Objective music review-a draft

[ChrisH]

In another thread I said something about classical music reviews needing to be more objective. Another user wondered what something like this would look like, so I have put together a little draft. This is not really fleshed out, more notes and ideas really. The recording in question is Manfred Honecks Mahler 1 recording on the Exton label with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. I have only been able to make it through the first three movements. This takes a lot of time. The score I used is the recent Universal Critical Edition.

!st Movement:

• 1. Naturlaut opening: Outstanding broad tempo.
• 2. Offstage trumpet fanfare: very nice and distant; there is a clear distinction in the seating and recording of the trumpeters to allow for hearing them in the distance and, later, in the far distance.
• 3. The repeat of the exposition is taken! As it should be. I wonder if de Vriend’s version of the score calls for it and he elided it or whether that version of the symphony doesn’t call for the repeat. I bothers me no end when a repeat is written but not taken. I feel cheated.
• 4. The harp is very distinct at almost every appearance in this movement.
• 5. 2 bars after RM 12, &c.: phrasing of the solo flute riff is most pleasing . . . and unusual. It’s there in the score but you don’t get to hear it played so lovingly very often. Sixten Ehrling would call for this phrasing with the Detroit SO.
• 6. Listen also to the phrasing on the solo flute at bars 5, 7, & 8 past RM 12.
• 7. Great bass drum & tuba at RM 13! Mahler doesn’t provide any opportunity for the tubist to breathe during that long, slow 13 bars. Most tubists cheat at some point and have to take a brief luftpause somewhere—usually at the tympani stroke one beat before 14. Nota bene: Mahler provides that if the tubist cannot produce (M says bring forth) that pp contra f-natural (remember, the tuba—unless specified in F or, say, BBb—is assumed to be in C and is non-transposing except to the extent that the part is written an octave above the desired tone for ease of reading) then it may be assigned to the contrabassoon. I would like to hear it done by two contrabassoons. Just for fun, mind you.
• 8. The four pp muted horns are haunting beginning on the fourth beat 4 bars past 14 and (now ppp) starting on the fourth beat in the 8th bar past 14.
• 9. Such careful preparation for the key change at RM 15. The change sounds inevitable.
• 10. Phrasing on the muted horns (1,2,3,4) is so tender at 2 bars beginning on the fourth beat of the second measure past 15 und so weiter.
• 11. That simple little viola riff (p) at 15 b past 16 is right out of Humperdinck. M knew his work. H was the harmony and counterpoint teacher of Siegfried Wagner.
• 12. RM 23: The piano riff on six horns before and on 4 ff trumpets after this mark is exactly dead on!
• 13. At five measures past 23 and continuing to 25: You can hear with clear distinction the sonority of the third trombone (probably a bass trombone) and the different sonority of the tuba. These parts are written on the same staff an octave apart—but remember that the bass trombone and tuba are both sounding an octave lower than written.
• 14. Four ff trumpets at six measures before 26 followed by the 7 ff horns beginning at 5 measures before 26: when do you ever get to hear these eleven musicians perform this passage with such precision?
• 15. Great cadence at 26
• 16. The fortissimo trill on horns 5, 6, 7: 5 bars after 29: stunning!
• 17. Honeck’s accelerando in the second measure past 33 still yields clear articulation, especially during the last 8 measures. Fine tympani! That accelerando is well controlled. Many conductors try to obey Mahler here but sort of lose control of things. The edges of the four beat and eight beat grand pauses are razor sharp!
• 18. Proper attention is paid throughout this movement to the small variants in tempo that M is so careful to specify. This is rare.

2nd Movement:

