Entertainment For Lively Minds
Possibly the greatest music ever written...
I've just bought Steven Isserlis' 2007 recording of Bach's 6 Cello Suites (reissued in the Hyperion label's 30th anniversary series). The more I hear of these suites the more I'm inclined to think they are indeed the pinnacle of music. that everything else is just piddling around in the foothills of the mountain.
Of course, all this kind of thing is down to opinions - if there's someone among us who really thinks something by Sham 69 is the pinnacle of all music, or something sung by Ringo on one of the Beatle albums or whatever, I'm not going to argue about it. We all respond to music differently. No one's right or wrong. And it's certainly not a question of virtuosity versus simplicity.
Nevertheless, it might be argued - given the current (controversial) Word series - that the 6 Cello Suites are an "accidental classic". No one knows why they were written, when they were written, who they were written for or indeed whether they were all actually written for the cello! (There's a question mark on that last aspect over the sixth suite, which might have been written for an obscure cello/viola five string hybrid). They might well have been lost forecer - like around half of Bach's known output of cantatas, for example (among which are other astonishing pieces like 'Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring', for example).
There is no Bach autograph score of any of the suites surviving - the closest thing is an autograph score of a transcription for lute which he made for one of them. There are two surviving 'period' copies of the suites (in the hand of friends/relatives) and two copies made by performers a few decades later - all with differences. The pieces were little known until the early 20th century when cellist Pablo Casals brought them to wider attention (and recorded them). It's now surely impossible to imagine a world without them - even if you don't think you know them, you'll have heard bits in films and TV shows (The West Wing, Inspector Morse, etc).
I can find no film of Isserlis performing them (it may be that he never does - certainly, he waited a long time before recording them, out of a sense of awe and the weight of expectation), but here he is on Newsnight performing a Casals-related piece that features on the 2CD set as an extra:
- More from Colin H.
- Login or register to post comments
-
And here (audio only)...
...is the prelude from Suite No.1
I prefer this dude
Better phrasing, and - I just think he nails it.
If we could open this up to a discussion on Bach in general
I would like to offer this. From probably my favourite guitar player: John Williams playing the Prelude from Lute Suite No. 4, at the Alhambra Palace.
Colin...
...have you heard the Tortelier recording of the Suites? It's just masterful. So moving.
There's something magical about this music, sure enough. The way that the single cello almost seems to harmonise with itself, even when there's no multiple stopping going on STILL, after all these years, seems like witchcraft, uncanny somehow, like alchemy, to me. You could put all the ingredients together and still not reproduce this level of genius, and Bach was the greatest of all geniuses. I was lucky enough to play quite a lot of the Suites when I was still seriously studying the 'cello, but No. 2, the D Minor, is still my favourite. It's just heart-stopping.
Great thread, thanks for posting.
Yes indeedy
Absolutely love the Cello suites, though its the Pierre Fournier recording round our gaff.
Compare and contast and the beauty of the music that it can be played so differently. As Bob says above the Tortelier version is excellent as well.
Murray Perahia's recordings of Bach are stupendous
The cello suites on double-bass
Nice thread!
I have a recording of the six cello suites transcribed for unaccompanied double bass, played by Edgar Meyer. It's very well worth hearing.
All fascinating stuff, lads!
...I'm somehow more drawn to Julian Bream than to John Williams, ITFC, but that's a sublime clip - both the sound and the performance and, of course, the music. There's a youtube clip of Bream performing the first cello suite prelude but it's (atypically) a mediocre performance and the 1970s TV sound doesn't help.
however... on the same shopping trip (a very rare trip, for me, into central Belfast, and HMV in particular) that led to the Isserlis purchase I was amazed to find the Bream 10 CD set of remasters of his own fave LPs - which I mentioned round here a week or two back, and which is still listed on amazon as not due till late October. And the price (£22) was LESS than amazon too. Obviously, I bought it. It features his recordings of the Lute Suites Nos 1 & 2, and many more goodies besires. I'm looking forward to many evenings of whisky and headphones there...
Bob - no, I haven't heard the Tortelier version, but I completely agree with your description on the uncanny nature of the music! In general with Bach when you're listening it's almost as if you somehow 'know' what's coming next - how the piece will develop, where it will go, how it will come back to resolve etc. And yet... you only 'know' this a few bars ahead at any given time: it's still an exciting journey. It's like you're driving a train hurtling along in the fog - able to see only a few yards ahead, excited/hair standing up on the back of your neck but also assured that you'll get safely to the destination in one piece. It's exhilarating and yet comforting at the same time! And I agree - whatever he had, however you dissect it, you could never bottle it or create through a million years of conservatoire-ing the magic that Bach had.
