think it's great, but it's very interesting to see just how really different it is from the Zinman.

I have sets by: -

Karajan LP

Roger Norrigton

Simon Rattle

Osmo Vanska SACD

I have nearly a complete set by Christopher Hogwood.

I like the Vanska and Norrington the best. I like the Rattle the least, mainly because it is a really bad series of live recordings by EMI.

 

[skizzerflake]

I was a regular at Baltimore Symphony performances when Zinman went on his Beethoven campaign. He claimed that Beethoven was typically performed much too slow, based on a historic metronome that belonged to B. The metronome was apparently defective and if one followed B's instructions, the music would be played faster than what's traditional. Zinman had a copy built of the broken metronome and used it to inform his performances. I, for one, liked his speedier performances but others in the audience were horrified at the change, so it was quite controversial. I guess it would be hard to prove who is right about this, but if you like it, go with it.

 

[jostenmeat]

I was a regular at Baltimore Symphony performances when Zinman went on his Beethoven campaign. He claimed that Beethoven was typically performed much too slow, based on a historic metronome that belonged to B. The metronome was apparently defective and if one followed B's instructions, the music would be played faster than what's traditional. Zinman had a copy built of the broken metronome and used it to inform his performances. I, for one, liked his speedier performances but others in the audience were horrified at the change, so it was quite controversial. I guess it would be hard to prove who is right about this, but if you like it, go with it.

In general, I like these works as faster rather than slower. However, I have two little quibbles with the historic metronome.

Firstly, how do we know it did not work properly during his lifetime?

Secondly, any good conductor doesn't even need a metronome. They pretty much know all of the metronomic speeds by heart. You can blurt out 116, and they'll snap it right back to you.

When I was heavily involved with music, I'd use my electronic metronome with 8 presets, each of which I could tweak in meter, accents, and subdivisions. (I used to be nuts, I'd have three music stands forming a semicircle). Even I could snap back certain speeds to you, as long as it was a speed I was currently working with. Conductors are on a whole other level.

I remember playing a work of Sir Michael Tippett. A violinist presumingly blurted out to the conductor that she believed the work was being played too fast, and that she should know as she was a relative of the composer. I do not recall what the marking was, but the conductor asked her if she knew the speed of the specific marking. He snapped it to her.

You're right about the fast renditions! My Gardiner set is known to be fast, in fact too fast for some. Well, Zinman beats Gardiner's 7th by a tad more than a minute, and likewise for the 8th. I do not find the faster speeds to be offensive at all, not that a slower one does either. The one symphony I find with the greatest improvement (in personal preference) due to faster performance is the 5th. Gardiner gets it done in a shade over half an hour, maybe 32 minutes or less.

 

[skizzerflake]

In general, I like these works as faster rather than slower. However, I have two little quibbles with the historic metronome.

Firstly, how do we know it did not work properly during his lifetime?

I wondered about that when I heard the story, which was reported in our local newspapers. The broken metronome seemed to be an article of faith for Zinman.

 

[Pat D]

Thanks Pat D. What are your personal impressions and/or comparisons between the sets that you already own?

The only complete cycle I own is with Gardiner. I think it's great, but it's very interesting to see just how really different it is from the Zinman.

Sorry for the delay in replying. We have a number of things on our plate these days and I don't get here very often .

Considering the whole nine as a whole, I like Leibowitz the best. There is not a weak performance in the lot and the recordings are very fine.

I don't listen to the 1st and 2nd much, but they seem very good
the Eroica is excellent,
the 4th is as good as any I've heard,
the 5th is superb, and better recorded than the famous Carlos Kleiber recording,
the 6th is very enjoyable,
the 7th is outstanding
the 8th is the best I have heard, full of humor, and
the 9th is excellent, though some don't like the old fashioned singing style of the bass.

The Karajan 1962 set is consistently good, and has stood the test of time. Some think the 6th lacks grace, but one could say it is played as a symphony rather than a tone poem. Except for that, I don't think one could go wrong with it and it is considerably less expensive than getting all the Leibowitz discs. I prefer other 6ths, but it is interesting, and one can find a number of good 6ths.

I like most of the Ansermet recordings, which I have on London STS LPs. The sound is quite good.
The 1st and 2nd seem excellent,
the Eroica is my favorite,
the 4th is simply outstanding,
the 5th is rather low key but Ansermet brings out the musical structures and I quite like it
the 6th is really very nice, very enjoyable,
the 7th is again my favorite,
the 8th is very good, too, but not as idiomatic as the Leibowitz performance,
the 9th is rather low key, not the weakest point in the set.

The Suitner set with the Berlin Staatskapelle on Denon is variable, no bad performances and a few quite good. It has some fine things in it and the sound quality is very good to excellent.
The 4th is among the very best, and the sound quality is very fine,
the 6th is really very nice, not very individual but I quite like it,
the 9th is as good as it gets, I think, great performance from the orchestra and chorus, with a very competent set of soloists--and the sound quality is superb, though some find it too reverberant. I remember the Penguin Guide didn't like it, but I do.

 

[jostenmeat]

Thanks, Pat!

I will go OT on my own thread for a bit, but since I've roped in some classical lovers here, I just received this 155 cd Bach set. Comes out to 84 cents a cd! No, I don't think I'll get to listening to all of them in my lifetime.