• 1. Bars 1—4: broader than usual tempo. Good. Note that there is no metronome marking at b. 1. Mahler would seem to expect that the conductor will understand that at b. 5 the MM dotted half = 66 will constitute a slight accelerando—as Honeck does. I’m not entirely sure that other conductors take an acc there.
• 2. Sixth bar after RM 3, fourth beat: the first violins and violas take the slur from E to A not so much as a glissando as a portamento. Neither gliss nor port is marked.
• 3. Six horns at seven bars past 6: Mahler demands that the horns be stopped but that the bells be up. Awkward (esp. if you have a little arthritis in your right shoulder) but effective. At bar 5 after 7: same. At bar 6 after 8 he insists that bells always be up yet all 7 horns are stopped (presumably with the right hand). Ouch.
• 4. Nice bassoons at 11 after 9.
• 5. At RM 15: Honeck largely disregards the marked accelerando to the big cadence at bar eleven after 15.
• 6. RM 16: First horn scrupulously obeys the dynamic markings mf-p-pp during the 4-bar solo. Rare. Lovely.
• 7. Now at the Trio (five past 16) Mahler says, “Right leisurely. Somewhat slower as in the beginning. Dotted half = 54. So it is only now that he reveals the tempo he wanted at Bar 1 and Honeck was right to treat the indication at bar 6 (dotted half = 66) as a call for a slight accelerando.
• 8. Bar 12 after 16: the first violins take a nice little breath of air after the glissando from b-flat to the accented f. Very effective! Very east-Europe.
• 9. There’s a lot of that sort of thing going in this movement.
• 10. Four bars after 25: Usually one can hear only Horn 1 (at least it’s so in recordings, if not in the concert hall). In this recording one can hear clearly Horns 2, 3, 4 playing pp low in bass clef for twelve beats!
• 11. Eight after 26, the high chord on seven horns held for two beats; best horns on record.
• 12. Nine after 32: Exceptionally well articulated trill on the fourth trumpet. Even the two grace notes before the terminal eighth note are distinct! Here, Mahler is careful to ask that the low note be trilled.

3rd Movement:

• 1. Lovely solo bassoon at RM 2.
• 2. Seven past 2. This cannot be the same tuba used in I & IV. This one is a smaller, lighter-toned instrument. Probably a standard twelve-foot bass tuba rather than the 16-foot concert contrabass instrument.
• 3. Four bars past RM 3: The tam-tam struck pp with a sponge-tipped mallet is not distinct to my ear.
• 4. Three after four: I’m not sure that I hear the difference on the tympani once the damper (probably a piece of heavy felt) is slid off. This is generally accomplished simply by brushing it off the drum head with the mallet in the off hand.
• 5. Indistinct Turkish cymbal (mounted to the housing of the great drum) at 6; also at 7 past 7; also at RM 15. Most conductors allow the drummer to play these sections too loud; Honeck keeps it too piano and misses the joke.
• 6. Exquisite divided first violins and divided violas at RM 7.
• 7. Not sure whether I hear the brief harmonic ppp on the violas & ‘celli at 4 past 9.
• 8. Utterly PERFECT (and broad) tempo at beat four, three bars after 10—those muted first violins divided into three groups are thrilling. I think this is the loveliest melody in the Wayfarer songs. Now the lyric “Auf der Straße stand ein Lindenbaum / By the road stood a linden tree” will be going through my head all night. Those songs have special place in my heart.
• 9. That tam-tam/cymbal dialog from 1 before 17 bis ende is there but a little weak for my taste. The tam-tam playing at p is less distinct than at pp (3 after RM 4, e.g.). Mahler asks at 18 that the cymbal (always struck with a sponge mallet) grow ever softer but I can barely hear it at all. I know of no other piece that contrasts the sonorities of the two different kinds of brass disc so marvelously, so I insist on hearing it distinctly. Erich Leinsdorf always used a true gong. So did Antal Dorati.

If I can get some free time, I will try and finish this off. Obviously this needs some fleshing out, but this is basically what I was talking about with an objective review.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Lovely solo bassoon at RM 2

What is objective about this (and so many others) highly subjective statement?

 

[Fluffy]

As I am completely ignorant about anything related to classical music, how would a review like this would look if it were for a different genre of music?

 

[ChrisH]

What is objective about this (and so many others) highly subjective statement?

Obviously, music isn't entirely objective, but this does compares more things to the score than any other review I have ever encountered. Anyway, I was trying something different out, sorry if it didn't meet your requirements or expectations. I tried to keep the subjectivity to a minimum, at least the majority of my statements are about things that actually appear in the score.

 

[Frank Dernie]

As I am completely ignorant about anything related to classical music, how would a review like this would look if it were for a different genre of music?

I think the thing is people who buy classical music recordings have a choice of interpretations by different performers from over the decades.
If you are a fan of most pop music genres that is normally not an option, so a very different animal even if a written score was available.
The thing is the market for classical music is discerning but tiny, which is why streaming and ripping services and things like Sooloos and Roon are so disappointing ime.
I am not sure somebody going through the score and commenting on how closely the recording sticks to their idea of what is meant in the markings has much merit, personally.
I gave up reading record reviews years ago, when I realised that it was only about reviewer preference and nobody can judge whether I will like it other than me.
Some quite banal music can be enjoyable.
Luckily with the Internet (one of its few good sides ) one can listen to snippets of almost anything you are thinking of buying for yourself so not reading reviews no longer risks buying a pup.