And Sarge - I haven't heard the Fournier recording either (though I know he's 'the cellist's cellist'). I'm most familiar with the Suites principally through Nigel North's recordings of them on lute. The music works brilliantly in that context, but as Bob says the 'magic harmonizing' effect comes only with the cello given the nature of its sustain and sound reproduction qualities.
I bought the Isserlis version for three reasons, I suppose: 1. I figured I really had to have these pieces, in their cello form, on CD ; 2. I recall reading Steven's thoughts on making the recordings in 'Gramophone' at the time and I liked the cut of his jibe, to put it very briefly; 3. I felt that I really wanted to hear the music in a really fine, modern recording - to not have to make any concessions for sound quality with vintage recordings, however classic the performance (I'll do that next!) - and I know, from previous purchases, that Hyperion are a label associated with fabulous sound quality.
Whether I could make the leap to enjoying the music on double bass - not sure! I'm not wild about the bass as a solo instrument outside of jazz, Duc! But I'm happy to be proved wrong on that...
Here's something interesting I found on youtube - the prelude to Suite No.1 as a montage of 6 of the biggest names in cello (in recordings from the 1930s to the 90s): Pablo Casals
Piere Fournier
Janos Starker
Jacqueline Du Pre
Yo Yo Ma
Mstislav Rostropovich
From this deeply unscientic approach all I can say is that, in terms of tone and musicality, Fournier's bit really stood out for me - despite its sonic limitations:
Bream v. Williams: Whod've Thought it, Eh?
I think I'd prefer 'and' rather than 'either/or'. I like Bream and think his ' Recuerdos' is lovely. But I just love William's technique. Watch the Prelude clip I posted above and note that there absolutely no tension in his arms, shoulders, neck: all the work is in the wrists and fingers. It's largely because of this that Williams has got a rep for being an emotion-less, antiseptic player. Wrong, suckers; it's all in the hands.
Don't get me wrong ITFC-meister...
...I was using 'prefer' in the sense of 'preferring' one blend of fine coffee over another: they're BOTH great, but given a direct choice maybe I'd be inclined to gravitate to the Kenyan over the Columbian, or whatever! Agreed about Williams technique: astonishing...
A warning
If you've never listened much to Classical music before, I don't think the Cello Suites are the place to start. I've been listening to Classical for longer than I've listened to Rock, since I was 7 years old, and my (quite large) CD collection is 90% Classical - and I can make nothing whatsoever of these pieces. I have tried, I had Yo Yo Ma's set, but no, they didn't speak to me in any way, and it wouldn't matter to me if I never heard them again (actually, it would, but in a negative way). I think they're practice pieces, not meant to be heard.
I know I'll be shouted down for this, but it's only my opinion, and you're entitled to yours - I always tend to march to a different drummer. All I'm saying is that I don't get them. (To add a bit of context, nearly all of Bach bores the pants off me).
"I think they're practice pieces, not meant to be heard."
Oooh! Extraordinary. I agree with the OP, that this is possibly the greatest music ever written: therefore I disapprove of what you say, but obviously I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Out of interest, where would you reckon someone ought to start into Classical?
Where to start ...?
Hmm, I entered through the Tchaikovsky door, then went off him for years. I would recommend something rhythmical or colourful, something that might relate to what the new listener has heard before - the Cello Suites I would regard as the 'hard stuff': I think you need to know an awful lot of other music to appreciate them. Stravinsky's Le sacre du printemps usually knocks people out the first time they hear it: if you've never heard Classical music before (I use the term in the loose sense) you probably expect it all to sound like Mozart, and so Le sacre comes as a great, but pleasant, shock. On the other hand, some people are immune to this: I knew someone who wasn't excited by the final danse générale of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloë, but he wasn't much interested in music anyway, and someone else who couldn't conceive of music that didn't have a steady 4/4 drumbeat.
So, start on the lighter end, not knotty, tightly-argued works - you'll find out what you like quite quickly: I moved into the 60s avant garde very shortly after doing Beethoven at the age of 14.
Further to context, above, I find I'm not keen on works for a solo string instrument, except some modern pieces for viola, so that probably explains quite a lot of my reaction to the Cello Suites.
