Post by srl1 January 22, 2011 (1 of 13)
|
|
Just received this from Arkivmusic this week. With Norrington, most folks either love him or hate him. I find him mostly interesting, especially in his Hanssler recordings with the Stuttgart SWR.
First, even though these are live recordings, the sonics are very nice. Good balance and depth. Clean highs and reasonable bass. Second, as usual with Norrington, there is a clarity of detail that is sometimes lost in other performances. He again uses HIP practices with a modern orchestra. This leads to lean textures and shorter phrasing. His tempo choices do not seem radical.
If you are looking for romantic Brahms, you won't find it here. If you accept his HIP ideas, then it can be said that he lets the music speak for itself. If you don't, then this would be a very interventionist interpretation.
I have enjoyed this set quite a bit already. I'll give it a few more times to see if it sticks with me. One thing's for sure--I wish all of my recordings sounded this good.
|
|
|
Post by Lochiel January 23, 2011 (2 of 13)
|
|
John Eliot Gardiner sort of has the same issues with fans as Norrington. I happen to prefer Gardiner over Norrington in most instances, as I find his performances more polished and interesting.
Do you have any knowledge of Gardiner's Brahms set (RBCD)? How does this set compare with it?
Gardiner's Brahms discs are, in my view, very fine in both the symphonic and the choral works. The Monteverdi choir and the ORR clearly spent much time in rehearsal before these live performances.
|
|
|
Post by srl1 January 23, 2011 (3 of 13)
|
|
I actually find Gardiner more middle-of-the-road than Norrington. I liked Gardiner's versions, but except for the fourth, the sonics are a little off-putting.
|
|
|
Post by seth January 24, 2011 (4 of 13)
|
|
srl1 said:
I actually find Gardiner more middle-of-the-road than Norrington. I liked Gardiner's versions, but except for the fourth, the sonics are a little off-putting.
What exactly does "middle-of-the-road" mean? Gardiner's 3rd is easily one of the most unconventional, but I think it works. The 4th is also quite individualistic. Only the 1st comes of as seeming conventional.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox January 24, 2011 (5 of 13)
|
|
They are on my wish list but please write a full review with strengths and weaknesses and comparisons. Taking a punt is harder in this recession especially for non-investment bankers.
|
|
|
Post by srl1 January 24, 2011 (6 of 13)
|
|
I, too, like the Gardiner set. He is one of my favorite and most interesting conductors. I like his Beethoven and his Schumann. I just finished acquiring his Bach Cantata series. I guess saying that he is more middle-of-the-road on Brahms than Norrington is not very helpful. There's too much space between Norrington and middle-of-the-road. I consider Abbado, Wand and Levine (DG) to be conventional, but excellent. In the SACD realm, Janowski is better than Bychkov. I need to go back and listen again to the Gardiner 3rd.
The Norrington strikes me as Boulez with HIP technique. Very understated interpretations designed to let the music speak for itself, with different ideas on playing technique and phrasing. I admit that I don't know enough about music to write a full review like many of those wonderful ones on this site. I just try to see what the interpretation is trying to do and see if it does anything for me. The Norrington is interesting, but I haven't lived with it long enough to tell if it will remain that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This set was reviewed in the Washington Post yesterday, but I don't see it on their website yet.
The entire review discussed the performance, and it was very positive. However, nothing was said about the sound quality. At the end of the review, where details about the set were listed, it did mention "SACD."
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was disappointed with the new Norrington Brahms cycle, (which he did far, far better on CD in his 1990's recordings with the London Classical Players). This new set sounds shutdown, airless, underpowered and uninspired.
In contrast, I found the new Gardiner Brahms cycle to be an interpretive and a performance revelation. Quite a turn of events, as I usually prefer Norrington to Gardiner, but in this case Gardiner's set goes to the top of the list of greatest ever, while Norrington's is quite forgettable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
srl1 said:
One thing's for sure--I wish all of my recordings sounded this good.
Agreed.
What was Polly Nomial thinking when he gave the sonics on this set only three stars? These sound like real instruments to me. Very clear and natural tones. At the same time, it's a very direct and vivid sound, to match the perky and straightforward performances. I particularly liked the last movement of No. 2, pretty much all of No. 3, and a good deal of 4. I don't like it as much as the recent Jansons 2 & 3 disc (autumnal Brahms if ever there was such), but the obvious point of comparison should be to the Bychkov set. I think I prefer this Norrington set to Bychkov. Certainly the sound is better. It makes no sense that PN gave the Bychkov set four and a half stars for sonics while only giving this one three.
|
|
|
Post by srl1 May 29, 2011 (10 of 13)
|
|
Ernani71 said:
I don't like it as much as the recent Jansons 2 & 3 disc (autumnal Brahms if ever there was such)...
I agree on the new Jansons disc. It's as mellow as a horn quartet.
|
|