 

[pozz]

I am not sure somebody going through the score and commenting on how closely the recording sticks to their idea of what is meant in the markings has much merit, personally.

I loved the reviews of Glenn Gould's recordings. Heavy hostility over tempo and dynamics and his refusal to play with even a touch of rubato.

 

[anmpr1]

In another thread I said something about classical music reviews needing to be more objective...

I think it was David Ranada who did some CD reviews for Peter Aczel. He'd take a half dozen opera records, time the various passages, put them on a table, and then make spreadsheet comparisons. I thought, "Why?" What is the purpose of that sort of micro-analysis? How does that assist anyone in their musical enjoyment, anent domestic listening? Is it really helpful to know that in conducting the overture of Magic Flute, Bohm brings it in at 7:10 while Kelmperer wraps it at 7:13? I guess if you are trying to fit it on a cassette, it does. LOL

But seriously, at what point does this type of academic dissection become merely a species of compulsive curiosity? For my part I'm happy with the general understanding that Toscanini conducts it faster than Furtwangler. Sure, I probably want to know if the conductor doesn't follow the composer's instructions, or leaves out some notes... I can likely find that in the liner notes. I certainly understand that level of 'right or wrong' analysis. I get that.

In my opinion, the quantification or 'objectification' of music (which is really an emotional and/or intellectual apperception--a qualitative experience) is wrongheaded. It's really an example of a scientistic [sic] imposition on an incommensurate subject matter. What does it even mean to be 'musically objective'? I suppose an 'objective' researcher might count all the notes, contrast their frequency of occurrence within the individual bars, extrapolate that out to the individual sections, consider the musical keys involved, maybe analyze the paper and type of ink the score is written on. But is any of that going to explain, or help anyone recognize, the spiritual and emotional differences between, say, a Bach fugue or Beethoven symphony? How is that sort of analysis going to help a listener formulate an hierarchical judgement about whether Mozart's music is of a better aesthetic quality than, say, Brahms?

 

[Ceburaska]

In another thread I said something about classical music reviews needing to be more objective. Another user wondered what something like this would look like, so I have put together a little draft.

Hey that was me!
Thanks for not taking it as a completely facetious comment, I was mildly interested in what it would look like.
I think you have had a reasonable go at it. As others have mentioned it has a number of subjective statements. And I’m ok with that, as I think it is inevitably going to be the case.
A truly objective view would consist of timings, comparisons to tempo markings in the score, and maybe loudness marks, and not much else.
I think those can be interesting, and will certainly confirm a view that one recording is slower than another. But music is surely the area where even ASR members go heavily subjective.
As an aside, I quite enjoy Radio 3’s Record review/ Building a library on Saturdays. Often they do refer to timings and tempo markings. And occasionally even look at whether all the notes from the score have actually been played. But that will not be the extent of the review!

Is it really helpful to know that in conducting the overture of Magic Flute, Bohm brings it in at 7:10 while Kelmperer wraps it at 7:13?

Well, that difference, no. But if you have variations between 26:33 and 34:06 for Prokofiev’s 8th piano sonata then that is helpful, no? Those are the extremes on Qobuz (56 different recordings), with the vast majority between 28-30 minutes. That 34 minute recording is a huge outlier, no one else is over 32 minutes.
Of course, it isn’t the most important factor, but I think it’s interesting and would inform my listening choice.

 

[anmpr1]

Well, that difference, no. But if you have variations between 26:33 and 34:06 for Prokofiev’s 8th piano sonata then that is helpful, no? Those are the extremes... Of course, it isn’t the most important factor, but I think it’s interesting and would inform my listening choice.

Is it important to know timing details before hitting <play>? Not really... music is a gestalt type of thing. You sense it, based on the faculty of aesthetic judgement. Most folks accept and expect a certain amount of variation. Sure, there is a point where the pace of the conductor becomes annoying, and in that case the listener has to chunk it and move on.