Thanks for your civility in disagreement.
I think everyone's path and natural inclinations...
...into what we might call European art music (for clarity - though yes, it's a bit of a mouthful0 will be different. You've clearly had a significant grounding in/exposure to this kind of thing from an early age, Pete, which will certainly make a difference when compared to someone who hasn't grown up in that environment.
For me, I don't really have a grounding in instrumental tuition at school age or a family that listened especially to that kind of music but I've always had an inherant bent towards the sound of baroque music from an early age rather than classical or romantic or serial or 20th century etc. Which is obviously in contrast to yourself, Pete! Likewise, I don't have a problem with the idea of solo string music and I honestly don't think there's a particular reason the general public would find it difficult in the way you suggest - which is not to criticise you at all in that view (we all have our preferences and blind spots with instruments: me, I cannot abide the bloody Chapman Stick!).
I guess my real blind spot in the whole of the art music pantheon is Mozart - sugary, trite gloop to my ears! (Albeit very clever.) It's a bit like Queen, I suppose - grandiose, swaggering, OTT, a bit camp... and not my cup of tea at all. I went to a well-known Mozart opera a while back (I'd done one of the lead guys a favour and he gave me free tkts - it would have been rude to have refused!) and I'm afraid I found it a 'waste of music' - that's honestly the phrase that came to me while listening: like a cake that had been covered and covered again and again with ever more layers of pointless marzipan till it was inedible...
Having said that, I'm not ashamed to say that the 'Mozart For Meditation' CD on Naxos is a very well compiled exception (to my ears) - restrained and delightful as background music.
Bach, however, is for *listening* to! (Which is a bit of an irony really as the suites were, as others have already said, primarily *dance* music - or, at least, written using the forms of dance music, which is a perhaps subtle difference.)
'Too many notes, Herr Mozart'
I can perfectly understand your view of Mozart, Colin - it was mine for a long time too. The trouble with WAM is that he's not as simple as he sounds, not just pretty tunes, and a beginner (which in no way am I saying that you are) might feel there's nothing much there to grab hold of. (If you want to try again, Amazon has the complete operas available for download at £27.99- a saving of £449 - in good, if not historically-informed, performances).
I have no musical training apart from the rather desultory music lessons we had at school, and my parents weren't into Art Music when I was growing up, so I did a lot of discovery for myself, later with the help of Gramophone magazine. I wanted to hear everything, the more colour the better, so I gravitated to the new music of the time, and never had a problem with it, as more 'traditional' listeners might.
It was a long time before I worked backwards - I just didn't understand the Baroque at all until about 10 years ago: my young self would have been astonished to think I'd be enthusiastic about opera seria, and collect every Handel and Vivaldi opera I could lay my hands on. Ironically, I enjoyed Bach more when I was young (despite not quite understanding him): the dry, mathematical music was like the serial works I was familiar with, whereas I found Handel overblown and pompous - but I've moved 180 degrees on that. Handel is fun, but Bach ... well ... isn't.
My tastes have shifted drastically over the years: I listened to no rock or pop from the ages of 13 to 17, but now I listen to it a lot - I'm the only one of my circle of friends who has an interest in it - they are Classical through and through. The central composers in my pantheon are those I've loved the longest: Bartók, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius and Stravinsky, though the composer I have most of is Haydn (11.5 days, according to my database), who nowadays is underrated.
"collect every Handel and Vivaldi opera I could lay my hands on"
Yikes! That's a hell of a lot of stuff Pete. there are people who make entire careers out of recataloguing Handel's ouevre! I can't say anything about Vivaldi's operas (though I like the general sound of his his concerti... which I suspect all sound 'a bit similar'!) but isn't there a feeling in even Handelian circles that he rather churned out his operas? Or would you say that some really do stand out from the crowd?
I agree that tastes change (and sometimes change back too). I got annoyed when one acquaintance - a very gifted, massively capable if somewhat detached composer/pianist - suggested that I would eventually give up anything pop/rock or pre 20th Century when my palette had developed to the level of his, where tonal music was but a lot of old fluff. I couldn't disagree more with that stance. We all like what we like - be it simple or complicated, populist or esoteric, or bits of all of the above - though, I concede, that as one's exposure to music grows it becomes 'easier' in a way to find the doorway into things which your younger ears/sensibilities couldn't perhaps have translated into something enjoyable!
Possibly some exaggeration here...
I really only have about half of Handel's operas, and yes, there is much mundane stuff amongst them, but Giulio Cesare, Rinaldo and Agrippina are standouts for me.
And yes, there are certain similarities in Vivaldi's concerti, but they're not 'the same concerto 600 times' - a composer friend finds them unbearable, but likes the operas.
(Danielle de Niese sings 'Da tempeste' from Giulio Cesare)
"certain similarities..."
From my relatively limited knowledge of these matters, Pete, would I be right in suspecting that Corelli - rather than Vivaldi - was the Status Quo of his day: a man whose every concerto was unlikely to disappoint or place unnecessary demands on the person who'd enjoyed the previous one? :-D
There is
a certain sameness to Corelli's concerti, and I have to admit I find them less engaging than Vivaldi's. Possibly his skill as violinist caused an overestimation of his skill as a composer. I certainly prefer the concerti Geminiani made from Corelli's sonatas to the originals.
The Corelli...
...Christmas concerto is one of my favourite pieces of music, full stop. I love bits of Vivaldi, but my favourite of his is probably his Gloria - I love his choral stuff, and would generally take it over the orchestral works every time. Can't comment on his operas, since I have never been able to get on with opera regardless of period or composer.
"never been able to get on with opera"
I think I'm with you there, Bob. It used to annoy me greatly that the NI Arts Council (a who-you-know gang if ever there was one) gave half their annual budget or something like that routinely to an opera company. I simply didn't understand why a non indigenous art form with limited popular scope was getting such huge subsidy. But that's a whole other discussion, and I don't suppose I care much about the NI arts scene these days. My instinct in very general terms is that if something can't get by without serious subsidy then it shouldn't exist. Then again, if the choice was subsidised art or a slow death towards philistinism....
Yeah, don't know if I'm with you there, Colin.
Just because - and this is always my argument - Radio 4, which I adore like a family member, couldn't exist in a commercial marketplace. It just couldn't. So generally I'm pretty much in favour of government support for great but minimally popular stuff. I say this as a fully paid-up fan of chart pop down the ages: popularity ain't everything.
But I still can't stand opera. ;-)
Actually, I never quite know if...
...I'm 'with' myself on the matter of public subsidies for arts! I expect if I really thought seriously about it there'd be so many exceptions (radio 4, yes; BBC 4, yes...) it wouldn't really hang together as a policy, more a reflection of my prejudices! (like, 'stop giving all this UK money to a bloody 17th century Italian tradition when there are so many other things you could be giving it to - and things which would make a wider, richer, more diverse impact on society').
But
Handel's operas, though written to Italian libretti, were made for London, so it's pretty much a native genre - later operas to English libretti, with music by British composers, can't really be called 'imported'.
Opera is the supreme art form of western culture (which does't mean you are obliged to like it), though you might not think so, given some of the ghastly productions which have been mounted in recent years. The poor state of operatic funding in Britain today is encapsulated by this probably apocryphal gem overheard at the ENO: A woman was talking about her new German au pair, and apparently the girl's first question was 'Which is the better opera house in Ipswich?'
Pete, I fear we'll have to disagree on this!
...I just can't accept that "Opera is the supreme art form of western culture".
That puts it up against not only all other branches of music but all other branches of art - books, films, plays, etc
I just can't accept that someone singing 'Please let me in, I'm standing outside your door, who was that man I saw you with yesterday, what shall we have for tea tonight?' and other mundanities ad infinitum is a supreme art form.
Yes, it's a blend of story, music and drama, but a deep fried Mars bar is likewise a fusion of things... and it doesn't make it the supreme form of food!
If Introducing Children to Classical Music
Then I really would have to point them at Peter And The Wolf. I can't think of a better introduction in terms of themes, textures and colours and of course, the entree (*must buy a thesaurus*) is sublime: even now the memory of that brings a smile to my face.
For grown ups? Blimey, the fight starts here. Ok, for listenability, Mozart. And, heresy of heresies, Classic FM: truly the Wikipedia of Classical knowledge and appreciation. Look at it as a Word Cover Disc and if anything rings your bell, investigate further.
Save the children!
My father is (was, he's retired) a classical musician so I grew up hearing him practicing, going to his concerts, going to the opera where he played every summer and listening to classical albums.
I loved all of it except Peter And The Wolf!
Me and my brother were absolutely terrified of the music portraying the wolf and - especially - Peter's grandfather! To this day I have trouble hearing it...
Back then I would have nightmares about it and every night I would lie frozen with fear in my bed staring up in the dark, knowing that the record was standing in the bookshelf above me and fearing that the wolf would jump out of the sleeve and eat me!
I would recommend Bach's violin concertos for a beginner, #1 in A minor and #2 in E.
Sold!
I'd probably be generous to even describe myself as a classical dabbler, but I'll always have time for music that receives such a definitive endorsement. It may just a library reserve for now, but who knows where it might lead.
The Book
I have the Tortelier version and recently, as part of a box set from Deutsche Gramaphone, acquired the Fournier. Like others I regard them as great music and not at all difficult, after all they should all be played as dance music. If someone was coming to classical music from electronic music with its underlying repetitions, Bach would be a very good place to start.
Eric Siblin has written a very good book on the cello suites.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cello-Suites-Search-Baroque-Masterpiece/dp/00995...
In it he tells a number of stories in parallel as he discusses each suite and movement: Bach's life, Pablo Casals who re-introduced the pieces to the modern world and his own story of discovering them after becoming tired of pop music. Well worth a read, and a rare book in that it adds to the enjoyment of the music when read in parallel with listening.
Thanks for the recommendation Dave...
...Eric's just sold another copy (or, rather, you have on his behalf!)
I'm a classically trained violinist
But I was frankly rather rubbish... Doesn't atop me loving it though. My advice to someone wishing to dip their toes into this most nourishing of pools would be to start with these three:
1. Beethoven's 7th second movement
2. Bruch's violin concerto no 1 all of it
3. Mozart's 40th - not the over-familiar 1st movement, but the aching 2nd
Vorg...
...do you have any views on Mahler's Ninth (particularly the last movement, the Adagio)?
I'm not especially drawn to orchestral music (ie music written for large orchestras - chamber orchestras, fine, but giant symphonic stuff isn't often my thing) but Mahler's Ninth is one exception. I was fascinated once when I was noodling around on a guitar in a side room of the music college library I was running at the time (it was a job with lots of down time, alas), with an LP* of Mahler's Ninth on, to find that almost EVERY note in the scale could be used in my improvisation. It was not atonal music but 'felt' tonal, and yet... I've since discovered that Mahler employed 'progressive tonality' with the piece. Which must account for its slightly otherworldly but very affecting feel. It's not difficult music - but it's certainly esoteric.
(* Recataloguing several thousand LPs and bringing in the equipment to play them was one little project I gave myself to pass the time!)
Mahmite
Hi Colin. sorry but I've been having a busy day. I must admit I've never really "got" old Gustav, but perhaps, like the cowboy who got shit I his beard, I've been looking for lobe in all the wrong places.... I'll give the adagio from the ninth a whorl when I get home this evening. I've really enjoyed this thread btw.
Me too, Vorg...
...though, from a bit of enthusing about one set of JSB pieces to an entire discussion about Euro art music - we've created a monster! Help!!! :-D
Ok, lets talk Gluck.
He preceded Mozart by a decade or two but his influence n him, and later Opera, is undeniable. A bit clumsy every now and again, but the importance lies (I think) in the doors he subsequently opened.
Either way, this is from Orfeo ed Euridice and is worth a few minutes of anyone's time.
I really like the "Everyone's A Fruit And Nutcase" Song..
I'll get me coat.
Bach Cello Suites
I prefer the Fournier (the very first version I bought); the Rostropovich is excellent (but faster paced). More recently, I really enjoyed the version by the gifted Chinese cellist Jian Wang.
But whoever plays, these suites are wonderful!
What a brilliant thread
Can I approach the OP from a slightly different angle and ask contributors here for cello music recommendations. Love the Bach suites, but just by random rooting around or asking friends, I've ended up discovering I like, for example, Saint-Saens's cello music (Sonata no.1 attached).
Total classical 'explorer' writing here, so any pointers most welcome.
Have a go at...
...the Dvorak cello concerto. It's bloody amazing.
Well Specs, I'm no expert either but...
...I've always thought this to be an astounding piece of music - so few notes but a whole torrent of power within it. And the cello - while not a solo instrument in it (nothing is, it's total ensemble music) - is the key sonority, if that's the right term: the machine that flicks the magic switch and generates the electricity. Anyway, if you haven't heard it, you're in for a treat...