LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CLASSICAL Archives


CLASSICAL Archives

CLASSICAL Archives


CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CLASSICAL Home

CLASSICAL Home

CLASSICAL  March 2000

CLASSICAL March 2000

Subject:

Re: Repeats

From:

William Hong <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:31:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (66 lines)

Just trying to set the record straight, folks:

Ian Crisp wrote:
>
>Dave Lampson:
>
>>[Just for the record, I have no idea what Ian is referring to here.  -Dave]
>
>Not entirely seriously, I suggested that the continuously developing
>researches of the HIP movement gave the recording industry good excuses for
>releasing new versions of the same material over and over again and selling
>them many times over to buyers who are a ready target for anything under
>the HIP banner.  I used Beethoven's metronome markings to illustrate the
>point.
>
>Dave pointed out that HvK (not renowned as one of the leaders of the HIP
>movement) had produced several versions of the LvB symphonies - with the
>implication that record companies did not need the HIP bandwagon to justify
>repeated releases of the same music.  That's what I took him to mean, in
>any event.  [There was no implication whatsoever.  You asked a question,
>and I answered it (incorrectly it turns out).  -Dave]

Actually, if you all will CHECK THE ARCHIVES (gad, I love using that
phrase), you'll see that it was flippant ol' Moi who asked the question
about how many times Herbie the K did the Ludwig Nine.  And yes, Ian is
absolutely right about the point I was trying to make, also not entirely
seriously.  I am sorry if my desire to stay out of another good fight left
people confused.

>I acknowledged a good debating thrust from Dave (touche!), and attempted
>a debater's parry by hinting that just possibly the multiple releases of
>LvB / HvK were a result of the conductor's desire to establish / maintain
>a dominant position in the recording world rather than because of
>significantly re-thought interpretations, and therefore that Dave's point,
>although valid, was not an effective counter-example to mine as Karajan
>was something of a special case.  Last thing I want to do is to reopen the
>Karajan debate, but I hardly think it's an original or a controversial
>idea.

Maybe not an effective counter-example, but also not unique either.
It's not like Karajan is the only one who did multiple takes of Beethoven
symphonies, either singly or in sets.  No one I know of would object
to the different circumstances (and results) that led, for example, to
Furtwangler's different recordings of the Ninth.  And at least the HIP
cycles ARE from different conductors, unless one thinks that all of them
are interchangeable, in which case I won't argue with one's taste or
preferences.

>BTW, in case anyone's wondering, I do not think that one set of Beethoven
>symphonies is enough (even for someone like me who has made a deliberate
>attempt to strip his once out-of-control collection down to much smaller
>proportions).  I have retained one HvK set, and I have two HIP ones, plus
>a good few singles - of which at least three-quarters are HIP.

Watch out, Ian.  I have it on good authority that an upcoming article
in the "Journal of Musicological and Engineering Obscurities" provides
conclusive proof that there was a fault in the spring constant for the
mechanism of Maelzel's original metronome, which led to a 3.6% error
between the markings on Beethoven's scores and what he REALLY wanted for
tempi.  Word has it that Hogwood, Norrington, and Gardiner are actively
vying for recording rights to the "revised" tempos....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Musicology Discussion,
sponsored by the WWF....

Bill H.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
July 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager