martinstanley Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Indeed DT. And i'm sure the Vierne was also wonderful, if we actually had the chance to hear more than the opening theme statement! A performance of the Vierne on this instrument can be found here http://www.sjcchoir.co.uk/default.php?page...&webcast=25. I have got a lot of pleasure from St John's Cambridge Choir website although it does show that the congregation is quoite noisy during post service voluntaries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Clark Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 I enjoyed much of today's (8th March) - the opening Slane was very arresting although I was not too keen on the treatment of Repton. Any other thoughts? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john carter Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I enjoyed much of today's (8th March) - the opening Slane was very arresting although I was not too keen on the treatment of Repton. Any other thoughts? Peter If that is what the congregation find helpful in their worship, I am happy for them to interpret the music in that way. But I'm sorry to say that I found no inspiration in it. While listening, I thought of the words of Prince Charles "Like a carbuncle on the face of an old friend". JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbarber49 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I enjoyed much of today's (8th March) - the opening Slane was very arresting although I was not too keen on the treatment of Repton. Any other thoughts? Peter I didn't hear much of it but what I did hear I hated. I thought the treatment of Slane was a musical obscenity. Likewise Repton. People should, by all means, do the music they like and that they find helpful, but, as far as I'm concerned, good hymn tunes should not be treated in the way Slane and Repton were. Couldn't we put a preservation order on hymn tunes; or have Listed tunes that may only be bowdlerized on obtaining a Faculty from the Archdeacon. By the way, what was the time signature for this version of Slane? I was in the shower at the time I couldn't make up my mind. I also hate the incessant scooping up to high notes. Grumpy old organist, Stephen Barber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolsey Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I didn't hear much of it but what I did hear I hated. I thought the treatment of Slane was a musical obscenity. Likewise Repton. [snip] By the way, what was the time signature for this version of Slane? I was in the shower at the time I couldn't make up my mind. I also hate the incessant scooping up to high notes. Grumpy old organist, Stephen Barber Huh! I had switched off the broadcast before stepping in to my shower. Another G.O.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Fairhurst Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 By the way, what was the time signature for this version of Slane? I was in the shower at the time I couldn't make up my mind. It sounded like 4/4 but with 3-3-2 phrasing, if you see what I mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Humana Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 As mentioned here before, presumably: http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...ost&p=42193 Fortunately I was spared that. I was rudely awakened at the start of yet another miserable offering of melodic tautology that mostly hovered around the mediant, subdominant and dominant. I imagine it was meant to sound pious; it succeeded only in sounding sentimental and dejected. Fortunately my wife soon switched it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnd5584 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 As mentioned here before, presumably: http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/in...ost&p=42193 Fortunately I was spared that. I was rudely awakened at the start of yet another miserable offering of melodic tautology that mostly hovered around the mediant, subdominant and dominant. I imagine it was meant to sound pious; it succeeded only in sounding sentimental and dejected. Fortunately my wife soon switched it off. I usually avoid problems of this nature by either leaving the radio off altogether around this time on a Sunday - or having it tuned to BBC Radio 1, which I find somewhat preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toby92 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I was on the point of writing to the BBC after the 8th March epic to ask why they feel it neccesary to trivialise such fine hymns. I really can't be doing with this "folky" anticipation of the next note! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Clark Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 The anthem in today's broadcast was quite spine-tingling. I only heard it on a small transistor so can't comment on the quaility of the performance but I'd love to know what it is called. It seemed mainly unision with Ahhh descants every so often. Anybody know? Oh and I wasn't surprised to see John Rutter in there somewhere, considering Tuesday. It's the onlt time of the year I drink Guinness! (Hope that's not advertising.) Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DouglasCorr Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Sunday morning radio is full of dreadful shocks - I turned on to Radio Three this morning only to hear an unspeakably crude arrangement of a Bach organ fugue by Elgar - I don't know why the BBC thinks orchestral transcriptions of organ music are better to listen to than the real thing - there seems to be some strange preconceptions of listners mental capacity...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyorgan Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Sunday morning radio is full of dreadful shocks - I turned on to Radio Three this morning only to hear an unspeakably crude arrangement of a Bach organ fugue by Elgar - I don't know why the BBC thinks orchestral transcriptions of organ music are better to listen to than the real thing - there seems to be some strange preconceptions of listners mental capacity...... I'm sorry to disagree here, but I think these Romantic orchestrations are wonderful. If I can persuade you to look any further, Chandos have a couple of CDs worth listening to. There's the Schoenberg St Anne P and F, two different versions of the Pass and Fugue in Cm (Stokowski and Respighi), to name the two best. We had another thread somewhere about transcribing for the organ, the orchestral transcriptions of the original (if you get that), and it turned out that quite a number of us had tried it at some stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Clark Posted March 15, 2009 Author Share Posted March 15, 2009 Also (going back to this morning's Sunday Worship) it was nice to hear the Buxtehude D minor Passacaglia given an outing, a piece heard too rarely these days. I might slip it in sometime... though my copy (Peters edition) has consecutive 5ths. Is this correct? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Treloar Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I have to agree with DouglasCorr regarding arrangements, Whether you like them or not, what is the point? I'm afraid that it looks to me like the usual Radio 3 anti-organ stance. I give an honourable exception to Rob Cowan who slips in the occasional track and I understand genuinely likes organ music. As well as orchestral arrangements one occasionally hears piano arrangements of organ music, which always strikes me, not being a fan of the piano, as even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolsey Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Also [...] it was nice to hear the Buxtehude D minor Passacaglia given an outing, a piece heard too rarely these days. [...] though my copy (Peters edition) has consecutive 5ths. Is this correct? Probably not. The question of 'correct' editions of Buxtehude's organ music has come up on here before. Organists and organ teachers who are musicologically minded will look askance at anyone who today uses Peters edition when playing Buxtehude. I started off on Hedar's 1952 edition and then bought Albrecht's of 1998. Current thought is that these editions - as well as those by Beckmann and Belotti (both post-1950) are 'recommended'. Peters is not recommended at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbarber49 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Probably not. The question of 'correct' editions of Buxtehude's organ music has come up on here before. Organists and organ teachers who are musicologically minded will look askance at anyone who today uses Peters edition when playing Buxtehude. Or Bach, presumably. Stephen Barber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolsey Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Or Bach, presumably. Stephen Barber I honestly don't know; I am guessing that there are different circumstances relating to the sources and the degree of editorial intervention as far as Bach is concerned. In Advice for Organ Teachers, Margaret Phillips recommended Peters as "still a useful edition", but that was seventeen years ago. It was also the edition used by my teacher, Peter Hurford. While it appears to have been superseded in recent times by Lohmann's Breitkopf edition, I believe Peters is still regarded as being reliable for Bach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Ball Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Sunday morning radio is full of dreadful shocks - I turned on to Radio Three this morning only to hear an unspeakably crude arrangement of a Bach organ fugue by Elgar - I don't know why the BBC thinks orchestral transcriptions of organ music are better to listen to than the real thing - there seems to be some strange preconceptions of listners mental capacity...... Crude? I'd like to hear a better orchestration from that contributor, or anybody else. Mental capacity is indeed in question here... I'm sure most of my orchestral musician friends (and certainly my clarinettist wife) would far rather wake up to that on a Sunday morning than 10 minutes of organo pleno (absolutely no double entendre intended). That particular performance was exquisite and highly detailed too; the phrasing/slurring as expressive as any period chamber ensemble. So what if there was slurring across upbeats - 100 years ago we would all be playing like that and regarding it as 'gospel'. Elgar's own interpretation (available on Naxos) is somewhat more restrained, actually, with a faster Fantasia and less rubato in the Fugue. IFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprondel Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ... While it appears to have been superseded in recent times by Lohmann's Breitkopf edition, I believe Peters is still regarded as being reliable for Bach. Yes it is generally, because the editors, Griepenkerl and Roitzsch, treated the music with much caution and restraint and, in mid-19th century, had access to sources which were lost later. The Bärenreiter edition, however ambitious scientifically, rests on a narrower base in some respect. Best, Friedrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyorgan Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Crude? I'd like to hear a better orchestration from that contributor, or anybody else. Mental capacity is indeed in question here... I'm sure most of my orchestral musician friends (and certainly my clarinettist wife) would far rather wake up to that on a Sunday morning than 10 minutes of organo pleno (absolutely no double entendre intended). That particular performance was exquisite and highly detailed too; the phrasing/slurring as expressive as any period chamber ensemble. So what if there was slurring across upbeats - 100 years ago we would all be playing like that and regarding it as 'gospel'. Elgar's own interpretation (available on Naxos) is somewhat more restrained, actually, with a faster Fantasia and less rubato in the Fugue. IFB There's a quote somewhere about great music transcending its medium of expression (Rollin Smith?). The F and F is very good music, and probably even in ths hands of the all but dullest orchestrations, would stand up well; in Elgar's hands it comes off exceptionally well. I urge the original contributor to listen to some other orchestrations of Bach's organ music, and I would like to be sure that he will come away with some fresh ideas about interpretation. "An arrangement of a well known instrumental adagio or andante is infinitely more preferable to the frequently dull specimens of modern organ music duly vaunted as being 'original'." (WT Best) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwhodges Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Busoni, who indeed transcribed organ and violin works by Bach for the piano, expressed the view that all music is transcription - the notes on the page are a transcription of the composer's ideas, any performance is a transcription of the notes on the page, each done with the artistry (or not) of the transcriber. From this point of view a change of instrumentation is merely another layer of transcription rather than a betrayal of an imaginary "original". And Bach's own transcriptions of many of his own works as well as those of Vivaldi, Ernst and others, show that he was by no means opposed to the idea. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnd5584 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm sorry to disagree here, but I think these Romantic orchestrations are wonderful. If I can persuade you to look any further, Chandos have a couple of CDs worth listening to. There's the Schoenberg St Anne P and F, two different versions of the Pass and Fugue in Cm (Stokowski and Respighi), to name the two best. We had another thread somewhere about transcribing for the organ, the orchestral transcriptions of the original (if you get that), and it turned out that quite a number of us had tried it at some stage. I would have to agree with Douglas. I think the Elgar sounds bizarre. I find the piece infinitely preferable on most organs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnd5584 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ... Crude? I'd like to hear a better orchestration from that contributor, or anybody else. Mental capacity is indeed in question here... I'm sure most of my orchestral musician friends (and certainly my clarinettist wife) would far rather wake up to that on a Sunday morning than 10 minutes of organo pleno (absolutely no double entendre intended). ... IFB Therein may lie the answer, Ian. I have yet to encounter any orchestral musician who even likes organ music. Personally, I would far rather listen to a good organ than an orchestra. I would be interested to hear a reason why organists are frowned upon for preferring their own instrument. Why should the orchestra come first? Whilst not necessarily agreeing that the Elgar transcription could be described as 'crude', I find the percussion objectionable wherever it is used. For me it adds nothing to Bach's beautiful music. It could be argued that the use of an orchestra upsets the natural balance between the voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now