For instance, the Reginald Goodall Ring, (which is downright somnambulistic). However you don't get that from looking at the individual timings of the individual sections. That is to say, I don't think it's a process of looking at it the label and saying, "I think that is not right, for this piece of music, and therefore I'm probably not going to like how it's done." Instead, you know it intuitively from the start, once you first drop the needle, or hit > on your CD player. Before you even know how long the timing is for that section you understand that it is not correct. You don't need a stopwatch to help you with it. At least that has been my experience.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

For instance, the Reginald Goodall Ring, (which is downright somnambulistic). However you don't get that from looking at the individual timings of the individual sections. That is to say, I don't think it's a process of looking at it the label and saying, "I think that is not right, for this piece of music, and therefore I'm probably not going to like how it's done." Instead, you know it intuitively from the start, once you first drop the needle, or hit > on your CD player. Before you even know how long the timing is for that section you understand that it is not correct. You don't need a stopwatch to help you with it. At least that has been my experience.

That is not always the case. I never look at timings before playing something new but I am often curious about timings afterwards if I feel that the tempi are notable. For example, I recently listened to a symphonic recording which I felt had more pace and momentum than I had heard in other recordings of the same piece. Was it really faster? It turns out that, in general, it was but not universally and there was little correlation between relative timings and my impressions across the movements. In other words, the subjective impression was not due entirely to speed.

 

[ChrisH]

But seriously, at what point does this type of academic dissection become merely a species of compulsive curiosity? For my part I'm happy with the general understanding that Toscanini conducts it faster than Furtwangler. Sure, I probably want to know if the conductor doesn't follow the composer's instructions, or leaves out some notes... I can likely find that in the liner notes. I certainly understand that level of 'right or wrong' analysis. I get that.

This what I'm really getting at, though my attempt seemed to have failed. Many conductors do not follow the composers instructions, and often misrepresent what is in the score. Some do this to a drastic degree; this used to be really common in the early days of conducting. That's not to say what they are doing is wrong, but it surely can change the impact of the work, or even a movement in question.

One big example of this is the 4th movement of Mahlers 5th symphony. When Bernstein used this movement at the funeral of Bobby Kennedy, it clocked in at 13 minutes or something. He turned it into an elegy, when Mahler stated that this was a love letter to Alma, his wife. We even have timings of Mahler conducting the work. We know what general tempo he was looking for, around 8 minutes. 13 minutes is not that, but Bernstein totally changed the intention of this movement by lengthening it. Klemperer did this with Beethoven, Stokowski did this with everything.

This also has nothing to do with trying to say one composer is better than another, it's about letting the intentions of the composer actually shine through. I prefer to hear Beethoven, not Klemperer/Beethoven, or HVK/Beethoven.

 

[anmpr1]

Was it really faster? It turns out that, in general, it was but not universally and there was little correlation between relative timings and my impressions across the movements. In other words, the subjective impression was not due entirely to speed.

I have had that experience, too. I can't readily explain it. Perhaps it finds an explanation in mannerisms of orchestral technique--playing and sounding 'fast' while actually playing at a moderate level. I don't even know if that makes any sense. So don't quote me.

On the other hand, my general impression of the pace of a conductor, and its relation to artistic quality, sometimes changes. When I first heard Toscanini's Beethoven I couldn't listen to it. Much to fast. I still think his conducting is generally fast--probably too fast. However I can now listen and appreciate both his elan and the depth of feeling--characteristics he brought to his interpretations, even though he is not my favorite conductor for Beethoven.

 

[anmpr1]

I prefer to hear Beethoven, not Klemperer/Beethoven, or HVK/Beethoven.

Unfortunately, the last person that was able to do exactly that was deaf, and died about 250 years ago. But I understand what you are getting at, even if it is a difficult thing to expect.

 

[Xulonn]

...drop the needle, or hit > on your CD player...

Don't forget computer audio interfaces - although virtual button designs are obviously derived from digital disk and cassette tape player buttons...

 

[Xulonn]

Just curious...can any of you think of a pop, rock or folk song that was written by a songwriter who was not a singer/performer, and where the most popular (best?) recording of the song was not the original release? (I'm sure there are many, but my memory is not so good as I grow older.)

But getting back to classical music, for many composers over the years, folk tunes have been used as the foundation or inspiration for some of their works. LINK

This past Sunday in our local tiny expat theater where a small group of expat indie film fans gather, I showed the truly excellent 2018 Polish film, "Cold War" (B/W, 4:3 aspect ratio). The protagonist was a classical composer/pianist/ensemble conductor. The story begins in 1949 Poland as he is traveling with a few companions through the countryside searching for folk music and talented singers.

Do you have a general preference for original songs as performed by the typically talented, but uneducated and untrained countryside musicians and singers? Or would you prefer the polished classical music version of it? I believe that both are interesting and of value, and my "preference" for a given "song" might go either way.

Although classical composers have created many catchy and memorable melodies, to me, the real talent of most composers is to weave these melodies into incredibly complex and beautiful musical pieces that we call "classical."

With respect to the OP of this thread, there are many "interpretations" of classical compositions, ranging from "close" to the original score to far enough away so as to be only "based on" or "inspired by" original works. I like to listen to the interpretations/versions that bring me the most pleasure and not obsessively pursue "original score purity."

I have little interest in detailed "objective" reviews of music. And I can, and often do, appreciate variances from the original.

The bottom line for me is to enjoy the music without analyzing it. This is somewhat similar to my preference to view and enjoy scenery when I am traveling and only take occasional photos of what I perceive as unusual, beautiful and/or interesting. The pro photographers have made available more than enough gorgeous photographs of the places I have visited, and I prefer to relax, enjoy the view, and immerse myself into the experience.

 

[Blake Klondike]

Interesting idea to work from a score! Even apart from review applications, reading through multiple times with a score is a great learning tool. There is a podcast that might be of interest-- the host is the conductor of a chamber orchestra in Switzerland and he will often spend an hour playing and discussing different performances of a piece. He also discusses how decisions are made and how philosophies for interpreting scores has changed over time.

https://stickynotespodcast.libsyn.com/

 

[Putter]

As a dilettante classical fan, I like the idea of objectively analyzing a performer's interpretation of a score right down to markings, but it does seem to get a little tedious and too far into the weeds. OTOH, I'm not fond of many of the classical reviews I find on place like Amazon which seem to consist of that Karajan he's so overrated and couldn't conduct his way out of a paper bag or another mediocre Bernstein interpretation of Mahler.

I realize that reivews on places like Amazon are by definition subjective (although occasionally you can find credentialed people doing the review), but the totally preferential nature of most classical reviews reminds me equipment reviews with no actual data. I'll allow that there are often recommendations as the 'best' version of a given work, but again there are very few criteria as to why it's the preferred version.

 

[Ceburaska]

Just curious...can any of you think of a pop, rock or folk song that was written by a songwriter who was not a singer/performer, and where the most popular (best?) recording of the song was not the original release?

Any reason why?
I’m not that knowledgeable about non-singer songwriters. Without reading your question properly I was going to propose Hurt by Johnnie Cash, but Trent Reznor wrote and performed it.
I’d guess that American songbook standards would provide examples of what you seek, but I don’t know them all that well.

 

[somebodyelse]

Just curious...can any of you think of a pop, rock or folk song that was written by a songwriter who was not a singer/performer, and where the most popular (best?) recording of the song was not the original release? (I'm sure there are many, but my memory is not so good as I grow older.)

Does the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt count?

Edit: Ninja'd by @Ceburaska!

 

[Xulonn]

Any reason why?

Only to illustrate that "enjoyment of music" is entirely subjective, that great melodies arise from a vast range of musical talents and abilities. Objective analysis of recorded is certainly a valid hobby, and can even add another dimension to the phrase " music appreciation." For me, technical detail of db for db loudness, and second by second analysis of timing are not important, but I have enough curiosity to read about it, as I am doing with this thread at ASR.

Most classical musicians learned to play using a metronome, yet a monotonous rhythm often sounds flat and lifeless. Classical solo pieces can wring emotion out of the music with micro-timing and other expressive and subtle variations in playing about which I am not an expert. And of course, conductors control the pace, timing and loudness when they lead anything from a chamber orchestra to full-size symphony orchestras with 100+ musicians. I am still amazed at the level of synchrony (yes, that's a word) in a full orchestra on a good night.

Although it is more pop-classical rather than hard-core classical, I have enjoyed Ralph Vaugh-Williams "The Lark Ascending" since I purchased the ASMF CD way back in the 1970's. I agree with the commenter who said:

I love the Iona Brown recording with Neville Marriner and the Academy of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields. Iona Brown's playing is sublime and Marriner's touch nigh on perfect.

.
To enjoy it, I do not "need" to know the technical details that set Iona Brown's performance apart from that of others. However, if I stumbled across a technical analysis of the performance, I would read it out of curiosity.